Recently Sam the Steamroller argued the Bible was not reliable for the following reasons:

“The KJV of the New Testament was completed in 1611 by 8 members of the Church of England. There were no original texts to translate. There still aren't. The oldest manuscripts we have were written down hundreds of years after the last apostle died. There are over 8,000 of these old manuscripts with no two alike. The King James translators used none of these manuscripts. None. Instead, they edited previous translations to create a version their king and Parliament would approve. 21st century Christians (you...), believe the "word of God" is a book edited in the 17th century from 16th century translations from 8,000 contradictory copies of 4th century scrolls that claim to be copies of lost letters written in the 1st century..”

Surprisingly this statement against the reliability of textual transmission of the Bible is made up of a number of intertwined arguments and misrepresentations. To get at the heart of this we will need to untangle the intermixed arguments and assess them separately and determine if as a whole they make a compelling case against the reliability of the transmission of the Bible.

Argument 1

Overall this statement can be simplified in the following conditional syllogism:

• Major premise: “The King James Version is not reliable.”
• Minor premise: “The King James Version the Word of God (Bible).”
• Conclusion: “Therefore the Word of God (Bible) is not reliable.”

First the argument is logically invalid and is a strong defeater for the whole argument. Just because the KJV is not reliable does not mean that Word of God is not reliable. There are a multitude of translations of the word of God and it is a fallacy of composition to assume that because one translation is unreliable that they all are.

Separate from the invalid argument the major premise is falsifiable.

Yes there are known errors in the KJV translation of the Bible. We know there are minor errors because today we have over 5824 Greek manuscripts we can compare (New Testament alone). However, none of the errors effect any major Christian doctrine. Therefore the translation is reliable for Christian doctrine.

Argument 2 (implied and unstated)

• Major premise: “The King James Version is not reliable.”
• Minor premise: “New English translations are based on the King James Version.”
• Conclusion: “Therefore, new English translation are not reliable.”

While this syllogism is logically valid the premises are both false making the argument false.

I have shown in a previous statement why the major premise is false.

The minor premise is false because new translations are not based on the KJV they are based on the oldest most reliable manuscripts. For example the English Standard Version is based upon an entirely different Greek texts than the King James Version which is based primarily on the Textus Receptus.

Argument 3

“There were no original texts to translate.” In this statement there is the unstated presupposition that you have to have the original documents in order to have an accurate translation. We can turn this statement into the following conditional syllogism:

• Major premise: If you don’t have the original documents, you can’t make an accurate translation.
• Minor premise: We don’t have the original documents.
• Conclusion: Therefore, we don’t have an accurate translation.

It should be clear that just because we don’t have the original documents does not mean that we cannot have a reliable translation based on copies, provided that the copies are reliable.

Incorrect facts:

1.) “There are over 8,000 of these old manuscripts with no two alike.”

At last count there are over 5824 Greek New Testament manuscripts. There are over 10,000 New Testament manuscripts in other languages such as Coptic, Syriac, Latin and Arabic and an additional 10,000 manuscripts quoting passages from the New Testament. Many of the earliest Church fathers (such as Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp) quoted portions of the New Testament and we have their writings. From those writing we can reconstruct the entire New Testament. In fact only 2 books Jude and 2 John were not quoted before 100 AD after 100AD they are all quoted. These manuscripts equate to millions of pages of text. It is because we have so many manuscripts and sources that we can determine the differences and reconstruct the originals with a high degree of accuracy. In fact, the more manuscripts we have the more we can compare and contrast these manuscripts and the higher degree of accuracy.

2.) “…they edited previous translations to create a version their king and Parliament would approve.”

This statement is a circumstantial ad hominem. Attacking the translators by claiming they had vested interests is fallacious unless it can be showed that they had the bias and that that bias resulted in material mistranslations.

3.) “21st century Christians (you...), believe the "word of God" is a book edited in the 17th century from 16th century translations from 8,000 contradictory copies of 4th century scrolls that claim to be copies of lost letters written in the 1st century.”

A minority of Christians, those in the King James only camp, believe that the perfect “Word of God' is a book edited in the 17th century and that the KJV is innerrant (true and without error). Overwhelmingly, Christians believe the Word of God was faithfully written by the original authors and reliably transmitted to us.

4.) "8,000 contradictory copies"

The textual differences (variants) are often cited as being in the hundreds of thousands of differences. 99% of the textual differences can be spotted easily because we have so many manuscripts and most of them are differences are in word order, grammar and spelling. These are all minor textual variants don’t amount to material errors that would change the meaning of the text. In fact 200,000 variants, over half, are spelling errors. Of the estimated 396,000 variants we can still reconstruct the original with a high degree of accuracy and confidence.

5.) "4th century scrolls"

There are plenty of other manuscripts that date before the 4th century. Recently we have discovered the earliest manuscripts ever, it is a portion of Mark that dates from the 1st century, and previously the earliest was from the early second century and was from the book of John known as the John Rylands Papyri.

From the second century alone we have 18 manuscripts that include 40% of the New Testament. There are over 60 manuscripts from the 3rd century. In addition, as previously stated we have second generation Church leaders form the 1st century quoting from all but two books of the New Testament in over 10,000 separate manuscripts.

6.) The translators were "8 members of the Church of England"

In truth 54 scholars were approved for the translation but 47 actually undertook the task of translating. The translators were divided into 6 committees translating different portions of the Bible. The names of the translators are publicly accessible. See: Daniell, David (2003). The Bible in English: its history and influence. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press.

Conclusion

One of the unstated claims is that copyists made so many errors that we cannot consider the text we have as being reliable. They point to thousands minor textual variants as proof that the Bible we have is unreliable. However, even the hyper-skeptical Bart Erhman agrees that most of these variants are minor.

“…Most of the changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes, pure and simple—slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort of another.” - Bart Ehrman [1]

Greg Koukl sums it up this way:

“…Our New Testament is over 99% pure. In the entire text of 20,000 lines, only 40 lines are in doubt (about 400 words), and none affects any significant doctrine.” - Gerg Koukl [2]

Most of this information has about the New Testament. Well what about the Old Testament? According to Peter Flint PhD, excluding spelling, word order and grammar errors, we can determine that even over 2000 years of coping, the Old Testament is 99% accurate. This is due in large part to the discovery of the Dead Seas scrolls which had been lost for the last 2000 years. This is strong evidence that suggests we can determine a statistical error rate for the scribes that copied the Bible over the years. For the Old Testament we are talking about a material error rate of less than 1%. This is in line with our current estimates of 0.2% material error rate for the New Testament.

