Author: Ademola Taiwo

About Ademola Taiwo

Ademola Taiwo is a leader of "Christ defense', a Christian organisation based in Ibadan. He is the cofounder of Ealton Nigeria Limited, a house finishing firm based in Ibadan, Nigeria.

Posts by Ademola Taiwo:

Reno and the deity of Jesus

Aug 19 2019

A Response to Reno Omokri on the name ‘Jesus’

Historical plots have always been subject to revisionism from ages past. But, any revisionist can get away with his revisionism, provided there is no evidence to kick against whatever nonsense he is gunning for.

Not long ago, a Nigerian political and social commentator, who doubles as Pastor of the mind of Christ church, Reno Omokri, gave some often repeated arguments (shocking only to those who have not come across online polemicism targeted at Christianity, which are for the part, baseless in the face of evidence) against the doctrine of the Trinity and historicity of Jesus’s name.

One would think he is just discovering a gold mine, when he in fact is merely rehearsing arguments that has been in the skeptical (but un scholarly front against Christianity from the 19-20th century. I want to believe Reno’s argument has nothing to do with Jesus mythicism, hence I will limit my argument to the obvious part of his assertions. I will in this article give responses to the point raised on his posts as vividly as I can.

“People erroneously think Jesus is the Greek translation of Yeshu’a. That is not true. Jesus is a VERSION of Yeshu’a. But it is not a TRANSLATION. The name Yeshu’a is short for Yehoshu’a. It means the Lord saves. In Greek, the literal translation of Yehoshu’a or Yeshu’a is “Theós sózei sózó’ is the Greek word for salvation’.

The problem with this assertion is that Reno wrongly thought the transliteration of the Hebrew word “Yeshua’ (jeˈʃuaʕ) or its variant, “Yehoshua’ (jəhoˈʃuaʕ), which means “Salvation of the Lord’ and “Theo’s sozo’ would necessarily have an effect on the way the average first century Greek speaker would’ve named Jesus. “Theo’s sozo’ which means, “the salvation of God’, and is still the same meaning if transliterated to the Greek word for “iesous’. I wonder why he think the meaning of a name should necessarily be used for its translation as it is used through languages. It’d be interesting to note that it wasn’t only in the gospels or the new testament that we have the name Yeshua, rendered as “iesous’ in Greek. The Septuagint, a Greek translation of the old testament before Jesus’s time used the word “iesous’ the son of Naue for Joshua son of Nun, which is a variant of Jesus. More

By • rebuttals • 3 • Tags: , , , ,

Feb 13 2019

Does Extraordinary Claims Requires Extraordinary Evidence?

Skeptics have always been of the opinion that some claims given their nature appear to be extraordinary. Perhaps, the definition of their extra-ordinariness appear to be linked with its departure from known naturalistic norm and concern. A better way to put that’d be “supernatural claims requires extraordinary evidence‘. That sounds pretty much like word salad. Consequently, the resurrection claims of the new testament falls within this rank. Richard Carrier for instance in his debate with William Craig on Jesus’s resurrection was of the opinion that if Jesus resurrected and wanted to have all men believe he really did, he would not have chosen to reveal himself to selected few. But would’ve revealed himself internationally. That way, we would’ve had all the world literature attesting to how he indeed resurrected.

This sort of hypothesis is however fraught with difficulty.
1) It assumes that an inter cultural revelation could have made all men of that age to believe Jesus resurrected, but there are no good reasons to think they would’ve. If all the first temple Sanhedrin and second century talmudic Rabbis could attribute Jesus’s purported miracles with is “sorcery’, what evidence is there that Jesus’s revelation across the then world would result in many persons believing the resurrection claim. Couldn’t they just have waive it aside as simply “the act of *their* gods(not Yahweh) visiting them in the form of man’.

2) This sort of claim set a benchmark for believe. At the end, it all depends on what reasons/evidence you best deem sufficient and compelling. If you would need an extraordinary reason beyond well attested historical evidence to prove an historical case, then, it wouldn’t be hard to have you called ” a naturalistic devotee’. Only observatory scientism would cure your bias.

3) Extraordinary claims requiring evidence only implies a demand for more evidence. It does by no means refute the evidential cases already presented. And then, after more, evidence, you would need more evidence, and…..ad infinitum.

But, what is the probability that we would have that sort of evidence if the event happened not to be the case: if Jesus had not resurrected, what likelihood there is that his disciples would’ve went on to say he did, despite intense pressure without anyone of them recanting?. Why would they make a ridiculous claim as a dying and resurrecting messiah when they obviously had no visible reward for doing. Why would anyone die for a lie?

Why not start by considering those evidences for yourself. Test them against competing hypothesis. That’d solve your puzzle.

By • apologetics • 0

disciples of jesus

Feb 12 2019

THE GOSPELS: Are there Good Enough Reasons to trust the Testimonies of the Unlettered? 1

The idea that the disciples of Jesus didn’t have good record keeping abilities or skills, due to having no education could well have been gleaned from their encounter with the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem while they were proclaiming Jesus’s resurrection.

A passage that comes to mind is Act 4:13:

When [the religious leaders] saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished”.

It’s for this reason lots of skeptics likely took issues with the idea that Jesus’s disciples could’ve written the gospels (with the exception of Lukan gospel record) or the epistles attributed to them. How would “uneducated’ and “unlearned’ men have written such records, one which is next to masterpieces, they say.

But, the word “agrammatoi’ as used in the text have limited usage in the context. For instance, “grammata’ was used in John 7:15 for letters, which though Jesus wasn’t learned in, yet was able to so eloquently and coherently handle. The passage spake nothing of course about education of having basic oral grasp of “the law and the prophets’ or been able to record, write or even read(been/being prerequisite for basic literacy). The disciples of Jesus were thought of as been illiterate in the sense of their limited religious knowledge and handling/interpreting of the Jewish text. It’d be an exaggeration to think they were after all stack illiterate given the status of some of the disciples. More

By • rebuttals • 0 • Tags: , ,

apostle-paul

May 13 2018

Was Paul A Misogynist?

Many people on numerous occasions, have made the claim that Paul, the Pharisaic zealot, turned disciple of Jesus Christ was a misogynist. Often time, I was not moved by such claim. To me, his being tagged chauvinistic or misogynistic or even been one doesn’t really prove nor disprove the resurrection of Jesus Christ, neither does it relegate the claim of new covenant of Jesus to the background. It is simply non sequitur to the core claims of Christianity. After all, it is following the step of Jesus that make people Christians.
.
But recently, as I studies the new testament in its original language(Greek), I developed genuine concern for finding out the truth about some rather controversial issue of this sort. Let me tell you what I think about the issue. Here are the two verses mostly used to how misogynistic Paul was:

.Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they aren’t permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law says. If they will learn anything, let them ask their husband at home, for it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church (1 Corinthian 14:34-35)

Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or usurp authority over a man, but to be in silence. (1 Timothy 2:11-12)

This pretty look very much like Paul believed that women are to keep quiet in church meetings (all kind of quietness of course).
.
Early church custom, Paul’s writings and conduct elsewhere, and good principles of biblical interpretation all say that we should not take these verses literally
.
The verb used for silence “sigao’, was the same verb that was used in Act 15:12 when Paul was addressing the council of Jerusalem disciples. It also was used in Act 21:40 when he was addressing a group of men. In both cases, it was used to mean orderly silence. Now, it would be preposterous to interpret that word without taking its context into consideration. In chapter 11, Paul began to address the Corinthians on the disorderliness of their meetings. He wrote about issues on head covering as also the Lord’s super. More

By • apologetics • 0 • Tags: , ,

1 2