Islam and Christianity A Common Word: An Ancient Christian Art: Quoting Out of Context pt 3

Here is part 3 of my request to thegrandverbalizer's post on "quote mining".

(Matthew 2:23)“He shall be called a Nazorean”.

23

¹² He went and dwelt in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, "He shall be called a Nazorean."

Again a person can search their Bible from Genesis to Malachi until the day of judgment and you will find no such thing.

Again people will say Matthew says it was 'spoken' or 'said' not written. This argument does not work because this is the way that Matthew (or whomever) style of writing is. Next one is so amazing about a prophecy spoken or said that may not have ever been spoken or said. Again you just have to take it at face value which makes me all the more inspired to write my own Gospel as well.

More amazing is that it was supposed to be spoken through the prophet(s) plural. Yet we have not one shred of evidence either through the written or oral traditions about any such thing.

Again what does the foot note #12 say from the quote above? This is what the Christians say,

¹² [23] Nazareth . . . he shall be called a Nazorean: the tradition of Jesus' residence in Nazareth was firmly established, and Matthew sees it as being in accordance with the fore announced plan of God. The town of Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, and no such prophecy can be found there.The vague expression "through the prophets" may be due to Matthew's seeing a connection between Nazareth and certain texts in which there are words with a remote similarity to the name of that town. Some such Old Testament texts are Isaiah 11:1where the Davidic king of the future is called "a bud" (neser) that shall blossom from the roots of Jesse, and Judges 13:5, 7 where Samson, the future deliverer of Israel from the Philistines, is called one who shall be consecrated (a nazir) to God.

Source taken from (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew2.htm)

This is even worse than quote mining because here we have someone quoting something we have absolutely no proof of.

I agree trying to monkey around with history is a poor explanation. One that just say that that Matthew was quoting an oral tradition just does not work. This i sn't an example of quote mining because there is no statement like this in the Old Testament. I like this explanation better:

It seems, then, that Matthew was not at all "mistaken" in this Old Testament reference, although he was certainly not exegeting Isaiah. He was identifying the obscure Galilean town of Nazareth in which Jesus grew up with the OT reference to a netzer God would raise up to bring justice and righteousness and peace to His people. In other words, this was the means Matthew used to identify Jesus, even as a child returning to an obscure town in remote Galilee ("can any good thing come from Nazareth?" -John 1:47), as the "King" from the line of David whom God had finally raised up to restore His people.

It is no coincidence that it is Matthew more than the other Gospels in which the idea of the Kingdom of God and the reign of God through His King finds particular prominence. This is Matthew’s way of confessing Jesus to be the Messiah (the Christ)! But he is not doing it historically, or geographically, as we so often assume, nor is he simply connecting predictive prophecy with its later fulfillment. He is doing it theologically, by using the similarity in sound between a word in Hebrew and a word in Aramaic, as he is (probably) writing in Greek! He is not interpreting Isaiah directly; He is bearing witness to Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah, the Branch!

Nazareth and The Branch Matthew 2:23 and Interpretation of the Old Testament

To give you another example that proves that the idea of a double application fulfillment is bogus but simply that Matthew (if that is who it was) made factual errors in the text that cannot and should be attributed to the Holy Spirit.

Where is the example?

Now a very adept Christian could turn around and say well doesn't your Qur'an do the exact same thing? It quote mines from the previous revelations and you accept this as true?

First I want to say that I am not aware of any place the Qur'an ever quotes the previous scriptures ad verbatim. What this comes down to is a presupposition by both the Muslim and the Christian that their respective text or revelation is true. However as we will see in this next context you have Matthew again quote mining and this time making a huge flaw when doing so.

The Greek Septuagint the Holy Spirit's favorite Translation and Quote Mining.

To realize how big a problem these issues are have you not considered why apologist James White is slowly backing away in subtle ways from the issue of rather the Bible is inerrant?

Please see my full article here: http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/01/james-white-backs-away-from-biblical.html

Any how this is a rather interesting quote from apologist James White

“Consider the example of the New Testament. Did the New Testament writers display a modernistic view the validity and transmission of the Old Testament text?”

Well James that would be hard to ascertain considering that you quoted from N.T Wright in a recent debate with Shabir Allay here: http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2009/11/did-jesus-die-as-willing-sacrifice.html that we don't even know who the New Testament writers are and it doesn't matter!

So how are you going to ascertain the view of someone you don't even know? Is FBI scale forensics really necessary for the common person to have faith in the word of God?

I'm confused is he saying that Dr. James R. white does nto agree that the New Testament writers are known to us? I read the king James Only Controversy and therein Dr. White said no such thing but the opposite. You don't know Muhammad. You don't know what he was like when he was happy. Or when he was sad. You can't say you know him or any of the men that memorized and/or transcribed the Qur'an. By your thinking...how do you know you can trust them?

“Or did they recognize that God had preserved the text in such a way that they could quote from the Greek Septuagint (the text known to their target audience) and still identify this translation as the Word of God?Surely, their use of the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament raises all sorts of challenging, difficult questions.”

I'm gonna assume that this quote is also from Dr. White.

I'll give one example to show just how difficult and challenging the questions raise can be. (Matthew 21:1-11)

1

¹ When they drew near Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples,

2

saying to them, "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find an ass tethered, and a colt with her.³ Untie them and bring them here to me.

3

And if anyone should say anything to you, reply, 'The master has need of them.' Then he will send themat once."

4

⁴ This happened so that what had been spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled:

5

"Say to daughter Zion, 'Behold, your king comes to you, meek and riding on an ass, and on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.'"

6

The disciples went and did as Jesus had ordered them.

7

⁵ They brought the ass and the colt and laid their cloaks over them, and he sat upon them.

8

⁶ The very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road, while others cut branches from the trees and strewed them on the road.

9

The crowds preceding him and those following kept crying out and saying: "Hosanna ⁷ to the Son of David; blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord; hosanna in the highest."

10

And when he entered Jerusalem the whole city was shaken ⁸ and asked, "Who is this?"

11

And the crowds replied, "This is Jesus the prophet, ⁹ from Nazareth in Galilee."

Once again Matthew was quote mining and this time it was disastrous. It is disastrous on several accounts. Who ever wrote the gospel of Matthew misunderstood the original Hebrew text. Instead the Greek Septuagint was relied upon resulting in the mistaken belief that the so called “prophecy” was about Jesus riding upon two donkeys!

Again look what Christian scholars have had to say about the matter.

⁴ [4-5] The prophet: this fulfillment citation is actually composed of two distinct Old Testament texts,Isaiah 62:11(Say to daughter Zion) and Zechariah 9:9. The ass and the colt are the same animal in the prophecy, mentioned twice in different ways, the common Hebrew literary device of poetic parallelism. That Matthew takes them as two is one of the reasons why some scholars think that he was a Gentile rather than a Jewish Christian who would presumably not make that mistake (see Introduction).

⁵ [7] Upon them: upon the two animals; an awkward picture resulting from Matthew's misunderstanding of the prophecy.

The source is from: (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew28.htm)

What misunderstanding? Are we to believe that his misunderstanding is divinely inspired? Did the Holy Spirit inspire this misunderstanding?

No problem here. Jesus was riding the colt and the colt's mother walked ahead leading the colt. This was standard in that day for a colt that had never been ridden. Matthew was not wrong. The Septuagint is not wrong. The Hebrew is not wrong.

Not only that but did Jesus really say the following:

“Jesus sent two disciples,

2

saying to them, "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find an ass tethered, and a colt with her.³ Untie them and bring them here to me.”

Since it is shown that Matthew (or whom ever wrote this) made such a huge error do Christians really expect us Muslims to believe that the above conversation really took place? Is not literary imagination at work here?

I've just shown that Matthew is not wrong. And anyone including Muslims should believe the text.

Since this is an obvious case of a person (Matthew?) quote mining and making a huge mistake in the process it makes one wonder. How many other instances are words put in the mouth of Jesus?

Did Jesus really say the following? (Matthew 28:19-20)

¹¹ Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

19

Go, therefore, ¹² and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,

20

teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you ¹³ And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

On what consistent basis do we accept that Matthew makes a mistake in one area of his 'inspired' Gospel but is completely trustworthy in other areas?

This why Biblical inerrancy is important. If any part is wrong we should throw the whole thing out. However you have failed to demonstrate error.

Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion!
Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem!
See, your king [a] comes to you,
righteous and having salvation,
gentle and riding on a donkey,
even a colt, the foal of a donkey. (Zechariah 9:9)

Conclusion: You have seen me quote the Bible and quote from Christian scholars to prove my point. I have not used Muslim scholars who quote Christian sources and than selectively pick and choose.

The whole of the Christian faith rest upon the craft of Christians who have mastered the art of quote mining the Old Testament to give Christianity a feel of legitimacy and air of freshness to it.

