Earl Doherty Interview

Brian Flemming interviewed Earl Doherty. Doherty is an atheist who believes that historical and manuscript evidence shows that Jesus is completely a myth and never existed. Flemming is also an atheist and he agrees with Doherty. Doherty has written several books such as "The Jesus Puzzle" and "Challenging the Verdict". I think it's important to hear the other side even though I completely disagree with them.

EarlDohertyIntervi...

I'd like to point out a couple of things. One, Doherty's understanding of facts such as the dating of the Gospels and the New Testament do not square with traditional understanding. Two, Doherty's exegesis of the Bible texts are wanting. He says that Paul never referred to Jesus as a human physical being.

For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. - Romans 9:3-5

If Jesus did not have a human physical body, then how could He have a human ancestry? Doherty's "smoking guns" are really false. He says that Hebrews 8:4 says that Jesus was never on earth. It doesn't say that. The context is in Jeus' fucntioning as high priest today. Doherty admits to being an amateaur historian. I'm not saying that makes him an idiot but I think someone who has made a profession of history disagree with him. Even atheistic historians agree that Jesus did exist as a man and He was crucified. This is beyond dispute. When Doherty was asked if the Biblical cannon was set during the Council of Nicea, he didn't know, but gave wrong information. I have never heard any real historian agree with Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. Doherty claims to be able to show that the Christian understanding of Jesus is wrong. He should be able to know what the first generation Christians really believed and he does not. He made the argument that the gnostic conception of Christianity was just as valid as the Christianity depicted in the New Testament. He's wrong. I will suggest taking everything he says and writes carefully. No one is trying to silence him because he is way off base. The interview tries to paint a picture that the idea of Jesus being a myth as being ignored and unchallenged. This is not true. There is much around answering the charges Doherty raises. For example here is an Interview of historian (a professional Historian) Paul Maier discussing the reality of Jesus' existence. And Paul Maier wrote the following article.

Atheism is Dead: Is the Bible Skeptical About Miracles? – Lazarus Comes Forth

Mariano, has turned out a great post discussing the validity of Miracles in the Bible. I think everyone should read it!

Atheism is Dead: Is the Bible Skeptical About Miracles? – Lazarus Comes Forth

Someone has anonymously commented that Pantheism is a better explanation for miracles than any theistic system and posted the following video.





After I finished laughing I realized that this fantasy must be addressed. The whole argument that since all theistic religions claim authentication by miracles, none can be true because if there was only one God then only one religion would have miracles and answered prayers. The Bible answers this charge in Deuteronomy 13:1-4.

If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, 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," 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. 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.

God clear says that He allows false prophet and false religions to have miracles of their own. Miracles alone cannot be used to validate a religion or system of belief. Another good example is how Egyptian magicians were able to duplicate a few of the Plagues God brought upon Egypt to bring about the Exodus.

In addition I don't think that just the existence of miracles is enough to consider. We should consider the quality of the miracles not just quantity. For example name another miracle, from any other religion, rivaling the parting of the Red Sea! Or the one Mariano started out with in his essay - The raising of Lazarus from the dead after three days! Or the Miracle of the resurrection - Jesus predicted it and executed His own resurrection saving all of us who believe on Him! What could be greater! It was like a base ball player telling when, where, and how he is going to knock the ball out of the park and by how many runs they will win by. Nobody is like Jesus!

Jesus vs Attis - Is There A Connection?

Here is my latest post discussing whether or not Jesus is just a myth stolen from Pagan sources or if Jesus is unique. Some critics accuse early Christianity of borrowing its theology from the Greco-Roman god called Attis. Let's discuss the points that they bring up and see if their claims hold up. This post was done with the help of Mariano of Atheism is Dead. The very first mention of Attis can be found in the research I found:

Our first mention of Attis comes from the well-known writings of the Greek historian Herodotus [Verm.CA, 88-9]. According to Herodotus, Attis was a shepherd from Phrygia and the son of a king, Croseus of Lydia. King Croseus had a nasty dream in which his son was killed by an iron spear, and because of this, he refused to allow Attis out on a boar hunt, until Attis himself persuaded him that it would be OK.
Still a tad worried, Croseus hires a gent named Adreastus, whom he had earlier granted sanctuary to, to guard his son's welfare on the hunt. Unfortunately, the foot of irony stomps right in when Adreastus throws his spear at a boar and misses, instead hitting you-know-who and killing him.

