Responding to: Allah is uniquely one (refutation of the Trinity) Part 1

Today thegrandverbalizer  posted two blog posts on the Trinity today. The amazing thing is that he doesn't seem to recognize how he is mis-stating what Christians believe. If I did the same with Islam he'd be livid but he can't seem to be bothered to see how inconsistent he's being in his arguments.. He seems to think that he has listened to Dr. James White's presentation yet he persists in getting the Bible's teachings wrong. I have little change in explaining it to him so that he will understand but I'll try anyway.

Recently while talking to a believer in Tri-theism (the belief in three all powerful gods that join together and work as a unified team) other wise known as 'Trinity' something also occurred to me.

One more time. Say it with me slowly: "Trinity" does not equal "Tri-thesism".  Tri-theism is just polytheism and no Christian is into polytheism.

One of the glaring and obvious things one notices about the Trinity is that God is not a singular being that has something that no one or nothing else shares.

God is a singular Being.  Given that "Being" and "person" are not the same thing. It's possible to have more than one person in the same being.  One person does not have to mean one person.

The doctrine of the Trinity is that God is One Team ( a group of three that co exist together). Of course this is a philosophical presupposition about the creator that does not have CLEAR revelation to back it up. It is the product of theological debates and musings about the divine.

Again with the "Team". There is no CLEAR revelation to back up the notion that God is "ONE TEAM" because that is not what Christians are arguing in favor of. We don't believe that either. Do you know what it's called when you are argue against a position that is not being claimed and then pretend to win the argument? It's call a "straw man" and thegrandverbalizer just showed a perfect example.

In the Trinity doctrine God is not singularly unique. In fact it makes little sense to speak about 'God' when talking to Trinitarians. They believe in gods. God the Son and God the Holy Spirit and God the Father.

No we don't. The Bible tells us there is only one God. It also tells us the Father is God. The son is God. The Holy Spirit is God. This is 1 X 1 X 1 =1 not 1 + 1 + 1 = 1.   1 + 1 + 1 = 1  is stupid and not what Trinitarians are saying!

The problem with their theological presupposition is saying that God is One Team (a group comprising of three gods that co exist together) is that you could say based upon that same presupposition that God is One Team (comprising a hundred gods that co exist together).

Not three gods. You can't split up the God into components then cry out "It doesn't make sense!" thegrandverbalizers and those who don't understand what we are saying think that. No one is saying anything about a team, but thegrandverbalizer.

In the Trinity God is not Singularly Unique. In fact there is nothing singularly unique about the creator. The Creator is not allowed to have a unique oneness that is not shared.

One can argue with another human being all one likes. The bottom line is that God is that God is bigger and more complex than just our simple understanding of what being and personhood are.  In Christian Trinity, God is not a team of God but  a single being such that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all God at the same time  and neither one is more or less God than the other at any time.  It's a unique oneness that can't be duplicated nor experienced completely. Marriage - the union of a man and a woman - is the only thing anywhere close to that sort of union we can experience in the here and now and that more closely mirrors Jesus and the Church .  See Ephesians 5:22-24

²² Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. ²³ For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. ²⁴ Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

What ever the Father has the Son also has. What ever the Son has is also shared by the Holy Spirit.

and 1 Corinthians 11:3

But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

For example you could have two black shoe boxes. They could be exactly identical in shape and volume. However, the only thing that makes one unique from the other is the space that the other occupies. That would be 'unique' to it as a shoe box.

Bad analogy. Jesus said

²¹ “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. ²² You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. ²³ Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. ²⁴ God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

Just how much space do you think God takes up?

However, with in the Trinity there is no way to define God as one without immediately bringing another number into the picture; the number three.

Not an issue as long as remember the distinction between "being" and "person".

Philosophical jargon is quick to enter into the picture in a discussion with even the most astute Trinitarian. They will tell you that they believe that God is one sure; but they will quantify what they mean by saying 'We believe God is one in essence but is comprised of Three persons'.

So if thegrandverbalizer hears what Christians are saying why does he go after straw men?

When asked to define what they mean by persons more philosophical jargon enters and one is hard pressed to get a proper definition of person.

Rather nice assertion. Like the way he just throws that out there and doesn't substantiate it. In a previous thread he remarked that an understand of what "being" and "person"  mean in Hebrew, Aramaic, Kione Greek, English, and Arabic is in order to really get at the heart of the discussion. I agree. I'm preparing such a discussion even now.

So what you end up with is Tri-theism that tries to mask itself as monotheism and tries to distance itself from modalism.

So does Islam embrace modalism. I'm not a Muslim and I freely admit that I am not qualified to make a judgment on that.  However, equating Tri-thesim with the Trinity when one knows that is not what we are saying is just dishonest.

The Qur'an lays down the truth

Say: Allah is One (Absolute)

Allah is Unique.

Allah begots not

nor is Allah begotten.

And there is NOTHING LIKE unto Allah.

(Holy Qur'an chapter 112:1-4)\

More assertion. "begotten" and "begot:" is thought of as the way people procreate and that is not what Christians believe about Jesus. 

As to Allah's nature Allah's being (dhat) or essence is One. The Trinitarians can make such a claim They may say, "We believe God's essence (being) is One" However it is a fallacious claim.

No it's not. We can't help it if one cannot see a difference between "being" and "person". God is indeed unique. There is nothing or anything like God anywhere.

They do not believe that God's essence is One, because God's essence is SHARED. They believe that God's essence (being) is shared by THREE. 

