Posts Tagged ‘michael brown’

On a serious note, the bottom of the post quotes an extract from “Unequal Weights And Measures” that illustrates the disparity in exegetical & interpretive methods employed by anti-Missionaries, like Tovia.

The spelling item was too cute to pass up on. Have a listen below. I’m sure Tovia would not have passed on a classic opportunity like this either – if it wasn’t him in the “blooper reel”, of course. The fact is, I’ve listened to Tovia’s show many, many times & grew to like him as a person – hence this isn’t classic ad hominem, but still, I’m stirred by his arrogance at times & the audio extract seemed to balance radio show pride and arrogance with a bit of humiliation nicely – perpetrated by his radio show co-host after all, …so how malicious could it be. 🙂 The word in question wasn’t actually “theology”, it was “piece” – yet the title question remains. 🙂


20140311-215218.jpg

When attacking the New Testament — that is exactly what the anti-missionaries do — they often use a three-pronged approach: hyper-literality, alleged contradictions, and alleged misquotations.

In terms of hyper-literality, they will ask: “Do you literally believe what Jesus said? Then, if your right eye is causing you to sin, you should gouge it out and throw it away!” Or, “Didn’t Jesus say, ‘Give to him who asks you?’ Then give me your wallet, your shirt, and the keys to your car!” Or, in abusing the concept of the incarnation (I doubt that many of our opponents actually try to understand the incarnation in any serious way) they will use coarse quips such as, “Does your God wear diapers?”5 The overall effect of their hyper-literality is to try and make our faith seem idiotic and absurd.

In terms of alleged contradictions, these can be divided into two categories: historical problems and apparent contradictions within the New Testament sources themselves. A favorite passage of the anti-missionaries is Stephen’s speech in Acts 7, a speech supposedly brimming with error. And, if we would object that, even if there were errors (I do not believe there are) it would be no problem, since inspiration only means that Luke accurately recorded what Stephen said, the hyper-literal anti-missionaries are quick to point out that Stephen was “filled with the Spirit” when he spoke. Thus, according to them, if he really had spoken in the Spirit, he could not have made an error! As for apparent contradictions within the sources, the Gospel accounts of Yeshua’s betrayal, crucifixion, and resurrection, or the accounts of Saul’s Damascus road experience in Acts are singled out as being hopelessly at odds with themselves.6 The overall effect of these accusations is to try and make our Scriptures appear utterly untrustworthy.

In terms of alleged misquotations, we are generally pointed to verses like Mat. 2:23, “He will be called a Nazarene” — supposedly an entirely fabricated verse; and Heb. 10:5, “A body you have prepared for me” — supposedly a blatant alteration of the Hebrew of Psa. 40:6; or, verses allegedly wrenched from their original context, like Hos. 11:1b, “I called My son out of Egypt,” quoted in Mat. 2:15; and Isa. 7:14, the Immanuel prophecy, quoted in Mat. 1:23.7 The overall effect of these accusations is especially serious. It tries to give the impression that the authors of the New Testament were not only idiotic and untrustworthy; according to the anti-missionaries, they were actually devious and deceitful.8

The plain truth is this: It is the anti-missionaries who are often being devious and deceitful. For if they would be honest with themselves, they would have to admit that, using the same canon of criticism on their own sacred texts, they would utterly shipwreck their own faith. In other words, if the New Testament would be disqualified by anti-missionary arguments in one hour, using those same arguments, the Tanakh would be disqualified in a matter of minutes and the Talmud in a matter of seconds! The anti-missionaries will readily accept the views of critical, nihilistic New Testament scholars, while following only rigidly conservative (generally, traditional Jewish) scholars of the Old Testament.9

Stop and think for a moment. What if the shoe were on the other foot? What if the anti-missionaries believed in the New Testament and we were left to defend the Tanakh and the rabbinic writings? What would the anti-missionaries do then? Just imagine what their unsympathetic and shallow hyper-literality would do with passages like Gen. 2:18-20, where the Lord apparently brought giraffes, monkeys, elephants, and armadillos to Adam, only to find that none of them would make a good wife for him;10 or, Exod. 4:24-26, where the Lord sent Moses to Egypt to deliver His people, but tried to kill him on the way — because he failed to circumcise his son. And I’m sure they would also have plenty of comments to make about God’s bow that appears in the sky after the showers (Gen. 9:12ff.), or about the “windows of heaven” that are opened to allow the rain that is above the expanse to fall to earth (Gen. 7:11).

What would the anti-missionaries do with the moving story of the ‘aqedah? Would they ridicule a God Who tests the obedience of His faithful servant by asking him to slaughter his own son? (Of course, they would also point out that according to the text, He is hardly omniscient — see Gen. 22:12). Would they contrast the goodness of the Heavenly Father in the New Testament with the cruelty of Yahweh in the Old — a Yahweh Whose incessant hardening of Pharaoh caused him to lead Egypt to disaster, even when Pharaoh was ready to let Israel go? Just picture how the anti-missionaries would glory in the mercy of the Son of God, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,” while denigrating the Lord’s command to exterminate totally the Canaanites — men, women, children, and babies. And would they be sympathetic to the fact that the Torah legislated slavery (Exod. 21:1-11), or that when the Israelites went to war, the Torah permitted them to spare good looking virgins for possible future wives (Deut. 21:10-14)? And have the anti-missionaries forgotten that, historically speaking, the great problem has been that the God of the Old Testament seems to be a less compassionate, gracious, and universal God than the God of the New Testament? This has always been an issue for New Testament theologians, as well as for destructive Gnostic critics like Marcion, or less radically, like Adolph Harnack. One need only think of the vicious work of Friederich Delitzsch — son of the brilliant Franz Delitzsch, a true friend of Israel — attacking the Old Testament as dangerous, and recommending that it be dropped from seminary curriculum.11 Remember, it is Psalm 137 — not the New Testament — that pronounces a blessing on those who smash Babylon’s babes on the rocks.12 What if the anti-missionaries were attacking this?! Source

Audio from: Israel National Radio – Tovia Singer – Tamar Gives Tovia a Spelling Bee. Listen to full audio here.

Very interesting comments and observations from Michael Brown on the alert bulletin below (from Jews for Judaism) & some background on how written debates are pushed by counter missionaries, but normal debates are persistently declined, except by close personal friend Shmuley Boteach. Also an interesting agreement for a written debate agreed upon before, but pulled as advised by more senior rabbis based on initial responses from the Jewish side – by people active on discussion forums.

20130726-195204.jpg

Line of Fire Radio – Encouragement from the Front Lines of Jewish Ministry and Dr. Brown Takes Your Jewish-Related Calls. Listen to full audio here.

toviaMaybe there were a few debates that Tovia struggled with (example on YouTube below), but this one he didn’t want anyone to hear.

Line of Fire Radio – 03.22.13 Dr. Brown Takes Calls and Questions. Listen to full audio here.

Is it hypocritical of Jewish Rabbis refusing to do audio debates & then insisting on written debates? Also note the enlightening information about interaction between Michael Brown & Tovia Singer in the third segment – just let player continue playing.

singer-brown-debate

Line of Fire Radio – 22/02/2013 Dr. Brown Q & A. Listen to full audio here.

The Brownsville revival is described as follows by Wikipedia in brief. The testimony audio above is from an eye-witness & leader in the movement that the author of this post have come to know & found trustworthy through books & the radio show linked to at the bottom of post over to some years.

