Paulogia on the Resurrection Part 3

Was Paul ridden with guilt? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We’re continuing our look at Paulogia that can be found here and today, points 7-9 will be covered.

Point 7 is that the story of Jesus spread orally with the emphasis being on recruiting new members to the movement instead of transmitting accurate history.

Paulogia appears to paint this as an either-or. It seems unheard of that you could recruit new members to the movement by transmitting accurate history. The implicit assumption is “If we tell the history accurately, we won’t get members” and “If we want to get members, we need to downplay the history.” Of course, there is no interaction with how oral societies communicate their stories.

There’s still nothing also on why this story. Why tell stories about a crucified Messiah? If you’re trying to embellish and rewrite the history, then surely one of the first statements you would want to eliminate is crucifixion. You could have resurrection without crucifixion. Jesus went into Pilate’s residence at the head of a mob and was killed in the attempt, but He was resurrected as a hero of the movement. Nope. Jesus suffers the capital penalty that was the worst in shame at the time.

Paulogia also says that the Gospels weren’t written until decades later. I suspect he is thinking of the communication being like a game of telephone with individuals talking to individuals, when it would be more stories being told in group settings. The groups would have certain members in them who would make sure the stories were told accurately. There is no interaction with people like Dunn or McIver or Bailey or others on oral communication as was said.

Now we get to Paul who had a non-veridical vision of the allegedly-resurrected Jesus. And what was the cause of that vision? Let’s say it all together boys and girls!

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE!

Yes, it’s that magic term atheists like to throw out when they don’t know anything else to say. Paulogia also compares this to PTSD. Over what? Who knows?

To get to Cognitive Dissonance again, there is no reading of someone like Festinger. There is an allegation that Paul is wrestling with guilt, but that is just Paulogia throwing his own culture onto the Biblical one. In the Biblical one, as in many honor-shame cultures, behavior was done to earn the approval of the group or some other external source, such as God, and was not based on internal feelings or conscience.

What does Paul have guilt over? Killing Christians? He would have seen that as a service to God. Paulogia also says he wanted a new purpose in life, because obviously rising up the ranks in Jewish society and being an up and coming star in that field was just not worth it. Obviously, he needed to attach himself to this shameful group that gave him persecutions instead.

As for Paul being prone to hallucinations, again, this is Paulogia’s stance. Evidence they were hallucinations? Well, that doesn’t happen. Why? Because there is no God that can provide visions? If so, that is part of the claim that needs to be demonstrated. Readers know I have plenty of times made my case for theism here.

Finally, Paul met the apostles, but they did not see eye to eye. Paulogia says this explains the lack of information about Jesus’s ministry in his epistles. Once again, Paulogia is pressing his own low-context culture on a high-context society. In a high-context society, background knowledge on the part of the reader is assumed. (It would be ironic if we found out that Paulogia also complains about alleged Christian bigotry after he has pushed his own ideas of how society works onto the Biblical culture.)

Paulogia also says that this is evidence Paul’s visit was not to talk about the life of Jesus. Yes. Because obviously, when he met with the apostles and conferred with them, they were just talking about the weather or all that time or perhaps how the Jumping Jehoshophats were going to do in taking down the Egyptian Eagles in that year’s chariot races.

So once again, we have nothing but weak cases from Paulogia that run on speculation upon speculation and ignore the culture of the time.

We’ll look at the rest of the work tomorrow.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Paulogia on the Resurrection Part 2

How well-known was Jesus after His death? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Continuing the look at Paulogia, the next point he wishes to make from here is that before the crucifixion Jesus had some followers, but most of them disappeared from reliable history aside from Peter, never to be heard from again.

So many vague terms here.

Paulogia refers to self-serving and fanciful church traditions here (Not sure what that means entirely.), Paulogia says that only Peter and John really get mentioned in the narrative. He does say that Sean McDowell says that Peter is the only member of the twelve whom we have a high degree of probability for with regard to martyrdom. It has been awhile since I read that book, but even granted that, what follows from that?

