The Miracle Of Healing vs. Skepticism?

(Click "Read More" to watch the video)

I want to say that the blogosphere is an interesting tool. There are all kinds of people who claim to have some sort of expertise on some sort of subject. There is probably more argumentation over God and miracles than anything else on the internet including internet porn. One one hand this is a good thing that there is robust conversation and that conversation is about God, on the other hand the misinformation that centers around God and miracles is astounding. That misinformation seems to create its own culture of either internet miracle proponents or internet miracle critics and professional critics and skeptics like Michael Shermer, James Randi and others, who are modern thinkers who are scientifically centered. (so they say) These are  individuals who follow Humes thoughts that miracles don't exist as we discussed in an earlier post The Miracle Of Life After Death.

To these individuals it really doesn't matter what anyone's personal experience with God is or what anyone has experienced so far as healing by the hand of God. Yet they persist in calling others close-minded. First, for them, God doesn't exist. Secondly, all things that are not understood in the current realm of reality are chalked off to simple ignorance or lack of knowledge of some natural process. Therefore, critics such as these men play the "naturalistic faith card" to explain what they don't currently understand saying that "We'll understanding it better (by and by) when science comes". So the critic applies a "faith" in science with an expectation that science will answer all things even if its not in their lifetimes...This is revealing. It is called Scientism or Philosophical Materialism, and is actually the worship of the creature (science) and not the creator. 

Romans 1:20-25 ~ "20-For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21-Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22-Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23-And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24-Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25-Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."  

Read more!

Sin, Mistakes & Jesus

Heb. 4:15-16 ~ "15-For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16-Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need."

As I continue in the series I've subtitled "Atheism's Greatest Hits" It's my intent to present arguments and the resolution to those arguments so that Saints who are unfamiliar with these subjects won't be blindsided with attempts to undermine the Christian faith. We'll continue in this series by addressing and answering the question Did Jesus Make A Mistake?
We will deal with biblical inerrancy in a future post to refute the current demonically inspired lies regarding the reliability of the biblical texts themselves. For this writing I would like the critic to assume that what has been documented by biblical authors is fully accurate as written as I only wish to deal with the specific point of Sin, Mistakes & Jesus Words.

A Humanly Fallible Jesus?
Apostate Professor Of New Testament Studies at UNC Chapel Hill, Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, asserts in his book Misquoting Jesus that his faith and belief was wrecked when he realized that Jesus made a critical mistake in reconciling Mark 2:26 with 1 Sam. 21:1-6, by claiming that David and his men ate the showbread "when Abiathar was the high priest." He goes on to claim that scripture records that when the event took place Ahimelech (Abiathar’s father) was actually the high priest. Therefore either Mark was wrong in his recounting or Jesus was wrong in reciting the passage. Either way, according to him, somebody was wrong.

Another popular criticism extends from the use of the term "this generation" in Mt. 24:34 ~ "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." The critic asserts that this passage is referring to the Great Tribulation and Judgement (Parousia) of the end times which would occur within a 40 year time frame. Further the critic asserts that there was a further promise of impending judgement upon Caiphas (Israel) in Mark 14:61-62 ~"61-But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62-And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."

The assertion is that since the world yet exists Jesus was wrong about the impending judgement of the world and therefore made a mistake or certainly no less than mis-spoke and is simply a failed doomsday prophet as a result.

Read more!

The Raging Battle For The Jesus Of History

Of a certainty there has been no more controversial subject in historical studies than that of the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus is the head and the Chief Cornerstone of the Christian faith. In Christianity almost every word recorded within the pages of holy writ refer ultimately to Jesus. For the skeptic, and agnostic this poseses a problem of epic proportions. For the question is asked how can we truely know this Jesus of history?

This sort of conundrum has led to a host of various interpretations of history and faith as it pertains to the discovery of the "real" Jesus. It was during the 18th Century Enlightenment that German, Deist scholar Dr. Hermann S. Reimarus (1694-1768) set forth a totally different and radical view of who Jesus was. He set forth the idea that Jesus was a political and social idealist who never intended to start a religion and failed in his mission to liberate the Jews politically. He gave no creedence to the Jesus of faith or miracles for that matter. (Please Go Here To See Why He Was Wrong)

Partially due to the era of Enlightenment, there have been countless individuals who have set out to define, shape and reevaluate who Jesus was. To display how heated and contentious this subject can be Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) reviving thoughts set forth by German Professor G. Wobbermin tried to solidify the idea that the "historical" Jesus was even different from the "historic" Jesus. The distinction, he claimed, was that the "historic" Jesus was responsible for untold evil and repression of individuals down through the ages, while the "historical" Jesus was a person of meekness who truely sought to help individuals. In essence, in this argument, the "historic" Jesus is a product of what Christians and the church "believe" about Jesus and that "belief" is not necessarily patterened after the "historical" person.

