Is the Bible a book of myths and fairy tales, or is it a book of history and truth?  This DVD series provides a thorough overview of major archaeological and historical discoveries that demonstrate the veracity and accuracy of the Bible.  This series will help you to respond to critical arguments against the historicity of the Bible with solid evidence, and gain a better understanding of the geography, culture, and history of events in the Bible.

View the trailer and get more information here.

TIME: 7:30pm – 9:00pm

WHERE: Bethlehem Community Church, 183 Moffat Rd, Bethlehem, Tauranga, New Zealand.

FORMAT: 60 minute DVD lessons followed by discussions.  This is the second set of DVD’s from Focus on the Family’s True U series and is presented by Dr Stephen Meyer (author of Signature in the Cell).

COST: Free

Before setting out on the exchange, Malcolm and I both agreed to several rules or guidelines for the debate. One of these was that we would reply to our opponent’s posts within five days. At the time, this sounded like it would afford plenty of opportunity to respond adequately to each other and keep the debate moving swiftly. While writing my opening statement however, I quickly realized that this would be a struggle to maintain. I therefore suggested to Malcolm that if he wanted to take a week or two to write a good response, then this would be fine with me and we could count the original guideline as flexible. Afterall, we are both active people with full, active lives. However, it has now been 5 weeks since I have heard anything from him. Not just a response to my first response, but any communication whatsoever. And so I believe it best that we close the debate and open it up to the readers for their comments.

I thought I would offer four reflections on the debate ending.

First, obviously, is to express my disappointment in having to close the exchange. I was hopeful that this debate would be mutually beneficial. I believe Malcolm’s opening statement was way off the mark in attacking biblical inerrancy rather than the historical case for the resurrection but even so, I found responding to it extremely gratifying. His remarks gave me the motivation and opportunity to do some digging on problematic passages in Scripture, the differences in the two genealogies recorded in the gospels, the traditions regarding the witnesses to the empty tomb, and more. It was fun and I recommend the activity to anyone, Christian or not-Christian: pick a problem in the Bible and do some digging to figure out if the difficulty can be resolved.

I was also disappointed that Malcolm, for whatever reason, has ceased all contact since his opening statement.

Second, I won’t be doing this again with just anyone. If I do decide to debate again, it will preferably be with someone who has some knowledge of the relevant issues and material under discussion and is able to put up a good fight. Ideally, someone with a degree in theology, history or philosophy, but failing that, at least someone who has read a book or two on the subject, and has made some sort of effort to understand the subject area. As I have found typical in other interactions with New Atheists, the level of confidence does not match the level of competence.

Third, any victory that may be attributed to myself does not prove that God raised Jesus from the dead. It does not even prove that I have the best case to show that God raised Jesus from the dead. It just means that, in this instance, Malcolm did not have a comparatively good case to offer, on the assumption of course that he did not default for some other reason.

Fourth, it was a pity there was no case to answer. Malcolm’s opening statement was more along the lines of a first response statement. As I mentioned in my own response to it (the third and apparently knock-out salvo of our exchange), by neglecting to construct a positive case for “the fictional” view, Malcolm was essentially arguing for the negation of my positive case for “the fact” view, which if successful only gives an agnostic position – which is compatible with the Christian account of history. Yet he did agree beforehand, and even clarified a second time, that he would be arguing for the resurrection being a fiction. He also stated as much in his opening statement. But it was not to be.

Lastly, a reminder that the comments on each of the posts in our exchange are now open for public discussion.

William Lane Craig offers historical and Biblical evidence for the conclusion that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Q&A follows the main presentation.

The lecture was delivered at Southampton Civic Hall, on the 2011 UK Reasonable Faith Tour. The tour was sponsored by Damaris Trust, UCCF, and Premier Christian Radio.

‘Original’ Text of the New Testament: A Comedy of Errors?
Tuesday 20 March | 7.30 – 9.00 pm | Followed by a light supper

Before the time of printed books, the New Testament was copied by hand. Errors are easily made and may even undermine the reliability of a text. What sort of things did go wrong in the copying of the Bible? How much deliberate editing was going on? And are the conspiracy theories right this time? We will think about the earliest evidence, look at some of the arguments made by every side, and get an overview of what sort of discussions are currently going on regarding the Greek text of the New Testament. No need to know any Greek.

