The Bible- it's the Truth

2009-09-20T18:10:00.000-07:00

By Al Gist

I surrendered to the call of preaching the Gospel of my Lord Jesus on the last day of revival services in our home church, July 21, 1985. My "Daddy in the Ministry", Bro. Jamie Coleman, had preached a fiery message that Sunday and God's call was more than I could possibly resist. So, with a truly broken and contrite spirit, I fell at the foot of the cross that morning and cried out, "Okay, Lord. I'll do it!"We had "dinner on the grounds" after church and after the meal, when almost everyone had left, Bro. Jamie called me and Sandy aside to pray over us and ask God's blessings on our ministry. In an empty sanctuary, in front of the pulpit, he had us kneel as he placed his hands on our heads. Then, with words from deep within his soul, he poured out his heart to God in an agonizing tone as he interceded in our behalf.I wish I could remember all of what he prayed that day, but I can't. I remember the sincerity with which he prayed. I remember the solemnity of the moment. I remember the overwhelming presence of God and the feeling of the huge responsibility that I had just accepted. But I can only remember the closing words of Bro. Jamie's prayer. And I will never forget those words!After crying out for God's greatest blessings to be upon our lives and ministry, this "Hellfire and brimstone" preacher said in a thundering voice,
"And Lord, if he ever compromises on Your Word... kill him!"Needless to say, you don't soon forget a prayer like that!Bro. Jamie was very serious in what he asked from God that day. As much he loved me, he would have rather had God call me home, than to allow me to compromise on the truth of God's Word in my preaching and teaching, and thereby hinder the Kingdom work. When it comes to our stand on what we KNOW the Bible teaches, there is no room for compromise!According to an Aug. 25 WorldNetDaily article by Joel Richardson1:
"This year, a group of emergent Christians led by one of the United States most influential pastors, Brian McLaren, has announced that it will actually be "observing" the Muslim holy month, along with a Muslim "partner." Ramadan is the month that Muslims thank Allah, their god, for revealing the Quran to Muhammad, their prophet. On McLaren's personal blog, he recently announced his intentions: 'We, as Christians, humbly seek to join Muslims in this observance of Ramadan as a God-honoring expression of peace, fellowship, and neighborliness.'2"Let's be perfectly clear about something here...Islam is a false religion that follows an unholy document (the Quran) in its worship of a false god! Allah, the Muslim god, is NOT just another name for the true God of this universe, as some would tell us. And their unholy writ, the Quran, is NOT just another rendering of "the truth" from God that is on equal footing with the Holy Bible! Islam is idolatry... plain and simple!So why would anyone calling himself a Christian want to join Muslims in this observance of Ramadan, a month that is set aside to celebrate their false prophet's revelation of his false god's instructions to mankind? The answer is found in McLaren's own words. It is being done as an "expression of peace, fellowship, and neighborliness", which he calls "God-honoring". But since when is God honored by condoning, accepting, or participating in idolatry? Certainly, we are to reach out to all people with the love of Jesus. But we do NOT try to reach them by participating in their sinful ways!When Paul said "I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." (I Cor. 9:22), he did not imply compromise. But in order to more effectively communicate the Gospel of Jesus, the apostle was careful to be considerate of other's beliefs and traditions. He did not want to offend them and run them away before he could share the Gospel with them.He said, "unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as [though I also was] under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;" (I Cor. 9:20) But his acting in obedience to the law when he was around Jews who placed such a high importance on observing the law, was not sinful or idolatrous or showing approval of sinful ways. Indeed, if it were possible for us to live in perfect obedience to the law, we would all want to serve God so perfectly.So, even though Paul knew he had been set free from the "bondage" of the law, he was not deceptive or hypocritical in his approach to those Jews who placed such a high importance on observance of the law. He just tried to be careful and considerate of their ways so that he might have the opportunity to tell them about a more perfect way through faith in Jesus Christ.The essential part of Paul's actions was his motivation, which was to bring people to salvation in Christ. He was not doing it as simply an "expression of peace, fellowship, and neighborliness" like McLaren. Nor was he participating in sin in order to reach the sinner. But the liberal left in Christendom have a different motivation. They are all about "peace, fellowship, and neighborliness".Over and over again, the expressed motive of this godless ecumenism is world peace and brotherly love (which sounds very good on the surface). And along with apostates like McLaren, the Roman Catholic Church is leading the way. Pope Benedict XVI, at the World Youth Day in Australia last July, "called on around 50 Christian leaders to fight for unity within the broader faith.
'...My dear friends, I have come to Australia as an ambassador of peace. For this reason I feel blessed to meet you who likewise share this yearning and the desire to help the world attain it.' The pope later met leaders from the Muslim, Jewish and other faiths, telling them religions had a special role in maintaining peace."3For sure, desiring a peaceful existence (Heb. 12:14) and loving all people (Matt. 5:43-44) are Christian attributes. But in doing so, we are to NEVER compromise on our stand for the truth of God!Because of His unyielding stand on the truth, our Lord Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." (Matt 10:34) And He went on to say that because of Him, people would even be at variance with members of their own family!Love people with the love of Jesus? Yes! But disregard or participate in their sin in an effort to have peace and acceptance from them? Never! We don't even do it to "reach" them! Should we drink with the drunkard to reach him? Are we to gamble at the casino to reach its patrons? Are we to dabble in sexual immorality to be more accepted and at peace with the world? Of course not!And neither do we legitimize idolatry in order to have peace with the idolaters. The Bible is perfectly clear on this:
"...for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?... Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord..." (2 Cor. 6:14b, 17a)We are to be sanctified (set apart) from the sinful world. And it is through that holiness in us that the lost are drawn to Jesus.Satan has so sugar-coated and disguised his poison with "peace and brotherly love" that people, even "Christians" are swallowing it in mega-doses. They don't understand their Bible well enough to even know better. As God said through the prophet Hosea, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge:" (Hos. 4:6a).Today, the doctrine of "tolerance" has become the theology of the world, which should come as no surprise to us since... "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils" (1 Tim. 4:1). And it is this devilish doctrine of "tolerance" that is melding all the religions of the world into one giant conglomerate that the False Prophet will eventually place at the feet of Antichrist. Each religion will be allowed to keep its own individual doctrine, but united by and subservient to the overall umbrella of "tolerance and brotherly love"... a one world religion that will eventually worship the Antichrist.As for this preacher, there is no room for compromising on the truth of God's Word. As Paul said, "Woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!" (1 Cor 9:16) lest the closing request of Bro. Jamie's prayer be answered!

Endnotes
1. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=1078122. http://www.brianmclaren.net/archives/blog/ramadan-2009-part-1-whats-going.html3. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jNMln9NXy0uZ8hMfRVdfAzCpjZ3w

Judaism Part 2

2009-06-05T17:47:00.000-07:00

In the last post, we looked at the differences in Judaism- from the more traditional Orthodox to the more liberal Reformed and Conservative Judaism.

Obviously, as I touched on the last time, Christians do have some things in common with Judaism. We share the Old Testament and it's teachings. We believe in the same Holy. Righteous God. Both faiths share the same view of Deuteronomy 6:5,4 "The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength."

Both faiths accept the Law given by God the Creator. We share the same need to worship God, the importance of a strong family unit, and loving others. The difference of course is our view of Jesus Christ.

Many Jews do believe that Jesus was a good man, and rabbi. Many believe His teachings are good, but that's as far as they believe. Jewish people view the Gospel as something only for Gentiles. It is considered to be our religion only, and many don't believe they have any need for Jesus anyway. If a non religious Jewish person is considering a religion, it would be Judaism. Most Jews do not see Jesus as their Messiah because He claimed to be divine, and He did not deliver Israel from their oppressors. Jews of Jesus' time were looking, and many are still looking for more of a political leader type of Messiah, where they will finally be free from oppression. What they fail to understand through many of the prophecies, is that while Jesus came the first time as a servant and a sacrifice- He will come again to deliver His people.

Anther belief is that because Jews are Jewish by birth, then Christians too, are Christian by birth, not understanding the personal faith commitment made by people of all ages to have a relationship with Jesus. They don't see Christians as people from all backgrounds becoming Christian, because anyone who is not a Jew is a Gentile- no matter where that person is from. They don't seem to understand that no matter our heritage, once a person comes a believer in Jesus, we are following the Messiah. We have not changed our earthly heritage, but we have been adopted into the family of God- and we, through our belief in Jesus, believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The same of the Jewish roots.

One main objection that many Jewish people have by placing trust in Jesus as our Savior, is that they will no longer be Jewish if they do this. They believe that to become a Christian is to "lose" their Jewishness and turning their backs on their heritage, traditions and family. Whether a Jewish person is religious or not- they are still Jewish, and they have their own "Jewishness", or ways of doing and thinking and celebrating things. They see most Christians as being more quiet and subdued, more conservative in both political and religious life. Many don't understand that the early Church was made up of mostly Jewish converts. They have not read the New Testament, so they have not had the chance to read Books such as Hebrews, which clearly show the Jewishness of Christianity. They do not know the ancestors of Jesus, which includes King David. They do not know the Jewish roots and family of Jesus or His apostles. They do not know that Paul, who was once Saul, was also Jewish- being raised in a very religious home and one of the Pharisees, and that he was still a Jew after his "conversion". They don't understand that all the apostles and Jesus Himself observed all of the Holy Days and celebrations.

Jewish people also assume a standing with God. They don't speak of salvation because they don't believe they have anything to be saved from. If there is a God, then Jewish people already have a relationship with Him. As far as sin goes, Jewish people believe that everyone is born free to choose whether to be good or evil- that no one is born that way.

Christians believe that God is One as well, but uniquely Three persons in One. We believe that Jesus was who He said He is, and that He came to save ALL mankind. We can only have a personal relationship with God through Jesus the Son. We believe that all are born in sin, and all fall short of the Glory of God (Romans 3:10,23; 5:12) and it is only through Jesus that we are able to stand before God.

Jewish people believe that anyone, no matter Jew or Gentile can be saved through commitment to the true God and through living a moral and virtuous life. Christians however know that we are only saved through grace and by the sacrificial death of Jesus- the passover Lamb of God.
Many Jews find the salvation message as offensive. Many who live in Israel are under the belief that Christians are only interested in trying to convert Jews, and that we don't care about their homeland. Many have heard enough of the Revelation prophecies to believe that they will all go to hell if they don't believe in Christ. While there is some truth to this belief, there is so much more to the whole of prophecy (more than I can fit here) but they don't understand that Bible believing Christians know that God is still looking over and caring for His people. Many Jewish people don't understand the term "savior", but they know the word "redeemer", so if you are ever talking with a Jewish friend, it would be good to talk about Jesus as Messiah and redeemer.

One last thought here. Many Christians, knowing how the Gospel message is many times offensive to a Jewish person, will be hesitant to bring it up when talking with a Jewish friend. Many times, they will use the same "plan" of "loving someone to Christ" instead of witnessing. While loving people is certainly something we should do, and sometimes it will help in witnessing to people of other or no religions- it will not help in bringing a Jewish friend to a relationship with Christ.

First of all, most Jewish folks are already kind, loving and upstanding in character. Most are very charitable- giving to many good causes. Therefore, doing things such as acting right and loving, giving to Godly ministries and charities doesn't show any difference in Christian behavior or their own, and it will not show the message of the Gospel. Another topic is that of missions and missionaries. While these are worthy and spreading the Gospel message, to a Jew, it is offensive if they perceive you are acting as a missionary to the Jewish community. To the Jewish person, missions are for rescuing and helping derelicts, and missionaries are those who work among primitive people. Definitely not something Jewish people view themselves as!Even though not many Jewish people accept the truth of the Old Testament, they hold the Book in high respect. It is good to have the Old Testament ready when talking with Jewish friends, so you can show them the whole Gospel from the Word of God.

Don't ever think you can't witness to a Jewish friend. After all, Messianic Judaism is gaining a huge movement all over the world. Messianic Jews from all walks of life are believing in Yeshua- and that He is the promised Messiah who will be Israel's and the world's savior and redeemer!
Next time, we'll look into the major differences of the Christian "cults"- Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses.

Scriptures to review: Isaiah 49:5-26 (redemption for Israel) , Isaiah 53:4-6, (Prophecies about Jesus) John 1:10-12, (Jesus not recognised) 1 Peter 2:24,25, (Salvation through Jesus) Isaiah 53:7-9, (prophecies about Jesus) Matt. 27:57-60, (the burial) Luke 23:32,33, (crucifixion) Romans 10:12, (all in the Body- no Jews no Gentiles) Matthew 3:13-17, 28:19, (Baptism by immersion and the Trinity) 2 Corinthians 13:14 (Trinity), Romans 3:10,23,24,5:12, (on sin) Ephesians 2:8,9 (Salvation through grace not works) The Book of Hebrews (Paul's writings concerning the Jews)

So What's the Difference- Judaism

2009-05-14T20:01:00.000-07:00

Judaism has a history beginning around 200 B.C. begun by Rabbis, or Jewish Teachers. Around the time of the 2nd Temple's destruction is when Judaism really broke off from the traditional religion of Israel which was written about in the Old Testament. The destruction of the Temple meant there were no more Temple worship, no more sacrifices and no more priestly duties- therefore no more need for priests. New practices and institutions such as synagogue, rabbinical training and the office of the Rabbi came about, and the Rabbis were those who now set the laws, authority and practices for the Jewish people.

While Christianity and Judaism are similar in their both being shoots of the Old Testament religion of Israel, there are many differences between the two which we'll look at in the next post. In this post, we'll look at Judaism and the different beliefs.

From the start of Judaism until the early 18th century, Judaism really didn't change much, and there was really only one form practiced. After the 18th century, Modern Judaism broke into 3 main branches. The different branches were more of a personal choice of association, family roots and tradition, and where the nearest synagogue was, and if you liked the rabbi's message.

While there are 3 main branches, many people don't adhere to any particular doctrine, and many times, they come to their own version of what Judaism is all about.

The three branches are Orthodox, Reform and Conservative Judaism.

Orthodox is the closest form of the Judaism which was practiced around the time of the Temple's destruction. It's emphasis is on tradition and strict observance of the Law of Moses as instructed by the Rabbis. Orthodox Judaism can be almost compared to Roman Catholicism, in that they both have heavy Traditional based teachings. There view of the Torah, or the first Five Books of Moses is that they are true. Faith is an essential part of belief in the Torah, and they believe in the divine origin of oral and written word of the Torah. It is given a higher authority than the rest of the Hebrew Bible. Their belief is that God is in spirit. He is to the Orthodox Jew, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal and loving. They believe humans are basically good, but with an equal portion to be capable of evil. They believe that people can have self control over their evil nature and be perfected by their own efforts to be good and in following the Laws of Moses. The Law is the basis for Judaism, and gives structure and meaning to life, which leads to a closer relationship with God. They do not believe in original sin, but that people commit sin by breaking any of the Laws. Repentance, prayer and obedience of the Law are needed for a relationship with God but salvation is not necessary. The Messiah is a human, and not divine. He will restore the Jewish kingdom and rule righteously over the earth, and give judgement and make things right. The Orthodox Jew believes in a physical resurrection, and the righteous will be with God forever. Evil people will suffer after death, but many people have different thoughts on whether a literal hell exists or not. They attend synagogue for teaching and prayer, as well as social reasons. Men and women sit apart from each other, and the teachers usually face the same direction as the congregation.

Reform Judaism had it's beginnings in Germany around the time of the Enlightenment during the 18th century. Reformed Judaism focuses more on ethics and ideas of the prophets. Reformed Judaism can be compared to Unitarianism in that they both have emphasis on humanism. The Reformed Jew's belief is that the Hebrew Bible is a human document which has passed on and preserved the history and cultures of the people. It's an important book for learning moral and ethical ways to live. They have different interpretations of God, which includes mystical, natural and humanist philosophies. They do not believe that anyone holds the truth. They believe in the basic goodness of humans, and their approach is more humanistic, in that with education, evolution and encouragement, people can tap into the potential within self. Their view on the Laws, are that the law is basically evolving and changing, and it adapts to each age. In their view, if the law or observance of Judaism comes against societal demands, they must be dropped in favor of society. They do not believe in original sin, and i is actually a product of society. Salvation is by human effort, and brought about by a better society and education. Reform Jews do not believe in a Messiah, but more in with the liberal ideas of a utopia or perfect world to come where humans have evolved enough to be perfected and good. To the Reformed Jew, this is called the Messianic Age. They have no beliefs of life after death, although some believe in a Eastern Mysticism where souls will all merge into one huge impersonal life force. Their synagogue is called Temple, and the services are totally modern, and men and women sit together. They have choirs included in their worship services.