When it comes to what we have from the ancient world, what we have to have to get to us is that first, someone observed it, then someone wrote it, then it managed to be copied, then it somehow lasted to our times. Sometimes this is difficult and we know that there are many books that have been lost to history. The writings of Papias come to mind as an example.

Yet despite this, I wonder what Paulogia means by disappeared into history. Does it mean that they had no impact? Are the only lives worth recording those who were martyred? Paulogia leaves too much unclear on this point.

Paulogia’s fifth point is that after the death of Jesus, Peter was distraught and experienced a bereavement hallucination.

Okay. How do we know he was distraught?

Paulogia might say “Wouldn’t you be if the man you thought was the Messiah was gone?” Maybe, or maybe Peter was more “I can’t believe I spent around three years of my life following this fraud!” We don’t know his psychological state. There is a reason psychohistory has by and large been abandoned. I have been in therapy and still am and it’s hard enough to diagnose someone who you are talking to in person. Doing it with someone in history is more difficult.

Besides that, even if Peter was having a hallucination, the ancient world was familiar with bereavement hallucinations. It never led to them thinking that the person was alive again. One would also think that surely by the time Peter is being crucified he would be saying “You know, that probably was a hallucination.” Normally unless someone is in advanced stages of dementia or has a psychiatric disorder of some kind, they know when they have had a hallucination.

The next part is that James joined the movement after as well as John. But why James? Paulogia suggests social contagion, but why should anyone think this? What would it take to convince you that your brother was alive again and not only was alive, but was the Son of God?

He also suggests maybe James took over the family business. What business? James is never declared to be the Messiah even though he would have been an obvious pick. James is mentioned a number of times in Acts, but he is certainly not a highlighted figure in comparison to Peter and Paul.

Thus we conclude reasons 4-6 and what do we find but more of the same kind of material?

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Paulogia on the Resurrection Part 1

Why does this story exist? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Someone sent me this wanting a reply to it. I looked through and thought it was just something pretty basic. Then I take another look and realize it’s Paulogia. He is a somewhat well-known figure on the interwebz. In this, he is responding to Gary Habermas. Apparently, Habermas says at the end of his first volume on the resurrection that few scholars are really standing up to the data. I have a copy, but with schoolwork going on, I have not read it yet. It’s amusing though to think that if this is the case and scholars aren’t putting forward these theories, that Paulogia thinks he can.

At any rate, I do not know if Habermas has even heard of Paulogia. I am sure Habermas probably wouldn’t even really bother with a response. That being said, I do know Habermas and I am sure he would be fine with me giving an answer for him.

Paulogia also quotes Bart Ehrman saying that any scenario, no matter how unlikely, is to be preferred over the one where a miracle occurs. This has powerful rhetorical flair, but at the same time, it shows that really, Ehrman is not going to be responsive to the evidence. It is saying “I do not care how much evidence you pile up. Anything else is more likely than a miracle.”

Does Paulogia really want to go that route? I have written about that here.

Again, if this is the case, then if Paulogia agrees, then he is saying he does not really care about evidence. No matter how much you bring up, he will always go with the non-miraculous case. That being said, Paulogia will now be responding to the idea that you can explain the existence of the church without the resurrection.

At the start, something that needs to be said is that Paulogia explains the story that we have. Never explained is why do we have this story? Why was it told this way? After all, a far easier story would be “Yes. He was crucified, but we believe that God has exalted Him for His righteousness and He is now sitting at the right hand of God and is ruling as king.” No resurrection would be needed. No promise of a return or second coming (I differentiate between the two) would be needed. It would also be a story that no one could really refute. Seriously. How would you begin to refute something like that?

Yet the church did not go with that story. Odd. Yet that aspect is something Paulogia never explains. I also do not see any indication that Paulogia understands the concepts of honor and shame. As we will see going through this, Paulogia unsurprisingly comes to the culture of Scripture and superimposes his own culture onto it.

Also, this will be a multi-part series.

So at the start, Paulogia argues that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher. From this, he will get no complaint from me. I have read and reviewed Ehrman’s Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium on this blog. I have also reviewed his most recent work Armageddon with part one being here.

