My Other Blogs:

Apologetics Lane
Bible Difficulties Answered
Charismata Matters
Gospel Crumbs

Gospel Meals

Remembered Music
Trinity Notes

My Comments on other Blogs

• Page Two
• Page One

[or here: Page Two; Page One]

Augustine on how Human authority Can Open the Door

The following is a footnote supplied in the Henry Beveridge translation of John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion in book I chapter 7 where he addresses the common Catholic citation of Augustine where he says that he would not believe the gospel, were he not moved by the authority of the Church. The footnote supports Calvin's point that Catholics make too much of Augustine's statement given what he says elsewhere about human authority.

Footnote:

Augustin. De Ordine, lib. 2 c. 9 “Ad discendum dupliciter movemur, auctoritate atque ratione : tempore auctoritas, re autem ratio prior est,” &c. “Itaque quamquam bonorum auctoritas imperitae multitudini videatur esse salubrior, ratio vero aptior eruditis: tamen quia nullus hominum nisi ex imperito peritus fit, &c., evenit ut omnibus bona, magna, occulta discere cupientibus, non aperiat nisi auctoritas januam,” &c. He has many other excellent things to the same effect.

Here's Meta AI's translation:

### *English translation*

*Augustine, _On Order_, Book 2, Chapter 9:*  

“We are moved to learn in two ways: by authority and by reason. In point of time, authority comes first, but in reality, reason is prior.” &c. 

“Therefore, although the authority of good men seems more beneficial for the unlearned masses, and reason more suitable for the educated, nevertheless, because no one becomes skilled except by starting out unskilled, &c., it comes about that for all who desire to learn things that are good, great, and hidden, *authority alone opens the door*,” &c. 

He has many other excellent things to the same effect.

### *Plain-English version*

Augustine is saying: 

1. *Two ways we learn*: someone we trust tells us, or we figure it out ourselves with reason. 

2. *Authority comes first in time* — kids/trust beginners have to take things on authority before they can reason them out. *But reason is more fundamental* in the order of reality.  

3. *Authority is better for beginners*; reason is for the educated.  

4. *But since everyone starts ignorant*, you _have_ to go through the “authority door” first. Nobody gets to deep, hidden truths without first submitting to a trustworthy teacher.

Meta AI properly explains that these quotes are given to support Calvin's point. Namely, "...unbelievers first come to Scripture through respect for the Church’s authority, but real certainty comes later from the Spirit — same “authority first, then understanding” pattern."

Quotes Misattributed to C.S. Lewis

 

Quotes Misattributed to C.S. Lewis
https://www.cslewis.org/aboutus/faq/quotes-misattributed/

John Calvin on the Necessity of Faith During Prayer

 

The following passage is from John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. I've posted the same passage from two different translations. First from the Beveridge translation. The second is from the Battles translation.

Beveridge translation:

This concurrence David expresses in a few words: “But as for me, I will come into thy house in the multitude of thy mercy, and in thy fear will I worship toward thy holy temple,” (Ps. 5:7). Under the goodness of God he comprehends faith, at the same time not excluding fear; for not only does his majesty compel our reverence, but our own unworthiness also divests us of all pride and confidence, and keeps us in fear. The confidence of which I speak is not one which frees the mind from all anxiety, and soothes it with sweet and perfect rest; such rest is peculiar to those who, while all their affairs are flowing to a wish are annoyed by no care, stung with no regret, agitated by no fear. But the best stimulus which the saints have to prayer is when, in consequence of their own necessities, they feel the greatest disquietude, and are all but driven to despair, until faith seasonably comes to their aid; because in such straits the goodness of God so shines upon them, that while they groan, burdened by the weight of present calamities, and tormented with the fear of greater, they yet trust to this goodness, and in this way both lighten the difficulty of endurance, and take comfort in the hope of final deliverance. It is necessary therefore, that the prayer of the believer should be the result of both feelings, and exhibit the influence of both; namely, that while he groans under present and anxiously dreads new evils, he should, at the same times have recourse to God, not at all doubting that God is ready to stretch out a helping hand to him. For it is not easy to say how much God is irritated by our distrust, when we ask what we expect not of his goodness. Hence, nothing is more accordant to the nature of prayer than to lay it down as a fixed rule, that it is not to come forth at random, but is to follow in the footsteps of faith. To this principle Christ directs all of us in these words, “Therefore, I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them,” (Mark 11:24). The same thing he declares in another passage, “All things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive,” (Mt. 21:22). In accordance with this are the words of James, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering,” (James 1:5). He most aptly expresses the power of faith by opposing it to wavering. No less worthy of notice is his additional statement, that those who approach God with a doubting, hesitating mind, without feeling assured whether they are to be heard or not, gain nothing by their prayers. Such persons he compares to a wave of the sea, driven with the wind and tossed. Hence, in another passage he terms genuine prayer “the prayer of faith,” (James 5:15). Again, since God so often declares that he will give to every man according to his faith he intimates that we cannot obtain any thing without faith. In short, it is faith which obtains every thing that is granted to prayer. This is the meaning of Paul in the well known passage to which dull men give too little heed, “How then shall they call upon him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?” “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God,” (Rom. 10:14, 17). Gradually deducing the origin of prayer from faith, he distinctly maintains that God cannot be invoked sincerely except by those to whom, by the preaching of the Gospel, his mercy and willingness have been made known, nay, familiarly explained.- John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, book 3, section 11
https://ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes/institutes.v.xxi.html

---

---

---

Battles translation:

And David briefly expresses this agreement when he says: “I through the abundance of thy goodness will enter thy house, I will worship toward the temple of thy holiness with fear”. Under God’s goodness he includes faith, meantime not excluding fear. For not only does his majesty constrain us to reverence but through our own unworthiness, forgetting all pride and self-confidence, we are held in fear. But “assurance” I do not understand to mean that which soothes our mind with sweet and perfect repose, releasing it from every anxiety. For to repose so peacefully is the part of those who, when all affairs are flowing to their liking, are touched by no care, burn with no desire, toss with no fear. But for the saints the occasion that best stimulates them to call upon God is when, distressed by their own need, they are troubled by the greatest unrest, and are almost driven out of their senses, until faith opportunely comes to their relief. For among such tribulations God’s goodness so shines upon them that even when they groan with weariness under the weight of present ills, and also are troubled and tormented by the fear of greater ones, yet, relying upon his goodness, they are relieved of the difficulty of bearing them, and are solaced and hope for escape and deliverance. It is fitting therefore that the godly man’s prayer arise from these two emotions, that it also contain and represent both. That is, that he groan under present ills and anxiously fear those to come, yet at the same time take refuge in God, not at all doubting he is ready to extend his helping hand. It is amazing how much our lack of trust provokes God if we request of him a boon that we do not expect.

Therefore nothing is more in harmony with the nature of prayers than that this rule be laid down and established for them: that they not break forth by chance but follow faith as guide. Christ calls this principle to the attention of all of us with this saying: “I say unto you, whatever you seek... , believe that you will receive it, and it will come to you” He confirms the same statement in another place: “Whatever you ask in prayer, believing” etc.. James is in accord with this: “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask God, who gives to all men simply and without reproaching... Let him ask in faith, with no wavering”. There, opposing faith to wavering, he most appropriately expresses the force of faith.

Nonetheless, what he adds must also be noted: that they who in doubt and perplexity call upon God, uncertain in their minds whether they will be heard or not, will gain nothing. He even compares these persons to waves that are driven and tossed hither and thither by the wind. Hence, in another passage, James calls what is right and proper “the prayer of faith”. Then, since God so often affirms that he will give to each one according to his faith, he implies that we can obtain nothing apart from faith. To sum up, it is faith that obtains whatever is granted to prayer. Such is the meaning of Paul’s famous statement, which the unwise too little regard: “How will anyone call upon him in whom he has not believed? And who will believe unless he has heard?”. “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing from the Word of God.” For, deducing step by step the beginning of prayer from faith, he plainly asserts that God cannot be sincerely called upon by others than those to whom, through the preaching of the gospel, his kindness and gentle dealing have become known—indeed, have been intimately revealed.

Light As Emblems in Scripture by Charles H. Spurgeon

 

From Charles Haddon Spurgeon's daily devotional "Morning and Evening." The entry for the morning of August 3.

"The Lamb is the light thereof."—Revelation 21:23.

