الوسم: Atheist

كتاب لا أملك الإيمان الكافي للإلحاد – نرومان جيزلر PDF

كتاب لا أملك الإيمان الكافي للإلحاد – نرومان جيزلر PDF

 

كتاب لا أملك الإيمان الكافي للإلحاد – نرومان جيزلر PDF

كتاب لا أملك الإيمان الكافي للإلحاد – نرومان جيزلر PDF

محتويات الكتاب:

مقدمة الطبعة العربية 

المقدمة 

1-هل نستطيع التعامل مع الحق ؟

2-ما الذي يجعلنا  نصدق اي شيء على الاطلاق ؟

3-في البدء كان انفجار كبير

4-التصميم الالهي

5- الحياة الاولى :  قوانين طبيعية  ام عجائب الهية ؟

6-من الخلية  الي الانسان مرورا بالحيوان  ؟

7-الام تريزا مقابل هتلر 

8-المعجزات : علامات  تشير الي لله ام سذاجة ؟

9-هل  عندنا شهادات مبكرة عن يسوع ؟

10-هل لدينا  شهادة شهود عيان عن يسوع ؟

11-الاسباب العشرة  الرئيسية التي  تؤكد  لنا صحة اقوال كتاب العهد الجديد 

12-هل حقا  قام يسوع من الاموات ؟

13-من هو يسوع  : الله ؟  ام مجرد  معلم اخلاقي عظيم ؟

14-ماذا علم يسوع  عن الكتاب المقدس  ؟ 

15-الخلاصة : القاضي  و الملك العبد و سطح العلبة 

ملحق  1 :  ان كان الله موجودا  , فلماذا الشر ؟

ملحق  2 : أليس  ذلك تفسيرك انت  ؟

ملحق  3 :  لماذا لا يتحدث  سمينار يسوع عن يسوع ؟

المراجع

 

تحميل الكتاب PDF

 

دليل على قيامة الرب يسوع مقبول من علماء غير مؤمنين – ترجمة توماس نبيل

دليل على قيامة الرب يسوع مقبول من علماء غير مؤمنين – ترجمة توماس نبيل

دليل على قيامة الرب يسوع مقبول من علماء غير مؤمنين – ترجمة توماس نبيل

دليل على قيامة الرب يسوع مقبول من علماء غير مؤمنين – ترجمة توماس نبيل

اشراف فريق اللاهوت الدفاعي

هذه المقالة تتحدث عن حجة تسمى “حجة الحد الأدنى من الحقائق” والتي تثبت قيامة الرب يسوع ويقدمها لنا د. جاري هابرماس وهي واحدة من أقوي الحجج علي قيامة الرب يسوع.

د. هابرماس هو مؤرخ أمريكي ودارس للعهد الجديد وأحد فلاسفة الدين، وقد درس القيامة لمدة أربعين سنة إلى الان. خلال هذا الوقت كان يصنع قائمة بحقائق القيامة المقبولة من قبل علماء العهد الجديد بصرف النظر عن معتقداتهم.

د. هابرماس يقول الآتي عن حجة الحد الأدنى من الحقائق:

“حجة الحد الأدنى من الحقائق والتي هي حجة لصالح قيامة يسوع تم تطويرها قبل عدة سنوات خلال كتابتي لرسالة الدكتوراه. هذه الحجة تحتاج لأمرين من أجل اثبات حقائق تاريخية معينة: أن تكون هذه الحقائق مؤكدة بواسطة عدد من الحجج القوية والمستقلة، ويجب ان الغالبية العظمي من العلماء حتي علماء النقد يعترفوا بصحة الحدث تاريخياً. علماء النقد هؤلاء من الممكن ان يكونوا ليبراليين أو شكوكيين أو لا أدريين أو حتي ملحدين

هذا لا يهم طالما انهم متخصصون في مجال دراسة ذو صلة بالموضوع كدراسة العهد الجديد. بخصوص هذين المطلبين، من المهم ان ندرك ان المعيار الأول بخصوص دليل قوي يأتيمن أكثر شيء مصيري.

لذا لماذا يسمح أو يعترف حتي علماء النقد بهذه الحقائق التاريخية الفردية؟ الإجابة ان كلاً منها غير قابل للإنكار. معظم الحقائق القليلة المستخدمة مؤكد بواسطة عشرة اعتبارات تاريخية أو اكثر. هذا ببساطة أساس رائع خاصة بالنسبة للأحداث التي وقعت في القرن الأول الميلادي.”

لو كان احد الفيزيائيين يكتب عن حقيقة القيامة، اذاً لن يقبل الناس هذه الحقائق التي كتبها لأن الدكتوراه الخاصة بالفيزيائي ليس لها علاقة بالموضوع. لكن حتي لو احد علماء العهد الجديد الملحدين كان يكتب عن القيامة، ثم قام بإحصاء الحقائق التي قبلها الناس. فقد جمع هذا العالم ما يزيد علي 3000 مرجع باللغات الإنجليزية والفرنسية والألمانية، ثم قام بعمل قائمة بالحد الأدنى من الحقائق المقبولة والتي بينها شيء مشترك. في الواقع الحقائق التالية مقبولة من قبل كل المؤرخين والشكوكيين والمؤمنين:

  1. أن المسيح مات علي الصليب.
  2. رسل المسيح وتلاميذه اختبروا ما قد آمنوا أنه ظهورات للمسيح المُقام (لقد ادّعوا هذا وآمنوا به).
  3. ان يعقوب أخا الرب والذي آمن قبلاً ان يسوع كان مجنوناً، فجأة اصبح مسيحياً.
  4. بولس، والذي كان قبلاً مضطهداً للمسيحية، فجأة أصبح مسيحياً.
  5. أن القبر وُجد فارغاً بعدها بثلاثة أيام.

الحقيقة الوحيدة المُتنازع عليها هي القبر الفارغ، ولكن حتي مع هذا، لديك %75 من المؤرخين يقبلون هذه الحقيقة، ولكن هناك ثلاث حجج لدعم حقيقة القبر الفارغ:

  1. أن يسوع صُلب في أورشليم، المكان الذي بدأت منه الكرازة، كل ما احتاجت اليه السلطات لكي تقضي علي المسيحية كان اظهار الجسد للجموع.
  2. شهادة الأعداء. فاتهام النقاد الأوائل (اليهود) رسل المسيح بسرقة جسده، كان اعتراف منهم بأن الجسد لم يكن موجوداً.
  3. شاهد العيان الأول علي القبر الفارغ كان مجموعة نساء، وهذا له صلة بالموضوع لان شهادة النساء في القرن الأول في كلاً من الثقافة اليهودية والرومانية كانت تعتبر محل شك وغير مستحقة للثقة.

هناك ايضاً حقائق آخري مقبولة مثل:-

  1. أنه دُفن علي الأرجح في قبر خاص.
  2. أن رسل المسيح تحولوا من متشككين إلى مُعلنين (مبشرين) شجعان وكانوا حتي مستعدين أن يموتوا من اجل ذلك الايمان.
  3. أصل الكنيسة المسيحية.
  4. كيف أن القيامة كانت أساس البشارة.
  5. الكرازة بدأت مبكراً.

وغيرها الكثير….

ولكن في الحقيقة أنت فقط تحتاج اول خمس حقائق لكي تُصيغ هذه الحجة. فبما ان هذه الحقائق مقبولة، حتي من قبل الشكوكيين والمؤرخين الملحدين، كل فرد منا يحتاج ان يحاول ويفسّر هذه الحقائق، حتي الان معظم هذه التفسيرات يفشل في تفسير كل هذه البيانات.

اكثر النظريات شيوعاً والتي ستسمعها لمحاولة تفسير هذه الحقائق الهامة هي:

  • نظرية المؤامرة.
  • نظرية الموت الظاهري.
  • نظرية الجسد المسروق.
  • نظرية الهلوسة.

نظرية المؤامرة :

بشكل أساسي تنص علي أن الرسل تآمروا لبدء الديانة المسيحية. ولكن هذا يفشل عندما نأخذ في الاعتبار شروط نجاح أي مؤامرة. وايضاً يفشل في تفسير القبر الفارغ وتحول كلاً من يعقوب أخا الرب وبولس للمسيحية.

نظرية الموت الظاهري:

تنص علي أن يسوع لم يمت فعلاً علي الصليب، وأنهم فقط اعتقدوا أنه مات عندما اُنزل من علي الصليب ووضع في القبر، ثم بعد ثلاثة أيام خرج يسوع من القبر “بأعجوبة”. هذا يفشل عندما ندرك كيف كانت عقوبات الصلب ناجحة، أحد مؤرخي اليهود في القرن الأول سجل أنه خلال احدي عقوبات الصلب، لاحظ أن ثلاثة من أصدقائه كان يتم صلبهم.

لذا ذهب إلى الحاكم الروماني وقام بعمل استئناف، وبناء عليه أمر الحاكم الروماني ان يتم إنزال هؤلاء الثلاثة من علي الصليب واعطاءهم افضل رعاية طبية ممكنة. ورغم هذا مات اثنان منهم. لو لم يمت يسوع فعلاً علي الصليب لكنه دُفن حياً، لم يكن وقتها سيخرج بأعجوبة من القبر بعدها بثلاثة أيام ويُظن خطأ انه قام، كان الرسل بمجرد رؤيتهم له سيخبروه “انه يحتاج طبيباً”.

نظرية الموت الظاهري أيضاً تفشل عندما ندرك كيف كان الرومان بارعين (ضليعين) في اعدام الناس، أو المسئولية حيث لو أن انساناً كان من المفترض ان يموت ولم يمت، لكان الجنود المُشرفين علي الحكم قد اُعدموا، وايضاً هذا لا يفسر تحول يعقوب أخا الرب وبولس.

نظرية الجسد المسروق :

تنص علي ان الجسد إما تم تحريكه (سرقته) او انهم ذهبوا للقبر الخطأ، ولكن هذه النظرية تفشل في تفسير تحول كلاً من يعقوب وبولس، وايضاً تفشل في تفسير ادعاءات الرسل ان يسوع القائم ظهر لهم. ايضاً، جميع السلطات الحاكمة، التي حاربت المسيحية، الشيء الوحيد الذي احتاجوا أن يفعلوه هو اظهار الجسد للجموع ولكنهم لم يفعلوا.

نظرية الهلوسة :

هذه النظرية قد تكون أقوي نظرية تمت صياغتها، لكنها ايضاً تفشل، بسبب أن الهلوسة تشبه الاحلام، وهي بطبيعتها فردية، ولا يتم مشاركتها. في كورنثوس الاولي 15: 3-8 وهي تحويأقدم عقيدة تؤرخ لفترة في خلال ستة أشهر من القيامة. نقرأ ان يسوع ظهر للاثني عشر، لأكثر من خمسمائة أخ دفعة واحدة، ثم لجميع الرسل. (هذه العقيدة هي واحدة من الأدلة التي يقبلها الدارسين الشكوكيين). كما ان نظرية الهلوسة تفشل في تفسير القبر الفارغ وايضاً تحول كلاً من يعقوب وبولس.

عندما تأخذ في الاعتبار كل هذه الحقائق الهامة الخاصة بالقيامة، ستجد ان وحدها نظرية القيامة، أن يسوع المسيح قام حقاً من الموت، تفسّر كل البيانات التي بين أيدينا.

المرجع

Evidence of the Resurrection Accepted Even by Atheist New Testament Scholars

دليل على قيامة الرب يسوع مقبول من علماء غير مؤمنين – ترجمة توماس نبيل

استاذة جامعية ملحدة تصبح مسيحية Holly Ordway

استاذة جامعية ملحدة تصبح مسيحية Holly Ordway 

استاذة جامعية ملحدة تصبح مسيحية Holly Ordway

استاذة جامعية ملحدة تصبح مسيحية Holly Ordway

 

نشرت الدكتورة Holly Ordway كتاب بعنوان ” Not God’s Type” تحكي فيه قصتها الشخصية. وتبدأ قائلة “لم أصلي في حياتي. لم يكن لي اي خدمة في الكنيسة. كان عيد الميلاد والقيامة بالنسبة لي عبارة عن مكعبات الشكولاتة والهدايا فقط لا أكثر من هذا. ثم تستطرد قائلة “في الجامعة كنت اعتقد ان المسيحية عبارة عن شائبة في الحضارة الحديثة. كنت أقدم دراسة في فصلي في الجامعة ان المسيحين هم عباره عن جهله واميين مكافحين لكل ما هو مثقف. لأنهم لا يقبلون نظرية داروين Darwinism.

ويشكلوا تهديداً للتقدم المعرفي العلمي. في حصة التاريخ كنت أغفل واتجاهل دراسة الشخصيات التاريخية التي لها علاقة بالإيمان. لكن في وقت لاحق “وانا في عمر الواحد والثلاثين وكنت استاذه جامعية ملحدة وكنت مسرورة جداً بالتفكير بنفسي وانا في هذه الوظيفة. فكنت استمتع بالنظر الي نفسي انني متميزة جداً بعيداً عن غير المستنيرين المؤمنين. الذين يؤمنون بالخرافات. وكنت أعلق بتعليقات بذيئة عن المسيحين p.15-16.

كانت الدكتورة هولي تدرب الناس على الاكاديمية لكنها كانت تريد ازاحة التاريخ عن الدين. فتقول “لم يكن لدي النية للإيمان. فلم اريد ان أؤمن فكنت أفكر لماذا الايمان؟ وكان تفكيري فقط اعطاء سبب جيد لرفض الايمان. وانشئت تفسيراً لأرضي نفسي ان الايمان مستحيلاً. وان كلمة الايمان لا معني لها. وهذا يدل ان المؤمنين مجرد مجموعة من المنافقين الحمقى المخدوعين. وانهم يضيعون الوقت بادعاء ان الايمان حقائق. كنت أفضل قراءة كتب الملحدين الذين يقولون ما اريد ان اسمعه واقوله. انني أكثر ذكاءً وأكثر صدقاً وأكثر فكراً وأكثر اخلاقً وأفضل من المسيحين المخدوعين. فحصنت نفسي بقلعة حصينة من الالحاد. آمنة ضد اي هجوم ايماني غير عقلاني p.17-18.

فأنشئت الدكتورة هولي قلعة متينة تحميها بعناية من الدفاع. وايضاً لحماية عقلها من بعض الكتاب. امثال John Keats و John Donne و Gerard Manley Hopkins و والرجال الذين كانوا يكتبون كتابات تحتوي مفاهيم جميله. مثل الامل او يوم مشرق للأمل. فهل كان يوجد الامل من الاصل. بقية كتاب الدكتورة هولي تحكي فيه عن لقائها المتميز مع مدربها في المبارزة التي تثق فيه كثيراً. ولم تكن تعرف الدكتورة هولي انه مسيحياً حتى بعد تدريبها معه بفتره. هو وزوجته مارلي اجابوا على اسئلتي. ولم يضغطوا على باي امر متعلق بالأمر الديني. كانت الدكتورة هولي امينة في التحقق من الامر اكاديمياً والتحقق في المصادر.

فعندما سألتهم عن القيامة كيف تكون مقبولة ومعقولة. فوجدت الاجابة في كتابات الاسقف N. T. Wright’s في كتاب قيامة ابن الله في 740 صفحة وذكر فحص العلماء هي ايضاً قرأت كتاب Lewis’ Surprised لجوي وايضا كتاب Does God Exist? لكريفت ومورلاند Kreeft and Moreland واخرين غيرهم.

كلا من الدكتورة هولي وايضاً سي اس لويس كانو أساتذة في الادب قبل ان يصيروا مسيحيين. وكانوا ملتزمين بالخط الهجومي وخلق دفاعيات فكرية ضد الايمان بيسوع. لكن في وقت لاحق من قصة الدكتورة هولي كتبت “قرأت الانجيل مرة اخري في محاولة استيعاب ما قالوا. وأدركت بالفعل انه حقيقة. وليس قصة. كنت غارفة في دراسة الفلكلور والخيال والأسطورة. وكنت أحب الاساطير منذ الطفولة ودرست هذا النوع من الادب. فكنت اعرف هذه الايقاعات. ومذاقها. لم تظهر هذه البصمات الاسلوبية في كتابات العهد الجديد التي قرأتها. p.117 .قالت هذا وهي من ذوي الخبرة. واستاذة في الادب.

فهي تعرف تماماً الأسطورة عندما تراها. وقالت “كان للأناجيل ملمس لا يوصف وهذا الملمس كان التاريخ” فكما كان لويس استاذ للأدب في اكسفورد وكامبريدج. هكذا ايضاً الدكتورة هولي الخبيرة في الادب قالت ” ان العهد الجديد لديه دلائل وادله من خلال شهادات شهود العيان” الدكتورة هولي نموذج شخصي للتغير. فمن يتوقع الشخصية المعادية بضراوة للمسيحية ان تتغير بهذه الصورة. لكن هذا الامر ليس سهلاً فتتكلم دكتور هولي ان الامر كان به صعوبة وخوف من التغير والتحول الي المسيحية. قائلة “الامر صعب عندما تجد الحقيقة التي تتعارض مع ما كنت عليه.وكنت تعتقد دائماً به” كمثل شخص لديه اضاءة خافته في غرفة يشاهدها من الخارج فاذا بالستائر تتفتح ويري كل ما فيها.

لكن في النهاية عرفت الدكتورة هولي الحقيقة ولم يعد في امكانها الابتعاد عنها. وعرفت ان يسوع التاريخي هو حقيقي.

لكن هل انت كملحد لا تريد اعطاء الرب فرصة ليدخل لحياتك. هل اغلقت كل الابواب ولا تريد السماع اعطي للرب فرصة في حياتك ومتي سمعتم صوته لا تقسوا قلوبكم.

Atheist Professor Becomes Christian. James Bishop

حوار ملحد ومؤمن عن السببية

حوار ملحد ومؤمن عن السببية

ذهب ملحد ومؤمن في جولة الي الغابة وهناك وجدوا كره زجاجية قطرها حوالي 8 قدم. وتساءل كلاهما من اين جاءه هذه الكره هنا. واتفقوا انه لابد ان يكون شخص ما وضعها هنا. وسأل المؤمن سؤالاً “إذا كانت الكره قطرها 16 قدم. هل سيكون ايضاً هناك تساءل عن سبب وجودها ههنا. فقال بالطبع سيكون هناك تساءل. فرد الملحد قائلاً ” إذا كنا تساءلنا عن الكرات الصغيرة وسبب وجودها. كيف لا نسأل عن كره كبيره.

فقال المؤمن “ماذا لو كانت الكره قطرها ثمانية آلاف ميل. هل لا تزال في حاجة الي سبب.

فرد الملحد وقال نعم إذا كانت الكره الصغيرة نبحث عن سبب لوجودها وايضاً الكبيرة. فما بالك بالكبيرة حقاً بالطبع تحتاج الي ان نبحث عن سبب. ثم قال المؤمن ” ماذا لو علمت ان الكره الكبيرة هي الكون …! هل ما زلت تعتقد انها تحتاج الي سبب. فرد الملحد قال بالطبع لا ” فالكون هو موجود ” لا يحتاج لسبب.

 

المرجع:

  1. Norman Geisler, If God, Why Evil?, p. 15.

القيمة الجوهرية inherent value ووجود الله

القيمة الجوهرية inherent value ووجود الله

الشيء يكتسب قيمته من الشخص. والشخص يكتسب قيمته الجوهرية من الله ووجود كيان واعي واخلاقي هو دليل علي وجود الله.

المعادلة تبدأ كالاتي:

ان كان الله غير موجود. اذاً فحياة الانسان ستصبح ليس لها اي قيمة جوهرية.

لكن بما ان حياة لإنسان لها قيمة جوهرية.

إذا الله موجود

قبل البدء ما معني القيمة الجوهرية inherent value؟ سنتكلم عن القيمة الجوهرية للشيء اولاً.

لكي يكون الشيء له قيمة جوهرية. لابد ان تكون القيمة جزء من الشيء. وتكون القيمة اساس الشيء. وبكلمات اخري، الشيء لا يأخذ قيمته من شيء اخر. كيف يكون هذا؟ قبل ان نسأل هذا السؤال، نحتاج الي ان نسأل سؤالاً اخر كيف يستطيع شيئاً ما ان يكون له قيمة بدون شخصاً ما تنسب اليه هذه القيمة. ويؤخذ الشيء منه قيمته؟ هنا لابد من ملاحظة هامة. ان الشيء لا يستطيع ان يكون فيه قيمة جوهرية الا بدون الشخص. فالشخص هو الذي يعطي الشيء قيمة. فالشيء لا يؤخذ قيمته من شيء اخر لكن يؤخذ قيمته من الشخص.

ولتوضيح القيمة الجوهرية ومفهومها على الشخص:

القيمة لابد ان تكون جزء من الشخص. والان يجب ان نسأل كيف يكون هذا ممكناً ان تكون القيمة جزء من الشخص؟ اجابة هذا السؤال من خلال سؤال اخر. هل يستطيع الانسان ان يكون بلا قيمة؟ بالتأكيد لا. البشر لديهم قيمة جوهرية ليست لان القيمة اساسية لهم. لكن لان القيمة ضرورة لوجود شخصية ذاتية. فالقيمة تتبع بالضرورة الشخصية.

لذلك يمكننا تعريف القيمة الجوهرية بما يلي: القيمة الجوهرية هي قيمة الشخص النابعة بالضروري من شخصيته.

فتعريف القيمة الجوهرية تتوقف على الشخصية إذا يمكن كتابة القياس المنطقي بإعادة صياغة كالاتي:

1- إذا كان الله غير موجود، فلا وجود حياة للإنسان وشخصيته.

2- كل انسان حي له شخصية

3- إذا الله موجود

قبل فحص هذا القياس المنطقي. لابد من تعريف للشخصية. الدكتور ويليام كريج يعرف الشخص بانه الذاتي الوعي والفاعل الاخلاقي. هذان التعريفان يدلان الي ان البشر كأشخاص تجاوزوا الكون المادي لأننا بسبب قراراتنا الاخلاقية لدينا الوعي الذاتي. بهذا التعريف العقلي دعونا نضع القياس الجديد.

الفرضية الاولي

إذا كان الله غير موجود. إذا لا يوجد انسان حي ولا شخصيه للإنسان. فمن هذا المنطلق هناك فشل في اثبات ان الشخصية يمكن ان تتطور بوسائل طبيعية “الانتقاء الطبيعي” إذا لم تكن هناك شخصية ولم يكن هناك اخلاق كيف للانتقاء الطبيعي ان يفعل هذا. هل تجاوز الانتقاء الطبيعي الكون المادي عن طريق جلب كائنات ذاتيه الوعي قادره على اتخاذ قرارات اخلاقية. إذا من المنطقي تماماً وجود شخص أبدي. تجاوز الكون المادي منح شخصيه لجسم الانسان المادي. وهذا أفضل تفسير لشخصية الانسان.

الفرضية الثانية

كل انسان حي له شخصية. يفشل هذا المنطق إذا أثبتنا ان هناك انساناً واحداً لا يملك شخصية. فالإنسان يجب ان يكون هو الشخص من اجل التأكد من هذه الفرضية. والحقيقة ان كل انسان لديه شخصية وهذا امر بديهي.

لذلك تماشياً مع المنطق هذا فالاستنتاج المنطقي ان الله موجود.

Footnotes

  1. http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2008/11/the-inherent-value-of-human-life/

Did Jesus Claim to be God? A Response to Bart Ehrman (Part 3)

Did Jesus Claim to be God? A Response to Bart Ehrman (Part 3)

Note:  This is the third installment of a series of blog posts reviewing Bart Ehrman’s new book, How Jesus Became God–The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee(HarperOne, 2014). For the prior post see here and here.

Not surprisingly, one of the major tenets in Ehrman’s argument is that Jesus never considered himself to be God, nor ever claimed to be God. In order to make his case, Ehrman summarizes his arguments from his book, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (Oxford, 2001), and says that Jesus just viewed himself as an apocalyptic prophet who was ushering in the Kingdom of God (basically Albert Schweitzerredivivus).

Here Ehrman adopts what he regards as the standard methodologies of modern critical scholarship, including the criteria of authenticity (and even the controversial and oft-debated criteria of dissimilarity). Of course, the upshot of Ehrman’s reconstruction of the historical Jesus is that any statements that might sound like a claim to divinity are conveniently dismissed as unhistorical.  So, not surprisingly, the claims of Jesus in the Gospel of John are considered “not part of the historical record of what Jesus actually said” (125).  In addition, Ehrman refuses to allow any statement where Jesus identifies himself as the “Son of Man.”

Needless to say, this all works out a little too neatly.  Ehrman portrays his critical methods not only as something that all scholars agree upon, but as something that leads to clear cut, unambiguous results.  Left unsaid is the fact that the criteria of authenticity themselves have come under tremendous fire from scholars of all stripes (e.g., see Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne, Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity [T&T Clark, 2012]).  Even more, the specific criterion of dissimilarity (which fuels much of Ehrman’s reconstruction) has been vigorously debated and, in the minds of many, is fundamentally flawed.  On top of all of this, even scholars who agree on the criteria reach radically different conclusions about how those criteria should be applied.

Given that Ehrman has spent much of his academic career lamenting reconstructions of early Christianity which portray it as neat and tidy, and given that he is quick to point out that early Christianity was, in reality, full of debate and disagreement, it is ironic that he seems so unwilling to point out those same challenges within his own discipline. The truth of the matter is that reconstructions of the historical Jesus do not give us some clear and simple division of sayings where the human Jesus is on one side and the divine Jesus is on the other.  It is much more complex than this, and Ehrman owes it to the reader to make that plain.

Take as an example Ehrman’s dismissal of the sayings where Jesus identifies himself as the Son of Man.  This move is not at all consistent with much of modern scholarship, as can be seen by the collection of essays in the recent volume, Who Is This Son of Man? (eds. Larry Hurtado and Paul Owen; T&T Clark, 2011).  If Jesus did see himself as the Son of Man, and the evidence suggests that he did, then there are numerous places in the Synoptics where Jesus sees himself in what is arguably a divine role.  For instance, in Matt 26:63-65 (cf. Mark 14:62/Luke 22:67-71) Jesus not only identifies himself as the Son of God, but then also identifies himself as the Son of Man coming to judge the world on the clouds of heaven—an identity that the chief priests regard as worthy of the charge of blasphemy. So, even if one were to discount the Gospel of John, there is ample evidence elsewhere for Jesus’ divine self-understanding.

But, there is another problematic aspect to Ehrman’s methodology.  Slipped into the discussion (rather subtly) is the expectation that if Jesus really thought he was God he would go around talking about it all the time.  Indeed, this is the very point of Ehrman’s argument when comparing John and the Synoptics: “If Jesus really went around calling himself God [in John], wouldn’t the other Gospels at least mention the fact?” (87, emphasis mine).  There are several problems with the way Ehrman frames the question. For one, Jesus doesn’t always go around calling himself God even in John’s Gospel.  There are only a handful of times where Jesus explicitly claims to be God in John—not nearly as out of sync with the Synoptics as Ehrman would claim.

Beyond this, Ehrman’s statement presents an expectation that if Jesus were God he would always say it directly, something like, “Good to meet you, I am God.”  But could Jesus not present himself as the God of Israel in other ways? For instance, is it not relevant that Jesus presents himself as the judge of the world, who will sit on God’s glorious throne, who reigns over the angels, and is the key to people’s eternal destinies in heaven or hell (Matt 25:31-46)?  Is it not relevant that Jesus forgives sins, a prerogative that the scribes regard as solely belonging to God and thus worthy of the charge of blasphemy (Mark 2:5-6)? Is it not relevant that Jesus claims to have such a special relationship with the Father that “all things have been handed over to me” and that a person cannot know the Father unless “the Son chooses to reveal Him” (Matt 11:27)? And more examples could be given.

We can agree that John’s Gospel makes such claims to divinity even more direct—as the last Gospel it is not surprising that it offers a more sustained theological reflection on the person of Jesus.  But, we should not confuse the directness of a claim with the existence of a claim. The historical evidence suggests the Synoptic Jesus and the Johannine Jesus both claimed to be the God of Israel.

 

Gospel Critics and the Argument from Silence

Gospel Critics and the Argument from Silence

 

“You can’t say everything.”  This is one of the refrains I often cite to my students as we discuss historical documents.  When ancient authors put quill to papyrus (or parchment), we need to remember that they had a limited amount of space, a limited amount of time, a limited number of goals, and often a very specific purpose for which they wrote.

Inevitably, therefore, an historical account will include some things that other historical accounts (of the same event) might omit, and they might omit some things that other historical accounts might include.

This reality is particularly important to remember when the Gospel accounts are analyzed and compared with one another.  Differences aren’t (necessarily) the same as contradictions.  Each author inevitability gives a limited perspective on the whole.  They can’t say everything.

Unfortunately, in Bart Ehrman’s recent book, How Jesus Became God–The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (HarperOne, 2014), this particular principle goes unheeded.  In order to demonstrate contradictory Christologies in the New Testament (particularly amongst the Gospels) Ehrman leans heavily on what the Gospel authors don’t say.  Put directly, Ehrman uses anargumentum ex silentio (argument from silence).

This discussion of Ehrman’s use of the argument from silence will be the final installment of a series of posts interacting with and responding to his new book (for the prior post see here, here, and here).

For Ehrman, a central example of contradictory Christologies comes from comparing Mark with Matthew and Luke.  Mark, he argues, believes Jesus became divine only at his baptism, and was a mere man prior to that point.  Matthew and Luke, in contrast, present Jesus as divine even from birth (since he was born to a virgin).

But, how does Ehrman know that Mark rejects the virgin birth, and therefore rejects the higher Christology that goes with it?  Simple:  Mark doesn’t  mention it. Ehrman states,

[Jesus] was already adopted to be God’s Son at the very outset of his ministry, when John the Baptist baptized him. This appears to be the view of the Gospel of Mark, in which there is no word of Jesus’s pre-existence or of his birth to a virgin. Surely if this author believed in either view, he would have mentioned it (238).

Here is where we see the clear use of the argument from silence.  Ehrman assumes that if a New Testament author doesn’t mention something then they must not believe it.  But, there is a reason why arguments from silence are regarded as fallacious. As noted above, we simply do not know why an author included some things and not others; and it is very dangerous to suppose that we do.

Think, for example, of Paul’s discussion of Jesus instituting the Lord’s Supper in 1 Cor 11:23-26—a topic he never discusses anywhere else.  Now imagine for a moment that (for some reason) we didn’t have 1 Corinthians. We might conclude that Paul didn’t know about Jesus instituting the Lord’s Supper; indeed we might even conclude that Paul didn’t believe in the institution of the Lord’s Supper.  And we would be flat out wrong.

Likewise, to suppose that Mark’s omission of the virgin birth means he doesn’t believe in the virgin birth (and thus must not share Matthew and Luke’s Christology) is an unsustainable line of reasoning. After all, Mark doesn’t even include a birth account!  Should we conclude from that fact that he didn’t believe Jesus was born at all? Indeed, Mark omits many other stories that the other Gospels include; shall we conclude that he did not know any of them?  Historical records are inevitably limited in scope; an author cannot say everything.  Thus, we cannot draw hard and fast conclusions about things an author did not include.

Later, Ehrman makes the same argument from silence again.  This time, he wants to show that Matthew and Luke don’t share John’s view of Jesus as pre-existent.  He states:

I should stress that these virginal conception narratives of Matthew and Luke are by no stretch of the imagination embracing the view that later became the orthodox teaching of Christianity. According to this later view, Christ was a pre-existent divine being who ‘became incarnate through the Virgin Mary.’ But not according to Matthew and Luke. If you read their accounts closely, you will see that they have nothing to do with the idea that Christ existed before he was conceived. In these two Gospels, Jesus comes into existence at the moment of his conception.  He did not exist before (243).

Notice particularly the last line:  “He did not exist before.”  But, how does Ehrman know that Matthew and Luke don’t believe Jesus existed before?  Do they state such a thing anywhere?  No.  Ehrman is simply assuming this because they don’t directly mention Jesus’ pre-existence.  In other words, he assumes this because Matthew and Luke are silent on the matter.

In the end, the repeated use of the argument from silence suggests that Ehrman is more intent on finding contradictions than he is on simply exploring the Christology of the New Testament authors.  But, if one gives historical documents the benefit of the doubt, and doesn’t assume that omissions of a fact equal rejection of a fact, then the Gospel accounts actually prove to be quite complementary in regard to their understanding of Jesus as the divine Son of God.

The Apologetics of Jesus

 

The Apologetics of Jesus

 
Introduction

Was Jesus an apologist? As we read through the Gospels it could not be more evident that we see Jesus utilize a variety of  methodologies to communicate spiritual truths. Since there was no New Testament canon at that time, it is not as if Jesus was cognizant of 1 Peter 3:15-16 where we read, “But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame. So I doubt that Jesus walked around saying, “ I have been called to be an apologist and I need to carry out my task in a faithful manner.” However, Jesus offered reasons on several occasions as to why He is the Jewish Messiah and God incarnate. So let’s take a look at some of these and try to learn some things.

1. Jesus asked questions

For starters, if you read through the Gospels, you will see Jesus asked 153 questions. This is something that needs to be practiced by all Christians.  As Christians we tend to be great talkers but poor listeners. If you read through the rabbinical literature, you will see that asking questions is a common occurrence. In all my discussions with my friends that are skeptics, I tend to ask the following questions:

1. If Christianity is true, would you want to be a Christian?
2. If the God of the Bible exists, would you want to know that?
3. If the God of the Bible does exist, would you be interested in looking at the evidence?

In some cases, asking questions helps to cut to the real issue at hand. When I ask these questions, many people realize they really have no intention of surrendering to God. In the end, no evidence will really convince them. And in one case, I even had one skeptic tell me they didn’t want Christianity to be true. It is true that Biblical faith involves the entire person—-the intellect, the emotions, and the will. And this is why we generally see there are  three barriers to belief:

#1 Emotional Barriers: Many people have emotional issues with the claims of Yeshua or the claims of the Bible. Perhaps they have been hurt or their present circumstances have caused barriers to being able to trust that there really is a loving Creator. We need to be sensitive to these issues.

#2 Intellectual Barriers: There are always skeptical barriers. What kind of evidence to do have for God? What about science? Miracles are not possible! There are many more intellectual objections. They have been around for a long time.

#3 Volitional Barriers: In this case, the will is in the way. We trust the Spirit of God to work in this area. While can’t give life to the spiritually dead, the Spirit of God can use our words to remove barriers.

 2. Jesus Appealed to Evidence

Jesus knew He could not show up on the scene and not offer any evidence for His Messiahship. In his book On Jesus, Douglas Groothuis notes that Jesus appealed to evidence to confirm His claims. John the Baptist, who was languishing in prison after challenging Herod, sent messengers to ask Jesus the question: “Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?” (Matt. 11:3). This may seem an odd question from a man the Gospels present as the prophetic forerunner of Jesus and as the one who had proclaimed Jesus to be the Messiah. Jesus, however, did not rebuke John’s question. He did not say, “You must have faith; suppress your doubts.” Instead, Jesus recounted the distinctive features of His ministry:

“Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me.” (Matt. 11:4-6; see also Luke 7:22).

Even in the Messiah Apocalypse, which is dated between 100 and 80 B.C.E mentions a similar theme as seen in Matt.11: 4-6: “He [God] frees the captives, makes the blind see, and makes the bent over stand straight…for he will heal the sick, revive the dead, and give good news to the humble and the poor he will satisfy, the abandoned he will lead, and the hungry he will make rich.”

Jesus’ works of healing and teaching are meant to serve as positive evidence of His messianic identity, because they fulfill the messianic predictions of the Hebrew Scriptures. What Jesus claimed is this:

1. If one does certain kinds of actions (the acts cited above), then one is the Messiah.
2. I am doing those kinds of actions.
3. Therefore, I am the Messiah.

3. Jesus Appealed to Testimony and Witness

Because Jesus was Jewish, he was well aware of the principles of the Torah. The Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Theology notes that the Biblical concept of testimony or witness is closely allied with the conventional Old Testament legal sense of testimony given in a court of law. In both Testaments, it appears as the primary standard for establishing and testing truth claims. Uncertifiable subjective claims, opinions, and beliefs, on the contrary, appear in Scripture as inadmissible testimony.

Even the testimony of one witness is insufficient—for testimony to be acceptable, it must be established by two or three witnesses (Deut 19:15). In John Ch 5:31-39, Jesus says,” If I alone bear witness of Myself, My testimony is not true.” Far from the verification, Jesus declares that singular self-attestation does not verify, it falsifies. We see in this passage that Jesus says the witness of John the Baptist, the witness of the Father, the witness of the Word (the Hebrew Bible), and the witness of His works, testify to His Messiahship. (1)

4. Ontology: Being and Doing-The Actions of Jesus

Ontology is defined as the branch of philosophy that examines the study of being or existence. For example, when Jesus says, “If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father” (John 14:9), ontology asks questions such as, “Is Jesus saying He has the same substance or essence of the Father?” Ontology is especially relevant in relation to the Trinity since Orthodox Christians are required to articulate how the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all the same substance or essence. In relation to ontology, the late Jewish scholar Abraham J. Heschel said, “Biblical ontology does not separate being from doing.” Heshel went on to say, “What is acts. The God of Israel is a God who acts, a God of mighty deeds.” (2) Jesus continually appeals to His “deeds” that testify to His Messiahship. We see this in the following Scriptures:

But I have a testimony greater than that from John. For the deeds that the Father has assigned me to complete the deeds I am now doing testify about me that the Father has sent me (John 5:36-5:36).

If I do not perform the deeds of my Father, do not believe me (John 10:37).

But if I do them, even if you do not believe me, believe the deeds, so that you may come to know and understand that I am in the Father and the Father is in me. (John 10:38).

Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you, I do not speak on my own initiative, but the Father residing in me performs his miraculous deeds (John 14:10).

The New Testament authors show that Jesus performs the same “deeds,” or “acts,” as the God of Israel. For example, Jesus imparts eternal life (Acts 4:12; Rom. 10:12-14), raises the dead (Luke 7:11-17; John 5:21; 6:40), and shows the ability to exercise judgment (Matt. 25:31-46;John 5:19-29; Acts 10:42; 1 Cor 4:4-5). Jesus also has the authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:1-12; Luke 24:47; Acts 5:31; Col. 3:13). Just as the God of Israel, Jesus is identified as eternally existent (John 1:1; 8:58; 12:41; 17:5; 1 Cor. 10:4; Phil. 2:6; Heb. 11:26; 13:8; Jude 5); the object of saving faith (John 14:1; Acts 10:43; 16:31; Rom. 10:8-13), and the object of worship (Matt 14:33; 28:9,17; John 5:23; 20:28; Phil 2:10-11; Heb. 1:6; Rev. 5:8-12).

5. The Miracles of Jesus

In the Bible, miracles have a distinctive purpose: they are used for three reasons:
1. To glorify the nature of God (John 2:11; 11:40)
2. To accredit certain persons as the spokesmen for God (Acts 2:22; Heb. 2:3–4)
3. To provide evidence for belief in God (John 6:2, 14; 20:30–31). (3)

Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council, the Sanhedrin, told Jesus, “‘Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him’ ” (Jn. 3:1–2). In Acts, Peter told the crowd that Jesus had been “accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him” (Acts 2:22).

In Matthew 12:38-39, Jesus says, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of Jonah the prophet.” In this Scripture, God confirmed the Messianic claim when Jesus said the sign that would confirm his Messiahship was to be the resurrection.

It is important to note that not all witnesses to a miracle believe. Jesus did not do His miracles for entertainment. They were done to evoke a response. So perhaps Paul Moser is right on target in what he calls “kardiatheology” – a theology that is aimed at one’s motivational heart (including one’s will) rather than just at one’s mind or one’s emotions. In other words, God is very interested in moral transformation.

We see Jesus’ frustration when His miracles did not bring the correct response from his audience. “Even after Jesus had done all these miraculous signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him” (John 12:37). Jesus himself said of some, “They will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead” (Luke 16:31). One result, though not the purpose, of miracles is condemnation of the unbeliever (cf. John 12:31, 37). (4) So the Biblical pattern of miracles is the following:

Sign/Miracle—–Knowledge is Imparted—–Should Result in Obedience/Active Participation 

6. Jesus Appealed to the Imagination

Since the parables appealed to the imagination, Jesus made use of the parables to illustrate his message. Parables were used to explain the kingdom and character of God. The Greek word “parabole” means “a comparison.”  The two most common forms of comparison are simile and metaphor. In comparing simile and metaphor, a metaphor suggests a comparison while a simile explicitly states such a comparison. The Hebrew word for parable is “mashal.”  In the Tanakh, there is a wide range of meaning of the word mashal. In some cases it is referred to as a Proverb (1 Sam: 24:13; Ezek. 12:22-23; 16:44; 18:2-3). Mashal is also seen as Riddle (Ps. 49:4; 78:2; Prov. 1:6; Ezek.17:2), and Allegory (Ezek. 24:2-5). (6)

7. Jesus Appealed to His Own Authority

Another way Jesus appealed to those around Him was by His own speaking authority. The rabbis could speak of taking upon oneself the yoke of Torah or the yoke of the kingdom; Jesus said, “Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me.” (Mt 11:29). Also, the rabbis could say that if two or three men sat together, having the words of Torah among them, the shekhina (God’s own presence) would dwell on them (M Avot 3:2). But Jesus said, “Where two or three are gathered in my name, I will be among them” (Matt 18:20). The rabbis could speak about being persecuted for God’s sake, or in his Name’s sake, or for the Torah’s sake; Jesus spoke about being persecuted for and even losing one’s life for his sake. Remember, the prophets could ask people to turn to God, to come to God for rest and help. Jesus spoke with a new prophetic authority by stating, “Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest” (Mt 11:28). (5)

8. Jesus appealed to the authority of the Hebrew Bible

Jesus was raised on the Hebrew Bible. It could not be more evident that He had a very high view of Scripture. We see the following:

1. Jesus viewed himself as being revealed in the Torah, the Prophets and the Psalms, (Lk. 24:44); (Jn. 5:39)
2. Jesus taught Scripture was authoritative: Jesus quotes passages from the Torah in the temptation in the wilderness (Matt. 4:1-11).
3. Jesus discussed how Scripture (The Hebrew Bible) is imperishable in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:2-48).
4. Jesus also discussed how Scripture is infallible: (Jn. 10:35)

So we can ask two things: What is your view of the Hebrew Bible? Do you read it?

9. Jesus as the Embodiment of Wisdom

Israel’s Wisdom literature includes books such as Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiastes. Yeshua most certainly fulfilled the role of a sage by attributing the Wisdom literature to Himself. In the recent book called The Messiah Mystery: Toward A Perfect World, Rabbi Jacob Immanuel Schochet (who thinks the Messiah has not come), says the following about one of the expectations of the Messiah. He says:

His wisdom shall exceed even that of King Solomon; he shall be greater than all the patriarchs, greater than all the prophets after Moses, and in many respects even more exalted than Moses. His stature and honor shall exceed that of all the kings before him. He will be an extraordinary prophet, second only to Moses, with all the spiritual and mental qualities that are prerequisites to be endowed with the gift of prophecy. (7)

It is interesting that Jesus spoke about this messianic qualification 2,000 years ago. As it says in Matt. 12:42; Lk. 11:31: “The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with the men of this generation and condemn them; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here.”

10. Jesus  is the agent to bring someone out of epistemic darkness

Biblically speaking, revelation is needed because of sin. People do not find God, rather God finds us. He has to take the initiative to reveal His plans and intentions for humanity. The reason He is the one to do this is because sin has dampened the cognitive faculties that God has given us to find Him. In other words, sin affects the whole person—mind, emotions, and will. People can and do harden their hearts towards God.  And sadly, sometimes people can reach the point where they are desensitized towards the ways of God. Another way to say this is that they are extensively affected by sin. One of the main themes of John’s Gospel is people’s epistemic darkness and how an encounter with the revelation of Jesus can transfer a person from darkness to light. These main epistemic themes occur throughout John’s Gospel:

1. Epistemic darkness

2. Illumination/Enlightenment

3. Jesus as the revelation of God/ His teaching

4. Saving truth

5. Sensory Perception

6. Cognitive perception

7. The Spirit as a cognitive agent

8. People’s response

9. The relationship between the Father and the Son

10. The relationship between the believer with the Father and the Son (8)

For Judaism the Torah had been the main source of knowledge of God. But now we see that with the coming of the Messiah that the entire epistemic foundation for knowing God has now become the person and work of Jesus the Messiah (John 1:17-18; 5:39, 46).  (9)

Conclusion:

So as we have looked at some of the apologetic methods of Jesus, perhaps we can concur with Douglas Groothuis when he says the following:

“Our sampling of Jesus’ reasoning, however, brings into serious question the indictment that Jesus praised uncritical faith over rational arguments and that He had no truck with logical consistency. On the contrary, Jesus never demeaned the proper and rigorous functioning of our God-given minds. His teaching appealed to the whole person: the imagination (parables), the will, and reasoning abilities. For all their honesty in reporting the foibles of the disciples, the Gospel writers never narrated a situation in which Jesus was intellectually stymied or bettered in an argument; neither did Jesus ever encourage an irrational or ill-informed faith on the part of His disciples.”

Sources:

1. Sproul, R.C, Gerstner, J. and A. Lindsey. Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing. 1984, 19.
2. Heschel., A.J. The Prophets. New York, N.Y: 1962 Reprint. Peabody MA: Hendrickson Publishers. 2003, 44.
3. Geisler, N. L., BECA, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book. 1999, 481.
4. Ibid.
5. Skarsaune, O., In The Shadow Of The Temple: Jewish Influences On Early Christianity. Downers Grove, ILL: Intervarsity Press. 2002, 331.

6. Stein, Robert H, The Method And Message of Jesus’ Teachings. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1978, 34-35.

7. The Jewish Learning Institute, The Messiah Mystery: Toward a Perfect World. Canada: The Jewish Learning Institute. 2000, 56.

8. Mary Healy and Robin Parry, The Bible And Epistemology: Biblical Soundings On The Knowledge of God. Colorado Springs, CO: Paternoster

Apologetics in the Gospel of John

Apologetics in the Gospel of John

Introduction

Apologetics is a branch of Christian theology that helps give reasons for the truthfulness of the Christian faith/worldview. The word “Apologia” means “to give reasons, make a legal defense” (Acts 26:2; 2 Tim. 4:16; 1 Pet 3:15). The apostles approach to spreading the message of the Gospel is characterized by such terms as “apologeomai/apologia” which means “to give reasons, make a legal defense” (Acts 26:2; 2 Tim. 4:16; 1 Pet 3:15); “dialegomai” which means “to reason, speak boldly” (Acts 17:2; 17; 18:4; 19:8), “peíthō” which means to persuade, argue persuasively” (Acts 18:4; 19:8), and “bebaioō ” which means “to confirm, establish,” (Phil 1:7; Heb. 2:3). (1)

The Gospel of John records: “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true” (John 21:24).

 In this post, I will highlight some of the different ways John utilizes apologetics in his testimony of who Jesus is.

1.Jesus Appealed to Testimony and Witness

Because Jesus was Jewish, he was well aware of the principles of the Torah. The Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Theology notes that the Biblical concept of testimony or witness is closely allied with the conventional Old Testament legal sense of testimony given in a court of law. In both Testaments, it appears as the primary standard for establishing and testing truth claims. Uncertifiable subjective claims, opinions, and beliefs, on the contrary, appear in Scripture as inadmissible testimony.

Even the testimony of one witness is insufficient—for testimony to be acceptable, it must be established by two or three witnesses (Deut 19:15). In John Ch 5:31-39, Jesus says,” If I alone bear witness of Myself, My testimony is not true.” Far from the verification, Jesus declares that singular self-attestation does not verify, it falsifies. We see in this passage that Jesus says the witness of John the Baptist, the witness of the Father, the witness of the Word (the Hebrew Bible), and the witness of His works, testify to His Messiahship. (2)

2. Moses and Jesus both claim to speak the words of God

John emphasizes the relationship between Jesus and Moses.

“ The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen— just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die.’ And the Lord said to me, ‘They are right in what they have spoken. will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.”– Deut 18: 15-18

 Here, we can notice the emphasis, “And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.” The prophet only respeaks the words of God (cf. Jer 1:9: Isa. 59: 21). God said to Moses “Now therefore go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall speak” (Exod. 4:12).

 We see  in the context of Numbers 16, Moses faced his opposition in that they challenged his headship and authority.  Hence, they challenge the idea that Moses has a special mission and that he was sent  from God.  In response, Moses  defends his mission in that he has never “acted on his own,” i.e., claiming for himself an authority which he did not have.  Moses says, ” Hereby you shall know that the LORD has sent me to do all these works, and that it has not been of my own accord”  (Num.16:28).

 As far as Jesus being like Moses, we see a similar pattern in that Jesus doesn’t claim to speak or act on his own authority:

 So Jesus answered them and said, “My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me. If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself. He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who is seeking the glory of the One who sent Him, He is true, and there is no unrighteousness in Him”  (John 7: 16-18)

 

 So Jesus said to them, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me. And he who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to him.”-(John 8:28)

 

 I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true; and the things which I heard from Him, these I speak to the world. (John 8:26)

 

 For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak. I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told Me” (John 12: 49-50).

 

 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works (John 14:10). 

 

Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me (John 14:24). 

 

For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me (John 17:8).

3.Signs and Miracles

 While actions by other prophets such as Ezekiel and Jeremiah etc. show some significant parallels to Jesus, Jesus is closer to the actions of the Jewish sign prophetssuch as Moses. “Signs” have a specific apologetic function in that they are used to provide evidence for people to believe the message of God through a prophet of God. Hence, the signs Moses does proves he is truly sent from God.  Moses had struggled with his prophetic call when he said “ But they will not believe me or listen to my voice, for they will say ‘The Lord did not appear to you.’ (Exod. 4:1). God assures Moses that  the “signs”  will confirm his call:  

 God says, “I will be with you. And this will be אוֹת “the sign”  to you that it is I who have sent you” (Exod. 3:12).

  “If they will not believe you,” God said, “or listen to the first sign, they may believe the latter sign. If they will not believe even these two signs or listen to your voice, you shall take some water from the Nile and pour it on the dry ground, and the water that you shall take from the Nile will become blood on the dry ground.” (Exod 4: 8-9).

 We see the signs are used to help people believe.

 Moses “performed the “signs” before the people, and they believed; … they bowed down and worshiped” (Exod. 4:30–31)

 The Works of Jesus

 “Works” are directly related to the miracles of Jesus (Jn. 5:20; 36;10:25; 32-28; 14:10-12; 15:24) and is synonymous with “signs.” Interestingly enough, when Jesus speaks of miracles and he calls them “works” he doesn’t refer to  Exod. 4:1-9, but to Num. 16:28, “Hereby you shall know that the LORD has sent me to do allthese works, and that it has not been of my own accord.” For example:

Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me” (John 10:25).

  If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me;  but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” (John 10:37-38).

  But the testimony that I have is greater than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I am doing, bear witness about me that the Father has sent me (John 5: 36)

 “Sign”(sēmeion) is used seventy-seven times (forty-eight times in the Gospels). As far as the “signs’ Jesus does,  29:18-19; 35:5-6; 42:18; 61:1). In John’s Gospel, Jesus performs three “signs,” at the beginning of his ministry; the water turned into wine at Cana at Galilee (2:1-12), the healing of the son of the royal official at Capernaum (4:46-64), and catching of the fish in the sea of Galilee (21:1-14). The link between the first two signs in Jn 2:12 while the link between the last two are seen in Jn 7:1, 3-4, 6, 9. Jesus follows the pattern of Moses in that he reveals himself as the new Moses because Moses also had to perform three “signs” so that he could be recognized by his brothers as truly being sent by God (Exod 4: 1-9). In the exchange between Nicodemus said to Jesus, Nicodemus said, We know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signsyou are doing if God were not with him” (John 3:2

 

Also, regarding miracles, in some cases the miracle is a witness against those who reject this evidence. John grieved: “Even after Jesus had done all these miraculous signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him” (John 12:37). One result, though not the purpose, of miracles is condemnation of the unbeliever (cf. John 12:31, 37).

4. Jesus as the Shechinah

In the Bible, the Shechinah is the visible manifestation of the presence of God in which He descends to dwell among men. While the Hebrew form of the glory of the Lord is Kvod Adonai, the Greek title is Doxa Kurion. The Hebrew form Schechinah, from the root “shachan,” means “dwelling” while the Greek word “Skeinei” means to tabernacle.

The Shechinah glory is seen in the Tankah in places such as Gen.3:8; 23-24; Ex.3;1-5; 13:21-22; 14;19-20; 24; 16:6-12; 33:17-23; 34:5-9. In these Scriptures, the Shechinah is seen in a variety of visible manifestations such as light, fire, cloud, the Angel of the Lord, or a combination of all of these. The ultimate manifestation of the Shechinah was seen in the giving of the Torah at Mt. Sinai (Ex.19:16-20).

The Shechinah continued to dwell in the holy of holies in Tabernacle and the Temple (Ex.29:42-46; 40:34-38; 1 Kin.8:10-13). Upon the return of the Jewish people from the Babylonian captivity, the second temple was finished. However, the Shechinah was not present in this temple. Haggai 2:39 is a critical passage since it discusses that the Shechinah would return in an even different and more profound way. Therefore, in relation to the incarnation, the Shechinah takes on greater significance in John 1: 1-14. As John says, “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” As already stated, the Greek word “Skeinei” means to tabernacle. John 1:14 literally says,” the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us.”  (3)

As the Shechinah, Jesus  is the agent to bring someone out of epistemic darkness

Biblically speaking, revelation is needed because of sin. People do not find God, rather God finds us. He has to take the initiative to reveal His plans and intentions for humanity. The reason He is the one to do this is because sin has dampened the cognitive faculties that God has given us to find Him. In other words, sin affects the whole person—mind, emotions, and will. People can and do harden their hearts towards God.  And sadly, sometimes people can reach the point where they are desensitized towards the ways of God. Another way to say this is that they are extensively affected by sin. One of the main themes of John’s Gospel is people’s epistemic darkness and how an encounter with the revelation of Jesus can transfer a person from darkness to light. These main epistemic themes occur throughout John’s Gospel:

1. Epistemic darkness

2. Illumination/Enlightenment

3. Jesus as the revelation of God/ His teaching

4. Saving truth

5. Sensory Perception

6. Cognitive perception

7. The Spirit as a cognitive agent

8. People’s response

9. The relationship between the Father and the Son

10. The relationship between the believer with the Father and the Son (4)

For Judaism the Torah had been the main source of knowledge of God. But now we see that with the coming of the Messiah that the entire epistemic foundation for knowing God has now become the person and work of Jesus the Messiah (John 1:17-18; 5:39, 46). 

Sources

  1.  Garrett J. Deweese, Doing Philosophy as a Christian (Downers Grove, ILL: IVP Publishers, 2012), 78-79.
  2. Sproul, R.C, Gerstner, J. and A. Lindsey. Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing. 1984, 19.
  3. These points were laid out systematically in Fruchtenbaum, A.G, The Footsteps of Messiah: A Study of Prophetic Events. Tustin CA: Ariel Press, 1977, 409-432.
  4. Mary Healy and Robin Parry, The Bible And Epistemology: Biblical Soundings On The Knowledge of God Colorado Springs, CO: Paternoster).

NY Times Interview with Michael Ruse on Does Evolution Explain Religious Beliefs?

Here is a pretty good interview with Michael Ruse on Does Evolution Explain Religious Beliefs

This is the eighth in a series of interviews about religion that I am conducting for The Stone. The interviewee for this installment is Michael Ruse, a professor of philosophy at Florida State University and the author of the forthcoming book “Atheism: What Everyone Needs to Know.”

Gary Gutting: What do you think of the claim that scientific accounts provide all the explanations needed to understand the existence and nature of the world, so that there’s no need to posit God as the ultimate explanation?

I don’t think science can explain everything. As far as I am concerned, if you want God to have a crack at the job, go right ahead!

 

Michael Ruse: Let me start at a more general level by saying that I don’t think science as such can explain everything. Therefore, assuming that the existence and nature of the world can be fully understood (I’m not sure it can!), this is going to require something more than science. As far as I am concerned, if you want God to have a crack at the job, go right ahead!

G.G.: Could you say a bit more about why you think that science can’t fully explain everything?

M.R.: In my view, none of our knowledge, including science, just “tells it like it is.” Knowledge, even the best scientific knowledge, interprets experience through human cultural understanding and experience, and above all (just as it is for poets and preachers) metaphor is the key to the whole enterprise. As I developed my own career path, as a historian and philosopher of evolutionary biology, this insight grew and grew. Everything was metaphorical — struggle for existence, natural selection, division of labor, genetic code, arms races and more.

G.G.: It’s clear that metaphors are useful when scientists try to explain complex ideas in terms that nonscientists can understand, but why do you think metaphors have an essential role in the development of scientific knowledge?

M.R.: Because metaphor helps you move forward. It is heuristic, forcing you to ask new questions. If your love is like a rose, what color is the rose? But note that it does so at a cost. A metaphor puts blinkers on us. Some questions are unanswerable within the context of the metaphor. “My love is a rose” tells me about her beauty. It does not tell me about her mathematical abilities.

Now combine this fact with history. Since the scientific revolution, one metaphor above all — the root metaphor — has dictated the nature and progress of science. This is the metaphor of the world as a machine, the mechanical metaphor. What questions are ruled out by this metaphor? One is about ultimate origins. Of course you can ask about the origins of the metal and plastics in your automobile, but ultimately the questions must end and you must take the materials as given. So with the world. I think the machine metaphor rules out an answer to what Martin Heidegger called the “fundamental question of metaphysics”: Why is there something rather than nothing? Unlike Wittgenstein, I think it is a genuine question, but not one answerable by modern science.

Coming now to my own field of evolutionary biology, I see some questions that it simply doesn’t ask but that can be asked and answered by other areas of science. I think here about the natural origins of the universe and the Big Bang theory. I see some questions that it doesn’t ask and that neither it nor any other science can answer. One such question is why there is something rather than nothing, or if you like why ultimately there are material substances from which organisms are formed.

G.G.: So do you think that we need religion to answer the ultimate question of the world’s origin?

M.R.: If the person of faith wants to say that God created the world, I don’t think you can deny this on scientific grounds. But you can go after the theist on other grounds. I would raise philosophical objections: for example, about the notion of a necessary being. I would also fault Christian theology: I don’t think you can mesh the ancient Greek philosophers’ notion of a god outside time and space with the Jewish notion of a god as a person. But these are not scientific objections.

G.G.: What do you think of Richard Dawkins’s argument that, in any case, God won’t do as an ultimate explanation of the universe? His point is that complexity requires explanation — the whole idea of evolution by natural selection is to explain the origin of complex life-forms from less complex life-forms. But a creator God — with enormous knowledge and power — would have to be at least as complex as the universe he creates. Such a creator would require explanation by something else and so couldn’t explain, for example, why there’s something rather than nothing.

M.R.: Like every first-year undergraduate in philosophy, Dawkins thinks he can put to rest the causal argument for God’s existence. If God caused the world, then what caused God? Of course the great philosophers, Anselm and Aquinas particularly, are way ahead of him here. They know that the only way to stop the regression is by making God something that needs no cause. He must be a necessary being. This means that God is not part of the regular causal chain but in some sense orthogonal to it. He is what keeps the whole business going, past, present and future, and is the explanation of why there is something rather than nothing. Also God is totally simple, and I don’t see why complexity should not arise out of this, just as it does in mathematics and science from very simple premises.

Traditionally, God’s necessity is not logical necessity but some kind of metaphysical necessity, or aseity. Unlike Hume, I don’t think this is a silly or incoherent idea, any more than I think mathematical Platonism is silly or incoherent. As it happens, I am not a mathematical Platonist, and I do have conceptual difficulties with the idea of metaphysical necessity. So in the end, I am not sure that the Christian God idea flies, but I want to extend to Christians the courtesy of arguing against what they actually believe, rather than begin and end with the polemical parody of what Dawkins calls “the God delusion.”

G.G.: Do you think that evolution lends support to the atheistic argument from evil: that it makes no sense to think that an all-good, all-powerful God would have used so wasteful and brutal a process as evolution to create living things?

I don’t want an argument that convinces me that the death of Anne Frank in Bergen-Belsen ultimately contributes to the greater good. If my eternal salvation depends on the death of this young woman, then forget it.

 

M.R.: Although in some philosophy of religion circles it is now thought that we can counter the argument from evil, I don’t think this is so. More than that, I don’t want it to be so. I don’t want an argument that convinces me that the death under the guillotine of Sophie Scholl (one of the leaders of the White Rose group opposed to the Nazis) or of Anne Frank in Bergen-Belsen ultimately contributes to the greater good. If my eternal salvation depends on the deaths of these two young women, then forget it.

This said, I have never really thought that the pains brought on by the evolutionary process, in particular the struggle for survival and reproduction, much affect the Christian conception of God. For all of Voltaire’s devastating wit in “Candide,” I am a bit of a Leibnizian on these matters. If God is to do everything through unbroken law, and I can think of good theological reasons why this should be so, then pain and suffering are part of it all. Paradoxically and humorously I am with Dawkins here. He argues that the only way naturally you can get the design-like features of organisms — the hand and the eye — is through evolution by natural selection, brought on by the struggle. Other mechanisms just don’t work. So God is off the hook.

G.G.: What do you think of the claim that evolutionary accounts show that religion emerged not because of any evidence for its truth but because of its adaptive value?

M.R.: It is interesting that you ask this question because recently I’ve found myself wrestling with this issue more than just about any other. As an ardent Darwinian evolutionist I think that all organisms, and I include us humans, are the end product of a long, slow process of development thanks to the causal mechanism of natural selection. So this means that I think features like the eye and the hand are around because of their adaptive value; they help us to survive and reproduce.

G.G.: Of course, evolutionary explanations are empirically well established on the biological level. But is the same true on the level of social and cultural life, especially among humans?

M.R.: I include society and culture here although I would qualify what I say. I don’t see being a Nazi as very adaptive, but I would say that the things that led to being a Nazi — for instance being open to indoctrination as a child — have adaptive significance. I would say the same of religion. The biologist Edward O. Wilson thinks that religion is adaptive because it promotes bonding and he might be right. But it can go biologically haywire, as in the case of the Shakers, whose religious prohibition on procreation had an adaptive value of precisely zero.

So it is true that in a sense I see all knowledge, including claims about religious knowledge, as being relative to evolutionary ends. The upshot is that I don’t dismiss religious beliefs even though they ultimately can be explained by evolution. I think everything can! I wouldn’t dismiss religious beliefs even if you could show me that they are just a byproduct of adaptation, as I think Darwin himself thought. It is as plausible that my love of Mozart’s operas is a byproduct of adaptation, but it doesn’t make them any the less beautiful and meaningful. I think you have to judge religion on its merits.

G.G.: Is one of religion’s merits that it provides a foundation (intellectual and practical) for morality through the idea of God as divine lawgiver?

RELATED
More From The Stone

Read previous contributions to this series.

M.R.: I am on record as an “evolutionary skeptic.” I don’t deny substantive morality — you ought to return your library books on time — but I do deny objective foundations. I think morality is a collective illusion, genetic in origin, that makes us good cooperators. And I would add that being good cooperators makes each one of us individually better off in the struggle for existence. If we are nice to other people, they are much more likely to be nice to us in return. However, as the philosopher J.L. Mackie used to argue, I think we “objectify” substantive ethics — we think it objectively the case that we ought return library books on time. But we do this (or rather our genes make us do this) because if we didn’t we would all start to cheat and substantive ethics would collapse to the ground.

So I don’t buy the moral argument for the existence of God. I think you can have all of the morality you need without God. I am a follower of Hume brought up to date by Darwin. Morality is purely emotions, although emotions of a special kind with an important adaptive function. I don’t, however, think that here I am necessarily denying the existence of God. Were I a Christian, I would be somewhat of a natural law theorist, thinking that morality is what is natural. Caring about small children is natural and good; killing small children for laughs is unnatural and bad. If you want to say that God created the world and what is good therefore is what fits with the way God designed it, I am O.K. with this. In fact, I think you should say it to avoid the problem (raised in Plato’s “Euthyphro”) of simply making the good a function of God’s arbitrary will.

G.G.: There seems to be a tension in your thinking about religion. You aren’t yourself a believer, but you spend a great deal of time defending belief against its critics.

M.R.: People often accuse me of being contradictory, if not of outright hypocrisy. I won’t say I accept the ontological argument for the existence of God — the argument that derives God’s existence from his essence — but I do like it (it is so clever) and I am prepared to stand up for it when Dawkins dismisses it with scorn rather than good reasons. In part this is a turf war. I am a professional philosopher. I admire immensely thinkers like Anselm and Descartes and am proud to be one of them, however minor and inadequate in comparison. I am standing up for my own. In part, this is political. Religion is a big thing in America, and often not a very good big thing. I don’t think you are going to counter the bad just by going over the top, like in the Battle of the Somme. I think you have to reach out over no-man’s land to the trenches on the other side and see where we can agree and hope to move forward.

I should say that my Quaker childhood — as in everything I do and think — is tremendously important here. I grew up surrounded by gentle, loving (and very intelligent) Christians. I never forget that. Finally, I just don’t like bad arguments. In my case, I think I can offer good arguments against the existence of the Christian God. I don’t need the inadequate and faulty. In “Murder in the Cathedral,” T.S. Eliot has Thomas à Becket say, “The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason.” Amen.

This interview was conducted by email and edited. 

 

 
Exit mobile version