Monday, June 13, 2011
Question your faith
I encourage all who read this and who are Christians to question your faith. I have found it extremely rewarding to question and search out truth. I have read a few other religious works including the Koran and Atheist works. I intend to continue to read these works because they bring up more questions. The more questions I have the more answers I find. The more answers I find the more confident I become and the more willing I am to allow God to rule my life and my mind.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Misrepresentation #8
Claiming that Christianity is the only way is egocentric and exclusive.
This should be brief. The very fact that you are reading this and do not claim Christianity is evidence of the hypocrisy of this statement above. You are in fact claiming that the way you are living your life is the way you should be living it and Christianity is not the way. No matter your religious affiliation or lack thereof you are claiming your way is the way even if it is a philosophy that says all paths lead to God or no God. Because you are basically saying what others believe is wrong or incomplete. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Atheism etc. all claim there way is the only way.
This should be brief. The very fact that you are reading this and do not claim Christianity is evidence of the hypocrisy of this statement above. You are in fact claiming that the way you are living your life is the way you should be living it and Christianity is not the way. No matter your religious affiliation or lack thereof you are claiming your way is the way even if it is a philosophy that says all paths lead to God or no God. Because you are basically saying what others believe is wrong or incomplete. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Atheism etc. all claim there way is the only way.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Misrepresentation #7
Jesus Genealogies as recorded in Matthew and Luke contradict one another.
This idea was introduced to me while I read the "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. And yet again his attempts to invalidate the Bible is naive at best. His ignorance is also his biggest downfall as well as many other atheist arguments I have encountered so far. Instead of putting to much of my own energy into this post I am going to copy/paste from another resource there is a visual aid at the site to help explain:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=932
When one places the two genealogical lists side by side, several factors become immediately apparent that combine to dispel the appearance of conflict.
First, Matthew reported the lineage of Christ only back to Abraham; Luke traced it all the way back to Adam. Second, Matthew used the expression “begat;” Luke used the expression “son of,” which results in his list being a complete reversal of Matthew’s. Third, the two genealogical lines parallel each other from Abraham to David. Fourth, beginning with David, Matthew traced the paternal line of descent through Solomon; Luke traced the maternal line through Solomon’s brother, Nathan.
A fifth factor that must be recognized is that the two lines (paternal and maternal) link together in the intermarriage of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. But the linkage separates again in the two sons of Zerubbabel—Rhesa and Abiud. Sixth, the two lines come together once again for a final time in the marriage of Joseph and Mary. Joseph was the end of the paternal line, while Mary was the last of thematernal line as the daughter of Heli.
This idea was introduced to me while I read the "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. And yet again his attempts to invalidate the Bible is naive at best. His ignorance is also his biggest downfall as well as many other atheist arguments I have encountered so far. Instead of putting to much of my own energy into this post I am going to copy/paste from another resource there is a visual aid at the site to help explain:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=932
One of the charges of contradiction brought by skeptics against the Bible is the surface appearance of contradiction between Matthew’s genealogical list (1:1-17) and the one provided by Luke (3:23-38). As is always the case, the charge of contradiction is premature and reflects an immature appraisal of the extant evidence. In every case of alleged contradiction, further investigation has yielded additional evidence that exonerates the Bible and further verifies its inerrancy. The alleged discrepancies pertaining to Matthew and Luke’s genealogies were explained and answered long ago (e.g., Haley, 1977, pp. 325-326; McGarvey, 1910, pp. 344-346; McGarvey, 1974, pp. 51-55; cf. Lyons, 2003).
First, Matthew reported the lineage of Christ only back to Abraham; Luke traced it all the way back to Adam. Second, Matthew used the expression “begat;” Luke used the expression “son of,” which results in his list being a complete reversal of Matthew’s. Third, the two genealogical lines parallel each other from Abraham to David. Fourth, beginning with David, Matthew traced the paternal line of descent through Solomon; Luke traced the maternal line through Solomon’s brother, Nathan.
A fifth factor that must be recognized is that the two lines (paternal and maternal) link together in the intermarriage of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. But the linkage separates again in the two sons of Zerubbabel—Rhesa and Abiud. Sixth, the two lines come together once again for a final time in the marriage of Joseph and Mary. Joseph was the end of the paternal line, while Mary was the last of thematernal line as the daughter of Heli.
The reason Joseph is said to be the “son” of Heli (Mary’s father) brings forth a seventh consideration: the Jewish use of “son.” Hebrews used the word in at least five distinct senses: (1) in the sense used today of a one-generation offspring; (2) in the sense of a descendant, whether a grandson or a more remote descendant many generations previous, e.g., Matthew 1:1; 21:9; 22:42 (“begat” had this same flexibility in application); (3) as a son-in-law (the Jews had no word to express this concept and so just used “son”—e.g., 1 Samuel 24:16; 26:17); (4) in accordance with the Levirate marriage law (Deuteronomy 25:5-10; cf. Matthew 22:24-26), a deceased man would have a son through a surrogate father who legally married the deceased man’s widow (e.g., Ruth 2:20; 3:9,12; 4:3-5); and (5) in the sense of a step-son who took on the legal status of his step-father—the relationship sustained by Jesus to Joseph (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Luke 3:23; 4:22; John 6:42).
