Evidence for Jesus: What's the Odds? 48 Prophesis, from Lee Strobel's Cas...

The Most Incredible Prophecy - Probabilities of Fulfilling the Prophecies Concerning Jesus Christ

God and the Problem of Evil and Suffering - William Lane Craig, PhD- Video)

Healing Amputees and Belief in God

“Why won’t God heal amputees?”  The question caught me by surprise.

I had just finished my “Why I Am a Christian” talk at Calvary Chapel Chino Valley’s youth conference in April.  After talking with a few students and leaders, a young man approached.  He challenged me with this question, explaining his atheist friend had asked it earlier in the week. And he had no answer for his friend.

Apparently, it’s a question atheists make a big deal about. There is even an entire website dedicated to it (www.whywontgodhealamputees.com).  The website claims “this is one of the most important questions we can ask about God.”  Sometime, somewhere I had heard the objection but had never given it much attention.  Now it was staring me right in the face.  Immediate attention was required.

I proceeded in usual fashion—by asking clarifying questions.  “What conclusion does your atheist friend draw from this question?” I inquired.  He responded, “Well, if God doesn’t heal amputees when we pray for them, then He doesn’t exist.”  I followed with a few more questions, gathering the gist of the atheist’s argument.

The atheist claims that alleged healings, like the disappearance of a cancerous tumor or diagnosed disease, seem to be ambiguous.  Did God supernaturally heal the person or is modern medicine responsible?  Both causes could be offered and both could be disputed.  But according to the atheist, if an amputee grew back a missing limb after intercessory prayer was offered on his behalf, this would be a clear case of the miraculous and thus proof for God’s existence.  On the other hand, no new limb means no God.  A fail-proof test, right?  Wrong.

First, I pointed out this atheist’s argument is guilty of a logical fallacy called a non sequitur.  The fallacy is committed when a conclusion or statement does not logically follow from a previous argument or statement.  If amputees do not grow back limbs when we pray for them, does it follow God does not exist?  Of course not.  His existence is independent of what actions He would or would not take.

But why limit myself to amputee miracles?  Any miracle will do.  A million dollars in my bank account today.  World peace starting tomorrow.  And if these miracles don’t occur, then God doesn’t exist.  Well, I think you can see the irrationality of such claims.  God’s failure to perform a miracle at my request says nothing about His existence.  In fact, even if we granted the atheist his assumption that amputees are not healed, at the very most we could only conclude God does not heal amputees.  Not a profound conclusion.

Second, I pointed out his atheist friend simply assumed no amputees have been healed.  But just because an atheist says there’s never been an amputee healing in thousands of years of human history doesn’t mean it’s true.  Now, I’ve never researched this question but I wanted this young Christian to catch a healthy bit of skepticism, particularly when it comes to anti-Christian claims.  Research is now in order but my point was you cannot simply assume what needs to be proven. 

But we also have to test the intellectual honesty of the atheist asking this question.  If we can produce a credible report of an amputee’s missing limb being healed and replaced, is the atheist willing to accept that evidence?  There are credible reports of miraculous healings in our own time and in the Bible, but he dismisses these wanting further evidence of a particular kind of miracle.  So is this an honest question or an insincere request for evidence when no evidence will suffice?

Third, even personally witnessing a miracle is no guarantee that someone will believe.  This was the case with the Pharisees of Jesus’ time.  They witnessed His miracles, but their response was to conspire to crucify Him.  Greg Koukl calls this “unbelievable unbelief.”  Jesus told them, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead” (Luke 16:31).

You see, our essential problem is moral, rebellion against God.  Asking for evidence is legitimate, but evidence doesn’t guarantee belief because sinners don’t want to bend their knee to the Lord.  So the question actually arises from a wrong understanding of the atheist’s fundamental problem.  It’s not lack of evidence, it’s sin and rebellion to the Truth. 

 Read FULL ARTICLE HERE

Ravi Zacharias & John Lennox Answers Stephen Hawking on the Existence of God, Pt 1 - Part 1

Is God a Moral Monster? - Paul Copan & Norman Bacrac

How to Defend the Christian Faith: Teaching Tools for High School and Above

Below are links to two apologetics teaching tools by William Lane Craig, author of Reasonable Faith, and avid debater of the new atheists (ie., Richard Dawkins)

http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Never-Rests-Workbook-Apologists/dp/146379018X/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b  (Handbook, suitable for high school age and above )

http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Never-Rests-Teachers-Handbook/dp/1463797818/ref=pd_sim_b_1  (Teachers’ Guide, above)

The New Testament | Oral Tradition and Memorization

 Introductory Questions

• How do we know the gospel writers got it right?
• Why was the writing of the gospels delayed for decades?
• What happened in the meantime?
• Isn’t it possible that the gospel writers simply forgot most of the details about what Jesus said and did by the time they put pen to papyrus?
• How do we know that the faith of the gospel writers didn’t get in the way of accurate historical reporting?
• Since they were writing to specific communities, how do we know that they didn’t radically rework the material to meet the needs of their audiences?

We are going to unpack each of these questions in detail and show that the gospel writers gave us credible, accurate, historical accounts of the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. 

Read  FULL ARTICLE

THE HISTORICAL RELIABILITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

THE HISTORICAL RELIABILITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
by: Jill Graham

One of the key points in proving the truth of Christianity is showing that the New Testament writings are historically reliable. Without this foundation, it is impossible to know if the story of the life and teachings of Jesus that has come down to us can be trusted, and thus if the Jesus presented in the New Testament is worthy of reasonable faith. Muslims claim that the New Testament documents have been corrupted and that
Christians do not have access to the true teachings of Jesus through their Scriptures.1

Higher critics and groups such as the Jesus Seminar assert that the New Testament is marred by fictitious inventions and legendary additions, and that the Jesus of history is far different from the Jesus presented in the gospels.2 Post-modernist relativists challenge that truth about history, including the truths about the historical Jesus, cannot be known with any degree of certainty.3 These challenges must be answered, and a
positive case built for the historical reliability of the New Testament if Christianity is to
remain a viable faith in our world today.

As F.F. Bruce cautions in his introduction to his book on the historical reliability of the New Testament documents, the teachings of Confucius or Plato can stand regardless of the traditions about their lives that have come down to us, but the truth of the teachings of Jesus is intimately connected to his real life in history and the reliability of the Christian story.4

F.F. Bruce writes:

The Christian gospel is not primarily a code of ethics or a metaphysical system; it is first and foremost good news . . . [which is] intimately bound up with the historical order . . . This historical ‘once-for-all-ness’ of Christianity, which distinguishes it from those religious and philosophical systems which are not specially related to any particular time, makes the reliability of the writings which purport to record this revelation a question of first-rate importance . . .The character of Jesus can be known only from the New Testament records; the influence of his character is therefore tantamount to the influence of the New
Testament Records.5

Read FULL ARTICLE

Evidence For the Existence of God - William Lane Craig

I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist: Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens, part 1