Friday, December 27, 2013
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
Today in Marine Corps History - 26 December 1956
Twenty helicopters from Marine Light Helicopter Squadron 162, were rushed to Ceylon onboard the USS PRINCETON where Marines participated in the rescue and evacuation of flood victims.
Thursday, December 19, 2013
Marine Corps Quotes
"There's a mindset of flexibility and adaptability that comes with us. We don't mind hardship. We don't mind somebody saying, 'go and do this nasty job.' Whatever the job is, we can do it. That's why the nation has a Marine Corps." ~ James F. Amos
Monday, December 9, 2013
Friday, December 6, 2013
Today in Marine Corps History - 06 December 1928
A small detail of Marines under Captain Maurice G. Holmes defeated Nicaraguan bandits near Chuyelite. GySgt Charles Williams was mortally wounded in the during the fighting. Capt . Holmes was later awarded the Navy Cross for gallantry, and a posthumous award was given to GySgt. Williams.
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Luke's accuracy
During the first century, names of official government positions changed of ten. In spite of this fact, Luke has been found to precisely identify those he names with their correct titles. For example, when Cyprus switched from imperial province to senatorial province in 22 BC, the ruler's title changed as well. Still, Luke correctly identifies Sergios Paullus as "proconsul" of Cyprus rather than by his old title, "imperial legate." Luke also correctly designates the governors of Achaia and Asia as proconsuls since they were under the senate's jurisdiction rather than that of the emperor. Achaia was first under the senate from 27 BC to AD, then under the emperor until AD 44, and again under the senate from that time. In Philippi, Luke's term "praetors" fir the chief magistrates reflects a peculiar egoistical practice confirmed by Cicero: "Although they are called duumvirs in the other colonies, these men wished to be called praetors." Concerning Luke's accuracy in Acts
7:6, an Australian scholar, David Hayles, has published a comprehensive review of the
Quirinius issue. He asserts:
"It is relevant to note at this point that Luke is the only ancient author to have preserved the term 'politarches' (Acts 17:6). Any doubts of his reliability in this respect have been shattered by the discovery of nineteen different inscriptions attesting the title in Thessalonica and Macedonia generally. (HaDJ.RS11 30)
In Acts 28:7, Luke calls Publius "the first man of the island," a title confirmed by Greek and Latin inscriptions as the correct reference to the ruler of Malta at that time. Though Matthew and Mark record the popular designation for Herod Antipas, "king," Luke refers to him by his official title of "tetrarch." As much as Antipas desired it, the Romans granted royal status only to his father, Herod the Great, and not to him. Critics used to charge Luke with an error in Luke 3:1, where he speaks of Lysanias as tetrarch of Abilene. The only Lysanias of Abilene known to modern historians until recently was a "king" by that name, one who was executed by Mark Antony in 34 BC. But once again Luke prevailed over modern critics when an inscription dated between AD 14 and 29 referred to, you guessed it, "Lysanias the tetrarch," a ruler during that time. (RaW.BRD15 297ff).
Luke's accuracy has been confirmed by Luke's descriptions of local "color and atmosphere," Bruce relates:
"The accuracy which Luke shows in the details we have already examined extends also to the more general sphere of local color and atmosphere. He gets the atmosphere right every time. Jerusalem, with its excitable and intolerant crowds, is in marked contrast to the busy emporium of Syrian Antioch, where men of different creeds and nationalities rub shoulders and get their rough corners worn away, so that we are not supposed to find the first Gentile church established there, with Jews and non-Jews meeting in brotherly tolerance and fellowship. Then there is Philippi, the Roman colony with its self-important magistrates and bits citizens so very proud of being Romans; and Athens, with its endless disputations in the markwt-place and its unquenchable thirst for the latest news - a thirst for which its statesmen had chided it three and four hundred years earlier. Then there is Ephesus,with its temple of Artemis, one of the seven wonders of the world, and so many of its citizens depending for their living on the cult if the great goddess; with its reputation for superstition and magic - a reputation so wide-spread in the ancient world of a common name for written charms or spells Was Ephesia grammata (Ephesian Letters). It was no doubt scrolls containing spells that were publicly burnt as Paul powerfully proclaimed a faith which set men free from superstitious fears (Acts 19:19). (BrF.NTD 89)
I must conclude that it is far safer to trust the eyewitness accuracy of Luke than the modern critic, removed by almost two millennia from the events and who has scant archaeological or textual evidence at his disposal. Luke's record entitles him to be regarded as a writer if habitual accuracy.
7:6, an Australian scholar, David Hayles, has published a comprehensive review of the
Quirinius issue. He asserts:
"It is relevant to note at this point that Luke is the only ancient author to have preserved the term 'politarches' (Acts 17:6). Any doubts of his reliability in this respect have been shattered by the discovery of nineteen different inscriptions attesting the title in Thessalonica and Macedonia generally. (HaDJ.RS11 30)
In Acts 28:7, Luke calls Publius "the first man of the island," a title confirmed by Greek and Latin inscriptions as the correct reference to the ruler of Malta at that time. Though Matthew and Mark record the popular designation for Herod Antipas, "king," Luke refers to him by his official title of "tetrarch." As much as Antipas desired it, the Romans granted royal status only to his father, Herod the Great, and not to him. Critics used to charge Luke with an error in Luke 3:1, where he speaks of Lysanias as tetrarch of Abilene. The only Lysanias of Abilene known to modern historians until recently was a "king" by that name, one who was executed by Mark Antony in 34 BC. But once again Luke prevailed over modern critics when an inscription dated between AD 14 and 29 referred to, you guessed it, "Lysanias the tetrarch," a ruler during that time. (RaW.BRD15 297ff).
Luke's accuracy has been confirmed by Luke's descriptions of local "color and atmosphere," Bruce relates:
"The accuracy which Luke shows in the details we have already examined extends also to the more general sphere of local color and atmosphere. He gets the atmosphere right every time. Jerusalem, with its excitable and intolerant crowds, is in marked contrast to the busy emporium of Syrian Antioch, where men of different creeds and nationalities rub shoulders and get their rough corners worn away, so that we are not supposed to find the first Gentile church established there, with Jews and non-Jews meeting in brotherly tolerance and fellowship. Then there is Philippi, the Roman colony with its self-important magistrates and bits citizens so very proud of being Romans; and Athens, with its endless disputations in the markwt-place and its unquenchable thirst for the latest news - a thirst for which its statesmen had chided it three and four hundred years earlier. Then there is Ephesus,with its temple of Artemis, one of the seven wonders of the world, and so many of its citizens depending for their living on the cult if the great goddess; with its reputation for superstition and magic - a reputation so wide-spread in the ancient world of a common name for written charms or spells Was Ephesia grammata (Ephesian Letters). It was no doubt scrolls containing spells that were publicly burnt as Paul powerfully proclaimed a faith which set men free from superstitious fears (Acts 19:19). (BrF.NTD 89)
I must conclude that it is far safer to trust the eyewitness accuracy of Luke than the modern critic, removed by almost two millennia from the events and who has scant archaeological or textual evidence at his disposal. Luke's record entitles him to be regarded as a writer if habitual accuracy.
Quirinius' Rulership of Syria
The mystery of the whole problem, which Luke seems to know and archaeologist haven't yet discovered, is now Quirinius could have been ruling Syria in or about 5 BC. The governors of Syria are all known from 12 BC until 4 BC. We do know that Quirinius was an effective military leader and administrator and that he held several positions of highest rank in and around Syria from as early as 12 BC until AD 7. Sometime between 12 BC and AD 1, Quirinius was in charge of the Homqnadensian War, which was going on in a province neighboring Syria. Emily Schürer, the dominant scholar of the nineteenth century in this field, demonstrated that Syria was the most likely province from which Quirinius could have conducted the war and placed Quirinius as governor of Syria for a first term from 3 to 2 BC (ScE.HJP90 1:352) Ramsay, however, based on inscriptional evidence, believed that Quirinius was part of a cogovernorship about 8 to 6 BC. (RaW.BRD15 292-300) Finegan reasons:
"The resistance of the Homqnadensians must have been broken by the time the net of Roman roads was laid out in the province of Galatia in 6 B.C.; therefore, at least the major part of this war must have been over by the date... Quirinius could have been free to attend to other business in the East." (FiJ.BC 236-36)
English Canon E.C. Hudson has documented that Quirinius was highly successful in his mission against the Homqnadensians. More than 4,000 prisoners were taken, Quirinius was awarded the distinction of a triumph, and those of the colony of Pisidian Antioch elected him honorary duumvir, or chief magistrate, with a perfect, M. Servillius, designated to act for him. (HuH.PF 15;106)
Quirinius great ability contrasts vividly with the inexperience of Quinctilius Varus, official governor of Syria from 7 or 6 BC. Blaiklock, having investigated the evidence at length, shows that Varus "was a man for whom Augustus may justifiably have entertained no great regard. Augustus, above all, was an able judge of men, and it was Quinctilius Varus, who in AD 9, reprehensibly lost three legions in the Teutoburger forest in Germany, one of the most shocking disasters to Roman arms in the century. Assuming that Augustus had some misgivings over the ability of Varus to handle an explosive situation, it is easy to see a reason for special intrusion, under other direction, in the affairs of Varus' province. A reasonable reconstruction might assume that Varus came to Syria in 7 B.C., and untried man. The Census was due in Palestine in 8 or 7 B.C., and it could well be that Augustus ordered the man who had just successfully dealt with the problem of the Pisidian highlands, to undertake the delicate task. Herod I had recently lost favor of the emperor, and may have been temporizing about the taking of the census, a process which always enraged the difficult Jews. Quirinius' intervention, the requisite organization, and the preparation for the census, could easily have postponed the actual date of registration to the end of B.C., a reasonable date."
It is likely then that Quirinius held a ruling position over Syria by special commission. There is a key confirmation: Luke 2:2 allows for this leadership arrangement since the Greek term used does not specify that Quirinius was the official governor of Syria, only that he was in some was governing, ruling or leading Syria.
The dictum of Aristotle, commonly followed for all works of antiquity, is that the benefit of the doubt must be given to the author, not arrogated by three critic himself. The reason classical scholars follow this practice (and why New Testament critics ought to as well) is that the author of classical work, being much closer to the events in question, has a decided advantage in knowing details of the situation which the critic, removed from the event by centuries of time, has no way of knowing. Therefore it is one thing to claim a historical contradiction but quite another to prove it.
Since the historical documentation of ancient times in general and of Syria at this time in particular is scanty, can we trust Luke for his historical accuracy?
Monday, December 2, 2013
The Census
The most difficult apparent historical contradiction having to do with the gospels concerns Luke's report about a census taken while Quirinius governed Syria (Luke 2:2).
"Now at this time Ceasar Augustus issued a decree for a census of the whole to be taken. This census - the first - took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria, and everyone went to his home town to be registered" (Luke 2:1-3).
The census caused Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem just prior to Jesus' birth. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was born before the end of the reign of Herod the Great. It has been established with reasonable certainty that Herod's death took place in March or April of 4 BC.
(FiJ. BC 230ff.; and HoH.C 12-13) A census, not necessarily the first, was taken by Quirinius in AD 6. (FiJ.BC 234-36).
1) In Acts 5:37, Luke refers to the AD 6 census, indicating that he is conscious of where it fits in the chronology of the period. Luke calls this census 'the census', i.e., the well-known one of AD 6.
2) The Greek text of Luke 2:2 suggests a lesser known census prior to that if AD 6. The New American Standard Version translates Luke 2:2, "This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria." It is a faithful rendering of the sense of the Greek text which most literally reads: "This census, a first one, coming to pass when Quirinius is ruling, leading Syria." Since the Greek language often leaves out the word "is," it needs to be inserted and most naturally fits after the word "census." The sentence literally reads, "This census is a first one coming to pass when Quirinius is ruling Syria."
If there had been only the one very well-known census of AD 6 under Quirinius, Luke would have had said simply, "This is the census coming to pass when Quirinius..." We have no knowledge of any census taken after AD 6. Therefore, the grammar of Luke 2:3 seems most definitely to indicate Luke wants his readers to disregard the AD 6 census and think of an earlier, lesser known census of approximately 5 BC.
3) Josephus confirms that the rebellion of AD 6 was a response to an enrollment (census) probably carried out rather heavy-handedly. In contrast, the earlier Luke 2:2 census seems to have appealed to the custom of the Jews. At that time, about 5 BC, the Romans would have had two problems:
a) Herod ruled Judea, not Quirinius.
b) The people didn't like the Romans messing in their affairs.
From the standpoint of the Romans, the most diplomatic solution would be for Quirinius to negotiate a census carried out under Herod's auspices and according to the Jewish practice of registration by tribes. Thus Joseph and Mary traveled to Bethlehem, the city of Davis, and Joseph's "own city." The Romans' negotiating for this arrangement is indicated by the fact that they normally conducted censuses based on land ownership, not on hometowns. Occasionally, however, the Romans did make exceptions. An Egyptian papyrus of AD 104 indicates that the Egyptians were required to return to their home city for the Roman census in Egypt. (DeA. LAE 270-71)
But would Herod have been willing to acquiesce to such an arrangement? Most definitely, for Josephus records that he fell into disfavor with Ceasar Augustus, being demoted from "friend" to "subject." He would have needed to do whatever the Romans wanted him to do in order to regain Caesar's favor. Herod was close to death and having problems deciding on a successor. (He changed his will three times and killed three sons before deciding on Archelaus five days before his death.) The imminent death of Herod was further incentive for the Romans to have a census taken in preparation for a change of rulers.
4) In AD 6, Palestine was no longer under the rule of one king, but split up into several tetrarchies. Therefore, it would have been almost impossible for Joseph and Mary to be required to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem as Luke reports unless it was prior to the death of Herod the Great. In order to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem in AD 6, Joseph and Mary would have had to leave Galilee, governed by Herod Antipas and travel to Judea, now under direct control of the Roman government, which had just deposed Archelaus. But, as Wayne Brindle points out, the trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem "would have taken place only if there were one central authority over Palestine - such as only during the reign of Herod the Great." (BrW.CQ 27:51-52)
5) Luke 2:1 indicates that the census was in accordance with an empire-wide policy of registering all the people. This does not specify that all provinces were enrolled at the same time, only that Augustus was, as Hoehner states, "the first one in history to order a census or tax assessment of the whole provincial empire. This is further substantiated by the fact that Luke uses the present tense indicating that Augustus ordered census to be taken regularly rather than only one time." (HoH.C 15)
The renowned archaeologist, Sir William Ramsay, affirmed:
"The first enrollment in Syria was made in the year 8-7 B.C., but a consideration of the situation in Syria and Palestine about that time will show that the enrollment in Herod's kingdom was probably delayed for some time later. (RaW.WCB 174)
This would be the census of Luke 2:2 in about 6 or 5 BC, just before Herod's death.
