What Do The Gospels Really Say About Jesus?

Here is a video of Dr. Brock teaching about what the Gospels really say about Jesus. He explains how the synoptic Gospels really do show Jesus' Deity not just in the book of John. Don't forget: Only God can forgive sin; control nature; walk on water; and raise the dead. Jesus did all these things...and not just in the Gospel of John.


What Do The Gospels Really Say About Jesus?

Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Edgar Andrews

In today's interview, Brian Auten interviewed Edgar Andrews.  Dr, Andrews has led an amazing life: Science and Engineering Professor, Apologist, and Pastor.  He's had a career that any scientist would want to follow. I was amazed and encouraged by the interview. I was further amazed that about 24 years ago I debated Richard Dawkins on the existence of God. Huge! Especially considering that Dawkins does not debates Christians anymore. I've listened to that debate a couple of years ago and I didn't I blog it, but safe to say, it underlines why Dawkins does not debate anymore.  I'm interested in checking out Dr Andrews book Who Made God: Searching for a Theory of Everything.I was amazed to find out that Dr. Andrews commented on a blog article I wrote a few months ago about DNA and Stephen Meyer's book Signature in the Cell. The blog post  and Dr Andrews' comment can be read at Can DNA Prove the Existence of an Intelligent Designer? « Biola Magazine. I definitely thanks Brian Auten and Dr Andrews for this interview.
Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Edgar Andrews

Apologetics 315: Alister McGrath & Daniel Dennett Debate: God & Religion MP3 Audio

I really liked the debate. Alister McGrath did a great job answering Daniel Dennet. I don't like Dennet's speculations on how religion has evolved. The moderator definitely seemed to think Dennet's position carries more weight than I think it really has. This particular debate is definitely worth thinking about it.  I'd rather they had audience questions one-at-a-time instead of three at a time. 

Apologetics 315: Alister McGrath & Daniel Dennett Debate: God & Religion MP3 Audio

Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Douglas Geivett

Brian Auten interviewed Douglas Geivett and it was a great interview. We learn a lot about Geivett as a person and what philosophy is and how it can be used in Apologetics. It is great to listen to it. 

Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Douglas Geivett

Apologetics 315: Why We Trust the Bible MP3 Audio by Darrell Bock

Here is another awesome lecture, Brian Auten posted on his blog. I think it bears listening because Dr Brooks summarizes why its reasonable to trust the Bible and hold it reliable




Apologetics 315: Why We Trust the Bible MP3 Audio by Darrell Bock

Responding to "Gandalf's" Comments on "Debunking Christianity"

Recently I wrote a post about a post John Loftus wrote responding to a comments I left on Friday. You can read my comments on it here. One of the commentators that I have interacted with in the past has posted his own comments regarding me and my actions on the Debunking Christianity blog. His comments are in italics and mine are normal font.

Marcus McElhaney said..."Those "minister" and "prophets" who are doing that will face judgement."

Howdy Marcus.

