Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels / McGrew

I first heard about these from Professor Tim McGrew:

An undesigned coincidence happens when one part of the Bible is missing a detail that makes us ask a question, and another part of the Bible (a part authored by someone else), or a text external to the Bible, without collusion, supplies that missing detail and answers our question. It is a test for historical authenticity. (Originally published 9/5/11. Added 4/10/13: Video.  Also see Audio Resources by Tim McGrew and Internal Evidence for the Gospels by Tim McGrew on Apologetics315.)

Here are a few examples internal to the Gospels:

(Note: numbers are being skipped on purpose because I am sticking to ‘internal’ coincidences amongst the Gospels and gleaning the examples from here.)

#1:  Matthew 26:67-68  Why ask him to tell them who slapped him?  Luke 22:64  They blindfolded him.

#2:  Mark 6:31  Why are many coming and going?  John 6:4  The Passover pilgrimage.

#3:  Matthew 8:14-16  Why in the evening?  Mark 1:21  Sabbath over at evening (cannot bear burden).

#4:  Luke 9:36  Why did they keep silent?  Mark 9:9  Jesus told them to tell no one (most consistently disobeyed command, lol).

#5:  John 6:5  Why pick Philip?  Luke 9:10  The setting of the miracle is Bethsaida, Philip’s “hometown” (John 1:44).  (And see #17.)

#7:  John 21:15  Why ask “…more than these?”  Matthew 26:33 “Though they all fall away…I will never fall away.”  In John 21:16 Peter is done boasting and just says “Lord, you know that I love you.”  Beautiful!

#8:  Luke 23:1-4  Why Pilate find no guilt in Jesus?  John 18:36  “My kingdom is not of this world.”
Also, John never mentions the charge against him, but Luke fills in the detail.

#10:  Matthew 14:1-2 Why is Herod speaking about this to his servants?  Luke 8:3  Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s household manager/steward.  Herod knows that if he’s got questions about Jesus, talk to his Christian servants.  Acts 13:1 Manaen had been brought up with Herod the Tetrarch.

#11:  Mark 14:57-58 Mark 15:29  People mock him for saying he would destroy the temple.  He never says that in Mark.  John 2:18-19 Jesus says, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

Via email 9/23/11:

#17 “This one just occurred to me: Matthew 11:21 — ‘Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.’ What mighty works in Bethsaida? Matthew gives us no clue; this is the only time he ever mentions Bethsaida. Nor can Mark help us here, nor John. But turn to Luke 9:10 — On their return the apostles told him all that they had done. And he took them and withdrew apart to a town called Bethsaida. … and then comes the feeding of the 5000.” (See #5.)

These are just examples of ‘internal’ undesigned coincidences in the Gospels.

For other types and examples, and more sources for further research, go here.

Posted in Apologetics, Apologetics Toolbox, Tim McGrew, Undesigned Coincidences | Leave a comment

Three reasons we know the Gospels are telling the truth.

1.  The Gospels were written too early to be legendTim Keller discusses this.
2.  Hostiles would’ve busted ‘em and told everyone the disciples were lying. (F.F. Bruce**)
3.  No-one dies for lies.  See how the disciples died.


Easy to memorize.




[Gleaned from the lecture “The Case for Faith” by Lee Strobel, part of the curriculum for Biola’s apologetics certification.]

**  “It was not only friendly eyewitnesses that the early preachers had to reckon with; there were others less well disposed who were also conversant with the main facts of the ministry and death of Jesus. The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies (not to speak of willful manipulation of the facts), which would at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so. On the contrary, one of the strong points in the original apostolic preaching is the confident appeal to the knowledge of the hearers; they not only said, ‘We are witnesses of these things,’ but also, ‘As you yourselves also know’ (Acts 2:22). Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective” (F.F. Bruce).

John Warwick Montgomery, Tractatus Logico-Theologicus, Pg 92
Posted in Apologetics, Apologetics Toolbox | 4 Comments

Apologetics Toolbox

I am starting an apologetics toolbox for my sons and wanted to make it available to others.  The cool thing about a toolbox is you can add to it–consider this a starter kit.

