lightsaber fight

I don't remember if I showed this to y'all or not. About a year ago, I downloaded a free rotoscoping software called lsmaker that allows you to put lightsabers in your videos. The program doesn't have a lot of flexibility, but it's free, and you can actually add lightsabers more quickly than in ordinary rotoscoping software.

I captured some sounds effects on the internet and used Audacity (which is also free) to edit them for the video. Then I used Windows Movie Maker to put it all together. It took me about 4.5 hours to do 30 seconds of video. After I did this, I had an all new respect for people who did Star Wars.

The is my niece and nephew, Julia and Jake, fighting in my sister's back yard.

Can historians prove that Jesus was raised from the dead?

Mike Licona and Bart Ehrman debated this issue, and it's posted on youtube in four parts:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Ehrman was careful in his first speech to say that the debate was not over whether the resurrection happened, but over whether we can use historical methods to demonstrate that it happened. His argument was basically that since God is necessary to make a resurrection happen, and God is not accessible by historical methods, then the resurrection cannot be demonstrated by history. He also gave a Humean argument against miracles based on probability.

I think Ehrman is very confused about how probability works. Bill Craig pointed that out to him in a debate once, but I don't think Ehrman understood what Craig was explaining, because he accused Craig of trying to make a mathematical proof of the resurrection. I don't think Licona did a good job of addressing Ehrman's confusion.

Ehrman also made a number of irrelevant points. He pointed to the many discrepancies between the gospels in order to demonstrate that they are unreliable in order to demonstrate that we have poor evidence for the resurrection. But as Licona demonstrated, using quotes from Ehrman himself, none of these discrepancies prevented Ehrman and the vast majority of scholars from concluding that Jesus was crucified and that the disciples had experiences they understood as being appearances of the risen Jesus. Since Licona was arguing from three premises that Ehrman already agreed with, Ehrman's discussion of Bible contradictions was completely irrelevant.

Licona based his whole argument on three facts:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. Jesus appeared to the apostles.
3. Jesus appeared to Paul.

He argued that the resurrection hypothesis was a better explanation of these facts than rival hypotheses because it better fulfilled four historical criteria--explanatory power, explanatory scope, plausibility, and the least ad hoc.

Licona defined an ad hoc explanation as an explanation that requires positing entities for which there is no independent evidence. But then later, Licona posited God as a necessary condition for the resurrection without giving any independent evidence for God. I thought this was a severe blunder on Licona's part.

Ehrman claimed that Licona's first point--that Jesus died by crucifixion--was irrelevant to the case for the resurrection since if Jesus had died by stoning, the structure of the argument would've been the same. And since the second and third points are really the same point--that Jesus appeared to people after his death--that Licona really only had one point to argue from. I don't know if I'm confused or if Ehrman is confused. I mean sure, it doesn't matter how Jesus died, but obviously that Jesus died is extremely relevant to the resurrection. A person can't be raised from the dead if they haven't first died. The fact that Jesus die by crucifixion, of course, entails that Jesus died, so Licona does not just have one point. He's got two. I thought Licona should've pointed out the nonsense behind Ehrman's argument, but he just ignored it.

While demonstrating the inadequacy of the hallucination hypothesis (which Erhman preferred to call the visionary hypothesis), Licona said hallucinations don't happen in groups. This is another area where I think Licona smuggled in some information without substantiating it. His whole intention in the debate was to show that you could infer the resurrection from historical facts that are already accepted by almost all new testament scholars. One of them was that Jesus appeared to the disciples. But the fact that the vast majority of scholars agree that Jesus appeared to his disciples does not mean they all agree Jesus appeared to them in groups. Licona just smuggled that one in, and Ehrman didn't seem to catch it.

Ehrman's response was to give counter examples. He pointed to the many episodes of the virgin, Mary, appearing to many people in groups. Licona didn't respond to that, which was disappointing. I wish there had been a cross examination period.

Ehrman claimed that the disciples only saw visions of Jesus, not Jesus himself. He brought up the incident where Jesus was transfigured before Peter, James, and John, and pointed out the fact that even though Moses and Elijah appeared to Peter, James, and John, it didn't cause them to believe they had been raised from the dead. That really surprised me because if Ehrman was claiming that the vision of Jesus after his death was the same kind of thing, then he's left without an explanation for why the appearance of Moses did not cause them to think Moses had risen from the dead but the vision of Jesus did cause them to believe that Jesus had been risen from the dead. It seems to me that we can reasonably infer that the appearance of Jesus was not the same as the appearance of Moses. And if the appearance of Moses was a mere vision, then the appearance of Jesus was not a mere vision.

Ehrman also asked how Paul recognized Jesus since Paul didn't know Jesus during his mortal lifetime. He seemed to think that somehow worked as an argument against Paul's appearance, but he didn't explain how. Licona didn't answer the question, and unfortunately, there was no cross examination period. I suppose Jesus introduced himself to Paul, and that's how Paul knew who it was. Granted, it's possible some supernatural being other than Jesus just felt like appearing to Paul and pretending to be Jesus so Paul would convert to Christianity, but it seems far more likely to me that it was Jesus himself.

I thought it was a good debate. Some points each brought up were not adequately addressed by the other side, but given the time constraints of debates, that's to be expected. I would say the debate was a tie, because I can't decide who won.

Jehovah's Witnesses misrepresent the Trinity

A couple of weeks ago, some Jehovah's Witnesses came by and gave me the September 1, 2009 edition of the Watchtower magazine. On page 28, there's a short one page article called "In What Way are Jesus and his Father One?" I think this article illustrates very clearly why it is that Jehovah's Witness have such a difficult time understanding the Trinity and why they constantly misrepresent it.

At the beginning of the article, it says, "Some quote this text to prove that Jesus and his Father are two parts of a triune God." Then at the end of the article it says, "Thus, when Jesus said, 'I and the Father are one,' he was speaking, not of a mysterious Trinity, but of a wonderful unity--the closest bond possible between two persons." Everything that comes between the beginning and the end, then, was meant to demonstrate that the Trinitarian interpretation of John 10:30 is incorrect.

What is striking for this trinitarian is how the article attempts to prove its point. It says that Jesus' statements in verses 27 to 29 "would have made little sense to his listeners if he and his Father were one and the same person." After paraphrasing the verses, the articles says, "No one would conclude that this son and his father were the same person." Citing Matthew 24:36, the article asks rhetorically, "If Jesus and his Father were really one person, why did Jesus pray to God and humbly admit to not knowing things that only his Father knew?"

So basically this article attacks modalism as if it were the Trinity. The authors of this article are very confused, and they are confusing the many Jehovah's Witnesses who read it. According to modalism, the Father and the Son are the same person. But that is not the Trinity. In the Trinity, the Father and the Son are distinct persons. So a trinitarian would totally agree with this article when it says,

This strong bond of unity, however, does not make God and his Son, Jesus, indistinguishable from each other. They are two individuals. Each one has his own distinct personality. Jesus has his own feelings, thoughts, experiences, and free will. Nevertheless, he chose to submit his will to that of his Father.

The Jehovah's Witnesses who left this article said they would come back this Saturday for a chat. I was thinking about asking them if I could video tape the conversation. Wouldn't that be neat?

N.T. Wright's upcoming book on Paul

N.T. Wright has been working on a series called Christian Origins and the Question of God. The first three books have already been published: The New Testament and the People of God, Jesus and the Victory of God, and The Resurrection of the Son of God. The next book in the series is supposed to be about Paul.

I've noticed that before he brings out another book in the series, he always publishes extensively on the subject first. I'm guessing the reason is to sort of submit his idea for peer review so that he can refine his views for his book. Well, he has taken a lot of heat for his views on Paul in recent years--especially over his understanding of justification--from people like John Piper and Daniel Wallace and others. So far, Wright has stuck to his guns, but his book on Paul still seems to be taking a long time. With all the criticism Wright has received, I figure one of two things are going to happen. Either he will change his views or else his book on Paul is bound to be one of his best.

I worry sometimes that he'll get old and die before he finishes. The first book was published in 1992, and he's still got two books to go. I've really enjoyed this series, and it would be a bummer if he died before he finished it.

I haven't even been reading his books on Paul. There's too much to read, and I figure I'll get the final version of his views in his upcoming book, and it will have his best arguments. So there's not much point in me spending a lot of time reading what he's writing now. There is one exception, though. I did read his book called What Saint Paul Really Said, but the only reason I read that one is because I thought it was a response to A.N. Wilson's view that Paul was the founder of Christianity. In reality, Wright's book only had one chapter on that.

Does anybody have any idea of when Wright's big book on Paul will finally come out?

Was Jesus a Myth?

There was a debate recently between Dan Barker and James White on the question of whether the gospel writers borrowed from pagan myths, and Dr. White posted the debate on youtube:

Part 1

Part 2

I would like to have asked Dr. White if he believes Joseph Smith borrowed from View of the Hebrews to write the Book of Mormon, and if so, what he based that on. It would be interesting to see if the arguments he gave for a dependency on View of the Hebrews would be different or similar to arguments people like Dan Barker give for a dependency on pagan myths.

Apologetics conference videos available

The videos for the "Faith & Reason" get together at Saddleback church that I mentioned a couple of blogs ago are now available here.

The one with J.P. Moreland on "Has Science Made Faith in God Obsolete?" is worth checking out.

The one with Norman Geisler on "If God Exists, Why Is There Evil?" is not worth checking out in my opinion.

The one by William Lane Craig on "How Did the Universe Begin" is pretty much a rehash of what he says every time the subject comes up, so not much new there unless you've never heard Bill Craig before, in which case you should check it out.

The one by Dinesh D'Souza on "How Do I Know God Exists?" was better than I expected since I had not been very impressed with him in the past, but the topic he discusses has more to do with answering the arguments of the "new atheists" than explaining how we can know God exists.

I only caught the tail end of Darrel Bock's talk on "What the Gospels Really Say About Jesus," so I can't say much about that.

Greg Koukl's talk on "How Can I Defend My Faith Without Sounding Defensive," did not do justice to his book on Tactics, which addresses the same subject in much more detail, although Greg does a good impersonation of Lt. Columbo. I really think everybody should read that book, whether they are Christians or not, because it's a great primer on critical thinking for beginners. It's very well written and easy to understand with great advice on how to have a productive and civil conversation with somebody you have strong disagreements with. I think this book has the potential to raise the quality of debate between Christians and non-Christians if both sides read the book.

Does Calvinism render apologetics superflous?

A while back, Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason posted a video blog dealing with the issue of how to reconcile Calvinism with the use of tactics to defend Christianity. You see, in Calvinism, God determines from the beginning of time who will and who won't embrace the gospel. But that raises the question of why we should evangelize at all since presumably, if God intends somebody to be saved, then that person will get saved whether we witness to them or not.

A lot of Calvinists, I've noticed, have sort of adopted this view, too. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries sometimes corrects people he thinks are mistaken to think that they can persuade anybody to become a Christian by the power of their arguments since it is God who determines whether people will be saved or not. In answer to the question of why we should be engaged in apologetics, he says we should do it because we are commanded to in such passages as 2 Peter 3:15. I've also noticed that a lot of Calvinists make little or no effort to defend the faith with gentleness and respect since they don't think their delivery has any influence whatsoever on whether somebody else will convert or not. Only God can change the heart, so they say, and no argument of ours can have any persuasive power.

In the discussion section of Greg's blog, I mentioned that Jonathan Edwards had specifically addressed this issue in his book on The Freedom of the Will. Somebody asked me to summarize his arguments. Since I don't blog much anymore, I thought I'd cheat and just cut and paste what I wrote there. Here ye go...

Greg agrees with Edwards that not only is the final event (e.g. somebody being persuaded) ordained, but the means are also ordained. In the analogy of Abraham and Sara, not only would it have been ordained that Sara get pregnant, but it would also have been ordained that Abraham have sex with Sara. Abraham having sex with Sara is just as certain as Sara getting pregnant since God guarantees them both.

Edwards argues for the compatibalist view of freedom, which is the view that all of our actions are determined by our strongest motivation, desire, inclination, bias, or mental predisposition. God can guarantee human action because he has causal influence over the persons heart.

In the case of defending the gospel, I suppose one might argue that if God has already guaranteed the end result, then the means are superfluous. But the means are only superfluous if they have no hand in bringing about the end result. But just as it is plain to see that there is a causal connection between Abraham having sex with Sara and Sara getting pregnant, so also is there a causal connection between one person arguing for a point of view and the other person being persuaded by the arguments. The arguing itself is just as much determined by God as the other person's response to the arguments.

Unless there is a causal connection between means and ends, it would be superfluous for God to ever ordain means. But if God ordains means to accomplish ends, then those ends would fail to take place if the means also failed to take place. The reason God can guarantee ends, even though they are accomplished by means which could theoretically be removed, is because God guarantees the means as well as the ends.

If it happens that we live in a completely deterministic world, and if all ends were determined by the initial conditions of the universe when the universe began, that would still not render means superfluous. The reason is that the means themselves would be part of the causal chain. Remove one link in the causal chain, and you alter everything that comes after. So determinism does not render means superfluous either.

In libertarian free will, acts of the will are not determined by any antecedent causes and/or conditions--not even our motives, desires, or inclinations. Motives can influence acts, but they can't determine acts.

The stronger a desire is, the more difficult it is to resist. It is theoretically possible, then, for a desire to be so strong that it renders the person incapable of resisting. In that case, the person does not have libertarian free will. It follows that the weaker a desire is, the more freedom a person has in the libertarian sense. And a person can only have complete freedom if they are under no influence of desire whatsoever.

So contrary to arguing being pointless under the Calvinist view of God's sovereignty, arguing is actually more effective under the Calvinist view than the Arminian view. Under the Arminian view (libertarianism), there can only be a loose connection between means and ends, whereas under the Calvinist view (compatibalism), there is a necessary connection between means and ends.

Arguments can only work if they are effective in changing the opinion or heart of another person. But the more influence the argument has in persuading the other person, the less libertarian free will the other person has. It follows that if a person has perfect libertarian free will (i.e. if their choice is not so much as influenced by anything external) then arguments can have no persuasive power whatsoever.

But besides all this, we have a moral obligation to defend the gospel (1 Peter 3:15), and Solomon said that whatever you find to do, do it with all your might (Ecclesiastes 9:10). So we ought to make the best arguments we can, and excel at making our arguments with gentleness and respect, as Peter says.

Faith & Reason: Believe your beliefs and doubt your doubts

There's going to be a get-together at Saddle Back Church with speakers such as Greg Koukl, J.P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, and others this Saturday, and there will be live streaming. Check it out.