Can Truth Be Known With Certainty?

             Some skeptics contend they cannot be sure about Christianity’s truth claims because, they assert, truth cannot be known with any certainty. However, when they claim that truth cannot be known with any certainty, they posit certainty.

            They say with all certainty that truth cannot be known with any certainty. So their statement ‘truth cannot be known with any certainty’ is a truth claim that is predicated on certainty.

            J. Warner Wallace of Cold Case Christianity elaborates:¹ [Emphasis Mine]

In this article, we’re offering “Quick Shot” responses to the objection, “You can’t be certain about Christianity because truth cannot be known with any certainty.”

Response #1:

“Are you sure? Are you confident about that statement related to truth? It sounds like you have certainty. But if truth cannot be known with any certainty, then you can’t have certainty that truth can’t be known with certainty. Do you see the problem? As it turns out, all of us are certain about something, even if it’s just that you can’t be certain. But that claim, in and of itself, is self-refuting. It’s important that all of us determine which truth claims what we should trust or distrust. But to claim that nothing can be known or trusted is contradictory and impossible to live out effectively. Can you see why this sort of claim cannot be sustained?”

OR

Response #2:

“What do you mean by certainty? Do you mean “beyond a possible doubt”? If that’s the standard, we would be paralyzed by fear and indecision. Will my car explode when I turn the key today? I can’t be sure beyond a possible doubt. Will my next restaurant meal result in food poisoning? Again, I can’t be certain beyond a possible doubt. We can’t (and don’t) live by that standard, because, if we did, we wouldn’t want to leave our homes. Instead we live by a lower standard known as “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This is also the standard we apply to the most serious criminal trials. If it’s good enough to use in those trials, it’s also good enough for us to use in our daily lives. Do you honestly think truth can’t be known beyond a reasonable doubt? Have you ever applied this standard to the case for God’s existence or the truth of Christianity?”

Endnotes:

¹https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/quick-shot-truth-cannot-be-known-with-any-certainty/, last accessed 31/July/2021. 

Where Does Our Soul Come From? (When Can The Fetus Be Aborted?)

 

            The Bible uses the word ‘soul’ (Hebrew nephesh; Greek: psuche) in at least four different ways:¹

            1. As a synonym for a person (Exodus 1:5; Deuteronomy 10:22; Acts 2:41).

            2. The form of life man possesses in common with animals, which ceases to exist at death (Genesis 1:20,24; Psalm 78:50; Matthew 6:25; Luke 14:26).

            3. Emotions or inner thoughts of a man (Deuteronomy 13:3; Psalm 139:14; Matthew 22:37).

            4. The immortal part of a man that never dies (Genesis 35:18; 1 Kings 17:21; Matthew 10:28).

            The soul is the immortal part of our body.

            With regards to the origin of the soul, William Lane Craig explains that it is more plausible that God creates the soul for every human being that HE creates:² [Emphasis Mine]

...there have been traditionally three competing views as to the origin of the soul. One would be Creationism. This would be the view that God immediately creates the soul...The second view is Traducianism. This is the view that the soul is produced by the souls of the parents...So the soul is not specially created by God ex nihilo or out of nothing. Rather just as the parents’ bodies engender the body of their offspring, so their souls engender the soul of their offspring. One soul is produced or generated by the parents’ souls. The third view would be the Preexistence view which is the view that souls preexisted their embodiment in human bodies...This was a Platonic view that there is a realm of souls that exist prior to their incarnation in the world, and then God puts these souls in particular bodies.

Which of these views is the most plausible? Well, again, I think apart from the Preexistence view (which I think is clearly unbiblical), biblically there really is no way to tell whether you should be a Traducian or Creationist. But it seems to me that Creationism is more plausible than Traducianism...

            So the soul is created by God. But, at what point does HE create the soul?

            This question is relevant because it concerns the issue of abortion.

            Consider these two verses from the Bible: [Emphasis Mine]

            Jeremiah 1:5: ““Before I formed you in the womb I knew you...”” (ESV)

            Psalm 139:16a: “Your eyes saw my unformed substance...” (ESV)

            It is rather plausible to infer from these verses that God knows every human being from the time of their conception – even before they were formed in the womb. Ergo, God places the soul at conception.³

            Herein we should realize that abortion, at any time, is a sin against God because at the time of conception, the soul is placed, so when the soul is placed, the fetus should be considered as a fully human person.

Endnotes:

¹https://apologeticspress.org/pdfs/courses_pdf/hsc0207.pdf

²https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-1/s1-the-doctrine-of-man/the-doctrine-of-man-part-8/

³https://apologeticspress.org/pdfs/courses_pdf/hsc0207.pdf

&

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-1/s1-the-doctrine-of-man/the-doctrine-of-man-part-8/

Websites last accessed on 30^th July 2021. 