Many of these links will be revised, and many will be added.

Why is apologetics so important?

Lee Strobel’s “The Case for Faith for Kids” summary with commentary
“Objections to Faith” by David Spikes (12 yrs. old)

Blog index for Douglas Groothuis’ “Christian Apologetics:  A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith”

It is okay and good to question our beliefs.

It just happened, eh?  “If the earth were a golfball” and the scale of the universe.

WLC makes plain the Ontological Argument

Poll:  What grounds objective moral truth?

The Moral Argument

Leibnizian Moral Argument?

Problem: If God is good and all-powerful, why does he not prevent evil, suffering and hell?

“The Problem of Evil” by Ethan Spikes (almost 16 yrs. old)

Glimpse of Eternity (something from Don Richardson showing God did not evolve w/ kings)

Who Wrote the Gospels? by Timothy McGrew

Tim McGrew | External/Internal Evidence

Why did the apostles go from being afraid to being bold?

Peter Williams on how the Gospels get people, places and plants right

Three reasons we know the Gospels are telling the truth.

Chart comparing NT manuscripts to ancient documents
Better one. (though “reliability” is not the right word)

A “Twelve Facts” resurrection logic puzzle

WLC’s case for the resurrection

Evidence for Easter

Peter Stoner’s probabilities of Jesus fulfilling 8 prophecies over which He had no human control

Sir Robert Anderson’s calculations linking Daniel’s “Seventy Weeks” prophecy and Jesus’ crucifixion

Blog Discussion and Sermon Ideas for Tim Keller’s “The Reason for God”

The Bible as a Narrative

“Christian Apologetics” (Groothuis) Read Along with Apologetics 315 (buy book)

Biola Certificate in Apologetics

My Testimony – If you have a testimony, it is evidence for you and those who knew you.

(more to come)

Apologetics Toolbox folder covers :)
Posted in Apologetics, Apologetics Toolbox | Leave a comment

"Christian Apologetics" (Groothuis) Read Along with Apologetics 315

more info

I currently just finished chapter ten on the ontological argument, but I am definitely joining this read-along and encourage all to do the same.  Starts September 9. :)

Douglas Groothuis’ Christian Apologetics.

Posted in Apologetics, Apologetics Toolbox, Groothuis' 'Christian Apologetics', Reviews and Interviews | Leave a comment

Biola Certificate in Apologetics

I just got my Biola Certificate in Apologetics–go here to get yours.  Mention “Apologetics 315” to get a discount :)

Posted in Apologetics Toolbox | 1 Comment

How the Gospel changes our apologetic / Tim Keller


How the Gospel Changes our Apologetic by Tim Keller from Vintage21 Church on Vimeo.

Posted in Apologetics | Leave a comment

Why is apologetics so important?

Caravaggio

All the polls in the past few years show a rapid increase in those who have left their religion, and a rapid decrease in church attendance. Robert Putnam and David Campbell presented research showing “young Americans are dropping out of religion at an alarming rate of five to six times the historic rate (30 to 40 percent have no religion today, versus 5 to 10 percent a generation ago)” (American Grace). This is gleaned from a November 2010 Christianity Today article entitled “The Leavers: Young Doubters Exit the Church” wherein Drew Dyck talks about the results of his interviews with those who leave the church. He writes:

“Almost to a person, the leavers with whom I spoke recalled that, before leaving the faith, they were regularly shut down when they expressed doubts. Some were ridiculed in front of peers for asking “insolent questions.” …

“At the 2008 American Sociological Association meeting, scholars from the University of Connecticut and Oregon State University reported that “the most frequently mentioned role of Christians in de-conversion was in amplifying existing doubt.” De-converts reported “sharing their burgeoning doubts with a Christian friend or family member only to receive trite, unhelpful answers.””