Conservative Judaism started around the 19th century, again with roots in Germany, and is considered "middle of the road". They can be compared with modern liberal protestants, which focuses on form and social issues rather than on doctrine. Their views of the Hebrew Scripture is that they are both from God and man. It's not considered inspired by God, and it's revelation is an ongoing process. The more popular thought is that God is impersonal- much to the belief that God created the world, and us, but He has left us to "do our own thing". They have similar views as the Reformed Jew, more humanist, that people can become perfect by enlightenment, and that Humanity is in a "partnership" with God. Truth and the law are relative, in that they change with the time, and must adapt to societal changes. There is no belief in original sin, but that people can sin by actions or immoral choices. Conservative Jews identify closer with the Reformed views of salvation, but they include the necessity of keeping their Jewish Identity. They also have similar views as Reformed Jews concerning Messiah. They also have more humanist views of man creating a utopia. Similar views as well on life after death, although they are not as involved in Eastern Mystic ideas. the Synagogue is seen as a basic part of Jewish life, and their services are more to the Reformed views than that of Orthodox.
Out of each branch, there is no real comparison to Bible believing Christianity. Neither do any of the branches really practice having a personal relationship to God, as they are more focused on living according to traditional understanding and ethical behavior. In Judaism, there is no real official religious principal, or doctrine, except to reaffirm that God is One from Deut. 6:4

All Jewish people, no matter which branch of Judaism they practice, observe at least some of the Jewish Holidays. They don't look at Holidays as celebrations, but more of observance. More practices of all Judaism include circumcision of sons on the eighth day, which is followed by a ceremony called brit milah. Bar mitzvah for boys and occasionally bat mitzvah for girls, which are coming of age ceremonies at the age of 13. There is usually a synagogue service followed by a fancy reception or party. Jewish weddings are usually celebrated under a canopy, which is called the chuppa, and the smashing of a glass wrapped in cloth to symbolize the destruction of the Temple.

Other observances are practiced mostly by the Orthodox Jews, but to a lesser extent, other branches who wish to get in touch with their Jewish roots include things such as observing the Sabbath. Traditional Jews will not do any work on Sabbath, but others may at least cook a family meal at the beginning of the Sabbath, on Friday nights.Some Traditional Orthodox Jews wear small black boxes, called phylacteries, which contain portions of Scripture. These must be wrapped around the arm and forehead according to a set time and pattern. Many Jews of all branches will have a mezuzah on their door post of their home. These are little boxes which contain various Scripture verses. This isn't really related to Religious beliefs, but more a way to maintain Jewishness.The last, most well known practice is to keep kosher laws. One of the most well known is the prohibition of mixing meat products with dairy at one meal. After high school, I worked for a Jewish family who owned a summer camp, and became accustomed to a lot of these practices- especially getting used to drinking juice at meals which contained meat. Many Jews will keep kosher laws more out of tradition than Religious reasons. Even among non religious Jews, who don't believe in the dietary law will keep most kosher practice. I have to say, I loved working at that camp, and I loved the people there- but I sure missed bacon!

In the next post, we'll look more at the differences between the Scriptures of Judaism and Biblical Christianity.

So What's the Difference- The Roman Catholic Church Part 2

2009-05-07T16:16:00.000-07:00

In the last post we started on looking at the differences between the Roman Catholic Church and Bible believing Christians. While I have no doubt on the sincerity of many Catholics on their love of Jesus as their savior, there are enough differences between the Church teaching and the Bible, that I thought it deserved mention in this series on Religious comparison.

Just as Bible believing Christians rely on the Bible alone for our authority on the truth of God and faith alone (sola fide) in our salvation, the Roman Catholic Church relies on faith plus good works and God's grace mediated through the Seven Sacraments for salvation. While I won't list the seven here, it is important to note that two of the main differences are in the Catholic Holy Eucharist and Penance.

The Holy Eucharist, which in Protestant Church is the Lord's Supper, Catholics believe that when the priest consecrates the bread and wine during Mass, the bread and wine are "transformed" into the actual body and blood of Christ. This is called transubstantiation.Many Catholics attend Mass several times a week, or even daily. In the Catholic Catechism, the Eucharist is explained as a memorial and a sacrifice of Christ's passover and death on the cross. It is sacrifice because it re-presents or makes present the sacrifice of the cross, and the Eucharist is the offering not of the bloody sacrifice of the cross, but the unbloody. This means that during Mass, the Catholic believers can take part in the sacrifice of Christ.

Bible believing Christians believe there is no reason to continuously re-present Christ's sacrifice. He has already made us righteous though His sacrifice, and His one time offering of Himself has given us all His forgiveness. Hebrews 9:27- 10:14
To offer Mass as an ongoing sacrifice so people can "feel" closer and a fuller experience is a contradiction to what the Scripture says.

One of the other Sacraments which is doctrinally different is the act of Penance. These are acts which a Catholic must do for forgiveness. There are different "grades" if you will of sin to the Catholic Church. These are mortal and venial sins. Mortal sins are those which are serious and done with "full knowledge and deliberate consent". These end up in the loss of sanctifying grace. If mortal sin is not confessed and forgiven, the sinner faces eternity in hell. Mortal sins can range from adultery, fornication, stealing or lying, blasphemy, harmful religious discrimination, and hateful or lustful thoughts.Venial sins are minor which can weaken a believer's faith, but do not result in loss of sanctification. These include small lies, overeating or drinking, small stuff. Catholics are encouraged to confess these sins, especially when they "pile up"- to keep the believer from weakening their love for God or their families and neighbors.After confessing to a priest, he has the sinner do an act which fits the crime so to speak. This might include repeating a number of prayers, acts of self discipline such as fasting, or good works such as volunteering.

While there is nothing wrong with confessing of one's sin- all Bible believing Christians must seek forgiveness continually, but to the Bible believing Christian, our only confessor is Jesus Christ. Yes, it can also help to have someone who can help you stay accountable, but this person can not give forgiveness for sin. There is only one mediator between man and God- and that is Jesus Christ. (1Tim. 2:5)
And again, Jesus has already "done the work" by dying on the cross for our sins. No amount of what we can do to "atone" is not enough and is no match for what Christ has done for us already.This is not to say we should not do good works- but it is because of our faith in Jesus, which allows the Holy Spirit to impart His gifts and talents in us, to where we can do things for God's kingdom. It is not to do these things out of fear we are not quite saved without them.

I have heard from some people who are disappointed with Christians because when doing such services as working with the poor or homeless, the Christian seems rude, impersonal and/or uncaring in their work. I find this sad and it does a disservice to the purpose of loving one's neighbor as Christ asks us, and it sets a bad example of Christian discipleship in front of non believers. While it is not always the case, I believe some of the reason may be the person's perspective of their work. Obviously, if one is working out of a sense of duty, because they want to serve Christ, they will love, be kind and show a enthusiastic sense of giving. If they have the attitude of having to serve because they have to "make up" for their sanctification, they will feel a sense of having to be there, but not really wanting to be there. It's hard to show love and compassion when your heart is not in it.

We'll look at one more difference in this post to finish our comparison on the Roman Catholic church. This is the practice of Marian worship. We know that Scripture calls Mary favored and blessed among women. She was chosen by God to bear the Son, which is a huge and awesome responsibility. However, Mary was a woman, specially chosen, but not worthy of veneration and honor. Veneration and honor belong to God only- not one of His creations.

Catholics have different levels of worship. These are latiria, which is the adoration of the triune God alone, dulia, which is veneration given the angels and canonized saints. Then there is hyperdulia, which is super veneration given to Mary alone.
Early in the 4th century, it was taught that Mary's virginity continued after the birth of Christ. Out of that, grew the tradition of immaculate conception, which meant that Mary was born without sin and led a sinless life. This was proclaimed dogma by Pope Pius IX in 1854, and the doctrine of Assumption was proclaimed dogma by Pius XII in 1950. Assumption meant that Mary was taken bodily and soul directly to heaven. Other popes have referred to Mary as Mediatrix, which means she is the "co-mediator" with Jesus between God and man. Redemptrix, which means she is Christ's "associate in redemption". Pope Leo XIII though, proclaimed in 1891, that "As no man comes to the Father but by the Son, so no man goeth to Christ but by his mother."

Vatican II documents claim that special titles to Mary have no effect on the belief in Christ as sole mediator, but it is impossible for a Bible believing Christian to note the above proclamations by those in the Church to see anything but encouraging followers to place Mary equal with Jesus or even covering His function of our savior and mediator.Bible believing Christians respect Mary as the woman chosen by God, but that is where the similarity ends. Scripture is clear on the subject as the relationship between Jesus and His earthly mother, and more importantly, there are no scriptures which supports the Catholic beliefs about Mary, or the dependence on Mary and the canonized saints in our daily walk with Christ. The Bible is clear that ALL believers in Christ are His Saints. We don't need a Papal decree to state who is a Saint. We do not believe in the infallible man, whether he be the Pope or any other, as the Bible says ALL have sinned and NONE is righteous.

Bible believing Christians know God justifies the believer by declaring us righteous, and sanctification is a life long process as God works in us. Jesus has paid for all sin already, there is nothing we can add by good deeds. We believe we go straight to heaven where sanctification is completed in Christs presence. We do not believe in a purgatory, a place where the dead are still working through the sanctification process. We are either saved by the Grace of Christ by faith, or we are not saved because we do not believe. Once we die, there is no more chance to "make things right". We will not be benefited by prayers of others, nor of lit candles, nor of indulgence. Jesus Christ alone is the only way to God the Father, no one on this earth has ever been perfect except for Jesus Christ and no one on this earth has ever been sinless except for Jesus Christ. He is all we need!

Scripture References on Christ as head of the Church, searching scripture for yourself, Grace through faith alone in Jesus, the sinfulness of ALL men, righteousness through Christ alone- not through our own efforts, God working through us for His purpose, living by faith, immediate life after death with no purgatory, Jesus Christ as sole mediator.

2 Tim. 3:16,17 1 John 5:13 John 5:39, 14:26 Matt.18:18 Eph.1:22 Col. 1:18 Rom. 3:21-24, 5:21, 10:4 Eph. 2:8,9 John 17:15-19 Phil. 2:12,13, 3:9 2 Cor.5:6-10 1John 2:28-3:2 Luke 23:43 1 Tim. 2:5 Acts17:11

Next time, we'll look at the differences between Judaism and Biblical Christianity.

So What's the Difference - The Roman Catholic Church

2009-03-24T19:54:00.000-07:00

For a review on this series, please see Part 1 below.

In order to compare the Roman Catholic church and Biblical Christianity, we need to explore the Catholic Church's belief that they are the true church- that is with the sole and exclusive authority and ability to interpret the Scriptures for believers, and how they view doctrines such as salvation- how a person finds justification from his/her sins.
One of the biggest divisions between the Roman Catholic Church and Biblical Christianity is based on Sola scriptura (scripture alone) and sola fide (faith alone). Back in the early days of the reformation, the reformers rejected many of the Roman Catholic traditions because they believed the church should only base it's doctrine on what the Bible teaches. At the council of Trent (1545-63) the Church rejected this, and kept the right to interpret the Scriptures according to what they believed the Bible taught.
During the Vatican Council II (1962-65) the rulings made at Trent were upheld. Among documents from the Vatican Council II was something called Dei Verbum, which showed the Roman Catholic Church believes the apostles passed on their authority to succeeding bishops in the churches during the first century and all the centuries since. The church added certain teachings over the centuries based on what is called Sacred Tradition. Because bishops were supposedly successive apostles, the traditions they began and passed on were given the same authority as the Scriptures. Instead of Sola Scriptura, the Roman Catholic Church assumed and claimed the the teachings of scripture plus tradition, as both are believed to be equal sources of spiritual authority.

Bible believing Christian belief in Scripture alone as our authority is directly opposite to the Roman Catholic teaching of scripture plus tradition. To Bible believing Christians, we believe the Bible alone is our spiritual authority, that it is through the Holy Spirit that we understand what is written. All the things we need to know, believe and practice are clearly written in the Bible, which as we looked at earlier, are God inspired writings. The Bible does not however, include teachings on religion. This doesn't mean that the Bible is incomplete as the Roman Catholic Church believes- just because it doesn't mention other things Jesus did.

Bible believing Christians believe the Scriptures are complete as they need to be to teach the truth of Jesus, how to be redeemed and saved from sin. The Bible plainly says that if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, you will be saved. (Romans 10:9)
Scripture alone doesn't mean that anyone can read the Bible and believe whatever they want about it (as so many liberal churches do these days). It is the church which must teach the truth of the Bible, (very important here- which so many mega churches and feel good theologians do not do) as long as they stay true to the Bible in whatever they teach. A Christian can trust any church as long as they stay true to the Bible- the whole word.

The Roman Catholic Church continues to believe that the Bible is a "church based book" because the church wrote (the apostles letters) or determined what made up the New Testament. Bible believing Christians believe that the church discovered the New Testament through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and that He determined which writings were divinely inspired. The Church has never been without scriptures! In the beginning days of the church, it had the Old Testament- which points to the New, which is why so many of the New Testament authors pointed to the Old! (2 Peter 1:20,21)

The Dei Verbum document from Vatican Council II says "All that has been said about the manner of interpreting scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God." This shows that the Church encourages the people to read the Bible, but interpreting it is the sole authority of the church. They are insistent that it is the only accurate and authoritative source of interpretation of scripture is through the Catholic Church because of what Jesus said to Peter in Matthew 16:13-20. Jesus asks the disciples who they believe He is. Peter replies that He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Jesus tells Peter that only the Father in heaven could have revealed this truth, then made the famous speech about building the Church on "this rock". According to Catechism of the Catholic Church, Jesus named Peter "the rock" and gave him the keys and made him the shepherd of the flock. From this, comes the belief that "This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope" who "as vicar of Christ and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."

Biblical Christians believe that the Holy Spirit guides each person in learning what God has to tell them about the Scriptures, and that believers are to search the scriptures for themselves as stated in John 16:13 and Acts 17:11.
As for Peter being the rock upon which Jesus built the church, Bible believing Christians do not agree with this at all. Jesus did not say "Upon you Peter I will build my church". He said upon this rock. In Greek text, Peter is referred to as Petros, which means small stone. "This rock" is referred to as petra, meaning very large rock.

At the Vatican Council I (finished in 1870) in addition to the doctrine that the Pope is infallible, Catholic bishops proclaimed that their interpretation of Matthew 16 showed "clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been ever understood by the Roman Catholic Church." However Bible believing Christians believe that Jesus was talking about Himself as the Church's foundation. (1 Corinthians 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Peter 2:4-8) Even Peter never assumed the authority of anything other than an elder in the Church and talked about his fellow elders as being the shepherds of God's flock. There is no proof in the Bible which claims what Rome believes about Peter. This is where tradition comes in to the Catholic belief, that traditionally it has been believed about Peter, so it is as authoritative as Scripture.

Since the Church has claimed to be the only infallible authority on Scripture, they have over the years interpreted many scriptures to support their different traditions. It's not that they have no scriptural basis for their teachings- they do in so many areas, however they find scriptural base either by directly interpreting certain passages to mean what they believe it means or by finding their doctrines to be taught in Scripture. Dogmas such as the "immaculate conception", the bodily assumption of Mary and Papal infallibility are implied in scripture only, and when viewed according to the teachings of the Pope, they make perfectly good sense to Catholics.

Another doctrine believed by the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church is that of apostolic succession. This grew out of the move by the Church to an episcopal type of government in the first and second centuries. Bishops became the most important officials in the Church and by the late second century, they were considered the supposed successors to the apostles, complete with powers, wisdom and authority.

Bible believing Christians don't believe this. It is our belief that the very foundation of the church was built upon the apostles and prophets- with Jesus Himself as the chief cornerstone. The apostles were unique and had powers through the Holy Spirit, but those Powers didn't and do not get passed down throughout the ages from the apostles. They never had their own power- only what they were given through the Holy Spirit. We believe the apostolic age ended with the death of John- the last of Jesus' apostles, and that others appointed yes, by the apostles rose up and took their places within the local congregations, but they could not give these new leaders power to be apostles, because only God can do that.

In the next post, we'll look at the Roman Catholic traditions of being saved by works plus faith, purgatory, Marion worship, sainthood and other major differences between Roman Catholics and Bible believing Christians.

All information contained in this post was based on Fritz Rindenour's So What's The Difference- Chapter 2

So What's the Difference?

2009-03-21T19:24:00.000-07:00

It's been a long time since I have posted anything new here. I've missed it, but stuff has a way of piling up! I'm not sure still how often I will be able to post anything new, but will try at least to be a little more regular!

I left the last post quite a while ago, but at the end, I said we would go on to exploring the differences between Christianity and other religions. Most religions are pretty straight foreword in the different beliefs and philosophies, but it is still important, I believe, to understanding the major world religions and worldviews. As non Christians, it helps to understand what it is that people of religion base their world views or thinking and beliefs on. It is a help to people who may be searching for something more than life happening without a faith or belief, but who aren't sure of what it means to follow a particular religious belief. There are so many different beliefs in the world- some have a larger following than others, some are more definite about life changes than others, some have more rules, others have strange beliefs and are more "radical" than others, so understanding differences can help a person come to a more broad understanding of what they may want to follow. For Christians, it can help develop a deeper faith in the Bible, and can also help by allowing more open conversations with people of different beliefs. I know people of other faiths are a little more open to discussion if a person has taken the time to study their beliefs and religious background. For me, religious studies and apologetics has strengthened my beliefs and shown me so many ways in which Christianity is true.

It has taught me that even among other Christian denominations, there can be huge differences in the way the Bible is interpreted, if it even is studied as the Book of God at all. It has shown me that there are many groups and religious people in the world who call themselves Christian, but by what their religion teaches, the books they teach from and their view on Scriptures, shows very little of the True meaning of being a Christ follower- a disciple of Christ, which is what the Christian "religion" is all about.

This is where I would like to start my next series- on those denominations and other groups which are or claim to be Christian.

It is NOT my intention here at all to put down, or denigrate anyone else's beliefs. It is only my purpose to share what I have learned in my years studying- the differences, and how some ideas or rules placed in those other denominations and sects are contrary to the Bible.

I will be basing much of the series on a select few books of many which I have studied from the past decade, and whenever I use a particular book- I will include the author, book and chapter.
These books have valuable resources for anyone wanting to study world religions, and many of the authors are highly respected individuals. That said, if any mis information is posted here, please let me know, and I will do my best to rectify or look into it. I want all the information to be honest and up to date, so as to not misinform anyone, but I will investigate any complaints for validity. I repeat, that I will never intentionally write anything which is misinformation or meant as a put down of anyone or their beliefs. This is only to show the differences in a Biblically based Christian life and other beliefs.

The first part of the series will focus on the differences between The Roman Catholic Church and Protestant Christianity. Most of the information for this part comes from the book So What's the Difference by Ftitz Ridenour. Again, if there is something I write here which is wrong or misleading, please (politely) post a comment and tell me~ Thank you.

I guess the best place to start first of all, is a recap of what Biblical Christianity is. This will be the basis of Christianity for all the other comparisons as well.

There are many Christians in the world- many of them my family and friends who are not Bible readers, and are quite illiterate when it comes to knowing much about the Bible. Oh, they know the main "stories" but as for the meanings and life lessons which the stories are there for - they have no clue. To be a Biblical Christian, this means that Christians look upon the Scriptures of the Bible with reverence, respect and with the knowledge that the Bible is the literal Word of God, that it is God Breathed, and the men who wrote the books were inspired by the Holy Spirit of God. It means the Christian is diligently, seriously and carefully searching for the meaning of the Bible on IT'S terms- not our own to be changed whenever something written it is seeming to be out of date, not with our own time and understanding. We read the Word as we know it is God's Own Word. All throughout Christianity, there has been the need to separating the true Christian belief from other philosophies and heresies which kept on and are still creeping into the Christian body.

In the book So What's the Difference, Ridenour tells about the meaning of heresy from Webster's Dictionary. It is "an opinion held in opposition to the commonly received doctrine and tending to promote division or dissension." The common truths in the New Testament which shows the books are inspired by God, and His final Word on what Christianity really is has been subject to heresies and differences since the second century. The most commonly referred is Gnosticism. This is what many liberal Christians today believe in. There are many different denominations in Christianity- from Episcopal/Anglican, which is what I grew up in, to Pentecostal, Baptist, Methodist and many others. The core belief however among all denominations are the basic doctrine that "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures... He was buried... He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." 1 Corinthians 15:3,4

There is much more to Christianity than that, but this is the main doctrine, in which to compare other beliefs by. Ridenour describes this as a plumb line- which is what the Bible referes to when Amos showed the Israelites how God measures their actions according to His standards, His Word. (Amos 7:8)

So basically, Biblical Christianity is belief in the True Word of the Bible which is God Breathed- His literal Word, the reliable Word, Jesus was born of a virgin, died for the sins of the world, on the cross, He rose again on the third day, and that He is the Son of God, God come in the flesh.

Please read my earlier posts on how Christians believe in the accuracy, and truth of the Bible.

So, holding a Biblical worldview based on the absolute truth of the Bible makes me sound pretty sure of myself doesn't it? Sounds like I believe I have all the truth. Well, I don't. Only God holds all the truth because He is the only One who KNOWS all the truth perfectly. I am a Bible believing Christian, and I believe in the absolute truth of the Bible, but sometimes I am a pretty lousy Christian. I have made and will continue to make mistakes- so I am glad I have the Bible to show how accurate and reliable it is, and not only my word! It is the Word of God that I pass on to others. To teach and show Jesus. I am grateful for the knowledge through learning about other beliefs that Christianity is True- because of the Bible. My Biblical Christianity does not stand on my own word, my own actions or man made rules. It stands on faith and knowledge on the evidence proven that the Bible, is the Word of God.

Why then, if there is the Bible as our basis, are there so many differences between even just in Christendom? One reason is because the Words in the Bible have been challenged and denied by many different groups. Christ's apostles founded the Christian church within the first century, and it spread quickly despite persecution and death. The more suffering by Christians, the more the church grew. That is true even in our time as well. In places such as China and parts of Africa in which the church is hard persecuted against- Biblical Christianity is flourishing!

In the second century, the church founded by the apostles developed into the Catholic (or universal) church, and in the fourth century, persecution ended in the Roman empire because of Constantine, who became Emperor. He believed Christ helped him win the Empire and soon after, Christianity was the dominant religion throughout the empire. Because of the huge area comprised as the Roman Empire, the languages and different cultures different opinions and theological conflicts were one source of some of the splitting into different sects of the Christian faith. The main contention however was the insistence that the Church in Rome had the supreme power and authority over all Christendom. The biggest split came in 1054 when the Orthodox Church in the east split with the Roman Catholic Church in the West.

After that, the Roman Catholic Church became more powerful and added more doctrines which were not based on the Bible. The Church at that time became more corrupt as well, which finally led to the Reformation which was started by Martin Luther, a Catholic Monk. Luther intended to reform the Church by making the Bible the sole authority. The pope and other leaders rejected this and Luther was forced out.

The Reformation spread over Europe and those who "protested" against the Roman Church were come to be known as Protestants. Here within a thousand year span, Christ's church split into three major denomination. These in time split into smaller denominations.

So, how did the Gospel change into so many different views, which all call themselves Christian? Not only that, but they don't even agree on critical issues much of the time?

We need to start with the difference between the Bible believing Christian and the Roman Catholic Church- which compare the principals I already laid out on the Biblical Christian, and the Roman Catholic view being:

We'll see that next time ;-)

PS- You may be wondering what's up with the picture I posted? A wolf in sheep's clothing! We are to watch out for false teaching!

Part 2- Too Many Differences

2008-10-09T19:18:00.000-07:00

Please read part 1 below first. Thank you.

Now, my third point. In the section which mentions the Testimonies of Faith, they talk about the the central creed of Islam- There is no God but Allah, and Mohammad is His messenger. The letter then goes on to mention scriptures from the Qu'ran which talk about people’s souls- as depicted as having “three main faculties”- being the mind or intelligence- for understanding the truth, the will, which is made for freedom of choice, and sentiment, which is for loving the good and the beautiful.
Again, no talk of the Christian testimony-which is preaching the Gospel of Christ- they refuse to believe in the Christ as He is- and they will not tolerate any preaching of the Christian message to anyone of the Muslim faith- so much for allowing for freedom of choice.

In conclusion, I have to say I know there are many Christians who come off sounding holier than thou- some who seem to be intolerant of everything, and each and every one of us makes mistakes. I’ve never hid the fact that some of my biggest mistakes, some things I am not proud of have happened since I was born again in Christ. I will continue to try and allow the Holy Spirit to work in me and allowing good things to be produced, but until the time I reach heaven- I will still fall every now and then, as all of us will. There will be times where I could help someone in need, but didn’t, care for someone who was sick or hurt, but didn’t, give to someone one who needs extra, but didn't- but I will always try to do what I can, when I can- because I can- because of Christ. Most Christians I know would gladly give the last of what they have- whether in time or money or sweat- to help people in need. We will always attempt to share the Gospel of Christ with others, we will always try and help people understand what sin is, and how to receive grace and forgiveness- we will always do for the least of these- because we see Christ in them. To me, that shows that we Bible believing Christians are already loving our neighbors as ourselves- whether our neighbors are in down the street, in a shack in the poor part of town, in another city ravaged my natural disasters- or whether they are on the other side of the world- people made in the Image of God- even if they don’t believe in Him- but they are in desperate need of love, or comfort or shelter or food- we will be there- loving them as we would ourselves.
As for the men who wrote this letter- I pray that they are sincere, but given the history of the Islamic faith- and even in recent times such as Gaza in Israel- where peaceful land transfers are met with katusha rockets and suicide bombing attempts- I just have to wonder what they have up their sleeves. After all, Mohammad offered the people of Mecca an offer of peace and friendship- but when they didn’t convert- they were invaded by Mohammad’s army. It happens through out history of Islam- a chance to convert, disguised by peace- but met with force if not accepted.
I will never torture or kill, murder or maim someone who doesn’t believe what I do. I would though, rather place my trust in One who died for me on the Cross at Calvary- rather than a man who started a new religion based on power and might of a sword-

I will post more on differences of not only the Muslim religion, but of other religions and cults as well in up coming posts.

Too Many Differences

2008-10-09T19:13:00.000-07:00

This is a previoiusly written blog entry by me, which was posted in my AOL journal, No Apologies. It concerned a letter last year which was given by some Muslim groups to many Christian leaders around the world. I'd like to re post it here because it explains some of the differences between the Muslim faith and Bible believing Christianity. I will go into further details at a later time, but since AOL is closing down the journals, I felt the need to re post this. Here is Part 1.

There was a letter written by a large group of Muslims - addressed to Christians- mainly to leaders such as Pope Benedict, Archbishop Rowan Williams of the Church of England and others.
This letter is seen by some as a beginning dialogue for beginning of peace between the world’s 2 largest religions- a gesture made by Muslims . They are asking Christians to come join with them- to find commonality between Islam and Christianity, in order to attain peace for the rest of the world.
Sounds good doesn’t it? To many people- even some in the Christian community, this sounds like the start of a real solution to ending so much of the world’s problems, to where we all can live in a peaceful world, free of terror and war, free of persecution- replaced by a harmonious utopia. Again- sounds pretty appealingto most people.
Now, I have always prayed for peace- always wanted peace, but I have to tell you, this letter really disturbs me. After reading it a few times, seeing many things that are written, and how they are written- points to something ominous. Something that many non Christians, and even many more liberal and social minded Christians would not understand, who see this letter as something so promising- that could really lead to world peace and unity.
What has been done here though- Muslim groups have put the onus on Christians to accept this “offer” or we will look like we are war mongering religious fanatics- who want nothing to do with peace.
For those who do read it (and I suggest highly that you all do), you should be aware that it is written in a very tolerant manner, very benign, especially as it would appear to those who hold no particular religious views, or those who are not “Biblically” inclined. It will seem very sincere in it’s “why can’t we all just get along” message, but to those who have studied the Bible- who believe and know that it is God’s Perfect Word, to those who know even a little about the Islam religion, it does have dangerous and threatening undertones. Please let me explain:

The title itself seems harmless enough- “A Common Word between Us and You”.
The whole premise of the letter focuses on the fact that Islam and Christianity (and always in brackets including the Jews) have 2 main similarities, that if we focus on those, we can come to agreements and tolerance. These similarities being our love and devotion, worship and reverence for God, and the command to love our neighbors as ourselves. Again, this all seems very true and right- and I do agree that if we could all love our neighbors- and show love and respect, all would be well with the world.
The reference that the Muslims use in their recognition of God, taken from the Qur’an, includes the saying, “”We shall worship none but God, and that we ascribe no partner (or in other verses- He has no associate). They use this quote more than 14 times in 15 pages. They also use Biblical Scripture- mostly taken from the Gospel of Mark when Jesus says, “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One…” when talking about the greatest commandment to love God with all our hearts, all our soul and all our mind. The phrase “The Lord is One” is used more than 5 times.
To me, this way that Muslims are denying Jesus as the Son of God- God in the Flesh- the Second Person of the Godhead- Jesus the Christ- by denying the main message of the Christianfaith- that Jesus came to take on the sins of the world- and that all who believe in Him will be saved- that IS Christianity. Without Christ, without His redemption of the world- without His sacrifice, without the cross, without His resurrection from death and victory over evil- we have nothing. To continually mention these few verses over and over again is the Muslim way of saying they are right in their worship of god- because they are worshiping One god- Allah. They deny all scripture of Jesus being the Lamb of God- they deny the Holy Spirit – they deny the triune nature of God- claiming that we worship Three (only they confuse things by thinking we worship God, Mary- the mother and Jesus the Son). So in this letter, the way that they say these same verses over and over again, they are mocking the core – the very essence of the Christian belief. The Qur’an states that Jesus is only a prophet- one of the great ones of course, but Muhammad is the greatest and last of all. That God would never have one of His prophets die in a humiliating way as on the cross, and that God being all powerful and mighty- would never have a son. This contradicts the very words of Jesus- and the words of the Holy Bible scriptures.

Do you believe in theScriptures? Do you believe that they are inspired by God? If you hold the Holy Bible in any kind of esteem, as so many other religious groups seem to do- for example, Muslims see the truthfulness of the Pentateuch, they believe in the Psalms and they obviously hold Jesus in some regard as to include him as a great prophet. Why then, would someone who believes some of it to be true- see the rest as corrupted? To me, if any religious scripture can be corrupted- it is Not truth. Period. The Holy Bible is not corrupted- it is the same as it was when it was first written. One of the greatest discoveries- the dead sea scrolls attested to the fact that the scriptures found in those caves were the same as what was written in the Bible of the time they were found. These same scriptures I might add, that were around before Muhammad was even born. SO, if the Bible was corrupted as Islam claims, then the scriptures would be changed or altered. They were not.
If Muslims accept Jesus as a great prophet- yet deny His own claims, then they have a pretty dim idea of who deserves to be a prophet- if Jesus was a liar or a nutcase for His claims- yet the Muslims still hold him in high esteem, one would also have to wonder about their greatest prophet Muhammad- who by his own admission, wondered if he was possessed by Jiins (demons) when he received “messages”.
The Bible is explicit in it’s revelation of the trinity, but one has to read and re read with guidance of the Holy Spirit to understand. There is evidence of the Persons of God in the very beginning in Genisis, where the Hebrew word Elohim which is singular, yet is used in plural form. The whole Old and New Testaments point to a unique Godhead, that is a unity of three Persons in One God. To many people, the whole idea of the trinity is so confusing- as it was to me too. Just because it’s a bit confusing for our mortal minds ot get a handle on, does not mean that it’s a doctrine of demons as somany claim. This is a very poor example, but the closest thing I can think of to explain it. Take me for instance. I am one person. I am Carolyn. But- I am Carolyn the daughter, Carolyn the Wife and Carolyn the Mom. I have three main “personhoods” but am One person. Does that make sense? It is much the same, only way huge, in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. There is only One Almighty God, but there are three “personhoods” in Him.
If you read the account of Jesus when He is Baptized, you see the triune nature so beautifully illustrated. When John Baptizes Jesus, and Jesus rises out of the water, the Spirit of God came in the form of a dove and rested on His shoulder- then a voice came out of the clouds and said, “this is My Son, and with Him I am well pleased”. God the Spirit, God the Son and God the Father all in one scene if you will. There are many passages like this throughout the Bible.

OK. Now onto the next part of this letter. These Muslim men are claiming to want for us to come together, in our similarities of Loving God and loving our neighbors as commandments of God- and that it is through us that justice and freedom of religion are a crucial part of loving our neighbors.
Did you hear that? Freedom of religion. I have to wonder if these men can really say that with a straight face. The freest nations to practice any desired religion- any religion that someone wants to practice- is only found in Christian nations- that is The United States and somewhat in other western countries. The nations where persecution is rampant, were people are tortured, put to death, murdered and imprisoned are …. Predominant Muslim nations! I ask you to name me 1 Muslim nation on the planet where Christians or other minority religious people are treated with respect, are allowed to worship freely and publicly, and are included as prominent members of the society. There isn’t any Muslim country that is this way. From Indonesia to the Philippines, from Saudi Arabia to Iran, Sudan, Eritrea, even the so called more liberal nations such as Qatar and Kuwait here is still laws of some form or another- banning open Christian religious practices.
From kidnapping and murders in the Gaza strip, to stoning and imprisonment in Iran. To the suicide bombings in Israel and Lebanon, to the quiet removal of Assyrian Christians in Iraq- there is no peace for any other than the Muslim. And just how well do some of these nations treat their fellow Muslims? I know that in many places, such as Syria and Afghanistan, it is against the law for women to work outside the home- even when she is a widow. If she is a widow, she must have her children go to work to earn money for the household. Maybe some of these laws are changing as the world progresses, but there is still much intolerance for many muslims of different sects and tribes.

What is The Trinity?

2008-10-05T20:04:00.000-07:00

God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit
And God said, Let Us make man in our image, after our likenessGenesis 1:26 (a)
Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.Genesis 11:7
And Jesus, when He was baptized, went up straight away out of the water: and lo,the heavens were opened unto him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.Matthew 3:16,17
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name_ of the Father, the Son and of the Holy Ghost.Matthew 28:19
Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but it is the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.1 Corinthians 12:4-7
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all. Amen.2 Corinthians 13:14
For there are three that bear record in heaven, The Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.1 John 5:7
Each of these verses of Scripture shows a reflection of the Triune nature of God. While the actual word "trinity" is not in the Bible, there are many supporting Scripture verses to show the Trinity. Some claim that there is no attributes or partners to God- that He is One. Bible believing Christians agree there is only One God- but He is 3 persons in Himself. Is this telling us that God is confusing, therefore contradicting the Scripture verse that says, God is not the author of confusion? Not at all! God is not desiring that we be confused or afraid, but we must trust Him with what wisdom and knowledge He sees fit to give us. The idea or doctrine of the Trinity is not confusion- but a Secret Mystery! Just as we trust that the Word is true when it declares that creation brought order to chaos is a mystery to us, so is it that God is a loving Father, a sacrificial Son and comfort and wisdom of His Holy Spirit! To this I say Praise Him, for he is Awesome and too huge for my small mind to conceive!

Is there Really a Place Called Hell?

2008-10-05T19:59:00.000-07:00

Passages such as Matthew 5:20, where Jesus says, "For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. (emphasis mine) suggests that there will be people who will not get into heaven. "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will also disown them before my Father in heaven. Matt. 10:32,33. So if there are some who don't make it to heaven, where do they go? Are they floating around in some "in between" space? How about roaming the earth as ghosts? Purgatory? Annihilated? Waiting for a certain time to pass before they become 'good enough'?Well folks- there's only 2 choices offered in scripture. Eternity can either be spent in heaven with the Lord Jesus, or it can be spent for eternity in hell- which is as a real place as this earth is. While it is the desire of God that no one spend eternity in hell- not everyone has accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. I have written plenty of times that Jesus is the only way to eternal life in heaven. By no other name is one granted salvation. We can never be good enough on our own to earn our own salvation. Others can not pray someone else into salvation. After someone has died, there is no amount of candles lighted that can help them into heaven if they are not already there. There are no second chances, although that does not mean that you cease to exist, or that you are annihilated. Annihilation means utterly destroyed, and one can not be eternally punished if you cease to exist by being annihilated.
SO- the question remains, if some people will not spend eternity in heaven, is not floating around in the cosmos or in a place of temporary "Time out" as suggested in purgatory, if one is not destroyed that leaves no other conclusion is that they will spend eternity in hell.
Why should we really believe that an all loving God would send people to hell? Why should we even believe there is a place called hell? Because Jesus warned over and over again about hell. And He doesn't send anyone there- they go willingly by not believing on Him.
"But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matt.8:12"But I tell you that if anyone is angry with his brother will be subject to judgement. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Racca' (empty headed, dull or dimwitted) is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says 'you fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." Matt. 5 22"There they will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matt. 13:42"where '"their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched." Mark 9:48
There are many, many verses on hell. Jesus talks about hell more than He talks about heaven! If one claims to be a Christian, yet does not believe in a literal place called hell- they do not believe the words of Jesus. If one claims to believe in hell- there must be a belief in sin as well, for if none were sinners, there would be no need for hell. If one believes that ALL people will go to heaven, for God is a loving God- and Jesus is meek and mild, again, they do not believe the very word of Him. If one claims to believe that evil exists- one must also believe in the devil- Satan. You can be sure that Satan and all his demons will be spending eternity in the lake of fire. If you claim to believe in Jesus, but not in Satan- you don't believe in Jesus- who was tempted by Satan in the wilderness before His earthly ministry. If you believe that you can believe in Jesus, but not need to be "saved" from sin- you do not believe the Word- For ALL have sinned and deserve eternal punishment. You do not believe the Word, you are forgiven,go and sin NO MORE.
So, one or the other. It is all our own choice. You don't have to choose hell. You may say, "well, I haven't chosen hell- but I think I'll make up my mind later". My friend, that is the same as choosing hell. If you aren't for Jesus- you are against Him. You can not take His feel good messages only. You must take the whole Jesus- even the one who tells us Whoever believes in the Son is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only begotten Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Why not take the whole Jesus- the one who says, Come tome,all you who are weary and burdened. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me,for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.
It is your choice.

An Intelligent Discussion

2008-10-04T17:46:00.000-07:00

In this post, l'd like to finish up with a few more questions- having to do with science. Let's look at the few issues which are relevant today in the way science is taught in education, thought about in society, and why the debate on evolution and creation science. Doesn't science disprove the Bible and Christianity? Is evolution fact, or is it still a theory and haven't they proven that life evolved or came about by chance? Could it be possible that evolution and creation are both true? Are Christians giving credit to a God for things we just don't understand? Are there any arguments for creation? Isn't Christianity just against science? And, why , if it's not true, is evolution still taught in school?First off, doesn't science disprove the Bible and Christianity? This is one of those all encompassing questions, in which the answer lies in the other questions and answers we'll look at. For years, people have thought, or been taught that science and Christianity are incompatible and one cancels out the other. This couldn't be farther from the truth. Scientific discoveries that are being found more often than ever before may seem sometimes to disprove the Bible, but at deeper looks into things such as DNA actually build a case for a creator, and lend more credence to what is in the Bible. Is evolution a fact, or is it still a theory which hasn't proven that life evolved or came about b chance? Since evidence for evolution is about which type of evolution scientists are defining the word, we need to know which term means what. The term macro evolution is used for a process which supposedly creates new and complex organs or body parts. Micro evolution is the term used when an animal adapts to certain changes. For instance, finches in the Galapagos Islands have shown to change their body and beak shapes over several generations depending on whether shorter or longer beaks are better for gathering food. Same thing with other animals and birds which have changed to adapt with human population growth or having to move to another climate due to environmental reasons. An arctic hare can change the color of it's coat depending on winter or summer seasons to blend in with it's surroundings. These are examples of micro evolution.Macro evolution, on the other hand, is what is usually claimed by Darwinists, believing that macro evolution is actually micro evolution continued over a very long time through natural selection. This claim is controversial though, because so many experiments have shown that small changes do not accumulate to make large changes such as new body parts and organs. Scientists notice that only modifications of existing living things- not whole new ones occur. Macro evolution also assumes that change in the living world os unlimited, but the only changes they observe are limited. I do a lot of gardening- both vegetable and flowers. I know that we can breed new roses, better roses that can ward off infection and be pest resistant, or they can be bred to make new colors. There have been hundreds of new roses created- but they are still roses. It's the same with breeding animals. You can breed for stronger horses, keep dog breeds pure or mixed, but they are still horses or dogs. Evolutionists take these small changes and speculate on what might happen a million years from now of what kind of plant or animal it may be by then. Anyone who knows about breeding dogs knows that variation may start off at a rapid pace, but over a few generations, the variation reaches a ceiling that breeders can't break through. If they try, the dog will become weak and prone to disease and physical deformities. It's the same with breeding anything. Darwin believed that nature could select among organisms the way a breeder does, and that life evolved gradually over billions of years- from tiny steps starting from simple organisms. From these one celled organisms came birds and animals. Problem is, this chain has never been seen. We have millions of kinds of animals, birds and insects- but each animal is still distinct as it's own kind. The missing link has still never been found in fossil records which shows one kind metamorphosing into another kind. Reptiles are still reptiles- no matter that there used to be huge ones, and fur bearing animals are still fur covered. To sum this up, Scientists have never observed anything more than a variation of one kind- they have never seena kind evolving or changing into a completely different kind. The Bible, in Genesis talks about God creating each animal after it's own kind, and each tree and plant after it's own kind. Science has only ever shown this to be the case. Could it be possible that evolution and creation are both true? Some people think so. The idea is that maybe God directed evolution, and this is embraced by many Christians trying to bring their faith closer to what they have been taught about evolution.Imagining that the evolutionary theory allows for a creator is not allowed by establishment scientists. Ask any devoted Darwinist if they believe that God developed living forms through evolution- they will tell you that God has nothing to do with it, that the naturalistic evolution is the creator. Evolutionist George G Simpson said, "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind."Darwinist doctrine is based on the thought that nature is all there is. People who believe that creation and evolution can be both true don't consider carefully the claims of evolutionists or the detail given in the Bible about the creation. These are two totally polar ideas about the beginning of life. Either life began as a product of impersonal and meaningless slime, or we were created by an intelligent designer.Now, are Christians giving credit to God because we don't understand science? Let's look first a little closer at the issue of creation and design. DNA. DNA acts as a code within the cell. The average DNA molecules contain as much information as any large city library. Newer discoveries about DNA offer amazing evidences for God's creation. Since the middle of last century, geneticists have known that DNA contains instructions like written messages for every living thing, but higher organisms have DNA codes that are broken up by sections of which the sequences look like silliness- which is where the term junk DNA comes from. Some scientists have used junk DNA ro disprove the idea of creation. Other scientists though, have discovered the importance of this so called junk DNA in that it works to correct and regulate genes, turning them on and off when needed. It clearly show an intelligent function, which in turn points to something created instead of evolved. I'm an artist. Now, many people have probably heard arguments like this already, and it seems over simplified, but it is still a true argument. I am an artist. I always start a new painting by having a blank canvas, paints and brushes. I look at my subject, mix and arrange my colors on a pallet then start to paint what I see. Never, ever have I put a canvas on my easel, left it there for a few weeks then come back o find a created painted work. The paints don't arrange themselves on the canvas, and they certainly couldn't evolve themselves into a rendition of a sunset, animal or old barn which are some of the things I paint. No- I have to work with the colors, arrange them, mix them, apply them in areas where they will come together into a stripe on a tiger laying in the shade, or the rays f sun coming through a cloud. See? I create. My paintings are created- they don't evolve. They requirethought and much planning. It is the same with our universe and world. There is just too much evidence which points to order and method - to arrangement and application. According to some biologists however, creation beliefshave no place in a science class, therefore students see only the theory that is taught to them, and don't see much of the debate which shows creation. There are so many books which look closely at the arrangement of the solar system- the distance of the earth to the sun, the magnetic pull between, the length of time for the earth to spin etc. which shows an incredible amount of intelligence that if things were off by even minute, a pound, an inch, there would be no way that we could survive on this planet. The evidence in the way the human body is made also is incredible if you think about how the eyes, ears or brain works- how many miles of tendons and muscles, our bones, everything about our bodies is actually a miracle in itself. In Many places, the Bible talks about the intricacies of the human body, thought and spirit, and also the universe and how the earth moves within it. The Bible states scientific facts that were shown centuries before scientists proved these theories.So, are Christians against science? No way! I for one, as a homeschooling mom, am finding science incredibly fascinating and amazing in the way things work, and in all of my studies, I have come to even more of a knowledge of God than if I was uninterested in sciences. In modern times, many advocates of science would like to think that Christians are opposed to science, and even give that impression in education. John Maddox, editor of Nature wrote that "the practice of religion must be regarded as anti science." If we stepped back in time and asked men such as Copernicus, Newton, Kepler, Linnaeus, Kelvin and many others whether Christianity and science were incompatible, they would strongly deny it- as they were the fathers of modern sciences and deeply rooted in Christian beliefs. Christianity actually, if you study true history, helped inspire scientific studies. Back in the days of paganism, the world was looked at as ruled by gods and goddesses- millions of them. These gods determined when it would rain, when the rivers flowed and how life was determined by the stars. Genesis, in the Bible contrasts this by a reliable narrative of the beginnings of the world. As long as nature rules, as with paganism, scientists had a problem finding any answers but when Christianity showed that nature was not to be feared and worshipped, science was able to move forward and nature was able to be studied and observed. Experimental methods of science also has it's roots in Christianity as men like Newton and Galileo wanted to find out how God's creation worked- they wanted to do science instead of just talking about it. They didn't argue about theories- they tested them, as Newton did with gravity by dropping weights off places like the Leaning Tower of Pisa to see what the effects were. Men like Galileo argued that God's ways are not our ways, but that His ways in nature could be discovered by experimentation and observation. Not only this, but their discoveries brought them into a closer relationship with God in the way they became to understand how God's laws of nature worked. Many people are misunderstanding in the belief that since Galileo was persecuted by the Catholic church, that the church is against science. In reality, the Pope who condemned Galileo was not opposed to his scientific ideas, but to the way he used science as a way to attack the church's philosophy which had been adapted from Aristotle. Aristotle's philosophy encompassed ethics,biology, physics and astronomy. when Galileo pointed his first telescope and discovered that Aristotle's theories about the sun was mistaken, as Aristotle believed the sun to be perfect- but in reality, we know it is not. Soon though, Galileo was attacking all of Aristotle's philosophies, wanting to show the world as a machine operating on mathematical laws, with God as the great mechanic. Catholics got worried then, believing that Galileo's theories would destroy the morality of social order. It was really the opposition to different worldiews- not opposition to science. Since God created the world, Christians believe we have an obligation o study it and use it for God's glory and the benefit of all humans. We see science as a way to understand God's relationship with the world, so why would we be against it?So, why is evolution still taught in schools as fact if it's only a theory, and may even not be true? When I was in college, people who believed in the Bible or creation were made fun of, and viewed as unintelligent. Not many younger kids are willing to put up with ridicule from peers and teachers if they believe in the Bible account of creation. Those who are willing to stand publicly for their beliefs are in a sense pounded and attacked as religious fanatics, whose beliefs have no place in education. Who hasn't seen the movie, Inherit the Wind? I saw it, and assumed that it was based in facts about the Scopes Monkey Trial. Later, I realized that it is not at all about what happened at the real trial. In reality, the trial as staged by the ACLU, Scopes was not ever arrested and the people of Tennessee were intelligent and friendly to all the people who flocked to the town of Dayton during the debate. It is, however, this movie, which have given a whole generation a distorted view of Christian beliefs in creation, and which gave evolution a boost from theory to fact. In short, because this is getting too long of a post, whenever someone challenges publicly, the theory of evolution, people instinctively sense that much more is at stake than just simple differences of worldviews. It means that if evolution is disproved, people will have to face the existence of a creator God. If nature is all there is, then there is no god, and ethical and moral standards are not based on what God says in the Bible. Instead, they would e based on what individuals feel they should be based on. If God exists, He created us for a purpose, and we are obligated to live in conformity of His law and order, His laws of nature and morality.Things to think about until next time- consider the ways in which humans move and work. Is there really any evidence you can see which points to natural selection or evolution? Or are there so many complexities that one could see how Christians can believe that we are created? If you consider the solar system and think that what if we were existing on any other planet- how would we survive? Why is the earth the only planet in our solar system with living things on it? Why? Does this show evidence of evolution from a chemical soup, or towards a God with a plan? Suggestion, read the first few chapters of the Book of Genesis, and look at it from a skeptical point of view, then read it again with an open mind of a Creation point of view. Which makes more sense?
For the Story behind an amzing picture- go here

Often Asked Questions

2008-10-04T16:55:00.000-07:00

After looking at how evidence points toward the Bible being a true and Historically accurate document, I'd like to maybe use the next few posts to answer some tough questions that many people ask at one time or another.
Let's get right down to it and discuss a few of the major ones that many people ask. So, Who created God if He really does exist? What was God doing before He created the world? Why doesn't He show himself so more people would believe? Why don't more people believe- if He is real?
Are these some of the questions you've ever asked yourself, or someone else? Have you ever wondered these things? I have too. I know I will never know all the answers, and I also know that not all of the answers that are out there will necessarily change one's mind. It's not a person's mind Christ is trying to change any how- but the heart. Sometimes though, it's much easier on an intellectual level to get to the heart. That's what I hope I can accomplish every time I discuss Christ with anyone. Let's begin with the first question- Who made God?
The simple answer is that no one did. God has always existed. Everything we see around us had a beginning somewhere- from the homes we live in, a tree in the yard, clouds, rain, oceans. Each had a beginning. God had no beginning, so He didn't need to be made. Now for those who don't believe in God, many believe that the universe has always been- even in the Big Bang theory, something must have been around to create the bang. Now no one has witnessed the big bang, but we have had scientific observation that the actual energy of the universe has remained constant. No one has witnessed energy coming into or leaving existence. If energy is uncreated and eternal, it has always existed- which would make the question of who created the universe a meaningless question. As meaningless as asking who created God, since He too would have always existed. If the universe is not eternal however, it needed a cause, or if it has always existed, it needs no cause because it has always existed.I know this sounds really goofy and like a circular argument- but there are things that we just have never known about the universe. Even when scientists think they have all the answers, something comes up to blow their latest theory out of the water. This doesn't mean that scientists give up on trying- they still have faith that something will be known about our universe- to where it started and how. Likewise, there are certain things that we don't know about God, but many still have faith that someday their questions will be answered, that we need not give up on the idea that God exists, just because we don't know all about where He came from and when. I know that may not be much of an answer- so lets add on to that. God is greater than our minds can conceive. That is, if nothing can be greater, then nothing or no one could have created Him because that would mean something even more great would have created God. 17th century philosopher, Descartes pointed out that the very idea of God could only come from God, because we couldn't conceive of a God is God didn't give us the ability to do so.On the other side of this, is to try and understand nothingness. The first president of Princeton University, Jonathon Edwards, described it this way, "Nothingness is what sleeping rocks dream of". That is, we can not conceive nothingness. The fact of existance makes us consider everything there is and where it came from, and this ultimately leads us to God. We can't conceive of nothingness or nonexistence. The highest thing we can cconceive is God. Even if one doesn't believe in God, one knows there is something much greater than himself which exists, working in the whole scheme of things. Because we exist, we know that we can't exist unless something or someone brought us into existance.
So how come He doesn't show Himself more clearly if He does exist? Many people would like a miraculous event in order to believe in God. Many people of every age would like to see tangible proof of His existence. To those who would prefer a miracle in order to believe, I have to say that the Bible says do not put the Lord your God to the test. God has never had to resort to performing miracles just so people will believe. He does do miraculous things, but never just to satisfy our curiosity. He's not some guy in the sky performing magic tricks.If someone wants a miracle as proof of His existence, one only need to look at the story of the first Christmas- the birth of Jesus Christ. The Son of God, born of a virgin (see my earlier post if you missed this). He was the Son of God- but born in a smelly stable among not just ordinary people, but among camels and sheep and cows! Now, you'd think if a person invented God, and had this wild idea of a Son of God coming to earth as a human child, you'd expect that child to have pretty ideal conditions, such as being born in a palace among nobles and personal staff, with couriers traveling the country side proclaiming the birth of the new King. Think also that the Jews of the time were expecting a Mighty Messiah- a King surrounded by the armies of heaven, to bring an immediate end to the bondage and persecution and suffering of their fellow Jews. You'd think that if someone created this story, the Messiah would be born in a royal household. As C.S. Lewis said, "The central miracle asserted by Christians is the Incarnation. They say God became Man. Every other miracle prepares for this, or exhibits this, or results from this."When God became Man, He gave the world a perfect means to invite humanity back into a relationship with Himself. God has always let humankind choose freely to believe or not to believe. He has never coerced or ordered anyone to believe in Himself. He chooses the "foolish things" of the world- such as being born in a stable and laid sleeping in an animal trough, instead of being born into Royal comforts. He doesn't show Himself clearly simply because of His love for us. Because He wants us to be free to choose to love Him. He has shown us through coming to us in human form through Christ rather than showing us through coercive means of power which would have us fearfully showing worship to Him. Through faith or faithlessness, we have been freely able to accept His offer of a relationship with Him.
So, what was He doing before He created the world? Augustine, the 5th century Christian teacher answers this- God didn't have any time on His hands because time began with creation. Before creation, time didn't exist. The creation of the world didn't happen in time, it happened in a creation of time. Since God is eternal, the only thing before time was eternity. Some people may think that He was bored, therefore He created us. This seems logical to our finite minds, our imperfect selves, but since God is perfection and infinite, boredom is not even logical for God. An infinite creator such as God could always find interesting things to do- but we finite humans do become bored when we run out of ideas for things to do. One last point here- since Christians believe in the Triune nature of God- the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as One, God could never have been lonely before He created humans- He always had some part of Himself to keep Himself company! In perfect understanding and companionship, with His three Natures, He could never be bored or lonely. - I will explain more of the trinity in future posts.
Now. lastly for this post, why don't more people believe in God if He's real? Contrary to what our society teaches, just because something is not the most popular opinion doesn't make it false. We have been taught that if something isn't popular, it can't be true. Truth, however, often runs counter to popular beliefs and opinion. Remember there was a theory a long time ago when people actually thought the earth was flat, and if they sailed too far in one direction, they'd fall off the edge of the earth? To many people before flight was possible, the earth seemed flat, and no one had ever seen the curverature of the earth through pictures or by flying high up in an airplane or a rocket. To most people, what seemed true, what they saw (flatness) was true. We know that this is not the truth- we know the earth is round. (Side note here, the first books of the Bible talk about the roundness of the earth- centuries before science proved it). Some people's refusal to believe in God is almost always based on the notion that He exists. Many of these are moral arguments, which may seem to these folks to be intellectual. Many great Christians have, before becoming a Christian, faced almost an agony- only because intellectually, they knew there is a God, but morally, they are unwilling to surrender to the demands of Christianity. (Even Christians who have been Christian for a long time have a struggle with this). Many of these folks have found that the Truth of God is more important than moral objections. Some people get almost furious and venomous in their arguments that God doesn't exist. This is because it's a representation of rebellion against God. I once heard a atheistic scientist say that even though he has seen more evidence that points to creation than to evolution, he can Not and will Not bring himself to believe in God. This is a willingness to remain in rebellion to God, even though he has seen evidence of God. Many people can't see themselves, or bring themselves to the point where they bring on the death of their own willfulness. Rebellion is much easier, especially in this day where a prominent scientist would be ostracized in the scientific world if he professed a belief in God. It's much the same for many people. The thought of being made fun of, losing friends, family or employment because of a profession of Christian faith, it is much more tempting to just "go with the flow" and keep your popularity. We must try and break this willful rebellion, and God gives us a lifetime in which to complete this- by His Grace.
Next post, we'll look at some more of these often asked questions. Until then, think about this, Is it really too hard to believe that we were created to know God, to return His love and have a relationship with Him? If you have turned away from Him, what have you replaced Him with? If you have believed you never have known Him, can you think of things which are unexplainable- which may just point to Him in a way you've never noticed before?

Is Jesus The Messiah? Is Messiah God?

2008-10-03T20:49:00.000-07:00

So why is it so important to know if Jesus is God in the flesh? I mean, why don't we just believe in Jesus as a great teacher, a great prophet? Is it really so important to prove who He is?As we looked at in the last post, with Jesus' own claims, He is either who He said, or He's a liar and a nut, and that's no one to follow as a moral and great teacher. In this post, we need to look at why Jesus as Messiah is God, and how is that possible.
First of all, if Jesus really is who He claims, that He is God- that makes Biblical Christianity unique in our beliefs and authorative. If one the other hand Jesus was not who He claimed, there would be no difference between Christianity and any other religion, and it would mean we as Christians are following after a lie.Let's take a quick review of the basic logic for Christianity- In past posts, we've looked at evidence which proves that the New Testament is a historically reliable record of the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus taught that He is God Incarnate, and He proved this by fulfilling Old Testament prophecies regarding His birth, life, teachings, death and resurrection. From this, we can see that Jesus clearly is God. If it's still unclear. Let's go over more of the past evidence again quickly. The eye witnesses of Christ passed down contemporary accounts of Jesus' words and actions, and more importantly, His Words were not only memorized but also written down by qualified witnesses. The New Testament authors, disciples of Jesus, made it clear between their words and Jesus' words - this is where we get the term Red Letter Bible from, as Jesus' words are written in red. Now, Jesus' claims and deeds that show He claims to be God. He accepted titles and praise which is only to be given God. This is part of why so many of the Pharisees were wanting to stone Him, because they believed Him to be a blasphemer. They knew exactly what He was saying and claiming. The Jehovah God of the Old Testament refuses to share worship and glory with any other. When one looks at the Old and New Testaments, we can see how Jesus did accept worship, praise and glory- a right only to God alone. Another instance is in the Old Testament, when Moses kneels in front of the burning bush, while God is talking, He says, "Tell them, I Am have sent you." Later, in the New Testament, Jesus tells the Jews, "Truly, truly I say to you,.before Abraham was, I Am." In this case, the Jewish leaders know that Jesus is not only claiming preexistence before Abraham, but also equality with God. In other parts of the Gospels, we see Jesus make the same claim, only instead of people cursing Him and picking up stones in which to throw at Him, people fall to the ground in awe and worship.By assuming the same titles given to God, Jesus in many way made Himself equal to God. He forgave sins, He told leaders He had authority to heal, and He warned that He had power to raise and judge the dead. Since Jewish Orthodox belief is in the Old Testament, where only Jehovah God has the authority to forgive sin, raise the dead, and make judgements, they made plans to stone Him for the claims He was making.Another way that Jesus claimed He is God, is when He said, "Honor the Son, even as they honor the Father," later adding, " believe in God, believe also in Me." The Jews knew that no man should claim honor and belief with God.Now- is Jesus the Messiah, and is the Messiah God?The Old Testament foretold of Messiah and also told of His Deity. When Jesus claimed to have fulfilled the Old Testament messianic prophecies, He also claimed the deity attributed to the Messiah. In the Old Testament book of Isaiah, the prophet speaks of Messiah as "Mighty God". In the Psalms, the reference is made between God the Father and God the Son, "Jehovah saith unto my Lord (Adonai), sit thou at my right hand." In the Book of Daniel, the prophet Daniel has a vision in which the Son of Man is also called the "Ancient of days", which is a phrase that is used twice in the same passage to describe God the Father. In the Gospels, when Jesus appeared before the high priest, He was asked specifically whether he is the "Christ (Messiah), the son of God" Showing that the high priest left no doubt that he knew what Jesus had been claiming. In a nutshell, the Old Testament not only shows that the Messiah is to come, but also that He is God. Jesus in all of His words and testimony laid claim to the Messianic title and also to the deity of the Messiah, and removed any doubt when He answered the high priest, "I am; and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power,and coming with the clouds of heaven". At this, the high priest tore his robes and yelled, "Why do we still need witnesses? You have all heard this blasphemy!"As I said earlier, the Old Testament shows that worship is forbidden to anyone but God. Men were not to accept worship, and even angels refuse to be worshipped. Jesus did receive worship over half a dozen times without once telling the people not to do that.Jesus not only accepted worship, but also placed His own words on par with God. He requested men pray in His name. If someone accepts Jesus as a good teacher and a moral leader, yet rejects the way that Jesus not only accepted attitudes and actions due only to God, but He often Himself affirmed by words and actions only appropriate to Deity, they are in a word- rejecting God.The Jews of the time knew What He was claiming. Bible believing Christians understand today what He is claiming.Now, sometimes people will assume that the Bible is contradictory when Jesus seems to deny His equality with God. Phrases such as, "My Father is greater than I", and the time when Jesus said that He doesn't know the time of His second coming, that only the Father knows, and the most famously misunderstood, from His words on the cross, " MY God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" do seem contradictory.On a closer look however, none of these is contradictory. One needs to understand the Trinity to understand such passages. In the Trinity of God, the Father is greater than the Son in "office" or position, but not in the nature- because as Jesus says, "I and the Father are one", He was speaking of in nature or essence.It is only the function, as the Son that He is less than the Father. In Jesus not knowing the time of His second coming, it is because when He spoke this, He was speaking as a man. As a man, Jesus ate when He was hungry, slept when He was tired. As God, He never slumbers or sleeps. Jesus the person had two distinct natures- one wholly divine, the other, wholly man. Some things He understood from a human nature, other times He understood and taught from His divine nature.Now, it is one thing to claim deity, and another to have something to back up a claim like that. Jesus did both. He offered three miraculous and totally unique facts as evidence to His claim. He fulfilled prophecies made hundreds and thousands of years before His birth, he had a uniquely miraculous life, and His resurrection from the dead. All of these events are uniqu only in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.In past posts here, we have looked at how Jesus fulfilled prophecies, how His birth was a miraculous and factual fulfillment of prophecy- and totally unique. We looked at how He died, and facts of His resurrection. We looked at the changes that took place in His followers- from a group of pathetic and scared men, cowering in a hidden room- to proclaiming His Gospel message, even to death, none of which were painless. Now we have seen just a portion of the claims He made concerning Himself, and His diety.In the next posts, I would like to give answers to some of the hard questions, disagreements and disbeliefs concerning God and His Word, The Holy Bible. See you next time.
Further Bible references which were covered in this post:
The I Am Exodus 3:14, John 8:58 and 10:31-33
Power and Authority Jerimiah 31:34, Mark 2:10.11
Messiah as Mighty God Isaiah 9:6,7 , Matthew 22:42-44, Luke 24:25-27
Messiah sitting at the Right Hand of God Psalm 110:1, Mark 14:61-64
Son of Man, Ancient of Days Daniel 7:13-22,
Forbidden to Worship any other/Jesus Accepts Worship Exodus 20:1-3.
Deuteronomy 5:6-9, Matthew 14:30-33, Matthew 28:16,17

Liar, Lunatic or Lord?

2008-10-03T20:15:00.000-07:00

When you ask a person what they think of when they hear the name Jesus, they generally say that He was a good teacher, one of the prophets of God, a Jewish Rabbi or a good man. Many people, while not believing in the inclusiveness that Jesus is the only way to heaven, will usually believe that He was a good person, worthy enough to learn from. While not believing Him to be the Second Person of the Triune Godhead, they will usually include Him in those who have had a good and moral influence. When asked, most people will say something like , I believe that Jesus is among the greatest teachers of History, along with Buddha, Gandhi, Mother Teresa etc." Mostly pointing to His sermon on the Mount and His parables about loving enemies, helping the poor, loving neighbors as the righteous qualities that He taught and are trying to follow. There have been many good and loving people throughout the ages. They range from Mother Teresa, who selflessly helped the poorest of the poor and those separated from society because of disease and sickness. They include princesses, like Diana, who traveled war torn countries, helping those who have suffered loss of limbs from land mines. Heads of State, Presidents, teachers, pastors, philosophers. There have been many who have strived to make peace, lift the poor, comfort the sick and diseased. So what makes Jesus special? Is it His teachings on helping and loving, or is it more?Those who deny Him as God, yet include Him in a list of other moral and righteous teachers, would include a liar among their role models. If they don't believe that Jesus is God, then they must look at all of His claims that He is God. They must look at all the times that He made Himself equal to God. People have to look at the person of Jesus Christ and say whether He is a Liar, a lunatic or Lord. He can not be a righteous teacher if He is a liar. He can not be a good and moral leader if He is a lunatic. Jesus leave no choice. If you are going to believe in His Words about love, peace and the poor, you must believe His Words in which He claims to be God. Hisclaims are either truth or lies. Which will you believe? When He is claiming He is God, if He knew that He is not God, then He was deliberately lying and deceiving His followers. He tells us to be honest and not to cheat. If He was lying about His claim, then He was an evil person for telling such a lie and deceiving so many. He would also be incredibly stupid, for it was because of His claims that He was crucified. There is no way that someone who is a deliberate liar could be anywhere near a moral and good teacher. Historian Philip Schaff pointed out, "How in the name of logic, common sense and experience, could an imposter - that is a deceitful, selfish, depraved man - have invented and consistently maintained from the beginning to end, the purest and noblest character known in history with the most perfect air of truth and reality? How could He have conceived and successfully carried out a plan of unparalleled beneficence, moral magnitude, and sublimity, and sacrificed His own life for it, in the face of the strongest prejudices if His people and age?"Someone who lived, taught, and died the way that Jesus did could not be a liar.What if instead of lying about being God - He only just believed He is God? Say like maybe I think I'm Cleopatra? Maybe He sincerely thought He was God, but wrong? Would this not make Him delusional? Maybe even deranged? Why would so many of His followers believed His wacky claims and perpetuated them? I mean, maybe (very hard maybe!) I could convince myself that I'm Cleopatra, but I highly doubt I'd get anyone else to believe it too! So what gives? Was Jesus a lunatic? Looking at His skills in the way He taught, and the depth of His Words, He was completely sane. The fact that so many millions over the past two thousand years have followed Him, and even those who don't believe that He is God have paid so much attention to His Word, show that He is not a lunatic.He was not a liar, and not a lunatic. That leaves only one alternative. He is Lord.I know that He is Lord - the question He asks though, is "Who do you say that I am?"
Next time we'll look at whether Jesus is the Messiah, and How Is the Messiah also God?

How Hearts Were Changed

2008-10-03T19:58:00.000-07:00

In the last post, we looked closely at the crucifixion of Jesus to show that He really was dead, then we looked a little into the resurrection, and the events surrounding the empty tomb. Even though we've already looked a little at the apostles reactions to the resurrection, I'd like to go a little more into the people who were closest to Jesus before He was crucified, their change after His resurrection, and some other ways which look closely at how Jesus' life, death and resurrection changed the world.
First of all, the people. Who actually saw Jesus after His resurrection? We know He appeared to his disciples more than a few times. How about those who didn't believe His claims to be Messiah- His own family? His brothers were embarrassed by His words. James hung out with the Pharisees, and he and his brothers mocked Jesus. James actually went on to become a leader in the early church. He wrote the Epistle of James, which states, " I, James, a bond servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ" James was later stoned to death for his belief in his brother, Jesus, whom he once mocked. It would take something extraordinary to change from disbelief to quickly accepting death for a "change of mind".
Back up to the night before Jesus' arrest in the garden. Jesus was with His closest disciples in that garden. When the soldiers came to arrest Jesus, the disciples fled out of fear that they would be arrested and suffer the same fate as their leader. After the crucifixion, the disciples hid behind locked doors- afraid they would hear the soldiers come looking for them. Something happened though, in this upper room, which changed a group of scared and defeated men, to there they soon proudly, loudly and courageously proclaimed the Word of the Gospel in a time where the authorities were quick in punishing those who were spreading this strange new gospel. These same men did willingly suffer beatings, prison and eventually death for their faith in Jesus. Andrew, brother of Peter, the first disciple of Jesus became a preacher in Greece among other places. He proclaimed the love and forgiveness of Jesus as he was led to his own cross. Peter, the one who denied knowing Jesus three times the night of His arrest, who was afraid of "being found out" as one of those disciples, requested to be crucified upside down, because he felt he was unworthy of the same death that Jesus suffered. Matthew, once a tax collector, and after the resurrection, wrote the gospel in Hebrew and also was a missionary in Ethiopia and Egypt. He was speared to death for his testimony of Jesus. Simon, brother of Jude and James, became a Bishop in Jerusalem. He was later crucified in Egypt in the time of Trajan the emperor. The other Simon, the apostle became a preacher and spread the Gospel throughout North Africa and also in Britain. He was also crucified for his testimony. Philip became a missionary in what is now Turkey, was not only crucified but also stoned to death for his preaching of salvation in Jesus. Mark became an evangelist and first Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt. For his preaching the Gospel, he was burned alive. Bartholomew is said to have preached and translate the gospel of Matthew for the Indians before being beaten, crucified then beheaded in Armenia. And Thomas- whatever happened to that doubter? Doubting Thomas who wouldn't believe in Jesus' resurrection until he could put his finger in the wounds of Jesus before he would believe. Thomas became a preacher all across the middle east, into Asia to India where he was shot with a dart.
Now, all the close disciples of Jesus were put to death for their faith in Christ, except for John, son of Zebedee, who may have been the same John who went on to write the Book of Revelation. John was not martyred for his belief, but instead exiled to an Island off of Greece named Patmos.
Not all of the people who saw Jesus alive after the resurrection suffered death sentences, but under the brutal regimes of emperors such as Caligula, Nero, and Domitian, who slaughtered thousands of new Christians. The were put to death in some cases for the entertainment of the people. Put to stakes, drawn and quartered, thrown to lions and other horrible punishments. It was not easy to become a believer of the "new" Christian religion back then, and in many cases around the world today it is still not easy. Christians know that they may suffer, as they have always known, because Jesus told His followers they would suffer. If the resurrection never happened, people would not have suffered. there would have been no need. However, the fact that so many of the followers and disciples willingly took punishment even to death, for preaching and teaching the Word of Jesus proves the resurrection of Jesus Christ. No one would make that kind of change for a known lie. Men will always be willing to die for what they believe in- but NO ONE will die for what they know to be a lie.
As any Christian will proclaim, that we have a faith not based on a myth or fable. Our faith rests firmly on an empty tomb and a resurrected Savior. if we suffer because of His name, we suffer willingly.
In the next post, we'll look at an argument that you may have heard already. Jesus: lunatic, liar or Lord?

Did Jesus Really Die?

2008-10-03T19:55:00.000-07:00

In the last post, we looked at the impact of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, and how these events separate Him from every other religious leader. Now, that is assuming one believes in the reality of the resurrection. Did Jesus really rise from the dead three days after his death? Let's look at the evidence in the same way as we did for the accuracy and inerrancy of the Bible.To determine if it is possible to raise from the dead, we need to determine first if He was really dead. Again though, lets first see exactly what Jesus suffered before and during His crucifixion. He was scourged, which means He was stripped and whipped with what was known as a flagrum. A flagrum had a long handle in which long leather thongs of different lengths were attached. Woven into the ends of these thongs were jagged bits of bone and lead to tear the skin with every lash given. Jesus was given at least 40 lashes. A medical description just of the lashes given are described this way: The heavy whip is brought down with full force again and again, across the person's shoulders, back and legs. As it continues, the skin is broken, then with each lash, the gashes get deeper and the skin and underlying tissue is bruised. After a while, the skin is hanging in torn ribbons, the entire area is unrecognizable, pouring and spurting arterial blood, leaving the person near death.So, Jesus was most likely near death at the end of the scourging He received. After this, a crown of thorns was placed on his head, to mock Him as the "King of the Jews". I don't know what kind of thorns these were, but I once or twice got "poked" by bougainvillea thorns which can be as long as an inch, and very pointy. It hurt like crazy, and I could not imagine having something like this being pushed hard into my scalp.He was forced for a while to carry His own crossbar, which was a long piece of wood called a patibulum - also used for barring doors. These weighed about 110 pounds, and was strapped to the victim's shoulders.The actual crucifixion involved nailing a victim's hands and feet ( in one tomb discovered back in 1968, there was a crucifixion victim found with a 7 inch spike driven through the heal bones, and both legs fractured.). During a crucifixion, the victims legs were broken to speed up the death or terminate the torture. They were broken by using a club below the knees. Doing this prevented the victim from trying to push himself up, relieving the tension on upper body muscles. Once the legs were broken, and the victim could not pus himself up, suffocation or heart attacks would follow, putting the victim out of misery.It is interesting to know that Old Testament prophecies showed that Christ would not have a broken bone - and as Jesus was already dead by the time the Roman guard broke the legs of the other two men who were crucified beside Him, they did not need to break His legs, so prophecy was fulfilled here.Another way the guard determined if Jesus was really dead, was to drive a spear into His side- which spilled blood and water. The water was fluid which had leaked from the sac surrounding the heart, which shows that He died by shock and constriction to His heart.Only after the guards had determined He was dead, and a certification telling this was given to Pilate, was Jesus taken down from the cross. Crucifixion was a well known form of execution in the time of Jesus, so this is evidential fact pointing to the crucifixion.Now, when Jesus was buried, He was placed in a tomb, which was hewn out of the solid rock of the hills. The New Testament shows that Jesus' burial followed strictly the customs of the Jews. After He was "prepared and laid in the tomb, the Sabbath had come, which meant no more physical labor, even a burial could be done, so Jesus was left in the tomb. The tomb was then sealed, by rolling a large boulder in front of the opening. This "stone" would have been at least 1- 1/2 tons. The burial tombs often had a groove built in which the stone covering would rest until it was time to seal the tomb. Once it was ready to close, the wedge to hold the stone was removed, the stone was pushed and gravity would then roll it along the groove until it was firmly in place. Now, there were also guards stationed at the tomb, because Roman and Jewish leaders were afraid that Jesus' disciples would come and "steal" the body. If a Roman guard was stationed at the tomb along with the Jewish Temple guard, there would have been plenty of people- upwards of 20 guys, armed and ready, is someone would try to take the body. The Temple guard were forbidden to sleep or even sit down or lean against something if he were on duty- by threat of a severe beating. The Roman guard were just as strict. Along with the Roman guard, there was also a Roman Seal placed on the tomb stone. This was to prevent anyone with tampering with the stone, by order of the Roman Authority. Something did happen though. Something big enough to change the course of History. The tomb was empty days later.The consequences of breaking the Roman Seal that had been placed on the tomb would have been severe, meaning execution by crucifixion. It would make sense then, that most people would shy away from knowingly breaking the seal. Even the disciples hid when they found out Jesus wasn't there.The stone was rolled away- which would mean someone had to roll this stone, over 1 ton, back up an incline. The only thing here is, when the women found the tomb, the stone was rolled away. Rolled away, means it was separated from the tomb, and set a distance apart from it. The words that John used were Greek for "Picked up and taken away". For one thing, the whole guard regiment would not be deaf if enough people would come to move the stone, and the stone would not have been able to be picked up anyway. Now someone or something must have moved that stone- someone which frightened the Roman Guards so much that they fled from their post. Desertion from one's post meant death. Death in these cases would be being burned alive, so it would not make much sense for the guards to just get up and go home. You couldn't get me to do something like desert my post with that kind of death threat over my head.
Ok this is kind of long, so in the next post, we'll look at the rest of the resurrection, and how it changed the lives of many of His followers.

What About the Resurrection?

2008-10-03T19:53:00.001-07:00

In the last post, we looked a little more into the prophecies concerning the life of Jesus. There is so much more to His teachings and life, but to keep this all simple- showing how the Bible is unique- that the Scriptures are in fact Holy Word of a real God, who came to this earth in the person Jesus the Christ, who came for a specific reason. Now many people believe that Jesus was a real person- which we saw in the last post- but many believe He was just an interesting person in history, or that he was one of God's prophets, a good teacher, or just some guy who had a way of convincing gullible people to follow him.There are really only three ways in which Jesus Christ separated Himself from other religious figures and beliefs - Through His claims to be God (which we will look into later), through His death and through His resurrection. There are many, many different religions, some pagan beliefs that were around long before Christ- and many religions now. Some have huge followings like Hinduism, Islam and Buddhism. Others have a large following such as Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormonism, which both claim to be Christian. There are many different denominations even among just the Christian religion, as there are different "sects" of religions such as Islam. Out of all the major and even minor leaders such as the gods of ancient Egyptian, Greek or Roman mythology- to the belief in Mohammad, Buddha or Brahman- only One- Jesus the Christ, gave His life for mankind. Others have died of course- but they never offered themselves as a sacrifice for the world. Now, if His story ended there, at the cross- there would not be such a thing as Christian today. Why is this? The other event in which separated Jesus from all the rest- His Resurrection, His raising Himself from death- three days later. How can we believe this is true- after all, it happened nearly 2000 years ago, and there has really been no well documented cases of coming back to life since then. Maybe, if some believe in ghosts- He could have just been a ghost. Maybe He was only reincarnated as Himselfto live life again- for those who believe in reincarnation. There could be any number of possibilities. How do we know which is the truth? Well- we can look at what the scriptures say to narrow it down- "Put your finger here: see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." Jesus said this to His disciple Thomas after appearing after His death. A chapter later, we see Jesus eating breakfast with His disciples. In just these few verses, we can rule out the ghost theory. Ghosts neither have solid matter in which to "feel" mortal wounds, nor do ghosts eat. As for reincarnation, I used to think there was some thought to that- but there are just too many things which don't add up- I will not go into a whole argument here though. For one, even if Jesus was reincarnated- that in itself would be unique as He reincarnated into Himself. No one has ever done that if you believe in reincarnation. Reincarnation is basically a belief that one has to be constantly reincarnated after death- to live again to make up for whatever past deeds one has done in previous lives. That leaves the theory that He did in fact rise again- in the flesh. So- how do we find out the truth? Mainly in the same way we looked at the evidence for the Bible- through historical, internal, external and witness accounts.As former agnostic Josh McDowell states in his book- A Ready Defense, "After more than 700 hours of studying this subject and thoroughly investigating it's foundation, I came to the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is either one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted on people, or it is the most important fact in history."So- does Christianity have an historically accurate basis, and does sufficient evidence exist for the Resurrection?There is much historic, literary and even legal testimonies for the fact of the resurrection. Roman Historical scholars, Literary geniuses and critics, professors of ancient history and even Chief Justices and lawyers have all written about the facts of the resurrection- in fact, many who have written about the truth of the resurrection actually began writing to refute it- but in studying and examining evidences, they came to no conclusion except for the truth that the resurrection did happen the way it is written about in the Bible.When one reads through the Old Testament in the Bible- the death and resurrection of Jesus is foretold in prophecies. Jesus even pointed these prophecies out to His disciples before He was arrested and crucified. Earlier, I pointed out that Christianity would not exist if Jesus had not resurrected- it is the One most important basis of the whole Christian faith. You can not have a true Christian- that is, Christ based belief if you do not believe that Jesus Christ raised Himself from the dead. The apostle Paul- who was once one of the most brutal "bounty hunters" , that is, he once searched out Christian believers only to imprison, beat or kill through capital punishment. After he saw Christ, he became one of the most fervent followers. He wrote, "But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ was not raised, then our preaching is in vain; your faith also is in vain. Moreover we are even found as false witnesses against God that He raised Christ., whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised,your faith is worthless." Now, the faith of the early Christians is based on what they saw. Jesus showed Himself to hundreds of people- in different places, different times. Death by crucifixion was a brutal, painful and cruel death. Jesus' disciples saw Him die an agonizing death-most, if not all didn't understand His teachings- telling them He would rise again three days after. It would be hard to see someone die such a death- and believe that you would see them alive again. In my next post- we'll look more deeply into all the historical facts that prove the resurrection- through method, eyewitnesses and Roman/Jewish historical traditions.

Messiah Prophecies

2008-10-03T19:47:00.000-07:00

In the last post, we looked at the uniqueness of the birth of Jesus. In this segment, let's look at the many Old Testament prophecies which tell about the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus- all of which were described 4000- 500 years before He was born. Some skeptics try and gloss over the importance of the prophecies, claiming that Jesus and His followers molded His life to fit the prophecies- but this is impossible, especially in the explicit prophecies of His birth and birth place which state the fact of His earthly ancestral lineage, and also that He was to be born in Bethlehem, even though Mary and Joseph were living in Nazareth before He was born.Another objection is that it is all a coincidence, that you could find many of these prophecies fulfilled by other historical figures. Again though, while maybe it is possible for literally anyone to fulfill 1 or 2 prophecies- it is virtually impossible to have all 60 prophecies fulfilled by 1 person. Scientists and mathematicians have worked out the probabilities of all the prophecies. Even if 1 person fulfilled even just 8 of these prophecies- the probability is 1 in 10 to the power of 17. Now I stink at math, but even I know that those are incredible odds- that's a 10 with 17 zeros behind it! And that's only with 8 of the prophecies fulfilled. Imagine what the chances are given that Jesus Christ fulfilled every one~Let's look at some of the prophecies, and maybe we can, for ourselves see how incredible it is to have these fulfilled in Jesus.First, let's look at where the future Christ would come from- through lineage, and birthplace. In Genesis 3:15, the first book of the Old Testament, is the first prophecy. This verse not only shows that the Messiah (a title I will use for the rest of this post- for Jesus is Messiah described in the Old Testament) will be born "of the seed of a woman". All humans, as we discussed in the last post are obviously born of seed of men. This verse also describes the undoing by the Messiah,the works of Satan, when he shall "bruise His head".In Genesis 9 and 10, we have Noah and his three sons- Shem, Japheth and Ham. Today, all the nations in the world can trace their linage back to these three guys, but the lineage of the Messiah is narrowed down to the lineage of Shem. In Genesis 12, 17 and 22, we are introduced to Abraham- in 2000 BC. God makes the promise of the Messiah through Abraham's second son, Isaac, who then had 2 sons- Essau and Jacob. God chose Jacob. Jacob went on to have 12 sons- which became the 12 tribes of Israel. God chose the tribe of Judah. Out of the tribe of Judah- which included thousands of people, the line of Jesse was chosen (Isaiah 11:1-5) Jesse had 8 children, and in reading 2 Samuel 7:12-16 and in Jeremiah 23:5 we can see that out of Jesse's family, God chose the "house of David". Now, when we get to David, there is a prophecy in the Psalms, most of which were written by David- which says, "His hands and feet will be pierced" which describes the crucifixion of the Messiah- a method of death that was not even invented yet.When we get to Isaiah, we have the prophesies of the virgin birth, but there are other prophecies in Isaiah which tell of the social/political climate and the reception that the Messiah will face- from His own people, the rejection bythe Jews, the belief by the Gentiles, a voice going before Him as a "voice in the wilderness", preparing the way for Him- in the person of John the Baptist. Isaiah 8:14, 28:16, 49:6, 50:6, 52:13-15, and 60:3. Psalms 22:7,8 and 118:22. Malachi 3:1
Micah 5:2 tells the Messiah will be born in a tiny, obscure town of Bethlehem.
Verses in Zechariah 11:11-13, Psalm 41, Jeremiah 32:6-15 and Matthew 27:3-10 all tell about the Messiah's betrayal, that He will be betrayed by a friend, for 30 pieces of silver, which will then be thrown onto the Temple floor, that the money would then be used to buy a potter's field.
Malachi 3:1, Psalm 118:26, Daniel 9:26, Zechariah 11:13 and Haggai 2:7-9 tell that the Messiah will come into the Temple (as it was still standing) which is amazing in the timeline, as the Temple was standing until 70 AD when it was destroyed and has not yet been rebuilt.
So here we have just a few of the Old Testament prophecies describing the birth, birthplace, time, life, circumstances, death and method of death of the Messiah- all of which were fulfilled in the person of Jesus.Jesus is the only person in the history of the world which proved the prophecies to be true in His first coming. He is the only one who can fill the rest of the prophecies of the Old and New Testaments, His second coming. We will get to those some day soon, but next time- we'll talk about the most controversial aspect of Jesus next to His unique birth- His death and resurrection.

Who is this Jesus?

2008-10-03T18:46:00.000-07:00

In this post,we'll look a little deeper into the life of Jesus- mainly the impact of such an obscure Jewish man had on the world and in History. First off, most people believe that there was in fact a man named Jesus who walked the earth- even some atheists believe this. The argument is on who this person Jesus was/is. Basically only Christians believe that He is God who came to earth as a man. Some think he was a good teacher, one of the prophets, a "godly" man, a cult leader who for some reason has had a 2000 year following.So... Would the Real Jesus please stand up?Since the fact is basically established that Jesus was a real person, let's first look at how He came into the world. Now, many people who don't believe in miracles do have a hard time with the virgin birth. Even some of the more liberal Christians seem to come up with more believable scenarios about the Birth of Jesus. The basis for believing in miracles rests on the Biblical concept or idea of God. Even if you don't believe in God, stay with us here- we'll be getting back to other discussions in a bit. If you believe there may be a God- could you stretch your mind a little to include that there might just be truth to miracles?The belief in the miraculous birth of Jesus is one of the hardest for anyone to wrap their minds around- and one of the main things that keep people from accepting the truth of Christianity. It is beliefs like the virgin birth that lend to that air of superstition surrounding the Christian beliefs that most people think is bogus.The Bible though, tells that God decided that His Son would have a miraculous entrance into this world. Seven hundred years before His birth- the prophet Isaiah declared, "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign; behold the virgin will be with child and bear a son,and she will call His name Immanuel" Is. 7:14. The Name Immanuel means "God with us."All four Gospels in the New Testament record the fulfillment of this prophecy. The Bible declares the virgin birth as a fact of History, and in previous posts, we've looked at why the Biblical Scriptures is a valid and believable Historical document. So why a virgin birth? Why not just come into the world the usual way? Well, Jesus was not just a usual person- He was not newly created as we are. The Bible tells us in John that Jesus existed with God in the beginning, and since He is the eternal Son of God, His birth must be of a divine nature, and this is what the Bible tells us happened. The virgin birth was a divine intervention. Another reason, is that Jesus is sinless. To be a perfect sacrifice for all humanity, the sacrifice had to be "without blemish- spotless." Since the world is sinful, the birth of our Savior had to be a miraculous and divine entrance.Some people may think that the account of the virgin birth came from some other pagan mythology. There is no basis of truth to this theory, as there is no other mythological hero which claims a virgin birth, and from the Jewish culture viewpoint, it would be unthinkable and blasphemous to use pagan or mythological stories for their own purpose. Most mythological deities were told of, and many stories do have unusual births, but for the most part, none of these deities ever existed, and none of these myths have anything to do with Biblical writings.C.S. Lewis once a devout atheist, had this to say about the virgin birth: Thus you will hear people say, "The early Christians believed that the Christ was the son of a virgin, but we know this is a scientific impossibility." Such people seem to have an idea that belief in miracles arose at a period when men were so ignorant of the course of nature that they did not perceive a miracle to be contrary to it.A moment's thought shows this to be foolish, with the story of the virgin birth as particularly striking example. When Joseph discovered that his fiancee was going to have a baby, he naturally decided to repudiate her. Why? Because he knew just as well as any modern gynecologist that in the ordinary course of nature women do not have babies unless they have lain with men.No doubt the modern gynecologist knows several things about birth and begetting that Joseph did not know. But those things do not concern the main point- that a virgin birth is contrary to the course of nature. And Joseph obviously knew that.Now, this may not convince an unbeliever that Jesus was or is who He said He is, and many may still think that He was just some good teacher that lived somewhere in the middle East a few thousand years ago. Some may think that this account of the virgin birth proves nothing. Maybe so- if we were only going to concentrate on this one fulfilled prophecy. We will look at other ways tin which Jesus is unique, and see what kinds of evidence there is to back up claims of His being God the Son. The accounts of the virgin birth may still be hard to swallow- anyone as C. S. Lewis pointed out, that understands the scientific ways of how a baby is conceived and born can have a hard time imagining something such as a virgin birth. However, if you even believe in any one portion of the Bible- whether it be one or all of Jesus' teachings, any of the prophecies, or any of the historical facts in the Bible, we must, by historical, archaeological and internal manuscript evidence- believe in the miracles contained in Scripture, even if we don't completely understand the concept of miracles. In the next post, we'll look at more of the prophecies written from 4000 to 500 years before Christ, and how they were all fulfilled in the person of Jesus.

Validation

2008-10-02T19:31:00.000-07:00

In the past 2 posts we looked at different kinds of "tests" to determine the reliability of the Bible as a true and accurate document. We looked at the reliability of the manuscripts, and also at the internal evidence- or the reliability and truthfulness of the actual writers of the Books contained in the Bible. This time, we'll look at the external evidence- that is from sources other than those who wrote the Bible, and focus more on other historical materials and also archeological evidences that point to the Bible as being inerrant in it's content, and the validity of the words and descriptions.While there aren't a ton of writings from non Christians - there are a number of sources which were written very close to the time of the Biblical authors who were the disciples and followers of Christ and the first Christian followers.The Jewish Historian Josephus (A.D 37-100) writings contain references to many of the people mentioned in the New Testament. From Antiquities XX 9:1, he writes, At this time, there was a wise man called Jesus... Pilate condemned Him to be condemned and to die. And those who had become His desciples did not abandon His discipleship. They reported that He had appeared to them three days after His crucifixion and that He was alive; accordingly, He was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders (xviii 33, Arabic text)
Roman historian Corneilius Tacitus (A.D 55?- after 115) Wrote: Hence to suppress the rumor, he (Emperor Nero) falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also. (Annals XV 44)
Greek Satirist, Lucian (2nd Century) wrote about Christ:The man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world....Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they were all brothers one of another after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws. (On the death of Peregrine)
These aren't exactly friendly views of Christ or His followers, which makes the evidence of the historical fact of Christ's crucifixion and the beginnings of Christian faith all the more believable. If there was only evidence from believers or those who sympathized with Christ and his followers, it just wouldn't be as believeable. Here's one more (although there are more, I don't have the space in one entry to include them all)
The Babylonian Talmud (Jewish Talmud completed in A.D. 500) contains the following reference to Jesus in the verse from Sanhedrin 43a, "Eve of Passover":On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth) and the herald went before him for forty days saying (Yeshu of Nazareth) is going to be stoned in that he hath practiced sorcery and beguiled and led astray Israel. Let everyone knowing aught in his defense come and plead for him. But they found naught in his defense and hanged him on the ever of Passover.
Combining just the above quotes from secular sources, wecan see that there is evidence of an actual person named Jesus, from Nazareth, who by decree from Pontius Pilate- Roman Governor of Judea, was put to death by crucifixion on the cross. There is also evidence here that shows that people did in fact claim to see Jesus alive 3 days after His death. These statements show people, places and events which are written about in the Bible-
Now, for the second part of the external test, we come to look at archaeological evidence. Even only in the past few years there have been many major finds in and around Israel which show items from people and places written about in the Bible- both Old and New Testament times. Here are just a few examples, and if you're interested in learning more, I'll leave links at the end of this post for more articles.
We looked in the earlier post in this series at the Doctor Luke, who wrote the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, and showed how he was meticulous in writing down geographical, political and other facts in his writings. At one time however, Historians thought Luke had totally goofed on his portrayal of place and times surrounding the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:1-3) Critics argued that there had been no census taken, that Quirinius was not Governor of Syria at that time and that no one had to return to their ancestral home place.
It is now known that Romans had a regular enrollment of taxpayers and that they also held a census every 14 years. This was begun under Agustus and the first took place in either 23 or 22 B.C. or in 9-8 B.C. The latter one would be the one which Luke was referring to.Also, evidence has been shown that Quirinius was governor of Syria around 7 B.C. This is based on an inscription found in Antioch ascribing to Quirinius. Because of this finding, it's assumed that he was governor twice- once in 7 B.C. and in 6A.D ( the date ascribed by Josephus)As for the practice of enrolling for the census, a papyrus found in Egypt gives the directions for this practice. It reads: Because of the approaching census it is necessary for all those residing for any cause away from their homes should at once prepare to return to their own governments in order that they may complete the family registration of the enrollment and that the tilled lands may retain those belonging to them.
Until 1961, the only historical reference to Pontius Pilate were only made because the Gospels alluded to him. Two Italian archaeologists excavated the Mediterranean port city of Caesarea that served as the Roman capital of Palestine (the name Palestine was given by the Romans) During their dig, they discovered a 2x3 foot inscription which read "Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea, has presented the Tiberium to the Caesareans."
In the Northwest quarter of the Old city of Jerusalem, was the area known as Bathesda (New Town) in the 1st century A.D. Excavations near the area a hundred years ago uncovered the remains of an ancient Church which marked the spot of Bathseda. Later excavations uncovered the pool itself- or actually two pools,lying north and south with a rock partition between them.
Here's one more:
Matthew writes that some of the guards around Jesus' tomb came into the city to tell the chief priests all that had happened (after the Angel came and rolled the stone away from the cave opening) After talking about it all, the priests and elders paid the Roman soldiers a large sum of money in return for the soldiers telling everyone that they saw Jesus' own disciples come and roll the stone and take Jesus' body away. "You are to say, 'His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep' And if this should come to the governors ears, we will win him over and keep you out of trouble". (Matthew 28:11-15)
Well. this news did reach the governor and went all the way to Rome as well. The Emperor, most likely Claudius, sent word back to Palestine- his decree, originally written in Latin, and translated into Greek, was posted in Nazareth- the home of Jesus. In 1878, a white marble slab was found with this inscription:Ordinance of Caesar. It is my pleasure that graves and tombs remain perpetually undisturbed for those who have made them for the cult of their ancestors or children or members of their house. If, however, anyone charges that another has either extracted the buried, or maliciously transferred them to other places in order to wrong them, or displaced the sealing on other stones, against such a one I order that a trial be instituted, as in respect of the gods, so in regard to the cult of mortals. For it shall be much more obligatory to honor the buried. Let it be absolutely forbidden for anyone to disturb them. In case of violation I desire that the offender be sentenced to capital punishment on the charge of violation of sepulcher.
Scholars date the stone before A.D. 50, and since the Roman government didn't assume the administration of Galilee until after teh death of Agrippa, the inscription must have taken place after A.D. 44 Claudius was emperor from 41-54, and he expelled all Jews and Jewish Christians from Rome.He seems to have studied the Jewish situationand not liking it, he wrote in one of his letters of A.D. 41, that he "expressly forbids the Alexandrian Jews to bring or invite other Jews to come by sea from Syria. If they do not abstain from this conduce,I shall proceed against them for fomenting this malady common to the world. " It is commonly believed by use of the word 'malady', he was talking about the growing Christian community across the Roman Empire.
Well, that's about all the time I have for this subject. Please go to the previous 2 posts if you haven't read them yet, to understand how these historical tests have proved to millions that the Bible is inerrant, totally reliable in it's content and truthful in every way. Most of this evidence has been given for the New Testament, however as much evidence proves the validity of the Old Testament as well- and keeping in mind that the New Testament writers and Jesus Himself often quoted the Old Testament writings- therefore, proving the validity and truthfulness of them.
For further reading on Biblical Archaeological findings, here are plenty of links.
http://www.fbinstitute.com/Honeycutt/BiblicalArch.html
http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibarch.htm
http://biblicalstudies.info/top10/schoville.htm
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html
http://www.lexumcsc.com/arch.htm
http://www.harkarkom.com/
http://www.bible-history.com/biblehistoryonline_fallenempires.php
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_arcs.htm
http://www.bibleplaces.com/
http://formerthings.wordpress.com/2007/09/03/book-of-jeremiah-new-archaeological-discovery/

Proof

2008-10-02T19:26:00.000-07:00

Part One is below.In the last post, we looked at the first test to see if the Bible is a reliable and true document by looking at the similarity of the oldest manuscripts which date very close to the time when they were first written, as compared to the Bible scriptures that exist today. The evidence is overwhelming in showing that the Bible is reliable and true.Let's look at the second Historicity test: Internal Evidence.Now, even though the bibliographical test showed that what was written originally is basically the same as what we have now, it is important to know if the written record itself is credible, and whether the witnesses were truthful. This means that someone studying a document has to look at the claims of the document- not to assume the authors were deceitful or fraudulent, unless proof is without a doubt.The ability of the author, or witness to tell the truth is a help to the historian to figure credibility and reliability. It is also imperative to understand or know about the witnesses close ties both geographical and to time of the events that are written about. Since the Bible- we'll go with the New Testament for now, is written about the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus, we need to know how reliable the men who wrote all of this down were- either men who themselves knew Jesus, or others who were witnesses or disciples. Let's start with Luke- who did not know Jesus personally. He was a companion and loyal friend of Paul, most likely gentile (not a Jew) and well educated in Greek culture, and was a physician. He shows that he knows of other authors of the life and times of Jesus, but instead of relying on these authors, he personally investigated and arranged testimonies of eyewitnesses and the earliest Christian disciples, including the oral accounts of the Apostles. What I have always found so interesting is Luke's precise detailing of people and places of the times. He includes names and places that none of the other Gospel writers included, but careful archaeological and historical studies have shown evidence of the names and places in which Luke included.Some of Luke's writings includes these passages, "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the Word have handed them down to us, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus." Also, "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrach of Galillee, and his brother Phillip was tetrach of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrach of Abaline..."The careful detail to names and regions show not only Luke's knowledge of the time, but have been shown through historical and archaeological evidence to have been true.Now let's look at Peter, who was one of Jesus' closest companions and disciples. Peter says, "For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,but we were eye witnesses of His Majesty."Note that Peter tells of their own personal witness- Peter was one of the three who were on the mountain with Jesus as He was transfigured and Moses and Elijah appeared, and he was one of the first to witness the resurrected Christ after His crucifixion.John, Jesus' closest disciple, the one Jesus said He loves, say. "What we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, that you may also have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and His Son Jesus Christ." Also, "And he who has seen has borne witness, and his witness is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe."Now, it's easy to say that these men wanted to start this new religion so they could still be claiming things that weren't true, but the New Testament accounts of Jesus began circulating within the lifetimes of these witnesses- they knew that any truths that they proclaimed would be either denied or affirmed . Even when confronted by enemies and most severe critics- these men "stuck" with their accounts. Everything they claimed, they stated things like "We saw", We heard"- but they could also say to their critics "You saw too!" or "You heard too!" Now, if I made a claim like that to my enemy, knowing it wasn't true- I'd have it thrown right back at me, but if it's true, my enemies can't refute it.It wasn't only friendly eyewitnesses that these men had to talk to- there were many others who hated Jesus, and His disciples- yet knew of the truth of Jesus' teachings, claims of His deity, His death and also His resurrection. One of the strongest arguments showing the authenticity of the New Testament Scriptures is not only based on the apostles eyewitness accounts, but also on the evidence from people who were their biggest critics.Consider the fact that all of the disciples except for John were executed for their testimonies. And by executing, we're talking very painful and extremely gory deaths- yet these men never deviated from their eyewitness accounts. John was the only one who died of old age, but he was also in exile- yet he went on to preach the Word of the Gospel, and also to write the last book of the Bible- the Book of Revelation.There is just no way that men would make up wild stories such as is written in the whole of the New Testament, suffer, and die for these false tales- unless they were truth. Next time, we'll look at the last test for determining the reliability and truth of the Bible- External Evidence.

Evidence

2008-10-01T18:35:00.001-07:00

Most people, when reading an old piece of literature don't think about putting the book through a test to see if the author listed on the book is really in fact the actual author. Most who read a piece from Homer, Aristotle or even a piece of literature by the likes of Shakespeare, assume what they are reading is the original work by that author. When it comes to the authenticity of the Bible however, many people who don't believe in it, or believe it's some ancient book of fables many people don't realize that the Bible has been tested for validity. Those who may scoff at someone who believes the Bible is unique and inspired by God, those who might think that we are believers in some archaic book, written over 2000 years ago, which is unreliable, full of error and discrepancies find our claims that the Bible is the Word of God a ridiculous statement and that we are fools for believing this.
There really is no set test for historians to determine the validity or accuracy of any other ancient piece of literature-but there is for testing the truthful reliability of the Bible. For historical documents, there are basic methods for testing the authenticity- these being, 1) bibliography, 2) internal evidence, and 3) external evidence.
The bibliographical test examine how documents come down through the years and centuries. Since in many cases there are no original documents, the reliability of manuscripts is not a sure thing in regard to the number of known manuscripts and the time between when the original was said to be written to the date of the existing copies. For example, Homer's Iliad was written sometime in 900 BC but the earliest copy is dated at somewhere in 400 BC- a difference of 500 years. There are 643 known copies (manuscripts). How about Caesar's Gaelic Wars/ It was composed sometime between 58 and 50 BC, but the oldest of the nine or ten existing manuscripts that are even in decent condition is dated nearly 900 years later than Caesar's day. Here's one more. Of the 14 books of the Histories of Tacticus, which were written around 100 AD, only 4 and a half survived all this time, and of the 16 books of his Annals, 10 survive in full, and 2 in part. There are only 2 manuscripts, one dated from the 800's and the other in the 1000's AD. There are so many other cases based on history books and annals written in ancient times to where we are able to know ancient history, and what we base our knowledge on. How does the Bible compare in the bibliographical test?
First of all, there are now more than 5300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, over 10, 000 of the Latin Vulgate, 9300 other early versions and more than 24, 000 manuscripts of portions of the N.T. In comparison, Homer's Iliad comes in second place for numbers of manuscripts at only 643. Careful studies of the different readings of various early manuscripts shows that none of them affects any doctrine of Scripture. This goes for the Old Testament as well- as what is written in standard Hebrew texts of the Old Testament is not changed or altered by any of the variant readings of manuscripts of earlier dates. The amazing discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown that later manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments are almost exactly the same, except for a few punctuation or spelling errors- basically putting to rest many arguments that the Scriptures have been changed or corrupted over the centuries.
In many cases, there is further support of reliability by various versions of manuscripts. Considering that ancient literature was rarely translated into other languages, Christianity, on the other hand, was missionary based right from the beginning. That means that the earliest versions of the New Testament were made by missionaries to spread the Gospel amongpeople who spoke Syriac, Latin and Coptic. Syriac and Latin versions of the N.T were made around 150 AD- which is very near the time of the originals. There are nearly 15000 existing manuscripts of various versions.
Someone once wondered what would happen if every single copy of the New Testament was lost or destroyed by the end of the 3rd century- would there be any way to collect it all together again just by using the writings of those in the church in the second and third century? A man by the name Sir David Dalrymple searched and researched through the church fathers writings- and was able to find the entire N.T except for 11 verses.
In the case of the Old Testament, there isn't quite the abundance of evidence in manuscripts as for the N.T. Until the Dead Sea discoveries, the oldest complete Hebrew manuscript was dated around 900 AD. This made a time gap of 1300 years, because the Hebrew Old Testament was completed about 400 BC. After the Dead Sea discoveries though, a number of Old Testament manuscripts have been found by historians and scholars date before the time of Christ.
Take also the methods in which the earliest Hebrew Scribes copied out the Old Testament Scriptures- no one in any other groups have been as meticulous about Copying as the early scribes. The regulations alone in which they had to follow made a case for why there are fewer manuscripts for the O.T than the N.T. After having to follow more than 15 rules for copy work, and painstaking copying, any rolls which were found where the regulations were not followed to the letter were made to be buried in the ground or burned. Compared to other ancient writings of the period- such as the Egyptian Book of the Dead, it is amazing how the Hebrew texts have none of the discrepancies and manuscript change as these other ancient writings. Two copies of Isaiah were discovered in one of the caves in 1947 were older than the previously known manuscript- dated 980 AD- yet they proved to be word for word, identical to modern standard Bible texts in more than 95% of the text. The 5 % variations were mainly variations of spelling. They don't affect the message of the scriptures in any way.
in my next post, I'll go into detail of the second test- internal evidence, to show how the Bible is true and reliable. I could go on and on about bibliography alone- but for the sake of time I won't- I'll only add that with all the evidence, I can trust and believe that the Bible is more reliable trustworthy- is way better than any other record of ancient texts.

Note- although I've studied this topic in many books by many authors- I have based much of this entry on material by Josh MDowell, from his book A Ready Defense.

We don't find God- He Finds Us

2008-10-01T17:32:00.000-07:00

An Atheist is found by God John Powell a professor at Loyola University in Chicago writes about a student in his Theology of Faith class named Tommy:Some twelve years ago, I stood watching my university students file into the classroom for our first session in the Theology of Faith. That was the first day I first saw Tommy. My eyes and my mind both blinked. He was combing his long flaxen hair, which hung six inches below his shoulders.It was the first time I had ever seen a boy with hair that long. I guess it was just coming into fashion then. I know in my mind that it isn’t what’s on your head but what’s in it that counts; but on that day I was unprepared and my emotions flipped.I immediately filed Tommy under "S" for strange ... very strange. Tommy turned out to be the "atheist in residence" in my Theology of Faith course. He constantly objected to, smirked at, or whined about the possibility of an unconditionally loving Father-God. We lived with each other in relative peace for one semester, although I admit he was for me at times a serious pain in the back pew.When he came up at the end of the course to turn in his final exam, he asked in a slightly cynical tone: "Do you think I’ll ever find God?"I decided instantly on a little shock therapy. "No!" I said very emphatically."Oh," he responded, "I thought that was the product you were pushing."I let him get five steps from the classroom door and then called out: "Tommy! I don’t think you’ll ever find him, but I am absolutely certain that He will find you!" He shrugged a little and left my class and my life.I felt slightly disappointed at the thought that he had missed my clever line: "He will find you!" At least I thought it was clever. Later I heard that Tommy had graduated and I was duly grateful.Then a sad report, I heard that Tommy had terminal cancer. Before I could search him out, he came to see me. When he walked into my office, his body was very badly wasted, and the long hair had all fallen out as a result of chemotherapy. But his eyes were bright and his voice was firm, for the first time, I believe. "Tommy, I’ve thought about you so often. I hear you are sick!" I blurted out."Oh, yes, very sick. I have cancer in both lungs. It’s a matter of weeks.""Can you talk about it, Tom?""Sure, what would you like to know?""What’s it like to be only twenty-four and dying?""Well, it could be worse.""Like what?""Well, like being fifty and having no values or ideals, like being fifty and thinking that booze, seducing women, and making money are the real ‘biggies’ in life."I began to look through my mental file cabinet under "S" where I had filed Tommy as strange. (It seems as though everybody I try to reject by classification God sends back into my life to educate me.)But what I really came to see you about," Tom said, " is something you said to me on the last day of class." (He remembered!) He continued, "I asked you if you thought I would ever find God and you said, ‘No!’ which surprised me. Then you said, ‘But he will find you.’ I thought about that a lot, even though my search for God was hardly intense at that time. (My "clever" line. He thought about that a lot!) But when the doctors removed a lump from my groin and told me that it was malignant, then I got serious about locating God. And when the malignancy spread into my vital organs, I really began banging bloody fists against the bronze doors of heaven.But God did not come out. In fact, nothing happened. Did you ever try anything for a long time with great effort and with no success? You get psychologically glutted, fed up with trying. And then you quit.Well, one day I woke up, and instead of throwing a few more futile appeals over that high brick wall to a God who may be or may not be there, I just quit. I decided that I didn’t really care ... about God, about an afterlife, or anything like that. "I decided to spend what time I had left doing something more profitable. I thought about you and your class and I remembered something else you had said: ‘The essential sadness is to go through life without loving. But it would be almost equally sad to go through life and leave this world without ever telling those you loved that you had loved them.’ "So I began with the hardest one: my Dad. He was reading the newspaper when I approached him.""Dad". . ."Yes, what?" he asked without lowering the newspaper."Dad, I would like to talk with you.""Well, talk.""I mean. .. It’s really important."The newspaper came down three slow inches. "What is it?""Dad, I love you. I just wanted you to know that." Tom smiled at me and said with obvious satisfaction, as though he felt a warm and secret joy flowing inside of him: "The newspaper fluttered to the floor. Then my father did two things I could never remember him ever doing before. He cried and he hugged me.And we talked all night, even though he had to go to work the next morning. It felt so good to be close to my father, to see his tears, to feel his hug, to hear him say that he loved me. "It was easier with my mother and little brother. They cried with me, too, and we hugged each other, and started saying real nice things to each other. We shared the things we had been keeping secret for so many years. I was only sorry about one thing: that I had waited so long. Here I was just beginning to open up to all the people I had actually been close to."Then, one day I turned around and God was there. He didn’t come to me when I pleaded with him. I guess I was like an animal trainer holding out a hoop, ‘C’mon, jump through.’ ‘C’mon, I’ll give you three days .. .three weeks.’ Apparently God does things in his own way and at his own hour. "But the important thing is that he was there. He found me.You were right. He found me even after I stopped looking for him.""Tommy," I practically gasped, "I think you are saying something very important and much more universal than you realize. To me, at least, you are saying that the surest way to find God is not to make him a private possession, a problem solver, or an instant consolation in time of need, but rather by opening to love. You know, the Apostle John said that. He said God is love, and anyone who lives in love is living with God and God is living in him.’ Tom, could I ask you a favor? You know, when I had you in class you were a real pain. But (laughingly) you can make it all up to me now. Would you come into my present Theology of Faith course and tell them what you have just told me? If I told them the same thing it wouldn’t be half as effective as if you were to tell them.""Oooh . . . I was ready for you, but I don’t know if I’m ready for your class.""Tom, think about it. If and when you are ready, give me a call." In a few days Tommy called, said he was ready for the class, that he wanted to do that for God and for me. So we scheduled a date. However, he never made it.He had another appointment, far more important than the one with me and my class. Of course, his life was not really ended by his death, only changed.He made the great step from faith into vision. He found a life far more beautiful than the eye of man has ever seen or the ear of man has ever heard or the mind of man has ever imagined.Before he died, we talked one last time. "I’m not going to make it to your class," he said."I know, Tom.""Will you tell them for me? Will you . . . tell the whole world for me?""I will, Tom. I’ll tell them. I’ll do my best."So, to all of you who have been kind enough to hear this simple statement about love, thank you for listening. And to you, Tommy, somewhere in the sunlit, verdant hills of heaven: "I told them, Tommy . ... ...as best I could."