Posts

Making Your Point vs Making an Appeal

Talking to a skeptic about the Reality of Christ can be a real challenge.

In some cases, they’re genuinely curious. They recognize the elegance of the human experience and the complexity of the universe as something that has to have been designed for a purpose as opposed to it being nothing more than an infinite collection of lucky accidents.

In other instances, you’ve got a cynic that is resolved to maintain a desperate grasp on the idea that they are their own absolute and they’re not interested in listening as much as they’re interested in talking.

Should you make the mistake of trying to build your case according to a sequence of truths, there’s a good chance you’ll be stopped in your tracks before you can even make your point.

It’s not because what you’re saying lacks validity as much as it’s an approach that can be easily compromised simply by disagreeing.

Should your argument be built according to a series of talking points that build on one another, all your critic has to do is question the substance of just one of your assertions and your whole platform has now been compromised because of the way you have to pause and “prove” a portion of your perspective that usually falls way short of what you’re actually trying to communicate.

Sometimes it’s a legitimate question, but a lot of times, especially when you’re contending with someone who doesn’t want to listen as much as they want to mock, villify and undermine what you would say about Jesus, it’s a tactic designed to shut you down while simultaneoulsy enhance their mindset without them having to say a word.

You see this played out in a big way especially when it comes to historical references to Christ.

A Complete Fabrication

Anytime you suggest that there are secular references to Jesus Christ as Someone Who actually lived, you’ve got a real problem on your hands because the atheist needs Jesus to be a complete fabrication.

If Jesus was Someone you could actually speak with and listen to, then He becomes a far bigger problem in the mind of the skeptic who needs to convince both himself and everyone else that there is no absolute save the bottom line of the individual. It’s not just the Substance of the gospel and the question of sin that has to be discarded. The very “idea” of Christ has to be reduced to a ridiculous albeit popular non-entity that has no place in intelligent conversation.

And so they engage in a campaign where things like the portion of Josephus Antiquities that references Christ by name is dismissed as an unethical edit made by an enterprising scribe that was never written by the original author. The persecution of Christians spearheaded by Nero in 64 AD is a complete fabrication and John Tyndale was not burned at the stake for laboring to create an English version of the Bible.

Even the verbiage of the Declaration of Independence that references the “Creator” as the source of one’s rights is reduced to a token courtesy that has no real historical or spiritual substance given the way our Founders were supposedly Deists as opposed to orthodox Christians.

The thing that makes this so toxic and at the same time so exhausting is that, while the conversation has the look and feel of a reasonable evaluation with the goal being an equitable treatment of all faiths and an accommodation of those who may not subscribe to the gospel, the inevitable result is a distorted perception of our nation’s spiritual heritage which then segues gracefully into a godless culture and a humanistic marketplace.

It’s not a search for answers as much as it’s a resolve to silence the answers as they were articulated by our Founding Fathers who were looking to the Bible for both their Inspiration and their Resolve.

It’s not the “separation of church and state,” it’s the re-creation of the church and state as institutions that worship the individual and God is dismissed altogether.

But you can’t do that without inventing an entirely different past…

…nor can you question the historical Reality of Christ without assaulting the Christian doctrine as a whole.

You’re not just “disagreeing” with the gospel or “questioning” the integrity of the Scriptures.

You’re actually implying much, much more.

A Fool or a Fiend
Not Getting Rich
Jesus doesn’t offer power or wealth in exchange for believing in His Identity as the Son of God. Rather, He invites you to “take up your cross and follow Him.” (Lk 9:23; [see also 1 Tim 6:10])
Not Making a Good Impression
In the aftermath of Christ’s Resurrection, the disciples, who are now absolutely convinced the Jesus is the Christ, are now speaking out publicly and in so doing are infuriating the Saducees. In Acts 5 you can see how the disciples’ resolve was rewarded by threatening them with their lives and then having them flogged (Acts 5:17-41).
No Room for Rivals
In Acts 17:7 you see the lethal aspect of beliving in Christ from the standpoint of a Roman legislature in that you were proclaiming allegiance to a king other than Caesar.

The First Disciples Were Liars

In order for Christianity to be false, you have to include several default scenarios that must be in place if Jesus is a myth and the gospel is a scam.

First, the original apostles were liars. If the Resurrection was a hoax, then they were lying when they said that Christ has risen.

Yes, the Ten Commandments forbid lying (Ex 20:16) and Jesus was morally perfect (Heb 3:15). But somehow the disciples saw no conflict in lying about the fact the Jesus rose from the grave (Acts 4:10).

That makes no sense.

Every Christian That’s Ever Believed is Either a Fool or a Fiend

You’re Not Getting Rich, You’re Getting Killed

Early Jewish converts to Christianity were not getting rich nor were they getting applauded for subscribing to Christ as the Son of God. As a Hebrew, you were putting yourself at odds with the established religious hierarchy who saw your creed as heretical. From the perspective of Rome, any reference to a “king” other than Caesar was considered a capital offense (Acts 17:7).

Even prior to the persecution by Nero in 64, Christians were getting harrassed as seen in Acts 8:1. After the Edict of Milan, although Christians were no longer targeted the way they had been, believing in the gospel, a commitment to printing the Bible in English or a desire to communicate the Message of Christianity to foreign countries was often enough to warrant abuse, torture and oftentimes death.

Given the lack of benefits and the sacrifices that were often made, you have to be either a fool or a fiend to believe in Christ if He was a myth.

What Are You Thinking?

In the immediate aftermath of the crucifixion, if there was, in fact, a body that could be recovered and you knew it, you were knowingly misleading people in a way that could cost them their lives.

‘That would qualify you as a detestable human being –  a genuine fiend.

Then again, if you could do some thinking for yourself and determine that the Resurrection was not real, yet you made a point of declaring yourself a believer, you’re a fool given the way in which you have now pitted yourself against the authorities that have the legal means to end your life.

And you’re not gaining anything by doing it!

That would make you a fool.

Consider Who You’re Talking To

In subsequent centuries, while distortions of the gospel could translate to wealth and power, neither legitimate Reformers nor authentic Missionaries were benefitting by championing the cause of Christ.

Again, if you’re aware of the fallacy that characterizes your faith, either your character or your intelligence can be rightfully regarded as flawed and you are either a fool or a fiend.

But when you consider the intellectual substance of men like Martin Luther, John Locke or Copernicus, these are not “fools,” rather these are academics that have contributed significantly to the way we see ourselves and the world around us.

And to accuse people like Mother Theresa or Albert Schweitzer as being sinister in any way shape or form is ludicrous.

And yet, should you insist that Christianity is for non-thinking people, you either hold these people in contempt or regard them as hopelessly gullible.

And that makes no sense.

The Writers of the Ancient World Were Frauds

The Atheist and the Christian

You’ll hear Atheists sarcastically refute the idea that one has to be religious in order to be moral.

They’re not wrong.

You can be a moral person and not have the slightest regard for God or Christ.

The issue isn’t so much what constitutes moral behavior, although the Christ-follower and the Atheist will most likely disagree on some issues like Homosexuality and Abortion. Rather, the issue is what compels you to be moral?

In his book, “Mere Christianity,” CS Lewis describes it this way:

Supposing you hear a cry for help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires—one a desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away.

Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them. You might as well say that the sheet of music which tells you, at a given moment, to play one note on the piano and not another, is itself one of the notes on the keyboard. The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys.

The Atheist doesn’t hold himself accountable to God. In his mind the “Moral Law” – the thing that compels him to behave in a certain way – is the one who stares back at himself in the mirror every morning.

It’s not about whether something is right or wrong as much as it’s the foundation upon which I build my resolve to do what’s right.

That’s what distinguishes the difference between a Christian and an Atheist.

He Can’t be Real

As has been already stated, acknowledging Jesus as a historical figure – apart from any kind of religious context – represents a dangerous concession for the atheist.

If Christ can be validated as a legitimate person, then you have what amounts to a natural segue to an objective acknowledgement of His Words and His Actions; most of which resonate as incredibly noble.

An atheist’s contempt for religion is founded on an unwillingness to submit to any authority other than the one they’re comfortable with. Yet they can’t be heard as someone who is critical of charity or compassion so it becomes strategic to shut down any attempt to refer to Jesus as a verifiable reality by insisting that…

But in order for this to be true, then every falsification has to have had some kind of motive that would make it not only reasonable but genuinely beneficial to promote a lie.

Why Are You Doing This?

Bear in mind that the Resurrection is an absurd marketing campaign. Given the way many of the world’s religions are capable of winning converts simply by promising eternal rewards or temporary fulfillment, asserting the idea of a bodily Resurrection is a bizarre and unnecessary overreach if all you’re trying to do is win friends and influence people.

At least, that’s what a lot of religious mystics are able to accomplish simply by being charasmatic as opposed to positioning themselves as a resurrected corpse.

Everything we know about the disciples suggests they died as obscure martyrs and not as wealthy and powerful individuals.

To maintain that the gospels are nothing more than a collection of lies, you have to justify why these men would document these fabrications especially given the political and spiritual landscape they occupied at the time.

Not only are they championing a ridiculous claim, they have nothing to gain by promoting the idea that Christ had risen from the grave. Rather, they had literally everything to lose.

That makes no sense.

Josephus

In a similar vein, if you’re going to insist that every secular reference to Christ is an “interpolation,” then you have to do more than elaborate on “what” was changed, but you also have to provide a substantial reason as to “why” it was changed in the first place.

How does changing or adding some verbiage to Antiquities written by Josephus translate to a marketing strategy? What do you stand to gain by editing the words of Tacitus?

Eusibius is a Fraud

Among the things we have confirmed now is that all surviving manuscripts of the Antiquities derive from the last manuscript of it produced at the Christian library of Caesarea between 220 and 320 A.D.
, the same manuscript used and quoted by Eusebius, the first Christian in history to notice either passage being in the Antiquities of Josephus. That means we have no access to any earlier version of the text (we do not know what the text looked like prior to 230 A.D.), and we have access to no version of the text untouched by Eusebius (no other manuscript in any other library ever on earth produced any copies that survive to today). That must be taken into account. (Richard Carrier)

Critics want to insist that the references to Christ found in the writings of Josephus and Tacitus were lies introduced by Christians that took it upon themselves to transcribe a copy of the original and corrupt it by adding content that gave credibility to the historical reality of Christ and the substance of the Christian doctrine.

For example, in Book 18 of Antiquities written in 93 AD, it says this:

At this time appeared Jesus, a very gifted man—if indeed it is right to call him a man; for he was a worker of miracles, a teacher of such men as listened with pleasure to the truth, and he won over many of the Jews and many of Gentile origin as well. This was the Christ; and when at the instigation of our leading men he had been condemned to the cross by Pilate, those who had loved him at the first did not cease to do so; for on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the inspired prophets having foretold this and countless other wonderful things about him. Even now the group of people called Christians after him has not died out.1

This was quoted by a man named Eusibius who put together a history of the early church called “The Ecclesiastical History” in 313 AD. It was a massive undertaking and something that had never been done before. In subsequent centuries he would become known as the “Father of Church History.”

Eusibius was a student of Pamphilus who trained under Origen, one of the earliest and more important Christian scholars.  Under Origen, Pamphilus established a library containing over 30,000 volumes. Eusibius undoubtedly had access to this library and because he was so meticulous in his citations we can know for certain where he was getting his information from.

This is significant because some of what Eusibius references has since been lost so in his documentary we’re given access to resources that no longer exist.

He also had the ability to reference texts like Josephus’ Antiquities that, although it was obviously a copy of the original, it was a transcription written within 200 years of the original as opposed to now where the oldest manuscript we have today was written in the 12th century – over a thousand years removed from the original writing.

Eusibius quoted the above text, not once, but three times. In addition to the above text, Eusibius quotes Josephus prolifically throughout his book.

Historian John Michael Wallace-Hadrill makes an astute observation by saying:

It is in any case exceedingly improbable that Eusebius himself is to be held responsible for the alteration of Josephus’ text, as some have held him to be. If he had perpetrated what would be one of the cleverest frauds of literary history, can we believe that he would have treated his own fraud in the almost casual manner of quoting the Testimonium differently on three occasions?2

The fact that both Josephus and Tacitus reference Christ is understandable given the impact Christ had regardless if you believed Him to be the Son of God or not. The fact that we’re still talking about Him today demonstrates that whatever happened in Jerusalem that first Easter morning resonated as more than just a Facebook post and would’ve been worthy of mentioning as part of a “Year in Review.”

No doubt, Eusibius recognized how the substance of his account would be enhanced by including the irrefutable dynamic of an impartial, secular reference to Christ. But would the temptation to quote a forgery be enough to offset the very real chance of him being revealed as a fraud?

He’s writing the history of the church and attempting to present Christ as the Son of God. How do you accomplish that by lying?

It’s one thing if you’re mistaken or perhaps some concessions can be allowed should you choose to overlook or minimize certain aspects of the past in order to preserve the dignity of specific individuals.

But here you’re talking about the very Identity of Jesus Christ. Being able to cite Josephus honestly would be advantageous but the Substance of the Christian doctrine does not depend on the observations of a historian. Therefore to risk the integrity of your work as a whole for no reason other than the chance to incorporate a secular Jewish perspective into your text…

…makes no sense.

Tacitus

Cornelius Tacitus was a Roman historian who lived approximately between AD 56 and 120. Robert Van Voorst says Tacitus “is generally considered the greatest Roman historian” and his Annals is his “finest work and generally acknowledged by modern historians as our best source of information about this period.”3

At one point, Tacitus says this:

Therefore, to squelch the rumor, Nero created scapegoats and subjected to the most refined tortures those whom the common people called ‘Christians,’ [a group] hated for their abominable crimes. Their name comes from Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius, had been executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Suppressed for the moment, the deadly superstition broke out again, not only in Judea, the land which originated this evil, but also in the city of Rome, where all sorts of horrendous and shameful practices, from every part of the world converge and are fervently cultivated.4

The fact that you have a Roman historian who, by virtue of the way he describes Christians as a people group, “…hated for their abominable crimes” and proliferators of a “deadly superstion” is obviously not a believer – that fact the he references Christ as Somone who was executed by Pontius Pilate is a huge vote of credibility for the Christian doctrine in that it validates Jesus as a real person and that He was put to death by Pontius Pilate.

Critics swarm to this text like flies to sugar because of their need to undermine anything that could potentially qualify Christ as Someone that actually existed.

Their criticisms target the way in which Christ is spelled “Christus,” thus referring to someone else. They also attempt to assert that the Christians referenced by Tacitus is actually a different sect of people and not Christ-followers…

Here it’s a bit easier to recognize the improbability of what the atheist needs to be in place in order for their criticisms to carry any weight.

Apart from their critique resonating more as a desperate search for flaws than it does an honest evalutation, if it were something authored by a renegade Christian, the text would be far more complimentary of the Christian doctrine as opposed to it being addressed as an “evil” and a “horrendous and shameful practice.”

Again, to be critical to the extent where you feel justified in dismissing the text altogther…

…it just doesn’t make any sense.

So How Do You Do This?

When you look at the way Jesus engaged the Pharisees, you see a method being deployed from time to time that those who are familiar with the techniques used in a debate would recognize as the Socratic Method.

Basically, you’re posing a series of questions that compel your opponent to answer in a way that complels them to make your point for you.

You see Jesus using this method when He asks the Pharisees to tell Him whose image is on the Roman coinage (Matt 16:26). He made His point about working on the Sabbath when He asked the Pharisees what they would do if they saw one of their flock had fallen into a pit (Matt 12:11).

In the context of this conversation, what you want to do is ask your critic questions based on the three things that we covered here.

For example…

How could the first disciples feel comfortable about lying about Christ’s Resurrection if God commanded them not to lie?

Would you feel comfortable calling Copernicus or Mother Thersa an idiot?

Explain to me why a historian would risk being labeled a fraud for lying about something that could easily be verified?

The idea is to expand the scope of the conversation in a way that compels your opponent to acknowledge the way in which their cynicism and arrogance translates to a scenario where some of the most brilliant minds and compassionate human beings are held in contempt.

It’s then when the fragility of their platform is revealed as something that’s based more on pride than principle and you now have an opportunity to elaborate on the True Substance of the gospel and the practical impact it has on one’s life.

There’s a difference between making your point and making an appeal.

Use Christ’s example in the way you champion your convictions and you’ll be able to make your point. Otherwise, you come across as though you’re asking for concessions.

Your faith is stronger than that…

…and so is He.

 

 

1. “Eusebius’s Quest for the Historical Jesus”, Jonathan Armstrong, “themelios”, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/eusebiuss-quest-for-the-historical-jesus/, accessed February 8, 2023

2. Ibid

3. “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”, Josh McDowell, Sean McDowell, PhD, 2017, Harper Collins / Thomas Nelson, Nashville, TN, p150

4. Ibid

How Do You Know God is Real?

Prove God is real.

OK.

When you look at the complexity of the universe, you can see your Creator. When you look at the historical references to Christ, you can see your Savior.

Let’s break it down…!

Go Outside

Go outside. What do you see? You see nature, you see animals and human beings. What you’re looking at constitutes some of the most complex and intricate examples of mechanical engineering that you can’t even begin to imagine.

And it goes beyond what you can see. In order to fully appreciate what you’re looking at, you need to pop the hood on what’s going on in the context of Biochemistry.

Consider for a moment the atom. The atom is the basic building block of matter.  It’s a nucleus surrounded by a cloud of electrons. In the case of a Hydrogen atom, each electron is moving at a speed that would allow it to orbit the earth in a little more than 18 seconds.

A molecule is a group of two or more atoms. For example, H20. That’s the chemical expression of water which consists of two Hydogen atoms and one Oxygen atom.

Water, by the way, is one amazing molecule. We take it for granted because it’s a very normal part of our lives. But water is the only substance in the universe that floats in its solid form. From the standpoint of creation, that’s a convenient attribute given the fact that otherwise all marine life would be crushed once the temperatures got below freezing!

Mathematically Impossible
Astro-physicists estimate that there are no more than 1080 infinitesimal “particles” in the universe, and that the age of the universe in its present form is no greater than 1018 seconds (30 billion years).
Assuming each particle can participate in a thousand billion (1012) different events every second (this is impossibly high, of course), then the greatest number of events that could ever happen (or trials that could ever be made) in all the universe throughout its entire history is only 1080 x 1018 x 1012, or 10110 (most authorities would make this figure much lower, about 1050). Any event with a probability of less than one chance in 10110, therefore, cannot occur. Its probability becomes zero, at least in our known universe. (Institute for Creation Research)4

125 Zeroes

A Protein is a molecule that’s considered to be the basic building block of life. It’s a chain of amino acids, which are molecules in and of themselves, that has to be constructed very intentionally in order for the result to be a fully functioning protein molecule. The odds of that happening are one chance in a hundred thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. That’s a ten with 125 zeroes after it.1

A typical cell takes ten million, million atoms to build.2 What makes a cell especially significant is that it’s alive and it’s typical of all living things. And when you take an inventory of how a cell functions and how it’s organized, you realize very quickly that’s it’s an incredibly intricate mechanism consisting of artifical languages, decoding systems, memory banks, elegant control systems, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication with a capacity not equaled in any of our most advanced machines.

We have always underestimated the cell…The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines…Why do we call them machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts. (Bruce Alberts, President, National Academy of Sciences) 3

The bottom line is that the level of precision that characterizes the known universe is such where the chances of that intricacy coming together purely by chance is considered mathematically impossible (see sidebar).

And Biochemistry is just the tip of the iceberg.

The Cosmoslogical Constant

When you consider the world of Physics, it becomes even more difficult to speculate our world came together purely by chance.

For example, the Cosmoslogical Constant is the rate of speed with which the universe is expanding. If the power of gravity within the universe was not being offset by some kind of opposing force, it would collapse on itself. On the other hand, if it were not strong enough, the universe would unravel.

Although this anomaly has yet to be specifically qualified, it is nevertheless an incredibly precise value. It is but one more example of a “fine tuning” that can neither be dismissed nor explained by those who want to ignore the Reality of a Creator. It has been conservatively estimated to be at least one part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion. That’s a 10 with 53 zeroes.5

When You Look at a Cupcake…

When you look at a cupcake, you see a baker. When you look at a work of art, you see an artist. Given that as a logical approach to anything that resonates with any degree of complexity, to look at the universe –  something that requires that much more of an intentional effort and sophisticated design than a cupcake or a painting – you see an accident?

No.

That’s not science, that’s not even a theory. In order to rationalize the notion that all that we can observe when it comes to life and the human experience is a result of purely random forces…

…the skeptic needs to invent a whole new set of physical laws and a whole new set of mechanisms that are not a natural extrapolation from anything we know or have experienced. (Robin Collins)6

When you’re looking for “proof” that God is real, go outside. Consider what it is you’re looking at. When you ponder the complexity of the universe, you can see your Creator.

Historical References to Christ

To be able to confidently identify Christ as the Son of God, you can:

  • look at the historical references to Jesus as having existed
  • the account of Josephus who refers to Christ’s Resurrection and…
  • …the fact that thoughout history you have people who refused to submit to the idea that the tomb of Christ was either occupied or the body had been stolen – even to the point where it cost them their lives
Apologetics

While Tacticus and Josephus are the only historians cited in this article, there’s an entire field of study dedicated to the validation of the Christian faith called, “Apologetics.” For more examples of Christ’s Presence in History, the authenticity of the Bible and the Fact of the Resurrection, the following books represent an excellent collection of resources and a great place to begin:

Tacticus

Cornelius Tacticus was a Roman historian who lived approximately between AD 56 and 120.

When Nero blamed the Christians for the devastating fire that destroyed much of Rome in AD 64, the result was what would become an aggressive persecution of anyone who believed that Christ had risen from the dead.

Tacticus documented what happened and in his writings, he references Christ and how He was put to death by Pilate.

But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.7

This doesn’t prove the Christ rose from the grave, but it does validate the accounts given in the New Testament that Christ did live and was sentenced to death by Pilate.

Josephus

You can see an extra-biblical reference to the Resurrection by Josephus, who was a Jewish historan that lived between AD 37 and died around 101. In his “Antiquties of the Jews,” he had this to say about Christianty:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man [if indeed one ought to call him a man.] For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. [He was the Christ.] When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him.  [On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him.] And the tribe of the Christians, so-called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. (Antiquities of the Jews)8

 Some scholars dispute the authenticity of the those portions of the above quote that reference the Resurrection. But while there is some speculation, there is enough reason to believe that the comments pertaining to Christ’s Resurrection are, in fact, authentic.

The Resurrection as a Marketing Campaign

The Resurrection doesn’t work as a marketing campaign. It is an absurd attempt to establish credibility and makes absolutely no sense in light of the way so many religions are able to win converts simply by promising eternal rewards and temporary fulfillment.

From the very beginning, believing that Christ was Divine put you at odds with the established hierarchy in ways that often proved lethal. Again, why build a creed on something so unnecessary and at the same time so toxic in the minds of those in positions of authority?

It’s ludicrous…

unless…

It’s true.

We don’t have raw footage of His crucifixion, we don’t have a photograph of Him coming out of the empty tomb. But we have documentation in addition to the New Testament written by people who were alive when Christ’s life, death and Resurrection were fairly recent events. They reference Christ as a historical reality and not just a rumor.

You can neither prove the Reality of God nor the Fact of His Resurrection with the same certaintly you might have in the way you successfuly solve a math problem. When it comes to validating ancient texts and events that happened 2,000 years ago, you have to base your convictions on what is most likely true given the evidence that is available.

If Christianity was nothing more than a pretty little fiction based on a personality that failed to distinguish Himself as anything other than a noble individual, you don’t have a creed, you have a celebrity. And while a celebrity can be influential, by himself he doesn’t command the kind of commitment that people are willing to die for.

This is the other piece of the gospel that qualifies as a substantial piece of evidence.

You Don’t Die for a Lie Knowing That it’s Not True

Josh McDowell, author “Evidence That Demands a Verdict,” makes a logical observation about the disciples.

Yes, many people have died for a lie, but they did so believing it was the truth. If the Resurrection had not happened, obviously the disciples would have known it. Therefore, they would not only have died for a lie—here’s the catch—but they would have known it was a lie. It would be hard to find a group of men anywhere in history who would die for a lie if they knew it was a lie. (More Than a Carpenter)9

You can look at the complexity of creation and deduce a Creator. You can look at the historical references to the existence of Christ, the work of Josephus as well as the those who opted for a martyr’s death than deny the Resurrection and deduce a Savior.

An Intelligent Faith

There’s no good reason to doubt the historical accuracy of the New Testament. From a bibliographical perspective, it absolutely dominates when compared to other works of antiquity. It has been repeatedly verified with Archaeology, but…

…to the individual who risks having to reconfigure their approach to themselves and the world around them, it’s a tall order to concede the Reality of Christ.

But should you ignore the substance of what exists, as far as that which validates the Scriptures, you do so, not because of a lack of evidence, but in spite of it.

There is a rational thought process that leads to an intelligent faith. But to get there, you have to be objective. You cannot dismiss the substance of the evidence that exists and simultaneously cling to the Theory of Evolution. The aforementioned probability values exceed the statistical boundaries of that which is possible. If you’re going to deny the miraculous, you cannot do so and not at the same time admit that you subscribe to a paradigm that bends the very laws of nature you’re trying to explain.

You want proof that there’s a God and that Christ is as real as the air you’re breathing?

You have it.

It’s not a question of “proof” as much as it is “pride.” Believing yourself to be your own absolute may look alluring, but it doesn’t stand up beneath the weight of a logical analysis of the facts. Grace is a gift. It requires nothing more than a willingness to accept it. You don’t sacrifice your intellect to do so…

…rather you embrace it.

 

1. “The Case for a Creator”, Lee Strobel, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 2004, p229
2. Ibid, p194
3. Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. 1979. Probability and Order Versus Evolution. Acts & Facts. 8 (7)
4. “The Case for a Creator”, Lee Strobel, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 2004, p193
5. “The Case for Faith”, Lee Strobel, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 2000, p133
6. “The Case for a Creator”, Lee Strobel, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 2004, p145
7. Wikipedia contributors, “Tacitus on Jesus,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tacitus_on_Jesus&oldid=1119705350 (accessed January 17, 2023)
8. Wikipedia contributors, “Antiquities of the Jews,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antiquities_of_the_Jews&oldid=1133911009 (accessed January 17, 2023)
9. “More Than a Carpenter”, Josh McDowell, Living Books, Wheaton, IL, 1977, 2004, chapter 7

Who Makes the Rules?

A great deal of the tension that exists in our society today – be it a cultural anomaly or a political argument – can be resolved by simply considering how you would answer one fundamental question.

Who makes the rules?

We’re not talking about the person who occupies the Oval Office nor are we looking to the Justices on the Supreme Court.

Rather, we’re talking about something even more foundational and to arrive at that bottom line, we’re going to look at a sequence of definitions and realities that begin with what serves as the basis for all governments and then building on that in a way that reveals the source of all the angst that characterizes the discourse pertaining to politics and morals.

The goal is to do this in a manner that’s irrefutable, regardless of your political persuastion or spiritual convictions in that it’s not so much about a perspective as much as it’s a common sense treatment of what otherwise is a volatile exchange of ideas and opinions that’s based more so on passion than principle.

Here we go…

What is “Religion?”

From a purely philosophical standpoint, every religion answers four basic questions:

  • Where do I come from (orgin)?
  • What happens when I die (destiny)?
  • How am I supposed to behave (morals)?
  • What’s the point of my existence (purpose)?

Regardless of creed or deity, every religion proposes an answer to those four questions. And it’s how you answer those four questions that defines your religious framework and dictates the way you define yourself and the way you process the world around you.

Bear in mind as well that using this approach, Atheism can be appropriately categorized as a “religion” in that it too proposes answers to these questions, the only difference being that the name of the Atheist’s god matches the name on their birth certificate.

Amazing Grace

According to Scripture, you are a spiritual corpse (Eph 2:1). You are dead in your sin and you have no option available to you that can offset your default status as a sinner that is permanently and irretrievably separated from God (Ps 14:3; Is 64:6).

That’s what makes Christianity distinct from every other religious school of thought – you are utterly destitute apart from some kind of miracle that can somehow transform you in the eyes of God from being sinful to sinless. And the only way that can happen is through the Solution God engineered through the death and resurrection of His Son.

There Are Only Two Options

While there are many religions, there are only two options.

Either God is God or you are.

Every religion on the planet empowers the individual with the ability to faciliate their own salvation. Either by doing something or making some kind of sacrifice – you’re able to put enough spiritual points on the board to merit the favor of your preferred deity.

Christianity, on the other hand, says that the the only thing you contribute to your salvation is the sin that makes it necessary.

So, while other religions place you in a position where you are “god-like” in that you can accomplish what needs to be done in order to rate an enhanced supernatural status, the gospel of Jesus Christ defines you as utterly destitute apart from the life God offers as a gift and not as something you can earn.

Either God is God or you are.

Every Government is Based on a Church

Every government that has ever existed is ultimately based on the way you define a human being which is an extension of one’s religious framework. From that standpoint, you are no longer talking mere policy as much as you are now entering the realm of theology.

A Monarchy, for example, is looking at a person’s bloodline to determine their rank and title. A Socialist will categorize an individual under one of two headings: Either the Bourgeoisie or the Proletarians – the Bourgeoisie being those who own the means of production, and the Proletariat – the worker who suffers beneath the weight of an oppressive Capitalist system.

The Six Types of Government

Consider the way Aristotle outlined the Six Types of Government.

Rulers Correct Deviant
One Ruler Monarchy Tyranny
Few Rulers Aristocracy / Republic Oligarchy / Plutocracy
Many Rulers Direct Democracy Anarchy

The idea is that you can have different formats, all of which can conceivably work depending on the character of the “rulers.” When the goal is to govern for the good of the community, you have what’s categorized  as “Correct.” On the hand, when those who are in positions of authority govern for the good of themselves, it’s then when you have the “Deviant” verison of that particular approach.

But regardless of the virtue that is present or the corruption that is apparent, you have an underlying way of defining those who are being governed.

However you craft your approach to the way in which human beings are to be governed, your starting point will always be the way in which you characterize the individual.

You’re either created or you’re merely sorted.

This is part of what makes the Declaration of Independence so significant because of the way it bases its content on the fact that all men are created equal. But this is also why any effort to suggest that the “separation of church and state” translates to a scenario where there is neither a need nor a desire for a “religious” premise to be included in the way a country’s government is to be defined is revealed as being logically flawed. It’s there by default because of the manner in which the essence of the individual is being evaluated.

It’s Not About the Freedom of Religion

Because government is a fundamental extension of the way a human being is defined, you have a religious dynamic in place because you’re either seeing humanity from a purely secular standpoint or you’re seeing him as someone who is made in the image of his Creator. Again, this goes back to the fact that while there are any one of a number of “religions,” there are only two options: Either God is God or the individual is his own deity.

When you hear someone launch a verbal assault on the presence of the Christian doctrine in our nation’s founding and its continued influence in our legislative landscape today, it’s usually spearheaded by a passionate appeal to their interpretation of the “separation of church and state.”

While much of their content can be refuted by demonstrating the lack of context that characterizes their platform, the structural flaw of their argument is the way in which they want to position their viewpoint as one that replaces Christianity with a spiritual vacuum where no “religious” statement is being made or acknowledged.

But that is a philosophical impossibility because of the way every governmental system is founded on the way in which a human being is to be defined.

What they want to present as “freedom of religion” is actually an attempt to asssert a different religious hierarchy where the individual is his own absolute. They’re wanting to either ignore or qualify every reference to Christianity in a way where it is stripped of any significance and in so doing promote the idea that there is no Authority save the one that is consistent with their preferences.

That’s Your Opinion

At this point, we have…

  • Revealed how religion, from a purely philosophical standpoint, answers four basic questions and it’s how you respond to those questions that dictates the way you see yourself and they way your process the world around you.
  • Demonstrated how there are many religions but only two options: Either God is God or you are based on the way every religious school of thought empowers the individual with the ability to facilitate their own salvation with the exception of Christianity.
  • Shown how every form of government is based on a “church” in that every legislative framework is built on the way that particular approach defines a human being. Given that philosophical starting point, the contemporary usage of the phrase, “separation of church and state” is revealed not as a noble effort to foster the freedom of religion as much as it’s an attempt to replace Christianity with a spiritual paradigm that says the individual is his own Absolute.

Confronted with a platform that’s difficult to refute without conceding the selfish character of their argument, it’s here where the most vocal advocates of the separation of church and state will say, “That’s your opinion.”

While it’s not always the case, more often than not, when you’re involved in a debate and someone says, “Well, that’s your opinion,” you’re hearing that person attempt to avoid the line of questioning that has the potential to reveal their platform as being fundamentally flawed. So, rather than stay engaged, they retreat behind the premise that suggests everyone is right all the time which is by default accompanied by the idea that to disagree with whatever they believe represents a form of oppression.

On the surface, it has the appearance of cooperation and compassion. But in the hands of those who have something to hide more than they have something to say, responding to an argument by saying, “That’s your opinion,” is a tactic designed to make their platform appear logically and morally comparable to whatever other options may exist, regardless of how nonsensical or unsustainable their perspective may be.

And that’s the problem…

What Actually Happens

The fact that a person has the “right to be happy,” or the “right to choose” or, “is entitled to their opinion” doesn’t mean that every option that’s available to them translates to the same outcome.

At some point you have to evaluate the mindsets being considered according to what actually happens when those viewpoints are deployed.

We’re not talking about your feelings, my beliefs or the rules you want to dismiss as corrupt simply because they prevent you from being your own bottom line. Rather, we’re talking about those things that result from the perspective you subscribe to.

If someone is driving on the wrong side of the road it’s hard to imagine that person defending their being in the wrong lane by saying, “You accusing me of driving on the wrong side of the road is a manifestion of an oppressive society and you’re making me feel uncomfortable.”

Yet that is the approach taken by someone who wants to ignore the practical results of their perspective and instead focus only on the way they feel. To their way of thinking, anything that’s wise, healthy or beneficial is secondary to whatever it is that best promotes the idea that they are in charge.

Who Makes the Rules?

You Can’t Make Me Believe

Saying, “You can’t make me believe…” is neither a defense nor an indictment. You’re not defending your position nor are you challenging the substance of your opponent’s argument. All your doing is attempting to assert the idea that your perspective is somehow superior, not because of it’s logical density but because you’re uncomfortable with what’s being said.

Your discomfort doesn’t qualify as a rebuttal nor does the damage your philsophy creates gets overlooked simply because you prefer a different approach.

Every argument and school of thought has a starting point – a collection of assumptions that dictate the direction and the strength of the line of logic that proceeds from that philosophical baseline.

If your perspective on a particular issue begins with the belief that there is no God, then you’re inevitably basing your mindset on a human agency – be it a court, a legal document or a cultural trend. All of these things can be altered to accommodate a shifting consensus and are therefore fluid.

This can be a very handy tool in the hands of someone who’s looking to promote a specific agenda that requires a noble sounding justification in that you can sound compassionate, yet be morally bankrupt because of the way you guage the difference between right and wrong according to an adjustable scale.

But if, on the other hand, you believe that the Bible represents the Authoritative bottom line on the human experience, your perspective will be based on Something that does not and can not change, thus providing a dependable approach that isn’t compromised by dynamics that can be corrupted.

Who Makes the Rules?

Whatever polls, soundbytes, headlines or subject matter experts you compile, at the root of your argument will be either a Divine Absolute that gives it weight and substance or it will be a human preference that can be challenged and overruled.

The reason the Declaration of Independence resonated as a cause and not just as a complaint is because we referenced the Creator as being the Standard that showed how the monarchy of King George violated the rights that were not his to dispense but were God’s to guarantee.

It’s because God makes the rules that we can embrace them as tools that strengthen the barriers that prevent the deterioration which causes us to stumble and fail both on a personal and national level.

They’re free and they work.

But to the individual who chooses to engage his existence believing himself to be his own bottom line, he will condemn anything that challenges his authority as cruel and antiquated. Determined to process safeguards as limitations, he blames the pain and problems caused by his personal regime on either the God Who supposedly doesn’t exist or the people who aren’t willing to certify his calamities as accomplishments.

This is why it can be a difficult conversation to navigate. Those who dismiss the Reality of God’s Influence in the universe and in their lives will insulate themselves from any correction or criticism by insisting any system or opinion that doesn’t reinforce their mindset constitutes an attack that qualifies them as wounded and oppressed.

But the fact of the matter is, they’re simply trying to create new standards of behavior in order to avoid being held accountable for both their actions and their chosen perspective.

As long as the dialogue is defined as a noble activist fighting against an oppressive and opinionated system, the odds will swing in their favor when it comes to determining what’s a fair and appropriate approach to politics, morals, medicine and religion.

But let the conversation be steered according to who it is that’s making the rules to begin with and you’ve got a much more revealing exchange. Once it becomes apparent that their concept of justice and morality are founded on an entirely different foundation than the one upon which our nation is built, their topics are rightly perceived as tactics to replace rabbis, priests and pastors with lawyers, judges and magistrates.

Before you can make the right decision, you first have to establish what is True.

And in order to figure out what is True, you first have to identify the One Who defines the Truth.

Who makes the rules?

Let that be where you begin and sensation will give way to substance, the real problems can now be discerned and the answers you seek can now be discovered.

Two Headlines – the Essence of Fake News

headlines24 Enemies disguise themselves with
their lips, but in their hearts they harbor
deceit.25 Though their speech is
charming, do not believe them, for seven
abominations fill their hearts.
26 Their malice may be concealed by deception,
but their wickedness will be exposed in the
assembly. (Prov 26:24-26 [see also Prov 6:26])But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord.
Always be prepared to give an answer to
everyone who asks you to give the reason
for the hope that
you have. But do this with gentleness and
respect…(1 Pet 3:15)

Imagine two headlines. First headline:

Jesus Rises From the Grave!

Second headline:

Pharisees Doubt the Resurrection of Christ

Both headlines represent quality journalism in that they capture their readers’ attention and make them want to read more. But in order for the articles to resonate as truly accurate, the journalist in question would have to ensure that both sides of the story are being given equal exposure.

Yes, Jesus rose from the grave, but there were a number of people who saw Him die yet never saw Him walking the streets of Jerusalem, so not everyone was convinced that Christ had somehow come back to life (Matt 27:19-23; 1 Cor 15:3-8.

On the other hand, there were some sinister characters who knew that the disciples hadn’t stolen the body, yet were determined to circulate the idea that the whole thing was a farce and needed to be dismissed as pure fiction (Matt 28:11-15).

Here’s where journalism can either be a tremendous help or a toxic distraction.

If I, as a reporter, am cynical and perhaps even antagonistic towards the idea of a would be Messiah coming back to life, I can still resolve to report the Resurrection without passion or prejudice and give my readers the opportunity to formulate their own conclusions based on a presentation of the facts that is both complete and thorough.

Or…

I can allow my bias to dictate the integrity of my article and emphasize the facts that cater to my preferences and gloss over those things that have the potential to refute my personal opinion.

I can be ethical without being forthcoming…

…and the more credible my reputation the more damage I can do in that many of my readers will assume that my analysis is comprehensive and go on to adopt a viewpoint that is fundamentally flawed all the while believing that is informed and irrefutable.

This is the essence of fake news.

It’s not that it lacks in accuracy as much as it’s intentionally incomplete and when you’re dealing with a culture that tends to hear with their eyes and think with their feelings, it is an incredibly effective way to shape the mindset of an entire society to the point where everything from their morals to their politics is based on facts more so than truth.

But here’s something to keep in mind: While irresponsible journalism may be a problem, it isn’t the reporters that are responsible for the way we live or think. Yes, they do need to be held accountable,  but it’s up the individual to research things for themselves to the point where they can explain what they believe and why they believe it…

…and not be compelled to admit their whole paradigm is based on two headlines.

The Arrogant Drum Student

Screen Shot 2019-12-07 at 11.31.42 AM

What follows is an exchange I had on Facebook with someone who was brought up in a Christian environment, but decided later to side with those who see Christianity as ridiculous if not toxic.

His comments and his indictments are loaded with vitriol – which is not uncommon for a person who’s as determined as they are desperate to look into the expanse of the universe and try to explain everything with a chemistry set and a calculator.

Arguing with these types can be an exercise in futility. You’re not dealing merely with an academic argument. There’s a host of brilliant scientists and philosophers who’ve looked at the same data and come to a conclusion that’s lines up with Scripture rather than deviates from it as far as the origin of the cosmos and man’s dependence on God. So, from the standpoint of academia, Atheism is not the superior argument that it’s advocates would have their audience believe by saying that only intellectual weaklings could subscribe to the idea of there being a God in Heaven.

What you have is an argument laced with emotional cyanide in that they’re determined to kill any notion of an absolute beyond themselves. This is manifested in a form of arrogance that is similar to the kind of disposition you run into from time to time when you’re giving music lessons to a person who sees themselves as beyond the need for any kind of instruction.

I used the illustration of, “The Arrogant Drum Student” to make my point as I responded to this individual. 

Enjoy…

For five years I was a Drum Instructor at the Armed Forces School of Music. Bar none, it was one of the most rewarding experiences in my professional career.

It could be a little frustrating, however, when you had to contend with a student that refused to believe there was room for any improvement in the way they played. They were their own Absolute. And if they were confronted with a situation where they were obligated to concede that they weren’t “all that,” instead of embracing it as an opportunity to learn and improve, they would criticize the curriculum and / or assault the character of whoever was trying to teach them something. Nothing was allowed to upset or threaten the universe they had created for themselves where the only measurement of quality was the one they themselves had instituted.

In some instances, it proved professionally lethal because when it was time to take their final audition, inevitably they weren’t prepared and they would fail. But even as they were headed out the door, they were cussing everybody and everything except their own refusal to acknowledge any standard apart from the standard of themselves.

This is not only an apt description of an arrogant student, it’s also the philosophical disposition of someone who refuses to believe in God.

I hesitate using the word, “atheist.” Reason being is that your “god” is whoever you default to when it comes to defining your morality, your destiny, your origin and your purpose. If you maintain yourself as your own deity, everyone of the aforementioned dynamics are defined and processed according to a purely self centered paradigm. Creation is a lucky accident, morality is a matter of preference, life after death is a subjective fill-in-the blank and purpose is nothing more than however you choose to invest your time.

Even when you attempt to enhance your definitions of things like justice and compassion with words that imply a commitment to the common good, you are still in control and your allegiance to whatever convictions or institutions you’re currently subscribing to remain intact for only as long as they appeal to your personal preferences.

The very idea of God is heinous to the atheist because it necessitates them having to relinquish their “throne” and install Him as the rightful King of their lives and the Divine Bottom Line for all things related to the human experience. And just like the self absorbed student, when they find themselves having to scramble in order to make their hollow standards sound more substantial, they default to criticizing the Curriculum (the Bible) and assaulting the Instructor (God Himself).

…god will burn you for eternity if you don’t love him enough

For someone who supposedly read the Bible multiple times, you should know it’s God’s grace and not your performance that translates to a relationship with Christ. And that grace really is “amazing” when you consider the fact that even on your best day, you’re still light years removed from being holy, yet that’s exactly what God sees when you accept the fact that Christ died for you rather than maintain it either as a myth or a hollow tradition.

Well, you believe he drowned his children though? And ordered genocide on them? I mean…

I believe that it’s possible to engage in a form of evil that is so vile, that God can, and will, end your life. It’s a form of Divine Capital Punishment that’s coming from a Perfect Judge and if you want to question that, you can, but it requires an willingness to believe that you’re wiser and more just than God Himself.

WHO CREATED YOUR CREATOR? lol Real easy to not actually think, and just say silly nonsense. Big bang is pretty well accepted, do you even know what red shift is? Nope.

And where did you get your gravity from? It you’re going to start with the cosmological equivalent to the null set, you don’t have time, you don’t have matter and you don’t have space. Moreover, you don’t have chemical properties or the laws of physics. You don’t even have a blank screen. You think you’re revealing some mortal flaw in Christian’s view of creation by asking who created God. You don’t even have a chemistry set, champ, yet you’re suggesting there was an “explosion…?”

I willing to believe that there was a Big Bang, but when you consider the Cosmological Constant and even the words of Einstein, the notion that this was all a result of random forces, let alone the presumed preexistence of systems and material necessary for a “big bang” is bogus. Furthermore to subscribe to the idea that there wasn’t Somebody Who orchestrated those forces in a manner that reflects the resulting precision and elegance of the created order is asinine.

See the difference here is.. I don’t say I know what was before the Big bang. Most likely the Universe is on a cycle…One thing is for CERTAIN. The imaginary god, of a blood cult of sacrifice, from mythological texts from the Iron and Bronze ages, didn’t create ANYTHING. lol

What, did you take a selfie of you and the starting point of the universe? Your adherence to Evolution and the idea that even the precise nature of a single cell is a result of purely random forces is more of a leap of faith than me believing that there had to be a Creator. And it is faith. What you cling to is not based on a scientific method because a “billion years” cannot be observed let alone quantified. You don’t explain the laws of nature by bending them and then walk away thinking you’ve got it all figured out. You actually have more question marks than you do exclamation points regardless of how dogmatic you try to sound.

Are you aware of the Doughnut / Orange / Torus Universe theories?

Yes. And everyone of those theories assumes a collection of ordered systems within which those theories can function. You don’t explain the ORIGIN of anything by circumventing questions like where your Periodic Table came from.

My opinions are based on facts, when new facts are discovered, my opinions change, based on those FACTS…

No. Your opinions are based on theories. It’s called the “Theory of Evolution” because there’s even less evidence to support it today than when he first wrote “Origin of Species” and the same goes for the lion’s share of what atheists cling to in order to explain their existence. And anytime those theories are adjusted in order to compensate for their lack of substance, your convictions have to be amended as well. Your need to adjust your perspective is not based on academic humility as much as it’s based on intellectual desperation.

Know what IS NOT A FACT? That ANY of you are one way telepathic pen pals, and possible ‘best friends’ with the creator of all existence.

No, here are the facts: I’ve got over 2,000 years worth of architecture, art, literature, music, archaeology along with over two millennia worth of dramatically changed lives to justify a solid conviction that Jesus really did live, He really did die and He really did come back to life. When He did that, He validated everything He ever said as being absolutely True and when I make a point of following the Instructions on the Box, I benefit. in that my Purpose goes beyond my business card, my morality goes beyond my appetites and my destiny goes beyond my tombstone,

Know what else is a fact? Blood makes things dirty, not clean. Know what else is a fact? Pretending to drink human blood, and eat human flesh, to please an imaginary god, is BONKERS… What sort of “all powerful god”, needs something to die, so he has a way to avoid burning a very slim percentage of his creations, for eternity? Good grief dude, it is 2020 in less than 30 days. Just stop spreading this nonsense.

The Bible never advocates blood as a detergent. Transubstantiation is bonkers, but it’s a Catholic distortion and not a Biblical precept. When Christ presided over the Last Supper, He was speaking to the symbolism represented by the Passover and how it was seeing its ultimate manifestation in His death and resurrection. God doesn’t “need” anything, it’s the sinner that’s broken and needs to be fixed. Hell is not a forgone conclusion, it’s a choice and it’s not a “slim percentage” that requires redemption, it’s anybody that’s ever breathed.

And let’s pause here for a minute…Hell IS a choice. Atheists love to ask, “How can a loving God send someone to hell?” when the real question is, “How can a rational human being refuse the grace offered by a loving God?”

I mean, sure it’s totally normal for a god to be obsessed with the removal of foreskins in a bloody snip, foreskins that he purposely created, to be chopped off.. BRILLIANT.. This is the base event, that Christianity binds itself to. Abraham hears voices in his head, cuts off the end of his and his sons genitals, and only stops from murdering his oldest son when angels fly down out of the sky. Because your all knowing god, needed him to almost murder, to prove his loyalty… Brilliant.. Please stop pandering to this nonsense.

Circumcision is not the base event that Christianity binds itself to, it’s the Resurrection. Abraham wasn’t hearing a voice in his head, he was hearing the voice of God and Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son was a picture of the way in which God would sacrifice His Son. The only difference being is that God didn’t intervene at the last minute and instead watched His Son die for individual like you who refer to it as “nonsense.”

Here’s the bottom line: You want to maintain yourself as your own deity and anything that can’t be explained empirically is instead defined according to outrageous probability values and a host of assumed variables. You observe the created order and insist that it came from chaos, when confronted with the obvious limitations of science, you nevertheless declare it as irrefutable and instead of processing humanity as a reflection of his Creator, you reduce him to a self absorbed accident desperately trying to explain and validate their existence before their expiration date.

It’s Christmas, man! Christ’s mass. You say you’ve read the Bible several times, well go back and read Romans 1:20 (origin), Ephesians 2:10 (purpose), Hebrews 9:27 (destiny), Psalm 19:7 (morality) and don’t miss Romans 5:8! It’s the most wonderful time of the year because what was closed door has been flung open wide by God agreeing to pay the penalty that we would otherwise have had to pay ourselves. That’s something to celebrate! But it will never make sense let alone be welcome to that person who maintains themselves as their own absolute just like that drum student who dismissed any standard save the standard of their own ability.

 

Dear Jim…

ten-commandments-list-where-in-the-bible-does-it-talk-about-the-ten-commandmentsHere’s the thing:

I can’t prove that Jesus died and came back to life.

I can point to all of the evidence that exists in terms of archaeology, architecture, music, literature, art and 2,000 years worth of dramatically changed lives, but I don’t have a selfie featuring the Son of God and me mugging for the camera as He’s existing the empty tomb.

That’s the thing about Scripture that makes it difficult to “prove.” We can’t go back in time and validate things as an eyewitness. We’re limited to what’s been written and then go from there.

Thing is, atheists are in a similar predicament in that they can’t prove that Jesus never existed. Again, going back to the aforementioned evidence, while I can process it as credible, someone else can come along and logically question just how “credible” it is in light of possible corruption or anything else that could possibly have been done in centuries past that makes the whole thing imaginary and thus irrelevant. But, again, you can’t “prove” that by providing raw footage of said corruption. We both have to contend with the same limitations and thus the same lack of absolute certainty.

There’s no need to go back 2,000 years to evaluate whether or not the way the Bible instructs a person to live and think is authentic. Morality, emotional health, professional ambition, ethics, politics, physical fitness, mortality – all of these things are covered in the Bible and I would submit to you while there may always be some question marks about the authenticity of the Christian faith (as far as being able to observe things like the Resurrection first hand), the practical substance of the Christian doctrine is more than enough to justify faith in Christ.

There is, however, something else to consider and that’s the “utility” of the Bible.

However subjective the historical reality of Christ may be, the philosophical paradigm that’s advocated in Scripture is a purely objective entity which can be read and applied in real time. In this context, we’re not looking at whether or not what we’re evaluating was crafted 2,000 years ago. You’re simply looking at the way in which Scripture instructs people to live and think and then observing what results from applying those Truths. And it’s in the context of applying those Truths – using the methodology that’s also taught in Scripture – that you discover perhaps the most compelling evidence for the Christian doctrine.

Let me show you…

Let’s go with the Ten Commandments for starters. Remember, we’re not trying to authenticate the identity of Moses or whether or not the Red Sea was parted, thus allowing the Israelites to pass through on dry land. We’re looking at the practical application of Exodus 20 and considering how it impacts the life and perspective of someone who’s applying it in the way the approach themselves and the world around them.

You shall have no other gods before me. (Ex 20:3)

You can’t be greedy, prideful or depressed unless you’re thinking of yourself first and foremost. I’m not saying you have to be “selfish” to be sad. What I’m saying is that in order to be perpetually cynical or to exist in a state of chronic despair, you have to be focused on:

  • what’s happened to you
  • why it happened to you
  • how it makes you feel
  • how you can’t think of anything else
  • how you will never be the same
  • and how everyone should make an exception for you because of the situation you are in

In a similar way, a consistently prideful disposition is possible only if you’re focused on…

  • what you can do
  • what you have accomplished
  • why you are so special
  • what you are planning
  • and why you need to be the center of attention regardless of whatever else may be going on

When you make a point of subordinating what would otherwise be a situation where everything is processed through the filter of your ability and your preferences, you open yourself up to a perspective that is founded on Perfect Strength, Knowledge and Love. Consequently, you are a pleasure to work with, you have an optimistic disposition, your priorities are in order and should someone ask what it is that makes you tick, you are quick to point to the True Source of both your mindset and your ability.

4 You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments. (Ex 20:4-6)

I can put premium fuel into my gas tank or I can fill it up with water. The gauge may say my tank is full, but the moment I go to start my car, the true composition of my fuel is going to be revealed as either real or fake.

If I’m going to benefit from all that Christ brings to the table, I’ve got to be focused on the Person of Jesus Christ as He’s defined in Scripture and not an image of Christ as he’s represented by a collection of cultural opinions. And not only for my own sake, but also for those who are within the sphere of my influence. Otherwise, not only am I going to be sitting on the side of the road, so will everyone else who’s followed my example.

You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name. (Ex 20:7)

Even if I do have premium fuel in my gas tank, I’m still behind the wheel. I can choose where to go, regardless of the map that God’s given me that leads to a destination I can be certain is well worth my time and energy.

It’s one thing when I make it clear that I’m headed off in a different direction simply because I think I know better. It’s quite another when I profess to be following the Instructions on the box when in fact I’m not. At that point, I’m forging His Signature and giving the world the impression that I’m obeying my Heavenly Father when, the truth of the matter is, my Heavenly Father may have told me to do the exact opposite.

In that moment, not only am I squandering all the potential represented by Jeremiah 29:11, I’m also a potentially toxic distraction to those on the outside looking in who believe, based on my phraseology, that I’m a good example of what God can do in and through a person who’s serving Someone and Something greater than themselves.

8 Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Going to church on Sunday and being engaged rather than simply being present is much like going outside and looking at the stars on a clear night. You’re not just observing the constellations, you’re holding yourself and your circumstances up the Light of God’s Reality and Ability (Psalm 8). In that moment, you’re reminded of how it’s not what’s “happening” in your life as much as it’s what God is “doing” in your life. And with that reminder comes the philosophical foundation that needs to be dusted off from time to time and that’s the fact that He is God and He is aware and that He is able.

Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you. (Ex 20:12)

One of the primary jobs that your parents have is to teach you all about God, His Word, and why it’s as advantageous as it is to seek His Counsel in everything you say, think and do. If you’re honoring them, you’re opening yourself up to what they have to say and all the benefits that go along with it.

Now, while that command is for children, parents have got a line to toe as well (Prov 22:6; Eph 6:4). There’s more to “training” your child than just insisting that they go to church every Sunday and refrain from immoral behavior simply because “they should.” When you pop the hood on Proverbs 22:6, the verbiage is telling the parent to know their child well enough to understand how they are wired so that the advantages of obeying Scripture are understood as legitimate benefits and not intrusive limitations.  To teach someone means to cause them to learn. If they’re learning nothing more than just a code of ethics that they’re adhering to simply to avoid disciplinary action from the Mom and Dad, they’re not learning anything other than just how to avoid being grounded.

On the other hand, if Mom and Dad are diligent students of Scripture and can not only explain what they believe and why, but also back their creed up with their character, then they’re in a good position to truly teach their kids Who God is and what He’s bringing to the table. It’s at that point that Exodus 20:12 is especially practical because you now have the Authority of God Himself behind a parent’s efforts to teach and train their child.

If every parent was resolved to lead by example and teach their kids everything that goes along with 1 Corinthians 12:31, then the world would be a better place. But not every parent thinks like that and some end up abusing their kids rather than raising them. Still, this command is helpful because you want to honor the office even if you don’t honor the man or the woman. Reason being is that an abusive parent leaves emotional and psychological wounds that are deep and dark. If you don’t forgive them, you wind up fastening a ball and chain to your psyche that makes it difficult to function. By obeying this command, you release the poison in your system that, while it may be there through no fault of your own, it is still something you want to rid yourself of if for no other reason than to ensure the apple falls as far away from the tree as possible when the time comes to raise your own children.

You shall not murder. (Ex 20:13)

“Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not do any thing hurtful or injurious to the health, ease, and life, of thy own body, or any other person’s unjustly.’’
This is one of the laws of nature, and was strongly enforced by the precepts given to Noah and his sons, Gen. 9:5, Gen. 9:6 . It does not forbid killing in lawful war, or in our own necessary defence, nor the magistrate’s putting offenders to death, for those things tend to the preserving of life; but it forbids all malice and hatred to the person of any (for he that hateth his brother is a murderer ), and all personal revenge arising therefrom; also all rash anger upon sudden provocations, and hurt said or done, or aimed to be done, in passion: of this our Saviour expounds this commandment, Mt. 5:22 . And, as that which is worst of all, it forbids persecution, laying wait for the blood of the innocent and excellent ones of the earth.

This isn’t just a command to not kill someone. When you consider the fact that man is made in the image of God, you’re not just taking a life, you’re assaulting that which is precious and valuable to your King.

Dr. Ravi Zacharias sums it up this way…

At its core life is sacred and of inestimable value, whether it is the life of a darling child in the fresh blossom of childhood, or the life of an elderly, weak, and frail recluse. We are each made in God’s sacred image. Think of this truth! That is why murder is described in Scripture for what it is: an attack upon God’s image. That is also why we are told, “Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer” (1 John 3:15). Murder and even hateful words are attempts to destroy God’s image in another and to deny one’s value and spiritual essence. It is that essence which gives us our dignity and our worth. It is that essence which is our glory and true home.

When you make a point of seeing others as those who bear the image of God, it changes the way you look at people in general. Regardless of their race, color, creed or whether or not they just cut you off in traffic, theirs is an identity founded on something Divine and thus rates a consideration that goes beyond what might otherwise be the case if your perspective was founded solely on your personal passions and preferences.

It’s the fact that your neighbor (see Lk 10:25-37) bears the image of their King and therefore is more than a random face in the crowd that serves as the philosophical foundation for the remaining commandments.

You shall not commit adultery. (Ex 20:14)

It’s not just a violation of one’s chastity, it’s a violation of the marriage covenant which, by definition, is a contract made with God.

You shall not steal. (Ex 20:15)

You’re not just taking something that doesn’t belong to you, you’re taking something that was given to someone else by God.

You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor. (Ex 20:16)

You’re not just attacking the integrity of your neighbor, you’re attacking the integrity of God. That’s not to suggest that your neighbor is the embodiment of truth, but, again, because he’s made in the image of God, there’s a bigger picture to consider than just the individual you’re maligning.

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. (Ex 20:17)

Some of you have probably heard me mention the simple conversation between Jesus and the one who was questioning him, trying to pit him against Caesar. And he looked at Jesus and he said, “Is it alright to pay taxes to Caesar?” (Mark 12:14-17) That is one question I wish so desperately Jesus had answered differently—then on April 15 you could be godly and rebellious at the same time!

Jesus, so brilliant in his response, he says, “Give me a coin.” And he took the coin and he says, “Whose image do you see on this?” The man says, “Caesar.” Jesus says, “Give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and give to God that which is God’s.”

The disingenuousness of the questioner is noticed in the fact that he did not come back with a second question. He should have said, “What belongs to God?” And Jesus would have said, “Whose image is on you?”

Give to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar; give to God that which belongs to God. God’s image is on you. (Ravi Zacharias)

To covet something goes beyond simply admiring it. It means that you’re intent upon seizing it illegitimately. Whereas stealing is the external act of thievery, coveting is the internal machinations that lead to stealing.

Again, because your neighbor is made in the image of God, any sort of malice or wrongdoing directed towards your neighbor is ultimately an assault on God Himself.

So, to summarize what we’re looking at here:

This is more than just a code of ethics to be adhered to for the sake of being courteous and moral. It’s a perspective that’s founded on the vertical relationship that exists between all of humanity and God. And what makes all this incredibly amazing and distinctive when compared to all other religions is that God doesn’t simply say, “Get it done or else!” He provides both the strength (Is 41:10; 1 Cor 10:13) and the will (Ps 119:32; Jer 31:33; Rom 6:18; Phil 2:13) to make it happen.

And there’s so much more…

But the bottom line is: It works.

In 1976, a gentleman by the name of Francis Schaeffer published a book entitled, “How Then Shall We Live.” It’s a phenomenal book that traces the way in which society thinks based on its collective worldview and how this collective mindset can be seen in its art and architecture as well as in its religious orthodoxy. His point is that when you build your society / individual life on Divine Absolutes, the result is something substantial and liberating.

It works…

On the other hand, when you build your society / individual life on a humanistic paradigm, the result is a chaotic and fragmented existence.

It’s an overview of that book that I would submit as my conclusion.

According to Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live traces Western history from Ancient Rome until the time of writing (1976) along three lines: the philosophic, scientific, and religious. He also makes extensive references to art and architecture as a means of showing how these movements reflected changing patterns of thought through time. Schaeffer’s central premise is: when we base society on the Bible, on the infinite-personal God who is there and has spoken, this provides an absolute by which we can conduct our lives and by which we can judge society. This leads to what Schaeffer calls “Freedom without chaos.” When we base society on humanism, which he defines as “a value system rooted in the belief that man is his own measure, that man is autonomous, totally independent”, all values are relative and we have no way to distinguish right from wrong except for “synthesis, pragmatism, and utilitarianism.” Because we disagree on what is best for which group, this leads to fragmentation of thought, which has led us to the despair and alienation so prevalent in society today. This fragmentation is expressed in the visual arts in works such as Les Demoiselles d’Avignon by Pablo Picasso. This work is considered to mark the beginning of Modern Art. Another premise is that modern relative values are based on Personal Peace (the desire to be personally unaffected by the world’s problems) and Affluence (an increasing personal income.) He warns that when we live by these values we will be tempted to sacrifice our freedoms in exchange for an authoritarian government who will provide the relative values. He further warns that this government will not be obvious like the fascist regimes of the 20th century but will be based on manipulation and subtle forms of information control, psychology, and genetics. (“How Then Shall We Live“)

 

When someone asks me, “What do you believe and why do you believe it?” I respond by saying that, “I believe that Jesus died and came back to life.” And when they ask, “Why do you believe that?” I answer, “…because of the credibility and the utility of Scripture.” And while I can’t provide raw footage of any of the apostles or the prophets writing said text, I can look at the content and see a way of life that justifies my confidence in my creed.

There you have it!

But How Do You Know?

311962-question-markHow do you know the Bible is true?

If the basis for your belief in Christ includes the substance of Scripture, which it invariably does, how do you respond to a question that must have an element that qualifies it as something consistent with the tone of verses like 2 Timothy 4;2, 1 Peter 3:15 and 2 Peter 1:16? “Being prepared” should include a defense that goes beyond what can be perceived as nothing more than an ethereal faith.  Where is the logic? What is the “common sense” that points to the Bible as being both relevant and accurate?

Anything that falls in the category of “a long time ago” has to be processed according to the evidence which validates that event or person as being authentic. In the absence of footage or a recording of some kind, you’re restricted to eyewitnesses and if those aren’t an option, then you’re going with archeology and various antiquities that demonstrate the authenticity of whatever you’re considering.

The Bible is not short on credibility from a historical standpoint. Nelson Glueck, the renowned Jewish archaeologist, wrote:

“It may be stated categorically that no archeological discovery has every controverted a biblical reference.” He continued his assertion of “the almost incredibly accurate historical memory of the Bible, and particularly so when it is fortified by archaeological fact.”1

The New Testament is no less substantial in its historical accuracy. Merrill Unger was a prolific writer, archeologist, teacher and pastor. He writes,

“The Acts of the Apostles is now generally agreed in scholarly circles to be the work of Luke, to belong to the first century and to involve the labors of a careful historian who was substantially accurate in his use of sources. 2

So, the evidence is there to substantiate the conviction that the Bible is, at the very least, historically accurate. It follows, then, that the account of Jesus is likewise accurate. Still, it amazes me how regardless of the amount of evidence to support the authenticity of a particular event or the accomplishments of a historic individual, some will nevertheless doubt and maintain a cynical disposition regardless of how compelling and / or obvious the evidence may be. The Holocaust, for example. There are people who insist that it never happened. It’s ridiculous, yet it’s never beyond a determined individual to doubt even something in recent history if their philosophical framework will not allow it.

It’s not a dynamic reserved for contemporary cynics, however. In the book of Exodus, you’ve got the Hebrews doubting the existence of God Himself, having just witnessed the Passover and walked across the dry bed of the Red Sea. They were within several weeks of these monumental spectacles and yet when Moses seemed to be dragging his feet in coming down from Mount Sinai, the Jews decided to invent a whole new religious paradigm (see Ex 32)!

So, when asked “How do I know?”, although there is an abundance of evidence from the standpoint of archeology, art, music, literature, architecture, along with 2,000 years of radically changed lives, “evidence” is not always compelling, especially in the mind of someone who’s philosophically invested in being a cynic. So, with that in mind, beyond that which is empirical, is there something that falls within the category of “logical” that can substantiate the credibility of Scripture?

Two things:Unless the Bible is True, it makes absolutely no sense. Those who doubt it’s authenticity want to suggest that it’s an effort on the part of a sinister and lunatic constituency to manipulate and influence the masses, but that makes absolutely no sense. Your Hero, while a charismatic and popular teacher, is nevertheless a fool in the way He agitates the establishment and succumbs to a violent and gruesome death. Most of your principal characters are epic failures from a moral standpoint. There’s very little about Scripture that can be cast as a promotional brochure. Luke 9:23 says that if anyone wants to follow Him, they’ve got to “deny” themselves and “take up their cross.” Hardly the verbiage you envision as part of a promotional campaign.

It is utterly nonsensical.

Unless…

It’s True!

Now, it all makes sense. Christ wasn’t foolhardy, He was resolved. All of the principal characters like Moses, Abraham and the Apostles – they’re not intended to be anything other than examples of how even in the midst of some dramatic human frailties, God can accomplish great things.

The bottom line is: Apart from it being True, the Bible could not have endured as anything other than a local legend that would’ve quickly faded as a ridiculous story, especially given the way it was so offensive to the Jewish religious establishment as well as the Roman government to the point of being lethal should you determine to believe it, let alone champion it.

But because it is True…

…it IS the Word of God and Christ IS the Bread of Life.

PS: Ravi Zacharias is an amazing mind. Brought up in India, he became a Christian in the aftermath of an especially dark time in his life. Today he’s a Professor of World Religions and a powerful champion of Christianity in the context of debates and lectures that he does all over the world.

In one particular lecture, he referenced his “2-3-4” rule when it comes to evaluating the utility of any one particular worldview / religion.

2 – Correspondence and Coherence

3 –  Logical Consistency, Empirical Adequacy, and Experiential Relevance

4 – Origin, Meaning, Morality, and Destiny

http://rzim.org/just-thinking/think-again-deep-questions/

Christianity – It Cannot be Believed by a Thinking Person

hitchensBut in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, (1 Pet 3:15)

I) Intro

There are a number of very vocal and very articulate people out there who sneer at Christianity, as though it were a preposterous notion to subscribe to something so ridiculous. Christopher Hitchens is one of those people. In this installment of MC, we’re going to take a look at some of what he says and offer a rebuttal that reveals his platform as flawed, limited and nonsensical.

Let’s take a look…

II) Christopher Hitchens

Hitchens was born in 1939 and recently passed away in 2011. He was an English writer who spent a great deal of time in the US and eventually became a citizen. A gifted speaker, he was a forceful orator, especially when it came to the issue of religion. At one point, he said that a person “could be an atheist and wish that belief in god were correct”, but that “an antitheist, a term I’m trying to get into circulation, is someone who is relieved that there’s no evidence for such an assertion”.1 Richard Dawkins, a British evolutionary biologist and an avowed atheist, said of Hitchens, “I think he was one of the greatest orators of all time. He was a polymath, a wit, immensely knowledgeable, and a valiant fighter against all tyrants, including imaginary supernatural ones.”2

Today we’re looking at one example of Hitchens’ commentaries on Christianity which you can find on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbOUBUVLvKw. Here’s a brief summary of some of what he had to say: hitchens_comments III) Privacy

Privacy, in this instance, is an issue only if you’re interested in hiding something from God. And the only reason you would be interested in hiding something is if you had something you were hesitant to divulge before Him. In other words, you, like Cain, are trying to slip by unnoticed in order to preserve the illusion that you are blameless (Gen 4:9; Ps 51:5). No one is. But that is not an occasion to resent God’s Omniscience, rather it’s something to celebrate as far as being completely known and yet completely loved.

Psalm 139. He observes how God is completely aware of every nuance of his heart and mind. He revels in the freedom he has before God to be utterly transparent and, at the same time supremely confident that he is accepted by a Holy God.

What’s the difference between Moses and Christopher? The difference is that Christopher superimposes the flaws of humanity upon God’s holiness because the idea of Divine Perfection reside beyond the borders of his definition of what’s reasonable. Hence, God’s ability to know someone completely is processed as surveillance rather than omniscience. And in the same way, he processes omnipotence as arrogance.

It Can’t Be Believed by a Thinking Person
(Christianity) can’t be believed by a thinking person. Why am I glad this is the case? To get to the point of the wrongness of Christianity, because I think the teachings of Christianity are immoral. The central one is the most immoral of all, and that is the one of vicarious redemption. (Christopher Hitchens)

IV) Indifferent and Distant

He goes on to say that for the better part of 98,000 years God did nothing as man struggled and suffered. The Old Testament makes it obvious that God was very involved in the lives of His people, so to say that He was doing nothing is a gross understatement. Consider the Exodus, the enumerable military campaigns of the Israeli army, the time of the judges, as well as the way in which all of the Major and Minor Prophets describe God as being intimately aware of His people’s condition and completely committed to their welfare.

No doubt, Christopher questions God’s activity with the other people groups that aren’t mentioned in Scripture. What of those that didn’t have access to Christ? What of those who never heard of the Ten Commandments?

In Rev 5:9 that there will be people from every nation throughout history in Heaven. While the Bible doesn’t go into any kind of detail as to how that works, one can rest assured that the Message of God’s grace will have been communicated and his judgement will be fair (Acts 10:34-35; Rom 1:20; Jas 2:25). Click here for more reading on that subject.

V) In the Desert

Christopher’s also critical of God’s decision to announce His Solution to sin to a people “in the desert” who are not nearly as literate or as advanced as the Chinese. At the time of Christ, the Roman Empire was under the authority of Caesar Augustus. Never before had so many human beings acknowledged the authority of a single leader. His subjects formed more than one third of the entire global population.3 When you couple that with Rome’s educational system, which was heavily influenced by the Greeks, along with Rome’s engineering and technology, Hitchens comment is revealed as being less than credible. Rome was very well positioned to serve as a starting point for the gospel message (see Acts 25:12; 28:30).

VI) Christianity is Immoral

Hitchens then goes on to say that he regards the Christian message to be immoral. His conclusion is derived from a limited perspective on the consequences of any kind of wrongdoing. While it is both appropriate and biblical to take responsibility for the wrongful act that you’ve committed (Matt 5:23-26), the spiritual ramifications of sin are both eternal and lethal and cannot be offset by any kind of human effort (2 Sam 12:13 [see also http://www.reformation21.org/articles/a-godcentered-understanding-of-sin.php]). In other words, being ethical may address the material debt incurred by your actions and it may even ease the tension felt as a result of your wrongdoing, but it accomplishes nothing as far as paying the debt that is owed to God.

That’s what makes grace so amazing. It’s not a question of the lengths you go to in order to compensate for your actions – that’s an expected response from a moral perspective. But neither you nor I can atone for our sin on our own (Heb 10:4). It requires a Divine Solution. And when you consider the price that God was willing to pay for said solution, to regard it as immoral is nonsensical. Rather, it’s a kind of love that is nothing short of outrageous in that it is entirely undeserved, yet freely given (1 Jn 3:1).

VII) No Win Scenario

Finally, Hitchens concludes that God has created a no win scenario by imposing expectations that are impossible to live up to. Coupled with the fact that He’s aware of, not only your outward behavior, but also the agendas within the hidden recesses of your mind, you are lost and condemned from the very start.

Paul refers to the same “no win” scenario that Hitchens observes in Romans 7. This is a man that was blameless, as far as keeping the law (Phil 3:6). But however pristine he may have looked on the outside, he knew that before God, all his righteous acts were like filthy rags and he was a slave to sin (Is 64:6; Rom 7:14). And it’s not that God has orchestrated this situation, rather it goes back to the fact that man chose this dynamic back in the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:15-17; 3 :16-19). But while man chose to live in the context of this sitting, God provided a Remedy that Paul builds up to in Romans 7:24-25 where he says, “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!”

VIII) Conclusion

The fundamental flaw in Hitchens’ reasoning is that his philosophical starting point positions himself in the center of the universe as opposed to God. Woodrow Wilson once said, “If you make yourself the center of the universe, all your perspective is skewed. There is only one moral center of the universe, and that is God. If you get into right relation with Him, then you have your right perspective and your right relation and your right size.”4 Hitchens has determined that God cannot exist outside the parameters of his intellectual preferences. His limited knowledge of Scripture coupled with a resolve to process the whole of life and creation according to a personal paradigm that reduces the enormity of the cosmos and the intricacies of the human experience to something that fits within an academic shoebox, results in something that appears controlled and calculated, but is revealed as being pathetically inept when confronted with the world as it truly is.

But here’s the thing: Hitchens isn’t going to be swayed by mere reason alone. For him, this kind of debate is more along the lines of chess where people position their arguments like they would move their bishops and pawns on a chessboard. That isn’t to say that you don’t engage people like Christopher. Paul never shied away from debating the logic of the gospel. You see that in Acts 17 when he was in Athens and engaged the philosophers and the great thinkers in that city. But for people like Christopher, you want to challenge their logic with not only your rebuttal but with your life. It’s there where the Power of God is most compelling. Ideas are one thing, but the ideals that guide and empower the life that is worth imitating – that’s what makes the difference, that’s what silences the critics and that’s what points people to Christ.

1. “Christopher Hitchens”, https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Christopher_Hitchens, accessed June 19, 2015
2. Ibid
3. Bible Hub, “The Roman Empire at the Time of the Birth of Christ. Upwards of a Quarter of a Century Before the Birth of Christ”, William Dool Killen, http://biblehub.com/library/killen/the_ancient_church/chapter_i_the_roman_empire.htm, accessed June 19, 2015
4. “Wilson”, A. Scott Berg, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, N.Y., 2013, p37

Ten Questions Christians Can’t Answer – Part III

questions7) If you believe the creation account in Genesis is allegorical, they why don’t you treat Paul’s epistles in the same way since he references the creation account in Genesis as historical?

Paul uses the fact of creation throughout his epistles. Here are some examples:

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. (Heb 11;3)

Since the person posing the question in this instance isn’t specific about which verses he’s referencing, it’s difficult to know what exactly he’s referring to. Typically, however, the difficulty with the Creation account is whether or not God completed everything in six literal days. Did He create the heavens and the earth in less than a week, or is a “day” nothing more than a literary device describing a timeframe that may have been significantly longer than 24 hours?

Fact is, there’s a great deal of compelling evidence that suggests the earth is not as old as some in the scientific community would have you believe (click here for more reading on that topic). The bottom line is that carbon dating and other traditionally accepted methods of dating fossils etc. are based on the assumption that the observable conditions of the earth have remained unchanged since the very beginning of time. Indeed, the atmospheric conditions were not necessarily the same, which means that carbon dating is not necessarily absolute. While some calibration can be made in order to accommodate the atmospheric anomalies that may have been present at the time, those kind of distinctions can only be identified by whatever may have been documented. In other words, outside the context of recorded history, you have a very subjective landscape to navigate when it comes to dating articles of antiquity beyond a certain point.

On the other hand, when you compare Genesis 1:27 which says that God created both Adam and Eve on the sixth day, to Genesis 2, it looks like the sixth day either had a great deal of activity packed into the daylight hours, or you have more time built into the term “day.”

Our culture is steeped in the notion that we inhabit a planet that is billions of years old. It’s a convenient thought in that you now have a theoretically comfortable timeframe to accommodate natural selection and the fortuitous evolution of life as we know it. While there is a fascinating amount of research that’s been done in terms of dating the earth according to a purely biblical model, which suggests that the earth is nowhere near as old as the champions of evolutionary theory would have our grade school classrooms believe, for the sake of this conversation the only pertinent Truth that needs to be affirmed is the fact that God did, in fact, create the universe.

However one wants to interpret Genesis and the age of the earth, the priority here, as far as the way in which Paul refers to creation, is to simply reinforce the fact that God was the Creative Force behind the origin of the cosmos and that is not allegory, that is the literal Truth.

8) How many donkeys did Jesus ride in His triumphal entry in Jerusalem? Was it one like Mark, Luke and John say, or was it two donkeys like Matthew says?

Matthew 21:2 says:

saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me.

Mark 11:2, Luke 28:30 and John 12:14-15 only mention one donkey.

Jesus wasn’t straddling two donkeys as much as it was Matthew simply mentioning what constituted a complete picture of the prophecy articulated in Zechariah 9:9:

Rejoice greatly, Daughter Zion!  Shout, Daughter Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and victorious, lowly and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. (Zec 9:9)

Chances are excellent since the foal had never been ridden before, let alone paraded around in front a large and noisy crowd, having the mother lead the foal for the sake of psychological support would’ve been a logical move. Dr. Gleason Archer says as much:

The Zechariah passage does not actually specify that the parent donkey would figure in the triumphal entrance; it simply describes the foal as “the son of a she-ass” by way of poetic parallelism. But Matthew contributes the eyewitness observation (and quite possibly neither Mark nor Luke were eyewitnesses as Matthew was) that the mother actually preceded Jesus in that procession that took Jesus into the Holy City. Here agin, then, there is no real contradiction between the synoptic account but only added detail on the part of Matthew as on who viewed the event while it was happening.1

So, the gospel writers do not conflict with one another as much as Matthew is simply providing more detail.

9) Based on the genealogies for Matthew and Luke, who was Joseph’s father?

Luke follows the genealogy of Mary whereas Matthew follows the genealogy of Joseph. Jesus was the legal descendant of Solomon (Matthew’s genealogy [Joseph]) and a blood relative of Nathan (Luke’s genealogy [Mary]). The confusion is clarified when you take the verbiage of Luke 3:23 into consideration.

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, (Lk 3:23)

Luke is qualifying the list he’s getting ready to enumerate by stating up front that, while it was customary to trace a person’s lineage through the line of the father, the virgin birth represents a special situation. Hence the emphasis on Mary. That fact is further reinforced when you consider the original Greek and notice how Luke doesn’t say that Heil “begat” Joseph. Rather, he was Joseph’s father in law.

Joseph was begotten by Jacob, and was his natural son (Matt 1:16). He could be the legal son of Heli, therefore, only by marriage with Heil’s daughter (Mary) and be reckoned so according to law. It does not say “begat” in the case of Heli.2

10) Was Jesus crucified on the first day of Passover, like the gospel of John says? Or the next day like the other three gospels say?

The confusion stems from John 19:14 where it says:

Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he *said to the Jews, “Behold, your King!”  (Jn 19:14 [NASB][emphasis added]) 

Matthew 27:62-63 says:

The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. “Sir, ” they said, “we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ (Matt 27:62-63)

Mark 15:42-43 says:

It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body. (Mark 15:42-43)

Luke refers to the day that Jesus died in the 24th chapter when he says:

It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin. (Lk 23:54)

“Preparation Day” was the day before the Sabbath, which was a Saturday. The Feast of Unleavened Bread was often  referred to as “Passover” because of the way the Passover meal served as the opening ceremony for the Feast.3 So, when John uses the term “day of preparation for the Passover,” he’s not referring to the day before the Passover meal, he’s referring to the day before the Sabbath of Passover week (Feast of Unleavened Bread).

The NCV rendering of the verse makes that fact more evident:

14It was about noon on Preparation Day of Passover week. Pilate said to the crowd, “Here is your king!” (Jn 19:14 [NCV][emphasis added])

In addition, John uses the Greek word “paraskeue” to define the day, which by that point was a technical term that referred to the “day of preparation” for the Sabbath.4 Remember, the Sabbath for the Jew is Saturday and not Sunday. Sunday would later be embraced as the “Lord’s Day” in that it was the day Jesus rose from the grave. So, given everything we’ve now considered, John’s account is consistent with all of the other gospel writers. Jesus was crucified on a Friday and the Last Supper happened on the evening before which was Thursday.

Conclusion

G.K. Chesterton once said, “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.”

Many of the critics that circulate their jabs at Christianity on the internet occupy a philosophical position that refuses to concede the Reality of a Power and an Intellect that they cannot understand and / or agree with.  Their attacks are necessary in order to maintain a distance between themselves and a worshipful demeanor which they refuse to buy into. They have found it “difficult” and decided to deny its substance.

It’s healthy to be able to respond to questions and attacks, but the nature of these kind of conversations goes beyond a mere intellectual exchange. It is a spiritual contest that has to be engaged in a way that’s consistent with Scripture:

The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. (2 Cor 10:4)

Know what you believe and why you believe it. Pop the hood on the Word of God and be capable of defending it (1 Pet 3:15). And remember too, that oftentimes there’s a bigger picture that you want to expose. Squabbling over the number and the identity of the women who were at the tomb on the morning of Christ’s resurrection is subordinate to the fact that the tomb was empty. Arguing over the amount of time it took for God to create the heavens and the earth is secondary to the fact that God did, in fact, create the heavens and the earth. Dismissing the whole of Scripture because Matthew references both the donkey and its foal, whereas the other gospel writers mention only the foal, is like arguing over whether or not someone paid a ten dollar invoice using exact change or a twenty dollar bill. The fact is, the debt was paid. The details of Scripture are important, but you don’t ever want to become so absorbed in the minutia of the gospel that you overlook the fact that there’s a tomb out there that was occupied at one point that is now empty. And that empty grave is the Signature of One Who didn’t claim to be a mere messenger of God, but God Incarnate.

There will always be a critic and there will always be a situation where, regardless of how sound your reasoning may be, the spiritual elements that are involved will always see to it that “revelation” will remain seemingly inconsistent with logic (1 Cor 2:12). That’s not a cue to be less than compelling with your argument. But it’s not an argument that will influence a soul, it’s only the Power and the grace of God that makes the difference (John 6:65; 1 Cor 1:18). Again, you don’t want to hide behind a “faith based perspective” that comes across as a decision made despite the facts, but rather as a decision made in light of the facts. Be ready to either answer the question being posed, or be ready to direct them to the myriad of resources that provide the science and the literary tools that address their quandary. But be sensitive to the fact that the moment the Name of Jesus is spoken, you’re no longer contending with purely academic themes. The parameters have been expanded and the stakes have been dramatically increased. You can be as compelling and as accurate as you want and still be found wanting. Not because of the substance of your argument, but because of the implications represented by your argument. Should God be perceived as credible, it’s no longer a debate. Now it’s a soul-altering encounter and the forces referenced in Ephesians 6:12 will do everything they can to prevent that kind of dynamic.

So, be ready, but be wise and not just smart. It’s the Power of God in you that makes the difference and ensures that the outcome of your exchange is not just a willingness to agree with what’s in the Bible, but a desire to submit to the One Who authored it.

 

1. “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties”, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI 1982, p334

2. “The Companion Bible”, E.W. Bullinger, http://www.heavendwellers.com/38%20Luke%201427-1509.pdf, accessed on May 19, 2015

3. Feast of Unleavened Bread..Passover. “Passover” was used in two different different ways: (1) a specific meal begun at twilight on the 14th of Nisan (Lev 23:4-5), and (2) the week following the Passover meal (Eze 45:21), otherwise know as the Feast of Unleavened Bread, a week in which no leaven was allowed (Ex 12:15-20; 13:3-7). By NT times the two names for  the week-long festival were vitally interchangeable. (NIV Text Note: “NIV Study Bible”, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1985, p1582)

4. “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties”, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI 1982, p375

Ten Questions Christians Can’t Answer – Part II

questions

This is Part II of “Ten Questions Christians Can’t Answer” – a response to a video on youtube that suggests that the questions being posed can’t be adequately responded to by believers. This article demonstrates that such is not the case. To access Part I, click here.

6) When Jesus rose for the grave, how many women went to the tomb and which ones?

The gospel writers reference several women, both at the tomb as well as at the foot of the cross. Matthew 27:55 says that there were “many women” standing at a distance from the cross as Jesus was dying. Luke doesn’t ever name any of the women, he just refers to them as “the women” (Lk 23:49, 55). And with the exception of Mary Magdalene, Matthew, Mark and John reference either different women or use different descriptions to identify those who were there.

If Matthew’s “mother of James and Joses” is John’s “wife of Clopas” and the woman John describes as “Mary’s sister” is the woman Mark calls “Salome,” you’ve got a total of four women and it looks like this:

 The Women at the Cross
(each color represents one particular woman that’s described differently by the gospel writers)
verse Mary (Jesus’ mother) Mary Magdalene Mary, wife of Clopas Mary, mother of
James and Joses		 Mary’s sister mother of
Zebedee’s sons		 Salome
Matt 27:56 ✔ ✔ ✔
Mk 15:40 ✔ ✔ ✔
Jn 19:25 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

 

While you have four different accounts, at no time does Matthew or John state that the women they reference were the only ones present, they simply chose to acknowledge a particular person or persons. Same thing with Mark. He only lists three, but he doesn’t qualify his trio to the point where he rules out the possible presence of other women.

Bottom line is we don’t know for certain who all was there, all we can do is connect the dots as they appear in Scripture. We can be confident that Mary’s mother was there along with Mary Magdalene. As far as the other two Mary’s and Salome, all we do is speculate as to whether or not the wife of Clopas was the mother of James and Joses and Salome was Mary’s sister.

You’ve got the same kind of dynamic at the empty tomb. Again, Luke refers to them as “the women” (Lk 24:1). Matthew, Mark and John again highlight certain personalities that were present:

 

 The Women at the Empty Tomb
verse Mary Magdalene Mary, the mother of James the other Mary Salome
Matt 28:1 ✔ ✔
Mk 16:1 ✔ ✔ ✔
Jn 20:1 ✔

 

Thanks to having looked at the way the same writers referred to “the women” at the foot of the cross, it’s not unreasonable to speculate that Matthew’s “other Mary” is the woman he described as “Mary, the mother of James and Joses” in chapter 27. That means that he and Mark are probably referring to the same woman in their respective accounts, as far as the “other Mary.” Matthew doesn’t mention Salome and John only references Mary Magdalene.

So, of “the women” that were present, we know of three for certain, although there might’ve been others. Mary Magdalene is a definite as well as “the other Mary” and another woman named Salome.

Over the years, several great minds have tried to more specifically identify the players that were present. Again, we’re looking at a situation where the Bible doesn’t clarify things as well as we might like, but there are two things we want to avoid in these kinds of situations:

#1 – fail to appreciate the big picture

#2 – attempt to edit Scripture in order to manufacture a scenario that’s easier to process

Dr. James D Tabor does a great job of presenting a case for Mary, the wife of Clopas, to being the mother of Jesus based on the fact that Joseph, Jesus’ father, is conspicuously absent from the New Testament shortly after his having brought his young family back to Nazareth from Egypt (Matt 2:19-23). It would’ve been customary for the brother of the deceased husband to marry the widow based on Jewish law. When you couple that with the fact that Clopas was the father of James and Joses and Jesus had two brothers named James and Joses, it becomes fairly obvious that Mary, the mother of Jesus and Mary, the mother of James and Joses (wife of Clopas) are actually the same person.

Should that prove to be accurate, the women at the tomb, based on Dr. Tabor’s theory and a comprehensive snapshot of Scripture would be:

  • Mary Magdalene
  • Mary – the mother of Jesus, James and Joses
  • Salome

That sounds downright compelling right up to the point where he suggests that the book of John has been edited.1 Regardless of how “logical” a particular explanation may be, if it involves having to change the content of the Bible in order for it to work, at that point the Bible is no longer inerrant and you no longer have the Word of God, rather  you have a flawed text.

Granted, what we have with the gospel writers is not conclusive in terms of the women that were there at the empty tomb. It’s not that they contradict one another as much as their decision to reference certain women in lieu of others results in a list of characters that’s speculative. But it’s not who was at the tomb, it was the fact that no one was in the tomb – that’s the point the gospel writers are making. It could very well be that there was a whole congregation of women at the tomb which would mean that neither Matthew nor Mark nor John chose to document everyone that was present. But that doesn’t mean that their respective accounts are contradictory, nor should it distract from the fact that Christ had risen from the grave.

So, the short answer to our critic’s question is three, based on what we have in Scripture coupled with some speculation. But in the end, the emphasis should not be on who was not AT the tomb, rather the issue is Who was not IN the tomb!

Click here to read Part III!

1. “Something seems to be going on here. John knows something that either he, or those who later edited his gospel, chose to veil.” This is a portion of the post made by Dr. James D. Tabor entitled “Sorting Out the Jesus Family: Mother, Fathers, Brothers and Sisters at http://jamestabor.com/2012/12/27/sorting-out-the-jesus-family-mother-fathers-brothers-sisters/, accessed May 31, 2015