The “Just Right” Strongest Force in Nature Part II

However, it is not merely the existence of this force that is essential.  It is also critical that its strength be as finely tuned as it actually is.  If this force was even minutely weaker than it is, it would not be strong enough to overcome the repulsive force of one proton against another.  The result would then be that only Hydrogen would exist and nothing at all heavier.  On the other hand, if the strong force was minutely stronger, then no Hydrogen (one of the four major elements essential to life) at all would remain since the stronger attraction of the protons into the nucleus would result in only the heavier elements.  In either case, no life would be possible.  The required range of strength of the strong nuclear force is precise.  In the words of astro-physisist, Hugh Ross, “If it were just 2% weaker or .03% stronger than it actually is, life would be impossible at any time or place within the universe.”  (Hugh Ross. The Creator and the Cosmos. (NavPress, 2001), p.147.).

Scientists across the board recognize such a level of precision across a whole host of factors that are required for the existence of life.  In response, however, some seek an escape from belief in God by resorting to embracing the “multiverse” hypothesis.  That word is defined as the belief that there are perhaps an infinite number of alternative “universes” besides our own…and we just hit the cosmic “jackpot.”  I will critique that proposal (which I consider unscientific and absurd) on another occasion.   I conclude instead that the strong nuclear force is one more argument (among a host of others) which resoundly declares the existence of our intelligent and powerful Creator.

The “Just Right” Strongest Force in Nature Part I

“[Christ upholds] the universe by His word of power.” (Hebrews 1:3)

The strongest force in the universe is not the gravity that keeps planets in orbit or holds huge galaxies together.  Not even by a very long shot.  The strongest force in nature is manifest only in the very tiny nucleus of the atom (though what happens there has a huge bearing on the largest structures in the universe).  And that force is 10 to the 36^th power (that is, a 10 followed by 36 zeros) stronger than gravity.  The strong nuclear force holds protons together in the nucleus of the atom.  The challenge relevant to today’s posting is that all protons are positively charged which means that they naturally repel each other.  Just a few days ago as I set up my presentation for a luncheon, I grabbed a stack of magnets in order to hang a poster on the board.  Having unconsciously separated the stack into two parts in my hands, the laws of nature immediately reminded me that magnets don’t join back together just any old way you shuffle them around.  The positive ends of each set of magnets would not be joined at all.  For the same reason, the positive charge of separate protons will neither attract nor even accommodate the other, but will, again, powerfully repel one another.  They always repel except by means of the overcoming power of the Strong Nuclear Force.

The strong nuclear force is absolutely essential to meet the high demands for the existence of life, not to mention for the very existence of the cosmos as we know it.  The mass within the universe consists of atoms.  Not just many of one kind of atom, but of a whole range of atoms of different kinds, indeed 92 different atoms naturally occur in nature so far as we know.  In the beginning that was not so.  Hydrogen was the only element at the very, very beginning of the universe.  Almost immediately Helium came into existence through nuclear fusion.   In the course of the time that followed, by the same processes, every other element in turn came to exist.  Each successive atom consists of one more proton joining in the nucleus (for example, Carbon has 6 protons, Nitrogen has 7, Oxygen 8, and so on).  But for the reason described above, this increase in number is only possible because of the strong nuclear force.  Conservatively understood, the human body requires at least 25 of the elements that appear on the periodic table of elements in the universe.

to be continued...

Does Anyone At All Escape the Judgment of Romans 3:19? Part III

This on-going practice of obligating other people to standards of our own construction leads to the Apostle Paul’s inescapable insight at the beginning of Romans chapter two.  I deliberately use the term, “inescapable,” because the principle he lays out there is logically air tight.  He effectively argues that the person who is out of touch with the revelation of the Holy Bible, for whatever reason, is not off the hook.  Whatever standard they apply to others (and we all do this) turns out to be the very standard we do not ourselves keep.  Our very own standard (about which we obviously cannot claim ignorance) will be the very measure for judging us (since that, again, is effectively what we apply to our neighbor).

He writes, “Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment on him you condemn yourself because you, the judge, do the same things... Do you suppose, O man that when you judge another and yet do the same thing, that you will escape the judgment of God?  Do you not know that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?” (ch. 1-3 in the Revised Standard Version).

This is not a pleasant theme to write about.  But it is clearly an urgent need that must be discussed.  The neglect of the prospect that one day we will face the judgment of God is perhaps the greatest cause for apathy about investigating the actual truth of His claims.  Even renowned philosopher, Immanuel Kant, hardly an orthodox Christian, wrote that injustices in this life reasonably demand another life to follow where wrongs are righted.  This material is intended to urge us to receive the gift of the forgiveness that God so graciously offers.  For a fuller treatment of His awesome gift I urge your consideration of my postings dated 4-17-2013.           

Does Anyone At All Escape the Judgment of Romans 3:19? Part II

If indeed these “tenets” of post-modernism are true, I repeat my charge that its proponents are involving themselves (and our entire gullible culture along with them) in glaring self-contradiction.  For if indeed there is no such thing as over-arching truth, then there is no standard that obligates others to embrace their assertions.  For the central assertion they make, that there is no truth, cannot be true either, according to their own standards.  This particular rebuttal of post-modernism is of a logical nature.  An additional rebuttal involves the existence of both laziness and intellectual dishonesty with respect to the question of truth.  The Apostle Paul addresses this sinful human tendency in Romans 1:18-20, where he charges our race with the propensity to “suppress” the truth, as opposed to seeking it out, wherever the truth of a given matter may lead (v.18).  Contrary to popular opinion (for which Christians share a certain level of blame), according to the Bible all people will be held accountable to God for how we think.  People cannot be held accountable for what they can’t have possibly known.  But we will be held accountable for what we, at bottom, have done with what we actually do know.  When, for example, we resist answering our phone which informs us on the screen of a caller we do not want to face, we know in our conscience that we are not ignorant of the intentions of that other person.  Similarly, attempts to sway the “Judge” of the “living and the dead” on the excuse that we “did not know,” won’t get far at all.  They will instead be measured against all those opportunities we were given to become more informed which we instead cast to the side in the interest of willful ignorance.  

Moral relativism is a second aspect of post-modernity that involves a deep level of self-contradiction.  For one thing, moral relativism is simply not practiced consistently, not even as an attempt.  Whatever may be the promises of our day to the effect that post-modernism liberates humans from the shackles of old-fashioned morality, the truth of the matter is that binding standards are pervasive all across our culture today.  The heavy hand of obligation advances even in our own time by the rhetorical means of “political correctness.”  The abortion of a human fetus is swept under the rug (all too often even celebrated) while the loss of a dolphin, for example, is highlighted in the news as tragic.  Please don’t interpret this as an expression of environment disinterest on my part.  I am writing instead about a loss of the ability to properly measure the values of people, creatures, and things.  For now I will stop with my rant.  But I summarize by stating the obvious, that moral relativists replace old morality with equally weighty politically correct obligations of the latest fashion.  All the while the weight of obligation continues its oppression.

to be continued.

Does Anyone At All Escape the Judgment of Romans 3:19? Part I

"...so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God." (Romans 3:19)

This specific posting is not concerned with the final judgment of God on every person who will stand before Him on the last day.  That is His business, not ours (He has expressed the extent of His love most clearly of all in John 3:16).  It is concerned, however, with the standards He himself has laid out in His Word the Holy Bible (Romans chapters 1-3) which exposes the measure of our culpability before Him.

Whenever a sincere Christian is caught in the act of sinning (an extremely common occurrence since we Christians are, after all, sinners) there is only one honest response for us to make (1 John 1:9).  Sincere Christians, consistent with our doctrine, will confess the specifics of our sin, turn away from our wrong-doing, and seek to make amends to the person(s) we have hurt.  And then we will receive His promise of forgiveness and cleansing.  Sincere Christians will not dismiss the judgment of moral law as an irrelevant triviality.  To the contrary we will admit that we are guilty under the standards of that very moral code.  Shocking as it may at first sound, when Christians sin we do not contradict our faith.  We instead live out the awful reality that gave reason for the Father’s delivering His Son to the cross on behalf of our sinful world (Romans 5:8).  For Christians the contradiction lies in the denial of the very authority of God’s Word, including His moral law.

Proponents of post-modernism, by stark contrast, involve themselves in self-contradiction at the most foundational level.  I am not stooping here to the simple tit-for-tat charge that they “mess up.”  Since it is true that Christians sin, it should be no surprise that non-Christians do the same (by the way, Christ holds out His offer of the forgiveness of sins to every person, not just to those who are currently Christians).  My actual challenge to post-modernists is that the central agenda they vigorously advance is never actually practiced by them.  Indeed it is never even attempted by even its most enthusiastic proponents.  Instead they contradict their central assumptions at every turn.  These assumptions include the notion that “truth” is merely a matter of personal perspective (and hence is not binding outside of the individual).  Another guiding assumption is that morality is relative.  Moral Relativism holds that “morality” is merely a social invention and therefore its standards are merely social convention that can be cast aside in favor of more pleasing alternatives.

to be continued...

