Certainty entails knowing beyond a reasonable doubt that something is the case or reliable. Doubt is the exact opposite, involving that which is vague or unclear to one's mind. We need to doubt in order to obtain certainty. Further, discernment is the process of investigating presented options in any given scenario by eliminating other possible choices to reach a final verdict on that which best corresponds with goodness and truth. If we learn to discern correctly, then we have a foundation on which to build in life. Things will make sense and have purpose.
Saturday, September 23, 2017
Tuesday, September 19, 2017
Science And Underlying Philosophical Presuppositions
"Supporting the paradigm may even require what in other contexts would be called deception. As Niles Eldredge candidly admitted, “We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing it does not.” Eldredge explained that this pattern of misrepresentation occurred because of “the certainty so characteristic of evolutionary ranks since the late 1940s, the utter assurance not only that natural selection operates in nature, but that we know precisely how it works.” This certainty produced a degree of dogmatism that Eldredge says resulted in the relegation of paleontologists to the “lunatic fringe” who reported that “they saw something out of kilter between contemporary evolutionary theory, on the one hand, and patterns of change in the fossil record on the other.” Under the circumstances, prudent paleontologists understandably swallowed their doubts and supported the ruling ideology. To abandon the paradigm would be to abandon the scientific community; to ignore the paradigm and just gather the facts would be to earn the demeaning label of “stamp collector” (i.e., one who does not theorize)."
Phillip E. Johnson, Objections Sustained, p. 25
Wednesday, September 6, 2017
On The Pursuit Of Self
"You will find very few people who can pursue self-actualization without devaluing other selves. One of the marks of the man who concentrates on himself is a withdrawal of interest in other people and objects. Finally he comes to view outside concerns as interesting only insofar as they serve his own self-realization. They become merely means to an end. Tools. Throw-aways. This kind of attitude, of course, actually tends to subvert one’s chances for actualization. The self does tend to become more interesting as the world becomes less interesting, only more demanding and restless. Before long, the man who started off pursuing self finds it such a burden that he will make any kind of desperate attempt to get rid of it. He turns to drugs or alcohol, or to some other anesthetic."
William Kirk Kilpatrick, Psychological Seduction: The Failure of Modern Psychology, p. 63
William Kirk Kilpatrick, Psychological Seduction: The Failure of Modern Psychology, p. 63
Tuesday, September 5, 2017
Why Is Language Important?
Language determines the realities we attend to. If certain words fall into desuetude, it means that certain realities have dropped from our attention as well. Words, for example, such as valor, nobility, honor, sanctity, chastity, and purity hang on to life but seem to be written in the past tense, as though the realities they refer to are remnants of some dim history. Such words appear rarely, if at all, in the vocabulary of social scientists or in the popular media. Other, more “relevant” words have edged them aside. For every purity that gets to print, there are a hundred needs, naturals, and sexuals to crowd them out.
What is perhaps most effective about such a technique is that it requires no confrontation. It does not deny the other realities. It by-passes them the way a superhighway bypasses a village so that after a while people forget that the village is there.
William Kirk Kilpatrick, Psychological Seduction: The Failure of Modern Psychology, p.127-128
What is perhaps most effective about such a technique is that it requires no confrontation. It does not deny the other realities. It by-passes them the way a superhighway bypasses a village so that after a while people forget that the village is there.
William Kirk Kilpatrick, Psychological Seduction: The Failure of Modern Psychology, p.127-128
Sunday, September 3, 2017
Interaction With The Synoptic Problem
- Why Do The Four Gospels Contain Differences?:
- On The Q Source Hypothesis:
-This is a hypothetical source of the original teachings of Jesus Christ and proposed by scholars in an attempt to account for similarities in Matthew and Luke's written material. This Q document has not been discovered, but that does not necessarily mean it did not exist. Further, it is a hypothetical idea, and, if it did exist, remains separate from the four gospels themselves. They, not some speculative reconstruction, are to remain our primary source for the life and teachings of Christ. Further, early writers such as Jerome never spoke of a source that is today called a Q document. The general theological message of Scripture is not to be sacrificed in the name of some historical critical method. There may have been sources akin to Q, but that does not prove such a hypothesis to be correct. Nor does it follow that we can reliably reconstruct what they would have looked like.
- Details On The Gospel According To Matthew:
-The Gospel of Matthew was written for the purpose of convincing Jews that Jesus Christ is their promised Messiah and legitimate King. Matthew's narrative contains more quotations from the Old Testament, demonstrating in greater detail how Jesus fulfilled prophecies than any of the other three gospel accounts. It also traces His ancestral lineage from King David. In addition, Matthew utilizes language from the Old Testament that the Jewish people would have been more comfortable with hearing. For example, Peter is said to have called Christ the Son of the living God in Matthew 16:16. That is distinctly Jewish terminology. This gospel has a decidedly Jewish flavor to it and places a special emphasis on the kingdom of God. Matthew likely gleaned material from Mark's gospel without source attribution as well as circulated oral traditions concerning the life of Christ. This way of borrowing ideas from other authors in writing a text is consistent with what we know about authorship at this time.
- Details On The Gospel According To Mark:
- Details On The Gospel According To Luke:
- Details On The Gospel According To John:
Saturday, September 2, 2017
Is Praying To Departed Saints A Biblical Practice?
- Introduction:
-"A further reinforcement, of the same idea, was derived from the cult of the angels, which, while pre-Christian in its origin, was heartily embraced by the faithful of the sub-Apostolic age. It seems to have been only as a sequel of some such development that men turned to implore the intercession of the Blessed Virgin. This at least is the common opinion among scholars, though it would perhaps be dangerous to speak too positively. Evidence regarding the popular practice of the early centuries is almost entirely lacking...” (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, "Down to the Council of Nicaea")
- A Practice That Is Not Consistent With The Biblical Pattern Of Prayer:
-Throughout Scripture, there are dozens of references to prayer (Psalm 25; 2 Samuel 7:18-29; 1 Kings 8; Matthew 6:6-14; Mark 14:32-42; Luke 11:1-4; John 14:14; John 17; Acts 7:51-58; Romans 10:1; 15:30; Colossians 3:16-17; James 1:5-6; etc.). Each recorded instance was directed to God alone. Further, the central theme of the biblical narrative is man trusting only in God (Psalm 23; Psalm 50:15; Psalm 71:1; Psalm 91:15; Joshua 1:1-6; Isaiah 48:17-18; Jeremiah 33:3; Matthew 6:25-34; John 16:23; 1 Corinthians 10:31; Ephesians 5:19-20; etc.). We have no examples in the Bible of people calling on entities other than Him, with the exception being pagans or idolaters. In the text, we never see God approving of the practice of praying to departed saints or angels. Therefore, the consistent application of biblical principles compels us to conclude that all prayer should be dedicated to God alone.
- Can Believers In Heaven Really Hear Us?:
- Unnecessary Assistance:
-"The church appears to have painted itself into a theological corner. In trying not to detract from Christ, its theologians have so defined the role of Mary as to make it entirely indispensable: everything we need we get from Christ. If that's the case, what is the point or importance of Mary's mediation? One the other hand, the oft-heard affirmation that Mary can influence her Son to help us necessarily implies that the Son otherwise would be less disposed to do so. In fact, the very concept of a mediator presupposes that there are differences that need to be reconciled between two parties. This leads to the inescapable conclusion that, apart from Mary's mediation, Christ himself would not be perfectly reconciled to us. All this seriously compromises the integrity of his high priesthood. The church is stuck in a hopeless dilemma wherein either Mary's role is rendered superfluous, or the all-sufficiency of Christ's mediation is diminished. In trying to avoid either of these perceived pitfalls, it has fallen headlong into both." (Elliot Miller and Kenneth R. Samples, The Cult of the Virgin: Catholic Mariology and the Apparitions of Mary, p. 56)
- Why Accusations Of Prayers To Saints Being Necromancy Are Correct:
- Do Psalm 103:20-21 and Psalm 148:1-2 Support Prayers To Deceased People And Angels?:
- Does The Transfiguration Support Prayers To Deceased People, Since It Shows Jesus Speaking With Moses And Elijah?:
-The point of the transfiguration was to show the preeminence of Jesus Christ. He was speaking to Moses and Elijah in His glory. These verses do not say anything in regard to prayer. Are there even any Catholics who offer prayers to Moses and Elijah?
