Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Reply to Marcus Mcelhany: "Why Didn't They Know"


I recently responded to a post asking the question why the disciples did not know Jesus was going to be resurrected. thegrandverbalizer19posted the original post and has been gracious enough to write a response! I am grateful because it helps me understand what Muslims believe. My responses are in red and bolded.


Last week I posted an article done by a former Christian now skeptic Farrel Till entitled 'Why Didn't The Disciples of Jesus Know This'.


The respected Pastor Marcus Mcelhany has given a reply to the article here:


Before I began my reply to his thoughts about the article I just want to say that I think the web sitehttp://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com entitled “What Had Happened Was” is very interesting and useful for all. The respected Pastor has lots of videos of articles on the issue of polemics, apologetic and of general interest to all. His web site by the way is also much more beautiful and organized than my own! The links given at the bottom of every article are very well selected to help the reader to navigate to other post of interest. I would like to say to the respected Pastor Mcelhany that I hope that he is able to work across Christian denominational lines as well as working with Muslims on issues of common concern to us all.

Many of these issues concern but are not excluded too illegal immigration, inner city crime, youth development programs, racial harmony, environmental awareness, educational development and any such programs that produce fruits that everyone can benefit from. So with that I wish the respected Pastor Mcelhany his wife and family a blessed ministry and future.


I appreciate the kind words and respect thegrandverbalizer19 have for my blog. I like his blog too and I think it's very important.  I just need to make a correction at this point. I'm not a pastor.  I have a wonderful pastor and attend church regularly. I've also gotta be honest the links at the bottom of the post are auto generated. The software just does a great job. I'd suggest thegrandverbalizer19 add it to his blog. It's free! I am more than willing to work across denominational lines and with other faiths whereever I don't need to compromise the Gospel.

Now on to my observation about his comments concerning my post.

The Pastor states:

Contention 1: No where in the Old Testament is there a dying and rising Messiah inferred or referred. I think everyone would have to admit that if i can fine one reference not referenced to in the article I've killed the argument. Wait for it. Isaiah 53 states!”

It seems to me that the pastor is trying to make a case around a non existent point. For example if one carefully reads the original article no where does it say that the Messiah is not even 'inferred or referred' to.

What was actually stated in the article was this,

One could search the OT scriptures until doom's day, and he would find nothing written about a Messiah who would rise from the dead on the third day. One will find nothing in the OT scriptures about a risen Messiah, period!”

It is a curiosity why the pastor would postulate the two words inferred or referred. This seems to indicate that the pastor understands that the arguments for a Messiah that would rise from the dead on the third day are indeed weak; therefore one needs the ability to 'infer' and 'refer'.


I'm glad thegrandverbalizer19 brought this up because I want to be clear and if  is thought that I think arguing for Old Testament proof of a Messiah that would rise from the dead then I have been less than clear.  I was merely trying to say that the original article in question was saying that there is no proof in the Old Testament of Messiah rising from the dead.

Again when we look at the claim of the pastor that, “I think everyone would have to admit that if i can fine one reference not referenced to in the article I've killed the argument” it doesn't seem to hold.


My argument was that the article said that there are no references to the Messiah dying and rising again. I was only attempting to point to one such case that shows that the Messiah would die and rise again contrasted to the idea that there are none. Contention 1 dies because there is more than no reference to Messiah dying and rising.

The article also did not contain the standard arguments contained in Hosea 6 and Jonah. This does not mean that you bring a reference from Isaiah 53 and the argument has been 'killed'. This is quite hasty.


I was only picking one such example. thegrandverbalizer19 gives us 2 more. . Jesus himself points out that Jonah being in the belly of the fish for 3 days was a sign of his burial - therefore Jesus was saying that Jonah's experience really happen. 

However, when we look at Isaiah 53 the 'Suffering Servant' passage. It seems we have some difficulties to address.


Here is where the rubber really meets the road. Does Isaiah 53 really talk about Messiah dying and rising? Let's walk through the text with thegrandverbalizer19. He used the King James Version but let's compare "problem verses" it with Hebrew, Septuagint, NIV, and NASB.

1Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?

2For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

3He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

5But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

6All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.

8He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

9And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

10Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

11He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

12Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Comments: First off it should be noted that the word Messiah is no where to be found any where within the text of this passage. It it was you can guarantee the Christians would have already advanced this claim. It simply is not there. Next you can see the word 'WAS' peppered throughout the text. This shows that what ever incident is being referenced is in the past tense 'was'.



Here is a great answer:


Sometimes it is claimed that the messianic prophecies cited by Christians are in the past tense. Therefore, it is said, they cannot refer to a future, coming Messiah.
This is an invalid argument. There is no such thing as "tense" in biblical Hebrew. (Modern Hebrew, on the other hand, does have tenses.) Biblical Hebrew is not a "tense" language. Modern grammarians recognize that it is an "aspectual" language. This means that the same form of a verb can be translated as either past, present, or future depending on the context and various grammatical cues. The most well known grammatical cue is the "vav-consecutive" that makes an imperfective verb to refer to the past.
Therefore it is wrong to say that Isaiah 53 or other prophecies are in the "past tense." Biblical Hebrew has no tenses. There are many examples of what is wrongly called the "past tense" form (properly called "the perfective" or "perfect") being used for future time.
This fact was recognized by the medieval commentators as well as by modern grammarians, as shown by the following citations.
Read the full article Hebrew Tenses

Here are some problems that Jews have pointed out to the Christians about the Isaiah 53 passage.

Isaiah tells us that the Servant will be universally despised and rejected (53:3). While this has certainly been true for the Jewish people, the Christian Bible describes Jesus as immensely popular (Luke 2:52, 4:14-15, Mark 3:8-9, etc.).


Jesus popular? What about Matt 27:20-26


20But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed.
 21"Which of the two do you want me to release to you?" asked the governor.
      "Barabbas," they answered.
 22"What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?" Pilate asked.
      They all answered, "Crucify him!"
 23"Why? What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate.
      But they shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!"
 24When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!"
 25All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!"
 26Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.


What about John 6: 60-71? Jesus went from more than 5000 followers to 12 and one of them would be a traitor!
  60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"
 61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."
 66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
 67"You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve.
 68Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."
 70Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" 71(He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)

The Christian messianic notion is based upon a subtle mistranslation. Isaiah 53:5 does not say, "He was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities", which could convey a vicarious suffering. Rather, the text properly translated reads, "He was wounded from our transgressions, crushed from our iniquities." This certainly does not convey that the Servant suffered to atone for the sins of others, but rather that the Servant suffered as a result of the sinfulness of others. This distinction is crucial!


I find it interesting that all of Isaiah 53:5 was not fully quoted


But he was pierced for our transgressions,
       he was crushed for our iniquities;
       the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
       and by his wounds we are healed.

"the punishment that brought us piece"?  "by his wounds we are healed"? Of course the servant would suffer for the sinfulness of others...us!

The future course of history only saw a rise in Jesus’ stock. Isaiah’s Servant is to be rewarded with long life and many children (53:10). This was certainly not the fate of Jesus who died young and childless.


Not only that but please have a very good look at verse 8 of the passage and the deception that is involved with it.


So what about vs  8-10?


8 By oppression  and judgment he was taken away.
       And who can speak of his descendants?
       For he was cut off from the land of the living;
       for the transgression of my people he was stricken. 
 9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
       and with the rich in his death,
       though he had done no violence,
       nor was any deceit in his mouth.
 10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
       and though the LORD makes  his life a guilt offering,
       he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
       and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

If you read verse 10 the way thegrandverbalizer19 is suggesting then you have a conflict with verse 8. And since verse 9 refers to the servant's death and guilty of no wrong, it doesn't makes sense to understand verse 10 without a resurrection - rising from the dead.  Verse 10 also uses the term "guilt offering". As for offspring, it can't be referring to literal children because that would destroy verse 8.


