A Reply to Eight Myths

This past September, Richard Hagenston, an ordained minister in the United Methodist Church wrote an article entitled "8 Things Your Pastor Will Never Tell You About the Bible". I've since seen the article cited by critics of the Christianity ranging from atheists to Muslims, so I thought it worth a response. I should add that Rev. Hagenston insists that he is "still a Christian" although I'll leave it to the individual reader to determine how compatible his beliefs are with Christianity.

1) "The Apostles of Jesus Seem to Have Known Nothing About a Virgin Birth."

His main piece of evidence for this claim is that St. Paul's letters make no mention of the virgin birth. While this is certainly true, to conclude from this that St. Paul knew nothing of the virgin birth seems a bit of a stretch. St. Paul never sat down and wrote out his beliefs in a systematic way. His letters are directed to churches or individuals either answering specific questions or dealing with specific problems in those bodies. The fact that no mention of Christ's virgin birth is made seems to me to be adequately explained by the assumption that it wasn't relevant to any of the questions he needed to deal with.

2) "Jesus Said He Wanted to Offer Nothing to Gentiles"

True, up to a point. Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, sent originally to the House of Israel. Therefore, during his earthly mission Jesus  focused his attention on His fellow Jews and only occasionally (and reluctantly cf. Matt 15:21-28) helped gentiles. After His death and resurrection, however, Jesus commands His apostles to go and baptise all nations (Matt 28:16-20).

I imagine Rev. Hagenston would reply that this is something the historical Jesus never said, and we can know this because it contradicts his earlier stance. I see no reason to assume this however. During Jesus' lifetime, the Old Covenant was still in effect and the Jewish priesthood was still God's means for the sanctification of His people. It is entirely consistent that Jesus' earthly mission would be to His own people while, after His death and resurrection, and thus the inauguration of the New Covenant, the command would be given to preach to all nations.

3) "Jesus Tells Everyone Not to Think of Him as God in the First Three Gospels"

This claim is based on Mark 10:18, Matt 19:17 and Luke 18:19. The context is this: a rich young man comes to Jesus, addresses him as 'good teacher' and asks what he must do to be saved. Jesus replies "why do you call me good, only God is good."

Critics of Christianity like to point to this story as Jesus denying His divinity. It seems to me, however, that the story can be equally well read as Jesus attempting to open the young man's eyes to who He really is. The young is coming to Jesus with the mindset that He is a rabbi and nothing more. Jesus attempts to challenge this by asking, in effect, "when you call me good, don't you realise what that implies?"

4) "The Resurrection Appearances in the Gospel Have Irreconcilable Contradictions"

The four resurrection accounts certainly differ. The fact that they different, however, does not mean that they are irreconcilable. Several attempts have been made to harmonise them and some, like this one, seem to me to be at least plausible.

5) "Jesus Was Against Public Prayer"

The justification for this statement is Matt 6:1-5. Read in context, this passage is a condemnation, not of public prayer its self, but of those who publicly pray with the aim of showing off in front of others how pious they are. To read this as per. se. opposing public prayer one would need to assume that, on all the occasions Jesus is depicted as praying in the synagogues or the temple, or in front of a crowd, that He was engaging in some fairly rank hypocrisy.

As a side note, Rev. Hagenston has told us that his article is about things "your pastor won't tell you." Does he really think that pastors the world over are not regularly preaching and teaching the Sermon on the Mount?

6) "Some Books of the Bible are Forgeries"

Rev. Hagenston writes: "My seminary professors mentioned that some books of the Bible, notably some letters attributed to Paul, were probably written by people who lied about who they were to gain Paul’s authority for their own ideas. But they never put it that bluntly."

I don't know where he went to seminary so I don't know his teachers and can't say for sure, but I suspect they never "put it that bluntly" because they don't believe that.

Now, lets be clear, most New Testament scholars don't believe that St. Paul wrote some of the letters attributed to him. For the record, I never found the arguments for the majority view very convincing and am inclined to side with the minority who think St. Paul wrote all thirteen of the letters that bear his name. For the sake of argument, however, let's accept the majority view, St. Paul did not write, for example, the Pastoral Epistles.

