Instead Of Dreaming For The Glory Of Christ

"More and more and more, America is a nation given over to play. The industries of play are huge! Houses are built today with entertainment centers. Computers and videos and television and stereo all coordinate to give us ever more stimulating and captivating distractions from the realities of the world. When we need to be dreaming for the glory of Christ about how to spend our lives alleviating ignorance and sickness and misery and lostness, we are becoming more and more addicted to amusement." (John Piper)

Non-Christian Corroboration Of Early Christian Miracles

"In fact, Jewish sources otherwise critical of Jesus repeatedly admit that he did work what we would call ‘miracles’. We see this most strikingly in the ‘Jew of Celsus’ (c.150 ce) who says that Jesus did perform παράδοξα, using the precise word deployed by the TF [Josephus' primary passage about Jesus]. Justin the Martyr further says that Jews believed Jesus worked miracles by magic, and a similar claim is time and again lodged against Jesus by Jewish authorities in the Gospels themselves. The Babylonian Talmud also criticizes Jesus ‘because he practiced sorcery’ (שכישף). And the Jerusalem Talmud states that Jesus’ followers could heal in his name, yet it still cautions faithful Jews not to be persuaded by them. The versions of the Jewish Toledot Yeshu (second–fifth centuries), an early account of Jesus, are highly critical of him, yet records all sorts of miracles that Jesus worked including even raising the dead. Likewise, a second- or third-century Jewish-Christian document, perhaps called the Ascents of James, reports that Jews would accuse Jesus of performing miracles like a sorcerer might do. Pagan sources also spoke similarly, as with the Milesian Apollo, who acknowledged that Jesus did ‘miraculous deeds’ (τερατώδεσιν ἔργοις) and the anti-Christian writer, Porphyry, effectively agrees....Porphyry admits that the apostles did miracles (Jerome, Tractatus de Psalmo 81; found in Morin vol. 3.2 p. 80 lines 21–2). Similarly, Arnobius engages with an opponent who alleges that Jesus worked miracles through the knowledge of secret, magical arts or because he was a kind of demigod of old; see respectively Arnobius, Against the Nations 1.43, 53, and 1.48–9." (T.C. Schmidt, Josephus And Jesus [New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 2025], 74 and n. 85 on 74)

There are other examples that could be cited. Schmidt's book is about Josephus, and he argues that Josephus corroborates Jesus' miracles. I've discussed other examples not mentioned by Schmidt elsewhere, like here and here. Notice the diversity of sources: mainstream Christian, schismatic, heretical, Jewish, and pagan.

Another category that should be taken into account is prophecy fulfillment. It's distinct from what Schmidt is addressing, but is relevant to non-Christian corroboration of early Christian miracles. Many ancient non-Christian sources corroborated facts of history related to Christianity that line up well with Old Testament prophecy: the timing of Jesus' life (in connection with Daniel's Seventy Weeks prophecy), the Bethlehem birthplace (in connection with Micah 4-5), the penal practices of the Roman empire (crucifixion and various practices associated with it in connection with passages like Psalm 22 and the third Servant Song in Isaiah 50), the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (in connection with Daniel's Seventy Weeks prophecy), etc. We've discussed such prophecies, their fulfillment, and non-Christian corroboration of the fulfillment, like in the posts gathered here. As with the sort of miracles Schmidt is focused on, the corroboration here comes from a large number and variety of sources, from the first century onward.

The Evidence Against Baptismal Regeneration In Galatians 3

I've written about how the context of justification is inconsistent with baptismal regeneration. Paul describes that context in Galatians 3:2 when he refers to "hearing with faith".

Why do people talk about being overburdened by politics, religious controversies, etc.?

It's one thing to be worn out because you've done a lot of work. It's another thing to be worn out because you've done a small amount of work while being out of shape.

When it comes to matters like religion and politics, modern Americans (and whoever else) are clearly in the latter category, not the former. For a large amount of documentation to that effect, see here.

Since Americans have false priorities, they're more concerned about politics than religion. I'll start with politics. One of the most common complaints you hear in political contexts is that people are tired of all of the political ads they see on television during a campaign season. Of course, to see a lot of television ads, you have to be watching a lot of television. And what people are watching is typically highly secular and/or trivial (and often sinful). The reason why political campaigns run so many television ads and do other such things is that they know people spend so much time watching certain television shows, listening to certain radio programs, and so on. And the ads are shallow because the audience is shallow. If you're hundreds of pounds overweight, you might complain that leaning over to pick up something you knocked on the floor is an excessive burden. But whose fault is it that you're so overweight and have been for so long? The fact that leaning over and picking something up wears you out doesn't prove that it's asking too much to expect you to do it. The same people who are irritated by having their television shows interrupted by political ads are also highly ignorant of their nation's history, their nation's political system, political issues, etc., and they're culpable for that ignorance.

