Does the "Letter J" argument invalidate "Jesus?"

This is, quite possibly, the single worst argument ever against the name of Jesus, and it gets made all the time.  It's only ever directed at "Jesus" or "Jehovah," but nobody ever says anything at all about

Jordan, Jericho, Jerusalem, James, Joseph, John, Joshua, Jeremiah, Jacob, Judah, or Jeroboam.

The answer is this:  All those names (Including Jehovah and Jesus) begin with the Hebrew letter "Yud," which makes a Y sound.  But in the 1500s, when Tyndale first translated the Bible into English, the letter "J" also made a "Y" sound.  This is preserved in two places:  The German word for "Yes," which is "Ja," and pronounced as "Yah," and the transliteration of the Hebrew word "Hallelujah," which also ends with a "Yah" syllable.

This isn't about the "J" in "Jesus," but rather about the evolution of the English language.  Jesus' name is "יֵשׁוּעַ"  (Yeshua) which you can see reflected accurately in the recent movie "Risen" where they call Him that.


For more information on the Name of Jesus, see my blog post: "Jesus or Yeshua?  What's the deal?"

Proper defintions of "Atheist," "Gnostic," and "Agnostic"

Saying that an Atheist is someone who "lacks a belief in God" is to strip the word of any meaning at all.  If that's the definition, then rocks are atheists.  So are trees, rivers, clouds, and cell phones.  "Someone who lacks a belief in God" is not a statement about eternal truth, it's a statement about an internal position.  It's not about God, it's about you. 

But this definition of "Atheist" is fairly new.  it's not the definition of classical atheists like philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche.  His definition was more direct: Atheist, coming from the Greek prefix for "no" and the Greek word for "God."  That is, classically, the word "Atheist" meant someone who denies the existence of God.

But when Theists rightly began pointing out that an assertion of this type is a truth claim, and therefore the burden of proof was on the one making the claim, the definition shifted to the amorphous mess used by people like Dawkins and Harris today.  For more discussion on "Atheist," search YouTube for "William Lane Craig The Definition that will not die." 

"Gnostic," from the Greek "Gnosis," meaning "Knowledge, refers to a specific sect of theists which arose in the second century and survives today in the form of the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons, as well as a few other cult groups.  They believed that Jesus entrusted His apostles with special, secret knowledge and that the only way to truly be saved was to go through the initiation rites where this secret knowledge would be imparted to you.  This, for example, is the reason for the secret ceremonies inside the Mormon temples. 

An Agnostic is one who simply does not know.  From the Greek "Ag" meaning "without" and "gnosis," knowledge.  An Agnostic is one who allows for the possibility that there may be a God, or there may not be, but claims to have no knowledge of the objective truth of God themselves. 

These are the correct definitions.  Niel deGrasse Tyson uses these definitions and agrees with me that the Atheistic position is indefensible.  Tyson calls himself an Agnostic, which is a position I respect. 

I hope that is helpful.



Click HERE to see Dr. Craig's video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5W4GDXBNwbs&t=4s

The Essential Nature of Genesis (Beresheet) for Christians

I have been told by my Christian brothers and sisters that the Old Testament was "nailed to the Cross," and that we no longer need to understand it.  It is not, they say, binding on us, and therefore we are not beholden to it.  They call it "The Law of Sin and Death," because they don't really understand what Paul was talking about.

And, of course, the idea that Paul is difficult to understand is not a new one.  In 2 Peter 3:16, the Chief Apostle writes:

He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

But the defense of the phrase "The Law of Sin and Death" is a subject for another time, because right now I want to discuss the Value of the Law of God. 

Hebrews 7:17 reads:


      “You are a priest forever, 
      after the order of Melchizedek.”


When it does, it is quoting from Psalm 110:4, which also reads:

      The LORD has sworn 
      and will not change his mind, 
                  “You are a priest forever 
      after the order of Melchizedek.”


So, very briefly, who is this Melchizedek fellow?

Melchizedek is mentioned only once in the Old Testament, in Genesis 14:18-20, which reads:

18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (He was priest of God Most High.) 19 And he blessed him and said, 

                  “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, 
      Possessor of heaven and earth; 
            20       and blessed be God Most High, 
      who has delivered your enemies into your hand!” 

And Abram gave him a tenth of everything.


Now there's a lot more which could (and will) be said about him, but what I want to highlight in this blog is this:


 “You are a priest forever 
      after the order of Melchizedek.”

Jesus was born of the tribe of Judah. According to the Law of Moses, Priests of Israel could only come from the Tribe of Levi.   This means, as my Jewish friends point out, that Jesus would NOT have qualified to be a priest of the Temple in Jerusalem because He was born to the wrong tribe. 

But one who is not a priest cannot bring the sacrifice.  The Law of Moses explicitly states that those who want to make sacrifices bring their sacrifice "to the priest."  Then the Priest would offer the sacrifice. 

"But Jesus was killed by the Romans," one might object, "and they were not priests." 

In John 10:17-18, we find

 17 ... I lay down my life that I may take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.” 

Who killed Jesus?  Jesus did. 

That is, Jesus offered Himself as the Sacrifice.

But in order for the sacrifice to be valid, it must be brought by a priest. 

And since Jesus was of the Tribe of Judah, and not the Tribe of Levi, He couldn't be a priest under the old system. 

But Melchizedek, who lived and died long before the time of the Patriarchs, was a priest. The Torah says of him: "He was priest of God Most High."

How was Melchizedek a "priest of God Most High" before the Levitical priesthood was established?

By calling Melchizedek a "priest" of the True God, the Torah establishes another priesthood, which the Author of Hebrews calls "The Order of Melchizedek."

