Thursday, October 18, 2012

Explore Darth Vader’s TIE Fighter In Your Browser With This Gorgeous 3D Model

David Prowse as Darth Vader in The Empire Stri...
David Prowse as Darth Vader in The Empire Strikes Back (1980) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Ever wanted to explore Darth Vader's Tie Fighter? Sure you do! You can now thanks to Sketchfab



Explore Darth Vader’s TIE Fighter In Your Browser With This Gorgeous 3D Model

If the fighter is not visible above go to the direct link

https://sketchfab.com/show/eIFt03aD0BrZPcTVU4F9jfw9duj
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Why Women Especially Should Reject Christianity

I wonder why Harry McCall even bothers to make arguments using the Biblical text because he never bothers to get the text correct. Who edits the Debunking Christianity anyway? Why does he think that Paul's writing is misogynistic? Is that what the text really saying? Can he substantiate his conclusions? Nope.

The first mark for Paul against women is that THEY ARE NOT created in the image of God, but have been taken from Adam (who alone is created in the image of God). In 1 Corinthians 11: 7b – 9 Paul states this fact: “…he (the man) is in the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.”


That does not mean that women are less than men or that women are not created in the image of  God. Paul would have agreed with Genesis 1:26-28

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” - Genesis 1:26-28

God created men and women in God's image. Genesis 2 gives the details  of how God did it. Paul is not contradicting scripture. Paul is, instead, discussing the roles of men and women  not ontology.  McCall did not show how Paul's words elevates men over women.  Let's look at  what Paul wrote that shows how this works out even clearer (I wonder why McCall does not quote the whole passage?)..

I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
A man ought not to cover his head,[b] since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[c] head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God. - 1 Corinthians 11:2-16
Think about what the order of roles that is being stated.Woman submits to man. Christ submits to God. Paul believed that Jesus is God therefore Jesus is not inferior to God. 

11 For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. 12 It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, 13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good. - Titus 2:11-14

Therefore, extending the parallel that Paul is using, women are not inferior to men. And what about verse 13? Paul was not explaining that women were inferior in any way.

Secondly for Paul, when in a worship service all women MUST keep their faces veiled so the glory of God will be revealed in the men in attendance of whom God created alone in his image: “But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.” (1 Corinthians 11: 5 - 6)

Verse 13 kills McCall's whole argument.

Simply put, all women must keep their ungodly faces covered with a veil if their hair has been cut short (shaved) or – if they don’t have a veil – then let them use their long hair to cover their faces. For if there are angles in the worship service, these angles would be shocked to see any woman worshipping with their face uncovered taking away the glory of God found only in men: “Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.” (1 Corinthians 11: 10)

So why did Paul say "If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God." (1 Cor 11:16)? Simple: McCall is wrong.


For Paul, all men must keep their hair short as to display the glory of God: “For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.” (1 Corinthians 11: 7) and “Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.” (1 Corinthians 11: 14)

More importantly, in Paul’s view all women are the deceivers descended directly from Eve who alone listened to the serpent then mislead Adam: “And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression.” (1Timothy 2: 14)

The Bible does not lay the blame of sin on Eve, But Adam. Eve was deceived. She was innocent. Adam had the responsibility and the failure. 

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— - Romans 5:12

This being the case, Paul demands: “Let your women keep silent in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also says the law. And if they will learn anything let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” (1 Corinthians 14: 34 - 35)

This cannot mean that women are not supposed to ever teach or preach in the Church. I've written more about at this link and you should also read here.

And

“Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. (I Tim. 2: 11 – 14)

Thus all women have two strikes against them over and above Original Sin, and these two curses have been pasted to ALL women just as Adam and Eve’s collective disobedience has been pasted down on all humanity:

Um what curses?  

A. Women ARE NOT created in the image of God, but have been taken out of Adam making them forever inferior to men thus requiring them to cover their faces while in the worship assembly.

Already shown that this is not true. 

B. Women are weak and gullible in that only the woman was tricked by the serpent, who in turn deceived the man. Thus for Paul, all women are simple minded and gullible and should NEVER be given the chance to mislead men again.

The woman were gullible while the man outright rebelled against God. He knew better,. I admit that many people look at this point the way that McCall presents it, but that is not what the Bible says.

In the so called Lord’s Prayer, Jesus made an emphatic statement: “γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημα σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς” (with γενηθήτω in the aorist imperative) that God’s will (θέλημα) must be done in Heaven as upon earth.

Yes. And just what is God's will that will be on Heaven as it is on earth?

26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. - Galatians 3:26-29

Now when we put this statement in with Paul’s theology of women, sadly women bear a huge curse above men that can NEVER be forgiven either here on earth or in Heaven!

