Gospel Crumbs: 2012

Sunday, December 23, 2012

What Do You Think About The Messiah?

Jesus once asked, "...What do you think about the Christ/Messiah?..." - Matthew 22:42

During this Christmas season it is important to remember that Christians believe Jesus is the long awaited Jewish Messiah who fulfilled many of the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament and will fulfill the remaining prophecies when he returns.

It's common for non-Messianic Jews to argue that no respected and learned rabbis ever accepted Jesus' Messiahship. However that's false. As the following two articles proves.

Rabbis Who Thought For Themselves Part ONE
Rabbis Who Thought For Themselves Part TWO

Rabbis who believed in Jesus the Messiah (LINK)

The above articles don't even mention learned Jews who weren't rabbis but who nevertheless were believers in Jesus/Yeshua. For example, Charles Lee Feinberg who was on his way to becoming a rabbi when he became convinced that Jesus was the Messiah. He went on to become a biblical scholar and professor of Semitics and Old Testament. He was an authority on the Jewish history, languages and customs of the Old Testament and biblical prophecies. His two sons John and Paul also became Christian scholars. Another example would be Alfred Edersheim who wrote classic books including The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. Another example would be Louis Goldberg, Th.D. - faculty; author and former professor of Theology and Jewish Studies; former president of the Evangelical Theological Society, in 1983; former Scholar-in-Residence for Jews for Jesus. Below I have links to the works of Jewish believers in Jesus like Michael L. Brown, Arnold Fruchtenbaum and David H. Stern (writer of the Jewish New Testament Commentary). More people could be listed, but I'll stop there.

The following are links and recommendations to useful resources in defense of Jesus' true messiahship.

Michael L. Brown is considered by many to be the leading defender of Jesus' messiahship living today. He himself is of Jewish background. He holds a doctorate in Semitic languages. His five volume book "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus" is an indispensable resource for those who want to defend (or who are doubting) Jesus being Mashiach. His websites include Ask Dr. Brown, Real Messiah, In the Line of Fire, In the Line of Fire Blog, Fire School of Ministry.

One can subscribe to the podcasts of his radio show In the Line of Fire at this link HERE

One can access his YouTube video channel at this link HERE

Here are some of his videos on the web.

Is Jesus the Jewish Messiah? This lecture is TWO AND A HALF HOURS LONG! I recommend starting with part 2 if you want to skip Dr. Brown's conversion testimony which begins part 1.
I believe that these two videos are just a portion of the 10 DVD video series "Countering the Counter-Missionaries" which can be purchased at one of Dr. Brown's websites.

Part 1 of 2
http://youtu.be/scw9iB4cIZc

Part 2 of 2
http://youtu.be/fMtLbEpv48o

The following two videos seem to be shortened versions of the above lecture:

Proving through scriptures that Jesus is the Messiah vimeo.com/2368487

Countering the Counter-Missionaries Messianic Prophecy vimeo.com/2367509

Countering the Counter-Missionaries
(Over 24 hours of teaching)

Day 1 part 1 & 2 http://youtu.be/vV9rMFOFkgY
Day 1 part 3 & 4 http://youtu.be/OLT7BYpdU1o

Day 2 part 1 & 2 http://youtu.be/tcsK1VfAA0Y
Day 2 part 3 & 4 http://youtu.be/wbKAFnr0O6Q

Day 3 part 1 & 2 http://youtu.be/roHll6Gf3EY
Day 3 part 3 & 4 http://youtu.be/nt3X4SbijEo

Day 4 part 1 & 2 http://youtu.be/JLg4XnkitKE
Day 4 part 3 & 4 http://youtu.be/O_LyQI9dpI4

Day 5 part 1 & 2 http://youtu.be/Q-nMtATgETE
Day 5 part 3 & 4 http://youtu.be/7KUc9kQlb1Y

Messianic Prophecy in the Jewish Scriptures: A Conversation with Dr. Michael Brown
https://youtu.be/SKAnY1ULEWc

Dr. Brown Lectures on Jesus/Yeshua as the Messiah
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dejZdUCNZsg&feature=youtu.be&t=0m2s

Dr. Brown during what seems to be the Questions and Answers Session of the above lecture
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3&4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11 (missing), Part 12, Part 13 (Webpage for ALL Parts HERE)

