On Creationism

As Christmas approaches it is interesting to look at the prophecy of a virgin birth in Isaiah. Isaiah 7:1 Now it came about in the days of Ahaz, the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Aram and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up to Jerusalem to wage war against it, but could not [a]conquer it. 2 When it was reported to the house of David, saying, “The Arameans [b]have camped in Ephraim,” his heart and the hearts of his people shook as the trees of the forest shake [c]with the wind. 3 Then the Lord said to Isaiah, “Go out now to meet Ahaz, you and your son [d]Shear-jashub, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool, on the highway to the [e]fuller’s field, 4 and say to him, ‘Take care and be calm, have no fear and do not be fainthearted because of these two stubs of smoldering firebrands, on account of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and the son of Remaliah. 5 Because Aram, with Ephraim and the son of Remaliah, has planned evil...

Hans Georg Lundahl has replied to my post on Petrine authorship on his blog: http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/anonymous-author-for-saint-peter.html I would like to take this opportunity to reply to his comments. The question is not why an anonymous Christian would want to pass himself off as the Apostle Peter - two works prove fairly well some did or were thought to have done so. Well it is an important question, but as you seem to concede it is established that it is not an obstacle at all. The question is how an anonymous author would succeed in passing himself (as author ego) off as the Apostle Peter. That is a different question, but yes, it is important too. However, as you say, two works prove fairly well that anonymous authors did believe they would successfully pass their works off as that of the apostles. The rejection of the Gospel and Apocalypse which both bear that name, show that early Christians did have some checks. Fair point, but these...

This is something I wrote two years ago when challenged to a debate by a guy styling himself "War_Eagle" on CARM. He then failed to show up, pretending he never knew about, claiming to have put me on ignore after issuing the challenge. How very brave of him! To their credit, CARM were then willing to move the thread to the atheism section, where others could respond. However, they do keep that hidden to casual visitors, so you would eed to get an account to see it. http://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/secular/general-secular-and-apologetic-topics/atheism-agnosticism-sec-humanism/28051-biblical-slavery Slavery in the Ancient world Slavery was institutional in the ancient world. In many cultures, such as ancient Rome, a slave might have a pretty good life, but many slaves, even in the same culture, were treated badly. For example in Egypt: http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/timelines/topics/slavery.htm The least fortunate captives were sent to work as slaves in the dreadful g...

Traditionally, Peter was thought to be martyred in AD 64 or 65 by crucifixion, and there seems to be some evidence to support this, include a letter by Clement of Rome written later in the first century, and no reason to suppose otherwise. Much of the argument for Petrine authorship revolves around the dating of the letters. A date later than AD 65 clearly indicates a letter was not authored by Peter. The issue of motive is an interesting one. Why would an anonymous author want to pass of his letter as that of Peter? The most likely answer is that the author was a sincere Christian, who felt his letter was important, and perhaps was what Peter would have said, and gave it Peter's name to lend it authority within the church. It is worth noting that we do have a Gospel of Peter, which, like the letters, explicitly claims to be the work of the apostle. Christianity nevertheless rejects the Gospel of Peter, so the church itself acknowledges that some texts that claim Petrine author...

I came across a series of blog posts by a guy called Clay Jones (D.Min. Associate Professor of Christian Apologetics at Biola University according to his blog) that attempt to justify the destruction of the Canaanite people. It is illustrative of the lengths Christians will go to to rationalise Biblical atrocities. An issue from the start is how far we trust the Biblical text. The Bible authors clearly had an agenda here; they were themselves trying to justify their conquest of the Canaanite lands. What they were doing was typical of the time; tribes fought each other, and the winner got the land while the losers got slaughtered. Later the Jews were on the receiving end (and it is notable that the Babylonians were considerably more moral by not doing that to the Jews). Let us suppose, however, that the Biblical account is accurate, since we are supposing God exists here. God Ordered the Canaanite Destruction Because of Their Sins http://www.clayjones.net/2015/03/canaanite-punishment...

Understanding Psalm 137 Psalm 137: 9 How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones Against the rock. For reference, the Hebrew can be found here: http://biblehub.com/text/psalms/137-9.htm Why was it written? Perhaps a bit of historical context is in order. When the Psalm was written, the Jews were in exile in Babylon. Clearly they were not happy about it, and what we read in Psalm 137 is the glee one of the captives feels at the thought of the Babylonian children getting bashed against rocks. However, as this page makes clear, a lot of good actually came of the exile. The Jewish people developed a strong independence that it is still apparent today, and allowed them to survive the best part of two millennia without a homeland. Furthermore, the Jewish faith was re-made at this time, explain why this tragedy had befallen the people, and to some degree borrowing concepts from the Babylonians (and consequently the Christian faith would be quite differen...