If the Torah is nailed to the Cross, if the books of Moses are no longer relevant, then the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross is invalid.  It was nothing more than one more Rabbi dying for making trouble. 

But if Jesus really is a Priest, after the Order of Melchizedek, then all of humanity can be saved.

Torah.  It's that important.

"חֶ֫סֶד" Steadfast Love, Covenant Loyalty, BDB

†I. חֶ֫סֶד S2617, 2618 TWOT698a, 699a GK2875, 2876, 2877247 n.m. 2 S 16:17 goodness, kindness;—abs. ח׳ Gn 24:12 + 85 times; חָ֑סֶד Gn 39:21 + 12 times; cstr. חֶסֶד 1 S 20:14 + 8 times; sf. חַסְדִּי ψ 59:18 + 120 times sfs.; pl. חֲסָדִים Gn 32:11; cstr. חַסְדֵי Is 55:3 + 5 times (Baer p. 79 Ges 93, R. 1 F.); sf. חֲסָדַי Ne 13:14 + 10 times sfs.; (not in H or P). I. of man: 1. kindness of men towards men, in doing favours and benefits 1 S 20:15; 2 S 16:17 ψ 141:5 Pr 19:22; 20:6; ח׳ יהוה 1 S 20:14 the kindness of י׳ (such as he shews, Thes MV; that sworn to by oath to Yahweh Mich Dathe; shewn out of reverence to Yahweh Th Ke), cf. ח׳ אלהים 2 S 9:3; תּוֹרַת־ח׳ Pr 31:26 instruction in kindness, kindly instruction עָשָׂה חֶסֶד עִמָּדִי do or shew kindness (in dealing) with me Gn 20:13; 40:14 (E), 1 S 20:14; 2 S 10:2 (עִמִּי in || 1 Ch 19:2); c. עִם Gn 21:23 (E), 24:12, 14; Jos 2:12() Ju 1:24 (J), 8:35; 1 S 15:6; 2 S 2:5; 3:8; 9:1, 3, 7, 10:2a = 1 Ch 19:2a, 1 Ch 19:2b; 2 Ch 24:22; c. עַל 1 S 20:8; c. לְ 1 K 2:7; נשׂא ח׳ לפני obtain kindness before Est 2:9, 17; היטיב ח׳ Ru 3:10. 2. kindness (especially as extended to the lowly, needy and miserable), mercy Pr 20:28; Jb 6:14; אישׁ חסד merciful man Pr 11:17 (opp. אַכְזָרִי); מַלְכֵי ח׳ merciful kings 1 K 20:31; עשׂה ח׳ ψ 109:16; in this sense usually with other attributes (v. also infr. II. 2); || אמת Ho 4:1; Is 16:5; ח׳ ואמת Pr 3:3; 14:22; 16:6; 20:28; עשׂה ח׳ ואמת Gn 24:49; 47:29; Jos 2:14 (J; RV gives these under 1); || צדקה Ho 10:12; צדקה וח׳ Pr 21:21; || משׁפט Mi 6:8; ח׳ ומשׁפט Ho 12:7; || חוֹנֵן ψ 109:12; ח׳ ורחמים Zc 7:9 Dn 1:9.—(On Ho 6:4, 6 v. 3 infr.) 3. (rarely) affection of Isr. to י׳, love to God, piety: ח׳ נְעוּרַיִךְ Je 2:2 piety of thy youth (|| love of thine espousals to Yahweh); poss. also חַסְדְּכֶם כַּעֲנַן־בֹּקֶר Ho 6:4 your piety is like a morning cloud (fleeting), and כִּי חֶסֶד חָפַצְתִּי וְלאֹ־זָ֑בַח Ho 6:6 for piety I delight in and not in peace-offering (|| דעת אלהים, cf. 1 S 15:22);—so Wü Now Hi (v 4) Che; Ke Hi (v 6) al. sub 2 (or 1);—אַנְשֵׁי חֶסֶד men of piety Is 57:1 (|| צַדִּיק); pl. pious acts 2 Ch 32:32; 35:26; Ne 13:14. 4. lovely appearance: כָּל־חַסְדּוֹ כְּצִיץ הַשָּׂדֶה Is 40:6 all its loveliness as the flower of the field (so Thes Hi De Che Di al.; but δόξα 𝔊 1 Pet 1:24 & gloria 𝔙 favour an original reading הוֹדוֹ Lo or כְּבֹדוֹ Ew, see Br 375; Du הֲדָרוֹ). II. of God: kindness, lovingkindness in condescending to the needs of his creatures. He is חַסְדָּם their goodness, favour Jon 2:9; חַסְדִּי ψ 144:2; אֱלֹהֵי חַסְדִּי God of my kindness ψ 59:18; in v 11 read אֱלֹהַי חַסְדּוֹ my God with his kindness 𝔖 𝔙 Ew Hup De Pe Che Bae; his is the kindness ψ 62:13; it is with him ψ 130:7; he delights in it Mi 7:18. 1. specif. lovingkindness: a. in redemption from enemies and troubles Gn 19:19; 39:21 (J), Ex 15:13 (song), Je 31:3; Ezr 7:28; 9:9 ψ 21:8; 31:17, 22; 32:10; 33:22; 36:8, 11; 42:9; 44:27; 48:10; 59:17; 66:20; 85:8; 90:14; 94:18; 107:8, 15, 21, 31; 143:8, 12; Jb 37:13; Ru 1:8; 2:20; men should trust in it ψ 13:6; 52:10; rejoice in it ψ 31:8; hope in it ψ 33:18; 147:11. b. in preservation of life from death ψ 6:5; 86:13 Jb 10:12. c. in quickening of spiritual life ψ 109:26; 119:41, 76, 88, 124, 149, 159. d. in redemption from sin ψ 25:7; 51:3. e. in keeping the covenants, with Abraham Mi 7:20; with Moses and Israel שׁמר הַבְּרִית וְ(הַ)חֶסֶד keepeth the covenant and the lovingkindness Dt 7:9, 12; 1 K 8:23 = 2 Ch 6:14, Ne 1:5; 9:32; Dn 9:4; with David and his dynasty 2 S 7:15 = 1 Ch 17:13, 2 S 22:51 = ψ 18:51, 1 K 3:6() = 2 Ch 1:8, ψ 89:29, 34; with the wife Zion Is 54:10. 2. חֶסֶד is grouped with other divine attributes: חסד ואמת kindness (lovingkindness) and fidelity Gn 24:27 (J), ψ 25:10; 40:11, 12; 57:4; 61:8; 85:11; 89:15; 115:1; 138:2; עשׂה ח׳ ואמת עם 2 S 2:6; 15:20 (𝔊, v. Dr); c. אֶת־ Gn 24:49; רַב ח׳ ואמת Ex 34:6 (JE), ψ 86:15; also || אמת Mi 7:20 ψ 26:3; 117:2; || אֱמוּנָה ψ 88:12; 89:3; 92:3; אמונה וח׳ ψ 89:25; ח׳ ואמונה ψ 98:3; || רחמים ψ 77:9; ח׳ ורחמים Je 16:5; Ho 2:21 ψ 103:4; ח׳ ומשׁפט Je 9:23 ψ 101:1; || צדקה ψ 36:11; טוב וח׳ ψ 23:6. 3. the kindness of God is a. abundant: רַב־חֶסֶד abundant, plenteous in kindness (goodness) Nu 14:18 (J), Ne 9:17 (Qr), Jo 2:13; Jon 4:2 ψ 86:5; 103:8 (cf. Ex 34:6 JE; ψ 86:15); רֹב חַסְדְּךָ Ne 13:22 ψ 5:8; 69:14; 106:7 (𝔊 𝔙 Aq 𝔗, to be preferred to MT חֲסָדֶיךָ); רֹב חֲסָדָו֯ La 3:32 ψ 106:45 (Kt 𝔊 in both to be preferred). b. great in extent: גֹּדֶל ח׳ greatness of thy mercy Nu 14:19 (J); גְּדָו֯ל־ח׳ ψ 145:8; it is kept for thousands Ex 34:7 (JE), Je 32:18, especially of those connected with lovers of י׳, Ex 20:6 = Dt 5:10; for 1000 generations Dt 7:9; it is great as the heavens ψ 57:11; 103:11, cf. 36:6; 108:5; the earth is full of it ψ 33:5; 119:64. c. everlasting: לעולם חסדוֹ Je 33:11; 1 Ch 16:34, 41; 2 Ch 5:13; 7:3, 6; 20:21; Ezr 3:11 ψ 100:5; 106:1; 107:1; 118:1, 2, 3, 4, 29; 136:1–26 (26 times); חסדךָ לעולם ψ 138:8; ח׳ מעולם ועד עולם ψ 103:17; ח׳ עולם Is 54:8; ח׳ אל כל היום ψ 52:3. d. good: כִּי־טוֹב חַסְדְּךָ ψ 69:17; 109:21; כי טוב חסדךָ מחיים ψ 63:4. 4. pl. mercies, deeds of kindness, the historic displays of lovingkindness to Israel: shewn to Jacob Gn 32:11 (R); but mostly late Is 63:7 ψ 25:6; 89:2; כְּרֹב חסדיו Is 63:7, see 3 a; promised in the Davidic covenant ψ 89:50; חַסְדֵי דָוִיד mercies to David Is 55:3; 2 Ch 6:42; mercies in general La 3:22 ψ 17:7; 107:43 f.—חֶסֶד in n.pr.m. בן־ח׳ v. sub בֵּן. On Lv 20:17; Pr 14:34 v. II. חֶסֶד sub II. חסד.

