How to Respond to the Problem of Evil



What is a gracious, effective response to someone   who pushes away from the idea of  God because of the problem of evil? Well, my first question is, what exactly is the  problem? Now, of course I’m— this is a question  

I’m asking to get the other person to spell it  out because it’s not that I am ignorant about   the kinds of ways people factor in the problem of  evil into the existence of God. I want them to  

Spell it out because i actually think there are  serious problems with using evil as an argument   against God. So, I want them to spell it  out. Now, I know the way it’s usually characterized.

Well, if you think God is good and he’s powerful, and that would be God, right? But if he’s good, he’d   want to get rid of all evil. If he’s powerful, he’d be able to get all rid of all evil, but  

There’s evil, right? So there you go. God probably  doesn’t exist. And it turns out, though that sounds   like an argument. Like a step-by-step syllogistic  argument leading from premises to a conclusion, it turns out that when you press the issue, you  can’t build a valid argument from those facts.

If God were good, for example, then he  wouldn’t allow any evil. Really? Is that true? That’s a question, and we talk about this— I talk about this— I’m looking at you because I’m   saying “we” because you were such a help to me in editing The Story of Reality, but you recall  

From The Story of Reality how I talk about my  daughters don’t like shots, you know? They don’t   like that’s evil for them because it causes  them pain, but Daddy makes them get shots, so   why does he do that? Because Daddy’s evil? No.  Because I know that the short-term evil to them is  

Going to result in a longer term good. And so there  is a moral justification for the shorter term bad. All that does is point out that it certainly could  be possible, and that’s a very simple illustration. There’s dozens and dozens we can think of. It certainly is possible how something bad  

Could be justified. There could be a  morally sufficient reason for allowing it   because it leads to something good, okay?  Or maybe something bad that prevents   something even worse from happening. So,  there’s different ways to construe this,

To demonstrate that it is not the case that if  God were good he would never allow anything evil. Rather, he could have a morally sufficient  reason for allowing it for a time. And   that, by the way, is all we need to parry  the objection about the problem of evil.

Now, the possibility that he could have a reason, we don’t have to tell them what that reason is. Remember, the type of objection that this is is  a strong defeater. It’s not possible that there  

Is a God because there’s evil in the world, and  my response is, well, wait a minute. Maybe so. And   this, by the way, I step out a little step by step  in The Story of Reality. So, anybody wants to go  

There, they can see the chapter where I deal with  this. It’s not tricky, but it has some steps to it. This is why it makes a little bit more difficult  when you’re having a conversation with somebody. Somebody’s even listening to this saying, “Well, I  can’t remember all that stuff that he just said.”

Well, that’s true, I can understand that. But if you  don’t know why the problem of evil is not a good   argument against God, but a good argument for  God, then it’s going to be hard for you to make  

That point. And that, I think, is the most powerful  point that can be made from the problem of evil. This helps us. Evil is on our side, in that sense, because if there were no God, there would be no   evil at all…Because there’d be no  lawmaker. It’s just molecules clashing in the  

Universe. Okay, so then, what is wrong? Says  who? Your grandma? Kind of thing. So sometimes   I get to the point in a little different  way. What’s the alternative? So, somebody says, “Well, there can’t be any God, there’s evil in  the world.” Really? There’s real evil? What do  

You mean by evil? So, I would just want them  to emphasize that, okay? So, if there is no God, how can there be evil? What do you mean? Well,  there’s no lawmaker. There would be no law, alright?

Notice, those are questions, and I’m trying to  lead to make this point, or what’s the alternative? Well, the alternative is there is no God, okay?  Let’s say there is no God then, right? So, what makes  

Anything evil? You just complained about the problem  of evil. There must be evil in the world, right? So   what do you make of evil now that God doesn’t  exist? How do you get traction to even complain  

About evil in the world? You can’t. And I make  this point again in The Story of Reality because   people think that they somehow solve  the problem of evil by getting God out of the  

Equation. And what I point out is, okay, now you got  God out of the equation, okay? Now you’re an atheist. Yeah. Okay, that’s our view now. Right. How do you  solve the problem of evil? What do you mean? Well,  

You got God out of the picture. You didn’t get  rid of evil. You still got all the things that you used to call evil. They still are existing, and you  still probably consider them evil, okay? Now, solve  

The problem. The point I’m making is, atheism can  give you no traction to even make sense out of   evil to begin with. And if somebody wants to say, well, okay, then evil is just an illusion of   evolution or something. Really? Wait, just a  few moments ago, you’re saying it’s so real  

That it disqualifies the existence of God, and now you want to say it’s an illusion? See, our answer makes sense of all the  facts. We don’t have to play games like that. The world is broken. That’s why there’s evil in the  world. Broken means it ain’t the way it’s supposed  

To be. It started out one way, and now it’s a  different way. So these are all— and we broke   it. And so, we’re responsible. Some people haven’t  thought about it this way, Amy, but our whole story  

Is about the problem of evil. It starts in the  third chapter, it doesn’t get solved till 66   books later. If there was no problem of evil, we’d have no story. We’d have no Christianity. So in a certain sense, we could say  that evil is quite at home in our view.

It’s central to our story, and our story is not over yet. But it has no place in an atheistic worldview. It  does not make any sense whatsoever in an atheistic   worldview. Now, people can get that notion in  their mind, and I do walk through fairly carefully  

Not only The Story of Reality, but in the last  couple chapters of the book on Relativism that   Dr. Beckwith and I wrote called, “Relativism: Feet  Firmly Planted in Mid-Air” and lots of things we’ve  

Done on the air here, and lots of things we have on  the internet makes the same point. If there is no   God, there is no morality. But there is a morality, since the problem of evil, therefore, there is a  

God. That’s your basic modus tollens argument  for God. Moral argument for the existence of God.

#Respond #Problem #Evil

Here’s What Nobody Told You About Mary And Joseph



You’re probably familiar with the Nativity story. But the truth about Mary and Joseph, the two parents at the heart of the story, is often brushed aside when talking about Christianity’s main man, Jesus. But Mary and Joseph are interesting characters. Here’s the untold truth of Mary and Joseph.

In Mary and Joseph’s time, women’s purity was valued as a currency, something that would sweeten the deal between marriage negotiations in family. There were no paternity tests back then, if you wanted kids that you were sure were yours, the best insurance was marrying a virgin.

So imagine your girlfriend shows up after visiting her cousin for three months with a big ol’ baby bump. You can probably picture the reactions. “Pregnant? Holy crap!” Everyone, not just Joseph, was freaking out. Mary would have been considered damaged goods and not marriage material.

It didn’t help that she was claiming this was God’s baby. So Joseph planned to end their engagement. According to National Geographic, Joseph was just trying to not make the situation worse. But don’t think Joseph was insensitive for wanting to dump Mary because she was unexpectedly pregnant.

Breaking up was actually the classiest move Joseph could have made at that time. Think about the story of the Nativity as if it happened today: A teenage girl from an extremely conservative society gets engaged, visits her cousin, and comes back visibly pregnant.

Mary was an OG and kept to her story that the Holy Spirit had gotten her pregnant, but people were as skeptical of the idea back then as they would have been today. “I am the virgin Mary. That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.”

Joseph tried to be nice about it, Matthew 1:19 describes how he planned to separate from her quietly so the public wouldn’t shame her. But “shame her” is a nice way to say “stone her to death.” Deuteronomy 22:21 and the surrounding verses lay down the law that if a girl got intimate

While unmarried, she would be stoned to death for bringing shame upon her family. But Joseph didn’t want this to happen to her. Later on, the angel Gabriel visited him in a dream and reassured him that yes, Mary actually was going to have God’s kid.

So Joseph doubled down on his Good Guy stance and took on Mary as his wife even though she was pregnant. Tablet describes how Joseph has taken on newfound popularity in modern times as people have realized just how important he was to keeping Mary safe.

People have realized that without him, the birth of Jesus definitely wouldn’t have happened. Shocking! “Sweet baby Jesus.” Once the angel visited Joseph and confirmed that Mary was really going to have God’s kid, Joseph got on board immediately. But this also extended to after the birth of Jesus.

God, perhaps impressed by how cool Joseph had been throughout this whole ordeal, sent another angel to Joseph telling him that they had to pick up and leave immediately. He obeyed, and they fled what turned out to be a massacre of all kids in Bethlehem younger than two years old.

King Herod, whose name you may remember as one of the more popular Sunday School villains, had sent people out to kill any child who might be the Messiah after running into the three kings on their way to visit Jesus.

Apparently he was worried about another king trying to take his place, and you know how kings are about being kings. “I am the KING!” Joseph has been shoved aside in favor of the Virgin Mary in the eyes of a lot of believers,

Since she had to carry Jesus and bear the social stigma of the pregnancy. But that’s beginning to change. In 2003, Pope John Paull II spoke about Joseph setting an example as someone who believed in the messages he received from God but also stayed humble and didn’t seek attention as God’s stepdad.

The National Catholic Register sang his praises in 2011, recommending him as someone Catholics could go to for divine help in parenting. It’s explicitly stated in the Bible that Joseph and Mary didn’t consummate their marriage until after Jesus was born and they bailed to Egypt.

Which makes sense, since Mary was pregnant most of the time they were initially together. But even this viewpoint is pretty revolutionary in terms of how believers view Mary. There’s a healthy group of people, mostly Catholic, who believe that Mary never lost her virginity. Ever.

The “perpetual virgin” view of Mary is used as a way to honor her alleged holiness and purity as the mother of God. National Catholic Register points out that people who believe this theory do so partly because of the lexicon surrounding families at the time.

Whenever men are referred to as Jesus’s “brothers” in the Bible, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re Jesus’s brothers by blood. They could be his cousins or other family members, or maybe even just his friends. This is another story about the life of Jesus that may have been altered through the lens

Of pop culture. It’s quaint to picture Jesus learning how to build things out of wood with his dad. It’s like they’re alluding the imagery of the stable of his birth and his future death on a cross. It also fits the idea of Jesus’s beginnings being humble.

The Bible even tells a story of when Jesus was roasted in his hometown of Nazareth when he came back as an adult to perform miracles. They said things to the effect of, “Wait, how does the son of a carpenter know all these things?”

In the Ancient Greek that the Bible was translated from, Joseph is referred to as a tekton. According to A Greek-English Lexicon, tekton can mean a carpenter or wood-joiner but is commonly used to describe any craftsman or woodworker. Some theories allege that this means Joseph may have actually worked with stones or larger materials.

An author cited in the Telegraph claimed that Joseph may have even been a master architect who provided Jesus a comfortable upbringing. Sorry to disturb anyone’s assumptions, but Christ was not white. Jesus may have been played by white actors in a lot of films, but that’s definitely not

How it went down in real life. A breakdown from Live Science suggests that if Jesus took after Mary at all, he would have had olive skin and was probably of average height for the time. Mary probably looked like other Israeli Jews, or maybe with a slightly darker complexion.

She also would have been pretty average looking, since the Bible goes out of its way to specifically mention whenever someone is particularly attractive, and it didn’t do that with Mary. “I’m painting the birth of Jesus, as it was and always will be.” “Uh, no. Here’s how you’re going to paint me.

Serene, and gorgeous.” James Martin wrote in Slate that we can’t forget that Mary was probably 14 years old at the time when she gave birth to Jesus, something that was common for the time. She probably would have been arranged to be married around the time of her first period.

Just in case you needed your Nativity scene to be even more awkward. Mary had it harder than most women when it came to childbirth, even when you consider the time period. She presumably had Joseph to help her. But she had no experienced midwives, which were available to expecting mothers back then,

According to The Jewish Woman. Mary also, thanks to circumstances, had to give birth in a smelly place outside of her own town away from her family. That would be hard on anyone. But add on a difficult labor and it becomes a whole other story: In the Quran, Mary has

To give birth with her back against a palm tree for support. She says out loud, quote, “Oh, I wish I had died before this and was in oblivion, forgotten.” “Congratulations Mary, it’s a boy.” “And you didn’t die during childbirth like most women during this time. It’s a miracle.”

Mary has a whole chapter about her in the Quran and is the only woman mentioned by name, according to the BBC. Her chapter talks about the birth of Jesus and the immediate aftermath. According to PRI, it also features a story about baby Jesus speaking up in his mom’s

Defense when people said she wasn’t a virgin. Guess if you have all the knowledge in the world, you really have all the knowledge. In case you haven’t noticed, there are a lot of paintings of Mary. The young mom of Jesus has been featured in probably more paintings than anyone who ever lived.

In a lot of these paintings, Mary’s portrayed wearing a light blue shawl or hijab. It’s a light, airy color, not unlike the robe worn by her son in the most expensive painting on earth, Leonardo da Vinci’s Salvator Mundi. But is Mary’s blue covering accurate to history? Probably not.

The Schaff–Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge confirms that clothing for women Israelites was lighter and more brightly colored than men’s clothing. Assyrians of the time wore blue tunics as undergarments, but that was relatively far from Mary’s ‘hood. Aleteia describes how Mary’s blue covering is really an allusion to her purity and closeness to God.

She doesn’t wear the white of a saint or the red of a Jesus-killing emperor. Blue is the color of special woven tassels worn by Jews in that time to remind them to follow the Commandments. In short, Mary wears blue in paintings to symbolize that she is just that much holier

Than anyone else painted with her. In Catholicism, there are lots of books beside the Bible that people debate over in terms of authenticity. Some people dismiss them outright. Other people take them in consideration alongside the Bible. Some of these extra texts for Catholicism are called the apocrypha writings.

Catholic Culture describes them as documents that didn’t make it to the Bible compiled by people who wanted to know more about Jesus. Even if they’re not true, they say a lot about what people thought about Jesus and his place in the culture not long after he was alive.

If these writings can be believed, Joseph had a first wife named Melcha. According to The Catholic Dictionary, the apocrypha states that Joseph was a widower with six children, who asked to marry Mary after his wife died. This fits the pop culture image of Mary being much younger than him.

It also fits with the idea of Mary being a perpetual virgin but Jesus still having brothers and sisters. They could have been step brothers and sisters. If it’s true, it provides a very different image of Joseph: An older guy who’s already

Done the marriage and babies thing who has this new wife who’s pregnant somehow. But he still steps up to be stepdad of the year. One of the most consistent parts of the Nativity story is that Mary had to give birth to Jesus in a stable full of animals.

The town was full of people coming to Bethlehem, and apparently no one was nice enough to let a heavily pregnant woman take their adjoining suite. So they took the only space available. Now, people of that region at this time didn’t keep animals in stables the way we do today.

Think of a home in biblical times as the ultimate open concept home: People would sleep up in what was essentially the second floor while doing chores and other everyday work on the base floor. The base floor was also where the animals were brought in at night.

Newsweek reported that this was likely where Jesus was born, not in an entirely separate structure built outside of a house. What most likely happened was that Joseph showed up at his extended family’s house, was told that there wasn’t enough room in the sleeping quarters for Mary to give birth,

And so they had to make do with the gross basement where the animals hung out. It wasn’t so much people being monsters to a pregnant woman as much as Joseph’s cousin Fred arrived early and scored the last couch. Check out one of our newest videos right here!

Plus, even more Grunge videos about Bible stories are coming soon. Subscribe to our YouTube channel and hit the bell so you don’t miss a single one.

#Heres #Told #Mary #Joseph

Did Jesus Diminish His Divine Power to Become Human?



On Friday we ended the week talking about the physical origins of Jesus and how the miraculous conception happened biologically today we move to a question of what divine attributes were necessary for Christ to lay down in order to take up his humanity the question comes from Matthew in Vienna the capital of Austria

Hello Matthew thank you for writing in dear pastor John thank you for all your work over the years of ministry my small group recently considered the subject of Jesus’s divinity and humanity I looked through desiring God’s resources and found a sermon that you delivered way

Back in 1981 in that sermon on Luke 2:52 you say this quote our text has important implications for understanding the divinity of Christ it helps us understand what Paul meant when he said though he was in the form of God he did not count equality with God a thing to

Be grasped but emptied himself taking the form of a bondservant as Philippians 2 verses 6 & 7 one of the things Christ emptied himself of was omniscience you said later regarding the attributes of God you said this quote they were his potentially and thus he was God but he

Surrendered their use absolutely and so he was man in quote now the question is how do you now understand Philippians 2 verses 6 to 8 and Luke 2 verse 52 do these texts really necessitate that some attributes of the eternal divine nature of Jesus must have been given up or laid

Down at his incarnation pastor John what would you say to Matthew well I’m glad this question is asked and I’m glad they quote my old sermon because the first thing I would say is that I would speak today with more precision and care than

I did in those sentences I as I as I read those I went back and read them in context I thought oh that’s that was not very careful when we say things about Jesus Christ after the incarnation of the eternal divine Sun we have to be careful not to

Give the impression that the divine nature of Christ has the same limitations that the human nature of Christ does and I don’t think I made that distinction clear enough in 1981 I would not want to say for example that Christ in His divine nature emptied himself of any essential divine

Attribute and I think omniscience is an essential divine attribute so when in Matthew 24:36 Jesus says that not even the Sun knows the time of Jesus return I take him to mean that the Son Jesus Christ considered in his human nature operates with a kind of limitation but

Not the divine nature now I know that sounds weird that sounds strange and it is strange it is strange because the union of two natures in one person one divine and one human is beyond our experience and will always be beyond our personal experience we’re never gonna be

God and we we may expect it to sound strange so how then do I understand Philippians 2:5 2:8 and the emptying of himself let me read the verses so we all have it in in front of us though he was in the form of God he did not count

Equality with God a thing to be grasped grasped but emptied himself by taking the form of a servant and being born in the likeness of men and being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death even death on a so verse six you have the pre-existent

Christ before incarnation in the form of God which the next phrase defines as equality with God then in verse 7 you have him taking the form of a servant in the likeness of men and I think just as the term form of God in verse 6 does not

Mean less than God because of the term equality with God in the same way the term form of a servant or likeness of man in verse 7 does not mean less than human but rather equal with all humans that is a real human nature upshot

Christ is very God and very man and in between those two statements you have this famous phrase he emptied him self what does that mean I don’t think it means that Christ in His divine nature became less than fully divine in other words he didn’t empty himself of deity

One of the reasons I don’t believe that is what Paul meant is because he says the very opposite in Colossians 2:9 he said for in him in Christ the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily you know you even wondered whether he use the word fullness there parceling say he

Didn’t he didn’t empty himself of that he not empty he’s not only not empty he’s full he’s full of deity the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily in Jesus so I don’t think he emptied himself of anything that constitutes the essence of deity I think the best clue for how to think

About the emptying probably comes from John 17:5 where Jesus says father glorify me in your presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed so John had already said in John 5:18 that the Jews recognized that Jesus was making himself equal with God so on the one hand the

Incarnate Christ in the Gospel of John has a divine nature he’s fully God on the other hand there were aspects of his glory which he had laid aside and that’s why he’s praying father restored to me the glory I had with you before the foundation of the world and I think that

Would include at least the privileges of deity that stand between the divine Christ and the shame and degradation and suffering and death of the cross that’s the point that’s the point of Philippians 2:58 that he moved from such height to such shameful degradation on our behalf and that’s the mindset

We’re supposed to have as we serve others but then again and I need to qualify and say it would be a mistake to say that he laid aside all of the divine glory in becoming man because in John 1:14 it says the word became flesh and

Dwelt among us and we behaved see we have seen his glory glory as of the only son from the father full of grace and truth so there was a divine glory in the Incarnate Christ for those who had eyes to see but the fullness of divine glory I think

Would have incinerated sinners and blinded everyone and this he emptied himself of maybe the best way to say it is that what whatever stood between the fullness of the divine glory before the Incarnation and the suffering and shame and degradation and death of the cross whatever stood between there that had to

Be laid aside so that he could he could do it and the the only thing I would say now with regard to Luke 2:52 which was mentioned in the quest Jesus increased in wisdom and stature in favor would God a man the only thing I’d say there is Jesus was in his human

Nature fully man and therefore he grew he grew up through the stages of childhood like other humans and yet without sin Paul says in 1st Timothy 2:5 there is one God and there is one mediator between God and men the man human Christ Jesus so in his divine nature Christ was

Fully God in his human nature he was fully man in his divine nature he had all the essential attributes of God during his incarnation and in his human nature he was finite and could therefore grow in wisdom and stature just just by way of conclusion no book in the Bible

Exalts the deity of Christ better than the book of Hebrews of the son he says your throne O God is for ever and ever Hebrews 1:8 and no book stresses the humanity of Christ for the sake of his sympathy with with our weaknesses like Hebrews does chapter 4 verse 15 we we do

Not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses but one who in every respect was tempted like we are therefore in this Advent season let us do exactly what Hebrews 4:16 says let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace that we may receive

Mercy and find grace to help in time of need we we have a great divine and human Savior amen what a profound mystery here and beautifully approachable – thank you Pastor John for that answer Matthew thinks for the very good question thank you to everyone who listens thank you for

Making the podcast part of your Advent season this year you can subscribe to our audio feeds and search our past episodes in our archive and even reach us by email with the question of your own even questions about maybe something you’ve seen in an old John Piper sermon

That you would love to have clarified by him you can do all of that through our online home at desiring God org forward slash ask Pastor John well there’s a great danger in worshiping gifts more than the gift giver that of course is idolatry and this topic is especially

Important in a season of gift-giving like this one that we’re in the midst of so how do we love the giver more than his gifts and of course we’re talking about our relationship to God and God as the giver that is next as we ask and answer some Christmas related questions

And the podcast of this year I’m your host Tony ranky thanks for listening we’ll see you next time you

#Jesus #Diminish #Divine #Power #Human

Suffering and Evil: The Logical Problem



We are all well aware of the suffering and evil in the world: horrific suffering, unthinkable evil. How then can anyone believe in the existence of an all-loving, all-powerful God? And if God does exist, why would anyone want to worship Him? Epicurus framed the logical problem of suffering and evil like this:

If God is willing to prevent evil but not able, then he’s not all-powerful. If he is able to prevent evil but not willing, he is not good. But if he is both willing and able, how can evil exist? And if he is neither

Able nor willing, then why call him God? In other words, it’s logically impossible for God and suffering to both exist, but we know full well that suffering exists. Therefore, God does not. Is this a good argument? Let’s look at it more closely.

Are these two statements logically inconsistent? No; here is an example of two logically inconsistent statements. David can’t be both married and a bachelor, but there is no explicit contradiction between these two statements, so there must be hidden assumptions behind this argument that

Would bring out the alleged contradiction. Here they are. If God is all-powerful, he can create any world he wants, and if God is all-loving, he prefers a world without suffering. So if an all-powerful, all-loving God exists, it follows that suffering does not exist. Since suffering

Obviously does exist, the atheist concludes that God must not exist. But are the atheist’s two hidden assumptions necessarily true? Consider the first assumption. Can God create any world he wants? What if he want a world populated by people who have free will? It’s logically impossible for God to force

Someone to freely choose to do good. Forcing free choices is like making a square circle; it’s not logically possible. It’s not that God lacks the power to perform the task; it is that the supposed task itself is just nonsense. So

It may not be feasible to create a world populated by people who always freely choose to do what is morally good, so the first assumption is not necessarily true. Therefore, the argument fails, and what about the second assumption? Is it necessarily true that God would prefer a world without suffering? How could we

Possibly know this? We all know of cases where we permit suffering in order to bring about a greater good. If it’s even possible that God allows suffering in order to achieve a greater good, then we cannot say this assumption is necessarily true. For the logical problem of suffering to succeed, the atheist

Would have to show that it’s logically impossible that free will exists, and that it’s logically impossible that God has good reasons for permitting suffering. This burden of proof is too heavy to bear. It’s quite possible that God and suffering both exist. This is why philosophers, even atheist philosophers,

Have given up on the logical problem of evil. We can concede that the problem of evil does not after all show that the central doctrines of theism are logically inconsistent with one another. Some philosophers have contended that the existence of evil is logically

Inconsistent with the existence of a theistic God. No one I think has succeeded in establishing such an extravagant claim. It’s now acknowledged on almost all sides that the logical argument is bankrupt. But this is hardly the end of the discussion. We still need to explore the probability version of the problem of evil.

#Suffering #Evil #Logical #Problem

Evidence of Jesus’ Birth Revealed | Full Episode



>> NARRATOR: In a backwater of the ancient world, a newborn child heralds new hope for mankind. It is a birth riddled with paradox. A virgin has become a mother; God has become human; a child is King. The biblical account of Jesus’ birth has enraptured millions. But the passage of 2,000 years

Has obscured the historical events that inspired it. What really happened? The answers, though elusive, may still be within our grasp– in clues contained in the Bible, in ancient historical documents and in recent new discoveries by scholars and scientists. Join us as we try to reconstruct the true story of a birth as

Mysterious as it was momentous. [Captioning sponsored by A&E TELEVISION NETWORKS] >> NARRATOR: For many, the search for the truth begins here. This sanctuary in Bethlehem was built in 326 A.D. at the behest of the mother of the most powerful man on Earth. A decade earlier, Constantine

The Great had altered history by declaring Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. His mother Helena became convinced by local residents that his newfound faith began on this spot. Visitors to the Church of the Nativity can descend to a grotto below, where Jesus is said to have been born.

Many share Helena’s belief. Others, who do not, still acknowledge the site’s symbolic if not historic value. Here, both can find satisfaction. Here, they can touch Christmas. For Christians, the birth of Jesus marks the moment when the world was transformed by the arrival of humanity’s savior. To others, it is an epochal

Turning point: the dawn of the dominant figure of Western culture. The mystery of Jesus’ birth is contained in two books of the New Testament: the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. But many scholars believe that they are works concerned not so much with facts than faith. To extract history from their pages is problematic.

>> DANIEL SMITH-CHRISTOPHER: The Hebrews knew that some truths are more profoundly communicated by telling a story than simply narrating historical events. That presents us an interesting difficulty. Sometimes we have to take a biblical passage and decide how much of this is the narration of events and how much of this is

Story and how do we tell the difference? >> ELIZABETH McNAMER: Our idea of history is different from writers who were writing then. We’re interested in the facts and only the facts. People writing at that point were interested not just in what happened, but in the interpretation of what happened.

It didn’t disturb them at all to add things to put forward their own theology, and it didn’t disturb their readers, either. >> JUDY YATES SIKER: They weren’t historians and they weren’t biographers. They were people whose communities had been impacted by the life of one they called Jesus of Nazareth, and it was

Imperative that they tell the story. >> NARRATOR: But did Matthew and Luke base their accounts of Jesus’ birth on actual events? Or did they merely invent the story after Jesus rose to prominence? The answers are all the more elusive because the narrative known to millions is in fact a fusion of two strikingly

Different tales. It begins when God chooses an obscure young virgin named Mary to carry his son. He tells her of his plan in an extraordinary encounter known as the Annunciation. >> “The angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in

Your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus.’ And Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be since I am a virgin?’ And the angel answered, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you and for that reason the holy offspring shall be called the Son of God.'”– LUKE 1:30.

>> NARRATOR: When Mary reveals her pregnancy to Joseph, her fiancé, he disbelieves her story. But when another angel visits him to verify it, his devotion to Mary is restored. Months pass… then a drama begins that is described by Luke but never mentioned by Matthew. The Emperor demands that all the

Roman world, including the Hebrew people, return to their ancestral homes in order to be taxed. >> “Now it came about in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited Earth. And all were proceeding to register for the census,

Everyone to his own city.”– LUKE 2:1. >> NARRATOR: Joseph, originally from Bethlehem, must escort the pregnant Mary on an arduous journey to his home city, 90 miles away. >> SMITH-CHRISTOPHER: One of the realities that we must always keep in mind in thinking about the Christmas story is that Palestine was Roman- occupied Palestine.

This was not a time or a place when the Hebrew people were in control of their own fate. Rome was very much in control of the fate of these people. So, there’s a human drama: There’s the drama of a father and a mother protecting their child and of trying to do the

Right thing. There’s a larger drama, and that is, this is a Hebrew family trying to do the right thing under the brutal occupation of Palestine by a foreign entity– the Roman Empire. >> NARRATOR: When Mary and Joseph arrive, they discover that Bethlehem is crowded to capacity. With no lodging available, the

Couple’s dilemma worsens. Mary goes into labor. >> “And she gave birth to her newborn son, and she wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.”– LUKE 2:7. >> NARRATOR: The setting where Jesus was born is not specified.

But the presence of a manger– a feeding trough for livestock– has led many to believe it was a stable. Both Matthew and Luke describe how God makes known the miraculous birth to a receptive few. But they differ about who was informed and how. According to Matthew, God conveys the news through a

Wondrous morning star. It serves as a beacon for foreign dignitaries, who travel hundreds of miles to pay homage to the infant Jesus. >> “The star, which they had seen in the east, went on before them until it came and stood over where the child was. And they came into the house and

Saw the child with Mary, his mother, and they fell down and worshipped him. And opening their treasures, they presented him gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh.”– MATTHEW 2:9. >> NARRATOR: In Luke’s version, the message of the birth is carried by an angel. It is delivered not to powerful

Foreigners, but to the local area’s most humble inhabitants. >> “There were shepherds in the fields keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel said to them, ‘Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good news of a great joy which shall be for all the people.

For today, in the city of David, there has been born for you a savior, who is Christ the Lord.'”– LUKE 2:8. >> SMITH-CHRISTOPHER: The birth of Jesus represents one of those shining moments in human history when there seems to be a kind of sunrise in human darkness.

The birth of Jesus and the life and teachings of Jesus provide us with a level of hope, a message of trust and of just the human possibilities, and I think even non-Christians can come to appreciate that in Jesus as well. >> SIKER: Whether you are a person of faith or not, you have

Echoes of the story in art, in literature, and you can’t avoid it. And so, one needs to be aware of what this story is and what the significance of this story is in order to survive in Western culture. >> MARVIN MEYER: There’s something about the birth of any child that is a wonderful

Moment. It’s a wonderful moment for a family, but in the case of the story of the birth of Jesus, the point of it is, here is a birth that may have some meaning for a bigger family, for the family of Israel, for the family of humankind. >> NARRATOR: One man’s birth

Would turn the world upside down. A new faith would challenge the old order. Jesus, claiming to be the Son of God, would be seen as a threat to Caesar, who claimed to be a god himself. Two charismatic leaders, each asserting their divinity, would offer a revolutionary choice for the future.

>> JOHN DOMINIC CROSSAN: For millions of people, Caesar as divine made sense. He owned the legions, he controlled the Mediterranean world, he brought peace to it and he lived in a huge palace over there on the Palantine Hill in Rome. Now, over here is another story, a counter-story, an anti-story,

Which says, “No, God is not the god of power and violence incarnate in Caesar; God is the Jewish god of justice and righteousness incarnate in a little child who was born in a tiny country, an occupied colony of the Roman Empire, born just about as low as you can imagine.

So you hear of the clash of two gods.” And the question of the story– and it is the Christmas question– “Where is your god? Is your god in power or in justice? Take your choice.” >> NARRATOR: For two people, the choice is never in doubt. The virgin and the carpenter who

Bring Jesus into the world are the first to love him and all he represents. Surprisingly, however, the Gospels tell us little about them. All efforts to trace the historical roots of Christmas lead back to two pivotal figures. The human drama in the story belongs to Mary and Joseph.

They are the parents of God’s only Son, responsible for bringing up the Savior of the world. Yet the Gospels provide little information about them. Today, we think of them simply as a virgin mother and a humble carpenter. Mary’s identity has been obscured by centuries of idealization, encouraged by the Catholic doctrine of the

“Immaculate Conception.” >> SIKER: The phrase the “Immaculate Conception” is often misunderstood as a reference to the immaculate conception of Jesus, when, in fact, it is a reference to Mary. There was a sanctifying grace that preserved her from the stain of original sin. It was important that Mary’s pureness be preserved.

And so, I think that in order for this young woman to be the mother of one who was later, in Christianity, considered God, that it was important that we not have original sin stain this family. >> NARRATOR: For a less romanticized, more accurate portrait of Mary, scholars take

A deeper look into the Gospels. According to Luke, she is neither meek nor mild, but driven by a sense of purpose. She reveals herself in a powerful proclamation now known as the “Magnificat.” >> “My soul exalts the Lord. He has brought down rulers from their thrones, and has exalted those who were humble.

He has filled the hungry with good things, and sent away the rich empty-handed.”– LUKE 1:46. >> SMITH-CHRISTOPHER: What is the image that Luke portrays for us of the young Mary? It is not an image of this kind of glowing, white, virginal woman floating in the air. It’s the image of a

Revolutionary young woman in Roman-occupied Palestine, who sees the implications of the coming of her child to be expressed in those powerful words that the rich will be sent away, the poor will be fed, and the powerful will be pulled down from their thrones. This is a very politically savvy young woman.

>> NARRATOR: If Luke saw Mary as a revolutionary, he also saw her as a virgin. For historians, the virgin birth defies analysis. They are not equipped or inclined to discuss miracles. In their quest to understand the Christmas story, they must confine themselves to a conventional approach. In recent years, they have

Discovered other possible explanations for Mary’s dual role as virgin and mother. Advances in reproductive biology have focused attention on a phenomenon called parthenogenesis. It is a rare process in some plants and animals in which an egg can develop into a new organism without being fertilized. No instance of the process

Occurring in a human female has ever been recorded. Still, it leaves open the possibility that a virgin birth could have a basis in science. Some scholars, however, believe the Gospel authors did not base the virgin birth on a real event, but were inspired by an Old Testament prophecy.

>> “The Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel.”– ISAIAH 7:14. >> NARRATOR: According to some scholars, the Gospel authors likely claimed Jesus was born of a virgin to remain consistent with Isaiah’s prophesy of the

Coming Messiah. >> ROHALD F. HOCK: Isaiah himself, so far as we know, had no intentions of looking that far ahead, but the standard procedure throughout the ancient world was to make connections between the present and the past, and Christians are doing that with Jesus by connecting him with the past Scripture– in

This case, the prophecy of Isaiah. >> NARRATOR: Ironically, however, some claim it is possible that Isaiah never intended to predict that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. His words, written originally in Hebrew, may have taken on an erroneous new meaning when translated into the Greek version available to Matthew and Luke.

>> MEYER: In the original Hebrew of Isaiah, the word that is used for, well, “virgin” is actually ” alma,” the Hebrew word that means “a young woman”– a young woman of the age when women can conceive and bear children. And there is no more baggage than that that is connected to

That particular term. >> SIKER: When this gets translated into the Greek, which is what the early Christians would have been using– the text that they would have had– is ” parthenos,” which is more heavily nuanced as “virgin.” >> MEYER: The fact of the matter is, the doctrine of the virgin

Birth works better with the Greek than it does with the original Hebrew. >> SIKER: I don’t think that the speculation that the whole idea of Mary’s virginity comes from this “mistranslation” is one that argues very well. For one thing, it’s not a mistranslation. It is one of several words that

Is perfectly acceptable as a translation. But it does have a more heavy nuance of virginity. >> NARRATOR: Scholars who scrutinize the virgin birth focus not only on Isaiah’s prediction in the Old Testament, but also the Gospels themselves. In an apparent contradiction, the same biblical authors who celebrate Mary’s virginity also

Write that Jesus had several siblings. >> “Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joseph and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters with us?”– MATTHEW 13:54. >> McNAMER: The orthodox tradition on this is that they were children of Joseph by an earlier marriage.

The Roman Catholic tradition is that these were simply cousins of Jesus. >> NARRATOR: Matthew and Luke, however, provide no information supporting this interpretation. >> MEYER: If one will insist, theologically, upon the perpetual virginity of Mary, then there are some great problems when it comes to the brothers and the sisters of Jesus.

And then some creative theological and historical work has to be done. The spin doctors have to go to work. I think that the simplest way to read those accounts is to understand that Jesus had real brothers and real sisters. It was that kind of an ordinary family. >> NARRATOR: If Jesus had

Biological siblings, it would negate only the notion that Mary was a virgin her entire life– not necessarily her virgin birth of Jesus. >> “Joseph knew her not until she had borne a son, and she called his name Jesus.”– MATTHEW 1:25. >> NARRATOR: Some scholars argue that this verse implies that Mary conceived Jesus

Miraculously, and later lost her virginity as she and Joseph assumed a conventional sexual relationship. For skeptics, the question remains: “If Mary was not a virgin, and God was not the father of Jesus, who was?” The most likely candidate, predictably, is Joseph. But in the first century, a rumor surfaced of another possibility.

It was chronicled by the Christian theologian Origen, who taught in Egypt in the second century. He wrote of an allegation that Jesus was the offspring of Mary and a Roman soldier. >> “The Jew, speaking of the mother of Jesus, said that she was guilty of adultery, and that

She bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera. It was to be expected, indeed, that those who would not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some falsehood.”– ORIGEN, AGAINST CELSUS, CHAPTER 33. >> SIKER: Origen argues that they had to create this lie– this lie of Mary and the Roman

Soldier– because they knew, and they unwittingly admitted in their lie that Jesus’ birth was not a usual birth. And so, if they couldn’t accept the miraculous nature of this birth, what else would they do but create such a lie? >> CROSSAN: The accusation that Mary was raped by a Roman

Soldier and produced a child, therefore out of wedlock, seems to me to be the obvious rebuttal that I would make if I didn’t accept the virginal birth. This is the nasty, within-the- family, and therefore very nasty name-calling that goes on between Christian Jews and non-Christian Jews in the first

Century, each sort of saying rather nasty things about the other. >> NARRATOR: But could this accusation have any basis in fact? One clue scholars have examined is the name of the Roman soldier mentioned by Origen– Panthera. >> MEYER: Lo and behold, it turns out that a tombstone of a

Certain “Panther” has been found in Germany– the tombstone of a Roman soldier whose name was Tiberius Julius Abdes Panther. And it is said that he was a Sidonian archer who was based in Palestine. And so, that leads then to the speculation: Could it be the case that Mary was actually

Raped by, seduced by– but, at her age, we would call that rape– raped by a Roman soldier? And it is one of the historical possibilities. >> NARRATOR: The tombstone, discovered in 1859 in the city of Bingerbruck, is an intriguing yet inconclusive piece of evidence. Some scholars have argued that

Panthera was likely a common name among the ancient Romans. So, finding it etched on an ancient tombstone should not seem surprising. The discovery has become part of a 2,000-year-old theological debate over Jesus’ parentage. But the issue was once a private crisis for one humble carpenter. After Joseph learns Mary is

Pregnant, say the Gospels, he naturally assumes she has betrayed his trust. Under the laws of his time, he could have Mary stoned to death for her perceived infidelity. Instead, he quietly breaks their engagement. God intervenes. He sends an angel to Joseph in a dream, who tells him that her child has been miraculously

Conceived. Joseph accepts the divine explanation. He and Mary resolve to carry out God’s miracle. In 1997, archaeologists make a remarkable discovery three miles from Bethlehem. The pinkish limestone appears utterly ordinary, except it is located precisely in the center of the ruins of a 5th-century church. The church, it seems, was built

Purposefully around it. The diggers believe they have found the fabled kathisma– the Greek word for “the seat.” According to an apocryphal text, Mary rested on it on her way to give birth to Jesus. Ancient Christians gathered here to commemorate her journey to Bethlehem. The find renews debate over an age-old historical question:

Where was Jesus born? >> McNAMER: I believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, just as the stories tell us. The reason I believe this is that there were very early traditions in the church of the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. These would have surfaced very soon after his death, when

People still remembered things, that he was born in Bethlehem. >> MEYER: I think it was likely Nazareth. Jesus was known as Jesus of Nazareth. And, typically, people were known by their birthplace. This is where the family lived. The way in which Matthew and Luke go through some contortions

To get the family to Bethlehem in order for Jesus to be born there seems to indicate that there’s something that is theologically motivated about this kind of account. >> NARRATOR: Some scholars believe that the Gospel authors knew Jesus was born in Nazareth, but altered the truth in the name of faith.

Their inspiration, once again, may have been a prophecy from the Old Testament. >> “But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you one will go forth for me to be ruler in Israel.”– MICAH 5:2. >> NARRATOR: From Bethlehem,

Predicts Micah, will arise a Messiah for God’s chosen people. If Luke and Matthew wished to exalt Jesus as the awaited King, no other city would suffice as his birthplace. Whether inspired by facts or faith, Luke’s account of the journey to Bethlehem is complex and colorful. His story begins in Nazareth,

Where Mary and Joseph await the birth of Jesus. But the Roman Emperor, Caesar Augustus, orders a census of his empire. >> HOCK: A census involved essentially finding out the numbers of people, the wealth of people, for purposes of taxation. So you had to have figures. You had to have concrete data

About what a province could generate in terms of taxes so that when the Empire decided what its tribute should be, they would be able to raise those funds. And, presumably, the reason Joseph and Mary traveled to Bethlehem is because Joseph has property there and, for that reason, is required to register

Himself there rather than at Nazareth. >> NARRATOR: Luke does not specify their means of transportation. But since donkeys were commonly used to move both goods and people, the popular image of Mary riding one is entirely plausible. The roads in Palestine, even by ancient standards, were primitive. The food commonly taken on an

Extended journey was bread and water. Scholars imagine the 90-mile trek would have been grueling. Slowed by Mary’s condition, they would have traveled perhaps ten miles a day. The entire journey would have lasted more than a week. The question remains whether Joseph and Mary really endured such a journey.

The key to the answer may lie in the census that Luke says motivated it. >> “This was the first census taken while Quirinius was Governor of Syria.”– LUKE 2:2. >> NARRATOR: Independent historical sources confirm that a Roman census did occur during the reign of Quirinius. But it occurred in 6 A.D., long

After Jesus was born. It has been suggested that Luke misidentified the Governor; he may have meant to specify the similarly named Quintillus. His reign began in 6 B.C., around the same time that another Roman census was conducted. Even if this is true, however, paradox persists. Roman records indicate that

Every census ordered by Caesar Augustus over a 42-year span involved only Roman citizens. Mary and Joseph would not have participated. Also suspect is a census that required registrants to return to the city where they were born. >> CROSSAN: If everyone goes back to their ancestral home to be recorded and then goes back

To wherever they live, that’s a bureaucratic nightmare. It’s not the way the Romans did it. They wanted you recorded where you were working. “We want to know where you are to pay your taxes.” So, it’s a story which Luke creates in order to get Mary and Joseph and Jesus, of course to

Be born yet, to Bethlehem. But it is not factual. It’s fictional. >> DR. RICHARD HORSLEY: For a long time, we thought that this was just a story, and that this was just a literary device. Well, we’ve discovered papyri in Egypt, now, that put a whole different slant on this.

The Romans required peasants who had found themselves unable to both pay their taxes to Caesar and provide for their families to return to their villages precisely in order to be down on the farm where they would raise crops and pay the Roman taxes. Then that puts some great credibility back in this legend

That Joseph and Mary journey to Bethlehem on the occasion of Caesar having decreed a tax. >> NARRATOR: Whether Luke’s story of the census is credible or not, there may be a completely different scenario that compelled Mary and Joseph to journey to Bethlehem. Some scholars suggest it is possible that Mary was aware of

The Old Testament prophecy in Micah. They believe she may have purposely delivered her baby in the predicted city to bolster his role as the Messiah. >> SMITH-CHRISTOPHER: Let’s remember Luke’s portrayal of Mary as a socially and politically very sophisticated young woman who sees her role as part of the resistance of the

Hebrew people to Roman-occupied Palestine. For this woman to associate the coming of this messianic child with the line of David and to make a move to Bethlehem to emphasize that association would be a politically very savvy move on her part. Is it possible? Absolutely, I think it’s possible.

>> NARRATOR: If Jesus was born in Bethlehem, it is still a mystery as to the precise setting. One passage, however, may hold the answer. >> “And she gave birth to her newborn son, and she wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger, because there

Was no room for them in the inn.”– LUKE 2:7. >> McNAMER: Luke says to us, “There was no room at the inn.” Actually that can be translated: “It was not the place for them in the inn.” You know, an inn was simply an open field, surrounded by a wall

Where travelers could go to be safe from the animals and robbers, and there was a huge fire in the middle where they could do their own cooking, and many travelers would have been staying there. It probably would be the last place in the world you would want to have a baby.

>> NARRATOR: Luke’s mention of a manger implies Jesus was born in a stable, where it would most likely be found. But it is doubtful it would have been a freestanding structure. The more likely setting is a cave, as caves were commonly used to house livestock in the Holy Land.

Wherever Jesus was born, Matthew and Luke call attention to the modest nature of the setting. Though they decree Jesus a King, they make clear that he was not born in a palace. >> SMITH-CHRISTOPHER: Virtually all of the Gospel accounts want to emphasize the humble beginnings of Jesus– the poor beginnings of Jesus.

Look at the setting for the arrival of God’s Messiah. God chose the least, God chose the powerless as the stage upon which salvation shall be worked out. That’s a very profound and important point. >> NARRATOR: For Christians, Jesus’ birth signifies a new beginning for mankind. 2,000 years later, the centuries

Themselves are measured from this pivotal moment in history. But when it occurred still remains a mystery.ou a merry Christmas We wish you a merry Christmas and a Happy New Year… ♪ >> NARRATOR: Every December 25, millions embrace Christmas with reverence and revelry. >> ♪ Navidad, Navidad, hoy es Navidad… ♪

>> ( chanting in Latin ) >> NARRATOR: But unconsciously, the entire world celebrates it every day. In theory, every minute and second that ticks by is measured from the moment Jesus drew his first breath. On New Year’s Eve, the number emblazoned above Times Square declares how many years we believe have passed since Jesus was born. The only problem is that we are almost certainly wrong. The answer was a mystery even in Jesus’ own time. For the early Christians, the defining moment of his life was not its beginning, but its end. The question of when Jesus was born was not an issue until the second century. Christians found themselves

Challenged by a splinter group of believers who claimed Jesus had never been born in the conventional sense. >> McNAMER: I believe that the birth of Jesus only became important in the second century with Gnosticism. Gnostics were an heretical group within the church who were suggesting that Jesus never had a real body.

They essentially did not believe that matter was good. The only thing that was good was spirit. They did not believe in the incarnation. They believed in what we call the Docetic Christ– he only appeared to have a body– and I believe that the infancy narratives were written to counteract this heresy.

>> NARRATOR: When the early Christians became more curious about the circumstances of Jesus’ birth, they began to speculate about the date it occurred. In Egypt, a bishop named Clement determined that Jesus was born on November 18. Elsewhere in North Africa, an anonymous scholar of the same era declared it to be March 28.

Why they chose these dates is unknown. By the fourth century, Christians were no closer to finding the truth. But they decided which day seemed most appropriate– at least symbolically. December 25 had long been celebrated as the pagan holiday honoring the Sun God, Mithras. It was part of a two-week

Festival of the winter solstice, when the days began to lengthen. For the first several centuries of Christianity, the church found itself in fierce competition with popular pagan religions. What better way to challenge them than to usurp their holidays? >> CROSSAN: In the same way that you might take a pagan temple

And put a Christian shrine right on top of it, you put a Christian feast, the birth of Jesus, right on top of the winter solstice, right on top of a pagan feast. You sort of obliterate the pagan layer with the Christian layer. >> NARRATOR: Beyond the practical motivation was the symbolic.

>> McNAMER: I suppose we could say that Jesus was the light of the world, and this was a wonderful time to have the celebration, when there is darkness and then there is light– this light suddenly appearing. >> NARRATOR: In the year 349, Pope Julius formally designated December 25 as Christmas.

Believers now had an official date on which to celebrate, but the declaration extinguished whatever curiosity remained to discover the actual date of Jesus’ birth. Throughout the centuries, few clues have surfaced to solve the mystery. One is provided by Luke in one of the best-known passages from his Gospel.

>> “There were shepherds in the fields keeping watch over their flocks by night.”– LUKE 2:8. >> NARRATOR: In ancient Israel, shepherds guarded their flocks at night only during the season when the ewes gave birth to their lambs. It happened in the spring. In December, sheep were generally kept in corrals, unwatched.

Some scholars believe Luke’s reference suggests we may be celebrating Christmas eight months too late. Ultimately, determining the month and day Jesus was born may be impossible. But determining the year offers scholars more hope. The effort began some 500 years after his birth. By then, the Christian Church had expanded its influence to

All dimensions of life. Perhaps the only untouched dimension was the most intangible of them all: time. To that point in history, calendars measured time beginning with the founding of Rome or the reign of some of its rulers. For Christians, this was no longer acceptable. >> Meyer: As Christians were contemplating a calendar, they

Thought, “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if there would be a calendar that would be geared into Christian values? Wouldn’t it be remarkable if there could be a Christian calendar that would begin with Jesus?” And then it becomes important to find out: “Well, when did Jesus begin?” >> MOSLEY: The question of the

Nativity– the date of the birth of Jesus– has puzzled people for 1,500 years. >> MOSLEY: Church Fathers decided that rather than count years from the beginning of the reign of an impious, non- Christian Roman emperor, that they should count the years with the birth of Jesus. And so Dionysus Exiguus, a monk

Within Rome, was given the project of determining when precisely Jesus was born. >> NARRATOR: For reasons known only to Dionysus, he decided to place Jesus’ birth in the year 753 of the old Roman calendar. He then invented a new calendar, decreeing that Jesus was born on December 25 in the year 1 B.C.,

With the year 1 A.D. beginning a week later. Today, many scholars believe Dionysus made a critical error. They say he failed to take into account a key piece of information from the Gospels. >> SIKER: One of the details in Matthew and Luke’s infancy stories is that his birth took

Place during the reign of Herod. So, if we can determine the reign of Herod and the death of Herod, then we can more closely determine the date of Jesus’ birth. >> HORSLEY: The question of the timing of Herod’s death is not in question. We’re fairly sure that Herod died in what would be

Chronologically 4 B.C., and then that provides the symbolic if not the actual point at which Jesus must have been born: just before that happened. >> NARRATOR: 4 B.C. Perhaps a few years earlier. Until additional evidence is discovered, this range is as close as we can come to the answer. This renowned astronomer

Believes he may have found the answer. For several years, he has been investigating yet another mystery of the Christmas story. >> NARRATOR: The search for Christmas transcends the bounds of Earth. Light years away might be one of the tale’s greatest mysteries: the Star of Bethlehem. >> “Behold, there came wise men

From the east to Jerusalem, saying, ‘Where is he that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east, and have come to worship him.'”– MATTHEW 2:2. >> NARRATOR: For centuries, the star has endured as a mesmerizing symbol of Christianity– almost as powerful as the cross.

But did it truly exist, or was it created after the fact to make Jesus’ birth seem more miraculous? >> McNAMER: Generally, after people died, it was often said that a star had proclaimed their birth. This was said for Alexander the Great. It was said for the Emperor Augustus himself, that a star

Appeared at his birth. In fact, Shakespeare tells us the heavens themselves tell forth the birth of princes. I don’t believe there was a star. I don’t believe that there were magi who came from the east. >> SIKER: I don’t know what that Star of Bethlehem was, but I do

Think that it’s highly likely that there was an astrological event that occurred in that region that was brought into the legend, brought into the story, brought into the tradition of the birth of Jesus. >> NARRATOR: For centuries, astronomers have tried to determine if the Christmas star was more than a myth, and what

Celestial phenomenon could have accounted for it. >> MOSLEY: The first astronomer to speculate on what the Star of Bethlehem might have been was the great Johannes Kepler, 400 years ago– the man who worked out why it is that the planets move the way they do– and when Johannes Kepler saw an exploding

Star in 1604, he thought, “Aha! That might have been what the Magi saw. What could be more glorious?” And we can look at the old Chinese records and they recorded all stars that exploded that they saw, but none appeared at the time of the birth of Jesus. So, despite the charm of the

Idea, and despite Kepler’s enthusiasm for it, apparently it was not an exploding star. >> MICHAEL MOLNAR: Some astronomers have proposed comets, or in particular, Halley’s Comet, which is probably the most famous comet of all, and it appeared at around the time that we believe Jesus was born. However, if you look at the

Ancient texts and try to understand what the people of ancient times believed in, they feared comets. Comets didn’t indicate the birth of a king. It really meant, usually, the death of a king or the start of a war. So, we really cannot propose that a comet, or in particular

Halley’s Comet, was the Star of Bethlehem. >> NARRATOR: For some modern astronomers, the key to unraveling the truth lies in understanding the point of view of the magi. The term “magi” is the root from which we derive the word “magic.” They were a respected class of advisors in the ancient Near

East who used astrology to predict the future. >> MOSLEY: The magi thought the planets moved because the gods were causing them to move. The gods were making them go this way and that way, and when one planet happened to line up with another planet, that that was because the gods had

Something in mind for us, and there was some correspondence between what happened in the sky and what happened down below. They believed in magic, and they believed in the magic of the sky. >> NARRATOR: In the ancient Near East, belief in astrology began several centuries before the birth of Christ.

It was almost universally accepted throughout the region. The only place where it had little influence was the nation in which Jesus was destined to be born. >> MOLNAR: We find that tiny Judaea is sort of an island in a sea of astrology believers. That is, all the countries, the

Cultures in and around Judaea, they believed that astrology did predict the future, that it was a science, and that it really helped them to understand their own lives. But only when we go to Judaea, we find that it is not practiced or believed in. >> NARRATOR: Judaea’s lack of astrological insight is evident

In a key passage from Matthew that may help explain what the Star of Bethlehem was. >> “Then Herod secretly called the magi, and inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.”– MATTHEW 2:7. >> MOSLEY: An important clue in Matthew is that only the magi saw this star, whatever it was.

Herod and his advisors didn’t know about it. They had to inquire diligently of the magi what they’d seen, so that tells us it wasn’t something spectacular in the sky, like a bright comet, that everyone cave seen. >> NARRATOR: Some astronomers believe that what the magi saw, and the Hebrews did not, was a

Visually subtle conjunction of planets. It happens when one heavenly body appears to cross the path of another. It is a common occurrence. But many scholars believe that 2,000 years ago, a specific conjunction may have been viewed as a sign that the Old Testament prophecy had been fulfilled– that the Messiah had finally

Been born. John Mosley, of the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles, has had an avid interest in the Star of Bethlehem for 20 years. He believes he has discovered the celestial phenomenon that attracted the magi. >> MOSLEY: I think that what the magi saw was a series of conjunctions. There were three conjunctions of

The planet Jupiter and the star Regulus, and two very close conjunctions of Jupiter and Venus over a ten-month period of time during the years 3 and 2 B.C., and the final of these conjunctions was really spectacular. It’s the sort of thing that I would love to see. Jupiter and Venus were so close,

They almost touched. So, if you were looking for something of great astrological interest– and after all, the magi were astrologers– then I think you could do nothing better than to look at these conjunctions– this series of events– as the sort of thing that would have made the magi think, “Aha, this is important.

The prophecies were fulfilled.” >> NARRATOR: Michael Molnar, an astronomer formerly of Rutgers University, has a different theory. His interest in the Star of Bethlehem began when he discovered a clue on an ancient coin at a New York collector’s show. It was minted in Syria in 13 A.D. His findings represent perhaps

The most significant recent insight into the Christmas story. >> MOLNAR: One side had the god Zeus on it, or our Jupiter. I’ve seen lots of coins with that god on it. But I flipped it over and the other side was a beautiful picture of Aries the Ram, a sign of the zodiac.

There was the ram, leaping across the sky, looking backwards at an overhead star. Aries the Ram is key to the whole puzzle. We astronomers were looking in the wrong part of the sky for the Star of Bethlehem. The star had appeared in Aries the Ram. >> NARRATOR: Molnar’s research into ancient astrological texts

Reveals that each sign of the zodiac represented a particular kingdom. Aries represented Judaea. Molnar discovered that a specific set of conditions occurring in Aries would have convinced the magi that a person of cosmic importance was to be born there. >> MOLNAR: The most important star that would confer

Kingships– make a young boy a king– was the star of Zeus, which we call the planet Jupiter today. So I knew that the star was most likely the planet Jupiter. I found that the moon played a very important role, and that the closer the moon was to Jupiter, the better were the

Conditions to have the birth of a young king. But most important was that Jupiter had to be in the east. Well, “in the east” means, according to the beliefs and practices of stargazers of 2,000 years ago, that it was about to emerge as a morning star– that is, in the eastern morning sky.

>> NARRATOR: Molnar’s challenge was to find the precise moment when this particular set of conditions occurred in the constellation of Aries. >> MOLNAR: Well, to make a long story short, I ran my computer program for a huge swath in time that biblical scholars believe Jesus was born, and we find that

In 6 B.C.– on April 17 to be exact– these events happened. Jupiter was in the east, in Aries the Ram, and at the same time, the moon came extremely close to Jupiter. The moon came so close, in fact, that it eclipsed Jupiter, and these celestial objects in Aries the Ram indicated, according to

The astrologers, that there was the birth of a great king. >> NARRATOR: Molnar’s findings are perhaps the most compelling evidence that the Star of Bethlehem was a genuine phenomenon. His theory is all the more intriguing in that it places the star’s appearance in the very year that many scholars believe Jesus was born.

The magi, whose belief in astrology compelled them to follow the star, are as much of a mystery as the star itself. Tradition holds that there were three wise men, but Matthew never specifies how many there were. Matthew also never tells from what nation they came, but many scholars think they were from

Babylonia– the site of modern- day Iraq. Outside of Israel, no other country was as aware of the tale of a coming Jewish Messiah. 500 years before Jesus’ birth, the Babylonians conquered the Hebrews and exiled tens of thousands of Jews back to their kingdom. Scholars believe that it was therefore inevitable that the

Ancient prophecy became common knowledge among the Babylonians. Ironically, their astrological interpretation of the star would compel them to believe that their true king had emerged from a nation they had vanquished. >> SMITH-CHRISTOPHER: The Babylonians were one of the most brutal ancient regimes to have ever conquered the Hebrew people, and here come the

Babylonian descendants, subservient to the birth of a Hebrew Messiah, so deeply impressed with the significance of this birth that they come on bended knee to this child. There is a wonderful irony in this story, almost as if the Gospel writers are saying to us, “Remember the people who thought

That they were so powerful and who conquered us so many centuries ago? Even they now are on their knees before the birth of our humble Messiah.” >> NARRATOR: According to Matthew, the magi present the infant Jesus gifts of gold and two aromatic resins: frankincense and myrrh. The gifts held deep symbolic

Significance for the readers of Matthew’s day. >> McNAMER: Some believed that the Messiah, when he came, would be a king. Some believed that he would be a great prophet. Some believed that he would be a priest. Gold is for a king, frankincense for a priest, myrrh would signify a prophet.

So, what Matthew is doing in this little story is simply telling his audience, “Whatever you were expecting in the way of a Messiah has been born.” >> NARRATOR: Although every nativity scene depicts the magi honoring a newborn, many scholars believe they arrived when Jesus was as old as two.

The Greek word Matthew uses to describe Jesus is one the Greeks attached not to a baby, but a toddler. For 2,000 years, the comforting images of the Christmas story have warmed the hearts of millions. But the search for the tale’s historical roots leads to one of the most horrifying incidents

Described in the Bible. The birth of Jesus triggers an event that bathes the streets of Bethlehem in blood. It begins when the Magi, led by the star, pause in Jerusalem. They seek an audience with King Herod the Great. For more than 30 years, Herod has ruled despotically over

Judea as a loyal ally to the Roman Empire. His power is matched only by his unpopularity. The Magi hope that Herod can help them find the infant destined to be king. But their questions inadvertently imperil Jesus’ life. >> “The Magi arrived in Jerusalem, saying, ‘Where is he

Who is born king of the Jews?’ And when Herod, the king, heard it, he was troubled.”– MATTHEW 2:1. >> NARRATOR: According to Matthew, Herod regards Jesus as a dangerous political rival. Fate has pitted an innocent child against one of history’s most ruthless and vengeful leaders. >> HORSLEY: This fellow was the

Very epitome of a tyrant. He had secret police. He had informers sort of spying on the people, especially in Jerusalem. The minute he would hear of any resistance, he’d send out the troops first and ask questions later. He was suspicious of his own sons, and he killed his own sons.

He put to death his own sons that would have been his heirs. >> McNAMER: He murdered so many of his own family, including his mother, his favorite wife, Marianna. He was unscrupulous and extraordinarily cruel. >> NARRATOR: Herod’s paranoia is ignited by the Magi’s news of the Messiah’s birth. His thoughts turn instantly to

Murder. But he keeps his intentions secret from the Magi, hoping that they will lead him to his target. >> “And he sent the Magi to Bethlehem and said, ‘Go and make careful search for the child, and when you have found him, report to me, that I, too, may come and worship him.'”–

MATTHEW 2:8. >> NARRATOR: After the Magi honor Jesus, writes Matthew, an angel informs them of Herod’s scheme. They defy his order to return to his palace and hastily leave Judea. By taking a different route than the one they used to arrive, they avoid capture by Herod’s soldiers and interrogation as to Jesus’ whereabouts.

Enraged, Herod hatches an alternate plan. Estimating Jesus’ age from the time the Magi first saw the star, he orders that all boys in Bethlehem aged two and under be killed. From Jerusalem, the Christian Era’s first death squad approaches. At this moment, according to Matthew, the unsuspecting Mary, Joseph and Jesus are asleep.

But God sends an angel to alert them to the danger. >> “The angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, ‘Arise, and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt.'”– MATTHEW 2:13. >> NARRATOR: As the family escapes, Herod’s soldiers sweep into Bethlehem. The king’s cold-blooded order is

Carried out. The incident becomes known as “The Slaughter of the Innocents.” Matthew’s account of what occurred in these streets is the most dramatic episode of the Christmas story. But many scholars contend it never happened. They cite a lack of any corroboration from other sources. >> SIKER: If this event was indeed as horrific as Matthew

Described it, it seems that it would appear in Luke’s Gospel. It seems that it would have appeared in the writings of one such as Josephus, a significant Jewish historian of the first century. I think that those things indicate to us– especially the absence in Josephus– indicate to us that… Matthew may have

Been up to something else. >> NARRATOR: Some scholars say the lack of corroboration is not by itself proof that the slaughter is simply Matthew’s invention. They point out that the population of Bethlehem was then perhaps 1,000, and that there could have been as few as 20 infants under two.

The limited scope of the slaughter may have kept it from entering the history books. >> CROSSAN: It would certainly have been awful, but it would probably not have been a huge number. And yes, of course, it could easily have escaped Josephus. So I couldn’t argue that it didn’t happen because Josephus does not mention it. It’s quite possible he wouldn’t have heard of it, or he could

Have heard of it and not thought it was important. >> SMITH-CHRISTOPHER: Could the Slaughter of the Innocents have happened? Was Herod the kind of ruler capable of this kind of brutality? The answer to that question is, absolutely yes, he was capable of that kind of brutality. We have account after account of

Ancient rulers terrified of the idea amongst their captive population that a ruler was going to come, that a deliverer was going to come, and their attempts to try to deal with it. This is not at all an unbelievable element to the story. >> NARRATOR: Whether fact or fiction, the Slaughter of the

Innocents is reminiscent of another horrific episode from the book of Exodus. It describes how the Egyptian pharaoh tries to murder another messenger of God– the infant Moses– by ordering the execution of all Israelite boys. Some scholars believe Matthew’s account is an invention based on the older story, and an effort

To reinforce Jesus’ role as the deliverer of his people. >> CROSSAN: In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus is the new Moses. So the same way that Pharaoh tried to kill all the children and almost killed Moses but Moses escaped by divine power, bad Pharaoh becomes bad Herod. This is Matthew working the

Parallelism between Jesus, the new Moses in his life, so Jesus must be born, as it were, and almost killed like the old Moses was. >> NARRATOR: In Egypt, writes Matthew, the young Jesus finds safety from Herod’s wrath. But Matthew provides no details about how Mary and Joseph endure

The 250-mile trek to bring him here. Some scholars speculate that they finance the journey by selling the gold, frankincense and myrrh given to them by the Magi. But other scholars doubt they ever venture here. No historical evidence has been found to support Matthew’s account. And Luke’s Gospel contradicts it, describing how Mary and

Joseph travel uneventfully with the newborn Jesus back to Nazareth. Where the holy family lived and how long they stayed in Egypt, Matthew does not say, but a number of legends have survived. In Cairo, the Church of Saint Sergius is built upon the site where it is believed that they stayed for three months.

Outside Cairo, Christians since the fifth century have gathered at this ancient sycamore. They call it the Tree of Mary… for here they believe she sought shade beneath its branches. >> McNAMER: I have visited those sites in Cairo, and they are fun to go to, and if they help people’s piety, that’s fine, but

I don’t think they have any, uh… have any basis in history. >> NARRATOR: One reason that scholars believe Jesus never visited Egypt is that his teachings many years later bear no sign of Egyptian influence. >> CROSSAN: I don’t find anything that Jesus would have learned in Egypt, even if I take

Literally the idea that he went there as a young child and lived there for a length of time. I do not find anything in the teachings of Jesus or the life of Jesus that does not come straight out of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Jewish tradition. >> NARRATOR: Despite the lack of

Any Egyptian nuance to Jesus’ ministry, some scholars believe he may have indeed spent time in Egypt. >> SMITH-CHRISTOPHER: Jesus would’ve been a member of a minority in Egyptian culture. It could very well be that the Egyptian influence on Jesus was exactly the opposite of what some people speculate.

In other words, it may have solidified his Hebrew identity and not so much made him open to Egyptian influence. After all, we know that living in exile, living in Diaspora, sometimes makes people intensely more interested in their cultural tradition, and so less interested in the influences of the majority culture around them.

>> NARRATOR: After an unspecified time in Egypt, writes Matthew, Mary and Joseph receive a message from God that it is safe to return. >> “When Herod was dead, an angel appeared, saying, ‘Arise and take the child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel, for those who sought the

Child’s life are dead.'”– MATTHEW 2:19. >> NARRATOR: Joseph escorts his family back to Judea to the city of Nazareth. There, some 30 years later, Jesus will begin his earth-shaking ministry. Reconstructing the history of Jesus’ birth begins by examining the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. But there is another version of

The first Christmas unknown to millions of believers: The Infancy Gospel of James. It was purportedly written soon after Herod the Great died, which scholars believe happened in 4 B.C. The author claims to be James, one of the brothers of Jesus alluded to several times in the New Testament.

James is identified as Jesus’ brother in the books of Matthew, Mark and Galatians. And Josephus, the first-century historian, corroborates James’ identity when he writes of James’ death at the hand of a treacherous high priest. >> “So he assembled a council of judges and brought it before James, the brother of Jesus,

Known as Christ, and several others, on a charge of breaking the law and handed them over to be stoned.”– JOSEPHUS, THE JEWISH ANTIQUITIES. >> NARRATOR: Although The Infancy Gospel of James was accepted by early Christians, the church never authorized it as scripture. As such, it has been relegated

To the biblical literature known as the Apocrypha. It presents many of the same elements as the traditional story. There is the census, the trek to Bethlehem, the Magi and the Star. But there, the similarities end. James writes that Mary goes into labor not in Bethlehem, but before they are ever able to

Reach the city. >> “When they came to the middle of their journey, Mary said to him, ‘Joseph, take me off the donkey, the child is pushing from within me to let him come out.’ So he took her off the donkey and said to her, ‘Where will I take you and shelter you?

This area is a desert.’ And he found a cave and led her there while he went to find a Hebrew midwife in the land of Bethlehem.”– THE INFANCY GOSPEL OF JAMES 17:10. >> NARRATOR: In contrast to Matthew and Luke, James specifies that Jesus is born in a cave which coincides with what

Many scholars believe to be the true setting. While Joseph is away searching for a midwife, Mary begins to deliver the baby Jesus. At the same moment, a bizarre phenomenon occurs. Joseph is stunned as time literally stands still. >> “With utter astonishment, I saw the birds of the sky were not moving.

And I looked at workers picking food up and they were not picking it up. And I saw sheep being driven, but the sheep were standing still.”– THE INFANCY GOSPEL OF JAMES 18:4. >> HOCK: He is suddenly struck by everything in nature– the heavens, the stars, the birds, the workers, the animals all

Around him stopping right in their tracks, and then suddenly, everything returns to the way it was, and life goes on as it had formerly. And presumably in the context of that story, the moment of the suspension of time, Jesus himself is being born. >> NARRATOR: Joseph returns to the cave with two midwives.

But Mary has already given birth. One of the midwives believes Mary’s claim that she is a virgin. But the other, named Salome, is skeptical. >> “The midwife said ‘Mary, position yourself, for not a small test concerning you is about to take place.’ When Mary heard these things, she positioned herself.

And Salome inserted her finger into her body. And Salome cried out and said, ‘Woe for my lawlessness and the unbelief that made me test the living God. Look, my hand is falling away from me and being consumed by fire.'”– THE INFANCY GOSPEL OF JAMES 20:1. >> NARRATOR: Salome begs

Forgiveness for her lack of faith. God hears her prayer and sends an angel to heal her. James’ account reaches its dramatic peak with a version of the slaughter of the innocents that differs slightly from Matthew’s. >> HOCK: You do have the murder of the infants with Herod attacking the babies.

Mary, who had given birth to Jesus in a cave, now hides Jesus by placing him in the manger so the familiar manger from Luke is now used in a different way in The Infancy Gospel of James. >> NARRATOR: Is it possible this intricate tale is the most accurate version of the Christmas story?

Although James’ Infancy Gospel was supposedly written just after the death of Herod in 4 B.C., scholars believe it was produced as much as 150 years later after the books of Matthew and Luke. They note that it is written in a literary style not invented until the second century.

The style is known as an encomium, which follows strict rules of composition to praise virtuous persons– in this case, the Virgin Mary. And James, they argue, could not possibly have been the author. The historian Josephus records that he died in 62 A.D., a hundred years before the document was apparently written.

>> HORSLEY: One of the reasons why The Infancy Gospel of James seems to have less credibility, perhaps, than the stories contained in Matthew and Luke is it doesn’t seem to be quite as familiar with local color in Palestine– the thought being that maybe whoever put this together, didn’t really have

Much direct knowledge of Palestine. >> SIKER: It was also probably not someone who was Jewish, because there are errors in the understanding of Jewish customs and traditions. >> NARRATOR: Many scholars believe that the only knowledge the author had of Jesus’ birth was what had been recorded several decades earlier in the

Gospels now familiar to millions. >> CROSSAN: The major source that the author of The Infancy Gospel of James has is Matthew and Luke. There is not any clear evidence that he has any other real information. It does not seem that he has any sort of raw, unfiltered traditions that Matthew and Luke

Didn’t know about, but somehow this author has found out about. It’s possible, of course, but that doesn’t seem to be what the author has. What the author has simply is two sources and a very, very good imagination. >> NARRATOR: Although its value as an historical source is questionable, the Gospel of

James still provides valuable insight. Many scholars believe it represents the earliest effort to idealize Mary– an effort that centuries later would culminate in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. >> SMITH-CHRISTOPHER: The significance of these writings is often that they give us a picture into the concerns and

The cares of the time they come from. So sometimes these writings give us very interesting insights in what were Christians thinking and worried about in the 200s, in the 300s, in the 400s. For that question, these writings are very important and very valuable. But for missing historical information, not very important.

>> NARRATOR: The Infancy Gospel of James is ultimately more intriguing than it is enlightening. Rather than holding any key to the truth about Christmas, it is perhaps the earliest effort to speculate on what that truth may be. To what degree the Christmas story should be considered historical fact may never be known.

To Christians, the Christmas story is an imponderable miracle– God’s invasion of human history in a stable 2,000 years ago. The miracle, however, lies dormant for some 30 years. Then, as told by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Jesus emerges with a message that redefines man’s purpose. The man born in the most humble

Setting imaginable teaches that the poor are imbued with as much dignity as the most powerful king. The man born beneath a shining star teaches that hope will burn brightly as long as men love each other as brothers. The man born of a virgin teaches that the world can be

Transformed by the pure in heart. >> McNAMER: The message of Jesus was the most powerful and the most idealistic message ever. I mean, to stand on that mountain and say, “Blessed are the poor in spirit. Blessed are you when you forgive your enemies. Be good to them that hurt you.”

>> MEYER: “To do unto others as you would have them do unto you. To turn the other cheek. To go the extra mile.” To do those sorts of things that may make our world a better place for all of us to live in. >> SMITH-CHRISTOPHER: Suddenly we’re presented with an

Incredible hope that burns brightly, a hope that there is a god who cares about us, a hope in the possibility that we can live with each other differently than the way we so often have, a hope that there’s a different way of being a human society, and the very coming of Jesus

Embodies that hope in a profound sense. >> HORSLEY: Not only was he understood as the Savior and Christ by the new religion Christianity that developed, but Jesus was the one who really defined and articulated the agenda for ordinary people who were struggling for independence from domination by foreign powers and their own unjust

Rulers, and laid out an idea of what a life of justice and mutual caring could be. >> NARRATOR: Jesus’ revolutionary ministry is but a continuation of the Christmas story– as the Son of God carries out his plan to save mankind from sin and death. It continues further with his arrest, trial and execution.

The significance of his birth in the manger can be understood only by recognizing his sacrifice on the cross. Still, it is Jesus’ resurrection that marks the ultimate fulfillment of God’s plan. 30 years after a miracle brings Jesus into the world, another enables him to rejoin his heavenly Father.

From the empty tomb emerges the faith destined to transform the world. >> SIKER: There are those who would argue that it’s based on a lie, that’s it’s based on false rumors of disciples who stole the body of Jesus to make a good story, and yet, somehow, this story has made its way through

History and time in a way unequaled. >> NARRATOR: Beginning as a fringe faith, Christianity receives widespread acceptance after the Roman Emperor Constantine accepts Jesus as his God and Savior. 300 years after Jesus’ birth, Christianity becomes the official religion of the Roman Empire. As the centuries pass, its influence becomes immeasurable:

Art and science, politics and economics, self and society– all are transformed by Christianity. But Christianity’s impact on history is not always positive. During the crusades, medieval Christians try to recapture the Holy Land from the Muslims. In the name of Jesus, they kill thousands of innocent men, women and children. During the Inquisition, the

Church supports torture as a means of coercing confessions from those considered heretics. By the 16th century, the church grows so powerful, it becomes corrupted by its own success. One measure of its decline is that salvation, once only earned by the faithful, can now be purchased by the rich. A German monk, Martin Luther,

Declares his outrage. Inspired by Jesus, who cast the moneychangers from the temple, he fights for reform. The Reformation splits its believers into Catholics and Protestants. Today, millions of Christians still struggle to live up to the high standards of their own faith. >> SMITH-CHRISTOPHER: We have had a very checkered history as

Christians of trying to embody the teachings of a peaceful Messiah who calls on us to care for each other rather than dominate each other, to share with each other rather than hoard from each other. And it’s unfortunate that the first 2,000 years of our attempt as humans to embody the

Teachings and example of Jesus have not been terribly successful. >> McNAMER: Gandhi once said about Christianity, “It is so magnificent. What a pity it’s never been tried.” I do believe it has been tried. There are just hundreds and hundreds of wonderful people in the pages of history of Christianity that show that

It has been tried and has made a difference. >> CROSSAN: Christianity has done many things in the name of Jesus for which I, as a Christian, am ashamed. It has also done many good things in the name of Jesus for which I am very glad as a Christian, and which makes me

Very glad to be a Christian. >> NARRATOR: 2,000 years after Jesus was born, a third of the world’s population professes to be followers of the faith he inaugurated in a manger. For Christians, Christmas celebrates how God gave the world a gift it never deserved but needed more than anything. To accept the gift is to acknowledge the responsibility of giving something back. >> SMITH-CHRISTOPHER: The Christmas story is intended to question us on the deepest levels of being a human being.

Here was the coming of a new way of living. Here was the coming of a new hope. Here was a profound challenge to how we as humans think that the world has to run, as opposed to our belief that the only way that we can live together is to

Be armed to the teeth and to be ready to fight. Here was one who brought a message: “No, that’s not the way. We can care for each other; we can take care of each other; we can live justly; we can live at peace.” If we miss that profound challenge, then we miss the

Significance of the Christmas story. >> SIKER: For me, the Christmas story is an account of the recollections of people like you and I who had an experience of God’s presence that was so powerful that they couldn’t hold it in. It’s a story of mystery and a story of hope replete with the

Possibilities of peace and goodwill in a world where both are in short supply. >> NARRATOR: For generations to come, the search for the historical truth of the day it all began– the search for Christmas– will continue. No matter what is discovered along the way, millions will always find comfort in the story.

They will find fulfillment in the images of an infant’s gentle smile and a virgin mother’s loving glance. [Captioning sponsored by A&E TELEVISION NETWORKS Captioned by The Caption Center WGBH Educational Foundation]

#Evidence #Jesus #Birth #Revealed #Full #Episode

How is limited atonement true when Scripture teaches that Christ died for the whole world?



Well, we know He’s the Savior of the world because there’s only one Savior for the world. The world has only one Savior but we also know the atonement is limited. We all know that, right? The atonement is limited because people go to hell.

Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount, “Many will say to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and I will say to them, ‘Depart from Me, you workers of iniquity. I never knew you.'” Jesus talked more about hell then He did about heaven.

We know that hell is a reality, and we know people go there and perish forever. So we all believe in a limited atonement, right? Not everybody’s going to be saved. You either believe in a limited atonement, or you believe in a universal atonement, and

If you believe in a universal atonement, to be logically consistent, then there’s no hell and no one will be in hell. Everyone will be in heaven. If you’re going to affirm an unlimited atonement, then you really are going to end up as a universalist,

Because if He actually died for the whole world then the whole world is saved. So, we don’t, we can’t go there because there is a hell and it’s full of people, in fact, most people. So the atonement is limited. Then the question is, who limits it?

Do we limit it or does God limit it? And the answer to that question biblically is crystal clear. God limited it. He limited it to the elect. Either God determined whom He would save and take the glory or God just threw atonement

Out there as some nebulous option and hoped some people would grab hold of it and become a part of His redeeming purpose. The Bible does not allow for that. So, you just need to remind yourself you believe in a limited atonement. Now, you ask the question, are men sovereign or is God sovereign?

If God’s sovereign, then He limited it.

#limited #atonement #true #Scripture #teaches #Christ #died #world

The Rise and Fall of Secular Humanism: Only Two Religions with Peter Jones



JONES: This second lecture will deal with one of the powerful influences on our culture today, namely I’m looking at the rise and demise of secular humanism. I think it’s important that we understand today’s culture. And I really am so happy that there are young people listening to me because while some

Of you my age will say, “You’re saying what exactly what I understand and have lived through.” Sometimes our young people have difficulty figuring out what’s happening because they have not lived through this kind of thing. So I address them in particular.

And to understand our culture, we need to see that there are two fundamental ideologies that I will show at the end of my lectures possibly are really the same because they’re Oneist, namely secular humanism and revive paganism. They’re very different but at the end of the day, they are in their fundamental orientations

Of the world — Oneist. You know when I first came in 1964, I mention how amazed I was to see Christian America. And the other thing that amazed me was how much people lived in fear of communism. There were commies behind every bush.

And of course the McCarthy investigation of communist agents was just finished and many on the left poopooed that but it’s actually been shown that there were many communist agents in America during that time. But we were worried because this godless system of communism or Marxism was spreading throughout

The world in this sort of a domino effect from the Soviet Union to China, to Korea, to Vietnam, to Cuba. And you know the ’60s revolution was very much a revolution against the Vietnam War whose motivation of course was to oppose communism.

So we have radicals who still actually now have power who were part of those refusing to denounce communism which is sort of interesting. So the threat in the ’60s was not a religious threat but a nonreligious materialism in its various forms. In its political form of course — atheistic Marxism.

But it is also had an intellectual form called secular humanism and that was something that we all realized and perhaps still realize as a fundamental opponent of the Christian faith. Humanism was celebrated in the Renaissance just before the Reformation as the rediscovery

Of the value of the individual human being and his reason over against the power of the church. And many of us have seen the importance of that movement and of course it’s easy to describe the work of Martin Luther as an expression, in a certain sense, of that humanistic understanding

Of the importance of the individual. But of course, like most things, its good parts can be turned to bad. And what you have you see is, from the intelligent use of individual reason which has produced the incredible successes of Western culture through science and technology.

So, that one day human beings would walk on the moon; this kind of thinking became more and more enamored of its own power and felt that it was the only way of relating to the world — that human reason was the source of truth.

And belief in a world created by God and of reason created by God was dismissed as religious superstition and myth. And so for modern man — religion had to go, and this is why we have known and recognized that secular humanism is a massive attack on Christianity.

So from the 18th Century on what’s called “The Enlightenment” — “the age of light” if you like; this view of reason as the ultimate source of authority for human existence developed in a powerful way. Optimism in what mankind could produce, its capacities to bring about a better world took

The minds of intellectuals by storm and of course invaded the university. So that, so many of our intellectuals bought into this system. Bringing about if you like this vision of a kingdom of man on earth, you can already see how Oneist that is, right?

If it’s simply depending on human beings to put the world together, it is a form of Oneism. It was known as the religion of humanism and it was particularly expressed by the French Revolution. I spent eighteen years in France, so I love the French but I see their weaknesses too.

In 1789, the Paris revolutionaries built an altar to the goddess ‘Reason’ in Notre Dame Cathedral, can you believe that? There was an altar right in the center of that incredible medieval church and they celebrated to goddess ‘Reason’. The French philosopher who was part of this French Revolution — Voltaire, was fundamentally anti-Christian.

He was a friend by the way of Benjamin Franklin, who himself was a very conflicted man because some of you know that Benjamin Franklin was fascinated by George Whitfield and helped pay for some of his campaign.

And yet he was also a friend of Voltaire, one of the leading atheists of the 18th Century. Voltaire came up with the famous phrase “écrasez l’infâme,” — “Crush that vile unspeakable thing.” This became the battle cry of The Enlightenment, but it was actually Christianity that was the vile and unspeakable thing.

And so there were thousands of heads of priests and so on that were separated from their bodies through the French Revolution. The Emperor Napoleon asked Pierre-Simon Laplace, — the great French scientist if he believed in God; he was reputed to have said, “I have no need of that hypothesis.”

This is a movement, a very powerful movement in the West, and as western history develops in the 18th and 19th Centuries, you find leading intellectuals actually predicting the end of religion. In the 21st Century, we should be seeing the end of religion according to these predictions.

Ludwig Feuerbach called Christianity a “delusion,” “a gigantic human projection.” You remember Karl Marx described religion as “the opiate of the people,” the sign of a wrongly ordered society. “Man,” said Marx, “is the supreme divinity.” By the way, another expression Oneism.

But these people didn’t want to be called religious by the way; they weren’t religious, they were rational. Of course why did they believe in their own rationality, that was a faith statement by the way. Friedrich Nietzsche declared “Gott ist tot,” “God is dead.”

The tradition of Christianity was now being buried by these leading philosophers. Sigmund Freud in his book “The Future of an Illusion” speaks about religion in particularism his own Judaism as a “mass delusion, a collective neurosis which enshrines our infantile longing.”

He actually describes it as a serious pathological condition from which one needed to be healed. Really massive anti-religious mindset going on amongst the intellectuals of the 19th and 20th centuries. And that continues to this day in 1976, Richard Dawkins, one of the new atheists, in his book

“The Selfish Gene,” describes faith, quote, “as a kind of mental illness.” So here we have this rationalistic approach to eliminate faith and religion as a form of illness. And of course we saw this kind of thinking invade the church; that’s what liberalism is, you see.

Liberalism is the adaptation of the world’s kind of thinking and trying to make it Christian, that’s what liberals have done all through the ages since the beginning. Christianity, beginning with the Gnostics, who were the original liberals who tried to take pagan notions of the mystery religions and make them Christian.

So that’s the mechanism that liberals use. And when I was studying New Testament at Harvard, of course that was the great goal — to reinterpret the New Testament by demythologizing the supernatural. Demythologizing means taking away the myths and getting to the heart which really the

Heart was sort of a sense of one’s own existential being faced with nothingness; that was the real meaning of Christianity in the New Testament. So there was no miracles and certainly no resurrection of Jesus. And then of course, the mainline churches buy into this kind of thinking.

But of course, someone has said, “If you marry the spirit of the age, you will soon be a widower.” And we’ve seen mainline churches going down in their effect in our culture. And Liberalism thus defined the Gospel as mere social work, and saw Jesus only as an

Example not as a divine Savior, that was myth of course you see, so myth had to go. The Gospel was redefined in terms of Marxist politics. Liberation theology became all the rage, and Jesus was little more than a cake of 20th century revolutionary theory.

On a different level, the secular humanists were greatly influenced by Darwin, who would effectively eliminated belief in “God the Creator,” and proposed in place of “God the Creator” the idea of an unguided and impersonal process of natural selection.

Life came about by mere chance, and man was seen as the result of purposelessness and a mere natural process, that did not have him in mind by the way, and so we are really the result of chance.

It’s incredible to see how far people can go with that as an explanation for the incredible beauty and power of what we represent as human beings. The way our bodies have put together. The way our minds can function. There’s no valid explanation of this in secular humanism and yet so many liberal thinkers

Adopted it. Science was the only way of knowing anything about anything. And so, there was a belief that religion would disappear. When I came to the states in the ’60s, I was asked to read books on ‘the death of God’.

And this was all the rage and we were sort of told that this was the proof (and I wasn’t at an evangelical school and I don’t really blame my professors for seeing it this way, I saw it that way) that the death of God was the proof of the success of secular humanism.

That man no longer needed God as a hypothesis, he was now fine on his own. The final triumph then of secular humanism is to declare in America in the ’70s that God had died. Secular humanism had won. Now in a certain sense, these predictions have come true.

We’re seeing the decline of the Christian faith in the population as a whole. No longer are many people influenced by a Christian way of thinking and I don’t think we should hide our eyes from that. And in that sense we’ve seen the decline of attachment to the Christian faith.

Now, this is a massive change. People no longer actually believe in God the Creator and so they can do anything they want to, but that was not always the case. In 1890, the Supreme Court in United States defined religion as “one’s view of one’s relation

To his Creator, to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character and obedience to His will.” That was the statement of the Supreme Court in 1890. There was no other definition of God but of a personal transcendent creator.

But thanks in many ways to secular humanism, this is no longer the case in public discourse. So what is ‘secularism’ or secular humanism? Let me give you a simple definition, it comes in various names. As an intellectual discipline, it is known as “philosophical materialism,” that matter is ultimate. That’s the philosophy of materialism. As a religious expression, it is called ‘Atheism’, the faith belief that there is no God. There’s no — you can’t prove that rationally, right? So an atheist has to be in some sense a religious believer.

As a political form, it is practiced as ‘Marxism’ and various forms of socialism. And for many people, it’s simply a default way of thinking of living without any notion that God exists. That’s probably the way most people practice this kind of thinking.

But in all these expressions of secularism, it’s a consistent rejection as a mere ancient superstition, a sort of a holdover from the Middle Ages and we must refuse that kind of mythology if we want to really do our world good. Now, this kind of a view still dominates the western universities.

Some of you young people that go to schools around here will confirm that your professors — many of them believe in this kind of rationalism or secular humanism. However, this is not the whole story. Just as these philosophers of the 19th and early 20th century were predicting the end

Of the withering away of religion in a kind of ironic turn of events. We are now seeing the withering away of secular humanism, did you realize that? You probably don’t always see it, but this is happening and many people are talking about it.

And the withering away of secular humanism, (oh let me just say it) the proof is, how many people now say, “I’m spiritual but not religious?” In other words, they are making a claim to spirituality which doesn’t fit with secular humanism, right? — That’s superstition. Any kind of faith is superstition.

Well, the reasons why this movement of secular humanism is on the decline and indeed is withering away, is that while it was so optimistic and full of self-confidence; secular humanism produced two devastating World Wars that produced the death of millions. In some of its socialistic expressions it became totalitarian fascism.

And some of its great leader was Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot that produced the murder of countless millions, in the name of secular humanism. That doesn’t give a movement too many honors. And of course from that — you have wild industrialization, ecological disasters; but as I was indicating

Earlier, one of the real problems is that many people have begun to feel that without some kind of spirituality they can’t exist in this world. And that’s what secular humanism does; it leaves us with a soulless materialism without any sense of a meaning in a spiritual way of thinking.

And so secular humanism produced a profound sense of alienation from the rest of the universe. So we human beings, you see, are isolated in this massive cosmos, and we have no real relationship with the outside and so we have a profound sense of alienation. Have you met people like that?

They are looking for a sense of wholeness. “W-H.” (I didn’t say holiness, I said whole-ness) they want to belong somehow to more than a mere physical. But there is another reason why secular humanism is in decline. It is severely weak as a philosophical system. What do I mean by that?

Well, you see, to be a secular humanist, you have to believe in the validity of human reason. But in order to believe in human reason, you have to presuppose it. So to demonstrate that, you have to presuppose it. So it’s a perfectly circular way of thinking, does that make sense?

In order to prove reason, you have to presuppose it. And to presuppose it, that’s a faith statement that the world is rational. You don’t have all the information, right? You don’t sit outside of the cosmos and look down, ‘Oh yeah, that’s rational’. You have to presuppose that.

And some scholars have realized that this is not a ground for establishing secular humanism. The postmodern critique of secular humanism which argued that all major ideas are simply human notions and they are not scientific or philosophical, included the critique of secular humanism oddly.

So postmodernism — the thinkers of whom were probably the sons and daughters of secular humanist turns around and eats up their parents. There are two reasons really why secular humanism is on the decline. The first, is it really cannot stand against true biblical theism.

The conversion of Antony Flew — the great atheist is an example of that. He stated this, “It is simply inconceivable that any material matrix or field can generate agents who think and act. Matter cannot produce conceptions and perceptions such a world has to originate in the living source, a mind.”

The greatest atheist of the 20th century finally has to admit that secularism cannot justify the human mind. Isn’t that beautiful? But then, finally, there’s a new way of thinking. It is the thinking of this new spirituality. David Miller, who was a professor at Syracuse University, and was one of the ‘death of God’

Theologians actually said, “At the death of God, you will see the rebirth of the gods and goddesses of ancient Greece and Rome.” That’s not secular humanism. That’s a justification of a belief in all the gods. What did Miller know that we didn’t know as we read him in the ’70s?

Well, he was a devout follower of Carl Jung. And that will be the subject of my next lecture. Thank you.

#Rise #Fall #Secular #Humanism #Religions #Peter #Jones

50 Things You Didn’t Know about Satan



In the blue corner is the being supreme, the lord of love and reigning world champion in the infinite battle of Good vs. Evil, the one and only, God Almighty. In the red corner is heaven’s outcast, the devil from down below, the one and only Master

Of Deception and Father of Lies, The Prince of Darkness. That’s pretty much how the story goes, or at least that’s the tale many people tell. But Satan, he’s a complicated entity. There’s much more to him than most people know.

He’s not just a devil with a pitchfork who stands on your shoulder telling you to steal a candy bar; he has a long history, and he’s gotten up to stuff you wouldn’t believe. Today you’re going to learn a lot more about this overlord of the underworld! 50.

Ok, so first you need to know who Satan is. It’s a bit more complicated than you think, but we’ll try and make this one as short as we can. There’s a kind of devil in all the Abrahamic religions, but in Christianity, he plays a bigger role than he does in Judaism and Islam.

In all three religions, Satan is there to make people impure, to lure them to the dark side. The Old Testament talks about an entity that is an adversary of God. He’s there in the Book of Job, making life really hard for Job.

He kills Job’s children, his servants, and for good measure, he covers Job in boils. He does all this to see if Job will renounce his belief in God. So, there you go, Satan is there to mess with people’s beliefs.

Still, in that old book he was far from being a cloven-hoofed beast with horns that can spin a young girl’s head around. In the New Testament, there is talk of fallen angels. In the story of Matthew, there’s a devil-type thing that tries to persuade Jesus to give up his belief in God.

He’s yet again the tempter, the evil to all the good in the world. In short, there are lots of stories. There’s Lucifer, sometimes interchangeable as Satan, who is said to have rebelled against God, and with a gang of other fallen angels, they wage war against God.

Then you have Beelzebub, a flying demon who also is a kind of a Satan character. In the Book of Revelations, you have the Red Serpent, which you could call devilish, but what about this pitchfork swinging, constantly cursing guy who isn’t very photogenic?

Well, he was made up by some creative folks in the Middle Ages. Dante Alighieri wrote about Satan in The Divine Comedy in the early 14th century. This is how Satan is described in the “Inferno” part: He has three faces. He has a chest of ice.

He has mighty bat-like wings, crunching teeth, and he is generally a rotten thing. When the King James Bible became a best-seller after it was published in 1611, Lucifer, aka, the “Morning Star”, played a big part, as it did in John Milton’s 1667 masterpiece poem, “Paradise Lost”.

Now we have a much more wicked tempter, a more monstrous figure who’s a real brute. Satan was no longer just an angel that had switched jobs, he was something more terrifying. The cloven hooves and horns were often a feature, which relates back to Pan, a mythological

Half-goat, half-man figure that was always wild and irrepressibly horny. When you think about famine, plague, and the rest of the crappy things that made Europe a horrible home for a long time, it only makes sense that this devil turned into something absolutely terrifying. This is the guy evangelists conjure up in their nightmares.

He’s the entity that possessed witches and made Hollywood tons of money. The bottom line is the devil evolved throughout history. Ok, we had to get that out of the way. Now for some short facts. 49. Not surprisingly, when you go filling people’s heads with stories of this beast, it affects

Some folks in a bad way. In 2018, an Australian man beat his best friend to death because he thought his friend was Satan. Satanic serial killer, Richard Ramirez, once shouted at a victim, “Swear on Satan.” This one survived. Many did not.

In fact, a lot of killers have claimed to either be in the service of Satan or believe they are killing Satan. Either way, most people would believe Satan isn’t to blame. As you’ll see in this show, the devil is often a scapegoat. Well, that’s what the law thinks. 48.

A 2016 Gallup poll revealed 79 percent of the American respondents said they believed in God, but only 61 percent of people said they believed in the devil. 47. A similar poll went out in the UK, but only 18 percent of people said they believed in the devil. 46.

U.S. televangelist Paul Crouch once said that if you play a part of Led Zeppelin’s song “Stairway to Heaven” backward there is a Satanic message in there. This is how it allegedly goes: “Here’s to my sweet Satan. The one whose little path would make me sad, whose power is Satan.

He will give those with him 666. There was a little toolshed where he made us su­ffer, sad Satan.” Guitarist Jimmy Page once said it was hard enough to write the songs forwards, never mind backward, too. By the way, some experts now say the number in the bible that represents the number of

The beast is 616. 45. There is a Church of Satan, but its founders don’t actually believe Satan, or God for that matter, exists. One of the high priests said believers are “insane” and he says Satan just represents someone who is an “adversary” or an “opposer”, someone who questions everything.

Recently, a British member of the Church of Satan said Satanism has less to do with doing bad things than it does with being atheist and libertarian. In the U.S, you can pay $225 and get a lifetime membership for the Church of Satan. 44.

Some people believe if Jesus is the son of God then the anti-Christ is the son of Satan. An example would be Damien Thorn in the Omen movies. 43. It’s been said the first of those Omen movies was cursed, with the reason being a lot of

Really unlucky things happened to the cast and crew. The weirdest of them all involved effects artist John Richardson. He was the guy responsible for creating the famous decapitation scene in the movie. During the filming of his next movie, he got into a car crash. He survived, but his passenger was decapitated.

On top of that, an animal trainer was killed by a tiger after making The Omen, and during the filming of The Omen, a stuntman was attacked by trained Rottweilers. 42. The Pope has been accused of being the antichrist from time to time.

Martin Luther once said the Pope “is the true end times Antichrist who has raised himself over and set himself against Christ.” 41. Quite a few American presidents have at one point been accused of being the antichrist. Those include Donald Trump, Barack Obama, John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan.

Hilary Clinton has been called out, too. 40. Ok, so some people think the mark of the beast will appear on us all at some point. It comes from something written in the Book of Revelations. It goes like this: “He causes all, both small and great, rich

And poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” What could that mean?

Maybe subcutaneous technology could be the mark of the beast. In the past, people used to say the number 666 was hidden in barcodes. That’s been debunked, but people have now moved onto microchips under the skin. Some evangelicals have already said those chips will be the mark of the beast that gets

Under everyone’s skin. 39. Quite a few well-known people have said the Freemasons worship the devil. We don’t have any proof to back that up. Now we’ll talk about some really dark things the devil has supposedly been involved with. 38.

According to the “Canon Episcopi”, a text of medieval canon law dating back to the 10th century, witchcraft was alive and well in Europe back then. It says witches flew around on broomsticks, and one of their favorite destinations was the forest.

The forest is where they made love to demons, and sometimes killed infants in the name of Satan. 37. Things got much more heated in the 15th century. That was when the book “Malleus Maleficarum” was written, a treatise on witches that detailed the exploits of people possessed by Satan.

It might sound funny to you, but it led to massive persecution of people accused of being witches. Thousands of people were tortured and killed during decades of witch hunts. 36. The first European folks to make the New World their home weren’t much better.

The Puritans of New England talked about babies being born with claws and horns, which was a sure sign the devil had infiltrated the woman. Some of those puritans believed the Native Americans were “children of the Devil.” 35. It was mostly thanks to the Enlightenment thinkers in the 17th and 18th centuries that

Belief in witchcraft started to die. Unfortunately, some parts of Europe and the New World remained in the dark and dismissed what those thinkers said. Witch hunts stopped in most places, but belief in Satan remained strong. 34 Satan doesn’t just appear in Christian bibles,

He also shows up in the Talmud and has been discussed by Jewish rabbis at length, with some positing that Satan was involved in the story of Moses returning from Mount Sinai and that he may have played a role in the Purim story, which tells of how the Jews were

Saved from the Persian Empire. 33 And speaking of the Talmud, the origin of the name Satan actually comes from the Hebrew word which means “opposer” or “adversary” and was used in the Hebrew bible as a term for both human enemies of the Jewish people, as well as supernatural foes. 32.

In 1966, after the Beatles member John Lennon said his band was “more popular than Jesus”, people in the Southern United States took to burning Beatles’ records even if they loved them. Some people believe Lennon made a pact with the devil so he could get famous.

The devil got his due, though, because Lennon was shot dead in the street. 31. In the 1960s, the Beatles were accused of putting Satanic messages in their music. Decades later, an article in the Vatican newspaper praised the band for their melodic tunes. Now for something that may frighten you. 30.

In 2018, The Atlantic reported that priests in the U.S. were being asked to perform an unusual number of exorcisms. The article said, “The official exorcist for Indianapolis has received 1,700 requests so far in 2018.” That’s a lot for just one state, especially as there are only around 100 official Catholic

Exorcists in the U.S. 29. In 2020, in Panama, seven people died in a mass exorcism. The victims included a pregnant woman and her five young kids. An extremist religious group was blamed for the deaths when it was discovered members

Of the group held natives captive and beat them with bibles, burned them with torches, and cut them with machetes. This particular sect was denounced as “Satanic” by local church authorities. 28. The novel “The Exorcist” was partly based on the alleged demonic possession of a 14-year old American kid known as Roland Doe.

That wasn’t his real name. The exorcism was kind of like the movie, in that the boy allegedly spoke in a weird voice, things flew on their own around the room and the kid couldn’t stand to be near a holy cross. At one point marks just appeared on the kid’s body.

It’s also said he got up and broke a priest’s nose. 27. In 2014, two women in the U.S. were charged with murder after killing two children, aged one and two, during an exorcism. The women said the kids’ eyes had turned black due to the devil being inside them.

They badly beat two older kids, but they thankfully survived the ordeal. We found more recent cases of children being killed in exorcisms in the U.S., Europe, and elsewhere. If you think belief in demonic possession is dead, you are very wrong. 26. Parts of the bible talk about Jesus doing exorcisms.

This is from Mark 1:25/6, “Jesus rebuked him, saying, ‘Be silent, and come out of him!’ And the unclean spirit, convulsing him and crying out with a loud voice, came out of him.” It’s a pity all exorcisms aren’t so quick and easy. 25.

The saying, “The devil is in the details” actually comes from, “God is in the details.” 24. Satan goes by other names as well as the devil, including, Beelzebub, Mephistopheles, the Prince of Darkness, Lord of the Flies, the Antichrist, the Father of Lies, and Moloch. Ok, back to more dark details. 23.

In 1692, in Salem Village, Massachusetts, a group of young girls were accused of being in league with Satan. What happened next became known as the Salem Witch Trials. The accused girls, as well as women, and men, appeared at a special court to address the

Accusation that they were getting friendly with the devil, which of course wasn’t true at all. 22. 20 people in all were hanged by the neck in Salem for the crime of practicing the devil’s magic, but over time around 150 people were accused of being witches.

One of the men who was executed was pressed to death, which had to be a very painful way to go. The authorities thought if he was tortured he might spill the beans, but there weren’t any beans to spill. A Massachusetts General Court soon reversed the guilty verdicts, but that came too late

For the 20 victims. The youngest of the accused was a four-year-old girl named Dorothy Good. She told the court her mom had been talking to the devil. She was also said to bite people like a wild animal. The next fact is just plain crazy. 21.

Believe it or not, animals played a big part in the hysteria that happened at Salem. Yep, cats, dogs, and other animals were also said to be possessed by Satan. Some folks believed the animals were a kind of team member for the witches, and like some of the accused witches, they had to go.

In one instance, a girl had convulsions and it was believed she was a witch. She said the neighbor’s dog had bewitched her. That dog was immediately shot. A local minister later declared the dog innocent of any wrongdoing.

Later, another mutt took a bullet, even though the locals said it was a victim of evil. 20. Did they really do a float test on accused witches, or is that just made up? It’s not fiction at all and was in vogue in the 17th century.

Sometimes called “dunking” or “ordeal by water”, it would involve throwing a person, usually a woman, into a river. If she sank, she was innocent of working with the prince of darkness, but if she floated, well, obviously she was in league with Satan.

You might ask what the rationale was behind that, but let’s remember the Age of Reason was still a century away. Some people said water was pure, and that’s why it wouldn’t accept witches. You really wouldn’t want to show off your treading-water skills in those days. 19.

You might wonder what the difference is between a demon and the devil? Basically, the devil is the CEO of evil and demons are his managers. You could say those who demons possess are the folks on the lower end of the pay scale. 18.

The American anthropologist, Erika Bourguignon, spent a lifetime studying demons and she said 488 societies in the world believed in demonic possession. You don’t need Satan to have demons, but you need evil. In the past, if you were mentally ill sometimes people would say you were a victim of demonic possession.

That still happens today in some societies. A psychiatrist in northern Thailand once said he took his team to the villages far from the city. In some villages he found autistic kids locked in cages. Their families would offer chicken sacrifices to the evil spirit so it would leave the kid’s body.

Coming up next is something called “The Satan Defense.” 17. Satan gets the blame for a lot of bad things that people do, so you could call the poor fella a handy scapegoat. In 2016, a guy appeared in court after shooting two teenagers. One of them died and the other was badly injured.

What was the guy’s defense? He actually said Satan made him do it and so he was actually innocent. The guy, named Kody Lott, was actually incensed when the media said killing two kids on their way home from school for absolutely nothing was senseless.

Lott said the devil told him to do it, so how was it senseless. He will stay in prison until at least 2046. God might feature in the courtroom, but the justice system has no time for Satan. That’s kind of weird when you think about it. 16. Satan has little to do with Halloween.

No one is exactly sure how the tradition started, but it likely goes back to harvest festivals that were held pre-Christianity. The Christians, however, got hold of it and started calling it All Hallows’ Day, which was a day to celebrate saints and the faithful that had died.

This somehow turned into a night where people walk around dressed as Hello Kitty and maniacs put glass in candy. This next one is seriously messed up. 15. There is no shortage of people who claim they are the devil. These egomaniacs are everywhere and they span all age groups.

A recent case involved a naked woman breaking into a family’s house. The owner told her to leave, to which the woman laughed and then claimed she was the devil. All hell broke loose when the woman attacked the man and his family, even though he had a gun.

39 shots were fired but the woman wasn’t hit. Not only that, but she also managed to fight off all the family. The man later said, “She had the strength of four grown men.” Maybe she was the devil, or she’d been taking some serious drugs.

You can find multiple stories every year in the USA where people who do horrible things claim to be the devil. For some reason they are usually women. 14. There is a term, “She-Devil”, but it usually refers to a woman who manipulates men and does horrible things to them.

While sometimes we refer to Satan as a ‘he’, in reality, or super-reality, the devil is sexless. However, in Hebrew, the noun for Satan is a masculine noun. 13. If Satan is real, he must work around the clock, so much so he makes Elon Musk look lazy.

That’s because around 150,000 people die in the world every day of the week. Considering most of those people will not be faithful to God and will no doubt have a rap sheet of sins a mile long, the intake process for hell must keep Satan really busy. 12.

In the bible, it doesn’t say Satan created Hell. Nope, he was condemned to live in the inferno. He’d probably prefer a three-bedroom suite in Manhattan, but sinners can’t be choosers. The bible actually teaches us that Satan spends most of his time on Earth.

Hell is a little confusing, so we thought we’d refer to that paragon of truth, Billy Graham. In his writing he says the “everlasting fire was created for the devil and his angels”, and he also says that the devil can roam “through the earth going back and forth in it”.

There’s also the theory that sinners will be cast into the pits of hell only on judgment day, so right now they are on remand. Those who wrote the big book talk about Jesus mentioning “eternal life” and “eternal punishment”, but some Christian scholars argue that eternal punishment just means being

Wiped out, like completely being deleted from the big server in the sky. So, hell could be absolutely nothing. The idea of a goat-man with a pitchfork burning your toes with his cigar is entirely a modern fancy. It would have been alien to JC. 11.

The French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre wrote a play about hell called, “No Exit.” A well-known phrase from that play is, “Hell is other people.” In the play, people die and end up in a waiting room, but the thing is, they are there for eternity.

They soon get on each other’s nerves, and that waiting room becomes a kind of hell. It sounds a lot like social media. Ok, we’ve reached the top ten now, time to ramp up the evil. 10. Some Christians, mostly of the ilk that have Jesus bumper stickers, believe in something called “The Rapture.”

This is when the world ends and the goodies on Earth with the once faithful dead will be beamed up “in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air.” This great kidnapping will lead to eternity in heaven. As for those left behind, things aren’t supposed to be great for them.

Maybe they will have a date with Satan at some point, or they might go on to act in a very popular TV series. By the way, most Christians don’t actually believe the big snatch will ever happen. 9. God was sometimes really wrathful; you certainly didn’t want to get on the wrong side of

God. In Genesis 3:14, God has some stern words with Satan, saying, “Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.” 8. You should know that you shouldn’t make deals with Satan because whatever he gives,

He’ll take back double. He once offered Jesus all the kingdoms of the world, but in the small print, there was a proviso stating that in return Jesus had to worship Satan. Jesus’ response to this offer was, “Away from me, Satan!” 7.

You’ve heard of the Seven Deadly Sins, but did you know some people say behind each one is a demon who can tempt you into committing that sin. The sins are: Pride, envy, wrath, sloth, greed, gluttony, and lust. Satan himself is behind wrath. A prince of hell named Belphegor is the gluttony guy.

He tries to convince folks to get really rich, which we all know in the real world gluttony has its fair share of problems. 6. What do you think is the most committed sin by men? Greed? Sloth? Nah, it’s lust, according to some research we read.

Think about how often every day you have a sexual thought… for women that sin was pride. 5. Speaking of sexual thoughts, there are demons called Incubi and succubi. The former is a demon in male form that makes love to women in their sleep and the latter

Does the same but she is female and chooses sleeping men. Such stories were around a long time before Christ appeared on the scene, so they are not only Christian stories. In the past, these demons were sometimes accused of messing with a man’s health, while women were said to sometimes be impregnated by them.

Maybe demons weren’t the problem… Now for something very real. 4. There is a book called “The Devil’s Bible” that was written by a monk over a period of decades in the 13th century. It’s quite the tome, too, weighing in at 165 pounds (75kg).

Some people believe the devil himself was behind the book, but most folks think that the writer just had a lot of time on his hands. If you wrote all day every day the book would take about 20 years to finish. It got the name Devil’s Bible because of an illustration on page 290.

The legend behind the book says that a monk had broken his vows and faced being walled up alive. His other option was to agree to write a book that contained all human knowledge. That wasn’t going to be easy, but what’s a monk gonna do.

He tried writing the book, but it was too hard, so the story goes that he asked Lucifer for help in exchange for his soul. All he had to do was feature that picture of the devil. 3. Ok, so how would you contact the devil if you wanted to do a deal with him?

He’s obviously a busy demon, and you can bet he has a lot of requests. We looked online for, “How to contact Satan”, but there are no clear guidelines. There are a bunch of rituals you can find online that tell you how to summon demons, which usually involve evocation spells.

There is a new book out there containing such spells, although the International Association of Exorcists condemned it saying it was like putting a grenade in people’s hands. It’s aimed at kids, too, telling them if they have too much homework or life aint going

So well, they might want to draw some lines on the floor and “dial up some demons.” 2. The good news is that after looking at a bunch of Christian websites not one agreed that the devil can read your thoughts. Satan, unlike God, is not omniscient.

Nowhere in the bible does it say the devil can plant things in your head. Watch out though, because this is in the bible: “Brothers and sisters, be sober, be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith.”

An interpretation of this could be that the devil is always there, just waiting for you to show some weakness. When he sees you are weak, he can somehow use his trickery to create circumstances around you that will tempt you to sin.

He also has a network of demons doing such bad work, demons that must have been busy during all those Catholic Church abuse scandals. 1. So, what is the fate of Satan? Can’t we just get rid of him?

According to the Book of Revelation, at some point Satan will be forced to hang up his gloves. This is what’s written about his forced retirement. “And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown.

They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” Amen. Now you should watch this, “50 Insane Cold War Facts That Will Shock You!” or, have a look at this, “50 Insane Facts About Vietnam War You Didn’t Know.”

#Didnt #Satan

2. The Resurrection of Jesus (The Historical Evidence)



As we said in the introduction the resurrection of Jesus is the foundation of Christianity without it all of Christianity is a lie in a false religion but unlike most miracle claims Christians claim there is good historical evidence for the resurrection so what is this evidence and how can we

Use it we already went over the basic underlying philosophy in the introduction and pointed out that we already gave natural theology arguments for God’s existence argued the New Testament documents are reliable and established miracles are not impossible however as we noted in the introduction we will not assume the New Testament

Documents are inspired or even accurate in every detail instead we will only argue from facts that are agreed upon by the majority of New Testament scholars and have good evidence to infer they are true this means even if the rest of the New Testament is a fabrication it will

Not show these facts are false since even many skeptical scholars doubt the historicity of the entire New Testament but at least agree these facts are true so now with this as our underlying foundation we can begin to look at the historical evidence and see if it infers a resurrection first two underlying

Facts about the death of Jesus it is almost unanimously agreed that Jesus died by crucifixion just outside of Jerusalem sceptical scholar John Dominic Crossan says this is as sure as anything historical can ever be sceptical scholar EP Sanders lists this as one of the most indisputable facts about Jesus’s life so

There is no question for historians whether or not Jesus died by crucifixion second it is widely agreed that Jesus was buried in nearby tomb the evidence for this is pretty overwhelming we have multiple attestation from early sources like Paul and mark and Josephus agrees crucified victims were allowed to receive a proper burial

Jewish law demanded that even foreigners and criminals had to be buried we have archaeological evidence for this as well the burial count of Jesus also meets the criteria of embarrassment since they had to admit they could not afford their own tomb to bury Jesus but had to you

Kim of a member of the court who had just executed him there are just too many facts would support the burial of Jesus only a few skeptical scholars in the Jesus Seminar deny this but the majority does not and we’ll come back to this later and discuss it more but both

Of these facts could still be true and Jesus would still be dead in the grave the real question is what happened next what caused the events which followed and led to the rise of Christianity from a small backwater province in Rome there have been a wide variety of theories

That have been proposed in order to explain what took place three days after Jesus was buried and this video will cover the four most popular in general theories to see which best fits the data the first theory is the mythic theory this is probably the most popular among

Laymen sceptics it argues that all the events in miracle claims of Jesus were made up at a later time and were not made up by early eyewitnesses the disciples never claimed Jesus rose from the dead and was only made up by later Christians the second is like the mythic

Theory but it is called the conspiracy theory historical evidence that justices probably the earliest competing theory offered to challenge the resurrection account it says that the disciples made up the story of Jesus rising from the dead and simply lied about it all for their own gain third we’ll look at the hallucination

Theory which comes in many variations and it’s probably the most popular among skeptical New Testament scholars it basically says that after Jesus died the disciples were grief-stricken and had hallucinations or visions that Jesus had arisen from the dead and that propelled them to think he was alive again and

Finally we’ll compare these two the resurrection theory which is that Jesus actually did rise from the dead and the disciples believed it because they witnessed it so let’s look at the facts and see if any of these theories can fully explain the data the first piece is something that is accepted by almost

Unanimous scholarship which is that after Jesus died his disciples said he appeared to them again alive there is not a lot of doubt among scholars that the disciples believed this had happened Bart Ehrman says I don’t doubt at all that some disciples claimed this Paul writing about 25 years later indicates

That this is what they claimed and I don’t think he is making it up EP sander says it is an equally secure fact that Jesus disciples saw him in what sense is not certain after his death thereafter his followers saw him the reason for this is because it has multiple attestation in various

Sources including Josephus and there is no way to explain the rise of Christianity if this did not happen something had to happen which compelled the disciples to begin the world’s largest religion with seemingly nothing well people claim may see all sorts of things so why should we take the claims

Of the disciples seriously how do we know their testimony is reliable and they were not simply making the appearances up well in our previous series we’ve already established a new Testament it’s very early and reliable in what it reports so there is plenty of evidence their testimony is reliable but

Putting that aside we should at least evaluate when eyewitness testimony is unreliable for instance when events happen quickly or over a period of a few seconds it is hard to retain memory of an event or when people go out looking for what they want to find people that are desperately

Desiring to find Bigfoot will sometimes fool themselves into thinking they found something or when the participants are all strangers like during a bank robbery it is hard to retain memory when you were around unfamiliar people and last it is hard to retain memory if there was a weapon involved for the simple reason

That everyone is focused on the weapon and not anything else however if we examine the resurrection reports none of these seem to be a factor there is certainly not a weapon involved and it is not with strangers the disciples are familiar with each other and who they are witnessing they believe had risen

The disciples were also not expecting Jesus to rise from the dead all the accounts embarrassingly report that the disciples had misunderstood the Scriptures in what Jesus had claimed and they did not expect him to come back and the reports do not seem to happen quickly but over a period of time where

Jesus would eat and drink with him and engage in conversations or give them instructions even if you could write off the Gospels and acts as later myths we still have preserved for us early creeds and oral sermons handed down which report these as well so the reports on the surface level do

Not match circumstances that create unreliable testimony as EP Sanders admits they definitely experienced something which doesn’t bode well for the conspiracy theory so what if these accounts which is made up at a later date well this seems to be rejected by most scholars since Paul preserved for

Us an early Creed in first Corinthians 15 which is a list of witnesses that Jesus was said to have appeared to they include Peter the rest of the disciples a group of five hundred at once then James and then all the Apostles most scholars believe this list of witnesses

In the Creed goes back to within three years of Pentecost the reasons for this are simply overwhelming it is formed in a mnemonic structure and with parallelism and it is less than fifty words and all this seems to meaning was an early Creed for katha sizing new Christians it was something easy to

Learn and memorize Paul also says of the Corinthians I delivered to you when I received this is a rabbinic statement for a teacher passing on something to his students so it had to have come from the disciples themselves very early on before they could teach it to Paul the

Creed also calls Peter Cephas and not by his name Peter Cephas was an early name for him only later on was he called Peter and it has an independent tradition that is not contingent on the Gospels such as the appearance to James in the independent appearance to Peter Geritol Collins says

That he doesn’t know of any New Testament scholar who dates the Creed after the mid 40s so all the evidence suggested is very early and this means the reports of appearances are very early on as well that rules out the mythic theory what about the hallucination theory well the problem is

The appearances happen in group settings even in the early Crete and group hallucinations are exceptionally rare and because of this there was not a lot of scientific literature to explain them in a private email with scholar Michael Kona psychologist dr. Gary sabzi says I have surveyed the professional literature peer-reviewed journal

Articles and books written by psychologists psychiatrists and other relevant health care professionals during the past two decades and have yet to find a single documented case of a group hallucination an event for which there is more than one person purportedly sharing in a vision or other sensory perceptions

Where there was clearly no referent so there is not a lot of scientific evidence group hallucinations can happen peer-reviewed work on hallucinations also reports that they most often manifests in one sensory mode such as auditory or visual and then multimode hallucinations are exceptionally rare yet the appearances of Jesus contain at

Least both of these elements making the hallucination theory exceptionally improbable for an elucidation to explain the appearances you would have to say that the disciples are all each having a rare multi-mode hallucination that they are all agreeing Jesus is doing certain things like eating and drinking and giving them the exact same instructions

And this would need to have happened multiple times not just once even if you could write off the Gospels and acts as later myths we still have the early Creed preserved in 1st Corinthians 15 in other early sermons preserved in acts which report that Jesus ate and drank

With the disciples CH Dodd notes the speeches and acts seem very early because they lack influence from Pauline theology or vocabulary they contain a high degree of Semitism meaning they were likely originally Aramaic and they lack resemblance to the original written elements of Acts and Luke meaning they

Likely predate acts and seemed to be very early Aramaic speeches so the reports are very early and appear in group settings multi-sensory and over a period of time in hallucinations with these elements are so improvable it would have to be a miracle to cause one let alone several but what about the

Power of suggestion sometimes one person can cause others around them to he’ll loosen eight the same thing through the power of suggestion such as people in a lifeboat where one thinks they see a ship in the distance and they all think they see the same ship in anomalistic psychology a study of extraordinary

Phenomenon behavior and experience authors Lucy and Jones are at some of the very little literature on group hallucinations and theorize that if there is an expectation emotional excitement and people having been informed beforehand that a group hallucination may be possible it is also believed they will vary in what is

There’s a and Jones site an event from 1917 where 70,000 people said they witnessed a public miracle however the reports varied although the children reportedly saw the Virgin the crowd at least many of them witnessed a color phenomenon in which the son in the shape of a fiery disc

Began to move and approached the earth however Zeus nee and Jones also had to conclude with the final answer to these questions has yet to be obtained so they still maintain a scientific explanation has yet to explain collective hallucinations however even if they could it is interesting how their

Criteria doesn’t fit the resurrection appearances expectation and excitement were definitely not present the narratives embarrassingly portray the disciples as cowardly running for their lives after Jesus was crucified they even doubted the report of the women and when they first saw Jesus they were frightened which shows they were not

Excited and didn’t understand what was going on second it is interesting that if the appearances of Jesus were hallucinations then they do not for the criteria of varying drastically between reports all report a bodily resurrection of Jesus where he looks sort of like himself but also slightly different and

His body has new powers that do not have before as William Lane Craig says the fact remains that there is not a single instance in the case books exhibiting the diversity involved and the post-mortem appearances of Jesus but the biggest problem with the hallucination theory is this even if you discount the

Gospels is unreliable one still is to account for the early Christians preaching bodily resurrection and not a spiritual appearance the first Christians were very familiar with visions and claim to actually have some in acts 12 when the servant girl finds Peter at the gate she runs a tell

Everyone and they tell her the appearance she had with just an angel so the Christians firmly understood what visions and spiritual experiences were yet they never interpreted the appearances of Christ as just spiritual visions they firmly believed it was a bodily appearance and that is what they preached from the beginning as even

Sceptical scholar curlew Daman agrees so since the appearances were in group settings multi-sensory do not vary or were interpreted to be spiritual but always physical there was no expectation or excitement for them the hallucination theory cannot account for these appearances so what about the conspiracy theory well despite the early facts we

Mentioned about how the resurrection appearances do not match factors that make testimony unreliable it would be hard to explain how the Christians could hold together such a radical conspiracy with over 500 people involved before Christ was crucified they couldn’t even keep Judas from betraying them however

If all we have to go on is the appearances themselves and no other piece of data we have to accept that this theory could at least tentatively account for the reports of appearances even though it seems like a stretch so I don’t see any reason why the conspiracy

Theory could not account for this piece of data if especially there was no more data to go over finally the resurrection theory can account for this since if Jesus did rise from the dead reporting his physical appearance makes perfect sense the next piece of data is appearances to skeptics it is almost

Unanimously accepted that James and the brothers of Jesus were not his followers during his crucifixion it is also unanimously accepted that Paul was an enemy of the church originally in a later convert the reason for this is Paul admits it himself and cites an early Creed in Galatians 1 22

To 23 he who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy if we add the account and acts we have multiple attestation and it meets the criteria of embarrassment since Paul reports it himself that he was once the enemy and was in the wrong

The same goes for the conversion of James it is clear in the early material Paul the leader of the Jerusalem church was none other than James the brother of Jesus however all the evidence suggests that James did not believe his brother was the Christ during jesus’s ministry the Gospels embarrassingly report that

The Brothers of Jesus were skeptical of him no early Christian would dare attack a prominent leader in the church by claiming he was once jesus’s enemy James was also not listed as one present at the cross and Jesus surrendered his mother over to the Beloved Disciple

But why not his own brothers if they were in the Christian ranks this is why most scholars accept James and his brothers or early skeptics and only converted after the crucifixion so what happened that turned these enemies into believers well the mythic theory is a hard time explaining this since Paul was very

Early on writing and quoting a Creed about his own conversion also mentioning the changes in early skeptic would not have been made up as no Christian would dare to dishonor shame her lie about one of their own leaders in such a terrible way so this fact would not have been

Made up later on yet it is clear James was the early leader of the Jerusalem church as Paul and Josephus record could James and Paul of lied the question must be asked why on earth would they have done that the early church was a small persecuted and

Hated minority with a messiah who is just shamefully crucified as a criminal it was too poor to even afford their own tomb Jesus had dishonored the family and James has already opposed to him why would James suddenly feel the need to make up an appearance of Jesus’s resurrection if there was nothing to

Gain and only shame and dishonor to suddenly reverse but claim his brother was Lord after he had already mocked him openly to do such a thing would make no sense Paul also had no reason to try this he was at the top of his game a prominent leader on the rise and making

A name for himself while he persecuted the church he had everything going for him and suddenly he has an urge to leave all that and join the persecuted minority he had already hated such a sudden conversion he knew to be a lie would take a miracle in itself of nothing else

So what have they both hallucinating well adding more hallucinations to this theory begins to multiply its assumptions and causes it to lack parsimony it is even harder to explain since neither them were grieving that Jesus had died especially Paul who hated the church James may have been in grief

For his brother but he didn’t believe he was the Lord and would never have expected or even considered a physical resurrection says a dying rising Messiah was not part of second temple Judaism beliefs as scholar Michael ocona says James and his brothers would have regarded their dead brother as a heretic

Rather than rushed to Jerusalem and be caught up in the group ecstasy it seems more likely that Jesus’s execution as a criminal on a blasphemer would have supported their continual unbelief rather their conversion the plausibility of Paul having hallucination is even far lower than James since hallucinations usually happened for people who are

Expecting them and grieving over the death of the loved one neither of these would have been the case for Paul nor would a mere vision have caused his sudden conversion as we said earlier the early church knew what visions were and if Paul simply had a

Dream he would have called it a dream and moved on a hallucination would be very improbable as the cause of Paul’s sudden conversion however the Christian theory can easily explain the conversion and appearance to skeptics if Jesus really did rise and appear to them that would be enough to

Cause their miraculous conversion now we have surveyed the appearances but that is only half the battle since we cannot interview them personally today or perform a psychoanalysis but what we can do is look at the surrounding facts that accompany these appearances for us today and see which theory is the most

Plausible for them so now it’s time to fill in the gaps first up the expectation of the gospel to the surrounding world the message of Jesus dying on the cross for our sins may sound loving and warm to us but to the ancient world a culture that thrived

On honor and status such a message would be nothing but disgusting and horrendous Walter bear said the enemies of Christianity always refer to this gracefulness of the death of Jesus with great emphasis and malicious pleasure a God or son of God dying on a cross that

Was enough to put paid to the new religion david de silva knows the same thing in his work christianity was founded on a premise that should have failed from the moment it began the christians preach to the Gentiles to worship a man that was shamefully executed on the cross not only that but

A Jew of all people who the Romans looked down upon but even more than that a Jew who was a carpenter which it was also a position that was looked down upon Cicero said that such an occupation was vulgar and compared to slavery on top of that they preach physical

Resurrection to the Roman world which was detested by most pagans who thought the purpose of death was to escape the evil material universe and make it to the spiritual realm yet the Christians taught the Jewish idea that heaven would be the restoration in eternal Kingdom on earth which was not something

Pagans hoped for but even more the Christians place ethical demands on the new converts that would have shocked most pagans no temple prostitution or even extramarital affairs morality was radically challenged by the Christians that flew in the face of most pagans as they Sylvan knows the message about this

Christ was incompatible with the most deeply rooted religious ideology of the Gentile world as well as with the most recent message propagated in the Roman Imperial ideology this is seen in how the Christian opponents like Kelsey’s attacked Christianity he attacked Christians for worshipping a God who

Could not beat the Romans or even escape from the cross Justin Martyr had to respond to these attacks because pagans were calling the Christians mad for putting a crucified man next to the eternal God the Jews also thought the message of Christ was embarrassing they’re supposed Messiah was shamefully

Crucified and murdered by the Roman enemy the Messiah was expected to be a conqueror who would defeat Rome and restore the Kingdom of Israel Jesus was shamed and disgraced to follow him was to give up on the Jewish idealization of a conquering Messiah and a restored Israel on top of that Jesus

Was from Galilee and Nazareth of all places areas were looked down upon by the Jews his father was not known to them so he had a shady family history which the Jews were not keen to forget everything the Christian stood for was working against them they had better

Have good evidence and truly thought Jesus had been raised because the odds were completely against them on every front as NT Wright says Christianity was born into a world where its central claim was known to be false this being so knowing the expectation the gospel would have no group of conspirators

Would ever have made it their core doctrine if you’re going to make up a message the gain of following you want to make up something that is appealing and will work to your advantage not something that was expected to fail so the conspiracy theory could not explain

Why the Christians would make up such a story neither can the hallucination theory as we said before the crucifixion of Jesus is almost unanimously accepted by scholars as well as the fact that Jesus did it advocate lie ethical loads so unless the entire population of Jerusalem hallucinating Jesus’s crucifixion and message this

Would not be something that Christians were fallen to believing hallucinations also usually happen to grieving people as a psychological way to comfort themselves you would not hallucinate things to believe that would cause you more trouble and grief so the hallucination theory cannot explain what the disciples would preach

An utterly embarrassing message in a way to win converts and again as we’ve already noted the disciples and early church knew what visions were yet they preached the physical resurrection as part of the gospel not a spiritual vindication it would have been easier for their Gentile audience and even

Jewish audience who didn’t expect a resurrection to happen until the end of time to preach a spiritual assumption over a physical return and transformation hallucinations would have inferred this not a reanimation of the body since we know crucifixion was preached early the mythic Theory cannot explain

This either it would also fail for the same reasons the conspiracy theory does but all this fits perfectly with the resurrection theory this is what was preached by Christians because this is how it happened and they preached this embarrassing message because it was true the next factor look at is the low

Status of women in the ancient world it is unanimously accepted that in the ancient world the testimony of women was not to be trusted but let not the testimony of women be admitted on account of the levity and boldness of their sex any evidence which a woman

Gives is not valid to offer let the words of the law be burned rather than given to women there is a whole host of other sources we could look at which shows women were believed to be less trustworthy than men the ancient world was very clear the testimony of women

