 |
| Dr G Habermas of LU |
Dr Habermas is the 'Distinguished Research Professor and Chair' in the Department of Philosophy and Theology at Liberty University, where he has taught for 26 years.
Dr Habermas catches Islamic attention
I was going through an old lecture by Dr Gary Habermas on the hype surrounding the Talpiot tomb; his lecture was an insightful debunking of what was over-hyped “nonsense” fuelled by Hollywood (James Cameron was an executive producer of the 2007 documentary).
However, neither the hype nor the assumption-laden crews from Hollywood grabbed my attention but a couple of outspoken remarks by Dr Gary Habermas got me wondering:
“I don’t think there is any crime if Jesus was MARRIED” [time slice 20-22mins]
“I don’t think there is any crime if Jesus had CHILDREN” [time slice 20-22mins]
Myopic
Dr Habermas’ dismissal of any theological concerns arising from the thought of Jesus marrying is myopic to say the least.
'The Son of The Son'?!?!
The mind boggles! Does Dr Habermas not have an issue with somebody who Trinitarian Christians describe as the son having a son? Christian theologians would be taken aback by this conundrum even whilst utilizing the idea of hypostatic union (dual nature, the god-man) in an attempt to deflect the subsequent problematic thought patterns.
Another conundrum for the church
A further conundrum would be that of Jesus (who they church calls 'the son') being a father (if he sired a child); the tripartite formula would have another problem amongst other more serious complications. Apparently Dr Habermas does not see theological contention here.
'Trinitarians would believe God had a WIFE'?!!?
Surely there are issues here for Christian theologians. The problem for the Trinitarians is obvious. There are other problems such as, if the Catholics hold onto the (non-Sola Scriptura) idea of Mary’s immaculate conception as well as her perpetual virginity due to her title of Theotokos (“god bearer”) then surely there would be a whole host of issues around Jesus having a wife/wives and child(ren) within Christian circles.
Note Bene: immaculate conception should not be confused with the virgin birth. The two are distinct beliefs. Immaculate conception belief refers to Mary being born without original sin whilst the virgin birth is the miraculous birth of Jesus
God having marital relations?!?!
Theoretically, marriage also entails conjugal relations. I have seen rhetoric from fundamentalist Christians (chiefly Islamophobes) bashing the Islamic belief of Heaven being a place where sexual relations will take place as well as other physical pleasures such as eating (it must not be forgotten the ultimate bliss in Paradise according to Muslims is that of closeness to Allah – spiritual bliss). Quite how these Christians could stomach Dr Habermas’ proclamation is beyond me.
The idea of sex in Paradise is discussed here:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/search/label/Sex%20in%20Paradise
Original sin
Would the (theoretical) offspring and wife (or wives) of Jesus be considered free from the original sin just as the Catholics view Mary. I would imagine the Catholics would have exempted the wife (or wives) and the offspring from original sin whilst the Reformed Church would have held firm and cited Sola Scriptura as their premise.
Surely Dr Habermas cans see the problems here..
Ssssshhhhhh!!! (LITERAL 'daughter and wife of god')
You are aware of the bible verse (1 Corinthians 14:34) which instruct women to be silent in the church; surely it would be a brave priest to enforce such a law upon the daughter (or wife) of the man they are worshipping.
Does Dr Habermas want to retract his comments?
Further problematic issues arising from this theoretical marriage:
*Would the offspring be considered those of a dual nature (i.e god men)?
*Also would the wife be afflicted with ritual impurity through giving birth to the children of her god?
*Why would Jesus take a wife if he was sent down as a sacrifice?
Conclusion
Of course, it is "no crime" for Jesus to have wife and child but for the Christian theologian it is a headache. Surely the evangelical Dr Gary Habermas will concede this point...
The Lost Tomb of Jesus Controversy – Dr Gary Habermas Debunks the Claim
Popular names are NOT evidence!
The names of “Yeshua” (Jesus), “Yehosef” (Joseph) and “Maria” (Mary) is NOT evidence of this tomb being that of Jesus as these names were immensely popular in Jerusalem.
