@Acts17 - Answering Muslims

@Acts17 - Answering Muslims

alt

There are more than 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, coming from a variety of ethnic and educational backgrounds. Many of these Muslims claim that there is strong evidence supporting Muhammad and the Qur’an, as well as strong evidence against Christianity.



Answering Muslims is a Christian apologetics website dedicated to responding to the questions, objections, and arguments of Muslims. The site is run by Christian debaters, lecturers, and writers who have a special interest in Islam.



Since one of the most common Muslim arguments is that Islamic morality and law would benefit Western nations, we also report relevant current events concerning the impact of Sharia on various cultures.

Another Undesigned Coincidence: Unauthorized Fire, and Touching a Dead Body at Passover
Thursday, July 27, 2017 2:10 PM

In recent blog articles, I have been documenting various examples of undesigned coincidences throughout the Scriptures, particularly in the Old Testament. In this blog post, I will reveal another example. Turn with me to Numbers 9:1-8:
And the Lord spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the first month of the second year after they had come out of the land of Egypt, saying, 2 “Let the people of Israel keep the Passover at its appointed time. 3 On the fourteenth day of this month, at twilight, you shall keep it at its appointed time; according to all its statutes and all its rules you shall keep it.” 4 So Moses told the people of Israel that they should keep the Passover. 5 And they kept the Passover in the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, at twilight, in the wilderness of Sinai; according to all that the Lord commanded Moses, so the people of Israel did. 6 And there were certain men who were unclean through touching a dead body, so that they could not keep the Passover on that day, and they came before Moses and Aaron on that day. 7 And those men said to him, “We are unclean through touching a dead body. Why are we kept from bringing the Lord's offering at its appointed time among the people of Israel?” 8 And Moses said to them, “Wait, that I may hear what the Lord will command concerning you.”
There is a time stamp given for this Passover in verse 1. We are informed that it took place "in the first month of the second year after they had come out of the land of Egypt." Thus, this was the second Passover.

In verses 6 and 7 we read of "certain men who were unclean through touching a dead body." Someone, therefore, has evidently died among the camp of Israel. Here is where it gets interesting. According to Exodus 38:26, the number of men above twenty years of age -- excluding the Levites -- who paid a tax to the Tabernacle only a short time before its erection was 603,550. According to Numbers 1:46, the number just after the erection of the Tabernacle (at the beginning of the second month of the second year) is exactly the same -- 603,550.

This entails that the dead body that we read was touched and hence defiled certain men in Numbers 9:6-7 must have been of the tribe of Levi.

Now turn with me to Leviticus 10, in which we read an account of the very same Passover. We know that Leviticus 10 takes place around the time of Passover, since in Exodus 40 we read of the erection of the Tabernacle on the first day of the first month and that at that same time Aaron and his sons were consecrated to minister as priests (Exodus 40:13). Leviticus 8 and 9 concern the particulars of their consecration. Thus, we pick up at Leviticus 10.

In verses 1-5, we read of the death of Nadab and Abihu:
Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, which he had not commanded them. 2 And fire came out from before the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord. 3 Then Moses said to Aaron, “This is what the Lord has said: ‘Among those who are near me I will be sanctified, and before all the people I will be glorified.’” And Aaron held his peace. 4 And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron, and said to them, “Come near; carry your brothers away from the front of the sanctuary and out of the camp.” 5 So they came near and carried them in their coats out of the camp, as Moses had said.
No mention is made in Leviticus 10 of the defiling of certain men by touching a dead body or the instructions given as a result. No mention is made in Numbers 9 of Nadab and Abihu, of the tribe of Levi, who took a censer and offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, resulting in their deaths in judgment and their bodies being carried away out of the camp by Mishael and Elzaphan.

Thus, the "certain men" spoken of in Numbers 9 who had been defiled by touching a dead body was most likely Mishael and Elzaphan.

This sort of integration without design is the type of pattern we expect in genuine historical reports, not works of fiction.
Tony Costa's Mission Trip to Cambodia
Saturday, July 22, 2017 6:12 AM





Dear Friends. I will be going to Cambodia from August 21-25, 2017 to teach pastors there on the subject of theology and other false religions. If you can help support my travelling costs it would be greatly appreciated. You can support my trip by clicking  here.  Thank you and God bless.



Support Needed!
Tuesday, July 11, 2017 10:11 PM

We'd like to take our sons Reid and Paley to a conference where affected children and families meet with the researchers who are working on curing Myotubular Myopathy. The costs for our 2015 trip totaled nearly $9000 (but were completely covered by donors!). We started a GoFundMe campaign for this year's conference. Please chip in if you can.

Using Undesigned Coincidences to Corroborate Biblical History: King Hezekiah's Treasury
Thursday, June 29, 2017 12:36 PM

In past articles, I have been documenting many cases of undesigned coincidences throughout the Scriptures, particularly in the Old Testament, and showing how we can use them to corroborate various aspects of Biblical history. Here, I present yet another example of an undesigned coincidence in the Old Testament.

Turn with me to Isaiah 38, in which we read of King Hezekiah's illness and recovery. In Isaiah 39, we have an account of envoys coming from Babylon to congratulate King Hezekiah on his recovery. There is a parallel account of those events in 2 Kings 20 which appear to be textually dependent on Isaiah (or vice versa). Here is the account in Isaiah 39:1-2:
At that time Merodach-baladan the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent envoys with letters and a present to Hezekiah, for he heard that he had been sick and had recovered. And Hezekiah welcomed them gladly. And he showed them his treasure house, the silver, the gold, the spices, the precious oil, his whole armory, all that was found in his storehouses. There was nothing in his house or in all his realm that Hezekiah did not show them.
Thus, we learn, King Hezekiah proudly showed the Babylonian envoys his great riches in his treasure house. Hezekiah's pride brings upon him a prophecy of judgment. In verses 3-7, we read,
Then Isaiah the prophet came to King Hezekiah, and said to him, “What did these men say? And from where did they come to you?” Hezekiah said, “They have come to me from a far country, from Babylon.” He said, “What have they seen in your house?” Hezekiah answered, “They have seen all that is in my house. There is nothing in my storehouses that I did not show them.” Then Isaiah said to Hezekiah, “Hear the word of the Lord of hosts: Behold, the days are coming, when all that is in your house, and that which your fathers have stored up till this day, shall be carried to Babylon. Nothing shall be left, says the Lord. And some of your own sons, who will come from you, whom you will father, shall be taken away, and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.”
King Hezekiah selfishly is relieved at the prophecy, thinking to himself that at least "There will be peace and security in my days" (verse 8).