Getting Just the Right Size is Just Not Enough

“The Most ‘Earth-like’ Planet Found Outside our Solar System” was in the byline of a leading newspaper article titled, ”Two Planets to His Credit” (The [Everett, WA] Daily Herald, 04-22-2013).  For the record, as a Christian believer I do not consider the potential existence of life on other planets to be in conflict with the Bible’s perspective on the created order.  The Biblical accounts of creation cannot be assumed or expected to provide an exhaustive statement on those purposes of God which do not specifically impact the redemption of our own human race.  I urge readers to carefully read my essay, “The Biblical Demand to Take Another Look” (www.christianityontheoffense.com) for clarification on both the interpretation and the context that Genesis chapters 1 and 2 actually convey.  The ramifications of dismissing the extensive list of clues found within the text of Genesis that point to the creation days as long periods of time force readers into an unnecessary conflict (in contradiction to Romans 1:18,19) with science.  For example, by every single scientific measure our universe is for the most part much older than Earth, which in truth is not in the locational center of all things.  The suggestion by some that wherever there is any dispute on these matters the Bible must be given priority over science is not, as they suppose, supported by Martin Luther.  To the contrary Luther defers scientific matters to the “astronomers,” whom he regards as the “experts” in the natural order.  (Jaroslav Pelikan, ed. Luther’s Works, Lectures on Genesis, v.I. (Concordia, 1958), p.41).

 My own philosophical thinking on the possibility that we may not be alone is impacted by C.S. Lewis’ “Space Trilogy” novel series.  Yet there is also a second consideration.  The separate question about life on other planets concerns whether this prospect is indeed supported by the actual, as opposed to conjectural evidence.  In my recent postings titled, “Still Not Enough Planets” (January 10 and 19, 2013), I address how extensive and weighty the parameters of the actual scientific demands are in order for a planet to be habitable.  The numbers on that roster continue to mount.  The odds that any given planet is habitable is determined by “factoring” all of the necessary parameters together (multiplying each one together with every other one).  For further consideration of that list of requirements I urge you to check out the website, www.reasons.org.  The host of known requirements which allow for the possibility of advanced Carbon-based life (and no other element from the periodic table qualifies as a potentially capable base for biological life) logically lead us to one of two answers to the question before us.  The dawning realization that the list of scientific demands is so impossibly high will lead either to the conclusion that we are truly alone in the universe.  Or, upon its discovery, it will be concluded that such a phenomenon was deliberately created by the Maker of all things who willed it so to be, in the place that He intentionally prepared.   

We're Midway

“When I look into the heavens…what is man that you are mindful of him?”  (Psalm 8:3,4)

I am reading Martin Rees’ treatise, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe. (Basic, 2000).  It is a wonderfully written book that is a delight to read.  Although the author has a different worldview from mine, he does not write with an axe to grind.  He is gracious and indeed respectful to people who disagree with him philosophically, including Christian physicist, Dr. John Polkinghorne (p.150).  In spite of his “naturalistic” (for my definition see my previous posting) philosophical commitments pertaining to cosmogony (the study of the origin of the universe), Dr. Rees embraces a set of perspectives on the history and structure of the cosmos that are broadly shared by the entire scientific community, including theists (those believe the God of the Bible is the intelligent creator and designer behind the Big Bang creation of all things out of nothing).

The significance of the “just six numbers” that are found in his book title will be the theme of my next posting.  Today I wish to address something a bit lighter in contents.  Have you considered the concept, “powers of ten?”  For our reflection, Dr. Rees lays out in his chapter titled “The Cosmos and the MicroWorld,” the relative size of human beings when we measured against the size of the entire cosmos by using the “powers of ten” comparison study.  The “powers of ten” exercise begins with the snapshot from a distance of two meters of a man and a woman lying on a lawn in a park.  Each successive photo aimed at the couple covers ten times the area covered by the previous shot.  By the time the photographer arrives at the tenth frame, the field of the photo covers an area the size of our Sun.  Then, returning back to the couple on the lawn, photos aimed at the couple, ten in all, are now taken of an area ten times smaller than the previous photo, and so-on and so-on.  By the time of the tenth frame, amazingly, the field of the final picture is the size of an atom.

Dr. Rees concludes, “This ‘human scale’ is, in a numerical sense, poised midway between the masses of atoms and stars.  It would take roughly as many human bodies to make up the mass of the Sun as there are atoms in each of us….We straddle the cosmos and the microwold—intermediate in size between the Sun, at a billion metres in diameter, and a molecule at a billionth of a meter.  It is actually no coincidence that nature attains its maximum complexity on this intermediate scale: anything larger, if it were on a habitable planet, would be vulnerable to breakage or crushing by gravity” (pp.6,7).

"Has Science Buried God?" Part II

A Review of John Lennox.  God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? (Lion, 2009).

