Monday, December 10, 2012

Is John's gospel the same as Paul's?

This is an article in response to a group that is commonly referred to as hyper-Dispensationalist. Many of which would refer to their teach as the "gospel of Paul".  This group argues that the apostle Paul was give a special dispensation to give the gospel to the Gentiles.  This much is biblically based (read Galatians 2 and Ephesians 3).
So that Jesus and the apostles were not concerned about doctrines like justification by grace through Fsith alone.  Instead they were focused on "the Gospel of the kingdom" as they delivered the gospel to the circumcised.
However hyper Dispensationalist take an extra step in this.  They claim that there are in fact 2 gospels. As a result the writings of the apostles have no direct message to the believer today. In an extension to this further the writings of John were meant for the Jews only.

It is significant that John wrote this after the fall of Jerusalem. It is also significant that John was writing either amongst gentile converts in Ephesus or to thesis rounding cities from the island of Malta, in both cases these people were evangelized by Paul.

Yes, John the baptist preaches a baptism of repentance. But the apostle John doesn't mention it.

That is from the Synoptics for a reason.

In regards to John 3:16.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

First of all John and Paul wrote Greek not English and several translations translate the word "shall"

Secondly, assuming that "should" is the proper translation it makes no difference for two reasons.

A. In John 3:17 John is telling Gentiles that "the world through him might be saved" meaning that the gospel John is preaching is available to them.

B. John 3:18 says "He that beleiveth is not condemned.." this is present tense. So Gentiles reading the gospel of John had a sure foundation for their salvation that no one could tear asunder.

John 4:23 has Jesus prophecy "But the hour cometh AND NOW IS, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth:"

John is not writing for the departed Israel, this not a lamentation this is the good news.

And church history records how John would minister to the Gentiles. One of his disciples was the martyr polycarp. And He had a disciple named Irenaeus whose association to John gave him the ability to make the open and shut case that John was the authentic gospel of John.

Paul stated that his gospel was that which was seen of the apostles
1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

ephesians 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

The gospel is not divided

Friday, December 7, 2012

Some thoughts on acts 8:37

Acts 8:36-38 King James Version (KJV
acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

 Earlier this week on a facebook group I was debating the superiority and inspiration on the text receptus. Another facebook user challenged me about this specific text "I assume you believe as well that Acts 8:37 was taken out of many bibles based on a conspiracy, yes?"

Here is my response.

Acts 8:37 is part of the textus Receptus Greek, greek manuscript E08 and the western Latin tradition. 9not to mention the early english translations (tyndal, wycliff. matthew, geneva. AV etc.) and any TR based translation.
We don't have it in the alexandrine text. Nor do we have it in 10% of the Byzantine text which we call a "majority".  (or Majority text by von Sodon)

  So obviously what must have happened is that Jerome, unbeknownst to his employer pope damasus was a raving baptist!  He was insecure about lack of biblical grounds for believers baptism and He wanted his priest to be thoroughly equipped in the roman catholic doctrine of believer's baptism!  They even made just 1 greek manuscript supporting acts 8:37 to cover their tracks.
  This was a very important conspiracy because they missed the previous conspiracy at Constantinople to conflate the text. Probably because Westcott and Hort were the first ones to hear of such a conflation.
   Now since we do not have the originals, if we deny that God is Sovereign and did not preserve the text perfectly in at least one copy.  Then we have no authority to claim what the canon consist of.  Nor What original manuscripts consist of.
  Besides the lack of authority the evolving text advocates to deny whether scriptures are inspired.  They also have to claim knowledge about manuscripts which they have not personally studied, which includes:

A. The majority of the Byzantine texts.

B. future manuscripts which are waiting to be discovered.

C. Manuscripts which have worn away out of decay

D. Manuscripts which were put to flames in times of persecution.

  We also have to assume that men of the past were incapable of accesses information back then. When they may have possessed information which we don't have.
Eventually when looking at manuscripts we have to put a prejudice over which group is more likely to be right.
   So if it is between the alexandrine church infiltrated with Gnosticism and adhering to neo-Platonism or whether it was the school of Antioch which had a good Christian tradition alongside a strong Jewish scribal influence, where the full deity and complete humanity were strongly held up.  I will side with antioch.
If this issue is between the Byzantine's and the textus receptus then I will side with the textus receptus. They would had to have motive to go against the Byzantine textus receptus. The Byzantine empire would be corrupted by Eastern Orthodoxy. Yet the protestants held to the gospel of grace.

