Ten Questions Christians Can’t Answer | Part II

/in , , , /by

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. What follows demonstrates that such is not the case.

Here we go…!

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

Ten Questions Christians Can’t Answer | Part I

/in , , /by

Popping the Hood on Scripture

The critic bangs his hand on the desk and insists that unless he can break down the Word of God to the point where it can fit comfortably within the boundaries of his intellectual preferences, his skepticism will remain intact and the condescending tone he uses when he addresses believers in Christ will also remain decidedly sarcastic.

When confronted with a situation in Scripture that doesn’t make sense, the believer responds as a diligent student does when they are challenged by something in the classroom they don’t understand. They don’t accuse the professor as being flawed, nor do they doubt the integrity of the curriculum. Rather, they proceed as someone who needs to learn as opposed to someone who wants to critique. It’s the philosophical starting point that distinguishes the cynic from his Christian counterpart. The atheist needs to keep the Reality of God at an arm’s distance and therefore keeps the curtains drawn in order to maintain the illusion that man’s ability to reason is subordinate to the One Who gave him that ability to begin with. The Christ-follower, on the other hand, recognizes the limitations of the human perspective and, in the face of something seemingly illogical, labors to understand in the light of God’s Identity and Authority.

Still, you can’t simply say “If the Bible says it, then I believe it” and not come across as academically anemic. The passages cited by critics as evidence that the Bible is less than credible, can be resolved, you just have to be willing to pop the hood on Scripture and do some digging.

Dr Gleason Archer
The problems and questions dealt with in this volume have been directed to me during the past thirty years of teaching on the graduate seminary level in the field of biblical criticism.As an undergraduate at Harvard, I was fascinated by apologetics and biblical evidences; so I labored to obtain a knowledge of the languages and cultures that have any bearing on biblical scholarship. As a classics major in college, I received training in Latin and Greek, also in French and German. At seminary I majored in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic; and in post-graduate years I became involved in Syriac and Akkadian, to the extent of teaching elective courses in each of these subjects. Earlier, during my final two years of high school, I had acquired a special interest in Middle Kingdom Egyptian studies, which was furthered as I later taught courses in this field. At the Oriental Institute in Chicago, I did specialized study in Eighteenth Dynasty historical records and also studied Coptic and Sumuerian.Combined with this work in ancient languages was a full course of training at law school, after which I was admitted to the Massachusetts Bar in 1939. This gave me a thorough grounding in the field of legal evidences. Additionally, I spent three years in Beruit, Lebanon, in specialized study of modern literary Arabic. This was followed by a month in the Holy Land, where I visited most of the important archaeological sites.1

Dr. Gleason Archer (see call out to the right) says as much in the preface to his book “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.”

As I have dealt with one apparent discrepancy after another and have studied the alleged contradictions between the biblical record and the evidence of linguistics, archaeology, or science, my confidence in the trustworthiness of Scripture has been repeatedly verified and strengthened by the discovery that almost every problem in Scripture that has ever been discovered by man, from ancient times until now, has been dealt with in a completely satisfactory manner by the biblical text itself – or else by objective archaeological information.2

And when it comes to one’s approach to apparent discrepancies in Scripture, he says:

Be fully prepared in your own mind that an adequate explanation exists, even though you have not yet found it. The aerodynamic engineer may not understand how a bumble bee can fly; yet he trusts that there must be an adequate explanation for its fine performance since, as a matter of fact, it does fly! Even so we may have complete confidence that the divine Author preserved the human author of each book of the Bible from error or mistake as he wrote down the original manuscript of the sacred text.3

At the end of the day, it’s not just what the Bible says, it’s what the Bible is. That’s what makes this exchange both significant and distinctive. We’re not merely gauging the authenticity of an ancient text. The question on the table is whether or not God exists and is the Word of God, in fact, His Message to us?

Or, is it merely a religious comic book without the pictures?

The critic needs it to be the latter in order for their worldview to remain intact. But however fortified their defenses may be – regardless of the rapid abundance that characterizes their rhetoric – their stance needs to be countered with something compelling and in a way that points them to the Truth (Jn 14:6).

The following ten questions are posed in a video on youtube entitled “Ten Questions Christians Can’t Answer.” The questions are not the sort that break new ground as far as Bible difficulties are concerned and like the objections that have been raised in the past, there are rebuttals and explanations, it’s just a matter of referencing books like Dr Gleason’s “Encyclopedia” or any one of a number of other similar resources, not to mention Scripture itself.

The final frame of the video states that the “silence is deafening.” We want to make sure we can break that silence with something that not only addresses the questions, but more importantly provides an approach to God and the Message of that gospel that’s intellectually sound – unobstructed by questions that seemingly have no answer. In that way, it’s not only their intellect that’s satisfied, it’s their soul as well.

Here we go…

1) When Noah’s ark landed, how did the Kangaroos make it back to Australia?

There’s an article you can access by clicking here that elaborates on a time when the continents as we know them today were actually one solid land mass. That would give both animals and people the ability to migrate without having to contend with the insurmountable obstacle of an ocean between them and where they would ultimately make their home.

2) If the ark was covered in pitch, it also made it air tight. How did they survive for 40 days and 40 nights since Noah couldn’t open the window?

Probably because the areas that were covered in pitch were those that came in direct contact with the water as opposed to the airtight coffin you interpret the ark to be.

3) Why were Adam and Eve punished for eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil when they didn’t / couldn’t understand what they were doing?

They did understand what they were doing in that they had been told not to eat from that particular tree (Gen 2:17).

4) Why would God place the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil so close to His innocent creation, then allow Satan to tempt them and all the while stand back and do nothing?

Love and obedience go hand in hand (Jn 14:21) and love isn’t love unless its voluntary. In the absence of a choice, you don’t have love as much as you have a calculated reaction.

Dr Ravi Zacharias explains it this way:

What would it take to create a loving world void of evil? A world in which love is capable of meaningful expression and experience would also imply a world in which there is choice. If someone tells you that they love you, those words mean something because they are freely given. If you learned that someone had told you they loved you but that they had been forced to say it, their words would not mean very much. Thus, if we want to speak of a loving world, we must also speak of a world in which choices are exercised. And in such a world, there is also the possibility of choosing a course of action that is not loving, i.e. evil.

5) When the women went to Jesus’ empty tomb, was the stone already rolled away, or did an angel roll it away after the women got there?

When looking at the four gospel accounts, Matthew 28:2 is worded in a way that’s distinct from Mark 16:1-5, Luke 24:1-2 and John 20:1. Matthew reports the scene of the empty tomb in a manner that makes it sound as though the stone was rolled away upon the arrival of the women that had come to care for Jesus’ body as opposed to it happening prior to their arrival. The NIV Text Note elaborates on the Greek verbiage used in the text as being past tense so there’s no inconsistency between the four accounts, even though there might appear to be.4 See also James 1:13.

To continue on to Part II, click here.

1. “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties”, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI 1982, p11
2. Ibid, p12
3. Ibid, p14
4. There was. The sense is “Now there had been.” It is clear from the parallel accounts (Mk 16:2-6; Lk 24:1-7; Jn 20:1) that the events of vv. 2-4 occurred before the women actually arrived at the tomb (NIV Text Note on Matthew 28:2) NIV Study Bible, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI 1985. p1489

Why the Democrat Party is Never Wrong

/1 Comment/in , , /by

The Modern Day Democrat is never wrong because they are always hurt.

They are either offended or oppressed. Either way, they’re in pain, and you can’t criticize someone who’s in pain without immediately being labeled cruel and hateful. This is how the Democrat party champions every policy, every talking point, and every attack. You are not disputing their logic as much as you are ignoring their tears. As a result, Democrats are never evaluated as much as they are accommodated because to disagree is to be immoral.

When you’re arguing with a Democrat, you’re talking to someone who will tell you that truth is whatever an individual wants to believe. This why you’ll often hear them say “You can’t force you beliefs on me” because, in their mind, there are no principles, only preferences. The boundaries that would normally be established by logic, common sense, medical realities, and the rule of law are now nonexistent and anyone who would suggest otherwise is not a perspective to be considered as much as they are a tyrant that needs to be silenced.

They are the party of the justified, and the validated, not because they’re right, but because they are uncomfortable…

…and that is why the Democrat party is never, ever wrong.

Click here to watch the video…

Prove It! | Part V: Science and History

/in , , , /by

This is Part V of a 6 part series where we’re looking to “prove it!” We’re rehearsing some of the evidence that validates the authenticity of the Christian doctrine.

In this installment, we’re looking at the fingerprint of God as it shows up in Science and History.

Science

When you ponder the Reality of God in the context of creation, the most obvious indicator of His involvement is the elegant intricacy of the universe.

While there are any one of a number of examples that demonstrate the complex nature of the cosmos (see sidebar), let’s consider some of the more compelling anomalies that leave a person both awestruck and inspired.

Cosmological Constant

The cosmological constant is a mathematical value assigned to what astronomers call “dark energy.” When you look at the universe, you see things moving in a way that doesn’t make sense in that they’re things are being pushed and pulled around despite the fact that there is nothing around them. In other words, when you see a moon orbiting a planet, that makes sense because the planet has a gravitational pull that maintains that moon’s trajectory. But there are objects in space that are moving as though they’re being influenced by a gravitational force, yet there’s nothing visible to provide that force. Hence the term “dark energy” was coined to describe the obvious force being exerted upon these objects by seemingly invisible entities.

Where Did God Come From?

