Historicity of Jesus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus 

The question of the historicity of Jesus is part of the study of the historical Jesus as undertaken in the quest for the historical Jesus and the scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus. Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, although not all events mentioned in the gospels (most notably his miracles) are accepted universally. Standard historical criteria have aided in evaluating the historicity of the gospel-narratives, and two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

Historical existence and Christ Myth Theory

The Resurrection of Christ by Noel Coypel (1700)

 

Main articles: Quest for the historical Jesus and Christ myth theory

The quest for the historical Jesus and the scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus are based primarily on critical analysis of the gospel texts and applying the standard criteria of critical-historical investigation, and methodologies for analyzing the reliability of primary sources and other historical evidence.

Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that a historical human Jesus existed. Historian Michael Grant asserts that if conventional standards of historical textual criticism are applied to the New Testament, "we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned."

The Christ myth theory, which developed within the scholarly research on the historical Jesus, is the view that "the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology," possessing no "substantial claims to historical fact." Alternatively, in terms given by Bart Ehrman paraphrasing Earl Doherty, "the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity."

While this idea appeals to a minority in popular opinion, the overwhelming majority of scholars do not hold this view. Virtually all biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted, and in modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory and finds virtually no support from scholars.

Sources

Main article: Sources for the historicity of Jesus

 

Judea Province during the 1st century

The New Testament represents sources that have become canonical for Christianity, and there are many apocryphal texts that are examples of the wide variety of writings in the first centuries AD that are related to Jesus.

New Testament sources

Synoptic Gospels

Main article: Gospels

 

An 11th-century Byzantine manuscript containing the opening of the Gospel of Luke

The Synoptic Gospels are the primary sources of historical information about Jesus and of the religious movement he founded. These religious gospels–the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Mark, and the Gospel of Luke–recount the life, ministry, crucifixion and resurrection of a Jew named Jesus who spoke Aramaic. There are different hypotheses regarding the origin of the texts because the gospels of the New Testament were written in Greek for Greek-speaking communities, and were later translated into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic. Historians often study the historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles when studying the reliability of the gospels, as the Book of Acts was seemingly written by the same author as the Gospel of Luke.

Pauline epistles

The seven Pauline epistles considered by scholarly consensus to be genuine are dated to between AD 50 and 60 (i.e., approximately twenty to thirty years after the generally accepted time period for the death of Jesus) and are the earliest surviving Christian texts that may include information about Jesus. Although Paul the Apostle provides relatively little biographical information about Jesus and states that he never knew Jesus personally, he does make it clear that he considers Jesus to have been a real person and a Jew. Moreover, he claims to have met with James, the brother of Jesus and Jesus's apostles Peter and John.

Non-Christian sources

Josephus and Tacitus

Non-Christian sources used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus include the c. first century Jewish historian Josephus and Roman historian Tacitus. These sources are compared to Christian sources, such as the Pauline letters and synoptic gospels, and are usually independent of each other; that is, the Jewish sources do not draw upon the Roman sources. Similarities and differences between these sources are used in the authentication process.

In Books 18 and 20 of Antiquities of the Jews, written around AD 93 to 94, Josephus twice refers to the biblical Jesus. The general scholarly view holds that the longer passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, most likely consists of an authentic nucleus that was subjected to later Christian interpolation or forgery. On the other hand, Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman states that "few have doubted the genuineness" of the reference found in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James".

Tacitus, in his Annals (written c. AD 115), book 15, chapter 44, describes Nero's scapegoating of the Christians following the Fire of Rome. He writes that the founder of the sect was named Christus (the Christian title for Jesus); that he was executed under Pontius Pilate; and that the movement, initially checked, broke out again in Judea and even in Rome itself. The scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate is both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.

Mishnah

The Mishnah (c. 200) may refer to Jesus as it reflects the early Jewish traditions of portraying Jesus as a sorcerer or magician. Other references to Jesus and his execution exist in the Talmud, but they aim to discredit his actions, not deny his existence.

Critical-historical research

Main articles: Historical criticism, Textual criticism, and Biblical hermeneutics

Quest for the historical Jesus

Main article: Quest for the historical Jesus

Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and based on different research criteria, which were often developed during that phase. Various criteria of authenticity are developed and employed to distinguish early oral elements from later literary elements in the Gospel stories, regarding those early elements as original elements of Jesus' teachings and biography.

Currently modern scholarly research on the historical Jesus focuses on what is historically probable, or plausible about Jesus. Since the late 2000s, concerns have been growing about the usefulness of these criteria.

Historical Jesus

Main articles: Historical Jesus and Portraits of the historical Jesus

 

Part of the ancient Madaba Map showing two possible baptism locations

 

Bronzino's depiction of the Crucifixion with three nails, no ropes, and a hypopodium standing support, c. 1545

There is widespread disagreement among scholars on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus, the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings. Many scholars have questioned the authenticity and reliability of these sources, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.