The Brownsville Revival (also known as the Pensacola Outpouring) was a widely-reported religious phenomenon that began within the Pentecostal movement on Father’s Day June 18, 1995 at Brownsville Assembly of God in Pensacola, Florida. Characteristics of the Brownsville Revival movement, as with other Christian religious revivals, included acts of repentance by parishioners and a call to holiness, said to be inspired by the manifestation of the Holy Spirit. Some of the occurrences in this revival fit the description of moments of “religious ecstasy”. More than four million people are reported to have attended the meetings from its beginnings in 1995 to around 2000. – Wikipedia

Check out Line of Fire Radio. Listen to full audio here.

Of all the attacks that have come against Rev. Billy Graham in his decades of ministry, a recent attack from gay activist Wayne Besen may be the most ridiculous yet. It was all because Graham took out a full-page ad in 14 North Carolina newspapers supporting the now-passed Marriage Amendment. How dare he! The ad featured a large picture of Graham with these words: “At 93, I never thought we would have to debate the definition of marriage. The Bible is clear — God’s definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. I want to urge my fellow North Carolinians to vote FOR the marriage amendment on Tuesday, May 8. God bless you as you vote.” That’s it. A simple statement by the most respected Christian leader in America in the 20th century reaffirming what was never disputed until recent years, despite the presence of homosexual relationships in various societies for countless centuries: Marriage is between a man and a woman, and, for those who care to know, there’s not a syllable in the Scriptures that gives the slightest hint that marriage is intended to be anything other than the union of a man and a woman. How did Besen respond to the ad? He called Graham a “onetime anti-Semite,” referred to him as “this fraud,” grouped him with other “totalitarian preachers,” and claimed that “Graham is now trying to jam his own church’s rules and doctrine down my throat” and that “he thinks I should be forced against my will to live by its rules.” Besen asked, “Do we now make our civil laws based upon Christian Sharia? Do we all have to follow his version of the Bible or be punished by government? And if this is the case, are we really a free country? Are we really much different than Iran, or is it only by a matter of degrees or a matter of time until these so-called ‘Christian Supremacists’ get their paws on all of our laws?” (Yes, this is meant to be taken seriously.) Besen continued: “I’m not sure who Billy Graham thinks he is. But it seems like he believes he is superior and his followers have a mandate to hijack civil law and decide for the rest of us how we live.” As for what the Bible says about marriage, Besen stated that Graham is “dead wrong about the Bible being clear.” – see full article here.

 
Check out Line of Fire Radio. Listen to full audio here.

 

How sad is this – a reflection of the desperate our society is in, as is mentioned at the end of the audio clip discussing this. Everybody is “too scared to interfere” – understandably, considering the article “Homosexual agenda can’t make ‘fearless one’ tremble” as an example. What if you’re branded a homophobe, fired etc? Thankfully this gay propaganda (and I’m not in the mood to tippy-toe around this issue) isn’t pervasive all around the world yet, but America is very effective in exporting their ideologies – thanks mostly to Hollywood I’m sure.

LA Times: McInerney shot King in a school computer lab at E.O Green Junior High in Oxnard in February 2008, after days of conflict between the boys. Students and teachers at the trial testified that King had been dressing in women’s accessories and wearing makeup, and was flirting aggressively with male students on campus who did not want the attention.

School administrators sent a memo advising teachers to give King his space, but to report safety problems. Teachers at the trial testified that when they tried to report growing tensions between King and several boys, school leaders shunned them.

The victim’s mother, Dawn King, revealed for the first time Monday that she had contacted school officials four days before the shooting in an effort to solicit their cooperation in toning down her son’s behavior. The boy had been taken from the Kings’ home two months earlier by authorities because of problems at home.

She said she was told that her son had a civil right to explore his sexual identity.

“I knew, gut instinct, that something serious was going to happen,” she said. “They should have contained him, contained his behavior.”

Prosecutors said the first trial showed that the case was too emotional to take to trial a second time.

“The first jury was unable to keep their emotions out of it,” Ventura County Chief Deputy Dist. Atty. Mike Frawley said. “This really tugged powerfully at people’s hearts.”

See also: “Brandon McInerney gets 21 years: School faulted in gay teen slaying

Listen to full audio here.