"Answer a fool according to his folly, So that he does not regard himself as wise."

                                                                                                     Proverbs 26: 5

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

Doctor Lesly Jules, a Christian apologist, in an elaborate response to Dr Jean Fils-Aimé on the remarks made by the latter during his visit to Haiti, on April 12, 2017, to the program of journalist Valéry Numa on Radio Vision 2000 entitled: Guest of the Day.

Show link: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D38DO8-hqlQ

During this program, Dr Fils-Aimé presented himself as a man of science and history, but the content of his intervention had nothing scientific or reliable historical basis. So he made several statements about the Christian faith. He spoke learnedly about subjects which he does not really master except that he did not exercise a sufficiently critical reading of his sources. Thus, Dr Jules, for the sake of responding adequately to the statements that he believes to be a drift or a misunderstanding of the Truth on the part of the speaker, proposes to shed light on the remarks of the latter summarized in seven ( 7) statements:

1. There is nothing historical in the Bible.

2. The accounts of the Bible are only plagiarism of the older texts which existed in Babylon; the stories of the Bible are therefore only a collection of legends or myths.

3. There is nothing we can know about Jesus except what is said about him in the Bible.

4. The concept of God is only a fabrication.

5. There is a higher intelligence in the universe that one cannot relate to.

6. A Christian can be voodooing if he wishes to reconnect with his origins.

7. Jesus did not die for my sins, but he died as a blasphemer.

It is therefore necessary to respond peremptorily to these rants, not to approve the appearance of the one who held them, but to make one feel the immense difference that there is between what is true and what is not.

1. There is nothing historical in the Bible

It is a statement which is the personal opinion of the speaker and which is not unanimous among many renowned literary and historians. We should begin by asking the question: why is the Bible on the shelves of historical books in the Library of Congress in the United States? Were the Founding Fathers of this nation mistaken about the Bible or has Dr. Fils-Aime just discovered the century to speak so learnedly?

To answer this statement, it is necessary to understand the intimate relationship that has always existed between Archeology and the Bible.

Archeology is a bit of a special science. Physics and chemistry can conduct experiments and recreate the process under study to observe them over and over again. Archeology cannot do that. It only has evidence from the past and only when civilizations existed.

She studies the singularities of the past and not the regularities of the present. Since it cannot recreate events, then its conclusions are not appreciated in the same way as other sciences. Archeology tries to provide plausible and probable explanations for the evidence it finds. She can't create laws like physics, so her conclusions are often subject to revision. The best explanation is one that explains the obvious in a consistent manner.

Over the years, she has shed light on the historicity and significance of many Biblical accounts. There even seems to be a mutually beneficial relationship between archeology and the study of the Bible. Indeed, the facts cannot be interpreted by themselves. Their meaning usually comes from their context. Archaeological evidence therefore depends on several aspects: context, date, location, material and style. Moreover, their comprehension also depends on the assumptions of the researcher and his point of view. So, not all interpretations will be kind to Christianity.

While there are questions to which we have not yet answered and others which will remain unanswered, the general conclusion remains: Archeology confirms the historicity of the Old Testament not only generally but also in many precise details. But Dr. Fils-Aimé asserts the opposite; Which brings us to his second word.

2. The accounts of the Bible are only plagiarism of the older texts which existed in Babylon; the stories of the Bible are therefore only a collection of legends or myths

Dr. Fils-Aimé is not the only one to qualify Biblical accounts as myths. Like him, there is Jacques Lacarrière who, in his book “At the heart of Mythologies”, abounds in the same direction but without providing real proof if not fallacious analogies. Genesis 1:11 (the Creation story) is typically seen as a mythological story derived from some earlier versions found in the Near East. However, Archeology has shown that attempts to discredit the Bible for these things are premature.

Dr. Fils-Aimé who draws from the source of Lacarrière, I presume, was only content to note the similarities between Genesis and the creation stories of ancient cultures; however, the differences are very significant.

The similarities would suggest that Moses plagiarized the ancient legendary accounts, but the similarities are only superficial. The Babylonian and Sumerian accounts describe creation as the result of a conflict between the finite gods; And that man would be the product of a mixture of the blood of a wicked god and clay. Although older than the Hebrew version, these polytheistic accounts seem to embellish the facts of Genesis.