As anyone can see, Attis has nothing to do with Jesus. Okay, let's look at the alleged similarities.

1. Attis was born on December 25th of the Virgin Nana.

December 25 means nothing when discussing Jesus. He was not born December 25th, as far as anyone can tell, neither was Attis. Also, in terms of Greek mythology, Nana was impregnated by an almond that fell from a tree that grew up from Zeus' sperm. That is a lot different from Jesus.

2. He was considered the savior who was slain for the salvation of mankind.

There is no evidence for anything in the cult of Attis dying to save anyone and, let alone, being resurrected.

In a study devoted entirely to the subject of "soteriology" in the Attis cult, Gasparro finds no "explicit statements about the prospects open to the mystai of Cybele and Attis" and "little basis in the documents in our possession" for the idea of "a ritual containing a symbology of death and resurrection to a new life." [Gasp.AAO, 82]

Put it bluntly: Attis was no savior, and was never recognized as such. The closest we get to this is from a writer named Damascius (480-550 AD!) who had a dream in which a festival of Attis celebrated "salvation from Hades" (see more below).

We also see some evidence of Attis as a protector of tombs (as other gods also were, guarding them from violation); use of Attis with reference to grief and mourning -- but when it comes to the gravestones of devotees of Cybele and Attis, they are "all equally oblivious to special benefits the future life guaranteed by such a religious status." [Gasp.Sot, 90-4].

3. His body as bread was eaten by his worshippers.

There is no record of bread being eaten by worshippers like in the Christian communion sacrament.

Despite the footnote to Godwin's text at the end of this sentence by Freke and Gandy, Godwin makes no such assertion in his text; what Godwin does say is that "what they ate or drank we do not know" -- not a word is said about it being "likely" bread and wine, and Freke and Gandy's footnote is therefore a partial fabrication.

Vermaseren, the dean of Attis studies [Verm.CA, 118-9], adds more. Vermaseren confirms the use of the cymbals, and the eating and drinking, but suggests that milk was the drink of choice, because wine and bread were forbidden during the Attis festivals -- if wine and bread was the snack of choice, it would have had to have been an exception to this rule.

Bread and wine were consumed during the communion because during the Last Supper Jesus and his followers are observing Passover not worshipping Attis.

4. His priests were "eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven."

In the mythology of Attis, he went mad and castrated himself. His priests did the same and were laughed at and derided for it. Nowhere does Jesus tells his followers to castrate themselves.

5. He was both the Divine Son and the Father.

Nowhere does anything about Attis support this idea. And applying it to Jesus contradicts the doctrine of the Trinity.

6. On "Black Friday," he was crucified on a tree, from which his holy blood ran down to redeem the earth.

Attis died under a tree. He was not crucified on a tree. His blood made flowers grow but it didn't redeem anyone.

7. He descended into the underworld.

Ok, finally; a true statement about Attis. Attis did go to Hades (Hell). Jesus did go to hell. Jesus was in Paradise during the time his body was buried.

Mariano’s addendum: The question to ask is what was the Attisian conception of the “underworld”? Jesus is said to have “descended into the lower parts of the earth” (Ephesians 4:9) without reference to “hell,” “hades,” “gehenna,” “sheol,” etc. It is reported that Jesus “went and preached to the spirits in prison [phylake]” (1st Peter 3:19). Moreover, Jesus told the thief on the cross “today you will be with Me in Paradise [paradeisos]” (Luke 23:43). Apparently, Jesus descended into Abraham’s Bosom; the paradise section of Sheol/Hades (Luke 16:19-31). The phrase stating that Jesus “descended into hell” appears to be a 390 AD accretion into the Apostles’ Creed.

8. After three days, Attis was resurrected on March 25th (as tradition held of Jesus) as the "Most High God."

Um, I found nothing even remotely like this about Attis. Two stories that come up have Attis castrating himself and his grandfather Zeus brought him back to life.

9. Attis was represented as a "a man tied to a tree, at the foot of which was a lamb, and, without doubt also as a man nailed to a tree..."

The closest story that even looks like this remotely is that in one of them, Attis turns into a pine tree. He was not like a lamb but Attis was raised by goats in one account. Nothing like Jesus' resurrection comes anywhere close.

10. On March 22nd, a pine tree was felled and "an effigy of the god was affixed to it, thus being slain and hung on a tree..." Later the priests are supposed to have found Attis' grave empty.

Look at the response I read. It devastates the idea.

Based on a calendar dated to 354 AD, there were six Roman celebrations to Attis -- dated March 15, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28. The one on the 22nd was indeed as Jackson relates -- a pine tree was felled, and the figure of Attis attached, although it represents his death under the tree -- the figure being affixed to the tree therefore being no more than a matter of practically depicting the scene, since the figurine of Attis isn't just going to float along while the tree is carried by the processioneers.

The problem with all of this, though, is that the only one of the six feasts known certainly to have crossed paths with Christianity was the one on the 27th, which is the only festival attested on a calendar dated 50AD. A sixth-century writer says that the Emperor Claudius (41-54 AD) instituted the festival on the 22nd. (The 23rd was a day of mourning; on the 24th the priests of Attis would flagellate themselves.)

And what the "resurrection" on the 25th? It is here, on the festival called the Hilaria, that a return from the underworld is implied (but not directly pronounced). It is attested no earlier than the 3rd or 4th century AD [Gasp.Sot, 57; contra Verm.LAGR, 47, who interperts [sic] pictures of Attis only dancing, as early as the 4th century BC, as somehow celebrating his release from death).

The bottom line is that there is no credible connection between Jesus and Attis. None whatsoever. Next!

Mariano’s addendum: Some basic questions ought to be asked with relation claims of likeliness between Jesus and Attis, Jesus and Buddha or Jesus’ likeliness to any other historic or mythical personage: How do we even know that the character to which Jesus is being likened ever lived? (find citations to 236 references to Jesus from circa 70 AD to 280 AD at this link). The pseudo-skeptic does not care since they will instantly accredit anything which they consider as a challenge to Christianity.

What is the time of the events of Atti’s life until the time the event was recorded? What is the time of the recording until the time of the earliest manuscript? How many manuscripts are there? How do they compare? For example, much of what is known about Attis comes from Julius Firmicus Maternus who wrote circa 350 AD, the sacrifice of bulls (with reference to Cybele) comes from 245 AD and the sacrifice of bulls in relation to salvation dates to Aurelius Prudentius Clemens who wrote circa 400 AD.

It appears that the closest one can get to Attis being referred to as a savior is from Damascius who wrote circa 480-550 AD. Moreover, even when Herodotus refers to Attis he, “does indeed testify to the existence of the myth of the death of Attis, says nothing about his superhuman quality and his association with the Great Goddess.” Horodotus wrote in the 5th century BC. Thus, as with Buddha if there was any borrowing it seems to have been by the Attisians and from Christianity rather than the other way around. Again, the pseudo-skeptic does not care about these and many other relevant questions since they will instantly accredit anything which they consider as a challenge to Christianity whether myth, legend or what someone just came up with right off of the tops of their heads.

Sources:

Attis - Wikapedia Attis - Greek Mythology

Alleged Similarities Between Jesus and Attis

Do You Worship Attis or Jesus?

Was the Story of Jesus Stolen from the Pagan Hero Attis?

---

¹J. P. Holding, “Was the story of Jesus stolen from the pagan hero Attis?,” Tekton – Education and Apologetics Ministry
²2Giulia Sfameni Gasparro, Soteriology and mystic aspects in the cult of Cybele and Attis

What Hollywood Believes - Laurence Fishburne

"I have this unshakable faith. I believe in myself, I believe in God. I had two times in my life where I wanted to give up everything I worked for, but God gave me a job. I believe in my children. I believe in human beings. I believe in the goodness that is in human beings. I believe in many, many things I cannot prove. I believe that there's the world of the seen and world of the unseen."

I got to wonder what Fishburne really means. Do any of the things he believe in conflict with one another? Do they coincide with the Bible. One thing he said that definitely conflicts is the thought that people are inherently good. It is one of those things that I wish was true but is not. The Bible expressly contradicts this thought.

Retract The Claws, Hillary

Our Secretary of State, Hillary R. Clinton snaps at a man for asking her for her Husband's opinion. I understand why she might have gotten angry. It was a condescending and demeaning question, but not purposely I think. I wish she had handled it differently.

WORLD ACTRESS NEWS.......: Shameless: The unrepentant mother who walked out on her five children and husband and began a new family

Marie Cartwright walked out on her family - her husband and their five children. She left them for another man and is raising another family. I think it's awful. I think the reason she made news is because we see this kind of selfishness more from men than from women. I find it disgusting no matter who does it.