Dr. Lennox’ book has great value as a source of data pertaining to the interface of science and matters of teleology (ultimate causes and purposes).  The array of scientific data that points overwhelmingly to a finely-tuned absolute beginning of the entire universe out of nothing in the Big Bang is decisively addressed in the earlier sections.  Yet, not to remain content with the testimony of cosmology, he then delves into both the highly organized and interrelated processes (exceedingly more complex than a human-built factory) found within each living cell, and the meaningful language conveyed by letters in the DNA (whose informational contents in each strand is comparable to the entire set of Encyclopedia Britannica).  Since this is a book review I must set aside my positive observations about the engaging manner by which he conducts himself in interviews, lectures, and high-profile public debates, and state in conclusion that Dr. Lennox is especially gifted in reframing complex scientific theories into down-to-earth analogies that the average person is able to comprehend.  Far from evading complexity, the process of simplification is what separates truth from sophistry.  The capacity to simplify is not to be confused with being juvenile and simplistic.  One argument he poses to Richard Dawkins in print (p.189) that favors Intelligent Design is also employed in a public debate where Dawkins is caught in the commission of a double standard by a simple truth that he cannot answer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFD6U8XYhRI).          

"Has Science Buried God?" Part I

John C. Lennox.  God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?  (Lion, 2009).  A review.

I took my wife the other night to attend a poorly-delivered lecture from a renowned Christian philosopher, and then gave considerable attention on our return home in the car to reassuring her that she is not stupid.  “The problem was NOT with you!” I said to my wife.  “That noted professor failed miserably to do the basic and necessary work of making his points clear for all.”  In light of my expectation from his lecture title, “Does Science Need Religion?” I judged at its conclusion that that question had neither been answered nor even attempted.  The best the audience had to take away was that science and religion are compatible.  It is because I know from his writings that that noted philosopher actually does believe science needs religion, that I drove away disappointed that he missed a huge opportunity when speaking to an audience of a thousand.   

Having just finished outlining on paper the arguments of another scholar, Philosopher of Science and Professor of Mathematics, John Lennox of Oxford University, I conclude that the latter is an unsurpassed master at making profound points simple, memorable, and powerful.  The title of his book, God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?, wrongly suggests that Dr. Lennox’ thesis modestly settles for mere compatibility between the two in the sense that a place remains for God even in the face of the powerful claims of naturalism (“naturalism,” is defined as a belief that reality is limited to material substances and mechanistic operations, and excludes the existence of the soul, the spiritual realm, and every conception of deity).  Returning to Lennox, by the time careful readers wade through the chapters and arrive at the final page they will reasonably conclude, consistent with his own summation, that it is naturalism and not God that decisively receives the death-blow.   Yet Lennox’ agenda is more robust still.  He also persuasively argues the stronger case that, as a whole, the disciplined scientific exploration of the natural order, in and of itself, is historically and intellectually connected to a theistic worldview that is grounded on the existence of the transcendent, omnipotent, and intelligent God of the Bible (p.209).  For him, the rejection of belief in God effectively undermines those guarantors which have to this point legitimatized science, including confidence in a truthful correspondence between perception and reality, the uniformity of nature, and truth as a legitimate authority which binds seekers to follow it where it leads (see p.205).  

To be continued... 

The Urgency of Getting the Message of the Gospel Clear Part II

“Justification,” as defined above, is affirmed extensively by the Apostle Paul in Romans chapters 3 through 8.  He lays it out in Romans 3 and highlights Abraham and David as examples that justification is a doctrine of the Old Testament in chapter 4.  Then he unpacks justification as a practical doctrine that is central to the entire Christian life in chapters 5 through 8.  There is no explicit competing vision of the Gospel to be found in the N.T.  And it should be clear that the doctrine of justification is neither obscure nor a second-tier doctrine.  Not only in “Romans” is it to be found, the Apostle Paul references and draws upon this doctrine of justification, in varying degrees of specificity in his body of letters as a whole.

Historians have noted that the early church immediately following the apostolic age quickly lost that central doctrine as a guiding principle of their preaching and writings.  It appears indeed (from observation over two millennia of church history) that this magnificent doctrine is in general prone to be sidelined whatever the period in time under consideration.  Yet justification must be reaffirmed.  Justification is that one (and only) great doctrine which liberates sinners in a realistic manner (specifically to be addressed in an upcoming blog).  Whenever and wherever this biblical doctrine is taken out of its biblical context, it ends up devalued.  But more serious still, whenever it is obscured, the consolation of the Gospel in the assurance of the forgiveness of sin and the free gift of salvation are effectively (tragically) withheld from our world.  And God’s very name (including His character) is blasphemed.  The God of the Holy Bible is inexpressibly gracious.  All people need to know of His extravagant love.  As His ambassadors we Christians are obligated, even as we are privileged, to declare it.

The Urgency of Getting the Message of the Gospel Clear Part I

“The name of God is blasphemed among the people groups because of you.”  (Romans 2:24)

“But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.  For there is no distinction; since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus...”  (Romans 3:21f.)

Writing as a Lutheran Christian pastor, I do not claim Martin Luther (1483-1546) to be an inventor, but rather a reformer.  The Gospel was already announced 14 centuries before in the New Testament by the very beginning verse of Mark’s account of the public ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.  And it was at the same time laid bare and clear by the Apostle Paul in his “Letter to the Romans.”  What Martin Luther did was recover the already-existent message of the New Testament message that had over the centuries become obscured by the Roman Catholic Church of his time.  Lest we think however that we can rest comfortable by throwing stones at the institutional church that Luther challenged, it is vital to realize that the church in every age requires ongoing reformation (even churches of the Reformation!).  And not only that, it is people as a whole—both sacred and secular—who required the discipline of returning repeatedly to the roots of our thinking.  The scientific method assumes that all human beings (not just “the religious” but scientists too) are prone to bias-driven error so that the repetition of testing against accepted standards is demanded in the name of truth-seeking.  By the way, this means that Luther’s testimony about the Gospel is a testable claim that demands that it be tested, as he and the other reformers testified in both the “Augsburg Confession” and the “Apology” that are found in The [Lutheran] Book of Concord.

I am convinced that Luther did get it right with respect to the Gospel.  That which he announced to be the Gospel, namely that we are “justified” (that is, declared “righteous” on account of Jesus’ finished work on the cross and resurrection) through faith in Him alone, he discovered in the rhetorical heart of the Apostle Paul’s “Letter to the Romans.”  That particular letter (“epistle”) stands out as by far the most systematic, direct, and exhaustive treatment of the meaning of the “Gospel” in the entire Bible!  Please do not interpret this statement as a criticism of the rest of the New Testament (henceforth “N.T.”).  By and large the N. T. Letters were deliberately occasional pieces written specifically to address actual problems within the early church, including problems moral, strategic and theological.  Every other N.T. letter assumes the correct understanding of the Gospel as it fulfills its specific goal of applying that message directly to the problem at hand.  Even Paul’s “The Letter to the Galatians,” which indirectly defines the Gospel (2:16) had as its primary burden the retrieval of lapsing Christians in a way that “Romans” did not.

Getting Our Conversation and Understanding About Sex right Part II

Yet surely the Bible has more to say than “thou shalt not” when it comes to matters of sex and sexuality!  Christian theology is not limited to the matter of redemption in Jesus Christ, which of course lies at the center of the saving message of the Gospel.  Christian theology also affirms God as Trinity: that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  And out of that Trinitarian declaration Christian theology affirms the doctrine of creation, which in turn affirms that God made all of physical existence including our sexuality.  That we are sexual beings is NOT an accident.  Neither is it a mistake.  It was from God’s very intentional will that we were created bodily as male or female.  It is furthermore God’s intentional will that we experience sexual attraction for the opposite sex.  The Christian interpretation of the reality of our sexuality is not to decry it in embarrassment, any more than it is to “spend” our sexuality in violation of the will of our Creator.  Even though sex is not to be worshipped as though it is a god, it is to be received and celebrated under God as one of His very good gifts (and perhaps the most powerful of all). And as with every other powerful gift, sexuality calls for our careful understanding of the will of the one who made it a part of His design and gave it to us in the first place.

Biblical illiteracy (ignorance) is a rampant problem in our day.  Critics of the Bible will suggest that the Scriptures themselves view sexuality negatively.  But that is not true.  What the Bible actually does, to the contrary, is provide serious instruction in how to express this aspect of life in a constructive, as opposed to destructive, manner.  

Getting Our Understanding and Conversation About Sex Right Part I

“So God created man in his own image…male and female He created them… And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply.’” (Genesis 1:27,28)

“And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.” (Genesis 2:25)

In his chapter, “The Morally Corrupt: Why Unbelief is So Appealing,” Dinesh D’Souza, drawing on documented statements of self-admission by a number of leading atheists, makes a compelling case that atheistic disbelief in God is founded as much on the quest both from moral bondage and for sexual freedom, as it is on so-called damaging intellectual arguments for the non-existence of God (What’s So Great About Christianity? (Tyndale, 2007), ch. 23).  Christopher Hitchens is quoted as stating, “The divorce between sexual life and fear…can now at last be attempted on the sole condition that we banish all religions from the discourse” (p.273 in text. Cited from God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.” (Twelve Books, 2007) p.283).  In the same chapter similar admissions are referenced from Aldous Huxley, Julian Huxley, Czeslaw Milosz, Friedrich Nietzche, Jean-Paul Sartre, Bertrand Russell, and Marquis de Sade.

I find these acknowledgements to be shocking on account of the frankness of the admissions, but NOT for the contents of their admissions.  The personal experience of virtually the entire human race across recorded history is that sexuality is a very powerful force that is difficult to channel within conventional boundaries.  Christianity has so far failed to present an enduring, positive, and compelling theological response to the reality of the power of human sexuality.  Instead, our track record is generally limited to the reactionary and the negative.

I do not approve of and neither do I advocate abandoning faith in God for the pursuit of sexual license.  Indeed it is absolutely required that we squarely face the devastating consequences to real human beings (including helpless children) which follow in the wake of sexual irresponsibility.  This damage includes the betrayal of wives by their husbands or vice-versa in the aftermath of breaking vows that were made on their wedding day.  For similar reasons, "living together" results in the insecurity and vulnerability of one or both partners (usually the woman) because no promises of commitment were ever made in the first place.  And who can fully comprehend the damage to children when parents break up so that the leadership “team” is suddenly reduced down to one, single, struggling parent who was never made to be able to “do it all?”

To be continued...

Ten Facts Which Challenge the Rationality of the Atheistic Claim Part III

Contrary to popular opinion, the claims of the New Testament concerning Jesus Christ cannot be dismissed as untrustworthy legend or myth, invented a long time after the facts they describe.  There are two firm sets of historical events which support dating virtually the entire New Testament canon to within 30 to 35 years of Jesus’ public ministry (around 33 A.D).  First of all, the destruction of (Herod’s) temple is securely dated at 70 AD.  The silence of both the Gospels and the New Testament Letters regarding this major catastrophe in Israel’s history is extremely difficult to explain if they were written after that fateful event since the claim of Christianity was that Jesus came in order to fulfill (John 1:29) the very Temple sacrificial system that came to a complete end in 70 AD.  Second, the Book of Acts makes no mention of the martyrdom of the Apostles Paul and Peter who died publically in Rome in AD 65.  Last we hear of Paul in Acts is that he was preaching the Gospel openly and unhindered (28:30,31).  Since Acts is the 2^nd volume of a two-part work, then the first volume (Gospel of Luke) was obviously completed prior to that date.  For these reasons, we may reasonably conclude that the New Testament documents were all composed while multitudes of eye-witnesses (both sympathetic and hostile) to the relevant events they describe were still living, reflecting, engaging and investigating.

Neither can the claim of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead be dismissed as myth or legend.  New Testament scholar Dr. Gary Habermas has drawn together 12 historical details which surrounded Jesus’ death and resurrection which are affirmed as historically secure by a “vast” majority of New Testament scholars (see http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/garyhabermas.htm).  Habermas does not claim that every scholar personally believes that Jesus literally rose from the dead.  His point is instead that they affirm as historically true a long list of relevant events, including that Jesus died by crucifixion and was buried in a tomb, the disciples despaired over his death, the tomb was discovered to be empty right at Jerusalem just a few days later, the disciples were convinced they had then met the risen Jesus, they were transformed from doubters into bold proclaimers who were willing to die for Jesus’ message, the resurrection became central to their message, and that James, Jesus’ skeptical brother, and Paul, a former enemy  of the Jesus movement, were both martyred for their faith.  The important question is where do all these facts logically lead?  Skeptics have offered a host of alternative hypotheses each of which are employed to attempt to explain away Jesus’ resurrection (e.g. they went to the wrong tomb, Jesus wasn’t actually dead, either the disciples or the guards stole the body, there were mass hallucinations, etc.)  But none of these proposals are capable of effectively explaining even the majority of the historically agreed-upon facts.  On the other hand, New Testament scholar Craig Hazen concludes that there is but one hypothesis which successfully unites every single one of the above facts.  His conclusion is that they all point inescapably to Jesus’ historical resurrection from the dead.

For a fuller treatment of the themes treated in these past three postings, including endnotes, see my paper “The Prints Are Everywhere,” which you will find at www.christianityontheoffense.com

Ten Facts Which Challenge the Rationality of the Atheistic Claim Part II

Both the complexity and the inter-relational workings of the host of machinery found within every single cell on earth repudiate the notion that mindless evolution could have assemble these “factories” and gotten them into operation in the first place.  The logically deductive process that called “inference to the best explanation” points inescapably to God as their sole designer and maker.

The complete absence of transitional fossils on the biological trail of the history of life on Earth is ample proof that Darwinian evolution has not happened.

Our very capacity as human beings to freely think, plan, create, carry out projects, and to persuade others to our point of view, assumes a paradigm about personal reality that materialism (atheism) cannot address.  The Biblical doctrine of creation affirms God’s intention that humans have a material (bodily) aspect while it also assumes that at the same time humans have an immaterial soul.  It is the materialist’ denial of the latter which leaves unexplained the range of common human experiences listed just above.  The insistence of atheists that we are simply and solely material machines involves them in a profound self-contradiction.  In their denial of the reality of free will, which they ground specifically on their mechanistic view of reality, they logically undermine the validity of their every assertion.  J.B.S. Haldane put it this way, “If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true…and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms” Possible Worlds. (Chatto and Windus, 1927), p.209).

The materialistic rejection of revelation (inspiration by God) on the allegation that truth is attained by “reason” alone is not rational.  It is of course reasonable to investigate the claim about a specific text (e.g. the Bible) in order to determine whether or not it actually is revelation.  Obviously the array of “holy” books claiming to be revelation cannot all be true since they contradict each other.  Actual examination of the text in question is required in order to address that question.  On the other hand, the out-of-hand dismissal of revelation is logically fallacious even in principle.  The suggestion that knowledge is attained only by empirical analysis is the illogical equivalent of claiming to exhaustively know our spouse when we habitually refuse to listen to a word she says.  Being in actual conversation (dominated by hearing) with another human being is the only reliable way to know another person meaningfully.

Ten Facts Which Challenge the Rationality of the Atheistic Claim Part I

The entire cosmos came into existence out of nothing through the Big Bang.  This truth overthrows the previously-reigning scientific paradigm that the universe had always existed.  On the other hand it affirms the opening verse of the Bible which declares, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).  This absolute beginning out of nothing is a scientific discovery, but it is not a scientific explanation for existence for the simple reason that neither matter, nor energy, nor space, nor time existed prior to that beginning.  The Big Bang therefore lays bare the enormous challenge of existence which itself demands an explanation: where did it all come from?  Christianity asserts the existence of a transcendent, all powerful and intelligent Creator not as a theological stab in the dark (the so-called “god-of-the-gaps argument”), but instead as the only conceivably rational explanation for that beginning.  Atheism by stark contrast provides no answer to this challenge whatsoever. 

The Big Bang beginning exudes design.  It was not a chaotic explosion, but rather an exquisitely orchestrated one whose details affirm an Intelligent Designer.  For example the total mass of the universe, the rate of its expansion, both the strong and weak nuclear forces inside the atom, the electromagnetic force, and the strength of gravity, etc., (over 20 factors in all) were all precisely fine-tuned to the very high demands that were required in order for the universe to be capable of yielding life of any kind.  By contrast, when an allegedly mindless beginning instead is posited, the chances that such an outcome would result in a habitable cosmos are virtually zero.

The fact that our universe had an absolute beginning removes the so-called “eternity of time” that Darwinism had relied on to allow for the development of the array of life forms found in nature (from amoeba to human beings). The actual history of the universe as measured according to Big Bang chronology reveals that on Earth the “window” of opportunity when the conditions first became habitable on the one hand, and the measured first actual appearance of life on the other, was vastly too short of the required amount of time for even the most primitive forms of life to arise by purely naturalistic means.  James Watson (co-discoverer of DNA), against his own personal bias, conceded this is so.

The presence of a meaningful language in DNA (the amount of information each strand contains is equivalent to the contents of the entire Encyclopedia Britannica) that directs the multitude of processes within every cell logically demands a Personal Intelligence (God) to account for its existence.  The atheistic materialistic vision of the origin of the cell, on the other hand, utterly fails to account for these phenomena.

Is the Easter Story Legend or Myth? Conclusion

In my last posting it was established that the Hebrew society into which Jesus was born had great antipathy toward myth and mythology.  The Jewish people neither sought out mythological inspiration from their neighbors, nor were they receptive to such imaginings that might conceivably have arisen from within their own culture.  Modern Roman historian Michael Grant summarizes their religious climate in a decisive way, “Judaism was a milieu to which doctrines of deaths and rebirths of mystical gods seems so entirely foreign that the emergence of such a fabrication from its midst is very hard to credit” (boldface mine).  [Michael Grant. Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels. (Scribner’s, 1977), p.199].
 
There is no reason for Christians to deny the existence of assorted myths in other cultures that hint to the theme of dying-and-rising-gods in the mythological context (Osiris, Ishtar, etc.).  C.S. Lewis has noted that parallels between the redemptive work of Jesus Christ and the mythologies of other cultures prior to the Christian era should be neither surprising nor embarrassing for Christians.  It is not inconsistent with the Gospel, writes Lewis, that God should have anticipated the coming of Christ into the Jewish culture in fulfillment of analogies instilled in other cultures. [“Myth Become Fact.” God in the Dock. (Eerdmans, 1970), p.67].  Yet it must be added that the alleged parallels that are described above are highly superficial, most especially in the distinction between the other-worldly setting of mythology as opposed to the Christian claim of an event that happened in flesh-and-blood history (John 1:14).  [J. Gresham Machen. The Origin of Paul’s Religion. (Eerdmans, 1925)].

Some will argue that Mithraism, which had its beginning in Persian Zoroastrianism in the late 300’s BCE, gave actual impetus to Christian belief that the blood of Jesus results in the rebirth of the believer.  Yet Mithriaism, which had migrated westward into the Roman Empire, also dramatically evolved over time in its practices.  Specifically, its Taurobolium rite involved blood from a slaughtered bull being poured over the initiate who was then “reborn forever.”  The problem with this comparison however is that there is no mention at all of such a rite of any kind before the 2^nd century CE.  Furthermore, the specific rite described just above is dated no earlier than the 3^rd century after Christ.  [David Ulansey. “Mithraic Mysteries.” Biblical Archaeological Review. (September/October, 1994), p.40f].
 
Clearly whatever borrowing that may be demonstrated had its source from historic Christianity, and not the other way around!  “Back to the Future” movie themes notwithstanding, it is not possible for Christianity to have borrowed its themes from a time that had yet to arrive by two centuries.

 

Is the Easter Story Legend or Myth? Part V

“For we did not follow cleverly devised myths…”  (2 Peter 1:16)

A little over five hundred years earlier in its own history, the Hebrew culture (Israel) heavily involved itself in the idolatrous mythological practices of the other nations that surrounded it.  The word “idol” comes from the Greek word eidon, which means “visible,” or “seen.”  The Old Testament regarded Yahweh as the only true God, standing as He does entirely outside of (transcending) the material order.  Therefore it regarded the neighboring gods (note lower case “g”) within nature (the sky, the wind, the sea, etc.), and represented by wood and stone, to be the product of mere mythological imaginings.  Israel’s participation in the idolatrous practices of its neighbors (Hosea 1:2) during the eight or so centuries previous, ended upon their return to their homeland following a 70-year captivity in Babylon (Ezra chapters 7 -10).  The forced relocation was a humiliating experience.  Israel regarded that captivity as a divine retribution for their sin of idolatry, a punishment they determined never to receive again.

While so-called archaeological “minimalists” challenge the historicity of the Old Testament at every turn, there is in my view very little reason for doubting the integrity of its record of Israel’s history.  Even on archaeological grounds!  Furthermore, given the enormous gap between the holy character of Yahweh on the one hand (Exodus 20:1-20), and the very sorry record of faithless national disobedience on the other, reason must conclude that this is not the kind of record to be invented.  It is rather the kind of shameful story to be repented (of).  And repent they did!

Whatever else historians might say about Israel’s short-comings, the solid truth is that the Hebrew people never again participated in the sin of idolatry after their return to their homeland.  Five and a half centuries later at the time of Christ the Hebrew leaders, in particular, continued their resolute resistance to practices both mythological and idolatrous.  This is one of the most important reasons the Jewish leaders rejected Jesus’ self-claims (Matthew 22:41-46; Mark 2:5-11, Luke 19:45-48; John 8:58; 10:29-33).

It is popular in our day for critics to suggest that Israel borrowed practices from their neighbors.  I have already conceded that this is partly true.  But the theme on the table today is the specific question of whether the Christian account of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is on loan from the mystery religions of Persia, Egypt, the Canaanites, or the Greco-Roman world.  The “heads-up” answer to that question is that such claims are entirely bogus.  The blogs that are to follow will lay out the actual facts of the case more fully.  But for the present consider what has here been established.  Out of all of the possible cultures in the world that might be considered at that time, the single culture into which Jesus was born was by far the most adamantly opposed to consideration of any kind of a mythological savior.  The first converts to what is known today as Christianity were virtually all Jews.  That it was Jews, of all people, who believed from the beginning that Jesus was God the Son-become-human (John 1:1-3,14) and who saved the world by his death on a cross (1 Corinthians 1:18-25), demands a level of inspiration far greater than merely a neighboring pagan mystery.

That such a renowned historian as Will Durant could begin the last paragraph of his chapter, The Apostles, with the declaration that “Christianity did not destroy paganism, it adopted it,” and then close the same with, “Christianity was the last great creation of the ancient pagan world,” [The Story of Civilization III: Caesar and Christ. (Simon and Schuster, 1944), p.595], is both preposterous and absurd.  I am not making the case that Christian theology is immune to seduction by the surrounding culture of a given time in history.  But the account of Jesus Christ that is laid bare in the New Testament is no such example at all.  The Gospels to the contrary speak of a resistant people coming to terms with an immense reality for which they had no innate sympathy (John 1:9-11).  The astonishing reality is that the Creator of the world became flesh in the very culture that was least inclined to consider that very truth.  The notion of mythological development is utterly powerless to account for this happening.