The Gospels: Which Ones?
Thursday 22 March | 7:30 – 9.00 pm | Followed by a light supper

We have not only the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, we have also some other gospels, which are not part of the Christian New Testament. Among these are the Gospel of Thomas, of Mary, and even the Gospel of Judas. The last one was only re-discovered a few years back. What is there in these gospels, and why do they not form a part of the books the church uses?

Attendance is free but for catering purposes, please RSVP to Anne Segedin (asegedin@laidlaw.ac.nz) by Monday 19 March 2012.

For more info about about Dirk Jongkind, go here.

HT: Stuart

Preliminaries

I would first like to thank Malcolm Trevena for his opening statement responding to my defense of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. I am grateful for the importance he places on the truth of the matter and that he chose to attack my arguments without attacking me. I hope to replicate this gentlemanly manner.

Introduction

To begin I would like to look back and recall my opening statement.

In support of my first contention that there are at least four facts which any adequate historical hypothesis must explain, I offered four facts, namely, the burial of Jesus after his crucifixion, the empty tomb, the post-mortem appearances, and that the disciples radically came to believe that Jesus rose bodily from the dead, and also outlined the reasons why each of those facts are commended to us by the majority of experts in the relevant fields.

In support of my second contention, the hypothesis that God raised Jesus from the dead  is the best explanation of the aforementioned facts, I assessed that hypothesis using the conventional criteria historians use for determining the best explanation.

I concluded that Trevena, in order to establish that the resurrection of Jesus did not occur, in the absence of some overwhelming proof of atheism, must propose an alternative naturalistic explanation of those facts which exceeds the resurrection hypothesis in fulfilling those criteria.

Response to Trevena’s Supposed Arguments for the Fiction of the Resurrection

I will now turn to responding to Trevena’s opening statement and the adequacy of his arguments.

Trevena has not proposed a naturalistic alternative to the resurrection hypothesis in order to explain the facts that form the historical bedrock. In failing to do so he has merely argued for the agnostic position: that we should not believe Jesus rose from the dead on historical grounds. Unfortunately for him, this position is consistent with Christian belief, and even consistent with the resurrection of Jesus being an historical, albeit an indeterminate historical, event.

Neither has Trevena specifically disputed any of those four facts. Instead he has cast general aspersions on the reliability of the Gospels. Presumably, this was in order to cast doubt on the reliability of those four facts. He says,

Mr. McEwing’s entire proof of the resurrection of Jesus is entirely based on the assumption that the Bible is a true and accurate account of events that occurred…

This is incorrect. The proof for the resurrection of Jesus comes in the stage where we assess and weigh different hypotheses according to the criteria for the best explanation. But more importantly, the historicity of those four facts are not established by assuming that the scriptures are true and accurate. (Neither were they assumed to be sacred or reliable.) The Bible, the New Testament, the Gospels, and even the resurrection narratives therein, may be riddled with contradictions and unresolvable difficulties, yet the historicity of those four facts would still form solid historical bedrock that begs for explanation. This is because I used the tools and rules common to any historical research project. Such tools and rules include; multiple, independent and early attestation, enemy attestation, embarrassment, dissimilarity, semitisms, frequency, coherence, etc., each of which are “Signs of Authenticity” which serve to uncover kernels of historical information.[1]

Thus, the charge that my case for the resurrection is based entirely on the Bible’s accuracy and truthfulness is false. This also means that the many examples of biblical difficulties that Trevena supplies, even if they cannot be resolved or harmonized (which I do not grant), are irrelevant to my case: to my argument they are Red Herrings.[2] Someone who has a very low view of the Bible, who disbelieves in scriptural inspiration and inerrancy, is able to accept the four facts I presented.

If we are to take Travena’s position in this debate (that the resurrection of Jesus is fiction) seriously, we must insist he deals directly with those facts.

Although the apparent contradictions and difficulties that Trevena mentions are Red Herrings to my argument, because he has chosen to give these pride of place in his argument, and because I believe these contradictions and difficulties do not represent insurmountable problems for the defender of biblical inerrancy, I nevertheless should like to address each. Before doing so I will address this first point of disagreement in order to clarify what my argument achieves.

Let’s Be Clear: What my Case Purports to Show

Trevena states “Let me be clear about what we are not debated [sic].” His following musings are not altogether clear. He states,

Let’s say that Mr. McEwing is 100% correct and Jesus had a literal resurrection. It would not mean that his paternity was divine,[3] it would not prove that his moral teachings were true, or that he was born of a virgin. I could grant Mr. McEwing all the miracles of the Bible, and it would not be true that Christianity is the One True Faith™ and that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Take note again of my second contention: that the hypothesis God raised Jesus from the dead is the best explanation of the four historical facts. Though my case for the resurrection is consistent with many other Christian doctrines being true, including the divinity of Christ and consequently the virtue of his teachings, it does not undertake to argue for them. It is a case for the resurrection. Strange then that Trevena would feel obliged to mention these other doctrines.

Technically, it is a case for the historicity of the resurrection, and not for the fact of the resurrection.[4] This methodological hair-splitting, I think, is no slight on my case, for all historical conclusions are similar. What the historical method does is present the reader with the best explanation and leaves the extra philosophical assumption, that the best explanation is most likely the true explanation, up to him or her as the natural next-step.

I do believe however, contrary to Trevena, that a good case can be made for thinking the rest of Christianity does follow if the resurrection hypothesis is the true explanation.

Does Christiantiy follow from the Resurrection of Jesus?

The resurrection is significant because its not just anyone being raised from the dead and did not take place in a vacuum, but comes within a religio-cultural context at the climax of a unparallelled life. Jesus of Nazereth was a teacher who arrived onto the scene with an unprecedented sense of authority proclaiming the in-breaking kingdom of God with what was understood to be miracles, healings and excorcism. His a radical self-conception as the vanguard and representative of that kingdom; to be the promised Messiah, the unique Son of God, the Danielic Son of Man, as standing in the place of God; inaugurating a new Israel, believing he was able to forgive people’s sins, and that people’s eternal destiny hinged on their response to him.

Horst Georg Pöhlmann notes the consensus of this implicit Christological self-understanding in historical Jesus research, and concludes, “with regard to Jesus there are only two possible modes of behaviour: either to believe that in him God encounters us or to nail him to the cross as a blasphemer. Tertium non datur.”[5]

Its difficult to overstate the tragedy of the cross for the disciples. Their Rabbi was dead. Crucified on the basis of his blasphemous personal claims, according to Jewish thinking Jesus was literally accursed by God. For them, the options are either go home, or find another messiah. Since the conception of resurrection for them is only at the end of the age when the all the righteous saints are raised to new life and justified by God, the resurrection of Jesus is imbued with religious significance. It arrives as no random event, but as a vindication of those personal claims: a divine imprimatur as it were, which then ushers in an era of relating to Jesus as God, of salvation through him and by extension, the apostolic teachings of the New Testament. [6]

When the religio-cultural context and Jesus’ radical self-conception is taken into account, it is a very short step to the rest of Christianity, especially in the absence of any hypothesis which exceeds the resurrection hypothesis in fulfilling the conditions for the best explanation. But even if this small step is not taken, the power of my case is still evident, for; it shows that the resurrection hypothesis is the best explanation, it makes the existence of God more probable, it shuts the mouths of uninformed skeptics claiming its a fiction, and reveals that the rational person cannot be blamed for believing God raised Jesus from the dead.

The Reliability of the Gospels

I now turn to the entirely irrelevant digs on the reliability of the Gospels. Space restrictions do not permit a thorough treatment, so I will focus on those with most the topical appeal. For an answer to the difficulties of the differences in genealogies of Jesus and the hares not chewing cud see the appended material.

Jesus’ Death

The difficulty with two scriptures given (Lk. 23:46; Jn. 19:30) is not an indictment on the historicity of the death of Jesus as is suggested by the subtitle. Rather, it is an alleged contradiction on the final words of Jesus. This is a minor detail historically speaking, and is of relatively small theological consequence if granted. Historically speaking, and vital to any case for the resurrection of Jesus, is the fact that Jesus died and we have these two independent, relatively early sources[7] that attest to it. But if we understand that it is characteristic of the genre of ancient biography to employ summary statements and time-telescoping, then the difficulty evaporates.

The Resurrection of Jesus

The difficulty drawn here is once again not the difficulty suggested by the subtitle, but is with respect to the amount of women at the empty tomb and the various circumstances that occurred there (see Mt. 28:1-10; Mk.16:1-8; Lk. 24:1-12; Jn 20:1-18). The alleged contradictions here once again do not affect my case, since what is important to the historicity of the resurrection is that the tomb was empty and that it was women who were the discoverers of the empty tomb. All four sources are in agreement on these two things.

Its worth noting that small differences like these are typically evidence in favour different accounts being independent testimony and thus more probably historical. Police reports which are identical are generally considered to be evidence of collusion and thus concealing falsehoods. The Gospels may differ in the details, but show agreement in the core facts.

Trevena opines these accounts “can’t all be true,” but draws no explicit contradictions between them. A careful reading suggests a variety of plausible reconstructions of the events that first Easter Sunday.[8]

The Rising of the Saints

The difficulty in Matthew 27:50-53 is of a different variety. Trevena complains that an event so unusual as this, had it occurred would have been be recorded in many extra-biblical sources, especially since the largely illiterate peoples of the Middle East managed to record the teachings, birth and resurrection of Christ. Implied here is an augment from silence (argumentum e silentio) against the historicity of the rising of the saints. Though the assumption (that it would be recorded in many extra-biblical sources) itself is dubious, the entire difficulty evaporates if the rising of the saints is intended by the author to be an apocalyptic symbol. Since this option remains consistent with the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy and taken seriously be a variety of evangelical scholars, we can be thoroughly open as to how to interpret this passage and to think about it’s historicity if a literal interpretation is preferred.[9]

What is interesting here is that Trevena implicitly admits multiple, extra-biblical accounts will exist if an event truly occurred. Given this he should have no trouble admitting the fourth fact of the disciples belief that God raised Jesus from the dead. Additionally, since the bias for accepting the biblical accounts as valuable source material is at this stage completely unjustified, there should be no trouble accepting the other three facts: the burial, the empty tomb and post-mortem appearances, as all of these are abundantly and independently attested.

Summary

To sum up I must insist that Trevena deals with the four historical facts on offer directly, instead of irrelevant generalities on the reliability of the Gospels. We are engaged in a debate on their resurrection of Jesus–not biblical inerrancy. If he is to continue to spouse the position that the resurrection of Jesus is a fiction, I must also insist that he propose a naturalistic account of those facts so he can shift from the agnostic position consistent with Christianity he has been defending. On pain of rationality, such a naturalistic account should outstrip the resurrection hypothesis in fulfilling the conditions for the best explanation. In the absence of an overwhelming argument for atheism, I think the Christian is doubly warranted in believing God raised Jesus from the dead.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Appendices 

Comparing the Genealogies of Jesus

As I have already noted, difficulties like this could be totally irreconcilable yet would still not effect my case for resurrection of Jesus. Further, these genealogies are not tied to the resurrection narratives, and less so are they tied to the creedal material quoted by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:3-5.

As noted by Trevena the two genealogies (Mt. 1:1-17; Lk. 3:23-38) are different between David and Joseph. The most commonly accepted suggestion accounting for this difference is that Matthew is tracing the legal descent of Jesus (naturally terminating with Abraham who received the covenant that “through your seed all nations on earth will be blessed,” Gen. 22:18) moving from David to Solomon (Mt. 1:6; 2 Sa. 12:24), while Luke is tracing the physical descent of Jesus (naturally terminating in Adam, the first man) moving from David to Nathan, a little known son of David (Luke 3:31; 2 Sa. 5:14). The lineages diverge at David and converge at Joseph, who is the legal son of Jacob (Mt. 1:16) and the physical son of Heli (Lk. 3:23) by a levirate marriage (Deut. 25:5-10; cf. Gen. 38:8; Ruth 4:4-6), meaning Heli and Jacob were brothers. Interestingly, the Matthean genealogy uses the Greek word egennesen, which denotes being “begotten”, while the Lukan genealogy does not, translating descendants as “the son of.” Thus there is no contradiction in the genealogies, since it’s impossible for two men to beget the same child, but it is possible for the same child to be “the son of” two men: the natural son of Heli and the legal son of Jacob. To explain Jacob and Heli’s different linages the Roman historian Eusebius (c. 263–339 A.D.) states,

Matthan, whose descent is traced to Solomon, begot Jacob, Matthan dying, Matthat, whose lineage is from Nathan, by marrying the widow of the former, had Heli. Hence, Heli and Jacob were brothers by the same mother.[1]

This solution is handed down to us in his Ecclesiastical History (c. 325) who received it from the Epistle to Aristides by Sextus Julius Africanus (c. 160–c. 240), who was himself drawing on earlier tradition.[2]

[1] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Bk. 1: Ch. 7.

[2] Africanus gives the name of Jacob and Matthan’s mother, “By Estha, then—for such is her name according to tradition—Matthan first, the descendant of Solomon, begets Jacob; and on Matthan’s death, Melchi, who traces his descent back to Nathan, being of the same tribe but of another family, having married her, as has been already said, had a son Heli” [italics mine]. See The Extant Writings of Julius Africanus: The Epistle to Aristides, ch. 3.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

Hares that chew the cud

Trevena correctly states that hares do not chew the cud, while Lev. 11:16 states they do. Its important to realise that the list of clean and unclean animals here is not a twenty-first century science textbook intending to teach animal biology. It is intended as a practical guide for the ancient Israelite in selecting clean foods. Because the hare chews its food in a manner that looks like it chews the cud, it was necessary to point out that the hare is still unclean since the hoof is not divided. As are descriptions of the sun rising and setting, this description is technically incorrect but functionally useful. Insistence that these sort of factual inaccuracies represent a failure of the reliability of the text are dependent on ignorance of the genre, audience and purpose of the text.

To dispel the charge altogether, one need only assert that Hebrew phrase “chewing the cud” should not be understood in the modern technical sense, but in the ancient sense of a chewing motion that includes both rumination and refection in the modern sense.[1]

[1] See Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 89-90.

Thanks to Stuart McEwing for the chance to respond to the premise on the truth or lack thereof of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Why would I state that I don’t think Jesus was resurrected?  Is this a question that should even be debated in the first place?  Am I the Devil himself for even entertaining the thought?

There is a truth out there in the universe.  Either Jesus was or was not resurrected.  Mr. McEwing is either 100% correct or 100% wrong.  There is no middle ground here.

I happen to value truth very highly and think it is worth pursuing.   Nothing should be off the table.  If someone says “Muhammad ascended to heaven on a winged horse, and that is that. There shall be no further debate”, then they have automatically disqualified themselves from any sensible debate and it is best if they quietly remove themselves from the room.

Let me be clear about what we are not debating. Let’s say that Mr. McEwing is 100% correct and Jesus had a literal resurrection.  What would this mean?  It would not mean that his paternity was divine, it would not prove that his moral teachings were true, or that he was born of a virgin.  I could grant Mr. McEwing all the miracles of the Bible, and it would not be true that Christianity is the One True Faith™ and that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Mr. McEwing’s entire proof of the resurrection of Jesus is entirely based on the assumption that the Bible is a true and accurate account of events that occurred in a largely illiterate part of an underdeveloped part of the Middle East.  One wonders why God would choose such a place.  Surely the highly literate parts of China would be a better choice.  Or even in modern times where news of his resurrection would be tweeted around the planet in a heartbeat.  Israel in 4BC had no mass communication, as Judas so accurately sums up in the musical Jesus Christ Superstar.

Can we take the Bible as an accurate account of the time as recorded by a few literate people some 30 years after the events themselves?  Any fair minded individual would surely say no.

Let’s have a look at several examples.

The Genealogy of Jesus.
The gospels of Luke and Mathew both record Jesus’s genealogy.  These lists are identical between Abraham and David, but they differ radically from that point onward.  What are we to make of this?  Are Luke and Mathew sloppy historians?  Or did they make stuff up?  Which one is correct? Is either one correct?
One wonders why God would allow such errors in his divine book, especially when they record his own son’s genealogy.

Jesus’ Death
Luke 23:46 states: “And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.”

John 19:30 states: “When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.”

So which was it? What did he say? This event is critical to the Christian belief system.  Without Jesus’ death, there is no resurrection, without the resurrection there is no salvation.  If the historians cannot accurately record Jesus’ final dramatic words, what faith can we place in the accuracy of their recordings of other things he said?

One wonders why God would allow such errors in his divine book, especially when they record his own son’s death.

The Resurrection of Jesus
According to the gospel of Mark, three women (Mary the mother of James, and Salome) were present at the tomb of Jesus, were surprised at the tomb being empty, and were even more surprised when Jesus was hanging out inside.

According to the gospel of Mathew, two women (Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary) came to look at the tomb.  Accompanied by an earthquake, an angel comes down from Heaven and rolls the rock aside from the tomb.  Jesus reveals himself

According to gospel of Luke, a number of women (Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and others) come to anoint Jesus’ body. The stone is rolled aside and two men are inside.  The men tell them that Jesus is risen.

According to the gospel of John, only Mary Magdalene visits the tomb and finds the stone rolled away.  Mary sees two angels and then Jesus, whom she does not recognize

What are we to make of these wildly different accounts?  They can’t all be true.

One wonders why God would allow such errors in his divine book, especially when they record his own son’s resurrection.
There are even factually inaccurate statements in the bible.  Lev 11:6 states “And the hare, because he cheweth the cud…”.  Hare’s do no chew their cud.

I could go on about the inaccuracies in the Bible, but I shan’t as it gets tedious after a while.

So any argument based on quoting scripture does not convince me, especially when there is no consistent narrative about the very key stones of the Christian faith.

But let’s grant Mr. McEwing his implied statement that the Bible is a true and accurate account of history.
If the bible is true, then the events recorded within are of an earth shattering consequence.

Let’s take a look at Matthew 27:50-53:

And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.   At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

Whoa…  That’s trippy.

Dead people rose from the tomb and – in a dramatic break with tradition – did not eat people’s brains, but merely appeared to many people.

The largely illiterate people of the Middle East managed to record the teachings, birth, and resurrection of Christ, surely there’ll be extensive accounts of these zombie sightings outside of the Bible.

I’d love to read these texts, but – alas – none exist.

For Mr. McEwing to convince me to the validity of Christ’s resurrection, he would need to convince me that:

• The Bible is a true and accurate record of the time.
• Explain why God would allow his holy book to contain such glaring contradictions
• Explain why the remarkable event of dead-men-walking is not recorded in any other historic book of the time.

The very definition of blind faith.

In reply, “Tom Joad” said:

To that, I would just say that you would expect there to be a natural explanation for unexpected events, or ‘miracles.’ In the absence of an obvious explanation, it would be a fantastically interesting process to find out what the actual cause was.

Since the comments in the previous thread have now closed automatically, let me pick up the conversation here.

Why is Tom applying such a different standard to himself as he’d apply to religious people? And why does this seem to happen so frequently with skeptics?

For example, skeptics often take issue with phenomena like “speaking in tongues” and “faith healings” and the like—which you’ll find in many happy-clappy churches, particularly in America.

They point out that these phenomena can be reproduced in non-religious settings, as well as in competing religious settings (Hinduism for example). Moreover, they can be thoroughly explained by neurology, and therefore a supernatural explanation is at best superfluous.

So they criticize Christians who believe that these events are “works of the Spirit” on two grounds: firstly, all the evidence points to a naturalistic explanation; secondly, the Christian’s supernaturalistic explanation is too exclusive to account for all the instances of this phenomenon.

Thus skeptics hold that it is irrational to favor a supernatural explanation over a natural one here.

But now compare this to Tom’s comments about miracles, and notice the double standard.

When it comes to a situation where the roles are reversed and all the evidence points to a supernatural explanation, while a naturalistic one is untenable, he seems to think that it is not only rational, but entirely reasonable to believe there still is a naturalistic explanation.

And he goes on to make some comments about the supposedly unreasonable nature of faith, inasmuch as if some particular miracle is discredited, “for 99% of Christians, this disproof of a supposed miracle would do nothing to dissuade their faith.” The implication, of course, being that a discredited miracle ought to give Christians occasion to reevaluate their faith.

But why? Notice again the double standard. Imagine if some element of evolution were discredited—indeed, this happens all the time as part of the scientific process. Does Tom think these occasions should cause him to reevaluate his belief in evolution? Are they likely to dissuade him from from that belief?

Of course not.

So why expect that of Christians? Since the faith of 99% of Christians doesn’t rest on some random miracle, but on a wide variety of evidences, it would be quite unreasonable to think that discrediting a random miracle would have any effect whatsoever on their faith.

Why do skeptics have such a hard time applying the same standards of evidence to themselves as they think are reasonable for Christians? I don’t know. Perhaps some skeptics could enlighten me in the comments.

It’s easy to go through life without asking the hard questions about what we believe and why. But when faced with a tragedy or the searching questions of a skeptic, we can feel defenseless and unprepared. It’s only when we patiently listen to our doubts and consider objections to our faith that we can start to provide grounds for our beliefs and understand others who doubt.

Join us in February to hear from incredible speakers including Sean McDowell, Jeff Tallon, and Tim McGrew as we consider some of the toughest questions about Christianity. The conference will provide a full day of sessions, breakouts, lunch, and a panel discussion. Whether you are a high school student, at university, or simply interested in understanding more about the reasons for Christianity, we encourage you to come. Youth pastors, student leaders, and parents are also welcome.

WHEN:  Saturday, February 18  (10am- 4.30pm)
WHERE: Greenlane Christian Centre, 17 Marewa Rd, Greenlane, Auckland
COST: $10

Schedule:

10am Registration

10.30am Jeff Tallon – Is Science a Threat to Faith?

11.30am Sean McDowell (via skype) – Is Faith Blind?

12.15pm Lunch

1pm Breakout Sessions

Stream 1: Is morality relative and does it matter? – Matt Flannagan
Stream 2: How can one religion be “right” and the others “wrong”? – Trevor Mander
Stream 3: Why doesn’t God do something about the evil in the world? – Ben Carswell
Stream 4: Does God get angry when we doubt? – Jason Kumar and Dominic Bnonn Tennant

1.45pm Breakout Sessions (repeated)

2.30pm Tim McGrew (via skype) – Is the Bible Reliable?

3.30pm Q & A Panel – Ben Carswell, Jeff Tallon, Matt Flannagan, and Trevor Mander

Speakers:

• 
  

  Sean McDowell

  Sean is the founder and president of Worldview ministries, and a well known Christian educator, author, and apologist. He has a passion for reaching the younger generation with the gospel message, and has spoken for organizations such as Focus on the Family, the Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview, and Campus Crusade for Christ. He is the editor of the Apologetics Study Bible for Students, and has authored several books including Is God just a Human Invention? (with Jonathan Morrow) and ethiX: Being Bold in a Whatever World.

• 
  

  Jeff Tallon

  Jeff is Distinguished Scientist at Industrial Research Ltd and a former Professor of Physics at Victoria University. He is internationally known for his research in high-temperature superconductors, is a Fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand and in 2002 was awarded the Rutherford Medal, New Zealand’s highest science award.

• 
  

  Tim McGrew

  Tim is Professor of Philosophy at Western Michigan University. He is a world-class philosopher and apologist who has written and spoken extensively on the topic of miracles, the reliability of the New Testament, and the intellectual grounds for faith.

• 
  

  Matt Flannagan

  Matt is a theologian and prominent New Zealand Christian commentator, debater and blogger. He specialises in applied ethics and the interface between philosophy and theology. Currently, Matt works part-time as a teaching pastor and youth group leader for Takanini Church of Christ while he runs the popular blog MandM with his wife Madeleine.

• 
  

  Trevor Mander

  Trevor holds a Masters of Divinity and is one of New Zealand’s foremost Christian Apologists. He has a unique ability to communicate complex concepts while making them easy to understand with humour and enthusiasm.

Hosted in conjunction with the Evangelical Union and Tertiary Students Christian Fellowship.

Conference Page: thinkingmatters.org.nz/conference

Facebook Event Page: Facebook.com