Author: Nick Peters

We now come to the second part. This is a look at the resurrection accounts in the gospels. Are they consistent? First off, let’s suppose that we weren’t arguing for inerrancy. In fact, we don’t have to in order to affirm the resurrection. We can argue for the basic historicity of the accounts. (For the record though, I am an inerrantist.)

There are some events in history that we have contradictory accounts of, but we still affirm the authenticity of the event described. Polybius and Livy both give us contradictions on Hannibal’s crossing of the Alps. However, I don’t know anyone who studies the history of that time who would deny that Hannibal crossed the Alps. (Considering historical relativists today, it’s a shame I have to qualify that statement.)

Let’s also note a point that Loftus does bring mention of. The apparent lack of unity shows that each is writing from their own perspective and thus collusion is not going on. (Remember, these are the same people who claim they borrowed from every other writer and yet on the most important aspect of the story, decided to contradict.)

Michael Martin is quoted as saying “The great differences among post-resurrection appearance stories and the difficulty of reconciling them certainly suggests that oral transmission has generated inaccuracies.” (p. 203)

Let’s note some things about this statement.

First off, to say accounts have great differences is not the same as to say they have great contradictions.

Second, difficulty in reconciling the accounts does not mean that the accounts are either inaccurate or incapable of reconciliation.

Third, because of our inability to unite them, it does not automatically follow that oral transmission has generated inaccuracies. The benefit of the doubt goes to the accounts in studying ancient history.

Finally, if the accounts can be reconciled, then there really isn’t much to Martin’s objection. It just shows that people give up too easily.

Loftus gives us many supposed discrepancies at the beginning. I’ll go on and say that I know there’s a lot residing on the tense of languages in the words and such and I’m not a Greek scholar by any means. I leave such things to those who are. He tells us that Gleason Archer tried and failed. He also says that Simon Greenleaf tried and failed.

It’d be nice to know how they did. Saying “Most scholars disagree” is not enough. As much as I value scholarly opinion, I also value knowing why a scholar believes what he believes. If you’re going to say that Archer is in error, you will have to show how you think he was. He doesn’t have to prove his case as this is history we’re dealing with. History has to piece together the facts that we do have much like evolutionists have to do with the fossil record. (Amazing how the same criticisms of the resurrection work there.)

What does Archer have to do? He has to show that given the information, this is certainly something plausible. Archer isn’t the only one who has done this. It’s been pointed out that Greenleaf did it. Geisler and Howe have made an argument. John Wenham has made an argument. Charles Ryrie has made an argument. Craig Blomberg has made an argument. There are all number of scholars out there who have given scenarios.

For the denier to make his case, he’d have to show how all of them are false and then demonstrate that the accounts hopelessly contradict. So far, I haven’t seen it done. I agree with the scholars who think the differences show their authenticity. For the reader wanting a reconciliation, they can do an internet search or even better, go to their library or Christian bookstore and read on the topic.

Tomorrow, we’ll deal with the argument of if the eyewitnesses are trustworthy.

The first question to ask is “Do we have eyewitness accounts?” (I notice in the section no reference to Bauckham’s work on Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. Somehow, that doesn’t surprise me. Well, let’s look at what Loftus offers and see how good it is.

Now we have to agree, no one was there to see the resurrection. They were there though to see the empty tomb and to see the resurrection appearances and to see the fulfillment of prophecy. Hallucination theories don’t really explain what is going on. However, if Loftus really considers this a problem, I wonder again if he treats the issue the same way with naturalistic evolution.

Now the writings are dated from A.D. 50 to 100. However, in circles of ancient history, this is a blip and it gets even tighter when we get to 1 Cor. 15. Check your liberal scholars even. That account including eyewitness appearances can be dated to within one year of the resurrection event. This is held even by scholars who deny the resurrection.

Loftus asks how much trust we can put in the gospels. He gives 9 reasons.

First off, they’re anonymous.

And I suppose if the name “Matthew” was on the first gospel, that would settle everything….

We have the testimony of the early church fathers on who wrote what. Now if Loftus has some reason to say that they made up the idea of who wrote what, let him argue his case. I don’t see it here though.

Second, they’re composed 40 or more years after the events.

Actually, they’re dated earlier. The later date arises mainly to avoid the accuracy of the Olivet Discourse. However, even at just 40 years, this is still a blip in ancient history.

Third, they’re based on oral tradition.

And Loftus has given us a reason to question oral tradition in what way? These people did not live in an era of post-it notes and cell phones with memories and computers with databases. They learned how to memorize information well and considering someone who reads philosophy, you’d think he’d know this shows up in Plato several times.

