AMA Statement on Abortion

"There we shall discover an enemy in the camp; there we shall witness as hideous a view of moral deformity as the evil spirit could present…. Men who seek not to save, but to destroy; men known not only to the profession, but to the public, as abortionists….

“Thou shalt not kill.” This commandment is given to all, and applies to all without exception…. Notwithstanding all this, we see in our midst a class of men, regardless of all principle, regardless of all honor; who daily destroy that fair fabric of God’s creation; who daily pull down what he has built up; who act in antagonism to that profession of which they claim to be members….

It matters not at what state of development his victim may have arrived—it matters not how small or how apparently insignificant it may be—it is a murder; a foul, unprovoked murder; and its blood, like the blood of Abel, will cry from earth to Heaven for vengeance….

Every practicing physician in the land (as well as every good man) has a certain amount of interest at stake in this matter…. The members of the profession should form themselves into a special police to watch, and to detect, and bring to justice these characters. They should shrink with horror from all intercourse with them, professionally or otherwise. These men should be marked as Cain was marked; they should be made the outcasts of society."

American Medical Association 1871 statement on abortion, as cited by Randy Alcorn in "Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments," p. 217

Evaluating Roman Catholic Claims Of Apostolic Succession

• The Catechism Of The Roman Catholic Church Says In Regard To Apostolic Succession:

          -“In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority. Indeed, the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.” (CCC # 77)

          -"The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered." (CCC # 882)

• Apostolic Succession As Defined By The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:

          -“…the Church is one moral body, possessing the mission entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Apostles, and transmitted through them and their lawful successors in an unbroken chain to the present representatives of Christ upon earth. This authoritative transmission of power in the Church constitutes Apostolic succession...Hence in tracing the mission of the Church back to the Apostles, no lacuna can be allowed, no new mission can arise; but the mission conferred by Christ must pass from generation to generation through an uninterrupted lawful succession.…Apostolic succession as an uninterrupted substitution of persons in the place of the Apostles…” (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, "Apostolicity")

• Biblical Arguments Against Roman Catholic Apostolic Succession:

          -There is very little evidence that the Apostle Peter stayed in Rome, apart from the timing of his martyrdom. No one can rightly claim to have the same authority as the apostles, since they are not eyewitnesses to Christ's resurrection (Acts 1:22; 1 Corinthians 9:1).
          -The New Testament never records the apostles passing on their authority to successors.
          -The original teachings of Jesus Christ, the apostles, and their closest associates have been accurately recorded and preserved in the New Testament. Scripture equips the man of God for every good work (2 Timothy 3:15-17). Truth can easily be determined when Scripture is properly exegeted.
          -The determining factor of the truthfulness and faithfulness of a church is its adherence to Scripture (Acts 17:11-12). The scribes and Pharisees claimed to have a physical, traceable lineage back to Abraham, yet Christ rejected them (John 8:36-45). We do not need a chain of apostolic successors from Christ and the original apostles to preserve divinely revealed truth (Matthew 3:7-9; Galatians 3:7). The scribes and Pharisees claimed to posses divine extra-biblical tradition, yet Christ publicly refuted them with Scripture (Matthew 15:1-9).
          -The only known historical record containing the inspired words of Jesus Christ and the apostles is the New Testament itself. That is the remnants of apostolic authority. The Encyclopedia Britannica affirms that, "the origins of episcopacy are obscure."

• Is Acts 1:15-26 An Example Of Apostolic Succession, As Roman Catholic Apologists Claim?: 

          -The context of this passage is talking *specifically* about the traitor Judas. Moreover, Acts 1:15-26 does not mention anything about the apostles having future successors. If this passage proves anything at all, then it does not provide us with an argument for apostolic succession. Rather, it provides biblical warrant for replacing ungodly and unfaithful church leaders with ones who are actually fit to serve God.
          -At this point, the apostles did not begin their apostolic ministry. They did not even receive the power Christ had promised to bestow upon them earlier in this chapter (Acts 1:8). The apostles did not receive it until the Day of Pentecost. Therefore, this is not an example of the apostles passing on spiritual authority to successors. The apostles did not have any power at this time.
          -This occasion was the actual replacement of an apostle with another apostle. This is dissimilar with the Roman Catholic teaching of apostolic succession, considering that they teach that only apostolic authority is passed on (not the essence of the office itself). Papal "successors" themselves do not become apostles like Matthias did.

• Does 2 Timothy 2:2 Provide Evidence For Apostolic Succession?:

          -The Apostle Paul exhorts Timothy to pass on the truth of the gospel to "faithful men," not "priests and bishops." This passage merely describes the simple process of discipleship and the passing on of apostolic doctrine (i.e. "what you heard from me"). In fact, this theme is echoed throughout the two epistles written to Timothy (1 Timothy 4:6-11; 16; 2 Timothy 1:13-14; 3:14-15). There is no mention in this context of passing on extra-biblical oral tradition or infallible teaching authority. Catholics simply read these concepts into Scripture. Note that Paul does not say anything in reference to a future successor for himself. Instead, he pointed to Scripture as our rule of faith (2 Timothy 3:16-17). He mentions nothing else for us to turn to in times of deception.

• Apostolic Succession And The Early Church: 

          -When references to apostolic succession appear in the earliest Christian writings, they bear little resemblance to the concept often associated with a process of doctrinal evolution over time. For early Christians, apostolic succession primarily served as a safeguard for preserving doctrinal truth rather than as a framework for the gradual unfolding or adaptation of teaching. Churches founded by the apostles during the first century upheld apostolic succession as a defense against heresies such as Gnosticism, ensuring continuity in the unchanging teachings handed down directly from the apostles. The emphasis was not on the development of doctrine but on its faithful preservation.
          -Some modern perspectives suggest that doctrinal continuity can be maintained through a process of organic development. However, the earliest expressions of apostolic succession emphasize the importance of preserving an unaltered deposit of faith. The early churches operated autonomously, fostering fellowship and collaboration when addressing disputes. This decentralized approach further underscores that doctrinal integrity was safeguarded by adherence to apostolic teaching rather than by evolving theological constructs or centralized authority.
          -The Jewish background of the earliest Christians provides further context. Concepts of succession, such as the priestly transition from Aaron to Eleazar, were familiar to them as mechanisms for preserving spiritual leadership. However, the early church placed its emphasis on the continuity of apostolic truth rather than on processes of change or adaptation. Creeds were crafted on the foundation of Scripture, and any new ideas were subjected to rigorous scrutiny to ensure fidelity to the truths originally delivered by the apostles. This method ensured that any theological developments adhered strictly to apostolic teaching, rather than reflecting an evolving understanding of doctrine.
          -Apostolic succession, as practiced in the early church, was a means of safeguarding apostolic truth in its original form, rather than accommodating an evolving theology. The preservation of doctrine was paramount, with a focus on maintaining the spiritual and doctrinal lineage established by the apostles. This view presents a marked contrast to interpretations that place value on the adaptation or development of doctrine over time, demonstrating that the priority of the early Christians was unwavering fidelity to the teachings handed down by the apostles.

• Contradictions In Early Succession Lists Of Roman Bishops:

          -The succession lists of Roman bishops from the late second and early third centuries are fraught with inconsistencies. This discrepancy arises because, according to many scholars, there was no clear succession of a single bishop until around A.D. 150. This lack of continuity led to conflicting accounts among later church fathers regarding the earliest bishops. For instance, Irenaeus, writing around A.D. 180, claimed that Peter and Paul appointed Linus as the first Roman bishop, followed by Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telephorus, Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, Soter, and Eleutherius (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.3). Contrarily, Tertullian, writing around A.D. 200, argued that Peter ordained Clement directly as the first Roman bishop, placing Clement at the beginning of the line instead of the third position as Irenaeus stated.

• The Papacy And Its Historical Development:

          -No historical evidence from the first or second centuries affirms that the Apostle Peter was appointed as the first bishop of the Roman Catholic Church. The earliest Christian writings, which form the foundation of the faith, are conspicuously silent on the necessity of believing in Peter’s primacy or the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church. This silence is critical, as it challenges the claim that these doctrines were essential elements of the faith established by Christ. Furthermore, in early apologetic debates, neither pagan critics nor heretics such as those confronted by Justin Martyr and Tertullian raised objections regarding the existence of a papacy. Such an omission is revealing, as it would have been a natural point of contention if the concept of a singular, supreme papal office had existed in the early church. Instead, what we find in the earliest writings is a consistent emphasis on congregations being governed collectively by a plurality of elders—a model reflective of shared leadership rather than centralized authority.

          -The absence of evidence for the papacy’s early existence is further underscored by the writings of the apostolic and post-apostolic fathers, who, while addressing various theological and ecclesiastical concerns, never refer to a central, supreme bishop in Rome. Clement of Rome, in his epistle to the Corinthians (circa A.D. 96), exhorts unity within the church but does so from a position of moral authority, not papal supremacy. The letter provides no indication that Clement perceived himself as the head of all Christendom or that the Roman church wielded jurisdiction over others. Similarly, Ignatius of Antioch, in his early second-century epistles, emphasizes the importance of bishops and unity within individual churches but makes no appeal to a singular bishop in Rome as the ultimate arbiter of faith or practice. If the papacy were a foundational component of early Christianity, one would reasonably expect explicit recognition of its authority in these seminal writings. Instead, these documents reflect a decentralized structure of church governance, undermining the claim that the papacy was divinely instituted from the beginning.

