Responding to Avraham Moshe’s attack on Christianity and the Bible

Avraham Moshe, a self-proclaimed free thinker has waged a vociferous and relentless attack on Christianity that Christianity is based on false claims and the Bible is contradictory and false.

Using his own social media platform and some TV stations, he has condemned Jesus (the Son of God), Paul, the Bible, the Koran, and in some cases, the Almighty God himself.

As part of his modus operandi, he arranges meetings with some pastors in Ghana, and in the meetings, he will read some scriptures from the Bible and debate the pastors that there are issues with the scriptures.

I advise that any pastor who will face Avraham in this way may not be able to rebut Avraham’s claims because the passages he refers to require background research including the context under which the passages were made before one can respond appropriately to Avraham. So, let Avraham give you the passages he will refer to in advance before meeting him.

In this paper, I will discuss three of the passages that Avraham has used to attack the authenticity of Christianity and the Bible, in order to demonstrate that Avraham’s attacks are not based on the appropriate interpretation of the Bible.

(1) Angels are not perfect - Job 4:18 and 15:15

Avraham claims that despite the Bible portrays angels as being perfect, the following passages in Job indicate angels are not perfect:

• Job 4:18, ‘If God places no trust in his servants if he charges his angels with error’; and

• Job 15:15, If God places no trust in his holy ones if even the heavens are not pure in his eye.

Avraham has concluded on the basis of the above passages that angels are not perfect, as claimed by Christians. However, the two verses are part of two separate speeches that Job’s friend, Eliphaz, made in his attempt to convince Job that God rewards the righteous and punishes the sinner, so Job's suffering may be a sin in his life.

While Job insisted that he was innocent, Eliphaz maintained that if angels are considered imperfect before God, then Job, a human could not claim to be innocent (Job 4:18-19 and 15:15-16). It is important to consider the credibility of Eliphaz (the speaker) before putting any weight on his statements that angels are imperfect.

In Job 42:7, the Lord said to Eliphaz that ‘I am angry with you and your two friends because you have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has.’ It is clear from Job 42:7 that Eliphaz is not a credible speaker and his claim that angels are not perfect cannot be accepted without scrutiny.

Job 4:12-17 indicates clearly that Eliphaz received his message that angels are not perfect from a “spirit” is asleep.

The spirit which appeared to Eliphaz frightened him hid in the darkness and whispered in his ear. However, when God’s angels appeared to persons like Daniel, Joseph, and Mary, the angels appeared in light and did not seek to frighten them.

It is clear that the spirit that appeared to Eliphaz was a demon as it did not appear in the way God’s angels appear and it is also highly unlikely that God would send his own angel to tell someone that we the angels are not perfect.

It is clear from the above discussion that Avraham has misinterpreted the passages in Job 4:18-19 and 15:15-16, by not considering the context under which the statements were made.

(2) Mark 16:15-16 and 1 Corinthians 1:17

According to Avraham, Jesus instructed his disciples in Mark 16:15-16 to go the world and preach the gospel and baptize those who will believe, but in 1 Corinthians 1: 17, Paul stated that he was sent to preach and not to baptize, so Paul contradicted the Bible.

Avraham argues further that in Corinthians 1: 14, Paul stated that he had baptized some people, so Paul lied.

Before discussing the context under which Paul made his statement in 1 Corinthians 1: 14-17, let us read some of Paul’s general views about baptism. Paul stressed the importance of baptism in:

• Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12 that baptism unites us with Christ’s death, burial and resurrection;

• 1 Corinthians 12:13 that through baptism we were brought into the body of Christ;

• Galatians 3:27, through baptism we clothed ourselves with Christ;

• Ephesians 4:5, by listing baptism alongside God, Jesus, faith and etc.; and
• Acts 16:13-15, 18:8, 19:1-6, by teaching people to be baptized,

accordingly, Paul considered baptism an important aspect of Christianity. So, why did Paul made his statement in 1 Cor 1:17, and did he contradict himself and Mark 16:15-16?

As discussed below, an analysis of the context under which the statement in 1 Corinthians 1: 17 was made clearly indicates that Paul did not:

• contradict himself and the Bible about baptism; and
• lie when he mentioned in v. 14 that he had baptized some people.
According to 1 Cor 1:10-16:

• Paul had been informed of quarrels and divisions in the Corinthian church (vv. 10-11);

• the division centered on the members of the church claiming to follow either Paul, Apollos, Cephas, or Christ (v. 12); and

• Paul explained that Christ is not divided and he was happy he did not baptize any of them except Crispus, Gaius, and the family of Stephanas, so no one would claim that he was baptized in the name of Paul (Vv. 13-16).

