October 2019

Bible Contradiction Paul Conversion

Oct 14 2019

Did Paul’s Conversion Story Contradicts Itself?

One of the ways the skeptics and Muslims attack the Bible is to allege that there are contradictions in the Bible, and because of this, they concludes that the Bible is not a word of God. The Muslims allege that there is a contradiction between Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9

Is it true that there is contradiction in the conversion story of Paul? How can we explain this supposed contradiction to our Muslims friends? In this video, we examined these verses and explained the context showing there is no contradiction therein.

By • rebuttals • 0 • Tags: , ,

Dr White and Abdulah Hamimi

Oct 13 2019

Upcoming Debate: The Bible or Qur’an?

With so many books claiming to be divine scripture, how can we tell which is truly the Word of God? James R. White and Abdulah Hamimi will be discussing this important issue from two different perspectives. James will be representing the Christian position on the Bible, while Abdulah will be representing the Muslim position on the Qur’an.

Attention will be given to the issues of revelation (how has God revealed Himself?), development (what have Christians and Muslims believed about this issue throughout history?), canonization (which books should be accepted as Scripture?), and preservation (do we still have the words that were originally given?).

Date:
Saturday, October 19, 2019 at 1 PM – 4 PM

Venue:
Scots’ Church, Melbourne Corner of Collins & Russell Sts, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 3000

Hosted by: Biblical Clarity

Early Bird Rate: $12
Walk-in Rate: $15

Please purchase your ticket now at bit.ly/divinescripture to avail of the $12 early bird rate. Tickets will cost $15 if you pay at the door.

FAQs

What are my transport/parking options getting to the event?

Although there is pay-parking around the area, there is limited on-street parking, so we encourage attendees to use public transport where possible. The Scots’ Church is located on the corner of Collins and Russel Street, which is an 8 minute walk from Flinders Street Railway Station.

Where can I contact the organizer with any questions?

Email: acourtis@hillsbiblechurch.org
Mobile: 04 5678 9580

By • debates • 0 • Tags: , , ,

Oct 8 2019

Did the Ante-Nicene Fathers Worship the Holy Spirit as God Almighty?

It is becoming quite popular among Islamic dawagandists to claim that the Christians of the first four centuries did not worship the Holy Spirit as God, since this was something only agreed upon in the year 381 AD at the council of Constantinople. This was supposedly the time when the church officially decided to make or declare that the Holy Spirit is God, the third Person of the Trinity, and therefore co-equal to the Father and the Son. As the following Islamic website puts it:

Early on, Christians did not call the Holy Spirit “God”, nor did they worship or pray to the Holy Spirit. When did Christian theologians first insist on this same fully divine status for the Holy Spirit? The first such official statement is the creed of Constantinople in 381 CE. This creed attributed a number of things to the Holy Spirit, such as a divine title, ‘Lord’, and supreme worship equal to that rendered to the Father and the Son. Thus, the Holy Spirit was officially voted as the third Person of the Trinity. The Catholic Church admits:

The apostolic faith concerning the Spirit was announced by the second ecumenical council at Constantinople (381) [18] (Did the Early Church Fathers Believe in the Trinity? http://www.manyprophetsonemessage.com/2017/08/31/did-the-early-church-fathers-believe-in-the-trinity/)

It is clear from such statements that these Muhammadans have not read the primary sources for themselves, but are simply parroting the misinformation found in secondary and third sources, where they simple repeat the assertions made by anti-Trinitarian groups without ever bothering to verify the accuracy of those claims.

By • rebuttals • 0 • Tags: , ,

Church fathers and the trinity

Oct 5 2019

Were the Early Church Fathers Trinitarians?

It’s become a trend among certain Muslim polemicists to goldmine citations from notable Christian historians in order to mislead people into thinking that the early church fathers, particular the Ante-Nicene writers such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian etc., were not Trinitarians and did not hold to the ontological equality of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. One such historian whose work on the early church that is often misrepresented is J. N. D. Kelly. I have therefore decided to cite what Kelly states in respect to the early Apologists’ beliefs on the Trinity, specifically their view of the Person of Christ . All bold and/or capital emphasis will be mine.

Here is what this renowned scholar wrote:

The Apologists were the first to frame an intellectually satisfying explanation of the relation of Christ to God the Father. They were all, as we have seen, ARDENT MONOTHEISTS, determined at all costs NOT TO COMPROMISE THIS FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH. The solution they proposed, reduced to essentials, was that, AS PRE-EXISTENT, Christ was the Father’s THOUGHT OR MIND, and that, as manifested in creation and revelation, He was its EXTRAPOLATION OR statement. In expounding this doctrine they had recourse to the imagery of the divine Logos, or Word, which had been familiar to later Judaism as well as to Stoicism, and which had become a fashionable cliché through the influence of Philo. Others had, of course, anticipated them. In the Fourth Gospel, for example, the Word is declared to have been with God in the beginning and to have become flesh in Christ, while for Ignatius Christ was the Father’s Word issuing from silence. The Apologists’ originality (their thought was more Philonic than Johannine) lay in drawing out the further implications of the Logos idea in order to make plausible the twofold fact of Christ’s pre-temporal oneness with the Father and His manifestation in space and time. In so doing, while using such Old Testament texts as Ps. 33, 6 (‘By the word of the Lord were the heavens made’), they did not hesitate to blend with them the Stoic technical distinctions between the immanent word (logos endiathetos) and the word uttered or expressed (logos prophorikos).

More

By • rebuttals • 0