This paper was presented on May 3rd, 2013 at the 21st Theologoical Conference I attended in Atlanta, GA by fellow brother and friend - Dustin Smith. http://www.newyorkjetsclub.com I’ll advise everyone ahead of time, this is a LONG paper as the word count/reading time shown here indicates. But Dustin does a fine job in laying out the evidence in this discussion. I know I enjoyed it immensely and think this should serve as a very good reference material to be considered by all – no matter which side of the literal vs. non-literal Devil & Demons viewpoint you currently reside. And yes I said “currently reside” because I grew-up in the literal view, switched to non-literal for many years, and then came back to the literal side – because of evidence and logic. People can change when they have an open mind. Read this paper and see where you are led!
Read the rest...(10088 words, estimated 40:21 mins reading time)
Every year I teach a week-long intensive course on Apologetics at the Atlanta Bible College (apologetics is the field that provides reasons for the faith, cf. 1 Peter 3.15). Over the years, I have struggled and struggled to find decent textbooks to assign my students. I have tried several but they either have huge holes in their argumentation or else they only address one small aspect of the overall picture. In fact, I have gone so far as making my own makeshift textbook out of articles and excerpts. Well, I’ve finally found a book that truly fits the bill.
Read the rest...(345 words, 2 images, estimated 1:23 mins reading time)
Does God Exist?
William Lane Craig vs. Peter Millican
This debate on “Does God Exist?” took place in front of a capacity audience at the Great Hall in the University of Birmingham (in England). It was recorded in October of 2011 as part of the UK Reasonable Faith Tour with William Lane Craig. The debate was hosted by the University of Birmingham Student Philosophy Society and moderated by Professor Carl Chinn.
I recently watched this in preparation for my Apologetics class and really enjoyed it. William Craig was really at his best and Oxford Professor, Peter Millican, brought some interesting arguments against God as well. A video like this is surely a premium resource to share with our atheist and agnostic friends and relatives. The debate is a bit technical at times, but that is the nature of engagement on this level.
Alright, time to get back in the habit of posting new content here on KR! Â Sorry everyone for being absent from around here. I’ve got a ton of stuff from last month’s Theological Conference in Atlanta and this month’s One God Conference in Austin to share and publish here.
I’ll start today with a paper I just received the other day from Dr. John Roller on the importance of Conditional Immortality. Â I really enjoyed it and I hope you will too!
Below is a lecture that Stephen Meyer delivered on intelligent design called the Signature in the Cell. He addresses a room full of leading British political, cultural, and intellectual leaders, including several members of the House of Lords, university vice-chancellors, politicians, philosophers, and scientists. He argued that the origin of life problem is far from solved and that current evolutionary models fail to explain how it all began. He goes on to show how the information coded in cells indubitably points to an intelligent designer. (Thanks to Patrick for telling me about this.)
In this clip that has been edited by Jeff Campbell (a basic unitarian and fellow facebook friend to many of us here on the KR blog), he takes a segment of a debate featuring Sir Anthony Buzzard & Joseph Good vs. Dr. James White & Michael Brown and then does his own video commentary on Dr. White’s points.
Basically in the debate, Anthony was presenting the terrific argument he has brought up for years, that Psalm 110:1 shows two different lords. See the following links from Anthony for greater detail:
I was taking a break from most everything when I was out-of-town on vacation last week. This week I’m taking a break from getting into the second section of my paper/series to post something I ran across on the web awhile back. While I haven’t fully had a chance to dig real deep into this site’s content, what I have found I believe to be quite good.
Not only does it contain an immense wealth of content (which I invite everyone to check out for themselves), I find the guy who started it and writes it, to be very interesting. Here’s a little of his story (as he lists on his own “About” page):
Recently we had a discussion about the reliability of the New Testament. In past discussions also, the work of Bart Ehrman has been cited, especially his book, Misquoting Jesus. In a recent episode of the radio program, Unbelievable, Bart Ehrman himself has a discussion/debate with Bible scholar Peter Williams, who questions the validity of some of Ehrman’s points. You can listen to it HERE.
Ehrman’s book Misquoting Jesus has been on the best seller list and has been influencing the views of many people regarding the texts of the Bible, especially the New Testament. But while it gives a good introduction to the field of textual criticism in the first four chapters, his conclusions in subsequent chapters are at best overstated and misleading, according to those who have critiqued it. Peter Williams, who debated Ehrman on Unbelievable, also has a further analysis of the book, which you can listen to and read HERE.
I’ve always thought that atheism is disingenuous. How can you ever get to the point that you know without a doubt that there is no God? Agnosticism I get. Plain and simple you’re thinking you’re not totally sure there is or isn’t a God and mankind may never know for sure. An agnostic is at least honest enough to allow for himself to be wrong – however remote he/she may feel that might be. An atheist by definition has already ruled out any & all possibility. I think that is irrational.
On the subject of atheism being irrational, I found the following article interesting. Does the writer have a valid point? Without God can there be any real universal logic in only a materialistic existence?
Modern day Judaism – especially Counter Missionaries, like to dismiss that the “Suffering Servant” of Isaiah 53 perfectly fits Jesus of Nazareth. The typical response from them is that Isaiah 53 is about the nation of Israel and not the Messiah. Therefore Jesus doesn’t fit it because it is not even about him in the first place. But is that really proper exegesis? Does the text really point to Israel? Or does it more properly belong to the promised human Messiah?
Take a look at this article and see what you think. Seems to me the writer has some very valid points. Also check out the link a little over half-way through the article about how at one time Jewish Rabbis did indeed believe and write about how Isaiah 53 was actually about the future Messiah.
