Here is part 2 of Dr. Claude Mariottini's insights into the Book of Job. He did an awesome Job. He really mines the text for all it is worth. Face it, the fundamental question of the book is "Why?" Why do good people suffer? Why is there evil? Some folks say that the book dodges the question, yet God does answer only no one really likes the answer. It's a gift of God to accept the answer and say "Amen!" - "So be it!!" I've got to quote Mariottini a couple of times because it so so poignant.
The theology of Job’s friends was not all wrong, but neither was their theology right enough to explain Job’s suffering. Notwithstanding their words of wisdom, Job’s suffering continued. Thus, in the end, human wisdom could not bring the healing or the answers Job was so desperately seeking.
I think Mariottini has hit the nail on the head as to what God's purpose in all of this this is...in part. I've come to the same conclusion.
God’s purpose was not only to heal Job, but also to instruct him. God asked Job several rhetorical questions which were beyond human capability of answering.
God not only instructs Job but us. I for one would rather read and understand these lessons rather than experience them as Job did. Job's response is the same response we should all have.
At the end of God’s encounter with Job, Job humbly repented of his presumption, that he could contend with God. He also repented of his pride in seeing only himself while failing to recognize that God’s purpose for his life was much more than he could understand. He bowed in recognition of his insignificance before his sovereign Lord.
There is one theological point that I think is really important to point out. Some people have tried to argue that the concept of physical resurrection is alien to the Hebrew Bible. This is not true. I was reminded of this because Mariottini quotes the passage and it's one of my favorites from Job.
25 I know that my Redeemer lives,
and that in the end he will stand upon the earth. 26 And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet in my flesh I will see God;
- Job 19:25-26
I cannot emphasize it enough. Job's redeemer is our redeemer - Jesus Christ!!!
Here is Mariano's second post on some of the textual issues Bart Ehrman builds his fame and his agnosticism on. It is another great article!
We now continue and conclude considering the Greer-Heard Forum of 2008 AD as we focus on the participation of Dan Wallace (Dallas Theological Seminary) and Bart Ehrman (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) as I glean from the reports of the forum written by Ed Komoszewski from the theology blog Parchment and Pen; part 1 and part 2.
Dr Mariottini has posted a great article that lists a link to an article to the Biblical Archaeological Review magazine. It's about evidence that the idea of the Alphabet as we know it today began 4000 years ago. Real Interesting!
Would you think of OJ Simpson, RuPaul, and Dennis Rodman as examples of Black Heroes? I wouldn't. Three LA Teachers however apparently would and they have been removed from their classrooms. Read the article below.
A little while ago I came across an article hypothesizing that Atheists Liberals are more intelligent than religiousconservatives using IQ Tests!
From the article: “Religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. "So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."
Young adults who identify themselves as "not at all religious" have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as "very religious" have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence.”
I took three IQ Tests when I was 17-18 years old. My highest score was 114...100 was supposed to be average. IQ tests prove nothing but how close you can think like the person who made the test. I also think that the article makes no sense. The article is wrong. Half of the population is neither Atheistic nor Liberal. The thought that some people are unable to believe agrees with the Bible. It is also funny to see atheists trying to account for religion from the standpoint of evolution and then trying to argue that more people don't believe because we are evolving. Really pathetic. I have yet to see any understanding or evidence for a genetic mutation affecting how people's minds work.
There is an anonymous response to James White's discussion of 1 John 5:1 and other passages regarding the order of salvation - "ordo salutis".
An evidently anti-Reformed textual critic has posted a brief criticism of using 1 John 5:1 as a text relevant to the ordo salutis and in particular to the relationship of saving faith and regeneration (though both terms appear in the text). Anyone who knows the identity of this blogger please let me know, I'd be interested in knowing. I have seen his material linked on the Evangelical Textual Criticism list. In any case, here is my response.
This video shows how careful and thorough a scholar James White is. I agree with his analysis. It fits the whole testimony of scripture.
Mariano has launched a new series of articles again considering the work of Bart Ehrman but this time juxtaposed with other scholars
Hereinafter, we will consider occurrences at the Greer-Heard Forum of 2008 AD.
The forum’s topic was the reliability of New Testament manuscripts as pointers to the original text.
James White posted a video by John Piper doing a presentation on 1 John 5:1 that was referred to from Pastor Bob Brodersen in a clip against Calvinism .I posted a video yesterday that James White posted and here is the video he referred from John Piper. I like how Piper explained it as well. We all start out dead - hostile to God - God has to regenerate us before we can believe. Regeneration is the cause of faith and belief and not the cause.
Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. 1 John 5:1
Last week, the Iron Sharpens Iron broadcast did a series of programs that I have not seen anyone do: each day they had a different eschatological view presented and discussed. I'm planning to post on all of them. This post is about Postmillennialism with John Jefferson Davis, Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics at Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary
James White posted the following video on his blog discussing 1st John 5:1 and the comments from Calvary Chapel's Brian Brodersen comments on Calvinism and what regeneration is and when does it happen. Does it happen before apart from us or does God only regenerate us when we say it's okay? I think the Bible shows what White is explaining. It's sound exegesis and we do need to look past our traditions and see what the scriptures really are saying!