6) Jesus was about thirty years old (Luke 3:23) when he began his ministry shortly after John the Baptist began his in "the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Ceasar" (Luke 3:1,2). Hoehner states: "Since the fifteenth year of Tiberius can be dated A.D. 27 to 29, it would mean that if Christ were born in A.D. 6, he would only have been twenty-one to twenty-three years old, not about thirty years old. (HoH.C 19)
Some argue that if a census had occurred in 6 or 5 BC, Josephus would have said something about it. But this is an argument from silence which is invalidated by the fact that probably the only reason Josephus mentions the AD 6 census is that it was highlighted by the tumultuous events of the disposition of Archelaus, the Romans takeover of all his material goods, and revolt of Judas of Galilee (also called "a Gualantine").
"Now at this time Ceasar Augustus issued a decree for a census of the whole to be taken. This census - the first - took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria, and everyone went to his home town to be registered" (Luke 2:1-3).
The census caused Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem just prior to Jesus' birth. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was born before the end of the reign of Herod the Great. It has been established with reasonable certainty that Herod's death took place in March or April of 4 BC.
(FiJ. BC 230ff.; and HoH.C 12-13) A census, not necessarily the first, was taken by Quirinius in AD 6. (FiJ.BC 234-36).
1) In Acts 5:37, Luke refers to the AD 6 census, indicating that he is conscious of where it fits in the chronology of the period. Luke calls this census 'the census', i.e., the well-known one of AD 6.
2) The Greek text of Luke 2:2 suggests a lesser known census prior to that if AD 6. The New American Standard Version translates Luke 2:2, "This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria." It is a faithful rendering of the sense of the Greek text which most literally reads: "This census, a first one, coming to pass when Quirinius is ruling, leading Syria." Since the Greek language often leaves out the word "is," it needs to be inserted and most naturally fits after the word "census." The sentence literally reads, "This census is a first one coming to pass when Quirinius is ruling Syria."
If there had been only the one very well-known census of AD 6 under Quirinius, Luke would have had said simply, "This is the census coming to pass when Quirinius..." We have no knowledge of any census taken after AD 6. Therefore, the grammar of Luke 2:3 seems most definitely to indicate Luke wants his readers to disregard the AD 6 census and think of an earlier, lesser known census of approximately 5 BC.
3) Josephus confirms that the rebellion of AD 6 was a response to an enrollment (census) probably carried out rather heavy-handedly. In contrast, the earlier Luke 2:2 census seems to have appealed to the custom of the Jews. At that time, about 5 BC, the Romans would have had two problems:
a) Herod ruled Judea, not Quirinius.
b) The people didn't like the Romans messing in their affairs.
From the standpoint of the Romans, the most diplomatic solution would be for Quirinius to negotiate a census carried out under Herod's auspices and according to the Jewish practice of registration by tribes. Thus Joseph and Mary traveled to Bethlehem, the city of Davis, and Joseph's "own city." The Romans' negotiating for this arrangement is indicated by the fact that they normally conducted censuses based on land ownership, not on hometowns. Occasionally, however, the Romans did make exceptions. An Egyptian papyrus of AD 104 indicates that the Egyptians were required to return to their home city for the Roman census in Egypt. (DeA. LAE 270-71)
But would Herod have been willing to acquiesce to such an arrangement? Most definitely, for Josephus records that he fell into disfavor with Ceasar Augustus, being demoted from "friend" to "subject." He would have needed to do whatever the Romans wanted him to do in order to regain Caesar's favor. Herod was close to death and having problems deciding on a successor. (He changed his will three times and killed three sons before deciding on Archelaus five days before his death.) The imminent death of Herod was further incentive for the Romans to have a census taken in preparation for a change of rulers.
4) In AD 6, Palestine was no longer under the rule of one king, but split up into several tetrarchies. Therefore, it would have been almost impossible for Joseph and Mary to be required to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem as Luke reports unless it was prior to the death of Herod the Great. In order to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem in AD 6, Joseph and Mary would have had to leave Galilee, governed by Herod Antipas and travel to Judea, now under direct control of the Roman government, which had just deposed Archelaus. But, as Wayne Brindle points out, the trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem "would have taken place only if there were one central authority over Palestine - such as only during the reign of Herod the Great." (BrW.CQ 27:51-52)
5) Luke 2:1 indicates that the census was in accordance with an empire-wide policy of registering all the people. This does not specify that all provinces were enrolled at the same time, only that Augustus was, as Hoehner states, "the first one in history to order a census or tax assessment of the whole provincial empire. This is further substantiated by the fact that Luke uses the present tense indicating that Augustus ordered census to be taken regularly rather than only one time." (HoH.C 15)
The renowned archaeologist, Sir William Ramsay, affirmed:
"The first enrollment in Syria was made in the year 8-7 B.C., but a consideration of the situation in Syria and Palestine about that time will show that the enrollment in Herod's kingdom was probably delayed for some time later. (RaW.WCB 174)
This would be the census of Luke 2:2 in about 6 or 5 BC, just before Herod's death.
6) Jesus was about thirty years old (Luke 3:23) when he began his ministry shortly after John the Baptist began his in "the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Ceasar" (Luke 3:1,2). Hoehner states: "Since the fifteenth year of Tiberius can be dated A.D. 27 to 29, it would mean that if Christ were born in A.D. 6, he would only have been twenty-one to twenty-three years old, not about thirty years old. (HoH.C 19)
Some argue that if a census had occurred in 6 or 5 BC, Josephus would have said something about it. But this is an argument from silence which is invalidated by the fact that probably the only reason Josephus mentions the AD 6 census is that it was highlighted by the tumultuous events of the disposition of Archelaus, the Romans takeover of all his material goods, and revolt of Judas of Galilee (also called "a Gualantine").
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
A Different Story
"Every culture gives it's members a story about what life is all about, and the story of late modern culture - that life is about individual freedom and happiness - has no place for suffering.
But the Christian story is utterly different. Suffering is actually at the heart of the Christian story. Suffering is the result of our turn away from God, and therefore it was the way through which God himself in Jesus Christ came and rescued us for himself. And now it is how we suffer that comprises one of the main ways we become great and Christ-like, holy and happy, and a crucial way way we show the world the live and glory of our Savior."
- Timothy Keller
But the Christian story is utterly different. Suffering is actually at the heart of the Christian story. Suffering is the result of our turn away from God, and therefore it was the way through which God himself in Jesus Christ came and rescued us for himself. And now it is how we suffer that comprises one of the main ways we become great and Christ-like, holy and happy, and a crucial way way we show the world the live and glory of our Savior."
- Timothy Keller
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Sunday, November 10, 2013
<style>.ig-b- { display: inline-block; }
.ig-b- img { visibility: hidden; }
.ig-b-:hover { background-position: 0 -60px; } .ig-b-:active { background-position: 0 -120px; }
.ig-b-48 { width: 48px; height: 48px; background: url(//badges.instagram.com/static/images/ig-badge-sprite-48.png) no-repeat 0 0; }
@media only screen and (-webkit-min-device-pixel-ratio: 2), only screen and (min--moz-device-pixel-ratio: 2), only screen and (-o-min-device-pixel-ratio: 2 / 1), only screen and (min-device-pixel-ratio: 2), only screen and (min-resolution: 192dpi), only screen and (min-resolution: 2dppx) {
.ig-b-48 { background-image: url(//badges.instagram.com/static/images/ig-badge-sprite-48@2x.png); background-size: 60px 178px; } }</style>
<a href="http://instagram.com/michael_estrada1?ref=badge" class="ig-b- ig-b-48"><img src="//badges.instagram.com/static/images/ig-badge-48.png" alt="Instagram" /></a>
.ig-b- img { visibility: hidden; }
.ig-b-:hover { background-position: 0 -60px; } .ig-b-:active { background-position: 0 -120px; }
.ig-b-48 { width: 48px; height: 48px; background: url(//badges.instagram.com/static/images/ig-badge-sprite-48.png) no-repeat 0 0; }
@media only screen and (-webkit-min-device-pixel-ratio: 2), only screen and (min--moz-device-pixel-ratio: 2), only screen and (-o-min-device-pixel-ratio: 2 / 1), only screen and (min-device-pixel-ratio: 2), only screen and (min-resolution: 192dpi), only screen and (min-resolution: 2dppx) {
.ig-b-48 { background-image: url(//badges.instagram.com/static/images/ig-badge-sprite-48@2x.png); background-size: 60px 178px; } }</style>
<a href="http://instagram.com/michael_estrada1?ref=badge" class="ig-b- ig-b-48"><img src="//badges.instagram.com/static/images/ig-badge-48.png" alt="Instagram" /></a>
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Kip Moore - Beer Money (Live In Nashville)
http://www.youtube.com/v/PIjZIC1t490?version=3&autohide=1&attribution_tag=fPcKkjPZXQeIGrQXvWdssg&showinfo=1&autohide=1&autoplay=1&feature=share
Saturday, November 2, 2013
Scientific Theories
"Has it come to that? Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice? Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God? Even, however, if Evolution in the strict biological sense has some better grounds than [this]... - and I can't help thinking it must - we should distinguish Evolution in thus strict sense from what may be called the universal evolutionism of modern thought. By universal evolutionism I mean the belief that the very formula of universal process is from imperfect to perfect, from small beginnings to great endings, from the rudimentary to the elaborate, the belief which makes people find it natural to think that morality springs from savage taboos, adult sentiment from infantile sexual maladjustments, thought from instinct, mind from matter, organic from inorganic, cosmos from chaos. This is perhaps the deepest habit of mind in the contemporary world. It seems to me immensely unplausable, because it makes the general course of nature so very unlike those parts of nature we can observe." ~ C.S. Lewis
- from "Is Theology Poetry?" (The Weight of Glory)
- from "Is Theology Poetry?" (The Weight of Glory)
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Sunday, October 20, 2013
God is a God of grace...
God is a God of grace, not works. He takes and uses people who are at the margins of society - in order to show that salvation is from him, not from our own human ability. Paul says that God tends to choose and use people who are weaker socially, physically, and even morally. Why? "So that no human being might boast in the presence of God" (1 Corinthians 1:29 ESV).
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Achieving a Decision
"It follows, then, that the leader who will become a competent tactician must first close his mind to the alluring formulae that well-meaning people offer in the name of victory. To mast his difficult art he must learn to cut to the heart of a situation, recognize its decisive elements and base his course of action in these." ~ Infantry in Battle
Sunday, October 13, 2013
Saturday, October 12, 2013
Surrender in Obedience by C.S. Lewis
But when we have said that God commands things only because they are good, we must add that one of the things intrinsically good is that rational creatures should freely surrender themselves to their Creator in obedience. The content of our obedience - the thing we are commanded to do - will always be something intrinsically good, for, in obeying, a rational creature consciously enacts its creaturely role, reverses the act by which we fell, treads Adam's dance backward, and returns.
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Today in Music History 3 October 1945
Elvis Presley made his first ever public appearance in a talent contest at the Mississippi Alabama Dairy Show singing 'Old Shep', Elvis was 10 years old at the time and came second.
Monday, September 9, 2013
Friday, September 6, 2013
Three general categories of "can't" justifications for disobedience:
1. Forgiveness: I can't forgive this, or him, or her. But God commands forgiveness (Matthew 18:35). So we can, in fact, determine to put aside anger and soften our hearts with the knowledge of the gospel of grace, and act as though the wrong had not happened. When we say we can't, we mean we won't; that we want to hang on to our anger, our bitterness, our "right" to get even, under the excuse of being "unable."
2. Difficult truth-telling: I just can't tell him the truth. It would destroy him/me. God tells us to "speak the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15,25). Often, we are excusing cowardice or pride under "can't." What we really mean is: If I tell him that, he may not like me anymore. I would be humiliated. He would be upset. I won't risk that cost - I would rather disobey.
3. Temptation: I can't resist doing this, though I know it is wrong. We must be careful here, because sin has addictive power - it is true that we may not be able, through sheer willpower, to stop doing something by ourselves. But we can get help, admit our problem, humble ourselves, cry out to God for mercy and transformation, become accountable. God always gives us a way out (1 Corinthians 10:13) - no sinful thought or action is inevitable and irresistible. If we don't, it's likely that we would simply rather keep sinning in that way, excusing it with our "inability" to do anything else.
2. Difficult truth-telling: I just can't tell him the truth. It would destroy him/me. God tells us to "speak the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15,25). Often, we are excusing cowardice or pride under "can't." What we really mean is: If I tell him that, he may not like me anymore. I would be humiliated. He would be upset. I won't risk that cost - I would rather disobey.
3. Temptation: I can't resist doing this, though I know it is wrong. We must be careful here, because sin has addictive power - it is true that we may not be able, through sheer willpower, to stop doing something by ourselves. But we can get help, admit our problem, humble ourselves, cry out to God for mercy and transformation, become accountable. God always gives us a way out (1 Corinthians 10:13) - no sinful thought or action is inevitable and irresistible. If we don't, it's likely that we would simply rather keep sinning in that way, excusing it with our "inability" to do anything else.
Friday, August 2, 2013
The Absurdity of Life without God and Immortality
"If there is no God, then man and the universe are doomed. Like prisoners condemned to death, we await our unavoidable execution. There is no God, and there is no immortality. And what is the consequence of this? It means that life itself is assured. It means that the life we have is without ultimate significance, value, or purpose." ~ William Lane Craig
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Today in Marine Corps History - 1 August 1944
After nine days of fighting in a battle termed "the perfect amphibious of World War II," Maj . Gen. Harry Schmidt, commander of V Amphibious Corps, declared the island of Tinian secured. The combination of surprise, heavy preassault bombardment, and effective logistical support was responsible for Tinian's recapture with a much lower casualty rate (344 killed and 1550 wounded) than had been experienced in previous landings.
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Monday, July 29, 2013
Sunday, July 28, 2013
Today in Marine Corps History: 28 July 1918
Brigadier General John A. Lejeune assumed command of the 2nd Division, U.S. Army in France, and remained in that capacity until August 1919 when the unit was demobilized. He was the first Marine officer to hold an Army divisional command, and following Armistice, he led his division in the march into Germany.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Marines
"The first time you blow someone away is not an insignificant event. That said, there are some ******s in the world that need to be shot. There are hunters and there are victims. By your discipline, you will decide if you are a hunter or a victim." ~ General James "Mad Dog" Mattis
Friday, July 19, 2013
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Today in Marine Corps History
18 July 1918: The 4th Brigade of Marines began an attack near Soissons, France, part of a three-division counterattack against the Germans. In the first two days of battle, the brigade sustained 1,972 casualties.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Sunday, July 14, 2013
Saturday, July 6, 2013
Today in Marine Corps history
7 July 1941: The 1st Marine Aircraft Wing was activated in Quantico, Virginia. Within a year of activation, the Wing would participate in the Marine Corps offensive at Guadalcanal. That bitter campaign would be the first in a series of battles in which the Wing would add luster to its reputation. The 1st MAW would earn five Presidential Unit Citations for gallantry in campaigns spanning World War II, Korea, and Vietnam.