Brown, Francis, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs. Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon 1977 : 338–339. Print.

What Day of the Week did Jesus Die?

First we want to look at what the Scripture says.

John 19:14-15a
14 Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, “Behold your King!” 15 They cried out, “Away with him, away with him, crucify him!”



The day of preparation means the day you prepare, generally for the Sabbath.  Why do you need to prepare?  Becase on the following day, you can do no work, so if you want to eat, you make all your meals a day ahead of time.  John is here speaking of the day Jesus was crucified.  Was the day after the Crucifixion a Sabbath?

John 19:31
31 Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away.

Again, we have the detail of the preparation, and we have them taking the bodies off the crosses "so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath."   Couldn't they just take the bodies off tomorrow?  No, because obviously, tomorrow was the Sabbath.  But here, in 19:31, John gives us an extra detail:

"(for that Sabbath was a high day)"

Why mention this? Because not every Sabbath is a "high day."  there are some Sabbaths which are the weekly Sabbaths, and there are other Sabbaths which are "High Sabbaths."  What does the Scripture say?

Leviticus 23 designates seven days of the year as special Sabbaths, and these come to be called "High Sabbaths."

What's different about these Sabbaths?  They don't fall on a set day of the week.  For example,

Lev. 23:33-34
33 And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 34 “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, On the fifteenth day of this seventh month and for seven days is the Feast of Booths to the LORD.

That is, the Feast of Booths happens on a set day of the month.  Since the months do not always begin on the same day of the week, this and other High Sabbaths (which also have similar timings... a day of the month, rather than a day of the week) fall on different days of the week.

That means we can have a Sabbath day on a Wednesday or a Friday, or any other day of the week, and not on Saturday alone, during a Holy time.

John, in the verses above, tells us that Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation... the day before a Sabbath... and also that the following Sabbath was a "High Sabbath."

John 20:1
Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.

