The Historical Christ--Fact or Fiction? by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=187

The Historical Christ--Fact or Fiction?

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Most children and adults easily recognize the name of Jesus Christ. Many even can recount the story of His life. Also easily recognizable are the names of Peter Pan and Rumpelstiltskin. And most people can relate the “facts” of these fairy tales as well. Is Jesus of Nazareth a fictional character who deserves to be included in a list containing mystifying magicians, daring dragon slayers, and flying boy heroes? The world-famous medical doctor and lifelong critic of Christianity, Albert Schweitzer, answered with a resounding “yes” when he wrote:

The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give His work its final consecration, never had any existence. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism, and clothed by modern theology in an historical garb (1964, p. 398).

In more modern times, former-preacher-turned-atheist Dan Barker has suggested that “the New Testament Jesus is a myth” (1992, p. 378). Are such views based upon historical evidence and therefore worthy of serious consideration? Or do they represent merely wishful thinking on the part of those who prefer to believe—for whatever reason—that Christ never lived? Was Jesus Christ a man whose feet got dirty and whose body grew tired just like the rest of humanity? Fortunately, such questions can be answered by an honest appeal to the available historical evidence.
What is a “historical” person? Martin Kahler suggested: “Is it not the person who originates and bequeaths a permanent influence? He is one of those dynamic individuals who intervene in the course of events” (1896, p. 63). Do any records exist to document the claim that Jesus Christ “intervened in the course of events” known as world history? Indeed they do.

HOSTILE TESTIMONY

Interestingly, the first type of records comes from what are known commonly as “hostile” sources—writers who mentioned Jesus in a negative light or derogatory fashion. Such penmen certainly were not predisposed to further the cause of Christ or otherwise to add credence to His existence. In fact, quite the opposite is true. They rejected His teachings and often reviled Him as well. Thus, one can appeal to them without the charge of built-in bias.
In his book, The Historical Figure of Jesus, E.P. Sanders stated: “Most of the first-century literature that survives was written by members of the very small elite class of the Roman Empire. To them, Jesus (if they heard of him at all) was merely a troublesome rabble-rouser and magician in a small, backward part of the world” (1993, p. 49, parenthetical comment in orig.). It is now to this “small elite class of the Roman Empire” that we turn our attention for documentation of Christ’s existence.
Tacitus (c. A.D. 56-117) should be among the first of several hostile witnesses called to the stand. He was a member of the Roman provincial upper class with a formal education who held several high positions under different emperors such as Nerva and Trajan (see Tacitus, 1952, p. 7). His famous work, Annals, was a history of Rome written in approximately A.D. 115. In the Annals he told of the Great Fire of Rome, which occurred in A.D. 64. Nero, the Roman emperor in office at the time, was suspected by many of having ordered the city set on fire. Tacitus wrote:

Nero fabricated scapegoats—and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius’ reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilatus. But in spite of this temporary setback the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judea (where the mischief had started) but even in Rome (1952, 15.44, parenthetical comments in orig.).

Tacitus hated both Christians and their namesake, Christ. He therefore had nothing positive to say about what he referred to as a “deadly superstition.” He did, however, have something to say about it. His testimony establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that the Christian religion not only was relevant historically, but that Christ, as its originator, was a verifiable historical figure of such prominence that He even attracted the attention of the Roman emperor himself!
Additional hostile testimony originated from Suetonius, who wrote around A.D. 120. Robert Graves, as translator of Suetonius’ work, The Twelve Caesars, declared:

Suetonius was fortunate in having ready access to the Imperial and Senatorial archives and to a great body of contemporary memoirs and public documents, and in having himself lived nearly thirty years under the Caesars. Much of his information about Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero comes from eye-witnesses of the events described (Suetonius, 1957, p. 7).

The testimony of Suetonius is a reliable piece of historical evidence. Twice in his history, Suetonius specifically mentioned Christ or His followers. He wrote, for example: “Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbance at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius—KB] expelled them from the city” (Claudius, 25:4; note that in Acts 18:2 Luke mentioned this expulsion by Claudius). Sanders noted that Chrestus is a misspelling of Christos, “the Greek word that translates the Hebrew ‘Messiah’” (1993, pp. 49-50). Suetonius further commented: “Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief” (Nero, 16:2). Again, it is evident that Suetonius and the Roman government had feelings of hatred toward Christ and His alleged mischievous band of rebels. It is equally evident that Suetonius (and, in fact, most of Rome) recognized that Christ was the noteworthy founder of a historically significant new religion.
Along with Tacitus and Suetonius, Pliny the Younger must be allowed to take a seat among hostile Roman witnesses. In approximately A.D. 110-111, Pliny was sent by the Roman emperor Trajan to govern the affairs of the region of Bithynia. From this region, Pliny corresponded with the emperor concerning a problem he viewed as quite serious. He wrote: “I was never present at any trial of Christians; therefore I do not know the customary penalties or investigations and what limits are observed” (as quoted in Wilken, 1990, p. 4). He then went on to state:

This is the course that I have adopted in the case of those brought before me as Christians. I ask them if they are Christians. If they admit it, I repeat the question a second and a third time, threatening capital punishment; if they persist, I sentence them to death (as quoted in Wilken, p. 4).

Pliny used the term “Christian” or “Christians” seven times in his letter, thereby corroborating it as a generally accepted term that was recognized by both the Roman Empire and its emperor. Pliny also used the name “Christ” three times to refer to the originator of the “sect.” It is undeniably the case that Christians, with Christ as their founder, had multiplied in such a way as to draw the attention of the emperor and his magistrates by the time of Pliny’s letter to Trajan. In light of this evidence, it is impossible to deny the fact that Jesus Christ existed and was recognized by the highest officials within the Roman government as an actual, historical person.
Celsus, a second-century pagan philosopher, produced a vehement attack upon Christianity by the title of True Discourse (c. A.D. 178). In that vile document, Celsus argued that Christ owed his existence to the result of fornication between Mary and a Roman soldier named Panthera. As he matured, Jesus began to call himself God—an action, said Celsus, which caused his Jewish brethren to kill him. Yet as denigrating as his attack was, Celsus never went so far as to suggest that Christ did not exist.
Some have attempted to negate the testimony of these hostile Roman witnesses to Christ’s historicity by suggesting that the “Roman sources that mention him are all dependent on Christian reports” (Sanders, 1993, p. 49). For example, in his book, The Earliest Records of Jesus, Francis Beare lamented:

Everything that has been recorded of the Jesus of history was recorded for us by men to whom he was Christ the Lord; and we cannot expunge their faith from the records without making the records themselves virtually worthless. There is no Jesus known to history except him who is depicted by his followers as the Christ, the Son of God, the Saviour to the World (1962, p. 19).

Such a suggestion is as outlandish as it is outrageous. Not only is there no evidence to support such a claim, but all of the available evidence militates against it. Furthermore, it is an untenable position to suggest that such upper class Roman historians would submit for inclusion in the official annals of Roman history (to be preserved for posterity) facts that were related to them by a notorious tribe of “mischievous,” “depraved,” “superstitious” misfits.
Even a casual reader who glances over the testimony of the hostile Roman witnesses who bore testimony to the historicity of Christ will be struck by the fact that these ancient men depicted Christ as neither the Son of God nor the Savior of the world. They verbally stripped Him of His Sonship, denied His glory, and belittled His magnificence. They described Him to their contemporaries, and for posterity, as a mere man. Yet even though they were wide of the mark in regard to the truth of Who He was, through their caustic diatribes they nevertheless documented that He was. And for that we are indebted to them.

