For information on the symposium, here

NEW BRAUNFELS, Texas (Christian Examiner) – “Dad, I don’t believe in God anymore.”

An apologetics training in response to an increasing number of grieving parents who have heard these words from their college students looks at ways students can speak respectfully, but firmly to their professors, many of whom are atheists.

The instructors at Fearless Faith are convinced a contributing factor to why 70 percent of young evangelicals admit to abandoning church is a lack of worldview and apologetics training for students in how to resist the influence of their atheist professors.

Frank Turek, founder of CrossExamined.org and author of I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, offers the Fearless Faith seminar to address the fact that college professors are five times more likely to be atheists than the general public and may be hostile toward Christianity. For complete article, here

As a Christian case-maker, we need to be able to ‘level the playing field’ when challenges to the Christian worldview are presented. We can do this by placing the burden of proof where it belongs, which is on the party making a truth claim. The burden of proof is commonly defined as: the person who asserts a proposition and/or truth claim, has the burden to defend it by reason or evidence. In other words, the person who asserts the proposition must prove it to be true. It is then and only then that the other person need respond to the substantiated claim with either counter-evidence or a counterargument. This is known as the burden of the rejoinder. In other words, the party who makes the assertion/truth claim is responsible to prove it. Until they do, you as the opposing party are not responsible to disprove what is unproven. The onus is not on you to go about disproving unsubstantiated claims. The burden of proof must be held in balance when two opposing worldviews are being discussed or debated.

Alan Shlemon offers the following instruction on how we, as Christian case-makers, can avoid being placed in a position of being the sole bearers of the burden of proof, and as such, put ourselves on an equal footing with those in whom we are engaged in conversation, discussion or debate:

“Here’s the scenario. You’re having a conversation with a friend. They offer a critique or objection to your faith. Instead of them backing up their critique with evidence or reasons, you begin a defensive discourse explaining why their objection is not accurate. And now you’ve done it – you’ve just given someone a free ride.

The problem of free rides can be resolved with a simple, yet powerful concept known as the burden of proof rule. The burden of proof is the responsibility one has to defend their belief, opinion, or view. The rule goes like this: The person that makes the claim bears the burden. In other words, if someone offers a critique, it’s their job to defend their view, not your job to defend against it.

Too often I see Christians bear the burden of proof when they’re not supposed to. This keeps the Christian in the hot seat as they hopelessly try to respond to every crazy objection and story someone can spin. They neglect holding the other person responsible to defend their view. It’s time to stop giving free rides and begin enforcing the burden of proof rule.

For example, a friend might tell you they think all religions are the same. They’ve made the claim so it’s their job to back it up. Ask, “How did you come to that conclusion?” or something akin to that. Then sit back and listen to them defend their view. It’s their job. This is not only a good tactic, it’s also the next proper step in the conversation.” (For complete article, here)

Paul Copan in his article, The Presumptuousness of Atheism, summarizes the dynamics behind the burden of proof in relation to the theist/atheist debates, but which can also be applied to debates on any topic or question in which the Christian faith/worldview is being challenged. Copan states:

“Atheist Antony Flew has said that the “onus of proof must lie upon the theist.” Unless compelling reasons for God’s existence can be given, there is the “presumption of atheism.”… However, the presumption of atheism actually turns out to be presumptuousness. The Christian must remember that the atheist also shares the burden of proof, which I will attempt to demonstrate below.

First, even if the theist could not muster good arguments for God’s existence, atheism still would not be shown to be true. The outspoken atheist Kai Nielsen recognizes this: “To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false….All the proofs of God’s existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists.”

Second, the “presumption of atheism” demonstrates a rigging of the rules of philosophical debate in order to play into the hands of the atheist, who himself makes a truth claim. Alvin Plantinga correctly argues that the atheist does not treat the statements “God exists” and “God does not exist” in the same manner. The atheist assumes that if one has no evidence for God’s existence, then one is obligated to believe that God does not exist — whether or not one has evidence against God’s existence. What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much a claim to know something (“God does not exist”) as theism (“God exists”). Therefore, the atheist’s denial of God’s existence needs just as much substantiation as does the theist’s claim; the atheist must give plausible reasons for rejecting God’s existence.

Third, in the absence of evidence for God’s existence, agnosticism, not atheism, is the logical presumption. Even if arguments for God’s existence do not persuade, atheism should not be presumed because atheism is not neutral; pure agnosticism is. Atheism is justified only if there is sufficient evidence against God’s existence.

Fourth, to place belief in Santa Claus or mermaids and belief in God on the same level is mistaken. The issue is not that we have no good evidence for these mythical entities; rather, we have strong evidence that they do not exist. Absence of evidence is not at all the same as evidence of absence, which some atheists fail to see. Moreover, the theist can muster credible reasons for belief in God. For example, one can argue that the contingency of the universe — in light of Big Bang cosmology, the expanding universe, and the second law of thermodynamics (which implies that the universe has been “wound up” and will eventually die a heat death) — demonstrates that the cosmos has not always been here. It could not have popped into existence uncaused, out of absolutely nothing, because we know that whatever begins to exist has a cause. A powerful First Cause like the God of theism plausibly answers the question of the universe’s origin…The existence of objective morality provides further evidence for belief in God…These and other reasons demonstrate that the believer is being quite rational — not presumptuous — in embracing belief in God.” [1]

[1] Paul Copan, http://www.equip.org/article/the-presumptuousness-of-atheism/

You can also contact the author of this article at: 4Lane.davis@gmail.com

The Burden of Proof on Atheists concerning Evil, Suffering, and God–William Lane Craig
Far too often atheists feel they carry no burden of proof concerning God’s existence and moral evil in the world. However, if they feel that evil and suffering is incompatible with God’s existence, they NECESSARILY must give proof for that. Atheists love putting theists on the defensive concerning questions of God, but this time they can’t do that. Let’s face it, many atheists are just too scared to get cornered with hard questions. They would rather redefine atheism and put the full burden on the theist.