Fourth, they contain undeniably fictional elements.

Problem. I deny they’re fictional. It’s only if you come with an a priori assumption against miracles. Loftus should have learned what Chesterton said in his biography on Aquinas. Argue from your opponents presuppositions. Not yours. It does no good to attack miracles for people who do believe in miracles.

Fifth, each with a clear theological bias and apologetic agenda.

Now the first one amazes me. Look at the resurrection accounts. How much theology do you see? There’s hardly any. They don’t tell you about the doctrine of the atonement. That’s in the epistles. They simply state just the facts.

Do they have an agenda? Yes. Every writer writes with an agenda. I might as well discount Loftus’s work since he has one. An agenda can work both ways though. It can make you twist facts or stick closer to them. The best museums on the holocaust are done by Jews. Anyone think they have an agenda? You bet. They want to make sure they get the facts right so it won’t happen again. If one cares about their subject, their agenda can make them be sure to get the facts right. We have to look at the accounts to tell.

Sixth, they contradict many known facts.

This is just like #4 though.

Seventh, They’re inconsistent with each other.

This is the second argument overall in the chapter so it will be dealt with tomorrow night.

Eighth, they have very little corroboration from non-Christian sources.

I wish this had been documented. I don’t expect a non-Christian to say the resurrection happened. They wouldn’t be a non-Christian then. However, the basic facts can be found in writings of non-Christians.

Ninth, Testifying to occurrences which, in any other context, would be regarded as unlikely in the extreme.

In any other context, sure. What about this context though? What about a time prophesied long ago and with a man who just happened to claim deity and just happened to come at that time?

The next point is Mark’s gospel. Why doesn’t it contain resurrection appearances?

Let’s see. Mark is usually an abrupt writer who leaves one in wonder about what will happen next. That’s how he wanted his book to end. The tomb was empty and so Jesus had risen. What happened next? How do we know Mark knew about the resurrection? Passages within the book like Mark 9:9 tell us he did.

Loftus thinks he’s given us reason to doubt whether Jesus is God incarnate and so on that basis, we can disregard John’s account of the appearance to Thomas as most likely never happening. Why think that though? Why have an embarrassing detail about one of the twelve in the account? The way he appeared to Loftus is a vision since the doors were locked.

Or could it rather be the doors were said to be locked to show this was a miracle? How can Jesus be a flesh and blood person and do this?

Geez. The God who created the laws of nature really will have a problem getting through a door like that….

Did Jesus lose all his blood through the wounds? Did he still breathe? It’s these kinds of questions that just really make me wonder. The writers knew what bleeding was. They knew how blood left a person. These are the kinds of arguments that just stretch at incredulity. I’ll repeat the old claim I’ve made several times before. The reason for atheism is not rational. It is emotional.

Tomorrow, we shall deal with the second question as to if the accounts are inconsistent or not.

And now, we get to a crux question again. Did Jesus rise from the dead? This is a long chapter and to do respect again, I simply have to break things up into parts.

Loftus begins by telling us a story of someone coming from Iran who is a follower of a man named Achmed. He claims that Achmed was murdered by the authorites where he lived but rose from the dead. He is the third person of the Trinity incarnate and he did many miracles. He died because God decided that there were too many damned people going to Hell. (One wonders if this is Loftus’s view how many are too many.) Achmed died so that those who never heard will be saved. We are told we would be in the same position as the Roman world because they could not check out the story either.

Eh? That didn’t seem to stop Luke from researching it. Anyone could do so who wanted to. It’d require some work of course, but they could do it.

We are told they believed it though. (Well, some did of course, but Loftus leaves out how many times Paul suffered such as in 2 Cor. 11, which is a Pauline letter you will be hard-pressed to find one who denies that Paul wrote it.) Even in Jerusalem, he met several people who didn’t believe it. Loftus tells us that we would be skeptical because we do not live in an ancient and superstitious world.

There’s our favorite card played again. (Remember, this was the world where Paul was routinely persecuted by these superstitious people.) Now I would be skeptical of this but not for the same reason. I would be skeptical because I know Scripture and I know Jesus died for the sins of the world and since we have the NT, I am skeptical of claims of new revelation. It is a reason I am definitely skeptical of the Mormons that come by now. (I question its historicity also with these Mormons being unable to tell me any independent facts on the BOM that would testify to its truthfulness.) The big one though is that it contradicts Scripture.

Loftus asks how we’d respond if the missionary told us to just believe and not be skeptical, or to pray this prayer and you’ll believe. He then says you’ll understand how he feels when Christians approach him the same way.

