Certainty And Knowledge In A Postmodern World

“If true human knowing depends on perfect, exhaustive knowing, we are consigned forever to ignorance because, whether in this life or the life to come, we will never be omniscient. . . . But that immediately suggests that the standard is too high. If you expose the relativity of human knowledge by appealing to a standard of omniscience, it’s an artificial standard. In fact, the first question I want to ask my postmodernist friends is, ‘How do you know that postmodern relativism is true?'”

Don Carson, "Can We Be Sure of Our Interpretation?," The Gospel Coalition, 12/28/18

Is Paul's Letter To The Laodiceans A Lost Book?

        "When this letter is read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and you, for your part read my letter that is coming from Laodicea." (Colossians 4:16)

        Liberal critics of the New Testament sometimes make reference to this text from Colossians in their attempts to prove that books of the Bible have been lost. If the canon of Scripture is incomplete, then what happens to the doctrine of inerrancy? What can be said regarding the Apostle Paul's epistle to the Laodiceans? Skeptics have brought up a letter which bears that name.

        This nineteen-verse letter is essentially a collection of short excerpts from the canonical Pauline writings. It does not contain any new teachings. It does not contain any new commandments from God. It does not contradict anything found in the New Testament. It does not negatively impact Scripture. The writing style is by no means exceptional. In short, this letter is completely harmless. It does not alter the message of God.

        Most scholars believe that this Letter to the Laodiceans was originally written in Latin during the fourth century. It is generally regarded as a forgery. The textual basis for it is poor. No existing Greek copies of the New Testament contain it. The church father Jerome made mention of this letter and considered it to be a counterfeit document. It was never widely thought of as inspired Scripture. As to why this letter was written, all that we can really do is speculate. 

        It does not qualify as a lost book of the Bible. But what about the circulated letter that Paul spoke of in Colossians 4:16? Some have identified it to be either Ephesians or Philemon, which is a reasonable solution. Whatever the case, we can rest assured that God has given to us everything He intended us to have. Even if we do not have Paul's circulated letter, it does not follow that there are books missing from the canon of Scripture. The doctrine of inerrancy does not require us to have in our possession every written text by an apostle or prophet.

Catholic Apologists And The Greek Word Trogo (“Eat My Flesh” John 6)

"Catholic Apologists and the Greek Word Trogo (“Eat my flesh” John 6)“Catholic Answers” says the following about the Greek word trogo :”The Greek word used for “eats” trogon is very blunt and has the sense of “chewing” or “gnawing. This is not language of metaphor. Bob Sungenis says “There is simply no logical reason to switch form the more generic phago (eat) to the more praphic trogo (chew). Apparently, Rome's apologists believe the word “chew” cannot be the language of metaphor because it is simply too graphic or vivid to be anything other than the literal truth. Not so the more mundane “eat,” which as Sugnenis points out, can be used metaphorically. Keating himself simply asserts—without proof—that such is “not the language of metaphor.” But why not? Is there something intrinsically literal about the word “chew” in English or in Greek? If you think it through, virtually any word in any language can be used metaphorically no matter how graphic or vivid it may be. In fact, the more vivid and evocative the word, the more it lends itself to being used as a metaphor. Apparently they don’t know well what a metaphor is. Metaphor: “A picture is a thousand words”. In a metaphor real objects or physical events represent something else. A metaphor is a colorful expression used for literary effect which may be a word or phrase that departs from literal language. The purpose of metaphors is: add color and vividness, attract attention and make abstract or intellectual ideas more concrete. All things being equal, one could just as easily make the case that Jesus chose the more vivid “chew” precisely because it was more conducive to metaphor. “Chew” may simply be a more graphic metaphor than “eat.” Some say contextual rather than non-contextual usage is the primary criterion for determining whether or not trogo is metaphorical in John 6."

Original source of citation unknown

Is Wisdom 2:12-20 A Messianic Prophecy?

