Will You Be Silenced? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=3541

Will You Be Silenced?

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

When individuals in the 21^st century teach what God’s Word says about the sin of homosexuality (Romans 1:22-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11), even when done in a spirit of “love,” “meekness and fear” (as the Bible teaches—Ephesians 4:15; 1 Peter 3:15), they are often labeled as unloving, unkind, hateful, and mean-spirited. Take, for example, the response that Kirk Cameron recently received after being interviewed on Piers Morgan’s CNN show Tonight. When asked about his thoughts regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriage, Cameron respectfully called it “unnatural” and “destructive,” and “detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization….” “Marriage,” he said, “was defined in the garden between Adam and Eve. One man, one woman for life till death do you part. So I would never attempt to redefine marriage. And I don’t think anyone else should either” (“Kirk Cameron…,” 2012). For these comments, individuals and media members all over the country ridiculed Cameron as being, among other things, “out of step with the modern world” (Dray, 2012), “extremist” (Badash, 2012), “self-righteous” (Burt, 2012), and a “homophobic bigot” (Silverthorne, 2012).

After a Christian posted a comment on his Facebook page recently about President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage, saying, “As Christians, this is another sad moment in our nation’s moral downfall,” a young lady responded by writing:

For once, I beg of you, as Christians, to look at someone who is gay or different from you and love them. Just love them. Don't tell them their [sic] immoral or disgusting or brainwashed or bad. LOVE them. As God loves them. As Jesus loves them. Stop spreading HATE and FEAR. You are hurting yourselves. Your children. You are making the world a bad place, the exact opposite of what I know you want. Why is it that the Christians are the ones who seem to be the most judgmental of them all? (2012, emp. added, capitalization in orig.).

Notice that there was no hate in the gentleman’s statement—only perceived hate by someone who would much rather Christians remain completely silent about what the Bible teaches regarding God’s pattern for the home.

In the Fall of 2011, a ninth-grade honors student in Fort Worth, Texas was given a disciplinary referral form, one day of in-school suspension, and two days of out-of-school suspension because he said to a friend in class that “he was a Christian and ‘being a homosexual is wrong’” (Stames, 2011; Khalil, 2011). This one statement, which was overheard by the teacher (who previously had posted a picture in the classroom of two men kissing), allegedly warranted a reprimand and three days of suspension from class. [Thankfully, administrators dropped the suspension completely, but only after Dakota’s mother solicited the help of a constitutional attorney (Khalil).]

A Catholic church in Acushnet, Massachusetts recently changed their marquee to read, “Two men are friends not spouses.” Their words were described by those who opposed the sign as “subtle bigotry,” “hateful,” and “disrespectful.” One woman called the church saying that the church “should be burned” for spreading such hate. One man said that he was “outraged” that a church would choose to speak out on the issue of gay marriage (see “Controversial Sign...,” 2012).

In April 2012, “outspoken gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) advocate” Dan Savage spoke at an anti-bullying conference in Seattle, Washington before thousands of students and teachers from along the west coast (“Dan Savage…,” 2012). In his speech he stated: “We can learn to ignore the bull**** in the Bible about gay people” (“Anti-bullying Speaker…,” 2012). After several students walked out, the anti-bullying speaker stated: “You can tell the Bible guys in the hall they can come back now because I’m done beating up the Bible. It’s funny, as someone who is on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible, how pansy***** people react when you push back” (“Anti-bullying Speaker…”).

No doubt, some people who claim to be Christians have spoken about the sin of homosexuality with unChristlike attitudes and in ungodly ways. Such hypocrisy certainly should be condemned, as should all ungodliness (Romans 12:9; 1 John 5:17; Galatians 5:19-12; Revelation 21:8), including homosexuality. However, what we increasingly witness today is, even when Christians teach what Almighty God has revealed about homosexuality in the most loving, kind, meek manner, they are still blasted by homosexual activists and many in the media as being guilty of “hate speech.” For teaching what the Creator has revealed (and expects Christians to teach without compromise; cf. Acts 4:17-20; 5:29), Bible believers have been expelled at school, ridiculed at work, and threatened in their churches. Even homosexual “anti-bullying experts” apparently enjoy “beating up the Bible” (and all the alleged “bull****” in it) and bullying the “pansy*****” Christians that they are supposedly teaching not to bully.

We should not be surprised at the reactions (even highly hypocritical reactions) of the world to the preaching of God’s Word. John the Baptizer, of whom Jesus said “among those born of women there has not risen one greater” (Matthew 11:11), was beheaded for courageously telling a King that it was wrong for him to be married to someone who was not his lawful wife (Mark 6:14-29). Jesus was crucified following three years of preaching a message of repentance (Mark 1:15; Luke 13:3,5). Paul, who knew very well what true, biblical love was (1 Corinthians 13), likewise preached a message of repentance (Acts 17:30-31; 26:20), including the encouragement of mankind to repent of the sin of homosexuality (Romans 1:22-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:9-10).