Note, Mary didn't SEE Jesus be resurrected, she came after it had happened.   She came "on the first day of the week," and "while it was still dark."  That phrase is problematic, because we don't often get up before the sun.  Sunrise isn't like flipping a light switch... it's a gradual process.  So "while it was still dark" doesn't necessarily mean "before sunrise," it means before the sun had fully risen.

So, Jesus dies the day before a High Sabbath.  This isn't the weekly Sabbath.  Why not? Because John wouldn't have mentioned that it was a high Sabbath if it had also fallen on a weekly Sabbath.  He would have just said "The Sabbath."

And the women go to the tomb as soon as they possibly can to anoint the body for burial.  Why didn't they go before this?  Because both days were Sabbath days.

Now, lets assume that everything I've said above is wrong, and that Jesus was crucified on the day before the weekly Sabbath.  He would have been in the tomb

Friday NIGHT................ Saturday DAY
Saturday NIGHT..............and maybe part of Sunday day.

If we're exceptionally generous with the timing, we can suggest that he was in the tomb on Friday DAY, since they got Him buried before sundown, but that still gives us two days and two nights.

But Jesus said He would be in the tomb "three days and three nights."

Matthew 12:40
"For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."  

Is this three FULL days and three FULL nights?

What does the scripture say?

Matthew 17:22-23
22 As they were gathering in Galilee, Jesus said to them, “The Son of Man is about to be delivered into the hands of men, 23 and they will kill him, and he will be raised on the third day.” And they were greatly distressed. 

So He will be raised ON the third day, not after it.  So we don't need to worry about three full days.

Let us suppose, then, that Friday was the High Sabbath (of Passover) and that Saturday was the weekly Sabbath.

That means Jesus would have been crucified on a Thurdsday.

That gets us
Thursday NIGHT........ Friday DAY
Friday NIGHT........Saturday DAY
Saturday NIGHT...... and part of Sunday DAY, since He was raised ON the third day.

The problem with the Christian church is that it reads that Jesus was crucified on the day before the Sabbath, and since we don't study the Old Testament, we don't realize that Saturday wasn't always the only Sabbath.  So we institute our "Good Friday" services and our "Easter Sunday" services and think that we can ignore the promise of three days and three nights.

If we understand our Old Testament, though, we see how the scripture lines up perfectly.

We don't have to look at what Jesus said in Matthew 12:40 and say "Oh, He didn't mean that, He meant something else."

Why Are All Persons of Equal Worth?

וַיִּבְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים׀ אֶת־הָֽאָדָם֙ בְּצַלְמ֔וֹ בְּצֶ֥לֶם אֱלֹהִ֖ים בָּרָ֣א אֹת֑וֹ זָכָ֥ר וּנְקֵבָ֖ה בָּרָ֥א אֹתָֽם׃


      So God created man in his own image, 
      in the image of God he created him; 
      male and female he created them.

This is why people are all equal.  This is why every person on earth has sacred worth.  Because they are all made in the image of God.

What does it mean to be made in the image of God?  Since God is a spirit, and a spirit does not have flesh and bones, it cannot mean God's physical image.

We have a clue, however, in this:  No other animals in the creation story were made in the image of God.  Only people.  So what is the major difference between people and animals?

Moral agency.

When a new lion pack leader kills the cubs of the previous pack leader, even though they are still cubs, we do not hold him guilty of murder.

But if a man murders children, we do hold him guilty of murder.

The man has moral agency... he is morally responsible for his actions.

That is the Image of God.  What makes us human is that we are responsible.

Now, one theological objection to my premise might be this:  Adam and Eve were made in the image of God, but Cain and Able (and Seth, and all the rest) were made in the image of their parents.

But Genesis 9:6 makes a blanket statement:


      “Whoever sheds the blood of man, 
      by man shall his blood be shed, 
                  for God made man in his own image. 

Now, capital punishment issues aside, this verse makes a blanket statement, after the flood of Noah, regarding the worth of human beings, and giving a reason for it:  All humans are of the same worth because they are all made in the image of God.

One weak objection to this would be that it only speaks of "man," not woman.  But the Hebrew word there translated as "man" is "אָדָם" (adam) which refers to both men and women.  It is the same word used in Genesis 1:27 above, which calls both "male and female" by this word.

The important question here, then, is this:  If we jettison the Torah, if we jettison the "Image of God" concept, what basis do we have for declaring that all people are equal?  A word of warning:  Simply stating "All people are equal" is not an argument... it is a statement.  What is the foundation upon which it is made, if not God?

The Bible and Science

"Science" has already disproven the Bible.  Let me explain why I am still a Christian:

In the 1820s, an archaeological dig in Babylon discovered that, beyond any doubt, Nebuchadnezzar was NOT the king of Babylon during the Babylonian exile.... His brother was.  There was no way to resolve it, the matter was settled.  The Bible was wrong.

90 years later, further archaeological digs in the same area discovered that, while Nebuchadnezzar's brother was, indeed, King, he spent most of his time out of state, leaving his brother as the vassal King.  Armed with this knowledge, we then look at Daniel 5:29, where Nebuchadnezzar promotes Daniel to "third highest" in the kingdom, and it suddenly makes sense... Nebuchadnezzar himself was second highest.

The Bible was right all along, but for 90 years, the world had "solid, incontrovertible evidence" that the Bible had a factual error in it.  If you were a Christian at that time, and you were aware of this error, would you have abandoned your faith?  Would that have been the right thing to do?  

"Science" is never 'fixed.'  The "Science" is never "settled."  The moment it becomes settled, it ceases to be science and becomes Dogma.  GOOD science says this:  EVERYTHING is up for debate.  And always will be.  

