Archives

A Very Foolish Man, And Very Wretched

Carl Spitzweg 021

“He seems to me a very foolish man and very wretched, who will not increase his understanding while he is in the World — and [who would not] ever wish and long to reach that endless life where all shall be made clear.”

~King Alfred the Great, Blostman, qtd. in “King Alfred the Great and Our Common Law” by Rev. Prof. Dr. F.N. Lee, Department of Church History, Queensland Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Brisbane, Australia, August 2000, pages 4-5

Advertisements

We Do Not Murder in the Name of God

It is commonly claimed today that the Bible is a book “full of violence” that supposedly incites its followers to individual or vigilante acts of hatred and violence.  This claim is false.  Those who follow the Bible alone as the basis of their faith (ie. truly Protestant Christians) are among the most peaceable people on earth.

Here is a quote from a Catholic author, who considered Protestantism to be a pernicious heresy,* illustrating this point.  It is taken from a book about the Huguenot wars in France.  Consider how the Protestant Huguenots behaved even in times of war:

“What does this mean, you rascals!” he shouted angrily as he entered.  Then he stopped petrified with astonishment.

“It means this,” Philip said, levelling a pistol at him, “that if you move a step you are a dead man.”

“You must be mad,” the president gasped.  “Do you know who I am?”

“Perfectly, sir.  You are president of the infamous Parliament of Toulouse.  I am a Huguenot officer, and you are my prisoner.  You need not look so indignant; better men than you have been dragged from their homes to prison and death by your orders.  Now it is your turn to be prisoner.  I might, if I chose, set fire to this chateau and cut the throats of all in it, but we do not murder in the name of God, we leave that to you.”

~G.A. Henty, St. Bartholomew’s Eve, Robinson Books:2002, page 122.

*In the preface to the above-cited book, Henty refers to Protestantism thus: “The great organization of the Church of Rome laboured among all classes for the destruction of the growing heresy.”

Did the Early Christians Believe Jesus is God?

Kenneth Samples, God Among Sages:

But just what did the earliest Christians believe about the nature and person of Jesus Christ? A major textual breakthrough over the last couple of decades has al1owed scholars to see more dearly what the earliest Christians believed about Jesus Christ, particularly as expressed in their church services.

Biblical scholarship (in this case, a type of form criticism) has discovered primitive Jewish-Christian creeds, confessions, and hymns woven into Scripture. The early Christians in their worship services used these compact confessions of faith long before the New Testament was written. As New Testament scholar Ralph Martin explains, “The church of the New Testament is already a believing, preaching, and confessing community of men and women. This implies the existence and influence of a body of authoritative doctrine … which was the given and shared possession of those who formed the nascent Christian communities in the world of the Roman Empire.”1

1. Samples, Kenneth Richard. God Among Sages: Why Jesus Is Not Just Another Religious Leader. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2017. 71. Print.

Source: http://apologetics-notes.comereason.org/2017/03/jesus-didnt-become-god-earliest.html

A Heavenly Prayer Language?

The Cripplegate:

CaminhadabiblicaI remember the first few times hearing about a heavenly prayer language. Some called it praying, or speaking, in tongues. Not long after coming to faith in Christ, a group of friends took me to a few meetings where this would be happening. We gathered in homes, the forest, and a local church to experience these supposed, Holy-Spirit-induced prayers. What I witnessed was fairly similar: various individuals caught in a trance-like state, speaking, or praying (I wasn’t sure), out loud using non-language noises in somewhat of a repeated fashion. The prayers/noises sounded something like, “Hasha-batta, kala-hasha, nashta-kala, hasha-batta..”…

Read more: http://thecripplegate.com/battalogeo-a-heavenly-prayer-language/#more-216843

Do Genesis 1 and 2 Contradict Each Other?

Green Baggins:

It is a commonplace in historical-critical scholarship to say that there are two creation accounts that contradict each other, and that therefore, the first two chapters of Genesis could not have been written by the same author. …I will make the argument here, not even based on harmonizing with regard to the first bit, but based on exegesis, that the historical-critical understanding of the relationship of the chapters is in grave error.

The exegetical flow of Genesis 2:5-9 has to do with the institution of agriculture…

Read more: https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2017/06/03/are-genesis-1-and-genesis-2-two-different-creation-accounts/

Is The Account of Samson Reliable?

McKenzie is right in noting the detail of two pillars holding up a roof would be odd. In fact, Philistine temples that had been known to archaeologists didn’t have such a design at all—until the 1970s…

…It doesn’t prove the Sampson story as true, but it definitely removes the claim that the two pillars are a fictitious invention of the author of Judges.

Further, it lends credibility to the author’s reliability in getting certain details right, since Jewish architecture, definitely did not feature two central pillars. The author seems to have some real familiarity with Philistine temple construction, bolstering his reliability in the process…

Read more: http://apologetics-notes.comereason.org/2017/05/archaeology-topples-objection-to.html

Is the New Testament Reliable?

“One of the favored tactics of the Atheistic Naturalist and other assorted Leftists is to attack the trustworthiness of the canonical Gospel accounts. Sadly, many Christians are left without adequate answers to the many misinformed objections to the veracity of Sacred Scripture. In answer to their truly empty challenges we must approach scripture like an historian.

It is a common misconception that we have to apply the Scientific Method. I have even witnessed critics of the Christian faith demand we apply it. This is fallacious, since we are dealing with an issue of history, not science, so we should apply the Historical Method.

The Scientific Method requires any proposition be proven in a controlled environment, by experimentation, and be repeatable and observable. One can hardly go back in time and prove anything historical using such criteria. The Historical Method, by contrast, relies on the following criteria:

  • Written Records
  • Oral Tradition
  • Physical Evidence…”

Read more: http://barbwire.com/2017/06/03/considering-historical-evidence-new-testament-trustworthy/