          -For the first three centuries of Christianity, the Roman church was indeed held in high regard among Christians, but its esteem arose not from a divinely mandated primacy but from its unique characteristics and circumstances. Rome was the capital of the empire, the "Eternal City," and this location alone conferred a degree of prestige. By the mid-third century, the Roman church had grown to an estimated 30,000 members, becoming the largest congregation in the West, despite periods of intense persecution by the Roman authorities. Its size and resources allowed it to become a focal point of charity and a bastion of theological orthodoxy. Apostolic tradition attributed its founding to both Peter and Paul, further enhancing its reputation by the second century. However, this recognition was based on custom and tradition, not on any explicit divine appointment. The absence of any early writings that confer primacy upon the Roman church underscores the argument that its prominence was circumstantial, not institutional or theological.
           -A major shift in the trajectory of ecclesiastical authority coincided with the political realignments of the Roman Empire. In the fourth century, Emperor Constantine relocated the imperial capital to Byzantium, later renamed Constantinople, or "New Rome." This momentous move shifted the empire's political focus to the East, naturally elevating the stature of the bishop of Constantinople. Over time, this bishop acquired a position of prominence akin to that of a religious head, further challenging the Roman church's claim to primacy. This transition was accompanied by a cultural divide: the Western church continued to use Latin, while the Eastern church adopted Greek as its primary language. The linguistic and cultural differences deepened after Constantine's death in A.D. 337, when his sons inherited a divided empire, further fragmenting the unity of the early church.
          -The assertion of the papacy's divine institution is profoundly challenged when viewed through the lens of historical progression. Rather than emerging as a clear mandate from Christ or a definitive apostolic teaching, the papal office developed gradually over centuries, shaped by political, cultural, and ecclesiastical shifts. The earliest Christian communities, spread across diverse regions, displayed remarkable autonomy in governance. They adapted their leadership structures according to local needs, with no indication of centralized authority vested in the bishop of Rome. Indeed, early writings such as those of Ignatius of Antioch emphasize the role of bishops in maintaining unity within individual congregations but are silent on the existence of a singular leader presiding over the universal church.
          -In A.D. 381, Emperor Theodosius convened an assembly that formally elevated the bishop of Constantinople to a position of supremacy, citing the city's status as "New Rome." This decree sparked immediate opposition from the Roman church. Bishop Damasus, in response, was the first to explicitly declare the supremacy of the Roman church. His arguments rested on passages such as Matthew 16:18, claiming that Christ instituted this authority—a line of reasoning that remains central to modern Roman Catholic apologetics. Yet, this appeal to Scripture remains unconvincing when weighed against the historical record, as no trace of such claims is found in the earliest centuries of Christianity.
          -By the time of Bishop Leo's appointment in 440, the Roman church had further entrenched its authority. Leo introduced the argument that the church's authority was grounded in the figure of the Roman bishop, whom he presented as Peter's successor. Leo interpreted the "keys of the kingdom" given to Peter by Christ as the foundation for papal power. However, this claim represents a misinterpretation of Scripture that deviates significantly from the teachings of the early and apostolic church. Crucially, such assertions arose over 400 years after Christ's ministry, underscoring the historically contingent nature of papal authority. Councils like Nicaea and Chalcedon, convened to resolve theological disputes, notably did so without reliance on papal authority. If the papacy were integral to the church's structure, it would undoubtedly have served as the primary mechanism for defining orthodoxy in such debates. Its absence from these critical moments highlights its later development as a historical innovation, not an apostolic foundation.
          -As historian Joseph F. Kelly noted in The Concise Dictionary of Early Christianity: “The word ‘pope’ was not used exclusively of the bishop of Rome until the ninth century, and it is likely that in the earliest Roman community a college of presbyters rather than a single bishop provided the leadership.” These historical developments strongly suggest that the rise of the papacy was not an apostolic institution but a later innovation shaped by political, cultural, and theological shifts.

• Forgeries And The Papacy:

          -The Donation of Constantine and Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals are prime examples of medieval forgeries crafted to enhance the papal authority. The Donation of Constantine, purportedly written by Emperor Constantine I, grants vast privileges and territories to the pope. It claims to transfer control over the Western Roman Empire to the Pope, which significantly bolstered the papacy's claims to temporal power. However, this document was later proven to be a fabrication, likely created in the 8th century, centuries after Constantine's death.

          -Similarly, the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, a collection of forged documents produced in the 9th century, were designed to support the independence and supremacy of the Church. These documents attributed various legal decisions and decrees to early popes, enhancing the papal authority against secular rulers and local bishops. By presenting these decrees as ancient and authoritative, the forgers aimed to create a historical precedent that strengthened the papal position in ecclesiastical and political matters.

