Apologetics Lane: New Testament

Showing posts with label New Testament. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 27, 2025

Liar, Lunatic, or Lord? Reviving C.S. Lewis' Trilemma by Jonathan McLatichie

Liar, Lunatic, or Lord? Reviving C.S. Lewis' Trilemma by Jonathan McLatichie
https://jonathanmclatchie.com/liar-lunatic-or-lord-reviving-c-s-lewis-trilemma/

Thursday, May 29, 2025

The Argument From Forced-Fulfilled Prophecy

The Argument From Forced-Fulfilled Prophecy
https://youtu.be/iBIqba6jrbw

See also InspiringPhilosophy's video:

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

Thursday, August 29, 2024

Were Jesus' Prophecies About His Soon Return Conditional?

In the following video Michael Jones [also known as "InspiringPhilosophy"] interacts with Dan McClennan's critique of Jones' views and videos defending the idea that Jesus' prophecies about His soon return were conditional. By so doing Jones exposes McClennan's dogmatism, double standards and poor scholarship. See also my blog which argues for partial preterism. It seems to me that with a little tweeking both views could be true. Or at the very least compatible.

Exposing Dan McClellan’s Dogmas & Double Standards

https://youtube.com/watch?v=bsP6i5__pFU&si=x0IJ82-DbPGjJYeR

Sunday, July 30, 2023

A Case for Matthean Priority

For the sake of argument I often will accept Markan Priority when doing apologetics. Even though I'm no longer convinced that Markan Priority is the most likely scenario. The following links to video playlists is by a Mormon who seems to be fairly familiar with the Synoptic Problem/Puzzle. The first video in the playlist arguing for Matthean Priority makes an interesting case for why the evidence suggests GMark (i.e. the Gospel of Mark) was written last among the Synoptics and that it used both GMatt and GLuke as sources. As an Evangelical Christian, I obviously don't endorse the video maker's Mormonism or his case for Mormonism. Nevertheless, his arguments AGAINST Markan Priority, and his case FOR Matthean Priority have some argumentative force.

Deconstructing Markan Priority PLAYLIST
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKSP4G6Nh-I&list=PLGACqQS4ut5hTSML4DYKIl8jeZZOErI9X

Reconstructing Matthean Priority PLAYLIST
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6iBtu9FQCw&list=PLGACqQS4ut5i8CVQcNzf4pBIA8hC-AIpN

Who When & Why - the Writing of the Gospels PLAYLIST
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySIIZWu8A6w&list=PLGACqQS4ut5iFeKqqvQPK_dzMnjF7NBhw

Wednesday, May 31, 2023

The Importance Of And Evidence For Paul's Authorship Of Ephesians

The Importance Of And Evidence For Paul's Authorship Of Ephesians
https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2022/05/the-importance-of-and-evidence-for.html

Thursday, March 9, 2023

11 Archaeological Finds for the Gospels (Dr. Titus Kennedy)

11 Archaeological Finds for the Gospels (Dr. Titus Kennedy)
https://youtu.be/3vrKCMBdyq8

Wednesday, December 28, 2022

The Reliability of the Book of Acts [and therefore of the reliability of the author]

Erik Manning has a great Playlist of videos on YouTube on the reliability of the book of Acts [and therefore of the author Luke who wrote both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts].

The Reliability of Acts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLc0GBMN1lA&list=PLbVf0T8-zFVhHcxyayFZSK_cxfD99yG_P

Sunday, June 19, 2022

Was Jesus a false prophet? with Bram Rawlings

In the video below Bram Rawlings discusses the objection that Jesus made predictions about His return that failed to come to pass. Bram gives thanks to Jason Engwer for helping him refine his response. Here's Engwer's blog where he comments on the video, HERE.

My blog on the topic is here: Did the New Testament's Prophecies and Predictions Regarding Jesus' Soon Return Fail?

