Book Review: “The Jesus Inquest” by Charles Foster
Filed under: Answering an Atheist, Book Reviews, Resurrection
The following links access the most competitive prices. Using them helps defray expenses for this site.
If you have no answers for skeptics, or worse, you haven’t developed the skill to formulate arguments, this book is for you.
Charles Foster, drawing on experience as a barrister, does more than just “assert” the resurrection of Jesus.
Instead, in his recent book, The Jesus Inquest
And he deals with several ideas that aggravate Christians, enraging some:
- Jesus was crucified but survived and lived out His life in India.
- Jesus died but was only temporarily laid in Joseph’s tomb, being moved to a municipal graveyard for the condemned soon thereafter, hence He couldn’t be found in the tomb.
- Jesus body was consumed by jackals at the municipal body dump and therefore could not be found.
- The first Sunday morning visitor, Mary Magdalene, didn’t find Jesus because she and those with her went to the wrong tomb.
- Jesus survived the cross and was eventually buried in his family tomb in the Jerusalem area along with His wife Mary Magdalene, heirs and other family members, e.g., His brother James.
- The appearances of Jesus were nothing more than hallucinations.
The question, of course, is not do Christians seriously believe these ideas but can they answer them. Many apologists, even those of a high profile, do little in response other than dismissively bluster their way through, producing very little in the way of argument. That is fine for the average Christian but for distant onlookers and serious skeptics more is required. Read more
Who Would Marry A Rapist?
“Slavery, Rape and Gays In The Old Testament”
Someone mentions “rape” and we cringe. The word conjures up images of pain and brutality. It represents the worst kind of violence.
We can just visualize a bully, or group of bullies, forcefully overpowering some hysterical individual for no other reason than to satisfy lust and sadly, the perpetrator is either oblivious to the pain of the victim or stimulated by it.
This describes the worst kind of rapist doing the worst kind of thing to a victim. But is rape always this way?
Even though that description applies to “rape” and it happens this way more times than we like to believe, it is not the definition. Rape has many dimensions and variations and in some cases “victims” are pleasured by the experience rather than banged up. Rape is often described by “situation,” as the following list indicates, but is defined by “consent” not violence or location and the levels of consent have a full range from total abhorrence to willing participant.
The following categories of rape were found in different Wikipedia articles and illustrate the many variations. Levels of consent could vary within each category:
- Date rape
- Spousal rape
- College campus rape
- Gang rape
- Parental abuse rape
- Prison rape
- War rape
- Rape by deception
- Corrective rape
- Same sex rape
- Duress rape
- Incest rape
- Statutory rape
It is frightening that sexual abuse happens frequently enough for us to identify so many subtleties but that is what is happening in our day. And, logically speaking, if we are observant enough to recognize different kinds and degrees of rape today, we shouldn’t be surprised to find this insight reflected in Old Testament law and that is exactly what we find. Read more
Abraham Sacrifices Isaac – Not!!
Skeptics get a lot of mileage from Abraham going through the motions of sacrificing Isaac especially since God requested it. The whole thing flies in the face of morality as we understand it. Not only did Abraham prepare to murder his son but God is complicit, ordering what can only be viewed as ritualized homicide.
Atheists, who claim no need of guidance from a higher power, find the whole thing appalling, at least for now. There’s no telling what injustice they might rationalize should they succeed in erasing the Bible’s influence from humanity, if such a thing can be done.
They, of course, are capable of logical thought but their rational abilities are not well exercised when it comes to events in the Bible. Because they don’t believe in God and aren’t dispassionate there is no reason to expect them to investigate biblical matters with a serious mind. That is an important observation. These events didn’t happen yesterday and the further removed these events are from the present the less likely atheists are to consider relevant cultural details. Social trends in Abraham’s day, for example, were very different to ours. In his day:
- Sacrificing children was neither against the law nor uncommon especially in the land of Canaan.
- It got worse. Archeological digs in Canaan have shown that children were sacrificed in greater numbers just before Israel took control of the land.
- And there were no local or international agencies to enforce child protection laws if they had existed.
None of that means Abraham thought human sacrifice was acceptable. It wouldn’t have been a test if he did. There is no reason to think he would have considered such a thing if God hadn’t suggested it.
When informed that Sodom and Gomorrah would be destroyed he prayed fervently that God would spare them even if only 10 righteous souls were found there. Obviously, he was thinking of Lot and counting on him being influential enough to protect his family from the corruption of those cities. The depravity of Sodom and Gomorrah is well known so I won’t elaborate but Abraham’s prayer at least illustrates his very poor opinion of local morality. He nor the immediate members of his family would have seriously considered adopting the life style of Sodom which no doubt included human sacrifice.
And sadly, when Abraham proceeded with the instructions to sacrifice Isaac he wasn’t looking over his shoulder. Any neighbors watching would have considered it a normal, natural thing to do. He didn’t have to do this on the sly. At the very best locals would have considered it none of their business and wouldn’t have interfered.