QUIETLY contemplate the Lamb as the light of heaven. Light in Scripture is the emblem of joy. The joy of the saints in heaven is comprised in this: Jesus chose us, loved us, bought us, cleansed us, robed us, kept us, glorified us: we are here entirely through the Lord Jesus. Each one of these thoughts shall be to them like a cluster of the grapes of Eshcol. Light is also the cause of beauty. Nought of beauty is left when light is gone. Without light no radiance flashes from the sapphire, no peaceful ray proceedeth from the pearl; and thus all the beauty of the saints above comes from Jesus. As planets, they reflect the light of the Sun of Righteousness; they live as beams proceeding from the central orb. If He withdrew, they must die; if His glory were veiled, their glory must expire. Light is also the emblem of knowledge. In heaven our knowledge will be perfect, but the Lord Jesus Himself will be the fountain of it. Dark providences, never understood before, will then be clearly seen, and all that puzzles us now will become plain to us in the light of the Lamb. Oh! what unfoldings there will be and what glorifying of the God of love! Light also means manifestation. Light manifests. In this world it doth not yet appear what we shall be. God's people are a hidden people, but when Christ receives His people into heaven, He will touch them with the wand of His own love, and change them into the image of His manifested glory. They were poor and wretched, but what a transformation! They were stained with sin, but one touch of His finger, and they are bright as the sun, and clear as crystal. Oh! what a manifestation! All this proceeds from the exalted Lamb. Whatever there may be of effulgent splendour, Jesus shall be the centre and soul of it all. Oh! to be present and to see Him in His own light, the King of kings, and Lord of lords!

Christ's Love for His People [excerpt from Andrew Murray's book "Abide in Christ"]

The following is chapter 22 of Andrew Murray's classic book, Abide in Christ.

The book can be freely read on various websites like: Here, Here, Here, Audiobook

Chapter 22--AND IN HIS LOVE

"As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: abide ye in my love."--John 15:9.[1]

BLESSED Lord, enlighten our eyes to see aright the glory of this wondrous word. Open to our meditation the secret chamber of THY LOVE, that our souls may enter in, and find there their everlasting dwelling-place. How else shall we know aught of a love that passeth knowledge?

Before the Saviour speaks the word that invites us to abide in His love, He first tells us what that love is. What He says of it must give force to His invitation, and make the thought of not accepting it an impossibility: "As the Father hath loved me, so I have loved you!"

"As the Father hath loved me." How shall we be able to form right conceptions of this love? Lord, teach us. God is love. Love is His very being. Love is not an attribute, but the very essence of His nature, the centre round which all His glorious attributes gather. It was because He was love that He was the Father, and that there was a Son. Love needs an object to whom it can give itself away, in whom it can lose itself, with whom it can make itself one. Because God is love, there must be a Father and a Son. The love of the Father to the Son is that divine passion with which He delights in the Son, and speaks, "My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." The divine love is as a burning fire; in all its intensity and infinity it has but one object and but one joy, and that is the only-begotten Son. When we gather together all the attributes of God--His infinity, His perfection, His immensity, His majesty, His omnipotence--and consider them but as the rays of the glory of His love, we still fail in forming any conception of what that love must be. It is a love that passeth knowledge.

And yet this love of God to His Son must serve, O my soul, as the glass in which you are to learn how Jesus loves you. As one of His redeemed ones, you are His delight, and all His desire is to you, with the longing of a love which is stronger than death, and which many waters cannot quench. His heart yearns after you, seeking your fellowship and your love. Were it needed, He could die again to possess you. As the Father loved the Son, and could not live without Him, could not be God the blessed without Him-so Jesus loves you. His life is bound up in yours; you are to Him inexpressibly more indispensable and precious than you ever can know. You are one with Himself. "As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you." What a love!

It is an eternal love. From before the foundation of the world-God's Word teaches us this-the purpose had been formed that Christ should be the Head of His Church, that He should have a body in which His glory could be set forth. In that eternity He loved and longed for those who had been given Him by the Father; and when He came and told His disciples that He loved them, it was indeed not with a love of earth and of time, but with the love of eternity. And it is with that same infinite love that His eye still rests upon each of us here seeking to abide in Him, and in each breathing of that love there is indeed the power of eternity. "I have loved thee with an everlasting love."

It is a perfect love. It gives all, and holds nothing back. "The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His hand." And just so Jesus loves His own: all He has is theirs. When it was needed, He sacrificed His throne and crown for you: He did not count His own life and blood too dear to give for you. His righteousness, His Spirit, His glory, even His throne, all are yours. This love holds nothing, nothing back, but, in a manner which no human mind can fathom, makes you one with itself. O wondrous love! to love us even as the Father loved Him, and to offer us this love as our everyday dwelling.

It is a gentle and most tender love. As we think of the love of the Father to the Son, we see in the Son everything so infinitely worthy of that love. When we think of Christ's love to us, there is nothing but sin and unworthiness to meet the eye. And the question comes: How can that love within the bosom of the divine life and its perfections be compared to the love that rests on sinners? Can it indeed be the same love? Blessed be God, we know it is so. The nature of love is always one, however different the objects. Christ knows of no other law of love but that with which His Father loved Him. Our wretchedness only serves to call out more distinctly the beauty of love, such as could not be seen even in heaven. With the tenderest compassion He bows to our weakness, with patience inconceivable He bears with our slowness, with the gentlest loving-kindness He meets our fears and our follies. It is the love of the Father to the Son, beautified, glorified, in its condescension, in its exquisite adaptation to our needs.

And it is an unchangeable love. "Having loved His own which were in the world, He loved them to the end." "The mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed, but my kindness shall not depart from thee." The promise with which it begins its work in the soul is this: "I shall not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of." And just as our wretchedness was what first drew it to us, so the sin, with which it is so often grieved, and which may well cause us to fear and doubt, is but a new motive for it to hold to us all the more. And why? We can give no reason but this: "As the Father hath loved me, so I have loved you."

And now, does not this love suggest the motive, the measure, and the means of that surrender by which we yield ourselves wholly to abide in Him?

This love surely supplies a motive. Only look and see how this love stands and pleads and prays. Gaze, O gaze on the divine form, the eternal glory, the heavenly beauty, the tenderly pleading gentleness of the crucified love, as it stretches out its pierced hands and says, "Oh, wilt thou not abide with me? wilt thou not come and abide in me?" It points you up to the eternity of love whence it came to seek you. It points you to the Cross, and all it has borne to prove the reality of its affection, and to win you for itself. It reminds you of all it has promised to do for you, if you will but throw yourself unreservedly into its arms. It asks you whether, so far as you have come to dwell with it and taste its blessedness, it has not done well by you. And with a divine authority, mingled with such an inexpressible tenderness that one might almost think he heard the tone of reproach in it, it says, "Soul, as the Father hath loved me, so I have loved you: abide in my love." Surely there can be but one answer to such pleading: Lord Jesus Christ! here I am. Henceforth Thy love shall be the only home of my soul: in Thy love alone will I abide.

That love is not only the motive, but also the measure, of our surrender to abide in it. Love gives all, but asks all. It does so, not because it grudges us aught, but because without this it cannot get possession of us to fill us with itself. In the love of the Father and the Son,it was so. In the love of Jesus to us, it was so. In our entering into His love to abide there, it must be so too; our surrender to it must have no other measure than its surrender to us. O that we understood how the love that calls us has infinite riches and fulness of joy for us, and that what we give up for its sake will be rewarded a hundredfold in this life! Or rather, would that we understood that it is a LOVE with a height and a depth and a length and a breadth that passes knowledge! How all thought of sacrifice or surrender would pass away, and our souls be filled with wonder at the unspeakable privilege of being loved with such a love, of being allowed to come and abide in it for ever.

And if doubt again suggest the question: But is it possible, can I always abide in His love? listen how that love itself supplies the only means for the abiding in Him: It is faith in that love which will enable us to abide in it. If this love be indeed so divine, such an intense and burning passion, then surely I can depend on it to keep me and to hold me fast. Then surely all my unworthiness and feebleness can be no hindrance. If this love be indeed so divine, with infinite power at its command, I surely have a right to trust that it is stronger than my weakness; and that with its almighty arm it will clasp me to its bosom, and suffer me to go out no more. I see how this is the one thing my God requires of me. Treating me as a reasonable being endowed with the wondrous power of willing and choosing, He cannot force all this blessedness on me, but waits till I give the willing consent of the heart. And the token of this consent He has in His great kindness ordered faith to be-that faith by which utter sinfulness casts itself into the arms of love to be saved, and utter weakness to be kept and made strong. O Infinite Love! Love with which the Father loved the Son! Love with which the Son loves us! I can trust thee, I do trust thee. O keep me abiding in Thyself.

[1] It is difficult to understand why in our English Bible one Greek word should in the first sixteen verses of John 15 have had three different translations: abide in ver. 4, continue in ver. 9, and remain in vers. 11 and 16. The Revised Version has of course kept the one word, abide.