I don’t blame him. I have no problem with someone wanting evidence. I have a problem with someone not accepting what evidence they have been given. This is definitely something Christians need to work on.

Sorry Christian friends, but your personal testimony by itself is not evidence. The Mormons have a great testimony that come by here. New Agers will give you testimonies of seeing UFOs with messages from aliens.

Why should I believe yours over theirs? Here’s why. There’s evidence. We have arguments from philosophy, textual criticism, archaeology, history, theology, etc. Now if you want to say “Now that I’ve established a case for Jesus, I’d also like you to know what following Jesus has meant in my own life,” then all is well. No problem. But when you go out on evangelism, be ready with intellectual answers. (C.S. Lewis has suggested when churches go forward that the arguers go first and demolish the intellectual blockades and then let the ones that are probably more empathetic speak.)

We are also told the evidence must be overwhelming. We can simply say “Consider it done.” The evidence was enough for writers like Frank Morison and Simon Greenleaf.

Loftus also states that he finds Christians are accepting of miracles in their own faith but skeptical of those outside them. U

um. No. Not really. I have no problem with a miracle in a non-Christian religion. I have a problem with one that doesn’t have evidence. I don’t accept the Gnostic gospel miracles not because they’re miracles, but because I believe they’re dated late and I don’t believe Gnosticism to be in accord with what I see the historical Jesus teaching. I don’t see the Muslim miracles as valid in the Hadith simply because Muhammad never claimed a miracle but said the Qu’ran was his miracle. I also see his first biography written 135 years after his death.

Now DJ suggests we do a time traveling experiment. Let’s suppose we went back and heard about a man who was a teacher who spoke righteousness. (Loftus leaves out that he claims deity. That’s important.) Let’s suppose that he was sentenced as a blasphemer and crucified. Then let’s suppose that the tomb was found empty and he was claimed to have risen again. Let’s add in some facts.

First off, let’s add in that this guy’s own brother became a believer saying that his brother was the Messiah and even God. (It’d take a lot for most people to think that about their brother.)

Let’s add in that one of the great persecutors of this new movement became a believer.

Let’s add in that there is no reason the apostles would steal the body.

Let’s add in that a resurrection in the middle of time like that of a Messiah figure was unheard of.

Let’s make note that an early creed can be traced to within a year of the event to show that over five hundred believed they saw him alive.

Let’s add in that Jews changed their long-held traditions they believed to be from God because they believed a man who had been crucified for blasphemy had really been vindicated by God himself with a resurrection.

Why yes. It’s believable then. There has not been a better counter-explanation yet.

In fact, let’s note this odd fact Loftus says. “The curious fact is that while the book of Acts says many people believed, most in Jesus’s day did not.” (p. 200)

How can this be? I thought all these people were superstitious and gullible and would believe anything! Instead, they don’t believe it happened. Why is that? Could it be that they had this idea that dead people don’t come back to life? (N.T. Wright makes a powerful case in “The Resurrection of the Son of God” that in the Hellenistic world, that was EXACTLY the case.)

“Why didn’t it convince most people?” Loftus asks. It’s simple.

They weren’t gullible and superstitious.

Really. They were not going to be easily convinced that a blasphemer had been raised from the dead. The evidence would have to be strong, and apparently for some, it certainly was as they put all of eternity on the line with them changing their minds.

All the while, we’re still told they were gullible and would believe based on the sincerity of the storyteller. Which is it?

Tomorrow, we’ll start looking at the questions asked about the resurrection accounts.

Our review of Loftus’s book continues with a look at the atonement. Why did it happen? The theory he chooses to address and I will defend as it’s the one I hold is the penal substitution view. It is the view that Christ took our place on the cross and he received our punishment and we in turn receive his righteousness. There is a brief history of various atonement theories before this (With some left out), but that is not relevant to the point at hand.

He starts out with asking about why this is? If the claim of Christianity is true, then Loftus does admit that he goes to Hell because of his sins. However, what has anyone ever done to deserve that? He states “All through my entire life I have never met, nor even heard of one person, who deserved such a punishment. Never.

I guess that settles it. Judge Loftus has spoken.

I beg to differ of course. First off, let me state my view of Hell. My view is not a fiery torture chamber. It is a place of darkness and isolation. In effect, it is eternal quarantine. God lets people go there and he leaves them alone.  The worst suffering will be internal. People in Hell will know for all eternity that they have blown it.

Now who deserves eternal separation from God?

I see someone every morning when I get up and look in the mirror who does.