Will the Christ’s church continue to teach what God says on every subject and on every evil, including the sin of homosexuality? Or, will the Lord’s church cower at the threats made against her and remain quiet as homosexual activists, Hollywood actors, and influential media members attempt to silence the alleged unloving “hate speech” of Christians? “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20).

“Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge.For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:19-20, emp. added).

“[W]e should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ” (Ephesians 4:14-15, emp. added).

“But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15, emp. added).

“As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent” (Revelation 3:19, emp. added).

REFERENCES

“Anti-bullying Speaker a Bully?” (2012), Fox News, April 30, http://video.foxnews.com/v/1612875073001/anti-bullying-speaker-a-bully.

Badash, David (2012), “Kirk Cameron: I Should Be Able to Slander Gays Without Being ‘Slandered’ for Slandering Gays,” March 6, The New Civil Rights Movement, http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/kirk-cameron-i-should-be-able-to-slander-gays-without-being-slandered-for-slandering-gays/politics/2012/03/06/35819.

Burt, Jacqueline (2012), “Kirk Cameron is Even More Self-Righteous and Bigoted than We Thought,” Cafémom, http://thestir.cafemom.com/entertainment/133963/kirk_cameron_is_even_more.

“Controversial Sign at St. Francis Xavier Church, Acushnet, MA” (2012), May 16, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMFvrdb0vQ0.

“Dan Savage Addresses Journalist Conference Speech Controversy, Denies Attacking Christianity”  (2012), Huffington Post, May 1, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/30/dan-savage-journalist-conference-controversy_n_1464486.html.

Dray, Kayleigh (2012), “Kirk Cameron: Homosexuality is ‘Unnatural’,” Entertainment, March 4, http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/70939/Kirk-Cameron-Homosexuality-Is-Unnatural.

Khalil, Cathryn (2011), “Student’s Homosexuality Comment Leads to Suspension,” September 22, http://www.cbs19.tv/story/15526115/students-homosexuality-comment-leads-to-suspension.

“Kirk Cameron Says ‘Homosexuality is Unnatural’” (2012), CNN, March 2, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhGQUKoH_TE.

Silverthorne, Sarah (2012), “Kirk Cameron is a Homophobic Bigot,” March 3, http://www.celebdirtylaundry.com/2012/kirk-cameron-is-a-homophobic-bigot-video-0303/.

Stames, Todd (2011), “Texas School Punishes Boy for Opposing Homosexuality,” Fox News, September 22, http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/22/texas-school-punishes-boy-for-opposing-homosexuality/.

Yet Another Way to Promote Evolution by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2484

Yet Another Way to Promote Evolution

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Evolution is taught as fact in our schools. It frequently is addressed as factual on television and in movies. It is hailed as truth in children’s books. It is trumpeted as reality in the most renowned science journals of our day. The General Theory of Evolution has been espoused in many different venues. Unfortunately, another medium to teach evolution can now be added to the list: video games.

Video games in the past may have referenced or reinforced the theory of evolution. Now, however, an entire game has been created based upon the theory. The game is called Spore and was created by computer wiz Will Wright. In the game, “[p]layers start as microscopic life forms competing for survival in primordial ooze and work their way onto land, where they evolve into creatures that build civilizations and rocket into space” (“Computer Game...,” 2008). From “single-cell organisms” to “flying around the galaxy exploring new worlds, meeting other creatures,” Wright claimed that Spore was inspired by his love for biology and the space program known as SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence). Evolutionary environmentalists will also be happy to know that in Spore, “a climate change tool allows players to flood their...world with greenhouse gases, demonstrating the disastrous consequences that result” (Sherwin, 2008).

One journal declared, Wright’s “Computer game...lets you play God.” Why? Because “[p]layers dictate how their animated characters evolve. Creatures can have scales, fins, wings, claws, extra appendages, additional eyes, or body parts.... How they play the game has a lot to do with how they evolve their character” (“Computer Game...”). Ironically, though the media may sell the game on the idea that it “lets you play God,” God plays no role in Spore.

Spore is simply another tool Satan is using to convince humanity that all physical life arose from a common ancestor billions of years ago—an idea that contradicts both the Bible and true science (i.e., the Law of Biogenesis). Sadly, a game that required human intelligence in its design, insults the great intelligent Designer who created humanity in His own image (Genesis 1:26-27), and everything in six days (Exodus 20:11).

REFERENCES

“Computer Game that Lets You Play God” (2008), The Times of India, April 21, [On-line], URL:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/HealthSci/Computer_game_that_lets_ you_play_God/articleshow/2966427.cms.

Sherwin, Adam (2008), “From Microbe to Master of the Universe,” TimesOnline, March 15, [On-line], URL: http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article 1517196.ece.

Was Jesus Ignorant? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=818

Was Jesus Ignorant?

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Some claim the Bible reveals that Jesus did not possess superior knowledge. As “proof,” these skeptics refer to such passages as Mark 5:25-34 and Matthew 26:39. In Mark 5, it is recorded that after Jesus’ garment had been touched, He asked the crowd, “Who touched my garments?” (5:30). In Matthew 26, Jesus, praying to the Father, said, “If it is possible, let this cup pass from me” (26:39). Do such statements reveal ignorance on the part of Jesus? Was His knowledge no greater than yours and mine? What is the truth of the matter?

First, for critics to make such a claim about Mark 5:30, they must assume that all questions are asked solely for the purpose of obtaining information. However, common sense should tell us that questions often are asked for other reasons. Jesus did not ask this question to acquire information. Rather, He asked it so that the woman with the issue of blood would “step forward” and confess to having been healed. In so doing, her deep faith and the greatness of the miracle would be manifested to glorify God. It is outlandish to take this question and claim that Jesus did not know who touched Him. Are we to assume that God was ignorant of Adam’s whereabouts when he asked him, “Where are you?” (Genesis 3:9). In the beginning of God’s first speech to Job, God asked the patriarch, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” (38:4). Are we to believe that God did not know where Job was when He created the world? Certainly not! What father, having seen his son break a windowpane, has not asked him, “Who did that?” Obviously, the father did not ask the question to obtain information, but to see if the son would admit to something the father knew all along. On occasion, Jesus used questions for the same purpose. In no way is this some indication of His being less than divine.

Critics also jump to conclusions when they claim that the “ignorance of Jesus is very important, because without ignorance He could not sincerely pray in the Garden of Gethsemane that the cup of suffering pass from Him” (cf. Matthew 26:39). They fail to recognize that Jesus is not only 100% divine (John 1:1-5,14;10:30), but also was 100% human while upon the Earth (Philippians 2:7-8). Oftentimes we get the idea that the suffering Jesus endured was not all that painful because He was God—but Jesus also was a man. When praying in the garden, He knew that within a few short hours He would be mocked, spit upon, struck with the palms of hands, scourged, crowned with thorns, and nailed to a cross. However, this knowledge did not make his suffering any easier. Jesus could (and did) sincerely pray, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me.” This statement intimates no more than that Jesus was really and truly a man, and as a man He could not but be averse to pain and suffering. The law of self-preservation exists in the innocent nature of man, and no doubt existed in Christ. He did not desire a violent death at the hands of angry Jews, but He was willing to endure it to save mankind from the depths of hell. To lift such passages as Matthew 26:39 and Mark 5:30 from the Bible and claim that Jesus did not possess superior knowledge is a gross misuse of Scripture. Such allegations are false to the core, yet, sadly, they are typical of the kind of devices skeptics use to try and strip Jesus of His deity.

Why did God Want to Kill Moses? by Alden Bass

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1279

Why did God Want to Kill Moses?

by	Alden Bass

Moses was eighty years old. He had just stood in awe before the bush that burned but was not consumed, and had received instructions from the Angel of the Lord to appear before the Pharaoh of Egypt and command him in the name of the Great I Am to release the Hebrews from their bondage. After some deliberation and hesitation, Moses accepted the mission, and immediately began making preparations. He obtained permission from his father-in-law to return to Egypt with his family, then packed up his wife and two sons and headed south. It seems they had not gone far, perhaps only the first day’s journey, when a peculiar circumstance arose. As they made arrangements to sleep for the night, the Lord met Moses and sought to kill him (Exodus 4:24). In response to this turn of events, Moses’ wife Zipporah circumcised their uncircumcised son and threw the foreskin at his feet, screaming, “You are a husband of blood!” After this, the Lord “let him go” (4:26).

This story is particularly difficult to understand because of its brevity, and the unusual wording of verse 24: “The Lord sought to kill Moses.” Though the phrasing of the verse may elicit dark images of God slinking about the encampment, waiting to ambush Moses, the fact that God would kill someone is not unusual in other contexts. The wicked were slain by God in the Great Flood because of their violent and ungodly actions (Genesis 6:1-7). The Lord killed Er and Onan, two of Judah’s sons, because of their overt rebellion (Genesis 38:7,10). In Moses’ later years, God would legislate the death penalty for those guilty of disobeying certain laws (Leviticus 20). In these instances and many more, God “killed” a person or persons, albeit indirectly. In Exodus 4, we can be assured that Moses was afflicted because he was guilty of some sin, since disobedience is the only act God punishes with death.