In Who was Jesus? A Christian Perspective , William Lane Craig makes this claim: For in order for these stories to be in the main legendary, a very considerable length of time must be available for the evolution and development of the traditions until the historical elements have been supplanted by unhistorical. This factor is typically neglected in New Testament scholarship, as A. N. Sherwin-White points out in Roman Law and Roman Society tn the New Testament. Professor Sherwin-White is not a theologian; he is an eminent historian of Roman and Greek times, roughly contemporaneous with the NT. According to Professor Sherwin-White, the sources for Roman history are usually biased and removed at least one or two generations or even centuries from the events they record. Yet, he says, historians reconstruct with confidence what really happened. He chastises NT critics for not realizing what invaluable sources they have in the gospels. The writings of Herodotus furnish a test case for ...

What will it be like for people in heaven? What sort of bodies do they have? The Bible does not address this much so we have to speculate, but we get a few hints. Paul The biggest text we have on this issue is by Paul: 1 Cor 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown [l]a perishable body, it is raised [m]an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth, [n]earthy; the second man is from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy,...

Abortion is a tricky moral subject, one I am thankful I have never had to deal with on a practical basis. It is also a topic Christians like to trot out whenever their are floundering in a moral discussion. They assume all atheists are pro-abortion, and so, whatever the topic, say atheists cannot be moral if they condone the murder of humans. Is a single cell with human DNA a human being? We all shed skin daily, and that skin is dead cells with human DNA. No one sheds a tear for those cells, so why shed a tear for a fertilised cell? The fertilised cell has the potential to be a person, but is not itself a person. It has none of the attributes that we value in our fellow man. Nevertheless, Christian fundamentalists insist that a fertilised cell has the same rights as an adult, and specifically that killing a fertilised cell is murder. What they do not seem to realise is that a huge number of fertilised cells never make it to the second week of pregnancy: Here is a page at Medl...

Evolution I do not know how morality arose in mankind, but I offer this as a possibility. Firstly, evolution gave us the basics. Our morality is based on empathy and a sense of fairness. We want the best for ourselves, but we can appreciate that others want - and deserve - the same. That empathy and sense of fairness is something we have got from evolution. Man is a social animal; he survives best by co-operating in a group or tribe. And co-operation is going to work best if members of the group get on with each. If in one tribe the members empathise with each other, and so share food fairly, they will co-operate better than in a tribe who do not share food fairly, but are constantly fighting each other for the better share. Thus, if empathy and a sense of fairness are inherited, they will be selected for. Is there a reason to think this is true? Absolutely! Chimpazees, our closest relatives, have empathy and a sense of fairness, as these links show. http://www.onekind.org/ed...

I stumbled across something today that I felt was worth noting. Most Christians are, of course, good people, and even when you meet them on line, they are usually pretty decent. A notable exception is JP Holding. He is the least Christian Christian apologist I have ever come across, and a lot of his interactions with non-Christians come down to bullying and intimidation. Unfortunately, he has a bunch of cronies on TheologyWeb who love to emulate him, calling their behaviour " riposte" . He seems to work a lot with someone called Nick Peters, also on TheologyWeb, who in contrast seems a really nice guy. So I was interested to learn that someone who used to post at TheologyWeb is suing JP Holding. A couple of interesting web pages: http://lawsuitagainstjamespatrickholding.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/thanks-for-stopping-by-ill-get-right-to.html https://lawsuitagainstjamespatrickholding.wordpress.com/2016/04/ This from the other side, with some discussion: http://vridar.org/2...

What I find curious about the sightings of Jesus in Jerusalem is that they are absent from the original account. The first resurrection account we have is in Mark: Mark 16:5 Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed. 6 And he *said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’” 8 They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. The subsequent verses are generally recognised to be a later addition. So what we have is a guy in white, perhaps an angel, telling the women that Jesus would see the disciples in Galilee. Not only does the original not mention Jesus being in Jerusalem, it speci...

Christians sometimes say that if you want to understand Christianity, just read what Jesus said. Is that really going to work? Modern Christianity has deviated from Jesus quite a way, a process that started with Paul. This page lists some ways Christianity if different to what Jesus preached. A Religion For Everyone? Jesus said his message only for the Jews: Matthew 15:24 But He answered and said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Christianity, starting with Paul, decided otherwise. Paul wanted to sell this religion to the gentiles. He ignored that Jesus had said he was sent to the Jews only, he told the gentiles that God's commands did not apply to them. He had to to get the converts to his religion. The OT Laws No Longer Apply (Well, Some Of Them) Jesus was quite clear that all the laws of the Old Testament still apply: Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 Fo...

There is good evidence that anti-Semitism in Europe (and later America) has its roots in this verse: Matthew 27:25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. The author of the gospel was probably trying to exonerate Pilate, to make the text palatable to the gentiles, and was probably refering to the destruction of the Temple when he said his blood was on their hands. However, the effect was to have the whole Jewish race pronounced guilty of deicide. The so-called "Blood Curse", the Jews as the "Christ killers". We can see the early church fathers took it that way in many quotes: If someone had killed your son. could you stand the sight of him or the sound of his greeting? Wouldn't you try to get away from him as if he were an evil demon; as if he were the Devil himself? The Jews killed the Son of your Master......... Will you so dishonor Him as to respect and cultivate His Murderers, the men who crucified Him? - John...