Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Last Chance for 2013 Donation to Acts 17
Acts 17 Apologetics is a 501c3 charitable organization. If you'd like to support our shows, videos, articles, lectures, debates, etc., and you'd like to see us do even more in 2014, please consider making a tax-deductible donation before the end of 2013.
China: Police Kill Eight Terrorists in Xinjiang Region
We've got jihad in China, jihad in Russia, jihad in the UK, jihad in Iraq, jihad in the US, jihad in Egypt, jihad in Afghanistan, jihad in Kenya, jihad in Pakistan, jihad in France, jihad in India, jihad in Syria, jihad in Spain, jihad in Somalia, jihad in Israel, and so on. If you're starting to think that there's a connection, watch this video.
Associated Press—Authorities in western China said Monday that police fatally shot eight "terrorists" who had attacked them using knives and explosives in the latest in a string of violent incidents in the ethnically tense region.
The Xinjiang government news portal Tianshan Net said that the group of nine attacked officers and burned police cars in Shache county, which is overseen by the famed Silk Road city of Kashgar.
It was the latest in a series of attacks pointing to growing unrest in the large sprawling region of Xinjiang, home to a simmering rebellion against Chinese rule among parts of the native Muslim Uighur population who want more autonomy from Beijing. Recent clashes, including an attack on a police station last month, have left dozens of people dead. (Continue Reading.)
Russian Bus Bomber Pavel Pechyonkin: "I Have Come Here Only to Make Allah Pleased with Me"
Paramedic Pavel Pechyonkin was living a normal life in Russia. But then he converted to Islam, changed his name to Ansar ar-Rusi, and concluded that Allah wants him to fight unbelievers. Where did Pechyonkin get the crazy idea that Allah wants him to fight unbelievers? It certainly wasn't from the Qur'an, which repeatedly commands Muslims to fight unbelievers:
We know from Western politicians and the media that no Muslim takes these verses seriously. So Pechyonkin must have turned to violence for some other reason. I guess we'll never know why.
Pechyonkin's mother doesn't believe that Allah has commanded Muslims to kill. Apparently, she hasn't read the Qur'an, which defines Muslims as those who "slay and are slain":
Qur’an 9:29—Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Qur’an 9:73—O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.
Qur’an 9:123—O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).
We know from Western politicians and the media that no Muslim takes these verses seriously. So Pechyonkin must have turned to violence for some other reason. I guess we'll never know why.
The Moscow Times—The Volgograd train station bomb that killed at least 17 people on Sunday was set off by a Russian man from the nearby region of Mary El who had converted to Islam and joined Dagestani militants, officials said.
The suspect, identified as Pavel Pechyonkin, worked as a paramedic with an ambulance service but left home in 2011 and joined Dagestani militants after converting to Islam and changing his name to Ansar Ar-rusi.
In response to his parents' video appeals for him to come home, Pechyonkin posted his own video online this spring, saying he was following God's will and would not turn back.
"I have come here only to make Allah pleased with me, to earn heaven," he said in the video.
In a plea by his parents recorded in March, his father, Nikolai, admonished his son to "drop those weapons" before he would become a "terrorist."
"Do all Muslims go around with weapons?" the father said in the video. "You are the only one so stubborn. What harm have people done you? […] You are going to kill children."
His mother, Fanaziya, said that she was also a Muslim, and pleaded with her son that he should abstain from using violence.
"What kind of the Koran…" she said, apparently too pained to finish the sentence, before finding the strength to continue: "I don't believe that Allah has ever said that one must kill people." (Continue Reading.)
Pechyonkin's mother doesn't believe that Allah has commanded Muslims to kill. Apparently, she hasn't read the Qur'an, which defines Muslims as those who "slay and are slain":
Qur’an 9:111—Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain.
Monday, December 30, 2013
The Evangelical Problem with the Gospel of John: A Response to Paul Williams
Paul Williams has declared himself a threat to Christians. He says we are afraid of his peerless scholarship and top-notch arguments. Amazingly, he makes these claims while consistently running from our responses. The following post serves as yet another example of why Paul’s self-flattering rhetoric and overinflated view of himself is so wide of the mark.
---------
One of the things some people
point out when they argue against the deity of Christ is that the Gospel of
Mark (in contrast to the Gospel of John) does not record any of the absolute “I
Am” sayings of Jesus, i.e. the “I am” statements of Jesus that lack a predicate
(John 4:26,
6:20, 8:24, 28, 58, 13:19, 18:5, 6, 8). It is widely agreed among scholars
that such sayings signal a high Christology, and since some scholars are
convinced in advance that Mark’s Christology is low – indeed, this is a critical
first-step in arguing that belief in the deity of Christ is something that
developed later – they conclude that such sayings cannot be found in Mark, and
thus proceed to attack the credibility of John’s Gospel. This way of thinking
is typified by Paul Williams, who recently got all giddy over a comment from
Ben Witherington III to the effect that the “I Am” statements in John are
difficult (note: not impossible) to prove on the narrow criteria employed by
those using the historical-critical method. The point of this post will not be
to challenge PW’s understanding of how the historical-critical method works or
whether or not his understanding of it is nuanced enough to know why this does
not do anything to disprove the veracity of John’s Gospel, but to show that
this is yet another example of how PW’s uncritical acceptance of certain
theories (such as Markan priority; evolving Christology; etc.) and lazy
dependence on select scholars (as evidenced by the priority he so often assigns
to their conclusions to the relative neglect of the evidence they muster for
them) actually clinches the argument that the earliest Gospel, i.e. the Gospel
of Mark, teaches a Christology every bit as high as the Gospel of John.
Sweetening the Pot
Before demonstrating
just how this is the case, it is worthwhile to throw Bart Ehrman in the mix
here as potential support for PW. Here is something Ehrman has said on this
issue:
“The problem is that the only Gospel of the New Testament where Jesus
makes divine claims about himself is the Gospel of John. In the three, earlier
Gospels you do not find Jesus saying things like “I and the Father are One,” or
“Before Abraham was, I am,” or “If you have seen me, you have seen the
Father.” These sayings are found only in the Fourth Gospel, as are all the
other “I am” sayings, in which Jesus identifies himself as the one who has come
from heaven to earth for the salvation of all who believe in him.” (“The Problem with Liar, Lunatic, or Lord”)
Ehrman
is exactly right when he says that Christ’s “I Am” declarations are
self-referential statements of Jesus wherein He identifies Himself as God. In
fact, this would have been as emphatic a declaration of deity as one could
imagine in a first century Jewish context, arguably even stronger than saying
“I am God.” (I have argued this at length in the following article: The Old
Testament and Jewish Background for the “I AM” Sayings of the Logos – the Lord
Jesus Christ: A Word that Bridges the Gap)
One
of the rare but genuinely good insights of PW is that he recognizes along with
people like Bart Ehrman that this is a clear claim to deity, something many other
Muslims have yet to catch up with. It is important for the reader to keep this
fact in mind. Any attempt on the part of PW to turn around later and deny that
this phenomenon is a clear claim to deity will expose just how arbitrary PW’s
entire anti-Christian project really is.
Dinner Is Served
To
show just how all of this is a problem for PW we need to look first at one of
the examples of an “I Am” saying that can be found in John’s Gospel.
16 Now
when evening came, His disciples went down to the sea, 17 and after
getting into a boat, they started to
cross the sea to Capernaum. It had already become dark, and Jesus had not yet
come to them. 18 The sea began
to be stirred up because a strong wind was blowing. 19 Then, when
they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the sea and
drawing near to the boat; and they were frightened. 20 But He said
to them, “It is I; do not be afraid.” 21 So they were willing to
receive Him into the boat, and immediately the boat was at the land to which
they were going. (John 6)
Although
not evident in many English translations, the self-asseveration of Jesus in
6:20, which the NASB cited above translates as “It is I; do not be afraid,” is
one of the absolute “I Am” sayings in John’s Gospel. A literal translation
would be: “I Am [Gr. ego eimi]; do
not be afraid.” (See, e.g., Young’s Literal Translation, Green's Literal Translation of the Bible, etc.)
With
this in mind, we are now ready to turn to Mark’s Gospel in order to see the
problem that PW has created for himself.
As
it turns out, the Sea-Walking pericope found in John, where Jesus utters one of
his many famous “I Am” statements, is also found in Mark’s Gospel.
45 Immediately Jesus made His
disciples get into the boat and go ahead of Him to the other side to Bethsaida, while He Himself was sending
the crowd away. 46 After bidding them farewell, He left for the
mountain to pray. 47 When it was evening, the boat was in the
middle of the sea, and He was alone on the land. 48 Seeing them
straining at the oars, for the wind was against them, at about the fourth watch
of the night He came to them, walking on the sea; and He intended to pass by
them. 49 But when they saw Him walking on the sea, they supposed
that it was a ghost, and cried out; 50 for they all saw Him and
were terrified. But immediately He spoke with them and said to them, “Take
courage; it is I [Gr. ego eimi; I Am], do not be afraid.” 51 Then
He got into the boat with them, and the wind stopped; and they were utterly
astonished, 52 for they had not gained any insight from the incident of the loaves, but their
heart was hardened. (Mark 6)
Since PW
doesn’t have the ears to hear a “fundamentalist” like myself, and since he can’t
think on his own either, I will let the following scholars speak for me. Maybe,
just maybe, after these scholars have given PW permission to believe the obvious,
he will repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Commenting
on this passage, Professor Larry Hurtado remarks:
This is the second sea miracle in
Mark (see also 4:35-41), and in our comments on the earlier one we noted that
Jesus’ command of the sea is so described as to make him seem to exhibit God’s
own power over nature. The same is true here, where Jesus not only calms the
sea (6:51) but also walks upon it. Readers familiar with the OT would recognize
the similarity to the way God is described there (see note) as the one who
treads upon the sea, showing his mastery of it.
Now this suggests that the sea
miracle depicts the one who fed the multitude in the preceding account as more
than a new Moses or a new shepherd-king like David; he possesses divine power.
We have noted already that Mark’s favorite title for Jesus is “the Son of God,”
and that for Mark this term signifies that Jesus has a relationship with God
far more direct than is indicated by the previous use of the term for human
beings in the OT or Jewish tradition. This sea miracle Mark enlists as further
evidence that Jesus is not just human but has a supernatural quality and divine
significance. Even the way Jesus addresses the disciples, It is I, implies this. The phrase appears in the OT as almost a
title or formula of divine self-disclosure (e.g. Isa. 43:25; 48:12; 51:12, and
see note), and it is likely that Mark’s readers were intended to catch the
allusion to these OT passages in Jesus’ words and see the point that Jesus is
speaking the way God does. [Hurtado, Mark,
New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson
Publishers, 1989), p. 103; Bold emphasis original.]
Hurtado
adds the following in a footnote on page 106:
6:50 / It is I: The Greek phrase used here can function simply as a
self-identification. But it is used in the OT (e.g. Isa. 43:25; 48:12; 51:12;)
with special force as a formula for self-description by God, resembling the
phrasing in Exod. 3:14 where God first reveals himself to Moses. Note
especially how the whole passage in Isa. 51:9-16 is a most interesting
background for the sea miracle account here. In Mark the phrase reappears on
the lips of Jesus in the trial scene (14:62), and there, also, is probably
intended as an allusion to these OT passages. Also, in 13:6, Jesus warns of
imposters who would come making the same (divine?) claim for themselves. (See
“I am,” NIDNTT, vol. 2, pp. 278-83.)
Although
not following these observations out to their obvious end, Mary Ann Beavis rightly
observes:
Many commentators connect the
scene of Jesus treading the waves with the Scriptural theme of God’s power over
the wind and the sea (e.g. Donahue and Harrington 2002, 213; Boring 2006, 189),
especially passages where God is said to make a path through the waters (Job
9:8; Ps. 77:19; Isa. 43:16;….). In view of the Elijah-Elisha typology evident
throughout this section, the parting of the Jordan by both prophets may also be
in view (2 Kings 2:8, 14). Similarly, the combination of the term “to pass by”
(paralthein) with Jesus’s greeting ego eimi (“It is I,” 6:50) is often
interpreted as indicating an epiphany: Jesus’ “passing by” the disciples is compared
to the glory of YHWH “passing by” Moses (Exod. 33:17-34:8) or Elijah (cf. 1
Kings 19:11-13); the ego eimi is
connected with God’s self-disclosure at Sinai (Exod. 3:13-15 LXX; ego eimi ho on; e.g. Marcus 2000,
430-432; Moloney 2002, 134; Boring 2006, 190). [Beavis, Mark, Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Baker Academic, 2011), p. 108.]
Dr. Daniel
Johansson provided the following in his doctoral dissertation:
If Jesus’
walking is placed at the centre of the pericope, its climax is certainly Jesus’
use of the self-designation ἐγώ εἰμι
(6:50).51 The immediate and obvious function of these words is, of
course, to identify the unknown figure who is walking on the sea: “It is I.”52
At the level of narrative, this must be the primary meaning. The disciples
think they see a ghost, but Jesus assures them that it is he. In conjunction
with all the other elements of divine epiphany, however, especially the
sea-walking motif, there are good reasons to think that Jesus’ words also echo
the divine “I am” in the OT.53 The words not only rule out the ghost
theory, they actually identify Jesus with the figure who demonstrates a
uniquely divine power over the creation by walking on the sea: “I am he.” ….
In the LXX,
the phrase ἐγώ
εἰμι is used to translate
Hebrew הֽוּא אֲנִי (often rendered “I am he”) in Deut 32:39 and several
passages in Isaiah 40-55.55 In Deut 32:39, the formula appears in the
distinctly monotheistic declaration, “Behold, I, even I am he; there is no god
except me [LXX:
ἴδετε ἴδετε ὅτι
ἐγώ εἰμι καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν θεὸς πλὴν ἐμοῦ].” The same monotheistic pattern is visible in
Isaiah 40-55 where the formula plays a central role in the recurring assertions
of YHWH’s uniqueness and sovereignty as creator and saviour, for example Isa
43:10-11:
... that you
may know and believe me and understand that I am he [ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι].Before me no god was
formed, nor shall there be any after me. I, I am YHWH, and besides me there is no
saviour.
In these
passages the phrase functions as “a divine self-declaration, which encapsulates
Yahweh’s claim to unique and exclusive divinity.”56 One often sees
the commentaries referring to the phrase ἐγώ εἰμι as “die alttestamentliche Offenbarungsformel,”57
but in view of its usage in Deuteronomy and Isaiah we should probably rather
speak of a divine
self-declaration than
a self-revelatory formula.58 הֽוּא אֲנִי or its Greek equivalent
is not another divine name;59 it serves as a self-declaration of
YHWH’s absolute uniqueness.60 The function of the “I am” is thus the
same as in the sea-walking passages we looked at earlier; it serves to
demonstrate that YHWH and no other is divine.61
That the
primary background of ἐγώ εἰμι
in our
passage is to be found in these הֽוּא אֲנִי/ἐγώ εἰμι passages is considerably strengthened by the
striking parallels between Mark’s account of Jesus’ sea-walking and Isa
43:1-13, which combines an absolute ἐγώ εἰμι statement (two occurrences of Hebrew הֽוּא אֲנִי),
with the Trostformel mh\ fobou~, the motif of crossing
water, and salvation, all of which are present in Mark:62
v 1: Fear not [LXX: mh\ fobou~], for I have redeemed you.
v 2a: When
you pass through the water, I will be with you, the rivers
shall not
overwhelm you.
v 3a For I
am YHWH, your God.
v 5 Fear not,
for I am
with you.
v 10 You are
my witnesses ... that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he
[MT: הֽוּא אֲנִי;
LXX: ἐγώ εἰμι]. Before me no god was
formed, nor shall there be any after me.
v 11 I, I am
YHWH [MT: ani
ani YHWH); LXX:
ἐγώ εἰμι], and besides me there is
no savior.
v 12b-13 I
am God, and also henceforth I am [MT: הֽוּא אֲנִי]; there is none who can deliver from my hand: I
work and who can hinder it?
The divine
self-declaration also appears in the other Isaiah passage which uses the image
of God’s power over the water (51:9-16). In this case, the LXX has a double ἐγώ εἰμι (51:12). In view of the
occurrence of ἐγώ
εἰμι in passages which speak
of YHWH’s dominance of waters, as well as the fact that all instances except
one of the divine self-declaration appears in a OT book which certainly has
influenced Mark, it is probable that Jesus’ words should be interpreted against
this background, rather than the interpretation of God’s name in Exodus 3.63
If this is
correct, it means that Jesus applies one of the strongest assertions of
monotheism in the OT to himself.
This has
considerable implications for Mark’s christology. On the one hand, it means
that Jewish monotheism is maintained. There is only one God, the God of Israel,
YHWH (cf. Mark 12:29). On the other hand, it also implies that Jesus is not a second divine figure
beside YHWH, but somehow closely identified with the one God of Israel.64
Jesus does not only act as God only can by walking on the sea, he even applies
the divine self-identification to himself.65 [Johansson, Jesus and God in the Gospel of Mark: Unity
and Distinction, Doctoral Dissertation presented at the University of
Edinburgh, 2011, pp. 113-116.]
Here
are Johansson’s corresponding footnotes:
51 So Ritt, “Seewandel
Jesus,” 81.
52 Among exegetes who
think this is the only meaning are Taylor, Mark 330; J. D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament
Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (London: SCM, 1980), 31;
France, Mark, 273, n. 71.
53 This seems to be the
view of most exegetes dealing with this pericope. In some older commentaries
this is taken as the primary indication of a high christology in this narrative
(e.g., Grundmann, Markus, 143; Gärtner, Markus, 173).
54 On this, see esp. C. H.
Williams, I am He: The
Interpretation of ’Anî Hû’ in Jewish and Early Christian Literature (WUNT 2:113; Tübingen:
Mohr [Siebeck], 2000) and R. J. Bauckham, “Monotheism and Christology in the
Gospel of John,” in Contours
of Christology in the New Testament (ed. R. N. Longenecker; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2005), 157-59.
55 According to Bauckham
(“Monotheism,” 158-59), the LXX has e0gw/ ei0mi in three instances (Deut 32:39; Isa 41:4;
43:10), the same number of instances as in Mark (6:5; 13:6; 14:62), and the
double e0gw/
eim0 i e0gw/ ei0mi four
times (Isa 43:25; 45:18; 46:4; 51:12). The MT has )wh yn) seven times (Deut 32:39;
Isa 41:4; 43:10, 13; 46:4; 48:12; 52:6) and the emphatic )wh ykn) ykn) twice (43:25; 51:12)
56 Bauckham, “Monotheism,” 158. Similarly, Williams, Interpretation, 41.
57 E.g., Pesch, Markus, 1:361-62, Gnilka, Markus, 1:270; Guelich, Mark, 351; Stein, Mark, 325, following H.
Zimmermann, “Das absolute eg0 w/ eim0 i als die neutestamentliche Offenbarungsformel,” BZ 4 (1960): 54-69, 266-76.
58 Williams, Interpretation, 23-50,
223-24.
59 Cf.
e.g., C. H. Dodd, The
Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1968), 93-96.
60 Williams, Interpretation, 41.
61 Cf. S. M. McDonough, YHWH at Patmos: Rev. 1:4 in its Hellenistic
and Early Jewish Setting (WUNT 2:107; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1999),
172: “the phrase is closely associated with YHWH’s uniqueness; his saving
activity on behalf of his people; his creative activity; and his eternal
being.”
62 Cf. Heil, Walking, 59.
63 Some exegetes prefer to
read the “I am” statement against the background of occurrences of eg0 w/ eim0 i in Exodus (3:14 and the
phrase eg0
w/ eim0 i ku/rioj in
14:4 and 18) because of the influence Exodus 14-15 may have had on the Markan
sea narrative. Stegner, “Walking,” 212-34, detects a number of parallels,
including key words, phrases, and structural parallels. However, even if Exodus
14-15 has influenced Mark’s telling of the narrative, and the linking of the
sea walking narrative with the miraculous feeding seems in fact to imply this,
even if in the reversed order, this does not exclude that the background of the
“I am” statement is to be sought in Isaiah’s new Exodus where the formula actually
is present. We have already seen how Mark combines various theophanic motifs
and divine actions from various parts of the OT contexts. Whether the “I am”
statement ultimately goes back to Exod 3:14 is another question. Williams, Interpretation, 52-54, argues that the
link is absent in the Hebrew Bible.
In light of this, and this is only the tip of the ice-berg, it is little wonder that so many scholars have thrown off the self-imposed and mind-shackling mentality on full display in people like PW and have concluded that Mark’s Gospel contains a High Christology. Here is a representative sampling:
William Hendrickson: “The
Christology implied throughout in Mark’s Gospel is that, to begin with, Jesus
is thoroughly human….However, this same Jesus of Mark’s Gospel is also
thoroughly divine.” [Exposition of the
Gospel According to Mark, NTC (Grand Rapids, Baker Academic: 1975), p. 17.]
Wayne Allan Brindle,
Th.D.: “In Mark the title [‘Son of God’ – AR] designates Jesus’ unique
relationship with the Father and His possession of the authority and power of
God….Mark focuses on the revelation of Jesus as God’s unique and divine Son. [A Definition of the Title “Son of God” in the Synoptic
Gospels,
Doctoral dissertation, DTS, 1988, p. 219.]
Larry Hurtado: “...
Marcan Christology is by no means ‘low’ or ‘adoptionist’ …” [“The Gospel of Mark in
recent study,” Themelios 14.2 (Jan/Feb, 1989), p. 50.]
Vincent Taylor: “Mark’s Christology is a high Christology, as high as any in the New
Testament, not excluding that of John. Behind a fully human life Deity is
concealed; but it is visible for those who have eyes to see it in his
personality, teaching and deeds….The Markan Son of God is a divine being…Jesus
is by nature the Son of God.” [The Gospel According to Mark,
Thornapple Commentaries, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House,
1981), as cited in Patrick J. Flanagan, The Gospel of Mark Made Easy
(Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1997), p. 25, 121.]
Patrick J. Flanagan: “In
Mark, Jesus is very clearly human, but Mark’s Christology is a high
Christology. In fact, Raymond Brown states quite simply that all of the Gospels
and all New Testament documents that touch on the subject present Jesus as
divine. For me, of the four Gospels, Mark strikes the best balance in its
presentation of Jesus: he is clearly human, and yet clearly divine.” [The Gospel of Mark Made Easy (Mahwah,
New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1997), p. 24]
E. Lohmeyer: “[Jesus
for Mark is] not primarily a human but a divine figure…. He is not merely
endowed with the power of God, but is himself divine as to his nature; not only
are his word and work divine but his essence also.” [Das Evangelim des Markus 12th ed., (Göttingen,
Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1953), 4. As cited in Robert L. Reymond, A New
Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson
Publisher, 1998), p. 293]
Dr. W. R. Telford: “…the author of Mark’s Gospel
writes as a representative of a Pauline-influenced Gentile Christianity which
viewed Jesus (and, by means of the secrecy motif, invites the reader to view
him) as the divine ‘Son of God’ who came to suffer and die on the cross….Mark
has presented these traditions in such a way as to leave his readers in no
doubt as to the significance that ought to be attached to the historical figure
of Jesus, namely, that he is the supernatural ‘Son of God.’” [New Testament Theology: The Theology of the
Gospel of Mark (Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 53-54.]
E.
Boring: “The explicit use of God-language for Jesus by later NT authors and the
classical creeds is in continuity with the Christology already present in Mark.” [“Markan Christology:
God-Language for Jesus?”, NTS 45 (1999), pp. 451ff.]
Dr. Jack Kilcrease:
“…the Synoptic Gospels share a high and descending Christology with the rest of
the New Testament and historic orthodox Christianity.” (Mark’s Christology and
Theology of Atonement)
Dr. Bonnie Bowman
Thurston: “‘Son of God’ is found in the Markan theophanies (1:11; 9:7), and
when demons bespeak Jesus’ identity (3:11; 5:7), it is claimed by Jesus
(14:61-61) and confessed by the centurion at the cross (15:39). It reflects a
seldom-noted Markan ‘high’ Christology.” [Preaching
Mark (Fortress Press, 2002), p. 14.]
Richard Bauckham: “A purely functional account of Jesus’ divinity in
this Gospel is not adequate; rather Mark shares with early Christian writers in
general … a Christology of divine identity.” [“God’s Self Identification with the
Godforsaken in the Gospel of Mark,” Jesus and the God of Israel: God
Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine
Identity (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
2008), pp. 264-265.]
Daniel Johansson: “…the
ambiguous use of kurios [GMark – AR]
is intentional and serves the purpose of linking Jesus to the God of Israel, so
that they both share the identity as kurios.”