Dr. Kent Hovind is an educator and apologist who is known for being both articulate and compelling when it comes to a biblical explanation for the universe.

In a debate with Reinhold Schlieter of the Embry Riddle Aeronautical University, Hovind was asked, “Where does God come from?” Here’s his response:

Your question, where does God come from assumes that you are thinking, obviously displays, that you are thinking of the wrong god. Because the God of the Bible is not affected by time, space or matter. If He is affected by time, space or matter, He is not God. Time, space and matter, what we call a continuum, would have to come into existence at the same instance. Because if you had matter and no space, where would you put i? If there was matter and space but no time, when would you put it? You cannot have time, space or matter independently, they have to come into existence simultaneously.

The Bible answers that in 10 words: In the beginning, (there’s time), God created the heavens (there’s space), and the earth (there’s matter). So you have time, space, matter, the trinity of trinities: Time – has past, present, future. Space – has breadth, length , height. Matter has solid, liquid, gas. We have a trinity of trinities created instantaneously, and the God who created them has to be outside of them.

If He is limited by time, He is not God. The God who created this computer is not in the computer. He is not running around changing the numbers on the screen. The God who created this universe is outside the universe. He is above it, beyond it, in it, He is not affected by it.

So [if you have] the concept that a spiritual force cannot have an effect on a material body, then you have to explain to me why there are emotions, and love, and hatred, and envy, and jealousy and rationality – I mean, if your brain is a collection of chemicals formed by chance over billions of years, how on earth can you trust your own reasoning process and the thoughts that you think?

Your question, where does God come from, is assuming a limited God. And that is your problem. The God that I worship is not limited by time, space or matter. If I could fit the infinite God into my 3-pound brain, He would not be worthy worshiping, that is for certain. So, that is the God I worship.

Fact is, this dark energy accounts for over 70% of our universe. And what makes that significant is that if this dark energy was characterized by a gravitational dynamic that was pulling everything in, then the universe would ultimately collapse on itself and life in general would cease to exist. If, on the other hand, this dark energy wielded a gravitational force that was too weak to temper the way in which our universe is expanding, then our solar system would unravel as would the entire cosmos.

This, then, is the cosmological constant: The value assigned to this force that continues to allow the universe to expand and therefore not collapse on itself, yet not spin out of control.

Initially, astronomers believed that the cosmological constant was very large. After all, you’re going to need a big broom to move planets around. But that is not the case. The cosmological constant is actually very small.

How small?

One part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion. That’s a ten followed by fifty three zeroes. Contemplate the precision of that number. And if you move the dial or change the settings in even the most incremental way, the end result is something that no longer sustains life because of the way the universe would either collapse or unravel.1

Water

Water is one of the few known substances that are less dense as a solid than as a liquid. This is significant because if it wasn’t all aquatic life would by crushed beneath the weight of the ice that would form in the winter.

Here again you see something that is far too intentional to be written off as a lucky accident. In other words, the intent and design of a Creator.

Cambrian Explosion / Fossils

The Cambrian Explosion refers to a layer of rock where you find a sudden abundance of fossils. In other words, you don’t seem to have much life in layers of rock further down, like Evolution would like to suggest. Evolutionary theory proposes a lengthy process where simpler life forms became more complex over time. That geological record doesn’t exist. Instead, you have an abrupt presence of life with no apparent precursor.

Evolution can’t explain this, but a global flood can.

If logic is the theme of our discussion, then it would “logical” to go with what represents the most obvious explanation, which would be a worldwide catastrophe that instantly destroyed and buried multitudes of organisms instantaneously.

For more reading about Creation and the Theory of Evolution, refer to the articles listed to the right.

History

Jesus isn’t just a religious figurehead. There was a point where you could’ve shaken His Hand.

Max Lucado in his book, “When God Came Near” does a great job of capturing the “feeling” that you might’ve experienced interacting with Jesus, knowing Who He was by listing a series of questions for Mary…

When God Came Near

1. What was it like watching him pray?

2. How did he respond when he saw other kids giggling during the service at the synagogue?

3. When he saw a rainbow, did he ever mention a flood?

4. Did you ever feel awkward teaching him how he created the world?

5. When he saw a lamb being led to the slaughter, did he act differently?

6. Did you ever see him with a distant look on his face as if he were listening to someone you couldn’t hear?

7. How did he act at funerals?

8. Did the thought ever occur to you that the God to whom you were praying was asleep under your own roof?

9. Did you ever try to count the stars with him….and succeed?

10. Did he ever come home with a black eye?

11. How did he act when he got his first haircut?

12. Did he have any friend by the name of Judas?

13. Did he do well in school?

14. Did you ever scold him?

15. Did he ever have to ask a question about Scripture?

16. What do you think he thought when he saw a prostitute offering to the highest bidder the body he made?

17. Did he ever get angry when someone was dishonest with him?

18. Did you ever catch him pensively looking at the flesh on his own arm while holding a clod of dirt?

19. Did he ever wake up afraid?

20. Who was his best friend?

21. When someone referred to Satan, how did he act?

22. Did you ever accidentally call him Father?

23. What did he and his cousin John talk about as kids?

24. Did his brothers and sisters understand what was happening?

25. Did you ever think, That’s God eating my soup?

Archaeology offers a powerful testament to the historical integrity of Scripture. Nelson Glueck, the renowned Jewish archaeologist, wrote: “It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever 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.”

Here are some examples:

Scripture and Archaeology

Sergius Paulus Inscriptions

In Acts 13, we read of how Saul and Barnabas set off on a missionary journey to the Island of Cyprus. Upon arriving at Paphos, they meet the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, leading him to faith in Christ. Luke describes him as “a man of intelligence” (Acts 13:7). This is true as Sergius Paulus was also a first-century author and is one of the authorities referenced by Pliny the Elder in his classic, Naturalis Historia.Numerous inscriptions have been discovered that may refer to Sergius Paulus; the Sergii Paulii’s seem to have bene a prominent family in the Roman Empire. In 1877, an inscription was discovered at Soli, not far from Paphos that references, “the proconsul Paulus.” Another inscription from Rome, dating to the mid-40’s, names Lucius Sergius Paulus as one of the curators of the Tiber River under the Emperor Claudius. Finally, numerous inscriptions, most famous of which names a “L. Sergius Paulus” have been discovered near Pisidian Antioch. (Bible Archaeology Report)

The Tel Dan Inscription

The lack of reference to King David in the historical record once gave rise to the idea that no such king existed, or that he was merely a local, tribal chieftain of no real significance. The Tel Dan Inscription, discovered in 1993–94 during excavations at Tel Dan in northern Israel, proved the contrary. The inscription consists of several fragments of an Aramaic victory stele erected by an Aramean king, most likely Hazael or his son Bar-Hadad II.

The inscription references the “House of David,” which scholars believe refers to the dynasty of King David from the Bible. This inscription is the first extra-biblical mention of King David. The term “House of David” indicates that he was the first of a line of kings, which confirms the biblical account of the reign of David, his son, grandson, and so forth.

The Tel Dan Inscription dates to the 9th century BCE and aligns with biblical accounts of geopolitical conflicts and Israel’s interactions with neighboring nations during the same period. The inscription also refers to the House of Israel, further supporting the Bible narrative. (The Collector)

The Dead Sea Scrolls

The Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran in 1947 contain fragments of every book in the Old Testament except for the Book of Esther. Some of these manuscripts date to the third century BCE. What is significant about this discovery is that it proves how little manuscripts have changed since the time of Christ. The narrative that changes, omissions, and additions over time had a corrupting effect on the Bible manuscripts, was proven incorrect. (The Collector)

Shishak’s Invasion

The Bible mentions the Egyptian king Shishak invading Judah and plundering the Temple in 1 Kings 14:25-26 and 2 Chronicles 12:2-9. Some inscriptions and reliefs in Egypt, particularly at Karnak Temple in Thebes (Luxor), provide corroborating evidence of the military campaign by Shishak into Judah and neighboring areas. The place names correlate with Biblical names and places, confirming the narrative.

The list of the spoils of war brought back to Karnak Temple corroborates the biblical account of the seizure of wealth from the Temple by Shishak. This archaeological evidence validates the historical accuracy of the biblical description of Shishak’s actions during his campaign against Judah. (The Collector)

Caiaphas Ossuary

In 1990, a construction team was building a water park near Jerusalem when their bulldozer plowed through a the roof of a first-century tomb. Archaeologists were called in and discovered a variety of ossuaries (bone boxes used in the first-century), including an ornate one that was inscribed with the name “Joseph son of Caiaphas.” Inside were the bones six people, including those of a 60-year old man which scholars believe are the remains of Caiaphas himself.

Caiaphas was the high priest who presided over the trial of Jesus according to the gospels (Mt 26:3, 57; Lk 3:2; Jn 11:49). The ancient historian, Josephus, records that Caiaphas’s full name was Joseph Caiaphas and that he held this role from AD 18-36 (Jewish Antiquities, 18:35 & 18:95). It appears that he was widely known by his surname/family name, Caiaphas, in the same way that many of the sons of Herod were simply known as Herod (ie. Herod Antipas, Herod Archelaus, etc).