          -The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia online says that the, "Substitution of false documents and tampering with genuine ones was quite a trade in the Middle Ages." Indeed, the creation and use of fraudulent documents was not uncommon during this period, as competing powers sought to legitimize their authority and claims through seemingly ancient and venerable sources. These forgeries had a lasting impact on the medieval church and its structure, influencing the balance of power between the papacy and other political entities. Although they were eventually exposed, their effects continued to resonate throughout the centuries, demonstrating the potent role of written documentation in shaping historical narratives and authority.

Is Jesus Christ Michael The Archangel?

• Defining The Issues: 

          -The Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus Christ and Michael the Archangel are the same person. They teach that Michael is Jesus in His preexisting form. Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that Christ was the first part of God's creation, prior to the formation of Adam. It is believed that Christ resumed His role as Michael the Archangel after His death and resurrection. Further, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the concept of a bodily resurrection, so they teach that He rose spiritually from the grave. This view carries with it a number of exegetical and theological problems. For instance, Jesus cannot simply be Michael the Archangel because the angels worshiped Him:

          "You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”?...And let all the angels of God worship Him...Your throne, O God, is forever and ever...You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Your hands... But to which of the angels has He ever said, “Sit at My right hand, Until I make Your enemies A footstool for Your feet”?" (Hebrews 1 paraphrased)

          Jesus Christ is exalted by God in a way never given to angels. His name is above that of the angels. Moreover, angels are never called the Son of God. Never has God said that He is their Father. Thus, the author of Hebrews clearly distinguishes Christ from the angels. 

          Consider the following passage from Revelation in which angels are said to worship Christ. He is given a form of adoration which no angel can justifiably claim for himself:

          "And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, “To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.” And the four living creatures kept saying, “Amen.” And the elders fell down and worshiped." (Revelation 5:13-14)

          Christ has a position of authority over creation that only God Himself can legitimately lay claim to. Thus, if He is a created being, then the angels who offered Him worship would have been condemned by God for acts of idolatry. The Bible forbids the worship of created beings (Deuteronomy 6:13), including angels. Jesus Christ is God Himself. 

          The Jehovah's Witnesses Kingdom Interlinear Translation renders Hebrews 1:3 as follows: "[Jesus] is the reflection of [God’s] glory and the exact representation of his very being." If Jesus Christ is Michael the Archangel as the Jehovah's Witnesses believe, then, according to the logic of the cited text, then that would mean the very essence or nature of God must be that of an angel. That would be sheer blasphemy because God would be placed on par with creation.

          If Jesus is Michael the Archangel, then why is it that he had to call upon the name of the Lord in order to cast judgment on the devil?:

          "But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you." (Jude 9)

           In contrast, Christ openly rebuked Satan without invoking any name of authority. He wields the same power and authority as God because that is who He is:

          "and he said to Him, “All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me.” Then Jesus said to him, “Go, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only." (Matthew 4:9-10)

Weird And Whacky Ideas Of Mormonism

• President Brigham Young's Unscientific Ideas Of Cosmology:

          -"So it is in regard to the inhabitants of the sun...Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 271)

• Blatant Racism From The Book Of Mormon Against Native American Indians:

          -"they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." (2 Nephi 5:21)

• Mormonism Glorifies The Disobedience Of Adam And Eve: 

          -"And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the Garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who oweth all things. Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy." (2 Nephi 2:22-25)

• The Book Of Mormon Records God Being Glorified In The Burning Of Innocent Women And Children:

          -"And when Amulek saw the pains of the women and children who were consuming in the fire, he also was pained; and he said unto Alma: How can we witness this awful scene? Therefore let us stretch forth our hands, and exercise the power of God which is in us, and save them from the flames. But Alma said unto him: The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand; for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory." (Alma 14:10-11)

• On The Americas As A Promised Land: 

          -"For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off." (Ether 2:10)

• Mormons Believe That The Garden Of Eden Is Located In The State Of Missouri: 

          -"The Garden Of Eden was in Missouri. Noah was taken to the old world by the flood. This teaching was given by Joseph Smith and is still accepted as true doctrine. Given this teaching, Mormons have to accept the flood as a global phenomena" (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, "Adam-Ondi-Ahman", p. 19-20)

• Remarks From Joseph Fielding Smith, The Tenth Mormon President, On Man Reaching The Moon: 

          -"We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it. The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen." (Honolulu Stake Conference 1961)

Constructing A Case For Paul's Apostleship

• Defining The Issues:

          -There is a theory that the Apostle Paul corrupted the original teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ as revealed in the New Testament. It is claimed that present-day Christianity has fallen victim to the allegedly apostate theology of Paul, namely regarding his teachings on Christians not being under the Mosaic Law and the deity of Christ. These kinds of arguments are usually circulated by members of the Hebrew Roots Movement and Black Hebrew Israelites. Muslims also make the claim that Paul was a false apostle. However, it is not difficult to pit two individuals against each other (i.e. Paul vs. Jesus) by taking their statements out of context. The Apostle Paul did not contradict the teachings of Christ, but elaborated on His teachings. He did this both in writing and in speech. The evidence in favor of Paul being a genuine apostle is so strong, that it is incredulous that anyone would even try to discredit his apostleship as being fraudulent.

