Is God a dictator? | True Freethinker
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Is God a dictator? | True Freethinker
I love hearing Dr. John Lennox. I really appreciate Mariano posting this on his blog. In a democratic republic (yeah, I know I'm trying to keep a straight face even as I write this) such as ours, the thought of a sovereign dictator is repugnant. So repugnant in fact that it colors the way we see God and how God works and does things. We think that in no way could a good and loving God act in a unilateral way despite what we want or think. Such a thought ignores our fallen nature, limitations, and stupidity. As well as ignore the fact that God really does know what is best for us. Here is the video Mariano posted in which Dr. Lennox discusses this very question.
Is God a dictator? | True Freethinker
Is God a dictator? | True Freethinker
Truthbomb Apologetics: Do You Desire to KNOW if Jesus' Teaching Comes from God?
“If anyone's will is to do God's will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority" [John 7:17, ESV; Emphasis mine].
Follow Him and find out...
To find out what it truly means to follow Jesus, see here.
Amen! Amen!!!
Truthbomb Apologetics: Do You Desire to KNOW if Jesus' Teaching Comes from God?
YouTube - Hazakim - 'Fulfillment' (with lyrics)
YouTube - Hazakim - 'Fulfillment' (with lyrics)
Debunking Christianity: Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True? Part 2
Just because we don't know how to reverse total cell necrosis does not mean the creator of all cells doesn't know how to. Not all scientists agrees that the evidence shows that all present life forms have a common ancestor.
17) That although there is no rational explanation for why Jesus had to die on the cross to atone for our sins, his death atoned for our sins.
The Bible clearly explains that. Okay one more time: If the wages of sin is death, someone has to die to pay for it. This is the system that God says because sin is that horrible. It offends the very nature of God Our sin is what separates us from God. Sin requires a perfect sinless sacrifice. Neither you nor I can pay that. So God paid it. Isaac's near sacrifice,Passover, the blood sacrifices were all pictures of what God ultimately did for us through Christ. Do you want to be judge for your own sins knowing that you must be found guilty. Or do you want to be justified because Jesus took the punishment for you and freed you from the penalty you deserve. Jesus loves you that much.
18) That although historical reconstructions of the past are are notoriously difficult because they depend on the poor evidence of history, and even though historians must assess that evidence by assuming a natural explanation for it, and even though historical evidence can never establish how to view that evidence, the Christian faith can be established historically anyway. My argument is that when it comes to miraculous claims, yesterday’s evidence no longer can hold water for me, for in order to see it as evidence, I must already believe in the framework that allows me to see it as evidence. In other words, in order to see yesterday’s evidence as evidence for me, I must already believe the Christian framework that allows me to see yesterday’s evidence as evidence for Christianity.
That is circular reasoning. You don't have to assume that Christianity is true to come to that conclusion from the evidence we have.
19) That although there is no cogent theodicy that can explain why there is such ubiquitous and massive human and animal suffering if a perfectly good omnipotent God exists, God is perfectly good and omnipotent anyway.
The Bible gives the perfect theodicy. Free will does not answer that one and the Bible does not support it. The Bible says that God does everything he want how He want to do it and when He wants to do it. This means that even those things that we think of as evil are acting according to God's ultimate plan and when we see the final product we will know that God was right and ultimate good real be seen.
9And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.11In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. - Ephesians 1:9-12
20) That while scientific tests on petitionary prayers have produced at best negligible results and at worst completely falsified them, God answers these kinds of prayers anyway.
This objection amazes me because people seem to think that an answered prayer automatically means "yes". It's like those who think like this never thought that God can answer a prayer with :"No"
13I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. 14This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. 15And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him. - 1 John 5:13-15
21) That even though Christianity shows evidence that it is nothing but a cultural by-product of human invention there is a divine mind behind it anyway.
Another assertion made without proof.
22) That Jesus is the Son of God even though the textual evidence in the New Testament conclusively shows that the founder of the Jesus cult was a failed apocalyptic prophet who prophesied that the eschaton would take place in his generation, which would involve a total cosmic catastrophe after which God inaugurates a literal kingdom on earth with the "Son of Man" reigning from Jerusalem over the nations.
Where did Jesus say that he would return in his generation? I think that you Loftus is misunderstanding Matthew 24. You can can read more
THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Addressing a response to my Matthew 24 Challenge
23) That although there can be no moral justification for the sufferings of animals in this created world, a perfectly good God created this world anyway. We don't even see God's care for the lower animals in his supposed revealed word, which is described in Psalm 119 as his "perfect will." Think otherwise? Then read what I wrote here.
The Bible says otherwise:
25"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? 26Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his lifeb]">[b]?
28"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' 32For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. 34Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own. - Matthew 6:25-34
And what about:
18I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21thati]">[i] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.22We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? 25But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.26In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. 27And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will. - Romans 8:18-27
24) That although the only method we have for determining the truth in factual matters is methodological naturalism, which assumes a natural explanation for any phenomena, and although this method is the hallmark of the sciences, the phenomena of the Bible can be exempted from this method as applied through Biblical Criticism, and believed anyway.
Rationally, is it true that methodological naturalism is the only way to determine factual truth? Lots of people disagree with that. Loftus should prove this premise before basing an argument for testing Christianity.
25) That although God's supposed revelation in the canonical Bible is indistinguishable from the musings of an ancient, barbaric, superstitious people, the Bible is the word of God. As SilverBullet recently said: “...the lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his non-existence. It seems to me that there is nothing in the Christian scriptures, no sentence, paragraph, or idea, that couldn't be anything more than the product of the humans alive at the time that the apparently divinely inspired scriptures and ideas were "revealed". Sure, its possible for a god to reveal himself in an inspired book, and throughout history, in ways that are indistinguishable from the work of human minds and human minds alone. But how probable does that seem to you?”
This is a baseless assumption: "there is nothing in the Christian scriptures, no sentence, paragraph, or idea, that couldn't be anything more than the product of the humans alive at the time that the apparently divinely inspired scriptures and ideas were 'revealed'." Where is the proof? Not everyone believes that statement is true. I think Romans 6:23 is not something at all that anyone would come up with on their own. or how about:
14 Why do I put myself in jeopardy
and take my life in my hands?
and take my life in my hands?
15 Though he slay me, yet will I hope in him;
I will surely defend my ways to his face.
16 Indeed, this will turn out for my deliverance, I will surely defend my ways to his face.
for no godless man would dare come before him! - Job 13:14-16
26) That although it's claimed God got the attention of Abraham, Moses, the Pharaoh, Gideon, Mary, Joseph, and Saul (who became Paul) and that he knows how to get the attention of anyone and everyone, there is no objective evidence he's trying to get the attention of the billions of people who don't believe. In fact, Christians are much more concerned than God is that non-believers are converted. Just compare the lengths to which Christians will go in order to convert non-believers, with a God who has the means to convert everyone and yet does nothing to help them do this. If you say God is helping to convert non-believers then tell us how to objectively know God is actually doing this.
Simple: By the witnesses and proclamation to the work God does in the lives of the believers.
14How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"
Romans 10-14-15
g]">
I got saved because I heard the word of God. Same as everyone else.
27) Christianity is a faith that must dismiss the tragedy of death. It does not matter who dies, or how many, or what the circumstances are when people die. It could be the death of a mother whose baby depends upon her for milk. It could be a pandemic like cholera that decimated parts of the world in 1918, or the more than 23,000 children who die every single day from starvation. These deaths could be by suffocation, drowning, a drive-by shooting, or being burned to death. It doesn't matter. God is good. Death doesn't matter. People die all of the time. In order to justify God's goodness Christianity minimizes the value of human life. It is a pro-death faith, plain and simple.
That is hilarious. Atheism undermines the value of human life. If a person has no purpose how does that not minimize human value? Christians don't minimize death just because with Christ we know there is nothing to fear. The sting is gone.
28) That God's punishments are good, right, and just, even though it means sinners are thrust into a surprisingly dangerous world, and in death will be blindsided by an eternal punishment in hell, which is "Christianity's most damnable doctrine." In this world how do you think human beings first learned that venomous creatures like certain kinds of spiders, snakes, ants or scorpions could kill us? People/children had to die, lots of them. How do you think human beings first learned that polluted water or lead poisoning could kill us? Again, people/children had to die, lots of them. It was inevitable since God never told us what to avoid in order to stay alive. We had to learn these kinds of things firsthand. The same thing can be said for hell. People do not know their choices will send them to an eternal punishment in hell. For if we knew this, and if it was possible not to sin at all, we wouldn't sin. Do you doubt this? Then consider that if you knew with certainty that by crossing a line drawn in the sand you would get beaten to a pulp by a biker gang, you would not do it!
But, Loftus, you do know that transgressing God's law will lead you to hell, yet you do. We all do. The Bible tells us there is a remedy. We have no excuse. We have been warned. We should know better. Natural dangers are different. And knowledge has been passed down. In certain circumstances I doubt that many people died. Just how many people do you think died before people realized you should not stand under a tree when it falls? I doubt many. And whether you believe Adam and Eve are factual or not we all have to agree that we are all descendant from a single woman from a single geographic location. Given that all of her descendants would have been taught to avoid certain animals and situations and to be cautious.
29) When believers like Christians or Muslims contend their faiths are based on reason, one may simply object that this can’t be so because their god in fact doesn’t allow it. Using reason to arrive at any other belief than the correct one will earn you an eternity in hell. Thus, reason is an evil to be avoided....Blind, unquestioning, and unexamined belief is what the theist’s retributive god truly desires, not a belief grounded in reason. And yet they maintain Christianity is reasonable.
I'm not going to speak for Muslims but it's a flat out lie that God does not allow us to use reason. Reason can't lead you to an other world view.
17 learn to do right!
Seek justice,
encourage the oppressed. a]">[a]
Defend the cause of the fatherless,
plead the case of the widow.
Seek justice,
encourage the oppressed. a]">[a]
Defend the cause of the fatherless,
plead the case of the widow.
18 "Come now, let us reason together,"
says the LORD.
"Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool.
says the LORD.
"Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool.
19 If you are willing and obedient,
you will eat the best from the land; - Isaiah 1:17-19
you will eat the best from the land; - Isaiah 1:17-19
30) The Christian thinks there is an objective absolute morality that stems from their perfectly good God, which is both eternal and unchangeable. But the morality we find in the Bible is something quite different than what they claim. Morality has evolved. What we find in the Bible is not something we would expect from a perfectly good God, but Christians believe there is a perfectly good God anyway. So Christians must choose, either 1) hold to a philosopher's god divorced from the historical realities of the Bible, or 2) continue to worship a moral monster.
This one is really a crappy argument. How do you know what good is? I'm not saying that atheists can't do good things or understand good. I'm asking where did it come from? Loftus asserts morality has evolved but he should prove that this assertion is true. The God of the Bible is not immoral or evil. By what standard is Loftus judging God's moral character? He does not say. What does Loftus expect from a perfect God? Where did his standard come from? Why does he think his opinion, or anyone's opinion, should even matter to God?
Debunking Christianity: Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?
Debunking Christianity: Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True? Part 1
Below I've put together all thirty theses (so far) that most Christians agree on and why they are all improbable:
1) There must be a God who is a simple being yet made up of three inexplicable persons existing forever outside of time without a beginning, who therefore never learned anything new, never took a risk, never made a decision, never disagreed within the Godhead, and never had a prior moment to freely choose his own nature.
Why does Lofus think that God never made a decision? Where does the Bible say that God is simple or doesn't make decisions? That is something people say If God is omniscient and made everything that existed, does exist, or ever will exist how can there be something that He does not know? How can anything be new to him? We don't choose our own ontologcal nature. God is,. Never changes. There is no need for Him to choose His nature. Why does this make God seem unreal? Why would you want to worship a god that needs to take risk? Supreme being means not having to risk failure. In God there is no failure. I realize some people think that God can't be omniscient because he is bound by time. God made time. Why would he be bound by it? As for agreement in the Godhead the Bible agrees. I'm not going to pretend that I understand how the Trinity works, but the Bible says the Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God. And that God is one. One Being. Three persons. Being and person are not the same thing.