Was Jesus A False Prophet? vimeo.com/28646155

In Search of Atonement vimeo.com/39428569

A Bloody Religion? vimeo.com/39423935

Hidden Secrets of Kabbalah vimeo.com/28618219

In Search of the Messiah vimeo.com/39428637

Objection: Jesus Can't Be The Messiah vimeo.com/28625919

Can Anyone See God? vimeo.com/16321308

Is Christianity Jewish? vimeo.com/16189102

Move Videos Here: http://vimeo.com/realmessiah/videos

How to Witness to Jews by Michael Brown
Part 1
http://youtu.be/x-47kyIFjNI

Part 2
http://youtu.be/_PIyGI7yxZc

Answering Your Toughest Questions with Dr. Michael Brown YouTube Episodes:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25,26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32,

PLAYLIST for ALL 32 EPISODES

Debates:

Debate between Michael L. Brown and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach
http://realmessiah.askdrbrown.org/watch/can-jews-believe-jesus-dr-brown-and-rabbi-boteach-debate

Debate between Michael L. Brown and Rabbi Immanuel Schochet
http://realmessiah.askdrbrown.org/video/is-jesus-the-jewish-messiah

Debate between Michael L. Brown and Rabbi Tovia Singer
http://realmessiah.askdrbrown.org/listen/debate-dr-brown-and-rabbi-singer

Debate between Dr. Michael L. Brown and Rabbi David Blumofe
http://vimeo.com/2492529 OR
http://www.realmessiah.com/video/who-jesus-debate-rabbi-blumofe-and-dr-brown OR
http://youtu.be/3Qg9J6_ijFI or http://youtu.be/rGtbdnOkgps

Deity of the Messiah Debate between Unitarians Buzzard/Goode vs. Trinitarians White/Brown
PART 1 http://youtu.be/Yn-grOfPDi0
PART 2 http://youtu.be/M38rQXLq29g

A collected list of videos where Dr. Brown gives his testimony can be found HERE

Dr. James White vs. Sir Anthony Buzzard on the topic of the Trinity on Justin Brierley's radio show Unbelievable http://youtu.be/SY7_EtcIeOQ

Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum is another well known leader in the Messianic Movement. (especially in the previous generation). He has written many excellent books on the topic.

Here is a link to his 21 part lecture series on The Life of the Messiah (now titled "The Jewish Life of Christ")

Lecture 1	Lecture 2	Lecture 3	Lecture 4	Lecture 5	Lecture 6	Lecture 7
Lecture 8	Lecture 9	Lecture 10	Lecture 11	Lecture 12	Lecture 13	Lecture 14
Lecture 15	Lecture 16	Lecture 17	Lecture 18	Lecture 19	Lecture 20	Lecture 21

Isa. 7:14, Matt. 1:23 and the Virgin Birth
http://bibledifficultiesanswered.blogspot.com/2015/06/isa-714-matt-123-and-virgin-birth.html

How the New Testament Employs the Jewish "PaRDeS" hermeneutic.
http://misclane.blogspot.com/2014/06/does-new-testament-quote-old-testament.html

The Jewish Trinity: How the Old Testament Reveals the Christian Godhead by Dr. Michael Heiser
http://misclane.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-jewish-trinity-how-old-testament.html

The Trinity in the Old Testament Video
http://misclane.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-trinity-in-old-testament.html

The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity
http://bib.irr.org/biblical-basis-of-doctrine-of-trinity

Resources in Defense of Trinitarianism
http://misclane.blogspot.com/2013/06/resources-in-defense-of-trinitarianism.html
Recommended books:

Day of Discovery videos dealing with Isaiah chapter 53
(aprox. 10 videos already cued up to play one after another)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIkz_yDqDvQ&feature=share&list=PLAB46EA762365C8E5

Monergism website's section on Christ in the Old Testament
http://www.monergism.com/topics/jesus-christ/christ-old-testament

TheMessianicDrew YouTube channel (by Drew Mazenec)
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheMessianicDrew/videos

The Messianic Drew BLOG
http://messianicdrew.blogspot.com/

Articles

How the New Testament Quotes the Old Testament by Arnold Fruchtenbaum

A Look at Messianic Prophecy: Four Ways the New Testament Authors Use the Hebrew Bible

Reject Jesus for Judaism?

