Пълният препис на Classical Apologetics, part 2

into historical investigation. there are enough facts out there and evidence to support the historical claims that we're going to talk about today that give more probable cause. That means a higher level of probability than just as a chance for it. Okay. So from theism to Christianity. Now, when we bring the cases, a responsible apologist, a responsible witness of Christ needs to make sure that we're balanced. we don't want to go out there again and give unfactual information. So when we share the facts, make sure the facts that we're actually sharing are accepted by a broad range of scholars. I'll give you a list of some scholars later on that were actually atheists who will agree to these facts, that will Help kind of solidify what they really mean. Okay. now, admit, there are some conclusions that are still debated. We're not going in with the bullseye, that perfect argument that everyone can't ignore, that no one will ever deny. Understand that there's still going to be some pushback. There are still some ways to answer these questions from the atheistic or materialistic scientific view back that would say, Well, this is why I don't believe in it. And then thirdly, The theological explanation Christians best believe or believe best account for the facts at hand. That's the crux of the entire argument. The physiological explanation coming from the Bible that we believe is the best account for the entire worldview of everything that we see and reason with and be able to measure. So the question then becomes: has God revealed Himself? So if a necessary creator does exist. Is it reasonable to ask that he makes himself known? Well, absolutely. So we look through some of this and we decide: well, what does that mean? That means that there has to be some kind of revelation, special and general. General means that it's through creation, it's through reason. We can see that. And that was the first part of the classical argument. That everything exists because there has to be something outside of the universe that created the universe. that could be through reasoning, moral awareness, just seeing nature. And there's special revelation, which is a a spiritual experience, more specific. This would be like the old testament containing historical records of the prophets, where God has acted in history outside of the norm. you would call it supernatural miracles. Where the Bible speaks on certain things that could only be known because God has revealed them. So we look at these examples to understand and talk about that. Now, with these still, make sure that we are using facts and historical data that is agreed upon. There are a lot of things, I'll use the example, things like Noah's Ark, that we'll probably never find. First of all, it was made of wood. It probably would have deteriorated by now. and whether I find Noah's Ark or not is irrelevant to me. it doesn't matter. It won't build my faith or take away from my faith. Well, it could build my faith, I

guess. But we need to make sure that we're not just speaking out, they found Noah's Ark. Well, there's a lot of things to be able to debunk any attempt that says we found it here or there or wherever. So be very careful with that. And then again, make sure the conclusions that we're coming to, we grant the other side the opportunity to rebut. in kindness and in love, because they they won't necessarily see creation as of God. They they still may see it as an accident of some sort from the Big Bang. So, first and foremost, who was Jesus? Well, generally speaking, we can conclude that he was a first century Jewish teacher. He proclaimed the kingdom of God. He preached everywhere about that. Jesus, who was called Christ, is a direct quote from Josephus, one of the historians of that era and that time, that Literally indicates that at that moment they were calling him the Christ. There's no doubt that he existed as an actual person. Josephus writes about him. So this Tacticus specifically states that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate. So we have some outside data. This would be general revelation that we see through the Bible, and we see through extracurricular sources that everyone can agree, and there are very few that don't agree anymore, that Jesus Christ was an actual figure. So Who was he? He existed. He was a teacher. He turned the world upside down. So scholars can disagree about the historical reliability of the gospel accounts themselves, right? Very simple. They can question his exact teachings, his exact words, his miracles, and how he understood his own identity. But They don't reconstruct every detail of his life in the same way as we do. And so there is that that pushback a little bit on us. Now, our explanation, however, is that Christians identify Jesus as Israel's promised Messiah, the one through whom God's kingdom entered into history. And as Christians, we believe that He is his teachings, his actions, death, his resurrection can adequately be explained. And he's not just a mere religious teacher. So If all the claims he made, his resurrection, death, all the things he said about himself, he cannot be another religious moral teacher that would contradict morality. So Jesus was not created