It is not UNIQUE TO ONE. It is SHARED by THREE.

Thegrandverbalizer would have a point if God's being was shared by more than one being.  No Christian would argue that each person in the Trinity is a separate being. 

Note for example what Protestant Christian apologist James White says here: http://vintage.aomin.org/trinitydef.html

It is necessary here to distinguish between the terms "being" and "person." It would be a contradiction, obviously, to say that there are three beings within one being, or three persons within one person. So what is the difference? We clearly recognize the difference between being and person every day. We recognizewhat something is, yet we also recognize individuals within a classification. For example, we speak of the "being" of man---human being. A rock has "being"---the being of a rock, as does a cat, a dog, etc. Yet, we also know that there are personal attributes as well. That is, we recognize both "what" and "who" when we talk about a person.

Amen. He's quoting Dr. James White.

The Bible tells us there are three classifications of personal beings---God, man, and angels. What is personality? The ability to have emotion, will, to express oneself. Rocks cannot speak. Cats cannot think of themselves over against others, and, say, work for the common good of "cat kind." Hence, we are saying that there is one eternal, infinite being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. One what, three who's.

Yup! 

Note the philosophical jargon. When White says above "It would be a contradiction, obviously, to say that there are three beings within one being, or three persons within one person." what White does not tell you is that it is not a contradiction to say "there are three beings that share one being, or three persons that share one person."

Dr White didn't say that because those are indeed contradictions and not what we believe.  Back of the rails thegrandverbalizer goes! 

Also the last sentence something he left out. "Hence, we are saying that there is one eternal, infinite being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. One what, three who's.

What White didn't tell you is "One what, three who's that share FULLY and COMPLETELY One What"

No, he is saying three who's that share FULLY and COMPLETELY One What.

They therefore in reality do not believe that God's essence is One. If they truly believe that than God's essence is one what?

It can't be ONE if it is SHARED by THREE. The being cannot be Unique to One if it is also SHARED by THREE.

Three what? Again he's right if we are saying the one being is  shared by three beings but  we are not saying that!

Now I can claim that a rock has being fair enough. However, if I claim that rock and it's being (time and place everything about it) is shared FULLY and EQUALLY by atleast two other rocks I cannot in all honestly look you straight in the face and than claim I believe in a rock that is Unique in it's being.

No one is saying that we are talking about time and place when talking about the nature of God. God is timeless and omnipresent. There is no place or Time God is not. I thought that Muslims agreed with that. You can't get any more unique than that. 

If we start to take this approach we have already left the pure and safe road. We have left the creed of safety. Allah no longer has that which no one or nothing else has because Allah's being is not unique. Allah's being is shared. Than to turn around and couch this in philosophical language and claim to the people of La Ilaha illa lah (there is no God except God) that you worship the God of Abraham and that you are monotheistic is frankly insulting. You insult yourselves, and when you look into your own hearts you will come face to face with the monstrosity of that doctrine which was forged and formulated in Church councils and couched in Greek Philosophical verbiage.

Insulting? I'm still waiting for an apology for butchering what I believe and saying that I believe things that I don't as a Trinitarian.

May Allah protect us and keep us on the way that is straight! I call all the Christians who believe in Trinity (Tri-theism) back to the worship of the One True God.

Heaping insult on top of insult. One last time Tri-theism does not equal Trinity. 

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Allah is uniquely one (refutation of the Trinity)
 

Fistbump of the Day: Is praying to God any different than praying to a milk jug? - National Messianic Jewish | Examiner.com

Mariano has written a great article about an often used argument by atheists.

A question about prayer was sent to this writer which pertains to what was called, “the milk jug argument.” It goes something to the likes of: if by praying to God we receive the answers of “Yes,” “No” or “Wait,” we could just as effectively pray to a milk jug since we can assume the same results.

Continue reading on Examiner.com Is praying to God any different than praying to a milk jug? - National Messianic Jewish | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/messianic-jewish-in-national/is-praying-to-god-any-different-than-praying-to-a-milk-jug#ixzz1S1JHU34m

I personally hate this argument but since people actually use it, it does need to be answered. Follow the links to read Mariano's demolition of this "argument" that just seems to refuse to die the death it deserves due to the unrepentant and hard hearts of those who use it.

Is praying to God any different than praying to a milk jug? - National Messianic Jewish | Examiner.com

Related articles

• -Messianic Jews Harassed and Persecuted in Israel? (answersforthefaith.com)

Quote on Theodicy from RC Sproul

Image by james.thompson via Flickr

"Why do bad things happen to good people? That only happened once, and He volunteered." - R.C. Sproul

Related articles

• RC Sproul: Unseen Realities (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
• Unseen Realities: forget Bultmann and the 19th century (gentlewisdom.org.uk)
• Revival Tarries (ryanwortman.wordpress.com)
• R. C. Sproul vs. Rudolf Bultmann (via Scotteriology) (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
• R. C. Sproul vs. Rudolf Bultmann (scotteriology.wordpress.com)

My Common Sense is Tingling: Debunking Christianity: Why the Q Hypothesis Works

Tommy G. Baker has posted another article attempting to discredit the Bible. He fails. But let's see how he fails. I find that his methods better than John Loftus;, however so I guess that's worth a little something. My comments are in red. 

Mark 1: 21-39 presents Jesus going to Simon Peter's house and curing Peter's mother-in-law. She has a fever which Jesus "cures'. She then gets up and serves them. That evening people brought the demon possessed and sick to the house. The whole city gathers about the door.

Notice how Baker just summarizes the text instead of quoting it. It's not that he doesn't get it right but it is interesting.


Jesus heals many of the cases and told them to keep quite. And the following morning before daylight he went out to a private place and prayed. he is interrupted by Peter and the rest telling him that the crowds were looking for him. He gets the new followers to go the the next towns in Galilee preaching and exorcizing demons.

Until we get to here

³² That evening after sunset, the people brought to Jesus all who were sick. They also brought all who were controlled by demons. ³³ All the people in town gathered at the door. ³⁴ Jesus healed many of them. They had all kinds of sicknesses. He also drove out many demons. But he would not let the demons speak, because they knew who he was. - Mark 1:32-34

Notice how Baker seems to say that that Jesus only heals some of the people who are there as if there were some people who were sick that Jesus did not heal. This isn't what the text says. It says that Jesus healed some of the people who were there because obviously not every single person there was sick. Second the text does not tell us that he told all the people he healed to be quite but Jesus told the demons He cast out to be quiet.  I wonder why was Baker saying the Bible says things it does not say.

When we look at Matthew and Luke the story changes. Matthew 8:14 -27 has been rewritten by its author:

Let's see if he can prove that.

1) Matthew as throughout the Gospel intensifies the situation to make it ore outstanding. Here instead of Jesus curing many of those brought. Matthew now says he cures all of who was brought to him.

Guess not

¹⁶ When evening came, many people controlled by demons were brought to Jesus. He drove out the spirits with a word. He healed all who were sick. Matthew 8:16

This isn't a conflict with Mark at all. They are both saying that Jesus healed all those who are sick.

2) Matthew adds an Old Testament quote to claim that the event was a fulfilment of prophecy, " He took away our infirmities and bore our diseases (Isaiah 53:4)." The Jewish interpretation is that this applies to the whole of Israel. Here we see it taken to create the Suffering Servant as a prophecy of the messiah (Origen, Contra Celsus).

And how is adding the detail that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament a problem? I agree with Baker that Matthew was written to Jews. It's written in such a way that Jewish sensibilities are brought out.  Explaining that Jesus fulfilled the New Testament would be very important to Jewish leaders. It would not have been as important to Romans (Mark) or Greeks (Luke).

3) Here the events will change dramatically. Instead of Jesus going to bed and getting up early in the morning to pray he commands his new followers to get a boat to cross the lake. This is a fabrication by Matthew. It acts as a "seam" to stitch a passage from Q into his reworking of the text of Mark.

Why does it have to be a fabrication? Baker admits that he doesn't know who wrote Matthew. For all we know it could be the man whom tradition says it was who wrote it. And in that case there is no reason to think that Matthew just gives more information than Mark does in this instance.  There is no need to complicate matters introducing a third source that no one can prove ever existed.

Matthew 8:

9 Then a teacher of the law came to him and said, “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.”
20 Jesus replied, “Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.”
21 Another disciple said to him, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.”
22 But Jesus told him, “Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.

This is followed by the next seam in which Jesus gets into the boat and Jesus calms the storm. With this addition we see that Jesus no longer sleeps or prays early the next day. This addition of the "Would-be Follower" changes the original story of Mark. This is at the beginning of the ministry of Jesus according to Matthew.

Again Baker assumes that Matthew changes a story and can't prove any such thing happened. He merely asserts it.

When we compare the section in Luke 4:38-41 we see Luke also intensifies the event:

1) all of the people are cured by laying on of hands. The demons coming out testify that Jesus "is the Son of God." He rebukes the demons to be silent rather than the people as in Mark.

No, in Mark the demons are rebuked not the people,.  What translation is Baker reading?

2) As in Mark Jesus come the next morning goes out to a private place to pray.

Still doesn't contradict Matthew. One Gospel has a detail the other two do not have. That's not a conflict. That is what one would expect if they were based on eyewitness testimony. 

3) But Luke 9:57-62 still has the Would-be Followers passage. He uses it from Q at the end of the ministry of Jesus. The event is made to occur while going through Samaria on the way to Jerusalem where he will die.

Wow! This time Baker asserts much without any proof whatsoever. If Luke copied from Mark and didn't have access to "Q" then how could he have taken material from Q if it's not part of Mark? I find it humorous. The "Q" hypothesis is not really one hypothesis but comes in multiple flavors. And there are versions where Matthew and Luke did not have access to "Q" and Mark and  where Matthew and Luke only had Mark. They all can't be true. And again a  hypothesis is only a guess not fact. And here I don't even think "hypothesis" is a good description. "Pipe Dream" seems more fitting.

As an atheistic Bible study we can show to Christians that their scripture is not inerrant since the events are changed by the editing of Mark by Matthew and Luke. We can show that a sayings source that had no contextual setting was given context by inserting its collection of Jesus sayings into Mark. Mark thus becomes a convenient context.

If Baker means atheistic Bible study is a good example of eisogesis and how one should not read anything, then  I agree that the approach is useful. 

This also demonstrates that there is nothing historical in these presentations. This approach throughout the Synoptic Gospels shows an early Mark that has an all too human Jesus who does not know who touches his robe, who gets angry with people and insults several who seek his help. He has a human temper.

Baker is pontificating. He proved no such thing. I find nothing but fantasy in his presentation and no fact. Who said Jesus was not fully human? The orthodox Christian viewpoint is that Jesus is fully human and fully God. Why wouldn't he get angry? God got angry in the Old Testament a lot. When the woman with the issue of Blood touched Him, Jesus did not know who it was for the same reason He didn't know the day or the hour of his second coming: He voluntarily limited Himself in His humanity, but that doesn't mean He ceased being God at any time. And no I would not classify Jesus' temper as human as like us. If He were He would have wiped out everyone who had a hand in his crucifixion and kangaroo trial 

Matthew removes all of this. Jesus becomes a heavenly emissary with perfect knowledge and super human powers. Luke shows him to be a divine agent similar to Matthew's restructuring. We can see the progress in a temporal manner from Q an early sayings source of a human Jewish teacher to Mark as a man adopted by God in a Gentile view. Jesus is seen as an Enochican heavenly messenger in Matthew. And finally he becomes a Gentile demi-god in Luke. John will make him a pre-existent property of God, Logos, His Wisdom and Reason.

No, Matthew gives other details that shows how  Jesus was/is the king Israel has  been waiting for. How can you see any progression from "Q" given that we don't know what was all in "Q"? Mark's goal in writing His Gospel was very different from Matthew, Luke, and John. The audience is different. Of course the details included would be different. This does not mean that there is conflict. If I tell you Sue went to the store and then I told someone else that Sue and Jane went to the store, is this a conflict? Did I lie? No, I did not. This is the nature of the differences between the Gospels.

Q becomes the only source of primary attention for a historical Jesus. It shows a human being who is not a sacrifice for salvation as in the later Gospels. It is his teachings that are the source of salvation for the original hearers who were Jewish Palestinans.

Correction "Q" could be a source of primary attention for a historical Jesus if we knew what was in "Q"  and we don't even know if such a document really existed outside of the minds of the men who dreamed it up. 

Written by Tommy G. Baker

So was Baker able to show why the Q hypothesis works and why we should accept it in understanding who Jesus is from a historical standpoint? Nope, not even close. At least Baker is trying to support his atheism by attacking the Bible instead of hiding behind a stupid charge of circular reasoning.- claiming that you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible. He seems convinced that the Bible discredits itself. Hopefully as he keeps studying the scriptures, God will open his mind and he will truly see them.

Debunking Christianity: Why the Q Hypothesis Works

FacePalm of the Day #105 - Debunking Christianity: Who Answers Prayers?

I think that when atheists make the following arguments they miss a couple of major points. Here are statements articulated by John Loftus.

Christians claim that any prayer request granted for other believers in different religions is done by their God out of compassion, because only one God exists, theirs. The reason Christians think this, despite the fact that only prayers offered in Jesus' name are to be prayed, is because their own answered prayers have no more evidence for them as the others. So their God becomes the explanation for the answered prayers of a Muslim, or an Orthodox Jew, or a Fred Phelps, or a Roman Catholic, or a liberal Christian, or a Jehovah's Witness, or a Mormon, or a Satanist, or a Hindu. But believers in these other religions will take answered prayers as evidence that their faith is true. This means God, the Christian God, is providing confirming evidence against the truth of Christianity to other believers in false religions who will be condemned to hell. So Christian, either give up the belief that your God answers the prayers of other believers, or admit he is helping to send them to hell. And if you give up the belief that God is answering the prayers of other believers, then show us why your own answered prayers have more evidence for them than theirs.

What is missed is that it's assumed that if someone prays a prayer that unless they get what they asked for that God didn't answer their prayer. "NO" is no less an answer than "YES". The other thing that is missing is the realization if someone prays and they get what they wanted that doesn't mean that our God answered it. According to Christianity, people could be praying to and communicating with demons. If you accept what the Bible says about God and angels then you must also accept the existence of demons. We also know that God will allow demons to do things.

The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. - Timothy 4:1

and

⁵ Then the devil took Jesus to the holy city. He had him stand on the highest point of the temple. ⁶ "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. It is written,
" 'The Lord will command his angels to take good care of you.
They will lift you up in their hands.
Then you won't trip over a stone.' " —(Psalm 91:11,12)
⁷ Jesus answered him, "It is also written, 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.' "—(Deuteronomy 6:16)
⁸ Finally, the devil took Jesus to a very high mountain. He showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. ⁹ "If you bow down and worship me," he said, "I will give you all of this."
¹⁰ Jesus said to him, "Get away from me, Satan! It is written, 'Worship the Lord your God. He is the only one you should serve.' "—(Deuteronomy 6:13)
¹¹ Then the devil left Jesus. Angels came and took care of him. - Matthew 4:5-11

Debunking Christianity: Who Answers Prayers?

Related articles

• Why Pray? (trinitytuscaloosa.wordpress.com)
• Turns Out The Statue Of Liberty Is A Pagan Goddess (hooglyboogly.co)
• When Will My Prayers be Answered? (relijournal.com)

Habitable zone - Controversy

You may or may not be aware of a discussion with an atheist named Ryan Anderson regarding the fact that he believes that Dr Hugh Ross is wrong when he wrote:

"If the Earth were one half of one percent closer to the sun, water on Earth would boil off. If the Earth were one half of one percent farther from the sun, all the water would freeze." (More Than A Theory)

However the statement does not exist in More Than A Theory. He attributes the quote to have been made on then John Ankerberg show, but I wonder if he saw it because the following book references the same thing:
Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism By David Mills on page 250. You can read the exchange om my post: Faithful Thinkers: Audio: Major Creation/Evolution Models

Unfortunately, Anderson took things way to far alleging that Ross is dishonest and worst or doesn't know what he is talking about at best (about the Habitable zone and Creation/Evolution models). Anderson commented the following:

Also, it should be noted that as far as I know, Hugh Ross has never backed away from his absurd claim that "If the earth were 0.5% closer to the sun it would broil and if it was 0.5% farther from the sun it would freeze." [paraphrase]. The only reason I can think of for someone with a "PhD" to make such a clearly demonstratably false claim is to mislead. But that's par for the course with creationist, regardless of their "camp".