You’ve often heard that the best defense is a good offense when related to the strategy that sports teams employ, but this is also a key principle that can be applied in defending the Christian faith. If you are finding it difficult to stand up for what you believe as a Christian case-maker, and finding yourself in a defensive position more often than not, perhaps you should employ a conversational method that will help you to ‘turn the table’ and put the other person(s) in a defensive position so they will have to stand up for what they believe. The method I’m referring to is simpler, and even easier than you might think–it’s all about learning to ask a few strategic questions.By asking questions we engage in worldview apologetics, that is, we are able to get below the surface of someone’s rhetoric and ideas so as to reveal and engage their worldview. Therefore, a question properly and strategically used can both drive a point home and cause other people, whether they be an individual, or in a group setting, to pause and reexamine the soundness of their worldview. Concisely put, it is all about reversing the burden of proof and leveling the worldview playing field. (More on this below)

Before diving into the how-to’s of the art of strategic question asking, one point needs to be made, and that is this–how you ask questions, that is, your attitude and motivation in asking questions, will reveal whether you want to persuade someone of the truth or just win an argument. We must remember the early apostles instruction in how to conduct ourselves when presenting the Gospel, that we do so “with gentleness and respect.” (1 Peter 3:15) “Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.” (Col. 4:6) “…correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth. (2 Tim. 2:25) As Martin Luther aptly put it, “We are all mere beggars showing other beggars where to find bread,” the Bread of Life. (John 6:35)

Now let’s see if we can upgrade our question asking ability so as to be effective case-makers for the Christian worldview. Asking questions is an excellent strategy for three reasons:

1. It is low risk. If the person you are engaging (e.g. your professor, a classmate, a friend) becomes angry or defensive at your questions, then you can simply stop asking questions or change the subject.

2. Asking questions helps you to understand the other person’s train of thought—where they began their thinking, how their thinking progressed, and the exact conclusion they are trying to proffer. In other words, asking questions helps you to understand them. And understanding is a primary step in seeking to persuade people of the truth.

3. Asking questions is the mark of an educated person. Recall the Bible story of Jesus visiting the temple as a twelve-year-old boy. The Bible says that his parents found him “sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers” (Luke 3:46-47). How can you “ask questions” and “give answers” at the same time? Hebrew students could demonstrate their learning by responding to a question with an equally well-phrased and ponderous question. To this day, those who ask good questions are seen as more intelligent and well-informed.

Now, what sort of questions should we be asking? Start with questions that are at the heart of the other person’s worldview. Such questions put them in a position where they have to back up and defend the assumptions they are presenting. Along this line, I would suggest a series of reflective questions that Greg Koukl presents in his excellent book, Tactics:

Question #1: What do you mean by_______________?
Always begin by asking the other person to define their terms.

Question #2: How did you come to that conclusion?
This question is especially helpful in coming to understand how a person is thinking.

Question #3: How do you know that to be true?
There is no need to ask whether or not they believe that what they believe is the truth. All we are doing is simply asking them to supply some good reasons to show that what they are claiming to be true is in fact true.

Question #4: Why do you believe that you are right?
Christians should always be ready, on any given subject, to give rudimentary reasons why they believe as they do. But we should in turn be ready to ask others, “Why do you believe as you do?”

Question #5: Where do you get your information?
We believe that in most college classes, at least 30% of what is said is actually the opinion of the professor, and not necessarily based on any direct evidence at all. To see whether this is true, students should be trained to ask, “Excuse me, where do you get the information to prove that what you are saying is true?”

Question #6: What happens if you are wrong?
Nobody likes to think about the consequences if what they believe is wrong.

Greg Koukl goes on to explore the dynamics of how Christians can thoughtfully engage there surrounding culture through the art of asking questions in conversation. Koukl gives four reasons as to the advantages of developing this art.

1. Sincere questions are friendly and flattering. The invite genial interaction on something the other person cares a lot about: their own ideas.

2. You will receive an education. You’ll leave the conversation knowing more than when you arrived. Sometimes that information will be just what you need to make a difference. When a young man asked me to recommend a book on Buddhism so he could witness to his Buddhist friend, I told him not to bother with the book. Instead, ask the Buddhist. Sit down over coffee and let him give the tutorial. It’s a lot easier, he’d be learning the specifics of his friend’s own convictions (instead of some academic version), and he’d be building a relationship at the same time.

3. Questions allow you to make progress on a point without being pushy [and/or overbearing]. Since questions are largely neutral, or at least seem that way, they don’t sound “preachy.” When you ask a question, you aren’t actually stating your own view and therefore have nothing to defend…You can relax and enjoy the conversation while you wait for an easy opening.

4. Finally, and most importantly, carefully placed questions put you in the driver’s seat. Being an asker allows you control of the situations that statement-makers rarely achieve. An alert questioner can judge when someone grows uneasy. But don’t stop, just change directions…Once you learn how to guide a conversation, you have also learned how to control it.

In conclusion, Koukl states, “There are three basic ways to use Columbo (the name of Koukl’s strategy plan). Each is launched by a different model question. These three applications comprise the game plan I use to tame the most belligerent critic. Sometimes I simply want to gather information. Other times, I ask a question to reverse the burden of proof, that is, to encourage the other person to give the reasons for their own views. Finally, I use the question to lead the conversation in a specific direction.” [2]

For more on conversational evangelism, click here

You can also contact the author of this article, that’s me, Lane, at: 4Lane.davis@gmail.com

[1] Koukl, Gregory, Tactics-A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions, Zondervan, 2009, pg.

