Sam Harris on "Real Time with Bill Maher"

Image via Wikipedia

I recently saw a Sam Harris' interviewed by Bill Maher on Real Time. I also found out that it's posted on Sam Harris' web site.





The interview turned into the two of them congratulating themselves on how smart they are condemning religious people as weak and stupid. I was so amazed at the utter infantile arguments and thoughts against God and the Bible. The interview however was useful in getting some insight as to how Sam Harris thinks. It helps to show why he is the way he is. Harris has had no personal life-changing encounter with God. The one thing that sticks out in my mind is the same tired dogma atheists use:

"Everyone is an atheist when it comes to other people's gods. I just believe in one less God than you do."

Such rhetoric assumes that all gods have the claim to validity than any other, and form common sense we know that is not true. For example, people have in the past worshiped rocks and thought it was rocks that caused rain to water crops. Is this true. No. Can I prove it? Yes. I know how the earth's water cycle goes. I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. I believe that Jesus is the propitiation for my sin and through Him I have eternal life. Is this true? No one can prove it wrong. Therefore if you are honest, either you must accept the evidence for the Bible and Jesus' claims or admit that you don't know.

Responding to "Top 10 Worst Bible Verse"

I came across a link in Twitter where there is a list of 10 Bible verses that which includes "approval for sexism, genocide and slavery." You can find the list yourself at Top 10 worst Bible passages. I'm reproducing the list in full and I want to respond to each verse in context. Let's see if they really do approve of sexism, genocide, and slavery. My comments are in blue. Another article that this responds to is http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6816422.ece

This is the top 10 list in full:

No. 1: St Paul’s advice about whether women are allowed to teach men in church:

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

The author of the article is correct that this verse is hotly debated. In a commentary I read I discovered the verse is badly translated in the King James Version and many English translations unfortunately follow suit. It should read "But I suffer not wife to teach or exercise authority over her husband." The Greek makes it clear. "Gune" translated woman is contrasted with "Aner" meaning "husband" not man. The context is not that women should be teachers or preachers in churches but that wife should not undermine the authority of their husbands. We would use the word today "emasculation". Any marriage counselor today will tell you that wives should respect their husbands.

No. 2: In this verse, Samuel, one of the early leaders of Israel, orders genocide against a neighbouring people:

“This is what the Lord Almighty says... ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)

How can one read verse 3 and skip verse 2 read the whole verse!

¹ Samuel said to Saul, "I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. ² This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. ³ Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "

The command given in verse 3 was a command to defend Israel against Amalekites aggression. Don't forget that this event happened centuries (more than 400 yrs) after the Exodus under Moses and the Conquest after Joshua.

No. 3: A command of Moses:

“Do not allow a sorceress to live.” (Exodus 22:18)

So in ancient Israel, witchcraft was a capital offense. And today it's not. I'm not sure why people think that this is a problem. Sorcery was a crime. Why can't a society execute criminals? As for today, I don't think that God wants us to kill witches. This verse in context was for a theocracy. Unfortunately, today we don't live in a theocracy. This isn't cherry-picking. This is saying that God has granted mercy to all until Judgement day. I haven't the right to take anyone's life if God has allowed them to live.

No. 4: The ending of Psalm 137, a psalm which was made into a disco calypso hit by Boney M, is often omitted from readings in church:

“Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us – he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” (Psalm 137:9)

As the article points out that the pslamist is praying for revenge against the Babylonians who destroyed his homeland and enslaved his people. It's not saying that God is pleased at the infants being smashed against rocks. The context is that when the pslamist's enemies are repaid, the ones who willl do to the Babylonians what they did to Judah will be happy when they do it.

No. 5: Another blood-curdling tale from the Book of Judges, where an Israelite man is trapped in a house by a hostile crowd, and sends out his concubine to placate them:

“So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, ‘Get up; let’s go.’ But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.” (Judges 19:25-28)

This a report of what happened and not a prescription for practice or condoned by God in any way.

