“Hey!  Let’s strap the video camera to an intoxicated squirrel!”

And that’s how the good people at Veritas filmed this interview with Tim Keller.

One of the most influential books in my theology is Tim Keller’s “Reason for God”.

Keller, C.S. Lewis, Gerald Schroeder and…

… Andrew Carnegie (I know, I know.)…

…are the ‘Four Horsemen’ of my philosophical apocalypse.

Martin Bashir interviews Keller in the video below.

It’s not a ‘softball’ interview.

Bashir asks some tough questions.

(The kind of questions our heathen friends are fond of asking.)

Keller is a master communicator.

I sometimes refer to him as ‘A Philosopher for Dummies’.

No matter your religion, this video is worth your time.

If you don’t have a Dramamine, I recommend just listening instead of watching.

You gonna keep lurking forever or are you gonna join this exclusive clique?
Stop procrastinating. Click This.

Leave a comment

386 Responses

  1. I’d be okay with getting feedback. If the regular readers care enough to respond, that will help me decide how much more to do in the future.

    Obviously you don’t care what JZ, Mike and I think, so that leaves Jasmine, Matt and Senor Dipshit?
    Oh, and your altar (sic) egos of course.

    You weren’t really expecting any of the other 15,000 and ,,, to comment were you?

    😉

      1. Don’t you have to polish your weapon or count bullets or something?

        Seriously, I know I spend way too much time on the laptop, work aside, of course, but aren’t mothers supposed to look after their kids: feed ’em, read stories, bath them,play with them and wot not?
        I did with my kids … all the time.

        When they ask you what you do on the computer what do you tell them? ”I fmuck about with grandad teasing atheists, because that’s what Jesus would want me to do.”

          1. Or do they sit on your knee while you write on daddy’s blog?
            I don’t really want to know I’m just asking as my grandfather used to say.
            Actually I am following the football.
            It is hilarious you actually take the time to write lol.
            That you are still reading is quite something.
            Wouldn’t you rather be playing with your kids instead of trying to be funny on daddy’s blog?

  2. Pingback: Admitting My Incorrect Assumption – The Comedy Sojourn
  3. To catch up anyone who had the GREAT MISFORTUNE of missing this conversation as it took place in real time: all formerly-spammed comments have been restored.

    Ark will continue to rant as usual…

    And JZ will continue actively trying to get banned, so that he can complain about being banned. (But it won’t work. Because my dad doesn’t censor, and I only reserve that privilege for people who were caught doing the same.) 🙂

    Also, when JZ says “bye” he means “See you in 30 seconds.”

      1. This is what you call “popping in?” Lol.
        My dad started (what he thought would be) a rational dialog at your place almost a year ago… To my knowledge, he never posted a dick pic anywhere. No vulgarity just for vulgarity’s sake.

        And HE’S the troll?!

        LOL!

        (So…like…bye? Or do you have more “popping in” to do?)

        1. Yes, he’s the troll.

          I don’t even know how to search WP. I’ve never once visited a “Christian” blog by my own fruition.

          And yes, the stay has turned out to be extended, but that is only because your dad keeps posting utter nonsense… Pantomimes. I’ve said it before: stick to what you actually have (Faith) and no one will find the need to correct you.

          Easy.

          1. Technically, true. Perhaps I should have said: “I’ve never searched out a Christian blog to comment on. Ever.”

            Is that better?

          2. CT trolled my blog first.

            Nice try, though.

            And he banned me because he’s somewhat adverse to truth. Read his articvles… He wrote 6 (perhaps it was 7?) on me.

            I didn’t read any, though… What’s the point if you’ve been banned?

          3. Please, if you’re not going to make good on the “goodbye” you promised upthread, let’s just keep talking about IP Addresses.

            Who else have I logged in as? You must tell me more!

          4. I’ve never logged in as another person, and neither has my dad.

            But, the more you follow this conspiracy theory, the more hilarious it is.

            So, by all means, keep sleuthing, Detective.

            HAHAHHAHA!

            Poor old man.

            Can’t search in WP, but he thinks he can track down an IP Address.

          5. I’m going to make you apologize when he comes through with his proof. Seriously. You owe him that much.

          6. He doesn’t keep screen shots of what evangelicals do.
            He only keeps screen shots of naked Jesus.
            What a towering intellect he is.
            Truly formidable.

          7. Also, he’s commenting here to help you generate traffic.
            In Atheist world, if you don’t have 12 people telling you how awesome you are in the comments, no one is reading…

          8. I don’t blame you for not wanting to answer.

            To quote a buddy of mine, it’s just going to be “embarrassing.”

            Lol.

            It’s okay. The fact that you STILL think I post as other people is all I need. HYSTERICAL!

          9. I’d like to see the IP address of her alter egos. If she’s logging in as different people, I’ll put a stop to it. That’s deceptive!

          10. Creepy, if it was her… Or was it you? Or was it perhaps someone (a friend, husband, wife, perhaps?) very nearby who created, what was it, 4 accounts without blogs, appeared in the one night, and had all the same IP’s?

            Such a strange coincidence.

          11. Yes.
            That’s what you said.
            Do your search and provide me with these numbers so I can verify.

        2. Do you recall a single instance of JZ ‘correcting’ anything on this blog?

          I don’t.

          Am I forgetting something? Since he doesn’t know how to search WP, it’s up to you, I guess, to let me know where he’s demonstrated that I’m wrong.

          1. He is pleased that he ‘inspired’ multiple posts. The same way Charles Manson ‘inspires’ articles and documentaries.

          2. If you want to compile the content, I’ll post it. But I’m not going to sift through the hubris again. I can’t tell which piece of rubbish is worthy of ‘highlighting’.

          3. You make a great point. You’ve read one Atheist quote, you’ve read them all…

            I’m thinking of some of our favorite running jokes, though! Crap sandwiches… Sea Centaurs… John Blande. LOL!

            I’ve had a lot of fun putting this post together.

          4. Citizen Tom banned him because he’s afraid of ‘the truth’! I’m holding my sides over here!

            Bear in mind, JZ is the scholar of the group!

          5. I’m not Colorstourm.
            Every bit of your ‘truth’ is available for view right here.
            I’m curious to see what other intellectual memes you have left in your arsenal of truth.

          6. *pat pat*

            Now how about sending me the IP research you’re referencing so I can put a stop to the deceptive practices in the comment space.

          7. I don’t keep files on the creepy things Evangelicals do… Just take the occassional screenshot when they arrive at the Truth all by themselves.

            And believe me, this has happened twice before on other peoples blogs. At the time I just figured you were embarrassed that absolutely no one but Ark, Tildeb and me commented on your blog… so you tried to colour it in a little.

            I thought it strange, but could sympathsie with your position.

            You really don’t get any traffic.

          8. Well admit it… No one visits this blog, do they?

            If it weren’t for Ark, Tildeb and me popping in when you post pantomime versions of reality (that need to be addressed and corrected) there’d be nothing but crickets here.

            Anyway, I’m off to see a band. Hope you enjoy your evening.

          9. I wouldn’t know. 🙂

            I only stalk the bloggers who are MOST likely to produce a great screen shot. And, if I may say so, the censorship one did not disappoint! 😀

            Conversations with JZ are hilarious, but they usually require a LOT of reading and explanation of back story. (Like the hilarious Oxford Classic Dictionary debacle.)

          10. Provide me with a few links and I’ll screen shot the quotes for a ‘best of’ post. The thing is, posts about atheists really do make my readership drop.

          11. Maybe we can do a “highlight reel” that only mentions the heathens in passing.

            We can give a shout out to some of the new followers, link to our most popular posts (the hooker one, by a landslide), and just generally ask readers what they want to see more or less… Kind of like an annual Christmas letter, in blog form. 🙂

          12. I’d be okay with getting feedback. If the regular readers care enough to respond, that will help me decide how much more to do in the future.

            I’m NOT wanting to credit the atheists directly. I’ll take screen shots and provide links (which nobody will click) but I don’t want to make celebrities of these morons. JZ will have to ‘inspire’ somebody else.

          13. You’re a liar.
            You’re not seeing a band. You’re fleeing the conversation. Again. In shame.
            I hope your evening is fraught with soul-searching and angst.

  4. RFLMFAO!

    It has taken this long to get banned! I am truly gobsmacked. This is a record, I was truly wondering what I had to do!
    Thank gods I didn’t have money on it, I would have lost.

    You will notice that Colorstorm still has free reign and it was only that one comment?

    It really was just a piss take to wind him up.And it worked too!

    Looks like it got to you as well

    Don’t worry dear, Dead Jesus still loves you.

    Ark

  5. I did engage with the content of the Keller video.
    You and daddy were the ones who refused t engage regarding his statements about accepting what JC claimed he was ‘ which he never did,

    I realise you obviously have editorial/admin priority over Daddy’s blog, but how is a whole churlish diatribe about colouring books relevant to the Keller video?

  6. Oh, I’m sorry. Was the gun reference too near the knuckle?
    I am regularly accused of dishing it out but not being able to take it so If all you want to do is play Take the Piss out of the Atheist with your childish little turns then don’t expect me to play all nice and cosy, either dear.

    But if you want to backtrack to a point where you are prepared to tell me what Jesus of Nazareth claimed he was then maybe we can have a grown up chat?

    I am amazed at the time you take to trawl my blog by the way! I never imagined I was that special to you!
    Do you do the same on JohnZ and Mike’s blog?
    For our benefit, I will be doing a complete clear out for the new year so if there is anything you particularly want to screen shot do so before the 1st Jan, okay?

  7. I rather liked this comment better than ones you linked to, Mrs Mc.

    I always try to engage at the level you deliver your posts.
    Believe me, it is quite difficult to downshift this far as I am used to discussions based on sound logic and well honed scientific principles, not faith-based silliness based on erroneous fallacious doctrine that are hung out as the be all and end all. Especially those presented by mentally and emotionally unstable individuals who are convinced everyone who does not genuflect to a narrative construct will spend eternity being tortured.

    Therefore, whatever view you have of atheism it has to be far better than the insanity you adhere to.

    The above comment somehow perfectly encapsulates the whole problem of engaging in dialogue with people who beleive they are born in sin and could well end up being toast in Hell. Exactly how one engages at any sort of genuine intellectualism with such mentality is extremely difficult to fathom, but it sure is fun to try!

        1. You know the rules. If you won’t turn in your coloring page, then you’ll get no further dialog on this page. (And I am much more of a stickler than my father.) 😉

          1. And you know my terms…

            Mrs. McMommy’s Note: The rest of this comment was just a rant. I asked for a coloring page. And, while my dad’s blog has a strict, no-censorship policy, I found this little gem on Ark’s blog. So, I figured he wouldn’t complain too much…

             photo 12-22-16 Ark Censors shorter version_zpsny1jhw1v.png

          2. For the record: I sent Ark’s latest comment to spam. If he’d like to say “Sorry for censoring you, Color Storm,” then I’ll get it back out.

            Otherwise, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. 😉

          3. Why did you censor?

            I thought you liked guns.

            You do like guns, don’t you:

            And isn’t this your dads blog?

            But, it appears, we’ve come to censoring comments.

            I believe your dad said he’d never do that.

          4. I answered the first question.

            And–correct–my dad has never censored anything.

            You can answer my question “Why are you here?” or you’re next.

          5. So are we not allowed to reference you penchant for firearms then Mrs Mc?

            That is such a shame as I would appreciate your insight.
            Well, s’not the end of the world.

          6. According to David, a theologian, Christians (American evangelicals, at least) are certainly allowed to have guns. In fact, they’re obliged to own guns and carry them ready to be used on other human beings.

            “Can Christians Carry Concealed Weapons?”

            What Christians most often forget is how to read the whole Bible as the complete Word of God. For some, there is a misunderstanding that the Old Testament no longer applies to Christians. That would be a mistaken understanding because Jesus came to fulfill the “Law and the Prophets” (the Old Testament), but not to change a “jot or tittle” of it. Jesus did change some of the incorrect ways that the Jews were practicing the Law, but did not change the Law itself.

            http://appliedfaith.org/2015/10/06/can-christians-carry-concealed-weapons/

          7. Did you finish your homework, JZ?

            At least Ark (claims to have) watched a good chunk of the video.

            If you didn’t, then why are you here?

          8. That’s not the topic of the post. You can engage with the content of the Tim Keller video (or article).

            Or you can blow away.

            I’m not playing around today.

          9. The topic changed when you started censoring comments.

            Why censor?

            Could you explain your actions and why you are abusing your dads blog?

          10. What’s.
            Good.
            For.
            The.
            Goose.
            Is.
            Good.
            For.
            The.
            Gander.

            If it’s okay to censor people who “rant,” as Ark himself did, then we’re going to play by his rules.

            That’s all.

            We’re talking about Reasons for God.

          11. I didn’t delete anything. They’re all going to spam automatically now because I sent the first one to spam.

            He can say “Sorry for censoring you, Color Storm,” and then I’ll fish them out.

            Or you can all cry about it. 🙂

          12. I thought you said “bye?”

            Lol.

            Color Storm has never said “censoring is pathetic.”

            If you really believe that, then you ought to be consistent when it’s one of your buddies who does it…

            #Hypocrite

            #Bye?

          13. I’m not going to delete your comments, JZ.

            Not even your porno Jesus.

            This is about giving Ark a taste of his own medicine, and I’m not sure why you only care when it’s Christians who are doing it.

          14. I knew you weren’t winning ANY of the debates we’ve ever had, so I wanted you to be able to feel superior again. 😉

            Also, this is the most fun I’ve had on this blog in a long time. LOL! If I knew how much all of you hated the taste of Ark’s cooking, I would have served it to him months ago!

          15. Provide verifiable evidence for your claim and I’ll override Mandy’s censorship.

    1. No homework turned in.
      In good faith, I afforded him some leniency because he indicated that he was interested in ‘adult conversation’. So I responded with grown-up comments about grown-up philosophy like a grown-up. Turns out, and this will SHOCK you, Dig-Dug didn’t understand what I was saying.

      So I ate some eggs and went back to work on some other projects and left Dig-Dug to hurl insults at CQW.

      1. I used the search feature to try and find the (many) comments where Ark himself said something to the effect of “I’m only here to kill time and amuse myself–not seriously interested in discussion.” But I’m having trouble remembering a specific keyword to help me find it…

        In the meantime, I found THIS old conversation, where Ark claimed that a wise teacher asks questions and helps the student arrive at answers for themselves.

        When he does it, the method is called “Wise Teaching.” When YOU do it, the method is obfuscation, song-and-dance, or churlishness. LOL!!!!

        https://branyancomedy.wordpress.com/2016/09/08/will-there-be-guns-in-heaven/comment-page-1/#comment-4395

  8. Oh, and as for verifiable evidence for your turtle.

    I could simply download the picture, print it off, stick it in my pocket then fly to your house and colour the damn thing in front of you.

    Or if gigs were a bit thin on the ground, fly you out to me, sit you down at my desk and colour it in front of you.

    Of course, if you turned out to physically blind, as you are intellectually, this might pose a problem, but I am sure we could surmount it.

    1. @Comedian –

      I take Dig-Dug very seriously. You’re supposed to take him seriously too.

      He is serious when he posts for all intent and purpose a large amount of material which seems to be specifically geared at deriding Christian belief, yet when called upon to defend what he believes he generally resorts to behaving abysmally (and churlish).

      As he pointed out, the entire dialogue is up for the world to see. Verifiable evidence that he is nothing but an abysmal churlish troll.

      Below is my favorite serious Dig-Dug quote of all time. Note how he rises above the fray and convincingly defends what he believes.

      “Meantime, why not take your brand of puerile smarmy rhetoric , roll it up in a a few pages of Genesis and shove it up your arse? Yes, I know tired old ad hominums must mean I have lost the argument. But it felt good all the same.
      I was going to tell you to simply fuck off, but I thought the Genesis reference the better call. Peace, love and all that other good shit.” – Douglas Stewart Pearce

      Sheer poetry. Seriously.

      ~

  9. In mathematics, to disprove a statement, one must either provide a counter-example, or find a contradiction while assuming the premise ( or a logically equivalent statement).
    To prove a statement, one must assume the premise ( or a logically equivalent statement) and follow the logical steps to reach the desired conclusion.

    So for example, if I were taking a test in a Discrete Mathematics course and the question asked:
    “Susan believes that ‘N is an odd integer if and only if (3N + 2) is an odd integer.’ Is her belief justified? Why or why not?”

    Now, this is an if and only if statement so it has two parts.
    An acceptable answer would be to assume N is odd, then see if (3N + 2) is odd or even. Then, if (3N + 2) is odd, you move to the second step-assuming (3N + 2) is odd and seeing if you can conclude that N is odd. ( Actually the second step is that you take the contrapositive of the statement- seeing that if N is even then (3N +2) is even. Then taking the contrapositive of that and finish the conclusion.)
    This is the scratch work.
    You wrap up the two steps by stating if Susan is justified ( or not) by providing some work ( a formal proof).

    Now answering the question “I believe Susan’s statement is true because she is a friend” would be taking a step of faith.

    Alternatively, answering the question ” I do not believe Susan’s statement is true because she has not provided proof” and believing that you should get any amount of credibility for that, is an act of faith.

    Of course, we can answer this question without faith, because we are making a logical conclusion about mathematics. But, we are dealing with God, so any conclusion will be
    a faith- based response.

    So… “Susan is a Christian. She believes that God is real. Her reasoning is found in Tim Keller’s book. Is Susan’s belief justified? Why or why not?”

    Step 1: Know your definitions- just like not knowing what it means for a number to be “odd” or “even” will make it impossible to answer the first set of questions, asking about “which God” will halt your progress on the second set of questions.

    Step 2: Read the book.

    After this, you can start to address the topic.

    I must admit, I only did step 1. But I might get to step 2 eventually 🙂

    1. Matthew, we have not yet established a statement ( of what Jesus of Nazareth claimed he was) to prove or disprove.

      Would you like to wade in and tell me, using your own words, in a simple straightforward manner, what, if anything, Jesus of Nazareth claimed he was?

      And as I mentioned to <Amanda, feel free to quote scripture.

      1. Pardon me, Ark, but how would quoting scripture be in my own words? Trust me when I tell you this: I didn’t write the Bible.
        Also, I’m getting ready for a nine-hour shift for work, so my next reply will take a while. Hopefully, when I get off work, it’ll be clear to me whether or not I can truly be free to use scripture.

        1. Apologies for not being clear enough.
          I wanted, preferably, someone here to describe in their own words exactly what it was that Jesus of Nazareth claimed he was.

          Failing this , point to scripture where Jesus of Nazareth stated what he was.

          Sorry for any misunderstanding.

          1. I have no verifiable evidence that these are my own words.

            Just color your turtle, Dig-Dug.

          2. No, John, try not to be churlish just for once.
            What verifiable evidence do you have to back your belief that Jesus of Nazareth claimed he was Yahweh.

          3. I’m not being ‘churlish’, Doug.
            Maybe try not to be argumentative just once.

            In your own words, tell me who you claim to be.

          4. And there we go.
            Once more you are not actually able to have an adult conversation on this matter as it seem you realise that faith is the guiding force behind your belief and not evidence.

            It would be far simpler, and honest for that matter, if you just admitted this, as much to yourself as making a public announcement on your blog.

            In the video, Keller did, and you deem him to be a *rockstar* so why can’t you admit you are simply driven by faith?

          5. And there we go.

            Once more you are not actually able to have an adult conversation on this (or any) matter as it seems you DON’T realize that faith is the guiding force behind your belief and not evidence.

            It would be far simpler, and honest for that matter, if you just admitted this, as much to yourself as making a public announcement on your (or my) blog.

            Why can’t you admit you are simply driven by faith?

          6. Really? Then let’s lets try to have an adult conversation on the issue of faith and how it directs our respective beliefs, shall we?

            Would you like to state what you consider my beliefs are, as they pertain to the subject at hand?

          7. No. I can’t possibly state your beliefs. Whenever I ask you to state them, you tell me I’m churlish.

            Just color your picture.

          8. So, in fact, while you state my beliefs are driven by faith you cannot actually specify what those beliefs are.
            Does this make your claim redundant or are you simply being stupid?

          9. If you want to discuss philosophy, Dig-Dug, you’re going to need to do SOME of the thinking on your own.
            I can’t make your brain work.
            Consider how many things you accept as fact for which you cannot provide ‘verifiable evidence’.

            If you’re feeling inclined to accuse me of being churlish now rather than contemplate what I’ve said, I suggest you just color the turtle.

          10. I am fine with philosophy as long as we stay goal directed toward the conversation at hand and the examples are relevant.
            Give me an example of something you consider I accept solely on faith.

          11. No.
            Consider how many things you accept as fact for which you cannot provide ‘verifiable evidence’.
            I’m NOT doing the thinking for you anymore, Dig-Dug.
            You want to have a grown-up conversation, start contributing grown-up thoughts.
            Otherwise…JUST COLOR THE TURTLE.

          12. On the face of it, I personally do not accept anything as fact without verifiable evidence, or at least evidence that passes muster, which is why I asked you to offer an example. You obviously see things differently so tell me what you beleive I accept without verifiable evidence.

          13. Give me verifiable evidence that you will be alive long enough to respond to this comment.

          14. You are operating by faith right now.
            Are you going to do the honest, grown-up thing and admit it?
            If not, color the turtle.

          15. Please explain how I am operating by faith right now.
            If you don’t identify specifically what you mean it will be a struggle to move this conversation forward in any meaningful manner.

          16. You believe that you will continue living long enough to have this conversation.
            There is no verifiable evidence to support this belief.

            And you have effectively answered ‘no’ to the question about being honest and grown-up.
            Color the turtle.

          17. One of the great things about your blog is that it is open and people are able to follow along.That makes a nice change.
            However, it seems that of your multitude of followers only Matthew has deemed it worthwhile to offer at least a reasonably intelligible reply.

            You post for all intent and purpose a large amount of material which seems to be specifically geared at deriding non Christian belief, yet when called upon to defend what you beleive you generally resort to behaving abysmally.

            All I am asking is for you to offer a genuine example of something relevant to the post that you consider I beleive based solely on faith with no verifiable evidence to support it and you refuse to do so.
            Why is that?

          18. Once again as shallow as they come aren’t you, Branyan.
            Once I have finished colouring the turtle would you like verifiable evidence so you can worship it?

          19. Gotta stay in the shallow end so you don’t drown, Dig-Dug.

            As you pointed out, the entire dialogue is up for the world to see.
            Verifiable evidence that you are nothing but a troll.
            Verifiable evidence that I’m an agreeable chap who gives everyone a chance to contribute.
            Verifiable evidence that you can’t hold up your end of an adult conversation.

            Whether or not you admit to understanding any of this does nothing to diminish its truthfulness.

            …And you won’t be able to provide verifiable evidence that you colored the turtle. You’ll need me to accept it by faith.

          20. Amazing. You respond to almost every comment I write, you write specific posts to ridicule non Christians and designed to bait non believers and you call me a troll?
            Hilarious.
            You are probably one of the more disingenuous, ignorant individuals I have come across on the internet. And quite likely a fraud as well.

            If the character, Jesus of Nazareth ever lived based on your general behavior, you would likely be one of the first he would send to Gehenna.
            You truly are a thoroughly distasteful individual, Branyan.
            I take comfort that your brand of lunacy will, in the not too distant future, likely be confined to specialized institutions.

            Stick to comedy. At least you have a shot at getting it right.

      2. In my own words, Jesus never said what He WAS, but He did say what He IS. He did this eight times, actually- seven consist of noun(s), one is a preposition.
        Here’s a link that references the “I am”s of Jesus. http://www.jesusanswers.com/bible/friday.htm
        These, in my own words, would -at least- suggest, that Jesus claimed that His identity is God.

      3. I will apoligize, what am I backing up, exactly?
        Is it
        A: That I claim that Jesus is God
        B: That Jesus is God.
        or C: That these scriptures would at least suggest that Jesus is God.
        For A) This blog post is one of the places you’ll find my claim. I am sure you could find it somewhere a social media page of mine as well. However, you will not find my claim in the Bible ( it’s a different Matthew, I promise).
        For B and C) The Bible is sufficient enough evidence.

      4. The Bible is sufficient to conclude that the scriptures would at least suggest that Jesus is God.
        Then, allowing the Bible to read you will enable you to conclude that Jesus is God.

      5. This has nothing to do with consideration, this has to do with reality. I have realized that Jesus is God because I have allowed the Bible to read me.
        Now, I have to go work another 9-hour shift. In the meantime, pray for wisdom and allow the Bible to read you too.

        1. Actually, Matthew it most definitely does.
          If you are allowing a text with known spurious content to convince you it is somehow making factual claims then, I am afraid, all this demonstrates is your own credulity.

          Have a good day at work.

      6. Thank you, I did have a good day at work.
        Being in the midst of my student career of becoming a math teacher, I have taken a lot of analytic courses: believe me, it’ll knock any credulity that you have left out of you.
        However… what parts of the Bible, if any, are spurious? How is this known? Feel free to use scripture to answer the first question and site your sources for the second.
        I enjoy taking the oppurtunity to know why people aren’t yet able to believe that the Bible is true.

        1. “However… what parts of the Bible, if any, are spurious?”

          William Dever (a moderate), in a 2013 lecture (available on Youtube):

          “To make a long story short, today not a single mainstream biblical scholar or archaeologist any longer upholds Biblical Archaeology’s “Conquest Model.” Not one. Various theories of indigenous origins [for the people of Israel] prevail, in which case there is neither room nor need for a Biblical Exodus — at least of that [Biblical] proportion.”
          ~ William Dever, UC San Diego Exodus Conference, June 1, 2013

        2. spurious
          ˈspjʊərɪəs/Submeter
          adjective
          not being what it purports to be; false or fake.
          “separating authentic and spurious claims”
          synonyms: bogus, fake, not genuine, specious, false, factitious, counterfeit, fraudulent, trumped-up, sham, mock, feigned, pretended, contrived, fabricated, manufactured, fictitious, make-believe, invalid, fallacious, meretricious;

          Now we have a definition of spurious:
          Old Testament examples include:
          Adam and Eve, Six day creation, Noah’s Ark and his flood, and the Exodus are notables.

          We can list a similar number of NT examples as well, I’m sure, but this should be enough to be going on with surely?

      7. That was quite the entertaining video, John Zande. I am curious, did you watch it all? What was your opinion of it?
        Ark, feel free to leave sources. I watched the video John Zande alluded to, so I will love to know where you are getting your information from as well.
        Because of a lack of sleep and a good- day’s work, I may just take a short nap, but I will get back to you.

        1. Matt: Opinion please. What should we include in our blogs “2016 Highlight Reel”?

          It can be a funny moment or one of the more thought-provoking posts…or whatever. What stands out to you from this year on the Comedy Sojourn?

        2. Don’t really want to draw this out too long so, please just clear up a couple of points for me will you, Matt?

          1. Do you beleive in a six day creation as described in Genesis?

          2. Do you beleive the story of a global flood as told in the bible.

          3.Do you accept as fact that Moses was an historical character as described in the bible and received the Ten Commandments from Yahweh atop Mt. Sinai?

          4. Do you accept as fact the tale of the Exodus and conquest as told in the bible.

          5.Do you acknowledge that the long ending of the Gospel of Mark is an interpolation?

          6. Do you accept that the the gospels are NOT eye witness accounts?

          Thanks.

      8. Here is what I know Ark:
        There are terms known as literal and figurative language. “When reading,” as my dad always says, ” if the literal sense makes sense, make no other sense. If the literal sense does not make sense, make sense of it.” This practice allows us to receive the full meaning of messages that are being conveyed.
        None of us that are alive on Earth today were there when the Bible was written. So we are left to interpret the Bible for what it says. There can be some difficulty in knowing what specific events literally happened, or what accounts were only illustrations that revealed the nature of God: this difficulty is based solely on the fact that none of us were there. But again, “if the literal sense makes sense, make no other sense. But if the literal sense does not make sense, make sense of it.”
        “Making sense of it” is exactly what biblical scholars are setting forth to do today. An entire literal interpretation of the Bible cannot be true, while an entire figurative interpretation would render the entirety of the Bible useless. However, whether some accounts were literal or just illustrations, this does not make them false. Just like you knew that my dad does not “always” say that phrase, but that I meant “he has said that phrase enough times for me to remember it.” So in the literal sense, my phrasing was false, but in the figurative sense- I was telling the truth.
        We know some accounts are poetic ways to reveal the nature of God. We also know that some, are, in fact, literal. There are some accounts that are still unknown whether it was meant to be historical or figurative. However, the message that they deliver are still true. And there are many parts that can be figuratively interpreted in various ways: which is why many denominations are formed in Christianity.
        Yet, there is not one part of the Bible that is known to be spurious in both the literal and figurative senses. There is truth to be found in every part of the Bible.
        The question is: are you looking for truth?

        1. Matt–
          JZ said “goodbye” on this post yesterday.
          Then (earlier today) he ducked out again when he needed to “go see a band.”

          If it’s all the same to you, I’d still like to hear more about his IP Address conspiracy theory. 😉

        2. That was quite a nice bit of prose, Matt. Your dad sounds like a man with his head screwed on the right way.
          And on the subject of looking for truth: I take it you read the best scholars of every stripe to get a balanced perspective, so do you consider there is any truth to the claim of:
          a) Adam and Eve as portrayed in the biblical tale of Genesis
          b) A global flood.
          c) The Exodus and Conquest of ancient Canaan.

          We can tackle New Testament issues after if you are interested? I’d just like to get a basic understanding of where you stand on the Old Testament.

          Thanks.
          Ark

      9. It is fascinating, John Zande! That is what happens when one book consists of 66 books which is a collection of historical stories, allegories, poems, prophecies, and revealations about the end times; written in different languages and different times and they are all centered around one being- God.
        Dare I say, it’s like God knew that different people would respond to different types of literature according to their tendencies.
        Are you looking for truth?
        “Whoever has ears, let them hear.”- Matthew 11:15

      10. “Yet, there is not one part of the Bible that is known to be spurious in both the literal and figurative senses. There is truth to be found in every part of the Bible.” I will stand by that statement unless you can prove to me otherwise.
        However, I believe I have asked you a question, so please answer it before we move on.
        Are you looking for truth?

      11. Okay, since you say that are looking for truth, answer this for me.
        Is “There is not one part of the Bible that is known to be spurious in both the literal and figurative senses. There is truth to be found in every part of the Bible. ” a true or a false statement?

      12. Thank you for your answer. Which parts, if any, of the Bible are known to be spurious in both the literal and figurative senses? What parts, if any, of the Bible, can you not find truth?

      13. Is there no need nor desire for people in oppressive circumstances to be freed from those oppressive circumstances?

      14. Remember Ark, this is an excercise about finding truth in either figurative or literal interpretations. Is it possible for a person in an oppressive circumstance to want or need to be freed from their circumstance? In other words, only focusing on the symbolism of the story of the Exodus, could a person in an oppressive circumstance relate to the Exodus story?

        1. There are however, specifics here that we have to take note of. If we are going to be totally honest with each other, that is.
          So, are you referring to the Israelites or some other oppressed people?
          And if the Israelites, what oppression specifically were they subject to at this time?

      15. Actually Ark, as I said, this is focusing on the symbolism here. Whether what happened the Exodus story is literally what occurred or not is irrelevant in this discussion. Can people in oppressive circumstances want to be freed from their own oppressive circumstances, yes or no?

      16. It has occurred to me that you might not have watched the video that John Zande alluded to, so I’ll provide a link for you. https://youtu.be/BBIJRtsnNPY
        This will answer your question. But in short, I love the part where William Dever talks about truth in history and myth- and that there is plenty of truth in the Exodus story.
        Meanwhile, I’m watching the Ohio State vs. Clemson game- Go Buckeyes! You can watch the video and we could discuss this later.

        1. Matthew, you are absolutely correct in what you’re hitting at here. Truth can be found in many, many places. Aesops Tales contain wonderful truisms which I personally find thoroughly compelling, as too Harry Potter, which Ark noted…. yet these tales never claim to be historical.

          The Pentateuch, Matthew, claims to be historical. That is a lie. It is not. And there is no reference or editors note to say, “Hey, this is a fable.”

          That is where the problem arises.

          It is spurious.

          The other rather awkward needle here for you is that your supposedly “revealed” religion is lacking the “revelation.”

          That’s not to mention the tremendously awakward admission that Jesus didn’t seem to know basic regional history…. a history he, being Yhwh as you claim, was said to have played a rather large role in.

        2. Yes, I am reasonably familiar with Dever’s position, and it seems you are somehow trying to leverage his archaeological, scientific standpoint and wedge it into a fictional, theological motif. I apologize if this is not the case.
          It also seems odd that you would (appear to ) celebrate in some way people wishing to seek freedom from such oppression by using this as a good example, especially when one considers how despicable and vile a character such as Moses is described as. And then there is Joshua, of course.
          Both genocidal maniacs.
          Not good examples to my mind, especially if one is wanting to also find good moral and ethical examples for kids, let alone adults.
          ( I might have gone with Alex Hailey and Roots rather, which at least reflects an historical and factual period in history.)

          Be that as it may, it occurs to me, also, that you may have tried to deftly sidestep my previous statement/ question.

          So , therefore, I shall take it from your somewhat ambiguous replies that:

          while you might(understandably) wish to dig out some sort of universal truth regarding bondage, oppression/slavery, you fully recognise there is no actual truth, as in anything factual , about the Biblical tale of Moses, the Exodus and the subsequent supposed conquest of Canaan.

          This brings us almost full circle regarding your opening statement about whether the bible contains truth, literal or figurative.
          Figurative.
          1.
          departing from a literal use of words; metaphorical.
          “a figurative expression”
          synonyms: metaphorical, non-literal, symbolic, allegorical, representative, emblematic;

          I am, in actual fact, quite happy to accept this as a fair description of the biblical account of Exodus, which we are basically saying …. did not happen.

          Would you like to go through the same rigmarole with Adam and Eve and Noah’s Flood where we are likely going to reach the same conclusions, or, would you prefer to skip the OT and jump to something in the New T; say the supposed Empty Tomb scenario, and apply the same methodology?

      17. Hey guys, it has been a good time talking to you. However, between the holiday festivities (due to the new year) and getting ready for a vacation to Atlanta, Georgia ( Passion Conference) and then being at Passion Conference- I will not be able to respond any further any time soon- so this will be the last comment I make on this post: So here it goes.

        Factual claims can be either explicitly stated or implicit in writing. As I have previously mentioned, there are unknown areas whether what was explicitly said in the Bible was literal history or whether it was only meant to be figurative. However, every biblical passage has an implicit truth. We do not need editor’s notes for that.

        Ark was correct in assuming that I was digging for universal truth in scripture. Digging for universal truth is precisely my goal- and as Ark said, he is looking for truth too. As John Zande said, truth can be found in many, many places. So, I will try to address the claims that are implicit in the Bible ( particular in the stories Ark mentioned).
        1. The Earth has a Creator.
        This has not been empirically proven. However, we can discover what type of Creator the Bible depicts by seeking universal truth.
        2. Man has a moral standard set by this Creator.
        While we can discuss whether or not we have a moral standard and what it stems from: this is the belief reflected in the Bible.
        But a set of questions to ponder: Why does Ark view Moses and Joshua to be maniacs and Moses to be vile? And why does he feel that because of these two characters, they make the Exodus and conquest stories to be “not good examples to my mind, especially if one is wanting to also find good moral and ethical examples for kids, let alone adults.”?
        3. This Creator can use ” vile” people to do good.
        Another couple sets of questions to ponder… Why would this Creator use Moses and Joshua? Why use a murderer ( as the Bible depicts Moses) to free the Israelites ( again, as the Bible depicts)? Why would this Creator save a drunk ( as Noah is depicted) to “start the world over” ( my paraphrase of the biblical depiction)?

        Could it be that if a Creator exists ( an assumption that I am at least willing to ponder, and you can investigate- if truth is what you are seeking) this Creator can use anybody that is willing to accomplish this Creator’s will?

        4. Jesus is depicted as God in the Bible.
        Again, this is implicit- not explicit. However, looking at Jesus as depicted, we can conclude that Jesus is this Creator.

        If seeking truth is what you are after, the Bible is full of universal truth. Whether it involves: drunks, slaves, murderers, adulterers, doubters, and every other kind of “sinner” as depicted in the Bible ( which is all of us, if you see number 2), everybody can relate to the Bible.
        And since the Bible is full of universal truth in which everybody who hears and reads it can relate, what could we conclude?
        We can conclude that the Bible speaks universal truth.
        So, if the Bible speaks universal truth, how has this come to be?

        I would consider that it has to do with the Bible’s main character: “The Way and The Truth and The Life”.

        So, I’ll finish this by stating three questions ( and re-stating them in my words so it’ll relate to this discussion) that you should ask yourself while reading the Bible (that, ironically, I was advised to do at last year’s Passion Conference).
        What does it say? (Seek the explicit.)
        What does it mean? (Seek the implicit.)
        What does it mean to me? ( Seek how you can apply this universal truth.)
        I hope you all have a wonderful New Year! God Bless!

        1. That response is going to require more effort than coloring a turtle…
          Have a great vacation!
          See you when you return.

          1. Dig-Dug,
            Matt is too sophisticated for you. Just color the turtle.
            Or take some pictures of the women you have chained to your basement wall.

          2. There are plenty of sophisticated Crispyians.
            However, it is unfortunate that so many are also disingenuous and usually chicken scared of the truth.
            Very much like you , in fact.
            Should not you be writing new material or something?

          3. True… offhand, none come to mind. I was trying to be polite.

            That was almost a funny line you wrote there, Branyan.

            You should try the visual gags of Jesus on the cross biting his nails.
            That often gets a laugh and you can incorporate the line ”Wanna seethe last miracle before Jesus died.”

          4. blockquote>(BTW you don’t know anything about comedy either.)

            Amazing, and all along you thought we had nothing in common , Branyan.
            Go figure, right?

          5. I don’t tell lies. I have no need. I am not a Christian, remember?

            That one was also nearly funny.
            I am off to watch the Liverpool game just now. That’ll give you time to think of a new gag or two.
            As by your own admission you are not sophisticated, maybe a gag about big boobed Christian women, or something funny about Jesus walking on water?

          6. Now lying about the fact that you agreed you were a liar.

            Can’t stop lying, eh, Dig Dug?

            Enjoy the big boobed Christian women chained in your basement!

          7. Oooh look, Mandy’s come out to play with Daddy.
            Finished counting your bullets and polishing your gun, have you?

            Actually I didn’t agree to any such thing but as usual you choose to read what ever you want into things. Typical Fundy.

            Yuck! Why on earth would I want to chain up a Christian woman in my basement.
            What a thoroughly distasteful suggestion.

          8. A-ha! Case closed!

            And I see the Windbag wants to talk about Dever some more.

            I ended up watching that entire 45 minute video… and, even after months of being exposed to JZ’s out-of-context quotes, I STILL couldn’t believe how much he twisted that lecture to make it fit his anti-Bible position.

          9. Did you watch the video? If not, you need to.

            As with all the other sources that JZ has cited, this one agrees MORE with us than with JZ himself. lol. Poor thing needs to stop telling us where he gets his info, so we can’t check up on him.

          10. I watched enough to know JZ if full of crap. Also, I’m actually READING the book the Dever recommends. Amazing how much broader the understanding becomes when I’m not limited to snippets from atheist blogs.

          11. I watched the entire thing.
            It’s going to be another Oxford Classic Dictionary situation… He pulls the quotes off Atheist websites, which are biased and slanted.

          12. Got it! The perfect 2017 comedy partnership for you and your old man.
            You can sit on his knee and pretend to be a Ventriloquist’s Dummy.
            And you could even do an Exodus routine.
            How cool would that be!

            You already have the latter part of the title down pat, and when your old man cracks a religious gag you can say your ubiquitous punchline.

            It’ll have them rolling in the aisles.
            Or, if you do a gig in Hawaii for example, rolling on the Isles.

            You probably don’t need much practice at it by now, but just in case you get a touch of imagined stage fright … have another go at your line …

            Take it away Amanda

          13. In Pink Too!
            What a real dummy you are becoming. How truly spiffing.
            All this practice is finally paying off.

            Now all you need to use for props when you do the Exodus Routine with Daddy is a copy of Israel in Egypt ( you know who wrote this, yes? ) and yell out your punchline every few minutes and you will slay them.

            Truly marvelous stuff.

          14. You’re dismissing Dever?

            I thought you liked Dever

            To make a long story short, today not a single mainstream biblical scholar or archaeologist any longer upholds Biblical Archaeology’s “Conquest Model.” Not one. Various theories of indigenous origins [for the people of Israel] prevail, in which case there is neither room nor need for a Biblical Exodus — at least of that [Biblical] proportion. (~ William Dever, UC San Diego Exodus Conference, June 1, 2013)

          15. Windbag! Happy New Year!

            I didn’t dismiss Dever.
            You’re a liar too!

          16. So you accept the Pentateuch is a work of 7th Century BCE geopolitical fiction.

            Your “revealed” religion is missing the “revelation.”

            Jesus didn’t know basic regional history.

            Great.

            Shall we move on then?

          17. So you accept that Dever has written more than the few paragraphs you’ve cited. You admit that using such short quotations, out of context, is a gross misrepresentation of Dever’s position.
            Sure, let’s move on.

          18. No.
            Haa ha haaa. It’s not MY job to provide context for YOUR argument! Haaaaahaaa!

            I think you made up the quote anyway. It’s a fiction to support of your superstitious dogma.

          19. No?

            OK then… So, as you already knew, there was no “hidden” context.

            To make a long story short, today not a single mainstream biblical scholar or archaeologist any longer upholds Biblical Archaeology’s “Conquest Model.” Not one. Various theories of indigenous origins [for the people of Israel] prevail, in which case there is neither room nor need for a Biblical Exodus — at least of that [Biblical] proportion. (~ William Dever, UC San Diego Exodus Conference, June 1, 2013)

            Not one…

          20. You are an intellectual light-weight.
            And a liar.
            Here is the VERY NEXT PHRASE from Dever’s lips. Enjoy.

            “Now in my view, a small Exodus group probably did exist and could have come to be identified, eventually, with the Biblical house of Joseph. And it was they who predominantly formed the tradition so that later on ALL of Israel becomes part of this small group.” (~ William Dever, UC San Diego Exodus Conference, June 1, 2013)

          21. Nice… Now, let’s see the evidence for this opinion.

            Of course, there is none.

            But of course, what you are admitting here is that the bible is a lie.

            Are you aware of the 1,000 year older Babylonian tale of King Sargon of Agade? It begins:

            “My humble mother bore me secretly. She put me in a basket of rushes and sealed me in with asphalt. Then she put me into the river…. The river held me up, and carried me to Akki, the irrigator who drew water from the river for the people. As he dipped his jug into the river, Akki carried me out. He raised me as his own son.”

            Sound familiar?

          22. LOL!

            I like how Dever’s quote is enough by itself when you think it supports your position…

            But when it seems to disagree, THEN you need to take it apart and offer OTHER “evidence.”

            You’re ridiculous.

          23. Huh?

            It does support my position, and I can provide you more defintive quotes, if you like.

            Dever is good because he’s a moderate. I’m not surprised he adds a “well, maybe something happened…”

            Thge fact is, the bible is a lie. That is what Dever is saying.

          24. That’s from the same lecture!
            The Windbag hasn’t even seen the video!

          25. Correct. That quote is from the same lecture. In fact, at least 1/3 of the lecture is spent railing against “Biblical Revisionists” who are so skeptical that Dever calls them “Nihilists.”

            The book Dever wrote in 2000 was a direct challenge of people like JZ, who want to sum up the Bible as either an error-free textbook or a “lie.”

            Contrary to what JZ keeps insisting, Dever never once said, “The Bible is a lie.”

            lol. Poor thing.

          26. Ahahahaha!!

            Keep digging. You two are seriously making me laugh.

            Hey, this is fun, so let me know when you want to move onto any of the other 36hrs of lectures from the conference. I want to see how you spin them!

          27. It’s good you can laugh at yourself. 🙂

            LOL!

            I’ve watched the video, old man. Now I just have to figure out whether you’re DELIBERATELY lying to put words in Dever’s mouth, or if you’re just too dumb to understand what he said.

          28. LOL!
            I gave you CONTEXT that was from YOUR SOURCE!
            Do you need me to help you with any of Dever’s other commentary?

          29. Errrrum…. You didn’t even mildly dent the quote. He said there isn’t a single bible scholar or archaeologist who believes in the conquest narrative, therefore no biblical exodus.

            Not one.

            Did you miss that part?

            So, the bible is a lie.

            The story recounted did not happen.

            Period.

          30. You haven’t even watched the video you’re quoting.
            You won’t understand it if you do.
            You are losing a debate with a comedian, a college student and a housewife.
            Happy New Year!

          31. LOL!

            So, by you conceding the bible is a lie you think you’ve “won” something?

            That’s actually hilarious, Branyan.

            Finally, you made me laugh!

          32. LOL!
            So, by you not conceding that you’ve been proven wrong, you think you’ve “won” something?
            Dever is an authority. But his view can’t be summarized in a single paragraph.
            You should stop talking now.
            We have actually watched the video now. We know Dever says.

          33. Let’s paraphrase:

            Dever says the bible story is a lie. There was no biblical exodus. There was no Patriarchs. There was no conquest. Not a single bible scholar or archaeologist says otherwise…. But, but, but because he shrugs and says “Meh, maybe, maybe, just maybe there’s a kernel of something there,” you think you’ve been vindicated?

            Now, this is comedy!

          34. Thus a “patriarchal era,” an “exodus from Egypt,” and a pan-military “conquest of Palestine,” as portrayed in the biblical narratives, have all now been shown to be essentially nonhistorical, “historicized fiction” at best. And the proof has come… from “secular” archaeologists, Israeli and American, who have no theological axes to grind…
            ~ William G. Dever, What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?: What Archeology Can Tell Us About the Reality of Ancient

          35. I’d LOVE to see/hear the other 36 hours from the conference, JZ.

            If there’s one thing I’ve learned from all the out-of-context quotes you’ve shared, it will ALWAYS pay off when we ask where you got them. 🙂

            So, link?

          36. Maybe you stopped to listen to a band and forgot what I asked?

            Could I have a link for the other lectures given at the conference?

            (The way you tell the story, I’m sure it was 36-hours of nothing but people with PhDs repeating “The Bible is a Lie” over and over and over… But, rule #1 of talking with JZ is to check for yourself.)

          37. Dever’s book title uses the word ‘reality’ instead of ‘fiction’. Awkward…

          38. The point is, if there was no conquest by an exodus group, there was no exodus group, and if there was no exodus group there was no exodus. (William Dever, UC San Diego Exodus Conference, June 1, 2013)

            Just search UC San Diego Exodus Conference.

          39. No, the point is that you’re assigning views to Dever that he doesn’t actually hold. “The Bible is a lie–that’s what Dever is saying” is only wishful thinking on your part.

          40. Link, JZ. It should not be hard for you to give me a link, unless you’re just pulling from a list of out-of-context quotes, and you don’t remember where it came from.

            Your quote seems to fly in the face of this quote, so I have to assume you’re playing fast and loose with the context AGAIN:

            “Now in my view, a small Exodus group probably did exist and could have come to be identified, eventually, with the Biblical house of Joseph. And it was they who predominantly formed the tradition so that later on ALL of Israel becomes part of this small group.”

          41. in my view…

            1) Let’s see the evidence for this
            2) You’re admitting the bible is false.

            Keep going, it’s amusing.

            Just search UC San Diego Exodus Conference. You can do that, can’t you?

          42. You gotta quit trying to link all Dever’s comment together into single lecture. JZ’s thesis is assembled from select phrases uttered from the speech.

          43. I’m getting legitimately annoyed with the pseudo-scholar.

            It’s fun when other people are reading and actually able to see how shady he is. But, 400 comments down? I’m can’t shake the feeling I’m wasting my time.

          44. Wow!
            What time in the video did Dever drop THIS bombshell?!! I’m quaking in my shoes!

          45. Nice… Now, let’s see the evidence for this opinion.
            Of course, there is none.

          46. He hasn’t watched the lecture. That puts him on the same level as you–who may have watched it, but only to reinforce what you wanted to hear, and forget the rest.

            On the other hand, I HAVE watched it, and I understood it.

            “The Bible is a lie” and “The Bible is false” were not even close to the gist of the lecture. But maybe if you keep repeating that, it will be written into the cultural memory of Atheism. It didn’t ACTUALLY happen. But all that matters is what people remember.

          47. It’s amusing how JZ keeps telling us that Dever is a ‘moderate’.
            You’d never know it based on the limited number of quotes JZ allows Dever to make.

          48. Yeah, if I hadn’t gone and done the research myself, I would assume the “Exodus Conference” was a bunch of people standing around with signs that say, “Anyone who believes there was an Exodus is a moron.”

            It’s kind of weird to think that scholars take time out of their lives to discuss a topic which JZ claims to be completely resolved.

            But, to hear him tell the story, that’s what they do: they leave their labs and offices to come make fun of anyone who uses the Bible for something other than a paperweight. Lol. Putting the Fun in Fundamentalist yet again.

          49. How did we get on the subject of Exodus again anyway????!!!!
            I don’t think I brought it up…

          50. Oh, you can’t remember?

            First we were talking about Tim Keller. And then you said something like, “Hold up, everybody, let’s talk about the Exodus!”

          51. He honestly believes that those scholars come together for a conference to verify that the Bible is nothing but a ‘lie’.

          52. Right, well, it’s annoying the way none of them will just SAY IT.

            So I can understand if he wants to help them along with a little photoshop magic.

          53. We should call him The Translator.

            I would never understand what the scientists really MEAN without the Translator’s help reading their mind and boiling it down to a single sentence (or word)!

            In fact, every time the scientists speak for themselves, it sounds like the OPPOSITE of what The Translator says. Thank goodness for his help.

          54. LOLOLOLO!
            That’s a HORRIBLE paraphrase!
            You haven’t even watched the video.

            But I agree that this is comedy.

          55. Thus a “patriarchal era,” an “exodus from Egypt,” and a pan-military “conquest of Palestine,” as portrayed in the biblical narratives, have all now been shown to be essentially nonhistorical, “historicized fiction” at best. And the proof has come… from “secular” archaeologists, Israeli and American, who have no theological axes to grind…
            ~ William G. Dever, What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?: What Archeology Can Tell Us About the Reality of Ancient Israel

            Fiction.

          56. Read it again, if that helps… Comedy gold!

            Thus a “patriarchal era,” an “exodus from Egypt,” and a pan-military “conquest of Palestine,” as portrayed in the biblical narratives, have all now been shown to be essentially nonhistorical, “historicized fiction” at best. And the proof has come… from “secular” archaeologists, Israeli and American, who have no theological axes to grind…
            ~ William G. Dever, What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?: What Archeology Can Tell Us About the Reality of Ancient Israel

            Fiction.

          57. You don’t even own that book!
            Another quote pulled from an atheist website somewhere!

            Truth.

          58. I only wish Dever had the time to read the way you wrap up his life’s work with a single word that he never used. LOL!

            He’d probably be pissed off. But I’d laugh.

  10. My best guess is: he wants a quote from the Bible where Jesus says, “I am God” word-for-word.
    Nope. This is the belief of Christians.

    I am asking you what Jesus claimed he was, NOT what you interpret from the text.

    I want to know exactly what Jesus of Nazareth claimed he was.
    It is that simple.

    1. You’re right, Ark!

      Oh my gosh!

      My eyes have been opened!

      Jesus never said, “Ark: all of the things that I can do, which only God can do, mean that I am God in the flesh.”

      How have I missed that all of these years?!?!

          1. So by deductive reasoning .. you do have this skill, yes? You either do not know what Jesus claimed he was or he did not make any claim at all?

            Which one is it?

          2. “I gave birth to these children. I have the power to send them to bed. When they talk to their ‘mother’ they are talking to me.”

            But, please, don’t get the idea that I’m CLAIMING to be their mother.

          3. If there was a paternity suit or someone challenged your right to to be their mother as sure as camels shit in the desert you would make THAT claim in a nano second you very silly woman.

          4. I promise, if it were YOU questioning my right to be their mother, I’d just laugh…

            I’m guessing Jesus feels the same when you committed Atheists “challenge” him.

          5. Amazing, you get called out and once again you sidestep.

            Jesus doesn’t ‘feel” anything.
            If he existed he is dead.

            I wouldn’t have the slightest interest in questioning you on the matter of your claim to be in the mother of the kids you claim you have.

            So, all said and done, we can conclude that through deductive reasoning – you can do this,yes? At least you sarcastically claimed you probably thought I didn’t want you to which likely means you think you can , that Jesus made no claim about what he was.
            Period.

          6. I love when you guys start throwing around the word “period.” LOL!

            You’d need me to say “I AM CLAIMING TO BE THE MOTHER OF THESE KIDS” because “When they talk to ‘mother,’ they are talking to me'” is too much for you.

            Poor thing.

            If you want me to re-post all the places where Jesus claimed to be God again, you’ll need to finish this coloring page: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/46/3b/1c/463b1c1e5119e3f8ad856347767a9568.jpg

          7. I simply stated that you would make the claim you were their mother if there was any challenge and especially one that might see you lose them in any sort of legal battle over custody, regarding paternity or even your fitness to be a mother.

            And I reiterate, you would shout your claim as quickly and as loud as you could should any challenge be forthcoming.

            And once again, ( if you do not understand the question please tell me) I DID NOT say I wanted you to list a claim/s that Jesus of Nazareth stated he was a god,/Yahweh.
            I asked you to to tell me in your own words what Jesus claimed he was.
            That is all.
            So, in your own words, tell me what, if anything at all, Jesus of Nazareth claimed he was

          8. Make him finish his coloring project before you’ll answer any more questions!

  11. Because, Branyan, this was the foundation of Keller’s thesis, yet he doesn’t actually say what it was that Jesus of Nazareth said that he claimed to be.
    Do YOU know what he claimed to be?
    If so please tell me as your daughter obviously does not know.

      1. Nope. Nowhere in this text does the character Jesus of Nazareth make a claim as to what he was.
        And if you know what is is he claimed he was then simply tell me in your own words.

        It is not a difficult question and surely cannot be a difficult answer.

          1. When you color the turtle and post it I’ll think about offering some grown-up activities.

          2. At least Keller came across as reasonably intelligent.
            You on the other hand …
            If you haven’t the integrity to answer a straightforward question how can you possibly enter into an open discussion without falling back on apologetic fluff?

            Stick to comedy, John. You are better at it than apologetics and certainly better at it that trying to pretend you are a Christian.
            Maybe Satan has duped you as well?
            How would you know?

      1. These are claims of things he could do, NOT a claim of what he was.

        You might want to read it again without drawing apologetic conclusions.
        If after due consideration you come to the conclusion that J of N did not in fact make any claim as to what he was then simply say so.

        1. Encouraging me to read “without drawing apologetic conclusions” is the same as reading without thinking.

          By definition, a being that is eternal and created the world and forgives sins and accepts worship IS God.

          If you need a quote from Jesus that says word-for-word, “Take note that I am claiming to be God at this point in time,” then I can’t help you. Poor thing.

          1. Then it is obvious you are not thinking, then.

            By definition, a being that is eternal and created the world and forgives sins and accepts worship IS God.

            Really?

            And which eternal being are you referring to Yahweh?

            You k«continue t asume I am asking you to find a quote that has Jesus saying he is Yahweh.
            I repeat, this is erroneous.
            I am asking you to tell me what Jesus claimed he was.
            Whether it be a carpenter or a milkman or anything.
            Simply tell me in your own words what Jesus claimed he was.

      2. @Comedian and Stay at Home Mom (allegedly) –

        You gotta go easy on Dig-Dug. Or else – he’ll rise above the fray to convincingly argue his truth (faith) claims with steadfast confidence (or have a meltdown like he did last September). Either way – we must continue to take him seriously.

        https://branyancomedy.wordpress.com/2016/09/05/comedy-sojourn-podcast-episode-1/

        Anyway – the precedent for time limits on answering yes or no questions as established by Dig-Dug is three months.

        (Side note: Cool guy head nod to @Comedian for reminding me of Dig-Dug – one of my all-time favorites)

        Now with a question such as …

        “Exactly what did Jesus (claim) he was, Amanda?”

        … we must be allotted more time than a mere three months as this is not a yes or no question.

        And remember …

        “Claims of what he could DO are not claims of who he WAS.”

        But wait – the link provided from Reedemer (Keller’s church) provides three direct claims (answers) of who Jesus said he WAS. That’s got to be a world record for answering within the aforementioned three month time limit. That’s just cra-cra!

        Then again – the acceptability of those answers may depend on what the definition of was was. So perhaps direct claims of who Jesus said he WAS are not claims of who he said he WAS.

        We need an acceptable definition of was that most normal people agree with. We also need an acceptable definition of normal people. We also need a definition of acceptable definition.

        HGP!

        ~

        1. The Dig-Dug dudes had the common decency to disappear from the screen after they popped (or were crushed neath a rock). Our Dig-Dug is apparently immortal and immune to all reasonable answers.

          He apparently doesn’t color well either.

  12. His screwed up his opening reply when regarding the probable impossibility to prove anything.
    Probable is not impossible thus there is a probability to prove certain things.
    12:20. ‘’If’’. Yes, if and there is no evidence to confirm the validity of anything else he says
    13: 29; Again, re Muslims etc. ‘’If’’. And then an entire apologetic waffle where he simply refuses to answer directly.
    15 47; A Christless eternity! He is an evangelical christian. Of course he believe in Hell. What a disingenious cowardly response. In fact, subsequent questions by the first interviewer demonstrate that his whole approach hinges on the statement:
    ‘If Jesus is who he said he is,’’ thus, as he respects the rest of the text, therefore so should ‘’you’’ .
    What a lame, ignorant and once again, cowardly response without directly addressing the interviewer question, something christian apologists are renowned for.
    He also said no one could get at the life of Jacob, Isaac and Abraham, giving the clearest impression to the listener that he believe these were real historical characters, because Jesus mention them and considers them real.
    And once more he restates his position re: the biblical text
    His position is that, irrespective of evidence, if Jesus is okay with it and I beleive Jesus is who he says he was then everything he says in the bible must, therefore be true.
    And this is the entire premise of his thesis and what he builds his faith upon.
    As we know full well there is not a scrap of verifiable evidence to support any claim to divinity or worse, that Jesus of Nazareth is the creator of the universe, and we know that archaeological evidence has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt the falsity of several of the Old Testament tales, and scholars have reasoned that much of what is claimed to have come out of Jesus’ mouth actually did not, how then is his position even remotely based upon sound reasoning and an unbiased scholarly approach, when everything he espouses comes across as presuppositional, faith-based apologetics?

    I am up to 45 mins and so far it is simply rank apologetics.

      1. You really do not understand this do you?

        Like Keller, you simply accept the character, Jesus of Nazareth is who he says he was, when in actual fact he never said anything about who he was, something you and Keller seem to have missed, but evangelical apologetic interpretation coes to your rescue.
        Easier to believe a ”rockstar” (sic) like Keller than approach the gospels honestly. After all, to do that you end up beign royally screwed.