2) There must be a personal non-embodied omnipresent God who created the physical universe ex-nihilo in the first moment of time who will subsequently forever experience a sequence of events in time.
The Bible agrees that God is spirit and does not have a Body and created everything out of nothing. However it does not say that God "experiences a sequence of events in time". We do. God is. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. In other words, God is eternal.
Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD, the LORD, is the Rock eternal. - Isaiah 26:4
3) There must exist a perfectly good, omnipotent God, who created a perfectly good universe out of a desire/need to glorify himself by rewarding in heaven the few human beings who just got lucky to believe by being born at the right time and place, and who will condemn to hell those who do not believe.
Excuse me God does not need anything. God certainly doesn't need anything from us. God does not just deserve praise for saving the people who believe and punishing those who don't believe. God deserves praise, honor and glory for who God is. In addition people do not believe just because they are born at the right time and the right place. If that was the case everyone born in Christian homes would be Christians and those not born in Christian homes would never become Christians. And again the Bible disagrees with Loftus. Paul told the Athenians that every single person was born in the place, at the best time, and under the best circumstances for that person to best find God.
24"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' - Acts 17:24-28
4) That the highest created being, known as Satan or the Devil, led an angelic rebellion against an omnipotent omniscient omnibenelovent omnipresent God, and expected to win--which makes Satan out to be pure evil and dumber than a box of rocks.
When people make this argument, I've got to ask if you think that Satan was so dumb and stupid to start a war that he could not even hope to win, then why do you commit the same act of stupidity in rebelling against your creator?
5) That there was a first human pair (Adam and Eve) who so grievously sinned against God when tested that all of the rest of us are being punished for it (including animals), even though no one but the first human pair deserved to be punished. If it's argued that all of us deserve to be punished because we all would have sinned, then the test was a sham. For only if some of us would not have sinned can the test be considered a fair one. But if some of us would not have sinned under the same initial conditions then there are people who are being punished for something they never would have done.
The argument that there are some people people would not have sinned under the same initial condition is silly because if that were true we would not sin now. However, we all sin and fall short of the standard of Holiness. Sure Adam and Eve failed their test, but we continue to fail in our tests. We are all sinners.
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 6:23
5Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. - Romans 8:5-8
6) That although there are many other similar mythological stories told in Ancient Near Eastern Literature that pre-date what we read in the Bible, the stories in the Bible are about real events and real people.
I haven't seen any evidence that the Bible are not talking about real people or real events. And if you really compare the Bible to other Ancient Near Eastern Literature you will find significant differences. For example, the proportionate ratio given for the ark that Noah used to survive the flood would have made it uncapsizeable and seaworthy while the description pf the craft the survivors of the flood used given in Sumerian texts would not have worked.
7) That although we see completely different perspectives and evolving theologies in the Bible, including many things that are barbaric and superstitious to the core, it was authored by one divine mind.
I think that number seven is really weak. No proof is given that the Bible represents superstitions, different perspectives (or what they are), or what is meant by evolving theologies. More details need to be given.
8) That when it comes to verifiable matters of historical fact (like the Exodus, the extent of the reign of David, Luke's reported world-wide census, etc) the Biblical stories are disconfirmed by evidence to the contrary as fairy tales, but when it comes to supernatural claims of miracles that cannot be verified like a virgin birth and resurrection from the grave, the Bible reports true historical facts.
I don't know any Bible-Believing Christians who would agree to number eight. I do know that some scholars disagree about the Exodus, the extent of David's reign, and Luke's report of a world-wide census, but Loftus misrepresents that it's agreed by all experts that these things are not facts. This is not true. There is evidence that such things are true. As for the unverifiable miracles, assuming that they aren't true is also disingenuous. Loftus also ignores the facts reported in the Bible that most scholars and experts do agree. For example they agree that Jesus really was crucified.
9) That although a great number of miracles were claimed to have happened in the different superstitious cultures of the ancient world, only the ones in the Bible actually happened as claimed.
I don't know any where in the Bible that claims that reported miracles in other cultures were lies or hoax. The Bible is clear that Satan deceives people Remember: Pharaoh's magicians were able to turn water to blood and make their staff turn into snakes. How do we know when a miracle is from God or not?
1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you. - Deuteronomy 13: 1-5
10) That an omniscient God could not foresee that his revealed will in the Bible would lead believers to commit such atrocities against others that reasonable people would conclude there is no divine mind behind the Bible. I call this The Problem of Miscommunication.
There is no problem of miscommunication. God did forsee that there would be false prophets and liars. We are warned throughout the Bible. In addition to Deuteronomy 13:1-5 we can add
23At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. 24For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible. 25See, I have told you ahead of time. - Matthew 24:23-25
12And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. 13For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. - 2 Corinthians 11:12-14
11) That God created human beings with rational minds that require evidence before they accept something, and yet this same God does not provide enough evidence but asks them to have faith instead.
Loftus does not know what faith is. At no time does the Bible condone blind faith. The Bible disagrees with Loftus.
11Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. - Acts 17:11
1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. - Hebrews 11:1
12) That although people around the world are raised in different cultures to believe in their particular god(s) there is only one God and he will judge all people based upon whether or not they believe Jesus is Lord.
People often cite this as though it means something. They again ignore Acts 17:24-28. And another relevant passage is Romans 1:18-32
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For 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.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
The Bible also tells us that obeying the laws leads one to Christ. We know that if one follows what God has given us you will be led to Christ.
19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God." - John 3:19-21
13) That Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy even though there is not one passage in the Old Testament that is specifically fulfilled in his life, death, and resurrection that can legitimately be understood as a prophecy and singularly points to Jesus as the Messiah using today's historical-grammatical hermeneutical method.
That's a bold statement. Completely erroneous, but bold. Here is one single example:
41Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him. - John 12:41
What did Isaiah see? Who did he see? When?
1 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple. 2 Above him were seraphs, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. 3 And they were calling to one another:
"Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty;
the whole earth is full of his glory." - Isaiah 1:1-3
14) That although there were many false virgin birth claims about famous people (like Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Plato) mythical heroes (like Mithra, Hercules) and savior gods (like Krishna, Osiris, Dionysus) in the ancient world, Jesus was really born of a virgin.
Jesus' virgin birth was not sexual. Alexander's mother was supposedly impregnated by a snake. Hercules' mother had sex with Zeus who had taken human form (how would that be a virgin birth?). Dionysus came out of Zeus' thigh (how does that even compare to Jesus?). I've done some research on just how close these examples really parallel Jesus. Take a look at these. In case you don't want to take the time to look it up yourself I'll save you some time: They don't.
15) That while there is no rational explanation for how a person can be 100% man and 100% God, and although ancient pagan superstitious people believed this can take place (Acts 14:11-12; 28:6), Jesus was incarnate God in the flesh.
The Jews believed that God could take human form. Recall that Abraham saw God (Genesis 18). These are called theophanies. The Old Testament is full of examples. Jesus is not the same as the Greco-Roman gods taking human form. Don't forget the Greco-Roman gods had bodies and were not spirits. Jesus was not an example of God minus. But Jesus was God plus an uncorrupted sinless human nature. Jesus is what we should strive to be. He is what God is transforming a believer into. The Bible tells us that Jesus is God incarnate
14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. - John 1:14
Debunking Christianity: Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?
Debate: The Rubicon Crossing and the Resurrection - Holding vs Carrier
I've come across an interesting written debate on the internet between Jame Patrick Holding and Richard Carrier. The debate is over The Julius Caesar's Rubicon Crossing and Jesus' bodily Resurrection from the dead - Which is better attested to by history? One tell-tale sign that a written debate is good is if there is a lot of back and forth. That means that each side brings up good points that must be answered and challenged. This when it gets good. Holding quotes William Lane Craig's statement in Reasonable Faith and this is what causes such uproar:Historians of the Roman Empire often refer to "Caesar's crossing the Rubicon" as an undisputed fact of historic significance, even though it is attested only by four ancient writers, two to three generations after the event, all dependent on one eyewitness account [long since disappeared!], and preserved in significantly different forms corresponding to the various authors' ideologies, including one which attributes Caesar's decision to enlarge his frontiers to divine guidance.
I invite anyone with even a passing interest to read Holding's and Carrier's website. For my comment I want to focus on how much attestation we have for the Rubicon crossing. Carrier said he thought that Holding is being nit picky by pointing out that no where in the The Civil War (assuming in any of the 10 copies we have) does Caesar mentioned the Rubicon. I think it might be because Caesar looked at it like crossing the street not a watershed event in his career or history. How could he have known that. I mean he would have to have been God to know that. The thing is a lot of people (especially Muslims) are skeptical because no where in the Gospels does Jesus explicitly says "I am Yahweh, worship me!" and desire to ignore all the evidence that is in the Gospels and yet are willing to see that there is is plenty of Evidence that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon. Notice that no where does Holding try to argue that Julius Caesar did not cross the Rubicon and Carrier tries to prove that Jesus did not rise from the Dead. Jesus however does claim to know what was going to happen to him well before his crucifixion and Resurrection.
21From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. - Matthew 16:21
How did He know know? Gee, Jesus would have to be God or something. Yup, definitely God.
The other point that needs to be made from the stand point of manuscript attestation is that we only have 4 textual attestations for the crossing of the Rubicon.
The fourth point made is that we have the story of the "Rubicon Crossing" in almost every historian of the period, including the most prominent scholars of the age: Suetonius, Appian, Cassius Dio, Plutarch.
This is true, but it is irrelevant. As my co-apologist Mike Licona has noted, replying to the objections of Acharya S, these sources are rather late - later than even Carrier believes the Gospels to be from their sources: Appian wrote in the 2nd century A D, Plutarch after 70, and Suetonius around 115. And to make matters worse for Carrier, our earliest manuscripts of these works are as much as a millennium removed from the originals.
I make this point not to accuse these works of unreliability or having been tampered with, but because I see no reason to think they have been. The point rather is to treat these documents in the same way Carrier treats the Gospels would be unreasonable. (A reader has added that Plutarch does give an account of the personal crossing.)
Carrier has a retort for this, observing first that these other authors "have been confirmed in material evidence and in other sources." Of course the same may be justly said of the Gospels, especially Luke; but Carrier offers no further details at this juncture, so neither will we.
He adds secondly that these authors "often quote and name many different sources, showing a wide reading of the witnesses and documents, and they show a desire to critically examine claims for which there is any dispute." Be that as it may, it would not occur to Carrier that the Gospels lack this because there was no dispute over source material which required this kind of comparative work -- in other words, it is unreasonable to demand that the Gospels do comparative work if their sources are uniform and reliable, as indeed would be first-hand testimony.
On the matter of alleged bias in the Gospels, we refer the reader here, and to here, section titled, "Was Paul a Liar?", for a reply to the matter of the use of oaths, which shows exactly the opposite of what Carrier claims.
So the earliest attestation of Julius Caesar moving a huge army across the Rubicon is well over 100 years after it happened. Does this mean that Suetonius, Appian, Cassius Dio, and Plutarch were wrong? Nope. I wouldn't argue that. But that leaves folks like Richard Carrier in a quandary: Why accept Suetonius, Appian, Cassius Dio, and Plutarch because all four talk of the Rubicon crossing, yet discount Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John who all talk of the crucifixion, empty tomb, and Resurrection? Rejecting one means rejecting both.
While the discussion in the two article is really about the historicity of the Rubicon crossing with the Crucifixion of Christ, it lends itself well to the discussion to just how reliable History is in general and the New Testament in particular.
JP Holding - The Rubicon Crossing and the Resurrection
Richard Carrier - The Rubicon Analogy
