NCOTB

This is how a press conference should run!

NCOTB

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Shroud of Turin

Image via Wikipedia

Dr. Claude Mariottini has done it again - upsetting my little apple cart! Thanks! In this post, he pointed out research showing that a 1st Century AD shroud burial has been excavated in Jerusalem. This is big! For the first time we have to Jesus' life and burial artifact to compare the Shroud of Turin to. I had rejected the Turin shroud to be a fake because there was no evidence of the practice of burying people in shrouds existed in Jerusalem. Now that one has been found I have to rethink my position as this artifact is studied and compared to the Shroud of Turin. Boy is my face red. Oh well, gotta follow the truth where ever it leads.
Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Shroud of Turin

The 10 Most Puzzling Ancient Artifacts

Here is a list of 10 artifact that have been discovered that have yet to have a sound explanation. All of them are interesting. The one I would like to point out most are the "impossible fossils". They aren't mentioned much and have never been explained as far as I know. However the available data does not match the theory of evolution. Explanations please!


The 10 Most Puzzling Ancient Artifacts

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Birthplace of Emperor Vespasian

Dr. Claude Mariottini has posted a very interesting blog post pointing to information that an archaeological dig has unearthed the birth place of the nineh Roman Emperor, Vespasian. This is exciting for many historical reasons.

1. This is the emperor who presided over the destruction of  Herod's Temple, Jerusalem and the events at Masada.
2. These events are clearly described in the historical accounts of Roman sources and Josephus
3. Jesus prophesied the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 about 40 years before it happened.
4. Provides another touchstone validatying the historical record.

Check out the link below to see Dr. Mariottini article on his blog.


Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Birthplace of Emperor Vespasian

WonderCon 2010 :: Registration

Image via Wikipedia

WonderCon 2010 is now open for Registration. I think this year I am going Friday and Saturday!

WonderCon 2010 :: Registration

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : The Many gods of the Bible

Image via Wikipedia

Mariano has posted another article in his series of articles regading the Trinity. He obliterated the notion that Bible says that there are multiple God in the same sense that YHWH, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit is God. Here is his introduction - says it all!

This summary of scriptures relevant to the biblical statements of there being many gods will be followed by the actual quotations:

Exodus 7:1; 2nd Corinthians 4:1; Deuteronomy 32:36-39; Psalm 82:6-7; Psalm 86:8-10; Isaiah: 41:23-24, 29; Galatians 4:8; 1st Corinthians 8:5

The Hebrew word elohim is translated God, god, goddess, judge, great, mighty. Therefore, it is utterly inappropriate to read the word gods in the Bible and build a doctrine that makes humans little or lesser gods or that being, humans or demonic, described as gods are somehow ontologically—in origin, nature or essence—divine.
When Moses, judges, idols, false prophets and satan are said to be a god and when, for instance, Jesus is referred to as God the difference is that Moses, judges, idols, false prophets and satan, unlike Jesus, are never referred to as omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, creator, etc.

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : The Many gods of the Bible

THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Addressing a response to my Matthew 24 Challenge

My brother-in-Christ, Mike Felker issued a challenge to defend a future fulfillment for Matthew 24. I wrote a response and he was kind enough to write a response to my post with a great deal of respect and tact. A link to it appears at the end of the this post. I want to respond to his post. His words will be in red and mine will be in black.

I want to thank Marcus for taking the time to write his blog and address my challenge. I think these conversations are important to have, as long as they are done with respect. I consider Marcus to be my brother in Christ and would never see an issue like this as a reason to divide from him and i'm sure he feels the same way. And if he, or anyone else, would like to respond, i'd be very interested in reading other views.

Ditto. I love ya, man.

It seems to me that Mike's response can be grouped into three areas: 1. the actual question the disciples asked Jesus; 2. the sign of that "abomination that causes desolation"; 3. the meaning of "the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory."

1. Mike wrote

The first problem I see is that I don't find "when will the end of the world happen" anywhere in the text. Instead, the verse reads, "what will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?" This is significant because the disciples did not say, "when will be the end of the world?" If they did, then kosmos would have been more appropriately used by Jesus. However, I will admit that "world" is used by some Bible translations to translate aion, but "age" seems to be more of a reasonable translation in light of the context. And since the context is what is in question, it would suffice to engage Marcus' primary point to establish whether "world" would be an appropriate translation. And this would inevitably lead to a future fulfillment of Matthew 24.

The verse in question is Matthew 24:3. I have looked it up in 5 translations and two out of three of them use the word "world". I agree that Jesus did not use the word kosmos - the word used is aion. I think "age" is the correct rendering...but what "age" is being discussed? I didn't discuss this in my first post because it never occurred to me that not all my brothers saw the "end of the age" as "end of the world". Let's look at the context. In verse 2 Jesus tells all listening that the temple was going to be destroyed. I think Mike and I agree that Jesus meant that the temple destruction being at a different time than His coming and the end of the age. Therefore I don't think AD 70 can fulfills the entire prophecy Jesus gave in Matthew 24. If the disciples thought that his coming and the destruction of the temple were near simultaneous events then it appears to me that the ask the same thing twice and that does not seem reasonable to me. So I ask what did the disciples thought was ending? Israel as a sovereign nation? No, i think they meant the point at which Jesus would set up his kingdom and take control.

2. Mike Wrote

In addition, Jesus changed the subject from the worldwide preaching of the gospel to the abomination that will make the temple "desolate." In referring back to Daniel 9:27, 11:31 and 12:11, Jesus draws on these themes to speak of something that would be set up in the temple at the time of the destruction. Whatever this was, it would be the thing that makes the temple "desolate," as Matthew 24:15 and Luke 21:20 explicitly affirm.

But what was this "abomination?" Clearly, Jesus is making a dual fulfillment application of the Daniel passages. That is, Daniel 12:11 seems to be fulfilled in part when Antiochus Ephiphanes set up a pagan altar in the temple in 168 B.C. And the fact that Jesus speaks of this type of abomination as a future thing implies that Daniel 12:11 had not been completely fulfilled. This is important in considering Marcus' view because whatever it was that "desolated" the temple, it had to be of the same type as the ancient context. That is, unless it can be demonstrated that Jesus was speaking of something of a different type, which is what Marcus seems to be implying, then my view seems to be more reasonable because every Jew knew the story: Antiochus Ephiphanes rendered the temple unclean with his erecting a pagan statue. And there is nothing in the Daniel account or the Olivet discourse that explicitly affirms that the "abomination" is some sort of "anti-Christ" figure. Maybe it is, or maybe it isn't. But whatever it is, we can only go by what the text is trying to describe; namely, that something is going to desecrate the temple in such as way that Antiochus' profanations will only pale in comparison. In other words, I don't see that Marcus' view is more reasonable than a 70 A.D. fulfillment.

I totally agree that Jesus was referring to Antiochus Ephiphanes and making a parallel. However during the Jewish War (c 70 AD) there had been no idol set up in the Temple. It only almost happened then. I totality agree that we don't know really know what the "abomination" is and i don't think the Left Behind series has truth I wanna base my life one but i don't think the events of 70 AD completely fulfill the prophesy. Some of it like this part I think speaks to 70 AD and the future.

3. The discussion where Mike explains how you can see that Jesus' coming could be explained as happening in AD 70 really didn't move me. If I understand correctly, Mike is arguing that the "Son of Man coming on clouds" breferes to judgement and punishing Israel. He points out that there are many Old Testament passages including Jesus later on using the langauge to say He will be vindicated. Thing is, the destruction of Jerusalem did not make Jews who denied Jesus embrace Jesus. The Roman went on like nothing happened. For them, it was another day at the office. I just don't see how Jesus coming on clouds "with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other." can be found fulfilled in AD 70.

As for

Here, Marcus describes Matthew 24:30-31 as something that could not have happened in 70 A.D. But unless i'm mistaken here, I believe that Matthew 24:34 provides me with justification in interpreting these verses within the context of the first century:

"Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."

What generation could Jesus have been speaking of other than the disciples? Therefore, "all these things," or everything that Jesus mentioned, including the "Son of man coming on the clouds of the sky, etc." took place in the events leading up to the destruction in 70 A.D. And though I realize how unlikely it may seem to the modern, western mind, I believe this view is entirely justifiable and far more reasonable than the futurist view.

I think you have a point but "this generation" is translated by some as "this race" as in the human race.
Mike, this is a lot fun and helps me a great deal! I hope youj will respond and specifically asnwer the question how you see Jesus' return on clouds with power and great glory as being fulfilled in 70 AD? Thanks again.


THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Addressing a response to my Matthew 24 Challenge

Debate: James White vs Tim Staples - Debating Purgatory

Image via Wikipedia

On Thursday, January 28, 2010, James White debated Tim Staples on the Dividing Line web cast on the question "Does 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 support the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory?" Staples claims that it does. James White says no. The debate had the following format:

15 minute opening statements (Tim gets to go first)
8 minutes rebuttals
5 minutes cross examination each
8 minute closing statements
Then, they took phone calls for just under 20 minute

I think White did a great job showing that it does not work. Here is what 1st Corinthians 3:10-15:

¹⁰By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. ¹¹For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. ¹²If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, ¹³his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. ¹⁴If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. ¹⁵If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

I think the exchange tells us a lot. The thing that amazed me was Staples arguing that the teaching of Purgatory has not changed in 2000 years! I thought: WHAT???? Then he claimed that purgatory is not a place people go when they die it is the judgement of our lives and he read a quote from the current Pope to back him up. I know during the Reformation - 500 years ago - the Roman Catholic church taught that purgatory was a place where people go to get rid of sins they could not get rid of while they lived. They even taught that if you paid the church - indulgences - one could pay their way and loved ones out of purgatory! If Staples is correct as to what the Roman Catholics teachesd about what purgatory is - then it has changed. You can't claim a 2000-year unbroken tradition, and then ignore what used to be taught. Go ahead and follow the link below to hear the exchange.

I also think that I must comment that his discussion was vastly different than White's discussion with Michael Brown earlier in the week. Staples as mean and kept talking like any intelligent person could see that he was right and White was wrong.  I'm always amazed at how patient James White can be. 

1 Corinthians 3 and Tim Staples on Today's Dividing Line

Atheism is Dead: One Century After Her Birth, Mother Teresa is Still Inspiring…Vile Hatred

Image via Wikipedia

I just read a post on Mariano's blog about atheists like Dan Barker trying to block the circulation of a postage stamp bearing the image of Mother Teresa on the grounds that it violates the separation of church and state because she was a Roman Catholic Nun. They argue that it doesn't matter that she did such great humanitarian work, or that she was an honorary US citizen. The bottom line is the government should not endorse any religion.  Okay. What about Santa Claus? He is based off a real man, named Saint Nicholas. He was not an American citizen. He was a Saint recognized by the Roman Catholic Church.  And he regularly appears on our postage stamps every year!  Why isn't Barker protesting that?

I see nothing wrong with honoring Mother Teresa with a postage stamp. She deserves the honor for the work she did helping those our governments would not touch.

Atheism is Dead: One Century After Her Birth, Mother Teresa is Still Inspiring…Vile Hatred

Danielle Belton's The Black Snob - The Snob Blog - Chris Matthews: Speech So Good Made Me Forget It Was A Brown Person Talking!

Okay, I would have expected this from Fox News, but MSNBC?! Watch the video below to hear commentator Chris Matthews make some of the most racist remarks I've heard in a long time! The sad thing is that he can't even see how what he said was racist! Sad! Follow the link at the end, to read Danielle's Belton's insightful remark about just how stupid Matthews' remarks really are.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Danielle Belton's The Black Snob - The Snob Blog - Chris Matthews: Speech So Good Made Me Forget It Was A Brown Person Talking!

Biblical Evidence: Solomon's Temple

Dr. Claude Mariottini has recently posted two very important posts on his blog regarding 10th Century BC Israel and Solomon's Temple. He provides a couple of resources from current archaeology showing that there was indeed a centralized kingdom of Israel and there really was a King Solomon. And King Solomon really did build a magnificent temple in honor of the God of Israel.Read Dr. Mariottini's posts below:


William G. Dever and the Existence of Solomon’s Kingdom 
The Location of Solomon’s Temple

Sam Harris | Author | Big Think

Image via Wikipedia

I've been discussing one of my posts with another user of Twitter, Hudsonryan, who really disagrees. He doesn't think Christianity is true or holds anything of value. He tweeted:

@mmcelhaney Your words: "By helping Haiti, Atheists are acting against their worldview". The most ignorant thing I've read in months.

I did indeed write that. I agree with him that atheist can be and many are good and moral people. I was never saying that they can't or never are. My argument was that because atheists don't recognize an absolute authority outside of themeselves, they have to borrow form religious worldviews to give their morality meaning. If I think it's okay to rape and kill you as long as you can't stop me, then why shouldn't I? I agree that I shouldn't. I agree that it's wrong. But while i have a concrete reason for saying that it's wrong. What does the atheist appeal to validate that it is wrong? When i pressed him on this issue, he would not ansswer me. Instead he gavce me the link at the boottom of this article tweeting

@mmcelhaney In my absence to teach you what your parents failed at, listen to Harris, he and I agree 90+%. http://bigthink.com/samharris

and

@mmcelhaney And I point u to him, as I won't debate this over 140 chars at a time. We share enough views that I am OK in doing that.

