Atheism is Dead: Five Finger Death Punch the Multiverse

Here is another great post from, Mariano. In this essay he gives 5 really good reasons for rejecting the "Multiple Universe" theory which atheists use to explain why our universe is so finely designed so that if fundamental physical constants were differently even a small amount, we would not exist to discuss it. I like to think of it as God made this amazing masterpiece and put us in the best possible place in that canvas so that we can see what He did! One of the consequences of this fine tuning is that the earth is not just in the best and only possible location in the observable universe for our life to exist, but we are in a place where true scientific inquiry is possible.b We have "court-side" seats to see God's wonders. Can't be coincidence.

Atheism is Dead: Five Finger Death Punch the Multiverse

YouTube - Zakir Naik on the Deen Show: Review and Rebuttal Pt. 3

James White has posted a 3rd part his response to Zakir Naik  on the Deen Show. James White wrote:

Here is my third and final response to Zakir Naik's appearance on The Deen Show. What I did was take my opening statement from my debate with Shabir Ally on this topic from London in November of last year, along with my comments on Deuteronomy 18:18 from the preceding debate, and put that audio under the KeyNote slides I used.

Zakir Naik's Claims on Muhammad in the Bible

Terminology Tuesday: Occam's Razor - Apologetics 315

This is a great post from Occam's Razor. It is an concept in philosophy. It is another great resource from the Apologetics 315 blog. On the face of it, I agree that its silly to make up complicated explanation without a good reason. The simpler explanation is more likely. Unfortunately, as Brian, points out in his post, that many use this idea to reject supernatural explanations for events. An example that comes to my mind is the Multiple universe theory to explain away the fine-tuning of our own as an example of rejecting Occam's argument. I'd also offer the "swoon" theory and the hallucination hypothesis which attempt to explain the fact that the first Christians reported to experiencing the resurrected Christ as examples of ignoring Occam.

Terminology Tuesday: Occam's Razor - Apologetics 315

Hank Hanegraaff - Is The Bible the Words of God or Men?

Image by JL Outdoor Photography via Flickr

On Hank Hanegraaf'a blog he tackled the importance of being able to believe in the revelations God has given us in the Bible because it is from God and not made up by men. Hanegraaf does not give his arguments for proving the Bible is from God because he wants us to buy his materials, but I see his point. As a Christian, the Bible is critical. IF it is made up be men then it has no authority and Christianity offers us nothing! I believe the Bible is from God for several reasons. The best two I have is that the Bible can't shown to be false. It has nothing in it that is wrong. In other words it's infallible and free of error. The other point is that the Bible had over 40 authors, written over 1500 years, on three continents, and in three languages. Most of the authors did not know any of the other authors, yet they are all telling parts of the same story. I don't have enough faith to think that they all coincidentally agree. I challenge anyone to find a place where the Bible disagree with itself and why they think it's wrong.

Wherever you get the information, if you’re a believer make it your passion to reach not repel a Robert Crumb. Don’t say, “What a terrible guy he is, how could he say such things.” Pagans are going to exercise their job description in not believing the truth of God. A Christian’s job description is to be a well informed ambassador for Christ.

Hank Hanegraaff - Is the Bible the Words of God or men?

YouTube - Zakir Naik on the Deen Show: Review and Rebuttal Pt. 2

Image via Wikipedia

Dr James White responds to Muslim claims against the deity of Jesus Christ. He interacts by commenting with Zakir Naik on the Deen Show. If I remember correctly, this Naik will not debate Dr. White in a public debate. Dr. White describes the video thusly:

Dr. Zakir Naik appeared recently on The Deen Show. He demonstrated once again the shallow nature of the most popular Islamic arguments against the deity of Christ. Part 2 of my response.

If you are interested in how Muslims look at Jesus, this is the video to watch!






YouTube - Zakir Naik on the Deen Show: Review and Rebuttal Pt. 2

Brennon's Thoughts: Romans 9: Updating my Exegesis

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

Here is a great post! I've been wanting to see a verse-by-verse exegesis of Romans 9 from an Arminian perspective. My brother-in-Christ, Brennon, has done exactly that on his blog. I thought that it would be interesting to discuss his points-by-point in hopes that I can clear up any misconceptions I may have. I've also taken the liberty of reproducing each verse in my post. The Bible verses from Romans 9 are in red, Brannon's comments are in black, and my comments are in blue.

