Thursday, July 04, 2019

Video Documentary- The Case for Christian Theism: The Reasonable Faith UK Tour

Text taken from here:

In 2011, Dr. William Lane Craig, the founder and president of Reasonable Faith, participated in a series of lectures and debates from London to Birmingham. This documentary contains never-before-seen interviews with attendees and participants who share their perspective on each event while also focusing on the arguments for the existence of God throughout the tour.


Courage and Godspeed,

Friday, June 28, 2019

Apologist Interview: Tyler Vela

Topic- Pre-Suppositional Apologetics
TB: How did you become a Christian?

Vela: Only by the sovereign grace of God and his providence in knowing me, dying in my place, calling me, and bringing me home. As the saying goes, I added nothing to my salvation except the sin that made it possible. However I’m sure you are looking for the testimonial aspect of it. In that regard, I was born in a non-Christian home with no religious upbringing at all. I grew up entirely unchurched and was an atheist for my teen years. It was actually in college during an undergraduate philosophy program that one of my professors, an atheist, was going through arguments for the existence of God in a metaphysics course. He was forthright enough to admit that some of them posed strong challenges to non-religious and naturalistic worldviews. Of particular interest to me was a version of the moral argument in which the responses from my own naturalistic worldview seem inadequate to the task of grounding any meaningful theory of moral values and duties. From that time on, a slow dismantling of my naturalistic worldview was underway and I became more open to theistic explanations for philosophical concepts such as morality, logic, intentionality, rights, personhood, mind, etc. Shortly after I began dating a girl who took me to church several times and I absolutely….hated it. I now have the categories in place that looking back I realize it was a rather waspy, evangelical, seeker focused, kind of subcultural expression of the church. It was not until I began going to a different college aged service that appeared to not apologize for the hard questions and was no so steeped in “Christianese” that I heard the gospel afresh for the first time under the preaching of Dan Kimball. I went home one night after what was probably my 3rd service, and woke up in the middle of the night undone. That is the best way I can describe it. I felt, unraveled, provoked, unclean. Sinful. For the first time I realized what all those preachers had meant about my need for God and his grace of the cross. I prayed for the first time in my life, with the words of someone unchurched without any of the right terms or concepts to do so, but it was a moment of repentance and submission to the God who is there. I have grown in my worldview, my theological and philosophical beliefs and convictions, and my devotion to my Savior over time, but it was at the moment when God brought me to new life.

TB: Can you tell us a bit about your ministry?

Vela: The Freed Thinker Podcast and blog was born out of my ongoing discussions with my friends after my conversion. I was a philosophy major and so what did I do when I converted? I debated and dialogued and discussed and read and worked out ideas and concepts and formed arguments and abandoned arguments and so forth. My faith from the very beginning, because of my background, has been one submerged in the task of apologetics. Many of my friends could not fathom anyone becoming religious after being trained in enlightenment philosophy and thought. I was instantly the outcast, the weird one moving from liberalism to conservativism, from freedom to bondage, from free thinking to institutionalism. Growing up in one of the deepest blue areas of one of the deepest blue states and one of the most liberal state schools in one of the departments dedicated to the philosophical defense of the fortress of secular reason, it was anathema to go to religion. I was viewed as abandoning science and reason and embracing backwards morality and the patriarchy. So the discussions were fast and furious and frequent. I started contributing to discussion forums to practice how to respond to objections and “think out loud” with people who weren’t sitting right in front of me expecting an immediate answer. This was before Facebook and Twitter rules of decorum and shorter comments were expected, and so often my discussions would involve walls of text. After a time, people watching and friends reading asked me to start saving my comments to send to them, or turn into articles and so the blog was born (though originally under the name Logical Theism). A few years later, after podcasting became a thing, demand for audio versions of my articles or of my Sunday school classes were being requested. I started scripting out podcasts and trying to put out as much content as my busy life could handle. Though the podcast and blog have become more of a public record of my personal intellectual interests- which vacillate from apologetics against atheism and naturalism, philosophy, Jesus mythicists, Biblical, exegetical, systematic and historical theology and studies, and even church history- the purpose has always been to build up the intellectual life of the Christians who listen, and to challenge the notion of a irrational or anti-intellectualist church held by those unbelievers who may listen in – to help those who have been freed in Christ to think freely, and to help free thinkers be freed indeed.