The situation is even worse with religion, which is more important than politics and is even more neglected. Pastors, apologists, and others who are interacting with people on religious issues need to study the culture they're interacting with (like with the resources on the page I linked earlier) and make adjustments accordingly. When you hear about how people supposedly are worn out in religious contexts, are tired of all of the arguments about theology, are overburdened by apologetics, and so forth, you need to keep in mind that it's more often than not a matter of people being worn out by doing a small amount of work while they're out of shape. They need to get in better shape and start doing a lot more work, not less of it. Not only does far more work need to be done, but the neglect on the part of the large majority of people is placing too much of a burden on the small minority who are doing too much of the work.

Should debates on baptismal regeneration only involve the discussion of passages about baptism?

I occasionally see people claim that debates on the subject, like the recent one between Joe Heschmeyer and Ryan Hemelaar, should only involve passages (in the Bible, in the church fathers, or wherever else) about baptism. Supposedly, passages that only mention faith, for example, aren't relevant. After all, the title of the Heschmeyer/Hemelaar debate, for example, was "Does water baptism save us?". It's a debate about baptism.

How Early Activities, Not Just Early Language, Contradict Mary's Perpetual Virginity

Some of the evidence against Mary's perpetual virginity is linguistic, but not all of it is. I want to provide an overview of that fact, an overview that will respond to the concept of perpetual virginity in general. The applicability of each point I'll make will depend on which view of perpetual virginity somebody holds. I'm not suggesting that each point is equally applicable to every view of Mary's perpetual virginity.

The Debate Between Joe Heschmeyer And Ryan Hemelaar On Baptism And Salvation

The large majority of what I would argue regarding both the Biblical evidence and the extrabiblical evidence didn't come up in the debate. See here for a collection of resources outlining my views on many of the relevant issues. I'll say a small amount about some Biblical topics that are relevant to other points I want to make, but my focus here will be on the extrabiblical sources.

Why do so many early sources say nothing about Mary's perpetual virginity while suggesting they rejected it?

Tom Schmidt recently published a book arguing for the authenticity and significance of Josephus' material on Christianity. I've written some posts in recent years about the importance of what Josephus tells us about the baptism of John the Baptist. And Schmidt's book reminded me of the significance of Josephus' comments on James' relationship with Jesus as it pertains to the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Think of how many sources in the earliest centuries address issues relevant to Mary's alleged perpetual virginity and not only don't affirm her perpetual virginity, but even use language that's most naturally taken to contradict it: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Josephus, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus. Those are just the sources in the earliest generations of church history. There was ongoing opposition to Mary's perpetual virginity well after the concept became popular in later centuries. The opposition continued into the medieval era. In the earliest generations, the belief that Mary gave birth to other children after Jesus seems to have been the dominant view. Josephus, like the other earliest sources, knew of other language he could have used and did use such language in other contexts ("relative", "cousin", etc.). Think of the cumulative effect of Josephus and the other sources involved. It's highly unlikely that so many early sources would believe in Mary's perpetual virginity, yet not only not refer to it, but even use language that seems to contradict the concept (multiple terms in multiple contexts and multiple types of contexts).

A New Book On 1 Corinthians 15

Sean Luke of Anglican Aesthetics interviewed James Ware about a book Ware recently published on 1 Corinthians 15, The Final Triumph Of God (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2025). I've bought it, but haven't read it yet. The interview is worth listening to, since it makes a lot of good points about a lot of significant topics (the physical nature of Paul's view of the resurrection, the unity of the apostles, etc.).

Why am I citing minor historical figures against baptismal regeneration?

An objection that some readers might have to posts like the two I put up earlier this week is that they involve relatively minor individuals in the historical record, people whose names we don't even know. If baptismal regeneration is false, shouldn't that have been known to more significant figures as well? Sometimes that sort of objection will be put in terms of asking for church fathers, church leaders, or some other such group instead of the sort of lesser individuals my recent posts have discussed.

Justification Apart From Baptism In Augustine's Day

In a previous post, I said I might address the subject in the future. Here are a couple of relevant passages in Augustine:

How Diversely John 3:5 Was Interpreted Before The Reformation

The claim is often made that everybody agreed about the meaning of John 3:5 before the Reformation. Supposedly, there was universal agreement that the passage teaches baptismal regeneration.

Crushing Our Sluggishness And Arrogance

"On the one hand, we know, men are often so dull that when they hear that grace is offered them through Christ and that they may enjoy it through the gospel, the message is brushed off as if it were worthless. On the other hand, we are not easily persuaded to abandon our silly pride: we fancy we can find some way or other of pleasing God and of winning his favour. Something strong is needed to excite our sluggish spirits and to remedy, or rather crush, our arrogance....How often, instead, are we excited by the trivia and nonsense of this passing world, and by our own sinful pleasures, so that we fail to glorify God as he deserves, and speak so feebly of his grace that it is clear we would suppress it if we could." (John Calvin, in Robert White, trans., Songs Of The Nativity [Carlisle, Pennsylvania: Banner of Truth, 2008], 124-25)

More Than A Dozen Reasons To Reject Baptismal Regeneration

I've discussed many problems with it in a lot of posts over the years, but I want to provide a list in one place. I'll include a link to a post addressing each of most of these items. This isn't meant to be exhaustive:

The History Of Beliefs About The Unbaptized

Anthony Lusvardi recently published Baptism Of Desire And Christian Salvation (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University Of America Press, 2024). He's a Roman Catholic priest and scholar who did a doctoral dissertation on baptism of desire. Though the book is primarily about that subject, the book also addresses some related concepts to a lesser extent: baptism of blood, invincible ignorance, limbo, outside the church there is no salvation, the salvation of infants who die without having been baptized, etc.