Baptism and crucifixion

The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

According to New Testament scholar James Dunn, nearly all modern scholars consider the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion to be historically certain. He states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical 'facts' they are obvious starting points for an attempt to clarify the what and why of Jesus' mission." John P. Meier views the crucifixion of Jesus as historical fact and states that based on the criterion of embarrassment Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader. The criterion of embarrassment is also used to argue in favor of the historicity of the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist as it is a story which the early Christian Church would have never wanted to invent. Based on this criterion, given that John baptised for the remission of sins, and Jesus was viewed as without sin, the invention of this story would have served no purpose, and would have been an embarrassment given that it positioned John above Jesus.

Amy-Jill Levine has summarized the situation by stating that "there is a consensus of sorts on the basic outline of Jesus' life" in that most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, and over a period of one to three years debated Jewish authorities on the subject of God, gathered followers, and was crucified by Roman prefect Pontius Pilate who officiated 26–36 AD.

Other episodes

There is much in dispute as to his previous life, childhood, family and place of residence, of which the canonical gospels are almost completely silent.

Scholars attribute varying levels of certainty to other episodes. E. P. Sanders proposed eight "indisputable facts" about Jesus's life as a framework for biographical discussion: Jesus was a Galilean preacher.

• His activities were confined to Galilee and Judea.
• He was baptized by John the Baptist.
• He called disciples.
• He had a controversy at the Temple.
• Jesus was crucified by the Romans near Jerusalem.
• After his death his disciples continued.
• Some of his disciples were persecuted.

Scholarly agreement on this extended list is not universal. Elements whose historical authenticity are disputed include the two accounts of the nativity of Jesus; the miracles, such as turning water into wine, feeding the multitude, walking on water, and various cures, exorcisms, and resurrections; his own resurrection; and certain details about his crucifixion.

Portraits of the historical Jesus

Main article: Portraits of the historical Jesus

 

In the 21st century, the third quest for the historical Jesus witnessed a fragmentation of the scholarly portraits of Jesus.

The portraits of Jesus constructed in the quests have often differed from each other, and from the image portrayed in the gospel accounts. There are overlapping attributes among the portraits, and while pairs of scholars may agree on some attributes, those same scholars may differ on other attributes, and there is no single portrait of the historical Jesus that satisfies most scholars. The mainstream profiles in the third quest may be grouped together based on their primary theme as apocalyptic prophet; charismatic healer; Cynic philosopher; Jewish Messiah; and prophet of social change; but there is little scholarly agreement on a single portrait, or the methods needed to construct it. There are, however, overlapping attributes among the portraits, and scholars who differ on some attributes may agree on others.

Efficacy of prayer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficacy_of_prayer 

 

A child praying before lunch in the United States, during the Great Depression in 1936

The efficacy of prayer has been studied since at least 1872, generally through experiments to determine whether prayer or intercessory prayer has a measurable effect on the health of the person for whom prayer is offered. Empirical research indicates that prayer and intercessory prayer have no discernible effects.

While some religious groups argue that the power of prayer is obvious, others question whether it is possible to measure its effect. Dr. Fred Rosner, an authority on Jewish medical ethics, has expressed doubt that prayer could ever be subject to empirical analysis. Basic philosophical questions bear upon the question of the efficacy of prayer – for example, whether statistical inference and falsifiability are sufficient to "prove" or to "disprove" anything, and whether the topic is even within the realm of science.

According to The Washington Post, "...prayer is the most common complement to mainstream medicine, far outpacing acupuncture, herbs, vitamins and other alternative remedies." In comparison to other fields that have been scientifically studied, carefully monitored studies of prayer are relatively few. The field remains tiny, with about $5 million spent worldwide on such research each year.^[7]

Studies of intercessory prayer

First person studies

A Bolivian aymara woman praying

Studies can verify that those who pray are affected by the experience, including certain physiological outcomes. An example of a study on meditative prayer was the Bernardi study in the British Medical Journal in 2001. It reported that by praying the rosary or reciting yoga mantras at specific rates, baroreflex sensitivity increased significantly in cardiovascular patients.

A study published in 2008 used Eysenck's dimensional model of personality based on neuroticism and psychoticism to assess the mental health of high school students based on their self-reported frequency of prayer. For students both in Catholic and Protestant schools, higher levels of prayer were associated with better mental health as measured by lower psychoticism scores. However, among pupils attending Catholic schools, higher levels of prayer were also associated with higher neuroticism scores.

Lourdes: hoping for a miracle

It has also been suggested that if a person knows that he or she is being prayed for it can be uplifting and increase morale, thus aiding recovery. (See Subject-expectancy effect.) Studies have suggested that prayer can reduce psychological stress, regardless of the god or gods a person prays to, a result that is consistent with a variety of hypotheses as to what may cause such an effect. According to a study by CentraState Healthcare System, "the psychological benefits of prayer may help reduce stress and anxiety, promote a more positive outlook, and strengthen the will to live." Other practices such as Yoga, T'ai chi, and meditation may also have a positive impact on physical and psychological health.