And today he said:

Actually, if you make an assertion that's wildly outside the range of what is currently thought to be the case, you have an obligation to substantiate that assertion.

He's [Dr Hugh Ross] actually a good example of why, as a layman, one should look for consensus among scientist rather than looking at one scientist. There are bad ones in every profession. But you of course will only look at the scientist that support the positions you want to believe.

Yes, indeed it is important to look at the balance of consensus among experts to determine if something is true or not. However we know that consensus does not always equal truth. There was once a consensus that the Earth was flat. And another that the whole universe revolved around the Earth. But the value of consensus is not issue now. Let's see if with simple back of the envelope calculation if we can figure out if  Dr Ross is wrong in the numbers he is proposing. First the Habitable zone is the range of distance from sun in which the earth retains liquid water. Any closer the water boils and evaporates. Farther and the water freezes.  The distance of the Earth to the Sun is called an Astronomical Unit (AU) which is about 93 x 10⁶ (93 million) miles. For the sake of this calculation I am approximating the earth's orbit as a circle although it is elliptical. I am also taking the range of the Habitable Zone from the following Wikipedia page:

Habitable zone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

INNER edge	OUTER edge	References	Notes
0.725 AU	1.24 AU	Dole 1964 [18]	Used optically thin atmospheres and fixed albedos.
0.95 AU	1.01 AU	Hart et al. 1978, 1979 [19]	stars K0 or later cannot have HZs
0.95 AU	3.0 AU	Fogg 1992 [20]	Used Carbon cycles.
0.95 AU	1.37 AU	Kasting et al. 1993 [21]
–	1%–2% farther out	Budyko 1969 [22]	... and Earth would have global glaciation.
–	1%–2% farther out	Sellers 1969 [23]	... and Earth would have global glaciation.
–	1%–2% farther out	North 1975 [24]	... and Earth would have global glaciation.
4%–7% closer	–	Rasool & DeBurgh 1970 [25]	... and oceans would never have condensed.
–	–	Schneider and Thompson 1980 [26]	disagreed with Hart.
–	–	Kasting 1991 [27]
–	–	Kasting 1988 [28]	Water clouds can shrink HZ as they counter GHG effect with higher albedos.
–	–	Ramanathan and Collins 1991 [29]	GHG effect IR trapping is greater than water cloud albedo cooling, and Venus would have to have started "Dry."
–	–	Lovelock 1991 [30]
–	–	Whitemire et al. 1991 [31]

Let's take the Hart et al. 1978, 1979 reference of 0.95 AU  to 1.01 AU  for the range of the Habitable Zone. Imagine 3 concentric circles. Then inner one has a Radius of 0.95 AU, the middle has a radius of  1 AU and the outer has a radius of  1.01AU.


So what is the distance from the earth's orbit to the inner boundary of the habitable zone?

1 - 0.95 =  0.05  meaning 0.05 AU

What about from the earth to the outer boundary of the habitable zone?

1.01 - 1 = 0.01 - meaning 0.01 AU

If you want to know percentages of AU you take the differences and divide them by AU. This gives  - 0.05 and  + 0.01 .

This is well within the consensus of 0.725 AU to 3 AU. We know that any number anyone grabs from the air is an estimate and an approximation - averages. Not wrong, but nothing to assassinate a man's character over. It is obvious that Dr Ross is using Habitable Zone ranges like 0.99 AU and 1.01 AU.Again: well within the consensus range. Ryan Anderson claims to be a layman yet feels like he knows enough to criticize a professional astronomer. Anyone who knows something about Physics and published numbers know that such nitpicking is silly.

“The Ledge” movie compliments Christianity - National Messianic Jewish | Examiner.com

Mariano has posted an article about the upcoming movie "The Ledge". He wrote:

By the way, no, fundamentalist does not mean that he is concerned with the basics, the fundamentals of the Christian faith but rather that he is a stuck up, domineering jerk. This movie was directed by the activist atheist Matthew Chapman who stated “My hope was to make an emotional appeal.” Indeed, what else does he had with which to work?

Continue reading on Examiner.com “The Ledge” movie compliments Christianity - National Messianic Jewish | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/messianic-jewish-in-national/the-ledge-movie-compliments-christianity#ixzz1Rx1XOeb3

Indeed what else is there? Kind of feel sorry for Chapman and atheists in general. Read Mariano's whole article at the link


“The Ledge” movie compliments Christianity - National Messianic Jewish | Examiner.com

Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Response | Reflections

Dr Kenneth Samples reviews Harry Potter and talks about the Philosophy in the Harry Potter franchise and how to respond from a Christian point of view.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Response | Reflections

Related articles

• Harry Potter gallery: a look back down the years (heatworld.com)
• A Toast to Harry Potter! Butterbeers anyone? (restrow.wordpress.com)
• Harry Potter in Pop Culture: 10 Memorable Mentions (popsugar.com)
• Harry Potter: The End (independent.co.uk)

OMG WANT: Jetlev r200 Water-Powered Jet Pack [New Video]

OMG WANT: Jetlev r200 Water-Powered Jet Pack [New Video]

Related articles

• Video: Jetlev R200 water jet pack takes TLX to new heights (autoblog.com)
• Jetlev R200 Water-Powered Jet Pack Gets Tested (techeblog.com)
• Tony Parker -- INSANE $5,000 Jet Pack Ride (tmz.com)
• Jetlev-Flyer, A Personal Water-Powered Jet Pack (laughingsquid.com)

The Philistines: Bible Bad Guys | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament

Dr Mariottini has posted a great video showing new archaeological for the Philistines! Cool!



