With Due Respect: Did King David exist?

 

David, as depicted in the 2025 film David

King David was one of the central figures of the Old Testament in the Bible. He was a king who allegedly united Israel, conquered Jerusalem, and founded a dynasty. 

However, pre-1993 few scholars accepted David as a historical figure because there was no clear extra-biblical evidence for him. The general reception was that he was a legendary founding figure of Israel on the scale that King Arthur was the founder of Britain.

Unlike kings such as Omri (1 Kings 16), Ahab (1 Kings 16), or Hezekiah (2 Kings 16), David was not clearly mentioned in surviving inscriptions from neighboring civilizations. This led to the question:

If David was such a significant king, why has no contemporary source ever mentioned him?

Tel Dan Stele

In 1993, the Tel Dan Stele was excavated in Tel Dan, Northern Israel. Dated about 800s - 700s BC it explicitly stated the "House of David". The stele was mostly likely made by the Aramean king, Hazael, and celebrated his military victories over the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

The crucial point was that it was written by an enemy kingdom, not by Jews.

This meant that a century and a half after David's lifetime, neighboring states recognized a dynasty named after David. Therefore, David was very unlikely to be a completely fictional invention of much later writers.

Conclusion
Today, few scholars doubt the existance of David. The historical questions have shifted to the nature of his kingship (e.g. how big was his kingdom).

The Tel Dan Stele provided the first widely accepted external reference to David's dynasty and significantly changed the debate

With Due Respect: Is the Ethiopian Bible the oldest Bible?

 

No, the Ethiopian Bible is not the oldest Bible. This is a common online claim, mostly because people compare the Ethiopian Bible (which was adapted by Ethiopia during 1400s) with the King James Bible (which was complied during the 1600s). Neither translation is the earliest scripture.

The Ethiopian Bible

For the Ethiopian Bible (the canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, written in Ge'ez):The translation of biblical texts into Ge'ez began in the 4th–6th centuries CE, soon after Christianity became the state religion in the Kingdom of Aksum (Ethiopia) in the 4th century.

The oldest surviving Ethiopian biblical manuscripts are the Garima Gospels (illuminated manuscripts of the four Gospels), radiocarbon dated to roughly 330–650 CE (with some samples as early as 390–570 CE). These are among the world's oldest illustrated Christian manuscripts and the earliest in Ge'ez.

However, a full Ethiopian Bible (with its broader canon of 81–88 books, including texts like Enoch and Jubilees not in most other Christian canons) as a complete, compiled collection appears in later manuscripts.

The oldest version

The oldest surviving nearly complete or complete Bibles (as full codices containing both Old and New Testaments in one set of manuscripts) date to the 4th century AD.

Codex Vaticanus (c. 300–325 AD or slightly later): One of the earliest and most complete Greek Bibles (Septuagint Old Testament + New Testament), housed in the Vatican Library. It is missing some parts but is among the oldest.

Codex Sinaiticus (c. 330–360 AD): Contains the oldest complete New Testament and large portions of the Old Testament in Greek. Discovered at St. Catherine's Monastery, it is widely regarded as one of the most important early biblical manuscripts.

With Due Respect: Did Apostle Paul endorse slavery?

 

Saint Paul Writing His Epistles, (Valentin de Boulogne, c. 1618 - 1620)

Recently I saw some Christian critics online saying that Christianity endorsed slavery, with special attention to Apostle Paul. After all, Paul instructed slaves to serve their masters well in Ephesians 6:5-8.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free. -- Ephesians 6:5-8

However this is a very myopic reading. We have to be fair to the text. Paul lived in the 1st-century Roman Empire, where slavery was a widespread and deeply entrenched institution. His letters, written to early Christian communities, reflect this context. He does not explicitly condemn or endorse slavery as an institution, but his writings address how Christians should navigate relationships within that social structure.

Slaves in the Roman Empire
The modern concept of slavery is different from the Roman concept of it. Slavery in the Roman world was not based on race but on conquest, debt, or birth. Slaves could hold varied roles, from laborers to educated professionals, and manumission (freeing slaves) was common. Yes, slaves in the Roman Empire could earn their freedom.

Paul’s audience included both slaves and slaveholders, and his letters aimed to foster unity in diverse Christian communities.  As a religious leader, not a political revolutionary, Paul focused on spiritual transformation.

In one explicit example, Paul appealed for the freedom of a slave
In this short letter, Paul writes to Philemon, a Christian slaveholder, about Onesimus, an enslaved person who had become a Christian. Paul urges Philemon to receive Onesimus "no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother".

Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord. - Philemon 1: 15-16

Paul’s language advocates for Onesimus’ freedom, as treating him as a "brother" in Christ undermines the slave-master dynamic.