TB- You are a presuppositional apologist. Can you summarize the presuppositional approach and what led you to adopt that methodology?

Vela: Presuppositionalism is an angry tiger. It has several different ways people conceptualize and discuss it from different views (Van Tillian, Clarkian, and whatever you call Frame and Bruggencate), and people are passionate about their one view. You could ask 15 different Presuppositionalists to explain it, and because it is so vast, they will emphasize different focuses of it, different aspects, and different applications. And in fact, there are different methodologies associated with it so you may have a Van Tillian Presuppositionalist who is in favor of theistic proof while another will ridicule them in practice. I readily admit this is a downside of the subculture of Presuppositionalists.

However, what I think we all have in common is this – God is God. It sounds weird and almost trivially true but it is vital. God is God, the Creator and sustainer of all things. Nothing would exist if God did not exist. Like the moral argument above (which is a kind of transcendental argument), there is an argument for logic that could be phrased the following way:

1. If God did not exist, then the laws of logic and rationality would not exist.

2. But the laws of logic and rationality do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

The argument is valid and the defense of #1 involves tactics like the impossibility of the contrary and a challenge for the unbeliever to ground logic and rationality by their own worldview. I’m not going to defend the argument here, but imagine what it would mean for the atheist to try and overcome the argument by using the very logic that they cannot ground on their own worldview. They quite literally need to presuppose the truth of the Christian worldview, in order to help themselves to the logic and rationality that is only possible on that worldview, in order to say that the Christian worldview based on the existence of the God of the Bible is false. They quite literally need to sit on God’s lap in order to slap God in the face. It is utterly irrational.

Now most Christians could (and should be) convinced of this. However they do not identify as Presuppositionalists. Why is that? Well, Presuppositionalism says that the Bible shows all men are made in the image of God, and that because of the fall, sin has affected their entire constitution – their emotions, bodies, wills, and minds. As Romans 1 tells us, they know the truth but suppress it in unrighteousness. And so the Presuppostionalist believes, unlike the Evidentialist or the Classical apologist, that the unbeliever knows that God exists in virtue of being made in the image of God, and yet is actively (though unwittingly) suppressing that truth. It is not that they cannot reason (they can because they are made Imago Dei), but rather  when they reason, they are doing it in a sinful, broken, and unwarranted way that blasphemes God. They are, by their very attempt to use their literally God-given reason, committing an act of blasphemy every time they try to be rational. Therefore, when they are trying to dispute the existence of God or dishonor his word, the Presuppositionalist simply says that we will not take part, in their attempt to blaspheme God and exert their autonomy while trying to put God in the dock (as C.S. Lewis wrote). They are trying to make themselves the standard and the judge and jury of God, rather than simply admitting that they are the creature and God is the creator. So the Presuppositionalist is not opposed to classical arguments for God’s existence. In fact, I appreciate many of them. The issue is that in order for them to work, logic already must be presupposed; for logic to presupposed, God must be presupposed; and not only by the Christian but by the cultist, the heretic, the unbeliever, and the atheist. There is no other way. So we simply say, that before we will discuss the objections of the atheists, we must first get on the table that the only way we can have a reasonable discussion, is if, and only if, the Christian God revealed in Jesus Christ and displayed in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, necessarily exists.

TB: In the book Five Views on Apologetics, philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig argues:

”Presuppositionalism commits the informal fallacy of begging the question, for it advocates presupposing the truth of Christian theism in order to prove Christian theism. It is difficult to imagine how anyone could with a straight face think to show theism to be true by reasoning, ‘God exists, therefore God exists.’ A Christian theist himself will deny that question-begging arguments prove anything.” (William Lane Craig, Five Views on Apologetics, 233)

How would you respond to Craig’s criticisms?

