tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-65423923115048458422024-03-05T17:15:30.734-08:00THINKAPOLOGETICS.COMThis site contains a variety of topics such as apologetic issues, philosophical studies, as well as information about the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. This site is committed to help the follower of Jesus the Messiah integrate their faith into all areas of their lives. It is our hope and prayer that you will be encouraged and informed through the ministry of this blog.Eric Chabothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02980384024507365108noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6542392311504845842.post-43030294914455145452009-09-25T06:43:00.000-07:002009-09-25T06:44:29.495-07:00Who Do You Say I Am? A Look at Jesus/Part OneNow when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 16:13-17).<br /><br />As of today, people are still trying to answer the same question that Jesus asked Peter 2,000 years ago. In his book The Case For The Real Jesus, Lee Strobel says if you search for Jesus at Amazon.com, you will find 175, 986 books on the most controversial figure in human history.<br />The term “Messiah,” meaning “anointed one,” is taken from the Hebrew word “masiah” which appears thirty-nine times in the Tanakh. In the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the term Messiah is translated as “christos” which was the official title for Jesus within the New Testament. In the first century, the messianic expectation was by no means monolithic. And as of today, within Judaism, there is a wide range of thought about the Messiah. For some Jewish people a personal Messiah is irrelevant. For others, it is said that in every generation there is a potential Messiah or a time when there will be a messianic age.<br />One of the traditional objections is that Jesus is not the Messiah since he did not fulfill the job description. One of the Jewish expectations is that the Messiah will enable the Jewish people to dwell securely in the land of Israel (Is.11:11-12; 43:5-6; Jer. 23: 5-8; Mic. 5:4-6), and unite humanity as one (Zech. 14:9). The Messiah is also supposed usher in a period of worldwide peace, and put an end to all oppression, suffering and disease (Is. 2:1-22; Mic. 4:1-4).<br /><br />Hence, since the world is not in a state of peace and the Jewish people are not dwelling securely in the land of Israel, the Jewish community objects to the claim that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah.<br />While the term “Messiah” is used of those who were of Davidic kings (Psalm 18:50;89:20; 132:10-17), it is also used of Cyrus in Isa. 45:1. Both Gen. 49:10-11 and Num. 24:17 have been interpreted in a messianic way. While God promised that Israel would have an earthly king (Gen. 17: 6; 49:6; Deut.17: 14-15), he also promised King David that one of his descendants would rule on his throne forever (2 Sam. 7: 12-17; 1Chr. 17: 11-14; Ps. 89:28-37). After the death of King David, Israel began looking for a king like him because of the unconditional promise that a king would rule on David’s throne forever. The Messiah was called to defeat the oppressive enemies of Israel and enable the Jewish people to help “set up an earthly kingdom that will never be destroyed.” (Dan. 2:44). The prophets spoke of a Davidic Messiah who would be unlike any past Davidic king (Is. 9:6-7; 11:1-5; Jer 23:5-6; Mic. 5:2-5).<br /><br />Both Hosea and Ezekiel spoke of the Davidic aspect of the Messiah. While Hosea spoke of a time when the northern tribes of Israel would seek out David, Israel’s king (Hos. 3:5), Ezekiel spoke of a new David who would be a shepherd as well as a prince and a king to Israel (Ezek: 34:23-24; 37:24-25). In Psalm 2:2-7, there is a relationship between the term “Son of God” and the King of Israel. “The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against his Anointed [that’s the word for Messiah]. . . . Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying, “As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill.” I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.”<br />Therefore, when the Jewish people heard the term “Son of God,” they mostly associated it with a king. This has been confirmed by Dead Sea Scroll specialists Craig A. Evans and Peter W. Flint. The writings that were found at Qumran show that divine sonship was clearly a part of the Royal- Christian rhetoric of pre-Christian Judaism. The “Son of God” term is seen in the fragment known as (4Q246), Plate 4, columns one and two.<br /><br />Furthermore, within the Psalms, God and His anointed king are described in ways that are equal in status and they are both qualified to be worthy of the same worship and reverence. Psalm 83:18 says, “God is the Most High over all the earth,” and in Psalm 89:27, it says the Davidic King is “the most high of the kings of the earth.” In Psalm 2:11 and Psalm 100:2, the rulers and the people are supposed to worship and serve the Lord, while in Psalm 18:44 and Psalm 72:11 it says it is the Davidic king whom they must worship and serve. This theme makes perfect sense in light of the New Testament passage John 5:22-23, “Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him. (1)<br /><br />Even in the Qumran writings, there is a messianic expectation seen in 4Q285, which is called the Rule of War. In this scroll, the Messiah, the Branch of David is supposed to slay the Roman emperor. Geza Vermes, a Jewish scholar, says that one of the best resources that speak to the messianic expectation of the time of Jesus is found in The Psalms of Solomon. The Psalms of Solomon is a book of Jewish prayers that was written after the Roman conquest of Judea in 63 B.C. In it, there are two passages about a righteous, ruling Messiah:<br /><br />“Taught by God, the Messiah will be a righteous king over the gentile nations. There will be no unrighteousness among them in his days, for all shall be holy and their king shall be the Lord Messiah.He will not rely on horse and rider and bow, nor will he collect gold and silver for war. Nor will he build up hope in a multitude for a day of war. The Lord himself is his king, the hope of the one who has a strong hope in God.He shall be compassionate to all the nations, who reverently stand before him. He will strike the earth with the word of his mouth forever; he will bless the Lord’s people with wisdom and happiness. And he himself will be free from sin, in order to rule a great people. He will expose officials and drive out sinners by the strength of his word.” (Psalms of Solomon 17.32-36)<br /><br />“Lord, you chose David to be king over Israel, and swore to him about his descendants forever, that his kingdom should not fail before you. Undergird him with the strength to destroy the unrighteous rulers, to purge Jerusalem from the gentiles…..to destroy the unlawful nations with the word of his mouth…He will gather a holy people who he will lead in righteousness; and he will judge the tribes of his people…He will not tolerate unrighteousness (even) to pause among them, and any person who knows wickedness shall not live with them… And he will purge Jerusalem (and make it) holy as it was from the beginning.” (Psalms of Solomon 18: 4,22,26,27, 30). (2)<br /><br />The New Testament states that Jesus the Messiah, the “seed of David,” was sent by God to restore God’s kingship over mankind (Matt. 1:1; Acts 13:23; Rom. 1:3,4; Rev. 22:16).<br /><br />1. Michael Brown, Theological Objections, vol 2 of Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000, 40.<br />2. Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew. A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels. New York. Macmillan Publishing Co. 1980, 251.Eric Chabothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02980384024507365108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6542392311504845842.post-2098600148905849632009-08-10T20:33:00.000-07:002009-08-10T20:35:49.943-07:00Is Jesus the Only Way?Is Jesus The Only Way? A Look At Religious Pluralism<br /><br />One of the most controversial issues in religious dialogue is whether there is one way of salvation. In other words, the Christian claim that Jesus is the only possible Savior for the human race (Matt 11:27; John 1:18; 3:36; 14:6; Acts 4:12; 1 John 1: 5:11-12) is considered to be overly exclusive and arrogant. The Bible speaks of God’s judgment on pagan religions. They are said to have no redemptive value to them (Exod. 20: 3-6; 2 Chron: 13: 8-9; Isa. 37: 18-19; Acts 26: 17-18; Col. 1:13). While Christianity is a Jewish story and salvation is from the Jews (John 4: 22), Paul makes it known that there is no distinction between Jewish and non-Jewish people. Both are under sin and must turn to God through repentance and faith through Jesus the Messiah (Rom 3:9; Acts 20:21).<br />What about those people in the Tanakh (the Old Testament ) that never exercised explicit belief in Jesus as the Messiah? What about people like Melchizedek, Jethro, Job and Rahab?<br /><br />In response, it is true that people in the Tanakh did not have explicit knowledge of the death and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah as a payment for their sins. However, this objection fails to take into account the issue of progressive revelation. The principle of progressive revelation means that God does not reveal everything at once. In progressive revelation, there are many cases where the New Testament declares explicitly what was only implicit in the Tanakh. One of these truths is the Jesus is the long awaited Messiah who takes away not only the sins of Israel, but the entire world (John 1: 29; 3: 16).<br /><br />For those who have already rejected Jesus as the Messiah, John states that they already under condemnation (John 3: 16, 18). In the Bible, people do experience salvation by the explicit preaching of the gospel (Luke 24:46-47; John 3:15-16;20-21; Acts 4:12; 11:14; 16:31; 1 Cor. 15:1-4; Heb. 4:2; 1 Pet.1:3-25; 1 John 2:23; 5:12). Paul makes it clear in that people must have both knowledge and belief in Jesus as the Messiah: “For WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED." How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? (Rom. 10: 13-14).<br /><br />Furthermore, the New Testament does not reveal Jesus as any ordinary prophet or religious teacher. Rather, it reveals Him as God incarnate (John 1:1; 8:58-59;10:29-31;14:8-9;20-28; Phil. 2:5-7; Col. 2:9; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1). As of today, a large majority of the religious landscape is dominated by religious pluralism. Pluralism is the belief that every religion is true. In other words, each faith provides a genuine religious experience with the Ultimate, and while others may be better than others, all are adequate. How can the disciple of Jesus make an exclusive truth claim that Jesus is the only way of salvation for mankind?<br /><br />For starters, there needs to be the willingness to implement critical thinking. Secondly, there needs to be a call to intellectual honesty. One of the weaknesses of religious pluralism is the tendency to forget that the denial of truth of any particular faith or truth claim is itself a form of exclusivism. While the pluralist says others are intolerant if they do not accept all views as true, they tend to be intolerant of anyone who is not a pluralist.<br /><br /> While there are some similarities in faiths such as truth, a God, a right and wrong, spiritual purpose in life, and communion with God, they all also have some glaring differences such as the nature of God, the afterlife, the nature of man, sin, salvation, and creation. Jesus made some very strong statements that challenge the issue of religious pluralism. It must be noted that after reading some of these statements by Jesus, the common response is that the reader cannot take these passages literally. The entire issue of what qualifies as literal and non-literal in the Bible falls into the category of biblical hermeneutics which is the art and science of biblical interpretation.This issue will not be addressed in this article. Needless to say, I suppose if Jesus really did say the following things and a person did take them literally, it would challenge them to face their autonomy before God. Here are some of Jesus’ statements. <br /><br />1. If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me. "For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it" (Luke 9:23-24).<br />2. Regarding the eternal destiny of people, Jesus said to his fellow countrymen, “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins" (John 8:24).<br />3. For the status of those who are presently rejecting Him, Jesus said “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:18).<br />4. Perhaps one of the most challenging statements Jesus gives is in Matthew 10:33-37, “But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven. Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. "For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.”<br /><br />While we do need to study these passages in their proper context, we can ask, if religious pluralists did believe Jesus is the Son of God, and His claims are true, would there still be a case for religious pluralism? One of the most important themes of the Bible is that since God is infinite and transcendent while man is finite, God takes the initiative in revealing himself to mankind. Since Christianity as well as several other faiths claim to be founded on divine revelation, it is impossible to not utlize reason and evidence to examine the revelation claim in it's religious and historical context. One aspect of reason utilizes the laws of logic (the law of non-contradiction- A is not non-A; the law of identity- A is A; the law of excluded middle- either- A or non-A. Without the law of non-contradiction, we could not say God is not non-God (G is not non-G). After looking at the following religious claims, it is evident that it is impossible to not use the law of non-contradiction which states that two opposite views cannot be true at the same time. Regarding the deity of Jesus, here are the claims about Him from various faiths:<br /><br />Orthodox Christianity/ Messianic Judaism: Jesus is both God and man/Jesus is an uncreated being. Jesus is the Jewish Messiah as foretold in the Tanakh (the acronym that is formed from the first three parts of the Hebrew Bible: Torah (the first five books of the Bible), Nevi’ im (the Prophets), and K’ tuvim (the Writings) as well as the second person of the Godhead, equal to the Father and the Holy Spirit (John 1:1; Col. 1:15-19; Phil. 2: 5-11).<br /><br />Islam/Traditional Judaism: Jesus in not God and man. Traditional Judaism says Jesus is not the Jewish Messiah as foretold in the Tanakh. Jesus may be simply regarded as a prophet or teacher but not divine. In the case of Islam, Islam's founder is Muhammad who was forty years old when he began having visions accompanied by violent convulsions during which he received his revelation from Allah. His writings are called the Koran, which he claims were dictated to him directly by the Angel Gabriel. Islam states Jesus was never crucified, and therefore, never risen. The Qur'an was written some six hundred years after the life of Jesus which makes it a much later source of information than the New Testament.<br /><br />Mormonism claims to be founded on divine revelation. Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon Church, claimed to have received personal revelation from God on the basis of two visions, (the first allegedly given to him in 1820, the second one in 1823). The Bible asserts that Jesus is that He is uncreated (John 1:1-3; Col. 1:16-17) while the Mormon claim is that Jesus is a created being.<br /><br />The Watchtower Society/Jehovah Witnesses: In the Bible, Jesus is the second person of the Godhead, equal to the Father and the Holy Spirit (John 1:1; Col. 1:15-19; Phil. 2: 5-11). This is rejected by Jehovah Witnesses.<br /><br />Buddhism/Hinduism: are not theistic faiths, they are pantheistic (all is God). Therefore, they are already different from Christianity. Buddhism teaches that Jesus was an enlightened man, but not God. Hinduism says that Jesus was a good teacher and perhaps an incarnation of Brahman who is an impersonal, supreme being.<br /><br />After examining the differences in each of these faiths, John P. Newport sums up the issue rather nicely:<br />"No sane person tries to accept as authoritative revelation from God all writings which are self-declared to be such. However eager we may be for harmony and tolerance, we cannot be intellectually honest unless we face the fact that there is a real contradiction between conflicting truth claims. As we reflect on how we are created in the image of God, we need to remember that we are creatures of both will and mind, of faith and reason. We are called to think as well as act and feel; therefore our faith will always have a rational element to it." (1)<br />1. Newport, John C. Life's Most Important Questions: A Contemporary Philosophy of Religion. Dallas, Texas. Word Publishing. 1989, pgs 452-453.Eric Chabothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02980384024507365108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6542392311504845842.post-90074544172944940422009-07-21T19:54:00.000-07:002009-07-22T07:51:21.897-07:00What is Faith?Trying to explain the nature of biblical faith can be quite a challenge. Several factors have contributed to this issue. First, a large majority of our culture are biblically illiterate. Also, many people have bought into the term "leap of faith." In their book Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli give a summary of faith. It is very helpful.<br /><br />Kreeft and Tacelli say we must distinguish between the act of faith from the object of faith- believing from what is believed. The object of faith means all things believed. For the Christian, this means everything God has revealed in the Bible. This faith (the object, not the act) is expressed in propositions. Propositions are many, but the ultimate object of faith is one. The ultimate object of faith is not words, but God’s Words (singular), indeed-Himself. Without a relationship with the living God, propositions are pointless, for their point is to point beyond themselves to God. But without propositions, we cannot know or tell others what God we believe in and what we believe about God.<br /><br />The act of faith is more than merely an act of belief. We believe many things-for example that the Chicago White Sox will win this years World Series and that New Zealand is beautiful but we are not willing to die for those beliefs, nor can we live them every moment. But religious faith can be something to live every moment. It is much more than belief and much stronger, though belief is one of its parts or aspects. There are four aspects of faith:<br /><br />1. Emotional faith: is feeling assurance or trust or confidence in a person. This includes hope (which is much stronger than a wish and peace (which is much stronger then mere calm.).<br /><br />2. Intellectual faith: is belief. It is this aspect of faith that is formulated in propositions and summarized in creeds.<br /><br />3. Volitional faith: is an act of the will, a commitment to obey God’s will. This faith is faithfulness, or fidelity. It manifests itself in behavior, that is, in good works.<br /><br />4. Faith: begins in that obscure mysterious center of our being that Scripture calls the ‘heart.” Heart in Scripture does not mean feeling, or sentiment, or emotion, but the absolute center of the soul, as the physical heart is at the center of the body. “Keep your heart with all viligence” advised Solomon, “for from it flow the springs of life.” (Proverbs 4:23).<br /><br />Joseph Thayer says,<br />"To believe" means to think to be true; to be persuaded of; to credit, [to] place confidence in. [And in] a moral and religious reference, pisteuein [from pisteuo] is used in the N.T. of a conviction and trust to which a man is impelled by a certain inner and higher prerogative and law of his soul. (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 511).<br /><br />Biblical faith involves an objective element (the existence of God, Jesus' resurrection), and a subjective element (the individual must appropriate the objective truths through a subjective act). There have been three aspects of faith expressed throughout church history: notitia (knowledge), fiducia (trust), and assensus (assent). Notitia refers to the data or doctrinal element of faith. Assensus refers to the assent of the intellect of the truth of the Christian faith. According to the book of James, the demons can have intellectual assent to the fact that God exists but not have saving faith. That is why a person must exercise fiducia- this is the aspect of faith that involves the application or trust in the faith process. (1).<br /><br />In other words, fiducia allows a person to go beyond merely intellectual assent. Fiducia involves the will, emotion, and intellect. In the Tanakh (the acronym that is formed from the first three parts of the Hebrew Bible: Torah (the first five books of the Bible), Nevi’ im (the Prophets), and K’ tuvim (the Writings), the Hebrew word for heart is "leb," or "lebad." While the word "heart" is used as a metaphor to describe the physical organ, from a biblical standpoint, it is also the center or defining element of the entire person. It can be seen as the seat of the person's intellectual, emotional, affective, and volitional life. In the New Testament, the word “heart” (Gr.kardia) came to stand for man’s entire mental and moral activity, both the rational and the emotional elements. Therefore, biblical faith also involves a commitment of the whole person.<br /><br />Therefore, there is a relationship between belief that and belief in. As already stated, in James 2:19, it says that the demons believe that God exists. Apologetics may serve as a valuable medium through which God can operate, but faith is never the product of historical facts or evidence alone. It would make no sense for one to place his faith in God without believing that God exists. Objectively speaking, the Holy Spirit works in conjunction with the evidence for the truthfulness of the Christian faith to enable us to understand that God exists. However, from a subjective perspective, the Holy Spirit also enables an individual to place his trust in God. (John 16: 12-15).<br /><br />A good example of this is seen in Acts 17:1-4, “And according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ. And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women." In this passage, we see that the Holy Spirit worked through the objective evidence (the Tanakh), which caused some of Paul's audience to not only acknowledge that Jesus is Jewish Messiah, but also to place their trust in Him for their salvation.<br /><br />Faith and the resurrection: In 1 Cor 15: 1-17, Paul discusses the truth of Jesus' resurrection. It is important to note that a Christian's faith in the resurrection of Jesus will not change whether Jesus objectively rose from the dead in the context of time, space, and history. In other words, a Christian's faith cannot change the history of the past. The first followers of Jesus had a clear understanding about the relationship between faith and history.<br /><br />As New Testament scholar Ben Witherington III says:<br />" Any position in which claims about Jesus or the resurrection are removed from the realm of historical reality and placed in a subjective realm of personal belief or some realm that is immune to human scrutiny does Jesus and the resurrection no service and no justice. It is a ploy of desperation to suggest that the Christian faith would be little affected if Jesus was not actually raised from the dead in space and time. A person who gives up on the historical foundations of our faith has in fact given up on the possibility of any real continuity between his or her own faith and that of a Peter, Paul, James, John, Mary Magdalene, or Priscilla. The first Christian community had a strong interest in historical reality, especially the historical reality of Jesus and his resurrection, because they believed their faith, for better or for worse, was grounded in it." (2)<br /><br />1. Moreland, J.P Love Your God With All Your Mind. Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress. 1997, 60.<br />2. Ben Witherington III. New Testament History. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. 2001, 167.Eric Chabothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02980384024507365108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6542392311504845842.post-26073369628628133402009-05-29T15:52:00.000-07:002009-05-29T16:05:11.782-07:00The Problem of EvidenceThe Problem of Evidence<br /><br />Part of the debate about reason and rationality in relationship to faith centers around evidentialism, which maintains that one must have evidence and arguments for one's beliefs (in God) to be rational.The Enlightenment created a challenge for Christian philosophers to answer the evidentialist’s objection to religious belief. Philosopher William Clifford made the evidentialist objection famous by stating the following: "If a belief has been accepted on insufficient evidence, the pleasure is a stolen one. Not only does it deceive ourselves by giving us a sense of power which we do not really possess, but it is sinful, because it is stolen in defiance of our duty to mankind.That duty is to guard ourselves from such beliefs as from a pestilence which may shortly master our body and spread to the rest of the town. To sum up: It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." (Delaney, C.F. Rationality and Religious Belief. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1979), 10.<br /><br />Many people attempt to apply Clifford’s objection to religious belief. However, as much as the skeptic likes to rely on the Clifford objection, it is nothing but a self-defeating statement. In other words, Clifford's objection can't meet it's own standard of acceptability. When a statement is included in its own subject matter and fails to satisfy its own standards of acceptability, it is self-defeating. Some examples of self-defeating statements are seen in statements such as “I cannot write a word of English;” “there is no truth;” and “there are no truths that cannot be verified scientifically, with the five senses."<br /><br />Therefore, in the case of God, who isn't a physical object but a invisible divine being, it is imperative to clarify what qualifies as evidence. It is during these types of debates where the "hard rationalism" of many skeptics and atheists rears it's ugly head. The evidential issue is sometimes seen as the need to find some sort of infallible “proof” for God’s existence. When a “proof” is given, it is many times given in the form of a deductive argument which includes two premises and a conclusion. For example, the horizontal cosmological argument is as follows:<br /><br />1. Everything that comes to be is caused by another.<br />2. The universe came to be.<br />3. Therefore, the universe was caused by another.<br /><br />The form or logical structure of an argument must be valid. A good proof is a sound argument that causes another person to accept its conclusion. While theists may present what they consider to be sound arguments for God’s existence there are always those who walk away disappointed. In other words, while the theist may find an argument to be persuasive and sound, the skeptic always finds what they think is a problem with the argument But why?<br /><br />As Ronald Nash says, “What tends to be forgotten is the subjective nature of proof. First, proofs are person-relative. In other words, proofs are relative, which is simply to admit the obvious, namely, that the same argument may function as a proof for one person and result in little more than contempt for someone else. Second, proofs are relative to individual persons. A person’s response to an argument will always reflect varying features such as their past and present personal history. Proofs also may be relative to persons in particular circumstances. Therefore, proofs must pass tests that are not only logical but also psychological. No argument can become a proof for some person until it persuades a person.”<br /><br />But what if an individual does not have the time to examine the arguments for God's existence? Following Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides, Thomas Aquinas set forth five reasons why we must first believe what we may later be able to provide good evidence for (Maimonides, 1.34):<br /><br />1. The object of spiritual understanding is deep and subtle, far removed from sense perception.<br />2. Human understanding is weak as it fights through these issues.<br />3. A number of things are needed for conclusive spiritual proof. It takes time to discern them.<br />4. Some people are disinclined to rigorous philosophical investigation.<br />5. It is necessary to engage in other occupations besides philosophy and science to provide the necessities of life (On Truth, 14.10, reply).<br /><br />Aquinas said it is clear that, “if it were necessary to use a strict demonstration as the only way to reach a knowledge of the things which we must know about God, very few could ever construct such a demonstration and even these could do it only after a long time.” Elsewhere, Aquinas lists three basic reasons why divine revelation is needed.