This is something simply being assumed by you Marcus .You have no such proof to even suggest such a thing "will" happen.Its all about your faith, nothing more.
From the time that I have been reading comments by you, you have whined and cried about the abuses by Christianity and other religions. I still agree there has been much evil done in the name of God and attempts to use the Bible to legitimate those sins. My bone of contention is that it is unfair to blame the Bible for things that people do who are acting contrary to what it says. This underscores things that keep getting confused on the Debunking Christianity blog: The difference between the Bible's content a being true representation of reality and just understanding what the Bible says. How can you meaningfully understand if the Bible is true if you don't understand what it says?
I have already pointed out i dont feel any hate for you Marcus,and i was also being very honest.
But please try to understand pointing straight back to things written in faith books all the time, just isnt good enough for many folks around here, just because it happens to be your personal faith.And you tend to make many folks get a little or even sometimes a lot pissed off about it , when you keep on purposely doing it.
I'm convinced that the majority of the people I have interacted with on the Debunking Christianity blog don't understand what the Bible says, including Gandalf and John Loftus himself. They argue that they do but if they did they wouldn't mishandle and distort what the text says. Again you have to understand what the text is saying before you can evaluate if the text is true. I realize that they hate this point. Thinking that it's being argued that they are not intelligent enough to understand the Bible. I'm not arguing that at all. I'm saying that they are blatantly misunderstanding what the Bible says on many points and if there is disagreement on drawing out the meaning of passages from the Bible we should be able to discuss them and see what the Bible is really saying. Instead most of the time people on that blog just get angry and I get accused of trying to prove the Bible with the Bible.
They purposely point out to you that this is all you do , and even ask you for something better .But then most often all you simply do is exactly the same thing again and again and again , making discussion with you seem so circular and endless.
This statement shows me that Gandalf and perhaps most others don't really read what I write. More than once I have offered to go through scriptures that I know they are mishandling and I've challenged them to show me why my understanding is wrong. And yet very few have even tried to engaged such a thing. Most of the time they throw up their hands as if it would be pointless because I am closed-minded. It seems circular because they refuse to engage what the text is truly saying. For example many say they disagree with the Bible because it says the earth is 6000 years old and the Bible says no such thing.
Im only bothering to be saying what im saying here in this comment now,because i dont feel hatered towards you, and even realize yes your heart is most likely very much in the right place.And you most likely care about people.
Gandalf has most often been the most hate-filled person I've talked to Debunking Christianity. By that I mean he's been the meanest. To be fair he has already stated that his words and attitude has been born of frustration. That is a lack of maturity. You ought to be able to disagree with someone and articulate why without name-calling and arrogance. Passionate emotion is one thing. But we ought to be better than that. At one point Gandalf was doing nothing but calling me names everytime I wrote anything and I started ribbing him back. Since then he has stopped and so have I.
Im just trying to explain what it might be that helps get some peoples attempts at discussion with you, a little heated at times.And then you can choose to think about it a little or not.Specially if you like to believe you do honestly care about people!
I disagree that telling people that I think they are wrong in how they understand the Bible is not being unloving or uncaring. I do it because I do care. IT seems like to me like Gandalf and several other would rather just believe what they want to believe without being challenged. I expect it to get heated. The Bible says it is supposed to get heated. I am telling people what they don't want to hear. Duh!!!

Maybe you will be using your faith to translate these "heated comments" as maybe being forfilling of bible prophesy etc ,and yes it might even give you a bit of a faith buzz.
This statement shows exactly what I'm talking about it. Either Bible says that people are going to behave like these people are responding on Debunking Christianity or it doesn't. If it does...that's evidence of the Bible's truthfulness. They just confirm what the text says. I'm not saying that this is enough to prove everything in the Bible but I think it should be enought to make person dig further.

But the real truth is peoples comments only get heated towards you ,simply because its not really any honest discussion thats happening here at all.Its only blatant use of your faith indoctrination you attempt! time and time again ,over and over .Like its a stuck record.

The discussion is honest from my side. It's not my fault that people keep saying stuff that the Bible does not say and passign it off as if most scholars agree with them and none do.

And then thats what causes the heated comments !.And no! , we honestly dont need any ancient prophesy to be able to understand there is plenty of good natural reasons for that.No superstitious prophesys needed !!

The problem is that the Bible agrees with you as the reasons for the heated comments. You are fulfilling prophecy.

I simply dont really much enjoy seeing this keep happening to you Marcus.Yes i might be atheist, but that dont simply mean it make me not care about anybody.Just trying to point a few things out and explain how maybe? you might be bringing much of it on yourself. 

That's the main point that keeps being made. No honest Christian thinks that all atheists are blood-thirsty, selfish, mean, stupid individuals - Stalins and Maos waiting to happen. Why should Gandalf think bad of all Christians? He has said that he blames all Christians for what his family did to him and for the evils of this world.

Gandalf also made a comment from antother comment made by keith (his words in bold.

keith said... "Gandolf.


Marcus likes to assert things that he has no proof for.

He actually asserted that 2nd Peter 3:8 has no precedent in Psalms 90:4.

He's funny that way..."

Hi Keith.

I have to say in my opinion i think underneath everything Marcus is very intelligent in many ways.But sadly devotion on things of charisma can make even the most intelligent of us humans, become a little thick about some things.

Its not our intelligence that causes this problem though , its more about the "charisma" and "devotion" that then simply tells parts of our brains to simply shut down.Parts of our brains that usually do deal with scepticism and making calculated decisions that have been properly thought through and so have taken account of matters from looking from "every single" angle.
It's real interesting that Gandalf thinks he can psychoanalyze me but then become offended when I merely point out what the Bible says about the conclusions he says he believes. Funny. It's alright to be skeptical about the Bible and Christianity but not okay to be skeptical about the conclusions Gandalf thinks. It's not offensive to think that Christians have a mental problem but offensive to suggest that many of the world's most famous atheists had horrible relationships with their fathers. Double-standard? You betcha!