And I think this is shocking to some because we’ve lost what sin is.

To begin with, it’s not breaking an abstract rule. It’s violating the person of God. Consider God as the most awesome, holy, good, loving, powerful, intelligent being that there is. As Anselm would say, you can’t conceive of anyone greater than he is.

Sin is telling that one that he is not what he says he is. In fact, every sin is ultimately the sin of Satan. Every sin is choosing your own good over the good of God. In effect, it is you telling yourself that you will be God instead of him. It is divine treason and it cuts one off from the source of goodness and life. God simply cannot allow that sin in his presence.

Now Loftus says that in our modern society we are humane in our punishments. Perhaps we are, and perhaps that is the problem. C.S. Lewis wrote on how we seek to cure criminals rather than punish them long ago.

http://www.angelfire.com/pro/lewiscs/humanitarian.html

The question is, is it just?

Loftus mentions the death penalty. I support it. I know I probably lost some readers for that, but I do. I believe man is in the image of God and to murder a man is an attack on that image of God. I believe the murderer is to pay the price by having his own life be forfeit. Of course, this is when it’s shown beyond the shadow of a doubt that the accused did commit the crime. I have this strange belief that crime should be punished.

Loftus goes on to ask if it’s fair that he suffer eternally for one little white lie.

I’d like to meet the person whose only sin is one little white lie.

Loftus’s sins are at the beginning of his book. I have no need to go into them. My stance has been that they really don’t matter as long as one doesn’t live in them. I think they need to be confessed and repented of and the blame squarely accepted, but after that, I do believe in divine forgiveness. I know my sins and they’re not just little white lies either. We have all lived in constant rebellion against the Almighty and what we get is what we deserve.

Loftus says that we see in Scripture that God is willing to forgive if people will confess.

Yes. Absolutely. Getting out of Hell is quite simple. Just trust Christ. God does desire mercy and not sacrifice, but God is also just. He gives mercy to those who want it.

Loftus also wants to know since he became like us, why he can’t see sin from our perspective.

Let’s not consider that we shouldn’t want God to see it from our perspective. I don’t want him to. I want him to see it from his perspective. Why? It’s the true one. How do I want to view something like myself even? Do I want to see me as I see me or do I want to see me as God sees me? It would obviously be the latter because that would be the true view.

Now we may intend God no wrong in sinning, but it does not matter. We have sinned and it cannot be ignored. Even Levitical Law had a sacrifice for unintentional sins. Death was still the price. (And frankly, I know I’ve committed sins in the past knowing they were sins and I seriously doubt anyone reading my blog is in a different position.)

For the third one, did Jesus pay an infinite price? First off, Jesus did pay the price. Hebrews tells us that. The Son went and offered up his blood in the holiest sanctuary of all and God was pleased. What was the one who offered the sacrifice allowed to do with what was offered to him? Whatever he wanted. God restored the sacrifice he was given of the Son and glorified him.

How does this work? I can only imagine that on some level, there is an eternal reality in God of what happened on the cross. The Son is spoken of as the lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world. Do I understand this entirely? Of course not. I doubt anyone does. It doesn’t mean though that I throw out the whole thing as nonsensical. (Makes you wonder if since there’s no understood theory of naturalistic evolution out there why that isn’t thrown out as well.)

The next point is that supposedly, forgiveness doesn’t require punishment.

On a human court, that’s true, however, there are still consequences. If someone hits my car for instance, I can forgive them and tell them not to worry, but that car will still be damaged and someone will still have to fix it. On a divine level, we are violating justice itself and the price for being cut off from life is death. Someone has to die. God can’t put his holiness on a secondary level. He must treat himself as the greatest good of all.

So what happens at the cross? His justice is satisfied and his mercy is offered to all.

The fifth objection is really along the same lines.

He then asks if we die outside of the faith, what reason does God have to punish us?

Ooooooh. Let me guess.

We’re sinners?

Sounds like a good reason to me.

And yes, God does understand us perfectly and he does know about the moral law on our hearts. If there were any circumstances that put the sin in a lesser degree, God would know them better than we would. In the end, there is no one biblically who will be able to say “It was not fair.” Creation shows us that God exists plainly and the moral law on our hearts tells us that some things are right and some are wrong.

Loftus also asks where sin abides in us. This is one of those things that just makes me wonder what kind of theology was being taught. Sin is an action. Actions do not abide in us. They affect our character though and our souls. The same happens with good actions. It is those of us that do not choose to live to be what we were meant to be who get eternity apart from God.