I think I have done a good job in untangle the intermixed arguments and assess them separately and determined as a whole they do not make a compelling case against the reliability of the transmission of the Bible. As you can see almost all of the assertions are wrong and the logic does not follow from those facts.

Much more could be said but it should be apparent that Sam failed to make the case the Bible is unreliable. In fact, a good case can be made that the transmission of the Biblical text is free from material errors.

Endnotes:

[1] Ehrman, Bart D. ‘’Misquoting Jesus.’’ Kindle Edition. HarperOne. 2009 Kindle Edition. (Kindle Locations 884-886).

[2] Koukl, Greg. Stand To Reason Solid Ground Newsletter “Misquoting” Jesus? Answering Bart Ehrman September/October 2010 by Gerg Koukl

For further information see: ReasonWiki.org's List of Resources on the Reliability of the Bible

 

The Christian Crusades

Dispelling Prevalent Myths About the Crusades

Abstract: The term paper will cover some of the popular myths being used about the crusader era and will shed light on those myths. The popular myths are taken from recent atheist books and blogs along with some additional commonly held myths. The rebuttals I use for these myths are often taken from academic works that predate the use of these myths and yet the myths continue to be used.

Popular myths about the Crusades

Many popular myths about the Crusades pervade popular books and skeptics websites today even though many of the myths have been debunked.  The myths continue to grow and, in popular works, the myths are considered the gospel truth.  In this essay, I will first explore some of the popular myths.  Then, I will provide a brief response to those myths.

Recent articles on the Crusades claim that the goal of the crusades was a quest for new lands[1] and was the first round of European colonialism[2].   Popular atheists, such as Dawkins and Hitchens, claim the motivation for the crusades was to convert the pagans or to kill them.  Hitchens, in his bestselling book God is not Great; How Religion Poisons Everything, claims that religion can’t help itself. “It must seek to interfere with the lives of nonbelievers, or heretics, or adherents of other faiths.”[3] In The God Delusion, author Richard Dawkins makes the outrageous claim, “Christianity, too, was spread by the sword, wielded first by Roman hands after the Emperor Constantine raised it from eccentric cult to official religion, then by the Crusaders, and later by the conquistadores and other European invaders and colonists, with missionary accompaniment.”[4]

Another popular claim is that the crusades were much more barbaric than typical warfare at that time.  Hitchens cites one event, “However, this made no difference during the Crusades, when a papal army set out to recapture Bethlehem and Jerusalem from the Muslims, incidentally destroying many Jewish communities and sacking heretical Christian Byzantium along the way, and inflicted a massacre in the narrow streets of Jerusalem, where, according to the hysterical and gleeful chroniclers, the spilled blood reached up to the bridles of the horses.”[5]  Atheist blogger Austin Cline claims, “The Crusades were an incredibly violent undertaking, even by medieval standards.”[6]

The crusades are often cited as an example of religion being the cause of violence.  Sam Harris claims religion is a well-spring of violence[7] Cline claims the crusades were, “Hardly a noble quest in foreign lands, the Crusades represented the worst in religion generally and in Christianity specifically.”[8]  Atheist Massimo Pigliucci blogs that religion is the cause of violence and cites the crusades as an example, “Just look at the history of all three Abrahamic faiths: Jews used to go around pillaging, raping and merrily engaging in (god-sanctioned) genocide; we owe to Christians the invention of the words crusade and inquisition.”[9]  Sam Harris goes so far as to claim “There is no telling what our world would now be like had some great kingdom of reason emerged at the time of the Crusades and pacified the credulous multitudes of Europe and the Middle East.”[10]

The crusades are often claimed to be the worst violence ever.  Hitchens questions, “When the worst has been said about the…Crusades…is it not true that secular and atheist regimes have committed crimes and massacres that are, in the scale of things, at least as bad if not worse?”[11]  The answer he gives to his question is no.  Pigliucci, goes further and claims that religions, other than Christianity, Islam and Judaism, are far more peaceful.[12]

These claims about the crusades have led the word ‘crusade’ to become taboo.  One helpful atheist advises, “Churches should not use the word Crusade because it turns people off because of it’s negative connotations.”[13]  Some Christians have accepted the claims and have tried to distance their friendlier version of Christianity from the, “…intolerant, politicized, ugly, right-wing…”[14] Christianity.  Anonymous atheist blogger “vjack” agrees with the negative connotations of the word ‘crusade’ and cautions other atheist not to forget the crusades or stop using the word.  His conspiracy laden fear is that if they forget the crusades happened they will happen again because, “The consolidation of political power, military strength, and massive wealth into Christian extremist hands is something that should terrify every atheist.”[15]

Dispelling myths about the Crusades

Words have meaning and some words have emotional baggage that gives them more persuasion power when used. Think about it; when you hear the word ‘crusade’ what images are conjured up in your mind?  Do you think of greedy nobles looking to grab lands from the peaceful Muslims and other Christians?  Do you think of an unprovoked and extraordinary brutal war?  Do you see another episode of Jewish genocide?  Do you imagine being given the choice to convert or die?  Do you think of the worst episode of violence in human history?  Misconceptions about the crusades have given this word the emotional baggage that is often used as a coercive rhetorical device for anti-Christian arguments.

There is a subtle and underlining claim with all of these statements against the Crusades that implies that Christianity is falsified somehow.  Christianity obviously can’t be true because of all the violence it causes is the unspoken claim.  No rational argument is now needed; one simply needs to remind the Christian of the crusades and that should be the end of the argument.  However, a word with emotional baggage and an implied refutation is not rational discourse.  It simply is coercive and vacuous rhetoric designed to influence rather than inform.

As with any investigation into history, we run the risk of oversimplifying the issues involved or looking at the events from one side only, either seeing only the good actions or only the bad actions.  The crusades are no different.  My attempt here is not to dismiss any of the wrongs committed by crusades and only look at what could be called the good.  I instead intend to look at both sides equitably.

