Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: A Nail from Christ’s Cross?

Dr. Mariottin has posted a link to an article about an amazing archaeological find: a nail, like the one pictured on the left, dating back to the time of Jesus' crucifixion, was found in a fort that had belonged to the Knights Templar. Because the nail is well preserved some think that it was a precious religious relic - maybe it was thought to be one of nails used to crucify Jesus. Follow the link below back to Dr. Mariottini's original article and find the original story from there.

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: A Nail from Christ’s Cross?

Iron Sharpens Iron: Theonomic Postmillennialism Defended

Martin G. Selbrede was a guest on Iron Sharpens Iron where he discussed Theonomic Postmillennialism and defined it. This will need to be commented on further

Iron Sharpens Iron: Theonomic Postmillennialism Defended

Apologetics 315: Sean McDowell vs. James Corbett Debate MP3 Audio

I have come to expect a lot of great resource from Apologetics 315 and this post continues to exceed my expectations. Here is a debate where Sean McDowell takes an atheist almost twice his age on the question: Is God the best explanation of Moral values? I had hoped James Corbett would have brought a different argument  - something new I had not heard before but he didn't. McDowell was able to really almost predict what Corbett was going to say and beat him to it - along with a powerpoint presentation.  Corbett's argument was the same tired atheist arguments
a. You don't need to believe in God to be moral
b. Morality evolved in people because it was beneficial.
c. The Bible presents outdated ideas of morality that we now know bettter (ie slavery, mistreatment of women, racism, ect)
d. More people have been killed because of religion than anything else due to peole thinking they were absolutely right in what they believe.
e. Doubt is better because Corbett admits that he could be wrong  and religious people have no proof that they are right about a divine law giver.
f. Religious people have done horrible things. 

So in other words, for Sean McDowell this was a slam dunk. I doubt he even worked up a sweat because points "a" and "f" were not even debated..anyone who has thought through this would agree - All human being are capable of understand morality apart from what they believe and we don't do it perfectly. The point that McDowell homed in on is the questions about "Who's morality is it if its relative and where did it come from and how? This is how he won the debate because Corbett could not answer that.  No atheist can God is the best answer to the question.

McDowell's apologetic like William Lane Craig's does not depend on the Bible's infallibility or truth to be valid. This is why I think he didn't spend much time refuting Corbett's weak arguments against the Bible. He did speak to point "d" showing that the number of people who were killed on the actions of religious people dwarf those who were killed by atheists. I also thought it was interesting for Corbett to admit that he could be wrong but he doubted that McDowell was right. I mean that by the time you know for sure through experience it could be too late to change your mind and make a change.

The one part of McDowell's argument that I dind't like was that he appealed to Free Will. I know he looks at Free Will from an Arminian perspective and I'm not sure if it can be truly defined that way. I quickly agree that we all have will and make decisions that have eternal worth and ramifications but I think we need to be more careful on how we see how it relates to God's sovereignty because we are far from sovereign in running this universe by our choices.

Apologetics 315: Sean McDowell vs. James Corbett Debate MP3 Audio

Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Sean McDowell

This is an excellent Interview! Teacher and apologist Sean McDowell sat down with Brian Auten of Apologetics 315 and gave his testimony and answered some questions about his work and how his Father has influenced him. What I got most out of it was the realization that he is just a couple of years younger than I and he grew up in Church and Apologetics like I, he had the same experience I did and what everyone does: it came time to answer "Who Do I say Jesus Is?" He wondered if what he has been taught his whole life was true or not. And he researched it out. I went through the same thing and I also researched and searched. We came up with the same answers - God is true.  I slo enjoyed the advice he gave about how to bring Apologetics into your church or school when there isn't that much interest already! I also found out which scholars have influenced him most.I actually saw him live once and was impressed....now I got to learn a lot more about him. Follow the link below to learn more!

Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Sean McDowell

Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" by Ellery Schempp

Image via Wikipedia

I was in a debate with cherokee_autumn a couple of weeks back about the difference of scientific theory and scientific law. Many times in order to defend the theory of evolution people point to gravity being a theory. She tweeted the article that I have linked to this post and it does say that Universal Gravity is a theory but then it goes on to say that the law of gravity is shady and has holes. Reading it reminds of bad creationist articles against evolution. I'm embarrassed by those because although I reject macro evolution I think that there should be good reason for rejecting any idea - more than I don't like it or don't understand it. First I must point out that Gravity is not a theory, it's a force. Universal Gravitation is a theory based on observation and I see no reasons why it should be rejected. The article makes a  lot of blunders than makes me think the author knows nothing of Physics. I quote the two I find the most offensive here:

Even Isaac Newton, said to be the discoverer of gravity, knew there were problems with the theory. He claims to have invented the idea early in his life, but he knew that no mathematician of his day would approve his theory, so he invented a whole new branch of mathematics, called fluxions, just to “prove” his theory. This became calculus, a deeply flawed branch having to do with so-called “infinitesimals” which have never been observed. Then when Einstein invented a new theory of gravity, he, too, used an obscure bit of mathematics called tensors. It seems that every time there is a theory of gravity, it is mixed up with “fringe” mathematics. Newton, by the way, was far from a secular scientist, and the bulk of his writings is actually on theology and Christianity. His dabbling in gravity, alchemy, and calculus was a mere sideline, perhaps an aberration best left forgotten in describing his career and faith in a Creator.