<br /><br />1. Few possess the knowledge of God, some do not have the disposition for philosophical study, and others do not have the time or are indolent.<br />2. Time is required to find the truth. This truth is very profound, and there are many things that must be presupposed. During youth the soul is distracted by “the various movements of the passions.”<br />3. It is difficult to sort out what is false in the intellect. Our judgment is weak in sorting true from false concepts. Even in demonstrated propositions there is a mingling of false. (1)<br /><br />1. Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Baker Books, 1999, 242.Eric Chabothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02980384024507365108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6542392311504845842.post-47571689008667608382009-05-21T19:36:00.000-07:002009-05-21T19:39:51.053-07:00Do You Have A Worldview?Worldview Apologetics<br /><br />Do you have worldview? The term worldview is used in the sense described by prominent German philosopher Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911). Dilthey affirmed that philosophy must be defined as a comprehensiveness vision of reality that involves the social and historical reality of humankind, including religion. A worldview is thus the nature and structure of the body of convictions of a group or individual. (1) Worldview includes a sense of meaning and value and principles of action. It is much more than merely an "outlook" or an "attitude." Each person's worldview is based on a key category, an organizing principle, a guiding image, a clue, or an insight selected from the complexity of his or her multidimensional experience. (2) Believe it or not, a worldview will impact our view of our vocation, our family, government, education, the environment, etc. A worldview also impacts ethical issues in our culture such as homosexuality, abortion, stem cell research etc. Remember, the issues of competing worldviews shape the past, present, and future of a nation.<br /><br />Some of the fundamental questions that make up a worldview are the following:<br /><br />Creation: How did it all begin? Where did we come from?<br />Fall: What went wrong? What is the source of evil and suffering?<br />Redemption: What can we do about it? How can the world be set right again?<br />Morality: What is the basis for morality? In other words, how do we know what is right and wrong?<br />History: What is the meaning of history? Where is history going?<br />Death: What happens to a person at death?<br />Epistemology: Why is it possible to know anything at all?<br />Ontology: What is reality? What is the nature of the external reality around us?<br />Purpose: What is man's purpose in the world? (3)<br /><br />Perhaps we may ask, how does one decide on a worldview? Here are a few guidelines:<br />First of all, a worldview must be consistent: Reason has to be utilized which includes systematic criteria. In using systematic criteria, an individual appraises the truth of a system or worldview.These criteria do not produce systems of thought; instead they judge them.<br />David Wolfe has identified four ways in which one may judge a system of thought: consistency (meaning ideas do not contradict each other) and coherence (the ideas have a positive fit). These are the rational criteria. Comprehensiveness (a system of thought that incorporates the broad range of experience) and congruence (the idea fits human experience) are part of the empirical criteria.(4)<br /><br />Reason also utilizes the laws of logic (the law of non-contradiction- A is not non-A; the law of identity- A is A; the law of excluded middle- either- A or non-A). The laws of logic have to be used in evaluating a worldview. If contradiction is a sign of falsity, then noncontradiction (or consistency) is a necessity for truth. A real contradiction occurs when two truth claims are given and one is the logical opposite of the other (they are logically contradictory, not merely contrary).(5)<br /><br />In relation to the creation account, two worldviews that make opposite truth claims are metaphysical naturalism and biblical theism. The naturalistic worldview came to be more prominent during the Enlightenment period. Philosophical or metaphysical naturalism refers to the view that nature is the “whole show.” For theists, miracles (which are paramount to the Christian faith) are supernatual but not anti-natural. Biblical theism does acknowledge that while God is the primary Cause of all things, He also works through secondary causes. In other words, God acts in the world through direct intervention (a miracle such as creation) and natural casues or indirect actions (preservation).<br /><br />In a Christian worldview, the universe was created from nothing (ex nihilo).One of the classical or traditional arguments for God's existence is the cosmological argument. While Christian apologist William Lane Craig has revived the horizontal form of the cosmological argument, Thomas Aquinas left the church with an apologetic for the vertical form of the of the same argument. While the former centers on how the universe began in some time in the past, the latter focuses on how the universe exists at this very moment. In other words, the horizontal form is interested in originating causality or the First Cause of the universe while the vertical form defends the need for conserving causality or a Sustainer of the universe.<br /><br />Secondly, a worldview must be comprehensive: A worldview should cover the whole world of reality. A worldview must provide adequate answers to the worldview questions mentioned above.<br /><br />Third, a worldview must be livable: After all, a worldview is not just a philosophical system but something that can be attempted to live out each day. Thus, if some views are not livable, then they are not adequate. However, remember that what works is not always true. Lies work very well for many people, but that does not make a lie true.(7) Truth is determined by what corresponds to reality, not simply results. Therefore, while a pragmatic test is helpful, it cannot be the only test for the truthfulness of a worldview.<br /><br />Fourth, a good worldview will have explanatory power: When examining how a worldview needs explanatory power, it is important to emphasize that a good worldview needs to avoid both extremes of being neither too simple or too complex. In his book called A Case For Christian Theism, Arlie J. Hoover uses the famous “Occam’s razor test.” William of Occam (1300-1349) supposedly said, “Do not multiply entities without necessity” which basically means to resist the temptation to make our explanations too complex. On the other hand, the worldview should not be so simplistic that it commits the reductive fallacy. In other words, it cannot be too simple. (8)<br /><br />Fifth, a worldview will involve a commitment of the whole person: Since humans are subjective at their very core, a good worldview will emphasize a balance between both the objective and the subjective. As Paul states in Romans 1:18-21, the created order is one of the objective mediums that God chooses to reveal Himself to the human race. While it is an objective medium, it is still appropriated subjectively. As worldview analyst David K. Naugle says, “The heart of the matter is that worldview is a matter of the heart.<br /><br />Thus, when “worldview” is reinterpreted in light of the doctrine of the heart, not only is its true source located, but it becomes a richer concept than its philosophical counterpart, being more than just a reference to an abstract thesis about reality, but an Hebraic expression of the existential condition of the whole person.”(9) The Hebrew word for heart is "leb," or "lebad." While the word "heart" is used as a metaphor to describe the physical organ, from a Biblical standpoint, it is also the center or defining element of the entire person. It can be seen as the center of the person's intellectual, emotional, affective, religious and volitional life. In other words, the “heart” plays an integral role in how a man or woman sees the world. The heart establishes the presuppositions of life and, because of its life-determining influence, must always be guarded. (10)<br /><br />Hence, a worldview will avoid the the rationalism associated with Enlightenment period which was what Francis Schaeffer termed "autonomous reason." This type of reason is the attempt to build a worldview without recourse to God.<br /><br />Therefore, in relation to epistemology, we need to remember the following comments by author David Naugle. In his book Worldview: History of Concept, Naugle says the following: “Ways of knowing the world complementing the capacities of sight and mind should be also be embraced by believers in order to do justice to their complete God-given natures and allow them to comprehend the totality of reality in its rich multiplicity and fullness. Naugle goes onto quote what spiritual writer Palker Palmer calls “wholesight,” which fuses sensation and rationality into union with other, yet often neglected ways of knowing such as imagination, intuition, empathy, emotion, and most certainly faith.<br /><br />In God’s epistemic grace, he has provided a variety of cognitive capacities which are adequate for and to be employed in grasping the diverse modes of created reality, and ancient concept known as adaequatio. All capacities ought to be well employed when it comes to apprehending the truth about God, humankind, and the cosmos, else one suffers from metaphysical indulgence. As E. P Schumacher explains: "The answer to the question, what are man’s instruments by which he knows the world outside him? is….quite inescapably this: “Everything he has got”- his living body, his mind, his self aware Spirit…It may even be misleading to say that man has many instruments of cognition, since in fact, the whole man is one instrument…..The Great Truth of adaequatio teaches us that restriction in the use of instruments of cognition has the inevitable effect of narrowing and impoverishing reality.”<br /><br />Naugle goes on to say,<br /><br />"Thus, the heart of any Christians worldview worthy of the name ought to be the lodestar of wholeness which offsets any form of epistemic myopia and reconnects human subjects and created objects into sympathetic relation which appropriately honors the diversity, unity, and sacred character of all aspects of reality."<br /><br />It is the understanding of a wholistic commitment to faith that leads me to say there needs to be an entire paradigm shift in the way we view and explain the “knowing” process.The continual problem with atheists and skeptics who consciously or subconsciously accept what Schaeffer termed "autonomous reason," simply affirms the fact that they have fallen prey to an epistemic dualism. This comes from a deficient worldview or for that matter the lack of a proper “lifeview.”<br />Sources:<br /><br />Newport. J.P. Life’s Ultimate Questions: A Contemporary Philosophy of Religion. Dallas: Word Publishing. 1989, 4.<br />Ibid.<br />Pearcey, N. Total Truth. Liberating Christianity From Its Cultural Captivity. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books. 2004, 25-28.<br />Clark, D.J. Dialogical Apologetics: A Person Centered Approach to Christian Defense. Grand Rapids MI: Baker Books. 1993, 85-86<br />Geisler, N.L. Systematic Theology Vol 1. Bloomington, MINN: Bethany House Publishers 2003, 82-96.<br />Ibid, 40-63.<br />Ibid, 110-124.<br />Hoover, A.J. The Case for Christian Theism. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. 1976, 52.<br />Naugle, D.K. Worldview: The History Of A Concept. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans. 2002, 266-274.<br />Naugle, 266-274.Eric Chabothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02980384024507365108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6542392311504845842.post-22451313164581288702009-05-14T14:00:00.000-07:002009-05-15T07:05:13.514-07:00Jesus and JudaismJesus and Judaism/His Relationship to Israel<br /><br />As of today, biblical scholars have embarked on what is called “The Third Quest” for the historical Jesus, a quest that has been characterized as “the Jewish reclamation of Jesus.”<br />Rather then saying Jesus broke away from Judaism and started Christianity, Jewish scholars studying the New Testament have sought to re-incorporate Jesus within the fold of Judaism.(1) In this study, scholars have placed a great deal of emphasis on the social world of first- century Palestine. The scholars of the Third Quest have rejected the idea that the Jesus of the New Testament was influenced by Hellenic Savior Cults.(2)<br /><br />Some of the non-Jewish scholars that are currently active in the Third Quest are Craig A. Evans, I. Howard Marshall, James H. Charlesworth, N.T. Wright, and James D.G. Dunn.<br /><br />In his book Jesus and the Victory of God,Christian Origins and the Question of God, Volume 2, author N.T.Wright says that the historical Jesus is very much the Jesus of the gospels: a first century Palestinian Jew who announced and inaugurated the kingdom of God, performed “mighty works” and believed himself to be Israel’s Messiah who would save his people through his death and resurrection. “He believed himself called,” in other words says Wright, “to do and be what, in the Scriptures, only Israel’s God did and was.” (3)<br /><br />As Philip Yancey says, “Is it possible to read the Gospels without blinders on? Jews read with suspicion, preparing to be scandalized. Christians read through the refracted lenses of church history. Both groups, I believe would do well to pause and reflect on Matthew’s first words, “a record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham.” The son of David speaks of Jesus’ messianic line, which Jews should not ignore; a title without significance for him.” Notes C.H. Dodd,"The son of Abraham speaks of Jesus’ Jewish line, which Christians dare not ignore either." As Jaroslav Pelikan says:<br /><br />"Would there have been such anti-Semitism, would there have been so many pogroms, would there have been as Auschwitz, if every Christian church and every Christian home had focused its devotion and icons of Mary not only as Mother of God and Queen of Heaven but as the Jewish maiden and the new Miriam, and on icons of Christ not only as Pantocrator but as Rabbi Jeshua bar-Joseph, Rabbi Jesus of Nazareth?" (Philip Yancey. The Jesus I Never Knew. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House. 1995, 55.).<br /><br />New Testament scholar Scot McKnight has also made some significant comments in relation to Jesus and His relationship to Israel. He says the following:<br /><br />Scholarship is now recognizing that Jesus' mission was directed toward the nation of Israel. This means that his understanding of God himself must be oriented toward an understanding of God that emerges from the covenants with Abraham, Moses, and David, which guided the history of the nation to the time of Jesus. The God of Jesus, accordingly, is the God of Israel, who is now restoring the nation and renewing its people as he had promised long ago. (A New Vision For Israel: The Teachings of Jesus in National Context. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1999, 19).<br /><br />The Jewish Aspects of Jesus’ Life:<br /><br />Jesus and the Name of God:<br /><br />As Scot McKnight says, " At no place have Christians been more insensitive to Judaism that when it comes to what Jesus believes and teaches about God. In particular, the concept that Jesus was the first to teach about God as Abba and that this innovation revealed that Jesus thought of God in terms of love while Jews thought of God in terms of holiness, wrath, and distance are intolerably inaccurate in the realm of historical study and, to be quite frank, simple pieces of bad polemics. The God of Jesus was the God of Israel, and there is nothing in Jesus' vision of God that is not formed in the Bible he inherited from his ancestors and learned from his father and mother.<br /><br />Countless Christians repeat the Lord's Prayer. When Jesus urged His followers to "hallow" or "sanctify" the Name of God (Matt 6:9), many are unaware of what that may have meant in Jesus' day- in part, because Christianity has lost sight of God's awesome splendorous holiness. A good reading of Amos 2:6-8 discusses this issue. "Reverencing the Name of God" is not just how Israel speaks of God-that it does not take the Name of God in vain when it utters oaths or when someone stubs a toe or hits a finger with an instrument -but that God's Name is profaned when Israel lives outside the covenant and by defiling the name of god in it's behavior (Jer 34:15-46; Ezek. 20:39; Mal 1:6-14).<br /><br />God's Name is attached to the covenant people, and when the covenant people lives in sin, God's Name is dragged into that sin along with His people. So, when Jesus urges his followers to “reverence," or "sanctify" the Name of God, he is thinking of how his disciples are to live in he context of the covenant: they are to live obediently as Israelites (Who Was Jesus? A Jewish-Christian Dialogue. Lousiville: KY.Westminster John Knox Press. 2001, 84-85).<br /><br />Righteousness: When most Christians think of this term, they are faced with two problems: first, that the apostle Paul used this term so much in the sense of "imputed" righteousness and did so in an innovative, however, effective, manner; and second, that is what the cognate in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek is not so in English. Fundamentally, the term "righteousness" along with its cognates, describes an Israelites relationship to God and his Torah, and that relationship is conceived in its behavioral categories: the righteous Israelite is one who does Torah as a covenant member (Deut 6:25; Job 22:6-93; Ps 1:4-6; Ezek.45:9) Jesus teaches about such righteousness as did his Jewish ancestors, as well as John (Luke 3:7-14; Matt 21:28-32), to describe those Jewish followers of his who wholeheartedly conformed their obedience to Torah, as taught by him (Matt 5:17-48), in the context of renewal of the covenant taking place though his offer of the kingdom (Copan and Evans, pg 87-88).<br /><br />Some other aspects of Jesus' Jewish life:<br /><br />Jesus participated in Mikvah: (Matt 3:13-16)<br /><br />Circumcision (Luke 2:21): Jesus’ parents are obedient to Mosaic Law by having him circumcised on 8th day<br /><br />Mary’s Purification (Luke 2:22-24): Mary follows purification law (Leviticus 12)<br /><br />Jesus’ family went to Jerusalem every year at Passover: (Luke 2:41)<br /><br />Jesus’ model prayer bears resemblance to typical Jewish prayers:(Matthew 6:8-13)<br /><br />Jesus wore “tzit-tzit” or fringes: (Matthew 9:20)<br /><br />Jesus revered the Temple and ceremonial worship:(John 2:16)<br /><br />Much of Jesus’ teaching is done in context of Jewish Holy Days: Sabbath (Matthew 12); Feast of Tabernacles (John 7); Feast of Passover (Matthew 26); Hanukkah (John 10)<br /><br />Jesus taught in the synagogue: (Luke 4:14-20; John 18:20)<br /><br />Jesus gathered disciples:(Matthew 8:23)<br /><br />Paul says Jesus became a servant to the Jewish people: (Romans 15:8)<br /><br />Jesus settled disputes: (Mark 9:33-37)<br /><br />Jesus debated other rabbis:(Matthew 12:1-14)<br /><br />Jesus viewed His mission to the lost sheep of Israel: (Matthew 15:24)<br /><br />Jesus commissioned the seventy to go to the lost sheep of Israel: (Matthew 10:5-6)<br /><br />Jesus viewed himself as being revealed in the Torah, the Prophets and the Psalms, (Luke 24:44); (John 5:39)<br /><br />Jesus taught Scripture was authoritative: Jesus quotes passages from the Torah in the temptation in the wilderness: (Matthew 4:1-11)<br /><br />Jesus discussed how Scripture (The Tanakh) is imperishable in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:2-48)<br /><br />Jesus also discussed how Scripture is infallible: (John 10:35)<br /><br />1. Craig, W L. Christian Reasonable Faith, Wheaten, ILL: Crossway Books. 1984, 240-241.<br />2. Ibid.<br />3. Sheller, Jeffrey L. Is The Bible True? How Modern Debates and Discoveries Affirm the Essence of the Scriptures, New York. Harper Collins Publishers. 1999, 191.Eric Chabothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02980384024507365108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6542392311504845842.post-64698206132111116672009-05-11T07:21:00.000-07:002009-05-11T07:35:35.078-07:00Jesus- A Functional or Ontological Christology?The Messiah/A Functional or Onological Christology?<br /><br />The Actions of Jesus: Ontology is a branch of philosophy that examines the study of being or existence. For example, when Jesus says, “If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father” (John 14:9), ontology asks questions such as,” Is Jesus saying He has the same substance or essence of the Father?” Ontology is especially relevant in relation to the Godhead since Orthodox Christians attempt to articulate how the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all the same substance or essence.<br /><br />Within the Tanakh, there are Messianic texts such as Isaiah 52:13-53; 61:1-3, that focus upon the Messiah’s "works" rather than his essence or being. Perhaps this is a good indication that one of the starting points in Jewish-Christian dialogue is to understand the issue of Jesus' identity is not only about who He is, but also what He does.<br /><br />In his classic book,The Christology of the New Testament, the late Oscar Cullman suggested that while the Greeks were more interested in nature or an ontological Christology, the Jewish people were more interested in a functional Christology. In contrast to ontological Christology, functional Christology places a greater emphasis on the "deeds" or "actions" of the Messiah. Some of the visible actions of Jesus included the healing of the sick (Mark 1: 32-34; Acts 3:6; 10:38), teaching authoritatively (Mark 1:21-22; 13:31), forgiving sins (Mark 2:1-12; Luke 24:47; Acts 5:31; Col. 3:13), imparting eternal life (Acts 4:12; Rom. 10:12-14), raising the dead (Luke 7:11-17; John 5:21; 6:40), and showing the ability to exercise judgment (Matt. 25:31-46; John 5:19-29; Acts 10:42; 1 Cor. 4:4-5). These "deeds" or "actions" demonstrate that Jesus is able to perform the same functions as the God of Israel.<br /><br />As of today, one of the main objections is that Jesus is not the Messiah since he did not fulfill the job description. For the Jewish community, the messianic idea is somewhat pragmatic. In other words,“What difference does the Messiah make in the world?" There are prophetic passages that discuss God manifesting his kingdom in the world by presenting himself as the King (Isa. 24:23; Zech. 9:9; 14:9). The Messiah is also supposed to enable the Jewish people to dwell securely in the land of Israel (Isa.11:11-12; 43:5-6; Micah 5:4-6) The Bible also speaks of a worldwide peace (Isa. 2:1-22; Micah 4:1-4). Hence, since the enemies of God and Israel have not been defeated, death is not destroyed and the world is in a state of chaos, the Jewish community continues to object to the assertion that Jesus is the Messiah that is foretold in the Tanakh.<br />The term “Messiah,” meaning “anointed one,” is taken from the Hebrew word “masiah ,”which appears thirty-nine times in the Old Testament. In the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the term Messiah is translated as "christos” which was the official title for Jesus within the New Testament. As already discussed, the term "Messiah" is used of those who were of Davidic kings: past or present (Psalm 18:50;89:20; 132:10-17) but it is also used of Cyrus in Isa 45;1 and in Hab 3:13- it is used of a reigning king. The term “Masiah” cannot be limited to one of the aspects of one of the major factors, for instance a ruling king.<br /><br />There are other examples in the Tanakh where God would annoint a priest or prophet for a specific task. Moses, in his leadership role to Israel, was anointed by God in his role as a prophet and priest. He spoke as a prophet (Deut 18:20), but he also fulfilled the role of a priest or mediator for Israel in passages such as Numbers 11:11-21. The prophet was to listen to God and then speak God’s words to the people. The priests in the Tabernacle were annonted in their service as mediators between God and the Jewish people. The priests had to make atonement (Lev 4:26;31,35;5:6,10; 14:31; etc).The act of atoning involved slaughtering the animal brought for sacrifice by the worshipers, the sprinkling of the blood (Lev. 17:6) and the actual offering on the alter (3:16). To make atonement involved intercession on behalf of the worshiper and the proclamation that was forgiven.<br /><br />As already stated, in His role as a prophet, Jesus did not use the trademark formula, “Thus saith the Lord.” Instead, He spoke in His own aurhority. Also, Jesus goes beyond the function of the priests function in the tabernacle. Even though the high priest was consecrated, he was by no means sinless and could not offer up himself for the whole congregation. In Leviticus 4:3, if the priest sinned himself, the guilt was not only on the priest, but on the whole congregation. The priest was responsible for offering up a calf without blemish to make atonement. The shortcomings of the priest were a foreshadowing for the need for a better priest as stated in Hebrews 9:11-14.<br /><br />In Isaiah 53, the Servant of the Lord is seen as a trespass offering, and one who takes the sin of not just a few, but the entire world. This was understood by John the Baptist who proclaimed in John 1:29 “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.”<br /><br />Furthermore, it is crucial to realize that the Tanakh does not explicitly teach that the Messiah comes once. In Isaiah 42:1-7; 49:3 it is evident that the Messiah is supposed to be a light to the Gentiles. Since Israel’s call was to be a light to the nations and the Messiah is the ideal representative of his people, it is no surprise that the He has the same role. Statistically, more Gentiles have come to faith in Jesus and continue to do so every day.These prophecies are still being fulfilled on a daily basis. It is imperative to read all the messianic passages about the Messiah.<br /><br />In his book God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament, Richard Bauckham has asserted that an ontic/functional Christology distinction is not the correct approach to New Testament Christology. While some Jewish writers in the late Second Temple period consciously adopted some of the Greek metaphysical language, their understanding of God is not a definition of divine nature- what divinity is- but a notion of the divine identity, characterized primarily in ways other than metaphysical attributes. Bauckham suggests that in studying the relationship between Jewish monotheism and early Christology, it is imperative to understand the religious sects during Second Temple Judaism. The one God of Second Temple Jewish belief was identifiable by His covenant relationship with Israel. Various New Testament scriptures demonstrate that while the early Christians used titles to describe Jesus as God, they also clearly believed Jesus was God as evidenced by assigning attributes to Him which were clearly reserved for God. Moreover, they did so in a distinctly Jewish way that at the same time adhered to the monotheistic tradition of first- century Judaism. <br /><br />While Greeks focused on philosophical matters of the nature of the divine, Jewish monotheism was more concerned with God's divine identity.The God of Second Temple Judaism was identifiable by three unique attributes: (1) The God of Israel is the sole Creator of all things (Isa. 40:26, 28; 37:16; 42:5; 45:12; Neh. 9:6; Ps 86:10; Hos. 13:4; (2)The God of Israel is the sovereign Ruler of all things (Dan. 4:34-35); (3) The God of Israel is also the only the only being worthy of being worshiped (Deut. 6:13; Psalm 97:7; Isa. 45:23; Rev. 19:10; 22:8-9).<br /><br />Sources:<br /><br />1. Groningen, G.V. Vol 1 of Messianic Revelation In The Old Testament. Eugene OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers. 1997, 23-38.<br />2. Ben Witherington III. The Many Faces of the Christ: The Christologies of the New Testament and Beyond. New York. Crossraod Publishing Company. 1998.Eric Chabothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02980384024507365108noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6542392311504845842.post-26068024486317479312009-05-07T14:11:00.000-07:002009-05-08T17:14:00.017-07:00Is God Playing Hard To Get? Part Two<p>Show Me A Sign! </p><p>I have lost track of how many times skeptics have told me the only way for them to trust in God or Jesus is if God gave them a specific sign or manifestation of His power or presence. It is God's responsibility to prove to them that He exists! Interestingly enough, Jesus had the same problem in His ministry. His Jewish audience demanded a sign or miracle from him on several occasions. They wanted proof of His Messiahship. </p><p>In his article, Jesus as Philosopher and Apologist, Dr. Douglas Groothuis of Denver Seminary carefully looked at the variety of approaches that were utilized by Jesus in talking to His audience. He notes that one passage that is quite helpful to this issue is Matthew 11:13. In this case Jesus showed no reluctance to affirm His identity to John the Baptist. John, who was languishing in prison after challenging Herod, sent messengers to ask Jesus the question: “Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?” In response to John, Jesus did not rebuke John’s question. He did not say, “You must have faith; suppress your doubts.” Nor did He scold, “If you don’t believe, you’ll go to hell and miss heaven.” Instead, Jesus recounted the distinctive features of His ministry:Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me. (Matt. 11:4–6; see also Luke 7:22). Jesus’ works of healing and teaching are meant to serve as positive evidence of His messianic identity, because they fulfill the messianic predictions of the Hebrew Scriptures. What Jesus claimed is this:</p><p>1. If one does certain kinds of actions (the acts cited above), then one is the Messiah.