Paulogia goes to a few Scriptural passages here. The first worth mentioning is in the Olivet Discourse. While I went through Matthew, there is enough similarities in it to compare it to the Marcan version and you can find the start of that here. It’s worth pointing out that in the two Ehrman books, he nowhere mentions orthodox Preterism.

How about the transfiguration? There’s a claim about people seeing the Kingdom of God come with power before that. Is that referring to the transfiguration? Well, not exactly. Finally, what about what Jesus said when before the Sanhedrin about seeing the Son of Man coming on the clouds? This is a reference to Jesus’s second coming, not His return. He is talking about coming to the throne. Note, He is coming and sitting both. It’s not as if Caiaphas will one day look outside his window and see Jesus riding a nimbus cloud like he’s Kid Goku.

By the way, I suppose it is likely Paulogia has late dates for Gospels like Matthew and Luke. Some do date Mark to before 70. So if he dates these this way, why? Why would something be published after the fact saying Jesus will come before this generation passed away? There are a number of options.

  1. The Gospel writers were massive idiots who didn’t realize they had shown Jesus as a false prophet in their own writings.
  2. The Gospel writers wrote after the fact and knew that Jesus’s coming to His throne had already happened as He said. (See all my writings on the Olivet Discourse)
  3. The Gospel writers wrote before the events and trusted they would happen as Jesus prophesied, but if that’s the case then the Gospels are early and within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses.

The second part is that Jesus did something to get Himself arrested and He died by crucifixion. No complaint here.

So now we come to the third one where there will be serious pushback and after this we will wrap up for the night.

This is that the resting place of the body of Jesus was unknown to His followers. Paulogia says that the body would have been left on the cross as Romans did this. However, Craig Evans has a strong case in Jesus and the Remains of His Day that burial of crucified victims was allowed in Judea in peacetime. (We even have found one such victim.) This was done for the sake of Jewish sensitivities.

Jody Magness has also said that the Gospel accounts of the burial of Jesus are consistent with first century burial practices. When Ehrman wrote on this topic in How Jesus Became God, he did not cite any scholars on Jewish burial practices. That is quite a shame.

He says that Mary would not have the means to bury Jesus, which is likely so, but he says nothing about Joseph of Arimathea. Why should I not accept the account? It is consistent. As he says, the Sanhedrin would have responsibility for the body and Joseph would come forward to do what he can. I can understand Paulogia not believing that account. I cannot understand his ignoring it.

Paulogia then says Jesus would have been buried in a burial ground for condemned criminals. Okay. Even if we granted that, how does he get to that therefore it would be unknown to the followers of Jesus where He was buried? Absolutely no one would know? No one on the Sanhedrin would show them? One would think they would want to do this to gloat and shame. “See? He’s buried here right next to the criminals! Go and look for yourself!” Are we to think absolutely no one in Jerusalem, a city swarming with people for Passover, saw what happened? You have a guy who is probably the most well-known figure in the area being publicly crucified and then hours later, no one knows where his body is?

Color me unconvinced.

That’s it for today. We’ll look at parts 4-6 tomorrow.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Mackie, Design, And E.T.

What would it mean if we found alien life? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I am going through atheist J.L. Mackie’s The Miracle of Theism now and really, not finding his arguments persuasive. I recently read the chapter on design. Generally, I don’t really use design arguments, at least not as understood today. By the way, if you say the oldest version of design goes back to Hume, I consider that a problem. Sadly, Mackie does say that early on.

One objection often raised is that of alien life and the supposed lack thereof in the universe. I know there are plenty of people who think there are aliens out there, but at this point, the scientific community has no certain evidence of it. As far as we know, most of the universe is uninhabited.

So on p. 141, Mackie points out that if there are countless planetary systems out there and there is life on only one, ours, it is not a surprise that we are here to observe that. The idea can be that if there is one planet that has life, then of course, that there is life on that planet is not a shock. If you deal out enough cards in poker, do not be surprised when eventually someone gets a royal flush.

The idea often given with this and could be what Mackie has in mind as well is that if there was a designer of the universe, surely life would be more common.

