Apologetics Lane: 2021

Well known atheist philosopher Graham Oppy and well known atheist idealist Bernardo Kastrup debated the issue of idealism. While I don't positively hold to Christian divine idealism, I'm open to it as a Christian option given the idealistic implications of quantum mechanics. The following is a review of the debate between Oppy and Kastrup by Christian idealist Kyle Alander and someone else who I'm not familiar with. Apparently this is a part 1 of a two part review.

Reacting to the Dr. Graham Oppy and Dr. Bernardo Kastrup Debate (1/2)
https://youtu.be/vjmSImaLc54

Here's the link to the original debate: https://youtu.be/8WK-auo8Miw

See Also Bernardo Kastrup's debate with atheist Tom Jump:

Dr. Bernardo Kastrup, Idealism vs Materialism?
https://youtu.be/KVWP8h-KMEI

National Geographic View of Fossil Record is WRONG Says Evolutionary Biologist Richard Sternberg

National Geographic View of Fossil Record is WRONG Says Evolutionary Biologist Richard Sternberg
https://youtu.be/NdAquN_3oG4

See also:

[Paleontologist]Gunter Bechly Explains What The Fossil Evidence Really Says
https://youtu.be/V15sjy7gtVM

Tuesday, December 14, 2021

Q&A with Stephen Meyer: Does Science Point to God?

Q&A with Stephen Meyer: Does Science Point to God?
https://youtu.be/AQdSz8ZZ-r4

Saturday, December 11, 2021

The Bahnsen Project

Most of Christian philosopher and presuppositionalist apologist Greg Bahnsen's lectures and sermons on various topics are now freely available at The Bahnsen Project as well as other websites like Covenant Media Foundation. Before his death in 1995, Greg Bahnsen was one of the leading proponents and expositors of Cornelius Van Til's presuppositional approach to apologetics.

https://www.cmfnow.com/

OR

https://www.sermonaudio.com/source_series.asp?sourceid=thebahnsenproject

https://www.sermonaudio.com/source_detail.asp?sourceid=thebahnsenproject

https://www.sermonaudio.com/solo/thebahnsenproject/sermons/series/

Debate: Atheist Tom Jump vs. Christian Presuppositionalist Joshua Pillows

Tom Jump Vs Joshua Pillows: Does the God of the Bible Exist? EP 208
https://youtu.be/JBBDW4bmCdE

Monday, December 6, 2021

Guillaume Bignon Comments on the Highly Anticipated Dialogue/Debate Between William Lane Craig and James White

The following video is (Calvinist) Guillaume Bignon's commentary on the recent dialogue/debate between (Molinist) William Lane Craig and (Calvinist) James White. What I really like about Bignon is that he's not only well versed in the debate between Calvinists and non-Calvinists, but he can express and defend the Calvinistic view very well and articulately.

William Lane Craig vs. James R. White: Calvinist Philosopher Weighs In
https://youtu.be/EGUi5ZZkAzs

In the video (at 56:45) Guillaume makes reference to his nearly two hour interview on the topic of the Manipulation argument on the Parker's Pensées podcast episode 27 HERE.

Here's the original video Bignon is commenting on.

William Lane Craig vs James White - Calvinism vs Molinism on the Problem of Evil
https://youtu.be/ECcN-fisQRk

Here's James White's Post-Debate Interview by Eli Ayala

James R. White vs. William Lane Craig (Post-Debate Interview)
https://youtu.be/G74B8vdsgIw

Wednesday, December 1, 2021

A Response to Gary the Atheist

A guy named Gary posted some comments in one of my blogs [HERE]. He left a link to his own blog HERE. I responded to him both in my original blog and his. Then he responded back at his blog. The following is my response to his response. You can read his original comments at his blog. When I quote him below, I'll put his comments in blue, in quote text and within two slashes like //this//.

Here's my response to Gary.

I don't have the time to get into a detailed debate. But I'll make some brief comments. First off, while I believe in the use of evidences for Christianity like Christians who employ Evidentialist apologetics and Classical apologetics [etc.], I'm a presuppositionalist. So my epistemology is different than most other Christian apologists. I take the Bible to be self-attesting and self-authenticating. Nevertheless, I believe there are external and internal evidences that support or provide additional confirmatory evidence for the truth of the Bible. So, I don't think the truth of Christianity or its acceptability is ultimately dependent on external evidence.

I'll start off by responding to your Gish Galloping list of objections. It's easier to list objections than to provide answers by the very fact that objections can be stated more succinctly than answers which require a full explanation to adequately address the objections.

//I left Christianity after evaluating the many inconsistencies and false claims in the Bible, not just because of a couple of books by Bart Ehrman. Some of these inconsistencies and false claims are:

–the lack of archaeological evidence for the Exodus, an event Jesus believed was historical.//

Not all archaeologists are Egyptologists [i.e. specialize in ancient Egypt]. According to archaeologist James Hoffmeier's informal survey, while it's true that most archaeologists reject the historicity of the Exodus, from his finite inductive study, most Egyptologists either believe or suspect that the Exodus occurred. See this link:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170930132901/https://faithfulphilosophy.wordpress.com/2017/04/07/vast-majority-of-egyptologists-believe-the-exodus-happened/

Dr. David A. Falk is an Egyptologist who believe in a literal Exodus. See his website: http://www.egyptandthebible.com/

Also check out Dr. Falk's YouTube channel where he defends a literal Exodus:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCF1f7vTqonOIwaGU6DwTvjg

While Falk thinks there are weaknesses in Titus Kennedy's works, I recommend checking out his book and videos as well. Archaeologist James Hoffmeier's books and videos are a bit dated and have partially be refuted, but they are good introductory resources.

//–the evolving concept of an afterlife in the OT.//

That's not problematic given Jewish or Christian theism. Since there's the Biblical concept of progressive revelation whereby God grants more and more information about spiritual matters down through Redemptive History. It's not one large data dump. That progression is seen even within the the Old Testament. And even within the first five books [i.e. the Torah/Penteteuch]. Also, "evolving" in what way? The Old Testament taught a conscious afterlife in Sheol and hinted at a more blessed condition for the righteous than for the unrighteous. That basic outline is completely consistent and compatible with the New Testament's understanding of the afterlife. While it has some flaws [as Annihilationists point out], I recommend the general arguments presented by Robert Morey in his book "Death and the Afterlife." For example, he points out how Gen. 35:18 says regarding Rachel "And as her soul was departing (for she was dying)." Implying an immaterial aspect to Rachel and its departure. Sure, the Hebrew word "soul" used could sometimes be translated "life," but in this case it could also [more?] plausibly be translated as "soul." Similar to how in 1 Ki 17:21 the "soul" [or "life"] came back INTO the child's body. Or how Jacob said in Gen. 37:35, "No, I shall go down to Sheol to my son, mourning." Implying Jacob believed in a conscious afterlife in Sheol where he would be reunited with his son Joseph.

While a bit dated, here's a public domain link to Messianic Jewish scholar Alfred Edersheim's Appendix 19 in his famous book, "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah." He shows how the New Testament didn't invent the Christian afterlife out of thin air, but was partly built upon previous 2nd Temple Jewish beliefs about the afterlife. Beliefs that themselves were built upon from the Old Testament revelation.

Appendix 19, On Eternal Punishment, According to the Rabbis and the New Testament by Edersheim
https://ccel.org/ccel/edersheim/lifetimes/lifetimes.xi.xviii.html

//–the fact that the NT authors used a Greek translation of the OT when writing their books and claiming fulfilled prophecies, a Greek translation which blatantly distorted the original Hebrew meaning in many passages.//

Since Christianity is a missionary religion, it only made sense to use a widespread Greek translation of the Old Testament that was already popular throughout the Roman Empire. There's nothing wrong with that. Does it blatantly distort the original Hebrew? Much of that claim of non-literal 1. translation, 2. interpretation and 3. application can be answered when one applies the Jewish hermeneutic that would later be called Pardes/PaRDeS that was already in use during the 1st century by 2nd Temple Jews.