William Wilberforce

Paul's letters inspired William Wilberforce to abolish slavery

William Wilberforce, the British parliamentarian and evangelical Christian who led the successful campaign to abolish the slave trade in the British Empire in 1807 (and slavery itself in 1833), drew deep inspiration from Scripture. His faith, awakened in the mid-1780s, compelled him to view abolition as a divine mandate to address social injustice.

In his diaries (as revealed by the book The Life of William Wilberforce), he would quote Galatians (one of Paul's letters) often.  It encapsulated his endurance amid fierce opposition, including parliamentary defeats, personal health struggles, and public vilification over nearly 20 years of advocacy.

Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. - Galatians 6:9

Wilberforce's worldview was shaped by verses emphasizing human equality, such as Galatians 3:28 ("There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus"), which he saw as a foundational critique of slavery's dehumanization.

So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. - Galatians 3:26-29

Inspired by his Christian faith, he wrote in A Practical View of Christianity (1797),
“The grand object of religion is to bring the soul to a state of just affections towards God and man... the love of our neighbor must know no bounds.”

Conclusion
Paul did not endorse slavery as a moral good, but he also did not outright call for its abolition. His concerns were to encourage Christians to live out their faith within existing social structures while emphasizing spiritual equality and ethical treatment.

Paul's writings were also inspired William Wilberforce 1700 years later to abolish slavery in the British Empire.

With Due Respect: Did the Protestants/Catholics remove/add books to the Bible?

If you compare the Bible that the Roman Catholics use and the one that Protestants use, you will notice that the books are slightly different. The seven books excluded in the Protestant Bible are known as the Deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, plus parts of Esther and Daniel).

I have often been asked if the books were removed by the Protestants or added by the Roman Catholics. The truth is much more complicated than that simple answer.

The historicity of the text

Part of the Septuagint but not Hebrew Masoretic Text

The Deuterocanonical books were part of the Septuagint, a Greek translation of Jewish scriptures from the 3rd–2nd century BC, widely used by Hellenistic Jews (Greek Jews) and early Christians. The New Testament frequently quotes or alludes to the Septuagint (e.g., Hebrews 11:35 referencing 2 Maccabees 7), suggesting its authority in the early Church. Catholics saw this as evidence of their inspired status, as the Septuagint was the Bible of the apostolic era.

However, the Protestant Reformers claimed that these books that were not part of the Hebrew Masoretic Text, finalized by Jewish scholars around the 1st century CE. The Deuterocanonical books were not universally accepted by all Jewish communities.

The reception of early Christians
Accepted but not universally accepted

Early Church Fathers like Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine cited them as authoritative. Regional councils, such as Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), included them in their Old Testament canons, reflecting widespread use in liturgy and teaching. Catholics viewed this consistent tradition as affirming their canonicity.

However  some prominent Church writers rejected the Deuterocanonical books. Jerome (347 -420), who translated the Bible into Latin (the Vulgate), questioned the canonicity of the Deuterocanonical books. In his prefaces to the Vulgate, he noted that these books were not in the Hebrew canon and labeled them "apocryphal," though he included them in his translation at the Church’s request. For example, in his preface to the Books of Samuel and Kings, he listed the Hebrew canon as authoritative but acknowledged the Church’s use of the Deuterocanonical books for edification, not doctrine.

Athanasius of Alexandria (296–373) was also sceptical of the books. In his 39th Festal Letter (367), which lists the canonical books, Athanasius excluded the Deuterocanonicals from the Old Testament canon, though he included Baruch and omitted Esther. He considered the others "useful for instruction" but not on par with inspired scripture.

The theology of it all
Deuterocanonical books affirm Catholic practices 

The Deuterocanonical books supported doctrines central to Catholic theology. For example, 2 Maccabees 12:44–46 endorses prayers for the dead, aligning with Catholic beliefs in purgatory and intercession. Wisdom 2:12–20 contains messianic imagery that Catholics saw as prefiguring Christ.

The Catholic Church at the Council of Trent (1546) formally reaffirmed the Deuterocanonical books as inspired scripture, standardizing the canon to counter Protestant claims and defend Catholic doctrine. 

On the other hand, the Protestant principle of sola scriptura (scripture alone) emphasized a clear, authoritative canon as the sole basis for doctrine. Reformers sought to streamline the Bible to texts they believed were indisputably inspired, excluding those with debated or uncertain status to avoid reliance on tradition, which they associated with Catholic authority.

Conclusion
The Roman Catholics included the Deuterocanonical books because they were found in the Septuagint. They see the books as NOT an addition but a codification of a long-standing tradition.

The Protestant Reformers did not see the exclusion of the books as a removal, but an attempt to have a pure Jewish canon determined in Hebrew

With Due Respect: Was Jesus cruicified in the Sinai Bible?

 

Recently, I came across popular historian and author Billy Carson. Billy Carson has continually claimed that a Bible discovered in Sinai in 1844 does not state that Jesus was crucified. He also claimed that this "Sinai Bible" was more accurate than the King James Bible.