TESTIMONY OF JESUS AMONG THE JEWS

Even though much of the hostile testimony regarding the existence of Jesus originated from witnesses within the Roman Empire, such testimony is not the only kind of hostile historical evidence available. Anyone familiar with Jewish history will recognize immediately the Mishnah and the Talmud. The Mishnah was a book of Jewish law traditions codified by Rabbi Judah around the year A.D. 200 and known to the Jews as the “whole code of religious jurisprudence” (Bruce, 1953, p. 101). Jewish rabbis studied the Mishnah and even wrote a body of commentary based upon it known as the Gemares. The Mishnah and Gemares are known collectively as the Talmud (Bruce, 1953, p. 101). The complete Talmud surfaced around A.D. 300. If a person as influential as Jesus had existed in the land of Palestine during the first century, surely the rabbis would have had something to say about him. Undoubtedly, a man who supposedly confronted the most astute religious leaders of His day—and won—would be named among the opinions of those who shared His rabbinical title. As Bruce declared:

According to the earlier Rabbis whose opinions are recorded in these writings, Jesus of Nazareth was a transgressor in Israel, who practised magic, scorned the words of the wise, led the people astray, and said that he had not come to destroy the law but to add to it. He was hanged on Passover Eve for heresy and misleading the people. His disciples, of whom five are named, healed the sick in his name (1953, p. 102).

First-century Judaism, in large part, refused to accept Jesus Christ as the Son of the God. Yet it did not refuse to accept Him as a historical man from a literal city known as Nazareth or to record for posterity crucial facts about His life and death.
Josephus is another important Jewish witness. The son of Mattathias, he was born into a Jewish upper class priestly family around A.D. 37. His education in biblical law and history stood among the best of his day (Sanders, 1993, p. 15). At age nineteen, he became a Pharisee. When Jerusalem rebelled against the Roman authorities, he was given command of the Jewish forces in Galilee. After losing most of his men, he surrendered to the Romans. He found favor in the man who commanded the Roman army, Vespasian, by predicting that Vespasian soon would be elevated to the position of emperor. Josephus’ prediction came true in A.D. 69 at Vespasian’s inauguration. After the fall of Jerusalem, Josephus assumed the family name of the emperor (Flavius) and settled down to live a life as a government pensioner. It was during these latter years that he wrote Antiquities of the Jews between September 93 and September 94 (Bruce, 1953, pp. 103-104). Josephus himself gave the date as the thirteenth year of Domitian (Rajak, 1984, p. 237). His contemporaries viewed his career indignantly as one of traitorous rebellion to the Jewish nation (Bruce, 1953, p. 104).
Twice in Antiquities, Jesus’ name flowed from Josephus’ pen. Antiquities 18:3:3 reads as follows

And there arose about this time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed we should call him a man; for he was a doer of marvelous deeds, a teacher of men who receive the truth with pleasure. He led away many Jews, and also Greeks. This man was the Christ. And when Pilate had condemned him to the cross on his impeachment by the chief men among us, those who had loved him at first did not cease; for he appeared to them on the third day alive again, the divine prophets having spoken these and thousands of other wonderful things about him: and even now the tribe of Christians, so named after him, has not yet died out.

Certain historians regard the italicized segments of the section as “Christian interpolation.” There is, however, no evidence from textual criticism that would warrant such an opinion (Bruce, 1953, p. 110). In fact, every extant Greek manuscript contains the disputed portions. The passage also exists in both Hebrew and Arabic versions. And although the Arabic version is slightly different, it still exhibits knowledge of the disputed sections (see Chapman, 1981, p. 29; Habermas, 1996, pp. 193-196).
There are several reasons generally offered for rejecting the passage as genuine. First, early Christian writers like Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Origen did not use Josephus’ statement in their defense of Christ’s deity. Habermas observed that Origen, in fact, documented the fact that Josephus (although himself a Jew) did not believe Christ to be the Messiah (1996, p. 192; cf. Origen’s Contra Celsum, 1:47). However, as Habermas also pointed out, the fourth-century writer Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History (1:11), quoted Josephus’ statement about Christ, including the disputed words. And he undoubtedly had access to much more ancient sources than those now available.
Furthermore, it should not be all that surprising that such early Christian apologists did not appeal to Josephus in their writings. Wayne Jackson has suggested:

Josephus’ writings may not have been in extensive circulation at that point in time. His Antiquities was not completed until about 93 A.D. Too, in view of the fact that Josephus was not respected by the Jews, his works may not have been valued as an apologetic tool (1991, 11:29).

Such a suggestion possesses merit. Professor Bruce Metzger commented: “Because Josephus was deemed a renegade to Judaism, Jewish scribes were not interested in preserving his writings for posterity” (1965, p. 75). Thomas H. Horne, in his Critical Introduction to the Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, referred to the fact that the main source of evidence frequently used by the so-called “church fathers” was an appeal to the Old Testament rather than to human sources (1841, 1:463-464). The evidence substantiates Horne’s conclusion. For example, a survey of the index to the eight volumes of the multi-volume set, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, reveals only eleven references to Josephus in the entire set.
The second reason sometimes offered as to why the disputed passage in Josephus’ Antiquities might be due to “Christian interpolation” is the fact that it seems unlikely that a non-Christian writer would include such statements as “this man was the Christ” or “if indeed we should call him a man.” But while such might be unlikely, it certainly is not beyond the realm of possibility. Any number of reasons could explain why Josephus would write what he did. For example, Bruce allowed for the possibility that Josephus might have been speaking sarcastically (1953, p. 110). Howard Key suggested:

If we assume that in making explicit statements about Jesus as Messiah and about the resurrection Josephus is merely conveying what Jesus’ followers claimed on his behalf, then there would be no reason to deny that he wrote them [i.e., the supposed interpolated phrases—KB] (1970, p. 33).

It also should be noted that Josephus hardly qualifies as the sole author of such statements made about Christ by those who rejected His deity. Ernest Renan, for example, was a nineteenth-century French historian whose book, The Life of Jesus, was a frontal assault on Christ’s deity that received major attention throughout Europe (see Thompson, 1994, 14:5). Yet in that very volume Renan wrote: “It is allowable to call Divine this sublime person who, each day, still presides over the destinies of the world” (as quoted in Schaff and Roussel, 1868, pp. 116-117).
Or consider H.G. Wells who, in 1931, authored The Outline of History. On page 270 of that famous work, Wells referred to Jesus as “a prophet of unprecedented power.” No one who knew Wells (a man who certainly did not believe in the divinity of Christ) ever would accuse his account of being flawed by “Christian interpolation.” The famous humanist, Will Durant, was an avowed atheist, yet he wrote: “The greatest question of our time is not communism vs. individualism, not Europe vs. America, not even the East vs. the West; it is whether men can bear to live without God” (1932, p. 23). Comments like those of Renan, Wells, and Durant document the fact that, on occasion, even unbelievers have written convincingly about God and Christ.
Furthermore, even if the material containing the alleged Christian interpolation is removed, the vocabulary and grammar of the section “cohere well with Josephus’ style and language” (Meier, 1990, p. 90). In fact, almost every word (omitting for the moment the supposed interpolations) is found elsewhere in Josephus (Meier, p. 90). Were the disputed material to be expunged, the testimony of Josephus still would verify the fact that Jesus Christ actually lived. Habermas therefore concluded:

There are good indications that the majority of the text is genuine. There is no textual evidence against it, and, conversely, there is very good manuscript evidence for this statement about Jesus, thus making it difficult to ignore. Additionally, leading scholars on the works of Josephus [Daniel-Rops, 1962, p. 21; Bruce, 1967, p. 108; Anderson, 1969, p. 20] have testified that this portion is written in the style of this Jewish historian (1996, p. 193).

In addition, Josephus did not remain mute regarding Christ in his later sections. Antiquities 20:9:1 relates that Ananus brought before the Sanhedrin “a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law, and condemned them to be stoned to death.” Bruce observed that this quote from Josephus “is chiefly important because he calls James ‘the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ,’ in such a way as to suggest that he has already made reference to Jesus. And we do find reference to him in all extant copies of Josephus” (Bruce, 1953, p. 109). Meier, in an article titled “Jesus in Josephus,” made it clear that rejecting this passage as actually having been written by Josephus defies accurate assessment of the text (1990, pp. 79-81). Meier also added another emphatic defense of the historical reliability of the text in Antiquities concerning Christ.

