…on the existence of God, I think my opening statement will be:
“Bananas squid bubbles five pepsi.”
And then I would sit down.
Read the rest of this entry

Thought I would put up a little status report as I’m nearing the end of the semester. Now that I got a few tests and quizzes out of the way, as well as the “harder” chapters for Hebrew, I have been tackling my paper for Systematic Theology I. The paper is on the Problem of Evil- but considering it’s only a 9 page position paper, it’s really hard to say all that I want to say. Basically, I’m looking at the two main types of arguments atheologians bring against theism. The first argument is the deductive argument that Christian theism is logically inconsistent with the existence of evil, and therefore necessarily false. If the argument is valid, then Christianity is proven to be false, and is irrational.
Read the rest of this entry

This was previously posted at my old blog. I had mentioned that I would post it again earlier and am finally getting around to it. This is part 2 of a 2 part series.

In the last post on Luke and Matthew’s account of the death of Judas, I looked at the differing accounts to see if there was a contradiction. I showed that there was not a contradiction for several reasons: The first reason is that Luke’s account of Judas falling presupposes that Judas was at some height in order to fall. This is confirmed by Matthew’s account of Judas hanging himself. Because one account does not exclude the possibility of the other, there is no contradiction. The second reason is that while we can (and, I believe should) take both as historically correct, we can also see possible typological allusions to the Old Testament in Matthew. While I definitely think Matthew uses some typology, I think we should take both accounts as historically accurate because 1)both authors include other details, which seem to point to a historical reality, and 2) both books are written in genres with a historical bent.

In this post, I want to look at some other details that both authors include that also appear at first glance to be contradictory: Who actually bought the field, and who prophesied the events. Here are the two accounts:
Read the rest of this entry

This was previously posted at my old blog. I had mentioned that I would post it again earlier and am finally getting around to it. This is part 1 of a 2 part series.

I’ve been thinking quite a bit recently about the apparent contradiction between Luke and Matthew’s accounts of the death of Judas. This discrepancy has long been one of the main issues involved in the debate on the doctrine of inerrancy- the belief that the Bible, in the original writings, are without error due to the superintendence by the Holy Spirit. On a superficial look, it seems that these differences would be contradictory and that the idea of inerrancy is defeated. Here are the accounts:

“And throwing the money down into the temple, Judas left and hanged himself.”
Matthew 27.5

“Judas bought a field a field with the reward he got from his wrong-doing, and falling head-first, his body burst open in the middle and his intestines spilled out.”
Acts 1.18

Read the rest of this entry

The question of the possibility of miracles is of up-most important to Christians. The two aspects of Christianity that make it what it is, the incarnation and resurrection of Christ, are rooted in the miraculous.  The purpose of this short upcoming series is to defend the reality of Biblically defined miracles.  This will be done in two ways: a defensive approach and an offensive approach.

The defense approach will come first.  The work of David Hume has been the foundation of the attacks against the possibility of miracles ever since the 1740s, when his main argument against them was penned.  Considering that most people assume that he has settled the issue once and for all- it would be good for us to consider his argument (albeit very briefly) to see if it has weight.

Turning from a defense against Hume’s argument, we will take the offensive position in a look at world-views.  Ultimately, the question of miracles will be answered by our world-view.  If we are Christian, our theistic world-view incorporates the possibility of miracles.  The main opposing world-view, naturalism, rejects the possibilities of miracles by default.  Because this is essentially a battle of presuppositions (ideas we bring into the debate), it is a battle of world-views.  In this section I will briefly offer a critique on the naturalist position.

Throughout the series, I will be heavily using material from Ron Nash.  I am absolutely indebted to his introductory books on the subject of philosophy, and for this short series, particularly the chapters on Hume and miracles. As a conduit between Nash and my readers, I hope to make available a defense of the Christian faith that some would not normally pick up and read.

Next: A Look at Hume