The missionary’s greatest difficulty is posed by Isaiah’s declaration that the suffering Servant is actually a group of people, and not an individual ("…as a result of the transgression of my people, they were afflicted." 53:8).


By the way I am well aware that many Jews says that the chapter refers to the nation of Israel and not a single man. I reject this because if it were a nation and this already took place then there would be no more Jews - no descendants. No human being - Jew, Gentile, or Muslim is not guilty of violence or deceit. This can't be the right interpretation.

53:8 "From dominion and judgment he was taken away." Note the correct translation of the Hebrew. The Christians are forced to mistranslates, since - by Jesus' own testimony - he never had any rights to ruler-ship or judgment, at least not on the "first coming." See, e.g., Jn. 3:17; Jn. 8:15; Jn. 12:47; Jn. 18:36.


I'm not sure what is meant here. I agree that Jesus chose not to exercise his kingly prerogatives but not that he had none. None of those scriptures cited that Jesus did not have the right or Judgment.  Remember God alone can forgive sins and Jesus forgave sins. Verse 8 is referring to the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus.

53:11 "With his knowledge the righteous one, my Servant, will cause many to be just." Note again the correct translation: the Servant will cause many to be just, he will not "justify the many." The Jewish mission is to serve as a "light to the nations" which will ultimately lead the world to a knowledge of the one true God, this both by example (Deut. 4:5-8; Zech. 8:23) and by instructing the nations in God's Law (Isa. 2:3-4; Micah 4:2-3).


Again what about the whole verse!



After the suffering of his soul,
       he will see the light of life [a] and be satisfied [b] ;
       by his knowledge [c] my righteous servant will justify many,
       and he will bear their iniquities.


He will bear our sins! This is special more than just showing the way to God....Jesus carried our sins and served as our guilt offering so that we don't have to bear our own sin. We can't.


Christian mistranslation of Isaiah 53:8


Really? Let's examine it.

8He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

Jewish translation of Isaiah 53:8

8By oppression and judgment he was taken away, and with his generation who did reason? for he was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due.


I like the Jewish translation. It says that Jesus died for God's people and we deserved the strike. Not the servant. 

Christian mistranslation of Isaiah 53:5

5But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Jewish translation of Isaiah 53:5

5 But he was wounded because of our transgressions, he was crushed because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed.

Christian mistranslation of Isaiah 53:11

11He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

Jewish translation of Isaiah 53:11

11Of the travail of his soul he shall see to the full, even My servant, who by his knowledge did justify the Righteous One to the many, and their iniquities he did bear.

My sincere advise to everyone reading this is to read a good Jewish translation of the TNCH what the Christians call the 'Old Testament'. Do not rely upon the Septuagint which is the Holy Spirit's favorite. Instead rely upon the original Hebrew text.


I agree that looking at the Hebrew is good. And we should! I just don't see what the mistranslations are? The text says the same thing no matter what translation (if it is a good one) we look at. I hope that thegrandverbalizer19 will make this part of his post clearer. Where are discrpancies that he sees.

I just want to know on what consistent basis do we take some passages of Isaiah 53 literally and some passages we don't take literally? For example the fact that it clearly states that he shall see his seed. Than this is taken to mean spiritual children? On what consistent basis do we do this?


I answered this one above. Verse 10 happens after the resurrection so it can't be talking about literal children - and don't forget vers 8 says that erhe will be no children. 

For example even if the passage did contain the word Messiah how do we know all the words that speak about suffering, and death are not to be taken literally.

Example:

1 Corinthians 15:31 I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.


Context...Context...context....is how you know. 

Again on what consistent basis do we interpret some text of Isaiah 53 in a literal way and some we do not.
Finally I do not think the respected pastor made his case because again the challenge that the skeptical laid forth was this,

One could search the OT scriptures until doom's day, and he would find nothing written about a Messiah who would rise from the dead on the third day. One will find nothing in the OT scriptures about a risen Messiah, period!”

