CADRE Comments

A couple of months ago, I wrote a post about the Gospel of Matthew’s account of the slaughter of the innocents. Therein, I argued that some of the skepticism about the account was unjustified. One argument I made was that the number of children killed in Bethlehem would likely have been no more than 20. Though obviously an act of great evil, the killing of 20 children would be much less likely to be noticed by historians of the time than the slaughter of thousands as later traditions speculated. In response to the post, Peter Kirby asked a few questions. He has patiently waited my response, continuously delayed by work, family, and the completion of my Acts article . Two of the questions had to do with how the amount of 20 was determined. Others with the omission of the account by Luke and the reliability of the tradition recounted by Macrobius. Peter also mentioned that there were other reasons to doubt the story's historicity beyond just the silence of other sources. I ...

I want to thank the people who responded to the posting of Part I of this blog, the trial of William Joseph Johanssen on both CADRE Comments and Apologia Christi. The positions adopted were thoughtful and gave me pause to think. A. My Determination in the Fictitious Johanssen Case. My own response, if I were in Judge Pohler’s shoes, would be to deny the request for the introduction of any testimony that these witnesses were hallucinating. I would not allow the testimony for several reasons. First, it is absolutely essential to understand the importance of eyewitness testimony in court hearings. While it is certainly true that today’s trials increasingly rely on physical evidence (DNA, fingerprints, CSI-type work) to establish the facts in a criminal or civil trial, throughout most of history when investigative science was not as refined as it is today, eyewitness testimony was the most sought after evidence for proving the innocence or guilt of a defendant. Even today, while the relia...

The Maverick Philosopher has written two posts on Hypocricy entitled (appropriately enough Hypocricy and Addendum to Hypocricy . The crux of the message is this: we have been misusing the term "hypocrisy." A hypocrite, according to Dr. Vallicelli, is: . . . one who espouses high moral standards, but makes little or no attempt to live in accordance with them. He is one who pays ‘lip service’ to high ideals, by ‘talking the talk,’ but without ‘walking the walk.’ Someone who talks the talk, walks the walk, but stumbles a lot cannot be justly accused of hypocrisy. In the Addendum to Hypocricy blog, he points out that -- contrary to a anti-drug commercial airing regularly right now -- it is not hypocritical to tell your children that it is not okay to smoke pot even though you smoked pot when you were younger. A working definition of hypocricy must allow for moral change. Dr. Vallicelli is absolutely correct. If anyone does something as a younger person that they now (in their ...

The Terrible Swede has posted a communion hymn , apparently a new addition to hymnody, that I thought was well worth the link. The third stanza took my breath away -- though it makes its point better if you've read the previous stanzas before you get there.

After three years, several drafts, plenty of late nights, and valuable feedback, my article, A Discussion of the Genre, Historicity, Authorship, and Date of Acts , is now available at Peter Kirby's Christian Origins . Special thanks to the Cadre's own BK and Nomad for comments on earlier drafts, to Peter Kirby for his valuable comments and for placing the finished product on his website, to my Mom who is one of finest editors in the business (or out of it), and to my wife Jenny, who also provided excellent feedback as well as having a high tolerance level for my distractions and research budget. Thanks to the others who along the way have given feedback or encouragement regarding my thoughts and ideas regarding Acts. I fully realize that in many ways my inquiry into Acts is still maturing. I hope that through additional research and by interacting with the inevitable and welcome comments and criticisms, I can continue learning about this fascinating piece of ancient litera...

Part I: Answering Muslim Questions It’s past time that we should be ready, but many of us are still under-prepared. The opportunity to evangelize Muslims has been growing for a long time – but now the time is more urgent. Certain Muslim groups have prepared conversion campaigns targeted at Christians, and those who are not knowledgeable about the Bible, the atonement, the Holy Spirit, and the nature of Christ may find their own relationship to God at risk. Those in Christian leadership positions would do well to do more than simply know and defend their own stands. They would do well in guarding their sheep to make sure that their people are also prepared to understand and defend their faith. In this first part, we will look at general preparation, then a number of specific Muslim attacks commonly made against Christianity. In a future post, I hope to review other points of spreading the good news to Muslims. General Preparation Before discussing apologetics, it is necessary to ...

A friend of mind who goes by the name GakuseiDon has written a powerful rebuttal to Earl Doherty's ideas about the second-century Christians and their attitudes about the historical Jesus. To Doherty, there were many Christian leaders in the second century who denied that Jesus existed historically. As GakuseiDon shows, Doherty's arguments are wholly unpersuasive, based on misreadings, misunderstandings, and mistranslations of the text, as well as contradicted by several more persuasive explanations. My personal favorite is summarized by Mr. Don here: Most of the second century apologists’ ire was directed towards Marcion and the Gnostics. Strangely enough, even MJ authors like Theophilus wrote against Marcion, though his work is not extant. But in no case is there any mention of heresies involving a group of Christians who believed that Christ never walked the earth. Doherty briefly notes the lack of writers who openly and in unmistakable words rejected the figure of a his...

The following is a short story about a trial with a not-too-hidden analogy. In the trial, the judge is asked whether certain testimony will be allowed to raise a reasonable doubt about the guilt of a defendant. The testimony proposed, to my knowledge, has never been permitted in a criminal trial, but then I don't know of any case where anyone has ever tried to have it admitted. I am asking you to sit in the place of the judge in the case and give me your opinion as to whether the case should be admitted. Judge Pohler sat back in his chair almost disappearing behind the large oak bench spread before him, removed his wire-framed glasses and rubbed his aching eyes. He had been up most of the previous night working on his rulings on the pre-trial motions in this second degree murder case, and found it difficult to remain focused on the opening statements. The trial was expected to be relatively short for a capital trial due the presence of three eyewitnesses to the murder. According to...

Following a link provided by dokeo kago grapho soi kratistos Theophilos , I read this article, entitled “The Christian Paradox, How a Faithful Nation Gets Jesus Wrong.” The point of the article appears to be that although America is predominantly Christian, American Christians are bad Christians. The author of the article, Bill McKibben, is a writer for Mother Jones and appears to be coming from a political rather than a religious perspective. He begins by noting that although many Americans claim to be religious, only about one-third of Americans attend church on a weekly basis. That is a fair enough criticism. I too wish more American “Christians” regularly attended services. But it seems like something of a concession that Christianity has lost, not gained, influence in America. As we will see, however, McKibben nevertheless seems to lay the blame for most of America's ills at American Christianity's doorstep. He never seems to consider the possibility that many of ...

Here is the beginning to a new series giving persuasive, reasonable, and rational answers using science and philosophy to objections often raised from pro-abortion advocates. Many assertions are shouted by both sides of the abortion issue without really addressing the crux of the debate: the status of the unborn. Often we hear conclusions that assume the unborn is not a human being. The pro-life advocate needs to confront these blanket statements with an attractive manner butressed with an equipped mind familiar with the discussion at hand. Where does science stand on the humanity of the unborn? Is there such thing as a "pre-embryo substitute" (clump of cells) rather than a human organism? "The term 'pre-embryo' is not used here for the following reasons: (1) it is ill-defined because it is said to end with the appearance of the primitive streak or to include neurulation; (2) it is inaccurate because purely embryonic cells can already be distinguished after a few...