Um no. Not even close. It's only through Christ that we - male and female - are free. This isn't the point women are less than man. Just the contrary and McCall has failed to demonstrate that the Bible says women are inferior to men.

Harry McCall 

Please Pray for Harry McCall



Debunking Christianity: Why Women Especially Should Reject Christianity
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, October 15, 2012

Eastwooding Richard Dawkins - YouTube

Continuing the running cultural gag of debating with an empty chair as if your opponent is sitting there and responding to how you think he may respond to you, William Lane Craig recently used the same tactic in a lecture responding to the argument of  Richard Dawkins.


Eastwooding Richard Dawkins - YouTube

I don't think that Eastwooding was really effective in this situation. I doubt it will make Dawkins come up debate Craig, but it is interesting to see how Craig understands Dawkins' argument. 

Apologist Interview: Douglas Wilson - Apologetics 315

In this week's interview Brian Auten interviewed Douglas Wilson. I love to Pastor Wilson preach, teach, and debate. It was very interesting! Follow the link to Apologetics 315 to hear the interview. 

Apologist Interview: Douglas Wilson - Apologetics 315

Felix Baumgartner's 23-Mile Jump

I am simply floored. Felix Baumgartner skydived from 23 miles above the ground - the stratosphere to the ground safely, breaking the sound barrier, in a one-way 10 minute trip.  He rode up in a capsule that was being pulled by a helium balloon and then jumped. I've only heard of such a thing in comics and movies but a man actually did it and survived it.


The Best Memes Inspired By Felix Baumgartner's 23-Mile Jump

The thing that blows me away the most is that it ends this way:


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Answering Muslims: Lara Logan: On the Lies about al-Qaeda and the Taliban

David Wood posted a clip from speech given by Lara Logan about how al-Qaeda and the Taliban are still killing American soldiers and our government is covering it up.


 I doubt any of this will change who ever becomes President of the US in November. I think Lara Logan is making good point and given her experiences and years of reporting in the Middle East, we should pay her some attention.

Answering Muslims: Lara Logan: On the Lies about al-Qaeda and the Taliban
Enhanced by Zemanta

Debate: Hugh Ross vs. Lewis Wolpert: Is there Evidence for a Cosmic Creator? - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has posted a debate between Dr Hugh Ross and Lewis Wolpert. on  the topic: Is there evidence of cosmic creator? You can listen to the debate by going to the link at Apologetics 315:
 
Debate: Hugh Ross vs. Lewis Wolpert: Is there Evidence for a Cosmic Creator? - Apologetics 315

Hugh Ross does a great job in arguing for why there is enough evidence to believe that there is a cosmic creator. Lewis Wolpert 's argument appalled me. It broke down to: "I am not a physicist. I do not understand the evidence Hugh Ross is bringing.  There is no evidence for the existence of God." In other words, Wolpert said: I've made up my mind, so do not bother me with facts. Really close-minded. He really lost this debate.

One of the points of evidence Ross uses is about what we have learned about Dark Matter over the past 12 years. Here is a video that presents some information about Dark Matter and some of the conclusions that are being drawn. I don't agree with everything in the video about multiple universes but there is a lot of good science in it representing many view points today.


Enhanced by Zemanta

The New NA28 and the Preservation of Scripture

Dr James White posted the following video discussing the importance of critical textual publications of the New Testament. I agree with him that we should really want to know what original text of the Old Testament said. I also agree with him that we have enough lines of transmission over a large period of time over large geographical areas that we can know what the autographs contained.


The New NA28 and the Preservation of Scripture
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, October 8, 2012

Answering Muslims: Eastwooding Muhammad

David Wood posted a video in which he interviews Muhammad about inconsistencies in Islam. It;s really interesting and take a cue from the new cultural meme known as  "Eastwooding" - started by Clint Eastwood's speech during the RNC last several weeks ago. 


"Eastwooding" has become a meme. You can learn more here: Clint Eastwood's Empty Chair Speech / Eastwooding / Invisible Obama
Clint Eastwood's Empty Chair Speech / Eastwooding / Invisible Obama

Answering Muslims: Eastwooding Muhammad

50 Years of Bond [Infographic]




50 Years of Bond [Infographic]

Sunday, October 7, 2012

Calvinistic Cartoons: In Search of a New Robin


That would be

Arthur Pink once wrote:
An ineffably holy God, who has the utmost abhorrence of sin, was never invented by any of Adam's descendents.
Looks like Batman has a point.

Calvinistic Cartoons: In Search of a New Robin

“You Shoulda Put a Ring on It”: Witnessing to Cohabiting Couples | CRI

I found a very interesting article written by Joe Dallas. He wrote about how to witness to couple who choose to live together and not marry one another.  He stared out retelling a conversation he had in 1987 with co-workers who chose to live with their significant others despite he and his fiance deciding to wait for marriage.

“Aren’t you engaged, Joe?” someone then asked, and all eyes turned to me, wondering how I was going to defend my jumping into an institution they’d just essentially trashed.
“Sure am,” I smiled, “and looking forward to being a husband.”
“That’s nice,” a waiter responded, regarding me the way one considers a quaint little relic. “But is it really necessary? Don’t you love each other with or without a ring?”
“Yeah,” I nodded, “but we’re both looking for commitment, too.”
“We’re just as committed as you!” another waitress retorted, as though I’d just criticized her arrangement with her live-in boyfriend. “A ceremony and a license don’t make a commitment.”
“No,” I conceded, “they don’t. But they put teeth into it. And I guess it’s the teeth we’re looking for.”

How would you respond?  Joe Dallas relates in the article how he responded. The article is really important because it points out a very important point: Denying the important of marriage has lead us to the mess we have today where people are confused about what marriage is. People think that they can make marriage mean whatever they want marriage to mean - that is if it is "only a ring".


“You Shoulda Put a Ring on It”: Witnessing to Cohabiting Couples | CRI
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, October 6, 2012

Answering Muslims: Eric Allen Bell: "Islamophobia or Islamo-Reality?"

I had heard of Eric Allen Bell before David Wood posted this talk from him but this is the first extended description of his experience I've heard in his own words. It's how his opinion towards Islam was changed from thinking that it was like any other religion to really learning about what it teaches people to believe and inspires them to do.

I especially liked the contrast he gave for how Christians react to being mocked and insulted to how Muslims react to criticism.
Answering Muslims: Eric Allen Bell: "Islamophobia or Islamo-Reality?"

Marvel Vs. DC Movie Infographic - Marvel Is Winning - News - GeekTyrant




Marvel Vs. DC Movie Infographic - Marvel Is Winning - News - GeekTyrant

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Need Some Good Sci-Fi Storytelling?

Today, If you have a good idea and some talent you can make some top notch, high quality. Here are a couple of really good examples. You have to see these







Must Watch Sci-Fi Short: Plurality [Video]



Featured Sci-Fi Short: Tears of Steel [Video]

Monday, October 1, 2012

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: I Could Conceivably Be Wrong. So?

John Loftus and Dr Randal Rauser have been in debate with one another regarding sveral topics over the past several weeks. From time-to-time it spills over onto Loftus' blog  Debunking Christianity. I don't agree with everything Dr Rauser says but I think he makes more sense than Loftus does. I mean take the title of the post I am referring to here: " I Could Conceivably Be Wrong. So?" The attitude seems really silly! I mean if Atheists are wrong they are going to hell and will be completely cut off from God!!!! If that doesn't matter, then Loftus has no idea what is at stake.

Randal Rauser repeatedly tells us that, "Faith consists of assent to a proposition that is conceivably false." I have repeatedly said that faith is an irrational leap over the probabilities, and as such, we should think exclusively in terms of probabilities. He claims I'm ignorant. I cannot hope to convince the deluded mind, but maybe more reasonable people can see what seems obvious to non-believers.

I disagree that faith is believing something despite the fact that it could be false. This is no different that believing something just because it seems more probable to you. This is not how the Bible describes or defines "faith".  It makes sense to live this way if you don't have any other information. No one in the Bible was commended for their faith because they just believed something that they could have been wrong about. They believed God because of what God said to them despite their circumstances. For example, Abraham believed God would give he and Sarah children despite them both being well beyond child-bearing age because that is what God told him.

16 Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17 As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.”[c] He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not.
18 Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, “So shall your offspring be.”[d] 19 Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah’s womb was also dead. 20 Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21 being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. 22 This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.” 23 The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, 24 but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification. - Romans 4:16-25

Let's take just one example, the fact that the sun will rise this morning over the horizon where I live in Indiana. It's hard for me to calculate how many mornings the sun has risen but let me take a good guess. Given that the earth has existed for about 4.5 billion years multiplied by 365 days per year or so, the odds that it will rise today are about 1,642.5 billion to one (or something like that). So when I say I know the sun will rise today I can say this with a great deal of certainty. The odds are virtually certain the sun will rise over the horizon (even if clouds might hide it from view).

Notice how Loftus desires to equate concluding  that the sun will rise tomorrow, based on the fact that it rose everyday for the past 4.5 billion years.  The problem is that God did tell us about the sun and the seasons. They will never stop as long as the earth exists.  

22 “As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat,
summer and winter,
day and night
will never cease.” - Genesis 8:22

Therefore we can have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow - not just because of  Physics but also because God says so.

The question is whether I need to be certain the sun will rise this morning and if faith is required to fill in this gap so I can know that it will. I think not, obviously so. I don't need this gap to be filled. I don't need to be certain the sun will rise today. I can be quite comfortable to go with the odds, the probabilities. Probabilities are all that matter. We should think exclusively in terms of them.

We don't conclude that the sun rises because of faith. Bad example. One might be comfortable with not being certain that the sun will rise tomorrow morning but I would not want to bet that Christianity is wrong, based on the overwhelming evidence of what God has said

This goes for everything else I think is probably true. It doesn't change anything if the odds become different for other things I think are probably true, so long as I conclude they are probably true.

Concluding that something is probably true does not make it true. Same is true in reverse.

But wait!

Oh yeah! More fail!!!

Is faith used to calculate the very probabilities I use to conclude the sun will rise today? How so?

It doesn't. 

That a great deal of background knowledge from personal experience is used to calculate the probabilities is granted, and most all of it could conceivably be false too. So? This background knowledge has the weight of probability to it, at least, we accept it as more probable than not over-all. We cannot do otherwise. What else do we have to judge our background knowledge by except in terms of the probabilities? The reason I trust my background knowledge is not because of faith but rather because it is built up based on the probabilities of personal experience one layer at a time from birth. Trust is based on the probabilities, that's why faith is not trust. If it were the same thing then Rauser would be found equivocating on the word "faith." For "faith" would become equivalent to trusting the probabilities which is the very thing I argue for leaving faith undefined. Given this fact, it's no wonder Christians cannot even agree on how to define faith, because it cannot reasonably be done apart from the probabilities.

Of course accepting Christianity can be done outside of probabilities.  It's called trusting what God has revealed to you and making sure you examine facts to make sure you are not just making things up.

Could we be wrong? Yes. So what? What's faith got to do with this process?

If you are wrong, you are going to hell.  Applying faith helps you believe God's revelation when there is no way you could have believed it on your own.

Therefore, to say we need faith to think the sun will rise today, at best, is superfluous, completely unnecessary, utterly irrelevant, and at worst irrational.

Yeah and pointless as to whether or not you need faith to live. 

There is more!

Steven Garmon said, "Faith is what is required to uphold the things we believe are most probable."

How does faith do that?

Biblical faith is required to believe what God has said because we cannot without God's help. 

Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for.
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead.
By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: “He could not be found, because God had taken him away.”[a] For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. - Hebrews 11:1-6

Picture flipping a quarter. The odds are about equal that you'll get a heads or a tails. Where is faith? What does it do here? How does having it change the odds?

Faith isn't about flipping a quarter. With regards to salvation, faith makes salvation assured. 

Picture a lottery where you have a one in 80 million chance of winning. Where is faith? What does it do here? How does having it change the odds?

Salvation is not about winning a lottery. Everyone is going to hell as default. Saving faith is what changes you from being hellbound sinners into children of God. 


Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. - Romans 8:5-8

Picture a sports contest, say a boxing match. Gamblers place their bets on who will win based on the odds. Where is faith? What does it do here? How does having it change the odds?

 The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD. - Proverb 16:33

Ahhhh, morning has broken! Whew, that was a lucky guess, right? ;-)

Has nothing to do with luck. It's all about God's mercy.


Debunking Christianity: I Could Conceivably Be Wrong. So?
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, September 29, 2012

Fistbump of the Day: Yes, We Are Still Fighting Gnosticism


The past several weeks I've head of a manuscript fragment that people are suggesting sheds light on the early history of Christianity. It's just a scrap of papyrus written in coptic but what is putting the world up in arms is one of the phrases written on it:

Jesus said to them, my wife,

This is basically making people remember that some people believe that Jesus was married. Before people tried to use the gnostic text "Gospel of Thomas" to substantiate the claim but the text itself does not explicitly say that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene people infer it. The interesting thing is that neither this scrap of papyrus or the Gospel of Thomas have either the historical evidence or validity of the four canonical gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. There are people who don't see the Gospels as historical true or that there is historic and identifiable Christianity and they seem to want to give alternate gospels and texts equal weight.

[Dr Karen] King said that it was not until around 200 A.D. that claims started to surface, via the theologian known as Clement of Alexandria, that Jesus did not marry.

"This fragment suggests that other Christians of that period were claiming that he was married" but does not provide actual evidence of a marriage, she said.