If God designed the universe, there would be life everywhere.
Life is not everywhere.
Therefore, God did not design the universe.

Of course, the problematic part of this syllogism is the first premise. That is the one that needs to be backed. That could be a fascinating blog to do sometime, but for now, I wish to instead comment on another point.

On p. 144, he goes to Paley’s watch argument. As an aside here, not all design arguments are meant to be like Paley’s. Ancient and medieval philosophers used design arguments, but it was not about the internal make-up of something so much as about order in the universe, a claim I find much more fascinating.

To get back to the argument of Mackie, he says that if we found a watch somewhere, we would likely think it is designed. However, if we found watches on the seashore at the same rate we found seashells of if we went on dry land and found them at the same rate we find insects, it would not be as impressive. An abundance of watches would work against design.

If there are an abundance of watches, it is less likely that there is design.
There are an abundance of watches.
Therefore, it is less likely that they are designed.

Yet look at these two arguments together.

If there is a lack of life then that counts against design.

If there is an abundance of watches, that counts against design.

Now yes, one is about watches and one is about life, but the principle is the same behind them both and this is the problem. I do acknowledge C.S. Lewis pointed this out years ago, but it struck me as an example of today. If however the evidence comes out, it is an argument against design, then it becomes “Heads I win, tails you lose.”

If you are wanting my opinion, I am not making either argument nor am I arguing against any argument. What I am arguing against is the idea that whatever way the wind blows, it will support your claim. I also freely accept many Christians can do this as well with our own claims. We need to watch ourselves too.

And finally, the best design arguments are the older ones, but they are much older than Hume.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Your Husband Thinks You’re Beautiful. Accept It.

Can you accept a compliment? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

My pastor gave a sermon Sunday on marriage and he talked about how men have a great need for respect and women for love. No problem there. He also said that men need to regularly tell their wives that they think that they are beautiful.

I agree with all of this. I had no beef with the sermon, but I do have a concern that many men do this and many women resist it and this is a problem. Keep in mind that I am speaking about an all things being equal marriage and I am not at all talking about one where a spouse is abusive.

I still subscribe to marriage blogs and recently, the XY Code had a blog about the truth on your husband thinking you are beautiful. When he says it, you can usually expect that he means it. Of course, men don’t help their case if they regularly talk about how beautiful the actress on TV is or have a problem with pornography, but neither one of those means he doesn’t think his own wife is beautiful.

Unfortunately, we live in an age of Instagram where everyone puts their best pictures on social media. How many women will post a picture of themselves when they first get up in the morning and have bed hair, for example? What you see of people on social media is usually their very best.

I remember this being a struggle in my marriage. I regularly told my ex-wife she was beautiful, no matter what changes she went through, and I meant it every time I said it. There was only one woman who turned my head and I did not speak about others. I had promised to one and wanted to turn all my desires to that one. The problem was she had a hard time believing it.

Ladies. If your husband tells you you are beautiful and you say no, many problems are going on in that situation.

First, you are telling him that he is either a liar or deluded. Now you could say hypothetically that maybe you are not beautiful and he is deluded, but while he could be mistaken, he cannot be mistaken in that that is what he thinks. Why not just accept it? Why not be thankful you married a man who thinks you are beautiful? He chose you out of all the women in the world after all! If you call him a liar, you are building up distrust between you and him.

Second, you are damaging yourself. You are permitting yourself to insult yourself. Why? What are you gaining by that? Note that this is not saying you should not do things to take care of yourself. There is no problem with saying “I am beautiful, but I also need to go to the gym and watch what I eat and take better care of myself.”

Third, you are also teaching your husband to not compliment you. What husband will want to compliment his wife if it leads to an argument every time he does so? Why would he want to say you are beautiful if he ends up being put on trial for doing that? Men are fast learners in this area. If we do something and we just get chastisement for it, we learn to not do that. (Ask a man to wash the dishes and if your first words to him when he is done are criticism, he will realize he should not do that anymore.)

So in the end, you are calling your husband a liar. You are insulting yourself. You are shutting down future compliments and then wondering why your husband does not pay attention to you or call you beautiful.