• Discussion:

           -Roman Catholic apologists, in their zeal to defend the veracity of the Apocrypha, will sometimes make the following claim in regards to the Book of Wisdom:

           "Wisdom 2:12-20 is one of the clearest passages that point to a person who would call himself Son of God, who would be put to death by jealous people."

           Then, the author of the quoted excerpt goes on to parallel that text from the Book of Wisdom with various passages from the four gospels. This was done in an effort to prove that the seven additional books that the Roman Catholic Church has included in its version of the Old Testament canon are of divine origin. What has been claimed about Wisdom 2:12-20 by some seems to be reasonable on a superficial level, but the text falls far short of being a messianic prophecy when it is examined in context. A key part of this passage is cited as follows:

           "For if the upright man is a son of God, he will help him, and save him from the hands of his adversaries." (Wisdom 2:18, The Apocrypha: An American Translation, by Edgar J. Goodspeed)

           The context was originally about the wicked, the persecution of the righteous, and the vindication of God’s people. This pious literature is similar to the Book of Proverbs. Christ in an ultimate sense fulfills the themes of Wisdom 2:12-20. He is the ultimate righteous man who suffers and is vindicated. He did that on our behalf on the Cross. He rose bodily from the grave.

          However, Wisdom 2:12-20 was not written originally as a prophecy. The same themes can apply to anyone else who faithfully serves God. This is distinguished from a passage such as Isaiah 53 in that it points out a Servant who suffers on behalf of His people. Wisdom 2 is talking about a righteous man, not Christ Himself. To take similarities and claim prophecy in this case is pure eisegesis.

          Even granting the premise that Wisdom 2:12-20 speaks of the coming Jewish Messiah, that does not require us to accept it as inspired or canonical. The statements could easily have been gleaned from the canonical books of the Old Testament. In fact, the Roman Catholic New American Bible Revised Edition has this footnote on this passage:

          "[2:12–5:23] From 2:12 to 5:23 the author draws heavily on Is 52–62, setting forth his teaching in a series of characters or types taken from Isaiah and embellished with additional details from other texts."

           There were many pieces of Jewish literature at this point in history that spoke of the coming Messiah in light of the Old Testament. Roman Catholics would reject many of those as canonical. Consider, for example, the book of 1 Enoch. This work was even cited as Scripture by some of the early church fathers, yet Roman Catholics do not accept it as canonical Scripture.

            The author of Wisdom was obviously well-acquainted with the Old Testament, but that factor does not in and of itself prove the book to be inspired. The authors of the New Testament never treated Wisdom 2:12-20 as if it were a messianic prophecy, which would be ironic. Bruce M. Metzger writes,

            "Whether the author here has in mind some contemporary Jewish martyrdom known to him, or whether he drew upon the stories in the Books of Maccabees for a generalized description of suffering for the Jewish faith, cannot be determined. He may also have been influenced by Glaucon's description in Plato's Republic of the binding, scourging, and crucifixion of the perfectly just man who is esteemed to be unjust. In both cases the parallel to Christ is more apparent than real."  (Introduction to the Apocrypha, p. 76)

Toxic Masculinity?

"We take a young man and kick his father out of his life, send him to school where he has mostly women teachers, barrage him with negative messages about masculinity, then turn him loose at college where we treat him like a guilty-until-proven-innocent rapist, and after all that, we blame "masculinity" when he goes off the rails despite the fact that he spent a lifetime bathed in femininity. Unsurprisingly, the more women try to change masculinity, the more negative and toxic it actually becomes."

John Hawkins, “The More Young Men Are Bathed in Femininity, the More 'Toxic Masculinity' You Will See”

If We Truly Love God, Then We Will Also Love Our Neighbors As Ourselves

          "If anyone says, 'I love God', but hates his brother, he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. This is the commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother." (1 John 4:20-21)

 

          We cannot claim to love God while possessing contempt and ill will in our hearts for other people. It is not possible for us to obey Him while holding animosity toward other people. We have even been admonished by the Apostle Paul to not let the sun set on our anger. Remaining in such a spiritual condition can have ominous consequences (Ephesians 4:26). Jesus Christ Himself associated hatred with murder (Matthew 5:22-26).