Given the facts, then, if the Bible were "absolutely proven false by science," I'm going to stick with my faith.  Because even if none of the Bible is true, even if God doesn't exist and Jesus never lived, Christianity is still a great way to go through life.  

But I am personally convinced that Christianity is True, and that Jesus is alive.  

What does "Making Mischief" mean in Islam?

According to  "A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic (3rd ed.)." Spoken Language Services. p. 712, written by Hans Wehr and J. Milton Cowan, the word "Fasad" (Arabic: فساد‎‎ /fasād/) is an Arabic word meaning rottenness, corruption, or depravity.  In some English translations (Yusuf Ali, which is the most popular English translation, but also the Shakir and Mohsin Khan translations), it is translated as "Making Mischief." Translator Muhammad Sarwar goes so far as to translate it "to spread evil."

The word is used in Surah 5:33 of the Qur'an (which, ironically, immediately follows the most commonly misquoted verse in the Qur'an, 5:32, which you can read in its entirety HERE) and the punishment for Fasad is described in great detail. 

Surah 5:33 Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption (Arabic: فساد‎‎ /fasād) is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,

What is the punishment for Fasad? Death, crucifixion, or dismemberment, or exile.  Indeed, the punishment is ONLY this... that is, there can be no other form of punishment.  Just one of these four.

Can anyone commit Fasad without knowing it?  According to the Qur'an, yes.  

Surah 2:11-12:
   11.      When it is said to them: “Make not mischief on the earth,” they say: “Why, we only Want to make peace!”

   12.      Of a surety, they are the ones who make mischief, but they realise (it) not. (sic) (Yusuf Ali translation)

Who are the ones who commit Fasad?  They are the ones who say they want to make peace.  Are they being dishonest when they say this?  No, because according to the Qur'an, they don't realize the error of what they are saying... that is, they are sincere.  

If you are a Christian, and you teach other people that Jesus Christ was Crucified, died, and was raised to life on the third day, you speak against Qur'an 4:157, which you can read HERE.  If you do this, you "cause corruption" or "make mischief." 

What does the Qur'an tell Muslims to do to you?

How does that make you feel?

Canaanite DNA disproves the Bible?

Lately, I've seen several posts about the discovery, apparently by someone named "Science," of Canaanite DNA, which "disproves" the Bible.


I'm seeing this a LOT.  Several times a day.

Why?

The Bible does not say the Canaanites were wiped out.

Joshua 17:12-13 (ESV) reads:
12 Yet the people of Manasseh could not take possession of those cities, but the Canaanites persisted in dwelling in that land. 13 Now when the people of Israel grew strong, they put the Canaanites to forced labor, but did not utterly drive them out. 

See also: Judges 1:27-33

So where does the Bible say that all the Canaanites were destroyed?

Deuteronomy 20:16-17 (ESV), which comes well before the above reference, reads:

16 But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, 17 but you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the LORD your God has commanded,


So God commands the Hebrews to wipe out the Canaanites.  Ok.  But does that mean they did?  Like most of God's commandments, the Hebrews failed to keep this one as well.  What does that show us about the Hebrews? That they're just like the rest of us, who also fail to keep God's commandments.

What does this show us about what "Science" has said?

That those who say the Bible is disproven haven't read the Bible. They don't know what it says, and therefore cannot disprove it.

As Dr. Frank Turek is fond of saying, "Science doesn't say anything.  Scientists do."


For further reading, click HERE and HERE.

The Cosmological Argument for God's Existence

Response to the claim:  "Creation science begins with God, and thus invalidates itself by making a priori assumptions which it fails to substantiate."

We don't start with the assumption that God did it and then work forward from there, we start with the assumption that something, anything, now exists and ask where it came from.


So this rock (R1), for instance.  This rock exists.  Science loves rocks.  Where did this rock come from?  It had a cause(Cr)... whatever that cause may have been... but where did that cause (Cr) come from?  From whatever caused it (C1).  And where did C1 come from?  from C-1, of course.  And C-1 comes from C-2, and so forth.

But this cannot go on forever.  You cannot postulate an infinite regression of causes because it is logically impossible to traverse an actual infinite.  That is, if each iteration of C requires only a single second in the history of time to both become and to cause the next iteration, but there are an infinite number of causes, then there are an infinite number of seconds prior to this one.

We could never arrive at this second right now, then, because there would always be an infinite amount of seconds prior to it.

Thus, an initial cause is philosophically necessary.

This cause CANNOT be the Big Bang.  Why?  Because matter, space, and time all came into existence at the same moment.  Since the Big Bang is a physical event, it cannot cause itself.

Therefore, whatever caused time, space, and matter to come into existence must itself be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial.  It must also be immensely powerful to cause time, space, and matter to come into being, and further, it must be personal, because it makes the choice to begin the act of causing these things to come into being.

That is, it is philosophically necessary for there to BE an initial cause, which itself needed not to be caused.

Now, why can't that initial cause be the universe itself?  Because of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which states that everything is winding down, like a clock.  If the universe itself were infinitely old, we would already have experienced the eventual heat death that science predicts, on top of the logical impossibility of an infinite regression of causes.

So if the uncaused initial cause is timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, and personal, what would we call that?

We'd call it God.


NOTE:  Many thanks to Drs. Gerald Schroeder, Frank Turek, Ravi Zacharias, and William Lane Craig, among others, for their work on the Cosmological Argument.

Why the Qur'an argues against the corruption of the Bible

Links provided, so these verses can be verified.  I have not changed any of them.

Sura 29:46 (LINK)
And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best, except for those who commit injustice among them, and say, "We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our God and your God is one; and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him."

Sura 3:3-4 (LINK)
He has sent down upon you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming what was before it. And He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.
Before, as guidance for the people. And He revealed the Qur'an. Indeed, those who disbelieve in the verses of Allah will have a severe punishment, and Allah is exalted in Might, the Owner of Retribution.

Sura 18:27 (LINK)
And recite, [O Muhammad], what has been revealed to you of the Book of your Lord. There is no changer of His words, and never will you find in other than Him a refuge.


Premise 1: Allah revealed the Torah and the Gospel.
Premise 2: No one can change Allah's words.
Premise 3: Therefore, the Torah and the Gospel are not corrupt.

Trinity Sunday 2016 Sermon Notes

Trinity Sunday 2016 Sermon Notes

Primary Text

John 16:12-15


12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.


1 John 4:7-9

7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.  (agape, divine, perfect love) 9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.


John 3:16

16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.


The Greatest Commandment

Matthew 22:35-40


35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”



Here again, the word "Love" is a conjugation of the Greek word "Agape."


"Love" in the Bible

The New Testament uses two primary words for "love."


The word "Love" appears 286 times in the English Standard Version,


258 times, it uses a form of the Greek word "Agapeo," which means "to love, to show love, or to take pleasure in."  This is a selfless love, and this is how God loves us, but also how He commands us to love one another.


25 times, it uses a form of the Greek word "Phileo."  This is a kind of brotherly love, between people, and is used less than 10% of the time.


Likewise, the Old Testament uses two primary words for "love."
Love occurs 458 times in the ESV translation of the Old Testament:

247 times, the word "Love" translates the Hebrew word "Ahav." It means: "To like, to love, to endear, to flirt, lovable, love.


245 times, the word "Love translates the Hebrew word "Chessed."  It means "Loyalty, joint obligation, faithfulness, goodness, graciousness, Godly action."


Example: Agapeo

Luke 11:42


42 “But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.


Example: Phileo

Matthew 6:5


5 “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.


Example: Ahav

Exodus 20:5b-6




for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.


Example: Chessed

Genesis 24:12


12 And he said, “O LORD, God of my master Abraham, please grant me success today and show steadfast love to my master Abraham.


God is Love

So we said earlier, in 1 John 4:8, that "God is Love." And we mentioned that in that passage, John uses the word "Agapeo" to describe this essential nature of God.


This is a selfless love, and this is how God loves us, but also how He commands us to love one another.


But here is a question for us:  If this kind of selfless, giving love is an essential nature of God, that is, if God is defined by His ability to love selflessly, who did God love in this manner before He created us?


And while we ponder that...



The Atonement

Let us consider the Act of Atonement.


This question is often raised by those opposed to Christianity, and it goes something like this:

If God is Just, then that means that God is fair.  But God is presented with billions and billions of sinners.  If Jesus is truly going to pay for the sins of each one, wouldn't He have to live billions and billions of sinless lives, and then be sacrificed billions and billions of times?

How can one death, even the death of a perfect man, pay for more than one sinful life?

The Jews have adopted the position that each man's death pays for his own sins, but that is problematic as well.  In that instance, the lamb is spotted.  An imperfect lamb cannot be the sacrifice to cover sin, according to the Torah.


Yes, Jesus lived a perfect and sinless life, but is His one death enough to cover all sins?


A Third question

Since this is Trinity Sunday, and the message is about the nature of the Trinity, I'm going to stick with our theme here and ask a third question:


If, in the New Testament, Jesus does not speak directly to an issue, does that mean the issue is not important to us?

For instance, only once does Jesus come close to addressing the issue of homosexuality, when He says, in Matthew 19:3-6


3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”


Since we follow Jesus, shouldn't we only listen to His words?  Should we ignore what came before, in the Old Testament, and only focus on what the Master specifically addresses?


Trinity

The answer to all three of these objections is the Trinity.


Unless we have some understanding of the idea of the Trinity, we cannot reasonably answer these objections.


Before the creation, who did God love?  The Father loved the Son and the Spirit, the Son loved the Spirit and the Father, and the Spirit loved the Father and the Son.  Three persons in one Godhead, selflessly loving and being loved in eternity past.


And the death of one man to pay for all men?  They're right, it's insufficient.  But they don't understand the Trinity.  You see, Jesus wasn't JUST a man.  He was God, made flesh.  He was the earthly representation of the infinite.  It wasn't just a man who died that day, it was God, who loved selflessly and gave Himself for us.  An infinite payment for a finite debt.


And what about the words of Jesus in the New Testament?  Should we only listen to those, at the exclusion of the Old Testament?  Not if we believe in the Trinity.  What the Father has spoken in the Old Testament, the Son and the Spirit do not disagree with.  Indeed, since the Three exist in Trinity, Jesus spoke everything in the Old Testament too.


The Trinity

The Trinity is an essential doctrine of the Christian faith.  Without an understanding of it, we cannot understand the atonement, the scriptures, or the very nature of God.


So how do we define the Trinity?


My favorite definition is this:


The Trinity is a mystery which cannot be comprehended by human reason but is understood only through faith and is best confessed in the words of the Athanasian creed, which states that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity neither confusing the persons nor dividing the substance. That we are compelled by the Christian truth to confess that each distinct person is God and Lord, and that the deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is One, Equal in Glory, co-equal in majesty.

Don't Arabic-speaking Christians also use the word "Allah?"

NOTE: This is a re-post of this blog.  The earlier post, after being edited, suffered formatting problems which I could not, for some reason, correct.

I've been seeing this argument somewhat frequently, and I wanted to address it here:

 

While this is absolutely true, it is somewhat misleading.  The word "Allah" in the Arabic shares a linguistic origin with the Hebrew word "אֱל֫וֹהַּ" (eloah) That is the base word, "אֱלֹהִ֣ים" (elohim) is the plural of that. 