Many scholars are convinced that this is the ossuary of the high priest who played a prominent role in the trial of Jesus. His ossuary and physical remains provide archaeological evidence confirming the existence of a prominent person in the New Testament. The Caiaphas ossuary is currently on display in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. (Bible Archaeology Report)

Ruins in the City of Jericho

Archaeological discoveries in Jericho support the Bible’s story about the destruction and burning of the city. Excavations at Jericho have revealed evidence of a fortified city with massive walls dating to the Late Bronze Age (around 1550–1200 BCE). These dates correspond to the biblical time frame of the Israelite conquest. Archaeologists have identified layers of destruction within the city’s ruins, indicating that Jericho experienced violent destruction around the time traditionally associated with Joshua’s conquest.

Archaeological findings suggest that the city’s walls did collapse outward, matching the description in Joshua 6:20: “The wall collapsed, so that every man charged straight in, and they took the city.” This collapse aligns with the biblical account of the Israelites’ marching around the city, sounding trumpets and shouting. In addition, evidence of extensive burning within the city is consistent with the biblical narrative that the Israelites burned Jericho after its conquest (Joshua 6:24).

Following its destruction, Jericho remained uninhabited for several centuries, as evidenced by the absence of significant occupation layers in the archaeological record. This matches the biblical account, which describes Jericho as being placed under a curse, with Joshua declaring, “Cursed before the Lord be the man who rises up and rebuilds this city, Jericho” (Joshua 6:26).(The Collector)

Pool of Siloam

In John 9, Jesus heals a blind many by making a mud poultice and applying it to his eyes, and then telling him to go and wash in the Pool of Siloam. Visitors to Jerusalem have long visited a 5th-century Byzantine “Pool of Siloam” that had been built by Empress Eudocia to commemorate this miracle. The Byzantine pool is at the end of Hezekiah’s Tunnel, the aqueduct that brings water from the Gihon Spring into the city. The exact location of the Pool of Siloam of Jesus’ day remained a mystery until its discovery in 2004.

In the summer of that year, repairs were being made to a drainage system when two ancient steps were uncovered. Archaeologists were called in and when the excavations were complete, a large pool was uncovered. In all at least 20 steps leading down from the street level into the pool were revealed. Pottery from one end of the pool was used to date it to the First-Century AD, while at the southern end, a large wall and section of the pool dating to the Old Testament period was discovered.

Given that it was in the exact location that scholars had long believed the actual Pool of Siloam to be – only 70 meters from the Byzantine pool – and that it dated to the time of Jesus, it was identified as the actual Pool of Siloam where the blind man had washed to receive healing. (Bible Archaeology Report)

Conclusion

Dr. James Allan Francis penned the following words which very effectively sum up the life of Christ…

“Here is a man who was born in an obscure village, the child of a peasant woman. He grew up in another village. He worked in a carpenter shop until He was thirty. Then for three years He was an itinerant preacher.

“He never owned a home. He never wrote a book. He never held an office. He never had a family. He never went to college. He never put His foot inside a big city. He never traveled two hundred miles from the place He was born. He never did one of the things that usually accompany greatness. He had no credentials but Himself. . . .

“While still a young man, the tide of popular opinion turned against Him. His friends ran away. One of them denied Him. He was turned over to His enemies. He went through the mockery of a trial. He was nailed upon a cross between two thieves. While He was dying His executioners gambled for the only piece of property He had on earth—His coat. When He was dead, He was laid in a borrowed grave through the pity of a friend.

“Nineteen long centuries have come and gone, and today He is a centerpiece of the human race and leader of the column of progress.

“I am far within the mark when I say that all the armies that ever marched, all the navies that were ever built; all the parliaments that ever sat and all the kings that ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully as has that one solitary life.”2

Wilbur Smith, a respected Bible scholar, once wrote, “The latest edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica gives twenty thousand words to this person, Jesus, and does not even hint that He did not exist—more words, by the way, than are given to Aristotle, Alexander, Cicero, Julius Caesar, or Napoleon Bonaparte.”3

George Buttrick, recognized as one of the ten greatest preachers of the twentieth century, wrote: “Jesus gave history a new beginning. In every land he is at home. . . . His birthday is kept across the world. His death-day set a gallows against every skyline.”4

Even Napoleon himself admitted, “I know men and I tell you that Jesus Christ was not a man. Superficial minds see a resemblance between Christ and the founders of empires, and the gods of other religions. That resemblance does not exist. There is between Christianity and whatever other religions the distance of infinity…

“Everything in Christ astonishes me, His spirit overawes me, and His will confounds me. Between Him and whoever else in the world, there is no possible term of comparison. He is truly a being by Himself. His ideas and sentiments, the truth which He announces, His manner of convincing, are not explained either by human organization or by the nature of things…

“The nearer I approach, the more carefully I examine, everything is above me everything remains grand, of a grandeur which overpowers. His religion is a revelation from an intelligence which certainly is not that of man…

“One can absolutely find nowhere, but in Him alone, the imitation or the example of His life…

“I search in vain in history to find the similar to Jesus Christ, or anything which can approach the gospel. Neither history, nor humanity, nor the ages, nor nature, offer me anything with which I am able to compare it or to explain it. Here everything is extraordinary. “5

There is almost an element of bravado when you look at some of what Paul wrote when he talked about that which validates the authenticity of Christianity when he said in Romans:

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. (Rom 1:20)

He said that if Christ hadn’t rose, than Christians are to be pitied…

For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. (1 Cor 15:16-19)

Even Peter says, “We didn’t make this stuff up…”

For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. (2 Pet 1:16)

We have available to us more than what we need to know that ours is an intelligent faith, based on evidence and not just charisma.

It happened…

Let’s act like it!

Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. (Heb 12:1)

1. “The Case for a Creator”, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 2004, p139-141
2. “Who was the real historical Jesus?”, gotquestions.org, https://www.gotquestions.org/real-historical-Jesus.html, accessed May 14, 2026
3. Ibid
4. Ibid
5.“Evidence That Demands a Verdict”, Josh McDowell, Here’s Life Publishers, San Bernardino, CA, 1972, p106

Prove It! | Part III: The Old Testament

/in , , /by

Thus far in the “Prove It” conversation, we’ve looked at the practical reality of faith, how it’s something that we deploy in the context of our everyday living and it’s anything but a refusal to be rational as much as it’s just part of how you function as human being.

Then we looked at the Resurrection from the standpoint of someone who was needing some evidence apart from Scripture and we considered the secular writings that reference the Resurrection, not so much as a theological concept but as a historical reality.

In this segment, we’re going to look at the Old Testament and why we can be confident that we’re not just reading some pretty stories and wise words, but we’re hearing the Words of God Himself.

Archaeology

Josh McDowell’s book “Evidence That Demands a Verdict” devotes an entire section to Old Testament prophecy and it is a fascinating read. One prophecy that McDowell references is the prophecy made by Nahum pertaining to the city of Nineveh. Nineveh was the capital city of the Assyrian empire. It was an impregnable center of military might – the kind of stronghold you would expect to be the capital city of the most powerful empire in the ancient world at that time.

Nahum, in stark contrast, is a single individual belonging to a conquered people. For him to be proclaiming a message that translates to Nineveh’s ruin is ridiculous if not potentially lethal.

To give you an idea as to Nineveh’s size and overall presence, understand that the walls surrounding it were over a 100 feet high and wide enough to accommodate three chariots driving side by side. And this is just the first wall. You had two other walls reinforcing the first separated by a deep ditch. According to excavated remains, the distance from the inside of the inner wall to the inside of the outer wall was 2,007 feet or just under half a mile. Nahum declares that Nineveh would…

  • Be destroyed in a state of drunkenness (1:10)
  • Would be destroyed in “an overwhelming flood” (1:8; 2:6)
  • Would be burned (3:13)
  • Would be totally destroyed and become desolate (3:19)

Nineveh was attacked by a force consisting of Babylonians, Medes and Scythians. Here’s the account of the battle for Nineveh in the words of Lenormant and E. Chevallier in their book, “The Rise and Fall of Assyria:”

In 612 B.C. Nabopolassar united the Babylonian army with an army of Medes and Scythians and led a campaign which captured the Assyrian citadels in the North. The Babylonian army laid siege to Nineveh, but the walls of the city were too strong for battering rams, so they decided to try and starve the people out. A famous oracle had been given that “Nineveh should never be taken until the river became its enemy.” After a three month siege, “rain fell in such abundance that the waters of the Tigris inundated part of the city and overturned one of its walls for a distance of twenty stades. Then the King, convinced that the oracle was accomplished and despairing of any means of escape, to avoid falling alive into the enemy’s hands constructed in his palace an immense funeral pyre, placed on it his gold and silver and his royal robes, and then, shutting himself up with his wives and eunuchs in a chamber formed in the midst of the pile, disappeared in the flames. Nineveh opened its gates to the besiegers, but this tardy submission did not save the proud city. It was pillaged and burned, and then razed to the ground so completely as to evidence the implacable hatred enkindled in the minds of subject nations by the fierce and cruel Assyrian government.1

And in an account from “Diodorus of Sicily II,” we read of how the king of Assyria was overly confident in his city’s defenses, despite the presence of an enemy force camped just outside its walls. He began to indulge with his soldiers and in a feast that included a significant amount of food and alcohol. News of this reached the ears of Arbaces, the enemy general through deserts and a night attack was scheduled. Not long after, thanks to the walls that were now vulnerable as a result of the rain, Arbaces was able to take the city of Nineveh.2  

Science

2) Scientifically Validated
The Law
Sometimes the whole Hebrew Bible, or any part of it, is referred to as “the law.” In John 10:34 where Jesus is arguing with the Pharisees, He tells them that part of Psalm 82 is “written in your law.” In 1 Corinthians 14:21 there’s a quotation from Isaiah 28:11 that Paul describes as having been written “in the law.” And in Romans 3:10-19, there’s a chain of quotations from the Psalms and the book of Isaiah that is referenced as “whatever the law says.”

It wasn’t until the Enlightenment that the inerrant dynamic of Scripture was questioned.3 Independent thinking evolved into a scenario where the Authority of Scripture was cast off should its content prove to be inconsistent with current scientific trends or even personal preferences. Darwinism took it a step further by providing a scientific sounding platform that gave atheists more reason to dismiss God from their thinking as well as their lives. As has been mentioned earlier, Scripture doesn’t claim to merely accurate. Even in the Psalms, you hear David referring to the “law of the Lord” as perfect (Ps 19:7 [see sidebar]). That includes theological matters as well as scientific. Consider some of what the Bible has to say about the physical world:

ASTRONOMY: The Bible claims the universe had a beginning. Philosophers and scientists rejected that claim for over two thousand years, but now astronomers believe the universe had a beginning, the so-called big bang (though with a very different time frame).

ANTHROPOLOGY: The Bible claims that all humans are “one blood” descended from one man and one woman (Acts 17:26; 1 Corinthians 15:45; Genesis 3:20). Some nineteenth-century biologists argued that different races descended from lower animals, but today genetics has verified that there is only one human race.

BIOLOGY: The Bible claims that God created animals “after their kind.” Nineteenth-century biologists argued that animals evolved from other, very different animals, but today biology confirms that creatures reproduce within their own kind.

GEOLOGY: The Bible claims that God destroyed the earth and the creatures inhabiting it in the worldwide Flood. Nineteenth-century geologists argued that rock layers and the fossils found in them were formed as sediments were deposited slowly, but today geology confirms that many rock layers were deposited catastrophically, burying fossils within only minutes or hours.4

Accuracy

While the passion of the Talmudists and the Massoretes is admirable, it’s not necessarily conclusive as far as proving that what we have today is an accurate copy of the original given the fact that up until 1947, the oldest handwritten copy of the Old Testament was 900 A.D. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, experts and scholars were thrilled to learn that the scrolls had been dated to around 125 B.C.. When the two manuscripts were compared to one another, the consistency was nothing short of noteworthy. This is why the Dead Sea Scroll discovery is so significant – because of the way in which the Old Testament was validated by comparing two manuscripts that were written 1,000 years apart and still matched almost word or word. The discrepancies were differences in spelling and nothing more:

Gleason Archer (noted author and scholar) states that the Isaiah copies of the Qumran community “proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling.5

Jesus

The table below represents 70 of the over 300 Old Testament references to Christ. Conservative estimates date these prophecies to be removed from their fulfillment by a period of at least 250 years!6

# Scripture Prophecy Fulfillment
1 Genesis 3:15 When sin first enters the world, God promises a savior — the Messiah — to resolve the problem of sin and reconcile people with God Galatians 4:4-5, Matthew 1:18
2 Genesis 3:15 The Messiah would be born of a woman — he would be a human, as opposed to an angel or other type of being Galatians 4:4-5, Matthew 1:18
3 Genesis 22:18 The Messiah would be a descendant of Abraham, because of Abraham’s great faith Matthew 1:1, Luke 3:34, Romans 4:13, Galatians 3:7
4 Genesis 26:1-5 The Messiah would be a descendant of Abraham’s son Isaac Romans 9:7, Hebrews 11:18, Matthew 1:2
5 Genesis 28:10-14 The Messiah would be a descendant of Abraham’s grandson Jacob (He would be an Israelite) Matthew 1:2, Luke 3:34
6 Genesis 49:10 The Messiah would be a descendant of Abraham’s great-grandson Judah (He would be a Jew) Matthew 1:3, Luke 3:33
7 Isaiah 11:1-10 The Messiah would be a descendant of Jesse, who is a descendant of Judah Matthew 1:6, Luke 3:32
8 2 Samuel 7:12-16 The Messiah would be a descendant of King David, who is a son of Jesse Matthew 1:6, Luke 3:31
9 Isaiah 11:1 The Messiah would appear after a great devastation for Jesse’s descendants (Babylonian conquest) Luke 3:1-23. History: The Babylonians destroyed the Kingdom of Judah and forced many Jews into exile and captivity (about 2,600 years ago).
10 Jeremiah 23:3-6 The Messiah would appear after the regathering of exiles Luke 3:1-23. History: Jews began returning to their homeland after the fall of the Neo-Babylonian Empire (about 2,500 years ago).
11 Daniel 9:24-26 The Messiah would appear after the rebuilding of Jerusalem Luke 3:1-23. History: Jerusalem was fully rebuilt when Jesus arrived as the Messiah about 2,000 years ago.
12 Genesis 49:10 The Messiah would appear after a succession of rulers from the Tribe of Judah Matthew 2. History: Herod the Great became the first foreigner to reign from Jerusalem as king over the Jews in Israel. Jesus was born during his reign.
13 Ezekiel 21:26-27 The Messiah would appear after a disruption to the succession of Davidic kings, who were members of the Tribe of Judah Matthew 2. History: Zedekiah, who lived during the time of Ezekiel, was the last Davidic king until Jesus was born.
14 Micah 5:1-2 The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem Matthew 2:1-12, Luke 2:1-21
15 Genesis 17:15-21 The predicted miraculous birth of Isaac foreshadows the predicted miraculous birth of Jesus Matthew 1:18-25, Luke 1:26-38. Both births were the result of miracles and the fulfillment of prophecy.
16 Isaiah 7:13-14 Isaiah foretold the miraculous virgin birth of Jesus and The original Christmas story Matthew 1:18-25, Luke 1:26-38
17 Isaiah 7:14 The Messiah would be called Immanuel (God with us) Matthew 1:23
18 Daniel 9:26 The Messiah would arrive before the (Roman) destruction of Jerusalem Luke 3:1-23. History: The Romans destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70. Jesus appeared as the Messiah in about AD 30.
19 Malachi 3:1 The Messiah would arrive at a time when there was a Temple in Jerusalem Matthew 21:12. History: The Temple was destroyed AD 70, about 2,000 years ago, and has never been rebuilt.
20 Isaiah 40:1-9 The Messiah would be preceded by a forerunner Matthew 3:1-4
21 Malachi 3:1 A messenger would prepare the way for the Lord Mark 1:1-11
22 Daniel 9:24-27 The Messiah would arrive 483 years after a call to restore and to build Jerusalem John 1:29-34. History: Artaxerxes began giving permission to restore and rebuild Jerusalem in 457 BC. Jesus began his public ministy in AD 26.
23 Isaiah 61:1-2 The public ministry of Jesus is foreshadowed by Isaiah Luke 4:14-30
24 Isaiah 9:1-2 The Messiah would have a ministry in Galilee and be a light to Gentiles Matthew 4:12-17
25 Isaiah 35:4-6 The Messiah would perform miracles Matthew 4:23-25. Jesus performed miracles on 50 occasions, according to Jesus the Miracle Worker
26 Psalm 78:1-2 The Messiah would teach in parables Matthew 13:3, 13-15
27 Deuteronomy 18:15-18 The Messiah would be like Moses, who was a prophet, leader, intermediary, deliverer and miracle worker John 5:45-47, 6:14
28 Isaiah 42:1-9 The Messiah would be humble and meek Matthew 11:28-30
29 Psalm 2:1-12 The Messiah would have a father-son relationship with God Matthew 14:33
30 Isaiah 9:6-7 The Messiah would be a son who would be called Mighty God Matthew 1:23, John 10:30, 20:27-29
31 Zechariah 9:9 He would humbly announce himself publicly as the Messiah by riding a lowly donkey into Jerusalem Matthew 21:6-9
32 Jeremiah 31:31-34 The Messiah would be associated with a “new covenant” involving forgiveness of sin Hebrews 8
33 Psalm 41 Psalm 41 foreshadowed the betrayal of Jesus John 13:18
34 Psalm 22:6 The Messiah would be despised Luke 23:21-23
35 Psalm 118:22-24 The Messiah would be rejected even though he is the cornerstone of a plan from God Matthew 21:42-43
36 Isaiah 53:1-3 The Messiah would be despised and rejected Matthew 27:21-23
37 Daniel 9:24-26 Daniel predicted the timing of when the Messiah would be rejected Mark 15:1-15
38 Isaiah 53:7 The Messiah would be persecuted Matthew 27:27-31
39 Isaiah 53:7 The Messiah would be silent before his accusers Matthew 27:12-14
40 Isaiah 50:6-7 The Messiah would be spat upon and beaten Matthew 26:67, 27:30
41 Psalm 35:19, 69:4 The Messiah would be hated without reason or cause John 15:25
42 Isaiah 53:12 The Messiah would be ‘numbered with the transgressors’ Luke 22:37, 23:32
43 Isaiah 50:4-10 The Messiah would serve God with perfect obedience Matthew 26:39, John 8:28
44 Isaiah 50:4-10 The Messiah would willingly submit to the will of God and the abuse of people Matthew 26:47-56
45 Genesis 22:1-18 The near-sacrifice of Isaac foreshadows the sacrifice of Jesus John 19:1-37
46 Psalm 22 Psalm 22 foreshadows the crucifixion of Jesus Matthew 27:32-44, John 19:1-37, 20:27
47 Psalm 22:8 The Messiah would be mocked for his faith in God Matthew 27:39, 27:43
48 Psalm 22:17-18 The Messiah would be stripped of his clothing Luke 23:34-35
49 Psalm 22:18 Onlookers would cast lots for his clothing Matthew 27:35, Luke 23:34, John 19:23
50 Psalm 22:16 The Messiah’s hands and feet would be pierced John 19:37, 20:27
51 Psalm 22:15 The Messiah’s suffering would include thirst John 19:28
52 Psalm 22:1 The Messiah would cry out to God Matthew 27:46
53 Zechariah 12:10 Zechariah foreshadows the piercing of Jesus John 19:34-37
54 Isaiah 53:12 The Messiah would intercede for sinners Matthew 10:32, Luke 23:34, Romans 8:34
55 Isaiah 53:4-9 The Messiah would suffer and die for the sins of others John 19:1-37, 2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 John 4:10
56 Isaiah 53:8-9 The Messiah would be “cut off out of the land of the living” (executed) John 19:1-37
57 Daniel 9:26 The Messiah would be “cut off” (executed) John 19:1-37
58 Daniel 9:24 The Messiah’s sacrificial death would bring an end to the problem of sin Galatians 1:3-5
59 Genesis 3:15 The Messiah would defeat evil at his own expense John 19:1-37, 2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 John 4:10
60 Isaiah 53:9 The Messiah would be buried in a rich man’s grave Matthew 27:57-61
61 Psalm 16:8-11 God’s holy one (the Messiah) would be resurrected John 20:1-18; Acts 2:29-32, 13:32-37, 1 Corinthians 15
62 Isaiah 53:10-12 The Messiah would be resurrected and see the results of his atoning death John 20:1-18, Acts 1:8
63 Psalm 110 The Messiah would be seated at the right hand of God the Father, meaning he would ascend into heaven Matthew 26:64, Luke 24:50-53, John 20:17, Acts 1:1-12. Jesus ascended 40 days after his resurrection.
64 Isaiah 11:10 The Messiah would appeal to Gentiles Acts 1:8, 13:47-48. History: Christianity is the world’s largest religion.
65 Isaiah 42:1-4 The Messiah would affect people throughout the world Matthew 28:19-20, John 12:18-21
66 Isaiah 42:6 The Messiah would be a light to people around the world Luke 2:22-40
67 Zechariah 9:9-11 The Messiah would have a worldwide impact Acts 1:8, 13:47-48.
68 Isaiah 49:6 The Messiah would bring salvation to the ends of the earth Acts 13:47-48. History: Christianity is the world’s most widespread religion.
69 Psalm 110 The Messiah will return to preside over Judgment Day Daniel 7:13-14, 12:1-2. To be fulfilled in the future when Jesus returns.
70 Daniel 7:13-14 The Messiah will reign eternally over the Kingdom of God, also known as the Kingdom of Heaven Luke 1:31-33
this content comes from about-jesus.org
Dr. Peter Stoner

Peter Stoner (June 16, 1888 – March 21, 1980)[1][2] was a Christian writer and Chairman of the departments of mathematics and astronomy at Pasadena City College until 1953; Chairman of the science division, Westmont College, 1953–57; Professor Emeritus of Science, Westmont College; and Professor Emeritus of Mathematics and Astronomy, Pasadena City College. (Wikipedia).

His book “Science Speaks” is considered to be a classic in the context of Apologetics.

In his book, “Science Speaks,” the author, Dr. Peter Stoner, looked at 8 prophecies and then calculated the chances of one man in history fulfilling all of them.

1) “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting” (Micah 5:2).

2) “Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me” (Mal. 3:1).

3. “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation: lowly, and riding upon … a colt the foal of an ass” (Zech. 9:9).

4. “And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends”(Zech. 13:6).

5. “And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver” (Zech. 11:12).

6. “And the Lord said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prized at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord” (Zech. 11:13).

7. “He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth” (Isa. 53:7).

8. “For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet”(Ps. 22:16).

Let us try to visualize this chance. If you mark one of ten tickets, and place all of the tickets in a hat, and thoroughly stir them, and then ask a blindfolded man to draw one, his chance of getting the right ticket is one in ten. Suppose that we take 1017 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They will cover all of the state two feet deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far s he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would have had of writing these eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man, from their day to the present time, providing they wrote using their own wisdom. (Science Speaks)
Every Book of the Bible is About Jesus

In Genesis, I was the Word of God, creating the heavens and the earth.
In Exodus, I was the Passover Lamb, whose blood was sprinkled on the doorposts of your heart so that you could escape the bonds of slavery.
In Leviticus, I was the temple, the holy place where you met with God.
In Numbers, I was your ever-present guide, your pillar of cloud by day and pillar of fire by night.
In Deuteronomy, I was the prophet coming who is greater than Moses.

In Joshua, I was the conquering warrior leading you into the Promised Land.
In Judges, I was the broken Savior rising up to rescue you.
In Ruth, I was your kinsman-redeemer.
In 1&2 Samuel, I was the pure-hearted shepherd king, who rushed out to face your giants all alone.
In 1&2 Kings, I was the righteous ruler.

In 1&2 Chronicles, I was the restorer of the kingdom.
In Ezra, the faithful scribe.
In Nehemiah, the rebuilder of the walls.
In Esther, I was your advocate, risking my life to restore you to royalty.

In Job, I was your living Redeemer.
In the Psalms, I was the one who hears your cries.
In Proverbs, I am wisdom personified.
In Ecclesiastes, I am the meaning that lets you escape the madness.
In the Song of Solomon, I am your lover and your bridegroom.

In Isaiah, I was the Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace, wounded for your transgressions and bruised for your iniquities.
In Jeremiah, I am the Spirit that writes God’s laws on your hearts.
In Lamentations, I was the weeping prophet.
In Ezekiel, I was the river of life bringing healing to the nations.
In Daniel, the fourth man in the fire.
In Hosea, I was the ever-faithful husband pursuing my unfaithful bride.
In Joel, I was the restorer of all that the locusts have eaten.

In Amos, I was your burden bearer.
In Obadiah, the judge of all the earth.
In Jonah, the prophet cast out into the storm so that you could be brought in.
In Micah, the everlasting ruler born to us in Bethlehem.

In Nahum, the Avenger of God’s elect.
In Habakkuk, your reason to rejoice even when our fields are empty.
In Zephaniah, I am the great Reformer.
In Haggai, the cleansing fountain.
In Zechariah, the pierced Son whom every eye on earth will one day behold.
And in Malachi, I am the Sun of Righteousness rising with healing in my wings.

In Matthew, he’s the King of the Jews.
In Mark, he’s the Son of God.
In Luke, he’s the Savior born to us in the city of David, Christ the Lord.
In John, he’s the Word become flesh, dwelling among us.
In Acts, he is Christ the risen Lord, proclaiming salvation to the nations.
In Romans, he’s the Justifier.
In 1&2 Corinthians, the Spirit at work in the churches.
In Galatians, he is the righteousness imputed to us by faith.
In Ephesians, our righteous armor.
In Philippians, the God who meets our every need.
In Colossians, the firstborn of all creation.

In 1&2 Thessalonians, he’s descending from heaving with a shout, coming to meet us together in the clouds.
In 1&2 Timothy, the one mediator between God and man.
In Titus, our faithful pastor.
In Philemon, our Redeemer, restoring us to service.
In Hebrews, our great high priest.

In James, the life at work in our faith.
In 1&2 Peter, our living cornerstone.
In 1, 2, and 3 John, our advocate, pleading his righteousness in our place.
In Jude, he’s God our Savior, the one who keeps us from stumbling and presents us blameless in his presence with great joy.

And in Revelation, he’s the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, the King of kings and the Lord of lords.
(J.D. Greear Ministries)

Bottom line: The Old Testament provides a very specific historical address for Jesus. Everything from His lineage, the place of His birth, His crucifixion, how He would be introduced by John the Baptist, the way in which He would be betrayed…It’s an amazing list of details, some of which pertained to things that weren’t even in existence at the time the prophecy was first documented.

For example, crucifixion. While impalement is referenced in Genesis 40:19, it’s specifically referenced in Deuteronomy 21:23 as being indicative of God’s curse being on the person being impaled (see also Gal 3:13).

But it’s in Isaiah 53, where you encounter specific references to the way Christ was going to be “pierced…”

But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed. (Is 53:5 [see also Ps 22:16])

It’s here where you see a picture of a criminal having been nailed to a pole or a tree, which matches the image of crucifixion – a practice that was virtually unknown until the time of the Romans.

The history of crucifixion as a mode of punishment for cime must be studies as a part of the Roman system of jurisprudence…The Hebrews, for example, adopted or accepted it only under Roman compulsion: under their own system, before Palestine became Roman territory, they inflicted the death penalty by stoning.

…In 63 B.C., Pompey’s legions cut their way into the Judean capital. Palestine became a Roman province, though nominally a puppet Jewish dynasty survived.

Thus, the type of death picture in Isaiah 53 and Psalms 22 did not come into practice under the Jewish system until hundreds of years after the account was written.7

Conclusion

In addition to the way in which the credibility of the Old Testament can be validated from an academic standpoint, it’s the way it so vividly describes Christ that demonstrates its True reliability. You could argue that every book in the Bible references the Son of God in some way, shape, or form (see sidebar).

From that perspective, yes, the text of the OT can be trusted, but it is the Message that needs to be embraced and believed.

