Muslim’s favorite conservative scholar proves them wrong

 Richard Bauchkam calls Mark 10:17-18 “a wonderful double entendre” and shows Jesus is actually claiming to be God!  (see below for exact place in a radio interview.)

A double entendre (literally: double meaning) is a figure of speech in which a spoken phrase is devised to be understood in either of two ways. Often the first (more surface) meaning is straightforward and direct speech, while the second meaning is indirect and "underneath the surface" and usually the real intention behind the bare words.  

Oriental cultures, Middle Easterners, especially Iranians, use this kind of language and technique all the time in their poetry and their culture of “saving face” and “honor vs. shame”; has made them over the centuries experts at “indirect speech”. 

Jesus is indirectly claiming to be God, using an eastern method of indirect speech; but westerners think it is straight forward speech. 

On the Unbelievable Radio program, on October 10, 2009,  there was an excellent discussion between James Crossley and Richard Bauckham, about his book, Jesus and the God of Israel.

Muslims love to use Richard Bauckham to try and cast doubt on the NT and the gospels.  While Bauchkam is not an inerrantist, and not as conservative as I am or as Dr. White is; Bauchkam is hardly a good source for Muslims to use, because on this particular radio discussion, Bauchkam believes Jesus is claiming to be God in Mark 10:17-18. 

Shabir Ally and Paul Bilal Williams use some quotes from Bauckham as somehow trying to show that the gospels are not reliable and changed, yet in this program, Bauckham takes Paul Williams’ favorite passage (Mark 10:17-19) and demonstrates that Muslims are wrong on its meaning.  Williams brings up Mark 10:17-19 many times at his own blog. see here:  

Update to this article, Sept. 28, 2015:  I took out the old url of Paul B. Williams old blogs, because there is some kind of malware/scam there.  
(No longer available as Williams keeps changing his blog; several times.  One time he even left Islam for a few days and then came back and repented.)  Williams new blog, as of Jan. 2015, is www.bloggingtheology.net


and here, What must I do to be saved? (no longer available)

and here, "Why do you call Me good?  (no longer available)

In all three of these articles, he leaves out verses 23-27.

At Williams' three different blogs which he has changed, if you could look around, it seems that he has a blog article on Mark 10 or the gospel of John and/or liberal scholars every several blog articles.  He especially likes Mark 10:17-19 about "Why do you call Me good?" or about "keep the commandments", and seeing that from a Muslim viewpoint, he thinks Jesus said that in order to teach that someone is able to keep the law and be saved.   His Islamic worldview has blinded him from seeing the real meaning of this great passage, especially if one reads all the way until verse 27.  Of course, only the Holy Spirit can lift the blinders off sinners' hearts.

Williams constantly quotes the Mark passage, but always leaves out verses 23-27 in his polemics.  Williams constantly uses Mark 10:17-18 to try and say that Jesus is denying His Deity; and he constantly uses Mark 10:19-22 to try and say that Jesus teaches that salvation comes by obeying the law of God.  He is wrong on both accounts.  By leaving out verses 23-27, Williams is avoiding the deeper meaning of why Jesus approaches the rich young ruler the way He does.  We will address that issue later, Lord willing.

Bauckham on “why do you call me good?”

http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid=%7B8C40D9DC-9FFE-4E03-9541-72004F6A822B%7D

I am not going to type out every word in this section of the interview; I invite the reader to listen to the whole thing.  However, I want to include key phrases and sentences of Bauckham, and intersperse with my own comments.

Beginning at the 43:31 mark – Richard Bauckham – “can I come back to Mark ?

because in Mark chapter 2 – who can forgive sins but God alone?”, he is “expressing precisely one of these uniquely divine qualities” - qualities of God .

Mark 6 – “What kind of man is this who the wind and waves obey his voice?  Only God can rule the chaos - Order out of chaos; a very OT idea about God.”

Mark 10:17 ff – “Why do you call me good, only God is good. Actually works the other way, Jesus is good, so Jesus is God.  Bauckham calls this a “wonderful double entendre”,  and “if you are not thinking, you would say that Jesus is saying I am not God”; but Jesus is actually trying to get the rich young ruler to think about true goodness.  Thus, Bauckham is confirming the orthodox position of how to interpret this passage.  Jesus is not denying that He is good or God, but in an indirect way, Jesus is actually claiming to be God.  In effect, Jesus is saying, “If you recognize Me as good and call Me good, then you should see that I am God, since only God is good.”  But the man didn’t really understand absolute goodness. 

Mark 14:61-64

This is a very clear passage that Jesus is claiming Deity.  Even the Jews know that the Messiah is going to be “the Son of the blessed one”!  The Jews know Psalm 2 and 2 Samuel 7:13-14 and Proverbs 30:4 and Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13-14. 

Jesus quotes from Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13-14 and the Jewish leaders tear their robes and say that Jesus has committed blasphemy by claiming to be the Messiah, the Son of God.  Jesus also said, “I am” ( ego eimi = εγω ειμι ) in verse 62.    Muslims and other skeptics like to make a big deal about the “I am” statements in John, and they claim that there are none of them in the Synoptic gospels.  Well, here is one.  Mark 6:50 is another “I am” statement. 

Bauckham says the clear claim of deity is there in Mark, so it is not only in the gospel of John, as some, particularly Muslims are saying, but the Deity of Christ is clear in Mark also.

Dr. White’s recent Five sermons on the Gospel according to Mark:

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=5202

In his first message, “The Bookends of Mark” – he shows that Mark 1:1 (the Son of God – for an article about the textual variant here, see this.) and Mark 15:39 (“truly this man was the Son of God!”) – the centurions’ confession that Jesus is “the Son of God”, demonstrates Mark’s purpose of testifying that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah.  Dr. White made a great point about the Roman Centurion and his familiarity with death, in Mark 15:43-45.  The Roman Centurion better be sure Jesus was dead, since he had to give testimony to Pilate himself.  If he was wrong, he would have been executed.  The seriousness with which the Romans dealt with soldiers and guards who did not do their job well is seen in Acts 16:27.  The Philippian jailor was about to kill himself, because he had fallen asleep earlier, and he thought that Paul and Barnabas had escaped in Acts 16:27, after the earthquake. 

There are a lot of nuggets there that Dr. White brings out in these five sermons.  Because Muslims are not only using liberal scholars, but now they are using (and abusing) more conservative scholars to attack the New Testament and the gospels, we need to equip ourselves to be “ready to give an answer for the hope that is within us” to Muslims, and take up our cross in discipleship. (see Mark 8:34-38)

For two other articles on the unity of the gospel of Mark and the Deity of Christ in Mark, see here, and on the testimony to the resurrection of Jesus in Mark, see here. 

Credit goes to someone named "Monty" in the aomin chat channel, a few days ago (last week); for pointing to this particular Unbelievable Radio program, the discussion between Bauckham and Crossley.  

Historical Developments that led to the eclipsing of the doctrine of Justification by Faith alone

James Swan had linked to this book on Purgatory and I recently received it in the mail and it is really interesting and helpful in getting a handle on how this unbiblical doctrine developed in church history.
(see under point 5)

The biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone was eventually neglected, over-shadowed, and eclipsed by the slow development of other unbiblical doctrines and doctrines.