The event of Jesus's death is central to Christianity. 

But we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.  - 1 Cor 1:23-24

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.  - 1 Cor 15:12-14

Thus it is important to examine whether Carson's claim is true.

What is the Sinai Bible?

The Sinai Bible is a misnomer - among scholarly circles it is known as Codex Sinaiticus. As Carson claims, it was dated to 4th century AD, nearly 1200 years before the King James Bible was compiled.

The Codex Sinaiticus consists of the Greek Old Testament, the Greek New Testament, and the Epistles of Barnabus and the Shephard of Hermas. It is considered to be a landmark document, along with Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Vaticanus, as it is one of the most complete manuscripts of the Bible.

A translation of Codex Sinaiticus is here, and clearly states that Jesus was crucified.

And they struck his head with a reed, and spit upon him, and bowing the knees they worshipped him. And when they had derided him, they took of from him the purple, and put on him his own clothes. And they led him out to crucify him, - Mark 15:19-20 [Codex Sinaiticus]

Conclusion

It is unfortunate that Billy Carson continues to pursue this claim, and he eventually was called out by Christian theologian, Wesly Huff as since in the reference video below.

For reference

With Due Respect: They killed Jesus!

Accusing groups of people of killing Jesus diminishes what Jesus intended to accomplish at the cross

One of the most disheartening things I read on social media, especially Facebook is the rising antisemitism posts that has been spurred on by recent global events, chiefly the Israel-Hamas war. 

Banking on this, some political leftists see the Jews as an oppressor in the oppression-oppressed Marxist narrative. Weirdly these leftists find themselves aligned with some members of the political right who hold racists views that the Jews are the source of the problems.

Thus one of the common accusations I hear is that the "Jews killed Jesus" in an attempt to stir up hatred among the Christian community. 

So who killed Jesus then?
While one can point out the Jewish leaders of the time plotted to kill Jesus and the Roman authorities carried out the execution, it clearly states in Isaiah 53 that Jesus died for our sins ("he was pierced for our transgression").

Surely he took up our pain
   and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
    stricken by him, and afflicted.
 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
    he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
    and by his wounds we are healed.
 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
    each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
    the iniquity of us all. -- Isaiah 53: 4-6

This is further corroborated by the New Testament authors.

But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. - Romans 5:8

He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. - 1 Peter 2:24

In other words, we (humans) in our sinful nature, killed Jesus. To single out a single group and blame them for the death of Jesus is to defeat the message that Christ died for all humanity.

So how should Christians respond?

Instead, Christians should acknowledge that Jesus's death was good news - good because his death has provided us a way to reconcile with God, and news because this is true.

In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. - 1 John 4:10

With Due Respect: Did the 2024 Olympic Opening Ceremony mock Christianity?

 

Comparing a scene from the opening ceremony and The Last Supper

Every four years, I enjoy watching snippets from my second favourite sporting event -- the Olympics. [My favourite is the FIFA World Cup.] 

While I overall did enjoy the games (I enjoy watching fencing and wrestling) and many moments were meme-able and memorable, the 2024 Paris Olympics kicked off with controversy. In one particular performance, the actors seemed to parody the painting The Last Supper by Leonardo Da Vinci. Da Vinci painted that during the Renaissance as a tribute to the last meal Jesus had with his disciples before his execution.

This caused uproar from the Christian community including the Vatican and Orthodox bishops, and secular entities like the Italian government and C Spire (a technology company).

Almost immediately, Thomas Jolly, the artistic director of the opening ceremony quickly claimed that his critics were mistaken and that his ceremony was a tribute to the painting The Feast of the Gods by Dutch artist Jan van Bijlert. (Note that both paintings are the property of France.)

The Feast of The Gods portrays the Greek Gods having a party. Since the Olympics were originally conceived to be a tribute to the Greek gods, thus Jolly saw fit to have it in the opening ceremony. According to him, Christians were overreacting to his artistic direction.

Comparing a scene from the opening ceremony and The Feast of the gods 

How should Christians respond?

Christians should expect mockery

“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you." -- John 15: 18-19

Firstly, Christians should not be surprise when non-believers mocked them. After all, Jesus predicted that (as stated in the quote above). In fact Christianity has been researched to be the most persecuted religion in the world.

Christians should not be naive

“I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. Be on your guard; you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues. On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you." - Matthew 10: 16-20

Secondly, Christians should not be so trusting. The actors were obviously portraying the Last Supper and not the Feast of the Gods. Look at the positioning of the actors and the popular image it invokes. The Last Supper is way more popular in the human psyche than the Feast of the Gods. 

Even the actors themselves thought they were portraying the Last Supper. To pretend that it was something is else is simply asinine. In addition, the organisiers have apologised for the portrayal, fully that there is validity to the claim of the similarity to the Last Supper.