Practically no one is astounded or refuses to believe that in the same book 18 of The Jewish Antiquities Josephus also chose to write a longer sketch of another marginal Jew, another peculiar religious leader in Palestine, “John surnamed the Baptist” (Ant. 18.5.2). Fortunately for us, Josephus had more than a passing interest in marginal Jews (p. 99).

Regardless of what one believes about the writings of Josephus, the simple fact is that this well-educated, Jewish historian wrote about a man named Jesus Who actually existed in the first century. Yamauchi summarized quite well the findings of the secular sources regarding Christ:

Even if we did not have the New Testament or Christian writings, we would be able to conclude from such non-Christian writings as Josephus, the Talmud, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger that: (1) Jesus was a Jewish teacher; (2) many people believed that he performed healings and exorcisms; (3) he was rejected by the Jewish leaders; (4) he was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius; (5) despite this shameful death, his followers, who believed that he was still alive, spread beyond Palestine so that there were multitudes of them in Rome by 64 A.D.; (6) all kinds of people from the cities and countryside—men and women, slave and free—worshiped him as God by the beginning of the second century (1995, p. 222).

RELIABILITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT RECORDS

Although the above list of hostile and Jewish witnesses proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that Jesus actually lived, it is by no means the only historical evidence available to those interested in this topic. The gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), and the other 23 books that form the New Testament, provide more information about Jesus than any other source(s) available. But may these records be viewed as historical evidence, or are they instead writings whose reliability pales in comparison to other types of historical documentation? Blomberg has explained why the historical question of the Gospels, for example, must be considered.

Many who have never studied the gospels in a scholarly context believe that biblical criticism has virtually disproved the existence [of Christ—KB]. An examination of the gospel’s historical reliability must therefore precede a credible assessment of who Jesus was (1987, p. xx).

But how well do the New Testament documents compare with additional ancient, historical documents? F.F Bruce examined much of the evidence surrounding this question in his book, The New Testament Documents—Are They Reliable? As he and other writers (e.g., Metzger, 1968, p. 36; Geisler and Brooks, 1990, p. 159) have no-ted, there are 5,366 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament in existence today, in whole or in part, that serve to corroborate the accuracy of the New Testament. The best manuscripts of the New Testament are dated at roughly A.D. 350, with perhaps one of the most important of these being the Codex Vaticanus, “the chief treasure of the Vatican Library in Rome,” and the Codex Sinaiticus, which was purchased by the British from the Soviet Government in 1933 (Bruce, 1953, p. 20). Additionally, the Chester Beatty papyri, made public in 1931, contain eleven codices, three of which contain most of the New Testament (including the Gospels). Two of these codices boast of a date in the first half of the third century, while the third slides in a little later, being dated in the last half of the same century (Bruce, 1953, p. 21). The John Rylands Library boasts of even earlier evidence. A papyrus codex containing parts of John 18 dates to the time of Hadrian, who reigned from A.D. 117 to 138 (Bruce, 1953, p. 21).
Other attestation to the accuracy of the New Testament documents can be found in the writings of the so-called “apostolic fathers”—men who wrote primarily from A.D. 90 to 160 (Bruce, 1953, p. 22). Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Tatian, Clement of Rome, and Ignatius (writing before the close of the second century) all provided citations from one or more of the Gospels (Guthrie, 1990, p. 24). Other witnesses to the early authenticity of the New Testament are the Ancient Versions, which consist of the text of the New Testament translated into different languages. The Old Latin and the Old Syriac are the most ancient, being dated from the middle of the second century (Bruce, 1953, p. 23).
The available evidence makes it clear that the Gospels were accepted as authentic by the close of the second century (Guthrie, p. 24). They were complete (or substantially complete) before A.D. 100, with many of the writings circulating 20-40 years before the close of the first century (Bruce, 1953, p. 16). Linton remarked concerning the Gospels:

A fact known to all who have given any study at all to this subject is that these books were quoted, listed, catalogued, harmonized, cited as authority by different writers, Christian and Pagan, right back to the time of the apostles (1943, p. 39).

Such an assessment is absolutely correct. In fact, the New Testament enjoys far more historical documentation than any other volume ever known. There are only 643 copies of Homer’s Iliad, which is undeniably the most famous book of ancient Greece. No one doubts the text of Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars, but we have only 10 copies of it, the earliest of which was made 1,000 years after it was written. To have such abundance of copies for the New Testament from within 70 years of their writing is nothing short of amazing (Geisler and Brooks, 1990, pp. 159-160).
Someone might allege that the New Testament documents cannot be trusted because the writers had an agenda. But this in itself does not render what they said untruthful, especially in the light of corroborating evidence from hostile witnesses. There are other histories that are accepted despite their authors’ agendas. An “agenda” does not nullify the possibility of accurate historical knowledge.
In his work, The New Testament Documents—Are They Reliable?, Bruce offered more astounding comparisons. Livy wrote 142 books of Roman history, of which a mere 35 survive. The 35 known books are made manifest due to some 20 manuscripts, only one of which is as old as the fourth century. We have only two manuscripts of Tacitus’ Histories and Annals, one from the ninth century and one from the eleventh. The History of Thucydides, another well-known ancient work, is dependent upon only eight manuscripts, the oldest of these being dated about A.D. 900 (along with a few papyrus scraps dated at the beginning of the Christian era). The History of Herodotus finds itself in a similar situation. “Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals” (Bruce, 1953, pp. 20-21). Bruce thus declared: “It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament records than have many theologians” (1953, p. 19). As Linton put it:

There is no room for question that the records of the words and acts of Jesus of Galilee came from the pens of the men who, with John, wrote what they had “heard” and “seen” and their hands had “handled of the Word of life” (1943, pp. 39-40).

CONCLUSION

When someone asks the question, “Is the life of Jesus Christ a historic event?,” he or she must remember that “If we maintain that the life of our Lord is not a historical event, we are landed in hopeless difficulties; in consistency, we shall have to give up all ancient history and deny that there ever was such an event as the assassination of Julius Caesar” (Monser, 1961, p. 377).
Faced with such overwhelming evidence, it is unwise to reject the position that Jesus Christ actually walked the streets of Jerusalem in the first century. As Harvey has remarked, there are certain facts about Jesus that “are attested by at least as much reliable evidence as are countless others taken for granted as historical facts known to us from the ancient world.” But lest I be accused of misquoting him, let me point out that Harvey went on to say, “It can still be argued that we can have no reliable historical knowledge about Jesus with regard to anything that really matters” (1982, p. 6).
Harvey could not deny the fact that Jesus lived on this Earth. Critics do not like having to admit it, but they cannot successfully deny the fact that Jesus had a greater impact on the world than any single life before or after. Nor can they deny the fact that Jesus died at the hands of Pontius Pilate. Harvey and others can say only that such facts “do not really matter.” I contend that the facts that establish the existence of Jesus Christ of Nazareth really do matter. As Bruce stated, “The earliest propagators of Christianity welcomed the fullest examination of the credentials of their message” (1953, p. 122). While Paul was on trial before King Agrippa, he said to Festus: “For the king knoweth of these things, unto whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things is hidden from him; for this hath not been done in a corner” (Acts 26:26).
As the earliest apologists of Christianity welcomed a full examination of the credentials of the message that they preached, so do we today. These credentials have been weighed in the balance and not found wanting. The simple fact of the matter is that Jesus Christ did exist and live among men.

It is impossible to say that no one has the right to be an agnostic. But no one has the right to be an agnostic till he has thus dealt with the question, and faced this fact with an open mind. After that, he may be an agnostic—if he can (Anderson, 1985, p. 12).