So even if we were able to find a scripture that says that a messiah will die, or that he will die and be raised in one day or even 2 days (which there are not any), this still does not disprove the clear challenge 'a Messiah who would rise from the dead on the third day'. The challenge still stands.


I think the challenge falls because the argument was that there are no texts that talk about a messiah dying and rising and I've demonstrated that Isaiah 53 does. I'd welcome the opportunity to look at more texts and further at Isaiah 53. 

Next the respected pastor attempts to justify the reason why the disciples didn't know. The pastor says,

Just because the disciples did not get it before they saw Jesus after the Resurrection does not invalidate the Bible. How does that follow. admittedly after 2000 years of hindsight it is difficult to understand why they did not see it since Jesus told them in lots of different ways at different times. I mean it wasn't a secret. we can't fault Simon Peter and the boys too much.”

I think what a person needs to do when they re-read the article that I posted from the skeptic is his very valid points. Why did the women understand why did the enemies of Jesus understand why did everyone understand except the disciples themselves? It's just plain odd. 
 Keep in mind that these are the same people who saw Jesus raise people from the dead, and feed 5000 people with a few loafs of bread and water, calmed the storm, walk on water, slay demons with his word among others. I mean he seems to have a pretty impressive track record. And as the pastor says above, “admittedly after 2000 years of hindsight it is difficult to understand why they did not see it since Jesus told them in lots of different ways at different times.”


Odd? yes...a contradiction? No. They were so fixated on who they thought Messiah was supposed to be they missed it until God revealed it to them.  The same is true today. They thoought that it was over. They were depressed and  dejected. Had I been in their shoes I doubt I would have seen it either. A better question is why do you believe or not believe? Saying "if it were true, they should have been waiting at the tomb Sunday morning"  hides a question. Where are you waiting? Are you at the tomb like the women or did you go back to your day job? I want to point out that the women when they went to the tomb did not expect to find it empty....they expected to give Jesus the last burial rites that they could not do before the Sabbath.

I will let the respected pastor post his comments here or give his reply on his web site and than insh'Allah (Allah-willing) I'll post the link of his rebuttal to the material above.

Thanks, I'll do the same.

In the end if Christ Jesus is what the Christians claim and say he is I pray that the God of Abraham open up our hearts to it and that all Muslims and Jews are lead to believe it. I also pray that if Jesus is as what the Qur'an claims I pray that the Jews and Christians have their hearts opened to accept it as the truth. In the end if no one budges from their respective positions I just pray that we all continue to work together, respect one another and strive to have a more just and harmonious society. Amen!



This is my prayer as well. We should be willing follow truth no matter where it takes us, I know God is in control and what He does is best! I like this music because it discusses these issue succinctly! Hazakim is a great group. I recommend all of their music



Get this widget | Track details | eSnips Social DNA





Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Reply to Marcus Mcelhany: "Why Didn't They Know"
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Debunking Loftus: Setting John Straight: Loftus Logic (Part 2)

Here is part 2 of making sense out of John W. Loftus' logic. This a great series!

Debunking Loftus: Setting John Straight: Loftus Logic (Part 2)

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Interview with Robert Price and John Loftus

I found six videos on YouTube in which Robert M. Price and John W. Loftus are interviewed. It was very interesting. I like looking at people's testimonies. How did they get to the point of thinking the way they do? They are apostates. People who claim to have been believers and now disavow Christianity. Why? What made them change their minds? These interviews begin to answer these questions. I have to say that neither of these men are unlikeable. It's nice to see Loftus in a relaxed public appearance in which he is not trying to win an argument.

According to Loftus, he lost his faith because he could not reconcile the Genesis account with what he understood from science. As far as Price, he just seemed to say that he looked at the evidence and was no longer persuaded that they were true.

I find that I disagree. Not because I'm a Christian but because I know that you can come to many different conclusions based on what you expect to find. I'd like to see if Loftus ever talked to Hugh Ross or Jay Richards. Did he ever discuss it with William Lane Craig? I don't know. But there seems to be an arrogance that says "I don't understand it therefore it must be wrong."