• The Apostle Paul Satisfies Basic Historical Criterion Of Authenticity:

          -Paul's apostleship satisfies several historical criteria that strengthen its credibility. First, the principle of multiple attestation applies, as his ministry is documented not only in his own epistles but also in the Acts of the Apostles, offering independent yet consistent accounts. Second, the criterion of coherence supports his role as an apostle since his teachings align with the core message of the early Christian movement and the theology reflected in other New Testament writings. Additionally, the principle of early attestation is met, as Paul’s letters are some of the earliest Christian documents, written within decades of the events they describe, providing firsthand insight into his ministry. His close association with key figures such as Peter and James, combined with their endorsement of his mission (as seen in Galatians 2), further meets the criterion of external corroboration. Lastly, Paul's dramatic conversion, characterized by his shift from a persecutor of Christians to one of their most ardent advocates, exemplifies transformative testimony, which bolsters the authenticity of his apostleship. Together, these criteria create a compelling historical case for Paul’s legitimacy as an apostle.

• Examples Of Agreement Between Paul And The Gospel Writers:

          -Jesus Christ is a man (Philippians 2:6; 1 Timothy 3:16)

          -Christ is a descendant of King David (Romans 1:3-4; 2 Timothy 2:8)
          -The ordinance of the Lord's Supper (1 Corinthians 11:23-26)
          -Jesus Christ died to make atonement for our sins (Romans 4:25; 1 Timothy 2:5-6)
          -Jesus Christ died, was buried in a tomb, resurrected from the grave, and appeared to people (Romans 10:9-10; 1 Corinthians 15:1-6)
          -Christ testified before the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate (1 Timothy 6:13-16)
          -Jesus Christ was crucified (1 Corinthians 2:1-2; Galatians 3:1)
          -He ascended into heaven to be glorified (Philippians 2:6; 1 Timothy 3:16)

• Luke Records Eye-Witnesses Being Present During The Time Of Saul's Conversion:

          -"Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven shone around him. And falling to the ground, he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one." (Acts 9:3-7)

           *Without good reason to doubt this portion of Acts as being reliable historical material, observe that Jesus Christ commissioned Paul to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. Further, the men who had accompanied him were baffled at this encounter, which is not what we would expect of a forgery (i.e. they should have been supporting him in his conversion if details were made up).

• Both Paul And Barnabas Preached The Gospel To Jews: 

          -“Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses...As Paul and Barnabas were leaving the synagogue, the people invited them to speak further about these things on the next Sabbath. When the congregation was dismissed, many of the Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who talked with them and urged them to continue in the grace of God." (Acts 13:38-39, 42-43)

           *If Paul were a false apostle, then it is certain that Barnabas would not have accompanied him in preaching. In addition, the apostles and elders accepted Paul's teaching on circumcision during the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, showcasing unity among the early Christian leaders with him. 

• The Apostle Peter Believed Paul To Be A Beloved Brother Who Produced Inspired Scripture:

          -"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, 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." (2 Peter 3:15-16)

           *Even if we rejected Petrine authorship of this epistle, it would still be outside affirmation of the authenticity of Paul's apostleship. Other men in the early church who accepted Paul as a genuine apostle would be Clement of Rome and Polycarp. 

• The Apostle Paul Had Supernatural Abilities Like That Of The Other Apostles:

          -"The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works." (2 Corinthians 12:12)

           *Paul has credibility since he made reference to personal faults (2 Corinthians 12:7-9; 1 Timothy 1:12-16). He openly rebuked Peter for not living according to the gospel (Galatians 2:11-14), showing that he held firmly to principles he believed to be true.

On The Study Of Good Moral Conduct

"In matters of human prudence, we shall find the greatest advantage by making wise observations on our own conduct, and the conduct of others, and a survey of the events attending such conduct. Experience in this case is equal to a natural sagacity, or rather superior. A treasure of observations and experiences, collected by wise men, is of admirable service here. And perhaps there is nothing in the world of this kind equal to the sacred book of Proverbs, even it we look on it as a mere human writing."

Isaac Watts, Logic: The Right Use of Reason in the Inquiry After Truth, p. 236-237

Did Jesus Christ Literally Descend Into Hell?

• Discussion:

          -Certain Christians believe that the human soul of Jesus Christ suffered for three days in hell after His death by crucifixion. This viewpoint maintains that He needed to undergo this form of suffering to complete His work of atonement. However, that understanding of what happened with the soul of Jesus during this period is incorrect. For example, we should take into consideration the words that He spoke to the repentant thief on the cross:

          "Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon, for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last." (Luke 23:43-46, emphasis added)

          It is abundantly clear from Luke's narrative that Christ did not descend into hell. He went not into judgment after death, but paradise. His soul entered into the Father's presence during the three days that His physical body was buried in the tomb.

