Wednesday, November 19, 2025
Monday, November 17, 2025
"Jesus and the gods"
The Internet has no shortage of informative videos and documentaries on any subject imaginable. The problem with so much of this information, is the rhetoric, poured forth from various opposing ideologies. You have to swim through an ocean of deceit to find a nugget of truth. In this post, I'm going to try to swim for a while in this ocean and see if we can find a nugget of truth.
Our search is going to be around a video posted on YouTube a few weeks ago. The channel describes itself as a place to find truth, stating, “we go beyond blind belief and emotional narratives to investigate the truth using critical thinking, historical context, and philosophical insight.” After looking at their content, it is obvious they don't investigate or us critical thinking, nor historical context, but are either blinded by their hatred of Christianity or live in the bubble of their critical circles.
They begin their video stating, “The virgin birth, the miracles, the 12 disciples, the resurrection was not original, not even close, but a near carbon copy of a god worshiped in Ancient Egypt over 3,000 years before the New Testament was even written. Because that is exactly what the evidence suggests. When you examine the myth of Horus, the falcon-headed deity whose life narrative mirrors that of Jesus so precisely, it forces you to wonder, is Christianity founded on truth or plagiarism?” That statement is made as objective truth, it is not. It says the myth of Horus narrative mirrors that of Jesus precisely, so precisely that when examined you are forced to entertain the idea that the Gospel is a plagiarism. It does not, that is the simple truth.
 |
While elements of both stories resonate with common archetypes found in mythologies worldwide, the suggestion that the story of Jesus emerged directly from the story of Horus lacks substantial scholarly support. Each narrative is rich and complex within its own cultural setting, and understanding them requires appreciating their unique historical, theological, and societal contexts.” Now that we understand that A.I. knows nothing of their supposed precise narrative and direct connections, let's do some research and critical thinking for ourselves.
Our truth tellers boldly states, “Horus. . .was said to have been born of a virgin mother. His birth was heralded by a star in the east, and he was visited by three kings. At 12, he began teaching in temples, astonishing the elders with his wisdom. At 30, he was baptized in a river by a figure named Anoot the Baptizer.” Britannica mentions nothing concerning any of the features they listed in their entire description, the only phase that could remotely be a biblical phrase was, “Horus, an ancient Egyptian religion, a god in the form of a falcon whose right eye was the sun or morning star, representing power and quintessence, and whose left eye was the moon or evening star, representing healing.” — Britannica. Horus's right eye was call the morning star, and his left eye the moon. But that is hardly a precise comparison of the biblical morning star and moon.
World History Encyclopedia has an enormous amount of information on Horus. None of which supports the statements made by the video produces above.
Historian Jimmy Dunn suggests, “Horus is the most important of the avian deities” who takes on so many forms and is depicted so differently in various inscriptions that “it is nearly impossible to distinguish the 'true' Horus.”
The Cult of Isis became so popular that worship of the goddess traveled through trade to Greece and then to Rome where it became the greatest challenge to the new religion of Christianity in the 3rd-5th centuries CE. It would be difficult for Christianity to emerge from this cultish religion when it didn't even come into contact with Christianity till more than 300 years after Christ.
According to World History Encyclopedia, “The book The Pagan Christ by Tom Harpur (2004) makes this very claim, however, and has given rise to the so-called Horus-Jesus Controversy also known as the Son of God Controversy. Harpur claims that Christianity was invented wholly from Egyptian mythology, and that Jesus Christ is simply Horus re-imagined. To support his claim, Harpur cites `experts' on the subject such as Godfrey Higgins, Gerald Massey, and Alvin Boyd Kuhn, all writers from the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, none of whom were biblical scholars or Egyptologists. Higgins was an English magistrate who believed all religions came from the Lost City of Atlantis; Massey, a self-styled Egyptologist, was an English spiritualist who studied available inscriptions at the British Museum; Kuhn was a self-published author whose primary focus was promoting his Christ Myth Theory which was essentially just a re-write of the work done by Higgins and Massey.
Harpur presents these `experts' as though they had uncovered something miraculous and unheard of when, in reality, their observations are often inaccurate re-treads of earlier works (such as those of Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius) or wildly speculative theories presented as though they are brilliant insights. The Dying and Reviving God motif had existed for thousands of years before the apostle Paul began his evangelical efforts c. 42-62 CE, and the concept of eternal life through personal dedication to a god was equally well established. Harpur's book presents a number of very serious problems to any reader acquainted with the Bible, Christianity, and Egyptian Mythology and history, but his most serious offense is the claim that Horus and Jesus share “remarkable similarities”.
This claim, which is quite obviously false to anyone who knows the stories of the two figures, has become the best known of the book. Unfortunately, many readers who do not know the original stories take Harpur's claims as legitimate scholarship when they are not. To cite only a few examples, Harpur asserts that both Horus and Jesus were born in a cave: this is false, Horus was born in the Delta swamps and Jesus in a stable; both births were announced by an angel: also false, as the concept of the angel, a messenger of God, is absent from Egyptian beliefs; Horus and Jesus were both baptized: this to is false, baptism was not practiced by Egyptians; both Horus and Jesus were tempted in the wilderness: also false, Horus battled Set in many regions, including the arid desert while the gospel stories make clear that Jesus was tempted in the desert or the wilderness; Horus and Jesus were both visited by Three Wise Men: also false, Horus is never visited by wise men and, even more damaging to Harpur's 'scholarship', there are not 'three wise men' mentioned in the Bible which only references `wise men' who bring three kinds of gifts; Horus and Jesus both raised the dead back to life: again false, Horus had nothing to do with raising Osiris or anyone else from the dead.”
I cannot judge the intent of the producers of this video, they certainly are not friendly to Christianity. Their entire channel is dedicated to its destruction. However, they may sincerely believe the information they are presenting, but it is obvious if they are ignorant of the truth, and are purposely researching within their own bubble or circles of affiliates. It was not difficult for me to find information on Horus and the other myths, as they are well documented. It appears they were only repeating the false information stated in the book “Pagan Christs”.
