[Continue Reading] We’re in Salt Lake City today, talking to Mormons about what they believe and the many differences between Mormonism and Christianity. For theists, the most important question we will ever ask (or answer) is simply this: “How does one attain eternal life?” As I described yesterday, Mormonism is a worked based theistic system; while Mormons use the word “grace,” they don’t truly believe God gives us eternal life as an unmerited gift. Mormons must work to achieve a place in celestial kingdom where they will be in the presence of Heavenly Father and exalted as Gods:

“Those who gain only this general or unconditional salvation will still be judged according to their works and receive places in a Terrestial or Telestial kingdom. They will, therefore, be damned; their eternal progression will be cut short; they will not fill the full measure of their creation, but in eternity will be ministering servants to more worthy persons.” (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pg 669-670, 1966 Edition)

“Conditional or individual salvation, that which comes by grace coupled with gospel obedience, consist in receiving an inheritance in the Celestial Kingdom of God. This kind of salvation follows faith, repentance, baptism, receipt of the Holy Ghost, and continued righteousness to the end of one’s mortal life. (D & C 20:29 & 2 Nephi 9:23-24). All others are damned – Even those in the celestial kingdom however, who do not go on to exaltation, will have immortality only and not eternal life – they will be ‘ministering servants, to minister for and to those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding and an eternal weight of glory’. They will live ‘separately and singly’ in an unmarried state ‘without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity’ (D & C 132:16,17). Salvation in its true and full meaning is synonymous with exaltation or eternal life and consist in gaining an inheritance in the highest of the three heavens within the Celestial Kingdom – It is the salvation which saints seek – This full salvation is obtained in and through the continuation of the family unit in eternity, and those who obtain it are gods – If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation. There is no salvation outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pg 669-670, 1966 Edition)

Mormonism Makes No Assurance About Eternal Life

While “good works” are obviously important to me as a Christian, Mormons are dependent on “good works” for eternal life. This becomes apparent when I ask my Mormon friends and family (I have six brothers and sisters who were raised LDS) about their eternal destiny. “If you died tonight, would you have eternal life?” This question usually produces an answer similar to: “I’m not sure, I hope so, I’m trying hard and doing the best I can.” When our salvation is based on our own effort, we can never be sure if we’ve done enough to merit the reward. For this reason, my Mormon family has no assurance of Salvation:

“There must be works – many works – and an all-out, total surrender, with a great humility and ‘a broken heart and a contrite spirit.’ It depends on you whether or not you are forgiven, and when. It could be weeks, it could be years, it could be centuries before that happy day when you have the positive assurance that the Lord has forgiven you. That depends on your humility, your sincerity, your works, your attitudes.” (Spencer Kimball, former Prophet of the LDS Church, The Miracle of Forgiveness, p.325)

“This salvation requires more than repentance and baptism by appropriate priesthood authority. It also requires the making of sacred covenants, including eternal marriage, in the temples of God, and faithfulness to those covenants by enduring to the end. If we use the word salvation to mean ‘exaltation,’ it is premature for any of us to say that we have been ‘saved’ in mortality. That glorious status can only follow the final judgment of Him who hs the Great Judge of the living and the dead.” (LDS Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, ‘Have You Been Saved?’, an address at the 168th Annual General Conference of the LDS Church given on April 5, 1998)

Christianity Provides the Assurance of Salvation

This is what saddens me most as a Christian. My brothers and sisters, as good as they may try to be, have no certainty about their eternal fate, especially if they study and believe the core teachings of Mormonism. This lack of assurance is decidedly unchristian. Christians know, right now, that we have (and will continue to have) eternal life:

1 John 5:9-14
We accept man’s testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

John uses the present imperative, “know” here for a reason. John is telling us that we can know right now. We can have certainty right now. We can know today that our eternal life is secure because it isn’t earned through something we must continue to do, but is instead gifted to us as something that was already done by Jesus on the cross. The beauty of grace is that it provides us with confidence to live eternal lives right now. That’s good news, and it’s the reason we are studying Mormonism and talking to Mormons in Salt Lake City today.