A 2001 study by Meisenhelder and Chandler analyzed data obtained from 1,421 Presbyterian pastors surveyed by mail and found that their self-reported frequency of prayer was well-correlated with their self-perception of health and vitality. This research methodology has inherent problems with self-selection, selection bias, and residual confounding, and the authors admitted that the direction of perceived prayer and health relationships "remains inconclusive due to the limits of the correlational research design".

Third party studies

Various controlled studies have addressed the topic of the efficacy of prayer at least since Francis Galton in 1872. Carefully monitored studies of prayer are relatively scarce with $5 million spent worldwide on such research each year. The largest study, from the 2006 STEP project, found no significant differences in patients recovering from heart surgery whether the patients were prayed for or not.

The third party studies reported either null results, correlated results, or contradictory results in which beneficiaries of prayer had worsened health outcomes. For instance, a meta-analysis of several studies related to distant intercessory healing published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in 2000 looked at 2774 patients in 23 studies, and found that 13 studies showed statistically significant positive results, 9 studies showed no effect, and 1 study showed a negative result.

A 2003 levels of evidence review found evidence for the hypothesis that "Being prayed for improves physical recovery from acute illness". It concluded that although "a number of studies" have tested this hypothesis, "only three have sufficient rigor for review here" (Byrd 1988, Harris et al. 1999, and Sicher et al. 1998). In all three, "the strongest findings were for the variables that were evaluated most subjectively", raising concerns about the possible inadvertent unmasking of the outcomes' assessors. Other meta-studies of the broader literature have been performed showing evidence only for no effect or a potentially small effect. For instance, a 2006 meta analysis on 14 studies concluded that there is "no discernible effect" while a 2007 systemic review of intercessory prayer reported inconclusive results, noting that 7 of 17 studies had "small, but significant, effect sizes" but the review noted that the three most methodologically rigorous studies failed to produce significant findings.

Belief and skepticism

Medical views

Most scientists dismiss "faith healing" practitioners. Some opponents of the study of faith healing assert that because it is a pseudoscience, this means that by definition it makes no scientific claims and therefore should be treated as a matter of faith that is not testable by science. Critics reply that claims of medical cures should be tested scientifically because, although faith in the supernatural is not in itself usually considered to be the purview of science, claims of reproducible effects are nevertheless subject to scientific investigation.

Scientists and doctors generally find that faith healing lacks biological plausibility or epistemic warrant, which is one of the criteria used to judge whether clinical research is ethical and financially justified. A Cochrane review of intercessory prayer found "although some of the results of individual studies suggest a positive effect of intercessory prayer, the majority do not". The authors concluded: "We are not convinced that further trials of this intervention should be undertaken and would prefer to see any resources available for such a trial used to investigate other questions in health care".

An article in the Medical Journal of Australia says that "One common criticism of prayer research is that prayer has become a popular therapeutic method for which there is no known plausible mechanism."

Medical professionals are skeptical of new claims by studies until they have been experimentally reproduced and corroborated. For instance, a 2001 study by researchers associated with Columbia University has been associated with controversy, following claims of success in the popular media.

Although different medical studies have been at odds with one another, physicians have not stopped studying prayer. This may be partly because prayer is increasingly used as a coping mechanism for patients.

Skepticism on scope of prayer

A family at prayer

In a debate/interview in Newsweek with Christian evangelical Rick Warren, atheist Sam Harris commented that most lay perceptions of the efficacy of prayer (personal impressions as opposed to empirical studies) were related to sampling error because "we know that humans have a terrible sense of probability." That is, humans are more inclined to recognize confirmations of their faith than they are to recognize disconfirmations.

Harris also criticized existing empirical studies for limiting themselves to prayers for relatively unmiraculous events, such as recovery from heart surgery. He suggested a simple experiment to settle the issue:

Get a billion Christians to pray for a single amputee. Get them to pray that God regrow that missing limb. This happens to salamanders every day, presumably without prayer; this is within the capacity of God. I find it interesting that people of faith only tend to pray for conditions that are self-limiting.

Religious and philosophical issues

Praying to the Madonna of the Rosary, by Caravaggio, 1606-1607

 

See also: Relationship between religion and science

Religious and philosophical objections to the very study of prayer's efficacy exist. Some interpret Deuteronomy (6:16 "You shall not put the Lord your God to the test") to mean that prayer cannot, or should not, be examined.

The religious viewpoint objects to the claim that prayer is susceptible to experimental designs or statistical analysis, and other assumptions in many experiments, e.g. that a thousand prayers are statistically different from one. The objections also include the complaint that religion generally deals with unique, uncontrollable events; statistics, and science in general, deal with recurring phenomena which are possible to sample or control and are susceptible to general laws.