No. 6: St Paul condemns homosexuality in the opening chapter of the Book of Romans:

“In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” (Romans 1:27)

In order to ignore this verse you would have to argue that intercourse with the same sex is just as natural as between men and women. Do we really want to go that far. Ignoring morality for a minute, let's just be clinical. In the face of evolution, and we know the author accepts macro evolution, how could homosexuality be advantageous to us as a species? Simple. It can't be. This does not mean that its the worse possible sin you can do and God doesn't especially hate homosexuality than He hates lying or stealing. God can cleanse us from all sin.

Please note that I have found out that there is a misunderstanding in the above paragraph. Some thought I was saying because of carefully researched evidence that I was saying that there are no good theories about the possibility of evolution explaining homosexuality. I was not. I was stating my opinion that I am not convinced by any of the theories for how macro evolution is compatible with the fact of homosexuality. For anyone who may want to start looking into the evidence themselves, AdamJTP, has given me a couple of links anyone can look at:
Evolution myths: Natural selection cannot explain homosexuality
Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouringmale homosexuality and promoting female fecundity



No. 7: In this story from the Book of Judges, an Israelite leader, Jephthah, makes a rash vow to God, which has to be carried out:

“And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, and said, ‘If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, then whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the Lord’s, to be offered up by me as a burnt-offering.’ Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah; and there was his daughter coming out to meet him with timbrels and with dancing. She was his only child; he had no son or daughter except her. When he saw her, he tore his clothes, and said, ‘Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low; you have become the cause of great trouble to me. For I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and I cannot take back my vow.’” (Judges 11:30-1, 34-5)

No where in the text is Jephthah commended for his action. This is a report of what happened not prescription for what we ought to do.

No. 8: The Lord is speaking to Abraham in this story where God commands him to sacrifice his son:

‘Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt-offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.’ (Genesis 22:2)

This whole incident was meant to be a picture of what God would do: sacrifice his own son for our sins. Again no one is told to emulate or copy this action in their own life. Look at what it is. When Isaac asked Abraham where was the lamb for the sacrifice, Abraham told him that God would provide the lamb. God did. When the angel stopped Abraham, God provided a "ram in the bush" then and He provided Jesus at just the right time.

No. 9: “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22)

This verse does not teach that wives are less valuable or that their needs should not be met. It is amazing to me how people stop at this verse and don't go further. Verse 22 deals with wives role, but verses 23-33 deals with how Husbands should treat their wives. Husbands should love their wives and be willing to do what ever our wives need even if it means giving up our lives.

No. 10: “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)

Slavery today conjures up the memory and guilt of racism, rape, and exploitation. People who think that the Bible promotes slavery equates ancient slavery with the way Europeans enslaved native peoples when they colonized the rest of the world. They are not equivalent systems except for being the economic basis of the society in which employed slaves. If you look at Ephesians 6:5-8 does tell slaves to obey their masters and tells them its about honoring God and not necessarily their master. Ephesians 5:29 speaks directly to masters of slaves, admonishing them to do right by their slaves and treat them as brothers. Gee...I wonder why they left these out.

Justification and the Uniqueness of Jesus Christ

For anyone who wants to understand what the Bible teaches about how people are justified by faith and reconciled back to God despite our sin-sick souls, I recommend this following sermon by Dr. James White. Check it out!

Evaluating the Claims of Evolution vs Creationism Introduction

I've been discussing Intelligent Design with Jorge Villalobos (aka minusfive) and he does not agree with me that there is a God or that Intelligent Design is a viable worldview. He also disagrees that Michael J. Behe is not a credible scientist and rejects his work. He has agree to a series of blog posts to interact. This is a beginning post to which to explain the parameters of this interaction to which I hope he will agree.

Intelligent Design is more than an alternative explanation opposed to Evolution. Intelligent Design also attempts to explain where everything comes from. Therefore it speaks to physics, chemistry, and biology. Evolution is generally considered to be a part of biology. So I suggest that we keep our discussion to how life has changed on earth and not worry about how it began this time. We can do origins later. Jorge, do you concur?