Notice carefully that Joseph was a direct-line, blood descendant of David and, therefore, of David’s throne. Here is the precise purpose of Matthew’s genealogy: it demonstrated Jesus’ legal right to inherit the throne of David—a necessary prerequisite to authenticating His Messianic claim. However, an equally critical credential was His blood/physical descent from David—a point that could not be established through Joseph since “after His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:18, emp. added). This feature of Christ’s Messiahship was established through His mother Mary, who was also a blood descendant of David (Luke 1:30-32). Both the blood of David and the throne of David were necessary variables to qualify and authenticate Jesus as the Messiah.
Once again, the Bible’s intricate complexities shine forth to dispel the critic’s accusations, while simultaneously demonstrating its own infallible representations. The more one delves into its intricacies and plummets its intriguing depths, the more one is driven to the inescapable conclusion that the Bible is, indeed, the Book of books—the inspired Word of God.
Once again, the Bible’s intricate complexities shine forth to dispel the critic’s accusations, while simultaneously demonstrating its own infallible representations. The more one delves into its intricacies and plummets its intriguing depths, the more one is driven to the inescapable conclusion that the Bible is, indeed, the Book of books—the inspired Word of God.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Misrepresentation #6
The Bible does not support evolution so it is not feasible.
This is not a creation versus evolution blog so I am not going to go into all the details. I work in the public school systems and I get to experience a lot of science on various grade levels. These courses, books, and other content such as videos and multimedia presentations are prepared and presented by those that hold Master and Doctor degrees in various areas of science. When explaining the origins of the universe or of our species, it all comes down to some basic words that come out of every scientists mouth: probably, must have, maybe, could have, if, perhaps, etc. And because these words haunt scientists they are operating on faith that it is true. Yes there is some evidence to support their theories but it only goes so far. They too have a valid faith that points in one direction, but exactly what the source is, is unknowable.
Romans 8:20-22:
"For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time."
"All of creation was subject to frustration," can also be translated as, "For every living thing was put under the power of change."
1 Corinthians 1:19: For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." It must certainly be a frustrating thing for those who are "wise" to not have proof (beyond reasonable doubt) for their theories.
This is not a creation versus evolution blog so I am not going to go into all the details. I work in the public school systems and I get to experience a lot of science on various grade levels. These courses, books, and other content such as videos and multimedia presentations are prepared and presented by those that hold Master and Doctor degrees in various areas of science. When explaining the origins of the universe or of our species, it all comes down to some basic words that come out of every scientists mouth: probably, must have, maybe, could have, if, perhaps, etc. And because these words haunt scientists they are operating on faith that it is true. Yes there is some evidence to support their theories but it only goes so far. They too have a valid faith that points in one direction, but exactly what the source is, is unknowable.
Romans 8:20-22:
"For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time."
Natural selection is supported in scripture though scientists take it all the way back to the first living organism which cannot be proven. Its true that this process of change had to start somewhere and knowing that the word "day" in Genesis can also mean an undetermined period of time shows that science and scripture are cohesive in many ways. This also helps explain humanoids in the fossil record such as, Java man, Neanderthal, and Cro-Magnon man.
It is encouraging to me when students hear these theories and blurt out, "Well how do they know for sure?" Because these theories are taught as fact. In a way science is asking us to have FAITH in what they think they know. Those who rely on these theories are hypocritical in their claims. Hypocritical because they claim Christians have no proof, but neither do they.
Can the painting I create prove that I did not create it? No. And neither can our scientists prove God did not create the universe or us.
2 Timothy 4:3-4 "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths."
The reason why the focus in the Bible is not on creation is because the creation is an index to God. "so that men are without excuse." Our real focus is on God and his love and spreading that love to everyone.
2 Timothy 4:3-4 "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths."
The reason why the focus in the Bible is not on creation is because the creation is an index to God. "so that men are without excuse." Our real focus is on God and his love and spreading that love to everyone.
Misrepresentation #5
All of creation took place in 6 days.
The Hebrew word for day as used in Genesis chapter 1 is "yom" (accent excluded). This word can be translated as: an indefinite period of time or an undetermined amount of time.
What could this mean? It means it could have taken millions of years for God to make creation. As we look at all the complex structures that make up our universe, the idea that it may have taken God a while to create it all is not far fetched. This idea has been the source of much conflict between science and religion, but as we see here it does not need to be.
The Hebrew word for day as used in Genesis chapter 1 is "yom" (accent excluded). This word can be translated as: an indefinite period of time or an undetermined amount of time.
What could this mean? It means it could have taken millions of years for God to make creation. As we look at all the complex structures that make up our universe, the idea that it may have taken God a while to create it all is not far fetched. This idea has been the source of much conflict between science and religion, but as we see here it does not need to be.
Misrepresentation #4
Christianity is a religion that has stolen its ideas from other religions.
This particular post will be a work in progress because though I have heard and read about this argument before, not many of those have given specifics.
One such "stolen" idea is that of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. If we look at Isaiah 7:14 which states, "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." The book of Isaiah is one of the books found in the dead sea scrolls. It was written around 700B.C. Jesus was born around 10A.D. This gives us about 710 years for intercultural mingling. This means the prophecy of the virgin birth could have easily circulated into other religions as well and not the other way around.
The idea of a God that is triune seems to fall under speculation as well. If we look at Genesis 1:2 which states, "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Here we see God the father and God the Holy Spirit, 2 out of the three. If we move over to Genesis 3:15 it says, "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." Its true that this is a very vague reference to Jesus Christ, but it was Jesus' purpose to to redeem mankind from the beginning. Jesus puts enmity between humans and satan through obedience to the father. James 4:7 "Resist the devil and he will flee from you." So at the very beginning of the Bible we see this holy trinity formed. Who copied who?
In Genesis 18:1-2 God appears to Abraham in the form of three men: "The LORD appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground." Yet another trinity reference. Gods triune nature is a foundation for Christianity going back to the beginning of creation.
Another book I am reading is called 101 Myths of the Bible by Gary Greenberg. In this book he tracks the origins of many stories we now see in the Bible. Most of whom track back to Egypt. This should be no surprise seeing as Judaism began in Egypt with Abraham being called out of Egypt by God. One of the things that appears contradictory to the stories is the fact that the Egyptians wrote down the stories first, but the Jews were known for their oral tradition. The stories are not exactly the same. The Egyptians were Polytheistic and Jews Monotheistic. An interesting thing that the author notes is that the people of those times thought of these stories as true and not myth. Part of the reason for the delay by the Hebrews to write down these stories could be the fact that they were not as technologically advanced as the Egyptians and were also slaves to the Egyptians for 400 years. Now because of this intercultural mixing and the oral tradition of the Jews it is hard to know who in fact the stories originally belonged to. The main idea that I have come up with so far to these alleged stolen stories is the fact that despite the disadvantages that the Hebrews had it was their history, their stories of these accounts that survived into the 21st century and now have over 230 million followers and reached almost every corner of the world. Not Egyptian, Babylonian, or Canaanite religion. This could only be the working of a God who has given his people the power to defy the odds of this world.
more to come...
This particular post will be a work in progress because though I have heard and read about this argument before, not many of those have given specifics.
One such "stolen" idea is that of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. If we look at Isaiah 7:14 which states, "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." The book of Isaiah is one of the books found in the dead sea scrolls. It was written around 700B.C. Jesus was born around 10A.D. This gives us about 710 years for intercultural mingling. This means the prophecy of the virgin birth could have easily circulated into other religions as well and not the other way around.
The idea of a God that is triune seems to fall under speculation as well. If we look at Genesis 1:2 which states, "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Here we see God the father and God the Holy Spirit, 2 out of the three. If we move over to Genesis 3:15 it says, "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." Its true that this is a very vague reference to Jesus Christ, but it was Jesus' purpose to to redeem mankind from the beginning. Jesus puts enmity between humans and satan through obedience to the father. James 4:7 "Resist the devil and he will flee from you." So at the very beginning of the Bible we see this holy trinity formed. Who copied who?
In Genesis 18:1-2 God appears to Abraham in the form of three men: "The LORD appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground." Yet another trinity reference. Gods triune nature is a foundation for Christianity going back to the beginning of creation.
Another book I am reading is called 101 Myths of the Bible by Gary Greenberg. In this book he tracks the origins of many stories we now see in the Bible. Most of whom track back to Egypt. This should be no surprise seeing as Judaism began in Egypt with Abraham being called out of Egypt by God. One of the things that appears contradictory to the stories is the fact that the Egyptians wrote down the stories first, but the Jews were known for their oral tradition. The stories are not exactly the same. The Egyptians were Polytheistic and Jews Monotheistic. An interesting thing that the author notes is that the people of those times thought of these stories as true and not myth. Part of the reason for the delay by the Hebrews to write down these stories could be the fact that they were not as technologically advanced as the Egyptians and were also slaves to the Egyptians for 400 years. Now because of this intercultural mixing and the oral tradition of the Jews it is hard to know who in fact the stories originally belonged to. The main idea that I have come up with so far to these alleged stolen stories is the fact that despite the disadvantages that the Hebrews had it was their history, their stories of these accounts that survived into the 21st century and now have over 230 million followers and reached almost every corner of the world. Not Egyptian, Babylonian, or Canaanite religion. This could only be the working of a God who has given his people the power to defy the odds of this world.
more to come...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)