I also researched World History Edu which affirms nothing that is stated in the promoted video. I examined Ancient Egypt online which states, “Critics of the history of Jesus say that the parallels between the ideology of Horus and that of the story of Jesus indicates that they are the same story, just different time periods. However, this idea fails to take into account that the belief in Horus is one that spans thousands of years and many versions. Each era of belief in Horus would have believed in different versions of the god, none of which match up with the accounts of Jesus.”
I further researched Anthropology Review and the information they had on Horus to find no support for the video production. I have already addressed this issue myself back in 2022. You can read that review also at Theology Confused which is also written in response to a video sent by this same friend. I presented the accurate research then as I have now, but he simply ignored it or didn't read it and has sent it out again.
They are not content in their own unbelief, but are determined to deprive those of faith from their hope. They produce podcast using difficult passages where they corner precious people, yet not very knowledgeable Christians to mock and make fun of them in their ignorance. Most of Christianity consist of very kind people who do not know a lot about theology, but their faith is precious to them.
These podcast take these precious people who are bold enough or foolish enough to call into their programs and they try to destroy their faith. Perhaps they think, after having their faith destroyed, they will have the freedom they themselves boast of in their unbelief. They don't consider the damage that can occur to a person who has hope of seeing a loved one again, and the comfort that can bring to their grief. Yet they would rip that hope and comfort from them in the name of what they perceive as their truth. And to be fair, it's not just Atheist podcast that spread false information, I have recently seen a video in my YouTube feed promoting evidence that researchers have found Pharaoh's Chariots in the bottom of the sea. It was presented as absolute proof the Bible is true. This is a false narritive that has been making circles online for several years and keeps getting promoted.
The internet is a swamp of false information, unless you are reading or listening to a source that has in the past proven itself truthful, one has to be skeptical about anything they read or hear. Even if the source is trust worthly, it still warrens investigation before you embrace it as truth. The Scriptures continuedly warn not to be deceived, even if you do not believe the Scriptures, that is well advised.
For those who are convicted because of their past, live with a feeling of guilt, the Gospel is there for you. You don't have to pay pentance, or work you way to a free concience. Christ came and stood in you place, he took your guilt and bore it on the cross. He was raised again from the dead as evidence his sacrifice was acceptable and divine justice had been met. If you can believe that and it gives you hope and peace with God, don't let anyone rob you of your faith.
David
Monday, November 10, 2025
Difficulty of Deuteronomy 22:13-21
{Claims by Christians
1. The Bible is the Word of God.
2. God is a loving and just God.
3. God is an all-knowing God.
The Word of God (the Bible), as it says in Deuteronomy 22:20-21: a woman on her wedding night is found to be without evidence of her virginity (no bleeding). Then the men of her town shall bring her out to the entrance of her father's house and stone her to death because she committed a disgraceful act in Israel by prostituting herself in her father's house. The “proof” of virginity was traditionally understood to be a bedsheet with bloodstains from the wedding night.
Approximately 63% of women do not bleed the first time they have sex, according to a study published in the British Medical Journal. This figure is supported by multiple sources indicating that a significant majority—between 63% and 80%—of women do not experience bleeding during their first intercourse.
Considering the information above, how can anyone state God is a just, loving, and all knowing God? God didn't know all women don't bleed the first time they have sex? Stoning to death women who were innocent but found guilty on false evidence is okay with God?}
Most unbelievers couldn't care less about a statement lodged somewhere in the Old Testament literature, but others take offense in the character of the Christian God and statements like this made in the scriptures. It is presented in most cases as a gotcha question. However, there is nothing unloving or unjust in the scripture being presented. Those who present this as an argument, by doing so, demonstrate they don't know the God of the Bible. They present to you a god of their own making, one who is not loving and one who doesn't know the physical properties of the woman he created.
They say they don't believe in the God of the Bible, yet to refute Him and make an argument against Him, they invent one they can criticize. The God of the Bible choose this people referenced here in Deuteronomy out of slavery, delivered them by mighty signs and wonders. (Exodus Chapter 7 through 11) He divided the sea for the people to walk through on dry ground and drowned the Egyptians who tried to pursue. He brought water out of a rock in abundance enough to supply a whole nation of people. Yet, the critics present to you a god who can't even regulate the breaking of the female hymen. If He can control wither a female egg is fertilized, He can certainly control the breaking of the hymen at the appropriate time. [Gen 30:22 ESV] 22 Then God remembered Rachel, and God listened to her and opened her womb. It would certainly be understood in the text sighted, no misjudgment would be made in the system God had instituted for this people. I'm sure the 63% to 80% statistic has merit in today's society, but the account they are critiquing is within the confines of a supernatural environment created by God for a special people, purpose, and time.