[“Kyrios in the Gospel of Mark,” JSNT, Sept. (2010), 33, pp. 102-103]
Daniel Johansson: “…the
Markan Jesus is considerably more than a merely human Messiah; he is a divine
figure…Mark links Jesus directly and closely to YHWH, the one God of Israel…The
Christology of Mark presents a paradox in which Jesus is fully human and, at
the same time, in a mysterious way placed on the divine side of the
God-creation divide.” [Jesus and God in
the Gospel of Mark: Unity and Distinction, doctoral dissertation presented
for the degree of PhD at the University of Edinburgh (2011), Abstract, p. ii]
Jamieson,
Fausset, Brown: “These few opening words of the Second Gospel [Mark 1:1 – AR]
are enough to show, that though it was the purpose of this Evangelist to record
chiefly the outward and palpable facts of our Lord’s public life, he recognized
in Him, in common with the Fourth Evangelist, the glory of the Only begotten of
the Father.” [A Commentary Critical,
Experimental, and Practical, Vol. III (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B.
Eerdmans), p. 137.]
I may add more to this at some point, but this ought to be sufficient for now to show how PW’s own reasoning necessitates accepting that the earliest Gospel, the Gospel of Mark, teaches a High Christology.
Is Monty Python's Michael Palin an Islamophobe for Admitting He's Scared to Make Fun of Islam
Trey Parker and Matt Stone received death threats after announcing that Muhammad would be appearing on an episode of South Park, so the network scrubbed the episode of anything remotely offensive in order to avoid becoming a target.
The writers for that week's episode of The Simpsons sympathized with Stone and Parker, acknowledging that criticizing Islam is simply too dangerous:
Likewise, Penn Jillette (of the comedy duo "Penn and Teller") said that he and Teller won't mock Islam because they "have families."
Now the great Michael Palin is admitting that he's afraid to make fun of Islam.
How long can Western civilization continue to claim, on the one hand, that Islam is no different from other religions, and, on the other hand, that Islam is clearly far more dangerous than other religions?
Of course, comedians and comedy writers aren't the only ones who have admitted their fear of Islam. During a Question and Answer session, textual critic Bart Ehrman said that the reason he doesn't write about the Qur'an the way he writes about the Bible is that he values is life:
Will Muslim organizations like CAIR and ISNA condemn Palin, Ehrman, and others as "Islamophobes" and "bigots" for saying that it's too dangerous to criticize Islam? Or is the silencing of critics precisely the goal of these organizations?
For more on this topic, be sure to watch "Don't Make Fun of Muhammad."
The writers for that week's episode of The Simpsons sympathized with Stone and Parker, acknowledging that criticizing Islam is simply too dangerous:
Likewise, Penn Jillette (of the comedy duo "Penn and Teller") said that he and Teller won't mock Islam because they "have families."
Now the great Michael Palin is admitting that he's afraid to make fun of Islam.
How long can Western civilization continue to claim, on the one hand, that Islam is no different from other religions, and, on the other hand, that Islam is clearly far more dangerous than other religions?
Daily Mail—During his Monty Python days he poked fun at everyone from the Establishment to Christianity.
Michael Palin
But thanks to the threat of ‘heavily armed’ fanatics, Michael Palin has admitted there is one comedy taboo he is too scared to break - Islam.
The 70-year-old said religious sensitivities have increased so much since his comedy days it would now be impossible to make 1979 film Life of Brian - which satirised the life of Jesus - let alone laugh at Muslims.
He said: ‘Religion is more difficult to talk about. I don’t think we could do Life of Brian any more. A parody of Islam would be even harder.
‘We all saw what happened to Salman Rushdie and none of us want to get into all that. It’s a pity but that’s the way it is. There are people out there without a sense of humour and they’re heavily armed.’
In 1989, Mr Rushdie was forced into hiding after the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, issued a fatwa calling for him to be killed in revenge for his novel The Satanic Verses. (Continue Reading.)
Of course, comedians and comedy writers aren't the only ones who have admitted their fear of Islam. During a Question and Answer session, textual critic Bart Ehrman said that the reason he doesn't write about the Qur'an the way he writes about the Bible is that he values is life:
Will Muslim organizations like CAIR and ISNA condemn Palin, Ehrman, and others as "Islamophobes" and "bigots" for saying that it's too dangerous to criticize Islam? Or is the silencing of critics precisely the goal of these organizations?