¹I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit— ²I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. ³For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race,

1-3: Paul is Jewish and He is writing here about his Jewish brethren. We need to keep this important fact in mind, as it is the most important thing to remember in order to properly understand this passage. One good thing to ask ourselves here is why Paul would be so upset over those who are not accepting Christ if they had been predestined that way? Why, if God is glorified through their reprobation, is Paul so distraught? Even to the point he would give his own salvation so they may be saved! Isn’t Paul's main concern the glory of God? I thought God would be glorified in this!? Why would Paul care so much about those God has chosen to reprobate out of His own sovereign decree?

I agree with Brennon's point that Romans 9 is attempting to address the reasons why Jews are rejecting the message. I would answer Brennon's question as to why Paul would be so grieved  that there were Jews rejecting the message by pointing out that all Christians should feel something at the thought of unrepentent sinners going hell. I know  Brennon does not like it either. However, are they going to hell because of their own choice as Brennon is suggesting..as if they could have chosen otherwise on their own? I think another question that must be asked is does it make sense that God would attempt to save people and they still end up in hell? Is it possible for God to move on a person and they are able to disobey?

⁴the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. ⁵Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

4-5: This is the context of Romans 9. Paul is writing about people groups. Paul has his hypothetical questioner wonder why all these promises to the Jews, especially the promise of the Messiah, were being ignored by the Jews? Has God somehow failed in His choice of the Jewish people? Paul argues throughout Romans that salvation is based on faith and not by works. When he comes to Romans 9-11, Paul is dealing now with the anticipated Jewish contention that God has rejected His people whom He chose, and even through whom Christ came. We don’t think about it much today because we are so far separated from that line of thinking, but this is the context in which Paul wrote.

 I agree with Brennon here too for the most part. Paul is going to prove the the disbelief of the Jews does not mean that God changed His mind or failed to do as He intended. I don't think that he is talking about people groups as a whole, just the Jews in particular.

 ⁶It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.

6: Paul addresses the misconception here that the Jews were automatically saved simply because they are Jews, and also the misconception that God somehow failed in choosing them as His people. He states, “But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect (failed in His choice of the Jews). For they are not all Israel who are of Israel.” They are not all Israel (the people of God) simply because they are of Israel (of Jewish descent). It is crucial to see that this is about corporate election! God has predestined that believers as a group (spiritual Israel) would be saved, and non-believers will not. God's election is not about national decent and birthright, as will be shown with the examples of the patriarchs and their children, but about faith in Him.

In the Old Testament, God chose the Jews for a purpose. They were tasked with carrying the Law of God. God was revealing Himself to the world and they were tasked with recording that revelation. They kept the temple sacrifices and the Passover which all pointed to Jesus Christ. They were not saved simply because they were Jews. They were saved the same way as we are, as shown in Genesis 15:6 where Abrahams FAITH was accounted to him as righteousness (Christ’s future sacrifice paid for the salvation of Abraham and all who had faith in God in the Old Testament). Also, people from outside the Jewish nation came to faith in God, and God looked at Christ’s sacrifice instead of their sin.

I think the text is really clear that those who believe are saved and those who try to just keep the laws are not justified. But I think it's a little hasty to bring up "corporate election" because. we should look at the examples Paul gives to illustrate his point.

⁷Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." ⁸In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring. ⁹For this was how the promise was stated: "At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son."

  

7-9: God chose Isaac to be the heir of Abraham, the heir that would carry on the Jewish race. It wasn’t due to who Isaac was; it was God’s sovereign choice in choosing Isaac to do this, for His own reasons. It wasn’t simply enough to be Abraham’s son, for Ishmael was also his son. Isaac was the child of promise. God supernaturally caused Sarah to give birth to him, and chose him as the specific person to carry on the line of the Jews, even though Ishmael was the firstborn. However, this is not speaking of Isaac being unconditionally elected unto salvation and Ishmael being reprobated. If you remember correctly, God had mercy on Ishmael.

You know, I have never heard a Calvinist argue that Ishmael was reprobated. And again there is no disagreement here concerning the fact that Isaac was chosen over Ismael  to show that it was God's choice not just because Isaac was Abraham's son and that it was God's choice not because of anything Isaac or Ismael did. Interestingly, Paul used the example of how God acted in the lives of two men to prove his point. 

  ¹⁰Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. ¹¹Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand:

10-11: Here it is essential to know a little cultural context here. Rabbis at this time taught that God had chosen Israel because of the righteousness of the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and other ancient Jewish fathers). Paul is refuting that! It wasn’t because of the things they did (because they were chosen before birth); it was because of the sovereign choice of God that He chose them as the ones to carry on the lineage of Israel.

 Definitely, Paul is using the lives of Jacob and Esau to further his point that it was God who chose whom were included in the promise and who wasn't.

12-13: Improperly understood, this could have massive repercussions on your interpretation of the rest of the Bible. Is God telling Rebecca while her children were still in the womb that He hates one of them!? God hated a baby!? How does that fit the rest of scripture? First off, Paul is quoting Genesis 25:23. It says, “two NATIONS are in your womb. Two peoples shall be separated from your body; One people shall be stronger than the other, And the older shall serve the younger.’” Remember what I've been saying? This is a prophecy about God choosing a nation to reveal Himself through. This is not about the boys themselves. Esau became the father of the Edomites. Jacob was renamed Israel and the nation of Israel descended from him. This is about Israel being a stronger nation than Edom, not about Esau literally serving Jacob. We see later on that Esau never actually served Jacob, they were reconciled, and I think they are both in heaven today. This is also not about individual election unto salvation. It’s about the sovereign choice of God of a nation to reveal Himself through.

But what about, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”? This is from Malachi 1, which was written 1600 years after the passage from Genesis. Let’s examine it. Notice God is speaking to the nation of Israel.

2 “I have loved you,” says the LORD. “Yet you say, ‘In what way have You loved us?’ Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” Says the LORD. “Yet Jacob I have loved; 3 But Esau I have hated, And laid waste his mountains and his heritage For the jackals of the wilderness.” 4 Even though Edom has said, “We have been impoverished, But we will return and build the desolate places,” Thus says the LORD of hosts: “ They may build, but I will throw down;

This entire passage is also about the nations, not the boys. They would have died over 1400 years prior to this. Paul is using these passages to make his point about corporate election. God chose Israel to bless, not Edom. The boys are simply the figureheads of these nations.

Also, when the words “Love-hate” are used as they are here, hated is being used as an idiom (the Hebrews loved using these). It is used opposite to love to express a lesser degree of love, not literal hatred. You can see a similar usage in Genesis 29:30. Jesus uses the same idiom in Luke 14:26. We’re not actually supposed to hate our parents, but compared to our love for God, the love for our parents is like hate.

So instead of teaching that God hated a baby before he had done anything, this passage actually teaches that God chose specific nations for specific things. That is a huge difference.

Again, I have never heard a Calvinist say that God hated Esau the way He hates sin. And I would interpret "
"Esau I hated" the same way Brennon has done here. However, I disagree that we can jump to corporate election..I think the key is the verse 11 "Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand"  because Paul says why God did it. To illustrate the nature of election - God doing what He wants when He wants and how He wants. Bringing in the point that Esau and Jacob both became nations, Edom and Israel  respectively, I think even more perfectly shows how in control God really is. Think of the number of decisions people had to make - both Edomites and Israelites - over many centuries so that things turned out the way God said it would.

  ¹⁴What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! ¹⁵For he says to Moses,
   "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
      and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." ¹⁶It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

14-16: What about this? Was God unrighteous when He chose Jacob over Esau? The Jews at this time would have thought so. Esau was the eldest and that meant that the birthright of Isaac was naturally his. But God chose Jacob to be the one to carry on the line of Israel. Paul asserts that of course God is not unrighteous in this decision.

In verse 15 Paul is citing Exodus 33:19. Let’s remember that Paul is a Jewish Rabbi. Jews memorized large portions of the Old Testament. He had an amazing command of knowledge of these ancient texts. Would he rip the text out of context in order to prove a point about individual unconditional election? No! The context here is not about who goes to heaven and who does not. In context, Moses has asked God to show him His glory. God says it is because of His mercy that He has decided to show Himself to Moses, not due to anything Moses did. So Paul’s point is God does not owe us mercy based on what we do (will or run). The basis of God’s choice to save people is not on the people’s conduct, but on His compassion. The “IT” in verse 16 is not individual salvation; the “IT” refers to God’s choice of what to predicate His salvation on: Corporate election. Individual unconditional election has not appeared in this section.

I'm not sure why we would assume that if God could do this with nations that he does not do it with individuals? In order for God to do it on a corporate scale means turning and directing the will of many people...so teaching that God does not do anything against human free will goes out the window. I agree that the verses are definitely saying that election is based on God's will and desire and nothing to do with the properties of those being elected. I mean you can't elect yourself to something and still call it "election". "Fair" is whatever God says it is as far as I am concerned. I think that Paul is really pointing out that this is how God is and deals with his creation. It's His reality. We just live in it...on His terms.

¹⁷For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."¹⁸Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. 

17-18: Is this speaking of eternal salvation? If it is, it is terrible! Are there people whom God hardened, leaving them nothing they can do about it? Has God chosen them for destruction? Certainly God has the power to do this, but does this sound like the God of the Bible? Ezekiel 33:11 says, “‘As I live,’ says the Lord GOD, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live.’” 2 Peter 3:9 says, “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” And 1 Timothy 2:4 says,“[God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” This is what God wants. He wants everyone to be saved because He loves us. But He allows us to reject His call.

I see nothing here about God hating Pharoah - only that God had a purpose to bring forth and He chose to build Pharoah up knowing that He would knock Him down. IT doesn't say that God enjoyed it...only that God did it.

Concerning Pharaoh and Moses and God hardening Pharaoh’s heart, we must remember that Pharaoh was never a believer and had already hardened his heart toward God. God in displaying His grace to Pharaoh was the occasion for Pharaoh to harden his heart. Much like we say prison hardens a criminal, we know it is actually the criminal hardening himself; Pharaoh likewise was hardened because of God’s grace. Also the Hebrew word for “harden” is more often translated “to give strength, to fortify.” So in Exodus 14:17, God may have only strengthened the resolve of what the Egyptians had already chosen to do. God never decided to send Pharaoh to hell based on an arbitrary decree. Pharaoh went to hell because of his sins.

So how does this example apply here? God shows mercy to who He wants to show mercy. By sending Moses to pharaoh, God displayed His mercy. By this act, God was the cause of Pharaoh's heart-hardening. God knew pharaoh would harden His heart, and God used this to display His own glory and power in bringing the Israelites out of Egypt. He chose to harden pharaoh to display His glory, but it was based on what He knew pharaoh would do.

This is an often used interpretation. The thing is that God said that he would harden Pharaoh's heart before Moses ever appeared before Pharaoh. See Exodus 4:12. Also that before regeneration, we all harden our hearts against God. God has to replace our hearts of stone with hearts of flesh.This is an example of one who was destined for reprobation. Need another example? Judas Iscariot.

 ¹⁹One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" ²⁰But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " ²¹Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
 ²²What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? ²³What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—

19-23: The hypothetical questioner asks, "why does God still find fault?" To properly read this, we must understand what is being asked here. The question is not, "why Pharaoh or the Jews cannot come to God in faith?"; the question is, "why is fault being found if they are accomplishing the purpose of God?". The hypothetical questioner asks why God is still angry if God's glory is shown when His grace causes someone to harden their heart, why does He still hold those people culpable for their hard hearts? Paul dismisses this silly question. If God wants to save one vessel according to faith and use those who don't have faith to accomplish His purpose in spite of their unbelief, that is His sovereign prerogative. He alludes to another passage in the Old Testament in Jeremiah 18:3-11. The potter is God and the clay is the nation of Israel. What does this passage say about who God destroys?

8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

So, the point seems to be if the nation turns from it's evil, God will spare it. But if it doesn't, God will destroy it. This example shows again that Paul is speaking of corporate election of believers. God has chosen to mold from the same lump (Israel) vessels for common use and those for honorable. Those who have turned from their evil ways in faith to Jesus are the "vessles of mercy", those who have not are the "vessels of wrath".

I'm not sure why Brennon brings up faith because faith had nothing to do with God choosing Isaac over Ismael, or Jacob over Esau, or Pharaoh for destruction. How much say does the pot have to the Potter of what it will be used for? Nothing. There is nothing about the pot itself that makes it honorable or common aside from the purpose of the Potter who made it. This is why I don't really agree with the thought that "vessels of mercy" obtain mercy based on their own choice..IT is a gift from God. If Paul only meant to talk about Nations why did he use Pharaoh and not Egypt as his example of reprobation and destruction?

So as God chose the people of Israel as His people, He now chooses believers (spiritual Israel) as His people that He will save. On the other hand, God prepares those who reject Him for an eternal punishment. The translation of the words, “What if,” is a little misleading. Paul is not asking a hypothetical question. He is making an assertion. Notice that God does not display His wrath hurriedly. He endures the vessels of wrath with much patience. The fact is we were all vessels of wrath at one time, until we came to Jesus by faith.

How can God choose "spirtual Israel" without decreeing who is in that number. By default if God does nothing, none of us is in that number - all reject God - all vessel of wrath until God applies His mercy.

²⁴even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

24: God calls people to be a part of His spiritual kingdom not only from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles. In the early church many were excluding gentiles because they weren’t Jews. The apostles had to deal with this, among many other issues they dealt with.

Yes, God calls people. They don't join the kingdom until God calls them.

25As he says in Hosea:
   "I will call them 'my people' who are not my people;
      and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one," ²⁶and,
   "It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
      'You are not my people,'
   they will be called 'sons of the living God.' "

 ²⁷Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:
   "Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,
      only the remnant will be saved.
 ²⁸For the Lord will carry out
      his sentence on earth with speed and finality."

 ²⁹It is just as Isaiah said previously:
   "Unless the Lord Almighty
      had left us descendants,
   we would have become like Sodom,
      we would have been like Gomorrah."

25-29: Paul quotes the Old Testament to support this point (that He elects those who believe) and to tell what the ramifications of Israel’s rejection of God are.

How do they believe? Paul in no way says that it is possible to choose to believe without God. He only writes that those who believe will be saved.

³⁰What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; ³¹but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. ³²Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." ³³As it is written:
   "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
      and a rock that makes them fall,
   and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."

30-33: This is the real kicker. Verse 30 is Paul’s summary of all He had just said. Paul starts by saying, "What shall we say then?" which signals he is about to summarize his whole point. Paul's ultimate point, therefore, is gentiles who have not pursued righteousness, as the Jews had, attained righteousness by FAITH. Whatever else Romans 9 means; there is certainly no reason to read a double predestenarian viewpoint into it, especially in light of verses 30-33.

I agree that  double predestination makes not since because we are all destined for hell by default. Believers are saved out of damnation so there is only on predestination not two. In addition, There was a comment on this post that made it seem like that Calvinism rises and falls on this chapter, but it doesn't. This passage is great for understanding the nature of election but there are several other scriptures that convince me that the elect are chosen by God. Examples:

John 6:44

Romans 8:28-30

Ephesians 1:3-14

Acts 13:48

I posted this video earlier, but I think that James White did a great job on the exegeses of Romans 9.

Brennon's Thoughts: Romans 9: Updating my Exegesis

DOES GOD EXIST? William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins

This is the 1998 debate between Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Peter W. Atkins in high quality. .....................................THE DEBATE..................................... WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE FOR/AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF GOD?

I must admit that at times  Atkins seemed bewildered as if he nevedr ever thought of any ideas besides his own. not to mention he seemed smug and condescending saying that people believe in God because they are weak. My biggest problem with what he said is the science can explain everything. Any one wh o has studied science really knows that the more questions you answer the more questions comes up! . Fortunately, William Lane Craig made an excellent showing and more than made Atkins look foolish.

Matthias on Computer

Here is a video of my son, Matthias, on a toy computer. He is six months old. Don't ask me how he knows how to use a mouse.

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : “Let us reason together”

 Mariano, has written a great article as whether a person can be a Jew and a Christian at the same time. I'm forced to point out that all the early Christians were Jews. Jesus is Jewish! By definition Judaism and Christianity cannot be mutually exclusive. Mariano also gave us a link to a resource that I never knew existed: a video containing the testimonies of  Jewish survivals of the Nazi Holocaust who later became Christians. They talk about why the know Jesus is the Messiah that humanity is waiting for!  Check out his article!

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : “Let us reason together”

Makayla & Matthias -> August - November 2009

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Biblical Feminism

I have always found this subject interesting and it's never going to go away. What does God really think about how Women should be treated by men and in society? Many people think that the history of the Church is the accurate portrait of how the Bible tells us God wants men to relate to women. Can't be any more wrong.

Benjamin Ledford, a student at the University of Idaho discusses the theme of Biblical feminism in this video, which is a companion to his article, “Is God a Chauvinist?” which was published in the Argonaut, the university’s school paper.

Here is a link to another post by Mariottini quoting the paper referenced above:
Is God A Chauvinist

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Biblical Feminism

I have spoken to many an atheist who uses the track record for the church on the treatment of women as a pretext for rejecting God. I responded to a post called An "Evil" of Christianity in response to a tweet exchange where the woman challenged the validity of the Bible.

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : Which Member of the Trinity is Omniscient?

Continuing his great series on the Trinity, Mariano considers the question: Which member of the Trinity is Omniscient? He goes to answer this question by showing what the Bible says about each one. God is one Being. If God is Omniscient than the 3 persons sharing the same being must each be Omniscient! He did an excellent job!!!!!

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : Which Member of the Trinity is Omniscient?

YouTube - Zakir Naik on the Deen Show: Review and Rebuttal Pt. 1

Image via Wikipedia

Dr James White responds to Muslim claims against the deity of Jesus Christ. He interacts by commenting with Zakir Naik on the Deen Show. If I remember correctly, this Naik will not debate Dr. White in a public debate. Dr. White describes the video thusly:

Dr. Zakir Naik appeared recently on The Deen Show. He demonstrated once again the shallow nature of the most popular Islamic arguments against the deity of Christ. Part 1 of my response.

If you are interested in how Muslims look at Jesus, this is the video to watch!






YouTube - Zakir Naik on the Deen Show: Review and Rebuttal Pt. 1

Human, All Too Human : Nietzsche (1999)

Here is a great documentary on the life of Nietzsche. I've never really studied him or his life but I have heard him quoted a lot! He wasn't the first to propose the idea of a "godless" Universe, but I think he was the first to popularize it. A lot of Christian philosophy appropriates the work of Nietzsche to show that he understood the emptiness of human life without God. The problem is that I think atheists don't view his work this way. The people who made this documentary look at Nietzsche as a "liberator" so that people no longer had to be under religion - we can live without God. What I am amazed by is the idea that people are saying that he used his philosophy to cope with the issues of his own sufferings and the suffering of humanity when it was that philosophy that drove him insane.

I think the documentary also shows that psychologist Paul Vitz was right about how the lack of a father can lead to atheism. Nietzsche's father did not intentionally abandon him but instead got extremely sick, suffered for a while and then died. Young Nietzsche obviously wondered why God was punishing his father who was deeply religious. This was important in formalizing his rejection of God.

He understood what his philosophy logically led to and tried to find something replace to Christianity and give his life meaning. In the process of that search ...he went insane. Why would anyone want to follow him down that path? I think that his life would make a good biopic.




Human, All Too Human : Nietzsche (1999)

Recent Objections to Miracles MP3 Audio by Gary Habermas - Apologetics 315

Image by Vasile Tomoiagă via Flickr

This is a great lecture by Gary Habermas. He discussed what he thought about the philosophical claims for and against miracles. It's extremely interesting how important it is to defend why miracles can't be automatically discounted and ignored. This is another great resource from Apologetics 315.

Recent Objections to Miracles MP3 Audio by Gary Habermas - Apologetics 315

Hank Hanegraaff - Exposing Richard Dawkins

Hanegraaf shared his views on Richard Dawkins latest book The Greatest Show on Earth. Really worth reading!

Hank Hanegraaff

Jesus Christ « A Muslim's Investigation Blog

I just saw a tweet concerning the link at the bottom of this post. Apparently it is a blog looking at Mormonism from an Islamic point of view. I found quite a few issues with article that really needs to be responded too.

1. The author of the post wrote:

Millions around the world attribute their religion based on a faith in Jesus Christ. Christian churches the world over claim to preach his message, the gospel, and proclaim that good news that he died was buried and rose again from the dead. Millions the world over don’t realize it was the Apostle Paul who came up with the concept of today’s modern Christianity.

I want to see documentation that proves that Paul came up with the concept of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection.This is a standard mistaken belief many Muslims believe. I will present the evidence for why we know that Paul did not come up with Christianity at the end of this post.

2. Another passage in the article reads:

As a student of history I know that Jesus didn’t form a church that he was never Christian and never taught what the basis of Christianity is today, being that of the atonement for man’s sins on the cross.  That was all Paul. In fact, it is believed that Jesus was a radical Essence, the known Jewish group that practiced baptisms. John the Baptist was also part of this group. In fact it is believed that Jesus had been a disciple of John.
At either rate, most of what the LDS Church says about Jesus is true and accurate, but the story of Jesus’ life as found in Islam is radically different than the story as told in Christianity.

It was not all Paul. Paul did not take credit, but stood shoulder to shoulder with Peter, James, and John, the Gospels and the Book of Acts. Baptism was not unique to the Essenes but was practiced among all of the Jews of Jesus' time. There is no evidence that either John the Baptist or Jesus were Essenes. The Jesus presented  by the LDS Church, founded by Joseph Smith, is very different than classical Christianity. For example, there is a teaching that Jesus was Lucifer's spirit brother. You can't find that in the Bible. This is just the tip of a large iceberg. I would not recommend Mormon theology for any understanding of what Christians believe. They use many of the same words but redefine the concepts.