- Does Luke 15:7-10 Support Prayers To Deceased People, Since It Says Angels In Heaven Rejoice Over The Conversion Of Sinners?:
-Angels rejoicing over a conversion cannot simply translate into support for them receiving our prayer requests because they most probably know when a soul is added to the Book of Life. Even if saints and angels in heaven were conscious of events on earth, could hear prayers, and had the ability to pray for somebody on earth, it would not follow that we are justified in offering prayer petitions to entities other than God. Satan is without a doubt conscious of events taking place in this world, yet no Roman Catholic would ever suggest prayer to him.
- Does Hebrews 12:1 Support Prayer To The Saints, Since It Speaks Of Believers Being Surrounded By A Cloud Of Witnesses?:
-The context of this passage relates to viewing the Old Testament saints as good moral examples. We are all united into a spiritual family by faith in Christ. There is nothing in that which would even remotely suggest prayer to these witnesses. People enter into the supernatural realm at the moment of physical death. So in that sense, believers on earth certainly are separated temporarily from those present in heaven.
- Do Revelation 5:8 And Revelation 8:3-4 Support Prayer To Saints, Since They Speak Of Them Offering The Prayers Of Saints To God?:
-This simply means that God allowed saints in heaven to "hold" bowls of prayers. The text says nothing about prayers being directed to saints or angels in heaven, nor gives us permission to do so. The text does not indicate how these saints would be aware of our prayers. Bowls of wrath are mentioned in Revelation 16. Should we conclude that they were directed to the saints in heaven because they also carried them?
Monday, August 21, 2017
How Come God Does Not Stop Evil Right Now?
"While nearly everyone asks why God doesn’t stop evil, few people ask why God doesn’t stop pleasure. Stopping pleasure would be an effective way of stopping evil while maintaining human freedom. That’s because no one does evil for evil’s sake. We do evil to get good things, such as money, sex, and power. Take away pleasure and the incentive to do evil would vanish. But if God were to stop evil by ending pleasure, would the human race continue? If it did, would anyone like the pleasureless world that remains?"
Frank Turek, Stealing From God, p.142
Frank Turek, Stealing From God, p.142
Saturday, August 19, 2017
Early Christian Belief In A Hell Of Eternal Consciousness
By Jason Engwer
John Loftus recently posted an article [as of 2006] on Hell that makes a lot of misleading claims and ignores a lot of relevant evidence. I think that some of his errors in evaluating the Biblical evidence should be easy for most readers to discern, but a comment he made about the early church, apparently a reference (in part or entirely) to the church fathers, may not be as easy for most readers to evaluate. Loftus writes the following, though it's unclear whether he's quoting somebody else or writing in his own words:
"L.E. Froom claims that conditional immortality was generally accepted in the early church until its thinkers tried to wed Plato’s doctrine of the immortality of the soul to the teaching of the Bible.' [The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, Herald Pub., 1966]."
I don't know what Loftus has in mind when he refers to "conditional immortality". A person can believe that God needs to extend a life in order for the person to exist eternally, yet also believe that every life is so extended. It's also possible to define "immortality" as eternal life, in contrast to eternal death. Both the person with eternal life and the person with eternal death will exist forever, but one existence is portrayed positively as "life" and the other is portrayed negatively as "death". The life in question has to do with the quality of the existence, not existence itself. This is seen, for example, in the many Biblical and extra-Biblical references to unregenerate men as spiritually "dead". A term like "immortality" can be used differently in different contexts. A reference to the need for God to extend people's lives in order for them to be immortal or a reference to people attaining immortality doesn't necessarily imply that some or all people will cease to exist.
The early patristic sources suggest that belief in a Hell involving eternal consciousness was the general belief, not annihilationism. Somebody like Origen will sometimes express a different view, whether as a speculation or as a belief held with confidence, but that doesn't mean that such a view was widely held. Below are several examples of early expressions of a belief in eternal conscious existence in Hell, and more examples could be cited.
When Polycarp, a disciple of the apostles (more than one apostle, not just the apostle John) was martyred, an account of that martyrdom was written by his church. The account expresses the views of both Polycarp and his church. In that account, we read of the contrast between suffering in a temporary fire and suffering eternally:
"And, looking to the grace of Christ, they [Christian martyrs] despised all the torments of this world, redeeming themselves from eternal punishment by the suffering of a single hour. For this reason the fire of their savage executioners appeared cool to them. For they kept before their view escape from that fire which is eternal and never shall be quenched...Polycarp said, 'Thou threatenest me with fire which burneth for an hour, and after a little is extinguished, but art ignorant of the fire of the coming judgment and of eternal punishment, reserved for the ungodly. But why tarriest thou? Bring forth what thou wilt.'" (The Martyrdom Of Polycarp, 2, 11)
In contrast to Loftus' distortions of the view of Hell presented in the book of Revelation, notice that both Polycarp and his church (the church of Smyrna, addressed in Revelation 2) were in contact with the author of Revelation, the apostle John. And the passages quoted above make more sense in light of a Hell of eternal consciousness. The eternal fire is being compared to the temporal fire in terms of suffering, not annihilation. If annihilation was in view, we'd expect references to how a temporal fire can't annihilate the soul, whereas the eternal fire can. What Polycarp and the authors of this document seem to be focusing on is the suffering, the burning, associated with fire. It's more natural, then, to read the references to eternality as references to an eternal experience of such suffering, not annihilation or temporal burning followed by annihilation.
Justin Martyr wrote:
"For among us the prince of the wicked spirits is called the serpent, and Satan, and the devil, as you can learn by looking into our writings. And that he would be sent into the fire with his host, and the men who follow him, and would be punished for an endless duration, Christ foretold....For the prophets have proclaimed two advents of His: the one, that which is already past, when He came as a dishonoured and suffering Man; but the second, when, according to prophecy, He shall come from heaven with glory, accompanied by His angelic host, when also He shall raise the bodies of all men who have lived, and shall clothe those of the worthy with immortality, and shall send those of the wicked, endued with eternal sensibility, into everlasting fire with the wicked devils....And in what kind of sensation and punishment the wicked are to be, hear from what was said in like manner with reference to this; it is as follows: 'Their worm shall not rest, and their fire shall not be quenched" (First Apology, 28, 52)
Irenaeus illustrates some of the points I made near the beginning of this post. He writes of how God's creation continues to exist only because God so wills:
"For as the heaven which is above us, the firmament, the sun, the moon, the rest of the stars, and all their grandeur, although they had no previous existence, were called into being, and continue throughout a long course of time according to the will of God, so also any one who thinks thus respecting souls and spirits, and, in fact, respecting all created things, will not by any means go far astray, inasmuch as all things that have been made had a beginning when they were formed, but endure as long as God wills that they should have an existence and continuance." (Against Heresies, 2:34:3)
And he continues:
"And again, He thus speaks respecting the salvation of man: 'He asked life of Thee, and Thou gavest him length of days for ever and ever;' indicating that it is the Father of all who imparts continuance for ever and ever on those who are saved. For life does not arise from us, nor from our own nature; but it is bestowed according to the grace of God. And therefore he who shall preserve the life bestowed upon him, and give thanks to Him who imparted it, shall receive also length of days for ever and ever. But he who shall reject it, and prove himself ungrateful to his Maker, inasmuch as he has been created, and has not recognised Him who bestowed the gift upon him, deprives himself of the privilege of continuance for ever and ever." (Against Heresies, 2:34:3)
Surely this passage supports John Loftus' argument, right? No, because we know, from the surrounding context of Irenaeus' writings, that he believed in eternal consciousness in Hell. As the editor of the edition of Irenaeus quoted above comments:
"As Massuet observes, this statement is to be understood in harmony with the repeated assertion of Irenaeus that the wicked will exist in misery for ever. It refers not annihilation, but to deprivation of happiness." (note 307)
For example, elsewhere Irenaeus writes:
"Inasmuch, then, as in both Testaments there is the same righteousness of God displayed when God takes vengeance, in the one case indeed typically, temporarily, and more moderately; but in the other, really, enduringly, and more rigidly: for the fire is eternal, and the wrath of God which shall be revealed from heaven from the face of our Lord (as David also says, 'But the face of the Lord is against them that do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth'), entails a heavier punishment on those who incur it, - the ciders pointed out that those men are devoid of sense, who, arguing from what happened to those who formerly did not obey God, do endeavour to bring in another Father, setting over against these punishments what great things the Lord had done at His coming to save those who received Him, taking compassion upon them; while they keep silence with regard to His judgment; and all those things which shall come upon such as have heard His words, but done them not, and that it were better for them if they had not been born, and that it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the judgment than for that city which did not receive the word of His disciples." (Against Heresies, 4:28:1)
As the references to Sodom and Gomorrah suggest, Irenaeus is referring to degrees of suffering, not annihilation. Thus, what Irenaeus seems to view as enduring forever is the suffering of the wicked, not non-existence.