Eloah, and Elohim, are not names. They are the generic terms for "god" or "gods." For example, in Deuteronomy 6:14-15, we read

14 You shall not go after other gods (אֱלֹהִ֣ים), the gods (אֱלֹהִ֣ים) of the peoples who are around you— 15 for the LORD your God (אֱלֹהִ֣ים) in your midst is a jealous God (אֵ֥ל) —lest the anger of the LORD your God (אֱלֹהִ֣ים) be kindled against you, and he destroy you from off the face of the earth. 

The word "gods" in this passage is the Hebrew word "אֱלֹהִ֣ים" (Elohim), except in one instance where it is shortened to simply "אֵ֥ל". It's the generic term for "god." 

So yes, while Arabic-speaking Christians use the word "Allah" to mean "God," so do Arabic speaking Hindus and Arabic speaking pagans who worship Zeus or Thor or Loki.

If the argument, then, is that since both Muslims and Christians use the word "allah" to mean "god," that must mean they worship the same god, then the Muslims also need to accept the Hindus and Pagans as serving the same god they do. 

This is the logical conclusion of this argument. If you're fine declaring the Muslim god to be the same god as the Hindu gods and also the Pagan gods, feel free to continue making it.

CLARIFYING EDIT:

The argument is usually that since Christians also use the word, then Allah is also the God of the Christians. 

The problem with that argument is that Arabic speaking Hindus or Pagans would also use the word Allah. So if the linguistic similarity is the criterion by which we determine which god is which, we must also conclude that Hindus and Pagans worship the gods of both Muhammad and Abraham. 

Since no Muslim is willing to carry the argument that far, it falls flat.

A Conversation on Free Will

NOTE:  The formatting on this is a little bit rough.  

It originated as a conversation I had with a 

seeker on the topic, but I liked this format so 

well I thought it would work here.  I realize this 

is not an academic format, and would never 

pass it off as such, but if it is too distracting or 

too difficult to follow, please comment 

below and I'll fix it.
Thanks.

God not only knows the future, He knows all possible futures.

God not only knows this reality, but all possible realities.  Further, He knows which of those possible realities we are in, and therefore, knows what we will do.

But, as I'm fond of saying, "God's foreknowledge is not determinative."

That is, by knowing what WILL happen, God does not CAUSE that to happen.

For example,

God knows that tomorrow, I will commit a sin.

God does not CAUSE me to sin, but He knows it will happen.

ok.  So now we must ask "Why?"

Why did God create a universe like this?

Why does the possibility for evil exist?

Why do children get bone cancer and high school girls get raped?

because of sin

But what is Sin?

Sin is our disobedience to God.

That disobedience corrupts everything.

So God did not create a world where people could get cancer

but sin corrupted the world God created.

But why did God give us the capacity to sin in the first place?

Why did He not create us incapable of sin?

Love.

Suppose you really love a girl, and you want her to love you back.

So you send her cards and flowers and candies

you ask her out, you buy her gifts

but over and over again, she rejects you

Now, you're a big, powerful, 6 foot 4 inch, 300-pound man, and she's a little tiny 4 foot 9 inch, 98-pound woman....

so you decide you're going to force her to love you

Is that possible?

Can you force her to feel love for you?

not at all

You might be able to force her to SAY she loves you, but it won't be genuine love.

Because love cannot be forced

If love is forced, it ceases to be love.

it becomes something else.

Next question:  What does God own?

God owns absolutely everything, including our bodies and our possessions

not to mention the rest of the universe

But God does not own our love.

He DESERVES it, to be sure

But He cannot take it.

For us to love, we must also be free NOT to love.

Otherwise, that love is not love, but something else.

What is it?

I don't know, but it is not love.

My sister had a doll when we were kids.

When you push a button on its back, it would say "I love you."

It was kind of neat, but I never felt an emotional attachment to it.

Why?  Because it had no choice in the matter.

It could not do anything BUT say "I love you."

But it didn't really love me, and I intuitively knew this.

God cannot force us to love Him.

But that is what He wants.

That is the only thing, in all of existence, that He cannot seize for himself.

So, in order for us to actually love God, we must be free to not love Him.  That is why He has given us free will.

Free will is the thing that makes real love possible.

New Testament Textual Criticism

We have so many ancient manuscripts we can compare them and find out what the truth really is. it's not a big deal. The argument some are making is that since there are mistakes in various manuscripts, the whole of the Bible is corrupt. This is very much not the case. For example...

1.   I c_n do all things through Christ who gives me strength.
2.   I can do all things thr_ugh Christ who gives me strength.
3.   I can do all things through Christ who gives me stren_th.
4.   I can do all things through Christ who gives me strength.
5.   I can _o all things through Christ who gives me strength.
6.   I can do all thi_gs through Christ who gives me strength.
7.   I can do all things through Christ w_o gives me strength.
8.   I _ do all things through Christ who gives me strength.
9.   I can do all things through Christ _.
10. I can do _ things through Christ who gives me strength.

This is a passage from Philippians 4. I have copied the same sentence ten times. There are 11 words in the passage. There are ten errors in the text I have presented, indicated by _. Some of those errors are significant, removing whole words or even phrases. Some of them remove single letters.

But can you compare all ten and find out what the original said? Yes, you can, even though every single one of them is, in some way, corrupt. Where there is an error in each one, there are 9 or 10 other ones with the correct reading. Each of those errors (_) is called a "textual variant."

Now, my illustration if flawed. I only gave you ten sentences and ten textual variants. How many textual variants are there in the New Testament documents? Nearly 400,000. That is more variants than the total number of words in the New Testament (Dr. Bart Ehrman loves to point this out).

But how many manuscripts do we have? That is, what is the size of the sample which contains these 400,000 variants? Roughly 1.2 MILLION pages. This means that there is approximately 1 variant per THREE PAGES, not one variant per sentence.

You'll see in my illustration above ten variants in ten sentences. This is a SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER CONCENTRATION OF ERRORS than we find in reality.

But was it hard to understand what the original said? Not at all. We can do it almost instinctively.

The New Testament is the single best-attested document of ancient history. NOTHING else comes remotely close to its attestation. The New Testaments we have today are reliable and accurate.

For more information on this topic, see the work of Dr. Daniel Wallace.

Dr. Daniel Wallace on New Testament Textual Criticism

Three Days and Three nights

The "Three days and three nights" issue stems from a failure to understand Jewish holidays.  The Bible says Jesus was crucified on the day before the Sabbath.  If you don't know anything at all about Jewish holidays (like the Passover) you have to say the Crucifixion was on Friday.

But if you have a Jewish holiday in the mix, you can add additional Sabbaths to the week.  Jesus was crucified on Thursday.  Friday and Saturday were both Sabbath days that week.  For example, Leviticus 23:26-32 speaks of Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, and verse 32 fixes a Sabbath day on the 9th day of the month... regardless of what day of the week that is.

Leviticus 23:32
It shall be to you a Sabbath of solemn rest, and you shall afflict yourselves. On the ninth day of the month beginning at evening, from evening to evening shall you keep your Sabbath.”

Jesus was crucified, then, on the day before the Sabbath, but in this case, it was not the weekly Sabbath, but rather the High Sabbath for the Passover.

So Jesus was dead on...

Thursday NIGHT............................  Friday DAY,
Friday NIGHT...............................Saturday DAY,
Saturday NIGHT...and a portion of Sunday DAY.

Why do I say just a portion of Sunday?  Because He was raised ON the third day, not AFTER the third day.

Matthew 17:22-23a
As they were gathering in Galilee, Jesus said to them, “The Son of Man is about to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him, and he will be raised on the third day.”

Why do we have Good Friday celebration, then?  The same way we remember Memorial day on a Monday, or we observe a holiday that falls on a Saturday by taking Friday off.  It's more convenient for a civilized society.

But very few educated Christians believe that Jesus was crucified on a Friday.

There are two common errors people make with this:  One, they try to force it to fit the "Good Friday - Resurrection Sunday" narrative.  When they do that, they are forced to make the argument that "counting is cultural," and "any part of a day or night counted as a whole day or night."  Even if that's the case, we do not see the third night, even partially.  We see Friday Day, Friday Night, Saturday Day, Saturday Night, Sunday Day.... but even with the most generous counting method possible, we only see three days and two nights between Friday and Sunday.

The other mistake people commonly make is to insist that "Three days and three nights means three full days and three full nights.  72 hours exactly!"  But I have already answered this objection above:  Jesus did not complete the third day in the tomb.  The Scripture says he rose "on the third day," not after it.

That is why I hold to a Thursday evening crucifixion.  Jesus died on the day of preparation, as Matthew 27:62 indicates.

62 The next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate 63 and said, “Sir, we remember how that impostor said, while he was still alive, ‘After three days I will rise.’ 

That is, they do this the day after the crucifixion, which Matthew tells us is also the "next day," the one after the day of Preparation.

The Day of Preparation is the day when Jewish households would do extra work to prepare for the rest of the Sabbath.

Mark 15:42 agrees:
42 And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath,

Also, John 19:14-16:
14 Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, “Behold your King!” 15 They cried out, “Away with him, away with him, crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar.” 16 So he delivered him over to them to be crucified. 

But if Friday was the High Sabbath (probably of Unleavened Bread) and Saturday was the Weekly Sabbath, then the women, who were obviously eager to anoint the Body (they began their journey to the tomb before sunrise) would have had to wait two full days of Sabbath observance before they could defile themselves by touching a dead body.

My Wrestling Match with an Immoral God

When I was a boy, I firmly believed that virtue was the highest way. I was a Boy Scout, I was a leader in my church's youth group, and I was certain that God saw how good I was being and was pleased by it. I was disgusted by my friends who behaved as immorally as they wanted, and felt sure God was displeased with them.

Then I read about Jacob. Jacob was a liar, and a thief. He swindled his brother, he was a lazy momma's boy, he stole the blessing from his father, he cheated his employer, and GOD BLESSED HIS SOCKS OFF. Seriously, he was extremely wealthy. Plus, he had four women with whom he fathered TWELVE SONS.

God was clearly blessing Jacob, and I couldn't figure out why.

It became a crisis of faith for me.

I came to the point where, if I were going to demand answers for Jacob, I was either going to leave Christianity altogether (Because the Christian God was far less moral than I was) or I was going to stop looking for answers to this question.

I decided to stop looking for answers.

Twenty years later (literally, not figuratively), I'm married and I have applied for Pastoral Candidacy in the United Methodist Church. And through a strange series of coincidences, I find myself sitting in the car while my family is eating dinner. I turn on the radio, and a pastor is talking about Jacob.

He is just as angry at Jacob as I had been for twenty years. And he's preaching up a storm, and I'm along with him for the ride, because I'm angry at Jacob. Then he says (I paraphrase)

"Jacob had his wrestling match with God, and when the sun was coming up, Jacob demanded God bless him. And God said "What's your name?" Did God not know Jacob's name? Of course He did. So what does "Jacob" mean? It means "he cheats." In telling God who he was, Jacob fulfills the pattern of confession of his sins, and God forgives Jacob and begins pouring out blessing upon him."

After 20 years, I got the answer I needed. If I had left the faith, how different my life would have been! But the more important answer I got that day was this: There ARE answers. And we may not get them. But there ARE answers.

Our part is not to know everything, our part is to be faithful. And God has earned that trust.