Getting Your Opponents Right

Are you representing them correctly? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

There’s a rule that on April 1st, everyone checks everything that is said or shared on social media. This is a day of tricks and we want to make sure we’re getting our information right. Who wants to be fooled?

Compare this with, say, a political season. In the past, the main thing to watch out for doctored pictures. Now we’re going to have to start looking out for deepfakes. I remember I used to have to send out corrections in email blasts when I would get an email about the latest thing Obama had done years ago, except, well, he hadn’t done it. I couldn’t stand what he did to the country, but I sure wasn’t going to have him misrepresented.

Why? Because I want to defeat my opponent in truth, not in falsehood. I want to make sure I am representing them. I want to know their position enough that if I had to, I could argue for it myself.

I’m in a Facebook group for Christians and Jehovah’s Witnesses to debate. What are the kinds of arguments I see? Why is Jesus praying to Himself? Don’t you know that three does not equal one? Look at these pagan triads!

Over and over, myself and others say that these are not what we believe as Christians. We are not claiming that three = one. We are not claiming that Jesus is praying to Himself. The whole thing about the Trinity from paganism is just bad information, but I threw it in to show the bad research done.

Something I tell these people arguing against the Trinity is that if you care about truth, you want to make sure you’re not just getting your views accurate. You want to make sure you’re getting the views of your opponents right. That’s part of caring about truth. It doesn’t mean you think they’re right. It means you care enough about them and their positions that you want to get them right.

I see plenty of Christians arguing against evolution and saying “If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes? This is treated as a major defeater when most every evolutionist out there knows how to answer that. I’m not saying there aren’t good arguments against evolution. I’m not saying there are good arguments against it. I’m saying that this is a bad argument against it. You can disagree with a position and think some arguments against it are bad. You can agree with a position and think some arguments for it are bad. There are some theistic arguments I will not use since I don’t think they work.

If I was arguing against Muslims and kept telling them that the Koran says XYZ, and they kept telling me “No! That’s not what it means!” wisdom would tell me that after awhile I should go and check and see if I am reading it right. It would be easy for me to look at what agrees with me. No. I need to go to their sources and see. Believe it or not, I don’t use the argument that the Koran itself denies the crucifixion because a Christian book I read on the Koran once gave an argument that shows the Koran really isn’t saying that. I can’t in good conscience use that argument. If a Muslim, however, argues against the crucifixion, then I can indeed say it’s fair game and make my case, but not because I think the Koran teaches it didn’t happen, but because my opponent thinks it didn’t.

I’ll also let readers know I am always reading something from a position that I disagree with. I am going through at least one book that is like that constantly. I also make it a point to not dismiss the book.

For instance, in a Mormonism debate group, there was a Mormon who recently shared something from Bart Ehrman. Too many Christians were apparently saying that he was an apostate and all this other stuff. Even saying that, what matters is his data. Meanwhile, too many Mormons say that the material they are arguing against is from anti-Mormon sites and sources. What of it? The data is what matters.

I don’t know if this is accurate or not, but I remember years ago hearing that it was a medieval rule that in a debate, you couldn’t respond to your opponent’s argument until you were able to phrase it in your own words to his satisfaction. How many of our debates would be better with this simple rule? Such a stance would actually make you have to think about your opponent’s position and reason through it on your own.

Also, if you think a position can be defeated by simplistic sayings, it is most likely you have not understood it.

For those of us who are Christians, we claim to be people of truth. Everything that we talk about should be about truth. This means not just what we believe, but what our opponents believe. In a sense, if we misrepresent them, to some degree, we’re misrepresenting Christ.

Let’s not do that.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Why Christians Are Wrong About Jesus — Isaiah 9:5-6

Do we have the correct interpretation of Isaiah 9:5-6? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We return now to Campbell’s book and we’re looking at this passage in Isaiah. Campbell argues that the child in the passage is Hezekiah. Does he have a case here?