Was Jesus a false prophet?
https://youtu.be/uM9Ml9NSAzo

Tuesday, February 22, 2022

A Quick Response to Matthew Hartke's video "Why Paul's Witness to the Resurrection Should Make You Doubt"

I posted comments to the following video by Matthew Hartke. I've reproduced those comments below.

https://youtu.be/V0sZqVZYo9c

Here are my comments:

The weakness of this video is the fact that most scholars agree that both the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts are almost certainly written by the same person [we'll call him "Luke"]. They are VOLUMES 1 & 2," so to speak. However, when we compare the resurrection appearances of Jesus in GLuke, Luke goes out of his way to emphasize the literal physicality and corporeality of Jesus' body. So much so that Luke records Jesus eating fish [and honeycomb in some textual variants] after showing them His hands and feet. It even says that initially the disciples were frightened and startled because they thought the appearance of Jesus was of a ghost/spirit. Then Jesus contradicts that thought by saying, "For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." Again, Luke is emphasizing the genuine corporeality of Jesus' body by recording all these things that way.

If Luke were fabricating and making all this up whole-cloth, then he would make the appearances to the disciples in GLuke and the appearance to Paul in Acts as similar as possible. EITHER by having both of them emphasizing Jesus' corporeality, OR both of them emphasizing the more numinous nature of Christ's appearance . Instead, the author of Acts makes it clear that they are different in nature. In Acts he's presenting Jesus' appearance to Paul as a glorious theophany in the style of the Old Testament [especially to Ezekiel]. Anthony Rogers explains this well 15 minutes into his debate with Carlos Xavier here:https://youtu.be/WhjC0jRmjmU?t=923

That Jesus' appearance to Paul was of a different kind from the other disciples is clear from not only how it differs from the accounts in Luke, but from the appearances of Jesus in Acts chapter 1. Which are also apparently more on the side of the corporeal. Luke could do both WITHOUT CONTRADICTING himself because there's a long tradition in Jewish thought that goes back to the Old Testament that the same heavenly beings can appear either as ordinary humans or as evidently supernatural entities. That's true of angels in general and also of the Angel of the LORD [i.e. the Malak/Angel of Yahweh, who many Christians like myself believe to by the pre-incarnate Christ].

Luke 24:

37 But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit.

38 And he said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts?

39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."

40 And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.

41 And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, "Have you anything here to eat?"

42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish,

43 and he took it and ate before them.

So, I would have to disagree with the statement made at 5:45 where Matthew says, "In other words, when we put all the relevant texts on the table we have very little reason for thinking that Paul's conversion experience was a physical appearance of the risen Jesus like the ones described in the resurrection narratives of Matthew, Luke and John which were all composed decades later."

Moreover, it's not the case that Paul merely makes the claim that the risen Jesus appeared to him in a numinous way [probably multiple times]. Anyone can claim a past private supernatural experience. But Paul backs it up by also claiming to perform miracles ["signs and wonders"] like the other Apostles did. Both in his past ministry and continuing ministry (cf. 2 Cor. 12:12; Rom. 15:19); 1 Cor. 2:4-5). That miracles are still occurring in our modern world in the context of teaching about the Jesus of the New Testament suggests, or is an evidential chip in favor of, the truth of Jesus' resurrection and of the Christian religion.

The quote of Strauss at 6:42 works only if one presupposes that Paul never interviewed the other Apostles and if neither the other Apostles nor he himself [i.e. Paul] were able to perform miracles attesting to the truth of their Gospel message. Yet, in the book of Galatians Paul claims to have met some of the other Apostles and to have compared their message and supernatural experiences with his own. It's not a stretch to think it went in the other direction as well such that the other Apostles compared notes with Paul's message and miraculous thaumaturgical feats.

For the evidence of modern miracles see the following books and YT videos by the following authors:

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]

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

Saturday, January 8, 2022

Did Jesus Hate Women?

This is blog not a comprehensive answer to the question. It just records a post posted on a Jewish and Christian Facebook group, and my quick response to it. Presumably it was posted by a Jewish Woman (first name "Ilana").

Christian, why do you worship an idol who hates women? I’m pretty sure the god/man hates women. Here are the facts, aside from telling a Canaanite woman that she is a dog of other nations, we see other instances that seem to support this idea of sexism from the god/man. After the resurrection, the women go to the tomb and are met by Jesus who tells Mary not to touch him—because he has not yet ascended to God, yet only ten verses later Jesus tells Thomas to touch him and believe. On the surface, the woman at the well is seen as a comforting story, but why does the writer go to such detail to inform the reader that she has been married so many times, with no backstory. Jesus directs her to go get her husband, and as the story goes, knows already that she is not married. Is there a single instance where Jesus speaks of any man’s past relational issues? Even Paul parrots this sexist nonsense when he claims that, per the law, it is not permitted for women to speak in the churches, nor teach. That was a lie. There is no such Torah law that makes that command at all. How could the judge, prophetess, wife, and military general of the Hebrew Scriptures, Deborah, have judged Israel—by using the law—while remaining silent? Other prophetesses include Miriam, Huldah, Noadiah, and Isaiah’s wife. How could the Proverbs 31 woman exist if Paul’s instructions are part of God’s plan? She has a business selling belts to the tradesmen, buys land, is praised in the gates of the city, cares well for her handmaidens, and is married.

The following was my brief response:

Compare all that with the traditional Jewish prayer:

//“Blessed are you, Lord, our God, ruler of the universe who has not created me a woman.” //

//Bessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, who has not made me a woman.//

Some have it, “Blessed are you O God, King of the Universe, Who has not made me…” and conclude, respectively, “a goy [Gentile],” “a slave,” and “a woman.”

Woman were among those who financially funded Jesus ministry. See Luke 8:3

Luke 8:1 Soon afterward he went on through cities and villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. And the twelve were with him,
2 and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out,
3 AND JOANNA, THE WIFE OF CHUZA, HEROD'S HOUSEHOLD MANAGER, AND SUSANNA, AND MANY OTHERS, WHO PROVIDED FOR THEM OUT OF THEIR MEANS

Jesus not giving a hearing to the Canaanite/Syro-Phoenician woman wasn't because she was a woman, but because she was a Gentile. Jesus said His mission was to Israelites. Only later would the Gospel go to the Gentiles as the Tanakh predicts, and Jesus' own teaching entails.

Jesus telling Mary not to touch her is better translated as "hold on" (NIV, ISV) "cling/clinging" (as the ESV, NKJV, NLT, NASB, CSB, HCSB).

//but why does the writer go to such detail to inform the reader that she has been married so many times, with no backstory.//

Adulterous and "fornicatious" affairs are sinful whether one is a man or a woman. In this case, it's a woman, rather than a man. One might as well say that the prophet Nathan was a misanthrope [a hater of men] because he exposed King David's affair with Bathsheba.

//Even Paul parrots this sexist nonsense when he claims that, per the law, it is not permitted for women to speak in the churches, nor teach.//

Even in most Jewish settings [ancient, 1st century, middle ages, and present] rabbis are only to be men.

//That was a lie. There is no such Torah law that makes that command at all.//

The Hebrew Scriptures clearly teach by inference that only men should be teachers of doctrine over both men and women. Though, it would obviously allow for women to teach their children etc.

//How could the judge, prophetess, wife, and military general of the Hebrew Scriptures, Deborah, have judged Israel—by using the law—while remaining silent?//

The New Testament also has female prophetesses (Acts 21:9; Acts 2:17-18). But Giving prophecy and teaching doctrine aren't exactly the same thing. Prophecies must be weighted/judged under both the Old and New Testament (Deut. 13 & 18). Giving prophecies doesn't necessarily make one a leader or a teacher. Paul's statement should also take all this into consideration. Paul was speaking generally about women. Most women, generally don't have the gift of prophecy. Though, some did.

//She has a business selling belts to the tradesmen, buys land, is praised in the gates of the city, cares well for her handmaidens, and is married.//

The married couple who were both tentmakers Priscilla and Aquila are mentioned 3 times in the book of Acts. Two out of the three times the female wife is mentioned first. Probably because she was more vocal in terms of evangelism and sharing the Gospel with others. While I'm not fully convinced, a case could be made that the second person mentioned in Rom. 16:7 is not only a woman (Junia), but a fellow apostle/missionary. There are debates on this issue, but it's not an impossibility.

scholarly article on the topic

https://drmsh.com/TheNakedBible/Was%20Junia%20Really%20an%20Apostle%20A%20Re%20examination%20of%20Rom%2016%207.pdf

introduction to the topic

https://www.gotquestions.org/Junia-Junias-apostle.html

Sunday, November 7, 2021

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

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.

Saturday, October 16, 2021

Why Apologists Don't Talk About the Ascension

An apostate Christian posted a video titled "Why Apologists Don't Talk About the Ascension" on YouTube. Here's what I wrote in the comments. I've included links that I didn't in the YT comments because they probably wouldn't work given YT's policy.

The New Testament presupposes that the normative "location" [so to speak] of the Messiah is to be at Yahweh's right hand till all His enemies are defeated. Meaning, in "heaven." That's why Ps. 110:1ff. is one of the most often quoted or alluded to passages in the NT. Jesus' own most favorite self-designation [which passes multiple criteria of authenticity like 1. dissimilarity/awkwardness; 1. multiple independent early attestation] is the phrase "Son of Man" which is a clear allusion to the Danielic Son of Man in Dan. 7:13-14. The figure is more likely ascending with the clouds TO the Ancient of Days rather than descending. The Apostle Paul often talks about or presupposes Jesus being in heaven with the Father to such an extent that there are some atheists who are Christ Mythicists because of this type of language and assumption on Paul's part. [BTW, even the best Mythicist Richard Carrier thinks there's still a 1/3 chance Jesus was a historical figure despite his bad arguments for Mythicism]. All the synoptic Gospels assume and teach a period of time when Jesus would go away and will come again/return. That perfectly fits in with the concept of an ascension. Remember, Paul wrote before the Gospels. His are the earliest written NT documents. Yet, the concept of the Divinity of Christ [hence the tongue-in-cheek Early High Christology Club of Hurtado and friends] and of His location in heaven as He waits for His enemies to be destroyed [1 Cor. 15] is already there. It didn't take generations for the concept to develop ad hoc.

4:32 Regarding the cessation of Jesus' appearances. That's to be expected given that only Apostles were to be inspired to give revelation on par with OT scriptures. Why also only the writings of the Apostles or their close associates are to be considered eligible for possible inclusion into the canon. If other appearances were just as common, then that would undermine the closed nature of the NT canon. Even then, that doesn't mean that the appearances completely ceased. See Licona's recent interview on his YT channel of a student of his who is writing a book on alleged extra-Biblical appearances of Jesus in the early centuries. Moreover, such appearances seem to never have completely stopped. Even in modern times there are claims. For example:
-Bob Dylan the singer claimed at one point to have seen Jesus in a vision and became a Christian for a while. Even now, it's not clear whether he has rejected Jesus or not. He seems intentionally vague on the subject.

-Anglican bishop Hugh Montefiore was a Jewish teenager when he allegedly had a vision of Jesus. The bishop's latter conservatism is questionable, but that doesn't rule out the possibility of the reality of Christ appearing to him in his youth.

-Rabbi Yitzhak Kaduri who died in 2006 was one of the most revered rabbis for many years. Before he died, he claimed the Messiah visited him. And from the message he said should be opened a year after his death, it seems he claims to have seen Jesus/Yeshua. It's my understanding that even some of his disciples have said that he privately claimed it was Jesus of Nazareth. See the various videos on YouTube where alleged former disciples acknowledge this. Also read the book "The Rabbi Who Found Messiah" by Carl Gallups

Barry Leventhal, professor of Church Missions and Ministries and Director of the Graduate School of Ministry Program at Southern Evangelical Seminary, shared the testimony of a Jewish man named Joseph who claimed Jesus visited him during the Holocaust. The following excerpt is from The Christian Post article titled, "Jesus Still Appears to People in Dreams, Even God Haters, Christian Apologist Says" By Michael Gryboski:

//...Leventhal shared the testimony of a Jewish man named Joseph who during the Holocaust was forced to work in a Nazi labor camp.

Joseph had sworn vengeance against his Lutheran neighbors who refused to help him and his family.

"He made a vow, a vow of only one thing: He would never stop hating his so-called Christian neighbors. He would always hate their Christian God; their Jesus would be his enemy as long as he lived," said Leventhal.

"His hatred for Christians and their Jesus grew with each passing day until one dark evening in his bunk, a night that would change Joseph's life forever, Jesus appeared to Joseph."

Quoting from Joseph's testimony, Leventhal recounted that on that night: "Jesus appeared to me. In the darkness of my hatred for Christians and their Jesus, Jesus appeared to me. I recognized Him in a split second, I knew who He was and His first words to me were 'Joseph, I love you. I died for you. You will survive.'"

Leventhal then said that just as God appeared to people in the Bible, so Jesus will continue to appear to people today, even God-haters, in their dreams.//

In the past few years many Muslims who have converted to Christianity claim to have been visited by Jesus either in vision and/or dream. Some of the claims have been proven to be hoaxes by con artists. But it's doubtful that all are cases of intentional deception. Especially since many of them have suffered for being a Christian, have been severely persecuted and have been disowned by or separated from family members. Some of this phenomena has been recorded in the book by Tom Doyle titled, "Dreams and Vision: Is Jesus Awakening the Muslim World?" There are also some testimonies on YouTube. Though the more popular and well known ones are from self-aggrandizing con men.

From my Christian perspective it's likely that some of the appearances I've listed above are genuinely supernatural but come from deceptive evil spirits masquerading as Jesus. But maybe some are from the actually resurrected Christ of the Bible.

Re: three-tiered universe. If Christianity is true, then the world and many things in it [including land, sea, sky, animals & plants species etc.] are designed by God to be emblematic of spiritual realities. For example, predatory animals like wolves and prey-like sheep and goats are emblematic of false teachers, true and false believers etc. Whether the human writers of the Bible believed in a literal three-tiered universe is moot. Maybe some did. Probably some didn't. Since even by the 1st century it was a common view, among other options, that the earth was probably spherical given folks like Eratosthenes. Educated writers like Luke and Paul would have known that possibility and probably didn't intend to imply or teach dogmatically a flat earth and a three-tiered universe. But rather, went along with the established imagery because of the usefulness of phenomenological language and its fitness given the emblematic nature of God's created world. Even today, when weathermen talk about the "rising of the sun" it's understood to be phenomenological language. Why assume the Biblical writers didn't understand dimensional language? Why assume that they never understood heaven, earth, and underworld language to be emblematic of different dimensions? Humans are by nature abstract thinkers. We naturally think of the number 1000 as "higher" than 10. But we know it isn't a physical or spatial "highness." In the OT Solomon is described as having said heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain God [1 Ki 8:27]. The book of Jeremiah talks about how God fills heaven and earth [Jer. 23:24]. Are those meant to deny or contradict other descriptions that God is in heaven in a way that He not on earth? Obviously not. The Jews knew a lot of this was figurative and anthropomorphic language.

Sunday, September 19, 2021

A Quick Response to the Claim that the Major Teachings of Christianity Are NOT Found in the Old Testament

In a Facebook group someone posted the following video, and I responded to it. Both are reproduced below:

The Major Teachings of Christianity Are NOT Found in the Old Testament – Rabbi Michael Skobac
https://youtu.be/pvKPhZMPPk8

Here was my quick response.

I'm a gentile Christian and watched the video. I don't have time for a full refutation or debate, but here's a quick rebuttal.

