Menu
  1. Home
  2. Tao & Tawheed
  3. Tracts
  4. Events
  5. Account
User Menu Search
Close

Search

Search
Close

Ramadan Mubarak: Welcome to the 2nd Annual Locke and Lewis Lecture Series

Featuring: The Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism, by Steve Schlichter

  • 16 May 2019
  • Author: Scott Cherry
  • Number of views: 2778
  • 1 Comments

The Locke and Lewis Lecture series is a video project conducted during finals week at UM-Dearborn (April 22-25). This year it consists of 36 "micro-lectures" on various topics related to the intersection of faith and reason. Watch the Introduction by Scott Cherry.

Philosopher Alvin Plantinga argues that holding to both evolution and naturalism is self-defeating. You can have one or the other but not both. If evolution is the only input then we have no reason to trust in our ability to reason and no way to account for any interest in the truth content of any claim. 

Just one of 36 micro-videos in the series. Click here for the full playlist.

Read more

Who is the "Servant" in Isaiah 53?

Is it Israel or the Messiah?

  • 21 May 2019
  • Author: Scott Cherry
  • Number of views: 3567
  • 9 Comments


Dear Elmi,

Congratulations on your graduation from UM-Dearborn!  I'm proud of you but I also will miss you.  Thanks for engaging me in so many deep and intelligent discussions over your 4 years here, most of which were about the Bible or the Qur'an. As you already know, this is part 2 of my exposition of the Servant in Isaiah 52 and 53. In part 1 I did a word-search overview of "Servant" in the entire book of Isaiah excluding chapter 52:13 - 53:12 to save it for later. So now, since I skipped that section before, I will focus only on the identity of the Servant in Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12.  For convenience I have pasted the whole passage with my embedded comments below.

Your friend,

Scott

Read more

Scott's Original Gospel Parallel Table

10 Gospel Variants. *Click on title to open.

  • 1 June 2019
  • Author: Scott Cherry
  • Number of views: 3033
  • 1 Comments

   

Read more

Gnostic Nonsense

Why The Apocryphal Gospels Pale In Comparison to the 4 True Gospels

  • 4 June 2019
  • Author: Scott Cherry
  • Number of views: 3152
  • 1 Comments
The gospels of Thomas, Mary, Judas and Peter are nonsense. These and many more are included in a collection of 52 gnostic manuscripts discovered in the village of Nag Hammadi, Egypt in 1945.  Today they are readily accessible online.  Myriad online sources say that they are all in Coptic and largely dated to the 4th century. The exception is the gospel of Thomas which is generally dated (in apparently the most prominent system) as early 132 AD, but which is no longer viewed as “gnostic” by one of the  foremost experts on them, Elaine Pagels.  Then there’s the gospel of Peter, the one to which I was assigned to give special attention on this occasion: Apparently, the author of our textbook, John Dominic Crossan believes that its original composition predates even the New Testament’s synoptic gospels (Wikipedia on Gospel of Peter).  But almost no scholars agree. In broad strokes, the gnostic writings are a menagerie of esoteric sayings and reports that bear some resemblance to the stuff of the canonical four Gospels. If they didn’t then they would hardly be included in this category. It exists as a grouping of writings that were not invited to the “in-group” and that some say could have or should have been.  But I think not.  One reason is that they contradict each other, let alone the canonical gospels. Another is that they contain material that would be considered nonsense and/or repugnant by most thinking people. Another is their blatantly false authorship, and still another is their extremely late dating—far later than the gospels.
Read more

UnRedacted: The Internal Coherence of the Four Gospels

How variants in the canonical gospels prove they were not redacted.

  • 5 June 2019
  • Author: Scott Cherry
  • Number of views: 3632
  • 3 Comments
The Bible’s four canonical gospels are the world’s best information for the person and work of Jesus, bar none. That is my position that is shared by a great many scholars, past and present. And yet there is an apparent problem with several facets: 1) Why are there four?  2) Why are the first three gospels—so called the synoptics (Matthew, Mark, Luke)—so similar to each other yet so different from the fourth (John)?  3) Why do even they have so many differences among them, some of which look like contradictions? And 4) Why do they have so many similarities among them, including even identical material? ...If the early church community had been predisposed to redaction ('super-editing') they could have thoroughly redacted the gospels to edit out all the discrepancies, especially any bonafide contradictions. Almost certainly, if there had been a Master Editor or, say, a Master Board of Redaction for the New Testament, they would have done so.  It would have been in their better interests because the presence of variants and apparent discrepancies is inconvenient at best. But they did not. That they did not strongly suggests that their primary interests were authenticity and truth.



Read more
RSS
First12131415161718192021Last

Terms Of UsePrivacy StatementCopyright 2024 by Tao and Tawheed
Back To Top