High Five of the Day - Stand to Reason | Unstringing the Violinist

Greg Koukl wrote a very good response to the following argument supporting Abortion. 

But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you—we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but you've now got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous,^[2] which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.

The argument is designed to give people the dilemma of agreeing that in a particular circumstance it is okay to end the life of a person and that it's no different than when it comes to abortion. It's a clever argument designed to make you scratch your head and at first blush agree to it. However with a little bit of thought it is plain to see that the violinist metaphor fails on several levels. Follow the link to see Greg Koukl's answer.

Stand to Reason | Unstringing the Violinist

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Two Places Where St. Paul’s Theology Totally Contradicts The Gospel of Matthew’s Credibility

Harry H. McCall continues to fall all over himself as he continues his ill-fated attempt to provide reasons for his hypocrisy and apostasy.  His latest attempt tries to set the book of Matthew against Paul's letters.

Christians who accept the Bible (especially the New Testament) as an inspired text will have to deal with the fact that there are some major problems between St. Paul’s view of history and the Gospel of Matthew’s view of historical events.   Ironically, the dogmatic historical certainly of Paul and that of the First Gospel puts yet another nail into the coffin of Christian absolute truth and its holy theology.

Hmmm....wonder what McCall means by "First Gospel"? Does he hold to Matthean Priority? Oh well. Let's see if he can substantiate his charges.

Paul’s View of Events:

“ . . .that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve (τοῖς δώδεκα).” (1 Corinthians 15: 4 – 5)

Matthew’s View of Events:

“So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.”  (Matt. 27: 5) 

Comment:

However, contrary to the Gospel of Matthew, Judas had already hanged himself well before Jesus was even crucified, thus leaving only eleven apostles. So how could there be still have been twelve apostles as Judas was dead and Matthias was not yet chosen:  “Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.” (See:  Acts 1: 23 -26)

Now where does any of the Gospels say that Matthias was not one of the people who were with the eleven when Jesus showed them He was alive. One of the qualifications to be an Apostle was that you had to be an eye witness to the risen Christ and on top of that Matthias was not the only one outside of the eleven who fit the criteria to be apostle. Paul was counting Matthias as on of the twelve. (See Acts 1: 15 - 26). Obviously, McCall did not read enough or closely.

Paul’s View of Events:

“But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. / /  But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming.” (1 Corinthians 15: 20 & 23)

Matthew’s View of Events:

“The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people. (Matthew 27: 51b – 53)

Comment:

Paul had no knowledge of these dead saints who beat Jesus at his own resurrection game.  So the Christian believer is faced with the hard dilemma of either accepting the Matthean view of historical proofs or Paul’s major Christian eschatology. Either Matthew is caught in a lie, or Paul does NOT know what the hell he’s talking about  . . . or likely both!

Well at least, McCall is admitting Matthew is right. But so is Paul. Resurrection is more than just coming back to life. It means that you never die again. It means getting a transformed body. McCall should recognized this given that he just quoted 1st Corinthians 15 above. Jesus is the only recorded case of someone being Resurrected. Everyone else in the Bible who was brought back from death later died. McCall is making category errors...again. Added to that we must not forget that these people would not have been dead for that long so of course Jerusalem's inhabitants would have recognized them. If you had been wealthy or fortunate enough to have been buried in a tomb, of course your loved ones would have dug up your bone and put them into an ossuary and the tomb recycled for someone else according to customs at the time. Therefore we know that the people who had been raised from the dead, like Lazarus but not like Jesus, would not not have been for a very long time if they were walking out of tombs. . 

Debunking Christianity: Two Places Where St. Paul’s Theology Totally Contradicts The Gospel of Matthew’s Credibility

▶ [William Lane Craig] Q&A - If God foreknows all my decisions, do I have free will? - YouTube

Here is a great summary on the views of Dr William Lane Craig on free will. I disagree with him. He thinks that God knows the future just because he knows what we will do in each and every situation and does nothing to intervene or interfere. I don't think so. While I don't think that God completely controls our every thought and action. Everything that happens is not outside of God's control  or knowledge.


▶ [William Lane Craig] Q&A - If God foreknows all my decisions, do I have free will? - YouTube

Truthbomb Apologetics: God and Abstract Objects

I think that this particular podcast is very interesting. William Lane Craig discusses abstract objects and how they relate to God.  It bothered me that Craig, while arguing that Moral values and obligations can only be grounded in the being of God, he does not want to think the same of abstract objects. Mathematics and morals are all sourced from God. Follow the link to get to the podcast.