Nice try. But those are not errors.

The whole of the Christian faith rest upon literary imagination and oral traditions which have no chains of transmission in them. The fact that these problems rest with in the most ancient Greek text the Christians possess is also further evidence that there is no escaping any of the points raised.

Most of the so called 'prophecies' that Christians like to talk about were not even prophecies in their original context to begin with. This whole idea of a 'double application fulfillment is also a ruse invented by Christian apologist who can see the problems presented above.

I have answer each of the points you have raised without using "double application". Do you have anymore? There are hundreds of prophecies in the Old Testament. I'm more than willing to one-by-one if you are.

As apologist James White has told Christians time and time again and I quote,

“if you’re asking the gospels to be an MP3 recording than your using a very unrealistic example of what should be there.” Source:

http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2009/11/did-jesus-die-as-willing-sacrifice.html

As we all know the only thing you would expect from an Mp3 recording is the exact recording of what you recorded. However, as we have seen Christianity is the product of ingenious minds who were masters of their craft.

The edifice of Christianity stands or falls upon the art of quote mining.

An attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort itsintended meaning

I agree with the Quote from Dr. White, but I don't understand how you get from him saying that the the New Testament was never meant to be a record on the same level as a an digital recording to accusing the New Testament writers of being spin doctor??!! How does the at work? Do you really think that is what Dr. White was saying? Having listening to him on this subject in context many times I can tell you he doesn't mean that at all.

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: An Ancient Christian Art: Quoting Out of Context

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: An Ancient Christian Art: Quoting Out of Context part 2

Here is part 2

Than it gets worse (Matthew 27:9-10) another example of quote mining.

9

Then was fulfilled what had been said through Jeremiah the prophet, ⁵"And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of a man with a price on his head, a price set by some of the Israelites,

10

and they paid it out for the potter's field just as the Lord had commanded me."

Even the foot note to the New American Bible had this interesting piece of information to say.

⁵ [9-10] Cf Matthew 26:15. Matthew's attributing this text to Jeremiah is puzzling, for there is no such text in that book, and the thirty pieces of silver thrown by Judas "into the temple" (Matthew 27:5) recall rather Zechariah 11:12-13. It is usually said that the attribution of the text to Jeremiah is due to Matthew's combining the Zechariah text with texts from Jeremiah that speak of a potter (Jeremiah 18:2-3), the buying of a field (Jeremiah 32:6-9), or the breaking of a potter's flask at Topheth in the valley of Ben-Hinnom with the prediction that it will become a burial place (Jeremiah 19:1-13).

"So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prized at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD." (Zechariah 11:12-13)

Source taken from (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew27.htm)

But what do the Christians do? Instead of being honest and acknowledging this for what it is:quote mining they come up with all kinds of 'could have' 'should have' and 'perhaps' scenarios.

One of the things they say is that Matthew was 'loosely' quoting Jeremiah. Go to any apologetic web site and see it for yourself! Quoting loosely indeed! The other amazing thing they try and push on the gullible masses and one of my personal favorites is the following response.

Well you see Matthew doesn't say Jeremiah wrote anything it simply says he spoke. If this is the case where is the proof? What is so amazing about a so called 'prophecy' if no one was expecting it to be a prophecy in the first place.

This just opens a can of worms. Maybe I could become inspired by the Holy Spirit too and write my own Gospel account. Maybe I could also quote things from Moses, and Jeremiah and Ezekiel to and simply say 'Hey! The Holy Spirit inspired me that they said this'.

No! This is not the case my dear readers. This is another horrible example of whom ever wrote the Gospel of Matthew quote mining from the TNCH or 'Old Testament'.

Here is a better answer based on Jewish first century customs:

Some claim it is a mistake that Matthew attributes the quotation in Matthew 27:9-10 to Jeremiah instead of Zechariah.
Most questions of this sort usually find answers in the footnotes of the common Study Bibles.
For example the NIV Study Bible has this footnote on Mt. 27:9

Jeremiah. The quotation that follows seems to be a combination of Zec 11:12-13 and Jer 19:1-13 (or perhaps Jer 18:2-12 or Jer 32:6-9). But Matthew attributes it to the major prophet Jeremiah, just as Mark (1:2-3) quotes Mal 3:1 and Isa 40:3 but attributes them to the major prophet Isaiah.