And elsewhere Ireneaus suggests that experience of "every kind of punishment" will last forever, in contrast to being annihilated forever:
"But on as many as, according to their own choice, depart from God, He inflicts that separation from Himself which they have chosen of their own accord. But separation from God is death, and separation from light is darkness; and separation from God consists in the loss of all the benefits which He has in store. Those, therefore, who cast away by apostasy these forementioned things, being in fact destitute of all good, do experience every kind of punishment. God, however, does not punish them immediately of Himself, but that punishment falls upon them because they are destitute of all that is good. Now, good things are eternal and without end with God, and therefore the loss of these is also eternal and never-ending." (Against Heresies, 5:27:2)
Irenaeus seems to have viewed the afterlife of the wicked as something consistent. It would endure forever. They wouldn't experience suffering for a while, then cease to exist.
Theophilus of Antioch approvingly quotes the Sibyl, applying these words to the unregenerate:
"Therefore, upon you burning fire shall come, And ever ye shall daily burn in flames, Ashamed for ever of your useless gods. But those who worship the eternal God, They shall inherit everlasting life, Inhabiting the blooming realms of bliss, And feasting on sweet food from starry heaven." (To Autolycus, 2:36)
Theophilus refers to the people in Hell being "ashamed for ever", which would involve consciousness. Notice, also, that Theophilus, like the Biblical authors and other early patristic sources, parallels the eternality of Hell with the eternality of Heaven.
Athenagoras contrasts the temporal life of animals with the eternal existence of humans:
"For if we believed that we should live only the present life, then we might be suspected of sinning, through being enslaved to flesh and blood, or overmastered by gain or carnal desire; but since we know that God is witness to what we think and what we say both by night and by day, and that He, being Himself light, sees all things in our heart, we are persuaded that when we are removed from the present life we shall live another life, better than the present one, and heavenly, not earthly (since we shall abide near God, and with God, free from all change or suffering in the soul, not as flesh, even though we shall have flesh, but as heavenly spirit), or, falling with the rest, a worse one and in fire; for God has not made us as sheep or beasts of burden, a mere by-work, and that we should perish and be annihilated." (A Plea For The Christians, 31)
Tertullian wrote:
"Think of these things, too, in the light of the brevity of any punishment you can inflict - never to last longer than till death. On this ground Epicurus makes light of all suffering and pain, maintaining that if it is small, it is contemptible; and if it is great, it is not long-continued. No doubt about it, we, who receive our awards under the judgment of an all-seeing God, and who look forward to eternal punishment from Him for sin, - we alone make real effort to attain a blameless life, under the influence of our ampler knowledge, the impossibility of concealment, and the greatness of the threatened torment, not merely long-enduring but everlasting, fearing Him, whom he too should fear who the fearing judges, - even God, I mean, and not the proconsul....When, therefore, the boundary and limit, that millennial interspace, has been passed, when even the outward fashion of the world itself - which has been spread like a veil over the eternal economy, equally a thing of time - passes away, then the whole human race shall be raised again, to have its dues meted out according as it has merited in the period of good or evil, and thereafter to have these paid out through the immeasurable ages of eternity. Therefore after this there is neither death nor repeated resurrections, but we shall be the same that we are now, and still unchanged - the servants of God, ever with God, clothed upon with the proper substance of eternity; but the profane, and all who are not true worshippers of God, in like manner shall be consigned to the punishment of everlasting fire -that fire which, from its very nature indeed, directly ministers to their incorruptibility. The philosophers are familiar as well as we with the distinction between a common and a secret fire. Thus that which is in common use is far different from that which we see in divine judgments, whether striking as thunderbolts from heaven, or bursting up out of the earth through mountain-tops; for it does not consume what it scorches, but while it burns it repairs. So the mountains continue ever burning; and a person struck by lighting is even now kept safe from any destroying flame. A notable proof this of the fire eternal! a notable example of the endless judgment which still supplies punishment with fuel! The mountains burn, and last. How will it be with the wicked and the enemies of God?" (Apology, 45, 48)
Minucius Felix:
"Nor is there either measure termination to these torments. There the intelligent fire burns the limbs and restores them, feeds on them and nourishes them. As the fires of the thunderbolts strike upon the bodies, and do not consume them; as the fires of Mount Aetna and of Mount Vesuvius, and of burning where, glow, but are not wasted; so that penal fire is not fed by the waste of those who burn, but is nourished by the unexhausted eating away of their bodies. But that they who know not God are deservedly tormented as impious, as unrighteous persons, no one except a profane man hesitates to believe, since it is not less wicked to be ignorant of, than to offend the Parent of all, and the Lord of all. And although ignorance of God is sufficient for punishment, even as knowledge of Him is of avail for pardon, yet if we Christians be compared with you, although in some things our discipline is inferior, yet we shall be found much better than you." (The Octavius Of Minucius Felix, 35)
Cyprian:
"There is no faith in the fear of God, in the law of righteousness, in love, in labour; none considers the fear of futurity, and none takes to heart the day of the Lord, and the wrath of God, and the punishments to come upon unbelievers, and the eternal torments decreed for the faithless." (On The Unity Of The Church, 26)
The historian Philip Schaff wrote:
"There never was in the Christian church any difference of opinion concerning the righteous, who shall inherit eternal life and enjoy the blessed communion of God forever and ever. But the final fate of the impenitent who reject the offer of salvation admits of three answers to the reasoning mind: everlasting punishment, annihilation, restoration (after remedial punishment and repentance)....Everlasting Punishment of the wicked always was, and always will be the orthodox theory....the majority of the fathers who speak plainly on this terrible subject, favor this view....The generality of this belief among Christians is testified by Celsus [an opponent of Christianity who wrote in the second century], who tells them that the heathen priests threaten the same 'eternal punishment' as they, and that the only question was which was right, since both claimed the truth with equal confidence." (History Of The Christian Church, 2:12:157)
The patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly wrote the following about the later patristic sources:
"As regards the fate of the wicked (that of the blessed will be treated in the next section), the general view was that their punishment would be eternal, without any possibility of remission. As Basil put it, in hell the sinful soul is completely cut off from the Holy Spirit, and is therefore incapable of repentance; while Chrysostom pointed out that neither the bodies of the damned, which will become immortal, nor their souls will know any end of their sufferings." (Early Christian Doctrines [New York: Continuum, 2003], p. 483)
Allen Clayton writes:
"Some scholars have argued that a notion of the annihilation of the wicked, and not eternal punishment, is present in the writings of such thinkers as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Arnobius. The textual evidence, however, does not seem to bear the weight of this conclusion. The overwhelming majority of Christian writers held that the wicked were to be eternally punished." (in Everett Ferguson, editor, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity [New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1999], p. 517)
G.S. Shogren writes:
"If the extant literature is any indication, then an overwhelming majority within the ancient church were persuaded that damnation leads to everlasting, conscious suffering." (in Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids, editors, Dictionary Of The Later New Testament & Its Developments [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997], p. 461)
The beliefs of mainstream professing Christians were sometimes different from the beliefs of the church fathers, and the fathers themselves held a variety of views of the afterlife in general and Hell in particular. However, the concept that Hell involves eternal consciousness for every person who goes there is a Biblical concept and is supported by the best patristic evidence. We see it early, in many locations, and advocated by people with a variety of backgrounds and personalities. The reason why men like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus can be quoted out of context to make them seem to have opposed a Hell of eternal consciousness is because their affirmation of the concept was accompanied by some reservations and some of the common philosophical beliefs of their day. Still, they did affirm the concept of eternal consciousness in Hell, and the best explanation for that affirmation is that it was a concept taught by Jesus and the apostles.