Dr. Mariottini has posted a link to an article challenging the previous article that a new archaeological fine sheds light on the kinds of nails that were used in crucifixions about the time of Jesus.
I got this debate from Apologetics 315. From the introduction of John Loftus I expected a lot more. He didn't offer anything new. No new argument. Nothing - just like what God used to create all of reality. I love to see Dinesh D'Souza argue for God and Christianity. He is brilliant. While I understand the need for his apologetic in the public square, I prefer an apologetic based on the Bible being true. This debate is the one where I think I've seen D'Souza defend the Bible because Lofus really did attack it. He made some claims and thoughts that D'Souza did not have time to address. The thing about Loftus that I found most interesting is that it says that he was once a student of William Lane Craig and at times it seems that Loftus was debating him not D'Souza. My favorite point that D'Souza made was when he compared the historical evidence for Socrates's life and teaching and showed how what we really know about him is less than what we know about Jesus if we apply the same criteria to Socrates. Yet I have not ever heard a qualified historian argue that Socrates never existed. I disagreed with many of the facts that Loftus asserted. They weren't right. Neither were his conclusions correct. For example, as far as I can tell everyone agrees that the universe began as a singularity - the debate is the nature of that singularity and how it got there. Also Loftus proof that Jesus did not claim to be God is the exact opposite of what Jesus claimed. Look at Matthew 19: 16-17.
16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?" 17"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments." (NIV)
16And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. (KJV)
Loftus tried to use this to argue to say that Jesus was saying that no one is good but God and that he wasn't claiming to be God. D'Souza didn't have time to address this, so I will, because I can't stand this objection because it is stupid.. Jesus was not claiming that he was not good. This is what you would have to assume to get Loftus' understanding. No, Jesus is calling attention to all what the Young man has said in calling him good. If no one is good but God, and Jesus is good, then that means Jesus is God. QED!
On Wednesday, Dr. James White was on a radio program discussing the Trinity, a Jewish woman called in and offered this very same scripture as a rebuttal to the Trinity. Listen to how White handled it.
On Apologetics 315, you can find the audio link to the debate and below is a playlist from YouTube.
godlessgirl tweeted this video on March 1, 2010 and I have to admit it does make a couple of important points. One, context is important and two, Christians are guilty of crying foul when Atheists brings up verses in which events and actions that moral people today think are repugnant but do not apply the same level criticism to the nice and happy verses that makes us feel good. But I think the video's author also inadvertently makes some points that he did not intend to make. Watch the video below.
Notice how the Christian tries to give the context of some of the verses and it all seems like Blah, Blah, a cacophony of sound without any context or real meaning? Well that is what an atheist hears when we answer his/her questions if they are not really interested in knowing why we don't see it the way they do. "My mind is made up, don't bother me with facts." is the attitude. I also think that the author shows that sometime Christians misapply the context defense by saying that God didn't say something that the scripture did say because they aren't familiar with the scriptures as they should be. Notice the slick editing? When the Christian was tripped up you could hear the exchange just fine, but when the atheist was not listening you could hear nothing. The video also showcases that many atheists and Christians are biased and bring their own presuppositions. Christians must guard against this. We cannot allow ourselves the luxury of setting our own notions of what God should be just because we believe Him to be somethings He is not or won't do things that He really did. The goal is to be in relationship with the real God not our idea of God. This is what the atheist has. That is why they reject God. When they hear an argument like the imagined Christian in the video makes that if something sounds evil, immoral, ridiculous, silly, ect then it's out of context, they see that as being dishonest and it is. The atheist that dismisses a passage as such without trying to understand what is happening is guilty of the same sin. The video is just another mirror of reality. Unless both sides are willing to listen in no way can we reason together! I thank the author for making this video because it's instructive. All the Bible verses used in the video were either given without context and some in the wrong context. Let's take each verse one-by-one and see what the context is. This time let's use sound exegesis. Ask who is talking? Who is the Audience? When? Where? Why? Here is a table listing each passage discussed, the context, and the reasoning.
John 13:34
Passage Context:: John 13
Speaker: Jesus
Audience: The twelve apostles
Where: After the last supper, just before He was arrested and crucified.
Why: Jesus is delivering his last instructions before everything profoundly changes
The point: In context this passage is not to the world but those who count themselves Jesus' followers. In verse 35, Jesus tells us that if we love one another we show ourselves His disciples. In context we got to love one another if you are a Christian but the command means nothing to nonbelievers. Not saying that we are told not to love non-Christians but that has nothing to do with this passage.
Passage Context:: Joshua 1
Speaker: God
Audience Audience
Where: Just east of the Jordon River
Why: God was encouraging Joshua for the work he was getting ready to undertake.