The sin of Moses is not stated explicitly, but the surrounding events give substantial clues as to the nature of Moses’ transgression. God had instructed his messenger to warn Pharaoh to free Israel, or risk losing his firstborn son (Exodus 4:21-23). Moses had been specially groomed by God for eighty years for this mission, and now the time for action had come. Moses was to lead his people out of Egypt, and to be an example to Pharaoh’s house, to the nation of Egypt, and to all the nations that heard of those happenings (Exodus 18:10-11; Joshua 2:10-11). Accordingly, Moses’ personal life had to be in order before he could direct the spiritual lives of the Hebrew people. It seems that Moses had neglected to administer the sacred rite of circumcision, the act that symbolized the Almighty’s covenant with His chosen people. Perhaps this was the result of pressure from his surrogate Midianite tribe; more likely he was persuaded by Zipporah not to circumcise his son, since she apparently found the practice revolting (4:25). This would explain her violent outburst; she felt that she had saved her husband from death by shedding the blood of her son. Whatever the cause, Moses’ outstanding sin made him unfit to serve as a spiritual leader, and the situation had to be rectified before he could carry out his mission effectively. Indeed, as soon as Zipporah performed the act, the Lord “let him go.”

Though the details of this mysterious story are absent, the underlying message is plain. Disobedience, whether by acts of omission or commission, result only in punishment and ultimately death.

Why is Good Good? by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3601

Why is Good Good?

by	Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

In the Nuremburg Trials, the U.S. Chief Prosecutor of Nazi war criminals appealed to a law higher than “the provincial and transient” to ground his prosecution (The Trial of..., 1946, 19:383, July 26). Those of us at Apologetics Press have cited this case as an example of the need for human acknowledgment of universal morality in order to make objective judgments (e.g., Miller, 2008). And, if we appeal to a universal moral law, then this law must have as its source the universal Law Giver, the Creator (see Jackson, 1995). This is a brief way of stating the moral argument for the existence of God.

One objection to this moral argument has been summarized and adapted from a 2,400-year-old debate concerning the following question: “Why is good good?” In questioning the foolish young man Euthyphro, Plato’s Socrates tries to determine the definition of “pious” or “impious” (Plato, 1997, p. 4). Socrates offers two possibilities, but rejects them both: “Is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is being loved by the gods?” (p. 9). The dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro is extensive, but the general results are these: (1) Euthyphro cannot define “pious” as “that which is loved by the Greek gods,” for the gods are said to disagree with one another on occasion—a thing cannot be both pious and impious (see p. 4). And, (2) after numerous attempts, Euthyphro cannot say what quality the pious things have, if “pious” means something other than “loved by the gods” (pp. 11ff.).

The Euthyphro dialogue has been adapted by later philosophers in the debate concerning the very existence of God, and this adaptation has been codified in philosophical literature as the “Euthyphro Dilemma” (e.g., Benn, 1998, pp. 47ff.). For example:

There is the further question, which has often been debated, but was raised originally by Plato, in his dialogue, Euthyphro. Should we follow God’s laws just because they are His or rather, because His laws are good? If the latter, then we have to decide what is good in order to know that God is good. If the former, then one has to decide whether or not to believe in God precisely on the basis of whether we can accept those laws. Either way, we have to decide for ourselves what laws of morality we are willing to accept (Solomon, 2008, p. 460).

Perhaps a clearer way of phrasing the dilemma is this: Is good good because it is good, or because God says it is good? If good is good independent of God (and He merely identifies it), then God does not hold the high position which theists have ascribed to Him. On the other hand, if good is good because God says it is, then there is the possibility that God has commanded something that is actually wrong (we are being deceived) and He is merely arbitrary in His ethical requirements: He could just as easily say that lying is good as He could say it is bad. The dilemma is meant to show that objective morality does not exist, because morality is actually groundedexclusively in each moral agent’s subjectivity (and in whatever consensus develops between agents). Any explanation of morality that involves a divine standard is either contradictory or explains itself in terms of itself (i.e., it is circular). This position corresponds with an atheistic position, as it does away with the need for a divine Law Giver.

What response to the Euthyphro dilemma is available for the Christian apologist to use? Consider the following three principles:

1. There Is A Universal Moral Law. In his book, Mere Christianity (2001, pp. 1-8), C.S. Lewis argues for the existence of a universal moral law (and a corresponding Law Giver) in the following way (summarized by Geisler, 1999):

1. There must be a universal moral law, or else: (a) Moral disagreements would make no sense, as we all assume they do. (b) All moral criticisms would be meaningless (e.g., “The Nazis were wrong.”). (c) It is unnecessary to keep promises or treaties, as we all assume that it is. (d) We would not make excuses for breaking the moral law, as we all do. 2. But a universal moral law requires a universal Moral Law Giver, since the Source of it: (a) Gives moral commands (as lawgivers do). (b) Is interested in our behavior (as moral persons are). 3. Further, this universal Moral Law Giver must be absolutely good: (a) Otherwise all moral effort would be futile in the long run, since we could be sacrificing our lives for what is not ultimately right. (b) The source of all good must be absolutely good, since the standard of all good must be completely good. 4. Therefore, there must be an absolutely good Moral Law Giver (p. 500, parenthetical items in orig.).

The conclusion that a universal moral system exists causes us to cast suspicion upon any dilemma that purports to disprove the very possibility of such a system. The Euthyphro dilemma falls into this category. Furthermore, the Euthyphro dilemma proves inapplicable when applied to the God of the Bible.

2. The Euthyphro dilemma is a false one. For the purposes of answering current critics of Christianity, the Christian apologist need not evaluate the dilemma in terms of the Greek gods, but in terms of the one, true God (i.e., the God of the Bible). The Bible teaches that God certainly is good (e.g., Genesis 1:13; 59:20; Deuteronomy 6:24; Psalm 89:14; etc.). God’s essence is to exist as He is (Exodus 3:14). God cannot exist apart from all of His attributes, including goodness. If He existed and lacked any of His attributes, then He would not be the God to Whom we refer when we speak of the biblical God. Therefore, God is good, but not in virtue of a standard of goodness that exists separate from Him. As further evidence for this, consider that there are possible acts which God refuses to do because such acts do not accord with His moral nature. For example, God cannot lie (see Miller, 2009; Colley, 2004).

Because God is infinite, goodness is measured in relation to Him. Jesus illustrated this in His parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matthew 20:1-15). In the story, only the landowner (representing God) was in a position to determine what was “good” (20:15). Humans, as created beings, are not in a position to argue with God concerning His rightness or wrongness (see Job 29-31; 38-40). The Euthyphro dilemma presumes that we do exactly that, despite the fact that we are incapable of it (Jeremiah 10:23).

Therefore, there is no dilemma as alleged by some who appeal to Plato’s Euthyphro (see Warren and Flew, 1977, pp. 26-28,32). Yet, some maintain that God’s moral principles are unreasonable or that He is contradictory (see Butt, 2009b), and we must therefore reject the biblical God in favor of atheism or another notion of divinity. We now turn to this allegation.

3. While God’s moral principles do not owe their existence to human rationality, they nonetheless appeal to human rationality. Indeed, if it could be shown that God’s rules run counter to human rationality, then it would appear that His principles are deficient to ground human morality, and that we were not made in His image. However, there is not a single biblical principle of morality that can be, when interpreted properly, shown to be in conflict with the best interests of humanity.

The creationist model would anticipate such a perfect correlation between human needs and the provisions of biblical morality, inasmuch as God was motivated by His own character to create the human race in a way that is “very good” (Genesis 1:31), and placed requirements upon humanity that are suitable for the fulfillment of human needs. To demonstrate the truthfulness of this statement would require further studies (e.g. Butt, 2009a; Colley, 2010a; Colley, 2010b). Consider the words of the psalmist:

The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; the statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes; the fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, Yea than much fine gold; sweeter also than the honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them Your servant is warned, and in keeping them there is great reward (19:7-11; cf. 1 Timothy 1:8).

The suitability of God’s laws to man’s needs diffuses the motivation for the Euthyprho dilemma, as the facts about God diffuse the logic of the dilemma.

Therefore, our answer to the Euthyphro dilemma is as follows: Good is defined by God’s goodness, which is inseparable from His nature. His standard of goodness applies to all mankind by virtue of creation.

REFERENCES

Benn, Piers (1998), Ethics (Montreal, Quebec: McGill-Queen’s Press).

Butt, Kyle (2009a), “Biblical Ideas Concerning Killing and Murder are Not Contradictory,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240253.

Butt, Kyle (2009b), “Is God Immoral for Killing Innocent Children?,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240272.

Colley, Caleb (2004), “God Cannot Lie,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2561.

Colley, Caleb (2010a), “In Defense of the Golden Rule,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240331.

Colley, Caleb (2010b), “Defending the Biblical Position Against Lying,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240320.

Geisler, Norman L. (1999), Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Jackson, Wayne (1995), “The Case for the Existence of God [Part III],” [On-line], URL:http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=362.

Lewis, C. S. (2001), Mere Christianity (New York: HarperCollins), revised edition.

Miller, Dave (2008), “A Higher Law,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240092.

Miller, Dave (2009), “Things God Cannot Do,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2292.

Plato (1997), Euthyphro, trans. G.M.A. Grube, in Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett).

Solomon, Robert C. (2008), Introducing Philosophy (New York: Oxford University), ninth edition.

The Trial of German Major War Criminals (1946), 187th Day: Friday, 26th July, 1946, (Vol. 19, Part 1 of 12), (London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office), [On-line], URL:http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-19/tgmwc-19-187-01.shtml.

Warren, Thomas B. and Antony G.N. Flew (1977), The Warren-Flew Debate On the Existence of God (Moore, OK: National Christian Press).

What About the Discovery of Q? by Brad Bromling, D.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=598

What About the Discovery of Q?

by	Brad Bromling, D.Min.

Q

has been found! So claims Burton L. Mack, professor of New Testament at the School of Theology at Claremont, California. It has been postulated for years, but its discovery is now said to be official. No, a cache of ancient scrolls and artifacts has not been uncovered in Asia Minor. And no, a janitor has not found a previously unclassified manuscript upon a dusty shelf in the basement of a museum somewhere that scholars can now recognize as Q. So where was the document found?

Scholars have long supposed that, besides Mark, Matthew and Luke employed a common source when they composed their Gospels. The main clue to this was the fact that besides the material that they share in common with Mark, both Matthew and Luke contain additional material in common with each other that is not in Mark. This shared material amounts to over 200 verses. Luke’s comment that other reports concerning Jesus were circulating before he put his record down on paper has led some scholars to suspect that more than mechanical dictation or “inspired memory” was at work when the Gospels were written (Luke 1:1-4). The question then arose: What was this source that both writers used? Because the German word for source is quelle, it became scholarly shorthand to refer to this undiscovered source as “Q.”

The search for Q overlapped and sometimes came in conflict with what became known as the search for the historical Jesus. Many scholars came to the opinion that the New Testament tended to obscure the actual character and identity of Jesus. They reasoned that the well-meaning writers of the New Testament embellished the actual historical facts about Jesus. So they set out to find the authentic Jesus. One of these efforts was attempted by Adolph von Harnack (1851-1930), who extracted from the Gospel records all the “sayings” of Jesus. He thought that if we would read those sayings without their narrative settings, we would be able to form a more objective opinion of the historical Jesus.

Eighty years later, some scholars believe that Harnack was both very far from, and yet very close to, finding Q. Where he went wrong was in putting all the sayings on equal footing (whether they were actually said by Jesus or merely attributed to Him). He was close to Q, though, because it has now been decided (by some) that Q is a subset of the sayings that Harnack had isolated.

Q’s discovery, on the one hand, is somewhat anti-climatic, since (according to these scholars) we have been reading it all along, but just didn’t know it! On the other hand, it has created a maelstrom of controversy. Why all the furor? The reason is because scholars who have isolated Q suggest that reading Q alone leads us to a radically different picture of Jesus and the earliest movement He created. By analyzing Q as a document that arose out of a particular cultural, social, and political climate, we are given insights into the original community of people who followed Jesus. What does Q tell us about these people? Mack explains:

The remarkable thing about the people of Q is that they were not Christians. They did not think of Jesus as a messiah or the Christ. They did not take his teachings as an indictment of Judaism. They did not regard his death as a divine, tragic, or saving event. And they did not imagine that he had been raised from the dead to rule over a transformed world. Instead, they thought of him as a teacher whose teachings made it possible to live with verve in troubled times. Thus they did not gather to worship in his name, honor him as a god, or cultivate his memory through hymns, prayers, and rituals (1993, p. 4).

That is Mack’s story. Conservative scholars, however, are not so impressed.

While recent enthusiasm over Q is running at an all-time high, there are fundamental problems that must be addressed. First, merely distilling the gospel material that is common to Matthew and Luke (and absent in Mark) and printing it as a separate Gospel ignores the question as to whether the Q hypothesis is the best explanation for the commonality. The issue of literary dependence cannot be merely assumed, but must be proved. This has not been done (Linnemann, 1992, pp. 145-152). A more likely explanation for common material is that the Gospel writers were all discussing the same core of historical data surrounding the same central figure. Second, there is no manuscript evidence that Q existed or was in circulation as an independent document. Its existence is still mere conjecture. Third, even if the so-called Q material in Matthew and Luke were drawn from an independent source (and this stretches the imagination), there is no way to know how much of that source actually exists in the Gospels. So, all efforts to reconstruct the beliefs of an early community of Jesus’ followers based upon the Q material alone are lame. To say, as does Mack, that the “people of Q” knew nothing of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus begs the question. It assumes that the Q material isolated in Matthew and Luke was all there was to the original document. That is a claim that never can be substantiated without a Q manuscript.

The bottom line is this: Q has not been discovered.

REFERENCES

Linnemann, Eta (1992), Is There a Synoptic Problem? (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Mack, Burton L. (1993), The Lost Gospel—The Book of Q and Christian Origins (San Francisco, CA: Harper).

The Quran and Throwing Stars by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=8&article=299

The Quran and Throwing Stars

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

In order for a book to demonstrate a divine origin, it must possess the attributes that accompany such a claim. For example, it must refrain from making statements that are outlandish and indicative of an author who was a simply a product of his times, and who shared in the common superstitions, mythology, and misconceptions that afflict humans unaided by supernatural agency.

With this in mind, examine the the Quran of the Muslim religion. The Quran makes several statements regarding heavenly “lamps” and their relationship to “devils.”

And verily in the heaven We have set mansions of the stars, and We have beautified it for beholders. And We have guarded it from every outcast devil, save him who stealeth the hearing, and them doth a clear flame pursue (Surah 15:16-18, emp. added).

Lo! We have adorned the lowest heaven with an ornament, the planets; with security from every forward devil. They cannot listen to the Highest Chiefs for they are peltedfrom every side, outcast, and theirs is a perpetual torment; save him who snatcheth a fragment, and there pursueth him a piercing flame (Surah 37:6-10, emp. added).

And (the Jinn who had listened to the Quran said): We had sought the heaven but had found it filled with strong warders and meteors. And we used to sit on places (high) therein to listen. But he who listened now findeth a flame in wait for him (Surah 72:8-9, emp. added).

And verily We have beautified the world’s heaven with lamps, and We have made themmissiles for the devils, and for them We have prepared the doom of flame (Surah 67:5, emp. added).

The reader is given the distinct impression that Allah uses shooting stars, or meteors, as missiles to drive evil spirits or demons away from heaven (to prevent them from listening to heavenly conversations) and to torment them. Such language cannot be dismissed as merely figurative, poetic, or phenonmenal. Of course, Muslim apologists recognize the absurdity of the idea of physical objects being hurled at spiritual beings, so they offer an alternative explanation. They claim the verses in question refer to soothsayers and astrologers who seek signs from the stars, but who become frightened by meteorological phenomena (see Pickthall, n.d., pp. 408,417). We leave the reader to judge whether this interpretation accounts adequately for the wording of the quranic text.

REFERENCES

Pickthall, Mohammed M. (n.d.), The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (New York: Mentor).

"ACTS OF THE APOSTLES" Chapter Fourteen by Mark Copeland

                         "ACTS OF THE APOSTLES"

                            Chapter Fourteen

OBJECTIVES IN STUDYING THIS CHAPTER

1) To continue tracing the route of Paul and Barnabas on their
   missionary journey

2) To note the increasing persecution endured by the apostle Paul (cf.
   2Ti 3:10-11)

3) To give special attention to their appointment of elders in every
   church

SUMMARY

Luke continues his narration of events during Paul's first missionary
journey.  Upon arriving in Iconium, Paul and Barnabas again visited the
local synagogue.  Response to their message was positive among both Jews
and Greeks, but soon opposition again came from unbelieving Jews.  Even
so, Paul and Barnabas stayed "a long time" in Iconium, speaking boldly
and performing signs and wonders.  Eventually the opposition became
violent, forcing Paul and Barnabas to flee to Lystra and Derbe (1-6).

In Lystra, Paul healed a man crippled from birth (similar to Peter, cf.
3:1-10).  The people assumed that Paul and Barnabas must be gods, and so
named them Zeus (Barnabas) and Hermes (Paul).  When the priest of Zeus
prepared to offer sacrifices, the apostles tore their own clothes and
barely restrained them by an impassioned speech.  Not long after, Jews
from Antioch and Iconium persuaded the multitudes to stone Paul and drag
him outside the city.  Though assumed to be dead, Paul was able to
return to the city and departed the next day with Barnabas to Derbe
where they preached the gospel and made many disciples (7-21).

From Derbe, Paul and Barnabas retraced their steps, strengthened the
disciples in Lystra, Iconium and Antioch (Pisidia) and appointed elders
in every church with prayer and fasting.  Passing through Pisidia they
came to Pamphylia where they preached the gospel in Perga.  From there
they went down to Attalia and then sailed to Antioch (Syria) from which
they began their journey, where they reported to the church all that God
had done with them.  There they stayed for "a long time" (21-28).

OUTLINE

I. PREACHING IN ICONIUM, LYSTRA, DERBE (1-21)

   A. MINSTRY AND PERSECUTION IN ICONIUM (1-6)
      1. Speaking at the local synagogue leads many Jews and Gentiles to
         believe
      2. Unbelieving Jews stir up and poison the minds of the Gentiles
         against the brethren
      3. Paul and Barnabas stay a long time, speaking boldly and
         performing signs and wonders
      4. The city becomes divided, and an attempt is made by Gentiles
         and Jews along with their rulers to abuse and stone them
      5. Made aware of the planned violence, Paul and Barnabas flee to
         Lystra and Derbe

   B. MINISTRY AND PERSECUTION IN LYSTRA AND DERBE (7-21)
      1. Paul and Barnabas preach there and in the surrounding region
      2. In Lystra Paul heals a man crippled from birth
      3. The people proclaim Paul and Barnabas to be gods, the priest of
         Zeus sought to offer sacrifices to them
      4. Tearing their clothes, Barnabas and Paul proclaim themselves to
         be men who preach the one true living God and scarcely restrain
         the people from sacrificing to them
      5. Jews arrive from Antioch and Iconium and persuade the multitude
         to stone Paul
      6. Presumed dead, Paul is dragged outside the city where later as
         he is surrounded by disciples he revives and returns to the
         city
      7. The next day Paul and Barnabas depart to Derbe where they
         preach the gospel and make many disciples before beginning
         their return trip through Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch

II. CONFIRMING DISCIPLES AND APPOINTING ELDERS (22-23)

   A. STRENGTHENING THE DISCIPLES (22)
      1. Paul and Barnabas exhort them to continue in the faith
      2. They warn them:  "We must through many tribulations enter the
         kingdom of God."

   B. APPOINTING ELDERS IN EVERY CHURCH (23)
      1. Paul and Barnabas appoint elders in every church with prayer
         and fasting
      2. They commend them to the Lord in whom they believed

III. RETURN TO ANTIOCH OF SYRIA (24-28)

   A. THE JOURNEY HOME (24-26)
      1. Passing through Pisidia, they come to Pamphylia
      2. After preaching in Perga, they go down to Attalia
      3. From there they sail to Antioch of Syria, from which they had
         been commended to the grace of God for the work accomplished on
         their journey

   B. THEIR REPORT AND STAY AT ANTIOCH (27-28)
      1. Paul and Barnabas report to the church all that God had done
         with them, and how He opened a door of faith to the Gentiles
      2. They stay a long time in Antioch with the disciples

REVIEW QUESTIONS FOR THE CHAPTER

1) What are the main points of this chapter?
   - Preaching in Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe (1-21)
   - Confirming disciples and appointing elders (22-23)
   - Return to Antioch of Syria (24-28)

2) Upon their arrival in Iconium, what did Paul and Barnabas first do?
   (1)
   - They spoke at the Jewish synagogue, producing faith in many Jews
     and Greeks

3) What did the unbelieving Jews do in response? (2)
   - They stirred up and poisoned the minds of the Gentiles against them

4) What did Paul and Barnabas do?  Who was with them and how? (3)
   - Stayed a long time, speaking boldly in the Lord
   - The Lord, who bore witness to His word by granting signs and
     wonders to be done by the apostles' hands

5) As the city became divided, what attempt was made against Paul and
   Barnabas? (4-5)
   - To stone them

6) How did they respond to such a threat? (6-7)
   - By fleeing to the cities of Lystra and Derbe, and preaching the
     gospel there

7) What miracle did Paul perform in Lystra? (8-10)
   - He healed a man crippled from birth

8) How did the people react?  What names did they give to Paul and
   Barnabas? (11-12)
   - They thought that gods had come in the likeness of men
   - Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes

9) Who attempted to lead the city in offering sacrifices to them? (13)
   - The priest of Zeus, whose temple was in the front of the city

10) How did Barnabas and Paul restrain the crowd from offering the
    sacrifices? (14-18)
   - By tearing their clothes and crying out to the multitude
   - By professing themselves to be but men, and encouraging them to
     turn to the living God

11) How did the apostles describe the true God? (15-17)
   - As the Creator of all things who bore witness of Himself through
     His blessings to mankind

12) Who then came to the city and persuaded the people to stone Paul?
    (19)
   - Jews from Antioch (Pisidia) and Iconium

13) After Paul revived from his stoning, where did he and Barnabas go?
    (20)
   - First back to Lystra, and then on to Derbe

14) What happened in Derbe?  When they left, where did they go? (21)
   - They preached the gospel and made many disciples
   - They retraced their steps, going back through Lystra, Iconium, and
     Antioch

15) What did they do as they made their way through such cities? (22-23)
   - Strengthened the brethren, exhorting them to continue despite
     persecutions
   - Appointed elders in every church with prayer and fasting,
     commending them to God

16) Where they go after passing through Pisidia?  What did they do
    there? (24-25)
   - To Perga in Pamphylia, where they preached the gospel

17) From where did they then sail? (25-26)
   - Attalia

18) What is significant about Antioch of Syria? (26)
   - It was where they started and ended their missionary journey

19) What did Paul and Barnabas do upon their arrival? (27)
   - Gathered the church together and reported what God had done with
     them to open a door of faith among the Gentiles

20) How long did Paul and Barnabas remain in Antioch of Syria? (28)
   - A long time

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016