Exhibit A: for the the intellectual midget Zoe the preponderance of evidence that everything believed by him is a lie will never be his reality. But you BAFBFP must be the true intellectual giant among giants. The lies of Zoe’s bible is why there had to Islam in the first place. Everything these Christian, Jewish and Islamic Zionist have touched, from the beginning of their devilish constructions were untrue 6000 years ago and are untrue today . . .The first thing that strikes me is how little of actual argument on the merits there is in the above!
Exhibit B: Zionist are like Zoe. In fact Zoe means Zionist (smile). The criminal ideology as started in the late 19th century comprises some Jews and Muslims but the overwhelming numbers are fund among the so-called Christians. A lot of so-called Christians are Zionists and do not even know that they propound this evil ideology – like Zoe. In fact most Christians in Barbados are also unwitting Zionists, especially the people who attend the Peoples’ Cathedral and similar Evangelical business ventures that dominate the Barbadian landscape. In the USA all of the spiritual forefathers of this movement, including Billy Graham and his son Franklyn, are known supporters of the Zionist project . . . . We have already declared our willingness to go to their ‘hell’ than to believe anything they preach. In fact, I WANT TO BE FIRST IN LINE . . .
Exhibit C: Be careful what you say about that book of legends, myths and fairy tales that Zoe rants and quotes ad infinitum. He may christen you my sister and daughter of he who dwells below!! ha, ha, ha.
By contrast, I cannot but notice how much of it is personalities and accusations; much of it being little more than a way to say,
- I do not like Christians,
- I think very little of the Bible (and don't care to do my homework before I dismiss it as "lies"),
- I hate the gospel which is found therein,
- I despise nationalistic Jews -- for, Zionism is simply the Jewish form of nationalism, and
- I detest the God of the Bible.
Sad, and sadly revealing.
However, it is worth taking the above up in steps of thought, point by point in succession to help those who would want to know where the true case stands on the merits:
>> Exhibit A: for the the intellectual midget Zoe1 --> Contempt laced personal dismissal, rather than addressing facts on the merits. Abuse does not properly stand in for warrant, especially on serious matters where the weight of our souls hangs on the question.
>>the preponderance of evidence that everything believed by him is a lie2 --> Observe, the evidence that "everything believed by [Bible-believing Christians] is a lie" is not adduced or summarised, a sure sign that it is largely missing.
3 --> In direct contrast, the apostle Peter, about to face a cruel and unjust death at the hands of Nero in 65 AD, on the false accusation that every one knew that the despised Christians "must" have set the fire in Rome, confidently declared:
2 Peter 1: 16 For we did not follow cleverly concocted fables when we made known to you the power and return1 of our Lord Jesus Christ; no, we were eyewitnesses of his grandeur . . . . 19 Moreover, we possess the prophetic word as an altogether reliable thing. You do well if you pay attention to this as you would to a light shining in a murky place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.3 --> To see some of why he was so confident, let us cite Barnett's summary of the testimony of early non-Christian historical sources on the basic historicity of the key elements of the gospel, which is what Christians specifically believe:
20 Above all, you do well if you recognize this: No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination, 21 for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. [NET]
On the basis of . . . non-Christian sources [i.e. Tacitus (Annals, on the fire in Rome, AD 64; written ~ AD 115), Rabbi Eliezer (~ 90's AD; cited J. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth (London: Collier-Macmillan, 1929), p. 34), Pliny (Letters to Trajan from Bithynia, ~ AD 112), Josephus (Antiquities, ~ 90's)] it is possible to draw the following conclusions:4 --> That should sound fairly familiar. In short, there is no good reason to doubt the basic historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, or the Gospels and letters that speak of him well within eyewitness lifetime.
[Is the New Testament History? (London, Hodder, 1987), pp. 30 - 31. Cf. McDowell & Wilson, He Walked Among Us (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1993) for more details; free for download here.]
- Jesus Christ was executed (by crucifixion?) in Judaea during the period where Tiberius was Emperor (AD 14 - 37) and Pontius Pilate was Governor (AD 26 - 36). [Tacitus]
- The movement spread from Judaea to Rome. [Tacitus]
- Jesus claimed to be God and that he would depart and return. [Eliezer]
- His followers worshipped him as (a) god. [Pliny]
- He was called "the Christ." [Josephus]
- His followers were called "Christians." [Tacitus, Pliny]
- They were numerous in Bithynia and Rome [Tacitus, Pliny]
- It was a world-wide movement. [Eliezer]
- His brother was James. [Josephus]
5 --> So, it should not be too surprising to see the overall consensus of historians who are experts on the relevant subjects in our day, the twelve "minimal facts" collected by Gary Habermas:
1. Jesus died by crucifixion. [--> This of course implies his historicity]2. He was buried.3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.7. The resurrection was the central message.8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.9. The Church was born and grew.10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).