In the words of Judge Judy, "don't pee on My leg and tell me it's raining". Such an action would be equivalent to wear a Buddhist swastika to a Holocaust museum and laugh at the offended people who were uneducated on the difference between a Buddhist and Nazi symbol.

Christians should not resort to violence

“But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them." - Luke 6: 27-31

Nevertheless, Christians should not be violence over this. In fact, Jesus Himself said to bless those who cursed you. When Jesus was a arrested, he instructed Peter to sheath his sword (John 18:11) when Peter tried to defend him.

Conclusion

Christians should be aware that Jesus call us to live a life foreign to the world, and not to be shocked when the world persecutes us, either directly or indirectly. 

For more information
The issue covered by Salt and Light

With Due Respect: Are children born atheist?

 

Children attending a Japanese church, 2023

In the 2006 book God Delusion, famous atheist biologist Richard Dawkins asserted that "There is no such thing as a Christian child: only a child of Christian parents".

He also tweeted that "Babies have no religion".

In such statements, Dawkins assumes that infants are born with no inclination to religion, and religious ideas are taught to them, rather than learnt naturally. However, he fails to account for a few things.

Babies are naturally religious
In most studies, infants are seem to accept teleological answers over purposeless ones. For instance, children are more likely accept that "Rivers exist so that we can go fishing on them, and birds are here to look pretty". They see the natural world as purposeful and designed by a higher being. 

Even if their parents are atheists, they tend to understand that their parents (and therefore humans) are imperfect and therefore prescribe supernatural abilities to a creator of the natural world. 

Based on such research, British philosopher Charles Foster (in his 2010 book Wired for God) concluded that atheism was not a default or natural belief for humans, but it was something that had to be taught.

Singaporean children, or children with Singaporean parents? 

Genetic fallacy
Another classic fallacy that Dawkins is committing is the genetic fallacy. He attempts to disapprove the validity of a belief by stating where it came from (i.e. the parents). This line of argument is false as the origin of the argument has little to do whether a claim is true.

Just because the abusive Imperial Japanese used aircraft carriers to sink allied ships does not mean that this strategy is bad or false.

Conclusion
Whether a baby's default state is religious or irreligious does not prove or disprove the existence of God. Truth is beyond genetics and culture.

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)

With Due Respect: Should we use gender-neutral pronouns for God?

 

To summarise, no. Let me elaborate:

God is revealed in Jesus Christ
He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross - Colossians 1: 15-20

For Christians, the best evidence for God is the personhood and Godhood of Jesus Christ. And Jesus was a man.

In ancient Hebrew, God is referred as male in the Bible
The Lord is my strength and my song,
    and he has become my salvation;
this is my God, and I will praise him,
    my father's God, and I will exalt him.
 The Lord is a man of war;
    the Lord is his name. - Exodus 15: 2-3

In the Bible, God chose to communicate using male pronouns, and is also exclusively described with male pronouns. In the instances where God uses female imagery, He uses them as an analogy rather than a description.

For a long time I have held my peace;
    I have kept still and restrained myself;
now I will cry out like a woman in labor;
    I will gasp and pant. - Isaiah 42:14

Jesus was OK with God's pronouns
And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,

 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
    because he has anointed me
    to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives
    and recovering of sight to the blind,
    to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.”

And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” -- Luke 4:16-21

Jesus could have taken opportunities to correct the Scriptures, but he did not.

Conclusion
Despite our modern politics and cultural influences, we must be wary of conflating who God is, and what we desire Him to be. For instance, there could be a genuine intellectual desire to describe God as beyond gender (and thus want to use gender-neutral pronouns) but that is not how God has chosen to reveal Himself in ancient Hebrew.

If God is really the most important being in our lives, then we should seek to conform to what has been revealed about Him, rather than relying on our fickle thoughts, feelings and culture.

For more information:

Torah

Interpreting Scripture

With Due Respect: Does Numbers 5:27 support abortion?

 

Hector and his daughter Liliana from Fire Emblem Cipher 

Often Christians use the Bible to justify their moral or political stance. In this way, we all fall temptation to misquoting the Bible. One example I want to examine today is the Book of Numbers and abortion.

Numbers and abortion
One of the popular Bible quotes for pro-abortion Christians is from Numbers 5:27:

If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. (Numbers 5:27; NIV)

In other words, the author of the passage was describing how to cause a miscarriage, which implied that abortion was acceptable during the Old Testament times.

Immediately you should see the fallacies in such an argument.

Fallacy 1: Describing is not the same as endorsing
One giant mistake that such pro-abortionists make is that just because the Bible describes something, it does not mean the Bible supports it.

For instance, in my history blog I often describe horrors of the Japanese Occupation of Singapore. This does not mean that I support such terrors.

Describing the expansion of Imperial Japan is not the same as supporting it.

Fallacy 2: The context is a test for unfaithfulness, not procedure for an abortion.

Even a simple look at the verse in context reveals that the passage is not about abortion, but about punishment for unfaithfulness.

But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. (Numbers 5: 20-21; NIV)

Fallacy 3: The verse is not deliberately causing a miscarriage
While the NIV translators used the term "miscarry", it is not a unanimous translation. The same passage is translated slightly differently even within the English versions.

And when he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has broken faith with her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away, and the woman shall become a curse among her people. (Numbers 5:27; ESV)

When he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall discharge, her uterus drop, and the woman shall become an execration among her people. (Numbers 5:27; NRSVUE)

If she has defiled herself by being unfaithful to her husband, the water that brings on the curse will cause bitter suffering. Her abdomen will swell and her womb will shrink, and her name will become a curse among her people. (Numbers 5:27; NLT)

Comparing the translations, the idea of miscarriage is admittedly unclear. Nevertheless, it is clear that Numbers 5:27 refers to a punishment for the unfaithful wife.

Children are a gift from God

Fallacy 4: The Bible overwhelmingly supports procreation
Lastly it is a mistake to take a single verse and make a stance out of it. The Bible is very clear in its support for childbearing.

For you created my inmost being;
 you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
    your works are wonderful, (Psalms 139: 13- 14; NIV)

Children are a heritage from the Lord,
   offspring a reward from him. (Psalms 127:3; NIV)

Did you not pour me out like milk
    and curdle me like cheese,
 clothe me with skin and flesh
    and knit me together with bones and sinews?
 You gave me life and showed me kindness,
    and in your providence watched over my spirit. (Job 10: 10 -12; NIV)

Conclusion
It is dangerous to twist the Bible for our purposes. We instead, should mediate on the Bible and be inline with God's purposes.

For a summary video:

With Due Respect: Christianity has not stopped violence

 

Screenshot from Attila Total War

"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."
-- Matthew 26:52

One of the new criticism I heard of Christianity is that it has not stopped violence. This is especially prominent during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. After all, both Russians and Ukrainians are mainly Eastern Orthodox Christians, and the Russian Church has endorsed the invasion.

However, this is myopic political and philosophical position. Just because one major church supports the war, it does not mean that Christianity as a whole has never stopped violence. We would not apply the same standards elsewhere. For instance, just because the Imperial Japanese of the 1940s were Buddhist, it does not mean all Buddhism is violent.

Furthermore, prominent church individuals have condemned the invasion of Ukraine. The former Archbishop of Canterbury (Head of the Anglican Church) condemned both Russian Premier Putin and the Russian Church for their actions. The Anglican Church has offered to open discussion with the Russian church with regards to peace.

Let me go back further and show some examples on how the Church as a system attempted to reduce violence in the world.

A) Papal mediation between Chile and Argentina
While I am not a Roman Catholic, I have to recognize the times when Roman Catholic Church has stepped up. In 1983, the Pope mediated a potential conflict between Chile and Argentina (both countries are majority Roman Catholic) and both countries renounced the use of force.

B) Just War theory (Thomas Aquinas)
In Medieval Europe when most nations claimed to be Christian, there were academic attempts to restrict violence. By giving clear criteria, nation states would need to meet a certain standard when waging war. 

Thomas Aquinas distilled a Just War to three conditions: the authority of the sovereign, the purpose of the war must be just, and finally the conduct and intent of the involved warriors 

C) Inquisition
Unlike popular portrayals on how violent the Inquisition (a church judicial system to root out heresy), the Inquisition was an attempt to reduce violent and rampant accusations of heresy.

In fact the Inquisition is considered to be the first attempt at a universal court system, where evidence is needed for a guilty verdict, and biased testimonies were dismissed. Some historians have even argued that the Inquisition laid the foundation for the modern legal systems of Europe. As a Singaporean, it is interesting to note that Singapore law is based on English Common Law which has parts of its origin in the Inquisition.

Conclusion
While one can claim that the culture of Christianity has led to violence, one must also acknowledge the efforts the church took towards towards peace.

HMS Hermes in flames, 1943

For more reading:
God's Philosophers (2009)

With due respect: Later Christians invented a divine Jesus!

One of the common accusations is that Jesus was just a person who became a legend and eventually God. In other words, Jesus was retconned as God by later Christians.

1 Corinthians 15

However, a reading of Paul's writings will disprove that notion. In the first letter to the Corinthians, Paul recites the earliest Christian creed (1 Cor 5: 3–8). 

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. -- 1 Corinthians 5: 3–8

Paul states that more than 500 hundred people saw Jesus die and came back to life (in fulfillment of the Scriptures; which showed that Jesus was who he claimed to be, i.e. God.).