Regarding the Trinity, the Tanakh does teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Most Christians think it does so only implicitly. Some, like Anthony Rogers, think it teaches it explicitly. I recommend Anthony Rogers' youtube videos and articles online which show how the Trinity is in the Tanakh/Old Testament. I'll link to them in another comment below.

Regarding the Torah, Jesus said in Matt. 5:17ff. that He didn't come to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them. The moral precepts and general equity of the Torah [indeed also of the Nevi'im and Kethuvim] are still binding. For example, the prohibition against idolatry, murder, theft, perjury in bearing false witness etc. But the ceremonial aspects of the law including sacrifices and the food laws have been fulfilled in Moshiach/Christ so that they don't have to be observed anymore. Animal blood sacrifices [and other bloodless sacrifices like grain offerings etc.] are no longer necessary because of Yeshua's/Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is sufficient for the forgiveness of sins through faith and repentance. The laws regarding ritual purity served their purpose to distinguish the people of God from the unclean gentiles. They were an object lesson to the people of God to remain holy. But now that the Kingdom of God is extended to the gentiles, these ceremonial aspects no longer apply. For example, the distinction between clean and unclean meats was meant to distinguish Jewish members in God's holy covenant community from unholy gentiles outside the covenant. Now that the covenant is for nations, these ceremonial aspects are no longer required. It is not wrong to still observe them, but they are no longer required of either Jews or Gentiles. Though, requiring their observance for acceptance before God is wrong.

Regarding the idea that the church replaces Israel, that's a misunderstanding of the New Testament on the part of many Christians. It's not that the Church replaces Israel, rather the Church is the further application and expansion of the concept already found in the Tanakh. In the later writings of the prophets there developed the concept of the distinction between Israel as a whole and Remnant Israel who comprised the faithful members of Israel. A subset within Israel. The Church is meant to be the visible separation of faithful Israel from unfaithful Israel. If Yeshua is the Messiah, then to deny His Messiahship is to separate oneself from Remnant Israel.

Regarding faith in Jesus for salvation, Christianity rightly understood affirms the need for repentance from sins and a striving for holiness. It merely grounds forgiveness of sins in the atonement God the Father provided in the sacrifice of Jesus rather than the blood sacrifices commanded in the Torah. The sacrifices described in the whole Tanakh tell us that forgiveness requires blood atonement. Blood sacrifices have never been abrogated. Jesus is the fulfillment of those sacrifices. If the Trinity is true as Trinitarians like Anthony Rogers say, then Jesus is Adonai along with the Father and the Holy Spirit. In which case, believing in Jesus not trusting in a merely human messiah, but trusting in Adonai who has taken the form of humanity by incarnation. This is anticipated and foreshadowed by the many times Hashem manifested in physical form. For example when He was "walking in the cool of the day" in Gen. 3:8. When Adonai and two angels appeared in human form to Abraham in Gen. chapters 18-19. Adonai actually ate the food presented to him by Sarah and Abraham. When Moses and the Elders beheld the God of Israel in a human form [which included hands] in Exodus 24:10-11. When the Angel of YHWH and the Word of YHWH [who was the pre-incarnate Jesus] appeared in the Tanakh and is sometimes referred to and identified as YHWH [often later dropping the descriptive phrase "Angel of" and "Word of" and calling the figure YHWH simplicitur]. For example, in 1 Sam. 3; Zech. 3; Judges 6; Gen. 16; Exo. 3.

Watch the videos and debates of Anthony Rogers on youtube in defense of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ. Also check out my blog in defense of the Trinity. I have great links to other resources as well as "articles" I wrote myself. Anthony Rogers is my favorite living defender of the Trinity among many defenders I appreciate.