The point: Many Christians take this verse out of context, applying this promise to Joshua to themselves for something they want to do. This is a problem. If God did not tell you to do something and you go out on the limb, then you are not like Joshua. God told him to go. This is why Joshua got that promise. I learned this lesson extremely well, but it cost me a lot.
Psalm 23:4
Passage Context: Psalm 23
Speaker: David
Audience: God
Where: Israel
Why:: David uses the imagery of God as a shepherd to praise God.
The point: David recognized that God shepherds us through life just like he used to shepherd sheep.
Matthew 7:7
Passage Context: Matthew 5,6,7,
Speaker: Jesus
Audience: A multitude and disciples
Where: Mountainside
Why: The sermon on the mount
The point: Many folks have tried to say that Jesus was saying that you can have what ever you want, but in context Jesus was talking about what you need; look at Matt 7: 7-12. It's in the context of our needs and not necessarily our material desires.
Proverbs 30:5
Passage Context: Proverbs 30
Speaker: Agur
Audience:
Where: Israel
Why: Agur tells us why we should trust the word of God and what it means to life
The point: Good advice
1st John 4:7;1 John 4:8
Passage Context: 1 John 4:7-21
Speaker: Apostle John
Audience: Church
Where: A letter
Why: Passing on what He learned from Jesus
The point: We cannot expect to be true followers of Christ without loving one another. This is in context of the church holding us to a standard that those outside of the church are not being held to.
Lev 21:9
Passage Context: Leviticus 21
Speaker: God
Audience:The Priests of Ancient, theocratic Israel
Where: Mt Sinai
Why: It's not just the priest himself who is called to be set apart for God but his entire family.
The point: The verse is raised as an example to show that God is silly because of the presupposition that prostitution is not a crime worthy of death. God's standards happen to higher than ours. The priests' daughters had responsibilities and laws that they were obligated to follow.
Lev 24:16
Passage Context: Lev 24
Speaker: God
Audience: Ancient, Theocratic Israel
Where: Sinai
Why: A person was caught blaspheming God
The point: It was against the law to blaspheme God! What is wrong with that? It's not the Bible's fault that our standards are lower.
Lev 26:21-22
Passage Context: Lev 26
Speaker:God
Audience:Ancient, Theocratic Israel
Where:Sinai
Why:God was explicit vs 1-13: This is what happens if you obey;the rest of the chapter: This is what happens if you disobey
The point: Yes, no one would want these results....but given disobedience it is a just result. If you don't want these things to befall you, obey God.
Nahum 1:7
Passage Context: Nahum 1
Speaker: Nahum
Audience: Ancient Israel before the destruction of the Northern Kingdom by Assyria
Where: Israel
Why: For Tells the destruction of Ninevah, Assyria's capital which was unthinkable at the time this prophecy was given.
The point: Nahum in verses 1-7 give great insight into who God is and verse 8 begins to tell us will happen to Assyria. Anyone who is a student of History and knows anything of the kinds of regime the Assyrians had and the way they treated others would have to agree that they had it coming...just we do.
Joshua 10:39-40
Passage Context: The Book of Joshua
Speaker: Narrator
Audience: This is a historical narrative
Where: Canaan
Why: God commanded Joshua in how he carried out the war of conquest..
The point: The people that had lived in the land before Israel returned from Egypt were corrupt...evil...and had it coming. God had given them 400 years to repent and stop child sacrifice and worshipping idols and they didn't, It's fascinating to me that people who support abortion balk and get angry charging God with genocide and murder of children while not seeing that abortion is no different and that those societies were killing some of their children anyway and sacrificing them to idols.\
Philippians 4:13
Passage Context: Philippians 4
Speaker: Paul
Audience:The church at Philippi and all Christians
Where: Philippi
Why: Paul is thanking them for the gifts they sent to the church in Jerusalem
The point: Paul said he could do all things in the context of learning how to be content no matter how much material things he has and does not have.
2 Sam 7:28
Passage Context: 2 Sam 7
Speaker: David
Audience: God
Where :Jersusalem; David is established as King over all Israel
Why: David said he wanted to build God a temple, but God said that wasn't for him, but instead gives David a Messianic prophecy foreshadowing Jesus (vs 16)
The point: David is told what is going to happen after he dies, immediately and 1000 yrs later.
Jer 20:7
Passage Context: The Book of Jeremiah
Speaker: Jeremiah
Audience: God
Where: Judah
Why: Jeremiah is telling God how he feels about his present situation. All he did was tell the people what God told him to tell them and has gotten nothing but stiff opposition and persecution. So he feels like "I didn't sign up for this!" And he was right look at chapter 1, God called him from before birth. No where is it recorded that God promised Jeremiah or us a problem free, unopposed life if we follow and serve Him. No, it's the opposite. We are promised trials and tribulation.
The point: It's okay to question God and cast all your fears, anxiety, and frustration on God. God can take it, support you and protect you just like God did for Jeremiah.
Deut 28:53
Passage Context: Deut 28
Speaker: Moses speaking for God
Audience: Israel just before Moses dies and turns over leadership to Joshua; Moses Farewell address
Where: Just outside Canaan
Why: The whole chapter tells what happens if the people follow God and what happens if they don't.