See the following resources:

How the New Testament Quotes the Old Testament by Messianic Jew Arnold Fruchtenbaum
http://arielb.org/archives/794

Fruchtenbaum goes into this in his AUDIO lectures series the "Jewish Life of Christ":
https://www.deanbibleministries.org/bible-class-listing/messages/series/the-jewish-life-of-christ

//Literal Prophecy Plus Literal Fulfillment: Pshat

The first category is known as “literal prophecy plus literal fulfillment,” reflecting the rabbinic pshat, which refers to the simple meaning of the text. The example of this first category is found in Matthew 2:5 6.//

//Literal Plus Typical: Remez

The second category of quotations can be labeled “literal plus typical.” In rabbinic theology it was known are remez or “hint.” An example of this category is found in Matthew 2:15.//

//Literal Plus Application: Drash

The third category is “literal plus application,” correlating with the rabbinic drash. The example of this category is Matthew 2:17 18.//

//Summation: Sod

The fourth category is “summation” or “summary.” The meaning of sod is “secret” or “mystery” or “something unknown.” The example of the fourth category is found in Matthew 2:23.//

Pardes (Jewish exegesis) [wikipedia article]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardes_(Jewish_exegesis)

A common objection to the historicity of Jesus is that there are too many parallels to Jesus and the Old Testament. But the parallel aren't as strong as they could be or would be if the Gospel writers were making it all up and fabricating it whole cloth. Another related objection is that passages in the Old Testament are eisegetically [rather than exegetically] pressed and forced to refer to Jesus. But if the Gospel authors were making it up, they would have made the parallels and fulfillments fit better if they used JUST A LITTLE bit more imagination. The fact that the Gospels don't do that fits better with the Gospel authors being constrained by the actual historical facts of Jesus rather than spinning fake tales. See the following video:

Is the Story of Jesus Stolen From the Old Testament?
https://youtu.be/AgHfZaPNddo

Moreover, the fulfillments are often more literal than is usually realized at first glance. See the MANY book recommendations in the 2nd half of the blog linked below that argue for the genuine messiahship of Jesus:

HERE https://misclane.blogspot.com/2021/09/the-prophecies-of-old-testament.html

It's often been said by non-Messianic Jews that no great rabbis believed Jesus was the Messiah. That's factually false. Many great rabbis have. Some of them were even very learned gedolim. See the following articles:

Rabbis Who Thought For Themselves Part ONE
http://www.messianicjudaism.me/yinon/2011/11/02/rabbis-who-thought-for-themselves/

Rabbis Who Thought For Themselves Part TWO
http://www.messianicjudaism.me/yinon/2011/12/01/rabbis-who-thought-for-themselves-part-ii/

//–the alleged OT prophecies about Jesus are all disputed. Jewish Bible scholars can provide good arguments that the passages in question are not talking about Jesus.//

Again, see the links I provided above. Including the MANY book recommendations of I linked to in the blog above.

[32 Youtube Videos]
Michael L. Brown's introductory responses to Jewish Objection to Jesus:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7oY5wh5KEc&list=PLOSesbHxQr2Ta7WjFBut_bjLRWwMSYepK&index=2

It's interesting that many Jewish counter-Missionaries don't want to debate Michael L. Brown. For example, rabbi Tovia Singer has been avoiding debating Brown again [a 3rd time] for decades. Here's a video where Brown addresses Singer's refusal to debate him and Singer's inaccurate statements:

Dr. Brown Responds to Rabbi Tovia Singer
https://youtu.be/U5-TJPz6Y94

//–the fact that two and maybe three of the Gospel authors massively plagiarized the first.//

That Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source is not plagiarism. They may have even used the hypothetical Q [and other possible sources]. There's nothing wrong with doing that. Mark provided an outline [or skeleton] that the authors of Matthew and Luke decided to build and expand upon [by adding more "flesh"].

//–the inconsistency of the accounts of the location of Jesus’ appearances to his male disciples.//

I'm assuming you're referring to how Matt. 28:10 and Mark 16:7 say Jesus was to meet the disciples in Galilee. While Luke changes that in Luke 24:6, and has the disciples encountering Jesus in Jerusalem [similar to John]. See Mike Licona's book, "Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?" Licona rightly points out that the Gospel authors used literary conventions and literary/compositional devices that were common at the time, were expected to be used and not considered deceptive or lying. I think Licona overuses them in his interpretation of the Gospels, but there is still some truth to it. For example, compression, simplification, transferal, displacement, conflation.

See this video lectures by Licona:

"Why are there differences in the gospels?" - Mike Licona
https://youtu.be/xtemSTrkogE

Also, given the 40 days between Jesus' resurrection and ascension, there would have been plenty of time for Jesus to initially visit some inner (smaller) group of disciples in Jerusalem, and then have a larger meeting in Galilee in the middle of the 40 days for disciples to travel that far to Galilee. Then a final meeting again in Jerusalem. Remember that 40 days is more than a month and a full week.

//–not one single non-Christian recorded the (alleged) fantastical feats of Jesus. Jesus allegedly performed more and greater miracles than all of the OT prophets combined yet only four Christian authors recorded these events. This is strong evidence these events never happened. They are theological/literary embellishments, a common feature in ancient literature.//

This is easily answered. See for example this EXCELLENT video by InspiringPhilosophy/Michael Jones:

Refuting Biblical Arguments from Silence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwTDuNFAHng&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TW70EEo4e2onJ4lq1QYSzrY&index=8

In the video above, he gives these examples:

The eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD is one of the biggest and most devastating disasters in the ancient Roman Empire. It would have been seen by about 1/4 million people. Two cities were destroyed in the eruption. The death toll was probably between 16,000 to 60,000 people. Yet there is only surviving reference to the eruption, and it isn't even contemporary. It was written 30 years after.

There is no Carthaginian or contemporary sources of Hannibal. No sources for Alexander the Great until 350 years later. Marco Polo never mentions the Great Wall of China. President Ulysses S. Grant's diary doesn't mention the Emancipation Proclamation.

Herod Archelaus' slaughtering several Jews in the temple, cancelling Passover celebration. It would have affected hundreds of thousands of people. Yet only Josephus, ONE person, records this event that has survived to the present.

//–the fact that a significant percentage of NT scholars doubt the eyewitness/associate of eyewitness authorship of the Gospels//

Even assuming that none of the Gospels were written by an eyewitness, eyewitness testimony isn't the only POSSIBLE source of reliable history. That's a non-sequitur. According to your blog, you're aware of books like “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses” by Richard Bauckham. So, you know that there are books that argue for the general reliability of the Gospels by various authors. I'm sure you're aware of Craig Keener's books on the topic. Mike Licona says that Bart Ehrman was once called a "workaholic" and Bart responded, "Workaholic? No, Craig Keener, HE'S a workaholic!". Licona said that here: https://youtu.be/_eCe4GyNlr0?t=424

Moreover, besides the Gospels, there's Paul writings from which we can glean historical nuggets regarding the early Christians' beliefs and practices. The author of Luke/Acts has been shown to be a first rate historian. See the McGrews on this topic.

See these resources:

The Historical Jesus DID Exist - Bart Ehrman
https://youtu.be/43mDuIN5-ww

The Reliability of the New Testament (External Evidence)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIdCRanZZyw&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TW70EEo4e2onJ4lq1QYSzrY&index=5

Extrabiblical Evidence for the Veracity of the Gospel History by Jonathan McLatchie
https://jonathanmclatchie.com/extrabiblical-evidence-for-the-veracity-of-the-gospel-history/

See many of Tim McGrew's YouTube videos on the historical reliability of the Gospels.

For example here: https://youtu.be/04ZV8bVQhWg

//–Eyewitness accounts of people seeing a walking/talking resurrected Jesus is the best evidence Christians have for the central claim of their holy book—the resurrection of Jesus—but these alleged eyewitness accounts are disputed. Disputed eyewitness accounts for an event which allegedly happened 20 centuries ago is NOT good evidence.//

That begs the question [petitio principii/circular reasoning] that the Bible isn't self-attesting and self-authenticating and that there is no sensus divinitatis and the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit to the truths of the Gospel. I deny that non-Christians can make any sense of knowledge given their consistent use of their non-Christian worldviews and presuppositions. For example, let's deal with atheistic worldviews. Not all atheists are materialists, but many/most are. Because of that, they have a hard time, if not are unable to account for things like the famous and enduring epistemological and metaphysical problems of induction; cannot overcome the problem of Eliminative Materialism and of Mereological Nihilism; cannot overcome the Hard Problem of consciousness; or even rationally assert atheism given the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism [the famous EAAN]. I could go on. Those are just some of the philosophical problems in atheism. While Christianity as a worldview can provide for the preconditions of intelligibility in a consistent way. It has greater explanatory scope, explanatory power etc.

Eliminative Materialism, for example, holds that human consciousness, thoughts, desires, beliefs, feelings, deliberations, decisions, intentionality, ratiocinations and acts of will aren't real. Mereological Nihilism states there are no parts that make up wholes. In which case, there are no human beings made up of cells. There are only subatomic particles. I'll limit my objections to these. I don't want to Gish Gallop too much, myself.

Moreover, the miracle claims didn't stop at the 1st century. See the following books for starters:

Read Craig Keener's two volume Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts [2011]

Craig Keener's "Miracles Today: The Supernatural Work of God in the Modern World" [2021] which has 70% more information than the previous book.

Rex Gardner's Healing Miracles: A Doctor Investigates,

and the appendices in Robert Larmer's The Legitimacy of Miracle

as well as Larmer's book Dialogues on Miracle

See also Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland's book on modern miracles, "A Simple Guide to Experience Miracles: Instruction and Inspiration for Living Supernaturally in Christ."

Then there are scientific books that support a cosmic designer. For example:

Stephen C. Meyer's EXCELLENT BOOKS 1. Signature in the Cell; 2. Darwin's Doubt; 3. The Return of the God Hypothesis [newly released]

The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards [some channels have the video version]

Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed by Douglas Axe

Agnostic Michael Denton's various EXCELLENT books like:

Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis (2016) [a second sequel to his 1985 Evolution: A Theory in Crisis]

Nature’s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe [first sequel]

The Miracles of the Cell

Children of Light: The Astonishing Properties of Sunlight That Make Us Possible

The Wonder of Water: Water's Profound Fitness for Life on Earth and Mankind

Fire-Maker: How Humans Were Designed to Harness Fire and Transform Our Planet

Various books by Fazale Rana on biology like 1. The Cell's Design; 2. Origins of Life;

Various books by Hugh Ross on scientific evidences for a Creator. Though, the way he argues for things are a bit off and poorly reasoned. But the data points are very suggestive. For example:

Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity's Home by Hugh Ross

Why the Universe Is the Way It Is by Hugh Ross

Who Was Adam? by Rana and Ross [revised and updated edition]

The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry by S. Joshua Swamidass

Check out atheist philosophers' books about the ramifications of atheism like atheist philosopher's book Thomas Nagel's "Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False"

And atheist philosopher's book Alex Rosenberg's The Atheist's Guide to Reality.

