Ten Questions Christians Can’t Answer | Part III
7) If you believe the creation account in Genesis is allegorical, they why don’t you treat Paul’s epistles in the same way since he references the creation account in Genesis as historical?
Paul uses the fact of creation throughout his epistles. Here are some examples:
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. (Heb 11;3)
Since the person posing the question in this instance isn’t specific about which verses he’s referencing, it’s difficult to know what exactly he’s referring to. Typically, however, the difficulty with the Creation account is whether or not God completed everything in six literal days. Did He create the heavens and the earth in less than a week, or is a “day” nothing more than a literary device describing a timeframe that may have been significantly longer than 24 hours?
Fact is, there’s a great deal of compelling evidence that suggests the earth is not as old as some in the scientific community would have you believe (click here for more reading on that topic). The bottom line is that carbon dating and other traditionally accepted methods of dating fossils etc. are based on the assumption that the observable conditions of the earth have remained unchanged since the very beginning of time. Indeed, the atmospheric conditions were not necessarily the same, which means that carbon dating is not necessarily absolute.
While some calibration can be made in order to accommodate the atmospheric anomalies that may have been present at the time, those kind of distinctions can only be identified by whatever may have been documented. In other words, outside the context of recorded history, you have a very subjective landscape to navigate when it comes to dating articles of antiquity beyond a certain point.
On the other hand, when you compare Genesis 1:27 which says that God created both Adam and Eve on the sixth day, to Genesis 2, it looks like the sixth day either had a great deal of activity packed into the daylight hours, or you have more time built into the term “day.”
Our culture is steeped in the notion that we inhabit a planet that is billions of years old. It’s a convenient thought in that you now have a theoretically comfortable timeframe to accommodate natural selection and the fortuitous evolution of life as we know it. While there is a fascinating amount of research that’s been done in terms of dating the earth according to a purely biblical model, which suggests that the earth is nowhere near as old as the champions of evolutionary theory would have our grade school classrooms believe, for the sake of this conversation the only pertinent Truth that needs to be affirmed is the fact that God did, in fact, create the universe.
However one wants to interpret Genesis and the age of the earth, the priority here, as far as the way in which Paul refers to creation, is to simply reinforce the fact that God was the Creative Force behind the origin of the cosmos and that is not allegory, that is the literal Truth.
8) How many donkeys did Jesus ride in His triumphal entry in Jerusalem? Was it one like Mark, Luke and John say, or was it two donkeys like Matthew says?
Matthew 21:2 says:
saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me.
Mark 11:2, Luke 28:30 and John 12:14-15 only mention one donkey. Jesus wasn’t straddling two donkeys as much as it was Matthew simply mentioning what constituted a complete picture of the prophecy articulated in Zechariah 9:9:
Rejoice greatly, Daughter Zion! Shout, Daughter Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and victorious, lowly and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. (Zec 9:9)
Chances are excellent since the foal had never been ridden before, let alone paraded around in front a large and noisy crowd, having the mother lead the foal for the sake of psychological support would’ve been a logical move. Dr. Gleason Archer says as much:
The Zechariah passage does not actually specify that the parent donkey would figure in the triumphal entrance; it simply describes the foal as “the son of a she-ass” by way of poetic parallelism. But Matthew contributes the eyewitness observation (and quite possibly neither Mark nor Luke were eyewitnesses as Matthew was) that the mother actually preceded Jesus in that procession that took Jesus into the Holy City. Here agin, then, there is no real contradiction between the synoptic account but only added detail on the part of Matthew as on who viewed the event while it was happening.1
So, the gospel writers do not conflict with one another as much as Matthew is simply providing more detail.
9) Based on the genealogies for Matthew and Luke, who was Joseph’s father?
Luke follows the genealogy of Mary whereas Matthew follows the genealogy of Joseph. Jesus was the legal descendant of Solomon (Matthew’s genealogy [Joseph]) and a blood relative of Nathan (Luke’s genealogy [Mary]). The confusion is clarified when you take the verbiage of Luke 3:23 into consideration.
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, (Lk 3:23)
Luke is qualifying the list he’s getting ready to enumerate by stating up front that, while it was customary to trace a person’s lineage through the line of the father, the virgin birth represents a special situation. Hence the emphasis on Mary. That fact is further reinforced when you consider the original Greek and notice how Luke doesn’t say that Heil “begat” Joseph. Rather, he was Joseph’s father in law.
Joseph was begotten by Jacob, and was his natural son (Matt 1:16). He could be the legal son of Heli, therefore, only by marriage with Heil’s daughter (Mary) and be reckoned so according to law. It does not say “begat” in the case of Heli.2
10) Was Jesus crucified on the first day of Passover, like the gospel of John says? Or the next day like the other three gospels say?
The confusion stems from John 19:14 where it says:
Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he *said to the Jews, “Behold, your King!” (Jn 19:14 [NASB][emphasis added])
Matthew 27:62-63 says:
Mark 15:42-43 says:
It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body. (Mark 15:42-43)
Luke refers to the day that Jesus died in the 24th chapter when he says:
It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin. (Lk 23:54)
“Preparation Day” was the day before the Sabbath, which was a Saturday. The Feast of Unleavened Bread was often referred to as “Passover” because of the way the Passover meal served as the opening ceremony for the Feast.3 So, when John uses the term “day of preparation for the Passover,” he’s not referring to the day before the Passover meal, he’s referring to the day before the Sabbath of Passover week (Feast of Unleavened Bread). The NCV rendering of the verse makes that fact more evident:
14It was about noon on Preparation Day of Passover week. Pilate said to the crowd, “Here is your king!” (Jn 19:14 [NCV][emphasis added])
In addition, John uses the Greek word “paraskeue” to define the day, which by that point was a technical term that referred to the “day of preparation” for the Sabbath.4 Remember, the Sabbath for the Jew is Saturday and not Sunday. Sunday would later be embraced as the “Lord’s Day” in that it was the day Jesus rose from the grave. So, given everything we’ve now considered, John’s account is consistent with all of the other gospel writers. Jesus was crucified on a Friday and the Last Supper happened on the evening before which was Thursday.
Conclusion
G.K. Chesterton once said, “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.” Many of the critics that circulate their jabs at Christianity on the internet occupy a philosophical position that refuses to concede the Reality of a Power and an Intellect that they cannot understand and / or agree with. Their attacks are necessary in order to maintain a distance between themselves and a worshipful demeanor which they refuse to buy into. They have found it “difficult” and decided to deny its substance. It’s healthy to be able to respond to questions and attacks, but the nature of these kind of conversations goes beyond a mere intellectual exchange. It is a spiritual contest that has to be engaged in a way that’s consistent with Scripture:
The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. (2 Cor 10:4)
Know what you believe and why you believe it. Pop the hood on the Word of God and be capable of defending it (1 Pet 3:15). And remember too, that oftentimes there’s a bigger picture that you want to expose. Squabbling over the number and the identity of the women who were at the tomb on the morning of Christ’s resurrection is subordinate to the fact that the tomb was empty. Arguing over the amount of time it took for God to create the heavens and the earth is secondary to the fact that God did, in fact, create the heavens and the earth. Dismissing the whole of Scripture because Matthew references both the donkey and its foal, whereas the other gospel writers mention only the foal, is like arguing over whether or not someone paid a ten dollar invoice using exact change or a twenty dollar bill.
The fact is, the debt was paid.
The details of Scripture are important, but you don’t ever want to become so absorbed in the minutia of the gospel that you overlook the fact that there’s a tomb out there that was occupied at one point that is now empty. And that empty grave is the Signature of One Who didn’t claim to be a mere messenger of God, but God Incarnate.
There will always be a critic and there will always be a situation where, regardless of how sound your reasoning may be, the spiritual elements that are involved will always see to it that “revelation” will remain seemingly inconsistent with logic (1 Cor 2:12). That’s not a cue to be less than compelling with your argument. But it’s not an argument that will influence a soul, it’s only the Power and the grace of God that makes the difference (John 6:65; 1 Cor 1:18).
Again, you don’t want to hide behind a “faith based perspective” that comes across as a decision made despite the facts, but rather as a decision made in light of the facts. Be ready to either answer the question being posed, or be ready to direct them to the myriad of resources that provide the science and the literary tools that address their quandary. But be sensitive to the fact that the moment the Name of Jesus is spoken, you’re no longer contending with purely academic themes. The parameters have been expanded and the stakes have been dramatically increased. You can be as compelling and as accurate as you want and still be found wanting. Not because of the substance of your argument, but because of the implications represented by your argument.
Should God be perceived as credible, it’s no longer a debate. Now it’s a soul-altering encounter and the forces referenced in Ephesians 6:12 will do everything they can to prevent that kind of dynamic.
So, be ready, but be wise and not just smart. It’s the Power of God in you that makes the difference and ensures that the outcome of your exchange is not just a willingness to agree with what’s in the Bible, but a desire to submit to the One Who authored it.
1. “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties”, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI 1982, p334
2. “The Companion Bible”, E.W. Bullinger, http://www.heavendwellers.com/38%20Luke%201427-1509.pdf, accessed on May 19, 2015
3. Feast of Unleavened Bread..Passover. “Passover” was used in two different different ways: (1) a specific meal begun at twilight on the 14th of Nisan (Lev 23:4-5), and (2) the week following the Passover meal (Eze 45:21), otherwise know as the Feast of Unleavened Bread, a week in which no leaven was allowed (Ex 12:15-20; 13:3-7). By NT times the two names for the week-long festival were vitally interchangeable. (NIV Text Note: “NIV Study Bible”, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1985, p1582)
4. “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties”, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI 1982, p375
Ten Questions Christians Can’t Answer | Part II
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
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 (see call out to the right) says as much in the preface to his book “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.”
And when it comes to one’s approach to apparent discrepancies in Scripture, he says:
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
City Limits
When God draws a line, it’s tempting sometimes to get as close as you can to that boundary without actually crossing over into forbidden territory.
After all, you’re not actually “sinning,” if you’re not crossing that line. You can drink without getting drunk (Eph 5:18), you can flirt without being intimate (1 Thess 4:3), and you can interact with some people without being influenced (1 Cor 15:33).
But there’s a pattern that you see, both in Scripture and in real life, that’s worth considering, when it comes to making those concessions that make it easier to fail.
Think of sin as a city. Within those city walls, you’ve got pain, regret, and all that occurs in the aftermath of disregarding God’s commands. No one in their right mind goes into that city on purpose. It happens, but for the most part, it’s the result of a process that begins with being within the city limits.
Adam and Eve
When God told Adam and Eve not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, it should’ve been a situation where they prohibited themselves from going anywhere near the tree, let alone close enough to notice that the fruit looked genuinely appetizing.
But instead, they chose to be close enough to hear the serpent make his presentation and then actually pick the fruit off the branch and then stare at it for a minute.
They were within the city limits. Instead of remaining outside the city walls where temptation isn’t a factor, they willfully put themselves in harm’s way and what should’ve been a distant and inconvenient prospect is now a very reasonable looking concession.
Sodom and Gomorrah
In Genesis 13, it says that Lot pitched his tents near Sodom, a city that was already on God’s list of people who were “…sinning greatly against the Lord.”
In Genesis 14:12, we find that Lot is now living in Sodom.
He’s now within the city limits. Given the way he’s described in 2 Peter 2:8, he knew he was surrounded by depravity and perhaps it was that influence that made him so willing to offer up his daughters to prevent the homosexuals of Sodom to violate the angels that were in Lot’s house at the time (Gen 19:4-5).
David and Bathsheba
1In the spring, at the time when kings go off to war, David sent Joab out with the king’s men and the whole Israelite army. They destroyed the Ammonites and besieged Rabbah. But David remained in Jerusalem. 2One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, 3 and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, “She is Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite.” 4 Then David sent messengers to get her… (2 Sam 11:1-4)
David is outside the city limits right up until verse 3. On the surface, nothing seems out of place. Even when he sent messengers to get her, there’s no line being crossed.
But when you hit verse 4, it’s then when he’s not just within the city limits, he’s right at the city’s gate. At that point, disobedience isn’t merely possible, it’s almost inevitable.
A Safe Distance
In each of the above scenarios, disaster could’ve been avoided had a safe distance been established between themselves and the one place they were told to avoid. But instead of remaining well outside the city limits, each of the above individuals positioned themselves in a way where satan’s voice and their own sinful nature were given more attention than they would’ve received otherwise.
Bottom line: The closer you get to sin, the easier it becomes to sin.
Maybe that’s part of what inspired Paul when he told the church in Thessalonica to reject every kind of evil…
20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt 21 but test them all; hold on to what is good, 22 reject every kind of evil. (1 Thess 5:20-22 [see sidebar])
No doubt, you can get into subject territory, as far as what constitutes “city limits.” Some use their desire to avoid a problem by becoming legalistic and harmless indulgences are processed as major infractions (see Ecc 7:16-18).
Then you’ve got the other extreme where reckless and irresponsible concessions lead to a world of sin and consequences that are nothing short of dramatic.
A great example of that is the way Christ talks about the way you can commit adultery in your heart without actually being physically intimate (Matt 5:28). On the surface, it looks almost absurd, given the way it seems that God is determined to condemn even the notion of infidelity.
But that’s not what this passage is saying.
Your thought life is the place where things are processed and identified as either good or bad. There’s nothing sinful about the task of discerning right from wrong (2 Cor 10:5).
There’s a difference between discernment and intention, however. Once you’ve crossed into plans and action items, you’re no longer just “thinking about it,” and you’re well within the city limits with every intention of taking a tour of main street. Regardless of how things might appear on the surface, God sees your true intentions (aka your heart) and can rightfully declare you guilty given the way you’re already made up your mind.
Conclusion
When God says “don’t,” you want to process that, not so much as an obligation, but as an invitation to pursue something that’s far more rewarding than whatever is being offered by the sin God is telling you to avoid. Given the way natural cravings can be problematic when not tempered with a wise disposition, and an enemy that is only too happy to promote decadence as a good decision (1 Pet 5:8), increasing the distance between you and that line God has told you not to cross is a healthy exercise.
While you’ll always be able to see the skyline of that city God has told you not to visit, you can prevent it from becoming a toxic distraction by staying outside the city limits, as opposed to lingering just outside the city gates.
Why the Democrat Party is Never Wrong
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
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.
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 |
|
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 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 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) |
|
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) |
|
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) |
|
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) |
|
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
