Category: Biblical-Historical Criticism

Paul Encountered the Risen Christ in his Damascus Road Experience

Gal. 1:11-12 “For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” Paul did not derive his message from human teaching or internal development but from direct divine encounter – and he staked his life’s mission on that claim. The evidence points to a supernatural intervention.

J.G. Machen argues forcefully that Paul’s conversion cannot be explained by subjective psychological development or by gradual change in understanding due to personal reflection, or second-hand teaching. Paul’s religion was born of a direct encounter with the risen Christ– an immediate, supernatural revelation that radically transformed Paul’s life and theology. Put differently, the content of Paul’s faith (a transcendent, divine, crucified and risen Messiah) was so radically discontinuous with his pre-conversion Jewish worldview that only an objective, supernatural revelation can account for the radical transformation of his life. Psychological explanations (e.g., hallucination, inner conflict, subconscious development) fail because they cannot explain the specific, revolutionary theology Paul immediately adopted.

In essence, Machen’s argument is:
Premise 1: Paul’s pre-conversion state was one of confident, zealous Pharisaism, not guilt-ridden struggle.

Premise 2: Paul’s post-conversion theology was a radical, immediate break with that Pharisaism, centering on a crucified and risen Messiah. Continue reading “Paul Encountered the Risen Christ in his Damascus Road Experience”

Answering Critics Who Claim that Paul Distorted the Original Teaching of Jesus

Answering Critics Who Claim that Paul Distorted the Original Teaching of Jesus.
Origins of Paul’s Divine Christology. OPDC Part 2/6

Q1. Some people claim that Paul corrupted Jesus’ teaching. Did Paul create a religion about Jesus, instead of following the religion of Jesus?

Q2. Skeptics say Paul’s teachings contradict Jesus’. Example,
Paul teaches that “a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (Romans 3:28) however, Jesus teaches obedience to the law (“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets… but to fulfill them.” Matthew 5:17-19). And other so-called contradictory teachings of Paul and Jesus in the Bible. Is this due to weak exegesis?

You can watch the video at:
Answering Critics Who Claim that Paul Distorted the Original Teaching of Jesus.

Paul’s Bi-Cultural Heritage, his Gospel Message and Christology


Paul’s Bi-Cultural Heritage, Gospel Message and Origins of Paul’s Divine Christology OPDC Part 1/6

It has been common for critics to accuse the apostle Paul of corrupting early Christianity by blending Jesus’ original, simpler message with complex Greek philosophy.

Paul’s usage of Greek terms in his gospel was simply due to the fact that koine (common) Greek became the lingua franca of the Mediterranean Greco-Roman world. These terms allow him to communicate the gospel while redefining their meanings within the bounds of the revelation of Christ. He maintains the Jewish monotheistic covenantal framework shaped by the God of Israel, covenant, law, and promise.

Universalizing the Message: His Jewish exegesis provided authoritative scriptural grounding, and his Greek fluency made his message intelligible in Gentile contexts.

Synthesis: The Prepared Apostle
Paul’s effectiveness stemmed from this unique fusion:
* He could argue from Scripture like a rabbi to Jews and God-fearers.
* He could debate in the agora and use Greek literary forms to communicate with pagans.
* He could navigate the Roman legal system to advance his mission.
* He could theologize in a new way, using his Jewish categories (covenant, law, Messiah) to explain the universal significance of Jesus, creating a theology that transcended ethnic divisions.

 

You can watch the full video at:
Paul’s Bi-Cultural Heritage, Gospel Message and Origins of Paul’s Divine Christology OPDC Part 1/6

 

Related Posts:

Christological Origins of Paul’s Gospel

Historical Origin of Divine Christology Part 3 – The Origin of Paul’s Divine Christology

 

 

 

 

Inerrancy and Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible. Pt.2

Inerrancy and Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible. Pt.2. KP10-IAB-09

A. Discrepancies due to copyist errors related to numbers due to copyist or scribal error. Examples: 1) Did David capture 1,700 of King Zobah’s horsemen (2 Samuel 8:4), or was it 7,000 (1 Chronicles 18:4)? 2) In 1 Sam 13:5, how were there 30,000 chariots and only 6,000 charioteers? 3) 1 Kings 4:26 – How can this verse say Solomon had 40,000 stalls when 2 Chronicles 9:25 says he had only 4,000 stalls? 4) David’s famine was seven years (2 Sam. 24:13) or three years (1 Chron. 21:12)?

B. Alleged discrepancies arising from incomplete but complementary accounts: Did Judas die by hanging himself (Matthew 27:5) or by falling headlong and bursting open with all his bowels gushing out (Acts 1:18)?

C. Proper perspective on archaeological data and alleged discrepancies (Edwin Yamauchi).

D. Lessons
1) Proper interpretation is crucial in the affirmation of inerrancy:2) Scripture is its best interpreter in canonical context. Scripture priority over fragmentary historical data.3) Inerrancy not naïve or simplistic but highly nuanced Biblical exegesis and hermeneutics must also be highly nuanced

You may view the full video at:
Inerrancy and Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible. Pt.2. 

Christological Origins of Paul’s Gospel

I. Doubts About the Authenticity of Paul’s Teachings
A common objection raised by critics of Christianity and Muslim apologists is that the apostle Paul distorted the teachings of Jesus and the apostles of the early Jewish-Christian community by importing ideas from the Greco-Roman mystery religions. These included ideas like a dying and rising god, sacramental meals of communion with patron gods, and salvation through union with a divine figure. The purpose of this paper is to refute the critics with historical and biblical evidence, and demonstrate how Paul’s gospel which was received by revelation in his encounter with the risen Christ on his way to Damascus displays consistencies with the teaching of Jesus and the apostles of the early Church.

A. The Claim of Hellenistic Influence
There are several problems with the critics’ theory that Paul was influenced by Hellenistic religions. Continue reading “Christological Origins of Paul’s Gospel”

Inerrancy and Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible. Pt.1

Inerrancy and Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible. Pt.1. KP10-IAB-08

A. Present purpose is to address claims of contradiction by laying out the proper framework in dealing with the difficulties and demonstrating with examples why we are justified in calling them “alleged contradictions”.

B. Origins of Discrepancies.

C. Common mistakes in alleging contradictions/ discrepancies .

D. Possibility of harmonization and principles of interpretation. The doctrine of inerrancy does not tell us a priori how we are to interpret individual passages. Rather, inerrancy maintains merely that whatever statements the Bible affirms are fully truthful when they are correctly interpreted in terms of their meaning in their cultural setting and the purpose for which they were written.

E. Some examples of alleged contradiction discussed and resolved – 1) Jesus cleansing of the temple, 2) Ordination of the disciples, 3) Temptations of Jesus, 4) Genealogies of Jesus, 5) Timing of Jesus cursing the fig tree and 6) Jesus sat on two or one donkey in the Triumphal entry, 6) date of Quirinius governorship etc.

You can watch the video at
Inerrancy and Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible. Pt.1. KP10-IAB-08

Fundamental Argument of Inerrancy as a Necessary Consequence of Inspiration

Fundamental Argument of Inerrancy as a Necessary Consequence of Inspiration. KP10-IAB-07

A. The Fundamental Argument of Inerrancy
(1) Whatever the Bible affirms, God affirms.
(2) Whatever God affirms is true.
(3) Therefore, whatever the Bible affirms is true.

Inerrancy is a necessary deduction from the Bible’s teaching concerning its inspiration.
OT requirements for God’s prophets to be distinguished from false prophets is premised on absolute truthfulness. The Bible teaches its own authority, and this requires inerrancy. Matt. 5:17 – 20 and John 10: 34 – 35. Inerrancy follows from what the Bible says about God’s character.

B. Limited inerrancy which seeks to replace inerrancy with infallibility is rejected
E. J. Young explains that ‘inerrancy’ meant the Bible does not err, and “infallibility” meant the Bible cannot err. Both are inseparable. Indeed, infallibility is an even stronger affirmation than inerrancy.
“E. J. Young explains that ‘inerrancy’ meant the Bible does not err, and “infallibility” meant the Bible cannot err. Both are inseparable. Indeed, infallibility is an even stronger affirmation than inerrancy.”
CBSI Article XI emphasizes: The two terms are, in context, inextricable. In short, inerrancy and infallibility affirm that the whole of Scripture is true and not only parts of it.
The focus of inerrancy is not limited to issues of factual accuracy in Scripture. It is primarily concerned about the authority of Scripture

C. Consequences of Denial of Inspiration and Inerrancy
Once an interpreter of Scripture begins to use human standards of moral judgment to evaluate the truth status and authority of the Bible, in whole or in part, the authority of the Bible is immediately denied. The real standard of judgment is now to be human moral reason and sensitivity…The abandonment of inerrancy renders every biblical text suspect until it passes or fails some test of human reason (Albert Mohler).

You can watch the full video at:
Fundamental Argument of Inerrancy as a Necessary Consequence of Inspiration. KP10-IAB-07

 

Inerrancy Defined and Defended

Inerrancy Defined and Defended. KP10-IAB-06/10

A. Definition of inerrancy: “When all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the Bible in its original autographs and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether relative to doctrine or ethics or the social, physical or life sciences” (Paul Feinberg).

Three qualifications: 1) Inerrancy applies equally to all parts of the Scripture as originally written (autographa). 2) Inerrancy is intimately tied up with hermeneutics. 3) Inerrancy is related to Scripture’s intention. 4) Inerrancy applies equally to all parts of the Bible as originally written. This means that no present manuscript or copy of Scripture, no matter how accurate, can be called inerrant. As such, the goal of textual criticism – Not inspired codex, but inspired text.

B. Inerrancy is defined in terms of truth and falsity rather than in terms of error. Inerrancy covers all areas of knowledge. Inerrancy is not limited to matters of soteriological or ethical concern.

C. Inerrancy is affirmed throughout church history (John Woodbridge).

D. Spectrum or typology of views on inerrancy.

E. Clearing common misunderstandings about inerrancy.
Common Charge: No existing original manuscripts. Therefore inerrancy is meaningless.
Answer: Difference between Inerrant Word(text) vs Inspired-Inerrant Codex.

Conclusion: Inerrancy means having an advance commitment to receive as truth from God all that scripture is found on inspection actually to teach (J. I. Packer).

You may view the video at
Inerrancy Defined and Defended. KP10-IAB-06/10

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

Genesis vs Ancient Near East Polytheistic Myths: Plagiarism or Polemics? Part 1

Many critical scholars in Western universities suggest that the biblical Creation and Flood stories borrowed ideas from Ancient Near Eastern Texts (ANET). For example, the Creation story in Genesis must be influenced by the Babylonian creation story of Enuma Elish since the story in Genesis is briefer and the preserved records of Genesis belong to a later date. However, Kenneth Kitchen rejects this notion. He writes, “The common assumption that the Hebrew account is simply a purged and simplified version of the Babylonian legend (applied also to the Flood stories) is fallacious on methodological grounds. In the Ancient Near East, the rule is that simple accounts or traditions may give rise (by accretion and embellishment) to elaborate legends, but not vice versa. In the Ancient Orient, legends were not simplified or turned into pseudo-history (historicized) as has been assumed for early Genesis.”/1/

On the other hand, the relationship between Genesis and the Babylonian Flood story of the Epic of Gilgamesh could be more nuanced. There are some similarities, but also differences (the form of the Ark, duration of the Flood and the birds sent out by Noah). Perhaps, the similarities and differences arose because the memories and traditions of the event of the Flood were transmitted differently by Israel and its neighboring societies.

More importantly, Genesis displays vocabulary similar to ANET not because it borrowed ideas from ANET but because it is mounting a polemical theology against the pagan polytheism of Israel’s neighbors. Continue reading “Genesis vs Ancient Near East Polytheistic Myths: Plagiarism or Polemics? Part 1”