Note that 1 Corinthians is estimated to be written around 54 AD, about 20 years after Jesus’s execution. Thus Paul’s claim could have been easily challenged by other Christians. As his record of events is backed by eyewitnesses and other apostles, it showed that Christians had regarded Jesus as God from the start.

Pliny the Younger
In 112 AD, Pliny the Younger (a Roman governer) wrote a letter to the Roman Emperor on the policy towards Christians (i.e. how to persecute Christians). In it, he described the religious practices of the Christians. He mentioned that Christians worshiped Jesus and even practised the a ritual of communal eating (i.e. the Holy Communion).

Other sources of early Christian worship are recorded by historians Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

Conclusion

Early Christians did worship Jesus as God.

With Due Respect: Did Martin Luther kill himself?

 

Recently, I have encountered some articles which claimed Martin Luther, one of the Protestant Reformists, killed himself, instead of dying of chest pains, or stroke. 

While the sources seemed to rely on fringe Catholic propaganda, I feel I must deal with this claim.

Poor sourcing

Much of the evidence comes from an alleged eyewitness called Ambrosio Kudtfeld. According to Kudtfeld, Luther hung himself after suffering a mental breakdown. 

However, none of Luther's contemporaries was "Kudtfeld". Luther's confidents (such as Philip Melanchthon and Katrina Luther) are well-recorded, but none of them mentioned a "Kudtfeld".

Conclusion

In a world of propaganda and fake news, we Christians must be wary of what sources we used.

For more reading
Reddit

With due respect: Is good something in itself, or is something good because God command it?

A few year's ago, my agnostic friend asked me a question, "Does God approve something because it is good? Or is something good because God approves it?"

At that time, I did not know that this question was known as Euthyphro dilemma. This dilemma presents the monotheist (people who believe in an active God) with two paths:

A) Moral goodness is independent of God

B) God determines what is good

In this post I will examine both paths, A and B, and the problems the paths posed for Christianity.

A) Moral goodness is independent of God
God is subordinate to morality
The most prominent problem to the Christian arising from Path A is that God has to follow an abstract entity known as moral goodness. This challenges traditional understanding of God as being omnipotent (Murray and Rea, 2008).

God is not needed for morality
Another problem is that if morality exists independent of God, then this challenges the necessity of God as a law-giver. In other words, there is not a moral need for God to be involved in the world (Oppy, 2009).

B) God determines what is good
Morality is arbitrary
Adopting this stand is also problematic to the Christian. This means that what morality is dependent on the whims of God (Murray and Rea, 2008).

Morality is subject to the strongest

Another issue is that it makes into a "might makes right" situation. This makes God as a tyrant, since he enforces what is moral.

False dilemma?

St Thomas Aquinas, the medieval theologian did address Euthyphro dilemma. He argued that it is a fallacy to separate morality from God, as God is the definition of good. That means that objective good and God's will is the same thing.

References

Murray, M.J., Rea, M. (2008) An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion.

Oppy, G. (2009) Arguing about Gods.

For further reading

Reasonable Faith's link 

William Lane Craig's lecture

Summary:

With due respect: Name one thing that Christianity has done for us?

Recently, I watched a conversation between historian Tom Holland (not the actor) and atheist philosopher AC Grayling. During the respectful debate, Grayling challenged Holland to name "one thing" that Christianity had done for humanity.

To put it in context, Grayling argued that the societal contributions of Christianity came from other ancient sources and therefore Christianity was not unique in its contributions. In other words, the world would not have been affected much if Christianity had not existed.

While Holland countered eloquently, I listed briefly some unique societal contributions by Christianity.

1) Philosophy of science

While ancient India, China and Greece came up with scientific discoveries, the scientific philosophy (that included major ideas of experimentation and formal logic) was developed with the background of Christian theology. China, India and Greece did not even come close to uncovering that philosophy.

It had been argued that without Christianity establishing that a logical God would create an understandable world, science as a philosophy would not be thought about.

2) Universality of rights

Another unique thing that Christianity brought was the universality of rights. God revealed to Apostle Peter in Acts 10 that the idea of being God's children was not a matter of genetics (i.e. being Jews) but a matter of belief. 

In doing so, Christianity laid the foundation of Universal Human Rights, since all humans are seen to be children of God.

3) Presumption of innocence

Another great contribution that Christianity laid was the idea of the presumption of innocence: that one was considered innocent till proven guilty.

Formally formulated during the Inquisition, the presumption of innocence drew inspiration from Abraham's negotiation with God over the destruction of Sodom (Genesis 18). From the Inquition came many modern systems of law and order, one of which is English Common Law.

Recommended readings:

James Hannam (2009) God's Philosophers

Rodney Stark (2005) The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success

For reference to the video:

With due respect: What about Christians? What about ...?

Pikachus are cute, right?
What about Charmanders?

Has it happened to you?
Recently I was explaining to a friend why socialism was a bad idea.

"Well what about theocracies?"

I was confused. So I asked him to elaborate.

He explained that modern day theocracies like Saudi Arabia are not pleasant to live in. I pointed out that (a) we were not talking about Saudi Arabia, and (b) a theocracy being bad does not justify socialism being good.

"Well then, what about the United States? It is a corrupt capitalistic democracy."

I signed. My friend suffered from a case of "whataboutism".

But what about ...?

Whataboutism is a form of logical fallacy. It seeks to discount an argument by raising irrelevant points or obscure examples without any attempt disprove the argument's claim.

I have seen many a friend, Christian and atheist, Singaporean and American and even scientist and artist, fall into this into this trap.

For instance,

"Mao killed around 45 million people."
"What about the United States? They massacred people at Kent Ridge?"

"The religious crusades killed many people."
"What about Stalin?"

For more examples:

With Due Respect: Men should not have a say in abortion!

Recently, the American state of Alabama voted to ban abortion in the state. Regardless of whatever our stand on abortion is, I feel there is always a debate and conversation to be had. Unfortunately, lots of the discussion seemed to be spend blaming white men lawmakers for making the decision.

In this post I will examine the question posted by the BBC, "should men have a say in the abortion debate?"

Arguments based on identity, not logic

The authors of this question are committing a logical fallacy in their statement. Since men do not under pregnancy or abortion, the argument is that men do not have a right to set the law.

The best form of the argument is this :

1) Men do not go through pregnancy or abortion
2) Abortion law should be only set by individuals who go through pregnancy or abortion
3) Therefore only women should set the law since it only concerns the women.

However, this line of argument is flawed.

Logical failure: Does not match reality

We would not apply this line of logic to any other circumstance. Imagine making the following statements:

"We cannot set animal rights because we are not animals."

"We cannot make laws concerning illegal immigration because we were never immigrants."

"We cannot set laws concerning burials because we were never dead or buried."

All these statements are obviously incorrect yet when it comes to abortion, we are more than happy to follow it.

Logical failure: Your identity makes you more virtuous

The argument also assumes that the identity of speaker or lawmaker is essential to the support of the argument.

Let me make this clear: arguments are valid or invalid regardless of a person's gender, race, ethnicity, eye colour, height, weight etc. An argument should be weighted on logical consistency and real-world application, rather than identity.

Allowing such shenanigans would set a dangerous precedent -- we would have no common ground of logic to reach a proper discussion.

Conclusion

It is irresponsible and rather quite disappointing that the BBC chooses to promote identity as a narrative in their articles.

With Due Respect: Jesus was not born on Christmas Day, so therefore Jesus did not exist

As Christmas passes, I find myself dealing with yet another objection to Christianity. After all to throw doubt into the existence of Jesus would diminish Christian belief.

One of my atheist friends love to point out every Christmas that Jesus was not born on December 25th. This proves strong doubt that Jesus existed since his birth date is unknown. Furthermore, the Christian Romans set aside the date to coincide with the winter festival. Therefore 25th December was chosen for cultural and political purposes, and therefore not an accurate dating.

A red herring

Let's relook his line of logic:

1. Jesus's birthday was made to coincide with the Winter Festival and was not the actual date that Jesus was born on.
2. Since Jesus's birthday is unknown, we cannot be sure that Jesus was born
3. Therefore if we cannot be sure whether he was born, we cannot be sure Jesus exist.

Immediately, you should spot the error. Whether 25th December was the actual date is irrelevant to the truth of Jesus's birth.

To give an analogy, let's say I am unsure when my grandmother was born. This does not change the fact that my grandmother was born.

This fallacy (false logic) is also known as a red herring. In other words, the objection is irrelevant to the point made.

So when was Jesus born exactly?

No one really knows. According to Wikipedia, it could be September or October.

Conclusion

Whenever Jesus's exact birthday was, we can know that he was born.

With Due Respect: What about the Crusades?

[The editor and author of this post is not a history major. He also does not endose violence against people with differing views, nor seek to justify the Crusades. The purpose of this post is to encourage deeper thinking on whether Christianity is an inherantly violent religion that led to terrible atrocities, in this case the Crusades.]

Map of Medieval Europe, Asia and Africa from the game, Medieval 2:Total War

I often heard from my friends that Christianity is violent. They point out that during the Crusades, the Christians rode into the Middle East unprovoked and slaughtered both Jews and Muslims. This seems to concur with Richard Dawkins's (2006) assertion that Christianity is a violent religion For instance, King Richard I mercilessly executed 2,700 Muslim soldiers captured at Arce in 1191.

For this post, I will be focusing on the Crusades of the Middle East, and not other campaigns, such as the Northern Crusades and the Reconquista.