It is unwarranted, however, to go from "not written by Paul" to "written by people who lied about who they were." In the ancient world, there was a common custom of writing letters in the name of some revered leader, normally a dead one saying, in effect "this is what the great teacher would have said if he'd been alive." The recipients of such letters would have been well aware that the letter was not actually written by the person writing it. This is the understanding most scholars hold of the Pastoral Epistles.

7) "Parts of the Bible Were Intentionally Written to Contradict Other Parts"

The primary example here is Psalm 51 vv 18 & 19, which, we are told, were written to contradict vv 16 & 17. The earlier verses tell us that God does not need burnt offerings but that the sacrifice but that the sacrifice acceptable to Him is a humble and contrite heart. The later verses call on God to restore Jerusalem so that sacrifice, which God will be pleased with, may be offered in the temple.

Rev. Hagenston sees this as evidence that a later scribe, disagreeing with the theology of the original author, added these verses to contradict him. Why, if this scribe had the power to alter the text, he didn't simply remove the offending lines is not explained. Perhaps because, so far from being written to contradict one another, the verses actually form a whole, making the point that sacrifice is something God commands but is only truly pleasing to God if done in a proper spirit.

8) "Apostles Who Had Been Taught By Jesus Himself Insisted that Paul Was Wrong About the Gospel"

The only piece of evidence provided for this claim is 2 Corinthians 11:5 where St. Paul labels his critics "Super Apostles". Even though, Rev. Hagenston acknowledges that the label is 'sarcastic' he none the less asserts that: "In that time, “super-apostles” could have meant only one thing: the original apostles."

An alternative meaning is suggested by context where Paul, contrasting himself to the "Super Apostles" (which makes me think of the Avengers) says that he may not be as eloquent as them although he does have knowledge. With this in mind "Super Apostles" may well refer to individuals who consider themselves super because of their education and debating skills.

 

Happy Feast of St. John

Today, in addition to being the third day of Christmas, is the feast of St. John the Apostle, the disciple whom Jesus loved. There is so much we could learn from this humble man, the importance of personal friendship with Christ, the need to be faithful under the most difficult of circumstances, charity and patience. I was most struck, however, by a point which occurred to me as a I meditated on the prologue to St. John's Gospel, the importance of revelation.

St. John's prologue, the first 18 verses of his Gospel, is a literary masterpiece. More importantly, it is one of the great scriptural foundations of the central Christian doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation. As a philosophy student and budding apologist, I'm frequently drawn to study, write about and talk about those truths of the faith which can be demonstrated by reason. St. John reminds me, however, that the greatest and most important of truths about God, the truths that enable us to know Him as He truly is, the truths that enable us to be friends with God are truths that could not be proven by reason alone. I can know these truths because God, motivated solely by love, has taken the initiative to reveal them.

The collect for today's feast in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite sums up this lesson beautifully:

O Lord, in Your goodness, shine upon Your Church, that, enlightened by the teachings of Blessed John, Your Apostle and Evangelist, she may attain to everlasting gifts.

Amen!

Fighting Ignorance With More Ignorance

It seems to be an established tradition. Every Christmas and Easter, certain new outlets compete to outdo one another in making uninformed attacks on Christian belief. This year's winner has to be an article entitled "The Bible: So Misunderstood It's a Sin." The article appears in Newsweek Magazine and was written by one Kurt Eichenwald. Mr. Eichenwald sets out to explain how us Christian dummies don't know the real facts about the history and contents of the Bible. This is fair up to a point, there is a lot of ignorance, even among professing Christians about the book we hold sacred. If Mr. Eichenwald wants to correct this ignorance, however, it would be nice of him to get his own facts straight, something he clearly could not be bothered to do.

There are many gaping errors of fact in this article, more than I'm going to be able to cover in one blog post. The biggest errors, however, lie in the fact that Mr. Eichenwald is apparently unable to distinguish between three important but separate issues. These issues all need to be understood, so I'll spell them out separately:

1) The issue of the transmission of the text, that is to say, we don't have the original bits of paper that St. Matthew, St. Paul, etc. wrote. What we have is copies, of copies of copies, and so on. This creates a challenge for the science of textual criticism to work out exactly what the originals said.

2) The issue of translation, once we've worked out what the apostles wrote, it's another question to translate their writings from the Greek of the New Testament and the (mostly) Hebrew of the Old Testament into the various modern languages.