Jesus had NO son (never mind a son called Judah!!!)
Furthermore, the name Judah son of Jesus (Yehuda bar Yeshua) automatically pours cold water on the initial assumptions of the documentary makers as there is NO record of Jesus having a son.
No attention for the initial documentary
Prior to the Discovery Channel’s documentary there was a BBC documentary on the SAME subject but the BBC documentary gained little attention; now that is saying something about the impotency of the wishful claims around the tomb. So why did the Discovery Channel’s documentary attract attention? Hype, Hollywood style:
“It doesn't get bigger than this” [James Cameron, Hollywood film director]
Archaeologist cuts through the hype
Perhaps the most important debunker is professor Amos Kloner, who oversaw the original archaeological dig of this tomb in 1980:
"It makes a great story for a TV film," Kloner told the Jerusalem Post. "But it's completely impossible. It's nonsense."
"I don't accept the news that it was used by Jesus or his family"
"The documentary filmmakers are using it to sell their film."
Quotes from:http://townhall.com/Columnists/BrentBozell/2007/02/28/what_bones_of_jesus
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6397373.stm
Would Muslims or Christians accept the idea of the body of Jesus being present in a tomb?
No! Muslims believe Jesus was raised up to God (Quran 4: 155-162)whilst Christians* believe in a PHYSICAL (bodily) resurrection thus NO Muslim or Christian believes in an earthly body of Jesus being available for discovery.
Substitution theory?
However, there is a theory of substitution which dictates Jesus was substituted by another man and thus saved from death. If this theory is correct this man mistakenly believed to be Jesus would certainly have a tomb and it would have been inscribed with the name Yeshua.
*Gnostics did believe in a spiritual resurrection of Jesus (from ~200AD onwards)
Invitation to Islam:
http://www.ediscoverislam.com/
Feedback: yahyasnow@yahya snow@yahoo.co.uk
22 comments:
here's an article I wrote about how israel is god's wife and son:
So in other words god has a son, and a wife! Or a father and a wife? A son and a mother?
I was watching Jack Van Impe last night (nearly every channel on tv has christian programming after 11pm). After Israel invaded that flotilla, christians around the world praised Israel and defended it's action. They always do. Doesn't matter if Israel kills thousands of civillians, the bible still says it's their promised land. And that's what Jack was doing. He gave all these verses from the bible citing god's love for them. He cited Jeremiah 3:14 and here it is:
"Return, faithless people," declares the LORD, "for I am your husband. I will choose you--one from a town and two from a clan--and bring you to Zion.
Now this is TOTALLY contradictory to Exodus 4:22
Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn SON,
I have been sitting quietly(for the most part) and observing what these crazy missionaries are bringing against Islam. The number one fault in their premises are that they never ever evaluate what ground they stand in when they do attack Islam. All of their arguments tear away at the foundation of their own faith.. wow.. God having a wife and children not a problem? thats a massive theological dilemma doc!!
mike
If Jesus was God
If Jesus was God, how could He pray to God?
If Jesus was GOD, then why in Mark 12:29 Jesus said "Here, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord." The words "our God" indicate that Jesus had a higher God over him, a stronger God than him. Jesus didn't say "Your God". He said "our God" which includes Jesus as the creation of GOD.
If Jesus was GOD, then why in John 20:17 Jesus said I ascend to my God and your God? This tells us that we and Jesus have a common GOD.
If Jesus was GOD, then why in John 8:28 Jesus said "I do nothing of myself"? Can't GOD do anything he wills?
If Jesus was GOD, then why in John 14:28 Jesus said "My Father (GOD) is greater than I"?
If Jesus was GOD, then why in Luke 23:46 Jesus said "Father (GOD), into thy hands I commend my spirit"?
If Jesus was GOD, then why in Matthew 19:16 Jesus said "Why call me good, there is none good but One, that is GOD"?
If Jesus was GOD, then why in John 5:36-38 Jesus said that GOD had assigned him (Jesus) work and GOD is a witness on Jesus?
If Jesus was GOD, then why in John 5:32 Jesus told his followers that they have never seen GOD at anytime nor ever heard his voice?
