Points on Why the “Matthew 4 Cancer Protocol” is a Scam.

“Brian Chambers” and “Dr. Mark Stengler” claim that there is information coded in the Bible that cures just about everything. Specifically they imply that the diet in Matthew 4 cures cancer within days and the “Crown of Thorns Extract” cures everything else. So what’s wrong with this picture?

  • They claim is that the University of South Florida, Mt. Sinai Medical Center, and University of Southern California all independently confirm their findings. Yet none of these have any journal entries on this program. In fact there are no published studies at all on this. Not even surveys or animal lab studies.
  • In Matthew 4, Jesus is fasting for 40 days and nights and this supposedly kills cancer. Yet cancer itself is shown to cause starvation. And though this kills cancer cells (as seen in ketogenic cancer treatments), it also kills regular cells and your immune system which guards against cancer.
  • The “Crown of Thorns Extract” isn’t even mentioned in the Bible. And, in fact, studies show that euphorbia milii (it’s Latin name) is actually a carcinogen (cancer causing agent).
  • “Dr. Mark Stengler” is not even a real doctor. And other supposed endorsers (Dr. Steve Nenninger, N.D., and Dr. Michael T. Murray, N.D.) aren’t either. Dr. James F. Balch was a urologist, but is no longer licensed.
  • “Brian Chambers” doesn’t seem to be the real person promoting this protocol. He and someone named “Jenny Thomson” are mentioned on the two main websites healthrevelations.com and besthealthnutritionals.com, but both are registered to a person named Jason Pell.
  • Apart from all this, the proponents of the “Matthew 4 Cancer Protocol” take forever to get to the point of explaining this “amazing” cancer killer. I’d rather buy into observable studies than “This just in! Call in the next 20 minutes…!” type salesmen.

As a Christian, I find it particularly heinous that they use (self-proclaimed) “Christian” techniques in order to make a financial gain off dying individuals. And I am disappointed in Christian Post for sending me this 3rd party junk in my email.

Sources:

http://www.healthrevelations.net/HTML5/Encode_New/index.php?pco=LHRVQ111&efo=HRV131111A

http://www.skepticink.com/dangeroustalk/2014/01/27/bible-cured-cancer/

http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongods/2014/03/01/brian-chambers-cancer-jesus/

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/37/7_Part_2/2359.short

http://irregulartimes.com/2014/02/15/what-is-the-matthew-4-protocol-and-can-it-cure-cancer-fact-check/

http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/9196556/reload=1;jsessionid=eY8D9CymZisVDAZsmORw.2

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/generalinformationaboutcarcinogens/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens

http://www.quackwatch.org/02ConsumerProtection/FDAActions/global.html

http://who.godaddy.com/whoisstd.aspx?domain=healthrevelations.net&prog_id=GoDaddy&k=+KuXqQsv6MkEBf0vxK4sq7vcYXzF5lO2Xri9HSCZbNxA55TLEGeTyWnCSxWb80F55mtAFA9rV3E%3d

Advertisements

Historicity of Abraham (by Paul Johnson)

 
Well since my edit on Wikipedia was removed, I figured I’ll just post it here.

The article on Abraham in Wikipedia (as of 8/3/2013) says,

In the early to mid 20th century leading scholars such as William F. Albright and Albrecht Alt believed the patriarchs and matriarchs to be either real individuals or believable composite people living in the “patriarchal age”, the 2nd millennium BCE. In the 1970s, however, significant new conclusions about Israel’s past and the biblical texts challenged this portrait. The two works largely responsible were Thomas L. Thompson’s The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (1974), and John Van Seters’ Abraham in History and Tradition (1975). Thompson’s argument, based on archaeology and ancient texts, was that no compelling evidence pointed to the patriarchs living in the 2nd millennium and that the biblical texts reflected 1st millennium conditions and concerns; Van Seters, basing himself on an examination of the patriarchal stories, agreed with Thompson that their names, social milieu and messages strongly suggested that they were Iron Age creations. According to archeologist William Dever, by the last quarter of the 20th century, “respectable archaeologists [had] given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible ‘historical figures'”.