REFERENCES

Anderson, J.N.D. (1969), Christianity: The Witness of History (London: Tyndale).
Anderson, Norman (1985), Jesus Christ: The Witness of History (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press), second edition.
Barker, Dan (1992), Losing Faith in Faith (Minneapolis, MN: Freedom From Religion Foundation).
Beare, Francis Wright (1962), The Earliest Records of Jesus (New York: Abingdon).
Blomberg, Craig L. (1987), The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).
Bruce, F.F. (1953), The New Testament Documents—Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), fourth edition.
Bruce, F.F. (1967), The New Testament Documents—Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), fifth edition.
Chapman, Colin (1981), The Case for Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Daniel-Rops, Henri, (1969), “Silence of Jesus’ Contemporaries,” The Sources for the Life of Christ, ed. Henri Daniel-Rops (New York: Hawthorn).
Durant, Will, ed. (1932), On the Meaning of Life (New York: Long and Smith).
Geisler, Norman L. and Ronald M. Brooks (1990), When Skeptics Ask (Wheaton, IL: Victor).
Guthrie, Donald (1990), New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).
Habermas, Gary R. (1996), The Historical Jesus (Joplin, MO: College Press).
Harvey, A.E. (1982), Jesus and the Constraints of History (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).
Horne, Thomas H. (1841), An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), 1970 reprint.
Jackson, Wayne (1991), “Josephus and the Bible [Part II]” Reason & Revelation, 11:29-32, August.
Josephus, Flavius (1957 reprint), The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus, trans. William Whitson (Philadelphia, PA: John Whitson).
Josephus, Flavius (1988 reprint), Josephus: The Essential Writings, trans. Paul L Maier (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel).
Kähler, Martin (1896), The So-called Historical Jesus and the Historic, Biblical Christ, trans. Carl E. Braaten (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress), 1964 reprint.
Key, Howard Clark (1970), Jesus in History (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World).
Linton, Irwin H. (1943), A Lawyer Examines the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), sixth edition.
Meier, John P. (1990), “Jesus in Josephus: A Modest Proposal.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 52:76-99.
Metzger, Bruce M. (1968), The Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press).
Monser, J.W. (1961), An Encyclopedia on the Evidences; or Masterpieces of Many Minds (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Rajak, Tessa (1984), Josephus: The Historian and His Society (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress).
Sanders, E.P. (1993), The Historical Figure of Jesus (New York: Lane-Penguin).
Schweitzer, Albert. (1964), The Quest for the Historical Jesus (New York: Macmillan).
Suetonius (1957 reprint), The Twelve Caesars, trans. Robert Graves (London: Penguin).
Schaff, Philip & N.M. Roussel (1868), The Romance of M. Renan and the Christ of the Gospels (New York: Carlton & Lanahan).
Tacitus, Cornelius P. (1952 reprint), The Annals and the Histories, trans. Michael Grant (Chicago, IL: William Benton), Great Books of the Western World Series, vol. 15.
Thompson, Bert (1994), “Famous Enemies of Christ—Ancient and Modern,” Reason & Revelation, 14:1-7, January.
Wells, H.G. (1931), Outline of History, Being a Plain History of Life and Mankind (Garden City, NY: Garden City Publishing).
Wilken, Robert L. (1990), “The Piety of the Persecutors,” Christian History, 9:16.
Yamauchi, Edwin M. (1995), “Jesus Outside the New Testament: What is the Evidence?,” Jesus Under Fire, ed. Michael J. Wilkins and J.P. Moreland (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Is the Large Hadron Collider a Big Bang Machine? by Branyon May, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4209

Is the Large Hadron Collider a Big Bang Machine?

by	Branyon May, Ph.D.

[Editor’s Note: The following article was written by A.P. scientist Dr. May who holds a B.S. degree in Physics from Angelo State University, as well as M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Astrophysics from the University of Alabama.]

In the news, it has been dubbed the “Big Bang Machine” (Boyle, 2008; “‘Big Bang’ Machine…, 2010; Than, 2011), but what exactly is the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and what does it have to do, if anything, with the Big Bang? Constructed by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) and located along the French-Swiss border, the LHC is the world’s largest particle accelerator and has been described as “the largest and most sophisticated scientific instrument ever built” (“CERN Inaugurates...,” 2008). Located about 100 meters (330 feet) underground, the LHC can accelerate a beam of protons to 99.99% the speed of light through an ultra-high vacuum beam-pipe connected in a large, circular circuit, almost 27 kilometers (17 miles) in circumference. The enormous magnets that direct the particle beams along their paths are cryogenically cooled to only 1.9 degrees above absolute zero (-271.3 deg C) (“Facts and Figures,” 2008). Along the beam’s path are four large detectors, of which the ATLAS detector represents the largest particle detector ever built, having a volume of over 28,000 cubic meters (7.4 million gallons) and weighing some 7,000 tons (“ATLAS—A Toroidal...,” 2008).
With regard to its connection to Big Bang cosmology, a CERN press release from September 2, 2003 declared, “By colliding particles at extremely high energies, the LHC should shed light on such questions as...What was the state of matter a few microseconds after the Big Bang?” (“CERN Celebrates Discoveries...,” 2003). Three years later in 2006, a similar statement was made in an October press release, that the LHC “possesses enough energy to recreate the first instances of the Big Bang” (“Stephen Hawking Tours...,” 2006). Some have even circulated speculations that the LHC will create micro-black holes and recreate the Big Bang, and global news stories seem to insinuate the LHC will solve all the remaining questions concerning how the Universe arose from a Big Bang. In fact, a video titled “Big Bang v2.0,” produced with support from the Science and Technology Facilities Council (a national research council in the United Kingdom), introduces the LHC under the auspices of being able to answer science’s biggest questions (“Big Bang v2.0,” n.d.). The video’s introduction displays the following questions: “What is Dark Matter?” “Why do things have mass?” “What happened at the Big Bang?” The next two frames give their reply: “The biggest questions in science will be answered... by the biggest experiment in history.” Yet, can the LHC really give the world what the headlines claim (cf. Miller, 2011a; Miller, 2011b)? It seems that a reality check is badly needed—one that is apart from all the sensational press and flashy media presentations.

GENERATING EXTREME, YET NATURAL CONDITIONS

It is obvious that sensationalism has taken its toll, when on the official LHC Web site under the page titled, “LHC ‘Big Questions,’” you find the following question: “I have heard that the LHC will recreate the Big Bang, does that mean it might create another Universe and if so what will happen to our Universe?” (“LHC ‘Big Questions’,” 2012a). This question is a logical outcome when considering the common moniker, “The Big Bang Machine,” the LHC has been given. The following response to this question, as quoted from the LHC Web site, illuminates several important ideas to put the LHC experiments into proper perspective:

People sometimes refer to recreating the Big Bang, but this is misleading. What they actually mean is:

• recreating the conditions and energies that existed shortly after the start of the Big Bang, not the moment at which the Big Bang started,
• recreating conditions on a micro scale, not on the same scale as the original Big Bang and,
• recreating energies that are continually being produced naturally (by high energy cosmic rays hitting the earth’s atmosphere) but at will and inside sophisticated detectors that track what is happening.

No Big Bang—so no possibility of creating a new Universe (“LHC ‘Big Questions’,” 2012b).

First, a quick note: although the final sentence declares, “No Big Bang,” the author is not implying a denial of the Big Bang Theory, but rather this summarizing statement, taken in context, is declaring that no experiment will create a Universe, wherein scientists would be able to watch space-time and matter unfold.
Next, notice in the response how it is repeatedly emphasized the experiments performed are attempts at “recreating” a set of energies or conditions thought to have been present shortly after the Big Bang. It is these extreme ranges of parameters that many scientists believe are in some form analogous to conditions shortly after the Big Bang. Their goal, therefore, is not and cannot be to generate, reproduce, or in any way initiate an event similar to what is alleged by the Big Bang Theory. Rather, they simply are generating a certain range of energy conditions. Sadly, their attempts at correcting this misconception are obscured, if not contradicted, even within their own Web site.

