A Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Christ

Cable gondola shuttle to the top of Masada, Israel (near the Dead Sea)

I'm re-posting this for my Philosophy of Religion students.

This is largely taken from William Lane Craig's work, with other scholarship added as I saw fit, plus my own comments.


DID JESUS RISE FROM THE DEAD?

(Adapted from William Lane Craig, debate with Richard Carrier; Question 103 at reasonablefaith.org; “Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” at reasonablefaith.org)

A FEW PRELIMINARIES:

· Focus on the historical case for the resurrection of Jesus.

o Argue NOT from the Bible as God’s Word, but argue HISTORICALLY using the ancient texts as historical records, historical documents.

· All historical truths are probableistic (inductive). The historian asks, re. historical facts – what is the best, most probable explanation for the facts?

· Presuppose the existence of God.

o An atheist will not share this presupposition.

o The atheist will assume, therefore, that supernatural events are impossible.

Defend two major contentions.

#1 – There are 4 historical facts that must be explained by any historical hypothesis.

· Jesus’ burial (Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb)

· The discovery of his empty tomb

· Jesus’ post-mortem appearances

· The origin of his disciples’ belief in the resurrection

#2 – The best explanation of those facts is that God raised Jesus from the dead.

#1 – the following 4 facts are accepted by the majority of New Testament scholars. (NOTE: If a person wants to study the historicity of the New Testament documents, read the works of New Testament scholars. But aren’t they biased? And, if they are biased, can we trust them? A few points: 1) everyone is biased; 2) bias is helpful, even necessary; 3) a world-famous brain surgeon is biased – if you want to study brain surgery study with those who spend their life on the subject; if you want to study and learn about the guitar do not learn from someone who claims to be “neutral” about the guitar (I think “neutrality” is not an option…).

Fact 1 – after the crucifixion Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb.

Evidence: Jesus’ burial is multiply-attested in various independent sources. 

This does NOT mean that the burial stories are in the 4 Gospels. It means that the source material Mark used is different from the source material of Matthew and Luke, and they are all different from John, and these are all different from Paul’s sources.

The burial account is part of Mark's source material for the story of Jesus' Passion. 

This is a very early source which is probably based on eyewitness testimonyand dates to within several years of Jesus' crucifixion.

Moreover, Paul in his first letter to the church of Corinth also cites an extremely early source for Jesus' burial which most scholars date to within a few years or even months of the crucifixion.

Independent testimony to Jesus' burial by Joseph is also found in the special sources used by Matthew and Luke and in the Gospel of John. Historians consider themselves to have hit historical pay dirt when they have twoindependent accounts of the same event. But we have the remarkable number of at least five independent sources for Jesus' burial, some of which are extraordinarily early.

Mark's Passion source didn't end with Jesus' burial, but with the story of the empty tomb, which is tied to the burial account verbally and grammatically. Moreover, Matthew and John rely on independent sources about the empty tomb. Jesus' empty tomb is also mentioned in the early sermons independently preserved in the Acts of the Apostles (2.29; 13.36), and it's implied by the very old tradition handed on by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthian church (I Cor. 15.4). Thus, we have multiple, early attestation of the fact of the empty tomb in at least four independent sources. (See reasonablefaith.org, Question 103)

Craig writes:

Notice the focus is on the early, independent sources used by the New Testament authors.

First and foremost is the Passion source which Mark used in writing his Gospel. Whereas most of Mark's Gospel consists of short anecdotal stories strung like pearls on a string, when we get to the final week of Jesus' life we encounter a continuous narrative of events from the Jewish plot during the Feast of Unleavened Bread through Jesus' burial and empty tomb.

The events of the Last Supper, arrest, execution, burial, and empty tomb were central to the identity of early Christian communities. According to James D. G. Dunn, "The most obvious explanation of this feature is that the framework was early on fixed within the tradition process and remained so throughout the transition to written Gospels. This suggests in turn a tradition rooted in the memory of the participants and put into that framework by them" (J. D. G. Dunn,Jesus Remembered, 2003, pp. 765-6.)

The dominant view among NT scholars is therefore that the Passion narratives are early and based on eyewitness testimony (Mark Allen Powell, JAAR 68 [2000]: 171). Indeed, according to Richard Bauckham, many scholars date Mark's Passion narrative no later than the 40s (recall that Jesus died in A.D. 30) (Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 2006, p. 243). So we're dealing here with an extraordinarily early source.

Matthew and Luke, re. the burial story, draw on resources different from Mark. Craig writes:

Now Matthew and Luke probably knew Mark's Gospel, as you note, and used it as one of their sources. But the differences between Mark and the other Synoptics point to other independent sources behind Matthew and Luke. These differences are not plausibly explained as due to editorial changes introduced by Matthew and Luke because of (i) their sporadic and uneven nature (e.g., Mark: "tomb which had been hewn out of rock"; Matthew: "tomb which he hewed in the rock"; (ii) the inexplicable omission of events like Pilate's interrogating the centurion; and (iii) Matthew and Luke's agreeing in their wording in contrast to Mark (e.g., Matt. 27.58 = Lk. 23.52 "This man went in to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus." Also the phrase translated "wrapped it in linen" is identical in Matthew and Luke. How could Matthew and Luke have independently chosen exactly the same wording in contrast to Mark? They both probably had another source. Indeed, as we'll see when we get to the empty tomb account, differences between Matthew and Luke emerge that suggest multiple sources.

