All posts by Bill Pratt

About the blog, Polls

2010 Reader Survey

Leave a comment

Post Author: Bill Pratt

We want to make the blog more relevant to your needs and interests.  To do that, we need to know more about you.   As a result, we have created the 2010 Reader Survey.

Would you please take a few minutes to fill out the survey?  By doing so, you will ultimately be helping yourself because you will be helping us make our posts more interesting and relevant to you.

The survey is easy to fill out and it only consists of 10 questions.   Thanks in advance for your participation!

Click here to take the 2010 Reader Survey.

Resurrection

What Historical Evidence Exists for the Resurrection?

39 Comments
The Resurrection—Tischbein, 1778.
Image via Wikipedia

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Quite a bit of historical evidence exists for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  In this post, I will follow the lead of historians Gary Habermas and Mike Licona and give you five key facts that the majority of modern historians agree upon (see their book The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus).

How can I say what the majority of historians agree upon?  According to Licona, “Habermas has compiled a list of more than 2,200 sources in French, German, and English from 1975 to the present.  He has identified minimal facts that are strongly evidenced and which are regarded as historical  by the large majority of scholars, including skeptics.”  Skeptics are defined as people who deny that Jesus rose from the dead in any way.

The first fact is that Jesus was killed by crucifixion.  What ancient sources attest to Jesus’ crucifixion?  The four Gospels, the Roman historian Tacitus, the Jewish historian Josephus, the Greek writer Lucian of Samosata, the pagan Mara Bar-Serapion, and the Jewish Talmud.  The extremely skeptical scholar John Dominic Crossan said, “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical ever can be.”

The second fact is that Jesus’ disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them.  Several sources attest to this fact.  The apostle Paul reports his interactions with the disciples (Peter, James, and John) on this topic, and Paul also records early oral traditions from the church (see 1 Cor. 15:3-7).  The Book of Acts records early Christian sermons that spoke about the resurrection.  All four Gospels record the fact that the disciples thought they saw Jesus alive after his crucifixion.  The apostolic fathers Clement and Polycarp both report the resurrection appearances as well.  The atheist scholar Gerd Ludemann said, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”

The third fact is that the church persecutor Paul converted.  The fact that Paul converted after being hostile to Christianity is confirmed by Paul himself, but also by Luke, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Tertullian, Dionysius of Corinth, and Origen.  These other sources also report that not only did Paul convert, but that he was willing to die for his beliefs.

The fourth fact is the conversion of the skeptic James, Jesus’ half brother.   The Gospels of Mark and John both report that James was not a believer in Jesus while Jesus was alive.  Paul records the fact that James saw the risen Jesus.  Luke records in Acts that James became a leader in the Jerusalem church, as does Paul in Galatians.  We know that James was even martyred for his beliefs from Josephus, Hegesippus (as reported by Eusebius), and Clement of Alexandria (as reported by Eusebius).

The fifth fact is that Jesus’ tomb was empty.  This fact does not garner the near universal assent of critical historians, although Habermas estimates that about 75% of the scholars he studied do grant this fact.  All four Gospels allude to the empty tomb and Paul certainly implies the empty tomb in 1 Cor. 15.  Several persuasive arguments have been made to support the historicity of the empty tomb (see Is There Evidence for the Empty Tomb?)  According to Oxford University church historian William Wand, “All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favor of [the empty tomb], and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other ground than that of scientific history.”

Now, given these five facts, what historical hypothesis best explains these facts?  Licona and Habermas argue that the bodily resurrection of Jesus best explains the five facts and outdistances all other theories in its explanatory power.  Remember, alternative theories must explain these five facts better than the resurrection does in order to command a higher historical probability than the resurrection.  In my experience, the alternative theories all suffer from major deficiencies, leaving the resurrection hypothesis on solid historical ground.

Salvation

What about Those Who Never Hear the Gospel?

4 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

I have written on this, one of the most popular questions posed to Christians, in a few different posts and in comments.  Having said that, I have never answered the question in a systematic and thorough manner.  Recently I ran across the best, the most thorough answer to this question I’ve ever seen.  The author is Glenn Miller, the creator of a website called A Christian Thinktank.

You may not agree with each and every thing Glenn says, but I found his answer to this question to take into account a wide range of biblical data and treat that data with great care.  In order to whet your appetite for his entire article, here is his conclusion (he backs all of these statements up with Scripture):

Heaven will be heavily populated, with people from all nations, tribes, and languages–with many from outside historical Israel.

God’s judgment is completely fair and His kindness is communicated (and operative) to all. God reveals Himself to humanity through several non-linguistic forms (nature, anthropology, morality, patterns, emotions), and even linguistic data (in the form of tradition) has been preserved for all the descendants of the original pair of humans.

God deals with people according to the information they have–with specific focus on how they welcome or resist that truth. God’s moral judgment is based on actual deeds and actual motives–a very fair standard for everyone.

With those that respond to God’s revelation in nature and extra-biblical tradition, seeking grace and His activity on their behalf, God initiates a relationship with them, that typically eventuates in additional disclosures of God’s special, special love–His Son.

All of God’s overtures to man, and the acceptance of imperfect people into a living relationship with the morally pure God, is based on the penalty-removing sacrifice of God the Son on the Cross–sometimes unbeknownst to the recipients of that grace (e.g. OT saints).

Throughout the stretch of history, God has given additional detail, precision, instruction in the record of His disclosures and actions in history (i.e. the Bible). This in no way compromises or diminishes the ‘power-to-save’ of the ‘least-precise’ statement of God’s gracious nature and God’s saving actions in history.

The elements of original truth are mixed with historical distortions in all world religions, but there are sects within EACH of these major religious traditions that ‘look very much like’ aspects of OT religion, and there are often adherents of those religions that misunderstand their traditions ‘in the correct direction’!

The small, selected slice of history reported in the Bible indicates considerable action on God’s part in ‘getting the message out’ to individuals–often involving providence and ‘odd chanced’ events. A sufficiently competent God (!) could obviously orchestrate events, dreams, visions, rumors, conscience, mis-understood traditions, in such a way as to reach those who seek Him earnestly.

The response to truth in natural/universal revelation always witnesses to Christ–and never against Him. That is, a person who truly rejects the Biblical Christ (not some cardboard cutout or “engineered re-construction” of Him!), does NOT have a relationship with the Eternal God of heaven. (They may LATER come to accept Him, since many of us resisted His kindness for long periods of time before ‘softening before the warmth of His Love’.)

God’s concern for humanity and His interest in our welfare transcends both our petty attempts to criticize His plan, and our well-meaning attempts to ‘justify’ His plan! A love that sent a volunteering Son to earth, to die miserably and scandalously at the hands of “reluctant wrath” and “justly outraged holiness”, is a love that invites all to “come, drink of the Fountain of life”.

His instructions to Judeo-Christians to present/offer this message to the whole world is to be obeyed on His authority only, regardless of outcomes in any given setting. But we delight in the fact that His love drives us on, and that His Word can give life and freedom to those often un-interested or even openly hostile.

God is so perfectly good and so perfectly fair in ALL His dealings with us. His patience in delaying judgment (2 Pet 3) and His provision for forgiveness through the death of His Son (2 Cor 5), although often cast in His teeth in derision, is ample witness of His heart. His dealings with us incorporate ALL of the issues of our hearts, our background, and our basic attitudes toward truth/life.

“Shall not the God of all the earth do right?!” (Gen 18.25)

Existence of God, Human Nature, Morality

Are Humans Born with a Common Moral Nature?

4 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

The Bible teaches that we are (see Rom. 2).  Virtually every adult human being seems to have the same basic sense of right and wrong.  We all agree that cowardice is wrong, that love is good, that killing the innocent is wrong.  You will be hard pressed to find a culture that disagrees with these moral values.

Many psychologists, however, have claimed that human babies are born as moral blank slates and that their culture gives them all of their moral direction.  Since cultures vary in significant ways, they argue, so do moral values vary greatly from culture to culture.  Recent research is challenging the standard view of psychology, however.

According to the Daily Mail, recent research done on 6-month olds seems to show that they already have a rudimentary sense of right and wrong.

At the age of six months babies can barely sit up – let along take their first tottering steps, crawl or talk.  But, according to psychologists, they have already developed a sense of moral code – and can tell the difference between good and evil.  An astonishing series of experiments is challenging the views of many psychologists and social scientists that human beings are born as ‘blank slates’ – and that our morality is shaped by our parents and experiences.  Instead, they suggest that the difference between good and bad may be hardwired into the brain at birth.

The article describes a few of the experiments that were run to help the researchers determine that morality may be hardwired into the brain.

As with all new research, caution is warranted.  Whether babies are born with moral values will continue to be hotly debated, but the creative work done by this research team will spur on more work.

Why is this topic important?  As Christians, we believe that God is a moral being, and that he implanted his moral nature within humankind.  This moral nature was corrupted at the Fall, but it still resides within us in a perverted state.

The existence of the same basic moral values within all humans points toward the objective reality of moral laws.  Moral laws point back to a Moral Law-giver, and we believe the Moral Law-giver is God.

If it were true that human beings differed in their basic moral values, that some cultures celebrated rape, that other cultures rewarded cowardice, that still others frowned upon love, we would be hard-pressed to demonstrate a common moral law exists.  In that scenario, it would seem that morality is subjective and random, which would seem to count against the existence of a Moral Law-giver.

What do you think?  Does mankind seem to share basic moral values or do you think basic moral values differ radically from person to person and culture to culture?

Human Nature

Are Humans Intrinsically Good?

6 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

The Christian view of man holds a tension.

On the one hand, we are to understand that God created man in his image, meaning he gave us rational minds, a will, moral values, and so forth.  Since we are unique among his creation in possessing his image, this surely guarantees our tremendous value, both as a species and as individuals.

On the other hand, we are nothing, less than nothing, without God in our lives.  Sin pervades our nature and darkens our souls.  Only when we reach out to God can we cure this horrible disease.  We must humble ourselves before him to escape our predicament.

How do we synthesize these two views of man?  We are to always remember our value in God’s eyes, but we are also to remember what we are like without him.

It’s no use beating ourselves up all the time and putting ourselves down.  That denies our value.  Maybe you’ve heard the following wise saying: “Humility is not thinking less of yourself, but thinking of yourself less.”

It’s no use thinking we are intrinsically good on our own.  That denies our need for God.  Those who think they don’t need God end up with a distorted view of their own abilities.

Both traps are waiting for us, so we mustn’t fall in either one.

Which trap do you think people are more prone to fall into?

Archaeology, Church History

Christians on Cyprus Strive to Keep Jesus’ Language Alive

1 Comment

Post Author: Bill Pratt

I ran across a fascinating article about a small group of Christians who have preserved the Aramaic language that Jesus spoke.

Here is a an excerpt:

The Aramaic language of the earliest Christians lives on in the church services of a tiny village on the Turkish Cypriot side of the Mediterranean island of Cyprus, where a hybrid dialect of Aramaic is commonly spoken by just 1,000 people who are striving to keep it alive.

The language is dying out, but the Maronites in Cyprus are trying to prevent it from being completely lost.  I’m certainly rooting them on, as it would be a tragic loss if they failed.

Cults

Ex-Scientologist Reveals Details in New Book

2 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Ever since I first read about Scientology in Time magazine back in the early 1990’s, I’ve been mystified about why anyone would join up.  The reports in the media about mind control, brainwashing, abuse, and intimidation are legion.  Ex-members and those publicly critical of Scientology are routinely harassed by armies of lawyers and private investigators, according to many sources.

Now there is a new book out by a former high level staffer who was a member of the group for 27 years, Amy Scobee.  Scobee did an interview recently and here are a few excerpts:

You were a member for 27 years. What was the spark plug for your departure?

I became less and less tolerant of the abuse that I witnessed as it got more and more harsh. People were very unhappy, family members were being separated, David Miscavige [the current “leader” of Scientology] committed assault and battery on my friends on numerous occasions.

What are some of the worst things [about Scientology]?

Family disconnection and their manipulation, blackmail and control through the threat of being cut off from family, which has devastating effects, and being denied your “only road to salvation as a spiritual being.”

The way Scientology goes after critics. It’s their policy to utterly annihilate the credibility of anyone speaking out against the “church.” They have done brutal things in the past along these lines and are still pulling these stunts currently.

Another key thing is INFORMATION CONTROL. This is a form of mind control. If one controls what you can and can not see or hear, one is unable to make a rational decision about that matter. Scientology specializes in information control — one is banned from upper levels of “spiritual enlightenment’ if it is discovered that you read anything negative about Scientology or talked to someone about it.

Germany recently declared Scientology a cult. Do you think that’s an accurate definition?

Yes — I believe Scientology is actually a dangerous cult. By definition, a “destructive cult” is a religion or other group which has caused or has a high probability of causing harm to its own members or to others. Some researchers define “harm” in this case with a narrow focus, specifically groups which have deliberately physically injured or killed other individuals, while others define the term more broadly and include emotional abuse among the types of harm inflicted. Both physical and spiritual/mental abuse has occurred, and from what I understand is continuing to occur, within Scientology — at its highest ranks. I observed quite a bit of such destructive action and this is detailed in my new book.

Read the full article for more on this dangerous organization.

Archaeology

Archaeologist Claims to Have Found King David’s Palace

Leave a comment

Post Author: Bill Pratt

We have featured the findings of archaeologist Eilat Mazar in previous blog posts (here and here).  She has been digging in Jerusalem since 2005 and continues to make amazing discoveries.  Her claims, however, are not universally accepted by other archaeologists.  In a recent article in Biblical Archaeological Review, she lays out the evidence for her claim that she has dug up parts of King David’s Palace.

In Mazar’s words:

The Biblical narrative, I submit, better explains the archaeology we have uncovered than any other hypothesis that has been put forward. Indeed, the archaeological remains square perfectly with the Biblical description that tells us David went down from there to the citadel. So you decide whether or not we have found King David’s palace.

Please read the full article to see if you are convinced.  Mazar has already said that she has found portions of Nehemiah’s Wall and a city wall built by King Solomon.  Her findings are truly extraordinary, if proven true.

Evil, Pain, and Suffering, Existence of God, Religion

What Do God and Can Openers Have to Do with Each Other?

1 Comment

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Woody Allen has never been one to shy away from tackling big issues in his movies.  In the movie Hannah and Her Sisters there is a classic scene that depicts Woody Allen’s character first talking to a Catholic priest about converting to Catholicism and then announcing to his Jewish parents his decision.  His mother and father react negatively to his announcement, to say the least.

Below is a 2 minute clip.  Make sure you watch all the way to the end of the clip for a hilarious punchline.  I couldn’t stop laughing.

Caution:  The clip contains one use of the “H” word, so consider yourself warned.