Sunday, June 9, 2013
Today in Marine Corps History
10 June 1898: The First Marine Battalion, commanded by Lt Col Robert W. Huntington, landed on the eastern side of the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The next day, Lt Herbert L. Draper hoisted the American flag on a flag on pole at Camp McCalla where It flew during the next eleven days. Lt Col Huntington on later sent the flag an accompanying letter to Colonel Commandant Charles Heywood noting that "when bullets were flying, ... the sight of the flag upon the midnight sky has thrilled our Hearts."
Thursday, June 6, 2013
Today in Marine Corps History
6 June 1918: Marines advanced into the forest against German machine guns. Arguably, this was the most catastrophic day in Marine Corps History to this date with 1087 men killed or wounded. Two assaults take place. At 0500, the 1st Battalion 5th Marines attacks west of Belleau Wood straightening the front and capturing strategic Hill 142 to support an assault on the wooded area. Twelve hours later battalions of 5th and 6th Marine Regiments frontally assault the woods from south and west and capture Bouresches on the east edge of the woods. They emerged with the German nickname Teufelhunden, or "devil dogs," after breaking through the front lines.
Monday, June 3, 2013
What the Apostles Meant by C.S. Lewis
When modern writers talk of the Resurrection they usually mean one particular moment - the discovery of the Empty Tomb and the appearance of Jesus a few yards away from it. The story of that moment is what Christians apologists now chiefly try to support and skeptics chiefly try to impugn
But this almost exclusive concentration on the first five minutes or so of the Resurrection would have astonished the earliest Christians teachers. In claiming to have seen the Resurrection they were not necessarily claiming to have seen that. Some of them had, some of them had not. It had no more importance than any of the other appearance of the risen Jesus - apart from the poetic and dramatic importance which the beginnings of things must always have.
What they were claiming was that they had all, at one time or another, met Jesus during the six or seven weeks that followed His death. Sometimes they seem to have been alone when they did so, but on one occasion twelve of them saw Him together, and on another occasion about five hundred of them. St Paul says that the majority of the five hundred were still alive when he wrote the First Letter to the Corinthians, i.e. in about 55 ad.
The 'Resurrection' to which they bore witness was, in fact, not the action of rising from the dead but the state of having risen; a state, as they held, attested by intermittent meetings during a limited period (except for the special, and in some ways different, meeting vouchedsafed to St Paul). This termination of the period is important, for.... there is no possibility of isolating the doctrine of the Resurrection from that of the Ascension.
But this almost exclusive concentration on the first five minutes or so of the Resurrection would have astonished the earliest Christians teachers. In claiming to have seen the Resurrection they were not necessarily claiming to have seen that. Some of them had, some of them had not. It had no more importance than any of the other appearance of the risen Jesus - apart from the poetic and dramatic importance which the beginnings of things must always have.
What they were claiming was that they had all, at one time or another, met Jesus during the six or seven weeks that followed His death. Sometimes they seem to have been alone when they did so, but on one occasion twelve of them saw Him together, and on another occasion about five hundred of them. St Paul says that the majority of the five hundred were still alive when he wrote the First Letter to the Corinthians, i.e. in about 55 ad.
The 'Resurrection' to which they bore witness was, in fact, not the action of rising from the dead but the state of having risen; a state, as they held, attested by intermittent meetings during a limited period (except for the special, and in some ways different, meeting vouchedsafed to St Paul). This termination of the period is important, for.... there is no possibility of isolating the doctrine of the Resurrection from that of the Ascension.
The Apostolic Witness by C.S. Lewis
In the earliest days of Christianity an 'apostle' was first and foremost a man who claimed to be an eyewitness of the Resurrection. Only a few days after the Crucifixion when two candidates were nominated for the vacancy created were treachery of Judah, their qualification was that they had known Jesus personally both before and after His death and could offer first-hand evidence of the Resurrection in addressing the outer would (Acts 1:22). A few days later St. Peter, preaching the first Christian sermon, makes the same claim - 'God raised Jesus, of which we all (we Christians) are witnesses' (Acts 2:32). In the first Letter to the Corinthians, St Paul bases his claim to the apostleship on the same ground - 'Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen the Lord Jesus?' (1:9).
As this qualification suggests l, to preach the Resurrection..... The Resurrection is the central theme in every Christian sermon reported in the Acts
The Resurrection, and it's consequences, we're the 'gospel' or good news which the Christians brought: what we call the 'gospels', the narrative of our Our Lord's life and death, we're composed later for the benefit of those who had already accepted the gospel. They were in no sense the basis of Christianity: they were written for those already converted. The miracle of the Resurrection, and the theology of that miracle, comes first: the biography comes later as a comment on it..... The first fact in the history of Christendom is a number of people who say they have seen the Resurrection. If they had died without making anyone else believe this 'gospel' no gospels would ever have been written.
As this qualification suggests l, to preach the Resurrection..... The Resurrection is the central theme in every Christian sermon reported in the Acts
The Resurrection, and it's consequences, we're the 'gospel' or good news which the Christians brought: what we call the 'gospels', the narrative of our Our Lord's life and death, we're composed later for the benefit of those who had already accepted the gospel. They were in no sense the basis of Christianity: they were written for those already converted. The miracle of the Resurrection, and the theology of that miracle, comes first: the biography comes later as a comment on it..... The first fact in the history of Christendom is a number of people who say they have seen the Resurrection. If they had died without making anyone else believe this 'gospel' no gospels would ever have been written.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Meaning of Life - William Lane Craig
Without God, life has no meaning. Yet philosophers continue to live as though life does have meaning. For example, Sartre argued that one may create meaning for his life by freely choosing to follow a certain course of action. Sartre himself chose Marxism.
Now this is utterly inconsistent. It is inconsistent to say life is objectively absurd and then to say that one may create meaning for his life. If life is really absurd, the man is trapped in the lower story. To try to create meaning in life represents a leap to the upper story. But Sartre has no basis for this leap. Without God, there can be no objective meaning in life. Sartre's program is actually an exercise in self-delusion. For the universe does not really acquire meaning just because I happen to give it one. This is easy to see: for suppose I give the universe one meaning, and you give it another. Who is right? The answer, of course, is neither one. For the universe without God remains objectively meaningless, no matter how we regard it. Sartre is really saying, "Let's pretend the universe has meaning." And this is just fooling ourselves.
The point is this: if God does not exist, then life is objectively meaningless; but man cannot live consistently and happily knowing that life is meaningless; so in order to be happy he pretends that life has meaning. But this is, of course, entirely inconsistent - for without God, man and the universe are without any real significance.
Friday, May 24, 2013
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Today in Marine Corps History - 15 May 1862
Corporal John Mackie, the first Marine to earn the Medal of Honor, was commanded for service in the USS GALENA during action against Confederate shore batteries at Drewry's Bluff which blocked the James River approaches to Richmond.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Today in Marine Corps history - 10 May 1945
The 22nd Marines, 6th Marine Division, executed a pre-dawn attack south across the Asa River Estuary And seized a bridgehead from which to continue the attack toward Naha, the capital of Okinawa.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Today in Marine Corps History
8 May 1986: In the wake of the most devastating storm hit New Orleans area in more than 200 years, a group of Marines and sailors from Marine Forces Reserve demonstrated the quick response synonymous with the Navy/Marine Corps team. Within 24 hours of being called, Marines assisted the evacuation of 2,500 civilians, and Navy Corpsmen treated scores of flood victims.
Saturday, May 4, 2013
Today in Marine Corps History: 5 May 1986
In Beirut, Lebanon a UH-1N helicopter carrying the commander of the Americans peacekeeping force, Colonel James Mead, was hit by machine gun fire. The six Marines aboard escaped injury. Colonel Mead and his crew had taken off in the helicopter to investigate artillery and rocket duels between rival Syrian-backed Druze Moslem militiamen and Christian Phalangists that endangered French members of the multinational forces.
Friday, April 26, 2013
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Faith in the Gospel
"Faith in the gospel restructures our motivations, our self-understanding, our identity, and our of the world. In changes or hearts." ~ Timothy Keller
Sunday, April 14, 2013
15 April: Today in Marine Corps History
15 April: Marine Corps operational in the Vietnam War began on Palm Sunday wHMM-362 with Sikorsky UH-34s arrived at Soc Trang in the Delta south of Salgon. The task unit was called "Schufly" and it's first operational eployment involved lifting Vietnamese troops into battle.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Today in Marine Corps History
Marines of the 4th Brigade sffered their first gas attack on the night and early orning hours of 12-13 April when the Germans bombarded the 74th Company, 6h Mnes near Verdun with mstard gas. Nine Marine officers and 305 enlisted Marines were gassed and evacuated, and 30 Marines died from the effects of the gas shells which hit in the middle of reserve area cantonments in which they weresleeping.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Not a Matter of Opinion
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that pople often say aout Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of tings Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." ~ C.S. Lewis from Mere Christianity
What Christianity Offers
NNow the whole offer which Christianity makes is this: that we can, if we let God have His way, come to share in the life of Christ. If we do, we shall then be sharing a life of Christ. If we do, we shall then be sharing a life which was begotten, which always has existed and always will exist. Christ is the Son of God. If we share in this kind of life we also shall be sons of God. We shall love the Father as He does and the Holy Ghost will arise in us. He came to this world and became a man in order to spread to oher men the kind of lfe He has - by what I call 'good infection'. Every Christian is to become a little Christ. The whole purpose of becoming a Christian is simply nohing else. - from Mere Christianity
Monday, April 1, 2013
A Good Infection
And now, what does it all matter? It matters more than anything else in the world. The whole dance, or drama, or pattern of this three-Personal life is to be played out in each one of us: or (putting it the other way round) each ne of s has got to enter that pattern, take his place that dance. There is no other way to te happiness for which we were made. Good things as well as bad, you know, are cught by a kind of infection. If you want to get warm you must stand near the fire: if you want to be wet you must get into the water. If you want joy, power, peace, eternal life, you must get close to, or even into, the thing that has them. They are not a sort of prize which God could, if He chose, just hand out to anyone. They are a great fountain of energy and beauty spurting up at the verycentre of reality. If you are close to it, the spray will wet you: if you are not, you will remain dry. Once a man is united to God, how could he not live forever? Once a man is separated from God, what can he do but wither and die?
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Does religion poison everything?
It is common to say that "fundamentalism" leads to violence, yet, all of us have fundamental, unprovable faith-commitments that we think are superior to those of other. The real question, then, is which fundamentals will lead their believers to be most loving and receptive to those with whom they differ? Which set of unavoidably exclusive beliefs will lead us to humble, peace-loving behavior?
One of the paradoxes of history is the relationship between the beliefs and the practices of the early Christians as cmpared to those culture around them.
The Greco-Roman world's religious views were open and seemingly tolerant-everyone had his or her own God. The practices of the culture were quite brutal, however. The Greco-Roman world was highly stratified economically, with a huge distance between the rich and poor. By contrast, Christians insisted that there was only one true God, the dying Savior Jesus Christ. Their lives and practices were, however, remarkably welcoming to those that the culture marginalized. The early Christians mixed people from different races and classes in ways that emed scandalous to those around them. The Greco-Roman world tended to despise the poor, but Christians gave generously not only to their own poor but to those of other faiths. In broader society, women had very low status, being subjected to a high levels of female infanticide, forced marriages, and lack of econmic equality. Christianity afforded women much greater security and equality than had previously existed in the ancient classical world. During the terrible urban plagues of the first two centuries, Christians cared for all the sick and dying in the city, often at the cost of their lives.
Why would such an exclusive belief system lead to behavior that was so open to others? It was because Christians had within their belief system the strongest possible resource for practicing sacrificial service, generosity, and peace-making. At the very heart of teir view of reality was a man who died for his enemies, praying for their forgiveness. Reflection on this could only lead to a radically different way of dealing with those who were different from them. It meant they could not act in violence and oppression toward their opponents.
We cannot skip lightly over the fact that there have been injustices done by the church in the name of Christ' most fundamental beliefs can be a powerful impetus for peace-making in our troubled world?
One of the paradoxes of history is the relationship between the beliefs and the practices of the early Christians as cmpared to those culture around them.
The Greco-Roman world's religious views were open and seemingly tolerant-everyone had his or her own God. The practices of the culture were quite brutal, however. The Greco-Roman world was highly stratified economically, with a huge distance between the rich and poor. By contrast, Christians insisted that there was only one true God, the dying Savior Jesus Christ. Their lives and practices were, however, remarkably welcoming to those that the culture marginalized. The early Christians mixed people from different races and classes in ways that emed scandalous to those around them. The Greco-Roman world tended to despise the poor, but Christians gave generously not only to their own poor but to those of other faiths. In broader society, women had very low status, being subjected to a high levels of female infanticide, forced marriages, and lack of econmic equality. Christianity afforded women much greater security and equality than had previously existed in the ancient classical world. During the terrible urban plagues of the first two centuries, Christians cared for all the sick and dying in the city, often at the cost of their lives.
Why would such an exclusive belief system lead to behavior that was so open to others? It was because Christians had within their belief system the strongest possible resource for practicing sacrificial service, generosity, and peace-making. At the very heart of teir view of reality was a man who died for his enemies, praying for their forgiveness. Reflection on this could only lead to a radically different way of dealing with those who were different from them. It meant they could not act in violence and oppression toward their opponents.
We cannot skip lightly over the fact that there have been injustices done by the church in the name of Christ' most fundamental beliefs can be a powerful impetus for peace-making in our troubled world?
Religion
What is religion? Some say it is a form of belief in God. But that would not fit Zen Buddhism, which does not really believe in God at all. Some say it is a believe in the supernatural. But that does not fit Hinduism, which does not believe in a supernatural realm beyond the material world, but only a spiritual reality within the empirical. What is religion then? It is a set of beliefs that explain what life is all about, who we are, and the most important things that human beings should spend their time doing. For example, some think that this material world is all there is, that we are here by accident and when we die we just rot, and therefore the important thing is to choose to do what makes you happy and not let others impose their beliefs on you. Notice that though this is not an explicit, "organized" religion, it contains a master narrative, an account about the meaning of life along with a recommendation for how to live based on that account of things.
Some call this a "worldview" while others call it a "narrative identity." In either case it is a set of faith-assumptions about the nature of things. It is an implicit religion. Broadly understood, faith in some view of the world and human nature informs everyone's life. Everyone lives and operates out of some narrative identity, whether it is thought out and reflected upon or not. All who say "You ought to do this" or "You shouldn't do that" reason out of such an implicit moral and religious position. Pragmatists say that we should leave our deeper worldviews behind and find consensus about "what works" - but our view of what works is determined by what we think people are for. Any picture of happy human life that "works" is necessarily informed by deep-seated beliefs about the purpose of human life. Even the most secular pragmatists come to the table with deep commitments and narrative accounts of what it means to be human. All of our most fundamental convictions about things are beliefs that are nearly impossible to justify to those who don't share them. Secular concepts such as "self-realization" and "autonomy" are impossible to prove and are "conversation stoppers" just as much as appeals to the Bible.
Statements that seem to be common sense to the speakers are nonetheless often profoundly religious in nature.