[Deu 22:13-14 ESV] 13 “If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then hates her 14 and accuses her of misconduct and brings a bad name upon her, saying, 'I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her evidence of virginity,'
Here we have either an unfaithful wife, or a lying husband. [Deu 22:13-17 ESV] 13 “If any man takes a wife and goes into her and then hates her 14 and accuses her of misconduct and brings a bad name upon her, saying, 'I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her evidence of virginity,' 15 then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate. 16 And the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man to marry, and he hates her; 17 and behold, he has accused her of misconduct, saying, “I did not find in your daughter evidence of virginity.” And yet this is the evidence of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the cloak before the elders of the city. It is the father, not the husband, who is the Plaintiff that takes the case to court to defend his daughter's honor as well as the honor of his family. “I gave my daughter to this man to marry, and he hates her; 17 and behold, he has accused her of misconduct”. The Jewish commentary in the Tanakh states this to be symbolic. “And they shall spread the garment. This is a figurative expression, meaning: they shall clarify the matter as [“clear”] as a [new] garment. — [Sifrei 22:92, Keth. 46a]”. וּפָֽרְשׂוּ הַשִּׂמְלָה. הֲרֵי זֶה מָשָׁל, מְחֻוָּרִין הַדְּבָרִים כַּשִּׂמְלָה (שם; כתובות שם):
Gill's English commentary also acknowledges this: ''Indeed there are some Jewish writers, that interpret this cloth in a parabolical and allegorical sense, and understand by it witnesses that; would make the case as clear and plain as the spreading out of a cloth or garment. They suppose that before the damsel was lain with she was examined by several matrons, who declaring her to be a virgin, gave it under their hands in writing to her parents, which they were capable of producing in court when there was occasion for it; so Jarchi says, this is a parable; the meaning is, they made things as clear and as plain as a new cloth; with which agrees the Talmud which he seems to have taken it from, where on these words, and they shall spread the cloth, this remark is made; but the literal sense seems best.”
Take a look around you, what does your world look like? Are the crimes committed by a great unknown deity or fallen human beings? The God of the Bible has looked upon a world that hates Him, Atheist that malign Him, and all manner of people that commit depraved acts of debauchery continually every moment of every day. For no reason other than His own glory and goodness, He has provided redemption through the work of Christ and made an offer of eternal life to all who would simply believe and turn from their wicked ways.
Hope this was encouraging,
David
Monday, November 3, 2025
Who wrote the Bible? (Was the Bible edited? Part 4)
Answer #8 Gene's comment on my last post challenged my assessment that the Bible wasn't edited. He stated,“Do you believe there wasn’t any editing in that process? Even changing one word would be editing”. Gene's comment demonstrates the difficulty in debate between two opposing ideas. The minds are in opposition one against the other, therefore what one says is not what the other hears. Defining words are a necessity, defining context is equally important. Let's define edit and set the context.
The editing process can involve correction, condensation, organization, and many other modifications performed with an intention of producing a correct, consistent, accurate and complete piece of work. In this context I will agree with Gene, yes, the Bible has been and continues to be edited. However, it can also mean to alter, adapt, or refine especially to bring about conformity to a standard or to suit a particular purpose. This is the context in which it was applied in the documentary. They were not implying it had been edited to accuracy, but edited by malicious means against the original intent to achieve and be conducive with their conflicts, human politics, and human imagination. It is to this definition and context I made the statement in the previous post.
To prove that assessment I presented the translation of manuscript P52 which is dated around the 1st century. I then compared that reading with the reading of our modern ESV English Bible. With the two readings side by side, I simply asked, does that look like editing to you? The verses preserved on manuscript P52 were written around 1,900 years ago, yet we still have the same reading in our modern Bibles. That is just one example, it remains true throughout thousands of our old manuscripts, so yes, the statement made in the documentary is false, it is not a true.
Is it a horse or an infant? Of the thousands of ancient Greek copies of the New Testament that exist, do they all say the same thing? Absolute not, and that is where the critics and skeptics have their heyday. One example is [1Th 2:7 ESV] 7 But we were gentle among you, like a nursing mother taking care of her own children. One manuscript has ἵπποι (“horses”) instead of ἤπιοι (mild or kind:—gentle), very similar in spelling but very different in meaning. This would translate, But we were horses among you, like a nursing mother taking care of her children. Anyone reading this copy would immediately recognize it didn't make sense and do a correctional edit. Yet another copy has νήπιοι (“infants”) which would translate we became infants among you, like a nursing mother taking care of her children. Spelling still close, but this time it would not be so obvious, for infants does seem to fit the text somewhat. So what did Paul actually say in 1st Thessalonians? That is where the science of textual criticism comes in.
It is a known fact among scholars that less than 1% of the textual variants offer any change in the meaning of the text. However, that 1% still amounts to hundreds of meaningful and viable varants. Of that 1% it is never once stated, we don't know what it says, but it is always either a choice of A, B, or C. Like the illustration above, we know it was either gentle, infant, or horse. We know this because of the thousands of manuscripts in existence, those are the only choices. Bart Ehrman admits as much in his book “Misquoting Jesus”, where he states, “This oldest form of the text is no doubt closely (very closely) related to what the author originally wrote, and so it is the basis of our interpretation of his teaching.” — Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, page 62.
In the specific edition of “Misquoting Jesus” that includes a Q&A section, Dr. Ehrman states, “The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.” — Bart Ehrman Misquoting Jesus, p. 252.
Would Bart Ehrman agree that the New Testament text has been edited, revised, translated, debated, and censored over centuries. You would conclude by his book “Misquoting Jesus” he would. Yet, when pressed upon the facts of how serious these variants have effected what has been transmitted through the centuries, he admits there are no variant readings that affect any essential Christian belief. The Christian faith has been faithfully transmitted to us today.
The Council of Nicaea in 325 A. D. is most commonly referred to as the Council to do this. It is true that the Council did debate which books the church should recognize as authoritative. But this is not the scenario the skeptics would have you believe. We find difficulty in understanding this history because of our modern way of life. Bart Ehrman wrote “Misquoting Jesus” and within 3 months he had sold over 100,000 copies. This was not the world of the New Testament.
Paul would write a letter to a Church, and it would take days, or weeks for that one letter to arrive. None of the other churches would have that letter, but over time word would eventually reach another church and they would want a copy. Another handwritten copy would be made, and now two churches would have this letter. Over the next few decades, this very slow process would produce multiple copies over different areas of evangelism and the existing churches. It is easy to conceive, even after years of existence, churches would exist with different copies of these letters that were being passed around. It is also understandable if they were skectical of the letters they were not so familiar with. However, the copies they did have they considered to be authoritative for governing the Church.