</p><p>2. I am doing those kinds of actions.</p><p>3. Therefore, I am the Messiah.</p><p>A miracle, of course, is a special act of God in the natural world, something nature would not have done on its own. It is beyond the scope of this article to defend the philosophical basis for miracles. For an excellent treatment of this topic, feel free to read Norman L. Geisler. Miracles And The Modern Mind: A Defense of Biblical Miracles (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1992). Miracles have a distinctive purpose: to glorify the Creator and to provide evidence for people to believe by accrediting the message of God through the prophet of God.</p><p>Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council, the Sanhedrin, told Jesus, “ ‘Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him’ ” (John 3:1–2). In his great sermon on Pentecost, Peter told the crowd that Jesus had been “accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him” (Acts 2:22). </p><p>As Howard Kee, specialist in the study of Gospel miracles says, "The OT Judaism God is the one who heals all of Israel's diseases. Jesus in effect takes God's place as the healer of Israel." Jesus' authority is evident as his role as an exorcist. He said, "But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, than the kingdom of God has come upon you" (Luke 11:20). This is significant for 3 reasons:(1) it shows that Jesus claimed divine authority over evil; (2) It shows Jesus believed the kingdom of God had arrived; in Judaism, the kingdom would come at the end of history; (3) Jesus was in effect saying that in himself, God had drawn near, therefore He was putting himself in God's place. (1)</p><p>A good study in the book of Matthew shows an interesting relationship between Jesus' miracles and His audience. He did the miracles for those who were Beatitude people. In other words, go study the Sermon on the Mount. Are you a Beatitude person? Are you poor in spirit? Do you recognize your poverty before God? Are you thirsting for righteousness? And are you truly interested in the Bread of Life ? (see John Ch 6). Or do you just want a sign so you can say, "Oh, I guess <strong>that God </strong>exists, but I have no intention of placing my faith <strong>in God.</strong>" As I said, there is a tendency to forget God’s relationship with mankind is not to simply prove He exists to people. God is not simply after what is called justified true belief that He exists. It says in James 2:19, that the demons believe <strong>that God </strong>exists. Jesus began to see when his audience had no interest in following Him. He did not do miracles for entertainment. Rather, he did them to evoke a response. And that response is the willingness to not just praying a prayer to get into heaven, but a commitment to following Him (Luke 9:23). For many, that is asking too much. </p><p>1. Craig, W. L. Christian Truth and Apologetics. Wheaten, ILL : Crossway Books.1984, 233-54.</p>Eric Chabothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02980384024507365108noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6542392311504845842.post-4370788291463458392009-05-04T10:48:00.000-07:002009-05-20T07:00:37.418-07:00Is God Playing Hard To Get? Part OneIs God Playing Hard To Get? Part One<br /><br />With the publishing of biologist Richard Dawkin's, The God Delusion, Sam Harris's The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason and Christopher Hitchens's How Religion Poisons Everything, atheists are becoming more vocal about offering a viable alterative to religious faith. Granted, these books are only one of the factors that are contributing to the skepticism in our culture. Furthermore, there have been several rebuttals to these books. The skeptical issue in our culture mostly enters into the religious dialogue in the following way: “Do we really know what we think we know-especially in religion- when our beliefs are not properly based on evidence?” And in the case of God, who isn’t some physical object but a divine being, what kind of evidence should we expect to find? Now I know in this article, you may say attempting to use the Bible is begging the question. After all, how do we know we can trust the Bible? I am going to bypass that issue for another article. Anyway, we to remember that the Bible stresses that people are in the dark. In other words, since the Bible stresses that humans are blinded by sin, this has damaging consequences on the knowing process (Isa 6:9-10; Zech 7:11-12; Matt 13:10-13; 2 Cor 4:4).<br /><br />Hence, the acceptance of revelation, therefore, is, of fundamental importance to our faith. The word "revelation" comes from the Greek word "apokalupsis" which means "an "uncovering," or "unveiling." One of the most important themes of the Bible is that since God acts on behalf of those whom he loves, and that his actions includes already within history, a partial disclosure of his nature, attributes, and intensions. The problem we have in our culture is that many people cannot accept the limitations of the knowledge process. Furthermore, there is a tendency to forget God’s relationship with mankind is not to simply prove He exists to people. It says in James 2:19, that the demons believe that God exists. Objectively speaking, evidence for God may help someone believe that God exists. However, the individual still needs to place their trust in God. This can only be done with the help of the Ruach Ka Kodesh (John 16:12-15).<br /><br />The Jewish people came to know their G-d predominately by His covenantal actions. As the late Jewish scholar Abraham J. Heschel said, “The God of Israel is a God who acts, a God of mighty deeds." And because of this knowledge, G-d called the Jewish people into active participation. According to the Hebrew view of knowledge, the opposite of knowledge is not always ignorance and error. Instead, it is often related to disobedience, rebellion, and sin. Just as the God of Israel revealed Himself by His actions, Yeshua continually appealed to His "deeds" or "actions" that testified to His Messiahship (John 5:36-5:36; John 10:37; John 10:38; John 14:10).<br />God has acted in our behalf by revealing Himself through the created order.<br /><br />And as I said, in the case of God, who isn’t some physical object but a divine being, we have to use induction. Induction is the method of drawing general conclusions from specific observations. For example, since we can’t observe gravity directly, we only observe its effects. We also can’t observe the human mind directly, but only its effects. Paul understood this issue when he writes in Romans 1: 18-21, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known of God is revealed in them, for God revealed it to them. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse. Because, knowing God, they didn't glorify him as God, neither gave thanks, but became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless heart was darkened.” Paul lays out the basic principle of cause and effect. Paul says since God is the Designer, His “everlasting power and divinity” (this is the cause) are obvious, “through the things that are made” (this is the effect).<br /><br />If we look at this Scripture, people do perceive general revelation. The problem is they do not receive it. I think Paul would be happy to see the following comments about Romans 1:18-21 by the following apologists and theologians:<br /><br /><br />1. The revelation of God in nature is mediate, but it is so manifest and so clear that it does not necessitate a complex theoretical reasoning process that could be achieved only by a group of geniuses. If God's general revelation is in fact "general," in that it is plain enough for all to see clearly without complicated cosmological argumentation, then it may even be said to be self evident. The revelation is clear enough for an unskilled and illiterate person to perceive it. The memory of conscious knowledge of the trauma encounter with God's revelation is not maintained in its lucid, threatening state, but is repressed. It is "put down or held in captivity" in the unconsciousness. That which is repressed is not destroyed. The memory remains though it may be buried in the subconscious realm. Knowledge of God is unacceptable, and as a result humans attempt to blot it out or at least camouflage it in such a way that its threatening character can be concealed or dulled. (Sproul, R.C, Gerstner, John and Arthur Lindsey. Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing.1984, 46-59).<br /><br />2. Former atheist J. Budziszewski:<br />I am not at present concerned to explore Paul’s general claim that those who deny the Creator are wicked but only his more particular claim that they are intellectually dishonest. Notice that he does not criticize nonbelievers because they do not know about God but ought to. Rather, he criticizes them because they do know about God but pretend to themselves that they don’t. According to his account, we are not ignorant of God’s reality at all. Rather, we “suppress” it; to translate differently, we “hold it down.” With all our strength we try not to know it, even though we can’t help knowing it; with one part of our minds we do know it, while with another we say, “I know no such thing.” From the biblical point of view, then, the reason it is so difficult to argue with an atheist—as I once was—is that he is not being honest with himself. He knows there is a God, but he tells himself that he doesn’t. How can a person explain how he reached new first principles? By what route could he have arrived at them? To what deeper considerations could he have appealed? If the biblical account is true, then it would seem that no one really arrives at new first principles; a person only seems to arrive at them. The atheist does not lack true first principles; they are in his knowledge already, though suppressed. The convert from atheism did not acquire them; rather, things he knew all along were unearthed. ( Giesler, N. L. and Paul K. Hoffman. Why I Am A Christian. Leading Thinkers Explain Why They Believe. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House. 2001, 49).<br /><br />3. Our original knowledge of God and his glory is muffled and impaired; it has been replaced (by virtue of sin) by stupidity, dullness, blindness, inability to perceive God or to perceive him in his handiwork. Our knowledge of his character and his love toward us can be smothered: it can be transformed into resentful thought that God is to be feared and mistrusted; we may see him as indifferent or even malignant. In the traditional taxonomy of seven deadly sins, this is sloth. Sloth is not simple laziness, like the inclination to lie down and watch television rather than go out and get exercise you need; it is, instead, a kind of spiritual deadness, blindness, imperceptiveness, acedia, torpor, a failure to be aware of God’s presence, love, requirements. (Plantinga, A. Warranted Christian Belief. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 2000, 214-215).<br /><br />The amazing thing about our Lord is that He saw fit to reveal more of Himself through the person of Messiah. While general revelation manifests God as Creator, it does not reveal Him as Redeemer. Although general revelation shows man is under condemnation, they are all without an excuse" (Romans 1:20; Romans 2:12), it is not sufficient for salvation. As Heb. 1:1–2 says, "God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son." Yeshua did comment on how people respond to Him by saying, "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light and does not come to the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed." But he who practices the truth comes to the light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God" (John 3:19-21). And finally, remember that we are agents of God’s revelation. As messengers of the Messiah, we are the normative way God communicates to humans. Therefore, it is imperative for all us to ask whether we are willing to be obedient to the Great Commission (Matt 28:19).Eric Chabothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02980384024507365108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6542392311504845842.post-90535575356254242692009-04-28T15:37:00.000-07:002009-04-28T15:43:26.445-07:00Five Views of DeathOkay, so I know this is not an uplifting topic. But a good worldview will have an explanation for what happens at death. Here are some views- this was adapted from Richard Longenecker's Life After Death: The Resurrection Message in the New Testament. Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1988.<br /><br />Death: Five Views<br /><br />1. Death is an illusion: this views stems from Eastern philosophy: (1) physical death is denied; (2) the training of the mind to enounce reality of everything material is emphasized; (3) the human “spirit” or “soul” is viewed as “death,” returning as returning to the world of the spiritual (whether that world is understood to be personal or impersonal terms) and/or as reincarnated into another seemingly corporal existence, with that further reincarnation being only another step toward a final, eternal, noncorporeal, nonpersonal existence.<br /><br />2. Death is a perfectly natural phenomomenon:<br />This view stems mostly from a naturalistic or atheistic heritage: In this view (1) resignation in the face of the natural and inevitable is stressed; (2) training the mind to accept death as part of the world process of change and decay- and so, not to think in personal terms; (3) making the most of our human lives, both personally and on the behalf of others.<br /><br />3. Death is the Release of One’s Immortal Soul:<br />This attitude is from a Greek or Platonic philosophy though it may carry with it some nuances drawn from Hinduism, Buddhism, or some forms of Confucianism. In this view, responses to death usually include (1) sorrowful resignation with regard to the “departure” of a person at death; (2) a welcoming of death as the liberator of the person; (3) comfort in thinking of the deceased person as now living a “soulish” existence in some spiritual realm apart from the physical world- with often, though not always, (4) an expectation that at some future time, whether at death or some distant period of time, those departed souls will be reincarnated into new bodies.<br /><br />4. Death Ends Human Existence, Yet There Is Hope in God: <br />In this case, death brings to an end the existence of the whole person, both physically and spiritually; yet that death is ordained by God and under his providence, and so there is hope both corporately and individually for God’s people. This hope is expressed in some form of resurrection language. This is an attitude that stems from Judaism, with its roots in Scripture with developments taking place during the periods of Second Temple Judaism and Talmudic Judaism. With such a stance, the result is the following: (1) A mixture of grief, sadness, even anger; (2) Though also acceptance over the termination of human life at death, there is a corporate preservation and prosperity, with a belief that the deceased personal ideals will have a part in influencing for good that corporate life; (3) Hope in God for the restoration of God’s faithful ones somehow in the future, with that restoration at times visualized in some form of personal resurrection.<br /><br />5. Death is the Last Enemy, But The Resurrection of the Messiah Provides Life: This viewis held by Messianic Judaism (and Christianity) and shares much of the Jewish vision regarding death, life, and the afterlife but goes beyond what is contained in the Hebrew Bible.Eric Chabothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02980384024507365108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6542392311504845842.post-18306728823523697692009-04-20T07:03:00.001-07:002009-04-20T07:05:23.151-07:00Christianity As A Knowledge TraditionChristianity as a Knowledge Tradition<br />by J.P. Moreland<br /><br />Our society exalts science as the one true way to knowledge. But when science is the only way to know anything, it causes people to turn to emotion and the satisfaction of desire for happiness. This, however, leads to a narcissistic empty self. Dr. Moreland explains.<br /><br />Summing It Up<br />In the first two installments of this series, I have sought to establish two main themes:<br />A worldview functions as a set of habit-forming beliefs — these beliefs cause us to notice or fail to notice various features of reality. Habit-forming beliefs do not stand between a person and reality <a href="http://www.trueu.org/Academics/LectureHall/A000000809.cfm">like glasses do</a>. Rather, they habitualize ways of seeing and thinking. Through effort, these beliefs can be changed or retained when compared with reality.<br /><br />Given <a href="http://www.trueu.org/Academics/LectureHall/A000000827.cfm">naturalism and postmodernism</a> as the two worldviews competing with Christianity in the marketplace of ideas, the central, defining feature of our secular culture is this: There is no non-empirical knowledge, especially no theological or ethical knowledge. Science — and science alone — carries authority in our culture. Knowledge grants authority, and only science is perceived to possess knowledge.<br /><br />In this article, I want to show how important it is to take Christian teaching as a source of knowledge of reality. And in my next article, I will explain more fully just what knowledge is and show how grasping its nature makes it more obvious that Christian teaching is, indeed, such a source.<br /><br />I want to show how important it is to take Christian teaching as a source of knowledge of reality.<br />Secularism as a View About Knowledge<br /><br />It can hardly be overemphasized that the primary characteristic of modern secularism is its view of the nature and limits of knowledge. This particular idea is critical, for in our culture, knowledge gives one power. We give surgeons, and not carpenters, the right to cut us open precisely because surgeons have the relevant knowledge not possessed by carpenters. Those with the culture-granted say-so — those who determine who has knowledge and who doesn't — will be in a position to marginalize and silence groups judged to have only belief and private opinion.<br /><br />There simply is no established, widely recognized body of ethical or religious knowledge now operative in the institutions of knowledge in our culture (e.g. the universities and schools.) Indeed, ethical and religious claims are frequently placed into what Francis Schaeffer used to call the upper story — a privatized realm of non-factual beliefs whose sole value is that they are "meaningful" only to the believer. These beliefs are judged to have little or no intellectual authority, especially compared to the authority given science to define the limits of knowledge and reality in those same institutions.<br /><br />This raises a pressing question: Is Christianity a knowledge tradition or merely a faith tradition?<br />Is Christianity a knowledge tradition or merely a faith tradition?<br /><br />Those who believe knowledge is limited to science would posit that Christianity is merely a faith tradition — it cannot be known to be true, and therefore, must be considered weaker than knowledge. But how should the Christian view and answer this question?<br /><br />Secularism and the Marginalization of Christian Claims<br />At least two reasons suggest why this may well be the crucial question for Christians to keep in mind as they live out their discipleship in the contemporary setting. For one thing, Christianity claims to be a knowledge tradition and it places knowledge, not merely truth, at the center of proclamation and discipleship. The Old and New Testaments, including the teachings of Jesus, claim not merely that Christianity is true, but that a variety of its moral and religious assertions can be known to be true (Luke 1:4, John 10:4, Romans 1:19).<br /><br />Second, as I mentioned above, knowledge provides the basis of responsible action in society. Dentists, not lawyers, have the authority to fill our cavities because they have the relevant knowledge — we trust that they'll treat our teeth responsibly. If Christians do little to deflect the view that theological and ethical assertions are merely parts of tradition, then they inadvertently contribute to the marginalization of Christianity. They do so precisely because they fail to rebut the contemporary tendency to rob it of the very thing that gives it the authority necessary to prevent that marginalization — its legitimate claim to give us moral and religious knowledge. That's why I believe the following statement is so important:<br />Both in and out of the church, Jesus has been lost as an intellectual authority and Christians should carry out their discipleship in light of this fact. We have a duty to present Jesus Christ and the Word of God as a source not only of salvation and meaning, but also of authoritative knowledge about all areas of which Jesus and His Word speak.<br /><br />The Absolutization of Desire and the Empty Self<br />The pervasive claim that truth, knowledge and rationality do not exist outside the hard sciences has left people without hope that true, knowable forms of wisdom can be discovered as guides to a flourishing life. As a result, people have turned to emotion and the satisfaction of desire as the decisive factors in adopting a worldview. In turn, this affective approach to life, now embodied in art and culture generally, has created the conditions for the emergence of a new personality type that psychologists claim is present in epidemic proportions in American society. Never before in the history of Western culture has this personality type been seen so pervasively and profoundly; indeed, it is a post-60s phenomenon.<a name="fn1"></a> It is called the empty self.<a href="http://www.trueu.org/Academics/LectureHall/A000000838.cfm#en1">1</a><br /><br />The empty self is narcissistic, inordinately individualistic, self-absorbed, infantile, passive and motivated by instant gratification. It experiences a loss of personal significance and worth, as well as a chronic emotional hunger and emptiness. People with the empty self personality satiate themselves with consumer goods, calories, experiences, politicians, romantic partners, and empathetic therapists.<br /><br />People with the empty self personality satiate themselves with consumer goods, calories, experiences, politicians, romantic partners, and empathetic therapists.<br /><br />The empty self does not value learning for its own sake, is unwilling to defer gratification under the demands of discipline, and prefers visual stimulation to abstract thought. Applied to education, a classroom of empty selves will reinforce a view of education in which learning exists to make the student happy, to satisfy his/her emotional hunger, and to fulfill his/her own plans for success.<br /><br />Moreover, with the idea that no truth, knowledge or reason exists outside the hard sciences, secularism has contributed to the absolutization of satisfaction. Secularization says we can't know absolute truth outside of science, so people have given up on seeking non-scientific truth and, instead live for desire satisfaction.<br />With truth and reason dethroned as guides for life, something had to take its place. And the heir to the throne is the satisfying of one's desires. Secularism helps to prop up this value in the culture not only by denying truth and reason in matter of worldview, but also with its promulgation of a naïve and destructive notion of tolerance.<br /><br />Finally, with the secular relativization of truth, knowledge and reason outside the hard sciences, a growing loss of hope for objective meaning in life emerges in the face of a cold, mechanistic universe. The only relief (outside of Christianity) consists of temporary flirtations with postmodernist irrationality. An example of this would be the idea that anyone's view of God or morality is just as "valid" as anyone else's and we should not judge that some religious or moral views are wrong and destructive.<br /><br />[Consider] … the view now held by most physicists, namely that the sun with all the planets will in time grow too cold for life, unless indeed some great body dashes into the sun and thus give it fresh life. …<a name="fn2"></a> Believing as I do that man in the distant future will be a far more perfect creature than he now is, it is an intolerable thought that he and all other sentient beings are doomed to complete annihilation after such long-continued slow progress.<a href="http://www.trueu.org/Academics/LectureHall/A000000838.cfm#en2">2</a><br /><br />Hardly a robust word in a world where people need real, sensible hope and objective, knowable meaning to cope with suffering. Absent of any religious and moral knowledge, the culture is mired in stagnating trivialities. Its collective view of the meaning of life doesn't rise much higher than the slogan I recently saw in a Valvoline commercial: "You're born, you die; in between, you work on cars."<br /><br />Until Next Time<br />This situation has contributed to a deep societal hunger for spirituality. Unfortunately, without the rails of biblical truth, our nation of empty selves consumes contemporary "spirituality"; the unbridled satisfaction of our desires becomes our only guide. For example, I believe the current preoccupation with promiscuous sex is a symptom of the failure of this sort of "spirituality" to address the human condition.<br /><br />C O F F E E S H O P<br />What do you think of Dr. Moreland's proposition about secularized truth and knowledge leading to a loss of hope for meaning in life?.<a onclick="MM_openBrWindow('http://www.fotfforums.org/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=62&threadid=6639&enterthread=y','Discussion1','scrollbars=yes,toolbar=yes,menubar=yes,location=yes,resizable=yes,width=790,height=450,left=30,top=30')" href="javascript:;">Join the discussion!</a><br />The possession of knowledge — especially religious and moral knowledge — is essential for a life of flourishing. The question remains: What exactly is knowledge and what does it mean to say Christian teaching provides it? We'll examine this question in <a href="http://www.trueu.org/Academics/LectureHall/A000000848.cfm">the next installment.</a><br />Notes<br /><a name="en1"></a>See chapters 1 and 5 of my book, Kingdom Triangle (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007) for more information and sources about the empty self. <a href="http://www.trueu.org/Academics/LectureHall/A000000838.cfm#fn1">Back^</a><br /><a name="en2"></a>Cited in The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, ed. by Nora Barlow (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1959), p. 92. <a href="http://www.trueu.org/Academics/LectureHall/A000000838.cfm#fn2">Back^</a><br />About the author<a href="http://www.trueu.org/admissions/people/#jp">J.P. Moreland</a> is Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology and director of Eidos Christian Center. He has contributed to over 40 books, including Love Your God With All Your Mind (NavPress), and over 60 journal articles. Dr. Moreland also co-authored the 2006 release, The Lost Virtue of Happiness: Discovering the Disciplines of the Good Life (NavPress, 2006).<br />© 2007 J.P. Moreland. All rights reserved. International copyright secured.<a href="http://www.trueu.org/Academics/LectureHall/A000000838.cfm#top">Back to top</a>Eric Chabothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02980384024507365108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6542392311504845842.post-29834800592378968342009-03-31T16:47:00.000-07:002009-03-31T16:50:57.739-07:00Choosing a Faith?How does one go about picking a faith? Do we base our choice on a mystical experience or do simply make our choice based on the fact that the faith works for us? Does it matter if the faith is true? Here is an excellent resource on this topic.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.choosingyourfaith.com/">http://www.choosingyourfaith.com/</a>Eric Chabothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02980384024507365108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6542392311504845842.post-92045070408321265692009-03-18T20:12:00.000-07:002009-03-18T20:13:43.379-07:00Jesus and the EyewitnessesJesus and the Eyewitnesses. The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony<br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802831621?ie=UTF8&tag=bibliarcharev-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0802831621"></a><br />By Richard Bauckham(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2006), 504 pages, $32.00.