John Loftus recently posted an article [as of 2006] on Hell that makes a lot of misleading claims and ignores a lot of relevant evidence. I think that some of his errors in evaluating the Biblical evidence should be easy for most readers to discern, but a comment he made about the early church, apparently a reference (in part or entirely) to the church fathers, may not be as easy for most readers to evaluate. Loftus writes the following, though it's unclear whether he's quoting somebody else or writing in his own words:
"L.E. Froom claims that conditional immortality was generally accepted in the early church until its thinkers tried to wed Plato’s doctrine of the immortality of the soul to the teaching of the Bible.' [The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, Herald Pub., 1966]."
I don't know what Loftus has in mind when he refers to "conditional immortality". A person can believe that God needs to extend a life in order for the person to exist eternally, yet also believe that every life is so extended. It's also possible to define "immortality" as eternal life, in contrast to eternal death. Both the person with eternal life and the person with eternal death will exist forever, but one existence is portrayed positively as "life" and the other is portrayed negatively as "death". The life in question has to do with the quality of the existence, not existence itself. This is seen, for example, in the many Biblical and extra-Biblical references to unregenerate men as spiritually "dead". A term like "immortality" can be used differently in different contexts. A reference to the need for God to extend people's lives in order for them to be immortal or a reference to people attaining immortality doesn't necessarily imply that some or all people will cease to exist.
The early patristic sources suggest that belief in a Hell involving eternal consciousness was the general belief, not annihilationism. Somebody like Origen will sometimes express a different view, whether as a speculation or as a belief held with confidence, but that doesn't mean that such a view was widely held. Below are several examples of early expressions of a belief in eternal conscious existence in Hell, and more examples could be cited.
When Polycarp, a disciple of the apostles (more than one apostle, not just the apostle John) was martyred, an account of that martyrdom was written by his church. The account expresses the views of both Polycarp and his church. In that account, we read of the contrast between suffering in a temporary fire and suffering eternally:
"And, looking to the grace of Christ, they [Christian martyrs] despised all the torments of this world, redeeming themselves from eternal punishment by the suffering of a single hour. For this reason the fire of their savage executioners appeared cool to them. For they kept before their view escape from that fire which is eternal and never shall be quenched...Polycarp said, 'Thou threatenest me with fire which burneth for an hour, and after a little is extinguished, but art ignorant of the fire of the coming judgment and of eternal punishment, reserved for the ungodly. But why tarriest thou? Bring forth what thou wilt.'" (The Martyrdom Of Polycarp, 2, 11)
In contrast to Loftus' distortions of the view of Hell presented in the book of Revelation, notice that both Polycarp and his church (the church of Smyrna, addressed in Revelation 2) were in contact with the author of Revelation, the apostle John. And the passages quoted above make more sense in light of a Hell of eternal consciousness. The eternal fire is being compared to the temporal fire in terms of suffering, not annihilation. If annihilation was in view, we'd expect references to how a temporal fire can't annihilate the soul, whereas the eternal fire can. What Polycarp and the authors of this document seem to be focusing on is the suffering, the burning, associated with fire. It's more natural, then, to read the references to eternality as references to an eternal experience of such suffering, not annihilation or temporal burning followed by annihilation.
Justin Martyr wrote:
"For among us the prince of the wicked spirits is called the serpent, and Satan, and the devil, as you can learn by looking into our writings. And that he would be sent into the fire with his host, and the men who follow him, and would be punished for an endless duration, Christ foretold....For the prophets have proclaimed two advents of His: the one, that which is already past, when He came as a dishonoured and suffering Man; but the second, when, according to prophecy, He shall come from heaven with glory, accompanied by His angelic host, when also He shall raise the bodies of all men who have lived, and shall clothe those of the worthy with immortality, and shall send those of the wicked, endued with eternal sensibility, into everlasting fire with the wicked devils....And in what kind of sensation and punishment the wicked are to be, hear from what was said in like manner with reference to this; it is as follows: 'Their worm shall not rest, and their fire shall not be quenched" (First Apology, 28, 52)
Irenaeus illustrates some of the points I made near the beginning of this post. He writes of how God's creation continues to exist only because God so wills:
"For as the heaven which is above us, the firmament, the sun, the moon, the rest of the stars, and all their grandeur, although they had no previous existence, were called into being, and continue throughout a long course of time according to the will of God, so also any one who thinks thus respecting souls and spirits, and, in fact, respecting all created things, will not by any means go far astray, inasmuch as all things that have been made had a beginning when they were formed, but endure as long as God wills that they should have an existence and continuance." (Against Heresies, 2:34:3)
And he continues:
"And again, He thus speaks respecting the salvation of man: 'He asked life of Thee, and Thou gavest him length of days for ever and ever;' indicating that it is the Father of all who imparts continuance for ever and ever on those who are saved. For life does not arise from us, nor from our own nature; but it is bestowed according to the grace of God. And therefore he who shall preserve the life bestowed upon him, and give thanks to Him who imparted it, shall receive also length of days for ever and ever. But he who shall reject it, and prove himself ungrateful to his Maker, inasmuch as he has been created, and has not recognised Him who bestowed the gift upon him, deprives himself of the privilege of continuance for ever and ever." (Against Heresies, 2:34:3)
Surely this passage supports John Loftus' argument, right? No, because we know, from the surrounding context of Irenaeus' writings, that he believed in eternal consciousness in Hell. As the editor of the edition of Irenaeus quoted above comments:
"As Massuet observes, this statement is to be understood in harmony with the repeated assertion of Irenaeus that the wicked will exist in misery for ever. It refers not annihilation, but to deprivation of happiness." (note 307)
For example, elsewhere Irenaeus writes:
"Inasmuch, then, as in both Testaments there is the same righteousness of God displayed when God takes vengeance, in the one case indeed typically, temporarily, and more moderately; but in the other, really, enduringly, and more rigidly: for the fire is eternal, and the wrath of God which shall be revealed from heaven from the face of our Lord (as David also says, 'But the face of the Lord is against them that do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth'), entails a heavier punishment on those who incur it, - the ciders pointed out that those men are devoid of sense, who, arguing from what happened to those who formerly did not obey God, do endeavour to bring in another Father, setting over against these punishments what great things the Lord had done at His coming to save those who received Him, taking compassion upon them; while they keep silence with regard to His judgment; and all those things which shall come upon such as have heard His words, but done them not, and that it were better for them if they had not been born, and that it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the judgment than for that city which did not receive the word of His disciples." (Against Heresies, 4:28:1)
As the references to Sodom and Gomorrah suggest, Irenaeus is referring to degrees of suffering, not annihilation. Thus, what Irenaeus seems to view as enduring forever is the suffering of the wicked, not non-existence.