It (Justification by grace through faith alone) appears at times in the writings of early Christians and early church fathers; but because some of these others things (listed below) were also developing at the same time, and sometimes some early church writers were inconsistent in seeming to affirm the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and also some of the other things listed below; this is one of the great reasons for why it is so hard and complicated to figure out what the early church believed about the doctrine after the Biblical era, and until Wycliffe, Hus, and Luther questioned these things.

1.  The Mono-Episcopate:  Biblical elders of a plurality of leaders was changed into taking one of the gifted elders out of the college and making him the sole bishop over the other elders in a church; then, later, in an entire area/city.  We can see that elders and bishops were interchangeable in the NT and in the earliest extra-canonical writing 1 Clement (96 AD), the Didache, Shepherd of Hermas.  Then, later we see a change in Ignatius (107-117 AD) and then Cyprian (around 250 AD) takes it further, and beyond in history.  see here for an Evangelical Introduction to church history part 1; and then, Part 2 here, that fleshes it all out.   But even Ignatius knows he does not have authority like an apostle.  (see his epistle to the Magnesians, epistle to the Trallians paragraph 3, verse 3, Ignatius to the Romans, paragraph 4, verse 3, and Ignatius to the Ephesians, paragraph 3, verse 1.  See also here, John Bugay has many excellent articles on this issue here and at Triablogue.   Even Cyprian, though he championed the ideas of the mono-episcopate of a local area, and that "the bishop is the church"; even he, did not agree that the bishop in Rome was the bishop of bishops.  He and 86 other bishops from all over the Christian world at the time, clearly stood against Stephen, the bishop of Rome at the time, in 258 AD.   Much later, the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome seems to have taken off some by Leo 1 in 440 AD, and then even more from Gregory the Great in 601 AD onward.  After Gregory the Great the power of the bishop of Rome kept developing, reaching a high mark of arrogance and false doctrine in Boniface VIII's statement in 1302 in the document, Unam Sanctum, ("It is necessary for every human creature to be in submission to the Roman Pontiff for salvation."); to the arrogance of Pius IX with "I am the tradition"; thus eventually developed into the Papal doctrines and dogma of infallibility in 1870.

2.  Baptismal Regeneration:  NT baptism as an outward evidence and sign/symbol of repentance and faith, an inward reality of regeneration/being born again/union with Christ by faith and repentance was changed into having power to actually cause one to be born again and regenerated. (baptismal regeneration)  The debate and discussion on that issue is still going strong in the com boxes here. 

3.  Penance:  Internal Repentance in the NT was changed into an outward penance, the work of satisfaction that one was assigned to do by a priest after confession.  William Webster has an excellent article on this the combines a lot of the other points also.    This was the first point of protest by Martin Luther in his 95 theses.  Later penance was developed along with private confession to a priest along with purgatory and then, with the treasury of merit of the saints into indulgences which really "took off" during the Crusades and was the spark that started Martin Luther questioning the Roman Catholic Church in 1517.

Addendum:  (January 3, 2014) - John Bugay made an excellent addition in the com box (on Aug. 15, 2012) to this issue on how the Latin mis-translation of the Greek word for repentance affected subsequent theology and church history. 

4.  Private Confession of sins to the priest for forgiveness:  Biblical confession of sin (1 John 1:9; James 5:16), and public confession of serious sin, developed into private confession of sins to a priest.  See also William Webster's article under point # 3.  Later, ex opere operato powers were given to the priests after the Donatist controversy.

5.  Purgatory - The idea of some kind of after death purging and cleansing was developed into Purgatory, starting with Clement of Alexandria and Origen and developing more after Augustine, especially by Gregory the bishop of Rome in 601 AD. See -
The Birth of Purgatory, by Jacques Le Goff. 

 James Swan has earlier linked to an excellent book called The Birth of Purgatory by Jacques Le Goff.   (Scroll down in this "Resources on Roman Catholicism" blog article)

6.  A NT office of priests.  This was wrong, as there is no NT office of "priest" in the local church.  None.  Jesus is our high priest.  For the NT church, there are
a. elders/overseers (same as bishops)/pastors and b.  deacons.  Every believer/saint is a priest to God.  (1 Peter 2:5-10; Revelation 1:6; 5:9-10.)   The word "priest" seems to be first applied to elders and ministers after they started applying OT language of sacrifice in worship to the thanksgiving and worship in the church and at the celebration of the eucharist.  (see # 13)

7.  Categories of mortal sins and venial sins and distinguishing between them. That seems to have started with Tertullian.

8.  Ideas of merit for good works, which is a contradiction to the Biblical teachings on grace.

9.  Gaining merit through Pilgrimages to graves and holy sites.  Simple remembering of martyrs' day of death as a "birthday" (going to heaven) and then venerating their bones (Would Polycarp have approved of such a practice?) , then to pilgrimages and visiting graves of dead saints and praying to them at their graves.

10.  Prayers to dead saints.  Whether at their graves or later, in front of pictures, later the icons, or statues.

11.  Prayers to Mary and the over-exalting of Mary as the greatest mediator, and then later other false dogmas such as Mary's Perpetual Virginity, her sinlessness, her Immaculate Conception(1854), and the Bodily Assumption (1950).  She is called, "co-mediatrix" - a clear contradiction to 1 Timothy 2:5.

12.  Almsgiving as a way of satisfaction for sins, often part of the penance assigned by a priest.

13.  Sacrificial language of the mass.  From using NT language of the sacrifices at the temple (Matthew 5:23-26), combining it with the need to reconcile with brothers before worship (Matthew 18:15-20) and taking the sacrificial language of the prophesy of Malachi 1:11 and applying all of that to the eucharist/Lord's supper in 1 Corinthians 11/Luke 22/Matthew 26. The sacrificial language of the OT (Malachi) and NT (Matthew 5:23-26) was not meant to say that the eucharist would be a sacrifice, but rather an application of OT language to worship/thanksgiving/memorial of Christ's death/celebration in the NT church.

14.   Transubstantiation:  From memorial/spiritual presence of Christ in communion/ eucharist (Biblical) to actual physical presence (Justin Martyr to Radbertus in the 800s) to transubstantiation (developed from the 800s into 1215 AD)

Sometimes the doctrine of justification by faith alone can be discerned in the early church, in the writings of Clement, The Epistle to Diognetes, and Ambrosiaster seem to be really clear references.  Also, later, in the writings of John Chrysostom seems clear, and in others, but they sometimes had some elements of the above practices and doctrines also.  So they were inconsistent.  These 14 practices/doctrines together (and probably with other issues not named here, too) combined to eclipse / hide the doctrine of justification by faith alone, like the moon hiding the sun in an eclipse.   All of these things combined together to over-shadow the doctrine of justification by faith alone over the centuries until Wycliff and Hus and Luther started questioning these things.

Remembering My Father

I received quite a number of private e-mails from my cyber-friends over the past week. Thank you all so much for your concern and condolences. Thanks also to Ken for keeping the blog going this past week.

For those of you who have lost both parents, you probably know the feelings I'm experiencing. It's a strange thing to consider that the very people that brought you into the world are both no longer there, at least physically there. What goes along with this, at least for me, is the process now of going through my parents possessions and selling the house I grew up in. When I close my eyes and think of "home" my immediate memory is of the house I spent most of my childhood in. Not only have I lost my parents, I'm losing my concept of "home" in a sense. These are all just striking reminders that there is only one lasting comfort in life and in death.