Does the New Testament Quote the Old Testament Out of Context?

Does Psalm 22:16 really predict Jesus' crucifixion?

The Case for Jesus the Messiah – Incredible Prophecies that Prove God Exists
[ A series of 25 articles at the John Ankerberg website]

In Psalm 2:12, is Kiss the Son a mistranslation by the Christians?

Useful Books in Defense of Jesus' Genuine Messiahship:

Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament by G. K. Beale (Editor), D. A. Carson

Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus (5 volumes) by Michael L. Brown

The Real Kosher Jesus by Michael L. Brown

Jewish New Testament Commentary by David H. Stern

Messianic Judaism: A Modern Movement with an Ancient Past by David H. Stern

Jesus the Messiah: Tracing the Promises, Expectations, and Coming of Israel's King by Herbert Bateman IV, Gordon Johnston and Darrell Bock

The Messiah in the Old Testament by Walter C. Kaiser

Messianic Christology by Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum

Footsteps of the Messiah by Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum

Are You the One Who Is to Come?: The Historical Jesus and the Messianic Question by Michael F. Bird

The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic? by Michael Rydelnik

Behold Your King: Prophetic Proofs that Jesus is the Messiah by William Webster

Return of the Kosher Pig by Itzhak Shapira

The Gospel According to Isaiah 53: Encountering the Suffering Servant in Jewish and Christian Theology by Darrell Bock (editor) and Mitch Glaser (editor)

All the Messianic Prophecies of the Bible by Herbert Lockyer

The Prophecies of the Old Testament Respecting the Messiah by John Gill (written in the 18th century, this work can be read at the very bottom of this link; Here's another link to another website)

The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah by Alfred Edersheim (this link is not to the updated version, but to the original written in the 19th century and which is now in the public domain)

Messiah in Both Testaments by Fred John Meldau (introductory material on the subject)

Christology of the Old Testament by E.W. Hengstenberg (written in the 18th century)

Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology)

Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament Christopher J. H. Wright

A Zeal For God Not According to Knowledge: A Refutation of Judaism's Arguments Against Christianity, 2nd Edition by Eric V. Snow

Christ in All the Scriptures by A.M. Hodgkin (or here, here)

[Recommended by Steve Hays]
The Servant King: The Bible's portrait of the Messiah by T. D. Alexander and Alec Motyer

Look to the Rock: An Old Testament Background to Our Understanding of Christ by Alec Motyer
The Christ of the Prophets by O. Palmer Robertson

The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic? (NAC Studies in Bible & Theology) by Michael Rydelnik

The Moody Handbook of Messianic Prophecy: Studies and Expositions of the Messiah in the Old Testament by Michael Rydelnik (Editor), Edwin Blum (Editor)

The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition and Interpretation by John H. Sailhamer

Relevant Bible Translations:

Complete Jewish Bible
http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Complete-Jewish-Bible-CJB/
(Includes both the Original and New Testament)
Or Here: http://www.biblestudytools.com/cjb/

Orthodox Jewish Bible
http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Orthodox-Jewish-Bible-OJB/

World English Bible: Messianic Edition [ also known as the World Messianic Bible]
https://ebible.org/engwmb/

Learned Jewish Rabbis who accepted Jesus' Messiahship
Part ONE, Part TWO

They Thought For Themselves by Sid Roth is a collection of modern testimonies of Jews who accepted Jesus as their Jewish Messiah. Technically it's not an apologetical work. Nevertheless, it's an interesting collection of testimonies that's freely available online HERE

Jewish Messianic Interpretations of Isaiah 53

More testimonies of Jews believing in Jesus/Yeshua can be found in the following link:
http://www.the-new-way.org/testimonies/index_conv.html

The Return of the Kosher Pig
http://www.kosherpig.org/

Websites

Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus

The Most-Referenced List of Messianic Jewish Web Sites
(I would assume not all are Evangelical and/or Trinitarian)
http://users.eastlink.ca/~nertamid/ctomc_100best.htm

My blogs which have some relevance:

Resources in Defense of Trinitarianism
http://misclane.blogspot.com/2013/06/resources-in-defense-of-trinitarianism.html

Trinity Notes
http://www.trinitynotes.blogspot.com

Miscellaneous Additional Links in Favor of Jesus' Messiahship

Sunday, December 2, 2012

Blaise Pascal Quotes

I just found a quotation of Pascal that's similar to other quotes I've cited in the past. So, I'm gathering them them all here on this blog post. Here's the new quote:

Willing to appear openly to those who seek him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from him with all their heart, God so regulates the knowledge of himself that he has given indications of himself which are visible to those who seek him and not to those who do not seek him. There is enough light for those to see who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.

I found this quotation from an article by William Lane Craig HERE

It seems to be a quotation from Pascal's Pensées. Here's an alternative translation from www.ccel.org:

"...willing to appear openly to those who seek Him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from Him with all their heart, He so regulates the knowledge of Himself that He has given signs of Himself, visible to those who seek Him, and not to those who seek Him not. There is enough light for those who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition."

Here are the other quotations from Pascal's Pensées that I've posted in the past.

563 The prophecies, the very miracles and proofs of our religion, are not of such a nature that they can be said to be absolutely convincing. But they are also of such a kind that it cannot be said that it is unreasonable to believe them. Thus there is both evidence and obscurity to enlighten some and confuse others. But the evidence is such that it surpasses, or at least equals, the evidence to the contrary; so that it is not reason which can determine men not to follow it, and thus it can only be lust or malice of heart. And by this means there is sufficient evidence to condemn, and insufficient to convince; so that it appears in those who follow it, that it is grace, and not reason, which makes them follow it; and in those who shun it, that it is lust, not reason, which makes them shun it.

577 There is sufficient clearness to enlighten the elect, and sufficient obscurity to humble them. There is sufficient obscurity to blind the reprobate, and sufficient clearness to condemn them, and make them inexcusable.—Saint Augustine, Montaigne, Sébond.

574 All things work together for good to the elect, even the obscurities of Scripture; for they honour them because of what is divinely clear. And all things work together for evil to the rest of the world, even what is clear; for they revile such, because of the obscurities which they do not understand.

562 It will be one of the confusions of the damned to see that they are condemned by their own reason, by which they claimed to condemn the Christian religion.

576 God has made the blindness of this people subservient to the good of the elect.

Pascal was a Catholic who opposed what was considered by Catholicism as the heresy of Jansenism. This was a Catholic movement that has been considered by some a "Catholic Calvinism" because they took the teachings of St. Augustine so seriously and worked it out to its logical conclusions that it mirrored the Calvinism of Protestantism. Despite his opposition, Pascal seems to have been influenced by it (or by Augustine's teaching) enough that he seems to have had a high view of providence and predestination.

Being a Calvinist myself, I appreciate Pascal's desire to affirm both the Sovereignty of God in the salvation of human beings as well as as the moral responsibility that each person has before God to respond to him. The above quotes are compatible with many versions of Calvinism (though not all).

See also my blogposts:

"Unveiling" The Hiddenness of God

Detecting and Finding God

The following are links to where I've alluded to or posted these quotations in the comments of other blogs.

Probability & Inexcusability

A Green Stye

The irrelevance of evidence to atheism
[I highly recommend reading my comments at this link]

Words of light and life

Musings on the multiverse

Here's a link where I've collected all of my posts on other blogs.

Friday, November 2, 2012

Links on the Subject of Miracles in the Context of Craig Keener's Recent Book

The following are additional related links not specifically related to Keener's book:

Disambiguating miracles

triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/02/disambiguating-miracles.html

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

The Epic Boston College Debate on the Papacy

Was the Apostle Peter the First Pope?

The following videos are the 2 Boston College Debates between Catholic apologists Scott Butler & Robert Sungenis versus Protestant apologists James White & Robert Zins which occurred in the summer of 1995.

https://youtu.be/2bXdp-tteYE

Two Debates in One:

1. Is the Papacy Biblical? 2. Is the Papacy Historical?

Together, both debates are over 4 hours long. But, in my opinion, definitely worth listening to.

I first listened to these debates about a decade ago. I personally think the Protestants won both debates. However, I say that as a former Catholic, and current Protestant. So, I might be biased in that opinion. But you can now decide for yourself, thanks to YouTube.

Inferior video versions of the above debates:

Debate 1 deals with the BIBLICAL evidence for or against the Papacy

http://youtu.be/K7kehrfDMI8

Debate 2 deals with the HISTORICAL evidence for or against the Papacy

http://youtu.be/fmljIcyK1lA

Friday, August 10, 2012

Let's be Honest about the Papacy

With few corrections in grammar, the following are comments I left at Triablogue --->HERE<---

Any other significant additions by me are in double brackets.

Let's be honest. If Peter was the Pope then:

1. Why were the Zebedee brothers asking if they could be Jesus' right-hand and left-hand men (Matt. 20:20ff) if Jesus already made it clear that Peter was to be the Pope in Matt. 16? Why wouldn't the Gospel writers correct their misunderstanding and state that Peter was Pope? [[We know that Mark made a comment about Jesus' teaching in 7:19.]]

2. Why wouldn't Paul make the exception of Peter when he sarcastically referred to "super apostles" (2 Cor. 11:5) if the Papacy is true?

Indeed, I consider that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles.-ESV

For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles.-NASB

3. When Paul's apostleship was questioned by some, why didn't he immediately appeal to the fact that the Pope acknowledged his genuine apostleship to settle the issue, if the Papacy is true?

4. In light of 1 Cor. 1:12ff and the whole of chapter 3, why wouldn't Paul refer to Peter as Pope? If the Papacy is true, then there can be a genuine sense in which one could say, "I am of Cephas/Peter". Even if there might be a negative fleshly sense in which it can be said. Yet Paul doesn't explicitly affirm or implicitly acknowledge the Papacy. Nor does Paul address the abuses of the Papacy but deals with himself, Peter and Apollos as equals. It seems to me that a Pope cult developed years later (as the Orthodox have documented).

5. If the Papacy is true, why would Paul (in Gal. 2:9) refer to James, Cephas, and John as seeming/reputed pillars of the Church when he knows all along that there is a special sense in which Peter is pope? He refers to all three as if they were equals.

6. Regarding the same context, if the Papacy were true, why would Paul say what he did in Gal. 2:6?

And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me.-ESV

But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)-- well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me.-NASB

Paul implies his equality with them (including Peter).

7. If central authority was essential to Christianity, why didn't Jesus do something about those others who were preaching in His name (Mark 9:38ff)? If the Papacy were true, why would Jesus say, "For he that is not against us is on our part"? Notice I cited Mark's gospel. The gospel that may have been based on Peter's sermons. Why wouldn't Mark make clear in this passage (or any where else in this gospel) that Peter is the Pope?

8. If the Papacy is true, why in John 12:20-22 did Philip go to Andrew and then together they went to Jesus, when Philip could have gone to Peter as the Pope? The only way I can understand this is if the Church didn't realize Peter was the Pope until later. Maybe after the resurrection. If so, when exactly after the resurrection? Before or after Paul's conversion? Before or after Peter's own death? How many generations or centuries afterward?

9. If the Papacy is true, why isn't that office mentioned in Eph. 4:11-12, 1 Cor. 12:28-29, 1&2 Timothy or Titus?

10. If the Papacy is true, why doesn't Peter (in his epistles) acknowledge or make reference to it? In fact, Peter refers to himself as a "fellow elder" (1 Pet. 5:1ff) in a context where it would be supremely fitting for him to appeal to his position as Pope.

So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed:- ESV

Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed,-NASB

11. If the Papacy is true, then why doesn't the author of Hebrews acknowledge the Papacy in light of the fact that authority and priesthood are two of the main topics of the book? How could such a supposedly vital and useful office not be referred to in any of the epistles (including Peter's) or in this very long book (Hebrews)?

12. If the Papacy is true, why didn't Christ sent Paul immediately to the Pope to be instructed and have his apostleship legitimized? Or why didn't Christ send Peter to Paul ahead of time like Cornelius did when he sent two of his servants and one of his soldiers to find Peter? Instead Christ sends Ananias to Paul. You might say that it's because Ananias was closer. But Paul didn't visit Peter for years afterward. In all those years, Paul could have gone to see Peter, or Peter to have seen Paul. When they do meet, Paul refers to Peter and the others as not having "added/contributed anything" to him (Gal. 2:6). How could the Pope not add/contribute anything to Paul? After Paul's conversion, many Christians feared whether he was a false convert. At any time he could have sought the Pope's confirmation.