Was not to be trusted now take that and marvel at the fact that in the Gospels the women are the first and primary witnesses to the empty tomb this fact was utterly embarrassing for the early church first they admit they didn’t even trust the testimony of the women then

All the early sermons found in acts and the epistles always skip over the fact of the women were the first to discover the tomb that doesn’t contradict the Gospels but they tend to stay on this matter in order to make their early case because women were not deemed

To be credible witnesses yet when they write down the accounts of how it happened they cannot leave this fact out because they played such a key role discovering the empty tomb this is a serious claim because as Richard baulkham says in these stories women are given priority by God as recipients of

Revelation and thereby the role of mediators of that revelation to men the Gospels claimed the women were an intricate part of the revelation of God and the first key eyewitnesses to the resurrection thereby making their testimony necessary and telling how the empty tomb was found for an ancient

Writer this was not something you would ever make up Cal says even uses to try to discredit Christianity who claimed the entire argument for the empty tomb rested on the testimony of women NT Wright says as historians we are obliged to comment that if these stories have

Been made up five years later let alone thirty forty or fifty years later they would never have had Mary Magdalene in this role put Mary there is from the point of view of Christian apologists wanting to explain to a skeptical audience that Jesus really did rise from

The dead like shooting themselves in the foot but to us as historians this kind of thing is gold dust the early Christians would never never have made this up so the mythic theory or the conspiracy theory lacks any explanatory power with this one as Michael okona says even if the disciples

Had fled Jerusalem Joseph of Arimathea or Nicodemus may have been better candidates than women for discovering the empty tomb what about the hallucination theory it is difficult to say if the hallucination theory could fit with this one if all we have to go on is this fact I suppose you could say

Someone had a crazy dream and thought women discovered the empty tomb before anyone else but why they weren’t expecting it in multiple sources seem to agree this is how it happened plus it was such an embarrassing fact that everyone involved would have wanted to make sure it actually happened and

That it was not a dream or a subjective vision so will allow this one to pass just to be fair but there was really no reason why one would hallucinate this since it was not comforting or expected to happen but even though it lacks explanatory power will allow to tentatively pass

Until we can evaluate the evidence for the empty tomb and finally the Christian theory has no problem explaining this because the writers were reporting how it happened and of course because God is no respecter of persons and there is neither male nor female for we are all

One in Christ next fact the immediate proclamation in Jerusalem the majority of scholars could not deny that the resurrection was first preached in Jerusalem all the evidence leads to Jerusalem as being the home base and happening very early on such as the development of early Christian Creed’s and how all the sources suggest

Jerusalem is where Christianity began Tacitus mentions off the cuff that Christianity began in Judea and spread from there in one of Paul’s early epistles he mentions off the cuff that the Apostles are still preaching in Jerusalem now why does this matter well when we look at the importance of time

And when you proclaim a miracle that fact can make a serious impact as James siren said the Apostles proclaim the resurrection at Pentecost when Jerusalem expected the spread of the report and endeavored to prevent it well the eyes of their enemies were yet sparkling with rage and madness

While Calvary was yet died with the blood they had spilt there do imposters take such measures would they not have waited till the fury of the Jews had been appeased till judges and public officers had been changed until people had been less attentive to their dispositions if the evidence was not in

Their favor it would have made sense for the early church to go elsewhere as cults often do cult leaders ran up their followers and take them away from civilization or to a different area from the place where you can be disproven even with Mormonism Joseph Smith’s led his people away from New York

But the disciples walked right up to the Sanhedrin and said you crucified your Messiah and he has been raised now these people are either crazy or they are absolutely convinced they are right so the conspiracy theory has no hope of explaining this if you’re an impostor

You go off to Spain or India and proclaim your miracle not in Jerusalem where they have the evidence then motive and the means to debunk you since we know the resurrection was proclaimed early on and it was in Jerusalem it is hard to say that the mythic theory can

Explain this either this was not something we can say with developed later if the created first Corinthians 15 is roughly dated within three years of Pentecost that means there were Christians right there on Jerusalem developing this which set a foundational belief for Christians to be able to

Memorize so there is no reason to think it was developed later on or far off elsewhere so the mythic theory cannot explain this fact either but what about the hallucination theory well if all we have to go on is this fact I suppose a miraculous hallucination could convince

The disciples to preach the resurrection immediately in Jerusalem but it is still doubtful because hallucinations or visions don’t really imply a physical resurrection or do they fit with group hallucinations as we discussed earlier but it is possible if all we have is this fact alone so just in case we miss

Something we’ll allow this one to pass but the resurrection theory explains this with the most ease because if Jesus was resurrected of course the disciples had the boldness to proclaim the resurrection God would have been on their side and all the evidence would have been in their favor

Next fact the voluntary suffering of disciples and witnesses this is an important fact we cannot ignore multiple attestation from Christian and non-christian sources testifies that the early witnesses of the risen Christ were persecuted martyred for their faith Tacitus and Suetonius mention events and Josephus as well who even tells us how

James was martyred in Jerusalem first belief Jesus was the Risen Messiah Paul also admits to intense persecution early on in fact his scholars like NT right note 2nd Corinthians was written as a response to the Corinthians who asked Paul to provide some evidence of good fortune to show God was on his side

Asian people believed like some still today that if you were suffering persecution it was evidence you were being punished by God and needed to turn from your ways Paul responded with the opposite despite the cultural norms and it was meant to challenge their beliefs of how God worked a later Epistle from

Clement of rome talked of how Paul and Peter were martyred in Rome for their faith and axor course how the early witnesses were persecuted and murdered the evidence for this is multiple attested so what some people may say people die for their faith all the time why are the

Christians any different people will and have often died for things that were false but they don’t tend to die for something they know to be false we’re not talking about Christians who were martyred but the founders of Christianity who were murdered these men and women did not die just for faith but

Something they claim to have seen with their own eyes the root meaning of the word martyr is witness over time we’ve expanded the word to mean anyone who dies for their beliefs but originally they referred to someone who was a witness of an event and died for his

Truth the disciples didn’t just die for their beliefs they died for events they claimed had happened and knew very well they were true are made up fliers make lousy martyrs when you have nothing to gain it doesn’t make sense to make up or hold to a theory that is going to get

You nothing and the Apostles were not getting a whole lot out of their new religion they were constantly facing persecution from the Jews and threats of death nor do they become wealthy from what they were doing they were doing it because they were insane than one of the

Cult following they did some things that didn’t make any sense like establishing churches in other regions which it did not have total control over Paul moved from city to city raising up believers and then moving on you’re trying to establish a cult in a controlled group

Of people you do as cults do you gather your followers remove them from society where there’s a threat they’ll be pulled away by reality and you keep them very close to keep them brainwashed the Apostles didn’t do that they stayed in populated cities and left their new

Churches to go start more churches in other cities which leaves your followers vulnerable to corruption and if we read the epistles that is exactly what happened the Apostles had to revisit them and write letters to correct them constantly so it doesn’t seem like there was anything to gain from starting

Christianity unless it was an elaborate plan to be martyred so the conspiracy theory is hopeless in explaining this one the mythic theory doesn’t work either because the voluntary suffering has multiple attestation and even from secular authors and there is nothing that challenges that the disciples were

Persecuted or that many of them died for the events there port it is true if the disciples hallucinate the whole thing that it is possible they would be willing to take it to the grave but it would have to be a wild miraculous hallucination to utterly convince them of it and as we

Have seen such hallucinations are very improbable but it is slightly slightly slightly possible if the resurrection theory is true then this fact makes perfect sense the disciples were willing to suffer because Jesus was resurrected and it was better to deny men than to deny God who they witnessed with their own eyes

Final fact the existence of the empty tomb Gary Habermas has surveyed the material written by scholars on the resurrection and it’s found that 75% of them accept that tomb was found empty on Easter morning for example skeptical scholar Jacob Cramer says by far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the

Biblical statements concerning the empty tomb the evidence for this is simply overwhelming however some scholars like John Dominic Crossan do not think Jesus was buried in a tomb but thrown in a trench for dogs to eat because the Romans who not have a lot of proper burial for criminals but such a theory

Flies in the face of a mountain of evidence first Dale Alison who is skeptical of physical resurrection points out the word in the cretan 1st Corinthians 15 for bury would rarely be used for dumping of criminals in a trench for dogs to eat so the earliest

Account of the burial of Jesus would be incompatible with Crossing’s argument we also have multiple attestation crucified victims were buried and two different sources say Jesus was buried we also have archaeological evidence a crucified victim received a proper burial and there was no reason to think the Romans

Would not have allowed this practice they were certainly okay with allowing other Jewish practices to go on in Jerusalem that’s just temple worship which they detest it because it meant a rejection of Roman gods they allowed to juice a conductor on trials have their own temple guards keep the Sabbath and so forth

There is no reason they would not have allowed this as well and it fits with archaeological and textual evidence Jesus’s burial not only has multiple attestation but it meets the criteria of embarrassment since they say he was buried in the tomb of a Sanhedrin member which would have been dishonouring for

His followers such a group had just their lorry and now they needed the Bama tune for him from one of its own members to the public this would have looked pretty humiliating and the fact that they mentioned he was in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea means the tomb was

Public knowledge and its whereabouts were known so the public at any time would have known about it and could have readily debunked it if the tomb was not empty but the account of the empty tomb is also embarrassing because it was discovered by women and we have already

Discussed this is not something you would have made up Matthew also mentions the competing theory that the disciples stole the body this is odd because why would Matthew want to mention the competing theory which could possibly start up doubt among the people he was trying to convert Justin Martyr writing

Later has to respond to this theory because it was the official story Jews were telling people which is an interesting admission because it says the body could not be found if the Sanhedrin still at the body they could have had Gentiles bring it out for them

And show the tomb was never empty but the Christians never had to respond to this charge so both sides agreed the body was missing finally we have the Nazareth inscription a stone found in the area and it has written on it an imperial decree from around 41 ad which

Says that the penalty for grave robbing was death which is interesting because it is very severe for how Romans punished thieving the Romans would not normally give such a high penalty for stealing something but this will make sense with the rise of Christianity and what Suetonius tells us in Rome there

Were riots among the Jews on accounts of Christus which was a common Roman mispronunciation of Christ and eventually Claudius expelled all the Jews because of it if some Jews in Rome were preaching Christ was resurrected and riots resulted from it and the tomb was not empty there would be no need for

An imperial decree because they could just produce the body but because the only alternative explanation was the body was missing because it was stolen Rome’s only option would be to issue a decree to try to combat the accounts of a missing body if there was a body then

Rome could have just dispelled the riots with the body and not have to indirectly admit the body when missing so it appears to be that from all sides the body was missing away there’s no evidence the empty tomb was just a fabrication and this is why most scholars today accept that tomb was

Found empty all the evidence simply favours it so if the body was stolen who did it would Rome of course not because they would not have cared how about the Jewish leaders why would they they wanted Jesus crucified shamed buried and forgotten the last thing they wanted was

Suspicion of him coming back to life of course the Sanhedrin claimed it was the disciples but that is unlikely their rabbi had just been crucified and a movement was dispersed in shamed they were in fear the Jewish authorities would come after them as well there is

No reason to think they would have been in the position to steal a body and create a mass hoax second if they had stolen the body there is little reason to think they would have reported the theory that Jewish leaders were spreading if it was true the last thing

They would have wanted would help spread the rumor they had stolen the body and if they had stolen the body they would not have reported to their shame and dishonor that they had not believed the reports of the women when they found the empty tomb nor would they have

Embarrassingly reported that they had not understood that Jesus had predicted his rise these were very embarrassing and shameful things to report later Christians would not have made this up and attack the honor and authority of their leaders nor would have the disciples unless they wanted to shame

Themselves and most of all where would they have taken the body a common overlooked fact is that this was Passover and the city was flooded with pilgrims they would have been seen and they would have been caught it would have been very hard to pull off especially getting the body out of the

Sanhedrin section of town so for the conspiracy theory to work you need to deposit the disciples were in fear for their lives yet somehow decided to steal the body and faked a resurrection even though none of them were expecting that then they managed to get the body out of

The Sanhedrin section of town where the tombs were and hide it in an overcrowded City the entire theory becomes overwhelmingly unlikely the hallucination theory doesn’t work either did the entire population of Jerusalem hallucinate so the theory it was not really discovered empty fails as well what about the mythic theory so I’ve

Tried to claim the empty tomb was made up later because it is not specifically mentioned in the Creed Paul gives us in first Corinthians well this just ignores the amount of evidence we already gave and that the empty tomb and physical resurrection are both mentioned in the early passion

Narrative found in mark but most of all it overlooks what the Korean first Corinthians says it says that he was buried and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures he was buried and raised it is pretty obvious that what was buried

Is what was raised and therefore the tomb would have been empty as NT Wright says the fact that the empty tomb itself so prominent the Gospel accounts does not appear to be specifically mentioned in this passage is not significant the mention here of buried and raised no

More need to be amplified in that way then one would need to amplify the statement I walk down the street with the qualification on my feet so the mythic theory fails here as well but there is one theory they can’t account for all the data it is the theory that

Jesus was raised and vindicated by God no other Theory out there can account for all the data the mythic theory fails because we only argued from facts that we know are early and could not have been made up the conspiracy theory could not account for the quality of the

Testimonies of the disciples the empty tomb herwise skeptics would join a small persecuted minority the hallucination theory could only work if you posit some pretty miraculous hallucinations to cause the disciples to change their idea skeptics to convert and posit crazy ideas no one was expecting or looking

For it has to posit such a wild hallucination it would take a miracle itself only the theory that was reported can account for all the data because of that it has explanatory scope because they can explain all the data with the least amount of effort it has explanatory power it provides

Illumination as well which means it can explain other areas of history like the rise of Christianity and the belief in physical resurrection in fact this means three pieces of the criteria are filled that historians use when judging an historical hypothesis behan mccullough who has outlined the criterion for weighing historical theories accepts the

Resurrection hypothesis meets these three things better than any other hypothesis but claims it fails the other two pieces of criteria this Christian hypothesis is of greater explanatory scope and power than other hypotheses which try to account for the relevant evidence but it is less plausible and more ad hoc than

They are so McCullough accepts the resurrection meets three out of five of the criteria for historical investigation but fails the other two however there have been replies to challenge this dr. Travis Campbell has why is the resurrection theory ad-hoc to be ad hoc according to McCullough means a number

Of new suppositions are made by hypothesis that are not already implied in existing knowledge so the hypothesis adds extra assumptions in order to explain the data that is not already present but dr. Campbell points out the resurrection theory only adds one extra assumption not multiple it is difficult

To see why the resurrection hypothesis is extraordinarily ad hoc it requires only one new supposition that God exists surely rival hypotheses require many new suppositions the hallucination theory requires we say group hallucinations plus multi-sensory experiences happened on multiple occasions and that they were so powerful that the disciples took it

To their death preaching something that only brought in poverty and turmoil as well as a crazy Mass City hallucination that there was an empty tomb the conspiracy theory wants us to believe a bunch of frightened followers of Jesus stole a body in secret in an overcrowded

City to makeup up the story they were not expecting or was not in line with Jewish messianic expectations in order to get themselves murdered and that some of the skeptics decided to join their poor persecuted movement for no reason at all the mythic theory expects us to believe an extra assumption for each

Fact that it was actually made up later in spite of hard evidence these facts were very early and unlikely made up the resurrection theory only wants us to add the assumption that God exists which is not @ha if we combine the resurrection argument with other arguments we’ve already presented which infer theism

Since we’ve already argued for theism the resurrection hypothesis would hardly be ad hoc as dr. Campbell says moreover for the person who is already a theist the resurrection hypothesis does not even introduced a new supposition of God’s existence since that is already implied by existing knowledge so the resurrection hypothesis cannot be said

To be ad ha simply by a virtue of the number of suppositions it introduces what about plausibility a historical theory is plausible if other areas are known with confidence and suggests the same theory yours is suggesting so if other things suggests the same conclusion is your theory that would make your theory

Plausible and in line with other beliefs but as we’ve already suggested why would the resurrection theory not be plausible if we have other arguments to infer theism as William Lane Craig says only if the naturalist has good reasons to think that God’s existence is implausible or is intervention in the

World implausible could he justifiably regard the resurrection hypothesis as implausible so if one insists on assuming naturalism is true and leaves no reason for theism as a possibility then they can say the resurrection theory is implausible but that is arguing from a presupposition and not being open to evidence regardless of how

One feels about it and we can say that in conjunction with other arguments the resurrection hypothesis is not ad hoc nor is it implausible has already been shown God exists thus we can see why Anthony flue was bold enough to say the resurrection has more evidence than any

Other miracle claim the resurrection is the only theory that can explain all the data and it can do it while not being at hawk or implausible the evidence infers that God has acted in the world to raise Jesus from the dead as Paulo Frederickson admitted they must have

Seen something in all the evidence favors that what they saw was the risen Savior

#Resurrection #Jesus #Historical #Evidence

Two Natures of Christ – Fulton Sheen Timeless Wisdom



Christ has two natures one human one divine they are both united in the person of God after we can make this clear if you will take a pencil in your hand now that pencil has a nature as is not in other words is the nature of the

Thing that right do you notice that there are before you two nature’s one the nature of the pencil the other the nature of your hand how are they unite in your one person so it is possible to have the union of two natures in one person returning now to our pencil the

Pencil oven by yourself cannot write you put it down on a chair or table before you that pencil cannot write Kenny a pensioners like man you cannot bear the daddy-o now put your hand in the air bring it down that pencil here you have a union

The nature of the hand which is united with your person and the nature of a pencil now the pencil can do something which by itself it could not do so the hand your personality coming down to that pencil represents the person of God and the divine nature coming down to

Human nature and when God comes down and takes upon himself a human nature United with his divine nature and divine person and now just as that pencil could do something which happened by itself it could not do so Yuma nature United with the person of God can now begin to do

Something which of and by itself it could not do before once God took upon himself our you you can act in our day every one of the actions of that human nature would have an infinitely notice I a word a tear a step that human nature was inseparable from the person that is

Why one breath of God made man would have been enough to obedient why then God suffer so much he took upon himself argument nature love knows no limits then the only way to prove perfect love is by the surrender of all open one hands and so God took upon

Himself our union nature and he said he loved the Sun to the end and if you were the only person in the world who ever did you would have come down the desert that just for you alone that is how much you have You

#Natures #Christ #Fulton #Sheen #Timeless #Wisdom