Not really. Isaiah 7 is the one that starts all of this off with the Syro-Ephraimite war. Judah is being told that they need to join in to resist Assyria and if they don’t, the other nations will destroy Judah. Isaiah tells Ahaz to not worry about the situation. The whole plan will fall apart and Judah will survive.

Ahaz is highly resistant to this and Isaiah tells him to ask for a sign and Ahaz says “No! I will not ask for a sign!” Isaiah then says that he will get a sign anyway. The virgin shall be with child! While this is a prophecy of the virgin birth, which I do affirm, the immediate context is not about the virgin birth, which I do affirm.

The point of this prophecy is that the child will grow up and before he is done being weaned, the whole coalition will fall apart. The virgin in this case is the wife of Isaiah. She would have a child and the prophecy will be initially fulfilled.

Here then is a reason why this cannot be Hezekiah. Hezekiah was of the lineage of Judah and Isaiah would not be giving birth to a king like that. The child is instead Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz.

Campbell doesn’t really give much of an argument, but since I have said that this is about the virgin birth, which I do affirm, I should further expand on my position. The child in the case of Isaiah was never named Immanuel. Jesus was said to be Immanuel in the New Testament, meaning God with us. This could be an inclusio with bookends of the Gospel being “God With Us.”

The virgin birth, which I do affirm, is a greater fulfillment that was meant to be

for the whole of the House of David. The greater evil to be dealt with is the evil of sin. The prophecy points beyond the immediate situation and goes to a far-distant future.

Jesus is the one that is also truly God with us. Also, keep in mind that the writers of the LXX saw this as referring to a virgin by their usage of the word parthenos. Jesus is the true hope of Israel in the end and the one that is the ultimate sign of the person of God being with us.

The other part of this chapter is a look at Daniel 9. There is a lot that is said I understand in the appendix and I have not got to that point yet so we will get to that at a later date. It is a complex issue.

We will next time be looking at the effect of Paul on Christianity which I have a lot to say about. We’ll deal with that then.

And I affirm the virgin birth.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Do You Think About The Roman Empire?

Is the Roman Empire really on your mind? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We all know the joke going around the internet now about how often men think about the Roman Empire. Before I heard it, I couldn’t tell you how often I did, but I am sure it was frequent. I am reading the letters of Seneca right now for one and if you study the New Testament, that kind of coincides with the Roman Empire.

I also have a friend who says he thinks about Christendom instead. Yes. We should think about that, but at the same time, I do think that while this is all funny, there is something true here. We need to think about the Roman Empire.

The Roman Empire at the time was the most powerful empire in the world. Rome was the eternal city. At its peak, it would have been suicide to have messed with it, and yet now, it’s gone. It’s a study of ancient history.

To be sure, it has left its effects behind. Many of our legal categories still come from the Romans today. We also do have the wisdom of the Romans such as Seneca who I mentioned as well as writers like Marcus Aurelius and Cicero and others. We can think of plays such as Julius Caesar. We can watch movies like Gladiator.

This is also the empire that God chose to have Jesus be born in and to be the birthplace of Christianity. Christianity grew and thrived in this empire that for all its nobility, was also quite immoral in many areas. Do I need to remind us of Nero who even had his own mother killed?

Also, Christianity arose in an empire where it was heavily persecuted. Sure, it wasn’t constant, but there were many emperors who held persecutions to try to eliminate Christians. We in America can be thankful that at least so far, we haven’t had the military of the nation go on a crusade to try to kill Christians.

In the end also, Christianity won the day. The empire actually became Christian. Unfortunately, too little, too late. It fell anyway, but the Christianity remained. No. Contrary to the thought of many, there are several problems with the idea that this led to a period called the “Dark Ages”. Christianity was still thriving.

So why do we need to think about the Roman Empire?

First off, this is a point of history and we need to learn from it. We need to see what people did back then and how they lived back then. Our ancestors were not idiots. They still have truths they can teach us.

Second, politically, we in America can think we are an invincible empire, but we are not. We need to see why it is the Roman Empire fell and what we can do to make sure it doesn’t happen here. Those who think they are too big to fail, too often do.

Third, we need to learn about how to spread Christianity. The earliest Christians spread throughout the Roman Empire without aid of technology like we have today, be it cars, planes, or media through the internet. They did more with less. Can you imagine how Paul would be using the internet if he had it available today?

Think about the Roman Empire. We should. Learn the history of it. Respect it, but also learn from its experiences. Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Visiting A Deaf Church

What’s it like going to a deaf church? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Yesterday, I went to a church in New Orleans for the deaf. I did let them know early on that I can hear and for a time, I was talking some since the person I was speaking to could read lips, but then I was speaking too fast so they brought in an interpreter. There were some people at the church who could hear as well, such as the pastor’s wife. When people came and talked to me, they always started with including sign language until I told them, “I can hear and I can’t read sign language at all.”

On my way there, I was thinking about how much we take hearing for granted. What would it be like to live in a world without being able to enjoy music, for instance? I saw they said something about video phones instead of just regular smartphones which left me wondering if there’s a special tool that is available for the deaf so they can use phones. Of course, we use our phones for so much more than phone calls anymore that it doesn’t surprise me that the deaf have phones.

While the deaf can’t hear music, there was still music. It was done by a lady on a screen who would sing and sign at the same time, though I’m sure the audience wasn’t joining in. There was a time for prayer requests and I was surprised to hear updates on previous prayer requests. I don’t think this happens a lot of times in our churches.

The pastor gave his sermon and he signed it entirely while his wife spoke aloud what he was saying. Had that interpretation not been going on, I know I would not have understood any of it. I remember talking to my mother the night before on my Echo who was asking me how I would be able to understand the message. I then explained I didn’t understand it in the Vietnamese and the Chinese church either. (And for that matter, the Arabic church.)

There were also people who were shown on a screen joining in on Zoom. Overall, this was still a small congregation such that I completely passed the church on my first time going by as it looked just like any other small building. I had to go and repark my car at one point because it was too far away from the side of the road and someone was nice enough to help spot me as I left seeing as I had to back out, something difficult for me with the steel rod on my spine.

I am here now thinking that I really need to be able to appreciate more and more that I can hear, which is something we take for granted. At the same time, I am thankful that many in the deaf community are still clinging to Jesus. I sit now and wonder that could it be for some of them, the first sounds they will ever hear will be the words “Well done, good and faithful servant?”

I can’t think of anything that would be a better first sound to hear.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Why Christians Are Wrong About Jesus – Psalm 110:1

Will Jesus have His enemies made a footstool for His feet? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Campbell now goes to Psalm 110:1, which leaves me actually thankful I read the anti-Trinitarian book recently since Campbell has many of the same arguments. He says that the problem with Jesus’s usage of this against the Pharisees has a number of problems. The first is that this is assumed to be a Messianic prophecy. The second is that the second person is known to be God. The third is that everyone would have agreed on this.

The simple counter to this is that these are also assumptions. For one, I have no reason to trust Campbell on his statements on what is and isn’t a Messianic prophecy as he has presented no source whatsoever. Second, there is no interaction with any scholarship on New Testament interpretation of the Old Testament. The third is that Jesus could not have presented any new insight whatsoever into the text.

He says the second word for Lord is Ladonee. I have open my Logos and not knowing that word, I have typed in Adonai and brought up the word as well as the Hebrew spelling. I have done this with a number of other Hebrew words. I have done this with Ladonee and nothing has come up. The best guess I have is that there is some form of punctuation that Campbell has translated a different way that no one before has done. If anyone has information otherwise, I am open to it.

He does say this is to a person of higher status, but never YHWH. Even if I granted that, in a sense, that should not surprise me as very rarely are two persons spoken of as YHWH in the same text in the Old Testament, though it is not unheard of. However, if someone is a higher status, it’s easy to say that God would qualify as a higher status than David. It would be a strong problem to the Pharisees to hear Jesus say “Okay. David has a son, but the son of the greatest king of Israel is actually superior to David. How can it be? How could the Messiah be greater than David?”

Again, Campbell also assumes the ignorance of the authors of the Gospels thinking that they just had the Septuagint and then figured the Hebrew must have both words necessarily referring to God. There is no indication that the writers would want to consider what the Hebrew said just because they are trying to convince their audience of something. This is especially the case if they know that there are people who are Jewish who are going to be reading this material.

Thus far, it looks like if anyone is ignorant of the material, it is actually Campbell instead. Campbell likely has simply read some anti-Trinitarian arguments, perhaps from Jewish counter-missionaries, and has not gone and bothered to see what others say. (Remember, there is no interacting with Michael Brown.) I have said many times to beware of the sound of one-hand clapping. It’s easy to sound convincing when you only give your argument.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Why Christians Are Wrong About Jesus — Bethlehem

Where was Jesus born? Let’s plunge into the Deeper waters and find out.

In this section, John Campbell is going to deal with the idea that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Last time, we pointed out that Campbell nowhere argues with scholarship that tries to look at questions of how the New Testament authors used the Old Testament. There’s no looking at how it was done in the Dead Sea Scrolls or Philo or Josephus or anyone else.

He says modern scholars say this refers to the clan of Bethlehem and not the town of Bethlehem. Unfortunately, he doesn’t name any of these scholars. He then goes on to say that the reference is to a clan and not to a town. This is a highly unusual reading historically and Glenn Miller has some great material from the sources showing that that you can read here.

He also states that Matthew and Luke hopelessly contradict one another in their birth narratives and cannot be harmonized. Unfortunately, nowhere does he attempt to show how this is the case nor does he interact with those who have tried to harmonize it. Finally, either way, we still have at that case then two independent sources claiming that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

He also says that Jewish ancestry runs through the father and Joseph was not the father. First off, it isn’t so cut and dry as that. Unfortunately, Campbell offers no interaction with any sources for his claim of that sort. There are even some sources that openly dispute that claim.

The Code of Jewish Law clearly states that a child of a Jewish mother is Jewish, regardless of the father’s lineage (or whatever else may show up in a DNA test), while the child of a non-Jewish mother is not Jewish.1 Matrilineal descent has been a fundamental principle of Torah since the Jewish people came into existence.

Hypothetically, it could be that these sources are wrong, but the problem is Campbell doesn’t give any for his position and if you have some sources that are Jewish saying that Jewish Law clearly states the contrary, who am I to believe? If I can’t trust Campbell on this basic point in just a quick web search, why should i trust him on any? What kind of research has he really done?

So let’s put in a bonus section. Right after this, he looks at Hosea 11:1 that says “Out of Egypt, I called my Son.” Campbell wants to remind us that the passage is about Ephraim coming out of Egypt and it is not messianic at all. Well, so much for Matthew. Right?

Matthew knows that it is not a Messianic prophecy, but he is saying this to show Jesus fulfilled the type of Israel here. Israel went down to Egypt and came out. Jesus did the same. Israel passes through the waters. Jesus is baptized by John. Israel goes to the mountain and receives the Law. Jesus climbs the mountain and ends up giving the Law. Don’t expect Campbell to interact with any of this. While I had hoping his book would be more substantial when I started since at least he accepts Jesus existed, the more I have gone through it, the more it is incredibly weak.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Book Plunge: Why Christians Are Wrong About Jesus — Virgin Birth

Are we right about the virgin birth? (Which I do affirm) Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Sit back boys and girls. It’s time for some fun. We’re now going to look at the topic of the virgin birth. (Which I do affirm) At the start of this section, it’s not a shock that Campbell jumps straight to “The Hebrew word is Almah.” Yes. Everyone and their mother knows that. Does it necessarily mean virgin? No. Can it refer to a virgin? Yes. How did the translators of the LXX understand it? They understood it to be a virgin, hence they used the word Parthenos.

Of course, Campbell does not hold to traditional authorship, so the author of Matthew may have in using the Greek translation thought the original Hebrew had the same meaning and just says that it didn’t. Well, call me crazy if you will, but I think I’ll side with the Hebrew scholars of the time who translated the text into the Greek that Matthew used. They were under the impression that Isaiah was talking about a virgin.

Campbell also says it’s clear that Isaiah was referring to his own wife and child in the immediate context. It’s true he could have been referring to that, but that is far from clear. After all, there are a number of people who think the child spoken of is Hezekiah, and I’m pretty sure the king was not the son of Isaiah.

As for context, Campbell nowhere attempts to interact with the scholarship on the New Testament usages of the Old Testament. Do a search for Longenecker and you will come up empty-handed. There is no attempt to look at how a group such as the Dead Sea Scrolls interpreted the Old Testament to see if they used similar methodology.

It wouldn’t be a complete look at the virgin birth (Which I do affirm) without bringing up the pagan copycat theory. He says that a virgin birth (Which I do affirm in the case of Jesus) was a common feature of pagan gods at the time.  Miraculous births I can grant, and even then those are by their reading far and away from what we see in the New Testament. He also says this would raise Jesus in the eyes of the pagans Paul was reaching. Nothing about how that would be dropped down radically by a crucifixion.

Here is a list of those “virgin births”.

Alexander the Great, Romulus, Augustus, Zoroaster, Horus, Mithra, Perseus, Hercules, Apollo)

This is what Plutarch says of Alexander:

It is agreed on by all hands, that on the father’s side, Alexander descended from Hercules by Caranus, and from Aeacus by Neoptolemus on the mother’s side. His father Philip, being in Samothrace, when he was quite young, fell in love there with Olympias, in company with whom he was initiated in the religious ceremonies of the country, and her father and mother being both dead, soon after, with the consent of her brother, Arymbas, he married her. The night before the consummation of their marriage, she dreamed that a thunderbolt fell upon her body, which kindled a great fire, whose divided flames dispersed themselves all about, and then were extinguished. And Philip, some time after he was married, dreamt that he sealed up his wife’s body with a seal, whose impression, as be fancied, was the figure of a lion. Some of the diviners interpreted this as a warning to Philip to look narrowly to his wife; but Aristander of Telmessus, considering how unusual it was to seal up anything that was empty, assured him the meaning of his dream was that the queen was with child of a boy, who would one day prove as stout and courageous as a lion. Once, moreover, a serpent was found lying by Olympias as she slept, which more than anything else, it is said, abated Philip’s passion for her; and whether he feared her as an enchantress, or thought she had commerce with some god, and so looked on himself as excluded, he was ever after less fond of her conversation. Others say, that the women of this country having always been extremely addicted to the enthusiastic Orphic rites, and the wild worship of Bacchus (upon which account they were called Clodones, and Mimallones), imitated in many things the practices of the Edonian and Thracian women about Mount Haemus, from whom the word threskeuein seems to have been derived, as a special term for superfluous and over-curious forms of adoration; and that Olympias, zealously, affecting these fanatical and enthusiastic inspirations, to perform them with more barbaric dread, was wont in the dances proper to these ceremonies to have great tame serpents about her, which sometimes creeping out of the ivy in the mystic fans, sometimes winding themselves about the sacred spears, and the women’s chaplets, made a spectacle which men could not look upon without terror.

At best we have a miraculous birth. Nothing indicates a virgin here. Even if that is granted, this is hardly comparable to the accounts in the New Testament and is also written AFTER those accounts. (Keep in mind that if it’s contested that this was oral and was handed down reliably, it’s strange that a tradition like this can be handed down for about 500 years, but the New Testament can’t last one generation.)

For Romulus, we have the following from again, Plutarch:

Some again say that Roma, from whom this city was so called, was daughter of Italus and Leucaria; or, by another account, of Telaphus, Hercules’s son, and that she was married to Aeneas, or, according to others again, to Ascanius, Aeneas’s son. Some tell us that Romanus, the son of Ulysses and Circe, built it; some, Romus, the son of Emathion, Diomede having sent him from Troy; and others, Romus, king of the Latins, after driving out the Tyrrhenians, who had come from Thessaly into Lydia, and from thence into Italy. Those very authors, too, who, in accordance with the safest account, make Romulus give the name of the city, yet differ concerning his birth and family. For some say, he was son to Aeneas and Dexithea, daughter of Phorbas, and was, with his brother Remus, in their infancy, carried into Italy, and being on the river when the waters came down in a flood, all the vessels were cast away except only that where the young children were, which being gently landed on a level bank of the river, they were both unexpectedly saved, and from them the place was called Rome. Some say, Roma, daughter of the Trojan lady above mentioned, was married to Latinus, Telemachus’s son, and became mother to Romulus; others that Aemilia, daughter of Aeneas and Lavinia, had him by the god Mars; and others give you mere fables of his origin. For to Tarchetius, they say, king of Alba, who was a most wicked and cruel man, there appeared in his own house a strange vision, a male figure that rose out of a hearth, and stayed there for many days. There was an oracle of Tethys in Tuscany which Tarchetius consulted, and received an answer that a virgin should give herself to the apparition, and that a son should be born of her, highly renowned, eminent for valour, good fortune, and strength of body. Tarchetius told the prophecy to one of his own daughters, and commanded her to do this thing; which she avoiding as an indignity, sent her handmaid. Tarchetius, hearing this, in great anger imprisoned them both, purposing to put them to death, but being deterred from murder by the goddess Vesta in a dream, enjoined them for their punishment the working a web of cloth, in their chains as they were, which when they finished, they should be suffered to marry; but whatever they worked by day, Tarchetius commanded others to unravel in the night.

I have tried to find accounts of the miraculous birth of Augustus. So far, that is not being successful, and it is worth noting that Suetonius has nothing like that.

For Zoroaster, the best I can find is that he was said to have come out of the womb laughing and even that was on a wiki on miraculous births that says a citation is needed.

For Horus, there is much confusion and a number of myths. If, however, Horus is the son of Osiris and Isis, that is hardly a virgin birth.

Mithra was born out of a rock wearing a cap and carrying a knife. Well, to be fair, that rock was probably a virgin.

Perseus was born when Zeus had sex with his mother in the form of a shower of gold. Miraculous? Yes. Virgin? No.

Hercules’s mother was the wife of a king. (Willing to bet she wasn’t a virgin then) Zeus came to her once disguised as her husband and had sex with her. Again, not a virgin birth.

Apollo is the son of Zeus and Leto. Notice again, two people there having sex. Not a virgin birth.

Of course, if you’re an internet atheist, you’ll eat up this stuff.

If you bother to look it up, it’s hardly convincing.

And I do affirm the virgin birth.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

 

 

Three Killers of Romantic Relationships

What are three things that can bring a romantic relationship to its knees? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

A few days ago I was browsing Facebook and came across a post in a group I am in for Louisiana Singles. (Sadly, no luck for me so far.) The question was asked in the OP about why relationships fail. I thought of three things, one of which was said by most people so let’s go for that one first.

#1. Social Media.

Social media has done a killer job to so many relationships. It starts off innocent enough sometimes. You start looking up an old friend of the opposite sex you went to high school with. Then you’re privately catching up in messages. Then you’re talking about all the times you shared and you’re building up a connection. Then lo and behold, that person is in town and you decide to meet up and you wind up in a hotel room together.