The recent findings on Creation stories in Ebla (Syria) are further confirmation. This library of nearly 17,000 tables predates the Babylonian narrative by over 600 years. The table of Creation bears a surprising resemblance to Genesis when it refers to a Being who created the heavens, the earth, the moon and the stars.

The people of Ebla believed in creation ex nihilo (from scratch). This proves that it is the Bible which presents the least embellished version of the facts and tells the facts without any alteration of a mythological nature.

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

As with Creation, the story of the Flood in Genesis may present itself more realistically than mythologically in comparison to some other tales like the Epic of Gilgamesh. In these accounts, the names have changed (Noah became Zi surdra for the Sumerians and Utnapishtim for the Babylonians). Noah was told to build a boat in anticipation of a flood. He offered sacrifices after the flood and the remorseful gods made a covenant with him.

The story of a flood is repeated among the Greeks, Hindus, Chinese, Mexicans, Hawaiians, etc. For the Sumerians, the flood was made real by evoking this natural disaster that wiped out royalty from below the sky.

All these versions contain elaborations contrary to the account of Moses. Only in Genesis do we find the year of the Flood as well as a chronology in relation to the life of Noah. By the way, Genesis reads like a logbook.

The cubic shape of the Babylonian vessel would not have guaranteed the safe life of the passengers in contrast to the rectangular shape of Noah's in Genesis (Ge 6:15). In addition, a 7-day rain according to the Babylonian account could not have caused a flood with waters rising to 17,000 feet covering mountains. Also, the idea that the waters disappeared after 1 day is totally absurd. In the other versions we see Noah become immortal as the Bible presents him as someone who sins (by getting drunk on wine, Ge 9: 20-21) afterwards. Only a version that seeks to tell the truth would include such a thing. Judge by yourself.

For what this is the period of the Patriarchs, codes of law have been found from the time of Abraham showing why the Patriarch was reluctant to kick Hagar out because he had to legally endure her. Only when a higher law from God required him to agree to do so. The Koran also recognizes the existence of the character as the father of Ishmael, from whom the Arab nation was to descend.

The 5 cities related to Sodom & Gomorrah according to Genesis 14 have been found. They were, in fact, shopping centers. Their destruction is attested in relation to an earthquake which caused the eruption of an oil basin below the Dead Sea, the explosion generated a rain of fire and sulfur.

The timing of such an event in relation to the warning and the visiting angels reveals divine implication.

After the period of the Judges, the archaeological evidence became exceedingly clear as to the knowledge of the Biblical authors of the matters in question.

When you get to the New Testament, the historical evidence goes hand in hand with the stories. These evidences are notably: the historical veracity of Luke, the testimonies of secular historians and the physical evidences in relation to the crucifixion.

The account of Luke (Gospel according to Luke and Acts of the Apostles) was previously questioned because it cited names of officials that no one knew. Today, historical or archaeological evidence points in the same direction.

• Gallion (Acts 18: 12-17) was seen as impossible. However, an inscription in Delphi notes the exact name of the man from the time Paul was in Corinth.

• Lysianas Tetrarch of Abilene (Luke 3: 1). This man was unknown to modern historians until an inscription is found as part of the temple dedication which mentions his name, title and position.

• Erastus (Acts 19:22) is presented as a Corinthian who became Paul's companion. If Luc made inventions, no one would know. But in an excavation in Corinth an inscription was found near the theater reading: "Erastus in return for his help paved the way with his own funds". If they are the same men, one can understand the significance of such an influential and wealthy man who, having converted, gave his life to Paul's ministry.

• In total, Luke cites 32 countries, 4 cities and 9 islands without committing the slightest error.

For what it is about the book of the Acts of the Apostles, the historical evidence is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its historical basis is downright absurd (AN Sherwin-White). As for the famous archaeologist William F. Albright: "All the radical critiques of the New Testament that have existed then and today are pre-archeology because they are without foundation."

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

3. There is nothing we can know about Jesus except what is said about him in the Bible

One of the popular misconceptions is that Jesus is not mentioned anywhere else except the Bible. On the contrary, there are many references to Jesus as a historical figure who died under the dictation of Pontius Pilate.

Some also note that he was postponed to be raised from the dead and was worshiped as God by those who followed him.

Tacitus

Publius Cornelius Tacitus is a famous historian and Roman politician who lived between AD 55-120. His work is fruitful and admired by Lamartine and Montesquieu. Born about 50 years after Christ, he published his Annals around the year 115 and there he made at least 3 references concerning Christ. To begin with, he explains how Nero blamed the Christians for the fire that burned Rome.

