Evidence for the Resurrection: Josh McDowell MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315

Brian has posted some great links to video, PDF transcripts and MP3 audio from Josh McDowell. Apologetics 315 is a great resource!

Evidence for the Resurrection: Josh McDowell MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315

Is there a Connection Between Jesus and Dionysus?

Here is a list of 14 points alleged about Dionysus that supposed match Jesus.. I found a great document on the internet, refuting the 14 points at http://www.kingdavid8.com/Copycat/JesusDionysus.html

1. Dionysus was born of a virgin on December 25th and, as the Holy Child, was placed in a manger.

Dionyus was always celebrated on January 6th. Also, his mother, Semele, was impregnated sexually by Zeus. He was never referred to as the "Holy Child" or placed in a manger in any version of the story.

If Zeus took human form and had sexual intercourse with Semele, Semele was not a virgin. Jesus was not conceived the way Dionysus was. Apparently Dionysus was not born December 25 and neither was Jesus. I found out that Dionysus was born twice because when Semele died when she saw Zeus in all his glory, Zeus sewed Dionysus into his thigh and Dionysus emerged fully grown. How is that anything like Jesus?

2. His birth was announced with a heavenly display and celestial music.

I can find no reference to either, and there is no "celestial music" in the Jesus story.

Where are people finding these? I couldn't find it either

3. He was a traveling teacher who performed miracles.

This is true. However, this phrase loses any similarities with Jesus when we deal with the specifics of what Dionysus did. Jesus traveled in a limited area, while Dionysus supposedly traveled to most of the known world (including Greece, Persia and Arabia). Jesus' miracles were healings and such - all positive miracles. Dionysus' miracles were judgments against those who defied him.

It's interesting to me that while Jesus came to heal and to save, Dionysus didn't seem to help others. When people defied Jesus, he reasoned with them and tried to help them.

4. He "rode in a triumphal procession on an ass" and "is often pictured astride a donkey, which carries him to meet his passion" a scene re-enacted with crowds "shout[ing] the praises of Dionysus and wav[ing] bundles of branches."

This claim mixes two things, one semi-valid, one invalid. Dionysus was dipicted riding a donkey while a crowd waved ivy branches - the typical homecoming for any royal figure. The crowd welcoming Jesus to Jerusalem were imitating this sort of homecoming, though using the traditional palm branches of Israel. So while this could be called a sort of imitation, it's an imitation committed by the people in the story itself, not by any writer. The latter quotes come from the book "The Jesus Mysteries" by Freke and Gandy. Their only reference is to a depiction of a scene from Orphic eschatology which, oddly, has nothing to do with Dionysus.

5. He was a sacred king killed and eaten in a eucharistic ritual for fecundity and purification.

There exists an unofficial story (that is, not part of the general understanding of the Dionysus story) in which he is, as an infant, attacked by Titans who eat everything but his heart. Zeus destroys the Titans, and restores Dionysus from the remaining heart. Who would call the Jesus story a 'copycat' of that story? Taking this 'similarity' apart, yes, Dionysus was killed. His actual body was eaten, but since Jesus' body was not (the eating of Jesus' body is a metaphorical thing), this is not a comparison. Also, Dionysus wasn't eaten in any sort of ritual for fecundity or purification. In fact, the eating of Dionysus is clearly a bad thing (unlike the eating of Jesus' body) and is punished by death. Also, he wasn't a sacred king. The king was Zeus, not Dionysus.

6. Dionysus rose from the dead on March 25th.

Nowhere is the date of March 25th given in any Dionysus story. The date of his "resurrection" after his murder by the Titans is given as November 8th (and as shown in the above answer, this story is hardly similar to the story of Jesus' resurrection and is an unofficial story anyways). There is an ancient reference to Dionysus being "a god who renews himself and returns every year rejuvenated", but this doesn't involve death. Besides that, Jesus didn't rise from the dead on March 25th either. While an exact date is not given, most scholars believe that His crucifixion happened no earlier than March 28th, making His resurrection no earlier than March 30th.

7. He was the God of the Vine, and turned water into wine.

Dionysus was indeed "the God of the Vine". However, Jesus wasn't.

The earliest possible reference to Dionysus turning water into wine was by Achilles Tatius in the Greek Romance, "The Adventures of Leucippe and Clitophon" which was written in the 2nd century A.D. It mentions a Tyranian myth about Dionysus introducing wine to the world, with Dionysus calling it "the water of summer" and saying "This is the water, this is the spring". It's not clear whether this a real Tyranian myth being mentioned here (in which case it may be pre-Christian) or just something Tatius was inventing for the purposes of this story. Either way, Dionysus is not actually turning water into wine, but simply calling the wine a type of water. And we cannot reliably date this myth to any earlier than the second century A.D.

