Sunday, 13 October 2013

Intellectual Honesty and Abuse of Apologist statements

There is a subject which I do get irritated by is the abuse of the statements of apologists in order to falsify a doctrine. One example I can give is the abuse of William Lane Craig in his debate with Tovia Singer. I have seen MuslimByChoice and others ABUSE ONE statement by him which I have recorded down. The quote in it's context says:
"We are coming at this question from 2 different sets of scripture or holy inspired writings and I would agree with Tovia that if you approached this question simply on the basis of the Hebrew Bible or what we would call the OT, One wouldn't come to believe that God is a Trinity, but if you approach this from the writings of the NT which I believe are equally inspired by God then the doctrine of the Trinity is taught there and so I think it will depend on which scriptures you look at to see whether or not God is a Trinity and I would say furthermore that the doctrine of the Trinity is NOT IN ANYWAY INCOMPATIBLE WITH ANY THING REVEALED IN THE OT".

If people had actually BOTHERED to pay attention to what Lane Craig says, he goes on to say that the Trinity is NOT incompatible with the Old Testament. I have one person come to me saying "Well Lane Craig is being intellectually honest". How is Lane Craig's statement even remotely such? When you read the New Testament as a historical document, it tells you what the earliest Christians believed and what scriptures they USED.

The apostles and their followers had the Old Testament as their scripture and the New Testament was not around in the time of Jesus death and resurrection. When the apostles wrote their letters, they relied on the Old Testament as their scripture to utilise and recognised Jesus made radical claims that no man could make. One example Paul applies Joel 2:32 to JESUS and when you go back to the prophet Joel, The letter speaks of calling on the name of YHWH to be saved and thus Paul applies it to Christ. John regarding Isaiah 6 even says Isaiah saw his glory and spoke of him referring to Christ, but again when you go back to the Old Testament, YHWH is seen by Isaiah.

The writer to the Hebrews quotes from Psalm 95 in Chapters 3 and 4. In Chapter 3 he attributes 8-11 and part of 7 to the Holy Spirit uttering this verse, yet in Chapter 4 it says GOD spoke through David "Don't harden your hearts". What's the connection, The Holy Spirit in the context of the Chapters is identified as God yet Jesus in John's Gospel treats him as a distinct person from God. The apostles were experiential Trinitarians as James White puts it.

Also, Psalm 102:25-27 the Psalmist is speaking of YHWH God yet the writer of Hebrews takes this and applies it to JESUS as the God the one who is forever the same and doesn't change
"Psalm 102:23 In the course of my life[b] he broke my strength;
    he cut short my days.
24 So I said:
“Do not take me away, my God, in the midst of my days;
    your years go on through all generations.
25 In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth,
    and the heavens are the work of your hands.
26 They will perish, but you remain;
    they will all wear out like a garment.
Like clothing you will change them
    and they will be discarded.
27 But you remain the same,
    and your years will never end.
28 The children of your servants will live in your presence;
    their descendants will be established before you.”"
WHY, Is the writer of the Hebrews applying this Psalm to Jesus when it speaks of YHWH? Father and Son share the same divine nature and the NT writers did NOT have the New Testament to work with. (Although in 2nd Peter, Paul's letters are in circulation).
Yes I know I am quoting from the New Testament, but what is my point. The New Testament writers apply Old Testament passages to Jesus and did recognise God's Triunity WITHOUT THE USE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

How would the Rabbinical Community feel if I abuse what Benjamin Sommer said about the Trinity and him admiting that Jews have no theological basis for rejecting the Trinity. he later rejects it as heretical in the same context. I am sure no Rabbinic Jew will accept my abuse of the first part of his statement. If not, Well thank you I return the complement when you abuse what Lane Craig said. I'll say the same thing about the Muslims, What if I took a statement made by Shabir Ali and abused it like MuslimByChoice did with Lane Craig? You would not appreciate that would you, If not, Well thank you I return the compliment.

You may think I am comparing apples and pineapples but really, I am just simply making a point. WHY ARE YOU ABUSING LANE CRAIG WHO IS ROUGHLY 2000 YEARS REMOVED FROM THE APOSTLES? That's my question to the Rabbinic Jews and the Muslims. 

Response Continues here:

No comments:

Post a Comment