The point: Deut 28:53 is about what happens if they reject God. And we see this fulfilled historically: When the Babylonians and Romans laid siege to Jerusalem we hear stories of these things happened. Is it moral? Yes! They brought it on themselves. This is what happens when you reject God...ultimately nothing good can come of that.
Deut 32:41-42
Passage Context: Deuteronomy 32
Speaker: God through Moses
Audience: Israel
Where: Oustide of Canaan, before Joshua takes them in; Moses Farewell address
Why: More insight into who God is.
The point: God does not play and you don't want him as an enemy. How could anyone read this and assume that it's all going to be okay if you try to oppose God?
2 Kings 1:10-12
Passage Context: 2 Kings 1
Speaker: Elijah
Audience: Soldiers sent to arrest him.
Where: Judah
Why: King Ahaziah tried to arrest Elijah because he didn't like the prophecy God sent through him - a rebuke because he tried to consult an idol instead of seeking God
The point: This shows how much God hates idolatry and that you can't just mess with God's servants with impunity. I also see how Elijah depended on God. He moved when God told him to move and trusted him. Is it moral? The two companies who tried to arrest Elijah were wrong. Elijah did no crime. The third group had the good sense to humbly request Elijah to come with them that is why they didn't die.
Deuteronomy 13:6-9
Passage Context: Deut 13
Speaker: God
Audience: Ancient Israel
Where: Outside of Canaan
Why: Our society is so different from theocratic Israel. Worship and belief in a single deitiy is not the basis of our society today like it was back then.
The point: Apostasy and inciting apostasy was a capital offense legitimately because God was ruler of Israel at the time. It would and does today erode society and splits it up. This passage was also in the context of false prophets...people who claimed to speak for God or a deity and then try to teach the people to break the law.
1 Samuel 17:57
Passage Context: 1 Samuel 17
Speaker: Narrator
Audience: Historical Narrative
Where:Ancient Israel about 3000 years ago
Why: David just won his battle with Goliath...this was a war. David took his head as proof that he did indeed win.
The point: I don't understand what is objectionable. So what if David carried around David's head for several hours. A lot of folks throughout history would have displayed it on a pike. Isaiah 37:36
Passage Context: Isaiah 37
Speaker: Narrator
Audience: Historical Narrative
Where: Judah
Why: Assyria (the most powerful nation on the planet at the time) attacked Judah during the time of King Hezekiah and God sent an angel to fight for them.
The point: I fail to see why this is bad. Assyria had come to destroy Judah, and God protected them.
2 Kings 2:23-24
Passage Context: 2 Kings 2
Speaker: Narrator
Audience: Historical
Where: Israel
Why: Modern sensibilities are ruffled because young people were killed by 2 bears who had been making fun of prophet (Elisha).
The point: Often times people think that these were children but it were young adults. We would have used the words juvenile delinquents who drained society. We aren't talking about children who did not know what they were doing.
Num 25:6-9
Passage Context: Numbers 25
Speaker: Narrative
Audience: Historical
Where: Israel in the lands of Moab/Midian
Why: The man outright defied God. He knew that it was unlawful to bring the Midianite woman who did not believe what Israel did and worshiped idols.
The point: Must point out that sex was used as a weapon against Israel to get their attention from God and to women who enticed them to worship other Gods. They were told stay away from foreign women so that kind of thing would not happen not because God is racist.
I've been following Brian Auten's work on his Apologetics 315 blog. I have enjoyed and benefited from the powerful and useful resources he has provided and pointed out. I've found his comments and thoughts very insightful. When I found out that he was making his own podcasts I got real excited because I knew that this was going to be special. And I believe that this is the first one, posted just a few days ago, shows that my hopes most certainly were not misplaced. He does an awesome job explaining what Apologetics is and why it is important. I really enjoyed it. I look forward to more!
Dr. James White was a guest on the Janet Mefferd Show in which he talked about how important the Trinity doctrine is and why it is important. One of the high points is hearing James White defending the Trinity against a Jewish caller. This is worth listening!
I saw a tweet from Brian of Apologetics 315 blog. It is an interview from the Stand to Reason blog. RC Sproul interviews Stephen Meyer on the philosophy and science behind Intelligent Design and why it points to the God of the Bible. This is real awesome and worth watching.
I've been following David Heddle's blog for a while now. I don't agree with everything he does but I enjoy the way he writes and I love nuclear physics so his blog is always interesting to me. This is a particular pet peeve of mine as it is his. I also reject the idea of Pre-Tribulational raptures (especially as viewed by the Left Behindseries). According the Left Behind series, the problem of the fact that there are still believers on earth during Tribulation is solved by saying that there are 2 raptures. In my opinion that means that some people will get two chances to accept Christ. The "Pre-Trib" idea can't seem to be dated any earlier than the 19th century. If it were true I'm sure other Christians would have seen it earlier. One defense of it is that God would not allow the church to go through the Tribulation. My question: Why? They sometimes point to the fact that the Hebrews in Goshen were not touched by the 10 plagues that were applied to the rest of Egypt.To which I ask what about Job? He was righteous and he still suffered. I think it's attractive because Christians can think of themselves as not having to suffer and miss the Tribulation entirely. I know I do, but I just don't see it in scripture.
