Josiah Concept Ministries

Defending the Faith Against Its Detractors

Archive for the ‘Jesus’ Category

« Previous Entries

Inanna: Prototype of Easter?

Posted by Cory Tucholski on April 13, 2009

Several atheist websites carried the story today: an interview with Dr. Tony Nugent of Seattle University conducted by Valerie Tarico of Huffington Post reveals that Easter has its origins in ancient Sumeria. In a myth constructed circa 2100 b.c., the goddess Inanna dies and rises after three days. Although on the surface, the myth sounds similar to the story of Christ, there are a number of significant differences that you will fail to hear about if you just take the word of Ms. Tarico.

First, this epic takes place thousands of years before human beings, and has nothing to do with human beings. The myth is to explain the cyclical seasons, and as is common in many myths of this type, the goddess dies and rises in a cyclical fashion. The myth takes place wholly in the realm of the gods, and has no proof of its historicity as such.

The story of Jesus, on the other hand, takes place within human history and is verifiable historically.

Second, Inanna is raised if she can find someone to take her place. In this case, she chose her husband who failed to moun her. Her sister-in-law pleaded to take his place, and so it was settled that Inanna’s husband would take half the year in the underworld and his sister the other half. This myth explains not a victory over death, as Jesus’ story does, instead it depicts the cyclical seasons.

In Jesus’ case, he rose only once (not cyclically) and no one had to take his place. In fact, no one could take his place, for Jesus lived a sinless life. It is well-established by a look at the Bible and human history that no one else has lived a sinless life. The fact of the empty tomb is also verifiable historically. Gary Habermas, Michael Licona, and William Lane Craig all have articles and books on that subject.

Third, Inanna is killed attempting to conquer the underworld. This is a significant departure from the Jesus story. This is goddess turf war, and has nothing to do with salvation.

Jesus, on the other hand, died on the cross to save mankind from his sins. This story has everything to do with salvation and nothing to do with the cyclical nature of seasons.

Fourth, there is no betrayal by someone close to the goddess in the Inanna myth as Dr. Nugent claims. He is simply wrong about that detail. Inanna was betrayed by her sister, the ruler of the underworld, but the two were not close. Their enmity is well-documented by other Sumerian myths.

Dying and rising gods usually signify something about the seasons, not anything to do with salvation and victory over death. Jesus died to secure salvation for the elect, to end the reign of death. He doesn’t continually rise again and again so that the seasons work in a cycle. Sorry, guys, but there are far more differences than similarities in the story.

Read the Wikipedia entry for Inanna; as of April 12, 2009 the details of the details of the story line up with my presentation above and not Dr. Nugent’s presentation.

Also read the brief entry at pantheon.org; it confirms some of the details above.

Posted in Apologetics, Heresy, Jesus | Leave a Comment »

Statement of Faith II: The One True God

Posted by Cory Tucholski on April 10, 2009

In The Jewish Approach to God, Rabbi Neil Gillman cited that Jews believe that God is echad, which means “one.” He spent an entire chapter discussing that concept at great length, and I will touch on a few brief points in this post.

First, there is the shema. Jewish men recite the shema daily. It is Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” The word for “one” in that passage is the Hebrew word echad, which implies more than just a number. It means more than, “God is a single unit,” although it means that, too. Echad means that God is uniquely God. God is unique because he is God.

So, now my atheist readers are raising an eyebrow and saying, “Ha! You worship three Gods: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit! How does that jive with ‘God is one.’ Christianity loses, atheism wins!” Well, dear atheist reader, I’m going to try to explain it to you. Wipe the drool from your lower lip and continue reading.

I have outlined in this post that there is a fundamental difference between the polytheism of Indian religions like Hinduism and the monotheism of Christianity. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each echad–uniquely God–while retaining their individual identities. Some atheists assert that we are worshiping three Gods in One. We are not: we are worshiping three Persons in one God.

Nothing about “personhood” suggests that it must be unique to an individual essence or soul. One could easily make the argument that an essence or soul could have multiple persons attached to it. That is not the case with humans, God’s image-bearers. Our essence contains only one person attached to it. Not the case with God; his essence carries three Persons attached to it: Father, Son, and Spirit.

Why, if we are God’s image-bearers, then do we only have one person attached to our souls while God has three? Would it not make sense that we should have three persons attached to our soul? Well, that is actually a very good question, and tough to answer. Scripture is silent in this regard, so we must be careful when attempting to draw inferences from it. The best, and most reasonable, explanation is that God chose to attach only one person to a human soul instead of three. That is our ontology, the way that God made us, and why he didn’t make us another way is simply a mystery.