Another theory is commented on later, but it is not the atonement theory I hold, thus I will stick to what has been said thus far. I do not find anything here that really gives me pause. I look and see “Did Jesus die on the cross? Did he rise from the dead?” Then even if I don’t understand it all, I understand that it does work, for God has told us so himself.

We now conclude today our look at Loftus’s chapter on this doctrine with his look at the idea of Thomas Morris relating to the essential properties of deity and the essential properties of humanity and the common properties of humanity. Is this a way to reconcile the humanity of Christ and the deity of Christ?

To begin with, Loftus speaks of how this means that the second person of the Trinity is forevermore in a body. He writes, “I just find this whole thing troublesome and implausible, even if it may not be logically contradictory. If the human nature of Jesus is forever linked to the second person of the Trinity, then the full Trinity now includes a man, that is, the human side of Jesus, the man.” (P.188)

Wow. I guess that settles it then.

I wonder if we can try this on other ideas….

“I just find this idea of naturalistic evolution troublesome and implausible, even if it may not be logically contradictory.”

The question to ask is what is this implausibility based on? I find naturalistic evolution implausible because of the anthropic principle, the design I see in the human body, the improbability of these things coming about by chance, and the idea I find contradictory of an effect being greater than its cause with rationality coming from non-rationality.

So what’s the implausibility of Jesus remaining in a body based on?

Loftus says this is to be believed even though the Bible says “God is Spirit.” (John 4:24)

This is the point where the Trinitarian says Jesus is fully God but God is not fully Jesus.

What do I mean? I mean that Jesus is not the Trinity. When the Trinitarian says “Jesus is God”, he is using theological shorthand. It’s a lot easy for us to say “Jesus is God” than to endlessly say “Jesus fully partakes of the nature of deity” every time. Unfortunately, the danger with shorthand is some people don’t realize what it’s shorthand for. The Father and the Spirit are not incarnate. It is only the Son.

Loftus says that the second possibility is that after the ascension, there are now two beings rather than one. There is the human Jesus and the second person of the Trinity. The second person of the Trinity discarded his human form to live forever unhindered. Loftus says that incoherence sets in at this point along this route though.

No. Incoherence set in at the beginning of that argument….

So how does the idea of Jesus being human work with this? In classical Trinitarianism, it is that Jesus, in essence, gave up for a time the divine prerogative of his abilities. It is as if he played with one hand tied behind his back. He was allowed to know that which was essential for his mission. Suppose it was said he had an advantage the rest of us don’t have.

It seems that would mean why he would be the one who would have to do the mission….

When talking about Jesus to sin, is there a problem with saying Jesus was tempted in his humanity? Not at all. Temptation is rarely about totally evil desires. The temptations of Jesus were more often about good things than bad things. It was the method that was the problem. The problem was not having stones turned to bread. The problem was selfishness. The problem was not getting people to see he was the Messiah. It was bypassing the cross. It was not having all the kingdoms of the world. It was coming about that the wrong way.

And let’s look at the supposed sin of Jesus.

He was racist with a Canaanite woman. (Apparently, so racist he complimented her on her great faith and healed her daughter. Yeah. Racists do that.)

He said no one is good but God alone, which was addressed last time.

He apparently disrespected his parents. (Mark 3:31-35 and Luke 14:26)

Actually, in the former, he was pointing out the relationship of being in the body of Christ is more important than blood relationships. In the latter, he was saying the cost of being a disciple. He was not telling people to literally hate their parents. (You really have to wonder about all these people who use this passage and think Jesus literally wanted me to call home and say “Hi Mom. I hate you.”)

Last, he used violence in the temple.

Because we all know using violence is always a bad thing….

Loftus seems to think that if God was omnisciently aware of all the thoughts of someone’s mind and prevented them from sin, then that person would be another case of God incarnate.

I’m tempted to say “A prize to anyone who can figure out how that leap was made.”

The chapter continues with more of this same kind of thing though and the final conclusion of “We should reject the incarnation.” Why? It’s rested on historical claims and those are open to all sorts of interpretations. (And apparently, from the sources we’ve seen, only liberal scholarship has the proper interpretation of those claims.)

I believe we have historical reasons to believe Jesus is who he said he was and did what the NT said he did. Do I fully understand the incarnation? Of course not. I doubt anyone does. It’s something enjoyable to think about and ponder about though. However, not understanding something does not mean that that something is false. It simply means our finite minds are limited.

We shall continue with the next chapter tomorrow.

My apologies to readers last night. I thought I had hit the post button and I hadn’t so I didn’t get the post up until this morning. Hopefully, we’re back on schedule now. Tonight’s post could be short as Loftus’s last objection is covered in a page and tomorrow, we’ll look at his response to Tom Morris’s response.