John Calvin's assistant Theodore beza is reported to have gotten information from the ancient Waldenses. That they had received their text from antiochan missionaries in the 2nd century. This preserved their text better.  The church is the pillar and ground of truth 1timothy (3:15) and I find the Waldenses to be a true church while the Catholics and alexandrines are not.

Saturday, December 1, 2012

"Darwin is dead" looking at the origin of species

(quotes from "The Origin of Species derived from the "Oxford World's Classics" Oxford University Press 1996 edition)

  In recent debates with evolutionists, there has been a strategy employed using a presuppositional style with "bait and switch" tactics.   They will claim on the one hand; that the debate surrounding evolution is only concerned with darwinian biological evolution.  Thereby deflecting failing arguments for naturalism and propping up more support for their presuposition "evolution equals science" defense.

 For instance one Youtube one user makes the claim of the following "misconceptions of evolution"
channel: mynameisjonas45
1. evolution deals with the origin of life [meaning evolution is on after life began]
2. evolution is just a theory [meaning evolution is a fact}
3. humans came from monkeys [meaning humans came from apes}
4. evolution has never been observed [meaning micro evolution exist and there is an argument for microscopic plant life.]
5. evolution violates the second law of thermo-dynamics (arguing that thermo-dynamics does not apply to biology]

  Now the goal for the article is not jump into the endless scientific creation debate.  the goal for the article is to ask whether Darwinism is not a shifting position.  If it does change positions then it has no right to claim sole authority over the sciences any longer.  Evolution has no right to ever have highjacked scientific academia if it can not be one consistantly true fact.

It's not about evolution
  So then evolution would only be concerned about darwinian evolution and not strictly rely upon one worldview like naturalism then, eh?
  After contemplating this I decided to search through Darwin's Origin of Species to see what he thought.  To my surprise I have found something shocking. Darwin doesn't employ the word "evolution" to describe His theory!  Now I may not have perfectly exhausted this book. But for a fact the word "evolution" is not employed in the index, the glossary, the table of contents nor the introduction. (or any page that I have examined.)
  Instead Darwin focuses on the concept of natural selection as the principle idea of his theory.  So where does the concept of evolution come into play?  It is brought up earlier among naturalist and is not used exhaustively of biology.  In fact it had a huge following in the realms of political science!
  As we will see in this paper,  evolution is just as much a religious concept as a scientific one.  Evolutionary science is based in the naturalistic worldview/religion. And it has no right to be so dominate over the minds of american scholars.
James 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

It's all natural
"When on board HMS Beagle, as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the inhabitants of South America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants on the continent."
"I much regret that want  of space prevents me from having the satisfaction of acknowledging the generous assistance which I recieved from very many naturalists, some of them personally unknown to me."  pg. 4
  Naturalism is essential to evolution there is a reason that Darwin was encased among naturalistic thinkers.  Because his theory of natural selection was designed to give a philosophiocal naturalist understanding to the universe.  If one or many gods breaks the laws of naturalism they can not be admitted into evolutionary understanding.  Modern evolutionists are losing the case for athiesm and so they want to retain power and authority through pakaging evolution for christians and other religions etc.  But while naturalism is not limited to atheists, it is intended to be practically atheist in terms of any sense of application.
  But if the laws of naturalistic philosophy are broken. for instance a miracle takes place.  Their is no longer a need to assume evolution and the entire worldview falls apart.
  But the naturalistic world view has deep problems.  When considering the cosmological argument and the big bang theory.  The only way for the "Big bang" to have happened is for the laws of science to have been created by it.  The problem is that the laws of science are equivalent to our concept of nature.  So it would require the supernatural which naturalism declares to be non-existent. If there is an effect there has to be a cause.  Logic would declare.  But naturalism doesn't have a consistant answer.  Which breaks the philosophical worldview and then destroys the motive of evolution leaving itself to be irrational.

Political Implications
"We shall best understand the probable course of natural selection by taking the case of a country undergoing some physical change, for instance a climate."
On page 68 Darwin has an interesting illustration of natural selection using a kingdom
  Now one could argue this was merely a demonstration of the theory of natural selection.  But if true what would stop Darwinism from becoming a political movement?  Thus leading to the genocidal movements of nazism communism and facism.
  After all we must also then politically reconcile passages dealing with extinction!
"There is no exception to the rule that every organic being naturally increases at so high a rate, that if not destroyed, the earth would soon be covered by the progeny of a single pair.  Even slow breeding man has doubled in 25 years and at this rate, in a few thousand years there will literally not be standing room for his progeny." pg.54  This quickly leads us to the ideas of population control.  Which takes us to the sadistic ideas of genocide, concentration camps, forced sterilization, abortion on demand, euthenasia etc. etc.
james 4:From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? 2 Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.