J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, a Christian Case Maker at Stand to Reason, and the author of Cold-Case Christianity

Comment Here

[Continue Reading] Today I am with my good friend, Sean McDowell, heading out on another Utah Missions trip with two dozen high school students and several of their teachers. We’ll be spending the week talking with Mormons about what they believe related to the nature of salvation, Jesus, God and the Bible. Our students will be engaging LDS believers in great conversations; they’ll definitely have to step out of their “comfort zone” in order to participate in the dialogue. We’ve spent many weeks preparing for this trip and we’ll spend long hours each night examining the scripture in response to our daily conversations. I’ve participated in lots of these trips over the years, so this week, I’ll be sharing some insights I’ve learned from my many conversations with Mormons.

Mormonism is a works-based theistic system; salvation is not a free gift of God, but rather something that must be earned. In many of my conversations with Mormons, I’ve been directed to the Sermon on the Mount; Mormons often point to Jesus’ words here in an effort to make their case for a works-based theology. After Jesus confronts His listeners about their thought-lives related to murder, adultery, making vows, seeking vengeance and loving your neighbor (Matthew 5:21-47), He ends with the following admonition:

Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:28)

A number of Mormons have used this verse to illustrate the need each of us has to strive for perfection daily so we can eventually have eternal life with God in Celestial Kingdom. After all, isn’t Jesus telling us here that we must be perfect, as God is perfect, in order to please Him? While it’s tempting to talk about why this verse is not describing a requirement for salvation, I’ve discovered a better way to illustrate my response. Instead of initiating a theological discussion related to salvation, I simply ask my Mormon friend, “Are you perfect?” The overwhelming response is usually something akin to, “Well, no, I’m not perfect yet, but I’m trying hard every day.” It’s at this point that I calmly tell them, “As a Christian, I know that I am already perfect.” This response typically raises an eyebrow or two, but it allows me to talk about the difference between “practical” and “positional” perfection.

It’s definitely true that I am far less than perfect if, by perfect, you are trying to describe the practical reality of my everyday behavior. I’m a mess, even on my best day. But something wonderful happens when I trust Jesus to do for me what I cannot do for myself. His perfection is substituted for my imperfection; His pardon is exchanged for my guilt. When my Mormons friends take me to Matthew 5 to argue that practical perfection is a salvation requirement, I typically respond by taking them to Hebrews 10:

Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying,

“This is the covenant that I will make with them
After those days, says the Lord:
I will put My laws upon their heart,
And on their mind I will write them,”

He then says,

“And their sins and their lawless deeds
I will remember no more.”

Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin. (Hebrews 10:11-18)

As a Christian, I am faultless in the eyes of God, not because I am practically perfect and faultless, but because God has perfected me for all time (verse 14). How did He accomplish this? It certainly wasn’t through anything I could do. My good works, my “offerings” and “sacrifices” are impotent and no longer needed in my hopeless effort to appease God. “God credits righteousness (to me) apart from works” (Romans 4:6); He exchanges my practical imperfection for the positional perfection of Jesus, offered to me at the cross. It’s really as simple as that. God is not condoning some form of “cheap grace” that liberates me to continuing sinning. I have new freedom from sin because God is changing my nature. He’s taking away my old desires and replacing them with new ones (more on that later in the week). God’s grace emboldens me to respond with a new life. Understanding the depth and nature of His gift to me, I cannot help but respond with a life that reflects my gratitude. Grace changes everything.

We travel to Utah because we see it as an important mission field. It’s a region filled with well-behaved, delightfully obedient, hard-working folks who simply cannot comprehend the nature of Grace and the true love of God. The task-master they serve is very different than the God of the Bible. We go to Utah because we want to introduce people to the freedom that is found in Christ. We go to Utah to help liberate people from the incredible, impossible burden of practical perfection. We hope, instead, to introduce them to the positional perfection that is found in Jesus alone. We hope to introduce them to the grace of God.

J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, a Christian Case Maker at Stand to Reason, and the author of Cold-Case Christianity

Comment Here

[Continue Reading] In this podcast, Jim responds to skeptics who claim that Jesus is merely a re-creation of ancient “dying and rising” mythologies. How strong are the similarities between Jesus and the mythologies of antiquity and what might explain these similarities? Jim also discusses the role of leadership in Christian Case Making.

