Kam Weng Ng

Encounters With the Risen Christ and the Nature of His Resurrected Body. BADR Part 10

Encounters With the Risen Christ and the Nature of His Resurrected Body. BADR Part 10

Question. What is the nature of appearances of the risen Jesus and the nature of his resurrected body?

A. Nature of the Appearances
The initiative in the resurrection appearances always rested with Jesus.
They occurred to several individuals. Some appearances were to a single person; one was to a group of five hundred. They are reported to have taken place during a very specific period of forty days.

Ophthe, which means “he appeared.” This term probably implies seeing something which was objectively present outside the mind of the observer. Phaneroo, “reveal,” as in John 21:1, “Jesus revealed himself”; Harao, in its aorist passive form ophthe – permitted to become visible (Acts 1:3a), (“God permitted him) to become visible” (Acts 10:40).

The writers of the Gospels and Paul agree that Jesus appeared in bodily form. But Jesus’ body is no longer bound by space & time. Finally, there was a continuity between Christ’s body before the resurrection and his mode of existence after the resurrection.

B. Nature of Christ’s Resurrection Body
His body made impressions on physical senses.
Jesus’ body is no longer bound by material or spatial limitations. It has new powers diff. from his earlier, natural body. It belongs to a different order of reality. Jesus’ body is both materialistic and non-materialistic.

You may view the video at:
Encounters With the Risen Christ and the Nature of His Resurrected Body. BADR 10

Is the Trinity Monotheism? Dr. Ali Ataie vs. Dr. Joshua Sijuwade. A Debate hosted by Blogging Theology

Debate: Is the Trinity Monotheism?

Joshua Sijuwade’s philosophical model of the Trinity is sophisticated and impressive. His analytical model of the Trinity is logically coherent, but as any logician or mathematician knows, one can always construct a consistent philosophical (or mathematical) system based on a chosen set of definitions, assumptions or axioms (so long as it does not claim completeness). More importantly, theoretical models, however sophisticated or coherent, must be grounded in historical reality and divine revelation. In this regard, viewers of the debate need to be convinced that Sijuwade’s splendid system of philosophical trinitarianism is consistent with biblical revelation and the Trinitarian doctrine which was framed in the Nicene Creed (AD 325, 381).

Ali Ataie suggests that the chart or Trinitarian scheme presented by Sijuwade is a form of Sabellianism. He also refers to Origen to suggest that Sijuwade’s monarchical model is not exactly (classical) Trinitarian since his model implies that only the Father has aseity, but not the Son or the Holy Spirit. Even then the Father’s aseity is not intrinsic (which is evidence that Ali does not fully understand the meaning of such a fundamental concept as aseity). Ali even argues that the Father cannot be fundamental since his identity as Father is dependent on another person outside of himself. Sijuwade needs demonstrate how Ali’s misrepresentation and concerns were already addressed by the theological concepts used in the Nicene formulation of the Trinity such as “substance and persons” (subsistent relations) within the Trinity, eternal generation of the Son, perichoresis, divine persons and missions etc. and show how his philosophical model of the Trinity is consistent with the “grammar” of Nicene doctrine of the Trinity. Since Sijuwade did not ground his abstract Trinitarian model on the history of the Nicene Trinitarian debate and later Christian trinitarian tradition, he was easily (or deliberately) misunderstood to be defending neither the foundational monotheism of the Bible nor the Trinitarian implicate of the incarnational revelation of Christ. Ali shrewdly exploited the lacuna in Sijuwade’s presentation to undermine his argument. Continue reading “Is the Trinity Monotheism? Dr. Ali Ataie vs. Dr. Joshua Sijuwade. A Debate hosted by Blogging Theology”

Basic Facts about the Virgin Birth of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew and Luke

[I believe] in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord; Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit; Born of the Virgin Mary. The Apostles’ Creed.

Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us). Matthew 1:23

Mary was a virgin when she was pregnant with Jesus (Matt. 1:18, 25; Lk. 1:27, 34) and he was conceived through the special work of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:20; Lk. 1:35).

How could Mary have a child if she did not yet have a husband and the sexual intimacy that comes with marriage? The biblical response is that God caused the pregnancy and that nothing is impossible with God (Lk. 1:37). This simple phrase nicely summarizes the crux of the debate about the credibility of the virginal conception. A person’s belief or unbelief in the virginal conception rests chiefly on whether they believe in God and his ability to create life in whatever manner he chooses. Accordingly, people often reject the virginal conception because of presuppositions that doubt or limit God’s activity in the world… Continue reading “Basic Facts about the Virgin Birth of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew and Luke”

Supplementary Maps and Charts for Kairos Podcast on Harmonizing the Resurrection Accounts BADR9

The above PowerPoint the supplementary document for Kairos Video Podcast –
Harmonizing Alleged Discrepancies Between the Resurrection Accounts of the Four Gospels. BADR 9

The Empty Tomb: Inadequate Alternative Explanations. BADR Part 8

The Empty Tomb: Inadequate Alternative Explanations. BADR Part 8

Question – Critics have offered other theories to explain the empty tomb of Jesus. Why are these alternative theories not plausible?

1) Swoon or Apparent Death Theory: Jesus did not die.
But the Roman executioners were “professionals” who were thorough in verifying Jesus’ death.

2) Conspiracy & Theft Theory: The disciples stole the body and claimed that He rose from the dead.
But conspiracy is always executed for selfish advantage and the disciples were persecuted and imprisoned for their claims. Conspiracy theory about the resurrection violates all known psychological laws of lying.

3) Hallucination Theory: All of Christ’s post-resurrection appearances were really hallucinations.
But hallucination only visits the prepared mind. The disciples were not psychologically predisposed and did not expect Jesus to rise from the dead. Critics only needed to point to the body of Jesus in his tomb to refute the disciples.

You can view the video at:
The Empty Tomb: Inadequate Alternative Explanations. BADR Part 8

Next video – Harmonizing Alleged Discrepancies Between the Resurrection Accounts of the Four Gospels. BADR 9

Converging Historical Evidence for the Empty Tomb of Jesus. BADR 7

Converging Historical Evidence for the Empty Tomb of Jesus. BADR 7

Question: What are the facts surrounding the resurrection of Jesus?
The converging historical evidence and argument for the empty tomb is compelling.

1) Jesus was dead – crucified.
2) The disciples did not expect Jesus to die and were not prepared when it happened.
3) The transformation of the disciples from despair to confidence & certainty.
4) The tomb was empty
5) The disciples proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem where critics could easily verify or refute the disciples’ testimony.

You can view the video at:
Converging Historical Evidence for the Empty Tomb of Jesus. BADR 7

Authenticity and Coherence of Gospel Witnesses – The Resurrection Evidence is Well-Founded. BADR Part 6

Authenticity and Coherence of Gospel Witnesses – The Resurrection Evidence is Well-Founded. Badr Part 6

Kairos Podcast Series 8: Biblical Anthropology, Death and Resurrection (BADR Part 6)

Questions: Are the testimony of the eyewitnesses and the historical records in the NT credible? What criteria are used to evaluate the credibility of the NT accounts of the resurrection?

Aristotle’s dictum – Benefit of doubt must be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself – listen to the text first & not simply assume fraud or error unless proven factual inaccuracies.

1. Variety of sources: multiple attestations
A variety of sources in the New Testament testify to the empty tomb: Matthew 28:11–15 (the M material special to Matthew); Mark 16:1–8; Luke 24:1–12; John 20:11–18.
There is a complex unified story shared between the gospels even though the authors wrote their respective accounts based on data gathered from different witnesses.

2. No legendary accretions. No developed theological reflection points to accounts situated in the early phase of Christianity. Evidence of honesty and integrity of witnesses– No glossing over disciples’ weaknesses, women as central witnesses to the Resurrection.

3. Pointers to authenticity – austere records, natural cohesion – the witnesses unintentionally confirm, corroborate one another. The gospels display incidental undesigned coincidences.

You can view the video at – Authenticity and Coherence of Gospel Witnesses – The Resurrection Evidence is Well-Founded.

The Problem With Arminian Middle Knowledge

Some young Calvinists I know are not sure how to respond to their friends who reject the Calvinist doctrine of God’s foreknowledge and predestination with a self-assured declaration, “No thanks, Calvinist predestination is theologically and logically problematic. I prefer Luis de Molina’s teaching of the “scientia media or middle knowledge as it is more coherent and persuasive.” These young Calvinists become unsettled and feel intimidated by the unfamiliar terminology thrown at them. However, a simple question would dispel the Molinist’s aura of sophistication. “As a Molinist, are you then a Jesuit or an Arminian? Since you are Protestant, I conclude that you are basically rebranding old-time Arminianism by using exotic language, granted that the idea of a divine middle knowledge is at the heart and soul of the Arminian view.”

This being clarified, we can focus on the theological problem with Arminian middle knowledge. To begin, classical theology referred to two kinds of divine knowledge: Continue reading “The Problem With Arminian Middle Knowledge”