Both the account of this event that we read in Isaiah and that in 2 Kings imply that Hezekiah's fell ill at the time of the invasion by Sennacherib of Judah and before the outcome of that invasion. In both accounts, God promises Hezekiah that he will live and that God will deliver the city from the Assyrians (Isaiah 38:6; 2 Kings 20:6). Thus, the envoys arrived from Babylon after his recovery, and after the danger from Assyria had been averted.

Now let's consider another text in 2 Kings 18:13-16:
In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and took them. And Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria at Lachish, saying, “I have done wrong; withdraw from me. Whatever you impose on me I will bear.” And the king of Assyria required of Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. And Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the house of the Lord and in the treasuries of the king's house. At that time Hezekiah stripped the gold from the doors of the temple of the Lord and from the doorposts that Hezekiah king of Judah had overlaid and gave it to the king of Assyria.
Wait a minute. So Hezekiah has just made this humiliating tribute to the king of Assyria, having had to offer him "all of the silver that was found in the house of the Lord and in the treasures of the king's house" and even being reduced to stripping the gold from the doors of the temple and from the doorposts. How then was he able not long after this humiliation to show all of his riches of his treasury to the Babylonian envoys? One could write it off as a contradiction, or we could dig deeper to find the solution - and in so-doing uncover another remarkable undesigned coincidence.

For the solution, let us now turn to 2 Chronicles. 2 Chronicles contains the account of the destruction of Sennacherib's army by the miraculous intervention of the angel of the Lord (which is also found in Isaiah and 2 Kings albeit in different wording and terminology from the account in 2 Chronicles). After these events, 2 Chronicles throws in a unique detail in 32:23:
And many brought gifts to the Lord to Jerusalem and precious things to Hezekiah king of Judah, so that he was exalted in the sight of all nations from that time onward.
Therein lies our answer. This explains how Hezekiah came to have a full treasury to show off to the Babylonian envoys by the time the Babylonians learned of his recovery. No mention is made of the humiliating tribute to the Assyrians in 2 Chronicles. 2 Kings does mention the humiliating tribute and him showing off his treasury shortly thereafter to the Babylonian envoys, but makes no mention of the gifts that replenished the treasury. Isaiah makes no mention of the tribute or the gifts but mentions his display of his great wealth.

This undesigned coincidence corroborates the historical veracity of these events and also strongly suggests that one of our authors (i.e. either Isaiah or the author of 2 Kings) had access to the court of Hezekiah, and thus knew about the visit of the Babylonian envoys.

Corroborating Biblical History with Undesigned Coincidences: The Building of Solomon's Temple
Wednesday, June 28, 2017 10:51 PM

In a previous article, I introduced an example of an undesigned coincidences relating to Mount Hermon. I discussed Moses' incidental mention in Deuteronomy 3:8-9 of the Sidonian name for the Mountain, which is Sirion (despite the fact that Mount Hermon is geographically very distant from Sidon). The solution, which I discern in my earlier article, is that at its foot there was dwelling a Sidonian colony, who spoke the Sidonian language, of which we read in Judges 18:7. The city was called Laish, but following the conquest of this city by Israel, its name is changed from Laish to Dan. I invite readers to go back and read my earlier article, in order to better make sense of the undesigned coincidence I lay out here.

Turn with me to 1 Kings 7, in which we read of the building of Solomon's temple. Let's zero in on verses 13-14:
And King Solomon sent and brought Hiram from Tyre. He was the son of a widow of the tribe of Naphtali, and his father was a man of Tyre, a worker in bronze. And he was full of wisdom, understanding, and skill for making any work in bronze. He came to King Solomon and did all his work.
There is a parallel account given in 2 Chronicles 2:13-14, in which we read of what the king of Tyre wrote in a letter to Solomon:
Now I have sent a skilled man, who has understanding, Huram-abi, the son of a woman of the daughters of Dan, and his father was a man of Tyre. He is trained to work in gold, silver, bronze, iron, stone, and wood, and in purple, blue, and crimson fabrics and fine linen, and to do all sorts of engraving and execute any design that may be assigned him, with your craftsmen, the craftsmen of my lord, David your father.
It is clearly the same individual being spoken of here that we read of in 1 Kings 7. However, there is an apparent discrepancy (which I have highlighted in bold font in our texts above) -- the text in 1 Kings asserts his mother to be a woman of the Tribe of Naphtali; the other, in 2 Chronicles, asserts her to be a woman of the daughters of Dan. Now, we could just simply dismiss this as a contradiction on the part of Scripture -- as many liberal critics would like to do. Or we could dig deeper to see whether there is a resolution.

