my challenge to Pleaseconvinceme.com

Here is my latest post over at

http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2017/why-apologetics-wont-work/#comment-175708

Cold Case Christianity: Why Doesn’t God Reform People Rather Than Punish Them in Hell?

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

Why Doesn’t God Reform People Rather Than Punish Them in Hell?

Posted: 01 Sep 2017 01:00 AM PDT

 258Some struggle to understand how a loving God could create a place like Hell.

Your spiritually alive brothers and sisters called 5-Point Calvinists don't.  They believe God secretly wills the teenager to steal a candy bar while telling her through the bible "thou shalt not steal".  That is, they believe God causes people to sin.  Apparently, your bible is not quite as clear on the "Christian" answer to the problem of hell, as you pretend it is.  So unless you claim all 5-Point Calvinist Christians aren't truly born again, spiritual deadness cannot be the reason somebody thinks your brand of Christianity is total bullshit.

And the fundamentalists who struggle with how a loving god could create a place like hell probably struggle because they haven't seriously considered the arguments of the liberal Christian scholars who do a fine job showing that hell "fire" in the NT is mere metaphor.  Also they probably struggle with the question since if Deuteronomy 28:30, 63 be true, their "loving" God takes just as much delight in causing women to be raped as he takes in causing prosperity to others.  I recommend that fundie Christians first make sure the biblical portrayal of God is consistent, before they start asking the larger questions. 

Either way, viewing the bible as the inerrant word of God does not appear to generate any more positive change in life than when one starts believing the Book of Mormon is the word of God. 

 Others, while understanding and accepting the relationship between mercy and justice, freedom and consequence, victory and punishment, still imagine a better way. If God is all-loving, why doesn’t He simply “reform” people rather than allow them to continue in their sin and eventually punish them in Hell? Even human prison systems understand the value of reform; isn’t a God who punishes his children in Hell a sadistic and vengeful God?

Isn't your God vengeful and sadistic for not only causing women to be raped (Deut. 28:30) but in taking "delight" to see this happen (v. 63)?

We expect that a loving God would care enough about us to offer a chance to change rather than simply punish us vindictively for something we’ve done in the past.

Then you apparently never read Romans 9, where Paul pushes the analogy of God/potter sinner/clay to such an extreme that concerns about freewill are preempted:

 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
 19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"
 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?
 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? (Rom. 9:18-21 NAU)

Which marketing strategy makes more money?  Providing the proper interpretation of Romans 9 to a modern audience who think human freewill is a foregone conclusion?  Or providing arguments about God's respect for human freewill, to a modern audience who think human freewill is a foregone conclusion?

As it turns out, God (as he is described in the Bible) understands the difference between discipline and punishment,

Yes, for example, his causing sickness and suffering to a baby born to David and Bathsheba, so that the child suffered several days before finally dying.  God causing babies to suffer when he can just instantly take their souls with no suffering, is the god you serve: 

2nd Samuel 12:11-18
10 'Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.'
 11 "Thus says the LORD, 'Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight.
 12 'Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun.'"
 13 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has taken away your sin; you shall not die.
 14 "However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die."
 15 So Nathan went to his house. Then the LORD struck the child that Uriah's widow bore to David, so that he was very sick.
 16 David therefore inquired of God for the child; and David fasted and went and lay all night on the ground.
 17 The elders of his household stood beside him in order to raise him up from the ground, but he was unwilling and would not eat food with them.
 18 Then it happened on the seventh day that the child died. And the servants of David were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they said, "Behold, while the child was still alive, we spoke to him and he did not listen to our voice. How then can we tell him that the child is dead, since he might do himself harm!"
 

Oh, did I forget?  God did this to the baby despite telling David that David's sin had been put away, see last clause of v. 13.   The lesson we learn here is that even if God himself tells you that your sin of adultery has been "put away", that does not prevent God from punishing you and your children for it anyway.

Oh yeah, the bible god sure does know the different between suffering and punishment.

and He is incredibly patient with us,

Which is rather stupid given that if God is smarter than a con artist, he can quickly convince us, without violating our freewill, that Christianity is true, and any need for patience will be foreclosed.  Even if you read divine respect for human freewill into Ezekiel 38:4, still, the whole idea that god is like a best friend who is trying to convince you of the error of your ways, is childish and unrealistic.  If God really wanted you to do something, he could infallibly cause it to come to pass, whether to make you sin or do good.  Notice what God says about two future armies, gog and magog, through Ezekiel.  You'd think they were nothing but puppets on strings in God's hands:

 3 and say, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I am against you, O Gog, prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal.
 4 "I will turn you about and put hooks into your jaws, and I will bring you out, and all your army, horses and horsemen, all of them splendidly attired, a great company with buckler and shield, all of them wielding swords; (Ezek. 38:3-4 NAU)

It doesn't matter if this is mere metaphor, which it is:  the metaphor still puts images in your mind of God forcing other people to sin or do whatever he wants them to do, images that are wholly inconsistent with your childish pandering to modern society's individualist cult mentality that says God respects our freewill.

But it was never any secret that you are doing Christianity mostly because of the money you can make convincing people that God wasn't able in the past to do as much as he wished until you came along with your "forensic faith" marketing gimmick.

And if God is eternal, than his attributes will be eternal as must logically be the case in any other situation, which means his attribute of patience is no less eternal than his attribute of love.  Feel free to trifle that an infinite being his a finite trait all because the bible presents him that way, but remember that you only sound convincing to your religious fanatic friends, nobody else.   But that assumes you care about being wrong, when in fact it is clear you are more concerned with making money off of Christianity than you are in being correct

allowing us an entire lifetime to change our minds and reform our lives.

Not true, plenty of children die less than year after they reached the age of accountability, whatever you think that age is.  Only a fool makes the generalized statement that God allows people a lifetime to change.

This is easier to understand when we think carefully about the definitions of “discipline” and “punishment”:

Discipline Looks Forward

All of us understand the occasional necessity of disciplining our children. When we discipline, we are motivated by love rather than vengeance.

That might be the politically correct party line, but the truth is some parents discipline their devil-children out of sheer exasperation, and desire to see the child suffer punishment and discipline at the same time.

We hope to change the future behavior of our kids by nudging them in a new direction with a little discomfort.

Most modern Christians think the the biblical model of beating kids with rods constitutes something more than a "nudge":

NAU Prov. 22:15  Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of discipline will remove it far from him.
 13 Do not hold back discipline from the child, Although you strike him with the rod, he will not die.
NAU Prov. 29:15  The rod and reproof give wisdom, But a child who gets his own way brings shame to his mother.

Wallace continues:

God also loves His children in this way and allows them the opportunity to reform under his discipline.

Which makes no sense once you remember that kids die at all ages all the time, and therefore, their dying shortly after the age of accountability occurs statistically just as often as kids dying in any other age-group.  Your generalization is too hasty, you wouldn't be talking that way to a Christian family who just lost their rebellious 9 year old daughter in a bus accident.  You'd have to tell them you believe that since he lived past the age of accountability and still wasn't a Christian, she is in hell right now...and that means you won't be achieving record sales of your books in her town any time soon.