This is not to say men do not have areas, but this is one that I want to address. I know many men who have had the exact same struggle I have. You would be surprised if you took the time to listen to know just how much your husband really loves you and treasures you and wants you to know that. I hope I can do that again with a special lady who yes, I will say is beautiful.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Is God Doing What We Say He’s Doing?

Should these claims be made lightly? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

As a divorced man seeking to remarry, I am on a number of dating sites. I sit down at my computer and see an email from Christian Mingle saying to trust in God’s plan. The problem with that to some extent is that we have no idea what that plan is.

Now I know overall all things work together for good to them that love the Lord. Certainly, but beyond that, the details are not known. I pray His plan for me includes remarriage and to not walk this journey alone. It is a hope, but I cannot say that I know.

I bring this up because too many times people do speak and they speak so flippantly about many matters. It is thrown into casual conversation without any basis whatsoever. If someone wants something and we think it is good for them, well God has that in mind for you. I would love to know for sure when people say to me “God has someone for you.” The thing is unless that has been revealed by divine revelation, they do not know that. Far better is a simple “I will pray you find someone.” (Also really good would be, let me introduce you to this girl I know…)

I also see this in churches. I have been in several churches in my time and regularly, I see this happen and I always inwardly cringe some. I want to ask “How do you know?”

This has happened in churches that are not even Protestant. I used to regularly attend an Orthodox Church with my ex-wife. They were lovely people there and I think about them sometimes still, but I also remember hearing people say in the service something like “And God opened this door for us” and so many other statements. Maybe He did, but do you know that?

My concern here is when we say these kinds of statements, we can claim to speak when God has not spoken. If God has not spoken, we have in essence taken His name in vain. We do not know what is going on in the divine throne room. Of course, God can reveal that to anyone that He wants to at any time, but color me skeptical that that is what is happening every time.

If we say that about something that seems to be good at the time and then it ends in a disaster, some people might say “I thought you said God was behind this!” Keep in mind I am not saying God is not behind X. I am also not saying that He is behind X. I am saying that I do not know and thus, I will not speak without having any certainty on that matter because I do not want to claim God is doing X when I do not know if He is doing X.

If we talk about God to flippantly, it says a lot about how we view Him and how we view ourselves. Now if something good comes to me, I do thank Him in that I at least know that He allowed it even if He did not directly cause it. I try to be careful with my words. This is God we are speaking about after all and He deserves our best.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

The Problem of Unipersonalism

What assumption do Arians make? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I regularly debate the Trinity with Jehovah’s Witnesses and others. If there’s one big mistake that they make, it is what I call the assumption of unipersonalism. The topic under debate in these discussions is whether God is one person or not. What happens in the assumption is that it is automatically taken for granted that God is one person and every text is read in that light.

Imagine going to the Shema where we read “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.” “Ah!” says the Arian! “That settles it! The Lord is one!”

The automatic assumption is that since the text says that God is one, that means that God is one person. All Trinitarians would agree that the Lord our God is one. They would not agree that that means that He is one person. If you say that Trinitarians ipso facto deny the oneness of God, then you are not understanding our position.

Another case of this is where you have verses of Scripture that mention God and then mention Christ as well as if they are two different persons. At this point, the Arian thinks they have won again. “See! The text mentions God and then it mentions Christ as someone else! They are two different beings!”

Several passages of Scripture have this kind of language. A search through BibleGateway reveals them. So you look at all of these and it sure looks like those are two different beings.

The problem is Trinitarians look at those and do not have any problem. It is actually what we expect. We expect God the Father to be spoken of in one way and Jesus to be spoken of in another.

If you do not believe in the Trinity, just consider this. If it is true, how else should this be spoken of? You have people realizing that Jesus is somehow included in the divine nature. They also know that there is still God the Father. They do not say God through God to avoid confusion. They treat Jesus as included in the divine nature and yet distinct from the Father. One common way of doing this is calling Jesus, Lord, and calling the Father, God.

Also, one has to be quite ignorant to look at all these verses and think that every single Trinitarian in church history just completely ignored all of them. Sadly, people who are Witnesses will extremely rarely ever read anything that disagrees with them. It would be easy to go to a library and find a commentary on these verses and see what was said about them in the past, but that will not happen.