Why is this stupid? Simple. Tensors and Calculus are far from fringe mathematics. This is the basis of what you need to do theoretical Physics. Without them you can't do anything meaningful in Physics.

The theory of gravity violates common sense in many ways. Adherents have a hard time explaining, for instance, why airplanes do not fall. Since anti-gravity is rejected by the scientific establishment, they resort to lots of hand-waving. The theory, if taken seriously, implies that the default position for all airplanes is on the ground. While this is obviously true for Northwest airplanes (relying on “A Wing and a Prayer”), it appears that Jet Blue and Southwest have a superior theory that effectively harnesses forces that overcome so-called gravity.

Those forces are called "lift" and "thrust" combined with gravity and the shape of the wings that keep an airplane in the air. REAL simple Physics I learned in elementary school. I hope that this is a joke article because it really is stupid. Without context and assuming the author is not a moron leads me to the conclusion that the article is attempting to make the point that denying Gravity is like denying evolution. Although I disagree with that conclusion it's either that or the author is completely clueless.

Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" by Ellery Schempp

Opening and Closing Statements: Shabir Ally Debate -

Image via Wikipedia

Here is a written transcript of the opening remarks and conclusion James White gave in his debate against Shabir Ally. White lays out the fact that to most Muslims who believe the Qur'an, Jesus was not crucified. Here is what Dr. James White said:

What we find from every source that has any legitimate claim to coming from the first hundred years after Jesus echoes the words that most scholars, conservative and liberal alike, believe to be some of the earliest in the New Testament:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.

This is the core teaching of the Christian faith, and anyone who wishes to suggest otherwise has a very, very tall challenge ahead of them.
But I doubt Shabir Ally will argue that the New Testament as we possess it today teaches anything other than this very truth. So why are we here this evening? I submit to you that the only reason we are here this evening is because of 40 Arabic words written in a book that can be dated no earlier than 625 years after the ministry of Jesus. These 40 words were written in a different culture, 765 miles away from Jerusalem, over half a millennium removed, without any direct or firsthand connection historically, to the events in Jerusalem. Indeed, these 40 words find no literary connection to the first century at all, for they were written by a man who had no firsthand knowledge of the New Testament, for it had not yet been translated into the Arabic language. I refer, of course, to Surah 4:157 of the Qur'an, which reads,

And because of their saying: "We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger (rasool)." They slew him not nor crucified him, but it was made to appear to them, and those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.

Shabir Ally has admitted, in a debate in 2004, that this text is, in fact, key to his understanding of the issue of the crucifixion of Jesus. I shall, of course, leave it to Shabir to explicate his own views on this text, but for the moment I wish to make sure my assertion here is fully understood. I realize the Muslims in the audience do not believe these to be the words of Muhammad, but that they are the words of Allah. The Muslims in the audience this evening may even be tempted to be offended when I disagree with these words, and in fact assert that these words are false, erroneous, and that they are based upon ignorance of the Scriptural teaching. It cannot be any secret that a Christian who understands Islamic teaching and yet remains a Christian does not believe Muhammad was a prophet. There is nothing to be accomplished in glossing over our differences. May I point out that if Shabir Ally is right, then those I honor as apostles and prophets are actually false teachers and promoters of idolatry. Shabir has made it plain that he blames the Apostle Paul for in essence hi-jacking Jesus (who, according to Muslims, was himself a Muslim), supplanting the original followers of Jesus, and replacing the simple message of Jesus, found today only in the Qur'an, with the false and blasphemous teaching that Jesus is the Son of God and that He died for the sins of the world. We should not minimize the fact that we are asked by our Muslim friends to believe that the New Testament is hopelessly corrupt, the gospel is false, and the worship of Jesus amounts to the unforgivable sin of shirk. If the Muslim is tempted to be offended at the assertion that Muhammad was ignorant of the biblical record, written in a language he could not understand, and that hence he made errors in his teachings, the Christian has significantly more reason to experience temptation to offense at the necessary results of Islamic teachings. But I, for one, did not come here this evening to feign offense at the Islamic denials of my own faith. I am here to lay these issues out on the table and to shine the bright light of truth upon them, a light available only when both sides come to the table and honestly lay out their differences.

This is a key issue. It's on this that Christianity rests and is this that Islam most especially denies. This make Islam and Christianity antithetical to one another. I think that this can't be ignored or swept under the rug. And I have yet to hear anyone show that both views can be compatible with each other. They both can't be true. Give that as much as anyone can tell, history shows beyond doubt that Jesus was crucified. The Bible agrees with that historical fact. The Qur'an denies it. They both can't be true.

Opening and Closing Statements: Shabir Ally Debate