3. The article then puts the summarizing of what Muslims believe about Jesus by Yahiya Emerick which can be found on the web site www.whyislam.org. Here is Emerick's word in black and my responses will be in blue.

His Origin
Jesus lived about 2,000 years ago in ancient Palestine when the Roman Empire was at its zenith. He was not conceived in the usual way, but was implanted in the womb of a young woman named Mary. God simply commanded, “Be” and he was. In this sense, he was “a word” of God and a special sign for humanity. In fact, he was the last in a long line of religious guides sent to the Jews.

I have heard this from many Islamic apologetists. The problem is that the Bible does not say this. Look at John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

It says that Jesus is the Word not "a word".

Mary, The Blessed
Mary was a righteous woman. Her mother dedicated her to God’s service even before she was born. As a child, she lived a life marked by health and righteousness, which others pointed to in admiration. She was raised by the wise Zechariah, who instilled in her, a beautiful sense of faith in God. When she had become a young woman, Mary sought to purify herself further before her Lord. Knowing that the hustle of life in the towns was distracting, she withdrew from her people to a sanctuary in the East. There she could meditate in seclusion and peace. Suddenly, on a day that seemed no different from the rest, an angel of God visited her, disguised in the likeness of a human. Afraid of so strange a sight, Mary prayed for protection, but the strange being reassured her and declared that he was a messenger from the Lord to announce the glad-tidings of a faultless son. Mary, astounded, asked how this was possible seeing that no man had ever touched her. But the angel replied, “Your Lord says, it is easy for Me …”. But when she felt the little child within her, she fled her sanctuary out of fear of what her family would do or say when they heard the news. Mary, however, was not to face hardship. When in her despair she cried out to God for oblivion, a voice soothed her and she found shade and a cool spring. Under a date-palm in the warmth of late summer, she made her dwelling and there bore the child unlike any other in human history.
Shortly thereafter, Mary returned to her community carrying the child who was to be called Messiah, Jesus, and son of Mary. When her people saw her with the baby in her arms they couldn’t believe their eyes, let alone accept her word. They refused to believe when she told of an angel who came and told her she was chosen above all other women to carry this burden. They accused her of infidelity and implied that she had ruined the family name. Mary, being overwhelmed, simply motioned towards the child meekly.

Many Christians are surprised to find that one of the tenets of Islam is to respect Mary. Most of this information presented about her, including the story given about Jesus speaking from the crib are from gnostic sources from the 2nd century and are rejected by most Christians as non-scriptural!

The Miracles
Now the child was the product of a miracle and consequently, miraculous things began to happen. In defense of his mother and of the truth, the infant Jesus spoke saying, “I am a servant of God. He has given me Scripture and has made me a Prophet. He has blessed me wherever I may be and has made prayer and charity my duty as long as I live.” This put the detractors to rest.
Throughout his youth, Jesus remained dutiful to his mother and developed quickly in intelligence, wisdom, and piety. He dumfounded the learned and was greatly admired by those around him who appreciated his talents. He claimed to be a sign of God and a Messenger to the Israelites.
His people had strayed from the spirit of truth and placed their trust in legalism, thereby burying their sense of mercy beneath dusty scrolls and rituals. Finally, when he came of age, Jesus began to travel and preach throughout the land of Palestine about a return to the truth of the old revelations and a rejection of all that man had added. In his task he was supported by the spirit of truth, the angel Gabriel.

Gabriel only appears in the Gospels to announce Jesus' birth. What did Jesus claim? In John 14: 5-7

Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

This is a bold claim. Jesus said that there is no salvation apart from himself. Sounds a lot like what Paul said.

The Gospel, His Message
He taught that love and mercy overcome hate and anger and that only a true and sincere faith in the Creator and obedience to His will can bring a person salvation in this life as well as in the next. To reinforce his message, which was called “Injeel” (Good News), God granted him the performance of miracles. He healed the sick, uplifted the distressed and revived the dead. All these things he did with the permission of God, never taking credit for them himself.
He led a simple and pious life. Soon he attracted an inner-circle of devoted followers who listened to his teachings with fervor and humility. These disciples, among them Peter, Barnabas, and John helped him carry the message of Divine Love to the people. They helped him in his mission.