What are the Crusades?
The Crusades were a series of Christian military expeditions to the Middle East that started in 1095 to 1272. These soldiers were blessed by the Pope and aimed to return capture the Middle East for Christianity.


How do you justify such violence?
I don't. The Crusades was a horrific event that happened and etched the horror of Christianity in the minds of its opponents.

I do not deny that the Crusaders did in their zeal and greed led to the massacre the residents of Jerusalem and the sack of Constantinople.

Misconceptions of the Crusades

A) The Crusades were an unprovoked attack on the Middle Easterns
In 1095, much of the Byzantium Empire (aka the Eastern Roman Empire) had fallen to the Muslim Arabs. Looking at the map, this included cities like Nicaea, Antioch, Arce, Alexandria, Damascus and of course, most importantly, Jerusalem. Facing anniliation, the Byzantium Emperor Alexois I appealed to Pope Urban II to aid him in the interest of Christian brotherhood (The Byzantines were Orthodox Christians, while the Pope was the head of the Roman Catholic Church). This kicked off the First Crusade, where Pope Urban II's rousing speech (and promises of instant paradise for those who perished in the expedition) convinced a force of 35,000 men to embarked on this venture.

Furthermore, Western Europe was not untouched by the Arab aggression. In fact, Arab pirates had threatened Rome (where the Pope resides) before. To the Western Europeans, the Arab attackers were not far away, but near.

In other words, the Crusades were a response to the aggression against Christians in the once-Byzantium lands. 

French Medieval armour, taken at the French Imperial War Museum in 2011

B) The Crusades was a period of constant warfare
The Middle Eastern Crusades lasted from 1095- 1272. This seems to suggest that the Christian soldiers were actively attacking the Holy Lands for about 200 years. However, about 90% of those years were spent organising and travelling.  For instance, the Third Crusade (the longest campaign) lasted for six years (1187 to 1192), but the actual fighting in the Middle East only started in 1189 (with the Siege of Arce).

C) The Crusader Kingdoms mistreated the non-Christians
Another criticism is that the Crusader Kingdoms that were established abused and mistreated the non-Christians inhabitants. The Crusaders did segreate their community from Jews, Muslims and Eastern Christians (Prawer, 1981). While slavery of non-Christians was allowed, Crusaders had to free slaves who chose to convert to Roman Catholicism.

However, it has to be stated that the Crusaders generally allowed a degree of autonomy among the non-Christian inhabitants. Ibn Jubayr (an Arab Muslim chronicler) complained

"Many Muslims are sorely tempted to settle here when they see the far from comfortable conditions in which their brethren live in the districts under Muslim rule. Unfortunately for the Muslims, they have always reason for complaint about the injustices of their chiefs in the lands governed by their coreligionists, whereas they can have nothing but praise for the conduct of the Franks [Crusaders], whose justice they can always rely on."  (Pernoud, 1963)

In fact, the Crusaders relations to the non-Christian inhabitants was not regarded as especially special for that time period. It was "neither friendly, nor hostile" (Ellenblum, 2006)

Conclusion
The Crusades were an example of the misuse of Christianity. In fact any idea can be manipulated to violence. Even the belief in no God (i.e. atheism) had led to the despotic regimes of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot (Mcgrath , 2004).

To pretend that the Crusaders were particularly worse than their contemporaries is misleading.


References
Dawkins, R. (2006) The God Delusion

 Ellenblum, R. (1998) Frankish Rural Settlement in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem

Mcgrath, A. (2004) Twilight of Atheism

Pernoud, R. (1963) The Crusaders

Prawer, J. (1981) Crusader Institutions

For further readings

Aren't Christians responsible for most wars?

With Due Respect: Jesus's death was misdiagnosed!

One area that non-Christians highlight is on the reality of the death of Jesus. After all, if Jesus did not really die and come back to life, it would mean that he was not divine and thus could not take the sin of mankind. This would invalidate the core of Christianity.

One common argument I hear that when Jesus was crucified, he was misdiagnosed as dead. Even today, there had been such errors. Could the ancient people be mistaken about the death of Jesus?

Blood and water
The first thing to note is that in that it was recorded in John 19: 33-34

But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’s side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 

This is consistent with the unusual build up of fluid in the pericardium. Such build up is due to hypovolemic shock (low blood volume) or asphyxiation (suffocation). Regardless of this cause of the "sudden flow of blood and water", this is diagnostic of death.

Buried for days
Even if Jesus was not dead then, he was sealed in a tomb for days. With heavy injuries sustained and lack of food and medical treatment, it would be impossible for anyone to survive.

Intention to kill
With most cases of misdiagnosis, there was no one seeking to execute them. Jesus however was sentenced to death. The Romans were professional executioners and would have checked thoroughly if Jesus was dead.

Conclusion
Asserting that Jesus did not die would be going against a mountain of evidence.

For more information