I’m not saying it always happens that way, obviously not, but social media relationships can be destructive. One problem with it is the relationship is built on fantasy. The person you are with at the time, they are real, and you can see all their flaws all too clearly. When you meet someone new, you don’t see those flaws. In essence, you have a person who is for all intents and purposes perfect, and here you have a guy who snores loudly at night or a woman who regularly has bad hair days.

Guess which one wins.

Not only that, the other person isn’t really requiring anything of you. In a marriage, you have to give of yourself and sacrifice of yourself. You have to do things you don’t like. In the new relationship, all you do is have fun together. It sounds perfect and well, this person must obviously be your soulmate. Right?

So let’s move on to #2 with that one.

#2. Bad ideology of sex, marriage, and family.

A soulmate is one example of this. If you go through life thinking that there is just one person for you and it is your job to find this one person, you’ll likely be in for a hard time. It’s a shame so many in the church buy into this thinking. The truth is there are plenty of people you could probably be happy with and have a good and working marriage with.

It’s too easy to go into the marriage and think “What is this other person going to do to make me happy?” and then when they stop doing that, well it’s time to move on. Imagine what it would be like if both partners went in asking “What can I do to make this other person happy?” and both partners lived accordingly. If you go into it thinking it’s all about you, you will not last when that suffering comes, and all relationships have suffering.

If you view marriage as less than a lifetime covenant, it won’t be a shock when you treat it like it’s less than that. If you treat it as common instead of sacred, it won’t be a shock when you can discard it like it’s common. A cheap view of marriage will result and often times, this can include a cheap view of sex, which brings us to #3.

#3. Porn.

It’s so strange that in the thread, I didn’t see anyone else saying this is it? Well, no. It’s not. Most of us find it easy to talk about areas that aren’t a struggle for us. Most pastors wouldn’t do a sermon on gluttony because a lot of their congregation would want to oust them. Actually, some pastors won’t do that because they’re guilty themselves.

It used to be that if you wanted to see porn, you had to go to the magazine stand or you had to go to that room at the video store. In doing so, you would out yourself. No more. Shame has been removed. Now you just have to go to your internet. I realize that if I wanted to, I could type something in the search bar of my browser and before long, I would be looking at porn.

I find that disgusting, but unfortunately, a lot of people don’t share my moral sentiments.

It’s not just a man’s problem either. A lot of women are watching porn. Sometimes, the reasons differ. A lot of men watch porn because, hey, naked women. A lot of women want to see naked men sure, but they are also watching because they think this is what their boyfriends and others expect and so they think they need to know how to please them.

Porn is not reality though. It’s fantasy, and it’s a mistake to treat fantasy as reality. In a movie or a TV show, a love scene always comes out perfectly. No one passes gas at an awkward moment and no one has to put a towel on the bed first and there’s no strange positioning or anything.

Most married couples will tell you the reality can be very different.

Not only that, but if you go for more and more hardcore stuff, it will take more and more to turn you on. Generally, I’d say that the sight of a woman disrobing should always get some response out of a man, but what happens if you can just see that anytime with just a click of a mouse? It will lose its power. There are a number of men on medication for ED who are in their 20’s. Real women can’t arouse them anymore. Honestly men, do you want that to be you someday? Do you even want to risk it?

Get rid of all porn from your lives. Make no allowance for it. It is one of the most destructive evils out there.

I am sure there are more killers, but I see these as the big three. Be cautious with #1, refine #2, and avoid at all costs #3.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

The Chinese Church Visit

What’s it like visiting a Chinese Church? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Yesterday, I visited a Chinese Church where they have two services. They have the first service in Chinese (Or some language the people speak) and then an English Sunday School going on and then switch them for the next hour. I went to both services and was pleased that there were students from my seminary there. There were also members of the congregation who knew me because our post office is open to the public and they came by from time to time.