Trinitarian theology is not easy to understand, nor should it be. We are talking about the nature of God! Why on Earth would anyone consider that to be easy to understand? People who argue against the Trinity owe it to themselves to at least try to understand the doctrine they are arguing against.

Doing so shows respect for truth as you are open to making sure you are not wrong by listening from the other side directly.

It shows respect for your opponents in saying you do not want to straw man them and you want to make sure you represent them accurately.

It shows respect for God as you want to make sure you are speaking about Him accurately and not just believing what any one person or group says.

On the other hand, avoiding this tells your opponents you do not really care about truth, that you do not really care about them, and that you are more interested in your idea of God than you are in God Himself.

Not only that, but when I see arguments anti-Trinitarians make that they think are super-powerful, too often I just shake my head. They think they are destroying us when they are revealing their own ignorance instead. If you want to try to change the mind of someone like myself, you need to show me you have at least tried to seriously interact with my viewpoint.

Avoid the assumption of unipersonalism.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

The Nashville Manifesto

What are my thoughts on the shooter’s manifesto? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

When I found out the manifesto was available for reading, I decided to get it in wanting to be informed on the matter. Personally, I think the whole thing should have come out a lot earlier. Now this isn’t anything that’s formally typed out or anything like that so some parts were hard to read just for that reason.

Going through, I wanted to see what this person said about their mental state and really, that was also hard to read. So much was sad about this. This is a person who needed severe help and wasn’t getting it. Also, while I favor quoting material, due to the sensitive nature and not everyone wanting to see it themselves, I am not going to do that this time.

The first day I got it and started going through it, I remember reading it and seeing something said along the lines of “Love is not real if my Autism is.”

At that point, I had to close it up for a bit and get back to it later.

In some ways, I can understand. I watch society and I don’t know what people think. I don’t know what’s really going on with them. One of my favorite shows is The Big Bang Theory and even if you don’t like it, this is one of the best clips I have seen on that. I have read material behind the show and Sheldon is on the spectrum. They just didn’t want to say that officially. Look at what he says here and I give this to people as an example of what this is like.

For me, I don’t understand social cues. If my boss corrects me, is she mad at me and I am a disappointment? Is that girl flirting with me or just being nice? If I say something to her different, will she want to go out with me or will she think I’m a creeper? Do people really care about how I am doing or are they just saying that to be nice? Why do we greet each other in public but when we go home there’s no interaction?

Feelings are hard to understand, but I do know I do have people who love me and people who care about me. It can be hard to tell who they are sometimes, but it is real. I do know after a failed marriage, I am on guard around people more and just want people to be real. It’s painful when I think someone hasn’t trusted me.

Going through further, the shooter repeatedly said that everything hurts. They wanted to die. They also wanted God to forgive them. This wasn’t an angry atheist from what I see. This was someone very delusional wanting to take it out on the world.

The shooter also said that their father loved the cats more than the shooter was loved. I don’t know about their father, but fathers are extremely important. Kids need father love. I do remember they spoke some about their parents conservative values and that was extremely difficult for them.

Granted, I am only getting one side of the story, but parents need to make sure they love their children even if they think their thinking is delusional, and thinking you are the wrong sex is delusional. At the same time, too many parents panic. It’s understandable, but they do.

Years ago my wife was feeling suicidal and I took her to see a great therapist who taught counseling at the seminary. I was hoping he would see the emergency here, but I was stunned as he talked to her as calmly as if they were talking about the weather as if this was no big deal and added at the end, “I hope you stay.” Turns out, he was right. Not much of a shock. I learned from him that if you act panicked, the people you are trying to help will also panic.

This is also why when your children show up doubting their faith, don’t panic. Josh McDowell and Francis Schaeffer both were calm with their children and encouraged questioning and it worked both times. That being said, I do understand it’s more difficult now as most therapists will automatically affirm the delusional thinking and parents will be reported for not going along with it.