No! Historic Christianity Is Not A Copycat Religion

 

            Mithras, Osiris, Horus, Dionysus, Adonis, Attis, Demeter, Persephone, Aphrodite, Isis, Danae, Melanippe [and who knows how many more], are some of the deities claimed to be the source for the Christian miracle narratives. The virgin birth, sacrificial death, crucifixion, resurrection, etc. have been attributed to these deities. Hence, some skeptics claim that Christianity is false since it has copied the miracle narratives from the pre-christian deities/religions.

            But please note that no serious academic scholar/historian from any credible academic institution confer any credence to this accusation against Historic Christianity. This accusation is absolutely baseless and outdated, but still it makes its rounds in social media as and when appropriate.

            Here is a few reasons why this accusation is without any credible foundation:

            1. Dr. William Lane Craig dismisses these accusations based on the lack of serious scholarship, “When they say that Christian beliefs about Jesus are derived from pagan mythology, I think you should laugh. Then look at them wide-eyed and with a big grin, and exclaim, "Do you really believe that?" Act as though you've just met a flat earther or Roswell conspirator. You could say something like, "Man, those old theories have been dead for over a hundred years! Where are you getting this stuff?" Tell them this is just sensationalist junk, not serious scholarship. If they persist, then ask them to show you the actual passages narrating the supposed parallel. They're the ones who are swimming against the scholarly consensus, so make them work hard to save their religion. I think you'll find that they've never even read the primary sources.”¹

            2. Dr. Mark Foreman questions the causal influence of the parallels. Even if there were parallels, there is no good evidence to ascertain that these parallels influenced the Historic Christian worldview. He emphasizes that Judaism, which is an extremely exclusive monotheistic religion, would not have tolerated the syncretism of the mystery religions. Moreover, the earliest Christians, who were primarily Jews, were even more exclusivistic. Hence, they would not have imported any stories from the mystery religions.²

            3. Greg Koukl encourages Christians and honest seekers to primarily examine the credibility of the Historic Christian narrative. He says, “Those myths are only valuable if you first determine that Jesus is a fiction by looking at the primary source historical documentation. If you look at the historical record and decide that it is unreliable, if you first conclude that there is no good reason to believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed the way the Biblical records say He did, then it might then, and only then be useful to ask the question: How did this story come to be?”³ He also states that the primary source documentation is highly credible for Historic Christianity than the mystery religions.⁴

            4. Sean Mcdowell in an article entitled “Is Christianity a Copycat Religion?” emphasizes that the differences between Christianity and the mystery religions are more profound than the alleged similarities. He also asserts that the parallels prove nothing, and the chronology is all wrong.⁵

            These reasons are sufficient to dismiss these accusations against Historic Christianity.

            Last but not the least, even non-christian scholars reject these accusations:⁶

Dr. Tryggve Mettinger (a Swedish professor at Lund University) has written the most comprehensive account of the dying and rising god motif. He himself affirms the concept of “dying and rising gods.”[3] Yet he concedes that he is in the strict minority: “There is now what amounts to a scholarly consensus against the appropriateness of the concept [of dying and rising gods]. Those who still think differently are looked upon as residual members of an almost extinct species… Major scholars in the fields of comparative religion and the Bible find the idea of dying and rising deities suspect or untenable.”[4] For instance, Jonathan Z. Smith (historian from the University of Chicago) writes, “All the deities that have been identified as belonging to the class of dying and rising deities can be subsumed under the two larger classes of disappearing deities or dying deities. In the first case, the deities return but have not died; in the second case, the gods die but do not return.”[5]

Skeptic Matt Dillahunty (of Atheist Experience) writes, “The first third of the film (Zeitgeist) is an unscholarly, sophomoric, horribly flawed, over-simplification that tries to portray Christianity as nothing more than the next incarnation of the astrologically themed religions that preceded it. Like all conspiracy theories, they combine a few facts, focus on correlations and build an intriguing story that seems to fit the pieces together nicely—provided you don’t actually dig below the surface to find out where they might have gone wrong.”

In describing the German higher critical school which gave birth to this entire theory (Religiongeschichtliche Schule), critical scholar Maurice Casey writes that this is “now regarded as out of date” and “significantly mistaken.”^[6]

Regarding the Cross and Atonement, atheistic critical scholar Bart Ehrman writes, “Where do any of the ancient sources speak of a divine man who was crucified as an atonement for sin? So far as I know, there are no parallels to the central Christian claim. What has been invented here is not the Christian Jesus but the mythicist claims about Jesus… The majority of scholars agree… there is no unambiguous evidence that any pagans prior to Christianity believed in dying and rising gods.”^[7] He adds, “None of this literature is written by scholars trained in the New Testament.”^[8]

            So whenever you come across an accusation that Historic Christianity is a copycat religion, you can wholeheartedly pay no attention to the accusation, for it is tenuous, asinine, and sophomoric.