        Thus, you can blithely dismiss any counter claim, any evidence and chuck in the ring your pithy childish retorts.

        ”If” – Yes, quite. And if pigs could fly and if my derriere could produce cotton candy ….
        If you want to establish any sense of integrity at all /em> then just for once, dump the hubris and admit that:

        ”I , Amanda ,beleive in Jesus of Nazareth because I am convinced that I am a sinner, need salvation and I base this solely on faith.”

        Otherwise, all you are espousing is not even worth using as rose fertilizer.

        Should I hold my breath for another link or one of Senor Dipshit’s little cartoons?

          1. I skipped scanned it and gleaned enough to recognise the Lewis Liar Lunatic etc hypothesis.

            Again, don’t use other people; demonstrate you have a mind of your own and answer the question.
            Keller stated it all depended on whether you believe that the character Jesus of Nazareth is who he said he was.
            You tell me what he said he was, Amanda.

          2. If you won’t accept when Keller gives you the answer, you won’t accept it from me, either.

            I agree with my dad on this one. You can watch the video and/or read the book, or don’t.

            I don’t care either way.

          3. Keller does not actually give an answer to the ”question” he rhetorically posed in the video.
            The way in which he frames the statement /question leads the viewer t assume that h«he, Keller does beleive, without actually stating what claim about himself Jesus of Nazareth made.

            This is why I am asking you to tell me what Jesus of Nazareth said he was.
            And I would hope you could do this without being obtuse evasive or continually throwing out diversionary comments.
            This is the entire crux of your belief after all, and is why, it seems to me, you can so blithely dismiss evidence that refutes so many biblical stories.

            If you believe simply based on what you say Jesus of Nazareth claimed he was then no evidence will make a blind bit of difference whatsoever.

            So simply tell me, in your own words, and you can quote a biblical passage if you like , what Jesus claimed he was.

          4. That is a blatantly false.
            You have not answered the question I posed merely directing me to other links.
            And ftr I did read Keller’s paper and nowhere in it does it say what the character Jesus f Nazareth claimed he was.
            Nowhere.
            He like Keller uses rhetoric in the way he asks so people can come to their own conclusions.
            You won’t answer my question because you know only too well that Jesus never made any outright claim as t what he was.

            It makes n difference because you have nowhere to go once you have ben called out.
            You are no different to any number of apologists.
            Truth! Lol ….

            Tell me, based on you methodology just how do you know you haven’t actually been duped by Satan?
            After all, he is real is he not?
            For all you know you might just be a tool of the Devil.
            The sweet irony.

            Maybe is was Satan that inspired the Gospel writers?
            Maybe is was Satan that called you!

          5. So, you are either ignorant, afraid, or a fraud.

            I even stated you could quote a bile verse.
            You must know the bible,.
            Tell me what Jesus claimed he was.

          6. My best guess is: he wants a quote from the Bible where Jesus says, “I am God” word-for-word.

            (Remember, he’s a black and white thinker with difficulty reading between lines.)

          7. Dig-Dug insists that Jesus never made ANY claims about his own identity.
            Is he off his meds?
            The PDF is four pages of claims from Jesus.
            I don’t understand what he wants you to say.

          8. Please. Call him Arkenwald.

            🙂

            Again: he wants a chapter and verse of a place where Jesus said, “Hear ye, hear ye, I am God–the Creator of the world–and I became a man to save you from your sins.” Even then, Ark wouldn’t believe the claim was TRUE. So it ultimately makes no difference.

            But that’s what he’s angling for.

          9. Arkenwald is saying there are NO claims about Jesus identity.
            Seriously, somebody should check and see if he’s had a stroke.

          10. Jesus never said, “My identity is God Himself and THAT’S WHY I am eternal and able to forgive sins and accepting worship.” (Partly because he spoke Hebrew.)

            But, yes. Unless Ark sees those exact words, he’s confused.

          11. Claims of what he could DO are not claims of who he WAS.
            That is perfectly reasonable coming from somebody who has just suffered a stroke.
            Send him some crayons and call it a day.

          12. I’m going to start linking to the conversation Matt Cross had with JZ a few weeks ago. (The one where JZ demanded something “new” that Jesus had said.) JZ wanted us to use JUST THE QUOTES and not Theology or deduction (or “apologetic fluff” as Ark calls it). So Matt quoted, “I am the way and the Truth and the Life.”

            That’s when JZ started reading between the lines and using Theology to deduce that other religious figureheads had said basically the same thing. lol.

            Good times.

  13. John, thank you for sharing this video. MHO is, Christianity and churches have moved away (over a long period of time) from having a relationship with God to, “will I go to Heaven or hell?”… As shown in the video. Heaven or hell, again, IMHO, is simply a continuation of how we lived our life on Earth, either with God, or not. Christianity is not about trying to get to Heaven or hell… It’s about living an abundant life in the here and in the hereafter, regardless of what we do or say. It’s everything to do with our relationship with God and who we are. And this video/interview with Keller (who is awesome) brings that out very well. Thank you.

  14. Mr Keller addressed the common gripe that Christians are the greatest proof for no God.

    We have said on a regular basis that the scriptures are also self correcting and self proving; this is how we know ahem, Mr. Hitler was an imposter, and how we also know for instance that the man who was stoned to death, Stephen, was the very opposite in character, proving the reality of Christianlty by forgiving those who ended his life.

    In addition, Keller asked a question that we ask: what is the basis for your morality? Yep, a fine question which reveals the uncomfortable answer of godlessness.

    And also notice the self control he exhibited, no inflammatory cursing, no words unfit for print. He did a fine job too of explaining the ‘reasons’ why unbelief is a glass (my words) of water full of holes: useless.

    And btw, his argument for the unsavory acts of people in the OT was plenty of evidence for its credibility.

        1. You will thoroughly enjoy that book. I can’t recommend it highly enough.

          Tim Keller’s influence is all over my blog space. I’m giving away my secrets! We’re brothers in arms you and I so it makes sense to share resources.

  15. JZ is relieved that Keller said something about “non-belief” in the first couple of minutes–which provided the PERFECT excuse to drop the whole thing.

    The definition of “non-belief” is one of his favorite hills to die on. Without the belief that non-belief isn’t a belief, JZ’s world starts to crumble.

    #Ironic

    1. The college professor wants bullet points instead of reading Dr. Keller’s actual book.

      You think I should provide JZ some pictures to color? Would that engage him at his level?

        1. I gave him something to color.
          Do you think he owns crayons? We could send him some if he’ll provide an address.

          1. LOL! I misread your first question. I thought you asked, “Should I engage him with bullet points?” And that’s why I said, “Absolutely not.”

            But–yes–crayons and a coloring book should keep him busy. It’s one of Cami’s favorite activities. (Although, right now, she’s playing with one of her Christmas gifts: a math/logic puzzle. Yes, seriously. She’s already overtaking our buddies here in the critical thought department.)

          2. That’s because Cami isn’t afraid to admit that she doesn’t know everything. Critical thought requires some humility.

          3. Yep. That’s why I gave him something to color!
            Very non-threatening. He doesn’t even have to stay in the lines.
            But I’m not going to answer any more questions from him until he colors one of those pictures and posts it.

  16. Right off the bat, Keller commits an appalling fallacy by stating a lack of belief requires faith. And he says that’s the “thesis” of his book?

    Good. Grief.

    How many ways can someone write pathetic?

    “Without him [Jesus] everything would shrivel”

    Really? Everything? Proof, please… You might want to look to the Templeton Foundation, you know, that Christian research group who’ve spent billions trying to prove just this.

    I gave up after that.

    If you want to provide bulletted points detailing his main arguments (if there are any) beyond that I’ll be happy to read them.

    1. Don’t settle for bullet points!
      There’s a whole book, JZ! https://goo.gl/d8KcCG

      You gave up after the first few minutes? How gloriously typical.
      And I’m supposed to believe that you’ll be ‘happy to read’ bullet points.

      Good. Grief. What university allowed you to tutor students?

        1. It’s pretty hilarious to comment about a position you’ve not bothered to understand.

          Read the book or forget it.
          I honestly don’t care.

          1. Did you miss the part where he mentions the “thesis” of his book?

            So, if there is anything more than that stunningly pathetic apologetic to his “thesis” then bullet it, or forget it.

          2. I’m meeting you at your level, JZ.
            This one is probably more appropriate:
            Let me know if you need me to send you crayons too!

Dive into the discussion...

Archives
Subscribe to Blog via Email

Get my blog in your inbox!

Follow

Get the latest posts delivered to your mailbox:

Your Cart