This is actually pretty common in the Bible. The NIV Quest Study Bible adds possible another thought:

... it was customary to allude to an entire section of the Bible by the name of the first book in that section. It may be that in Matthew's day Jeremiah was the first of the prophetic books.

If a more in depth discussion is needed, I would recommend the valuable book Hard Sayings of the Bible, which discusses this passage on pages 399-400. Another contemporary reply, is Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Zondervan, 1982), p. 345. However, some might prefer the older approach used by E. W. Bullinger in The Companion Bible (ca. 1916; reprinted in the U.S. by Zondervan, 1974), at Appendix 161, which deals with these passages at length. "When Critics Ask" by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe also has a short discussion on it. (Copmmentary on Matthew 27:9)

I want to point out that in Jesus' time, 30 pieces of silver was the common average wage for a year. Zechariah say that this is the price of a man. Also in the first century they would not have looked at this as a mistake, like one might in our culture of precision copies and communication. His Jewish audience knew that Matthew was referring to zachariah not to Jeremiah. They did that often. Sometimes referring to a "minor" prophet by the name of a "major" prophet. Remember "minor" vs "major" refers to the leng6th of the book not the prophet's value!

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: An Ancient Christian Art: Quoting Out of Context

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: An Ancient Christian Art: Quoting Out of Context pt 1

Thegrandverbalizer has written a piece that demands a response because it is well-written. My responses are in red This part 1.

Quoting out of context or "quote mining" is a logical fallacy and type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.

Source:Engel, Morris S., With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies (1994), pp. 106-107ISBN 0-312-15758-4

I agree with this definition.

Many times we as Muslims see our Christian brothers and sisters claiming that we quote their scriptures "out of context". We as Muslims also see that Christians many times quote our Qur'an and narrations attributed to the Prophet Muhammed (saw) "out of context".

I must concur because he is correct. It doesn't matter how careful he or I are in not misrepresenting anyone because there are many "Christians" and Muslims who don't care.

I would like to humbly suggest to my Christian brothers and sisters to read this article carefully. It is my contention that Christianity as a faith today would not exist were it not for the deft craft of quote mining done by writers of the New Testament to pass Christianity off as something legitimate.

Um..I've got to disagree. The writers of the New Testament did not quote mine and none of them (except for Luke who was a gentile) thought of themselves outside of a Jewish context.

Very creative imaginations were at work in making many text of the TNCH or 'Old Testament' say things that in their original context had no such meaning at all! Of course Christians will come up with very clever propositions.

This is a bold statement. I understand him to be charging the New Testament with lying and collusion.

They will tell us Muslims, "Well you see, this is a double application prophecy". The problem with a nation of a 'dual prophecy' is that it is unbiblical. This was a term crafted by Christian apologist who had to explain away some of the glaring problems you are about to see.

What Bible passage is he referring to that say that there is no such thing as dual prophecy? No example is given.

So here we go let's see if I can use Christian sources and Christian scholars alone to make my case.

Unlike some people who use Atheist, Liberal, Jewish or Christian scholars who "quote mine" Muslim sources and scholars. You know who you are. (wink, wink)

Thank God that you are not going to to use "Atheist, Liberal, Jewish or Christian scholars who 'quote mine' Muslim sources and scholars!" There surely enough of that. And please don't use Muslim sources and scholars who quote mine Atheist, Liberal, Jewish or Christian scholars. There are enough of them too.

One of the arguments that Christian apologist often try and advance to show that the Bible is true are all those 'amazing prophecies'. I mean what are the odds right? What are the odds that these 'thousands' of prophecies could be fulfilled to the minute detail?

But let us look at this claim objectively. Let us step outside of ourselves for a moment and see if these claims are true. Are we going to see amazing prophecies fulfilled before our very eyes?

Or we will see crafty quote mining at work?

Here comes the nitty gritty!

(Matthew 2:14-15)

14

Joseph rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed for Egypt.

15

⁸ He stayed there until the death of Herod, that what the Lord had said through the prophet might be fulfilled, "Out of Egypt I called my son."

So here you have it. There is a prophecy some where that was stated that one day God will call his son out of Egypt! What are the odds of that happening? So than the question arises where was this 'prophecy' taken from?

⁸ [15] The fulfillment citation is taken from Hosea 11:1. Israel, God's son, was called out of Egypt at the time of the Exodus; Jesus, the Son of God, will similarly be called out of that land in a new exodus. The father-son relationship between God and the nation is set in a higher key. Here the son is not a group adopted as "son of God," but the child who, as conceived by the holy Spirit, stands in unique relation to God. He is son of David and of Abraham, of Mary and of Joseph, but, above all, of God.

