A few clarifications on RPK’s writing on myth of Christianity

Dear RPK, regarding your article of the above subject, I wish to respond as follows:

1. RPK does not believe in the bible as being inspired, so there is really no basis for discussion. RPK is absolutely correct in saying that not much has been written about Jesus by secular historians (except sparingly by Josephus and that only when it concerned the politics of the time.)

2. The internal record of the bible, reference Acts 15, clearly bears to the fact that Gentile believers were accepted by the then Jewish authority in Jerusalem as being a part of the church. There, the Jewish pillars of faith extended to Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship that Paul’s evangelism among Gentiles are embraced by Jerusalem. Peter even acknowledged the special spiritual wisdom given to Paul (by God) in 2 Peter 3:15-16.

3. John the baptiser by the way acknowledges Jesus as “the one whose sandals I am unworthy to untie” (John 1:27) John also acknowledged Jesus as being “the Son of God” (John 1:34). So, RPK, as per the bible, John is not Jesus’ guru, he is a mere man and Jesus someone much greater.

4. As to origin of “Christians” – Acts 11:26 tells us that “the believers were first called “Christians” in Antioch. Antioch was the centre of evangelism where Paul, after his conversion was to be based in. The term “Christians” was a given name by non-believers to Christ’s followers and not a name adopted by the believers themselves. The word only occurs three times in the New Testaments. It is mentioned once by Luke (in Acts) and twice by Peter (1 Peter 4:16). Apparently it was not a term the writers of the NT frequently use as well.

5. Much of the government’s push against Christianity is the unfounded fear that Christianity teaches and promotes an expansionary worldview. These are distorted views from their historical pages of Crusaders and dark ages of Church history where the state embraced Christianity under the Romans. Truth be said, those historical facts cannot be denied.

6. If anything, biblical pages predict some perverted misinterpretation of the faith. True faith is not to establish an earthly kingdom, but a spiritual one. Christians are taught to expect the present world (its forms and substances, systems and values, etc.) will physically be destroyed and to look expectantly to the next age when Christ returns.

7. These being said, RPK (in fact any non-believers) is of course entitled to dismiss the bible as biased and if so, no one should even quote any of the inspired passages of the bible to support any point he wishes to express. For example, accurate reading (without deep exegesis) of Matt 15:21-28 shows that Jesus granted the Gentile woman’s wishes by simply willing, from whence He was, her daughter to be healed of demon possession. So to understand Christianity, it is absolutely essential to accept the Bible as inspired writings and to understand the pages from a correct perspectives of what those inspired pages teaches one about the Christian faith.

Hope that clarifies some of the ambiguity.

Regards,

Philip Lim