3) The issue of canonicity, the question of which of the various ancient documents actually make up the New Testament.

All three of these are important issues and all three have an interesting history which the average Christian ought to know more about. To understand them, however, we need to be aware that they are separate issues, Mr. Eichenwald seems determined to confuse them. Early on in the article, for example, he tells us that nobody alive has read the Bible, all anyone has read is translations of translations of translations. This is not true, plenty of scholars have read the Bible in its original languages and those of us who read it in English usually read it in direct translitions from the originals. Eventually, the light dawns, Mr. Eichenwald has confused translation, with transmission; when he says "translations of translations" he means "copies of copies". In the next paragraph, he talks about the fact that which books belong in the New Testament wasn't agreed until the fourth century (actually debate continued until the fifth) but somehow confuses this with the issue of transmission. To be clear, it is a fact that, for example, the position of the Book of Revelation in the New Testament was debated until the late fourth century however this has no impact on manuscripts of the book that predate that period and nothing much to do with the question of whether or not we can know what Revelations originally said.

Now, lest there be misunderstanding, let me be clear, it is a fact that we don't have the original manuscript of any New Testament book. It is also true that the copies of copies that we do have contain numerous errors. This is a real issue about which Christians should do more to educate ourselves. However this education won't be helped by repeating the sort of basic errors that Mr. Eichenwald makes.

Mr. Eichenwald tells us that "None of this mattered for centuries because Christians were certain God had guided that hand not only of the originals but of all the later copyists." This is rubbish, divine inspiration of the copyists has never been a Christian doctrine. It is also false to suggest that Christians have only recently become aware of these issues. Textual problems were, for example, discussed at length by the third century work, the Hexapola, by Origen of Alexandria.

For those wishing to get an idea of how, in spite of existing textual problems, we can still claim good confidence that our bibles say what the original authors wrote, I would recommend The King James Controversy, by James White (yes, the same James White I recently took aim at for his comments on Rick Warren). If you want to get both sides of the issue at once, the same James White has an excellent debate with agnostic critic Bart Erhman (whom Eichenwald references in his article) on the question "Does the Bible Misquote Jesus".

As I said, it would take far too long to mention all of Mr. Eichenwald's errors but let me list a few:
He claims that the famous incident of the woman taken in adultery from John Chapters 7&8 was added by scribes in the middles ages. While it is almost certainly true that this story was not part of the original Gospel, it is very early, dating back to at least the fourth century (and probably earlier).

He also claims that the King James Bible is considered the "gold standard" for translations into English (it isn't, at least not by any mainstream Christian scholar) he claims that the KJV translation was made not from the original Greek but from a Latin translation (indicating he knows nothing about the KJVs actual history) and he claims that, at the Council of Constantinople, Jesus was proclaimed to be Father, Son and Holy Spirit (no, that wasn't meant as a joke.)

In short, Mr. Eichenwald is correct; a lot of ignorance does exist about the Bible. Christians should make an effort to better educate ourselves about the history of the Bible, we should be better aware than we are about the many issues related to the transmission, translation and canon of our Sacred Scriptures. Mr. Eichenwald, however, is simply seeking to replace ignorance with more ignorance.
 

A Reply to John Fontain on the Gospel

The Deen Show is an Islamic show broadcast via YouTube. Credit where credit is due, the show is well made with high production values and the host, Eddie, is obviously well spoken and passionate about his faith. Having said that, I'm a lot less impressed with the content of the show. The typical episode will feature Eddie interviewing a convert to Islam, usually, though not always, a former Christian. Normally, these ex-Christians will be presented as being very active in their churches, well versed in scripture and knowledgeable about their former faith. When one listens to them, however, they will frequently show little of sign of having much knowledge of Christianity and they frequently give the impression that their grasp of Christian belief is very shallow.

As an example of what I'm talking about, I offer this recent episode in which Eddie interviews John Fontain. Mr. Fontain is the author of the book "Jesus and the Injeel." For those who are unclear 'Injeel' in the Arabic word for Gospel.

Mr. Fontain tells us that when Christians hear the word "Gospel" they think of the written documents by Matthew, Mark etc. He then tells us that these scriptures refer to the Gospel as something else, he notes, for example, that the Bible talks about Jesus, himself preaching 'the Gospel'. He seems to think that this fact will be surprising to Christians. Actually, this will not surprise any well instructed Christian in the slightest.