8. He was called "King of Kings" and "God of Gods."

Nope. These would be odd titles to give Dionysus, his being the son of Zeus, who is the main God in the Greek religion. The titles would only fit Zeus himself, and even he was never referred to by either of these titles.

9. He was considered the "only Begotten Son," "Savior," "Redeemer," "Sin Bearer," "Anointed One," and the "Alpha and Omega", and "Lord God of God born"

Of these, Dionysus is only referred to as 'savior'. And in the context in which he is referred to 'savior', he is saving people from the wrath of Pentheus, not from sin or eternal damnation. So even this is hardly a comparison to Jesus.

10. He was identified with the Ram or Lamb.

In one version, he is born with horns on his head like that of a ram. That's the only mention of a ram in any Dionysus literature, and doesn't compare to Jesus' story at all.

11. His sacrificial title of "Dendrites" or "Young Man of the Tree" intimates he was hung on a tree or crucified.

This was no a 'sacrificial' title in any sense. He was simply called 'Young Man of the Tree'. How does that suggest he was hung on a tree or crucified?

12. At his trial, Dionysus is described by Freke and Gandy as "a quiet stranger with long hair and a beard who brings a new religion."

Dionysus was hardly quiet before King Pentheus, but engaged in quite a bit of dialogue with him. As for "long hair and a beard", most men wore both in those days. In fact, the Bible says nothing about Jesus having long hair or a beard. We only assume He did because they were common for middle-eastern Jews in those days.

13. He offers his followers the chance to be born again through the rites of baptism.

Nope. The followers of Dionysus never claimed to be 'born again' and their 'baptism' had to do with waving a fan above their heads, not submersing them in water.

14. His followers await his return as the judge during the Last Days.

This is not true of any version of the Dionysus story.

Anyone can see that Dionysus cannot in anyway match Jesus.

Sources
Dionysus - Wikipedia
Parallels between the stories of Jesus and Osiris-Dionysus
Aren’t there some striking parallels between the Jesus and Dionysus stories?

Terminology Tuesday: Possible Worlds - Apologetics 315

Brian's latest post on terminology in his Apologetics 315 blog defines "Possible Worlds". This a great read.

Terminology Tuesday: Possible Worlds - Apologetics 315

Frank Turek vs. Christopher Hitchens Debate #2 MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315

Frank Turek debated Christopher Hitchens again. This time the topic was: What best explains reality - Atheism or Theism.

Frank Turek vs. Christopher Hitchens Debate #2 MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315

Here is the video

Frank Turek vs. Christopher Hitchens: What Best Explains Reality? from Andrew Ketchum on Vimeo.

This debate is a lot like their first debate. It is interesting that Hitchens and Turek have not changed since the first debate. I find it interesting that Hitchens makes the following assertions. Hitchens tries to deny Jesus' existence, without actually trying to prove it. Instead of Hitchens attacking Turek's arguments against design, he argued that design and structure does not mean that there is a God. I'm afraid that he has a point about how Turek's argument does not necessarily lead to God. However, Hitchens' rant against Mother Teresa and religion does not negate the fact that there is evidence for a creator. I disagree with Hitchens that if science can show that the origins and endings of the universe gives evidence for the Bible, does not mean that we can't use it for evidence. Turek described the beginning and Hitchens described the ending. Hitchens asked who designed the ending that we can see is coming. God did it. Hitchens' conclusions about God's character in light of the problems he sees in observing the natural order, are wrong because who is he to decide what the the best natural order looks like.

In this debate, Turek did a much better job than in the first debate. He really went after Hitchens. He responded well to Hitchens' arguments. I love the way he answered Hitchens charges against God and He seemed a much better behavior. Not everything can be answered in two hours. However it's a useful debate.

James White Debates Abdullah Kunde on the Bible and the Koran

James White Debates Abdullah Kunde on the Bible and the Koran at Sidney University on August 17, 2009 in Australia. For anyone who wants to see Christian arguments set side-by-side with Islamic claims, this debate is one you should see!

When I heard the debate I could tell that Dr. White customarily showed his usual depth in attempting to show exactly what Muslims believe and respond to those. I like Abdullah Kunde although I disagree with him. When it came down to defending why the Koran is more believable didn't fly. I also thought that the debate showed that Islam has no answer to the problem of sin. I mean even if you went by the moral standards in the Koran, none of us could keep it. What happens when we are called to account? How do you stand before a Holy God? Christianity has the answer: Jesus.