… Christus, the name from which Christians are called, suffered capital punishment during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and there was a surprising superstition concerning him which won over Judea and even Rome.

Suetonius

The chief secretary of Emperor Adrian (117-138 AD), wrote: “After the extraordinary fire in Rome… no less extraordinary punishment was inflicted on Christians, a sect which professes a new religious belief”. He also notes that Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome in AD 49 because of a riot “at the instigation of Chrestus”.

This explains why Aquilla and Priscilla, who had met Paul in Corinth, had to leave their home in Italy.

Joseph

The army general and Jewish historian Flavius ​​Joseph who worked for the Romans in the first century gave the following description of Jesus:

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

At that time there was a wise man called Jesus. His conduct was virtuous, he was known as a good man. And many of the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and die. And yet his disciples did not abandon him. They claim that he appeared to them 3 days after the crucifixion and that he was alive; and so, he was perhaps the Messiah over whom the prophets had spoken with so much wonder.

Joseph was not a believer, but the fact that neither he nor his contemporaries rejected the Resurrection is a striking fact. If the tomb was still sealed, he would have mentioned it. On the contrary, he presents it as the belief of Christians, without comment.

The Talmud

The Rabbinical Commentary on the Torah presents an interesting note on Jesus:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshua was hanged. For 40 days before the crucifixion, a messenger cried out: He will be stoned for practicing witchcraft and leading Israel into apostasy. Whoever wants to speak out in his favor, let him come forward. But, since no one spoke out in his favor, he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.

Since capital punishment was prohibited for Jews, then death by the Romans was none other than crucifixion.

The decree of Nazareth

A stone slab was found in Nazareth in 1878. This is a decree coming from Emperor Claudius (41-54 AD), namely no tomb should be disturbed and no body should be extracted or moved. Such a decree is not only unusual but also suspicious or intriguing because the culprit must face the death penalty for having violated a sepulcher.

Normally, a fine would suffice, but death for disturbing a tomb is meaningless apart from the previous facts. It could be that Claudius had heard of the Christian doctrine of the Resurrection while investigating the riot of A.D. 49 and therefore wanted to take steps to prevent it from surfacing again. This is in agreement with Matthew 28: 11-13 on the allegation of the theft of the body of Jesus by the disciples.

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

Why such a ban if it does not concern a legitimate concern of the Romans as to the turmoil that the resurrection of Jesus will have caused? This is a significant argument in favor of the resurrection of Jesus.

4. The concept of God is only a fabrication

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

This statement is often presented as a great discovery by the supporters of this school of thought to which Dr. Fils-Aimé pledges allegiance. Yes, it is indeed a school of thought because so far modern science has not been able to prove that God does not exist. Because there is no scientific argument against the existence of God. The arguments that some, who claim to be scientific, put forward are only philosophical arguments. If Dr. Fils-Aimé in his wisdom thinks the opposite, I cordially invite him to provide his scientific arguments.

What must be understood is that originally, philosophy was the discipline which, together with theology, provided arguments in favor of the existence of God in relation to the dominant conceptions, notably spiritualism and the mysticism. During modern and contemporary periods, philosophy has dissociated itself from theology to focus on the development of science and technology.

Along with sciences and techniques new reasoning is used to explain reality. What used to be explained on the basis of animist reflections is today explained by a much more methodical reflection. I agree that this "God" or these "gods" who served as a pretext for everything that was not explained in the past was nothing but a fabrication. It is this “God” that we call “The God of the Gaps”, the God of Gaps. Modern science has indeed killed and buried this God. By the way, this expression "God of Gaps" is an invention of Christian theologians, not atheists. We can explain many natural phenomena through empirical research and through methodical reasoning.

Methodical reasoning is generally associated with the development of scientific and technical thought. This type of reasoning has flourished since Descartes argued for the importance of basing knowledge on verifiable and objective criteria.

Although methodical reasoning is the basis of much scientific progress, it is limited in its ability to grasp the totality of reality. It is difficult to use methodical reasoning to describe phenomena such as beauty, love, freedom, happiness, etc. which escape a too specific model of understanding.

If methodical reasoning can make a physical description (phusis / nature) of reality as it is generally seen in the natural sciences, it can hardly describe a reality of the metaphysical type (meta / beyond, phusikê / physical ). Such realities can only be approached by subjective or speculative reasoning.