The third objection is that the belief of a fully God and fully man Jesus has never been consistently defined, explained, or defended. Loftus goes to the Chalcedon understanding of Christ, which is the right place to go to, but he does not find the answer there given satisfactory.

Let’s be clear on something. This belief is difficult. It is hard for us to understand. That does not make it false. If saying a belief has never been explained means it can’t be true, then we can just as well ask questions that atheists have not been able to explain well either such as the origin of the universe.

Let’s look at the four conceptual problems he presents to the incarnation.

#1-God is necessarily uncreated but humans are created. Therefore, Jesus is created and uncreated.

Yes. People who study philosophy and theology are somehow capable of making such statements….

I hope no one has a hard time answering this one as it’s really quite simple. Jesus’s humanity was created and his deity was uncreated. He took on the additional created nature of humanity in the incarnation in addition to his uncreated nature of deity. I am just marveled that someone can’t see that.

#2-God is necessarily omniscient and humans are not.

Jesus in his humanity was not omniscient. I don’t think anyone would say otherwise. In his deity though, he was. Let’s also be clear on something else. Humans are commonly not omniscient, but that does not mean it’s impossible for someone who possesses human nature to also be omniscient.

#3-God is morally perfect and cannot be tempted, but Jesus was tempted.

All one has to do is look at the James passage to see what it is talking about. The passage is saying that you cannot tempt God in that God cannot be tempted from within. Psalm 78:41, 78:56, and 106:14 even say that the Israelites tempted God. Jesus was tempted from without, but he was not tempted from within.

#4-God is omnipresent, but Jesus as a human being was not.

It’s so convenient when the other side answers the objections for you. That is it. Jesus as a human was not. As God, he was. As human, he was not.

Friends. I hope no one was fazed by these arguments. These are the kinds of arguments I see usually from people who don’t understand the deity of Christ. They’re simple and easily answered.

We’ll look at more tomorrow.

We now continue with the second objection of Loftus that comes from John Hick. This states that we can trace how the deity of Christ came about from his followers as a way of expressing Lordship over the gods and goddesses of the Roman Empire.

He starts by telling us the views of the Messiah and how surely a view of the Messiah would not involve the Messiah being God incarnate.

Most views I know of didn’t involve the Messiah being crucified either….

Never mind that there were Jewish works that spoke very highly of the Messiah in such exalted terms. Never mind that the Trinitarian concept does fit in quite well in the Old Testament. Never mind that we can’t go just by what was expected but we must go by what was received.

What of the title Son of God? The term is used also in Proverbs 30:4 and is a good reference to keep in mind. However, in the New Testament, when Jesus claimed to be the Son of the Blessed One, his opponents understood exactly what it was he was saying. “Son of God” by itself would not show deity. It is in conjunction with what was going on at the time.

The next reference is to Paul in the Romans and how the language was moving towards deification. (Interesting that the supposed later gospel Mark did not have this but the earlier epistle did…) We have passages though like Romans 9:5 where Jesus is called God by Paul. Then, there’s the conjunction of Romans 10:9 and 10:13 with calling Jesus “Lord” and that referring to Joel 2:32, a prophecy about YHWH.

On a side note we have the clash supposedly of Paul’s visits to Jerusalem in the writings of Paul and Luke. I believe though it was Robert Stein who addressed this long ago saying that in the text, Paul is indicated as the companion of Barnabas one time and not the others, thus referring to Paul taking a leadership position for the visits that he writes about.

Next, we have Galatians 1:11-22 quoted by Loftus where he says Paul claimed to be taught the gospel by Revelation. (If you have the book, do check pages 186-187 for this.) In the very passage Loftus quotes, here’s what Paul says. “Nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”

Did this happen? Galatians indicates that Paul got the right hand of fellowship. Yes. There were some differences worked out, but these were on secondary issues. As far as the gospel was concerned, Paul was okay.

It is amusing that since Paul preached in the Roman Empire that he would try to color Jesus by making him a god in human form. Loftus says that Paul said he’d become all things to all people to win some. (1 Cor. 9:22)

Friends. There are some statements that are so ridiculous that not much more needs to be said. That’s one of them.

In conclusion, there is just more of the same assumptions here and nothing about how Jesus fits into the idea of Jesus as God’s wisdom. 1 Cor. 1:24 refers to Jesus as the power and wisdom of God. Let’s make the syllogism using wisdom.

Jesus is God’s wisdom.

