Risen Hope

Admittedly, I’m behind in last weeks reading, but I did manage to make two passes through “The Ethics of Elfland” (this means I will post up the remainder of this post on Monday). For the longest time, since my first encounter with Orthodoxy many years back, this has been one of my all-time favorite chapters of any book I have read. I’m sure my love of it is more simplistic and shallow than others. As with swimming, if my feet can’t touch the bottom while my head is out of the water, I get uneasy quickly.

Chapter 4: The Ethics of Elfland

Let’s begin, I love the juxtaposition of fairy land against our everyday world. Fairy land seems to be an echo from earlier chapters in that it continues to reverberate reason and wonder, while the everyday world has little to do with wonder. There is reason in the necessary things of elfland and wonder in everything else. But in the everyday world, we have taken the reasonableness of the necessary things and attempted to apply them unnaturally to everything else. We have taken the one single idea and reapplied it to everything we see and know (like the madman). Elfland makes a visible distinction between the two realms and yet they co-exist harmoniously; Everyday land lauds the one to the demise of the other.

Chesterton draws a distinction between necessity and possibility and I think his distinction between the two ideas is a good one to maintain. Everyday land seeks to remove the possible so that all is necessary and determined. Elfland sees them co-existing together.

Further, Chesterton paints a wonderful image of how repetition speaks to vitality and life and contrasts this with variance and how that depicts a wearing down and dying. He reminds us of how we have grown old due to sin while the Father is younger than us. Chesterton hits on a rather paradoxical idea. Sin sets decay in motion and with it brings death. Time existed before sin, but decay was not part of time. The wearing down and wearing out does not occur for the sinless and pure – God is eternally young though God existed from eternity. We age and grow old and die. Though, being finite, we are infinitely younger than an infinite God, we are also far older than He precisely because of sin.

I would love to hear your thoughts. If you have been reading Orthodoxy – bravo! If you haven’t started, then I would encourage you to do so and join in on the conversation – it is a good one.

Previous posts from The Gospel Coalition (GC) and Mere Orthodoxy (MO) in this series:

1. Orthodoxy – G.K. Chesterton – Introduction (GC)
2. Orthodoxy – G.K. Chesterton – Chapter 1 (MO)
3. Orthodoxy – G.K. Chesterton – Chapters 2 & 3 (GC)
4. Orthodoxy – G.K. Chesterton – Chapters 4 & 5 (MO)

Previous posts from Risen Hope in this series:

1. Orthodoxy – G.K. Chesterton – Part 1
2. Orthodoxy – G.K. Chesterton – Part 2
3. Orthodoxy – G.K. Chesterton – Part 3

The last comment I want to make about the Swoon Theory, for now, is it fails to account for all the historical evidence for the resurrection. Due to that, it requires other theories to cover the data that it fails to address thus making it ad hoc in its approach.

For instance, since the Swoon Theory claims that Jesus did not rise from the dead, it fails to explain how the resurrection became the central teaching of the Apostles and the early church.[1] If Jesus’ followers knew that he had not died and, by extension, had not risen from the dead, then they must be charged with forming a conspiracy to spread this story. But the Conspiracy Theory is full of all sorts of issues as well and it cannot account for all the data either.

Additionally, to make up the idea that Jesus had resurrected ahead of the general resurrection would have been beyond the followers comprehension given their cultural background.[2] But this is what we would be asked to accept if the Swoon Theory were true.

There is also the critique of the skeptic Strauss that if Jesus had appeared alive to the followers instead of risen, they would not have turned around to worship him, but would have sought out medical attention to try and save him. Also, as mentioned yesterday, a badly wounded and most likely crippled Jesus is not going to inspire conversion in either Paul the church persecutor or James, the skeptical half-brother of Jesus.

Overall, the Swoon Theory is on very unstable ground as a viable theory. It leaves too much data unexplained and fails to deliver as a naturalistic explanation.

Previous posts:

1. Swoon Theory – Part 1
2. Swoon Theory – Part 2

1. See 1 Corinthians 15:1-4
2. N.T. Wright has a lot to say about this in his massive book The Resurrection of the Son of God (Fortress Press, 2003).