My three siblings and I spoke at my father's funeral. Below is the brief eulogy I gave in my father's memory:

My sister has summed up aptly my father’s commitment to his family and to raising us in the truth of the gospel. As a child, I never understood this commitment. The only thing I understood as a child was that I wanted my way, and that using my parents was the means to getting my way. It’s only been upon reflection in my later years that I’ve come to understand my father's love for his family, and his love for me.

My father seemed so different than I was... perhaps it had to do with the fact that my dad was in his early 40’s when I was born. My father, a World War 2 veteran, the father of 4 older children already, found himself in the 1960's with another small baby. I’ve often wondered what he thought about raising a family, and then again having another small child to raise. I never once though heard him complain that I, whether I was planned or not, was born. He never seemed resentful that I was born. Quite the opposite. When I was born, it appears he began to work harder to provide for his family. My father worked excessively to provide for us. In fact, I can recall that I often didn’t see him because he was working to provide for us.

I’ve been told that our family was living in a rather volatile neighborhood in the 1960’s. As the culture changed, sometimes violently, my father moved his family to safety. My earliest memories are that of a big house with a built in swimming pool in a nice neighborhood. This is probably much different than what my siblings remember about their childhood.

We went on big vacations. In the early 1970’s he took the family to Florida: Now I was going to visit Florida’s Disneyworld. What my father didn’t tell me though, was that going to Disneyworld in 1970 was actually going to visit a construction site. The park had not been built. He did though take us, around the same time, to California: and there, I as a young child experienced all the joys of Disneyland, with my father accompanying me on the rides.

As I grew older, it became more apparent that my father and I were two very different people. He was an elder in a very conservative church. I was a teenager with long hair, playing electric guitar, very loudly. We had many special times together discussing music in which Dad expressed his view that the best music was not a distorted electric guitar playing so loudly the neighbors would call over and ask for it to be lower. These conversations were often brief: "Jimmy, turn that thing down, now!" He did though tolerate that which he did not like. While my “music” appears to have worked him up at times, he found out that while a loud guitar in the house was a burden, drums were even worse. He would say, “Jimmy- it’s so loud the cat can’t find a place to sit.” He was right: I would find my cat Titus sitting on top of the refrigerator when the whole band was over and the house shook. But he tolerated it. He may not have liked it, but he allowed me do it.

As his last child, I think my father had a strong desire to pass on the family business. He would take me house to house fixing appliances, trying to teach me how to fix a washer or dryer. This went on for years- throughout junior and senior high school. The only problem though is I have no natural aptitude to fix anything. In fact, if he allowed me to work on a machine, chances are it would be broken worse than it already was. I didn’t like getting grease and dirt on my hands, because it took too long to remove so I could play my guitar. I also had bad dust allergies, so going down into someone’s basement often meant I would be suffering hay fever most of the day.

I don’t think I realized he was trying to pass on his successful business to me. He hoped I would get it, but I never did. Sometimes now I wish I paid more attention to what he was teaching me. Those of you who knew my father knew how well he could diagnose and fix something. Now, when something breaks in my house, I can no longer call my father, nor can I summon up what he tried to teach me. This is a hard lesson- that playing guitar really didn't help me provide for my family when something breaks. 

My father and I differed in other ways as well. In Missouri I enjoyed nothing more than going to Crown Center, the big mall, and having my parents leave me in the bookstore, and then picking me up when they were done. My father rarely read books, I loved reading. We just seemed like two very different people. I was reading and playing music, he was fixing machines and watching TV to relax after a hard day.

Dad and I though loved each other. We may not have understood each other, but we loved each other. This was our relationship up until his last day: we were two men who didn’t understand the other, but both wanted the best for the other. We just differed on what that best was.

But music and books, as many of you know, are just that music and books. I learned a few weeks ago that a guy I took lessons from, a world renowned Chapman Stick player, died suddenly of a heart attack. What became of all his music skills and what was the result of his hours and years of practicing? Nothing. He left this world with nothing.

My father though, did leave this world with something: salvation in Jesus Christ. While my father and I were different in so many ways, these differences similarly amount to nothing, because we both share in the eternal Gospel of Jesus Christ. My father and I both agreed as to what the only lasting and true unity and comfort are  in life and in death:

That my father and I are not our own, but belong body and soul to our faithful savior, Jesus Christ.
He has fully paid for all our sins with his precious blood, and has set my father and I free from the tyranny of the devil. He also watches over us in such a way, that not a hair can fall from our heads without the will of our father in heaven. In fact, all things must work together for our salvation. Because my father and I belong to him, Christ by his Holy Spirit makes us wholeheartedly willing and ready from now on to live for him.

Guitars and washer machines are not eternal. At some point, they’ll rust and disintegrate. I’m so grateful for my Father raising me with that which will not pass away, the truth of the gospel.

**********
This is a picture of my father and I, circa 1989, underneath the grape trellis in the backyard of my first house.  Also pictured is my first German Shepherd (I miss him too.)

Did God really say? (Part 2)

Another excellent panel discussion - this time on Inerrancy at the T4G (Together for the Gospel) conference back in April of this year.  I don't think I noticed the title of this one, "Inerrancy:  Did God Really Say?" - before I gave the same title to the article on Egalitarianism and Homosexuality and their discussion at T4g.  See Did God Really Say? (Genesis 3:1) (Part 1)

Participants were Mark Dever, Peter Williams, Simon Gathercole, John Piper, Al Mohler, and Ligon Duncan.

They start off by reading from the first 3 articles about what T4G believes about the Bible, under the "Affirmations and Denials" at the web-site.

Mark Dever points out that the phrase "the Bible is the Sole Authority" means
"sole final authority"; "sole ultimate authority"; and Al Mohler says, "We mean sole authority in the sense of the Sola's of the Reformation; it's not a naked authority, but it is the ultimate authority."  I think they should have added, "The Bible is the sole infallible authority", just to be even more clear; and flesh out what other secondary authorities are - ancient creeds, doctrinal statements, confessions of faith, local church, godly and qualified pastors, teachers, elders, seminary professors, good Biblically based books and commentaries - these are secondary authorities that are not infallible.

The names of some who are mentioned in this discussion and yet claim to be evangelical but have abandoned Inerrancy are Kent Sparks and Peter Enns.   Triablogue has written a lot on Enns.   (Go there and do a search for specifics.)   Fuller Theological Seminary was mentioned that it was in 1971 that they took out the word "inerrancy" from their doctrinal statement.  Fuller Seminary has been on a downward slide ever since.

What is interesting to me is that it was Professor Jack Rogers (along with the book he wrote with Donald McKim against Inerrancy) who was one of the main ones, if not the main one, who took Fuller down that road.  He has in recent years (at least since 2001, maybe earlier) come out for "same sex marriage" and affirmation of homosexuality.  See here in his blog totally given over the abomination of homosexuality and so called "gay marriage" and ordination of homosexuals.  He seems to be one of the driving forces behind the liberalism and ordination of homosexuals in the PCUSA.  He served as the moderator of 213th General Assembly of the PCUSA.  The footnotes point to articles written in 2001.

 James Barr was another liberal scholar who attacked Inerrancy in the 1970s.  Muslims are today still using Barr's book today to attack the Bible.  (especially Paul Bilal Williams)

So, it does seem that there is a subtle connection at least some of the egalitarian movement ( In Did God Really Say? Part 1), the pro-homosexual agenda in liberal churches (not so subtle by Rogers and his web-site), and liberalism and the denial of inerrancy.  They seem to be connected; and they probably started with a subtle denial of inerrancy and grew from there.

On the Death of a Parent.

Today I was notified my father died. I was prepared... as prepared as anyone can be can be for such a loss. My father did die in the faith. On request of the police, since I was the first family relative on the scene, I had to go into his house before the coroner arrived. My father appears to have died peacefully. I am so grateful my parents, now both deceased, raised me from infancy with the Gospel.

Some people I know, even Christian people, have problems seeing someone who has died. But, as the Apostles Creed states: I believe in the resurrection of the body. As Christians, we should not fear death, especially those who have died in the faith. While I mourn the loss of my dear father, I was grateful to see him one last time. I believe in the resurrection of the body, and the life ever lasting.

In The Gospel according to John, the apostle’s use of Psalm 69 implies that Psalm 69:8 is about Mary’s other sons.

This is re-publishing an older article I had written in 2009, with some changes.

Psalm 69:8-9 (English Standard Version)

"I have become a stranger to my brothers,
an alien to my mother’s sons.

For zeal for your house has consumed me,
and the reproaches of those who reproach you have fallen on me."
(also treated as Messianic in Romans 15:3 by the apostle Paul)

Since John is the one who is quoting and alluding to Psalm 69 so much:

John 2:17 (Psalm 69:9)

John 15:25 (Psalm 69:4)

John 19:28-29 (Psalm 69:21)

In addition, the context of John 7:3-5 is about his brothers not believing in Him, and then in verses 6-8, it becomes even more clear that John is saying that Psalm 69:8 is about Mary’s others sons. John 7:6, “Jesus therefore said to them, “My time is not yet at hand, but your time is always opportune.” John 7:7, “The world cannot hate you; but it hates me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.” Because verse 3 in the same context says, “His brothers therefore said to Him, “Depart from here and go into Judea, that your disciples also may behold Your works which You are doing.” – here is a clear distinction between Jesus’ brothers and Jesus’ disciples. He contrasts between the faith and love of the disciples and the hatred and unbelief of the world. He does the same thing in John 15:25, another quote from Psalm 69. “They hated Me without a cause”. Now the context of the cross and the giving of Mary to John to care of her becomes even more important and more clear that Mary had other children. And then in John 19:27-28, where Jesus says, “Behold, your mother!”, Jesus is clearly connected her with Psalm 69, because his real brothers have disowned Him and been estranged from Him and rejected Him, and hated Him, so therefore, He commits His mother to John. In verse 28 of John 19, the Scripture says, “. . . in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, “I am thirsty”. Psalm 69:21 – with Matthew 27:34, 48, Mark 15:23, 36, and Luke 23:36.

In church history, some people began to make unreasonable deductions about Mary, going beyond Scripture, adding to Scripture, and contradicting Scripture.

These unreasonable deductions led to the whole series of unbiblical traditions about Mary (prayers to her, IC, BA, co-mediatrix, some even calling for co-redemptrix to be defined as dogma) and led to the over-exalting of Mary, the over-emphasis on virginity (even after marriage), and celibacy as a requirement for all ministers in the RCC in church history. It is called a “higher way of holiness”.  This implies that married folks cannot attain to a holy life, and it seems to exalt works over grace and faith.

Obviously, Psalm 69:5 is NOT about the Messiah, because He was sinless. (John 8:46; 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15, Heb. 7:26; I Peter 1:19-20). This can be understood the same way that 2 Samuel 7:14a is about the Messiah, but 7:14b is not about the Messiah. So, it is possible that Psalm 69:8 is about Mary's others son who are against the Messiah and don't have faith until the resurrection and afterward, but Psalm 69:5 is not about the Messiah.

By the way, a great sermon on Psalm 69 and emotions, including other quotes in Romans 11 and Acts 1, in his series on some of the Psalms in "Thinking and Feeling with God" by John Piper is here.

The apostle John seems to want us to get the connection by looking at Psalm 69 and all the other quotes in his gospel. (and Acts 1 and Romans 11 and 15)

Moreover, "for" in Psalm 69:9 connects verse 8 and "my mother's sons" to his zeal; and John is showing the contrast between the faith of the disciples in John 2:12-22 and John 7:3-7 vs. His brothers who, because of their unbelief, are His enemies and "hated Him without a cause". (John 15:25 and alluded to in John 7:7 - the hatred of the world; from Psalm 69:4)

John 7:3-9 :

So his brothers said to him, "Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples also may see the works you are doing. For no one works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world." For not even his brothers believed in him. Jesus said to them, "My time has not yet come, but your time is always here. The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify about it that its works are evil. You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come." After saying this, he remained in Galilee.

One of the ways skeptics attack the resurrection is they say Jesus only appeared in His resurrection to His friends, believers, disciples.

Well, Jesus' brothers were not believing in Him, and so, they were His enemies in this sense, even hating Him, implied here; because they wanted Him to show Himself to the world; and it says the Jews were seeking to kill Him. (John 7:1)

They were His enemies in their unbelief; but they believed at the resurrection and afterward; especially, James (I Cor. 15:7; Galatians 1:19; Acts 15:13ff.)and Jude (writer of the epistle of Jude).

So Christ appeared to some enemies, namely His brothers, and Saul, who became Paul.

A powerful apologetic for the resurrection.

Seems clear that John and Jesus are making this connection between the sufferings of David in Psalm 69, that his own brothers, "my mother's sons are against me"; and also this is prophesied about the Messiah and it happen that way; and so it is clearly implied and alluded to by the way John uses Psalm 69, the connection "for" in verse 9, and the contrast between the faith of the disciples and lack of faith in His brothers in John 2:12-22; then the hatred and unbelief of His brothers in John 7.

Putting it all together, it makes perfect sense why Jesus committed His mother to John, and seeing the connection of John 19 with Psalm 69 and the other gospels and giving His mother to John; (the prophesy of the giving of gall to the Messiah fulfilled in all the gospels at the cross in the same context that Jesus gives His mother to John and not his physical half-brothers - Psalm 69:21 : Matt 27:48; Luke 23:36; John 19:29; Mark 15:23) makes it even stronger that he is saying Psalm 69:8 is about Jesus' brothers, the sons of Mary.

So, the virgin birth of Christ is protected, by Scripture alone; Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke chapters 1-2; but the Perpetual Virginity of Mary doctrine and dogma is un-Scriptural and not truth, therefore, it should be abandoned.

It is a man-made tradition.