As discussed in my earlier article, six hundred people from the tribe of Dan seized the city of Laish, which was a city of the Sidonians (see Judges 18). We also know that the Sidonians were subjects of the king of Tyre, since in 1 Kings 5:6 we read of Solomon sending to the king of Tyre for workmen, saying,
Now therefore command that cedars of Lebanon be cut for me. And my servants will join your servants, and I will pay you for your servants such wages as you set, for you know that there is no one among us who knows how to cut timber like the Sidonians.
As I showed in my previous article, Laish/Dan was close to the springs of Jordan. There is thus evidence to support that Dan/Laish stood in the Tribe of Naphtali, since we read in Joshua 19:32-34:
The sixth lot came out for the people of Naphtali, for the people of Naphtali, according to their clans. And their boundary ran from Heleph, from the oak in Zaanannim, and Adami-nekeb, and Jabneel, as far as Lakkum, and it ended at the Jordan. Then the boundary turns westward to Aznoth-tabor and goes from there to Hukkok, touching Zebulun at the south and Asher on the west and Judah on the east at the Jordan.
We are thus told that the outskirts of the territory of Naphtali is said to have been at the Jordan. Again, this implies that Dan/Laish stood in the Tribe of Naphtali.

This, then, makes sense of our apparent discrepancy between 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles. The woman is said to be of the Tribe of Naphtali since her hometown, according to 2 Chronicles 2:13, was Dan/Laish -- just as Jacob is also called a Syrian because he had lived in Syria (see Deuteronomy 26:5). By birth, she was of the Tribe of Dan -- the very tribe which had conquered and colonized the city of Laish, renaming it Dan (Judges 18). This also illuminates why her husband is said to have been a man of Tyre (since the Sidonians were subjects of the king of Tyre).

What at a superficial glance appeared to be a contradiction between 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles in fact, on closer inspection, reveals an undesigned coincidence that ends up corroborating the Biblical account. In future articles, I will continue to document cases of undesigned coincidences throughout the Scriptures, thereby further corroborating Biblical history.
Ramadan Bombathon 2017: Five Takeaways
Wednesday, June 28, 2017 10:32 AM

During the 2017 Ramadan Bombathon, jihadis killed nearly 1600 people in the name of Allah. By comparison, all other religions combined didn't launch a single terrorist attack in the name of their respective religions. What can we learn from these results?

The London Mosque Attack: How Politicians and the Media Are Killing Muslims
Tuesday, June 20, 2017 4:01 PM

Early in the morning of June 19, 2017, a 47-year-old man named Darren Osborne plowed a rental van into Muslims who were leaving a mosque after their evening Ramadan prayers. Police are treating the incident as an anti-Muslim terrorist attack. In this video, I explain how such attacks can be prevented.  

The Rising Price of a Slave: Another Method of Corroborating Biblical History
Friday, June 16, 2017 3:42 PM

The following graph is excerpted from figure 43 of K.A. Kitchen's book, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, and can be found on page 643. It shows the rising average price of slaves throughout 2000 years. Another graph, running alongside, shows the Biblical records of the price of a slave at three distinct Biblical time periods. 


The first of those is at the time at which Joseph was sold by his brothers into slavery. Genesis 37:28 tells us,
Then Midianite traders passed by. And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver. They took Joseph to Egypt.
This was the approximate average price of a slave in the 18th century B.C. Before this time, the price of a slave had been cheaper and the price steadily increased over time due to inflation. As shown in the graph, before this time (under the third dynasty of Ur), the commonest price of a slave was only 10 shekels. The prices of a slave in the 18th century (the time of Joseph), according to old Babylonian documents, are within a 15 to 30 shekel range and average at 22 shekels.

The next Biblical time point marked in our graph is the time of the Exodus out of Egypt. If we look at Exodus 21:32, we are told,
If the ox gores a slave, male or female, the owner shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.
In fifteenth century Nuzi and fourteenth and thirteenth century Ugarit, the average price of a slave reached as high as 30 shekels and more. Hence, we see the replacement money that must be paid to the owner, according to Exodus 21:32, given as 30 shekels.

In the first millennium, B.C., the average price of a slave rose as high as 50 to 60 shekels. The Biblical record tells us the redemption price that Menahem had to pay Assyria in the eighth century B.C. Here is what we read in 2 Kings 15:20:
Menahem exacted the money from Israel, that is, from all the wealthy men, fifty shekels of silver from every man, to give to the king of Assyria. So the king of Assyria turned back and did not stay there in the land.
Thus, as K.A. Kitchen explains (On the Reliability of the Old Testament, p. 345),
...our biblical figures in each case closely correspond to the relevant averages for their periods: 20 shekels for Joseph in the early second millennium, 30 shekels under Moses in the later second millennium, and 50 shekels for Assyria under Menahem in the eighth century. This closely matching "graph" is not coincidence.
If the events were being made up centuries later then it would be very difficult for a forger to check the relevant price of slaves at the time of the events he was narrating. This is the sort of thing where it would be very easy for a forger to err, given the rapidly climbing average price of a slave throughout history. This pattern of evidence suggests that the events are being recorded in close proximity to the time and place.
Zakir Naik Claims Muhammad Was a Gay Necrophile
Wednesday, June 14, 2017 5:42 PM

In the Islamic hadith collection "Kanz al-Ummal," we read a disturbing story about Muhammad sleeping with a dead woman to ensure her place in paradise as his bride:
"Narrated by Ibn Abbas: 'I (Muhammad) put on her my shirt that she may wear the clothes of heaven, and I slept with her in her coffin (grave) that I may lessen the pressure of the grave. She was the best of Allah’s creatures to me after Abu Talib' . . . The prophet was referring to Fatima , the mother of Ali."
Since the word "slept" here can refer to sexual intercourse (as in the English sentence, "He slept with her"), some critics of Islam have suggested that Muhammad had sex with a dead woman.

Whether or not that's true, Muslim apologist Dr. Zakir Naik claims that Muhammad was a homosexual and a necrophile (someone who is sexually attracted to dead people). He makes this claim by arguing that Muhammad is mentioned by name in Song of Solomon 5:16 and that the Hebrew word "machmad" is the name "Muhammad." In this video, I point out the obvious implications of Naik's assertions.

Corroborating Biblical History Using Undesigned Coincidences: Isaac and Rebecca Revisited
Tuesday, June 13, 2017 6:49 PM

In a previous article I posted at this site, I argued for the historical veracity of the story in Genesis 24, wherein Abraham sends out a servant to the city of Nahor in Mesopotamia in search of a wife for Isaac. I did so using a form of undesigned coincidence which I call the uniformity of expressive silence (please see my article for a full discussion on that). Here, I want to present an additional corroborating case of an undesigned coincidence.

According to our text in Genesis 24, who was Rebecca (the woman who would become Isaac's wife) in relation to Abraham? In verse 24, Rebecca tells the servant,
I am the daughter of Bethuel the son of Milcah, whom she bore to Nahor.
Who is Nahor? We find out in Genesis 11:26:
When Terah had lived 70 years, he fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
Thus, we learn that Nahor is Abraham's own brother! We are also told this in Genesis 22:20. This information is not given to us in Genesis 24, although the servant does say in verse 27,
As for me, the Lord has led me in the way to the house of my master's kinsmen
The text then does tell us that Rebecca was one of Abraham's kinsmen. For the precise relationship, however, we have to go to Genesis 11:26.

This is rather strange, since it appears then that the grand daughter of Abraham's brother Nahor is to be the wife of Isaac, Abraham's son. Think about what this means. Someone of the third generation on the side of Nahor is to be married to someone of the second generation on the side of Abraham.

How can we make sense of this? Turn over to Genesis 18:11-12, in which we read of the response of Abraham's wife, Sarah, after God promises that “I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife shall have a son,”:
Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in years. The way of women had ceased to be with Sarah. So Sarah laughed to herself, saying, “After I am worn out, and my lord is old, shall I have pleasure?”
In other words, Sarah had been for a long time barren, and she was now well past the age of child bearing. This makes sense of how someone of the third generation on Nahor's side could marry someone of the second generation on Abraham's side. But note that this is not spelled out in the text. It is only by putting these jigsaw pieces together -- from Genesis 24:24, Genesis 11:26 and Genesis 18:11-12 -- that we find illumination of what was going on. This is the sort of pattern we expect in a record of history, not a work of fiction.

Indeed, this case of undesigned coincidence corroborates a miraculous element of the narrative -- namely, that Sarah conceived Isaac when she was of old age, something she would naturally not be expected to do. There are many more cases of undesigned coincidences throughout the Scriptures. I will continue to document them on this blog.
Undesigned Coincidences in the Scriptures: An Argument of Their Veracity
Monday, June 12, 2017 8:31 AM



Here is the recording of a presentation I delivered on Saturday to my Apologetics Academy webinar class. The topic is undesigned coincidences in the Scriptures and how we can use them to corroborate Biblical history in the gospels & Acts, as well as the Old Testament, and support the authenticity of the Pauline epistles. Enjoy!
Revisiting the Trinity in Acts 2: A Reply to Dale Tuggy
Friday, June 9, 2017 2:39 PM

A few days ago, I posted an article addressing a blog post that was written by Biblical Unitarian heretic Dale Tuggy, in regards to Peter's preaching in Acts 2. Dale argued that, since Peter makes no reference to the Trinity or deity of Christ in his sermon to the Jews in Acts 2, these doctrines must therefore not be essential to the gospel, and that they moreover must be dispensable beliefs for salvation. In my rebuttal, I showed that Peter's preaching in Acts 2 in fact does affirm the deity of Christ, and, moreover, his gospel presentation is profoundly Trinitarian.

Over at his blog, Tuggy published a response to my article, defending his position that Peter does not affirm the deity of Christ or the Trinity in Acts 2. My friend Steve Hays then joined the fray, publishing a short rebuttal to Tuggy's article. I have to confess to being rather disappointed with the lack of substance or depth in Tuggy's response article, and the misrepresentation of Trinitarian doctrine.
I had made the point previously that the sermon in Acts 2 does not mention Christ's death being an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Thus, applying Tuggy's logic consistently would also make that doctrine dispensable to the gospel. Tuggy replied,
I assume he means here something like a substitutional theory of atonement. That’s right, I don’t think anyone has to believe that in order to be saved. A person doesn’t have to believe any developed theory about the mechanics of forgiveness, i.e. a theological atonement theory, in order to be saved. That is as it should be. All Peter tells them in Acts 2, is if they repent and get baptized, they’ll be forgiven.
Actually, it does not matter what theory of atonement one buys into. Nowhere in Acts 2 does Peter even assert that Jesus died for our sins. Yet no Christian would argue that this indicates that Jesus dying for our sins is not definitional to the gospel. One must also make a distinction between a lack of belief as a result of ignorance or immaturity in the faith, and a considered denial of those doctrines. I do not believe it is necessary to believe in the Trinity to be saved. One might hold all sorts of heretical understandings out of ignorance and yet still be saved. A wilful rejection of the Trinity, however, is something else entirely.

I noted in my previous article that while Peter's sermon in Acts 2 does not use the philosophical categories that would be later developed to convey the idea of the Trinity, Peter's sermon is nonetheless profoundly Trinitarian. Tuggy replied,
Here Mr. McLatchie introduces a red herring, a distraction. The use of “philosophical categories” (i.e. terms) is irrelevant. I would count it here if in any way, the tripersonal God were mentioned as such, or the “deity of Christ” or the two natures of Jesus were taught. The terms needn’t have time-traveled back from Constantinople (381) or Chalcedon (451). Any sort of explicit statement or clear implication would do.
I think my previous article showed just that. As we shall see, Tuggy's rebuttal to my points falls very far short of convincing.