33 Bible Contradictions and Refutations Pt 2

I've been again...interacting...with atheist on Twitter. I've been challenged to refute Dan Barker's list of 33 Biblical contradictions. These are nothing new but since @ BibleAlsoSays wants to dredge them up, it will be fun knocking them down all over again. My comments will be in red Here is part 2.

Is God good or evil?

• Psalm 145:9 "The Lord is good to all."
• Deuteronomy 32:4 "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he."

  vs.

• Isaiah 45:7 "I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things." See "Out of Context" for more on Isaiah 45:7.
• Lamentations 3:38 "Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?"
• Jeremiah 18:11 "Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you."
• Ezekiel 20:25,26 "I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live. And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord."

God is good. The thing is sometimes He allows evil to accomplish His purposes. That doesn't make Him evil. We are the ones who are evil not Him. God says that it's evil to lust after a person who is not your spouse, even if you never touch them. This shows that God's standards of good and evil are not the same as yours or even mine.

Does God tempt people?

• James 1:13 "Let no man say . . . I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."

  vs.

• Genesis 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham."

Not the same word or context. In Genesis, the word means to "test" or "to try" as in burning out impurities out of metal. In James it is in the context of tricking someone to do evil

Is God peaceable?

• Romans 15:33 "The God of peace."
• Isaiah 2:4 ". . . and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."

  vs.

• Exodus 15:3 "The Lord is a man of war."
• Joel 3:9-10 "Prepare war, wake up the mighty men, let all the men of war draw near; let them come up: Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong."

God never called us to let people walk all over us and mistreat us. We can fight if needed. Standing up for right and using force if needed does not make one not peaceable. At times peace must be protected by force and God will fight for us.

Was Jesus peaceable?

• John 14:27 "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you."
• Acts 10:36 "The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ."
• Luke 2:14 " . . . on earth peace, good will toward men."

  vs.

• Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."
• Luke 22:36 "Then said he unto them, . . . he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

This exactly what I'm saying. There is nothing wrong with protecting oneself. And the thing about Jesus telling us that there won't be peace because of Him is a prophecy. Jesus is non-negotiable. No fence riding when it come to Him. In or out. There is division because of Jesus because people must choose sides and people don't always choose to be on Jesus' side.

Was Jesus trustworthy?

• John 8:14 "Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true."

  vs.

• John 5:31 "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true."

  "Record" and "witness" in the above verses are the same Greek word (martyria).

Dan Barker's again ignoring context. John 8 shows Jesus in conversation with his critics Read John 8: 12-30. John 5:31-45 has the context of Jesus saying the same thing He said in John 8.

"If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid. There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is valid.

"You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth. Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved. ³⁵John was a lamp that burned and gave light, and you chose for a time to enjoy his light.

"I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent me. And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

"I do not accept praise from men, but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts. I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him. ⁴⁴How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God?

"But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. ⁴⁷But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"

This contradiction is nothing of the sort.

Shall we call people names?

• Matthew 5:22 "Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire." [Jesus speaking]

  vs.

• Matthew 23:17 "Ye fools and blind." [Jesus speaking]
• Psalm 14:1 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."

When Jesus used "Fool" in Matthew and the Psalmist Psalm 14:1, it was referring to enemies to God, not personal ones. In Matt 5, we see Jesus talking in context of people you are supposed to have a close relationship.

Has anyone seen God?

• John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time."
• Exodus 33:20 "Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live."
• John 6:46 "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God [Jesus], he hath seen the Father."
• I John 4:12 "No man hath seen God at any time."

  vs.

• Genesis 32:30 "For I have seen God face to face."
• Exodus 33:11 "And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend."
• Isaiah 6:1 "In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple."
• Job 42:5 "I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee."

The Best explanation is the Hazakim album knowns as Theophanies.

How many Gods are there?

• Deuteronomy 6:4 "The Lord our God is one Lord."

  vs.

• Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image."
• Genesis 3:22 "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become as one of us, to know good and evil."
• I John 5:7 "And there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

  It does no good to claim that "Let us" is the magisterial "we." Such usage implies inclusivity of all authorities under a king's leadership. Invoking the Trinity solves nothing because such an idea is more contradictory than the problem it attempts to solve.

1st John 5:7 is not any early Greek manuscript and most textual scholars ignore it. I also agree that the magisterial "we" doesn't make sense. The Trinity does. The Bible say the Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God. One being three Persons. "Us" makes sense. Yet God is one in being.

Are we all sinners?

• Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."
• Romans 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one."
• Psalm 14:3 "There is none that doeth good, no, not one."

  vs.

• Job 1:1 "There was a man . . . who name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright."
• Genesis 7:1 "And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation."
• Luke 1:6 "And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless."

No contradiction, Neither Job, Noah, or John the Baptist parents are referred to as sinless. They are saved the same as we are faith in God although they may not have understood the death, burial, and resurrection part of the plan.