If Jesus was GOD, then why did he pray to his GOD in Luke 5:16?
The "God" Title:
How come Christians take the "God" (theos in Greek) title literally with Jesus in Isiah 9:6 and they don't take it literally for the rest of the prophets and people who were called Gods ?
The Prophets who were called "God" in the Bible are as follows:
Prophet Moses in Exodus 7:1
The Devil in Corinthians 4:4 (the word for God in this verse is theos in Greek, the same used for Jesus that was translated as "God")
Multiple Prophets in Psalms 82:6
King David in Psalm 45:3
With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord....
Mash'Allah brothers! You got em on the run!!!
Yahya, you said:
Dr Gary Habermas has no problem in believing his god had a wife???
Does Dr Habermas not have an issue with the son having a son? Christian theologians would be taken aback by this conundrum even whilst invoking the idea of hypostatic union (dual nature, the god-man) in an attempt to deflect the subsequent problematic thought patterns.
If Jesus was to have a wife and a child, His child would be fully human and would not be God. Jesus is the only Son and He is God Incarnate. My theory is that the human genes from Lord Jesus and the human genes from His wife would be sufficient to produce a fully human baby. Because God dwelled in the flesh does not mean that "parts of God" or "full God" would be passed down to offspring. Besides, Jesus having a wife and offspring did not happen and was not Gods plan. Keep in mind, Christians arent talking about a biological Father of the Sonne.
A further conundrum would be that of the son being a father (if he sired a child); the clarity of the Son and the Father in the tripartite formula would be further diluted
Why so? Just because Jesus would be a father to a human child? Is it a conundrum for me to have a Father in Heaven and to have a biological father here on earth?
*Would the offspring be considered those of a dual nature (i.e god men)?
*Also would the wife be afflicted with ritual impurity through giving birth to the children of her god?
*Why would Jesus take a wife if he was sent down as a sacrifice?
The first answer would be NO. Therefore the second question in obsolete. And the answwer to the third question is YES, WHY WOULD Jesus take a wife if He was the Sacrifice? He obviously didint, and it would be illogical if He did.
for the Christian theologian it is a headache.
If it actually happened, maybe, but i dont think it would have been as much of a headache as Muhammad being the intercessor for Allah in one of the madhabs.
there is a theory of substitution which dictates Jesus was substituted by another man and thus saved from death.
This "theory of substitution" is straight out of your Quran. The Gnostics had a completely different worldview with "evil matter" and "good matter," a good god and a bad god in some cases. But thank you for including the "200 AD onwards" part which is indicative of the fact that ALL of the EARLY Christians believed in Jesus' PHYSICAL resurrection and NOT what heretical Christians said 200 years later or what Muhammad said 500 years later.
I will watch these pop documentaries when i get a chance.
I think such theorizing might be a little insulting or offensive to other Christians.
I wish some of you would "theorize" as to what would have happened if Muhammad didint kill all his enemies and Islam hadnt conquered lands.
Manny,
None of those things are problematic for Christians. You simply do not understand what Christians mean when we say that God incarnated flesh and you do not understand the Trinity. You understand the Trinity through the Quranic concept which is wrong and flawed and is not what Christians believe. Please just get a study Bible! I bet half of you would become followers of the True Living God if only you would read the Bible fully and with some study tips.
Anonymous: I bet half of you would become followers of the True Living God if only you would read the Bible fully and with some study tips.
Yeah right! So people like Bart Ehrman, Hector Avalos and others never the read the bible fully, even though they were scholars of the book? Put a sock in it, Anonymousing.
Anonymous: If Jesus was to have a wife and a child, His child would be fully human and would not be God.
Why not? If as Genesis 6:1-4 says the sons of God copulated with human women to produce super humans like the Nephilim, then why can't Jesus, who is the greatest son of God as Christians believe, reproduce a being greater than the Nephilim and closer to being a God?
Not that I believe any of the Trinitarian nonsense, I am just seeing how far you guys can go with your blind beliefs.
Ibm,
Bart Ehrman, Hector Avalos and others never the read the bible fully, even though they were scholars of the book?