Now, in order to dispel these myths, we need to start with a good definition of what exactly is a crusade.  Jonathan Riley-Smith defines the crusades as, “a…expedition authorized by the pope on Christ’s behalf, the leading participants in which took vows and consequently wore crosses and enjoyed the privileges of protection at home and the indulgence, which, when the campaign was not destined for the East, was equated with that granted to crusaders to the Holy Land.”[16] Knowing what the crusades were does not, necessarily, tell us anything about the motivations.  For that we must dig into history and the situations that were prevalent at the time. 

It is important to note that, before the rise of Islam, the Christian world covered from Britton to the Middle East, along the North coast of Africa, along the Nile all the way to Axum, areas in the Arabian Peninsula, and from modern day Turkey to Baghdad. In 700 AD Christianity covered more area than the Roman Empire. By 850, over 100 years after the Death of Mohammad, the Muslims had conquered the Middle East from India to Turkey, and across North Africa and into most of Spain.  It is no small fact that over half of the Christian world was then under Muslim control.  The rapid rise of Islam would not have gone unnoticed and without concern.  Thomas Madden makes the point, “It is important to remember that in the Middle Ages the West was not a powerful, dominant culture venturing into a primitive or backward region. It was the Muslim East that was powerful, wealthy and opulent. Europe was the Third World.”[17]

By the time of the first crusade the Seljuk Turks had made their way across Anatolian peninsula and threated Constantinople.  With no other alternative, the Byzantine emperor Alexius I Comneus, sent a letter to Pope Urban II requesting help from the Western Empire.[18]  Pope Urban II headed the call and preached the first crusade at the Council of Clermont on November 27, 1095.[19]  Urban II asked those there to come to the aid of their fellow Christians against the atrocities of the Turks. Concerning the Turks he spoke, “They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for a while with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them.”[20]  Clearly the concern was that if they did not push back the Turks they would continue on into Europe.  The impetus was to prevent further encroachment and to regain lost lands, not for themselves but for the Byzantines.  In short, the crusades were provoked.

The charge is often given that the crusades were the first round of European colonialism.  Again this charge is meritless.  Thomas F. Madden, chair of St. Louis University's history department, crusade expert and author of "A Concise History of the Crusades," agrees that the Crusaders were a defensive force that did not intend profit from their ventures by earthly riches or land.  Some may suggest that it was the motivation of Bohemond I, Prince of Taranto, during the first crusade when he refused to relinquish Antioch to Byzantine control.  Bohemond refused to relinquish Antioch to Alexius and the Byzantines because he felt they had forfeited their rights to Antioch when they turned their back on it and did not assist the crusader army when they needed it most.[21]  Of course not all crusaders agreed with Bohemond.  Raymond IV of Count of Toulouse, stressed that “no crusader should be allowed to renounce that sacred vow for temporal gain.”[22] In fact, when the crusades were complete most of the crusades went home with very few remaining to govern their newly acquired lands.[23]

James Ludlow relates the required motivation that was adopted by the Council of Clermont, “As already indicated, one very important privilege is to be found in the list of canons adopted by the Council of Clermont, namely, that an indulgence was to be granted to all who should go to liberate Jerusalem, provided they were motivated not by desire for honor or money, but by devotion only.”[24]  Simply put, the motivation of a very small minority of crusaders may have been for temporal gain while most of them considered it a duty and devotion.

You might agree about the motivation but still take exception to the brutal means the crusaders used.  Often cited is the massacre of Jerusalem in 1099. Unfortunately a chronicler at the time used hyperbole to greatly exaggerate the claims of the bloodshed.  Often this account is read as literal gospel truth and not the exaggeration that it clearly is.  There wasn’t enough people in the entire Middle East to fill the City with blood up to the horses’ bridal. It is important to remember the use of hyperbole in warfare and the context of warfare in the period.     The exaggerated claim of blood up to a horse’s bridal, an obvious reference to Revelation 14:19-20, may have served as fodder for psychological warfare. 

Putting fear into the hearts of your enemy is a well-known psychological warfare tactic. Terrorizing and horrifying your enemy as a means of demoralizing them is part and parcel of any tactical warfare.  Grandiose claims of Spartan brutality would put such fear into any opposing army that often when the Spartans took the field the opposing forces would flee in fear leaving the Spartans with a victory without the need for further bloodshed.  One of the best examples in history was Vlad III Dracula that earned him the title Vlad the Impaler.  “According to historical accounts, when the Shah-in Shah's forces encountered the massive field of impaled soldiers captured from previous encounters with Vlad's army, he turned back.”[25]  This allowed the outnumbered forces of Vlad to withstand the overwhelming Turkish and Ottoman forces.  Exaggerated claims have been utilized in warfare as a means to inspire troops to continue on and to put fear into the hearts of the enemy in an attempt to limit further bloodshed.

The rules of war for the time would have seen it a justified if the whole city was put to death for resisting a besieging army.  Madden puts it this way,

“The accepted moral standard in all pre-modern European and Asian civilizations was that a city that resisted capture and was taken by force belonged to the victorious forces. That included not just the buildings and goods, but the people as well. That is why every city or fortress had to weigh carefully whether it could hold out against besiegers. If not, it was wise to negotiate terms of surrender.  In the case of Jerusalem, the defenders had resisted right up to the end. They calculated that the formidable walls of the city would keep the Crusaders at bay until a relief force from Egypt could arrive. They were wrong. When the city fell, therefore, it was put to the sack. Many were killed, yet many others were ransomed or allowed to go free.”[26]

By today’s standards we may think of this tactic as being unnecessarily brutal.  Is it really more brutal than the warfare today?  One need not look farther than the justification of dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  As terrible as those events were, the number of casualties were far less than would have been had the United States had to invade mainland Japan.  As terrific as the bombs were the result was a speedy conclusion to the war.

Madden concludes, “It is worth noting that in those Muslim cities that surrendered to the Crusaders the people were left unmolested, retained their property and were allowed to worship freely.”[27]  Simply put, incentives for non-resistance were used to lower casualties in ancient times and this practice is still in use today. I t is also worthy to note that often a single atrocious act is often cited as an example of the normal behavior of the crusaders instead of for the abnormal behavior that it is.  For example, Atheist Austin Cline says, “When Muslim cities were captured by Christian crusaders, it was standard operating procedure for all inhabitants – no matter what their age – to be summarily killed.” [Emphasis added][28]  This was not the standard operating procedure for crusaders and irresponsible to make such an outrageous claim. 

These are common warfare tactics, not religious or secular practices.  Richard Dawkins rightly notes, “Cruel and evil people can be found in every century and of every persuasion.”[29]  If true, he has no legitimate reason to lay the charge of brutality because of religion at the feet of Christianity.  It wasn’t religious purposes for any so called brutal tactics, it was simply the accepted art of war.  William Cavanaugh has recently made the argument that the religious violence is a myth because it simplifies a complex set of social, economic and political factors that lead to violence.  Indeed it seems bias for an Atheist to claim all violence is caused by religion as if institutionalized atheism is innocent.  Cavanaugh theorizes that this is an attempt to perpetuate the myth that religion creates violence while making the atheists out to be the rational and peaceful people. Cavanaugh states, “The myth of religious violence helps to construct and marginalize a religious Other, prone to fanaticism, to contrast with the rational, peace-making, secular subject.”[30] Further he states, “These arguments are part of a broader Enlightenment narrative that has invented a dichotomy between the religious and the secular and constructed the former as an irrational and dangerous impulse that must give way in public to rational, secular forms of power.”[31]

It is also important to note that nowhere did Jesus Christ condone such actions.  If Christians did involve themselves in the practices of warfare that we think are not very Christian, like maybe it is precisely because they are not acting like Christians and not that secularism is more enlightened.  Cavanaugh makes the point that, “it may be the case that the Crusader has misappropriated the true message of Christ, but one cannot therefore excuse Christianity of all responsibility.”[32] It is one of the doctrines of Christianity that all people sin, even Christians.  Although Christians sinning is consistent with Christian doctrine it does not excuse or condone such behavior. 

It is also important to note that the Crusader army was not made up of all Christians.  The reformer Martin Luther raises this objection in his work Vom Kriege wider die Türken (On War Against the Turk).   Luther claims, “It is against [Christ’s] name, because in such an army there are scarcely five Christians, and perhaps worse people in the eyes of God than are the Turks; and yet they would all bear the name of Christ.”[33]  In a way Luther is objecting to the religious labeling for this war.  The crusades being a defensive war need not drag Christ’s name into it in order to justify the call to war.

What about Christians who sought to eliminate the enemy at home like Count Emicho Leiningen in the first crusade or Radulf during the second crusade?  Dan Cohn-Shebok author of The Crucified Jew, wrote, “The Crusades and their aftermath thus brought into focus Christian contempt for the Jews who stubbornly clung to their ancestral Faith.”[34]  The crusades are often viewed as part of an ongoing genocide of Jews by Christians.

First it is important to note that the crusade was never called against the Jew.  Jonathan Riley Smith notes, “No crusade was actually proclaimed against the Jews, although crusade preaching unleashed feelings that the Church could not control.”[35]  Second they attempted to stop rogue crusaders from harming the Jews.  During the second crusade Bernard of Clairvaux set off to stop Radulf’s attacks against the Jews.  “Repeatedly, Barnard stressed that the Jews were not to be persecuted.”[36]  In short, the church never called for a crusade against the Jew and they sought to stop those who did.

Conclusion

In this essay I have examined some of the more popular myths about the crusades and have attempted to shed new light on the truth about the subject.  I think Stark sums up my conclusions best when he writes, “The Crusades were not unprovoked. They were not the first round of European colonialism. They were not conducted for land, loot, or converts. The crusaders were not barbarians who victimized the cultivated Muslims. They sincerely believed that they served in God’s battalions.”[37] I would add to his conclusion that the crusades were never called against the Jew.

As for Christian morality, Christians sometimes sin, and this in no way excuses any sinful actions.  And if a Christian does not follow the teachings of Christ then he/she may be a hypocrite but that does not mean Christianity causes violence or somehow falsify the Christian worldview.  If I were a smoker who smoked 5 packs of cigarettes a day and I told you that smoking was harmful to your health it would make me a pretty big hypocrite.  My hypocrisy would in no way falsify my claim that smoking is harmful to your health.

It is my hope that I have shed some light on the issue of the crusades and some of the popular claims and implications that are taken for granted in our popular culture today.  With that I also hope people will evaluate explore those claims as they carefully consider and weigh multiple sides of this issue.

Endnotes

 

I had a long dialogue with an Atheist here in PDF form. I did change the names of the participants for privacy reasons. The conversation started with a post from a friend of mine that turned into an interesting dialogue. I have kept all of the posts even the ‘Troll’ posts, to preserve the feel and flow of the conversation.

The conversation takes some time to get going, but, the bulk of the 23,000 plus words of the conversation is Sam’s objections to Christianity and his support for Atheism. Normally I would not take the time to try and address the numerous assertions he made. However, a number of people were interested and in asynchronous conversation more time can be spent addressing them.

Some interesting comments by Sam included

• Christianity barrowed from Paganism, implied is that this disproves Christianity
• Science and Religion are at odds (specific example of Galileo)
• He wants scientific evidence for God
• Christians are trying to force their beliefs on others
• The Bible is hopelessly corrupt
• Judeo-Christian ethnics are bad for society
• God should show Himself
• Free will is a myth
• America's Founding Fathers were Deists

I addressed all of these and others. If I did not refute his claims, I gave him at least an alternate explanations that should raise some doubts on his positions.

Click here for PDF

Was Jesus a Historical Person?
An open letter to Stephen Van Eck

Introduction

There is a myth about a man named Francis Hester, who in 1650, supposedly took a trip from Southwart, England and landed in New Kent County, Virginia. The problem with this man is we really have no reliable historical evidence for his existence. Also, there are so many similar stories from that time period that one might conclude that his life is a complete fabrication. At most there are only two pieces of evidence for his existence. One is a religious document, a baptismal record, and the other a ship’s manifest listing him as a passenger. Since the baptismal record is a religious document, as good naturalists, we must reject it out of hand. As for the ship’s manifest, upon careful examination, the name on the manifest is Francis Hestor, not Francis Hester. Obviously this is a completely different person and not a misspelling or misreading of the original document. Without evidence, we must conclude that this man is a myth, even if he is my 16th great-grandfather. Similarly, some skeptics, such as yourself,[1] argue that Jesus did not exist because there is a lack of secular evidence. In this paper I will demonstrate that there is solid extrabiblical evidence that Jesus did, in fact, exist.

Non-Christian Evidence for the Person of Jesus

On CNN TV’s Larry King Live, Ellen Johnson, president of the American Atheists, limits permissible evidence to “secular” evidence. Further, she makes the grandiose claim that there are no such sources of evidence: “Well, I'm here to give the reality point of view, I guess. Because the reality is there is not one shred of secular evidence there ever was a Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ and Christianity is a modern religion… There is no secular evidence that JC, Jesus Christ, ever existed.”[2] This statement might excite the Atheist with exuberance, but it is completely fallacious. According to one scholar, there are over 20 ancient (from first to mid-second century) non-Christian witnesses to the public life of Jesus.[3] Limiting the debate to only non-Christian records does not strengthen the claim that Jesus was a myth. In this section we will examine three of the abundant secular evidences. In the next section we will address issues regarding this approach to historical research.

We will discuss three historians from the corresponding periods: Cornelius Tacitus (55 – 120 AD), Flavius Josephus (37 – 97 AD), and Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas (69/75 – 130 AD). It is first worth noting a few common observations of these men before addressing them individually. They were educated, professional historians, and they all worked for the government. For example, Suetonius was the chief secretary for Emperor Hadrian and had access to the imperial records.[4] Josephus was educated in Rome and his benefactor was Titus.[5] Finally, Tacitus is considered to be the greatest historian of ancient Rome.[6] None of these men show any indication of bias toward Christianity. In fact, it is safe to say any bias would have likely been against Christians because they were writing during the time when Christians where being persecuted.[7] In addition, each account was written within 100 years of the life of Jesus.

First, Tacitus relates a story of the burning of Rome by Nero. In his account he explains that Nero places blame on the Christians for the burning of Rome. In that report he adds details about Christus, the founder, who was from Judaea and was crucified, “the extreme penalty,” by Pontius Pilatus:

Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular…[8]

This quote may seem like it does not provide us much information about the life of Christ. Certainly this is true; there is not much said here. One would not expect a Roman historian to elaborate on the life of a peasant who was executed. However, Cambridge lecturer Markus Bockmuehl states the importance of this quotation: “That might not seem like much, but it is actually surprisingly useful in discounting two different theories which are still sometimes advanced: first, that Jesus of Nazareth never existed; and secondly, that he did not die by the duly administered Roman death penalty.”[9]

You can raise the objection that Tacitus did not write this section, that it was a later addition of Christians. However, simply raising an objection is not sufficient grounds to discount the authenticity of the quotation. What evidence is there of tampering? None. Even the highly skeptical non-Christian New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman commenting on this issue states, “But surely the best way to deal with evidence is not simply to dismiss it when it happens to be inconvenient.”[10]

Suetonius’ comments provide fewer details of Jesus’ life than Tacitus, yet they are revealing. First, his accounts demonstrate Christians were in Rome and expelled in 49 AD during the reign of Emperor Claudius (41-54 AD). “He [Claudius] banished from Rome all the Jews, who were continually making disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus.”[11] This is within 16 years of the death of Christ, and far too short a time span for a mythical person to develop. Some scholars may take issue with Suetonius’ spelling of Christ casting doubt on who Suetonius was writing about. However, spelling mistakes of this kind are common.[12] In addition, there is an interesting corroboration in Acts 18:2. “And he [Paul] found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome.” The most likely explanation of these references seems to reference Christians in Rome by 49 AD.

Another account by Suetonius demonstrates that Christians were punished by Nero. “He [Nero] likewise inflicted punishments on the Christians, a sort of people who held a new and impious superstition.”[13] Suetonius corroborates Tacitus’ accounts of Christian persecution although Tacitus gives us far more information on Nero’s punishments and executions for the alleged fire on July 18, 64 AD [14]. Suetonius gives us very little details, but what he does give us are extremely early references to Christians. His latest reference is within 30 years of the death of Jesus Christ which is still far too short a time for a myth to have developed.

Of the three historians, Josephus’ comments give us the most detailed information about Jesus Christ. Josephus, a Jewish historian for the imperial family, wrote four different works detailing Jewish history from Genesis to his lifetime. In these works, Josephus mentions many people who are also discussed in the gospels, including James, the brother of Jesus, Annas, Caiaphas, Herod the Great, Pontius Pilate, Felix and Festus.[15] Of Jesus he writes:

At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. He was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. He gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. When Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.[16]

He [Ananus] convened the council of judges and brought before it the brother of Jesus – the one called “Christ”- whose name was James, and certain others. Accusing them of transgressing the law he delivered them up for stoning. But those of the city considered the most fair-minded and strict concerning the laws were offended at this and sent to the king secretly urging him to order Ananus to take such actions no longer.[17]

In these quotations Josephus confirms that Jesus was called Christ and was crucified by Pontius Pilate. Tacitus and Josephus are in agreement that Jesus Christ was put to death by Pontius Pilate. Skeptics once claimed that there was no evidence that Pontius Pilate ever existed. However, in 1961, archaeologists led by Dr. Frova discovered a limestone block with Pontius Pilate’s name inscribed on it. "Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea."[18] This archaeological evidence further corroborates the accounts of Tacitus and Josephus.

Critics often raise the issue that the quotations of Josephus were either added or tampered with by later Christians. However, a majority of scholars agree that the majority of the text is genuine.[19] In fact, the quote from Josephus above was taken to be the most likely rendition by the skeptic Bart Ehrman.

Scholars have also examined an Arabic translation of Josephus, found by Shlomo Pines,[20] that further corroborates that the majority of the text is genuine. You can see from this version of Josephus there appears to be no interpolation of the text that seems to be in the versions in the West.