One last point bears touching on before I close the discussion of the Trinity. As Richard Dawkins put it in The God Delusion, rivers of ink (and blood) have been wasted trying to explain the Trinity and Dawkins complains that much of it remains a mystery. So I ask, “Why the double standard?” Science accepts abiogenesis as a potential theory about the origins of life, despite failing in every way to substantiate it. The origin of life remains a mystery. Yet many hold out that one day, we will substantiate abiogenesis and solve the mystery of life. Why, I ask again, are you allowed to have mysteries of science, but I am not allowed to have mysteries of faith? I am doing the same thing as you are doing with abiogenesis, but for that you label me a “fundie” or “deluded.”

In The God Delusion, Dawkins explains that a certain agnosticism is warranted when the evidence is scant. Just like atheists can remain agnostic about the origin of life and still be called reasonable, we can call the Trinity a mystery and still be reasonable.

God, though three, is really one (echad). This is one of the great mysteries of faith, and instead of filling us with skepticism it should fill us with wonder. The wonder of echad is that God is the only God (see Is 44:6).

Posted in Father, God, Holy Spirit, Jesus, Theology, Trinity | Leave a Comment »

What are Doctrinal Divisions Really About?

Posted by Cory Tucholski on December 28, 2008

Doctrinal divisions that permeate the church so profusely, at their core, aren’t about what Scripture says. Only the King James Version Onlyists dispute what Scripture says. We’ve taken them, and the famous NIV Quiz, on before. The divisions are over what Scripture means.

Case in point is the recent informal blog debate between Matthew Bellisario and the pseudonymous “TurretinFan.” The crux of the debate is whose interpretation of Romans 14 is correct–Mr. Bellisario, or TF. Mr. Bellisario insists, and correctly I believe, that Romans 14 is aimed at the Judaizers of Paul’s day who would impose the Law on Christians. Further, such a passage doesn’t remove from the Church the authority to impose new holy days and bind Christians to obeying them.

I agree with Mr. Bellisario’s assessment of the passage. I agree that it is aimed at the Judaizers of Paul’s day and I agree that it doesn’t preclude the Church from imposing holy days upon Christians.

However, the imposition of new holy days goes against the spirit of the passage, and indeed the spirit of the Gospel. Jesus died and rose again to free us from the legalism of the Jewish Law. This is TF’s primary point. However, Mr. Bellisario doesn’t see the Catholic Church as imposing a new legalism on Christians. This is why the two are talking past each other–Mr. Bellisario is unable to empathize with TF’s position. Mr. Bellisario sees the Catholic Church as the sole infallible authority for determining Christian morality and living, rather than giving Scripture that place.

So, what is my opinion of Romans 14? I believe that it applies to all holy days, new or old. As TF points out, Scripture is like a fine gem with many facets. It is important to look at all opinions, past and present, to get a feel for something that you might miss. I also agree with Mr. Bellisario that Romans 14 doesn’t preclude the addition of new holy days, however there is no authority anywhere in Scripture that confers the power to bind Christians under threat of mortal sin to observe these new holy days.

Does that mean that we are free of the Sabbath day? By no means. As TF reminds us, the Sabbath goes back to creation and is therefore binding on all people. The obligation to reserve a day of worship for God alone was not erased by the cross, since it predates the Law. The Cross is the end of the Law.

While I agree that new holy days aren’t out of the realm of the church’s authority, binding them on all Christians under penalty of mortal sin is out of the reach of the church.

I highly reccommend reading the informal debate. The links above are to the start posts of the debate.

Posted in Bible Thoughts, Jesus, King James Onlyism, Roman Catholicism | 3 Comments »

Does the Catholic Church Teach Syncretism?

Posted by Cory Tucholski on November 20, 2008

Matthew Bellisario, the “Catholic Champion,” writes that he is tired of Reformed apologists saying that the Catholic Church teaches that all religions are salvific. I am not aware of any Reformed apologists who make such a claim, nor is such a claim even close to syncretism.

Syncretism, according to dictionary.com, means:

the attempted reconciliation or union of different or opposing principles, practices, or parties, as in philosophy or religion.

If these unnamed Reformed apologists are accusing the Catholic Church of syncretism, it means that they are accusing it of trying to reconcile the opposing claims of various religions.

Syncretism, in Mr. Bellisario’s post, is used to mean “Universalism.” This is something that I’m not aware of any of my fellow Reformed apologists charging Rome with. Mr. Bellisario claims that Rome teaches the only way to heaven is itself–”Holy Mother Church,” as Mr. Bellisario puts it. Let’s find out if that is, in fact, what Rome teaches.

In a controversial document released by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Rome admits:

It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church (source, emphasis added)

This is, of course, specifically addressing Protestant churches. So what we find is that the Catholic Church teaches that salvation is possible, even probable, in Protestant churches.

But the Catholic Church goes further than that. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it says:

“The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” (paragraph 841)

Kelly Wilson noted Pope John Paul II’s position on the Muslim faith:

However, though the Pope cannot deny the reality that Islam worships the same God, he highlights that there still remains important distinctions between these two monotheistic approaches to God. . . . What makes us distinct is our understanding of how God is revealed in the person of Jesus, and so when it comes to our relations with the other monotheistic faiths, even if the same God is commonly worshipped by Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the understanding that God is revealed in Jesus, is a message unique to Christianity, and one cannot tire of communicating it. (source, emphasis added)

It’s a mixed bag of teachings, and I don’t think that Mr. Bellisario got it right. He explicitly contradicts Catholic teaching when he states that no one can be saved in Islam or Protestantism. The Church actually teaches the opposite; that one can, in fact, have salvation in a Protestant church as I have demonstrated above. As for salvation through Islam, the Church doesn’t explicitly teach that so I won’t say that Mr. Bellisario has contradicted Catholic teaching there.

Mr. Bellisario rightly concludes his line of thought by asking, “Sounds to me like the Church still teaches that the Church is necessary doesn’t it?” It certainly does teach that, and taht is precisely what is wrong with the Catholic Church. The only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ (see Jn 6:40, 44; Jn 14:6; Acts 4:12; Rom 10:9-11).

Posted in Apologetics, Jesus, Roman Catholicism, Theology | 2 Comments »

Personal Testimonies

Posted by Cory Tucholski on September 6, 2008

Although atheists disagree, I think that personal testimony of encounters with God are some of the most powerful pieces of evidence in favor of God’s existence. Although personal experiences are subjective, each run through the filter of one’s own previous experiences, education, and background, the foundation of the Christian religion itself is based upon personal experience.

Moses had several personal encounters with God. First, at the burning bush, then later atop Mt. Sinai. It is through these personal encounters that we got the Law. The apostle Paul had such a personal encounter with God that it changed the way he thought about Jewish Law and made him an ardent defender of the faith that he persecuted.

I remember a good friend’s grandfather telling me about his own personal encounter with God. It was at that friend’s wedding three years ago. He told me that he had died, but that God sent him back for the express purpose of telling everyone that story. And he does; that story is one of the first things he tells everyone new that he meets.

This man is rational and sane, yet he claims to have had this profound encounter with God. Are we just going to dismiss his experience as a hallucination? As the product of a broken mind? Or can we accept this story as true, as an encounter with the living God?

Personally, I favor the third option. An otherwise sane person would know the difference between a hallucination and reality. A crazy person would manifest other signs of insanity. No, I think that the third option best fits the facts as they stand. I believe that he had an encounter with the living God.

Most encounters with God aren’t so dramatic as meeting him face-to-face, as in the above examles. Most, I believe, are had through other people and circumstances in our lives. For example, my wedding was a gift from God. We planned it in less than a month, and everything came together with no fuss whatsoever. Normally, something of that magnitude would have caused numerous snags and problems, but not this time. I believe that that was an encounter with God.

I have a friend who prayed for a sign and drove past a church with a single neon sign that said “HOPE.” He passed that same church each and everyday at the same time and had never noticed the sign before. Maybe it was just a coincidence that he did this time, but I think otherwise. I think that this was an encounter with God.

My wife and I have fertility problems. I was also very sick (and thus faced considerable difficulty) during her ovulation, yet we were able to conceive our daughter on the first try. Maybe that is also a coincidence, but knowing what I know about the human body and how many things have to fall into place for conception to happen, I believe that this is also an encounter with God.

Once I remember feeling unappreciated at work. Even more than normal. An older lady happened to be the only customer around, and she told me what a great job she thought I was doing taking care of her and that she knew I would go far in this life because of my work ethic. She gave me a hug before she left. I felt energized and happy–this was exactly what I needed. This was an encounter with God.

Most encounters with God are just what I have described above–events and people that touch us in a way that we need at that moment. What about you, readers? Have you any personal stories about encounters with God? Would you like to read more personal encounters with God? Sign up for the message board Is God Imaginary and share them in this thread, or just read the stories that others have posted. Comments are disabled here to encourage your visit to the message boards.

Posted in Apologetics, God, Jesus, Personal | Leave a Comment »

I Don’t Believe in Atheists

Posted by Cory Tucholski on July 18, 2008

Recently, I’ve started reading an excellent book by Chris Hedges with the provocative title I Don’t Believe in Atheists.  Hedges, no friend of either Christianity or the New Atheism, is systematically picking apart the claims of the New Atheists (such as Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins).  The trick is that he is doing it from a secular perspective–he hates Christianity as much as the New Atheists do, and makes no bones about saying so.  In fact, he’s written a book dismantling the position of Christianity called American Fascism, which I plan to read next.

What makes this book interesting is that Hedges hits the nail right on the head when he discusses the real problem with the God debate.  The real problem is the failure of each side to acknowledge the problem of sin.  Human beings are sinful by nature, argues Hedges, but both the Religious Right and the New Atheists see their position as sinless.  Therefore, they try to offer humanity a utopian world but neither can deliver this promise because of their innate sinfulness.

Humanity progresses scientifically, but regresses morally.  This is the root cause of our natural resource depletion, and our continued use of technology for warfare rather than the good of humanity.  Hedges believes that any proposed solution to the impending economic, political, and environmental crises must consider the human element of sinfulness.  It has to be more nuanced than the Religious Right’s solution of letting Jesus rebuild the earth and the New Atheist’s solution of getting rid of religion (which stands in the way of their god of reason).

I agree with Hedges insofar as a solution must be found for these impending crises.  I believe with all of my heart that Jesus will return to earth to set up a new Kingdom upon it, but I believe that that Blessed Hope may be yet far off.  Therefore, we must preserve what we have now and sustain the earth for our children.  Jesus often portrays the relationship between God and man as a landowner to his stewards.  The stewards are always held accountable by the landowner to how the owner’s property was treated while he was away.  I believe that the same will be true when Jesus returns again: he will hold humankind accountable for the way we treated his property, the earth, while he was away.

I agree with Hedges that the Bible reveals spiritual truths.  I agree with the problem of human sinfulness, and I agree that any solution offered to the complex human condition should be more nuanced than what the New Atheists and the Religious Right currently offer.

I disagree with Hedges in that I believe the Bible was written to reveal history, not just spiritual truths.  I believe in a literal six day creation and a literal Adam and Eve.  Hedges doesn’t believe in that stuff–he thinks that the Bible is only meant to convey spiritual truths through myths.  I’m not sure if Hedges believes in a literal Jesus, but obviously I believe in that (having challenged interpretations to the contrary on this blog before).

So far, I’m hooked on this book and I hope that the rest is as good as the first chapter.

Posted in Atheism, Book Review, Jesus, Sin, Theology | 3 Comments »

Thoughts on Homosexuality

Posted by Cory Tucholski on July 5, 2008

Andrew Faris from Christians in Context has a very thoughtful post on homosexuality here.

Why do Christians treat homosexuality differently than they do other sins?  Someone who is gay is struggling with a sin the same as all of us struggle with our own sins.  We should be gracious and welcoming when a homosexual couple comes into our church, and point them toward the light of Christ, who can free them from their homosexual bondage.

I can hear the objections from the gay community already.  “Homosexuals are born that way.  God wouldn’t want us to deny a part of ourselves to please him.”  The problem is that Jesus does ask us to deny ourselves, take up our crosses, and follow him (Lk 9:23).  We are sinful creatures.  Denying any sin is like denying a part of ourselves, and this is what Jesus calls us as Christians to do.

Trust me: I struggle with my sins every bit as much as a gay person would struggle with his homosexuality after coming to Christ.  It is a daily struggle for me not to fall back into old patterns of sinfulness, as it will be for the gay person to come to Christ.  But there is no sin too big for Christ to handle, if we submit to his will.

Posted in Jesus, LGBT Issues, Morality, Theology | 1 Comment »

Terrible Advice from Atheist Revolution

Posted by Cory Tucholski on June 5, 2008

VJack from Atheist Revolution has given some terrible advice about witnessing to atheists.  He says not to do it.  I advocate ignoring that advice completely.  VJack says:

I know your church says you are supposed to do this and that you’ll win friends and magic Jesus points for your efforts. I know your bible makes you think that this is what your god wants. I even know that your failures are more important than your successes because they reinforce your persecution complex. But don’t do it.