Tuggy continues,
Unfortunately, Mr. McLatchie also introduces a weasel word here, on which the rest of his piece depends: “trinitarian.”
If this means “having to do with the Trinity,” i.e. the tripersonal God, then there is no shred of evidence that what Luke is doing here is trinitarian, nor does my opponent provide any.
If “trinitarian” means just “having to do with the Father, Son, and Spirit” (this triad, however they’re related to one another), then of course all of Acts is “trinitarian.” But this is a trivial point. Any unitarian’s theology will also be thorough “trinitarian” in this loose way of using the word.
He assets [sic] that Peter’s first sermon here is thoroughly “trinitarian.” In the first sense, this is patently false. In the second sense, it is obviously true. This is how weasel-words work. The hope is that you’ll agree to the obvious truth, and then not notice when we switch to the (at best) controversial claim.

Of course, I refer to the former use of the word Trinity -- i.e. defined as a tripersonal God. That is what my previous article proposed to defend. There is no weasling here on my end. Tuggy just doesn't get it.

Tuggy continues,
Next, McLatchie serves up an example of the fulfillment fallacy. The argument is:
1. In Joel 2 Yahweh (truly) promises to pour our his spirit on all flesh.
2. In Acts 2 Peter (truly) says that Jesus poured out God’s spirit on all flesh.
3. Therefore, Yahweh is Jesus (and vice-versa).   (1,2)
Note the vast gap between 1 and 2 and the conclusion 3. The argument is invalid; 3 doesn’t follow from 1 and 2. 1 and 2 could be true while 3 is false in this way: Yahweh pours out his spirit through (the risen and exalted) Jesus. 1 and 2 are merely compatible with the identity of God and Jesus (claim 3). But 1 and 2 do nothing to support 3.
The trouble here is that Tuggy has thoroughly misrepresented my argument. Tuggy sets up my argument as follows:

1. A causes B.
2. C causes B.
3. Therefore, A is C.

Of course this form of logic is invalid. However, that is not my argument. Rather, the argument is that, according to Peter in Acts 2, God promised through the Prophet Joel that God, YHWH, would pour out His Spirit on all flesh. Moreover, according to Peter in Acts 2, this promise from the book of Joel has been fulfilled since Jesus has poured out the Spirit as prophesied. Thus, I would argue that Peter is identifying Jesus as YHWH.

Tuggy goes on to commit a massive blunder, which shows that Tuggy lacks the expertise in Trinitarian beliefs to be speaking publicly about the issue. Here it is:
Worse, 3 is incompatible with every Christian’s belief that there are differences between God and Jesus. It’s not even a conclusion which a trinitarian should want! Do you see why?
Amazingly, Mr. McLatchie celebrates having (he thinks) proved the numerical identity of Yahweh and Jesus, and then immediately mentions that they qualitatively differ!
After quoting my statement that Jesus in Acts 2 is presented as distinct from the Father, Tuggy continues,
Right Jesus received the spirit from the Father. (Acts 2:33) The Father didn’t receive his spirit from anyone. It follows that they are numerically two. Mr. McLatchie needs to learn this self-evident truth, the indiscernibility of identicals, and then theologize (and interpret scripture) accordingly.
Tuggy has thus fundamentally misrepresented Trinitarian beliefs. What Trinitarian believes that Jesus is the Father? Indeed, every Trinitarian believes the Father and Son are distinctive personalities. The Father is not the Son, and nor is the Son the Father. Nonetheless, the three distinct persons of the Father, Son and Spirit fully participate in and share the fullness of the divine essence.

Tuggy makes the mistake of assuming that Trinitarians believe that God is Jesus. Such a statement, however, is in error. It is correct and proper to say that Jesus is God, but it is not correct for us to assert that God is Jesus. While the Son possesses all of the divine attributes, prerogatives and qualities that make God God, He does not exhaust all that God is -- there is also the Father and the Spirit.

Tuggy goes on to make the same mistake in regards to my comments about the reference to the name of Yahweh in Joel, and Peter's statements that we are saved through the name of Jesus. Tuggy replies,
But of course, in this new covenant, you return to God, you get reconciled to God through Jesus. This doesn’t imply that God just is Jesus, and vice-versa. Rather, the whole scheme presupposes that God and Jesus are two, since the man Jesus is a mediator (1 Timothy 2:5) between us and God, functioning like a high priest (Hebrews).
But what Trinitarian asserts that "God just is Jesus"? Of course that is ridiculous. God is the Father, Son and Spirit.

Consider an illustration from the Old Testament. In Genesis 5:1-2, we read,
When God created mankind, he made them in the likeness of God. He created them#cen-NIV-108D" data-link="(#cen-niv-108d"="" title="See cross-reference D">D)"> male and female#cen-NIV-108E" data-link="(#cen-niv-108e"="" title="See cross-reference E">E)"> and blessed them. And he named them Adam when they were created.
Thus, both Adam and Eve are named Adam by God. Adam, in this sense, therefore, simply refers to the essence of the two individuals Adam and Eve -- i.e. it defines what they are. The other sense in which the name Adam is used, of course, is as a proper name. It is appropriate for us to say that Eve is Adam, but it is not appropriate for us to say that Adam is Eve.

Regarding my defence of the deity of the Holy Spirit from Acts, Tuggy writes,
The personality and “deity” of God’s spirit is no part of the content of Peter’s message in Acts 2, which is what my post was about.
As I wrote in my previous post, the deity of the Holy Spirit can even be defended from Acts 2, since the Holy Spirit is poured out on all flesh, implying that the Holy Spirit possesses omnipresence, an exclusive attribute of the divine.

In summary, Tuggy's rebuttal was high on rhetoric but lacking in substance. He, moreover, thoroughly misrepresents the position of Trinitarians such as myself. Tuggy's assertions notwithstanding, the book of Acts -- and in particular Peter's sermon here in Acts 2 -- is thoroughly Trinitarian.
Ramadan Bombathon in Iran
Wednesday, June 7, 2017 11:36 PM

The global "Ramadan Bombathon" continues, this time in Iran, where jihadis attacked the Iranian parliament and the mausoleum of the Ayatollah Khomeini.