As for Price. The man is likable. And I admire the fact that he is willing to say publicly that he knows that the majority of his peers disagree with him but sticks to his conclusions. I disagree with him, but at least he is consistent with himself.




Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Monday, April 5, 2010

Dave Hunt on Romans 9: Tradition-Driven Eisegesis Once Again

Romans 9 exegesis has shown up on my blog before. IT confounds me how so many people can agree with how I read most of scripture except in this case! I'm also amazed by the attacks on James White's person and scholarship because I don't see how he is wrong in how he exegetes this text and most of scripture that I have followed him as he read and expounded on them. I'd be interested in hearing why the following text that White posted on his blog is incorrect.


The Berean Call put out their monthly newsletter a few days ago, and I could not help but noticing the following paragraph. If you are not intimately familiar with the argument of Romans 9, and especially its insistence that the choice of Jacob and the rejection of Esau was not in any way, shape, or form, based upon the actions of Jacob or Esau, foreseen or otherwise, but was instead based solely upon God's "purpose in election," you might wish to review the text before reading this tradition-laden means of getting around the text:

Regarding Romans 9:19, we know that it is not wise to single out one verse apart from full context. The issue of Jacob and Esau and their being loved or hated by God before their birth has occupied more than one discussion throughout history. If one confines the argument to portions of Romans 9, it does sound like God arbitrarily selects some for salvation and others for damnation, but Romans 9 does not occur in a vacuum, and the rest of Scripture furnishes the balance. God's foreknowledge enters into the equation at this point. Some theologians have stated that it would be accurate to translate the passage, "Jacob have I chosen, but Esau have I rejected." Specifically, in the case of Esau, the implication of "rejected" is a judgment based upon knowledge of his actions. God, who declares "the end from the beginning," (Isaiah 46:10) knew, before they were born, the course each child would take.


1) How many times people have rebelled against this truth over the course of church history is, of course, irrelevant to the biblical teaching itself.
2) Whenever you find someone (and Dave Hunt has made a living off of this) going to the "rest of Scripture" argument before exegeting the text in context, you know you have found someone's tradition.
3) Notice that in essence this paragraph admits that, contextually speaking, if you just let Romans 9 speak for Romans 9, it teaches God's sovereignty (misidentified as "arbitrary" when, in fact, it is based upon the good pleasure of God's will, His eternal purpose, which is anything but arbitrary).
4) Whenever you find anyone from the Berean Call citing un-named "scholars," beware. Remember, these are the same folks who drew from a Yahwist cult to try to get around Acts 13:48, suggesting that the first fifteen chapters of Acts were written in Hebrew!
5) There is no doubt that "chosen/rejected" is part of the meaning of the text, but there are plain, easily chosen words that have those meanings, and Paul did not use them. Loved and hated are words with meanings. People may not like what they mean, but that does not change their meaning.
So compare, then, the words of Scripture with the words of the Berean Call and remember, once again, the grave error enunciated by Dave Hunt nearly a decade ago now, "James, I have no traditions."

Scripture states: though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad---in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls---(Romans 9:11)


But the Berean Call says,

Specifically, in the case of Esau, the implication of "rejected" is a judgment based upon knowledge of his actions. God, who declares "the end from the beginning," (Isaiah 46:10) knew, before they were born, the course each child would take.


The result? Paul's entire argument is turned on its head. How much more plainly can the Apostle state "and had not yet done anything good or bad"? But, when wedded to a tradition that you refuse to see, even the plain words on the page cannot dissuade you from pursuing your goals. Another great example provided by the folks up at the Berean Call.


Dave Hunt on Romans 9: Tradition-Driven Eisegesis Once Again

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Black SuperHero Blog: Shades of Grey


Here is a great documentary about Racism in Comic books.



Shades of Grey - An Examination of Race Relations in Comic Books from jaystealth on Vimeo.