First Timothy was likely written between A.D. 64 or 65, we know by then the Gospel of Luke was considered scripture because Paul quotes from Luke saying, [1Ti 5:18 ESV] 18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” (Luke 10:7) We know Peter considered Paul's writings as scripture from [2Pe 3:15-16 ESV] 15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
These Churches possessed different books at different times, each considering the ones they had as scripture. The fact they did not recognize quickly the books they were not familiar with as authoritative is a positive attribute. It demonstrates they were very careful about accepting just any book, it had to be proven to meet certain criteria before they would consider it.
The documentary stated,“gospels like the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, and many others were excluded, not because they were less divine, but because they didn't fit the agenda of the church leaders in power.” There are no grounds to support that statement, nothing in history supports that view. These books came into existence in the 2nd and 3rd century, long after the Biblical text. In all the Patristic Fathers writings, they never quote from any of these sudo Gospels or sudo Apostolic letters. They were not included into the Cannon authorized at Nicaea because they were never consider authoritative. If the scenario the documentary was presenting were true, history would demonstrate that the church was using and quoting these unauthorized books. However, that is not what you find in the historical record.
To achieve their view of history, they sight events, councils, and the corruption within the Catholic Church which eventually led to the great schism in 1046, and later the Reformation. They convolute this history with the early church history to form their current narrative. This may not have been a purposeful effort by the documentary produces, but it is how they arrive at their view of history. But when we are talking about the formation of the Biblical Canon, we are talking about a time in Church history long before those events. You as a reader have a difficult choice, are the skeptics right or are the Biblical scholars right? I don't expect you to go and study 2000 years of Church history, I myself have read 5 volumes and only got a brief overview. Nor do I expect you to read the writings of the Patristic writers, it is estimated they quoted the New Testament over a million times. What you can do is apply basic logic, if all they say is true, how is it that Bart Ehrman, probably the most knowledgeable atheistic critic in the world today, ends it all by saying, “the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.” Above that, if you are inclined to research, you can use some online tools and actually translate the old manuscripts yourself and read them. You don't have to just accept what they or I say, you can go and read them for yourself. If you are familiar with the biblical text, you will recognize the old manuscripts as such when translated.
Hope this was helpful,
David
Sunday, November 2, 2025
Who wrote the Bible? (Part 3)
Accusation #7 The Bible wasn't just written. It was edited, revised, translated, debated, and censored over centuries.
Answer #7 This statement is simply not accurate. Even Bart Ehrman who is one of today most hostile critical scholars of the New Testament would not agree with that statement. It is here I would have previously appealed to the dishonesty of the producers of the documentary. However, as I have been corrected in the comments of the first series post, it was my assumption. I don't know what their intent was, I can't read their minds. I have been just as guilty of passing on mis' formation because I trusted the sources. I am reminded of what Reagan once said, “Trust but verify”.There are certainly textual variants in the Thousands of New Testament manuscripts we have, evidenced by the study of textual criticism. But edited, revised, translated, debated, and censored is hardly the conclusion of that area of study. If you can read the Greek manuscripts, you can discover this for yourself first hand, many of the old manuscripts have been photographed and digitally posted online for study. There are online tools available as well where you can access the manuscript and read the translation of it's content and compare it with our modern English versions of the Bible. Below, I have comprised such a comparison, as you can see, their accusation is far from the truth.
Papyrus 52 Date: 100-125 A.D. Discovered: Fayum or Oxyrhynchus, Egypt Location: Manchester, England; John Rylands University Library.
P52 Jhn 18:31 Pilate therefore said to them, “Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law.” Therefore the Jews said to him, “It is illegal for us to put anyone to death,” 32 that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spoke, signifying by what kind of death he should die. Dated 100AD
[Jhn 18:31-32 ESV] 31 Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.” The Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.” 32 This was to fulfill the word that Jesus had spoken to show by what kind of death he was going to die. Dated 2001
P52 is translated from a fragment dated around the 1st century, the second is from John, as translated in our modern ESV translation some 2,000 years later. Hard to see any editing, revising, or censoring.
[Jhn 18:33 ESV] 18:33 So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Dated 2001
P52 Jhn 18:37 Pilate therefore said to him, “Are you a king then?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this reason I have been born, and for this reason I have come into the world, that I should testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” Dated 100 A. D.
[Jhn 18:37 ESV] 37 Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world--to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” Dated 2001
P52 Jhn 18:38 Pilate said to him, “What is truth?” When he had said this, he went out again to the Jews, and said to them, “I find no basis for a charge against him. Dated 100 A. D.
[Jhn 18:38 ESV] 38 Pilate said to him, “What is truth?” After he had said this, he went back outside to the Jews and told them, “I find no guilt in him. Dated 2001
[Phm 1:13-15 ESV] 13 I would have been glad to keep him with me, in order that he might serve me on your behalf during my imprisonment for the gospel, 14 but I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own accord. 15 For this perhaps is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back forever, Date 2001
P40 Romans 1:24 Therefore God also gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves; 25 who exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason, God gave them up to vile passions. For their women changed the natural function into that which is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural function of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another, men doing what is inappropriate with men, and receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error. Date 250 A. D.
[Rom 1:24-27 ESV] 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. Date 2001
P40 Romans 2:1 Therefore you are without excuse, O man, whoever you are who judge. For in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself. For you who judge practice the same things. 2 We know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. 3 Do you think this, O man who judges those who practice such things, and do the same, that you will escape the judgment of God? Date 250 A. D.
[Rom 2:1-3 ESV] 1 Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. 2 We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. 3 Do you suppose, O man--you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself--that you will escape the judgment of God? Date 2001
P40 Romans 3:21 But now apart from the law, a righteousness of God has been revealed, being testified by the law and the prophets; 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ to all and on all those who believe. For there is no distinction, 23 for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God; 24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God sent to be an atoning sacrifice, through faith in his blood, for a demonstration of his righteousness through the passing over of prior sins, in God’s forbearance; 26 to demonstrate his righteousness at this present time; that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him who has faith in Jesus. 27 Where then is the boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 We maintain therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Isn’t he the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith, and the uncircumcised through faith. Date 250 A. D.