And elsewhere Ireneaus suggests that experience of "every kind of punishment" will last forever, in contrast to being annihilated forever:
"But on as many as, according to their own choice, depart from God, He inflicts that separation from Himself which they have chosen of their own accord. But separation from God is death, and separation from light is darkness; and separation from God consists in the loss of all the benefits which He has in store. Those, therefore, who cast away by apostasy these forementioned things, being in fact destitute of all good, do experience every kind of punishment. God, however, does not punish them immediately of Himself, but that punishment falls upon them because they are destitute of all that is good. Now, good things are eternal and without end with God, and therefore the loss of these is also eternal and never-ending." (Against Heresies, 5:27:2)
Irenaeus seems to have viewed the afterlife of the wicked as something consistent. It would endure forever. They wouldn't experience suffering for a while, then cease to exist.
Theophilus of Antioch approvingly quotes the Sibyl, applying these words to the unregenerate:
"Therefore, upon you burning fire shall come, And ever ye shall daily burn in flames, Ashamed for ever of your useless gods. But those who worship the eternal God, They shall inherit everlasting life, Inhabiting the blooming realms of bliss, And feasting on sweet food from starry heaven." (To Autolycus, 2:36)
Theophilus refers to the people in Hell being "ashamed for ever", which would involve consciousness. Notice, also, that Theophilus, like the Biblical authors and other early patristic sources, parallels the eternality of Hell with the eternality of Heaven.
Athenagoras contrasts the temporal life of animals with the eternal existence of humans:
"For if we believed that we should live only the present life, then we might be suspected of sinning, through being enslaved to flesh and blood, or overmastered by gain or carnal desire; but since we know that God is witness to what we think and what we say both by night and by day, and that He, being Himself light, sees all things in our heart, we are persuaded that when we are removed from the present life we shall live another life, better than the present one, and heavenly, not earthly (since we shall abide near God, and with God, free from all change or suffering in the soul, not as flesh, even though we shall have flesh, but as heavenly spirit), or, falling with the rest, a worse one and in fire; for God has not made us as sheep or beasts of burden, a mere by-work, and that we should perish and be annihilated." (A Plea For The Christians, 31)
Tertullian wrote:
"Think of these things, too, in the light of the brevity of any punishment you can inflict - never to last longer than till death. On this ground Epicurus makes light of all suffering and pain, maintaining that if it is small, it is contemptible; and if it is great, it is not long-continued. No doubt about it, we, who receive our awards under the judgment of an all-seeing God, and who look forward to eternal punishment from Him for sin, - we alone make real effort to attain a blameless life, under the influence of our ampler knowledge, the impossibility of concealment, and the greatness of the threatened torment, not merely long-enduring but everlasting, fearing Him, whom he too should fear who the fearing judges, - even God, I mean, and not the proconsul....When, therefore, the boundary and limit, that millennial interspace, has been passed, when even the outward fashion of the world itself - which has been spread like a veil over the eternal economy, equally a thing of time - passes away, then the whole human race shall be raised again, to have its dues meted out according as it has merited in the period of good or evil, and thereafter to have these paid out through the immeasurable ages of eternity. Therefore after this there is neither death nor repeated resurrections, but we shall be the same that we are now, and still unchanged - the servants of God, ever with God, clothed upon with the proper substance of eternity; but the profane, and all who are not true worshippers of God, in like manner shall be consigned to the punishment of everlasting fire -that fire which, from its very nature indeed, directly ministers to their incorruptibility. The philosophers are familiar as well as we with the distinction between a common and a secret fire. Thus that which is in common use is far different from that which we see in divine judgments, whether striking as thunderbolts from heaven, or bursting up out of the earth through mountain-tops; for it does not consume what it scorches, but while it burns it repairs. So the mountains continue ever burning; and a person struck by lighting is even now kept safe from any destroying flame. A notable proof this of the fire eternal! a notable example of the endless judgment which still supplies punishment with fuel! The mountains burn, and last. How will it be with the wicked and the enemies of God?" (Apology, 45, 48)
Minucius Felix:
"Nor is there either measure termination to these torments. There the intelligent fire burns the limbs and restores them, feeds on them and nourishes them. As the fires of the thunderbolts strike upon the bodies, and do not consume them; as the fires of Mount Aetna and of Mount Vesuvius, and of burning where, glow, but are not wasted; so that penal fire is not fed by the waste of those who burn, but is nourished by the unexhausted eating away of their bodies. But that they who know not God are deservedly tormented as impious, as unrighteous persons, no one except a profane man hesitates to believe, since it is not less wicked to be ignorant of, than to offend the Parent of all, and the Lord of all. And although ignorance of God is sufficient for punishment, even as knowledge of Him is of avail for pardon, yet if we Christians be compared with you, although in some things our discipline is inferior, yet we shall be found much better than you." (The Octavius Of Minucius Felix, 35)
Cyprian:
"There is no faith in the fear of God, in the law of righteousness, in love, in labour; none considers the fear of futurity, and none takes to heart the day of the Lord, and the wrath of God, and the punishments to come upon unbelievers, and the eternal torments decreed for the faithless." (On The Unity Of The Church, 26)
The historian Philip Schaff wrote:
"There never was in the Christian church any difference of opinion concerning the righteous, who shall inherit eternal life and enjoy the blessed communion of God forever and ever. But the final fate of the impenitent who reject the offer of salvation admits of three answers to the reasoning mind: everlasting punishment, annihilation, restoration (after remedial punishment and repentance)....Everlasting Punishment of the wicked always was, and always will be the orthodox theory....the majority of the fathers who speak plainly on this terrible subject, favor this view....The generality of this belief among Christians is testified by Celsus [an opponent of Christianity who wrote in the second century], who tells them that the heathen priests threaten the same 'eternal punishment' as they, and that the only question was which was right, since both claimed the truth with equal confidence." (History Of The Christian Church, 2:12:157)
The patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly wrote the following about the later patristic sources:
"As regards the fate of the wicked (that of the blessed will be treated in the next section), the general view was that their punishment would be eternal, without any possibility of remission. As Basil put it, in hell the sinful soul is completely cut off from the Holy Spirit, and is therefore incapable of repentance; while Chrysostom pointed out that neither the bodies of the damned, which will become immortal, nor their souls will know any end of their sufferings." (Early Christian Doctrines [New York: Continuum, 2003], p. 483)
Allen Clayton writes:
"Some scholars have argued that a notion of the annihilation of the wicked, and not eternal punishment, is present in the writings of such thinkers as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Arnobius. The textual evidence, however, does not seem to bear the weight of this conclusion. The overwhelming majority of Christian writers held that the wicked were to be eternally punished." (in Everett Ferguson, editor, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity [New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1999], p. 517)
G.S. Shogren writes:
"If the extant literature is any indication, then an overwhelming majority within the ancient church were persuaded that damnation leads to everlasting, conscious suffering." (in Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids, editors, Dictionary Of The Later New Testament & Its Developments [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997], p. 461)
The beliefs of mainstream professing Christians were sometimes different from the beliefs of the church fathers, and the fathers themselves held a variety of views of the afterlife in general and Hell in particular. However, the concept that Hell involves eternal consciousness for every person who goes there is a Biblical concept and is supported by the best patristic evidence. We see it early, in many locations, and advocated by people with a variety of backgrounds and personalities. The reason why men like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus can be quoted out of context to make them seem to have opposed a Hell of eternal consciousness is because their affirmation of the concept was accompanied by some reservations and some of the common philosophical beliefs of their day. Still, they did affirm the concept of eternal consciousness in Hell, and the best explanation for that affirmation is that it was a concept taught by Jesus and the apostles.