The LHC will collide lead nuclei so that they release their constituent quarks in a fleeting ‘Little Bang’. This will take us back to the time before these particles formed, re-creating the conditions early in the evolution of the universe, when quarks and gluons were free to mix without combining(“LHC ‘Big Questions’,” 2012c, emp. added).

It is not a matter of whether the LHC will create a Big Bang, a “Little Bang,” or a “mini-Big Bang” (Moskvitch, 2010). It cannot generate any “Bang,” as defined within a cosmological origins scenario.
Notice next, the third bulleted statement in the LHC’s response, which states that the conditions produced artificially in the LHC “are continually being produced naturally (by high energy cosmic rays hitting the earth’s atmosphere)...” (“LHC ‘Big Questions’,” 2012b). This simple statement has some profound implications. Especially when it is recognized that the set of conditions and energies to be produced at the LHC have and are being continually produced in nature, and are not a unique characteristic found only in the Big Bang scenario. As the parenthetical phrase states, nature’s equivalent to the LHC occurs when high-energy cosmic rays collide with Earth’s upper atmosphere.
Cosmic rays are very high-energy, subatomic particles that are produced from outside our solar system and within our galaxy. Some of these particles stream into Earth’s atmosphere, colliding with atmospheric particles to produce showers of lower-energy, secondary particles. Many of these cosmic rays are at energies comparable to and greater than the maximum estimated center-of-mass energies of the two counter-rotation proton beams of the LHC. In fact, the approximate rate at which such comparable cosmic rays enter Earth’s atmosphere is an astounding 250,000 particles per second, with over 7.8 trillion events occurring per year (Ellis, et al., 2008, p. 4). Do not let this fact escape notice: although the Big Bang theory requires extremely high-energy conditions in its model, the ability to produce such conditions (or the simple existence of such conditions) does not prove that the Universe came into existence in such a manner. Such conditions are involved in ongoing natural processes, of which scientists presently are deepening their understanding. The connection between the LHC and the cosmic-ray interactions is much more tangible. Consider the following: (1) the high-energy, cosmic-ray interactions in the atmosphere can be observed, measured, and tested in real-time data; (2) hypotheses can be verified or falsified, then adjusted; (3) subsequent predictions can be made and entire processes from beginning to end can be observed; (4) theories can be updated based on the concrete observations; and (5) results can be applied to the current working knowledge. Yet this connection apparently does not make headlines.
To those who might question the validity of a comparison between the LHC collisions and cosmic-ray events, notice that this same comparison is used as a central argument in a report by the LHC Safety Assessment Group (LSAG), which was tasked by CERN with addressing various safety concerns relating to the LHC experiments. As an overarching argument supporting the LHC as a safe endeavor, the authors drew upon this comparison to show that if Earth, Jupiter, the Sun, and countless stars across the galaxy can survive the enormous number of cosmic-ray collisions in their atmospheres (as evinced by their existence today), then the speculations about microscopic black-holes being created, growing, and consuming Earth, are unsubstantiated. The report’s abstract stated an important fact: the center-of-mass energies of the LHC collisions are “less than those reached in the atmosphere by some of the cosmic rays” (Ellis, et al., p. 1). In summarizing their arguments, the authors state, “Thus, the continued existence of the Earth and other astronomical bodies can be used to constrain or exclude speculations about possible new particles that might be produced by the LHC” (p. 5).
Also consider the following two quotes by Stephen Hawking of Cambridge University and Edward Kolb of the University of Chicago, respectively, who are quoted among many distinguished physicists and cosmologists on the CERN Web site.

The world will not come to an end when the LHC turns on. The LHC is absolutely safe.... Collisions releasing greater energy occur millions of times a day in the earth’s atmosphere and nothing terrible happens (“The Safety of the LHC,” 2008).

Nature has already done this experiment.... Cosmic rays have hit the moon with more energy and have not produced a black hole that has swallowed up the moon. The universe doesn’t go around popping off huge black holes (“The Safety of the LHC,” 2008).

Interestingly, a 2003 press release, which announced the upcoming 50^th anniversary of CERN, stated: “This new research facility—a 27 kilometre circular particle accelerator—will smash protons and other nuclei together head on, creating conditions that have not existed since the Big Bang” (“CERN Prepares...,” 2003). Of course, this statement is an obvious contradiction to the previous quotes discussed above. However, can it be explained as accurate to the current knowledge of that time, which has undergone developments since 2003? The answer is no. Although the press release stated that such conditions had not existed since the Big Bang, a safety report tasked by CERN was published the same year, and referenced how high-energy, cosmic rays represent a close comparison to the particle energies expected in the collisions of the LHC. In fact, the first sentence under the subsection titled “Cosmic Rays” stated, “Cosmic-ray processes reach the energies and energy densities that will be encountered at the LHC and, therefore, they may provide limits on possible disaster scenarios” (Blaizot, et al., 2003, p. 4). The report also referenced peer-reviewed papers from the journals Reviews of Modern Physics (Jaffe, et al., 2000) andPhysics Letters B (Dar, et al., 1999) with similarly-based arguments.
As the experiments are performed at the LHC and the physics of the high-energy collisions are analyzed, the results definitely will contribute to our understanding of matter in extreme conditions. The benefit of the LHC is the high level of control and reproducibility of conditions such as: the total energy of the colliding particles, whether the two beams collide or a beam and stationary target, the number and types of particles involved, and the minimizing of external contaminants. The descriptions and knowledge learned will be broadly applicable whenever those extreme conditions are encountered, but they do not in any way prove the Big Bang as the origin of the Universe. Thus, the “Big Bang Machine,” constructed to recreate the conditions supposedly found after the Big Bang, actually produces conditions currently observed in cosmic-ray interactions with Earth’s upper atmosphere (and with the Moon’s surface and the Sun’s atmosphere). So a more appropriate name might be “Cosmic-Ray Machine.”

ASTOUNDING DESIGN

From the earliest experiments of the composition of the atom, scientists have used particle collisions and the resulting interactions as a method to discover some of the most fundamental descriptions of matter. In these experiments, the fundamental laws of conservation (conservation of energy, momentum, charge, etc.) are the overarching guiding principles. These laws allow scientists to track the various collision results, knowing that predetermined input parameters (mass, energy, numbers of particles, and/or types of particles) restrict the possible output. Thus, scientists work from the existing input of mass-energy, knowing that the output must be derived from, and cannot exceed, the input into the closed system. Every natural source of energy, from the combustion in car engines to the Sun’s light to the spectacular supernovae, are described by the conservation laws of nature. Even the horrifyingly tremendous amount of energy released in a nuclear explosion is subject to the amount of mass-energy initially present. In the LHC, scientists are not creating matter/energy that was not already present. Likewise, the same is true for any Big Bang model—matter/energy cannot be created nor destroyed in the physical Universe by natural means (cf. Miller, 2007; Miller, 2010). Thus, from whence did it come?
With some initial “hiccups” (see “CERN Releases...,” 2008), the world’s largest particle accelerator, the Large Hadron Collider, began full operations in 2009. The enormous structure, complex engineering, precise detectors, extreme conditions, and intricate experiments that have been developed by many thousands of highly intelligent scientists and engineers over many years, are astounding. How is it that such immense intelligence is required in order to try to “recreate” an accidental, chaotic, purpose-less event—the Big Bang? Is this not an incredible contradiction? Yet, such is the sentiment with each press release and news headline that dubs the LHC the “Big Bang Machine.” When addressing this very question, “How did our Universe come to be the way it is?,” CERN’s own Web site replies matter-of-factly, “The Universe started with a Big Bang—but we don’t fully understand how or why it developed the way it did” (“LHC ‘Big Questions’,” 2012d). In this statement, no doubt is expressed as to whether the Big Bang event occurred, rather just a casual admission of lacking understanding in the details—including the supposed 13.7 billion years that followed. It would be unimaginable to describe the enormous efforts undertaken by those at CERN and the LHC to engineer, construct, and deploy such an amazing technical feat as anything but extraordinary design. It is more unimaginable to attribute anything but Divine design to the intricacies, precision, and complexities seen at every scale of the Universe.