[Rom 3:21-30 ESV] 21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it-- 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since God is one--who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Date 2001
P40 Romans 4 What then will we say that Abraham, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not toward God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the reward is not counted as grace, but as something owed. 5 But to him who works, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness. 6 apart from works, 7 “Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the man whom the Lord will by no means charge with sin.” Date 250 A. D.
[Rom 4:1-8 ESV] 1 What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: 7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.” Date 2001
What you actually find in these ancient manuscripts text above are variant readings and spellings, but in 2000 years of transmission the scripture has been faithfully transmitted. What you do not find is that “It was edited, revised, translated, debated, and censored over centuries.” There are a few verses in Mark known as the long ending of Mark that have been added that were not in the original autographs. Also, the story of the woman caught in adultery in John was most likely added by a scribe at a later day. It would have been accurate for the documentary to state, “There are some well known edits and revisions that were made to the text in the later manuscripts. However, textual scholarship accounts for these editions based on the information gathered from the older text”. If the documentary was attempting to provide accurate and truthful information, it failed miserably.
Hope this was helpful,
David
Saturday, November 1, 2025
Who wrote the Bible? (Part 2)
Accusation #4 Each group represented a different tradition. Each had different ideas about God, society, and morality. And their writings were woven together into what we now think of as a single narrative. Take the two creation stories in Genesis. The first describes a structured 7-day creation where God speaks everything into existence. The second is far more human centered, with God molding Adam from dust and forming Eve from his rib. These contradictions aren't mistakes. They're evidence that two different traditions were combined into one text, preserved side by side, even though they don't agree.
Answer #4 I think we are beginning to see that honesty is not the intent of this documentary. The portion of scripture they are referring to is Genesis 1:1 through 2:3 and Genesis 2:4 through 2:25. See (Genesis) Of these two portions of scripture, they make the most embarrassing statement, “These contradictions aren't mistakes. They're evidence that two different traditions were combined into one text, preserved side by side, even though they don't agree.” That is the most ridiculous statement one could possibly make. I could say, “Friday I went and purchased a motorcycle, Saturday I noticed the seat was uncomfortable, so I replaced the seat with another one.” Using their accusation, that couldn't possibly be the same bike or person. The two statements don't agree and contradict each other.
I suggest you read the passages of scripture referred to by clinking on the “Genesis” link above. You will clearly see what a ridiculous statement they have made. Obviously, they were counting on the fact their listener's would never actually go and read the text, but simply take their word. Comparing the two portions of scripture side by side, you find not a single contradiction. They don't agree word for word because they are talking about two different aspects of creation. The first speaks of Creation in general, the second speaks of the creation of man in specific. This documentary was not created to inform, but to miss-inform and deceive the listener.
Accusation #5 And then we get to the New Testament, which is even more complicated. Most people assume the Gospels were written by the disciples of Jesus, but that's simply not the case. None of the gospels were written during Jesus' lifetime. They were composed decades later in Greek, not in the Aramaic that Jesus actually spoke.
Answer #5 This is actually a fairly accurate statement. The Gospels were not signed by their authors as far as we know, tradition only assigns authorship to each of the Gospels. It is also true the accounts were written after the death of Christ and before the end of the 1st Century. The basic reason why Greek was chosen for the New Testament instead of Aramaic was that the writers wished to reach a broad, Gentile audience, not just a Jewish audience. The spoken tongue used by both the disciples and Christ was likely Aramaic. However, Greek was the leading written and spoken language of the eastern Mediterranean world when Rome ruled the world during the New Testament period. Our host in the documentary takes these facts and attempts to present them with a negative connotation, demonstrating his purpose is not to inform but mislead.
Answer #6 “A man who never met Jesus?” Really? [Act 9:4-5 ESV] 4 And falling to the ground, he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” 5 And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.” [Act 13:9 ESV] 9 But Saul, who was also called Paul. . .
“In many ways, Christianity is Paul's invention.” Really? [Gal 1:11-12 ESV] 11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. All you have to do to critique their false statements is simply read the scripture, but obviously the audience they are targeting are expected to never do so. They would probably refute that answer because it's found in the Bible, but their accusation is found nowhere except in their own conjectures.
It is emphatically stated in their accusation, “Some were written by him. Others were written later by followers pretending to be him.” It is stated as matter of fact when it is only opinion based on letter structure and word uses by some scholars. It is true those differences exist, but it proves nothing emphatically, it is well-known that amanuensis were used during this time period, who penned a letter as the author was dictating the message to him. As a result, different style of writing would emerge between individuals. It would have been an honest statement to draw attention to the fact that some scholars question their authenticity as a result of certain anomalies, none of which are conclusive. But they were not interested in being honest.
Hope this was helpful,
David
Friday, October 31, 2025
Who wrote the Bible?
Accusation #1 “The Bible is often spoken of as though it dropped from the sky, perfect and complete. Yet, the reality of who actually wrote it is far more complicated and far less divine than most people realize.”
Answer #1 In their first statement, their dishonesty becomes evident. They begin by creating a false narrative, by which they can then begin breaking it down. I have never heard the bible spoken of as if it dropped from the sky, perfect and complete, and I've been around the Christian community a long time. The exact opposite of their statement is where you find the truth. Christians are very concerned about whether they can trust the text or not. So much so, a whole discipline of study exist for the purpose of determining what the text says and where it came from. (see Textual Criticism)
The remainder of their statement is necessarily a half-truth to fit the narrative they are wanting to present. It is true, Textual Criticism is a very complex and tedious work, but whether it is less divine than most people realize is subjective reasoning based on opinion not research or textual evidence.
