“If our ideas are easily destroyed by those acquainted with the facts, they ought to be discarded. But if our ideas are good, they will not be upended so easily. … Developing answers to the toughest arguments against our position strengthens both our witness and our confidence in our convictions.” – Greg Koukl, May 2008 introductory letter to the May/June 2008 issue of Solid Ground
May 15, 2008
May 14, 2008
There is little I have less tolerance for than the person who claims they know you are wrong because God told them so. How might you respond to such a person? Let me illustrate one method in the form of a dialogue:
David: That’s not what that verse means.
Jason: Why do you disagree with my interpretation?
David: The Holy Spirit revealed to me that it means X.
Jason: That’s funny. The Holy Spirit revealed to me that it means Y.
David: No he didn’t. The Spirit cannot contradict Himself, and I know He told me it means X.
Jason: I agree with you that the Spirit cannot contradict Himself. And since I know He told me it means Y, He could not have told you it means X.
David: You’re wrong.
Jason: Ah, wait. The Spirit is speaking to me right now. … Oh, ok God. David, the Holy Spirit just told me that He did not tell you that it means X.
David: No, He didn’t tell you that.
Jason: Yes, He did.
David: No, He didn’t.
Jason: Yes, He did.
David: No, He didn’t.
Jason: Yes, He did.
Silly, I know. The reason it is silly, however, is that it is silly to claim the Spirit told you X, when you cannot justify X. Anyone can appeal to the Spirit as their intellectual justification, but that does not mean they actually heard from the Spirit, and it does not help to persuade anyone else of their view (even if they really did hear from the Spirit). It stifles the conversation, and persuades no one.
Furthermore, what do you do when two people think God told them something, and yet He said something different to each person? The dialogue ends in a stand-still in which each person accuses the other of not truly hearing from God. Not very fruitful, if you ask me.
May 14, 2008
It pays to shop around for books, rather than just ordering everything through Amazon, Barnes and Noble, or CBD (Amazon is almost always cheaper than B&N BTW). I mentioned KIMbooks.org a few days ago for discount books. Their prices are so good that they even beat Amazon’s sale prices by a few bucks.
But there are other ways to find good deals on books. For instance, at Amazon has books you can buy through their site that are cheaper than the list price. The way to find it is to save the books you want to the cart, then access your cart, and hit the “save for later” button next to each book. This will move the book to the bottom of the page, and a new field will appear showing you cheaper prices for the book from Amazon sellers. Sometimes the price isn’t much different, but sometimes it is. For example, Dethroning Jesus was $15 new from Amazon, but I bought a nearly-new copy for $1.35!
My best advice, though, would be to go to bookfinder.com. Bookfinder searches for new and used books. You can save a bundle. The only potential drawback is that to get the best deal you will probably have to order through several different book distributors. That might increase your postage, but you can measure this. They include the price of postage in their quote.
To show you how much you can save, I looked up six books I want to buy at Amazon. The total cost was $123 (shipping was free). Between using bookfinder and the “discount” Amazon section, however, I was able to buy those same books for $80. That’s a 35% savings. It takes a little more time and hassle, but it’s well worth it.
Does anyone else have any boo-buying tips they would like to share?
May 13, 2008
I had an experience today that is instructive in what not to do, tactically speaking. I was composing a response to a question about free will while riding the train home from work. The train was less than a minute from its destination, when the gentleman next to me—having noticed what I was writing about—asked me if I studied theology. I explained that I do, at which point he asked me, “Do you really believe in what you are writing about?” By this time the train had come to a complete stop, and the man was getting out of his seat to exit the train. As I was putting my computer in my bag I answered him, “Yes, actually I do.” As he continued to walk away I added in a slightly louder voice, “And for good reason.” But it was too late. He was already walking out the door.
Hindsight is always 20/20, this being no exception. I missed out on the chance of continuing our dialogue by giving a direct answer to the gentleman’s question. What I should have done is responded with a question. I might have asked an open-ended question such as, “What do you mean by believe?” or “What is it you think I am claiming to believe?” That would have compelled him to stick around a little longer, rather than continue his commute home. Who knows where the conversation would have ended had I done so. Lesson learned.
May 13, 2008
Should same-sex marriage be legal, even if it is immoral?
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Homosexuality, Politics, Same-sex Marriage[6] Comments
While the law is a moral enterprise on its face, it is not possible, nor is it wise to legislate against every kind of moral wrong.For example, while it is morally wrong to deliberately harm one’s body, and smoking cigarettes deliberately harms one’s body, it is generally not advisable to deny one the freedom to smoke cigarettes by outlawing smoking.The general principle is that we should only legislate against moral wrongs that have a major impact on the common good, or interfere with the exercise of the fundamental rights of our fellow citizens.A certain measure of liberty should be left to the individual to choose even those things that are morally wrong, because outlawing that evil may result in an overall increase in evil, and because it is practically impossible for the State to legislate against every form of moral wrong, yet alone to enforce it.
Some attempt to employ this principle as an argument for the legalization of same-sex marriage.It is argued that since liberty is to be preferred to constraint unless an exercise of liberty is to the detriment of the common good, the liberty of marriage should be extended to same-sex couples (even though same-sex marriage is immoral) because same-sex relationships are not detrimental to the public good.How might opponents of same-sex marriage respond to this argument?
While it is true that we should not legislate against all instances of moral wrong, this principle cannot be employed indiscriminately.If it were, no laws aimed at prohibiting immoral behavior could be passed!The burden of proof is on the person arguing we should not legislate against this or that particular moral wrong, to show why we should not do so.In this case, it is being argued that same-sex marriage, though morally wrong, does not negatively affect the public good.Like smoking, then, it should not be prohibited.Is it true that same-sex marriage will not impact the public good in a negative way?There are good reasons to think this is false.
First, extending the institution of marriage to same-sex couples is social declaration that homosexual sex/relationships and heterosexual sex/relationships are equal.This is manifestly false.The purpose of heterosexual sex and homosexual sex are very different (the former is for procreation and recreation, while the latter is only for recreation), as well as the health risks involved with both behaviors.There are virtually no health risks for engaging in monogamous heterosexual sex, but there are many health risks for engaging in (even) monogamous homosexual acts.
Second, it is a social declaration that moms and dads are not necessary for optimal child development.There is no denying the fact that the legal recognition of same-sex couples to adopt and rear children naturally and legally follows from the legal recognition of same-sex relationships as a valid form of civil marriage (in some instances the legal right to adopt actually precedes the legal recognition of same-sex relationships as a valid form of civil marriage).Granting marriage rights to same-sex couples, then, has ramifications for child-rearing.To recognize same-sex relationships as civil marriage is a tacit admission that moms and dads are not necessary for optimal child development—that two moms or two dads will equally suffice.This is wrong.Both moms and dads are needed for optimal child development.
This argument also fails because it ignores the critical difference between allowing people to participate in certain immoral behaviors without the threat of law, and actively declaring through the law that such behaviors are legally protected.The law is a moral teacher.To enshrine something into law is to make a moral declaration about that something: that it is good, or that it is bad.To give legal sanction to same-sex marriage where such sanction did not exist previously would require the creation of new legislation to redefine the institution of marriage.This legislation would have the effect of actively declaring that our society finds same-sex marriage to be a moral good.This is utterly different than the situation we find ourselves in today, in which same-sex couples can openly engage in committed relationships with one another, but without the blessing of society.The difference is one of social approval.Allowing them to engage in committed relationships without the threat of law is to grant them liberty; sanctioning their relationships by enacting laws recognizing their relationships as valid instantiations of civil marriage is to grant them social acceptance.
Ultimately, then, the argument from liberty fails.We should not open up the institution of marriage to same-sex couples.Not only would same-sex marriage negatively impact the common good of our society, but doing so would have the implicit effect of teaching society that a moral wrong is a moral good.
May 12, 2008
I received an email ad from KIMBooks, purportedly the worlds largest non-profit bookstore. I haven’t actually purchased anything from them yet, so I cannot vouch for their service, but I checked their prices on some books I’ve been looking to get, and they are cheaper than Amazon. They claim to offer books 40% off retail. It’s worth checking out.
May 9, 2008
The Placebo Effect: Mind Over Medicine
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, MindLeave a Comment
Journalist Denyse O’Leary co-authored a book with neuroscientist Mario Beauregard titled The Spiritual Brain. The book explores evidence for the existence of mind/soul from the field of neuroscience. One of the evidences they present is the placebo effect. The placebo effect is when people feel better because they think they are supposed to feel better. I would highly recommend the book, but in the meantime I will direct you to a short article Denyse wrote giving concrete evidence of the placebo effect in medicine. It’s very interesting.
May 9, 2008
Ignorance About Life = Government Neutrality re: Abortion?
Posted by Jason Dulle under Abortion, Apologetics, PoliticsLeave a Comment
When the topic of abortion comes up, invariably the question of when life begins is put forth. And invariably, someone will claim that no one knows when life begins (most often, but not always, this will be the person supporting abortion rights). And invariably, they will use this “fact” as the basis on which to argue that the decision to abort or not abort is a personal decision that government should not meddle in.
This logic has always struck me as odd. It seems to me that ignorance of when a human life begins is the best reason not to abort the unborn, and the best reason for government to step in and put a moratorium on the procedure until the question is finally and fully answered. But that is not what I want to focus on here. I want to focus on a quick tactical response to the assertion that ignorance regarding when life begins requires the government not to interfere with a woman’s choice to abort.
We might respond to this assertion by asking, “Does that mean that if it could be determined when life begins, and we discover that it begins at conception, you would agree that government should interfere in the choice of others to abort their babies?” If they say no, then it exposes their argument as a front. They think women should have the legal right to choose an abortion even if the unborn is a human being.
If they say yes, then point out to them that the question of when life begins has been settled for decades. A new, distinct human life begins at conception. Offer proof, such as quotes from standard texts on embryology. If they truly think the right to abortion free from government interference is justified on the basis of ignorance about when life begins, they should change their mind on the matter upon confirming the evidence. If they persist in their pro-abortion anti-government-involvement stance, chances are their argument was just a front for a deeply held belief/desire they have no intention of giving up. They are pro-abortion for reasons other than what they stated: emotional and preferential, rather than rational. In my own personal experience I have found that most pro-abortion advocates will maintain their belief in abortion rights, even when all of their rational arguments have been demonstrated to be fallacious or mistaken. But even with these people, at least the question serves to get to the heart of the matter, and expose their true commitments for what they are.
May 6, 2008
Tallman on Capital Punishment
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Capital Punishment[2] Comments
Radio host, Andrew Tallman, has been running a series over at Townhall on the topic of capital punishment that is absolutely superb. He makes a persuasive case for capital punishment, and does an outstanding job answering both religious and secular objections to it. I would highly recommend his articles on this subject.
May 5, 2008
There’s a great video on global warming over at What You Ought to Know. It’s both balanced and funny.
May 5, 2008
Don’t Hold Your Breath: It’s Doubtful the Supreme Court Will Outlaw Abortion
Posted by Jason Dulle under Abortion, Apologetics, Politics[2] Comments
In a recent 60 minutes interview, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia shared his thoughts on abortion. In response to a question about how his Catholicism affects his judicial decisions, Scalia said:
“I’m a law-and-order guy. I mean, I confess I’m a social conservative, but it does not affect my views on cases. On the abortion thing for example, if indeed I were, you know, trying to impose my own views, I would not only be opposed to Roe versus Wade, I would be in favor of the opposite view, which the anti-abortion people would like adopted, which is to interpret the Constitution to mean that a state must prohibit abortion. … There’s nothing there. They did not write about that.”
A little later he continued in the same vein:
“My job is to interpret the Constitution accurately. And indeed, there are anti-abortion people who think that the constitution requires a state to prohibit abortion. They say that the Equal Protection Clause requires that you treat a helpless human being that’s still in the womb the way you treat other human beings. I think that’s wrong. I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means walking-around persons. You don’t count pregnant women twice.”
I’m not so sure I agree with Scalia’s hyper-originalism here (I think a good case can be made that abortion is unconstitutional), but pro-life advocates need to take notice of what he said. Some pro-life supporters are not only hoping for Roe v Wade to be overturned by the Supreme Court in the near future, but they are hoping the Supreme Court will completely reverse itself, and declare that the Constitution protects the life of the unborn as well as the born. This would invalidate all democratically instituted abortion laws, just as Roe invalidated all democratically instituted anti-abortion laws. Scalia is one of the most conservative judges on the Supreme Court. If he does not think abortion is unconstitutional, there is virtually no chance the Supreme Court will ever decide as much in our lifetime, if ever. At best the Supreme Court will overturn Roe, returning the issue of abortion back to the states, and giving us the opportunity to persuade our fellow citizens to outlaw abortion in our state, in every state across the nation.
May 5, 2008
Ben Witherington III has a good video lesson on choosing a Bible translation. He gives some good, basic information on why there are so many translations, how they differ, what benefit each has, tips on how to choose the proper translation, and what to watch out for. Listening to the Australian paraphrase of Luke 1 is worth it alone!
May 5, 2008
Alien Designer, Yes. Divine Designer, No.
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Dawkins, Evolution, Intelligent Design[11] Comments
Modern science is guided by the philosophy or methodology of naturalism. This means they either believe that, or go about their discipline acting as if God does not exist, or at least is not involved with the cosmos. As a result, most scientists deny that a designing intelligence is the cause of life on Earth. And yet the more scientists seek to find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life on Earth, the more impossible it seems. Some have gone so far as to suggest that life must have been seeded on Earth by an alien civilization. This, of course, allows for the presence of a designing intelligence. To my amazement, Richard Dawkins holds this out as a scientific possibility. In the documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Ben Stein asked Richard Dawkins how life began. After admitting that scientists do not know, Dawkins held out the possibility that life on Earth was seeded by aliens, and considered this a scientific hypothesis. The exchange was as follows:
BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution.
DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
Four things are of interest, here. First, when scientists have to resort to aliens to explain how life on Earth could have originated, you know they have no clue at all about the origin of life!
Secondly, Dawkins admits that design is empirically detectable. If that is true, then contrary to the anti-ID talking points, Intelligent Design is a genuine scientific theory.
Thirdly, this hypothesis—even if true—would not explain the origin of life in general, but only the origin of life on Earth. Alien life would go unexplained.
Fourthly, he is willing to countenance the possibility that a designing intelligence is responsible for life on Earth, so long as that designer is not a divine being. This reveals the fact that he not truly opposed to the existence of genuine design in biology, but simply prejudiced against the existence of a divine designer.
This says a lot.
May 1, 2008
In the reader forum at William Lane Craig’s website, an individual going by the name Dreyshock posed an interesting question: Does God have opinions? Theists agree that God is omniscient—meaning He has the property of knowing all and only true propositions—but does such knowledge include opinions? Does God think Monet was a better painter than Picasso, or that Bach’s music was more beautiful than the Beatles’? Does God think Gothic architecture is beautiful?
There are three options:
(1) God does not have subjective opinions. The property of knowing all and only true propositions excludes the possibility of God having opinions, because opinions are neither true or false.
(2) God does have opinions, and His opinions are the right opinions (someone holding a contrary opinion would be wrong in their opinion).
(3) God does have opinions, but His opinions are neither right nor wrong (someone could hold a contrary opinion without being considered wrong in that opinion).
What do you think? I have some thoughts, but I’ll hold off in sharing them until I hear from you.
April 29, 2008
A disgusting news story broke recently about a man in Austria who began raping his daughter at age 11, then locked her in the cellar beneath his house at the age of 18 (faking a letter from her saying she ran away to join a religious cult), holding her there for 24 years filled with more sexual abuse, fathering seven children with her in the process. He raised three of those children with his unsuspecting wife, one died, and the other three were raised in the cellar with their mother, never seeing the light of day.
This moral monster was finally caught. And what is he facing as punishment? 15 puny years in prison! That is the max he can get under Austrian law. Personally, I am outraged and sickened over this! How can a man who sexually abuses his own daughter for more than three decades, imprisons her and three of his incestuous children, only get 15 years for this crime? Is that the price of his crimes? What a cheapening of human value. At the very least he should have to spend as many years in jail as his daughter faced in the jail of his cellar. Unbelievable!
I guess this goes to show why divine justice is required. Human justice is imperfect. In this case, however, it is glaringly imperfect.
April 28, 2008
Ben Witherington III has a good video lesson on choosing a Bible translation. He gives some good, basic information on why there are so many translations, how they differ, what benefit each has, tips on how to choose the proper translation, and what to watch out for. Listening to the Australian paraphrase of Luke 1 is worth it alone!
April 28, 2008
Quote of the Day
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Quote of the Day, ThinkingLeave a Comment
“Ignorance may be bliss, but it is not a virtue.” –D.A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, p. 23
April 25, 2008
What I’ve Been Reading: Five Views on Apologetis | Who Was Adam?
Posted by Jason Dulle under Book Reviews, Intelligent Design, Science, Theology[8] Comments
Who Was Adam? by Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross
Rana and Ross build a Biblical model of human origins, and then subject it to scientific testing. Point by point they show how a Biblical model of human origins fits the data much better than an evolutionary model. Anyone who doubts that creationist models can be tested scientifically or that human evolution is a shut case should read this book.
There is a good survey of major fossil finds, and how anthropaleontologists have gone about interpreting them. It’s interesting to discover how the experts are far from decided on the proper interpretation. There is not one evolutionary tree of human origins, but multiple trees. And the more data we gather, the more the trees appear to rot.
A lot of time is spent on research into the age and relationship of humans and other hominids. Good stuff.
Five Views On Apologetics edited by Steven Cowan
If you aren’t into (and I mean really into) apologetics, you probably won’t enjoy this book. But if you are, it’s a must read. It is one of Zondervan’s Point-Counterpoint books. Five apologists are featured, each making a case that his apologetic philosophy and methodology is the preferred strategy. There is a good discussion on the role of apologetics in evangelism, what we should expect our apologetic to do, whether faith is warranted without evidence, and the like.
April 24, 2008
So it is true that it’s not true that you believe it’s true that the law of non-contradiction is not true?
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Logic, Philosophy, Thinking[2] Comments
The law of non-contradiction (LNC) states that A cannot be both A and not A at the same time and in the same way. For example, my car cannot be said to be both in the garage and not in the garage at the same time and in the same way. It could only be both in the garage and not in the garage at the same time if by being “in the garage” in the first instance means something different than it does in the second. For example, it would not be a contradiction if in the first instance I mean to refer to the body shop where my car is being repaired, and in the second instance I mean to refer to its normal storage space where it is currently absent.
Postmodern types disparage the LNC (as with all laws of logic) as a Western invention. No argument is made for such a claim. It is just asserted (any argument offered against the LNC would require them to presuppose its truth, because the premises and conclusion of the argument are not the same as their negation). I have a sneaking suspicion I know why they want to axe the LNC: their worldview is inherently self-contradictory.
Postmodernism claims there is no truth, or that truth cannot be known. And yet, this is a contradiction because the claim that there is no truth, or that truth cannot be known is itself a claim to know something that is true. If the LNC is true, then postmodernism is false. The LNC must be axed to save postmodernism as a worldview.
When you point out the self-referential and incoherent nature of postmodernism, the postmodernist will retort that such an analysis depends on the LNC. Since the LNC is a Western invention, it is inappropriate to subject postmodernism to its criterion. In fact, doing so is just a power play to subjugate others.
What can you say to those who deny the LNC? Greg Koukl has offered a good strategy. When someone claims the LNC is not true, but an invention of Western logic, respond, “So what you are saying, then, is that the LNC is true?” They will protest, “No, I am saying it is not true.” We might respond, “Oh, so you are saying the law of contradiction is true, then. Thank you for clarifying.” Frustratingly they will reply, “No, no. That is not what I am claiming. I am claiming the LNC is not true.” We might graciously answer, “Exactly. That is what I said you said: The LNC is true.”
I would venture to say they would be exasperated with you by this point; aggravated that you would contradict But this exposes the very problem with their claim that the LNC is a Western convention, rather than a universal and necessary feature of human rationality. While they deny the LNC with their lips, they cannot help but to recognize that “is” and “is not” are contradictory, and thus your restatement of their view contradicts their stated view. That is inescapably self-refuting. They cannot deny the existence of contradictions on the one hand, and then correct your contradiction on the other.
For a person who truly believes the LNC is a fiction of Western logic, the only appropriate response to your restatement is a confirmatory, “Yes.” But no one would respond in this way. He would initially seek to correct your contradiction, assuming you have misunderstood him. Even if one dared to respond in this way, I would venture to say he does not believe that which he speaks. For if he believed it, he would have to acknowledge that there was a difference between his believing it, and not believing it. And if such a difference exists, the LNC must be true. The LNC is a first principle of thought that cannot be avoided (rational intuition). It is universal and necessary to all human reasoning—even for those who seek to deny it.
Of course, there are other more persuasive ways of illustrating this truth that guarantee your postmodern friend will come to acknowledge the truth of the LNC. The early 11th century Medieval Muslim philosopher, Avicenna, devised an infamous way for helping someone see the irrationality involved in denying the LNC. Avicenna wrote, “Anyone who denies the LNC should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned” (Metaphysics 1). By no means would I suggest using this tactic, but if this wouldn’t convince your postmodern friend of his error, nothing can!
April 8, 2008
Psalm 110:1 — A Case Study for the NT use of the OT
Posted by Jason Dulle under Bible Difficulties, Theology[12] Comments
I have blogged in the past on some of the strange ways the NT interprets the OT, and linked to an essay by Peter Enns that helps make sense of it. As helpful as it is, I am still baffled by some of the ways the NT interprets the OT. Here is another troubling example: Jesus’ and Peter’s interpretation of Psalm 110:1.
The LORD said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”
It’s important to understand the structure of this verse. The person speaking in verse 1a is a prophetic voice in the royal court, delivering a message from YHWH (“LORD”) to the prophet’s “lord.” The prophet’s lord is the king, David. Verses 1b and 4 constitute YHWH’s message to David via the unnamed prophet. In verses 2-3 the prophet addresses David, and then speaks to God about David in verses 5-7.
In the original context, then, the “Lord” was David, and the person who spoke the words, “The LORD said to my Lord” was the unnamed prophet speaking to David. When we turn to the NT, however, the original context is turned on its head. According to Jesus and Peter, the “Lord” is a reference to the Messiah, and the person who spoke the words, “The LORD said to my Lord” was David (See Matthew 22:43-45; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; Acts 2:34-36).
It should be pointed out that Jesus did not invent this interpretation of Psalm 110:1. The Jews already had a long-standing interpretive tradition of identifying the “Lord” as the coming Messiah. They reasoned that if what was spoken applied to David, it also applied to all of His royal descendents, including (and especially so) the promised Messiah. As for attributing the words of verse 1a to David, presumably it was reasoned that since David was the author of the psalm, He could be cited as having said those words. A similar phenomenon appears elsewhere in the NT when the words of YHWH are attributed to the prophet who authored the book containing YHWH’s words, or when the words of prophets are attributed to YHWH.
Be that as it may, there is something else even more troubling than these semi-understandable changes to the original meaning. In the NT, Jesus and Peter appeal to Psalm 110:1 as an argument for the deity of Christ. It was common knowledge that the Messiah would be the son of David. So Jesus asked those present, “How is it that the experts in the law say that the Christ is David’s son? David himself, by the Holy Spirit, said, ‘The Lord said to my lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.”’ If David himself calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” (Mark 12:35b-37a).
To understand Jesus’ argument one must understand ancient-near-eastern culture (ANE). According to ANE culture the father is superior to his offspring. Why, then, does David call the Messiah his Lord? To call him such implies that his son is superior to himself, which is unthinkable. This was a paradox that could only be solved if one granted that the Messiah was more than a mere man—He was divine as well.
What I find troubling about this argument for the deity of Christ is that it only works if one takes the OT passage out of context. One has to change the identity of the original subjects in order for it to work. And yet, as with other strange uses of the OT in the NT, the crowds found the argument powerful and persuasive.
Thinking to Believe 