If one looks up any good dictionary, one will find that for most words, there are several definitions given: definition one, two, three, etc. In the same way, the word Gospel has two main meanings. Of these, the primary meaning is the message preached by Christ, and preached by the Church since His time. The secondary meaning of he word refers to written biographies of Christ. Practicing Christians are well used to hearing about "the preaching of the Gospel" or "what the Gospel calls us to" and we are well aware that this refers to more than just the written biographies in the New Testament.

Mr. Fontain then claims that in the original Greek, the term used for the Gospel is 'Injeelion'. The Greek letters are generally transliterated as 'Evangelion' but we need not split hairs here. The point is, the word comes from the Greek terms meaning good news. This is a simple fact that can be checked by anyone with Google. Mr. Fontain objects to this claim, saying that it must mean more than good news because the 'Injeelion' makes commands, for example Paul talks about people obeying the Gospel. This, Mr. Fontain tells us, proves that "good news" is not an accurate translation. This seems to me to miss the point of how language is used. The name, good news was the name Jesus gave to the message He preached, that it also contained more than news is besides the point. "Good news" is a perfectly good translation of the Greek word which Mr. Fontain pronounces 'Injeelion'. 'Gospel' which comes from the English "God Spel", literally "good news" is an equally good translation.

If this basic confusion were not bad enough, Mr. Fontain insists that the salvation message which Jesus preached was not recorded accurately in the New Testament or Church tradition, the Injeel preached by Jesus has, according to him, been lost. This claim, however, is contradicted by his own book. The Qran, 5:46 explicitly says that the 'Injeel' given to Jesus contains "guidance and light." Verse 47 then goes on to say "And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient."  In other words, Mohammed, clearly believed that the 'Injeel' was something which people in his own day could read and judge by. By the time of Muhammed, Jesus' earthly mission had been over for some seven centuries. Clearly, therefore, no person listening to Mohammed could have physically listened to Christ's preaching. Any reasonable person will realise that the Injeel is something that Mohammed believed that Christians in his day had access too.

Of Binding and Loosing

Does Matthew 18:18 contradict the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19? That may be an obscure question, so let me explain. Anyone at all familiar with Catholic belief or interdenominational apologetics knows that Matthew 16:18-19 describes Christ making some specific promises to St. Peter. Of special relevance is Christ's promise that "I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you lose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (16:19 ESV). Catholics see this gift as giving special power to St. Peter for the governance of the Church.

One response from our separated brethren is to point to Matthew 18:18. Here, Christ is talking to a large group of His disciples and says "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." This, it is argued, proves that St. Peter was nothing special, all believers receive the same powers to bind and loose that he received.

To answer the objection, and to understand what exactly these powers of binding and loosing are, we need to look at context. The immediate context of Matthew 18:18 is a discussion, by Christ, of how to deal with unrepentant sinners within the body of believers. The final remedy is that the sins of the unrepentant person be told to the church "And if he refuses to listen to the Church, let him be as a gentile or tax collector."

Two brief asides: first, I've heard a lot of people insist that because Jesus was so loving, He's never support anything like excommunication. Yes He would, and did; right here. Second, given that both of my parents were career employees of the Australian Taxation Office, the New Testament usage of "tax collectors" as a synonym for "worst sinners ever" always makes me smile.

 To return to my main point, however. First, it should be obvious from this context that the power to bind and loose refers to the power to discipline errant members of the church. I've heard protestants cite these verses as evidence that every believer has the power to 'bind' evil spirits. The truth, I'm afraid, is that it refers to a rather more prosaic matter, the power of the church to discipline its members. Second, given that verse 17 is talks about the authority of the church it makes no sense for the 'you' in verse 18 to be interpreted as "you - every individual" rather it should be seen as "you - the collective body of the church."

We are left then with Christ promising to His church collectively what He had previously promised individually to St. Peter. Does this contradict Catholic teaching? Not in the slightest. The Church does not see the Pope as some spiritual lone ranger exercising his powers out of the context of the wider body. Indeed, the fact that the same power should be given corporately to the church and individually to the church's head beautifully underlies what Vatican II called the collegiality of the Church. The fact still remains, that the power which Jesus collectively granted the Church He gave individually to St. Peter. That is the Petrine Primacy.