I've been talking to a MartijnLinssen on Twitter and he posted the following blog entry. My comments are in red.
On Twitter, I do talk a lot. About anything. My monthly tweets have exponentially grown to currently over 1,200 a month, and that now is my baseline it seems.
I talk a bit with fundamental Christians at times, but that's at night time usually, somehow.
I talk mostly with IT people during the day, as I work in IT and usually operate as an Enterprise Architect who started off writing BASIC at age 11 and COBOL at career start - been there, done that.
And every now and then I do read and / or say something about Global Warming as that has become part of our everyday life
I find it easy to talk to him although we don't agree on the Bible. It's obvious why now I know that he is in IT.
When having conversation with Christians, I usually run into strict believers who have a good share of quotes and take the Bible literally or at least believe it contains absolute Truth. I challenge them on the crucifixion and say that the Bible should be taken figuratively, not literally, that Jesus' death is just a spiritual death (I believe Jesus' true words, meanings and life are according to the Gospel of Thomas) which is met with fierce resistance that it is all the Word of God, and True, and that it should be taken literally. The Bible is infallible, they say.
Then I ask them what they think of Luke 17:21, where Jesus tells the Pharisees that "the Kingdom of God is inside you". The answers always are alike "Jesus didn't mean that when he said such", "You have to place it into the context", "No that needs to be translated among, not inside or within" - much like this lengthy commentary And before you know it, the True Word of God is being bent and interpreted right in front of you - by Christians themselves
He and I had a similar exchange. He commits two mistakes. The first is that he should try to prove that the rest of the Gospels should be read in light of the Gospel of Thomas. It conflicts with the Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The other problem is that he misinterprets Luke 17:21 because he thinks he can take Gospel of Thoms equal or more weight. In the NIV, Luke 17:21 says
nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within [oR among or with] you."
He wants to interpret this verse as saying that the Kingdom of God is inside everyone including Jesus' enemies. We know that this interpretation is incorrect because inconflicts with other scriptures. His argument leads to Jesus' enemies - those who hate and work against him - going to heaven. This makes no sense
22Then came the Feast of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon's Colonnade. 24The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."
25Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30I and the Father are one." - John 10:22-29
The rest of the post talks about infallibility and expresses that if something is infallible it must also falsifiable - able to be proven false. This is one of the characteristics of Christianity from the beginning. Either Jesus was crucified or he wasn't. Jesus rose from the dead or he didn't. You can't duck it. You can't call it spiritual or metaphor. The apostles claimed to be eyewitnesses to the resurrection and they pointed to evidences like the empty tomb (look at Acts 2).
[The picture is showing the 'Christian percentage by country' - although that just is counting quantity of course, not measuring quality]
Dr. Mariottin has posted a link to an article about an amazing archaeological find: a nail, like the one pictured on the left, dating back to the time of Jesus' crucifixion, was found in a fort that had belonged to the Knights Templar. Because the nail is well preserved some think that it was a precious religious relic - maybe it was thought to be one of nails used to crucify Jesus. Follow the link below back to Dr. Mariottini's original article and find the original story from there.
Martin G. Selbrede was a guest on Iron Sharpens Iron where he discussed Theonomic Postmillennialism and defined it. This will need to be commented on further
I have come to expect a lot of great resource from Apologetics 315 and this post continues to exceed my expectations. Here is a debate where Sean McDowell takes an atheist almost twice his age on the question: Is God the best explanation of Moral values? I had hoped James Corbett would have brought a different argument - something new I had not heard before but he didn't. McDowell was able to really almost predict what Corbett was going to say and beat him to it - along with a powerpoint presentation. Corbett's argument was the same tired atheist arguments
a. You don't need to believe in God to be moral
b. Morality evolved in people because it was beneficial.
c. The Bible presents outdated ideas of morality that we now know bettter (ie slavery, mistreatment of women, racism, ect)
d. More people have been killed because of religion than anything else due to peole thinking they were absolutely right in what they believe.
e. Doubt is better because Corbett admits that he could be wrong and religious people have no proof that they are right about a divine law giver.
f. Religious people have done horrible things.
So in other words, for Sean McDowell this was a slam dunk. I doubt he even worked up a sweat because points "a" and "f" were not even debated..anyone who has thought through this would agree - All human being are capable of understand morality apart from what they believe and we don't do it perfectly. The point that McDowell homed in on is the questions about "Who's morality is it if its relative and where did it come from and how? This is how he won the debate because Corbett could not answer that. No atheist can God is the best answer to the question.
McDowell's apologetic like William Lane Craig's does not depend on the Bible's infallibility or truth to be valid. This is why I think he didn't spend much time refuting Corbett's weak arguments against the Bible. He did speak to point "d" showing that the number of people who were killed on the actions of religious people dwarf those who were killed by atheists. I also thought it was interesting for Corbett to admit that he could be wrong but he doubted that McDowell was right. I mean that by the time you know for sure through experience it could be too late to change your mind and make a change.
The one part of McDowell's argument that I dind't like was that he appealed to Free Will. I know he looks at Free Will from an Arminian perspective and I'm not sure if it can be truly defined that way. I quickly agree that we all have will and make decisions that have eternal worth and ramifications but I think we need to be more careful on how we see how it relates to God's sovereignty because we are far from sovereign in running this universe by our choices.
This is an excellent Interview! Teacher and apologist Sean McDowell sat down with Brian Auten of Apologetics 315 and gave his testimony and answered some questions about his work and how his Father has influenced him. What I got most out of it was the realization that he is just a couple of years younger than I and he grew up in Church and Apologetics like I, he had the same experience I did and what everyone does: it came time to answer "Who Do I say Jesus Is?" He wondered if what he has been taught his whole life was true or not. And he researched it out. I went through the same thing and I also researched and searched. We came up with the same answers - God is true. I slo enjoyed the advice he gave about how to bring Apologetics into your church or school when there isn't that much interest already! I also found out which scholars have influenced him most.I actually saw him live once and was impressed....now I got to learn a lot more about him. Follow the link below to learn more!
I was in a debate with cherokee_autumn a couple of weeks back about the difference of scientific theory and scientific law. Many times in order to defend the theory of evolution people point to gravity being a theory. She tweeted the article that I have linked to this post and it does say that Universal Gravity is a theory but then it goes on to say that the law of gravity is shady and has holes. Reading it reminds of bad creationist articles against evolution. I'm embarrassed by those because although I reject macro evolution I think that there should be good reason for rejecting any idea - more than I don't like it or don't understand it. First I must point out that Gravity is not a theory, it's a force. Universal Gravitation is a theory based on observation and I see no reasons why it should be rejected. The article makes a lot of blunders than makes me think the author knows nothing of Physics. I quote the two I find the most offensive here:
Even Isaac Newton, said to be the discoverer of gravity, knew there were problems with the theory. He claims to have invented the idea early in his life, but he knew that no mathematician of his day would approve his theory, so he invented a whole new branch of mathematics, called fluxions, just to “prove” his theory. This became calculus, a deeply flawed branch having to do with so-called “infinitesimals” which have never been observed. Then when Einstein invented a new theory of gravity, he, too, used an obscure bit of mathematics called tensors. It seems that every time there is a theory of gravity, it is mixed up with “fringe” mathematics. Newton, by the way, was far from a secular scientist, and the bulk of his writings is actually on theology and Christianity. His dabbling in gravity, alchemy, and calculus was a mere sideline, perhaps an aberration best left forgotten in describing his career and faith in a Creator.
Why is this stupid? Simple. Tensors and Calculus are far from fringe mathematics. This is the basis of what you need to do theoretical Physics. Without them you can't do anything meaningful in Physics.
The theory of gravity violates common sense in many ways. Adherents have a hard time explaining, for instance, why airplanes do not fall. Since anti-gravity is rejected by the scientific establishment, they resort to lots of hand-waving. The theory, if taken seriously, implies that the default position for all airplanes is on the ground. While this is obviously true for Northwest airplanes (relying on “A Wing and a Prayer”), it appears that Jet Blue and Southwest have a superior theory that effectively harnesses forces that overcome so-called gravity.
Those forces are called "lift" and "thrust" combined with gravity and the shape of the wings that keep an airplane in the air. REAL simple Physics I learned in elementary school. I hope that this is a joke article because it really is stupid. Without context and assuming the author is not a moron leads me to the conclusion that the article is attempting to make the point that denying Gravity is like denying evolution. Although I disagree with that conclusion it's either that or the author is completely clueless.
Here is a written transcript of the opening remarks and conclusion James White gave in his debate against Shabir Ally. White lays out the fact that to most Muslims who believe the Qur'an, Jesus was not crucified. Here is what Dr. James White said:
What we find from every source that has any legitimate claim to coming from the first hundred years after Jesus echoes the words that most scholars, conservative and liberal alike, believe to be some of the earliest in the New Testament:
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.
This is the core teaching of the Christian faith, and anyone who wishes to suggest otherwise has a very, very tall challenge ahead of them.
But I doubt Shabir Ally will argue that the New Testament as we possess it today teaches anything other than this very truth. So why are we here this evening? I submit to you that the only reason we are here this evening is because of 40 Arabic words written in a book that can be dated no earlier than 625 years after the ministry of Jesus. These 40 words were written in a different culture, 765 miles away from Jerusalem, over half a millennium removed, without any direct or firsthand connection historically, to the events in Jerusalem. Indeed, these 40 words find no literary connection to the first century at all, for they were written by a man who had no firsthand knowledge of the New Testament, for it had not yet been translated into the Arabic language. I refer, of course, to Surah 4:157 of the Qur'an, which reads,
And because of their saying: "We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger (rasool)." They slew him not nor crucified him, but it was made to appear to them, and those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.