Jesus very own words seems to negatively cap this argument in some way:

Mt. 10:34-36 ~ "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35-For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36-And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household."

Again, there have been countless others such as E.P. Sanders and in more recent times apostates such as John Dominick Crossan, co-founder of the Jesus Seminar (The Who's Who Of Apostates), and a host of other agnostic professors some of which have been featured HERE, such as Elaine Pagels, Bart D. Ehrman and James D. Tabor and even atheists such as Robert Price and Richard Carrier that have set forth their own versions of the historical Jesus. So among scholars as we have noted, there is a battle for the historical Jesus.

Dr. John P. Meier, Professor of New Testament at the University Of Notre Dame, in his landmark works "A Marginal Jew- Rethinking The Historical Jesus" Volumes 1-3 Poses a question in Volume 1 of the Series as such:

• "...what do we mean when we say that we are pursuing the "historical Jesus" or the "Jesus of history"?..."By the Jesus of history I mean a Jesus that we can "recover" and examine by using the scientific tools of modern historical research." ~ Dr. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Rethinking The Historical Jesus Volume 1, (1991 Doubleday) pg. 25.

One of the primary influences within modern scholarship pronouncing the differences between the historic and historical Jesus was German Lutheran, New Testament professor and father of biblical form criticism, Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976) He rejected the historical Jesus as a basis for faith and claimed the genre of the gospels to be kerygma which he described as a development of preaching, having taken a literary form. Regarding the person of Jesus however, he set forth the following:

• "...we can know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus, since the early Christian sources show no interest in either, are moreover fragmentary and often legendary..." ~ Rudolf Bultmann "Jesus And The Word" pg. 14

One of the reasons this is so important and controversial is because we can't and don't necessarily know "everything" about the Jesus of history. For instance, we do NOT know his favorite colors, food, or shoes etc. Other even more significant historical information such as what Jesus did in his intermediate years is still a mystery to us. These are the things that we can only wonder about the Jesus of history, but yet we have received from him enough to evaluate and know the Jesus of our faith.

These thoughts and recent discoveries (1945) of alternate gospels at Nag Hammadi, Egypt have caused some scholars to proclaim that we now have the missing pieces necessary to help us find the "real" Jesus. These finds, however have been less than convincing and in many cases clearly legendary dated too late to shed any light on the person of the First Century Messiah and savior of the world, and contain messages more associated with gnosticism than Christianity in any era.

For the person who doesn't mind delving deeply into the epistemology of their faith and further past traditional biblical studies, these thoughts and this debate quite naturally lead to other questions that I pose and ask you to contemplate and respond:

• Is the Jesus of history the same as the Jesus of faith?
• Whom must the Christian know in order to gain salvation, the historical Jesus or the Jesus of faith?
• Are we required biblically to know the Jesus of history in order to come to saving faith?

As you may tell this is and can be a rather complicated study. We know from scipture that we must believe God in order to receive:

Heb.11:6 ~ "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

However this verse addresses a matter of faith and not necessarily history.

In essence this post os for them that are into serious analysis of their faith and examination of Jesus. One thing I am confident of is that Jesus can stand any thorough examination that we require. He remains the only figure in history that invites us to emainine him and know his realness. Remember what Jesus said to Thomas:

John 20:24-29 ~ "24-But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25-The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. 26-And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 27-Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28-And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29-Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

Thank God, Jesus can stand any examination whether one of history or one of faith.

Blessed!

Picture Courtesy of Greg Webb, Black Jesus Picture Collection

Recommended Resources:

The Case For The Real Jesus ~ Lee Strobel, 2007 Zondervan

Dethroning Jesus ~ Darrell Bock & Daniel B. Wallace, 2007 Thomas Nelson

Reinventing Jesus ~ Komoszewski, Sawyer & Wallace, 2006 Kregel

The Missing Gospels ~ Darrell Bock, 2006 Nelson Books

The Jesus Legend ~ Paul Eddy & Gregory Boyd, 2007 Baker Academic

Read more!