Truthbomb Apologetics: God and Abstract Objects

▶ Sam Harris vs Reza Aslan Full Unedited Video - YouTube

Here is a great debate. I had a very hard time with this debate because when a Muslim debates an Atheists because it is hard to know who to root for. I mean they are both wrong in so many ways but it is interesting to see how a celebrated atheist like Harris would argue against a liberal westernized Muslim like Aslan.  They disagreed about a few things but instead focused on their differences.


▶ Sam harris vs Reza Aslan Full Unedited Video - YouTube

Truthbomb Apologetics: Video: The Real Jesus- New Evidence from History and Archeology by Historian Paul Maier

Chad, from Truthbomb Apologetics, has posted  a really great lecture from Paul Maier about the historical and archeological evidence for Jesus Christ.


Truthbomb Apologetics: Video: The Real Jesus- New Evidence from History and Archeology by Historian Paul Maier

Better Interviews of Reza Aslan than Fox News

The more interviews of Reza Aslan that I hear, the more upset I am regarding their interview. There is so much I disagree with him about but the way Fox News handled the interview really sucked badly. Instead of really engaging him on what he wrote and what he believes about the origins of Christianity, they butchered their chance at really getting the truth out there. I wonder if this was calculated because that interview put him on the map and he sold more books than he would have otherwise. And while the following interview is good, I want to see an interview challenging him on his conclusions and "facts".  Here is hoping he will do some of those type interviews.

▶ Jennifer Crumpton interviews Reza Aslan, author of "Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth"


▶ Jennifer Crumpton interviews Reza Aslan, author of "Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth" - YouTube

Debunking Christianity: Two New Books on the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier and Robert Price

John Loftus has recently posted an article discussing two books by Richard Carrier and Robert Price challenging the Historicity of  Jesus' existence. Carrier has finally decided to write a book trying to explain what he thinks about Jesus. Price has been up front and honest that he does not think that Jesus existed and that most historians and scholar (Christians or not) disagree with him. However up until now Carrier has not been as dogmatic about it, but just suggested that Jesus did not exist. Loftus posted the following video. Carrier does not make a point to allege that he can prove emphatically that Jesus did not exist, but now he has written a book. I won't try to say that he is now saying the he can prove that Jesus did not exist because I have not read the book. However, the video does seem to explain that Carrier thinks that it is reasonable to hold the idea that Jesus may not have existed. 




Richard Carrier's version


However Bart Ehrman says something qualitatively different

Bart Ehrman's Version


So which is it? Ehrman is an Agnostic. Carrier is an atheist. They both reject the Bible as being infallible. They both reject Christianity. They both reject Jesus' Resurrection. They disagree about Jesus' existence as a living person. They both can't be right.  How do you know? The preponderance of evidence is on Ehrman's side. What about other professional historian?

Various other Historians




Debunking Christianity: Two New Books on the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier and Robert Price

What is the Kalam Cosmological Argument? Video - Apologetics 315

This video summarizes the Kalam Cosmological Argument!

What is the Kalam Cosmological Argument? Video - Apologetics 315

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Neuroscience is Destroying the Notions of Free Will, Sin and Salvation by Faith

It's posts like this that makes me question if John Loftus was ever really a Christian. I mean it's like he has no idea what Christians believe or what the Bible teaches that Christians should believe. Take a look at his intro paragraph.

Neuroscience is making it extremely difficult for believers to still claim that by freely choosing to believe we are saved (or condemned), that we freely choose to sin, or that there is a wrathful God who will judge us on the last day. Case in point, girls and boys, are the following two essays, the last of which I will quote from. The first is Grandma’s Experiences Leave a Mark on Your Genes. Now for the second one, "The Brain on Trial." [Be sure to read this essay at least as far as the highlighted money quote in red!].

Where does the Bible say that we freely choose sin? But I want to hold off on that a moment and point out what Loftus considers the main point.

The crux of the problem is that it no longer makes sense to ask, “To what extent was it his biology, and to what extent was it him?,” because we now understand that there is no meaningful distinction between a person’s biology and his decision-making. They are inseparable. 