Never Doing Anything Bravely

"even a general in battle loves that soldier who returns after fleeing and presses the enemy bravely, more than the one who never turned his back, but never did anything bravely." (Gregory the Great, cited by Bede, in Calvin Kendall and Faith Wallis, translators and editors, Bede: Commentary On The Gospel Of Luke [Liverpool, England: Liverpool University Press, 2023], 466)

Jacques Vallee On UFOs And "Satan's Toys"

He was recently interviewed by Ross Coulthart, and the subject of the demonic explanation of UFOs came up. Coulthart asked about the widespread reports that Christians (apparently primarily or exclusively Evangelicals) in the United States government have tried to shut down UFO research on the basis that UFOs are demonic and that we shouldn't do further research into them. Coulthart and Vallee both dismiss that sort of reasoning, comparing it to refusing to investigate a crime because it involves evil. I agree with them that even if the demonic hypothesis were true, the government and other people should still research UFOs and, in fact, should research them a lot. For more on the subject, see here. What I want to do in this post is focus on some other comments Coulthart and Vallee made while addressing the issue of demonic activity.

Boy Jesus

Joan Taylor recently published a book about Jesus' childhood, Boy Jesus (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Academic, 2025). Taylor is a scholar who's specialized in the study of Judaism and Christianity in the ancient world. She isn't a conservative, but her book argues for conservative views on some significant issues related to Jesus' childhood (e.g., Jesus' Davidic ancestry, the credibility of his genealogies, his Bethlehem birthplace). So, the book is a good illustration of the fact that conservative conclusions are often supported by non-conservative scholarship.

But Taylor takes some positions I disagree with, and I want to link several of my posts addressing those issues. She cites Yigal Levin's work against the idea that Jesus could have been considered a son of Joseph by adoption. She doesn't interact with Caleb Friedeman's response to Levin, discussed in the second hyphenated section of my post here. See here for my argument against the notion that Luke's infancy narrative wasn't finalized into its canonical form until the time of Marcion. On objections to the historicity of Luke's census account, I've written many posts, such as here and here. (To Taylor's credit, though, she's more reasonable than many other critics of the census account, such as by acknowledging that the census wasn't ancestral and that Joseph had more than an ancestral relationship with Bethlehem. On the evidence for such conclusions, see here.) She thinks Jesus' family was more supportive of him than they likely were. On the unbelief of his family (faith mixed with unbelief in the cases of Joseph and Mary), see Eric Svendsen's Who Is My Mother? (Amityville, New York: Calvary Press, 2001). Taylor probably thinks the family's unbelief would be too problematic for the historicity of other parts of the New Testament (and whatever extrabiblical sources), but they're not too difficult to reconcile. See the section of the post here discussing Matthew 13:54-55, for example. I've also discussed the subject elsewhere, like here on the gospel of Mark in general. Since Taylor mentions some early sources who rejected the virgin birth and sometimes cites Andrew Lincoln's book against the virgin birth, go here and here for my discussion of how widely the virgin birth was accepted early on, in response to Lincoln, and here for my overall assessment of Lincoln's book. On the issues Taylor is right about, she often leaves out a lot of the evidence that could be mentioned. There's far too much of that to discuss all of it here, but see, for example, this post on Jesus' relatives for further evidence supporting Jesus' Davidic ancestry and the genealogies (e.g., Luke's use of James as a source, James' comments on Davidic ancestry in Acts 15). Or see here on the Bethlehem birthplace. Or here on how much Matthew and Luke agree about Jesus' childhood.

The book goes into a lot of depth about what we know of the context of Jesus' childhood from extrabiblical sources, like Josephus and archeology. A lot of ground is covered: the physical characteristics of Bethlehem and Nazareth, what Joseph and Jesus would have done in their work as builders, connections between Jesus' childhood and his public ministry (e.g., his parables and illustrations), etc. You'll probably disagree with much of the book, but also learn some significant things from it.

The Dream Model Of Near-Death Experiences

I've often cited Gregory Shushan's work on some paranormal issues, including near-death experiences (NDEs). I hold a dream model of NDEs that's a variation of what Shushan outlines in a book I'll be quoting below. You can go here to read a post I wrote a few years ago about that book and how my views relate to it. What I want to do in this post is quote some of Shushan's comments on a dream model of NDEs. You can read my post just linked or Shushan's book for more information:

Justification Apart From Baptism In The Eighth Century

Several centuries before the Reformation, Bede wrote against viewing 1 John 5:5 as support for justification through faith alone and, more specifically, justification apart from baptism: