Living Missional – More time with Believers Less Time Worrying about the End of the World

It seems to me that churches like Calvary Chapel have lost their focus. For instance Chuck Smith, Pope of the Calvary movement teaches more on Eschatology (and in fact makes it a distinctive of Calvary) more than he does on training up people to reach their neighbors. The result? A nice little Christian Sub-Culture. Churches with Christian Book Store, Christian Coffee Shops, Christian Schools, and Christian Music Stations. The question is, what do these things do to live up to the great commission?

Below is a link to an article written by a man named Joanthan Dodson. It is a simple blog post on how to live a life on mission. Before you accuse me of being an emergent church guy, let me state that by no means am I suggesting my living a missional live style means you should sacrifice the gospel. In fact, I am stating otherwise. True missional living is about the gospel and teaching people the true message of Jesus Christ. The Emergent Church is on the right track when it comes to reaching culture, but they are greatly in error when it comes to accepting a postmodern life style. So instead of rejecting all of what they represent (as Chuck Smith has done) why not embrace those things that are good and reject those things that are in error? Afterall that’s what Paul did when he stated (I am greatly paraphrasing here). Let them preach, even if they are saying some wrong things, the conclusion is still Christ.

Enjoy the article

http://www.theresurgence.com/Dodson_Simplified_Missional_Living

—–
Fort Collins Colorado Church Missio Dei

DOES YOUR WORLD VIEW PASS THE TEST?

So let’s talk world views. Everyone has a world view, which is best described as the way you see the world. There are as many world views as there are people, but in general, there are three specific world views that I will be analysing with this article. These three world view categories are religious, naturalistic, andrelativistic world views. Of course there are many subcategories within these three categories that we will cover as well.

A NATURALISTIC WORLD VIEW

A person who has a naturalistic world view generally rejects all caused causes and instead tends to embrace a view that the world was made by chance through the process of general evolution with absolutely no interference from a created being. In a nutshell, these people believe that what we see is all that there is. No GOD, or if there is a God he/she/it/they do not interfere in the world.

A large percentage of the scientific community holds this world view as do most atheists

RELIGIOUS WORLD VIEW

In general a religious world view embraces that there is something greater than man. That a GOD in some form is responsible for creation, morals & an afterlife (in some form). This world views is much more broad than the naturalistic world view as there are many different religious positions. Within this category, we will test a few different world view subcategories these categories are:

1. Christan World View
2. Hindu World View
3. Muslim World View
4. Pantheistic/Pagan World View

RELATIVISTIC WORLD VIEW

The last category to be discussed is a relativistic world view. This has become a very popular world view as of late. In general this world view believes that all world views are true for the individual and therefore all are right as long as it right for YOU. In a relativistic world view, the word truth, right and wrong are subjective as opposed to objective truth as the world would be used by the other two categories.

HOW TO TEST A WORLD VIEW

When testing a world view, you need to take into account three things. Even if you are not familiar with all the aspects of a world view, if any one of these three test proves to be false, then the entire world view must – necessarily – be false. These tests are:

1. Is the world view contradictory within it’s own view?
2. Does the world view actually align with reality?
3. What do expects and eye witness have to say about the world view?

Applying these tests, we will attempt to test the truth of the three world views addressed above.

TESTING THE RELATIVISTIC WORLD VIEW

Relativism believes in subjective truth. If it’s true for you, then it’s true. Basically, relativists believe that there is a neutral moral ground where no one is to make any judgements as to someone else’s truths. This neutral moral ground is called “tolerance”. The question is, does a relativistic world view hold up to the three tests?

First and foremost, relativism fails the test of contradiction. There simply can’t be any morally neutral ground. If I (with a Christan world view) went up to a relativist and stated that I thought Homosexuality was immoral, the relativist would call me intolerant, arrogant, and wrong. They would likely tell me that my view is wrong and I should change it. Does this language seem like neutrally moral ground? Does this language seem to allow me to have my beliefs as true for me or can the language better be described as my beliefs are objectively wrong? The fact is, the second that a relativist makes any judgement at all they have created a contradiction and thus the view is necessarily false. The relativistic world view fails the law of non-contradiction.

Does relativism pass the test of coherence (how the world actually seems to be)? Ask yourself this question, “Does there seem to be anything that is wrong for everyone?” Can you think of any reason in any culture where touching babies for the pleasure it brings you is OK? If you can simply think of a single situation where something is wrong for all then relativism is false. It must be because relativism does not allow for objective (universal) truth. Clearly anyone with this world view (to it’s extreme) has a major malfunction as taken to it’s absurd conclusion there is absolutely no right or wrong and no justification of punishment or justice.

Lastly, what do experts say about a relativistic world view? First college professors seems to love relativism as a world view. It allows them to teach anything without any consequence for the teaching. So it seems, on surface, that experts have embraced it. However, this is simply not the case. First science doesn’t hold to this view. How could they? Science is about observation and what they observe is objective in it’s analysis. If a scientist holds to this world view they would be unable to report that one medicine works to cure cancer and another does not. This is best described as the insulin versus ice cream argument. Relativism believes that the world is made up of ice cream. All you have to do is select the flavor that you “like” and reject the flavors you don’t. Insulin on the other hand is objective. If you have diabetes, you NEED insulin, ice cream simply won’t do. Furthermore, psychologists would reject relativism as well. A physiologist would call a person who believes that are is no moral truth as a psychopath. Psychologists would try to “fix” him or her by curing the malfunction.

I believe the best proof against this world view is that no one actually lives by it. If someone thinks they do, steal there car and see if they tell you that you were wrong for doing so. If they say you are wrong or that there should be justice, then they are living a contradiction.

I think it is clear that without a huge analysis of a relativistic world view, we can show that the view is necessarily false. It doesn’t hold up to any of the three tests, and therefore MUST be rejected.

TESTING THE NATURALISTIC WORLD VIEW

Does naturalism stand up to the three tests? Are there contradiction in this view? I think there are. Since I am far from an expert on everything that naturalists hold, I will focus on only the most obvious contradiction. Naturalism by name believes that what one sees or observes is true. I must say the statement paints naturalists with a broad brush, and I would not be surprised if I get comments on my global assumption of this category. In my defense I am basing this on my observation and communication with naturalists, so it is based (at least in part) on truth. The problem is that science (the poster child for naturalism) is based nearly entirely on hypothesis or educated assumptions. Many of these hypothesis CAN be tested, but many cannot. We can’t test consciousness, intuition, or morality for instance. We know that these things exist, but we simply don’t know why or how and since things like consciousness can only be attested to by the individually conscious person, no independent test can be produced to test such a thing. Another way of stating this is. The test of intimate knowledge. Only the person feeling or thinking something has intimate knowledge of the truth and no test can allow others into my intimate knowledge of something. This doesn’t mean that the information is NOT true just that it can’t be tested. For instance we can test memory but we can’t testconsciousness or the existence of a soul.

The big test of naturalism is the test of coherence. Science would have us believe that the world happened by chance with no help from an invisible GOD. After all, we can’t see GOD and therefore he can’t exist. First and foremost, just because we can’t see something doesn’t mean that something doesn’t exist. We can see love but we know it exists. We can’t see logic but clearly it exists.

Evolution and the creation of the cosmos simply doesn’t support the Naturalistic world view either. The general theory of evolution is all about change over time from one species to another. However, is this what we actually observe the world to be? Of course not. What we see is an orderly Universe where everything is in a perfect location to allow for humanity to thrive. If the sun was just a little hotter, or colder, life could not exist. If the continents were a little bit out of alignment, the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn would seize to flow and the world would be covered with ice. If our sun was just a little bit younger or older, our orbit would be such that the planet would be unable to sustain life. The fact is the Universe seems to be ordered, not in chaos as Darwin would have had us believe. In addition to this, the complexity of organisms is so great that it is nearly impossible to see a naturalistic cause for it. Since evolution postulates that things evolve from simple cell organisms into complex ones, there should never be a stage where the complexity of an organism cannot be reduced to a less complex stage (calledirreducible complexity). Has any one ever wondered how the heart could have continued to work as it mutated from two chambers to four? How could such a defect still keep the mutated creature alive? How could an animal with a half flipper and half leg survive? It seems logical to assume that a half flipper would not allow the organism to swim and the half leg wold make hunting on land impossible as well. It seems that the organism would starve to death of be a perfect meal for a non-defective creature. Lastly, how can abiogensis occur? How did a rock turn into DNA? These questions have been largely ignored because they show that the naturalistic world view should only be rejected as false.

What do expects say about this world view? Many of the experts that reject naturalism from within the scientific community are blacklisted so scientific experts are hard to find, but they do exist. In addition to this, the actions of the experts within the field speak volumes. It seems interesting to me that science has started looking at other planets for life. The naturalist knows that life simply could not have happened in such a short span of time here on earth, so they are looking at other planets for evidence that itoccurred elsewhere and was deposited here. This is a silent admission that evolution is in trouble.

Naturalism simply doesn’t hold up to the three tests, and though there are many things that can (and perhaps should) be proved by a naturalistic cause, the big holes in the theory of evolution point to a cause and if only one cause can be demonstrated, then naturalism is necessarily false.

THE RELIGIOUS WORLD VIEW

Religious world views are too broad to describe in a single category as with the other world views. I will discuss them by individual religions and ending with Christianity.

Hinduism holds that the world is an illusion. That there is no good or evil but that good and evil are just an illusion (called Maya). Does the concept of Maya hold up to a test of contradiction? Obviously not. If the world is just an illusion, then we, as part of the illusion, would only have access to the information given us by the person creating the illusion. So the question is, how do Hindus “KNOW” such a thing? For a Hindu to know that we are illusions would be like Homer Simpson knowing that he is a cartoon. Clearly a cartoon has no knowledge of such things, because they can’t know anything, they are an illusion. So the vary act of knowing by the Hindus falsifies to the falseness of the world view.

The second question is does this align with the way the world actually is? Do you have any reason to believe that you exist? If you seem to exist, then the world view doesn’t align with reality and thus it is false. I once had a Hindu respond to this argument by stating, “Prove you exist”. I answered back with, “Who are you talking to?” She said,“You”. I then told her not only do have reason to believe I exist but I have an independent witness to my existence..YOU! She testified to my existence by asking me the question! She clearly thought I existed too.

Across the board most experts in no matter what category would agree that Hinduism is false. It would be ridiculous for a scientist to partake in the act of testing if we were an illusion. The results would be meaningless and there would be no truth in them. The only expert that might support Hinduism would be the relativist as the relativist would say as long as it’s true for the Hindu than it’s OK. An obviously ridiculous argument.

Pantheism, and perhaps paganism (witches) would hold that all things are GOD or have GOD in them. Pantheist generally have a high respect for life as all life is GOD. The question of contradiction is based more on definition then everything but there are still contradictions within the world view. The most apparent contradiction is that if everything is GOD than nothing is GOD. Even if you define GOD in a very general term as say a life force (The Jedi God), the religion can not account for anything because the life force GOD has no power to create. Therefore the pantheistic god is unimportant and totally meaningless. In a nutshell pantheists stating that everything is god is a meaningless statement and meaningless as a world view.

Does pantheism align with a real world? Simply, it has been demonstrated that the would was created from some cause. The cause may still be in dispute but most world views support some type of cause (natural or not). As demonstrated above if everything is god, then god simply has no power to create. God also seems to be a personal creator who had man in mind when creating. The Pantheistic gods cannot be personal and cannot have anything in mind when creating. Lastly, animals have gone extinct over time. Are we to assume that god can die and go extinct? These arguments shows how ridiculous this world view actually is. In fact it is not even a world view as it doesn’t really answer anything.

Simply no expert would support such unrealistic assertions about a god without power. MY argument for Christianity will give a presuppositional refutation to this as well as other religions points of view.

The argument against Islam can be described by presenting the argument for Christianity. The fact is Christianity and Islam are in harmony is many ways.

Islam accepts Jesus as a prophet and a very respected prophet at that, so using Jesus credibility is the best way to show that Islam is false. Muslims believe that Jesus was not GOD and that passages in the Bible that show him to be were either misinterpreted or were added later. They believe that Mohammad had the accurate representation of who Jesus was. The question is whom are we to believe?

The New Testament was written from AD 45 to AD 140 some 13 to 100 years after Jesus’ death (conservatively). We have around 5000 copies of early manuscripts to compare the writing to insure accuracy. It is reasonable that we have a fairly accurate picture of what Jesus taught. On the other hand Muhammad, who Muslims believe has the accurate picture of Jesus, was born around 570 AD, hundreds of years after the New Testament was written. Is it reasonable to assume that Muhammad had it right, but those who walked the earth during Jesus’ time didn’t? Of course NOT. Think of it this way. Who would have a more accurate description of my wife? You, who have never met my wife, or me, who has intimate knowledge of her? Clearly an expert opinion of Jesus would be a better opinion and though this may not prove Islam false, it does show that there are inconsistencies in the religion at least. How about the number of early copies of Koran? How many do the Muslims have floating around? According to Dr James White (Alpha and Omega Ministries), the Koran was consolidated after Muhammad’s death and all copies were destroyed. So we have no copies to compare to. We have no way to scrutinizing the apparent historical accuracy of the works. This is a big problem and it calls into question the motives of the religious world view.

I believe it is reasonable to reject Islam as a true religion, and instead accept the the most consistent religion to ever be. Christianity.

WHY I AM A FOLLOWER OF CHRIST

Christianity, like all world views, should be tested with the same three tests as all other world views. How does Christianity hold up to scrutiny?

The bible holds up very nicely to the tests. The Bible provides this in several ways.

1. PROPHECY in the Old Testament is seen fulfilled in the New Testament and other part of the Old.
2. The books are UNIFIED. You see the same redemptive message throughout the book. In the Old Testament the penalty for sin was death carried out through animal sacrifice and in the New Testament the penalty for our sins is also death redeemed through the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
3. The Bible answers the BIG QUESTIONS. It gives account for the creation of the Universe and the things in it. Painting an accurate picture of reality. There are certainly secondary questions as to what the Bible says about creation (I personally hold to an old earth theology), but creation itself is not called into question.
4. It is an INDEX TO HISTORY. The Bible is a historical account of the world as it was during the times in questions. Archeology continues to show the accuracy of the historical accounts.
5. It CHANGES PEOPLE’S LIVES. Followers of Jesus hold the power of change. Not only have Christians changed personally but they have been instrumental in changing the world. Can Pantheism or Islam make the same claim?
6. The Bible & Christianity are a FIGHTERS. It has held up the test of time, including attacks and scrutiny like no other. Included in this was the persecution of the early church which continued to thrive even under horrible persecution.

Though these points alone cannot prove Christianity to be TRUE, it does seem reasonable to accept that Christianity is more likely to be true than other world views. Many would say that religion is based on faith, and to that I would agree, however it is not based on blind faith as blind faith is not only useless but harmful as faithfully believing something without reasonable proof has lead to just about every false world view around. Simply put, it takes more faith to believe in Naturalism and Relativism than it does Christianity.

Online Surveys & Market Research

Anyone can say anything!

Let me make this short and sweet. Anyone can say anything! I have found that defending the Christian position usually stalls, not because of a lucid argument, but because our opponents are left with the ability to make some assertion that we feel compelled to answer. Many believe that if we don’t answer an assertion, we are losing the argument. This is absurd, and I intend, with this message, to show you the proper way to answer these questions.

First, an assertion is a statement without proof. An example of this would be, “Reincarnation was taken out of the Bible”. Human nature would be to try to “prove” that it wasn’t but this puts you on the defensive and in any argument you want to say ont eh offensive. When you get an assertion like this, don’t feel as though you need to respond. Instead of answering the assertion, try questioning instead. Using the example above, you might ask: “Do you have knowledge of how reincarnation could have been removed from thousands of copies of biblical texts circulating since the 2^nd century?” Of course no one has this proof and I am confident they never will. In a recent post, I was victim of such as assertion. A very educated reader (much more educated then myself) makes several assertions that have yet to be answered. He states that polytheism was removed from the New and Old Testaments. When I requested proof and reminded him that he bares the burden of proving this position, he responded by stating: “That’s the problem with my argument, I don’t believe that polytheism was removed from the Bible” If I did, I would have the same position as himself. Frankly this answer is absurd and I expected more. As educated as he is, his decision not to answer the question actually answers the question. THERE IS NO PROOF.

Let’s say for a minute he does come up with some proof. What do we do then? First, we need to find out exactly how trust worthy the proof is. Is the resource more trust worthy than ours? Let’s say for the sake of argument that is it. We then need to see if this proof actually negates our position. In the example of reincarnation, it would seriously damage the Christian position if credible proof exists to show a conspiracy of removing reincarnation from the Bible. In the case of historical revisionism (polytheism), it wouldn’t do much at all. The question that would need to be answered is weather or not the Bible teaches polytheism. This is certainly NOT the case, so even if (and it is likely) some Jews and Christians are polytheists. This doesn’t constitute historical revisionism.

(Read the Comments in Reference Click Here)

So in an attempt to keep this short and sweet, here’s my advice. Don’t let people get away with anything. If someone makes an assertion, no matter how smart they seem, ask questions to show that they really have no case at all.

 

ASK QUESTIONS TO COME TO THE TRUTH, NOT JUST TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION. ANYONE CAN SAY ANYTHING TO SUPPORT THEIR ARGUMENT, BUT THAT DOESN’T MAKE IT TRUE!

Christainity and ‘The Ghost Hunters”

I am personally a huge fan of the show “Ghost Hunters” on the SiFi Channel. I spend at least an hour of day watching it on Hulu while a work in my office. Like most people, I am fascinated with the afterlife and any evidence for an afterlife should be edifying for humankind. As the evidence mounts for some type of paranormal, I find myself trying to fit this evidence into my biblical box.

Before sharing my position, let me first add a disclaimer. “The Ghost Hunters” TV show is just that, a TV show, so it should be mentioned that fraudulent evidence, and hoaxing are not out of the question. At least on two different occasions on the show, hoaxing is evident. To be more specific, during the episode on the Queen Mary, the camera was turned off while someone hid behind the bed. The camera was then restarted and the hidden person pulled the bed sheets down making it look like the sheets magically moved. On another occasion, while in Georgia, someone hid behind a glass door and got up and ran. Since the person was on the outside of the door, it appeared to be a spirit. Since Inferred camera can’t penetrate glass, it appeared to be black and ghostly as it didn’t put off any heat. Both were clearly hoaxes. In addition to this most of the evidence is weak at best. Apparent knocking, lights moving across the room, cold spots, odd sounds on a recorder, and spikes in magnetic fields are up to the interpretation of the “hunter”, and frankly can’t be looked at as evidence at all. Given that the Ghost hunters are believers in paranormal they will definitely have a paranormal bias in interpreting the evidence. Simply put, more research would have to be done to scientifically come to the conclusion of paranormal activity. In defense of T.A.P.S. the hosts of “Ghost Hunters”, they make this very disclaimer stating the 85% of all apparent paranormal activities can be explained.

However, there are some things that seem to be compelling as well. On many occasions the inferred camera picks up human shapes in the same room as the hunter, but when light is placed on the same spot there is nothing there. Moving tables and balls, breaking classes, ropes untying, and people flying off there feet for no apparent reason are all good examples of this evidence. Again, all of this could be a fraud, but putting an open mind to these proofs is the fair thing to do. We should give the Ghost Hunter the benefit of the doubt unless we have reason to suspect otherwise. I believe that we should analyze the evidence with charity, and hope that people would be as charitable in analyzing the evidence for Christianity as well.

I have no doubt that Christianity is true. I believe that the evidence for Christianity is profound, so where does that leave me when analyzing the evidence for “The Ghost Hunters”? Am I to dismiss what I see so that it lines up with my belief? Are we as Christians really willing to have faith for the sake of faith even if the evidence points in a different direction? Or is it better to see if our faith in Christ lines up with the evidence presented? Simply put, does the Bible leave room for ghosts, spirits, demons, and apparitions? I think it does

The traditional view of the Christian position is that when you die you go to Heaven or you go to Hell. So it seems that ghosts would be unlikely. However, according to Revelations, Hell is empty. Hell is the prison in which God will throw Satan and his minions after the second coming of Christ after his victory over evil. So the Bible doesn’t teach that non-believers are in hell, but rather in a place called Hades. Hades is best described as a holding cell for those destined to Hell. So in a nutshell, Hell is empty at least for awhile. This is not proof for ghosts running all over the earth, but it at least shows that Christianity doesn’t actually teach what most people think it teaches in regards to the dead. The question is, can people be removed from either Heaven or Hades and appear as a ghost? I think we have biblical proof for this position. In 1 Samuel Chapter 28, Saul, the king of Israel, is at war with the Philistines. He is distressed because God was turned his back on him. So Saul hires a medium to bring up the spirit of Samuel. She is successful in doing so, and Samuel prophesied that Saul and his son Jonathan would be dead and Israel would be defeated. How do we reconcile this? It seems that this is conclusive proof of the dead communicating with the living and it seems that it was ordained by God as Samuel directly foretold the future, and only an omniscient being (God) can foretell the future. Satan is not omniscient so this couldn’t have been a demon acting as Samuel. So assuming Saul is in Heaven, he would have to have left to make the trip back to Earth.

Are there examples of ghosts in the New Testament? Yes and no. We don’t have any examples of a ghosts actually appearing to anyone in the New Testament, but we do have a references from both the disciples and Jesus himself to the existence of Ghosts. Matthew 14:26 states, When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. “It’s a ghost,” they said, and cried out in fear. These were traditional Jewish people who were at least open to the possibility of Ghosts. Even more compelling proof are Jesus’ own words. In Luke 24, (referring to the resurrection of Jesus) versus 36-39, it states:

While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”

Jesus says, “a ghost doesn’t have flesh and bones”. This seems to me to show that Jesus believed in ghosts. If there were no such thing as ghosts, wouldn’t he have said so? Instead he described what ghosts look like!

In addition to ghosts, the Bible has many descriptions of contact with the paranormal. Jesus and the disciples cast out demons all the time. Angles appear to people time and again, we even have a physical spirit living within us (the Holy Spirit).

This evidence points towards a paranormal. Samuel was not a physical being, he was not resurrected or resuscitated. He was called up by a medium. Jesus himself attested to the existence of paranormal, spirits and even ghosts! So Christianity and the Ghost Hunters can live in harmony. However, we need to look at the evidence presented on the TV show from a skeptical eye, but if presented with overwhelming evidence, we should see if it can be explained within the truth of the Bible.

With that said, it should be noted that the Bible if VERY clear as to what happens to people when they die.  “They die ONCE and then comes the judgment” Coupled with the fact that the Bible teaches that God is NOT the author of confusion, we should likely conclude that, though ghosts may exist, they are probebly NOT children of GOD, but rather children of the author of confusion also known as Satan.

As a Christian, I look at the possibility of paranormal as a little evidences for a life beyond this one even of if the evidence comes from Satan.  Think of if this way, there is no better proof for the existence of good than the existence of evil (you can’t have one without the other). As Christians, we should be using this popular show as a point of dialog with non-believers. If someone believes in an afterlife and has apparent proof of one, they are at least half way to the truth, so instead of fighting an uphill battle, why not reconcile their view with ours? As long as we can fit that belief with the pale of orthodox Christianity, we have no problem. The belief in ghosts does not deny the deity of Christ, His virgin birth, the fall of man, the work of the cross, the nature of the Church, the nature of revelation (the Bible), or the resurrection of Christ.  So in my mind, fighting people’s belief in paranormal is not a battle worth fighting.
Happy Ghost Hunting…

IMPORTANT POINTS

• USE GHOST HUNTERS TO OPEN PEOPLE’S MINDS TO THE POSSIBLITY THAT GOD TRULY EXISTS AND THAT EVEN GHOSTS CAN BE A CLUE TO HIS EXISTANCE.  
• BE CHARITABLE AND UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO CHANGE PEOPLE’S MINDS.  INSTEAD ASK COMPELLING QUESTIONS TO HELP THEM SEE THE TRUTH.
  
• USE YOUR HEAD AND MAKE YOUR POINT.  DON’T JUST SAY “I DON’T BELIEVE IN GHOSTS”
• ASK QUESTIONS LIKE: “WHERE DO YOU BELIEVE GHOSTS COME FROM”  OR “DOES THE EXISTENCE OF GHOSTS MEAN THERE IS AN AFTER LIFE?” ANOTHER GOOD QUESTION MIGHT BE, “HOW IS IT THAT YOU CAN KEEP FROM BECOMING A GHOST IN THE AFTER LIFE?”
  
• KEEP UP WITH THE CURRENT FADS, CULTURES, AND BELIEFS AND BUILD YOUR STORY AROUND THEM
• NEVER SACRIFICE THE TRUTH OF THE BIBLE TO MAKE YOUR POINT.  THE BIBLE COMES FIRST.
  
• TRUTH IS ON YOUR SIDE!
• HAPPY HUNTING

The Christmas Menace! – Santa Clause?

Last week, my wife and I attended the annual Christmas Pot Luck for our church. Yes, a potluck. Us Christians love our potlucks. After all we have no other outlets, clubbing is certainly out of the question so the potluck will have to do. While at the potluck the Christmas Menus Santa Clause made an appearance. The church had no idea that Santa would be making an appearance as it turns out that a well meaning member of the church thought he’d bless the children by dressing up in costume. The children were out of their minds with excitement. They couldn’t believe they were receiving an early, personal visit from Santa.

Unfortunately, Santa didn’t go over so hot with some of the parents. You see it has become fashionable amongst Christians to boycott Santa. After all the holiday is about Jesus’ birth right? I personally am all for Santa, but many have a so called personal conviction that says there is no room for Santa in the holiday. One of my friends stated that they just want to have an “old fashion Christmas and there is no room for Santa just Christ”. Now I let that statement go at the time, but in my mind I wanted to ask:

“What do you think an old fashion Christmas is?”

I am not an expert in the history of Christmas, but I do have enough knowledge to give a taste of a true old fashion Christmas.

Before Christmas was a holiday, the holiday was known as Saturnalia. Saturnalia was a celebration to the name sake god (little g) Saturn. Saturnalia became one of the most popular Roman festivals. It was marked by tomfoolery and reversal of social roles, in which slaves and masters ostensibly switched places. It is not uncommon for the Church to mimic Pagan holidays. Halloween, Easter and yes, Christmas all have pagan roots. When the Church was looking for an official day to celebrate Jesus’ birth, they choose Saturnalia. Unfortunately, Saturnalia was much too popular and people were reluctant to change to a more moderate holiday like Christmas. So Pagans and Christians alike continued to celebrate Christmas with the same drunkenness and tomfoolery as before. The early Christmas celebrations were celebrated much like modern day Mardi Gras with a hint of Canadian Boxing Day. As time pasted, the debauchery became worse and even included breaking into the homes of rich people and stealing things. It was a citywide brawl that got so bad that women and children didn’t dare leave there homes. The old fashion Christmas was one of heavy drinking, fights, and fear amongst children. This rowdy behavior amongst Christians and Pagans continued for nearly eighteen centuries. In fact, Christmas was made illegal in the conservative United States as the church tried to put a stop to the behavior. Illegal or not, people still celebrated “Christmas” in the USA in the tradition of Saturnalia. In the 1800’s during the reformation, things started to change in Germany and when Queen Elizabeth married her German cousin, the holiday changed in England as well to a holiday centered around family, the Christmas tree, giving presents and eating turkey. It was no longer centered around drunkenness and fighting. Unfortunately, Americans preferred the holiday celebrated as Saturnalia, for quite a bit longer. It wasn’t until a poem called “A Visit from Saint Nicholas”, known in modern day as “A Night Before Christmas”, was published in the Saturday Evening Post and the Creation of “A Christmas Carol” by Charles Dickens that we saw Christmas change from a holiday of fear to a holiday of family. So we have the “minus”, Santa Claus, and the “miser”, Scrooge, to thank for Christmas as it is now celebrated in the United States.

I doubt seriously that my friend wants an old fashion Christmas.

A MESSAGE TO SANTA BASHING CHRISTIANS

Now let me talk to the Christians who are persecuting Santa. Most often than not you use the verses are found in Romans 14.

(NLT) Accept Christians who are weak in faith, and don’t argue with them about what they think is right or wrong. 2 For instance, one person believes it is all right to eat anything. But another believer who has a sensitive conscience will eat only vegetables. 3 Those who think it is all right to eat anything must not look down on those who won’t. And those who won’t eat certain foods must not condemn those who do, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to condemn God’s servants? They are responsible to the Lord, so let him tell them whether they are right or wrong. The Lord’s power will help them do as they should.

Some are very quick to jump on those who celebrate Christmas with Santa. More then once I have been told that “Christmas is about Christ and there’s no room for Santa”. My wife’s cousin even went as far as to throw out Santa decorations that were hanging in her Grandmother’s house. Without permission she threw out decoration and even an expensive snow globe that had a picture of Santa on it! It seems to me that this is a direct violation Romans 14.

Romans 14 is referring to those who feel convicted about eating meat sacrificed to idols. Some feel this is wrong and they shouldn’t eat it. However, Paul is clear that it ISN’T actually wrong to eat the meat. He calls those, who cannot eat the meat because of a misguided conscious, people of weaker faith. He states that those who can eat the meat should not look down upon those who can’t and VISE VERSA. This same principle can be applied to Santa. Is it wrong to believe in Santa?

First, Santa was created to give Children a role model that displays the importance of giving and sacrificing in terms that they can understand. Sometimes, Jesus Christ is a lot for a small child to wrap their developing minds around. Santa, on the other hand is much easier for them to swallow. Santa is a “person” whose never seen, who seems to be everywhere, who gives without asking anything in return accept belief and good behavior. Sound like anyone you know? So Santa is not, fundamentally, wrong. If you worship Santa like a GOD then you’ve got a problem, but the fundamental character of Santa is the same as the fundamental character of Christ, and this is a GOOD thing.

Paul is stating that those with a greater conviction have a misguided conscious and weaker faith. It seems to me that if I were one of these people I would try to use education to guide my faith better. For this reason, I started this article with a brief history of a good old fashion Christmas. I have found that many of my misguided convictions are based on lack of education and once educated, my conscious has aligned with reality. If it were me I would be seeking the truth as opposed to being a slave to my misguided feelings. Lastly, all of us should try to remember that our biggest battle should not be Santa but that there are billions who are not covered by the blood of the one whose birth we truly celebrate. Jesus Christ. This is an opportunity to share Christ and we should share Christ in a loving way and NOT by throwing out snow globes and boycotting Santa.

Happy Christmas…

Christmas Message

This video talks about the spirit of Christmas better then I can.

WE CAN’T TRUST THE SCRIPTURES? WHAT CAN WE TRUST?

            Not a day passes where I don’t receive a comment from someone making the claim that we can’t trust the scriptures as it is loaded with inaccuracies, miss copies and myth. Though, on the surface, some apparent discrepancies DO exist, the issue doesn’t seem to be in the discrepancies, but that Christians believe that the Bible was written by GOD and therefore, the Bible should be held at a higher standard then other writings. This writing will try it answer some of the criticisms of the Holy Scriptures with the goal of proving inerrancy or at least reliability.

One valid issue brought up by critics is the apparent errors in translations. Frankly, only an idiot would believe that the translations are without error as translations are limited by human error and nuances in the languages in with they are translated. So I would be ignorant to state (as some have) that translations are perfect. There are thousands upon thousands of variants (differences) in the translations. All, are minor and in no way change the overall meaning. In fact many of the variants actually improve the ability of the reader to understand the bible. These variants are figures of speech, changes in spelling, and removal of words that are no longer needed based on the evolution of language. When a Christian says that the bible is without error, they mean the original manuscript. The biggest glaring error in translation is in the King James Version in Act 12:4 where it states:

And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after EASTER to bring him forth to the people.

The minor mistake is in using the word “Easter”. Easter as a holiday was not even thought of until around 100 of years after Acts was written. This error is one of judgment more than context. In 1604 when the King James Version was translated from the Textus Receptus Greek Texts, the holiday of Easter would have been easier for European Christian readers to understand as they had been regularly celebrating it. The TRUE holiday in question was, of course, the Jewish Passover. As Christians and Jewish became more and more separated in traditions many of the Jewish holidays had been forgotten of at least misunderstood. It is also possible that the early Christians, who blamed the Jews for the death of Jesus, despised all things Jewish and simply changed the word to Easter in order to remove Jesus’ Jewishness. This is only my plausible opinion, but considering the violent treatment of the Jews by Christian Crusaders, it is very plausible (but shameful).

It seems I’ve painted myself into a corner. At one moment I am defending the transcripts and on the other I am giving proof that we can’t trust them. The fact is all translations have flaws, but we know what the flaws are because we have such a huge number of manuscripts. Granted, we do not have the original manuscript written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but we do have thousands of original copies made between 25 and 100 years from the original writings. So how do these proof texts hold up in relation to other ancient writings? The chart below will help put the biblical manuscripts in focus.

BOOK	WRITTEN	COPY DATE	YRS FROM ORIGIONAL	# OF COPIES
Caesar	100-44 B.C.	900 A.D.	1000 Years	10
Plato	427-347 B.C.	900 A.D.	1200 Years	7
Homer (Iliad)	900 B.C.	400 B.C.	500 Years	643
New Testament	40-100 A.D.	125 A.D.	25-50 Years	24,000

In a nutshell, we know what the originals said because we have so many copies to pull from. So the reason why the Bible has so many variants is that we have so much information to compare to in order to find out where the copying errors are. The fact is, no other ancient writing has so much proof of as to the original and therefore has fewer variants. In fact, the evidence is so great for biblical accuracy from the original that scholars don’t doubt the reliability at all. They doubt that the book’s supernatural accounts are true, but not that what we have is what was originally written or very close to it. However if you surf the internet you will find plenty of psudo-scholors (usually a college student with an axe to grind) stating that we can’t trust what is written because it’s been translated so many times. How many times has the Bible been translated? ONCE! The original was coped from the Septuagint (OT), Peshitta, or Vulgate (NT) and once to our modern translations. Some think that the Septuagint was translated to the King James, and the New American Standard was translated from the King James, and the New Living Translation was translated from the New American Standard. Sorry, all were translated from the earliest copies and not from one another. In fact all were translated from several of the earliest copies to insure the most accurate copy. The early translation used for the modern translation may be from a different course but none were made from another copy.

The second issue that seems problem for the bible is oral tradition. Many wrongly liken the oral tradition of the Old Testament with the Telephone Game that many of us played in school. They conclude that even in ten minutes of passing on a message consisting of only one line. The message gets so messed up that you can hardly know the original. How can we trust the Jewish oral tradition of passing on millions of lines over a period of ten thousand years? Simply put, if the oral tradition of the Jews was passed on in secret from one person to another, I would say that the criticism is valid. But the telephone game is not comparing apples to apples. First, the message was delivered to entire villages and not just one person and it wasn’t done in secret so the entire village was responsible for insuring the tradition was kept as accurately as possible. Like the New Testament there are variants, so we can conclude that the oral tradition did change the words, but not the details. Secondly, Jewish culture was built around paying attention to details and from a young age Jewish men were trained to insure they paid attention and copy things right. In fact one of the biggest stereotypes that we see about the Jews to this day is that they are savvy businessmen. This stereotype is based on being detail orientated, a trait that is instilled from generation to generation for thousands of years.

We do have some problems with the Old Testament that have to be addresses. First, what about the details where scripture and God’s General Revelation (the Cosmos) don’t line up? Is the earth actually only 10,000 years old? Obviously the earth is not 10,000 years old and in fact the Bible doesn’t teach this. The age of the earth is based on human inference and counting the timeline from the early humans described in Genesis and not actual teaching. Many good Christian people want to stick to the literal 10,000 year old earth theory (called young earth theory), I personally believe you have to ignore billions of years of evidence or call GOD a liar for making the earth seem older then it actually is. I don’t intend on going into great detail on this issue as it is another long article that is better written by a geologist or physicist. I am neither so I will avoid the topic. Briefly, the problem is not in the scripture but our interpretation of the intended message. Reading each day as a day age is perfectly acceptable translation of the wording. The scripture supports such a reading and in fact even the New Testament states that we are living in the last day. Obviously the writer didn’t mean this as an actually day but a day age. If we are to believe that the Bible teaches a literal 10000 year old earth, then we might as well stop here, and the Bible, common sense, and science part ways and we’ve found a contradiction.

Probably the biggest proof for the reliability of the Old Testament is Jesus. Since we have ample proof for Jesus and proof of his miracles, death, and resurrection we can conclude that Jesus was GOD in the flesh (I will prove this point in more detail later). Jesus quoted the Old Testament on several occasions including Genesis and Adam and Eve. A problem that might arise from this manner of reasoning is that in order for someone to believe the Bible is true they must first believe in supernatural occurrences. Since science (and most non-believers for that matter) don’t believe in supernatural occurrences meaning they have a supernatural bias, it is impossible to prove that the miracles occurred and thus the parts of the story that are miraculous are myth or story telling. Simply put, that’s not my problem, but yours. Short of playing back the DVD of Jesus’ resurrection you will likely never remove a YOUR supernatural bias. However that doesn’t change the validity of my proof. For those of us who are intellectually honest enough to consider a supernatural option, the proof is overwhelming. If you are not one who can honestly step out of your bias, then you will not accept the proof and THAT is your problem not mine. Bias is simply not scientific on any level and it is impossible to convenience anyone of anything who has a bias. You might say that I too have a bias, and to that I would respond that I do, however, my bias is acceptance of the biblical accounts unless such accounts are proven false by another medium (science) that is in the business of proving or disproving something. So it is not fair to conclude that my bias is unchangeable. I am working in the realm of plausibility. Once plausibility disappears so goes my faith and Christianity has been proven false as a whole. This can’t be said for a supernatural bias as some scientists have stacked the deck against religion. These scientists remove supernatural as an option and than challenge us to prove that what we believe is true. Faith can’t be proven, not because there isn’t proof, but because those with a supernatural bias have changed the rules so that we can’t compete. It is like asking someone to describe what cold is but telling them that they can’t talk about heat, or thermometers. Since cold is nothing but the absence of heat, the exercise can not be completed. This doesn’t mean cold can’t be proven, just that the rules of the game don’t make it possible. This type of bias (unlike mine) is unfair and destructive to reaching the truth whatever it may be. With that said, there are many Christians that hold a non-scientific bias and that IS just as destructive. These “The Bible teaches it, I believe it and that settles it” Christians are equally destructive to the cause as they look as though proof is not a necessary element of faith. This is simply not the case. Christianity, unlike other religions, is based on evidence and it is evidence that makes Christianity the fastest growing religion in the world and not blind faith.

So does the New Testament hold up to scrutiny if no bias is applied? Firstly, I find it interesting that the same people who have a supernatural bias against the Bible like to pick it apart. It seems to me that a more intellectually honest approach would be to denounce it as myth. If it’s only myth then the writers have no obligation to stay consistent from one book to another. After all the stories are independent accounts and they have no reason to be the same. After all, no one would fault J.K. Rowling for changing the detail of the castle in her popular series, Harry Potter (not to say she did). So in a sense, the reason why these people want to pick apart the bible is to prove that it’s mythical not inaccurate. Another words, they are NOT claiming that the book has been copied down incorrectly; rather they are stating that the events simply did not occur. This is a placid testimony to the accuracy of the texts.

It would be more likely that these people could prove that the Bible is loaded with errors but, of course, we see from the number of copies and the pettiness of the variants that this simply isn’t the case. So the big issue is not coping errors, but weather or not the independent accounts are accurate enough to get us to the truth even if the Bible includes such errors. Even though I believe the scriptures are inerrant (without error), I don’t think it is necessary to believe this to prove the existence of Jesus as GOD thus removing the myth argument. All I have to prove is that the book gives us an accurate, if not perfect, representation of the facts. This is the same standard you would find in a court of law and this is the standard I will use to prove my argument. In other words what are the FACTS of the case without bias? A standard a jury would use to find someone guilty of innocent.

WHAT IS THE OVERALL MESSAGE?

The overall message of the New Testament is that Jesus was born of a virgin, he performed miracles, he told everyone he was GOD which pissed off the Jewish leadership, so they murdered him with the help of the Romans on a cross for making these claims. He was subsequently buried in a tomb that was guarded by a rock and a bunch of Roman guards. On the third day of his death, he rose out of the tomb and appeared to at least 5000 people and then rose into heaven where he sits at the “right hand” of the father. All of the gospels teach this message. Some are silent about certain facts, but none contradict this message.

Some disbelievers try to muster up a case for the Gnostic gospels in order to show a contradictory message of Jesus. This is simply a weak argument at best. Anyone who does even a little homework beyond watching the Di Vinci Code can discount the Gnostic gospels. The Gnostic gospels were written about as being heresy as early as 150 A.D. and the early church NEVER accepted them as truly inspired. So to use them in your argument would be the same as telling me that the Koran has a different account of Jesus or that the Cat in the Hat disproves the gospel because it doesn’t mention Jesus. Since the Koran and Dr Seuss are not accepted by Christians as inspired words, that argument simply doesn’t stand up. In other words, we are only responsible to defend what we consider inspired words by GOD. If you believe there are other inspired words, then you and not I have the burden of proof to prove otherwise.

So based on what Christians believe is inspired, we have a consistent message about the nature of Jesus Christ. All biblical accounts support this message even if there seems to be some details that are not consistent. For instance, some gospels state the Jesus met with his disciples before he went to Galilee others seem to support the opposite. This might be an inaccuracy, but the point is he still met his disciples, so the nature and message is exactly the same and perhaps there is another plausible explanation for the messages.

MY BURDEN OF PROOF

So what is my burden of proof? I must prove that the scripture are (at least in the original) perfect in scope. What I mean is that I have to prove that they are perfect in the manner in which there were intended. This doesn’t mean the stories have to be exactly the same but that based on the intended reader, and the intended message the scripture tells the same story.

The detailed chart below shows the similarities in each story in the Gospels.

STORY	MAT	MAR	LUK	JOH
Prologue to the Gospel			X	X
The promise of John the Baptist’s birth			X
The salutation of Mary; Mary visits Elizabeth			X
The birth of John the Baptist			X
The birth of Jesus; the shepherds	X		X
Visit of the wise men	X
Circumcision of Jesus, presentation in the temple			X
Flight into Egypt; Herod slays the babies of Bethlehem; return from Egypt	X
Jesus at twelve years of age			X
John the Baptist and his ministry	X	X	X	X
John’s imprisonment			X
The baptism of Jesus	X	X	X
The genealogy of Jesus	X		X
The temptation of Jesus	X	X	X
Jesus’ first miracle (water made wine); Jesus visits Capernaum				X
Jesus cleanses the temple during the Passover				X
Nicodemus visits Jesus at night (“God so loved the world”)				X
Jesus remains and baptizes, through his disciples, in Judea; John the Baptist again testifies to Jesus				X
Jesus converses with the woman of Samaria				X
Jesus arrives in Galilee; his first preaching there	X	X	X	X
Jesus’ first rejection at Nazareth			X
The miraculous catch of fish; the call of the first disciples.	X	X	X	X
Jesus in the synagogue at Capernaum; heals a demoniac	X	X	X	X
Jesus heals Peter’s mother-in-law and others	X	X	X	X
Jesus departs from Capernaum		X	X
A preaching journey in Galilee	X	X	X
The Beatitudes	X		X
The woes			X
The parables of salt and of light	X	X	X
On the law	X		X
On murder	X		X
On adultery and lust	X
On divorce	X		X
On swearing; on retaliation	X		X
On love of one’s enemies	X		X
On almsgiving; on prayer	X
The Lord’s Prayer	X		X
On fasting; on treasures	X		X
The sound eye	X		X
On serving two masters	X		X
On anxiety	X		X
On judging	X		X
On profaning the holy	X
God’s answering of prayer	X		X
The Golden Rule	X		X
The narrow gate	X		X
The test of a good person	X		X
Warning against self-deception	X		X
Hearers and doers of the Word	X		X
The end of the Sermon	X			X
The healing of a leper	X	X	X
The healing of a centurion’s servant	X		X	X
The healing of the widow’s son at Nain			X
The nature of discipleship	X		X
The healing of the paralytic at Capernaum	X	X	X	X
The call of Levi (Matthew)	X	X	X
The question about fasting	X	X	X
Jesus heals the man at Bethzatha in Jerusalem; the testimony to Jesus				X
Two blind men healed	X
The healing of a mute demoniac	X	X	X
The sending out of the twelve disciples	X		X	X
The fate of the disciples	X	X	X	X
Exhortation to fearless confession	X		X	X
Division in households	X		X
Conditions of discipleship	X		X	X
End of the discourse to the disciples	X		X	X
John’s question to Jesus	X		X
Jesus’ words about John	X		X
Woes on the cities of Galilee	X		X
Jesus’ thanksgiving to the Father	X		X	X
Comfort for the heavy laden	X
Plucking ears of grain on the Sabbath	X	X	X	X
The healing of the man with a withered hand	X	X	X
Jesus heals the multitudes	X	X	X
The call of the twelve	X	X	X	X
The woman with the ointment	X	X	X	X
The ministering women		X
Accusations against Jesus; a house divided	X	X	X	X
Against seeking for signs	X	X	X
The return of the evil spirit	X		X
Jesus’ true relatives	X	X	X	X
Jesus teaches by parables: the sower, the tares, the seed growing secretly, the mustard seed, the yeast, the hidden treasure, the pearl, the dragnet, the householder	X	X	X	X
The stilling of the storm	X	X	X
The Gerasene (Gadarene) demoniac	X	X	X
Jairus’ daughter and a woman’s faith	X	X	X
Jesus is again rejected at Nazareth	X	X	X	X
The sending out of the twelve	X	X	X
Herod thinks Jesus is John, risen	X	X	X
The death of John	X	X
The return of the twelve and the feeding of the 5,000	X	X	X	X
Walking on the water	X	X		X
Jesus’ discourse on the bread of life			X
Healings at Gennesaret	X	X
What defiles a person	X	X
The Syrophoenician woman	X	X
Healing of many; healing of the deaf mute	X	X
The feeding of the 4,000	X	X
The Pharisees seek a sign	X	X	X	X
A discourse on yeast	X	X	X
The blind man at Bethsaida		X		X
Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi; first prediction of the Passion	X	X	X	X
The conditions of discipleship	X	X	X	X
The transfiguration	X	X	X	X
The coming of Elijah	X	X
The epileptic boy healed	X	X	X	X
The second prediction of the Passion	X	X	X	X
The temple tax	X
The dispute about greatness	X	X	X	X
The strange exorcist		X	X
On temptations	X	X	X
Concerning salt	X	X	X
The lost sheep	X		X
On reproving another	X		X	X
On reconciliation	X		X
The parable of the unmerciful servant	X
Jesus goes to Jerusalem at the feast of Tabernacles; his discourses there —			X
A woman taken in adultery is brought before Jesus				X
Jesus declares himself the light of the world; unbelieving Jews attempt to stone him				X
Jesus heals a beggar blind from birth				X
The Good Shepherd				X
The Samaritan villagers			X
The nature of discipleship	X		X
The sending out of the seventy	X		X	X
The return of the seventy -		X	X
Jesus’ gratitude to the Father	X		X	X
The blessedness of the disciples	X		X	X
The lawyer’s question	X	X	X
The parable of the good Samaritan			X
Mary and Martha			X	X
The friend at midnight			X
The answer to prayer	X		X
The Beelzebul controversy	X		X
The blessedness of Jesus’ mother			X
The sign for this generation	X	X	X
Concerning light	X		X
Discourse against the Pharisees	X	X	X
Exhortation to fearless confession	X	X	X	X
The parable of the rich fool		X
Cares about earthly things	X		X
Watchfulness and faithfulness	X	X	X	X
The servant’s wages			X
Interpreting the present time	X		X	X
Agreement with one’s accuser	X		X
Repentance or destruction			X
Healing of the woman with a spirit of infirmity			X
Parables of the mustard seed, of the yeast	X	X	X
Exclusion from the kingdom	X		X
The departure from Galilee			X
The lament over Jerusalem	X		X
The healing of a man with dropsy			X
Teaching on humility			X
The parable of the great supper	X		X
The cost of discipleship	X		X
The lost sheep and the lost coin	X		X
The prodigal son			X
The dishonest manager	X		X
The hypocrisy of the Pharisees			X
About the law and about divorce	X		X
The rich man and Lazarus			X
On causing sin	X	X	X
On forgiveness	X		X
On faith	X		X
The servant’s wages			X
The healing of ten lepers			X
On the kingdom of God	X	X	X
The day of the Son of man	X		X
The parable of the unjust judge			X
The parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector			X
Marriage and divorce	X	X
Jesus blesses the children	X	X	X	X
The rich young man	X	X	X
The parable of the laborers in the vineyard	X
The third prediction of the Passion	X	X	X
Jesus and the sons of Zebedee	X	X	X
The healing of Bartimaeus	X	X	X
Zacchaeus			X
The parable of the pounds	X		X
The conspiracy against Jesus	X	X	X	X
The anointing at Bethany	X	X	X	X
The betrayal by Judas	X	X	X	X
Preparation for the Passover	X	X	X
Jesus washes the feet of his disciples				X
The traitor	X	X	X	X
The institution of the Lord’s Supper	X	X	X
Last words: the betrayal foretold; greatness in the kingdom of God; Peter’s denial prophesied; the two denial prophesied; the two swords	X	X	X	X
The way to Gethsemane; Peter’s denial prophesied	X	X	X	X
Jesus in Gethsemane	X	X	X	X
Jesus taken captive	X	X	X	X
Jesus before the Sanhedrin and others; Peter’s denial	X	X	X	X
Jesus delivered to Pilate	X	X	X	X
The death of Judas	X
The trial before Pilate	X	X	X	X
Jesus before Herod			X
The sentence of death	X	X	X	X
The mocking by the soldiers	X	X		X
The road to Golgotha; the Crucifixion	X	X	X	X
The death on the cross; the burial of Jesus	X	X	X	X
The guard at the tomb	X
The empty tomb	X	X	X	X
The bribing of the Roman soldiers	X
Jesus appears to the two men on the road to		X	X
Jesus appears in Jerusalem			X
Jesus appears to the disciples twice				X
Jesus appears at the sea of Tiberias				X
Jesus’ appearance on the mountain in Galilee	X	X
Signs to accompany believers		X
The Ascension		X	X
The disciples go out into the world to preach		X
John’s conclusion to the gospel				X

Though the above list is lengthy, it covers all the major topics in the gospels. There are approximately 247 Stories in the gospels. Only 56 of the stories are covered in only 1 book. All 56 are references to either historical items not recorded in other gospels – Like the birth of John the Baptist or different appearances that Jesus made during his ministry. These are details that do not make an overall difference of the gospel message and in fact there are many extra-biblical accounts to support these facts.

Additionally there are 39 stories that are shared by every gospel. The messages in these stories are vital to the acceptance of Jesus as the divine. The section below shows only those topics that are covered by ALL gospels. It also gives you my opinion of why they are vital.

• John the Baptist and his ministry

The story of John the Baptist is vital to establishing that Jesus was the messiah. It was widely prophesied that prior to the coming messiah, Elisha would return. John the Baptist fulfilled the return of Elisha (J.B. was a type). It is also vital because extra-biblical accounts support the ministry of John the Baptist as you will see later.

• The miraculous catch of fish; the call of the first disciples.
• Jesus heals Peter’s mother-in-law and others
• The healing of the paralytic at Capernaum
• The return of the twelve and the feeding of the 5,000
• The epileptic boy healed
• Jesus blesses the children

Jesus proved this Godhood through many signs and wonders. Though not all miracles are recorded in all books, all books have signs and wonders proving Jesus’ divinity Those listed above as recoded in ALL gospels.

• Jesus in the synagogue at Capernaum; heals a demoniac

The importance of casting out demons was to show that Jesus was from GOD. Jesus makes it clear that a demon cannot cast out itself. Using logic, if Jesus were a demon, what good would come of him to casting out his minions? This again points to Jesus Divinity

• Plucking ears of grain on the Sabbath

Jesus came to make clarifications to the law and to fulfill its requirements. One such clarification was the reason for the Sabbath. Jesus told the Jews that the Sabbath was for the enjoyment of man and not for GOD. In other words, he told them to lighten up and stop stoning people for exercising freedom! It makes perfect sense that GOD put the Sabbath in place for us and NOT him. We need rest, and Jesus clarified this point.

• The call of the twelve

The message of the 12 apostles is very important. Since the apostles were told to take Jesus’ message to the people after he died, it was absolutely necessary that everyone saw by whose authority they preached.

• Accusations against Jesus; a house divided

One of the most important messages in scripture is the accusations that the Pharisees threw at Jesus. The message here is that the Pharisees were mad at Jesus for saying that he was GOD. Though many argue that Jesus never called himself GOD, the Pharisees sure thought he did. In fact this is the reason they murdered him.

• Jesus’ true relatives

Until Jesus’ arrival, the monotheistic GOD worshiped by the Jews was ONLY for the Jews. Jesus clarified this message by showing that the Jewish GOD is the GOD of all nations.

• Jesus is again rejected at Nazareth
• The conspiracy against Jesus
• The betrayal by Judas
• The traitor
• Peter’s denialS (THREE TIMES) Phophasied

It was long prophesied that the messiah would be rejected by his own people. His rejection in Nazareth was a type of this prophecy.

• Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi; first prediction of the Passion
• The second prediction of the Passion

Jesus predicted his own death. Once the prediction came to pass it became even clearer by what authority he came. He was at minimum a prophet of God other passages prove he was God is the flesh.

• The conditions of discipleship

Jesus is clarifying the importance of discipleship. This clarification is the entire command to the church to preach the gospel. This message is hard at times, but nonetheless, we have a mission and should execute this mission.

• The transfiguration

Another proof text of Jesus’ divinity

• The dispute about greatness

This story has two points. First it shows that the disciples knew who Jesus was. As they were asking which one would be the greatest in heaven. Second, it’s just plain funny. Here they are sitting next to God and they are worried about who is the best. That’s just funny stuff.

• Exhortation to fearless confession

Jesus gave instruction as to how to enter the kingdom of GOD. Repentance is a vital part of this message. He is also showing that not just anyone gets to heaven, which is his way of killing the movement of Universalism that is so popular today (even in the Christian Church).

• The anointing at Bethany

Jesus died for the sins of humanity. This was foretold in the Old Testament. The anointing was the preparation ceremony that paralleled the slaughter of the sacrificial lamb.

• Jesus in Gethsemane
• Jesus taken captive
• Jesus before the Sanhedrin and others; Peter’s denial
• Jesus delivered to Pilate
• The sentence of death
• The road to Golgotha; the Crucifixion
• The death on the cross; the burial of Jesus

The gospels are very clear in the details of the murder of Jesus. The importance of this message is that in order for those to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, they must first believe he died. The Old Testament also prophesied that the Messiah would die on a cross. These juicy details were captured by all the gospels. Many people realize the accuracy of this testimony so they try to come up with ridiculous – so called – answer to this account. (see the Jesus Seminar for these accounts).

• The empty tomb

There is no more important a message in the bible than the empty tomb. Though many get caught up in the details as to who and how many found the tomb empty, not one seems to dispute that the tomb was indeed empty. This seems to me to be the most important detail of all.

One can easily show that the important details are shared by all the gospels and most all of the details are shared by at least two or three gospels. The most commonly shared items are the synoptic gospels with Matthew and Luke having the most in common. Many would say the reason why these two gospels have so much in common is that one was copies from the other. This may very well be the case. However, that does not destroy the validity of the testimony. Unless we are to assume that any work transposed from another diminishes the truth of the original work. First, the original work, if widely disseminated would insure that any counterfeits would immediately be detected. For instance, if I witnessed a crime and reported it to the newspaper and the newspaper wrote an account that was totally false, I would be in a position to refute the story as false and tell the truth. There is no reason to believe that the gospels that are similar with some difference were falsified because they were copied. In fact one can argue that if they were actually copies they should be exactly the same. The fact that there are differences proves that they are original in at least some part. If they are the same with wide variants over time we have so many copies that we certainly can decipher the truth. It is more likely that both are similar message for different audiences. One for the Jews and one for the Gentiles (Greeks) for instance. So the details that are dissimilar are simply there to make it easier for the reader or are only important for a certain audience like including Jewish customs for non-Jewish readers but leaving them out for Jewish readers as they know them already. A modern day example of this would be a Mexican author stating something like; “If was December 26^th and we were opening up presents as in Mexico we celebrate Christmas on the 26^th” This would add points of clarification for an American audience who has no idea that Christmas was one day later then in the U.S. The same writing to a Mexican audience would leave out the latter part of the sentence as it is widely know.

The Complexity of the Message

It should be noted in the favor of the Bible the complexity of the Christian message. For thousands of years false religions have sprung up to “simplify” Christianity. I believe that the complexities of Christianity can be used to show its truth. It seems unlikely to me that any untrue story would place within it complex issues like the trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) as a single being with three different natures but individually distinct. It is almost impossible to wrap your mind around it. In addition to this, the Bible teeters on meeting the burden of proof for Jewish tradition. A Woman’s testimony was much, much less authoritative than that of a man’s. Why would an author use women to find the body of Jesus unless they were trying to stay within the truth. It seems to me that this would be risky. Another point to be made is the unfavorable depiction of many of those in the Hall of Faith. People like David, Paul, Solomon, and many of the 12 Apostles have stories that show them as foolish and borderline idiotic. It seems unlikely that these depictions would be in a myth. To my knowledge you don’t see this about Mohamed, or Buddha (though I am far from an expert in these religions). You do in the Bible, even Jesus is shown to have apparent weaknesses when he clearly shows his fear of death in the Garden of Gatsemeny. Where do we see this in other religious works?

There are many good books that break down in a logical manner the testimonies of the New and Old Testament authors. Two that have helped me were, “Evidence That Demand a Verdict” By Josh McDowell and “Resurrection” by Hank Hanegraaff. The former is a hard read, so if you are just beginning the study of Biblical credibility, I suggest the latter. It took me a year to study McDowell’s book as it goes into great detail as to the evidence. Hanegraaff cuts to the chase.

The above tests have shown the reliability of the internal testimony of the Bible. But this is not the only method to test the reliability of scripture. Before examining extra-biblical sources, it is important to realize that the extra-biblical sources cannot be used to test the supernatural accounts in the scriptures. The fact is, the extra-biblical sources don’t cover supernatural. If they did, the extra-biblical sources would have been canonized. As the Bible is a collection historical, supernatural events of the life and times of the Jews. With that said, one source does not negate the other, it simply covers different parts of the same story. It makes sense that historians like Josephus and the Talmud would NOT account for the supernatural as these accounts are biases against the supernatural details – not unlike modern science. But like modern science, we don’t discount what is said because it has a bias, we simply look to other sources for other forms of truth. Both are valid, and unless they are contradictory, they can still both be true yet covering different details.

Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian mentions John the Baptist and Herod in his book, Antiquities, Book 18 he states:

“Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.”

Josephus also mentions Jesus in several quotes. Because there is still debate as to the authenticity of the quotes, I have chosen to leave them out. I personally believe the quotes to be partially true, with there being a likely addition to Josephus’ works by early Christians. The doctored parts are likely those referencing Jesus as “The Christ”. It is highly unlikely that a Jew would have made mention to Jesus in this manner. Until we find more remnants of Josephus’ works, it is responsible, in my opinion, to avoid these sources.

Flavius Josephus does, however, mentions Ananias the High Priest who was mentioned in Acts 23:2 he states:

Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias (25) he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money

The Roman historian Tacitus In the following quote, Tactius makes mention of someone names “Christus” who is Jesus. Tactitus states:

“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.”

The important point to this extra-biblical account is that it makes mention, in an early source, to the suffering death of Jesus, by Pontius Palatus.

Thallus, an Eastern Mediterranean writer was referenced in the writings by Julius Africanus, who wrote about AD 221, mentioned Thallus’ account of an eclipse of the sun. The original quote was written in about AD 52 ( a few years from Jesus’ death). He states:

“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.”

This quote may be a reference to the event described in Luke 23. The passage describing the destructive event that occurred during the crucifixion.

Pliny the Younger mentioned Christ as well. Pliny was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Pliny wrote ten books with the last around AD 112.

“They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”

The Talmud is another source that adds historical reference to the Bible and it’s “stories”

“On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.” But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!”

This is the most, “In your face”, extra-biblical source. The credibility of the source is also great as to historical fact. The Talmud are writings of Jewish laws. Since the Jews rejected Jesus, they would have no reason to add a lie to a book describing Jewish law and tradition. This quote does not confirm the deity of Jesus, only that he was hanged for practicing sorcery. So it confirms that Jesus did many of the things the Bible claims he did and most importantly that Jesus actually died – a claim debated by liberal, so called, Christian authors (see Jesus Seminar)

Lastly, The Greek writer Lucian mentions Jesus. He states in his writing from around AD 120:

“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.”

Certainly Lucian was not a believer, as he call Christians (like many today) misguided, but he also confirms in early works that Jesus was (1) a real person, and (2) he was crucified.

Mara Bar-Serapion, of Syria, wrote a letter to his son in AD 70 regarding the emulation of wise teachers. He states:

“What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burying Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given.”

It would be nice if we had some extra-biblical (reliable) quotes that mention the resurrection of Jesus. However, the likelihood of this is extremely unlikely to ever be found. It would be absurd to think that someone who witnessed the resurrection would be a non-believer, and anyone writing from a believer’s point of view WOULD BE CANNONIZED. Many don’t realize that the bible is not simply one book, but 66 of them put together for convenience of study. So in a nutshell, we have 66 accounts of GOD’s power. All other sources, only confirm the reliability of the biblical sources. They are other sources and disciplines that confirm details of the Bible, but they won’t ever confirm all details as the other details are covered by sources in the bible.

BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS AND MY BURDEN OF PROOF

Another attacked on the Bible comes from its apparent contradictions. Many critics seem to have come to some sort of special knowledge about contradictory statement contained in the Bible that clear-thinking Christians seem to have missed for over 2000 years (and longer if you consider the age of the Old Testament). What I have found is that most, if not all of these attacks come from non-believing Christians and not from inside the believing community. It seems to me that non-believing people would not care about contradictions as the Bible has no credibility to them, it is simply myth, and contradictions in myths require no scrutiny. It seems that even non-believers seem to believe that the Bible has more authority than other books, and as such it needs to be perfect. I have always taken criticism of the Bible from non-believers with a grain of salt. Since a non-believers have not likely ever read the Bible in its entirety (why would they), and thus context is never reached. Like with all writing, context is everything. With that said there are some difficulties, and some of these difficulties can not be answered perfectly, but as long as there is a plausible response, then my answer is just as valid as yours and until my answer specifically contradicts your point than both points are valid. However, non-Christians believe that my plausible answer is incorrect, not because it’s not valid, but because of the non-Christian’s bias toward supernatural things. Frankly, that’s not my problem but yours. Your bias has no baring on the validity of my answer.

Handling Contradictions

Before tackling any apparent contradictions, I think it is appropriate to make a point about my burden of proof on the discrepancies. I need not show that all items are the same; I need only show that there are no contradictions. In other words something cannot be something else in the same way at the same time. The formula that describes this is: ¬(p^¬p) (A cannot = NonA in the same way at the same time). So, Jesus cannot be born in Bethlehem and Galilee this would be a contradiction. However, three people finding Jesus’ tomb empty in one gospel and only two finding it in the other does not break the formula; because even if they are describing the same event they are describing it in a different way. In other words, I can go to dinner with three people; however there are 100 people at the restaurant. So describing the event as: “I had dinner with 3 people” is as true as is if I said: “I had dinner with 100 people”. These are not inherently contradictory but perhaps a bit confusing.

Let’s look at some of the most famous contradictions. I am more than willing to tackle any other’s you might find.

CONTADICTION #1 – The Genealogies of Jesus

Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38

According to some, the genealogies of Matthew and Luke are different and indeed they are.

Matthew 1:2-17

2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judah and his brethren; and Judah begat Perez and Zerah of Tamar; and Perez begat Hezron; and Hezron begat Ram; and Ram begat Amminadab; and Amminadab begat Nahshon; and Nahshon begat Salmon; and Salmon begat Boaz of Rahab; and Boaz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; and Jesse begat David the king. And David begat Solomon of her [that had been the wife] of Uriah; and Solomon begat Rehoboam; and Rehoboam begat Abijah; and Abijah begat Asa; and Asa begat Jehoshaphat; and Jehoshaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Uzziah; and Uzziah begat Jotham; and Jotham begat Ahaz; and Ahaz begat Hezekiah; and Hezekiah begat Manasseh; and Manasseh begat Amon; and Amon begat Josiah; and Josiah begat Jechoniah and his brethren, at the time of the carrying away to Babylon. And after the carrying away to Babylon, Jechoniah begat Shealtiel; and Shealtiel begat Zerubbabel; and Zerubbabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; and Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; and Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Matthew’s genealogy involves Jesus’ title “Christ”, in the sense of an “anointed” king. It starts with Solomon and proceeds through the kings of Judah up to and including Jeconiah Thus Jesus is established as blood heir to the throne of Israel through his adopted mother Mary.

LUKE 3:23-38

And Jesus himself, when he began [to teach], was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the [son] of Heli, the [son] of Matthat, the [son] of Levi, the [son] of Melchi, the [son] of Jannai, the [son] of Joseph, the [son] of Mattathias, the [son] of Amos, the [son] of Nahum, the [son] of Esli, the [son] of Naggai, the [son] of Maath, the [son] of Mattathias, the [son] of Semein, the [son] of Josech, the [son] of Joda, the [son] of Joanan, the [son] of Rhesa, the [son] of Zerubbabel, the [son] of Shealtiel, the [son] of Neri, the [son] of Melchi, the [son] of Addi, the [son] of Cosam, the [son] of Elmadam, the [son] of Er, the [son] of Jesus, the [son] of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the [son] of Matthat, the [son] of Levi, the [son] of Symeon, the [son] of Judas, the [son] of Joseph, the [son] of Jonam, the [son] of Eliakim, the [son] of Melea, the [son] of Menna, the [son] of Mattatha, the [son] of Nathan, the [son] of David, the [son] of Jesse, the [son] of Obed, the [son] of Boaz, the [son] of Salmon, the [son] of Nahshon, the [son] of Amminadab, the [son] of Arni, the [son] of Hezron, the [son] of Perez, the [son] of Judah, the [son] of Jacob, the [son] of Isaac, the [son] of Abraham, the [son] of Terah, the [son] of Nahor,

35 the [son] of Serug, the [son] of Reu, the [son] of Peleg, the [son] of Eber, the [son] of Shelah the [son] of Cainan, the [son] of Arphaxad, the [son] of Shem, the [son] of Noah, the [son] of Lamech, the [son] of Methuselah, the [son] of Enoch, the [son] of Jared, the [son] of Mahalaleel, the [son] of Cainan, the [son] of Enos, the [son] of Seth, the [son] of Adam, the [son] of God.

Luke 3 shows Jesus’ relationship to King David as the prophecy states that the Messiah will come from the line of David. Jesus is established as the legal heir to the throne of Israel.

In other word, one genealogy shows that he was of the same blood as David as prophesied through Joseph his adopted father’s bloodline, and through Mary’s bloodline he was in line to take the kingship. He is both earthly and heavenly king based on genealogy and prophecy.

When you apply the law of non-contradiction to this passage you see it is not a contradiction at all but describing genealogies from two different perspectives. In other words, Jesus CAN and IS from the Blood of David and the Son of the next king. In other words, if Judea still had a king and was not under Roman occupation Jesus would be that king.

CONTRADICTION #2 – Matthew 1:20 and 1:35 – The Angels Message

Some consider it a contradiction that Luke has the angle of the Lord coming to Mary and in Matthew the angel of the Lord comes to Joseph. Some further add that if the angel of the Lord actually came to both Mary and Joseph than in the passage in Mark where his “people” reject him is contradictory because his “people” are his family, and they thought Jesus was crazy.

Luke 1:35

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God.

Matthew 1:20

But when he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

I must say, I have trouble not laughing when I hear this one. These are two completely different stories. The angel came to both Mary and Joseph. Usually the argument concludes by showing that his “Family” thought he was crazy in Mark 3:20-21:

Then the multitude came together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread. But when His own people heard about this, they went out to lay hold of Him, for they said, “He is out of His mind.

Nowhere in this supposed “proof text” are we told the those described as his own people are Mary and Joseph or even family members. His own people clearly describes the JEWS!

CONTRADICTION #3 – Matthew 2:1 and Luke 2:4 – The Birth of Jesus

A group called the Jesus Seminar are responsible for this myth. Apparently Jesus was born in both Bethlehem and Galilee.

Matthew 2:1

2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, Wise-men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying,

Luke 2:4

2:4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David; to enroll himself with Mary, who was betrothed to him, being great with child. And it came to pass, while they were there, the days were fulfilled that she should be delivered.

Not sure what to say about this apparent contradiction. It seems to me that someone has a good imagination and poor reading skills.

CONTRADICTION #4 – The Birth of Jesus

Luke 2:2 and Matthew 2:1

In Matthew 2:1 Jesus was apparently born during the reign of Herod who died in 4 B.C. However Luke states that he was born during the great census which, according to Josephus, occurred when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Quirinus was not made governor of Syria until about 6 A.D., ten years after Herod’s death.

This is, in my opinion the most difficult apparent contradiction to explain because it takes more than just reading the Bible to explain it.

It seems there are several possible explanations to this issue:

1. Luke is wrong

2. Matthew is wrong

3. Josephus is wrong

4. There was more than on Census

5. There was more then one Herod

6. There was more then one Quirinus

To find the truth to this apparent contradiction, it takes a reading of Archeological texts, and Jewish historians and not just the Bible. However prior to giving the plausible answer to this issue, let’s first look at the ramifications of all 6 of the possible explanations.

Luke and/or Matthew are Wrong

This would build a case for an error in the biblical text. However, the error is minor. The error is in regards to the detail as to who ordered the census. The big issue is not who ordered the census, but that Jesus was born during this time to Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem. This fulfills the prophecy.

Josephus was Wrong

Josephus is the source of most extra biblical accounts of Jewish and early Christian life in biblical antiquity. However, it is important to realize that Josephus was NOT necessarily a historian, but a Jewish Army General who cowardly decided NOT to take his life (after his collogues did) after the Jewish rebellion and instead became a spy of Roman and a traitor to his own people. These facts do not in anyway reduce the accuracy of his writings. He was still a Jew and as a Jew he would have been trained in historical accuracy. However, it should be taken into account that he was in no way non-bias as his life depended on a happy Rome.

There was more than one Census

Although on its face we seem to have a difficulty here, there are several pieces that we must consider before jumping to the conclusion that Luke and Josephus were speaking about the same event. Indeed, it seems that Caesar Augustus was the type of leader who ordered many censuses in his day. Records exist to show that Roman-controlled Egypt had begun a census as early as 10 B.C. and it was repeated every 14 years. And Augustus himself notes in his Res Gestae (The Deeds of Augustus) that he ordered three wide-spread censuses of Roman citizens, one in 28 B.C., one in 8 B.C. and one in 14 A.D. In between there are several other censuses that happened locally across Rome. Luke’s account corroborates the idea of multiple censuses for Judea when he writes “This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.” Certainly, the word “first” implies that where was more than one census happened.

We have at least three censuses in the area of Judea – one in 8 B.C., one starting around 2 B.C. and one in 6 A.D. The only point that is really in question, then, is whether Luke was mistaken in ascribing this census to the time when Quirinius was in the role of Syrian Governor. Since Quirinius wasn’t governor of the Syrian province until after Archelaus was deposed, critics claim Luke misidentified the census as the smaller one, which happened some 8-10 years after Herod died.

There was more than one Herod

There were definitely different Herods, but Herod the Great is the undisputed leader during this time.

There was more then One Quirinus

Though it is unlikely that we have more than one Quirinus, it is very likely that Quirinus had more then one roll. We know that Quirinus was an influential character in the Roman Empire before and during the life of Jesus. As an influential Roman, it is likely that he was given the roll as census taker prior to this reign as Governor of Syria. Justin Marty in his Apology supports this view. Marty states that Quirinius was a “procurator”, not a governor of the area of Judea. As Gleason Archer writes, “In order to secure efficiency and dispatch, it may well have been that Augustus put Quirinius in charge of the census-enrollment in Syria between the close of Saturninus’s administration and the beginning of Varus’s term of service in 7 B.C.” It was doubtless because of his competent handling of the 7 B.C. census that Augustus later put him in charge of the 7 A.D. census. Archer also says that Roman history records Quirinius leading the effort to quell rebels in that area at exactly that time, so such a political arrangement is not a stretch.

If Quirinius did hold such a position, then we have no contradiction. The first census was taken during the time of Jesus birth, but Josephus’ census would have come later. This option seems to me to be entirely reasonable.

This Timeline shows the probable timeline for the census recorded in the New Testament. Since we don’t know the exact date of Jesus’ birth, it is shown between 6 B.C. and 3 B.C. Some scholars have his birth after the death of Herod (3 B.C) however we have no reason to believe this date is true. My personal assessment is August/September 5 B.C.

Admittedly I wish we have more extra-biblical support for the census theory. Though the support is not overwhelming, it is still a fair and reasonable conclusion to come to that the census recorded by Josephus is not the same census as the Census recorded by Luke. It is also a fair assessment that Rome would likely put someone like Quirinus in charge of more than one census. Even to this day it is not unlikely to see someone given responsibilities based on past successes. It is reasonable to believe this is the case here.

CONTRADICTION #5 – Is It an Eye for an Eye or Are We Supposed to Turn the Other Cheek?

I get this apparent contradiction all the time, and frankly it’s laughable. Like most apparent contradictions, it shows the ignorance of the contradictor.

The simple answer to the question is, YES. How can this be, they seem to be contradictory statements? They aren’t. First, we need to read the context in which they were stated and to whom they were stated. In the Old Testament the law states that one was to be paid back for ill-doings by retribution. The law was given to the Jews who lived under a theocracy. In other words the Law and religion are the same. In this context, we see that the law that the Jews followed, “An Eye for An Eye and a Tooth for a Tooth”, is exactly the same principle that our modern government uses today. However, because we no longer live in a theocracy, it is the government’s responsible to enact punishment on the ill-doer and NOT the church (generally speaking).

In the New Testament, the context had changed. Jesus was speaking to people who lived under the occupation of the Romans. In this context he states that we are to turn the other cheek. However, the Old Testament principle is still in affect, it is acted out by the governing bodies at that time. When Jesus states, “Turn the other cheek”, he is addressing the persecution that believers go through in the name of Christ. He is simply stating that we are not to respond to insults with insults as this would defeat our bigger cause. This statement has nothing to do with a governing body’s ability to punish. With that said, I don’t believe the New Testament teaches people not to defend themselves. It is speaking of insults not punches, many disagree with me on this point.

Simply put, this is no more a contradiction than saying that the freeway is contradicting it’s self for having a speed limit that changes from one part of the road to another. The speed limit changes as conditions permit.

BIBLE CONTRADICTION #6 – ANGRY FOREVER OR NOT?

“For I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever.” (Jeremiah 3:12)
“Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever.” (Jeremiah 17:4)

I think in order to answer this one; we need to get the entire passage and not just the commonly quoted portion.

Go, and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith Jehovah; I will not look in anger upon you; for I am merciful, saith Jehovah, I will not keep [anger] for ever. Jeremiah 3:12

And thou, even of thyself, shalt discontinue from thy heritage that I gave thee; and I will cause thee to serve thine enemies in the land which thou knowest not: for ye have kindled a fire in mine anger which shall burn for ever. Jeremiah 17:4

I have to honestly mention that I am not an expert on Jeremiah, but I don’t think I need to be to remove the apparent contradiction. First, in neither passage is GOD stating that he will or will not be angry at every person forever under any circumstance. In other words this is not an absolute statement that is for every person. So with that said, who is GOD speaking to in these passages? In Jeremiah 3:12, He is speaking to Israel. On the other hand, in Jeremiah 17:4 He is speaking to Judah. We know that Jeremiah 17:4 is specific to Judah because Jeremiah 17:1 states:

The sin of Judah is written with a pen of iron, [and] with the point of a diamond: it is graven upon the tablet of their heart, and upon the horns of your altars;

So even if I am not entirely clear on the context of Jeremiah’s rant, I can easily see from reading the ENTIRE PASSAGE that GOD is speaking to different people.

We can see to this day that the nation of Israel is still (again) on the map and prospering while Judah is no where to be seen – whipped from the earth forever.

BIBLE CONTRADICTION #7 – WHY DID JESUS COME?

And Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world.” (John 9:39)
“I came not to judge the world” (John 12:47)

Again, this is an issue of reading only a portion of the passage.

Then Jesus cried out, “When a man believes in me, he does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me. When he looks at me, he sees the one who sent me. I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness. “As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it. I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say.”

AND

Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.” Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too?” Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.

In the first passage, Jesus is simply stating that He is not judging a man based on his deeds – today. That judgment will occur in the last days. At death.

In the second passage, he is referring to the judgment of those who are hearing or seeing the message. This is not HIS judgment but that of the person hearing the message. He is basically saying that the blind and weak will be able to JUDGE the truth better than the religious institutions of the day. I suggest you read the entire chapters fully as the context becomes very apparent.

BIBLE CONTRADICTION #8 – DOES GOD HAVE A FACE?

“Jacob said, ‘I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.’” (Genesis 32:30)
“No man hath seen God at any time.” (John 1:18)

This is nothing more that a figure of speech. God doesn’t have a face, and He cannot be seen with human eyes. When Jacob says he saw God face to face he is saying that he has a personal, intimate relationship with God. Not that he literally saw God’s face. God has manifested Himself in many ways (burning bush, man, etc.) but since He doesn’t actually have a face, this sentence is Anthropomorphic. In John 1:18, John is stating a fact. No man has actually seen God, but His existence is all around us.

No contradiction here, just a figure of speech.

BIBLE CONTRADICTION #9 – WHO’S THE MAN?

“And Jesus coming spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.” (Matthew 28:18)
“the whole world is under control of the evil one.” (1 John 5:19)

Simply stated, Jesus (God) has power over all things. He has the power to relinquish evil from the earth. Jesus states that he chooses not to remove Evil from the world because by doing so, he would be removing the good as well. (The Wheat from the Chaff). So what Jesus is saying is that the world is controlled by the Devil, but Jesus is the ultimate authority.

I liken this to a prison. If you’ve ever worked in a jail or prison or spent time in one (God Forbid), it is apparent that the prison is run by the prisoners. The prisoners are usually broken up into gangs and each gang controls certain aspect of prison life (Drugs, Prostitution, Etc.). With that said, the guards are in ultimate control. They can, at any moment, snuff out the life of an inmate. The Guards have to pick their battles, and Jesus is saying the same thing.

CONTRADICTION #10 – FEAR OR LOVE WHICH IS IT?

We should fear God (Matthew 10:28)
We should love God (Matthew 22:37)
There is no fear in love (1 John 4:18)

This is funnier than anything. I laughed the first time I heard it, not because it’s ignorant, but because it’s a funny use of scripture.

These statements are all true. We should absolutely Fear God, and we should also love God. So what about the last one? Is John stating that there is no fear in love? Here’s the entire passage:

In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

1 John is talking to believers. John is telling believers that they have salvation from punishment and that they need not fear judgment. The passage is not stating that we should not fear God, but we should not fear judgment as we are saved and should feel freedom and not fear in our salvation.

CONTEXT AND MISREADING

The best advice I ever received regarding the Bible is to never read a Bible verse. Reading just a verse in scripture leaves you open to misinterpretation. Even my first state (“Never read a Bible verse”), out of context, could be deciphered to mean never read the Bible. But in context, it is clear that I am saying just the opposite. I am stating that you should read the ENTIRE BIBLE. The Bible has 66 books with over 774,736 words; you can read just about anything into it. Not only is this not courteous to those of us that are students of the Biblical texts, but it also makes you look stupid. I have found that there are some genuine difficult passages to explain, but MOST apparent discrepancies are simply ignorant responses from people that simply don’t want to accept what the Bible has to say. I ask that you be intellectually honest with yourselves. If you choose not to believe, then say you think the Bible is false, but don’t try to prove your case by taking a book that has lived up to scrutiny for thousands of years, and act like you have found something that scholars have not.

In the several years as a Christian, I have yet to have a single objection from anyone who has ever read the Bible. So read the Bible with an open mind. Remove your naturalistic bias and see what the evidence points to. If you conclude that evidence is bunk, so be it\

Lastly, I am tired. I am tired of defending my position to someone who has no idea what my position is. It seems that I am supposed to have all the answers but my critics don’t have any burden of proof. Frankly I am tired of people who are students of the DaVinci Code and think that they have the answers. I am tired of the College student who hears from a teacher that the Bible is false and accepts it without any research or reasonable thought and I am tired of those who tell me to prove my case but then fix the game with rules that make it impossible for me to win. These people say, prove that Jesus is GOD, but you can’t use the bible or anything supernatural. This is like telling me to prove that one plus one equals two without using math. Religion is the science dealing with the SUPERNATURAL. Even though we deal with the supernatural, we are scientists nonetheless. Just because I don’t understand quantum physics, or chemical titration doesn’t mean that there false! I don’t go up to a Chemist and tell him Prove that adding an acid to a base makes a neutral (titration) without using chemicals! If I did the chemist would tell me he can’t. He would think I am ignorant for not understanding his discipline. Yet, this is exactly what other scientific disciplines do to me. It not fair, and frankly I’m tired of it.

I HOPE YOU TAKE UP THE CHALLENGE TO CHALLENGE ME ON THIS. HELP ME TO FIND THE APPARENT INCONSISTENCIES AND I WILL DO MY BEST TO ANSWER THEM.

Timing, Pat Robertson, and all things considered

It sickens me to think that I may be in a position where I have to vote for a candidate that believes that killing babies is morally good. But with Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton as possible candidates for presidency, I may have no choice (if I choose to vote). Assuming that these are my, so called, choices in 2008, I will have to make a choice to vote for the best of the worst. However, in the meantime, it is my obligation as a Christian to help the candidate that solve the most number of problems that are important to the Christian cause, and though I have not yet made up my mind, I do know that Rudy Giuliani is NOT that man.

Apparently, Pat Robertson begs to differ. Apparently, Mr. Robertson, of who I have support (but wished he’d keep his mouth shut) believes that we have no obligation to support the candidate that support Christianity. Pat decided to throw his weight to Giuliani when we have many, many candidates that are pro-life. It is likely that Pat and I will eventually agree on the best presidential candidate, but Mr Robertson must be out of his mind to throw his weight behind a person who believes that abortion is admissible.

Perhaps is is time for Pat to take the advice of many Christian and non-Christian leaders and hang up his microphone. You see Pat, even though it is likely that Giuliani will get the Christian vote, there is something called timing, and until such time to the Christian has no choice, they should be voting for the candidate that support GODS creatures instead of killing them.

 

 

Shame on You PAT…..

Let your Conscious be MY guide? A Case For Halloween

During the holiday season, many well meaning Christians start their crusade against Halloween. I respect Christians for following their conscience, after all, Paul, in Romans 14 tells us that we are to discern things not spelled out in the Bible by our conscience. The question is, does the conscience and convictions of another have anything to do with me? Just because apparently the Holy Spirit tells one person not to do something – is that confirmation that one has the right to tell another not to do that thing as well? Many Bible Believing Christians are, in my humble opinion abusing the Holy Spirit and manipulating God to get the world to work by their terms as opposed to seeing the world as it actually is. Is this what Christians are called to do?

Don’t get me wrong, I applaud people for doing what they think is right. We need more people with Godly convictions. Who I am addressing are people who think they are called by the Holy Spirit to condemn and bring light of sin to others because others have a conscience that tells them to do something different than the judger’s.

One of the most damaging teaching I see in Christianity is; if my freedom gets in the way of your freedom I should abstain from following MY conscience and instead follow yours. These teachers would have you believe that I am responsible for knowing your conviction and worse yet, I am responsible to follow your convictions as opposed to mine! The passage that seems to confirm this teaching is Romans 14, which clearly states:

If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died.

The previous passage seems to contradict the former passage for it states:

The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him.

It seems to me that we have a bona fide contradiction! One passage states not to judge people based on what they feel is right and then the next says that you are not free to act based on your convictions. Is the Bible inaccurate? Of course not! Perhaps we need to look at the tone and context of the passage to find out what Paul is teaching instead of reading one apparent proof text and then closing our minds. The passage is talking of harmony amongst the church. Paul is stating that people who have more freedom by their convictions are right in acting by such freedom. However, he also says that you need to be sensitive when dealing with people who do not have such freedom. You shouldn’t rub your freedom in their faces or make them participate in something that the Holy Spirit or their own wishes forbids them from doing. Paul is calling for harmony in all things. So does this mean that I should not celebrate Halloween with my family because my friends may be offended? Of course not! It is simply stating that I shouldn’t rub my freedom in their faces. I shouldn’t tell these people that they are sinning by NOT celebrating Halloween. My freedom is my freedom and their freedom is theirs. Live and let live. Live in harmony even though there is disagreement. Some would have you believe that harmony and agreement are the same thing. They are not. If you are wrong, but I choose not to get into a dispute over it, you are still wrong even though we are living in harmony. Essentially Paul is telling us to pick our battles. Sometimes it is better to the lose the battle but to save the soul.

Those that believe that one is responsible to follow another’s convictions seem to be missing that the forbidden judgment Paul is speaking of goes both ways. It seems to me that when someone says I am wrong for celebrating on Halloween when the Bible, the church and my conscience say otherwise; these people are breaking the very thing Paul is speaking of. When someone tells me that my family shouldn’t carve pumpkins, or go dress up in costume that I am breaking GODS law; that they, not me, are sinning and for this I have every right if not an obligation to judge. Frankly, Paul starts out the passage by telling people who unfairly judge others based on their freedom as having weaker faith. In other words the person with the greater conviction – Showed in the passage as only eating vegetables – has a weaker faith. Yet I, with more freedom, am felt to be the one with no faith in GOD and his Word.

Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

With that said, we are bound by certain laws. The Law of Nature (general revelation), The Law of the Land (statutory law) and The Law of Special Revelation (the Bible). The question is, does a Christian who is celebrating on Halloween breaking any of these laws? If so, those judging have every right to take a stand against those that are sinning. However before taking the stand they first are told to remove the plank from their own eye and to insure they are following the truth and not just superstition. It is obvious that statutory and natural laws are not broken by the celebration, Halloween Isn’t illegal and it doesn’t defy the laws of physics, or mathematics. So the only law in question that might be broken is Gods Special Revelation – The Word. What does the bible and those champions for it have to say about Halloween?

The Bible makes no mention of Halloween. As long as we are not honoring or worshiping other gods (which could include candy), it seems apparent that the Bible is silent. So what did the early church have to say about the issue? A little history of the day will answer this question.

Halloween definitely has a pagan past that started sometime in the early history of the Celts. The Celts celebrated the day as a thank you to there 300 plus Gods at the beginning and end of summer (November 1^st being the end of summer)..

The holiday went through several transformations by the conquering Romans before the influence from the Christians sometime in the 7^th Century changed it’s meaning dramatically. Pope Boniface IV introduced All Saints Day to replace the pagan Festival of the Dead. All Saints Day, celebrated on November 1^st , was deliberately placed there to hijack the pagan day for Christ. The word Halloween is the informal name for All Hallows Eve. The word hallow means saints. So translated, Halloween means, Eve of the Saints! Obviously the early church didn’t have any trouble masking a former pagan holiday with a Christian one. Several hundred years later, Martin Luther didn’t seem to have an issue with the day either when, in 1517, he posted the 95 Theses on the door of the Wittenberg Church. This event is formally recognized as the start of the Christian Reformation (at least in Germany). October 31^st is commonly known as Reformation Day, the start of the very religious movement that many mistaken Christians think is the Demon’s Day. One could make the argument that there is no more important day in America than the 31^st of October as we would not be worshiping freely had Martin Luther not decided to take a stand against the Catholic Church.

I think I have successfully built a case that October 31^st is not a pagan day, but I must concede that Halloween is definitely full of troubling things. The biggest issue I have with Halloween is the fact that people make light of very real demonic themes. We have Halloween to blame for the cute little devil with the red suite and pitchfork. The Devil is a real threat and I choose not make him into a cartoon character. So there are major problems with Halloween, and we should be conscious of this fact. Devil worshipers use the day to sacrifice to the Devil. Witches use the day to worship the Pantheistic spirits, and many teenage kids use it as a day to be destructive of personal property. I was even a victim of robbery on Halloween several years ago.

The fact is, Halloween is full of very confused people doing some very demonic things. It is clear that the Prince of this World has hijacked Halloween. So what does Jesus tell us about dealing with the lost world? Did he tell us to close our blinds, shut our doors, turn off our lights and pout? Or did he tell us to be the shining light of the world? To show the confused the way of truth? The truth that will set the world free? It seems to me that Jesus never teaches us to turn away from a fight. He may have said not to fight back (this is debatable), but he never said to run It seems that Jesus would rather Christian’s homes and Churches become a refuge for confused pagans and destructive teenagers, than a place of protest.

So instead of protesting Halloween, so that the devil might successful hijack OUR day. Why not use the holiday as a way of reaching the world. Why not carve a cross and dove into a pumpkin? Why not give out candy with a religious theme or literature? Why not host or support a party at the local church that gives the children a safe place to have fun? Or why not just have a smile on your face when you answer the door? Sometimes being a loving neighbor is all that it takes to make people realize that not all of us are religious freaks and perhaps there is some truth to the way we live. This says a lot more than being the only dark house on the block. I personally do not choose to protest the day. I do not choose to potentially sacrifice one soul to the devil when I could have been a shining light by simply opening my door to another and doing what’s right. I would feel horrible if one child dies by a drunk driver while walking the streets getting candy when the child could have been safely playing at a Christian Halloween party. I would be devastated if a child dies of poison candy because there is no more Christian spirit left in the world only Christian protest.

Every day an average of 80 people are murdered in the US. It seems to me that the Devil has a hold on just about every day of the year. Should we never leave the houses because we live in an evil world? Are we called to hide our heads in the sand? If so the Devil has already won! If the church would just decide to, like Martin Luther did in the 1500’s, become the shining light in the world, the murder rate would go down and the streets would become safer. Our desire to separate ourselves from the world in a destructive way makes us as much to blame for the world’s problems as those who are committing the crimes. We are called to be the light of the world, and this light can shine in a Jack-O-Lantern just as nicely as anywhere else.

JUST ONE MAN’S OPINION…

GOD Loves You Doesn’t Answer Everything! (Video)

VIDEO BLOG 

Too often I see well meaning Christains make bad arguments for their faith. Read any Atheist’s Blog you will see it.  The Atheist will make a point about how the Bible promotes slavery, or apparent contradictions and the Christians will answer by saying:  “GOD loves you and you just need to have faith in him”.  What do you think the Atheist is going to say?  Well that makes sense, I guess I’ll accept Jesus and be baptized?  Not likely…..

If we have apparent problems with our theology, we need to find ways to argue around them.  Remember we have true on our hands so we know that the problem isn’t truth but interpretation. If it turns out that what we believe doesn’t hold up to the truth (for instance if we find Jesus Christ’s body in a grave somewhere), then we need to find out what is true and follow it.  This is called clear thinking and it is what should make Christians stand out.  However all too often ridiculous comments and religious wacko are what we are remembered by.  I find it ironic that we accuse Scientists of being bias toward the truth (which they most definitely are) but we do the same thing.  When someone offers a lucid argument, we bury our heads in the sand fall back on “GOD loves you”.  Well GOD does love him or her, but he has left it up to us to show his love and intelligence through our love and intelligence.  So get intelligent CHRISTIAN   (Enjoy the Video)