Shabir Ally has admitted, in a debate in 2004, that this text is, in fact, key to his understanding of the issue of the crucifixion of Jesus. I shall, of course, leave it to Shabir to explicate his own views on this text, but for the moment I wish to make sure my assertion here is fully understood. I realize the Muslims in the audience do not believe these to be the words of Muhammad, but that they are the words of Allah. The Muslims in the audience this evening may even be tempted to be offended when I disagree with these words, and in fact assert that these words are false, erroneous, and that they are based upon ignorance of the Scriptural teaching. It cannot be any secret that a Christian who understands Islamic teaching and yet remains a Christian does not believe Muhammad was a prophet. There is nothing to be accomplished in glossing over our differences. May I point out that if Shabir Ally is right, then those I honor as apostles and prophets are actually false teachers and promoters of idolatry. Shabir has made it plain that he blames the Apostle Paul for in essence hi-jacking Jesus (who, according to Muslims, was himself a Muslim), supplanting the original followers of Jesus, and replacing the simple message of Jesus, found today only in the Qur'an, with the false and blasphemous teaching that Jesus is the Son of God and that He died for the sins of the world. We should not minimize the fact that we are asked by our Muslim friends to believe that the New Testament is hopelessly corrupt, the gospel is false, and the worship of Jesus amounts to the unforgivable sin of shirk. If the Muslim is tempted to be offended at the assertion that Muhammad was ignorant of the biblical record, written in a language he could not understand, and that hence he made errors in his teachings, the Christian has significantly more reason to experience temptation to offense at the necessary results of Islamic teachings. But I, for one, did not come here this evening to feign offense at the Islamic denials of my own faith. I am here to lay these issues out on the table and to shine the bright light of truth upon them, a light available only when both sides come to the table and honestly lay out their differences.
This is a key issue. It's on this that Christianity rests and is this that Islam most especially denies. This make Islam and Christianity antithetical to one another. I think that this can't be ignored or swept under the rug. And I have yet to hear anyone show that both views can be compatible with each other. They both can't be true. Give that as much as anyone can tell, history shows beyond doubt that Jesus was crucified. The Bible agrees with that historical fact. The Qur'an denies it. They both can't be true.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_scg7uhFjvhr6gOp-KZdmfdgq32vt4sl1TJ7F07SvhLFhEIIhvgfdlhoKDRh49u_MMVuCMdn65JPNg4nDNsRsAb0ozM2XVsE8bsxtpiIeOQQLOBYZP1WhbOms6pWmK_mwnmJq7A35-r-FlW_QSHMb79=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_v1uBAgOpkvoVzCBbT4td5iL3KI3fCQlStSGJrvqRmi_7ZEouBsABr9EsA1g9xny6cq1SqXlTCoWWf8vOkcW7nE_C860AXdqeYG90vhaGD0ICYzAYnHpkU3FYuASTIHDnyh9L9dm6QWvfyJZK-iuIQ=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_u0fbNxJHN3lIk8KsXf6e4xwF5waTZsNEYf3hszRxcIvs291TNvlO2KnVkZFRrfshglakQ9rs-CYsU2EAFp-v83dyg_YmPNsR8UvB9E8gHbmvVgN6YewRsgVzgoYFjmF_OLrlAyPr_OgUe_aQivJpQ=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tD22EIMyDvm8qACN_dVGkcmsj7vHktKAjnKGlBlfSRmEsTQWE5EHNKnokDXbZAPjELLcLTGcQpNEs3EH2uJyJ68vFKhv7nEojW8EEq7Myc2_o8Yj0X9Fxglmq404w_8balL-Z4ReTdwx_s888e3T1R=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sBvnsYmhsFXgsI734SZrekWPLVZGhC1dYK3u_ikzE9RtO9NXwntvCHd2g7c23RKZ-vXM_ZRfjiZ0ME4cSkMlD0RoId4W115K5edQxhLVhtX2BjzU9H8TrL4j0tl5Tw9TrVJjPUTFZZLllDYkn9wjJI=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vAVeIlZXXHgYbW7QywFqjTJFBhpd7Wdg9wGGerdGqy6h_E8x7MLTdFUXxdtaLL6nuZiikLIG9JFxnw_aL_ZW4LjtJoJ8l8kgU41x3aRQGcuNu4wjMc3k0V6CmrpRvn4x-YOxqnV5_9EdyJ0l9dxQKQ=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vWtDIsgh2XxszWRSUOTHSnSWMZ7y6tZTQB12iERQhfA9607__nxtXRl81sZq92oPWFuUiAyCp-wHrAdpRbgLhVl7U2h-HtepSA1nN5IYjdVNyuvK6_bgmRrBQ8SIuwrKK54qnMLfPWMqd5vy-smL8=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uKh6K0uDY9CmgjLy4AupQruCUAVplKA-es6wItfSa8xKiQegD9RzJSoOieQq1QFzrs1EmUqrNSviE73jF1Kzgt1T3gKHAB3pxVegcwtvupeEwPStk-VGZil2Z531y9Rhae_FJlikKKh-C9CJZ_-Gk=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uz_dXrVWjkdV2aoBF5kHQfhF6q06wuUjZzVGkJ_iwfVMqIKQWMvInxvhGdrpSJNn27qAB2AmwDI0N1FvTNv1OtvE7YPujb-SrMO2P6F7gfl3CBWvEUGMRyxtv9vZK8ZwGSypvEkLXyMOas9pkU6MmW=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_ulkAX8gX5Z-GFaNpjGHDRXF21H0siiYR5bO0chIbEPMdxvz6tEgpi5JprP_yefGq56kz9cghg0IDz9b9tf_1TsdBDR8pv9bB9XQKHp-0c0kWrUuQ2jzZICOfnmqOW_6kD7ltL30BwsQXjzKIKEpyU=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vjm9lNPmJ3UJoNbhcCjEeOBJwScbUyT1GnUxyh2IIzvHfvjy34cgwGnofpP3r5acaIqN4HBv5KlpLk1jc6N1yzqpd7ei6IfmozOK61NUISepUrkQFyTZWGt3GGguUA12k6M2ikhWANiDtjqNIvf0NQ=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_v-6HCTTXUZpZLsolyfR8-Uy14mhKpMmpP0IjzY3Y9Q-q5rbfmOJj3BpEBIQ9DWDv86yA0m8WPrb3BK_f_9lsj_3f3YbkFcZW6MlxkG9Y_9qKFxX0RhZJYsotYE-bpkmAsRtMW0_UKk3o5ZeXNNupTO=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_ttPO_Ctyy_S2uZq0b-KVmcgZ_upEs_fvIJr8RYGxVNozzp1mKu8ciPWgC-7AKR13Zui-JvWervimOL4P90HwMfUXkhToQnePotg7hqY6UMrvW0gPvYADgYVlRD_05y1thmXij58jgU0yfGEf7le-Y=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vUHBC1tkxB_SdnHVfKBP3DdaXo29qKcMtaRlWFvsaY_cL_1DxdeSee7pb_XOD9l-46BINtK2su8c99N8Og0_DZZ5Y7fSzGZDlqhkXBscUssMcQN1XnB_7pB8mFZfV2foNmmfMR0DPmywlF1itUPO_d=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tORuIJNdxuGbo6TPnhnPJl3PZg4HjZuQjoBrg-J-6m6qdxbHwMOJv6Iy5ATRcruK5OeVWM9OCcu6aejSpxAndtsksPOjq5GUh97Y08r-pzj8MWbXkZ1Wg9S0OGIMqWwpoD4-k0FY3Me1V8AKKFGmw=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_ti3881ZmwRRmSYtatSO6Arc1aaCztnFATAyfLFup_M56thhRuxBcavCqUMWeo9xNWcbQqcUdsGio7gzJwllXdMOo_DNJLRp0vhvJgQj5h-xz1AXV1ncEiB5ZXXlWZgyESUXnB3PRN3cpVl5ZWviKQr=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_thgpXzvcj-WQrVGa7IJyW-lNfeut3L22pvZdTRgqJi2gAZTxz7quHcIwgVZZdFDSTmRewLm9ayTZXmjeqocPlI9LU-yr9oO7BwL-djQWbCfd2VKa-BouVtoaUBO5Rwy-dP0gode2Q1wssWiFD_UKPV=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vBLHoBt6u_Nw65KbveFLF92RtzG8IagNA7TAxMOKQFx3fC5jI-nZBq8waoHckzxwCufdiNwUZCB19Uin8k8vVJ1gDFn9zkuyWGITQJkzyjMOxhofWkJLfAPZTZKLRerwR-lHi7F60i7IXvcgPG2k3T=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vSpXkumXdlIhdzgHryRjeThkuGWArbeUmRWJdPlNtXrUqyhQvPJuV7_UcBglclNHzuy5It4eRRYDxr0XikF1MYAucuIhYycC4O6r78K7mbyeEdc6r_IQ-h4oQbkOiGM30pfDQJG3YuCy1LwFJv4S3J=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_so2XqLB4VAGD_ckQcn3zmNMWqMN_OnWYezI0D3waN5N10beVDxQmb7-qGbW3UcDtKZudepFPpg3IkpO9txOyRADycmXgb-TClKhZ5Ynh7zyCCMfp9pUeWJX_97jFAabY2hqYIAdohHgOKq_hNHzZTX=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sfwT_Oil6zOASE1Ca2NLAb3Ql4JQNH-hOYxeuAHyN_BxW6IlVCzI1eZjsw3uoe3pgAPx0kyj1bWR9cZFe9R5QXVppvAkff_xALBxE-AzIV06reEqZTNf9wpZiEz_U4oA0WIVUsJqTZ2TQzEi57KZA=s0-d)