2 Peter 2:7-8 And Imputed Righteousness
"And if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard)." (2 Peter 2:7-8)
Lot's righteousness is not prominently displayed in an experiential or observable manner. In the Genesis narrative, he is not described as a practically righteous man in his actions or decisions. If one were to rely solely on the Old Testament account, it would be difficult to conclude that he was indeed a righteous man. His choices, such as settling in Sodom and his hesitance to leave despite its impending destruction, reflect significant moral and spiritual shortcomings. Thus, the emphasis on Lot being "righteous" in 2 Peter 2:7-8 appears to point more clearly to a status granted to him by God.
In fact, the Genesis account portrays Lot as a man whose life was deeply entangled in sin and moral compromise. From offering his daughters to the mob in Genesis 19 to his later episodes of drunkenness and moral failure, Lot's life provides ample evidence of his flawed and sinful nature. His association with the notoriously wicked city of Sodom further underscores his spiritual weakness. These elements make it clear that Lot's righteousness could not be rooted in his personal actions or character. Instead, the best explanation for him being called "righteous" is the doctrine of imputed righteousness, which emphasizes that righteousness is credited to individuals by faith, not by their works. Lot's case highlights the grace of God in declaring sinners righteous despite their glaring imperfections.
The righteousness attributed to Lot is most reasonably understood as an imputed righteousness. This doctrine teaches that righteousness is not based on human works or merit but is a gift from God, credited to an individual through faith. Lot's standing as "righteous" is rooted in his relationship with God, much like that of Abraham, who "believed in the Lord; and He counted it to him as righteousness" (Genesis 15:6). The New Testament's affirmation of Lot's righteousness highlights God's grace in declaring sinners righteous by faith.
Moreover, 2 Peter 2:7-8 offers a striking insight into Lot's inner conflict. Though he lived among the morally corrupt and unprincipled people of Sodom, he was deeply grieved by their sin. The word "oppressed" conveys the idea of being worn down or harassed, suggesting the emotional and spiritual burden Lot bore as he witnessed the lawlessness around him. Similarly, the term "tormented" emphasizes the ongoing anguish of his righteous soul, torn between the reality of his surroundings and his awareness of God's moral standard.
This passage underscores the tension that believers often face when living in a fallen world. While Christians are called to remain steadfast in their faith and values, they may experience inner turmoil as they confront the pervasive sin and injustice in society. Lot's story serves as both a warning and a reminder of God's faithfulness in delivering His people, even in the midst of moral decay. His rescue from Sodom foreshadows the ultimate deliverance that all believers have through Christ.
Lot's righteousness is not prominently displayed in an experiential or observable manner. In the Genesis narrative, he is not described as a practically righteous man in his actions or decisions. If one were to rely solely on the Old Testament account, it would be difficult to conclude that he was indeed a righteous man. His choices, such as settling in Sodom and his hesitance to leave despite its impending destruction, reflect significant moral and spiritual shortcomings. Thus, the emphasis on Lot being "righteous" in 2 Peter 2:7-8 appears to point more clearly to a status granted to him by God.
In fact, the Genesis account portrays Lot as a man whose life was deeply entangled in sin and moral compromise. From offering his daughters to the mob in Genesis 19 to his later episodes of drunkenness and moral failure, Lot's life provides ample evidence of his flawed and sinful nature. His association with the notoriously wicked city of Sodom further underscores his spiritual weakness. These elements make it clear that Lot's righteousness could not be rooted in his personal actions or character. Instead, the best explanation for him being called "righteous" is the doctrine of imputed righteousness, which emphasizes that righteousness is credited to individuals by faith, not by their works. Lot's case highlights the grace of God in declaring sinners righteous despite their glaring imperfections.
The righteousness attributed to Lot is most reasonably understood as an imputed righteousness. This doctrine teaches that righteousness is not based on human works or merit but is a gift from God, credited to an individual through faith. Lot's standing as "righteous" is rooted in his relationship with God, much like that of Abraham, who "believed in the Lord; and He counted it to him as righteousness" (Genesis 15:6). The New Testament's affirmation of Lot's righteousness highlights God's grace in declaring sinners righteous by faith.
Moreover, 2 Peter 2:7-8 offers a striking insight into Lot's inner conflict. Though he lived among the morally corrupt and unprincipled people of Sodom, he was deeply grieved by their sin. The word "oppressed" conveys the idea of being worn down or harassed, suggesting the emotional and spiritual burden Lot bore as he witnessed the lawlessness around him. Similarly, the term "tormented" emphasizes the ongoing anguish of his righteous soul, torn between the reality of his surroundings and his awareness of God's moral standard.
This passage underscores the tension that believers often face when living in a fallen world. While Christians are called to remain steadfast in their faith and values, they may experience inner turmoil as they confront the pervasive sin and injustice in society. Lot's story serves as both a warning and a reminder of God's faithfulness in delivering His people, even in the midst of moral decay. His rescue from Sodom foreshadows the ultimate deliverance that all believers have through Christ.
Friday, August 11, 2017
59 Confirmed Or Historically Probable Facts In The Gospel Of John
1. Archaeology confirms the use of stone water jars in New Testament times [John 2:6].
2. Given the early Christian tendency towards asceticism, the wine miracle is an unlikely invention [2:8].
3. Archaeology confirms the proper place of Jacob's Well [4:6].
4. Josephus [Wars of the Jews 2.232] confirms there was significant hostility between Jews and Samaritans during Jesus' time [4:9].
5. "Come down" accurately describes the topography of western Galilee. [There's a significant elevation drop from Cana to Capernaum.] [4:46, 49, 51].
6. "Went up" accurately describes the ascent to Jerusalem [5:1].
7. Archaeology confirms the proper location of Bethesda [5:2]. [Excavations between 1914 and 1938 uncovered that pool and found it to be just as John described it. Since that structure did not exist after the Romans destroyed the city in A.D. 70, it's unlikely any later non-eyewitness could have described it in such vivid detail. Moreover, John says that this structure "is in Jerusalem," implying that he's writing before 70].
8. Jesus' own testimony being invalid without the Father is an unlikely Christian invention [5:31]; a later redactor would be eager to highlight Jesus' divinity and would probably make his witness self-authenticating.
9. The crowds wanting to make Jesus king reflects the well-known nationalist fervor of early first-century Israel [6:15].
10. Sudden and severe squalls are common on the Sea of Galilee [6:18].
11. Christ's command to eat his flesh and drink his blood would not be made up [6:53].
12. The rejection of Jesus by many of his disciples is also an unlikely invention [6:66].
13. The two predominant opinions of Jesus, one that Jesus was a "good man" and the other that he "deceives people," would not be the two choices John would have made up [7:12]; a later Christian writer would have probably inserted the opinion that Jesus was God.
14. The charge of Jesus being demon-possessed is an unlikely invention [7:20].
15. The use of "Samaritan" to slander Jesus befits the hostility between Jews and Samaritans [8:48].
16. Jewish believers wanting to stone Jesus is an unlikely invention [8:31, 59].
17. Archaeology confirms the existence and location of the Pool of Siloam [9:7].
18. Expulsion from the synagogue by the Pharisees was a legitimate fear of the Jews; notice that the healed man professes his faith in Jesus only after he is expelled from the synagogue by the Pharisees [9:13-39], at which point he has nothing to lose. This rings of authenticity.
19. The healed man calling Jesus a "prophet" rather than anything more lofty suggests the incident is unembellished history [9:17].
20. During a winter feast, Jesus walked in Solomon's Colonnade, which was the only side of the temple area shielded from the cold winter east wind [10:22-23]; this area is mentioned several times by Josephus.
21. Fifteen stadia [less than two miles] is precisely the distance from Bethany to Jerusalem [11:18].
22. Given the later animosity between Christians and Jews, the positive depiction of Jews comforting Martha and Mary is an unlikely invention [11:19].
23. The burial wrappings of Lazarus were common for first-century Jewish burials [11:44]; it is unlikely that a fiction writer would have included this theologically irrelevant detail.
24. The precise description of the composition of the Sanhedrin [11:47]: it was composed primarily of chief priests [largely Sadducees] and Pharisees during Jesus' ministry.
25. Caiaphas was indeed the high priest that year [11:49]; we learn from Josephus that Caiaphas held the office from A.D. 18-37.
26. The obscure and tiny village of Ephraim [11:54] near Jerusalem is mentioned by Josephus.
27. Ceremonial cleansing was common in preparation for the Passover [11:55].
28. Anointing of a guest's feet with perfume or oil was sometimes performed fro special guests in the Jewish culture (12:3); Mary's wiping of Jesus' feet with her hair is an unlikely invention [in easily could have been perceived as a sexual advance].
29. Waving of palm branches was a common Jewish practice for celebrating military victories and welcoming national rulers [12:13].
30. Foot washing is first-century Palestine was necessary because of dust and open footwear; Jesus performing this menial task is an unlikely invention [it was a task not even Jewish slaves were required to do] [13:4]; Peter's insistence that he get a complete bath also fits with his impulsive personality [there's certainly no purpose for inventing this request].
31. Peter asks John to ask Jesus a question [13:24]; there's no reason to insert this detail if this is fiction; Peter could have asked Jesus himself.
32. "The Father is greater than I" is an unlikely invention [14:28], especially if John wanted to make up the deity of Christ [as the critics claim he did].
33. Use of the vine as a metaphor makes good sense in Jerusalem [15:1]; vineyards were in the vicinity of the temple, and, according to Josephus, the temple gates had a golden vine carved on them.
34. Use of the childbirth metaphor [16:21] is thoroughly Jewish; is has been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls [1QH 11:9-10].
35. The standard Jewish posture for prayers was looking "toward heaven" [17:1].
36. Jesus' admission that he has gotten his words from the Father [17:7-8] would not be included if John were inventing the idea that Christ was God.
37. No specific reference to fulfilled Scripture is given regarding the predicted betrayal by Judas; a fiction writer or later Christian redactor probably would have identified the Old Testament Scripture to which Jesus was referring [17:12].
38. The name of the high priest's servant [Malachus], who had his ear cut off, is an unlikely invention [18:10].
39. Proper identification of Caiaphas's father-in-law, Annas, who was the high priest from A.D. 6-15 [18:13]-the appearance before Annas is believable because of the family connection and the fact the former high priests maintained great influence.
40. John's claim that the high priest knew him [18:15] seems historical; invention of this claim serves no purpose and would expose John to being discredited by the Jewish authorities.
41. Anna's questions regarding Jesus' teachings and disciples make good historical sense; Annas would be concerned about potential civil unrest and the undermining of Jewish religious authority [18:19].
42. Identification of a relative of Malchus [the high priest's servant who had his ear cut off] is a detail that John would not have made up [18:26]; it has no theological significance and could only hurt John's credibility if he were trying to pass off fiction as the truth.
43. There are good historical reasons to believe Pilate's reluctance to deal with Jesus [18:28ff.]: Pilate had to walk a fine line between keeping the Jews happy and keeping Rome happy; any civil unrest could mean his job [the Jews knew of his competing concerns when they taunted him, "If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar," 19:12]; the Jewish philosopher Philo records the Jews successfully pressuring Pilate in a similar way to get their demands met [To Gaius 38.301-302].
44. A surface similar to the Stone Pavement has been identified near the Antonia Fortress [19:13] with markings that may indicate soldiers played games there [as in the gambling for his clothes in 19:24].
45. The Jews exclaiming, "We have no king but Caesar!" [19:15] would not be invented given the Jewish hatred for the Romans, especially if John had been written after A.D. 70. [This would be like New Yorkers today proclaiming "We have not king but Osama Bin Laden!"]
46. The crucifixion of Jesus [19:17-30] is attested to by non-Christian sources such as Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, and the Jewish Talmud.
47. Crucifixion victims normally carried their own crossbeams [19:17].
48. Josephus confirms that crucifixion was an execution technique employed by the Romans [Wars of the Jews 1.97; 2.305; 7.203]; moreover, a nail-spiked anklebone of a crucified man was found in Jerusalem in 1968.
49. The execution site was likely outside ancient Jerusalem, as John says [19:17]; this would ensure that the sacred Jewish city would not be profaned by the presence of a dead body [Deut. 21:23].
50. After the spear was thrust into Jesus' side, out came what appeared to be blood and water [19:34]. Today we know that a crucified person might have a watery fluid father in the sac around the heart called the pericardium. John would not have known of this medical condition, and could not have recorded this phenomenon unless he was an eyewitness or had access to eyewitness testimony.
51. Joseph of Arimathea [19:38], a member of the Sanhedrin who buries Jesus, is an unlikely invention.
52. Josephus [Antiquities 17.199] confirms that spices [19:39] were used for royal burials; this detail shows that Nicodemus was not expecting Jesus to rise from the dead, and it also demonstrates that John was not inserting later Christian faith into the text.
53. Mary Magdalene [20:1], a formerly demon-possessed woman [Luke 8:2], would not be invented as the empty tomb's first witness; in fact, women in general would not be presented as witnesses in a made-up story.
54. Mary mistaking Jesus for the gardener [20:15] is not a detail that a later writer would have made up [especially a writer seeking to exalt Jesus].
55. "Rabboni" [20:16], the Aramaic for "teacher," seems an authentic detail because it's another unlikely invention for a writer trying to exalt the risen Jesus.
56. Jesus stating that he is returning to "my God and your God" [20:17] does not fit with a later writer bent on creating the idea that Jesus was God.
57. One hundred fifty-three fish [21:11] is a theologically irrelevant detail, but perfectly consistent with the tendency of fisherman to want to record and then brag about large catches.
58. The fear of the disciples to ask Jesus who he was [21:12] is an unlikely concoction; it demonstrates natural human amazement at the risen Jesus and perhaps the fact that there was something different about the resurrection body.
59. The cryptic statement from Jesus about the fate of Peter is not clear enough to draw certain theological conclusions [21:18]; so why would John make it up? It's another unlikely invention. [1]
Frank Turek and Norman Geisler, I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, p. 263-268
2. Given the early Christian tendency towards asceticism, the wine miracle is an unlikely invention [2:8].
3. Archaeology confirms the proper place of Jacob's Well [4:6].
4. Josephus [Wars of the Jews 2.232] confirms there was significant hostility between Jews and Samaritans during Jesus' time [4:9].
5. "Come down" accurately describes the topography of western Galilee. [There's a significant elevation drop from Cana to Capernaum.] [4:46, 49, 51].
6. "Went up" accurately describes the ascent to Jerusalem [5:1].
7. Archaeology confirms the proper location of Bethesda [5:2]. [Excavations between 1914 and 1938 uncovered that pool and found it to be just as John described it. Since that structure did not exist after the Romans destroyed the city in A.D. 70, it's unlikely any later non-eyewitness could have described it in such vivid detail. Moreover, John says that this structure "is in Jerusalem," implying that he's writing before 70].
8. Jesus' own testimony being invalid without the Father is an unlikely Christian invention [5:31]; a later redactor would be eager to highlight Jesus' divinity and would probably make his witness self-authenticating.
9. The crowds wanting to make Jesus king reflects the well-known nationalist fervor of early first-century Israel [6:15].
10. Sudden and severe squalls are common on the Sea of Galilee [6:18].
11. Christ's command to eat his flesh and drink his blood would not be made up [6:53].
12. The rejection of Jesus by many of his disciples is also an unlikely invention [6:66].
13. The two predominant opinions of Jesus, one that Jesus was a "good man" and the other that he "deceives people," would not be the two choices John would have made up [7:12]; a later Christian writer would have probably inserted the opinion that Jesus was God.
14. The charge of Jesus being demon-possessed is an unlikely invention [7:20].
15. The use of "Samaritan" to slander Jesus befits the hostility between Jews and Samaritans [8:48].
16. Jewish believers wanting to stone Jesus is an unlikely invention [8:31, 59].
17. Archaeology confirms the existence and location of the Pool of Siloam [9:7].
18. Expulsion from the synagogue by the Pharisees was a legitimate fear of the Jews; notice that the healed man professes his faith in Jesus only after he is expelled from the synagogue by the Pharisees [9:13-39], at which point he has nothing to lose. This rings of authenticity.
19. The healed man calling Jesus a "prophet" rather than anything more lofty suggests the incident is unembellished history [9:17].
20. During a winter feast, Jesus walked in Solomon's Colonnade, which was the only side of the temple area shielded from the cold winter east wind [10:22-23]; this area is mentioned several times by Josephus.
21. Fifteen stadia [less than two miles] is precisely the distance from Bethany to Jerusalem [11:18].
22. Given the later animosity between Christians and Jews, the positive depiction of Jews comforting Martha and Mary is an unlikely invention [11:19].
23. The burial wrappings of Lazarus were common for first-century Jewish burials [11:44]; it is unlikely that a fiction writer would have included this theologically irrelevant detail.
24. The precise description of the composition of the Sanhedrin [11:47]: it was composed primarily of chief priests [largely Sadducees] and Pharisees during Jesus' ministry.
25. Caiaphas was indeed the high priest that year [11:49]; we learn from Josephus that Caiaphas held the office from A.D. 18-37.
26. The obscure and tiny village of Ephraim [11:54] near Jerusalem is mentioned by Josephus.
27. Ceremonial cleansing was common in preparation for the Passover [11:55].
28. Anointing of a guest's feet with perfume or oil was sometimes performed fro special guests in the Jewish culture (12:3); Mary's wiping of Jesus' feet with her hair is an unlikely invention [in easily could have been perceived as a sexual advance].
29. Waving of palm branches was a common Jewish practice for celebrating military victories and welcoming national rulers [12:13].
30. Foot washing is first-century Palestine was necessary because of dust and open footwear; Jesus performing this menial task is an unlikely invention [it was a task not even Jewish slaves were required to do] [13:4]; Peter's insistence that he get a complete bath also fits with his impulsive personality [there's certainly no purpose for inventing this request].
31. Peter asks John to ask Jesus a question [13:24]; there's no reason to insert this detail if this is fiction; Peter could have asked Jesus himself.
32. "The Father is greater than I" is an unlikely invention [14:28], especially if John wanted to make up the deity of Christ [as the critics claim he did].
33. Use of the vine as a metaphor makes good sense in Jerusalem [15:1]; vineyards were in the vicinity of the temple, and, according to Josephus, the temple gates had a golden vine carved on them.
34. Use of the childbirth metaphor [16:21] is thoroughly Jewish; is has been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls [1QH 11:9-10].
35. The standard Jewish posture for prayers was looking "toward heaven" [17:1].
36. Jesus' admission that he has gotten his words from the Father [17:7-8] would not be included if John were inventing the idea that Christ was God.
37. No specific reference to fulfilled Scripture is given regarding the predicted betrayal by Judas; a fiction writer or later Christian redactor probably would have identified the Old Testament Scripture to which Jesus was referring [17:12].
38. The name of the high priest's servant [Malachus], who had his ear cut off, is an unlikely invention [18:10].
39. Proper identification of Caiaphas's father-in-law, Annas, who was the high priest from A.D. 6-15 [18:13]-the appearance before Annas is believable because of the family connection and the fact the former high priests maintained great influence.
40. John's claim that the high priest knew him [18:15] seems historical; invention of this claim serves no purpose and would expose John to being discredited by the Jewish authorities.
41. Anna's questions regarding Jesus' teachings and disciples make good historical sense; Annas would be concerned about potential civil unrest and the undermining of Jewish religious authority [18:19].
42. Identification of a relative of Malchus [the high priest's servant who had his ear cut off] is a detail that John would not have made up [18:26]; it has no theological significance and could only hurt John's credibility if he were trying to pass off fiction as the truth.
43. There are good historical reasons to believe Pilate's reluctance to deal with Jesus [18:28ff.]: Pilate had to walk a fine line between keeping the Jews happy and keeping Rome happy; any civil unrest could mean his job [the Jews knew of his competing concerns when they taunted him, "If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar," 19:12]; the Jewish philosopher Philo records the Jews successfully pressuring Pilate in a similar way to get their demands met [To Gaius 38.301-302].
44. A surface similar to the Stone Pavement has been identified near the Antonia Fortress [19:13] with markings that may indicate soldiers played games there [as in the gambling for his clothes in 19:24].
45. The Jews exclaiming, "We have no king but Caesar!" [19:15] would not be invented given the Jewish hatred for the Romans, especially if John had been written after A.D. 70. [This would be like New Yorkers today proclaiming "We have not king but Osama Bin Laden!"]
46. The crucifixion of Jesus [19:17-30] is attested to by non-Christian sources such as Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, and the Jewish Talmud.
47. Crucifixion victims normally carried their own crossbeams [19:17].
48. Josephus confirms that crucifixion was an execution technique employed by the Romans [Wars of the Jews 1.97; 2.305; 7.203]; moreover, a nail-spiked anklebone of a crucified man was found in Jerusalem in 1968.
49. The execution site was likely outside ancient Jerusalem, as John says [19:17]; this would ensure that the sacred Jewish city would not be profaned by the presence of a dead body [Deut. 21:23].
50. After the spear was thrust into Jesus' side, out came what appeared to be blood and water [19:34]. Today we know that a crucified person might have a watery fluid father in the sac around the heart called the pericardium. John would not have known of this medical condition, and could not have recorded this phenomenon unless he was an eyewitness or had access to eyewitness testimony.
51. Joseph of Arimathea [19:38], a member of the Sanhedrin who buries Jesus, is an unlikely invention.
52. Josephus [Antiquities 17.199] confirms that spices [19:39] were used for royal burials; this detail shows that Nicodemus was not expecting Jesus to rise from the dead, and it also demonstrates that John was not inserting later Christian faith into the text.
53. Mary Magdalene [20:1], a formerly demon-possessed woman [Luke 8:2], would not be invented as the empty tomb's first witness; in fact, women in general would not be presented as witnesses in a made-up story.
54. Mary mistaking Jesus for the gardener [20:15] is not a detail that a later writer would have made up [especially a writer seeking to exalt Jesus].
55. "Rabboni" [20:16], the Aramaic for "teacher," seems an authentic detail because it's another unlikely invention for a writer trying to exalt the risen Jesus.
56. Jesus stating that he is returning to "my God and your God" [20:17] does not fit with a later writer bent on creating the idea that Jesus was God.
57. One hundred fifty-three fish [21:11] is a theologically irrelevant detail, but perfectly consistent with the tendency of fisherman to want to record and then brag about large catches.
58. The fear of the disciples to ask Jesus who he was [21:12] is an unlikely concoction; it demonstrates natural human amazement at the risen Jesus and perhaps the fact that there was something different about the resurrection body.
59. The cryptic statement from Jesus about the fate of Peter is not clear enough to draw certain theological conclusions [21:18]; so why would John make it up? It's another unlikely invention. [1]
Frank Turek and Norman Geisler, I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, p. 263-268
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)