Black SuperHero Blog: Shades of Grey

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

My Easter 2010 Sermon - Director's Cut

April 4, 2010 I had the opportunity to preach as an official minister at my Church. It was a much different experience than teach Sunday School or any other time that I have ever spoken in public. It was Easter Sunday and thanks to my Pastor I realized that I can't do exactly what I would have normally do. I had to cut and condense what I had originally intended. I like to do power point slide presentations and I like to write out my thoughts in an ordered way and use these as a guide. Because I had to change a lot at the last minute, it didn't turn out as I expected but I think it turned out the way God wanted it to and what I was supposed to say was said.  I had no control and I was literally depending on God for what was coming out of my mouth. Fortunately, He never disappoints to do what is needed. Here is the document I wrote and the original slide presentation. I only used the first movie and the actual content of the presentation was abbreviated to just about 20 minutes.  This is my director's cut...much of this I can present later in another form. See the slides for the multimedia content and music track is at the end.


Easter 2010



Get this widget | Track details | eSnips Social DNA


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Does the Bible condone Rape?

In discussion the following assertion seems to always comes up when people want to object to the bible and morality it demands: The Bible Condones rape! It's usually made as if it is a fact and every educated person knows that it's true. It's usually made with an air of arrogance and pride as if it invites capitulation of everything Christians hold dear. It comes up so often I think it's a good idea to have a post of links to resources that explains why this is such a stupid statement. No need to reinvent the wheel - it's been refuted ad nauseum. Of course the Bible does not condone rape anymore than it condones adultery, slavery, lying, or stealing.

Third Millennium Ministries
http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/search/label/rape
atheism-essays-particular-to-rape

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Debunking Loftus: Setting John Straight: Loftus Logic (Part 1)

Atheist, John W. Loftus fancies himself a debunker of Christianity. "Lofty" aim, huh. Too bad he falls amusingly short. There is a competing blog dedicated to setting John Loftus straight. Someone must really love him in order to take the time...amusing as well. there has been a series of articles critiquing Loftus' logic.

Debunking Loftus: Setting John Straight: Loftus Logic (Part 1)
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Frank Pastore Show - Wed5pmHr_03-31-2010.mp3 (audio/mpeg Object)

This was an awesome radio debate on old earth and young earth creationism. I liked it enough. There was some interaction on the question that I have not posted before. I like Hugh Ross' approach best. The Bible and natural science must agree. If they don't then our understanding of one of them or both of them has to be flawed!

FrankPastoreShow-Wed5pmHr_03-31-2010.mp3 (audio/mpeg Object)
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

4 Little Girls (1997)

Back in 1997, Spike Lee did a documentary about the church bombing in Birmingham, AL during the Civil Rights Movement. The movie is amazing. Interviews are done and the those 4 girls really almost come back alive as they are remembered and celebrated for the sacrifices they and their families made. You cannot watch this with dry eyes.




4 Little Girls (1997)

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Sunday, April 4, 2010

YouTube - Fred Hammond - Celebrate (He Lives) - 2004


We sang this song at my church today


YouTube - Fred Hammond - Celebrate (He Lives) - 2004

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Why Didn't The Disciples of Jesus Know This?

As you probably know, I've been following a blog that compares Islamic and Christian issues from an Islamic standpoint. It has been real interesting. a recent post asks a fair question: Why didn't the disciples know that Jesus was going to be resurrected?  The blogger reposted an article from a skeptic. Two things are postulated. One the article's author repeats that no where does the Old Testament predict a dying and rising messiah. It's alleged that the fact that the disciples did not know expect Jesus to come back at first, although Jesus repeatedly told them, is grounds to throw out the whole story. Let's take both contentions one-at-a-time to see if they hold.

Contention 1: No where in the Old Testament is there  a dying and rising Messiah inferred or referred. I think everyone would have to admit that if i can fine one reference not referred to in the article I've killed the argument. Wait for it.  Isaiah 53 states!