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.[21]

James Charlesworth sums it up like this, “We can now be as certain as historical research will presently allow that Josephus did refer to Jesus,” providing “corroboration of the gospel account.”[22]

Ellen Johnson’s position that there is no “secular” evidence for Jesus is patently false. We have seen a number of secular sources for Jesus’ life. In particular, we have three accounts of historians who wrote within 100 years of the life of Jesus. Further, Josephus was born within a decade of Jesus. I grant that these are not primary sources of Jesus life. There are no secular primary sources of his life. This is true about 99.99% of people alive at the time.[23] However, these secular secondary accounts do corroborate the primary eyewitness accounts of the gospels.

In conclusion, using early non-Christian sources, I have shown that there is solid historical evidence to prove that Jesus was an historical figure. Furthermore, the sources cited were historians who were writing within 100 years of Jesus Christ. Also, aspects of their testimony have been corroborated by recent archaeological finds. Finally, the majority of scholars, including Bart Ehrman, agree that Jesus Christ was a historical person.

Interpreting Evidence

Mr. Van Eck, in your article you claim there is a lack of historical evidence. However, the gospels are historical documents and date closer to the events in question than any other records of Jesus. I assume that what you mean by the lack of historical evidence is closer to Ellen Johnson’s or Jim Walker’s comments. Johnson carefully limits the debate to secular evidence,[24] while Walker cleverly dismisses any secondary sources as hearsay. However, historians do not limit evidence to just secular or eyewitness accounts.

One of the problems with historical research is that we have no direct evidence to anything historical,[25] nor can we conduct experiments. Bart Ehrman put the problem in perspective: “This makes historical evidence different from the kinds of evidence used in the hard sciences.”[26] Historians like to have primary sources, such as eyewitness accounts, whenever possible. Even with primary sources, historians gather as many sources as possible, weigh each individually and develop theories based on all of the available evidence, giving preference to primary, then secondary, sources, all the while taking into account any known biases of the sources.[27]

Walker wishes us to limit our knowledge to direct evidence such as eyewitness accounts. However, he does not allow for the gospels. This is not a practice used by historians as they piece together the past. Historians rely upon all the available evidence, including secondary sources. Each piece of evidence is weighed based upon its proximity to the actual events. Greater weight is given to primary sources, taking any extraneous circumstances such as bias into account. Less weight is given to secondary sources, and even less the further the author is from the events.

Setting a standard of interpretation for historical events based upon this hyper-skeptical criticism is unwarranted. It sets the bar so high that it cannot be attained. We cannot prove anything happened in history given this high standard. Academic scholars understand the unique science of putting the past into perspective by using all available evidence. There is no reason for requiring evidence for Jesus to meet a higher standard than we do to any other historical figure. To do so is revealingly disingenuous. It does not portray intellectual rigor; rather, it sacrifices intellectual integrity for a naïve approach to history.

Conclusion

“But for us the conclusion is inescapable. Jesus never existed.”[28] This is a bold claim, indeed, but it is not supported by the recommended reading you cite. You recommend Gospel Fictions by Randel Helms to help support your bold assertion. However, his thesis is that Jesus is an historical figure. Helms writes, “my thesis – [is the gospels] are largely fictional accounts concerning an historical figure, Jesus of Nazareth…”[29] Your argument that Jesus never existed because there is no historical evidence is betrayed by the very sources you cite.

Gary Habermas states, “The Claim that we cannot know the historical Jesus is not true. Jesus’ life is one of the most substantiated in ancient history,”[30] and according to Clay Jones “…the notion that Jesus never existed is preached only by the loony fringe.”[31] Even the highly skeptical Bart Erhman agrees the evidence shows that Jesus was a real person. And finally, atheist historian Michael Grant sums it up nicely, “…modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars.”[32]

Endnotes

1. This paper is an open letter to Stephen Van Eck and his position in: Stephen Van Eck. Was Jesus Real? World Union of Deists. http://www.deism.com/jesusexist.htm (accessed March 12, 2012).
2. Ellen Johnson and Larry King, “What Happens After We Die?” Larry King Live, CNN, April 14, 2005, http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0504/14/lkl.01.html (accessed March 22, 2012).
3. Gary R. Habermas. “Was Jesus Real,” InterVarsity.org, August 8, 2008. http://www.intervarsity.org/studentsoul/item/was-jesus-real (accessed March 13, 2012).
4. Robert Graves, “Introduction” to Suetonius’ The Twelve Caesars, transl. by Robert Graves (Baltimore. Penguin, 1957) 7 as quoted in Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. (Joplin, MO, College Press, 1999) 190.
5. Craig A. Evens. Fabricating Jesus, How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity Press, 2006) 158.
6. Tacitus, Encyclopædia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/579997/Tacitus (accessed March 22, 2012).
7. “Persecution in the Early Church” ReligionFacts.com. http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/history/persecution.htm (accessed March 22, 2012).
8. Publius Cornelius Tacitus, The Annals. Translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/Tacitus/TacitusAnnals15.html (accessed March 26, 2012).
9. Markus Bockmuehl, This Jesus: Martyr, Lord, Messiah. (Edinburgh. T & T Clark Ltd. 1994) 10-11 as quoted in Josh McDowell. The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. (Nashville. Thomas Nelson Publishers. 1999) 121.
10. Bart D. Erhman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, (New York, HarperOne, 2012) 55.
11. Suetonius. The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Volume 05: Claudius. Kindle Edition. (Public Domain Books) Kindle Locations 292-293.
12. Bart D. Erhman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, (New York, HarperOne, 2012) 52.
13. Suetonius. The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Volume 06: Nero. Kindle Edition. (Public Domain Books) Kindle Location 151.
14. "The Burning of Rome, 64 AD," EyeWitness to History, www.eyewitnesstohistory.com (1999). http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/rome.htm (accessed March 28, 2012).
15. Craig A. Evens. Fabricating Jesus, How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity Press, 2006) 159.
16. Josephus, Antiquities 18.3.3. Quoted by Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, (New York, HarperOne, 2012) 61.
17. Josephus, Antiquities 20.200-201 as quoted by Craig A. Evens. Fabricating Jesus, How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity Press, 2006) 161.
18. Pontius Pilate Inscription. Great Archaeology. http://www.greatarchaeology.com/Pontius.php (accessed March 28, 2012).
19. Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (Joplin, MO, College Press Publishing Company, 1996) 193.
20. James D. Tabor. Josephus on Jesus. The Jewish Roman World of Jesus. http://religiousstudies.uncc.edu/people/jtabor/josephus-jesus.html (accessed April 12, 2012)
21. James D. Tabor. Josephus on Jesus. The Jewish Roman World of Jesus. http://religiousstudies.uncc.edu/people/jtabor/josephus-jesus.html (accessed April 12, 2012)
22. James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, New Light from Exciting Archaeological Discoveries. (SPCK Publishing, 1989) 96-97 as quoted by Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (Joplin, MO, College Press Publishing Company, 1996) 195.
23. Bart D. Erhman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, (New York, HarperOne, 2012) 43.
24. Ellen Johnson and Larry King, “What Happens After We Die?” Larry King Live, CNN, April 14, 2005, http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0504/14/lkl.01.html (accessed March 22, 2012).
25. Ruth A. Palmquist, The Historical Approach to Research. The University of Texas at Austin. http://www.gslis.utexas.edu/~palmquis/courses/historical.htm (accessed March 16, 2012).
26. Bart D. Erhman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, (New York, HarperOne, 2012) 37.
27. Ruth A. Palmquist, The Historical Approach to Research. The University of Texas at Austin. http://www.gslis.utexas.edu/~palmquis/courses/historical.htm (accessed March 16, 2012).
28. Stephen Van Eck. Was Jesus Real? World Union of Deists. http://www.deism.com/jesusexist.htm (accessed March 12, 2012).
29. Randel McCraw Helms, Gospel Fictions (Amherst, New York, Prometheus Books, 1988) 10.
30. Habermas, Gary R., “Was Jesus Real,” InterVarsity.org, August 8, 2008. http://www.intervarsity.org/studentsoul/item/was-jesus-real (accessed March 13, 2012).
31. Clay Jones. Jesus Wasn’t a Real Person? That’s Dumb! Clay Jones’ Blog (August 24, 2010). http://www.clayjones.net/2010/08/jesus-wasnt-a-real-person-thats-dumb/ (accessed March 20, 2012).
32. Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels (London: Rigel, 2004) 200 as quoted by Born Identity: Was Jesus a real person?. Y-Jesus.com. http://www.y-jesus.com/bornid_1.php (accessed March 2012).