While Marcus is very intelligent it seems he cant see its obvious the bible is honestly obviously a terrible manual ! if its supposed said to be devine manual to help us humans.And so Marcus cannot even allow himself to see scripture is obviously honestly not easy to understand at all.
Let's see. So is understanding the Bible like say understanding....Quantum Mechanics? No? Why? I know what Gandalf would say. It's apples and oranges because Quantum Mechanics is true. Well Einstein would have disagreed. He didn't think it was true. And I would say that we don't really understand Quantum Mechanics. Not fully. Not completely. Therefore, just becasue you don't understand something does not mean that it's not true. That is why I end up quoting scripture so much. We have to deal with Gandalf's misunderstanding of scripture before we can even begin to discuss if its true or not. I think a great deal of the Bible is clear. To be fair I've been studying it for years. It was written in a language you do not speak in a cultural and temporal context you can't possibly think you can identify with without putting some time in studying it.
Marcus may very well have some specialist type of magical translation of these scriptures, and even be able to connect them in some majical way , kind of like somebody having a go at deciphering the Da Vinci Code.
Again this why I have to spend the time on what the text says before we can discuss if it's true. Gandalf does not understand it. He just said so.

But then what Marcus fails to understand is this does little to help the average Joe blogs human do the same .Neither does it do much at all to help suggest maybe this bible manual honestly looks like its actually anything that can be said as so very devine.
I've offered to discuss that. And I've had very few takers. The fact that the Bible is of divine origin is testable. This is something we can examine. We can reason this out. Again the challenge is out there.

Because the fact still remains its been a curse on earth thats a right mess and has honestly been the cause of many problems and lots of extreme pain heartbreak and even lots of death.
Is that truly a fact of history? Gandalf and others often assert this idea but there is no proof. I'd be happy to look at the proof. A lot of passion. A lot of emotion, No proof. Give me some numbers and where you have found them.
And so even that fact alone! says this bible is not honestly so very devine , doesnt it Keith.

No it doesn't. Keith is another person that I don't think Keith understands what the Bible means. For example he made the following assertion (again in bold).

@Marcus. In another thread you said that a day to God is like 1000 years.

Isn't it true that God says no such thing anywhere in the bible?

Isn't it true that the quote from peter comes from a mis-interpretation of Psalms 90:4?

That verse reads...

Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight [are but] as yesterday when it is past, and [as] a watch in the night.

This in no way means that a day to God is 1000 years.

A watch in the night is a 3 hour period so why don't christians say that a day to God is 3 hrs?

I have to call bullshit on ya my dude...@ 

Notice Keith's logic. God didn't write the Bible therefore neither Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:7-9

7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Look at the context. When I brought the scripture up, I could have been clearer and I did not think I would have to be this clear. Peter is making the point that God is not bound of time and that he is not bound to our timetable. "Soon" is relative. If God does not measure time as we do...and He does not...then it's a silly argument to assume you know what soom should be. If it takes 20,000 years for Jesus' return then that would still be soon relative to God. Keith then tries to say that Peter misunderstood Psalm 90:4

4 For a thousand years in your sight
are like a day that has just gone by,
or like a watch in the night.

I quoted the NIV. Keith quoted the KJV. While Peter is making ths same point as the Psalmist about God's timelessness. the conext is different. He accuses Peter of misunderstanding Psalms 90:4.However this shows that Keith understands neither passage.

Apologetics 315: The Meta Ethical Argument for Theism MP3 Audio by Peter S. Williams

Brian Auten posted this lecture a few weeks ago in which Peter Williams lectures on ethics. Very interesting.
Apologetics 315: The Meta Ethical Argument for Theism MP3 Audio by Peter S. Williams

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Credibility of our Christian Faith (by T) (beliefnet.com)
• Is Atheism a Choice? (atheistrev.com)

Debunking Loftus: Setting John Straight: Maybe He Needs an Outsider Test?

It always helps to have backup when you are wading into hostile territory. I've been commenting on John Loftus' blog Debunking Christianity. Some people have been, most have been - who have posted comments - have been mean, close-minded, arrogant, and condescending - while accusing me and other Christians of the same attitudes. Fortunately, a scholar like JP Holding is really reading the Loftus' blog. He isn't just ignoring it and refuting things that he doesn't know anything about.

John just committed unintended irony #5,764,382 with this one...
Quote of the Day by a Christian Named Marcus McElhaney

By John W. Loftus at 8/27/2010
" Emory and Greg, I concede that the Bible is indeed confusing...to both of you! Other people don't agree with you[r or] Greg's thoughts on how confusing the Bible is. Maybe you just need to study harder."
This quote is utterly ridiculous to the nth degree. If we study harder then we'd come to Marcus's conclusions, right? Right! With thinking skills like the ones Marcus displays here at DC, no wonder he believes. If Marcus is the example then we need to be almost brain dead to believe.

Uh....but who was it who said in defense of his "Outsider Test" that the main sign of whether you pass is that you come to believe the same things John Loftus does?
The more John talks, the more he helps us out!

I agree with Holding. The more you oppose the truth, the more you actually help.

⁷Now we pray to God that you will not do anything wrong. Not that people will see that we have stood the test but that you will do what is right even though we may seem to have failed. ⁸For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth. ⁹We are glad whenever we are weak but you are strong; and our prayer is for your perfection. - 2 Corinthians 13:7-9

Thank you, John Loftus.

Debunking Loftus: Setting John Straight: Maybe He Needs an Outsider Test?

YouTube - Sam Shamoun vs Shabir Ally (The Unedited Version)

The debate is about the Bible and the Qur'an. This by far is one of the best debates on this I have seen. If you want to see a great summary from both sides of what the arguments are and why this is important, this debate is one to watch.

YouTube - Sam Shamoun vs Shabir Ally (The Unedited Version)

Iron Sharpens Iron: Steve Camp: Are Theological Debates Antithetical to Christian Love?

Iron Sharpens Iron once had a great interview with Steve Camp:

Steve Camp, well known Christian recording artist, writer of a Grammy Award-winning song, theologically Reformed Christian apologist, founder of audienceONE Ministries and pastor of Cross Church in Palm City, Florida (see www.CrossChurch.net), will address the theme: "Are Theological Debates Antithetical to Christian Love?"

I enjoy these episodes on Iron Sharpens Iron because I like hearing what God is doing in other people's lives and congregations. Steve Camp's church seems to be a hybrid between the Reformed Baptist traditions and Pentecostal/charasmatic tradition of which I am very comfortable in. Reformed Baptist worship services, from what I have seen, tend to be quiet, very little music, somber and serious. Nothing wrong with that. I just can't get into that as much. There is very little talk of healing.  Nothing wrong with that either. Cross Church seems different in contrast. Pastor Camp said that they use musical instruments like electric guitars - I'd assume they get loud. Further, he also testified that God just recently healed his eyesight to the point that he no longer needs glasses to read. That is what God does - miracles. I liked how Pastor Camp described his church as "charismatic but with breaks."

Iron Sharpens Iron: Steve Camp: Are Theological Debates Antithetical to Christian Love?

Gay Marriage Debate: CSU East Bay (Hayward)

About two years ago Dr. James White debated Dr Michael K. Schutz, Professor of Sociology at CSU East Bay over the issue of Gay Marriage. I caught part of it personally, but I didn't have a blog then so I decided to go ahead and post it now. I think White skunked him, but go ahead and watch it and see what you think.


Gay Marriage Debate: CSU East Bay (Hayward)

Apologetics 315: William Lane Craig vs. Yusuf Ismail Debate: Identifying Jesus Is He Man or both Man and God? MP3 Audio

I appreciate Brian Auten for posting the link to the audio and he even posted the video. I like the way William Lane Craig handled this. it is so hard to hit every point. None of Yusuf Ismail's objections are new. They have been answered ad nauseum I really wish  Craig had been able to answer the Biblical objections that Ismail used. I don't think it's not that Craig could not have done it,  I don't think he had the time. He's a philosopher not as theologian. There were a couple of point Ismail made that I wish could have been discussed further.
1. Ismail said that angels don't have free will but iof that is true how did Lucifer choose to rebel against God. Both the Bible and the Qur'an agree that Satan rebelled against God. If he did not have free will, how did he choose to rebel?
2. Ismail butchered so many Bible texts it gave me a headache.
3. Ismail misrepresented all the trinity and scriptural basis of the Trinity
4. Many of Ismail's arguments depended on the work of scholars who would just as quickly dismiss his own worldview on the same basis they reject my Christian one.
5. His point that you no longer have believe in the deity of Christ to be a Christian is silly. There are denominations that are turning away from the truth. I find that by and large, many of these denominations are also beginning to . accept as lot of other anathamas that Muslims would also detest. For example allowing clergy to be homosexuals and condoning their lifestyle is not something that is going to go down in Muslim countries. Yet they have rejected Jesus as God.
6. Ismail confuses historic Christian understanding with the viewpoint of liberal. He would not allow a Christian to do the same with the Qur'an.



Apologetics 315: William Lane Craig vs. Yusuf Ismail Debate: Identifying Jesus Is He Man or both Man and God? MP3 Audio

Oakbrooke Bible Church, Waterford, Michigan | The Oakbrooke Pulpit

Recently James White spoke at the "God and Culture Conference".  Here is a link to the lectures presented by


James White, Christopher Brooks, Kent Clark, and Paul Edwards.

Oakbrooke Bible Church, Waterford, Michigan | The Oakbrooke Pulpit

Debunking Christianity: What Does it Mean to Have A Personal Relationship With Jesus?

John Loftus posted a video from YouTube user StampCollector.


The video attempts to suggest that there is no clear understanding of who Jesus is and what His commands are by Christians. I disagree. There is a huge point that was missed. None of the Christian viewpoints given in the video were given with any reference to what the Bible really says. There is room for a difference of opinion on a wide variety of subjects in Christianity. For example some people think the Bible can be used to say the Earth is 6000 years. It does not say that. No where does it say that. No where does it say we should take "days of creation" as 24-hr days or some other period of time. We agree all agree that in the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth. That is the important part for a theological view. The rest is figuring out how he did it...that's science. The age of the earth is not definitional of what a Christian believes.
What I want to know is why the fact that Christians have freedom to have different opinions about a lot of different things is horrible but then at the same time we are accused of being close-minded? How is that? For those matters that are definitional and wanting to know what Jesus really thinks about important things, we can look at the Bible.
Debunking Christianity: What Does it Mean to Have A Personal Relationship With Jesus?

Apologetics 315: Is Christianity True? FREE eBook

Last April, Brian Auten was inspired to get a few bloggers together to contribute to a free e-book describing why Christianity is objectively true from various perspectives. I was honored to be included as a contributor. Today, Brian has released the compiled book to the public. I appreciate his hard work and I hope that this book will help people know that Biblical Christianity is objectively true.

In April 2010, Apologetics 315 produced an essay series on the topic Is Christianity True? This was a series of 23 essays contributed by various apologetics bloggers from across the web. See the table of contents here. A podcast was also created with audio each of each essay. Now, the ebook version is available for download. Download below:

Is Christianity True? eBook
[ Kindle Version | Mobi | ePub | PDF ]
Apologetics 315: Is Christianity True? FREE eBook

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Bible Dissected

Image by Getty Images via @daylifeDr. Mariottini recently posted a great summary of facts about the King James Version of the Bible.

Old Testament
1. Books in the Old Testament: 39
2. Chapters in the Old Testament: 929
3. Verses in the Old Testament: 23,214
4. Words in the Old Testament: 592,439
5. Letters in the Old Testament: 2,728,800
New Testament
1. Books in the New Testament: 27
2. Chapters in the New Testament: 260
3. Verses in the New Testament: 7,959
4. Words in the New Testament: 181,253
5. Letters in the New Testament: 838,380
The Whole Bible
1. Books in the Bible: 66
2. Chapters in the Bible: 1,189
3. Verses in the Bible: 31,173
4. Words in the Bible: 773,692
5. Letters in the Bible: 3,567,180
Other Information about the Bible
1. The middle chapter of the Bible is Psalm 117
2. The smallest chapter of the Bible is Psalm 117
3. The middle verse of the Bible is Psalm 118, verse 8
4. The word “and” occurs 46,227 times in the Bible
5. The word “Yahweh” occurs 6855 times in the Bible
6. The 21st verse of the 7th chapter of Ezra has all the letters in the alphabet except the letter j
7. The 19th chapter of 2 Kings and the 37th chapter of Isaiah are alike
Other Information about the Old Testament
1. The middle book of the Old Testament is Proverbs
2. The middle chapter of the Old Testament is Job chapter 29
3. There is no middle verse in the Old Testament, since the number of verses is even. If there was a middle verse, it would be 2 Chronicles 20, between verses 17 and 18
4. The shortest verse of the Old Testament is 1 Chronicles Chapter 1, verse 25
5. The word “and” occurs 35,543 times in the Old Testament
Other Information about the New Testament
1. The middle book of the New Testament is 2 Thessalonians
2. There is no middle chapter in the New Testament since the number of chapters is even. If there was a middle chapter, it would be between Romans Chapters 13 and 14
3. The middle verse of the New Testament is Acts Chapter 17, verse 17
4. The shortest verse of the New Testament is John Chapter 11, verse 35
5. The word “and” occurs 10,684 times in the New Testament