I’m taking the following information from my the notes I was provided during my graduate level course on the Defense of the Resurrection taught by Dr. Gary Habermas at Biola University. What follows is taken from those notes as being evidence against the Swoon Theory:

1. The archaeological discovery of a crucifixion victim (Yohanon) indicates the accuracy of the basic outline of crucifixion. The majority medical view is that crucifixion induces death by asphyxiation.
2. The use of a chest wound to insure death seems to be confirmed by extra-biblical sources, especially Quintillian. The majority medical view on the chest wound, involving a flow of blood and water, indicates that the Roman spear pierced Jesus’ heart.
3. In Strauss’ famous critique, he basically held that the Swoon Theory is self-contradictory. The Jesus who died by crucifixion would be in absolutely no shape to convince anyone that he had been raised from the dead. He would obviously be alive, but not raised.
4. How would this hypothesis convince Paul?
5. How would this hypothesis convince James, Jesus’ brother?
6. There are about a half-dozen indications that the man buried in the Shroud of Turin is dead, including post-mortem blood flow and rigor mortis.[1]
7. Of the approximately 18 extra-biblical sources for Jesus, about a dozen mention Jesus’ death, including some details of his crucifixion.
8. Curiously, Mark tells us that Pilate questioned Jesus’ early death, but was satisfied after he called the centurion and asked for details (Mark 15:44-45).
9. Bart Ehrman lists at least 11 independent historical sources for Jesus’ crucifixion (163-164, 291), including further textual support drawn from several historical criteria (156-158).[2]

Previous post:

1. Swoon Theory – Part 1

1. The Shroud of Turin dates from the appropriate time of when Jesus would have been buried. While it bears many similarities to what we find in scripture about Jesus’ death, the best we could claim is that it is probably his burial shroud, but having 100% conclusive evidence that it is his seems difficult.
2. Ehrman, Bart D. Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (NY: Harper Collins, 2012).

We briefly touched on this particular skeptical theory here. But that is not all. Even skeptical and atheistic scholars agree that Jesus actually died on the cross and did not swoon.

The Swoon Theory says that Jesus did not die on the cross. Instead, he passed out from his wounds and the trauma. After lying in the coolness of the tomb for a period of time he revived, took off his burial clothes, rolled the stone away by himself, got past the posted guard, walked approximately 1 mile (perhaps more) to where the disciples were staying and presented himself (a bloody, wounded mess) as their risen Lord.

Here is a short video of Dr. Gary Habermas (world’s leading expert on the Resurrection) and Dr. Antony Flew (one of the world’s leading atheist philosophers at the time) discussing this point.

In the next two posts, I’ll provide more detailed information on why the Swoon Theory fails as an explanation for the disciples belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

I’m on rotation with some other men at church who participates in offering the communion thought during service. I am asked to share something about once every eight weeks or so. below is what I shared yesterday.

G.K. Chesterton once wrote “things must be loved first and improved afterwards.” This seems to echo what Paul wrote in Romans 5:6-8 (NASB):

For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrated His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Even while we were sinners, God loves us first and only after we come to Him does He ask us to change. We are not asked to change prior to Him loving us. Our changing is followed by His love.

I know sometimes we sing songs and we do not really pay attention to the words, so I want to take a couple of minutes here and read through the words to the song we just sang. Pay attention to the chronology of what is happening in the song: God does something first, and asks what we have done second.

I Gave My Life For Thee
I gave my life for thee,
My precious blood I shed,
That thou might’st ransomed be,
And quickened from the dead;

I gave, I gave My life for thee,
What hast thou giv’n for Me?
I gave, I gave My life for thee,
What hast thou giv’n for Me?

My Father’s house of light,
My glory circled throne,
I left for earthly night,
For wand’rings sad and lone;

I left, I left it all for thee,
Hast thou left aught for Me?
I left, I left it all for thee,
Hast thou left aught for Me?

I suffered much for thee,
More than Thy tongue can tell,
Of bitt’rest agony,
To rescue thee from hell;

I’ve borne, I’ve borne it all for thee,
What hast thou borne for Me?
I’ve borne, I’ve borne it all for thee,
What hast thou borne for Me?