This was an incredibly sick individual. Sometimes, sex was described in ways that seemed tantamount to rape. They had some delusional fantasies, but overall, I think they just wanted to be loved.

Something we all want.

Here is something else sad about this.

The whole thing could have been prevented.

They wrote at one point they were surprised they were not arrested in 2021. None of those deaths had to happen. (FBI must have been too busy arresting grandmothers who went into the Capitol on J6 or going after pro-life protesters.) Friends. New laws won’t change this. Criminals do not care about the law and if you are sick enough to do something like what this person did, you definitely do not care about it.

We need a whole worldview change.

We need the gospel.

I urge you to be prepared if you want to read this manifesto. It is sad. It is difficult. Pray for everyone involved. Pray for the families of the victims. Pray for the family of the shooter. Pray for the survivors.

Pray we can stop the next one because one school shooting is one too many.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Should Left Behind be left behind?

Is the modern series a good guide to Revelation? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

“I wonder what I will write about for the blog.”

Then my mother calls.

“I’m going to be attending a series at my church on the book of Revelation and the pastor wants us to discuss if the Left Behind novels are a good guide to the book. What do you think?”

I think I know what I’m writing about.

You know my eschatology here. I am an orthodox Preterist. (The link uses an older title as I call myself an orthodox Preterist, but the meaning still stands.) That being said, I would hope even most premillennials and dispensationalists in general would ditch Left Behind, and considering how many years it has been since I have heard about it, that could be happening.

You know how many video games, movies, and TV shows are being done now for “modern audiences”? (Yes. I watch the Critical Drinker. How could you tell?) They’re an imaginary group of people that don’t buy anything but all businesses are rushing to please. I am not at all saying Left Behind is woke as it clearly is not, but it does come with the idea that the book of Revelation was written for modern audiences.

This is something I find puzzling. If this crowd assumes we are not going to be here for the events of the book, why are they written? To satisfy curiosity? For those who are left behind? Do they have any relevance up until that time?

It is my contention that the book largely describes first-century events but does so in apocalyptic language. This language used cosmic imagery in order to depict political happenings in the world.  I will use a few examples to show how this works. Consider this from 2 Samuel 22 where David describes being caught in a situation where death was certain.

7 In my distress I called upon the Lord;
to my God I called.
From his temple he heard my voice,
and my cry came to his ears.

8 Then the earth reeled and rocked;
the foundations of the heavens trembled
and reeled because he was angry.
9 Smoke went up from his nostrils
and devouring fire from his mouth;
glowing coals flamed forth from him.
10 He bowed the heavens and came down;
thick darkness was under his feet.
11 He rode on a cherub and flew;
he was seen upon the wings of the wind.
12 He made darkness around him a canopy,
thick clouds, a gathering of water.
13 Out of the brightness before him
coals of fire flamed forth.
14 The Lord thundered from heaven;
the Most High uttered his voice.
15 He sent out arrows and scattered them,
lightning and routed them.
16 Then the channels of the sea were seen;
the foundations of the world were laid bare
at the rebuke of the Lord,
at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.

Wow! What an amazing event! David needed help and YHWH Himself came down from Heaven riding on the backs of Gabriel and Michael and began shooting arrows and the whole foundations of the world were laid bare when YHWH blew His nose.

Bet you don’t remember that incident in the life of David!

Of course you don’t, because it didn’t happen that way. David is using poetic license definitely. YHWH never literally did this nor does David think He did or expect you to think He did.

Or look at Luke 3 talking about the ministry of John the Baptist:

“The voice of one crying out in the wilderness:
‘Prepare the way of the Lord;
make his paths straight.
5 Every valley shall be filled,
and every mountain and hill shall be made low,
and the crooked shall be made straight,
and the rough ways made smooth,
6 and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.’ ”

Where my parents live in Tennessee, mountains are within range easily. You can see them. I guess this Scripture hasn’t been fulfilled. Even in Luke, we know about the Mount of Transfiguration and the Mount of Olives. Did this not happen?

Or is this apocalyptic imagery?

It certainly is, and this is the kind of language all throughout Revelation. If you read it in a literal sense, you miss what the author is truly trying to tell us. Let us consider a passage like Revelation 12 with a giant multi-headed dragon sweeping stars from the sky.