Also, James N. Anderson's book review of Rosenberg's book here:
https://www.proginosko.com/2013/08/the-atheists-guide-to-reality/

//How does anyone know what Jesus said at his trial before the Sanhedrin? The Gospel authors do not indicate that his disciples were present. So who recorded this event? Who carefully dictated Jesus’ choice of words and passed it on to the anonymous author of Mark?? //

The book of Acts states that many Jews converted to Christianity after Christ's resurrection. Why assume that none of the converts were among the Sanhedrin? Why assume that Jesus' words in the Gospels need to always be ipsissima verba [precise/the very words] and not sometimes ipsissima vox [very voice]? Jesus didn't always talk/preach in Greek, so we can't always have the very words of Jesus.

Did Jesus Speak Multiple Languages? See my blogpost here:
https://quotesandreferences.blogspot.com/2018/03/did-jesus-speak-multiple-languages.html

//This brings up another important issue which contributed to my decision to abandon Christianity: Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions! //

We all have assumptions and presuppositions. We all have a worldview by which we interpret the world. We're all presuppositionalists. Some just don't know it and aren't consistent with it and their worldview. The question is which worldview does better/best at providing for the preconditions of intelligibility and human experience in a way that's internally consistent and coherent. For my own self, I've found Christianity to do it MUCH MUCH MUCH better than any other worldview I've encountered. Including various atheistic worldviews.

For example, many atheists believe in science to the point of [unknowingly] holding to scientism. Some [not all] atheists for example, claim that you can only know things through the methods of science. But that claim is not itself something that you can know through the methods of science. It's self-refuting like the statement, "There are no sentences longer than three words."

Science has presuppositions or axioms which cannot themselves be proven scientifically but must be assumed [almost like "faith"] in order for science to be done [i.e. to even begin]. Some of those presuppositions include:

Here is a list of some of the presuppositions of science:

(1) the existence of a theory-independent, external world;

(2) the orderly nature of the external world;

(3) the knowability of the external world;

(4) the existence of truth;

(5) the laws of logic;

(6) the [general] reliability of our cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth gatherers/identifiers and as a source of justified true beliefs in our intellectual environment;

(7) the adequacy of language to describe the world;

( 8 ) the existence of values used in science (e.g., "test theories fairly and report test results honestly");

(9) the [presumed] uniformity of nature and [propriety of the use of the principle of] induction;

(10) causation

(11) the existence (or at least usefulness) of numbers. Given atheism, it's a strange "Happy Coincidence" that nature is so very much structured on mathematics that physicists can make predictions about the universe which are later confirmed empirically. Whereas, given the existence of God it makes perfect sense that God would create the physical world mathematically, and intellectually/rationally accessible.

These assumptions and the subscription to them make sense in [Christian] theism, but the various atheistic worldviews have difficulty [metaphysically] grounding such axioms or [epistemologically] justifying belief in them. Most atheists live by "faith" (so to speak) when they operate with these working/operating assumptions.

//Christian assume that the conversation between Jesus and the high priest is historical but it is entirely possible that it is a theological invention of the author.//

No, Christians don't necessarily have to merely assume that. There are historical arguments that can be mustered to support some of the events in the New Testament even given the unjustified historical methods of some non-Christian worldviews. Moreover, your hypothetical statement can be reversed. "[B]ut it is entirely possible that... [the account is generally reliable historically]". Possibilities doesn't prove probabilities. Note that many atheists scholars, Jewish scholars and liberal "Christian" scholars grant key aspects of the Gospel story given their use of historical procedures.

Notice these quotes:

"One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on order of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate."- Bart Ehrman [agnostic scholar]

"Jesus' death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable..." - Gerd Lüdemann [Atheist scholar]

Non-Messianic Jewish scholar Pinchas Lapide said Jesus' death by crucifixion is "historically certain". Moreover, based on the historical evidence, Lapide even believed that Jesus really did rise from the death by God's power, but didn't believe he was the Messiah for the Jews, but for the Gentiles.

"The single most solid fact about Jesus' life is his death: he was executed by the Roman prefect Pilate, on or around Passover, in the manner Rome reserved particularly for Roman insurrectionists, namely, crucifixion." - Paula Fredriksen [a scholar converted to Judaism, who specializes in historical Jesus studies]

"The most certain fact about the historical Jesus is his execution as a political rebel."- Marcus Borg [Liberal scholar]

The crucifixion of Jesus is recognized even by the Jesus Seminar as "one indisputable fact." [Robert Funk, Jesus Seminar videotape]

I recommend again that you watch William Lane Craig's explanation of the historical "Criteria of Authenticity" lecture and how he demonstrates Bart Ehrman often misunderstand, misapplies and conflates some of those criteria.

William Lane Craig Describing Various Criteria of Authenticity and How Bart Ehrman Incorrectly Defines and Applies Them:
IN SIX SHORT VIDEOS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zANl-OcPnfI&list=PLshImU6jwhvz77QRcIo1HkBnZLIW0pMT1

//And your interpretation that Jesus used the Greek words for “I am” is preposterous. Do you really believe that Jesus and the high priest were speaking to each other in Greek? Highly unlikely. //

Two of Jesus' Apostles had Greek names [Andrew and Philip]. Matthew was a tax collector for the Romans and who certainly knew Greek. Four were fishermen who sold fish [one of whom was Andrew]. The name Philip became a popular Greek name because of Philip II of Macedon the father of Alexander the Great. Is it unlikely that the Apostles and Jesus would have known how to speak Koine Greek? Jesus was a PREACHER. Jesus HAND PICKED His Apostles to preach. The word "apostle" itself means "SENT [one]." Sent to do what? Preach. Doesn't it seem reasonable that Jesus would choose people who were also Greek speakers? We call it "Koine" Greek because it was "common." It was the "lingua franca" of the time, like English is the universal language of commerce in our own day and age. As a possible carpenter, is it difficult to think Jesus spoke Koine?

You'll ask, "How about at His trial?" It's common in multi-lingual cultures and societies for people to move back and fourth in different languages. Even to mix them a bit. That's why, for example, people jokingly talk about "Spanglish" [a mix of Spanish and English]. I'm Filipino and we jokingly talk about "Taglish" [Tagalog and English]. So, is it unlikely that Jesus didn't switch from Aramaic and/or Hebrew to Greek and back again? I doubt it.

You'll ask, "How about Jesus' statement in Mark 14:62?" Let's say for the sake or argument that the author of Mark is generally conveying in Greek what Jesus said in Aramaic, then we have good reason to think that at least the author of Mark was trying to convey to his readers that HE HIMSELF [the author] believed Jesus was God by the use of "ego eimi" and references to the "Son of Man." But even if Jesus didn't say what He did in Greek, the concept of the "Son of Man" could have still been uttered by Jesus. In fact, the "Son of Man" statements of Jesus in the Gospels are usually considered likely historically authentic by scholars because it passes the Criterion of Authenticity called "Dissimilarity/Discontinuity." Because the New Testament church and the early church fathers weren't in the habit of referring to Jesus as the "Son of Man." In fact, scholars have said that the phrase appears to be Jesus' favorite self-designation. That Jesus referred to Himself as the Danielic "Son of Man" [in Greek or Aramaic] makes sense of His being condemned to death for blasphemy given the divine prerogatives of the figure in Daniel 7:13-14. One who rides the clouds, and will be served in a religious way that amounts to divine worship. What other alternative hypothesis can better explain Jesus' condemnation?

//Christians read all kinds of interpretations into Jesus’ alleged statements. Another Christian scholar commenting on this passage said that the high priest tore his clothes because Jesus inferred that he (the high priest) was as evil as the Greek ruler who had defiled the Temple a couple hundred years earlier. You guys are just guessing what Jesus meant, based on statements that you cannot be certain Jesus even said!//

I don't know who this anonymous Christian scholar is. So, it's difficult to comment on the claim, or confirm its accuracy. The scholar probably has a fuller defense of his claim that you're only [understandably] summarizing. But so what? How is that incompatible with what I and other Christian scholars have said about the high priest tearing his clothes and his condemnation of Jesus for blasphemy? Why assume it's a case of "either/or" rather than "both/and"? In fact, I have no problem with that possible interpretation since it's perfectly comptible with my interpretation and the interpretation of the Christian scholars I respect.

Well, I've address all of your objections. I don't expect you to respond to everything I've written. Like I said at the very beginning of this blog, I don't have time for, and so am not looking for a long debate with an atheist. I've done that plenty of times. I've also already spent a lot of time writing up this blog to address your basic objections to Christianity which other and better Christian apologists have addressed in their works [books, articles, videos, audio etc.]. But I took the time to write this up out of compassion to someone who seems to have apostatized due to emotional reasons rather than good intellectual and rational reasons.

UPDATE:

I later realized I accidentally missed responding to some of Gary's comments. So, the following is my response:

//If Jesus really was God, why all the cat and mouse games about his identity? Bottom line: Jesus does not clearly and without ambiguity claim that he is God in the Synoptics…at any time…even at the end in Jerusalem. John’s Gospels involves a much higher christology. This is evidence of an evolving view of Jesus’ divinity.//

//If Jesus really was God, why all the cat and mouse games about his identity?....//

Jesus was in a Jewish society that would have automatically rejected anybody claiming to be God in the flesh by either declaring Him crazy and leading others to dismiss Him and His teaching, or by stoning Him to death for blasphemy. That's why He had to first prove He was was the Messiah by His miraculous works. As Arnold Fruchtenbaum argues in his lectures on the Jewish Life of Christ, any Messianic candidate had to be observed in his actions. Also, I already said in my previous comments the following:

//For most of Jesus’ ministry He kept His messiahship veiled. Preferring to declare His messiahship by His deeds rather than His words. Saving the words for the end of His ministry. Scholars call this the “Messianic Secret.” See the wikipedia article on the Messianic Secret.

If Jesus kept His messiahship a secret during most of His ministry, then if He were God [the 2nd person of the Trinity], then He would all the more kept His divinity a secret. And as a matter of fact, in virtually all the places in GJohn were Jesus declares His Divinity, it’s still veiled in some sense. He’s hinting at it much more strongly than in the Synoptics, but it’s still not perfectly clear to His original audience, even though it’s meant to be clear to the readers of the Gospel. If Jesus revealed His divinity openly and overtly at the very start of His ministry, He would have been sentenced to death too early in God’s plan (especially given the prophecy in Dan. 9 about the timing of the public manifestation of the Messiah). See also, Messianic Jew Arnold Fruchtenbaum’s lectures on the Messiah and how He was supposed to declare His messiahship first by deeds here:

The Jewish Life of Christ by Arnold Fruchtenbaum [21 lectures in mp3]
https://www.deanbibleministries.org/bible-class-listing/messages/series/the-jewish-life-of-christ

//Bottom line: Jesus does not clearly and without ambiguity claim that he is God in the Synoptics…at any time…even at the end in Jerusalem.//

There are clear indications that the authors of Mark and Matthew believed Jesus was divine in some sense [Ehrman agrees]. I would argue even portraying Him as Yahweh. Here's the link again to my blogpost on the Christology of the Gospel of Mark:

Markan Christology
https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/03/markan-christology.html

See also Anthony Rogers videos on Mark at his channel. He's my favorite living defender of the doctrine of the Trinity. See also his debates which are on other people's channels too.

Now to address your objection. First off, as I said before, even in the Gospel of John, Jesus' claims to deity aren't perfectly overt. Even when you factor in the more overt occasions where Jesus hints at it and alludes to it, the statements could still be interpreted in a way that evades the clear meaning of the author of John. Even the Jews in the the Gospel of John sometimes weren't sure if Jesus was claiming full deity or not. In their minds Jesus was giving them mixed messages. That's also why there are still Unitarians today who reject the idea that the Gospel of John teaches Jesus' full deity.

I'm still thinking about the height of Luke's Christology [i.e. how high?]. But how do you account for the fact that Gospels Mark and Matthew clearly presents Jesus as fully God YET doesn't have Jesus referring to Himself as God openly? If the authors were making it all up, then they could/would have put in Jesus' mouth overt claims to being Yahweh. But they don't even though they portray Jesus as Yahweh. That seems to be a mark of their trying to be historical. Of restraining themselves to the historical facts, rather than what they would like Jesus to have said. And again, Jesus doesn't do it in the Gospel of John either. Not even John 8:58 which comes closest to Jesus declaring Himself Yahweh. Unitarians even dispute the interpretation of that verse. So, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. The contrast between the Synoptics portrayal of Jesus' self-identity and claims with that of GJohn isn't as stark as you portray it. Jesus does virtually claim to be Yahweh in Mark and Matthew. For example, among other places in Mark 14:62 and 6:50. In Matthew when Jesus says He's greater than the temple [Matt. 12:6], despite the Temple being the abode of God where Yahweh dwells. When Jesus says what He says in Matt. 18:20.

Matt. 18:20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them."

This is meant to parallel a famous saying among rabbis during the first century.

"Where two sit together to study the Torah, the Shekinah glory [i.e. the Divine Presence] rests between them." (Mishnah, Pirke Aboth 3:2)

[Also translated, "But two who sit and exchange words of Torah, the Divine Presence rests amongst them..." - Ethics of the Fathers (Pirkei Avot), chapter 3 ]

The Jewish Annotated New Testament which is NON-Messianic, confirms this on page 34, "rabbinic teachings stated that the Divine (Heb “shekhinah”) is present when people study Torah (m. Avot 3.2,6).

Matt. 28:20 which is the ending part of the inclusio of Matt. 1:23 where Jesus is said to be "God WITH us." Jesus says in Matt. 28:20 "I will be WITH YOU always, to the very end of the age," echoing the inclusio of Matt. 1:23.

At that Great Commission in Matt. 28, Jesus is also alluding to His divinity because the author of Matthew, as scholars have noted, structures his Gospel in 5 segments to mimic the 5 books of the Torah. In order to portray Jesus as the new Moses and the new Joshua [Jesus and Joshua have the same name because "Yeshua" is just a shortened version of "Yehoshua"]. Just as Moses was on the mountain about to die and gave his last instructions to the people, so Jesus is on a high hill before He departs. Just as Joshua is given the command to OBSERVE all of the Law of God and that Yahweh will be WITH him, so Jesus tells His disciples to OBSERVE all that He taught and that He will be WITH them. Notice the parallels.

Matt. 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

Joshua 1:5 No man shall be able to stand before you all the days of your life. Just as I was with Moses, so I will be with you. I will not leave you or forsake you.

Joshua 1:8 This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success.
9 Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be frightened, and do not be dismayed, for the LORD your God is with you wherever you go."

Jesus is clearly being portrayed as doing what Yahweh did at the end of the book of Deuteronomy and the beginning of the book of Joshua. Just as Joshua and His army are told by Yahweh to go INWARD to invade the Promised Land to conquer, so Jesus tells His army [i.e. the Church] to conquer going OUTWARD by converting the nations into disciples.

Acts chapter 1 has Jesus commanding the disciples to disciple the nations in concentric circles outward from Jerusalem [Jerusalem, then Judea, then Samaria, then the ends of the earth].

Acts 1:8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."

Remember too that the ending of GMatt and GLuke [Matt. 28:17 and Luke 24:52] have the disciples worshipping Jesus. Yes, the word for "worship" could be translated to mean "do obeisance" as to a human ruler, but the context and rest of the books make it clear that it's a worship of Jesus as divine.

//This is evidence of an evolving view of Jesus’ divinity.//

Most scholars hold to Markan Priority. Meaning, Mark was written first. Yet, Mark has nearly as high a Christology as John [as I prove in my blogpost and as Anthony Rogers does in his videos]. So there's very little development in the level of Christology. It's mostly just it being expressed differently. Part of the reason why it might be expressed differently is because the Synoptics more closely record the ipsissima verba of Jesus, while the GJohn records the ipsissima vox [see Craig Evans' statements on this in his videos and books].

See also Lydia McGrew's statements where she opposes some of what Evans' says about ipsissima vox. I think the truth is somewhere in between the views of Lydia McGrew and Craig Evans.

My blogpost:

Why Don't the Synoptics Have Jesus Claiming to be the "I Am"?
https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2018/03/why-dont-synoptics-have-jesus-claiming.html

Here's a blogpost from my all time favorite all around apologist, the late Steve Hays:

Are the "I am" statements authentic? by Steve Hays
https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/03/are-i-am-statements-authentic.html

See Lydia McGrew's thoughts on the topic:

Jesus never said the "I am" statements? by Lydia McGrew
https://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2017/09/jesus-never-said-i-am-statements.html

Transcript and commentary: The "I am" statements, again by Lydia McGrew
https://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2018/03/transcript-and-commentary-i-am.html

UPDATE TWO:

MORE LINKS:

See Trent Horn's video here:

Nothing Fails Like Bible History (REBUTTED) by Trent Horn
https://youtu.be/kc-wpFyb_yo

Is the Exodus History? A Conversation with Dr. Titus Kennedy
https://youtu.be/czUyRQ6rUXw

EP29: Egyptian Evidence for the Exodus w/ Dr. Titus Kennedy and Dr. Steve Meyer, Discovery Institute
https://youtu.be/ZMMxf1HeE0c

Are 'Tactics' and 'Street Epistemology' the Same Method? by Greg Koukl

The first video is a clip of the fuller second video that interviews Greg Koukl and is classic book on apologetics, Tactics. Some apologists have called Koukl's one of the best books on apologetics. For example, David Wood says about Tactics that "This is the one apologetics book every Christian needs to read" in his video HERE.

Are 'Tactics' and 'Street Epistemology' the Same Method? by Greg Koukl
https://youtu.be/Y-3FgNqxrE4

FULL INTERVIEW:

Discussing "Tactics" with Greg Koukl: How to Talk to People About Christianity
https://youtu.be/W_HcKbls_RI

Saturday, November 27, 2021

Is Yahweh a Junior God?

The following question was asked in a Facebook Group I'm in.

How would you respond to this argument?
We can't know for sure that Yahweh isn't a junior God who has been given part of the universe to run by the Supreme God and he has claimed more about himself than is actually true.