WORLD ACTRESS NEWS.......: Shameless: The unrepentant mother who walked out on her five children and husband and began a new family

Hazakim's "Theophanies"

A couple of days ago, I posted a playlist of their new album, Theophanies, on my Favorite Media blog. On this post I want to focus on what the album says and how it affected me. The album has 3 main themes:

1. The Old Testaments describes theophanies - cases where a man or an angel appeared to Old Testament people and equated with God himself. The album sticks to Old Testament accounts in order to show that God could have incarnated Himself in the Old Covenant for finite period of time, then why can't Jesus be the incarnate God for years? I love this!

2. Personal testimony by the brothers of what God has done for them and the trials they face and how God has sustained them through those sufferings. These things are awesome. I could identify with that.

3. There are about 3 songs on the album that does touch on the New Testament. One song describes heaven (Shamayim in Hebrew). Another song describes the crucifixion from historical, physiological, and spiritual viewpoints! Another song also sums up God's whole salvific plan.

I'm not a very musical person. It does not move me the same as other people. I can't sing and don't even really enjoy singing. However, I do like to listen to certain music. There was not a track on this album that I did not like. It was fun. I love the level of Biblical exegesis illustrated in the music. They obviously care about Apologetics and making sure that the Bible is understood.

These brothers need our support. If you can, please purchase and listen to this album.

Terminology Tuesday: Ontological Argument - Apologetics 315

Brian has posted a great post on his blog, Apologetics 315, defining what the "Ontological Argument" is.

Terminology Tuesday: Ontological Argument - Apologetics 315

Atheism is Dead: Atheist Quotes / Atheism Quotes - Richard Dawkins Quotes

Mariano has put together a good resource for anyone who would be interested in researching the teachings and works of Richard Dawkins. Here is list of quotes and interviews we can use to see how he thinks. Scary in how wrong his conclusions are...interesting how God can be merciful enough to allow such convoluted thinking yet still breathe.

Atheism is Dead: Atheist Quotes / Atheism Quotes - Richard Dawkins Quotes

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : Jewish Messianic Concepts, part 3 of 5

Mariano has started a series on one of his blogs exploring the idea of who and what the "Messiah" is supposed to be from the point-of-view of Judaism. This is a great start to what I know is going to be a great series of posts! Here is part 3!

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : Jewish Messianic Concepts, part 3 of 5

Showing the Belief in God is Reasonable

Update 08-11-09. I'd like to thank AdamJTP for discussing this post with me on Twitter. As per his points I decided to add a little more points of clarification. My additional comment s are in red.

It's funny to me how when people try to discredit the Bible on the grounds of what it says, history, or science, the conversation always devolves into "Oh yeah, prove there is a God!" and "Oh yeah, prove there is no God." It gets to that point because the Bible is unassailable. You can confirm much of what it says but can't refute anything it says. Therefore a common objection against proving that God does not exist says "You can't prove a negative." Of course this dodges the question. If you can't prove that God does not exist then why do you close your mind to the possibility? The next part of the challenge to the Christian Theist is to prove that God exists. Of course to the staunchest atheist it really is as the Bible says. It doesn't matter how much evidence you present they refuse to see God's truth.

I've recently been challenged to show that God exists in a logical proof of the kind used in mathematics. They want me to state my givens - state the axioms on which my argument rests. I admit that i wasn't clear in my twitter exchanges. The Bible itself states that we understand that God created everything because of our faith. This faith is not blind, nor is it defined the way the non-believing, secular world defines faith. No, when I use the word "faith" I mean it the way the Bible uses it, not colloquial America. Therefor, I ask if anyone comments on the post or have as problem with it that they remember that I am making the following axiom from Hebrews 11: 1-6

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for.

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead.

By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

This is just one of the axioms, I'm suggesting. If you want argue that I can't use it, keep in mind that the validity of the Bible is another, separate issue - and out of scope in this discussion. In addition recall that in geometric proofs it is just assumed, and without proof, that two lines determine a point and three points determine a plane. If you want to argue that the above is not faith (pistas - in Kione Greek) then please also explain why we can define line and point without proving that there are "points".

As I stated earlier, I intend to list all of my assumptions and then show that the Bible ascribes all the attributes of the creator of the Universe, given what we know. Before I go farther, I want to remark that it has been said that this post is silly because no one has been able to successfully argue for the existence of God. Let me be clear: I am arguing that the preponderance of the evidence points to the God of the Bible and if you honestly consider the evidence and trace it out, you will have either decide to outright reject God consciously or fall to your knees and in worship and adoration. There is no middle ground. I'm not naive enough to think that this one post will have the desired effect, but what I am intending is to give anyone who reads this and "sitting on the fence" to have a starting point to make a decision.

Let's get started with my assumptions. If anyone wants to debate or argue any of these, I will take on such challenges later on. Just let me know.
1. The universe is not eternal.
2. At some point time and space came into existence.

AdamJTP had suggested that I don't need to state axiom 1 because it logically follows axiom 2. I placed it there because it's not an obvious point to some people.

3. Something that begins to exist must have a cause

AdamJTP challenge me that there is something that can happen without a cause. He cited radiactive devay as an example which according to the Copenhagen interpretation radioactive decay is causeless. I had to point out that not all physicists agree. You can check out the article I sent him here at Nuclear Decay Cause.

4. Something can only be brought into existence by something greater than itself.

AdamJTP offered the example of how a simple equation [The Julia set (z^2 + c)] can generate a complex graph. The thing is a mind came up up with the equation and that mind is more complex than the graph. We still have something being made by something not greater than itself.

5. The universe is so fine-tuned in such a way that only the reality that we observe is possible.
6. The Bible describes a personal, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal, and omniscient supreme being.
7. In order that something is designed, there must be a designer.
8. A designer must have person-hood, thought, purpose, and will.
9. There is no other known god, worshiped by human beings that fits the description of God in the Bible.
10. For every event, there are possible alternative outcomes.

Logic
If the universe is not eternal, then it had a beginning.
If the universe had a beginning then it had a cause
If the universe had a cause then the cause must be greater that itself.

If the constants and laws governing the universe is fine-tuned to result in the reality we can measure, observe, and predict, then it must be so because it was set up to be so.

If the universe is set up a certain way, then it was designed purposely.
If the universe is designed purposely then there was an intellect who know knows all things in the universe it designed.

If the universe is designed then the sum total of all its matter and energy must have been in control of its designer.

If the universe is designed and there are so many possible alternatives that could have become reality instead of the one we experience, then the designer would have had to be able to manipulate multiple events in diverse locales simultaneously.

If the universe is designed, then it must have a designer greater than itself.

If the designer is greater than the universe and everything in it, then by definition the designer is omnipotent.

If the designer is greater than the universe and everything in it, then the designer must know everything about it therefore the designer is omniscient.

If the designer is aware of and sees multiple locals of the universe simultaneously, then the designer is omnipresent.

If the designer is greater then the universe, then the designer is eternal - no beginning. No end.

If the designer fits all the characteristics I have outlined then HE must be the God of the Bible.

The God of the Bible exists.

QED

I'm sure there are many people who disagree with my assumptions and my proof based on those assumptions. If you disagree, explain why you disagree. If you think it's not worth your time, that is your rifght, but bear in mind that I'm correct, your soul hangs in the balance. Go search out the evidence and be really, really sure. There is nothing worse then to be cut off from God. Seek God while you can.

A lot of great men and women have done great work on looking at the evidence of God as a creator. Some of them I have covered in previous blog posts. Here is a list of some previous post I recommend reading, which will lead you to other resources.

Sunday Quote: Stephen Hawking on the Big Bang - Apologetics 315
Does Faith Make Sense In An Age of Science?
Richard Dawkins and John Lennox: Has Science Buried God? MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315
Astrophysics Points to the God of the Bible MP3 Audio by Hugh Ross - Apologetics 315
Lee Strobel's "The Case For A Creator"
Jay Richards Vs Christopher Hitchens - Intelligent Design
“Fine Tuned Cosmos” by David Heddle (Faith and Science Part 2)

If I were to pick a single chapter out of the bible that I would say goes with this post, it would be Romans 1.

In case it was missed, I want to make sure that the point of God's eternality is something non-negotiable. It's taught throughout the entire Bible. The divine name literally means that God has no beginning or end. To ask "What caused God?" makes no sense because the God Iam declaring has no beginning. As a human being it's hard to imagine anything that has no beginning but that is how God describes Himself. If you want to argue that a god who has a begginiing and and is bound by time then I will agree with any atheist - that god does not exist. However that is not the God of the Bible.