Left Wing Hypocrisy and Immoral Values vs. Conservative Values

Rahm Emanuel’s hypocrisy :

http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/does-rahm-emanuel-not-know-that-farrakhan-agrees-with-chick-fil-a/

The racist and hate monger, Louis Farrakhan, leader of the American cult/heresy of Islam, "The Nation of Islam",  is welcomed in Chicago by mayor Rahm Emanuel.  (Who was also President Obama’s chief of staff and campaigned for Bill Clinton when he was running for President.) Not only is Louis Farrakhan a racist and anti-Semite and hate monger and claims to be some kind of a Muslim, most Sunni and Shiite Muslims repudiate him and his doctrines as a cult and heresy of Islam.    But all Islamic groups are much more intolerant of homosexuality than any Christian is, as when the Muslim community becomes the majority and they get political power and are able to enact Sharia (law), then homosexual acts are punishable by execution.  (As regularly happens in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and other Muslim majority countries.)

http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/rahm-emanuel-we-need-people-of-faith-like-louis-farrakhan-but-not-chick-fil-a/

Even liberals and some who support “gay marriage” are pointing out the hypocrisy:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/rahm-emanuel-campaigned-for-two-presidents-who-opposed-gay-marriage/260401/

Something I heard Dennis Prager (an orthodox, conservative Jew) say on his radio show, as I was driving – either Wed. or Thursday about the “Chick-fil-A” appreciation day:

“Mitt Romney missed a great photo opt today – he should have had a chicken sandwich at Chick-fil-A (that promotes Christian, conservative values) and then an ice-cream at Ben and Jerry’s (that promotes liberal values) and celebrated freedom of speech and free-enterprise markets.”  Dennis Prager  (from my memory from hearing him on the radio as I was driving in my car, either Wed, August 1, or Thursday, August 2).

That attack on Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A reveals the left’s hatred for moral standards, Biblical marriage, and Christianity; but the conservatives and others who supported Chick-fil-A are a combination of conservative types without respect to religion, Evangelicals, Roman Catholics, Mormons, other conservatives, libertarians, and probably some who are Democrats - who may be liberal in their politics, and some who support "same sex marriage"-  but who think clearly on the issue of freedom of speech,  who are showing their support mostly on the root principle of free-speech and free-enterprise market business economic values.  Certainly the Biblical standard of marriage is part of that motivation for Christians and many conservatives, but the main point is freedom of speech and our free market economy. 

It is ironic, in these troubled economic times, that these left wing mayors (of Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles) and a Chicago alderman * would try and block a good business that could stimulate the economy and create more jobs, without any need for government subsidies or raising of taxes, as in Obama’s failed Solyndra debacle. 

* I learned something new:
"An alderman is a member of a municipal assembly or council in many jurisdictions founded upon English law."


Addendum:
The political pundits at "The Five" on Fox News also make some other good points, on the massive increase of murder crime in Chicago, and that it seems Rahm Emanuel wanted to divert attention away from his crime and murder and violence problem to trying to discriminate against Chick-fil-A.  

Ex Opere Operato baptismal regeneration is not Biblical!

This is an excellent book that explores the issue of baptism, specifically infant baptism in the early church. Baptism in the Early Church, by Hendrick F. Stander, and Johannes P. Louw. My purpose here is not so much to argue against infant baptism, but to argue against baptismal regeneration of the Roman Catholic Church and it's priestly ex opere operato doctrine. But this subject will automatically likely animate Lutherans and other Protestants who have a different form of baptismal regeneration to want to comment on this issue. That's fine, as we have been doing in the com boxes here. And because this issue also tends to automatically bring in issues of infant baptism with it, I feel the need to mention this book up front. So, I mention this book up front (along with the other book shown at the end of the article) as the best defense I have seen, for believer's baptism being the original view of the apostles and the early church. It was written by 2 men who are paedo-baptists (practice infant baptism or are members of an infant baptism tradition church.) These 2 men admit that infant baptism was a historical tradition that started later. James Renihan summarizes in the Foreward:

"Essentially, they argue that infant baptism was not the practice of the Apostles and their immediate successors, but developed through the convergence of several factors. Gradually, paedobaptism came to be the majority position in the church, but probably not until the later part of the fourth century." (James Renihan, page 10, Foreward, Baptism in the Early Church)

Something else I wrote in the com box discussion when it was brought up that Luther would probably not have joined with Zwingli in his opposition to the Roman Catholic Church, because of their disagreement over the Lord's supper:

I think it is sad - the disunity that Luther had with Zwingli over the Lord's supper issue; and the statements that Luther made about Zwingli are scandalous and RC apologists use those statements all the time. I like the unity around the gospel that the movement of "together for the gospel" demonstrates - www.t4g.org - Baptists (Dever, Mohler, Piper), Presbyterians (Ligon Duncan, R. C. Sproul, Carl Truman), Charismatic Calvinists(C. J. Mahany, Matt Chandler), Dispensationalists(McArthur), etc. I am glad for that and that the old days of the wars of Europe over Christian doctrine are over.

So, we are unified in the gospel and in Christ against the errors of the Roman Catholic Church, and specifically here, ex opere operato and baptismal regeneration. Infant baptism is a secondary issue over which we can disagree about, and Evangelical Protestant churches are free to practice and teach their convictions about it and defend it biblically, but maintain gospel unity and fellowship in conferences and networks such at "together for the gospel" and "the gospel coalition", but RC baptismal regeneration is a doctrine and practice that divides us and that doctrine is a heresy and contrary to justification by faith alone in the Scriptures.

Now, to my main point of this post! 

 The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the work of the priest [* see at end] - performing the ceremony of baptism on the recipient (infants mostly, and adult converts who have never been baptized in the name of the Trinity, etc.) actually causes the person to be born again and confers grace on that person. They teach that the water of baptism literally washes their souls, when performed by the RC priest, when he says the words in Latin, "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit". The Latin phrase, "ex opere operato" means "from the work, it works", which is to say that the action and duty and performance of the ceremony actually does something to the recipient.

 This is totally unbiblical. 

1 Corinthians 10:1-5
 For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 and all ate the same spiritual food; 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness.

  Hebrews 3:16 -4:2
 16 For who provoked Him when they had heard? Indeed, did not all those who came out of Egypt led by Moses? 17 And with whom was He angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? 18 And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient? 19 So we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief. Therefore, let us fear if, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you may seem to have come short of it. 2 For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard.

 Note: “all were baptized” – I Cor. 10:2

 So all were baptized physically "into Moses" - but not all had faith. Internal faith is the key. All Jewish males were circumcised, but many did not have faith, and the NT says, "neither circumcision or uncircumcision means anything, what counts is a new creation" - Galatians 6:15 See also Romans 9:8 - "it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of promise . . . "

Note:
 “nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased” – I Cor. 10:5
“we see they were not able to enter because of unbelief” – Hebrews 3:19
“the word did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard” – Hebrews 4:2

 “Without faith it is impossible to please God” – Hebrews 11:6
 “the just shall live by faith” – Romans 1:17; Romans 3:28-4:16; 5:1; Galatians 2:16, 20, chapter 3-5, etc.

 So, Luther’s justification by faith alone is the key, “the doctrine on which the church stands or falls” (whatever James Swan’s research revealed, if he actually said the exact words or others after him conflated several statements together.

