Answering the "no Tomb" theory: for Pix

The no Tomb theory say Jesus was given burial like most crucifixion victims, the body disposed if  in a mass grave or garbage dump with no real rites or blessing, and no trace of an individual burial. Pix argues this in comment section in response to my last posting on this blog. I used to argue this stuff morning, noon,ad night on message boards That was many year ago,I mishandled my arguments because I just foot how it works,

Pix essentially argues that Jesus was crucified as King of the Jews by the Romans and the and they would not give him a proper burial because he was an enemy of Rome, I realize the charge was BS and mark even says Pilate saw through it, But I forgot there is still a reason why the Sanhedrin wanted him killed by the Roans for political subtrahend.  They feared losing support of the people. They wanted the Romans to take the heat.So they needed hi to be killed saying he;s king of the Jews, The Romans obliged even Pilate saw through the excuse,

Pix thinks this means…

The Age of Slogans

I've taken a turn in ministry of late where I seek out churches who would like to have an apologist come teach or speak, but can't afford it. Then I raise funds sufficient to go visit them. In general, you could say that this is representative of a desire to go where the church people WANT apologetics, rather than trying to convince a church that they need some of it for their own spiritual betterment.

My core teaching used to be a lecture called, "Apologetics: Cod Liver Oil for the Christian Soul." I presented the view that however distasteful you thought apologetics was, it was Biblically mandated as a practice, and every Christian had at least a marginal responsibility to become educated in some basics. No, not everyone needs to be William Lane Craig, but you should at least know where to find his books and when to refer people to them. 

It's become pretty clear, though, that the church is too busy for apologetics. Too busy with prosperity teachings. Too busy wi…

William Lane Craig on "If Mind is Reducible to Brain Function, Why Trust Thought?"

William Lane Craig remains one of the most erudite and knowledgeable of today's Christian philosophers. His book, Reasonable Faith, has remained one of my favorite Apologetics tools because he lays out many of the Christian claims so clearly and cogently that only the most hardened of skeptics dismisses him or his work as being without weight. Certainly, his writings have led many people to turn their hearts toward Jesus.

We are blessed that Dr. Craig maintains a website also called Reasonable Faith with lots of information that can be accessed free of charge to make a case for Christianity. One of the great features of his website includes a question and answer section where Dr. Craig selects questions that have been addressed to him, and he generally provides really good answers that can help inform all Christians' Apologetics efforts. Unfortunately, this blog has not referenced Dr. Craig's work nearly as often as we ought, but I want to focus on one of the questions …

Breaking News: Liberals are not fundies; Answering Atheist assertions about folklore in Gospels

One of our regular atheist friends on the blog, "Gary," says: "Not only were the Gospels written by anonymous non-eyewitnesses, scholars suspect that fictional folklore are included in these books. The question is: Which stories are fiction, and which are fact?"[1] 
On his own  site he quotes the great scholar Ray Brown in support  of this idea: 
I find the special material [material unique to Matthew; not found in any other gospel] that Matthew has grouped around the birth and the death of Jesus a consistency that suggests a source, but one of another nature than Mark and Q—a source that reflects popular dramatization through storytelling, much like expanded birth and passion narration ever since....With regard to the common Synoptic passion narrative  I argued that OT allusions or citations did not create the basic passion narrative sequence but helped to fill in the established, skeletal preaching outline. In the instance of the Matthean special material, however,…

The Doctrine of Perspicuity, Part 2

Continued from last time...

In order to make a distinction between the doctrine of perspicuity as expressed by my opponent, as it is referred to by such documents as the Westminster Confession, I will hereafter refer to the former as radical perspicuity

Radical Perspicuity: A Biblical Basis?

In seeking Biblical justifications for radical perspicuity, I found very little that commended itself for the doctrine the way my critic understood it. 

Deuteronomy 30:11 For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off.At best, this could argue for the perspicuity of the Deuteronomic contract, and I daresay based on experience that the qualification of clarity for the people of the 14th century BC is implied. Questions about obscurity in the laws of the Old Testament are some of the most common in apologetics, because these laws address social conditions taken for granted in Scripture. However, it should be added that "too h…