Mormonism 101

TurretinFan, one of the contributors to the Alpha and Omega Ministries blog has compiled previous resources regarding mormonism by Dr. James White. You can find it at the following link: Mormonism 101 - Index Page.

Sunday Quote: Stephen Hawking on the Big Bang - Apologetics 315

Again Brian over at Apologetics 315 has done us a great favor it providing the following quote by Stephen W. Hawking

"The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the big bang are enormous... I think clearly there are religious implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the universe."

- Stephen W. Hawking

Sunday Quote: Stephen Hawking on the Big Bang - Apologetics 315:

Who Did It? You Or God? - Part 2

Here is part 2 of this article.

Some people look at the fact that the Bible teaches us that God personally saves people from sin and death and immediately ask then why do we have people that reject Christ if they are given the best possible opportunities to become believers? I don't believe the Bible teaches that anyone misses out on believing in Jesus because God didn't do enough to make them believe. This idea is completely wrong. Check out these quote from Jesus:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But 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 3:16-21

"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' " - Luke 16:31

When we reject the Gospel it's not because God did not do His part. Our failure is our own. However it is just as wrong to take credit for your faith if you do believe. No one believes unless they are dragged by the Father. No one does it on their own. It's not because you are smarter or better. God just chose to give you mercy. Look at what God, Through Paul, has to say:

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. - Ephesians 2: 1-10

The Bible clearly says that faith in Christ is a gift. Salvation is a gift God gives an individual because He wants to give it not because He is obligated or the individual can earn it.

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. Roman 9:14-18

Notice, God is not saying that he capriciously rejects anyone.

For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to 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. Ephesians 1:4-10

The word translated "chose" in Greek is "exelexato" and it carries the meaning of making a choice without rejecting what wasn't chosen. We don't even have an English word that carries the same idea. II mean look at the word "decide". It's very epistemology means to kill the other options.

So how does God decide whom gets drawn into salvation and who doesn't? I don't know. the Bible does not say. God gives us a lot of information but this point He is keeping mysterious. The Bible does not tell us so I'm not even going to speculate. Some of the atheist that have brought this subject up to me get furious when Christians try to appeal to human free will to explain this. so I will just say what the Bible does say:

One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? As he says in Hosea:
"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people;
and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one," and,
"It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
'You are not my people,'
they will be called 'sons of the living God.' ^{" - Romans 9:19-26}

You, me, all of us are just clay pots in the hand of a master - God. I'm fine with that because I know God has a purpose He is working out. He's just. He really is all good - even when I don't see what He is doing as good. He has every right to do as He pleases because it's all His anyway.

Let's summarize. God is in complete control and although we don't have a completely free will to do what ever we want, like not sin, we are moral agents capable of making decisions that God holds us accountable for. We are all deserving of hell, but God is in His mercy has taken it upon Himself to save some of us for himself. He does it. He brings us to Christ and justifies us by Jesus' atoning sacrifice - it is not from us but despite us. However by nature of what we are - sinners - it's is our own fault when choose sin over God. I like the following scripture:

As Paul and Barnabas were leaving the synagogue, the people invited them to speak further about these things on the next Sabbath. When the congregation was dismissed, many of the Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who talked with them and urged them to continue in the grace of God.

On the next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord. When the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and talked abusively against what Paul was saying.

Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: "We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles. For this is what the Lord has commanded us:
" 'I have made you a light for the Gentiles,
that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.'"

When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed. - Acts 13: 42-28

Look at what is being communicated. The people who rejected the Gospel did so because of their own selves - same as all of us even those who eventually accept Christ. But look at what is said about those who be came believers: "all who were appointed for eternal life believed". We do not elect ourselves. God does it. People sometimes reject the Gospel for years and then they get it. God does everything at the right time in the right way.

If you are reading this and you are not a believer than I ask you to consider the fact that you are not reading this by coincidence and consider that God is talking to you right now. Don't reject the call. Don't ignore it. Your part in your salvation is your response. God's already take the step of drawing you to Himself. You are reading this. Embrace the Gospel and you will be saved - Just believe that Jesus paid for your sins on the cross and the rose again three days later. Through Him you will be justified and fully become all you were meant to be. It's all about being what God designed you to be not pleasing ourselves.