Click Here

The Philistines: Bible Bad Guys | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament

Related articles

• Samson, David and Goliath Oh My! (boundlessblog.wordpress.com)
• In Israel, Archaeologists Unearth the Bible's Bad Guys (foxnews.com)
• In Israel, diggers unearth the Bible's bad guys (usatoday.com)
• The Search For Goliath and Samson (jonathanturley.org)
• In Israel, diggers unearth the Bible's bad guys (msnbc.msn.com)

FacePalm of the Day #104 - 'God the Father' banished by mainline denomination

The United Church of Christ is attempting to change it's wording in its organizational documents. For example look at this.

 The reason?

Denomination spokeswoman Barb Powell told WND today that the change was made because the reference to "heavenly Father" was too restrictive.
"In the UCC, our language for God, Christ and the Holy Spirit … is preferred to be more open for different expressions of the Trinity," she said. "Heavenly Father is just one vision."
She told WND the denomination seeks to be "inclusive" in its language, "so therefore we will tend to change language that is more traditional to be more inclusive."
She said some of the denomination's pastors refer to God with terms such as "Creator" and "Father and Mother."
"There are a lot of people who decided, if God still is speaking to us, there is more light and truth to break forth," she said.

Read more: 'God the Father' banished by mainline denomination http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=318981#ixzz1RqeCDZ9D

The reason why Christians shouldn't change it is because the Bible uses that language. The problem was called out by David Runnion-Bareford. He said:

"Rejecting God as Father in an age of fatherlessness is unthinkable," said David Runnion-Bareford, a leader of the fellowship organization. "God acted toward us in amazing grace when He offered to be our Father through the sacrifice of his Son, Jesus Christ who offers us life in his name.
"This is not something we as humans made up in some other time. Rejecting our Father is [an] act of arrogant rebellion in the name of cultural conformity that only further alienates members, churches, but more importantly God himself."

Read more: 'God the Father' banished by mainline denomination http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=318981#ixzz1RqfLdDv9

I'm glad God has put people in the Unite Church of Christ to stand against such heresy. The denomination is very broad and have a wide variety of viewpoints. The article talks a lot about Jeremiah Wright and the way his church embraces Black Liberation Theology. I really dislike Black Liberation Theology because it is not Jesus centered. You can read my post on Black Liberation Theology,

'God the Father' banished by mainline denomination

Related articles

• Jesus IS Lord in Ephesians and Philippians (defendingcontending.com)
• Paul's Testimony (injesus.wordpress.com)
• Colossians 1:2 - Father (stmikesyouth.wordpress.com)
• Building a House Church (savoringscripture.wordpress.com)
• False teacher tips his hand. Again. (wolfsheep2.wordpress.com)

Answering Muslims: Three Things about Islam

Answering Muslims: Three Things about Islam

Conservative Group Walks Back From That Whole "Black Marriage Better During Slavery" Comment - The Snob Blog - Danielle Belton's The Black Snob

Remember the group that brought up the idea that children were better under slavery than now? Well they actually apologized....sort of.

From Politico:

“After careful deliberation and wise insight and input from valued colleagues we deeply respect, we agree that the statement referencing children born into slavery can be misconstrued, and such misconstruction can detract from the core message of the Marriage Vow: that ALL of us must work to strengthen and support families and marriages between one woman and one man," the group's officials said in a statement. "We sincerely apologize for any negative feelings this has caused, and have removed the language from the vow.”

Daniel Belton is insighthl in her article. Take a look at the following link.

Conservative Group Walks Back From That Whole "Black Marriage Better During Slavery" Comment - The Snob Blog - Danielle Belton's The Black Snob

Calvin on the Christ-less Unitarianism of Islam

Image via WikipediaDr James White posted the following quote from John Calvin. He saw this over on the Reformed Baptist Fellowship Blog:

For even if many men once boasted that they worshipped the Supreme Majesty, the Maker of heaven and earth, yet because they had no Mediator it was not possible for them truly to taste God’s mercy, and thus be persuaded that he was their Father. Accordingly, because they did not hold Christ as their Head, they possessed only a fleeting knowledge of God. From this it also came about that they at last lapsed into crass and foul superstitions and betrayed their own ignorance. So today the Turks, although they proclaim at the top of their lungs that the Creator of heaven and earth is God, still, while repudiating Christ, substitute an idol in place of the true God. - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Book II, Chapter VI).

Calvin on the Christ-less Unitarianism of Islam

God Is Real | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament

Dr Claude Mariottini has posted a great article about how the prophet Jeremiah knew God exists! Awesome! Check out his blog post at the following link.


God Is Real | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament

Related articles

• Jeremiah, The Weeping Prophet (brakeman1.wordpress.com)

FacePalm of the Day - #103 - Debunking Christianity: Personified Myth or Mythologized Person?

Tommy G Baker has written a post on Debunking Christianity in which he attempts to explain why Christians today believe Jesus is the divine Son of God when he claims that Jesus' first followers did not. I'd argue that Paul's teachings did not differ from the teachings of Jesusl or the Apostles.

Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. (Galatians 1:18-20)

What writings of the New Testament are actually from Paul? I know of no serious scholars that deny that Paul wrote Galatians. In fact you will read in any search or book that is of any reputable scholar that Galatians is authentic. Paul claims in these verses to have met James, the brother of the Lord.

Okay, finally, a point of consensus and agreement.

The mythicist position is one in which there is a claim that no historical person exists behind the myth of the Christian Christ. A mythicist must therefore go against all of scholarship and state that Galatians is a forgery. Or she must make another statement that is even harder to demonstrate. Paul is lying!!!

Just like the no rational and informed person would argue that Paul did not write Galatians, they would not argue that Jesus was not a historical person. Let's see if Paul is lying.

Now certainly we can show how wrong Paul is about claims such as a resurrection or the idea that there is a god that requires a human sacrifice. But these are his real beliefs. They are not intentional deception. If he is deluded about such things could he be deluded about something like visiting actual flesh and blood people? Kidding aside these are different categories of knowledge. We are left with whether Paul is telling the truth or he is lying.

Baker states that we can show that Paul is wrong about the Resurrection and that his sacrifice was necessary. He doesn't elaborate his point but I'll let him skate because it's not the point of his article and Paul more than ably destroys this silly notion. Instead let us focus on whether Paul was telling the truth about meeting James and at least some of the original apostles.

If he is lying we are required to prove that Paul is taking a mythological pattern found in the Mystery Cults and attempting to create a historical Jewish figure. He would also have to be lying about persecuting previous followers of the Jesus movement. But if he was making up this account then many could have challenged him. Much of his work presupposes that the recipients know some of what he claims and what has transpired.

I think we can agree with this above paragraph. We don't see such challenges made against Paul and the recipients of the epistles he wrote would have indeed been knowledgeable of what he claimed. Paul's story is also validated in external Jewish sources.

Let us assume that this passage is an interpolation as a few scholars have hypothesised[sic].

And here comes the first facepalm. There is no need to make such assumption. If you do, then you claim Paul lied without proving that he did.

Then we are still confronted with Paul's claim in another passage to have spoken to James, the Brother of Jesus, Peter and John who were disciples and knew Jesus:

Galatians 2.... Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. ² I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. ³ Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. ⁴ This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. ⁵ We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. ⁶ As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favouritism—they added nothing to my message. ⁷ On the contrary, they recognised that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised.^{[ 8} For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. ⁹ James, Cephas^[ and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognised the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. ¹⁰ All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.

Galatians 2:1-10

We can see that he speaks again of a historical encounter with people who supposedly knew Jesus or were in fact related to him. Finally we have Paul stating that he opposed Peter in Antioch, an event that was apparently known or at least verifiable to the recipients of Paul's letter:

¹¹ When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. ¹² For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. ¹³ The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
¹⁴ When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?"

Galatians 2:11-14

We are left with one more possibility that Paul did meet with James who claimed to be the brother of Jesus but James made it up and the fact that he had a brother. Peter and John went along with it and perhaps much of Jerusalem.

And here comes another facepalm! Why would that even be a possibility and why would Peter, John, and anyone in Jerusalem back up such a story about Jesus having siblings if it were not so? We know emphatically that Jesus had siblings and his brothers did not believe in Him and were in fact embarrassed by him.

³⁰ He said this because they were saying, “He has an impure spirit.”
³¹ Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. ³² A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”
³³ “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked.

³⁴ Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! ³⁵ Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” - Mark3:30-35

⁵⁴ Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. ⁵⁵ “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? ⁵⁶ Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things? - Matthew 13:54-56

¹ After this, Jesus went around in Galilee. He did not want^[a] to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill him. ² But when the Jewish Festival of Tabernacles was near, ³ Jesus’ brothers said to him, “Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that your disciples there may see the works you do. ⁴ No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.” ⁵ For even his own brothers did not believe in him.
⁶ Therefore Jesus told them, “My time is not yet here; for you any time will do. - John 7:1-6

These arguments of Paul are to a historical situation. The followers of Jesus were Jewish and had no teachings from Jesus that they were to stop following the Jewish Law. Why because Jesus was Jewish. He was a human brother of James. They thought that he was a great teacher ( as refelcted[sic] in Q) and a blameless man that would return soon at the end of the ages as Messiah and in the general resurrection.

First the existence of a "Q" source is conjecture at best. You have to do better than that. The Gospel according to Mark clears expresses that Jesus taught that he would be killed and resurrected. He applies the divine name to himself and does things that only God can do like claiming the authority to forgive sin. Ever read Mark 1? Doesn't look like it if you think Mark conflicts with Paul.

How do we know this? Because there are two major movements from the first century that cause many more by the second century. There is the movement in Jerusalem as pointed to by Paul and headed by the original followers of Jesus. And there is Paul who opposes their understanding of the very person they followed.

Hmmm...references? None? If Baker is still speaking of Galatians and referring to the Judaizers, then he must have forgotten about all the Gentiles who became Christians through the ministries of Philip and Peter before Paul's own conversion! The Apostles were not in their camp but they agreed with Paul!

The beliefs that we find Paul complaining about that James, John and Peter hold are the same claims that the Ebionites held until the early second century. This view was followed by Theodotus and much of the Roman Church authority until suppressed by the mythically oriented movements that viewed Jesus as God. We find this movement in Paul and the Gospel of John.

There is no proof of James, Peter, or John holding the same claims as the Ebionites. They however did agree with Paul. Here Baker seems to be making the same claims Muslims make against Paul. Do you really think Peter and James, who allowed themselves to be martyred would just stand by and let Paul misrepresent them? IF you think that, I have some swamp land on Tatooine I could sell you with George Lucas' signature on the deed!

In Paul Jesus is not yet God he is the son of God. In the Gospel of John Jesus is viewed as a god or divine in the sense of pre-existence. These late first century beliefs became even more diverse by the second century when docetism ( Christ is God but not human ) became popular and a competition in Rome against the views as expressed by Theodotus. Gnosticism also was on the rise where Jesus only appeared to be a human but was a Spirit. Another form of Gnosticsm saw Jesus as a human in which the God or Spirit of Christ came down into until the crucifixion. At that time Jesus was abandoned. Finally the Trinitarians showed up to try and account for both a human and God in one person. This occurred late second or early third century.

Let's see what Paul wrote about who Jesus is in Galatians

¹ It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. - Galatians 5:1

There is no way that Paul is suggesting that Jesus is ontologically less than God because as a Jew he wold not give glory of emancipation from slavery to anyone less that the Almighty God who brought his people out of Egypt. If one thinks that "son of God" mean "not God" they need to do more research. Might I suggest you read the work of Dr Darryl Bock for help. Clearly neither Docetism nor Gnosticism were in anyway part of what Paul and the other Apostles taught .

As we can see the easiest and most logical explanation for the information that we have is the typical and traditional critical historical view. There was a historical person that shows up in the source called Q in sayings. He is made Gentile by Mark.

Where? Major FacePalm.

Some of the competing movements have a resolution. The Gospel of Matthew is written for the Jewish Churches while the Gospel of Luke and Acts are written for the Gentile Churches ( for example James M. Robinson, The Gospel of Jesus ).

Um Matthew, Luke, and Acts do not conflict.

Both allow for the acceptance of Gentiles into the Church. But Matthew requires all of the Law to be followed. Jesus states that he has not come to do away with the law but to fulfill it. Not one iota of it will ever change. For Luke and Paul, Jesus complete s and replaces the law.

Matthew does not reject Gentiles. In Matthew Jesus interacts with and heals gentiles remember?

⁵ When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. ⁶ “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed, suffering terribly.”
⁷ Jesus said to him, “Shall I come and heal him?”
⁸ The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. ⁹ For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”
¹⁰ When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. ¹¹ I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. ¹² But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” ¹³ Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go! Let it be done just as you believed it would.” And his servant was healed at that moment.- Matthew 8:5-12

For all the New Testament, Jesus is an "and" not a "but" To think that Paul is making up something new, means a complete and sad misunderstanding of what he wrote. He quotes from the Old Testament constantly and uses them to show Jesus is Messiah, Lord, and salvation is but through Jesus.


The Jerusalem Church produced nothing in writing because they were expecting an immediate return of Jesus. And supposedly James, John and Peter were illiterate peasants. It is after the fall of Jerusalem that any thing other than the Saying of Jesus as in Q are written about him. Mark reflects a time right after the fall of the Temple. Matthew and Luke are decades later reflecting apologetics as to why Jesus had not returned though the Temple had fallen.

That sure is a lot of hand-waving. Too bad there isn't a shred of proof offered to show that these conclusions are valid.

As the return of Jesus was delayed and delayed he became portrayed as more and more divine with salvation occurring in believing in "Him" rather than his message. His resurrection was into a Trinitarian dogma instead of a historical event. A failed Jewish teacher who had some good ideas became a mythological God whose following has caused 2000 years of superstition and bloodshed in the name of the Prince of Peace and Christian love.

Last I checked, Jesus far from failed. His Resurrection and promised forgiveness of sin through Him was preached from the beginning. And I don't mean just Mark, try Genesis. In addition the problems of 2000 years superstition and blood shed is at the feet of people not obeying what is in the Word of God not because of it.

Written by Tommy G. Baker

If Baker is wrong about Jesus not having brothers and sisters, why should anyone take any of his conclusions seriously? They should be dismissed due to their failure but not lack of imagination.



Debunking Christianity: Personified Myth or Mythologized Person?

Related articles

• Reading Galatians (womenembracingfaith.wordpress.com)
• Have The "Christian" Zionists Accused You Of Preaching A "Replacement Theology" Concerning Israel? (soulrefuge.org)

Sunday Quote: Ben Witherington on the Historical Resurrection of Jesus - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has posted a great quote from Dr Ben Witherington on the important of the fact of Jesus' Resurrection. His comment flies in the face of scholars like Dr. Dominac Crossan who I heard once say that Jesus' physical resurrection plays no part in his Christianity.

“Any position in which claims about Jesus or the resurrection are removed from the realm of historical reality and placed in a subjective realm of personal belief or some realm that is immune to human scrutiny does Jesus and the resurrection no service and no justice. It is a ploy of desperation to suggest that the Christian faith would be little affected if Jesus was not actually raised from the dead in space and time.

A person who gives up on the historical foundations of our faith has in fact given up on the possibility of any real continuity between his or her own faith and that of a Peter, Paul, James, John, Mary Magdalene, or Priscilla. The first Christian community had a strong interest in historical reality, especially the historical reality of Jesus and his resurrection, because they believed their faith, for better or for worse, was grounded in it.”

- Ben Witherington

I agree with Dr Witherington. Without the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, there is no Christianity (1 Corinthians 15).

Sunday Quote: Ben Witherington on the Historical Resurrection of Jesus - Apologetics 315