Tactics Video Study, Session 1: The Columbo Tactic-by Gregory Koukl

The question, “what exactly was the extent of Christ’s suffering?,” is often answered by pointing to the physical suffering that he endured. Mel Gibson’s movie, The Passion of Christ, is one such example of the primary focus being placed on the physical suffering, with minimal attention being given to the spiritual, or better said, the cosmic suffering that Jesus endured. Before we go any further, please know that I am in no way minimizing the physical suffering of Jesus of Nazareth, to do so, would be to depreciate the atoning sacrifice that He made through both his physical and spiritual, or as I will refer to it in this series of articles, cosmic suffering, in which we are now the benefactors, both physically and spiritually through Christ’s redemptive power. My goal is simply to shine an illuminative light upon the cosmic suffering of Christ’s passion, an aspect of His suffering that in my opinion, is often overlooked, or less understood than that of His physical suffering.

Passover Meal
I will begin at what is considered the starting point of the passion of the Christ, that of the Passover meal that he shared with his disciples. (Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7; Matt 26:17; John 19:14; 18:28) (I realize that some scholars include also Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem, but I will not cover that event in this series) The Passover meal was the beginning of Christ’s cosmic suffering, as he was already foretelling the future events that would shortly come to pass that would bring about his physical and cosmic suffering, eventually leading to his death:

• He knew that one of the twelve would betray Him.
• He would be forsaken: “You will all fall away because of me this night. For it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered…”

 
We can become familiar with the story of the Passover Meal, or as it has now been named, the Last Supper, and thereby miss the agony that Jesus must have felt while dining with his disciples. These were his trusted friends and companions, those that he was entrusting to fulfill his Great Commission via the power of the Holy Spirit, and become his “witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” (Acts 1:8; Matt. 28:18-20) These were his disciples, those who had lived with him for over three years, who had witnessed his miracles; power over nature, healing, raising the dead, etc. Peter, James and John had been privileged to witness the Transfiguration—they knew he was the Christ. (Matt. 16:13-16) And yet, Jesus knew that they would all forsake him in the following hours. It was also considered the height of disloyalty and betrayal to share a meal with a friend before betraying him. It was a sign of trust and friendship when one sat down to dine with others, therefore Judas’ betrayal was all the more pronounced.

Garden of Gethsemane
Jesus was arrested around mid-night in the Garden of Gethsemane. (Matthew 26:36-46 Luke 22:39-46 Mark 14:32-42) Prior to the arrest, we see that the cosmic suffering began to manifest itself physically. “Then Jesus went with them to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to his disciples, “Sit here, while I go over there and pray.” And taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, he began to be sorrowful and troubled. Then he said to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death…” (Matthew 26:36-38)

Here we see the frightened Jesus fall on his face, begging God to take away the cup of suffering. This is not the stuff of pious fiction or dogma. Indeed, it stands in stark contrast to the serene Jesus portrayed in John 17, where he communes with God in peace, prays for his disciples, and adds a prayer for all those who will follow after him. [1] He prayed three times that, if possible, the death he knew he was to undergo might be halted, but in the end he was in complete subjection to the Father’s will. D. A. Carson explains the magnitude and cosmic effects of Christ’s submission stating:

In the first garden ‘Not your will but mine’ changed Paradise to desert and brought man from Eden to Gethsemane. Now ‘not my will but yours’ brings anguish to the man who prays it but transforms the desert into the kingdom and brings man from Gethsemane to the gates of glory.[2]

 

The extent of Jesus’ sorrow and anxiety was manifested physically in his perspiring of “great drops of blood”— And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground. (Luke 22:42-44) Although this physical condition is only included in Luke’s Gospel, this is certainly understandable considering he was a physician by profession and would have been more concerned than the other Gospel writers in reporting this detail of the eyewitness accounts of the disciples. It is hard to see how a story such as the Gethsemane prayer could circulate and find its way into the Gospel tradition if it were not based on solid, credible eyewitness testimony. It would simply be too risky for Jesus’ identity if it were not true. [3] It should be noted that scholars date the writing of Luke’s Gospel between the late 40’s or early 50’s AD. Luke makes it clear at the beginning of his Gospel that he has “undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us.” (Luke 1:1-4) If Luke had used his ‘literary license’ to embellish the Gethsemane account by including ‘bloody sweat’ point, the other disciples would have certainly corrected him for doing so.

Luke 22:44 says that Jesus was in agony (Greek: agōnia—of severe mental struggles and emotions, agony, anguish) in anticipation of bearing “our sins in his own body on the tree” (1 Pet. 2:24) There are both ancient and modern accounts on record of people sweating blood, a condition known as hematidrosis, where extreme anguish or physical strain causes one’s capillary blood vessels to dilate and burst, mixing sweat and blood. This condition, hematidrosis, is a rare dermatologic disorder that can occur in an individual subjected to server mental distress and is the result of hemorrhaging into the sweat glands.

Forensic pathologist Frederick Zugibe in his book, The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry, states:

During the first phase of his journey, in the Garden of Gethsmene, the hematidrosis illustrates that severity of Jesus’ mental suffering, an area that is not generally recognized when contemplating His pain. The effects of hematidrosis and the severe anxiety associated with it, are general weakness, depression, mild to moderate dehydration, and mild hypovolemia (low blood and fluid volume) due to sweat and blood loss—all which would have greatly weakened Jesus prior to his crucifixion.[4]

 
This historical fact, as recorded by Luke, has met with attempts to refute or relegate it to hyperbole by some critics. However, Dr. C. Truman Davis asserts that, “Every attempt imaginable has been used by modern scholars to explain away the phenomenon of bloody sweat, apparently under the mistaken impression that it simply does not occur. A great deal of effort could be saved by consulting the medical literature.” Although quite rare, Dr. Davis affirms that “the phenomenon of hematidrosis, or bloody sweat, is well documented. Under great emotional stress, tiny capillaries in the sweat glands can break, thus mixing blood with sweat.”

Dr. Gerald H. Bradley, M.D. asserts that it involves “causing great weakness”, while Dr. Davis adds that it may produce “possible shock”. During this process, “as a result of hemorrhage into the sweat glands, the skin becomes fragile and tender.” As for the extent of damage, “Jesus’ actual blood loss probably was minimal. However, in the cold night air, it may have produced chills” [5] Under careful observation, Christ’s condition of hematidrosis can be shown as valid, given the sweat was actually blood.

