Episode 35 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Atheists and other non-Christians skeptical of the Bible's reliability and divine origin are fond of pointing to what might appear to be contradictions in Scripture, of which there are alleged to be hundreds. In this episode I begin to step through one popular list, demonstrating how a close look at the text reveals that they are not contradictions at all.
Showing posts with label Skeptics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Skeptics. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Episode 8: Walking Contradiction
Episode 8 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! In this episode I discuss several alleged contradictions in Scripture, pointed to by theological liberals as evidence against the inerrancy of Scripture, and by skeptics as evidence against the overall reliability of the Bible.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Silencing Skepticism: Contradictions in Conversion
In "One Donkey Or Two?" we looked at a common objection raised by skeptics, claiming that Matthew's account of Jesus' Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem contradicted those of the other gospel writers. Whereas the former misinterpreted an Old Testament prophecy and depicted Jesus riding astride two donkeys simultaneously, Mark, Luke and John interpret the prophecy correctly and record only one donkey. We learned, however, that Matthew did not misinterpret the prophecy, nor did he contradict the other gospel authors, and instead merely included a detail the other authors left out.
The number of such seeming contradictions skeptics allege occur throughout the pages of Scripture is enormous, and though I believe they are all easily answered, responding to each one blog post at a time would take more time than I am capable of comitting to the endeavor. As such, when it comes to these alleged contradictions I'm going to try and pick up the pace a bit, and answer more than one at a time. However, I will always include additional resources so you can research more deeply if you so choose.
Today we'll look at three alleged contradictions in Scripture surrounding Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus. First, in the book of Acts Luke records his account of Paul's conversion in which his companions did not hear Jesus, and also records Paul's descriptions of the event later, in which he says his companions did hear Him. Second, in Luke's account Paul's companions stand speechless, but in Paul's they fall to the ground. Third, we're told by Luke that Paul didn't see Jesus on the road, but in his letter to the Corinthians Paul claims he did see Jesus.
As we'll see, skeptics' objections notwithstanding, Luke did not contradict himself. A close examination of the original Greek words penned by Luke reveals that Paul's companions heard the voice speaking to Paul but did not understand the words it spoke. Luke's wording does not require that Paul's companions were standing, only that they were "rooted to the spot." And Paul does not contradict Luke when he says in his letter that he saw the risen Jesus.
The number of such seeming contradictions skeptics allege occur throughout the pages of Scripture is enormous, and though I believe they are all easily answered, responding to each one blog post at a time would take more time than I am capable of comitting to the endeavor. As such, when it comes to these alleged contradictions I'm going to try and pick up the pace a bit, and answer more than one at a time. However, I will always include additional resources so you can research more deeply if you so choose.
Today we'll look at three alleged contradictions in Scripture surrounding Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus. First, in the book of Acts Luke records his account of Paul's conversion in which his companions did not hear Jesus, and also records Paul's descriptions of the event later, in which he says his companions did hear Him. Second, in Luke's account Paul's companions stand speechless, but in Paul's they fall to the ground. Third, we're told by Luke that Paul didn't see Jesus on the road, but in his letter to the Corinthians Paul claims he did see Jesus.
As we'll see, skeptics' objections notwithstanding, Luke did not contradict himself. A close examination of the original Greek words penned by Luke reveals that Paul's companions heard the voice speaking to Paul but did not understand the words it spoke. Luke's wording does not require that Paul's companions were standing, only that they were "rooted to the spot." And Paul does not contradict Luke when he says in his letter that he saw the risen Jesus.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Silencing Skepticism: One Donkey or Two?
In "Contradiction in Creation" we learned that skeptics point to the first and second chapters of Genesis as an example of contradictions they claim appear throughout Scripture, thus casting doubt on its overall reliability, let alone its inerrancy. We discovered, however, that the first and second chapters of Genesis are not, as the skeptics claim, two contradictory accounts of creation. Instead, whereas the former gives an outline of the creation week, the latter zooms in, temporally to day six and geographically to the garden of Eden, and neither contradicts the other.
Another alleged contradiction pointed to by skeptics is as follows: In Matthew's account of the "Triumphal Entry," the gospel writer misinterprets biblical prophecy and tells us Jesus sent His disciples to fetch a donkey and its foal and rode into Jerusalem upon them both. Mark's, Luke's and John's gospels, on the other hand, depict Jesus as riding into Jerusalem upon a single donkey, interpreting the fulfilled prophecy correctly. This is a clear example of two mutually exclusive accounts, and therefore one or both accounts must not be the inerrant Word of God some Christians claim it is, right? No. As we'll see, Matthew did not misunderstand the prophecy he claimed was being fulfilled, and his account does not contradict the others; he merely chose to relate details the other authors omitted.
Another alleged contradiction pointed to by skeptics is as follows: In Matthew's account of the "Triumphal Entry," the gospel writer misinterprets biblical prophecy and tells us Jesus sent His disciples to fetch a donkey and its foal and rode into Jerusalem upon them both. Mark's, Luke's and John's gospels, on the other hand, depict Jesus as riding into Jerusalem upon a single donkey, interpreting the fulfilled prophecy correctly. This is a clear example of two mutually exclusive accounts, and therefore one or both accounts must not be the inerrant Word of God some Christians claim it is, right? No. As we'll see, Matthew did not misunderstand the prophecy he claimed was being fulfilled, and his account does not contradict the others; he merely chose to relate details the other authors omitted.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Silencing Skepticism: Contradiction in Creation
A common objection by skeptics to the inerrancy of God's Word has to do with what are perceived to be the two accounts of creation in chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis. The Skeptic's Annotated Bible puts it this way:
| First Account (Genesis 1:1-2:3) | Second Account (Genesis 2:4-25) |
Genesis 1:25-27"And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image." | Genesis 2:18-19"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof." |
Genesis 1:27"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." | Genesis 2:18-22"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man." |
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Silencing Skepticism: Jesus, the Pagan Copycat
A popular claim from skeptics is that the story of Jesus recorded in the New Testament is merely a repackaging of ancient pagan myths. When one compares what is recorded of Jesus, they'll argue, with figures from myths and mystery religions that appear to predate Him, such as Mithras or Horus, one sees that their alleged lives are largely identical. Rather than being the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy, Jesus' life as recorded by His disciples is merely a retelling of pagan mythology wrapped in a Jewish veneer.
On pages 55 and 56 of their book, The Laughing Jesus: Religious Lies and Gnostic Wisdom, Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy wrote:
This summarizes well the argument: Mystery religions predating Christianity each had their own version of the Jesus figure, the God in human flesh who was born of a virgin, died and rose again. We modern humans are accustomed to the concept of plagiarism; we tend to know when we see a claim that clearly copies another, older one. It stands to reason that, if the authors of the New Testament merely copied contemporary (to them) pagan mythological figures in their presentation of their alleged Messiah, their testimony is questionable at best.
As a personal aside, I can testify to the prevalence of this view, both outside the Church and within. In the former case, only a few months ago an atheist brought this up in a debate on Facebook. For her this was strong evidence that the Christian faith is misplaced, no different than belief in any other mythological figure or fairy tale. In the latter case, early on in my faith I went on a sort of retreat with other young Christians (at the time I was in my early twenties), and another professing Christian youth made this claim, too. She said it "had been proven" that Christianity "borrowed" from these mystery religions in their depiction of Jesus. Consequently, though she claimed to believe in Jesus, that in which she claimed to have faith was vague, nebulous and hard to define. It seemed to me as though for her, faith in "faith" was all that mattered.
How should the Christian respond to this claim? Is there legitimate and sufficient cause to question the truth of one's faith?
JESUS THE ORIGINAL
Skeptics will list numerous alleged similarities between the accounts of the life of Jesus in the New Testament and the stories of other divine figures who died and rose again. But the Christian needn't be shaken, for several reasons. First, despite claims to the contrary, most--if not all--mythological figures claimed to have been the source of Christianity's "dying and resurrecting Godman" find their origin after the authoring of the New Testament. Accounts of the alleged death and resurrection of Adonis appear no earlier than 150 AD, for example. Tales of Attis, allegedly responsible for the death and rebirth of plant life, no earlier than 200 AD. Stories of Mithras bearing an even remote resemblance to Christianity do not exist prior to the second century. Accounts of Jesus could not have borrowed from tales that didn't exist until decades or centuries later.