(http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew2.htm)

So as we can see the prophecy is taken from Hosea 11:1. Wow! Are you excited? I am! Let's go and check it out shall we?

¹ When Israel was a child I loved him, out of Egypt I called my son. (Hosea 11:1)

Well my excitement as died down a bit what about you? This text says 'Israel' was a child. It does not say Jesus was a child. It does not even say 'In the future I will call my son out of Egypt'.

However, let's be fair and continue on to verse no. shall we?

The more I called them, the farther they went from me, Sacrificing to the Baals and burning incense to idols. (Hosea 11:2)

Whoa Nelly! What is this all about? What does the following mean: The more I called THEM? What does 'THEY' went from me mean? You mean God's son is going to sacrifice to baals and burn incense to idols? My apologies to my Christian brothers and sisters. I really respect you and your faith.

However, if there was a Christian on Earth who would dare suggest that Jesus worshiped idols know that these are fighting words!

So much for a prophecy awaiting fulfillment. The original context of this verse does not speak about Jesus at all! The only way for Christians to say that Hosea 11:1 speaks about Jesus is to use quote mining. You have to completely ignore the context.

Verse 2 of Hosea 11 does not speak about Jesus in any way shape or form! Christians should be ashamed of them selves! Hosea 11 was never about any future prophecy to begin with. Only the imagination of the alleged gospel writer Matthew.


I see the confusion. Matthew was referring only to verse 1 not verse 2. Do you really thing the "they" of verse 2 are the same as the Israel that was called out of Egypt? No they are not. The worship of the Baals came later - centuries after the Exodus.

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: An Ancient Christian Art: Quoting Out of Context

Brennon's Thoughts: The Atheist's Own Dilemma

This is a great post! I'm not sure I think the Free-Will argument truly answers the dilemma, but I completely agree with the arguments about the atheists' own dilemma. It just amazes me that they don't see they have no answer for the existence of evil nor a foundation for morality without God. This is an awesome post!

Brennon's Thoughts: The Atheist's Own Dilemma

Angelz to the Rescue

If you did not know Dr. James White has drawn fire from other Christians who disagree with his stance for holding Dr. Ergun Caner responsible for statement he made but can't or won't substantiate on the grounds that it makes Christian look like liars to the very people we are supposed to be a witness for the truth of Christ. I have bloogs about the debate before and because Caner misrepresented the truth in public and has not apologized he should be rebuked in public. People have been calling White's credentials and character into question although he is right in tjhis case. Christianity Today even asked him for proof thast the teaches at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary. In stark contrast to Caner, White has made that information available. A friend to to White's ministry has more than captured what this contyroversy si all about. I just wanted to repost it here. It's too good not to share.

Angelz to the Rescue

Inspiring Words From Dan Slott

Dan Slott has tweeted two statements that say a whole lot in a few words..

Sometimes this is all I need for a good, swift kick-in-the-ass to get me going: http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g18/DanSlott/sorry.jpg :P

Never underestimate the power of someone telling you what you CAN'T do. "I'll show them!" can be one of life's BEST motivators! :) 

Why are these words of wisdom? Because Dan Slott is now one of hottest writers of Comics today! He is so good that the was picked to write the storyline for the upcoming Spider-Man video game called Spider-Man: Shattered Dimensions. He never gave up and it paid off....okay and talent certainly didn't hurt!!!

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Rachel: The Struggles of a Barren Woman

Okay, I know that Mother's Day 2010 is over but I just liked this post from Dr. Mariottini so much. Awesome! He recounted Rachel's story and how God intervened in her life. It certainly adds a lot realizing that the child that God blessed Rachel to mother, Joseph, was used of God to save the whole known world from starvation when he grew up and became the number 2 man in Egypt.
Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Rachel: The Struggles of a Barren Woman

Cell Size and Scale

My good friend and brother-in-Christ. Mariano has e-mailed me the this link. It's awesome. It's from a teaching aid from the University of Utah that explains the size and scale of living human cells. I love this stuff. Move the slider at the bottom of the image to see how small things really are relative to each other. Look at the notes at the bottom of the link to see notes on how to put all of this into context.