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Bible Dissected

Daily Nation: - Africa |African bishops say Anglicans in West strayed from God

This is good news. I heard about this from Dr. Mariottini's blog. I'm not happy that many denominations are deciding to compromise on scripture. I'm glad that Anglican bishops in Africa are voicing concerns. It's about time someone had said something and they are going as far cutting ties to European and American and Canadian congregations that are compromising on homosexuality.

The conference host, the Archbishop of Uganda Henry Luke Orombi, said African leaders would use the six-day meeting to voice the concerns about the "ailing church" to Williams.

"Homosexuality is incompatible with the word of God," Orombi said. "It is good (that) Archbishop Rowan is here. We are going to express to him where we stand. We are going to explain where our pains are."

Orombi also said that disputes over homosexuality had already divided the global Anglican community

Think that Bishop Orombi is over-reeacting? Nope. Here is a quote from Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams:

"We must learn to listen to those we lead and serve to find out what their hopes and needs and confusions are. We must love them and attend to their humanity in all its diversity," he said.

"We cannot assume we always know better and that we always have the right answer to any specific question."

We can love people and attend to their diversities without condoning sin and compromising on scripture.
Daily Nation: - Africa |African bishops say Anglicans in West strayed from God

Apologetics 315: Matthew Flannagan vs. Raymond Bradley Debate: Is God the Source of Morality? MP3 Audio

This was a great  debate on God and morality. Bradly say Gods isn't the source of morality and Flannagan says God is the source of reality. I was hoping that Bradley would make a new argument, but he didn't. However Flannagan does advance a theory that is new to me relatively speaking. He was interviewed by Brian Auten earlier this week and it came up again. The argument was that there was no "genocide" in Canaan because Bible does not say that Israel killed everyone - even children - and instead follows the history literature in Ancient tradition of hyperbole. The equivalent of chanting "We won! You lost!! You ate the applesauce!!!" I'm not certain that I buy the argument but I want to read his work to try to understand more about his argument. I think it is an interesting point and I want to know more. Thankfully Brian Auten did post a link to Flannagan's blog post on his arguments about the Canaanites in his interview with Flannagan.  I was also distressed about Biblical inerrancy was not really addressed. Bradley kept hammering with it and it wasn't really answered. This is where I believe a Presuppositional approach would have been handy.with that you can argue that the Bible is true and you have good reason to accept it. Bradly is correct that the Bible is where this rises or falls.

Apologetics 315: Matthew Flannagan vs. Raymond Bradley Debate: Is God the Source of Morality? MP3 Audio

Superheroes and Moral Values - Are Superheroes Bad Role Models? - Popular Mechanics

I appreciate Mariano for pointing out this article. The thing about it is I agree that sometimes true characterization and morals are underplayed and the violence and fun highlighted. I mean make no mistake that when it came to the Iron Man movies the idea was to make it fun to be Anthony Stark. In the comics, especially the earlier ones, his heart condition was a major part of the story and it served as his "Achilles heel" - adding a sense of drama and vulnerability to the character. I think the version of Iron Man in the movies works in our culture today because people do want to watch over-the-top power characters who do what they want and play by their own rules. I think that is why Wolverine is so popular. Batman also taps into this vein. I think what makes these characters heroic is that they have a code and standard that they stick by. For example, Batman does not kill. Although Wolverine kills, he has a nobility and a standard that guides what he will and will not do. I think the article is correct about how the Spider-Man, Incredibles, Fantastic Four, Superman, and Batman come across. You do get a view of moral values that we should  aspire to live out ourselves. I think all great stories - mythological and real - share that trait. That is why we remember them.  I would add the following movies to their list of moral lessons.



1. X-Men - Protect others with the gifts you have even if they will not appreciate you for it

2. Wolverine - Be the best there is at what you do

3. Black Panther - Don't start fights...but you finish them. Carefully plan and be strategic.

4. Blade- "There are worse things than Vampires out there tonight."


"Like what?"

"Like me."


Attitude truly is everything. 

5.  Phantom - You are part of a tradition - what you have received you should pass on .

6. Captain America - "Surrender? Do you think this 'A' on my forehead stands for  'France'?!!!

Never give up

Superheroes and Moral Values - Are Superheroes Bad Role Models? - Popular Mechanics

Is Luke Wrong About the Time of Jesus' Birth? - Come Reason Ministries

On John Loftus blog Debunking Christianity, I was challenged by Evil Don the Pirate to explain the following  apparent contradiction in the Gospels.  He stated the challenge thusly:




Here's a contradiction from the gospels you can try to explain. Matthew has Jesus born during the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE. Luke has Jesus born during the year of the Census under Quirinius. We know that Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria in 6 CE and Josephus confirms that this is when the census was taken. Which gospel writer got it correct? 

I sent him the following link: Is Luke Wrong About the Time of Jesus' Birth? - Come Reason Ministries

As you might imagine Evil Don does not agree with  the answer. Amazingly instead of just saying he disagreed and that I'm stupid for accepting the answer given, he actually gave five reasons for not believing this answer. Let's go through his reasoning.

Marcus, you aren't dealing with this honestly. If you had taken a few minutes to think critically about that article you posted to, you would see what is wrong with it. But you didn't. You found someone who confirmed what you wanted to believe and assumed it must be correct.
The first problem: the apologist at that site takes liberties with the wording of the verse. A better translation is this: "In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria." The problem is clear now isn't it?

Let's look at the verses Luke 2:1-2 from many different translations:

¹In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. ²(This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) (NIV)

¹And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.
 ²(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) (KJV)

 ¹Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of  all the inhabited earth.  ²This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria (NASB)


 ¹ And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. ² This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. (NKJV)

Do I see a discrepancy here? Nope Not really.  Maybe Evil Don would like to clarify. The only difference between the KJV and the newer translations is that the KJV says Cyrenius was governor of Syria and the newer versions say Quirinius was governor of  Syria..Cyrenius was his Greek name. Quirinius was his Latin name. I have found another great source that bears quoting:

History records that Varus was governor of Syria from about 7 B.C. to about 4 B.C. and was not a trustworthy leader. However, Cyrenius was a notable military leader. During the census of 8-7 B.C., Augustus entrusted Cyrenius with Palestine, effectively superseding the authority and governorship of Varus by appointing Cyrenius to a place of special authority. Cyrenius administered in Syria on two separate occasions, once while prosecuting the military action against the Homonadensians between 12 and 2 B.C., and later beginning about A.D. 6. A Latin inscription discovered in 1764 has been interpreted to refer to Cyrenius as having served as governor of Syria on two occasions.

History records that Cyrenius was on assignment in Syria during this time and was one of the few trusted leaders. It is probable that Varus was on his way out while Cyrenius was taking charge of matters during Luke's narration.

Read more: Luke 2:2 states that the Cyrenius/Quirinius was Rome�s governor of Syria when Jesus was born. It�s documented that he became governor in 6 AD. Was Luke wrong? | Answerbag http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/45325#ixzz0xauUsz2p

The second problem: The multiple censuses of Augustus were for Roman citizens. Judea was not even a Roman province under Herod. It was a client kingdom. There is historical evidence of any kind indicating that Rome ever conducted a census of Judea prior to 6 CE.


There is also no historical evidence that there were no censuses prior to 6 BC. You can't assume that there was nothing just because we have no documentation.  And even if you want to argue that there was only one census the facts given in the link above more than covers the problem.





Third problem: Josephus makes it very clear when the census was taken, why, and by whom. He wrote "Now Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them till he had been consul, and one who, on other accounts, was of great dignity, came at this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to be a judge of that nation, and to take an account of their substance. Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with him, to have the supreme power over the Jews. Moreover, Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus's money." He records no other census of Judea (as does no one else).

 Cyrenius and Quirinius were the same person. Josephus is not contradicting Luke nor Matthew. 

Fourth problem: The apologist gives no evidence of any other censuses in Judea. He merely asserts that previous censuses of other areas are evidence that censuses were taken in Judea as well. What he fails to emphasize is that the other censuses are recorded history, whereas the supposed Judean censuses are not.

 Um...still arguing from absence. You can't honestly draw such a conclusion when you don't have enough information. The thing is that there is evidence from around 3 BC that do mention a Census in Judea. Check the same link from above.