For even more information about the credibility of the Old Testament, click here

1. The Rise and Fall of Assyria”, Lenormant and E. Chevallier, LM Publishers
2. “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”, Josh McDowell, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN, 1979, p299
3. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Enlightenment” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/enlightenment/, accessed April 8, 2017
4. AnswersInGenesis, “Scientific Accuracy”, https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bible-true/5-scientific-accuracy/, accessed April 8, 2017
5. “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”, Josh McDowell, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN, 1979, p58
6. Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict (San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life Publishers, Inc, 1972, 1979, p144
7. Ibid, p161, 162

Prove It! | Part I: Faith

/in , , /by

It says in Scripture that without faith, it’s impossible to please God (Heb 11:6).

Why? Why is it so important to accept something to be true based solely on faith as opposed to being able to prove that it’s credible?

Critics often sneer at Christianity. Christopher Hitchens, a very vocal opponent of Christianity, once said that Christianity, “…can’t be believed by a thinking person.1” Richard Dawkins, the author of  “The God Delusion” said, “Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is the belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”2

On the surface, faith seems to be something that exists only in the context of a willingness to believe in the supernatural – something that can’t be proven in the context of something you can touch, understand, and anticipate.

But that’s not the case.

Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
The universal experience of paleontology,,,[is that] while the rocks have continually yielded new and exciting and even bizarre forms of life…what they have never yielded is any of Darwin’s myriads of transitional forms. Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin. the intermediaries have remained as elusive as ever and their absence remains, a century later, one of the most striking characteristics of the fossil record.3

You cannot function as a human being without deploying a measure of faith in some way, shape, or form.

Think about it.

When you drive down the expressway, you can’t “prove” that the driver coming at you from the other direction is going to stay in their lane. You’ve got to trust that when you take public transportation, the driver isn’t going to steer you into the ditch. Whenever you board a commercial flight, you’ve got to have faith in both the aircraft and the pilot.

Anytime they put you under to do some surgery on you, you’ve got to have faith in the anesthesiologist and the surgeon.

Evolution requires an outrageous amount of faith in that you have no fossil evidence or logic to substantiate the idea that something can come from nothing, or that a fish can grow wings and become a bird (see sidebar).

At the end of the day, those who sneer at faith, not only ignore the extent to which they embrace faith as part of their everyday activities, they use their sarcasm to conceal the fact that their criticisms aren’t rooted so much in the absence of “proof,” as much as it’s about the lack of  “control.”

Even Darwin had faith. When he first published his Origin of Species, while he was very aware of the logical inconsistencies that existed between his theory and the geological record that existed at the time, he had “faith” that, in time, the record would validate the credibility of his theory.

Faith isn’t the problem. You see that dynamic documented in Lee Strobel’s book, “The Case for Christ” when he admitted that part of his skepticism as an atheist was partly inspired by not wanting to answer to a standard other than himself.5

The challenge isn’t the need to have faith, as much as it’s the need to relinquish control.

Perhaps this is part of the reason why non-believers refuse to consider the evidence that validates the Christian faith, but it’s also something for believers to ponder when they feel as though they’re “struggling” to have faith.

When you perceive the difficulties of having faith as a subliminal resistance to a lack of control, the dialogue changes. It’s not so much about the object of your faith and the evidence that validates your confidence in what you believe to be true, as much as it’s about not wanting to surrender control of your situation.

Maybe that’s why God says it’s impossible to please Him without faith. Until you’re willing to, not only give up your control, but to admit that you were never in control to begin with, you keep God and what He can accomplish at a distance (Phil 2:13).

It’s important to be able to explain what you believe and why you believe it (1 Pet 3:15). Saying that, “…you just believe” doesn’t resonate as something that indicates you’ve actually thought things through. So, from that standpoint, being familiar with the discipline of Apologetics is a healthy exercise.

But in the end, the issue is control on a profoundly spiritual level (Jn 6:65). Your witness to the unbeliever, as well as the mindset you deploy when dealing with both triumphs and trials needs to factor in the bottom line of control and Who’s ultimately in charge. That is the beginning of the faith Scripture refers to and that is the faith that changes lives.

1. “Goodreads”, “Christopher Hitchens > Quotes > Quotable Quote”, https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/919133-let-s-say-that-the-consensus-is-that-our-species-being”, accessed April 7, 2026
2. “Goodreads”, “Richard Dawkins > Quotes”, https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/1194.Richard_Dawkins, accessed April 7, 2026
3. Michael Denton, Evolution a Theory in Crisis (Chevy Chase, Md.: Adler and Adler, 1986, 162
4. In his book, Origin of Species, Darwin says: “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.” (“Darwin Online”, http://darwin-online.org.uk/Variorum/1859/1859-484-c-1860.html, accessed April 8, 2026)
5. Lee Strobel explained his inclination to dismiss Christianity in part because of the way it would compel him to surrender his right to himself. “Sure, I could see some gaps and inconsistencies, but I had a strong motivation to ignore them: a self-serving and immoral lifestyle that I would be compelled to abandon if I were ever to change my views and become a follower of Jesus.” (“The Case for Christ”, Lee Strobel, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1998 Kindle, LOC 233)

Who Hit You?

/in , , /by

It’s a little before 6:00 am on Good Friday. By now, the “trial” is wrapping up and the Pharisees have been able to manipulate things to the point where they feel comfortable going to Pilate and demanding that Christ be crucified.

There was a breakthrough at one point, when things weren’t lining up in a way that promoted the Pharisees intention when they finally felt as though they had gotten Christ to admit something they could legitimately label as heresy.

62 Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 63 But Jesus remained silent.

The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”

64 “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66 What do you think?”

“He is worthy of death,” they answered.

67 Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Others slapped him 68 and said, “Prophesy to us, Messiah. Who hit you?” (Matt 26:62-68)

Excrutiating

The word, “excrutiating” literally means “out of the cross.” It’s a term used to describe an unbearable pain and Jesus was knew it was coming. In addition to the cross, He would be flogged according to a Roman approach that didn’t stop short of 41 lashes.  Rather, He would be beaten until those responsible for “chastising” Him felt like they were through.

Last night, He had His last meal with His disciples where He revealed all of the symbolism that had been instituted centuries beforehand when Moses introduced the Passover Meal. He was the Passover Lamb. And while the disciples were not quite sure of what Jesus meant when He said, “This is my body broken for you…” their uncertainty would deteriorate into shock, fear and disbelief as they watched their Teacher be tortured and put to death.

After the Passover Meal, Jesus went to the Garden of Gethsemane where He would pray with the kind of terrible passion that accompany’s a man’s complete confidence that soon He will be subjected to an unimaginable amount of pain and suffering.

Hematidrosis is a rare medical condition where the subject perspires drops of blood. When you blush, your emotions trigger blood flow to a point just below the surface of your skin, hence the reddish tint to your complexion. In this instance, your emotions force blood out through your pores and you appear to be sweating blood (Luke 22:44). In the aftermath, your skin is sensitive to even the slightest touch. Luke says that this anomaly was experienced by Christ when He was praying. That means the pain from every punch, every lash, every slap, every cut was going to be amplified 100 fold.

It’s easy to gloss over verse 68 in the above text because we’re already familiar with what is getting ready to happen which, admittedly, is going to be far more dramatic.

But this is where it starts.

This is more than a “sting” or a solid punch to the face. This is the kind of pain that must’ve made Jesus wonder how He was going to endure the next several hours.

It’s hard not to get emotional when you meditate on the cruelty and the pain that was exacted on the Son of God that was willingly absorbed in order to pay a debt on behalf of the one who asked, “Who hit you?” Especially when you realize that, given the reality of our rebellion and need for redemption…

…we were the ones who hit Him.

God Loves Everyone

/in , /by

It’s not uncommon to encounter someone who wants to justify what can be rightfully identified as a bad attitude or sinful behavior by saying that “God loves everyone.”

That’s true.

God does love everyone (Jn 3:16; 1 Jn 4:8).

But the question isn’t whether or not God loves you, the question is, “Do you love God?”

You can’t say you love Him if you don’t obey Him…

Cheap Grace

The term “cheap grace” can be traced back to a book written by German theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, called The Cost of Discipleship, published in 1937. In that book, Bonhoeffer defined “cheap grace” as “the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline. Communion without confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ.” Notice what is emphasized in Bonhoeffer’s definition of cheap grace and what is de-emphasized. The emphasis is on the benefits of Christianity without the costs involved; hence, the adjective cheap to describe it. (gotquestions.org)

Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them. (Jn 14:21)

Obviously, no one is perfect. But we’re not talking about a perfect performance as much as we’re talking about an honest confession. There is no forgiveness if you’re unwilling to admit that you’re wrong…

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. (1 Jn 1:9)

You see this problem addressed in 1 John 3:6:

No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him. (1 Jn 3:6)

John isn’t talking about “committing” a sin as much as he’s referring to the “practice” of sin. It’s often manifested as a lifestyle of perpetual and intentional rebellion that one attempts to conceal by advocating the idea that God’s Love equates to a Divine endorsement of sin.

That’s not the way it works.

Saying that you believe that Jesus died for you doesn’t amount to much, in that the demons believe and they “shudder” (Jas 2:14-26).

What qualifies you as a believer is the way in which the Holy Spirit is now a part of who you are (Rom 8:9; 2 Cor 1:21-22). That doesn’t happen apart from establishing Christ as your everyday Authority, and not just your spiritual mechanic. (Rom 10:8-9).

Dietrich Bonhoeffer described that as “cheap grace,” which translates to a meaningless doctrine because there’s no real transformation (2 Cor 5:17).  Instead, it’s just a pointless declaration that’s intended to reduce Christ to a noble sounding sentiment as opposed to the Lord of your life.