Cell Size and Scale

Darwin in Trouble: Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics « Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Here is a great article by Jonathan Sarfati answering the claim that the second law of thermodynamics does not destroy evolution. I agree. I don't see how evolution is compatible with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Darwin in Trouble: Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics « Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: A Salute To Mother's Love

Dr. Mariottini re-posted a past article regarding Mothers in the Bible. He makes a very interesting point..we almost never think about the example of a good mother - Rizpah - told in 2 Samuel 21:10.

Then Rizpah the daughter of Aiah took sackcloth, and spread it on a rock for herself, from the beginning of harvest until rain fell on them from the heavens; she did not allow the birds of the air to come on the bodies by day, or the wild animals by night. (2 Samuel 21:10).

I am amazed that I have read the passage several times over my lifetimes and I never really thought about it the way Dr. Mariottini has talked about it in this article. Please read this article it is awesome.

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: A Salute To Mother's Love

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: A Tribute To Mothers

Before I began reading Dr Mariottini's blog, he posted a brilliant reflection on Hannah, Samuel's mother, for Mother's Day 2009. It's a great post and thinking of Hannah makes me grateful for al the women God has put in my life. My own mother and my mother-in-law, my wife most of all and all the women who have been teachers and church mothers. My wife's picture is on this post and read Mariottini's essay on Hannah

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: A Tribute To Mothers

Debunking Christianity: How Can We Decide Who Is Wrong?

I've recently commented on a post  by John W. Loftus on his blog. One of the readers of Loftus blog seems to have disagreed with me very much. He responded to my comments by making distinct comments to the points I raised. I've decided to respond in kind. My responses are in red.

Marcus McElhaney, You said, So nothing can be known to exist if it can't be weighed, counted or measured? Is that what you are postulating? Is that what you mean? Personally, I certainly hope that's what John means. What's more, I'll bet that that is how you live your life, too: you demand evidence for everything in your life. Your profile says you're becoming a minister. Does COGIC demand evidence that you are proficient at passing collection plates to pay for miracles?  How dare they demand such proof!  

No. They don't. He obviously knows nothing about Christianity in general or the Church of God in Christ in particular. You cannot pay for miracles. 

Are they suggesting that the Holy Spirit in you must be verified?

No COGIC does not demand verification. Jesus does. 

³⁴"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. ³⁵By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.  - John 13:34-35

If we don't love one another that proves we are not one of  His people. If God did not care for us to know how to verify if we are truly His or not then why is so much information is given in the Bible so that we know what the metrics are?

 ¹⁹The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; ²⁰idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions ²¹and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

 ²²But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, ²³gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. ²⁴Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. ²⁵Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. ²⁶Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other. Galatians 5: 19-26

And there is more. But because I think the reader can read I'll just leave it at these two examples. The point is that God can and does not have a problem with us considering the evidence of our faith...as a matter of fact He told us what to look for.

Compare your profile to that of Harvey Burnett who became a Christian and a COGIC preacherman all at once, no training.  Wow, you don't know anything about the Church of God in Christ. No one becomes a District Superintendant without training. The means Elder Burnett is not just a Pastor! IT means that he is assistant to his bishop and is over several churches.

Marcus you require evidence, verification, and proof as much as anyone else. The primary difference between you and those who take their cues from the real world is your exceedingly poor standard for what constitutes evidence. Whereas you accept things like tradition, revelation and authority as evidence, more reasonable people reject those things as routes to truth since throughout humanity there exist thousands of incompatible traditions, thousands of irreconcilable revelations, and millions of authority figures convinced that none but them know the truth.  

A lot of presuppositions and no evidence. I do not accept tradition, my revelation, or any authority that is not compatible with the Bible. I agree that there thousand of irreconcilable and incompatible worldviews. They can't all be right, but there is one that I have researched that does stand up to objective evidence and not human opinion: the Bible - the Word of the living God..

You say some version of Christian Bible constitutes evidence, though it clearly does not. In other Christianities they say some other version of a Bible is evidence

I know you are referring to the gnostic texts and other early extra-biblical writings. None of them fit the following metric. 

¹⁶All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, ¹⁷so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17

If anyone disagrees, I really would like to see an explanation of how these texts outside the Bible do fit this criteria. And if  he refers to the textual variants, I'd like him to point out a single variant text that conflicts with historic and orthodox Christian doctrine. .