When reflecting on the cosmic suffering, psychic torment, and extreme anxiety, and yes, even depression that Jesus of Nazareth experienced, even before the physical suffering began, we can only begin to scratch the surface of a realization of what he was willing to undergo because of the Father’s and his great love for each of us. In fact, as finite human beings, we can only venture to imagine the magnitude of Christ’s cosmic suffering. The full realization will come when we see him face to face in the eternal abode that he has prepared for us, “when the perfect comes, [and] the partial will pass away…For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.” (1 Cor. 13:9-12)

William A. Dembski does his best to conceptualize the reach of the Cross and extent of Christ’s suffering when he states:

In the Cross, the eternal Son of God enters fully into the human condition, takes on himself the totality of human sin and pain, and once and for all extinguishes the power of evil over our lives. To accomplish so great a salvation, Christ paid the ultimate cost, undergoing rejection, humiliation, physical torture, psychic torment, and death. Out of love for humanity, he laid down his life for ours, thereby securing our redemption. And through his Resurrection, he defeated death and gave us eternal life. As the ancient Easter hymn exults:

Christ is risen from the dead,
Trampling down death by death,
And upon those in the tombs,
Bestowing life!

Truly, there is not greater suffering or triumph of love than Christ’s sacrifice for us on the Cross.[6]

In part 2, I will address how the cosmic suffering continues after Jesus’ arrest and throughout his trials.

You can also contact the author of this article at: 4Lane.davis@gmail.com

[1] Craig A. Evans, N. T. Wright, Jesus, the Final Days—What Really Happened, pg. 11, Westminister John Knox Press, 2009
[2] The Expositor’s Bible commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke, with the New international version of the Holy Bible (Expositor’s Bible commentary, Vol.8), pg. 545
[3] Ibid, Jesus, the Final Days…
[4] Frederick Zugibe, The Crucifixion of Jesus, Completely Revised and Expanded: A Forensic Inquiry, Gethsemane, pg. 15, 2005
[5] William D. Edwards, MD; Wesley J. Gabel, MDiv; Floyd E. Hosmer, MS, AMI, On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ, JAMA 1986; 255:1455-1463
[6] William A. Dembski, The End of Christianity-Finding a Good God in an Evil World, B & H Publishing Group, 2009, pg. 14, 15

When You Understand it Medically, You’ll Appreciate Christ’s Suffering, Sacrifice and Death all the More

Why did Jesus sweat blood in the Garden of Gethsemane?–GotQuestions.org

Why Would God Punish Jesus for My Sins?—What would you say? Ministries

According to the law of non-contradiction, two propositions are contradictory if they both affirm and deny the same thing, at the same time, and in the same sense or in the same relationship. Now let’s put this law to the test:

In the Quran, it states that:

• And their saying, “We did kill the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah,” whereas they slew him not, nor crucified him, but he was made to appear to them like one crucified; and those who differ there are certainly in a state of doubt about it; they have no definite knowledge thereof, but only follow a conjecture; and they did not convert this conjecture into a certainty. On the contrary, Allah exalted him to Himself. And Allah is Mighty, Wise. (Surah 4:158, 159)

 
In the Bible (New Testament) it states that:

• And when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among them by casting lots. (Matthew 27:35 ESV)
• And when they came to the place that is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on his right and one on his left. (Luke 23:33 ESV)
• And they crucified him and divided his garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take. And it was the third hour when they crucified him. (Mark 15:24-25 ESV)
• So he delivered him over to them to be crucified…So they took Jesus, and he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called The Place of a Skull, which in Aramaic is called Golgotha. There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, and Jesus between them…When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his garments and divided them into four parts, one part for each soldier; also his tunic…(John 19:16-23 ESV)
• He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree…(1 Pet. 2:24)
• For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. (1 Corinthians 15:3-8 ESV)

Obviously, these two accounts cannot both be true—either Jesus was crucified or he was not. So which is the true account? The Quran states that the testimony of the eye witnesses to the crucifixion gave a false account because they had “no definite knowledge thereof, but only follow a conjecture; and they did not convert this conjecture into a certainty.” But how can a group of more than 11 eye witnesses (and more than 500 to the resurrection) have ‘no definite knowledge’ and only be found to ‘follow a conjecture?’ The obvious answer is—they cannot!

One of the ‘sources’ that Islam uses to affirm the Quran’s account of the crucifixion is the medieval legendary ‘gospel,’ and/or myth, called the Gospel of Barnabas. As we have seen already, contrary to the Bible, the Qur’an teaches that Jesus was not crucified and did not die on the cross. In the Gospel of Barnabas we see that its author has altered the New Testament’s, eye-witness account of Jesus’ crucifixion, to conform with what the Qur’an says:

The Gospel of Barnabas is not an authentic gospel of Jesus. The Gospel of Barnabas has a multitude of errors in regards to the language, history and geography pertaining to the 1st century A.D., not to mention that there is no ancient evidence for the book. One of the many glaring errors is as follows:

The major geographical error in this account is that the town of Nazareth was not a fishing village. It was located about 14 km from the sea of Galilee and situated in the hills of a mountain range! Capernaum was the fishing village that Jesus arrived at with his disciples, not Nazareth. Nazareth and Capernaum were two towns which Jesus often visited with his disciples, therefore any disciple of Jesus would know these towns well. (This is affirmed again and again in the New Testament Gospels which are geographically and historically accurate.) Obviously, the author of this ‘gospel’ does not have his geographical, nor historical facts, straight. This casts doubt over the claim that he was a disciple of Jesus or that he ever lived in that region. The internal evidence of the book suggests it was written in the 14th century, and there are Muslim scholars who agree with this dating. (For more on the Gospel of Barnabas, click here)

It is interesting to note that a number of claims in the Gospel of Barnabas are also contradictory to the Qur’an, which the following points attest too:

In his book, The Authenticity of the Gospel of Barnabas, Islamic scholar Ibn Yasin states, “The Jesus of Islam is a prophet, the Messiah to the Christian of Israel and the recipient of the Injil from Allah whereas the Jesus of the Gospel of Barnabas is not the recipient of the Injil but encourages Barnabas to write his gospel. He is also a prophet who announces the coming of Mohammad as well as clarifying and explaining different theological issues. This demonstrates that the Jesus portrayed in the gospel is vastly different than that mentioned in the Islamic scriptures. As such the gospel cannot be claimed to be the Injil of Jesus as the message and content of the gospel in regard to Jesus is considerably alien to Islam in so many respects.”[2]

It would seem that the attempt of the author to create an Islamic apologetic via the Gospel of Barnabas (he certainly was not a scholar of either Christian or Islamic theology) to disprove the crucifixion of Jesus has been discredited by both Christian and Islamic sources, and as such, should be placed in the literary genre of historical fiction.