Again, the question isn’t whether or not God loves you, as much as it’s whether or not you love God. And you can’t say you love Him if you’re determined to ignore Him. God does love you, but it’s your willingness to surrender to His Authority that qualifies you as a believer, and not your ability to sound appreciative of a love you’re unwilling to reciprocate.

Scientists Say You’re Wrong

/in , , , , /by
Negative Health Consequences of Same-Sex
Sexual Behavior

Dr. Francis S. Collins, current Director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health and former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, asserted that homosexuality “is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA” and that “whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations.” 6

The 2008 American Psychological Association’s brochure Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality: Answers to Your Questions For a Better Understanding states, “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”7

GLBT-oriented men and women may not choose their attractions, but, short of force, they do choose their sex partners. From a national health perspective, the issue is not the origins of homosexual or GLBT orientation, but the consequences of engaging in such sexual activity.

The negative health consequences of alternative sexuality are made more understandable by first recognizing the nature of the sexual practices at issue. A 1979 survey in the book The Gay Report revealed the percentage of gay men who engaged in the following practices: 99% oral sex, 91% anal sex, 82% rimming (analingus), 22% fisting, 23% golden showers (urination on another), 4% scat (defecation on another). 8 The book’s two authors were of same-sex sexual attraction. A May 2011 medical journal article found that felching (“sucking or eating semen out of someone’s anus”) was a sought-after practice in one-sixth of men’s profiles in “one of the largest Internet websites specifically targeting MSM looking for partners for unprotected sex.”9

The Gay Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) web site describes the following detrimental effects associated with same-sex sexual practice: higher rates of HIV/AIDS, substance abuse, depression/anxiety, hepatitis, sexually transmitted illnesses (anal papilloma/HPV, gonorrhea, syphilis, and chlamydia), certain cancers, alcohol abuse, tobacco use, eating disorders, and (in subsets) obesity.10

In February 2009 a Canadian GLBT group filed a human rights complaint against the Canadian government and Health Canada asserting that the Canadian GLBT population had poor statistics for life expectancy (twenty years short of standard), suicide, alcohol and illicit drug/substance abuse, cancer, infectious disease, HIV/AIDS, and depression. This is noteworthy in that it challenges the assertion of those claiming the negative health statistics attributed to individuals of GLBT orientation are merely a function of the lack of acceptance of such individuals, and that said statistics would improve with their increased acceptance. Canada provides a highly supportive government, celebration from liberal churches, and a public coerced into silence by hate speech codes, yet the poor health indicators for the GLBT populace remains. This demonstrates that acceptance and affirmation of same-sex sexuality is not the promised antidote for the problems inherent in GLBT sexuality…

The Gay & Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) web site features the page Ten Things Lesbians Should discuss with Their Healthcare Provider, which states the following: “Lesbians have the richest concentration of risk factors for breast cancer than any subset of women in the world.” And “Lesbians have higher risks for many of the gynecologic cancers.”23 (Christian Medical and Dental Associations)

6. Collins, F. S. (2006). The language of god, a scientist presents evidence for belief. (New York: Free Press) p. 257-263.
7. http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx.
8. Jay, K., Young, A., The Gay Report (New York: Summit Books, 1979)
9. Klein, H. “Felching Among Men Who Engage in Barebacking (Unprotected Anal Sex).” Arch Sex Behav. 2011 May 14. [Epub ahead of print].
10. http://glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageID=690 and http://www.glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageID=691.
23. http://www.glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageID=691.

Scientists Say You’re Wrong

“Scientists say you’re wrong…”

That’s what you’ll hear from time to time when someone wants to try to ignore what’s obvious by insisting that “experts agree,” or “studies show,” or “recent polling indicates…”

There’s two kinds of information: The kind that brings clarity to the truth and the kind that distracts from it.

Subject matter experts and polling data can be very instrumental in helping to guide and reinforce sound judgement. But when you intentionally distort the criteria you use to gather and analyze your information, not only are your conclusions flawed, but they have the capacity to make a bad situation worse because of the credibility that’s associated with institutions that are being asserted as unbiased.

In other words, just because you’ve got some letters after you name, doesn’t mean you get to speak into reality things that aren’t true. That’s not science, that’s gossip.

When it comes to transgenderism and homosexuality, you have a perspective that is supposedly informed by educated sources that insists these things are either normal or explained by anomalies that cannot be criticized, only accommodated.

Ryan T. Anderson received his bachelor of arts degree from Princeton University, graduating Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude. He went on to receive his doctoral degree in political philosophy from the University of Notre Dame. His research has been cited by two U.S. Supreme Court justices, Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas, in two Supreme Court cases.

In his book, “When Harry Became Sally,” he reveals the contradictions and the harm being suffered by those who are being encouraged to subscribe to an sustainable distortion of reality, all in the name of “science.”

He makes a great point by saying, “On the one hand, transgender activists want the authority of science as they make metaphysical claims, saying that science reveals gender identity to be innate and unchanging. On the other hand, they deny that biology is destiny, insisting that people are free to be who they want to be.” (Transgender Ideology is Riddled with Contradictions. Here are the Big Ones)

You can’t acknowledge Biology as a definitive science, and, at the same time, say that it becomes subjective, depending on the way a person feels. That is the fundamental claim of the “science” supporting transgenderism. In that context, transgenderism isn’t supported by science, as much as it’s refuted by it. It’s like a detective who isn’t looking for evidence, as much as they’re trying to create a verdict. In this instance, however “complex” the problem might be, you’re not bringing clarity to the truth as much as you’re distracting from it by insisting that a man can have a uterus.

How Does This Concern You?

Attempting to introduce a bottom line that exists independently of the way a person thinks or feels is toxic to some people because of the way submitting to thatr eality requires a willingness to be held accountable to something greater than yourself.

You can’t champion that kind of approach directly without sounding either selfish or foolish. But you can effectively avoid being revealed as not having a rational argument by accusing anyone who disagrees with you as being either overbearing, hypocritical,  or unethical. At that point, the focus isn’t on what’s being said as much as it’s the supposed character flaws of the one who’s speaking.

You see that approach manifested in several comments: “You can’t force your beliefs on me,” “What’s true for you isn’t true for me,” “I’m not hurting anyone,” or “How does this concern you?”

Embedded within each statement is a dynamic that implies truth is based on preferences more so than principles. Therefore, any attempt to assert a reality that cannot be altered based on a person’s disposition is an inappropriate act of aggression that is hurtful and disrespectful.

It can easily shut down any legitimate dialogue because of the way most will rush to avoid being labeled cruel and hateful.

Sexually transmitted infections among
homosexual and bisexual men who
have sex with men…

In this comparative cross-sectional study, we analyzed the records of all male STI patients who reported at least one male partner who attended our STI clinic from January 2015 to December 2023 for demographic details, sexual history, clinical examination, and laboratory findings.

Statistical Analysis:

Chi-square test and logistic regression were utilized.

Results:

The number of MSM attending STI clinics showed a rising trend, with a sharp decline during the pandemic followed by a significant rebound. Bisexuals outnumbered homosexuals until the lockdown, after which the trend reversed. About 42.6% of homosexuals and 26.7% of bisexuals reported first sexual exposure before the age of 16 (odds ratio (OR) = 2.04, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.17–3.55, P = 0.01). Syphilis was the most prevalent STI (70.6%), followed by HIV (29.8%) and condyloma acuminata (16.6%). Homosexuals had a significantly higher prevalence of syphilis (adjusted OR 4.82, 95% CI 1.94–11.93, P < 0.01) than bisexuals. 51.4% of HIV cases were newly diagnosed on evaluation after attending the STI clinic.

Conclusions:

There was a sharp rise in the number of MSM attending the STI clinic, especially homosexuals. Syphilis was the most prevalent STI, particularly among homosexuals, which frequently coexisted with HIV. (National Library of Medicine)

Out of the Closet, Into the Clinic: LGBT STD Statistics
Felching Among Men Who Engage in Barebacking (Unprotected Anal Sex)

You can, however, counter those tactics by bringing the conversation back to the subject matter being discussed and emphasizing how the truth isn’t something you can ignore just because you don’t like the way it’s packaged.

For example, when someone wants to discredit your platform by suggesting that since you’re not being impacted,  you have no reason to be critical…

  • Just because my money isn’t in the bank that’s being robbed, doesn’t mean that I can’t rightfully oppose stealing.
  • Should they choose to say that, since they’re not hurting anyone, any criticism is unnecessary, you can remind them that, more often than not, that phrase is used by people who’ve decided that regardless of the problems their choices produce, if it doesn’t matter to them, it shouldn’t matter to anyone else. That’s not making an argument, they’re just declaring their indifference.

When it comes to homosexuality, you’ve got three things going on simultaneously.

1)  Not good for you

From a physiological standpoint, you have a lifestyle that represents a parade of STDs, some of which are lethal. You also can’t procreate, which qualifies your perversion, not only as something that’s detrimental to your health, but also as a complete departure from the way the human species is designed. (see sidebar)

2) Bad for the team.

This is coming from SAGE Publications, the world’s largest independent scholarly publisher.  This captures both the physiological problems as well as the problems that impact society in general.

Are homosexuals “not dangers to society” and is homosexuality “compatible with full health”? To answer these questions 4,340 adult respondents drawn via area probability sampling from 5 metropolitan areas of the USA self-administered an extensive sexuality/public order questionnaire of over 500 items. Bisexuals and homosexuals (about 4% of the sample) as compared to heterosexuals: (1) more frequently exposed themselves to biological hazards (e.g., sadomasochism, fisting, bestiality, ingestion of feces); (2) exposed themselves sexually to more different bodies (e.g., more frequently admitted to participating in orgies, reported considerably larger numbers of sexual partners); (3) more frequently reported participating in socially disruptive sex (e.g., deliberate infection of others, cheating in marriage, making obscene phone calls); and (4) more frequently reported engaging in socially disruptive activities (e.g., criminality, shoplifting, tax cheating). From the standpoints of individual health, public health and social order, participating in homosexual activity could be viewed as dangerous to society and incompatible with full health. (National Library of Medicine)

Growing up with gay parents:
What is the big deal?

A ground-breaking study from the University of Texas at Austin (Regnerus 20121) found that young-adult children (ages 18–39) of parents who had same-sex relationships before the subjects had reached the age of 18 were more likely to suffer from a broad range of emotional and social problems.

The study is noteworthy for several reasons:

(1) his study sample was large, representative, and population-based (not a small, self-selected group);
(2) Regnerus studied the responses of adult children rather than asking same-sex parents to describe how their young dependent children are doing; and
(3) he was able to draw comparisons on up to 80 measures for children who had lived with (or had) parents who fell into one of eight categories—intact families with both biological parents who were married to each other, lesbian mothers, gay fathers, heterosexual single parents, parents who later divorced, cohabiting parents, parents who adopted the respondent, and other (such as a deceased parent).

The children of lesbians and gays fared worse than those in intact heterosexual families on 77 of the 80 outcome measures. Exceptions related only to the voting habits of children with gay fathers, and alcohol use by children of lesbian mothers (National Library of Medicine).

1. Regnerus M. 2012. How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study. Social Science Research 41: 752–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Some want to try and justify Homosexuality by insisting that homosexuals were born that way. But according to the “American Psychological Association,” There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation.”1

3) You have to pretend there are no rules.

When you’re a part of a team, you have a responsibility to contribute in a way that benefits the team as a whole. You don’t just wear the jersey, you play in a way that helps move the ball down the field. But if you’re determined to believe that there are no rules and you can play however you want to, that puts an unnecessary strain on the team’s ability to succeed. In that context, you’re not “independent,” you’re just selfish.

The person who wants to see themselves as their own absolute will not confess to being selfish, however. Instead, they’ll insist that their rights are being violated – that they are victims of an intolerant society. They won’t admit to being irresponsible or negligent, instead they’ll say that there are no boundaries and anyone who disagrees is either ignorant or cruel.

The problem with that mindset is that it ignores reality. They want to pretend that they can speak a standard into existence, simply because they want it to be true, rather than submitting to a standard because it is true.

The result is a compromised collective. It’s not about a lack of variety or an intolerant authority, as much as it’s an unnecessary increase in pain and problems that stem from a resolve to reduce truth to a tradition.

The LGBQT community requires that husbands and wives, along with moms and dads have to be redefined as social constructs as opposed to fundamental institutions. They dismiss the consequences of their perversion as “risks” and any objective evaluation of their behavior as “discrimination.” This is the only path that can be taken if their approach to the human experience is going to make any sense, and it is the same kind of path that is used by everyone that wants to normalize a flawed way of thinking: Replace what’s real with a manufactured reality where there are no bottom lines and truth is whatever an individual wants to believe.

The problem with homosexuality, or any kind of sexual misconduct, is the way that it poisons society by compromising both the definition and the function of a healthy family. Adultery and fornication lead to children who are either unwanted or reduced to pieces of property being fought over by two angry adults. Homosexuality is incapable of producing children, and the kids that are raised in a homosexual household struggle because of the way they’re constantly being told that truth is nothing more than a tradition.

In short, in order for the homosexual lifestyle to make any sense, the human experience has to be reinvented, medical realities have to be ignored, societal damage has to be dismissed, and morality in general has to be redefined.

It Makes No Sense

It makes absolutely no sense when you consider that, among the negative health consequences of same sex behavior, you have:

  • Reduced Life Expectancy
  • Sexually Transmitted Diseases
  • Cancer
  • Mental Health Issues
  • Domestic Violence
  • Increased Suicide Risks

And yet…

Those who challenge the normalcy and equivalence arguments of GLBT advocates are predictably met with the jamming tactic of being labeled bigots, haters, and homophobes so as to pre-empt reasonable debate. Disagreeing with GLBT sexual practice is neither hatred, harassment, phobia, nor violence, but the expression of opinion firmly grounded in medical literature.2

The Fundamental Dispute

Attempting to defend Homosexuality by saying that “Science says you’re wrong,” is ignoring the fact that it’s raining because it wasn’t forecasted by your favorite weatherman.

When you say “Science says your wrong,” you’re implying a conclusion shared by a majority that is neither questioned or disputed. But that isn’t the case.

At the end of the day, there’s more to these disagreements than a competing collection of facts and studies. The fundamental dispute comes down to how you define truth. You define it either according to what’s real or how you feel. If you define it according to how you feel, you’re inevitably restricted to what amounts to an unsustainable hypocrisy. If you’re determined to justify yourself by saying that truth is whatever an individual wants to believe, then you can’t logically disagree with someone and say they’re wrong if there is no right or wrong.

LGBTQ, Socialism, ProChoice – all of these things depend on a perspective that maintains the individual as his own bottom line. Any policy or personality that threatens the authority of the person who’s empowered themselves to dictate the difference between right and wrong is going to be first criticized, then ignored, and then, silenced.

You don’t counter that kind of agenda without incorporating an approach that addresses the philosophical poison that refuses to acknowledge the boundaries of truth, common sense, and sound reasoning. You’re not questioning their logic, you’re challenging their authority, and apart from asking those questions that reveal the self-defeating aspect of their philosophical foundation, in their mind, they’re either different or they’re damaged, but they’re never wrong.

For further reading, as far as the biblical perspective on Homosexuality, read the “Is Homosexuality Sinful” series by clicking here.

1. “Understanding sexual orientation and homosexuality”, “American Psychological Association”, https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/orientation, accessed June 7, 2026

2. “Negative Health Consequences of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior”, “Christian Medical and Dental Associations”, https://cmda.org/article/negative-health-consequences-of-same-sex-sexual-behavior/, accessed June 7, 2026

Johnny the Walrus
Negative Health Consequences of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior – this elaborates on Dr. Francis S. Collins’ assertion that Predisposition is not destiny.
Same Sex Marriage and the Threat to Religious Liberty
Key Health Concerns for MSM (Men Who have Sex with Men)
Effect of homosexuality upon public health and social order
Are Some People Born Gay?
Fatherhood and Motherhood in a Diverse and Changing World

What is That Feeling?

/in , , , /by

What is that “feeling?”

Why do you “feel” a dark presence when you walk into a situation that is celebrating something that God has defined as heinous?

When you’ve got God’s Spirit living in you, it impacts, not only the way you think, but it resonates in that place that constitutes the sum total of who you are (1 Cor 2:12; Eph 1:13-14).

The Bible calls it your heart (see sidebar). It’s more than just your brain or a mere emotion. It’s an awareness that is as unmistakeable as it is substantial.

The Heart

Heart – the inner self that thinks, feels and decides1

The heart is the core of our being, and the Bible sets high importance on keeping our hearts pure…(gotquestions.org)

Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it. (Prov. 4:23)

The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it? 10 “I the Lord search the heart and examine the mind, to reward each person according to their conduct, according to what their deeds deserve.”
(Jer 17:9-10)

From within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man unclean.
(Mk 7:21-23)

Jesus references it specifically in John 16:

When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 about sin, because people do not believe in me; 10 about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11 and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned. (Jn 16:8-11)

In verse 13 of the same chapter, He says:

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. (Jn 16:13 [see also Matthew Henry Commentary])

What Does it Look Like?

You can see examples of the way the Spirit guides a person in the way Simeon was “moved by the Spirit” so that he could meet the promised Messiah…

25 Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was on him. 26 It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord’s Messiah. 27 Moved by the Spirit, he went into the temple courts. When the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him what the custom of the Law required, 28 Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, saying: 29 “Sovereign Lord, as you have promised, you may now dismiss[d] your servant in peace. 30 For my eyes have seen your salvation, 31which you have prepared in the sight of all nations: 32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of your people Israel.” (Lk 2:25-32)

You also see the way the Spirit prevented Paul from making his way into Bythnia…

Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia. When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to. (Acts 16:6-7)

No doubt, this gets into subjective territory, but it is real nevertheless.

Observe, It is the great privilege of Christians that they have the mind of Christ revealed to them by his Spirit. (Mathew Henry)

Paul talks about us having the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2:16). In Romans, it talks about how the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace (Rom 8:6). So, when you combine the Biblical Realities of God being able to speak through the thoughts you have in your head, as well as the deep seated conviction that the Holy Spirit triggers when God wants to get your attention, you have an empirical basis for the “feeling” you sometimes get when you walk into an environment that doesn’t have God’s approval. Generally speaking, those are not healthy scenarios and you want to remove yourself from that situation, not just because it might make sense to do so, but because you want to be obedient to what God is telling you.

Conviction of sin is one of the rarest things that ever strikes a man. It is the threshold of an understanding of God. Jesus Christ said that when the Holy Spirit came He would convict of sin, and when the Holy Spirit rouses the conscience and brings him into the presence of God, it is not his relationship with men that bothers him, but his relationship with God. (Oswald Chambers)

1. Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN, p466