God’s wisdom is eternal.

Jesus is eternal then.

An already high view of Paul. Could it be it happened so quickly because that’s what Jesus claimed?

We’ll look at objection three tomorrow.

We’re going to start looking at the question of “Was Jesus God Incarnate?” I’m assuming that for the sake of argument, Loftus is willing to drop his atheism on this and assume that the God of the Jews did exist. Is he truly the one that revealed himself in a unique way in the person of Christ?

The arguments come from John Hick. The first is that the idea that Jesus believed he was God in the flesh were written into the gospels after the Easter event.

The first point is backed in the beginning by saying meeting Jesus was a conversion experience. To see his conviction and the miracles and the way he lived would lead people to believe that God was indeed in this person.

I’m skeptical of that. It seems most of the disciples didn’t really understand that until later on. It also seems that the ruling Jewish authorities had no problem believing that claim and when Jesus did claim deity openly, then the Jews who understood the claim picked up stones to stone him.

What of the next reference to “No one is good but God alone?” that is said to the rich young man. We’re told this makes sense only if Jesus isn’t God. (It’s odd. These gospels written to supposedly add in that Jesus is God all of a sudden make claims that only make sense if Jesus isn’t God. Which way were the gospel writers writing?)

Actually, it makes sense if Jesus is God. Jesus is in effect saying to the rich young man, “By calling me good, you are giving me the title of deity. Do you really want to do that? Are you ready to follow me to that level of commitment?” Unfortunately for the man, he didn’t seem to be ready.

Somehow, affirming that Jesus was Jewish is supposed to go against this belief. Other Jewish writings though had no problem with multiplicity of persons in the Godhead or of God being in the form of a man. I just still wonder which is it? The Jews earlier would have believed that God was in this man but now, because they were Jews, they wouldn’t believe such.

The dates of the gospels to show a progression are the common liberal ones which, as is common, have no backing. They are merely assumed. (Generally, out of an antisupernaturalistic bais.) This is naturally followed by saying that these superstitious people took only 70 years to deify Christ. Gotta love these superstitious ideas constantly eh?

G.K. Chesterton once said in the Everlasting Man that no one said to Buddha, “Are you the void?” No one said to Confucius, “Are you the Heavens?” If Muhammad had been asked if he was Allah, he would have said the person saying such was an infidel. No one ever asked Moses if he was YHWH. The only reason someone would think that Jesus was God then is that he himself made that claim.

There’s naturally the idea that the gospels progressed over time. Mark has little of Jesus’s deity in it while Matthew adds in things. First off, I’m not convinced that Mark was the first one written. Second, Mark is a more abrupt writer so expect things for him to be short and quick. Third, Matthew is writing to a different audience so expect him to emphasize statements more.

In Mark 2, Jesus claims to forgive sin which is a statement of deity. In Mark 14, he says that he will be seen coming on the clouds of Heaven. That is a reference to deity and the Sanhedrin understood it as such. The deity of Christ can be found in each of the four canonical gospels.

As for the term, “The Jews” in John’s gospel, one only needs to look at the context of the saying. When spoken negatively, it often refers to the leadership. The reader is to understand what exactly is meant each time. In fact, other Jewish writers did the exact same thing, such as Josephus.

Why are the sayings in John not found in others? John is a work of contrast unlike the others contrasting the Christian community from the community of outsiders. There is a tension constantly seen in John and when Jesus proclaims his identity, things don’t go well. The claims of deity are in the other gospels just as much.

Unfortunately, Loftus continues point one with more of the same and there seems to be no need to address what has already been dealt with. Tomorrow, we shall deal with the second argument of Hick that Loftus presents.

We continue our look today with the look at the birth narratives of Christ which have earlier been claimed to be contradictory, although no contradictions were given. Let’s take a look and see and keep in mind that it speaks much of how Christ was viewed that a birth narrative even exists. In the huge majority of ancient biographies, you will find nothing about the birth and/or childhood of a person.

The first aspect to deal with is the star. What was it? The consensus is not in on this one yet. I lean towards an alignment of the planets in this case. I’m open to change though. Why didn’t everyone else see it? Well who says that they didn’t? They might have seen it and thought nothing of it. It could have been something only the astrologers would notice. (And astrology was not esteemed too much in Israel.)

Was he born in Bethlehem? We have no reason to think he wasn’t even in Luke. We are told that if we take Luke literally, we can’t say that. Now I am frankly puzzled by that since the Luke account does say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem? I leave it then to give the author the benefit of the doubt and as we’ve studied more, it seems Luke got more and more right we’re finding each time. He would have been familiar with the procedures of the time and why they were done.

Again, Loftus makes a reference to contradictions in the text citing another author. (Robin Lane Fox in the Unauthorized Version.) It should be noted though that something that is not understood is not a contradiction. It will have to be demonstrated what the error is and that will be done by showing what really happened. One looks at the assertions about Matthew being wrong, but one doesn’t find any supporting evidence for it. It is merely an assertion.

As for the hometown of Mary and Joseph, what exactly is the problem? The text simply says that after the family returned from Egypt, they lived in Nazareth. Could it be they simply stayed where Jesus was born for a time and then fled to Egypt and when they came back, they went to their hometown?

Much is made about Mary asking the angel how she can conceive since she knows not a man. The author, Ranke-Heinemann says this has to be made up since she said “man” instead of “husband.” Simple reason. Mary wasn’t married then. She was legally engaged so she didn’t know a man yet. (And Joseph would qualify as one.)

And of course, there’s the silence on the virgin birth in the Pauline epistles, the gospel of John, and the gospel of Mark. (For the record, none of these mention the Sermon on the Mount either.) Why did people in the adult community not know about the virgin birth? Simple guess? You think they would have believed it? They weren’t gullible after all….

As for the translation of Almah and Isaiah 7:14, that is best left to the experts in Greek and Hebrew grammar. I don’t claim to be one. An excellent look at it though can be found in Robert Reymond’s work “Jesus: Divine Messiah.” (An excellent book to read anyway.) I will say the mode of interpretation is pesher.  (I urge the reader to look that up himself or herself to learn about it.)

Finally, it ends with science. How can Jesus be a human being? Since we know it takes a male sperm and a female egg now, how could Jesus be human if he didn’t have a human sperm?

Yes everyone. Keep in mind that if you believe that God created the universe, he’s really going to have to work extra hard to make one sperm cell to fertilize an egg. Modern genetics doesn’t do any damage whatsoever to the idea of the virgin birth. We call it a miracle for a reason.

Tomorrow, we start looking at the deity of Christ.

If anyone has ever heard William Lane Craig debate, you know what argument #5 is for the truth of Christianity and that is the internal witness of the Holy Spirit. I’ve heard several audio debates of Craig. (Unfortunately, I have yet to meet him. He’s one of few I haven’t met yet and I look forward to the day.) I cannot imagine anyone as an atheist wanting to go against Craig with his sharp mind and encyclopedic knowledge.

Yet on this point, I disagree.

Loftus doesn’t think much of this argument and frankly, neither do I. Readers of my blog are probably not surprised to hear that seeing as I have written much on the idea of hearing the voice of God and feeling led by the Spirit. I am greatly concerned with what I call Pop Christianity that promises things as normative that were never meant to be as normative which leads many to apostasy.

By the way, I also consider that happened to Loftus as he wonders why it is in a church that the Holy Spirit is not giving the proper interpretation of the text of Scripture to each person. This is not the role of the Holy Spirit in biblical interpretation. The Spirit convicts you on the text, but does not tell you what it means. Loftus counts this as something that led to his doubt.

Of course, I think of being in meetings where the church is trying to decide and the vote is to be to how the Spirit leads each person. Unfortunately, it seems the Holy Spirit cannot make up his mind as the vote is far from unanimous. It seems that if people really think they’re hearing from God, why can’t one person say when the vote comes “This is the one God wants.” This is an awfully dangerous idea.

Hence, I don’t really like to base religious decision on feelings. Religion can produce feelings, but it is not about feelings. I think the same thing applies to marriage. Being in love produces feelings, but in our society, I fear we have reached the point where if the feeling is not there, then it is not love.

Now do I have any suggestions for another fifth argument?

My first choice would really be the argument from beauty. I find aesthetic experiences to be something universal and we all seem to know some things that we consider beautiful and anyone who would deny that that is beautiful, well they just don’t know what they’re talking about.

However, we could speak about the testimony of the changed lives of people. We could give examples of prayers that have been answered. We could talk about how society has changed for the better due to the coming of Christianity. The fifth argument as it stands now is just something I cannot support.

Now do I support Dr. Craig? Of course I do! He’s a marvel I’d still love to meet. However, I just can’t say I agree with the fifth argument. I’d prefer something that I think the non-Christian can see in some way. When the Christian is in doubt about Christianity, they don’t need to look for a feeling. They need to look at the rational ideas that they know. (I find when I am in doubt, it is emotion taking over and the rational is downplayed.) If feelings come, fine. If not, that’s fine also. Christ is still Lord.