Licona Replies to Acharya: Part 2

Licona Replies to Acharya: Part 2 Print E-mail
Written by Mike Licona

Copyright © 2001, TruthQuest Publishers
All Rights Reserved. No reproduction of any kind permissible without the expressed written consent of the publisher.




Thank you for emailing me your brief rebuttal to my paper on your book. I have also reviewed “A Rebuttal to Mike Licona's ‘Refutation of The Christ Conspiracy’” on your web site. Since the latter and more formal involves greater detail than your email, this reply shall be directed towards the later. Despite your references to me as a “used-religion salesman” and a “shallow apologist,” I’ll confine my reply to addressing the issues you have raised. I have listed these in the order you present them in your rebuttal. You may also find this paper as well as my initial critique of The Christ Conspiracy at www.risenjesus.com/acharya-s.html.
Personal Attack:

I am sorry that you interpret my paper as an attempt to attack your credibility. In academia, when you make an assertion, especially one as peculiar as your own, you should be prepared for unfavorable responses. The criticisms of others are not attempts to attack you personally. Rather they have drawn attention to the historical criterion you utilize in order to establish a point.

You claim that in my critique of The Christ Conspiracy, I constantly misrepresent statements from your book and web site in order to make you look ridiculous. Fortunately, you have provided a few instances where you believe I have done this. We will look at these as they arise throughout this examination of your rebuttal and learn whether my critique stands.

It seems to me that the difference between your method and my own is that, as a general practice employed throughout your book, you make an assertion and back it up by quoting several others who have made the same assertion, many of whom I consider questionable as scholarly sources and several are demonstrably wrong. As I stated in my paper, making an assertion and quoting those who agree with you is a long way from establishing your point. You must also provide reasons. Now I will grant that you do this on occasion. However, as we observed with your comparisons of Krishna and Buddha with Jesus, not only are you certainly incorrect, but we are left asking the question as does skeptic Robert Price, “Is there any basis to these claims, which Murdock just drops like a ton of bricks? Again she does not explain where they come from . . .”

I am sorry that you do not like my description of you as an “astrologer.” I accept your reasoning for rejecting that title and I am happy to change my description to “a skeptic with an interest in mythology.” I have adjusted my initial paper accordingly.
Astrology:

In your attempts to show that Judaism was strongly influenced by astrology (e.g., the 12 tribes of Israel represent the 12 signs of the zodiac), you endeavor to establish that the zodiac goes back much earlier than accepted by the majority of scholars. You state that “the Babylonians and the priestly caste of Chaldeans were expert astrologers centuries to millennia prior to the Christian era--denying that fact is beyond ridiculous! [ital. mine] But it does reveal the depth of dishonesty needed in order to shore up fables.”(1) In support, you quote from the writings of Robert Graves, Walter Maunder, and Edwin Krupp.

In my initial paper, I stated that “the Babylonians made the divisions in the fifth century B.C.(2) If this dating is correct, reading astrology into the twelve tribes is anachronistic, since Genesis was written approximately 1,000 B.C. and contains the story of the 12 tribes of Israel which would have occurred even earlier.”(3) Please show us where is “the dishonesty needed in order to shore up fables” of which you accuse me. Ms. Murdock, throwing unfounded accusations against others who disagree with you is an easy task. Research integrity is much more difficult and respected by others.

I emailed your comments on astrology and your citing of Graves, Maunder, and Krupp to Professor Nowel Swerdlow of the University of Chicago. If you will recall, Professor Swerdlow is the Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics and has specialized in the study of how those in antiquity through the 17th century viewed the skies. I received this reply from him:

I read through the passage you sent me and it is so filled with errors about ancient astronomy and astrology that one barely knows where to begin. She simply repeats a lot of nonsense that is not taken seriously by any competent historian of ancient astronomy and astrology. And all she can do is quote modern writers, some of them very misinformed, and she seems to have no understanding of her own of the ancient evidence. What she writes is not history, but mere citation of authority. That may be all right in theology, but not in history. I will just add a few specific comments about her remarks:

In truth no one knows the origin of the zodiac. Claims to the contrary are nothing more than speculation unsupported by evidence, as in her citation of Robert Graves’s derivation from Gilgamesh, which is pretty and ingenious, qualities found in all of Graves’s work, which is always fun to read, but is not supported by ancient evidence. No one knows when the zodiacal constellations originated, but it is not as early as the third millennium BC. And while there were constellations of some sort at that date, little is known of them and there is no evidence for a group along the ecliptic, that is, the zodiacal constellations. There is certainly nothing in Aratus which indicates that the original zodiac existed in the late third millennium BC as she claims. Ask her to produce the passage.

Nor is there a scrap of evidence for knowledge of the precession of the equinoxes before Hipparchus (2nd century BC). Even for Hipparchus it was just one of different possible explanations for why distances of bright stars from the equinoxes did not seem to be constant, using observations of his own compared with those of Timocharis and Aristyllus in the early third century, evidently the earliest he had that were applicable to this. Much has been made in recent years of an early date for the equinox in Taurus, meaning among the stars of the constellation Taurus. But again there is no ancient evidence for this, and citing references to a bull is not evidence. Taurus is often referred to as a sign of spring, but this does not mean that the equinox is located among its stars, only that the sun is in Taurus in the spring, which is obviously true but trivial. There are also ancient sources, as referred to by Varro, that take the midpoint of Taurus as the beginning of summer, with Taurus here considered as a sign of thirty degrees. Does this mean that the summer solstice is located in Taurus? No, just that there is variation in relating agricultural seasons to the location of the sun in the zodiac. The location of the equinox among one or another zodiacal constellation, as the so-called Age of Aquarius or Age of Pisces, is something of concern to modern astrology, but is never mentioned as significant in ancient astrology. It is simply anachronistic to believe that what is important to twentieth century astrology was of importance to ancient astrology. To name another anachronism that appears to underlie her interpretation, the borders of constellations, between, say, Aries, Pisces, and Aquarius, are modern conventions of the International Astronomical Union, and there is nothing ancient about them. Ancient astrologers did not use Norton’s Star Atlas nor anything else that drew arbitrary lines between sidereal constellations.

What little can be said of the origin of the zodiac is far more complex and uncertain. Which constellations does she mean? The zodiaca constellations, known from 700 BC to the Babylonian and from 300 BC to the Greek, are not exactly the same, although there is no doubt that the Greek are adapted from the Babylonian. There is no evidence for the zodiac in Egypt before the third century BC, and the ‘Egyptians’ who use it are Hellenistic Greeks in Alexandria. There is no evidence for the zodiac among the real Egyptians at an earlier date. The zodiac is definitely in use among the Babylonians by the seventh century BC and may go back somewhat earlier. But there is no evidence for its being much earlier. The cuneiform text MUL.APIN, from about 1000 BC, contains all of the zodiacal constellations, some under different names than they later had and not necessarily exactly the same stars. But, and this is important, they are not thought of as a single group aligned along the ecliptic, or the path of the sun, moon, and planets, but, along with many other constellations, divided among the three paths, of Enlil, Anu, and Ea, which are roughly northern, equatorial, and southern constellations. The twelve standard zodiacal constellations are never singled out as a group. Further, although the Babylonians recognize the twelve zodiacal constellations by the seventh century, taking twelve zodiacal signs as arcs of 30 degrees each is later, at the earliest the fifth century and perhaps not until the fourth. And counting them as arcs of 30 degrees beginning at the vernal equinox is later still, perhaps not until the time of Hipparchus or even later. Ptolemy, in the second century AD, explains the convention of counting from the equinox, with his reasons for doing so, as though it is not all that well known and must be explained. Whatever she may say about the origin and use of the zodiac, it is clear that she simply does not know the original sources that provide evidence. If she wishes to argue for an early date for the recognition of the twelve specific constellation or 30-degree signs of the zodiac, let her show from original sources, not from a few speculative modern writers, what the evidence for her claim is. As an example of her citations, Lockyer's work was considered nonsensical when it appeared and is considered even more nonsensical today. She must not only cite Lockyer, she must prove that he is correct. Again, she quotes modern writers as though they are final authorities but knows nothing of the original ancient sources for what she says or quotes.(4)

Swerdlow states that some of the experts you appeal to are “misinformed” and that a lot of what they write is “nonsense” and “speculation unsupported by evidence.”

I am not suggesting that Swerdlow’s comments are gospel. However, he is a recognized scholar who has specialized in astronomy in antiquity. Therefore, his opinion does carry some weight. Of course Swerdlow’s additional comments will not mean much to you. After quoting Dr. Edwin Krupp in your rebuttal(5) you conclude, “So much for Licona's ‘experts,’ who actually make quite erroneous assertions. A word to the wise: caveat lector when it comes to such ‘experts!’”

You may find it interesting that I emailed Dr. Krupp regarding Dr. Swerdow and your remarks concerning the age of Pisces. Following is my email:

I'm currently involved in a dialogue with someone on the topic of astrology. My opponent is more familiar with the topic than I and claims that as ancient myth developed, “it took the form of a play, with a cast of characters, including the 12 divisions of the sky called the signs or constellations of the zodiac. The symbols that typified these 12 celestial sections of 300 each were not based on what the constellations actually look like but represent aspects of earthly life. Thus, the ancient peoples were able to incorporate these earthly aspects into the mythos and project them onto the all-important celestial screen.”(6) Based on this understanding, she claims that Jesus, whom she regards as no more than a myth, recognized the coming of the age of Pisces; and thus, the Christian fish of antiquity was created.

I contacted Nowel Swerdlow, professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the Univ. of Chicago and asked him about her position. Prof Swerdow responded with the following: “In antiquity, constellations were just groups of stars, and there were no borders separating the region of one from the region of another. In astrology, for computational purposes the zodiacal signs were taken as twelve arcs of 30 degrees measured from the vernal equinox. Because of the slow westward motion of the equinoxes and solstices, what we call the precession of the equinoxes, these did not correspond to the constellations with the same names. But . . . within which group of stars the vernal equinox was located, was of no astrological significance at all. The modern ideas about the Age of Pisces or the Age of Aquarius are based upon the location of the vernal equinox in the regions of the stars of those constellations. But the regions, the borders between, those constellations are a completely modern convention of the International Astronomical Union for the purpose of mapping . . . and never had any astrological significance. I hope this is helpful although in truth what this woman is claiming is so wacky that it is hardly worth answering. So when this woman says that the Christian fish was a symbol of the 'coming age of Pisces', she is saying something that no one would have thought of in antiquity because in which constellation of the fixed stars the vernal equinox was located, was of no significance and is entirely an idea of modern, I believe twentieth-century, astrology.”

May I ask you what your take on this is? Do you agree with my opponent or Swerdlow? Or do you have some separate thoughts? Thank you for your consideration.(7)

Dr. Krupp responded to me the same day with the following email:

Professor Swerdlow is well informed on the ancient history of astronomy and astrology, and his report to you reflects current scholarly opinion formulated by textual evidence. Although people have traditionally projected terrestrial concerns and priorities onto the sky in celestial myth, the detailed astrological mapping your opponent advocates is not supported by evidence and certainly cannot be tracked back two millennia or more as described.

Your own source acknowledges that Swerdlow is both “well informed” and that his opinion reflects “current scholarly opinion” based on textual evidence. It seems that your contempt for the experts I cite is in error, Ms. Murdock. Furthermore, I find it likewise noteworthy that Krupp disagrees with you concerning your assertion that the Christian fish is evidence that those in antiquity recognized the coming of the age of Pisces, commenting that what you advocate “is not supported by evidence and certainly cannot be tracked back two millennia or more as described.”

I ask you again, please tell us how you know that those in antiquity recognized the ushering in of the age of Pisces by observing the skies. As I pointed out in my initial paper, Noel Swerdlow as well as Jay Pasachoff, the Director of Hopkins Observatory, Chair of the Department of Astronomy at Williams College, and Encarta expert on astronomy have pointed out that the celestial divisions were not accomplished until the 20th century by the International Astronomical Union in 1928, rendering it impossible for the ancients to recognize an age of Pisces. Again, Ms. Murdock, do not merely make an assertion; please give us evidence. If my sources are correct (and yours!), you will find no sources in antiquity supporting your position. I also think finding sources is going to be especially difficult for you, since you reject second hand information (see your comments on Tacitus in The Christ Conspiracy, p. 51). This means you will need primary sources from the first century or before that support your contention that those in antiquity recognized the age of Pisces.
Moon Worship & Judaism

Was Judaism essentially “moon worship” as you claim? I answered you on pages 3-5 of my paper and you failed to respond to those criticisms. Your only response is a promise to substantiate your claims in your forthcoming book, Suns of God, by producing a number of experts who will prove your point. This is a tacit acknowledgement that you have failed to do so in The Christ Conspiracy. Perhaps in Suns of God you will do more than merely quote a few people who believe as you do. Perhaps you will be more careful to cite passages in their context in this forthcoming book, since you failed to do so in The Christ Conspiracy as I pointed out on pages 2-5 of my initial paper. It is not a matter of allegory being “above the heads of the vested believers” as you assert in your rebuttal. It is a matter of a responsible exegesis of the text, one that any interested individual can employ simply by reading the text in the cases you have cited.

In your rebuttal, you cite psychologist Theodor Reik on the matter of moon worship within Judaism. But do Reik’s reasons establish your point that the Jews of the first century and before were moon worshippers? Let us look at these one at a time. For the moment, I am granting that you have quoted Reik accurately and in context.

1) Reik appeals to Moses Maimonides (1135-1204 CE) who cites moon worship as “the religion of Adam.” Rabbi Michael Panitz disagrees by saying there in no extant literature to support this.(8) Panitz agrees that volumes of ancient near eastern texts have been recovered which speak of a very powerful moon-goddess in pagan cultures. Moreover, there certainly seems to have been syncretistic cultures within Judaism where a pure Hebrew faith was tainted by pagan influence, which was absorbed into the culture and retained for some time. However, the absorbing of pagan practices has been done by some adherents in all religions to some extent and is not indicative that Judaism had pagan moon-worship as its origin.

2) Reik claims, “The moon was the emblem of Israel in Talmudic literature and in Hebrew tradition. The mythical ancestors of the Hebrews lived in Ur and Harran, the centers of the Semitic moon-cult.” You then comment that Abraham’s father was a star-worshipper as was Abraham himself until he found the real God. The Talmud is 2nd century A. D. and beyond and does not support your point for 1st century or prior corroboration. Although some of the data in the Talmud originates in the first century, your task is to demonstrate that moon-worship belongs to that class. And you have not done that. Furthermore, you have not cited a single Talmudic reference in support of your view. Joshua admits that Abraham’s father served other gods (Joshua 4:2). However, this does not mean that Abraham was a moon-worshipper. There is no evidence that this was the case. Moreover, even if he was, you yourself comment that this was only until he found the real God. Abraham’s alleged practice of moon-worship before finding the real God no more indicates that he continued this practice after finding the real God any more than Paul’s prior commitment to a zealous Judaism indicates that he continued ritual sacrifices after his conversion to Christianity. You are employing non-sequitur reasoning.

3) Reik then states that Jewish astrotheology is reflected in Joseph’s dream where Jacob is called the sun, his mother the moon and his brothers the stars.(9) However, let us read these verses in their context:

Now he had still another dream, and related it to his brothers, and said, “Lo, I have had still another dream; and behold, the sun and the moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me.” He related it to his father and to his brothers; and his father rebuked him and said to him, “What is this dream that you have had? Shall I and your mother and your brothers actually come to bow ourselves down before you to the ground?” (Genesis 37:9-10, NASB)

It seems pretty obvious that, in the context of Joseph’s dream, the sun, moon, and eleven stars are used in a very figurative sense. For me this is far from convincing that Joseph and his family practiced sun, moon, or star-worship.

4) You quote Reik:

The experts assure us that the observance of Rosh Chodesh, the first of the month, was once a major holiday, more important than the weekly Sabbath. They also say that this festival was a reminder of the cult of the moon god.

Rosh Chodesh is a minor monthly Jewish holiday observing the new month. The Jews determine the date of this holiday based on the Jewish lunar calendar. Where are Reik’s experts who “assure us . . . that this festival was a reminder of the cult of the moon god”? Even if Rosh Chodesh has traces of paganism for any of a number of speculative reasons, that is not to say that Judaism had its origin in a moon cult any more than Christianity had its origin in paganism because many Christians decorate a tree at Christmas or tell their children about the Easter Bunny. Christians do not worship trees or pray to a gratuitous bunny rabbit.

5) Reik then asserts that Mount Sinai means “the mountain of the moon,” with Sin being the Babylonian moon god. Can Reik be so certain of what he states as fact? The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia has the following introductory comments on Mount Sinai: “The origin of the name is uncertain; some have suggested that it is related etymologically either to Heb. seneh, ‘thornbush,’ or to Bab. Sin, the ancient Semitic moon-deity. Neither of these suggestions seems particularly satisfactory . . .”(10) The reasons for this are because both the mountain and the surrounding wilderness are called “Horeb,” with “a root meaning a ‘desolate region’ or ‘ruin.’” This is prominent in Deuteronomy and present elsewhere in the Pentateuch.(11) Moreover, “‘Sinai’ and ‘Horeb’ are used synonymously.”(12) These are the type of problems you run into when people who are commenting on subjects outside of their area of expertise are consulted consistently, a practice you follow frequently. I think this a good time to point out that this is a good example of what Robert Price said in his review of your book: “She is quick to state as bald fact what turn out to be, once one chases down her sources, either wild speculation or complex inference from a chain of complicated data open to many interpretations.”(13) Why do you uncritically accept Reik’s interpretation of Mount Sinai, which is at least questionable, while rejecting far better recognized data, such as Josephus’ mentioning of Jesus? You also do this throughout your book with the traditions of Krishna and Buddha. It should be of no surprise to you that Price goes on to comment regarding your book: “It is remarkable how and where some people’s historical skepticism comes crashing to a halt.”(14)

6) Finally, Reik takes us to the Old Testament where he claims that “traces of ancient moon-worship” exist. In support, he cites Deuteronomy 33:4, “Moses charged us with a law, a possession for the assembly of Jacob” (NASB), and Psalm 12:16. It is difficult to see how the former supports moon-worship even when the surrounding verses are considered and the latter reference does not even exist! He also appeals to Jeremiah 8:1-2: “‘At that time,’ declares the LORD, ‘they will bring out the bones of the kings of Judah and the bones of its princes, and the bones of the priests and the bones of the prophets, and the bones of the inhabitants of Jerusalem from their graves. They will spread them out to the sun, the moon and to all the host of heaven, which they have loved and which they have served, and which they have gone after and which they have sought, and which they have worshiped. They will not be gathered or buried; they will be as dung on the face of the ground’” (NASB). Does this prove that moon-worship was an orthodox belief of Judaism rather than a cult to which some strayed? I’ll grant you now that Jeremiah attests that moon-worship was practiced by some high-ranking Jews. However, the Old Testament is filled with accounts of the Jewish nation and some of its kings straying away to other gods. Jeremiah certainly indicates that there were times when certain kings, princes, priests, prophets, and inhabitants of Judah worshipped the sun, moon, and stars. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that this is what is being condemned in the Hebrew Scriptures, not approved! You can assert all you like that the commands in the Hebrew Scriptures’ against moon-worship is “a veil of allegory that was mistaken for ‘history.’”(15) But you provide no reasons for us to believe this to be the case and further demonstrate the accuracy of Price’s statement who is bewildered at how your historical skepticism comes crashing to a halt.
Masonry

Regarding Masonry’s influence on the origin of Christianity, in support of your view that Masons were involved in the invention of Christianity, you provide a quotation from Thomas Paine who does not say, at least in your quotation of him, that Christianity had its origin from Masons. He merely claims that both “are derived from the worship of the Sun,”(16) a claim that is certainly wrong. Consider the following:

And beware not to lift up your eyes to heaven and see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, and be drawn away and worship them and serve them, those which the LORD your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven. (Deut. 4:19, NASB)

If there is found in your midst, in any of your towns, which the LORD your God is giving you, a man or a woman who does what is evil in the sight of the LORD your God, by transgressing His covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the heavenly host, which I have not commanded, and if it is told you and you have heard of it, then you shall inquire thoroughly. Behold, if it is true and the thing certain that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then you shall bring out that man or that woman who has done this evil deed to your gates, that is, the man or the woman, and you shall stone them to death. (Deut. 17:2-5, NASB)

If there is found in your midst, in any of your towns, which the LORD your God is giving you, a man or a woman who does what is evil in the sight of the LORD your God, by transgressing His covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the heavenly host, which I have not commanded, and if it is told you and you have heard of it, then you shall inquire thoroughly. Behold, if it is true and the thing certain that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then you shall bring out that man or that woman who has done this evil deed to your gates, that is, the man or the woman, and you shall stone them to death. (Job 31:26-28, NASB)

Then He brought me into the inner court of the LORD'S house. And behold, at the entrance to the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, were about twenty-five men with their backs to the temple of the LORD and their faces toward the east; and they were prostrating themselves eastward toward the sun. He said to me, "Do you see this, son of man? Is it too light a thing for the house of Judah to commit the abominations which they have committed here, that they have filled the land with violence and provoked Me repeatedly?” (Ezek 8:16-17, NASB)

In the presence of these references, Paine had a lot of further explaining to do in regards to how the first Christians who were Jews went from sun-worship to Jesus, when sun-worship was forbidden in Judaism. You then cite Manly Hall, a 33rd-degree Mason who claims that religion is based on astrology. Yet, does this support your view that Masons were responsible for the origin of Christianity? You have not made a case worth our serious consideration in my assessment.
“God’s Spell”

In your answer to my point concerning the absence of scholarship in your definition of “Gospel,” you say that I have “no sense of humor or imagination.”(17) Your remark reminds me of Solomon’s proverb, “Like a madman who throws firebrands, arrows and death, so is the man who deceives his neighbor, and says, ‘Was I not joking?’” (Proverbs 26:18-19, NASB). Let the readers of your book read your statement in context and judge for themselves whether you were joking or if you made an academic blooper:

In reality, the contradictions in the gospels are overwhelming and irreconcilable by the rational mind. In fact, the Gospel was not designed to be rational, as the true meaning of the word “gospel” is “God’s Spell,” as in magic, hypnosis and delusion. As Mack says: “The narrative gospels can no longer be viewed as the trustworthy accounts of unique and stupendous historical events at the foundation of the Christian faith. The gospels must now be seen as the result of early Christian mythmaking.”(18)

Upon further review of your statement in context, it still does not appear to me that your statement regarding the meaning of gospel is anything but a statement of fact. Even in your second defense of this definition, you indicate that you truly are holding on to that meaning of the gospel, defending that “the basic etymology of ‘gospel’ as provided by The Concise Oxford Dictionary English Etymology” supports this view.(19) But again and as I stated in my paper, “it does not matter what the English word means. What matters is what the word means in Greek, something Murdock does not even bother to consider.”(20) Again this seems to me a very odd mistake by someone who claims to be a scholar of the Greek language or, for that matter, any language.
Textual Criticism

You state that I exhibit “sloppiness” when commenting on your “reporting of the claim that the New Testament has some 150,000 ‘variant readings.’” You say that you are “quoting someone else,” the “influential German theologian Griesbach (1745-1812).” Moreover, you say that I have “not bothered to inquire as to why this figure had been reached but immediately assumes it’s incorrect.”(21)

Let us look again at your statement in context:

As noted by Otto Schmiedel . . . “If the Synoptists are right, the Fourth Gospel must be rejected as a historical source.” In fact, as Wheless says: “The so-called ‘canonical’ books of the New Testament, as of the Old, are a mess of contradictions and confusions of text, to the present estimate of 150,000 and more ‘variant readings,’ as is well known and admitted.” In regard to these ‘variant readings,’ Waite states: “Of the 150,000 variant readings which Griesbach found in the manuscripts of the New Testament, probably 149,500 were additions and interpolations.” In this mess, the gospels’ pretended authors, the apostles, give conflicting histories and genealogies.(22)

It is clear by what you write that you are in support of Wheless and Waite in terms of the 150,000 variants. Therefore, I see no problem in asserting, “She says that there are about 150,000 variants in the manuscripts of the New Testament.”(23)

Regarding your second contention that I have not asked you how this figure was arrived at, I believe it is clear that my assessment is what is going on. You are aware that the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament provides some of the most comprehensive information in terms of the textual apparatuses, which discuss the textual variations in the New Testament. This text lists the manuscript variances for most verses in the New Testament. A few instances exist where variations are not recorded. This is because they are so minor and insignificant that our attention is not merited due to their insignificance and that the matter is considered solved without dispute by textual critics.(24) There are 683 pages in this Greek New Testament. If 150,000 variant readings existed in any other sense than what I presented in my paper, there would be an average of 220 variations per page! One quick glance throughout the comprehensive textual apparatuses will reveal that this is certainly not the case, since a page loaded with variations contains only about 10. As I stated in my critique of your book, once the principles of textual criticism are applied in the consideration of these variations, we arrive at a text that is virtually pure. It is important to note as well that any unresolved differences caused by the variances do not change a single doctrine of the Christian faith.(25)

With this in mind, Ms. Murdock, you have the proper forum now. Tell us how this figure was reached if I am incorrect.
Lighten Up

I admonished you at the beginning of this reply that, in academia, you must be prepared for criticisms that challenge your views. In your rebuttal, you write of me and those whom I quote, “To these suspicious detractors, I say, why don't you just ask me where this information, research, etc., comes from, instead of writing polemics and ad hominems against me? Why are you taking my dissection of Christianity so personally that you are getting personal with me? There are obviously some unresolved psychological issues, and the behavior is childish. [sic] As well as macho, blustering, pompous, arrogant, conceited, etc. Probably even sexist”(26) and “Their knee-jerk reactions without inquiring of me or my research--even recommending a snooty, sophomoric and obnoxious response of ignoring me at all costs--are a sign of a personality problem, not of their cleverness or erudition.”(27) Spiteful rock-throwing at those who disagree with you does not change a thing. On the one hand, you constantly boast of how well you have documented your points by how many endnotes are contained in your book. Yet on the other hand you desire us to ask you where your information comes from. We see where it is coming from, Ms. Murdock, and we are saying to you that we find it unconvincing and lacking in academic quality.
Atrocities Committed in the Name of Christ

You write, “And why are these men attacking me . . . over . . . an ideology that has been responsible for the torture and slaughter of millions of people worldwide? How can any honest person with any integrity defend this ideology, with its bloody past, or its supposed founder, on whose omnipotent shoulders ultimately rests the responsibility for the management of the world and, thus, its endless atrocities?”(28)

You cannot judge a philosophy by its abuse. Jesus would not have condoned the crusades and the numerous inquisitions initiated by the Catholic Church. Jesus would not have said to kill people in his name. Indeed, He told Peter to put his sword away(29) and that Christians should love their enemies.(30) It was only later that the Catholic Church, motivated by its political ambitions, used religious rhetoric to sanctify its goals of domination as well as provide an aggressive defense against an even crueler and conquering Islam. You cannot judge a philosophy by its abuse.

Have you forgotten the evils committed by atheists? In the 20th century alone, more than 17 million people were killed as a result of atheistic movements (Stalin: 7 million; Hitler: 9 million; Khmer rouge: 1.2 million). By contrast, about 500,000 people or less were killed as a result of the crusades between the very end of the 11th and 16th centuries (about 400 years), although most consider the crusades to have ended by the beginning of the 14th century.(31) Even if you add those tortured and killed by numerous inquisitions conducted by the Catholic Church, it is not even close to the tens of millions you claim.(32) Now of course we did not have the weapons of mass destruction in the Middle Ages that we have today, so the comparison only goes so far. A more accurate comparison might be with regards to consciously religious states such as Iran, Iraq, and Israel verses nationalistic states such as Germany, Russia, and Cambodia. Even considering the Islamic states of Iran and Iraq as well as the deaths caused by Islamic terrorists in the 20th century, including the recent attacks on our country, these hardly compare with the deaths caused by nationalism during the same period, even though a great many national causes dress themselves up in religious jargon just as they have used terms like freedom (e.g., Vietnam and Lenin). Do these atrocities committed by atheists invalidate atheism? I think not, because you can not judge a philosophy by its abuse.

Lest you plan on responding that Hitler was a Christian as you do in your book,(33) let me address that now. I grant that at the beginning of his political career, Hitler used the German Church for political propaganda purposes by utilizing Christian jargon. However, this does not by any means make him a Christian. Not only do his fruits prove otherwise, but we have his personal conversations. You yourself admit, “Whether or not Hitler was a ‘true’ Christian is debatable.”(34) In a book respected by historians titled Hitler’s Secret Conversations 1941-1944,(35) Hitler states that religion is an “organized lie [that] must be smashed. The State must remain the absolute master. . . .it’s impossible to eternally hold humanity in bondage and lies. . . . [It] was only between the sixth and eighth centuries that Christianity was imposed upon our peoples. . . . Our peoples had previously succeeded in living all right without this religion. I have six divisions of SS men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion. It doesn’t prevent them from going to their death with serenity in their souls.”(36) These are not the words of a Christian.
Josephus

You are upset with my criticisms of your statements concerning Josephus. You write, “Licona makes outrageously false statements that reflect how shallow is his knowledge of his chosen vocation: E.g., his claims about the passage in Josephus called the “Testimonium Flavianum” (“TF”). No, the “overwhelming majority of scholars” do NOT believe the TF to be authentic, but what can you expect from someone trying to sell such a bogus fable? As I will show in Suns of God, many very well-known and erudite scholars have dismissed the TF in toto as being a forgery. In fact, it is quite obviously a forgery to those with common sense. In the meantime, readers may find quite a bit of debunking of the TF at http://www.truthbeknown.com/christcon.htm.”

I have pointed out in my initial paper that your claim is not only unsubstantiated; it is false.(37) I have listed several well-known and respected scholars who acknowledge Josephus’ mentioning of Jesus in TF. What do the majority hold regarding this passage? I intend on conducting a survey of all the scholarly literature written on the authenticity of the passage during the past 70 years. In the meantime and in lieu of this, I can share with you that the prominent Josephus scholar, Louis Feldman, who is not a Christian, shared the following with me in an email: “My guess is that the ratio of those who in some manner accept the Testimonium [to those who reject all of it as an interpolation] would be at least 3 to 1. I would not be surprised if it would be as much as 5 to 1.”(38) This Josephus scholar has written extensively on the subject (e.g., Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, eds. Josephus, The Bible, and History [Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987], 473 pages; Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, eds. Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity [Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989], 448 pages; Josephus and Modern Scholarship, 1937-1980 [Walter de Gruyter, Inc., 1984], 1,055 pages. In the latter, Feldman notes more than 100 scholarly discussions on this passage during that time period. Feldman was also the translator for the works of Josephus for Harvard University Press’s Loeb Classical Library.). So please understand why I do not believe you when you claim “the ‘overwhelming majority of scholars’ do NOT believe the TF to be authentic.”(39) And even if you present “many very well-known and erudite scholars who have dismissed the TF in toto as being a forgery,”(40) something you have yet to do, this does nothing to substantiate your claim that the “overwhelming majority of scholars” reject the authenticity of the Testimonium. If Feldman is correct in his hunch, there are three to five times more scholars who grant that the Testimonium mentions Jesus.

In your rebuttal, you refer us to Earl Doherty’s treatment of the Testimonium on your web site. This is not the place to critique his article. However, Doherty is not a Josephus scholar and one source does not constitute an “overwhelming majority of scholars.” Citing a few scholars who totally reject Josephus’ mentioning of Jesus will not do. You must support your claim that “these ‘references,’ [i.e., the two occasions in Josephus that mention Jesus] they have been dismissed by scholars and Christian apologists alike as forgeries”(41) and that “the ‘overwhelming majority of scholars’ do NOT believe the TF to be authentic.”(42)
Tacitus

In your book you state that the passage in Tacitus’ Annals 15:44 cannot be used to confirm the existence of Jesus. Your reason for making this assertion is because Tacitus was not born until about 25 years after Jesus’ death and, therefore, his information is secondhand.(43) In my paper, I responded that such thinking is medieval in terms of historical criticism and that if this approach is adopted we could know very little of history.(44) Indeed, no one today could write an accurate history of the American Civil War.

In your rebuttal, you state that “interested parties, however, should read Cutner's Jesus: God, Man or Myth and the sources he cites, such as Hochart, Taylor and Ross. Licona's tactic in "refuting" me and my work seems to rest on his presenting my claims very superficially and making it seem as if I don't back them up.”(45) Before looking at this article you have recommend, it should be noted that in your book, The Christ Conspiracy, you do not back up your claims, except to say that no one mentions the passage prior to the 15th century.(46) As with your treatment of Justin, are the readers of The Christ Conspiracy supposed to know to go to your web site in order to receive information you should have documented in your book?

In Jesus: God, Man or Myth, you repeat your arguments from The Christ Conspiracy that the reference of Jesus in Tacitus is not mentioned by anyone prior to the 15th century and, even if genuine, is not an eyewitness account. However, I answered these in my paper and you never responded to my critiques.

Let’s look now at your article, which is a summary of Cutner’s work and the new arguments you present against the authenticity of this passage. Cutner’s reasons are presented in italics with my responses following:

1. If there had been a Neronian persecution, why in heaven's name has so remarkably little been found concerning it elsewhere? Authors write on the subjects of their choice. Ms. Murdock, are you aware that Julius Caesar, Caesar Augustus, or Nero are never mentioned in any of the writings of the apostolic fathers? Does this exclude the existence of these emperors? Are you aware that Julius Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon (49 B. C.), an event that forever changed the course of Rome, is mentioned only by Caesar himself (48 B. C.), Vellieus (after A. D. 30), Appian (2nd century A D), Plutarch (after A. D. 70), and Suetonius (A. D. 115)?(47) That is only two sources within 100 years of the event. Moreover, considering your criteria of needing to be an eyewitness, there is only Julius himself and the earliest manuscript we have of these writings are 1,000 years removed from the alleged originals. Why not argue that these, too, are late and forgeries as you seem to do with Tacitus and deny the existence of Julius Caesar and his crossing of the Rubicon?(48) You would be laughed out of court. Should it be of no surprise to you then that no scholars are taking your work seriously?

2. Why was the passage never quoted by Tertullian (who often quotes Tacitus) or Eusebius or any other early Christian apologist? All Tacitus affirms in his mentioning of Jesus is that he was crucified by Pontius Pilate and that his followers did not abandon him after his death. What benefit would this passage have played in an apologetic, if no one in the time of the author was questioning the existence of an historical Jesus? Not one of the writings from the early opponents of Christianity such as Celsus seemed to have questioned the existence of Jesus. It appears as though you expect Tertullian and Eusebius to address issues that apparently did not exist. I ask you, Ms. Murdock, provide us with references in Tertullian and Eusebius or any of the early Christian apologists you mention where these words of Tacitus would have been beneficial for them to use.

3. Tacitus does not mention Christ, Christians or Christianity anywhere else in his writings. Tacitus is a secular historian writing of Roman history. Where would bringing up Jesus have helped his objective in writing? Please provide an example in order to support your point.

4. This entire work of Tacitus known as Annals was unknown until the 15th century, when it was "discovered" by Poggio Bracciolini. In 1878, WJ Ross attempted to prove that Bracciolini himself had forged the Annals. With his expertise in Latin, Ross was readily able to demonstrate that the Annals differed in style from Tacitus's genuine writings. Indeed, some of the phrases match those employed by Bracciolini in his own writings. I have not read Ross’ book on Tacitus. However, if Ross’s thesis on Tacitus is so compelling, I find it interesting that no scholars who specialize in Roman history today acknowledge it that I know of. Rather, as I pointed out in my paper, several contemporary scholars use expressions like “feeble attempts” and “pure speculation” to describe writings like Ross’s.(49)

5. It is obviously only a report from believers in “Christ.” How is this “obvious,” Ms. Murdock? In The Christ Conspiracy, you likewise refer to Tacitus’ mentioning of Jesus as “an interpolation and forgery.”(50) Where is your data in support of this? You have not provided any in your book or your article. It remains an unsubstantiated assertion on your part.

I think at this point it is quite clear that you have failed to support your position that Tacitus does not acknowledge the historical Jesus. Moreover, you failed to answer any of the reasons I provided for why the passage in Tacitus is genuine. Therefore, the critical New Testament scholar, John Meir’s conclusion still stands, “despite some feeble attempts to show that this text is a Christian interpolation in Tacitus, the passage is obviously genuine. Not only is it witnessed in all the manuscripts of the Annals, the very anti-Christian tone of the text makes Christian origin almost impossible.”(51)
Justin

Regarding Justin’s knowledge of the Gospels, you are correct that I was unfamiliar with your article on your web site. However, as I pointed out regarding Tacitus, this does not excuse you from the lack of documentation in your book regarding this matter. Let’s now look at your article, since you claim to have “gone into great detail regarding the purported references in Martyr” in this article. You write, “A number of the purported passages in Justin that correspond to New Testament scriptures come from a text called ‘Memoirs of the Apostles,’ which, Cassels shows, is a single book by that title, not a reference to several ‘memoirs’ or apostolic gospels.”(52)

In support of this you cite Cassels who claims this volume is in contradiction many times with the four Gospels. However, as I pointed out in my paper, Justin elsewhere refers to the Memoirs as the Gospels: “For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them.”(53) I pointed this out to you in my paper, but you completely ignored it.

We have not been informed by you, Cassels, or Keeler who you likewise appeal to of any meaningful contradictions with the Gospels. You quote Keeler who writes, “There is almost invariably some difference, either in sense or construction, showing that Justin's book was different from our Gospels. Moreover, he [i.e., Justin] quotes from it things which are not in our Gospels.”(54) Where are these differences in the Memoirs, which Keeler asserts distinguish them from the Gospels? We are never told. If contradictions between the Gospels and the Memoirs really exist, please point them out to us. Do not leave us merely to accept the words of your sources. This should not be difficult for you to research, since I have listed all of Justin’s 14 references to the Memoirs of the Apostles in my paper.(55) However, you will find that not one of Justin’s citing of the Memoirs contradicts the Gospels. Keep in mind that in these passages, Justin uses Old Testament verses, the Gospels, and his own commentary. Why did you not check these out, Ms. Murdock?

Other than these additional comments from your article to which you have referred us, I see nothing in it that adds anything to what you claim in The Christ Conspiracy. Therefore, you have not addressed and refuted my critiques as you claim.(56) Justin certainly refers to the Gospels in his writings, which places their composition earlier than you have claimed.
Krishna

In your rebuttal you write, “Nor did his “experts”--who are evidently completely unaware of this debate--apparently bother to read the excerpt, or they could not have so shamelessly impugned my character with their puerile remarks.” Ms. Murdock, they were aware of your excerpt. Appropriate portions of your article and book were quoted to them verbatim. Regarding your “Christian sources,” Lundy and Georgius, even if you are correct, Lundy and Georgius write of their contemporary experiences with present-day Hindus. This does nothing to support your position that Hindus in antiquity worshipped a crucified Krishna. Hindu traditions on the life of Krishna come from the Bhagavata Purana and the Harivamsa, which as I pointed out in my paper, both post-date the rise of Christianity and, therefore, do nothing to support your thesis.(57)

If you desire to convince us that the experts to whom you defer like Barbara Walker, who writes on issues concerning women and who produces tarot cards is more acquainted with Hinduism than the professor of Hindu Studies at Rutgers who has devoted his career to the subject, you must do more than simply claim that my sources “are unable to do research into anything ‘new’” and that they are “completely unaware of this debate.” Please provide us with clear evidence that refute their contention that you are misinformed. Do not merely quote the opinion of others. Tell us which ancient manuscripts contain stories of a crucified and resurrected Krishna and Buddha and provide us with a dating of these manuscripts in order to demonstrate that, even if they exist, the stories precede the Christian account and are not copying from it.
Buddha

In your rebuttal and citing your own words from The Christ Conspiracy, you write of, “this non-historicity and of the following characteristics of the Buddha myth, which are not widely known [ital. yours] but which have their hoary roots in the mists of time . . .”(58) We still have yet to learn from where you get your “not widely known” information. You simply quote others who many times turn out being terribly wrong and unscholarly in both their exegesis and reasoning.

In reading the article to which you refer us, I saw no striking similarities or much in support of the similarities between Buddhism and Christianity that you claim in your book. Granted, the Hindus have worshipped gods over time. No one would ever dispute this. However, the mere worship of God or a son of God does this prove your overall thesis that your alleged fabricators of Christianity borrowed from Hinduism or even Buddhism? Your article does nothing new to support this thesis. In fact, your research method is still evident: You seem to think that merely quoting someone who states the position you hold provides evidence for the truth of your view. Furthermore, you quote someone, for example, Abbé Huc, who obviously quotes someone else quoting him, indicating a secondary source—and do not bother to inform us who it is you are citing. Your interaction with primary sources is extremely rare. Moreover, when we go to those primary sources, on numerous occasions we learn that they are wrong.
What of the Rest of Your Book?

You inquire of me what I do with the remaining of The Christ Conspiracy that I have not commented on. My intent was not to provide an exhaustive critique on the entire volume. What I have commented on should be sufficient for the interested reader to conclude that poor scholarship permeates your book and articles. Even in this current follow-up to your rebuttal, we have seen that you appeal to scholars who write on subjects outside of their field and consequently misinterpret the Bible,(59) uncritically accept improbable meanings(60) and statements by others,(61) cite verses without regard for context,(62) and mistake allegory for history,(63) something you yourself admit that people do.(64) You continue to exhibit naïveté regarding Josephus scholarship(65) and hold irrational historical criteria, which no professional historian holds and of which your own positions cannot stand up to.(66) Nothing quite strains and kills an otherwise interesting argument like the facts. If you are interested, you may find a more detailed critique from Dr. Robert Price in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Higher Criticism, a journal for skeptics. I am told this review will be much more detailed than what he wrote for Free Inquiry.

Regarding atheist Dr. Price, whom I cite as a critic of your book, you ask if I “agree also with the rest of his thesis, that Christ is a fiction [sic]” and question his stability and credibility because he converted from being a Christian to an atheist.(67) I do not agree with Dr. Price that Christ is a fictitious character. However, the point I am making in my initial paper is that when someone who is a noted scholar and who accepts the same conclusion as you, i.e., that Christ is no more than a myth, and who stands to benefit if your arguments are sound, yet points out numerous bloopers and blunders with them to the point of calling them “outright looney,”(68) the red flags must raise in the head of the rational person that something may very well be wrong here. Although I am saddened that Price abandoned his faith in the past, I see no reason to question his stability and credibility as a result. On the other hand, I am optimistic that as an astute scholar, he will continue his consideration of new presentations of the evidence and perhaps some day return to the faith I am convinced is true.
Conclusion

After reading your rebuttal, Ms. Murdock, I find myself further disappointed with your claims as well as the spirit in which you have responded to criticism. For the reasons elaborated on above, I cannot accept your thesis.

In the beginning of your rebuttal, you ask, “just what are Licona’s motives in attempting to fob off this fairytale . . . [of Jesus’ resurrection], one must wonder.”(69) Since you ask, it is because after observing the evidence, I do not believe that Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is a “fairytale.” Indeed, I believe there is a strong body of evidence in favor of Jesus’ resurrection as an event that occurred in space-time, although this is not the place for a discussion on it. Antony Flew, considered by many to be the most influential living philosophical atheist, commented:

So I think you could argue that it was entirely rational for all these people [i.e., disciples and Paul] to believe this is so [i.e., Jesus’ resurrection] and, of course, for Christian believers now to be . . . rational, to take this as a miraculous thing. But it isn’t for me.(70)

Flew thinks that, given the belief in the Judeo-Christian God, it was rational for the first Christians as well as it is rational for Christians of today to believe in Jesus’ resurrection. Flew does not believe in the existence of God, so he does not feel compelled to accept Jesus’ resurrection, although he does not have any opposing theories to account for the data.(71)

The oldest kerygma tells of Christ’s message that eternal salvation from a life filled with darkness is available to all who come to him for it. This indeed is great news and I am, of course, interested in everyone learning of it. What they do with the message is up to them. I guess I feel the same compulsion to tell others what I regard as the truth, just as you seem to feel that same compulsion. The obvious difference is our view of what is the truth.



Footnotes. . .

1. See your rebuttal to my paper, “A Rebuttal to Mike Licona's ‘Refutation of The Christ Conspiracy,’” (henceforth referred to as “Rebuttal”), p. 2.
2. Rebuttal, p.2.
3. Ibid.
4. In a personal email correspondence dated 12/01/01.
5. Rebuttal, pp. 3-4.
6. The Christ Conspiracy, pp. 151-152.
7. In a personal email correspondence dated 11/28/01.
8. In a personal telephone conversation dated 11/29/01.
9. See your rebuttal to my paper, “A Rebuttal to Mike Licona's ‘Refutation of The Christ Conspiracy,’” (henceforth referred to as “Rebuttal”), p. 4.
10. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Volume Four (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), pp. 525-526.
11. Ibid., p. 526 where Deut 1:2, 6, 19; 4:10, 15 and Exodus 3:1; 17:6; 33:6 are listed as examples.
12. Ibid., p. 526. For examples, see Exodus 31:18; 34:29; Deuteronomy 9:8-11; 1 Kings 8:9 and Exodus 19:18-20:19; Deuteronomy 18:16.
13. Robert M. Price, “Aquarian Skeptic” in Free Inquiry, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Amherst: The Council for Secular Humanism, 2001), pp. 66-67.
14. Ibid.
15. Rebuttal, p. 5.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid., p. 6.
18. The Christ Conspiracy, pp. 45-46.
19. Rebuttal, p. 6.
20. Paper, p. 18.
21. Rebuttal, p. 7.
22. The Christ Conspiracy, p. 41.
23. Paper, p. 10.
24. In a personal telephone conversation with New Testament exegete, Professor Ronald Sauer 11/ 29/01.
25. Paper, p. 10.
26. Rebuttal, p. 7.
27. Ibid., p. 9.
28. Ibid., p. 7.
29. Matthew 26:52.
30. Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:27-28, 35.
31. In a personal email correspondence with Professor Skip Knoll of Boise State University on 9/10/2001.
32. The Christ Conspiracy, p. 11.
33. Ibid., pp. 2-3.
34. Ibid., p. 3.
35. New York: Farrar, Straus and Young.
36. Ibid., p. 117.
37. Paper, pp. 12-14.
38. In a personal email correspondence dated 11/26/01.
39. Rebuttal, p. 7.
40. Ibid.
41. Paper, p. 12.
42. Rebuttal, p. 7.
43. The Christ Conspiracy, p. 51.
44. Paper, p. 15.
45. Rebuttal, p. 8.
46. The Christ Conspiracy, p. 51.
47. James Sabben-Clare. Caesar and Roman Politics 60-50 BC: Source Material in Translation (London: Bristol Classical Press, 1971).
48. In “A review by Acharya S of Jesus: God, Man or Myth? by Herb Cutner” you make the following two statements: “Again, this text, if genuine, would date no earlier than the early second century, so it is not an ‘eyewitness account’ of the existence of Jesus Christ” and “In any event, these ‘references,’ even if genuine and/or referring to Christ, are nothing more than hearsay long after the fact.” In your book, The Christ Conspiracy (p. 51), you write, “the historian Tacitus did not live during the purported time of Jesus but was born two decades after ‘the Savior’s’ alleged death; thus, if there were any passages in his work referring to Christ or his immediate followers, they would be secondhand and long after the alleged events.”
49. Paper, p. 15.
50. The Christ Conspiracy, p. 51.
51. John P. Meier. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Volume One (New York: Doubleday, 1991), p. 90.
52. www.truthbeknown.com/historicaljc.htm
53. Paper, p. 7. Justin’s First Apology, ch. 66.
54. www.truthbeknown.com/historicaljc.htm.
55. Paper, p. 7.
56. Rebuttal, p. 8.
57. Paper, p. 6.
58. Rebuttal, p. 9 or The Christ Conspiracy, p. 109.
59. Ibid., p. 5.
60. Ibid., pp. 5-6.
61. Ibid., p. 13.
62. Ibid., p. 6.
63. Ibid., p. 5.
64. Ibid.
65. See this current paper, pp. 10-11.
66. Ibid., pp. 11-12.
67. Rebuttal, p. 10.
68. Free Inquiry, Summer 2001, p. 67.
69. Rebuttal, p. 1.
70. John Ankerburg Show: Habermas-Flew Debate, p. 20.
71. During this debate with Habermas, Flew initially proposed grief hallucinations on the part of the disciples and a conversion disorder for Paul in order to account for their beliefs that they had experienced an encounter with the risen Jesus. When Habermas answered these opposing theories, Flew abandoned both of them.

Jesus - Solid evidence of resurrection

April 13, 2006 12:34 pm
Solid evidence of resurrection
Apparently So
By Craig Harris
HERALD-PRESS (PALESTINE, Texas)

Today is Easter Sunday - the day we Christians celebrate the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.

But did he really rise again? If he didn't, then he was a liar — or a madman. If he didn't rise again, then our faith is useless and there is no life after death. The whole Bible is a lie, in fact, if Jesus didn't rise again.

So, is there any real evidence that the resurrection of Jesus actually happened – or is it just a myth? I want to share some of the solid evidence that Jesus’ resurrection really did happen:

• First, the reliability of the Scriptures. Did you know that we have more than 25,000 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament? That is a huge amount. Some manuscripts date to within 100 years of the autographs (the original writings) and all agree with each other. (Yes, there are minor differences, but there are so many copies available we can look at them and get a very accurate picture of what the New Testament writers said.) What this means is that the Bible is extremely reliable as a historical document.

• Second, we have writings of historians outside the Bible that corroborate the stories within it. These historians, like Pliny the Younger, Ptolemy, Tacitus and Josephus, not only mention kings, governors, dates and places found in the Bible, they also mention the disciples and Jesus himself.

• Third, the empty tomb. The Gospel writers all mention that the tomb was empty Easter Sunday morning. If there had been a body there, the Romans or Jewish leaders could have shown it and that would have ended Christianity right then and there. Remember, the tomb was well guarded. Also, in the Bible, women saw the empty tomb first — that would never happen in Jewish fiction of that day, so it must have been true.

• Fourth, Paul wrote in First Corinthians that 500 people saw Jesus after his resurrection. Paul wrote this about 20 years after the resurrection and points out that most of them were still alive and could verify what they saw. No one disputes the validity and historicity of Paul or First Corinthians, and 500 people do not have the same hallucination.

• Fifth, why would the early Christians have celebrated Communion and Baptism if Jesus had remained dead? History teaches that the Christians began celebrating The Lord’s Supper within 20 years of Jesus’ resurrection. Communion commemorates the sacrificial death of Jesus by celebrating the blood he shed and how his body was broken. Why would they do this if Jesus’ death had been meaningless? This would be like a John F. Kennedy fan club celebrating his death instead of his life and legacy. Further, the early Christians changed the meaning of baptism from a Jewish cleansing ritual to mean "buried with Christ and raised to life with him." (Romans 6:4).

• Sixth, why would the disciples die for a lie? We see in the Gospels that they were basically cowards. Why did these timid lambs suddenly change into the lions of the faith? Yes, people die for what they believe is true, but people do not die for what they know is NOT true. History says all of the disciples died for their faith except John.

• Seventh, the emergence and growth of the church. The church started with a small rag tag group of mostly poor people who were murdered and persecuted for their belief. Within two hundred years, it conquered Rome. We name our dogs Nero and Caesar and our children John and Paul. Thousands of churches and changed lives stand as a testament to the resurrection.

• Eighth, the conversion of skeptics. Scores of non-believers, including Jesus’ own brothers, Paul and atheists, have put their faith in Christ after seeing him alive or examining the evidence.

• Finally, the ongoing encounters with Jesus today. Millions of us throughout history have had a conversion experience. We know Jesus is alive because we have felt, known and experienced him.

This is the good news: that God came to earth, redeemed us and can be experienced by us. This Sunday morning, remember, we don’t celebrate the good life of a dead man, we celebrate the resurrection of a living Savior who made us, loves us, and wants to know us. Happy Easter from my family to yours.



The Rev. Craig Harris is pastor at Montalba Christian Church in Montalba, Texas, and is employed as the parent involvement coordinator for Palestine Independent School District in Palestine, Texas. Contact Harris at http://www.sycamoretreepublishing.com. His parenting column, Apparently So, runs regularly in the Herald-Press in Palestine, Texas.

Usando garrafas PET e água como lâmpada natural

Em 2002, em pleno apagão, o mecânico de Uberaba percebeu que poderia escapar do breu pendurando no telhado de casa garrafas plásticas cheias de água.

"É uma garrafa PET de dois litros, com água limpa, duas tampinhas de água sanitária e um potinho de filme de máquina fotográfica para proteger do sol, para não estragar a tampa", ensina seu Alfredo.

A invenção atravessou divisas e virou atração no Parque Ecológico Chico Mendes, na Grande São Paulo. Também atiçou a curiosidade da ciência. O engenheiro elétrico Clivenor de Araújo Filho mediu a intensidade de luz de cada garrafa. "Essa luminosidade equivale a uma lâmpada entre 40 e 60 watts", constata.

"O banheiro era muito escuro e agora está claro. Ela não tem desvantagem nenhuma. Funciona quando chove, não tem goteira", garante dona Geralda.

A imagem é curiosa: bicos de garrafas para fora dos telhados no bairro todo.

Reportagem do Globo mostrando como a garrafa fez sucesso.

Equipamentos e seu consumo de energia quando em standby

Equipamentos e seu consumo de energia quando em standby

Mesmo quando estão desligados a maioria deles ainda consome eletricidade. O standby pode ser passivo (relógio do microondas) ou ativo (video-cassete programado para gravar algo). Os números abaixo mostram a média de consumo anual e o quanto custam (assumindo 11 centavos de dólar por quilowatt-hora).

Rádio	13.1	$1.44
Telefone sem fio	28.9	$3.18
Monitor LCD	22.8	$2.51
Computador	311	$34.21
Laptop	144.5	$15.90
Impressora Laser	113	$12.43
TV Plasma	1452.4	$159.76 (standby ativo)
Video-cassete	92	$10.12 (standby ativo)
DVD	78.8	$8.67 (standby ativo)
Video-game	233.9	$25.73 (standby ativo)
Micro-ondas	35	$3.85
Escova de dente elétrica	12.3	$1.35

Piadas com padre

Essa velha, mas é boa:

Eu estava tão nervoso na minha primeira missa, que no sermão não conseguia falar. Antes da segunda missa, dirigi-me ao Bispo e perguntei como devia fazer para relaxar. Este, por sua vez, recomendou-me o seguinte:

- Coloque umas gotinhas de vodka na água, vai ver que da próxima vez estará mais relaxado.

No Domingo seguinte, apliquei a sugestão do meu Bispo, e estava tão relaxado, que podia falar alto até no meio de uma tempestade, tão descontraído que estava. Ao regressar a casa, encontro um bilhete do meu Bispo, que dizia o seguinte:

Caro Padre:

1º - Da próxima vez, coloque umas gotas de VODKA na água e não umas gotas de água na VODKA;
2º- Não há necessidade de por limão e sal na borda do cálice;
3º- O missal não é, nem deverá ser usado, como apoio para o copo;
4º- Aquela casinha ao lado do Altar é o confessionário e não o WC;
5º- Evite apoiar-se na imagem de Nossa Senhora, e muito menos abraçá-la e beijá-la;
6º- Os mandamentos são 10 e não 12;
7º- 12 são os apóstolos, e nenhum deles era anão;
8º- Não nos devemos referir o nosso Salvador e seus apóstolos como “JC & Companhia”;
9º- Não deverá referir-se a Judas como “filho da puta”;
10º- Não deverá tratar o Papa por “O Padrinho”;
11º- Judas não enforcou Jesus, e Bin Laden não tem a ver com esta história;
12º- A água Benta é para benzer e não para refrescar a nuca;
13º- Nunca reze a missa sentado nas escadas do Altar;
14º- Quando se ajoelhar, não utilize a Bíblia como apoio ao joelho;
15º- Utiliza-se o termo ámen e não “ó meu”;
16º- As hóstias devem ser distribuidas pelos fiéis. Não devem ser usadas como aperitivo antes do vinho;
17º- Procure usar roupas debaixo da Batina, e evite abanar-se quando estiver com calor;
18º- Os pecadores vão para o inferno e não para “a puta que os pariu”;
19º- A iniciativa de chamar os fiéis para dançar foi plausível, mas fazer um “comboio” pela igreja…
20º- Não deve sugerir que se escreva na porta da Igreja HOSTIA BAR.

P.S.:
Aquele que estava sentado no canto do Altar ao qual se referiu como “paneleiro travesti de saias” era eu!!… Espero que estas suas falhas sejam corrigidas no próximo Domingo.

O Bispo

----------------

E tem ainda a história de bebum que chegou dentro da igreja aos berros, convidando todos para o bar.

O coitado do padre, que estava dentro do confessionário, botou a cabeça pra fora e teve que ouvir:

- Ei, você que tá cagando também tá convidado.

Roth IRA or Traditional IRA?

Roth IRA or Traditional IRA?

An IRA can be an effective retirement tool. There are two basic types of Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA): the Roth IRA and the Traditional IRA. Use this tool to determine which IRA may be right for you.

Online Calculation Tool

Orthodox Church unholy alliance with Putin

Orthodox Church unholy alliance with Putin

By Adrian Blomfield in Omsk
Last Updated: 3:34am GMT 26/02/2008

Russia's Orthodox Church, despite decades of brutal repression under Soviet rule, is putting its trust in the KGB to ensure that a remarkable religious revival does not fade with the departure of President Vladimir Putin.

President Vladimir Putin meets Alexei II, leader of the Russian Orthodox Church
President Vladimir Putin meets Alexei II, leader
of the Russian Orthodox Church

In an unusual move, Alexei II, the Church's patriarch, has endorsed deputy prime minister Dmitry Medvedev ahead of next week's presidential election.

The influence of his support on Russia's estimated 100 million Orthodox worshippers is immense.

It also illustrates the unholy alliance the Church has forged with the Kremlin since Mr Putin came to power eight years ago.

The president, a proud adherent, has allowed the Orthodox Church to regain much of its Tsarist-era lustre and has won the enthusiastic support of religious leaders in return.

With his hand-picked successor almost guaranteed victory in the March 2 poll, Mr Putin is determined to maintain the arrangement by holding on to the reins of power as prime minister.

The relationship might seem odd. It was the KGB, after all, that led persecution of the Church in Soviet times, when priests were regularly jailed, tortured and executed. Neither this nor accusations that Mr Putin is restoring many of the attributes of Soviet rule seem to bother Alexei.

Although he has never confirmed it, the patriarch, like the president, is a former KGB agent codenamed Drozdov, according to Soviet archives opened to experts in the 1990s.
advertisement

Many in the Orthodox hierarchy are also accused of working as KGB informers, a fact that critics say the Church has never fully acknowledged.

"Essentially, the Orthodox Church is one of the only Soviet institutions that has never been reformed," said one priest, who declined to be identified for fear that he could be defrocked. That fate already befell another colleague, Gleb Yakunin, in the 1990s when he called on Church leaders with KGB links to repent.

Yet it is not just the KGB that binds the Church and the Kremlin. In the Tsarist era, the Church was a committed supporter of the imperial rallying cry "orthodoxy, autocracy and nationhood." Critics say that Mr Putin, who draws as much of inspiration from imperial Russia as he does from the Soviet Union, has adopted the same mantra - making the president and the Church ideal bedfellows.

Both have blossomed from the relationship. The number of Russians who identify themselves as Orthodox has doubled in the past decade, with two-thirds of the 140 million population proclaiming the faith - quite a feat after seven decades of official atheism.

Yet most Russians say they follow Orthodoxy for national rather than moral reasons. Deeply patriotic and with a declared intention of making Russia great again, the Church has milked the sentiment.

Priests are regularly seen on television sprinkling holy water on bombers and even nuclear missiles, a blessing that reinforces Mr Putin's own militaristic philosophy.

The Church has even supported Mr Putin's repression of democracy, with a senior bishop last year comparing human rights activists to traitors.

When a prison chaplain suggested that the jailed oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a personal enemy of the president, was a political prisoner, he was promptly defrocked.

Late last year, Sergei Taratukhin - who served five years in a Soviet gulag for defying the authorities - recanted, falling to his knees in front of television cameras and won a partial reprieve. He is now employed as a rubbish collector at the cathedral in the far-eastern city of Chita, near where Khodorkovsky is jailed.

In return, Mr Putin has worn his religious credentials very publicly and is regularly shown on state television kissing icons at Church services.

Given his popularity, Mr Putin's example has been emulated by many Russians. The business and political elite have assiduously followed instructions to fund the rebuilding of churches destroyed by the Soviets across the country.

Last year the magnificent Assumption cathedral in the Siberian city of Omsk, blown up by the Bolsheviks in 1935, was rebuilt with donations from the city mandarins.

The result is that Russia, at least in religious terms, is beginning to take on a Tsarist-era hue - and not just in terms of architecture.

Sister Varvara, who lived under a tree for many years before locals helped her to build a wooden church, is Omsk's local prophetess, healer and mind reader - a throwback to the wandering mystics such as Rasputin, who dominated religious rural life at the turn of the 19th century.

Dignitaries from across Siberia visit her to hear their fortune or just get advice. Sometimes, she gives Mr Putin a helping hand. A few years ago she told Tatyana Chertova, a retired actress with a shock of red hair, that she would become famous by writing a play about the president.

Mrs Chertova's play, Putin's Holiday, premiered last year.

Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright

Candlestick holders in Russia

Candlestick holders in Russia


One thing about Lent


Share with a friend! | printable version | pdf format

Russians use a special term to describe the state officials who pay brief visits to the glorious liturgies that mark the holy days of Orthodox Christianity.

This politician is called a "podsvechnik," or "candlestick holder."

"He walks in, lights a candle at an icon, stands around awhile, makes the sign of the cross, and he usually messes that part up, and then leaves as soon as the photographers have taken his picture," said journalist Lawrence Uzzell, who leads the Keston Institute at Oxford University, which monitors religious-liberty issues in Russia and the old Communist bloc.

"He's paying his respects to the church, but he's just going through the motions."

These "photo-ops" are especially poignant when they occur during news events that offer glimpses into the Russian soul. Witness the recent funeral of Lt. Capt. Dmitri Kolesnikov, who wrote a note describing the last moments of 23 doomed sailors trapped near the rear of the sunken nuclear submarine Kursk.

The funeral was a cathartic moment for millions as they wrestled with their grief and fears about the state of their country and its military. The candlestick holders had to be there.

It's easy to be cynical. But the truth is that the ancient symbols of Orthodoxy continue to hold great power, even if Russia and its leaders are not completely sure what they mean or why they matter so much. It's true that 1 percent of Russia's 146 million citizens regularly attends church, said Uzzell. But it also is true that 50 percent now claim some link to Orthodoxy.

"Russia today is much more like Sweden than America," said Uzzell, who frequently works out of Keston's Moscow office. "Russia still is profoundly secular. ... At the same time, it's clear that modern Russia is a nation of spiritual truth-seekers. People are asking the big questions and searching for answers. There is a sincere spiritual hunger there."

And Russian Orthodoxy? "Serious Orthodox Christianity is a counter-cultural movement inside modern Russia," said Uzzell.

Outsiders must remember that this is taking place only a few generations after the Communists closed 98 percent of Russia's churches and, in one brief period, killed 200,000 bishops, priests and nuns and then sent another 500,000 believers to die in labor camps. Millions later died in Stalinist purges. KGB records indicate that most clergy were simply shot or hanged. But others were crucified on church doors, slaughtered on their altars or stripped naked, doused with water and left outdoors in winter.

The KGB records also contain the stories of clerics who yielded. Russian Orthodoxy was a complex mosaic of sin and sacrifice, during the era of the martyrs. The Keston Institute has been at the center of efforts, for example, to document the complex interactions between the KGB and the Russian church's current leader, Patriarch Alexy II.

Many ask, in effect, if some of the church's bishops are mere candlestick holders -- or worse. Two weeks after the 1991 upheaval that ended the Soviet era, I visited Moscow and talked privately with several veteran priests.

It's impossible to understand the modern Russian church, one said, without grasping that it has four different kinds of leaders. A few Soviet-era bishops are not even Christian believers. Some are flawed believers who were lured into compromise by the KGB, but have never publicly confessed this. Some are believers who cooperated with the KGB, but have repented to groups of priests or believers. Finally, some never had to compromise.

"We have all four kinds," this priest said. "That is our reality. We must live with it until God heals our church."

This analysis is sobering, but the facts back it up, said Uzzell, who is an active Orthodox Christian.

"There are signs of hope, mostly at the local level," he said. "There are wonderful priests and wonderful parishes, if you know where to look. But you will find ice-cold parishes and others that are vital and alive, in the same city or town. ... I think the Russian Orthodox Church has a glorious future, just as it has had a glorious past. But I must admit that I'm not terribly optimistic about the near-term prospects."

Common Logical Fallacies Made By Muslims

Common Logical Fallacies Made By Muslims

by Robert A. Morey
© 1996 Research and Education Foundation

Christians must be prepared to answer the typical objections made against the Gospel. Most of the objections are based on simple logical fallacies. The following is a list of some of the most common fallacies used by Muslims.

Note: The average Muslim does not know that his arguments are logically erroneous. He is sincere in his beliefs. Thus you must be patient and kind in sharing with him why his arguments are invalid.

1. The Fallacy of False Assumptions: In logic as well as in law, "historical precedent" means that the burden of proof rests on those who set forth new theories and not on those whose ideas have already been verified. The old tests the new. The already established authority judges any new claims to authority.

Since Islam came along many centuries after Christianity, Islam has the burden of proof and not Christianity. The Bible tests and judges the Qur'an. When the Bible and The Qur'an contradict each other, the Bible must logically be given first place as the older authority. The Qur'an is in error until it proves itself.

Some Muslims violate the principle of historical precedent by asserting that Islam does not have the burden of proof and that the Qur'an judges the Bible.

2. Arguing in a circle: If you have already assumed in your premise what you are going to state in your conclusion, then you have ended where you began and proven nothing.
Circle If you end where you began, you got nowhere.

Examples:
#1 Proving Allah by the Qur'an and then proving the Qur'an by Allah.
#2 Proving Muhammad by the Qur'an and then proving the Qur'an by Muhammad.
#3 Proving Islam by the Qur'an and then proving the Qur'an by Islam.
3. False Analogy: Comparing two things as if they are parallel when they are not really the same at all.
Examples:
#1 Many Muslims erroneously assume that Muslims and Christians share the same concepts of God, revelation, inspiration, textual preservation, the Bible, prophethood, biblical history, conversion, etc...

#2 Because a false analogy is drawn between Islam and Christianity, some Muslims think that any argument which refutes the Qur'an will likewise refute the Bible; any argument which refutes Muhammad will also refute Jesus Christ, etc...

#3 For example, many Muslims claim that Muhammad and all prophets were sinless. They even deny that Abraham was an idol worshipper. Thus when a Christian points out all the wicked things that Muhammad did (mass murder, child abuse, lying, etc.), the Muslims will say, "If you are right, then you must also reject your biblical prophets for doing wicked things as well."

What he is really saying is, "If you reject my prophet, then you must reject your prophets as well. If Muhammad was a false prophet, then your prophets are false as well."

The root problem is that the Muslim concept of prophethood is not the same as the Christian concept of prophethood. We teach that prophets sin like anyone else. Thus while Islam is refuted by the sins of Muhammad, Christianity is not jeopardized at all. The Muslim is guilty of setting up a "false analogy."

Whenever a Muslim responds to a Christian attack on the Qur'an, Muhammad, or Allah by flipping the argument around and applying it to the Bible, Jesus or the Trinity as if Islam and Christianity either stand or fall together, he is guilty of the fallacy of false analogy. Islam can be false and Christianity be true at the same time.
4. The Fallacy of Irrelevance: When you introduce issues which have no logical bearing on the subject under discussion, you are using irrelevant arguments.
Examples:
#1 Some Muslims argue, "The Qur'an is the Word of God because the text of the Qur'an has been preserved perfectly." This argument is erroneous for two reasons:

a. Factually, the text of the Qur'an has not been preserved perfectly. The text has additions, deletions, conflicting manuscripts, and variant readings like any other ancient writing.

b. Logically, it is irrelevant whether the text of the Qur'an has been preserved because preservation does not logically imply inspiration. A book can be perfectly copied without implying its inspiration.

#2 When Muslims attack the character and motives of anyone who criticizes Islam, they are using irrelevant arguments. The character of someone is no indication of whether he is telling you the truth. Good people can lie and evil people can tell the truth. Thus whenever a Muslim uses slurs such as "mean," "dishonest," "racist," "liar," "deceptive," etc., he is not only committing a logical fallacy but also revealing that he cannot intellectually defend his beliefs.

#3 When confronted with the pagan origins of the Qur'an, some Muslims defend the Qur'an by answering, "So what! Didn't you Christians get Christmas from the pagans?"

This argument is erroneous for several reasons.

a. It is a false analogy to parallel the pagan origins of the rites commanded in the Qur'an with the present day holidays nowhere commanded in the Bible. What some modern day Christians do on Dec. 25th has no logical bearing on what the Qur'an commands Muslims to do (eg. the Pilgrimage, the Fast, etc.).

b. It is irrelevant that some Christians choose to celebrate the birth of Christ. Since the Bible nowhere commands it, it is a matter of personal freedom. But Muslims are commanded in the Qur'an to believe and practice many things which came from the paganism of that day.

c. The Muslim by using this argument is actually admitting that the Qur'an was not "sent down" but fabricated from pagan sources. This means he has become an unbeliever (Surah 25:4-6).

#4 Some Muslims argue that the Qur'an is the Word of God because it contains some historically or scientifically accurate statements. This argument is irrelevant. Just because a book is correct on some historical or scientific point does not mean it is inspired. You cannot take the attributes of a part and apply it to the whole. A book can be a mixture of true and false statements. Thus it is a logical fallacy to argue that the entire Qur'an is true if it makes one true statement.

When a Muslim argues that history or science "proves" the Qur'an, this actually means that he is acknowledging that history and science can likewise refute the Qur'an. If the Qur'an contains just one historical error or one scientific error, then the Qur'an is not the Word of God. Verification and falsification go hand in hand.

#5 The present meaning of a word is irrelevant to what it meant in ancient times. The word "Allah" is a good example. When confronted by the historical evidence that the word was used by pagan Arabs in pre-Islamic times to refer to a high god who was married to the sun-goddess and had three daughters, some Muslims will quote dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc. to prove (sic) that "Allah means God." They are thus using modern definitions to define what the word meant over a thousand years ago! What "Allah" means now has no bearing on what it meant before Muhammad.

5. The Fallacy of Equivocation: If we assume that everyone has the same definition of such words as God, Jesus, revelation, inspiration, prophet, miracle, etc., we are committing a very simple logical fallacy.

#1 When a Muslim says, "Christians and Muslims worship the same God," he is committing the fallacy of equivocation. While Christians worship the Triune God of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Muslims worship a Unitarian deity. Obviously, they are worshipping different Gods.

#2 When a Muslim says, "We believe in Jesus too," he is committing the fallacy of equivocation. The "Jesus" of the Qur'an is not the Jesus of the Bible. Islam preaches "another Jesus" (II Cor. 11:4). The Jesus of the Bible is God the Son who died on the cross for our sins. But the "Jesus" of the Qur'an is not God the Son and he did not die on the cross for our sins. Thus it is erroneous for Muslims to tell Christians that they believe in Jesus, too.

#3 When a Muslim assumes that Christians have the same concept of revelation as Muslims, he is guilty of the fallacy of equivocation. According to Islam, the Qur'an was written in heaven by Allah and has no earthly sources. When we prove that it comes from earthly sources, this threatens the inspiration of the Qur'an.

On the other hand, the Bible does not claim that it dropped out of heaven one day. It openly quotes from earthly sources. It uses pre-existing sources without any difficulty whatsoever, Thus while the Qur'an is threatened by historical sources, the Bible is actually confirmed by them.

#4 When a Muslims tells you that the word "Allah" has only one meaning: "the one, true, universal God," he is assuming a fallacy. The word "allah" has many different meanings.

a. It can be used as a generic term like the English word "God." Thus it can be applied to any god or goddess regardless if a true or false god is in view. (ex. The "Allahs" of Hinduism.)

b. The Nation of Islam uses it to refer to Wallace Dodd Ford, Elijah Muhammad, and Louis Farrakhan as "Allah" and teaches that all black people are "Allahs."

c. It has been used by some Christians in Arabic speaking countries as a generic name for the Holy Trinity.

d. It was used in pre-Islamic times by pagan Arabs to refer to the moon-god who was the father of al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat.

e. It is used by Muslims to refer to their god.

Islam and Christianity do not worship the same God. The Christian worships the Holy Trinity while the Muslim worships a unitarian deity.

6. The Fallacy of Force: The Qur'an commands Muslims to wage war against non-Muslims and apostates (Surah 5:33; 9:5, 29).

Some Muslims use a false analogy to answer this argument. They respond by saying, "Well, what about the Crusades? You Christians use violence just like Muslims."

It is logically erroneous to set up a parallel between Muslims killing people in obedience to the Qur'an and Christians killing people in disobedience to the Bible. While the Qur'an commands Jihad, the New Testament forbids it.

7. The Fallacy Of Confusing Questions of Fact with Questions of Relevance: Whether something is factually true is totally different from the issue of whether you feel it is relevant. The two issues must be kept separate.

Examples:
#1 When a Christian argues that some of the beliefs and rituals of the Qur'an came from pre-Islamic Arab paganism, the Muslim will deny it at first. But as more and more evidence is given, the Muslim will often do a flip-flop and begin arguing, "So what! Didn't you Christians get Christmas from the pagans?" The Muslim has now committed three fallacies:

a. The "So what!" argument is dealing with the issue of relevance, not fact. You must stop the Muslim at that point and ask him, "Since you are now dealing with the issue of whether the pagan origins of the Qur'an are relevant, does this mean that you are now agreeing to the fact of the pagan origins of Islam?"

b. The Muslim has also committed the fallacy of equivocation, The Bible is not threatened by historical sources. It freely refers to them and even quotes them (Acts 17: 28). But the Qur'an denies that it has any earthly historical sources (Surah 25:4-6).

c. He also committed the fallacy of false analogy. The Bible and the Qur'an are two totally different books. The inspiration of the Bible does not depend upon the fate of the Qur'an because what Muslims claim for the Qur'an is not what Christians claim for the Bible.

8. Phonic Fallacies: The phonetic sound of a word should not be used to twist its meaning. For example,

a. Some Muslims try to prove that the word "Allah" is in the Greek New Testament because of the Greek word alla. But while the word is pronounced "alla," it only means "but" in Greek. It has nothing to do with the Arabic "Allah."

b. Some Muslims have claimed that the word "Allah" is in the Bible because the Biblical word "Allelujah." They then mispronounce the word as "Allah-lujah" But "Allelujah" is not a compound Arabic word with "Allah" being the first part of the word. It is a Hebrew word with the name of God being "JAH" (or Yahweh) and the verb "alle" meaning "praise to." It means "praise to Yahweh." The Arabic word "Allah" is not in the word.

c. The same error is found in the Muslim argument that the word "Baca" (Psa. 94:6) really means "Mecca." The valley of Baca is in northern Israel.

d. Some Muslims have tried to go from "Amen" to "Ahmed" to "Mohammed!" Such nonsense is beyond belief.

9. "Red Herring" Arguments: When a Muslim is asked to defend the Qur'an, if he turns around and attacks the reliability of the Bible, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the Crusades, etc., he is introducing irrelevant issues that have no logical bearing on the truthfulness of Islam. He is trying to divert attention from Islam to other issues.

Furthermore, he is assuming that if he can refute the Bible, then the Qur'an wins by default. If he can refute the Trinity, then Allah wins by default. But this is logically erroneous. You cannot prove your position by refuting someone else's position. The Bible and the Qur'an could both be wrong. Muslims must prove their own book.
10. Straw Man Arguments: When you put a false argument into the mouth of your opponent and then proceed to knock it down, you have only created a "straw man" argument, Muslims sometimes either misunderstand or deliberately misquote the arguments Christians give them.
Example:
Some Muslims have built a "straw man" argument that claims that we teach, "The Qur'an teaches that Allah is the Moon-god and that Muslims knowingly believe in and worship the Moon-god and his daughters." They then knock down this "straw man" argument and claim victory. Of course, we never said such nonsense. What we have said is that while the Qur'an claims that Allah is God and Muslims think they are worshipping the one true God, in reality they are worshipping a false god preached by a false prophet according to a false book.

Conclusion

The average Muslim has been deceived by Muslim apologists who use such logical fallacies without regard to reason, fact or honesty. But there are many Muslims who want to be rational in their religion and thus have an open mind to rational discourse. Once they see that their arguments are based on logical fallacies, they will be open to the wonderful news that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died for our sins on the cross.

For further documentation write
Faith Defenders
PO Box 7447
Orange, CA 92863
www.faithdefenders.com

Mohamed Sifaoui: "I Consider Islamism to Be Fascism"

Mohamed Sifaoui: "I Consider Islamism to Be Fascism"

Middle East Quarterly
Spring 2008, pp. 13-17

Mohamed Sifaoui was born on July 4, 1967, and spent most of his childhood in Algeria. He holds a master's degree in political science and studied theology for two years at the University of Algiers and for two additional years at Zeitouna University's Institute of Theology in Tunis. In 1994, he began work for the Algerian daily Le Soir and survived a February 11, 1996 bomb attack at Le Soir's headquarters at the Maison de la Presse. In 1999, the French government granted him political asylum after he received death threats both from Algerian Islamists and the military. In Paris, Sifaoui works at the French weekly Marianne. Between October 2002 and January 2003, he infiltrated an Al-Qaeda cell in France in order to research his book, Mes frères assassins: Comment j'ai infiltré une cellule d'Al-Qaïda. (My assassin brothers: How I infiltrated an Al-Qaeda cell).[1]

Sophie Fernandez Debellemanière, a former intern at Le Figaro and The Weekly Standard, interviewed Sifaoui in Paris on September 12, 2007, after meeting him at a 9-11 ceremony on the Champ de Mars.
In Islamism's Cross Hairs

Middle East Quarterly: Did you flee Algeria because of the terrorist attack on Le Soir?

Mohamed Sifaoui: No. Throughout the 1990s, I was determined to stay. I only left in 1999 when I was sentenced to one year in jail for insulting the head of state. I had criticized President Abdelaziz Bouteflika's reconciliation policy because I considered it unfair to grant amnesty to a terrorist without even judging him. The Algerian government talked about peace without ever recognizing there was a war. The terrorists suddenly got themselves released with the same rights as the victims' families. Bouteflika's behavior towards his people was criminal. They wanted to send me to jail at the same time they were releasing criminals.

MEQ: You stayed longer than most. Were people right to leave Algeria?

Sifaoui: The intellectuals and journalists who left Algeria when the murders started in 1992 were right to do so because the risk was real. Survival instinct is natural and legitimate. It would be indecent to judge them because fear is a legitimate human feeling. In this sense, I was the one being unreasonable by risking my life to stay.

MEQ: Why did you stay in Algeria?

Sifaoui: I didn't want to leave the country under pressure, because of the possibility of another terrorist attack. Nor do I believe that I was especially brave to stay. It is not a question of being brave or weak. The only thing that matters is the message and the values that you want to transmit. As a journalist, I felt that I had to stay. We never obtained press freedom in Algeria, but I wanted to struggle to get a small part of it. We made some progress, but then, Islamism took us backward. By staying, I wanted to show that I would not accept submission to Islamist censorship and its diktat.

MEQ: Are you still worried? After all, two bodyguards are supervising this interview.

Sifaoui: No, I am not worried. I have built sort of a shell around me. I keep calm, and I do not panic. Honestly, I prefer not to think about it; otherwise, I would worry too much.

MEQ: Are you proud today to have risked your life for your ideas?

Sifaoui: Yes, because I am lucky enough to be alive. It is a shame that those who died did not leave for safety. I stayed because I felt that I was able to accomplish this act of resistance. Each person resists in his or her own way; each does what he or she feels able to. Among the members of the World War II resistance, some hid other resisters; some hid Jewish families or helped them escape to Switzerland, and some failed only to denounce them. For me, at this time, my resistance to fundamentalism is based on a determination not to concede any ground to the Islamists but to keep on writing and to defy danger everyday.

MEQ: What was your reaction to Al-Qaeda deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahiri's appeal on September 20, 2007, "to wipe sons of France and Spain" out of the Maghreb?[2]

Sifaoui: I've been expressing the same warnings about Islamist terrorism for years. Zawahiri's statement doesn't surprise me. Since the GSPC [Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat] pledged its allegiance to Al-Qaeda in September 2006, Algerian terrorists and Al-Qaeda leaders expressed their objective very clearly: Intensify terrorist attacks against the Algerian regime and its institutions, as well as against lay and democratic people, targeting Western and especially French citizens.

MEQ: Do you believe that Zawahiri was referring to the descendants of former colonists in Algeria by using the expression "sons of?" Or was this the result of too literal a translation of the Arabic?

Sifaoui: No! This has nothing to do with any literal translation! Zawahiri is referring to all French and Spanish citizens by saying "sons of." Al-Qaeda's targets are all the French and Spanish citizens in the Maghreb.

MEQ: Less than twenty-four hours after the release of Zawahiri's message, a terrorist attack in Lakhdaria in northern Algeria, fifty miles southeast of Algiers, wounded two French citizens, one Italian, and six Algerians.[3] Is this attack a sign that the European presence in the Maghreb is in jeopardy?

Sifaoui: I would not be so pessimistic, but such a quick reaction indicates how organized and coordinated Al-Qaeda and the GSPC are. It also shows the Algerian regime's incapacity to deal with terrorism.
An Islamist and Fascist Nexus?

MEQ: Would you use the term Islamo-fascism to describe this threat?

Sifaoui: I certainly am one of the first Muslims to consider Islamism to be fascism. This is not a subjective decision but rather a serious, academic argument. Fascism and Islamism are comparable in many aspects: Fascism, without evoking all its particularities, bears similarities to trends also present in Islamism. I am, of course, making a reference to their will to exterminate the Jews. On this point, the Islamists may go even further in their doctrine than the Nazis did, considering that the end of the world could only occur when there are no Jews left on earth. In the three monotheist religions, apocalypse, end of the world, and doomsday exist and are liturgical events invested with a high degree of spirituality. Hence, the Islamists interpret the end of the world in a very special way. Whereas it is written nowhere in the Qur'an, exegetes describe the end of the world as the day when even the trees and rocks will be able to talk and tell the Muslims: "Come here, there is a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him." And this would go on, until there would not be any Jew left on earth. This ideology is pure fascism.

MEQ: Are there other similarities?

Sifaoui: The will to exterminate or do harm to homosexuals is another similarity between Nazism and Islamism. The Islamists, also, say that they are the best community in the world, a superior race thanks to their beliefs. They use political means to arrive at this erroneous exegesis. I do not fear to call it fascism. And there are many more similarities between fascism and Islamism.
Islamism vs. Moderate Islam

MEQ: Do you believe it is possible to criticize Islamism without being called a racist?

Sifaoui: Absolutely, I would say that one must criticize Islamism. When I am criticizing Nazism, I am not being anti-German.

MEQ: When did you feel for the first time that you had to criticize Islamism?

Sifaoui: I have always felt that it was a moral duty.

MEQ: Do you believe that moderate Islam exists?

Sifaoui: Of course, it does. If the majority of Muslims were not moderate, Islamists would have destroyed the Western world a long time ago. Despite its technological lead, its nuclear power, and all its armies, the Western world would never be able to face an Islamist world entirely convinced by the terrorist cause. One billion people supporting Al-Qaeda would reduce the rest of the world to ashes. Islam contains violent texts that need not be applicable today. Islam is a religion of moderation. I know because I studied theology for four years.

Perhaps 20 percent of Muslims on the planet must be totally reeducated. We have to fight them politically, ideologically, and also militarily. Western societies do not fight them well; whenever they try to do so, they end up strengthening them.

One proof that moderate Islam exists is the huge number of sympathy messages that I received from Muslim people when my investigative story on Al-Qaeda Salafist networks, J'ai infiltré une cellule islamiste, was broadcast on French television M6.
Iran

MEQ: Given the Islamists' vision of apocalypse, do you believe that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would fear reprisal should Iran attack Israel? Should Western analysts rely on Iran's rationality?

Sifaoui: Too many Western analysts look at any adversary through a Western lens. Western analysts believe that Al-Qaeda is as rational as the Basque separatist group ETA [Euskadi Ta Askatasuna] or the Irish Republican Army. My personal history, culture, and investigative journalism work allow me to understand what Westerners cannot see: Iran will attack Israel as soon as it can.

MEQ: Doesn't Iran take into account the eventuality of its own destruction?

Sifaoui: No, it does not. Martyrdom is exalted in Iran. Iranians view annihilation positively. The Islamists' main purpose is to create the conditions for the West to believe that chaos is possible. The argument that says that Iran will not attack Israel because of immediate and massive retaliation from Israel and the United States is absolutely wrong. The Islamists would welcome such retaliation in order to cement coalitions among Muslim peoples and to encourage riots in the Arab street. U.S. military action, or even its prospect, coincides with Islamists' interests. That is the reason why I was against the war in Iraq.

MEQ: Can you explain?

Sifaoui: Between October 2002 and January 2003, I spent four months infiltrating an Al-Qaeda terrorist cell in France. Two months before the launching of the Iraq war, when I was in the midst of the group, one of the Islamists said, "Now we are going to pray for George Bush to attack Iraq." I was surprised and acted as if I were stupid: "Really? Why do you want America to kill our brothers?" The most clever and elevated in Al-Qaeda's hierarchy, Amara Saïfi [the GSPC's emir in London] whispered to me, "All over the world, our brothers are now praying for George Bush to attack Iraq. War between the Muslim world and the Western world is bound to happen. Unfortunately, Muslims are too divided. Far too many of them do not pray regularly and neglect religion and jihad. In order to unify and mobilize all these people, we have to continue what we initiated on 9-11. We attacked America to make her retort everywhere in the Muslim world, in order to create a real war between Muslims and the West, and especially Israel."

MEQ: That's incredible.

Sifaoui: Another of the group added, "Once Iraq is at war, many of our brothers will go there to fight jihad. George Bush will have answered our prayers by suppressing our enemy Saddam Hussein and unifying the Muslims in jihad. Then as Westerners do not know how to fight attrition wars, we know that they will inevitably get stuck. We will wait until they leave in order to establish an Islamist state in Iraq. This war will be a pretext to launch terrorist attacks in Europe as well."

Unfortunately, you can see their theory is valid. They predicted exactly what is happening.

[1] Paris: Le Cherche-midi Editeur, 2003.
[2] Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Special Dispatch Series, no. 1721, Sept. 21, 2007; "Warden Message," Embassy of the United States of America, Algiers, Algeria, Sept. 24, 2007; Andrew Black, "Recasting Jihad in the Maghreb," Terrorism Monitor, Oct. 25, 2007.
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP172107
http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/analysts.php?authorid=341
http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2373742
[3] "Warden Message," Sept. 24, 2007.

Marcel de Corte - Para onde vai o Islã?

Marcel de Corte - Para onde vai o Islã?

Do Saite Orate Pro Nobis

Não é errado afirmar que o Islã ignora-se quase por completo. Esse grande corpo informe está despertando da longa letargia: pálpebras fechadas, mente entorpecida, membros dispersos e sacudidos aqui e acolá por sobressaltos involuntários. A história do Islã manifesta de uma ponta à outra a estranha alternância entre torpor e exaltação.

A causa disso, parece, é o nomadismo atávico desse imenso agregado: o Islã só se mexe e sacode quando encontra o condutor, o animador, o füher ou o êmulo de Maomé. Sem a guarda de um pastor e seus cães, o rebanho cai na anarquia e, pouco a pouco, na sonolência. O Islã é semelhante à limalha de ferro, cuja força coesiva depende da ação do ímã.

Traduzindo, o Islã se apresenta, para o historiador e o sociólogo, qual força magnética prestes a cair em inércia ao faltar-lhe o dínamo da oligarquia dirigente ou a oposição de resistência à sua passagem e expansão. As relações entre o Ocidente e o Islã, desde o séc. VII até hoje, são marcadas por fases de precipitação e de estagnação, ambas incompreensíveis. O comportamento do discípulo de Maomé, como já dissemos em várias ocasiões, não conhece aquela medida entre o excesso e a carência, de que a inteligência grega, enraizada na ordem natural, impregnara o Ocidente já há muito tempo – há exceções, claro. O Islã é instável e descomedido. Daí, é notável a civilização islâmica conhecer momentos de vívido esplendor – seja em Bagdá, seja na Espanha –, justo quando o dom que a Grécia legou ao mundo andava esquecido. Poucas culturas alcançaram ao mesmo tempo aquela efervescência vital e sutileza espiritual.

Essa união durou pouco: o Islã precipitou-se em um movimento pendular, que podemos observar com maior clareza nas pessoas de seus adeptos, sob a forma da brutalidade explosiva revezada com uma inesperada e requintada delicadeza, ou vice-versa. É como se o Islã sempre tivesse de oscilar entre as qualidades e os defeitos da barbárie, e as qualidades e defeitos da decadência.

Talvez encontremos a origem dessa instabilidade dentro da estrutura tipicamente religiosa da mentalidade islâmica e na violenta antítese estabelecida entre Deus e os homens.

Eu seria, sem Deus, mais vil que a besta impura, diz o Maomé de Victor Hugo. O Islã ignora o Cristo Deus encarnado, renovador da natureza humana, assumida em Sua pessoa. Maomé tem Cristo apenas por profeta. Ignora a noção de natureza renovada pelo Novo Adão. Não existe nada entre Deus e o homem. Victor Hugo exprimiu magistralmente, com outras palavras, a dualidade da alma religiosa islâmica, dividida entre o Céu e a Terra:

Filho, eu sou vil campo dos sublimes combates

Eu sou homem excelso, e homem de disparates,

O mal, dentro nos lábios, com o bem alterna,

Como é no deserto a areia e cisterna!

A islamismo não possui centro de gravidade. Não tem neste baixo mundo um ponto fixo. Não dispõe de critérios imutáveis, falta-lhe o meio termo, o Cristo entre o homem e Deus, falta-lhe a Igreja concebida como corpo místico, tal como Jesus Cristo a espalhou e comunicou. Oscila assim entre o fanatismo estrito, coagulando-se sob uma forma qualquer, e a pulverização entre crenças disparatadas, indo da mística até à superstição grosseira. A fé em Alá, dominante e exclusiva, mistura-se à uma multidão indefinida de seitas, série enumerada pela Enciclopédia Britânica em três colunas de texto bem espremido.

As conseqüências políticas dessa atitude religiosa sempre vacilante e desequilibrada são imensas.

Já é lugar comum dizer que no Islã a política é apenas um prolongamento da religião. O temporal e o espiritual não são dois domínios distintos. O primeiro não se subordina ao segundo. Apesar do atual processo de laicização das elites islâmicas – que vão se tornando incrédulas ou ritualistas e farisaicas -, elas consideram o Islã como o mundo em si, sem fronteiras ou determinações originadas da situação terrestre do homem e da conseqüente diversidade dos agrupamentos humanos. O Islã desconhece a natureza humana e suas implicações, logo desconhece também a idéia de pátria e, no interior desta, a idéia de diferenciação hierárquica entre homens de funções desiguais. Não existe “casta” ou “ordem”, no sentido Ancien Régime: no Islã, há igualdade absoluta entre os fiéis. O muçulmano sente-se em casa onde quer que haja Islã: seu passaporte é sua fé, viva ou aparente. O marroquino ou o tunisiano não é um estrangeiro no Egito.

Assim, o Islã apresenta-se como uma sociedade sem classes, internacional ou, mais exatamente, “anacional”, onde os membros congregam-se imbuídos de uma única concepção das relações entre Deus e o homem, à maneira da sociedade sonhada por Marx, cuja instauração fora intentada pelos seguidores deste na Rússia. Bastaria o arrefecimento religioso das elites dominantes – um processo ativo desde o séc. XIX – para o Islã, assestando o olhar para a possessão da terra e para as relações entre o homem e o mundo material, encontrar-se em posição idêntica a da Rússia. Não por acaso, um dos observadores mais sagazes do comunismo, o Sr. Jules Monnerot, apodou-o de “o novo Islã”. Nesse sentido, são bem acertadas as analogias entre as duas concepções de mundo.

Ademais, o Islã já exibiu no passado, que o empolga em sua presente exaltação, um espírito totalitário idêntico ao do marxismo. Tanto para ele como para o marxismo, a humanidade se divide em duas partes em tudo heterogêneas: os fiéis e os infiéis, os muçulmanos e os ocidentais. A filosofia materialista do marxismo é uma idéia que ainda não tem eco no Islã. Os comunistas muçulmanos são escassos. Mas essa pretensa impermeabilidade do espírito islâmico ao marxismo não vale mais que a imaginária discordância observada entre o espírito inglês ou escandinavo e a doutrina de Marx. Vemos na história recente a Grã-Bretanha e os países nórdicos, apesar de conservarem o verniz ideológico e elegerem uns poucos deputados comunistas, absorverem altas doses de marxismo edulcorado.

A realização da aliança entre a Rússia e o Islã, sob nossas vistas, não vai contra a natureza. Ela origina-se da correspondência de mentalidades e da sua possível identificação, dentro da atual confusão da história. Os americanos nunca interromperão essa afinidade com seu anticolonialismo pueril, se desconhecem o espírito muçulmano. Será fácil para a Rússia superá-los, ao apelar para a semelhança existente entre a atitude anti-européia do muçulmano e a atitude anticapitalista; será fácil, no momento oportuno, atiçar o primeiro, que já existe e se exaspera, contra o segundo, que ainda está informe, e daí arrastar os Estados Unidos para essa condenação que fulmina o Ocidente. Bem faria a diplomacia americana, sempre mais sensível aos elementos econômicos do problema que aos fatores psicológicos, se percebesse a astuciosa mudança de rumos.

A política estrangeira soviética não mudou desde os famosos episódios – já esquecidos das democracias, desmemoriadas! – entre Zinoviev e Enver Pasha, no Congresso de Bakou, a 1º de setembro de 1920. Ela oferece-nos os frutos de um esforço inabalável, bem diferente da diplomacia dos povos ditos livres, a quem os fatos obrigam a lastimáveis cabriolas. As duas “guerras santas”, a da Rússia contra o capitalismo e a do Islã contra o Ocidente, vão acabar por se tornar uma só, se a América não abrir os olhos.

Esse quadro é bastante provável, porquanto a moral islâmica abre um campo mais vasto às paixões do espírito e ao ressentimento que a moral cristã. Eis a razão por que o Islã se vai insinuando nas populações primitivas da África: estas adotam a ética islâmica, por menos exigente. Não há quem negue, por outro lado, o florescimento do marxismo por onde se relaxe a moral. Ainda é verdadeiro aquilo de Rivarol: “se aos homens desobrigamos, os estragamos”.

Os futuros historiadores, parece, considerarão a dissolução do Império Otomano, ratificada pelos tratados de 1918, e a estúpida destruição do Império Austro-Húngaro duas pesadas hipotecas a serem cobradas ao séc. XX. A antiga Turquia, saciada de conquistas – por sinal, bem modestas -, continha o avanço do Islã, do mesmo modo que a Áustria-Hungria esfriava a efervescência balcânica.

Além disso, esses dois sistemas constituíam um tampão contra o imperialismo russo. Hoje estamos pagando o preço dessa política cega, em que saíram ganhando o “idealismo” laico e as sórdidas preocupações econômicas. Tomara não nos seja o preço muito alto, já que, citando novamente Rivarol, a pior desgraça é o merecer suas desgraças!

Em todo caso, é certo dizer, os nacionalismos árabes não possuem raízes nas tradições islâmicas, e evoluirão fatalmente em direção ao internacionalismo e ao pan-islamismo. A Rússia, sempre atenta, lhe dedicará mais e mais cuidados na proporção direta dos erros habituais da diplomacia dita atlântica. O único trunfo nas mãos do Ocidente é a debilidade do sentido de Estado em terras islâmicas. Hoje em dia, contudo, constroem-se Estados artificiais por meio da força. O Estado Ocidental, por seu turno, degenerou em Estado Providência, que vampiriza sua energia e suas reações vitais de defesa.

In: “La libre Belgique”, 28 de dezembro de 1956

Postado por Luiz de Carvalho às 8:02 PM

31 de outubro - Hoje é dia da Reforma!

Hoje é dia da Reforma!
Leia também: post do Tempora

Errais, não conhecendo as Escrituras, nem o poder de Deus.
Jesus Cristo em Mt 22:29
Examinai as Escrituras, porque vós cuidais ter nelas
a vida eterna, e são elas que de mim testificam.
Jesus Cristo em Jo 5:39
O muro da cidade tinha doze fundamentos, e neles estavam
os nomes dos doze apóstolos do Cordeiro.
Apóstolo João em Ap 21:14

Quando pensamos nas inúmeras igrejas evangélicas que continuam se formando das mínimas dissidências através das últimas décadas; quando verificamos a falta de consistência bíblica e de preparo intelectual e/ou espiritual de muitos líderes dessas igrejas; quando lembramos as denominações e os pastores que aderem ao aborto e à causa gay... nada disso nos deixa propícios a comemorar o Dia da Reforma.

Porém, os primeiros líderes da igreja primitiva já tinham seus problemas, e eles não eram leves. Gente que mentia ao Espírito Santo, que pervertia a fé dos outros ao anunciar que a ressurreição já havia ocorrido, que se fingia de pregador fiel para tirar dinheiro do povo, que forçava a barra para que os procedimentos judaicos continuassem a ser praticados... e nenhum desses desvios era suficiente para apagar a grande alegria que os cristãos sentiam em ser discípulos de Cristo, depositários de Sua maravilhosa Palavra (que limpa a alma) e do penhor do Espírito (que nos permitirá estar com Deus naquele dia).

Olhamos para trás e a nossa volta, e somos capazes de reconhecer os inúmeros erros da igreja cristã. No entanto, também podemos atestar os imensos cuidados de Deus para que a fé continuasse viva e atuante em todos esses séculos. O princípio da Sola Scriptura, ao contrário do que católicos e ortodoxos afirmam, não é um espécie de idolatria ao Livro; é, ao contrário, mostra do infinito amor de Deus para conosco, não deixando que ficássemos vulneráveis às inconstâncias dos homens através dos tempos. O princípio da Sola Scriptura é a razão de ser da própria Bíblia: balizador de nossa fé, porto seguro para onde nos voltamos quando as falas sobre Deus ao redor nos parecem desconexas demais.

Li hoje no Orkut: "Não existe a noção de Sola Scriptura nos quinze primeiros séculos do cristianismo. O Cristianismo nunca foi uma religião do livro, pois a Palavra de Deus é Cristo encarnado, ressucitado e vivo entre nós. Tinta sobre papel, nesse caso, é secundário. E pode ser letra que mata."

O problema com essas afirmações é que elas não podem ser enunciadas sem que seja introduzido um grande princípio relativista na relação do cristão com a Bíblia. Elas contradizem as palavras e o comportamento do próprio Jesus. Vejamos.

No Novo Testamento, Cristo menciona aqueles que viriam a crer Nele não por um encontro direto com o Deus encarnado, como tinha acontecido com os discípulos, mas sim por Suas palavras. Ora, as palavras de Jesus não podem mais nos ser passadas boca-a-boca - suas testemunhas diretas não mais circulam entre nós - , mas sim pelo Livro (e, ainda indiretamente, por quem lesse o Livro e reproduzisse oralmente o que lá achasse escrito). Nesse sentido, quando as palavras de Jesus não estavam escritas, eram autoridade a partir da boca de Seus discípulos sinceros. Mas, como estão escritas, são autoridade a partir do Livro. Isso parece óbvio, mas não é. O registro detalhado da fé e sua organização em forma de um Livro espantosamente coerente é a prova de que Deus providenciou meios para que o conteúdo do que cremos não fosse facilmente alterado através dos séculos.

Além disso, há outro fator muito importante. Conforme lemos no Novo Testamento, quando Jesus começou a exercer Seu ministério, como é que Ele demonstrou que a religião judaica daquele tempo - que deveria testificar Dele como o Messias - havia se desviado grandemente de seus propósitos originais? Pelo Livro, ainda incompleto, da época: o que chamamos hoje Antigo Testamento. Como é que Ele corrigia os desacertos de seus contemporâneos acerca Daquele que havia de vir? Com a interpretação adequada do Livro.

Quando interpelado por autoridades judaicas, Jesus sempre respondia com palavras do Livro, deixando claro que o erro de seus questionadores era desconhecer as Escrituras. No encontro com a mulher samaritana, Jesus corrige sua cosmovisão dizendo-lhe algo que só o Livro pode atestar: a salvação que Ele representava vem dos judeus. E é com a autoridade desse Livro que Jesus vai à sinagoga, abre-o em Isaías e começa a ler sobre o Messias que viria, anunciando em seguida: "Sou eu este de quem o Livro fala." Se o próprio Jesus tratou o Livro como autoridade, por que deixaríamos de agir como Ele?

Há inúmeros exemplos em todo o Novo Testamento. Depois que Jesus ressuscita, os discípulos não O reconhecem de imediato. Ele então começa a narrar longamente os fatos do Livro - novamente, do Livro - para mostrar como era necessário que o Messias padecesse. Jesus conhecia o Livro e sabia que a reação correta de Seus discípulos a Sua presença depois de ressurreto dependia da correta interpretação das palavras ali registradas. Ele tinha o Livro em proeminência e não admitia que os líderes seus contemporâneos falseassem o que estava nas Escrituras, como demonstrou, por exemplo, no Sermão do Monte. Diante disso, não podemos agir diferente.

Os discípulos de Jesus compreenderam isto. Em Atos, os judeus de Beréia são louvados porque confirmaram as palavras pregadas pelos apóstolos da seguinte maneira: abriam o Livro e verificavam se estava correto o que ouviam. Não há dúvida de que seu louvor nos convida a fazer o mesmo, hoje, mais de dois mil anos depois da vinda do Senhor. Se fosse diferente, os judeus de Beréia não seriam elogiados, mas sim repreendidos, por submeterem as palavras dos próprios discípulos de Cristo ao Antigo Testamento - palavras que se verificaram verdadeiras e coerentes com os primeiros escritos, e que, por esse mesmo exame, foram acrescentadas ao Livro, ganhando o mesmo status que as anteriores. Se o AT era utilizado por Jesus para atestar a veracidade de Suas afirmações, não podemos fugir do fato de que o NT é repleto de recomendações para que os cristãos se ativessem aos conteúdos enunciados pelos apóstolos, colocando-os em evidente proeminência a qualquer outro ensino posterior. Assim, por que o procedimento seria outro, se hoje, no mundo ocidental, temos o privilégio de possuir em mãos o mesmo Livro, acrescido das palavras de Jesus e dos apóstolos comissionados diretamente por Ele para pregar Sua palavra? Por que Jesus exigiria de nós algo diverso do exame que Ele próprio realizou nas Escrituras, as quais conhecia e amava?

É verdade que o protestantismo causou muitas turbulências na cristandade. Guerras e ódios marcaram e ainda marcam a rivalidade que começou com Lutero, e a divisão entre os cristãos cobra imensos tributos. Além disso, católicos e ortodoxos, talvez beneficiados por sua maior antiguidade histórica, continuam a ser especialmente brilhantes na filosofia e na literatura. Porém, o exame da Bíblia para confirmar fatos verdadeiramente cristãos - ou seja, o tratamento das Escrituras como autoridade para os conteúdos da fé - é algo que Cristo praticou e que serviu de exemplo para seus discípulos. A preocupação com a pureza da fé e com a permanência naquilo que Jesus e os discípulos ensinaram é parte constitutiva desse Livro, que começa com a criação do mundo e termina com o fim, algo que marca sua inviolabilidade depois da vinda do Messias. Palavras de homens não podem contradizer o registro bíblico - nem as posteriores à Septuaginta, nem as posteriores aos escritos dos apóstolos - , sob o risco de ir além das palavras de Jesus e daqueles comissionados diretamente por Deus para a autoria inspirada do Livro. Não podemos contradizer esse princípio sem relativizar a Bíblia. E muitos cristãos só mantêm esse cuidado, hoje, por causa da Reforma. Por isso, principalmente por isso, posso louvar a Deus pela forma com que nos conduziu até aqui e agradecer a Ele, de coração, pelo dia 31 de outubro. Aleluia!

Salvação só pela fé

Salvação só pela fé
...

O que diz a Igreja Católica:

(...)

O Concílio de Trento, ao condenar a tese protestante de que basta ter fé para ser salvo, sem necessidade de fazer boas obras, determinou o seguinte:

"Se alguém disser que nada é mandado pelo Evangelho fora da fé, e que tudo o mais é indiferente, nem mandado, nem proibido, mas que é livre (de se fazer ou não); ou que os dez mandamentos nada têm a ver com os cristãos, seja anátema" (Concílio de Trento, Cânon 19 Denzinger 819).

http://www.montfort.org.br/index.php?secao=cartas&subsecao=apologetica&artigo=20040812164858&lang=bra

O que dizem as SAGRADAS ESCRITURAS:

30 Que diremos pois? Que os gentios, que não buscavam a justiça, alcançaram a justiça? Sim, mas a justiça que é pela fé.
31 Mas Israel, que buscava a lei da justiça, não chegou à lei da justiça.
32 Por quê? Porque não foi pela fé, mas como que pelas obras da lei; tropeçaram na pedra de tropeço;
33 Como está escrito: Eis que eu ponho em Sião uma pedra de tropeço, e uma rocha de escândalo; E todo aquele que crer nela não será confundido.

Romanos 9:30-33

1 TENDO sido, pois, justificados pela fé, temos paz com Deus, por nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo;
2 Pelo qual também temos entrada pela fé a esta graça, na qual estamos firmes, e nos gloriamos na esperança da glória de Deus.
3 E não somente isto, mas também nos gloriamos nas tribulações; sabendo que a tribulação produz a paciência,
4 E a paciência a experiência, e a experiência a esperança.
5 E a esperança não traz confusão, porquanto o amor de Deus está derramado em nossos corações pelo Espírito Santo que nos foi dado.
6 Porque Cristo, estando nós ainda fracos, morreu a seu tempo pelos ímpios.

Romanos 5:1-6

8 Porque pela graça sois salvos, por meio da fé; e isto não vem de vós, é dom de Deus.
9 Não vem das obras, para que ninguém se glorie;

Efésios 2:8-9