by a later council. He was a first century existing historical figure who cannot just be a good teacher because of what he claimed, and he cannot just be pushed away because of everything that was written about him, that changed the whole world's perspective. that spread the gospel out so fast, this would not just have been a legend. Now, the central issue here is not just whether Jesus existed, though. We must ask the follow-up question: what did he claim about himself? Who truly is he? So did he claim that he was God? As critics point out, Jesus never claimed in these words, I am God. He never came out and said that in that manner. But he didn't need to. He made claims and performed actions that carried extraordinary implications within his own Jewish setting. So again, the Bible from the Bible perspective is the most important thing. The Bible is written to first century Mediterranean. Jewish people, Gentiles, and that entire known world at that moment, what the Roman Empire controlled, and how they would understand the writings is key. It's the same way we teach kids in school. When you're understanding a writing, understand the timepiece of the writing. My favorite author when I was young growing up would have been Mark Twain. And it was good to understand some of the dialect, the wordage that was used in his time that is not used today in the same manner. To understand the setting, what was going on historically, what was happening, and it makes more sense of all the accounts of what he wrote, makes it more humorous, makes it more brought to life. And the same true is or the same truth follows from the Bible. We can't just assume from our Western mentality that this is how it should be done. So some of the facts that are accepted by a broad range of scholars are the earliest traditions where Jesus is speaking and acting with unusual personal authority. At the time the writing, we said Josephus, Tacticus, and others that wrote about him, as well as the Bible, tells us that he was different than other people around him. Now, using the Bible as our springboard specifically in this instance, we're going to make sure we understand what Jesus did claim. He claimed. God's kingdom was coming. He interpreted the law on his own authority, not on the authority of the scribes or people above him. He placed a person's response to him at the center of the person's response to God. Now, the gospels tell us that he clearly forgave sins on his own authority. He called himself the Lord of the Sabbath, which is only reserved for Yahweh, so is forgiving sins. He describes God his father in a distinctive way, not just a relational way, but they are one. He claimed authority over the final judgment, that he would be the judge over all at the end times. He connects himself with the heavenly Son of Man from Daniel chapter 7 and the figure seated at God's right hand in Psalms 110 and Ezekiel. He connects himself with Isaiah's prophecies about Yahweh. when you get into John, the book of John. He has more explicit statements saying "Before Abraham was, I Am," claiming that he existed before Abraham, and Abraham couldn't wait to see his day. So we have a lot of things that caused him not only to show people and demonstrate he had the power of God, or he claimed at least. But the scribes and Pharisees and people understood what he was claiming because they wanted to stone him. They wanted to kill him. On many occasions, they picked up stones to stone him. They wanted to push him off a cliff. They sought out to kill him because he was making himself equal with God. So they understood exactly what he was saying, exactly what he was doing. Some other examples of early Christian beliefs presented very, very

soon within Christian history. Paul's letters show extraordinarily high beliefs about Jesus Christ, and they were already present within the earliest decades of Christianity. We see that 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 3 through 8, that was formulated and going around audibly written down, been finally recorded by Paul. One to five years after Jesus' death. Then we have his death, burial, resurrection, appearances, and the five hundred witnesses, the traditions of the gospel themselves, all pointing to the fact that Jesus Christ is who he said he was. Now scholars can debate whether every saying was preserved in its exact original wording. as disputed as they are, they don't explain. why Christianity spread so fast. So they can say, well, it might be some other reason. There could be another, another reason to why these things are spreading as they were. And he we know he's crucified. We know his followers believe that he appeared to them alive. We know he was buried. And the resurrection proclamations are very, very early. They don't develop later on, as some skeptics claim The resurrection of God is a vindication of his identity himself. While miracles and specific sayings may be debated by scholars, these facts, the fact that he changed the world through people believing that he actually came back from the dead, shows that there's something going on more than just a legend or a myth when people are willing to die for that. So we believe that he did not just speak for God as an ordinary prophet, but he exercised divine authority because he uniquely shares God's identity. His actions are communicated by his identity So our historical question is not limited to whether he said the exact sentence, I am God, worship me. It's more completely by what he did, what he said, his actions, and the authority he claimed, and the understanding of the people that were there with him, Now, traditionally, He would say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences or confirmation of those. Well, Christianity presents the resurrection as that vindication for who he was. So did he actually rise from the dead? That's our third question. This is historically central to our claim. So we understand these facts. Jesus was crucified. Jesus was buried. His followers claimed that he appeared to them alive. And the resurrection proclamations appeared very early in Christian history. This movement transformed the entire world. So his death would have ended the claim he was the Messiah. But nevertheless, his followers soon began to proclaim they saw him, that he's raised, he's enthroned by God, and Paul goes from persecuting the church to becoming its leading missionary. James, the brother of Jesus, raised with him, became a leader in the Jerusalem church. Now scholars do disagree whether the tomb was found empty. How much historical confidence should we place on the gospel narratives? That's the question. What best explains in their mind what produced the disciples' experiences? A few things they go to are deliberate fraud. That suggests that the disciples they completely invented this story. But however, this very poorly explains the apparent sincerity and their willingness to suffer. Legendary development that this developed over time. Well, we talked about that already. The traditions in First Corinthians, written one to five years afterwards, and other accounts that this did not develop later. Now, grief-related visions, that happens a lot. People think they hear the voices of their loved ones, or it's a religious experience, the spirits from beyond the grave, or just that grief of missing someone, can explain some some. Transformation or some thoughts that people are still alive or around, but it doesn't explain sincere conviction, as we mentioned with Paul and James, their lives completely turning around to serve someone whom which they didn't serve previously. They don't explain the entire collection of reported witnesses, the group appearances, or the bodily resurrection language itself. And the empty tomb tradition, when those people were there, they could have found him very easily. And all the Romans or Jewish leaders had to do was find this body, and that would have been it. And then thirdly, or fourthly, rather, a stolen or relocated body. That could happen, right? The reason they couldn't find it was because it was hidden away. And there are stories and accounts that it was taken and buried in the garden in this riverbed sand by the gardener. There are stories and examples of where The disciples came by night and moved it and took it and no one else knows where. and many examples of where it could be different countries, but that doesn't explain the resurrection appearances or the experiences and the transformation of the people around them. And again, why would going back to that first point, deliberate fraud? You might believe a lie and you can talk yourself into a lie, but why would someone be willing to suffer and die for something they completely made up. None of those explanations explain why within a few decades that Christian communities existed throughout Eastern Rome, throughout Rome itself, and began to spread westward very, very quickly and south. Paul goes from persecuting the church to being its most prominent missionary. James becomes a recognized leader over all the Jerusalem church. Peter, James, and Paul, and others endured harsh beatings, imprisonment, torture, martyrs, some of them martyrs' deaths, even. Pastor Adrian Rogers said it this way: He said that. A man may live for a lie, but few, if any, will willingly die for a lie. And I'll take it just one step further. People might die for a belief that is false, but they do not willingly suffer and die for a story they know they invented. There's strong and reliable documentation supporting the martyrdom of James, the son of Zebedee, Peter, Paul, and James, the brother of Jesus. Now I know there are claims that other apostles

might have been martyred also, and they could have been, but there is definitive historical strong cases for these four specifically in the writings that they gave their lives. Paul specifically from the head Judaizer. The Jew of all Jews, in his own words, to change completely to see this man as the Messiah would have taken more than just a small little experience. The resurrection of Christ is the explanation that explains the empty tomb, the reported appearances, the transformation of said witness, like Paul and others, and the sudden proclamation that a crucified man, Jesus, was God's true Messiah. Now, historians can disagree about historical investigation if anyone can ever confirm or affirm a miracle. Some completely, and most do, exclude supernatural explanations as a rule of thumb. Others argue that doing so assumes naturalism before examining the evidence. So we need to make sure that we understand that there are people who won't accept any kind of form of miracle. Although I find it very funny because to be an atheist, to be an agnostic, to believe that the world is created out of nothing, takes at minimum about six supernatural miracles, even to believe that something came from nothing, that then life came from non life. These are all miracle, supernatural jumps that they'll accept by faith, but they won't accept anything else anywhere by miracle proclamation. But I digress from that. the Christian explanation that Jesus Christ bodily rose from the grave under his own power. He said, I will raise up this temple again in three days. His own resurrection power. It was not survival of his spirit. It was not a symbolic saying, He resurrected bodily. And that is the vindication of Jesus Christ, and that He is God Himself. So the Christian argument is very cumulative. It doesn't hinge just on one thing. So if God exists, if God can act within creation, if Jesus made these extraordinary claims about himself, if he was truly crucified, and if the earliest witnesses sincerely believe that he appeared alive afterwards, then the resurrection is a serious candidate for the best explanation, no matter your worldview. Now, the resurrection, keep in mind, is not proven like a mathematical equation. It's not accepted by every historian, obviously. But the resurrection is historically defensible. It hinges, however, on God's existence So the question is not whether it's an extraordinary event, because the resurrection would plainly not be an ordinary event, But explains all the evidence of why Christianity became what it was. Now, in the description, I'm gonna post some further books for studies from authors. That would be a great Reading further on from some atheists and some Christian apologetics, both to show some of the historical evidences on both sides and how some people come to conclusions and either way, but some facts that are agreed upon that you can hinge your conversations on and if nothing else, strengthen your faith in who Jesus was in

his resurrection. Now there are strengths of the classical apologist apologist view it takes the philosophical objections seriously. There are some philosophical arguments. metaphysics, things like that that come through that are not deducible by the scientific method. It takes those seriously and has that conversation with people. It gives the Christian rational tools to discuss those things we can't prove tangibly when we discuss God's existence. It also provides common ground for people who don't believe in scripture. So the Bible is what we rely on. We don't leave the Bible out of our conversations. But the people who will never take a Bible verse seriously will never even consider something that was quoted in the Bible as any source whatsoever. The classical approach to talk about the existence of God can get their minds open to the possibility of accepting scripture. forces competing worldviews. So it forces people to. Take their worldview and compare it to another worldview. It opens some people's eyes to a different way of seeing things. Classical apologetics also show that Christian belief doesn't require the complete abandoning of any reason. It's not faith alone in the sense that there's nothing to back it up. But our faith does not come from those things and those proofs and those evidences. That just reinforces the faith that we have. It can also expose some of the assumptions hidden beneath skeptical arguments. Sometimes the argument is not exactly the question they're asking. Sometimes it's something else. And the philosophical and logical conversation that can be had can derive and pull out that real question that the skeptic may have. And finally, classical apologetics builds a case point by point that is not just dependent upon one perspective only. But it they all come together to fit nicely like a puzzle instead of just having a a one and done example of why this is true. The fine-tuning, the morality, rationality, consciousness, and human experience taken together, those are the five arguments. Those come together in this cumulative case. And while you don't need to know all of them, it's good to know a little bit about most of them. And I would encourage you to read some because you may come into contact with people I have, even long before I studied anything, that want a conversation like this. And some are genuine. Now, we got to be very careful. And this is where we'll conclude this today. Is there are some weaknesses, however. Okay, we don't take this as the one-and-done approach, that's perfect, but there's some dangers and weaknesses. Number one, if you're you're proving the existence of a God that created everything, if you never mention Jesus Christ and the gospel, you have failed. And I say that very seriously because we can get so philosophically argumentative about the existence of a God. And I've seen debate structures do this where it's just so focused on there being a creator God, an uncaused caused, that it never gets around to Jesus Christ and the gospel. Believing in a creator God does not bring anyone into relationship with God. We have to make sure we mention the gospel, bring it back to Jesus Christ. We can also, number two, overstate things that are not necessarily true. statements like the cosmological argument absolutely proves Christianity. Well, it doesn't. We need to say precisely what the argument establishes. Okay, don't make these crazy claims that can be disproven quickly, and then you look kind of silly because then we're left stammering. Well, what what I meant by that was, well, let's let's start with what we meant. Also, don't make unverifiable claims. Like all the apostles died martyrs. That's how we know that his word was true. No, we don't know that all apostles died martyrs' deaths. And a true historian can come back and show you how we don't have evidence for very many of the apostles actually dying truly martyrs' deaths. Third, make reasonable, sorry, make reason supreme. Reason evaluates the arguments. It's not emotional argument. It's not a fact that I think this so much, I believe it with all my heart, I'm gonna emotional. It's it's talking about that reason and logic in a way, in an argument style, in a kind conversation back and forth that talks about human reason and logic, but it never puts human reason or logic above God's revelation. So we could reason arguably or argue reasonably and logically without emotions. But never insisting that our reason is above God's revelation. Reason functions as a servant of the truth. Okay. It's not the final authority over God. It's not over God's word. So keep it within its reason, if you will. Number four, assume every objection is intellectual. All right. When someone asks something like, Why should I believe in God? They may not actually be asking that general question. There may be a hurt. Behind that question. There may be a why did God allow my marriage to fail? Why did God allow my child to die? Why did God allow my grandfather to die of cancer? Why should I believe in a good God when so many bad things are happening? A philosophical syllogism. It may be completely true but completely inappropriate at that moment. So reason behind the question. Find out what they mean by that. Before we begin to just jump into a logical and reasonable defense of what we think they're asking. And fifthly, you don't have to master everything. There's those five approaches we talked about specifically within the classical apologists argument. And there's more you can sub and fine-tune them into. But you don't need to become a specialist in logic and cosmology or philosophy of the mind. Learn enough to understand the argument. And to be able to represent it accurately. Okay, if you're going to get into these conversations, make sure you understand what they are and and never be afraid, as I always tell you, to say, I don't know, to look it up. We have a lot of sources that we can look through now in our age with the internet and our smartphones, that we can look to actual credible sources and historical events and things that we can pull forth when we don't know something. And then know where to send someone who wants to go deeper. Maybe they have more questions, or maybe they they leave the conversation. Say, listen, hey. Hey, if I gave you something, would you would you read this? Would you would you watch this? If I sent you something, because this answer your question better than I can. So remember the point of apologetics in the classical form. Why should a fundamentally mindless universe produce rational, conscious minds capable of discovering truth? Why is there something rather than nothing? Why does the universe appear to be complex and built perfectly for our life. Why are things right and wrong? Why is there something outside of the universe? Or why does there need to be rather something outside of our universe? Well, because science tells us that as well. But when you put all those questions together, which worldview best explains all of these questions? So our approach started with natural theology. If you missed that episode, you can go back one episode in Classical Apologetics Part One and Why is God a better ex explanation for something rather than nothing? And then we talked today about Christian evidences. And there's so much more deep examples and evidences you can read and watch and understand. But remember that this is just a tool to use. The Holy Spirit is always our guide. Christ has to remain the center. Our goal is not to argue with someone and prove God's existence or pull them over to our side of the argument. Our goal is to win them over for Jesus Christ. The Christian claim is the God who created the universe. He's acted in history, he's revealed himself and ultimately made himself known through Jesus Christ. Apologetic serves the gospel. Christ is the center. The Holy Spirit is the one who gives spiritual life. So again, for those who want to dig a little bit deeper into the evidences, I'll link some books for further study in the description. And as always, thanks for listening to Bear Apologetics. And if this episode has helped you deepen your faith or understand more of the role of classical apologetics, give us a like, subscribe, or share it with someone who needs it. Maybe someone who wants these same questions answered. Until next time, keep seeking truth with biblical evidence and reasoning.