 So, the Roman Catholic form of baptismal regeneration is totally unbiblical, and the ex opere operato understanding of performance/work/doing the motions of the ceremony is not Biblical either. Baptismal regeneration seems to be one of the earliest mistakes of the early church, which, as far as extant evidence goes, the earliest instance of it is in the writings of Justin Martyr (between 148-161 AD). But Justin does not teach infant baptism at all, in fact he says things like baptism is for those "who choose and repent" (First Apology 61, cited in the chapter by Steven McKinon, "Baptism in the Patristic Writings", in Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ. Edited by Thomas Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright, 2006, B & H; p. 171.) For a full book defense of Believer's Baptism -

TUAD ("Truth Unites and Divides), in the com boxes mentioned above,  added a reference to an article in Themelios on Baptismal Regeneration and Luther here.   It is very good, and also argues against the Federal Vision movement. 

[* ]  Addendum:  A Roman Catholic who goes by "TheDen" pointed out that others may baptize people, not just the priests.  I had forgotten about that.  Thanks for pointing that out; I sincerely desire to be accurate.  Here is what the Roman Catholic Catechism says:

1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.

After Darkness, Light!

Most people who visit this blog will know this information, but it is an excellent intro to Martin Luther. Historical introduction to Martin Luther -- R. C. Sproul recounts historical aspects of the beginning of Martin Luther's life and how he came to be an Augustinian monk.

"After Darkness, Light!"  - from the Latin phrase, "Post Tenebras Lux"  (On the Reformation Wall in Geneva)

What was the "Darkness" ?

The Roman Catholic teaching that had engulfed the whole European culture that salvation comes through the Sacerdotal (from the Latin word for "priest") system of dependence upon the Roman Catholic priest in the RC churches to dole out salvation through infant baptismal regeneration by the ex opere operato words of the priest, deeds of penances that were ordered by the priest such as saying 100 hail Mary's or climbing up the steps of St. Peter's Cathedral in Rome or giving alms to the poor, confession to the priest, partaking of the eucharist, thinking it to be changed into the literal blood and body of the Lord Jesus Christ, by the mere words spoken by the priest, etc.   Those were truly "Dark Ages" (beginning around 430 - 500 AD) until the Reformation, beginning in 1517 when Luther nailed the 95 theses to the church door in Wittenberg.
[scholars usually date the beginning of the "Dark Ages" as when the Goths and Vandals and other "barbarian tribes" conquered the city of Rome and N. Africa around 400-430 AD.
The Reformation brought light back in by pointing people back to the Scriptures as the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

Interesting tidbit about Jan Hus' trial and burning at the stake and his statement, that has become a popular story: Hus is reported to have said: "You may burn this goose (Hus in the Czech language means "goose") but after me will come a swan who you will not be able to silence."  And, according to Sproul, that under the very place where Luther was consecrated into the Augustinian order of monks, was the tomb of the bishop who ordered Hus' execution in 1415!
Addendum: James Swan blogged about that in 2010 here also. I should have known he would have researched it thoroughly before I pushed the publish button here! It was unclear to me if the sources are saying that Hus didn't say that at all; or that it was later exaggerated at Luther's funeral and afterward; but after I went back and read more carefully, it seems that Luther conflated 2 statements into one, one from Hus and the other from Jerome of Prague.
I had heard or read about this story before, I am pretty sure from listening to Sproul years ago; and it makes for a good story, but James Swan is to be commended for his historical research on Luther. It is still true that Hus was condemned for opposing some of the same traditions, un-biblical practices, and doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church that Luther later opposed.

HT: Justin Taylor - Sproul on Luther and the Reformation ___ Note: this article went through several changes after I first hit the publish button; so I apologize for anyone who read it right after I posted it; for the inaccuracies at the beginning.

Even My Computer Doesn't Trust the Blogs of Roman Catholic Converts

Warning: Something's Not Right Here!

abbaslittlegirl.blogspot.com contains content from followmebutton.com, a site known to distribute malware. Your computer might catch a virus if you visit this site.

Google has found malicious software may be installed onto your computer if you proceed. If you've visited this site in the past or you trust this site, it's possible that it has just recently been compromised by a hacker. You should not proceed, and perhaps try again tomorrow or go somewhere else.

Tyler McNabb's deleted post combox

The owner of the aforementioned bowling alley may have been displeased at the sight of the unwelcome interloper showing up all the regular club players. For whatever reason, he has decided to pack his ball and pins and close his doors.

Having learned a lesson from the recent Stellman post-then-remove incident, I had the presence of mind to save the page yesterday before it was taken down, so all of my comments and interactions with the club players remain intact.

I have reproduced them here sans the original article, which, out of respect for Mr. McNabb's wishes and recognition that it didn't have much of any substance to it, I will leave unpublished.

You may see it here.

(See also TurretinFan's comment on the combox.)


**UPDATE: Mr. McNabb has apparently deleted his blog entirely. May the Lord Jesus be pleased to open his eyes to the truth.

Mister Rogers Remixed

Clever. The old folks like me will appreciate this.

Rhology Unleashed: Bowling at Tiber Lanes (and Update)

For those of you who want to see how it's done when playing at Tiber Lanes, visit this discussion [edit: the webpage was removed, but can be found here) and watch Uncle Rho bowl a perfect game, knocking down all the Romanist pins each time it's his turn. Take notes on his technique because this sort of ability doesn't just "happen." It's the result of years of careful analysis and apologetic encounters.

Addendum 1
Well now, this is an interesting twist. The recent conversion tale in question has disappeared (recall a recent CTC conversion tale disappeared as well).

2 convert posts, 2 deletions.

Perhaps one of them had a dream, confirmed by one of their wives, instructing them to remove the recent conversion tales.

Rhology has an update on all of this here.



Addendum 2
The entire blog which hosted the convert story has vanished, but the page in which Rhology interacted with it (along with the story) can be found here. Frankly, the conversion story doesn't interest me at all. Rather, Rhology's interaction with it and other comments makes it worth the read. Stories are just that: stories.

Refuting Muslim attacks on the Gospel of John

I just published this at my other blog, at "wordpress", called "apologeticsandagape", which I created in order to interact with Muslim blog articles by Paul Bilal Williams and the Muslim Debate Initiative.

I repeat it here:

Sam Shamoun has written a very good article that refutes Paul Bilal William's attacks on the Gospel of John, called "Jesus, John's Gospel, and Williams". (also linked again below)  Paul Williams likes to quote many different scholars on the Gospel of John, and also tries to use the more conservative ones like Richard Bauckham, F. F. Bruce, and Ben Witherington to make his case.

Paul Bilal Williams' favorite quote from Bauckham is this:

"All scholars, whatever their views of the redactional work of the Synoptic Evangelists and of the historical reliability of the Gospel of John, agree that the latter presents a much more thoroughly and extensively interpreted version of the story of Jesus." (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses; Richard Bauckham,  p. 410.)

[By the way, "all scholars" agree that Jesus the Messiah was crucified and died on a Roman cross in real history.  The Qur'an denies real history - Surah 4:157. ]

Richard Bauckham does say that John's Gospel is more "interpretive", but that is not a problem, as we can see that John wrote John 1:1-18 and writes what the Holy Spirit told him to write about Jesus. John chapters 14 and 16 clearly say the Holy Spirit will come and teach the disciples and lead them into all the truth.  Remember also that John (and Peter and James) were the inner circle of friends of Jesus' disciples.  John had more access to Jesus than Bartholomew and Philip and Matthew and Thomas.  Peter was a man of action, and Mark writes his Gospel reflecting Peter's action oriented personality.

