On Creationism

The Talmud is a Jewish document that was composed around AD 200 from earlier oral traditions. This, of course, was when Christianity was just getting going and distancing itself from Judaism, so there were several references to Jesus, most unfavourable (more on that in part 2). It has been modified numerous times, usually by a Rabbi adding a comment (or "gloss") that makes an existing point clearer. There are several versions, many of which got significantly censored at the hands of both Catholics and Jews, the Catholics because they took offence at mention of Jesus and the Jews to avoid repercussions from Christians who took offence at mention of Jesus. Is the Talmud evidence for the Gospels The Talmud does seem to agree with the gospels on several points, but it also disagrees on significant points. More importantly, it is - in my view - more likely to be a reaction to the gospels, and so derived from them, rather than an independent source. There is an interesting

Back in the mid-nineteenth century an eminent lawyer, Simon Greenleaf, published a book with the snappy title: An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists, by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice. With an Account of the Trial of Jesus. The book is out of copyright, and so freely available . "Ancient Documents" A major thrust of the work is that the gospels can be considered "ancient documents" in the legal sense. For more on what that means see here . Thus, on page 70: The genuineness of these writings really admits of as little doubt, and is susceptible of as ready proof, as that of any ancient writings whatever. The rule of municipal law on this subject is familiar, and applies with equal force to all ancient writing, whether documentary or otherwise; and as it comes first in order, in the prosecution of these inquiries, it may, for the sake of mere convenience, be designated as our first rule. He then quotes the "ancient

This is a response to something at " Christian Medical Comment " that was posted at CARM recently; this is what I posted there, slightly edited. The blog itself has not been posted to in over a year so may be dead. 1. The uniqueness of Jesus Christ The life, teaching, extraordinary claims and miracles of Jesus Christ as recorded by eyewitnesses are best explained by him being God incarnate: the creator and sustainer of the universe who took on human flesh. Where is the argument? All I see is an assertion. I assert that it is false (but see also number 2). 2. Jesus death and resurrection All historical records are agreed on the facts that Jesus was killed, that his dead body disappeared, that the disciples claimed to have seen him alive and that the church grew rapidly in the belief that he had been resurrected. His actual bodily resurrection in space-time history remains the best explanation for these observations. Most of those records were written by Christians, s

Who was Lazarus? In the Gospel of John, Lazarus is a very important character. John 11:1 Now a certain man was sick, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. 2 It was the Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick. 3 So the sisters sent word to Him, saying, “Lord, behold, he whom You love is sick.” 4 But when Jesus heard this, He said, “This sickness is not to end in death, but for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by it.” 5 Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. 6 So when He heard that he was sick, He then stayed two days longer in the place where He was. ... 43 When He had said these things, He cried out with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come forth.” 44 The man who had died came forth, bound hand and foot with wrappings, and his face was wrapped around with a cloth. Jesus *said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.” 45 Therefore many of the Jews who came to Mary, a

An article appeared at Answers in Genesis recently, claiming atheism is a religion: The article says: The Oxford English Dictionary defines religion as “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.” Under this definition, atheism would not be viewed as religious since the dictionary definition of atheism is “disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.” That seems to conclude the discussion... Apparently not. The article goes on to say that actually atheism is a religion given these seven aspects of religion. Narrative Just about every religion has a narrative that explains the world around them. Atheism has no narrative. It just says there is no god. Most atheists happened to think the universe started with he Big Bang, that life on this planet evolved over 4 billion years, but that is science, not atheism. Virtually all theists accept science to some degree, and plenty of theists accept science as much as

The word “apocalypse” originally meant (in Greek) revelation; something unveiled or revealed. It has come to mean the end of the world because the Book of Revelation is about that event. Revelation was the last book added to the canon, and its place there has been disputed at various times, for example by Martin Luther. The Book of Revelation itself claims to be written by an author called John, and while early Christians understood this to be the apostle, modern scholars think it is highly unlikely to be either the apostle or the author of the Gospel of John. John was a very common name, however, so it is quite possible John was his name. The events described seem to date the work fairly exactly to AD 95, but while the Gospel of John is very much a gentile work, distancing itself from the Jews, this is very much a Jewish work (perhaps why it was rejected by Luther). As such, it harkens back to the earliest days of Christianity, and indeed to the apocalyptic genre of Daniel. The

This is prompted by a recent post by Ken Ham , making it very clear he is against homosexuality: Why does he hate gays? Or rather, how does he rationalise his hatred of gays? It is in the Bible! What About Greed? Okay, but the Bible is rather more insistent that greed is wrong, but Ham never rails against that. Why is that? For one thing, Answers in Genesis has a net income of $36.8 million dollars in 2017. That is a huge amount. What do they do with all that money? "Executive compensation" was $710,717 that year. That is money that Ken Ham pays himself and the other executives - most of whom are family members. According to here , Ham pocketed $193,361 just for himself in 2012, and I feel confident saying that that figure has only gotten bigger in the years since. It seems pretty sure Ham pays himself around a million dollars every five years, making him a very wealthy man. Of course Ham is not going to rail against his own vice! Far better to point out supposed voice in

On the Discovery Institute blog, Michael Egnor has posted what he considers proof of God. In fact, he says "the proof of God’s existence by natural science has a long and honorable pedigree." His supposed proof is based on Aquinas' First Way, which he presents: Evidence: Things change in nature. Reason: Change is elevation of potency to act, and a thing cannot actuate its own potency because of the principle of non-contradiction. That which is changed must therefore be changed by another, and the Source of all change must be a First Mover Who is Pure Act. Conclusion: The First Mover exists, and that is what all men call God. Here’s a sketch of the theory of the Big Bang: Evidence: There’s a red shift and we’ve found background microwave radiation. Reason: Einstein’s equations of gravitation, when applied to these phenomena, point to a singularity at the beginning of the universe. Conclusion: The Big Bang existed. All scientific theories look like this. Ex

According to the Discovery Institute, the biggest story in ID is that a computer scientist has rejected "Darwinism" - but has not accepted ID. That is it? The best they can do? Well, apparently: #1 of Our Top Stories of 2019: Informed by Discovery Authors, Yale’s David Gelernter Rejects Darwinism Sure, he is a professor at a prestigious university, but he is not a biologist, botanist, zoologist or similar scientist with a formal education about what evolution is. He is not even a scientist in the normal (a computer scientist is not actually a scientist as he does not deal with empirical evidence; he does not use the scientific method). But for the DI, it is worse than that, as their article admits: "Dr. Gelernter is not on board with intelligent design" So the biggest story in Intelligent Design in 2019 is about a man who rejects Intelligent Design.