What is the Gospel? What is the Good news that Jesus taught? Here is how the early church summarized it,  in 1 Corinthians 15: 3-8

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

A Test Of Wills
But no righteous man of God is without trial and tribulation. As the message of Jesus began to gain wider acceptance, a small clique of hypocrites and evil men began to plot against him. They were the priests and leaders of the Jews whose position and wealth depended upon their place as the sole interpreters of religion to the masses. They pursued him and his followers and eventually captured him. Though they abused him, he never renounced his faith in the one God. So in their anger they plotted to crucify him on a Roman cross. But Jesus slipped from their grip at the last moment, and all the while they thought they had succeeded. They were sure they had killed him but God answered Jesus’ prayer and saved him from their schemes. Confusion overtook the mob and they might have killed the man who betrayed Jesus instead. In any case, Jesus escaped from their grasp. Then God removed Jesus from this world into another dimension, to a place with Him, not to return until a later time.
With their teacher gone, the devoted followers of Jesus tried to maintain the purity and simplicity of his teachings. But they were soon besieged and overtaken by a flood of Roman and Greek influences, which eventually so buried and distorted the message of Jesus that only a little of its truth now remains. Strange doctrines of Jesus being a man-god, of God dying, of saint worship and of God being made up of different parts came into vogue and were accepted by many of those who took the name “Christians” centuries after Jesus.

And here is one of the worst problem with the Mormon conception of Jesus. You can argue about the empty tomb and the Resurrection, but you cannot deny the crucifixion as a historical event. Virtually all historians will concede and agree that Jesus really existed and we really crucified. To deny is to deny history. I have done numerous posts regarding the charge that Roman and Greek influences shaped what we know of Jesus....and the charge does not hold up.

Conclusion
The only records that have come down to us concerning Jesus are some sketchy biographical material, poorly researched and compiled, which can in no way be representative of the full and accurate Message of Jesus, the Son of Mary. The time of the final and incorruptible Message was not yet at hand. It would be left to the last prophet of God, Muhammad (peace be upon him), to clarify the truth from man’s additions and deletions.
Jesus taught the same eternal message that was taught by all the Messengers of God, from Adam, on through Noah, Abraham, Moses and ending with the mission of God’s last Guidepost to humanity, Muhammad (peace be on them all), whose coming was foretold by Jesus himself.
Every nation and every people, from the Aztecs to the Greeks, have received a Prophet or a Messenger from God. Jesus was the last of a series of Messengers sent to the Israelites, but they consistently strayed from the path of surrender to God. Each of the many Messengers spoke a different language and followed varied customs. Yet the core faith taught by each was the same: surrender your imperfect and fickle will to the perfect will of the Power that is greater than you. You will then find the peace and freedom that only the Creator of all things can provide. Then you must do what is right and good to your fellow creatures. This way of life is called Islam (surrender to God and find peace).

Christians believe that God has called all men and women to repentance.

"Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead." - Acts 17:29-31

And Jesus is the sin offering for all of humanity. This is the good news - the Gospel.

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for[a] the sins of the whole world. - 1 John 2:2

For more on Mormonism and how it differs from Christianity, please check out my blog because it has links to other articles and posts  concerning Mormonism and here is a debate on how Christians and muslims understand who Jesus is - Jesus in the Bible and Qur'an.


Jesus Christ « A Muslim's Investigation Blog

Atheism is Dead: Dan Barker's Views On Human Dignity

Image via Wikipedia

Mariano writes another inciteful piece about how an atheist, Dan Barker, pretends to care about human dignity, yet thinks abortion is okay and not an affront to human dignity. Take a look at Mariano's arguments. They are real good!

Atheism is Dead: Dan Barker's Views On Human Dignity

YouTube - Reagan - Tear Down This Wall

Image by The U.S. National Archives via Flickr

Here is one of the most famous Presidential statements by Ronald Regan. Political posturing to be sure, yet it still went over big...because the Berlin wall did fall soon afterward. And Regan gets some of credit...debatable but many folks read history that way anyway.




YouTube - Reagan - Tear Down This Wall

Atheism is Dead: The Myth of Warfare Between “Science,” “Religion” and “Miracles”

Mariano did posted a great article containing an interview with John Lennox on the science and religion. I would think that anyone interested in relationship of science and religion should listen to this. His is the only debates I can find where Richard Dawkins debated a man of science who is also a Christian theist.

Atheism is Dead: The Myth of Warfare Between “Science,” “Religion” and “Miracles”