6 --> That is why, by AD 55, we can find the earliest primary source written record, summarising the core testimony of the 500 eyewitnesses (about 20 of whom we can identify specifically), and dating to c 35 - 38 AD, i.e. so soon after the event that it cannot be reasonably dismissed as a legend:[Cf. here for more.]
1 Cor 15: 1 Now I would remind you, brothers,1 of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you-unless you believed in vain.7 --> The "according to the scriptures" here speaks of the c. 700 BC Isa 52 - 53, which predicts just such a Messiah (as well as dozens of other texts):
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me . . . 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed. [ESV]
Isa 53:1 Who has believed what he has heard from us?
7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
8 --> So, there is excellent reason to be confident in the historicity of Jesus and that he did indeed exactly fulfill the prophecies of the Scriptures, giving us marvelous assurance in the God who inspired these Scriptures. (For more details, cf. here on.)
9 --> The "lie . . lie" accusation goes into an irrecoverable tailspin, crashes and burns.
>>will never be his reality.10 --> We see here a resort to the now common -- but utterly self refuting -- notion that truth is little more than perception, rather than that which accords accurately to reality. If you doubt this, just think, do those who say this sort of thing only mean that it seems such and so to them, or that this is actually accurate to reality? The latter, obviously; and with that the whole radical relativist notion that truth is in effect perception only collapses in self-refutation. That is, we are dealing with Plato's Cave shadow shows confused for reality by those whose intellectual world is the radical relativist cave. As a corrective, let us watch a video of the parable, based on Plato's remarks in The Republic:
11 --> That -- sadly -- is doubtless why to this skeptic, it can be "his reality" that the Scriptures and the gospel at the core of the Christian church are "lies." For, he cares not one whit about accuracy to reality.
>>But you BAFBFP [--> another skeptical commenter] must be the true intellectual giant among giants.12 --> More of "skeptics' reality."
>>The lies of Zoe’s bible13 --> Drumbeat repetition of falsehood, in hopes that this will make the false seem true. Jesus' reply to such is crisp:
Matt 6: 22 “The eye is the lamp of the body. If then your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light. 23 But if your eye is diseased, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! [NET]
>>is why there had to Islam in the first place.14 --> That is, Islam is presented as if it were a correction to the manifest falsehoods of the Christian faith. On what grounds? Mere drumbeat "skeptics' reality" assertion. (For a first corrective survey, cf here, and for more details, cf here.)
>>Everything these Christian, Jewish and Islamic Zionist have touched, from the beginning of their devilish constructions were untrue 6000 years ago and are untrue today . . .15 --> More "skeptics' reality," made to sound impressive through confident manner, drumbeat assertions. Notice as well the twist-about inference that the God of the Bible is devilish. A reply to Dawkins' similar assertion is here. The underlying tactic is to allude to difficulties and the sins of Christendom, as though this suffices to dismiss the whole. There are no worldviews with a significant track record that do not face difficulties tracing to the finitude, fallibility, fallenness, and hard-hearted ill will we are all prone to. So, the real challenge is does the gospel have a serious cure to such ills, and the answer to that is plainly, yes. One backed up by 500 eyewitnesses and millions of transformed lives across 2,000 years. If skeptics cannot fairly face that, then they are not being honest. Jesus in Jn 3:19 - 21, is again deadly accurate:
Jn 3:19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.” [NIV '84]
16 --> We also see here an attempt to embroil the Christian faith in the deeply polarised complexities of the debates over Zionism. The tactic here is to push the anti-colonial narrative, dismiss Jewish nationalism (which is what Zionism is . . . ) as a mere colonialist imposition on native peoples in the ME [in effect, a modern Jewish "Crusader" state; but cf. here, here, here and esp. here], and then embroil Christians in the blame for such "obvious" imperialistic conquest.
17 --> The only problem, is that this is so distorted relative to the true facts on the ground -- cf. here for a first primer, and here for more details that address many specific "myths" -- that it constitutes a big lie propaganda tactic.
>>Exhibit B: Zionist are like Zoe. In fact Zoe means Zionist (smile).18 --> Here comes that embroiling. To start with, Zoe means "life" in Greek, with the theological inference being that it speaks of eternal life.
>>The criminal ideology19 --> Name-calling and slander. To which other nationalism does the appellation "criminal" attach? This term reveals (sadly) that there is racist -- anti-Semitic -- bigotry behind the skeptical rhetoric.
>>as started in the late 19th century comprises some Jews and Muslims but the overwhelming numbers are fund among the so-called Christians.20 --> The similar anti-Christian bigotry comes to the surface. We are deemed to be guilty without adducing evidence that can stand scrutiny, guilty of supporting a "criminal ideology." And again that "criminal ideology" is the ages-long longing of Jews for their historic homeland. (Somehow, it has not dawned on such bigots to inquire and see that every Passover Seder, for many centuries ends, "Next year, in Jerusalem." As well, they must see the NT and OT as full of lies, as well as any objective archeological investigation, as these will show beyond reasonable doubt that Judaea, as its name suggests, is the historic Jewish homeland. For 3,500 years, and nearly 4,000 if we go back to the Patriarchal era.)
21 --> Yes, Arabs and others too have a share in that homeland. As the already linked will show, the Jews recognised this and were willing to settle in with their neighbours on favourable terms. Indeed, the OT scriptures that this skeptic so patently despises, documents just that. Start with the partial Moabite ancestry of Israel's greatest king, David.
>>A lot of so-called Christians are Zionists and do not even know that they propound this evil ideology – like Zoe.22 --> Drumbeat repetition of false accusations.
>>In fact most Christians in Barbados are also unwitting Zionists, especially the people who attend the Peoples’ Cathedral and similar Evangelical business ventures that dominate the Barbadian landscape.23 --> More repetitions of accusations as though accusation is proof of evil. Support for Jews, for Israel and for peaceful collaboration with their neighbours in accord with the spirit of the January 1919 Weizmann-Faisal agreement is not a crime or the enabling of a crime. Let's cite the agreement:
His Royal Highness the Emir FAISAL, representing and acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of HEJAZ, AND Dr. Chaim Weizmann, representing and acting on behalf of the Zionist Organization, mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realising that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations, is through the closest possible collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine [--> then the term used for the prospective Jewish state on both sides of the Jordan!], and being desirous further of confirming the good understanding which exists between them, have agreed upon the following articles . . .24 --> That, sirs, is what might have been.
>>In the USA all of the spiritual forefathers of this movement, including Billy Graham and his son Franklyn, are known supporters of the Zionist project . . . .25 --> More drumbeat repetition of accusations and insinuations.
>>We have already declared our willingness to go to their ‘hell’ than to believe anything they preach. In fact, I WANT TO BE FIRST IN LINE . . .26 --> This is of course confidently declared only because this skeptic does not think the prospect a likely one.
>>Exhibit C: Be careful what you say about that book of legends, myths and fairy tales that Zoe rants and quotes ad infinitum.27 --> Much the same, in irresponsible dismissal of the evidence to the contrary already seen.
>>He may christen you my sister and daughter of he who dwells below!! ha, ha, ha.28 --> Let us, again, hear Jesus' all too apt warning:
Jn 8: 43 Why don’t you understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot accept my teaching. 44 You people are from your father the devil, and you want to do what your father desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not uphold the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I am telling you the truth, you do not believe me. [NET]
______________So, step by step, we see how we have a case, as usual, of much skeptical sound and fury, but little sober substance.
It is time to do better than this, given that our souls are in the balance on such matters. More than time. END
F/N: It is almost sadly predictable that the reaction to the above at the named blog was reportedly largely a resort to personalities rather than a sober reassessment of the irresponsible, bigoted, ill-founded and falsely accusatory remarks against Christians and Jews that I corrected above. The astute onlooker will thus immediately realise that such a reaction speaks to where the true balance is on the merits, for those who posted as I clipped and corrected above would plainly have loved to show the above point by point response on the merits to be lacking in substance. On fair comment: the type of personalities reportedly indulged show that I was quite right to point out bigotry as a serious problem, and it is worth noting that the hosting of such remarks without strong correction is not so much an exercise in free speech as it is enabling behaviour. (And, for corrective record; (i) nope, I did indeed chance across the thread and its content, in particular the attacks against Z, and (ii) when I raised issues to relevant authorities earlier, it was in connexion with the problem of hosting without corrective comment remarks that were plain incitement to arson against churches. Although it is in itself a sad sign, at least D seems to have had enough of a sense of shame not to mention this fact in his complaint, so there is hope. Please, think again. KF.)