I dont know about Hector, but i do know Bart was indeed a Christian before some tragedy (a death?) occurred in his family and he stopped believing in the True Living God. Its funny ibn, you always chide people for being "illiterate" - look at what you wrote.
Anonymous: If Jesus was to have a wife and a child, His child would be fully human and would not be God.
Why not? If as Genesis 6:1-4 says the sons of God copulated with human women to produce super humans like the Nephilim, then why can't Jesus, who is the greatest son of God as Christians believe
Christians dont believe Jesus to be some "greatest" Son of God, we believe Him to be the Only Son of God, being fully God in His nature. The "sons of God" spoken of in Gen 6 are either fallen angels or male followers (spiritual sons) of God (ie. believers) from the line of Seth, they are NOT God, it is NOT the same thing as IF Jesus were to have a child. In fact, Jesus was and IS their God, He is Sovereign over all. And again, Jesus having a child was not Gods plan.
Anonymous: I dont know about Hector, but i do know Bart was indeed a Christian before some tragedy (a death?) occurred in his family and he stopped believing in the True Living God.
According to wikipedia, "Ehrman became an Evangelical Christian as a teen. His desire to understand the original words of the Bible led him to the study of ancient languages and to textual criticism, to which he attributes the inspiration for an ongoing critical exploration of the basis of his own religious beliefs, which in turn gradually led to the questioning of his faith in the Bible as the inerrant, unchanging word of God. He now considers himself an agnostic."
And in his own words, "I became a historian of antiquity, and for twenty-five years now I have done my research in this area night and day. I'm not a philosopher like Bill; I'm a historian dedicated to finding the historical truth. After years of studying, I finally came to the conclusion that everything I had previously thought about the historical evidence of the resurrection was absolutely wrong." (transcript from the Craig-Ehrman debate)
Anonymous: Christians dont believe Jesus to be some "greatest" Son of God, we believe Him to be the Only Son of God, being fully God in His nature. The "sons of God" spoken of in Gen 6 are either fallen angels or male followers (spiritual sons) of God (ie. believers) from the line of Seth, they are NOT God, it is NOT the same thing as IF Jesus were to have a child.
You are attacking a straw man. I did not say the sons of God were God. What I said was, if the sons of God can reproduce superhumans, why not Jesus since he is more than a normal human being?
Ibn,
Wikipedia is a bad resource.
I heard Bart say DURING a debate that he suffered through something which made him reconsider everything he knew about God and he started to look at things with a different angle. I will leave it up for you to find out which debate it was. I feel Bart will once again proclaim Christ as his Lord and Savior, in due time, everyone will bow to Christ.
Here is an excerpt from HIS BOOK, God's Problem (c'mon, should be 'Barts Problem'):
If there is an all-powerful and loving God in this world, why is there so much excruciating pain and unspeakable suffering? The problem of suffering has haunted me for a very long time. It was what made me begin to think about religion when I was young, and it was what led me to question my faith when I was older. ULTIMATELY, IT WAS THE REASON I LOST MY FAITH.
Tear ;( As you can see, Bart did not stopp believing because there was something wrong with the Bible or the Trinity or Christianity, in fact he was an evangelist.
ULTIMATELY, it was the problem of evil. All the wikipedia stuff you quote is a later development of his confessed abandonment; an effect to a cause. as he says in the Craig debate, "After YEARS of studying, I FINALLY came to the conclusion that EVERYTHING I had PREVIOUSLY thought about the historical evidence of the resurrection was absolutely wrong."
AFTER being haunted by this giant problem of excruciating and unspeakable human suffering, AFTER struggling all his life with the concept of pain and evil - as he "matured" (heart hardened) and experienced pain in his personal life he began developing these textual criticisms and theological views.
He says this is ultimately what drew him to "religion" from the earliest age - evil, the problem of. He is simply a rebellious sinner who cannot deal with pain and suffering in the world. Not to say that the problem of evil isn’t one mystery that overshadows us all. In case you misunderstood my other post, Ibn, I was referring to Muslims who have a Quranic concept of Jesus.
So..how does Islam explain the problem of evil?