And I have bro’t to thee,
Down from My home above,
Salvation full and free,
My pardon and My love;

I bring, I bring rich gifts to thee,
What hast thou bro’t for Me?
I bring, I bring rich gifts to thee,
What hast thou bro’t for Me?

Chapter 2: The Maniac

In this chapter, Chesterton talks about what makes the madman mad. It is not due to too much imagination or flights of fancy, rather it is due to too much reason and not enough mystery.

The madman latches on to one single, simple idea and then attempts to explain the entire cosmos through the lens of that one idea. Everything else becomes subject to it in seeing, understanding, and explaining. Chesterton labels this first madman as the materialist.

But as Chesterton points out, the individual who does this shrinks the entire cosmos down to the size that his head can fit in, but nothing more. Its ultimate failure is not what it explains, but what it fails to explain.

Taken further, at least the madman above starts with a concept outside himself. Chesterton fears for the madman who is even more limiting and starts from within himself (the person who believes in himself). Why is this worse? Because while the first madman is allowed to believe in a world full of objects external to him, the second madman who begins with himself makes a mythology of everything external to himself.

The sanest man is the one who can accept a cosmos that is broad enough to allow for mystery, while still using reason to understand it, but not understanding all of it. An individual who can hold both the material and the immaterial as viable explanations.

Chapter 3: The Suicide of Thought

Chesterton now takes on the limits of the will (action). This, as Chesterton states, is the “narrowest groove” a person can find themselves in.

To take a particular action means to forego all other options that one could have chosen to take. For instance, when a man marries a woman, he foregoes all other women. When an individual engages in a particular activity, it is to the sacrifice of all other activities at that time.

What one chooses to do at any given moment carries with it a multitude of options that are not being acted upon. This, Chesterton finds as significant. The anarchist wants complete freedom from rules and restrictions, but it is the limitations set by those rules that really allows for true freedom.

A painter is limited by the frame and it is a welcomed limitation. To free a painting from its frame is to destroy art. If an artist wishes to be free of limits and wants to paint a short-necked giraffe, he may choose to do so, but the painting will be of anything but a giraffe. Why? Because a giraffe is limited by its long-neck. The same may be said of the camel. One may wish to free the camel of its hump, but only succeed in freeing the camel from being a camel. One may wish to free a triangle from its three-sides, but to do so destroys the triangle.

If we look at this in modern terms, one may wish to “free” marriage by redefining what it means, but to do so destroys what it actually is.

Previous posts from The Gospel Coalition (GC) and Mere Orthodoxy (MO) in this series:

1. Orthodoxy – G.K. Chesterton – Introduction (GC)
2. Orthodoxy – G.K. Chesterton – Chapter 1 (MO)
3. Orthodoxy – G.K. Chesterton – Chapters 2 & 3 (GC)

Previous posts from Risen Hope in this series:

1. Orthodoxy – G.K. Chesterton – Part 1
2. Orthodoxy – G.K. Chesterton – Part 2

In this final post and short video in this series of Resurrection Myths with Dr. Michael Licona, he addresses the myth of the Lost Gospels. What are we to do with these documents and the skeptics claims regarding these Lost Gospels.

Remember, to see the course on the Resurrection that Licona is talking about, you can head over to Credo House’s website and see what that is all about and hopefully purchase a copy for yourself. I own a copy and it is a good introduction to the topic of the Resurrection. Beyond that, Credo House is currently involved in a Kickstarter campaign that I mentioned in yesterday’s post, Kickstarting the Resurrection. Please consider helping fund this excellent course so that more Christians can be trained in defending this very important doctrine of the Faith.

Also, to learn more about Licona, the work he does, head on over to RisenJesus.com and give him your support. I am sure he would appreciate it.

Previous posts in this series:

1. Resurrection Myth #1 – Contradictions in the Gospel
2. Resurrection Myth #2 – Pagan Parallels and Christianity’s Origins
3. Resurrection Myth #3 – The Fraud Theory
4. Resurrection Myth #4 – Hallucinations
5. Resurrection Myth #5 – It’s a Matter of Faith
6. Resurrection Myth #6 – Apparent Death Theory
7. Resurrection Myth #7 – It Was Merely a Legend
8. Resurrection Myth #8 – Science Proves that Resurrections Cannot Occur
9. Resurrection Myth #9 – Not Enough Evidence

We know that there is evidence pointing to a resurrection, but is there enough evidence? In this short video, Dr. Michael Licona tells us how the evidence for the resurrection measures up to other ancient figures and their supporting evidence.