Generally speaking, methodical reasoning is of the order of the how, while speculative reflection seeks to know why. The latter questions the meaning of realities. Marc Twain was already saying, the two most important days of your life are: the day you were born and the day you know why.

A human society where the search for the meaning and the why of things is absent is difficult to imagine. Man would be transformed into a robot and conditioned to practical, daily reasoning, without reflective content. We came from nothing, by nothing and for nothing. - which is perhaps an elegant way to proclaim, in the end, a kind of agnosticism in the manner of the gospel preached by Dr. Fils-Aimé.

Conversely, a society where all methodical reasoning is absent becomes a society which has little evolved, especially on the technical level, condemned sooner or later to a form of decadent anarchy because of the animist thought which leads to resignation or disempowerment. of Man. Unfortunately, I must side with Dr. Fils-Aimé on this point. Animism (bondye bon) seems rather predominant in the speeches of certain Protestant leaders in Haiti. But, I would hesitate to blame Christianity for these deviations because a single factor does not always explain reality. Otherwise, one would have to explain the surprising progress of most of the capitalist economies based on Judeo-Christian values.

But this is where Dr. Fils-Aimé and his dubious sources sinned. When we apply methodical reasoning to a metaphysical reality we naturally get lost. Just as it is ill-advised to explain a natural fact by the supernatural, it is just as ill-advised to explain a supernatural fact by the natural.

This principle was perfectly understood by scientists like Louis Pasteur (Bacteriology), Blaise Pascal (Hydrostatic), Johannes Kepler (Astronomy), Isaac Newton (Physics) and William Kelvin (Thermodynamics), all Creationists (and Christians) who were able to establish a distinction between primary and secondary causes. Apparently, Dr. Fils-Aimé has wisdom superior to theirs.

A primary cause is a primary cause that explains singularities - facts that only happen once and have no natural explanation. Secondary causes, on the other hand, are natural causes and laws that govern the way things normally operate, including patterns.

Singularities and regularities are not studied by the same sciences. The singularities are approached by the Science of Origins and the regularities by the Science of Operations.

The science of operations is concerned with how things operate naturally. She examines the phenomena that have happened and are repeated over and over again. She looks for answers that are observable by repeating the experiment. So, it is for repetitive, predictable and predictable things.

On the other hand, the science of origins is interested in past singularities as opposed to present normalities. She explores how things started, not how they work. It only studies things that have happened once, and therefore by their nature cannot happen again. Since it cannot repeat past facts to observe them, it proceeds by analogy between the types of causalities (cause / effect) that we observe today and the types of causalities under study. Also, it does not provide definitive answers if not plausible answers. Therefore, like the science of operations, recognizes that certain facts require an intelligent cause, the science of origins admits just as easily an intelligent cause when the facts in presence require it.

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

Up to now modern science can in no way pronounce definitively on the origin of the universe or the first forms of life on the planet. And therefore can not conclude that a God creator of the universe does not exist or would be a human manufacture. Any affirmation for or against the existence of God is above all of a philosophical nature. Science does not have the tools to intervene in this metaphysical sphere.

Furthermore, no one can dispute the presence of architecture or design in the universe as well as in humans. The more complex the design, the greater the intelligence required for its design. A single DNA molecule contains as much information as a volume of an encyclopedia. No one sees an encyclopedia to conclude that its assembly is the result of an explosion produced in a printing press or the fruit of chance or natural forces. The universe as an effect has a cause.

Modern science or the science of operations cannot objectively answer the question: Why is there something rather than nothing without going back to the science of the origins? Because nothing happens without Sufficient Reason.

In the end, the raison d'être of the universe cannot be found in a particular element of the universe, because each element is contingent and therefore its existence is not a necessity. Even if the universe was infinite, its raison d'être must be external to it. The universe must find an explanation for its existence in a causally previous state of affairs in which the universe does not exist. The raison d'être of the universe must be found in a Being which has its own sufficient reason both to explain its existence and that of the universe.

Dr. Fils-Aimé does not call him God but a Superior Intelligence in the universe. It doesn't matter!

5. There is a higher intelligence in the universe that cannot be related to

The practical question to ask Dr. Fils-Aimé is what is the relationship between this Higher Intelligence and the universe? Is it at the origin of the creation of the universe? If not, where was it before the universe? Because we agree that before the universe there was no time, matter and space. If such a Higher Intelligence is to exist, then it must also be both eternal and transcendent.

Moreover, intelligence implies knowledge, knowledge. Therefore, this Higher Intelligence should know things outside of our human understanding because of its superiority. In relation to us, this Being would be omniscient. And if he is the origin of the universe he must necessarily be Almighty. Finally, if it is not subject to the time and space that caused the advent of these things, this Higher Intelligence must also be omnipresent. If this Higher Intelligence is at the origin of the creation of human beings, He (this Being) must necessarily be personal and not impersonal. Such a Being should not have trouble taking care of his Creation and therefore also develop a personal relationship with the prince of his creation, namely Man.

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

6. A Christian can be voodooed if he wishes to reconnect with his origins

A Christian is by definition someone who identifies with Christianity as a religion. There are many reasons that can push someone into the arms of Christianity. But not all the reasons are justified. Unfortunately, some Christians do not really know why they are Christians and therefore they may find themselves in occult practices in search of answers to their needs and aspirations.

There is a fundamental difference between someone who calls themselves a Christian and a follower of Jesus Christ. The disciple is a student who strives to become like his teacher and to please him in everything. The disciple of Jesus Christ knows where he came from and where he is going. He will therefore not express this desire to reconnect with any ancestral origin because his origin is in God.

Moreover, I find it difficult to see in voodoo the origin of the Haitian people. Voodoo is by nature a polytheistic religion that we associate, often wrongly, with Haitian culture. It would be like claiming that someone who does not serve the tutelary gods of voodoo is not Haitian. I think it's confusing culture and religion. Speaking of tutelary gods, how can we explain this striking resemblance to the tutelary gods of Rome, ancient Greece and those of Haiti?

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

All the difference between them seems to lie in the appellations, but the function remains intact. Should we also conclude that voodoo was the culture of the Romans and Greeks?

7. Jesus did not die for my sins but he died as a blasphemer

Dr. Fils-Aimé is absolutely right on this point. Jesus Christ was put to death as a blasphemer. The Bible, Jewish and secular historians all agree on the fact that Jesus made exclusive and provocative statements that earned him to be crucified. But, it is worth asking what was his blasphemies (Here I will refer to certain verses of the Bible because the statement of Dr. Fils-Aimé also relates to the facts of the Bible).

Jesus presents himself as YHWH of the Old Testament

Jesus says, I am the good shepherd (John 10:11), but the Old Testament (AT) says that YHWH is my shepherd (Psalms 23). Jesus asserts that he is the judge of men (Matthew 25:31; John 5:27) but the prophet Joel says that YHWH is the judge of the nations (Joel 3:12). Jesus told the Father to glorify him with the glory he had before (John 17: 5) but YHWH affirms that he cannot give his glory to any other (Isaiah 42: 8). Jesus speaks of himself as the Bridegroom (Matthew 25: 1) and this is how the OT presents YHWH (Isaiah 62: 5; Hosea 2:16).

The Risen Christ presents himself as the Alpha and the Omega but these are the same words that YHWH uses to present himself as well. The psalmist says that YHWH is my light (Psalms 27: 1) but Jesus affirms that he is the light of the world (John 8:12). Jesus said: before Abraham was I AM (v. 58), and yet it is the name of YHWH (I AM) - Exodus 3:14.

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

Jesus presents himself as equal to God

Like God, he forgives sins (Mark 2: 5) with supporting evidence. He will raise the dead for judgment (John 5: 25-29) as God raises the dead (V.6). Now OT presents God as the one who alone can raise the dead (1 Samuel 2: 6; Ps. 49:15) and judge them (Joel 3:12; Deut. 32:35). Further, Jesus asserts that he should be honored just as the Father is honored (John 5:23) - He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father either.

For all these reasons, the Jews sought to kill him (John 5:18).

Jesus presents himself as the Messiah-God

The qualifiers of the Messiah are clear (Isaiah 9: 6): Almighty God, Eternal Father; Which makes the Messiah God. Psalm 110: 1 evokes a conversation between the Son and the Father saying: YHWH said to the Lord, sit at my right hand. Jesus applies this passage to himself in Matthew 22: 43,44.

In the messianic prophecy of Daniel 7, the Son of man is called: the Ancient of Days (v. 22). Throughout his life, Jesus made himself known as the Son of man. When asked if he is the Messiah, he replies: I AM. This caused the high priest to tear his clothes crying out blasphemy (Mark 14: 61-64). There is no doubt that the OT Messiah should be God.