This takes place during our mortal lifetime; God disciplines those He loves in this life because He is concerned with eternity.

Then he is stupid, because he has an infallible way of making sure they avoid hell:  killing them within a month after they are born.  If aborted babies go to heaven by default, then you need to remember infant death brings eternal good, as you sob about how abortion "kills".  And abortions doctors cannot do any wrong:  when they abort a baby, God takes the credit, because God takes personal responsibility for all murder:

 39 'See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me; It is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded and it is I who heal, And there is no one who can deliver from My hand. (Deut. 32:39 NAU)

Discipline, by its very definition, is “forward-looking” and must therefore occur in this world with an eye toward our eternal destiny:

Hebrews 12:9-11

Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness. All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.

Punishment Looks Backward

There are times as a parent, however, when our loving efforts to discipline and reform are unsuccessful; our kids are sometimes rebellious to the point of exhaustion. In these times, our love requires us to deliver on our repeated warnings. Our loving sense of justice requires us to be firm, even when it hurts us to do so.

yeah, but you would never cause your rebellious teen daughter to be raped just because she is rebellious...but God causes women to be raped, and takes "delight" in this, in Deut. 28:30, 63.  So your attempted analogy to human instances fails miserably, your God's ways are too extreme to permit analogy to any human instance, except perhaps deranged lunatics.

Our other children are watching us as well, and our future acts of mercy will be meaningless if we fail to act justly on wrongdoing. In times like these, we have no alternative but to punish acts that have occurred in the past. Punishment need not be vindictive or vengeful. It is simply the sad but deserving consequence awaiting those who are unwilling to be reformed in this life.

Hebrews 10:28-29

Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?

God is patient.

If so, it's only because sinful Moses talking some sense into the divine head:

 9 The LORD said to Moses, "I have seen this people, and behold, they are an obstinate people.
 10 "Now then let Me alone, that My anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them; and I will make of you a great nation."
 11 Then Moses entreated the LORD his God, and said, "O LORD, why does Your anger burn against Your people whom You have brought out from the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand?
 12 "Why should the Egyptians speak, saying, 'With evil intent He brought them out to kill them in the mountains and to destroy them from the face of the earth '? Turn from Your burning anger and change Your mind about doing harm to Your people.
 13 "Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants to whom You swore by Yourself, and said to them, 'I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heavens, and all this land of which I have spoken I will give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.'"
 14 So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people. (Exod. 32:9-14 NAU)

He’s given each of us a lifetime to respond to His discipline and change our mind. It cannot be said that God failed to give us the opportunity to repent.

But it can certainly be said that God did not do everything he could possibly have done, to convince freewilled humans to do what he says.  If he was willing to part the Red Sea in face of faithless Israelites and skeptical Egyptians, then God doesn't think doing monster-miracles violates anybody's freewill.  Or he doesn't respect freewill the way you think he does.

And it is rather difficult to believe that after this particular miracle, the Israelites continued to complain against god (Exodus 16:3).  If this part of the story is historically true, then God is stupid for "expecting" such human beings to materialize a strong faith on the basis of the 10 plagues and parting of the Red Sea, especially when he infallibly foreknow these miracles would not produce such a faith.  Don't you worry though, these stories are just religiously embellished kernels of historical truth, for not more more purpose than religious edification of the tribes.

When we are rebellious to the point of exhaustion, however, God has no choice but to deliver on His warnings.

Not true, according to you and the bible, the Canaanites were sinful to the point of exhaustion for 400 years before god punished them:

13 God said to Abram, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years.
 14 "But I will also judge the nation whom they will serve, and afterward they will come out with many possessions.
 15 "As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you will be buried at a good old age.
 16 "Then in the fourth generation they will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete." (Gen. 15:13-16 NAU)

 In other words, God recognizes the Amorites as sinful to the point of exhaustion, both in reality and in his allegedly infallible foreknowledge, and yet doesn't act there and then, but waits 400 years, not for the Amorites to change their ways, but so their sinful iniquity will become "complete".

Sort of like you knowing you have a devil child who hurts others, but you still put him in the same room with other kids and then don't immediately punish him when he hurts other kids, because you don't think he iniquity is yet complete.

Let's just say that J.Warner Wallace's apologetics argument don't exactly cause me to break out in nervous sweats.  And I say that after multiple demonstrations that his arguments are wrong and inconclusive on the merits.

Tough Questions Answered: How Did Paul Find Common Ground with Greek Intellectuals in Acts 17?

This is my reply to a Tough Questions Answered article entitled

           

How Did Paul Find Common Ground with Greek Intellectuals in Acts 17?

Posted: 25 Aug 2017 06:00 AM PDT

Darrell Bock, in Acts, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, provides an excellent analysis of Paul’s speech to the Athenian Areopagus in Acts 17. Bock demonstrates how the beginning of Paul’s oration found common ground with his Greek audience. By studying Paul’s technique, we can learn how to find common ground with members of our culture who are biblically illiterate.

And the desire to find common ground makes it seem you don't believe the Holy Spirit will be quite as successful with your audience without this secular persuasion technique.  This tells me that at least unconsciously you believe there's nothing more to your selling of God to others, than there is when Arnie sells a used car.  If the Holy Spirit can convict of sin without the human speaker establishing common ground with the unbeliever, why did Paul wish to seek common ground?  Could it be that this is the expected fruit of a man who thinks God can be assisted by employment of secular psychological tactics?

snip

    In addition, ‘we are his offspring’ (γένος ἐσμέν, genos esmen). The expression that we are God’s offspring comes from another pagan poet, Aratus (ca. 315–240 BC), Phaenomena 5 (some scholars also note Cleanthes, Hymn to Zeus; Marshall 1980: 289; but Fitzmyer 1998: 611 rejects a connection to Cleanthes). Paul explicitly notes this connection in introducing the citation as coming from ‘some of your poets.’ Paul is working with ideas in the Greek world that are familiar to the Athenians and only alludes to Scripture in his speech instead of quoting it directly. The text from Aratus, as Paul uses it, recognizes the shared relationship all people have to God.

Paul was also taking it out of context, since the immediate context Aratus gave, clearly indicates the god is Zeus and "offspring" meant humans are little gods:

 PHAENOMENA, TRANSLATED BY G. R. MAIR 
[1] From Zeus let us begin; him do we mortals never leave unnamed; full of Zeus are all the streets and all the market-places of men; full is the sea and the havens thereof; always we all have need of Zeus. For we are also his offspring; and he in his kindness unto men giveth favourable signs and wakeneth the people to work, reminding them of livelihood. He tells what time the soil is best for the labour of the ox and for the mattock, and what time the seasons are favourable both for the planting of trees and for casting all manner of seeds. For himself it was who set the signs in heaven, and marked out the constellations, and for the year devised what stars chiefly should give to men right signs of the seasons, to the end that all things might grow unfailingly. Wherefore him do men ever worship first and last. Hail, O Father, mighty marvel, mighty blessing unto men. Hail to thee and to the Elder Race! Hail, ye Muses, right kindly, every one! But for me, too, in answer to my prayer direct all my lay, even as is meet, to tell the stars.

What would you do if you found out that in the immediate context of the pagan poem Paul quoted, Aratus was talking about people being the children of Zeus?

Would you continue asserting what you've confidently asserted your whole life, namely, that the person who takes a text out of context has engaged in obvious wrong-doing?

Or did you suddenly discover, just now, that taking things out of context can sometimes be a good thing? When is the last time you ever entertained such a stupid notion that taking things out of context could ever be acceptable? 

 

There's no denying Paul took Aratus out of context, so instead of doing the obvious and concluding Paul was wrong to take something out of context, just like you always insist this is wrong for everybody else to do, you instead insist that this act which everybody has always agreed is always wrong, an act that you've used to definitively prove the dishonesty of skeptics and cultists, and now you get a flash of knowledge that perhaps taking something out of context isn't necessarily always indicative of stupidity or dishonesty.

If Paul believed Hebrews 4:12 or the same as that verse, that the word of God is alive and powerful, would he have attempted to find common ground with the pagans by quoting their own devilish polytheistic and fictional literature?

Isn't it more likely that, if Paul believed the same as Hebrews 4:12, he would have concluded that finding common ground is the less forceful way to convince pagans, and the clear settled word of God is the most powerful took in his arsenal to fight through their ingrained paganism?

When you evangelize a Hindu, do you try to find common ground by quoting something from the Vedas? Stupid, right?

If any of this Acts 17 scene is historically true, then Paul clearly had less faith in the revealed word of God to convict pagans of their error, than he had in the purely naturalistic approach of establishing common ground with them. But there is no common ground possible anyway:

15 Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?
16 Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? (2Co 6:15-16 NAU)

 

Conservative Inerrantist commentators agree Paul was quoting a text that was originally about Zeus, see "Ashamed of the Gospel (3rd Edition): When the Church Becomes Like the World", By John MacArthur, Crossway Pub. 2010, p. 159), so you don't have the option of saying this part of Aratus' poem was inspired by God.

A Christian professor of classics admits that Paul did not use this quotation according to its originally intended Stoic sense:

It is noteworthy that Aratus commences his poem with the words, "let us begin with Zeus," for the gods who were conventionally invoked by Greek poets were the Muses, the goddesses of poetic inspiration. Aratus' contemporaries would have been struck by this change, by which the poet lends a religious Stoic tenor into the Phaenomena. To ancient Greeks Zeus was the sky-god whose control over the sun and clouds directly concerned human beings; mention of him at the outset of a work on constellations and weather is therefore appropriate. For Hellenistic Stoics, however, Zeus was another name for that force which controlled the universe and resided in man and beast. It is a kind of pantheism which Aratus advances in these opening lines:the divine Reason permeates every facet of human endeavour. The city-streets and market-places, the seas and harbours are filled with the presence of this deity (lines 2-3). Zeus must be praised at the start of his poem because this "world-soul" controls the cosmos. Mankind is, according to such belief, part of that environment and so "is indebted to Zeus." The omnipotence of Zeus is expressed with the words "for we are indeed his offspring." Literally the poet states that we are of the race (genos) of Zeus. Thus the ancient weather-god, once depicted in anthropomorphic terms, is replaced by the Stoics with an abstract force which pervades the entire world.

Having noted the context of the half-verse "for we are indeed his offspring," the reader will conclude that the apostle Paul does not quote this passage in complete agreement with its meaning and intent, but in order to show that even to some Greek thinkers and writers the idea of an anthropomorphic Zeus is false.

Verses 24-31 of chapter 17 clarify Paul's use of the quotation in declaring the gospel of repentance to the Athenians. When he cites the saying that man is God's offspring, Paul employs the words in light of God's self-revelation in the Old Testament. Mankind was created in the image and likeness of God, as revealed in Genesis 1 :26-27. Paul does not give the phrase "for we are indeed His offspring" the meaning which Stoics do; rather, he uses it to preach that God abhors idolatrous worship. Paul had stated earlier in his speech that God does not "live in shrines made by man" (24). After quoting Aratus the apostle says that the Deity is not "like gold, or silver, or stone" (25). Surely Paul has in mind the second commandment here, as stated, for example, in Leviticus 26:1 "you shall make for yourselves no idols and erect no graven image or pillar, and you shall not set up a figured stone in your land." The Stoics had rightly reasoned that if mankind is the offspring of God, then the living God cannot be represented by an inanimate object. Paul himself writes elsewhere that God's eternal power and deity are visible in creation (Romans 1 :20). And in yet another context the apostle restates in general terms what he says specifically to the Athenian populace in Acts 17: "What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, 'I will live in them and move among them' (2 Corinthians 6:16)." Thus on the Areopagus Paul points out that the Athenians had exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man.

Verses 24-31 also makes clear that Paul does not adopt the Stoic theology of a guiding principle as expressed by Aratus; the apostle depicts God as the Creator, whose person is real. In verse 25 the missionary reminds his listeners that God is the creator of the universe, who has no need of human idolatrous adoration. Here Paul may have in mind Psalm 50:7-15, where the Lord states that He does not require sacrifices from mortals, for all the world and everything in it is His by virtue of His work of creation. And to underscore the personal quality of the true God Paul states that God has "overlooked" the times of ignorance (30), "commands" all men to repent (31), since He has fixed a day when He "will judge" (31) the world by Christ whom He "has appointed" (31). Thus the apostle in no way identifies with Stoic or Epicurean theology, but declares the God who is Creator and Judge.

Do you agree with this professor that "the apostle Paul does not quote this passage in complete agreement with its meaning and intent"?

If so, what else are you doing when you quote a passage not in complete agreement with its meaning and intent, except quoting it out of context?

The desire to vindicate Paul regardless of how good the evidence against him is, is rather difficult to resist, amen?

 

Clement of Alexandria believed Paul was quoting from Aratus.  From Stomata, Book 1, ch. XIX:

Since, then, the Greeks are testified to have laid down some true opinions, we may from this point take a glance at the testimonies. Paul, in the Acts of the Apostles, is recorded to have said to the Areopagites, “I perceive that ye are more than ordinarily religious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with the inscription, To The Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you. God, that made the world and all things therein, seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, seeing He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; and hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek God, if haply they might feel after Him, and find Him; though He be not far from every one of us: for in Him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we also are His offspring.”
Whence it is evident that the apostle, by availing himself of poetical examples from the Phenomena of Aratus, approves of what had been well spoken by the Greeks; and intimates that, by the unknown God, God the Creator was in a roundabout way worshipped by the Greeks; but that it was necessary by positive knowledge to apprehend and learn Him by the Son. 

Does a pagan take Genesis 1:1 out of context by using it to show that Zeus created the world?  If so, then necessarily, by the same logic, you believe that when Paul quoted a pagan text about Zeus for the proposition that the biblical god is the father of all people, he was taking that pagan text out of context. 

 

Either way, the revealed word of God provides plenty of ammo to fight against ingrained paganism, so Paul's attempt to evangelize using more methods than simply the sure-fire word of God, indicates his lack of faith that God's word is powerful. You don't see Peter coddling the scruples of any Jews in Acts 2, do you? Apparently, successful evangelism of those most against the gospel does not require establishing any common ground whatsoever.

Augustine didn't hold back from admitting Paul quoted Aratus out of context.  From Schaff's edition, Augustine, Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily 38  Acts 17:16, 17:

 And he does not say, “Through Him,” but, what was nearer than this, “In him.” - That poet said nothing equal to this, “For we are His offspring.” He, however, spake it of Jupiter, but Paul takes it of the Creator, not meaning the same being as he, God forbid! but meaning what is properly predicated of God: just as he spoke of the altar with reference to Him, not to the being whom they worshiped. As much as to say, “For certain things are said and done with reference to this (true God), but ye know not that they are with reference to Him.” For say, of whom would it be properly said, “To an Unknown God?” Of the Creator, or of the demon? Manifestly of the Creator: because Him they knew not, but the other they knew. Again, that all things are filled (with the presence) - of God? or of Jupiter - a wretch of a man, a detestable impostor! But Paul said it not in the same sense as he, God forbid! but with quite a different meaning. For he says we are God’s offspring, i.e. God’s own, His nearest neighbors as it were. 

DeSilva cites E. Ferguson's noting the pantheistic nature of the Aratus quote: 

E. Ferguson notes another conceptual similarity to be the idea of kinship with the divine. 29 The citation from Aratus in Acts 17:28 (“for we are of his offspring”) documents the Stoic concept 30 as does, for example, Epictetus, who speaks of Zeus as the father of humankind (whom Odysseus even regarded as a personal father-like guardian). 31 Paul’s similar statement in Gal 3:26 (“for you are all children of God”) distinguishes itself from the Stoic counterpart by the addition of “in Christ Jesus” and “through faith” as the qualifiers. For the Stoic, there were no qualifiers on kinship with the divine, a relationship all held to the deity by virtue of being the deity’s workmanship together with the rest of nature. Similarly the Stoics held that all parts of the universe formed a whole, and to describe this they employed the metaphor of a body and its component members. 32

29 29. Ferguson, Backgrounds 293.

30 30. Aratus Phaenomena 5.

31 31. Epictetus Dissertations 3.24.

32 32. Cf. ibid. 2.10.4-5; Seneca Ep. 95.52: “All that you behold, that which comprises both god and man, is one—we are the parts of one great body,” cited by Fee, First Corinthians 602.

 JETS 38/4 (December 1995 ) 554,

"Paul And The Stoa: A Comparison", David A. Desilva*

The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society.

1998 (electronic edition.). Garland, TX: Galaxie Software. 

In 1995 David deSilva was assistant professor of NT

and Greek at Ashland Theological Seminary 

J.D. Charles admits Paul's source is Aratus, and that similar language is found in other Stoics, but the point is that the fundie Christian cannot escape Paul taking Aratus out of context merely by whining that Paul's dependence on specifically Aratus for the quote isn't concretely established:  The Stoic view was pantheistic, so it doesn't matter if Paul was quoting any of them directly or indirectly, he still took the pantheistic statement out of context, given the pantheistic intentions of the Stoic authors writing such stuff.  When you quote a Stoic view of God to get Stoic interested in hearing your perspective, you are leaving them with the false impression that you approve of the theology in the quote, and indeed, Paul nowhere expresses or implies that the pantheistic Stoic view is incorrect:

The second citation, “We are his offspring,” stems from the third-century BC Stoic philosopher Aratus, who, significantly, hailed from Paul’s native Cilicia. Aratus penned these words in a poem in honor of Zeus. Titled Phaenomena, the poem is an interpretation of constellations and weather signs. It reads that “in all things each of us needs Zeus, for we are also his offspring.” Without question, “his offspring” is sure to resonate with any Stoic present in the audience.67

----67 “Phaen 5. It is difficult to confine with precision these words to Aratus of Soli alone, given the fact that this language appears in numerous ancient sources. For example, the words of Cleanthes, another third-century BC. Stoic, are comparable: “You, O Zeus, are praised above all gods… Unto you may all flesh speak, for we are your offspring” (the text is reproduced in M. Pohlenz, “Kleanthes Zeushymnus,” Hermes 75 [1940] 117–23). Similarly, the third-century BC poet Callimachus, in a hymn “To Zeus,” speaks of humankind as “offspring of the earth” (Hymns, Epigrams, Select Fragments [Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins University, 1988] 3).

"Engaging the (Neo)Pagan Mind:   Paul’s Encounter with Athenian Culture as a Model for Cultural Apologetics"  (Acts 17:16–34, J. Daryl Charles, TrinJ 16:1 (Spring 1995) 58,
Trinity Journal. 1998 (electronic edition.). Deerfield, IL: Trinity Seminary.

If Paul has no problem quoting pagan literature out of context, what exactly is wrong with concluding that he likely didn't have a problem quoting the OT out of context either? If Paul didn't think he did something wrong in taking Aratus out of context, he likely wouldn't believe that taking the OT texts out of context was something wrong either.

 

 Paul even misquoted the sign "to the unknown god", as Jerome says that sign had read "to the unknown gods" plural, and he says Paul changed it to a singular god to make the intended comparison easier to maintain than it really was. 

 

 In Jerome's Commentary on Titus 1:12, Jerome says the signs in question would have been in the plural, such as "To the Gods of Asia and Europe and Africa, to unknown and strange gods":

It has often been discussed whether Paul took a certain degree of “homiletical license” in his reference to the inscription “to an unknown god.” Jerome thought so, arguing in his Commentary on Titus (1:12) that there were altars in Athens dedicated to “unknown gods” and that Paul had adapted the plural “gods” to the singular “god” in light of his monotheistic sermon.78 Pagan writers also attested to the presence of altars “to unknown gods” but always in the plural. For instance, the Traveler Pausanias, writing in the middle of the second century A.D., described the presence of altars to gods of unknown names on the road from Phalerum to Athens and an altar “to unknown gods” at Olympia.79 Written in the third century, Philostratus’s Life of Apollonius of Tyana also refers to these Athenian altars “to unknown gods.”80 There is thus ample literary evidence that Paul did not fabricate his allusion, that there were in fact such altars in Athens. Whether they were invariably inscribed in the plural or whether there was one dedicated to a single “unknown god” remains an open question.

Polhill, J. B. (2001, c1992). Vol. 26: Acts (electronic ed.). Logos Library System;
The New American Commentary (Page 371). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

  snip

In like manner, when we engage anyone with the truths of Christianity, we must find common ground first.

That doesn't cohere with biblical statements that God's word is powerful on its own (Isaiah 55:10-11, Hebrews 4:12) and conflicts with Peter's alleged ability to successfully evangelize Jews without needing to coddle their scruples in Acts 2.   Really now, if you think you need to quote something from the Vedas to establish common ground with the Hindu you are attempting to evangelize, you are saying you think the Holy Spirit can be helped with secular persuasion techniques.  But if the Holy Spirit truly is moving through your preaching, it is highly unlikely that he needs you to employ naturalistic bridging-tactics to successfully convict them of their sin.

Cold Case Christianity: selling god to the kids Disney-style

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

Help Young Christians Make the Case for God's Existence

 

Hello

Susie and I are excited to announce our next children's book, God's Crime Scene for Kids.

...We tried to write the book that we wish we had when our kids were young; a book that will encourage children to be thoughtful believers and give them confidence that all creation is the work of our Glorious Creator. 

Yeah, because despite your spiritually mature understanding as an adult currently, you still don't believe, and never did believe, that the bible alone is a sufficient guide for faith and practice.  If you don't help the Holy Spirit via employment of typical marketing gimmicks learned from secular child psychology, the Holy Spirit probably won't be able to convert as many kids to Jesus as he wants to.

We're excited about the new book, but we're even more excited about our new, updated Case Makers Academy! This interactive website will provide your kids with the opportunity to learn from Detective Allen Jeffries by watching chapter videos, printing out and completing chapter fill-in and activity sheets, and even earning their own Graduation Certificate:

You should be more excited about the fact that God doesn't need your help, and therefore, God will accomplish all He needs to through you if all you do is simply preach from a bible.  Really James, you give every appearance of using Christianity to make money, as Benny Hinn.  Only with you, its not the prosperity gospel or absurdly heretical theology, but "apologetics". 

If you say God is using you in new and exciting ways, we have to decide, as readers, whether this is true, or if it is more likely that your ceaseless promotion of yourself by promoting your views of Christianity testifies that you are in this game for little more reason than to make money.

...Thousands of kids have already completed the Case Makers Academy and they're proud to display their graduation certificates. Check out our Honor Cadet page to see what we mean, and be sure to join our Family Facebook Page to add your cadets to the team.

Yeah, because the biblical teaching that Christian kids are part of the body of Christ, isn't sufficiently eye-catching or interesting for the Holy Spirit to use today....what he was apparently otherwise able to do for more than 20 centuries without your involvement and with no need to imitate secular cartoons.        

A Special Introductory Offer!

And you want your salivating followers to think you are NOT employing typical marketing techniques to sell God?  FUCK YOU.

To celebrate the release of our new book, we've created a special offer for those who want to start the Academy. If you purchase God's Crime Scene for Kids before October 1st, we will send you a FREE digital copy of God's Crime Scene (the adult version) so you can read along with your kids (and use the Parent Guides on the Case Makers Academy).

But if this digital copy for adults is a good idea to supplement the kid's crime scene book, some would argue that because the Holy Spirit is supposed to get all the credit anyway and NOT you, you should add the digital adult supplement to every purchase regardless.   Jesus fucking Christ you hypocrite...what's next?  The first 200 orders will receive a coupon for a free doughnut?  FUCK YOU

We'll also send you a FREE Bonus Activity Sheet for your young aspiring detectives.

Order Your Copy Today

Simply purchase the book, send a screen capture of your receipt to offer@coldcasechristianity.com and we will send you the free offer. We hope God's Crime Scene for Kids will help your kids learn the truth about God and grow in their confidence as Christians.

 Why can't you just bulk-order and resell bibles?   How did God reach the kids for more than 30 centuries into the past without cartoons and daily reminding people of how important it is to purchase forensic faith dvds?

Hey James, you forgot to say "Act now while supplies last".  If you are going to waste your reader's time pretending you aren't selling god on the basis of employing marketing gimmicks, while you employ those gimmicks the whole while,  then why would you limit the amount of gimmicks you stuff into your advertisements?

Dear Mr. Chaffey: John 7:5 justifies calling Jesus a fake

Chaffey in "Defense of Easter" at 30, cites James to help answer the question in his chapter 3 title:  "Did Jesus appear to any skeptics?"

"For whatever reason, James did not believe in Jesus as the Messiah prior to the Resurrection.  In fact, none of his brothers believed in HIm early on (John 7:5).  On one occasion they even tried to prevent Him from speaking, thinking He was out of His mind (Mark 3:20-21, NET).  However, just several weeks after the Crucifixion they were counted among his followers"

In context, John 7:5 appears to be implying that Jesus' brothers did not merely fail to believe in him as messiah, their disbelief motivated them to mock Jesus for making such a claim:

 1 After these things Jesus was walking in Galilee, for He was unwilling to walk in Judea because the Jews were seeking to kill Him.
 2 Now the feast of the Jews, the Feast of Booths, was near.
 3 Therefore His brothers said to Him, "Leave here and go into Judea, so that Your disciples also may see Your works which You are doing.
 4 "For no one does anything in secret when he himself seeks to be known publicly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world."
 5 For not even His brothers were believing in Him.
 6 So Jesus said to them, "My time is not yet here, but your time is always opportune.
 7 "The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.
 8 "Go up to the feast yourselves; I do not go up to this feast because My time has not yet fully come."
 9 Having said these things to them, He stayed in Galilee. (Jn. 7:1-9 NAU)

Notice, Jesus' brothers tell him to go do his works in Judea where his disciples are, despite Jesus' brothers not believing in him (notice also the brothers admit Jesus has disciples or followers elsewhere, yet still don't believe him).

 How could they be telling Jesus go do his miracles in Judea, if they didn't believe his claims were true?  There's a plausible explanation:  They had the same attitude toward Jesus that today's skeptics have toward the many fake miracle workers in Christianity today, i.e., "go to the local children's hospital and cure all the diseases and cancers! (i.e., "show yourself to the world", "do something that will permit the world to examine your claims").  When alleged miracle-workers are addressed like this by skeptics, it is clear the skeptics are talking with a bit of mockery, and do think there is the slightest possibility that the advice will be taken, or that the miracle-working claim is true.

Notice also:  the brothers tell Jesus to do this and thus "show Yourself to the world", again, they seem to be taunting him..."if your miracle claims are true, do them in a manner that increases the likelihood that your critics can see your works too, do them out in the open!"

It is clear from this context that v. 5 is a significant summary statement that the unbelief of Jesus' brothers was not simply a lack of belief, but a highly confident attitude that Jesus' claims were more than likely false.
They taunted Jesus at this point in their lives the way conservative Christians and skeptics taunt prosperity gospel preachers who claim ability to do miracles:  If that's really true about you, do your miracle in a non-controlled context!

The purpose of Christians and skeptics taunting that way is:  if you follow our advice, your claims of ability to do miracles will be put to the acid test.  If you can really do miracles, then why would you fear doing them in a context specifically created to guard against trickery and fraud as much as possible?

 13 And He went up on the mountain and summoned those whom He Himself wanted, and they came to Him.
 14 And He appointed twelve, so that they would be with Him and that He could send them out to preach,
 15 and to have authority to cast out the demons.
 16 And He appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom He gave the name Peter),
 17 and James, the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James (to them He gave the name Boanerges, which means, "Sons of Thunder ");
 18 and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Zealot;
 19 and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Him.
 20 And He came home, and the crowd gathered again, to such an extent that they could not even eat a meal.
 21 When His own people heard of this, they went out to take custody of Him; for they were saying, "He has lost His senses."
 22 The scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, "He is possessed by Beelzebul," and "He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons."
 23 And He called them to Himself and began speaking to them in parables, "How can Satan cast out Satan?
 24 "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
....31 Then His mother and His brothers arrived, and standing outside they sent word to Him and called Him.
 32 A crowd was sitting around Him, and they said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You." (Mk. 3:13-32 NAU)

If we assume all that inerrantists must assume Jesus' family had experienced up to this point, then the negative view of Jesus held by his mother and brothers becomes more incredible than a miracle:

Jesus' mother had experienced angelic visions explaining she would conceive Jesus solely by the Holy Spirit.
Luke 1:26 ff.  Some would argue this was a literal meeting since "vision" is not implied in the text, rather v. 26 speaks about Gabriel going to Mary physically.

Jesus' step father Joseph had a similar vision.  Matthew 1:19 ff.

For inerrantists who say belief in Jesus' virgin birth is essential to salvation, this implies Mary and Joseph and Jesus would have revealed to others right at the beginning of his ministry the miracle of his birth.

The fact that Mark in 1:10 can write about Jesus at baptism seeing heaven opened and the spirit descending on him like a dove, makes it likely this was something made known to Jesus' immediate family and followers early on.

Jesus was apparently gone for 40 days in the desert being tempted by the devil and having angels minister to him (Mark 1:13), so it is reasonable to assume he would inform his family upon return how he managed to stay alive that long.

 Jesus must have been doing things convincingly showing he was messiah early on, as when he calls Andrew and Peter, they drop everything and follow him, Mark 1:18, so do the others (v. 20).

Jesus created a stir in the synagogues, and in such collectivist society, surely word of such rabbinical dazzling traveled fast, his mother would certainly have heard of it.  Mark 1:21-22

Jesus healing a demoniac, v. 27, creating such a debate about his powers that the news of him spread early and fast throughout Galilee (v. 28).

He heals Peter's mother-in-Law (v. 31)

He heals many more people (v. 32 ff)

He continued to cast out demons throughout Galilee (v. 39)

He heals a leper, and despite warning to keep it quiet, news of it spread so much that Jesus could not even enter a city without causing dangerous overcrowding by those following him around (v. 45)

When he returns to Capernaum several days later, large crowds gather at his door so much that the only way Jesus can heal a paralytic is by removing a section of the house roof and lowering him down into the house (2:1-4)

Jesus healed the paralytic to the amazement of these large pressing crowds (v. 12)

Jesus then is found reclining in the house of a tax-collector, Mark saying there were many such people following Jesus (2:15)

Jesus heals a man's withered hand to the knowledge of the Pharisees (Mark 3:1-6)

Jesus healed innumerable people as large crowds followed him in Galilee, Jerusalem, Idumea, beyond Jordan and in the vicinity of Tyre and Sidon7 Jesus withdrew to the sea with His disciples; and a great multitude from Galilee followed; and also from Judea (Mk. 3:7-10)

All of these events are presented by Mark as taking place before the point where his mother and brothers are said to think Jesus has lost his senses in 3:21.

But if the gospel of Mark is telling the historical truth (i.e., that all of Jesus' alleged miracles done before 3:21 were genuinely supernatural and literal facts of history), how likely is it that despite the crowds believing in him, Jesus' own family thinks he is capable of losing his senses?

Writing for the inerrantist-driven New American Commentary, inerrantist J.A. Brooks admits that the "his own" of 3:21 refers to Jesus' mother and brothers, and that they believed he had gone insane:

3:21 In the Greek text the subject of the first two clauses is literally “those with him.” The KJV and RSV (1st ed.) interpret this to mean “his friends,” the NASB and NKJV “his own people,” and the RSV (2nd ed.), NRSV, NEB, REB, and NIV “his family.” In view of vv. 31–32 the last of these is certainly correct. The idea that Jesus’ family opposed him troubled some ancient copyists who changed the text to read, “When the scribes and the rest heard.” The concern of Jesus’ family was not likely limited to his physical needs (v. 20); they probably were more concerned about the family’s reputation because in their estimation Jesus was acting in a fanatical and even insane way. The same verb is used in Acts 26:24 and 2 Cor 5:13 and means literally to stand outside of oneself. The verb translated “to take charge” means to arrest in 6:17; 12:12; 14:1, etc. Evidently they intended to seize Jesus and force him to return to Nazareth with them.

Brooks, J. A. (2001, c1991). Vol. 23: Mark (electronic e.). Logos Library System; 

The New American Commentary (Page 73). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

It is interesting that the notion that Jesus' family thought him insane, troubled some ancient copyists sufficiently that they arbitrarily corrupted the text.  Apparently, Jesus' family thinking him insane was not easily harnonized with other Christian doctrine.

21 “His people” renders an ambiguous Greek construction (οἱ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ) which generally means “envoys” or “adherents” but on occasion can mean “relatives” (e.g., LXX Prov 31:21; Taylor, 236). Wansbrough (NTS 18 [1971–72] 234–35; similarly Wenham, NTS 21 [1974–75] 296–97) has recently argued for “adherents,” meaning the Twelve, to be the more natural reading. Accordingly, Jesus’ disciples go outside to control the excited crowd. This reading, however, fails to take several factors into consideration, not least of which being the evangelist’s “sandwich” structure of 3:20–21 and 3:31–35 around 3:22–30. Mark 3:31 makes clear that Jesus’ “family” is the subject of 3:21.

e.g. exempli gratia, for example

LXX The Septuagint, Greek translation of the OT

NTS New Testament Studies

Guelich, R. A. (2002). Vol. 34A: Word Biblical Commentary : Mark 1-8:26. 

Word Biblical Commentary (Page 172). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Jesus’ family in Nazareth has been informed about his exhaustion from dealing with the crowds, and they are concerned about his well-being and distressed that people are pressing upon him so that he is not even able to eat (3:20–21). This alone would not account for their urgency, however, in deciding to travel thirty miles to take charge of him and declaring that he is “out of his mind.” Jesus is behaving oddly according to their expectations and is not only doing but saying strange things. They consider him on the verge of a mental breakdown and are ready to take him back to Nazareth for rest and recuperation. Well-intentioned, their concern arises from a misunderstanding (similar to that of the scribes) of his mission.

Elwell, W. A. (1996, c1989). Vol. 3: Evangelical commentary on the Bible. 

Baker reference library (Mk 3:13). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House.

Or, they did not view him as any more significant than Benny Hinn is viewed by his own family members.  Yes, he makes a big show, and yes he has a lot of followers claiming he can heal, but at the end of the day, he's nothing but a charismatic religious fanatic.

If Jesus' own family didn't believe him to be God up to this point, this strongly boosts the liberal position that Jesus's godhood is a fiction added by later writers to the gospel material.

It's rather easy to see why Chaffey did not spend any time whatsoever on the question of how Jesus' own family could disbelieve his claims early in his ministry.  You cannot get into the biblical data without being forced to conclude that they were either correct to reject his claims, or they were unbelievably thick-headed.

Dear Mr. Chaffey, it was not "multiple" eyewitnesses, it was THREE

Chaffey in "In Defense of Easter" at 25:

"Multiple reliable eyewitnesses testified that Jesus was alive after being dead and buried,.  Some of those eyewitness accounts have been preserved for us in the bible, and because this is the inspired inerrant word of God, Scripture is actually another infallible proof of Christ's resurrection."

 First, the only testimonies to the resurrection of Jesus in the NT that come down to us today in first-hand or "eyewitness" form are Matthew, John and Paul, and that requires generously granting traditional apostolic authorship for those two gospels, despite an avalanche of scholarship, including many Christian scholars, saying Matthew and John are anonymous.  Some would argue that apologists do not mean "three" when they say "multiple", especially if the apologist says "multiple" after reciting at least 6 different sources (Chaffey at 22-24).  Chaffey is simplistically smooshing NT hearsay and first-hand testimony together as if the distinction between the two weren't sufficiently serious to take into account.  On the contrary, no historian or Court of law will support the premise that hearsay and first-hand reports deserve equal treatment. Courts have not generally made hearsay inadmissible over the course of 200 years of jurisprudence merely because they work for the devil.  If you were on trial for murder and knew you were innocent, and the only witness against you on the stand was a person who admitted they didn't see you pull the trigger, they only know this because their best friend, a really honest person, told them so...you'd be screaming at the top of your lungs that this is hearsay and inadmissible. 

Second, Chaffey's appeal to biblical inerrancy to justify saying the bible is another infallible proof of Christ's resurrection, makes clear that despite his claimed purpose to equip Christians to answer skeptical challenges, what he is really doing is providing Christians with reasons to believe their faith rests on reliable historical sources.  How is this any different than the Mormon Sunday School teacher who assures her class that skeptics of Mormonism are wrong, because the Book of Mormon is the word of God?  That preaches nice, but does that really give Mormons anything to shoot back at skeptics?

Third, Chaffey's need to premise his argument on the Christian reader's existing faith is confirmed by his next argument, that skeptics deny these infallible proofs because the bible says they have hardened their hearts to the truth (Chaffey at 25-26).  That is hardly a rebuttal to a skeptical argument, that is nothing but preaching to the choir. 

Fourth, Chaffey at 25-26 cites to Abraham's statement in Luke 16:31 to support his belief that it is sinful hardening of the heart that explains unbelievers' disbelief in the resurrection of Jesus. Chaffey uses a poor excuse given by atheist Michael Martin as a proof that Abe was correct:  thsoe who disbelieve Moses and the prophets will say and do anything, no matter how empty of intellectual merit, to avoid admitting Jesus rose from the dead.

This is a deductive fallacy, as Michael Martin does not represent other skeptics, and certainly not myself.  I deny Martin's absurd premise that a person could rise from the dead apart from any natural or supernatural cause. Under atheism, this universe is governed by nothing but natural causes.  If Martin was implicitly relying on the notion that quantum physics tells us virtual particles can be created from nothing (i.e., it is possible for events to happen without cause), then he is still wrong.  There are multiple schools of quantum theory, and it is only the Copenhagen school that asserts this magical nonsense.  The only reason somebody thinks quantum physics opens the door to supernatural possibilities is because they are not aware of the other competing schools of quantum physics that preach a deterministic universe.

  Sheldon Goldstein, a professor of mathematics, physics and philosophy at Rutgers University and a supporter of pilot-wave theory, blames the “preposterous” neglect of the theory on “decades of indoctrination.” At this stage, Goldstein and several others noted, researchers risk their careers by questioning quantum orthodoxy.

All Chaffey has done is prove, at best, that Michael Martin's unbelief arises from a hardened heart.  I might even agree since causeless events violate common sense and empiricism no less than resurrection does.

Skeptics could, equally uselessly, boast that the only reason Christians cling to their faith is because they are weak-minded and need a crutch to avoid feeling lost and purposeless in a naturalistic universe.

I suggest greater good could be done if we avoid trying to read each other's mind and simply stick to academic argument.

The final confirmation that I've gotten Chaffey right saying he is preaching to the choir is page 27, which indicates the prior sections of the chapter were written so that Christians could have utmost confidence in the resurrection of Jesus.   In this last section, he is simply quoting the bible and blindly assuming the truth of whatever it says.

My Challenge to Tim Chaffey and his "In Defense of Easter: Answering Critical Challenge to the Resurrection of Jesus"

In my studies on the resurrection of Jesus, I recently acquired "In Defense of Easter:  Answering Critical Challenges to the Resurrection of Jesus" (2nd printing, 2016) by Tim Chaffey.  I could not find any publisher information in the book beyond "Copyright © 2014 Tim Chaffey", so apparently this is a self-published effort.

Curiously, his chapter 5 is entitled "What Do Historians Say About the Evidences of the Resurrection?" and yet the only historians he references or cites in that chapter are Habermas and Licona, who are not mere "historians" but two Christian apologists that are the most outspoken on Jesus' resurrection being a provable fact of history.

That Chaffey was writing primarily for Christian edification and less to convince skeptics, is clear from what he says in chapter 5:

"The bible is the Word of God, so it is accurate in all it affirms.  Since it tells us Jesus rose from the dead, we can have completely confidence that he did...The critics and skeptics simply have an anti-supernatual bias, or more accurately, an anti-biblical bias.  Thus, they have developed absurd positions in effort to explain away the only reasonable conclusion that can be derived from those facts."

Mr. Chaffey has authored other books, has advanced degrees in Theology, Apologetics and Church History, and this Easter book come with Gary Habermas' endorsement on the back cover and on the second page.

Half of the second page of the book is taken up by accolades from Answers in Genesis scholar Terry Mortenson, who holds an MDiv and a PhD in the history of geology.

Mortenson says:

“Tim Chaffey has done his homework for this book. He has paid careful attention to the details of all the relevant biblical texts regarding the Resurrection of lesus, and he is thoroughly informed on the multitude of arguments and objections raised by skeptics who have attempted to explain away the empty tomb. His tone is respectful but clear and firm as he dismantles the fallacious reasoning of the enemies of the gospel. Unlike many books on the subject, Tim draws out the connection between the Resurrection and the literal history in Genesis 1-11. I also really appreciated the way he ended the book by sharing how the reality of the Resurrection of Jesus impacted his own life in a time of great testing and by his separate challenge to both his Christian and non-Christian readers. Every Christian will profit by reading this excellent defense of the Resurrection and the gospel. Nonbelievers will be challenged to carefully consider the Messiah Jesus who died for their sins and rose from the dead to restore them to a right relationship with their Creator, if they will simply turn from their sin and trust in Him as Lord and Savior. I heartily recommend this book!” —Terry Mortenson, Ph.D., Coventry University (UK); Speaker and Researcher; Answers in Genesis

Since Mr. Chaffey holds advanced degrees in all the fields highly relevant to the questions that skeptics would naturally ask in debates about gospel sources and historicity, I posted yesterday (August 24, 2017), the following challenge over at Mr. Chaffey's blog.  I will assume that the reason my post remains invisible as of today (August 25) is because Mr. Chaffey has not had time to review it for approval:

Mr. Chaffey,

I obtained your book "In Defense of Easter" (2014).

The back cover of your book says one of the purposes in writing it was to help Christians "to answer today's skeptical challenges."

I am a skeptic with several challenges to the resurrection of Jesus that I believe were not disturbed by anything in your book, and I also have challenges to your arguments in that book.

I would like to discuss your book with you, at any time, date and internet location most convenient to you.

Here's a short list of the issues I'm prepared to discuss, or propositions I'm willing to defend.  Most are especially powerful precisely because they represent specific skeptical attacks that you didn't deal with in your book:

1 - There are only 3 eyewitness accounts of Jesus' resurrection in the NT, at best, all the rest are hearsay.  And that's generously granting assumptions of apostolic gospel authorship that I am otherwise prepared to attack on the merits.

2 - Apostle Paul's gospel contradicts the one Jesus preached.

3 - The actions of the 11 apostles after allegedly experiencing the risen Christ indicate what they actually experienced, if anything, was something less than the "amazing transformation" lauded so loudly by apologists.

4 - Because Matthew is in all likelihood not responsible for the content in canonical Greek Matthew, he and his gospel are disqualified as  witnesses.

5 - Because John was willing to falsely characterize divine words he got by vision, as if they were things the historical Jesus really said and did, John and his gospel are disqualified as witnesses.

6 – John’s intent to write a "spiritual" gospel as opposed to imitating the Synoptics which he knew had already disclosed the “external facts”, argues that “spiritual” here implies something different than mere writing down of eyewitness testimony.  The historical evidence that is accepted by even fundamentalists makes clear that John’s source for gospel material included visions and not just memory.

7 - The NT admission that most of Paul's converts apostatized from him for the Judaizer gospel, warrants skeptics to be a bit more hesitant than Christians before classifying Paul as a truth-robot.  The NT evidence against Paul's integrity is many, varied and strong.

8 - Papias asserted Mark "omitted nothing" of what he heard Peter preach.  Because Bauckham is wrong when saying Papias here was using mere literary convention, Papias meant that phrase literally...in which case Mark's silence on the virgin birth is not due to his "omission" of it, the virgin birth doesn't appear in his gospel because there was never a virgin birth story available for him to omit in the first place...a strong attack on Matthew's and Luke's credibility.

9 - Paul's belief that Mark's abandonment of ministry justifies excluding him from further ministry work (Acts 15) will always remain a justifiable reason (assuming Acts’ historicity here) to say Mark wasn't too impressed with gospel claims, even assuming he later fixed his disagreements with Paul and wrote the gospel now bearing his name.

10 - Mark's strong apathy toward writing down Peter's preaching supports the above premise that he was less than impressed with the gospel, and likely only joined himself to the group for superficial reasons.  Not a good day for fundamentalists who think Mark was inspired by God to write his gospel.

11 - Peter's explicit refusal to endorse Mark's gospel writing, militates, for obvious reasons, against the idea that Peter approved of it.

12 - stories of women becoming pregnant by a god in a way not disturbing her virginity, are securely dated hundreds of years before the 1st century.  The copycat Savior hypothesis is virtually unassailable, once the admittedly false skeptical exaggerations of the evidence are excluded, and rationally warrants skepticism toward Matthew's and Luke's honesty.

13 - The failure of Jesus' own immediate family to believe his ministry-miracles were genuinely supernatural (the logical inference from John 7:5 and Mark 3:21-31) provides reasonable and rational warrant for skeptics to say the miracles Jesus allegedly did, were no more real than those done by Benny Hinn and other wildly popular con artists.

14 - The evidence for the specific contention that most of the apostles or earliest Christians died as martyrs (i.e., were forced to choose between death or committing blasphemy, and chose death) is furiously scanty and debatable, justifying skepticism toward this popular apologetic argument.

15 - the mass-hallucination hypothesis does not require the exact same mental images to have been shared by the original apostles.  Mass-hallucination need not require such impossibility any more than Pentecostals being slain in the spirit requires them to all move and talk in the exact same way before they can validly claim to have shared the same experience. 

16 - There are contradictions in the resurrection accounts that are not capable of reasonable harmonization.

I am also willing to discuss whatever apologetics argument you think is the most clear and compelling.

I will avoid publicly posting our exchanges, if you wish, but if I hear nothing from you by Friday August 25, (you need only send a quick email), I will post this message to my own blog and continue awaiting your response there.

Thank you,

Barry Jones.

barryjoneswhat@gmail.com

 That last part was said with the presumption that my post would post quickly as it normally does elsewhere.

The reason I made so many summary points to Chaffey was to preempt the possibility that he'd employ a popular but dishonest excuse many Christians employ so that they can feel better about running away from the challenges posted by informed skeptics, namely, the excuse that the challenging skeptic does not appear smart enough to make him or her a worthwhile discussion or debate participant.

It should be perfectly obvious from Mr. Chaffey's conservative Christian beliefs, that he would strongly disagree with all of my 16 asserted points.  If so, then we must assume Mr. Chaffey has good reasons to think those 16 points arise from provable misinterpretations of the relevant biblical and patristic sources.

If Mr. Chaffey is confident that the only person who could seriously argue my 16 points is somebody who has has sorely misunderstood the biblical and patristic sources, then he think refuting me on those points would be a piece of cake.

So let's take my first point: there are only 3 resurrection testimonies in the NT that come down to us today in first-hand form, the rest are hearsay.

 The only NT sources that at least potentially qualify as first-hand here are Matthew, John and Paul.  That's a far cry from the "many eyewitnesses" dogma fundamentalists trumpet from the rooftops today in their populist apologetic efforts.

If Mr. Chaffey can find additional testimonies to Jesus resurrection in the NT which come down to us today in first-hand form, I welcome him to get in contact with me and arrange for us to discuss the topic at times, dates and internet sites most convenient to him.