Then, there is the Koran and numerous other holy books declaring themselves to also be the "truth." Your profile also says that you make a living in the science-based field of software engineering. Your income would not exist if it were not for something far more reliable than tradition, revelation, or authority. Are you also a science-denying YEC? Do you discount or reject the science of radioisotopic dating? Were the YEC's mistaken who claim to have recently found Noah's Ark and also to have determined a 4800 year age of the wood via radiocarbon dating? Are you also correct if you deny it? Then, you contradict your fellow religionists. It's not reliable.

May 7, 2010 2:34 PM

I've written on my blog why I accept the Bible over the Qur'an.  Let me briefly just point out that most credible historian agree that Jesus was crucified. The Bible says that Jesus was crucified.  The Qur'an says that Jesus was not crucified. History conflicts with the Qur'an therefore I've got to throw it out.   I'm not a young earth creationists. Not all Christians are Young Earth Creationists. You can be a Christian believe either way - Old Earth or Young Earth. I personally don't find enough Biblical or Scientific evidence to endorse Old Earth Creationism. Even if you think Genesis is speaking of seven 24 hour days of creation that doesn't make the universe 6000 years old. Not all Christians agree with any of your evidence of what a Christian must believe to be a Christian.  That's like saying all Atheists are cannibals because Jeffrey Dahmer was an atheist.  Don't be ignorant and stupid.

Russ said...

You said, Assuming it is I have a two simple lines of questions to ask: How can you prove that your family loves you? Answer: evidence, lots and lots of evidence. In societies like the US where daughters are not bought and sold as chattel, the love of a man or woman must be earned through demonstratable behaviors, some evolutionarily engrained and some societally defined. You provide your love interest with evidence, lots of evidence, and your love interest reciprocates with lots of evidence for you. If the evidence is absent you soon lose interest. Then, too, this evidence exchange is not limited to female-male relationships. Also, parents teach their children to behave in ways consistent with how we feel about them. We see how these things play out at church potlucks, weddings, funerals. How do your children know you do not like someone? Evidence. How do you teach your children to suck up to Grandma? You teach them to provide evidence, tangible behaviors accepted in our society to reflect one's feelings. Also, Marcus, we are so susceptible to accepting behaviors as evidence that we are easily duped with them. This is especially the case when we take the behavior of uttering a litany of unreliable words as evidence. Ted Haggard. Jimmy Swaggart. Jim Baker. Jerry Falwell. George Reker. You? Words are weak evidence by themselves and they are even weaker when, as is the case with all all religions, they are spoken without a reliable standard against which their veracity can be assessed.  

The Bible is a reliable standard when weighing the veracity of anyone speaking on the issues the Bible discusses. Just like there is evidence for loving spouses, parents and children, there is evidence that the Bible is true. MY point was simply that the proof of love cannot be objectively obtained by the scientific method.  All truth cannot be substantiated by naturalism.That is not saying that it's not useful and should be ignored but if you base your entire understand of this reality on it, you will miss a lot!

The Bible is a focal point of Christianity but it is not evidence for much of anything. Some people wrote down the prevailing myths, legends, fables, dreams, and superstitions, then peppered it with a big dollop of wishful thinking. Christians do not agree with each other about it, and, as has been pointed out, there exists no way to resolve the disagreements.  
  
A lot presuppositions. Where is your proof that the Bible is not true and just myth, legends, dreams, superstitions and wishful thinking? Where is the beef?

  How much does their love weigh? How long is it? How wide is it? Dumb. Just dumb. These are not the metrics of love, but the metrics are there. We see how love whithers away when Christians by the millions violate their marriage vows, abandon their children, abuse their children and spouses.

So longevity in a marriage is a proof of love? I disagree. But if it helps my parents have been married 52 years. They credit God for their longevity and love. Atheists are no better at being good spouses or parents than Christians without God.  My point is that you cannot scientifically prove love in a laboratory as Loftus claimed was necessary to know emphatically something is true. He did not qualify the comments but seemed to apply it to everything,. Do you really want to apply such drivel to everything that exists? I don't.

You said, Better question is if there is no transcendence of this life and no one has any ultimate value (as many consistent atheists believe) than what does it matter? Ultimate value is a stupid notion. People do not act as if anyone has "Ultimate Value." Assuming no inbreeding, you have or had eight great grandparents. Can you name all of those people who were of Ultimate Value? How about further back to their sixteen parents? Can you name them? Similarly, your great grand children will have little or not interest in who you were. Imagining Ultimate Value does not make it so. We are all generation-centric. When your children are small they look to you for everything. A few short years later that is no longer the case. A few more years and you become a holiday ornament. Tack on too many more and your Ultimate Value ends up in a nursing home being cared for by strangers.  