 

After much thought, I have decided to pursue a Master’s Degree in Apologetics.  This decision was not made in a vacuum.  Seventeen years ago I was looking to go to seminary but it did not work out at that time.  Since then, I have grown in maturity and feel called to pursue that course now.

I am not giving up my career; I will continue along that path.  However, I have a desire to teach and feel that teaching is one of my gifts.  The funny thing about teaching is in high school, I said there were two things I would not want to do, one of which was teaching.  I now teach computer classes, but as I get older, staying on top of the technology industry is not going to be easy.  In addition, I want to teach something that will change lives.

I applied and was accepted at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary.  I chose their seminary because it was cheap and online.  However, after talking to my best friend and others, I decided I would look for the best school in the field I am most interested in, Apologetics.   Biola University is known for its apologetics program, and I just found out they have a distance learning option.  They are slightly more expensive per unit, but I think the quality is head and shoulders above the rest.  Liberty was going to be $12,000 total for a Master’s of Theology whereas Biola will be $17,000 for a Master’s in Apologetics.  Right now I don’t know how I will pay for it.  Your prayers and support are appreciated.

I have just started the application process for Biola, and I have until December 1st to get it in for the spring 2012 semester.  I will let you know when I get accepted.

Pastor Rick Moe from Golden Hills Community Church has agreed to mentor me as I progress though school.  My best friend, John, has given me over 1000 books that he used while he was in seminary.  His topic of study was apologetics, so the books are very appropriate.   John has taught at Morling Theological College and believes that I have the gift of teaching and should pursue further education.  I thank them for their support.

I have to thank my wife for her support as well.  She puts up with me having my head in a book all the time and the library of books that fills our home.

That’s all for now.  I will periodically send you updates on my progress and post them to my blog.

Have you read lately on a billboard or in a magazine ad that the Judgment Day will be May 21, 2011? I have so many issues with this I don’t even know where to begin.
According to a pamphlet I picked up at a gas station, God has given us a head- up on the Day of Judgment. According to the pamphlet:

“..The Holy Bible tells us that Holy God is a God of great mercy, compassion and love. That is why He has given us in advance of the destruction the exact time of the Day of Judgment.”

The Bible does state that God has great mercy, compassion and love. However, the pamphlet does not say where exactly the Bible says that He give us the exact time of the Day of Judgment.

As you read further, you find that they quote 2 Peter 3:8 and as soon as you see that, you know where they are going with this. They take the passage, literally, to mean that one of God’s days is 1000 of our years. But if you read further to 2 Peter 3:10 it states the day will come like a ‘thief’. Given the context of the discourse, I would tend to lean toward a metaphorical figure of speech for understanding 2 Peter 3:8. Be that as it may, let’s read further to see what they do with a literal, out of context, interpretation of this passage.

Next, the pamphlet takes God’s warning of impending judgment from Genesis 7:4 and Genesis 7:10-11, where God says he will make it rain for 40 days and nights, to mean that in 7000 years God will destroy the earth with fire for good. (Side bar: 2 Peter 3:7 says that the first destruction was by water and was Noah’s flood and the second destruction would be by fire.) Here is what the pamphlet says:

“Therefore, with the correct understanding that the seven days referred to in Genesis 7:4 can be understood as 7,000 years, we learn that when God told Noah there were seven days to escape worldwide destruction, He was also telling the world there would be exactly 7,000 years (one day is as 1,000 years) to escape the wrath of God that would come when He destroys the world on Judgment Day.”

Issue 1 Context
Here, the passages are taken completely out of context. It is obvious to the casual reader of Genesis 7:4 that the seven days were seven, literal, 24 hour days before the rain would start. Genesis confirms this understanding in Genesis 7:10-11 when it states that it ‘came to pass’ that the rains started exactly seven 24 hour days later. What the pamphlet does to get around this is to imply that there are two fulfillments to Genesis 7:4, one, literal, 24 hour days and one, metaphorical, 1000 years per day.