My dad got his questions answered at seminary and my mom got her questions answered by my dad when they were dating, but he could not answer my questions.  I eventually became an atheist until God broke through to me starting September 22, 2005.  This breaking through caused me to realize that there had to be answers to my questions that would strengthen the faith of those with doubts, and thus began my interest in apologetics.  That isn’t to say that I became interested in studying great ways to apologize.

What is apologetics, anyway?

Apologetics is simply the rational defense of the Christian faith, or as William Lane Craig puts it, “that branch of Christian theology which seeks to provide a rational justification for the truth claims of the Christian faith,” (Reasonable Faith, p. 15).  It involves making the case for Christianity, like providing historical evidence for the resurrection, and answering objections to Christianity, like the problem of evil.  It comes from the Greek word apologia, which means defense, as in a court of law. 

Is it biblical?

R.C. Sproul writes that “the apologist echoes the work of the apostles who did not ask people to respond to Christ in blind faith. The apostolic testimony to Christ was buttressed both by rational argument and empirical evidence.”  Ratio Christi’s website points out that “Paul is seen reasoning with those he encountered concerning the gospel: ‘So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God fearing Gentiles and in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be present.’ (Acts 17:17) …Paul had done this with such consistency that it became his custom: ‘And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence.’ (Acts 17:2-3)” On page 15 of “On Guard” William Lane Craig notes that Paul “says all men can know that God exists (Rom. 1:20).  Paul also appealed to eyewitness testimony of Jesus’ resurrection to show further that Christianity is true (1 Cor. 15:3-8).”

Rather than shutting someone down who asks a question or expresses a doubt about Christianity, Scripture would have us do apologetics.  Glenn Miller notes that, “1 Peter 3:15 tells us to always be ready to give every man an answer (apologia), a reason for the hope that is within us.  2 Timothy 2:25 [talks about] correcting those who are in opposition.  Jude 3 [says to] earnestly contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints.  Colossians 4:6 [says] you will know how you should answer each one.  Phil. 1:16 [says] I am appointed for the defense of the gospel.  Titus 1:9 [says] a leader is to be able ‘to exhort and convict those who contradict.’”  William Lane Craig signed my copy of “On Guard” with 2 Corinthians 10:5:  “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.”

Did Jesus ever do apologetics?

Christ himself used apologetics, as pointed out on Ratio Christi’s website, when “Jesus silenced the Sadducees in their attempts to discredit the resurrection by laying out a reasonable argument from the scriptures [Matthew 22:30-32]…reasoned with [the Pharisees] to the only possible conclusion; Jesus is both fully God and fully man [Matthew 22:41-46]…gave evidence of His divine nature to the doubting Pharisees and scribes by supporting the power of His words to forgive a paralytic by healing him with His words, ‘so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins’ (Luke 5:18-26).”  Tim Keller points out in “The Reason for God” that Jesus responded to Thomas’ request for more evidence by supplying it (John 20:25-28), and to another doubting man he responds by blessing him and healing his son (Mark 9:24).  Eric Chabot, in his article Do Christians Get Brownie Points For Being Ignorant? Is Anti-Intellectualism Biblical?, notes that when John the Baptist asked Jesus from prison, “Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?” (Matt. 11:3; Luke 7:20)—Jesus did not reply, “You must have faith; suppress your doubts.”  He replied “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” (Matt. 11:4-6; Luke 7:22).  “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,” (Chabot).

Why don’t we do apologetics?

People are leaving the church because we are disobeying Scripture when we shut people down who have questions.  Some of us even misuse Scripture to do this.  In The Problem of Anti-Intellectualism in the Church-Problems and Possible Solutions, Eric Chabot writes about some passages that can be misunderstood as speaking against loving God with all our mind.  Acts 4:13 is an observation, not a prescription, and refers only to the fact that they had not received rabbinical training.  Colossians 2:8 was dealing with proto-Gnostic philosophy, not philosophy in general, and the way to “see to it that no one takes you captive” is through apologetics.  I Corinthians 1:19-21 is condemning prideful misuse of reason, not reason itself.  Matthew 18:3-5 is talking about moral innocence, not intellectual ignorance (keep in mind Matthew 10:16, where Jesus talks about being as shrewd as serpents, though as innocent as doves).

Shouldn’t we just have faith?

Those who are worried about the relationship between faith and reason need only note that intellectual knowledge that God exists does not equal putting faith in God. James 2:19 states that even the demons believe intellectually. But before we can put real faith in God, we must have reasoned evidence that he exists. So it is inappropriate to answer someone’s questions with, “Just have faith.” A better answer is “I don’t know, but let’s study this.” The Valley Girl Apologist, Sarah Ankenman, alludes in a recent article to the fact that we say things like, “Don’t focus on the why, focus on the Who.” In reality, we can and should focus on both, because if we don’t know why we are focusing on the Who, any old Who will do, which is idolatry. So focusing on the why helps serve the ultimate purpose of being in relationship with the true God. The effect on the brain of Calvin’s sensus divinitatus and witness of the Holy Spirit is scientifically indistinguishable from the effect on the brain of the experience of other religions (see Barbara Bradley Hagerty’s “Fingerprints of God:  The Search for the Science of Spirituality”). And so in order to provide a rational justification for Christianity to anyone other than ourselves, and to “doubt our doubts” as Tim Keller puts it in The Reason for God, we must provide reasons outside our own subjective experience.

Going back, to go forward…

In the same article mentioned above, Sarah Ankenman quotes from Nancy Pearcey’s “Saving Leonardo” which reads, “…if [we] aspire to the dynamic impact of the early church, [we] must do as it did, learning to address, critique, adapt, and overcome the dominant ideologies of our day….” (p. 14).   Not only must we go back to the roots of the early church, we must focus on our children when they are still growing roots.  In another article, this time on the website for the International Society of Women in Apologetics, Sarah writes, “When your kids have questions, they are going to come to you for answers.  If you don’t have them, Satan is plenty willing to fill in the gaps. He will do it through public schools, pop culture…he will use whatever means necessary to lead your kids away from Christ.  …you shouldn’t even wait for them to ask, you should be instilling the answers in them from when they are very young.”  And how will we do that, if we do not have the answers instilled in ourselves?

J.M. Njoroge writes, “In his book Real Christianity, William Wilberforce exhorted parents to incorporate apologetics in the upbringing and training of their children. He wrote, ‘In an age in which infidelity abounds, do we observe [parents] carefully instructing their children in the principles of faith which they profess? Or do they furnish their children with arguments for the defense of that faith? … When religion is handed down among us by heredity succession, it is not surprising to find youth of sense and spirit beginning to question the truth of the system in which they were brought up. And it is not surprising to see them abandon a position which they are unable to defend.’”

Conclusion:

Here are three reasons apologetics is so important, adapted from Eric Chabot’s anti-intellectualism article mentioned above, J.M. Njoroge’s article just mentioned, and William Lane Craig’s On Guard and Reasonable Faith:

1.  Pre-evangelism.  Apologetics shapes worldviews and cultivates culture to be more receptive to the Gospel message, rather than dismissing it off-hand or attacking it as the New Atheists do.  It is part of carrying out the Great Commission (Matt 28:19).  “[Apologetics] is necessary for the witness of the church since it helps clear away the obstacles that can keep the non-believer from taking an honest look at his or her true spiritual condition” (J.M. Njoroge) or from considering the gospel “an intellectually viable option” (Craig, On Guard, 18).  Apologetics doesn’t save people, just like evangelists don’t save people—but the Holy Spirit can and does use both.  “Like a missionary called to reach some obscure people group, the Christian apologist is burdened to reach that minority of persons who will respond to rational argument and evidence,” (Craig, Reasonable Faith, 22).

2.  Strengthening believers.  Apologetics coaxes the body of Christ out of intellectual idolatry and closer to the true God.  If you don’t know why you believe the Who, any old Who will do.  It is the responsibility of church leadership to whet the intellectual appetites of those who are idling.  Apologetics is used by the Holy Spirit to mold each member of the body of Christ into the image of God, who is a rational being.  “…apologetics is necessary for the health of the church because it helps the believer to overcome intellectual obstacles in the course of the believer’s spiritual growth,” (J.M. Njoroge).  William Lane Craig points out that knowing why and what you believe, “will make you more confident in sharing your faith with others [and] help you to keep the faith in times of doubt and struggle,” (On Guard, 19).

3.  Worship.  As mentioned above, focusing on the why helps serve the ultimate purpose of being in relationship with the true God.  Apologetics enables us to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength (Mark 12:28-30).

Posted in Apologetics, Apologetics Toolbox | 4 Comments

My first Wikipedia article: Graded absolutism

Edit…
Graded absolutism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Graded absolutism is a theory of moral absolutism which resolves the objection to absolutism that in moral conflicts we are obligated to opposites. Moral absolutism is the ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong regardless of other contexts such as their consequences or the intentions behind them. Graded absolutism is moral absolutism but adds that a moral absolute, like “Do not kill,” can be greater or lesser than another moral absolute, like “Do not lie”. Graded absolutism, also called contextual absolutism or the greater good view, is an alternative to the third alternative view and the lesser evil view, both discussed below, regarding moral conflict resolution.


According to graded absolutism, in moral conflicts, the dilemma is not that we are obligated to opposites, because greater absolutes are not opposites of lesser absolutes, and evil is not the opposite of good but is instead the privation of good. Since evil is the privation of good, only the privation of the greater good counts as evil, since whenever there is a moral conflict, we are only obligated to the greater good.  The real dilemma is that we cannot perform both conflicting absolutes at the same time. ‘Which’ absolutes are in conflict depends on the context, but which conflicting absolute is ‘greater’ does not depend on the context. That is why graded absolutism is also called ‘contextual absolutism’ but is not to be confused with situational ethics. The conflict is resolved in acting according to the greater absolute. That is why graded absolutism is also called the ‘greater good view’, but is not to be confused with utilitarianism.

Contents

[hide]

[edit] The third alternative view

This is the view that there are never any real moral conflicts [1] and that there is always a third alternative. However, if there is no real dilemma, what is the need for a third alternative? And surely moral dilemmas exist which have no real third alternative. When asked by a potential murderer the location of a would-be victim, we can either consider it more important to save the potential victim’s life—or we can consider it more important to tell the truth to the victim’s would-be murderer—we cannot do both, and there is no third alternative between them.

[edit] The lesser evil view

The lesser evil view is the view that the only way out of a moral conflict is to violate one of the moral absolutes and choose the lesser evil. For example, if we disagree with Kant‘s thoughts on the categorical imperative and say that lying is a lesser evil than helping a would-be murderer, the lesser evil view would have us lie rather than help a would-be murderer. This violates the ought implies can principle and defeats itself in obligating evil.

[edit] The greater good view

Graded absolutism, or the greater good view, is the view that there are real moral conflicts between absolutes, but rather than requiring a third alternative (as in the case of the third alternative view above) or obligating evil (as in the case of the lesser evil view above), this view obligates the greater absolute, or greater good. For example, when one saves a life rather than telling the truth to a would-be murderer, one is committing the greater good of saving life, rather than violating the lesser good of telling the truth or committing the lesser (than aiding a murderer) evil of lying. Since evil is the privation of good, only the privation of the greater good counts as evil, since whenever there is a moral conflict, we are only obligated to the greater good.

[edit] Objections

  • It is often argued that graded absolutism (the greater good view) reduces to situational ethics. However, the situation is used to determine which absolutes are in conflict, not which absolute is greater or lesser.
  • Though graded absolutism is usually associated with Christian philosopher Norman Geisler [2], some [1] argue there is no Biblical basis for it. Norman Geisler responds in “Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective” [3] that the Bible has many examples of God approving rather than condemning instances when people acknowledged the higher over the lower, like when God blessed and gave families to the Hebrew midwives who “disobeyed government and lied to the king (Exodus 1:19) in order to save the male babies,” (p. 417). He points out that “Jesus spoke of ‘greater sin’ (John 19:11), ‘greater love’ (John 15:13), ‘greatest commandment’ (Matt 5:19), and ‘weightier matters’ of the law (Matt. 23:23),” (ibid, p. 424). He asserts killing in self defense (Exodus 22:2), capital punishment (Gen. 9:6), and in a just war against aggression (Gen. 14) were all greater goods (ibid, p. 418).

[edit] Works cited

  • [1] Ethics: Knowing Right from Wrong; by Stan Reeves.
  • [2] Any Absolutes? Absolutely!; by Norman Geisler.
  • [3] “Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective” by Norman L. Geisler and Paul D. Feinberg; Baker Academic; 2nd edition (May 1, 1987); ISBN 0801038189.

[edit] Further reading

“Christian Ethics: Options and Issues” by Norman L. Geisler; Baker Academic; 2nd edition (1989); ISBN 9780801038324.

[edit] See also

Posted in Apologetics | Leave a comment

The Bibliographical Test for New Testament Historicity (guest post)

The below was taken from Gospel 101 curriculum developed by Redeemer Church, Modesto.  Click on the image to get it on its own page.






The bibliographical test seeks to determine the quantity and quality of documents, as well as how far removed they are from the time of the originals. The quantity of New Testament manuscripts is unparalleled in ancient literature. There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, about 8,000 Latin manuscripts, and another 1,000 manuscripts in other languages (Syriac, Coptic, etc.).

The age of the manuscripts is also excellent. Possibly the oldest manuscript is a scrap of papyrus (p52)   containing John 18:31-33, 37-38, dating from AD 125-130, no more than 40 years after John’s gospel was likely written. A non-Christian scholar, Carsten Peter Thiede even claims that he has dated a fragment of Matthew to about 60 AD. By comparing the ancient manuscripts we find that the vast majority of variations are minor elements of spelling, grammar, and style, or accidental omissions or duplications of words or phrases. Only about 400 (less than one page of an English translation) have any significant bearing on the meaning of a passage, and most are footnoted in Modern English translations. Overall, 97-99% of the New Testament can be reconstructed beyond any reasonable doubt, and no Christian doctrine is founded solely or even primarily on textually disputed passages.
The Scripture quoted in the works of the early Christian writers (most 95-150 AD) are so extensive that   virtually the entire New Testament can be reconstructed except for 11 verses, mostly from 2 and 3 John.

Critics of the accuracy of the Bible routinely claimed that it was in fact a series of fables and legends that had developed over hundreds of years because there were not enough copies of ancient manuscripts to alleviate their skepticism. Curiously, a simple shepherd boy dealt a death blow to their criticisms in 1947.   He wandered into a cave in the Middle East and discovered large pottery jars filled with leather scrolls that had been wrapped in linen cloth. Amazingly, the ancient copies of the books of the Bible were in good   condition despite their age and harsh climate because they had been well sealed for nearly 1900 years. What is now known as The Dead Sea Scrolls are made up of some 40,000 inscribed ancient fragments.  From these fragments more than 500 books have been reconstructed, including some Old Testament books such as a complete copy of Isaiah.

Simply, if someone seeks to eliminate the trustworthiness of the New Testament then to be consistent they would also have to dismiss virtually the entire canon of western literature and pull everything from Homer to Plato and Aristotle off of bookstore shelves and out of classroom discussions.

[ The above was taken from Gospel 101 curriculum developed by Redeemer Church, Modesto. ]

Posted in Apologetics, Apologetics Toolbox | Leave a comment

Good without God?

Under every billboard of the sort above, should be the following one (click to get it on its own page)…

Posted in Divine Essentialism, Euthyphro Dilemma, Evil as Privation of Good, Golden Rule, Is-Ought Fallacy, Natural Law and Divine Command | 2 Comments