Someone asked the above question. Here's my reply to him, though I've added a bit more than was in my original reply. And my reply reflects my Reformed commitments, though of course there are many other good resources for evangelicals in general (e.g. Millard Erickson, Alister McGrath, Norm Geisler).
Friday, March 27, 2026
Thursday, March 26, 2026
More Evidence For The Historicity Of The "I Am" Statements Of Jesus
I wrote a post a couple of years ago about some evidence for the historicity of the "I am" statements of Jesus in the fourth gospel. Something I didn't mention there is that some of the "I am" passages or contexts connected to them, depending on how you define the terms, include characteristics of Jesus that are widely attested elsewhere. See the discussions of John 8:59 and 9:6 here. Those verses come just after the "I am" statements in 8:58 and 9:5. The verisimilitude of Jesus' behavior in these passages adds to the cumulative argument for the historicity of the "I am" statements.
While there's a danger of assigning too much significance to something like verisimilitude, there's also a danger of assigning too little significance to it. One way to approach the subject I'm addressing in this post is to ask if there would be any diminishment of the credibility of the John 8 and John 9 passages if they didn't refer to the behaviors of Jesus in question, but instead only referred to behaviors not corroborated by other sources. There would be a diminishment, even though it wouldn't be a large one. It doesn't have to be large to have some significance.
While there's a danger of assigning too much significance to something like verisimilitude, there's also a danger of assigning too little significance to it. One way to approach the subject I'm addressing in this post is to ask if there would be any diminishment of the credibility of the John 8 and John 9 passages if they didn't refer to the behaviors of Jesus in question, but instead only referred to behaviors not corroborated by other sources. There would be a diminishment, even though it wouldn't be a large one. It doesn't have to be large to have some significance.
Tuesday, March 24, 2026
The Benefits Of Studying The Resurrection
"For he who has learnt to study innumerable [truths] concerning the resurrection, how should he fear death? How should he shudder any more?" (John Chrysostom, Homilies On Hebrews 4:6)
It's often suggested that religion doesn't have much practical value. It doesn't come in contact with everyday life enough, it's too abstract, what it addresses has too little significance, concerns like food and money are more interesting, etc. The degree to which people hold such views varies, but even many professing Christians believe such things to some extent. You can see it in their time management, for example, in that they spend an inordinately large amount of their time on secular and trivial activities, just like the surrounding culture.
But Easter provides some examples, among many others, of how wrong that sort of mindset is. Nothing is as pragmatic as God, and the issues most closely associated with him, often referred to as "religion", are important accordingly. Death is a major illustration of that fact. If you can't find practicality in overcoming death, something's wrong with you. If you care about yourself, you should care about your death. If you care about your family, you should care about their death. And so on. We can go on to think of other subjects along the same lines. Just as we want to plan for a business trip we're making or an upcoming vacation, how much more should we want to learn about the afterlife and plan for it? We should keep such issues in mind as we think about the Easter season and religious topics more broadly.
It's often suggested that religion doesn't have much practical value. It doesn't come in contact with everyday life enough, it's too abstract, what it addresses has too little significance, concerns like food and money are more interesting, etc. The degree to which people hold such views varies, but even many professing Christians believe such things to some extent. You can see it in their time management, for example, in that they spend an inordinately large amount of their time on secular and trivial activities, just like the surrounding culture.
But Easter provides some examples, among many others, of how wrong that sort of mindset is. Nothing is as pragmatic as God, and the issues most closely associated with him, often referred to as "religion", are important accordingly. Death is a major illustration of that fact. If you can't find practicality in overcoming death, something's wrong with you. If you care about yourself, you should care about your death. If you care about your family, you should care about their death. And so on. We can go on to think of other subjects along the same lines. Just as we want to plan for a business trip we're making or an upcoming vacation, how much more should we want to learn about the afterlife and plan for it? We should keep such issues in mind as we think about the Easter season and religious topics more broadly.
Sunday, March 22, 2026
The Growth Of The Evidence For Christianity
It's sometimes suggested that the arguments for Christianity haven't developed much. There's not a lot being offered beyond the repetition of certain philosophical arguments for God's existence, historical arguments for prophecy fulfillment, historical arguments for Jesus' resurrection, and so forth.
Even if that were the case, that sort of evidence would be sufficient. And much of that older evidence often gets overlooked or underestimated (e.g., the evidence for certain Old Testament miracles, the evidence for apostolic miracles).
There's been more of an increase in the evidence for Christianity than is typically suggested. We've addressed a lot of examples in other posts: apparitions of Jesus, name statistics in the Biblical documents, the evidence for the Testimonium Flavianum in Josephus, modern healings, etc. Think of all of the developments in archeology over the years, for example. Old lines of argument often have new applications. I've written about modern examples of prophecy fulfillment, for instance. The work done in contexts like intelligent design and the paranormal isn't applicable only to Christianity, but it furthers the case for Christianity as far as it goes. And there are frequent advances in those fields.
Since our culture is so secular and trivial, issues like the ones I'm citing in this post don't get discussed much. And even among Christians, few people (as a percentage) bring these things up or attempt to persuade others about them. Those aren't problems with the state of the evidence, though. They're problems with how the state of the evidence is being handled.
Even if that were the case, that sort of evidence would be sufficient. And much of that older evidence often gets overlooked or underestimated (e.g., the evidence for certain Old Testament miracles, the evidence for apostolic miracles).
There's been more of an increase in the evidence for Christianity than is typically suggested. We've addressed a lot of examples in other posts: apparitions of Jesus, name statistics in the Biblical documents, the evidence for the Testimonium Flavianum in Josephus, modern healings, etc. Think of all of the developments in archeology over the years, for example. Old lines of argument often have new applications. I've written about modern examples of prophecy fulfillment, for instance. The work done in contexts like intelligent design and the paranormal isn't applicable only to Christianity, but it furthers the case for Christianity as far as it goes. And there are frequent advances in those fields.
Since our culture is so secular and trivial, issues like the ones I'm citing in this post don't get discussed much. And even among Christians, few people (as a percentage) bring these things up or attempt to persuade others about them. Those aren't problems with the state of the evidence, though. They're problems with how the state of the evidence is being handled.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)