Note: Bart provides many similar quotes through his book.
Ibn,
You are attacking a straw man. I did not say the sons of God were God.
I am not attacking a straw man and i never said that you said the sons of God were God.
What I did was show you the contextual incompatibility of juxtaposing those verse together.
Those "sons of God" WERE NOT God (according to the Bible, which you acknowledged), and Jesus IS fully God (according to the Bible). you are basically saying, 'the sons of God reproduced in Gen 6, since Jesus is The Son of God that means Jesus could reproduce.' No. Notice that those "sons of God" mentioned in Gen. 6 were just like humans, angels, animals, or you and me, ie. THE CREATION.
if the sons of God can reproduce superhumans, why not Jesus since he is more than a normal human being?
Jesus is not just "more than a normal human being". The Gospels teach us that Jesus is God INCARNATE, FULLY God and FULLY man, ETERNAL and the ONLY Son - UNCREATED. There is no such thing as 'God genes,' God does not "reproduce", there is God and
there is His creation. The Thrice Holy God exists eternally as ONE BEING beyond comprehension. Holy Holy Holy is the Lord of Hosts, THE WHOLE EARTH IS FULL OF HIS GLORY! - a Three fold repetition is the STRONGEST superlative ;)
Since Jesus was FULLY MAN He had the capability to have a fully human baby, and the Bible tells us Jesus is the ONLY Son, the logical conclusion is that Jesus' baby would not be God but would be human (ie. not part of the Trinity) because there is only ONE Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Just as Dr. Gary Habermans said, no big deal even IF Jesus were to have a baby = Jesus is the ONLY SON! Hear Oh Israel YHWH Elohim is ONE Elohim!
Note: Jesus had the "capability" to do anything.
Ibn,
Not that I believe any of the Trinitarian nonsense
And the Trinity is not nonsence, it is the logical conclusion (as far as we understand as of yet) to the inspired Word of God and to what Jesus said about Himself, and about the Father, and about the Holy Spirit. It is the fulfillment AND continuation of Gods promise to Tabernacle with His people from ALL nations - stemming even from before there were waters for the Spirit of God to dwell over! Praise God!
The verse I quoted above - THE WHOLE EARTH IS FULL OF HIS GLORY - is a "technical term for Gods manifest presence with his covenant people. It was SEEN in the cloud of the wilderness (Ex. 16:7, 10); it moved in to "FILL" the tabernacle (Ex.40:34-35) and then the temple (1 Kings 8:11), where the worshipers could "SEE" it (Ex. 29:43; Ps. 72:19; Hab. 2:14; cf. Isa. 11:9); Other texts in Isaiah also look forward to the revealing of the Lord's glory to the world (Is. 11:10; 35:2; 40:5; 58:8; 59:19; 60:1-2; 66:18). John 1:14 asserts that this glory was present in Jesus." - straight out of my study Bible.
Thats why i think Muslims should get a study Bible. Gods Glory was revealed in the person of Jesus, the Holy Spirit dwells with us.
Praise God!
hey anonymous how about u answer me on the bible contradiciton.
holy spirit? pfft LOL
Anthony Rogers: Wikipedia is a bad resource.
If you want more, here is a video of him explaining the reasons for his apostasy
http://www.atheistadam.com/29207/top-bible-scholar-leaves-christianity/
Anthony Rogers: I heard Bart say
Hearsay doesn't count as evidence.
Anthony Rogers: Here is an excerpt from HIS BOOK, God's Problem
Actually, you said earlier that it was the loss of someone very close to him which led Ehrman to lose his faith. The passage you quoted has Ehrman talking about the problem of evil in general, not the loss of anyone close to him in particular. Whatever the case is, your (or was it Anonymousing's?) contention that people who properly study the bible will become (or remain) firm Christians is false since there are scholars of the bible that have either lost their faith(as in Ehrman and Avalos)or who don't really believe but continue to identify themselves as cultural Christians (like Robert Price and others of the Jesus Seminar).
Anthony Rogers: Notice that those "sons of God" mentioned in Gen. 6 were just like humans, angels, animals, or you and me, ie. THE CREATION.