Has Loftus ever read the Bible? I ask because he seems to fail to recognize that the Bible does not teach that people are "all adults possess the same capacity to make sound choices." We don't. We, by default, are broken and hostile to God and God's ways. We are not good outside of God's mercy and influence - even the atheist who does something good for someone else. This is not new information. Sin is hardcoded in us - post fall. Adam and Eve are the only other human beings other than Jesus Christ who know what it is like not to be driven to commit sin. Therefore neuroscience does not destroy what Christians believe about sin or salvation but instead underscores why we need it. Everyone is broken to different degrees and in different ways. You might not desire to kill others, but just like the articles point out, given the circumstances you don't really know what you would or would not do. Everyone needs a savior because we are not free or independent. We are held hostage by sin - which is even a part of our biology.

⁵ Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. - Psalm 51:5


²² This righteousness is given through faith in^[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, ²³ for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ²⁴ and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. - Romans 3:22-24


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



⁵ Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. ⁶ The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. ⁷ The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. ⁸ Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. - Romans 8:5-8

I can already hear the objection because people have been using it since Adam messed up in the Garden of Eden. If we are slaves to sin, and God allowed us to come here that way, why does he hold us responsible? Asked and Answered along time ago.

¹⁹ One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” ²⁰ But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”^{[h] 21} Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
²² What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? ²³ What 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— ²⁴ even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? - Romans 8:19-24

It's tight but it's right. You can fool yourself into thinking that you just happen to be better than the people you like compare yourself with or you can admit your own failing and be free of your prison. If you want to be free that is God drawing you to Jesus. Reach out and take the salvation Jesus is offering you.

Debunking Christianity: Neuroscience is Destroying the Notions of Free Will, Sin and Salvation by Faith

Reza Aslan's "Zealot" Firestorm

You may have seen the viral video from Fox News' Lauren Green's interview of  Dr Reza Aslan on his book on Jesus titled "Zealot". Watch it here.  The interview is horrible.  Although I don't agree with Reza Aslan's conclusions, from what I've heard,  I was appalled by the bias and unfairness leveled against him. It was painfully obvious that Green  (and maybe her producers either) had not read Aslan's book and did not understand his arguments in the slightest. It was disrespectful. It looked like the Fox News deal was to just to pretend that because Aslan is a Muslim he has no right to comment on Jesus and history. Aslan is wrong in many of his conclusions but he has every right to say it. Many non-Muslims have come to many of the same conclusions about Jesus. Aslan has every right to be wrong as the liberal "christian" or atheist or agnostic scholar.

A firestorm has been launched over this interview that has gone viral. I think it is worth looking at some of the comments and stories around this. For an atheist's perspective, check out John Loftus' short post
Reza Aslan Interviewed on Fox News About His New Book, "Zealot". Loftus was correct about how bad the interview was but I know he does not fully come to the same detailed conclusions that Aslan has and I get the feeling that he'd rather ignore Aslan completely because Aslan is a Muslim. Aslan is not wrong because he is a Muslim, he is wrong because he doesn't let the Bible speak and fairly weigh it, as James White points out in his webcast yesterday. Dr White goes much farther in showing why he disagrees with Dr Aslan (he even read the book) and quoted from an interview Aslan gave recently showing why Aslan was not a Christian (like every apostate I've ever heard from). Read the interview Exclusive Loonwatch Interview with Reza Aslan.
I don't have a problem with non-Christians discussing the content of the Bible. It opens up a dialog.

The interview made Fox News look so bad they felt the need to respond



The YoungTurks channel had some choice comments as well





If you are interested in a more indepth review on what Aslan actually wrote about Jesus check out

What Reza Aslan actually says about Jesus

Doug Wilson Interviews Mark Driscoll

I came across a real interesting video where Pastor Douglas Wilson interviewed Pastor Mark Driscoll on several topics. This is gold.

Good God & Evil World by Paul Copan: MP3 / Video - Apologetics 315

Here is an interesting video of  Dr Paul Copan describing how to answer the problem of reconciling God's goodness with evil and suffering. He uses free will for his explanation. I don't completely agree. Evil and Suffering are under God's complete control and only serve his will to conform those he loves to the image of his son.

Good God & Evil World (in 18 Minutes) from Paul Copan on Vimeo.

Good God & Evil World by Paul Copan: MP3 / Video - Apologetics 315

Truthbomb Apologetics: Do Animals Display Morality? A Reasonable Faith Podcast

Over at Truthbomb Apologetics, Chad has posted a link to Dr William Lane Craig's podcast where he responds to an interview of Frans de Waal, director of Emory University's Living Links Center at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Lawrenceville, Georgia.The interview is about how animals display morality and what does that say about humanity. Here is a video of the interview from CNN



Here is a link to Truthbomb Apologetics where you can get the link to Dr Craig's podcast in which he responds to the interview and Dr de Waal.  Truthbomb Apologetics: Do Animals Display Morality? A Reasonable Faith Podcast
 

Darrell Bock on the Jesus Seminar - MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315

Dr Darrel Bock once gave a great lecture on the "Jesus Seminar" where he discusses current scholarship on Jesus Christ. Worth it. 

Darrell Bock on the Jesus Seminar - MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315

Answering Muslims: Eleven-Year-Old Nada Al-Ahdal Flees Home to Avoid Forced Marriage in Yemen

Answering Muslims: Eleven-Year-Old Nada Al-Ahdal Flees Home to Avoid Forced Marriage in Yemen

I wonder what arguments would marriage "equality" proponents would use to argue for and against this little girls situation?

NUMBER 13 - official trailer - YouTube

One of the unsung gems on San Diego Comic Con 2013 is the following announcement!

Published on Jul 18, 2013

Based on the DARK HORSE comic. NUMBER 13, a young cybernetic amnesiac, wanders a postapocalyptic wasteland searching for a father he can't remember. He possesses powers coveted by irrational, feuding factions of the future, and he quickly becomes entangled in their deadly struggle for world dominance!
****
Independent artists are taking the industry back! Artist Robert Love and writer David Walker who created the popular comic series NUMBER 13 (published through DARK HORSE) have teamed up with commercial director Steve Petersen to create the OFFICIAL TRAILER for their new project.
****
www.number13.info

NUMBER 13 - official trailer - YouTube


I was not able to attend the convention but I heard about this from watching the following panel

President Obama Speaks on Trayvon Martin - YouTube

President Obama Speaks on Trayvon Martin - YouTube

Why People Should Be Outraged at Zimmerman's 'Not Guilty' Verdict

 

I think this is worth looking at.

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: The Biblical Lies of God and Jesus

I am amazed at Harry McCall's hatred of God I honestly can't tell if he lies about what the Bible says or if its just ignorance. This is a serious faceplant devoid of logic and truth.

While the Bible is used so swear oaths on from the court room to political office and is often heard in the popular statement, “I’ll swear on a whole stack of Bibles.” evidently few people who use the Bible as a moral and ethical guide have ever really considered the true character of its two deities!

I don't think Harry McCall understands what the Trinity is or anything about what the Bible teaches about God. His whole point on this article is that the Bible records lies of God.  But does he present any evidence of God lying?

Divine Lie 1
In 1 Kings, Yahweh has his 400 prophets lie to Ahab:

"Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, about four hundred men, and said to them, “Shall I go against Ramoth-gilead to battle or shall I refrain?” And they said, “Go up, for the Lord will give it into the hand of the king.” (1 Kings 22: 6)

Divine Lie 2
Jehoshaphat knows God has His prophets lying to Ahab and tells him to send for the prophet Micaiah who  confirms that God is indeed a lair:

 "Micaiah said, “Therefore, hear the word of the LORD. I saw the LORD sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right and on His left.  “The LORD said, ‘Who will entice Ahab to go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one said this while another said that. 21 “Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD and said, ‘I will entice him.’  “The LORD said to him, ‘How?’ And he said, ‘I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ Then He said, ‘You are to entice him and also prevail. Go and do so.’  “Now therefore, behold, the LORD has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; and the LORD has proclaimed disaster against you.” (1 Kings 22: 19 – 23)

Let's take both of these at the same time. Because McCall's second example is supposed to confirm the first lie. Scriptures say that all  prophecy is from God. Therefore while God allowed the lying spirit to lie to Ahab through 400 prophets, it was also God that told Micaiah what happened in Heaven and made it known to Ahab and Jehoshaphat. and yet both Kings chose to attack Ramoth-gilead although they knew they shouldn't. This wasn't God's fault and God made sure that they knew better. McCall is wrong. God did not lie in this situation or any situation. 

Divine Lie 3
The Prophet Jeremiah accuses God of being a deceiver and a liar:

"Then I said, “Ah, Lord GOD! Surely You have utterly deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, ‘You will have peace’; whereas a sword touches the throat.” (Jeremiah 4: 10)

Jeremiah was not really accusing God of lying. Jeremiah was telling how he felt.  He had been abused and oppressed for telling people what God told him to say. He was suffering and felt betrayed because he did not think he would be suffering so much for doing the right thing. However, no where did God promise Jeremiah (or anyone of us) no pain and no suffering due to our obedience to Him. Several places in scripture tells us that we should expect pain and suffering in life period.  

Divine Lie 4
Jeremiah again accuses God of lying:

 "O LORD, You have deceived me and I was deceived; You have overcome me and prevailed. I have become a laughingstock all day long; everyone mocks me." (Jeremiah 20:7)

Same as number 3.

Divine Lie 5
 God will lie to anyone He doesn't like:

"And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel." (Ezekiel 14: 9)

Maybe McCall is afraid that God does not like him. I wish McCall would remember context. It's not God does not like this prophet. This is in context of judgement for idolatry.

Some of the elders of Israel came to me and sat down in front of me. ² Then the word of the Lord came to me: ³ “Son of man, these men have set up idols in their hearts and put wicked stumbling blocks before their faces. Should I let them inquire of me at all? ⁴ Therefore speak to them and tell them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: When any of the Israelites set up idols in their hearts and put a wicked stumbling block before their faces and then go to a prophet, I the Lord will answer them myself in keeping with their great idolatry. ⁵ I will do this to recapture the hearts of the people of Israel, who have all deserted me for their idols.’
⁶ “Therefore say to the people of Israel, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Repent! Turn from your idols and renounce all your detestable practices!
⁷ “‘When any of the Israelites or any foreigner residing in Israel separate themselves from me and set up idols in their hearts and put a wicked stumbling block before their faces and then go to a prophet to inquire of me, I the Lord will answer them myself. ⁸ I will set my face against them and make them an example and a byword. I will remove them from my people. Then you will know that I am the Lord.
⁹ “‘And if the prophet is enticed to utter a prophecy, I the Lord have enticed that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and destroy him from among my people Israel. ¹⁰ They will bear their guilt—the prophet will be as guilty as the one who consults him. ¹¹ Then the people of Israel will no longer stray from me, nor will they defile themselves anymore with all their sins. They will be my people, and I will be their God, declares the Sovereign Lord.’” - Ezekiel 14:1-11

Divine Lie 6
God lies to Adam about the Tree of Knowledge:

“But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Genesis 2: 17)

God’s lie is further exposed when the talking snake tells the truth.

“But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Genesis 3: 4)

McCall is forgetting that God is not against Knowledge (read Proverbs if you need proof). The Tree was not the Tree of Knowledge. It was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. God did not tell Adam that that Adam would die immediately if he ate of the fruit. McCall forgets that  God said the creation was perfect - no death.  Adam would not have ever died had he not disobeyed God. McCall has written a lot on Debunking Christianity decrying and whining about suffering and evil yet thinks that the serpent was telling the truth while the fact that listening to the snake caused all the evil and suffering he wants to blame on God. The snake lied to Eve, not God.

Divine Lie 7
God lies to cover-up his lies:

“He who practices deceit shall not dwell within my house; He who speaks falsehood shall not maintain his position before me.” (Psalm 101: 7)

How does God putting out liars, cover God's lies? It doesn't. No logic here either. Let's keep looking for a good argument.

Divine Lie 8
God lies about his holiness to cover up more of his lies:

“There are six things which the LORD hates, Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:

Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood,

A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that run rapidly to evil,

A false witness who utters lies, And one who spreads strife among brothers." (Proverbs 6: 16 -19)

Asserting a lie does not make it a lie. Good thing God doesn't sue people for slander against Him. Hopefully, McCall will repent before it is too late.

Divine Lie 9
Jesus lies to get his apostles and to get converts.

“Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it."  (John 14: 11 – 14)

This statement of Jesus was made after the 12 made their commitment to him. Also McCall doesn't provide any evidence that this isn't true. Jesus did not lie. McCall likes to pretend that he used to be a believer, but I find his testimony wanting. If he had, he would be able to tell Jesus was telling the truth firsthand. 

Divine Lie 10
Jesus lies about his Second Coming:

“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16: 28)

Nope. McCall should read Pastor Mark Driscol's commentary on this verse. Oh wait I have it right her: Tough Text Thursday: Matthew 16:28.  McCall shouldn't be thought of a liar in this case. The problem here is ignorance. It's a difficult verse Still a failure in exegesis, but an understandable failure.

Ironically, the Biblical authors of the Old and New Testament end up believing and then (unknowingly) condemning their own Gods:

 “He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind." (1 Samuel 15: 29)

 "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." (Revelation 21: 8)

McCall fails to show how God lied about anything. Ten premises....ten fails. 

Debunking Christianity: The Biblical Lies of God and Jesus