My name is Eric Snow

Links to elsewhere on this Web site: /apologetics.html /book.html /doctrinal.html /essays.html /links.html /sermonettes.html /webmaster.html For the home page, click here: /index.html

Does Islam cause terrorism? Click here: /Apologeticshtml/Moral Equivalency Applied Islamic History 0409.htm

Is the Bible God’s Word? Click here: /Apologeticshtml/Is the Bible the Word of God.htm

Why does God Allow Evil? Click here: /Apologeticshtml/Why Does God Allow Evil 0908.htm

Is Christian teaching from ancient paganism? /Bookhtml/Paganism influence issue article Journal 013003.htm

Which is right?: Judaism or Christianity? /Apologeticshtml/Is Christianity a Fraud vs Conder Round 1.htm

/Apologeticshtml/Is Christianity a Fraud vs Conder Round 2.htm

Should God’s existence be proven? /Apologeticshtml/Should the Bible and God Be Proven Fideism vs WCG.htm

Does the Bible teach blind faith? Click here: /doctrinalhtml/Gospel of John Theory of Knowledge.htm

Is the theory of evolution true? /Apologeticshtml/Darwins God Review.htm

A Short Defense of Christianity and the Bible’s Inspiration

Can Belief in the Bible Be Rationally Defended?

Could the Bible Be Historically Accurate?

A Sincere Seeker’s Questions and Comments Briefly Answered

By Eric V. Snow

What follows below was originally written to a woman who had sincere questions and comments about the truth of Christianity. The subjects covered included certain alleged contradictions between Paul and Jesus’ statements, whether Paul and James contradicted each other in the source of justification, the alleged intolerance of present-day activist Christians, the alleged influence of pagan ideas on Christian teachings, and whether or not the sins of Christians refute the truth of Christianity. Although her name is omitted, and the text was changed a little, the responses below are almost entirely the same as those made in two separate emails made in November 2004 when writing to someone who had originally contacted www.biblestudy.org with her questions and comments.

It's important on this issue to look into those books that defend belief in the Bible, which is known as Christian apologetics. I think many who are skeptical about the Bible, such as the typical agnostic or atheistic college professor, have very little or no knowledge of the arguments and facts found in books that defend Christianity intellectually. (After all, those who say they are open-minded should be open-minded enough to read books defending Christianity, not just those attacking it, like The DaVinci Code.) There's much explained in these sources I couldn't do in a (relatively) short email. Certain books by Josh McDowell, such as Evidence That Demands a Verdict and More Than a Carpenter I think you would find helpful to read for information related to your questions. For the issues raised by the pagan mystery religions of Rome and how they supposedly influenced early Christianity, Ronald Nash's The Gospel and the Greeks would be a good place to start. Another book, which is older, on this same subject is J. Gresham Machen, The Origin of Paul's Religion. There are several good books on the issue of supposed Bible contradictions and/or historical errors. Consider looking at Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties and John W. Haley's Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, which is an older work, but hardly obsolete. (The same old arguments against the Bible keep getting circulated!) One book to consider reading about the canon of Scripture (i.e., what books were chosen to be put into the Bible) is F.F. Bruce's The Canon of Scripture. But for now that's enough for a listing of resources. Let's now answer some of your questions more directly.

It's important to note that Paul's job wasn't to just restate what Jesus said in different words, although that does occur to some degree. His job was to supply a theological interpretation of Jesus' life and ministry on earth that built upon what was said in the Gospels. (John does this too, however). Using standard dating, many or most of his letters were written before three or four of the Gospels were written, for example. How specifically do Paul's writings contradict or deny what Jesus said? I would need to know some specifics in order to help you here. A contradiction doesn't exist when merely more facts are revealed so long as they don't deny previously revealed facts. One eyewitness saying a bank robber wore a hat doesn't contradict one who said he wore a coat. A contradiction would arise, however, if one witness said the hat was all black, and the other said it was all brown.