Vela: I admire Craig and have enormous appreciation for his work in advancing the cause of Christ. I am not as ambivalent to his work as many Presuppositionalists are, despite my often pointed disagreements with his theological and philosophical commitments. However, Craig’s objection is a common one but makes one major flaw. In order for his objection to work, logic must exist to be employed so that he can attempt to rationally present his criticism. For that to happen, God must exist. And thus, for him to make the critique of the Presuppositionalist position, he must first help himself to the conclusions of Presuppositionalism. If you review the argument I listed above (a rather crass version of the Transcendental Argument), you can see quite clearly that it is not formally question begging – no premise of the argument contains the conclusion. If it were, then Craig would need to abandon his moral argument as well since it is quite literally the exact same conceptual and logical structure. However, the soundness of the argument does have one major entailment – that in order for the argument to be sound, we must already presuppose the conclusion to be true in practice in order to even have the tools at our disposal to state, defend, or object to the argument. If it is true, it is necessarily true that we could not even reason about reasoning, we could not be logical about logic, if we did not already presuppose that God exists. And conversely, if we want to deny that presupposition, then we also, necessarily, abandon the very tools of logic and rationality that would be needed to make the very demand that we must not, nor cannot, beg the question and be logical or rational.

So while Craig’s objection appears to some to be a valid objection, it is reflexively destructive for it needs the very truth of the thing it denies to be true in order for the objection to be valid. That is, for the objection to be true, it must be false. Logic, and therefore God, win out yet again.

TB: What works would you recommend to those readers who want to learn more about the presuppositional approach?

There are several places that I would send people depending on their learning styles. Frames contribution to the Five Views of Apologetics put out by Zondervan is helpful but brief and many Presuppositionalists will take exceptions to some of the things said. Another book by Greg Bahnsen entitled Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended is another more academic work giving a basic outline of the theology and methodology that nearly all Presuppositionalists can agree on. One could look at the various books on Apologetics put out by K. Scott Oliphint such as Covenantal Apologetics. For audio, there is a four part lecture series by Bahnsen called “Van Tillian Apologetics 1-4” available via Westminster Seminary on iTunes. And if one would like to see Presuppositionalism in action during a debate, the Greg Bahnsen vs. Gordon Stein debate is the exemplar and gives a good impression of how a Presuppositionalist deals differently with the objections of atheism than someone like Craig would in his debates.

To learn more about Tyler Vela and his outstanding work, go here.

You can also see more of Tyler's work in his book Measuring McAfee or by viewing his recent debate with Aron Ra here.

I would like to publicly thank Tyler Vela for participating in this interview.

Courage and Godspeed,

Related Posts

Video: Street-Level Apologetics by Jeff Durbin

Video: Understanding Greg Bahnsen by Kenneth Samples

C.S. Lewis on Reasoning to Atheism

Wednesday, June 26, 2019

How did Judas Iscariot Die?

One of the many objections skeptics raise against the reliability of the Bible often goes something like this- "How can you trust the Bible? It is full of contradictions!"

One example that is often mentioned is the death of Jesus' betrayer, Judas Iscariot.

Matthew informs us that after Judas had betrayed Jesus and attempted to return the 30 pieces of silver he received for doing so, he hanged himself.  Matthew writes:

"And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself." (Matthew 27:5)

However, Luke, writing in the book of Acts, seems to give us a different account.  He records that Judas died by "falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)

Surely this is a contradiction!  Or is it?  As Norman Geisler and Randy Douglass explain, these two texts actually serve to compliment one another:

"Judas hung himself exactly as Matthew says he did.  The account in Acts simply adds that Judas hanged himself on a tree over the edge of a cliff, and his body fell on sharp rocks below.  Then his intestines gushed out just as Luke (the doctor) vividly describes."1

So, in reality, no contradiction exists.

Courage and Godspeed,

1. Norman L. Geisler and Randy Douglass, Bringing Your Faith to Work, p. 172.

Related Posts

Article: Ten Principles When Considering Alleged Bible Contradictions by J. Warner Wallace

When Was the Fig Tree Cursed by Jesus?

Answering Bible Difficulties

84 Confirmed Facts in the Last 16 Chapters of the Book of Acts

Thursday, June 06, 2019

Remembering D-Day and What Christians Believe

As the 75th anniversary of D-Day is remembered around the globe, I thought it would be appropriate to share the piece below by Hugh Whelchel, which was posted in December of 2017 by the Institute for Faith, Works, and Economics.

What Do D-Day and Christmas Have in Common?

Chuck Colson, in his 2012 book The Faith: What Christians Believe, Why They Believe It, and Why It Matters, included a chapter entitled, “The Invasion.” There he describes the most important event of the Second World War, the D-Day Invasion.
Most of us have watched in horror the scenes in movies like Saving Private Ryan that depict the sacrifices of those who stormed the beaches of Normandy on June 6, 1944, the largest seaborne military landing in history. Over 2,400 U.S. soldiers were killed in the first hours of the fighting.
By the end of that first terrible day, the Allied troops had established a beachhead in Normandy and, for all intents and purposes, World War II in Europe was over. Everyone, even the Germans, knew that the war would end with Germany’s defeat, yet the fighting continued for almost another year.
Between D-Day and the surrender of the Germans (V-E Day) came the Battle of the Bulge, a desperate counterattack by the German army, fought during one of the worst winters in European history. Even though the Germans knew they were defeated, the battle raged on for six weeks through the Christmas of 1944. It was the deadliest battle for American forces during the war with over 19,000 U.S. soldiers killed.

Christ’s Victory: Past, Present, and Future
Christ’s first coming was D-Day. It was the decisive invasion of “the war” against sin and death, guaranteeing the enemy’s eventual defeat. Colson compares the invasion of Normandy with the “invasion” of God on Christmas Day. He writes:
In one sense, the great invasions of history are analogous to the way in which God, in the great cosmic struggle between good and evil, chose to deal with Satan’s rule over the earth—He invaded. But not with massive logistical support and huge armies; rather, in a way that confounded and perplexed the wisdom of humanity.
As we prepare to move into the Christmas season and celebrate the birth of our Lord, we must remember that this baby, born in a manager, came to change everything. Through his life, death, and resurrection, he would strike a death blow to sin, death, and Satan and establish the kingdom of God.
God’s kingdom will be consummated when Christ returns at his second coming, which will be our V-E Day. Yet as Christians today, we must remember we live in a spiritual war zone. We live our lives between D-Day and V-E Day, in the Battle of the Bulge.
We are all Christian soldiers, but our struggle is not against flesh and blood (Eph. 6:12-13). The outcome of the conflict is certain and our victory is sure, but the enemy is throwing everything at the army of God in the fiercest battle of the war. This makes the need to understand what we do in our daily work and its importance to God and his kingdom all the more critical.
We see an example of this in Daniel. Just as Daniel and his friends were captives of an enemy power as they worked for the “welfare of the city” (Jer. 29:7), through our work, we get glimpses of liberation, the way things will be when Christ returns, even though we might feel tethered to a broken world.
We must see our vocational calling within the context of pushing back the darkness. Cornelius Plantinga, in his book Engaging God’s World, talks about the struggle of fulfilling our work in the kingdom, but the victorious, enduring nature of that work in the world to come:
A Christian who goes to work for the kingdom (that’s every Christian) simultaneously goes to war. What’s needed on God’s side are well-educated warriors (warriors who know what’s going on). We are now fallen creatures in a fallen world. The Christian gospel tells us that all hell has broken loose in this sad world and that, in Christ, all heaven has come to do battle. Christ has come to defeat the powers and principalities, to move the world over onto a new foundation, and to equip a people—informed, devout, determined people—to lead the way in righting what’s wrong, transforming what’s corrupted, in doing things that make for peace, expecting these things will travel across the border from this world to the new heaven and earth.
Christmas is a story of an engagement that will end with a great sacrifice (Christ’s) and through that sacrifice a great victory (for us!).
As we sing songs of peace and joy let us not forget that, as Queen Lucy states in C.S. Lewis’s The Last Battle, “In our world too, a stable once had something inside it that was bigger than our whole world.”
“In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it” (John 1:4-5).

Remembering those who have served,

Wednesday, June 05, 2019

Michael Reeves on the Trinity

"The unflinching boldness of the Athanasian Creed forces us to ask what is essential for Christian faith.  What would we say is the article of faith that must be held before all others?  Salvation by grace alone?  Christ's atoning work on the cross?  His bodily resurrection?  Now certainly those are all things 'of first importance' (1 Cor. 15:3), so absolutely critical that they cannot be given up without the very nature and goodness of the gospel being lost; however, they do not stand 'before all things.'  By themselves they are not what make the Christian gospel Christian.  Jehovah's Witnesses can believe in the sacrificial death of Christ; Mormons in his resurrection; others in salvation by grace.  Granted, the similarities are sometimes only superficial, but the very fact that certain Christian beliefs can be shared by other belief systems shows that they cannot be the foundation on which the Christian gospel rests, the truth that stands 'before all things.'

We need not be disturbed by such similarities.  That which distinguishes Christianity has not been stolen.  For what makes Christianity absolutely distinct is the identity of our God.  Which God we worship: that is the article of faith that stands before all others.  The bedrock of our faith is nothing less than God himself, and every aspect of the gospel-creation, revelation, salvation-is only Christian insofar as it is the creation, revelation and salvation of this God, the triune God.  I could believe in the death of a man called Jesus, I could believe in his bodily resurrection, I could even believe in a salvation by grace alone: but if I do not believe in this God, then, quite simply, I am not a Christian. And so, because the Christian God is triune, the Trinity is the governing center of all Christian belief, the truth that shapes and beautifies all others.  The Trinity is the cockpit of all Christian thinking."1

Courage and Godspeed,

1. Michael Reeves, Delighting in the Trinity, p. 14-16

Related Posts

My Favorite Analogy of the Trinity

Is the Trinitarian Doctrine of God More Plausible Than the Unitarian Doctrine of God?

Article: Understanding the Trinity by Peter S. Williams

Monday, May 27, 2019

Memorial Day: Heroes Remembered...

We at Truthbomb Apologetics just wanted to offer a sincere thank you to those men and women who have served, or are serving, in our armed forces.

In a society that so often elevates and glorifies so-called "celebrities," we are grateful for the lives that have been sacrificed and the time that has been willingly given by you, the real heroes.

"A hero is someone who has given his or her life to something bigger than oneself."

-Joseph Campbell

We thank you...

Courage and Godspeed,

Friday, May 24, 2019

Video: Who Created God?

In this brief video, cold-case homicide detective J. Warner Wallace explains why an uncreated Creator makes sense of other evidences.  


Courage and Godspeed,

Related Posts

Book Review: Cold-Case Christianity by J. Warner Wallace

Rapid Response Series by J. Warner Wallace

Common Objection #34- "Jesus never claimed to be God!"

Wednesday, May 15, 2019

Ben Shapiro interviews Dr. William Lane Craig

Ben Shapiro of the Daily Wire has recently interviewed some interesting guests on his show including Dr. Stephen Meyer, Dr. Ed Feser and Dr. John MacArthur.  

In this interview, Shapiro interviews philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig on the topics of science, philosophy, arguments for the existence for God and more!


Courage and Godspeed,

Related Posts

A Conversation with William Lane Craig

Is Our Universe Simply the Winner of a Universe Lottery?

Animated Videos: The Problem of Evil- The Logical Version and The Probability Version

Monday, May 13, 2019

Debate Video: Is Theistic Belief Rational in a Scientific Age?- Jeff Hester vs. William Lane Craig

In the featured video, philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig debates astrophysicist Jeff Hester on the question, "Is Theistic Belief Rational in a Scientific Age?"  The debate took place in April of 2019.  

Enjoy and please share your thoughts about the debate in the comments below!

Courage and Godspeed,

Related Posts

Eric Metaxas Interviews Stephen Meyer on Science and Faith

Book Review: Dictionary of Christianity and Science

Secular Jew David Berlinski on the Limits of Science

Tuesday, May 07, 2019

An Interview with Peter S. Williams

Topic - Getting at Jesus: A Comprehensive Critique of Neo-Atheist Nonsense about the Jesus of History, January 29, 2019.