Accusation #2 “The story of the Bible's creation is messy. It's a patchwork of voices stitched together over centuries by people with agendas, political pressures, cultural biases, and evolving ideas about the world. Far from being a single-unified book, the Bible is more like a library, a collection of writings from different authors spanning hundreds of years, each reflecting the time and society in which they lived.”
Answer #2 One has to wonder if there is an agenda with bias in this documentary? In accusation #2 we have another patch work of half-truths and statements as they continue to build their false narrative. It is true, the writings of scripture come from 40 different authors over a period of 1,500 years. However, a study of the text itself is anything but messy patchwork. It amazingly flows together, revealing the story of redemption through historical record, poetry, laws and rules, songs, wisdom sayings & proverbs, and in the context of simple letter writing.
The Bible exhibits through all these forms of writing a consistent theme of redemption, where both the Old and New Testaments point to Jesus Christ as the solution to sin. For instance, the promise of a Savior in Genesis 3:15 is fulfilled in the New Testament through the life and work of Jesus, illustrating a cohesive narrative throughout the scriptures.
The Bible presents a unified theme centered on the problem of sin and the solution found in Jesus Christ. Key examples are found in Genesis, which introduces sin through Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:15). Then in Exodus, Christ can be seen in the Passover lamb (Exodus 12). Revelation then concludes with the promise of a new heaven and earth, restoring what was lost in Genesis (Revelation 21:4). The Bible also uses patterns and types to connect stories across different books. For instance, Joseph's Story is repeated in the lives of Mordecai and Daniel, illustrating themes of suffering and redemption. Jesus as the Second Adam fulfills the role of the first Adam. Many passages in the Bible reference earlier texts, creating a web of connections. For example, Isaiah foretells the coming of Jesus and the inclusion of Gentiles in God's plan (Isaiah 49:6). New Testament Apostles often quote Old Testament scriptures to affirm Jesus' fulfillment of these prophecies. You have to ask yourself how difficult would it be to get 40 different authors to write 66 different books over 1,500 years and have them maintain a constant united theme? We know it happened once, we'll have to wait a long time to see if it ever happens again.
Accusation #3 The earliest parts of the Hebrew Bible, what many call the Old Testament, were not written by eyewitnesses or even by people who lived anywhere close to the events they describe. The first five books, known as the Torah or the Pentetuk, were traditionally said to be written by Moses. Yet, historians and scholars have long shown that's impossible.
Answer #3 Another false statement around half-truths. A more accurate statement would have read, “liberal scholars have in recent times cast doubt upon the traditional belief that Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Old Testament.” For a comprehensive look at this view, see (First Five Books)
These scholars argue that Moses could not have written the first five books of the Old Testament due to historical and textual evidence. Their main points suggest that the texts reflect a later historical context that would not align with Moses' time. They point out that Moses could not have written about his own death in Deuteronomy 34, which raises questions about his authorship and some propose that these books were written by multiple authors over time, rather than a single individual. However, there is no definitive proof that disproves his authorship. For certain, Moses did not record his own death, obviously that was added to the writing after the fact, but that does little to prove he did not write the previous accounts. And certainly the accounts of creation and events that occurred before his time he would have to have copied from earlier writings. That is a given, but shouldn't be offered as evidence he did not catalog the first five books.
The traditional view upholding Mosaic authorship has much support on its side. It draws its conclusions from various area's of study. You can get a comprehensive view of the subject by following the link above, “First Five Books”. So as not to leave you in this post without examples, we will look at the archaeological findings, which provide explicit and direct evidence that supports many of the events, characters, and settings described in the Bible.
It is important to historians and Bible scholars above all for the information it supplies about towns in Syria and Canaan during the New Kingdom. There is a long list of towns which run along the northern border of the djadi or watershed of the Jordan in Canaan, which bound Lebanon along the Litani River and upper retnu and Syria along the Orontes. The border lands of Egypt's province of Canaan with Kadesh are also defined in the document. There is a vast amount of evidence such as this found in the field of archaeology that lend support to the Mosaic authorship, not to mention all the other fields of study.
Is there absolute proof that Moses is the author of the first five books? Certainly not, we are talking about writings thousands of years old. However, with the vast amount of support from various fields of study, to make the statement concerning Moses authorship, “historians and scholars have long shown that's impossible” is more than misleading, it's an outright falsehood. Sure, the liberal scholars have their arguments, and that's perfectly fine. Those should be heard and debated. But to make documentary statements of fact leading one to think all scholars have come to this conclusion is dishonest.
Thanks for reading, we will look at a few more accusations in the next post.
David
Thursday, October 30, 2025
Was Jesus a liar?
To escalate the issue, the preceding verse seems to demand that interpretation. The verse states, 27, For the Son of Man will come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. The narrative that was put forth on the radio show goes something like this: Jesus said he was coming back with his angels, and there were some standing there that day that would see that happen before they died. If that is the way you want to read those verses and demand it to be the only meaning, then you only have two options, he lied, or he was just simply wrong.
The first thing I notice about the text is it speaks of the effort the scribes put into copying the text accurately. Obviously, if they were going to change it along the way, you would think they would just leave this verse out after the fact. So we must conclude that is what the text said, and they were determined to copy it accurately.
But are there any other possible interpretations? Often our first conclusions are base on quick references, but a further study reveals other possibilities. One way to understand this passage is simply as two statements related and connected to the subject, but speaking broadly concerning the events. Verse 27 speaking concerning the end results, and verse 28 speaking of the beginning results. In other words, verse 27 was speaking of the end and the judgment, verse 28 speaking of the beginning of the kingdom, which they themselves would see. We know Jesus spoke using such language from his conversation with Nicodemus in John 3:1, Now a certain man, a Pharisee named Nicodemus, who was a member of the Jewish ruling council, came to Jesus at night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs that you do unless God is with him.” 3, Jesus replied, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (NET) Clearly, it was understood that the Kingdom was visible in the spiritual sense, which the disciples that were then present in verse 28 of Matthew would see when they were born again.