[Continue Reading] I’ve been reviewing a cold-case for a local agency this week, examining the evidence they’ve collected to help them determine if they’ve got enough to file the case with the District Attorney. We’re using an approach that I’ve described in my book, called “Abductive Reasoning”; a process that also has application for those of us who examine the evidence of Scripture. This local cold-case, like all my cases, relies on a cumulative collection of circumstantial evidences. Convincing circumstantial cases emerge when a large number of facts are most reasonably explained by the same common cause. If a particular suspect can account for all the evidence in the case, that suspect is the most reasonable candidate. In this particular local case, there just wasn’t enough evidence. I called the I/O (investigating officer) and told him the bad news:  The case needed a “tipping point”.

How “Tipping Points” Impact Criminal Cases

The problem with some circumstantial cases lies in the alternate explanations that could be offered for each piece. Let’s say a suspect behaves in a certain way the day after the murder. I have to ask myself: Is that behavior most reasonably explained by his guilt? Could it also be explained in some other way? What if he made a statement to someone on the day of the murder; did he say something that can only be reasonably interpreted as an indicator of his guilt or is there another way to reasonably interpret the statement? The local case I examined suffered from the problem of multiple interpretations. Each and every piece of evidence could be reasonably explained as consistent with the suspect’s guilt or just a reasonably explained by some other cause. As I made a comprehensive list of all the evidence, I found that none of the facts were without a reasonable alternative explanation. While the detectives interpreted the evidence to demonstrate the suspect’s guilt, a member of the jury could just as rationally conclude that some alternate explanation was reasonable. The case lacked a clear, irrefutable piece of evidence to act as the “tipping point” to guide us in how we ought to interpret the rest of the facts.

“Tipping point” evidences help us understand which interpretive direction we ought to travel. If, for example, our suspect later told a friend, “I feel terrible about what I did to that girl. I can’t sleep at night, I feel like I have her blood on my hands. I didn’t think I was capable of killing anyone,” this one piece of evidence would guide us in interpreting other elements of the case that are less clear. It’s hard to envision another way to interpret that statement other than as an admission of guilt. Given that confession, we can now return to the other less certain pieces of evidence and see how they fold into the larger case. Everything makes sense now, because we have a “tipping point” statement from the suspect that helps us interpret everything else.

How “Tipping Points” Impact Biblical Interpretations

Something very similar occurs when we examine the Bible in an effort to make a case for a particular doctrine or theological truth. We begin by collecting all the evidence in the case; the verses that address the issue under investigation. Some of these versions will have more than one reasonable interpretation. How will we know which interpretation is correct? Begin by looking for “tipping points”. Is there a verse that can only be reasonably explained in one particular direction? If so, you’ve located a “tipping point” verse. This piece of scriptural evidence can then guide you as you return to the less certain verses. It’s fair now to interpret these verses in a manner that is consistent with the “tipping point”. If someone challenges your interpretation of those verses, you can simply return to the “tipping point” verse to make your case. This is the same approach we take in circumstantial homicide cases. It’s a reasonable approach in the court room and it’s a reasonable approach in Biblical interpretation.

I’m less aggressive about a homicide case when I lack an evidential “tipping point”. Rather than argue belligerently with the District Attorney in an effort to get him to file the case, I recognize the liabilities and alternative explanations. Sometimes I have a “tipping point” and sometimes I don’t. When I do, I present the case aggressively with confidence; when I don’t, I present the case modestly with qualification. Even though (in the latter situation) I might still think I have the right suspect, I can respect the fact that the DA might not agree. We are still brothers in this cause; we’ve known each other for years and have become good friends. I’m not going to get upset and pound my chest about a case that lacks a “tipping point”. In a similar way, I’m not going to divide from my Christian brothers and sisters over theological inferences that lack an irrefutable scriptural “tipping point”. If my conclusions are built on verses that can be reasonably interpreted in more than one way, I am willing to show charity to those with whom I disagree. We’re still brothers and sisters in the same cause; we all want to possess a reasonable faith. I’m not going to get upset and pound my chest about a position that lacks a “tipping point”.