For more on this topic, be sure to watch "Don't Make Fun of Muhammad."
Russia: Third Terrorist Attack in Four Days
But don't forget that you're a racist if you say that any of this has anything to do with Islam.
Click here for more on jihad.
MOSCOW - At least 14 people were killed and 28 wounded when an explosion ripped through a trolley bus in the Russian city of Volgograd on Monday, the country's third deadly attack in four days.
The explosion, which authorities blamed on a suicide bomber, tore out much of the electric bus' exterior, left mangled bodies on the street and raised fears about more violence in the lead-up to the Sochi Winter Olympics that Russia will host in six weeks.
NBC's Jim Maceda reports on the trolley bus explosion in Volgograd, Russia – a third explosion in the country in the last few days – as the Sochi Olympics near.
"For the second day, we are dying - it's a nightmare," a woman near the scene told Reuters, her voice trembling. "What are we supposed to do, just walk now?"
Volgograd, a city of around one million about 400 miles northeast of Sochi, is a key transport hub for southern Russia, with many bus routes linking it to the volatile provinces in the North Caucasus.
On Sunday, 17 people were killed in a terror attack by a suspected female suicide bomber at a railway station in Volgograd. And on Friday, a car bomb killed three people in the southern Russian city of Pyatigorsk, 170 miles east of Sochi, where the Olympics will be held. (Continue Reading.)
Click here for more on jihad.
Sunday, December 29, 2013
Paul Williams' Other Lords
Someone named "ItsMe" asked PW if he was going to respond to my article. PW's reply is quite enlightening.
PW
is upset that I refuted his attack on the reliability of the Gospel portrayals
of Mary without enlisting any help from scholars. After telling someone who goes by the name "ItsMe" that he (PW) was not going to respond to my refutation since it is "silly fundamentalist claptrap," one of PW's supporters, who is audacious and pugnacious enough to call himself "Jesus," and whose level of hatred and vitriol for the true Jesus is equalled only by PW, wrote the following:
Apparently, since PW can’t
lift ten-pound dumbbells without spotters, I am not supposed to do so
either.
I
pointed out that PW's proffered reasoning for Markan priority and the
2D/Oxford-Hypthesis (as over against the Griesbach-Hypothesis or the
Independence view) was logically fallacious and unpersuasive. Paul rejected my
appeal TO LOGIC as “silly fundamentalist claptrap.” With such an unwitting
admission, this can only be considered a good day for fundamentalists.
PW
said that Mark presents a negative view of Mary. This, PW told us, is in stark
contrast to the positive picture of Mary found in Matthew and Luke. I cited the
primary sources to show that PW was as wrong as wrong could be and that he was
engaging in rank eisegesis. Paul
rejected my appeal to THE PRIMARY SOURCES and sound EXEGESIS as “silly fundamentalist
claptrap.” Once again, Christian fundamentalists should be dancing a jig.
Let
me make clear what Paul is telling us here so even his irreverent friend Isa doesn't miss it. PW likes to use “fundamentalist” as
a derisive term of embarrassment that applies to people who are intellectually
impoverished so he can just dismiss the arguments we make rather than actually
having to think through them. But, in effect, by calling my appeal to logic,
the primary sources, and sound principles of exegesis “fundamentalist
clap-trap” he has tacitly admitted that fundamentalists enjoy an embarrassment
of riches. If being a fundamentalist means taking logic, facts, and principles
of interpretation seriously, then all Christians should be happy to be part of this "eschatological house," and PW should be embarrassed that he is left standing outside.
Are PW and Isa really not bothered by the fact that they can't read the Gospels or think for themselves without needing liberal masters (or any scholars
for that matter) to hold their hands and tell them what to think? (I suppose that is not too far-fetched. After all, they consider themselves so dimwitted and devoid of the natural light that God gives to everyone, that they think they need special verbal revelation to tell them how to go to the bathroom.) Come on, fellas! Don’t be so pathetic. Take
off the training wheels. Ditch the idols.
They have taken [scholars] and [scribes] as lords apart from God and the Messiah, Mary's son… (S. 9:31 – Roger’s Standard Version)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)