13. If the Papacy is true, then wouldn't the Jews know that Peter was the Pope and therefore the leader of Christianity? If so why didn't they go after him and "cut off the head", as it were? Why, instead, go after Paul (Acts 21:28)? As Jason said, "he's the man they hold most responsible for teaching Christianity everywhere." It was Paul, not the Pope that opponents of Christianity wanted to assassinate (Acts 23:12).

14. Paul says in 1 Cor. 11:1 "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ." (ESV). Why doesn't Paul or any other writer of the NT say that about Peter, especially since he's supposed to be the Pope? Excluding Matthew (because of the disputed interpretation of chap. 16), no New Testament writer teaches about or refers to (even implicitly acknowledges) the office of the Pope (or Peter as Pope). Not the writer of Hebrews, or Mark, James, Jude, or in the entire Lukan, Johannine, Pauline, (EVEN!) Petrine corpus.

15. If the Papacy is true, why would Peter's centrality fade in NT history as the book of Acts shows and as the rest of the epistles show by their deafening silence of Peter? Before Luke published Acts, he could have conferred with other Christians regarding the Pope's whereabouts and activities. But he didn't. [[It might be said that Luke was in a rush to get his book distributed. Still, why didn't he publish a longer version with the Pope's history included? Why wasn't a book written in the NT that was dedicated to the Pope's exploits? Any of the Apostles' assistants could have done it (obviously with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit).]]

Finally, EVEN IF Peter were the Pope, that doesn't prove that his successors have the same or similar prerogatives. Apostolic succession is an additional burden of proof Catholics need to shoulder.

The following 16th question was added MONTHS AFTER Dave Armstrong interacted with this blog post. I'm noting this to be fair to him. He's always welcome to respond to it or continue the dialogue.

16. If the Papacy is true, then why didn't Jesus explain in what sense Peter was leader of the Church and of the other apostles after He explained how the leaders of the Church aren't supposed to "Lord it over" their fellow believers in Matt. 25:24-28? Jesus said this in the context of when the sons of Zebedee (James and John) wanted to be the top leaders in Jesus' Kingdom.

24   And when the ten heard it, they were indignant at the two brothers.
25   But Jesus called them to him and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them.
26   It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,
27   and whoever would be first among you must be your slave,
28   even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (ESV)

I understand that the Pope considers himself to be the "Servant of the Servants of God" (an official title). However, a case can be made that the bishop of Rome has "Lorded it over" other believers and bishops (as Tertullian argued when he sarcastically called the bishop of Rome "Pontifex Maximus" on account of how Callistus abused his bishopric by asserting/claiming more authority than he actually had).

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Contradictory Objections to Christianity

*****Currently being re-edited*****

This is a more elaborate version of some comments I left at this blog:
--->HERE<---

Steve, I thought the same thing at times.

I've noticed that objections to Christianity (and the Christian worldview) are often contradictory, neutralize each other to some extent or actually cancel each other out. Sometimes these objections come from DIFFERENT groups and individuals. Other times, they come from the SAME groups and individuals. Here are just some examples that people of different epochs and/or differing degrees of knowledge make. There are variations in each of these statements. They can also be formulated more precisely or in a more informed way. I've opted to state them in the most popular form (i.e. less rigorous) and therefore can appear to be strawmen representations. Though, SOME people will actually state it in these ways. Also, the comparisons aren't always exact opposites since sometimes they are comparing two similar or dissimilar types of arguments or objections but applying them to different categories or subjects.

There are Christian answers to these arguments or objections. In this blog post, I'll be noting how many of these objections to Christianity often conflict or contradict each other. Or how the objections don't really make sense because if the case were opposite, one could still make a similar objection. This shows how many people will go to great lengths (sometimes even to the point of contradicting themselves), in order to justify their rejection of the Christian God.

1 a) The God of the Bible is too human to believe in. He's like the pagan gods of Greece and Rome. (i.e. God is too immanent).
b) The God of the Bible (esp. in Calvinism) is too sovereign that humans can't relate to, or understand him (i.e. God is too transcendent).

2 a) The world is too complex and there's too much that people don't yet know to come to firm conclusions about the nature of reality. Or, because of the limits of induction (i.e. no one has universal inductive experience) no one can know anything for sure.
b) There's enough (inductive) evidence to conclude that there's probably no God (e.g. because of gratuitous evil etc.). Or, It's clear and obvious that God doesn't exist. Or, there's not enough/sufficient evidence to conclude a God exists [yet they usually can't make a case for what's "sufficient"].

3 a) The Bible has such a low view of humanity because it presents human beings as such wretches and unworthy worms (especially in relation to God).
b) Christianity is (and Christians are) so egotistical because it has the audacity to claim that humans are the zenith of God's creation (in this physical universe). Even to the point of promising that redeemed man will one day be exalted above angels and will be as close to being like the infinite God as finite creatures can possibly be.

4 a) The universe so so vast that it's unlikely that a wise God created it because it's a massive waste of space.
b) Yet, I suspect that if the universe were much smaller, people would probably say that it's unworthy of the God we Christians claim exists (i.e. a transcendent, great, powerful and glorious one).
[ See also Steve Hays' blog: The argument from scale]

5 a) The Privileged Planet hypothesis fails because it makes its conclusion based on a sample of one (planet). Therefore it's no evidence for design or God.
b) Because of the multiverse (world ensemble) theory, any possible world may eventually (even inevitably) come into existence and therefore there's no need for a Creator to account for the amazing (but merely) apparent design in the universe.

6 a) Advocates for the fine-tuning the universe, solar system, earth (etc.) have weak imaginative powers because they can't imagine/envision a totally different kind of lifeform (or of evolutionary processes) because they are stuck on seeing life in terms of what they have seen.
b) Christians take too much liberty in their use of imagination (or too readily appeal to mystery) to resolve Bible contradictions, or theological paradoxes/antinomies (e.g. Trinity, theodicy, incarnation etc.).

7a) Christians readily appeal to mystery to resolve or accept problems in their worldview.
b) Even though there are many unknowns when it comes to how life arose by unguided mindless processes, as unlikely as it was, we know that it must have happened, and chance had a part in it.

8 a) God cannot exist because he has no observable substance/being, weight, power, inertia, mass, will.
b) Life occured by "chance". [They say this even though "chance" itself has no being, weight, mass, inertia, will, or power. I'm using definition #6 below].

Note: The word "chance" can refer to (among other things) 1. mathematical probability, 2. randomness, 3. our own ignorance of the conditions of a situation, 4. coincidences, 5. metaphysical contingent events, 6. power or force like luck, or fate, or fortune. Careful scientists usually use the word in the senses of 1-3. Sloppy scientists or common folk equivocate (by switching definitions within an argument) or use the wrong sense of the word "chance" in various contexts.

9 a) The Bible is too complex to understand. If God has written it, it would have been more easy to understand so that everyone could understand it.
b) The Bible is too simple or too child-like to believe. If God had written it, it would have been more complex and intricate. Or it's unbelievable because written by, and in the context of, ignorant and ancient peoples in an agrarian and superstitious society.

10 a) Christians are illogical and overly emotional.
b) Calvinists are too logical and don't have basic empathy.

11 a) If there were an artistic God of creativity, then there should be much more life in the universe/solar system than we find. Since life seems to be scare in the universe, therefore that counts against God's existence.
b.) If we found much more life in the universe, that would be evidence of evolution and how easily it can get started. Therefore it would count against the idea that life on Earth is specially made by God.

12 a) Reality is too perfectly ordered that something like pantheism must be true.
b) Reality is too imperfect that a wise God (with the "omni" attributes) couldn't have created it.

13 a) The loving God of the Bible, if he existed, wouldn't send anyone to hell (i.e. God is too strict).
b) The God of the Bible is too gracious because even a Hitler could go "scot-free" if he sincerely repented of his sins and believed on Christ (i.e. God is not strict enough).

14 a) Christianity is a mercenary religion. Christians do good because they want to be rewarded by God.
b) Christianity is morally abominable because it teaches that salvation is by grace and so encourages slack morals.

15 a) Penal substitution is unjust, and we want justice.
b) The God of the Bible is too just. Why can't He just let things slide so that no one needs to go to hell?

16 a) Salvation by grace is morally abhorrent. People should get what they deserve.
b) Yet sometimes the same people who say the above have no problem with the government doling out vast amounts of money to help EVEN THOSE who make no effort themselves to better their lives.

17 a) There are no moral absolutes. Therefore Christianity's morality doesn't/cannot universally apply.
b) Christianity is wrong or evil because of the things God allegedly did (does) or required (requires) or commanded (commands) of human beings. [Notice this objection assumes moral absolutes]

18 a) People should have the right to believe whatever they want, and practice what they believe [think of the rhetoric used by those in the Gay Rights movement]. We should be tolerant of all people and beliefs.
b) Some people shouldn't be allowed to practice what they believe, nor should their beliefs be tolerated or respected (e.g. Christians, pedophiles, rapists, murderers or anyone who they disagree with) [notice the blatant contradiction and double standard in those who believe this kind of "tolerance"].

19 a) Humans are smart enough to determine/recognize right from wrong (or true and false) for themselves apart from God. That's why we don't need God.
b) Humans by nature are driven by motives they usually don't understand or can control. They make decisions based on feeling, emotion and preference rather than for rational reasons. That's why so many people irrationally believe in God.

20 a) It's unfair for God to judge people for not having enough evidence for His existence.
b) People generally have enough moral sense that they don't need the Bible to tell them what's right and wrong [yet, often their morals are similar to those of the Bible and they freely admit they don't perfectly live up their morals. Hence God COULD judge them for failing to live up to even their own moral standards].

21 a) Judgements like those (allegedly) executed on Sodom and Gomorrah display a bloodthirsty God who delights in and looks forward to punishing his creatures whenever He can and as soon as He can (i.e. God has no patience or mercy).
b) The God of the Bible is unjust because he allows certain crimes to continue to happen without punishing the guilty immediately. And we all know that justice delayed, is justice denied.

22 a) The universe is so hostile to life that it doesn't make sense for it to have been created by God. Think of the vacuum of space; solar radiation; earthquakes; volcanoes; Gamma rays from supernovas; the coldness of space; asteroids hitting the earth etc.
b)Yet, if the universe were perfectly habitable, then it could be argued that God wouldn't be necessary for the creation of and sustaining of life because it's only natural and necessary that all things exist in such a way as to foster our existence. This is similar to the commonly used defeater for the Anthropic Principle. Namely, if the universe weren't the way it is in making our existence possible, we wouldn't be here to observe it's limited hospitability.

23 a) God, if It did exist, would be so transcendent that we human beings would be too insignificant for It to care about, love or to take notice of. Since, the Bible often portrays God as being concerned about trivial human matters it [i.e. the Bible] cannot be the revelation of God. It wouldn't even make sense for such a transcendent God to waste It's time to give a revelation to puny humans. The Biblical God is too loving.

b) The God of the Bible (and especially that version conceived of by Calvinists) is so sovereign and transcendent that it doesn't care enough about the needs and suffering of human beings. The Biblical God is too sovereign in His punishment of sinners to hell. More than that, the Calvinist God is too sovereign and transcendent in His reprobation of the non-elect sans [i.e. apart from] the creation. Such a God isn't loving enough.

24 a) The Calvinist conception of the Sovereignty of God is so all encompassing that it's non-falsifiable in that no amount of suffering or evil in the world could possibly falsify or call into serious question the existence of such a God.
b.) And yet some atheists believe in the multiverse. As John Polkinghorne has said "...[the multiverse] can explain anything...If a theory allows anything to be possible, it explains nothing; a theory of anything is not the same as a theory of everything." [John Polkinghorne: Anglican priest, philosopher and theist who was at one time a theoretical particle physicist at Cambridge]

Sunday, August 5, 2012

My Comments on Other Blogs (PAGE 2)

Here are links to some blogs I've commented on. My comments are those by the nick Annoyed Pinoy. They are generally listed chronologically (give or take a few days or months) starting with the most recent. I'm still in the process of posting them (there may be some duplicates).

This is the SECOND PAGE. The FIRST PAGE has over 300 links and can be accessed ----->>HERE<<-----

I've generously allowed you to hitch your caboose onto my steam engine. Don't abuse the privilege.

That's true.

You're confusing some hypothetical, counterfactual scenario with what election actually implies.......You might as well say that, in principle, the Son of God never had to become Incarnate...

I don't think it's merely an abstract hypothetical since it was the majority view among Augustinians (e.g. Prosper of Aquitaine, Aquinas, Luther, the Dominican order etc.) up until Calvinism came along. I'll leave it at that.

Table for Crumbs