FacePalm of the Day #87 - Debunking Christianity: I Do Believe, I Do Believe ( Wizard of Oz)

Yet another post has gone up Debunking Christianity from TGBaker and yet another FacePalm. Instead of more eisogesis and scripture twisting, this time he opts for bare assertion without any shred of substantiation. Let's look at his post carefully:

It's sad and dangerous that people continue to fall for myths of Christianity. What is worse is the intentional affirmation and legitimating of these myths as absolute truths that are an imposition upon the activities of humankind. In seminary when I was a theological neophyte there was a worse myth. The neo-orthodoxy of World War I evolved into a theology that would make truth claims that the bible IS a collection of myth and fable as a positive thing.

Presupposition: Where is TGBaker's proof that Christianity is a myth? This is important. If he's right about the Bible being full of myths, then he has a leg to stand on, yet he offers nothing but an assertion.

BUT these myths and narratives are the way that god truly reveals himself in time. They are the revelation of truth in narrative. The virgin birth was not historical but it was more truthful than fact in that it revealed Jesus as both god and man. The resurrection was not historical because the transcendent intersected at that point in history whereby god manifested in the story. In other words the body stayed dead but the spirit of Jesus spread through the world in the mythic story. Die Sache Jesu geht Weider... The cause of Jesus lives on. (Willi Marxen ) Jesus rose into his on kerygma (gospel or preaching) Rudolf Bultmann, the resurrection occurred as revelation at communion after Jesus's death as disciples began to understand the meaning of the bread and wine Rudolf Schnackenburg (Catholic).

The above paragraphs illustrates where modern "Christianity" often falls off the wagon and the wheels of their wagon fall off. Where is TGBaker's proof that there was no virgin birth or resurrection? How does he know that these were not historical events? He says nothing but asserts it. I understand that TGBaker is merely descsribing "neo-orthodoxy" but I do not recognize my understanding of history or scripture in this at all. People who think this way cannot be truly born-again Christians according to what the Bible says a Christian believes.

These examples show why it is important to end the dysfunctional systems of these types of Christianity, Judaism or Islam. There is nothing sophisticated about such theologies. They actually reflect a desperation to cling to the security of a past life of delusional answers concerning questions about living rather than to face the responsibility of finding the real answers in living itself. The problem we face, however, is as my examples demonstrates, the intent to believe regardless of the facts.

I do agree that such theology is dysfunctional because it's not based on what the Bible teaches...that makes it worthy of disregard not sophisticated. It's at the end of this that TGBaker misses the fundamental point that the Bible does offer real answers for living and it is based on evidence and facts. I say this without offering proof since TGBaker did not offer any. I can make assertions too. If anyone would like to discuss the reasons why we can trust the Bible is true, I'd more than welcome it.


Debunking Christianity: I Do Believe, I Do Believe ( Wizard of Oz)

FacePalm of the Day #43: Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Coptic Christians: Concealing Testimony of John 1:1

Image via WikipediaThegrandverbalizer is at it again. He tries to make the point that Coptic translations of the John 1:1 says the "Word was a god" not the "Word was God". He wants to make it seem like our modern translations are wrong because he says the Coptic translations are based on older Greek manuscripts that we no longer have access to. Of course he has to describe it that way because we have no Greek manuscripts that experts agree should be translated that way. The things that amazes me is that he tries to disprove the Trinity by attacking the deity of Jesus Christ using John 1:1 directly but quotes a Dan Wallace, an acknowledged expert, who says that John 1:1 does tells us that Jesus is God.

"Few today would take issue with Rudolf Bultmann’s oft-quoted line that “In describing Christ as ‘God’ the New Testament still exercises great restraint.” The list of passages which seem explicitly to identify Christ with God varies from scholar to scholar, but the number is almost never more than a half dozen or so. As is well known, almost all of the texts are disputed as to their affirmation—due to textual or grammatical glitches—John 1:1 and 20:28 being the only two which are usually conceded without discussion." - Dan Wallace

The emphasis is given by Thegrandverbalizer. I'm amazed. Dr Wallace is saying that John 1:1 is conceded as calling Jesus God even by scholars who deny that Jesus is God. However, thegrandverbalizer spends his post attacking John 1:1 due to "textual and grammatical glitches" that the majority of scholars agree is not there in John 1:1.

"Interestingly, he basically says that scholars can't agree on which verses say Jesus is God. This is because of "textual or grammatical glitches" - verses that have different readings in ancient manuscripts (Such as Acts 20:28) or verses which can be validly translated in a non-Trinitarian manner (Such as Hebrews 1:8). Except, he says, John 1:1."

If  John 1:1 has no such glitches and many scholars would disagree that  Acts 20:28 and Hebrews 1:8 has such glitches. To go to a translation to get around something that a text plainly says is really a sign of desperation. Serious FacePalm.

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Coptic Christians: Concealing Testimony of John 1:1