First, Jesus–not the church–says that we are supposed to do this (see Mt 28:19-20).  As disciples of Him, I don’t see us disobeying the words of our Lord because VJack says so.

Second, what exactly are these “magic Jesus points” and how do I earn them?  The last time I checked, the Bible teaches that it is Jesus who saves us and we cannot earn salvation.  Following His commands are done out of love and free choice rather than some sort of compulsion or game.

The best witness to atheists, I think, doesn’t come from words but the way we live our lives.   As St. Francis of Assisi said, “It is no use walking anywhere to preach unless our walking is our preaching.”  Along the same lines, he said, “Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words.”  Living the Word of God to the best of your ability (Rom 12:9-21) will show the atheists that our chosen lifestyle is superior to their own.  The atheists will want what we have.  The words that VJack hates so much won’t even be necessary.

Recap: Witnessing to atheists?  Do it with enthusiasm!

Posted in Apologetics, Atheism, Evangelism, Jesus, Morality | 9 Comments »

Quest for the Historical Jesus

Posted by Cory Tucholski on March 5, 2008

Liberal scholarship has agreed on one point and one point alone: the Jesus of history is not the Jesus presented in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Rook Hawkins, co-founder and self-styled ancient texts expert of the Rational Response Squad, has utilized this as the starting point for his article, “Which Jesus: A Legend with a Multiple Personality Disorder?” The foundation of this article is a prior article in which Rook examines the genre of the gospels and concludes that they were never intended to be read as biographies. It is with that article that I will start, because if an argument is based on a faulty premise, then its conclusion is nothing more than fruit from a poisoned tree.

Are the gospels ancient biographies or not? Apologist J.P. Holding asserts the fact that they are is “beyond dispute.” Rook disagrees, with the following three objections: Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Apologetics, Atheism, Heresy, Jesus | 4 Comments »

Fifth Marian Dogma Letter

Posted by Cory Tucholski on February 22, 2008

Five Roman Catholic Cardinals have written a letter to the other members of the College of Cardinals urging additional support in the form of signatures asking Pope Benedict XVI to define the fifth and final Marian dogma.  The suggested wording is thus:

Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of man, gave to humanity from the Cross his mother Mary to be the spiritual Mother of all peoples, the Co-redemptrix, who under and with her Son cooperated in the Redemption of all people; the Mediatrix of all graces, who as Mother brings us the gifts of eternal life; and the Advocate, who presents our prayers to her Son.

Let’s back up a second.  The four Marian dogmas that are already defined are the Divine Motherhood, the Perpetual Virginity, the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption.  The Divine Motherhood means Mary is called the Mother of God, or theotokos in the Greek.  The Perpetual Virginity means that Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Christ.  The Immaculate Conception means she was born without sin.  And the Assumption means that she was taken into heaven body and soul.

Now the Cardinals wish to define Mary as Co-redemptrix, which recognizes the unique role that she plays in the salvation of man.  Many people think that this a new teaching of the Catholic Church, but in reality it isn’t.  Dave Armstrong obligingly demonstrates that for us in this article.  This, in fact, has been the teaching of the Catholic Church for a very long time.

As Mediatrix of all graces, the Church will recognize that God’s grace flows to man through Mary.  She will also be defined as Advocate, which means that she presents the prayers of the faithful to her Son.   Armstrong argues that the world isn’t ready for these titles to be dogmatically defined because of the misunderstanding that they wrought.  I agree that they shouldn’t be defined, but for far different reasons than DA has given.

These titles detract from the singular glory of Jesus Christ.  Let’s look first at Mediatrix of all graces.  Grace flows not from Mary, but from God.  Not from God then to Mary then to us, but from God to us.  The Scriptures are very clear on this point: “And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work” (2 Cor 9:8) and “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God” (Eph 2:8).  Grace is God’s gift to us.  Period.

Advocate also detracts from the singular glory of Christ, for it is He that mediates prayers, not Mary to Him.  “[T]here is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5).

Finally, the letter to the Hebrews makes it abundantly clear that only one person could have made the ultimate sacrifice that pleased God and made atonement for the sins of mankind.  Only one person could “save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him” (Heb 7:25)

For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever. (Heb 7:26-28)

Mary can’t do this for us.  Only Jesus can be this high priest, superior to the earthly priests, who is “holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.”  Mary is not that high priest, nor indeed can she be.

Posted in Apologetics, Jesus, Mariology, Roman Catholicism, Theology | 1 Comment »

« Previous Entries