With due respect: Later Christians invented a divine Jesus!

One of the common accusations is that Jesus was just a person who became a legend and eventually God. In other words, Jesus was retconned as God by later Christians.

1 Corinthians 15

However, a reading of Paul's writings will disprove that notion. In the first letter to the Corinthians, Paul recites the earliest Christian creed (1 Cor 5: 3–8). 

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. -- 1 Corinthians 5: 3–8

Paul states that more than 500 hundred people saw Jesus die and came back to life (in fulfillment of the Scriptures; which showed that Jesus was who he claimed to be, i.e. God.).

Note that 1 Corinthians is estimated to be written around 54 AD, about 20 years after Jesus’s execution. Thus Paul’s claim could have been easily challenged by other Christians. As his record of events is backed by eyewitnesses and other apostles, it showed that Christians had regarded Jesus as God from the start.

Pliny the Younger
In 112 AD, Pliny the Younger (a Roman governer) wrote a letter to the Roman Emperor on the policy towards Christians (i.e. how to persecute Christians). In it, he described the religious practices of the Christians. He mentioned that Christians worshiped Jesus and even practised the a ritual of communal eating (i.e. the Holy Communion).

Other sources of early Christian worship are recorded by historians Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

Conclusion

Early Christians did worship Jesus as God.

Theology 1.0: What is the Lewis trilemma?

The Lewis trilemma is the apologetic defence of the divinity of Jesus, popularised by CS Lewis (the writer of Chronicles of Narnia and the Screwtape Letters) in his 1952 book Mere Christianity. 

Based on Jesus's description of himself in the New Testament, Lewis argues the following:

1) Jesus is God
This is because this is who Jesus claims he is.

2) Jesus is evil
This is because he claims to be God and gathers followers .

OR

3) Jesus is mad.
This is because he was mistaken to be God.

What Lewis was criticising was the view that Jesus was a simple moral teacher. In his words,

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell.

What are the rebuttals?

Christian New Testament scholar, N.T. Wright (1999) felt that Lewis oversimplified how first century Jews might have understood Jesus's words. For instance in offering the forgiveness of sins, Jesus was telling the Jews that they did not need to pay for such a service at a temple, rather than showing he was God.

Christian philosopher William Lane Craig (1994) also points out that it is possible to be deluded and yet give great moral teaching. In other words, Lewis trilemma fails to take in other possibilities.

Conclusion

While the Lewis trilemma is not perfect, it is a great primer to kick off a discussion on why we see Jesus as more than a moral teacher.

References

Craig, W.L.C. (1994). Reasonable Faith

Wright, N.T. (1999). The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering who Jesus was and is.

Alternative Culture: God's not Dead review

Wheaton debates Professor Radisson

A thinking Christian film?
In 1882, German philosopher Nietzsche declared that God is dead after exploring the depths of his moral philosophy. This year, the Christian film God's not Dead attempts to present logical explanations for the existence of God. This happens after Professor Radisson (Kevin Sorbo) forces everyone in his philosophy class to sign a statement to declare that God is dead.

Josh Wheaton (Shane Harper) refuses to sign and is asked to present the evidence for God the class. Although discouraged by his girlfriend (Cassidy Gilfford), Wheaton takes up the challenge.

In this review, I will focus on the theological arguments presented in the film, and then talk about some of the minor characters of the film.

The arguments
Creation
Wheaton begins explaining how the Big Bang was explained by the Bible. This point is debatable, but Wheaton explains that God was the uncreated Creator of the universe.

The atheist counter-argument was unfairly simple. Professor Radisson simply states, Stephen Hawkings (one of the leading scientists in real life), does not think so. With a simple appeal to authority, Professor Radisson dismisses Wheaton's argument. There was no exploration of Wheaton's presentation.

In this way, the film is being unfair to many of my atheist friends. A genuine atheist would not simply appeal to authority and stop there. He/she would attempt to dig further, asking questions or proposing that the universe was a necessary consequence.

Evil
Wheaton also brings but evil in his debate, saying that the cause was human free will. Instead of addressing his argument directly, Professor Radison mocks the idea of moral absolutes. In this, the film seems to portray that the atheist objectors as lacking.

From what I know, most atheists I have debated would automatically asked about natural disasters (since they were not caused by human free will). I was disappointed that this point was overlooked.

Ultimate proof of God
Despite it being a Christian movie, the film fails to highlight is about Jesus. In the Christianity, we must often seek to point our friends to Jesus Christ. As Pastor Timothy Keller said,

In the Christian view, the ultimate evidence for the existence of God is Jesus Christ.

Little mention is made of Jesus, other than he was the son of God, and he paid for our sins.

A cost to follow Jesus
Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. -- Matthew 16:24

One thing I feel that the film does well (despite the lack of character development) was to portray the cost of discipleship.

While Wheaton lost his girlfriend (a bit far-fetched I say), Ayisha (Hadeel Sittu) is disowned after she converts to Christianity. Mina (Corey Oliver) breaks up with her boyfriend in order to live closer to the gospel.