          Further, the notion that Jesus Christ needed to be punished in hell to somehow complete His atonement sacrifice is logically absurd. He Himself testified plainly to this when He said of His work, "It is finished" (John 19:30). Christ's suffering ended when He died.

          The New Testament uses different terms to refer to the state of the dead, including "paradise," "Abraham's bosom," "Gehenna," and "Hades." Christ's soul entered the blessed side of Sheol or Hades (the two terms are used synonymously). Christ was there for three days, until the moment of His bodily resurrection from the grave.

          The Apostles' Creed states that Jesus "descended into hell." Various explanations have been proposed as to the meaning of this, such as He went to hell after His death and resurrection to liberate the souls of the just, end the limbo of the patriarchs, transform purgatory into a pathway to heaven, and offering residents of hell a second chance at salvation. However, these proposals are questionable and unnecessary. The phrase can be understood as a symbolic representation of Jesus' total triumph over sin and death, rather than a series of additional actions. It means that through His death and resurrection, Jesus defeated evil once and for all.

Society Is Engrossed In Moral Perversion

"Centuries from now, people who do not suffer our current psychoses will read about professors who gave their students credit for dressing in drag (Muhlenberg College), or who advised students that arguments against sexual perversion would not be admissible in class (Marquette University), or who elevated the trivialities of mass entertainment to the states of great art (everywhere), and shake their heads with dismay, using them as examples of how people can study themselves into a degree of stupidity for which Nature alone would never suffice. We do not produce many great comedians in the present. We produce a lot of material for comedians in the future."

Anthony Esolen, Out of the Ashes: Rebuilding American Culture, p. 83

The Roman Catholic Church On The Second Commandment

• Defining The Issues:

          -Roman Catholic and Protestant churches have divided the numbering of the Ten Commandments differently. While non-Catholic churches have generally listed for the second commandment a prohibition against worshiping carved images, Rome has split the last commandment, which condemns coveting, into two separate, specific prohibitions against lusting after other people's spouses and material possessions. This is a cause for concern, considering that Roman Catholics do indeed rely heavily upon religious iconography in their worship. Due to the fact that the ancient Israelites constantly struggled with idolatry, one would think it wise to leave a clear condemnation of paying homage to man-made gods in the listing of the Ten Commandments.

• Was Icon Veneration Accepted Within First Century Christianity?

          -While it is true that the numbering of the Ten Commandments is peripheral in nature, it remains true that a statue-infested environment where "saints" are incessantly venerated is not a spiritually safe place to be. History bears witness to the fact that human beings have a natural desire to create for themselves images of deities they imagine and serve them. However, Judaism by the timing of the first century had purified itself of any such kind of worship. The earliest Christians, who came from that sort of background, would have been mortified had they known beforehand that masses who call themselves followers of Christ in future generations would prostrate themselves before images of "saints" or worship bread and wine as God Himself. They were all too familiar with Old Testament history, which records peoples of foreign nations worshiping their gods in exactly that way.

• The Iconoclastic Controversy:

          -In the early Christian church, there was consistent opposition to creating and venerating portraits of Christ and the saints. Despite this, the use of icons grew in popularity, particularly in the eastern regions of the Roman Empire. By the late 6th and early 7th centuries, icons became central to an officially promoted cult, often associated with superstitious beliefs about their animation. This practice faced strong opposition, especially in Asia Minor. In 726, Byzantine Emperor Leo III publicly opposed the worship of icons, and by 730, their use was officially banned. This led to severe persecution of icon supporters during the reign of Leo’s successor, Constantine V (741–775). However, in 787, Empress Irene convened the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea, which condemned Iconoclasm and reinstated the use of images. The Iconoclasts regained power in 814 after Leo V's accession, and icons were banned again at a council in 815. The second period of Iconoclasm ended with Emperor Theophilus's death in 842. In 843, his widow restored the veneration of icons, an event still celebrated in the Eastern Orthodox Church as the Feast of Orthodoxy.

• How Did The Apostles View The Commandment Against Coveting?:

          -"What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” (Romans 7:7)
          -"The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” (Romans 13:9)
             *Notice that the Apostle Paul, in his quoting of the commandment against coveting, does not split it in half (i.e. coveting a neighbor's wife and coveting a neighbor's goods). The Catholic rendering of the Ten Commandments here is redundant. It is suspicious because their devotion to statues so closely resembles the worship that pagans offer to their own gods.

• Roman Catholic Saintly Veneration In The Context Of Biblical Languages:

          -Interestingly, the Hebrew language does not provide a distinction in the word for worship, which is encapsulated by the term "avad." This implies that in the original Old Testament, the concepts later differentiated in Greek as "latria" and "dulia" would have been understood as a single form of worship or service, which is rightfully directed to God alone. In translating the Hebrew scriptures into Greek, the Septuagint renders "avad" variously as "dulia" and "latria." This lack of distinction in the original Hebrew text underlines that all forms of worship and veneration are to be directed exclusively to God. Therefore, the Roman Catholic practice of distinguishing between "latria," the worship due to God, and "dulia", the veneration of saints, can be seen as inconsistent with the Old Testament's original theological framework. In a religious context, our service and worship are owed solely to God, and this fundamental principle was uniformly understood in the Hebrew tradition.

Richard Carrier On The Fulfillment Of Messianic Prophecy

"Even before Christianity arose, some Jews expected one of their messiahs heralding the end times would actually be killed, rather than be immediately victorious, and this would mark the key point of a timeta­ble guaranteeing the end of the world soon thereafter...First, the Talmud provides us with a proof of concept at the very least (and actual confirmation at the very most). It explicitly says the suffer­ing servant who dies in Isaiah 53 is the messiah (and that this messiah will endure great suffering before his death) [b. Sanhedrin 98b and 93b]. The Talmud likewise has a dying-and-rising 'Christ son of Joseph' ideology in it, even saying (quoting Zech. 12.10) that this messiah will be 'pierced' to death [b. Sukkah 52a-b].

There is no plausible way later Jews would invent interpretations of their scripture that supported and vindicated Christians. They would not invent a Christ with a father named Joseph who dies and is resurrected (as the Talmud does indeed describe). They would not proclaim Isaiah 53 to be about this messiah and admit that Isaiah had there predicted this messiah would die and be resurrected. That was the very biblical passage Christians were using to prove their case. Moreover, the presentation of this ideology in the Talmud makes no mention of Christianity and gives no evidence of being any kind of polemic or response to it. So we have evidence here of a Jewish belief that possibly predates Christian evangelizing, even if that evidence survives only in later sources.

The alternative is to assume a rather unbelievable coincidence: that Christians and Jews, completely independently of each other, just happened at some point to see Isaiah 53 as messianic and from that same passage preach an ideology of a messiah with a father named Joseph (literally or symbolically), who endures great suffering, dies and is resurrected (all in accord with the savior depicted in Isaiah 53, as by then understood). Such an amazing coincidence is simply improbable.

But the Talmud and the Apocalypse of Zerubbabel are not our only evidence of a pre-Christian dying-messiah theme. The book of Daniel (written well before the rise of Christianity) explicitly says a messiah will die shortly before the end of the world (Dan. 9.2; 9.24-27; cf. 12.1-13). This is already conclusive. Given my definition of 'messiah' (in §3), Christianity looks exactly like an adaptation of the same eschatological dying-messiah motif in Daniel.

Isaiah 53 was already under­stood to contain an atonement-martyrdom framework applicable to dying heroes generally...But of the more specific notion of a dying messiah, we also have other pre-Christian evidence in the form of a Dead Sea Scroll designated 11Q13, the Melchizedek Scroll...There are many such pesherim at Qumran. But this one tells us about the 'messenger' of Isaiah 52-53 who is linked in Isaiah with a 'servant' who will die to atone for everyone's sins (presaging God's final victory), which (as we have already seen) later Jews definitely regarded as the messiah. At Qumran, 11Q13 appears to say that this messenger is the same man as the 'messiah' of Daniel 9, who dies around the same time an end to sin is said to be accomplished (again presaging God's final victory), and that the day on which this happens will be a great and final Day of Atonement, absolving the sins of all the elect, after which (11Q13 goes on to say) God and his savior will overthrow all demonic forces. And all this will proceed according to the timetable in Daniel9.Thus, 11Q13 appears to predict that a messiah will die and that this will mark the final days before which God's agent(s) will defeat Belial (Satan) and atone for the sins of the elect.

Regardless of how one chooses to understand the text of 11Q13, we still have Dan. 9.24-27, which is already unmistakably clear in predicting that a messiah will die shortly before the end of the world, when all sins will be forgiven; and Isaiah 53 is unmistakably clear in declaring that all sins will be forgiven by the death of God's servant, whom the Talmud identi­fies as the messiah. So there is no reasonable basis for denying that some pre-Christian Jews would have expected at least one dying messiah, and some could well have expected his death to be an essential atoning death, just as the Christians believed of Jesus Even apart from 11Q13 there is evidence the Dead Sea community may have already been thinking this, since one of their manuscripts of Isaiah explicitly says the suffering servant figure in Isaiah 53 shall be 'anointed' by God and then 'pierced through for our transgressions'. For this and the following points see the discussion of the pre-Christian interpretation of Isaiah 53 in Martin Hengel, 'The Effective History of Isaiah 53 in the Pre-Christian Period', in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources (ed. Bernd Janowski and Peter Stuhlmacher; Grand Rapids, Ml: William B. Eerdmans, 2004), pp. 75-146.

The Christian gospel is thus already right there in Daniel, the more so if Daniel 9 had been linked with Isaiah 52-53, which is exactly what 11QI3 appears to do. But even without such a connection being made, the notion that a Christ was expected to die to presage the end of the world is already clearly intended in Daniel, even by its origi­nal authors' intent, and would have been understood in the same way by subsequent readers of Daniel. The notion of a dying messiah was therefore already mainstream, well before Christianity arose.

The suffering-and-dying servant of Isaiah 52-53 and the mes­siah of Daniel 9 (which, per the previous element, may already have been seen by some Jews as the same person) have numerous logical connections with a man in Zechariah 3 and 6 named 'Jesus Rising' who is confronted by Satan in God's abode in heaven and there crowned king, given all of God's authority, holds the office of high priest, and will build up 'God's house' (which is how Christians described their church)

In the Septuagint text, Zechariah is commanded in a vision to place the crown of kingship upon 'Jesus' (Zech. 6.11) and to say immediately upon doing so that 'Jehovah declares' that this Jesus is 'the man named ''Rising" and he shall rise up from his place below and he shall build the House of the Lord'. The key noun is anatole, which is often translated 'East' because it refers to where the sun rises (hence 'East'), but such a translation obscures the fact that the actual word used is the noun 'rising' or 'rise' (as in 'sunrise'), which was not always used in reference to a compass point, and whose real connotations are more obvious when translated literally. In fact by immediately using the cognate verb 'to rise up' (anatelei, and that explicitly 'from his place below') it's clear the Septuagint translator under­ stood the word to mean 'rise' (and Philo echoes the same pun in his interpretation...

If this 'Jesus Rising' were connected to the dying servant who atones for all sins in Isaiah (and perhaps also with Daniel or 11Q13), it would be easy to read out of this almost the entire core Christian gospel. Connecting the two figures in just that way would be natural to do: this same 'Jesus' who is named 'Rising' (or, in both places, 'Branch' in the extant Hebrew, as in 'Davidic heir', or so both contexts imply) appears earlier in Zechariah 3, where 'Jesus' is also implied to be the one called 'Rising' (in 3.8). Both are also called 'Jesus the high priest' throughout Zechariah 3 and 6, hence clearly the same person. And there he is also called God's 'servant'. And it is said that through him (in some unspecified way) all sin in the world will be cleansed 'in a single day' (Zech. 3.9). Both concepts converge with Isaiah 52-53, which is also about God's 'servant', whose death cleanses the world's sins (Isa. 52.13 and 53.11), which of course would thus happen in a single day (as alluded in Isa. 52.6). And as we saw earlier, Jews may have been linking this dying 'servant' to the dying 'Christ' killed in Daniel 9 (in 11Q13), whose death is also said to correspond closely with a conclusive 'end of sin' in the world (Dan. 9.24-26), and both figures (in Daniel and 11Q13) were linked to an expected 'atonement in a single day'...These dots are so easily connected, and with such convincing force...here I am concerned only with the existence of the scriptural coincidences.

As I mentioned, an 'exoteric' reading of Zechariah 3 and 6 would con­clude the author originally meant the first high priest of the second temple, Jesus ben Jehozadak (Zech. 6.11; cf. Hag. 1.1), who somehow came into an audience with God, in a coronation ceremony (one would presume in heaven, as it is in audience with God and his angels and attended by Satan) granting him supreme supernatural power over the universe (Zech. 3.7)...As it happens, the name Jehozadak means in Hebrew 'Jehovah the Righteous', so one could also read this as 'Jesus, the son of Jehovah the Righteous', and thereby conclude this is really 'Jesus, the son of God'. This is notable considering the evidence we have of a preexistent son of God named Jesus in pre-Christian Jewish theology...And all from connecting just three passages in the OT that already have distinctive overlapping similarities.

The pre-Christian book of Daniel was a key messianic text, laying out what would happen and when, partly inspiring much of the very messianic fervor of the age, which by the most obvious (but not originally intended) interpretation predicted the messiah's arrival in the early first century, even (by some calculations) the very year of 30 CE...By various calculations this could be shown to predict, by the very Word of God, that the messiah would come sometime in the early first century CE. Several examples of these calculations survive in early Christian literature, the clearest appearing in Julius Africanus in the third century.47 Julius Africanus, in his lost History of the World, which excerpt survives in the collection of George Syncellus, Excerpts of Chronography 18.2.

The date there calculated is precisely 30 CE; hence it was expected on this calculation (which was simple and straightforward enough that anyone could easily have come up with the same result well before the rise of Christianity) that a messiah would arise and be killed in that year (as we saw Daniel had 'predicted' in 9.26..."

Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus (Sheffield 2014), chapter 4, originally cited by Steve Hays