REFERENCES

“ATLAS—A Toroidal LHC Apparatus,” (2008), CERN, http://public.web.CERN.ch/Public/en/LHC/ATLAS-en.html.
“‘Big Bang’ Machine Ready to Smash Records,” (2010), CBS News, March 30, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/29/tech/main6344326.shtml.
“Big Bang v2.0” (no date), http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/top-5-large-had/.
Blaizot, J.P., J. Iliopoulos, J. Madsen, et al. (2003), “Study of Potentially Dangerous Events During Heavy-Ion Collisions at the LHC: Report of the LHC Safety Study Group,” CERNScientific Information Service, http://doc.CERN.ch/yellowrep/2003/2003-001/p1.pdf.
Boyle, Alan (2008), “Scientists Turn on Biggest ‘Big Bang Machine,’” MSNBC, September 10, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26439957/.
“CERN Celebrates Discoveries and Looks to the Future,” (2003), CERNPress Release, September 2, http://press.web.CERN.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2003/PR12.03EWZsymposium.html.
“CERN Inaugurates the LHC” (2008), CERNPress Release, October 21, http://press.web.CERN.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2008/PR16.08E.html.
“CERN Prepares for 50th Anniversary” (2003), CERNPress Release, July 1, http://press.web.CERN.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2003/PR10.03ECERN50.html.
“CERN Releases Analysis of LHC Incident” (2008), CERNPress Release, October 16, http://press.web.CERN.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2008/PR14.08E.html.
Dar, Arnon, A. DeRujula, and Ulrich Heinz (1999), “Will Relativistic Heavy-Ion Colliders Destroy Our Planet?,” Physics Letters B, 470[1-4]:142.
Ellis, John, Gian Giudice, Michelangelo Mangano, et al. (2008), “Review of the Safety of LHC Collisions,” Journal of Physics G: Nuclear Particle Physics, 35:115004.
“Facts and Figures” (2008), CERN, http://public.web.CERN.ch/Public/en/LHC/Facts-en.html.
Jaffe, R.L., W. Busza, F. Wilczek, and J. Sandweiss (2000), “Review of Speculative ‘Disaster Scenarios’ at RHIC,” Reviews of Modern Physics, 72[4]:1125.
LHC ‘Big Questions’” (2012a), http://www.lhc.ac.uk/About+the+LHC/LHC+Big+Questions/11841.aspx.
“LHC ‘Big Questions’” (2012b), http://www.lhc.ac.uk/About+the+LHC/LHC+Big+Questions/17709.aspx.
“LHC ‘Big Questions’” (2012c), http://www.lhc.ac.uk/About+the+LHC/LHC+Big+Questions/17735.aspx.
“LHC ‘Big Questions’” (2012d), http://www.lhc.ac.uk/About+the+LHC/LHC+Big+Questions/17733.aspx.
Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,” Reason & Revelation, 27:25-31, April, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3293.
Miller, Jeff (2010), “The Laws of Thermodynamics Don’t Apply to the Universe!” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/3704.
Miller, Jeff (2011a), “Higgs Boson—The ‘God Particle’?” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=977&article=1500.
Miller, Jeff (2011b), “Higgs Boson—Update,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/4120.
Moskvitch, Katia (2010), “Large Hadron Collider (LHC) Generates a ‘mini-Big Bang’,” BBC News, November 8, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11711228.
“The Safety of the LHC” (2008), CERN, http://public.web.CERN.ch/Public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html.
“Stephen Hawking Tours the Future of Particle Physics at CERN” (2006), CERNPress Release, October 2, http://press.web.CERN.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2006/PR13.06E.html.
Than, Ker (2011), “Densest Matter Created in Big-Bang Machine,” National Geographic News, May 24, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/05/110524-densest-matter-created-lhc-alice-big-bang-space-science.

The Sacredness of Marriage by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1237

The Sacredness of Marriage

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Since its inception, the United States of America has been a country whose Founding Fathers recognized the need for God in public life, and the need for Bible principles of morality to govern and structure American society. Our Founding Fathers recognized that if our country ever strayed significantly away from these foundational moral, spiritual, and ethical principles, we would be doomed as a nation. For 150 years, our society recognized the importance of what some are calling the “traditional family,” i.e., a husband and a wife who marry for life and rear their children together. Divorce was almost unheard of in this country. When it did occur, it was regarded as deviant behavior. Family disruption in the form of separation, divorce, and out-of-wedlock birth were kept to a minimum by strong religious, social, and even legal sanctions. Immediately after World War II, most American children grew up in a family with both biological parents who were married to each other.
This state of affairs held sway up through the 1940s and 1950s. In fact, disruption of the traditional American family reached a historic low in the 1950s and early 1960s. But then something happened (see Whitehead, 1993). Beginning in about 1965, the divorce rate suddenly skyrocketed, more than doubling over the next fifteen years. By 1974, divorce passed death as the leading cause of family breakup. By 1980, only fifty percent of children could expect to spend their entire childhood with both their parents. Now half of all marriages end in divorce. Every year a million children go through divorce or separation, and almost as many more are born out of wedlock. People who remarry after divorce are more likely to break up than couples in first marriages. The same is true for couples who just live together.
Overall child well-being has declined, despite a decrease in the number of children per family, an increase in the educational level of parents, and historically high levels of public spending. The teen suicide has more than tripled. Juvenile crime has increased and become more violent. School performance has continued to decline. Some sociologists are now recognizing the incredibly harmful effect these circumstances are having on our country and the homes of America. They are beginning to realize the relationship between family structure and declining child well-being. Some are even admitting that the social arrangement that has proved most successful in ensuring the physical survival and promoting the social development of the child is the family unit of the biological mother and father.
But our society as a whole has been slow to see family disruption as a severe national problem. Why? A fundamental shift has occurred in our culture with reference to religious and moral value. Much of our society has jettisoned the Bible as the absolute standard of behavior. The Bible is no longer considered to be the authoritative regulator of daily living. Many, perhaps most, Americans no longer feel that divorce is wrong. “Irreconcilable differences” and “incompatibility” are seen as perfectly legitimate reasons for divorce—flying directly in the face of Bible teaching. Many Americans no longer feel that a couple simply living together without marriage is morally wrong. By the mid-1970s, three-fourths of Americans said that it is not morally wrong for a woman to have a child outside marriage.
We could debate the causes of this basic cultural shifting. I would argue that the influence of evolution and humanism in our educational system, the impact of feminism, the increased participation of women in the work force to the neglect of their children, the widespread prosperity that we enjoy as a nation (causing us to forget God and to indulge ourselves)—these and other factors have contributed to our moral decline. Hollywood, television, and the cinema have unquestionably glamorized, defended, and promoted divorce, premarital sex, unwed motherhood, abortion, and the use of alcohol, filthy language, and many other immoral behaviors.
Ironically—and tragically—the media have been working overtime to discredit the married, two-parent family by playing up instances of incest, violence, and abuse. If a family has religious inclinations, its members are depicted on programs as weirdoes and deviants. In fact, it is surely disgusting to the sensibilities of the morally upright that what was once mainstream and normal (i.e., the religious, church-going, two-parent family) is being demonized and ridiculed, while behavior that once was considered deviant, reprehensible, and immoral is paraded before society—on TV, in the news, and in the courts—as the social norm. Anyone who lifts a finger to speak against such immorality is berated as “homophobic,” “prejudiced,” “judgmental,” “mean-spirited,” and guilty of a “hate crime.”
Two illustrations of the undermining of the marriage relationship as God intended are the recent decisions regarding homosexuality by the United States Supreme Court and the Episcopal Church. By a 62-45 vote, the Episcopal House of Bishops elected the denomination’s first homosexual bishop on August 5, 2003 (see Duin, 2003). Only days earlier, the Supreme Court ruled that sodomy laws are unconstitutional—even though sodomy was treated as a criminal offense in all of the original thirteen colonies and eventually every one of the fifty states (see Robinson, 2003; “Sodomy Laws,” 2003). Sadly, a generation has arisen who simply does not share the values of its parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents. Sexual fidelity, lifelong marriage, and parenthood are simply no longer held up as worthwhile personal goals.
All of this self-centeredness has taken its greatest toll on the children. The erosion of basic moral values in exchange for pluralism, the growing tolerance of moral and ethical diversity, the shifting of emphasis to choice, freedom, and self-expression, have all inflicted great damage on marriage and the family—especially the children. The fuller body of empirical research now documents a number of startling conclusions:

1. Divorce almost always brings a decline in the standard of living for the mother and children, plus a dependence on welfare; children in single-parent homes are far more likely to propagate the same behavior.
2. Children never fully recover from divorce. Five, ten, fifteen years after a divorce, the children suffer from depression, under-achievement, and ultimately, their own troubled relationships.
3. Young adults from disrupted families are nearly twice as likely as those from intact families to receive psychological help.
4. Children in disrupted families are nearly twice as likely as those in intact families to drop out of high school. Those who remain in school show significant differences in educational attainment from those children who grow up in intact families.
5. Remarriage does not reproduce nor restore the intact family structure. The latest research confirms that stepparents cannot replace the original home.
6. For children whose parents divorced, the risk of divorce is two to three times greater than it is for children from married parent families.

These findings—and many others—underscore the importance of both a mother and a father in fostering the emotional well-being of children. But even more far-reaching effects have been documented—effects that impact society at large beyond the confines of the family. Authorities now are beginning to admit that a central cause of our most pressing social problems (i.e., poverty, crime, and school performance) is the breakup of the traditional American family.
What is even more startling is the fact that as an institution, marriage has lost much of its legal, religious, and social meaning and authority. For most of American history, marriage was one of the most important rites of passage in life. But now, marriage has lost much of its role and significance as a rite of passage. Sex is increasingly detached from the promise or expectation of marriage. Cohabitation is emerging as a significant experience for young adults. It is now replacing marriage as the first living together union. It is estimated that a quarter of unmarried women between the ages of 25 and 39 are currently living with a partner, and about half have lived at some time with an unmarried partner. Referring to this state of affairs as “the deinstitutionalization of marriage,” researchers at the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University concluded: “Taken together, the marriage indicators do not argue for optimism about a quick or widespread comeback of marriage. Persistent long-term trends suggest a steady weakening of marriage as a lasting union, a major stage in the adult life course, and as the primary institution governing childbearing and parenthood” (Popenoe and Whitehead, 1999).
Make no mistake: the social science evidence clearly documents the fact that the breakdown of the traditional two-parent, biological husband-wife family is a major factor contributing to the overall moral, religious, and ethical decline of our country. The social fabric of American civilization is literally tearing apart. The social arrangement that has proved most successful in ensuring the physical survival, and promoting the social development, of the child is the family unit of the biological mother and father. America is in deep trouble.
Our society is not likely to solve these massive problems. The liberal elite has been operating with great vigor for over forty years to push our country into “value neutrality” and “political correctness.” The clear-cut restraints and distinctions between right and wrong so typical of American culture in the past have been systematically dismantled. Relativism has taken the place of objective, absolute truth. The glorification of the individual has encouraged people to determine for themselves right and wrong—rather than looking outside themselves to the Transcendent Creator of the Universe. Consequently, whatever the individual feels is right is sanctioned as right—at least for that individual. The absolute standard of moral value and human behavior—that previously governed our nation—has been successfully supplanted. Subjectivity reigns supreme, and God has been effectively severed from human culture. “Everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:12).

GOD’S VIEW OF THE MATTER

The fact remains that there is a God in heaven (Daniel 2:28). God has spoken to the human race through His written Word, i.e., the Bible. In that inspired communication, He has designated the structure of society. He created male and female with the intention for one man to marry one woman for life (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:4-6). Here is the foundational building block of humanity. That is His simple will on the matter. He hates divorce (Malachi 2:16). The only way He permits divorce is if one marriage partner divorces the other marriage partner for the one reason that the marriage partner has committed fornication, i.e., illicit sexual intercourse. Upon that basis alone, God allows the innocent partner to put away that unfaithful mate and form a second marriage (Matthew 19:3-9).
God intended for the husband and wife to produce children who, in turn, are to receive nurturing and care from their parents in a stable, loving home (Ephesians 6:1-4; Colossians 3:18-21). In this divinely ordained institution of the home, God intended that children receive the necessary instruction and training to prepare them to be productive, honest, God-fearing, hard-working citizens of their country. The home was designed by God to impart to each succeeding generation proper religious, moral, and social principles that would in turn make their nation strong and virtuous. The Bible is filled with references to the essential ingredients of healthy family life (e.g., Deuteronomy 4:7-9; 6:1-9; 11:18-21; 32:46-47; Psalm 127; Proverbs 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 11:29; 12:4; 14:1; 15:25,27; 17:1,13; 31:10-31), including proper parenting skills (Proverbs 13:24; 19:18; 22:15; 23:13-14; 29:15,17; Ephesians 6:1-4).

CONCLUSION

How simple! The solution to the confusion and corruption that has gripped American civilization is simple—if hearts are humbly yielded to the will of God. If we could get our families back on track according to God’s will, we could get our nation back on track. It starts with you and me. We must believe in, affirm to others, and conform ourselves to the sacredness of marriage.

REFERENCES

Duin, Julia (2003), “Gay Bishop Sets Off Talk of Episcopal Schism,” The Washington Times, [On-line], URL: http://www.dynamic.washtimes.com/print_story.cfm?StoryID=20030806-123147-7931r.
Popenoe, David and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead (1999), “What’s Happening to Marriage?” [On-line], URL: http//marriage.Rutgers.edu/Publications/pubwhatshappening.htm.
Robinson, B.A. (2003), “Criminalizing Same-Sex Behavior,” [On-line], URL: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_laws1.htm.
“Sodomy Laws in the United States,” (2003), [On-line], URL: http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/usa.htm.
Whitehead, Barbara (1993), “Dan Quayle Was Right,” The Atlantic Monthly, [On-line], URL: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/family/danquayl.htm.

Seeing God “Face to Face” by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=2682&b=Deuteronomy

Seeing God “Face to Face”