The religious factor
"These facts seemed to me to throw some light on the origin of species-that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers." Intro. pg1
  When we here of mystery we are to look into the realm of religion.
"This is the doctrine of Malthus applied to the whole animal and vegatable kingdoms.  As many more individuals of each species are born that can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is a frequently recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life will have a better chance of surviving, and thus be naturally selected." pg.6
 Survival of the fittest is now the meaning of life. Yet again a religious category.
Now one problem on this subject is that evolution and the darwian worldview is not one religion.  But it is in fact many religions.
Such as the religion of secular humanism.
"Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view as old as human civilization itself." preface to humanist manifestos I and II 1979 prometheus books
 Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

The proof of Darwinism
psalm 14:1The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
2 The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.

3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

"In considering the origin of species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on their embryological relations, their geographic distribution, geological succession  and other such facts might come to the conclusion that each species might not have been independently created, but had descended," pg.4   So here Darwin sets out a cumulative case for evolution.  And this is only applied to biological evolution.
his case is thus:
A. biological mutual affinity)
"Most importantly, similarity is not evidence for common ancestry
 (evolution), but rather for a common designer (creation). Think about
the original Porsche and the Volkswagen ‘Beetle’ cars. They both have
air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear,
independent rear suspension, two doors, trunk in the front, and many
other similarities (‘homologies’).
  Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities?
Because they had the same designer! Whether similarity is morphological
(shape, form) or biochemical, it is not an argument for evolution over
creation. If humans were entirely different from all other living things,
or indeed every living thing was entirely different, would this reveal
the Creator to us? No, we could think that there must be many creators
rather than one. The unity of the creation is testimony to the One True
God who made it all (Romans 1:20).
  Also, if humans were entirely different from all other living things,
then how could we live? We have to eat other organisms to gain nutrients
and energy to live. How could we digest them and how could we use the
amino acids, sugars, etc., if they were different to the ones we have in our
bodies? Biochemical similarity is necessary for us to have food." Creation Answers Book chapter 7
pg. 111.
B. embryological relations)
"Michael Richardson, a lecturer and embryologist at St George’s Hospital Medical School, London, has exposed this further fraud, in an article in the journal Anatomy and Embryology,8 recently reviewed in Science9 and New Scientist.
  Richardson says he always felt there was something wrong with Haeckel’s drawings, ‘because they didn’t square with his [Richardson’s] understanding of the rates at which fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals develop their distinctive features’.8 He could find no record of anyone having actually compared embryos of one species with those of another, so that ‘no one has cited any comparative data in support of the idea’.8
  He therefore assembled an international team to do just that—examine and photograph ‘the external form of embryos from a wide range of vertebrate species, at a stage comparable to that depicted by Haeckel’.8
  The team collected embryos of 39 different creatures, including marsupials from Australia, tree-frogs from Puerto Rico, snakes from France, and an alligator embryo from England. They found that the embryos of different species are very different. In fact, they are so different that the drawings made by Haeckel (of similar-looking human, rabbit, salamander, fish, chicken, etc. embryos) could not possibly have been done from real specimens.
    Nigel Hawkes interviewed Richardson for The Times (London).11 In an article describing Haeckel as ‘An embryonic liar’, he quotes Richardson:
  ‘This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’s shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry … What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don’t … These are fakes.’ 11"Fraud rediscovered:
It has long been known that one of the most effective popularizers of evolution fudged some drawings, but only now has the breathtaking extent of his deceit been revealed.
by Russell Grigg
"If we do not accept the hypothesis of spontaneous generation [of life from non-living matter], then at this one point of the history of development we must have recourse to the miracle of a supernatural creation." *Ernst Haeckel, The History of Creation (1878), Vol. 1, p. 348.
This statement unifies Evolution with Abiogenesis Thus one of the cheif proponents of evolution in history has Admitted that the failure of abiogenesis is the concession to special creation!