TB: You have recently written a book titled Gettingat Jesus: A Comprehensive Critique of Neo-Atheist Nonsense about the Jesus ofHistory (Wipf & Stock, 2019).  Please tell me about the book and why you wrote it.

Williams: The so-called New Atheists are an influential propaganda movement interested in “getting at” Jesus in the sense of attacking belief in him, but they don’t put much effort into thinking about how we “get at” Jesus historically speaking. I wrote Getting at Jesus to demonstrate that thinking carefully about how we “get at” the historical Jesus shows that the New Atheists are unreliable guides on the subject.
On the one hand, neo-atheists generally claim that scientific, empirical evidence is the only way to know anything, and their attacks upon the historical Jesus center around claims to the effect that there’s insufficient evidence to support the Christian interpretation of Jesus. On the other hand, neo-atheists generally excuse themselves from an examination of the relevant historical evidence by appealing to purely philosophical objections to miracles. This is a double standard.
I counter the New Atheists’ philosophical objections to miracles and proceed to examine the evidence for the existence of Jesus and the reliability of the Christian understanding of him. I review evidence demonstrating the existence of a so-called “high Christology” (belief that Jesus was divine) among the very first generation of Christians. I examine how the New Atheists fail to consistently grapple with the question of Jesus’ self-understanding. I look at the credentials of the New Testament gospels. I spend one chapter looking at the historical evidence relevant to the resurrection of Jesus and another looking at how best to explain that evidence. I close by listing statements about Jesus and the historical search for Jesus that have been made by individual neo-atheists with which I agree. Surprisingly, these statements outline an apologetic for the Christian view of Jesus!
According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary (Oxford, 1999), something is “comprehensive” if it includes or deals with “all or nearly all aspects of something,” or is at least “of large content or scope,” being “wide-ranging.” In this sense of the term, my book is a “comprehensive” critique of neo-atheist views on the historical Jesus (it’s over 445 pages long, with 2057 footnotes and 45 pages of references!). The term “comprehensive” can also be applied to winning a victory “by a large margin.” Hence my book is also “comprehensive” in the sense that it demonstrates “by a wide margin” that the New Atheists’ overall treatment of the historical Jesus is, to borrow a phrase from Jeremy Bentham, “nonsense on stilts.” Finally, an archaic meaning of “comprehensive” is “of or relating to understanding.” I hope readers will not only understand and reject the insubstantial presuppositions and mistaken beliefs that lead the New Atheists to espouse such nonsense about Jesus, but that they will gain a new, evidence-based understanding of the sublime figure at the heart of my discussion.

TB: I find it interesting that you use the term “neo-atheist” in your title.  Please briefly explain the difference between an “atheist” and a “neo-atheist.”

Williams: An atheist is someone who believes God doesn’t exist. As Gary Wolf, who coined the term, writes: “The New Atheists… condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is not only wrong; its evil.” (Gary Wolf, ‘The Church of the Non-Believers’, Wired Magazine, November 2006, 184.)
Neo-atheists typically combine their atheism with a scientistic theory of knowledge (which claims that science is the only way to know anything) with a materialistic account of what exists and a moral opposition to religion in general and monotheism in particular (it’s worth pointing out that this set of beliefs is internally incoherent, scientism excludes objective moral knowledge and materialism excludes both objective moral values and moral responsibility). In other words, the so-called “new” atheism amounts to a contemporary re-packaging of Bertrand Russell’s essay “Why I am not a Christian” from 1927.
Having been galvanized by the 9/11 attacks on America, the ‘new’ atheism burst onto the scene with a series of best-selling books, starting with Sam Harris’ The End of Faith (2004), swiftly followed by Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion (2006). Leading representatives of the movement include biologists Richard Dawkins and Jerry A. Coyne, chemist Peter Atkins, physicist Lawrence M. Krauss, neuroscientist Sam Harris, philosophers Daniel Dennett, A.C. Grayling and Michel Onfray, and the late Christopher Hitchens (journalist) and Victor J. Stenger (physicist and philosopher).

TB: When I think of some of the most nonsensical claims about the Jesus of history, the idea that Jesus never existed immediately comes to mind.  Do you address the idea that Jesus didn’t actually exist in your book?

Williams: I address this issue directly in my second chapter, though much of the book would stand as an implicit argument against the thesis that Jesus didn't exist. I examine Christian and non-Christian evidence from the first and second centuries AD, including not only written testimony but inscriptional evidence from archaeology. The existence of the historical Jesus is accepted by the vast majority of scholars in relevant disciplines, regardless of their worldview. Bart Ehrman, who is well-known as a skeptical New Testament scholar, writes that: “Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed.” (Here.)  In the end, even several neo-atheists (Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Lawrence Krauss) admit that there was a real, historical Jesus. This is one of those points of agreement with specific neo-atheists that I highlight in the conclusion of Getting at Jesus.

TB: Skeptics such as Robert Price point to the variety of views within scholarship on Jesus in an effort to argue that we can’t really know much about the historical Jesus.  Why is Price wrong?

Williams: It is of course true to say that there’s a wide variety of views about Jesus within scholarship, but it doesn’t follow that we can’t really know much about the historical Jesus. On the one hand, different views can overlap, and variety at one level may include agreement at another. On the other hand, such disagreement highlights the need to think carefully and critically as we seek the truth about Jesus.
Plenty of scholars would agree on certain data about the historical Jesus despite having widely different worldviews, but they go on to reach widely different conclusions about how best to interpret that common historical data to produce an overall understanding of the historical Jesus. Many atheist, agnostic, Jewish and liberal Christian scholars would agree we can know that Jesus existed and preached about the kingdom of God, that followers and enemies alike believed he worked miracles and exorcised demons, that he was crucified, that various people believed they encountered a resurrected Jesus soon thereafter, and so on. Where these scholars differ is when it comes to their overall portrait of who Jesus was, and this portrait will of course be one they believe squares with their own worldview. The question is, I think, whether a scholar’s worldview is open to being re-shaped by an encounter with historical evidence.
If a scholar approaches the historical Jesus whilst dogmatically excluding a Christian understanding of Jesus on a priori grounds (as the New Atheists do), it’s not surprising they end up with a non-Christian understanding of Jesus! Hence, scholarly disagreement forewarns us that, as we try to get at the historical Jesus, we need to think carefully about 1) how we establish and adjust our worldview expectations, 2) how we arrive at what we consider to be the relevant historical evidence to take into account, and 3) how we establish and adjust what we take to be the most plausible explanation of that evidence in a dynamic critical dialogue with our worldview.

TB: For those who are interested in learning more about the Jesus of history, apart from your book, what other works would you recommend?

Williams: I’ve given two lectures on themes from Getting at Jesus that are available online: ‘Getting at Jesus: A Critique of Neo-Atheist Nonsense About the Jesus of History’ (Veritas Norway, 2018) is here & ‘Responding to Neo-Atheist Nonsense about the Jesus of History’ (FOCL, 2016) is here.

Your readers may like to know that I curate YouTube playlists, many of which cover historical Jesus issues.  This resource can be found here.

Turning to books, Peter J. Williams’ Can We Trust the Gospels? (Crossway, 2018) is a short volume summarizing cutting-edge arguments for the reliability of the canonical Gospels. Two recent books arguing for a Christian interpretation of the historical Jesus are Brant Pitre’s The Case For Jesus: The Biblical And Historical Evidence For Christ (Image, 2016) and Robert J. Hutchinson’s Searching For Jesus: New Discoveries In The Quest For Jesus Of Nazareth – And How They Confirm The Gospel Accounts (Nelson, 2015). Lydia McGrew revives a venerable argument for the historical reliability of the New Testament in Hidden In Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (DeWard, 2017). Excellent for clearing away the a priori objection to miracles is Robert A. Larmer’s The Legitimacy of Miracle (Lexington, 2014). Two older works well worth reading are ancient historian Paul Barnett’s Finding the Historical Christ (Eerdmans, 2009) and New Testament scholar Craig L. Blomberg’s The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, second edition (Apollos/IVP, 2007). On the key issue of Jesus’ resurrection, I recently contributed two chapters to Carl Stecher and Craig Blomberg with contributions by Richard Carrier and Peter S. Williams, Resurrection: Faith or Fact? (Pitchstone, 2019). I also recommend the many relevant works by William Lane Craig, Gary R. Habermas, Michael R. Licona, Richard Swinburne and N.T. Wright. Finally, I find much to appreciate in C. Stephen Evans’ The Historical Christ & The Jesus of Faith: The Incarnational Narrative as History (Clarendon, 2004).

To order your copy of Getting at Jesus: A Comprehensive Critique of Neo-Atheist Nonsense about the Jesus of History, go here.

To learn more about Peter S. Williams and his outstanding work, see here.

I would like to publicly thank Peter S. Williams for participating in this interview.  As a long time fan of his work, it was an honor.

Courage and Godspeed,

Related Posts

Video: If C.S. Lewis met Richard Dawkins by Peter S. Williams

Article: Understanding the Trinity by Peter S. Williams

Article: Can Moral Objectivism Do Without God? by Peter S. Williams

Sunday, May 05, 2019

Got Questions- What is Ramadan?

The following was taken from

Question: "What is Ramadan?" 

Ramadan is a holy month in the religion of Islam and is marked by a time of required fasting. Observance of Ramadan is one of the Five Pillars of Islam. By fasting during this month, Muslims believe they earn spiritual rewards and draw closer to Allah. Ramadan is the ninth month of the Islamic calendar, which is lunar-based. Based on the region, either astronomical calculations or moon sightings mark the beginning of this month of fasting, which ends at the next new moon. Ramadan officially commences when a Muslim imam announces it. During the month of Ramadan, Muslims seek the mercy and attention of Allah by fasting from dawn to sunset. Muslims abstain from food, drink, smoking, and sex during the daylight hours. It is said that good works done during the month of Ramadan will result in a multiplication of the normal reward for the same works performed in other months. For this reason, generosity and charity increase during Ramadan. Muslims are also encouraged to read the entire Qur’an during Ramadan and to recite special prayers.

The word Ramadan comes from the Arabic word ramida, which means “intense, scorching heat or dryness.” It is believed among adherents of Islam that Ramadan burns away a person’s sins with good deeds. Muslims seek to suppress everything sinful in themselves, putting away all vices and bad behavior and desires, in order to show their dedication to Allah and their hope that he will be merciful to them. The word Islammeans “submission,” and the posture of obedience and self-denial taken during month of Ramadan is the ultimate act of a Muslim’s submission to Allah.

Fasting is also found in the Bible. For a Christian, fasting is usually accompanied by prayer and is a way to express deep distress and dire need. However, there is a big difference between a Christian fast and the Islamic fast of Ramadan. For one thing, the New Testament never commands a fast (even in the Old Testament, the Jews were only commanded to fast one day a year, on the Day of Atonement). Christian fasts are voluntary, not obligatory.

Also, Christians do not believe that fasting will atone for or burn away sins. Self-denial has long been associated with Christianity (see Mark 8:34), but what the Bible says about self-denial is quite different from the Muslim understanding of it. In Islam, self-denial is a way to persuade Allah to “repay” the worshiper. For a Christian, self-denial is a natural occurrence due to a change of heart and a desire to follow Jesus (Romans 6:17–18).

The idea that a god will be appeased by works of charity, generosity, or the suppression of natural desires is almost universal in world religions. In fact, the only religion that does not believe in appeasing the gods with good deeds is Christianity. The Bible teaches that a Christian’s faith will result in good works animated by God’s Spirit (James 2:26Galatians 5:16–18). Faith itself is a gift (Ephesians 2:8–9), and, even when Christians falter and sin, we do not have any fear that God’s love will be revoked (Romans 8:138). Muslims have no such assurance and must continually seek Allah’s approval by performing good works and fasting during the month of Ramadan. To fail to fast during Ramadan is to face the wrath of Allah.