I did see they had the words to the hymns on a screen in the other language and I was pleased with myself for recognizing each symbol representing a syllable in counting. I found it interesting to think how many characters might need to be memorized and then how many words might need to be memorized. Of course, I have heard also that English is the hardest language to learn so I suppose there are difficulties either way.

I also noticed that when the pastor was praying, he would pause for a brief instance after every sentence. It occurred to me how unusual that seems to us since we live in a culture where we really don’t like silence. We can speak of an uncomfortable silence. Many people can have a TV or radio on just so they can have some noise in the area. This includes me.

The congregation apparently likes new people to identify themselves during the service. When the call came asking if there was anyone new, I was sitting there and thinking “Please don’t notice me.” Still, I had already been outed earlier and so I just described myself as a seminary student studying missions and coming there for that. I know hospitality is a big deal in Eastern cultures so I figured this had something to do with that.

Which also led to the final part. That was that the talk was there was a lunch every Sunday in the gym after the second service and all were invited. Those who know me know that this is something that I honestly get terrified over. While other students here I am sure love Crawfest when it comes around, I went to the last one with dread and just stayed long enough to say that I had gone.

I never sat down, but fortunately, someone came up to me who knew me and assured me I could go on and head home if I wanted to. I was waiting for that since again, I know hospitality is a big deal and I didn’t want to seem to be rejecting. It used to be a lot easier back in the days when I was married, but now it seems harder than it has ever been for me in this area.

Right now, my plan for next Sunday is to go to a deaf church to see how they do things where no one can hear. Do they have any music at all? Is the sermon all in sign language or is there a reading component? I’ll find out then.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Book Plunge: Why Christians Are Wrong About Jesus — Messiah Proof Texts

Are there proof texts that Jesus is the Messiah? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

One statement early on in this from Campbell that is right is that new religions were looked at in the ancient world with skepticism. However, he says religions associated with an old religion like Judaism, would have credibility. He gives no evidence of this claim. It certainly wouldn’t help when it was seen by the Jews themselves that Christianity was outside of them and that they opposed it.

He also says Paul and the Gospel writers should have been taken known Messianic prophecies. Which ones are these? He doesn’t say. I’m not saying there weren’t any, but Campbell has made the claim and he has not backed it.

I will be speaking on passages that I am highly familiar with. For others, I will defer to others. Isaiah 53 is an obvious starting place. Michael Brown (Someone who is the leading defender in Jewish apologetics and who Campbell does not interact with once) has spoken on this here. I also recommend the work of my friend Eric Chabot.

I find Campbell’s claims on Psalm 22 to be strange since the text I understand is difficult to translate and verse 16 is normally read to talk about hands and feet being pierced. He talks about the lions approaching David’s hands and feet except this is not what lions do. This is what is done when someone is crucified. Again, I refer again to Brown and Chabot.

He also says something about the Messianic Age not having come in 2,000 years. This is assuming a certain ideal of a Messianic Age, likely a dispensationalist one. I contend that the Messianic age has been here for around 2,000 years. Jesus is king right now.

He also says God’s system was a true prophet would be recognized by the leading sages of the generation, which would explain why so many prophets were killed. Campbell says that this is what was set up to be the case in Deuteronomy 17. Well, let’s see what it has to say.

Well, the first section is about claims that someone is enticing Israel to worship false gods and that is to be investigated. Nothing there about how to tell if a prophet is true or that the leading sages of the age will be able to tell if a prophet is true. What’s next?

Next is about legal courts. The idea is that if a case is too difficult for the court, go to the priest and the priest will inquire of God. Everyone must then listen to the ruling of the priest. Nothing in there about prophecy.

Finally, the last section in the chapter is about the king. These are good rules for the king to have, but there’s no reason to think the king was one of the leading sages of the day. I am puzzled then as to where in Deuteronomy 17 this passage is.

Next time we come to this book, we will be talking about the virgin birth (Which I do affirm) and the infancy of Jesus.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I do affirm the virgin birth)

%d bloggers like this: