Christian Apologetics

[meforevidence]

I thought this one might be interesting. I major in ancient history and archeology and study ancient texts. I was once a skeptic but studying these subjects made me a believer and now my faith is stronger than before. I am not as familiar with biology as I am history. Does anyone have any topics they want to discuss? I have a few openers.
1. Was Jesus Historical?
2. Was Jesus made up after ancient myths/legends?
3. Did the Bible stories such as the flood derive from pagan legends (Epic of Gilgamesh, Enuma Elish, Ugarit Tablets, etc.? )
4. What about the contradictions in our Bible?

I would love to hear from you.

God bless and Peace to you.

[pfalcon]

Hi.

1. Of course Jesus was historical. He really lived and walked this very Earth. In fact, most people wouldn't deny that there was this man called Jesus who existed. The only thing most people question is His deity - Was He really who He claimed He was?

2. Of course not. Follows from Q1.

3. No. I read somewhere that there exists a period of time, a gap of a few years (not exactly sure how many) that there just so happens to be an absence of artifacts and fossils. Archaeologists believe that this is the period of the great flood, because the water would have washed away many evidence and prevented life from actually existing.. except that of Noah and others in the ark of course.

4. There are no contradictions in our Bible. There are, of course, alleged contradictions, but only because people fail to do 2 things. First, they fail to take a verse in its context. For example, in John 3:16, the first part says, "For God so loved the world...". Now, did God really love the physical world? No. The context suggests He loved the people inside the world rather than the material world itself. People who fail to realize that claim that this verse contradicts 1 John 2:15, which tells us NOT to love the world, in this case is referring to the physical, material world since the verse says, "Do not love the world nor the things in the world..."

Secondly, people fail to realize that the sum, or totality of God's word is truth (Ps 119:160). People who fail to realize this will claim that Jesus is a liar, because He said in Matt 7:7, "Ask and it shall be given." Surely if we ask things, some will not be given. Does this mean Jesus is a liar? Certainly not! Because there are other passages which complete the whole picture. For example, John 14:14, Jesus said, "If you ask anything in My name, I will do it." This tells us that we must ask in Jesus' name, or pray in Jesus' name. Also, in James 4:3, "You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your own pleasures." This teaches us that we should not ask for things from God just for the sake of fulfilling our own selfish desires and lusts. Truly we must declare the "whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27).

Hope this helps!

[meforevidence]

Thanks for your answers.
I agree with you that Jesus was a historical person. Of course you will deal with people who do not believe so and your answer although true may not be sufficient evidence to show them. I like your zeal and your love for God. I could sense it just in your response. Keep it up.

2. Again you are right about Jesus not being derived from pagan myths. However, there is a huge movement (about ten years outdated though) arising again and debates even held on TV regarding what came first. For example. Horus, Mithras, and other legends (according to the skeptics) were
a. born of a virgin in a cave, had twelve disciples, were baptized, was crucified, arose in three days, and the body and blood was taken in some cases. However, the skeptics have failed to actually study their own teachings. They take books written by today's skeptics and do not study the ancient myths of the pagan legends .

3. The Epic of Gilgamesh is indeed much older than any Bible we have in the world (even just one book). In this myth, there is a man that meets Noah (but uses the Babylonian name) and then many fanciful tales are told. Many skeptics see this and say the Bible took from it (as they do the story of Moses in a basket with another pagan myth). However, what they do not know is that there have been several versions of the Epic of Gilgamesh and the first one ever found with the flood story is dated 700 B.C. found in the Assyrian Kings temple a few decades ago in Nineveh. There have been multiple artifacts from Jews/Israelites that predate this a few hundred years that show the worship of Yahweh. This is important because another movement called Minimalism is growing stating that the stories of the Bible are just stories made up during the Persian empire from earlier pagan stories. They teach that King David, Solomon, Jacob, etc. never really existed and write books (even teach in college) that ancient Israel never existed. Many skeptics will also try to point out other examples as well but again, most do not really study history. This is where you can catch most skeptics. They usually have a degree in anything but history or ancient studies/archeology, etc.

4. As for contradictions my friend. Please see my class material. Anyone who says there are no contradictions has not truly read their Bible. Fear not though. At first that is what led me to become a skeptic; however, as I studied the ancient texts, I found they were not there. Our modern Bibles including the KJV, ASV, etc, were all taken from a text written almost a thousand years after Jesus called the Massoretic Text. The text Jesus and the early church used was not this text. It was the Septuagint (LXX). Some examples are when Jesus quotes Isaiah, you turn back and the verse is different. In the LXX, it is the same. In Acts when Stephen is preaching the number of people who came to Egypt, turn to the OT and see it is different, but in the LXX it is the same. David numbered the people and sinned. His punishments would be (3 years in one text but 7 yeas in another text. In the LXX, they both agree. The LXX is a little over a thousand years older than the text our modern Bibles are taken from. The NT is pretty accurate so it is not a different doctrine, however, as one famous skeptic once said about the LXX, "If it was good enough for Jesus, shouldn't it be good enough for us? Please feel free to ask if you want my site address. I will email it to you.

Take care and God bless.

[pfalcon]

Heyhey!

Very informative response. Thanks a lot!

Regarding your last point, the period for David's punishment has caused confusion. This is because the Old Testament, being written in Hebrew, it is said that 3 and 7 differed by only a stroke, and hence the confusion.

This may or may not be true - I have not confirmed it.

[mujalan]

meforevidence,

This is just to say thanks for the questions you have posted. I believe that Apologetics is so very important and churches today need desperately to deal with this more than we are. Our young people are almost constantly bombarded in our culture with put downs of their belief in God.

I am currently swamped at work myself so I cannot respond much to your discussion. However, I have a long-time hobby of reading in science, mainly quantum physics and astronomy (definitely not an expert though!). I have been actually strengthened in my faith by observing substantial evidences for the existence of God. Our youth on the other hand are told repeatedly by the world that God is just so much fiction. On the contrary there is quite a bit of support for His being as well as for His creation.

[KennyG]

I think science neither proves, nor disproves God. Science (in theory) simply looks at nature and tries to figure it out. If nature seems to contradict what we find in the Bible, we should ask if we are understanding the Bible correctly. It may be that further examination will change our understanding of nature, or that our interpretation of the Bible is incorrect. I think scientists need to be careful about stating theory as dogma, and theologians as well. Sometimes we take our hermeneutic as indisputable, when it is really just a theory like anything else.

How I interpret various things in the Bible, such as whether the first few chapters of Genesis are literal, does not affect my faith. If your faith depends on those first chapters being literal, you might want to examine it. Not that they aren't literal, but that your faith should not depend on it.

The cement does not always need to cure.