Endnotes:

¹https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/jesus-and-pagan-mythology/

²http://christianapologeticsalliance.com/2017/03/12/did-christianity-copy-from-paganism-part-2-no-causal-influence/

³https://www.str.org/w/the-zeitgeist-movie-other-myth-claims-about-jesus#.UcbtoT772vE

⁴Ibid.

⁵https://www.apologeticsbible.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Is-Christianity-A-Copycat-Religion_.pdf

⁶http://christianapologeticsalliance.com/2017/02/10/did-christianity-copy-from-paganism-part-1/#_ftn4

Websites last accessed on 19^th July 2021. 

Was Christianity Influenced By Zoroastrianism?

 

            The ancient religion of Zoroastrianism (Parsi faith) apparently dates back to the 6^th century BC/BCE.¹ Zarathustra or Zoroaster² founded Zoroastrianism. While Zoroastrians claim belief in one supreme God known as Ahura Mazda, they also believe in another immortal deity called Angra Mainyu (Ahriman), who is the epitome of evil.

            Critics of Historic Christianity claim that Christianity borrowed the following ideas from Zoroastrianism:³

1.      Zoroaster was born of a virgin and “immaculate conception by a ray of divine reason.”

2.      He was baptized in a river.

3.      In his youth he astounded wise men with his wisdom.

4.      He was tempted in the wilderness by the devil.

5.      He began his ministry at age 30.

6.      Zoroaster baptized with water, fire, and “holy wind.”

7.      He cast out demons and restored the sight to a blind man.

8.      He taught about heaven and hell, and revealed mysteries, including resurrection, judgment, salvation and the apocalypse.

9.      He had a sacred cup or grail.

10.  He was slain.

11.  His religion had a eucharist.

12.  He was the “Word made flesh.”

13.  Zoroaster’s followers expect a “second coming” in the virgin-born Saoshyant or Savior, who is to come in 2341 CE and begin his ministry at age 30, ushering in a golden age.

            These have been meticulously disproved.⁴

            Although Zoroaster’s life predates Jesus Christ, all information pertaining to him comes from the book of Avesta. Interestingly, Avesta was not composed until the 4^th century (AD/CE). This is almost 400 years after the life of Jesus Christ.

            Significantly, the earliest manuscripts of the Avesta have been dated to the 13^th century (AD/CE). In comparison, the manuscripts of the gospels and the Acts of the Apostles have been dated between 45-60 (AD/CE).⁵

            If the New Testament manuscripts are dated much before Avesta, then it is clear that Christianity could NOT have borrowed ideas from Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism may have borrowed ideas from Christianity, but it is certainly not the other way around. 

            Despite the oral traditions of Zoroastrianism predating Christ, the information in Avesta could be unreliable because of the large gap in time (1000 years plus or minus). Moreover, historians claim that the book of Avesta has been updated over time.⁶ If Avesta was updated over time, then it is more plausible that Zoroastrianism borrowed concepts from Christianity.

            The Bible could not have borrowed the concept of Satan from Zoroastrianism. Satan appears in the book of Job, a very early book. Moreover, Satan (a created subordinate to God in Christianity) is much unlike the evil god Angra Mainyu (Ahriman), who is a dualistic equal to Ahura Mazda.

            Last but not the least, the doctrine of salvation clinches the deal. Any religion that teaches salvation by works cannot be true.

            Zoroastrianism opposes Historic Christianity in the doctrine of salvation. Zoroastrianism teaches salvation by works, “Salvation was by works alone; there was "practically no place for repentance or pardon:" and "no doctrine of atonement." There is some issue about the fate of the wicked; one account says they will be tormented three days, then return to do good deeds; another source says they will be annihilated. There is an essential equivalent to Heaven and Hell...”⁷

            Salvation cannot be achieved by doing good deeds. Salvation can only be through the grace of God by faith in the finished work of the Lord Jesus (cf. Ephesians 2:8-9). Dr. Carl Broggi describes this beautifully, “God does not spell salvation “DO” - and God does not spell salvation “DON’T” - God spells salvation “DONE” (John 19:30).”⁸

            Therefore, we can confidently assert that Historic Christianity cannot be an offshoot of Zoroastrianism.

Endnotes:

¹Dating of Zoroastrianism is much disputed.

²Zoroaster is presumed to have lived sometime between 1700 – 600 BC/BCE.

³http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/zoroaster.php

⁴http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/zoroaster.php 

& 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x6aOBqc9d0&ab_channel=InspiringPhilosophy

⁵https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/why-i-know-the-gospels-were-written-early-free-bible-insert/

⁶http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/zoroaster.php

⁷Ibid.

⁸https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/world-religions-and-cults-zoroastrianism/

Websites last accessed on 17^th July 2021.