It should be noted that Marcion lived some time after Paul, so the former couldn't have influenced the latter. Marcion was born about 100 A.D., while Paul probably died around 65 A.D. This is a common issue with all charges about Gnosticism or the pagan mystery religion's influencing first-century Christianity: Many specific similarities between the two prove nothing once it is discovered that the pagan/Gnostic similarities concern beliefs or inscriptions that only started after the first century. Whenever someone claims some pagan belief or ritual influenced Christianity, one of the first questions that should be asked is: "According to the available historical documents, when did that pagan ritual or belief first start?" (The next questions to ask are, "Do any of those documents show that the pagans believed the same things first-century Christians did? Or do they use the same words with different meanings?")

Besides the New Testament, there are other sources that testify to Jesus' existence. One of the most famous sources is Tacitus, probably the best Roman historian, but there is also a mention of a "Chrestus" in Suetonius. Jesus is mentioned twice by Josephus, the Jewish historian. Although the longer statement of his has long been disputed, for it appears to have been partially doctored by an ancient Christian scribe, it can't be reasonably seen as entirely a fabrication. But the New Testament should be enough for belief in Jesus’ historical existence, especially when one considers how its historical accuracy in things that can be checked has repeatedly been affirmed. For example, the archeologist Sir William Ramsay judged the New Testament book of Luke to be worthless before when went to Asia Minor (modern Turkey) to do research. But after going there, and doing excavations, he radically changed his mind, and then felt Luke to be one of the greatest historians anciently.

Jesus is plainly revealed to be a real man in the Gospels. Although John makes it very clear He was God, He also was flesh, as John also shows. There is nothing allegorical or invented about Him. The Gospels, when carefully read, do not sound or feel like myths, but simply a straight-forward account of the teachings and actions of a Jewish teacher during a 3 1/2 year period, along with a bit on His birth and childhood.

The pagan Romans didn't care about whether there was yet another religion in their empire so much unless its followers refused to obey the emperor and/or refused to sacrifice to the emperor as a god. They didn't mind the diversity much so long as there was unity on these points (which ended up causing the Romans to persecute the Christians off and on for about 250 years). In order to say Jesus was like (say) Osiris, one has to bring up specific similarities using the primary (not secondary) sources, directly from the myths, not someone twisting those myths to make them sound more like Christianity. For example, one technique is to use Christian terminology to describe a pagan rite even when the two rites are very different. The taurobolium, for instance, was the sacrifice of a bull in which the bull's blood was allowed to drip upon believers in Attis or Mithra when they sat in a pit under its body held up by boards or branches. This has been called a "blood baptism," but that is a very dishonest manipulation of the language because Christian baptism uses water, not blood, and because correctly done baptism, as Jesus and John the Baptist did it, immerses the believer the liquid, not just drips some of it on him or her.

The Bible's teachings are incompatible with astrology and the Zodiac. That's because far away heavenly bodies don't determine people's lives and fates, but rather we by our free will determine whether we are saved or lost after God calls us. The spirit of fatalism, which is a key aspect of astrology, simply isn't Christian. Even those Christians who believe in predestination, such as the Calvinists, would reject the notion of (say) the positions of Jupiter, Venus, or Mars determining whether a person is saved. (They would say God chose who would be saved in advance of their lifetimes, before they made any decisions).

It's important to distinguish between first-century Christianity, and the errors of the Catholic Church in later centuries. Just because (say) a bunch of Catholics believed in astrology in the later Middle Ages doesn't mean astrology is a Scriptural teaching. What matters, if the Bible is to be our source of authority, is what the Bible teaches, not what Catholic tradition states that may contradict it. Also, the Catholic Church ended up absorbing a lot of pagan beliefs from the fourth century A.D. on, after the Emperor Constantine proclaimed the Edict of Milan (313 A.D.), which gave Christianity legal toleration in the Roman government's eyes.