I appreciate the link. I am going to be doing a series of articles examining Sam Harris' world view and see if it's really up to snuff. Does his religion - practices setting the pattern for his way of life - really something one can consistently stand on? The site contains short videos of Harris discussing different topics. In each post in the series, I will choose one and see what we get.

My brother-in-Christ, Mariano has written some great articles about Sam Harris. Read them on his blog:

Atheism Essays Particular to Sam Harris

Sam Harris | Author | Big Think

Barack Obama's State of the Union Address 2010

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Last night I watched a lot of President Obama's speech and I liked what I heard. The thing is I hope he is being honest about  caring more about doing the right thing than being re-elected. He most certainly is making moves that are cheesing off people whose support he is going to need to get re-elected - and perhaps avoid the possibility assassination. We really need to pray for out President. It seems like such simple thing he is trying to do if we all work together - balance the budget, keep the nation safe from terrorism,  and heal the economy. He seems to always meet with opposition. Instead of offereing their own solutions they seem to just be intent on blocking him (and not just Republicans). I really agreed with the President's criticism of the Supreme Court. It really was a bad idea overturning limits on campaign spending by corporations. I mean who's butt was kissed for that to happen?!! Obviously Justice Samuel Alito thinks it's a good idea...I just can't say I see any way he could be right. Funny he couldn't contain his disdain for the President's remark. It was written all over his face. Well here is the speech:




And while Alito's reaction was not as extreme as Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina shouting "You lie!" at the President, it still bothers me because I wanna know what part of remark he disagreed with.





Justice Samuel Alito Shows Distaste With Barack Obama's Barb on Campaign Finance Ruling - AOL News

Atheism is Dead: Haiti and the Hypocrisy of Christian Theology - Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins via last.fm

Yesterday, I wrote an article responding to a blog post on the Stand To Reason blog by Greg Koukl responding to an article by Richarcd Dawkins. Dawkins asserted that Pat Roberston statement  implying that the Haitians deserved the earthquake was in line with Christian  doctrine for explaining why bad things happen to people. I disagree. Fortunately, Mariano wrote a brilliant post explaining why Dawkins is wrong by stepping through Dawkins article. Dawkins' worldview does not answer the question and Pat Roberston answers the question as to the source of the calamities befalling Haiti. Read Mariano's article at the link below.


Atheism is Dead: Haiti and the Hypocrisy of Christian Theology - Richard Dawkins

Truthbomb Apologetics: Lectures by Ravi Zacharias: Apologetics and Worldview

Thankfully Turthbomb Apologetics has presented a valuable resource: A lecture by Dr. Ravi Zacharias regarding why Apologetics is so important. Here is what Chad wrote.

Ravi Zacharias presents two lectures that deal with the state of apologetics today and why we must be able to defend the faith against opposing worldviews.

As Zacharias's website notes:

"A classroom style lecture that Ravi delivered recently at Wheaton College to a group of budding apologists. The message is; your worldview affects not only your apologetics but all your efforts to spread the Gospel."

Truthbomb Apologetics: Lectures by Ravi Zacharias: Apologetics and Worldview

Danielle Belton's The Black Snob - The Snob Blog - White House: A Year In Photos

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

White House photographer Pete Souza's finest.

Danielle Belton's The Black Snob - The Snob Blog - White House: A Year In Photos

Line of Fire Debate - James White and Michael Brown Debate Calvinism

As you may know, if you have been following my blog, I've been engaged in discussing Calvinism with my brothers-in-Christ, Brennon and Dave, as it pertains to the exegesis of Ephesians chapter one. The discussion of corporate and individual election as well as human autonomy and free will invariably come up in in such discussions. I've profited greatly...it's always good to hashout out your thoughts and ideas with others especially if they disagree. It's also a gift when you get to see professional theologians do the same! These past two days, January 26 and 27th, James White and Michael Brown did just that concerning Calvinism. My own studies have lead me to agree more consistently with James White, but I really appreciated Michael Brown. It was so sweet. No hostility. They treated and respected one another with love although they disagreed. All debates should be like that. Because each interaction was less then an hour, neither one was able to go into as much depth as they wanted to. They basically stayed on the surface, but both were able to articulate their positions on what they believe. The issue was that they were not able to really go into scripture to explain how it supports them in much detail. Fortunately, they agreed to appear on James White's web cast in the near future and verse-by-verse walk through the Bible examining and cross-examining the texts that they agree to discuss. This, I have got to hear. In the meantime, I would recommend listening to their exchange on Michael Brown's radio broadcast, Line of Fire. He has posted both days on his web site. Yoou can use the link below to hear them.


Line of Fire
January 26, 2010
January 27, 2010

Stand to Reason Blog: Dawkins Lectures Christians

Image via Wikipedia

I have found this interesting link from Twitter and I am so glad it was pointed out. Atheists like Richard Dawkins are having a field day between the fact of the devastating earthquake in Haiti and Pat Roberston's ignorant remark. Dawkins is reported in the article to have said:

Loathsome as Robertson's views undoubtedly are, he is the Christian who stands squarely in the Christian tradition. The agonized theodiceans who see suffering as an intractable 'mystery', or who 'see God' in the help, money and goodwill that is now flooding into Haiti , or (most nauseating of all) who claim to see God 'suffering on the cross' in the ruins of Port-au-Prince, those faux-anguished hypocrites are denying the centrepiece of their own theology. It is the obnoxious Pat Robertson who is the true Christian here.
Where was God in Noah's flood?....

Dawkins is saying that Roberston saying that Haiti deserves what happened shows the correct Christian understanding of what happened/ I completely disagree. Again, there is no proof that Roberston's idea saying that Haiti made a deal with Satan for their independence, but I'm amazed that this quote makes me think that  Dawkins agrees with Roberston!  That is the only reason that i think that it's hypocritical for Christians to aid Haiti.  The article's writer makes a great point. I quote it as follows:

Bertrand Russel, the famous 20th century atheist, once challenged what a Christian would have to say at the bedside of a dying child where God had not intervened to heal. But what is the atheist’s response? Too bad. The only natural response from atheism is "Tough luck, Haiti." The suffering is not even tragic or evil, it just is the way it is because there is nothing transcendent. There is no good, there is no evil, there is no tragedy in Darwinism. There is only survival and natural processes that bring death or spare us for now. Nothing more.

I agree. By helping Haiti, Atheists are acting against their worldview, not Christians. Christians are following their worldview because we believe that God demands that we help those who need it. We know that it is right. But as an atheist, many agree that we should help Haiti. But why? I mean what happened to "Survival of the Fittest" and "Natural Selection". Why should we not allow those who are strong enough to survive this and  let the weak die? I have an answer for this, however atheist don't unless they abandon their worldview. I welcome their hypocrisy because it does nothing but helps Haiti in general and my in-laws in particular. We need to help Haiti because that is the right thing to do that God wants us to do. Thanks for the help, Richard Dawkins.

Stand to Reason Blog: Dawkins Lectures Christians

Atheism is Dead: The Bible Among the Myths

Mariano, has provided a comprehensive post on some resources available that allows one to evaluate the misconception that Christian doctrines and Theology in general, and our understanding of Jesus in particular are "borrowed" from pagan and mystery religions. He has done me the honor of referencing some of my blog articles as wells as some of his in his list. He also refers us to John N. Oswalt's book.  The link to his resoursce list is below:

Atheism is Dead: The Bible Among the Myths

Another website I must mention if you want to read more about this is Tekton and look at a post I did about the founder of that site, JP Holding. Here is the link.JP Holding on the Christ Myth.

What is up with Australia?!!!!

Image via Wikipedia

I'm wondering what is so special about Australia in 2010!? I mean I'm sure it's a great country and all and great people live there and are from there. It just seems of late that Australia is getting first dibs on a few things I care about. I'm trying to not get jealous.

For example, how is Marvel and BET going to premier Black Panther in Australia first and exclusively in no other markets. I mean do they even have BET in Australia? I still can't figure this out. But since some people in Australia have been nice enough to share the first two episodes (and I hope they continue to share the rest of the six) I keep my continual moaning and groaning to myself.

And I find out that there is going to be a major global Atheist conference in Australia this year in March because I read the Atheism Is Dead. blog. I mean some of the best atheist will be together in public and away from where I can hear them in person. It seems like Australia is finally getting its due for hosting more international events. I'm happy for them, really, but I sure hope it doesn't mean that America is becoming less important