"Christian tradition preserved only those voices that claimed Jesus never married. The 'Gospel of Jesus's Wife' now shows that some Christians thought otherwise." [Source]

Dr King and others are clear in telling that this does not prove that Jesus did indeed have a wife. However they think that there were Christians [the Gnostics] who did think that Jesus had wife and the reason why traditional Christianity does not is because the poor Gnostics were silenced. It's amazing to me that people would even try to make Gnostics Christians. The Mormons have more in common with historic traditional Christianity than the Gnostics did!  I mean really. The only way you could really think that the Gnostics would have been recognized as Christians by Peter, James, John, Paul, and the other first century Christians is if you don't know what the Bible teaches and/or what the many Gnostic flavors taught.

Added to this Dr Dan Wallace has posted the following piece of information:

Dan Wallace just posted this:


“News flash: Harvard Theological Review has decided not to publish Karen King¹s paper on the Coptic papyrus fragment on the grounds that the fragment is probably a fake.” This from an email Dr. Craig Evans, the Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Acadia University and Divinity College, sent to me earlier today. He said that Helmut Koester (Harvard University), Bentley Layton (Yale University), Stephen Emmel (University of Münster), and Gesine Robinson (Claremont Graduate School)–all first-rate scholars in Coptic studies–have weighed in and have found the fragment wanting. No doubt Francis Watson’s comprehensive work showing the fragment’s dependence on the Gospel of Thomas was a contributing factor for this judgment, as well as the rather odd look of the Coptic that already raised several questions as to its authenticity.
It's a forgery. 

What I find interesting is that while we have people trying to water down Christianity and say things about Jesus that they cannot prove over a forgery and no Christian killing over the situation, we have three countries protesting and killing over a movie on YouTube  that insult Muhammad based on Islamic sources! God is straight up showing us a difference between those who follow Christ and those who follow Muhammad.

It's nothing but the hand of God. The best thing is that God has called up brothers in Christ in every generation for when this kind of crap gets raised up. Here is a list of links regarding the way Dr James White, Mariano Grinbank, and Matthew Dowling have addressed this issue. Fistbumps to them all.

The Gospel of Jesus' Wife and Update: The Gospel of Jesus' Wife by Matthew Dowling

Was Jesus married? Manuscript says yes by Mariano Grinbank

Check these out by Dr James White
Get Ready for A Wave of Gnostic Looniness Once Again
A Note to the Secular World: Do Your History
Calling the MSM---Anyone Home?




Enhanced by Zemanta

Tim McGrew's Recommended Apologetics Reading - Apologetics 315

 Remember that lecture Dr Timothy McGrew did on educating yourself in Apologetics posted on Apologetics 315 by Brian Auten? Well Brian Auten posted a follow up that contains a Bibliography of the books and resources he discussed in the lecture. Check it out!

Tim McGrew's Recommended Apologetics Reading - Apologetics 315
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, September 27, 2012

Answering Muslims: Don't Make Fun of Muhammad!

David Wood has posted the following video commenting the recent world wide violent protests of Muslims around the world.





The following link also contains a list of Islamic sources used in the video



Answering Muslims: Don't Make Fun of Muhammad!
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Calvinism vs Arminianism - Interviews on Both Perspectives

Over the past two weeks, the pod cast "Christian Meets World" has featured interviews of a scholar explaining why he takes an Arminian position and the other interview was of a Reformed (Calvinist) scholar. Although I did not completely agree with either, I think it's worth listening to both because you get a good overview of the discussion that has raged for more than 500 years.

CMW056: Interview with Dr Jerry Walls on “What is Arminianism?” 

CMW057: Interview with Rev Dr Mark Thompson on “What is Calvinism?”
Enhanced by Zemanta

Practical Apologetics MP3 by Dr. Timothy McGrew - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has posted a lecture by Dr Timothy McGrew about Apologetics in which he gives really good advice about how to talk to people and how to study to equip oneself. I always enjoy hearing Dr McGrew and this lecture is no exception. There is a lot I gleaned from his advice. 

Practical Apologetics MP3 by Dr. Timothy McGrew - Apologetics 315
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, September 23, 2012

Answering Muslims: Zakir Hussain vs. James White: Is Muhammad Prophesied in the Bible?

You would think that such a think would never really need to be debated, but some Muslims will do anything to rationalize why Islam should supplant Christianity and Judaism.



Answering Muslims: Zakir Hussain vs. James White: Is Muhammad Prophesied in the Bible?

Saturday, September 22, 2012

Shawarma Secret

Now this a great example how to add continuity into a story!


I love Shawarma!