William Lane Craig offers the following assessment of the historical veracity of Jesus’ crucifixion and compares the New Testament, eye witness narratives, with the one presented in the Quran:

Footnotes:
[1] Samuel Green, The Gospel of Barnabas, here
[2] Ibn Yasin, The Authenticity of the Gospel of Barnabas, 2011, here
[3] Jesus Seminar tape
[4] Paula Frederickson, remark during discussion at the meeting of “The Historical Jesus” section at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, November 22, 1999.
[5] William Lane Craig, Who Is The Real Jesus: The Jesus Of The Bible Or The Jesus Of The Qur’An?, http://www.reasonablefaith.org/who-is-the-real-jesus-the-jesus-of-the-bible-or-the-jesus-of-the-quran

If the Quran Is True, Then It’s False–Tim Barnett–Stand to Reason

There is a problem here that Christians and Muslims both recognize: The New Testament conflicts with the Quran on a number of central doctrines. The Christian, who takes Mohammed at his word and judges the Quran by the New Testament, is forced to conclude that Mohammed got it wrong.

What does the Muslim say to this? The Muslim’s answer is quite simple. The Quran is God’s infallible, uncorrupted word; therefore, “the Gospel” must have been corrupted. Here’s the unstated presupposition: If the New Testament differs with the Quran, then it’s the New Testament that must have it wrong.

However, when the words of the Quran were being written down, Mohammed was communicating that the New Testament and the Old Testament are reliable. In his words, they are “sent” from Allah, they “confirm” each other and contain “guidance and light.” So up until that time in history, “the Gospel” and “the Law” that Mohammed was working from were not corrupted. If they were already corrupted, then his words don’t make any sense. He wouldn’t ask Christians to judge anything by a corrupted book. This leads us to conclude that the corruption must have taken place after the Quran was written (620–632 AD).

Here’s the problem, and it’s a big one. The manuscript evidence we have gathered from after the Quran was written completely agrees with the manuscript evidence we have from before the Quran was written. That is to say, the New Testament around at the time of Mohammed is identical to the text we have today. [Emphasis mine.] (For complete article, click here)

The Gospel of Barnabas Exposed--Nabeel Qureshi

In a previous article, I highlighted one of the historical criteria used in assessing the veracity of an historical event, the criteria of embarrassment. Another criteria is that of enemy/skeptic attestation of the resurrection. This particular criteria is one of the most powerful historical attestations of both the events of Jesus’ life, as well as the historicity of the resurrection.

There were two subsequent conversions of persons who were witnesses to the risen Jesus—these two people being Paul, the avowed enemy of the followers of Christ, and James the skeptic, the brother of Jesus. These two examples of the criteria of enemy/skeptic attestation are compelling and difficult for the opponent to refute as it moves outside of the testimony of Jesus’ disciples and/or His ‘apologists’ if you will, and places the burden of proof on the opponent to explain how a skeptic and an avowed enemy could experience such a change in views unless it was through an experiential event.

Certainly a fable or nice story would not have convinced Paul that Jesus had risen from the dead. Indeed, in light of his hostile attitude and actions toward Christians, as well as his own Jewish studies, he most likely would have perceived the gospel to be a poor Christian attempt to imitate Jewish fables that later came to be known as Midrash. As an educated man, Paul would most assuredly been familiar with non-historical genre. It would not have lured him to follow the man he considered to be a false messiah who was cursed by God. He would have feared such apostasy from true faith, for it would jeopardize his soul.

It is important to note that Paul came to Christ through an experience in which he thought [and believed] he encountered the risen Jesus, an account that dates very early. We need reasons for his conversion from unbelief, since his conversion was based on a personal appearance of Jesus and counts very heavily against embellishment, with the same applying to James. All things considered, an empty tomb by itself would not have convinced Paul or the skeptic James, both of whom appear to have been convinced by an appearance of the risen Jesus to them personally. It must be noted that it was the appearances that led to the disciples’ belief that Jesus had risen from the dead, not that of the empty tomb, with the exception of John. (John 20:8)

Another criticism offered by skeptics is that all we have are the testimonies of Christians, who most likely transferred their personal biases and traditions into their writings. Therefore, these writings must be considered biased. Thus, we must suspect that they do not accurately report what really occurred. This objection is plagued with several difficulties.

First, Paul’s testimony is stronger than that of a neutral witness of the risen Jesus, since his bias ran in the opposite direction. He was certainly not sympathetic to the Christian cause. Rather he viewed Jesus as a false Christ and severely persecuted his followers. The skeptic may reply, “Yes, but after he became a Christian, he lost his standing as an unbiased source.”

Granted, Paul did lose his status as a hostile source after he became a Christian, however, he maintained hostility toward Christianity right up to the time he believed. So we still have an appearance of the risen Jesus as the reason for the belief of a hostile source. With one who persists in asserting that Christians still lack the testimony of someone who saw Jesus risen and did not convert, we might ask, “If someone actually witnessed the risen Jesus and was not changed by the experience, wouldn’t this indicate that the person was too biased against Jesus to act on the facts? Biases go both ways.” We would question the testimony of a person who really saw the raised Jesus and still rejected him.

Secondly, the biases of James the brother of Jesus also ran contrary to Christianity. The Gospels report that he was an unbeliever during the life of Jesus. Later we find reports of the risen Jesus appearing to James (1 Cor. 15:7a) and of his death for his belief that Jesus was the risen Messiah. So with testimonies in our hands from the disciples Paul and James, we have examples of friends and foes who believed that the risen Jesus had appeared to them.

Third, recognizing the bias of an author does not automatically merit the conclusion that he or she has distorted the facts.

Fourth, if we reject the testimony of all interested parties, we will have to reject most of our standard historical sources. The authors of such works often would not be writing unless they had a personal interest.
It is the role of the historian to comb through the literature and attempt to see pas the writer’s persona biases to ascertain what really happened.

Fifth, the skeptic must be careful not to commit the genetic fallacy. We must recognize the difference between understanding why something is true versus understanding why something is believed or how one came to believe that it is true. N. T. Wright comments, ”It must be asserted most strongly that to discover that a particular writer has a ‘bias’ tells us nothing whatever about the value of the information he or she presents. It merely bids us be aware of the bias (and of our own, for that matter), and to assess the material according to as many sources as we can.”

This logical reasoning applies to the resurrection of Jesus. X is the proposition that the disciples of Jesus sincerely believed that he rose from the dead and appeared to them. Let’s say that there are only fine initially plausible explanations that account for these claims on the part of the disciples:

Explanation 1: Jesus rose from the dead.
Explanation 2: Fraud was involved on the part of the disciples.
Explanation 3: The disciples sincerely believe they saw the risen Jesus, but were hallucinating or delusional.
Explanation 4: Jesus never really died, so when he appeared to his disciples they thought he had risen from the dead, when he had really only revived from a coma.
Explanation 5: The entire story was a legend that developed over time.

Now consider the additional factors of the empty tomb and the conversions of the church persecutor Paul and the skeptic James because they both believed that the raised Jesus had appeared to them. These provide evidence that explanation 1 is true. One might speculate that explanation 2 (that the disciples stole the body and were lying about the appearances) may also account for the empty tomb. But it does not adequately account for the disciple’ transformed lives and willingness to die, nor does it adequately explain the appearances of the risen Jesus to the skeptics Paul and James.[1]

In regards to enemy attestation—even though such attestation may be considered ‘indirect’—the empty tomb is attested not only by Christian sources, but admitted too by Jesus’ enemies as well. This is not an argument from silence, but rather than point to an occupied tomb, early critics accused Jesus’ disciples of stealing the body. (Matt. 28:12-13; Justin Martyr, Trypho 108; Tertullian, De Spectaculis 30). The earliest Jewish claim reported regarding Jesus’ resurrection was to accuse the disciples of stealing the body, and indirect admission that the body was unavailable for public display. This is the only early opposing theory we know of that was offered by Jesus’ enemies.
 
This enemy ‘attestation’ to the empty tomb, among other historical aspects of Jesus’ life, is also found in later medieval Jewish writings. One example is that of the Toledot Yeshu (1000AD), a medieval Jewish retelling of the life of Jesus. The following is a portion of the text which is extremely anti-Christian. There are many versions of these ‘retellings’, and as part of the transmitted oral and written tradition of the Jews, we can presume their original place in antiquity, dating back to the time of Jesus’ first appearance as an influential leader who was drawing Jews away from their faith in the Law. The Toledot Yeshu contains a determined effort to explain away the miracles of Jesus, and to deny the virgin birth, Jesus’ resurrection, etc. In some places, the text is quite vicious, but it does confirm many elements of the New Testament writings. Let’s take a look at a portion of the text (Jesus is refered to as ‘Yehoshua’):