There are other possible ways to understand what those with him that day would actually see. Those who want to find fault with the Bible will obviously demand the first interpretation and thereby render the Bible false and Jesus a liar. Christians will obviously look to one of the other ways to understand it.
This is one of those passages, however, by applying other text such John 3:1 or Mark 9:2 we gain much greater insight. The problem the radio host had, was limiting his insight to those two verses alone and linking them together in such a strict manner, he was not allowing for any other understanding. When reading the Bible, we are not able to ask the author what he may have meant about a particular phase. So it becomes necessary in cases like this to look to other passages that may explain the phase in more detail. How does the Bible understand the term “Kingdom”? We can see from Eph. 5:5, that Jesus has a Kingdom right now, verse 5 For you can be confident of this one thing: that no person who is immoral, impure, or greedy (such a person is an idolater) has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Also, Col. 1:13, He delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of the Son he loves, and 1st Thess 2:12, exhorting and encouraging you and insisting that you live in a way worthy of God who calls you to his own kingdom and his glory.
Acts 1: 3, To the same apostles also, after his suffering, he presented himself alive with many convincing proofs. He was seen by them over a forty-day period and spoke about matters concerning the kingdom of God.
Acts 8:12, But when they believed Philip as he was proclaiming the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they began to be baptized, both men and women.
Romans 14: 17, For the kingdom of God does not consist of food and drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.
1 Cor. 4:20, For the kingdom of God is demonstrated not in idle talk but with power.
We could go on and on, speaking of the Kingdom. It seems to me this would most likely be the Kingdom that Jesus was referring to when he told them there would be some standing there that would see him coming in his Kingdom. I would even include the transfiguration in the next chapter as a part of that. I can understand how an atheist could see that as a false statement or contradiction, but it is because he has no desire to discover any other possibilities, what he thinks he sees achieves what he's trying to prove. Furthermore, I don't know if he would even accept the other interpretations as viable, probably not, but it is certainly not a text that Christians have any difficulty with.
Hope this was helpful,
David
Monday, October 27, 2025
"The unjust Judge of the Universe"
It seems the bottom line of his argument is that God is unjust in His judgment of the human race. We don't know the name of the host, he seems to want to go by DZ. The first thing you notice about DZ is his arrogance. He lets the caller open with a question, which was about creation. DZ responds with, “I don't think anything caused the existence. I think it's an endless chain of narration all the way back. There's never been nothing. . . . Hurtles all the way down, buddy.” He constantly berates his guess for having no proof for what he says, yet makes his own assertion offering no proof other than stating, “you can't get anything from nothing, so it must have always existed.” That was supposed to be enough explanation, nothing more was needed except he said so.
Actually what he was expressing was an ancient view put forward according to Wikipedia by Aristotle who stated “that everything that comes into existence does so from a substratum. Therefore, if the underlying matter of the universe came into existence, it would come into existence from a substratum. But the nature of matter is precisely to be the substratum from which other things arise. Consequently, the underlying matter of the universe could have come into existence only from an already existing matter exactly like itself; to assume that the underlying matter of the universe came into existence would require assuming that an underlying matter already existed. As this assumption is self-contradictory, Aristotle argued, matter must be eternal.” I'm sure we all understand now!
To the question at hand, is God unjust? Most of the misunderstanding relating to God's justice comes from not knowing who God is. There is so much emphasis in the Christian community about the love of God, very little thought is put into all the other attributes of God's being. They are sometimes referred to as God's perfections. DZ ends up in the wrong place because his compass is skewed. He develops his own narrative of what justice looks like and works his way from there. He places judgment against a god created from his own mind. I know he would argue otherwise, but I think as we continue we will see clearly he is not talking about the God of the Bible.
To examine the God of the Bible, we must go to scripture, for that is the only special revelation we have of Him outside the general revelation of creation. He is of such being, had He not chosen to reveal Himself we could never have conceived of Him in our mind.
Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord and abundant in strength;
His understanding is infinite.
Romans 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!
Psalm 90:2 Before the mountains were born, or you brought forth the whole world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.
Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit.
Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, 1828 - Infinite
IN'FINITE, a. [L. infinitus; in and finitus, terminated.]
1. Without limits; unbounded; boundless; not circumscribed; applied to time, space, and qualities. God is infinite in duration, having neither beginning nor end of existence. He is also infinite in presence, or omnipresent, and his perfections are infinite. We also speak of infinite space.
When applying this concept to God's justice, it must be a boundless justice embodied by absolute perfection. Here we need a little more help from Mr. Webster as we consider the two concepts of justice and perfection together.
Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, 1828 - Perfection
PERFEC'TION, n. [L. perfectio.] The state of being perfect or complete, so that nothing requisite is wanting; as perfection in an art or science; perfection in a system of morals.
5. An inherent or essential attribute of supreme or infinite excellence; or one perfect in its kind; as the perfections of God. The infinite power, holiness, justice, benevolence, and wisdom of God are denominated his perfections.
Now that we have a slight grasp of what we are looking for, let's look at an analogy to help step us in comprehension.
Now let's move up a notch, say I went across the road to my neighbor's house and kicked his dog for no apparent reason. It's different now, I have not only committed an offense to a lower creature, but I have also offended my neighbor, a human being, a much higher creature. My offense has now been elevated to another level, I may now face somewhat unpleasant consequences. The act is the same, but the level of offense and punishment has increased.
Once again let's move up another notch, say I went across the road to my neighbor's house and his child was playing in the yard, I walked over and for no reason kicked his child. I most certainly will now face server punishment because my offense is directly against a human being. The first level might be overlooked without damaging the demands of justice too severely. In the second level, the demands of justice, might be mitigated somewhat. But at the human level, justice cannot be overlooked nor mitigated and still remain justice. As DZ tried to allude to in the video, the punishment must match the offense. Perfect justice must match the offense perfectly. This perfect justice brings us to the last level.
Even in our society, a crime against a higher authority figure demands a greater punishment. Imagine the consequences of “you” punching a man on the street. You would be arrested for assault and go to a county jail. However, if you punch a police officer, you would be arrested for obstruction and go to jail for much longer. If you punch the President of the United States, you're going to Federal prison. In each case, the punishment escalates based no on the act but on the one the crime was committed against. If we punch (sin against) God, logically, we understand that crimes against an infinite Being necessarily escalates to an infinite level.
Even under our human laws, the severity of a crime depends, in part, on the value of the target of the offense. If a man enters a junkyard at night and smashes the headlights of a junked car, he will probably pay a small fine. But if that same man enters the showroom of a Porsche dealer and starts busting up a new 911S, he will pay a much larger fine and probably serve some jail time. The difference is the value of the crime’s target. Punishment is proportionate to the worth of the thing damaged. Though God cannot be damaged, His glory can be offended, which is the most valuable thing in existence, it is of infinite worth. If punishment is proportional, then crimes committed against God deserve an infinite penalty. DZ's imaginary god is of little value to him, therefore, the thought of an eternal punishment for any kind of offense naturally appears to him as unjust.
DZ wants to use the biblical concept of punishment, yet he does not want to use the biblical concept of God. Instead, he creates a straw god of his own imagination and pawns that off as the God of the Bible. DZ puts forth a scenario contrasting a 13-year-old girl stealing a candy bar and a war criminal committing genocide. He then wants to know if they both are going to burn in hell forever, demanding a yes or no question! I'm not sure the caller could have answered his question, but every time he tried, DZ would stop him and demand a yes a no answer. DZ has been here before and knows how to play to his audience.
DZ's 13-year-old girl candy bar scenario is designed to tug at your heart and create an image of injustice in your mind. It is another straw man argument to enable him to stand on the moral high ground. First, there are no 13-year-old girls who only stole a candy bar in hell, the only people who will be in hell will be wicked depraved sinners and devils. The only way a 13-year-old girl can find her way to hell is to be one of those wicked, depraved sinners. DZ would have you think there will be people in hell who do not deserve to be there. The God presented in the Bible is an infinite God, infinite in wisdom and knowledge. He knows all there is to know about any 13-year-old anybody and knows them with perfect justice. 1 John 3:20 ESV for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.
Matthew 10: 29, Aren’t two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father’s will.30, Even all the hairs on your head are numbered. 31, So do not be afraid; you are more valuable than many sparrows.
Psa 139:4, Certainly my tongue does not frame a word without you, O Lord, being thoroughly aware of it 13, Certainly you made my mind and heart; you wove me together in my mother’s womb.
14, I will give you thanks because your deeds are awesome and amazing. You knew me thoroughly;
15, my bones were not hidden from you, when I was made in secret and sewed together in the depths of the earth.
16, Your eyes saw me when I was inside the womb. All the days ordained for me were recorded in your scroll before one of them came into existence.
What DZ's candy scenario does reveal is the root of the issue. Why would a 13-year-old want to steal? It demonstrates we know what is right, we by nature just don't want to do it. We all want to rebel, it's our nature, what we are, and that's the problem. There have to be restraints placed upon us for it to even be possible for a society to exist. Without the institution of laws and punishments and some means of legal justice, our existence would be a hell on earth. This is necessary because of what we are. Raise a child to adulthood without any restraints, and they will destroy themselves and everyone around them. Remember, the restraints don't change what we are, they just restrain it. Training and education helps them by their own conscience to discipline themselves and restrain their own passions, but it does not change their nature. They may not steal the candy bar at 13, but there will be a passion within them that they must restrain, or they will.
Hell is not just a place of punishment, it is a place of unrestrained passions, we are eternal beings and without the Gospel we are eternal sinners. Hell will not stop us from sinning, it will only release us to our unrestrained passions against God and against each other. Luke 13: 28, There shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and yourselves cast forth without.
Weeping and gnashing of teeth typifies unrestrained passions of anger and hatred amid misery and suffering. DZ's own sense of justice is subjective, he places God on trial, yet he himself would be judged unjust by another's subjective sense of justice and culture. It is DZ's own atheism that embodies injustice, from his subjective sense of reality, every murderer, molester, and thief that lives their life without getting caught will go unpunished. The reward of their depravity will be their peace, and that is supposed to be his justice?
DZ judges unjust a God who provides a way for a people who simply cannot stop sinning to restrain their passions, love righteousness and pass into a state of sinless existence and peace with Him upon death. The great exchange of the Gospel, where Christ took upon himself our punishment, and gave to us His righteousness, meets the demands of justice demonstrated by His resurrection, and sets the sinner free.
In concluding, we can only say, DZ has no reasonable argument to bring against scripture. His argument only appears to have substance because he creates his own narrative, uses make believe stories, and straw man arguments to prove his case. He reads the scripture not to understand the text, but to substantiate his own reason. He does not understand the theology of God, but one of his own creation. Furthermore, he does not understand the hyperstatic union of Christ and how it was possible for him to provide eternal redemption for His people.
Atheist want to argue against God based upon their sense of morality, yet we all know how flawed we are. We know something is amiss, we are contstantly trying to overcome it, always to fail. This very knowledge of ourselves unleases our hatred toward God, and feeds our passion to do away with Him that we might free ourselves from our own guild. The atheist must reject the concept of God, for if there is one and He is just, we are in trouble.
Thanks for reading,
David
-
"The Bible says God saw the Earth was corrupt and filled with violence and he decided to destroy what he created. If God never makes a ... -
I recently received a podcast via text with the suggestion I should listen to and consider its contents. It consisted of an interview betwee...