Here are some of the common assumptions that I think that we agree on.
1. There is a design in life we just disagree on how the design got there.
2. That given enough time questions about the mechanics of how life works will be answered. You, Jorge, just believe that macro evolution will be the ultimate answer.
3. We both agree that life on earth has not been constant, but has changed due lifeforms adapting to changing environments. We disagree that those changes lead to one life form to another such as a fish changing into amphibian.


More ground rules
1. A series of 4 weeks of posts, starting Wednesday September 2, 2009. Each cycle would be a week and you can post as many parts as you want. You can quote anyone and anything you want. You can post audio files and video files. Only rule about content is that it must be reference so that anyone can look up the resource themselves.
2. By September 9, 2009 we could post a positive presentation of our viewpoints without referring to the other side. Just what your conclusions are and the evidence for why you have come to those conclusions.
3. By September 16, 2009, we each post our rebuttals to the first week.
4. By September 23, 2009, we each post our rebuttals to the second week.
5. By September 30, 2009, we each post a concluding post .
6. We write with gentleness and respect for each other.

I suggest the the overall topic should be phrased as follows:
Evolution vs Intelligent Design - Which has the best Evidence?

Jorge, if you sgree to these termd please leave a comment here and the url to your blog or tweet the information.

Atheism is Dead: The Ultimate Anthropocentric Cosmology

Mario has post a great and humorous post about viewing the universe with profound self-centeredness.












Atheism is Dead: The Ultimate Anthropocentric Cosmology

On of the commenters posted a couple of great links to posts showing the immense size and majesty of the universe

Just a quick picture...
Hell Yeah, Hubble!

Disney Buys Marvel Comics

Image via Wikipedia

So far the biggest news that I heard today is the Disney is going to buy Marvel Comics in a deal that will cost $4 Billion. Shock! Awe!

I'm not sure if this going to be good or not. I should have seen it coming considering that almost every single animated series based

Image via CrunchBase

on Marvel Characters can now be seen on Disney XD (Toon Disney). Its been said that Disney wants to maximize its appeal to the 18-35 year-old male demographic. This should do it. I'm not concerned that Disney will "water-down" Marvel. It's important to remember that Disney owns Pixar, ABC, and Miramax and they managed to not mess them up. This could turn out to be good. Of course it also means that Disney will be in even more direct competition with Time-Warner that owns DC Comics.

Of course if the government says "no" this won't happen. I think that if such a merger will cause the lost of single job it should not go through.

Sources
Disney Buys Marvel: What The–?!
Disney Buying Marvel
Disney to Acquire Marvel Entertainment

The Censored Michael Behe Video Interview - Apologetics 315

On his Apologetics 315 blog, Brian has posted a great interview of Michael Behe by John McWhorter. It's real interesting. Behe is a biochemist and world renowned. He has written several book and research. He is on the cutting edge. McHorter admitted to being an atheist but found Behe's books persuasive enough to consider intelligent design. When I consider Behe's findings along with the rest of the evidence of living cells being complex mini machines on orders of magnitude more efficient than anything ever man-made, I've go to ask: "How does macro evolution account of that? It can't.

View on ExposureRoom

The Censored Michael Behe Video Interview - Apologetics 315

Preacher's Wife Warns of Adultery in the Pulpit

I have recently came across the following article talking about the problem in churches of clergy committing adultery with women in their congregation. The article points to the a book by Dr Betty Price called 'Warning to Ministers, Their Wives and Mistresses. I agree that it's a problem in many churches and God does not like it. It as a good article.

Preacher's Wife Warns of Adultery in the Pulpit

Of course such an article would list public examples of high profile clergy who have been caught with their pants down. This is where my problem came up. The article states that Jeremiah Wright cheated on his wife and it came out during the 2008 Presidential Election. I never heard that and I was paying attention. Wright was accused of having an affair with a white woman, Elizabeth Payne, in Dallas. She was a church worker for one of Wright's proteges. She was fired and her husband divorced her.

I'm not sure if this is true. It raises some flags for me.
1. Story does not seem to be mentioned before September 2008. And seem to have been used to try to discredit Wright and Obama.
2. It was not widely reported.
3. Friendship-West Baptist Church in Dallas Texas where Payne apparently worked is a black church (she is supposed to be white).
4. Her picture does not look real. It looks fake to me.