That's the point. If the sons of God were just like humans, and they copulated with normal humans to produce superhumans, then why can't Jesus who was fully human but also possessed additional extraordinary qualities?
AR: And the Trinity is not nonsence, it is the logical conclusion (as far as we understand as of yet) to the inspired Word of God and to what Jesus said about Himself, and about the Father, and about the Holy Spirit. It is the fulfillment AND continuation of Gods promise to Tabernacle with His people from ALL nations - stemming even from before there were waters for the Spirit of God to dwell over! Praise God! The verse I quoted above - THE WHOLE EARTH IS FULL OF HIS GLORY - is a "technical term for Gods manifest presence with his covenant people. It was SEEN in the cloud of the wilderness (Ex. 16:7, 10); it moved in to "FILL" the tabernacle (Ex.40:34-35) and then the temple (1 Kings 8:11), where the worshipers could "SEE" it (Ex. 29:43; Ps. 72:19; Hab. 2:14; cf. Isa. 11:9); Other texts in Isaiah also look forward to the revealing of the Lord's glory to the world (Is. 11:10; 35:2; 40:5; 58:8; 59:19; 60:1-2; 66:18). John 1:14 asserts that this glory was present in Jesus." - straight out of my study Bible.
Blah blah blah!
ANTHONY ROGERS?!?!
Ibn,
Actually, you said earlier that it was the loss of someone very close to him which led Ehrman to lose his faith.
It was. But i understand how you might think this hearsay. No matter, anyone who wants to do some digging or research into Ehrmans life is free to do so (at their own discretion), at which point they will find what im saying is true. This 'tragedy' was in effect 'the tipping point' with HIS OWN problem of evil. And you can see from my quote that he 'left' Christianity (nobody actually 'leaves' - they were just never 'there') not because of some historical contradiction or textual variant like you imply, but because the world was evil and he couldint handle it.
your (or was it Anonymousing's?) contention that people who properly study the bible will become (or remain) firm Christians
My contention was for Muslims who are reading this blog and who have a Quranic concept of Jesus and who believe in a god, not Ehrmanites. And i never said any of those things either way! "properly study the bible"? when did i say this? i said study tip. Im just telling MUSLIMS who have not read the Bible to GET ONE (particularly a STUDY Bible) because according to me some would read it and find AL HAQQ. And if you notice in my post i said "I BET HALF OF YOU", not as you imply, 'everyone who reads the Bible will automatically become Christian!' - thats your assertion and I never said that.
AND I DONT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU KEEP REFERRING TO ME AS ANTHONY ROGERS. THIS IS NOT MY NAME AND I AM NOT ANTHONY ROGERS (although I do find his posts greatly informative, insightful, and uplifting).
ie. THE CREATION. That's the point. If the sons of God were just like humans, and they copulated with normal humans to produce superhumans, then why can't Jesus who was fully human but also possessed additional extraordinary qualities?
According to the Bible Jesus is ETERNALLY UNCREATED. I have addressed these issues in my previous post.
BUT WHAT I WRITE PROBABLY DOESN’T EVEN MATTER AS MOST OF YOU PROBABLY DON’T EVEN BOTHER TO READ OR THINK ABOUT THE BIBLE AND ARE TOO PARANOID OVER SAM AND NOW ANTHONY. WHATEVER, ITS YOUR SOULS.
HAPPY THANKSGIVING.
anonymous your bible is nothing compared to the quran. when one reads the quran he/she can clearly see this is a book from God. ANYONE can read the bible and feel nothing. my mom went to a missionary school in india where she studied the bible for 12 years. and you know what? she's a good Muslim who knows Islam and Christianity inside and out. because God's guiding her
Sure Ali, Suuuuuuure.
Ali,
Maybe if your momma had actually read it we wouldint be having this conversation.
You should get one.
anonymous is clearly in denial. he's afraid if he admits to the truth the holy spirit will dishonor him.
i restate what i said before, ANYONE can read the bible with a clear mind and see the obvious errors. while when one reads the quran, they can easily understand how this is a book beyond human creation.
Post a Comment