The Trinity in Acts 2: A Refutation of Dale Tuggy
Tuesday, June 6, 2017 11:46 PM

Biblical Unitarian Dale Tuggy published an article at his blog in which he argues that belief in the doctrine of the Trinity and deity of Christ are not definitional to the gospel, and are not essential for salvation. After all, Tuggy, points out, Peter in his proclamation to the Jews in Acts 2 makes no mention of those doctrines.

Tuggy's argument fails for a number of reasons. For one thing, Peter's sermon in Acts 2 also makes no mention of Christ's death being an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Extending Tuggy's logic further, therefore, would require also abandoning that doctrine as definitional to the gospel.

The second problem is that, while Peter's sermon (being addressed to a Jewish audience) does not use the philosophical categories that would be developed later to convey the idea of the Trinity, Peter's sermon is thoroughly Trinitarian. Consider verses 16-21, in which Peter quotes from Joel 2:
But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. And I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke; the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day. And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’
Notice that in verses 17 and 18, Yahweh states that "I will pour out my Spirit". Yet what does Peter go on to state in verses 32-33?
This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.
Thus, the one who has poured out the Spirit, according to Peter, is Jesus Himself! Peter thus has identified Jesus as none other than Yahweh. Jesus, moreover, is clearly distinct from the Father, since Peter says that He has "received from the Father."

Furthermore, in Acts 2:21, Peter quotes Joel as saying,
And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
 And yet what does Peter state in verse 38?
Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Thus, while Peter has quoted Joel as saying that all who call upon the name of Yahweh will be saved, he goes on to instruct the people to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

Indeed, Peter goes on to say to the Jewish council in Acts 4:11-12,
This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.
Again, the name given by which we must be saved is that of Jesus.

We thus have clear evidence in this text that Peter is proclaiming the deity of Jesus. But what of the Holy Spirit? In Acts 2:17, Peter has quoted God in the book of Joel as saying "I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh." What properties would the Holy Spirit have to possess in order to simultaneously be poured out on all flesh all over the world? Clearly, omnipresence, an attribute of deity.

The book of Acts actually affirms the deity and personal identity of the Holy Spirit a number of times. For example, in Acts 5:3-4, we read,
But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.”
Thus, the Holy Spirit is here taken to be a personal agent who can be lied to -- in fact, the Holy Spirit is identified as God Himself in verse 4.

Acts 5:32 also has another affirmation of the personal identity of the Holy Spirit:
And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”
Thus, the Holy Spirit is a witness in the same sense that the apostles were witnesses. This again strongly implies the personal identity of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is identified as both divine and personal in Acts 13:2:
While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 
Here, the Holy Spirit speaks as a person and sends Barnabas and Paul. The Holy Spirit says it is the work He has called them to do. This again implies strongly the deity of the Holy Spirit.

The personal identity of the Holy Spirit also comes through in Acts 15:28 at the Jerusalem council:
For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements.
The phrase "it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit" (which is taken to be in the same sense that it seemed good to the apostles) implies strongly that the Holy Spirit is a personal agent.

Another affirmation of the deity of the Holy Spirit occurs in Acts 28:25-27:
And disagreeing among themselves, they departed after Paul had made one statement: “The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers through Isaiah the prophet: “‘Go to this people, and say, “You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive.” For this people's heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed; lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.’
Thus, according to Paul, the one who spoke to Isaiah in Isaiah 6:9-10 was the Holy Spirit. Yet according to Isaiah 6:8 it is the Lord God himself speaking.

In conclusion, we have seen that, contrary to Dale Tuggy's assertions, Peter's sermon in Acts 2 is profoundly Trinitarian.
The London Bridge Massacre
Monday, June 5, 2017 6:01 AM

On June 3, 2017, three jihadis drove a van into pedestrians walking across London Bridge. After fleeing the van, the jihadis proceeded to Borough Market, where they stabbed a number of people. As usual, British politician Theresa May is calling such violence "a perversion of Islam." But does May's plan for dealing with Islamic violence make sense? Let's take a closer look.

John 17:5: An Affirmation of Christ's Deity?
Monday, June 5, 2017 12:40 AM

John 17:5 is a text I have often used to support the deity of Christ from the gospels. In this verse, Jesus says,
And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
The significance is that God Himself, in Isaiah 42:8, declares,
I am the Lord; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols. 
Yahweh, therefore, shares His glory with no-one. And yet Christ claims to participate and share in the glory of the Father. The implication is that the Son must be one in essence with the Father.

A popular objection to this reasoning from Muslims as well as Biblical Unitarians is that, in John 17:22, Jesus says to His Father,
The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one
By extension of the logic, it is argued, would this not render the disciples part of the essence of Yahweh as well? Since this is an absurd conclusion, it is argued that the argument should be rejected.

How then should a Trinitarian go about answering this objection? There are in fact two kinds of glory that Jesus is referring to in this text -- His divine glory that He had before the world was created; and the glory that He had while in the world. The former of those categories he shares only with the Father and Holy Spirit.

How do I know this? Take a look at John 2:11:
This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him.
Also take a look at John 11:1-4:
Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill. So the sisters sent to him, saying, “Lord, he whom you love is ill.” But when Jesus heard it he said, “This illness does not lead to death. It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.” 
Therefore, the glory that Jesus had on earth was the miraculous deeds he performed that bore witness to His being of God. The glory that Jesus gave to the disciples is that glory, and not the other.

How do I know this? Take a look at John 17:18-23:
As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.
In verse 18, Jesus says that He is sending out the disciples into the world just as the Father had sent Him out into the world. This ties in with John 14:12-14, where Jesus says they will do the same works He has been doing:
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.
Now, how do I know that the other glory is reserved for God alone, and is not given to the disciples? Take a look at John 17:24:
Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.
Therefore, Jesus says that His disciples will behold His glory, not possess it.

In summary, there are two sorts of glory spoken of in John 17: one which is shared with the disciples and one which is not, and which is reserved for God alone. Jesus' claim, therefore, to participate in and share the glory of the Father is a direct affirmation of His deity.
What Is Jihad?
Sunday, June 4, 2017 1:46 AM

What is jihad? "Jihad" is an Arabic word meaning "struggle," and thus may be applied to a variety of forms of physical, emotional, or spiritual exertion. In its religious context, however, the most relevant form of jihad is devoted to violently subjugating non-Muslims. Robert Spencer discusses the issue.

Using an Undesigned Coincidence to Corroborate the Johanine Authorship of John's Gospel
Thursday, June 1, 2017 2:15 PM

Recently on this blog I have been showing how undesigned coincidences can be used to corroborate many aspects of Biblical history, as well as even the authorship of various books of the Bible. Here, I want to use an undesigned coincidence to corroborate John's gospel as having been written by John the apostle.

It is widely known that John's gospel omits the name of one disciple -- that of John the son of Zebedee, preferring instead to identify him by phrases such as "the disciple whom Jesus loved". At the end of the gospel, in John 21:24, the author of the gospel identifies himself as being the unidentified disciple. He writes,
This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.
Is there any independent evidence to corroborate the author's claim to be this disciple? If so, then the argument for Johanine authorship rests on being able to demonstrate the identity of this disciple -- and I think a very convincing case can be made for him being John the son of Zebedee by a process of elimination.

That being the case, consider what we find in John 18:15-16:
Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Since that disciple was known to the high priest, he entered with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest, but Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the servant girl who kept watch at the door, and brought Peter in.
It makes sense to identify this other disciple as John -- first because he is unidentified (which is how John is treated consistently in John's gospel) and second because "the disciple whom he loved" (which I take to be the apostle John) was certainly present at the cross, since we read in John 19:26-27:
When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.
It is thus a reasonable inference to take the other disciple from John 18:15-16 to be John the son of Zebedee. What then is the significance of him being "known to the high priest"?

In John 18:10, we read,
Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant and cut off his right ear. (The servant's name was Malchus.)
How did the author of John's gospel come to know the name of the high priest's servant? Indeed, he is the only gospel author to give us this detail. This makes sense, however, if indeed John was someone who was known to the high priest. This corroborates the Johanine authorship of John's gospel. It is not by itself conclusive, but when taken in conjunction with other independent lines of evidence (both internal as well as external), one has a persuasive cumulative case to take John's gospel as penned by the disciple John.
"The Father is Greater Than I": Did Jesus Deny His Deity in John 14:28?
Thursday, June 1, 2017 9:15 AM

One favorite proof-text among Muslims and Unitarians who deny the deity of Jesus is John 14:28, in which Jesus declares that "The Father is greater than I." Is this a denial on the part of Jesus to be God? This is a prime example of reading a phrase out of its surrounding context. There is also the problem of the numerous texts throughout John's gospel which affirm Jesus' deity. If our interpretation of one verse of a particular book flies in the face of everything else the same book says, we have probably not understood it correctly.

The first difficulty for the Muslim is that use of this text is a double-edged sword, since no Muslim can believe that Jesus really said this. After all, the Qur'an is very clear that Allah is a Father to no-one, even in a figurative or allegorical sense -- not to Christians, not to Jews, not to Jesus, nor to anybody else (e.g. Surah 5:18, 6:101).

Second, if one reads the whole of verse 28, rather than just half of it, we read that Jesus said,
You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
Why should the disciples be rejoicing that Jesus is returning to the Father? The reason given is that the Father is greater than He. Why should that be a cause for rejoicing? The answer is given in verses 12-14:
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.
The reason, then, that Jesus' returning to the Father should cause the disciples to rejoice is that the Son is going to reclaim the glory and divine privileges which had rightfully been his along with the Father from eternity past -- i.e. that which he voluntarily laid aside at the time of the incarnation (e.g. see Philippians 2:5-11). In fact, Jesus is going to be answering the prayer requests of believers all over the world. This is not something that a Muslim could say of someone who was a mere prophet.

For Jesus to hear the prayer requests of believers all over the world, He must possess the attributes of omnipresence and omniscience. To perform the prayer requests of believers all over the world, Jesus must also be omnipotent. These are exclusive attributes of deity, and for Jesus to claim them of Himself is shirk according to the Muslim understanding.

Just a couple of chapters after our John 14:28 text, Jesus requests of the Father in John 17:5,
And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
Is that something that any mere creature could say? Indeed, God Himself declares in Isaiah 42:8,
I am the Lord; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols.
Thus, the Lord God makes it very clear that He shares His glory with nobody. And yet Jesus in John 17:5, claims that He has shared the glory along with the Father from eternity past. The conclusion is inescapable that Jesus shares and participates in the glory of the Lord God -- and thus He is one in essence with the Father.

Consider, moreover, what John 14:29 says, the verse immediately following the unitarian proof-text:
And now I have told you before it takes place, so that when it does take place you may believe.
Compare this to Isaiah 41:21-23:
Set forth your case, says the Lord; bring your proofs, says the King of Jacob. Let them bring them, and tell us what is to happen. Tell us the former things, what they are, that we may consider them, that we may know their outcome; or declare to us the things to come. Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods; do good, or do harm, that we may be dismayed and terrified.
God also says in Isaiah 48:3-5:
“The former things I declared of old; they went out from my mouth, and I announced them; then suddenly I did them, and they came to pass. Because I know that you are obstinate, and your neck is an iron sinew and your forehead brass, I declared them to you from of old, before they came to pass I announced them to you, lest you should say, ‘My idol did them, my carved image and my metal image commanded them.’
This is very similar to the language Jesus uses in John 14:29. God asserts in Isaiah that only He alone can tell us things before they come to pass. And yet Jesus in John 14:29 claims this prerogative as His own. Jesus also made a similar statement in John 13:19:
I am telling you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am.
The language "you may believe that I am" alludes back to the Greek Septuagint translation of Isaiah 43:10 ("you may believe that I am"), which is the voice of the Lord God. Jesus in John 13:19 takes those words of God and makes them His own.

In conclusion, then, John 14:28, when read in its proper context, in fact teaches the deity of Christ, thus affirming the very opposite of its claimed meaning by our Muslim and Unitarian friends.

Philemon and Onesimus, Residents of Colossae: An Undesigned Coincidence
Thursday, June 1, 2017 12:07 AM

On this blog I have been discussing quite a number of cases of undesigned coincidences. Here, I want to use a case of an undesigned coincidence to support the authenticity of one of the disputed Pauline epistles (Colossians) and also corroborate the historical veracity of the story we read of in the the epistle to Philemon concerning Paul's interaction with Philemon's run-away slave, named Onesimus.

Consider Colossians 4:7-9:
Tychicus will tell you all about my activities. He is a beloved brother and faithful minister and fellow servant in the Lord. I have sent him to you for this very purpose, that you may know how we are and that he may encourage your hearts, and with him Onesimus, our faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you. They will tell you of everything that has taken place here.
Why does Paul say of Onesimus that he "is one of you"? Presumably, this indicates that Onesimus himself was a Colossian. Do we have any independent evidence for Onesimus being a Colossian?

Turn with me to the book of Philemon. In this epistle, we learn that Onesimus had been a slave of Philemon, had run away and encountered the apostle Paul on his travels, who brought him to a saving knowledge of the gospel. Paul then wrote a letter to Onesimus's master, Philemon. Take a look at the epistle's address, given in verses 1-2:
To Philemon our beloved fellow worker and Apphia our sister and Archippus our fellow soldier, and the church in your house.
The text does not tell us where Philemon is from. However, there is mention made of a certain Archippus, who must be from the same city as Philemon (and by extension Onesimus). The epistle to Philemon nowhere tells us where Archippus is from either. However, when we turn back to Colossians 4, we find that there is an instruction given in verse 17:
And say to Archippus, “See that you fulfill the ministry that you have received in the Lord.”
Since Paul is writing to the church in Colossae, and since Paul gives his audience the instruction to pass on a message to Archippus, this indicates to us that Archippus was living in Colossae. Since the epistle to Philemon makes the connection of Onesimus to Philemon, and Philemon to Archippus, this indicates by extension that Onesimus is likewise from Colossae, thus illuminating Paul's words in Colossians 4:9: "Onesimus...who is one of you." This also indicates that Paul must have written the epistle to the Colossians and the epistle to Philemon at around the same time, while Onesimus was with him in Rome before returning to his master Philemon.

This undesigned coincidence supports the Pauline authorship of the epistle to the Colossians. It also corroborates the historical veracity of the story of which we read in the book of Philemon.
"The Psychology of Islam" (Dr. David Wood): The Recording
Tuesday, May 30, 2017 3:27 PM



On Saturday, our own Dr. David Wood made an appearance on my weekly Apologetics Academy live interactive webinar. The topic concerned the psychology of Islam, and in particular the possible role that Muhammad's fatherlessness may have played in Islamic origins. The talk was followed by lively interactive Q&A and discussion from the audience. This was our best attended webinar on record. On Zoom, we peaked at 65 participants, with around 20 or so following via the Facebook LIVE-stream.

Don't forget to subscribe to the YouTube channel to be kept up-to-date with future webinar recordings on all kinds of topics, and also consider contributing to keeping the ministry going at the donations page at my website.
Ramadan Bombathon Begins
Saturday, May 27, 2017 3:29 PM

Ramadan 2017 has arrived, which means that we're going to see a massive number of terrorist attacks carried out in the name of Allah. The "Religion of Peace" website keeps a running tally of these terrorist attacks and compares them with the terrorist attacks carried out in the name of all other religions combined. Let's see if all religions are equally violent.

Free Interactive Webinar with David Wood This Saturday: Don't Miss It!
Thursday, May 25, 2017 11:17 PM



Join us for another exciting session of the Apologetics Academy as we once again explore the big questions of life together. Participate in the free weekly interactive Webinar -- featuring a short talk by a special guest speaker (representing a position from anywhere across the theological and philosophical spectrum) followed by live open-floor Q&A and discussion.

Participants can engage the speaker using live audio and video, submit questions anonymously, participate in the chatbox, or simply watch and listen anonymously.

In this session, Dr. David Wood of "Acts17 Apologetics" is going to give us a presentation on the psychology of Islam.

As usual, our group meets at 8pm GMT / 3pm Eastern / 2pm Central / 12noon Pacific.

Please click the link below to join the webinar: 

https://zoom.us/j/457736238

Doing so will immediately prompt you to download the Zoom webinar platform we use (if you have not already done so). This should only take a minute or two. You will then be automatically connected to our webinar room.

For a complete list of upcoming speakers, please check out the confirmed lineup at http://www.apologetics-academy.org/online-training

If you would like to contribute towards keeping the Apologetics Academy free for participants, consider making a donation at http://www.apologetics-academy.org/donate
Why Jihadis Attack Concerts: Understanding the Manchester Massacre
Thursday, May 25, 2017 12:15 AM

On the four-year anniversary of the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby by two converts to Islam, a Muslim suicide bomber named Salman Abedi attacked exiting fans at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, killing 22 and injuring 59 others. Can we understand this brutal attack? Only if we turn to the Muslim sources.

Grill a Christian -- LIVE Apologetics Q&A: The Recording
Wednesday, May 24, 2017 12:35 PM



Here is the recording of Monday's "Grill a Christian" apologetics Q&A panel, featuring myself, Mark McGee, Dr. Charisse Nartney, Dr. Chris Claus and Dr. Lydia McGrew. Thanks to all of our panelists for participating in the live panel and all those who submitted questions! The next one will be sometime in June. :