Blog

When I want to go really, really in depth on a given topic; I do one of two things; (1) I write a series of blog posts instead of just one, or (2) I write a book. Sometimes I do both, writing the latter and adding even more detail than the former, with the book being an expansion of the article series. Ever since I started Cerebral Faith 10 years ago, I’ve been dedicated to giving people good written content that’s easily accessable (in more than one sense of the term). As I write this, I am contemplating on doing yet another blog post series; this time on the case for the reliability of The New Testament. Yes, you read that right. I’m going to be defending Jesus’ resurrection using a “Maximalist” case. I need to brush up on this topic and would like to do some further research instead of just jumping in with vague recollections of some plaque that proved John got it right when he said something about something….or was it Matthew? While you wait, here are some already existing blog post series you can consume.

1: The Evidence For Jesus’ Resurrection

This blog series defends the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection using “The Minimal Facts” approach, in contrast to the maximalist case I’ll be making at some unspecified time in the future. It is 10 articles long. I begin with introductory notes telling the reader why the resurrection of Jesus is so important, and what implications it has if it’s true, and what implications it has if it’s false (one implication of it being true is that the entire Christian worldview would be validated). Then I go onto talk about historical methodology; i.e the criteria of authenticity, how I will and won’t be using The New Testament. I explain that I examine the gospels and epistles, but that I treat them merely as ancient documents that claim to be telling us about Jesus, NOT as inspired scripture. I believe The New Testament is inspired, but I don’t make arguments that depend on the validity of that presupposition. I apply the criteria of authenticity to them like I would any other ancient document (e.g something written by Philo). After all that groundwork is laid, I have entire articles dedicated to defending each of the Minimal Facts in my case. Each article has around 6-10 arguments for the historicity of Jesus’ crucifixion, The Empty Tomb, and the postmortem appearances to the disciples. After that, I address naturalistic theories that attempt to account for the empty tomb and various postmortem appearances, and I argue that the resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation of all the historical facts.

Here are the links to those articles;

• “The Evidence For Jesus’ Resurrection – Part 1: Why This Matters”
• “The Evidence For Jesus’ Resurrection – Part 2: How To Do History” 
• “The Evidence For Jesus’ Resurrection – Part 3: Fact (1) Jesus Died By Crucifixion” 
• “The Evidence For Jesus’ Resurrection – Part 4: Fact (2) The Empty Tomb”
• “The Evidence For Jesus’ Resurrection – Part 5: Fact (3) The Postmortem Appearances To The Disciples” 
• “The Evidence For Jesus’ Resurrection – Part 6: Facts (4) and (5) The Postmortem Appearances To Paul and James”
• “The Evidence For Jesus’ Resurrection – Part 7: Reasoning To The Resurrection”
• “The Evidence For Jesus’ Resurrection – Part 8: Some Unanswered Questions” 
• “The Evidence For Jesus’ Resurrection – Part 9: Probabilities and Plagarism” 
• “The Evidence For Jesus’ Resurrection – Part 10: Conclusion” 

2: Heremenuetics 101

This series goes into the various rules of biblical hermenuetics. Hermenuetics are simply the rules we employ when we engage in the task of interpreting scripture. There are several different rules one must abide by if one is going to get at the correct interpretation of any given passage. Interpreting a verse in the context of the passage its found in, or letting the many clear passages inform your understanding of the few unclear passages are just a couple of examples. The series is 8 blog articles long. In each article, I not only explain each principle of interpretation, but I also show examples in which to apply them (often in cases in which other people haven’t – looking at you, people who quote Matthew 7:1 out of context). 

• “Hermenuetics 101 – Part 1: Introduction” 
• “Hermenuetics 101 – Part 2: Reading A Text In Its Context” 
• “Heremenuetics 101 – Part 3: Understanding The Cultural Context” 
• “Hermenuetics 101 – Part 4: Letting Scripture Interpret Scripture” 
• “Hermenuetics 101 – Part 5: Knowing The Genre” 
• “Hermenuetics 101 – Part 6: The Grammatical Principle” 
• “Hermenuetics 101 – Part 7: Literal Until Proven Non-Literal” 
• “Hermenuetics 101 – Part 8: The Progressive Revelation Principle” 

3: The Primeval History Series 

In my 10 years of doing apologetics, I have discovered that one of the portions of The Bible that receives the heaviest amount of ridicule and scorn are the 11 chapters leading up to the call of Abraham; i.e Genesis 1-11. Atheists mock Genesis 1 because science has shown that not everything was made 6,000 years ago over a 6 day period, right? And hasn’t science also shown that man has evolved from lower primates and share a common ancestor with the rest of the animal kingdom? If so, how could the events recorded in Genesis 2 be true? And what about the flood of Noah? Geology shows no evidence of a planet wide deluge. In fact, geology disproves the idea of a global flood. And how could one man fit EVERY animal in the world on one boat? It is my view that much of the mockery of Genesis 1-11 would abate if we just understood the passages correctly. Genesis 1-11 is indeed absurd if one is viewing the text through modern western lenses, but getting at an Ancient Near Eastern understanding of these 11 chapters reveals a different picture. Here are the links to this series:

• “Genesis 1 – Functional Creation, Temple Inauguration, and Anti-Pagan Polemics” 
• “Genesis 2 & 3 – Adam and Eve as Archetypes, Priests In The Garden Of Eden, and The Fall” 
• “Genesis 4 –  What History’s First Criminal Report Can Teach Us” 
• “Genesis 5 – The Case For Long Ages Being An Instance Of Biblical Numerology” 
• “Genesis 6 – The Nephilim: Descendents Of Cain, Neanderthals, Ancient Kings, Or Angel-Human Hybrids?” 
• “Genesis 6-9: The Extent and Historicity Of The Flood” 
• “Genesis 9: Noah’s Nakedness, The Sin Of Ham, and The Curse Of Canaan” 
• “Genesis 10-11: The Tower Of Babel, The Fall Of The gods, And The Divine Council Worldview”

4: The Logical Fallacy Series 

In thinking just as in walking, sometimes we stumble. When you are forming arguments in favor of your views or when you are responding to arguments against your views, it is important that you think correctly. It is important that you do not commit what are called “logical fallacies”. If an argument commits a logical fallacy, then it’s a bad argument. You cannot get to your conclusion via that specific argument. In this blog post series (which is the longest one of them all), I go into the 28 most common fallacies I encounter when dialoging with atheists, Calvinists, Young Earth Creationists, and others. I even include some fallacies those in my own camp have commited when trying to defend views I agree with! Here are the links to those articles;

•  “Logical Fallacy Series – Part 1: Introduction and Ad Hominem”
• “Logical Fallacy Series – Part 2: Equivocation” 
• “Logical Fallacy Series – Part 3: Straw Man” 
• “Logical Fallacy Series – Part 4: The Genetic Fallacy” 
• “Logical Fallacy Series – Part 5: Red Herring” 
• “Logical Fallacy Series – Part 6: Poisoning The Well”
• “Logical Fallacy Series – Part 7: The Fallacy Of Composition” 
• “Logical Fallacy Series – Part 8: Argument From Silence” 
• “Logical Fallacy Series – Part 9: Anecdotal Fallacy” 
• “Logical Fallacy Series – Part 10: Begging The Question” 
• “Logical Fallacy Series – Part 11: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc” 
• “Logical Fallacy Series – Part 12: Loaded Question” 
• “Logical Fallacy Series – Part 13: The Ad Hoc Fallacy” 
• “Logical Fallacy Series – Part 14: The Appeal To Nature Fallacy” 
• “Logical Fallacy Series – Part 15: The Bandwagon Fallacy” 
• “Logical Fallacy Series – Part 16: Personal Incredulity” 
• “Logical Fallacy Series – Part 17: Tu Quoque” 
• “Logical Fallacy Series – Part 18: Special Pleading” 
• “Logical Fallacy Series – Part 19: Appeal To Emotion” 
• “Logical Fallacy Series – Part 20: Appeal To Ridicule” 
• “Logical Fallacy Series – Part 21: Shifting The Burden Of Proof” 
• “Logical Fallacy Series – Part 22: Argument From Ignorance” 
• “Logical Fallacy Series – Part 23: Hasty Generalization” 
• “Logical Fallacy Series – Part 24: The Fallacy Fallacy” 
• “Logical Fallacy Series – Part 25: Affirming The Consequent” 
• “Logical Fallacy Series – Part 26: Denying The Antecedent” 
• “Logical Fallacy Series – Part 27: False Dichotomy” 
• “Logical Fallacy Series – Part 28: The Masked Man and Conclusion” 

5: The John Walton Defense Series 

This is not a series per se, because each article in the series can be read as a stand alone blog post. Nevertheless, they did follow one after another consecutively like the other series in this list, and I think reading these would be really beneficial to you.

After I read John Walton’s book “The Lost World Of Genesis One” and being thinking he made a persuasive case for his Functional Origins/Cosmic Temple Inauguration interpretation of Genesis 1, I wanted to see what, if anything, his critics had to say about it. I knew before I read his book that Walton’s thesis came under heavy fire and was a minority view. I wondered if maybe it’s a minority view for a good reason, so I decided to scour the internet looking for all the criticisms I could find. I did not find them very convincing. The more the critics failed to debunk the view, the more convinced I became that Walton was onto something. Since I was reading all these and had all these counter-arguments swirling in my head, I decided to take to this blog and jot down all of my disagreements with these critics. Here’s the list of articles: 

• “William Lane Craig’s Criticisms Of The Cosmic Temple View Of Genesis One – Part 1”
• “William Lane Craig’s Criticisms Of The Cosmic Temple View Of Genesis One – Part 2” 
• “A Response To Hugh Ross’ Objections To The Cosmic Temple View Of Genesis 1” 
• “Responding To Jim Bendewald’s 7 Objections To The Cosmic Temple View Of Genesis 1” 
• “The Lost World Or The Gnostic World?” 
• “Evaluating Dominic Stanthem’s Review Of The Lost World Of Genesis One” 

There were also some responses to critics of “The Lost World Of Adam and Eve” 

• “Response To Keaton Halley’s Critique Of “The Lost World Of Adam and Eve (Part 1)” 
• “Response To Keaton Halley’s Critique Of The Lost World Of Adam and Eve (Part 2)” 

Conclusion

Hopefully you’ll read these series whenever you get the chance and they will enrich your faith and understanding of The Bible. I’m really the happiest with The Evidence For The Resurrection Of Jesus series and The Primeval History series. Hopefully non-believers will read these and be convinced by the historical evidence that Jesus existed, died, and rose from the dead, and also that The Bible’s first few chapters are not full of nonsensical falsehoods. 

I wrote these series because I wanted to treat these subjects in significant depth. All of them are heavily footnoted, my sources cited, and I spent hours researching and studying in preparation for these. Every series in this list was a labor of love and it is my prayer that God uses them for His Kingdom purposes.