C. geographic distribution)   This was a good argument for natural selection or micro evolution.  in the since that there are changes in "kinds" or differing breeds of animals.  Yet there are boundaries to these changes and no proof of macro evolution.
D. geological succession)
"Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
  The key phrase here is: fountains of the “great” deep were broken up. Now for as much water needed to flood the earth, there would be a lot of sediments coming up with the water. It would look very similar to the black smoker in the Picture above that is spewing black sediments. Except during the flood it would be erupting like a huge volcanoes. Sea creatures caught up in this would be buried according to where they lived in the seas because the burial would be so quick, the sea creature would have zero chance to escape. So if you notice, the Geologic Column has bottom dwellers first which is the correct order it would be for the flood. Then you have the mid-dwellers. And then the top dwellers. The exact order of how such a huge flood would bury the sea creatures.
  Then after all the sea creatures are buried, then comes the land animals. Which is correct order of what we see in the Geologic Column if the flood created it. It is ironic that even though science claims the column only supports evolution, that it also goes in the correct order of how things would have been buried in the flood." ikester 7579

1 Corinthians 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. 40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

The challenge to darwinism
"nevertheless, such a conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory, until it could be shown how the innumerable species inhabiting this world have been modified, so as to acquire that perfection of structure and co adaptation which most justly excites our admiration." pg.4
  This is the problem, they have not in 150 years found a real transitional link.  Which has been the motivation for the intelligent design movement.
  Also we must remember, that darwinism also rest upon empiricism.  If Darwinism is the by-product of science alone; then it can never be permanently affirmed or held to with sincere dogmatics.  Because with empiricism there is always a fact that could change our view of the situation.
Psalm 8:3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

Lamarkianism: the skeleton evolving in Darwin's closet!
Ezekiel 18:1 The word of the Lord came unto me again, saying,
2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?
3 As I live, saith the Lord God, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.

  Darwins based most of his ideas on the teachings of Charles Lyell.  The geologist responsible for the teachings of Uniformitarianism. 
"and it is the third volumeof the journal of that society.  Sir C. Lyell and Dr. Hooker, who both knew of my work-the latter having read my sketch of 1844-honoured me by thinking it advisable to publish" intro pg1
Charles lyell had ran his theories based upon lamarkianism.  The early form of evolutionary thought.  Only Lyell had the foresite to realize that a naturalistic worldview would require great multitudes of time.  At this point Lyell is going to plot out a lamarkian understanding of biology to affirm affirm an understanding of age amongs the fossils and then guestimate the age of the strata in order to affirm darwinian evolution.  Now to be fair Lyell was very skeptical of Lamark's theory. However the point to be made is that this was the ideology Lyell was operating from prior to Darwin.
"His work, Principles of Geology, had a profound effect upon Darwin. He read the first two volumes during the course of his service as naturalist aboard  H.M.S. "Beagle" (see below). By the time Darwin began his work upon the species question, the depth of geological time to the order of millions of years was quite well accepted."Encyclopedia Britannica 1969 Darwinism
  Basically they assume that an older species will adapt an inheretance then be buried in the same area.  But neo-darwinism teaches that we do not inherit "acquired characteristics".  Darwin argues for variation with Geographical distribution.  So How would we know the age of a strata if the fossils are not guaranteed in the order of the column? We don't even have evidence of a uniform order of the column anyway!  Besides new evolutionists are arguing against evolution necessarily being about advancement anyhow.
2 peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

  While darwin was focused on biology the rest of his worldview was naturalistic but still with lamarkian assumptions.  So as a result, later darwinist developed the neo-darwinian theory of evolution.
"In His Origin of Species, Darwin accepted the principle of the inheretance of acquired characteristics as one of the factors contributing to evolution." Encyclopedia Britannica 1969 lamarkism

While the west went along with this ideological shift. lamarkianism was far from dead.  Karl Marx was entertained by the Lamarkian perspective and as a result the Soviet Union Became a lamarkian establishment in their institutions.
"In the Soviet Union for example, where the inheretance of acquired characteristics is accepted and where it has an official standing, it is presented as a part of the Darwinian theory and is referred to generally as "creative Soviet Darwinism" as distinct from the "reactionary darwinism" of capitalistic countries."Encyclopedia Britannica 1969 lamarkism

  What we see is that Darwinism can not be a fact, because it is not one position and it has no authority to declare itself as objectively true.  It does have worldview tendencies and there are religions that have been based upon it.  But these ideas are on their own. Even though on their own they are failing.  Darwin's evidence was refuted long ago.  Sure Evolutionists are evolving.  But their species is only mutating and unless there is cheating (tyrannical military coersion) they will be headed towards extinction.  But like darwin himself the original "Origin of species" theory  is dead.  And God has killed him!
Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: