. . . being my main analysis of worldviews issues and challenges facing the gospel in the Caribbean and beyond, at 1/4 point in C21, with ideas and suggestions towards counter-cultural reformation.
I have placed the book here, and now embed:
Mars Hill Strategy C21 Book... by Gemof Thekairosinitiative
I trust this will prove helpful to many who need support resources. END
Dear Intelligentsia,Our collective betrayal of civilisation is bone-deep, and often shows itself in an arrogant, cynical hyperskepticism that rejects and dismisses warranted but inconvenient truth, right, duty, insight and wisdom. Ironically, that cynicism pretends to be well founded, that arrogance pretends to be humility before facts of diversity of opinion and error, that hyperskepticism projects to the other ill-founded accusations or insinuations of arrogance (or other base motives) and ill-founded certitude. The result is a Dawkins style universal acid of cancerous absurdity that eats away at wisdom, putting in its place a voyage of folly heading for Ac 27 shipwreck. So, again, how can we find a way of escape, before it is too late?
Perhaps, it is already too late, and certainly, it is only with great difficulty (backed by much penitent prayer for rescue) that just possibly, perhaps, we may find a way of escape.
Such fools are we, given what we have had as inheritance and have so recklessly despised and discarded. (And no, this is not merely me or someone else saying, if you disagree with me, you are wrong. See, how cynically corrosive what we are dealing with is?)
I am pointing, instead, to humility before warrant and wisdom, what Ezra -- I think he wrote the preface to the Proverbs -- meant when he penned Prov 1: 7, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction."
In our education, systematically, we have been led away from fearing and trusting the inherently good and utterly wise creator God, turning our backs on Solomon's sobering counsel in Prov 3:5 - 8,
5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
and do not lean on your own understanding.
6 In all your ways acknowledge him,
and he will make straight your paths.
7 Be not wise in your own eyes; fear the LORD,
and turn away from evil.
8 It will be healing to your flesh
and refreshment to your bones.
How, then, can we escape catastrophe? (If, escape is now possible.)
First, let us ponder the advice of a man who has the strange distinction to have a reputation worse than that of Satan himself (cf. "the Devil is Machiavellian") . . . Machiavelli:
(i) to see the potential cliff well ahead of time,
(ii) to understand that such an edge is ever prone to sudden crumbling and collapse underfoot, then
(iii) to turn back to safer, saner ground in good time to avert needless disaster. Where, yes, worse,
(iv) SLIPPERY SLOPES ARE REAL, too . . . it is not a "fallacy" to observe that there can be forces at work that can cause us to slip and slide ever more and more towards the fatal edge. And yes too,
(v) "a stitch in time, saves nine."
It is not for nothing, that Churchill -- looking back with sorrow and pain at the path of the 1930's -- summed up that seldom was a great war so easily averted, had there but been willingness to act prudently and decisively in good time.
Churchill began to warn soon after Hitler's slimy rise to power and cynical use of the Reichstag fire incident to trick the German parliament into giving him dictatorial powers (on excuse that others intended to seize power and had burned the German house of assembly in that cause). Churchill was marginalised, disregarded, dismissed by people recoiling in horror from the just past Great War. Despite, more and more signs of rising danger of a round two. Until, the fire-breathing dragon was at the door.
And of course, we can point to Acts 27 and to Plato's Parable of the Ship of State.
Enough of mere illustrations and examples.
Why am I pointing to "hyperskeptical cynicism," and to rejection of objective first principles and duties to truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence (so too, sound conscience, fairness, soundness, wisdom)?
Obviously, because strong signs are evident, signs that it may already be too late to heed. (But which, may help us recover, even as our civilisation lies broken, bleeding and with much reduced power to act, at the foot of the cliff . . . as once Britain turned at bay and stood, shocked, shaken, battered, desperate but resolute and alone in the long, hard Blitz summer of 1940).
Let me lay out some preliminary points of soundness, for reference:
I: Cynical Nihilism fails: First, foremost, wisdom, policy, knowledge and right reason are not reducible to cynical, ruthless, nihilistic "might makes right" power games. (If you hear an echo here of Marxism's key errors, yes it is there, alongside those of the much broader snide hyperskepticism and simple disregard for legitimate, responsible but unwelcome authority.) As a new classic case in point,
II: Radical relativism also fails: Like unto that, truth exists as "that which says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not," where in many key cases we can use right reason and linked right first facts and first principles to credibly, reliably know the -- often unpopular -- truth, in good time. That is, objective, knowable, powerful, timely truth, duty, honour and right are real too.
