I'm posting these texts to provide easy reference for my next post regarding James.
Galatians
Gal 1:19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.
Gal 2:9 James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.
Gal 2:12 Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.
Mark
Mk 3:16These are the twelve he appointed: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter 17 James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder); 18Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot 19and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
Mk 5:37 He did not let anyone follow him except Peter, James and John the brother of James.
Mk 6:3 "Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.
Mk 9:2 [The Transfiguration] After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them.
Mk 12:3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately,
Mk 14:33 He took Peter, James and John along with him, and he began to be deeply distressed and troubled.
Matthew
Mt 10 2These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
Mt 13:55 "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?
Mt 17:1 [The Transfiguration] After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves.
Luke
Lk 4:22All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips. "Isn't this Joseph's son?" they asked.
Lk 5:8When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus' knees and said, "Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!" 9For he and all his companions were astonished at the catch of fish they had taken, 10and so were James and John, the sons of Zebedee, Simon's partners.
Lk 6:13When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: 14Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, 15Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, 16Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.
Lk 8:51 When he arrived at the house of Jairus, he did not let anyone go in with him except Peter, John and James, and the child's father and mother.
Lk 9:28 About eight days after Jesus said this, he took Peter, John and James with him and went up onto a mountain to pray.
Acts
Acts 12 1It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. 2He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword.
Acts 12 17Peter motioned with his hand for them to be quiet and described how the Lord had brought him out of prison. "Tell James and the brothers about this," he said, and then he left for another place.
Acts 15 13When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. 15The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16"'After this I will return
and rebuild David's fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things'
18that have been known for ages.
19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."
Friday, July 11, 2008
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Republicans Oppose Abortion?
I have a theory on Roe v Wade and the ostensible Republican opposition to it. My theory is this: Republicans love Roe v Wade and don't oppose it.
Let's consider first what would happen if Roe v Wade were overturned. Republicans would remove from their base the single issue that motivates them the most. More money and more energy is invested in Republican candidates because of this issue than any other. What do Republican candidates actually gain by giving the pro-life what they want? What they gain is a lot less monetary contributions and a lot less zeal.
Now let's consider what the pro-life cause has to show for their efforts over the years. They worked really hard and got Reagan elected in 1980. He started by nominating Sandra Day O'Connor. I can imagine him speaking to his disappointed pro-life constituents after she voted in a pro-choice manner after her nomination. "Damn guys. I thought she'd do what you wanted. Who knew? Keep working hard for me and we'll get it next time."
So next it was Scalia in '86. All right. Now we're talking. So close now. Next up from Reagan: Kennedy. Once again I'm imagining him confronting his disappointed pro-life supporters. "Boy, do I have egg on my face. Who knew? Tell you what. Work really hard and get Bush the Elder elected. I'm sure we'll get it then."
And so they did. And what happened? Well, we got Souter. Once again, turns out he's pro-choice. "Who knew?" Well, I'll tell you who I think knew. I think Bush knew. And I think Reagan knew. With the sources a President has at his fingertips I just can't imagine they didn't know.
So then finally Bush throws the pro-lifers a bone and gives them Clarence Thomas. Then Clinton is elected and of course you get two pro-choice nominees. This pads out the pro-choice court such that W can come in and give us two more conservatives without seeing much change radically with regards to the law.
Doesn't this look exactly like the carrot? It's always almost within reach, but we never quite get there.
Now, a lot of people are ready to vote for McCain because he's more pro-life than Obama. I say you're wasting your time. He's the quintessential RINO. As a member of the "Gang of 14" he was instrumental in spiking many of the (supposed) pro-life justices that were waiting to be nominated. Can we really imagine that he'd get this done? Expect another O'Connor. Expect the carrot to remain just out of reach.
My advise to Democrats is to try and get Roe overturned and take the zeal and money away from the Republican candidates. It's not as if abortion would be illegal. It might be in a couple of states, like South Dakota or Nebraska. It might come with a few modest restrictions in most states. Perhaps you'd have to have an abortion prior to the end of the 2nd trimester. These are reasonable restrictions that middle America would be happy with. This move would help Democrats more than just about anything.
Let's consider first what would happen if Roe v Wade were overturned. Republicans would remove from their base the single issue that motivates them the most. More money and more energy is invested in Republican candidates because of this issue than any other. What do Republican candidates actually gain by giving the pro-life what they want? What they gain is a lot less monetary contributions and a lot less zeal.
Now let's consider what the pro-life cause has to show for their efforts over the years. They worked really hard and got Reagan elected in 1980. He started by nominating Sandra Day O'Connor. I can imagine him speaking to his disappointed pro-life constituents after she voted in a pro-choice manner after her nomination. "Damn guys. I thought she'd do what you wanted. Who knew? Keep working hard for me and we'll get it next time."
So next it was Scalia in '86. All right. Now we're talking. So close now. Next up from Reagan: Kennedy. Once again I'm imagining him confronting his disappointed pro-life supporters. "Boy, do I have egg on my face. Who knew? Tell you what. Work really hard and get Bush the Elder elected. I'm sure we'll get it then."
And so they did. And what happened? Well, we got Souter. Once again, turns out he's pro-choice. "Who knew?" Well, I'll tell you who I think knew. I think Bush knew. And I think Reagan knew. With the sources a President has at his fingertips I just can't imagine they didn't know.
So then finally Bush throws the pro-lifers a bone and gives them Clarence Thomas. Then Clinton is elected and of course you get two pro-choice nominees. This pads out the pro-choice court such that W can come in and give us two more conservatives without seeing much change radically with regards to the law.
Doesn't this look exactly like the carrot? It's always almost within reach, but we never quite get there.
Now, a lot of people are ready to vote for McCain because he's more pro-life than Obama. I say you're wasting your time. He's the quintessential RINO. As a member of the "Gang of 14" he was instrumental in spiking many of the (supposed) pro-life justices that were waiting to be nominated. Can we really imagine that he'd get this done? Expect another O'Connor. Expect the carrot to remain just out of reach.
My advise to Democrats is to try and get Roe overturned and take the zeal and money away from the Republican candidates. It's not as if abortion would be illegal. It might be in a couple of states, like South Dakota or Nebraska. It might come with a few modest restrictions in most states. Perhaps you'd have to have an abortion prior to the end of the 2nd trimester. These are reasonable restrictions that middle America would be happy with. This move would help Democrats more than just about anything.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Error, Pride, and Bluster
Having been banned from Triablogue I'm forced to comment on their threads elsewhere, which is sometimes inconvenient, but oh well. I really probably shouldn't involve myself, but it's just too interesting sometimes.
Jason Engwer's form remains consistent as I had previously mentioned. His posts can in large part be recreated by simply cutting and pasting the same insults over and over. His recent discussion with John Loftus, Evan, and DingoDave from a thread at Debunking Christianity is another case in point.
This discussion though I think illustrates some personality differences that are very relevant to evaluating the trust that you can put in certain individuals. Here's how.
Being guilty of an error is obviously a problem. Nobody wants to make errors. But everybody does. It's certainly easy to do with regards to Christian origins. It's such a broad field and there is so much misinformation that it's easy to be misled and consequently repeat something that is false. Evan made statements that were mistaken regarding Celsus and Minucius Felix. That's a problem. But Evan's behavior after being shown the error is very important, and it suggests he's a trustworthy person. He immediately conceded the error.
I think this is a very important quality to have. I recently mentioned how Mark Shea likewise conceded an error. I disagree with Mark about a number of things, but I give him credit for admitting to a mistake. I like to think that I'm willing to admit to errors when I commit them. In this thread I mistakenly thought Eusebius was involved in the Easter controversy, when in fact he was just quoting others that had been involved with it long ago. In this thread I mistakenly asserted that the first manuscript that contained the gospel heading was 400 years after the fact, when in fact it is 200 AD. But as soon as I became aware of the error I conceded it.
I've probably made errors that I haven't conceded. Sometimes pride or lack of understanding makes it difficult to recognize them. But I make an effort.
But what of the Triabloggers? I have never seen one of them concede anything more than an inconsequential error, though in my (admittedly biased) view they are guilty of many. In this thread Steve in an effort to win a debating point redefines the term "atheist" to include Mormons. He went on to further defend this position against David Wood here. In this thread Jason shows his ignorance in making claims about Bayes' Theorem. In this thread Jason mis characterizes John's argument terribly, suggesting that because he claims that the ancients were generally more superstitious and gullible that he also believes that ancients would never consider evidence. I tried to get Jason to face his misrepresentation over and over again, but he just could not. In this thread Jason again misrepresents the position of some skeptics on hallucinations, claiming that skeptics would argue that when a group hallucination occurs this means that the group is seeing the exact same thing within their own mind. When I asked Jason which skeptics hold to such a view or why he is characterizing the skeptical position in this way he just refused to deal with my question over and over again.
What does it say about a person when they cannot concede that they've made a mistake? There's nothing wrong with failing to understand something mildly complex like Bayes' Theorem. It's not all that unusual to attribute the wrong views or arguments to someone. But what is unhealthy in my view is when these mistakes are pointed out to you that you are unable to concede them, for whatever reason. When a healthy person becomes aware of facts that he previously was unaware of, he allows those facts to modify his opinions. In this way he is more likely to hold to true opinions. Those unable to perform the self correction are more likely to hold to false opinions.
The other thing I notice is the constant Triablogue assertion that the opponent was previously "refuted." For instance, Jason is talking about how John has been "corrected many times" and he says "notice how poorly" John interacted with certain arguments in the past. This is in regards to this thread (which is the same thread that included one of Jason's misrepresentations that I referred to above).
Obviously I participated in that thread, and I don't see John as being "corrected" or that his arguments "poorly" interact with some of the information Jason is putting forward. But I also recognize that I have a bias, and I wouldn't expect Jason to see it the same way. Which is why I don't feel it necessary to pontificate on who exactly was the "victor." What value does it bring to the discussion for me to repeatedly bloviate on how I think I crushed all of my opponents?
Does Jason not recognize that he and his fellow Triabloggers may not be the best judge of who is the victor in an argument that he is involved in? How much trust should be placed in an individual that seems so oblivious to his own biases? Does he comprehend the message he's really communicating with these bloviations? Touchstone does. Read him react to Paul Manata's similar triumphalist statements here.
Jason Engwer's form remains consistent as I had previously mentioned. His posts can in large part be recreated by simply cutting and pasting the same insults over and over. His recent discussion with John Loftus, Evan, and DingoDave from a thread at Debunking Christianity is another case in point.
This discussion though I think illustrates some personality differences that are very relevant to evaluating the trust that you can put in certain individuals. Here's how.
Being guilty of an error is obviously a problem. Nobody wants to make errors. But everybody does. It's certainly easy to do with regards to Christian origins. It's such a broad field and there is so much misinformation that it's easy to be misled and consequently repeat something that is false. Evan made statements that were mistaken regarding Celsus and Minucius Felix. That's a problem. But Evan's behavior after being shown the error is very important, and it suggests he's a trustworthy person. He immediately conceded the error.
I think this is a very important quality to have. I recently mentioned how Mark Shea likewise conceded an error. I disagree with Mark about a number of things, but I give him credit for admitting to a mistake. I like to think that I'm willing to admit to errors when I commit them. In this thread I mistakenly thought Eusebius was involved in the Easter controversy, when in fact he was just quoting others that had been involved with it long ago. In this thread I mistakenly asserted that the first manuscript that contained the gospel heading was 400 years after the fact, when in fact it is 200 AD. But as soon as I became aware of the error I conceded it.
I've probably made errors that I haven't conceded. Sometimes pride or lack of understanding makes it difficult to recognize them. But I make an effort.
But what of the Triabloggers? I have never seen one of them concede anything more than an inconsequential error, though in my (admittedly biased) view they are guilty of many. In this thread Steve in an effort to win a debating point redefines the term "atheist" to include Mormons. He went on to further defend this position against David Wood here. In this thread Jason shows his ignorance in making claims about Bayes' Theorem. In this thread Jason mis characterizes John's argument terribly, suggesting that because he claims that the ancients were generally more superstitious and gullible that he also believes that ancients would never consider evidence. I tried to get Jason to face his misrepresentation over and over again, but he just could not. In this thread Jason again misrepresents the position of some skeptics on hallucinations, claiming that skeptics would argue that when a group hallucination occurs this means that the group is seeing the exact same thing within their own mind. When I asked Jason which skeptics hold to such a view or why he is characterizing the skeptical position in this way he just refused to deal with my question over and over again.
What does it say about a person when they cannot concede that they've made a mistake? There's nothing wrong with failing to understand something mildly complex like Bayes' Theorem. It's not all that unusual to attribute the wrong views or arguments to someone. But what is unhealthy in my view is when these mistakes are pointed out to you that you are unable to concede them, for whatever reason. When a healthy person becomes aware of facts that he previously was unaware of, he allows those facts to modify his opinions. In this way he is more likely to hold to true opinions. Those unable to perform the self correction are more likely to hold to false opinions.
The other thing I notice is the constant Triablogue assertion that the opponent was previously "refuted." For instance, Jason is talking about how John has been "corrected many times" and he says "notice how poorly" John interacted with certain arguments in the past. This is in regards to this thread (which is the same thread that included one of Jason's misrepresentations that I referred to above).
Obviously I participated in that thread, and I don't see John as being "corrected" or that his arguments "poorly" interact with some of the information Jason is putting forward. But I also recognize that I have a bias, and I wouldn't expect Jason to see it the same way. Which is why I don't feel it necessary to pontificate on who exactly was the "victor." What value does it bring to the discussion for me to repeatedly bloviate on how I think I crushed all of my opponents?
Does Jason not recognize that he and his fellow Triabloggers may not be the best judge of who is the victor in an argument that he is involved in? How much trust should be placed in an individual that seems so oblivious to his own biases? Does he comprehend the message he's really communicating with these bloviations? Touchstone does. Read him react to Paul Manata's similar triumphalist statements here.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
A Significant New Archaelogical Find
A stone tablet found in the area of the Dead Sea that dates to the decades just prior to Jesus' birth apparently communicates that a Jewish leader will be slain and resurrected in three days.
We've heard from such people as William Lane Craig and N.T. Wright that the concept of a singular resurrection prior to the general resurrection had no precedent in the Jewish mind and that Jews had no concept of a dying and rising Messiah. The former point is belied by the gospels themselves, which inform us that some of Jesus' followers believed him to be either Elijah or John the Baptist raised from the dead (Mt 16:14), and that Herod also believed that the beheaded John the Baptist was raised from the dead (Mk 6:16). This tablet would further confirm the apologetic error on that point and also suggest that Craig and Wright are wrong that this concept of a dying and rising savior was completely foreign to the Jewish mind.
HT: Greg Krehbiel
We've heard from such people as William Lane Craig and N.T. Wright that the concept of a singular resurrection prior to the general resurrection had no precedent in the Jewish mind and that Jews had no concept of a dying and rising Messiah. The former point is belied by the gospels themselves, which inform us that some of Jesus' followers believed him to be either Elijah or John the Baptist raised from the dead (Mt 16:14), and that Herod also believed that the beheaded John the Baptist was raised from the dead (Mk 6:16). This tablet would further confirm the apologetic error on that point and also suggest that Craig and Wright are wrong that this concept of a dying and rising savior was completely foreign to the Jewish mind.
HT: Greg Krehbiel
Monday, June 30, 2008
Where Did We Come From?
My daughter (she's 5) today asked me if I believed in God, and when I said I didn't know she said that there must be a God, otherwise where did we come from? I said that I came from my Mom, just as she did. "But where did the first person come from?" That's a pretty good question. I explained that some people do think God did make us just as we are. But others think it's a little bit different..
I told her that she's a little bit different from her Mom, and her Mom is a little different from Grandma. And Grandma is a little different from Great Grandma, and so on. If you went back, back, back to the long ago grandma she might look a little bit like an animal. And if you went further back than that, it might look a little like a fish. And if you went way back it might look sort of like a tiny little life that was so small we couldn't even see. She thought that was very interesting, and I asked her if she'd like to see a video that showed this, and she said yes. So I showed her this video below. She watched it all very intently, as did I. I had been looking for a video that showed the entire process of change for humans from the very beginning, and this did it. Have a look.
I told her that she's a little bit different from her Mom, and her Mom is a little different from Grandma. And Grandma is a little different from Great Grandma, and so on. If you went back, back, back to the long ago grandma she might look a little bit like an animal. And if you went further back than that, it might look a little like a fish. And if you went way back it might look sort of like a tiny little life that was so small we couldn't even see. She thought that was very interesting, and I asked her if she'd like to see a video that showed this, and she said yes. So I showed her this video below. She watched it all very intently, as did I. I had been looking for a video that showed the entire process of change for humans from the very beginning, and this did it. Have a look.
Friday, June 27, 2008
I'm In the Wrong Business
I was struck by an image of Joyce Meyer's family compound recently shown over at DC by Harry McCall. Here it is.
I think it's useful to actually see images of the lifestyle of some of these Christians. This gives us some perspective when we hear their impassioned pleas for money. So I thought I'd browse around and see what I could come up with.
Apparently televangelists are big fans of the private jet. Copeland's is representative, though I could post others. This one cost only $20 million, so he bought a couple. One for himself, another for the wife. I'd seen somewhere that he'd recently bought a third, but I'm not certain on that.
With that many private jets I guess you'd need your own private air strip. Here's an image of the Copeland residence from Google Maps.
Benny Hinn is of course well known for his extravagent lifestyle. This is perhaps partly to do the fact that mainstream media has exposed him a little. He stays in 5000 sq ft hotel rooms while on travel at a cost of over $10K per night. Just staggering. I couldn't find a good image of his home, so this is a screen shot from the youtube clip linked to above. It's worth $10 million. It's a 7 bedroom, 8 bathroom estate on the Pacific coast with 7000 sq ft of living space.
The founders of the Trinity Broadcasting Network are Paul and Jan Crouch. They get by in the Harbor Ridge Mansion. Below is the leaflet from the realtor.
Then there's Creflo Dollar, who is not ashamed to flaunt his lavish lifestlye. Images of his estate are below.
Oh, but that's just crazy Pentecostals. Informed apologists would never fall for such things, right? Guess again. I continue to get impassioned mailings from Hanegraaff imploring me to send cash. "We need $250K pronto to maintain ourselves in the black." Well, maybe if CRI wasn't buying Hank a $60,000 Lexus, or if they weren't paying him $250K or his wife an additional approximately $100K, or maybe if he scaled back a bit and didn't live in a private gated golfing community things might be in better shape.
But why scale back. The faithful keep writing checks. It's hard to turn that money down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)