Religious objections also include the complaint that as prayer starts to be measured, it is no longer real prayer once it gets involved in an experiment and that the concept of conducting prayer experiments reflects a misunderstanding of the purpose of prayer. The 2006 STEP experiment indicated that some of the intercessors who took part in it complained about the scripted nature of the prayers that were imposed to them, saying that this is not the way they usually conduct prayer:

Prior to the start of this study, intercessors reported that they usually receive information about the patient's age, gender and progress reports on their medical condition; converse with family members or the patient (not by fax from a third party); use individualized prayers of their own choosing; and pray for a variable time period based on patient or family request.

With respect to expectation of a response to prayer, the 18th-century philosopher William Paley wrote:

To pray for particular favors is to dictate to Divine Wisdom, and savors of presumption; and to intercede for other individuals or for nations, is to presume that their happiness depends upon our choice, and that the prosperity of communities hangs upon our interest.

During the 20th century, philosopher Bertrand Russell believed that religion and science "have long been at war, claiming for themselves the same territory, ideas and allegiances". And Russell believed that the war had been decisively won by science. Almost 40 years earlier, a 22-year-old Russell also wrote: "For although I had long ceased to believe in the efficacy of prayer, I was so lonely and so in need of some supporter such as the Christian God, that I took to saying prayers again when I ceased to believe in their efficacy."

The 21st-century evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, describing how Richard Swinburne explained away the STEP experiment's negative results "on the grounds that God answers prayers only if they are offered up for good reasons", finds one predictable result of prayer:

Other theologians joined NOMA-inspired sceptics in contending that studying prayer in this way is a waste of money because supernatural influences are by definition beyond the reach of science. But as the Templeton Foundation correctly recognized when it financed the study, the alleged power of intercessory prayer is at least in principle within the reach of science. A double-blind experiment can be done and was done. It could have yielded a positive result. And if it had, can you imagine that a single religious apologist would have dismissed it on the grounds that scientific research has no bearing on religious matters? Of course not.

 

Christian apologetics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics 

Christian apologetics (Ancient Greek: ἀπολογία, "verbal defence, speech in defence") is a branch of Christian theology that defends Christianity against objections.

Christian apologetics has taken many forms over the centuries, starting with Paul the Apostle in the early church and Patristic writers such as Origen, Augustine of Hippo, Justin Martyr and Tertullian, then continuing with writers such as Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, William of Ockham and Anselm of Canterbury during Scholasticism.

Blaise Pascal was an active Christian apologist before the Age of Enlightenment. In the modern period, Christianity was defended through the efforts of many authors such as G. K. Chesterton and C. S. Lewis, as well as G. E. M. Anscombe.

In contemporary times, Christianity is defended through the work of figures such as Peter Kreeft, Norman Geisler, Robert Barron, Scott Hahn, John Lennox, Lee Strobel, Francis Collins, Alvin Plantinga, Hugh Ross, James White, Gary Habermas, Frank Turek, Michael Licona, and William Lane Craig.

History

Jewish precursors

According to Edgar J. Goodspeed in the first century CE Jewish apologetic elements could be seen in works such as The Wisdom of Solomon, Philo's On the Contemplative Life and more explicitly in Josephus' Against Apion.

Apostolic and post-apostolic period

Christian apologetics first appear in the New Testament (e. g. Paul's preaching on Mars Hill in Acts 17:22-31). During the subapostolic age Christianity was already competing with Judaism as well as with various other religions and sects in the Greco-Roman world. Christian apologetics can be first seen in the ''Preaching of Peter'' (Gospel of Peter), but the first explicitly apologetic work comes from Quadratus of Athens (c. 125 CE) in which he writes a defense of the faith to emperor Hadrian. Only a fragment, quoted by Eusebius, has survived to our day:

"But the works of our Saviour were always present, for they were genuine:—those that were healed, and those that were raised from the dead, who were seen not only when they were healed and when they were raised, but were also always present; and not merely while the Saviour was on earth, but also after his death, they were alive for quite a while, so that some of them lived even to our day." (Church History iv. 3. 2)

One of the first comprehensive attacks on Christianity came from the Greek philosopher Celsus, who wrote The True Word (c.175 CE), a polemic criticizing Christians as being unprofitable members of society. In response, the church father Origen published his apologetic treatise Contra Celsum, or Against Celsus, which systematically addressed Celsus's criticisms and helped bring Christianity a level of academic respectability. In the treatise, Origen writes from the perspective of a Platonic philosopher, drawing extensively on the teachings of Plato. Contra Celsum is widely regarded by modern scholars as one of the most important works of early Christian apologetics.

Other apologists from this period are Aristides of Athens, the author of the Epistle to Diognetus, Aristo of Pella, Tatian, Justin Martyr, Melito of Sardis, Athenagoras of Athens, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Origen, Hippolytus of Rome, Tertullian, Minucius Felix, Cyprian, and Victorinus of Pettau,

Middle Ages and Early Modern Period

Anselm of Canterbury propounded the ontological argument in his Proslogion. Thomas Aquinas presented five ways, or arguments for God's existence, in the Summa Theologica, while his Summa contra Gentiles was a major apologetic work. Aquinas also made significant criticisms of the ontological argument which resulted in its losing popularity until it was revived by Rene Descartes in his Meditations. Blaise Pascal outlined an approach to apologetics in his Pensées: "Men despise religion; they hate it and fear it is true. To remedy this, we must begin by showing that religion is not contrary to reason; that it is venerable, to inspire respect for it; then we must make it lovable, to make good men hope it is true; finally, we must prove it is true."

Late Modern Period

Christian apologetics continues in modern times in a wide variety of forms. Among the Roman Catholics there are Bishop Robert Barron, G. K. Chesterton, Ronald Knox, Taylor Marshall, Arnold Lunn, Karl Keating, Michael Voris, Peter Kreeft, Frank Sheed, Dr. Scott Hahn, and Patrick Madrid. The Russian Orthodox Seraphim Rose is perhaps the best known modern, English speaking Eastern Orthodox apologist. Among the Evangelicals there is the Anglican C. S. Lewis (who popularized the argument now known as Lewis's trilemma). Among Protestant apologists of the 19th century there was William Paley who popularized the Watchmaker analogy. In the first half of the 20th century, many Christian fundamentalists became well known apologists. Some of the best known are R. A. Torrey and John Gresham Machen. Evangelical Norman Geisler, Lutheran John Warwick Montgomery and Presbyterian Francis Schaeffer were among the most prolific Christian apologists in the latter half of the 20th century and into the 21st, while Gordon Clark and Cornelius Van Til started a new school of philosophical apologetics called presuppositionalism, which is popular in Calvinist circles.

Others include William Lane Craig, Douglas Groothuis, Josh McDowell, Hugo Anthony Meynell, Timothy J. Keller, Francis Collins, Vishal Mangalwadi, Richard Bauckham, Craig Evans, Darrell Bock, John F. MacArthur, Michael R. Licona, Ravi Zacharias and John Lennox.

Terminology and origin

The original Greek apologia (ἀπολογία, from ἀπολογέομαι, apologeomai, "speak in return, defend oneself") was a formal verbal defense, either in response to accusation or prosecution in a court of law. The defense of Socrates as presented by Plato and Xenophon was an apologia against charges of "corrupting the young, and … not believing in the gods in whom the city believes, but in other daimonia that are novel".

In later use 'apologia' sometimes took a literary form in early Christian discourse as an example of the integration of educated Christians into the cultural life of the Roman Empire, particularly during the "little peace" of the 3rd century, and of their participation in the Greek intellectual movement broadly known as the Second Sophistic. The Christian apologists of the early Church did not reject Greek philosophy, but attempted to show the positive value of Christianity in dynamic relation to the Greek rationalist tradition.

In the 2nd century, apologetics was a defense or explanation of Christianity, addressed to those standing in opposition and those yet to form an opinion, such as emperors and other authority figures, or potential converts. The earliest martyr narrative has the spokesman for the persecuted present a defense in the apologetic mode: Christianity was a rational religion that worshiped only God, and although Christians were law-abiding citizens willing to honor the emperor, their belief in a single divinity prevented them from taking the loyalty oaths that acknowledged the emperor's divinity.

The apologetic historiography in the Acts of the Apostles presented Christianity as a religious movement at home within the Roman Empire and no threat to it and was a model for the first major historian of the Church, Eusebius. Apologetics might also be directed to Christians already within the community explain their beliefs and justify positions. Origen's apologetic Contra Celsum, for instance, provided a defense against the arguments of a critic dead for decades to provide answers to doubting Christians lacking immediate answers to the questions raised. Apologetic literature was an important medium for the formation of early Christian identity.

In addition to Origen and Tertullian, early Christian apologists include Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and the author of the Epistle to Diognetus. Augustine of Hippo was a significant apologist of the Patristic era. Some scholars regard apologetics as a distinct literary genre exhibiting commonalities of style and form, content, and strategies of argumentation. Others viewed it as a form of discourse characterized by its tone and purpose.

Biblical basis

R. C. Sproul, quoting the First Epistle of Peter, writes that "The defense of the faith is not a luxury or intellectual vanity. It is a task appointed by God that you should be able to give a reason for the hope that is in you as you bear witness before the world." The verse quoted here reads in full: "but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect."

Another passage sometimes used as a biblical basis for Christian apologetics is God's entreaty in the Book of Isaiah: "Come now, let us reason together." Other scriptural passages which have been taken as a basis for Christian apologetics include Psalm 19, which begins "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands," and Romans 1, which reads "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

Varieties

There are a variety of Christian apologetic styles and schools of thought. The major types of Christian apologetics include historical and legal evidentialist apologetics, presuppositional apologetics, philosophical apologetics, prophetic apologetics, doctrinal apologetics, biblical apologetics, moral apologetics, and scientific apologetics.

Biblical apologetics

Biblical apologetics include issues concerned with the authorship and date of biblical books, biblical canon, and biblical inerrancy. Christian apologists defend and comment on various books of the Bible. Some scholars who have engaged in the defense of biblical inerrancy include Robert Dick Wilson, Gleason Archer, Norman Geisler and R. C. Sproul. There are several resources that Christians offer defending inerrancy in regard to specific verses. Authors defending the reliability of the Gospels include Craig Blomberg in The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, Mark D. Roberts in Can We Trust the Gospels? Richard Bauckham, Craig Evans and Darrell Bock.

Experiential apologetics

Experiential apologetics is a reference to an appeal "primarily, if not exclusively, to experience as evidence for Christian faith." Also, "they spurn rational arguments or factual evidence in favor of what they believe to be a self-verifying experience." This view stresses experience that other apologists have not made as explicit, and in the end, the concept that the Holy Spirit convinces the heart of truth becomes the central theme of the apologetic argument.

Historical and legal evidentialism

A variety of arguments has been forwarded by legal scholars such as Simon Greenleaf and John Warwick Montgomery, by expert forensic investigators such as cold case homicide detective J. Warner Wallace, and academic historical scholars, such as Edwin M. Yamauchi. These arguments present a case for the historicity of the resurrection of Christ per current legal standards of evidence or undermining the pagan myth hypothesis for the origin of Christianity.

Regarding evidence for the historicity of the resurrection, A. N. Sherwin-White states:

For Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Acts is, in simple terms and judged externally, no less of a propaganda narrative than the Gospels, liable to similar distortions. But any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.... The agnostic type of form-criticism would be much more credible if the compilation of the Gospels were much later in time.... Herodotus enables us to test the tempo of myth-making, [showing that] even two generations are too short a span to allow the mythical tendency to prevail over the hard historic core.

Moral apologetics

See also: Divine command and Biblical law in Christianity

Moral apologetics states that real moral obligation is a fact. Catholic apologist Peter Kreeft said, "We are really, truly, objectively obligated to do good and avoid evil." In moral apologetics, the arguments for man's sinfulness and man's need for redemption are stressed. Examples of this type of apologetic would be Jonathan Edwards's sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." The Four Spiritual Laws religious tract (Campus Crusade for Christ) would be another example.

Defense of miracles

See also: Miracles of Jesus

C. S. Lewis, Norman Geisler, William Lane Craig and Christians who engage in jurisprudence Christian apologetics have argued that miracles are reasonable and plausible wherever an all-powerful Creator is postulated. In other words, it is postulated that if God exists, miracles cannot be postulated as impossible or inherently improbable.

Philosophical apologetics

Philosophical apologetics concerns itself primarily with arguments for the existence of God, although they do not exclusively focus on this area. They do not argue for the veracity of Christianity over other religions but merely for the existence of a Creator deity. Omnipotence and omniscience are implied in these arguments to greater or lesser degrees: some argue for an interventionist god, some are equally relevant to a Deist conception of God.

They do not support hard polytheism, but could be used to describe the first god who created many other gods; however, the arguments are only relevant when applied to the first god (the first cause, pure act and unmoved mover; it is a contradiction a priori to suppose a plurality of "pure acts" or "first causes" or "unmoved movers").

These arguments can be grouped into several categories:

1. Cosmological argument – Argues that the existence of the universe demonstrates that God exists. Various primary arguments from cosmology and the nature of causation are often offered to support the cosmological argument.
2. Teleological argument – Argues that there is a purposeful design in the world around us, and a design requires a designer. Cicero, William Paley, and Michael Behe use this argument as well as others.
3. Ontological argument – Argues that the very concept of God demands that there is an actual existent God.
4. Moral Argument – Argues that there are objectively valid moral values, and therefore, there must be an absolute from which they are derived.
5. Transcendental Argument – Argues that all our abilities to think and reason require the existence of God.
6. Presuppositional arguments – Argues that the basic beliefs of theists and nontheists require God as a necessary pre-condition.

Other philosophical arguments include:

• Alvin Plantinga's argument that belief in God is properly basic, reformed epistemology.
• Pascal's wager, is an argument that posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or that he does not. Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists.

In addition to arguments for the existence of God, Christian apologists have also attempted to respond successfully to arguments against the existence of God. Two very popular arguments against the existence of God are the hiddenness argument and the argument from evil. The hiddenness argument tries to show that a perfectly loving God's existence is incompatible with the existence of nonresistant nonbelievers. The argument from evil tries to show that the existence of evil renders God's existence unlikely or impossible.

Presuppositional apologetics

Main article: Presuppositional apologetics

Presuppositional apologetics is a Reformed Protestant methodology which claims that presuppositions are essential to any philosophical position and that there are no "neutral" assumptions from which a Christian can reason in common with a non-Christian. There are two main schools of presuppositional apologetics, that of Cornelius Van Til (and his students Greg Bahnsen and John Frame) and that of Gordon Haddon Clark.

Van Til drew upon but did not always agree with, the work of Dutch Calvinist philosophers and theologians such as D. H. Th. Vollenhoven, Herman Dooyeweerd, Hendrik G. Stoker, Herman Bavinck, and Abraham Kuyper. Bahnsen describes Van Til's approach to Christian apologetics as pointing out the difference in ultimate principles between Christians and non-Christians and then showing that the non-Christian principles reduce to absurdity. In practice, this school utilizes what has come to be known as the transcendental argument for the existence of God.

Clark held that the Scriptures constituted the axioms of Christian thought, which could not be questioned, though their consistency could be discussed. A consequence of this position is that God's existence can never be demonstrated, either by empirical means or by philosophical argument. In The Justification of Knowledge, the Calvinist theologian Robert L. Reymond argues that believers should not even attempt such proofs.

Prophetic fulfillment

See also: Postdiction

In his book Science Speaks, Peter Stoner argues that only God knows the future and that Biblical prophecies of a compelling nature have been fulfilled. Apologist Josh McDowell documents the Old Testament prophecies fulfilled by Christ, relating to his ancestral line, birthplace, virgin birth, miracles, death, and resurrection. Apologist Blaise Pascal believed that the prophecies are the strongest evidence for Christianity. He notes that Jesus not only foretold, but was foretold, unlike in other religions, and that these prophecies came from a succession of people over a span of four thousand years.

Origins apologetics

Many Christians contend that science and the Bible do not contradict each other and that scientific fact supports Christian apologetics. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that "The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge... These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator." The theologian and mathematician Marin Mersenne used celestial mechanics as evidence in his apologetic work, while Matteo Ricci engaged in scientific apologetics in China. In modern times, the theory of the Big Bang has been used in support of Christian apologetics.

Several Christian apologists have sought to reconcile Christianity and science concerning the question of origins. Theistic Evolution claims that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution and that the Creator God uses the process of evolution. Denis Lamoureux, in Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution states that "This view of origins fully embraces both the religious beliefs of biblical Christianity and the scientific theories of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution. It contends that the Creator established and maintains the laws of nature, including the mechanisms of a teleological evolution."

The most radical example of a Christian-evolutionary synthesis is the work of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, which was intended as apologetics to the world of science, but which was later condemned by the Catholic Church.

Creationist apologetics

The Creation Museum is a young Earth creationism museum run by the creation apologetics organization Answers in Genesis (AiG) in Petersburg, Kentucky.

Creationist apologetics aims to defend views of origins such as Young Earth creationism and Old Earth creationism that run counter to mainstream science.

Young Earth creationists believe the Bible teaches that the Earth is approximately 6,000 years old, and reject the scientific consensus for the age of the Earth. They apply a literal interpretation to the primordial history in Genesis 1–11 – such as the long life spans of people such as Methuselah, the Flood, and the Tower of Babel. Among the biggest young Earth creation apologetic organizations are Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, and Creation Ministries International.

Old Earth creationists believe it is possible to harmonize the Bible's six-day account of creation with the scientific consensus that the universe is 13.8 billion-years-old and Earth is 4.54 billion-years-old. Old Earth creationists, such as astrophysicist Hugh Ross, see each of the six days of creation as being a long, but finite period of time, based on the multiple meanings of the Hebrew word yom (day light hours/24 hours/age of time) and other Biblical creation passages.

Decent work

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decent_work 

 

Cost of Basic but Decent Living

Decent work is employment that "respects the fundamental rights of the human person as well as the rights of workers in terms of conditions of work safety and remuneration. ... respect for the physical and mental integrity of the worker in the exercise of his/her employment."

Decent work is applied to both the formal and informal sector. It must address all kind of jobs, people and families. According to the International Labour Organization (ILO), decent work involves opportunities for work that are productive and deliver a fair income, security in the workplace and social protection for families, better prospects for personal development and social integration, freedom for people to express their concerns, organize and participate in the decisions that affect their lives and equality of opportunity and treatment for all women and men.

The ILO is developing an agenda for the community of work, represented by its tripartite constituents, to mobilize their considerable resources to create those opportunities and to help reduce and eradicate poverty. The ILO Decent Work Agenda is the balanced and integrated programmatic approach to pursue the objectives of full and productive employment and decent work for all at global, regional, national, sectoral and local levels. It has four pillars: standards and rights at work, employment creation and enterprise development, social protection and social dialogue.

Elements

The elements of decent work are:

• Job Creation - no one should be barred from their desired work due to lack of employment opportunities
• Rights at Work, including minimum wage - Workers rights include the right to just and favourable conditions, days off, 8-hour days, non-discrimination and living wages for them and their families, amongst others
• Social Protection - all workers should have safe working conditions, adequate free time and rest, access to benefits like healthcare, pension, and parental leave, among many others
• Social Dialogue - workers should be able to exercise workplace democracy through their unions and negotiate their workplace conditions as well as national and international labour and development policies

Sustainable development and decent work targets

Sustainable Development Goal 8

The Sustainable Development Goals also proclaims decent work for sustainable economic growth. The Goal aims to increase labor productivity, reduce the unemployment rate, and improve access to financial services and benefits. Encouraging entrepreneurship and job creation are key to this, as are effective measures to eradicate forced labour, slavery and human trafficking. With these targets in mind, the goal is to achieve full and productive employment, and decent work, for all women and men by 2030. The ILO Decent Work Agenda's areas of concern has been mentioned in other development targets such as in reducing poverty and increasing access to education. The UN believes that the ILO Decent Work Agenda plays an active role in achieving sustainable development.

Challenges in implementation

Although few disagree with the Decent Work Agenda in principle, actually achieving Decent Work poses challenges and controversies. In Africa, for example, informal employment is the norm, while well-paying jobs that offer social-protection benefits are the exception. This has been attributed to difficulties in obtaining formal sector jobs due to the creasing pressure of globalization. But there do exist debates on whether reducing the size of the informal economy would bring about social welfare.

In order to achieve The Decent Work Agenda, national and international entities have to commit to the objective of the creation of quality jobs and tackle its challenges. However, an obstacle is that it is difficult to convince the citizens of a country that aiding development and job creation abroad is also beneficial domestically. To remain competitive in the world economy, governments are tempted to close markets and lower labor standards which is believed to cause depressing wages and working conditions.

Various actors can affect the provision of Decent Work, although existing conditions and incentives do not always lend themselves to advancing the Decent Work Agenda. To illustrate:

• National governments create Decent Work through economic and industrial policies. However, the forces of globalization – such as downward pressures on wages and reduced macroeconomic policy flexibility – have diminished the ability of national governments to achieve this goal on their own.
• Businesses create jobs from the local to international levels, and those operating across borders can affect international wages and working conditions. Multinational enterprises typically locate operations in countries where wages are at their lowest and so called "worker's rights" are less prominent. This is antithetical to the Decent Work Agenda, although it does contribute to economic development.
• Trade unions assist employees in advocating for elements of Decent Work, from a so-called "living wage" to health insurance to workplace safety standards. Trade unions face the challenge of meeting their members’ immediate needs at home while supporting job creation and "workers’ rights" around the globe.
• International financial institutions provide loans or other assistance to national governments, and require loan recipients to implement certain policy measures. Existing programs generally exclude employment targets and have even been known to reduce job creation in the short term, as jobs which exist only through government market distortions are replaced with economically viable employment.
• Trade negotiators can forward the Decent Work Agenda globally by including labor standards in trade agreements, while legislators (among others) can support their implementation. However, many countries view the campaign for labor standards as an effort by other countries to make their own industries more competitive.

World Day for Decent Work

October 7, is the World Day for Decent Work. During that day trade unions, union federations and other workers associations develop their actions to promote the idea of Decent Work. Actions vary from street demonstrations to music events or conferences held in many countries.

Decent Work, Decent Life Campaign

Five organizations, Solidar, ITUC, ETUC, Social Alert International and the Global Progressive Forum, launched the Decent Work, Decent Life campaign at the World Social Forum in Nairobi in January 2007, and has since then worked in an alliance to promote decent work for decent life as solution to poverty. The idea to run a Campaign on Decent Work was conceived at the World Social Forum, 2005, in Porto Alegre. The Campaign targets young people, trade union activists, NGOs and decision makers in developed and developing countries.

The Campaign’s objectives focus on building awareness of Decent work and on promoting Decent work as the only sustainable way out of poverty, democracy and social cohesion.

Success

In November 2007, decision makers from European governments and institutions signed the Call to Action of the Decent Work, Decent Life Campaign adding up to the recognition of the Decent Work Agenda. "There is also a growing interest on the part of the EU and international civil society in decent work, as illustrated for instance by: the launch of the Decent Work/Decent Life [Campaign]…".

The Campaign’s Call to Action focuses on seven issues, namely; decent work, workers’ rights, social protection, fair trade, international financial institutions, development aid and migration.

Decent Work, Decent Life for Women Campaign

The Decent Work, Decent Life for Women Campaign is a two years campaign launched on International Women’s Day 2008 (March 8) by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the Global union federations (GUF). The campaign aims to advocate decent work for women and gender equality in labour policies and agreements and to seek gender equality in trade union structures, policies and activities. The second objective aims at increasing number of women members in trade unions and women in elected positions.

The Campaign’s necessity stems from multiple forms of discrimination in both policy and practice on a daily basis women are facing such as the gender pay gap, the lack of maternity protection and the higher unemployment rates among women. Because of the gender bias, women are often paid less and are not given the opportunities to advance in their careers compared to their male counterparts. In Asia, women are mostly employed in the domestic works which is one of the lowest paid, least valued, and least organised sectors. Women's wage growth rate in Asia, excluding China, from 2006 to 2011 was 0.9%.

At the moment 81 national centers in 56 countries participate with various events in this Campaign.