For example, Christmas is never mentioned in the Bible. The date for its celebration was surely influenced by the date of Mithra's birth (December 25), the winter solstice, and by the Roman festival called the Saturnalia. It wasn't celebrated unilt the fourth century, I believe. But that proves nothing about the Bible's truth or falsity. It does give a good reason not to celebrate Christmas because its thin Christian coating covers up the pagan core.

C.S. Lewis, who wrote such books as Mere Christianity, Miracles, and The Problem of Pain, had a very unusual and interesting "take" on the similarities between the pagan and Christian religions. He saw the similarities as a reason to believe, not disbelieve, in Christianity. That's because the beliefs and rituals the pagans invented based on their psychology while observing nature are based on a nature that God created. Therefore, these can be, in some cases, a pale shadow of the truth. But again, you may wish to look up Nash's and Machen's books above if you wish to investigate more on this subject.

One could make the case, as Yair Davidy did in Tribes that Zoroastrianism is an offshoot of the beliefs of the Ten Tribes of Israel after they got forcibly deported from their homeland to the north, to an area in Persia where this religion began. Hence, Christianity is like Zoroastrianism some because Zoroastrianism had an origin indirectly in Judaism while Christianity's came directly from Judaism. It should be noted Mithraism, which likely did not come from Persia mainly, as some experts on it have argued, like David Ulansey, was very weak in the Roman Empire in the first century, especially in western areas. It's a dubious candidate for this reason alone to have influenced first-century Christianity. It became much more popular, much like Christianity did, in the third century A.D. (Notice, by the way, Mithra wasn't a dying and rising god--he never was considered to die, unlike Jesus).

The Masoretic text is the traditional Hebrew/Aramaic text of the Bible that the Jews preserved down through the centuries. It's by far the most reliable version of the Old Testament in the handwritten manuscripts we have available to us today. However, in some texts, the Septuagint is more reliable. The Septuagint was an early Greek translation (c. 250-100 b.c.) of the Old Testament (or Tanakh, as the Jews call it) from the Hebrew and Aramaic. Because Judaism was so radically different from the surrounding pagan religions of the Middle East, I would deny that they had any direct influence on Judaism. Judaism affirmed one God, which even the Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaton didn't do (for he believed he was a god also, not just Aten). The issue here again, like with the pagan mystery religions’ supposedly influencing Christianity, comes to a dating dispute. For if Akhenaten's reign occurred after the Exodus, then it could be seen as Egyptian religion briefly copying Jewish religion. Conservative dating for the Exodus is c. 1445 b.c., while liberal dating puts it at c. 1290 b.c. Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten's other name) ruled 1379-1362 b.c., according to one source I have. The dating for Jeriocho’s destruction has been a key point of contention in ultimately dating the Exodus, and one could readily accept the arguments of Garstang and Bimson (Redating the Exodus and Conquest) as against those of Kenyon. Second, Judaism affirmed that no picture or statue should be made of God, which was a very strange concept that even the Jews themselves had a hard time accepting since they fell into idolatry so often so easily before the Babylonian Captivity (which started by 606 b.c., when Jerusalem fell to the Babylonian Empire for the first time, although it got a much bigger and stronger push when Jerusalem was totally destroyed in 586 b.c.) Judaism also affirmed God's name shouldn't be spoken (a mistake, I think, but still different) and that God made a contract/covenant with one particular nation that made them His chosen people, but at a certain cost. These beliefs differed from the surrounding gentile nations of the Middle East also.

I would encourage you to do more research, but to read pro-Christian books before making up your mind on this subject. The errors of a church government or organization, such as (say) Catholic priests getting caught committing pedophilia, doesn't prove the Bible is false (or true, for that matter). The truth of the Bible doesn't rise or fall based on the behavior of any particular Christians. This is a point of philosophical logic. (True, Christ did say we would know His true followers based on their love one for another, but I would maintain that most people calling themselves Christians down through the centuries actually weren't called, and actually weren't Christians. See John 13:34-35 for the text in question). Likewise, do the sins of atheists refute atheism? If the Inquisition or the Crusades refute Catholicism, do Stalin's gulags refute atheism? Stalin managed to kill a lot more people, quite possibly, in 25 years or so than Catholicism managed to kill in nearly 1700 years. Are any atheists willing to give up their atheism because of the sins of their fellow atheists? I don't think so! The same point apply to the sins of Christians don't refute Christianity. (Only Christ was perfect and sinless!)