<br />Reviewed by <a href="http://www.bib-arch.org/reviews/revieweyewitness.asp#bio">Ben Witherington</a><br /><br />There are books that are interesting, there are books that are important and then there are seminal studies that serve as road markers for the field, pointing the way forward. Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses is in the latter category, to be sure. It thus deserves a thorough review, but a little background is in order.<br /><br />Richard Bauckham and I have been friends for many years and have encouraged each other’s work. I was in St. Andrews University, in Scotland, last July to spend a week with Richard just before a wonderful conference on the Book of Hebrews, and the proofs of this book were sitting on his coffee table. He offered to let me read it, and I did. I realized at once the book’s importance, and Richard himself told me, in his reserved and understated British way, “I think this may be my most important book thus far.” I agree; it is indeed a seminal study, and we may be grateful for it coming now in the midst of so much nonsense being published about early Christianity and its documents.<br /><br />Jesus and the Eyewitnesses is to a great extent based on a close reading of the Papias traditions found in Eusebius and elsewhere. Papias was Bishop of Hierapolis, in Turkey, and was one of those bridging figures in Christian history who lived during the end of the first century and the beginning of the second century A.D. and thus had occasional contact with eyewitnesses to events in the New Testament and with those who had heard the eyewitnesses. Though Papias was a literate man, like so many in his oral culture he preferred the viva voce, the living voice, of oral testimony.<br /><br />Bauckham believes very much in the importance of eyewitness testimony, including that of Papias, which suggests that there was a close connection between various of the canonical Gospels and eyewitnesses to the ministry of Jesus, with Mark connected to Peter, and John connected to at least John the Elder (otherwise known as John of Patmos, the author of Revelation but not of the other Johannine documents), whom Papias himself met and discoursed with.<br /><br />Part of Bauckham’s intention is to show that the old form-critical ways of looking at Gospel traditions were wrong. According to classic form criticism (the basis of the work of the Jesus Seminar), early Christian traditions circulated anonymously in communities that were viewed as if they were faceless collectives (for example, the “Q community”). Bauckham thinks this theory is deeply flawed and suggests instead that there were personal links from the Jesus tradition to known and named tradents (carriers of tradition) throughout the period of transmission right down to when these traditions were included in the Gospels. Bauckham is quite right to insist that analogies with modern folklore to explain how ancient Gospel traditions were handled are simply wrong and anachronistic. The period between the time of Jesus and the writing of the Gospels is relatively short (between 30 and 60-some years, depending on the Gospel), and during that entire time there were still eyewitnesses who could act as checks and balances to the formation of the early Christian tradition. The “period between the ‘historical’ Jesus and the Gospels was actually spanned, not by anonymous community transmission, but by the continuing presence and testimony of eyewitnesses, who remained the authoritative sources of their traditions until their deaths,” Bauckham writes.<br /><br />The Papias traditions, as Bauckham reminds us, are available to us only in fragments, mainly in quotations from Eusebius. Eusebius had no high opinion of Papias, but for a particular reason. He called Papias a “stupid” man because he was a millenarian, which means that Papias believed that when Jesus returned from heaven there would be a paradise-like state upon the earth for some one thousand years. Eusebius’ dislike for this eschatology led to his dislike for those who promoted it, such as Papias. But, begrudgingly, Eusebius allows that Papias had some important contacts and knew some important things about the first two generations of Christians. Papias was personally acquainted with the daughters of Philip the Evangelist (Acts 21:8-9) and he also had met and talked with John the Elder. From these sorts of people he learned about the Twelve and other original apostles and eyewitnesses (see Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiae 3.39.9).<br /><br />Bauckham is not merely inclined to think that Papias tells us the truth about such things as the origins of the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John; he is convinced that these documents are based ultimately on reliable eyewitness testimony. Bauckham throughout the study seeks to provide a model for considering the issue of eyewitness testimony that comports with the early Jewish environment from which these testimonies came. He believes that trustworthy testimony can and should be believed, but he is not appealing to some sort of uncritical or pre-critical way of handling such data, nor does he accept the old canard that ancient historians and biographers, such as the writers of the Gospels, were incapable of thinking critically about history and other related matters. For instance, Bauckham quotes Polybius one of the foremost Greek historians of the Hellenistic era, who describes the historian’s task as “to believe those worthy of belief and to be a good critic of the reports that reach him.”<br /><br />As the book progresses we discover that Bauckham deals in some detail with how sacred and historical traditions were passed down in early Judaism and then in early Christianity. As he points out, the Gospel traditions were not anonymous to begin with, nor were the Gospels themselves. The traditions and then the documents were linked to named persons—well-known named persons—and it was the early Jewish practice to memorize sacred traditions so they could be passed on faithfully from one tradent to another. There was not a long period of transmission of these traditions, and there was often a direct link, or a close link, with eyewitnesses. The analogy Bauckham draws between modern oral historians and ancient Gospel writers, both of whom sought out eyewitnesses to hear the stories “from the horse’s mouth” is plausible, indeed far more plausible than the view that early Christian traditions underwent a long gestation period that is analogous to the way folk literature and myth develop.<br />Bauckham also reminds us that ancient historians thought that history had to be written during a time when eyewitnesses were still available to be cross-examined. This is why, for example, Luke’s preface in 1:1-4 reads as it does. Unlike modern historians, who range over a much longer chronological trajectory examining sources that they certainly cannot double-check by turning to eyewitnesses, most ancient historians and biographers (especially the former) limited themselves to subjects that could be addressed while the living voice and the eyewitness were still available.<br /><br />One of the more interesting analogies Bauckham draws is between modern eyewitness testimonies to the Holocaust and ancient testimonies about the Christ event. Very few modern historians would discredit all such Holocaust testimonies (the President of Iran not withstanding), and indeed most find such eyewitness testimonies very credible and personal, even if they should be critically sifted and even though we are now some 60 years beyond the end of the Second World War. Bauckham’s point is that people such as the Gospel writers, and Papias after them, operated in a similar environment—dealing with history-making events that were vividly remembered and often faithfully reported. Further, those writers, like modern Holocaust survivors, were anxious that the story be told straight and that it get out and be widely disseminated. Finally, there is also the point that the distance in time between modern Holocaust survivors’ current testimonies and the events, and the Gospels and the events they record is the same—even in the case of the latest of the Gospels to be written, the Fourth Gospel, called John’s.<br /><br />There is much more to interact with and commend in this fine book, but in a brief review we must be content with asking, What is the upshot of Bauckham’s discussion? It is that the original Christian Gospels need to be taken far more seriously as sources of reliable historical testimony about the life of Jesus, his words and deeds, his disciples and demise, and the aftermath thereto. They were neither created nor passed along in the form that modern form critics (such as Rudolf Bultmann and Martin Dibelius) thought. We do not have in those Gospels “cleverly devised myths” or stories only loosely based on history, but rather eyewitness testimonies and traditions that in many cases the witnesses were prepared to die for, so profoundly did they believe them to be true.<br />The Gospels were written by people who were indeed in touch with vivid eyewitness testimony about events that had been seared into their memory and had left indelible impressions. As it turns out, we may know more about the historical Jesus and his first followers than modern skeptics have suggested—far more, if Bauckham is right.<br /><a name="bio"></a><br />Ben Witherington is professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary and on the doctoral faculty at St. Andrews University, Scotland.Eric Chabothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02980384024507365108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6542392311504845842.post-32028722081281817112009-03-17T11:08:00.001-07:002009-03-17T11:09:34.087-07:00How To Keep From Getting Spiritually WeirdThis is a great article about how to maintain balance in the Christian Life.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5476">http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5476</a>Eric Chabothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02980384024507365108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6542392311504845842.post-86403093973081508482009-03-13T18:41:00.000-07:002009-03-16T06:26:19.568-07:00Talking to Jewish People About the Messiah/Part 2The Job Description of Messiah<br /><br />Given Maimonides job description of Messiah, it was no surprise that these Hasidic Jewish men rejected our explanation of Messiah. As far as they were concerned, Jesus does not fulfill the job description. Even though I went ahead and explained how there is a basis for a suffering, or atoning Messiah in the Bible and other Jewish writing, the Hasidic response was it was an impossibility for Jesus to be the Messiah. When I attempted to give them an oral reading to them from Isaiah 53 (and in this case, I said the Messiah would be rejected by his own people), they seem confused. They also said I nor anyone else could interpret anything in the Tanakh apart from a teacher such as a rabbi, etc.<br /><br />I pointed out that the The Shottenstein Talmud, a comprehensive Orthodox Jewish commentary states the following about Isaiah 53:<br />They [namely, those sitting with Messiah] were afflicted with tzaraas- as disease whose symptoms include discolored patches on the skin (see Leviticus ch. 13). The Messiah himself is likewise afflicted, as stated in Isaiah (53:4). Indeed, it was our diseases that he bore and our pains that he endured, whereas we considered him plagued (i.e. suffering tzaraas [see 98b, note 39], smitten by God and afflicted. This verse teaches that the diseases that the people ought to have suffered because of their sins are borne instead by the Messiah [with reference to the leading Rabbinic commentaries]. (5)<br /><br />I also pointed to the Zohar, which is the foundational book of Jewish mysticism. In this book, we see a text about the relationship between Isaiah 53 and atonement: "The children of the world are members of one another, and when the Holy One desires to give healing to the world, He smites one just man amongst them, and for his sakes heals the rest of the rest. Whence do we learn this? For the saying, ‘He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities’ [Isa. 53:5].i.e., by letting of his blood- as when a man bleeds his arm- there was healing for us-for all the members of the body. In general a just person is only smitten in order to procure healing and atonement for a whole generation." (6)<br /><br /><br />One of the Hasidic students even said to me that perhaps he (this student) was the Messiah. The student said, “After all, my name is “Immanuel” which means “God With Us.” The student was almost making a mockery out of the Christian assertion that Jesus is called “Immanuel” (taken from Isa. 7:14). The student also said he (himself) was a descendant of David. He asked, perhaps he could also qualify as the Messiah? I quickly objected that it was impossible for him to fulfill the Davidic requirement. In response to the Davidic aspect of the Messiah, while God made an unconditional covenant with Abraham (Gen. 12:3), He also promised that Israel would have an earthly king (Gen. 17:6; 49:6; Deut. 17:14-15). Within the Tanakh, the term “messiah” was used in a general sense in relationship to kings, priests, and prophets. While the term “messiah” meaning “anointed one,” is used of those who were of Davidic kings (Ps18:50;89:20; 132:10-17), it is also used of Cyrus in Isa. 45:1.<br /><br />Therefore, every legitimate king could be a messiah (1 Sam;16:13; 2 Kg 11:12). Even though there were kings that were anointed to perform specific tasks, the biblical writers spoke of a greater king who was coming (2 Sam. 7: 12-17; 1 Chron. 17: 11-14; Ps 89: 28-37; Is. 9:2-7; Jr. 23:5-6) who would rule on David’s throne forever. In other words, while a king could be a “messiah,” there was a figure who was coming that would be the “Messiah.” As we see in Psalm 2:1-12, to reject God’s anointed king is equivalent to rejecting God. This theme makes perfect sense in the New Testament passage, John 5:22-23, “Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.”<br /><br />Also, in Isaiah 9: 12-17 it says, “For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness from then on and forevermore.” The significance of this passage is the phrase “there will be no end.” In observing the immediate context of this passage, one might assert that this passage is referring to Hezekiah’s reign. This assertion is problematic since Hezekiah’s reign was one that was rather limited in an international sense. (7) It also says in Targum Isaiah:<br /><br />"The prophet saith to the house of David, A child has been born to us, a son has been given to us; and He has taken the law upon Himself to keep it, and His name had been called from of old, Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, He Who Lives Forever, The Anointed One (or Messiah), in whose days peace shall increase upon us.” (McDowell, Josh, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, (San Bernardino, CA: Here's Life Publishers) 1972, pg. 151).<br /><br />This figure mentioned in Isaiah 9:6 cannot fit the Maimonides description that “the Messiah will not possess supernatural qualities” since it states that the Messiah has to be divine (“Mighty God”) and human (“to us a child is born”). The name in Isaiah 9:6 is "El Gibbor" which literally means "Mighty God." Furthermore, it has been already mentioned that Jesus earned the charge of blasphemy for saying He was the Son of Man (which referred to a divine title as seen in Dan 7:13 in association with Psalm 110:1) in the trial before Caiaphas (Mark 14:60-64). The term ”Son of Man” in the time of Jesus was a most emphatic reference to the Messiah (Dan 7:13). Jesus’ claim that He would not simply be entering into God’s presence, but that He would actually be sitting at God’s right side was the equivalent to claiming equality with God. By Jesus asserting He is the Son of Man, He was exercising the authority of God. Furthermore, Jesus’ usage of the “Son of Man” title exhibited that it was not Jesus who was on trail, but the leadership itself.<br /><br />The term “Masiah” cannot be limited to one of the aspects of one of the major factors, for instance a ruling king. Jesus fulfills all three offices: priest, prophet, and king. Our conversation with these Hasidic Jewish students only confirmed for me what I already knew. The Jewish people have mostly forgotten about the priestly, or atoning work of Messiah. From the Christian perspective, if Jesus’ intention was to perform the role of a priest in an eternal sense, He would have to be sanctified, or consecrated for the purpose of atoning for the sins of the world. Jesus comments on this issue in John 17:19: “For them I sanctify myself, that they may too be truly sanctified.”<br /><br />It is also clear that just as for Maimonides, the messianic idea is so much more pragmatic for Jewish people. In other words, “What difference does the Messiah make in the world?" After all, there are prophetic passages that discuss God manifesting his kingdom in the world by presenting himself as the King (Isa. 24:23; Zech. 9:9; 14:9). The Messiah is also supposed to enable the Jewish people to dwell securely in the land of Israel (Isa.11:11-12; 43:5-6; Mic. 5:4-6) The Bible also speaks of a worldwide Messianic Age (Isa. 2:2-4; 11:6-9;65:17-25 Mic. 4:1-4). Hence, since the enemies of God and Israel have not been defeated, death is not destroyed and the world is in a state of chaos, the Jewish community continues to object to the assertion that Jesus is the Messiah that is foretold in the Tanakh.<br /><br />Another objection that I brought up was that the Tanakh does not explicitly teach that the Messiah comes once. While several of the Servant of the Lord passages in Isaiah 40- 53 refer to the nation of Israel (Isa. 41:8-9; 42:19; 43:10; 44:21; 45:4; 48: 20) , there are other passages where the Servant of the Lord is seen as a righteous individual (Isa. 42:1-6; 49:3;5-7; 50:10; 52:13-53:12). Even in Isa. 52:13, it says the Servant of the Lord will be ‘raised’ and ‘lifted up.’ It is asserted by the Jewish community that Isaiah 52-53 is talking about the nation of Israel and not an atoning, or priestly Messiah. From the Christian perspective, if Jesus’ intention was to perform the role of a priest in an eternal sense, He would have to be sanctified, or consecrated for the purpose of atoning for the sins of the world. Jesus comments on this issue in John 17:19: “For them I sanctify myself, that they may too be truly sanctified.”<br /><br /><br />For the assertion that the interpretation of Isaiah 52-53 is about Israel is not found in the Talmud, Targums or Midrashim (basically all the classical, foundational, authoritative, Jewish writings). Also, when did Israel ever live as a righteous nation? The Servant did not sin. Israel as a whole has (Is-53 :4-6:12).The Torah says if Israel is righteous, they will be blessed, not rejected or despised. The Servant is depicted as righteous and lowly, afflicted, despised. How can Israel be presented as a totally righteous guiltless, Servant of the Lord? When in the history of Israel have they ever lived as a righteous nation? Also, Isaiah 53 was recently applied to Rabbi Schneerson who was a prominent <a title="Hasidic Judaism" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasidic_Judaism">Hasidic</a> <a title="Rabbi" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbi">rabbi</a> who was the seventh and last <a title="Rebbe" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebbe">Rebbe</a> (spiritual leader) of the <a title="Chabad-Lubavitch" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chabad-Lubavitch">Chabad-Lubavitch</a> movement. He died in 1994. And the 2nd oldest Jewish source--the Jewish Targum of Isaiah--identified the Servant as the Messiah: "Behold, My servant the Messiah shall prosper; he shall be exalted and great and very powerful. ( Targum Isa 52.13).<br /><br />Of course, one of the early messianic passages that was used by Christians was Psalm 110:1-4. In this passage that the Messiah is an (1) an eternal office holder, and (2) a Melchizedeck priest-king. In other words, the Messiah is after the order of Melchizedeck but he exercises his office after the pattern of Aaron. In Gen. 14:1-17, wee see the story of Melchizedeck who was a king of Salem. Melchizedeck brought forth bread and wine and blessed Abraham, telling Abraham he owed his military victory to God. The word Melchizedeck is derived from “melchi,” which means “king” and “zedek’ which means “righteousness.” Therefore, Melchizedeck means “king of righteousness.”<br /><br />In Isaiah 42:1-7 it is evident that the Messiah is supposed to be a light to the Gentiles. Of course Matthew picked up on this theme in Matt.12: 15-21. Just as Israel’s calling was to go beyond it’s own borders, the Messiah’s mission was to not only reach the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt. 10:6), but the Gentile nations as well. Since Israel’s call was to be a light to the nations and the Messiah is the ideal representative of his people, it is no surprise that the He has the same role. Statistically, more Gentiles have come to faith in Jesus and continue to do so every day. These prophecies are still being fulfilled on a daily basis. This is why it is imperative to read all the messianic passages about the Messiah.<br /><br />Targum Isaiah 42:1-4 reads, “Behold my servant, I will bring him near, my chosen whom my Memra is pleased; I will put my Holy Spirit upon him, he will reveal my judgment to the peoples, He will not cry or call or lift up his voice outside. The poor who are like a bruised reed he will not break, and the needy who are like a dimly burning wick he will not quench; he will bring forth judgment for his truth. He will not tire or be weary till he has established judgment in the earth; and islands wait for his law.” (Bruce Chilton, trans. And ed. 1987. The Isaiah Targum. ArBib 11. Wilmington, DE: Glazier). Note: The Aramic Targums employed the term “Memra” that translates into Greek as “Logos.”<br /><br />The Hasidic Jewish students were unfamiliar with this issue. They clearly thought the Messiah was only supposed to fulfill His role to Israel by fulfilling the Maimonides messianic description. In relation to the Messiah being a light to the nations, we should take some advice from Paul. Since the Apostle Paul was a Pharisee, he was raised in the Jewish Scriptures. For Paul, the coming King that was promised in the Jewish Scriptures was to be a descendant of David. As Paul says in Romans 1: 1-4, “Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord.”<br /><br />Paul realized since Jesus fulfills the Jewish predictions about the Messiah, he has the responsibility to call the nations to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah by saying, “through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name's sake.” Paul understood that Jesus had to be not only the king of Israel, but the king of the entire world when he states in Romans 10:12, “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him.”<br /><br /><br />Jesus and the Kingdom<br />Biblical scholar J. Julius Scott Jr. has noted that in the ancient world, “kingdom” referred to “lordship,” “rule,” “reign,” or “sovereignty,” rather than simply a geographical location. Scott asserts “sovereignty (or rule) of God” would be a better translation than “kingdom of God,” since such a translation denotes God’s sphere or influence or control and includes any person or group who, regardless of their location, acknowledge His sovereignty (8). Jesus offered the political, earthly, aspect of the kingdom of God to Israel (as seen in Matt. 4-12), and they rejected it. A good study of this issue isMatt. 12: 22-45 which discusses the issue of the Jewish leadership attributing Jesus’ miracles to Beelzebul. While some biblical scholars disagree about the nature of the kingdom, we do see as change in Matt. 13. Jesus went on to tell of a mystery form of the kingdom (Matt. 13:11) that is taking place between His first and Second Coming.<br /><br />While Jesus shows the seriousness of the Jewish leaderships accusation that his miracles could be attributed to Satan (Matt.12: 24), He never insisted that national Israel’s rejection of His identity as the Messiah forfeited their calling as God’s chosen people In relation to the kingdom of God, Jesus now offers an invisible, spiritual reign through a new birth to both Jew and Gentile that will last throughout eternity (John 3:3-7; 18:36; Luke 17:20-21). It is true that only a remnant of Israel did believe in Jesus as the Messiah (Rom. 9:6-8;) while the majority of Israel still rejected His claim of Messiahship. Because of Israel’s rejection of Jesus as the Messiah, it is now the responsibility of the Church to provoke Israel to jealousy (Rom 11:11). One day, Jesus will return and establish the earthly, national or political aspect of the kingdom of God (Isa. 9:6; Amos 9:11; Dan 2:44; 7:13-14; 27; Micah 4:7-8; Zech 14:1-9; Matt 26:63-64; Acts 1:6-11; 3:19-26). In other words, Jesus will fulfill the earthly aspect of the Davidic Covenant by being King over His people (Matt. 19:28).<br /><br /><br />There is no kingdom without a king (Heb.“melek”) In observing the ministry of Jesus, He demonstrated one of the visible signs of His inauguration of the kingdom of God would not only be the dispensing of the Holy Spirit (John 7: 39), but also the ability to perform miracles. A miracle, of course, is a special act of God in the natural world, something nature would not have done on its own. It is beyond the scope of this article to defend the philosophical basis for miracles. Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council, the Sanhedrin, told Jesus, “ ‘Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him’ ” (John 3:1–2).<br /><br />In his great sermon on Pentecost, Peter told the crowd that Jesus had been “accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him” (Acts 2:22).” Within the context of first-century Jewish miracle workers, how much weight should be given to Jesus’ miracles? As Ben Witherington III says, "The miracles themselves raise the question but do not fully provide the answer of who Jesus was; what is important from an historical point of view is not the miracle themselves, which were not unprecedented, but Jesus’ unique interpretation of the miracles as signs of the dominion’s inbreaking, and also the signs of who he was: the fulfiller of the Old Testament promises about the blind seeing, the lame walking and the like." (9)<br /><br />In Matthew 11:13, John the Baptist, who in prison after challenging Herod, sent messengers to ask Jesus the question: “Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?” Jesus’ responded by appealing to the evidence of his miracles. As Jesus said, “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me” (Matt. 11:4-6). Jesus’ evidential claim can be seen in the following syllogism: If one does certain kinds of actions (the acts cited above), then one is the Messiah.<br />1. I am doing those kinds of actions.<br />2. I am doing those kinds of actions.<br />3. Therefore, I am the Messiah (10)<br /><br />Messianic Movements: There are only three Messianic movements that have survived after their founder has died. The first is Messianic Judaism or Christianity. This has survived for 2,000 yrs or more. As N.T. Wright says, ”If nothing happened to the body of Jesus, I cannot see why any of his explicit or implicit claims should be regarded as true. What is more, I cannot as a historian, see why anyone would have continued to belong to his movement and to regard him as the Messiah. There were several other Messianic or quasi-Messianic movements within a hundred years either side of Jesus. Routinely, they ended with the leader being killed by authorities, or by a rival group. If your Messiah is killed, you conclude that he was not the Messiah. Some of those movements continued to exist; where they did, they took a new leader from the same family (But note: Nobody ever said that James, the brother of Jesus, was the Messiah.) Such groups did not go around saying that their Messiah had been raised from the dead. What is more, I cannot make sense of the whole picture, historically or theologically, unless they were telling the truth.” (11)<br /><br />The second is Sabbatai Sevi: Sabbatai Sevi was a seventeenth-century Jewish teacher who claimed to be the Messiah and was heralded by a contemporary named Nathan. It was reported many years later that, after Sevi’s death in 1676, his brother found his tomb empty but full of light. Many of Sevi’s followers refused to believe he had really died, so they refused to believe he had risen from the dead. Whatever happened to him, no one ever reported seeing him again. His disappearance has characteristics of an apotheosis legend. Such legends lack historical support. (12) In contrast to the resurrection claim of Jesus, there are multiple eyewitness appearances of Jesus after his resurrection (see 1 Cor 15).<br /><br />The third Messianic movement is the present Lubavitcher movement. Some of Rabbi <a title="Menachem Mendel Schneerson" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson">Menachem Mendel Schneerson</a>’s followers think He is the Messiah and that He will come back from the dead. Some in the Lubavitcher movement have even asserted that Isaiah 53 can be used as a proof text that the Messisah will rise from the dead. Of course, this has led to great contraversy. The Orhodox community have complained that claiming that asserting that Schneerson will rise from the dead sounds incredibly similar to the Chrisitan claim about Jesus.