 

A Response to "DawahIsEasy" on the Deity of Christ (Part I)

I recently found this video, published by Islamic vlogger "DawahIsEasy". For those unclear, "dawah" is an Arabic word meaning roughly "preaching". The video shows a discussion on the deity of Jesus between a Muslim and a Christian. The video is well worth watching by any Christian interested in apologetics and evangelism.  I originally intended to write only a single post in response but realised that, some of the issues raised here, required a series. This first post, therefore, will cover a few minor and introductory points, the next post will (deo volente) delve into some deeper waters.

Let me first make a couple of minor points: The Muslim gentleman makes a couple of factual claims that are simple nonsense. For example, he claims that the English words "evangelise" and "evangelical" come from the Arabic word "Injil", the Arabic name for the Gospel. In fact he goes so far as to claim that "you can't disagree" that the Arabic name is the source of those English words. I'm sorry, but I can disagree. While I take it to be uncontroversial that the words are linked, the reason is not because  the English words are derived from the Arabic but because the Arabic and English words share a common root in the Greek "Evangelion."

Second he claims that "according to scholars" the gospels (he especially mentions St. John's Gospel) were originally in Aramaic and later translated into Greek. If he'd bother to do a simple Google search he'd learn what rubbish he was talking. In fact, while some scholars hold the St. Matthew's gospel was originally in Aramaic, they are a small minority. A majority of scholars agree St. Matthew was originally written in Greek and an effective consensus exists that the other three were written in Greek. The gentleman's claim that scholars generally believe St. John's Gospel to have originally been written in Aramaic is just ignorance.

Also, the Muslim claims that, on St. Paul the Apostle's tombstone, one will find the name "Saul", not Paul and that this calls into question whether Saul of Tarsus was ever really converted. Again, simply false. As this article notes, the sarcophagus commonly believed to have held the body of St. Paul clearly bears the words: Paulo Apostolo Matr". Paul Apostle and Martyr.

These are all minor points and I'm not suggesting that any of them, in and of themselves, invalidate his arguments. The fact of him repeatedly making errors like this is, in my mind, significant, however. The reason is that he frequently makes claims about "what I have read" or, more significantly, what scholars say and goes on to make a very basic error. These are not the sort of errors which it would require any deep research to discover, a quick Google search would have shown any of the three claims I noted above to be baseless. Given this, I think we must say that the gentleman making these claims is, at best, showing serious incompetence in his research and, at worst, simply dishonest.

Having said that, while the Muslim certainly asserted a great many factual errors, I don't think the Christian did a very good job of explaining Christianity. As a minor aside, our Christian friend declares that "there was discussion about the two natures of Jesus in the second century." Well, I'm not exactly certain what he means and I'm sure there has been discussion of Christ's nature in every century since His coming, but the major debates in which the Church's beliefs about Christ natures were defined were in the fifth and sixth century. Much more seriously, our Christian declares that Jesus "is not a man" but "He was both human and divine." No, this is not orthodox Christianity. The Declaration of Chalcedon, accepted by Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and the vast majority of Protestant Churches describes Our Lord as subsisting (present tense) in two natures.

More importantly, however, the Christian in the video is clearly not prepared to answer questions about the dual natures of Our Lord. He identifies himself as a theology student and street preacher. If you are going to be a street preacher in our contemporary situation you need to prepare yourself to answer the questions our Muslim friends will have. Generally speaking, these questions will involve the divine and human nature of Christ.

I will, (deo volente) in the next post of this series, lay out, in more detail what we believe and how Muslim criticisms misunderstand this belief.

P.S. A small point, but, as I philosopher, I can't let this go. The Christian in the video makes a couple of statements about Philosophy that show he has not the faintest clue what Philosophy is.

The Sin Against the Holy Spirit (aka, Answers for an Atheist 3.5)

This is post is, in part, a part of my "Answers for an Atheist" series. In part two of said series, I argued that, I would not want a perfectly good and holy God deciding that there were some sins He would not pardon since I would have no reason for believing that He would draw the line where I thought it should be drawn. A priest friend of mine was kind enough to leave a comment, generally praising my post but qualifying that praise with a question. He asked what I thought about the sin against the Holy Spirit and whether the fact of such a sin, in way, effected my answer.

For those who may not be aware, the background to this question is Christ's statement that "All sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin." (Mark 3:28f c.f. Matt 12:31, Luke 12:10).

These passages have, it must be said, caused a great deal of confusion among Christians. Dorothy Sayers once wrote a "mock catechism" to satirise the ignorance of many church goers of her day in which she wrote, of the Holy Spirit "There is a sin against Him that damns you for all eternity, but nobody knows what it is."

In brief, my answer was that I didn't think it did effect my answer. I waited to give my reply in full, because I thought it was necessary to lay some groundwork about the nature of heaven and hell. That groundwork I laid in the third part of the series. In that post, I spelt out the Catholic belief that Heaven is not some arbitrary reward and hell some arbitrary punishment that God has imposed upon those who follow or don't follow a list of rules but are rather the necessary consequence of accepting or rejecting the kind of relationship that God wishes to have with us.

The Holy Spirit, has a unique role of working within our souls to bring us into this relationship. This is why the sin against the Spirit is unforgivable. It is not that God has decided that such blasphemy is such a horrible sin that forgiving it is beyond even His mercy. Rather, by rejecting the work of the One who is sent to bring them into a relationship with God, those who commit this sin are closing off the possibility of such a relationship.

This is the point that St. Thomas was making when he argued that "...the sin against the Holy Ghost is said to be unpardonable, by reason of its nature, in so far as it removes those things which are a means towards the pardon of sins." (S.T. II-II Q. 14 A.3 corp.) In other words, the sin is unpardonable because, by resisting the work of the spirit, the sinner closes his or herself of from the one who is to bring pardon.

Pope St. John Paul II, noting St. Thomas' exegesis, went on to say:

..."blasphemy" does not properly consist in offending against the Holy Spirit in words; it consists rather in the refusal to accept the salvation which God offers to man through the Holy Spirit, working through the power of the Cross. If man rejects the "convincing concerning sin" which comes from the Holy Spirit and which has the power to save, he also rejects the "coming" of the Counsellor-that "coming" which was accomplished in the Paschal Mystery, in union with the redemptive power of Christ's Blood: the Blood which "purifies the conscience from dead works." (Dominum et Vifificantem Part II:6:46)



 

Yes, Jesus Hates.

Right-wing political commentator, Glenn Beck said some things on his podcast recently which highlight a widespread theological confusion. If you are interested in hearing for yourself, you can find the link here. The podcast in question is dated 5/20/14 and the relevant section begins at approximately the eleven minute mark.

For sake of background, Beck is a Mormon and was recently invited to Liberty University, a conservative Baptist institution, to give the "commencement address" to graduating students. In the speech he spoke of Mormonism as if it were simply another Christian denomination and praised Mormonism's founding "prophet" Joseph Smith as a martyr who died for his beliefs; the inconvenient fact that Smith, unlike any Christian martyr I'm aware of, died with a gun in his hand and shooting back was not mentioned.

As you might imagine, an orthodox Christian institution inviting a Mormon to give such a speech has been greatly controversial and a large number of people have criticised Liberty for this action. Beck, in his podcast, declares that Liberty is being "smeared" by "so-called Christians". Now Beck doesn't cite any examples so, for all I know, there may well be critics out there who are guilty of making their criticism in a way that could legitimately called "smearing". Having said that, all the criticism of Liberty that I've seen has been reasonable and on point with no lies or ad hominines involved.

In my opinion, if you are going to claim that you or someone associated with you is being smeared, you ought to provide an example of such a smear and explain why it's a smear. Absent such examples, the claim that one is being smeared looks to me like an attempt to poison the well of meaningful debate by suggesting that any criticisms of one's position is a "smear."

Beck goes on to declare he can't find anywhere in the Bible where Jesus hates or encourages His followers to hate nor can he find anywhere where Jesus is not "embracing people". This really depends what you mean. No, Jesus never hates people and He always stands ready to embrace the repentant. He does, however, hate ideas, especially ideas which falsely profess to be Christian. I'd recommend Mr. Beck might want to try reading chapters two and three of the Book of Revelations. These chapters contain letters which Jesus personally dictates to seven churches in Asia Minor (roughly modern day turkey). Of particular interest might be 2:6 where Jesus, after scolding the Church of Ephesus for various sins commends them that "...you hate the works of the Nicolations, which I also hate." He will later criticise another Church for having in their midst, some who hold to the teachings of the Nicolations. The rest of this sections contains a number of warning, from Jesus, to the various Churches warning against the toleration of heretics and false teachers and also contains warnings of what Jesus will do those false teachers should they fail to repent.

Beck goes on to reveal his ignorance by declaring that he can't find where Jesus says "you shall know them by their fruits." Had he bothered to use Google it would have taken him only a few seconds to find the answer: Matt. 7:16.

At the end of this discussion, Beck declares that he would happily send his children to Liberty University, despite his differences with them because Liberty would give them a deep knowledge of God. I'd love to see Beck questioned on this by someone who knows what they are talking about. That Joseph Smith, whom Beck declares a prophet and martyr, in the "King Follett Discourse", declared it to be a "first principle of the Gospel" that God was not always God but was once a human who became divine through obedience to the God of His planet. Liberty, by contrast and for all its faults, still remains committed to the biblical principle that God has eternally been God. I fail to see how anyone could believe Smith was a prophet and also think that committed monotheists can give someone a deep knowledge of God. But, then, I'm one of those weird Thomist types who thinks truth about God matters.

P.S. I first heard about Beck's comments on the most recent edition of James White's webcast "The Dividing Line". White makes a number of worthwhile criticisms of both Beck and Liberty. You can find the DL episode here, with the relevant section beginning at about the twenty-five minute mark. 

"Knowledge" About Mark's Gospel

 

As the old cliche goes, “A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.” This is true for a 

number of reasons. One reason is that, when we half know or half understand something, 

we tend not to just accept that we half know or half understand it, but to 

make up “knowledge” to fill in the gaps and convince ourselves that we understand 

more than we do. 

 

As an example of what I’m talking about, there seems to be a growing misconception 

among a number of atheists concerning the longer and shorter endings of the Gospel 

According to St. Mark. The misconception its self, isn’t a huge problem, but the fact 

way it seems to have formed in some people’s minds is. Let me hasten to had that, 

while, for this example, I’m picking on my atheist friends, I have little doubt that many 

examples of similar folly could be found on my own side.

 

For those unfamiliar with what I mean by longer and shorter endings of St. Mark; St. 

Mark’s Gospel has sixteen chapters and the final chapter has twenty verses. The 

vast majority of scholars, however, would consider that only the first eight verses 

were part of the original gospel with the remaining twelve being added by a later 

scribe. The shorter ending of St. Mark does not contain any description of the risen 

Christ appearing to His followers. This fact makes it unique among the Biblical Gospels; 

the longer ending, as well as the other three Gospels all do contain such narratives. 

It is important to note, however, that the shorter ending, does clearly affirm the 

resurrection happening. The shorter ending describes a group of women coming to 

the tomb of Jesus, early on Sunday morning, finding the tomb empty and being told 

“You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth. He is not here, he is risen.”

 

A large number of atheist, however, seem to have heard this fact, but only partly 

grasped it. The upshot of this is that, in past few months, I’ve had several atheists 

inform me that Mark’s Gospel, as originally written, contains no mention of the 

resurrection and, at least one of them, as gone so far as to conclude from this that, 

at the time of the Gospel’s writing, belief in the resurrection was not part of Christianity. 

I’m pretty sure that none of these people are lying; they believe what they are saying. I 

think that, what has happened, is that they have heard it said (truly) that most scholars 

believe the original version of Mark’s Gospel contains no accounts of appearances of the 

risen Christ and, not fully grasping the important distinctions, concluded that this means 

that it contains no mention of the resurrection.

 

This error, by itself, would be harmless enough. The problem is that many will then 

go on to claim something like “people who think the original gospels contain an 

account of the resurrection obviously aren’t aware of modern scholarship like I am.” 

Even when, I point out to such individuals the fact that, actually, the shorter ending of 

St. Mark, the one universally recognised as being part of the original gospel, does include 

the clear affirmation that "He is risen.", this is sometimes dismissed as "Silly Christians
not even knowing what scholarship says about your own book." Actually, quite a few of
us do know. The difference is we are interested in knowing the details of what that
scholarship says, not just a few points we can cherry pick.