The Trinity in Jewish and Christian Scripture by Anthony Rogers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8ziIyc7IQE&list=PLuXxHEHGRVu9Et4L2kxCdoUCcJeheDJST&index=2

Anthony Rogers' Youtube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/user/Ousias1/videos

A Playlist of SOME of Anthony Rogers' Debates in Video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_dVwumQ0-k&list=PLshImU6jwhvz8X0uDbNJPxdchOVyPoO6f

Anthony Rogers' Articles at Answering Islam on the Trinity and Islam:

https://www.answering-islam.org/authors/rogers.html

ALL of Anthony Rogers' Debates in MP3:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/anthony-rogers-debates/id1443906144?fbclid=IwAR196HAP6DuPTG8m3X1SPg26oTjojva_FDjtO2nsqk7o9zmyQcpVV7dnN-w

Did Eve Believe Her Firstborn Child Was the Messiah, God Himself? PART ONE & PART TWO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd__Dr9g9Ew&list=PLnLlymBIRkYZVLpacWElLK7zOmEAl95_H

My Own Blog in defense of the Trinity:

www.TrinityNotes.blogspot.com

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 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

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

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

Useful Books in Defense of Jesus' Genuine Messiahship:

Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament by G. K. Beale (Editor), D. A. Carson

Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus (5 volumes) by Michael L. Brown

The Real Kosher Jesus by Michael L. Brown

Jewish New Testament Commentary by David H. Stern

Messianic Judaism: A Modern Movement with an Ancient Past by David H. Stern

Jesus the Messiah: Tracing the Promises, Expectations, and Coming of Israel's King by Herbert Bateman IV, Gordon Johnston and Darrell Bock

The Messiah in the Old Testament by Walter C. Kaiser

Messianic Christology by Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum

Footsteps of the Messiah by Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum

Are You the One Who Is to Come?: The Historical Jesus and the Messianic Question by Michael F. Bird

The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic? by Michael Rydelnik

Behold Your King: Prophetic Proofs that Jesus is the Messiah by William Webster

Return of the Kosher Pig by Itzhak Shapira

The Gospel According to Isaiah 53: Encountering the Suffering Servant in Jewish and Christian Theology by Darrell Bock (editor) and Mitch Glaser (editor)

All the Messianic Prophecies of the Bible by Herbert Lockyer

The Prophecies of the Old Testament Respecting the Messiah by John Gill (written in the 18th century)

The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah by Alfred Edersheim (the original written in the 19th century and which is now in the public domain)

Messiah in Both Testaments by Fred John Meldau (introductory material on the subject)

Christology of the Old Testament by E.W. Hengstenberg (written in the 18th century)

Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology)

Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament Christopher J. H. Wright

A Zeal For God Not According to Knowledge: A Refutation of Judaism's Arguments Against Christianity, 2nd Edition by Eric V. Snow

Christ in All the Scriptures by A.M. Hodgkin (originally published 1922)

[Recommended by Steve Hays]

The Servant King: The Bible's portrait of the Messiah by T. D. Alexander and Alec Motyer

Look to the Rock: An Old Testament Background to Our Understanding of Christ by Alec Motyer

The Christ of the Prophets by O. Palmer Robertson

The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic? (NAC Studies in Bible & Theology) by Michael Rydelnik

The Moody Handbook of Messianic Prophecy: Studies and Expositions of the Messiah in the Old Testament by Michael Rydelnik (Editor), Edwin Blum (Editor)

The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition and Interpretation by John H. Sailhamer

Refuting Rabbinic Objections to Christianity & Messianic Prophecies by Eitan Bar

How the New Testament Quotes the Old Testament by Messianic Jew Arnold Fruchtenbaum

http://arielb.org/archives/794

//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.//

How An Atheist Scholar Bart Ehrman Misleads Millions Of People

In these short videos William Lane Craig exposes how Bart Ehrman misleads people by his misdefining, misapplying, and conflation of the various historical "Criteria of Authenticity". Here's the playlist link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zANl-OcPnfI&list=PLshImU6jwhvz77QRcIo1HkBnZLIW0pMT1

Mike Winger exposes how Bart Ehrman misleads people using shoddy scholarship:

How An Atheist Scholar Misleads Millions Of People: The Mark Series pt 65 (15:34)
https://youtu.be/g2ne3ndnVQk