Ayisha's situation hits me the hardest, because I am reminded of a friend whose father would beat her if he found out she was a Christian. I could never imagine what the cost of following Jesus is for her.

Conclusion
The film would make well-meaning atheists cringe due to its unfair portrayal of non-Christians. Nevertheless, I think it has at least raised awareness on the importance of apologetics and the cost of discipleship.

For further reading
The cost of discipleship:



Importance of apologetics

Theology 1.0: What is poisoning the well?

An ad-hoc fallacy
Imagine two people having a debate. The first man begins by denouncing his opponent of being liar, an adulterer and untrustworthy person.

His statement (while it made be true) is an ad-hoc fallacy. It is an attempt to disprove an argument by discrediting the person. In debates, this tactic is called "poisoning the well" (Sire, 2006).

But how does this apply to apologetics?
In our attempts to reason with our non-believing friends, we may unwittingly use such tactics. Let's see some example statements:

"This person doesn't know anything about theology."

"He comes from a church that promotes materialism."

"She does not come from a reputable school."

Sometimes, the tables get turned. For instance, my Christian friends and I have been accused of being "fundamentalists", "imposing morality" and "misguided idealists".

Conclusion
Every argument should be treated on its own merit, and should be independent of the reputation of the person making the argument.



References
Sire, J.W. (2006) Why good arguments often fail

Theology 1.0: Who is GK Chesterton?

G K Chesterton

Gilbert Keith Chesterton is one of my favourite authors. Known as the Prince of Paradox, Chesterton is famed for turning popular sayings unto itself. For instance he makes statements like these:

"Silver is sometimes more valuable than gold, that is, in very large quantities."

"To be clever enough to get all that money, you must be stupid enough to want it."

"I believe in getting into hot water; it keeps me clean."

While he was famed for his Father Brown novels, he was also well-known as a Christian apologist, although he claimed to have "never read a line of Christian apologetics" (Chesterton, 1908). Contemporary Christian author Philip Yancey admits that he reads Chesterton when he feels his faith is "dry", and famed apologist CS Lewis is greatly influenced by Chesterton's works.

His unique brand of apologetics
What makes Chesterton so compelling to me was the offensive nature of his apologetics. While Christian apologetics literally means the "defence of the Christian faith", Chesterton goes on a step further to reveal the irrationality of unbelief. For instance, he criticises the agnostics (people who argue that God is unknowable),

"We don't know enough about the unknown to know that it is unknowable."

His genuineness
Another thing I admire about this author is that he led an extremely joyful life, despite his plumpness and short-term memory. He found Christian theology enriching, rather than restrictive. In fact he led such a joyful life that German writer Franz Kafka commented, "He is so gay (happy), that one might almost believe he had found God."

As he asserted the importance of individuals before God, he often dressed strangely and opposed attempts to enforce conformity.

Conclusion
If you have yet to pick any books by GK Chesterton, you should give it a shot.

For more information

bethinking

Chesterton, G.K. (1908) Orthodoxy

Theology 1.0: What is apologetics?

An admission of guilt?
Apologetics (in this context) is simply the defence of the Christian gospel and faith. Often mistaken for an admission of guilt, failure or fault, an apologetic (or apology) involves give an answer (or a reasoned response) to explain certain beliefs or actions. Technically sepaking, a defence lawyer would be giving apologies all the time, but they are not admissions of guilt!

Who is the apologist?
The Apostle Peter in 1 Peter 3:15 makes in clear-- all Christians are expected to give a reason for the hope the have in Christ, but with gentleness and respect.

The Apostle Paul sets up an example how how we Christians should proclaim apologetics. In Acts 17: 1-4, Paul respectfully followed Jewish traditions to reason with the Jewish audience in Thessalonia. In Athens, Paul reasoned gently (Acts 17: 16-34) but forcefully for the Christian God against other gods. He followed suit in Ephesus, where he reasoned in both the synagoue for three months, and a secular lecture hall for three years (Acts 19: 8-10).

This acts of proclaimation was not limited to Paul, as the Apostle Philip also gently and respectfully explained Scripture to an Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8: 26-40).

How does it apply for us Christians, then?
As the New Testament shows, apologetics is not separate from evangelism. The reason why Paul and Philip spent time to reason with their peers is for the sake of the gospel (Matthew 28:16-20). Likewise, we Christians should not be afraid to show that reason is not contrary to our faith.

Although we may not have all the answers, or know everything about our faith, it should not hinder our efforts to make the gospel known. In fact, our non-believing friends would appreciate our honesty if we do not.

But I'm not an Apostle/Theologian/Priest/Pastor!
Unless you're Timothy Keller (pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church), Francis Collins (ex-head of the Human Genome Project) or Ravi Zacharias(Christian apologist), odds are we will not be invited to speak at university halls or the like. But no one is asking you to do that. On a personal level, we can invite our friends one-on-one for coffee or a movie. At the community level we can volunteer for church activites or a community centre soup kitchen.

There are many ways to evangelise. But let's reverse the question-- are you willing?

References
What is Apologetics?