Armenian historian Moses of Khorene (Armenian History 2:26) says that in 3 B. C. Roman authorities came to Armenia to set up images of Caesar Augustus in the temples of the area. These same sources state that it was the registration mentioned in Luke which brought them there. The purpose of this registration was to record an official declaration of allegiance from all of his subjects to present to Caesar Augustus in celebration of his Silver Jubilee.

Read more: Luke 2:2 states that the Cyrenius/Quirinius was Rome�s governor of Syria when Jesus was born. It�s documented that he became governor in 6 AD. Was Luke wrong? | Answerbag http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/45325#ixzz0xayJDwZz

Fifth problem: This one is especially important, so pay close attention. There is absolutely no justification anywhere in Luke for supposing that the census is any other than the one he is clearly referring to. Do you understand that? The census Luke describes matches the one (and only) census we know about in Judea. The only justification (and this is typical of Bible harmonizers) for supposing an earlier census is the Christian dogma that the gospels can't possibly contradict each other. There is no other way to justify the idea that Luke was not referring to the 6 CE census, which he clearly was. 

Of course I understand Don's argument. The problem is he's wrong. I just provided justification for understanding that there was more than one census. Something else that I think Evil Don has not thought about is that such a census would take more than one year to complete. I mean even with all the technology today, we can't complete a national census in one year and America is a lot smaller than the Roman Empire was at that time. Some people answer this question by pointing out that any census happening in 6 AD was started much earlier...like maybe 8-6 BC!

Sorry....well....let me be honest I'm not sorry. It's fun to watch people twisting in the wind when they look for a reason to reject scripture. It's fun because you see the Bible validating itself as true...even if that means everyone else is wrong. The Bible is not inerrant because of Christian dogma. It's inerrant because it's true.

Today on Radio Free Geneva!

Today, August 24, James White reviewed the new third edition of Norman  Geisler's book Chosen But Free, I read a previous edition and I wanted to know how this edition is different from the one I read. I was hoping that there would be improvements because the book there was so much in the book with which I disagreed. But those hopes seem to have been dashed. I read Chosen But Free (CBF) and then I read James White's rebuttal The Potter's Freedom (POF). POF is a masterpiece. It is really well-written and explains where he disagrees with Geisler and why. It makes a great text book for anyone who wants to study the history of thought and the arguments between the rival views of Calvinism and Arminianinsm. The program today is a great companion to reading the book. I really wish Norman Geisler would formally debate James White or RC Sproul on these things.

Today on Radio Free Geneva!

Peter Stravinskas Threatens to Sue Alpha and Omega Ministries

I just read a blog post from James White in which he reports that Peter Stravinskas wants to sue him and his ministry. I'm amazed by this. But once you watch the clip is shouldn't be surprising why Stravinskas is angry. I think that James White has made a very valid point:

So if Peter Stravinskas wants to "warn" Roman Catholics against debating me, let me add a few items. If you want a debate where your opponent does not study your position nor accurately represent your position, do not debate James White. If you want a debate where the resultant video recordings are not given wide distribution or clips allowed to be posted on YouTube, do not debate James White. Meanwhile, let's ponder the real reason why Peter Stravinskas wants control over video clip posting of any debates:

Follow the link below to see all of Dr. White's comments.

Peter Stravinskas Threatens to Sue Alpha and Omega Ministries

Debunking Christianity: Bishop Spong: "Hell is the Invention of the Church"

John Lofuts posted a video of John Shelby Spong explaining that "hell" was invented by the church. He doesn't think that there is any warrant for Christians to believe in Hell. Loftus wrote:

Evangelicals you are wrong, listen to Spong. ;-)
I've seen evangelicals change what they believe during my lifetime and I predict they will embrace Spong's views in 30-40 more years. Evangelicals are already embracing annihilationism, so why not? Watch him below:

The problem is that Jesus spoke about Hell more than He spoke about Heaven. Loftus is right that there are some people who call themselves "Christians" who have embraced annihilationism - meaning that people who die in their sins simply cease to exist and that there is no hell. This is not what the Bible says. Spong is wrong. Pure and simple. It's a heretical position and not something that Christians have believed over the past 2000 years ago. I don't really care what Spong thinks if he is going to contradict Jesus. Spong didn't die for me and take my sins away. Jesus did. What Jesus says carries more weight. Listen to Spong instead of Jesus and you will see just how wrong he is.

Debunking Christianity: Bishop Spong: "Hell is the Invention of the Church"