“In the year 3671 (in Jewish reckonging, it being ca 90 B.C.) in the days of King Jannaeus, a great misfortune befell Israel, when there arose a certain disreputable man of the tribe of Judah, whose name was Joseph Pandera. He lived at Bethlehem, in Judah. Near his house dwelt a widow and her lovely and chaste daughter named Miriam. Miriam was betrothed to Yohanan, of the royal house of David, a man learned in the Torah and God-fearing. At the close of a certain Sabbath, Joseph Pandera, attractive and like a warrior in appearance, having gazed lustfully upon Miriam, knocked upon the door of her room and betrayed her by pretending that he was her betrothed husband, Yohanan. Even so, she was amazed at this improper conduct and submitted only against her will. Thereafter, when Yohanan came to her, Miriam expressed astonishment at behavior so foreign to his character. It was thus that they both came to know the crime of Joseph Pandera and the terrible mistake on the part of Miriam… Miriam gave birth to a son and named him Yehoshua, after her brother. This name later deteriorated to Yeshu (“Yeshu” is the Jewish “name” for Jesus. It means “May His Name Be Blotted Out”). On the eighth day he was circumcised. When he was old enough the lad was taken by Miriam to the house of study to be instructed in the Jewish tradition. One day Yeshu walked in front of the Sages with his head uncovered, showing shameful disrespect. At this, the discussion arose as to whether this behavior did not truly indicate that Yeshu was an illegitimate child and the son of a niddah. Moreover, the story tells that while the rabbis were discussing the Tractate Nezikin, he gave his own impudent interpretation of the law and in an ensuing debate he held that Moses could not be the greatest of the prophets if he had to receive counsel from Jethro. This led to further inquiry as to the antecedents of Yeshu, and it was discovered through Rabban Shimeon ben Shetah that he was the illegitimate son of Joseph Pandera. Miriam admitted it. After this became known, it was necessary for Yeshu to flee to Upper Galilee. After King Jannaeus, his wife Helene ruled over all Israel…He gathered about himself three hundred and ten young men of Israel and accused those who spoke ill of his birth of being people who desired greatness and power for themselves. Yeshu proclaimed, “I am the Messiah; and concerning me Isaiah prophesied and said, ‘Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.'” He quoted other messianic texts, insisting, “David my ancestor prophesied concerning me: ‘The Lord said to me, thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.'” The insurgents with him replied that if Yeshu was the Messiah he should give them a convincing sign. They therefore, brought to him a lame man, who had never walked. Yeshu spoke over the man the letters of the Ineffable Name, and the leper was healed. Thereupon, they worshipped him as the Messiah, Son of the Highest. When word of these happenings came to Jerusalem, the Sanhedrin decided to bring about the capture of Yeshu…They replied: “It is in our Torah, but it is not applicable to him, for it is in Scripture: ‘And that prophet which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.’ He has not fulfilled the signs and conditions of the Messiah.” Yeshu spoke up: “Madam, I am the Messiah and I revive the dead.” A dead body was brought in; he pronounced the letters of the Ineffable Name and the corpse came to life. The Queen was greatly moved and said: “This is a true sign.” She reprimanded the Sages and sent them humiliated from her presence. Yeshu’s dissident followers increased and there was controversy in Israel. Yeshu went to Upper Galilee. the Sages came before the Queen, complaining that Yeshu practiced sorcery and was leading everyone astray. Therefore she sent Annanui and Ahaziah to fetch him. The found him in Upper Galilee, proclaiming himself the Son of God. When they tried to take him there was a struggle, but Yeshu said to the men of Upper Galilee: “Wage no battle.” He would prove himself by the power which came to him from his Father in heaven. He spoke the Ineffable Name over the birds of clay and they flew into the air. He spoke the same letters over a millstone that had been placed upon the waters. He sat in it and it floated like a boat. When they saw this the people marveled. At the behest of Yeshu, the emissaries departed and reported these wonders to the Queen…Yeshu was seized. His head was covered with a garment and he was smitten with pomegranate staves; but he could do nothing, for he no longer had the Ineffable Name. Yeshu was taken prisoner to the synagogue of Tiberias, and they bound him to a pillar. To allay his thirst they gave him vinegar to drink. On his head they set a crown of thorns. There was strife and wrangling between the elders and the unrestrained followers of Yeshu, as a result of which the followers escaped with Yeshu to the region of Antioch; there Yeshu remained until the eve of the Passover. Yeshu then resolved to go the Temple to acquire again the secret of the Name. That year the Passover came on a Sabbath day. On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu, accompanied by his disciples, came to Jerusalem riding upon an ass. Many bowed down before him. He entered the Temple with his three hundred and ten followers. One of them, Judah Iskarioto apprised the Sages that Yeshu was to be found in the Temple, that the disciples had taken a vow by the Ten Commandments not to reveal his identity but that he would point him out by bowing to him. So it was done and Yeshu was seized. Asked his name, he replied to the question by several times giving the names Mattai, Nakki, Buni, Netzer, each time with a verse quoted by him and a counter-verse by the Sages. Yeshu was put to death on the sixth hour on the eve of the Passover and of the Sabbath. When they tried to hang him on a tree it broke, for when he had possessed the power he had pronounced by the Ineffable Name that no tree should hold him. He had failed to pronounce the prohibition over the carob-stalk, for it was a plant more than a tree, and on it he was hanged until the hour for afternoon prayer, for it is written in Scripture, “His body shall not remain all night upon the tree.” They buried him outside the city. On the first day of the week his bold followers came to Queen Helene with the report that he who was slain was truly the Messiah and that he was not in his grave; he had ascended to heaven as he prophesied. Diligent search was made and he was not found in the grave where he had been buried. A gardener had taken him from the grave and had brought him into his garden and buried him in the sand over which the waters flowed into the garden. Queen Helene demanded, on threat of a severe penalty, that the body of Yeshu be shown to her within a period of three days. There was a great distress. When the keeper of the garden saw Rabbi Tanhuma walking in the field and lamenting over the ultimatum of the Queen, the gardener related what he had done, in order that Yeshu’s followers should not steal the body and then claim that he had ascended into heaven. The Sages removed the body, tied it to the tail of a horse and transported it to the Queen, with the words, “This is Yeshu who is said to have ascended to heaven.” Realizing that Yeshu was a false prophet who enticed the people and led them astray, she mocked the followers but praised the Sages.

In spite of the fact that the ancient Jews who wrote this did their best to argue for another interpretation of the life of Jesus, they did make several claims here about Jesus. This passage, along with several others from the Toledot tradition, confirms that:

• Jesus claimed to be the Messiah,
• healed the lame,
• said that Isaiah foretold of his life,
• was worshipped as God,
• arrested by the Jews,
• beaten with rods,
• given vinegar to drink,
• wore a crown of thorns,
• rode into Jerusalem on a donkey,
• was betrayed by a man named Judah Iskarioto,
• and had followers who claimed he was resurrected and ascended, leaving an empty tomb.

If Jesus’ enemies attested to the same events of that of the Gospel, even though via that of attempted refutation, the case is made as to the events that took place in the life of the historical Jesus—the Christ which is found and attested too in the canonical Gospels.[2]

References:

[1] Habermas, Gary, Licona, Michael R., The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, pgs 86-87, 97, 124, 208-209, Kregel Publication, 2004
[2] Is There Any Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible?, http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Is_There_Evidence_for_Jesus_Outside_the_Bible

You can also contact the author of this article at: 4Lane.davis@gmail.com

Is enemy attestation an indicator of an empty tomb?–William Lane Craig

I am in the process of studying the new book by Os Guinness, Fool’s Talk: Recovering the Art of Christian Persuasion, and have found it to be a vital addition to my apologetic library. I highly recommend this book to all those who are interested in becoming a more effective witness through ‘recovering the art of Christian persuasion.’