The following was my brief answer with working and added links:

Before I do some apologetics, ultimately, as James Anderson has said, the CHRISTIAN acquires certainty of the truth of Christianity when the external testimony of Scripture (or Scriptural truth) is coupled with the infallible internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. Or as Van Til said (alluding to the WCF), "I believe in this infallible book, in the last analysis, because 'of the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in my heart.' "

The Internal Testimony of the Holy Spirit by James N. Anderson
https://www.proginosko.com/2017/01/the-internal-testimony-of-the-holy-spirit/

We have no positive reason to think that's there is a God above Yahweh. We do have positive reason to think that Yahweh is the true God [see basic apologetical works]. These type of scenarios are often posited hypothetically because, allegedly Yahweh is an unjust God. But if another God [let's call him Ultimate God or UGod for short] higher and more powerful than Yahweh were "more" just, merciful and powerful, why isn't that God preventing Yahweh from committing the [alleged] atrocities he's doing? Why isn't UGod judging Yahweh and/or preventing Yahweh from allegedly making a mess of our universe? UGod must then have a similar sense of justice and mercy as Yahweh in his allowing the suffering/evil/sin in the world that he does and in delaying justice to a future eschatological Judgment Day. As non-Christians often say, justice delayed is justice denied. Yet, UGod is delaying justice in the same way as Yahweh is. And so, there's no rational reason to postulate a higher God above Yahweh. We might as well stay with Yahweh as per the principle of Occam's Razor/parsimony whereby we ought not to multiply entities beyond necessity.
If the argument about UGod were being based on the virtually universal Semitic conception(s) of a Divine Council, why couldn't Yahweh be that supreme God? Even Mike Heiser suggests this, and conservative Christians like Darrell Bock and Doug Wilson [et al] think there's some truth to Heiser's Divine Council thesis. Baal is arguably the most widely worshipped Semitic God previously, yet Baal worshippers have dwindled to insignificance.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionnow/2016/06/do-people-still-worship-baal/

The fact that those other Semitic gods have been virtually discarded and thrown into the dustbin of history such that very few people worship them any longer, while the three largest monotheistic religions on earth [Judaism, Christianity and Islam] are all Abrahamic should be telling. That Christianity is the most popular religion on Earth would be an inductive data point of evidence [not proof] that that the Christian God might be the true God. Christianity is the largest world religion. With 2.3 BILLION professing adherents. Add to that the 1.8 billion Muslims and the 14.7 million Jews and that's over 4.11 billion people out of 7.75 billion people who claim to follow Abraham's God. That's over half of the world population.

Judaism and Islam are clearly false conceptions of the God of Abraham when one does the apologetical investigation. BTW, the Roman Pantheon of gods, and the Greek Pantheon of gods are also for the most part forgotten. But admittedly, inductive inference doesn't get to certainty. There was also a time when Christianity was a small insignificant religion. Hindu gods are still being worshipped.

But Christianity is only still growing and making progress. Christianity is growing as expected given postmillennial interpretations of prophecy. As Daniel 2:35 states, the rock that was carved without hands is progressively growing to fill the whole earth/land that was once occupied by the former kingdoms which were represented by the image of Nebuchadnezzar and destroyed by that stone. Just as Jesus predicted that the kingdom of God is like leaven that eventually leavens the whole lump of dough. Or like the mustard seed in Jesus' parable that grows to be " larger than all the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches." Which is a clear allusion to the tree representing Nebuchadnezzar's widespread kingdom in his dream [Dan. 4:10ff.].

Wednesday, November 24, 2021

How Deathbed Experiences Point to the Supernatural with Steve Miller

Not to be confused with Near Death Experiences, this video deals with Deathbed Experiences.

How Deathbed Experiences Point to the Supernatural
https://youtu.be/T_TnbKtQ2Eg

Presuppositionalism vs Evidentialism: A Respectful Dialogue Between Joshua Pillows and David Pallmann

Presup vs Evidentialism: A Respectful Dialogue
https://youtu.be/obXl6lqeU6Y

Wednesday, November 17, 2021

Should We Want God to Exist? Dr. Liz Jackson

Philosopher Liz Jackson discusses whether we should want God to exist.

Should We Want God to Exist? Dr. Liz Jackson
https://youtu.be/sukh4FeGaEo

An Astronomer's Quest by Hugh Ross

The following video is astrophysicist and Christian apologist Hugh Ross' lectures at one of the DECIDE Conferences. The lectures have been spliced together into one large 7 1/4 hours long video. One of my criticism of Hugh Ross is that he sometimes make overly dogmatic claims that surpass what the evidence actually would suggest. That he needs to be more modest in his claims, less loose and more precise, measured and nuanced statements. Especially where some of his claims are grounded in speculation. For example, he'll say that everyone acknowledges the reality of fine-tuning. Actually, there are some scientists who dispute or at least question the reality of fine-tuning. If he were more precise and nuanced in his statements, he's say that most scientists acknowledge the apparent fine-tuning. And some who do might appeal to the multiverse to explain the fine-tuning away. See my blog, "Problems with the Multiverse" Ross also sometimes commits versions of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. Nevertheless, much of the evidences he presents, both individually and collectively, are suggestive of the existence of a cosmic designer, if one evaluates them more circumspectly.

https://youtu.be/HwXfz46PWLA

Monday, November 15, 2021

Responding to Marcus Aurelius' Famous Quote

"Live a good life. If there are Gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are Gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no Gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones." - Marcus Aurelius [purportedly]

Wikipedia says this is misattribution HERE.

Nevertheless, here's a quick response to a meme I saw on facebook.

If there is no God, then in all likelihood there are no objective standard of nobility. See William Lane Craig's video on godless Platonic realism here:

Is Atheistic Moral Platonism More Plausible Than Theism?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGWAVRoLQ3c

Also, your life will not live on in the memories of your loved ones because they too will one day die. Most people don't even know the names of their great, great, grandparents.

If God does exist, and He's PERFECTLY holy and just, then in His justice He must punish us for our sins (no matter how small or seemingly insignificant to us). In His mercy, He's free to grant provision of salvation as found in Christianity where the Cross of Christ is the manifestation and intersection of both God's justice and mercy.

If God or the gods were unjust, then it makes prudential sense, out of enlightened self-interest, to do those things that keep you on his/hers/their good side. Most people already do so with regard to nonsensical governmental laws and regulation just to make their lives smoother. For atheists to claim they'd rather go to hell than serve or obey an ruthless powerful deity is a lie. Most can't even muster the guts to resist the finite power and finite knowledge of human government. Yet, they'd genuinely be willing to resist a being of extreme, maybe even omnipotent & omniscient, power and knowledge? They're lying to themselves. They already bend like a willow to limited governmental tyranny.

If polytheism were true, then the conflicting interests of the gods make morality relative [cf. the Euthyphro Dilemma]. Like how the purposes of the god of war clash with the purposes of the goddess of love in the Roman and Greek pantheon [i.e. Mars/Ares vs. Venus/Aphrodite]. Whereas in a "perfect being" monotheism, Divine Command Essentialism could be true whereby virtues flow from God's good nature, while God's commands flow from His voluntary prescriptions which reflect His good nature. Solving the problems of both divine essentialism and divine voluntarism by combining them.

I've written more on the topic of the last paragraph here:
God in Relation to Law: Ex Lex, Sub Lego or Sibi Ipsi Lex

Friday, November 12, 2021

One God or Many Universes? Stephen Meyer Explores How Fine-Tuning Points to Intelligent Design

Stephen C. Meyer discusses the multiverse and the existence of God. Which better explains cosmic fine-tuning?

One God or Many Universes? Stephen Meyer Explores How Fine-Tuning Points to Intelligent Design
https://youtu.be/dwa6LfZlGN8

Thursday, November 11, 2021

'Bara' in Genesis 1:1 and 'Creatio Ex Nihilo': A Response to Michael Heiser by Dr. Tony Costa and Rev. Anthony Rogers

Hebrew scholar Michael Heiser has argued that Genesis 1:1 more likely does not teach Creation Ex Nihilo. In the following video Tony Costa and Anthony Rogers argues for why the traditional reading is more likely.

'Bara' in Genesis 1:1 and 'Creatio Ex Nihilo'. Dr. Tony Costa and Rev. Anthony Rogers
https://youtu.be/d3VFqTwJv4E

Sunday, November 7, 2021

Responses to Dr. Richard Howe’s Alleged Refutation of Presuppositional Apologetics

The following link has various video responses to Richard Howe's attempted refutation of presuppositional apologetics.

https://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2020/05/14/responses-to-dr-richard-howes-alleged-refutation-of-presuppositional-apologetics/

Debate Resolution: There is Good Reason to Believe That the Christian God Exists [atheist Michael Long vs. Christian presuppositionalist Chris Bolt]

The following debate is between an atheist Michael Long and Christian Van Tillian presuppositionalist Chris Bolt.

Debate | Michael Long vs Chris Bolt Reasons To Think The Christian God Exists
https://youtu.be/We0BOqEWJao

Download mp3 HERE

Paul within Judaism Symposium

The following is Parts 1-4 of a symposium on the Apostle Paul within Judaism that includes various scholars. Including Michael Bird.

Paul within Judaism Symposium - Part 1
https://youtu.be/3IuC1TlcUxo

Part 2
https://youtu.be/k2dLGdgMu54

Part 3
https://youtu.be/g70_NcYquLo

Part 4
https://youtu.be/_BimT657ZKY

The Age-Old Philosophical Problem of the One and the Many in Relation to the Trinity Addressed by Anthony Rogers

Anthony Rogers addresses the age-old philosophical problem of the one and the many and how the Christian doctrine of the Trinity helps solve the problem. He does this from a presuppositionalist point of view.

The Problem of the One and the Many w/Anthony Rogers
https://youtu.be/BVeGYUfsas4

Atheist Stephen Woodford on the Definition(s) of "Atheism"

Even though I'm a Van Tillian presuppositionalist, I'm not dogmatic on the standard view among Van Tillians that all humans know God exists. Though, I do believe that all humans (at the very least) ought to know that God exists. For why I take this position, see this article, Do All Men Know that God Exists? by Paul Manata.

Below is (atheist) Stephen excellent video on the definition(s) of atheism which I highly recommend. He points out that in philosophical circles/communities atheism is defined as the belief in the non-existence of God/gods. While in non-philosophical circles/communities it's usually defined as a lack of a belief in God/gods. See also my blog where I quote some definitions of atheism from philosophical works HERE.

The 100% REAL Definition of Atheism
https://youtu.be/ftDSaVLDDK8

Wednesday, November 3, 2021

Well Known Skeptic Michael Shermer Interviews Stephen C. Meyer on His New Book "The Return of the God Hypothesis"

Stephen Meyer—Return of God Hypothesis: 3 Scientific Discoveries Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe
https://youtu.be/On-4lOWuWQQ

Tony Costa Interviews Craig Keener on His New Book "Miracles Today"

Interview and Discussion with Dr. Craig Keener On His Book 'Miracles Today'
https://youtu.be/9fiYtvTwYoM

Thursday, October 28, 2021

RESOLVED: Christians should reject Natural Theology - Jay Dyer vs. Trent Horn

While I'm a Protestant Calvinist Van Tillian Presuppositionalist, I found the following debate very interesting. It's between Roman Catholic Trent Horn who affirms the use of Thomistic Natural Theology and Eastern Orthodox Jay Dyer who rejects the usual sense and use of "Natural Theology" and instead argues for an Eastern Orthodox version of presuppositionalism. In my opinion Jay Dyer did enough to win the debate.

RESOLVED: Christians should reject Natural Theology - Jay Dyer vs. Trent Horn
https://youtu.be/tLeqQaoSeyQ

Tuesday, October 26, 2021

Should We Want God To Exist?

The Axiology of theism | w/Dr. Klass Kraay - PPP ep.140
https://youtu.be/KUYQ_vYwb60

Saturday, October 23, 2021

God JUST IS the Standard of Goodness

Distinctions in God's Will from a Calvinist Perspective

God just *IS* the standard of what is good, by which everything else is compared. While it's an axiom and presupposition that God is the standard of goodness, there are also subsidiary reasons to think it makes sense and is the case. For example, if God knows all things [including all possibilities], then God know the best means to the best ends. God knows all possible consequences and outcomes to all possible decisions He or creatures could make. But then people will ask, how does God know, or learn or determine what is "best"? Well, that's based on God's perfect rationality. If God were perfectly rational, then he wouldn't be agent irrational. Rather He'd not only be omniscient [all-knowing] but also all wise [omnisapient]. In God's wisdom He knows that what is for His greatest glory is also for the greatest good of creation as a whole. Within those parameters God is free to create any world(s) He wishes. There may not be a single top world that's best. There may be a number of worlds, or even an infinite number of worlds that fit those criteria and parameters from which God could choose to create.

It might be argued that that conception would imply what is good is ultimately determined by consequences or state of affairs such that God really isn't the standard of goodness, but merely an observer and implementor of the good [i.e. the good is actually outside of God]. No, because the possibilities exist within God [His mind and powers]. There are no possibilities outside of God. Moreover, that might just be an analogy that might help others see why it can make some sense that God is the Good.

Another example of why it could be reasonable to think that God JUST IS the standard of goodness would be the Neo-Platonic insight that some Christian theologians like Augustine subscribed to which says that being just is goodness. Since God is pure uncreated and infinite Being, therefore God is pure uncreated infinite Goodness. Evil then would be defined as the sufficient privation/negation/absence/twisting/corruption of being or goodness [i.e. the principle of privatio boni].

As a Calvinist, I also think another aspect in determining what is evil is also by what violates God's 1. will of Demand [i.e. preceptive/prescriptive will which are His revealed commands], 2. God's will of Delight [i.e. God's gracious heart], 3. God's will of Design [e.g. cancer violates the original design of human biology], 4. God's will of Direction [i.e. a violation of God's supernaturally revealed specific will for someone]. Though, admittedly, from a Calvinist point of view God's 5. will of Decree ordains that the four above senses of God's will will sometimes be violated. Nevertheless, God doesn't ordain evil/sin/suffering for their own sake, or in isolation. He doesn't saction them in the sense of delighting in them. Yet He ordains them for other 2nd order goods that would not obtain if He didn't allow or ordain them to happen. Second order goods that will far outweigh the evil that is permitted/ordained such that God has morally and rationally sufficiently reasons to allow/ordain them.

Ultimately, God is the standard of Goodness due to His Sovereignty as the Supreme and Perfect Being [the ens perfectissimum and the summum bonum]. God just is the Arbiter of what is Good. But not in an arbitrary capricious way. God is a RATIONAL and Essential Arbiter of what is Good ["essential" in the sense of being = good]. That's why I hold ot Divine Command Essentialism rather than pure essentialism or pure voluntarism. God has eternally known His manifold perfections and excellencies and omnisciently and omnisapiently knows that He is the best possible Standard by which all creation ought to be modeled, evaluated and judged.

Wednesday, October 20, 2021

A Theological Evaluation of Near Death Experiences

Though I'm a Calvinist, I appreciate Lutheran theologian Jordan Cooper. He did a two part video on Near Death Experiences. The second is the one that deals with how we might interpret them theologically from a Christian perspective, and is the more important one. See also the link to Jason Engwer's blog on Cooper's videos and where he agrees and disagree HERE.

A Theological Evaluation of Near Death Experiences [PART 2]
https://youtu.be/cZJw23vODs4

A Christian Approach to Near Death Experiences [PART 1]
https://youtu.be/asyCWorJmWI

Monday, October 18, 2021

Did the New Testament's Prophecies and Predictions Regarding Jesus' Soon Return Fail?

I recently interacted again with an old time debate partner I used to dialogue with in the early 2000s. The last time we regularly chatted on Internet Chat Relay was probably in the early 2010s. Yesterday on Facebook, he briefly posted what he thinks is his strongest argument against Christianity. The following blog will presuppose a knowledge of the basics of partial preterism which I won't bother explaining to casual readers of this blog. For example, the assumption that in addition to Jesus' final return at the end of the world in what is popularly called His "Second Coming", Jesus also "Came" in judgment in a lesser sense in the 1st century in the destruction of Jerusalem through the means of the Romans.

Obviously in his brief summary comment Floyd Fp couldn't explicate all of the reasons why he thinks that this issue is the basis for his strongest argument. So, I invite others to visit his YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC31HOdg-B5X1T7hB_aFGP1A

Floyd Fp wrote on Facebook:
My strongest argument against Christianity is the failed prediction of Jesus and the New Testament writers that Jesus would return in the lifetime of the New Testament writers. I have a formal debate on my YouTube channel where I present this.
Now, just don't handwave it away by invoking "partial preterism". You need to show how each verse that describes Jesus returning "soon" in the lifetime of the NT writers is SPECIFICALLY about the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE and not about his return.
Here are just a few of verses you must address...
1 John 2:18 “Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour. “
1 John 4:3 “and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.”
James 5:8-9 You also be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand. Do not grumble, brethren, against one another, that you may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing at the doors.
Revelation 1:3 Blessed is he who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written therein; for the time is near.
Revelation 22:6-7, 10, 20 And he said to me, "These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place. And behold, I am coming soon."... And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. ... "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done. ... He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZMvmhnXZ8A

Here's my response:

I could approach this in various ways, but my time constraints are forcing me to take it in the following direction. I'll sometimes use PP for partial preterist/preterism.

1. First off, it should be recognized by all who know the Bible that predictions of "comings of Yahweh" and of "Day of the LORD/Yahweh" in judgment are common in the OT and were [allegedly] fulfilled multiple times on various Gentile nations at different times and locations. Even using the exact same & similar cosmic figures of speech of stars falling, and other astronomical perturbations, et cetera. For example, the past destruction of Babylon in Isa. 13; or of the capital of Edom, Bozrah in Isa. 34. Whether such OT comings actually happened doesn't matter for our purposes. That they were predicted to happen and that the OT claims that they were fulfilled in the past is all we need right now. Given that literary fact regarding the OT, it should not at all be unexpected [or shouldn't be to anyone who knows the OT] that Jesus would come multiple times if He were Yahweh incarnate [I argue that very thing in many of my articles on my Blog dedicated to the Trinity, TrinityNotes.blogspot.com].

In which case, it shouldn't be strange to think that Jesus could come in judgment on Jerusalem in the 1st century, and then later at the end of history to judge the World. Or that the former is a type or emblematic of the latter, just as the literal destruction of Babylon in Isa. 13 is a type of the destruction of mystical Babylon in Revelation. If Kim Riddlebarger's Amillennial interpretation of Revelation is true, then Revelation should be interpreted in both a partial preterist way, and in a fuller secondary sense. He think's there's some truth to PP, but that it's not the whole picture/story. Because I'm more familiar with Gentry's defense of PP I tend to side with it than with Riddlebarger's Amillennial understanding. But maybe Riddlebarger is more correct. See his mp3s on the topic here:

https://www.monergism.com/legacy/mt/mp3/amillennialism-101-mp3-series-kim-riddlebarger

http://christreformedinfo.squarespace.com/mp3s-and-real-audio-of-academy/

http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?SpeakerOnly=true&currSection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Kim_Riddlebarger

http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/reformed-amillennialism/

2. Another problem I see is you're interpreting the prophecies as an unbeliever as if they were straight mathematically logical prose. Like a puzzle we're ALL supposed to be able to easily solve. When, in fact, they were originally given to believers to give them hope and foster perseverance etc. Not to unbelievers who are looking for proof of the divine origin of the Jewish/Christian God and Scriptures. Though, that's not to say that the destruction of Jerusalem isn't a fulfilled prophecy that to some degree (more or less) attests to the divine source of the Bible. See for example the now public domain 19th century book "The Destruction of Jerusalem: An Absolute and Irresistible Proof of the Divine Origin of Christianity" by George Peter Holford

here: https://archive.org/details/destructionofjer00holf

OR here: https://www.bible.ca/pre-destruction70AD-george-holford-1805AD.htm.

3. This issue is a hermeneutical one regarding NT prophecies, propositional & didactic teachings. One of the most common objections to Christianity is that it takes OT passages and prophecies out of context and forces/squeezes them to fit the NT context of Jesus and the early church. I think much of this can be easily explained by the NT use of the Jewish hermeneutics that were in practice even before the time of Christ, and would later be called Pardes/PaRDeS.

See for example: How the New Testament Quotes the Old Testament by Messianic Jew Arnold Fruchtenbaum

http://arielb.org/archives/794

Fruchtenbaum elaborates on this explanation in lecture #4 at 26 minutes and 45 seconds in his [freely available] lecture series:

Jewish Life of the Messiah

https://www.deanbibleministries.org/bible-class-listing/messages/series/the-jewish-life-of-christ

Pardes (Jewish exegesis) [wikipedia article]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardes_(Jewish_exegesis)

I bring this up because if skeptical unbelievers can claim that the NT twists OT passages and prophecies in a way that's non-literal, then aren't they being inconsistent in requiring the NT's teachings and prophecies to be fulfilled literally? Whether legitimately literal and/or woodenly literal. It seems convenient that they want the NT to be literal when it would support their rejection of the Bible, even though consistency would imply that the NT teachers and hearers could/would generally understand that teachings and prophecies regarding the return of Jesus could be less than literal, or be veiled, or have multiple meaning and fulfillments GIVEN THAT THAT'S HOW THEY ALLEGEDLY INTERPRET THE OT. If the NT church could sometimes interpret the OT in non-literal ways, why assume it's illegitimate or inconsistent for them to do the same thing when interpreting Jesus' teaching and prophecies and those of the apostles?

4. You are also assuming that the early Christians fully understood Jesus' teaching and prophecies. They didn't even fully understand or know that Jesus would be crucified, or would rise from the dead, or that the Gospel was meant to go the Gentiles, or that He was claiming to be the Messiah and fully God until much later on (!!!). They had to grow in their understanding both before and after Jesus' crucifixion.

Yet, you assume they perfectly understood Jesus' teaching regarding His Coming(s). When Jewish apocalyptic literature and pronouncements are CHARACTERISTICALLY and intentionally cryptic. Whether the prophecies of Daniel, or Isaiah, or even intertestamental and 2nd Temple literature. The descriptions of Jesus in the Gospels clearly have Him mimicking the style and language of OT prophets in their use of figurative and climatic language.

Yet, you [Floyd Fp] hinge your "strongest argument" against Christianity on these portions of the Bible? That's so ridiculous that I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that. We're supposed to believe that unbelievers like yourself, separated from the original context by nearly 2000 years, know better how to interpret cryptic passages which even believers admit, at the very least, didn't exhaustively explain what they meant or how they were to be exactly fulfilled? Paul himself said, "For we know in part and we prophesy in part...For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known" (1 Cor. 13:9, 12). Even if one think's 2 Peter is a forgery, it's an early Christian document which testifies to the fact that Christians understood that the teachings of the Apostles aren't always clear. The writer says:

2 Pet 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. THERE ARE SOME THINGS IN THEM THAT ARE HARD TO UNDERSTAND, WHICH THE IGNORANT AND UNSTABLE TWIST TO THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION, AS THEY DO THE OTHER SCRIPTURES.

Christianity doesn't hinge on the early church's infallible and exhaustive understanding of all doctrines, including [a fortiori] all prophecies and their fulfillments. There's room for them to have had some uncertainty. Paul admitting he prophesied in part leads me to the next point.

5. The NT authors were hopeful that the return of Jesus would be in their lifetimes, but they never stated dogmatically that Jesus' final eschatological Coming at the end of (ordinary) World History actually would be in their lifetimes or generation. That the NT authors expressed their hope it would be, is not the same thing as them stating dogmatically by Divine inspiration that it actually would. The Apostles humbly deferred and submitted to the authoritative OT Scriptures more than to their own teachings. Yes, they could pull rank, and could provide inspired Revelation, but only in so far as they were in keeping with the established and prioritized OT Scriptures [e.g. Acts 17:11]. Paul's statement "we prophesy in part" would mean that even HIS OWN prophecies were imperfect in the sense of being incomplete. If that was the case when he believed he was being divinely inspired when speaking a prophetic word, HOW MUCH MORE would he think that was the case when he was writing didactic occasional letters He didn't consciously think were all inspired? [Though, I believe those that made it into the canon actually were without his necessarily knowing it, and that's why they are now included in the canon]

It's not like the Apostles thought (within themselves) and taught (others) that every word they ever verbally spoke, as well as every word of every letter they ever wrote was inspired and infallible Revelation. Some of them may not have even considered their writings would eventually be included into a NT canon, because they hoped [maybe even personally expected as a private fallible opinion] that Jesus would return so soon that a NT canon wouldn't even be necessary.

// You need to show how each verse that describes Jesus returning "soon" in the lifetime of the NT writers is SPECIFICALLY about the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE and not about his return.//

I believe that the early Christians believed Jesus would return in some sense in their generation as per His promise/prediction. But it's not clear that they adamantly believed that His final eschatological return would be in their lifetimes. Remember, they knew of many OT comings of Yahweh that were NOT eschatological. So, they would [or at least "ought to"] be prepared if Jesus' coming weren't the final one or the one they were hoping for. The NT authors and believers admitted their limited knowledge [cf. 1 Cor. 13:9, 12; 1 John 3:2; Phil. 3:15-16; 1 Cor. 2:9-10 [and no, v. 10 doesn't contradict my citation of v.9]]. Given that fact, the original readers [as well as us now] ought to understand that the writers sometimes blurred the lines between 1. their expectation/hope and 2. emphatic statements about Christ's final return. But never did they dogmatically state Jesus would bodily return in their lifetime to end ordinary world history. Passages like Luke 19:11 and John 21:21-25 show that early Christians understood that Christ's return wasn't a clear-cut doctrinal teaching. That there were ambiguities about it. Though, you'd probably dismiss them as late ad hoc rationalizations because of the Parousia's delay. But I'll quote Luke 19:11 anyway.

Luke 19:11 As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they SUPPOSED that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately.

Mark 13:32 "But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Critics often interpret Mark 13:32 as teaching Jesus literally (in some sense) didn't know when His return was. This saying passes the historical criteria of authenticity called the criterion of embarrassment. That's why most scholars think it's a genuine Jesus tradition. Because it would be unlikely that Christians would invent a Jesus saying that was embarrassing to Him. Namely, that He didn't know the day or hour of His return. If that verse is interpreted in that common way, then even Jesus didn't know when He would return. In which case, how can one say that Jesus falsely predicted His return would be in their lifetime? At most one could argue that the prediction that He would return in their lifetime was PUT INTO the mouth of Jesus by the writers of the Gospels. Yet, most skeptics think the Gospels were written after 70 AD, when prophecies of the destruction of Jerusalem were added as postdictions [vaticinium ex eventu] rather than predictions. In which case, DID they or DIDN'T they think Jesus' final eschatological return would coincide with the destruction of Jerusalem? Or soon after it? If they were to coincide, why didn't it happen at the same time and why did they include in their Gospels prophecies that would suggest they would coincide, when in fact they didn't coincide? Why did they include failed prophecies in their Gospels? If they expected His return soon after 70 AD, how soon? If it was really soon, there wouldn't have been the need to write their lengthy Gospels anyway since [in their minds] few would have the opportunity to read it or have it read to them before Jesus returned. Or maybe the historical Jesus flip flopped on claiming to know the day and hour. But then why record Jesus giving contradictory statements about His knowing or not knowing the day and hour of His return? If they were unscrupulous, they would have erased evidence of His seemingly contradictory statements. Again, if the prophecies and promises of Jesus about the timing of His coming are as clear and easy to interpret as you [Floyd Fp] and other critics claim then why would the Gospel writers record them after 70 AD [when critics think all of the Gospels were written] when they would have obviously failed [since they are supposedly clear and easy to interpret]? On the other hand, if Jesus' predictions aren't absolutely clear such that the Gospel writers couldn't immediately see that they were possibly failed prophecies, then that leaves room for a later fuller fulfillment as in versions of partial preterism. So, critics seem to have various dilemmas on their hands. Another possibility that makes sense of the data is that Jesus' cryptic predictions intentionally conflated both a near and a distant return. Dual fulfillments and types are found throughout the Bible.

It's likely that rabbis at the time, including Jesus Himself, knew that Antiochus IV Epiphanes already fulfilled the Danielic prophecy of the abomination of desolation. Remember, secular and ATHEIST scholars think that that Danielic prophecy was actually a vaticinium ex eventu [that is, a POSTdiction, not prediction] intended to be recognized as being fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes [or "Epimanes" ("The Insane One")] . YET Jesus was willing to use the same passage to refer to a FUTURE secondary fulfillment of the prophecy. If Jesus used dual fulfillment in that passage, why couldn't He have used dual fulfillment [or the Holy Spirit have inspired Jesus to, if you want to say that Jesus' human mind wasn't omniscient] regarding His own Coming [i.e. a near fulfillment and a distant fulfillment]? According to Jewish rabbinic sources, the destruction of both the first and second Jewish temples occurred on the same date, the 9th of Av. If God could orchestrate that in His all controlling providence, then that also aligns with repetitions and recapitulations that would also align with dual fulfillments or multiple fulfillments [i.e. two or more]. The Bible has a lot of this type of doublings and doublets. So much so that atheists point to them as alleged proof of poor redaction of the Biblical books. But from a believing point of view that believes God is a God of providence, then that could be a feature of God's providential planning to repeat history for His various reasons. For example, 1. to reiterate a lesson; 2. to expose how humans don't learn lessons well and/or are prone to repeat the same sins and mistakes; 3. to trip up skeptics and those hostile to God's truth; et cetera. God is not above the use of deception and distraction as part of the judicial hardening of sinners so long as it doesn't involve propositional lying on His part [vide Job 12:16; 2 Thes. 2:11; 1 Ki 22 parallel of 2 Chron. 18; etc.]. See these quote by Blaise Pascal HERE. Parallels actually happen in history. See for example this VERY INTERESTING ONE already cued up in this video by Mike Licona HERE.

BTW, as a Trinitarian I believe Jesus was/is omniscient in His divine nature and divine mind, and I'm open to multiple interpretations of Mark 13:32, but that's another discussion. See my blog:
https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2021/05/does-mark-1332-disprove-jesus.html

You then list a number of passages. But you're presupposing they claimed to exactly know the nature of Christ's soon return. I disagree.

Regarding James 5:8-9:

I think James was probably written before 70 AD because it's very Semitic, when the Church wasn't overrun by Gentiles. I don't see how it poses a problem for partial preterism.

Regarding Rev. 1:3; 22:6-7, 10, 20:

For the sake of Simplicity, I'll assume the book was written by John son of Zebedee. The question now is whether Revelation was written before or after 70 AD. See Kenneth Gentry's books in defense of an earlier date. IF the book was written before 70 AD, then I don't see how these passages are problematic for partial preterism. In fact, partial preterists cite them all the time and interpret them literally against futurists. They hammer these passages over and over upon the heads of futurists. See for example the debate book "The Great Tribulation: Past or Future?" between futurist Thomas Ice and preterist Ken Gentry. In that book, Gentry presses those passages over and over again against Ice. However, they would be problematic if Revelation was written after 70 AD. In which case, I'd interpret them in the way Kim Riddlebarger does, in an Idealist and Amillennialist way that thinks there's some truth to partial preterism even if it's not the whole truth.

Here's a video debate between preterist Gary DeMar and futurist Thomas Ice:

The Great Tribulation: Past or Future?
https://youtu.be/jT5OJ1znjmY

Regarding 1 John 2:18; & 1 John 4:3:

Of the verses you gave, these are the closest thing to being [IMO] possibly problematic for PP. Because I suspect First John was written after the fall of Jerusalem. Probably near the end of the 1st century. Therefore, around 25 years afterwards [give or take a few years]. So, some of what I say here would also apply to the book of Revelation if it was written after the fall of Jerusalem. It's not clear (and I doubt) that "the antichrist" mentioned is meant to be the same person as Paul's "man of lawlessness." The many lesser antichrists and the main Antichrist seem to be folks who teach doctrines that contradict the core teaching of the Gospel [e.g. that Christ has come in the flesh]. The writer of 1 John (who may or may not be the son of Zebedee) might have not known or understood that Christ returned in some sense at the destruction of Jerusalem. This wouldn't be problematic even if it were John Zebedee, since it's not uncommon for prophets not to fully understand their own divinely inspired prophecies or the revelations given to them [cf. Dan. 8:15-16, 26; 12:4, 9].

Nothing in these passages in 1 John dogmatically teach Jesus would return in their lifetimes. However, to be fair, they do give the impression that some dramatic occurrence and climatic event would soon happen at the time of the writing of the letter. That's why it does pose some degree of a problem.

One way to get around it is to just say the writer was right in what he said, but mistaken in his meaning in what he said. I'm of the opinion that Scripture is inspired such that the intended meaning of the author doesn't always line up with the sensus plenior [i.e. "fuller meaning/sense"] that God intended for future generations. There can be multiple deeper meanings of Scripture. That's why I reject the historical-grammatical method of interpretation WHEN it is defined in such a way as to exclude other fuller meanings. I think interpretations based on the historical-grammatical method are the primary meanings of Scripture to which all other secondary and tertiary meanings are to be grounded. But I deny that interpretations based *Only* on the historical-grammatical method are the only ones which are legitimate. The NT authors themselves didn't limit themselves to what we would call later call the historical-grammatical method in their interpretation of the OT.

Given those qualifications, I think an idealist interpretation similar to Amillennialists' interpretation can resolve the problem. The writer knows, based on previous prophecies, that Jesus' return was imminent, he just didn't know that the initial phase already happened. So, the Holy Spirit used his mistaken notions to inspire a passage of Scripture (that isn't technically wrong by its exact literal wording) to keep future generation always vigilant regarding either Jesus' return or their inevitable death [whichever takes place first] in whichever generation they might live in prior to Christ's eschatological return.

Though it's doubtful in my opinion, another possibility is that 1 John was written before 70 AD. That would dissipate the problem. A minority of scholars think every (or virtually all) NT book was written prior to 70 AD. For example, John A.T. Robinson. See his book "Redating the New Testament" HERE. While logically possible, it's too facile an answer that it would be a sign of desperation to appeal to it having been written before 70 AD as a first option.

I'm no expert on partial preterism, but with my limited knowledge, I don't see any of the above passages you listed as seriously problematic for PP. By just citing or quoting them, the problem or discrepancy/contradiction hasn't been made explicit to me. I would need some kind of argument. So, I don't see any direct discrepancy between PP and the above passages. Maybe you're not fully aware what PP teaches that you think they would be problematic. Though, for all I know, you know more about PP than I do.

It seems to me that before you can say that your "strongest argument against Christianity" succeeds, you need to:
1. refute Amillennial interpretations like that found among folks like Kim Riddlebarger;
2. refute full preterism,
3. refute partial preterism in its normative forms as found in folks like Ken Gentry and Gary DeMar;
4. refute aspects of non-normative preterists views like Ernest Hampden-Cook who believed Jesus returned in a kind of secret 2nd Advent yet also believed in a future judgment of Christ and so isn't a full preterist. EHC argues for a kind of secret rapture for a select worthy group based on Jesus' statement that He would come "like a thief" (Rev. 16:15; cf. Matt. 24:43; Luke 12:39; 1 Thes. 5:2-4; 2 Pet. 3:10].
5. numbers 2-4 coupled with Postmillennialism

There are more options that you'd also have to refute [e.g. Dispensational Premillennial options; Historic Premillennial options, etc.]. But the ones I've listed and numbered above are the ones I think most plausible. Until you've refuted all those options I've listed and their various permutations, I can't see how your "strongest argument against Christianity" even gets off the ground. Your argument seems to me to be a case of trying to build a house of cards using paper thin colorful coupons rather than numbered stiff playing cards. You're premises aren't strong enough to support your case because you treat the relevant Biblical statements like mathematical formulas when they are actually closer to poetry.

Finally, while I believe in Biblical inerrancy, the truth of Christianity doesn't hinge on the truth of inerrancy. In which case, there can be inaccurate or imprecise [or even erroneous] statements and prophecies in the Bible and yet Christianity could still be true. Nor does the truth of Christianity hinge on knowing/having the correct OT and/or NT canon. Maybe some books that are in the canon shouldn't be among those included. Including books that might appear to have false prophecies. Even famous atheist skeptic John Loftus who has written many books arguing for the falsity of Christianity admits [on multiple occasions] that Christianity could still be true despite all he [thinks he] knows in various fields. And despite all his degrees. Including his knowledge of the alleged errors in the Bible. Though, he thinks that that possibility of Christianity being true is very, very, very unlikely.

My general responses above will apply to any further passages that Floyd Fp would bring up, so I'm not sure there would be any point in my continuing to address any more problematic passages. I'm no expert in partial preterism, so I've pretty much shot my best shot. My defense for other passages isn't going to be very different. Either people [including Floyd Pf] accepts my resolutions or not. Even if they don't work, it shouldn't automatically weaken the faith of other Christians because other better apologists will have better and different responses. I'm just an amateur apologist. My comments above are my preferred [though not only] responses based on my limited understanding of the Bible and scholarship.