JESUS THE ONE AND ONLY
Second, even among accounts of such figures that are believed to have their origin before the New Testament, there are no clear parallels between their lives and the life of Jesus. Skeptics like to apply Christian terminology to these stories to make them seem similar, but they're inescapably and powerfully different. Tales of Osiris, for example, claim his brother killed him and cut him into pieces, and scattered them around the world. Isis tries to find the pieces to properly bury Osiris, but cannot find all of them, so she assembles those she finds and buries Osiris. He is not brought back to life in this world, but rather is made god of a gloomy, shadowy underworld. Mithras is not born of a virgin, he's born of a rock; he doesn't sacrifice himself, he sacrifices a bull; he doesn't die and rise again, in fact no tales exist of his death. The life of Jesus simply bears little, if any, resemblance to the lives of these figures from pagan mythology, no matter how similar the skeptic tries to make them by using Judeo-Christian terminology.
JESUS THE JEWISH MESSIAH
Third, even if there were accounts of similar mythological figures predating those of Jesus recorded in the New Testament--and there are not--there would still be no evidence that the latter copied the former. Instead, the only source material the authors of the New Testament could be argued to have copied was the Hebrew Scriptures comprising the Old Testament. They went to great length, in fact, in proving that Jesus is the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. This is true of His birth from a virgin (Matthew 1:18-25 and Isaiah 7:14); His being sold out by one of His disciples (Matthew 27:1-10 and Zechariah 11:12-13); His death by crucifixion (1 Corinthians 15:3 and Isaiah 53:5-12) and abandonment by His disciples (Matthew 26:31 and Zechariah 13:7); and His resurrection from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:4 and Psalm 16:8-11). In fact everything about the life of Jesus that skeptics claim was copied from pagan mystery religions is instead clearly Jewish in nature and origin.
SKEPTICISM SILENCED
Despite the popularity of the claim among skeptics that Jesus is merely a copycat of ancient pagan myths, this theory has been widely discredited and no longer accepted among scholars, Christian and secular alike. The historical evidence shows that tales of such pagan figures bearing any resemblance to those of Jesus were written decades or centuries after the New Testament, and thus could not have been its source material. Despite skeptics' application of Judeo-Christian terminology, stories of ancient pagan figures are not at all similar to those of Jesus, making accusations of plagiarism empty. And it is clear that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus are thoroughly Jewish in nature, not pagan, and thus the New Testament has its roots in a tradition that goes back further than any tales claimed to have been copied by its authors.
RESOURCES
My treatment of this topic above is very cursory. Visit these resources for additional information:
On pages 55 and 56 of their book, The Laughing Jesus: Religious Lies and Gnostic Wisdom, Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy wrote:
Each mystery religion taught its own version of the myth of the dying and resurrecting Godman, who was known by different names in different places...In Egypt, where the mysteries began, he was Osiris. In Greece he becomes Dionysus, in Asia Minor he is known as Attis, in Syria he is Adonis, in Persia he is Mithras, in Alexandria he is Serapis, to name a few.
This summarizes well the argument: Mystery religions predating Christianity each had their own version of the Jesus figure, the God in human flesh who was born of a virgin, died and rose again. We modern humans are accustomed to the concept of plagiarism; we tend to know when we see a claim that clearly copies another, older one. It stands to reason that, if the authors of the New Testament merely copied contemporary (to them) pagan mythological figures in their presentation of their alleged Messiah, their testimony is questionable at best.
As a personal aside, I can testify to the prevalence of this view, both outside the Church and within. In the former case, only a few months ago an atheist brought this up in a debate on Facebook. For her this was strong evidence that the Christian faith is misplaced, no different than belief in any other mythological figure or fairy tale. In the latter case, early on in my faith I went on a sort of retreat with other young Christians (at the time I was in my early twenties), and another professing Christian youth made this claim, too. She said it "had been proven" that Christianity "borrowed" from these mystery religions in their depiction of Jesus. Consequently, though she claimed to believe in Jesus, that in which she claimed to have faith was vague, nebulous and hard to define. It seemed to me as though for her, faith in "faith" was all that mattered.
How should the Christian respond to this claim? Is there legitimate and sufficient cause to question the truth of one's faith?
JESUS THE ORIGINAL
Skeptics will list numerous alleged similarities between the accounts of the life of Jesus in the New Testament and the stories of other divine figures who died and rose again. But the Christian needn't be shaken, for several reasons. First, despite claims to the contrary, most--if not all--mythological figures claimed to have been the source of Christianity's "dying and resurrecting Godman" find their origin after the authoring of the New Testament. Accounts of the alleged death and resurrection of Adonis appear no earlier than 150 AD, for example. Tales of Attis, allegedly responsible for the death and rebirth of plant life, no earlier than 200 AD. Stories of Mithras bearing an even remote resemblance to Christianity do not exist prior to the second century. Accounts of Jesus could not have borrowed from tales that didn't exist until decades or centuries later.