You may wish to look at my Web site, www.lionofjudah1.org, for more on these subjects. I plan to send you by a separate email as attachments essays that deal with the claims of pagan and Gnostic influence on first-century Christianity. My church's own Web site is www.ucg.org, which may help you also some. So be open-minded in your research, as you appear to be towards the end of your email posing these questions, and read books that defend Christianity and the infallibility of the Bible. You may email me if you have more questions.

It should be noted that Tertullian, the early Catholic writer, when he renounced orthodox Christianity became a Montanist. This was a dissident unorthodox sect of Christianity that had additional prophets (Monanus, and two prophetesses named Priscilla and Maximilla) who had futher revelations that built upon the New Testament. They were very strict, almost ascetic like monks, concerning their view of sexual morality and avoiding sin. (They didn't let widows and widowers remarry, for example). They also expected an especially imminent end of the world after they got their revelations from these three prophets. So then Tertullian didn't deny Jesus or even the New Testament when he joined this offshoot group.

The Left Behind series (one of the co-authors is Tim LaHaye) of novels is only partially right. I deny there is a pre-Tribulation rapture up to heaven of all believers before Jesus returns. I'm willing to assert, however, based mainly on Rev. 12:13-16, 3:10; Luke 21:18-19, that a certain percentage of true Christians would have a place of safety on earth they will be protected in during at least part of the Great Tribulation before Jesus returns. But others plainly won't be, such as shown by Rev. 12:17 and Luke 21:12-17. I don't agree with all authors have to say about end time events, but they are right to be deeply concerned about what will happen in the years to come to the world.

Now, let's turn to Paul. The issues raised here are more important in your email than what I briefly looked at above. When Paul says "my Gospel," such as in Romans 2:16, he's not being any more egotistical than when (say) I would call America "my country." He isn't asserting ownership over it, but identifying himself as agreeing with the Good News and as a messenger of it. There's only one Gospel, and Christ and Paul's are the same. Normally, of course, Paul refers to the Gospel as being of Christ, or hence, Christ's Gospel. For example, Galatians 1:6-8, he says the Galatians were leaving the "grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel--not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed." So Paul is merely saying the Gospel He preaches is (part of) the true revelation of God, and is of Christ.

Now the issue about how Paul perceived the Law is a major issue, and it's quite fair of you to bring this up. I have on my Web site (www.lionofjudah1.org) on the doctrinal essays page essays that deal with the issue of the law and what (Old Testament) laws are still in force. You may find the “Protestant Rhetoric Refuted” essay (that deals with the seventh-day Sabbath) particularly interesting in this regard. The basic way to reconcile Paul's teaching on the law is to say the law or obedience to it doesn't take off anyone sins, but it is valuable as a guide to conduct and learning what sins to avoid. The law is not a source of salvation or of justification (being declared righteous). But it does still have a valuable role to play in telling us what to do in our conduct (See Romans 7:7 and James 1:22-25). For example, Paul says Jesus came to condemn sin in the flesh, "in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit" (Romans 8:4). Here, the law is in force, as it is Romans 7:11-12, 16; 3:31. Yet on the other hand, it's clear the law isn't a source of imputed righteousness or justification, which begins the salvation process initially. ("Sanctification," becoming holy, is the next step, and then "glorification," which occurs when Jesus returns and Christians become immortal spirit beings, is the third step). For example, Paul wrote, "For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of law" (Romans 3:28). The term "works" may have had an unusually narrow meaning, and not refer to (say) giving charity to the poor or obeying the Ten Commandments, if we believe this term correlates with a document found among the Dead Sea Scrolls called the MMT called “the works of the law.” Nevertheless, it is clear we can't have old sins taken off us by obeying the law presently. The Law's function is important but limited, in Paul's mind. For example, a hair curler doesn't cook dinner, but that limitation doesn't make it worthless; it's still has its use in curling hair. Likewise, the law can't give salvation or justification, but it still can tell you right from wrong when making moral decisions. Therefore, Paul's view of the law isn't really that confusing once one analyzes both the "pro-law" texts and the "anti-law" texts. It's to your credit you see that he makes both kinds of statements. You avoid the common (Protestant) error of saying the law is just done away with. I just maintain these statements can actually be easily reconciled with each other.

Paul was used to make predictions about the final close of the age and about when Jesus would return. Two good examples of this are I Thess. 4:13-18 and II Thess. 2:1-12. But notice how he tells the brethren in these passages to comfort each other with his words and "not to be shaken in mind or excited , either by spirit or by word, or by letter." I can't see him as being irresponsible in this regard, especially when in II Tim. 4:6-8, written not long before he died evidently, he didn't expect Jesus to return right away before He died.

Now, let's look at some of these texts about Paul's writings being contradictory with what Jesus said or what Paul wrote elsewhere. There is more than one meaning for the word "first," such as concerning the various resurrections that have occurred. "First" just doesn't mean what occurred first chronologically (in time order, see I Cor. 15:23-24) but also refers to what is the most important or primary. Jesus' resurrection was the most important since it was necessary make all other resurrections occur, since it is also by His life we are saved (Rom. 5:10). This is how He is the first-born from the dead (Colossians 1:18) and the first-born of all creation (Col. 1:15).

The issue that comes up about calling on the Lord's name to be saved concerns what is necessary to be saved in general. For merely saying God's name isn't enough; it's necessary also to obey at a certain level by repenting from one's sins. This is clear from the last part of Matt. 7:21: "'Not ever one who says to me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." We can't just look at any one text to get a full picture of what salvation theology is. We need to look at all the various relevant texts, and then draw general conclusions. Faith isn't sufficient by itself if there is no action showing the faith is real, which is the point of James 2:26, "faith apart from works is dead." Notice v. 22, concerning Abraham showing faith by offering Isaac up on the altar: "You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works." He did something that showed he really believed, by nearly sacrificing Isaac.

It's a big issue about showing how Paul and James didn't contradict each other about justification by faith. I think the key solution here is that "justification" has more than one meaning, and that it can overlap with "sanctification," the next stage in the overall salvation process. "Justification" can mean a purely forensic justification, in which God declares us righteous, or sin-free, by faith in Jesus' sacrifice. On the other hand, we can become righteous by obeying the law, such as Romans 2:13 shows. See also Romans 6:16 (last part), 19, 22. Here we see obedience leads to righteousness, righteousness to sanctification, and sanctification to eternal life. So there is one type of righteousness that comes purely by God giving it to us by faith, and another type of righteousness that comes in part by humans working to obey the law while being helped by the Holy Spirit (look at Romans 8:4 once again). This is a complicated controversy, so you may want to look at my essay dealing with "Grace vs. Works" on my Web site.

One problem we humans have is being balanced in the Christian life. It's easy for people to emphasize one sin to avoid and neglect others in the process. True, there are people who spend too much time denouncing sexual sins, including gay sex. Consider how we have basically inverted the error of the Victorians. They were proud racists, but were (stereotypically) obsessed about sexual sin. (At least, the middle class in England was; the aristocracy and working class were considerably different!) Today, in America, we're inverted their errors nearly: We obsessed about avoiding racism, but neglect condemning sexual sin enough in the culture at large. (I don't just mean in the churches in this case).

