Auckland Event Series: Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?

Billions profess to believe in the historical existence, death, and supernatural resurrection of Jesus.  Should such claims be believed on “blind faith” or are there good reasons for believing the resurrection is the most fantastic fact of history?

In July and August, The Upper Room is organizing a series of events on the evidence for the resurrection. Christianity stands or falls on the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. Without it, our faith is merely one religion among many. If you’re someone who would like to get better acquainted with not just the reasons for why Christianity is rational, but why Christianity offers ultimate hope for the human condition, we’d encourage to attend.

Series Program:

– Concise Outline of Evidence for the Resurrection
Tuesday 24 July, 7.30pm

– The Case for Christ with Lee Strobel
(DVD screening followed by discussion)
Tuesday 31 July, 7.30pm

– Deeper Investigation of the Evidence (Part 1)
Tuesday 7 August, 7.30pm

– Deeper Investigation of the Evidence (Part 2)
Tuesday 14 August, 7.30pm

– Deeper Investigation of the Evidence (Part 3)
Tuesday 21 August, 7.30pm

– Debate: Did Jesus Rise from the dead? Dr Gerd Ludemann vs Dr William Lane Craig
(DVD screening followed by discussion)
Tuesday 28 August, 7.30pm

All events are without cost. The Upper Room is located at 10a Clayton Street, Newmarket. Visit their website here.

[pk_google_maps title=”” map_height=”400″ map_url=”,174.787738&spn=0.006009,0.00751&z=16&source=embed”]

Does God Exist? Lenny Esposito vs Richard Carrier

Come to Reason Ministries have posted the audio from the debate between apologist Lenny Esposito and atheist Richard Carrier:

[pk_icon_text icon=”download” icon_type=”dark”] Part 1

[pk_icon_text icon=”download” icon_type=”dark”]Part 2

(If you’re having trouble accessing the audio, you may need to like the Come to Reason Facebook page). The exchange took place on Wednesday, May 23, at the University of California.

Lenny Esposito is president and founder of Come to Reason Ministries. He is a contributor to the popular Apologetics Study Bible for Students and has written articles that have appeared in The Los Angeles Times and the Southern California Christian Times.


Richard Carrier is a historian and philosopher, specializing in the philosophy of naturalism and the intellectual history of Greece and Rome. He is the author of several books including Why I Am Not a Christian: Four Conclusive Reasons to Reject the Faith and Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism.


Did God Change His Mind? Understanding OT Ethical Standards and the Role of the Mosaic Law

In the latest issue of the Enrichment Journal, Professor Paul Copan has an excellent response to the New Atheist claim that the God of the Old Testament is evil (also see his article on whether God is just a crutch for the weak). In the essay, Copan also deals with the Mosaic Law and the mistaken assumption that it presents a normative pattern for the consistent Bible believer. Since the topic of the Bible’s evolving ethical standards has recently come up on the blog, I thought it would be worth quoting Copan’s comments here:

[pk_box width=”600″ align=”center” text_align=”left”]

First, we are not to equate Mosaic legislation with the moral. Laws are often a compromise between the ideal and the enforceable. The Mosaic Law is truly a moral improvement on the surrounding ANE cultures — justifiably called “spiritual” and “good” (Romans 7:14,16) and reflective of Yahweh’s wisdom (Deuteronomy 6:5–8). Yet it is self-confessedly less than ideal. Contrary to New Atheists’ assumptions, the Law is not the permanent, fixed theocratic standard for all nations.

Polygamy, for instance, is practiced — contrary to God’s ideals in Genesis 2:24 and contrary to the prohibition in Leviticus 18:18 — perhaps in part because its prohibition would have been difficult to enforce, even if the biblical writers hoped for something better (cp. Deuteronomy 17:17; 1 Kings 11:3). Like divorce and other inferior moral conditions (cp. Matthew 19:8), polygamy was tolerated rather than upheld as an ultimate moral standard.

Second, the Mosaic law reveals God’s forbearance because of human hard-heartedness. Matthew 19:8 indicates that divorce was permitted — not commanded — because of hard hearts; it was not so “from the beginning.” The same can be said of a strong patriarchalism, slavery, and warfare common in the ANE context; these are in violation of Genesis 1,2’s creational ideals. Rather than banishing all evil social structures, Sinaitic legislation frequently assumes the practical facts of fallen human culture while pointing Israel to God’s greater designs for humanity.

God shows shows remarkable forbearance in the OT: “He passed over the sins previously committed” (Romans 3:25, NASB); elsewhere Paul declares: “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead” (Acts 17:30,31, NASB). In the OT, God puts up with sinful human structures as less-than-ideal.

Third, the Mosaic Law — an improved, more-humanized legislation — attempts to restrain and control an inferior moral mindset without completely abolishing these negative structures. While negative aspects of slavery are retained, slaves achieve astonishing rights in contrast to the rest of the ANE. Even so, Deuternomy 15 expresses the hopeful goal of eventually eradicating slavery while both (a) diminishing the staying power of slavery in light of the exodus and (b) controlling the institution of slavery in light of the practical fact misfortune in a subsistence culture could reduce anyone to poverty and indebtedness.19

The same kind of progression is evident in legislation regarding women, primogeniture, and the like.

Fourth, the Mosaic Law contains seeds for moral growth, offering glimmers of light pointing to a higher moral path. Yes, God prohibits worship of other gods, but His ultimate desire is that His people love Him wholeheartedly. Love is not reducible to the Law’s restraining influence, and enjoying God’s presence is not identical to idol-avoidance.

The model of Yahweh’s character and saving action is embedded within and surrounding Israel’s legislation — a “compassionate drift” in the Law, which includes protection for the weak, especially those who lacked the natural protection of family and land (namely, widows, orphans, Levites, immigrants and resident aliens); justice for the poor; impartiality in the courts; generosity at harvest time and in general economic life; respect for persons and property, even of an enemy; sensitivity to the dignity even of the debtor; special care for strangers and immigrants; considerate treatment of the disabled; prompt payment of wages earned by hired labor; sensitivity over articles taken in pledge; consideration for people in early marriage, or in bereavement; even care for animals, domestic and wild, and for fruit trees.20

In their zealous preoccupation with the negative in OT ethics, New Atheists neglect these warm undertones in the Law of Moses itself, exemplified in Yahweh’s gracious, compassionate character and His saving action.

Fifth, the Mosaic Law contains an inherent planned obsolescence, which is to be fulfilled in Christ. Despite the significant moral advances at Sinai, the Law is not the final word. God promised a new covenant that would progress beyond the old (e.g., Jeremiah 31; Ezekiel 36,37). According to Hebrews, Jesus brings “substance” to the OT’s “shadows,” fully embodying humanity’s and Israel’s story. Thus, stopping at OT texts without allowing Christ — the second Adam and the new, true Israel — to illuminate them, our reading and interpretation of the OT will be greatly impoverished. If the NT brings out more fully the heart of God, then we must not let the “tail” (the OT) wag the “dog” (the NT) as the New Atheists commonly do.


Read the rest of the essay here.

Things Which Ought to Be Better Known about the Resurrection of Jesus

Dr Peter Williams discusses the evidence for the resurrection at the Lanier Theological Library (Houston, Texas) on April 7th. Dr Williams is Warden of Tyndale House and a member of the Faculty of Divinity at the University of Cambridge.

HT: Justin Taylor

Is God Just a Psychological Crutch for the Weak?

Paul Copan:

[pk_box width=”600″ align=”center” text_align=”left”]1. Freud himself acknowledged that his “psychoanalysis” of religion had no supporting clinical evidence.
2. The argument commits the genetic fallacy, which is the error of attributing truth or falsehood to a belief based on its origin or genesis.
3. We need to distinguish between the rationality of belief and the psychology of belief.
4. It is odd and arbitrary to claim that whatever brings comfort and solace is false.
5. The incurably religious nature of human beings could just as likely indicate a divinely placed void that only God can fill.
6. A comforting father figure, while unique to the biblical faith, is not at the heart of the other world religions.
7. The attempt to psychologize believers applies more readily to the hardened atheist. [/pk_box]

Read the whole article and Copan’s explanation of each point here.