How old was Ahaziah?

• II Kings 8:26 "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign."

  vs.

• II Chronicles 22:2 "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign."

Read my previous post for the answer to this one http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2009/04/101-biblical-contradictions-refuted.html number 5.

Should we swear an oath?

• Numbers 30:2 "If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath . . . he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth."
• Genesis 21:22-24,31 " . . . swear unto me here by God that thou wilt not deal falsely with me . . . And Abraham said, I will swear. . . . Wherefore he called that place Beersheba ["well of the oath"]; because there they sware both of them."
• Hebrews 6:13-17 "For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself . . . for men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath."

  See also Genesis 22:15-19, Genesis 31:53, and Judges 11:30-39.

  vs.

• Matthew 5:34-37 "But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven . . . nor by the earth . . . . Neither shalt thou swear by thy head . . . . But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."
• James 5:12 ". . . swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation."

No contradiction. No where are we told that it's a good idea to swear an oath to God or anyone because we may not be able to keep it.

When was Jesus crucified?

• Mark 15:25 "And it was the third hour, and they crucified him."

  vs.

• John 19:14-15 "And about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out . . . crucify him."

  It is an ad hoc defense to claim that there are two methods of reckoning time here. It has never been shown that this is the case.

IT doesn't take much to explain this. Check out http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2009/04/101-biblical-contradictions-refuted.html number 69

Shall we obey the law?

• I Peter 2:13 "Submit yourself to every ordinance of man . . . to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors."
• Matthew 22:21 "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's." See also Romans 13:1,7 and Titus 3:1.

  vs.

• Acts 5:29 "We ought to obey God rather then men."

We obey God rather than men when men's laws go against God's. That's not often. I've never experienced such a thing myself.

How many animals on the ark?

• Genesis 6:19 "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark."
• Genesis 7:8-9 "Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah."
• Genesis 7:15 "And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life."

  vs.

• Genesis 7:2 "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female."

2 of everything ceremonially unclean animals 7 of the ceremonially clean animals. Noah and his family would need some animals for sacrifice. Also shows that Noah was not sinless, he still had to make sacrifices for sin.

Were women and men created equal?

• Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

  vs.

• Genesis 2:18,23 "And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. . . . And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."

Um Genesis 2 gives more detail than Genesis 1; not a separate contradictory account. Look at Galations 3:28

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Were trees created before humans?

• Genesis 1:12-31 "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: . . . And the evening and the morning were the third day. . . . And God said, Let us make man in our image . . . And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."

  vs.

• Genesis 2:5-9 "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground . . . And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food."

See the previous response Genesis 2 gives details on human creation and the Garden of Eden, not the whole planet like Genesis 1.

Did Michal have children?

• II Samuel 6:23 "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death."

  vs.

• II Samuel 21:8 "But the king took the two sons of Rizpah . . . and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul."

Look carefully. 2 Samuel 6:23 does not say that Michal had never ever had Children. She never had children after that point. Look at 2 Samuel 21 in context (verses 7-9)

The king spared Mephibosheth son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, because of the oath before the LORD between David and Jonathan son of Saul. But the king took Armoni and Mephibosheth, the two sons of Aiah's daughter Rizpah, whom she had borne to Saul, together with the five sons of Saul's daughter Merab, whom she had borne to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite. He handed them over to the Gibeonites, who killed and exposed them on a hill before the LORD. All seven of them fell together; they were put to death during the first days of the harvest, just as the barley harvest was beginning.

Not all translations have Micah. The NIV has Merab not Michal. If Merab is another name for Micah and it is, Michal was married to another man named Adriel when David was in exile and running from Saul. Look at 1 Samuel 18:19

So when the time came for Merab, Saul's daughter, to be given to David, she was given in marriage to Adriel of Meholah.

How many stalls did Solomon have?

• I Kings 4:26 "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen."

  vs.

• II Chronicles 9:25 "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen."

Look at http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2009/04/101-biblical-contradictions-refuted.html number 12

Did Paul's men hear a voice?

• Acts 9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."

  vs.

• Acts 22:9 "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me."

  (For more detail on this contradiction, with a linguistic analysis of the Greek words, see "Did Paul's Men Hear A Voice?" by Dan Barker, published in the The Skeptical Review, 1994 #1)

Here is DR. James White's Response.

Is God omnipotent?

• Jeremiah 32:27 "Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there anything too hard for me?
• Matthew 19:26 "But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."

  vs.

• Judges 1:19 "And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."

James White also responded to this one on his podcast.

Does God live in light?