<br />Did Jesus turn people back to Torah?<br /><br />Most of the Jewish believers in Jesus that I have met all have a greater appreciation of Torah. To say that Jesus has led Jewish people away from Torah is to commit the reductive fallacy. Reductive fallacies are attempts to reduce a complex issue to a single point that does not accurately represent or flatly ignores the complexity of the issue. Furthermore, as far as Jesus’ teaching and speaking authority, the rabbis could speak of taking upon oneself the yoke of Torah or the yoke of the kingdom; Jesus said, “Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me.” (Mt 11:29). Also, the rabbis could say that if two or three men sat together, having the words of Torah among them, the shekhina (God’s own presence) would dwell on them (M Avot 3:2) ; Jesus said, “Where two or three are gathered in my name, I will be among them” (Matt 18:20). The rabbis could speak about being persecuted for God’s sake, or in his Name’s sake, or for the Torah’s sake; Jesus spoke about being persecuted for and even loosing one’s life for his sake. Remember, the prophets could ask people to turn to God, to come to God for rest and help. Jesus spoke with a new prophetic authority by stating, “Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest” (Mt 11:28). (13)<br /><br />The End of a Fruitful Discussion<br /><br />I have such a great love for the Jewish people. As we concluded our talk with these Hasidic Jewish students we both agreed that we both couldn’t be right about the Messiah. Either Jesus is the Messiah or He is a false Messiah. My faith can’t make him the Messiah. We all departed on friendly terms. I hope for more of these discussions in the future.<br /><br />Sources:<br /><br />5. Tractate Sanhedrin, Talmud Bavli, The Shottenstein Edition (Brooklyn, N.Y.Mesorah, 1995), vol 3 98a5, emphasis in original; cited in Michael Brown. Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Vol 2. Grand Rapids MI: Baker Books. 2000, 224.<br />6. Ibid, 32-38.<br />7. M. Brown. Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Vol 3. Grand Rapids MI: Baker Books. 2003, 157<br />8. J. J. Scott Jr, Customs and Controversies: Intertestamental Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995. 297.<br />9. Ben Witherington III. New Testament History. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. 2001, 12.<br />10. Groothuis, D. Jesus: Philosopher and Apologist: Available at <a href="http://www.theapologiaproject.org/JesusPhil.pdf">http://www.theapologiaproject.org/JesusPhil.pdf</a>.<br />11. John Dominic Crossan and N.T Wright. The Resurrection of Jesus. Minneapolis, MN, Fortress Press. 2006, 71.<br />12. N. L.Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, Mich. Baker Books, 1999, 650.<br />13. See O. Skarsaune, In The Shadow Of The Temple: Jewish Influences On Early Christianity. Downers Grove, ILL: Intervarsity Press. 2002.Eric Chabothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02980384024507365108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6542392311504845842.post-42342936628922058172009-03-12T10:28:00.000-07:002009-03-12T17:29:32.121-07:00Talking to Jewish People About the Messiah/Part OneTalking to Jewish People About the Messiah/Part One<br /><br />In a recent outreach attempt to the Ohio State University campus, we had the opportunity to talk to several Jewish people about spirituality and the Messiah. As we arrived at OSU on an early Tuesday afternoon, I told my friends that they should not be surprised if God sent us several Jewish people to talk to about spiritual issues. Sure enough, the first four people we talked to were all young Hasidic Jewish men. This was not the first time I had talked to a Jewish person from a Hasidic background. However, it was the first time my two friends had experienced anything like this. Hasidic Jews are called Hasidim in Hebrew. The Hasidic movement is very focused on the joyful observance of God’s commandments (mitzvot), heartfelt prayer, and boundless love for God and the world He created. Many ideas for Hasidism are directly realted to a mystical movement in Judaism called Kabbalah. Hasidic leaders are called "tzadikim" which is Hebrew for “righteous men."<br /><br />A tzadik in the is sometimes viewed as a Rebbe which means master, teacher, or mentor. Such an example is Rabbi <a title="Menachem Mendel Schneerson" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson">Menachem Mendel Schneerson</a>, the leader of the <a title="Chabad Lubavitch" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chabad_Lubavitch">Chabad Lubavitch</a> Hasidim. After he died, he has been called "The Rebbe" by Lubavitcher Hasidim and even by many non-Lubavitchers. With the fall of communism and the miracles during the gulf war, the Rebbe stated that these are heralding a time of peace and tranquility for all mankind, the time of Moshiach (messiah). (1) To this end the Rebbe placed much emphasis on the traditional Jewish teachings regarding the time of Moshiach, placing great emphasis in the studying of these concepts.(2) In 1992, at the age of ninety, the Rebbe suffered a stroke; he passed away two years later, on June 12, 1994. Shortly thereafter, a bill was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Congressmen Charles Schumer, John Lewis, Newt Gingrich, and Jerry Lewis to bestow on the Rebbe the Congressional Gold Medal. The bill passed both Houses by unanimous consent, honoring the Rebbe for his "outstanding and lasting contributions toward improvements in world education, morality, and acts of charity".(3)<br /><br />As we talked to these Hasidic Jewish students, it was clear their view of Messiah was taken from the famous Moses Maimonides. What did Maimonides teach about the Messiah?<br /><br />In his Mishneh Torah, Book of Kings, Maimonides institutes a two-tiered approach to messianic identification. Meeting the attributes in tier one qualifies one as a messiah potential. Fulfillment of tier two confers the title of King Messiah upon the candidate.As pertaining to tier one Maimonides writes:<br /><br />And if a king shall arise from the house of David who studies the Torah and is occupied in doing the commandments as his ancestor David according to the written and oral Torah, and compels all Israel to walk in its ways and to strengthen its foundation, and fights the battles of G-d — then it is presumed that he is the Messiah. The qualifying round may be summarized as follows<br />1. He traces his lineage to the house of David2. He studies Torah 3. He performs good deeds, in accord with Written and Oral Torah 4. He reinstates widespread Torah observance 5. He fights battles for the LordThe fulfillment of these “Five” qualifies the person as a messiah potential, a type of messiah-in waiting.<br /><br />According to Maimonides, the 2nd century Bar Kosiba, who led a revolt against the Romans in 162 C.E. in an effort to reestablish the sovereignty of Israel, was a messiah potential. He allegedly fulfilled the Five prerequisites. Nonetheless, he was clearly not the Messiah, but instead wrongly dubbed so by Rabbi Akiva, the chief rabbi of the time, and one of the Ten Martyrs in Judaism. Bar Kosiva was slain before he fulfilled any of the second tier activities. Maimonides continues in the method of identifying Messiah by stating: “If he succeeded in accomplishing these [five things], and he subdued all the surrounding nations and he built the Temple in its place, and collected the dispersed of Israel — then this is the Messiah for certain.” Hence, Maimonides believed that there have been messiah potentials throughout the ages, but that the messiah certain had not arisen as yet.<br /><br />The second tiered characteristics may be summarized as follows: 1. He subdues Israel’s enemies 2. He rebuilds the Temple at the ancient site 3. He re-gathers the dispersed of Israel.Probably, the closest to fulfill these conditions was Zeruvavel, who rebuilt the Second Temple, and some of the dispersed of Israel returned. However, it is obvious that Maimonides was speaking of a future King Messiah who was yet to arrive. Neither did the Christian Messiah fulfill Maimonides’ eight requirements. According to Maimonides, “if he did not accomplish all those [eight things] or was killed, then it is understood that he is not the one that the Torah promised.” Jesus failed to overcome Israel’s enemies, rebuild the Temple and regather the dispersed ofIsrael. And, he was slain before he accomplished these requirements.<br /><br />Hence, Maimonides, in establishing a type of formulae for identifying messiah, accomplished a number of objectives. He was able to quench the frenzy and the memorization that often accompanies a messianic pretender who arrives on the scene and makes promises to an oppressed and gullible community. At the same time he was able to convey faith and hope in a coming messiah who would indeed restore the oppressed and the dispersed to the inheritance in the Land promised to them by the L-rd. This “wait and see” approach is a practical one that is intended to eliminate the risk of false messiahs. They are not the Messiah until they deliver on the Torah promises. This is exactly the presentation the Yemen community needed to hear. It was premature to believe that the “mad pretender” was the Messiah; and, in fact, he had already disqualified himself by a number of failings.<br /><br />Maimonides’ conception of the Messiah was rational. This is not surprising. As a philosopher who harmonized Greek rationalism with Jewish law, he paints messiah as a natural person who ushers in a natural order in fulfillment of scripture and tradition. Everything is transitional. Nothing is radical and apocalyptic. Maimonides was truly moderate. He rejected the kabbalists, who embraced mysticism and practically deified messiah, and ascribed supernatural powers to him. He strengthened those whose faith was in danger of being shipwrecked. He fused the Jewish G-d with the Greek mindset and created a harmonized universe. His position, like he prescribed for others in Hilchot Da’ot,80 was the one in the middle, and that is the one that made all the difference for Maimonides and his followers.<br /><br />His position concerning the Messiah was also pragmatic. Neither is this surprising for one steeped in rationalism. His letters spoke to real issues confronting communities and people who were living in a world of persecution. He could empathize. It was his experience as well. Thus, he tells the community in Yemen that they should reject the pretenders but await the true messiah who will come, and probably in the not-too-distant future, as evidenced by the prophecies and the signs. Maimonides had suffered terribly in his life, with persecution and personal tragedies. He was a rationalist in the mode of the Greek mind, who sought to explain matters in rational terms. Moreover, it was a world of Christians and Mohammedans. They pressed the Jews to convert, and often became brute beasts in their attacks on the Jews. Maimonides was well aware of the need to live and the need to stay faithful to Torah. At great risk to his life he refuted the Islamic Prophet and the Christian Messiah, and encouraged the Jews, in near and distant lands, to hold fast to Torah and to believe in perfect faith in the coming of the Messiah and though he tarry, to wait, and not think that he will be late. (4)<br /><br /><br />1. Congressional Gold Medal Recipient Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Avaialble at <a href="http://www.congressionalgoldmedal.com/RabbiMenachemMendelSchneerson.htm">http://www.congressionalgoldmedal.com/RabbiMenachemMendelSchneerson.htm</a>. Retrieved March 11, 2009.<br />2. Ibid.<br />3. Ibid.<br />4. This info was taken form my friend Elliot Klayman’s article called A Composite of the Characteristics of Messiah: A Maimonidean View. Available at <a href="http://www.thinkapologetics.com/content/judaismchristianity/CompositeCharacMessiah.html">http://www.thinkapologetics.com/content/judaismchristianity/CompositeCharacMessiah.html</a>Eric Chabothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02980384024507365108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6542392311504845842.post-83231208088275283712009-03-09T12:15:00.000-07:002009-03-09T13:20:47.257-07:00Which Revelation is True?In a recent outreach attempt on a college campus, I had the opportunity to speak to a student who had become a Mormon while attending college. I then talked to a student who had been meeting with Mormon missionaries. He was thinking about being a Mormon as well. I do not doubt the sincerity of both of these students. Of course sincerity is not a test for truth. I have been sincerely wrong about many things. Anyway, after talking to both of them, they both said that the test for the truthfulness of the Mormon faith is a religious experience. In this case, the confirmation of the Mormon faith happens through the heart confirming through what is already true in the mind. In other words, the Mormon appeal to a religious experience sounds a bit like the Christian appeal to the internal witness of the Holy Spirit.<br /><br />This brings up an interesting point in apologetic dialogue. Which revelation is true? The apostle Paul uses the Greek word “plerophoria” which means “complete confidence, full assurance,” to indicate that the believer has obtained the knowledge of the truth as a result of the Holy Spirit’s work (2 Col 2:2; 1Thess 1; Rom 4:21; 14;5, Col 4:12). (1) But what epistemological rights does the Christian have in saying their faith is true? While we do not want to discount the internal witness of the Holy Spirit, critics object that several other religions that are not compatible with Christianity lay claim to a self-authenticating witness of God’s Spirit. Do not all existential experiences need an external test for truth?<br /><br />In appealing to the Book of Mormon the Mormon says:<br /><br />And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. (2)<br /><br />And so we see with the Mormon, all that is required for truth is the subjective testimony of the Holy Spirit. How does the Christian explain the Mormon’s confidence that the burning in their bosom is really not an authentic experience with the Holy Spirit? Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon Church, claimed an angel appeared to him and directed him to what are called the golden plates. Smith then showed them to eleven others. Smith is supposed to be responsible for translating these plates into The Book of Mormon. Like the apostles of Jesus, Smith suffered and died for his beliefs. However, there is a major difference between the eleven witnesses to the gold plates and the apostles of Jesus. (3) While six of the eleven witnesses left the Mormon Church, we have no record of the apostles of Jesus (Paul, James and John, others) even leaving the early Christian movement. (4)<br /><br />Atheistic philosopher Michael Martin has argued that religious experience cannot qualify as a test for truth. After all, the testimonies of Muhammad, as well as the founders of several religious movements such as Joseph Smith, Sun Myung Moon and Jim Jones all attest to having a testimony that God gave them a revelation from heaven. (5) While Martin makes the mistake of depending on religious testimony as the only source for testing the truthfulness of a religious claim within a historical context, his points are valid for the Christian. How could the Christian argue sincere people of other faiths do not experience God as some sort of Being or loving Father, in which they depend upon? Fortunately, Jesus has left his people with an external test to demonstrate He is the Son of God. One of the external evidences (and I emphasize one!) that the subjective experience that the Christian experiences is truly from God’s Spirit is Jesus' resurrection. We do want to avoid the rationalism associated with Enlightenment period which is what Francis Schaeffer termed "autonomous reason," which is the haughty human attempt to build a worldview without recourse to God. (6) However, the “revelation only” view has some criticisms. This is why it is impossible to avoid using reason in evaluating religious claims. In evaluating any religious claim, here are a few guidelines: 1. What does it claim to know? 2. How does it claim to know it? 3. What is the evidence for it?<br /><br />We also should not forget the difference between certitude and certainty. Certainty is the confidence that something is true. Sometimes, certainty is distinguished from certitude. Certainty is objective, but certitude is subjective. A first principle or self-evident statement is objectively certain, whether a person is sure about it or not. Certitude involves a knower’s assent to that which is certain; it is a subjective acceptance of what is objectively so. In common usage the terms are used interchangeably. The difference is that certainty exists where there is objective reasons or evidence that are commensurate to the degree of certainty claimed. With certitude, however, there need to be a commensurate degree of objective reasons or evidence for the degree one possesses. (7)<br /><br />I would conclude with the following:<br /><br />Norman L. Geisler and and Paul D. Feinberg show the relationship between reason and revelation in their book Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective:<br /><br />There is some truth in all of the basic views on reason and revelation: (1) “Reason is over revelation” is correct in that reason is epistemologically prior to revelation. The alleged revelation must be tested by reason. (2) “Revelation is over reason” is right in the ontological sense. God created reason and it must be His servant, not His master. (3) “Revelation only” is correct in the sense that ultimately and ontologically all truth comes from God. (4) “Reason only” has some truth, since reason must judge epistemologically whether the alleged revelation is from God. (5) “Revelation and reason” is correct because it properly assigns a role to each and shows their interrelationship. One should reason about and for revelation, otherwise he has an unreasonable faith. Likewise, reason has no guide without a revelation and flounders in error.<br /><br />1. Craig, W.L. Reasonable Faith. Wheaten, ILL: Crossway Books. 1984, 32<br />2. Habermas. G.R. and Licona, M. L. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.<br />Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004, 27.<br />3. Ibid, 185-188.<br />4. Ibid.<br />5. Ibid., 282.<br />6. Clark, D.J. Dialogical Apologetics: A Person Centered Approach to Christian Defense. Grand Rapids MI: Baker Books. 1993, 14.<br />7. Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Baker Books, 1999, 124-125.Eric Chabothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02980384024507365108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6542392311504845842.post-40992145649971458912009-03-06T07:10:00.000-08:002009-03-06T07:13:09.138-08:00The Jesus StudiesThe Jesus Studies<br /><br />For over 100 years, there has been a quest to identify the historical Jesus and differentiate between the Jesus of history and the Jesus of faith. Here are some of the aspects of these quests.<br /><br /><br />The First Quest Period-1778-1906: marked by works such as David Strauss’s, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined. Under the influence of David Hume, Strauss dismissed the reliability of historical and supernatural elements in the Gospels as “outrageous” and “myths” Another important work of this period was Albert Schweitzer’s The Quest of the Historical Jesus. (1)<br />The No Quest Period-1906-1953: Rudolf Bultmann regarded Schweitzer’s work as methodologically impossible and theologically illegitimate. (2) Schweitzer’s thesis marked the end of the Old Quest and the beginning of the No Quest period. Through the first half of the twentieth century, the pursuit of the historical Jesus seemed to some scholars to be futile and irrelevant. The failure of the Old Quest, as N.T. Wright has said, had left a “deep ditch” separating the Jesus of history from the Christ of faith. During the period of the No Quest, critical scholars became more interested in examining the New Testament for what it revealed about the early church and its evolving message. Rudolph Bultmann was a primary leader in what is called form criticism during this period. Form criticism sought to draw distinction between various literary forms within the gospels- parables, pronouncements, proverbs and so on- and to identify the stages of development of the texts and the traditions behind them as they passed from oral to written form. (3)<br /><br />The New Quest Period- 1953-1970: Ernst Kasemann, a student of Bultmann began the “new quest” in a 1953 lecture. While he rejected some of Bultmann’s views, he was concerned with the person of Jesus as the preached word of God and his relation to history. The major work of the new quest is Gunther Bornkamm’s Jesus of Nazareth (1960). (4) Among the New Questers were German scholar Joachim Jeremias whose works in the 1950’s and the 1960’s focused heavily on the message of Jesus rather than on reconstructing a full-blooded biography. In the United States, the groundwork for the New Quest was laid by the eminent New Testament scholar James Robinson of the Claremont School of Theology, whose 1959 book called A New Quest of the Historical Jesus defined many of the issues that would come to dominate the scholarly community for decades.(5)<br /><br />Weaknesses of The First Quest, The No Quest and The New Quest:<br />Anti-supernaturalism: Miracle accounts and any references to the supernatural are immediately rejected. This is unjustified. The naturalistic worldview came to be more prominent during the Enlightenment period. For theists, miracles (which are paramount to the Christian faith) are supernatural but not anti-natural. A miracle, of course, is a special act of God in the natural world, something nature would not have done on its own. (6)It is beyond the scope of this article to defend the philosophical basis for miracles. For an excellent treament of this topic, feel free to read Norman L. Geisler. Miracles And The Modern Mind: A Defense of Biblical Miracles (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1992).<br /><br />A false separation: These quests fail to show that there needs to be a dichotomy between the Jesus of faith and the Jesus of history. They assume the Gospels are non-historical. (7) In relation to the resurrection, Ben Witherington III says:<br /><br />Any position in which claims about Jesus or the resurrection are removed from the realm of historical reality and placed in a subjective realm of personal belief or some realm that is immune to human scrutiny does Jesus and the resurrection no service and no justice. It is a ploy of desperation to suggest that the Christian faith would be little affected if Jesus was not actually raised from the dead in space and time. A person who gives up on the historical foundations of our faith has in fact given up on the possibility of any real continuity between his or her own faith and that of a Peter, Paul, James, John, Mary Magdalene, or Priscilla. The first Christian community had a strong interest in historical reality, especially the historical reality of Jesus and his resurrection, because they believed their faith, for better or for worse, was grounded in it. (8)<br /><a href="http://www.thinkapologetics.com/gp/reader/0802831621/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link"></a><br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802831621/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217519499&sr=1-1">Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony </a>by Richard Bauckham<br />Something that all historians consider in evaluating a historical document is the usge of eyewitness testimony. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that investigates the nature and origin of knowledge. How do we know something? The role of testimony is one of the primary ways humans can know anything about historical events. Testimony as an epistemological enterprise plays a large role in the most recent work by British scholar Richard Bauckham in his book called Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Bauckham does a superb job in evaluating how testimony can be treated as historical knowledge. He also compares the use of eyewitness testimony in the Gospels and the survivors of the Holocaust.<br />In the Bible, the biblical concept of testimony or witness is closely allied with the conventional Tanakh legal sense of testimony given in a court of law. Even the testimony of one witness is insufficient—for testimony to be acceptable, it must be established by two or three witnesses (Deut 19:15).<br /><br />In recording the historical events that are related to the life of Jesus, we see the usage of testimony and witness in the following passages:<br />Luke 1:4: Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as those from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word have handed them down to us, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigating everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.<br />Acts 2:32: This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses of it.<br />1 John 1:1: What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled concerning the Word of life.<br />Acts 10:39: We are witnesses of all that he did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a cross.<br />Acts 4:19-20: Peter and John answered and said to them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God for us to obey you rather than God, you be the judges; for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard.”<br />1 Peter 5:1: So I exhort the presbyters among you, as a fellow presbyter and witness to the sufferings of Christ and one who has a share in the glory to be revealed.<br />2 Peter 1:19: We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty.<br />1 Corinthians 15:1-17: Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.<br /><br />Paul's lists the elements of the Gospel:<br />The Messiah died for our sins according to the Scriptures.<br />He was buried.<br />He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.<br />He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.<br />He then appeared to all the apostles.<br />He then appeared to 500 brethren at one time.<br />He appeared to James.<br />He appeared to Paul.<br />If the Messiah is not risen, their faith is in vain and they are false witnesses of God<br /><br />Misunderstanding of “myth”: Most of the people who are involved in these quests misunderstand the nature of “myth.” Just because an event is not empirical does not mean it is not historical. C.S. Lewis, who wrote several fantasy novels said "First then, whatever these men may be as Biblical critics, I distrust them as critics. They seem to lack literary judgment, to be imperceptive about the very quality of the texts they are reading . . . If he tells me that something in a Gospel is legend or romance, I want to know how many legends and romances he had read, how well his palate is trained in detecting them by the flavour; not how many years he has spent on that Gospel . . . I have been reading poems, romances, vision-literature, legends, myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that not one of them is like this." (9)<br /><br />Genre Issues: In studying for his doctoral dissertation, Richard Burridge, dean of King’s College in London England, researched the genre of the gospels. Burridge says, “Genre is the like a kind of contract between the author and the reader, or between the producers of a programme and the audience, about how they will write or produce something and how you should interpret what they have written. Therefore, it is important that you know what the genre of the thing is before you come to interpret it."(10)<br /><br />As Burridge diligently searched for a genre, he compared the content of the gospels to other Hellenistic bioi (“lives” or biographies), such as Isocrates’s Evagoras, Xenophon’s Agesilaus, Satyrus’s Euripides, Nepos’s Atticus, Philo’s Moses, Tacitus’s Agricola, Plutarch’s Cato Minor, Suetonius’s Lives of the Caesars, Lucian’s Demonax, and Philostratus’s Apollonius of Tyana. Burridge placed special attention on the prologue, verb subjects, allocation of space, mode of representation, length, structure, scale, literary units, use of sources, style, social setting, quality of characterization, atmosphere as well authorial intention and purpose.Because of the gospel’s similarities to these ancient biographies, Burridge concluded that the genre of the gospels is an ancient bioi as well. The desire to place modern historiographic expectations on an ancient biography is a continual apologetic issue that can be resolved by studying the conventions that the ancient authors used. (11) Most of the modern world’s standard of accuracy is defined by an age where tape recorders, video cameras are prevalent. However, as Ben Witherington says so well, “Works of ancient history or biography should be judged by their own conventions.” (12)<br />A non-Jewish Jesus: Many Jewish scholars view the “New Quest” period as just another attempt to “de-Judaize Jesus” or deny his Jewishness.