Either that or she's passing for white.

5. Her husband's, Fred Payne, statement: "People wouldn't be happy to know that my wife was sleeping with a black man," seems really loaded. If Jeremiah had have been white would they be more happy? Who would day that?
6. No other major national news organization seems to be carrying the story. One link I found had a link to a page on the Fox News site, but that link is now dead. Nothing on CNN.

I don't think the story is true. It just doesn't add up. I don't agree with Wright's Black Liberation Theology but why lie on the man?

Additional sources
Elizabeth Payne
Rev. Jeremiah Wright & Elizabeth Payne Sex Affair (Photos)
Chickens Roost on Reverend Wright's Penis
Elizabeth Payne Photo: Rev. Jeremiah Wright Sex Scandal Surfaces



Shared via AddThis

Iron Sharpens Iron: Joel Beeke: The life and Ministry of John Calvin (Encore Presentation)

Image via Wikipedia

This was a great program on Irons Sharpens Irons discussing the life and ministry of John Calvin. You can find a link below.


Iron Sharpens Iron: Joel Beeke: The life and Ministry of John Calvin (Encore Presentation)

Atheism is Dead: Atheist Quotes / Atheism Quotes

Here are some quotes posted by Mariano on his Atheism is Dead blog that should get one thinking.



Atheism is Dead: Atheist Quotes / Atheism Quotes

Truthbomb Apologetics: If Jesus was Not God then...by Let Us Reason Ministries

Chad hs posted a link to great article about Jesus and who He claims to be. This is a must see!

Truthbomb Apologetics: If Jesus was Not God then...by Let Us Reason Ministries

Sunday Quote: Jaraslov Pelikan on Jesus Christ - Apologetics 315

This is a great quote!!!!

Sunday Quote: Jaraslov Pelikan on Jesus Christ - Apologetics 315: "'Regardless of what anyone may personally think or believe about him, Jesus of Nazareth has been the dominant figure in the history of western culture for almost twenty centuries... It is from his birth that most of the human race dates its calendars, it is by his name that millions curse and in his name that millions pray.'

- Jaraslov Pelikan"

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : Will the Messiah Institute New Commandments?, part 7 of 7

Here is part 7 of Mariano's 7 part post discussing Jewish conception of what the Messiah is and how Jesus fits.

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : Will the Messiah Institute New Commandments?, part 7 of 7

Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Philosophy? by Ronald Nash

My brother-in-Christ, Mariano e-mailed me a link to this great article discussing the belief that that Greek myths and philosophies influence Christianity. Ronald Nash does an excellent job disproving this lie and even discusses the historical underpinnings of this fantasy.


Source:
Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Philosophy?
by Ronald Nash
from the Christian Research Journal, Fall 1993, page 16. The Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal is Elliot Miller.

Arminianism's Depersonalization of the Gospel

Here is a video of Dr. James White lecturing on the problem that in Arminianism, the idea that God personally, and sovereignly chooses those elected by Him for salvation cannot be held consistently with the Arminian viewpoint.





This really well done!

Wife Shames Cheating Husband During Rush Hour

I guess there is no fury greater than a woman who is scorned. I think his wife had every reason to be angry. Forgiveness is very difficult and being cheated upon is a great betrayal.





Wife Shames Cheating Husband During Rush Hour

Shared via AddThis

Argument from the Existence of Human Intelligence - Apologetics 315

Argument from the Existence of Human Intelligence - Apologetics 315

Today, on the Apologetics 315 blog Brian defined:

An Argument from the Existence of Human Intelligence

Personally, I think it's a weighty argument. Check it out

Pevensie15 | AJ's Blog: Obama Psalm

I found the following on one of the blogs I follow. I tend to try to look at the positive about Obama as much as possible, but I've got to admit that the author of the Psalm (whoever he/she may be) makes some good points.

Pevensie15 | AJ's Blog: Obama Psalm: "PSALM 23:2008-2012

OBAMA IS MY SHEPHERD,

I SHALL WANT A DOCTOR.

HE LEADETH ME BESIDE STILL 

FACTORIES.


HE RESTORETH MY FAITH IN THE REPUBLICAN 

PARTY.
 HE GUIDETH ME IN THE PATH OF UNEMPLOYMENT.

YEA, THOUGH I WALK THROUGHT THE 

VALLEY OF THE SHADOW OF COMMUNISM.

I SHALL NOT FEAR.

OBAMA HAS ANOINTED MY INCOME WITH 

TAXES, MY EXPENSES RUNNETH OVER.

SURELY, POVERTY AND HARD LIVING WILL 

FOLLOW ME ALL THE DAYS OF MY LIFE.(AND MY GRANDKIDS LIVES TOO.)
 AND WE SHALL LIVE FOREVER 

IN A GOVERNMENT SHACK.

(Disclaimer: I didn't write this, I received it in a forwarded email, just thought it was worth posting.)"

Is there a Connection Between Jesus and Xolotl?

Xolotl is another ancient myth that has been offered to me as a model stolen for Jesus in Christianity. I could have combined this post with one I did about Quetzalcoatl because they were supposedly twin brothers and connected. Given the assumption that they were virgin born does not mean that they were the source of Jesus' virgin birth story. Again Christianity would not have been in contact with the Aztecs until 1518 and the fact that Christians believe in Jesus' virgin birth had long been established by then. Then there is the problem that nothing else about Xolotl is anything like Jesus at all! Take a look at the link below.

Source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xolotl

Anderson Cooper Rips Into Speidi

I just saw this article about Anderson Cooper being less than the objective journalist the way he ripped into Heidi Montag and her Miss Universe performance. Now, I'm not trying to defend Montag's performance but it's just that there was so much venom in Cooper's report that I had to check to make sure that it wasn't a report from Fox News! I mean I thought that CNN was the objective one for pete sake.

Cooper put the hard news on hold this week to dedicate two minutes to eviscerating Montag and her performance, starting off his rant with the following: "I don't really know who this person is, nor why she is pretending to be a singer nor why anyone should listen to her, but apparently she's famous."

He continued, saying that Montag is "so famous she actually Twitters.... And she Twittered to congratulate herself. She tweeted she had so much fun, and she also thanked God. I don't think God had anything to do with this production."

After a quick back-and-forth with a CNN contributor, Cooper hypothesized that "If God has the time to work on this production and that's the best God can do, we're all in trouble." When Cooper continued, saying he wasn't sure who Heidi even was, his counterpart informed him that "she's married that annoying Spencer Pratt." Ouch.

Anderson Cooper Rips Into Speidi

Shared via AddThis

Atheism is Dead: Richard Dawkins’ New Book – The Evolution Delusion

Mariano has humorously and logically debunked Richard Dawkins latest book on evolution. You should read this post!

Atheism is Dead: Richard Dawkins’ New Book – The Evolution Delusion

Truthbomb Apologetics: The Deity of Christ by Dr. Walter Martin

On his Truthbomb Apologetics blog, Chad, has posted an essay from the late Dr. Walter Martin in which 9 points are enumerated showing that the Bible teaches that Jesus is God. This got my attention because just a few hours ago my 3 year-old daughter told me "Jesus is God." I was so grateful that God had allowed me to hear from her that she has been paying attention!


Truthbomb Apologetics: The Deity of Christ by Dr. Walter Martin

A Refutation of Moral Relativism MP3 Audio by Peter Kreeft - Apologetics 315

This is an awesome lecture. Consider moral relativism utterly refuted!

A Refutation of Moral Relativism MP3 Audio by Peter Kreeft - Apologetics 315: "Philosopher Peter Kreeft presents a talk entitled: A refutation of moral relativism."