What about the Gospel of John? Craig writes:

John is generally believed to be independent of the Synoptic Gospels. As Paul Barnett points out, "Careful comparison of the texts of Mark and John indicate that neither of these Gospels is dependent on the other. Yet they have a number of incidents in common: For example, . . . the burial of Jesus in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea" (Jesus and the Logic of History, 1997, pp. 104-5).

Paul:

Finally, the old tradition handed on by Paul to the Corinthian church, which is among the earliest traditions identifiable in the NT, refers to Jesus' burial in the second line of the tradition. That this is the same event as the burial described in the Gospels becomes evident by comparing Paul's tradition with the Passion narratives on the one hand and the sermons in the Acts of the Apostles on the other. The four-line tradition handed on by Paul is a summary of the central events of Jesus' crucifixion, burial by Joseph of Arimathea, the discovery of his empty tomb, and his appearances to the disciples.

As a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin that was against Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea is unlikely to be a Christian invention.

NT scholar Raymond Brown says burial by Joseph of Arimathea is very probable. Why? Because: It is almost inexplicable why Christians would make up a story about a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin who does what is right by Jesus.

So most NT scholars say it is highly likely that Jesus’ body was placed in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea.

Fact #2 – on the Sunday after the crucifixion the tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of His women followers.

Most NT scholars also agree with the fact of the empty tomb.

Some who argue against this claim that the story of the empty tomb was a fictional, literary creation of Mark.

1 – The historical reliability of the burial account supports the empty tomb.

If the account of Jesus’ burial is accurate, then the site of Jesus’ tomb was known to Jew and Christian alike.

In that case it’s a very short inference to the historicity of the empty tomb.

Because in that case, the tomb must have been empty when the disciples began to preach that Jesus was risen.

Why? Because the disciples could not have believed in Jesus’ resurrection if his corpse still was lying in the tomb.

As long as the corpse of Jesus lay in the tomb, a Christian movement in Jerusalem, founded on the resurrection of Jesus, would never have arisen.

If the disciples went around preaching “Jesus is risen from the dead,” but his body lay in the tomb, hardly anyone would have believed them. Remember that early Christian belief in the resurrection flourished in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus had been publicly crucified.

More than this, even if a lot of people believed this while the body of Jesus was still in the tomb, the Jewish authorities could have exposed the whole thing by pointing to Jesus’ tomb, even perhaps exhuming Jesus’ dead body.

2 – the empty tomb is multiply attested in independent early sources.

The account of Jesus' burial in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea is part of Mark's source material for the passion story. This is a very early source which is probably based on eyewitness testimony. (Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, Kindle Locations 6492-6493).

Moreover, Matthew and John rely on independent sources about the empty tomb.

The empty tomb tradition is independently preserved in the early sermons in the book of Acts.

And, it’s implied in the very old tradition cited by Paul.in his first letter to the Corinthian church.

Thus we have multiple early attestation of the fact of the empty tomb, in at least 4 independent sources.

So, the story of the empty tomb can’t be a literary creation of Mark.

Craig writes:

What about the empty tomb account? First, it was also part of the pre-Markan Passion narrative. The empty tomb story is syntactically tied to the burial story; indeed, they are just one story. E.g., the antecedent of "him" (Jesus) in Mk. 16:1 is in the burial account (15:43); the women's discussion of the stone presupposes the stone's being rolled over the tomb's entrance; their visiting the tomb presupposes their noting its location in 15.47; the words of the angel "see the place where they laid him" refer back to Joseph's laying body in the tomb.

As for the other Gospels, that Matthew has an independent tradition of the empty tomb is evident not only from the non-Matthean vocabulary (e.g., the words translated "on the next day," "the preparation day," "deceiver," "guard [of soldiers]," "to make secure," "to seal"; the expression "on the third day" is also non-Matthean, for he everywhere else uses "after three days;" the expression "chief priests and Pharisees" never appears in Mark or Luke and is also unusual for Matthew), but also from Matt. 28.15: "this story has been spread among Jews till this day," indicative of a tradition history of disputes with Jewish non-Christians. Luke and John have the non-Markan story of Peter and another disciple inspecting the tomb, which, given John's independence of Luke, indicates a separate tradition behind the story. Moreover, we have already seen that John's independence of Mark shows that he has a separate source for the empty tomb.

The early sermons in Acts are likely not created by Luke out of whole cloth but represent early apostolic preaching. We find the empty tomb implied in the contrast between David's tomb and Jesus': "David died and was buried and his tomb is with us to this day." But "this Jesus God has raised up" (2:29-32; cf. 13.36-7).

Finally, the third line of the tradition handed on by Paul summarizes, as I have said, the empty tomb story. The German NT critic Klaus Berger concludes: "Without a doubt the grave of Jesus was found to be empty, and, moreover, the texts about it are not in general dependent upon Mark" (ZKT, 1993, p. 436).

Thus, the burial and empty tomb of Jesus enjoy multiple, early, independent attestation. While some of these traditions could be variations on a common tradition (such as Luke and John's tradition of the disciples' inspection of the empty tomb in response to the women's report), they cannot all be so regarded because they narrate different events. Even in the case of variations on a common tradition, we are pushed back so early, as Dunn emphasizes, that we must now ask what events occurred to leave such an early impression on the tradition, and the obvious explanation is the burial of Jesus in the tomb and the discovery of the empty tomb. While multiple, independent attestation alone would not render the burial and empty tomb "virtually certain," keep in mind that this is but one line of evidence among many, so that the cumulative case for these facts is very powerful, indeed.

3 – The tomb was discovered empty by women.

In patriarchal Jewish society the testimony of women was not highly regarded.

In fact, the ancient Jewish historian Josephus says that, on account of their boldness and levity, women should not even be allowed to serve as witnesses in a Jewish court of law.

In light of this fact how remarkable it is that it is women who were the discoverers of Jesus’ empty tomb.

Any later legendary account would surely have made male disciples find the empty tomb.

The fact that it is women rather than men who are the chief witnesses to the empty tomb is best explained by the fact that they were the discoverers of the empty tomb.

The Gospel writers faithfully record what for them was an awkward and embarrassing fact.

4 – the story of the empty tomb is simple and lacks theological embellishment.

Mark’s story of the empty tomb is uncolored by the theological and apologetical motifs that would be present if the story was a Christian creation.

For example, it’s remarkable that in Mark’s account the resurrection of Jesus is not actually described at all.

Contrast later, forged “gospels,” in which Jesus is seen emerging from the tomb in glory to multitudes of crowds.

In Mark we have little or no embellishment. At most, the critical historian might want to call the angel a later embellishment.

But Mark’s account of the resurrection is stark. Simple.

Mark’s story has all the earmarks of a very primitive tradition which is free from theological and apologetical reflection.

This is powerful evidence against those critics who argue that Mark’s account of the empty tomb is a literary creation.

5 – The early church polemic presupposes the empty tomb.

In Matthew 28 we find a Christian attempt to refute a Jewish polemic against the resurrection.

Disciples of Jesus were in Jerusalem proclaiming “Jesus is risen from the dead!”

How did Jews respond to this?

By saying Jesus’ body is still in the tomb?

By say the disciples are crazy?

No – what they did say was this: “The disciples stole away the body.”

Think about that for a moment.

The earliest Jewish response to the situation was itself an attempt to explain the fact that the tomb was empty.

Fact #3 – Jesus’ post-mortem appearances.

On different occasions and under various circumstances individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus now alive from the dead.

This is a fact that’s acknowledged by virtually all NT scholars, for the following reasons.

1 – Paul’s list of resurrection appearances guarantees that such appearances occurred.

· Paul tells us that Jesus appeared to his chief disciple, Peter.

· Paul tells us that Jesus appeared to the 12.

· Paul tells us that Jesus appeared to 500 at once.

· Paul tells us that Jesus ten appeared to his younger brother James, who apparently at that time was not a believer.

· Paul then tells us that Jesus appeared to all the apostles.

· Finally, Paul adds, “Jesus appeared also to me.” And Paul was at that time still an unbeliever.

Craig writes:

Undoubtedly the major impetus for the reassessment of the appearance tradition was the demonstration by Joachim Jeremias that in 1 Corinthians 15: 3-5 Paul is quoting an old Christian formula which he received and in turn passed on to his converts According to Galatians 1:18 Paul was in Jerusalem three years after his conversion on a fact-finding mission, during which he conferred with Peter and James over a two week period, and he probably received the formula at this time, if not before. Since Paul was converted in AD 33, this means that the list of witnesses goes back to within the first five years after Jesus' death. Thus, it is idle to dismiss these appearances as legendary. We can try to explain them away as hallucinations if we wish, but we cannot deny they occurred. Paul's information makes it certain that on separate occasions various individuals and groups saw Jesus alive from the dead. According to Norman Perrin, the late NT critic of the University of Chicago: "The more we study the tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which they are based." This conclusion is virtually indisputable.

Given the early date of Paul’s writing this, plus Paul’s personal acquaintance with the persons involved, these appearances cannot be dismissed as unhistorical.

NOTE: the early date ensures that the appearance stories cannot be “legendary.” Legends take many years to develop. Craig writes: “For in order for these stories to be in the main legendary, a very considerable length of time must be available for the evolution and development of the traditions until the historical elements have been supplanted by unhistorical.”

2 – The appearance narratives in the Gospels provide multiple independent attestation of the appearances.

The appearance narratives span such a breadth of independent sources that it cannot be reasonably denied that the original disciples had such appearances.

Even the skeptical scholar Gerd Ludemann says it cannot be denied that these early followers of Jesus did have such experiences.

N.T. Wright, in The Resurrection of the Son of God, gives a 7-step argument in support of these two claims. 

1. When early Christians are asked why they believed in the resurrection of Christ, “their answers hone in on two things”:
   1. Stories about Jesus’ tomb being empty.
   2. Stories about Jesus appearing to people, alive again.
   3. These stories were formulated within the context and worldview of Second-Temple Judaism. “No second-Temple Jews came up with anything remotely like them.” (688)

Neither the empty tomb by itself, nor the appearances by themselves, would have generated early Christian belief in the resurrection.

1. The empty tomb, by itself, would be a puzzle and a tragedy.

i. Perhaps, e.g., the grace had been robbed? “Tombs were often robbed in the ancient world, adding to grief both insult and injury.” (688)

ii. “Nobody in the pagan world would have interpreted an empty tomb as implying resurrection; everyone knew such a thing was out of the question.” (688-689)

iii. “Certainly… the disciples were not expecting any such thing to happen to Jesus.” (689)

2. The appearances, by themselves, would have been classified as visions or hallucinations, which were well known in the ancient world.
3. Individually, the empty tomb and the appearances are insufficient to explain the belief in the resurrection of Jesus.
2. “However, an empty tomb and appearances of a living Jesus, taken together, would have presented a powerful reason for the emergence of the belief.” (Ib.)
   1. Together, the empty tomb and the appearances provide a sufficient reason for early Christian belief in Jesus’ resurrection.
   2. “From

“The meaning of resurrection within Second-Temple Judaism makes it impossible to conceive of this reshaped resurrection belief emerging without it being known that a body had disappeared, and that the person had been discovered to be thoroughly alive again.” (Ib.)

Alternative explanations for the emergence of the belief that Jesus had been raised from the dead do not have the same explanatory power.

“It is therefore historically highly probable that Jesus’ tomb was indeed empty on the third day after his execution, and that the disciples did indeed encounter him giving every appearance of being well and truly alive.” (687)

The past and most important question is: What explanation can be given for these two phenomena?

Fact #4 – The original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe that Jesus is risen from the dead despite them having every predisposition to the contrary.

Think of the situation these followers of Jesus faced after his crucifixion.

1 – Their leader was dead. Jewish Messianic expectations had no idea of a Messiah who would triumph over his enemies by being humiliated and executed by them as a criminal.

2 – Jewish beliefs about the afterlife did not allow for some individual to rise from the dead before the expected general resurrection from the dead.

But the early disciples felt so strongly that God had raised the individual man Jesus from the dead that they were willing to die for the truth of that belief.

Then… the question arises… what caused them to believe such an un-Jewish, outlandish thing?

N.T. Wright says – “That is why, as an historian, that I cannot explain the arising of Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind.”

SUMMING UP

The following 4 facts are agreed upon by the majority of New Testament scholars.

1. Jesus’ burial

2. Jesus’ empty tomb

3. Jesus’ post-mortem appearances

4. The origin of the disciples’ belief

This brings us to the second major contention, which is: the best explanation for these facts is that God raised Jesus from the dead.

6 Tests Historians Use to Discover What Is the Best Explanation For a Given Historical Fact (from historian C.B McCullough)

The hypothesis “God raised Jesus from the dead” passes all of these tests.

1. It has great explanatory scope – it explains all 4 of the facts before us

2. It has great explanatory power – it explains each fact well

3. It is plausible – give the historical context of Jesus’ own life and claims, the resurrection occurs as divine confirmation of those claims.

4. It is not ad hoc or contrived – it requires only 1 additional hypothesis; viz., that God exists.

5. It is in accord with accepted beliefs – the hypothesis God raised Jesus from the dead does not conflict with the accepted belief that people don’t rise naturally from the dead.

6. It far outstrips any rival theories in meeting conditions 1-5. No natural hypothesis does as good a job at explaining the 4 facts.

I think the best explanation for the historical facts is that God raised Jesus from the dead.


*****
ADDITION - N.T. Wright on the Resurrection of Jesus, from his The Resurrection of the Son of God.

These two things must be regarded as historically secure:

1. The emptiness of the tomb

2. The meetings with the risen Jesus

“These two phenomena are firmly warranted.” (686)

Wright gives a 7-step argument in support of these two claims.

1. When early Christians are asked why they believed in the resurrection of Christ, “their answers hone in on two things”:

a. Stories about Jesus’ tomb being empty.

b. Stories about Jesus appearing to people, alive again.

c. These stories were formulated within the context and worldview of Second-Temple Judaism. “No second-Temple Jews came up with anything remotely like them.” (688)

2. Neither the empty tomb by itself, nor the appearances by themselves, would have generated early Christian belief in the resurrection.

a. The empty tomb, by itself, would be a puzzle and a tragedy.

i. Perhaps, e.g., the grace had been robbed? “Tombs were often robbed in the ancient world, adding to grief both insult and injury.” (688)

ii. “Nobody in the pagan world would have interpreted an empty tomb as implying resurrection; everyone knew such a thing was out of the question.” (688-689)

iii. “Certainly… the disciples were not expecting any such thing to happen to Jesus.” (689)

b. The appearances, by themselves, would have been classified as visions or hallucinations, which were well known in the ancient world.

c. Individually, the empty tomb and the appearances are insufficient to explain the belief in the resurrection of Jesus.

3. “However, an empty tomb and appearances of a living Jesus, taken together, would have presented a powerful reason for the emergence of the belief.” (Ib.)

a. Together, the empty tomb and the appearances provide a sufficient reason for early Christian belief in Jesus’ resurrection.

4. “The meaning of resurrection within Second-Temple Judaism makes it impossible to conceive of this reshaped resurrection belief emerging without it being known that a body had disappeared, and that the person had been discovered to be thoroughly alive again.” (Ib.)

5. Alternative explanations for the emergence of the belief that Jesus had been raised from the dead do not have the same explanatory power.

6. “It is therefore historically highly probable that Jesus’ tomb was indeed empty on the third day after his execution, and that the disciples did indeed encounter him giving every appearance of being well and truly alive.” (687)

7. The past and most important question is: What explanation can be given for these two phenomena?

The Fate of the Spiritual Pioneer

Detroit Public Library

Many pastors and Christian leaders are calling their churches to Revival and Awakening. Some have shared with me that they are encountering resistance. For the enemy, satan, wants to keep the church dead and asleep (choose your metaphor). The enemy desires to keep church people comfortable. And happy, and entertained. 

These pastors are prophets and spiritual pioneers. Leonard Ravenhill described their fate like this.

• They are the villains of today and the heroes of tomorrow. 
• They are excommunicated while alive and exalted when dead. 
• They are dishonored with epithets when breathing and honored with epitaphs when dead. 
• They are friendless while living and famous when dead. 
• They are against the establishment in ministry; then they are established as saints by posterity.

In Brown, Michael L. Revolution in the Church: Challenging the Religious System with a Call for Radical Change, Kindle Locations 2147-2153)

Jesus experienced this kind of resistance, right? The "religious" stand against spiritual progress.

Are Children More Mature than Their Age?

(When I was a youth pastor a parent approached me with their idea that their teen was more mature than their age. What did I think about that? Here is my response. And, BTW, their teen child was a great blessing to me and our youth ministry.)

I don't think I've ever met an 18-year-old who doesn't act like an 18-year-old, unless they act less than an 18-year-old. But never more. 18-year-olds have not matured beyond their 18 years. 

I have met, through the years, parents who think their kid is more mature than their age. They are wrong. Their false belief will likely harm their child. 

In premarital counseling I tell young adult couples that I view them as knowing little or nothing about marriage. Why should they? Linda and I are in year 46 of marriage and we're still learning and growing. We would not think of saying we've reached full marital maturity. We have not yet gone through old age together. We could read books on what this will be like, but book-reading does not translate into life experience and growth. If we're given the chance at another 20 years together, hopefully we'll be closer to being mature than we are now. 

Are some 18-year-olds more intelligent than some 50-year-olds? Of course. But intelligence is not maturity. It is a common mistake to confuse the two. Parents - do not do this! 

Do some 50-year-olds act like 14-year-olds, or less? Of course. They have not matured beyond, say, 14 years (or even less). It's possible for maturational growth to be stunted. Remember how Jesus talked, in Luke 8:14, about the seed that fell among thorns [that] stands for those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by life’s worries, riches and pleasures, and they do not mature [Greek teles phorousin]."

It's not possible for people to mature beyond their years. I think, generally and for the most part, this is true. 

So, what is this thing called "maturity?" It is not about intellect or physical stature, but about emotional responses, character, and righteousness. Let's define "maturity" from a Jesus point of view as: having achieved one's spiritual purpose. 

The biblical Greek word for "mature" is telos. Telos is an agricultural term. Apply it, for example, to fruit. When fruit is mature it is ready to be picked and eaten. Let's say, e.g., that it takes 5 months for an apple blossom to reach the full maturity that is a ready-to-eat apple. At three months old, is the apple mature? Of course not. It cannot be. 

There are developmental stages of relative maturity. Remember that the telos- point is: ready-to-eat. Think of how Paul talks about that future day when we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature [Greek teleion], attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. (Ephesians 4:13) Here maturity is a "becoming thing."

Maturity cannot be nuked. It cannot be microwaved. Maturing requires time. Slow maturational growth is best, and produces the most lasting results. Parents - do not treat your child as more mature than their age. You will not be doing them a favor if you do that. If you treat them that way, probably that's about you and your need to be viewed as a good parent. Likely it's a pride or shame thing, in you. Maybe you are living vicariously through your children, which is never a good thing to do.

I'm thinking of Garrison Keillor's famous statement about life in the fictional town of "Lake Wobegone" - the town where "all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average." The "Lake Wobegon Effect." a natural human tendency to overestimate one's capabilities, is named after the town. Maturationally, it's not only OK for your children to be average, it's wonderful, and you're probably doing a good parenting job.

From the Jesus POV how does one mature? Using an agricultural metaphor, Jesus tells us that we mature as we stay attached to Jesus, like a fruit branch stays attached to a fruit vine. If an 18-year-old is passionately attached to Jesus, then give thanks. If they stay attached the Spirit will help them ultimately attain the full measure of Christ.

A baby should act like a baby. A 14-year-old should act like an 14-year-old. To say this is not to condemn them. In fact, it will be far better for them if their parents view them this way. Do not mistake physical growth for maturity. A 14-year-old may look like a 25-year-old, but maturationally they cannot be. Thus one should not give them the responsibilities of a 25-year-old. 

The wise and loving parent will understand this, and mentor their child. Their effectiveness will depend on their own maturational level. If their own spiritual and emotional maturity has been halted at 14 years, then we have one child raising another child.

Physical and intellectual growth do not equal spiritual and emotional growth. Haven't we all seen adolescent emotions in an older, adult body and mind? 

Note, finally, the developmental quality of two verses on maturity. 

1. First, Hebrews 5:14 - solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil. The words "constant use" and "have trained themselves" are examples of temporal language; viz., much attached-to-Jesus time is needed.
2. Secondly, James 1:4 exhorts us to let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. 

By the Spirit, as we abide in Christ, Christ is formed in us. The formation of Christ in us is a function of our abiding time. Maturity is the fruit of persevering in the right direction (with the correct telos as one's guiding star). Parents will do well to: 

1) abide in Jesus themselves; and 

2) mentor their children to do the same.

So as to attain the full measure of Christ, which is maturity.

Craig Miller @ Redeemer - "Improving Your Spiritual and Emotional Health"

Improving your Spiritual and Emotional Health

Sunday, Sept. 9^th  5:30-7:30pm

At Redeemer Fellowship Church
5305 Evergreen Drive,Monroe Charter Township, MI 48161
(734)242-5277

You will learn:

Why people struggle with issues such as: fears, anxiety, ADD, depression, confidence, defiant behaviors, relationship with God, and more.

How God heals these issues for children, adults, and the whole family.

How you can pray for healing.

Our Speaker: Craig Miller.

For over thirty-eight years Craig has been ministering and counseling in church, medical, and mental health settings. He is a licensed Christian therapist and currently the co-founder of Masterpeace Counseling in Tecumseh, MI.  Craig’s experience with his own miraculous physical healing deepened his passion to help people receive their own emotional or physical healing and relationship restoration through teaching, imparting, and ministering about the love and healing power of faith.   He has also served as the director of Social Work At Herrick Memorial Hospital In Tecumseh, Michigan for twelve years.

Over the years Craig has learned the unique ability to successfully combine his skills as a christian and mental health practitioner to bring healing and restoration to the spirit, mind, and body.  Craig desires to work with each person, couple, and/or family to receive emotional and physical healing to bring restoration of your heart and relationship, renewal of your heart and revitalization of your faith.  

Craig has a Masters degree in Social Work from Michigan State University (1980), specializing in children, family, and couples.  Masters degree in Health Services Administration from the University of Detroit (1985).  He has been honored with multiple listings in Who’s Who in Executives and Professionals, Who’s Who Among Human Services Professionals, and International Who’s Who of Professionals.  

Craig continues his passion for helping people as a former syndicated radio talk show host, TV appearances , speaking in the USA and Canada, and his books, DVD, CD, numerous articles, and copyrighted material.  

Go to, www.insightsfromtheheart.com for more information. or opportunities  for  purchasing resources and speaking engagements

He has extensive experience with the treatment of depression, anxiety, panic disorders, difficulty expressing feelings, stress disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, addictions, sexual issues, marital issues, parent/child/teen issues, eating disorders, substance abuse, trauma from the past, loss issues, abuse issues, church/religious conflict and abuse and many more areas too many to mention.  You are recommended to call the office at 517-423-6889 if you have specific questions.

10 Worst Objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument

I just introduced my MCCC Philosophy of Religion students to William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument for God's existence. 

To assist my students in their understanding here is Bill presenting the 10 worst objections to the argument he has seen. 

The text of the video presentation is here - "Objections So Bad I Couldn't Have Made Them Up: The World's Ten worst Objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument." 

Revival, and the Difference Between Knowing About God and Knowing God

Holland (Michigan) State Park

I love reasoning about things. That doesn't mean my reasoning is always excellent. Mostly, I don't mind being shown that my thinking is faulty. It presses me to think harder and better.

I taught logic at our county community college for seventeen years. A subset of logic is critical thinking. I enjoy this. I like logical puzzles. I do them for fun, and neural strength.

There is a lot of logic in the Bible. Jesus was an excellent logician. Read, for example, "Jesus The Logician" by Dallas Willard. And J. P. Moreland's book Love God with All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul. And, see chapter 2 of Craig and Moreland's Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview ("Argumentation and Logic"), which serves as an introduction to a college logic course. 

God gave us minds, and we are to love the Lord with all of our mind. But more than rational thinking is needed. Thinking about God is not equivalent to knowing God. And knowing God is the point of the Scriptures.

In their book on revivals, A God-Sized Vision, Collin Hanson and John Woodbridge share this story about the great intellect and revivalist Jonathan Edwards.

"Edwards spurred on the revival with one his most famous sermons, preached in August 1734. In “A Divine and Supernatural Light,” Edwards contended, “There is a difference between having a rational judgment that honey is sweet, and having a sense of its sweetness. A man may have the former, that knows not how honey tastes; but a man can’t have the latter, unless he has an idea of the taste of honey in his mind.” With this analogy, Edwards sought to show the difference between merely having knowledge about God and experiencing his love and the truth of his Word." (Kindle Locations 529-534)

We are to love God with our minds. But the story doesn't end there. Loving God with our minds can lead to knowing God by experience. Which is the point of the whole thing, and which true revival brings.

(I am praying, along with several colleagues in ministry, for the Church in America to be Revived and Awakened. If you want to join us please email me at johnpiippo@msn.com.)

***
My two books are:

Leading the Presence-Driven Church

Praying: Reflections on 40 Years of Solitary Conversations with God

Revival & Awakening - Resources

Holland (Michigan) State Park

In July, while taking an extended time of praying, I heard God speaking to me. God was saying, "John, I want you to call the Church in America to Revival and Awakening." God followed this up by adding, "Invite pastors to join you in this." (On how to hear God's voice, see here.)

So, I am doing this. As of this writing, thirty-six pastors have joined. (Want to join us? Email me at - johnpiippo@msn.com.)

Think big, right? Think and see bigger and further than your experience.

Last Sunday I gave my fifth Revival and Awakening sermon. This coming Sunday (9/9/18) is #6 - Revival: Expect Unusual Divine Activity. 

Part of my immersion includes using resources. Here are the ones I am currently reading. These books are so inspiring to me!

God's Forever Family: The Jesus People Movement in America, by Larry Eskridge

The Second Evangelical Awakening, by J. Edwin Orr

A God-Sized Vision: Revival Stories that Stretch and Stir, by Collin Hanson and John Woodbridge

The Fire of His Holiness: Prepare Yourself to Enter God's Presence, by Sergio Scataglini

Rut, Rot, or Revival: The Problem of Change and Breaking Out of the Status Quo, by A. W. Tozer

Why Revival Tarries, by Leonard Ravenhill

Revolution In the Church: Challenging the Religious System with a Call for Radical Change, by Michael L. Brown

Saving a Sick America: A Prescription for Moral and Cultural Transformation, by Michael L. Brown

Leadership Allows and Empowers Emergent Ministries

Monroe county

Most, hopefully all, ministry activity in my church family is emergent ministry. What is that?

In philosophy, "emergent entities (properties or substances) ‘arise’ out of more fundamental entities and yet are ‘novel’ or ‘irreducible’ with respect to them." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Emergent Properties")

Emergent ministries arise out of corporate and individual abiding in Christ.

"Entirely new properties and behaviors "emerge," with no one directing and no one able to foresee the new characteristics from knowledge of the constituents alone." (From here.)

Emergent ministries display new properties that arise from the whole, but cannot be reduced to the whole.

I see this happening at Redeemer. Out of the community arises fresh fruit, new things, that God is doing. "Behold," declares the Lord, "I am doing a new thing." 

New things are not fully reducible to old things. New things bring change. For many in the Church, change is threatening. People become prisoners of what A. W. Tozer called "the dictatorship of the routine." The 7 last words of the church kick in: We've never done it that way before.

Spirit-led leaders expect and encourage emergent ministries. They know that newness implies "different." 

Kant's Objection to the Ontological Argument

Detroit

(For my MCCC Philosophy of Religion students. This is my last semester of teaching at MCCC. So, for one final time, I will explain Kant's criticism of the Ontological Argument.)

Oral exam question #3: explain Kant's criticism of the Ontological Argument.

Here are the bullet points.

1. Kant says "exists" (or "being") is not a predicate (= "attribute"). For Kant there are two types of predicates: Logical (analytic) and determining (synthetic). This is important since Anselm's OA requires "actual existence" to be a predicate (attribute) of "greatest possible being."

2. A "logical" or "analytic" predicate analyzes the subject, but adds nothing to the concept of the subject. A "determining" or "synthetic" predicate adds something to the concept of the subject.

3. In a subject-predicate statement, "exists" is the "copula" that connects subject and predicate.

4. If "exists" were a real predicate then we would have the absurd situation that "the real contains more than the merely possible." (Use Kant's $100 example here.)

5. Anselm's Ontological Argument fails because it depends on "actual existence" being a real predicate that adds something to the concept of the subject "God."

6. State Norman Malcolm's response to Kant re. "necessary existence." Malcolm agrees with Kant that "exists" is not a predicate. But Malcolm think Anselm meant, not "existence," but "necessary existence." "Necessary existence" does seem to be a predicate. For example: My wife Linda necessarily exists. This statement seems to make an outrageous claim; viz., that my wife Linda cannot not-exist. It attributes necessary existence to her, and thus seems to function as a predicate or attribute.


FURTHER EXPLANATION

Kant’s criticism of the Ontological Argument is that "exists," or "existence," is not a "predicate." By "predicate" we mean "attribute," or "quality."

Anselm's version of the Ontological Argument depends on "existence" being a "great-making attribute." But if "existence" is not an attribute at all, then Anselm's argument seems to fail. This is Kant's criticism. "Exists," Kant says, "is not a predicate."

Consider the form of a subject-predicate statement: S is p. 'S' denotes the subject, 'p' denotes the predicate. For example, John's car is red. "Red" is the predicate, or attribute, of the subject "John's car." "Redness" is predicated of "John's car." Or: "redness" is an attribute of "John's car."

In the statement John's car is red, where do we find "existence?" "Exists" is found, says Kant, in the verb "is." "Is" is the "copula" (connector) that connects subject and predicate. The verb "is," in the statement John's car is red, simply posits the existence of John's red car. And, this adds nothing to our concept (idea) of the subject.

Kant writes: "'Being' is obviously not a real predicate; that is, it is not a concept of something which could be added to the concept of a thing. It is merely the positing of a thing, or of certain determinations, as existing in themselves. Logically, it is merely the copula of a judgment."

What does that mean? Here is an example to illustrate that "exists" (or "being," "is-ness") is not a real attribute or predicate.

Consider this. I'm going to tell you some things about my wife Linda. I'll do this by making a series of subject-predicate statements, predicating attributes of the subject "My wife Linda."

• My wife Linda is 5'6" tall.
• My wife Linda has long brown hair.
• My wife Linda is a sushi-lover.
• My wife Linda is a piano teacher.

All these predicates add something to the concept "My wife Linda." But consider this:

• My wife Linda exists.

That adds nothing to the subject "My wife Linda." It functions more like a tautology: My existing wife Linda has the attribute of existence. That statement is tautological (redundant), which means the predicate simply repeats the subject.

Try this.

You go for a job interview. The interviewer asks you to describe yourself, which is another way of listing your attributes. You respond:

• I have computer skills.
• I graduated from Harvard.
• I have worked for Steve Jobs as his personal assistant.
• I invented the iPhone.

The interviewer, his eyes wide open and jaw dropping to the floor, is amazed! Probably, he wants to hire you. But then you open your mouth and say...

"Here's one more thing about myself, one more attribute I have that I want to share with you: I exist."

That was a bad move. Because "exists" is not an attribute. And you just lost the job.

Kant further explains this by saying, "The real contains no more than the merely possible." But if "exists" was a real predicate, then the real would contain more than the possible, but that is absurd.

You say to me, “Please go to the bank and withdraw a hundred dollars.” That is, you have in your mind the idea of one hundred dollars. I go to the bank with that idea in mind and make the withdrawal. But upon making the withdrawal I now have, instead of an idea of a hundred dollars in my mind, an actually existing one hundred dollars in my hand.

Is the concept of a hundred dollars in my mind any different than the actual hundred dollars in my hand? If you answer “Yes,” then is it because the hundred dollars in my hand actually exists? In other words, is “existence” a predicate of the hundred dollars I hold in my hand? If you say “Yes” to this, then the hundred dollars in my hand is different than the hundred dollars in your mind. I will have withdrawn from the bank something different than what you asked me to withdraw. I withdrew something that has an extra “predicate” which your idea did not have.

You are thinking of $100. If we then add that the $100 "exists," in asserting that it exists we add nothing to the concept of the $100. The $100 is the same whether it exists or not; it is the same size, the same weight, the same colour, the same value, etc. The fact that the $100 exists, that the concept-of-$100-in-the-mind is exemplified in the world, does not change anything about the concept-of-$100. Therefore “existence” is not a real, or first-order, predicate.

A real predicate adds something to the concept, which is the subject of the judgment. If the actual $100 has a predicate (“existence”) which the idea of $100 does not have, then they are not the same thing. And the thing I withdrew was not what you had in mind. Which seems absurd. I don't wish to say, "Here is the $100 you were thinking about but it has the extra attribute of "existence."

Kant writes:

"A hundred real dollars do not contain the least coin more than a hundred possible dollars. For as the latter signify the concept, and the former the object and the positing of the object, should the former contain more than the latter, my concept would not, in that case, express the whole object, and would not therefore be an adequate concept of it. My financial position is, however, affected very differently by a hundred real dollars than it is by the mere concept of them (that is, of their possibility). For the object, as it actually exists, is not analytically contained in my concept, but is added to my concept (which is a determination of my state) synthetically; and yet the conceived hundred dollars are not themselves in the least increased through thus acquiring existence outside my concept. . . ."

(By "analytically contained" Kant means a predicate that adds nothing to the concept of the subject, such as in the statement: John the bachelor is not married. A "synthetic" judgment contains a predicate that adds something to the subject, because it is not analytically contained in the subject, such as: John the bachelor is 99 years old.)

Therefore existence is not a predicate. It merely posits the existence of the concept in mind. As Kant puts it, a hundred real dollars contains as much as a hundred imaginary dollars. 

"The real contains no more than the possible."

For Kant to say that something "exists" is to say that the concept of that thing is exemplified in the world. Existence, then, is not a matter of a thing possessing a property, "existence," but of a concept corresponding to something in the world.

Anselm's version of the Ontological Argument, at this point, seems to fail.

Kant writes of this in his Critique of Pure Reason. 

God Will Do Great Things This Sunday Morning

Maumee Bay State Park, Ohio

It's late Saturday night. I am preaching tomorrow morning, again, on Calling the Church in America to Revival and Awakening.

I am filled with expectation.

Because God is going to manifest his mighty presence among us. 

God is going to do great things as we gather together. 

It's going to happen as people are arriving. It will happen as we worship. It will happen as I preach. It will happen afterwards. I can't wait to gather with my people tomorrow!

But how do I know this? Is this not presumption on my part? I don't think so.

Consider the alternatives.

Alternative 1: God is going to do nothing among us tomorrow.

Alternative 2: God may do something, but we can't be sure.

Alternative 3: God is going to do some decent things, but nothing spectacular that might make us feel uncomfortable.

Alternative 4: God will be doing things, but they will be hidden from us.

Alternative 5: God has decided he will not be with us tomorrow morning, because it is Labor Day weekend.

Alternative 6: God is a cessationist, and stopped doing miraculous things hundreds of years ago.

Alternative 7: God is a deist who did not really do the things attributed to him in the Bible, and apologizes for the misunderstanding.

Alternative 8: There is no God.

With alternatives 1-8, expectations run low.

But if it is true that, wherever two or more are gathered, that's "Church," and Church is where Jesus says he will be, then people get ready.

And where God is, there is overwhelming, life-changing, earth-shattering, bondage-breaking Presence. God doesn't do "decent." God has no potentiality. God is pure actuality. Actus purus et perfectus. Unsurpassing greatness, eternally. 

And where God's people humble themselves, pray, seek his presence, and turn from their wicked ways, God says his eyes and ears and face are there. Indeed, his Name is all over that gathering place.

So, it's going to be very, very good, when my people meet together Sunday morning. Because our all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good, Creator God will not only meet with us, but will lead the service.