The patriarchal stories most likely had a substantial oral prehistory: the Oxford History of the Biblical World notes that the purpose of oral tradition is not to record history but to pass on cultural values from one generation to the next: historical facts quickly become garbled, events and characters are invented to serve aims, and variant versions develop beside each other. At some stage in Israel’s history these oral traditions became part of the written tradition of the Pentateuch, the series of five books which tells of the origins of the world and the people of Israel: a majority of scholars believes this stage goes back to the Persian period, roughly 520–320 BCE.1

Here is my revision which was removed (my editing is highlighted; references are changed to numbered footnotes):

In the early to mid 20th century leading scholars such as William F. Albright and Albrecht Alt believed the patriarchs and matriarchs to be either real individuals or believable composite people living in the “patriarchal age”, the 2nd millennium BCE. In the 1970s, [“however, significant new” removed] conclusions about Israel’s past and the biblical texts challenged this portrait. The two works largely responsible were Thomas L. Thompson’s The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (1974), and John Van Seters’ Abraham in History and Tradition (1975). Thompson’s argument, based on archaeology and ancient texts, was that no compelling evidence pointed to the patriarchs living in the 2nd millennium and that the biblical texts reflected 1st millennium conditions and concerns; Van Seters, basing himself on an examination of the patriarchal stories, agreed with Thompson that their names, social milieu and messages strongly suggested that they were Iron Age creations. By the last quarter of the 20th century, “respectable archaeologists had given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible historical figures.”

Some believed that the patriarchal stories most likely had a substantial oral prehistory: the ”Oxford History of the Biblical World” notes that the purpose of oral tradition is not to record history but to pass on cultural values from one generation to the next: historical facts quickly become garbled, events and characters are invented to serve aims, and variant versions develop beside each other. The belief holds that at some stage in Israel’s history these oral traditions became part of the written tradition of the Pentateuch, the series of five books which tells of the origins of the world and the people of Israel: a majority of scholars believes this stage goes back to the Persian period, roughly 520–320 BCE.

Historian Paul Johnson has offered a likely alternative to these beliefs in his book, ”A History of the Jews”. He states that, although “the Book of Genesis and related Biblical passages are the only evidence that he existed,” there are several corroborative archaeological finds that support the cultural norms of time period making “the substance of this Biblical account” history.2 Abraham (then Abram) traveled from Ur, first to Haran, then throughout Canaan, and ending at Hebron (where he was buried at the Cave of Machpelah); real cities illuminated by the findings of Leonard Woolley, Albright, Nelson Glueck, Samantha Kenyon, et. al.3 Johnson agrees with R. K. Harrison’s calculations which place the time period of Abraham “between Ur-Nammu and Hammurabi, the outside limits being 2100-1550 BC” (Middle Bronze Age).4 He states that the king-list of Genesis is “not to be despised” anymore than other king-lists of antiquity, such as the pharaoh-list by Manetho and king-list by Berossus. Johnson also states that the ten-name anti-diluvian genealogy in Genesis (as opposed to the earliest king-list containing eight names) corresponds to Berossus’ list; a “link between the two is perhaps Abraham, who brought the tradition with him.”5

Ancient customs as seen through the Ebla, Nuzi, and Mari tablets support this claim. For example, the “Ebla and Mari tablets contain administrative and legal documents referring to people with patriarchal-type names such as Abram, Jacob, Leah, Laban and Ishmael” and there are “also suggestive expressions and loan-words related to Hebrew.”6 The Nuzi tablets offer even more direct cultural parallels. One tablet “produces exact parallels” to Abraham taking Hagar as a child-bearing concubine because of Sarah’s barrenness (Genesis 16). Other Nuzi tablets attest Esau’s sale of his birthright and the binding power of Isaac’s oral contract “in the form of a death-bed blessing” in Genesis 27.7 Another Nuzi parallel shows that “family gods were like title-deeds, with symbolic legal value” thus explaining why Rachel stole Laban’s idols.8 All of these show to be authorized legal proceedings of marriage and family contracts at the time. Tablets from Mari corroborate the more strange practice of slaughtering animals to confirm a covenant; attesting Abraham’s covenant with God seen in Genesis 15:9-10.9

Johnson believes that Abraham is best understood in the context of being a tribal leader among the Habiru, “difficult and destructive non-city-dwellers” who moved from “place to place” living in agreement (or at war with) governing authorities.10 Abraham, like the Habiru, had the power to purchase freehold land in Hebron with the consent of the community while being an alien. The land he purchased in Genesis 23:20 “was owned by a dignitary called Ephron the Hittite, a West Semite and Habiru of Hittite origin.11 In light of this view, some patriarchal events are more sensible. For example, tablets show that a “wife with the legal status of a sister commanded more protection than an ordinary wife,” highlighting Abimelech’s fear in Genesis 20.12 Like the Habiru, Abraham also deals with major authorities, such as Egypt in Genesis 12 and the King of Sodom in Genesis 14. Although settlement deals were contentious and legalistic, as seen in Genesis 21:22-31, “it was sometimes in the interests of the settled kings to tolerate the Habiru, as a source of mercenaries.”13 Though if the dwelling tribe grew too large and powerful, “the local king had to tell them to move on, or risk being overwhelmed himself” as seen with Abimelech and Isaac in Genesis 26:16. In Johnson’s view, all of these dealings, “problems of immigration, of water-well and contracts and birthrights … testifies to the Bible’s great antiquity and authenticity.”1415

P. S. – If anyone is a reviewer on Wikipedia, please let me know how this is less credible or biased than what was originally posted. Thanks!

Update – I’ve recently made a CreationWiki.org account. I’ve decided to dedicate much more of my archive editing time there, though I will still edit Wikipedia, Archive.org, et. al.


 

1 Permission to copy as per the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (reference links removed).
2 {{sfn|Johnson|1988, 2009|p=10}}
3 {{sfn|Johnson|1988, 2009|p=9-12}}
4 {{sfn|Johnson|1988, 2009|p=11|c.f. R. K. Harrison, ‘Introduction to the New Testament’ (London 1970)}}
5 {{sfn|Johnson|1988, 2009|p=11}}
6 {{sfn|Johnson|1988, 2009|p=12|c.f. A. Malamat, ‘King Lists of the Old Babylonian Period and Biblical Genealogies’, ‘Journal of the American Oriental Society’ 88 (1968); ‘Northern Canaan and the Mari Texts’, in J. A. Sanders (ed.), ‘Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century’ (Garden City, NY 1970), 167-77; and “Mari,” ‘Biblical Archaeologist’, 34 (1971).}}
7 {{sfn|Johnson|1988, 2009|p=13}}
8 {{sfn|Johnson|1988, 2009|p=13|The Nuzi tablet reads: “[The adoption tablet of Nashwi, son of Arshenni.] He adopted Wullu, son of Pohishenni. … When Nashwi dies, Wullu shall be heir. Should Nashwi beget a son, he shall divide equally with Wullu, but Nashwi’s son shall take Nashwi’s gods. But if there be no son of Nashwi then Wullu shall take Nashwi’s gods. And Nashwi has given his daughter Nuhuya as wife to Wullu. And if Wullu takes another wife he forfeits Nashwi’s land and buildings.”}}
9 {{sfn|Johnson|1988, 2009|p=13|c.f. C. H Gordon, “Abraham of Ur”, in D. Winton Thomas (ed.), ‘Hebrew and Semitic Studies Presented to G. R. Driver (Oxford 1962), 77-84; E. A. Speiser, Genesis, ‘Anchor Bible’ (Garden City, NY 1964). See also M. Grunberg, “Another Look at Rachel’s Theft of the Terraphin”, ‘Journal of Biblical Literature’ 81 (1962).}}
10 {{sfn|Johnson|1988, 2009|p=13}}
11 {{sfn|Johnson|1988, 2009|p=5|c.f. E. Sarna, ‘Understanding Genesis’ (London 1967), 168ff.}}
12 {{sfn|Johnson|1988, 2009|p=14|c.f. E. A. Speiser, “The Biblical Idea of History in its Common Near Eastern Setting”, in Judah Goldin (ed.), ‘The Jewish Experience’ (Yale 1976).}}
13 {{sfn|Johnson|1988, 2009|p=14}}
14 {{sfn|Johnson|1988, 2009|p=15}}
15 {{cite book
|last = Johnson
|first = Paul
|title = A History of the Jews
|year = 1988, 2009
|isbn = 0061828092 (88), 0060915331 (09)
|ignore-isbn-error=true
|publisher = Weidenfeld & Nicolson in Great Britain and Harper & Row in the United States
|location = 10 East 53rd Street, New York, N.Y. 10022
|url = http://books.google.com/books?id=ecpxpxl40PYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn:0061828092&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Dhb6UZz3J6H9iwKol4DoBA&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
|ref = harv
}}