Remember, to see the course on the Resurrection that Licona is talking about, you can head over to Credo House’s website and see what that is all about and hopefully purchase a copy for yourself. I own a copy and it is a good introduction to the topic of the Resurrection. Beyond that, Credo House is currently involved in a Kickstarter campaign that I mentioned in yesterday’s post, Kickstarting the Resurrection. Please consider helping fund this excellent course so that more Christians can be trained in defending this very important doctrine of the Faith.

Also, to learn more about Licona, the work he does, head on over to RisenJesus.com and give him your support. I am sure he would appreciate it.

Previous posts in this series:

1. Resurrection Myth #1 – Contradictions in the Gospel
2. Resurrection Myth #2 – Pagan Parallels and Christianity’s Origins
3. Resurrection Myth #3 – The Fraud Theory
4. Resurrection Myth #4 – Hallucinations
5. Resurrection Myth #5 – It’s a Matter of Faith
6. Resurrection Myth #6 – Apparent Death Theory
7. Resurrection Myth #7 – It Was Merely a Legend
8. Resurrection Myth #8 – Science Proves that Resurrections Cannot Occur

You will get no argument from me that resurrections can occur by natural causes. I doubt anyone would say that they could. In this short video, Dr. Michael Licona helps us to understand what is different about Jesus’ resurrection in this regard.

Remember, to see the course on the Resurrection that Licona is talking about, you can head over to Credo House’s website and see what that is all about and hopefully purchase a copy for yourself. I own a copy and it is a good introduction to the topic of the Resurrection. Beyond that, Credo House is currently involved in a Kickstarter campaign that I mentioned in yesterday’s post, Kickstarting the Resurrection. Please consider helping fund this excellent course so that more Christians can be trained in defending this very important doctrine of the Faith.

Also, to learn more about Licona, the work he does, head on over to RisenJesus.com and give him your support. I am sure he would appreciate it.

Previous posts in this series:

1. Resurrection Myth #1 – Contradictions in the Gospel
2. Resurrection Myth #2 – Pagan Parallels and Christianity’s Origins
3. Resurrection Myth #3 – The Fraud Theory
4. Resurrection Myth #4 – Hallucinations
5. Resurrection Myth #5 – It’s a Matter of Faith
6. Resurrection Myth #6 – Apparent Death Theory
7. Resurrection Myth #7 – It Was Merely a Legend

Michael Patton over at Credo House had a vision: to create high quality courses on apologetic and theological topics that the lay person could afford so that they could study alongside the top scholars in their respected fields.

For instance, this past summer Credo House had another kickstarter campaign where they created a course on Textual Criticism taught by one of the world’s foremost and respected scholars on the subject, Dr. Daniel B. Wallace. This course looks to be delivered to the public for purchase in September of this year.

Credo House has several ideas for future courses to be created over the next couple of years. The next course on the list, which happens to be a topic that is close to my heart and mind, is on the Resurrection. This course will be taught by none-other than Dr. Gary Habermas. Dr. Habermas has spent nearly the last 40 years on this topic studying, lecturing, writing, debating, etc. Now, Credo House is bringing him in to create and teach on this topic, but they need our help to do so.

The Resurrection is the most important topic in Christianity because all of Christendom is founded upon this singular historical event. All one needs to do to demonstrate that Christianity is false is to disprove the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Dr. Habermas has taught countless of people both in an academic setting and through his articles and books to defend the historicity of the Resurrection event.

If you have the means, the ability, and the heart to do so, I would strongly encourage you to donate to this wonderful course. I am sure Michael and the rest of those at Credo House would appreciate the gesture. Also, it would be such a wonderful study and tool for the church in general to use to train those in their congregations how to defend this cherished and crucial doctrines of Christendom.

To see the kickstarter campaign for the Textual Criticism course taught by Dr. Wallace, you can see that here.

To see the kickstarter campaign for the Resurrection course taught by Dr. Habermas, please go here and back it if you are so led.