By The Book Comics: A hopefully humorous look at the Bible

I saw a tweet from Godlessgirl a few days ago with a link to a blog that attempts to use humor to show Christianity as silly and untenable. This particular post is makes the suggestion that the man whom the first Christians saw after Jesus' crucifixion but a case of mistaken identity. If the writer was not serious, I would have thought that this line of argument would be humorous. In reality it really is a joke. Unfortunately, it is a joke on the one who would accept such an argument. There is no way the Bible supports it. Go to the link at the end to see his cartoon.

The post's writer says the following:

Assuming there was ever a historic Jesus and that the Gospels were even loosely based on actual events (which I greatly doubt), I think there is a much simpler explanation. Maybe it wasn't him at all! Maybe the disciples didn't recognize him because it wasn't the same dude! Maybe they wanted so much to believe that he had risen, that they voted in a new Messiah.

"Sure, he looks different and walks with a limp, but he knows all the scriptures and what a great story this will make! He rose from the dead! Praise the Lord!"

What do you think?

Image via Wikipedia

Let's follow his line of reasoning to see if it make sense. He gives us that he is basing his argument on the idea that there was a historic Jesus and the Bible is loosely based on actual events. I will argue from the same points. The Bible does not in any way say that the person the disciples claimed to be Jesus, resurrected from the dead, looked different than the Jesus they knew or was crippled in anyway. The other thing none of the disciples thought that Jesus was going to rise again. They thought that it was over, although Jesus told them He was going to rise again.

Who has not had the experience of seeing the last person you expected to see and not immediately recognized them? I have and you know you have. The author appeals to three scriptures in an attempt to bolster his point.

John 20:14 And when she [Mary Magdalene] had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.

Jesus was the last person she expected to see. Although Jesus said He was going to come back from the dead and said it more than once, she did not understand. She did not know it was Jesus. The verse does not say that it was not Jesus.

Mark 16:12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

I'm surprised that the author used this verse because Mark 16: 9-20 is most likely not originally a part of Mark, but added years later. The passage is not part of the earliest manuscripts! Therefore, I don't have to defend or explain verse 12. Verse 12 is not part of the inspired text as near as anyone can tell.

Luke 24:16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.

Luke 24:16 tells us that the two disciples on the road to Emmaus did not recognize Jesus because it was kept from them on purpose at first. Also according to the Gospels, there are other cases where Jesus appeared after the resurrection and He was recognized immediately! Checkout Luke 24:33-49

They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together and saying, "It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon." Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.
Jesus Appears to the Disciples
While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."

They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."

When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?" They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence.

He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."

Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high."

Why would they think it was a Ghost who appeared if they did not know it was Jesus who had died? They knew it was Jesus. I have two more examples. Look at what the angel said to the apostles when Jesus ascended to heaven.

They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. "Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven." - Acts 1:10,11

Also look at Peter's first sermon is general and Acts 2: 29-36

"Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. 30But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said,
" 'The Lord said to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet." '

"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

Peter very clearly states the point of his sermon: the same Jesus who taught among them, performed miracles among them, was executed by them 40 days earlier, was resurrected physically!

By The Book Comics: A hopefully humorous look at the Bible

Bart Ehrman Interviewed on the "Problem of Evil"

Here is a video of a lecture Bart Ehrman discussing what the Bible says about human suffering. Follows is the video description from YouTube.

"Biblical Insights into the Problem of Suffering"

Bart D. Ehrman
Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Conversations host Harry Kreisler welcomes biblical scholar Bart Ehrman for a discussion of his intellectual odyssey with a focus on how the Bible explains the problem of human suffering. The conversation includes a discussion of the challenges of biblical interpretation when confronting this age old problem of the human condition. Included are topics such as the contribution of the prophets, a comparison of the old and new testaments, the book of Job, and the emergence of apocalyptic writers.
Recorded April 17, 2008

After listening to the lecture, I wonder if Ehrman understood scripture the same way before He gave up being a Christian. For example I have heard others take his viewpoint on the Book of Job, Daniel, and Ecclesiastes. Not all scholars agree with Ehrman. Concerning Job, God did not make a wager with the Devil. Instead of answering him point-by-point, I enjoyed Dr. James White's rebuttal of Ehrman's book discussing human suffering in particular and Ehrman's conclusions in general.