Some call this a "worldview" while others call it a "narrative identity." In either case it is a set of faith-assumptions about the nature of things. It is an implicit religion. Broadly understood, faith in some view of the world and human nature informs everyone's life. Everyone lives and operates out of some narrative identity, whether it is thought out and reflected upon or not. All who say "You ought to do this" or "You shouldn't do that" reason out of such an implicit moral and religious position. Pragmatists say that we should leave our deeper worldviews behind and find consensus about "what works" - but our view of what works is determined by what we think people are for. Any picture of happy human life that "works" is necessarily informed by deep-seated beliefs about the purpose of human life. Even the most secular pragmatists come to the table with deep commitments and narrative accounts of what it means to be human. All of our most fundamental convictions about things are beliefs that are nearly impossible to justify to those who don't share them. Secular concepts such as "self-realization" and "autonomy" are impossible to prove and are "conversation stoppers" just as much as appeals to the Bible.
Statements that seem to be common sense to the speakers are nonetheless often profoundly religious in nature.
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Today in Marine Corps History
17 March 1967: The first woman Marine to report to Vietnam for duty, Master Sergeant Barbara J. Dulinsky, began her 18-hour flight to Bien Hoa, 30 miles north of Saigon. MSgt. Dulinsky and the other officer and enlisted Women Marines that followed were assigned to the Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV) based in Saigon. Most worked with the Marine Corps Personnel Section providing administrative support to Marines assigned as far north as DMZ, but two Lieutenant Colonels, Ruth O'Holleran and Ruth Reinholz, served as historians with the Military History Branch, Secretary Joint Staff, MACV.
Friday, March 8, 2013
Random Chance
Although the idea of life forming by random chance isn't taken seriously right now among scientists, the idea is still very much alive at the popular level.
The problems with that theory is like as throwing Scrabble letters onto the floor and forming a simple book. Or imagine closing your eyes and picking Scrabble letters out of a bag. Are you going to produce Hamlet in anything like te time of the known universe? Even a simple protein molecule is so rich in information that the entire history of the universe since the Big Bang wouldn't give you the time you would need to generate that molecule by chance.
The problems with that theory is like as throwing Scrabble letters onto the floor and forming a simple book. Or imagine closing your eyes and picking Scrabble letters out of a bag. Are you going to produce Hamlet in anything like te time of the known universe? Even a simple protein molecule is so rich in information that the entire history of the universe since the Big Bang wouldn't give you the time you would need to generate that molecule by chance.
Our DNA
"Human DNA contain more information than the Encyclopedia Britannica. If the full text of the Encyclopedia were to arrive in human code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the workings of random forces." - George Sim Johnson
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Mark's ending (Internal Evidence)
Eusebius gives us our clearest evidence that most NT MSS known to him ended Mark in v. 8. Jerome (one of the early church fathers) repeats Eusebius' observation, although Jerome's Vulgate contain the longer ending; Jerome was also aware of a text we know as the Freer Logion (found in MS W within the longer ending).
We need to recall that Mark was not popular within the 2nd Century; hence this Gospel was seldom cited. Westott, Hort, and Cox, and others list fathers who knew of 16:9-20, of whom the most significant is Ireneaus. In A.D. 180, he knew of 16:19 to be from Mark. But many fathers did not quote from the longer ending and may therefore not have known about it. That is of course an argument from silence.
The external evidence shows quite clearly that from the earliest times we have reliable information that Mark's Gospel circulated in dfferent forms with differing endings. There is evidence that in the second century the longer ending wasn't even quoted; in the fourth century we have evidence that scribes were aware of a problem, the ending at v. 8 was known, as were the shorter ending and the longer ending; by the sixth centuy there is evidence of the shorter ending and longer ending together.
So what is it that caused the hesitation over vs. 9-20, or their omission? Why do most printed editions and modern versions go with the minority of witnesses, and exclude vv. 9-20?
The answer is that the contents and theology vv. 9-20 are uncharacteristic of Mark elsewhere.
We need to recall that Mark was not popular within the 2nd Century; hence this Gospel was seldom cited. Westott, Hort, and Cox, and others list fathers who knew of 16:9-20, of whom the most significant is Ireneaus. In A.D. 180, he knew of 16:19 to be from Mark. But many fathers did not quote from the longer ending and may therefore not have known about it. That is of course an argument from silence.
The external evidence shows quite clearly that from the earliest times we have reliable information that Mark's Gospel circulated in dfferent forms with differing endings. There is evidence that in the second century the longer ending wasn't even quoted; in the fourth century we have evidence that scribes were aware of a problem, the ending at v. 8 was known, as were the shorter ending and the longer ending; by the sixth centuy there is evidence of the shorter ending and longer ending together.
So what is it that caused the hesitation over vs. 9-20, or their omission? Why do most printed editions and modern versions go with the minority of witnesses, and exclude vv. 9-20?
The answer is that the contents and theology vv. 9-20 are uncharacteristic of Mark elsewhere.
Ending of Marrk
Versions
1. The fourth-century Latin MS Bobbiensis (k) is textually the oldest witness to the Latin Bible, with a text going back to the early third century. Vv. 9-20 are absent, and are replaced by the shorter ending. (It is therefore no surprising to see there is nothing from this ending quoted by Tertullian or by Cyprian in North Africa.) Lvt (k) differs from NA from Mark 15:45 onwards, e.g., at v. 16:1; the additions to v.3; and the absence of v. 8b.
2. The Sahidic Coptic usually ends at 16:8. As well as the Sinaitic Syriac, early Arrmenian MSS also lack the verses. The same is true for theGeogiaan witnesses.
3. The Byzantine lectionary system seems to have developed into a settled form by the eighth century - only after that time do most lectionaries contain a reading from the longer ending.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Theology of Judaism
Despite its intesely nationalist spirit, Judaism attracted larte numbers of Gentile proselytes, who were full converts, and God-fearers, who were Gentiles willing to practice Judaism in part but unwilling to undergo circumcision and observe the stricter Jewish taboos. These Gentiles found Jewish theology superior to pagan polytheism and supersition, for the Jews emphasized their monotheistic belief in one God and opposed idolatry even in their own temple. Unconverted pagans, on the other hand, could not comprehend a temple without an idol. Why build a temple if not to house an idol? The Jewish emphasis on moral behavior also appealed to the conscience of Gentiles offended by the immprality of the pantheon as described in pagan mythology and of the devotees of those gods and goddesses.
Jewish beliefs sprang from the acts of God in history as recorded in a collection of sacred books (the Old Testament) and not, as in paganism, from mythology, mysticism, or philosophic speculation. The Old Testament emphasized the fate of Israel the nation; hence, the doctrine of individual and therefore on the doctrine of individual resurrection. Nationalism and the awareness of being God's chosen people had by no means died out, however.
Jews were looking for the Messiah to come. Indeed, some of them awaited a variety of messianic figures - prophetic, priestly, and royal. But they did not expect the Messiah to be a divine as well as human being, or to suffer, die, and rise from the dead for their salvation from sin. Instead, they looked for God to use a purely human figure on bringing military delieverance from Roman domination. Or God himself would deliver his people, they thought, and then introduce the Messiah as ruler. "This present age," evil in character, was to be followed by the utopian "days of the Messiah" or "day of the Lord," indeterminate or variously calculated as to length. Afterwards, "the coming age," or eternity, would begin. Occasionally in Jewish thinking, the messianic kingdom merged with the eternal age to come.
Jewish beliefs sprang from the acts of God in history as recorded in a collection of sacred books (the Old Testament) and not, as in paganism, from mythology, mysticism, or philosophic speculation. The Old Testament emphasized the fate of Israel the nation; hence, the doctrine of individual and therefore on the doctrine of individual resurrection. Nationalism and the awareness of being God's chosen people had by no means died out, however.
Jews were looking for the Messiah to come. Indeed, some of them awaited a variety of messianic figures - prophetic, priestly, and royal. But they did not expect the Messiah to be a divine as well as human being, or to suffer, die, and rise from the dead for their salvation from sin. Instead, they looked for God to use a purely human figure on bringing military delieverance from Roman domination. Or God himself would deliver his people, they thought, and then introduce the Messiah as ruler. "This present age," evil in character, was to be followed by the utopian "days of the Messiah" or "day of the Lord," indeterminate or variously calculated as to length. Afterwards, "the coming age," or eternity, would begin. Occasionally in Jewish thinking, the messianic kingdom merged with the eternal age to come.
The Literature of Judaism
The Religious Calendar
Closely related to worship in the temple were the religious restivals and holy days of the Jews. Their civil year began approximately in September-October, their religious year approximately in March-April. The Mosaic law prescribed the first six items on the calendar (Passover-Tabernacles). The remaining two (Hannukkah and Purim) arose later and apart from scriptural command. Pilgrims thronged to Jerusalem from elsewhere in Palestine and also from foreign countries for the three main festivals: Passover-Unleavened Bread, Pentecost, and Tabernacles.
The Literature of Judaism: Old Testament
The Old Testament existed in three linguistic forms for Jews of the first century: the original Hebrew, the Septuagint (a Greek translation), and the Targums 9oral paraphrases in Aramaic, which were just beginning to be written down). The Targums also contained traditional, interpretatitve, and imaginative material not found in the Old Testament itself.
Apocrypha
Written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek and dating from the interestamental and New Testament periods, the apocryphal books of the Old Testament contain history, fiction, and wisdom. The Jews and later the early Christians did not generally regard these books as sacred Scripture. Thus apocrypha, which originally meant "hidden, secret" and therefore "profound," came to mean "noncanonical." The apocrphal books include the following:
1 Esdras
2 Esdras (or 4 Ezra, apocalyptic in content)
Tobit
Judith
Additons to the Book of Esther
Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach
Baruch
Letter of Jeremiah
Prayer of Azariah
Song of Three Young Men
Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
Prayer of Manasseh
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Pseudepigrapha and Apocalyptic
Other Jewish books dating from the same era are labeled pseudepigrapha ("falsely inscribed"), because some of them were written under the falsely assumed names of long-deceased Old Testament figures to achieve an air of authority. Some pseudepographal writings also fall into the class of apocalyptic literature, which describes in highly sumbolic and visionary language the end of present history with the coming of God's kingdom on earth. By promising the soon arrival of that kingdom, apocalyptists encouraged the Jewish people to endure persecution. Repeated disappointment of the hopes built up in his way eventually stopped the publication of apocalytpic literature.
The pseudepigraphal literature, which has no generally recognized limits, also contains anonymous books of legendary history, psalms, and wisdom. A list of well-known pseudepigraphal books follows:
1 Enoch
2 Enoch
2 Baruch, or the Apocalypse of Baruch
3 Baruch
Sybylline Oracles
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
Testament of Job
Lives of the Prophets
Assumption of Moses
Martyrdom of Isaiah
Paralipomena of Jeremia
Jubilees
Life of Adam and Eve
Psalms of Solomon
Letter of Aristeas
3 Maccabees
4Maccabees
In addition, the Qumral scrolls discovered in caves near the Dead Sea include literature similiar to the traditiona pseudepigrapha:
Damascus (or Zadokite) Document (fragments of which were known before)
Rule of the Community, or Manual of Discipline
War Between the Children of Light and the Children of Darkness
Description of the New Jersusalem
Temple Scroll
Psalms of Joshua
Pseudo-jeremianic literature
Apocruphal Danielic literature
Various commentaries (pesherim) on the Psalms, Isaiah, Hosea, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah
Various books of laws, liturgies, prayers, blessings, mysteries, wisdom, and astronomical and calendrical calculations
Closely related to worship in the temple were the religious restivals and holy days of the Jews. Their civil year began approximately in September-October, their religious year approximately in March-April. The Mosaic law prescribed the first six items on the calendar (Passover-Tabernacles). The remaining two (Hannukkah and Purim) arose later and apart from scriptural command. Pilgrims thronged to Jerusalem from elsewhere in Palestine and also from foreign countries for the three main festivals: Passover-Unleavened Bread, Pentecost, and Tabernacles.
The Literature of Judaism: Old Testament
The Old Testament existed in three linguistic forms for Jews of the first century: the original Hebrew, the Septuagint (a Greek translation), and the Targums 9oral paraphrases in Aramaic, which were just beginning to be written down). The Targums also contained traditional, interpretatitve, and imaginative material not found in the Old Testament itself.
Apocrypha
Written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek and dating from the interestamental and New Testament periods, the apocryphal books of the Old Testament contain history, fiction, and wisdom. The Jews and later the early Christians did not generally regard these books as sacred Scripture. Thus apocrypha, which originally meant "hidden, secret" and therefore "profound," came to mean "noncanonical." The apocrphal books include the following:
1 Esdras
2 Esdras (or 4 Ezra, apocalyptic in content)
Tobit
Judith
Additons to the Book of Esther
Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach
Baruch
Letter of Jeremiah
Prayer of Azariah
Song of Three Young Men
Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
Prayer of Manasseh
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Pseudepigrapha and Apocalyptic
Other Jewish books dating from the same era are labeled pseudepigrapha ("falsely inscribed"), because some of them were written under the falsely assumed names of long-deceased Old Testament figures to achieve an air of authority. Some pseudepographal writings also fall into the class of apocalyptic literature, which describes in highly sumbolic and visionary language the end of present history with the coming of God's kingdom on earth. By promising the soon arrival of that kingdom, apocalyptists encouraged the Jewish people to endure persecution. Repeated disappointment of the hopes built up in his way eventually stopped the publication of apocalytpic literature.
The pseudepigraphal literature, which has no generally recognized limits, also contains anonymous books of legendary history, psalms, and wisdom. A list of well-known pseudepigraphal books follows:
1 Enoch
2 Enoch
2 Baruch, or the Apocalypse of Baruch
3 Baruch
Sybylline Oracles
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
Testament of Job
Lives of the Prophets
Assumption of Moses
Martyrdom of Isaiah
Paralipomena of Jeremia
Jubilees
Life of Adam and Eve
Psalms of Solomon
Letter of Aristeas
3 Maccabees
4Maccabees
In addition, the Qumral scrolls discovered in caves near the Dead Sea include literature similiar to the traditiona pseudepigrapha:
Damascus (or Zadokite) Document (fragments of which were known before)
Rule of the Community, or Manual of Discipline
War Between the Children of Light and the Children of Darkness
Description of the New Jersusalem
Temple Scroll
Psalms of Joshua
Pseudo-jeremianic literature
Apocruphal Danielic literature
Various commentaries (pesherim) on the Psalms, Isaiah, Hosea, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah
Various books of laws, liturgies, prayers, blessings, mysteries, wisdom, and astronomical and calendrical calculations
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Juadaism
The Synagogue
More important for the New Testament study than the pagan religious and philosophical milieu is the Judaism out of which Christianity arose. Judaism as it was in the first century originated toward the close of the Old Testament period during the Assyro-Babylonian exile. The prophets had predicted exile as punishment for the idolatry practiced by the people of Israel. Fulfillment of the prediction permanently cured them idolatry. Temporary loss of the temple during the Exile gave rise to increased study and observance of the Old Testament law (the Torah) and at least ultimately to establishment of the synagogue as an institution. It is debatable whether synagogues originated during the Exile, during the restoration, or during the intertestamenta period. But a reasonable conjecture is that since the Babylonian conqueror Nebuchadnezzar had destroyed the first temple (Solomon's) and deported most of the Jews from Judea, they established local centers of worship called synagogues ("assemblies") wherever ten adult Jewish men could be found. Once established as an institution, synagogues remained and multiplied even after the rebuilding of the temple under Zerubbabel's leadership.
At first not every elaborate, the typical synagogue consisted of a rectangular room perhaps having a raised speaker's platform behind which rested a portable chest or shrine containing Old Testament scrolls. The congregation st on stone benches running along two or three walls and on mats and possibly wooden chairs in the center of the room. In front, facing the congregation, sat the ruler and elders of the synagogue. Singing was unaccompanied. To read from an Old Testament scroll, the speaker stood. To preach, he sat down. For prayer, everyone stood. The typical synagogue service consisted of the following:
The synagogue was more than a center for religious worship every Saturday. During the week it became a center for adminstration of justice, political meetings, funeral services, education of Jewish lads, and study of the Old Testament. This study tended to obscure the importance of offering sacrifices in the temple. As a result, the rabbi, or teacher of the law, began to upstage the priest.
The Mosiac law prescribed that the sacrifices could be offered only at a central sanctuary. The second temple continued to be important, therefore, until its destruction in A.D. 70. The urging of the prophets Haggain and Zechariah had spurred its building during the Old Testament period of restoration from the Exile. Plundered and descrated by Antiochus Epiphanes in 168 B.C., it had been repaired, cleansed, and rededicated by Judas Maccabeus three years later. Then, at much expense, Herod the Great beautified it even beyond the glory of the first temple, which had been built in grand style more than nine hundred years earlier by King Solomon, son of King David.
The Temple
The temple proper stood in the middle of courts and cloisters covering about twenty-six acres. Gentiles could enter the outer court; but inscriptions in Latin and Greek warned them on pain of death not to enter the inner courts, reserved for Jews alone. Just outside the temple proper stood and altar for burnt offerings and a lavar or tub full of water which the priests used for washing. Inside the first room or holy place, curtained from the outside with a heavy veil, stood a seven-branched golden lampstand that burned olive oil mixed with other substances, a table stocked with bread representing God's providnetial presence, and a small altar for the burning incense. Another heavy veil curtained off the innermost room, the Holy of Holies. into which the high priest entered but once a year, alone, on the Day of Atonement. The ark of the covenant, the only peice of furniture placed in the Holy of Holies during Old Testament times, had long ago disappeared in the upheavals of invasion and captivity. Besides private sacrifices, daily burnt offerings for the whole nation were sacrificed at midmorning and midafternoon in conjunction with the burning of incense and with prayersm priestly benedicitons, pouring out of wine as alibation (liquid offering), blowing of trumpets, and chanting and singing by choirs of Levits accompanied with harpes, lyres, and wind instruments. Sabbaths, festivals, and other holy days featured additional ceremonies.
More important for the New Testament study than the pagan religious and philosophical milieu is the Judaism out of which Christianity arose. Judaism as it was in the first century originated toward the close of the Old Testament period during the Assyro-Babylonian exile. The prophets had predicted exile as punishment for the idolatry practiced by the people of Israel. Fulfillment of the prediction permanently cured them idolatry. Temporary loss of the temple during the Exile gave rise to increased study and observance of the Old Testament law (the Torah) and at least ultimately to establishment of the synagogue as an institution. It is debatable whether synagogues originated during the Exile, during the restoration, or during the intertestamenta period. But a reasonable conjecture is that since the Babylonian conqueror Nebuchadnezzar had destroyed the first temple (Solomon's) and deported most of the Jews from Judea, they established local centers of worship called synagogues ("assemblies") wherever ten adult Jewish men could be found. Once established as an institution, synagogues remained and multiplied even after the rebuilding of the temple under Zerubbabel's leadership.
At first not every elaborate, the typical synagogue consisted of a rectangular room perhaps having a raised speaker's platform behind which rested a portable chest or shrine containing Old Testament scrolls. The congregation st on stone benches running along two or three walls and on mats and possibly wooden chairs in the center of the room. In front, facing the congregation, sat the ruler and elders of the synagogue. Singing was unaccompanied. To read from an Old Testament scroll, the speaker stood. To preach, he sat down. For prayer, everyone stood. The typical synagogue service consisted of the following:
- Antiphona recitations of the Shema (Deut. 6:4ff., the "golden text" of Judaism) and of the Shemone Esreh (a series of praises to God)
- Prayer
- Singing of psalms
- Readings from the Hebrew Old Testament law and prophets interspersed with a Targum, that is, a loose oral translation into Aramaic (or Greek), which many Jews understood better than Hebrew
- A sermon (if someone competent at preaching was present)
- A blessing or benediction
The synagogue was more than a center for religious worship every Saturday. During the week it became a center for adminstration of justice, political meetings, funeral services, education of Jewish lads, and study of the Old Testament. This study tended to obscure the importance of offering sacrifices in the temple. As a result, the rabbi, or teacher of the law, began to upstage the priest.
The Mosiac law prescribed that the sacrifices could be offered only at a central sanctuary. The second temple continued to be important, therefore, until its destruction in A.D. 70. The urging of the prophets Haggain and Zechariah had spurred its building during the Old Testament period of restoration from the Exile. Plundered and descrated by Antiochus Epiphanes in 168 B.C., it had been repaired, cleansed, and rededicated by Judas Maccabeus three years later. Then, at much expense, Herod the Great beautified it even beyond the glory of the first temple, which had been built in grand style more than nine hundred years earlier by King Solomon, son of King David.
The Temple
The temple proper stood in the middle of courts and cloisters covering about twenty-six acres. Gentiles could enter the outer court; but inscriptions in Latin and Greek warned them on pain of death not to enter the inner courts, reserved for Jews alone. Just outside the temple proper stood and altar for burnt offerings and a lavar or tub full of water which the priests used for washing. Inside the first room or holy place, curtained from the outside with a heavy veil, stood a seven-branched golden lampstand that burned olive oil mixed with other substances, a table stocked with bread representing God's providnetial presence, and a small altar for the burning incense. Another heavy veil curtained off the innermost room, the Holy of Holies. into which the high priest entered but once a year, alone, on the Day of Atonement. The ark of the covenant, the only peice of furniture placed in the Holy of Holies during Old Testament times, had long ago disappeared in the upheavals of invasion and captivity. Besides private sacrifices, daily burnt offerings for the whole nation were sacrificed at midmorning and midafternoon in conjunction with the burning of incense and with prayersm priestly benedicitons, pouring out of wine as alibation (liquid offering), blowing of trumpets, and chanting and singing by choirs of Levits accompanied with harpes, lyres, and wind instruments. Sabbaths, festivals, and other holy days featured additional ceremonies.
Philosophies
The intelligentsia were turning to purer forms of philosphy. Epicureanism taught pleasure (not necesasarily sensual) as the chief good in life. Stoicism taught dutiful acceptance of one's fate as determined by an impersonal Reason which rules the universe and of which all human beings are a part. The Cynics, who have anumber of modern counterparts, regarded the supreme virtue as a simple, unconventional life in rejection of the popular pursuits of comfort, affluence, and social prestige. The Sceptics were realativists who abandoned belief in anything absolute and succumbed to doubt and conformity to preavailing custom. These and others philosophies did not determine the lives of very many people, however. Superstition and suncretism characterized the masses. Thus, Christianity entered a religiously and philosphically confused world. The old confidence of classical Athens had run out. The enigmatic universe defied understanding. Philosophy had failed to provide satisfactory answers. So also had the traditional religions. People felt helpless under the fate of the stars, which they regarded as angelic-demonic beings. Gloom and despair prevailed.
Gnosticism
Plato's dualistic contrast between the invisible world of ideas and the visible world of matter formed a substratum of first-century Gnosticism, which started to take shape late in the first century and which equated matter with evil, spirit with good. Out of this equation came two opposite modes of conduct: (1) ascetisism, the suppression of bodily passions because of their connection with evil matter, and (2) libertinism or sensualism, the indulgence of bodily passions because of the transcience and consequent unimportance of matter. In both modes, Oriental religious notions mixed with Platonic philospy. Physical resurrection seemed abhorrent so long as matter was regarded as evil. Imortality of the spirit seemed desirable, however, attainable through the knowledge of secret doctrines and passwords by which at death one's departing spirit could elude hostile demonic guardians of the planets and stars on its flight from earth to heaven. Under this view the human problem does not consist in guilt, which needs forgiveness, so much as in ignorance, which needs replacement with knowledge. In fact, Gnosticism comes gnosis, the Greek word for knowledge. To keep the realm of supreme diety pure, later Gnostics separated it from the material and therefore evil universe by a series of lesser divine beings called "aeons." Thus an elaborate angelology developed alongside demonology.
Gnostic ideas seem to stand behind certain heresies attacked in later New Testament literature; but the contents of a Gnostic liberary discovered in the 1940s at Nag Hammadi, Egypt, give evidence that full-blown Gnostic mythology did not yet exist at the time Christianity arose. In the first century, Gnosticism was still developing out of an aggregate loosely related philosophical and religious ideas and had yet turn into a highly organized system of doctrine.
Gnostic ideas seem to stand behind certain heresies attacked in later New Testament literature; but the contents of a Gnostic liberary discovered in the 1940s at Nag Hammadi, Egypt, give evidence that full-blown Gnostic mythology did not yet exist at the time Christianity arose. In the first century, Gnosticism was still developing out of an aggregate loosely related philosophical and religious ideas and had yet turn into a highly organized system of doctrine.
Superstition and Syncretism
Superstition had a stranglehold on most people in the Roman Empire. Use of magical formulas, consultation of hosorscopes and oracles, augury or prediction of the future by observing the flight of birds, the movement of oil on water, and the markings on a lover and the hiring of professional exorcists (experts at casting out demons) - all these superstitious practices and many more played a part in every day life. Jews numbered among the most sought-after exorcists, largely because it it was thought that they alone could correctly pronounce the magically potent name Yahweh (Hebrew for "Lord"). Correct pronunciation, along secrecy, was considered necessary to the effectiveness of an incantation. In practice known as syncretism common people simply combined various religious beliefs and superstitious practices. Household idol shelves were filled with the images of birds, dogs, bulls, crocodiles, beetles, and other creatures.
Mystery Religions
Much has been written about the widespread popularity and influence of Greek, Egyptian, and Oriental mystery religions on the first Christian century - the cults of Eleusis, Mithra, Isis, Dionysus, Cybele, and many local cults. These promised purification and immortality of the soul and often centered on myths of a goddess whose lover or child was taken from her, usually by death, and later restored. The mysteries also featured secret initiatory and other rites involving ceremeonial washing, blood-springkling, sacramental meals, intoxication, emotional frenzy, and impressive pageantry by which devotees were supposed to gain union with the deity. Social equality within the mysteries helped make them attrative to the lower classes.
On the other hand, not until the second, third, and fourth centuries of the Christian era do we get detailed information concering the beliefs held by devotees of the mysteries. Therefore, though nobody doubts the pre-Christian existence of mystery religions, their pre-Christian beliefs remain largely unknown. Where their later beliefs look slightly similar to Christian beliefs, the direction of borrowing may have gone from Christianity to the mystery religions rather than vice versa, especially since pagans were notoriously assimilative (see "Syncretism") and early Christians exclusivistic. Besides, similarities are often more apparent than real, and even where real they do no necessarily imply borrowing in either direction.
For example, the myths of dying and rising gods do not really correspond to the New Testament of accounts of Jesus' death and resurrection. In the first place, the deaths of the gods were not thought to purchase redemption for human beings. Furthermore, the story of Jesus' death and resurrection had to do with recent historical figure; the myths usually had to do with personifications of vegetaional process (the annual dying and renewal of plant life) and thus did not move on the plane of history at all, much less recent history. Finally, the mythological gods did not rise in full bodily resurrection, but revived only in part or merely in the world of the dead. When the fourteen parts of Osiris's body were reassembled, for example, he became king of the dead in the underworld. All that Cybele could obtain for the corpse of Attis was that it should not decay, that its hair should continue to grow, and that its little finger should move - yet the story Cybele and Attis, who purportedly died by self-castration, is sometimes cited as asignificant parallel to the story of Jesus' death and resurrection. As a matter of fact, the very thoughts of death by crucifixion and physical resurrection were abhorrent to ancient pagans, who associated curcifixion with criminals and often thought of the body as a prison for the soul and as the seat of evil. If Christians had borrowed their beliefs from popular mystery religions, one wonders why the pagans widely regarded the Christian gospel as foolish, incredible, and deserving of persecution.
On the other hand, not until the second, third, and fourth centuries of the Christian era do we get detailed information concering the beliefs held by devotees of the mysteries. Therefore, though nobody doubts the pre-Christian existence of mystery religions, their pre-Christian beliefs remain largely unknown. Where their later beliefs look slightly similar to Christian beliefs, the direction of borrowing may have gone from Christianity to the mystery religions rather than vice versa, especially since pagans were notoriously assimilative (see "Syncretism") and early Christians exclusivistic. Besides, similarities are often more apparent than real, and even where real they do no necessarily imply borrowing in either direction.
For example, the myths of dying and rising gods do not really correspond to the New Testament of accounts of Jesus' death and resurrection. In the first place, the deaths of the gods were not thought to purchase redemption for human beings. Furthermore, the story of Jesus' death and resurrection had to do with recent historical figure; the myths usually had to do with personifications of vegetaional process (the annual dying and renewal of plant life) and thus did not move on the plane of history at all, much less recent history. Finally, the mythological gods did not rise in full bodily resurrection, but revived only in part or merely in the world of the dead. When the fourteen parts of Osiris's body were reassembled, for example, he became king of the dead in the underworld. All that Cybele could obtain for the corpse of Attis was that it should not decay, that its hair should continue to grow, and that its little finger should move - yet the story Cybele and Attis, who purportedly died by self-castration, is sometimes cited as asignificant parallel to the story of Jesus' death and resurrection. As a matter of fact, the very thoughts of death by crucifixion and physical resurrection were abhorrent to ancient pagans, who associated curcifixion with criminals and often thought of the body as a prison for the soul and as the seat of evil. If Christians had borrowed their beliefs from popular mystery religions, one wonders why the pagans widely regarded the Christian gospel as foolish, incredible, and deserving of persecution.
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Incredible Specified Complexity
Can all the incredible specified complexity in life be explained by chance? Not a chance! Atheists and theists alike have caculated the probability that life could arise by chance by non-living chemicals. The figures they caculate are astronomically small - virtually zero. Michael Behe has said that the probability of getting one protein molecule (which has 100 amino acids) by chance would be the same as a blindfolded man finding one marked grain of sand in the Sahara Desert three times in a row. And one protein molecule is not life. To get life, you would need about 200 of those protein molecules together.
Even though the probability is virtually zero, we believe the probability is actually zero. Why? Because "chance" is not a cause. Chance is a word we use to describe mathematical possibilities. It has no power on its own. Chance is no thing. Its what rocks dream about.
If someone flips a fair coin, what's the chance it would come up heads? Fifty percent, we say. Yes, but what caused it to come up heads? Is it chance? No, the primary cause is an intelligent being who decided to flip the coin and apply so much force in doing so. Secondary causes, such as the physical forces of wind and gravity, also impact the result of the flip. If we knew all those variables, we could calculate how the flip would turn out beforehand. But since we don't know those variables, we use the word "chance" to cover our ignorance.
We shouldn't allow atheists to cover up their ignorance with the word "chance."
If they don't know a natural mechanism by which the first life could have come into existence, then they should admit they don't know rather than suggesting a powerless word that, of course, really isn't a cause at all. "Chance" is just another example of the bad science practiced by Darwinists.
Even though the probability is virtually zero, we believe the probability is actually zero. Why? Because "chance" is not a cause. Chance is a word we use to describe mathematical possibilities. It has no power on its own. Chance is no thing. Its what rocks dream about.
If someone flips a fair coin, what's the chance it would come up heads? Fifty percent, we say. Yes, but what caused it to come up heads? Is it chance? No, the primary cause is an intelligent being who decided to flip the coin and apply so much force in doing so. Secondary causes, such as the physical forces of wind and gravity, also impact the result of the flip. If we knew all those variables, we could calculate how the flip would turn out beforehand. But since we don't know those variables, we use the word "chance" to cover our ignorance.
We shouldn't allow atheists to cover up their ignorance with the word "chance."
If they don't know a natural mechanism by which the first life could have come into existence, then they should admit they don't know rather than suggesting a powerless word that, of course, really isn't a cause at all. "Chance" is just another example of the bad science practiced by Darwinists.
Friday, February 22, 2013
Mythology/Paganism
Atop the Greek pantheon or hierarchy of gods sat Zeus, son of Cronus. According to myth, Cronus, who had seized government of the world from his father Uranus, ordinarily devoured his own children as soon as they were born. But the mother of Zeus saved her infant by giving Cronus a stone wrapped in baby blankets to swallow. On reaching adulthood, Zeus overthrew his father and divided the dominion with his two brothers, Poseidon, who ruled the sea, and Hades, who ruled the underworld. Zeus himself ruled the heavens. The gods had access to earth from their capital, Mount Olympus in Greece.
Zeus had to quell occasional rebellions by the gods, who exhibited the human traits of passion and lust, love and jealousy, anger and hate. In fact, the gods excelled human beings only in power, intelligence, and immortality - certainly not in morality. A very popular god was Apollo, son of Zeus and inspirer of poets, seers, and prophets. He played many other roles as well. At Delphi, Greece, a temple of Apollo stood over a cavern, out of which issued vapors thought to be his breath. A priestess seated on a tripod over the opening inhaled the fumes and in a trance muttered words which were written and vaguely interpreted by priests in answer to inquiring worshipers.
Zeus had to quell occasional rebellions by the gods, who exhibited the human traits of passion and lust, love and jealousy, anger and hate. In fact, the gods excelled human beings only in power, intelligence, and immortality - certainly not in morality. A very popular god was Apollo, son of Zeus and inspirer of poets, seers, and prophets. He played many other roles as well. At Delphi, Greece, a temple of Apollo stood over a cavern, out of which issued vapors thought to be his breath. A priestess seated on a tripod over the opening inhaled the fumes and in a trance muttered words which were written and vaguely interpreted by priests in answer to inquiring worshipers.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Which Rationality?
Timothy Keller, in his book The Reason for God writes the following:
"I want to show that there are sufficient reasons for believing Christianity. Priminent disbelievers in Christianity today - Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens - insist that sufficient reasons do not exist for the existence of God. Dawkins, for example, says that the claim of God's existence is a scientific hypothesis that should be open to rational demonstration The God Delusion, p. 31ff. He and his co-skeptics want a logical or empiral argument for God that is airtight and therefore convinces almost everyone. They won't believe in God until they get it.
Is there anything wrong with that? I think so. These authors are evaluating Christian arguments by what some have called "strong rationlism." Its proponents laid down what was called the "verification principle," namely, that no one should believe a proposition unless it can be proved rationally by logic or empircaly by sense experience. What is mean by the word "proved'? Proof, in this view, is an argument so strong that no one person whose logical facutlies are operating properly would have any reason for disbelieving it. Atheists and agnostics ask for this kind of "proof" for God, but are not alone in holding to strong rationalism. Many Christians claim that their arguments for faith are so sotrong that all who reject them are simply closing their minds to the truth out of fear or stubbornness.
Despite all the books calling Christians to provide proofs for their beliefs, you won't see philosphers doing so, not even the most atheistic. The great majority think that strong rationalism is nearly impossible to defend. To begin with, it can't live up to its own standards. How could you empircally prove that no one should believe something without empirical proof? You can't, and that reveals it to be, ultimately, a belief. Strong rationalism also assumes that it is possible to achieve "the view from nowhere," a position of almost complete objectivity, but virtually all philosophers today agree that is impossible. We come to every individual evaluation with all sorts of expierences and background beliefs that strongly influence our thinking and the way our reason works. It is not fair, then, to demand an argument that all rational people would have to bow to.
The philospher Thomas Nagel is an atheist, but in his book The Lat Word he admits that he can't come to the question of God in anything like a detached way. He confesses that he has a "fear of religion," and he doubts that anyone can address this issue without very powerful motives for seeing the arguments go on way or the other.
The philosophical indefensibility of "stron rationalism" is the reason that the books by Dawkins and Dennett have been getting such surprisingly rough treatment in scholarly journals. As just one example, the Marxist scholar Terry Eagleton wrote a scathing review of Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion in the Londong Review of Books. Eagleton attacks both of Dawkins's naive ideas, namely that faith has no rational component, and that reason isn't based to a great degree on faith.
Dawkins considers that all faith is blind faith, and that Christian and Muslim children are brought up to believe unquestioningly. Not even the dim-witted clerics who knocked me about at grammar school thought that. For mainstream Christianity, reason argument, and honest doubt have always played an integral role in belief... Reason, to be sure, doesnt go all the way down for believers, but it doesn't for most sensitive, civilized non-religious types either. Even Richard Dawkins lives more by faith than by reason. We hold many beliefs that have no umimpeachably rational justification, but are nonetheless reasonable to entertain....
If we reject strong rationalism, are we then stuck in relativism - without any way to judge one set of beliefs from another? Not at all. Complete relativism is impossible to maintain. "Critical thinking" assumes that there rare some arguments that many or even most rational people will find convincing, even though there is no argument that will be persuasive to everyone regardless of viewpoint. It assumes that some systems of belief are more reasonable that others, but that all arguments are rationally avoidable in the end. That is, you can always find reason to escape it that is not sheer bias or stubbornness. Nevertheless, this doesn't mean that we can't evaluate beliefs, only that we should not expect conclusive proof, and to demant it is unfair. Not even scietists proceed that way.
Scientists are very reluctant to ever say that a theory is "proved." Even Richard Dawkins admits that Darwin's theory cannot be finally proven, that 'new facts may come to light which will force our successors...to abandon Darwinism or modify it beyond recognition." But that doesn't mean that science cannot test theouries and find some far more empirically verifiable that others. A theory is considered empircially verified if it organizes the evidence and explains phenomena better than any conceivable alternative theory. That is, if, through testing, it leads us to expect with accuracy many and varied events better than any other rival account of the same data, then it is accepted, though not (in the strong rationalist sense) "proved."
"I want to show that there are sufficient reasons for believing Christianity. Priminent disbelievers in Christianity today - Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens - insist that sufficient reasons do not exist for the existence of God. Dawkins, for example, says that the claim of God's existence is a scientific hypothesis that should be open to rational demonstration The God Delusion, p. 31ff. He and his co-skeptics want a logical or empiral argument for God that is airtight and therefore convinces almost everyone. They won't believe in God until they get it.
Is there anything wrong with that? I think so. These authors are evaluating Christian arguments by what some have called "strong rationlism." Its proponents laid down what was called the "verification principle," namely, that no one should believe a proposition unless it can be proved rationally by logic or empircaly by sense experience. What is mean by the word "proved'? Proof, in this view, is an argument so strong that no one person whose logical facutlies are operating properly would have any reason for disbelieving it. Atheists and agnostics ask for this kind of "proof" for God, but are not alone in holding to strong rationalism. Many Christians claim that their arguments for faith are so sotrong that all who reject them are simply closing their minds to the truth out of fear or stubbornness.
Despite all the books calling Christians to provide proofs for their beliefs, you won't see philosphers doing so, not even the most atheistic. The great majority think that strong rationalism is nearly impossible to defend. To begin with, it can't live up to its own standards. How could you empircally prove that no one should believe something without empirical proof? You can't, and that reveals it to be, ultimately, a belief. Strong rationalism also assumes that it is possible to achieve "the view from nowhere," a position of almost complete objectivity, but virtually all philosophers today agree that is impossible. We come to every individual evaluation with all sorts of expierences and background beliefs that strongly influence our thinking and the way our reason works. It is not fair, then, to demand an argument that all rational people would have to bow to.
The philospher Thomas Nagel is an atheist, but in his book The Lat Word he admits that he can't come to the question of God in anything like a detached way. He confesses that he has a "fear of religion," and he doubts that anyone can address this issue without very powerful motives for seeing the arguments go on way or the other.
The philosophical indefensibility of "stron rationalism" is the reason that the books by Dawkins and Dennett have been getting such surprisingly rough treatment in scholarly journals. As just one example, the Marxist scholar Terry Eagleton wrote a scathing review of Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion in the Londong Review of Books. Eagleton attacks both of Dawkins's naive ideas, namely that faith has no rational component, and that reason isn't based to a great degree on faith.
Dawkins considers that all faith is blind faith, and that Christian and Muslim children are brought up to believe unquestioningly. Not even the dim-witted clerics who knocked me about at grammar school thought that. For mainstream Christianity, reason argument, and honest doubt have always played an integral role in belief... Reason, to be sure, doesnt go all the way down for believers, but it doesn't for most sensitive, civilized non-religious types either. Even Richard Dawkins lives more by faith than by reason. We hold many beliefs that have no umimpeachably rational justification, but are nonetheless reasonable to entertain....
If we reject strong rationalism, are we then stuck in relativism - without any way to judge one set of beliefs from another? Not at all. Complete relativism is impossible to maintain. "Critical thinking" assumes that there rare some arguments that many or even most rational people will find convincing, even though there is no argument that will be persuasive to everyone regardless of viewpoint. It assumes that some systems of belief are more reasonable that others, but that all arguments are rationally avoidable in the end. That is, you can always find reason to escape it that is not sheer bias or stubbornness. Nevertheless, this doesn't mean that we can't evaluate beliefs, only that we should not expect conclusive proof, and to demant it is unfair. Not even scietists proceed that way.
Scientists are very reluctant to ever say that a theory is "proved." Even Richard Dawkins admits that Darwin's theory cannot be finally proven, that 'new facts may come to light which will force our successors...to abandon Darwinism or modify it beyond recognition." But that doesn't mean that science cannot test theouries and find some far more empirically verifiable that others. A theory is considered empircially verified if it organizes the evidence and explains phenomena better than any conceivable alternative theory. That is, if, through testing, it leads us to expect with accuracy many and varied events better than any other rival account of the same data, then it is accepted, though not (in the strong rationalist sense) "proved."
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Luke's Historical Credibility
During the first first century, names of official government position changed of ten. In spite of this fact, Luke has been found to precisely identify those he names with their correct titles. For example, when Cyprus switched from imperial province to senatorial province in 22 BC, the ruler's title changed as well. Still, Luke correctly identifies Sergios Paullus as "proconsul" of Cyprus rather than by his old title, "imperial legate." Luke also correctly designates the governor of Achaia and Asia as proconsuls since they were under the senate's jurisdiction rather than that of the emperor. Achaia was first under the senate from 27 BC to AD 15, then under the emperor until AD 44, and again under the senate from that time on. In Philippi, Luke's term "praetors" for the chief magistrates reflects a peculiar egotistical practice confirmed by Cicero: "Although they are called duumvirs in the other colonies, these men wished to be called praetors." Concerning Luke's accuracy in Acts 17:6, an Australian scholar, David Hyle, has published a comprehensive review of the Quirinuis issue. He asserts:
"It is relevant to note at this point that Luke is the only ancient author to have preserved the term politarches (Acts 17:6). Any doubts of his reliability in this respect have been shattered by discovery of nineteen different inscriptions attesting the title in Thessalonica and Macedonia generally." (HaDJ.RS11 30)
In Acts 28:7, Luke calls Publius "the first man of the island," a title confirmed by Greek and Latin inscriptions as the correct reference to the ruler of Malta at that time
Though Matthew and Mark record the popular designation for Herod Antipas, "king," Luke refers to him by him by his official title of "tetrarch." As much as Antipas desired it, the Romans granted royal status only to his father, Herod the Great, and not to him. Critics used to charge Luke with an error in Luke 3:1, where he speaks of Lysanias as tetrarch of Abilene. The only Lysanias of Abilene known to modern historians until recently was a "king" by that name, one who was executed by Mark Antony in 34 BC. But once again Luke prevailed over modern critics when an inscription dated between AD 14 and 29 referred to, you guessed it, "Lysanias the tetrarch," a ruler during that time. (RaW.BRD15 297ff.)
"It is relevant to note at this point that Luke is the only ancient author to have preserved the term politarches (Acts 17:6). Any doubts of his reliability in this respect have been shattered by discovery of nineteen different inscriptions attesting the title in Thessalonica and Macedonia generally." (HaDJ.RS11 30)
In Acts 28:7, Luke calls Publius "the first man of the island," a title confirmed by Greek and Latin inscriptions as the correct reference to the ruler of Malta at that time
Though Matthew and Mark record the popular designation for Herod Antipas, "king," Luke refers to him by him by his official title of "tetrarch." As much as Antipas desired it, the Romans granted royal status only to his father, Herod the Great, and not to him. Critics used to charge Luke with an error in Luke 3:1, where he speaks of Lysanias as tetrarch of Abilene. The only Lysanias of Abilene known to modern historians until recently was a "king" by that name, one who was executed by Mark Antony in 34 BC. But once again Luke prevailed over modern critics when an inscription dated between AD 14 and 29 referred to, you guessed it, "Lysanias the tetrarch," a ruler during that time. (RaW.BRD15 297ff.)
The Question of Quirinuis part 3
Fact #6. Jesus was about thirty years old (Luke 3:23) when he began his ministry shortly after John the Baptist began his in "the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Ceaser" (Luke3:1,2). Boehner states:
"Since the fifteenth year of Tiberius can be dated for. A.D. 27 to 29, it would mean that if Christ were born in A.D. 6, He would only have been twenty-one to twenty-three years old, not about thirty years old." (HoH.C 19)
Some argue that if a census had occurred in 6 or 5 BC, Josephus would have said something about it. But this is an argument from silence which is invalidated by the fact that probably the only reason Josephus mentions the AD 6 census is that it was highlighted by the tumultuous events of their deposition of Archelaus, the Roman takeover of all his material goods, and the revolt of Judas ofGalilee (also called "a Gaulanite").
Lukes Accuracy and Quirinuis Rulership of Syria
The mystery of the whole problem, which Luke seems to know and archaeologists haven't yet discovered, is how Quirinuis could have been ruling Syria in or about 5 BC. The governor of Syria are all known from 12 BC until 4 BC. We do know that Quirinuis was an effective military leader and administrator and that he held several positions of highest ranked in and around Syria from as early as 12 BC until AD 7. Sometime between 12 BC and AD 1, Quirinuis was in charge of the Homanadensian War, which was going on in a province neighboring Syria. Emily Schurer, the dominant of the nineteenth century in this field, demonstrated that Syria was the most likely province from which Quirinuis could have conducted the war which Quirinuis as governor of Syria for a first term from 3 to 2 BC (ScE.HJP90 1:352) Ramsay, however, based on inscriptional evidence, believed that Quirinuis was part of a cogovernorship about 8 to 6 BC. (Raw.BRD15 292-300) Finegan reasons:
"The resistance of the Homanadensians must have been broken by the time the net of Roman roads was laid out in the province of Galatia in 6 B.C.; therefore, at least the major part of this war must have been over by the date... Quirinuis could have been free to attend to other business in the East." (FiJ.BC 236-36)
English Canon E.C. Hudson was documented that Quirinuis was highly successful in his mission against the Homanadensians. More than 4,000 prisoners were taken, Quirinuis was awarded the distinction of a triumph, and those of the colony of Pisidian Antioch elected him honorary duumvir, or chief magistrate, with a perfect, M. Servilius, designated to act for him. (HuE.PF 15:106)
Quirinuis' great ability contrasts vividly with the inexperience of Quinctilius Varus, official governor of Syria from 7 or 6 BC to 4 BC. Blaiklock, having investigated the evidence at length, shows that Varus
"was a man from whom Augustus may justifiably have entertained no great regard. Augustus, above all, was an able judge of men, and it was Quinctilius Varus, who in AD 9, reprehensibly lost three legions in the Teutoburger forest in Germany, one of the most shocking disasters to Roman arms in the century. Assuming that Augustus had some misgivings over the ability of Varus to handle an explosive situation, it is easy to see a reason for a special intrusion, under other direction, in the affairs of Varus' province. A reasonable reconstruction might assume that Varus came to Syria in 7 BC., an untried man. The census was due in Palestine in 8 or 7 BC., and it could well be that Augustus ordered the man who had just successfully dealt with the problem of the Pisidian highlanders, to undertake the delicate task. Herod I had recently lost the favor of the emperor, and may have been temporizing about the taking of the census, a process which always enraged the difficult Jews. Quirinuis' intervention, the requisite organizations, and the preparation for the census, could easily have postponed the actual date of registration to the end of 5 BC, a reasonable date."
It is likely that Quirinuis held a ruling position over Syria by special commission. There is a key confirmation: Luke 2:2 allows for this leadership arrangement since the Greek term used does not specify that Quirinuis was the official governor of Syria, only that he was in some way governing, ruling or leading Syria.
The dictum of Aristotle, commonly followed for all works of antiquity, is that the benefit of the doubt most be given to the author, not arrogated by the critic to himself. The reason classical scholars follow this practice (and why New Testament critics ought to as well) is that the author of classical work, being much closer to the events in question, has decided advantage in knowing details of the situation which the critic, removed from the event by centuries of time, has no way of knowing. Therefore it is one thing to claim a historical contradiction but quite another to prove it.
Since the historical documentation of ancient times in general of Syria at this time in particular is scanty, can we trust Luke for historical accuracy?
"Since the fifteenth year of Tiberius can be dated for. A.D. 27 to 29, it would mean that if Christ were born in A.D. 6, He would only have been twenty-one to twenty-three years old, not about thirty years old." (HoH.C 19)
Some argue that if a census had occurred in 6 or 5 BC, Josephus would have said something about it. But this is an argument from silence which is invalidated by the fact that probably the only reason Josephus mentions the AD 6 census is that it was highlighted by the tumultuous events of their deposition of Archelaus, the Roman takeover of all his material goods, and the revolt of Judas ofGalilee (also called "a Gaulanite").
Lukes Accuracy and Quirinuis Rulership of Syria
The mystery of the whole problem, which Luke seems to know and archaeologists haven't yet discovered, is how Quirinuis could have been ruling Syria in or about 5 BC. The governor of Syria are all known from 12 BC until 4 BC. We do know that Quirinuis was an effective military leader and administrator and that he held several positions of highest ranked in and around Syria from as early as 12 BC until AD 7. Sometime between 12 BC and AD 1, Quirinuis was in charge of the Homanadensian War, which was going on in a province neighboring Syria. Emily Schurer, the dominant of the nineteenth century in this field, demonstrated that Syria was the most likely province from which Quirinuis could have conducted the war which Quirinuis as governor of Syria for a first term from 3 to 2 BC (ScE.HJP90 1:352) Ramsay, however, based on inscriptional evidence, believed that Quirinuis was part of a cogovernorship about 8 to 6 BC. (Raw.BRD15 292-300) Finegan reasons:
"The resistance of the Homanadensians must have been broken by the time the net of Roman roads was laid out in the province of Galatia in 6 B.C.; therefore, at least the major part of this war must have been over by the date... Quirinuis could have been free to attend to other business in the East." (FiJ.BC 236-36)
English Canon E.C. Hudson was documented that Quirinuis was highly successful in his mission against the Homanadensians. More than 4,000 prisoners were taken, Quirinuis was awarded the distinction of a triumph, and those of the colony of Pisidian Antioch elected him honorary duumvir, or chief magistrate, with a perfect, M. Servilius, designated to act for him. (HuE.PF 15:106)
Quirinuis' great ability contrasts vividly with the inexperience of Quinctilius Varus, official governor of Syria from 7 or 6 BC to 4 BC. Blaiklock, having investigated the evidence at length, shows that Varus
"was a man from whom Augustus may justifiably have entertained no great regard. Augustus, above all, was an able judge of men, and it was Quinctilius Varus, who in AD 9, reprehensibly lost three legions in the Teutoburger forest in Germany, one of the most shocking disasters to Roman arms in the century. Assuming that Augustus had some misgivings over the ability of Varus to handle an explosive situation, it is easy to see a reason for a special intrusion, under other direction, in the affairs of Varus' province. A reasonable reconstruction might assume that Varus came to Syria in 7 BC., an untried man. The census was due in Palestine in 8 or 7 BC., and it could well be that Augustus ordered the man who had just successfully dealt with the problem of the Pisidian highlanders, to undertake the delicate task. Herod I had recently lost the favor of the emperor, and may have been temporizing about the taking of the census, a process which always enraged the difficult Jews. Quirinuis' intervention, the requisite organizations, and the preparation for the census, could easily have postponed the actual date of registration to the end of 5 BC, a reasonable date."
It is likely that Quirinuis held a ruling position over Syria by special commission. There is a key confirmation: Luke 2:2 allows for this leadership arrangement since the Greek term used does not specify that Quirinuis was the official governor of Syria, only that he was in some way governing, ruling or leading Syria.
The dictum of Aristotle, commonly followed for all works of antiquity, is that the benefit of the doubt most be given to the author, not arrogated by the critic to himself. The reason classical scholars follow this practice (and why New Testament critics ought to as well) is that the author of classical work, being much closer to the events in question, has decided advantage in knowing details of the situation which the critic, removed from the event by centuries of time, has no way of knowing. Therefore it is one thing to claim a historical contradiction but quite another to prove it.
Since the historical documentation of ancient times in general of Syria at this time in particular is scanty, can we trust Luke for historical accuracy?
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
The Question of Quirinuis part 2
Fact #4. In AD 6, Palestine was no longer under the rule of one king, but split up into several tetrarchies. Therefore, it would have been almost impossible for Joseph and Mary to be required to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem as Luke reports unless it was prior to the death of Herod the Great. In order to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem in AD 6, Joseph and Mary would hve fled to leave Galilee, governed by Herod Antipas and travel to Judea, now under direct control of the Roman government, which had just deposed Archelaus. But, as Wayne Brindle points out, the trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem "would have taken care place only if there were one central authority over Palestine - such as only during the reign of Herod the Great."
Facts #5. Luke 2:4 indicates that the census was in accordance with an empire-wide policy of registering all the people. This does not specify that all provinces were enrolled at the same time, only that Augustus was, as Hoehner states, "the first one in history to order, a census or tax assessment of the whole provincial empire. This is further substantiated by the fact that Luke uses the present tense indicating that Augustus ordered censuses to be taken regularly rather than only only one time. (HoH.C 15)
The renowned archaeologist, Sir William Ramsay, affirmed: "The first enrollment in Syria was made in the year 8-7 B.C., but a consideration of the situation in Syria and Palestine about that time will show that the enrollment in Herod's kingdom was probably delayed for some time later.
This would put the census of Luke 2:2 in about 6 or 5 BC, just before Herod's death.
The Question of Quirinuis part 1
Probably the most difficult apparent historical contradiction having to do with the Gospels concerns Luke's report about a census taken while Quirinuis governed Syria (Luke 2:2). Ian Wilson castigates Luke as follows:
And after telling us that the announcement of the births of Jesus and John the Baptist took place in the reign of Herod the Great, who is known to have died in 4 BC, the Luke author tries to offer a piece of impressive historical detail:
Now at this time Ceasar Augustus issued a decree for a census of the whole world to be taken. This census-the first-took place while Quirinuis was governor of Syria, and everyone went to his home town to be registered (Luke 2:1-3).
While the first-ever census among Jews did indeed take place during Quirinuis governorship, this did not and could not have happened until at least 6 AD, the first year that Judea came under direct Roman rule, and it was reliably recorded by Josephus as an unprecedented event of that year. To put it bluntly, Luke has resorted to invention. (WiLJTE 55)
The census caused Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem just prior to Jesus' birth. On some points Wilson is correct. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was born before the end of the reign of Herod the Great. It has been established with reasonable certainty that Herod's death took place in March of April of 4 BC. A census, not necessarily the first, was taken by Quirinuis in AD 6. But there is other evidence Wilson has ignored.
Fact #1 In Acts 5:37, Luke refers to the AD 6 census, indicating that he is conscious of where it fits in the chronology of the period. Luke calls this census the census, the well known one of AD 6.
Fact #2 The Greek text of Luke 2:2 suggests a lesser known census prior to that of AD 6. The New American Standard Version translates Luke 2:2. "This was the first census taken while Quirinuis was governor of Syria." It seems to us to be a faithful rendering of the sense of the Greek text which most literally reads: "This census, a first one, coming to pass when Quirinuis is ruling, leading Syria." Since the Greek language often leaves out the word "is," it needs to be inserted and most naturally fits the word "census." The sentence literally reads, "This census is a first one coming to pass when Quirinuis is ruling Syria." If there had been only the one very well-known census AD 6 under Quirinuis, Luke would have said simply, "This is the census coming to pass when Quirinuis..." We have no knowledge of any census taken after AD 6. Therefore, the grammar of Luke 2:2 seems most definitely to indicate that Luke wants his readers to disregard the AD 6 census and think of an earlier, lesser known census of approximately 5 BC.
Fact #3 Josephus confirms that the rebellion AD 6 was a response to an enrollment (census) probably carried out rather heavy-handedly. In contrast, the Luke 2:2 census seems to have appealed to the custom of the Jews. At that time, about 5 BC, the Romans would have had two problems:
1. Herod ruled Judea, not Quirinuis
2. The people didn't like the Romans messing in their affairs
From the standpoint of the Romans, the most Diplomatic solution would be for Quirinuis to negotiate a census carried out under Herod's auspices and according to Jewish practice of registration by tribes. Thus Joseph and Mary traveled to Bethlehem, the city of David, and Joseph's "own city." The Romans' negotiating for this arrangement is indicated by the fact that they normally conducted censuses based on land ownership, not on hometowns. Occasionally, however, the Romans did make exception. An Egyptian papyrus of AD 104 indicates that the Egyptians were required to return to their home city for the Roman census in Egypt.
But would Herod have been willing to acquiesce to such an arrangement? Most definitely, for Josephus records that he fell into disfavor with Ceaser Augustus, being demoted from "friend" to "subject." He would have needed to do whatever the Romans wanted him to do in order to regain Ceasar's favor. Herod was close to death and having problems deciding on a successor. He changed his will three times and killed three sons before deciding on Archelaus five days before his death. The imminent death of Herod was further incentive for the the Romans to have a census taken in preparation for a change of rulers.
And after telling us that the announcement of the births of Jesus and John the Baptist took place in the reign of Herod the Great, who is known to have died in 4 BC, the Luke author tries to offer a piece of impressive historical detail:
Now at this time Ceasar Augustus issued a decree for a census of the whole world to be taken. This census-the first-took place while Quirinuis was governor of Syria, and everyone went to his home town to be registered (Luke 2:1-3).
While the first-ever census among Jews did indeed take place during Quirinuis governorship, this did not and could not have happened until at least 6 AD, the first year that Judea came under direct Roman rule, and it was reliably recorded by Josephus as an unprecedented event of that year. To put it bluntly, Luke has resorted to invention. (WiLJTE 55)
The census caused Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem just prior to Jesus' birth. On some points Wilson is correct. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was born before the end of the reign of Herod the Great. It has been established with reasonable certainty that Herod's death took place in March of April of 4 BC. A census, not necessarily the first, was taken by Quirinuis in AD 6. But there is other evidence Wilson has ignored.
Fact #1 In Acts 5:37, Luke refers to the AD 6 census, indicating that he is conscious of where it fits in the chronology of the period. Luke calls this census the census, the well known one of AD 6.
Fact #2 The Greek text of Luke 2:2 suggests a lesser known census prior to that of AD 6. The New American Standard Version translates Luke 2:2. "This was the first census taken while Quirinuis was governor of Syria." It seems to us to be a faithful rendering of the sense of the Greek text which most literally reads: "This census, a first one, coming to pass when Quirinuis is ruling, leading Syria." Since the Greek language often leaves out the word "is," it needs to be inserted and most naturally fits the word "census." The sentence literally reads, "This census is a first one coming to pass when Quirinuis is ruling Syria." If there had been only the one very well-known census AD 6 under Quirinuis, Luke would have said simply, "This is the census coming to pass when Quirinuis..." We have no knowledge of any census taken after AD 6. Therefore, the grammar of Luke 2:2 seems most definitely to indicate that Luke wants his readers to disregard the AD 6 census and think of an earlier, lesser known census of approximately 5 BC.
Fact #3 Josephus confirms that the rebellion AD 6 was a response to an enrollment (census) probably carried out rather heavy-handedly. In contrast, the Luke 2:2 census seems to have appealed to the custom of the Jews. At that time, about 5 BC, the Romans would have had two problems:
1. Herod ruled Judea, not Quirinuis
2. The people didn't like the Romans messing in their affairs
From the standpoint of the Romans, the most Diplomatic solution would be for Quirinuis to negotiate a census carried out under Herod's auspices and according to Jewish practice of registration by tribes. Thus Joseph and Mary traveled to Bethlehem, the city of David, and Joseph's "own city." The Romans' negotiating for this arrangement is indicated by the fact that they normally conducted censuses based on land ownership, not on hometowns. Occasionally, however, the Romans did make exception. An Egyptian papyrus of AD 104 indicates that the Egyptians were required to return to their home city for the Roman census in Egypt.
But would Herod have been willing to acquiesce to such an arrangement? Most definitely, for Josephus records that he fell into disfavor with Ceaser Augustus, being demoted from "friend" to "subject." He would have needed to do whatever the Romans wanted him to do in order to regain Ceasar's favor. Herod was close to death and having problems deciding on a successor. He changed his will three times and killed three sons before deciding on Archelaus five days before his death. The imminent death of Herod was further incentive for the the Romans to have a census taken in preparation for a change of rulers.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Inerrancy: Can the Bible Be Trusted?
If the Bible is the Word of God, it should be in complete agtreement throughout; there should be no contrandictions. Yet, the rational mind must ask, why is it that some passages appear to be contradictions when compared with others? For example, Numbers 25:9 tells us that 24,000 died from the scourge, wgereas at 1 Corinthians 10:8, the apostle Paul says it was 23,000. This would seem to be a clear error. Before addressing such matters, we first need to look at some background information.
Full inerrancy means that that the original writings are fully without error in all that they state, as are the words. The words were not dictated (automaton), but the intended meaning is inspired, as are the words that convey that meaning. The Author allowed the writer to use his style of writing, yet controlled the meaning to the extent of not allowing the writer to choose a wrong word, which would not convey the intended meaning. Other more libera-minded persons hold with partial inerrancy, which claims that as far as faith is concerned, this portion of God's Word is without error, but that there are historical, geographical, and scientific errors.
There are sevral different levels of inerrancy. Absolute Inerrancy is the belief that the Bible is fully true and exact in every way; including not only relationships and doctrine, but also science and history. In other words, all information is completely exact. Full Inerrancy is the belief that the Bible was not written as science or historical textbook, but is phenomenological, in that it is written from the human perspective. In other words, speaking of such things as the sun rising, the four corners of the earth, or the rounding off of number approximations are all from a human perspective. Limited Inerrancy is the belief that the Bible is meant only as a reflection of God's purpose and will, so the science and history is the understanding of author's day, and is limited. Thus, the Bible is susceptible to errors in these areas. Inerrancy of Purpose is the belief that it is only inerrant in the purpose of bringing its readers to a saving faith. The Bible is not about facts, but about persons and relationships, thus it is subject to error. Inspired: Not Inerrant is the belief that its authors are human and thus subject to human error. It should be noted that this author holds the position of full inerrancy.
For many today, the Bible is nothing more than a book written by men that are full of myths and legends, contradictions, and geographical, historical, and scientific errors. University professor Gerald A. Larue had this to say, "The views of the writers as expressed in the Bible reflect the ideas, beliefs, and concepts current in their own times and are limited by the extent of knowledge in those times." On the other hand, the Bible's claims are quite different.
2 Timothy 3:16 (HCSB): All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be compelte, equipped for every good work.
2 Peter 1:21 (ESV): For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
The question remains as to whether the Bible is a book written by imperfect men and full of errors, or is written by imperfect men, but inspired of God. If the Bible is just another book by imperfect man, there is no hope for humankind. If it is inspired of Godf and without error, although penned by imperfect menm we have the hop of everyting that it offers: a rich happy life now by applying counsel that lies within and the real life that is to come, everlasting life. The Bible is inspired of God and free of human error, although written by imperfect humans.
The critic's argument goes something like this: 'If God does no err and the Bible is the Word of God, then the Bible should not have one single error or contradiction, yet it is full of errors and contradictions.' If the Bible is riddled with nothing but contradictions and errors as the critics would have us believe, why, out of 31,1173 verses in the Bible, should there be only 2-3 thousand Bible difficulties that are called into question, this being less than ten percent of the whole?
First, let it be said that is is every Chrisitan's obligation to get a deeper understanding of God's Word, just as the apostle Paul tod Timoth:
1 Ttimothy 4:15, 16 (ESV): Practice these things, immerse yourself in them, so that all may see your progress. Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.
Paul also told the Corinthians:
2 Corinthians 10:4 (NET): For the weapons of our warfare are not human weapons, but are made powerful by God for tearing down strongholds. We tear down arguements and every arrogant obstacle that is raised up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to make it obey Christ.
Paul also told the Philippians:
Philippians 1:7 (ESV): It is right for me to feel this way about you all, because I hold you in my heart, for you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel.
The orginally writeen books were penned by men under inspirtion. In fact, we do not have those originals, what textual scholars call autographs, but we do have thousans of copies. The copyists, however, were not inspired; therefore, as one might expect, throughout the first 1,400 years of of copying, thousands of errors were transmitted into the texts that were being copied by imperfect hands that were not under inspiration when copying. Yet, the next 450 years saw a restoration of the text by textual scholars from around the world. Therefore, while many of our best literal translations today may not be inspired, they are a mirror-like reflection of the autographs by way of textual criticism. Therefore, the fallacy could be with the copyist error that has simply not been weeded out. In addition, you must keep in mind that God's Word is without error, but our interpretation and understanding of that Word is not.
Textual criticism is the study of copies of any writeen work of which the autograph (original) is unknown, with the purpose of ascertaining the origina text. It should be noted that the Bible is made up of 66 smaller books that were hand-written over a period of 1,600 years, having some 40 writers of various trades such as shepherd, king, priest, tax collector, governor, physician, copyist, fisherman, and tentmaker. Therefore, it should not surprise us that some difficulties are encountered as we casually read through the Bible. Yet, if one were to take a deeper look, one would find that these difficulties are easily explained.
Full inerrancy means that that the original writings are fully without error in all that they state, as are the words. The words were not dictated (automaton), but the intended meaning is inspired, as are the words that convey that meaning. The Author allowed the writer to use his style of writing, yet controlled the meaning to the extent of not allowing the writer to choose a wrong word, which would not convey the intended meaning. Other more libera-minded persons hold with partial inerrancy, which claims that as far as faith is concerned, this portion of God's Word is without error, but that there are historical, geographical, and scientific errors.
There are sevral different levels of inerrancy. Absolute Inerrancy is the belief that the Bible is fully true and exact in every way; including not only relationships and doctrine, but also science and history. In other words, all information is completely exact. Full Inerrancy is the belief that the Bible was not written as science or historical textbook, but is phenomenological, in that it is written from the human perspective. In other words, speaking of such things as the sun rising, the four corners of the earth, or the rounding off of number approximations are all from a human perspective. Limited Inerrancy is the belief that the Bible is meant only as a reflection of God's purpose and will, so the science and history is the understanding of author's day, and is limited. Thus, the Bible is susceptible to errors in these areas. Inerrancy of Purpose is the belief that it is only inerrant in the purpose of bringing its readers to a saving faith. The Bible is not about facts, but about persons and relationships, thus it is subject to error. Inspired: Not Inerrant is the belief that its authors are human and thus subject to human error. It should be noted that this author holds the position of full inerrancy.
For many today, the Bible is nothing more than a book written by men that are full of myths and legends, contradictions, and geographical, historical, and scientific errors. University professor Gerald A. Larue had this to say, "The views of the writers as expressed in the Bible reflect the ideas, beliefs, and concepts current in their own times and are limited by the extent of knowledge in those times." On the other hand, the Bible's claims are quite different.
2 Timothy 3:16 (HCSB): All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be compelte, equipped for every good work.
2 Peter 1:21 (ESV): For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
The question remains as to whether the Bible is a book written by imperfect men and full of errors, or is written by imperfect men, but inspired of God. If the Bible is just another book by imperfect man, there is no hope for humankind. If it is inspired of Godf and without error, although penned by imperfect menm we have the hop of everyting that it offers: a rich happy life now by applying counsel that lies within and the real life that is to come, everlasting life. The Bible is inspired of God and free of human error, although written by imperfect humans.
The critic's argument goes something like this: 'If God does no err and the Bible is the Word of God, then the Bible should not have one single error or contradiction, yet it is full of errors and contradictions.' If the Bible is riddled with nothing but contradictions and errors as the critics would have us believe, why, out of 31,1173 verses in the Bible, should there be only 2-3 thousand Bible difficulties that are called into question, this being less than ten percent of the whole?
First, let it be said that is is every Chrisitan's obligation to get a deeper understanding of God's Word, just as the apostle Paul tod Timoth:
1 Ttimothy 4:15, 16 (ESV): Practice these things, immerse yourself in them, so that all may see your progress. Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.
Paul also told the Corinthians:
2 Corinthians 10:4 (NET): For the weapons of our warfare are not human weapons, but are made powerful by God for tearing down strongholds. We tear down arguements and every arrogant obstacle that is raised up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to make it obey Christ.
Paul also told the Philippians:
Philippians 1:7 (ESV): It is right for me to feel this way about you all, because I hold you in my heart, for you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel.
The orginally writeen books were penned by men under inspirtion. In fact, we do not have those originals, what textual scholars call autographs, but we do have thousans of copies. The copyists, however, were not inspired; therefore, as one might expect, throughout the first 1,400 years of of copying, thousands of errors were transmitted into the texts that were being copied by imperfect hands that were not under inspiration when copying. Yet, the next 450 years saw a restoration of the text by textual scholars from around the world. Therefore, while many of our best literal translations today may not be inspired, they are a mirror-like reflection of the autographs by way of textual criticism. Therefore, the fallacy could be with the copyist error that has simply not been weeded out. In addition, you must keep in mind that God's Word is without error, but our interpretation and understanding of that Word is not.
Textual criticism is the study of copies of any writeen work of which the autograph (original) is unknown, with the purpose of ascertaining the origina text. It should be noted that the Bible is made up of 66 smaller books that were hand-written over a period of 1,600 years, having some 40 writers of various trades such as shepherd, king, priest, tax collector, governor, physician, copyist, fisherman, and tentmaker. Therefore, it should not surprise us that some difficulties are encountered as we casually read through the Bible. Yet, if one were to take a deeper look, one would find that these difficulties are easily explained.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Irreducible Complexity
A system is irreducibly complex if it has a number of different parts that all work together to accomplish the task of the system, and if you were to remove one of the parts, the system would no longer work.
1. Darwin said in his Origin of Species, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
2. There, the complex molecular micromachines that make up cells must have been developed a bit at a time, small step by small step. For instance, using the example of the mousetrap, maybe first there was just the platform, which evolved over time into a platform with a hammer, then a platform with a hammer and a spring, and so on.
3. Darwin's theory of natural selection, or "survival of the fittest," says that the systems that work the best are the ones that survive and develop further. And a mousetrap that is just a flat wooden platform doesn't work. So according to natural selection, it wouldn't develop further; it wuld become extinct.
4. Like the mousetrap, molecular machines are irrdecuibly complex. Without all their parts in the right places, they don't work.
Since natural selection chooses systems that are already working, any incomplete molecular machines would bite the evolutionary dust, not develop bit by bit. And, these micromachines are too complex for all of their parts to have come together all at one by random process.
1. Darwin said in his Origin of Species, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
2. There, the complex molecular micromachines that make up cells must have been developed a bit at a time, small step by small step. For instance, using the example of the mousetrap, maybe first there was just the platform, which evolved over time into a platform with a hammer, then a platform with a hammer and a spring, and so on.
3. Darwin's theory of natural selection, or "survival of the fittest," says that the systems that work the best are the ones that survive and develop further. And a mousetrap that is just a flat wooden platform doesn't work. So according to natural selection, it wouldn't develop further; it wuld become extinct.
4. Like the mousetrap, molecular machines are irrdecuibly complex. Without all their parts in the right places, they don't work.
Since natural selection chooses systems that are already working, any incomplete molecular machines would bite the evolutionary dust, not develop bit by bit. And, these micromachines are too complex for all of their parts to have come together all at one by random process.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Cosmological Argument - Second Law of Therrmodynamics
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is the S for SURGE. Thermodynamics is a study of matter and energy, and the Second Law states that the universe is running out of usable energy. With the amount of usable energy in the universe grows smaller, Since the Second Law is well established, much like the Law of Causality, and if the universe is running out of energy and becoming less ordered. Then where did the original order come from?
Since the Second Law tells us that the universe had a beginning, we still have usable energy left, the universe cannot be eternal, because if it were, we would have reached complete disorder (entropy) by now.
Since the Second Law tells us that the universe had a beginning, we still have usable energy left, the universe cannot be eternal, because if it were, we would have reached complete disorder (entropy) by now.
The Cosmological Argument - Law of Causality
Some Darwinists claim that the Kalem Argument or the Cosmological Argument has been refuted, not exactly by who though. The Cosmological Argument goes like this:
1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
2. The Universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe had a cause.
In order for an argument to be true it has to be logically valid, and its premises must be true. This is a valid argument, but are the premises true?
Premise 1 - Everything that had a beginning had a cause - is the Law of Causality, which is the fundamental principle of science. Without the Law of Causality, science is impossible. Science is a search for causes, that's what scientists do - they try to discover what caused what. To deny the Law of Causality is to deny rationality. The very process of rational thinkink requires us to put together thoughts (the causes) that result in conclusions (the effects). If there's one thing we've observed about the universe, it's that things don't happen without a cause. When a man is driving down the street, a car never appears in front of his car out of nowhere, with no driver or no cause.
Since the Law of Causality is well established and undeniable, premise 1 is true. What about premise 2? Did the universe have a beginning? If not, then no cause was needed. If so, then the universe must have had a cause. Until the time of Einstein, atheists could comforted themselves with the belief that the universe is eternal, and thus did not need a cause. But since then, five lines of scientific evidence have been discovered that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe did indeed have beginning. And that beginning was wat scientists now call "The Big Bang." This Big Bang evidence can be easily remembered by the acronym SURGE.
1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
2. The Universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe had a cause.
In order for an argument to be true it has to be logically valid, and its premises must be true. This is a valid argument, but are the premises true?
Premise 1 - Everything that had a beginning had a cause - is the Law of Causality, which is the fundamental principle of science. Without the Law of Causality, science is impossible. Science is a search for causes, that's what scientists do - they try to discover what caused what. To deny the Law of Causality is to deny rationality. The very process of rational thinkink requires us to put together thoughts (the causes) that result in conclusions (the effects). If there's one thing we've observed about the universe, it's that things don't happen without a cause. When a man is driving down the street, a car never appears in front of his car out of nowhere, with no driver or no cause.
Since the Law of Causality is well established and undeniable, premise 1 is true. What about premise 2? Did the universe have a beginning? If not, then no cause was needed. If so, then the universe must have had a cause. Until the time of Einstein, atheists could comforted themselves with the belief that the universe is eternal, and thus did not need a cause. But since then, five lines of scientific evidence have been discovered that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe did indeed have beginning. And that beginning was wat scientists now call "The Big Bang." This Big Bang evidence can be easily remembered by the acronym SURGE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)