 1 Who has believed our message
       and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
 2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
       and like a root out of dry ground.
       He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
       nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
 3 He was despised and rejected by men,
       a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
       Like one from whom men hide their faces
       he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
 4 Surely he took up our infirmities
       and carried our sorrows,
       yet we considered him stricken by God,
       smitten by him, and afflicted.
 5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
       he was crushed for our iniquities;
       the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
       and by his wounds we are healed.
 6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
       each of us has turned to his own way;
       and the LORD has laid on him
       the iniquity of us all.
 7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
       yet he did not open his mouth;
       he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
       and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
       so he did not open his mouth.
 8 By oppression [a] and judgment he was taken away.
       And who can speak of his descendants?
       For he was cut off from the land of the living;
       for the transgression of my people he was stricken. [b]
 9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
       and with the rich in his death,
       though he had done no violence,
       nor was any deceit in his mouth.
 10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
       and though the LORD makes [c] his life a guilt offering,
       he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
       and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.
 11 After the suffering of his soul,
       he will see the light of life [d] and be satisfied [e] ;
       by his knowledge [f] my righteous servant will justify many,
       and he will bear their iniquities.
 12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, [g]
       and he will divide the spoils with the strong, [h]
       because he poured out his life unto death,
       and was numbered with the transgressors.
       For he bore the sin of many,
       and made intercession for the transgressors.

Verse 11 says the Messiah "will see the light of life  and be satisfied;"  Sounds like rising from the dead to me.


Contention 2:  The disciples did not know about the Resurrection therefore the Resurrection did not happen. Just because the disciples did not get it before they saw Jesus after the Resurrection does not invalidate the Bible. How does that follow. admittedly after 2000 years of hindsight it is difficult to understand why they did not see it since Jesus told them in lots of different ways at different times. I mean it wasn't a secret. we can't fault Simon Peter and the boys too much. They had an expectation that failed to materialize so that they thought it was over. The fact that they went about preaching about the resurrection instead of taking up arms against the Romans is proof it happened. If you are going to project your own hopes on a man after  he dies, why would you change those expectations if you are trying to keep his memory alive? Sorry, but it does not make sense,  I mean lots of people understand that Jesus was claiming that He would be resurrected in the same body that he was buried in yet don't believe it. Why should Jesus' followers balk at first too?

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Why Didn't The Disciples of Jesus Know This?
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

YouTube - "Holy Animation!"



Here is another interpretation of Jesus' Resurrection.




YouTube - "Holy Animation!"
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

YouTube - Some Facts about Jesus Christ's Resurrection

Jesus really did rise from the dead, bodily, with all power in His hand!




YouTube - Some Facts about Jesus Christ's Resurrection

YouTube - The Passion of the Christ Last Scene


'Nuff Said!




YouTube - The Passion of the Christ Last Scene
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Apologetics 315: Sunday Quote: William Lane Craig on the Resurrection

Brain Auten has posted a great quote from William Lane Craig regarding the Resurrection. I love it.

"These three great facts--the resurrection appearances, the empty tomb, and the origin of the Christian faith--all point unavoidably to one conclusion: The resurrection of Jesus. Today the rational man can hardly be blamed if he believes that on that first Easter morning a divine miracle occurred."

- William Lane Craig, quoted from "Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ".

Check out his post for more great resources for learning about and defending the Resurrection.

Apologetics 315: Sunday Quote: William Lane Craig on the Resurrection
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

The Genesis Genealogies | Reasons To Believe

I found a great article about genealogies in the Bible. Many of us assume that they are complete  and this has led to many well-meaning people to assume that we can use the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 to calculate the age of the earth. This has led to the criticism that the Bible says the earth is 6000 years old which cannot be corroborated scientifically. This is huge. People use this to reject the Bible - a supposed contradiction with science. There is no contradiction. No where does the Bible say the earth is 6000 years old and in order to calculate the age of the earth you have to assume that the genealogies are complete and several other assumptions. The Bible does not give us enough information to figure out the age of the earth. Bottom line. Therefore to reject the Bible because some Christians think the earth is 2000 years old is stupid., The article explains genealogies in historical and cultural context very well.