III: Eat your first principles veggies: Some yardstick first truths, first facts, first principles and first duties are self evident, thus warrantedly certain. While these never suffice to build a whole worldview and cultural/policy agenda, they are plumb-lines that are built-in universal standards that we should heed. For simple but telling example, it is undeniably so, that E: error exists; as trying to deny it, ~E implies that E is . . . an error. Similarly, ponder the Ciceronian First Principles, First Duties and First Law, that founds the reality of a core, universally binding natural law that we must learn to respect:
IV: There are valid first principles of right reason: Yes, we can identify some canons of reasoning that we had better heed and acquire a taste for:
These, then extend to other cases, aspects and applications of reasoning, e.g. to reason or communicate at all requires distinct identity and its corollaries (non contradiction and excluded middle), e.g. Paul's use of a Rhetoric 101 analogical example and implied "how much more" comparison in 1 Cor 14:7: "If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played?"
V: Evolutionary Materialistic Scientism ( = "Naturalism") fails: No, big-S Science is not the pillar and ground of all truth or warrant, and, Haldane is right that evolutionary materialism is self-defeating and thus irretrievably self-falsified:
It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.]
Sadly, this bears repetition at all points, as many have been overly impressed that Science utterly dominates knowledge. No, philosophy can deliver sound knowledge. So can Mathematics (which is not an empirical/inductive experiment- and/or- observation driven science but instead the -- mainly deductive and axioms-based -- study of the logic of structure and quantity). So can history (which mainly rests on testimony and credible record). So can theology, so can ethics, or even basic common sense (as Thomas Reid pointed out), etc.
VI: Dallas Willard was right: Yes, we need to re-think on what knowledge is and learn to respect it wherever it is found:
To have knowledge . . . is to be able to represent something as it is on an adequate basis of thought or experience, not to exclude communications from qualified sources (“authority”) [--> compare, "warranted, credibly true (and so, reliable) belief"] This is the “knowledge” of ordinary life [--> knowledge belongs to the people], and it is what you expect of your electrician, auto mechanic, math teacher, and physician. Knowledge is not rare, and it is not esoteric . . . .
[K]nowledge authorizes one to act, to direct action, to develop and supervise policy, and to teach. It does so because, as everyone assumes, it enables us to deal more successfully with reality: with what we can count on, have to deal with, or are apt to have bruising encounters with. Knowledge involves
assured[--> I substitute here, warranted, credible] truth . . . [pp. 4, 19 & 20: Dallas Willard & Literary Heirs, The Disappearance of Moral Knowledge, Routledge| Taylor& Francis Group, 2018.]
VII: "Religion" is not a Dirty Word: Yes, it has been abused (like just about everything else), but respect for -- and a servant's heart towards -- the good God and others is pro-civilisation and responsible. In particular, it is time to take a serious second look at the gospel, the scriptures and the call to sound discipleship. (As a start, try here.)
Once we are willing to be as the proverbial little child, we will then be able to learn and to reform our civilisation. Whether, we can save it from a fall over the looming cliff, is -- sadly -- another matter. END
Dear Intelligentsia,
One of the most pernicious errors we have made in our time is to have sidelined natural law thinking (as well as the possibility of objective moral knowledge). For, the core of such knowable first law is self-evident, so universal for rational, responsible, significantly free creatures. This offers a framework to soundly, prudently guide governance, policy, legislation, regulation and reformation. By sidelining these things, we have opened the door to unsoundness and to a nihilistic chaos where might and manipulation make "right" and "rights." So, we need to restore soundness, as a basis for reformation. But, that will require building a critical mass coalition . . .
How can we proceed?
First, even Christians have by and large forgotten the endorsement of such core natural law thinking in the Bible -- and its context. As a reminder, we may examine Rom 2 and 13, where the apostle Paul addresses the church in the Capital:
Rom 2: 14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another . . . .
13: 8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
In effect, the apostle here recognises that it is an empirical fact that people are morally governed, and that on principles that are recognisably related to the Hebraic decalogue. He holds that this is so because a core of moral government is built into us, reflected in how our consciences guide our conflicting thought. Such can be sidelined or disregarded, leading to hardness of heart and benumbed consciences, but it is certainly there.
One context for this is the summary on law made by Cicero as he made a precis of Greco-Roman thinking:
He highlights principles that we can tease out to yield seven basic first duties, which are branch on which we all sit first principles, thus they are self-evident. How can we know this? Simple, in order to have traction, objections invariably appeal to the same cluster of principles, directly or indirectly. We doubt truth, reasonableness, warrant, prudence, fairness, etc, for instance; implying these self-same duties. The attempt to deny or dismiss is instantly self referentially absurd.
Already, this has established moral knowledge as having an objective core. However, it is advisable to deal with the wider context of entrenched radical relativism. To do so, let us consider claims and consequences:
~k: there is no objective moral knowledge
but:
~k*: this is implied to be an objective, known claim about any claimed moral knowledge, domain M
so, then:
~k**: the claim ~k is about M and properly belongs to it,
however:
~k***: ~k is self referential and self-defeating, so
___________________________________
k: by denial, ~[~k] = k is true. There is objective moral knowledge.
This also extends to any reasonably identifiable general domain of study, G. The attempt to deny objectively warranted knowledge implicitly holds itself objective and warranted, and so refutes itself. Radical relativism is self-defeating, and this opens up a 4R-7M road to reformation, positive civilisational transformation and thus blessing -- if we are willing to take it.
We may now turn this to address the major 7M institutions:
For example:
We add, regarding transformative moral-spiritual foundations, growth and purity; first, Heb 5:12 - 6:2 on foundations:
Heb 5:12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers [--> one who has learned and lived can teach others], you need someone to teach you again [--> remedial!] the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, 13 for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. 14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil [--> spiritual maturity is marked by moral maturity, discernment and wisdom].
Heb 6: 1 Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again [-> lay, build upon . . . not knock down and try again] a foundation of
[THE SIX-PRINCIPLE FOUNDATION OF DISCIPLESHIP]
[i:] repentance from dead works and of
[ii:] faith toward God, 2 and of
[iii:] instruction about [baptisms],
[iv:] the laying on of hands,
[v:] the resurrection of the dead, and
[vi:] eternal judgment.
[Cf Ac 2:36 - 47, 17:28 - 31, i/l/o Isa 52:13 - 53:12]
. . . and 2 Peter 1:1 - 11, regarding growth in grace-virtues of discipleship:
2 Peter 1: 1 Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
2 May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.
3 His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, 4 by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.
5 For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with
[THE CRESCENDO OF SEVEN DISCIPLESHIP-VIRTUES:]
[a:] virtue, and
virtue with [b:] knowledge [--> a world of correction in itself! (implying too, godly wisdom)], 6 and
knowledge with [c:] self-control, and
self-control with [d:] steadfastness, and
steadfastness with [e:] godliness, 7 and
godliness with [f:] brotherly affection, and
brotherly affection with [g:] love [1 Cor 13 agape].
8 For if these qualities are yours and are increasing [--> growth], they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9 For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins.
10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. 11 For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
We now (May '26) further extend this, by invoking a civilisational level perspective:
Expanding further, yes in collaboration with ChatGPT:
This is important, but so entrenched is error, that this is an uphill task. To our shame! END
Yes, Dear Intelligentsia,
It is not so much that others "must prove" the reality of God to one's satisfaction (and there is little or no "evidence" for him . . . ), but instead, that we need to humble ourselves enough to acknowledge that we need God, and that we need redemption. That is almost the opposite of the approach of the past few hundred years, but it is in fact precisely the approach of the Scriptures, especially Rom 1. Let us now explore . . .
For starters, while I agree that the centuries old traditional "proofs" for God are not up to the standard, say, of the proof that the diagonal of a square is incommensurate with its sides, I suggest, it is wrong-headed (perhaps, even arrogant or irresponsible) to use such to try to put believers in God on the back foot, defending an imagined sticky wicket. For in fact, that lack of classic geometric rigour is true of ever so many domains of common sense and professional or academic knowledge that only a truly ill-advised person would question, in engineering, in the sciences, in management, in medicine, in statistics, in history (and in law courts), etc. Indeed, post Godel and his incompleteness theorems, we know no mathematical axiomatisation strong enough to cover say Arithmetic will be complete and coherent, and that there is no constructive proof that even an incomplete axiomatisation is consistent.
That's why we distinguish adequate warrant for a weak sense, commonplace knowledge from establishment of utter incorrigible certainty: Knowledge in effect is warranted, credibly true (and so reliable) belief. So, common sense, what the people mean, knowledge is a responsible judgement not an assertion of utter, incorrigible certainty delivered by some new magisterium, whether dressed in lab coats or not; if a claim is shown unreliable, it will lose credibility and we will freely admit, we were mistaken. That is, all of us must in the end live by faith; the question is which one, why -- how can it be reasonable, responsible, reliable well grounded faith. To adapt Dallas Willard's framing:
To have knowledge . . . is to be able to represent something as it is on an adequate basis of thought or experience, not to exclude communications from qualified sources (“authority”) [--> compare, "warranted, credibly true (and so, reliable) belief"] This is the “knowledge” of ordinary life [--> knowledge belongs to the people], and it is what you expect of your electrician, auto mechanic, math teacher, and physician. Knowledge is not rare, and it is not esoteric . . . .
[K]nowledge authorizes one to act, to direct action, to develop and supervise policy, and to teach. It does so because, as everyone assumes, it enables us to deal more successfully with reality: with what we can count on, have to deal with, or are apt to have bruising encounters with. Knowledge involves
assured[--> I substitute here, warranted, credible] truth . . . [pp. 4, 19 & 20: Dallas Willard & Literary Heirs, The Disappearance of Moral Knowledge, Routledge| Taylor& Francis Group, 2018.]
Once we are willing to recognise such, it becomes instantly clear that the true point of balance is that we need God and should be willing to acknowledge and walk with him. In the haunting words of Micah:
Similarly, Jeremiah warns us:
 |
| The silent, unanswerable, elephant in the room fact |
To help us clarify, let us consider an extension of the Oracle concept in theory of computing:
That's also why J B S Haldane long ago warned:
It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.]
Where, we must never overlook what a fine tuned cosmos points to:
Further to that, our responsible rational freedom is also inescapably morally governed, as we may recall from the Ciceronian, branch- on- which- we- all- sit, first duties:
That's why the necessary being world root/source needs to be inherently good and utterly wise (which, BTW, implies, personal . . . yes, God has entered, stage right).
Hence, too, we see the only serious candidate, reality root necessary being (just try to put up another _____ and explain why it bridges the gap ______ while being coherent _______ . . . a tall, unfilled order -- no atheist or skeptic has ever put up a good alternative).
Namely, we see here:
The inherently good, utterly wise Creator-Sustainer God, a necessary and maximally great being; one, worthy of our fealty, and of the honourable, responsible, reasonable service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. (That is, the Good, True, Wise God of ethical theism.)
Which, sounds quite familiar (and, for many who are even noddingly familiar with the Bible, this is recognisably close to the God of the Bible).
Won't work.
First, we really need a necessary being as world/reality root. A causal-temporal, thermodynamically constrained world cannot be past-infinite. For, every actual past year has to succeed year by year to this one, and you cannot traverse an explicit or implicit transfinite span in finite stage steps. And begging the question of transfinite traverse by asserting that at any given year y, the traverse was already completed (as I have seen) or the like, is an obvious logical boo-boo.
That is, once a contingent world now is, something -- the reality root capable of causing worlds -- always was. Similarly, once the world has morally governed creatures . . . us, for starters . . . we need a root capable of founding goodness and oughtness (which, BTW, reduces the problem of evil to due perspective, an issue WITHIN a world with God as root). We really do need an inherently good, utterly wise necessary being at the root.
Just for those unfamiliar with the logic of being, remember 2 + 3 = 5, or just the 2 part, never began, cannot cease from being, holds everywhere, every-when, in any possible world. Yes, eternity and reality root issues lurked in even our 1,2,3's in elementary school. So, as a reminder -- as "modern" education leaves a huge gap here, tabulating on possible/impossible being:
God, powerful enough to build worlds and unique enough that he is creator of all worlds: maximally great, supreme being. So good and so wise as to found moral government and creatures capable of freedom, love, truth, reason, knowledge, duty, honour, virtue. Us.
And yes, atheism and its associates are dead. Its ardent supporters just don't know it yet.
We need God. END
PS, next time, we will turn to the natural, intelligible, built-in, creation order first law, as foundational to urgently needed reformation -- or else, we are heading over the cliff. Moretime.
Jn 18: 33 So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?”
34 Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?”
35 Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?”
36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”
37 Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?”
Jesus answered,
“You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world— to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.”
38 Pilate said to him, “What is truth?”
Indeed, what is truth?
First, it is not power or popularity, as we can see from what happened next:
Jn 18:After he had said this, he went back outside to the Jews and told them, “I find no guilt in him. 39 But you have a custom that I should release one man for you at the Passover. So do you want me to release to you the King of the Jews?” 40 They [= the assembled crowd] cried out again, “Not this man, but Barabbas!” Now Barabbas was a robber . . .
Second, we have yet to beat Aristotle in Metaphysics, 1011b: "truth says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not." (And yes, this extends to truthfulness as core to one's character; there is a reason why Jesus is THE teacher of our civilisation.)
Jesus is on further record (along with his apostles) on the substance of THE truth:
Indeed, as he was about to be judicially murdered by Nero (c. 65 AD, on a false charge of treasonous arson against Rome), the leading apostle, Peter, went on final record:
2 Pet 1:13 I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to stir you up by way of reminder, 14 since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me. 15 And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.
19 And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.
21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Now, since it is too often suggested that by referring to the NT we are using biased and unreliable, Christian sources [that name often being pronounced as an epithet], it is worth the while to now pause a moment and cite Paul Barnett's summary of the record of early non-Christian sources on the basic facts of the early Christian movement and particularly the existence of Jesus as an historical figure:
On the basis of . . . non-Christian sources [i.e. Tacitus (Annals, on the fire in Rome, AD 64; written ~ AD 115), Rabbi Eliezer (~ 90's AD; cited J. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth (London: Collier-Macmillan, 1929), p. 34), Pliny (Letters to Trajan from Bithynia, ~ AD 112), Josephus (Antiquities, ~ 90's)] it is possible to draw the following conclusions:
[Is the New Testament History? (London, Hodder, 1987), pp. 30 - 31. Cf. McDowell & Wilson, He Walked Among Us (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1993) for more details; free for download here.]
- Jesus Christ was executed (by crucifixion?) in Judaea during the period where Tiberius was Emperor (AD 14 - 37) and Pontius Pilate was Governor (AD 26 - 36). [Tacitus]
- The movement spread from Judaea to Rome. [Tacitus]
- Jesus claimed to be God and that he would depart and return. [Eliezer]
- His followers worshipped him as (a) god. [Pliny]
- He was called "the Christ." [Josephus]
- His followers were called "Christians." [Tacitus, Pliny]
- They were numerous in Bithynia and Rome [Tacitus, Pliny]
- It was a world-wide movement. [Eliezer]
- His brother was James. [Josephus]
Next, here -- as I pointed out recently -- is Paul, on trial for his life c 59 AD, addressing dubious a prioris and actually calling his judge as expert witness . . . who ducks the bouncer:
Ac 26: 2 “I consider myself fortunate that it is before you, King Agrippa, I am going to make my defense today against all the accusations of the Jews, 3 especially because you are familiar with all the customs and controversies of the Jews. Therefore I beg you to listen to me patiently.
4 “My manner of life from my youth, spent from the beginning among my own nation and in Jerusalem, is known by all the Jews. 5 They have known for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that according to the strictest party of our religion I have lived as a Pharisee.
6 And now I stand here on trial because of my hope in the promise made by God to our fathers [--> prophecies, esp. Isa 53], 7 to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly worship night and day. And for this hope I am accused by Jews, O king!
8 Why is it thought incredible by any of you that God [= creator & sustainer of life: "in him we live, and move and have our being"] raises the dead? . . . .
24 And as he was saying these things in his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, “Paul, you are out of your mind; your great learning is driving you out of your mind.”
25 But Paul said, “I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I am speaking true and rational words. 26 For the king knows about these things, and to him I speak boldly. For I am persuaded that none of these things has escaped his notice, for this has not been done in a corner.
27 King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you believe.”
28 And Agrippa said to Paul, “In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?” [--> ducks] 29 And Paul said, “Whether short or long, I would to God that not only you but also all who hear me this day might become such as I am—except for these chains.”
This is masterfully picked up, c. 1930, by eagle-eyed English Barrister Frank Morison in his well-known book:
[N]ow the peculiar thing . . . is that not only did [belief in Jesus' resurrection as in part testified to by the empty tomb] spread to every member of the Party of Jesus of whom we have any trace, but they brought it to Jerusalem and carried it with inconceivable audacity into the most keenly intellectual centre of Judaea . . . and in the face of every impediment which a brilliant and highly organised camarilla could devise. And they won. Within twenty years the claim of these Galilean peasants had disrupted the Jewish Church and impressed itself upon every town on the Eastern littoral of the Mediterranean from Caesarea to Troas. In less than fifty years it had began to threaten the peace of the Roman Empire . . . .
Why did it win? . . . .
We have to account not only for the enthusiasm of its friends, but for the paralysis of its enemies and for the ever growing stream of new converts . . . When we remember what certain highly placed personages would almost certainly have given to have strangled this movement at its birth but could not - how one desperate expedient after another was adopted to silence the apostles, until that veritable bow of Ulysses, the Great Persecution, was tried and broke in pieces in their hands [the chief persecutor became the leading C1 Missionary/Apostle!] - we begin to realise that behind all these subterfuges and makeshifts there must have been a silent, unanswerable fact. [Who Moved the Stone, (Faber, 1971; nb. orig. pub. 1930), pp. 114 - 115.]
Similarly, N T Scholar Craig Evans, answering the seeping miasma of suspicion spread by the Jesus Seminar and ilk, speaks to the subtle verisimilitude of especially the Gospels (where, too, Luke-Acts has long since been respected for its habitually careful, accurate historicity):
The story told in the New Testament Gospels—in contrast to the greatly embellished versions found in the [C2, Gnostic] Gospel of Peter and other writings— smacks of verisimilitude. The women went to the tomb to mourn privately and to perform duties fully in step with Jewish burial customs. They expected to find the body of Jesus; ideas of resurrection were the last thing on their minds. The careful attention given the temporary tomb is exactly what we should expect. Pious fiction—like that seen in the Gospel of Peter— would emphasize other things. Archaeology can neither prove nor disprove the resurrection, but it can and has shed important light on the circumstances surrounding Jesus’ death, burial, and missing corpse
[--> where, for example, in 1968, an ossuary with the bones of Yehohanan son of Hagakol -- a crucified man -- definitively settled the fact that a victim of such horrific torture-execution could indeed be honourably buried according to Hebraic custom, prior skeptical sneers otherwise notwithstanding]
. . . . Research in the historical Jesus has taken several positive steps in recent years. Archaeology, remarkable literary discoveries, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, and progress in reassessing the social, economic, and political setting of first-century Palestine have been major factors.
Notwithstanding the eccentricities and skepticism of the Jesus Seminar, the persistent trend in recent years is to see the Gospels as essentially reliable, especially when properly understood, and to view the historical Jesus in terms much closer to Christianity’s traditional understanding, i.e., as proclaimer of God’s rule, as understanding himself as the Lord’s anointed, and, indeed, as God’s own son, destined to rule Israel. But this does not mean that the historical Jesus that has begun to emerge in recent years is simply a throwback to the traditional portrait. The picture of Jesus that has emerged is more finely nuanced, more obviously Jewish, and in some ways more unpredictable than ever. The last word on the subject has not been written and probably never will be. Ongoing discovery and further investigation will likely force us to make further revisions as we read and read again the old Gospel stories and try to come to grips with the life of this remarkable Galilean Jew.
Is it, then, any surprise to see the impact of the up to a dozen minimal facts granted by the majority of academic scholarship on the subject, as Habermas reports:
The point of this, is to look at well attested, well-grounded, widely accepted facts that are "a game-changer."
For, if these facts are so, there is but one really good explanation for them, the well-warranted truth of the core gospel message. The good news:
i: of God who so loved us thatii: he gave his one and only Eternal Son as our Saviour,iii: who died on a cross for our sins,iv: was buried, rose, was seen of altogether 500 witnesses, andv: who commissioned the church to go forth to all nations and all generations with that good news, andvi: to thereby call us all to repentance, trust in Christ, and a new life of discipleship.vii: All of us, no exceptions.And, once that is grounded as well-warranted, bedrock foundation truth, the compelling force of truth and our patent duty to face the truth at the heart of the Christian Faith and message and live by it then changes everything.
Everything.
So, as Paul said, this is "of first importance."
Thus, the method is potentially decisive.
The method, in a nutshell -- and Greenleaf's remarks are also highly relevant, is:
The minimal facts method only uses sources which are multiply attested, and agreed to by a majority of scholars (ranging from atheist to conservative). This requires that they have one or more of the following criteria which are relevant to textual criticism:
- Multiple sources - If two or more sources attest to the same fact, it is more likely authentic
- Enemy attestation - If the writers enemies corroborate a given fact, it is more likely authentic
- Principle of embarrassment - If the text embarrasses the writer, it is more likely authentic Eyewitness testimony - First hand accounts are to be preferred
- Early testimony - an early account is more likely accurate than a later one
Having first established the well attested facts, the approach then argues that the best explanation of these agreed to facts is the resurrection of Jesus Christ . . . . [Source: "Minimal facts" From Apologetics Wiki. Full article: here. (Courtesy, Wayback Machine.)]Why is that so?
The easiest answer is to simply list the facts that meet the above criteria and are accepted by a majority to an overwhelming majority of recent and current scholarship after centuries of intense debate:
1. Jesus died by crucifixion [--> which implies his historicity!].2. He was buried.3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.7. The resurrection was the central message.8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.9. The Church was born and grew.10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).[Cf. Habermas' paper here and a broader more popular discussion here. NT Wright's papers here and here give a rich and deep background analysis. Here is a video of a pastoral presentation of a subset of the facts. Habermas presents the case as videos here and here, in two parts. Here is a video of a debate he had with Antony Flew.]The list of facts is in some respects fairly obvious.
That a Messiah candidate was captured, tried and crucified -- as Gamaliel hinted at -- was effectively the death-knell for most such movements in Israel in the era of Roman control; to have to report such a fate was normally embarrassing and discrediting to the extreme in a shame-honour culture. The Jews of C1 Judaea wanted a victorious Greater David to defeat the Romans and usher in the day of ultimate triumph for Israel, not a crucified suffering servant. In the cases where a movement continued, the near relatives took up the mantle. That is facts 1 - 3 right there. Facts 10 - 12 are notorious. While some (it looks like about 25% of the survey of scholarship, from what I have seen) reject no 4, in fact it is hard to see a message about a resurrection in C1 that did not imply that the body was living again, as Wright discusses here. Facts 5 - 9 are again, pretty clearly grounded.
So, the challenge is to explain this cluster or important subsets of it, without begging questions and without selective hyperskepticism. The old Deist objections (though sometimes renewed today) have deservedly fallen by the wayside. [Also, cf. ten video shorts on popular myths here.]
We may briefly compare:
Jerusalem
c 30 AD
objectors who then became church leaders: James & PaulBodily Resurrection Visions/
hallucinationsSwoon/recovery Wrong tomb Stolen body/fraud Quran 4:155 -6: "They did not slay him, neither crucified him." 1 1 1 1 4 "Jesus never existed" 1 1 1 1 4 "Christianity as we know it was cooked up by Constantine and others at Nicea, who censored/ distorted the original record" 1 1 1 1 4 "What we have today is 'Paulianity,' not the original teachings of Jesus and his disciples" 2 1 1 2 6 Christianity -- including the resurrection -- is a gradually emerging legend based on a real figure Complete legend/pagan copycat (Greek, Persian, Egyptian, etc) (I have given my scores above, based on reasoning that should be fairly obvious. As an exercise you may want to come up with your own scores on a 5 - 1 scale: 5 = v. good/ 4 = good/ 3 = fair/ 2 = poor/ 1 = v. poor, with explanations. Try out blends of the common skeptical theories to see how they would fare.)
In short, the choice is between an unprecedented mass, in-common hallucination and "why should it seem incredible that God raises the dead?"
Of course, for many, they are prepared to dismiss God, but (as we will see in coming days) that is not a well founded view.
This also answers to a puzzle.
For, to the millions who have this in hand (directly or from sound teachers and researchers including apologetics specialists), such warrant is good reason to hold high confidence of reliable, God given truth in Jesus and the Scriptures that prophesied him. Even if many others are dismissive or worse.
So, going forward, that will be taken as a given. END