J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, a Christian Case Maker at Stand to Reason, and the author of Cold-Case Christianity

Comment Here

[Continue Reading] Can a Christian Oppose Abortion Yet Support the Death Penalty?

When the recent Kermit Gosnell trial came to an end, the death penalty debate once again captured the attention of the nation. Gosnell was sentenced to several life terms in prison and avoided execution; but the trial caused many Christians to re-examine what they believe about the use of deadly force. Gosnell’s case was unique in that it compelled many of us to examine and compare our beliefs related to the proper justification required to end someone’s life. How can we oppose abortion (on the grounds that it is murder), yet support the death penalty for Gosnell? It’s time for us to revisit what we believe about deadly force.

Over the past 16 years, as I’ve become more vocal about my identity as a Christian, several of my fellow police officers have come to me with questions about the use of deadly force, particularly after they’ve been involved in a shooting. As cops, we are often required to use our weapons; we always know it’s a possibility, but it’s usually not until we’ve used deadly force that we seriously confront what we believe on the matter. I think there is ample Biblical warrant to support the justified use of deadly force. The question is, of course, when is this use of force justified?

Proper Justifications for Deadly Force

This is the heart of the issue when it comes to distinguishing the difference between abortion and the death penalty. Scripture repeatedly offers two Biblical justifications for the use of deadly force: homicides committed in self-defense (Exodus 22:2) and homicides committed when trying to protect the life of an innocent third party (Exodus 2:11-12 and Genesis 14:14-16). These two Biblical exceptions are still represented in our country in the Penal Codes of each state related to “justifiable homicide”. Both justifications share one common feature: We are warranted in using deadly force when someone is trying to take the life of an innocent (either your own innocent life or another). When a “killing” is motivated by this proper justification, it is not “murder”; when it is not properly justified, it is. Murder, not killing, is condemned by God.

Is the Death Penalty an Act of Murder?

As Christians, we are not contradictory when we support the death penalty yet oppose abortion. Yes, both actions will end the life of a human being. But while the death penalty ends the life of a convicted murderer, abortion ends the life of an innocent baby. It is immoral for us to fail to see the difference between these two categories of humans. When I proclaim, “I am opposed to abortion”, what I am really saying is, “I am opposed to the unjustified killing of innocent human beings.” This is the difference between taking the life of a fetal human and taking the life of a convicted killer. If I believed convicted murderers were innocent human beings, I would be opposed to taking their lives as well.

The Bible affirms the distinction between innocent humans and guilty murderers. While the Old Testament protects the life of blameless human beings as described in the passages I’ve referenced (Exodus 22:2, Exodus 2:11-12 and Genesis 14:14-16), it also recognizes guilty murderers are in an entirely different category (as seen clearly in Numbers 35:30-31 and Genesis 9:6). Innocent humans are worthy of protection, guilty murderers deserve execution. In addition, the New Testament authors affirmed the justified use of deadly force by those who were in authority. Paul recognized the fact that government had the authority to use deadly force as it “bears the sword” (Romans 13:1, 3-4), and Paul did not deny the government’s authority to execute him if it found that he had done evil (Acts 25:9-11). When the government acts to end the life of a convicted killer, it is not committing an act of murder; it is instead performing a justified execution.

Understanding Those Who Hold a Position of Pacifism

I understand those who are still wrestling with their position related to the death penalty. Many Christians look at Jesus’ teaching on “turning the other cheek” (Matthew 5:38-41) as a prohibition against the use of any force at all. While we may not all agree with that position, we ought to understand (and be sympathetic to) its genesis. But as Christians who properly distinguish between innocent fetal humans and convicted murderers, it is possible for us to be both “pro-life” and “pro-death penalty”.

J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, a Christian Case Maker at Stand to Reason, and the author of Cold-Case Christianity

Comment Here

[Continue Reading] Skeptics have written quite a bit about the allegedly “irreconcilable” differences between the genealogies of Jesus recorded in the gospels of Matthew (Matthew 1) and Luke (Luke 3:23-38). The genealogies appear to be quite different, especially as each author traces the lineage from King David down to Jesus. While I also recognize the differences here, I am familiar enough with witness statements to understand why this may be the case. I often review reports from cold-cases that were written by detectives who have long since died. As they described the statements that were originally offered to them by a witness, they often appear to have documented conflicting statements from witnesses who should have seen the same thing. Years later, all I have are the written reports of the deceased detectives and apparent contradictions. Once I get the chance to interview the witness for myself, the issues begin to find resolution. I’ve learned to ask each witness not only what they saw, but how the detective originally interviewed them. This is an important second question, because it often solves an apparent contradiction in the original reports. It turns out that what the detective was trying to accomplish in the interview often shapes what he finally recorded on paper. In addition, if I have access to other archived reports from the detective who conducted the interview, I may learn something about his approach to report writing that will help me understand why he wrote a report in a particular way. If I hope to address a jury and explain an apparent contradiction between witnesses as recorded by the original detective, I’m going to have to learn about the contributing factors that motivated the documentation in the first place. What was the detective’s objective when he wrote the report? What was of interest to him? What was he trying to accomplish?

In a similar way, we need to understand what might have been motivating Matthew and Luke as they recorded their genealogies of Jesus. In this regard, I think the scholarship that precedes me has done an excellent job of uncovering two reason contributing factors that might explain the differences:

Minor Reasonable Contributing Factor:
Some theologians and scholars have noted that one of the authors may simply have been more interested in including members of Jesus’ “legal” lineage who are related to him through “levirate marriage”. Back in these days, if a man passed away without any sons, the man’s brother would marry the widow to produce a son who could carry on the original man’s name. The son could then be listed under the genealogy of his natural father or his legal father. This might explain why Joseph is listed as the son of Heli in Luke but the son of Jacob in Matthew. While this may explain some of the differences between genealogies, there are too many variances to trust this minor contributing factor as a comprehensive explanation.

Major Reasonable Contributing Factor:
A more likely contributing factor, in my view, is the difference in the initial objectives of each author. Matthew appears to be writing to a Jewish audience. As a result, he begins his genealogy with characters familiar to Jews of the time (folks like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) and places the genealogy at the start of his narrative. He quickly tries to connect Jesus to the overarching Jewish history leading up to the New Testament era. Luke, on the other hand, seems to be more interested in a broader audience that includes gentiles. His narrative begins by addressing Theophilus and he quickly connects the story of Jesus to the “days of Herod”. Luke doesn’t even present the genealogy until after he first introduces Mary and the virgin conception of Jesus. For this reason, it is quite likely that Luke may be tracing the genealogy of Jesus through Mary rather than Joseph. This would explain why Luke traces Jesus back through David’s son Nathan (if he is in the line of Mary), while Matthew traces Jesus back through David’s son Solomon (in an effort to track the line of Joseph).

When I examine a cold-case file and see an apparent contradiction penned by a detective without any attempt to resolve the differences between accounts, I have to remind myself that the detective who recorded the statements certainly must have recognized the differences. Why didn’t he try to resolve them at the time of the original investigation? Why didn’t he at least acknowledge the apparent inconsistencies? As it turns out, it’s usually because he understood the different objectives he possessed when conducting the interviews in the first place. To him, there was no apparent contradiction. In a similar way, I think it’s fair for us to ask the same thing of Matthew and Luke. It appears that the earliest students of the gospel authors (Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement) had access to Matthew and Luke as concurrent accounts. They all quote, reference or allude to passages in both gospels. Certainly they must have noticed the apparent contradictions. Why weren’t the differences altered to harmonize the accounts? It may simply be that, like the original detectives in my cold-cases, they understood the original objectives of the authors better than we do today. Once you understand the contributing factors that motivate authors, it’s far easier to understand the unique differences in their texts.

J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, a Christian Case Maker at Stand to Reason, and the author of Cold-Case Christianity

To comment on this and other Cold-Case Christianity blog posts, visit our comment page!

[Continue Reading] Now that I’ve written a book, I get the chance to speak around the country and talk about how we, as Christians, assemble circumstantial evidence related to the reliability of the Gospels and the existence of God. As a result, I meet all kinds of Christians who hold a variety of views related to the Genesis creation account. Many are “Literal Day” creationists, while others lean toward some version of “Gap Theory”, “Day-Age Creation Theory”, “Creation Revelation Theory”, “Progressive Creation Theory”, “Genesis Creation Day Theory” or “Genesis Literary Theory” Creationism. Some believe that the universe is very young, others that it is very old. Some believe that God created everything in the form we see it in today (as the result of some form of “instantaneous” creation); others that God shaped His creation through some process of progressive interaction. When you ask these folks about the Bible, all of them will tell you that they believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God. All will agree that the Bible is the final authority. All will tell you that they believe what the Bible teaches. Christians simply disagree on how to interpret the first book of Moses.

I’m sensitive to the variety of views held by Christians on this matter. I see the reasonable nature of every view; I recognize that each approach to Genesis chapter one has its own virtues and its own liabilities. I’m not discouraged by this reality, but encouraged that there are so many reasonable resolutions. I am discouraged, however, when we allow our fallen human nature to get the best of us. Rather than finding areas of agreement, most of us choose to divide over areas of divergence. Regardless of your position related to the Genesis account, I’d like to point out the areas where all of us, regardless of creation theory, agree. As Christians, we all affirm the following premises:

God originated everything (all space, time and matter) supernaturally

God created the material universe (and our world) in incremental steps over a period of time (six literal days or six “ages”)

God was actively involved in the creation of all life (life is not the result of an unguided natural process)

God prepared everything in the universe as a home for mankind, the last of his creation

God created the first humans in his “image”

God’s relationship to his creation is accurately described in the Bible

As Christians, we all agree that God exists. He is the creator of the universe and all life within it. While we agree on the aforementioned critical, foundational issues related to God’s creation, we disagree on how long this process took, and precisely how God shaped each object of his creation (did God create everything in the final form we see today, or did God progressively guide his creation over some period of time?). We agree on the big stuff and disagree on the details.

It’s interesting to note that Christians also agree with atheists on a several important premises related to the nature of the universe:

Everything in the universe (all space, time and matter) came into existence from nothing at a point in the past

Life on our planet appeared in incremental steps over a period of time

Humans appear later in history relative to the appearance of other animals

Humans possess a consciousness that is unique to the animal world

As Christians, we often think that we disagree with atheists on everything when it comes to the origin of the universe and the origin of life, but that isn’t actually the case. We also tend to think, as Christians, that we ought to agree with one another on everything when it comes to the origin of the universe and the origin of life, but I’m not sure that ought to be the case either. Christians disagree with one another on secondary issues. We disagree with atheists on the most important issue: Does God exist and is He actively involved in the creation of the universe? That happens to be the most significant question we can ask as a culture. The answer shapes everything in our worldview; what we believe about our origin determines largely how we will choose to live our lives.

So it seems to me that Christians have a choice. We can focus on the areas where we disagree with one another (secondary issues related to the amount of time taken and the precise mechanisms used by God), or we can focus on the area where we disagree with an unbelieving world (the foundational issue of God’s existence). I am inclined to begin my discussions with Christians by uniting around our common knowledge related to God’s existence and interaction in the universe, rather than dividing over our points of divergence. At the same time, I am also inclined to begin my conversations with non-believers by pointing out our areas of agreement before I address he most important foundational issue that divides us. It’s easy to forget that we have a lot in common, but these points of agreement ought to unite us as we engage other Christians and inspire us to begin a conversation with unbelievers who need to hear the Gospel.

J. Warner Wallace is a Christian Case Maker at Stand to Reason, and the author of Cold-Case Christianity

To comment on this and other Cold-Case Christianity blog posts, visit our comment page!

[Continue Reading] While the similarities between Jesus and the “divine” mythological characters that preceded him are grossly overstated, we ought to expect some parallels between Jesus and the imaginative creations of those who lived prior to Christ’s appearance on earth. As ancient people began to consider the possibility of God’s existence, a series of reasonable inferences certainly must have guided the fabrication of their mythological deities. Consider the following reasonable conclusions one might draw when thinking about the possible existence of God:

A Creator God would be incredibly strong and likely emerge in our world in a way that defies the natural order of things.

A Creator God would have the power to perform miracles and control the forces of the natural environment.

A Creator God, if He wanted us to know Him, would likely provide us with some form of mediator.

A Creator God, if He was to come to earth, would certainly draw attention to Himself, gathering disciples.

A Creator God would be powerful enough to defeat death.

A Creator God would want to save his children and come to their rescue, particularly if they are facing an eternal threat.

A Creator God, if He loves us, would likely make it possible for us to join Him in his eternal life.

A Creator God would likely have infinite wisdom and be the master of our lives.

All of these expectations are reasonable. If there is a God, we could sensibly expect him to possess these characteristics. So it really shouldn’t surprise us when we find ancient mythological descriptions of pre-Christian gods who emerge into the natural world in some unnatural way, perform miraculous deeds, intervene as mediators, gather disciples, defeat death, rescue believers, provide a path to eternal life and serve as the source of all wisdom. I would expect those who are dreaming and thinking about God to describe these common features in the gods they create; these characteristics emerge from reasonable expectations. This is largely why there are any similarities at all (even though they are minimal and exaggerated) between ancient mythologies and Jesus.

Paul recognized this inclination to create Gods from our expectations. Addressing the people of Athens on Mars Hill, two thousand years ago, Paul told his listeners that while they had imagined the nature of God, there was actually a true God, Jesus Christ, who came into the world and exceeded their expectations:

Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you. “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’ “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone-an image made by man’s design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.” (Acts 17:22-31)

Paul seemed to recognize that God had an answer for those who had been dreaming about His nature. God was aware of all the mythologies that preceded His true appearance. He was aware of the dreams and expectations of these ancient people; He knew how they had shaped their gods. It shouldn’t surprise us, then, that God would eventually appear and prove He was the one true God by meeting our expectations, point for point, and then dramatically surpassing these expectations in a demonstration of power and glory. In Paul’s words on Mars Hill, I hear the faint echo of God’s encouragement: “Children, I know you have imagined me to be a certain way. In some small measure you have imagined correctly. In many other ways you have been very far from the mark. Let me show you who I am. Watch me meet all the expectations you had about my nature. Let me assure you by pointing you to the miraculous life I lived among you. Let me show you how I rescued you in a way you could never have dreamt of.”

In the end, it was the powerful eyewitness confirmation of the Resurrection that Paul highlighted in an effort to convince the Athenians that Jesus was the one true God who met their expectations. Jesus was described as the true God who would “judge the world with justice”, and Paul said that God had “given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.” How do we know Jesus is not just another mythological creation of ancient men who had reasonable expectations? Because (according to Paul) we have a reliable eyewitness account related to the Resurrection. That’s why this historic eyewitness claim became the focus of my investigation as a skeptic, why I spent so much time investigating the claims of the gospels as eyewitness accounts, and why I have such confidence today. The accounts are reliable under any template we might use with witnesses in the courtroom, and if they’re reliable, Jesus is the true God who met our expectations and then surpassed them in a way we could never have anticipated.

J. Warner Wallace is a Christian Case Maker at Stand to Reason, and the author of Cold-Case Christianity

To comment on this and other Cold-Case Christianity blog posts, visit our comment page!

[Continue Reading] I’ve written about how we, as Christians, ought to respond to the claim that Jesus is simply a fictional re-creation of prior “dying-and-rising” god mythologies. The first step in assessing the evidence requires us to closely examine attributes of the mythological character offered in comparison to Jesus. It turns out that pre-Christian mythologies are far less similar to the story of Jesus than critics claim. When I first began to examine all the alleged similarities, I found that one pre-Christian deity seemed to be most similar to Jesus. When “Jesus Mythers” begin to make their case, they inevitably offer Mithras as their case in point. For this reason, I think it’s fair to examine Mithras in an effort to understand how skeptics construct their arguments related to Jesus and ancient mythologies.

