Saturday, October 28, 2006
Boston Legal vs. Religious Freedom Part 2
I'm still contending with assertions against religion and religious freedom made during the "Whose God is it Anyway" episode of Boston Legal. Specifically, Sally Heep's assertion, "We never hold religion up to standards of reasonableness. If we did, what religion could pass?" Yesterday, I presented arguments for the reasonableness of theism. Today I want to bring arguments for the reasonableness of Christianity.
Let's look at Jesus of Nazareth.
According to the Jesus Seminar's founder, Robert Funk, he was a "secular sage who satirized the pious and championed the poor." He then adds, "Jesus was perhaps the first stand-up Jewish comic. Starting a new religion would have been the farthest thing from his mind." Hmm... Really?
The Jesus Seminar rules out over 80% of the Gospels because they presuppose that miracles cannot be historically accurate. And that is where they begin. Not where they conclude.
The Jesus Seminar is considered to be on the extreme fringe of liberal scholarship. Interestingly, in the past twenty years, liberal scholarship in general has become more conservative due to archaeological discoveries. For example, archaeology shows that funerals were not performed the same in Jerusalem and Galilee. If the Gospels were fabricated after AD 70, the writer would not have had access to this information due to the Roman's destruction of Galilee.
The Apostle Paul died during Nero's persecution, which took place in AD 64. He was still a participant at the end of Acts, so the Acts of the Apostles must have been written before AD 64. Acts is the sequel to the Gospel According to Luke, which must have been written even earlier. The Jesus Seminar openly admits that Mark was written before Luke, which pushes Mark into the 50's. Paul also wrote Romans in the 50's, in which he says Jesus "was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead" (Romans 1:4). That's only twenty years from the crucifixion. There were too many eyewitnesses still available to contradict Paul's records for this to be a fabrication.
Look at Matthew 24: 1, 2:
Stephen was stoned to death. James the son of Zebedee was beheaded. Philip was crucified. A halberd killed Matthew. James was crucified, stoned, and clubbed to death. Matthias was stoned and beheaded. Andrew was crucified. Mark was beaten to death. Peter was crucified upside down. Paul was beheaded in Rome. Jude was crucified. Bartholomew was crucified. A spear killed Thomas. Luke was hanged. Simon was crucified. And, John was boiled in oil, survived, and finally died of old age. These men did not suffer such extreme deaths to defend a fabrication. They knew the claims of Jesus to be true.
And the greatest claim of Jesus of Nazareth, which separates him from all other religions is this one: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)
Belief in the Gospels as historically accurate is absolutely reasonable.
So, it is not unreasonable to "believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord: Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary: Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead, and buried: He descended into hell: The third day he rose again from the dead: He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty: From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead: I believe in the Holy Ghost: I believe a holy catholic church: the communion of saints: The forgiveness of sins: The resurrection of the body: And the life everlasting."
Let's look at Jesus of Nazareth.
According to the Jesus Seminar's founder, Robert Funk, he was a "secular sage who satirized the pious and championed the poor." He then adds, "Jesus was perhaps the first stand-up Jewish comic. Starting a new religion would have been the farthest thing from his mind." Hmm... Really?
The Jesus Seminar rules out over 80% of the Gospels because they presuppose that miracles cannot be historically accurate. And that is where they begin. Not where they conclude.
The Jesus Seminar is considered to be on the extreme fringe of liberal scholarship. Interestingly, in the past twenty years, liberal scholarship in general has become more conservative due to archaeological discoveries. For example, archaeology shows that funerals were not performed the same in Jerusalem and Galilee. If the Gospels were fabricated after AD 70, the writer would not have had access to this information due to the Roman's destruction of Galilee.
The Apostle Paul died during Nero's persecution, which took place in AD 64. He was still a participant at the end of Acts, so the Acts of the Apostles must have been written before AD 64. Acts is the sequel to the Gospel According to Luke, which must have been written even earlier. The Jesus Seminar openly admits that Mark was written before Luke, which pushes Mark into the 50's. Paul also wrote Romans in the 50's, in which he says Jesus "was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead" (Romans 1:4). That's only twenty years from the crucifixion. There were too many eyewitnesses still available to contradict Paul's records for this to be a fabrication.
Look at Matthew 24: 1, 2:
Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”The Gospels record that Jesus prophesied the destruction of the temple. And we have shown that the Gospel of Mark and Luke must have been written before AD 64. The temple was destroyed in AD 70. Miracles are historical.
Stephen was stoned to death. James the son of Zebedee was beheaded. Philip was crucified. A halberd killed Matthew. James was crucified, stoned, and clubbed to death. Matthias was stoned and beheaded. Andrew was crucified. Mark was beaten to death. Peter was crucified upside down. Paul was beheaded in Rome. Jude was crucified. Bartholomew was crucified. A spear killed Thomas. Luke was hanged. Simon was crucified. And, John was boiled in oil, survived, and finally died of old age. These men did not suffer such extreme deaths to defend a fabrication. They knew the claims of Jesus to be true.
And the greatest claim of Jesus of Nazareth, which separates him from all other religions is this one: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)
Belief in the Gospels as historically accurate is absolutely reasonable.
So, it is not unreasonable to "believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord: Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary: Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead, and buried: He descended into hell: The third day he rose again from the dead: He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty: From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead: I believe in the Holy Ghost: I believe a holy catholic church: the communion of saints: The forgiveness of sins: The resurrection of the body: And the life everlasting."




1 Comments:
Amen brother, amen.
In His grace,
Dave.
Post a Comment
<< Home