<br /><br />The Third Quest Period-1970 and on: As of today, biblical scholars have embarked on what is called “The Third Quest” for the historical Jesus, a quest that has been characterized as “the Jewish reclamation of Jesus.” Rather then saying Jesus broke away from Judaism and started Christianity, Jewish scholars studying the New Testament have sought to re-incorporate Jesus within the fold of Judaism.(13) In this study, scholars have placed a great deal of emphasis on the social world of first- century Palestine. The scholars of the Third Quest have rejected the idea that the Jesus of the New Testament was influenced by Hellenic Savior Cults.(14)<br />Some of the other non-Jewish scholars that are currently active in the Third Quest are Craig A. Evans, I. Howard Marshall, James H. Charlesworth, N.T. Wright, and James D.G. Dunn.<br />In his book Jesus and the Victory of God,Christian Origins and the Question of God, Volume 2, author N.T.Wright says that the historical Jesus is very much the Jesus of the gospels: a first century Palestinian Jew who announced and inaugurated the kingdom of God, performed “mighty works” and believed himself to be Israel’s Messiah who would save his people through his death and resurrection. “He believed himself called,” in other words says Wright, “to do and be what, in the Scriptures, only Israel’s God did and was.” (15)<br /><br />Both E.P. Sanders and James Charlesworth say “the dominate view today seems to be that we can know pretty well what Jesus was out to accomplish, that we can know a lot about what he said, and that those two things make sense within the world of first- century Judaism.” (16)<br /><br />Sources:<br />Geisler N. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999, pgs 385-386.<br />Ibid.<br />Sheller, Jeffrey L. Is The Bible True? How Modern Debates and Discoveries Affirm the Essence of the Scriptures, New York. Harper Collins Publishers. 1999, 176-182.<br />Ibid.<br />Ibid.<br />Geisler, pgs 385-386.<br />Ibid.<br />B. Witherington III. New Testament History. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. 2001, pg 167.<br />Lewis, C.S. Christian Reflections. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967, 154-55.<br />Burridge R. and G. Gould. Jesus Now and Then. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 2004,pg 48.<br />Craig, W L. Christian Reasonable Faith, Wheaten, ILL: Crossway Books. 1984, 218. See Burridge, R. What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco Roman Biography. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, Second Edition, 2004.<br />Witherington, 18.<br />Craig, 240-241.<br />Ibid.<br />Sheller, 191.<br />Craig, 240-241.Eric Chabothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02980384024507365108noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6542392311504845842.post-8696647504153660092009-03-04T07:27:00.000-08:002009-03-04T07:29:16.686-08:00The Son of GodThis article is from 4TRUTH.NET<br /><br />Son of God<br />By Ben Witherington, III<br />One of the big mistakes in Christian apologetics is just focusing on what Jesus publicly claimed to be. The truth is that what a person is and what they claim to be can be two very different things. In the case of Jesus, public claims are but a small subset of what Jesus taught His inner circle, and that also was but a small subset of what Jesus believed about Himself, and revealed in various ways, including in some rare cases by public claims. We need to understand as well the nature of the culture in which Jesus lived. Jesus did not live in a late western culture that stressed individualism or striving to be an individual. Rather one's identity was defined by one's key relationships. Notice that almost all the so called titles predicated of Jesus are actually relational terms—Jesus is Son in relationship to God, He is Son in relationship to humankind, He is God's anointed (the meaning of Messiah/Christ), He is Lord in relationship to those He rules, He is Son in relationship to David. One of the crucial reasons that Jesus did not run around Israel making enormous direct claims for Himself to total strangers is because they were bound to be badly misunderstood in a world where standing out from the crowd was seen as abnormal and undesirable. So for example, even with His disciples Jesus asks them "who do people say that I am" (Mark 8:27. NASB). Normally in Jesus' world, people were defined by others and by the tribe they were a part of.<br /><br />The phrase "Son of God" often connotes divinity in modern Christian discussions, but it seldom did so in Jewish antiquity. It is true that sometimes angels were called sons of God (see Gen. 6:2) but when Jews thought about a Son of God they normally thought of a king anointed by God. For example, it is perfectly clear in Psalm 2 that the discussion is about the Davidic king who has been anointed by the high priest, and thereby coroneted as king. "The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the Lord and against His Anointed One…the Lord scoffs at them…'I have installed my king on Zion, my holy hill.'" Then the king himself declares "I will proclaim the decree of the Lord…You are My Son; today I have become your Father. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance" (Ps. 2:2-8, NIV). These last verses should be familiar since they are quoted in part at Jesus' baptismal event (see Mark 1:11 and par.). In Judaism it was believed that the king had a special relationship with God, and was in fact adopted by God as His own child at the point of coronation. What is especially interesting about Mark 1:11 is that the second phrase "today I have become your Father" is omitted because Mark does not want to suggest that Jesus was merely adopted as God's Son at the point of His baptism. Rather the baptism is the juncture where the Father confirms to the Son the identity He has always had and will now be publicly revealed.<br /><br />There can be no doubt however, that Jesus did not view His relationship to God as simply identical to the relationship King David had with God. For one thing, it tells us a lot about Jesus that He prayed to God as Abba which is the Aramaic term of endearment which means dearest Father (see Mark 14:36,Abba is not slang, it does not mean "Daddy.") This is frankly inexplicable if Jesus only saw Himself as a King, or a prophetic figure, because no Jew, not even the king before Jesus' day prayed to God as "my dearest Father." This would have sounded like shocking familiarity. Notice that God is very seldom called Father in the Old Testament, and never prayed to as Abba. This is something new, and it reveals something special about how Jesus viewed His relationship to God. He believed He had a distinctively intimate relationship with God the Father. Even more striking is the fact that He taught His own disciples to pray to God as Abba, suggesting He could give them an intimate relationship with God unlike any they had had before. This is why we find several places in our chronologically earliest New Testament documents, the letters of Paul, where Paul says that Christians pray to God as Abba, indeed the Holy Spirit prompts them to do so, for they have become sons and daughters of God like Jesus though on a lesser scale, through their relationship with Jesus (see Gal. 4:6; Rom. 8:15.) And of course the very first word of the Lord's Prayer, which Jesus taught to His disciples in Aramaic was Abba (see Luke 11:2.) One has to ask, What sort of person could Jesus be if He thought He could not only save people, but give people alienated from God a relationship with God unlike any that human beings had had previously? This in itself implies a lot about Jesus' self understanding.<br /><br />A further insight into Jesus' view of Himself as God's Son comes from a close examination of a text like Matthew 11:27, NIV, "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." The first half of this maxim is unexceptional. Anyone could say "no one really knows me except God my maker who knows all." But it is the second half of the saying which reflects Jesus' distinctive self-understanding. He sees Himself as knowing God in a way and to a degree that others do not, and furthermore, He sees Himself as the conduit or unique mediator of that knowledge to other human beings. Not only so, but Jesus is said to get to choose whom He reveals this intimate knowledge to. While this does not in itself prove that Jesus thought of Himself as divine, this saying puts Jesus in a unique and unprecedented position when it comes to the knowledge of God, and also in His role as the dispenser of the knowledge of God. It is not a surprise that Paul some 35 or so years later would stress "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim. 2:5-6, NIV). Later Christian theology was right to draw the inference that if Jesus was indeed the mediator of the saving knowledge and power and presence of God, and it was right to see Himself as a mediator then He had to be able to represent God to humankind, and humans to God. In short, He had to partake of both the nature of God and the nature of human beings.<br /><br />One of the important though indirect ways that Jesus revealed His identity to His disciples and others was through various forms of wisdom or sapiential speech, for example the telling of parables. Mark 12:1-12 immediately comes to mind. In this parable the last and climactic agent and emissary of God to His vineyard is His Son. The vineyard was of course a long time symbol of God's Jewish people (see Isa. 5) and the tenders of the vineyard were of course the religious leaders of Israel, whether prophets, priests, or kings. Notice how the Son is called "the one whom he loved." The Jewish phrase "beloved son" often was a synonym for "only begotten son" and hence especially cherished. Jesus then in this parable sees Himself as a Son of God in some way that is distinctive from other Jews such that He could be called "the beloved Son." Did He understand that he had a unique relationship to the Father because of His distinctive origins (see Matt. 1 on the virginal conception)? This seems a plausible deduction.<br /><br />The title Son of God, while more frequently conveying royalty than divinity in early Judaism, nonetheless had overtones of divinity for the very good reason that in the wider culture which surrounded Israel, kings were quite readily believed to be God's Son in a divine sense. Certainly, when this title was used by someone like Paul to speak of Jesus in the Greco-Roman world to Gentiles, the title must have sometimes carried this sort of significance. It is important to recognize then that it was Jesus' own use of the term Son of Himself that set this train of thought in motion, even though it was more fully amplified, explained, and expounded on after Jesus' death by Paul and various others as the Jesus movement spread west across the empire and became increasingly a Gentile phenomenon. For more on this subject one should consult Witherington, The Many Faces of the Christ, (Continuum, 1995).Eric Chabothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02980384024507365108noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6542392311504845842.post-37406064712974465642009-03-02T15:37:00.000-08:002009-03-02T15:40:32.818-08:00What Can We Know?This is a great article written by my friend Doug Beaumont. It shows the importance of the relationship between epistemology and metaphysics. Can we have one without the other?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.dougbeaumont.org/SoulDevice/philo_epistemology.htm">http://www.dougbeaumont.org/SoulDevice/philo_epistemology.htm</a>Eric Chabothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02980384024507365108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6542392311504845842.post-1843787475881408002009-02-27T09:33:00.000-08:002009-03-03T06:58:24.864-08:00The Law and ConsienceThe Law and the Conscience<br /><br />What is the relationship between the Christian and the law in the Bible? There seems to be a great deal of confusion about this issue in Christian discipleship. In unpacking this issue, here are a few suggestions.<br /><br />1.In this issue, avoid the reductive fallacy. Reductive fallacies are attempts to reduce a complex issue to a single point that does not accurately represent or flatly ignores the complexity of the issue.<br /><br />2. Remember, context is key: Where is the word “law” used in the Tanakh or New Testament? Who is the author? Who is the audience? How does it fit within the rest of the passage and book? If we follow this rule, we can see that the law viewed in negative sense in passages such as Ephesians 2:14-16; Romans 3:20; 4:13-15; 6:14; 7:5-6: 10:4; 1 Cor 15:56-57; Gal 2:15-16; 3:10-13; 3:23-25; 5:4; 5:18, but also used in a in positive sense in passages such as Romans 2:13;17-20, 23,25; 3:1-2;21-22, 31; 6:15; 8:3-4; 13:8,10; 1Cor 9:8-9; Gal 3:21; 1 Tim 1:8. Remember, the Hebrew word for "law" is Torah. Torah means "direction, guidance, instruction." There are 613 of the commandments in the Torah, which were decreed for the Jewish people.<br /><br />3. Avoid Judaphobia: Since Christianity is mostly divorced from its Jewish roots, there is a tendency for many Christians to have an unwarranted fear of anything Jewish, especially Jewish customs, culture, etc. Therefore, Christians are quick to defend the view that they are no longer under the law, but under grace. They generally quote Romans 10:4, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” Therefore, is Jesus "the end of the Law"? Unfortunately, for many, the word “end “is understood by today's reader as termination. But what is forgotten is that the Greek word for “end” is "telos.” Telos is used 42 times in the New Testament, and in the great majority of cases it means, “aim, purpose or goal to which a movement is directed.” (1) Therefore, a better translation is David Stern’s Jewish New Testament which says “”For the goal at which the Torah aims is the Messiah, who offers righteousness to everyone who believes.” (2)<br /><br />No one including myself is saying anyone (either Jew or Gentile) is justified by the law. A Christian is justified by grace through faith alone. But the view that the law has been terminated or abolished leads to what is called antinomianism. Antinomianism comes from two Greek words: anti means against and nomos means law. Therefore, antinomianism means to be opposed to, against God's moral law. In other words, it means lawlessness. Part of the tendency to fall into the trap of antinomianism stems from an over-reaction to legalism in Christian circles. The well- known Romans scholar C.B Cranfield wrote about this issue. He said: “The Greek language of Paul’s day possessed no word-group corresponding to our “legalism,” “legalist” and “ legalistic.” This means that he lacked a convenient terminology for expressing a vital distinction, and so was surely seriously hampered in the work of clarifying the position with regard to the law. In view of this, we should always, we think, be ready to reckon with the possibility that Pauline statements, which at first sight seem to disparage the law, were really directed not against the law itself but against that misunderstanding and misuse of it for which we now have a convenient terminology. In this very difficult terrain Paul was pioneering.” (C.E.B. Cranfield “St. Paul and the Law, “ in Scottish Journal of Theology (1964), pp.43-68.<br /><br />Does the Bible teach antinomianism? No! Perhaps we forget that while we are saved by grace through faith alone and empowered by the Holy Spirit in order to obey God’s law. To say “I am a believer in Jesus and I can now do whatever I want,” is contrary to the what the Bible teaches.<br /><br />The Conscience<br />A few years ago, I was browsing through a thrift store and came across the book section. It is amazing how God allows us to find books in such places for such low prices (in this case I only had to pay 2.00). Anyway, the book I came across was by John F. MacArthur called The Vanishing Conscience. Not to my surprise, the conscience happened to be something that I had been thinking about quite a bit.<br /><br />Have you ever read Amos 1and 2? In these passages, God threatens judgment on upon the neighbors of Judah and Israel. But why? Syria treated its enemies barbarously. (1:3); Philista sold whole communities into slavery (1:6); (3) Tyre broke a pact and treated Edom treacherously (1:9). (4) But notice that since none of these nations were the same as the nation of Israel, God still held them accountable by a different standard. They did not have the Torah. But God knew they violated an objective moral law that they knew and should have obeyed.(5) Paul speaks of how God holds the Gentile nations accountable. He says, "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus." (Romans 2:12-15).<br /><br />The Greek word for conscience is "suneidesis" which means "a co-knowledge, of oneself, the witness borne to one's conduct by conscience, that faculty by which we apprehend the will of God as that which is designed to govern our lives; that process of thought which distinguishes what it considers morally good or bad, condemning the good, condemning the bad, and so prompting to do the former, and avoid the latter." (6) In Romans 2:15, "suneidesis" stands alongside with the "heart" and "thoughts" as the faculty that allows the pagan world to live a life that corresponds to the Jewish people who have the written law. (7)<br /><br />Where Is Your Conscience?<br /><br />Before the time of Jesus, and even after Jesus, the Jewish people viewed the heart as the core of the entire personality. Although there is no Hebrew word for the conscience, the closest word to it is "lebad," which is usually translated as the "heart" in the Old Testament. The conscience is so much of the core of the human soul that the Hebrew mind did not draw a distinction between conscience and the rest of the inner person.(8) In the Hebrew Bible, not only is "heart" used to describe as a metaphor to describe the physical organ, but it is also the center or defining element of the entire person. It can be seen as the seat of the person's intellectual, emotional, affective, and volitional life. In the New Testament, the heart is the psychic center of human affection or the source of spiritual life and the seat of intellect and will. (9)<br /><br />We see the conscience in Scripture: When Pharaoh hardened his heart (Exodus 8:15), Pharaoh steeled his conscience against God’s will. A tender heart (2 Chronicles 34:27), refers to a sensitive conscience. (10) The upright in heart (Psalm 7:10), are those with pure consciences. When David prayed “Create in me a clean heart, O God, (Psalm 51:10), he was seeking to have his conscience cleansed. The conscience can become dull, or seared (1 Tim 4:2). (11). In other words, people can and do harden their heart towards God! Sadly, a hardened heart can make someone less sensitive to the things of God. Sometimes a hardened heart results from an unforgiving or bitter spirit. All over the world, we see people who have ignored their consciences. They have not taken care of it and allowed it to be defiled. Sadly, the same goes for Christians. Do you view the conscience as a gift from God? Do you take care of it? Do you protect the conscience of your children? The only answer for a defiled conscience is a repentant spirit. Sin will always darken the conscience. In other words, sin always hardens the human heart. If you are hardened by the circumstances of life, an unforgiving spirit, or just flat out rebellion against God, I suggest you call out to God for mercy. Don’t let you heart become so hard that God can’t get through to you anymore. If you have stifled your conscience, ask God to help you start to take care of this tremendous gift he has given to you!<br /><br />1. Stern, D. Restoring The Jewishness of The Gospel: A Message For Christians. Clarksville, MD. Jewish New Testament Publications. 1990, 46.<br />2. Ibid.<br />3. Copan P. “True For You, But Not for Me.” Minneapolis, Minnesota. Bethany House Publishers. 1998, 65.<br />4. Ibid.<br />5. Ibid.<br />6. MacArthur, J. The Vanishing Conscience. Dallas, TX. Word Publishing.1994, 36-37.<br />7. Ibid.<br />8. Sire, J. Naming the Elephant. Downers Grove: IL: Intervarsity Press. 2004, 45.<br />9. Ibid.<br />10. MacArthur, J. The Vanishing Conscience. Dallas, TX. Word Publishing.1994, 36-37.<br />11. Ibid.Eric Chabothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02980384024507365108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6542392311504845842.post-2640897305658625662009-02-26T08:10:00.000-08:002009-02-26T08:14:32.149-08:00A Maimonidean View of MessiahNote: ThinkApologetics does not agree with certain aspects of the Maimonidean view of Messiah. The goal of this article is to educate the Christian community about the Maimonidean view since it still plays a large role in the Jewish view of Messiah.<br /><br />A COMPOSITE OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF MESSIAH: A MAIMONIDEAN VIEW<br />by Elliot Klayman<br /><br />INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE<br />The concept of the personage of Messiah1 is embedded in the Tanakh.2 Throughout the ages the nation of Israel has embraced hope in a coming Messiah. In the late Second Temple period, and its immediate aftermath, messianic expectations were heightened and there was a proliferation of messianic claimants.3 In the modern period Shabbatei Zvi and the late Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson stand out as colorful claimants to the office. During the medieval period messianic pretenders were no less prominent.4 It seems that foreign dominance and persecution of the Jewish people trigger a longing for a Messiah to redeem them from their plight.5 This in turn opens the floodgates for pretenders to make messianic promises.6 Often, because of despair, the Jewish people are ready to embrace a hope, however outlandish and false it may be. The motivating factor appears to be the desire for a permanent state of utopia, free from the battles and hardships of this life; for some, this means freedom to worship G-d in the way prescribed by scripture and tradition. Over the years there have been various concepts of Messiah7 from a variety of learned sources. Many have allegorized scripture and transformed the messiah into an age rather than a distinct personage.8 Some traditional writings, however, tout Israel as the messiah.9 Other tradition recognizes messiah to be really two messiahs.10 Still other authoritative writings exalt messiah as a literal person who will fulfill scriptural credentials. This is the position of the learned scholar Rabbi Moses ben Maimon (Maimonides).11 What he said concerning the Messiah over 800 years ago continues to influence the minds of contemporary Jews on this subject. It is not surprising that a man of the stature of Maimonides would address the person and the work of Messiah, and engage in messianic speculation. In his vast writings he concentrated on a wide corpus of Jewish writings, philosophy and thought, which included messianism. Maimonides’ view of Messiah must be gleaned from a number of his writings, namely Epistle to Yemen,12 Mishneh Torah — Kings,13 and his Commentary on the Mishnah — Sanhedrin,14 which includes the Twelfth Principle of his Shlosha Asar Ikkarim (Thirteen Principles).15 From these writings we are able to piece together a composite of Maimonides’ concept of Messiah. The design of this article is to first sketch the life of Maimonides. It then formulates a composite sketch of the Messiah as conceived by Maimonides and gleaned from the three primary sources that contain his view of Messiah. It is the thesis of this paper that Maimonides’ concept of Messiah was shaped by a number of factors, including his life experiences, scripture, tradition and reaction to Islam and Christianity.<br /><br />LIFE OF MAIMONIDES<br />Maimonides16 was born on Passover eve, 113517 in Cordova, Spain. When scarcely 13, great persecution broke out when Cordova was overrun by the Almohades, a fundamental wing of Mohammadism. The Almohades presented Jews and Christians with the alternatives of death, conversion to Islam, or expulsion. Maimonides fled with his family, first to Port Almeria which a few years later was conquered by the same fanatical Almohades. They imposed the same trilogy of alternatives — death, conversion or expulsion. Once again the family was on the run and they wandered for years without a permanent home.18Maimonides was first taught by his father, scripture, Talmud and other Jewish subjects,19 math and astronomy. He attended lectures on science and medicine and immersed himself in the philosophical writings of the Greeks, particularly Aristotle and Plato; with rare intellect he sought clarity in a maddening world of entropy, substituting order for chaos, and rationalism for mysticism. While wandering, Maimonides was enmeshed in learning on land and sea.20In 1159-1160 Maimonides emigrated with his father, brother, and sister to Fez. It is still a matter of speculation as to why they relocated right in the heart of Islam, of the intolerant variety. It is most probable that the family feigned a belief in Islam to escape persecution, and worse. During this interval Maimonides made his writing debut by refuting a distinguished Talmudist who insisted that it was necessary to be martyred rather than purport to embrace Islam.21 Perhaps because of the guilt of professing Mohammad, and the desire for an unadulterated service to God, the family embarked for Palestine, in the spring of 1165, and remained for a brief period, before moving to Egypt, settling in Fostat, old Cairo. Yet fortune did not settle on the man who was destined to be the light of medieval Jewry. Here, physical disease, heavy financial losses, informers, and most rending, the death of his brother at sea, pierced what was left of any solace.22 Probably, in efforts to raise money for his writing projects and to assuage his grief, he reactivated his rabbinic-philosophic career, and added the practice of medicine.23 In 1168 he completed his first monumental work, a commentary on the Mishnah in Arabic.24 Thereafter, he wrote his epistle to the community in Yemen, which was plagued by strong influences to convert to Islam, and a messianic pretender.25 His fame gradually grew and by 1177, he was recognized as the Rabbi of Cairo.26 In 1180 he completed his Mishneh Torah, a comprehensive religious code27 which categorized and simplified the Mishnaic laws into a friendly format.Maimonides was not without those who accused him of error in his writings and even heresy.28 His grave monument encapsulates the two views, which were prevalent even while he was living. One states: “Here lies Moses, the excommunicated heretic.” The other reads: “From Moses to Moses, there is none like Moses.”29<br /><br />CHARACTERISTICS OF MESSIAH<br />Messiah, messianism and the world to come, are inextricably related. The focus, however, in the pages that follow, is on the Messiah and how Maimonides perceived him through the lens of tradition, and “the marks by which he is to be identified.”30 It is an attempt to extract from Maimonides’ writings his thoughts on the characteristics of Messiah. What does the Messiah look like through the eyes of Maimonides? It is true that there are some contrasts within the array of Maimonidean writings on this topic. However, most, if not all, may be explained by the circumstances surrounding the subject matter, and the people he was addressing. In his Epistle to Yemen Maimonides was responding to a present crisis of faith attributed to present afflictions.He addressed a community that was being threatened from within and from without. There was the threat of a messianic pretender.31 There was thepersuasive force of an ex-Jew who had converted to Islam and was seeking to persuade others to do the same on the strength of the argument that Mohammad was the true prophet foretold in scripture.32 And, there was the threat of an Islamic rebel leader who was compelling the Jews to desert their religion in favor of Islam.33 The community teetered on a lever where the fulcrum shifted between faith and doubt. In Mishneh Torah — Kings, Maimonides addressed the topic of Kings and the order of the future kingdom in connection with the Messiah. The present chaos in Yemen concerning messianic faith and the future vision concerning messianic order demanded different approaches. Here, Maimonides reflected a calm non-argumentative approach steeped in rationalism. And, his Commentary on the Mishnah, Sanhedrin (Perek Helek) focuses attention on the Thirteen Principles of Faith and an exegesis of the “world to come,” and messiah, in an effort to impose dogma designed to distinguish between those who are “orthodox” in their thinking and those who are “outside the pale.” The audience here was primarily those who “believed,” but disagreed on the meaning of the literature on principles of the faith, messiah and the world to come. As usual, Maimonides employs a rational approach steeped in the natural order of things.The three monotheistic religions all look forward to a messiah who will redeem the people and usher in a new age. The identity of the Messiah is formed in scripture and tradition. The characteristics of the Messiah for each of the religions — Judaism, Christianity and Islam — are similar with shades of differences.34 This paper identifies some of the similarities and differences among the Messiah of Judaism as expressed by Maimonides and the Messiah of traditional belief in Christianity and the prophet Mohammad. It also recognizes that there are some differences between Maimonides’ view as concerning messiah and the traditional view espoused by some Jewish sages who came before him. According to Maimonides, the Messiah would be from Davidic descent, a prophet like Moses, who would be a superior man. He would appear at a date not so certain, but generally predictable. The Messiah, according to Maimonides, could not be identified for certain until he met defined prerequisites and accomplished particular tasks. Finally, Maimonides recognized the purpose of the Messiah and his relationship to the age to come. Each of these is discussed seriatim.<br /><br />FROM DAVIDIC DESCENT<br />According to Maimonides, messiah would be a man from Israel who would be of Davidic descent.35 Of all of the characteristics of the Messiah this is perhaps the most universal — that he would sit on the throne of David through Solomon. It is hard to find any disagreement on this point among the sages throughout the ages. Maimonides follows this traditional view-point, which is rooted in Torah, both written and oral. David’s throne was to be forever. Although David died and so did his successors, the throne will be occupied in the future by King Messiah himself. Rabbinic writings are replete with this understanding of scripture. There was nothing new in messianic thought contributed by Maimonides on this point. In support of Maimonides’ contention that the Messiah was an Israelite he cited Deuteronomy 18.15:The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet from among your own people,like myself.?...36 (emphasis added)This was sufficient to refute the claim of the followers of Mohammad since he was not from the land of Israel, and not Jewish. Unlike Islam, Maimonides and Jewish tradition’s concept of a Davidic messiah who would originate in Israel was not contrary to Christian understanding. The major difference, of course, was that for Christians the Son of David had come in the Messiah Jesus, while for Maimonides and the Jewish people, he was yet to come.<br /><br />A PROPHET LIKE MOSES<br />Messiah, according to Maimonides, will be in the mode of Moses in many respects and greater in others.37 He most certainly surpasses all of the other prophets,38? which would include Elijah, Isaiah, and Jeremiah. Appellations ascribed to him by the prophet Isaiah are superlative: “the Mighty God is planning grace; the Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler.” 39 He will prophesy, but the biblical injunction of death will fall upon those whose prophecies fail to come to pass.”40 Hence, false prophecy discounts a messianic claimant, and condemns him to death. Christian commentators’ interpretation of the Deuteronomy passage as related to the Messiah does not deviate significantly from this position.<br />SUPERIOR BUT NOT DEITYIt was Maimonides’ contention that the Messiah is a man, and not a God. He would be superior in his wisdom and study of Torah. The rulers of the earth, whom he will subdue, will be sorely afraid of him.41 He will be greater than the prophets.42 Yet, he will have a very human side. He will not immediately know that he is the Messiah43 and even his family and parentage will not be known, initially.44The Christian Messiah is Deity. As the second part in the trinity, he is God manifest in the flesh. Not so for Maimonides! Messiah is a great man who fulfills the calling and attributes contained in the prophecies in the Tanakh, and the hope for redemption from foreign oppression. Yet, like a man, he will die after completing his task. And, his posterity shall continue to rule on the throne of David, forever.45Christians would find this traditional concept as expressed by Maimonides troubling. Jesus died but he rose to the right hand of the Father. As such, he will never die but rather awaits the time of his return to earth. His redemption was not only for the Jews but for all of mankind, a concept upon which Maimonides would probably disagree, while embracing the traditional belief that righteous gentiles, who keep the seven Noachide laws, do have a place in the world to come.<br /><br />TIME OF HIS COMING<br />Maimonides acknowledged that no one could know the date of the coming of the Messiah. It is a mystery.46 In his “twelfth principle” he states:… We shall believe and affirm that he will come, and we shall not think that he will be late. If he should tarry, wait for him. Nor shall the individual set a date for his coming. Nor shall he attempt to derive deductively from Scriptural verses, a set date for his coming. The Sages said, ‘May the souls expire of those who calculate the date of the coming of Mashiach.’ 47According to this twelfth principle of faith we are not even to inquire into the date of his coming. The reason behind this is undoubtedly to remove the disappointment of dates that do not come to pass.48 The Book of Daniel which is thought to contain some of the dark secrets of the messianic appearing is a “closed book,” and it is expressly forbidden by the rabbis to search it for the time of the coming of the Messiah.49 Those who do are cursed. Nonetheless, in his Epistle to Yemen, Maimonides defends at least one sage who inquired into the end and dated the Messiah’s appearing. This was Saadiah Gaon, an earlier sage, who was the head of the prestigious academy of Surra in Babylon. Maimonides rationalizes the Gaon’s dating without backing down from his position that it is forbidden to calculate. He notes that the Gaon possessed proper motives to inspire the people with hope to Truth, and hence this was the exception to the general injunction.50 Finally, Maimonides himself suggested to the Yemen community that there was a tradition in his family passed down to his father and now repeated by him that in 1216 messiah would come.51 This seemed rather odd after he had gone to pains to deny access to such an inquiry and dating. He did make it clear that this date was not for sure. And, Maimonides was writing to a community who was in need of hope, defrauded by the “pretender” and lured by the “converter,” both of whom Maimonides had just debunked.Generally, in his Epistle to Yemen, Maimonides states that messiah will come during a time of great catastrophe and upheaval for Israel.52 It is to occur, according to Maimonides, some time after the expansion of the Roman and Arab empires;53 hence, his appearance was possible in Maimonides’ time.54 It would occur after the advent of Mohammad55 according to a scriptural interpretation.56 Re-emergence of prophecy is another sign of the coming of the messiah.57 And the restoration of the Sanhedrin was still another.58Christians related “signs and wonders” preceding the coming of the Messiah to the “second coming” of the Messiah, while Maimonides and traditional Jewish interpreters related the “signs and wonders” to the Messiah’s only advent to come.<br /><br />A TWO-TIERED APPROACHIn his Mishneh Torah, Book of Kings, Maimonides institutes a two-tiered approach to messianic identification.59 Meeting the attributes in tier one qualifies one as a messiah potential. Fulfillment of tier two confers the title of King Messiah upon the candidate.As pertaining to tier one Maimonides writes:And if a king shall arise from the house of David who studies the Torah and is occupied in doing the commandments as his ancestor David according to the written and oral Torah, and compels all Israel to walk in its ways and to strengthen its foundation, and fights the battles of G-d — then it is presumed that he is the Messiah.60The qualifying round may be summarized as follows:• He traces his lineage to the house of David.• He studies Torah.• He performs good deeds, in accord with Written and Oral Torah.• He reinstates widespread Torah observance.• He fights battles for the LordThe fulfillment of these “Five” qualifies the person as a messiah potential, a type of messiah-in waiting. According to Maimonides, the 2nd century Bar Kosiba, who led a revolt against the Romans in 162 C.E. in an effort to reestablish the sovereignty of Israel, was a messiah potential. He allegedly fulfilled the Five prerequisites. Nonetheless, he was clearly not the Messiah, but instead wrongly dubbed so by Rabbi Akiva, the chief rabbi of the time, and one of the Ten Martyrs in Judaism. Bar Kosiva was slain before he fulfilled any of the second tier activities.61Maimonides continues in the method of identifying Messiah by stating: “If he succeeded in accomplishing these [five things], and he subdued all the surrounding nations and he built the Temple in its place, and collected the dispersed of Israel — then this is the Messiah for certain.”62Hence, Maimonides believed that there have been messiah potentials throughout the ages, but that the messiah certain had not arisen as yet. The second tiered characteristics may be summarized as follows:• He subdues Israel’s enemies.63•He rebuilds the Temple at the ancient site.64•He re-gathers the dispersed of Israel.Probably, the closest to fulfill these conditions was Zeruvavel, who rebuilt the Second Temple, and some of the dispersed of Israel returned. However, it is obvious that Maimonides was speaking of a future King Messiah who was yet to arrive. Neither did the Christian Messiah fulfill Maimonides’ eight requirements. According to Maimonides, “if he did not accomplish all those [eight things] or was killed, then it is understood that he is not the one that the Torah promised.”65 Jesus failed to overcome Israel’s enemies, rebuild the Temple and regather the dispersed ofIsrael. And, he was slain before he accomplished these requirements. The Believers’ response is that Jesus will return and yet fulfill thesemessianic requirements.Hence, Maimonides, in establishing a type of formulae for identifying messiah, accomplished a number of objectives. He was able to quench the frenzy and the mesmerization that often accompanies a messianic pretender who arrives on the scene and makes promises to an oppressed and gullible community. At the same time he was able to convey faith and hope in a coming messiah who would indeed restore the oppressed and the dispersed to the inheritance in the Land promised to them by the L-rd. This “wait and see” approach is a practical one that is intended to eliminate the risk of false messiahs.66 They are not the Messiah until they deliver on the Torah promises. This is exactly the presentation the Yemen community needed to hear. It was premature to believe that the “mad pretender” was the Messiah; and, in fact, he had already disqualified himself by a number of failings.67<br /><br />THE AGE TO COME<br />The Messiah will usher in a normative world of Torah-keeping and teaching. Torah will not be altered,68 but it will be freely exercised in Israel69 where there will be no foreign usurpation or obstacles.70 According to Maimonides, King Messiah will be a teacher and keeper of Torah. One who adds to, or detracts from, Torah is surely not the Messiah.71 The bulk of Christianity embraced the view that Messiah Jesus altered the Law and ushered in a new covenant, not after the Law of Moses.72 For Maimonides, this is a disqualifier.The time of the Messiah will not, according to Maimonides, signal a new order, but a fulfillment of the ideal. The laws of nature will continue in its course without change.73 Maimonides cites with approval a Talmudic reference that states: “The only difference between the present world and the messianic era is our present subjection to foreign powers.”74 The redemption from the shackles of oppression in the messianic days will free the Jewish people to study Torah, and thus receive their just reward in the world to come.75Knowledge will increase. There will be no war, famine or discord.76 Simply, it will be a perfect environment for study of Torah. It will be very easy to earn a living, without expending a great deal of work, because the land will be so fertile.77 That means that the bulk of the time will be available for engaging in Torah study, which probably, for Maimonides, means a major emphasis on Talmud.78<br />CONCLUSIONMaimonides’ conception of the Messiah was rational. This is not surprising. As a philosopher who harmonized Greek rationalism with Jewish law, he paints messiah as a natural person who ushers in a natural order in fulfillment of scripture and tradition. Everything is transitional. Nothing is radical and apocalyptic. Maimonides was truly moderate. He rejected the kabbalists, who embraced mysticism and practically deified messiah, and ascribed supernatural powers to him.79 He strengthened those whose faith was in danger of being shipwrecked. He fused the Jewish G-d with the Greek mindset and created a harmonized universe. His position, like he prescribed for others in Hilchot Da’ot,80 was the one in the middle, and that is the one that made all the difference for Maimonides and his followers.His position concerning the Messiah was also pragmatic. Neither is this surprising for one steeped in rationalism. His letters spoke to real issues confronting communities and people who were living in a world of persecution. He could empathize. It was his experience as well. Thus, he tells the community in Yemen that they should reject the pretenders but await the true messiah who will come, and probably in the not-too-distant future, as evidenced by the prophecies and the signs.81Maimonides had suffered terribly in his life, with persecution and personal tragedies. He was a rationalist in the mode of the Greek mind, who sought to explain matters in rational terms. Moreover, it was a world of Christians and Mohammedans. They pressed the Jews to convert, and often became brute beasts in their attacks on the Jews.82 Maimonides was well aware of the need to live and the need to stay faithful to Torah. At great risk to his life he refuted the Islamic Prophet and the Christian Messiah,83 and encouraged the Jews, in near and distant lands, to hold fast to Torah and to believe in perfect faith in the coming of the Messiah and though he tarry, to wait, and not think that he will be late.84<br /><br /><br /><br />ENDNOTES1 Messiah is Mashiakh in Hebrew, which means “anointed one.” 2 See, for example, Daniel 9.5-26. Although there are many messiahs in the Tanakh, kings and judges who were anointed with oil, the Jewish tradition is that there is one King Messiah who will reign over all of Israel from the Temple in Jerusalem.3 A number of the claimants are recorded in Acts 5.36-37. Bar Kosiva, acclaimed by Rabbi Akiba to be the Messiah, led a revolt 132-135 B.C.E. Messiah Jesus initiated his ministry circa 30 C.E., and the record of his work and claims are contained in the New Testament.4 Maimonides catalogued four false Messiahsof the medieval period, who appeared outside of the Land. Crisis and Leadership: Epistles of Maimonides, Abraham Halkin, trans. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1985), 127-30 (hereafter referred to as Epistle to Yemen). This list included the account of (1) a Persian Jew, probably Abu Isa, who was slain, ibid., 127-28 (2) Moses al-Darri, ibid., 128-129, who advised the people to sell all their property to their ultimate financial ruination (3) ibn Arieh, ibid., 129-30, who was exposed, flogged and put under the ban, thus averting gentile reprisals (4) a man of Linon, ibid., 130, who swung from the top of trees on moon-lit nights, and was put to death by the French. 5 Jacob Minkin, The Teachings of Maimonides (Northvale, N.J.: Jason Aaronson, 1987), 399 (hereafter referred to as The Teachings of Maimonides), citing Maimonides, Repentance, 9. “Hence, all Israelites, their Prophets and Sages, longed for the advent of Messianic times, that they might have relief from the wicked tyranny that does not permit them properly to occupy themselves with the study of the Torah and the observance of the commandments … .” Ibid.6 See Harris Lenowitz, The Jewish Messiahs: From Galilee to Crown Heights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).7 However, not all the sages recognized a personal messiah. Rabbi Hillel denied that there would be a messiah for Israel. BT, Sanhedrin 99a.8 This position is common among the reform branch of Judaism. 9 See RASHI’s commentary on Isaiah 53. The Suffering Servant of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters, Samuel Driver & Adolph Neubauer, transs. (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1999), 37-39. 10 The Talmud, Adin Steinsaltz, ed., Sanhedrin 98a (New York: Random House, 1999), 19.11 Epistle to Yemen, 91-149. Contrary to RASHI, note 9, Maimonides renders, at least portions of Isaiah 53, as referring to messiah. The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters, ed., Harry Orlinsky (New York: KTAV, 1969), 374-75. 12 Epistle to Yemen, 91-207.13 Mishneh Torah: Maimonides’ Code of Law and Ethics, abridged, Phillip Birnbaum, trans. (New York: Hebrew Publishing Co, 1974), 322-31 (hereafter cited as Mishneh Torah).14 Maimonides’ Commentary on the Mishnah: Tractate Sanhedrin, Fred Rosner, ed. (New York: Sepher-Hermon Press, 1981).(hereafter cited to as Commentary on Mishnah}.15 Rabbi Zechariah Fendel, Torah Faith: The Thirteen Principles (New York: Hashkafah Publications, 1985). (hereafter cited as The Thirteen Principles).16 His Arabic name was Abu-Amran Musa ben Mamun Obaid Allah. Heinrich Graetz, History of the Jews III (New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1894), 447 (hereafter cited as History of the Jews).17 This is not a precise date. Historians differ on his date of birth. Some have placed it at 1038 by back dating from his completion of Commentary on the Mishnah, which he states by his autograph was at age 30. We know that he completed this work in 1168. Therefore, that would place his birth at 1137 or 1138.18 History of the Jews, III, 447-48.19 In Hilchot Talmud Torah Maimonides recites the customary rules required by scripture for the father to teach the child. Mishneh Torah, 23.20 History of the Jews, III, 448-50.21 Epistle to Yemen, 13-45.22 History of the Jews III, 451-457.23 Ibid. 457-58.24 Ibid. 45825 Ibid 461-64.26 Ibid. 465.27 Ibid. 466.28 Ibid. 470-472; 475-47829 Ibid. 493. The quote has been modified by the author to reflect the more popular translation.30 Epistle to Yemen, 124.31 Ibid. 123. 32 Ibid. 107. He is referred to as “the apostate.” ibid. 33 Ibid. 95.34 For Islam, the hope is in a mahdi, who is ordinarily the forerunner of the messiah who ultimately becomes the messiah, and who after death is thought to be hiding in a cave awaiting the appropriate time to return. For an interesting discussion ofIslamic mahdistic movements see Israel Friedlaender, “Shiitic Influences,” in Essential Papers on Messianic Movements and Personalities, Marc Saperstein, ed. (New York: New York University Press, 1992), 113-161. For Christians, John the Baptist was the forerunner of the Messiah, but he did not become the messiah. Matthew 3.1-11. Similarly, Judaism has the concept of a forerunner in the person of Elijah, the prophet, who never died. Malachi 4.5. Jesus is awaiting a second advent, although not believed to be hiding in a cave. Acts 1.11.35 Epistle to Yemen,121.36 Ibid. 109-110.37 Ibid. 124.38 Ibid. 123.39 Ibid. 124.40 Ibid.; Deuteronomy 18.20. 41 Epistle to Yemen, 125-26.42 Ibid. 124.43 See Jacob Dienstag, Eschatology in Maimonidean Thought: Messianism, Resurrection and the World to Come (New York: KTAV, 1983), 32-35.44 Epistle to Yemen, 125, citing Isaiah 53.2.45 Commentary on Mishnah, 148.46 Epistle to Yemen, 114. “For these words are secret and sealed.” Daniel 12.947 The Thirteen Principles, 226. Maimonides’ quote is from Sanhedrin 97b.48 … [M] any people will calculate the time of the advent of the Messiah, but they will be disappointed and fail.” Epistle to Yemen, 115.49 “May the calculators of the final redemption come to grief … .” Ibid. 116.50 Ibid.51 Joseph Sarachek, The Doctrine of the Messiah in Eschatology in Maimonidean Thought: Messianism, Resurrection and the World to Come, Jacob Dienstag, ed. (New York: KTAV, 1983), 31. This was gleaned from a passage concerning Balaam in Numbers 23:23. Epistle to Yemen, 122.52 Epistle to Yemen, 121.53 Ibid.54 In fact, Maimonides’ date of 1212, based upon his family tradition was just 8 years after his death. He was spared the disappointment.55 Epistle to Yemen, 121.56 Isaiah 21.7,9.57 Joel 3.58 Commentary on Mishnah, 3.59 Mishneh Torah, XI, 4, 329.60 Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah (Yad Ha-Hazakah), abridged, Phillip Birnbaum, ed. (New York: Hebrew Publishing Company, 1944), 327. (original translation by author)(hereafter referred to as Mishneh Torah, original translation).61 Mishneh Torah, Kings, 329.62 Mishneh Torah, 327, original translation.63 In fact, messiah’s “advent will strike terror into the hearts of all the kings of the earth, and their kingdoms will fall; neither will they be able to war or revolt against him.” Epistle to Yemen, 125. He also cites the verse, “Kings shall be silenced because of him.” Isaiah 52.15, ibid.64 Maimonides refers to the biblical reference, Malachi 3.1: “He will suddenly come to his temple.” Epistle to Yemen, 125.65 Mishneh Torah, 327, original translation.66 Hence, Bar Kosiva was a messiah potential, but not a messiah certain. According to Maimonides he was slain before he fulfilled the qualifications. Mishneh Torah, Kings, 329. 67 Ibid.123-126. For example, the messianic pretender said that the rich should give all their money to the poor. Maimonides says, in effect, “This is wisdom!” We would only wind up reversing the economic conditions of the two extremes and be in the same state. Ibid. 124.68 Mishneh Torah, Kings, 329.69 In Commentary on Mishneh, Maimonides listed five common positions on “why” keep Torah and fulfill the commandments, ibid. 134-136. Some opine that it will determine whether you wind up in Gan Eden or Gehenna, ibid. 135. A second group believes that the good flowing is that the Messiah will come and everyone will be a king, and inhabit the world through eternity; and those who do not keep Torah will not enter into that state, ibid. A third group imagines a resurrection and eternal life with family and relatives, which will be denied those who do not keep Torah, ibid. A fourth group adopts the view that those who are faithful to Torah will enjoy the physical pleasures and an abundant life headed by a Jewish king, which will be denied to the unfaithful, ibid. 135-136. The fifth position is seized by those who combine the other four together, ibid. 136. Maimonides rejects all of these positions, instead advancing that studying Torah and keeping the commandments is for the sake of studying Torah and keeping the commandments, and that the motive should be nothing else. Doing Torah is out of love for G-d. Ibid. 136-140.70 Mishneh Torah, Kings, 330.71 Maimonides was of the opinion that Jesus altered the Torah. Epistle to Yemen, 98. “His purpose was to interpret the Torah in a fashion that would lead to its total annulment, to the abolition of its commandments, and to the violation of all its prohibitions.” Ibid.72 Jeremiah 31.31-34. This is generally the common Christian understanding of Jeremiah 31.31, which states in part, “Behold the days come saith the Lord that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.” It is a supersessionist view, that the covenant has displaced Israel and replaced it with the Church who is now the heir of the covenant. This “displacement theology” has produced untold amounts of antisemitism.73 Mishnah Torah, Kings, 330.74 Ibid. 330, citing Berakhoth 34b.75 Ibid. 330.76 Commentary on Mishnah, 148.77 Ibid. 147.78 See Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Talmud Torah.79 The Teachings of Maimonides, 398.80 Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Da’ot, 11-14.81 Epistle to Yemen, 121-23.82 Although Islam under the dhimmis status fared better for the Jews than the “no status” under Christian rule, nonetheless, outbreaks of serious persecution, for example under the Almohads, always loomed imminent.83 Epistle to Yemen, 131 (“… the public welfare takes precedence over one’s personal safety.” ibid.).84 The Thirteen Principles, 226.MAJOR WORKS CITEDCrisis and Leadership: Epistles of Maimonides. Abraham Halkin, trans. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1985.Dienstag, Jacob. Eschatology in Maimonidean Thought: Messianism, Resurrection and the World to Come. New York: KTAV, 1983.Essential Papers on Messianic Movements and Personalities. Marc Saperstein, ed. New York: New York University Press, 1992.Fendel, Rabbi Zechariah. Torah Faith: The Thirteen Principles. New York: Hashkafah Publications, 1985.Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters, The., Harry Orlinsky, ed. New York: KTAV, 1969.Graetz, Heinrich. History of the Jews, vol. III. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1949.Lenowitz, Harris. The Jewish Messiahs: From Galilee to Crown Heights. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah (Yad Ha-Hazakah), abridged ed., Phillip Birnbaum, ed. (New York: Hebrew Publishing Company, 1944).Minkin, Jacob. The Teachings of Maimonides. Northvale, N.J.:Jason Aronson, 1987.Mishneh Torah: Maimonides’ Code of Law and Ethics. Phillip Birnbaum, trans. New York: Hebrew Publishing Co., 1974.Rosner, Fred. Maimonides on Mishnah Sanhedrin. New York: Sepher-Hermon Press, 1981.Suffering Servant of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters, The. Samuel Driver & Adolph Neubauer, transs. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1999.<br /><a id="sitemenu"></a><br /><a href="http://www.thinkapologetics.com/index.html">»</a>Eric Chabothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02980384024507365108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6542392311504845842.post-9899768847222122642009-02-24T07:07:00.000-08:002009-02-24T07:11:00.863-08:00Resurrection-An OverviewResurrection- An Overview<br /><br />When it comes to the Christian faith, there is no doctrine more important than the resurrection of Jesus. Biblical faith is not simply centered in ethical and religious teachings. Instead, it is founded on the person and work of Jesus. From a soteriological perspective, if Jesus was not raised from the dead, we as His followers are still dead in our sins (1Cor.15:7). Jesus said in John 11:25, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me shall live even of he dies.” Jesus could not have made full atonement for our sins without the resurrection. Also, through the resurrection, Jesus took on the role as advocate and intercessor (1John 2:2; Rom. 8:34). His resurrection also guaranteed us the opportunity of having a resurrected body’s like His (1 Cor.15:20-23, 51-53; 1 Pet.1:3; Phil. 3:20-21; John 5:25-29). If Jesus did not rise from the dead, he fails the test for a true prophet (Deut. 18:20). The resurrection also marked Jesus as the one who will be the judge all men (Acts 17:31).The resurrection demonstrated that Jesus is the promised Messiah of Israel and the whole world.<br /><br />Belief in a resurrection of persons from the dead are seen in eight passages: (Job 19:26; Ps 17:15; 49:15; 73:24; Isa 26:19; 53:10; Dn 12:2;12:13). (1) The resurrection terminology is seen in two places (Ezek 37:1-14; Hos 6:2) to show a national and spiritual restoration brought about by the return from the exile. (2) As far as the nature of the future bodily resurrection, it may involve a corpse or the receipt of a material body comparable to the present physical body (Job 19:26; Isa 26:19); or it may be a matter of transformation (Dn 12:2-3 and perhaps 12:13); or glorification after reanimation, in the case of the righteous. (3) As far as the function of the resurrection, it may be personal vindication (Isa 26:16; 53:10-12). Resurrection may also have a function in relation to reward or punishment (Dn 12:2; 12:13) an assumption to heaven and enriched fellowship with God (Ps 49:15; 73:24,26), or preface to the beatific vision of God (Ps 17:15 and possibly Job 19:26). (4)<br /><br />There are resuscitations in the Tanakh such as the example of <a title="Elijah" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah">Elijah and Elisha </a>raising a person from death (1 Kings 17-23; 2 Kings 4:34-35). There are also extra-Biblical passages that speak about the resurrection (Enoch 92:2; 4 Ezra 7:32; Enoch 91:10; 2 Maccabees 7:9; 14; 28-29). Even the The Messiah Apocalypse, which is dated between 100 and 80 B.C.E mentions resurrection: "He [God] frees the captives, makes the blind see, and makes the bent over stand straight…for he will heal the sick, revive the dead, and give good news to the humble and the poor he will satisfy, the abandoned he will lead, and the hungry he will make rich.” (5)<br />In the Rabbinical literature there are explicit teachings on the resurrection. It says in the Mishnah 10.1, it says, “All Israelites have a share in the world to come; ... and these are they that have no share in the world to come: he that says that there is no resurrection of the dead prescribed in the Law.” Moses Maimonides, a <a title="Jew" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew">Jewish</a> <a title="Rabbi" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbi">rabbi</a> and a medieval <a title="Judaism" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism">Jewish</a> philosopher who has forever influenced the Jewish and non-Jewish world said:<br /><br />The resurrection of the dead is one of the cardinal principles established by Moses our teacher. A person who does not believe this principle has no real religion, certainly not Judaism. However, resurrection is for the righteous. This is the earning of the statement in Breshit Rabbah, which declares: “the creative power of rain is both for the righteous and the wicked, but the resurrection of the dead is only for the righteous.” “Our sages taught the wicked are called dead even when they are still alive; the righteous are alive even when they are dead (Bab. Talmud Brakhot 18 b). 