There are two distinct (and non-continuous) traditions related to Mithras, one coming out of the areas of India and Iran, centuries prior to the birth of Jesus, and another developed in Roman times concurrent with the Christian era. Many experts have struggled to try to connect these as one continuous tradition, and in so doing, have distorted or misinterpreted the basic elements of the tradition and mythology. There is no surviving Mithraic scripture; most of what is known about Mithras comes from statues and murals that have no captions, or from the writings of ancient Christians who described Mithraic rituals many years after the arrival of Jesus. The vast majority of scholarly work on this mythological character is pure speculation. Given that foundation, let’s take a look at some of the alleged similarities between Mithras and Jesus:

Claim: Mithras was born of a virgin on December 25th, in a cave, attended by shepherds
Truth: Mithras was actually born out of solid rock, leaving a cave. He was not born of a virgin (unless you consider the rock mountain to have been a virgin). His birth was celebrated on December 25th, but both Mithras worshippers and the earliest Christians borrowed this celebration from earlier winter solstice celebrations. The earliest version of the Mithras narrative that includes shepherds appears one hundred years after the appearance of the New Testament; it is far more likely Mithraism borrowed the shepherds from Christianity than the other way around.

Claim: Mithras was considered a great traveling teacher and master
Truth: There is nothing in the Mithras tradition that indicates he was a teacher of any kind, but he could have been considered a master of sorts. But why would we expect any deity to be anything less than a great teacher and master?

Claim: Mithras had 12 companions or disciples
Truth: There is no evidence for any of this in the traditions of Iran or Rome. It is possible that the idea that Mithras had 12 disciples came from a mural in which Mithras is surrounded by twelve signs and personages of the Zodiac (two of whom are the moon and the sun), but even this imagery is post-Christian.

Claim: Mithras promised his followers immortality
Truth: While there is little evidence for this, it is certainly reasonable to think that Mithras did offer immortality, although this is not uncommon for any god of mythology.

Claim: Mithras performed miracles
Truth: This claim is true, but what mythological god didn’t perform miracles?

Claim: Mithras sacrificed himself for world peace
Truth: There is little or no evidence that any of this is true. The closest Mithraic narrative is a story in which Mithras killed a threatening bull in a heroic deed.

Claim: Mithras was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again, and Mithras was celebrated each year at the time of His resurrection (later to become Easter)
Truth: There is nothing in the Mithras tradition that indicates he ever even died, let alone was buried or resurrected. Tertullian, the ancient Christian Case Maker, did write about Mithraic believers re-enacting resurrection scenes, but he wrote about this occurring well after New Testament times. This again appears to be another example of Mithras followers borrowing from Christianity (in the Roman version of the Mithraic religion).

Claim: Mithras was called “the Good Shepherd”, and was identified with both the Lamb and the Lion
Truth: There is no evidence that Mithras was ever called “the Good Shepherd” or identified with a lamb, but Since Mithras was a sun-god, there was an association with Leo (the House of the Sun in Babylonian astrology), so one might say that he was associated with a Lion. But once again, all of this evidence is post New Testament, and cannot, therefore, have been borrowed by Christianity.

Claim: Mithras was considered to be the “Way, the Truth and the Light,” and the “Logos,” “Redeemer,” “Savior” and “Messiah.”
Truth: Based on the researched, historic record of the Mithraic tradition, none of these terms have ever been applied to Mithras deity with the exception of “mediator”. But this term was used in a way that was very different from the way that it is used in the Christian tradition. Mithras was not the mediator between God and man but the mediator between the good and evil gods of Zoroaster.

Claim: Mithras celebrated Sunday as His sacred day (also known as the “Lord’s Day,”)
Truth: This tradition of celebrating Sunday is only true of the later Roman Mithras followers; it is a tradition that dates to post-Christian times. Once again, it is more likely to have been borrowed from Christianity than the other way around.

It is reasonable that ancient people groups, thinking about the world around them and the existence of God, would assign certain characteristics to God (more on that next week), and it’s also reasonable that many of these groups might begin to imagine God with some measure of accuracy. But when you take the time to investigate the initial claims of those who say Jesus is similar to some ancient mythological god, you’ll quickly discover that those pre-Christian deities aren’t much like Jesus after all.

For more information related to Mithras:
The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries (Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World) by David Ulansey (Oxford University Press, 1989), Mithras, the Secret God by M. J. Vermaseren (Barnes and Noble Publishers, 1963), and Mithraic Studies (Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies – 2 Volumes) edited by John R Hinnells (Manchester University Press, 1975).

J. Warner Wallace is a Christian Case Maker at Stand to Reason, and the author of Cold-Case Christianity

To comment on this and other Cold-Case Christianity blog posts, visit our comment page!