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In the Kyle Butt/Dan Barker debate, Dan Barker alleged that He “knows” the God of the Bible cannot exist because “there are mutually incompatible properties/characteristics of the God that’s in this book [the Bible—EL] that rule out the possibility of His existence” (2009). One of the supposed contradictions that Barker mentioned was that God claims invisibility, yet has been seen. (His assertion is found 10 minutes and 55 seconds into his first speech.) Since biblical passages such as Exodus 33:20-23, John 1:18, and 1 John 4:12 teach that God cannot be seen, while other scriptures indicate that man has seen God and spoken to him “face to face” (Exodus 33:11; Genesis 32:30), allegedly “the God of the Bible does not exist.”
Although in modern times words are regularly used in many different senses (e.g., hot and cold, good and bad), Barker, like so many Bible critics, has dismissed the possibility that the terms in the aforementioned passages were used in different senses. Throughout Scripture, however, words are often used in various ways. In James 2:5, the term “poor” refers to material wealth, whereas the term “rich” has to do with a person’s spiritual well-being. In Philippians 3:12,15, Paul used the term “perfect” (NASB) in different senses. Although Paul had attained spiritual maturity (“perfection”) in Christ (vs. 15), he had not yet attained the perfect “final thing, the victor’s prize of the heavenly calling in Christ Jesus” (Schippers, 1971, 2:62; cf. Philippians 3:9-11). Similarly, in one sense man has seen God, but in another sense he has not.
Consider the first chapter of John where we learn that in the beginning Jesus was with God and “was God” (1:1; cf. 14,17). Though John wrote that Jesus “became flesh and dwelt among us” (1:14), he indicated only four sentences later that “no one has seen God at any time” (1:18; 1 John 4:12). Was Jesus God? Yes. Did man see Jesus? Yes. So in what sense has man not seen God? No human has ever seen Jesus in His true image (i.e., as a spirit Being—John 4:24—in all of His fullness, glory, and splendor). When God, the Word, appeared on Earth 2,000 years ago, He came in a veiled form. In his letter to the church at Philippi, the apostle Paul mentioned that Christ—Who had existed in heaven “in the form of God”—“made Himself of no reputation,” and took on the “likeness of men” (Philippians 2:6-7). Mankind saw an embodiment of deity as Jesus dwelt on Earth in the form of a man. Men saw “the Word” that “became flesh.” Likewise, when Jacob “struggled with God” (Genesis 32:28), He saw only a form of God, not the spiritual, invisible, omnipresent God Who fills heaven and Earth (Jeremiah 23:23-24).
But what about those statements which indicate that man saw or spoke to God “face to face”? Jacob said, “I have seen God face to face” (Genesis 32:30). Gideon proclaimed: “I have seen the Angel of the Lord face to face” (Judges 6:22). Exodus 33:11 affirms that “the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.” First, although these men witnessed great and awesome things, they still only saw manifestations of God and a part of His glory (cf. Exodus 33:18-23). Second, the words “face” and “face to face” are used in different senses in Scripture. Though Exodus 33:11 reveals that God spoke to Moses “face to face,” only nine verses later God told Moses, “You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live” (33:20). Are we to believe (as Barker and other critics assert) that the author of Exodus was so misguided that he wrote contradictory statements within only nine verses of each other? Certainly not! What then does the Bible mean when it says that God “knew” (Deuteronomy 34:10) or “spoke to Moses face to face” (Exodus 33:11)? The answer is found in Numbers 12. Aaron and Miriam had spoken against Moses and arrogantly asked: “Has the Lord indeed spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us also?” (Numbers 12:2). God then appeared to Aaron and Miriam, saying: “If there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream. Not so with My servant Moses; He is faithful in all My house. I speak with him face to face, even plainly, and not in dark sayings; and he sees the form of the Lord” (Numbers 12:6-8, emp. added). Notice the contrast: God spoke to the prophets of Israel through visions and dreams, but to Moses He spoke, “not in dark sayings,” but “plainly.” In other words, God, Who never showed His face to Moses (Exodus 33:20), nevertheless allowed Moses to see “some unmistakable evidence of His glorious presence” (Jamieson, 1997), and spoke to him “face to face, as a man speaks to his friend” (33:11), i.e., He spoke to Moses plainly, directly, etc.
The Bible does not reveal “mutually incompatible characteristics of God” as Barker has alleged. His assertions in no way prove that the God of the Bible does not exist or that the Bible is unreliable. In truth, Barker’s comments merely reveal that he is a dishonest interpreter of Scripture. If Barker can work “side by side” with a colleague without literally working inches from him (Barker, 2008, p. 335), or if he can see “eye to eye” with a fellow atheist without ever literally looking into the atheist’s eyes, then Barker can understand that God could speak “face to face” with Moses without literally revealing to him His full, glorious “face.”

REFERENCES

Barker, Dan (2008), godless (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press).
Butt, Kyle and Dan Barker (2009), Does the God of the Bible Exist? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Jamieson, Robert, et al. (1997), Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Bible Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Schippers, R. (1971), “Telos,” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

What do we need? by Roy Davison

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/needs.html

What do we need?

The basic needs of man are air, water, food, clothing and shelter.

The Scriptures teach that one must provide for himself and for the needs of his family: "If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat" (2 Thessalonians 3:10).

Yet there are always people who are in need because of age, sickness or other circumstances. Believers help each other: "And let our people also learn to maintain good works, to meet urgent needs, that they may not be unfruitful" (Titus 3:14). "Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need" (Ephesians 4:28).

We help each other through love: "Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another; not lagging in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly in prayer; distributing to the needs of the saints, given to hospitality" (Romans 12:10-13).

Empty words are not love: "If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,' but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?" (James 2:15,16). "But whoever has this world's goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?" (1 John 3:17).

The church at Jerusalem set the tone in this: "Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need" (Acts 2:44,45). "Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles' feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need" (Acts 4:34,35).

The churches of Achaia glorified God by helping people in other countries: "For the administration of this service not only supplies the needs of the saints, but also is abounding through many thanksgivings to God, while, through the proof of this ministry, they glorify God for the obedience of your confession to the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal sharing with them and all men" (2 Corinthians 9:12,13). Notice that this sharing is described as obeying the gospel.

In all this we can depend on God's help. He knows what we need: "But when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words. Therefore do not be like them. For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him" (Matthew 6:7,8).

When we help others, God will also care for us. After Paul had thanked the Philippians for their support, he continued: "And my God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus" (Philippians 4:19).

Meeting our basic needs ought not to be the highest goal of our lives: "Therefore do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you" (Matthew 6:31-33).

Man's spiritual needs are ignored by many, especially if they are well off. To the wealthy, lukewarm church at Laodicea Jesus said: "You say, 'I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing' and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked" (Revelation 3:17).

Spiritual needs are more important than physical needs. Martha had to learn this: "Now it happened as they went that He entered a certain village; and a certain woman named Martha welcomed Him into her house. And she had a sister called Mary, who also sat at Jesus' feet and heard His word. But Martha was distracted with much serving, and she approached Him and said, 'Lord, do You not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Therefore tell her to help me.' And Jesus answered and said to her, 'Martha, Martha, you are worried and troubled about many things. But one thing is needed, and Mary has chosen that good part, which will not be taken away from her'" (Luke 10:38-42).

Members of the body of Christ need each other: "And the eye cannot say to the hand, 'I have no need of you'; nor again the head to the feet, 'I have no need of you.' No, much rather, those members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary" (1 Corinthians 12:21,22).

For edification, Jesus has given shepherds, evangelists and teachers to the church (Ephesians 4:1-18). Especially those who have recently become Christians need much help from others. Those to whom the Hebrew letter was written, had remained spiritually immature. "For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food" (Hebrews 5:12).

Above all, we need Jesus, who is the bread of life. "I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world" (John 6:48-51).

We need forgiveness of sins, which is only possible through Christ: "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). We can receive forgiveness if we believe in Jesus, repent and are baptized: "Then Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit'" (Acts 2:38).

Many people think they do not need baptism. They are extremely arrogant because both John the Baptist and Jesus Himself thought otherwise. "Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. And John tried to prevent Him, saying, 'I have need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?' But Jesus answered and said to him, 'Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.' Then he allowed Him" (Matthew 3:13- 15).

We arise from baptism to walk in newness of life (Romans 6:3,4). Then we must continue to follow Christ: "For you have need of endurance, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise" (Hebrews 10:36).

Trusting in God, let us labor to meet our basic needs and to help others. Above all, let us care for our spiritual needs by seeking God's kingdom. Jesus is the only source of spiritual sustenance.
Roy Davison

The Scripture quotations in this article are from
The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982,
Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers unless indicated otherwise.
Permission for reference use has been granted.

Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

Contentment by Gary Rose

A place of safety, rest and security; a pleasant place where one can find contentment. And its not just for cats...

Psalm 23 (WEB)

  ¹ Yahweh is my shepherd: 
I shall lack nothing. 
  ² He makes me lie down in green pastures. 
He leads me beside still waters. (emp. added vss. 1&2)

  ³ He restores my soul. 
He guides me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake. 

  ⁴ Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, 
I will fear no evil, for you are with me. 
Your rod and your staff, they comfort me. 

  ⁵ You prepare a table before me 
in the presence of my enemies. 
You anoint my head with oil. My cup runs over. 

  ⁶ Surely goodness and loving kindness shall follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in Yahweh’s house forever. (emp. added vs. 6)

These things and more await those who follow the God of all the universe! Over my lifetime, I have thought about heaven countless times, but until now I never realized that there will probably be soft, green grass to sit on.

Just saying....