3 points are made: 1. Resurrection is a cardinal principle taught in the Torah which all Jews must believe 2. It is for the righteous alone 3. All men must die and their bodies decompose. (6)<br /><br />As we approach the New Testament, Joachim Jeremias comments:<br />Ancient Judaism did not know of an anticipated resurrection as an event in history. Nowhere does one find in the literature anything comparable to the resurrection of Jesus. Certainly resurrections of the dead were known, but these always concerned resuscitations, the return to the earthly life. In no place in the late Judaic literature does it concern a resurrection to doxa [glory] as an event in history.(7)<br /><br />N.T Wright says:<br />In Greek thought, the living could establish contact with the dead through various forms of necromancy; they might even receive ghostly visitations. But neither experience amounts to what the pagan writers themselves referee to as “resurrection,” or the return to life, which they all denied. Thus, Christianity was born into a world where one of its central tenants, resurrection, was universally recognized as false. (8)<br /><br />The main reasons that were behind the Greek’s general denial of the resurrection were:(1) the low value they placed on the human body, and (2) their firm belief in man’s inherent immortality, i.e., that his soul was naturally imperishable. We one day lose the “bad body,” but we retain the inherently imperishable soul.<br />Biblical view of body:The body is good because God made it. When Adam led the human race into sin, this sin affected his body, just as it affected every aspect of his being (Genesis 3:16-19). Man’s body succumbs to illness and death because of sin, but this is not what God originally intended.<br /><br />Other Issues of Defining Resurrection<br /><br />1. Resurrection is completely different from reincarnation which is a many-times event. Reincarnation is also categorized as a rebirth of a soul into a new and different but still physical and mortal body. Resurrection is a one-time event where the believer receives not a second body but a transformed body. In resurrection, there is continuity between our present bodies and the transformed body to come.<br /><br />2. In its most elementary sense, resurrection denotes resuscitation- the regaining of physical life that has been forfeited through death (Mark 5:41-42; John 5:28-29; Heb.11:35; Rev. 20:5). There are three resuscitations in the Gospels: Luke 8:49-56; John 11:38-44; Luke 7:11-15. Lazarus was resuscitated. He went on to live on in his old mode of but still had to face a second death. However, Jesus was not resuscitated, but resurrected, he was changed. His body was transformed into what Paul calls a glorified body. He never died again. Therefore, it is important to remember that Jesus is not the only one in human history that has been raised from the dead ( if we call it resuscitation), but he certainly is the only one that has ever been resurrected!<br /><br />3. Resurrection is not translation. Within the Tanakh, people such as Elijah and Enoch did not die but were simply translated to heaven (2 Kings 2:11; Genesis 5:24). Also, within the extra-canonical Jewish writing called Testament of Job 40, an account of translation was given as a category to describe recently deceased people as well as to the living.(9) Translation is defined as the bodily assumption of someone out of this world into heaven while resurrection is defined as raising up of a dead man in the space-time universe.(10)<br /><br />4. Resurrection is not the same as the so- called dying and rising fertility gods in the ancient world. The myths of dying and rising gods in pagan religions are merely seasonal symbols for the processes of nature and have no relation to historical individuals. (11)<br /><br /><br />5. Another aspect of resurrection is the issue of exaltation. The raising up of believers is from the dead (resuscitation), in newness of life (transformation) into the presence of Messiah (exaltation). We as believers now live in a resurrection state. For after noting that God “made us alive together with” Messiah (this is a past event), Eph 2:5 says: “by grace you are now in a state of salvation” (indicating a present resurrection state).(12)<br /><br />8. What are the differences between our resurrection and the Messiah's resurrection? Jesus was raised on the "third day" whereas we will be raised on the last day. And only of Jesus was he installed as Son of God (Rom. 1:4), as universal Lord (Rom. 14:9; Eph.1:20-21; Phi.2:9-11), and judge of the living and the dead (Acts 17:31). (13)<br /><br />9. Body and soul are distinct interactive substances- one physical and the other immaterial. When we speak of the soul, we are speaking of our essential core. This core makes us persons since we would still be persons after death in a temporary disembodied state. (14) There must be some immaterial aspect to humans in order to provide the continuity of our existence and memories- and our own identity. While there is overlap between "soul" and "spirit" in the Bible, Paul tends to place a larger emphasis on the spirit rather than the soul because of his own experience with God's Spirit (Rom 8:15-16). (15). This is a departure from the intertestamental literature and rabbinic literature, which stressed soul (Heb: nepsesh; Greek: psyche) rather than spirit. (16)<br /><br />10. The believer’s final destination is not heaven, but it is the new heavens and new earth- complete with a resurrection body. (17) The problem with this view is that death isn't swallowed up in victory. Death has the final word but isn't defeated. In the final state, heaven including the New Jerusalem portrayed as a bride breaks into history and comes to the renewed, physical, earthly, existence (see Rev 21). This shows that God is interested in the renewal of creation- God cares about the physical realm. (18)<br /><br />Sources:<br />1. Harris, M.J. From Grave to Glory: Resurrection In The New Testament. Grand Rapids: MI: Academie Books. 1990, 66-67.<br />2. Ibid.<br />3. Ibid.<br />4. Ibid.<br />5. See Yamauchi, E.M. Easter: Myth, Hallucination, or History? Available at <a href="http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html">http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html</a>.<br />6. Gillman, N. The Death of Death: Resurrection and Immortality in Jewish Thought. Woodstock, VT. Jewish Lights Publishing, 1997.<br />7. Craig, W.L. Reasonable Faith.Third Edition. Wheaten, ILL: Crossway Books, 1984.<br />8. P. Andrew Sandlin. New Flesh, New Earth: The Life Changing Power of the Resurrection. Lincoln, CA: Oakdown Books, 2003.<br />9. Craig, W.L. Reasonable Faith, 394.<br />10. Ibid.<br />11. Ibid.<br />12. Longenecker, R.N. Life After Death: The Resurrection Message in the New Testament. Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1988.<br />13. Ibid.<br />14. Copan, P. How Do You Know You're Not Wrong: Responding to Objections That Leave Christians Speechless. Grand Rapids: MI: Baker Books. 2005, 88-94.<br />15. Ibid.<br />16. Ibid.<br />17. Ibid.<br />18. IbidEric Chabothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02980384024507365108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6542392311504845842.post-87388123923246845062009-02-23T11:57:00.000-08:002009-02-23T11:59:59.267-08:00Discipleship of the Mind,The Recovery of the Christian MindDiscipleship of the Mind/The Recovery of the Christian Mind<br /><br />Within Christian discipleship, scholars, theologians, and philosophers are asking, what ever happened to cultivating the intellectual life of the Christian? There have been several books written on this subject. One book that I recommend is <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Love-Your-God-All-Mind/dp/1596441569/ref=sr_1_27?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215056295&sr=1-27">Love Your God with All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul</a> by J. P. Moreland<br />It is imperative for Christians to understand the history of anti-intellectualism in the church. In this brilliant book, Dr. Moreland traces the history of what has happened in relation to the Christian mind.<br /><br />Moreland discusses the history of the pilgrims arriving to the United States in the middle of the nineteenth century. The Pilgrims along with other American believers placed a high value on the intellectual life in relation to Christian spirituality. The Puritans were highly educated people (the literacy rate for men in Massachusetts and Connecticut was between 89 and 95 percent) who founded colleges, taught their children to read and write before the age of six, studied art, philosophy, and other fields as well. Evangelical scholars such as Jonathan Edwards were scholarly and well informed about other fields other than theology. Christians originally founded several American universities. The minister was regarded as proficient in both spiritual and intellectual matters. (1)<br /><br />When the first Great Awakening happened in the United States from the 1730's to 1750's, Christianity was not prepared for the philosophical thought that began to undermine Biblical authority in the late 1800's. In other words, Christianity was not prepared for the philosophies of David Hume (1711-1776) and Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), German higher criticism, and Darwinian evolution. During the middle 1800's, Christianity continued to see an anti-intellectual approach in sermons. Ministers such as and Charles Finney who preached during the Laymen's Prayer Revival ( 1856-1858), delivered simple sermons that were more tailored around emotions in contrast to sermons that were reflective and doctrinally informed. Moreland notes that many positive things did come out of this period. However, the downside was that since thousands of people were converted on the basis of emotion and warm fuzzy feelings, these new converts were not trained to think theologically or doctrinally. (2)<br /><br />Moreland has also commented on the impact of Christians refusing to be informed about the language of ideas in the marketplace. As Moreland says:<br />Instead of standing up and doing the hard work of responding to the critics, Christians opted out and said, It doesn't matter what the facts say, I feel Jesus in my heart and that's all that really matters to me. So we opted for a subjective pietism instead of hard thinking on the issues, and therefore we lost our place in the public square. The way to deal with vain philosophies, wherever they may be found, is to have good philosophy, not to abandon the art of critical thinking altogether. (3)<br /><br />Another book that has traced the history of anti-intellectualism in the church is <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Fit-Bodies-Fat-Minds-Evangelicals/dp/0801038707/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215056606&sr=1-1">Fit Bodies Fat Minds: Why Evangelicals Don't Think and What to Do About It </a>by Os Guinness. In this book, Guinness says:<br />Loving God with our minds is not finally a question of orthodoxy, but love. Offering up our minds to God in all our thinking is a part of our praise. Anti-intellectualism is quite simply a sin. Evangelicals must address it as such, beyond all excuses, evasions, or rationalizations of false piety. We need to affirm certain truths: Intellectualism is not the answer to anti-intellectualism, for the perils of intellectualism-supremely in Gnosticism- are deadly and ever recurring. Or passion is not for academic respectability, but for the faithfulness to the commands of Jesus. Our lament is not for the destruction of the elite culture of Western civilization but for the deficiencies in our everyday discipleship as Christians. For anti-intellectualism is truly the refusal to love the Lord our God with our minds as required by the first of Jesus’ commandments. Thus, if we take the commands of Jesus seriously, we cannot dismiss the charge of anti-intellectualism as elitism or intellectual snobbery. As God has given us minds, we can measure our obedience<br /> by whether we are loving him with those minds, and disobedience whether we are not.(4)<br /><br />In his book,<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Opening-Christian-Mind-Thought-Captive/dp/0830812792/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215057188&sr=1-1">The Opening of the Christian Mind: Taking Every Thought Captive to Christ</a> author David W. Gill makes a significant contribution about the relationship between intellectualism and discipleship by stating that we should advocate Christian minds, not intellectualism. Gill says:<br />Let me stress one more time that I am not advocating intellectualism in the Christian life! We must give our brains to God. But we are more than brains. I do indeed want people to develop their minds under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Mindless emotionalism or traditionalism, segmented fragmented lives and ignorance disguised as simple faith are all terrible deformations of Christian discipleship. But so is arid, dry intellectualism. Developing a Christian mind is but one crucial aspect of Christian discipleship. (5)<br /><br />Scriptures that can be misunderstood as speaking against anti-intellectualism:<br />Acts 4:13: “The Jewish elders and rulers observe that Peter and John were uneducated and unlearned.” Many have concluded that intellectual emphasis has no place for the life of the believer. Is this right? It is important to understand that the Jewish leaders did not mean that Peter and John were irrational or intellectually unskilled. They meant that they had not undergone the proper rabbinical training. (6)<br /><br />Colossians 2:8: “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” Some have concluded from this passage that Paul is commanding people to avoid secular studies or philosophy. If we look at this passage in context, Paul was dealing with a proto-Gnostic philosophy that was threatening the Colossian church. If Paul had not had a vast understanding of philosophy, he could not have addressed the problem in the Colossian church. It is important to note that Paul quoted pagan philosophers in Acts 17:28.<br />(7)<br />1 Corinthians 1: 19-21:" For it is written, I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE." Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe."Does this passage say God is against reason? It is important to note that Greek orators prided themselves with possessing “persuasive words of wisdom,” and it was their practice to persuade a crowd of any side of an issue for the right price. So, since Paul is most likely condemning hubris (pride), he is against false pride, or prideful use of reason, not reason itself. (8)<br /><br />One of the primary texts used for apologetics is 1 Peter 3:15 which says, "But in your hearts acknowledge Christ as the holy Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to every one who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have yet with gentleness and respect.” In the context of this verse, the apostle Peter is writing to a group of persecuted believers. The Greek word for “reason” in this passage is “logos,” which is defined as “a word,” inward thought itself, a reckoning, or a regard. Peter does not suggest we be prepared to do give a reason for the hope that is within us, but he commands that we do it! (9)<br /><br />Some Suggestions in Restoring the Christian Mind<br />1. In order to restore the mind within the local congregation, there needs to be a stronger emphasis on critical thinking and apologetics. As Christian philosopher Douglas Groothius says:<br />Since we as Christians are called and commanded to have a reason for the hope within them (1 Peter 3:15), it is the responsibility Christian teachers, pastors, mentors and educators of all kinds are remiss if they avoid, denigrate, or minimize the importance of apologetics to biblical living and Christian witness. (10)<br /><br />2. Christians also need to understand Christian anthropology (the study of humanity from a Christian / biblical perspective. It is primarily focused on the nature of humanity). As Norman Geisler says,<br /><br />God is a rational Being, and man is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). Since God thinks rationally, man was given the same capacity. Brute beasts, by contrast, are called “irrational” (Jude 10). The basis laws of human reason are common to believer and unbeliever; without them, there would be no writing, thinking, or rational inference. Nowhere are these laws spelled out in the Bible. Rather, they are part of God’s general revelation and special object of philosophical thought. (11)<br /><br />3. Establish a Worldview: The term worldview is used in the sense described by prominent German philosopher Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911). Dilthey affirmed that philosophy must be defined as a comprehensiveness vision of reality that involves the social and historical reality of humankind, including religion. A worldview is thus the nature and structure of the body of convictions of a group or individual. Worldview includes a sense of meaning and value and principles of action. It is much more than merely an "outlook" or an "attitude." Each person's worldview is based on a key category, an organizing principle, a guiding image, a clue, or an insight selected from the complexity of his or her multidimensional experience.(12) Believe it or not, a worldview will impact our view of our vocation, our family, government, education, the environment, etc. A worldview also impacts ethical issues in our culture such as homosexuality, abortion, stem cell research etc. Remember, the issues of competing worldviews shape the past, present, and future of a nation.<br /><br />4. Engage the Culture: According to a Barna study, 95% of all professing Christians have never attempted to share their faith. Out of that 5%, only 2% share on a regular basis. Now Jesus said in John 14:15 "If you love me, you will keep my commandments".Since Jesus commands His people to “make disciples of the nations” (Matt.28:19), the Christian who is not ashamed of the gospel (Romans 1:16), will desire to share the good news of Jesus with his neighbor. It is my conviction the reason that there is such a lack of interest in apologetics and critical thinking is because evangelism and outreach are neglected. Christians also have a responsibility to be aware of the issues within our culture.<br /><br />My suggestion to change this problem is to challenge congregants to take a survey with five spiritual questions and engage people on a regular basis. Once they see how people respond to the questions, they will begin to see how inept they are to handle objections to the faith. By doing a survey, this allows the congregants to witness firsthand the tremendous amount of diversity in our culture. One of the reasons the Holy Spirit was able to use Paul with a variety of audiences was because Paul had a vast knowledge of the Hebrew Bible, as well as Jewish and Greek culture. If someone asks a question that cannot be answered, it allows the believer the privilege of doing research about a particular apologetic issue.<br /><br />As William Lane Craig says:<br />It is not just scholars and pastors who need to be intellectually engaged with issues. Laymen need to become intellectually engaged. Our congregations are filled with people who are idling in intellectual neutral. As believers, their minds are going to waste. One result is an immature, superficial faith. People who simply ride the roller coaster of emotional experience are cheating themselves out of a deeper and richer faith by neglecting the intellectual side of that faith. (13)<br /><br />5. The university: From a university perspective, it is imperative that students be trained to think critically as well as apologetically. By the time Christian students leave to college, they should have a grasp of a biblical worldview as well as the ability to understand the importance of integrating the mind into all areas of spiritual life. If young college students compartmentalize their spiritual life, they will end up viewing spirituality as simply going to Bible studies, private prayer time, and congregational attendance. Classes and study time will be viewed as “secular” and something they need to get through in order to graduate. This must be corrected. How can students impact the university if they do not understand the way the culture thinks?<br />What about Christians who want to study philosophy in college? Should they avoid it? Groothius says:<br /><br />Young Christians with an aptitude in philosophy and academic pursuits in general should be encouraged that these disciplines are just as spiritual as anything directly church-related. For example, being a Christian philosopher at a secular college or university is just as godly and spiritual than being a pastor, missionary, or professor at a Christian institution (1 Corinthians 10:31; Colossians 3:17). One may prudently apply one’s apologetic skills in these settings and extend the Christian witness. (14)<br /><br />6. Understand the proper relationship between faith and reason: As David Gill says above, "Mindless emotionalism or traditionalism, segmented fragmented lives and ignorance disguised as simple faith are all terrible deformations of Christian discipleship. But so is arid, dry intellectualism. Developing a Christian mind is but one crucial aspect of Christian discipleship." Another challenge in restoring the Christian mind is the misunderstanding of the biblical use of the word “heart.” How many times has the Christian been told, “Faith is an issue of the heart, not the head.” How can we correct this problem? Remember, biblical faith also involves a commitment of the whole person. In the Tanakh (the acronym that is formed from the first three parts of the Hebrew Bible: Torah (the first five books of the Bible), Nevi’ im (the Prophets), and K’ tuvim (the Writings), the Hebrew word for heart is "leb," or "lebad." While the word "heart" is used as a metaphor to describe the physical organ, from a biblical standpoint, it is also the center or defining element of the entire person. It can be seen as the seat of the person's intellectual, emotional, affective, and volitional life. In the New Testament, the word “heart” (Gr.kardia) came to stand for man’s entire mental and moral activity, both the rational and the emotional elements. (15)<br /><br />1. Moreland, J.P Love Your God With All Your Mind. Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress. 1997. 22-23.<br />2. Ibid.<br />3. Koukl. G. The Value of Philosophy. Retrieved November 9, 2007. Available at http://www.str.org/site/.<br />4.Os Guinness. Fit Bodies Fat Minds: Why Evangelicals Don’t Think And What To Do About It. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. 1994, 18-19.<br />5. Gill, D.W. The Opening of the Christian Mind: Taking Every Thought Captive to Christ. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press,1989, 30.<br />6. Moreland, 57-60.<br />7. Ibid.<br />8. Moreland, J.P and Craig, W.L. Philosophical Foundations For A Christian Worldview. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2003, 13.<br />9. Moreland, 57-60.<br />10. Groothius, D. Christian Apologetics Manifesto 2003. Retrieved November, 12th 2007 from Answers in Action. Available at http://www.answersinaction.org.<br />11. Geisler, N. Systematic Theology Vol 1. Bloomington, MINN: Bethany House Publishers 2003, 91.<br />12. Newport. J.P. Life’s Ultimate Questions: A Contemporary Philosophy of Religion. Dallas: Word Publishing. 1989, 4.<br />13. Craig, W.L. Reasonable Faith. Wheaten, ILL: Crossway Books. 1984.<br />14. Groothius, D. Christian Apologetics Manifesto.<br />15. W.E. Vine, Unger, Merrill F. and William White Jr. Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary Of Old And New Testament Words. Nashville: TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985, 297.Eric Chabothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02980384024507365108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6542392311504845842.post-56032323624170310622009-02-20T09:54:00.000-08:002009-02-20T09:55:22.391-08:00Jesus and His JewishnessThe Jewish Aspects of Jesus’ Life:<br /><br />Jesus and the Name of God:<br /><br />As Scot McKnight says, "At no place have Christians been more insensitive to Judaism that when it comes to what Jesus believes and teaches about God. In particular, the concept that Jesus was the first to teach about God as Abba and that this innovation revealed that Jesus thought of God in terms of love while Jews thought of God in terms of holiness, wrath, and distance are intolerably inaccurate in the realm of historical study and, to be quite frank, simple pieces of bad polemics. The God of Jesus was the God of Israel, and there is nothing in Jesus' vision of God that is not formed in the Bible he inherited from his ancestors and learned from his father and mother.<br /><br />Countless Christians repeat the Lord's Prayer. When Jesus urged His followers to "hallow" or "sanctify" the Name of God (Matt 6:9), many are unaware of what that may have meant in Jesus' day- in part, because Christianity has lost sight of God's awesome splendorous holiness. A good reading of Amos 2:6-8 discusses this issue. "Reverencing the Name of God" is not just how Israel speaks of God-that it does not take the Name of God in vain when it utters oaths or when someone stubs a toe or hits a finger with an instrument -but that God's Name is profaned when Israel lives outside the covenant and by defiling the name of God in it's behavior (Jer 34:15-46; Ezek. 20:39; Mal 1:6-14).<br /><br />God's Name is attached to the covenant people, and when the covenant people lives in sin, God's Name is dragged into that sin along with His people. So, when Jesus urges his followers to "reverence," or "sanctify" the Name of God, he is thinking of how his disciples are to live in the context of the covenant: they are to live obediently as Israelites (Paul Copan and Craig A. Evans. Who Was Jesus? A Jewish-Christian Dialogue. Lousiville: KY.Westminster John Knox Press. 2001, 84-85).<br /><br />Righteousness: When most Christians think of this term, they are faced with two problems: First, that the apostle Paul used this term so much in the sense of "imputed" righteousness and did so in an innovative, however, effective, manner; and second, that is what the cognate in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek is not so in English. Fundamentally, the term "righteousness" along with its cognates, describes an Israelites relationship to God and his Torah, and that relationship is conceived in its behavioral categories: the righteous Israelite is one who does Torah as a covenant member (Deut 6:25; Job 22:6-93; Ps 1:4-6; Ezek.45:9) Jesus teaches about such righteousness as did his Jewish ancestors, as well as John (Luke 3:7-14; Matt 21:28-32), to describe those Jewish followers of his who wholeheartedly conformed their obedience to Torah, as taught by him (Matt 5:17-48), in the context of renewal of the covenant taking place though his offer of the kingdom (Copan and Evans, pg 87-88).<br /><br />Jesus participated in Mikvah: (Matt 3:13-16)<br />Circumcision (Luke 2:21): Jesus’ parents are obedient to Mosaic Law by having him circumcised on 8th day<br />Mary’s Purification (Luke 2:22-24): Mary follows purification law (Leviticus 12)<br />Jesus’ family went to Jerusalem every year at Passover: (Luke 2:41)<br />Jesus’ model prayer bears resemblance to typical Jewish prayers:(Matthew 6:8-13)<br />Jesus wore “tzit-tzit” or fringes: (Matthew 9:20)<br />Jesus revered the Temple and ceremonial worship:(John 2:16)<br />Much of Jesus’ teaching is done in context of Jewish Holy Days: Sabbath (Matthew 12); Feast of Tabernacles (John 7); Feast of Passover (Matthew 26); Hanukkah (John 10)<br />Jesus taught in the synagogue: (Luke 4:14-20; John 18:20)<br />Jesus gathered disciples:(Matthew 8:23)<br />Paul says Jesus became a servant to the Jewish people: (Romans 15:8)<br />Jesus settled disputes: (Mark 9:33-37)<br />Jesus debated other rabbis:(Matthew 12:1-14)<br />Jesus viewed His mission to the lost sheep of Israel: (Matthew 15:24)<br />Jesus commissioned the seventy to go to the lost sheep of Israel: (Matthew 10:5-6)<br />Jesus viewed himself as being revealed in the Torah, the Prophets and the Psalms, (Luke 24:44); (John 5:39)<br />Jesus taught Scripture was authoritative: Jesus quotes passages from the Torah in the temptation in the wilderness: (Matthew 4:1-11)<br />Jesus discussed how Scripture (The Tanakh) is imperishable in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:2-48)<br />Jesus also discussed how Scripture is infallible: (John 10:35)Eric Chabothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02980384024507365108noreply@blogger.com0