User Menu Search
Close

by Scott Oliphint

Of all religions, Christianity is the one that has the most historical evidence, and therefore the least to hide, in what it purports. We should never hide from, or routinely dismiss, the historical aspect of Christianity. But if all we have are historical reasons for our belief in the resurrection, then it is possible to conclude, with a certain amount of probability, that the resurrection of Jesus Christ happened in history. However, we also recognize that, when we are thinking about the “why” question as it pertains to the resurrection of Christ, Christians should never be content to begin and end their belief in the resurrection of Christ with only historical data. Those data can support our belief in the resurrection. They can supplement what we believe and why we believe it. But historical data cannot be the center of our response to the “why” question. If the historical data are at the center, then the best we can say is that we believe the resurrection probably occurred. But that will not do; we do not believe in the probability of the resurrection. Instead, the center of our response to the “why” question of the resurrection is that, without the resurrection of Christ, there is, in fact, no Christianity at all.

Read the whole article here: https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/what-the-resurrection-means/

  • 21 April 2019
  • Author: Scott Cherry
  • Number of views: 64
  • Comments: 0

A Youtube Playlist Featuring 8 Excellent Videos Explaining Easter

This is a Youtube playlist. Click here to access.

Easter is so much more than bunnies, colored eggs, and jelly beans. Indeed, there is a much better name for this wonderful holiday—Resurrection Day. That's because the main focus of it is new life and victory over death accomplished by one particular figure of history who is famous for this. But of course there had to be a death before there could be a victory over it. The editors of Tao and Tawheed have produced this series of talks on the subject to capture the important events and details of this historical narrative from the four gospels of the New Testament. Its presenters include Ben EdwardsIsmail NemrWissam Yousif and Eddie Yousif (together), Steve SchlichterJon and Jayne Frazier (together)Jeff DavisScott Cherry, and UMD student Christian Ledford.

  • 15 April 2019
  • Author: Scott Cherry
  • Number of views: 168
  • Comments: 1

Do the Narratives of Jesus's Resurrection conflict?

Dan Barker, many years ago issues a challenge to Christians to take the 4 gospels and build a reasonable narrative of them. Presumably, he feels it is difficult, when in fact, the 4 gospels harmonize nicely without adding any commentary at all. 

The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened. ...His premise is that the gospels contradict and cannot be reconciled. 

Why We Can Have Justified Confidence in Knowledge We Gain From Experience

What is Reality?

It sometimes strikes me how much disparity there is among philosophers, even within the same 
stream. And this has always been true.  It reaches all the way back to the dawn of Greek philosophy with the Milesians. But it is captured especially well by the relationship of the two most significant Greek philosophers who were not only contemporaries but master and pupil no less—Plato and Aristotle.  Since then, rather than reaching eventual consensus among themselves, the disparities have continued through history to more recent eras with their prominent thinkers such as Descartes, Leibniz, Kant, Berkeley, Spinoza, and Hume to name just a few. Today’s students of philosophy might be hard-pressed to choose which if any one system is true as a whole.  The neophyte may be plunged into utter confusion until he/she can sort through the plethora of arguments for and against every conceivable belief they once held, not to mention the ideas they have never even considered.  (As I see it, the university seems to relish in this.)  On the other hand, as seen from another perspective and through different lenses it is very impressive to note how much commonality there actually is.  It really depends on what one is looking at.  Philosophical disparities are every bit as pronounced today as ever they were, but I will focus much more on the commonalities.
  • 1 April 2019
  • Author: Scott Cherry
  • Number of views: 78
  • Comments: 1

Why did Jesus himself and even demons refer to him by this title? (part 2 of 2)

by Brian Hayward

*Continued from previous post

"He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his              father David, and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”                     Bible, Gospel of Luke 1:32-33, New Testament

This announcement by the angel Gabriel to Mary is actually a prophecy about Jesus who would be born to a virgin woman. Who actually called him the Son of the Most High?  Answer: demons, disciples, and even Jesus himself. 


  • 25 December 2018
  • Author: Guest Blogger
  • Number of views: 306
  • Comments: 0
RSS

Article Search

Terms Of UsePrivacy StatementCopyright 2019 by Advance Ministries
Back To Top