An Answer to Kant’s Critique of the Ontological Argument.

 
The Ontological Argument first proposed by St. Anselm goes like this:

If the Greatest Possible Being exists, then that Being also has the trait of existence. A being which does not have the trait of existence it is a lesser being (and therefore couldn’t be the “Greatest”).

. . .

The Critique

 
One of the greatest responses to this is Immanuel Kant’s objection that “being’ is obviously not a real predicate.” If you have an imaginary stack of coins, it will have the same value as an actual stack of the coins.

. . .

The Answer

 

Assumptions

The answer to this is actually quite tricky because it is built into the Kant’s assumption of value. He talks about value as if there was only monetary value. Yet we know that there are many different values, depending on what you are talking about. This means he is committing the logical fallacy of “equivocation”.

The value of coins (and money in general) is really what two (or more) people agree that value of coins to be. What those coins can do is only relative to what those exchanging the coins agree it’s worth. That is why there is such a thing as bartering.

When one holds coins and is ready to trade, he (in reality) is ready to trade a physical medium of influence or power. Therefore Kant was talking about the value of power. He did not distinguish that power and existence are separate values.

Gradients

The only difference between existence and other values (such as power, order, and light) is that most other values have gradients to see greater or lesser. One this closer to a whole of a being than the other. For power you can have $100 which is greater than $10; for order you can have the Mona Lisa which is more symmetrical than broken scribbles; for light you can have a gamma wave that is “brighter” than a micro wave.

Perfections

Each thing has a point of reference in which you can gauge whether it is closer-to or farther-from the whole version of its being. The whole version of power would be omnipotence. The whole version of order would be perfect symmetry. The whole version of light would be some sort of omniphoteinos. With existence, there is no gradient. Something either exists or it doesn’t.

Caveat

That is not to say that there aren’t degrees of being. We are not necessarily a whole being simply because we exist. As the Bible says, we are flawed, imperfect, with a sin nature. God upholds us by His mercy. “For in him we live and move and have our being.” (Acts 17:28) When I said “something either exists or it doesn’t” I was telling a half-truth to make it more simple to understand. There are really 3 levels of being: non-existence, contingent existence, and necessary existence. The Contingency argument holds that anything that exists is either contingent on something else that necessarily exists. Suffice it to say that everything but God (including us) is contingent on God’s necessary existence.

 


Kant, Immanuel and Norman Kemp Smith. Critique of Pure Reason. London: Macmillan. 2nd ed. 1958. 620–631. Print.

Zimmerman, Dean, and Alvin Plantinga. “Ontological Argument.” YouTube. N.p., 28 June 2009. Web. 09 July 2013. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXvVcWFrGQ&gt;.

Related Article: “We were talking about St. Peter.”