• I Timothy 6:15-16 " . . . the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach . . ."
• James 1:17 " . . . the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."
• John 12:35 "Then Jesus saith unto them, . . . he that walketh in darkness knoweth not wither he goeth."
• Job 18:18 "He [the wicked] shall be driven from light into darkness, and chased out of the world."
• Daniel 2:22 "He [God] knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him." See also Psalm 143:3, II Corinthians 6:14, and Hebrews 12:18-22.

  vs.

• I Kings 8:12 "Then spake Solomon, The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness." (Repeated in II Chronicles 6:1)
• II Samuel 22:12 "And he made darkness pavilions round about him, dark waters, and thick clouds of the skies."
• Psalm 18:11 "He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies."
• Psalm 97:1-2 "The Lord reigneth; let the earth rejoice . . . clouds and darkness are round about him."

Um is there anywhere God isn't!!!! Omnipresent remember!!!!

Does God accept human sacrifice?

• Deuteronomy 12:31 "Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the Lord, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods."

  vs.

• Genesis 22:2 "And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of."
• Exodus 22:29 "For thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors; the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me."
• Judges 11:30-39 "And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hand, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering. So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon . . . and the Lord delivered them into his hands. . . . And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: . . . And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed."
• II Samuel 21:8-14 "But the king [David] took the two sons of Rizpah . . . and the five sons of Michal . . . and he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the Lord: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest . . . And after that God was intreated for the land."
• Hebrews 10:10-12 " . . . we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ . . . But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God."
• I Corinthians 5:7 " . . . For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us."

God not ask that we sacrifice others to him. God did not allow Abraham to sacrifice Issac. IT was picture of What God would do with Jesus. Exodus 22:29 was not intended to tell Israel to kill children. Judges 11 tells us what Jephthah did but it does not tell us that God condoned his oath or him following through on that oath. In 2nd Samuel, Saul's sons are not killed as a sacrifice to God but because their father, Saul dealt falsely with the Gibeonites. As for Hebrews and 1 Corinthians God himself sacrifices himself for us. It's not some innocent third party being kidnapped and killed. Jesus sacrificed Himself willingly.

Who was Joseph's father?

• Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus."

  vs.

• Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli."

Neither of Jesus' geneology matches the other. Matthew is given from a Hebrew point-of-view. In Semetic culture geneology only lists the "important" people - the high points. Therefore people can be skipped. Sometimes grandchildren are ascribed to their grandfathers. For example to their culture my son, Matthias, could be listed as my father's, Clarence, son and I could be left out. If you notice the Luke geneology is longer and is written from a Gentile perspective - list as many ancestors as possible. Of course they are not going to match. It's also possible that Matthew's geneology could be Mary's and Luke's could be Joseph's.

Check out these link about answering Dan Barker
http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2009/05/james-white-critiques-dan-barkers.html

James White on "Iron Sharpens Iron"

Here is a great list of Dr James White's appearances on the Iron Sharpens Iron radio broadcast/podcast. These are links to mp3 files that records those guest appearances. This is a treasure trove.

James White on Iron Sharpens Iron

33 Bible Contradictions and Refutations Pt 1

I've been again...interacting...with atheist on Twitter. I've been challenged to refute Dan Barker's list of 33 Biblical contradictions. These are nothing new but since @ BibleAlsoSays wants to dredge them up, it will be fun knocking them down all over again. My comments will be in red. This is part 1.

Should we kill?

• Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill."
• Leviticus 24:17 "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death."

  vs.

• Exodus 32:27 "Thus sayeth the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, . . . and slay every man his brother, . . . companion, . . . neighbor."
• I Samuel 6:19 " . . . and the people lamented because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."
• I Samuel 15:2,3,7,8 "Thus saith the Lord . . . Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. . . . And Saul smote the Amalekites . . . and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword."

  

• Numbers 15:36 "And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses."
• Hosea 13:16 "they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with children shall be ripped up."

  For a discussion of the defense that the Commandments prohibit only murder, see "Murder, He Wrote", chapter 27 (Losing Faith In Faith: From Preacher To Atheist).

In order to see this as a contradiction, you would have to think that there is no difference between killing and murder and unable to read context. Exodus 20:13 uses the Hebrew term "ratshach". This term does not appear in any of the other references Barker seems to try to use to say that God condones murder. This means that the word is not being used in the same context as in Exodus 20:13. I think a better passage to compare is Ecclesiastes 3:3

A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

The word tranlated "kill" is "Harag". Now this word is used in some of the places where Dan Barker is contrasting with "murder". Which means "kill" is not in any of the same contexts as Exodus 20:13. In other words, there is no contradiction. We are not to murder but sometimes killing is necessary.

Should we tell lies?

• Exodus 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness."
• Proverbs 12:22 "Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord."

  vs.

• I Kings 22:23 "The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee."
• II Thessalonians 2:11 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."

  Also, compare Joshua 2:4-6 with James 2:25.

No where in the Bible is a lie ever condoned. In 1st Kings 22:23 the context is God speaking through the prophet Micaiah to warn Ahab and Jehoshaphat that Ahab's prophets could not be trusted and that they should not go to war against the king of Aram. Ahab didn't listen so he was killed. in 2nd Thessalonians one needs to look at the context verse 9-12

The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

The people get the delusion because they refuse to love the truth. They delight in wickedness. Don't be like them [Dan Barker] and you won't be deceived or deluded.

Should we steal?

• Exodus 20:15 "Thou shalt not steal."
• Leviticus 19:13 "Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor, neither rob him."

  vs.

• Exodus 3:22 "And ye shall spoil the Egyptians."
• Exodus 12:35-36 "And they spoiled [plundered, NRSV] the Egyptians."
• Luke 19:29-34 "[Jesus] sent two of his disciples, Saying, Go ye into the village . . . ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither. And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him. . . . And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt? And they said, The Lord hath need of him."

  I was taught as a child that when you take something without asking for it, that is stealing.

Exodus 3:22 is taken out of context

"So I will stretch out my hand and strike the Egyptians with all the wonders that I will perform among them. After that, he will let you go.
And I will make the Egyptians favorably disposed toward this people, so that when you leave you will not go empty-handed. Every woman is to ask her neighbor and any woman living in her house for articles of silver and gold and for clothing, which you will put on your sons and daughters. And so you will plunder the Egyptians." - Exodus3:20-22

Israel asked for the goods and booty and the Egyptians gave it. The Hebrews worked for it. It was for 400 years of free labor. As for the colt, Jesus did not steal it. Jesus did not keep the colt. It was returned to the owner. According to the culture of the day Jesus broke no laws and it was according to his authority as a recognized Rabbi.

Shall we keep the sabbath?

• Exodus 20:8 "Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy."
• Exodus 31:15 "Whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death."
• Numbers 15:32,36 "And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. . . . And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses."

  vs.

• Isaiah 1:13 "The new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity."
• John 5:16 "And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day."
• Colossians 2:16 "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days."

Barker's kidding...must be. The context in Isaiah 1:13 is ignored and not quoted fully

¹³Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.

What is the context of John 5:16? The Jews were angry because Jesus healed a lame man on the sabbath, told the man to carry his bed, and they understood that Jesus was making Himself equal with God (verse 18).

God was not saying that the sabbaths were full of iniquity just the hypocrasy of people observing the event and living any kind of way.

As for Colossians 2:!6, Paul was writing to gentile Christians not Jews. Look back at the Sabbath Laws of the Old Testament, the laws are specifically given to the Jewish nation.

Shall we make graven images?

• Exodus 20:4 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven . . . earth . . . water."
• Leviticus 26:1 "Ye shall make ye no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone."
• Deuteronomy 27:15 "Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image."

  vs.

• Exodus 25:18 "And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them."
• I Kings 7:15,16,23,25 "For he [Solomon] cast two pillars of brass . . . and two chapiters of molten brass . . . And he made a molten sea . . . it stood upon twelve oxen . . . [and so on]"

Dan Barker does not know what a graven image is. A graven image is something to be worshiped. The cherubim decorating the tabernacle and the Temples of God were not meant to be worshiped. No contradiction here.

Are we saved through works?

• Ephesians 2:8,9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith . . . not of works."
• Romans 3:20,28 "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight."
• Galatians 2:16 "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ."

  vs.

• James 2:24 "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."
• Matthew 19:16-21 "And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he [Jesus] said unto him . . . keep the commandments. . . . The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven."

  The common defense here is that "we are saved by faith and works." But Paul said "not of works."

The only person who would say that we are saved by faith and works doe not know what the Bible says. Paul was talking about keeping ceremonial laws when he was referring to texts in Ephesians, Romans, and Galatians. James was talking about good works and helping others. Paul wrote in Ephesians 2:8-10 (Barker didn't quote the whole context.)

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

As for the account of Matt 19:16-21, Jesus was not saying that anyone could be justified before God apart from Himself because none of us can really keep the law perfectly.

Should good works be seen?

• Matthew 5:16 "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works."
• I Peter 2:12 "Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that . . . they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation."

  vs.

• Matthew 6:1-4 "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them . . . that thine alms may be in secret."
• Matthew 23:3,5 "Do not ye after their [Pharisees'] works. . . . all their works they do for to be seen of men."

This deals with intent. We should not do good to glorify ourselves. Our lives are examples and everyone is looking and judging us. Our deeds are seen whether good or not.

Should we own slaves?

• Leviticus 25:45-46 "Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, . . . and they shall be your possession . . . they shall be your bondmen forever."
• Genesis 9:25 "And he [Noah] said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren."
• Exodus 21:2,7 "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. . . . And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the manservants do."
• Joel 3:8 "And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off: for the Lord hath spoken it."
• Luke 12:47,48 [Jesus speaking] "And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes."
• Colossians 3:22 "Servants, obey in all things your masters."

  vs.

• Isaiah 58:6 "Undo the heavy burdens . . . let the oppressed go free, . . . break every yoke."
• Matthew 23:10 "Neither be ye called Masters: for one is your Master, even Christ."

  Pro-slavery bible verses were cited by many churches in the South during the Civil War, and were used by some theologians in the Dutch Reformed Church to justify apartheid in South Africa. There are more pro-slavery verses than cited here.

The Bible does not say we can hold slaves. If anything it just shows that slavery existed. The slavery that was part of Biblical times is not like the slavery of antebellum America or European colonization and subjugation of Africa. You can't equate them. Slavery based on race was not part of the mindset.

Does God change his mind?

• Malachi 3:6 "For I am the Lord; I change not."
• Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent."
• Ezekiel 24:14 "I the Lord have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent."
• James 1:17 " . . . the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."

  vs.

• Exodus 32:14 "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."
• Genesis 6:6,7 "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth . . . And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth . . . for it repenteth me that I have made him."
• Jonah 3:10 ". . . and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not."

  See also II Kings 20:1-7, Numbers 16:20-35, Numbers 16:44-50.

  See Genesis 18:23-33, where Abraham gets God to change his mind about the minimum number of righteous people in Sodom required to avoid destruction, bargaining down from fifty to ten. (An omniscient God must have known that he was playing with Abraham's hopes for mercy--he destroyed the city anyway.)

God does not repent. The Hebrew word for "Repent" is translated in more modern English translations as "grieved"as in Genesis 6:6,7; Jonah 3:10. In Exodus 32:14, the word is translated "relented". Depending on the context, you know what the correct translation is. God does not change his mind.

Are we punished for our parents' sins?

• Exodus 20:5 "For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." (Repeated in Deuteronomy 5:9)
• Exodus 34:6-7 " . . . The Lord God, merciful and gracious, . . . that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation."
• I Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, . . ."

  vs.

• Ezekiel 18:20 "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father."
• Deuteronomy 24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

The question to ask is the passage referring to ultimate damnation or temporal consequences. Ezekiel 18 and Deut 24 are referring to damnation and separation from God (in context). The citations from Exodus is pointing out that God has the option and the right to make children and Grand children experience consequences for the sins of parents. Look at Deuteronomy 5 in context

You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments. Deuteronomy 5:9,10

Why would Barker not comment on verse 10. Look those whose children suffer hate God. Could it be that atheist who hate God don't like this scripture because they know that they are making the lives of their own children harder?

The reference to 1 Corinthians is important because it shows that each of us are suffering because of Adam- one man. God has option to deal with us corporately of as a species. His choice. Just as we all deserve death through the actions of one man, we obtain life through Jesus.

It's important to remember that the web page that this is taken from makes all kind of assumptions. Dan Barker believes that it doesn't make sense for God's message to look as it does and believes that these contradictions means that it is not true. However none of these objections are true. And it is easy to refute them.

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : Will the Messiah Institute New Commandments?, part 5 of 7

Here is part 5 of Mariano's 7 part post discussing Jewish conception of what the Messiah is and how Jesus fits.

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : Will the Messiah Institute New Commandments?, part 5 of 7

An Alfred Hitchcock documentary on the Nazi Holocaust

Sunday Quote: Ed Harrison on Fine Tuning - Apologetics 315

I just found the following quote by Edward Harris, posted by Bryan at Apologetics 315. It's amazing.

Sunday Quote: Ed Harrison on Fine Tuning - Apologetics 315: "The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one."

- Edward Robert Harrison

I didn't know who Edward Harrison is so I looked him up. He's a noted cosmologist. You can read his latest text book on cosmology called Cosmology: The Science of the Universe which is also in the Google library. Although the man is dead he is credited with solving Olber's Paradox.

He had an astounding career and I don't think his comment about the design of the universe can be ignored.

Argument from the Contingency of the Universe - Apologetics 315

Brian has started a series on his Apologetics 315 blog. Every week he will be defining a theological argument and discussing its strengths and weaknesses. First up: Argument for Contingeny of the Universe to infer the existence of God.

Check him out at:

Argument from the Contingency of the Universe - Apologetics 315

The only thing I would like to add is that the thing I don't like about this one is that it does not specifically point to the God of the Bible but as Brian points out, it's a first step.

Theology and Apologetics on iTunes U - Apologetics 315

Brian has don it again over at Apologetics 315. I always learn so much every time I visit his blog. There is great Apologetics educational materials in ITunes. Who knew? Now we do!

Theology and Apologetics on iTunes U - Apologetics 315

Truthbomb Apologetics: Is ID Creationism? William Dembski Answers Top Three Objections to ID

Chad has shared a great interview of William Dembski on his blog Truthbomb Apologetics. Dembski answers 3 three objections to Intelligent Design.

1. Can't infer design because unlikely events happen.
2. You can't infer design if there is perceived imperfections.
3. Intelligent Design is just repackaged creationism

Check him out!

Find the podcast at the following link

Truthbomb Apologetics: Is ID Creationism? William Dembski Answers Top Three Objections to ID

History – “The Destruction of Hiroshima & Nagasaki”

Here is a video documenting destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : Will the Messiah Institute New Commandments?, part 4 of 7

Here is part 4 of Mariano's 7 part post discussing Jewish conception of what the Messiah is and how Jesus fits.

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : Will the Messiah Institute New Commandments?, part 4 of 7

Earl Doherty Interview

Brian Flemming interviewed Earl Doherty. Doherty is an atheist who believes that historical and manuscript evidence shows that Jesus is completely a myth and never existed. Flemming is also an atheist and he agrees with Doherty. Doherty has written several books such as "The Jesus Puzzle" and "Challenging the Verdict". I think it's important to hear the other side even though I completely disagree with them.

EarlDohertyIntervi...

I'd like to point out a couple of things. One, Doherty's understanding of facts such as the dating of the Gospels and the New Testament do not square with traditional understanding. Two, Doherty's exegesis of the Bible texts are wanting. He says that Paul never referred to Jesus as a human physical being.

For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the 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. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. - Romans 9:3-5

If Jesus did not have a human physical body, then how could He have a human ancestry? Doherty's "smoking guns" are really false. He says that Hebrews 8:4 says that Jesus was never on earth. It doesn't say that. The context is in Jeus' fucntioning as high priest today. Doherty admits to being an amateaur historian. I'm not saying that makes him an idiot but I think someone who has made a profession of history disagree with him. Even atheistic historians agree that Jesus did exist as a man and He was crucified. This is beyond dispute. When Doherty was asked if the Biblical cannon was set during the Council of Nicea, he didn't know, but gave wrong information. I have never heard any real historian agree with Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. Doherty claims to be able to show that the Christian understanding of Jesus is wrong. He should be able to know what the first generation Christians really believed and he does not. He made the argument that the gnostic conception of Christianity was just as valid as the Christianity depicted in the New Testament. He's wrong. I will suggest taking everything he says and writes carefully. No one is trying to silence him because he is way off base. The interview tries to paint a picture that the idea of Jesus being a myth as being ignored and unchallenged. This is not true. There is much around answering the charges Doherty raises. For example here is an Interview of historian (a professional Historian) Paul Maier discussing the reality of Jesus' existence. And Paul Maier wrote the following article.

Atheism is Dead: Is the Bible Skeptical About Miracles? – Lazarus Comes Forth

Mariano, has turned out a great post discussing the validity of Miracles in the Bible. I think everyone should read it!

Atheism is Dead: Is the Bible Skeptical About Miracles? – Lazarus Comes Forth

Someone has anonymously commented that Pantheism is a better explanation for miracles than any theistic system and posted the following video.





After I finished laughing I realized that this fantasy must be addressed. The whole argument that since all theistic religions claim authentication by miracles, none can be true because if there was only one God then only one religion would have miracles and answered prayers. The Bible answers this charge in Deuteronomy 13:1-4.

If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him.

God clear says that He allows false prophet and false religions to have miracles of their own. Miracles alone cannot be used to validate a religion or system of belief. Another good example is how Egyptian magicians were able to duplicate a few of the Plagues God brought upon Egypt to bring about the Exodus.

In addition I don't think that just the existence of miracles is enough to consider. We should consider the quality of the miracles not just quantity. For example name another miracle, from any other religion, rivaling the parting of the Red Sea! Or the one Mariano started out with in his essay - The raising of Lazarus from the dead after three days! Or the Miracle of the resurrection - Jesus predicted it and executed His own resurrection saving all of us who believe on Him! What could be greater! It was like a base ball player telling when, where, and how he is going to knock the ball out of the park and by how many runs they will win by. Nobody is like Jesus!