Issue 2 1000 Years
First, I have a difficult time reading 2 Peter 3:8 literally that a day to God is like 1000 years to us. I think when you look at it literally; you have to ignore that God is eternal, which is to say He exists outside of time and space all together. (Read a past blog post on eternal) Time was created and is part of our universe, and as Einstein proved and current astrophysics teaches us, time is relative.

Second, are all those years 360 day years or 365.25 days? Originally, the earth’s orbit was 360 days and at some time in the BC era (I forget when) there was a change in the orbit to 365.25 days. For more information on prophetic years of 360 days I would recommend the book ‘The Coming Prince’ by Sir Robert Anderson; He demonstrates in his book that by using 360 day years you can take, at least on prophecy, from the Old Testament about the first coming of our Messiah to the exact day it was fulfilled in the New Testament.

Issue 3 The Bible as Whole
In order to buy this premise, you have to ignore everywhere else in the Bible that says we won’t know the day or the hour of the end. Here are a few passages: Matthew 25: 13 and Matthew 24:44.

Final Thoughts
This isn’t the first Church or group to give a date. I am betting these guys are wrong too. The problem is, it gives all Christians a bad name. Just look at the comments to a blogger’s post on the Christian obsession with the end.

I do know one other little tidbit from the Bible. In Deut. 18:20-22 the punishment for a false prophet is execution. If the End is May 21, 2011, I am ready. If the End is not May 21, 2011, are they ready?

One of the problems I have found with some Christian apologists is the propensity of some of them to be disingenuous, at best, when characterizing Satanists. Many of them fall into the trap of the informal fallacy of composition. In logic and reasoning, a fallacy of composition is when someone makes the assumption that what is true of a small portion of a population is true of the whole population. A composition fallacy is like asking one student in a classroom what their favorite color is and then making the assumption that it is the favorite color of all of the students in the classroom.

When someone hears the term Satanist, they cannot help but imagine blood sacrifices, ritualistic murder, demon summoning and all sorts of other wild magical things. This perception of Satanism is actually taken from a very small minority of Satanists that have been popularized by the media and disingenuous apologists. The truth about most Satanists is much less exciting than the perception and, as it is in the newspaper business, not worthy of print. Most people don't know what a true Satanist is or even have a true perception on one.

John Smulo demonstrates this point in his article in the Sacred Tribes Journal called "Spiritual Warfare Profiles of Satanism: Are They Misleading?” John asks the question, are Satanists fairly portrayed in work by popular Christian authors? John then demonstrates that the truth is, most Satanists are actually atheists, and they don't even believe in an evil entity named Satan or Lucifer. A vast majority of them do not engage in animal sacrifice or conjure up demons.

We may wonder then, why do they choose to call themselves Satanist if they don't believe in Satan? When Saul D. Alinsky dedicates his book, Rules for Radicals; to Lucifer what does he really mean? Does he believe in the devil and sacrifice goats? Doubtful. Satan is an icon for Satanists and other people. Satan is an icon that, in their minds, stands in drastic opposition to the western culture and the Judeo-Christian ethic we call the “golden rule;” do unto others as you would have them do to you or love your neighbor as yourself. Satan stands as an icon of selfishness, self-fulfillment and do unto others before they do unto you.

Satan becomes an icon of their worldview and philosophy. He is viewed as a nonexistent representation of their philosophy. Notice how he is characterized in the Satanic Bible:

1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence!
2. Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams!
3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit!
4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates!
5. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek!
6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires!
7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all!
8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!
9. Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years!
Anton Szandor LaVey, The Satanic Bible

"Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgement to the very first radical; from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins - or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer." Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

Why do Christian apologists tend to paint with a broad brush when characterizing Satanists? If I was only to read their books and then I ran in to a real live Satanist and started asking them about conjuring demons and animal sacrifices, they would look at me as if I was crazy. I would have lost all credibility I had up until that point. They won’t care what I have to say after that. I don’t know why some popular Christian apologists make such generalizations, but, if I am not careful to check their facts, I could end up looking like a fool.

We characterize people and make the assumption that the real difference between us is they worship a spiritual being called Satan, Lucifer or the Devil. In reality, the difference is one of philosophy. It is important to make sure we know where they are coming from if we want to engage in any type of meaningful dialog.

One of my Christian friends commented that my issue is just one of semantics, because Satan is still behind the philosophy. I don’t disagree that Satan is behind it because, technically, from a Christian point of view, Satan would be behind all the world’s false religions and teachings to one extent or another. However, the issue is how Satanists view themselves and their beliefs. We have to addresses them from where they are.

Check out my past blog on the Domains of Spiritual Warfare

 

"The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips then walk out the door and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable." - DC Talk "What if I Stumble?"

"I despise my own behavior; this only serves to confirm my suspicions that I am still a man in need of a Savior." DC Talk "In The light"

Here is a good question a friend of mine posted on his FaceBook profile. 

In a previous post on "What would you say to Richard Dawkins question?" I had such a success I decided to do another one. One of the questions Dawkins like to ask about God in an effort to show he is capricious and thus not worthy of our attention is, "What would you do if God told you to kill someone?" Obviously, this is illusory to Abraham and Isaac. The Christian context of the event was not that God was capricious; it was that God was foreshadowing things to come and Isaac was never going to be harmed

What would God say to Richard Dawkins if he asked why is there so much pain and suffering? This is a legitimit question I have heard him ask a number of times in various debates and interviews. This is a very troubling question and I have heard a number of possible answers. Some of the answers given are a joke while others are great logically but leave something wanting in the emotional aspects.

I was talking with a friend of mine concerning Jehovah's Witness and Muslim view on the divinity of Jesus. Having discussed this with Jehovah's Witness (JW) friends of mine in the past, this one area is the central division between JW doctrine and that of other Christians (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant). You see you really can't say that Jesus of Nazareth was just a prophet or a great moral teacher if he claimed to be God. He either is or is not God. If He is not God and He claims to be, He is a lair and not to be trusted as a prophet or great moral teacher. In fact a prophet who lies should be put to death (Deu 18: 20-22). 

Eipen autois ho Iesous Amen amen lego humin prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi

Greek test for John 8:58

Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."

John 8:58 (NASB)

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a good moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic-on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg-or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God.  But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great moral teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." C. S. Lewis