In the introduction, Dr. Guinness offers his assessment of where the church stands in our post-modern, post-Christian world, and the need to rethink and/or realign apologetics and evangelism in the way in which they were intended to be used, as complimentary tools of persuasion to bring growth to the Kingdom of Christ. The following are introductory excerpts from the book:

“What does “the grand age of apologetics” mean for us as followers of Jesus? The full scope of this overall task is far larger than my particular concern in this book. But on the one hand, our age is quite simply the greatest opportunity for Christian witness since the time of Jesus and the apostles, and our response should be to seize the opportunity with bold and imaginative enterprise. If ever the “wide and effective door” that St. Paul wrote of has been reopened for the gospel, it is now. On the other hand, we have to face up to the many challenges of the new age of communication with realism, for there are oddities in the age of communication that make it actually harder to communicate well today, rather than easier. And we also have to face the fact that the global era has shown up weaknesses in our present approaches to sharing the faith that must be remedied— above all because many attempts at Christian apologetics have been caught in the turbulent wake of the massive crossover between the grand philosophies of modernism and postmodernism…In short, many of us today lack a vital part of a way of communicating that is prominent in the Gospels and throughout the Scriptures, but largely absent in the church today— persuasion, the art of speaking to people who, for whatever reason, are indifferent or resistant to what we have to say. They simply do not agree with us and are not open to what we have to say. Loss of persuasion? It might seem bizarre, almost unimaginable, that Christian communication has lost something so central to its mission . Yet in profound ways it has, and that is why our challenge is to think about apologetics in ways that are not only fresh but faithful and independent— faithful in the sense that they are shaped by the imperatives of Christian truths, and independent in the sense that they are not primarily beholden to ways of thinking that are alien to Christian ways of thinking. That is why this book is not only about the lost art of Christian persuasion. It is also about an “advocacy of the heart,” an existential approach to sharing our faith that I believe is deeper and more faithful as well as more effective than the common approaches used by many. Christian advocacy has had many conversation partners down the centuries—particularly the great tradition of classical rhetoric established by the Greeks and the Romans. It has also had many opponents and sparring partners—most recently the bracing challenge of the new atheists. But for all the undoubted benefits of these challenges, one of the more unfortunate side effects is that much apologetics has lost touch with evangelism and come to be all about “arguments,” and in particular about winning arguments rather than winning hearts and minds and people. Our urgent need today is to reunite evangelism and apologetics, to make sure that our best arguments are directed toward winning people and not just winning arguments, and to seek to do all this in a manner that is true to the gospel itself…I will argue that there is no one we cannot talk to, however hostile to and distant from the gospel, but that this is precisely because we can count on the distinctive truths of the gospel itself— and therefore that our approach is independent in the sense of being decisively Christian and not neutral between belief and unbelief. This vision of Christian advocacy as “the art of Christian truth and of Christian truths” is the core of the lost art of persuasion we shall be exploring.”

Read Os Guinness’ Christianity Today interview, Os Guinness: Welcome to the ‘Grand Age of Apologetics’ here.

I also recommend the following apologetic/evangelism resources that speak to the same issues as are raised in the above mentioned book, that of effectively communicating the Christian worldview within today’s cultural milieu via the ‘art of Christian persuasion’:

Mere Apologetics–How to Help Seekers and Skeptics Find Faith–Alister E. McGrath–here
Conversational Evangelism–How to Listen and Speak So You Can be Heard–Norman & David Geisler–here
When God Goes to Starbucks–A Guide to Everyday Apologetics–Paul Copan–here
Tactics–A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions–Gregory Koukl–here
Being a Christian ‘case-maker’—here

What is the Role of Apologetics in Evangelism–William Lane Craig

I wanted to recommend to all my fellow apologists, as well as those who are aspiring to be an apologist, the Stand to Reason Christian apologetics site. This site is rich in resources, not the least of which is Greg Koukl’s milestone apologetics book, Tactics. I recommend this book to every Christian, apologist aspiring or not, as it will help to equip you as a witness for Christ, give you more boldness in your daily conversations with friends, colleagues, fellow-students, neighbors, etc., and thereby help build a bridge that others can walk across into the Kingdom of God.

Another resource available on the site is Greg Koukl and Alan Shlemon’s, Ambassador series. Within this series are the Ambassador’s Guide to Pluralism; Ambassador’s Guide to Islam; Ambassador’s Guide to Postmodernism; Ambassador’s Guide to the New Atheists; Ambassador’s Guide to Understanding Homosexuality, and more.

All these resources and more are available at the Stand to Reason site store which can be found here

For more apologetic resources, please see the resource section on this site here

In the late 1960s, Os Guinness worked alongside Francis Schaeffer at L’Abri, Schaeffer’s famed Christian retreat center in Switzerland. In the 1980s, he moved to the United States, where he served (among other places) at the Woodrow Wilson Center and the Brookings Institution. He has been heavily involved in discussions about the First Amendment and the need for a vigorous, civil public square. Yet he never lost Schaeffer’s vision for Christian apologetics and evangelism, a fact reflected in his latest book, Fool’s Talk: Recovering the Art of Christian Persuasion (InterVarsity Press). CT senior writer Tim Stafford spoke with Guinness about making the gospel appealing in a secularizing culture.

What made you decide to write about apologetics at this time?

Clearly we’re at a stage in Western history where we need the church to be persuasive. Public life has grown more secular. Private worlds have become more diverse, and we have a mounting hostility against us. If ever Christians at large and evangelicals in particular needed to be persuasive with people who are not open, it’s now. So I thought it was the time to write.

Fool’s Talk is the fruit of many decades of thinking. I owe a huge debt to C. S. Lewis, from whom I came to faith; to Francis Schaeffer, who introduced me to the discipline of apologetics; and to Peter Berger, the sociologist, who has probably shaped my mind more than any other living person. My approach is a mixture of the three of them.

At the beginning of your book you refer to this as “the grand age of apologetics.” That will surprise some people. What do you mean by it?

The phrase is not mine. I read it in a sociology article, and it surprised me at first. In the age of the Internet, everyone is presenting their daily me. Think of Facebook. People are selling themselves, defending themselves, presenting themselves, arguing for themselves, whatever. In that sense this is the age of apologetics. When I read that, I realized that we Christians have had this in our DNA for 2,000 years. But are we prepared for this extraordinary new age? For the complete article/interview, here