Bauckham never says in the quotes that Paul Williams supplies that "John put words in Jesus' mouth".  You can read the quotes that Paul provides from Bauckham at the beginning of the article at answering-islam.org.  (see below)  So, Richard Bauckham never says the words recorded by John as spoken by Jesus are "made up".  And John 1:1-18 is not something that is just "made up", but is inspired truth that the Holy Spirit led John the apostle to write.  If that is what Bauckham means by "interpretive", then that is fully compatible with the Christian view of inspiration and that all the 27 books of the NT are "God-breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21).

"Jesus, John's Gospel, and Williams", by Sam Shamoun:  http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/williams/john_different.html

What follows is Sam Shamoun's rebuttal, with my added comments and my numbering and emboldening of his main points.

"Williams calls into question the veracity of John’s Gospel, even though it is a first century document that Williams’ own cited author [Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eye-Witnesses]  admits was written by an eyewitness of the historical Jesus, solely because it reads differently from the other Gospels!

And yet Williams follows a book which comes over 600 yeas later (which assumes that the traditional dating is correct, an assumption which we have no good reasons for accepting), that was composed by a so-called prophet who never met the historical Jesus, and never knew (let alone interviewed) the eyewitnesses to Jesus, whose views about Jesus contradict the testimony of the Synoptic Gospels!  [ And by someone who clearly who did not know the contents of "the gospel" - the Injeel - الانجیل .  If God was inspiring Muhammad, he would have known about the New Testament' content and doctrines and quoted from it and accurately reported what Christians believed and did not believe.  As it is, it is obvious he is just hearing things - bits and pieces of information - like Jesus is the Messiah, is born of the virgin Mary, is the word of God ( Kalimat Allah = کلمه الله - which shows that the Christians were speaking about John 1:1 and John 1:14, even though Muhammad interpreted that wrongly.); that Jesus is a "spirit from Allah" روح من الله  (see Surah 4:171), and that Jesus did miracles, etc.  ]

Now wouldn’t this mean that Williams would have to reject Muhammad’s testimony, much like he rejects John’s Gospel, seeing that the former’s statements concerning Christ do not agree with the Synoptic Gospels?

The irony here is that, unlike Muhammad, John at least agrees with the other Gospel writers concerning the Person and work of Christ.

1.  For instance, all four of the Gospels testify that Jesus is God’s unique, beloved Son:

“And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his clothes became radiant, intensely white, as no one on earth could bleach them. And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, and they were talking with Jesus. And Peter said to Jesus, ‘Rabbi, it is good that we are here. Let us make three tents, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah.’ For he did not know what to say, for they were terrified. And a cloud overshadowed them, and a voice came out of the cloud, ‘This is my beloved Son; listen to him.’ And suddenly, looking around, they no longer saw anyone with them but Jesus only.” Mark 9:2-8 – cf. 1:11; 12:1-8

“All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” Matthew 11:27 – cf. Luke 10:22

“The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” John 3:35-36

“So Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel.’” John 5:19-20

2.  All of them [all 4 Gospels] agree that Jesus is the Son of Man:

“And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, ‘My son, your sins are forgiven.’ Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, ‘Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?’ And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, ‘Why do you question these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, “Your sins are forgiven,” or to say, “Rise, take up your bed and walk”?  But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins’—he said to the paralytic—‘I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home.’ And he rose and immediately picked up his bed and went out before them all, so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, ‘We never saw anything like this!’” Mark 2:5-12 – cf. Matthew 9:1-8; Luke 5:17-26

“For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” Matthew 12:8 – Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5“While he was still speaking, there came a crowd, and the man called Judas, one of the twelve, was leading them. He drew near to Jesus to kiss him, but Jesus said to him, ‘Judas, would you betray the Son of Man with a kiss?’” Luke 22:47-48

“But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. And he said, ‘Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.’” Acts 7:55-56

“No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up,’” John 3:13-14

“Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?” John 6:62 – cf. 6:27; 8:28, 9:35; 12:23, 34; 13:31-32

3.  In fact, they [all 4 gospels] even agree that Jesus is the Danielic Son of Man (cf. Dan. 7:13-14) who judges and determines the eternal fate of all the nations, with angels attending and serving him:

“Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying, ‘Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.’ He answered, ‘The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed is the children of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the close of the age, and the reapers are angels. Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age. The Son of Man will send HIS angels, and they will gather out of HIS kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.’” Matthew 13:36-43“When the Son of Man comes in HIS glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on HIS glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.’… Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’… And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Matthew 25:31-34, 41, 46 – cf. Mark 8:38; 14:61b-62

“For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in HIS glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.” Luke 9:26 – cf. 12:40; 17:22-30; 18:8; 21:27, 36

“Nathanael answered him, ‘Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!’ Jesus answered him, ‘Because I said to you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see greater things than these.’ And he said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.’” John 1:49-51

“For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him… And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man.” John 5:22-23, 27

4.  All of them [all 4 gospels] agree that Jesus receives reverence and worship:

“Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of God.’” Matthew 14:33

“Then they came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gadarenes. And when he had come out of the boat, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit, who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no one could bind him, not even with chains, because he had often been bound with shackles and chains. And the chains had been pulled apart by him, and the shackles broken in pieces; neither could anyone tame him. And always, night and day, he was in the mountains and in the tombs, crying out and cutting himself with stones. When he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and worshiped him. And he cried out with a loud voice and said to him, ‘What have I do with you, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I implore you by God that you do not torment me.’” Mark 5:1-7

“Then came one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name, and seeing him, he fell at his feet. He pleaded earnestly with him, ‘My little daughter is dying. Please come and put your hands on her so that she will be healed and live.’ So Jesus went with him.” Mark 5:22-24a

“But immediately a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit heard of him and came and fell down at his feet. The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.” Mark 7:25-26

“When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God. Luke 24:50-53

“Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?’ ‘Who is he, Lord?’ the man asked. ‘Tell me so that I may believe in him.’ Jesus said, ‘You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you.’ Then the man said, ‘Lord, I believe,’ and he worshiped him.” John 9:35-38

5.  All [4 gospels] of them agree that the Holy Spirit descended upon Christ and that Jesus baptizes his followers with the Holy Spirit:

“Now John was clothed with camel's hair and wore a leather belt around his waist and ate locusts and wild honey. And he preached, saying, ‘After me comes he who is mightier than I, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.’” Mark 1:6-10 – cf. Matthew 3:11-17; Luke 3:15-17, 21-22

“John bore witness about him, and cried out, ‘This was he of whom I said, “He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.”’ … The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is he of whom I said, “After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.” I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.’ And John bore witness: ‘I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, “He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.”  And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.’” John 1:15, 29-34

6.  All of [the 4 gospels] them agree that Jesus is the Savior:

“She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” Matthew 1:21

“For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.” Luke 2:11

“For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.” Luke 19:10

“For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.” John 3:17

“They said to the woman, ‘It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world.’” John 4:42

“If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world.” John 12:47

7.  All [4 of the gospels] of them agree that Jesus came to save people from their sins by offering his life as a vicarious sacrifice:

“even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Matthew 20:28 – cf. Mark 10:45

“Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’ And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.’” Matthew 26:26-28 – cf. Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20