Jesus accepts the worship due to the Father

Worship of someone other than God is strictly prohibited in OT (Ex. 20: 1-5; Deut. 5: 6-9). The New Testament (NT) is of the same opinion showing men (Acts 14:15) and angels (Rev. 22: 8,9) refusing worship. But Jesus accepts to be worshiped on many occasions:

A healed leper worships him (Mat. 8: 2); a rich young man knelt before Him (9:18); after having calmed the storm, He was worshiped (14:33); a group of Canaanite women worshiped him (15:25); a healed blind man worshiped him (John 9:38); Thomas worshiped the risen Christ, saying my Lord and my God (John 20:28).

All worship Him without a word of rebuke from Him. This could only be done to a person who considers himself to be God.

Jesus claims to have the same authority as God

Jesus places his words at the same level as those of God: It was said to you… But I am telling you (Matthew 5: 21,22). He does this over and over. All power has been given to me, He says, in heaven and earth (28: 18,19). God gave the 10 commandments to Moses but Jesus said: I give you a new commandment (John 13:34). He said: Heaven and earth will pass away, but his words will not pass away. The same remark is made for the law of God (Matt 5:18 and 24:35).

There is no doubt that Jesus knew that His words had the same authority as those of God.

Jesus asks for prayers to be made in His name

Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it (John 14: 13,14; 15: 7). He even insisted that no one comes to the Father except through Him (14: 6). Not only did he ask his disciples to pray in his name (1 Cor. 5: 5) but also to address prayers directly to him (Acts 7:59).

The reaction of the Jews clearly demonstrates their understanding of Jesus' claims as well as their blasphemous significance when made by a man. No serious observer can contradict these reliable historical facts where Jesus presents himself as the God of the Old Testament.

It is worth asking if there is any reason to believe that his statements are true. What type of evidence did Jesus give to corroborate or support his claims that he is God?

Jesus offered 3 lines of miraculous evidence (for which there is no lack of historical evidence) to confirm his claims to be God:

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

1. The fulfillment of many prophecies towards him;

2. His miraculous and sinless life; and

3. His resurrection from the dead.

Faced with the assertions of Jesus, CS Lewis (atheist turned Christian Apologist) says we have to face distinct alternatives to the character (Lord, Lunatic, Liar):

"Here I would like to warn anyone who wishes to make such a stupid statement about Jesus, namely," I want to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I do not accept him as God. " This is something that should absolutely not be repeated. A man who is only a man and who makes statements like Jesus' cannot be a great moral teacher. He would be a fool, otherwise he would be the devil himself, therefore a patent liar. ''

So, Dr. Fils-Aimé is absolutely right on this point. Jesus died as a blasphemer. But, as to the first part of his declaration that Jesus did not die for his sins, that is for him to see.

One of the things that makes men (and angels) morally perfect is freedom (free will). We have a real choice about what we say or do. God created us this way to be like Him, with the capacity to love freely.

God cannot force someone to love him. Forced love is a contradiction in terms. It's like talking about a "married bachelor". Love must be free; it is the result of a deliberate choice.

Love is impossible without freedom. To be free implies the faculty to choose the good or to choose the evil and also to accept the consequences.

Jean Paul Sarthe said in his theatrical piece No Way out: "The gates of hell are locked from within by the free will of men".

Jesus died for our sins, as our substitute. Dr. Fils-Aimé has chosen to nullify the plank of salvation offered to him in Jesus Christ and God respects his choice.

It is important for Dr. Fils-Aimé or any researcher who respects himself to consult sources worthy of faith and also to confront them with other arguments as well philosophical as scientific before concluding in an ex cathedra way on a subject as complex as the faith.

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

Lesly Jules, PhD

Christian Apologet

lesly.jules@biola.edu

April 2017

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

Bibliography

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

1. Merrill Unger. Archeology and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House, 1954

2. FF Bruce. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable. Grand Rapids, Eardmans, 1960

3. Gary Habermas. The Verdict of History. Nashville, Thomas Nelson, 1988

4. Michel Guertin. Philosophical itineraries. 2nd Ed. Le Griffon d'Argile, 1987

5. William L. Craig. Reasonable Faith: Christian Faith and Apologetics. 3rd Ed. Crossway Books, 2008.