JESUS THE ONE AND ONLY
Second, even among accounts of such figures that are believed to have their origin before the New Testament, there are no clear parallels between their lives and the life of Jesus. Skeptics like to apply Christian terminology to these stories to make them seem similar, but they're inescapably and powerfully different. Tales of Osiris, for example, claim his brother killed him and cut him into pieces, and scattered them around the world. Isis tries to find the pieces to properly bury Osiris, but cannot find all of them, so she assembles those she finds and buries Osiris. He is not brought back to life in this world, but rather is made god of a gloomy, shadowy underworld. Mithras is not born of a virgin, he's born of a rock; he doesn't sacrifice himself, he sacrifices a bull; he doesn't die and rise again, in fact no tales exist of his death. The life of Jesus simply bears little, if any, resemblance to the lives of these figures from pagan mythology, no matter how similar the skeptic tries to make them by using Judeo-Christian terminology.
JESUS THE JEWISH MESSIAH
Third, even if there were accounts of similar mythological figures predating those of Jesus recorded in the New Testament--and there are not--there would still be no evidence that the latter copied the former. Instead, the only source material the authors of the New Testament could be argued to have copied was the Hebrew Scriptures comprising the Old Testament. They went to great length, in fact, in proving that Jesus is the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. This is true of His birth from a virgin (Matthew 1:18-25 and Isaiah 7:14); His being sold out by one of His disciples (Matthew 27:1-10 and Zechariah 11:12-13); His death by crucifixion (1 Corinthians 15:3 and Isaiah 53:5-12) and abandonment by His disciples (Matthew 26:31 and Zechariah 13:7); and His resurrection from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:4 and Psalm 16:8-11). In fact everything about the life of Jesus that skeptics claim was copied from pagan mystery religions is instead clearly Jewish in nature and origin.
SKEPTICISM SILENCED
Despite the popularity of the claim among skeptics that Jesus is merely a copycat of ancient pagan myths, this theory has been widely discredited and no longer accepted among scholars, Christian and secular alike. The historical evidence shows that tales of such pagan figures bearing any resemblance to those of Jesus were written decades or centuries after the New Testament, and thus could not have been its source material. Despite skeptics' application of Judeo-Christian terminology, stories of ancient pagan figures are not at all similar to those of Jesus, making accusations of plagiarism empty. And it is clear that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus are thoroughly Jewish in nature, not pagan, and thus the New Testament has its roots in a tradition that goes back further than any tales claimed to have been copied by its authors.
RESOURCES
My treatment of this topic above is very cursory. Visit these resources for additional information:
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Silencing Skepticism: An Introduction
In other series, we look at objections to the historic Christian faith coming from competing world views: Jews, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, for example. Objections often come, however, not from adherents to a specific world view, but from non-Christians of all different persuasions, skeptical of the Bible and of Christian truth claims. These "skeptics" attack the validity of Scripture using a wide variety of arguments, from seeming contradictions in the Bible, to logical problems in theology, and beyond. Some of these arguments appear, on the surface, to be very convincing, and many unprepared Christians find themselves at best unable to respond effectively, and at worst deeply shaken in their faith. In this series, we'll examine these arguments and demonstrate that when it comes to such skeptics, their bark is bigger than their bite.
In the first entry in this series (after this introduction), we'll look at a popular claim from skeptics, that the story of Jesus recorded in the New Testament is merely a repackaging of ancient pagan myths. When one compares what is recorded of Jesus, they'll argue, with figures from myths and mystery religions that appear to predate Him, such as Mithras or Horus, one sees that their alleged lives are largely identical. How should the Christian respond to this claim? Stay tuned.
In the first entry in this series (after this introduction), we'll look at a popular claim from skeptics, that the story of Jesus recorded in the New Testament is merely a repackaging of ancient pagan myths. When one compares what is recorded of Jesus, they'll argue, with figures from myths and mystery religions that appear to predate Him, such as Mithras or Horus, one sees that their alleged lives are largely identical. How should the Christian respond to this claim? Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)