“‘I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ So Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.’” John 6:48-54

8.  All [4 of the gospels ] of them agree that Jesus would (and did) rise from the dead on the third day:

“From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.” Matthew 16:21 – cf. 17:22-23; 20:17-19; 27:62-66; Mark 8:31-32; 9:30-31; 10:32-34; 14:58; 15:29

“But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices they had prepared. And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel. And as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, ‘Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise.’ And they remembered his words, and returning from the tomb they told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest… That very day two of them were going to a village named Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem, and they were talking with each other about all these things that had happened. While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them. But their eyes were kept from recognizing him. And he said to them, ‘What is this conversation that you are holding with each other as you walk?’ And they stood still, looking sad. Then one of them, named Cleopas, answered him, “Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?’ And he said to them, ‘What things?’ And they said to him, ‘Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, a man who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him. But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things happened. Moreover, some women of our company amazed us. They were at the tomb early in the morning, and when they did not find his body, they came back saying that they had even seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive. Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see.’… Then he said to them, ‘These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.’ Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, ‘Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.’” Luke 24:1-9, 13-24, 44-47 – cf. 9:21-22, 43-45; 18:31-34

“And we are witnesses of all that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him on the third day and made him to appear, not to all the people but to us who had been chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.” Acts 10:39-41

“So the Jews said to him, ‘What sign do you show us for doing these things?’ Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?’ But he was speaking about the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.” John 2:19-22

9.  All [4 of the gospels] of them agree that Jesus was crucified alongside two others, with the Roman soldiers dividing his garments among themselves and casting lots for his clothing, and with an inscription placed above his head with the charge “King of the Jews” written on it:

“And they compelled a passerby, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry his cross. And they brought him to the place called Golgotha (which means Place of a Skull). And they offered him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it. And they crucified him and divided his garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take. And it was the third hour when they crucified him. And the inscription of the charge against him read, ‘The King of the Jews.’ And with him they crucified two robbers, one on his right and one on his left… Those who were crucified with him also reviled him.” Mark 15:21-27, 32 – cf. Matthew 27:32-38; Luke 23:32-43

“So he delivered him over to them to be crucified. So they took Jesus, and he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called the place of a skull, which in Aramaic is called Golgotha. There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, and Jesus between them.Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross. It read, ‘Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.’ Many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Aramaic, in Latin, and in Greek. So the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, ‘Do not write, “The King of the Jews,” but rather, “This man said, I am King of the Jews.”’ Pilate answered, ‘What I have written I have written.’ When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his garments and divided them into four parts, one part for each soldier; also his tunic. But the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom, so they said to one another, ‘Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be.’ This was to fulfill the Scripture which says, ‘They divided my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.’” John 19:16-24a

10.  All [ 4 gospels] of them agree that there were a group of Jesus’ followers who were present at his crucifixion:

“There were also women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. When he was in Galilee, they followed him and ministered to him, and there were also many other women who came up with him to Jerusalem.” Mark 15:40-41 – cf. Matthew 27:55-56, 61; Luke 23:55-56

“… So the soldiers did these things, but standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, ‘Woman, behold, your son!’ Then he said to the disciple, ‘Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.” John 19:24b-27

11.  All [ 4 gospels] of them agree that Joseph of Arimathea buried Jesus in his own tomb:

“And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the Council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Pilate was surprised to hear that he should have already died. And summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he was already dead. And when he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the corpse to Joseph. And Joseph bought a linen shroud, and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud and laid him in a tomb that had been cut out of the rock. And he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid.” Mark 15:42-47 – cf. Matthew 27:62-66; Luke 23:50-56

“After these things Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate gave him permission. So he came and took away his body. Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds in weight. So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews. Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid. So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there.” John 19:38-42

12.  All [ 4 gospels] of them agree that it was a group of Jesus’ women followers that first discovered the empty tomb:

“When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. And they were saying to one another, ‘Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?’ And looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back—it was very large. And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed. And he said to them, ‘Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’ And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.” Mark 16:1-8 – cf. Matthew 28:1-10; Luke 24:1-12, 22-24

“Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, ‘They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and WE do not know where they have laid him.’” John 20:1-2

13.  What makes this all the more damaging to Williams’s criticism is that the oldest extant document on Muhammad’s life identifies John’s Gospel as the very Gospel which God revealed to and through Jesus!

“Among the things which have reached me about what Jesus the Son of Mary stated in the Gospel which he received from God for the followers of the Gospel, in applying a term to describe the apostle of God, is the following. It is extracted FROM WHAT JOHN THE APOSTLE SET DOWN FOR THEM WHEN HE WROTE THE GOSPEL FOR THEM FROM THE TESTAMENT OF JESUS SON OF MARY: ‘He that hateth me hateth the Lord. And if I had not done in their presence works which none other before me did, they had not sin: but from now they are puffed up with pride and think that they will overcome me and also the Lord. But the word that is in the law must be fulfilled, “They hated me without a cause” (i.e. without reason). But when the Comforter has come whom God will send to you from the Lord’s presence, and the spirit of truth which will have gone forth from the Lord’s presence he (shall bear) witness of me and ye also, because ye have been with me from the beginning. I have spoken unto you about this that ye should not be in doubt.’“The Munahhemana (God bless and preserve him!) in Syriac is Muhammad; in Greek he is the paraclete.(The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, with introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, Karachi, Tenth impression 1995], pp. 103-104; bold and capital emphasis ours)

The above Muslim biographer quotes John 15:23-16:1 and says that it is taken from the Gospel of Christ which John wrote down for Jesus’ followers, without a word of it being corrupted or unreliable!

What makes Ibn Ishaq’s witness all the more important is that his biography underwent a purging at the hands of Ibn Hisham in the ninth century AD. Ibn Hisham omitted material from Ibn Ishaq that he felt was either weak or damaging to Muhammad’s credibility. And yet he left Ibn Ishaq’s testimony concerning John’s Gospel intact, which implies that it met his demands for authenticity.  

Now if Williams still wants to question the reliability of John’s Gospel on the grounds that it doesn’t read exactly the same way as the other Gospels do, or that it contains more explicit statements from Jesus concerning his divine identity not found in the others, despite their complete agreement with one another concerning Christ’s Person and work, then wouldn’t consistency and integrity demand that he also reject the Quran seeing that it totally opposes the portrait of Christ found in the Synoptic Gospels?

Hopefully, Williams will prove to be a man of integrity and do the honest thing by rejecting Muhammad as a false prophet. After all, if he is going to consistently apply his own criticisms of the Holy Bible to the Quran then he has no choice but to abandon Islam and stop being a Muslim. He simply has no other choice."  (Sam Shamoun, "Jesus, John's Gospel, and Williams", with my numbering and emboldening the main points, and some comments.)

Indeed, all four gospels have the feeding of the five thousand, the trials, the crucifixion, the death, and the resurrection of Jesus Al Masih.  The Qur'an denies real history by denying the crucifixion and death of Christ, which all scholars agree - that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified and died.

The Creation Museum and Luther: Oops.

I found the picture below on this blog. The author rightfully points out a number of errors in the picture of Luther from the Creation Museum exhibit. Here's a very obvious one, at least to me. The quote is probably not something Luther said:

“If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.”

As far as I know, there isn't any proof Luther actually said this.