In this case, however, atheists’ treatment of scripture is motivated more by disdain for God than literary accuracy. Reading the text superficially, they accuse God of being a Tyrant and Abraham of psychosis, cowardice and insensitivity. Read more
Evangelism – Nation to Nation
Filed under: Answering an Atheist, Old Testament, Philosophy, Political Issues
Answering An Atheist
Original arguments are found in the post “Top Ten Worst Bible Stories”
On the web site “Not A Potted Plant” (NAPP)
Author – Transplanted Lawyer (TL)
This post is number four in a continuing discussion on the conflict between Israel and Moab/Midian as recorded in the Book of Numbers, chapters 22-25 and 31. The original observations – complaints – regarding this event are made by TL which can be read here (number one on his list of ten). My first response is here and his first counter is here.
Because TL is widely read and has an exceptionally quick mind I consider it a privilege to have him as a sparring partner. No doubt his abilities will suit him well for the bench should his aspirations in that regard be realized. His quick thinking has made me sharpen my game.
The discussion with him is incisive without insult and firm but in a respectful way. I know you will enjoy the read also.
Suffice it to say that the event under discussion seems particularly gruesome. It was war and war is never nice even under the best of circumstances. As TL and countless others have pointed out, a certain number of deaths are expected but in the case of Midian it seems a bit extreme. The entire community was destroyed, even young boys, with the exception of virgin girls. I can’t imagine anyone not being disturbed by it.
Obviously, because God was involved in this situation – He ordered the counter attack in the first place – it is easy to assume that everything Moses ordered was exactly God’s plan. I don’t presume to understand everything God does but I do believe there are reasons He should not be implicated every time difficulties arise. He is a third party, sometimes silently so, and we must at least try to see where the fault lines lay before assuming His guilt. Previously I have suggested that Moses acted in the extreme and went beyond God’s original intent.
My primary arguments are:
- Israel was not the aggressor.
- The intentions of Moab/Midian were clearly violent but their strategy was cleverly deceptive. They tried to divine a curse on Israel and when that failed they used wile, enticing them with their sexually oriented religion, to demoralize them. The second plan worked but not sufficiently enough to destroy Israel’s or God’s resolve.
- God ordered the attack on Midian but did not specify the extent to which it should be executed.
- The women who were destroyed were frontline soldiers or spies, not collateral damage or the subjects of a genocidal frenzy. Without them the ruse would not have been effective. His order to execute them, therefore, is not completely without justification.
- I have argued that the order to destroy every male came from Moses not God. This is the real issue.
Everyone is very quick to take the Midianite side and speak of their anguish but not fair minded enough to spread that love around, ascribing to Israel (and God) a venomous nature. The truth is, Israelites were just as human as any and “rising above” was sometimes out of reach for them as well. Israel had very good reason to be hurting from this event and it doesn’t take a degree in psychology to figure it out.
It was only because Midianites were distant relatives of Moses and because Israel’s first encounter with a Midianite (Jethro – Moses’ father-in-law) was positive that the ruse was as effective as it was.
It is not unreasonable to see this was personal for Moses and it isn’t strange that his response would be so vengeful.
As mentioned previously, his worst characteristic was his anger and it had gotten him into trouble on more than one occasion. He also had a tendency to take action impulsively and God pronounced a final judgment on Moses as recent as Numbers 20. He was to die before entering the promised land and Joshua would take his place.
Even as God gave the order to counter Midian aggression He reminded Moses that he would be removed from the scene following the battle. I’m sure that reminder laid heavily on his mind. It doesn’t justify his actions but it does explain it.
In his rebuttal TL makes additional suggestions which I would like to answer here: Read more
Moses Massacres Midian
Filed under: Answering an Atheist, Old Testament, Political Issues
Answering An Atheist
Original arguments are found in the post “Top Ten Worst Bible Stories”
On the web site “Not A Potted Plant” (NAPP)
Author – Transplanted Lawyer (TL)
There are two absolute No-No’s when reading the Bible. One is never wear rose tinted glasses (Christians do this) and the other is don’t precondition the text with modern perspectives (critics do this). Christians tend to extract from the text sentiments that aren’t there. Critics do just the opposite, imposing on the text preconceived ideas. Both start with an assumption and then proceed to draw it out or weave it into the text. Both approaches narrow the mind and have the same affect, distortion. Neither is really honest.
Take Abraham for example. He fathered his first child by Hagar, his wife’s handmaid – polygamous. According to cultural practices of the day this was acceptable but according to biblical teachings it was not.
It is fair to be forgiving. Abraham and Sara were faced with difficult and unusual circumstances. But justifying polygamy as anything other than adultery is going a little too far and that is what believers tend to do.
Non-believers, particularly atheists, are quick to pounce on that. Polygamy, or any other form of sexual divergence, may or may not be a problem for them but they are clever enough to see the contradiction between what the Bible teaches in one place and what believers say it teaches in another. Read more
Tim Pepper - Beautiful Frustration