Such a bleak outlook. What kind of family are you from? Of course I care about all my foreparents - even if I can't know who all of them are. I owe them. I'm only six generations removed from slavery. All I have and I ever will have to be passed  to my children came through them. I'm here...America is here...because of their sacrifices. I'm not the only one into genealogy and understanding past ancestors. Your arguments are completely unable to be applied to all people.  

How do you prove you matter period? How do we weigh, count, or otherwise measure your worth or anyone else's for that matter? Sure would like to hear answers for these. Of course silence would also be an answer.

Again, evidence, Marcus. Be honest with yourself. You demand it for all things, but what you accept as evidence is horribly flawed.

May 7, 2010 2:34 PM

I wonder if people like Russ really examine what they think or do they just shoot from the hip. I'm a Christian because I do believe the evidence points to the Bible being true. Nothing else makes sense. If these are Russ' best arguments I'm completely unimpressed. I demanded evidence for the Bible and God gave it to me. If you were honest with yourself you would admit the problem isn't with lack of evidence but in you.I know because the failure is in me also and it took the power of God to change me. He can do the same for you.

As for anyone who want to read some good evidences for Christianity being true, you can refer to series of articles from Apologetics 315 which Brian Auten has compiled essays written by several Christians from all walks of life who give their best arguments in a short essay for why Christianity is the only way. 

Apologetics 315 - Essay Series

Debunking Christianity: How Can We Decide Who Is Wrong?

Acknowledging our opponents’ strong points | Uncommon Descent

I read a very good article that Brian Auten tweeted last week. It points out that we should acknowledge opponents' strong points in any debate. The article then give two strong points against intelligent design and admits that they are good but don't destroy intelligent design:

1. We have discovered scientific explanations for so many other previously mysterious phenomena, why not evolution as well? The laws God made are very clever and fine-tuned, and probably are sufficient to explain everything in astronomy, geology, chemistry and atmospheric science, for example, so it is hardly surprising that many would insist that they must be able to explain all of biology as well.

2. There are a lot of things about the development of life that give the appearance of natural causes. “This just doesn’t look like the way God would create things,” is an argument frequently used by Darwin, and by modern day evolutionists. There are also things that don’t suggest natural causes–such as the sudden appearance of nearly all the animal phyla at the beginning of the Cambrian era–but much of the history of life admittedly does leave us with a strong impression of natural causes.

These are points I've head many atheistic evolutionists use against Creationism and Intelligent Design. I don't think that they are strong at all. I think the laws and mechanisms we have discovered and harnessed in astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology, and the other known sciences don't demystify much at all. I mean we have only found more questions than answers. I think the same is true in Biology. The ratio of what we know to all that there is to know is a number much smaller than one and getting smaller approaching zero because the number at the bottom of that fraction is approaching infinity much faster than that numerator! As an engineer I have learned that if one does not know what the design specs were and the purpose it's hard to evaluate if it is the best possible design or not. That is how I see the universe. It's stupid to argue that the universe is ill designed when we can't possible know all the specs and purposes.







Acknowledging our opponents’ strong points | Uncommon Descent

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Book of Remembrance

Dr Mariottini has posted a great overview and summary on why the Book of Malachi is so important. It's great. It's a shame that most of the time in churches Malachi only comes up at offering time:

⁸ "Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me.
      "But you ask, 'How do we rob you?'
      "In tithes and offerings. ⁹ You are under a curse—the whole nation of you—because you are robbing me. ¹⁰ Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it. ¹¹ I will prevent pests from devouring your crops, and the vines in your fields will not cast their fruit," says the LORD Almighty. ¹² "Then all the nations will call you blessed, for yours will be a delightful land," says the LORD Almighty.- Malachi 3:8-12

However Malachi is way more important and deeper than that. Mariottini does an awesome job explaining just how wonderfully God used Malachi to speak to his people for the past 2500 years and will continue!

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Book of Remembrance

Iron Sharpens Iron: Walt Chantry: Today's Gospel: Authentic or Synthetic?

I had a chance to listen to an interview  of Walt Chantry on Iron Sharpens Iron. He wrote a book back in the early 70's combating the controversies and watering down the Gospels. It's really interesting. The scary thing is that very little has improved. I see more of the issues he bought up in the book still around today!

Iron Sharpens Iron: Walt Chantry: Today's Gospel: Authentic or Synthetic?