Now literally, if there was a dragon that big, considering stars are light-years away, this is going to be one mammoth dragon and if one of those hits us, game over. Or, you could consider it as a telling of the Christmas story. Jesus is born and the devil tries to kill Him immediately through the actions of Herod.

One fact about Revelation is that it assumes you have a  thorough knowledge of the Old Testament. Go look through and see how many times the Old Testament is quoted. Hardly ever. Go look and see how many allusions you find and they’re everywhere. From the description of Jesus in Revelation 1, to the temple and heavenly city at the end of the book. All of this assumes you will be familiar with the Old Testament. Too many modern readers are not.

Next, it makes the text be all about us. The Scriptures include plenty about us, to be sure, but the text is all about God revealed in Christ. Our tendency is to think that we are that generation, which has not been thought by any generation in history. Well, unless you count all of them.

We also spend way too much time speculating on who the “Antichrist” is. (By the way, the word antichrist doesn’t show up once in Revelation.) It would be far better for us if we spent more time focusing on who the Christ is. I actually encourage people to read Revelation whatever your perspective and ignore eschatology except for in one area and read the book to address this. “Who does this book say Jesus is?”

I am thankful that more and more, I encounter less and less of this kind of mindset. I tried going through the Left Behind books, but I just couldn’t. I was listening on audio and I stopped at the end of one book and never really cared to get into the rest of it. It’s not even because it was bad eschatology. I have enjoyed several books where I disagreed with the worldview behind them. The books are just boring as literature and not worth reading.

Leave behind Left Behind.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

9/11 And Why Evil Fails Practically

Does the atheistic problem of evil really help? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Since today is the anniversary of 9/11, let us consider a thought experiment. Now I think that it is impossible for anything to exist without God existing, but I am going to put that aside for argument’s sake in this post. I also am going to approach this as if we have no strong evidence for or against the existing of God. This is going to be on a practical level only. In essence, I am asking which worldview would be preferable to be true on theism vs. atheism.

We thus have two different scenarios for a 9/11 event. In world A, theism is true. In world B, atheism is true, and I am taking atheism as the definitive statement that there is no God. That is what it means anyway.

“Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.”

William Rowe The Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy p.62

“Atheism, as presented in this book, is a definite doctrine, and defending it requires one to engage with religious ideas. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a personal, transcendent creator of the universe, rather than one who simply lives life without reference to such a being.”

Robin Le Poidevin Arguing for Atheism: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion p.xvii

I hate that I have to post so much, but I am sure some atheists would come around and say “Atheism is a lack of belief!”

So now having established my case here is what happens. In both worlds, 9/11 happens and thousands die in one horrible attack.

In world A, there is an eternity that people will spend. Some will spend it in Heaven and some will spend it in Hell, at least on Christian theism. There is the possibility that there will be justice for the people who perpetrated the evil. There is the possibility that there will be the chance that people will see their loved ones again. Justice can still prevail in the world. Of course, some other forms of theism might answer matters differently, but I think a large number would say that there is still a God who can give justice and raise the dead.

In B, well, it was certainly a tragedy, but that was it. The attackers? Dead. The victims? Dead. Chances of justice for them? None. Chances of seeing dead loved ones again? None. I do realize there are some atheists who have postulated an after-death, but this is a very very small minority. Note also I am even granting that there are still ideas such as goodness and justice in an atheist universe which I even then still question.

From a practical standpoint, you could say that in the theistic universe, some people could suffer eternally, but also some will rejoice eternally and some will see dead loved ones again and some of those people who will suffer will very likely be the attackers themselves who pulled off the evil.

This is one reason I just do not think the problem of evil works. Remove God and you still have all the problems. Sure. We might not know why God allowed X to happen, but if we are honest with ourselves, we do not know why we do X in our own lives many times. I am fine with an unknown of why if it comes with a known of someone I can trust.

9/11 is a great tragedy in our nation’s history. It was not the first. It will not be the last. As a Christian, I can be thankful there is a God in every tragedy.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)