          Hatred is incompatible with the self-sacrificial love demonstrated by Jesus Christ in making atonement for our sins. It is out of touch with Christian charity in entirety. Thus, people who claim to be serving God faithfully who at the same time are constantly holding resentment for or bearing ill will for others in their hearts are liars. They are not acting according to God's revealed will for us. They are not acting consistently with their profession of faith.

          Love of God and love of neighbor fulfills the Law. Love of God and love of neighbor is the foundation for morality. We cannot grow in our relationship with Him if we do not love our neighbors. We are called to hate that which is evil. If we do not love other people as we love ourselves (that is the natural disposition of man in regard to himself), then we do not really understand what love is. If we do not love others, then we cannot have fellowship with God because He is love. Hatred is destructive to who we are as people.

Romans 10:9 Proves Jesus Is God Almighty

          "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." (Romans 10:9-10)

          The Greek term kurious (in English, it means "lord") does not always refer to deity. It is used in reference to God, but can certainly be used as a formal way in addressing a person. In the case of Romans 10:9-10, it can be argued that the Apostle Paul calls Jesus Christ God.

          The reference to confession found in verse nine alludes to Deuteronomy 30:14. Confession with the mouth signifies openly acknowledging our allegiance to Jesus Christ. He is our Lord and our Savior. The fullness of our being rightfully belongs to Him. Christ is the second Person of the Triune God. The outward expression "Jesus is Lord" is a parallel to the Jewish Shema prayer (Deuteronomy 6:4). The New American Bible has this excerpt on Romans 10:9-11:

          "To confess Jesus as Lord was frequently quite hazardous in the first century (cf. Mt 10:18; 1 Thes 2:2; 1 Pt 2:18–21; 3:14). For a Jew it could mean disruption of normal familial and other social relationships, including great economic sacrifice. In the face of penalties imposed by the secular world, Christians are assured that no one who believes in Jesus will be put to shame (Rom 10:11)."

          Christians who resided in Rome were at higher risk of persecution because citizens were expected to confess Caesar as Lord. The divinity of Jesus Christ was a direct challenge to the lordship of the Roman emperor. So, understanding the historical context in which Paul was writing sheds more light on how Romans 10:9 points to Jesus being God.

          In Romans 10:6-10, Paul quotes Deuteronomy 30:11-14. Providing some background on this passage from the Old Testament makes plain the apostle's rationale for using it. In listing off to the Israelites the conditions which God required of them upon inheriting land, Moses stated his message was simple to grasp. His audience, therefore, would be without excuse. God's commandments were in their hearts and in their mouths. The blessings of the covenant were inseparable from, but not based on, the faithfulness of the Jews to God.

          In Romans, the Apostle Paul utilizes terminology from Deuteronomy and expounds in a New Testament context. He points us to Christ, who took on human flesh and rose bodily from the grave. These events have been fulfilled. In the Old Testament, people experienced Christ and His Gospel through faith. They longed for the coming Redeemer. Paul speaks of the righteousness that comes by faith (Romans 10:6). It is with the heart that one believes and is justified (Romans 10:9-10). Man proclaims Christ with his mouth.

          Romans 10:13 is a quotation of Joel 2:32. Paul believed Jesus to be his Lord in the same sense as God the Father was his Lord. Christ is called Yahweh in verse nine. This is undoubtedly a problem for groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses. In their New World Translation, the word "Lord" ("kurios" in Greek) is oftentimes rendered as Jehovah. However, that term was not used by biblical writers (nor has any support from known Greek manuscripts). Moreover, the Greek term is not translated as Jehovah in texts such as Romans 10:9-10, 1 Corinthians 12:3, Philippians 2:11, 1 Peter 3:15, and Revelation 22:21.

That point highlights inconsistency in the New World Translation. The Watchtower Society's emphasis on "Jehovah" as the divine name is misguided. If the Greek word kurios was translated in a consistent fashion, then Jesus Christ would also be called Jehovah.

          Why does Paul say that God raised Christ from the dead? Jesus is God incarnate. He took on human flesh. He is both fully human and fully divine. He exercised both human and divine attributes throughout His earthly ministry. Christ was crucified for our transgressions. His divine essence is not what passed away. Rather, a divine Person in His human flesh died. He did not set aside His divinity by taking on human flesh. The Father raised Christ from the grave (Acts 2:32; Galatians 1:1). The Son raised Himself from the grave (John 2:19; 10:17-18). The Holy Spirit raised Him from the grave (Romans 8:11). All three persons of the Trinity brought about the resurrection.

Is The Multiverse Theory Reasonable?

"A true scientific explanation, says Davies, is like a single well-aimed bullet. The idea of a multiverse replaces the rationally minded ordered real world with an infinitely complex charade and makes the whole idea of "explanation" meaningless. Swinburne is just as strong in his disdain for the multiverse explanation: "It is crazy to postulate a trillion (causally unconnected) universes to explain the features of one universe, when postulating one entity (God) will do the job."

Antony Flew, There Is a God, pg. 119

Evidence For Intelligent Design Found Throughout Nature

"The important point is not merely that there are regularities in nature, but that these regularities are mathematically precise, universal, and "tied together." Einstein spoke of them as "reason incarnate."... This is certainly the question that scientists from Newton to Einstein have asked-and answered. Their answer was the Mind of God." (p. 96)

"...the laws of nature seem to be crafted so as to move the universe toward the emergence and sustenance of life." (p. 114)

"How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self-reproduction capabilities, and coded chemistry?" (p.124)

"Over the centuries, thinkers who have considered the concept of "nothing" have been careful to emphasize that "nothing" is not a kind of "something." Absolute nothingness means no laws, no vacuums, no structures, no physical or mental entities of any kind-and no "symmetries." It has no properties or potentialities. Absolute nothingness cannot produce something given endless time-in fact, there can be no time in absolute nothingness." (p. 170)

Antony Flew, There Is a God

Suggesting That Life Arose By Blind Chance Is Absurd

"Schroeder first referred to an experiment conducted by the British National Council of Arts. A computer was placed in a cage with six monkeys. After one month of hammering away at it (as well as using it as a bathroom!), the monkeys produced fifty typed pages-but not a single word. Schroeder noted that this was the case even though the smallest word in the English language is one letter (a or I). A is a word only if there is a space on either side of it. If we take it that the keyboard has thirty characters (the twenty-six letters and other symbols), then the likelihood of getting a one-lettered word is 30 times 30 times 30, which is 27,000. The likelihood of a getting a one-letter word is one chance out of 27,000.

Schroeder then applied the probabilities to the sonnet analogy. "What's the chance of getting a Shakespearean sonnet?" he asked. He continued:

All the sonnets are the same length. They're by definition fourteen lines long. I picked the one I knew the opening line for, "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" I counted the number of letters; there are 488 letters in the sonnet. What's the likelihood of hammering away and getting 488 letters in exact sequence as in "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? What you end up with is 26 multiplied by itself 488 times - or 26 to the 488th power. Or, in other words, in base 10, 10 to the 690th.

Now the number of particles in the universe - not grains of sand, I'm talking about protons, electrons, and neutrons - is 10 to the 80th . Ten to the 80th is 1 with 80 zeros after it. Ten to 690th is 1 with 690 zeros after it. There are not enough particles in the universe to write down the trials; you'd be off by a factor of 10 to the 690th.

If you took the entire universe and converted it to computer chips - forget the monkeys - each one weighing a millionth of a gram and had each computer chip able to spin out 288 trials at, say, a million times a second; if you turn the entire universe into these microcomputer chips and these chips were spinning a million times a second (producing) random letters, the number of trials you would get since the beginning of time would be 10 to the 90th trials. It would be off again by a factor of 10 to the 600th. You will never get a sonnet by chance. The universe would have to be 10 to the 600th time larger. Yet the world just thinks monkeys can do it every time."

Antony Flew, There Is a God, pg. 76-77