The Genesis Genealogies | Reasons To Believe
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Saturday, April 3, 2010

The Jesus Movie



The Movie!


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Apologetics 315: Gary Habermas vs. Arif Ahmed Debate MP3 Audio

Brian Auten has a gain provided a valuable debate. In this one Gary Habermas again defends the resurrection. I'm begging to grow . I thought that it was weakness when Christian debates do not defend scripture when scripture is not the subject of the debate. Ahmed seemed to bait Habermas into trying to defend miracles in the Bible instead of really trying to stick to explaining why the Resurrection makes no sense. Hebermas debated well. I like him. I think his point is good: you can't just throw out an explanation just because it's not likely to you. Brian also pointed to a link containing videos of the debate. I can't easily stream them so I will just copy the links into this post.


Apologetics 315: Gary Habermas vs. Arif Ahmed Debate MP3 Audio









Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Egyptology News: Evidence for the Ten Plagues of Egypt at time of Ramesses II

I read a great article giving natural explanations for the 10 plagues leading to Israel's Exodus out of Egypt.

The Telegraph (Richard Gray)

Researchers believe they have found evidence of real natural disasters on which the ten plagues of Egypt, which led to Moses freeing the Israelites from slavery in the Book of Exodus in the Bible, were based.

But rather than explaining them as the wrathful act of a vengeful God, the scientists claim the plagues can be attributed to a chain of natural phenomena triggered by changes in the climate and environmental disasters that happened hundreds of miles away.

They have compiled compelling evidence that offers new explanations for the Biblical plagues, which will be outlined in a new series to be broadcast on the National Geographical Channel on Easter Sunday.

Archaeologists now widely believe the plagues occurred at an ancient city of Pi-Rameses on the Nile Delta, which was the capital of Egypt during the reign of Pharaoh Rameses the Second, who ruled between 1279BC and 1213BC.

The city appears to have been abandoned around 3,000 years ago and scientists claim the plagues could offer an explanation.

Climatologists studying the ancient climate at the time have discovered a dramatic shift in the climate in the area occurred towards the end of Rameses the Second's reign.
I don't have a problem with natural explanations for the plagues, but I don't think the explanation fits the evidence given in Exodus for two reasons; It does not explain why Goshen, where the Israelites,  did not experience the same plagues as the rest of Egypt. And two how do they account for the speed and near simultaneity of these events? The bottom line is Israelites did not free themselves, but God did it for them.

Egyptology News: Evidence for the Ten Plagues of Egypt at time of Ramesses II

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Resurrection Debate: William Lane Craig vs Robert Price

Robert Price does not believe Jesus was resurrected or that the Bible is reliable or trustworthy. However he seems like a nice guy and can't so easily be dismissed as a writer or a debater. Price is wrong on quite a few points but at least he is consistently wrong.  This is why I like this debate from 1999. William Lane Craig is an awesome scholar and a great debater. I think that Dr. Craig did a great job.  James White will be debating Price coming up soon.  He is reviewing this debate on his web cast March 23 and March 30.



http://www.bringyou.to/CraigPriceDebate.mp3
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Friday, April 2, 2010

Apologetics 315: Phil Fernandes vs. Robert Price Debate MP3 Audio - Is Jesus the Savior?

Here is a great debate from Apologetics 315. I think that this gave me more respect for Phil Fernandez. It took guts to go into such hostile territory: The Infidel Guy. The host was really biased towards Robert Price. Fernandez did great - clear and concise. Price does not believer the Bible is factually true. His arguments and Richard Carrier are similar. Price comes out nicely and he did not seem like horrible person. I found the whole thing very interesting. At the outset it seems like one who would deny Jesus' existence was crackpot, but Price is not easily dismissed. Price is wrong, but we can't just dismiss him. He twists scriptures and assumes that they can't be trusted.

Apologetics 315: Phil Fernandes vs. Robert Price Debate MP3 Audio - Is Jesus the Savior?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]