Dr. Robert Price's Reason for Accepting the CRI Debate Challenge

As you may already know that Dr. James White is debating Dr. Robert M. Price very soon. This debate will be important because Price is one of the rare scholars who completely deny that all of scripture and just about all claims of Christianity, period. He must be answered because he's not a stupid, uneducated, ignorant, nor inarticulate by human standards. He's not even mean. He doesn't seem demonic at all. People like him seem to be reasonable and willing to discuss the issue. Thankfully in one of his most recent blog posts Dr White quotes Price about why he has accepted this debate and how he thinks of debates in general. I think that it is important that you read this post so you can see stupid a mind can become without God.

Most importantly, Dr. White has given his own reasons for doing this debate and all the debates he engages in:

I listen to the Crossans and Ehrmans and Prices of the world not because I enjoy the exercise (I would much rather be listening to something uplifting and edifying), but because I seek to honor the truth, and the only way to do that is to do the work necessary to accurately represent your opponent in debate, for the benefit of the widest possible audience. So while Dr. Price will be seeking to "reach" only a small sliver of the audience in an attempt to push them over into agnosticism, I will be seeking to reach a much wider group: I wish to reach the unbelievers by demonstrating that the faith can stand in the presence of radical unbelief without compromise; I wish to reach the believers by modeling how they may provide an answer to those attacking their faith. And of course, another major difference between us is that Dr. Price has only the weapon of his own doubt to use. I have the Spirit of God, who raised Jesus from the dead, to make the truth to come alive in the hearts of His people.

I agree with Dr. White. Debates don't change everyone but it does help some people and it's a tool God uses.If only only one person is ultimately saved through a debate it is worth it,.



Dr. Robert Price's Reason for Accepting the CRI Debate Challenge

Apologetics 315: Terminology Tuesday: Exegesis, Eisegesis

Here is a great post from Apologetics 315! It defines "exegesis" and "eisegesis". This is exactly the definition I use asnd I wish people wouldf do exegesis and not eisegesis.


Apologetics 315: Terminology Tuesday: Exegesis, Eisegesis

Apologetics 315: Historical Reliability of Jesus' Resurrection MP3 Audio by Jürgen Spieß

Brian Auten has been a blessing once again. He has posted a lecture of a German historian arguing for the resurrection. I am grateful for this because a lot of times people like Bart Ehrman try to say that professional historians deny Jesus' Resurrection I usually point to Paul Maier as a credible historian but Brian has helped me by being able to point out another. I fid it interesting that his arguments are similar to William Lane Craig's and Gary Habermas' presentations. Here is Brian's descriptions.

Jürgen Spieß (PhD in Ancient History) presents this lecture on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. This talk (given at the European Leadership Forum, and hosted by bethinking.org) covers the importance of the resurrection, historical research, historical sources, and the evidences for the resurrection

Apologetics 315: Historical Reliability of Jesus' Resurrection MP3 Audio by Jürgen Spieß

In Defense of the Faith Apologetic Ministry » Blog Archive » Evans vs. Ehrman: Does the New Testament Misquote Jesus?

A few days ago I posted this debate but now here is the video.




In Defense of the Faith Apologetic Ministry » Blog Archive » Evans vs. Ehrman: Does the New Testament Misquote Jesus?

Positive Atheism's Big List of Richard Dawkins Quotations part 1

Richard Dawkins via last.fm

This is first in a series of blog posts where I would like to take a quotation of  Richard Dawkins and examine it. What I hope to do is stir discussion. If anyone think i'm being unfair or taking something out of context, they can correct me in the comments. The quotes will come from the following link and in no particular order:

Positive Atheism's Big List of Richard Dawkins Quotations

What has happened is that genetics has become a branch of information technology. It is pure information. It's digital information. It's precisely the kind of information that can be translated digit for digit, byte for byte, into any other kind of information and then translated back again. This is a major revolution. I suppose it's probably "the" major revolution in the whole history of our understanding of ourselves. It's something would have boggled the mind of Darwin, and Darwin would have loved it, I'm absolutely sure.
-- Richard Dawkins, Life: A Gene-Centric View Craig Venter & Richard Dawkins: A Conversation in Munich (Moderator: John Brockman) "This event was a continuation of the Edge 'Life: What a Concept!' meeting in August, 2008." [sic]

I like this. I think Dawkins does understand how truly revolutionary genetics truly is. What amazes me is how much like our digital technology is but on a much more complex level. My question is...where does it come from?  Dawkins believe that it was natural process of evolution...blind and unguided. How? It's like saying Windows 7 evolved from Windows 3.11 tom Windows 95 to Windows 98 to Windows 2000 to Windows XP (Millennium and Vista being dead ends). Does that make sense? Or how about the evolution form 8 bit Nintendo to the Wii? Code does not write itself.