God Said - Importance of Mathematics

Image via Wikipedia

God Said:

And then there was Light.

Above is what I once saw on a tee shirt when I was a student at University of California, Berkeley. I was immediately struck. As I looked at the equations I immediately grasped the significance of the message. These four equation sum up exactly what we know about light. These are the equations we use to describe almost everything about light. They are known as Maxwell's Equations. Maxwell was not the first one to come up with all of them, but he did realize that they summarize nearly everything about light. When I first learned about them, I learned them in their integral forms in my lower division physics courses. In upper division and in many text books you will see them in their vector calculus forms. Here is a chart I found on a great website.

Maxwell's Equations Integral form in the absence of magnetic or polarizable media: I. Gauss' law for electricity II. Gauss' law for magnetism III. Faraday's law of induction IV. Ampere's law Differential form Discussion	Index Maxwell's equations concepts
HyperPhysics***** Electricity and Magnetism R Nave	Go Back

I'm not going to get into what these equations are and what they mean in great detail but to point out how connected electricity and magnetism are. For example, a moving electric field (such as an electric charge down a wire) generates and magnetic field. And a changing magnetic field can be used to generate an electric current (i.e. a motor). These equations represent the base principles for all of our electric/magnetic theories and devices. They can be applied in every field of science I can think of. For example in geology, piezoelectric rocks can generate electric fields and current. In addition magnetic rocks are also dug out of the ground.

I found out in my studies that mathematics is the language of science. Without mathematics there is no point to doing science. We would not be able to communicate, quantify, qualify, or analyze anything. Some have even said that it is through mathematics that we truly get a glimpse into the mind of God. We get to understand through it's logic and order how God put the universe together. Think of the Fine-Tuning argument for the existence of God. Without mathematics we could not measure or even grasp the concepts of cosmological constant and how much on a "knife-edge" on which they sit. We would not be able to see the tight tolerances these quantities must be in order to see that these qualities of the universe are not coincidental. However, it's more than all that. Mathematics is beautiful. It's almost too difficult to put it into words the way it makes me feel thinking about how so much fits together. It's like looking into the infinite, grabbing a small, minuscule piece and understanding it. I love it.

No one can deny that math is the product of reasonable, logical, ordered minds. It's principles and qualities transcend us. We don't invent math as much as we discover it. Like morality, there is no basis to assume that humanity came up with it. It appears more and more obvious the higher you go in mathematics and sciences. It's so in-your-face in the theoretical edge, I don't understand why some mathematicians don't accept God. I mean it's like closing your eyes and hoping despite overwhelming evidence. I simply don't have enough faith to ignore the Fine-Tuning evidence nor the mathematics.

Another source.

Atheism is Dead: Buddha and Jesus

My brother-in-Christ, Mariano, has done me the honor of helping him to write a post about the relationship that is often attempted to be drawn between the Buddha and Jesus. You can read the resulting article on his blog, Atheism Is Dead. It was a pleasure tag-teaming with him.

Atheism is Dead: Buddha and Jesus

Who Did It? You Or God? - Part 1

In talking to a few atheists online, I was amazed that some people argue that it doesn't make sense that God should hold us accountable for standards that we could not possibly keep. They argue if such a God exists then He is unfair because He could make everyone believe but doesn't so He is purposely condemning unbelievers to hell. They use this argument to deny God's existence because according to them, there is no way an all-good, all-loving God would allow evil or suffering.

Another argument is against the common Christian defense that explains the existence of evil and the reality of hell being due to human free will. These points are important and need to be answered. People need to understand what the Bible truly says about God's sovereignty and human responsibility. On what basis are you saved or condemned by God? How much of it is depended upon you and on your will?

The first thing I would point out is that the idea of "free will" is not even applicable. If people really had free will then we would be able choose not sin ever. No one who is honest can say that they keep all 613 laws in the Torah. Given that breaking one commandment is the same as breaking all of them, we all know that we fall under the condemnation of God.

What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one."
"Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit."
"The poison of vipers is on their lips."
"Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."
"Their feet are swift to shed blood;
ruin and misery mark their ways,
and the way of peace they do not know."
"There is no fear of God before their eyes."

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. - Romans 3: 9-31

The Bible clearly teaches that all human beings are trapped and imprisoned by sin. What does God say in the Bible about how we get free of sin? As it says above and in several verses: faith in Jesus Christ.

The next point that comes up is how do we find out this information? How do you get the opportunity to find Jesus. Some atheists offer that Christianity has no objectivity when it comes to truth. They say that people become Christians because that is what they are born into - indoctrinated with. They further contend that your religious worldview is solely depended upon your upbringing unless you break free as an atheist. I find myself in total disagreement. If they are right then all Christians would have been born in Christian households and there would never be religious conversions from one religion to another. From a human point of view, people choose what religion they will follow sand live with the consequences of that choice. God however takes the idea much further. He spoke through the Apostle Paul to say:

"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. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From 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. God 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. 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'

"Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."- Acts 17:24-31

In other words, God puts each and everyone of us in the best place and at the best time of history and in the best circumstances that we can best find Him. Think of the implication. For some of us being born and raised as a Muslim is the best possible chance for that person to find Jesus! And some people do!

If you are reading this and you are not a believer than I ask you to consider the fact that you are not reading this by coincidence and consider that God is talking to you right now. Don't reject the call. Don't ignore it. Your part in your salvation is your response. God's already take the step of drawing you to Himself. You are reading this. Embrace the Gospel and you will be saved - Just believe that Jesus paid for your sins on the cross and the rose again three days later. Through Him you will be justified and fully become all you were meant to be. (Read part 2 of this post tomorrow).

World Breast-Feeding Week

It is World Breast-Feeding Week! Wooohoo! It's important to bring awareness of the need of mothers to nurse their babies for as long as they can. In my own children, I can see how much better for them it is, although it's not easy for the moms at all!

So how does the artist that brought you art centered around Suri Cruise's poop and Britney Spears giving birth, naked, on a bearskin rouge celebrate World Breast Feeding week? Well, Daniel Edwards makes a sculpture of Angelina Jole, naked, sitting on a bench, nursing two babies one in each hand. Okay.

Edwards is quoted as saying:

“Hopefully, my sculpture inspires an increase of wet nurses to assist women who have concerns about mastitis, or passing HIV to their infant,” said artist Daniel Edwards in his Connecticut studio where the Jolie statue currently resides.

Okay, so this this is supposed to inspire women everywhere of different races and cultures. They are planning to have variations of the statue with babies of different races. What does it saying to basically cast a white woman as the representative of all women feeding different races of children? It could be my liberal education, but I have problems with the racial overtones of such an image. We can't forget the historicity of such symbols

Here is a video on the making of the statue.


Edwards says that the sculpture is base on the following magazine cover.


Here is some more examples of Edward's art

source 1
source 2

Scholar Dan Wallace on Podcast

Image via Wikipedia

Yesterday, Dan Wallace was a guest on James White's Podcast The Dividing Line. Wallace is a scholar and author who studies and teaches about the New Testament. I enjoyed the program and their interaction. Wallace wrote one of the best textbooks for learning Kione Greek, the languages of the New Testament. He is considered an expert in textual criticism and the history behind the New Testament. The most interesting thing about the program I found was watching Dr. James White interacting with a peer. It was fun to hear them actually respond to the ideas and challenges raised by experts who disagree with them like Bart Ehrman. People are mistaken if they think that neither side is aware of the other and don't have good reasons why they hold the views they hold. You can read the blog post where the program is posted here.

Bart Ehrman Lecturing on "Misquoting Jesus"

I've had an opportunity to listen to a debate by Bart Erhman on his book, Misquoting Jesus delivered at Stanford. I realized that although I disagree with his conclusions there are somethings
I can learn from him. Rather than spend my time in this post refuting him (Jame White and William Lane Craig already handled him, i want to focus on something he said. He said that Jesus did not use it. Also when the early church and Jewish scholars used the scriptures this was the translation they were using. You can even tell most often it is this translation that is quoted from in the New Testament. I think that even if Jesus did not speak Greek He could read it. This point knock's Ehrman's argument about Jesus not actually saying the words in John 3 because you can't render them in Aramaic. Maybe Jesus and Nicademus carried on the conversation in Greek. We don't know. Although Ehrman got that part wrong, i learned that I can't just ignore everything he says because the part about Niocademus confusing Jesus' admonition to be "Born from above" with the idea of entering his mother's womb a second time make a lot of sense when you understand that the Greek could be understood either way given the context.

BartEhrmanNTCritic...

Here is the video!