The immediate context clearly indicates that in 1 Corinthians 1: 14-17, Paul did not write his views on baptism, but he wrote about a church divided based on the prominent church leaders the various members identified themselves with.

Thus, when Paul said that he was thankful that he was sent to preach and only baptized a few, he was directly responding to the division in the church including some using his name to bring a division to the church.

From the above, it is obvious that Paul did not teach in I Cor 1: 14-17 that baptism was not important, instead if he had baptized many of them, they would have claimed him as their leader/savior, but only Jesus is the savior in whose name all must be baptized.

It is important to mention that in order for Avraham to deliberately misinterpret Paul, Avraham:

• omitted the issue about the division in the church (1 Cor 1: 10-11), which provides the background to Paul’s statements in 1 Cor 1: 14 and 17; and

• discussed v. 17 before v.14, so that he would be able to present Paul as a liar, but an honest and appropriate discussion will consider v.14 and other verses before v.17 to ensure accurate and orderly discussion.

It is clear from the above discussion that in order to discredit Paul, Avraham used crude tactics and ignored the context under which Paul made his statements about baptism in 1 Cor 1: 14 and 17.

(1) Genesis 18:16–21

Another passage that Avraham uses to attack the credibility of the Bible is Gen 18:16-21, where when the Lord and two angels had visited Abraham, the Lord revealed to Abraham that he was going down to see if the outcry that had reached him about the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah was that bad, so he would destroy them.

According to Avraham, because the Lord stated that he was going to confirm the seriousness of the sins of the people, it means God is not Omniscient (i.e. does not know all things of the past, present, and future).

Again Avraham has considered the passage only at its face value.

Several passages in the Bible indicate that God is Omniscient and perfect in knowledge. In some few verses earlier, the Lord revealed to Abraham that he would have a son, which suggests that He knows the future.

Similarly, Heb. 4:13 states ‘Nothing in all creation is hidden from God. Everything is naked and exposed before his eyes ...’

So why does Gen 18:21 appear to indicate that God is not all-knowing? According to theologians, God already knew the magnitude of the sins of the people but he told Abraham that he was going to investigate the seriousness of the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah just for the benefit of Abraham.

Theologians call such expressions “anthropomorphic” (i.e. God is using human language for the purpose of helping finite beings better understand Him).

There are other similar expressions in the Bible, including God, asking Adam, “Where are you?” (Genesis 3:9) and Job, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the Earth?” (38:4). Of course, God knew where Adam was and he also knew that at the time of creation Job had not been born.

But God asked the questions to engage them in conversation. Similarly, when Jesus asked ‘Who touched my garments?’(in Mark 5:30), he knew it was the woman who was bleeding touched her but Jesus’ used his question to highlight the woman’s great faith and his healing power (Mark 5:34).

Again, when Jesus asked the Pharisees about whose inscription was on a particular coin, it was not that He did not know, instead, he used it to overcome their evil plot against him (Matt 22:15-21).

Accordingly, in Gen 18:21, the Lord used his statement about the investigation to provide Abraham an opportunity to negotiate with the Lord. By starting from 50 to 10, Abraham pleaded with the Lord if the Lord would spare the twin cities if those numbers of righteous were found in the cities. Clearly,

Abraham had his nephew, Lot, and the family in mind. Supposing, the Lord had not informed Abraham that he was going to investigate but simply told him he was just going to destroy the cities, Abraham may not have had the opportunity to negotiate and may have considered the Lord’s action harsh and excessive by destroying righteous with sinners, especially if Lot was also destroyed.

It is clear that the Lord wanted Abraham to benefit from what he told him. And we know from Gen 19 that the two angels spared Lot and his family.

Furthermore, the rest of chapter 18 indicates that the two angels went ahead of the Lord, and Gen 19 states that the two angels went to Sodom and stayed overnight with Lot and saved him and his family, before destroying the cities.

It is important to mention that there is no further mentioning of where the Lord went after speaking to Abraham, as the angels were those who went to Sodom.

In Gen 19:13, the angels explained to Lot that they were going to destroy the place because ‘The outcry to the Lord against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.’ They did not allude to an investigation as the basis of going to destroy the place, which again supports the point that the Lord’s statement to Abraham about the investigation was for the benefit of Abraham.

Thus, anthropomorphic expression was not used to suggest that the Lord was not fully aware of everything. Rather, it demonstrated to Abraham that the Lord was “officially and judicially taking the situation under direct observation and consideration.

For example, Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown noted in their commentary on Genesis that these cities were to be made ensamples to all future ages of God’s severity, and therefore ample proof given that the judgment was neither rash nor excessive was necessary.

From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that Avraham has not considered the depth of the Lord’s statement to Abraham but taken it at face value and out of context in order to misrepresent.