I would submit, when considering such a book as David Limbaugh's Persecution: How the Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity or Josh McDowell's book dealing with the "New Tolerance," that liberals talk about tolerance, but hypocritically refuse to practice it towards Evangelical Protestants and traditionalist Catholics. It's very easily documented that they launch various politically correct persecution campaigns on college and government property against religious freedom (or any kind of alleged or real political conservatism). If people are offended about Christians stating their views, they really have to learn to tolerate them and not be so sensitive. After all, it's rather absurd to say Christians should have to pay for art through their taxes that insults their faith and learn to tolerate the insults involved, yet on the other hand, they can't say anything favoring their views publicly. Either all skeptical liberal comments attacking Christianity should be censored, or otherwise the Christians should be allowed to state their views equally often as (say) atheists or agnostics, such as in the public schools dealing with evolution vs. creation. After all, if the avant garde artists say their job is the shock the bourgeoisie, i.e., be offensive and insensitive, why should they expect Christians to be silent? (I'm thinking of the artist named Serrano who put a crucifix in a jar and then submerged in it his own urine. How's that for being sensitive and inoffensive!). If a carefully stated Christian viewpoint is offensive or insensitive to these people, they have to learn to practice the virtue they preach all the time when dealing with (say) conservative Christians attacking the gay lifestyle or abortion: Be tolerant also! Or, is the dirty secret that liberals only want to tolerate other liberals? It's easy to tolerate people who state views like your own. It's much harder to tolerate one's opponents instead of insisting they be censored. I would maintain the hate and fear of conservative Christians by skeptical liberals equals or exceeds that which any conservative Christians have towards skeptical liberals. To say they want to set up a theocracy is particularly ridiculous. Look up the political beliefs and political platforms of (say) Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, Jerry Falwell, and the Christian Coalition. They really just want to turn back the clock to Eisenhower's America, minus legal segregation, in such areas as the violent crime, abortion, divorce, drug abuse, and illegitimacy rates. America wasn't a theocracy before the 1962 school prayer decision by the Warren Court, and it wouldn't become one merely by reversing that bad decision.

It's important to realize that the sins of Christians don't refute the truth of the Bible. The Popes at times were incredibly corrupt, such as during the Renaissance at times, like Alexander VI, who held orgies in his palace. But, as a matter of philosophical logic, the sins of Christians don't prove the Bible to be false. Does anybody reason that the sins of atheists like Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, who killed many more times people in many fewer decades than Catholicism ever did, make any atheists give up their atheism? For example, the Spanish Inquisition, during its high point (about 1480-1505), which was really driven and controlled by the monarchy incidentally, killed about 2000 people. The Communists in Russia alone killed in just 1922, killed about 8,000 monks, nuns, and priests of the Orthodox Church. Which of these situations gets a lot more attention from modern liberals today when recounting the atrocities of the past? (It isn't what the communists did in Russia to Christians!) But how often did such atrocities make communists give up communism? I think some did actually, but many continued to make excuses, such as Marx would have never intended such things to occur or it's a nice idea (forced equality of condition) that doesn't work, etc.

Of course, I would maintain most people who have said they are Christians in history never were. Most simply aren't called in this life, but will get their first opportunity to be saved it the next life. This means they aren't in heaven or hell presently, for example. So the fact they sinned badly doesn't refute true Christianity, which (John 13:34-35) says all the world will know who the true Christians are based on their love one for another. John 6:44, 65 show that God the Father has to draw people to Jesus before they will be saved; they just don't do it on their own. God grants repentance (see Romans 2:4).

So I would encourage you to keep researching Christianity and seeking spiritual truth. There's plenty of evidence for this faith, but that won't be discovered easily. It rarely will show up in the big media outlets or on most college campuses, which are dominated by some kind of semi-official agnosticism. The world is a spiritual dark and deceived place (see Rev. 12:9 for why), so it's easy to get confused. But God does offer us light, if we're called and willing to respond to it.

EVS 11-04

Click here to access essays that defend Christianity: /apologetics.html

Click here to access essays that explain Christian teachings: /doctrinal.html

Click here to access notes for sermonettes: /sermonettes.html