Martin Luther: Whether One May Flee From A Deadly Plague

 

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2020/may-web-only/martin-luther-plague-pandemic-coronavirus-covid-flee-letter.html

Our Sonship in Christ by Jonathan Edwards

 

The saints, being united to Christ, shall have a more glorious union with, and enjoyment of, the Father, than otherwise could be; for hereby their relation becomes much nearer, they are the children of God in a higher manner than otherwise they could be; for, being members of God's own Son, they are partakers of his relation to the Father, or of his Sonship; being members of the Son, they are partakers of the Father's love to the Son and his complacence in him. John xvii. 23. "I in them, and thou in me:–thou hast loved them as thou has loved me;" and verse 26, "That the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them;" and xvi. 27, "The Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God." So they are, in this measure, partakers of the Son's enjoyment of his Father; they have his joy fulfilled in themselves, and by this means they come to a more familiar and intimate conversing with God the Father than otherwise ever would have been; for there is, doubtless, an infinite intimacy between the Father and the Son, and the saints being in him shall partake with him in it, and of the blessedness of it. - Jonathan Edwards in his Miscellaneous Observations, Heaven

[page 548 HERE; or page 548 HERE]

The Habit of Doubt is a Hindrance to Prayer

IV. The habit of doubt is a hindrance to prayer.

"He that wavereth is like a wave of the sea, driven of the wind and tossed. Let not that man think that he shall receive anything of the Lord." This is strong language, but there is no doubt that the sin of unbelief, according to the divine standpoint, is the most hurtful of all spiritual conditions. It destroys the very contact of the soul with God as effectually as the cutting of that telegraph wire would prevent the transmission of a message. We have already seen that the word receive in this passage of James means take, and that it denotes, not so much God's anger with the unbelief, for He does "give liberally and upbraideth not," to all men, but it refers to the inability of the man to take what God gives. His doubt shuts up his whole spiritual sensibilities and capacities and renders him incapable of absorbing and appropriating the blessing which is offered him at the time. God holds us responsible for our doubt, but does not require us to produce, by our own will, the faith which brings us into contact with His love and blessing, for this is His impartation; but He does require us to prevent it from running out, as from leaking vessels, through all the openings of our miserable doubts. There is one thing that we can all do; we can refuse to doubt; we can refuse to entertain the questioning and fear, the morbid apprehension and subtle Satanic insinuation; and if we do this, God will do the rest and enable us to stand fast in faith, and press forward to the fulness of His blessing.

This is where the enemy concentrates his strongest attacks, waiting when the hour of trial comes, and our prayer seems to be refused and delayed, and hurling all his shafts of fire and evil suggestion into our trembling hearts to try to drive us from our confidence and get us to betray our own cause by consenting to his wicked questionings. Therefore Christ has said, "Whosoever shall say to this mountain, Be thou removed and be thou cast into the sea, and shall not doubt in his heart, he shall have whatsoever he saith." So "Abraham staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strong in faith giving glory to God." So we are to hold fast the faith we have professed without wavering, for, "He is faithful that promised." "Now the just shall live by faith; but if any man draw back, my soul hath no pleasure in him." God waits to give His blessing to the solders who stand their ground, and who, when the blessing comes, are there to claim it.

But, "Alas!" perhaps you say, "I have already doubted, and forfeited my blessing. Is it then too late to receive the answer?" No, if you will repent of your doubt as you would of any other sin, and immediately bring forth fruits meet for repentance by refusing from henceforth and for evermore to be betrayed into the same sin. Often we shall find that such a fall becomes the occasion of thoroughly convincing us of the sin of doubting, and curing us of it forever.

Beloved, have you been trifling with God in this matter of prayer and defrauding yourself of the blessings for which you have already suffered so much? May the Lord set your face this day like a flint, and fix your feet on the rock and stay your soul upon God!- A.B. Simpson, The Life of Prayer, chapter 5, section IV

I've linked to various versions of A.B. Simpson's The Life of Prayer HERE






 

Did Jesus Speak Multiple Languages?

Honestly, I find it completely implausible the assumption of many scholars that Jesus taught almost entirely in Aramaic and/or Hebrew. Why would He do that given the fact that the lingua franca at the time was Koine Greek? Being a carpenter [possibly like a contractor], Jesus probably had to do business in multiple languages. According to Luke He knew God the Father had a special calling on Him from youth, and so it's likely He would intentionally learn various languages to be a better communicator in the future. For the sake of safety and general prudence, it would have been wise for any Jew to learn Greek and Latin because the occupying government (Rome) spoke both languages. It's always a good idea to be able to speak the language the authorities speak in order to defend/protect oneself. Especially since there are always some authorities who are corrupt.

Joseph's travels with his family to Egypt and Bethlehem were probably via caravan. People in those caravans likely spoke Greek and Latin to get from place to place. Why would it be implausible that Joseph would be among them, or that he [as a Jew!] would teach his children the importance of education and languages? Many cultures that are polylingual often switch smoothly from language to language in order to better express their meaning, all in a single conversation. I don't see why Jesus couldn't have done the same thing. If Jesus really is the Logos [i.e. reason and word] of God, then it would make sense that He would have had a natural gift for acquiring and mastering languages. Besides that, He grew up in a situation that would encourage it.

William Barclay wrote in chapter 2 of his book The Mind of Jesus the following:

QUOTE

//Throughout the silent years Jesus was learning to dream. Nazareth itself is tucked away in a hollow of the hills, a secluded little town. But the extraordinary thing about Nazareth was that the world passed almost by its door. It has been said that Judaea was on the way to nowhere and Galilee was on the way to everywhere, for the great roads of the East passed through Galilee. Jesus had only to climb the hilltop above the cup-like hollow of Nazareth and the passing world was at his feet. From there he could look down on the great Road of the Sea, the road which went from Damascus to Egypt, one of the greatest highways in the world with its merchantmen and its caravans. From there he could see the strategic Road of the East which went out from the Mediterranean coast to Parthia and to the eastern bounds of the Roman Empire with its Arab traders and its Roman legions clanking on their way. From there, if he looked westwards, he could see the blue waters of the Mediterranean, with the sails of the ships and the cargoes of those who do business in great waters.

So Jesus could climb the hilltop behind Nazareth, and from there he could see the roads coming and going to the ends of the earth. It was there that he must have dreamed his dreams, and it may be that it was there that something first said to him: 'I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself' (John 12:32).//
END QUOTE [bold added by me - AP]

F.F. Bruce wrote in chapter 4 of his The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable?:

QUOTE

//Another interesting fact which comes to light when we try to reconstruct the original Aramaic in which our Lord's sayings in all the Gospels were spoken is that very many of these sayings exhibit poetical features. Even in a translation we can see how full they are of parallelism, which is so constant a mark of Old Testament poetry. When they are turned into Aramaic, however, they are seen to be marked by regular poetical rhythm, and even, at times, rhyme. This has been demonstrated in particular by the late Professor C. F. Burney in The Poetry of our Lord (1925). A discourse that follows a recognisable pattern is more easily memorised, and if Jesus wished His teaching to be memorised His use of poetry is easily explained. Besides, Jesus was recognised by His contemporaries as a prophet, and prophets in Old Testament days were accustomed to utter their oracles in poetical form. Where this form has been preserved, we have a further assurance that His teaching has been handed down to us as it was originally given.//
END QUOTE

Seeing that Jesus used poetry, rhyme and puns in Aramaic, why would Jesus pass up opportunities of making clever puns or play on words in Greek as in the case of John 3? I don't see why He couldn't or wouldn't do so. We know that the conversation in John 3 with Nicodemus occurred under the cover of night (John 3:2). Likely because he was trying to avoid people finding out that he wanted to talk to Jesus. He was after all a Pharisee and a ruler of the Jews. He might have spoken to Jesus in Greek in order to try to maintain his anonymity, lest prying ears recognize his voice in Aramaic. While Jesus may have accommodated him by responding in Greek as well. So, the claim by some scholars that the conversation with Nicodemus couldn't have been historical because it only works in Greek doesn't necessarily follow. Lydia McGrew reminded me that Nicodemus is a Greek name and that might have some significance as to whether the conversation was in Greek.

See this fascinating lecture by D. Peter J. Williams where he presents a cumulative case for why it's likely Jesus (at times) publicly taught in Koine Greek:

"The Surprising Language of Jesus" by Peter J. Williams
https://youtu.be/wsx4r_1pigY

Did Jesus Speak Greek

by InspiringPhilosophy/Michael Jones

https://youtu.be/V1zVI5wuM8g?si=o5SC3dWMogamTnSG

Did Jesus Speak Greek? by Wesley Huff



See also my blogpost: Was Jesus Literate?

Also:

 It's Greek to me by Steve Hays

Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek? by Stanley E. Porter

Jesus and the Use of Greek: A Response to Maurice Casey by Stanley E. Porter

The Use of Greek in First-Century Palestine: A Diachronic and Syncrhronic Examination by Stanley E. Porter

Peter, Greek, and Ehrman


 

Distinguishing Mark of a True Child of God and Mere Professors of Faith

Again, saving faith is always found in a tender heart. "A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh" (Ezek. 36:26). An unregenerate heart is hard as stone, full of pride and presumption. It is quite unmoved by the sufferings of Christ, in the sense that they act as no deterrent against self-will and self-pleasing. But the real Christian is moved by the love of Christ, and says, How can I sin against His dying love for me. When overtaken by a fault, there is passionate relenting and bitter mourning. Oh, my reader, do you know what it is to be melted before God, for you to be heart-broken with anguish over sinning against and grieving such a Saviour? Ah, it is not the absence of sin but the grieving over it which distinguishes the child of God from empty professors.- A.W. Pink

The above quote is found in two of Pink's works.

- Practical Christianity, Part 1: The Christian’s Beginning, Chapter 1-Saving Faith

- STUDIES ON SAVING FAITH, part II, 5. Its Evidences

Cornelius Van Til Quotes

“Dr. Van Til, why did you decide to devote your life to the study of philosophy and the teaching of apologetics?” And I then sat back to allow the metaphysics free room to roll. Van Til never blinked. “Why,” he said, “to protect Christ’s little ones.”
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/november-web-only/illusion-of-respectability-allen-guelzo.html?start=1

I'm a Van Tillian presuppositionalist when it comes to apologetics. I don't agree with everything Van Til or his followers taught or teach, but I'm in much agreement. Here are some interesting Van Til quotes I've collected. I'm posting them now as is and will eventually edit and add to them. There are still some duplicates.  Some I've typed up myself, others I've copied and pasted from other websites, SO THEIR ACCURACY IS NOT GURANTEED.

---

I see induction and analytical reasoning as part of one process of interpretation. I would therefore engage in historical apologetics. (I do not personally do a great deal of this because my colleagues in the other departments of the Seminary in which I teach are doing it better than I could do it.) Every bit of historical investigation, whether it be in the directly biblical field, archaeology, or in general history, is bound to confirm the truth of the claims of the Christian position. But I would not talk endlessly about facts and more facts without ever challenging the unbeliever's philosophy of fact. A really fruitful historical apologetic argues that every fact is and must be such as proves the truth of the Christian position.- Cornelius Van Til, Christian Theory of Knowledge, 293

It is Christ as God who speaks in the Bible. Therefore the Bible does not appeal to human reason as ultimate in order to justify what it says. It comes to the human being with abso­lute authority. Its claim is that human reason must itself be taken in the sense in which Scripture takes it, namely, as cre­ated by God and as therefore properly subject to the authority of God…  The two systems, that of the non-Christian and that of the Christian, differ because of the fact that their basic as­sumptions, or presuppositions differ. On the non-Christian basis man is assumed to be the final reference point in predic­tion… The Reformed method…begins frankly “from above.” It would “presuppose” God. But in presupposing God it can­not place itself at any point on a neutral basis with the non-Christian… Believers themselves have not chosen the Chris­tian position because they were wiser than others. What they have they have by grace alone. But this fact does not mean that they must accept the problematics of fallen man as right or even as probably or possibly right. For the essence of the idea of Scripture is that it alone is the criterion of truth. - Cornelius Van Til, A Christian Theory of Knowledge, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1969, pp. 15, 18, 43.

It is beyond the possibility of the mind of man to bind together the ideas of pure determinism and of pure indeterminism and by means of that combination to give meaning to life. Either modern man will have to admit that he knows everything or else he will have to admit that he knows nothing. The only alternative to this is that he claims both absurdities at the same time.- Cornelius Van Til, The Intellectual Challenge of the Gospel

There is no guarantee that the human mind can in any sense know reality that is near unless it knows reality that is far away. For all I know, the next fact that I must adjust to a previous fact is a fatal automobile accident. How then do I know that it is not the most pragmatically valuable thing for me to know whether the fact of death does not immediately connect me with another fact, namely, the judgment?- Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, p. 217

It soon appears that the elephant wants to warm more than his nose.- Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, p. 207

When the elephant of naturalism once has his nose in the door, he will not be satisfied until he is all the way in.- Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, p. 77


"No human being can explain in the sense of seeing through all things, but only he who believes in God has the right to hold that there is an explanation at all."- Cornelius Van Til

"I hold that belief in God is not merely as reasonable as other belief, or even a little or infinitely more probably true than other belief; I hold rather that unless you believe in God you can logically believe in nothing else."- Cornelius Van Til

The same point may be further elucidated if we say that Platonic and Augustinian thought have opposing conceptions of Mystery. Augustinian thought holds that there is not and has never been mystery for God. It is this that makes the mystery that has always and that will always surround man not a burden, but a joy, to him. Man can rejoice in the mystery that surrounds himself because he believes that no mystery surrounds God. If mystery should be thought of as surrounding God, then nothing would remain for man but utter despair. A child who knows that his father is a millionaire does not need to have more than a dollar in his hand. The believer can pray with confidence, “Give us this day our daily bread.” On the other hand, Platonic thought starts out with the idea that there is mystery surrounding both God and man.- Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, p. 49-50

If one really saw that it is necessary to have God in order to understand the grass that grows outside his window, he would certainly come to a saving knowledge of Christ, and to the knowledge of the absolute authority of the Bible. It is true, we grant that it is not usually in this way that men become true Christian theists, but we put it in this way in order to bring out clearly that the investigation of any fact whatsoever will involve a discussion of the meaning of Christianity as well as of theism, and a sound position taken on the one involves a sound position on the other.- Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, p. 207

To be sure, it is true that we should never seek to defend more than it is strictly necessary to defend. But our contention is exactly that it is strictly necessary to defend the absoluteness of Scripture. If one does not defend the absoluteness of Scripture, one cannot defend the absoluteness of Christ or of God.- Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, p. 221

In the second place, this whole Christian theistic position must be presented not as something just a little or as a great deal better than other positions, but must be presented as the only system of thought that does not destroy human experience to a meaningless something. - Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, p. 222

On the contrary, the Christian theist must claim that he alone has true knowledge about cows and chickens as well as about God. He does this in no spirit of conceit, because it is a gift of God's grace. Nor does he deny that there is knowledge <i>after a fashion</i> that enables the non-theist to get along <i>after a fashion</i> in the world. This is the gift of God's common grace, and therefore does not change the absoluteness of the distinction made about the knowledge and the ignorance of the theist and the non-theist respectively.- Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, p. 222

We may use our minds as flashlights with which to discover things, but these flashlights derive <i>all</i> their power of illumination from the sun. - Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, p. 224

The kingdom of God must be built upon the destruction of the enemy. - Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, p. 207

Christianity is not for a few elite intellectualists. Its message is to the simple and to the learned. The argument must therefore be adapted to each one's mental capacity. And it should not be forgotten that the difference between the learned and the unlearned is, after all, very small when it comes to a consideration of ultimate questions. The learned may have many more facts at his disposal and be more skilled in the use of the syllogism, but when it comes to a consideration of the meaning of any one fact or of all facts put together, all this refinement does not bring him very far. Many a man of ordinary intelligence can reason with himself about the reasonableness of thinking of the existence of the facts apart from God, as well as the most learned scholar. To say this is not to disparage scholarship. Scholarship is necessary in its place, but it is not necessary for every man.- Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, p. 211-212

It follow logically that only one historical religion can be the true religion. Any Christian apologist is shirking his duty if he does not say that Mohammed is a false prophet. This is not to indulge in anything uncharitable. Charity has nothing to do with the question.- Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, p. 127

There is not a spot in heaven or on earth about which there is no dispute between the two opposing parties. It is this point that can bear much emphasis again and again.- Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, p. 116 [longer quote below]

Christian theism's fundamental contention is just this, that nothing whatsoever can be known unless God can be and is known. And as stated before, by God we mean the triune, self-sufficient God and his revelation of himself to man and his world. In whatever way we put the question then, the important thing to note is this fundamental difference between theism and antitheism on the question of epistemology. There is not a spot in heaven or on earth about which there is no dispute between the two opposing parties. It is this point that can bear much emphasis again and again.- Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, p. 116


When the elephant of naturalism once has his nose in the door, he will not be satisfied until he is all the way in.- Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, p. 77

A suit of clothes usually shows signs of wear at several places simultaneously.- Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, p. 79

...I would not talk endlessly about facts and more facts without ever challenging the non-believer's philosophy of fact.- Cornelius Van Til

Agnosticism is epistemologically self-contradictory on its own assumptions because its claim to make no assertion about ultimate reality rests upon a most comprehensive assertion about ultimate reality.- Cornelius Van Til

The picture of fallen man as given in Scripture is that he knows God but does not want to recognize Him as God.- Cornelius Van Til

The only "proof" of the Christian position is that unless its truth is presupposed there is no possibility of "proving" anything at all. The actual state of affairs as preached by Christianity is the necessary foundation of "proof" itself.-C. Van Til [My Credo]

The only "proof" of the Christian position is that unless its truth is presupposed there is no possibility of "proving" anything at all.-Cornelius Van Til

The actual state of affairs as preached by Christianity is the necessary foundation of "proof" itself.-Cornelius Van Til

Let our apologetics be as Van Til urges "suaviter in modo, fortiter in re" (gentle in the manner of presentation, but powerful in argumentative substance)

It is wholly irrational to hold any other position than that of Christianity. Christianity alone does not slay reason on the altar of  'chance.' - Van Til

"...I propose to argue that unless God is back of everything, you cannot find meaning in anything."-Cornelius Van Til [Why I Believe in God]

"Men do not see the need of grace till by grace they see it."- Cornelius Van Til [A Christian Theory of Knowledge p. 53]

No human being can explain in the sense of seeing through all things, but only he who believes in God has the right to hold that there is an explanation at all.-CVT [Why I Believe In God]

I hold that belief in God is not merely as reasonable as other belief, or even a little or infinitely more probably true than other belief; I hold rather that unless you believe in God you can logically believe in nothing else.-CVT [Why I Believe in God]

I hold that belief in God is not merely as reasonable as other belief...rather that unless you believe in God you can logically believe in nothing else.-Van Til

"...I hold...that unless you believe in [the Christian] God you can logically believe in nothing else."- Cornelius Van Til [Why I Believe in God]

Shall we who wish to prove that nothing can be explained without God first admit some things at least can be explained without him? - Cornelius Van Til [The Defense of the Faith p. 200]

The Reformed apologist throws down the gauntlet and challenges his opponent to a duel of life and death from the start.- Cornelius Van Til [The Defense of the Faith p. 113]

When the non-Christian, not working on the foundation of creation and providence, talks about *musts* in relation to *facts* he is beating the air- C. Van Til [The Defense of the Faith p. 206]

"...Reformed apologetics is the hope of the world." Cornelius Van Til

I would therefore engage in historical apologetics.....But I would not talk endlessly about facts and more facts without ever challenging the non-believer's philosophy of fact. - Van Til [The Defense of the Faith p. 199]

Arguing about God's existence, I hold, is like arguing about air. You may affirm that air exists, and I that it does not. But as we debate the point, we are both breathing air all the time.-Cornelius Van Til [Why I Believe in God]

Arguing about God's existence, I hold, is like arguing about air...[A]s we debate the point, we are both breathing air all the time.-Cornelius Van Til

The natural man is quite able intellectually to follow the argument that the Christian offers for the truth of his position. He can therefore see that the wisdom of this world has been made foolishness by God. Christianity can be shown to be, not "just as good as" or even "better than" the non-Christian position, but the *only* position that does not make nonsense of human experience.- Cornelius Van Til [A Christian Theory of Knowledge p. 19]

Predication is meaningless except upon the presupposition of the truth of Christianity.- Cornelius Van Til [A Christian Theory of Knowledge p. 272]

Now the only argument for an absolute God that holds water is a transcendental argument... [which] seeks to discover what sort of foundations the house of human knowledge must have, in order to be what it is.-Van Til [A Survey of Christian Epistemology, p. 11.]

The argument for the existence of God and for the truth of Christianity is objectively valid.... The argument is absolutely sound. Christianity is the only reasonable position to hold. It is not merely as reasonable as other positions, or a bit more reasonable than other positions; it alone is the natural and reasonable position for man to take.-Van Til [Common Grace, p.62]

Anti-theism presupposes theism.-Cornelius Van Til [A Survey of Christian Epistemology, p. xii.]

Deep down in his mind every man knows that he is the creature of God and responsible to God. Every man, at bottom, knows that he is a covenant breaker. But every man acts and talks as though this were not so. It is the one point that cannot bear mentioning in his presence.-Cornelius Van Til [The Defense of the Faith, pp. 109, 111, emphasis added; cf. pp. 102, 115, 285, 305-306.]

True human knowledge corresponds to the knowledge which God has of himself and his world. Suppose that I am a scientist investigating the life and ways of a cow. What is this cow? I say it is an animal. But that only pushes the question back. What is an animal? To answer that question I must know what life is. But again, to know what life is I must know how it is related to the inorganic world. And so I may and must continue till I reach the borders of the universe. And even when I have reached the borders of the universe, I do not yet know what the cow is. Complete knowledge of what a cow is can be had only by an absolute intelligence, i.e., by one who has, so to speak, the blueprint of the whole universe. But it does not follow from this that the knowledge of the cow that I have is not true as far as it goes. It is true if it corresponds to the knowledge that God has of the cow.- Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, page 1


The Bible is thought of as authoritative on everything of which it speaks. Moreover, it speaks of everything. We do not mean that it speaks of football games, of atoms, etc., directly, but we do mean that it speaks of everything either directly or by implication. It tells us not only of the Christ and his work, but it also tells us who God is and where the universe about us has come from. It tells us about theism as well as about Christianity. It gives us a philosophy of history as well as history. Moreover, the information on these subjects is woven into an inextricable whole. It is only if you reject the Bible as the word of God that you can separate the so-called religious and moral instruction of the Bible from what it says, e.g., about the physical universe.– Cornelius Van Til, allegedly from Christian Apologetics p.19 and The Defense of the Faith p.29

The same point may be further elucidated if we say that Platonic and Augustinian thought have opposing conceptions of Mystery. Augustinian thought holds that there is not and has never been mystery for God. It is this that makes the mystery that has always and that will always surround man not a burden, but a joy, to him. Man can rejoice in the mystery that surrounds himself because he believes that no mystery surrounds God. If mystery should be thought of as surrounding God, then nothing would remain for man but utter despair. A child who knows that his father is a millionaire does not need to have more than a dollar in his hand. The believer can pray with confidence, “Give us this day our daily bread.” On the other hand, Platonic thought starts out with the idea that there is mystery surrounding both God and man.- Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, p. 49-50

Let our apologetics be as Van til urges "Suaviter in modo, fortiter in re" (gentle in the manner of presentation, but powerful in argumentative substance)

This does not at all mean that Scholasticism has made no advance in details. Nor does it in the least minimize the greatness of the intellectual labor displayed in the movement as a whole. It only means that we cannot turn back to Scholasticism as Rome today is doing, in order to find a solution for the epistemological difficulties of the day.- - Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, p. 64

When one opens his mouth about possibility he <i>ipso facto</i> defines reality. When one opens his mouth about possibility he also opens his mouth about God. God is either the source of possibility or he comes out of bare possibility, or for that matter any other term would have no significance if God were not back of it as the final subject of predication. It is this fundamental basis of theism that is denied if one attempts to interpret reality in a mixture of  categories.- Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, p. 107

Hence the problem of the one and the many, of the universal and the particular, of being and becoming, of analytical and synthetic reasoning, of the a priori and the a posteriori must be solved by an exclusive reference to the Trinity.
- Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, p. 96


Christianity is not merely the most tenable hypothesis that one can find for the interpretation of the world. Christianity is no hypothesis at all. It is accepted on the authority of the self-attesting Christ of Scripture and at the same time it is the presupposition without which predication is unintelligible.- Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, p. 117
[[[[[[[[[see Van Til on Christianity as Hypothesis in the same book 208-209.  Van Til says, something like, there is a sense in which it can be presented as hypothesis using analogical language, not presented as hypothesis using univocal language]]]]]]]]]

"If then, on Kant’s basis; science is to be saved from having to do with, on the one hand, an infinite number of unrelated particulars—like beads that have no holes in them and, on the other hand, having to do with pure abstract logic—like an infinitely long string which has no ends and certainly no end that can be found by man—then science must be saved by this very same man who does not understand himself and who never will understand himself."- Cornelius Van Til
-- The Protestant Doctrine of Scripture  (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1968), p. 17.

"A scientific method not based on the presupposition of the truth of the Christian story is like an effort to string an infinite number of beads, no two of which have holes in them, by means of a string of infinite length, neither end of which can be found."- Cornelius Van Til
-- The Protestant Doctrine of Scripture  (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1968), p. 2.

To be sure, the Protestant continues, the non-Christian thinker has said many things that, in themselves and formally, are true. When Aristotle said that God is pure Act he said verbally the same thing that the soundest of Christian theologians also says. Yet the Christian theologian would be referring to the internally self-complete, triune God, and Aristotle would be referring to an abstract principle of logic or being. No greater difference in content could be imagined. So also when the Stoics asserted that man is the offspring of God, the Apostle Paul does not hesitate to accept such a statement as formally true. But for the Stoics, man was of a piece with God, while for Paul man was created by God. In content there was the difference of truth and falsity between them. Again, when the pantheist says that he believes in the immanence of God and when the deist says that he believes in the transcendence of God, shall the theist say that he is richer than both because he believes in both the transcendence and the immanence of God? If he did, he would be building the house of his theology as children build their houses of blocks. The immanence of the pantheist spells identity between man and God, while the transcendence of the deist spells separation of man from God. How then can these two concepts of identity and separation be added together and produce the theistic conception of the relation of God to man? 2 The meaning of words derives from the total system of which they form a part.- Van Til, the Intellectual Challenge of the Gospel

Let us again remind ourselves that what has been said does not mean that Christians are in themselves wiser than are other men. What they have they have by grace. They must be all things to all men. But it is not kindness to tell patients that need strong medicine that nothing serious is wrong with them. Christians are bound to tell men the truth about themselves; that is the only way of bringing them to recognize the mercy, the compassion, of Christ. For if men are told the truth about themselves, and if they are warned against the false remedies that establish men in their wickedness, then, by the power of the Spirit of God, they will flee to the Christ through whom alone they must be saved.- Van Til, the Intellectual Challenge of the Gospel

It is the firm conviction of every epistemologically self-conscious Christian that no human being can utter a single syllable, whether in negation or affirmation, unless it were for God’s existence. Thus the transcendental argument seeks to discover what sort of foundations the house of human knowledge must have, in order to be what it is.- Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology (P&R, 1977), 11.
[added to this blog 2020/07/21]

[T]he argument for Christianity must therefore be that of presupposition. With Augustine it must be maintained that God’s revelation is the sun from which all other light derives. The best, the only, the absolutely certain proof of the truth of Christianity is that unless its truth be presupposed there is no proof of anything. Christianity is proved as being the very foundation of the idea of proof itself.- Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith (P&R, 3rd ed., 1967), 298.
[added to this blog 2020/07/21]


Christians are not wiser than are other men. They have no information that is not availabe to other men. But by grace they have learned to see that the self-authenticating Christ is the presupposition for the intelligibility of the scientific, the philosophical, and the theological enterprise. No one has shown how learning by experience is possible by any other method than that which presupposes man and his universe to be what Christ in his Word says it is.- Van Til; "The Case for Calvinism," 148-149 [added to this blog 2024/03/04]

 

UPDATE:

A Compilation of Quotes from Cornelius Van Til [Compiled by Joshua Pillows]

 

 

 

90 Atheist Quotes Every Christian & Atheist Needs to Read

https://jamesbishopblog.com/2015/09/07/26-brutally-honest-atheist-quotes-worth-a-read/

Was Jesus Literate?

The following quote is taken from Is Jesus the Only Savior? by James R. Edwards pages 29-30

John Crossan believes that Jesus was illiterate. This, of course, contradicts the New Testament, for there we are told that Jesus read from Isaiah before preaching in the synagogue of Nazareth (Luke 4:16-20). Crossan puts forth the following argument for his conclusion: He begins by saying that according to Mark 6:3, Jesus was a tekton. The most common English rendering of tekton is "builder," or "carpenter," but Crossan takes the term not as a description of a trade, but as a description of a group of low-caste peasant expendables. He then states that 95-96% of Jews in first-century Palestine were illiterate; hardly any of the remaining 4-5% would have come from this low class. Here, then, is his conclusion: "[The stories that Jesus was literate] must be seen clearly for what they are: Lukan propaganda rephrasing Jesus' oral challenge and charisma in terms of scribal literacy and exegesis."12

I argue that Crossan is wrong on this point, and here are my reasons why: All Greek-English lexicons render tekton as "carpenter," a reference to a trade, not to a social class.13 Moreover, we know that manual labor was not a derogatory distinction in Jewish Palestine, in contrast to Crossan's insinuation that it was. The Mishnah, for example, places the teaching of a manual trade to one's son on a par with teaching him Torah.14 Obviously, in the Jewish world anything analogous to Torah was clearly honorable. Now, it is hard for me to imagine that the commandment to teach one's son Torah would result in a 95% illiteracy rate among the Jewish population. Consider the Jewish literature produced by the Roman period: not only the entire Old Testament, but also the New Testament, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus, the Bar Kokhba literature, the Mishnah, and the Oxyrhynchus Papyri. These are immense bodies of literature; in the last, the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, some fifty thousand documents exist! Would a literary achievement so extensive have been produced for a 3-5% reading population? Further, if Crossan were right about Jesus' illiteracy, why would Luke have intentionally lied about it? After all, if 95% of the population were illiterate, there would be no reason to make Jesus literate.15

FOOTNOTES:

12. [OMITTED]
13. [OMITTED]
14. "A man should always teach his son a cleanly craft" (Qiddushin 4:14); "At five years old [one is fit] for the Scripture, at ten years for the Mishnah" (Aboth 5:21); "Above all we pride ourselves on the education of our children, and regard as the most essential task in life the observance of our laws..." (Josephus, Against Apion 1.60); "[The Law] orders that [children] be taught to read, and shall learn both the laws and the deeds of the forefathers..." (Josephus, Against Apion 2.204).

15. See A. Millard, "Literacy in the Time of Jesus," Biblical Archaeology Review 29/4 (2003): 37-45, who concludes that "writing and reading were widely practiced in the Palestine of Jesus' day." Further, G. Dalman, Jesus—Jeshua: Studies in the Gospels, trans. P. Levertoff (New York: KTAV, 1971), 36-37, leaves virtually no doubt that Jesus was literate.

See also my blogpost: Did Jesus Speak Multiple Languages?  

John Owen on the Necessity of Going Beyond the "Words" of Scripture to Express Its "Meaning"

In the declaration, then, of this doctrine unto the edification of the church, there is contained a farther explanation of the things before asserted, as proposed directly and in themselves as the object of our faith, — namely, how God is one, in respect of his nature, substance, essence, Godhead, or divine being; how, being Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, he subsists in these three distinct persons or hypostases; and what are their mutual respects to each other, by which, as their peculiar properties, giving them the manner of their subsistence, they are distinguished one from another; with sundry other 379things of the like necessary consequence unto the revelation mentioned. And herein, as in the application of all other divine truths and mysteries whatever, yea, of all moral commanded duties, use is to be made of such words and expressions as, it may be, are not literally and formally contained in the Scripture; but only are, unto our conceptions and apprehensions, expository of what is so contained. And to deny the liberty, yea, the necessity hereof, is to deny all interpretation of the Scripture, — all endeavours to express the sense of the words of it unto the understandings of one another; which is, in a word, to render the Scripture itself altogether useless. For if it be unlawful for me to speak or write what I conceive to be the sense of the words of the Scripture, and the nature of the thing signified and expressed by them, it is unlawful for me, also, to think or conceive in my mind what is the sense of the words or nature of the things; which to say, is to make brutes of ourselves, and to frustrate the whole design of God in giving unto us the great privilege of his word.

- John Owen, Brief Declaration and Vindication of The Doctrine of the Trinity [source]

Compare that with Francis Turretin's statement:

But it is often found that they who litigate more pertinaciously than others against the words, cherish a secret virus. It is sufficiently evident that those new corruptions of religion condemn the words adopted by the ancients for no other reason that they are unwilling to receive the things designed by them. Knowing that with the words they might abolish the doctrine also, we therefore did right in retaining them and insist on their use being not only lawful, but also beneficial and necessary for repressing the pertinacity of heretics and for bringing them out of lurking places. [Institutes of Eclenctic Theology, vol. 1, 258.]

More Quotations About the Trinity HERE

Moreland and Craig on the Two Minds View of the Incarnation

Some Christian philosophers, such as Thomas Morris, have postulated an independent conscious life for the incarnate Logos in addition to the conscious life of Jesus of Nazareth, what Morris calls a “two minds” view of the Incarnation. He provides a number of intriguing analogies in which asymmetrical accessing relations exist between a subsystem and an encompassing system, such that the overarching system can access information acquired through the subsystem but not vice versa. He gives a psychological analogy of dreams in which the sleeper is himself a person in the dream, and yet the sleeper has an awareness that everything that he is experiencing as reality is in fact merely a dream.
Morris proposes that the conscious mind of Jesus of Nazareth be conceived as a subsystem of a wider mind which is the mind of the Logos. Such an understanding of the consciousness of the Logos stands in the tradition of Reformed theologians like Zwingli, who held that the Logos continued to operate outside the body of Jesus of Nazareth. The main difficulty of this view is that it threatens to lapse into Nestorianism, since it is very difficult to see why two self-conscious minds would not constitute two persons.
If the model here proposed makes sense, then it serves to show that the classic doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ is coherent and plausible. It also serves religiously to elicit praise to God for his self-emptying act of humiliation in taking on our human condition with all its struggles and limitations for our sakes and for our salvation.....
-J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig in chapter 30 of their book The Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview


 

Quotes in Favor of Geocentrism

The following are quotes I've copied from Robert Sungenis' documentary Journey to the Center of the Universe. I don't know how accurate these quotations are; but for myself I've tried to meticulously reproduce them here (correcting only obvious typos like the misspelling of Friedrich Nietzsche's first name as "Fredrich"). At the very least the following quotes demonstrate that because the General Theory of Relativity requires all motion to be relative, that therefore relative geocentrism is a perfectly acceptable scientific position to hold. The controversial position is that of absolute Geocentrism (Geocentrism with a captical "G", if you will). For a defense of this latter position, I highly recommend Robert Sungenis' books and documentaries in its defense. Though, I myself don't take a dogmatic stand in favor of absolute Geocentrism (as intriguing as the case may be). I'll be emphasizing some quotations using bold and/or colored text.

---

"In order for the Earth to be at rest in the center of the system of the sun, planets, and comets, there is required both universal gravity and another force in addition that acts on all bodies equally according to the quantity of matter in each of them and is equal and opposite to the accelerative gravity with which the Earth tends to the sun...And thus celestial bodies can move around the Earth at rest, as in the Tychonic system."- Physicist, Isaac Newton

"I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment."- Physicist, Albert Einstein

"...to the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments. We have already remarked...that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result. Before the theory of relativity was put forward, it was difficult to become reconciled to this negative result."- Physicist, Albert Einstein

"Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest..."- Physicist, Henrick Lorentz

"There was just one alternative; the earth's true velocity through space might happen to have been nil."- Physicist, Arthur Eddington

"The failure of the many attempts to measure terrestrially any effects of the earth's motion..."- Physicist, Wolfgang Pauli

"We do not have and cannot have any means of discovering whether or not we are carried along in a uniform motion of translation."- Physicist, Henri Poincaré

"A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth's movement. The results were always negative."- Physicist, Henri Poincaré

"This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation...which presupposes that the Earth moves."- Physicist, Albert Michelson

"The data [of Michelson-Morley] were almost unbelievable...There was only one other possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest."- Physicist, Bernard Jaffe

"We can't feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion."- Historian, Lincoln Barnett

"Thus, even now, three and a half centuries after Galileo...it is still remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the earth moves..."- Physicist, Julian B. Barbour

"There is no planetary observation by which we on Earth can prove that the Earth is moving in an orbit around the sun."- Physicist, I. Bernard Cohen

"Thus, failure [of Michelson-Morley] to observe different speeds of light at different times of the year suggested that the Earth must be 'at rest'...It was therefore the 'preferred' frame for measuring absolute motion in space. Yet we have known since Galileo that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Why should it be at rest in space?"- Physicist, Adolph Baker

"...The easiest explanation was that the earth was fixed in the ether and that everything else in the universe moved with respect to the earth and the ether...Such an idea was not considered seriously, since it would mean in effect that our earth occupied the omnipotent position in the universe, with all the other heavenly bodies paying homage by moving around it."- Physicist, James Coleman

"In the effort to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment...the thought was advanced that the Earth might be stationary...Such an idea was not considered seriously, since it would mean in effect that our Earth occupied the omnipotent position in the universe, with all the other heavenly bodies paying homage by revolving around it."- Physicist, Arthur S. Otis

[The second part of the above quote seems to be a repetition of the second part of the previous quote. Yet they are said to be by two different physicists. Either one of the quotes are in error (or misattributed), or they are from a work that was written by both Coleman and Otis. At Sungenis' website the attribution is to Otis [ (Arthur S. Otis, Light Velocity and Relativity, p. 58.)] http://galileowaswrong.com/critique-of-alec-macandrew-ph-d-topic-geocentrism/  . Whereas Sungenis attributes it to Coleman in one his comments at a blog on Discover magazine's website  [ (James A. Coleman, Relativity for the Layman, p. 37).]     http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/14/geocentrism-seriously/#.V1e_1OTqORY]

"The Michelson-Morley experiment confronted scientists with an embarrassing alternative. On the one hand they could scrap the ether theory which had explained so many things about electricity, magnetism, and light. Or if they insisted on retaining the ether they had to abandon the still more venerable Copernican theory that the earth is in motion. To many physicists it seemed almost easier to believe that the earth stood still than that waves - light waves, electromagnetic waves - could exist without a medium to sustain them. It was a serious dilemma and one that split scientific thought for a quarter century. Many new hypotheses were advanced and rejected. The experiment was tried again by Morley and by others, with the same conclusion; the apparent velocity of the earth through the ether was zero."- Historian, Lincoln Barnett

"So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true...one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest."- Physicist, Stephen Hawking

"If we were to adopt a frame of reference like Tycho's in which the Earth is at rest, then the distant galaxies would seem to be executing circular turns once a year, and in general relativity this enormous motion would create forces akin to gravitation, which would act on the Sun and planets and give them the motions of the Tychonic theory."- Physicist, Steven Weinberg

"Let it be understood at the outset that it makes no difference, from the point of view of describing planetary motion, whether we take the Earth or the Sun as the center of the solar system. Since the issue is one of relative motion only, there are infinitely many exactly equivalent descriptions referred to different centers - in principle any point will do, the Moon, Jupiter...So the passions loosed on the world by the publication of Copernicus' book, De revolutionibus orbium caelestium libri VI, were logically irrelevant..."- Astronomer, Fred Hoyle

"...we can take either the Earth or the Sun, or any other point for that matter, as the center of the solar system. This is certainly so for the purely kinematical problem of describing the planetary motions. It is also possible to take any point as the center even in dynamics, although recognition of this freedom of choice had to await the present century."- Astronomer, Fred Hoyle

"It is possible to describe the entire universe using any chosen point as the unmoving center - the Earth will do very well - and no one can prove that choice is wrong....Scientists today prefer to picture everything in motion and nothing as being the center. If you haven't given much thought to the implications of twentieth-century science, you may be chagrined...to realize that because of the concept of relative motion, no one can prove that the Earth moves."- Kitty Ferguson, Science Writer

"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless Earth' This would mean that we use a system of reference rigidly fixed to the Earth in which all stars are performing a rotational motion with the same angular velocity around the Earth's axis...one has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right. What point of view is chosen is a matter of expediency."- Physicist, Max Born

"I can construct for you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."- Physicist, George F. R. Ellis

"If it [earth] isn't moving relative to the ether, then earth alone among the cosmos is at rest relative to the ether. Now that may be an absurd possibility but maybe it's true. I think you can see that this not going to be very philosophically satisfying, and it isn't satisfying physically either, but it violates the Copernican Principle that the earth isn't special. It is particularly absurd in light of what we know from modern cosmology namely that there are places in the universe, distant galaxies in particular, that are moving away from us at speeds very close to the speed of light. It's absurd to imagine that everything in the universe is pinned to earth when there are such a wide range of speeds relative to earth throughout the universe, but it suffices to rule it out on this philosophical ground."- Physicist, Richard Wolfson

"The ancient argument over whether the Earth rotates or the heavens revolve around it (as Aristotle taught) is seen to be no more than an argument over the simplest choice of a frame of reference. Obviously, the most convenient choice is the universe....Nothing except inconvenience prevents us from choosing the Earth as a fixed frame of reference....If we choose to make the Earth our fixed frame of reference, we do not even do violence to everyday speech. We say that the sun rises in the morning, sets in the evening; the Big Dipper revolves around the North Star. Which point of view is "correct"? Do the heavens revolve or does the Earth rotate. The question is meaningless."- Physicist, Martin Gardner

the Earth-centered system "...is in reality absolutely identical with the system of Copernicus and all computation of the places of the planets are the same for the two systems."- Astronomer, J. L. E. Dryer

"...it is very important to acknowledge that the Copernican theory offers a very exact calculation of the apparent movements of the planets...even though it must be conceded that, from the modern standpoint practically identical results could be obtained by means of a somewhat revised Ptolemaic system....It makes no sense, accordingly, to speak of a difference in truth between Copernicus and Ptolemy: both conceptions are equally permissible descriptions. What has been considered as the greatest discovery of occidental wisdom, as opposed to that of antiquity, is questioned as to its truth value."- Physicist, Hans Reichenbach

"...I tell my classes that had Galileo confronted the Church in Einstein's day, he would have lost the argument for better reasons. You may use my name if you wish."- Mathematician, Carl E. Wulfman

"Whether the Earth rotates once a day from west to east, as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west, as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. This shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption, which can never be proved or disproved by observation."- Physicist, Dennis Sciama

"Before Copernicus, people thought that the Earth stood still and that the heavens revolved about it once a day. Copernicus taught that 'really' the Earth revolves once a day, and the daily rotation of the sun and stars is only 'apparent.' Galileo and Newton endorsed this view, and many things were thought to prove it - for example, the flattening of the Earth at the poles, and the fact that bodies are heavier there than at the equator. But in the modern theory the question between Copernicus and his predecessors is merely one of convenience; all motion is relative, and there is no difference between the two statements: 'the earth rotates once a day' and 'the heavens revolve about the Earth once a day.' The two mean exactly the same thing, just as it means the same thing if I say that a certain length is six feet or two yards. Astronomy is easier if we take the sun as fixed than if we take the Earth, just as accounts are easier in decimal coinage. But to say more for Copernicus is to assume absolute motion, which is a fiction. All motion is relative, and it is a mere convention to take one body as at rest. All such conventions are equally legitimate, though not all are equally convenient."- Philosopher, Bertrand Russell

"There is no planetary observation by which we on Earth can prove that the Earth is moving in an orbit around the sun. Thus all Galileo's discoveries with the telescope can be accommodated to the system invented by Tycho Brahe just before Galileo began his observations of the heavens. In this Tychonic system, the planets...move in orbits around the sun, while the sun moves in an orbit around the Earth in a year. Furthermore, the daily rotation of the heavens is communicated to the sun and planets, so that the Earth itself neither rotates nor revolves in an orbit."- Physicist, I. Bernard Cohen

"Descartes is, however, doubly interesting to us in the discussion of Relativity, for at one time when the Inquisition was becoming uneasy about his scientific researches, he gave them a reply that satisfied them, or perhaps he merely gained time, which was long, while they were trying to understand its meaning. He declared that the sun went around the Earth, and that when he said that the Earth revolved round the sun that was merely another manner of expressing the same occurrence. I met with this saying first from Henri Poincaré, and I thought then that it was a witty, epigrammatic way of compelling thought to the question; but on reflection I saw that it was a statement of actual fact. The movements of the two bodies are relative one to the other, and it is a matter of choice as to which we take as our place of observation."- Physicist, Arthur Lynch

"Tycho Brahe proposed a dualistic scheme, with the Sun going around the Earth but with all other planets going around the Sun, and in making this proposal he thought he was offering something radically different from Copernicus. And in rejecting Tycho's scheme, Kepler obviously thought so too. Yet in principle there is no difference."- Astronomer, Fred Hoyle

"We know now that the difference between a heliocentric and a geocentric theory is one of motions only, and that such a difference has no physical significance, [the Ptolemaic and Copernican views], when improved by adding terms involving the square and higher powers of the eccentricities of the planetary orbits, are physically equivalent to one another."- Astronomer, Fred Hoyle

"What happened when the experiment was done in 1887? There was never, never, in any orientation at any time of year, any shift in the interference pattern; none; no shift; no fringe shift; nothing. What's the implication? Here was an experiment that was done to measure the speed of the earth's motion through the ether. This was an experiment that was ten times more sensitive than it needed to be. It could have detected speeds as low as two miles a second instead of the known 2mps that the earth as in its orbital motion around the sun. It didn't detect it. What's the conclusion from the Michelson-Morley experiment? The implications is that the earth is not moving..."- Physicist, Richard Wolfson

"Michelson and Morley found shifts in the interference fringes, but they were very much smaller than the size of the effect expected from the known orbital motion of the Earth."- Physicist, John D. Norton

"This "null" result was one of the great puzzles of physics at the end of the nineteenth century. One possibility was that...v would be zero and no fringe shift would be expected. But this implies that the earth is somehow a preferred object; only with respect to the earth would the speed of light be c as predicted by Maxwell's equations. This is tantamount to assuming that the earth is the central body of the universe."- Physicist, Douglas C. Giancoli

"So if Earth is at rest relative to the ether, then it alone is at rest. That makes us pretty special...Do you really want to return to parochial, pre-Copernican ideas? Do you really think you and your planet are so special that, in all the rich vastness of the Universe, you alone can claim to be 'at rest.'"- Physicist, Richard Wolfson

"...all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe...There is, however, an alternative explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann's second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe."- Physicist, Stephen Hawking

"But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe.....That would say we are truly the center of the universe."- Physicist, Lawrence Krauss

"I have to confess that I was bothered by the fact that the Axis of Evil seemed linked to a special direction in our solar system......But now we have completely independent data......This is a hint of something really big."- Astrophysicist, Max Tegmark, MIT, The Principle

"The Earth is indeed the center of the Universe. The arrangement of quasars on certain spherical shells is only with respect to the Earth. These shells would disappear if viewed from another galaxy or quasar. This means that the cosmological principle will have to go. Also it implies that a coordinate system fixed to the Earth will be a preferred frame of reference in the Universe. Consequently, both the Special and General Theory of Relativity must be abandoned for cosmological purposes."- Astrophysicist, Yetendra P. Varshni

"No longer could astronomers hope that the Copernican dilemma would disappear with improved data. The data were in hand, and their implication inescapable: we are at the center of a spherically symmetric distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources, and this distribution has an outer edge."- Astrophysicist, Jonathan I. Katz

"Why is the solar system cosmically aligned?"- Astrophysicist, Dragan Huterer

"The apparent alignment in the cosmic microwave background in one particular direction through space is called 'evil' because it undermines our ideas about the standard cosmological model....the Copernican Principle seems to be in jeopardy."- Astrophysicist, Ashok K. Singal

"Looking into this anomaly more deeply we will find that it remains robust throughout all seven years of published WMAP data, and furthermore that it is very difficult to explain within the context of the canonical Inflationary Lambda Cold Dark Matter of cosmology [the Big Bang]....the observations disagree markedly with the predictions of the theory."- Astrophysicists, Glenn D. Starkman, Craig J. Copi, Dragan Huterer, Dominik Schwarz

"One of the most surprising findings is that the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave radiation temperatures at large angular scales do not match those predicted by the standard [Big Bang] model."- The European Space Agency, Planck Probe, 2013

"It is both amusing and instructive to speculate on what might have happened if such an experiment could have been performed in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries when men were debating the rival merits of the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems. The result would surely have been interpreted as conclusive evidence for the immobility of the Earth, and therefore as a triumphant vindication of the Ptolemaic system and irrefutable falsification of the Copernican hypothesis."- Physicist, G. J. Whitrow

"It will be proper to discuss this, in order that we may know whether the universe revolves and the Earth stands still, or the universe stands still and the Earth rotates. For there have been those who asserted that...risings and settings do not occur by virtue of the motion of the heaven, but that we ourselves rise and set. The subject is worthy of consideration...whether the abode allotted to us is the most slowly or the most quickly moving, whether God moves everything around us or ourselves instead."- Roman historian, Seneca

"But among all the discoveries and corrections probably none has resulted in a deeper influence on the human spirit than the doctrine of Copernicus...Possibly mankind has never been demanded to do more, for considering all that went up in smoke as a result of realizing this change: a second Paradise, a world of innocence, poetry and piety: the witness of the senses, the conviction of a poetical and religious faith. No wonder his contemporaries did not wish to let all this go and offered every possible resistance to a freedom of view and greatness of thought so far unknown indeed not even dreamed of."- Poet, Johann von Goethe

"The Copernican revolution outshines everything since the rise of Christianity and reduces the Renaissance and Reformation to the rank of mere episodes, mere internal displacements, within the system of medieval Christendom. Since it changed the character of men's habitual mental operations even in the conduct of the non-material sciences, while transforming the whole diagram of the physical universe and the very texture of human life itself, it looms so large as the real origin both of the modern world and of the modern mentality, that our customary periodisation of European history has become an anachronism and an encumbrance."- Historian, Herbert Butterfield

"Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the Earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves?"- Philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche

"Christianity is dead and rotting since Galileo cut its throat."- Slote, The Winds of War

"If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?"- Jesus Christ, Gospel of John, 5:46-47

---

UPDATE:

Here's a supplement movie to "The Principle" (2014) and "Journey to the Center of the Universe" (2015).

The Fool On The Hill Sees the World Spinning 'Round

The description of the movie in the YouTube description box:

Supplementing "The Principle" (2014) and "Journey to the Center of the Universe" (2015), the new movie, "The Fool on the Hill," gives even more detailed and comprehensive scientific evidence that the Earth is motionless in the center of the universe. The film first delves much deeper into the history of the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment, which clearly demonstrated a motionless Earth, and the secular science establishment’s attempt to diffuse these results with ad hoc interpretations that eventually led to the invention of the Special Theory of Relativity in 1905 by Albert Einstein. It shows that the choice left to Einstein was to accept a motionless ["constant"] Earth or a constant speed of light. The film then delves into the work of Isaac Newton who based his laws of motion on an absolute and unmoving space, which he chose to exclude any possibility of the sun and stars revolving around a fixed Earth. It shows that Newton's physics was later said to have a major “defect” by both Ernst Mach and Albert Einstein, both of whom undid Newton’s insistence that space was absolute, since Einstein’s General Relativity allows the Universe to rotate around a fixed Earth. The film shows that once this change was accepted, then the former “fictitious” inertial forces inherent in Newtonian “absolute space” became “real” forces generated from a rotating Universe that would keep all the celestial bodies in tow rotating around a fixed Earth. The film also delves deeper into the 1925 Michelson-Gale experiment which demonstrated a sidereal rotation of the Universe around the Earth, which confirmed the geocentric model but which the media ignored and suppressed. The film closes with providing answers as to the nature of gravity, inertia and the speed of light, showing that none of these are limited to the speed of c (as even confirmed by Einstein) and how these new insights answer age-old questions about how the Universe functions.