======================================================================== CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS by Various ======================================================================== A work of Christian apologetics opening with the remarkable fact that the Bible has been the world's best-selling book for decades. The collection presents evidence for the reliability and divine origin of Scripture, written by approximately 40 men over 1,600 years. Chapters: 130 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ TABLE OF CONTENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 0. Christian Apologetics 1. The Bible 2. Biblical Interpretation 3. Adoptionism 4. Albigenses 5. Apollinarianism 6. Arianism 7. Docetism 8. Donatism 9. Gnosticism 10. Kenosis 11. Modalism 12. Monarchianism 13. Monophysitism 14. Nestorianism 15. Pelagianism 16. Socinianism. 17. Tritheism 18. A Christian World View. What is it? 19. Christianity and Education 20. Christianity and Homosexuality 21. California Homosexual Agenda 22. Christianity and The Family 23. Christianity and Science 24. The Failure of the Christian Church 25. Why Should We Witness to People? 26. Jesus' resurrected body, the atonement, and Islam 27. Atheism 28. Islam 29. Jehovah's Witnesses 30. Mormonism 31. Oneness 32. Relativism 33. Roman Catholicism 34. Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability 35. Wasn't the New Testament written hundreds of years after Christ? 36. Hasn't the Bible been rewritten so many times it can't be trusted? 37. Since the NT writers were biased, can we trust what they wrote? 38. What is the gospel of Q and does it prove the Gospels are false? 39. Why isn't there other evidence of the massacre of the babies? 40. Regarding the quotes from the historian Josephus about Jesus 41. 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 demonstrates a creed too early for legend to corrupt 42. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 43. Does the Bible provide extraordinary evidence for Jesus' resurrection? 44. It is improbable that Jesus rose from the dead. 45. The Christians were mistaken about Jesus' resurrection 46. The New Testament writers conspired together to gain power. 47. Jesus was a magician who made people hallucinate about His miracles 48. Jesus only appeared to have died on the cross - Swoon Theory. 49. The disciples stole Jesus' body and faked His resurrection. 50. There are no non-biblical accounts to the resurrection 51. Miracles cannot happen 52. Was Jesus just a myth? 53. Did Jesus really die on the cross? 54. Did Jesus rise from the dead? 55. Didn't Jesus simply rise in a non-physical, spirit form? 56. If Jesus is God in flesh, why did He not inherit original sin? 57. Can't all of Jesus' miracles be explained naturally? 58. Are the New Testament themes found in the Old Testament? 59. Apollonius of Tyana also did miracles and rose. What about him? 60. Doesn't Mithra prove that Christians borrowed from this myth? 61. Why believe in Christianity over all other religions? 62. Papyri, p1 through p76; 200 AD to 700 AD copies 63. Evidence of biblical inspiration 64. When were the gospels written and by whom? 65. Why isn't there any record of millions of Jews wandering in the desert? 66. Do the lost books of the Bible prove that the Bible has been altered? 67. Is there non-biblical evidence of a day of darkness at the crucifixion? 68. Can we trust the New Testament as a historical document? 69. The writings of Josephus mention many biblical people and places 70. Archaeological Evidence verifying biblical cities 71. Non-biblical accounts of New Testament events and/or people 72. Illustration of Bible text manuscript tree and variant readings 73. Letter Uncials; 4th to 10th century copies 74. If God is all powerful and loving, why is there suffering in the world? 75. A loving God would never send anyone to hell 76. It is intolerant to say that Christianity is the only true religion. 77. Why did animals have to die for the sins of Adam and Eve and others? 78. Why would God have to die to save people from Himself? 79. If God is not the author of confusion, what about the Tower of Babel? 80. If babies go to heaven when they die, why is abortion wrong? 81. Cults! An outline analysis of them. 82. What makes a church or group non-Christian? 83. Jesus' humbled state and what it means 84. List of Cults 85. A Test: Do you have the True Jesus? 86. Introduction to Christadelphianism 87. What do the Christadelphians Teach? 88. Christadelphian History 89. Is Christadelphianism Christian? 90. What does Christian Science teach? 91. Christian Science History 92. Is the Christian Science religion Christian? 93. Terms and definitions of Christian Science 94. What is the International Church of Christ? 95. What does the International Church of Christ teach? 96. Is the International Church of Christ a cult? 97. What is Islam? 98. What are the doctrines of Islam? 99. The Five Pillars of Islam 100. True faith in Islam 101. Islamic terms 102. Methods Muslims use to attack Christianity. 103. Does Islam teach salvation by works? 104. Questions for Muslims 105. What do the Jehovah's Witnesses teach? 106. Jehovah's Witnesses in a nutshell 107. Jehovah's Witnesses' History 108. Is the Jehovah's Witness religion Christian? 109. Jehovah's Witnesses are really "Watchtowerites." 110. A Biblical Response to Jehovah's Witnesses 111. Studying with the Mormons? Thinking of joining the Mormon church? 112. What does Mormonism Teach? 113. Mormonism in a Nutshell 114. Mormonism's History 115. Is Mormonism Christian? 116. What is the New Age Movement? 117. More on the New Age Movement 118. Biblical Responses to the New Age Movement 119. Witnessing to New Agers 120. Interesting Quotes from New Age Sources 121. What is Oneness Pentecostal theology? 122. What does Oneness Pentecostal theology teach? 123. Oneness and the word "person" 124. What is open theism? 125. What are the basic tenets of open theism 126. Universalism 127. Christian Universalism 128. Can a Christian be a universalist? 129. Universalism and the cults ======================================================================== CHAPTER 0: CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS ======================================================================== ======================================================================== CHAPTER 1: THE BIBLE ======================================================================== It has been reported for about 50 years that the Bible has been the largest seller of all books published in the history of the world. The Bible was written by about 40 men in about 1600 years dating from 1500 B.C. to about 100 A.D. These men wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21). They wrote not in words of human wisdom but in words taught by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:13). English Bible The first translation of the English Bible was initiated by John Wycliffe and completed by John Purvey in A.D. 1388. The first American edition of the Bible was perhaps published some time before A.D. 1752. The Bible has been translated in part or in whole as of 1964 in over 1,200 different languages or dialects. The Bible was divided into chapters by Stephen Langton about A.D. 1228. The Old Testament was divided into verses by R. Nathan in A.D. 1448 and the New Testament by Robert Stephanus in A.D. 1551. There are 66 books in the Bible, 39 in the OT and 27 in the new. (Note: 3 x 9 = 27). The OT has 929 chapters and 23,214 verses. The NT has 260 chapters and 7,959 verses. In the OT, the longest book is Psalms. The shortest book is Obadiah. In the NT, the longest book is Acts. The shortest is 3 John. The word "God" occurs 4,379 times. The word "Lord" occurs 7,738 times. Isaiah is referenced 419 times in 23 NT books; Psalms 414 times in 23 books; Genesis 260 times in 21 books. Unusual things in the Bible Methuselah who lived to be 969 years old (Gen. 5:27). Sons of God married the daughters of men (Gen. 6:2). Baby had a scarlet thread tied around its hand before it was born (Gen. 38:28-29). Battle won because a man stretched out his hand (Exodus 17:11). Man was spoken to by a donkey (Num. 22:28-30). One who had a bed 13½ feet long and 6 feet wide (Deut. 3:11). The women who had to shave their heads before they could marry (Deut. 21:11-13). Sun stood still for a whole day (Josh. 10:13). An army with 700 left handed men (Judges 20:16). Man whose hair weighed about 6 pounds when it was cut annually (2 Sam. 14:26). Man who had 12 fingers and 12 toes (2 Sam. 21:20). Father who had eighty-eight children (2 Chron. 11:21). The sun traveled backward (Isaiah 38:8). A harlot was an ancestor of Christ (Matt. 1:5). ======================================================================== CHAPTER 2: BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION ======================================================================== The Bible is God’s Word. But some of the interpretations derived from it are not. There are many cults and Christian groups that use the Bible claiming their interpretations are correct. Too often, however, the interpretations not only differ dramatically but are clearly contradictory. This does not mean that the Bible is a confusing document. Rather, the problem lies in those who interpret and the methods they use. Because we are sinners, we are incapable of interpreting God’s word perfectly all of the time. The body, mind, will, and emotions are affected by sin and make 100% interpretive accuracy impossible. This does not mean that accurate understanding of God’s Word is impossible. But it does mean that we need to approach His word with care, humility, and reason. Additionally, we need, as best as can be had, the guidance of the Holy Spirit in interpreting God’s Word. After all, the Bible is inspired by God and is addressed to His people. The Holy Spirit helps us to understand what God’s word means and how to apply it. On the human level, to lessen the errors that come in our interpretations, we need to look at some basic biblical interpretive methods. I’ll list some of the principles in the form of questions and then apply them one at a time to a passage of scripture. I offer the following principles as guidelines for examining a passage. They are not exhaustive nor are they set in concrete. Who wrote/spoke the passage and to whom was it addressed? What does the passage say? Are there any words or phrases in the passage that need to be examined? What is the immediate context? What is the broader context in the chapter and book? What are the related verses to the passage’s subject and how do they affect the understanding of this passage? What is the historical and cultural background? What do I conclude about the passage? Do my conclusions agree or disagree with related areas of scripture and others who have studied the passage? What have I learned and what must I apply to my life? In order to teach you how these questions can affect your interpretation of a passage, I have chosen one which, when examined closely, may lead you into a very different interpretation than what is commonly held. I leave it to you to determine if my interpretation is accurate. The passage that I am going to use is Matt. 24:40, "Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left"(NIV). 1. Who wrote/spoke the passage and who was it addressed to? Jesus spoke the words and they were recorded by Matthew. Jesus spoke them to His disciples in response to a question, which we will get to later. 2. What does the passage say? The passage simply says that one out of two men in a field will be taken. It doesn’t say where, why, when, or how. It just says one will be taken. It doesn’t define the field as belonging to someone or in a particular place. 3. Are there any words in the passage that need to be examined? No particular word in this verse really stands out as needing to be examined, but to follow this exercise, I will use the word "taken." By using a Strong Concordance and a dictionary of New Testament words (Vine’s, for example), I can check the Greek word and learn about it. The word in Greek is paralambano. It means "1) to take to, to take with one's self, to join to one's self, 2) to receive something transmitted." A point worth mentioning about word studies is that a word means what it means in context. However, by examining how a word is used in multiple contexts, the meaning of the word can take on a new dimension. For example, the word for "love" in Greek is "agapao." It is generally believed to mean "divine love." This seems obvious since it is used in John 3:16 in that way. However, the same word is used in Luke 11:43. Jesus says, "Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces." (NIV). The word used there is "agapao." It would seem then that the meaning of the word might mean something more along the lines of "total commitment to." However, we must be careful not to insert a meaning of a word from one context into that of another. For example: 1) That new cadet is green. 2) That tree is green. The first green means "new and inexperienced." The second one means the color green. Would we want to impose the contextual meaning of one into the other? It wouldn’t be a good idea. 4. What is the immediate context? This is where this particular verse will come alive. The immediate context is as follows, Matt. 24:37-42, "As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left. 42Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come" (NIV). Immediately we can see that the person taken in verse 40 is paralleled by people being taken in verse 39. That is, the "being taken" are of the same kind. A further question needs to be asked. Who was taken in verse 39? Was it Noah and his family or was it the people who were eating and drinking? The answer to that question might help us understand the original passage better. Therefore, the next interpretive step will help us greatly. 5. What is the broader context in the chapter and book? A passage should always be looked at in context, not only in its immediate context of the verses directly before and after it, but also in the context of the chapter it is in and the book in which it is written. Jesus’ discourse from which our verse was taken began with a question. Jesus had just left the temple and in verse 2 told His disciples that "...not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down." Then in verse 3 the disciples asked Jesus, "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" (NIV). Jesus then goes on to prophesy about things to come at the end of the age. He speaks of false Christs, of tribulation, of the sun being darkened, of His return, and of two men in a field where one will be taken and the other left. The context then is eschatological. That means that it deals with the last things, or the time shortly before Jesus’ return. Many people think that this verse in Matt. 24:40 refers to the rapture spoken of in 1 Thess. 4:16-17. It may. But it is interesting to note that the context of the verse seems to suggest that the wicked are taken, not the good. Now, about this time you might be thinking that this method of interpreting passages isn’t that good. After all, the "one taken, one left" verse is obviously about the rapture. Right? Well, maybe. You see, we all come to the Bible with preconceived ideas. Sometimes they are right, sometimes wrong. We should always be ready to have our understanding of the Bible challenged by what it says. If we are not willing, then we are prideful. And God is distant from the proud (Psalm 138:6). 6. What are the related verses to the passage’s subject and how do they affect the understanding of this passage? It just so happens that there are related verses, in fact, a parallel passage found in Luke 17:26-27. "Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all" (NIV). Immediately we discover that related verses do indeed affect how we understand our initial verse. It is clear from this passage in Luke that the ones taken by the flood are those who were eating and drinking and being given in marriage. In other words, it wasn’t the godly people who were taken, it was the wicked. As you can see, this has a profound impact on how we understand our passage in Matt. 24:40. Does the context suggest that the one in the field who is taken is the one who is wicked? Also, how does this context affect my preconceived ideas about this verse? Let’s read the verse again in context. Matt. 24:37-42, As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left. 42"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come" (NIV). What do you think now? Is the one taken the good or the bad? Also, does this verse refer to the rapture or not? Just asking. Of related interest is a passage in Matt. 13:24-30 where Jesus gives the parable of the sower who sows good seed in his field and someone sows tares. The servants asked if they should go immediately and gather up the wheat. But, in verse 30, Jesus says, "Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn." The point worth noting here is that the first ones gathered are the weeds, not the wheat. This is most interesting since Jesus explains the parable in Matt. 13:36-43 and states that they will be cast into the furnace. Additionally, when we turn to Luke 17:1, which is the parallel passage of Matt. 24, we discover that the disciples ask Jesus a question in response to Jesus’ statement that "two will be in the field and one will be taken." In verse 37 they ask, "Where, Lord?" they asked. He [Jesus] replied, "Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather." They are taken to a place of death. 7. What is the historical and cultural background? This is a more difficult question to answer. It requires a bit more research. A commentary is worth examining here since they usually provide the historic and cultural backgrounds that help to unravel the text. In this context, Israel was under Roman rule. They had been denied the right of capital punishment, of self-rule, and the ability to wage war. Rome had dominated the small nation. Judaism was tolerated among the Roman leadership. After all, Israel was a small far-away country with a people that were fanatical about their religion. So, Rome allowed Israel to be ruled by Jewish political puppets. The Temple was the place of worship for the Israelite community. It was there that the blood sacrifices were made by the high priest for the atonement of the nation. It had taken 46 years to build (John 2:20). Jesus said the temple would be destroyed which prompted the question which lead to His discourse which contains the passage we are examining. Culturally, the Jewish people were dedicated to the Old Testament. Within those pages were prophecies of the Messiah, of the end of the age, and of the delivery from bondage. The Jewish people knew that and were in a state of expectation. Along comes Jesus with miracles and words of great power. Naturally, they would look to him as a possible deliverer. 8. What do I conclude about the passage? Since the context of the passage suggests that it is the wicked that are taken, I am going to conclude that the one taken in the field is not the good, but the bad. I also am tempted to conclude that the wicked are taken to a place of judgment. 9. Do my conclusions agree or disagree with related areas of scripture and others who have studied the passage? I’ve already presented other verses which seem to agree with my conclusion. However, it is not in agreement with all of the commentaries I’ve read on this verse. At this point I would need to present my conclusion to others to see what they think. Just because I studied the Word and arrived at a conclusion does not mean that it is correct. But it doesn’t mean it is wrong either. By consulting with others, by examining the word again, and by seeking God and his illumination, I can only hope to arrive at the best possible conclusion about a passage. 10. What have I learned and what must I apply to my life? Interpretation of scripture is for a purpose: To understand God’s word more accurately. With a better understanding of His word, we can then more accurately apply it to the area that it addresses. In this case, the passage deals with an area of the future, and area of judgment. It is information that Jesus has revealed and that He wants us to know about. The application then would be that God will execute judgment upon the unrighteous at the end of the age. Concluding remarks: This article is only an illustration. It is basic and does not cover all the points of biblical interpretation. But it does give a direction and an example for you to apply. As I said before, pray. Read His word. Look into the scriptures as best you can with as much understanding and skill as is possible. Be humble in your approach and test everything by the Bible. One last thing: did you agree with my conclusion? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 3: ADOPTIONISM ======================================================================== Adoptionism is an error concerning Christ that first appeared in the second century. Those who held it denied the preexistence of Christ and, therefore, His deity. Adoptionists taught that Jesus was tested by God and after passing this test and upon His baptism, He was granted supernatural powers by God and adopted as the Son. As a reward for His great accomplishments and perfect character Jesus was raised from the dead and adopted into the Godhead. This error arose out of an attempt by people to understand the two natures of Jesus. The scriptures tell us that Jesus is both God and man: "for Him dwells all the fullness of deity in bodily form," (Col. 2:9). This is known as the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union where in the one person of Christ, there are two natures: God and man. Theodotus of Byzantium was the most prominent adherent to this error. Adoptionism was condemned as a heresy by Pope Victor (A.D. 190-198). 8th Century revision Adoptionism was later revived in the 8th Century in Spain by Elipandus, archbishop of Toledo, and Felix, bishop of Urgel. This was a variation of the first error but it held that Christ was the Son of God in respect to his divine nature, but that as a man, he was only adopted as the first born of God. In 798 Pope Leo III held a council at Rome that condemned adoptionism as a heresy. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 4: ALBIGENSES ======================================================================== A heresy during the middle ages that developed in the town Albi in Southern France. This error taught that there were two gods: the good god of light usually referred to as Jesus in the New Testament and the god of darkness and evil usually associated with Satan and the "God of the Old Testament." Anything material was considered evil including the body which was created by Satan. The soul, created by the good god, was imprisoned in the evil flesh and salvation was possible only through holy living and doing good works. At death, if the person has been spiritual enough, salvation comes to the believer. But, if the person has not been good enough, he is reincarnated as an animal or another human. The Albigenses denied the resurrection of the body since it was considered evil. The Albigenses taught that Jesus was God but that He only appeared as a man while on earth. It also taught that the Catholic church of the time was corrupted by its power and wealth. Their asceticism and humility compared to the great affluence of the clergy helped to bring many converts to this evangelistic movement. There were two types of Albigenses: believers and Perfects. Believers were Albigenses who had not taken the initiation rite of being a Perfect. Perfects denounced all material possession. They abstained from meat, milk, cheese, eggs, and sexual relations. To become a Perfect a believer had to go through consolamentum, an initiation rite involving the laying on of hands that was supposed to bring the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Infrequently, suicide was practiced as a way to rid oneself of the evil human body. In 1208, Peter de Castelnau, an official representative of the Pope, was murdered by an Albigenses. Since they had been growing in number, becoming a threat, and would not convert to Christianity, Pope Innocent III ordered them to be wiped out. The persecution was fierce and the movement was stopped. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 5: APOLLINARIANISM ======================================================================== Apollinarianism was the heresy taught by Apollinaris the Younger, bishop of Laodicea in Syria about 361. He taught that the Logos of God, which became the divine nature of Christ, took the place of the rational human soul of Jesus and that the body of Christ was a glorified form of human nature. In other words, though Jesus was a man, He did not have a human mind but that the mind of Christ was solely divine. Apollinaris taught that the two natures of Christ could not coexist within one person. His solution was to lessen the human nature of Christ. Apollinarianism was condemned by the Second General Council at Constantinople in 381. This heresy denies the true and complete humanity in the person of Jesus which in turn, can jeopardize the value of the atonement since Jesus is declared to be both God and man to atone. He needed to be God to offer a pure and holy sacrifice of sufficient value and He needed to be a man in order to die for men. Jesus is completely both God and man. This is known as the Hypostatic Union. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us..." (John 1:1,14). "for Him dwells all the fullness of deity in bodily form," (Col. 2:9). ======================================================================== CHAPTER 6: ARIANISM ======================================================================== Arianism developed around 320, in Alexandria Egypt concerning the person of Christ and is named after Arius of Alexandar. For his doctrinal teaching he was exiled to Illyria in 325 after the first ecumenical council at Nicaea condemned his teaching as heresy. It was the greatest of heresies within the early church that developed a significant following. Some say, it almost took over the church. Arius taught that only God the Father was eternal and too pure and infinite to appear on the earth. Therefore, God produced Christ the Son out of nothing as the first and greatest creation. The Son is then the one who created the universe. Because the Son relationship of the Son to the Father is not one of nature, it is, therefore, adoptive. God adopted Christ as the Son. Though Christ was a creation, because of his great position and authority, he was to be worshipped and even looked upon as God. Some Arians even held that the Holy Spirit was the first and greatest creation of the Son. At Jesus' incarnation, the Arians asserted that the divine quality of the Son, the Logos, took the place of the human and spiritual aspect of Jesus, thereby denying the full and complete incarnation of God the Son, second person of the Trinity. In asserting that Christ the Son, as a created thing, was to be worshipped, the Arians were advocating idolatry. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 7: DOCETISM ======================================================================== Docetism was an error with several variations concerning the nature of Christ. Generally, it taught that Jesus only appeared to have a body, that he was not really incarnate, (Greek, "dokeo" = "to seem"). This error developed out of the dualistic philosophy which viewed matter as inherently evil, that God could not be associated with matter, and that God, being perfect and infinite, could not suffer. Therefore, God as the word, could not have become flesh per John 1:1,14, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.. " This denial of a true incarnation meant that Jesus did not truly suffer on the cross and that He did not rise from the dead. The basic principle of Docetism was refuted by the Apostle John in 1 John 4:2-3. "By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world." Also, 2 John 7, "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist." Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117) and Irenaeus (115-190), and Hippolatus (170-235) wrote against the error in the early part of the second century. Docetism was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 8: DONATISM ======================================================================== Donatism was the error taught by Donatus, bishop of Casae Nigrae that the effectiveness of the sacraments depends on the moral character of the minister. In other words, if a minister who was involved in a serious enough sin were to baptize a person, that baptism would be considered invalid. Donatism developed as a result of the persecution of Christians ordered by Diocletian in 303 in which all churches and sacred scriptures of the Christians were to be destroyed. In 304 another edict was issued ordering the burning of incense to the idol gods of the Roman empire. Of course, Christians refused, but it did not curtail the increased persecution. Many Christians gave up the sacred texts to the persecutors and even betrayed other Christians to the Romans. These people became known as "traditors," Christians who betrayed other Christians. (Note: traditor, not traitor) At the consecration of bishop Caecilian of Carthage in 311, one of the three bishops, Felix, bishop of Aptunga, who consecrated Caecilian, had given copies of the Bible to the Roman persecutors. A group of about 70 bishops formed a synod and declared the consecration of the bishop to be invalid. Great debate arose concerning the validity of the sacraments (baptism, the Lord's Supper, etc.) by one who had sinned so greatly against other Christians. Ater the death of Caecilian, Aelius Donatus the Great became bishop of Carthage and it is from his name that the movement is called. The Donatists were gaining "converts" to their cause and a division was arising in the Catholic church. They began to practice rebaptism which was particularly troublesome to the church at the time and was condemned at the Synod of Arles in 314 since it basically said the authority in the Catholic church was lost. The Donatist issue was raised at several ecumenical councils and finally submitted to Emporer Constantine in 316. In each case the consecration of bishop Caecilian was upheld. However, persecution fuels emotions and by 350 the Donatists had gained many converts and outnumbered the Orthodox in Africa. But it was the apologetic by Augustine that turned the tide against the Donatist movement which eventually died out in the next century. The problem with Donatism is that no person is morally pure. The effectiveness of the baptism or administration of the Lord's supper does not cease to be effective if the moral character of the minister is in question or even demonstrated to be faulty. Rather, the sacraments are powerful because of what they are, visible representations of spiritual realities. God is the one who works in and through them and He is not restricted by the moral state of the administrant. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 9: GNOSTICISM ======================================================================== Gnosticism traces its roots back just after the beginning of the Christian Church. Some researchers state that evidence of its existence even predates Christianity. Whichever the case, the error of gnosticism had affected the culture and church of the time and possibly even a earned a mention in 1 John 4. The word "gnosticism" comes from the Greek word "gnosis" which means "knowledge." There were many groups that were Gnostic and it isn't possible to easily describe the nuances of each variant of Gnostic doctrines. However, generally speaking, Gnosticism taught that salvation is achieved through special knowledge (gnosis). This knowledge usually dealt with the individual's relationship to the transcendent Being. A more detailed Gnostic theology is as follows. The unknowable God was far too pure and perfect to have anything to do with the material universe which was considered evil. Therefore, God generated lesser divinities, or emenations. One of these emanations, Wisdom desired to know the unknowable God. Out of this erring desire the demiurge an evil god was formed and it was this evil god that created the universe. He along with archons kept the mortals in bondage in material matter and tried to prevent the pure spirit souls from ascending back to god after the death of the physical bodies. Since, according to the Gnostics, matter is evil, deliverance from material form was attainable only through special knowledge revealed by special Gnostic teachers. Christ was the divine redeemer who descended from the spiritual realm to reveal the knowledge necessary for this redemption. In conclusion, Gnosticism is dualistic. That is, it teaches there is a good and evil, spirit and matter, light and dark, etc. dualism in the universe. What we know about Gnosticism is gained from the writings of Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen, and some later manuscripts discovered in the eighteenth century such as the "Codex Askew, Codex Bruce, the Berlin Gnostic Codes and, most recently, the Nag Hammadi collection."1 Nag Hammadi is a town in Upper Egypt near ancient Chenoboskion and 13 codices discovered were discovered about 1945. The danger of gnosticism is easily apparent. It denies the incarnation of God as the Son. In so doing, it denies the true efficacy of the atonement since, if Jesus is not God, He could not atone for all of mankind and we would still be lost in our sins. There is debate whether or not this is a Christian heresy or simply an independent development. The evidence seems to point to the later. Nevertheless, the Gnostics laid claim to Jesus as a great teacher of theirs and as such requires some attention. It is possible that 1 John was written against some of the errors that Gnosticism promoted. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 10: KENOSIS ======================================================================== "Kenosis" is derived from the Greek word "kenoo" which means "to empty." It is used in Phil. 2:7. The text of Phil. 2:5-8 is worth recording here. "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross," (Phil. 2:5-8). The kenosis theory states that Jesus gave up some of His divine attributes while He was a man here on earth. These attributes were omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence. Christ did this voluntarily so that He could function as a man in order to fulfill the work of redemption. This view was first introduced in the late 1800s in Germany with Gottfried Thomasius (1802-75), a Lutheran theologian. Phil. 2:5-8 does not teach that Jesus gave up any of His divine attributes since it says nothing of those attributes. Instead, it is speaking of His humility that moved him, according to the will of the Father, to leave His majestic state in heaven and enter into the humble position of human nature. There is, however, a problem the orthodox must deal with that the Kenosis theory seems to more adequately address. Take Mark 13:32 for example. In it, Jesus said, "But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." If Jesus knew all things, as is implied in His divine nature, then why did He not know the day or hour of His own return. The answer is that Jesus cooperated with the limitations of humanity and voluntarily did not exercise His attribute of omniscience. He still was divine but was moving and living completely as a man. The Kenosis theory is a dangerous doctrine because if it were true then it would mean that Jesus was not fully divine. If Jesus was not fully divine, then His atoning work would not be sufficient to atone for the sins of the world. The correct doctrine is the Hypostatic Union, that Jesus is both fully God and fully man (Col. 2:9) and did not give up any divine attributes while as a man on earth. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 11: MODALISM ======================================================================== Modalism is probably the most common theological error concerning the nature of God. It is a denial of the Trinity which states that God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three consecutive modes, or forms. Thus, God is a single person who first manifested himself in the mode of the Father in Old Testament times. At the incarnation, the mode was the Son. After Jesus' ascension, the mode is the Holy Spirit. These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous. In other words, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit never all exist at the same time, only one after another. Modalism denies the distinctiveness of the three persons in the Trinity even though it retains the divinity of Christ. Present day groups that hold to this error are the United Pentecostal and United Apostolic Churches. They deny the Trinity, teach that the name of God is Jesus, and require baptism for salvation. These modalist churches often accuse Trinitarians of teaching three gods. This is not what the Trinity is. The correct teaching of the Trinity is one God in three eternal coexistent persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 12: MONARCHIANISM ======================================================================== Monarchianism (mono - "one"; arche - "rule") was an error concerning the nature of God that developed in the second century A.D. It arose as an attempt to maintain Monotheism and refute tritheism. Unfortunately, it also contradicts the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. Monarchianism teaches that there is one God as one person: the Father. The Trinity is that there is one God in three persons: Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is monotheistic, not polytheistic as some of its critics like to assert. Monarchians were divided into two main groups, the dynamic monarchians and the modal monarchians. Dynamic Monarchianism teaches that God is the Father and that Jesus is only a man, denied the personal subsistence of the Logos and taught that the Holy Spirit was a force or presence of God the Father. Present day groups in this category are the Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, and Unitarians. Additionally, some ancient dynamic monarchianists were also known as Adoptionists who taught that Jesus was tested by God and after passing this test and upon His baptism, He was granted supernatural powers by God and adopted as the Son. Ancient teachers of dynamic monarchianism were Theodotians, a Tanner in Byzantium around 190 A.D., and Paul of Samosata a bishop of Antioch in Syria around 260 AD. Modal monarchianism teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are just modes of the single person who is God. In other words, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not simultaneous and separate persons, but consecutive modes of one person. Praxeas, a priest from Asia Minor, taught this in Rome around 200 AD. Modern groups in this general category are the Oneness Pentecostal groups known as the United Pentecostal and United Apostolic Churches. However, the present day modalists maintain that God's name is Jesus. They also require baptism "in Jesus' name" not "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" for salvation. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 13: MONOPHYSITISM ======================================================================== Monophysitism is an error concerning the nature of Christ that asserts Jesus had only one nature, not two as is taught in the correct doctrine of the hypostatic union: Jesus is both God and man in one person. In monophysitism, the single nature was divine, not human. It is sometimes referred to as Eutychianism, after Eutyches 378-452, but there are slight differences. Monophysitism arose out of a reaction against Nestorianism which taught Jesus was two distinct persons instead of one. Its roots can even be traced back to Apollinarianism which taught that the divine nature of Christ overtook and replaced the human one. Monophysitism was confined mainly to the Eastern church and had little influence in the West. In 451, the Council of Chalcedon attempted to establish a common ground between the monophysitists and the orthodox, but it did not work and divisions arose in the Eastern church which eventually excommunicated the monophysitists in the 6th century. The denial of the human nature of Christ is a denial of the true incarnation of the Word as a man. Without a true incarnation there can be no atonement of sin for mankind since it was not then a true man who died for our sins. It was condemned as heresy at the Sixth Ecumenical Council in 680-681. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 14: NESTORIANISM ======================================================================== Nestorianism is the error that Jesus is two distinct persons. The heresy is named after Nestorius, who was born in Syria and died in 451 AD, who advocated this doctrine. Nestorius was a monk who became the Patriarch of Constantinople and he repudiated the Marian title "Mother of God." He held that Mary was the mother of Christ only in respect to His humanity. The council of Ephesus was convened in 431 to address the issue and pronounced that Jesus was one person in two distinct and inseparable natures: divine and human. Nestorius was deposed as Patriarch and sent to Antioch, then Arabia, and then Egypt. Nestorianism survived until around 1300. The problem with Nestorianism is that it threatens the atonement. If Jesus is two persons, then which one died on the cross? If it was the "human person" then the atonement is not of divine quality and thereby insufficient to cleanse us of our sins. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 15: PELAGIANISM ======================================================================== Pelagianism derives its name from Pelagius who lived in the 5th century A.D. and was a teacher in Rome, though he was British by birth. It is a heresy dealing with the nature of man. Pelagius, whose family name was Morgan, taught that people had the ability to fulfill the commands of God by exercising the freedom of human will apart from the grace of God. He denied original sin, the doctrine that we have inherited a sinful nature from Adam. He said that Adam only hurt himself when he fell and all of his descendents were not affected by Adam's sin. Pelagius taught that a person is born with the same purity and moral abilities as Adam was when he was first made by God. He taught that people can choose God by the exercise of their free will and rational thought. God's grace, then, is merely an aid to help individuals come to Him. Pelagianism fails to understand man's nature and weakness. We are by nature sinners (Eph. 2:3; Psalm 51:5). We all have sinned because sin entered the world through Adam: "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned" (Rom. 5:12, NIV). Therefore, we are unable to do God's will (Rom. 6:16; 7:14). We were affected by the fall of Adam, contrary to what Pelagius taught. Pelagius was condemned by the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus and excommunicated in 417 A.D. by Pope Innocent I. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 16: SOCINIANISM. ======================================================================== A heresy concerning the nature of God. It is derived from two brothers of the surname Sozinni who lived in the 1500's in Poland. Socinianism denies the doctrine of the Trinity claiming it denies the simplicity of God's unity. Instead, God is a single person with the Holy Spirit as the power of God. Since it emphasizes the unity of God, there could be no divine and human union in a single person as Christ. Therefore, Socinianism denies the incarnation and deity of Christ as well as Christ's pre-existence. It teaches that Jesus was only a man. However, as is separate from the unitarians, it taught that Jesus was a deified man and was to be adored as such. Nevertheless, since Jesus is not divine by nature, His sacrifice was not efficacious; that is, it did not result in the redemption of people who would trust in it. Instead it was an example of self sacrifice. The followers of Socinianism also rejected infant baptism, hell, and taught the annihilation of the wicked. The Bible was authoritative but was only properly understood through rationalism. Of course, this system of belief is wrong since it denies the doctrine of the Trinity and deity of Christ. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 17: TRITHEISM ======================================================================== Tritheism is the teaching that the Godhead is really three separate beings forming three separate gods. This erring view is often misplaced by the cults for the doctrine of the Trinity which states that there is but one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the trinity is, by definition, monothestic. That is, it is a doctrine that affirms that there is only one God in all the universe. Tritheism has taken different forms throughout the centuries. In the early church the Christians were accused of being tritheists by those who either refused to understand or could not understand the doctrine of the Trinity. In the late 11th century a Catholic monk of Compiègne in France, Roscelin considered the three Divine Persons as three independent beings and that it could be said they were three gods. He maintained that God the Father and God the Holy Ghost would have become incarnate with God the Son unless there were three gods. Present day Mormonism is tritheistic -- but with a twist. Mormonism teaches that there are many God's in the universe but they serve and worship only one of them. The godhead for earth is to them really three separate gods: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The Father used to be a man on another world who brought one of his wives with him to this world - they both have bodies of flesh and bones. The son is a second god who was literally begotten between god the father and his goddess wife. The holy ghost is a third god. Therefore, in reality, Mormonism is polytheistic with a tritheistic emphasis. Of course, tritheism clearly contradicts the teaching of the Bible regarding monotheism. “You are My witnesses,” declares the Lord, “And My servant whom I have chosen, In order that you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me," (Isaiah 43:10). “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me," (Isaiah 44:6). ‘Do not tremble and do not be afraid; Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it? And you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none,’” (Isaiah 44:8). ======================================================================== CHAPTER 18: A CHRISTIAN WORLD VIEW. WHAT IS IT? ======================================================================== A world view is a set of presuppositions and beliefs that someone uses to interpret and form opinions about his humanity, purpose in life, duties in the world, responsibilities to family, interpretation of truth, social issues, etc. A Christian should view all these things, and more, guided by the light that is shed upon them by the Bible. The Bible has much to say about the nature of man, the world, purpose, truth, morality, etc., and so does the world. More often than not, the secular world view is in conflict with the biblical one. For example: Where the world asserts that man evolved, the Bible says he was created and ultimately responsible to God. Where the world says that morals are relative, the Bible says they are absolute. Where the world says that there is no need of salvation and redemption, the Bible clearly states that all people are in need of deliverance from their sin. The contrast is obvious and profound. Both cannot be true. The secular world exalts man to the apex of evolutionary development, the sovereign over all he dominates, though only another animal. God is relegated to the belief systems of the uneducated and superstitious. Such opposing views will clash. The Condition of Society The fruit of the secular world view can be seen in around us. As we observe society, it is evident that not all is well. Television has degenerated into a bordello of violence, soft-pornography, anti-family sit-coms, commercials that appeal to immediate gratification, and senseless children's cartoons that are full of violence, occultism, and disobedience to parents. It often portrays pastors as psychotics, priests as pedophiles, and religious people as insecure, ignorant, and bigoted. The News is extremely biased and when speaking in areas where religious and secular morals collide, it uniformly presents information with loaded words. Instead of "pro-life" we hear "anti-abortion rights." Instead of "conservative" it is "right wing fundamentalist." Other words are used such as "Bible thumpers," "censorship," "intolerance," "bigoted," etc. "According to the Center for Media and Public Affairs, the average TV watcher sees 14,000 references to sex and the average child "watches 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence by the end of elementary school." Illegitimacy is on the rise. In 1970 babies born out of wedlock were 10% of all births. In 1991, it was 30%. Rape is increasing as is violent crime, venereal disease, drug usage, and prison populations. In many American schools the "Impressions" series is promoting the New Age and the occult. Some programs have students being taught that they alone are the ones who should decide if drug use is good or bad. Many school textbooks teach anti-family values, promote homosexuality, teach moral relativism, encourage sexual conduct, and, of course, instill evolution as a fact. In addition, they condemn the notion of a Christian God even being mentioned. Consider the following: "When 10-year old Raymond Raines bowed his head and silently said grace over lunch in a St. Louis public school cafeteria, he was placed in detention for a week and told that he must eat in a room by himself if he continued to pray. "When 30 Texas high school students gathered to pray at the flagpole before school one morning, the principal politely told them not only to leave, but to pray out of sight. "In Illinois, a high school principal sent police to break up a similar prayer group. Two students were arrested." Obviously, America (and the world) is in desperate need of the life changing gospel of Jesus. The Progress of the Gospel But lest you get discouraged, the gospel is progressing. There are more Christians in the world now than ever before. In the 1700's less than 20% of the American population went to church where now it is above 50%. More people have heard the gospel than ever before, and Bibles are produced en masse and being sent to nations all over the world with unprecedented reception. The Gospel is preached on Television and Radio. Millions are coming to Christ in third world countries and a new Christian awakening is working its way through Russia and Africa with China becoming the new Christian frontier. Nevertheless, the Christian community has a great deal of work left to accomplish. To fully carry out the mandate of winning the world for Christ, Christians must adopt a biblical world view in all aspects of life and present to the world, biblical perspectives on every niche of our existence. This includes everything: education, medicine, the arts, politics, science, contemporary issues, ethics, and more. To God be the glory ======================================================================== CHAPTER 19: CHRISTIANITY AND EDUCATION ======================================================================== Harvard, Princeton, and other renowned colleges in America were originally founded by Christians who wanted to educate people in biblical principles. Princeton was founded as a seminary, for example. But history teaches us that educational institutions tend to drift away from what they were originally designed. Many colleges in America have abandoned classical biblical education for pragmatism, utilitarianism, and a curriculum designed to indoctrinate its people with secular humanism. We have a vast educational void in America that is slowly growing. Home Schooling alternatives and private schools are increasing. The need is obvious. More and more, Christians do not want their children indoctrinated by unbelievers who actively teach beliefs contrary to biblical theology. The Schools are the Battle Ground What cannot be conditioned into the minds of the mature, must be propagandized to the young. Therefore, today's schools are battlegrounds for culture and political correctness. Reading, writing, and arithmetic have given way to humanism, anti-Christian indoctrination, and "values clarification." The Conservative Students for America conducted a survey of 13 colleges in the Southeast and found that of those surveyed, "56 percent said that right and wrong is a matter of personal opinion." Is this the kind of graduates the schools are producing? Would you want a lawyer to defend you if he thought morality was relative? What about politicians and those in power over us? Those who make our laws don't seem to give a second thought at exempting themselves from many of the laws and taxes they pass upon us. It is a scary thought. And things are getting worse. Sure, the three "R's" are still taught in schools, but poorly. The educated in America are increasingly less knowledgeable and trustworthy. Since the 1960's, Americans have become less capable and are falling behind the rest of the world in educational ratings. What is being promoted as the solution? Money! In 1996 the total Federal funding of public education was over 17 billion dollars. State funding totaled over 113 billion dollars. It hasn't helped. In fact, the educational system seems to be getting worse. In a national survey conducted by the International Communications Research group, in Pennsylvania, 58% of the parents polled strongly supported school choice as an option for parents. When asked if they thought that children were receiving the education they needed, 16% said yes and 79% said no. Clearly, people want a change. What is the Christian's Responsibility Regarding Education? As Christians our responsibilities are to make sure that we and our children are educated in the most godly manner possible. We should not let unbelievers teach our children ungodly philosophies. God has entrusted us with children and He will want an accounting of what we did with them. As people of God who are under His Lordship, we have been given the command to multiply and to subdue the earth (Gen. 1:28). To do this, we need to learn about God's creation and seek to discover what God has hidden in His creation. By doing this, we learn more about God's majesty and grow in our ability to praise Him and glorify Him. Electricity, radio waves, light, sound, physics, biology, medicine, etc., are all treasures God created and hid in creation. He gave us the ability to discover them, to become educated about them. All areas of knowledge, science, math, art, philosophy, medicine, etc, are merely categories of discovery made by people. Therefore, all education for the Christian is to be God-centered because it is disclosure of God's creative glory. The queen of the educational sciences should be biblical theology. I recommend that Christian parents seriously look into home schooling as a preferable option over letting unbelievers teach in a manner contrary to biblical revelation. Nevertheless, some will say that it is difficult. I know. My wife home schools our children and we are financially strapped because of it. It is work and it is sacrifice. But, our children are given to us by God to care for, raise for Him, and nourish in the ways of the Lord. We parents will answer to the Lord for how we raised our children. Connect with a local Christian home schooling organization. The support there is great as well as encouraging. There are many viable options to public school. Do some research. Another excellent alternative to public school is the Christian Day school. These are Christian schools that are dedicated to teaching biblical perspectives. The faculties are Christian, God-fearing people who know the great value of raising children for God. There are many great ones all over this nation. What does the Bible Say? Please consider the following verses (NASB): 2 Tim. 3:16-17, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." Rom. 1:20, "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made. . ." Psalm 78:1, "Listen, O my people, to my instruction; Incline your ears to the words of my mouth." Eph. 6:4, "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger; but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." 2 Chr. 17:9, "And they taught in Judah, having the book of the law of the Lord with them; and they went throughout all the cities of Judah and taught among the people." John 1:17, "For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ." Christians should pray for the educational system in America and get involved in improving it. They should be very active in governing the education that their children are receiving, especially in the home. Education of the young, and ourselves, is a responsibility given to us by God. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 20: CHRISTIANITY AND HOMOSEXUALITY ======================================================================== The homosexuals and lesbians have gained considerable political and social momentum in America. They have "come out" as the term goes, left their closets, and are knocking on the doors of your homes. Through the TV, Radio, Newspapers, and Magazines, they are preaching their doctrine of tolerance, equality, justice, and love. They do not want to be perceived as abnormal or dangerous. They want acceptance and they want you to welcome them with open, loving arms, approving of what they do. In the California State senate, several bills have been recently introduced by the pro homosexual politicians to ensure that the practice of homosexuality is a right protected by California law. Included in these bills are statements affecting employers, renters, and schools. Even churches would be required to hire a quota of homosexuals with "sensitivity" training courses to be "strongly urged" in various work places. There is even legislation that would make the state pick up the tab for the defense of homosexuality in lawsuits, while requiring the non homosexual side to pay out of his/her pocket. The Christian church has not stood idle. When it has spoken out against this political immorality, the cry of "separation of church and state" is shouted at the "religious bigots." But when the homosexual community uses political power to control the church, no such cry of bigotry is heard. After all, it isn't politically correct to side with Christians. What does the Bible say? The Bible, as God's word, reveals God's moral character and it shapes the moral character of the Christian. There have been those who have used the Bible to support homosexuality, taken verses out of context and reading into them scenarios that are not there. Quite simply, the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. Let's look at what it says. Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination" Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them" 1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God." Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper." With such clear statements against homosexuality, it is difficult to see how different groups can say the Bible supports homosexuality. It doesn't. But when a group wants acceptance and the Bible is the Christians' handbook on morality, the homosexual agenda must try to make the Bible agree with its agenda. But it doesn't work. Unlike other sins, this sexual sin has a severe judgment administered by God Himself. This judgment is simple: They are given over to their passions. That means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins. As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing. Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance. Without repentance, there will be no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation. Should homosexuals be allowed to marry one another? In this politically correct climate that relinquishes morality to the relativistic whims of society, stating that homosexuals should not marry is becoming unpopular. Should a woman be allowed to marry another woman? Should a man be allowed to marry another man? Should they be given legal protection and special rights to practice their homosexuality? No. No. No. The Bible, of course, condemns homosexuality. It takes no leap of logic to discern that homosexual marriage is also condemned. But our society does not rely on the Bible for its moral truth. Instead, it relies more on a humanistic and relativistic moral base upon which it builds its ethics. Homosexuality is not natural. The male and female bodies are obviously designed to couple. The natural design is apparent. It is not natural to couple male with male and female with female. In fact, if such couplings occurred in the animal world as a predominant practice, species would quickly become extinct. Nevertheless, some argue that homosexuality is natural since it occurs in the animal world. But this is problematic. In nature we see animals eating their prey alive. We see savagery, cruelty, and extreme brutality. Yet, we do not condone such behavior in our own society. Proponents of the natural order as a basis for homosexuality should not pick-and-choose the situations that best fit their agendas. They should be consistent and not compare us to animals. We are not animals. We are made in God's image. Political protection of a sexual practice is ludicrous. I do not believe it is proper to pass laws stating that homosexuals have 'rights.' What about pedophilia or bestiality? These are sexual practices. Should they also be protected by law? If homosexuality is protected by law, why not those as well? Of course, these brief paragraphs can in no way exhaust the issue of homosexuality's moral equity. But, the family is the basis of our culture. It is the most basic unit. Destroy it and you destroy society. What should be the Christian's Response to the Homosexual? Just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (her). Homosexuality is a sin and like any other sin, it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible. It needs to be laid at the cross, repented of, and never done again. As a Christian, you should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same you would any other person in sin. You should treat them with the same dignity as a person made in the image of God, that you would any other person. However, this does not mean that you are to approve of their sin. Don't compromise your witness for a politically correct opinion that is shaped by guilt and fear. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 21: CALIFORNIA HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA ======================================================================== The homosexual agenda is raging in the California legislature, but there is hope if concerned citizens do their part and get involved. Anti-family legislators have introduced bills to push homosexuality on all parts of society and penalize citizens who are morally opposed to homosexual behavior. Committee votes will begin in late March or early April on the following bills: AB=Assembly Bill SB=Senate Bill (Sponsor name in parenthesis) AB 222 (Kuehl) and SB 1260 (Hayden): Promoting Homosexuality and Bisexuality to Schoolchildren. AB 222 would result in homosexual curriculum and promotion of homosexual "marriage" to students in K-12 public schools, public colleges and universities. Quotas for homosexual instructors would be indirectly pursued, and federal "hate crime" funds would be used to punish schools that resist the gay agenda. If AB 222 passes, religious schools who do not comply could be banned from interscholastic sports leagues, and students at religious colleges could be prohibited from receiving state financial aid. A second bill, SB1260, would require homosexual curriculum to be taught to schoolchildren as young as kindergarten, including mandated sessions on "homophobia." AB 1001 (Villaraigosa): Tax-funded Investigations and Fines Against Citizens Who Oppose Homosexuality AB 1001 awards official minority status for homosexuality and bisexuality, putting "sexual orientation" on the same level as race and ethnicity in the powerful Faith Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). This could result in tax-funded investigations and $25,000 fines against property owners, business owners, Bible bookstores, religious radio stations, and even some churches that oppose homosexuality. Also, because this bill declares homosexuality or bisexuality to be an official "civil right," if passed, children in public schools will be taught all about the homosexual political movement. Homosexual Marriage "Partnership" Bills Four bills would create homosexual-marriage "partnerships" to award official government status and marriage benefits to homosexuals; AB 26 (Migden), AB 107 (Knox), SB 75 (Murry), and SB 118 (Hayden). These "domestic partners" bills would undermine the sacred institution of marriage and promote same-sex "marriage" (95% of "domestic partners" are homosexuals). If these bills pass, it will be more difficult to legally protect California from homosexual "marriage" and its accompanying negative consequences. Action Steps Step 1 Contact your own assemblymember and state senator to urge them to "Oppose AB 1001, AB 222, and the rest of the gay agenda bills." Phone, fax, e-mail, make personal visits, or write your assemblymember, being sure to use his or her full name at: State Capitol, Sacramento, CA 95814 Go to the front of your phone book, look under the "Government" pages under Assembly and State Senate, or go to the Internet at www.capitolresource.org where you can find your state legislators by entering your zip code. Step 2 The legislators who are critically important to the outcome on these issues are listed below. Please contact these key legislators, in addition to your own assemblymember, and urge them to "Protect schoolchildren and citizens from government-sponsored homosexuality. Oppose AB 1001, AB 222, and the rest of the gay legislative agenda." ======================================================================== CHAPTER 22: CHRISTIANITY AND THE FAMILY ======================================================================== The family has come under heavy attack in today's society. On television, father's are often depicted as buffoons. Mothers are typically depicted as career minded and in control. Parents in general are characterized as dim wits who aren't "with it." In too many families, in order to make ends meet, the mother must work and entrust the care of her children to strangers. Children are independent, arrogant, and disrespectful. Everywhere you look society is offering quick and easy fixes, sexual promiscuity, "safe sex," and promises of freedom without penalty. Divorce destroys 50% of all marriages. Gangs are growing. Sexual molestations by parents of their own children is increasing as are acts of violence. Amidst all the depressing facts there is a ray of hope: the Bible. God has given us the instruction book for families. He has defined the family, taught us the roles of each of the family members, and has promised to bless those who adhere to His will. Praise God! We need it! What is the Family? The Family is God's covenant arrangement where two people, male and female, are joined to one flesh, "For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh" (Gen. 2:24). It is a covenant in that it is an agreement, a promise made between the couple getting married. This covenant is before God and is binding until death (or adultery) breaks the union. The family does not consist of a homosexual or lesbian relationship where the two people of the same sex seek to be married. This is against scripture: "And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 And God blessed them; and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth" (Gen. 1:27-28). Where did the Family begin? The Family was instituted by God in the Garden of Eden Genesis chapter 1:26-31 and Gen. 2:18-25. Genesis 1:26-31 is the declaration of Man's creation with the command to be fruitful and multiply. Concluding the section is God's declaration that it was very good. Gen. 2:18-25 is the account of Adam looking for a helper and God then making Eve from Adam's rib and instituting marriage. What is the purpose of the Family? To multiply and fill the earth -- Gen. 1:28, ". . .Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it. . ." Marriage Procreation -- Gen. 1:28 Continuing the covenant -- through procreation, the covenant between Adam and God is continued. Fulfilling God's command to multiply and fill the earth Fulfilling God's command to subdue the earth Sexual union - 1 Cor. 7:3-5 Sexual Fidelity and Purity - Exodus 20:14 The Important role of the Family in Society Building Block of Society. Place of learning. Society reflects the family. Scriptures concerning the family Concerning Husband and Wife The husband is the head: 1 Cor. 11:3 - But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. The husband is the leader: Gen. 18:19 -- For I have chosen him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice; in order that the Lord may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him. Wife is subject to husband: Col. 3:18 -- Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. cf., Eph. 5:22-24 Husband is to love his wife: Eph. 5:25, Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her; Sexual duty: 1 Cor. 7:3 Let the husband fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. Sexual Purity: Exodus 20:14 - You shall not commit adultery. Concerning Children Honor: Exodus 20:12 - Honor your father and mother. Obedience: Eph. 6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. Child rearing: Eph. 6:4 - And, fathers, do not provoke your children to anger; but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. Polygamy Permitted in the O.T.: Gen. 4:19 - And Lamech took two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other, Zillah. Condemned in the N.T.: 1 Tim. 3:2,12; Titus 1:6. Miscellaneous Scriptures Prov. 12:4, An excellent wife is the crown of her husband, but she who shames him is as rottenness in his bones Prov. 14:1, The wise woman builds her house, but the foolish tears it down with her own hands. Prov. 19:13, A foolish son is destruction to his father, And the contentions of a wife are a constant dripping. The Bible has much to say about the Family. God takes it very seriously. As Christians, we should too. . . especially the fathers. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 23: CHRISTIANITY AND SCIENCE ======================================================================== Science is that branch of study which seeks to observe, discover, and understand the nature and principles that govern our the universe, our world, and ourselves. The result of this process is a systematic categorization of knowledge with the goal of predicting and manipulating events according to discovered natural laws. Science has shaped our lives dramatically. Because of science we now have great medical knowledge. We can travel in jets, automobiles, and trains over great distances. We can harness rivers, predict storms, and use the power of the atom. By picking up a phone we can talk to almost anyone in the world. We can see anywhere on the planet via television and even gaze upon the surface of the moon and Mars. Like a giant flood gate that has been opened, what is flowing through its doors is a wonderful technology of helps, advancements, relaxation, amusements, security, answered questions, and hope. No longer must we till the land with our hands, pray for life giving rain to water our crops, be subject to the whims of nature, and be helpless during times of sickness. In fact, science has become for many a new god. Before the time when science was looked to for explanations of the unknown, mankind turned to religion. History is full of stories, writings, and the influence of religious beliefs upon entire societies. Temples dedicated to various gods are all over the world. Even though science has not replaced religion in all areas, it offers an intellectually justifiable reason to deny God's sovereignty. Evolution is a good example. When a society is powerless to control its future and is vulnerable to the elements of nature, it turns to that which is in control of those things: god(s). In all religious systems, prayers are offered in the hopes of appeasing and convincing a god or gods to help in time of need. But now that we can provide irrigation to replace rain, medicine to cure diseases, weapons to protect our homes, and television to dull our minds and hearts, the need for a deity to pray to has given way to the need to obtain money in order to gain the benefits of technology: comfort, leisure, and security. The world offers a new kind of religion: science. The scientists are its priests and the general populace is the congregation. What Does this Mean to a Christian? To the Christian, science is merely that branch of discovery that categorizes, discovers, and utilizes the knowledge woven into the fabric of the universe by a Sovereign, All Powerful, and Omniscient, Creator. Science is not the end of all things, but merely one of the means by which man may glorify God. This is because God is the creator of all that is. He has hidden the treasures of his ominous glory in the very universe in which we exist. The power in the atom, momentum, energy, mass, time, etc. are all creations of God and, therefore, under his authority. The more the Christian learns of these things, the more He can glorify God. Science must be subservient to Him, not the other way around. Science is not God's replacement. Every Christian should know that. Do the Bible and Science Disagree? Where other cosmologies found in religions have the world on the back of turtles, or the earth being the result of a fight between gods, biblical revelation is quite consistent with science. This is not to say that the Bible is vindicated by science; rather, it is science that is vindicated by the Bible. Consider the following: (note: all quotes are from the NIV) The Spherical Shape of the Earth - "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in" (Isaiah 40:22). The Hebrew language did not have a word for "sphere." Circle is quite sufficient. The Earth is suspended in nothing - "He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing" (Job 26:7). The Stars are Innumerable - "He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars -- if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be" (Genesis 15:5). The Existence of Valleys in the Seas - "The valleys of the sea were exposed and the foundations of the earth laid bare at the rebuke of the LORD, at the blast of breath from his nostrils" (2 Samuel 22:16). The Existence of Springs and Fountains in the Seas - "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month -- on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened" (Genesis 7:11). See also Gen. 8:2; Prov. 8:28. The Existence of Water Paths (Ocean Currents) in the Seas - "O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!...When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,...You made him [man] ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet...the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas" (Psalm 8:1,3,6,8). The Hydrologic Cycle - "He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight" (Job 26:8). - "He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind" (Job 36:27-28) - "The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7). The Concept of Entropy - "In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded" (Psalm 102:25-26). The Nature of Health, Sanitation, and Sickness - The listing for this section is too large for this page. But the scriptural references are Leviticus chapters 12 through 14. There is no God but One Christians need to be careful not to let science usurp the place of authority and honor that belongs to God alone. If you are a Christian, you need to keep in mind that God alone is the Lord and that He placed the universe here. We are here for Him, so we might glorify Him and enjoy Him forever (1 Cor. 1:9). There is no God, but one (Isaiah 44:6,8). But. . . Do you look to science as your hope, your security, and your safety net? Do you go to God only after science has failed you, only after the medicine doesn't work, or only after your comforts are threatened? Is television an idol to which you sacrifice your time and energy? Are the pleasures offered by technology, which is the child of science, the fruit you seek more than God? How much of your dependence upon God has been replaced by your dependence upon things? Science is the creation of God and God is the Sovereign of all. Look inside your own heart and see which is on the throne. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 24: THE FAILURE OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH ======================================================================== Christianity is supposed to be the representative of Jesus who taught love, forgiveness, sacrifice, unity, and humility. Though that may be true to a large extent, Christianity has demonstrated an ability to overlook many of its professed virtues and allow denominational fragmentation to weaken it. Unfortunately, because of doctrinal "refining" on the non-essentials, a desire to be comfortable, and apathy, the American church has, in many respects, become castrated. It spends too much time splitting doctrinal hairs, separating, and then hiding in churches designed to keep its members comfortable and safe. On the outside, the world is going to hell while on the inside, we are playing the "religion game." I am not saying that doctrinal purity is unimportant. It most certainly is. Without proper understanding of who God is, what He has done, and what we must do, we would all be surely damned. Our salvation depends on who Jesus is and what He did. We need to know its truth. Therefore, as Christians, we should separate ourselves from the false doctrines that make powerless the saving truth of Christ's sacrifice. But the motive to divide should be reserved for our dealings with heretics. We should separate ourselves from false teachers and false doctrines, not from each other. In the non-essentials we need to remain united as much as possible. I recognize that denominations, to a small degree, are necessary and will never go away. But comfort and "doctrinal purity" have robbed the Church of much of its power. Where the early Christians had to rely on God for their every need, today creature-comforts and drive-through churches have made us complacent and sluggish to the call of God to make disciples of every nation. We are comfortable in America where we have the best of everything and only need to put on credit what our whims demand and thereby avoid the dependence upon God for our needs; this makes faith in God less of a pressing need. We have become distracted and the church is showing signs of spiritual apathy. We have our VCR’s, air-conditioning, remote controls, and fast food. We have churches with central air, great sound systems, well educated preachers, plush pews, and fine-tuned choirs, pianos, and organs. We are blessed with committees, plans, and money. In fact, we have so many churches we are guaranteed we can find one to suit any whim or preference. And all too often, the messages are pleasant and don’t make our hearts ache for the lost or our Lord. Doctrinal purity is a plague when it unnecessarily divides that which has been made Holy by Christ’s blood. It may already be that doctrinal idols have invaded our churches after all, we too often sacrifice people on the altar of doctrinal purity. Then we politely and lovingly expel fellow believers from our churches and bless them on the way out because they baptize by immersion or don't, or speak in tongues or don't, or believe in pretrib or don't, etc. Hurt and confused, some wander the spiritual landscape looking for a safe haven only to fall prey to false teachers or the seductive call of the world. Yes, we need doctrinal purity and we may even need to die for it one day, but doctrinal purity is not our God. Confessions and creeds are not our bread and wine. We should not sacrifice the blessing of unity for the minutia of purity. But some will say, "These doctrines are important and our church has the truth." Perhaps. But Jesus said the world would know we were His disciples by the love we have for one another, not the purity of our doctrine. And what does the world see in all this? Does it see a visible church full of sacrifice, full of love, or full of people who consider others more important than themselves? No. It sees polished televangelists with perfect hair and smiles pulling the wool over the eyes of countless thousands of gullible people as they ask for money. It sees the hypocrisy of moral uprightness proclaimed proudly in word and contradicted in deed. It sees a denominationally fragmented church that can’t even clean its own house. And what’s more, the church has all but stopped its public proclamation against sin. It has begun to believe the lie that the church is weak and powerless to stop the momentum of social decay. It flounders when faced with immorality and balks at standing strong against sin! What are the consequences of this? We see the effects in the rise of the cults like Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses who have millions of followers going door to door faithfully and consistently spreading their damning doctrines. Where are the Christians who oppose them? Where is the church? Is it supporting the efforts to stop this spread of lies? Is it uniting behind a common cause? No! It leaves the work to the weary and small who have a burden and who spend their efforts in a constant and mostly frustrating battle for the truth. The church pats them on the back and says, "God bless. Go in peace" but leaves the depleted warriors to fend for themselves. We see consequences in the educational system with the rise of humanistic philosophy. Purely secular agendas are being taught on moral, political, and social levels in schools. Homosexuality, relativism, values clarification, and "ethical cleansing" are wiping the minds of the youth clear of Christian values. The children sit and listen while we go to church and talk about hymnals, the organ, and the color of carpet. May God have mercy on us. Society needs not concern itself with the musings of our people because its conscience cannot be pricked when so many of the bickering failures of Christianity speak louder than our words. Society is little affected by the gospel. The secularist does not need to be wary of the church that sits idly by and pampers its members and does not encourage them to take risks for the gospel. The secular world is free to mock the truth, chip away at our freedoms, and claim more and more converts for itself. It is safe from Christianity. But is Christianity safe from it? What Should We Do? First of all, we need to confess our sins to our Lord and Savior and repent from them. We need to recognize our sinfulness of apathy, pride, gossip, and any idols of 'doctrinal purity' that are so divisive. We need to forsake them, and drop to our knees, pray, confess, forgive, and go on. We need to recognize that we must be united to be strong. But we must do this without compromising the gospel of truth (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Rom. 5:1). Second, we need to recognize the Great Commission as something more than a recommendation from Jesus. It is not an option. It is a command. Jesus said, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations . . . " (Matt. 28:18). Are we being fishers of men or keepers of the aquarium? Are we being obedient or comfortable? Third, we need to work together as much as possible to bring the gospel of truth to the lost. This will require sacrifice, prayer, humility, and risk. We cannot easily undo the great fragmentation of the body of Christ, but we can cross the denominational boundaries by focusing on that which unites us in the faith: Jesus is God in flesh (Trinity), salvation by grace through faith alone, the atonement, and forgiveness of sins in Jesus' shed blood. We need to look at the essentials and let the gospel of God change the hearts of people. Fourth, we need to use whatever gifts the Lord has given us for the increase of His kingdom. Whether it is praying for the lost and for the workers in Christ, or helping support financially, teaching the body, doing works of administration, or whatever gift you have, use it for the glory of God. Give it to Him and ask Him to bless you by letting you use your gifts – and then do it! And don't be afraid to fail. Conclusion God is a God of forgiveness, love, and power. He has forgiven us of our sins and continues to do that by His awesome Grace (1 John 1:9). He loves us deeply and wants to commune with us and enjoy our presence through Jesus (1 Cor. 1:9). And, His gospel is powerful, able to save the lost from their sins (Rom. 1:16) and change this world. Pray for the work of God in your life and in the lives of others. Make a strong effort to support and spread the gospel. Intercede prayerfully to the Father on behalf of the church that preaches, and the lost that need to hear. Humble yourselves before God and men. Don’t remain comfortable. Take a risk. Trust God and go! ======================================================================== CHAPTER 25: WHY SHOULD WE WITNESS TO PEOPLE? ======================================================================== Have you ever asked yourself, "Why should I witness?" Several reasons should come to mind. First, because Jesus commands you to: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit," (Matt. 28:19). Also, Ezek. 3:11 says, "and go to the exiles, to the sons of your people, and speak to them and tell them, whether they listen or not..." Second, you must witness because you love the unsaved (if you don't, you should). The most loving thing you can do is present the gospel in hopes of bringing others to salvation. Galatians 5:22 lists love as one of the fruit of the Spirit. It is love's nature to give. Take for example John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son..." Love gives, and if you have only a small portion of His love, you will want to give to others. Third, witness because it is a wise thing to do. Prov. 11:30 says, "...he who is wise wins souls." Now, I know I am not a very wise person. But, since God says I'll be wise to win souls, or try to, then great, let me at it. I want to be wise in God's sight. Fourth, witness to keep people out of hell. Hell is a terrifying place of utter anguish and eternal separation from God. Those who are not saved go there. Witnessing is an attempt to keep them out of hell. Fifth, witness because it pleases God and brings glory to His name. And finally, witness so they may find the love and fellowship of God (1 John 1:3), the greatest of all treasures. I can think of no greater gift than salvation. It frees the sinner from sin, it delivers the lost from damnation, and it reveals the true and living God to those who don't know Him. The angels of heaven rejoice greatly when anyone passes from judgment into salvation (Luke 15:10). Shouldn't we as Christians rejoice too? Shouldn't we weep over the lost? Shouldn't we ask the Lord of the field to send laborers into His harvest (Luke 10:2)? Certainly! The salvation of others is the goal of your efforts. The love of God is your motive. Is there anything greater? So, give. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 26: JESUS' RESURRECTED BODY, THE ATONEMENT, AND ISLAM ======================================================================== This conversation dealt with the resurrected body of Christ, the atonement, and a bit on what Muslim theology has to offer. It is brief, but it has value in the discussion of Christ. Gil: Hey Matt Matt: Hi Gil: Can I ask a question? Matt: You just did Gil: How about another? A third one I mean. Heheh Matt: Now you've got it. What's up? Gil: Okay, Well actually, I've got one specific question: Is Jesus eternally human? Matt: He is now. Gil: Okay. So, you believe that He is human? Matt: Absolutely...! Gil: As he sits next to the Father? and the Father is spirit….and the Spirit is spirit Matt: Yes... Gil: But the Son is human and spirit? Matt: The son is both God and man. He has two 2 natures. Gil: I personally believe that he was man for 33 years because in the Bible it says that God is Spirit and not a man. Matt: Do you go to church? If so, which one? Gil: Reformed Church of America. My belief is unorthodox. Matt: Okay... Bible lesson time. After the resurrection, Jesus retained the scars, right? Gil: Yes. Matt: He had a body of flesh and bones after the resurrection, right? Gil: Yes, but he also walked through walls and stuff. Right? He had a supernatural body. Matt: He did not walk through walls. He just appeared.... Gil: Well that's not a human behavior. He didn't do that before he resurrected. Matt: It is the behavior of a resurrected body... We do not have resurrected bodies right now. Gil: I know. But I'm saying I don't believe the resurrection body is a human body. It's a supernatural spirit body. Matt: If it isn't human, then what is it? Gil: Spirit Matt: 1 Cor. 15 says it is a resurrected body... Flesh and bones... Gil: Okay. Matt: Jesus was recognized and he retained the scars of his crucifixion. Also, consider this... Jesus prophesied that he would raise His body, the very same one that was crucified (John 2:19-21). Matt: Therefore, his same body was raised.... Gil: What about when He ascended? Matt: Same body. Matt: If you deny his physical resurrection, you are in trouble. Gil: But the bible says that God is Spirit not man. I believe that he physically resurrected. Matt: The Father is a spirit. John 4:24 speaks of God as the Father... Jesus, rose in the same body he died in, right? Gil: How do you know it meant the Father? Matt: Because that is how John refers to God in his gospel. God is the Father. The word is Jesus. Ref. John 1:1,14, 18; 6:46 for the pattern of usage. Gil: Okay, Can I be blunt with you? Matt: Sure. Gil: I used to be really unsure about the trinity and how it's all set up. I read James White's Forgotten Trinity which helped me tons... Matt: good Gil: But now its like it all seems like weird to me again. Two of my best friends are Muslim. And its soooo appealing to me. Matt: How are your sins forgiven? Gil: Through the blood of Jesus and God's grace. Matt: Do the Muslims have an atonement for your sins to offer you? Gil: Yes, the mercy of Allah. Matt: Mercy is not atonement. Gil: Um okay. Matt: Atonement removes sin (1 John 2:2; Heb. 9:26). Gil: His mercy provides atonement. Matt: Atonement means to remove, to cover the sin... in Christianity, it is by the sacrifice of God Himself. This guarantees your forgiveness.... Jesus walked the earth, rose from the dead, walked on water, etc. Gil: I agree Matt: He said He was God in flesh... He atoned..... Can Islam compare to that? Gil: When did He say he was God in flesh? (Just so I can tell my Muslims friends the verse.) Matt: John 8:58 is where Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I AM." Gil: I know about John 8:58 and John 10:30. But He never said "I am God in flesh." Matt: What would YOU think, if you were a Jew, knew where God said I AM in the OT [Exodus 3:14] and then you have this guy standing in front of you (who walks on water, calms storms, etc.) and then he says to you, "Before Abraham was, I AM." What would you think Jesus meant by this? Gil: That He is God, which would explain why they tried to stone him. But He never said it flat out. Matt: If He was saying He was God, and He was right there in the flesh, then what was He claiming? Gil: Okay. Matt: Now, do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead in the same body He died in? Gil: Yes. But as far as the ascension goes, I don't know. Matt: Why would his body NOT be a body at his ascension? Also, in 1 Tim. 2:5, it says that Jesus is a man. Gil: But the Bible says God is a spirit. Matt: In Acts 7:55-60, Stephen has a vision and sees Jesus... how would he recognize Jesus if it wasn't in His body? Gil: I see your points…. Interesting. I gotta get running I will catch you later. Matt, thanks for talking to me. Matt: Sure. Gil: Peace and Grace Sometimes people just get stuck on an idea and have problems letting God's word change those ideas. We are all guilty of that one way or another. But, at least with the resurrection of Jesus, He rose in the same body He died in. This is important because Paul says in 1 Cor. 15:14, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." This combined with Jesus' prophecy that He would raise His body in John 2:19-21 is proof that believing in the bodily resurrection of Christ, is one of the essential doctrines of Christianity. John 2:19-21, "Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 20Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? 21But he spake of the temple of his body." ======================================================================== CHAPTER 27: ATHEISM ======================================================================== Dealing with atheism is actually easy to do. They don't have any evidence for their atheism and they can't logically prove there is no God. They can only attack the Bible and attack Christians' ideas of God. But, if you listen to them, you can soon find that their logic has many holes in it. It takes practice, but you can do it. The following statements are for copying and pasting into chat rooms. Use them to see how atheists react. Use them to learn how to respond better to atheists. Please understand that these are not "stoppers." But, they can be challenging to atheists. Also, see how long it takes before they become condescending. Do not return their condescension. Instead, ask them to give rational reasons for their positions. In the process of interacting with them, learn how to argue with them better. Ways to Attack Atheism By asking questions Atheism is an intellectual position. What reasons do you have for holding that position? Your reasons are based upon logic, and/or evidence or lack of it. So, is there any reason/evidence for you holding your position that you defend? If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then isn't that simply faith? If you say that atheism is supported by the lack of evidence for God, then it is only your opinion that there is no evidence. You cannot know all evidence for or against God, therefore you cannot say there is no evidence for God. If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because it is a position about the lack of something, then do you have other positions you hold based upon lack of evidence...like say, screaming blue ants? Do you hold the position that they do not exist or that you lack belief in them, too? By using logic. How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God? The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how do you account for them? This approach is a bit more complicated. If you use this one, first be familiar with The Christian Worldview, the Atheist Worldview, and Logic. First of all, when using logic, you should be familiar with basic laws of logic and logical fallacies. It is very useful to point out the various logical fallacies to atheists as they commit them. Therefore, please be familiar with Logical Fallacies or Fallacies in Argumentation) The laws of logic are conceptual by nature and are always true all the time everywhere. They are not physical properties. How do atheists account for them from an atheist perspective? Everything that was brought into existence was caused to exist. Can you have an infinite regression of causes? No, since to get to "now" you'd have to traverse an infinite past. It seems that there must be a single uncaused cause. Why can't that be God? Examples of logical absolutes: Examples of logical absolutes are: something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time (Law of non contradiction). A thing is what it is (Law of identity). A statement is either true or false (Law of excluded middle). These are simple, absolute logical absolutes. If atheism is true: The universe has laws. These laws cannot be violated. Life is a product of these laws and can only exists in harmony with those laws and is governed by them. Therefore, human thought, feelings, etc., are programmed responses to stimuli and the atheist cannot legitimately claim to have meaning in life. Human constructs? If the laws of logic are human constructs then how can they be absolute since humans think differently and often contradictorily. If they are produced from human minds, and human minds are mutually contradictory, then how can the constructs be absolute? Therefore, the laws of logic are not human constructs. The Universe exists The universe exists. Is it eternal or did it have a beginning? It could not be eternal since that would mean that an infinite amount of time had to be crossed to get to the present. But, you cannot cross an infinite amount of time (otherwise it wouldn't be infinite). Therefore, the universe had a beginning. Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it. The Bible promotes this sufficient cause as God. What does atheism offer instead of God? If nothing, then atheism is not able to account for our own existence. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Uncaused Cause Objection: If something cannot bring itself into existence, then God cannot exist since something had to bring God into existence. Answer: Not so. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes lest an infinity be crossed (which cannot happen). Therefore, there must be a single uncaused, cause. All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that did not come into existence. Responding to Atheist Statements about God "I Lack of belief in a God" If you say that atheism is simply lack of belief in a god, then my cat is an atheist the same as the tree outside and the sidewalk out front, since they also lack faith. Therefore, your definition is insufficient. Lacking belief is a non-statement because you have been exposed to the concept of God and have made a decision to accept or reject. Therefore, you either believe there is a God or you do not...or you are agnostic. You cannot remain in a state of "lack of belief." If you lack belief in God, then why do you go around attacking the idea of God? If you also lack belief in invisible pink unicorns, why don't you go around attacking that idea? "I believe there is no God." On what basis do you believe there is no God? "I don't believe there is a God." Why don't you believe there is no God? "There is no God" You cannot logically state that there is no God because you cannot know all things so as to determine that there is no God. "There is no proof that God exists" To say "there is no proof for God's existence," is illogical because an atheist cannot know all things by which he could state that there is no proof. He can only say he has not yet seen a convincing proof; after all, there may be one he hasn't yet seen. "All of Science has never found any evidence for God" That is a subjective statement. There are many scientists who affirm evidence for God's existence through science. Your presupposition is that science has no evidence for God, but that is only an opinion. Science looks at natural phenomena through measuring, weighing, seeing, etc. God, by definition, is not limited to the universe. Therefore, it would not be expected that physical detection of God would be found. What is God? or Define God. God is the only Supreme Being who is unchanging, eternal, holy, and Trinitarian in nature. He alone possesses the attributes of omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence. He alone brought the universe into existence by the exertion of His will. Prove your God is real. I can no more prove to you that God is real than I can prove to you that I love my family. If you are convinced I don't love my family, no matter what I say or do will be dismissed by you as invalid. It is your presuppositions that are the problem, not whether or not God exists. I can no more prove to you that God is real than you can prove that the universe is all that exists. Your demand of proof precludes acknowledgement of many types of evidence...because your presuppositions don't allow it. The universe exists. It is not infinitely old. If it were it would have run out of energy long ago. Therefore, it had a beginning. The universe did not bring itself into existence. Since it was brought into existence by something else, I assert that God is the one who created the universe. When the atheist complains, ask him to logically explain the existence of the universe. Point out that opinions and guesses don't count. Responding to Atheist Statements about the Bible "The Bible is full of contradictions" Saying the Bible is full of contradictions does not mean it is so. Can you provide a contradiction that we can examine in context? There are many websites that address alleged contradictions. Here is one: www.carm.org. Responding to Atheist Statements about Evolution and Naturalism "Evolution is a fact" That depends on if it is micro or macro. Micro variations occur, but macro variations (speciation) have not been observed. The best we have are fossils and they have to be interpreted. Besides, there are plenty of gaps in the fossil record. Have you read any books that discuss the contrary evidence to evolution? If not, then how can you say you are educated enough to say it is a fact? Naturalism is true; therefore, there is no need for God. Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does not mean God does not exist since God is, by definition, outside of natural laws since He is the creator of them. Responding to Atheist Statements about Truth There are no absolute truths To say there are no absolute truths is an attempt to state an absolute truth. If your statement is true, then it is self contradictory, and not true and you are wrong. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 28: ISLAM ======================================================================== Scripture addresses are not linked within the quotes to allow ease of cut and pasting. The links are provided separately after each quote to allow access to quick scriptures for further cutting and pasting. Scriptures are linked to the KJV where appropriate. AGAINST ISLAM Muslims don't trust the Quran? "...and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus)..."; (Quran, 3:3). "...there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah..." (Quran, 6:34). -- The Muslims say Allah's words were changed by saying the Gospels are corrupt!!!! That means they do not believe the Quran! They will say that God's word is never changed, but the Bible is changed. It used to be true, but it isn't anymore. If that is so, then why do they quote it when it is convenient for them? The fact is that Muslims don't believe what Jesus said about Himself. They say the Bible is corrupt, but who corrupted it and when was it corrupted? If you don't know, then don't say it. Why is it that the Muslims continue to repeat the same old stuff that has already been answered so many times? Are they not interested in the truth? Or, are the just interested in repeating the same old errors? What is the real Quran? What is the real Quran? "Hudhaifa was afraid of their differences in the recitation of the Qur'an...Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. (Hadith, Vol. 6, Book 61, #510) (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/061.sbt.html Narrated Anas bin Malik.) If there were so many other copies that were destroyed, then we have no way of knowing what the real Quran said. Women Voluptuous women await Muslim men in paradise. "Verily for the Righteous there will be a fulfillment of (the heart's) desires; Gardens enclosed, and grapevines, And voluptuous women of equal age," (Quran, 78:31-33). It is okay to beat wives: "As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly)..." (Quran, 4:34). Eph. 5:25, "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her; 26 that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word." Women and sons can be mortgaged: "...How can we mortgage our women to you and you are the most handsome of the 'Arabs?" Ka'b said, "Then mortgage your sons to me." They said, "How can we mortgage our sons to you? Later they would be abused by the people's saying that so-and-so has been mortgaged for a camel load of food." (Hadith Vol. 5, Book 59, #369) http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/059.sbt.html, Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah Muslim men may marry up to four women, but no such provision is made for Muslim women: "Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice," (Surah 4:3). Scientific problems in the Quran Sperm comes from the chest of a man: "Now let man but think from what he is created! He is created from a drop emitted-Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs," (Quran 86:5-7). http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/086.qmt.html Ask the Muslim if the testicles of a man in his chest? This obviously says sperm comes from the chest. The sun set in murky water: "Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness," (Quran 18:86). http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/018.qmt.html Birds can talk: "And Solomon was David's heir. He said: "O ye people! We have been taught the speech of birds, and on us has been bestowed (a little) of all things: this is indeed Grace manifest (from Allah.)" (Quran 27:16). "And Solomon was David's heir. And he said: O mankind! Lo! we have been taught the language of birds, and have been given (abundance) of all things. This surely is evident favour," (Quran 27:16, Pickthall, trans.). Ants can talk: "At length, when they came to a (lowly) valley of ants, one of the ants said: "O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot) without knowing it," (Quran 27:18). "Till, when they reached the Valley of the Ants, an ant exclaimed: O ants! Enter your dwellings lest Solomon and his armies crush you, unperceiving," (Quran 27:18, Pickthal, trans.). Shooting stars are for driving away evil spirits: "And we have, (from of old), adorned the lowest heaven with Lamps, and We have made such (Lamps) (as) missiles to drive away the Evil Ones, and have prepared for them the Penalty of the Blazing Fire," (Quran 67:5). That is not what shooting stars are for. They aren't "for" anything. They are small objects in space burning up in our atmosphere. There are 7 heavens and 7 earths! "Allah is He Who created seven Firmaments and of the earth a similar number. Through the midst of them (all) descends His Command: that ye may know that Allah has power over all things, and that Allah comprehends, all things in (His) Knowledge," (Surah 65:12). Historical Problems in the Quran Crucifixion before it was invented: "Pharaoh said: Ye believe in Him before I give you leave! Lo! this is the plot that ye have plotted in the city that ye may drive its people hence. But ye shall come to know! 124 Surely I shall have your hands and feet cut off upon alternate sides. Then I shall crucify you every one," (Quran 7:123-124). http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/007.qmt.html Crucifixion wasn't invented until around 600 B.C., by the Phoenicians. The Egyptians didn't crucify anyone because it hadn't been invented yet. Muhammad didn't get this right when he made up this verse. Mary is the sister of Aaron and Moses: "Then she brought him to her own folk, carrying him. They said: O Mary! Thou hast come with an amazing thing. 28 O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a wicked man nor was thy mother a harlot (Quran 19:27-28). http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/019.qmt.html Mary was not the sister of Aaron. Aaron was Moses' brother who lived many many hundreds of years before Mary. Muhammad didn't understand the Bible very well when he made that verse up. Contradictions in the Quran Can Allah have a son? Yes: "If Allah desire to take a son to Himself, He will surely choose those He pleases from what He has created. Glory be to Him: He is Allah, the One, the Subduer (of all)," (Quran 39:4). http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/039.qmt.html No: "Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth! How could He have a son when He has no consort, and He (Himself) created everything, and He is the Knower of all things," (Quran 6:101). http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/006.qmt.html Hadith - the deeds and sayings of Muhammad. Very important in Islam. Adam was made 90 feet tall. Allah made Adam 60 cubits high (generally a cubit was 18 inches. Therefore, Adam was 90 feet tall) The Prophet said, "Allah created Adam, making him 60 cubits tall. (Hadith, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 543, Narrated Abu Huraira.) Muhammad is ordered by Allah to fight all people until they worship Allah. "Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah." (Hadith, Vol 1, Book 2, # 24) Narrated Ibn 'Umar.) Jesus said in John 13:35, "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." Don't pass wind while praying: "Allah's Apostle said, 'The angels keep on asking Allah's forgiveness for anyone of you, as long as he is at his Mu,salla (praying place) and he does not pass wind (Hadath). They say, 'O Allah! Forgive him, O Allah! be Merciful to him." - (Hadith, Vol. 1, Book 8, # 436) Eph. 1:7, "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace." A man slept through prayer time and the devil peed in his ear: "It was mentioned before the Prophet that there was a man who slept the night till morning (after sunrise). The Prophet said, 'He is a man in whose ears (or ear) Satan had urinated.'" (Hadith Vol. 4, Book 54, #492) http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/054.sbt.html Muhammad Magic worked on Muhammad. How can that be if he is a prophet? "Magic was worked on the Prophet so that he began to fancy that he was doing a thing which he was not actually doing," (Hadith, Vol. 4, Book 54, #490). http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/054.sbt.html Muhammad was a white man: "While we were sitting with the Prophet in the mosque, a man came riding on a camel. He made his camel kneel down in the mosque, tied its foreleg and then said: "Who amongst you is Muhammad?"...We replied, "This white man reclining on his arm." The an then addressed him, "O Son of 'Abdul Muttalib." (Hadith Vol. 1, book 3, #63) http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/003.sbt.html. Narrated Anas bin Malik. Muhammad owned a black slave: "I came and behold, Allah's Apostle was staying on a Mashroba (attic room) and a black slave of Allah's Apostle was at the top if its stairs. I said to him, "(Tell the Prophet) that here is 'Umar bin Al-Khattab (asking for permission to enter)." Then he admitted me," (Hadith, Vol. 9, Book 91, #368). http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/091.sbt.html Muhammad had people killed: "Allah's Apostle entered Mecca in the year of its Conquest wearing an Arabian helmet on his head and when the Prophet took it off, a person came and said, "Ibn Khatal is holding the covering of the Ka'ba (taking refuge in the Ka'ba)." The Prophet said, "Kill him," (Hadith, Vol. 3, Book 29, #72). http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/029.sbt.html Narrated Anas bin Malik: Muhammad was a sinner: "The Prophet said, "I say, O Allah! Set me apart from my sins (faults) as the East and West are set apart from each other and clean me from sins as a white garment is cleaned of dirt (after thorough washing). O Allah! Wash off my sins with water, snow and hail," (Hadith Vol. 1, Book 12, #711). http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/012.sbt.html Narrated Abu Huraira: Jihad - Holy Struggle The Qur'an tells muslims to kill and go to war to fight for Islam: Surah 9:5; 2:191; 2:193; 3:118; 4:75,76; 5:33, 8:12; 8:65; 9:73,123; 33:60-62. Fight for Allah: "And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers, (Quran 2:191). Muslims are to battle for Allah: "Those who believe do battle for the cause of Allah; and those who disbelieve do battle for the cause of idols. So fight the minions of the devil. Lo! the devil's strategy is ever weak," (Quran 4:76). Kill those against Islam: "The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter," (Quran 5:33). Beheading: "When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger. 13That is because they opposed Allah and His messenger. Whoso opposeth Allah and His messenger, (for him) lo! Allah is severe in punishment," (Quran 8:12). Allah urges war: "O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand," (Quran 8:65). Slay non-muslims: "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful," (Quran 9:5). Allah urges war: "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination," (Quran 9:73). Allah urges war: "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil)," (Quran 9:123). Allah urges killing: "...the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is a disease and the agitators in the city do not desist... 61Cursed: wherever they are found they shall be seized and murdered, a (horrible) murdering. 62(Such has been) the course of Allah with respect to those who have gone before; and you shall not find any change in the course of Allah, (Quran 33:60-62). Beheading: "Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens..." (Quran 47:4). Allah loves those who fight for him. "Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure," (Surah 61:4). Kill the Muslim who leaves Islam: "...for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him,'" (Hadith Vol. 4, Book 52, #260). http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html Also, see Volume 9, Book 84, Number 64, Narrated 'Ali. Is Lying okay? "Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him [Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf]?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). "The Prophet said, "You may say it," (Hadith Vol. 5, Book 59, #369). http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/059.sbt.html Jihad gets you paradise: "Allah's Apostle said, "Allah guarantees (the person who carries out Jihad in His Cause and nothing compelled him to go out but Jihad in His Cause and the belief in His Word) that He will either admit him into Paradise (Martyrdom) or return him with reward or booty he has earned to his residence from where he went out," (Hadith Vol. 9, Book 93, # 555). Other Don't take Jews and Christians as friends: "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people," (Quran 5:51). The soul exits through the collar-bone when leaving the body. "Yea, when (the soul) reaches to the collar-bone (in its exit), 27And there will be a cry, "Who is a magician (to restore him)?" 28And he will conclude that it was (the Time) of Parting," (Surah 75:26-28). ANSWERING ATTACKS FROM ISLAM The Bible is full of contradictions Saying the Bible is full of contradictions does not mean it is so. Can you provide a contradiction that we can examine in context? There are many websites that address alleged contradictions. Here is one: www.carm.org. The Quran says that none of the revelations of Allah are forgotten (2:106), that none can alter the words of Allah (6:34), that none can change Allah's words (6:115; 10:64). Do you then believe the Bible has been changed? Jesus never said, "I am God. Worship me." True, but Jesus also never said, "I am a prophet," or "I am a man. Do not worship me." You do not make a doctrine out of what Jesus did NOT say. You make it out of what He DID say. Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I AM." Jesus also never said, "I am a prophet of Allah." Yet that is what you claim. There is more than one way to claim to be God in flesh. In fact, Jesus is called God in John 20:28. Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I AM," (John 8:58). Compare with Exodus 3:14 where God say, "I AM that I AM." The Jews wanted to kill Jesus for saying that (John 8:59). They wanted to kill Him because He claimed to be God (John 10:33). ======================================================================== CHAPTER 29: JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES ======================================================================== The purpose of this page is to provide quick cut and paste answers to common objections against Christianity. Each answer has been boiled down to a maximum of 255 characters, including spaces, to allow it to be pasted on all chat systems -- at least all that I checked. If you know of other basic questions, please let me know. Jehovah's Witness doctrines There is no Trinity, (Let God be True, p. 100-101; Make Sure of All Things, p. 386); The Holy Spirit is God's impersonal active force, The Watchtower, June 1, 1952, p. 24); Their church is the self-proclaimed prophet of God, (The Watchtower, April 1, 1972, p. 197); They claim to be the only channel of God's truth, (The Watchtower, Feb. 15, 1981, p. 19). Jehovah's first creation was his 'only-begotten Son'. . . was used by Jehovah in creating all other things," (Aid to Bible Understanding, pp. 390-391); Jesus was Michael the archangel who became a man, (The Watchtower, May 15, 1963, p. 307; The New World, 284); Jesus was only a perfect man, not God in flesh, (Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp. 306); Jesus did not rise from the dead in his physical body, (Awake! July 22, 1973, p. 4). Jesus was raised "not a human creature, but a spirit," (Let God be True, p. 276); Jesus did not die on a cross but on a stake, (Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp. 89-90); Jesus returned to earth, invisibly, in 1914, (The Truth Shall Make You Free, p. 300; Jesus' ransom sacrifice did not include Adam, (Let God be True, p. 119). Only their church members will be saved, (The Watchtower, Feb, 15, 1979, p. 30); Good works are necessary for salvation, Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 1, pp. 150, 152); The soul ceases to exist after death, (Let God be True, p. 59, 60, 67); There is no hell of fire where the wicked are punished, (Let God be True, p. 79, 80) The soul ceases to exist after death, (Let God be True, p. 59, 60, 67); There is no hell of fire where the wicked are punished, (Let God be True, p. 79, 80); Only 144,000 Jehovah's Witness go to heaven, (Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp. 166-167, 361; Let God be True, p. 121). Only the 144,000 Jehovah's Witness are born again," (Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, p. 76.; Watchtower 11/15/54, p. 681). Salvation according to the Jehovah's Witnesses According to the Watchtower, Feb. 15, 1983, p. 12, there are four requirements for salvation: "Many have found the second requirement more difficult. It is to obey God’s laws, yes, to conform one’s life to the moral requirements set out in the Bible. This includes refraining from a debauched, immoral way of life. — 1 Cor. 6:9,10; 1 Pet. 4:3,4." See quote in context Ask the JW if he/she is doing what the WT says to do. Are you keeping God's laws? If the JW says he isn't, then why not? Is he disobeying the Watchtower? The Watchtower says you have to obey God's laws. Which laws are those you have to obey? Which moral requirements must you obey? "Yes, there are various things involved in getting saved. We must take in accurate knowledge of God’s purposes and his way of salvation. Then we must exercise faith in the Chief Agent of salvation, Jesus Christ, and do God’s will the rest of our lives. (John 3:16; Titus 2:14) (WT, Sept 15, 1989, p.7) See quote in context - at end of page When a person, on the basis of the Scriptural knowledge he has gained, has belief It would be a mistake for him [one who has belief in Christ] to think that he is now saved and cannot fall. He must show by his endurance in the Christian faith that he is worthy of salvation... Salvation from death is a gift from God to those that obey him, not to those that disobey. (WT, March 1, 1960, p. 134) See quote in context Baptism is necessary for salvation "It is evident from this [Rom. 10:9-10] that besides faith and baptism, “public declaration” to the effect that Jesus Christ is Lord and that God raised him up from the dead is a requirement for salvation. (WT, May 1, 79, p. 15, Baptism—A Christian Requirement) "These foregoing scriptures [Dt. 27:9,10; 30:1-10] clearly show that obedience brings harmony and friendship with Jehovah, peace, salvation, testing for approval, release from oppression, and punishment upon the enemies of his own people..." ( WT, 9/15/52, p. 559) The Watchtower Organization is the Prophet of God "This "prophet" was not one man, but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah's Christian witnesses....Of course, it is easy to say that this group acts as a "prophet" of God. It is another thing to prove it." (Watchtower 4/1/72, pages 197) Link: http://www.carm.org/jw/docs/watch_4_1_72_p197-198.htm If the WT Org. is a prophet of God, why has it made false prophecies? 1897 "Our Lord, the appointed King, is now present, since October 1874," Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 4, page 621. 1899 "...the ‘battle of the great day of God Almighty' (Revelation 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced." The Time Is at Hand, page 101 (1908 edition). 1918 "Therefore we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old, particularly those named by the Apostle in Hebrews 11, to the condition of human perfection." Millions Now Living Will Never Die, page 89. 1922 "The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the Scriptures than 1914." The Watchtower 9/1/22, page 262. 1923 "Our thought is, that 1925 is definitely settled by the Scriptures. As to Noah, the Christian now has much more upon which to base his faith than Noah had upon which to base his faith in a coming deluge." The Watchtower, page 106 4/1/23. 1925 "The year 1925 is here. With great expectation Christians have looked forward to this year. Many have confidently expected that all members of the body of Christ will be changed to heavenly glory during this year. This may be accomplished. It may not be. In his own due time God will accomplish his purposes concerning his people. Christians should not be so deeply concerned about what may transpire this year." The Watchtower, 1/1/25, page. 3. 1931 "There was a measure of disappointment on the part of Jehovah's faithful ones on earth concerning the years 1917, 1918, and 1925, which disappointment lasted for a time...and they also learned to quit fixing dates." Vindication, page 338. 1941 "Receiving the gift, the marching children clasped it to them, not a toy or plaything for idle pleasure, but the Lord's provided instrument for most effective work in the remaining months before Armageddon." The Watchtower, 9/15/41, page 288. 1968 "True, there have been those in times past who predicted an ‘end to the world', even announcing a specific date. Yet nothing happened. The ‘end' did not come. They were guilty of false prophesying. Why? What was missing?.. Missing from such people were God's truths and evidence that he was using and guiding them." Awake, 10/8/68. 1968 "Why are you looking forward to 1975?" The Watchtower, 8/15/68, page 494. Watchtower Control over its people. "Only this organization functions for Jehovah's purpose and to his praise. To it alone God's Sacred Word, the Bible, is not a sealed book." (Watchtower; July 1, 1973, pp. 402.) Link: www.carm.org/jw/docs/watch7_1_73_p402.htm "Thus the Bible is an organizational book and belongs to the Christian congregation as an organization, not to individuals, regardless of how sincerely they may believe that they can interpret the Bible." (Watchtower, Oct. 1, 1967. p. 587.) Part A: "We should meekly go along with the Lord's theocratic organization and wait for further clarification, rather than balk at the first mention of a thought unpalatable to us...(Watchtower, Feb. 1, 1952, pp. 79-80.) Part B: Theocratic ones will appreciate the Lord's visible organization and not be so foolish as to put against Jehovah's channel their own human reasoning and sentiment and personal feelings." (Watchtower, Feb. 1, 1952, pp. 79-80.) "We all need help to understand the Bible, and we cannot find the Scriptural guidance we need outside the ‘faithful and discreet slave' organization." (The Watchtower, Feb. 15, 1981.) "We cannot claim to love God, yet deny his word and channel of communication." (Watchtower, Oct. 1, 1967, p. 591.) All who want to understand the Bible should appreciate that the "greatly diversified wisdom of God" can become known only through Jehovah's channel of communication, the faithful and discreet slave. (Watchtower; 10/1/1994; p. 8.) Who is the Faithful and wise Servant? "Thousands of the readers of Pastor Russell's writings believe that he filled the office of "that faithful and wise servant," and that his great work was giving to the Household of Faith meat in due season. His modesty and humility precluded him from openly claiming this title, but he admitted as much in private conversation." (Watchtower 12/1/1919, page 357). "Jesus foretold that among his people there would be a "faithful and discreet slave" class who would be providing the spiritual food to God's family...overseeing the carrying out of the Kingdom interests world wide. (Matt. 24:45-47). These anointed overseers serve as though being guided in their activities by the right hand of Christ." (WT, 1/15/1969, p. 51) Jesus is present since 1874 "But now we are in the end of this Gospel age, and the Kingdom is being established or set up. Our Lord, the appointed King, is now present, since October 1874, A.D., according to the testimony of the prophets, to those who have ears to hear; and the formal inauguration of his kingly office dates from April 1878 A.D." (Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 4, page 621). Link: http://www.carm.org/jw/docs/Studies_vol4_p621.htm Jesus is Abaddon and Apollyon the Destroyer "When Jesus was on earth as a man, he was a Hebrew, and now in his capacity as Jehovah's royal Executioner he is called by the Hebrew name Abad'don, which means Destruction. (Job 26:6; 28:22; 31:12; 12:23; 14:19) In the Greek in which the inspired Christian Scriptures were written his similar title is Apollyon, which means Destroyer." (Watchtower 12/1/1961, pp. 719) Link: http://www.carm.org/jw/docs/watch_12_1_61_p719.htm Jesus mediates only for the 144,000 "Likewise, the Greater Moses, Jesus Christ, is not the Mediator between Jehovah God and all mankind. He is the Mediator between his heavenly Father, Jehovah God, and the nation of spiritual Israel, which is limited to only 144,000 members." (The Desire for Peace and Security Worldwide, 1986, p. 10). Link: http://www.carm.org/jw/docs/securityworldwide1986p10.htm Does Jesus mediate for the average JW? Nope. "...Jesus Christ, is not the Mediator between Jehovah God and all mankind. He is the Mediator between his heavenly Father, Jehovah God, and the nation of spiritual Israel, which is limited to only 144,000 members." (The Desire for Peace and Security Worldwide, 1986, p. 10). If Jesus is the mediator only for the 144,000, then the average JW has no mediator before God. Without a mediator, they are damned. Jesus' Resurrection John 2:19-21, "Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews therefore said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body." The JW's say Jesus was not raised physically, even though Jesus Himself contradicts what they say. Note: John the apostle says Jesus was speaking of His body, the temple that would be raised. The JW's are wrong. Bible Verses Examined Exodus 6:2-3, "God spoke further to Moses and said to him, “I am the Lord [YHWH]; 3 and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, Lord, I did not make Myself known to them." If God appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty (Ex. 6:2-3), yet Jesus says that no man as seen the Father at any time (John 6:46), then who were they seeing if it was God Almighty, but not the Father? Isaiah 43:11, “I, even I, am the Lord; and there is no savior besides Me." If there is no savior besides God (Is. 43:11; 45:21), then how can Jesus, a created thing, be the savior? In what sense is God alone the savior? Simple, only God forgives our sins and only God provides the provision for our forgiveness through Christ. Yet, Jesus is the Savior who forgives sins and is Himself the provision. How can Jesus then be a created thing? Matt. 24:36, “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." John 1:1 - The JW's say that Jesus is "a" god. If Jesus is "a" god, then isn't that polytheism? If Jesus is "a" god, then how many gods are their in JW theology? If Jesus is "a" god, then is he a true God or false god since the Bible says there is only one God (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8)? If Jesus is "a" god, then why does he tell people to come to him and not the Father (Matt. 11:28)? John 5:18 If it was only the Jews who thought that Jesus was making Himself equal to God, then please point out in John's gospel what Jesus said and did that would cause the Jews to think this. If you cannot find the place in scripture, if it isn't there, then the only thing left to conclude is that the comment is John's and not that of the Jews. If John is merely reporting the error of the Jews' thinking and Jesus was not really God, then why didn't John the apostle clarify the situation? After all, it is a perfect opportunity to do so, especially since John records corrections of the Jews in John 8:48-49 and 21:23. John 8:58 - JW's Bible says, "Before Abraham was, I have been," not "I AM." If that is true, then why did the Jews want to kill Jesus? Later, in John 10:31 the Jews wanted to kill him because Jesus made himself out to be God. The Jews who killed Jesus denied that Jesus was God. So, the JW's agree with the Jews that Jesus is not God. John 14:28, “You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I." The JW's say that when Jesus says the Father is greater than He, that it means Jesus isn't divine. But this is not logically true. Jesus was speaking of position, not nature. A husband is greater in authority than his wife, but they are equal in nature. The JW's fail to understand that Jesus was in a humbled state (Heb. 2:9) and made under the Law (Gal. 4:4). Jesus was in a lower position because He was a man as well as divine. He has two natures: human and divine. The incarnation answers the JW's objections. John 17:3, “And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent." If John 17:3 means that the Father is the only true God, then Jude 4 means that Jesus is our only Lord and Master because it says Jesus is our ONLY Lord and Master. Therefore, the Father is not our Lord. You don't make doctrine out of one verse, especially since the Bible says that Jesus is God in Heb. 1:8; John 20:28. John 20:28, "Thomas answered and said to Him [Jesus], “My Lord and my God!” Why did Thomas call Jesus both Lord and God in John 20:28? Can you also call Jesus your Lord and your God? The true Jesus (of the Bible) is called Lord and God by His disciple. If you are a disciple of Jesus, can you also call Him your Lord and God? If not, why not? 1 Cor. 1:2, "to the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours." The phrase, "call upon the name of the Lord [YHWH]" is used in the OT only in reference to God (i.e., 116:4), never anyone else. Yet, the Greek equivalent (LXX) of the phrase is applied to Jesus in 1 Cor. 1:2. It says that the church "calls upon the name of the Lord Jesus." Why is a phrase used ONLY of God in the OT, applied to Jesus in the NT? The LXX translates "call upon the name of YHWH" as "call upon the name of the Lord [kurios]." The phrase "call upon the name of the Lord is applied to Jesus. Col. 1:15 - "And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation." The JW's say that "firstborn" means first created. It doesn't. The following two verses demonstrate that "firstborn" is a title of pre-eminence that is transferable. Gen. 41:51-52, "And Joseph called the name of the first-born Manasseh: For, said he, God hath made me forget all my toil, and all my father’s house. And the name of the second called he Ephraim: For God hath made me fruitful in the land of my affliction." AND, Jer. 31:9, "...for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn." Therefore, the JW fails to understand the complete meaning of firstborn. Heb. 1:3 If Jesus is the "the exact representation of his [God] very being" (Heb. 1:3, NWT), then how is Jesus (who is only a man) God's exact representation? It makes no sense. But, if Jesus is both God and man (Col. 2:9), then Jesus can be the exact representation of God's nature -- because He HAS A DIVINE nature. If the JW Jesus was first an angel and became a man, then the angel stopped being angelic in nature, changed natures, became a man, and he yet was the "exact representation" (Heb. 1:3, NWT) of God? How is that so? COMMENTS: The JW's agree with the Pharisees who condemned Jesus, that Jesus is not God in flesh. They accused Jesus of claiming to be God (John 10:33). But, of course they denied that Jesus was God, just the same as the JW's do. Does the term SON OF GOD mean that Jesus is not God? Of so, then does the term SON OF MAN mean that Jesus is not a man? If the term SON OF GOD means that Jesus is a man, then what does the term SON OF MAN mean? If the term Son of Man means that Jesus is a man, then what does the term Son of God mean? John 1:1 is dealing with God's nature since it says the word was God. Dealing with the nature of God we understand that there is only one God (Is. 43:10; 44:6-8; 45:5). To say that the Word was "a" god is far too close to polytheism in the context. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 30: MORMONISM ======================================================================== The purpose of this page is to provide quick cut and paste answers to common objections against Christianity. Each answer has been boiled down to a maximum of 255 characters, including spaces, to allow it to be pasted on all chat systems -- at least all that I checked. If you know of other basic questions, please let me know. Mormon Doctrines There are many gods, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163); There is a mother goddess, (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443); God used to be a man on another planet, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 321); After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god, (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pages 345-347, 354); God resides near a star called Kolob, Pearl of Great Price, pages 34-35; Mormon Doctrine, p. 428.) The Bible says there is only one God (Is. 43:10; 44:6,8; 45:5). God is a trinity of persons, not three gods. God is eternally God (Psalm 90:2), therefore, He was never a man. God knows of no other gods (Is. 44:8). You cannot become a god (Is. 43:10). Mormonism is wrong. The Trinity is three separate gods, (James Talmage, Articles of Faith, p. 35); God is increasing in knowledge, (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 120); God has the form of a man, (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 3). God the Father has a body of flesh and bones, (Doctrine and Covenants, 130:22); God is married to his goddess wife and has spirit children, (Mormon Doctrine p. 516); We were first begotten as spirit children in heaven and then born naturally on earth, (Journal of Discourse, Vol. 4, p. 218). The Bible says that God is spirit (John 4:24) and that a spirit does not have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). Therefore, God doesn't have a body of flesh and bones and he isn't married to a goddess wife. Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163); There is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, p. 188); There are three levels of heaven: telestial, terrestrial, and celestial, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 348). The Holy Ghost is a male personage, (A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, p 118; Journal of Discources, Vol. 5, page 179); Baptism for the dead, (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. II, p. 141). This is a practice of baptizing each other in place of non-Mormons who are now dead. Their belief is that in the afterlife, the "newly baptized" person will be able to enter into a higher level of Mormon heaven. Joseph Smith boasted he did more than Jesus to keep a church together. Joseph Smith said, "I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam...Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet." (History of the Church, Vol. 6:408-9). Click here to see this quote in context. Mormonism condemns other religions (Joseph Smith's first vision) "...I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right — and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight. . ." (History of the Church, Vol. 1, page 5-6.) "But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong." (Brigham Young, "Journal of Discourses," Vol. 2, page 171. - 1855) Mormons has a different Jesus "In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times.'" (LDS Church News Week ending June 20, 1998, p.7) Book of Mormon Joseph Smith said, "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." (History of the Church, Vol. 4, page 461). If the book of Mormon is more correct than the Bible and you can get closer to God by following it (History of the Church, 4:461), why does it not mention plurality of Gods, Word of Wisdom, God is an exalted man, celestial marriage, men may become Gods; three degrees of glory; baptism for the dead; eternal progression, the Aaronic Priesthood, and the Melchizedek Priesthood? Changes in Book of Mormon 1 Nephi 11:18, (1830 edition) "And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of [. . . . ] God, after the manner of the flesh." VERSES (1981 edition) "And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh." 1 Nephi 13:40, (1830 edition)"...and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is [. . . . ] the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world..." VERSES (1981 edition) "...and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the World..." 1 Nephi 20:1 (changed in 1964 ed.) "Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah,[. . . . ] which swear..." VERSES (1981 EDITION) "Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, who are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, or out of the waters of baptism, who swear..." Alma 29:4, (1830 edition)"...yea, I know that he allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable, according to their wills..." VERSES (1981 edition) "...yea, I know that he allotteth unto men [ . . . .] according to their wills..." 3 Nephi 22:4 (1830 edition) "...for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, [. . . . ] and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more." VERSES "...for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more." Questions for Mormons Why was Joseph Smith still preaching against polygamy in October 1843 after he got his revelation in July 1843 commanding the practice of polygamy? (Doc. & Cov. 132; and History of the Church Vol. 6, page 46, or Teachings of the Prophet, page 324). If the Book of Mormon is true, why do Indians fail to turn white when they become Mormons? (2 Nephi 30:6, prior to the 1981 revision). How did Joseph Smith carry home the golden plates of the Book of Mormon, and how did the witnesses lift them so easily? (They weighed about 230 lbs. Gold, with a density of 19.3 weighs 1204.7 lbs. per cubic foot. The plates were 7" x 8" by about 6". See Articles of Faith, by Talmage, page 262, 34th ed.) If Moroni devoutly practiced the Mormon Gospel, why is he an angel now rather than a God? (Doc. & Cov. 132:17,37) If Jesus was conceived as a result of a physical union between God and Mary, how was Jesus born of a virgin? (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, page 50). How did Nephi with a few men on a new continent build a temple like Solomon's while Solomon needed 163,300 workmen and seven years to build his temple? (1 Kings 5:13-18 and 2 Nephi 5:15-17). God rejected the fig leaf aprons which Adam and Eve made (Gen. 3:21). Why do Mormons memorialize the fall by using fig leaf aprons in the secret temple ceremonies? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 31: ONENESS ======================================================================== Baptism - Oneness groups teach baptism (in Jesus' name) is necessary for salvation If baptism is necessary for salvation, then why are we justified by faith (Rom. 5:1) and not faith and baptism? "In Jesus' name" is a reference to authority, not method. Acts 4:7 shows that people were asking “By what authority, or in what name, have you done this?” To Baptize in Jesus' name means to Baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit just as Jesus commanded in (Matt. 28:19) If baptism is essential for salvation, then what happens to someone who repents of sin, accepts Jesus as Savior, walks across the street to get baptized but is killed by a car. Does he go to heaven or hell? If he goes to heaven, then baptism isn't a requirement is it? If he goes to hell, then faith in Christ isn't sufficient to save him is it? Trinity We use the term "person" regarding each member of the Godhead (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), because each of them displays attributes of personhood, i.e., each speaks, is aware of others and himself, possesses a will, has emotions, etc. Hence, the term person. Questions for Oneness people Is Jesus His own Father? If so, how can He be the Father of Himself? If God is only one person, why did Jesus say in John 14:23, "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." If God is only one person, why does Jesus say, "we"? If you say He is the Father of the flesh, then how can that be a real incarnation? If it isn't a real incarnation, then the atonement cannot save. If God is only one person, then how can the one person have two separate and distinct wills at the same time on the exact same subject? Jesus said, "Not my will but your will be done," (Luke 22:42), when speaking to the Father. Was Jesus praying to Himself in the Garden of Gesthemene? If so, how is it possible to do that? Jesus was not praying to Himself. We see in Scripture, Jesus praying to the Father. If the flesh of Jesus was talking to the spirit of Jesus when He prayed "Not my will but your will be done" (Luke 22:42), then how is Jesus really the incarnation of God since you have the flesh arguing with the spirit and they seem to be totally distinct and separate? Regarding Isaiah 9:6, If Jesus' name is "Eternal Father," then why don't we call Jesus "Eternal Father"? For that matter, why don't we call his name "Wonderful counselor," or "Mighty God," or "Prince of Peace"? Isaiah 9:6, "For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." Is Jesus in physical, human form right now? Since the Bible teaches us that Jesus is in bodily form now (Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 2:5), then how does the Oneness person maintain that God is in the form of the Holy Spirit? If baptism is essential for salvation, then what happens to someone who repents of sin, accepts Jesus as Savior, walks across the street to get baptized but is killed by a car. Does he go to heaven or hell? If he goes to heaven, then baptism isn't a requirement is it? If he goes to hell, then faith in Christ isn't sufficient to save him is it? What is the name of God, according to God Himself? "The God of your fathers has sent me to you.’ Now they may say to me, ‘What is His name?’ What shall I say to them?” 14 And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you,’” (Ex. 3:13-14). God's self-given name is I AM. If Jesus is the Father and the Father judges no one, then Jesus could not be judge. Isn't that right? Verses Examined Matt. 28:19,"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." This is the formula that Jesus commanded that we use. If the Oneness people are so biblical, why do they not obey Jesus' own words. John 3:5, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." How can John 3:5 refer to Christian baptism when it hadn't been instituted yet. The only baptism known at that time was the Baptism of John the Baptist and it was about repentance. The context of John 3:5 refers to natural birth and spiritual birth, fleshly birth and spiritual birth which is why Nicodemus referred to his mother's womb, and Jesus says in verse 6, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Acts 2:38, "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 2:38 simply says that repentance and forgiveness of sins are connected. In the Greek, "repent" is in the plural and so is "your" of "your sins." Regarding Acts 2:38, the Bible Knowledge Commentary says, "The preposition used here is eis which, with the accusative case, may mean "on account of, on the basis of." Therefore, you get baptized on because of repentance. Acts 2:38, check out Acts 2:39 which deals with the covenant of baptism and its relation to the children. This is covenant language. Acts 22:16, "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Regarding Acts 22:16, our sins are washed away by calling on Jesus name, not by being dunked in water. 1 Pet. 3:21, "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Look at the context of verses 18-20. What saved Noah, the flood or the Ark? It was the Ark. Peter says in like manner baptism saves you. Noah entered the Ark by faith which is why Peter goes on to say, "not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience." ======================================================================== CHAPTER 32: RELATIVISM ======================================================================== Relativism is perhaps the easiest of all positions to refute. When someone states that all truth is relative or that there are no absolute truths, then it is a simple matter of demonstrating the illogic of their position. These short replies to their statements are just what you need. Following are some statements made by those in relativism. Find one that fits, copy and paste the reply into a window and see what they say. "All truth is relative" If all truth is relative, then the statement "All truth is relative" would be absolutely true. If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement that "All truth is relative" is false. "There are no absolute truths" The statement "There are no absolute truths" is an absolute statement which is supposed to be true. Therefore it is an absolute truth and "There are no absolute truths" is false. If there are no absolute truths, then you cannot believe anything absolutely at all, including that there are no absolute truths. Therefore, nothing could be really true for you - including relativism. "What is true for you is not true for me" If what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false? If you say no, then what is true for me is not true and relativism is false. If you say yes, then relativism is false. If you say that it is true only for me that relativism is false, then I am believing something other than relativism; namely, that relativism is false. If that is true, then how can relativism be true? If you say that it is true only for me that relativism is false, then am I believing a premise that is true or false or neither? If it is true for me that relativism is false, then relativism (within me) holds the position that relativism is false. This is self-contradictory and can't be true. If it is false for me that relativism is false, then relativism isn't true because what is true for me is not said to be true for me. If you say that what is true for me is neither really true or false, then relativism isn't true since it states that all views are equally valid and by not being, at least true, relativism is shown to be wrong. If I believe that relativism is false, and if it is true only for me that it is false, then you must admit that it is absolutely true that I am believing that relativism false. If you admit that it is absolutely true that I am believing relativism is false, then relativism is defeated since you admit there is something absolutely true. If I am believing in something other than relativism that is true, then there is something other than relativism that is true - even if it is only for me. If there is something other than relativism that is true, then relativism is false. "No one can know anything for sure" If that is true, then we can know that we cannot know anything for sure which is self defeating. "That is your reality, not mine" Is my reality really real or not? If it is, then my reality states that relativism is false. If my reality is not true, then relativism isn't true either since it states that my reality is true. If my reality is different than yours, how can my reality contradict your reality? If yours and mine are equally real, how can two opposite realities that exclude each other really exist at the same time -- especially since reality is that which is true? "We all perceive what we want" If we all perceive what we want, then how do you know that statement is true since I can want to perceive that your statement is false? If we all perceive what we want, then what are you wanting to perceive? If you say you want to perceive truth, how do you know if you are not deceived? Simply desiring truth is no proof you have it. "You may not use logic to refute relativism" Why may I not use logic to refute relativism? Do you have a logical reason for your statement? If not, then you aren't being logical. If you do, then you are using logic to refute logic and that can't happen. Can you give me a logical reason why logic cannot be used? If you use relativism to refute logic, then on what basis is relativism (that nothing is absolutely true) able to refute logic which is based upon truth since you must assume relativism is absolutely true to be able to refute logic. If you use relativism to refute logic, then relativism has lost its relative status since it is used to absolutely refute the truth of something else. "We are only perceiving different aspects of the same reality" If our perceptions of reality are contradictory, can either perception be trusted? Is truth self contradictory? If it were, then truth wouldn't be true because it would be self refuting. If something is self refuting, then it isn't true. If that is true that we are perceiving different aspects of the same reality, then am I believing something that is false since I believe that your reality is not true? How then could they be the same reality? If you are saying that it is merely my perception that is not true, then relativism is refuted. If I am believing something that is false, then relativism is not true since it holds that all views are equally valid. If my reality is that your reality is false, then both cannot be true. If both are not true, then one of us (or both) is in error. If one or both of us is in error, then relativism is not true. "Relativism itself is excluded from the critique that it is absolute and self-refuting" On what basis do you simply exclude relativism from the critique of logic? Is this an arbitrary act? If so, does it justify your position? If it is not arbitrary, what criteria did you use to exclude it? To exclude itself from the start is an admission of the logical problems inherent in its system of thought. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 33: ROMAN CATHOLICISM ======================================================================== There is so much about the Catholic Church that is fascinating. They teach many orthodox things, and then they teach so many non orthodox doctrines. Following are some of them in an easy-to-cut-and-paste arrangement. Baptism saves ". . Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of forgiveness of sins because it unites us with Christ, who died for our sins and rose for our justification, so that 'we too might walk in newness of life,'" (Catechism of the Catholic Church par. 977). "Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted us through Baptism. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who justifies us. It has for its goal the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life. It is the most excellent work of God's mercy," (CCC, par. 2020). Grace "Sanctifying grace is the gratuitous gift of his life that God makes to us; it is infused by the Holy Spirit into the soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it" (CCC, par. 2023). Islam The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." (CCC, par. 841) Justification "Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted us through Baptism. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who justifies us. It has for its goal the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life. It is the most excellent work of God's mercy," (CCC, par. 2020). "If any one saith, that it is an imposture to celebrate masses in honour of the saints, and for obtaining their intercession with God, as the Church intends; let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, Canons on Justification, Canon 5) "If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema" (Council of Trent, Canons on Justification, Canon 9). "If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema." (Canon 14). Verses on Justification to counter the RC position "being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus," (Rom. 3:24). "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law," (Rom. 3:28). "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness," (Rom. 4:3). "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness," (Rom. 4:5). "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," (Rom. 5:1). "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him," (Rom. 5:9). "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved," (Rom. 10:9). "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God," (Eph. 2:8). Mary "Holy Mary, Mother of God...we can entrust all our cares and petitions to her: she prays for us as she prayed for herself: 'Let it be to me according to your word.' [Lk 1:38] By entrusting ourselves to her prayer, we abandon ourselves to the will of God together with her: 'Thy will be done,' (CCC 2677). "By asking Mary to pray for us, we acknowledge ourselves to be poor sinners and we address ourselves to the 'Mother of Mercy,' the All-Holy One. We give ourselves over to her now, in the Today of our lives. And our trust broadens further, already at the present moment, to surrender 'the hour of our death' wholly to her care." (CCC 2677). [Mary] "Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation .... Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.'" (CCC, par. 969) Mary is "The mother of the members of Christ" (CCC par. 963). She was "Preserved free from all stain of original sin" (CCC, par. 966). She is "Queen over all things" (par. 966). By Mary’s prayers, she delivers souls from death (par. 966). Mary, "...by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation.... "The Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix" (CCC par. 969). "The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, are an ‘epitome of the whole Gospel,’" (par. 971). Mary, "...when the course of her earthly life was completed, was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven..." (par. 974). "...when she [Mary] is the subject of preaching and worship she prompts the faithful to come to her Son..." (Vatican Council II, p. 420). "Mary has by grace been exalted above all angels and men to a place second only to her Son" (Vatican Council II, p. 421). "This mother...is waiting and preparing your home for you" (Handbook for Today’s Catholic, p.31). Penance "Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance for all sinful members of his Church: above all for those who, since Baptism, have fallen into grave sin, and have thus lost their baptismal grace and wounded ecclesial communion. It is to them that the sacrament of Penance offers a new possibility to convert and to recover the grace of justification..." (CCC, par. 1446). "By Christ's will, the Church possesses the power to forgive the sins of the baptized and exercises it through bishops and priests normally in the sacrament of penance ," (CCC par. 986). "As a means of regaining grace and justice, penance was at all times necessary for those who had defiled their souls with any mortal sin. . . .The Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, c. i). Purgatory The 2nd Vatican Council, p. 63, "The truth has been divinely revealed that sins are followed by punishments. God’s holiness and justice inflict them. Sins must be expiated. This may be done on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life and, above all, through death. Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments." Salvation "We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will. In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere 'to the end' and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God's eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ," (CCC, par. 1821). "Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification," (CCC, par. 2010). Terms Assumption - the taking of the body and soul of Mary, by God, into glory.Catholic doctrine, apparently, does not state whether or not Mary died, but tradition holds that she died and was immediately afterward assumed into heaven both body and soul. Mass - a reenactment of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross in a ceremony performed by a priest. This ceremony is symbolically carried out by the priest and involves Mortal Sin - a serious and willful transgression of God's Law. It involves full knowledge and intent of the will to commit the sin. If left unrepentant, can damn someone to eternal hell. ' Purgatory - a place of temporary punishment where the Christian is cleansed from sin before they can enter into heaven. Rosary - A string of beads containing five sets with ten small beads. Each set of ten is separated by another bead. It also contains a crucifix. It is used in saying special prayers, usually to Mary where the rosary is used to count the prayers. Transubstantiation - The teaching that the bread and wine in the communion supper become the body and blood of the Lord Jesus at the Consecration during the Mass. Venial Sin - A sin but not as bad as Mortal Sin. It lessens the grace of God within a person's soul. Tradition "This living transmission, accomplished through the Holy Spirit, is called tradition..." (Par. 78) ". . .the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, ‘does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence'." (CCC, par. 82.) Verses dealing with Tradition Matt. 15:4-6, Jesus said, "For God said, Honor your father and mother, and, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death 5But you say, Whoever shall say to his father or mother, Anything of mine you might have been helped by has been given to God, 6he is not to honor his father or his mother. And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition." Mark 7:8-9, "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men. 9He was also saying to them, You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition." Col. 2:8, "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ." ======================================================================== CHAPTER 34: MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE FOR SUPERIOR NEW TESTAMENT RELIABILITY ======================================================================== The New Testament is constantly under attack and its reliability and accuracy are often contested by critics. But, if the critics want to disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. This is because the New Testament documents are better preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writing. Because the copies are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy. This process has determined that the biblical documents are extremely consistent and accurate. There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament.1 If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity. Author2 Date Written Earliest Copy Approximate Time Span between original & copy Number of Copies Accuracy of Copies Lucretius died 55 or 53 B.C. 1100 yrs 2 ---- Pliny 61-113 A.D. 850 A.D. 750 yrs 7 ---- Plato 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 yrs 7 ---- Demosthenes 4th Cent. B.C. 1100 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ---- Herodotus 480-425 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ---- Suetonius 75-160 A.D. 950 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ---- Thucydides 460-400 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ---- Euripides 480-406 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1300 yrs 9 ---- Aristophanes 450-385 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 10 ---- Caesar 100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. 1000 10 ---- Livy 59 BC-AD 17 ---- ??? 20 ---- Tacitus circa 100 A.D. 1100 A.D. 1000 yrs 20 ---- Aristotle 384-322 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1400 49 ---- Sophocles 496-406 B.C. 1000 A.D. 1400 yrs 193 ---- Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 yrs 643 95% New Testament 1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D. 2nd Cent. A.D. (c. 130 A.D. f.) less than 100 years 5600 99.5% As you can see, there are thousands more New Testament Greek manuscripts than any other ancient writing. The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. That is an amazing accuracy. In addition there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages. The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000. Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament documents were all written before the close of the first century. If Jesus was crucified in 30 A.D., then that means that the entire New Testament was completed within 70 years. This is important because it means there were plenty of people around when the New Testament documents were penned who could have contested the writings. In other words, those who wrote the documents knew that if they were inaccurate, plenty of people would have pointed it out. But, we have absolutely no ancient documents contemporary with the first century that contest the New Testament texts. Furthermore, another important aspect of this discussion is the fact that we have a fragment of the gospel of John that dates back to around 29 years from the original writing. This is extremely close to the original writing date. This is simply unheard of in any other ancient writing and it demonstrates that the Gospel of John is a first century document. Below is a chart with some of the oldest extant New Testament manuscripts compared to when they were originally penned. Compare these time spans with the next closest which is Homer's Iliad where the closest copy from the original is 500 years later. Undoubtedly, that period of time allows for more textual corruption in its transmission. How much less so for the New Testament documents? Important Manuscript Papyri Contents Date Original Written MSS Date Approx. Time Span Location p52 (John Rylands Fragment)3 John 18:31-33,37-38 circa 96 A.D. circa 125 A.D. 29 yrs John Rylands Library, Manchester, England P46 (Chester Beatty Papyrus) Rom. 5:17-6:3,5-14; 8:15-25, 27-35, 37-9:32; 10:1-11, 22, 24-33, 35-14:8,9-15:9, 11-33; 16:1-23, 25-27; Heb.; 1 & 2 Cor., Eph., Gal., Phil., Col.; 1 Thess. 1:1,9-10; 2:1-3; 5:5-9, 23-28 50's-70's circa 200 A.D. Approx. 150 yrs Chester Beatty Museum, Dublin & Ann Arbor, Michigan, University of Michigan library P66 (Bodmer Papyrus) John 1:1-6:11,35-14:26; fragment of 14:29-21:9 70's circa 200 A.D. Approx. 130 yrs Cologne, Geneva P67 Matt. 3:9,15; 5:20-22, 25-28 circa 200 A.D. Approx. 130 yrs Barcelona, Fundacion San Lucas Evangelista, P. Barc.1 If the critics of the Bible dismiss the New Testament as reliable information, then they must also dismiss the reliability of the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Homer, and the other authors mentioned in the chart at the beginning of the paper. On the other hand, if the critics acknowledge the historicity and writings of those other individuals, then they must also retain the historicity and writings of the New Testament authors; after all, the evidence for the New Testament's reliability is far greater than the others. The Christian has substantially superior criteria for affirming the New Testament documents than he does for any other ancient writing. It is good evidence on which to base the trust in the reliability of the New Testament. ______________________ 1. Norman Geisler & Peter Bocchino, Unshakeable Foundations, (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2001) p. 256. 2. This chart was adapted from three sources: 1) Christian Apologetics, by Norman Geisler, 1976, p. 307; 2) the article "Archaeology and History attest to the Reliability of the Bible," by Richard M. Fales, Ph.D., in The Evidence Bible, Compiled by Ray Comfort, Bridge-Logos Publishers, Gainesville, FL, 2001, p. 163; and 3) A Ready Defense, by Josh Mcdowell, 1993, p. 45. 3."Deissmann was convinced that p52 was written well within the reign of Hadrian (A.D. 117-38) and perhaps even during the time of Trajan (A.D. 98-117)" (Footnote #2 found on pg. 39 of The Text of the New Testament, by Bruce M. Metzger, 2nd Ed. 1968, Oxford University Press, NY, NY). Bruce Metzger has authored more than 50 books. He holds two Masters Degrees, a Ph.D. and has been awarded several honorary doctorates. "He is past president of the Society of Biblical Literature, the International Society fo New Testament Studies, an the North American Patristic Society." -- From, The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel, Zondervan Publishers, 1998, Grand Rapids, MI: pg. 57. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 35: WASN'T THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITTEN HUNDREDS OF YEARS AFTER CHRIST? ======================================================================== Though some say that the New Testament was written 100-300 years after Christ died, the truth is that it was written before the close of the first century by those who either knew Christ personally, had encountered him, or were under the direction of those who were His disciples. In the article When were the gospels written and by whom?, I demonstrated that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all written before 70 A.D. Basically, the book of Acts was written by Luke. But Luke fails to mention the destruction of Jerusalem in 79. A.D., nor does he mention the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65). Since Acts is a historical document dealing with the church, we would naturally expect such important events to be recorded if Acts was written after the fact. Since Acts 1:1-2 mentions that it is the second writing of Luke, the gospel of Luke was written even earlier. Also, Jesus prophesied the destruction of the temple in the gospels: "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:5, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). Undoubtedly, if Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written after the destruction of the Temple, they would have included the fulfillment of Christ's prophecy in them. Since they don't, it is very strong indication that they were written before 70 A.D. The gospel of John is supposed to have been written by John the apostle. It is written from the perspective of a first hand witness of the events of Christ's life. The John Rylands papyrus fragment 52 of John's gospel dated in the year 135 contains portions of John 18:31-33, 37-38. This fragment was found in Egypt and a considerable amount of time is needed for the circulation of the gospel before it reached Egypt. It is the last of the gospels and appears to have been written in the 80's to 90's. Of important note is the lack of mention of the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. But this is understandable since John does not mention Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the Temple. He was not focusing on historical events. Instead, he focused on the theological aspect of the person of Christ and listed His miracles and words that affirmed Christ's deity. This makes perfect sense since he already knew of the previously written gospels. Furthermore, 1, 2, and 3 John all contain the same writing style as the gospel of John and the book of Revelation which is supposed to have been written in the late 80's or early 90's. Paul's Writings: Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon Paul the Apostle was a convert to Christianity. The book of Acts speaks of his conversion in Acts 9. Since Acts was written before 70 A.D. and Paul wrote the Pauline Epistles and we know that Paul died in 64 A.D., the Pauline Epistles were all written before that date. Furthermore, in 1 Cor. 15:3-4 is an early creed of the Christian church where Paul mentions that Jesus had died and risen. "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures," (1 Cor. 15:3-4). Notice that he says he received this information. From whom did he receive it? Most probably the apostles since he had a lot of interaction with them. This means that Paul received the gospel account from the eyewitnesses. They were, of course contemporaries and since they all died before the turn of the century. Therefore, their writings were completed within the lifetime of the apostles of Jesus. Hebrews It is not known for sure who wrote the book of Hebrews. Authorship has been proposed for Paul, Barnabas (Acts 4:36), Apollos (Acts 18:24), etc. The only geographical area mentioned is Italy (Heb. 13:24). The latest possible date for the writing of Hebrews is A.D. 95 but could have been written as early as A.D. 67. The book of Hebrews speaks of the sacrifice by the High Priest in the present tense (Heb. 5:1-3; Heb. 7:27) possibly signifying that the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 A.D. had not yet happened. James This epistle claims to have been written by James, "James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad, greetings," (James 1:1). The question is, "Which James?" Is it James, the son of Zebedee (Matt. 10:2-3); James, the son of Alphaeus (Matt. 10:2-3), or the most commonly and accepted James who was the brother of Jesus? "Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56And His sisters, are they not all with us?" (Matt. 13:55). Notice the context of the verses suggests immediate family since it mentions Jesus' Mother, brothers, and sisters. Also, see Gal. 1:19 which says "Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. 19But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother." It is probable that James didn't believe in Jesus as the Messiah until Jesus appeared to him after His resurrection as is mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:7, "then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles." James was martyred by the order of the high priest Ananus after the death of the "procurator Festus in A.D. 61 (Josephus, Ant. 20. 9)." Therefore, the epistle of James was written before A.D. 61.1 1 and 2 Peter Both epistles clearly state that they were authored by Peter, an eyewitness of Jesus' life and post resurrection appearances. Though there has been some who have doubted the authorship of these two epistles, the clear opening statements of each epistle tell us Peter was the author. "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus...", (1 Pet. 1:1) and "Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours..." (2 Pet. 2:1). It certainly seems most logical that Peter is indeed the author of the letters that bear his name. Peter died at Rome during Nero's persecution of Christians around 64 AD so the epistles were obviously written before that time. 1, 2, 3 John The writer of 1 John does not identify himself in the letter. The writer of 2 and 3 John refers to himself as "the elder," (2 John 1; 3 John 1). Regarding the first epistle, authorship can reasonably be determined to be that of John the Apostle. The opening of John is written from the perspective of someone who was there with Jesus (John 1:1-4). Also, "Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, 3.39) says of Papias, a hearer of John, and a friend of Polycarp, 'He used testimonies from the First Epistle of John. Irenaeus, according to Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, 5.8), often quoted this Epistle. So in his work Against Heresies (3.15; 5, 8) he quotes from John by name, 1 John 2:18...Clement of Alexandria (Miscellanies, 2.66, p. 464) refers to 1 Jn 5:16, as in John’s larger Epistle.'"2 "In the earliest canonical lists, dating from the end of the second century, 1 John already appears. Indeed, 1 John is quoted as authoritative by Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna [a disciple of John the apostle] before the middle of the second century. The attestation of 2 John is almost as good. There is no second-century reference to 3 John, but that is not surprising, since it deals with a specific, local issue."3 Furthermore, the style of the three epistles is very similar to that of the gospel of John. 1 John mentions the "word of life" (1 John 1:1) as does the gospel of John 1:1, etc. It appears that the epistles were written after the Gospel of John since the epistles seem to assume a knowledge of the gospel facts. Date of writing varies from A.D. 60 to the early 90's.4 Jude Jude identifies himself as the brother of James (Jude 1). It is most likely that Jude, in true Christian humility, does not want to equate himself as the brother of Jesus as he is traditionally held to be and seems to be supported by scripture: "Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?" (Matt. 13:55).5 Instead, he mentions himself as a servant of Jesus, as James has also done. The date of writing seems to be anywhere from A.D. 68 to the early 90's. Remember that if Judas was a brother of Jesus, he was born around after Jesus which would mean the later the writing date, the older was Judas. There is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem which could have been naturally included in the writing considering that Jude mentions judgments from God upon believers and unbelievers alike (Jude 5-12). Nevertheless, it appears that Jude may have quoted from James. Jude 17-18 says, "But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, 18that they were saying to you, "In the last time there shall be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts." Compare this to 2 Pet. 3:3, "Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts." If this is a quote, it would place the epistle after the writing of 2 Peter.6 Revelation The author of the Book of Revelation is John. "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must shortly take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John," (Rev. 1:1). "Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, p. 308) (A.D.. 139–161) quotes from the Apocalypse, as John the apostle’s work."7 Revelation was probably written at the end of John the Apostle's life. Some hold to the 90's and it is the last book written in the New Testament. Conclusion Though this information is basic, it supplies enough evidence to support the apostolic authorship of the New Testament documents. The debate on the dating of the books may never be absolutely settled, but as scholarship and archaeology advance, confirmation of early authorship of the New Testament continues to be validated. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 36: HASN'T THE BIBLE BEEN REWRITTEN SO MANY TIMES IT CAN'T BE TRUSTED? ======================================================================== This is a common misconception. Some people think that the Bible was written in one language, translated to another language, then translated into yet another and so on until it was finally translated into the English. The complaint is that since it was rewritten so many times in different languages throughout history, it must have become corrupted. The "telephone" analogy is often used as an illustration. It goes like this. One person tells another person a sentence who then tells another person, who tells yet another, and so on and so on until the last person hears a sentence that has little or nothing to do with the original one. The only problem with this analogy is that it doesn't fit the Bible at all. The fact is that the Bible has not been rewritten. Take the New Testament, for example. The disciples of Jesus wrote the New Testament in Greek and though we do not have the original documents, we do have around 6,000 copies of the Greek manuscripts that were made very close to the time of the originals. These various manuscripts, or copies, agree with each other to almost 100 percent accuracy. Statistically, the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. That means that there is only 1/2 of 1% of of all the copies that do not agree with each other 100%. But, if you take that 1/2 of 1% and examine it, you find that the majority of the "problems" are nothing more than spelling errors and very minor word alterations. For example, instead of saying Jesus, a variation might be "Jesus Christ." So the actually amount of textual variation of any concern at all is extremely low. Therefore, we can say that we have an extremely accurate compilation of the original documents. So when we translate the Bible, we do not translate from a translation of a translation of a translation. We translate from the original language into our language. It is one step, not a series of steps that leads to corruption. It is one translation step from the original to the English or to whatever language a person needs to read it in. So we translate into Spanish from the same Greek manuscripts. Likewise we translate into the German from those same Greek manuscripts as well. This is how it is done for each and every language we translate the Bible into. We do not translate from the Greek to the English, to the Spanish, and then to the German. It is from the Greek to the English. It is from the Greek into the Spanish. It is from the Greek into the German. Therefore, the translations are very accurate and trustworthy in regards to what the Bible originally said. Comparison Chart The following chart represents a compilation of various ancient manuscripts, their original date of writing, the earliest copy, the number of copies in existent, and the time span between the originals and the copies. If the Bible is singled out to be criticized as unreliable then all the other writings listed below must also be discarded. Author1 Date Written Earliest Copy Approximate Time Span between original & copy Number of Copies Accuracy of Copies Lucretius died 55 or 53 B.C. 1100 yrs 2 ---- Pliny 61-113 A.D. 850 A.D. 750 yrs 7 ---- Plato 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 yrs 7 ---- Demosthenes 4th Cent. B.C. 1100 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ---- Herodotus 480-425 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ---- Suetonius 75-160 A.D. 950 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ---- Thucydides 460-400 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ---- Euripides 480-406 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1300 yrs 9 ---- Aristophanes 450-385 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 10 ---- Caesar 100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. 1000 10 ---- Livy 59 BC-AD 17 ---- ??? 20 ---- Tacitus circa 100 A.D. 1100 A.D. 1000 yrs 20 ---- Aristotle 384-322 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1400 49 ---- Sophocles 496-406 B.C. 1000 A.D. 1400 yrs 193 ---- Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 yrs 643 95% New Testament 1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D. 2nd Cent. A.D. (c. 130 A.D.) less than 100 years 5600 99.5% As you can see, the New Testament documents are very accurate. Therefore, when the scholars translate from the Greek into the English (or into any other language), we can trust that what is translated is accurate and reliable. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 37: SINCE THE NT WRITERS WERE BIASED, CAN WE TRUST WHAT THEY WROTE? ======================================================================== Yes, we can trust their testimony. Being biased about something does not mean that you cannot tell the truth. Take for example the case of a robbery. The robber shoots and wounds two employees, escapes, but is later apprehended. At the trial the employees, who have recovered from their injuries, are brought in to testify. Both of these witnesses are biased in that they want to see the perpetrator properly punished. But, under oath their testimony is accepted as perfectly valid -- providing there aren't obvious problems. So, being biased does not automatically mean that the testimony they give is not true. The New Testament writers were certainly biased, but their bias was towards honesty and truth, not deceit. Their intention was to accurately record and testify to the events that they had seen. Remember, the disciples were followers of Jesus who taught them to love, to be kind, faithful, and honest. And this wasn't all. Jesus warned against hypocrisy (Matt. 6:1, and against bearing false witness (Matt. 19:18). The whole life of Jesus was based on integrity, character, faithfulness, truthfulness, love, and sacrifice. This is what the disciples learned from Jesus and this is what they taught in their writings. So, if they learned anything from Jesus it was to live in truth for this is exactly what Jesus said, "Sanctify them in the truth; Thy word is truth. 18"As Thou didst send Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 19"And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth," (John 17:17-19). Furthermore, the fact is that there were plenty of people around who could have discounted what the apostles had written if what they wrote was inaccurate. Yet, we find no evidence of any such thing in any writings of the time. Yes, the disciples were biased. But to what? To lying? To exaggerating? Or were they biased towards the truth of who Jesus is and what He had done? Of course, just because eyewitnesses wrote about Jesus rising from the dead does not mean it actually happened. This is true, but why would the disciples lie about this? Why would they risk their lives, their families, their cultural ties, and even end up dying for it all if they knew it was all a lie developed out of their "bias"? It doesn't make sense. But what does make sense is that the disciples were telling the truth. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 38: WHAT IS THE GOSPEL OF Q AND DOES IT PROVE THE GOSPELS ARE FALSE? ======================================================================== Q comes from the German "quelle" meaning "source." Some biblical scholars have proposed that there was a document prior to the writing of the gospels which was used by the writers of Matthew and Luke as a source of information.1 They have called this hypothetical document "Q." It is hypothetical because there is no proof that the document existed. Nevertheless, this proposal has gained some acceptance in scholarly circles due to the very close similarities and identical written accounts found in both Matthew and Luke. It is reasoned that the very similar accounts must be taken from a common source. Since Matthew was probably originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic according to the historian Papias, and all we have is the Greek texts, some conclude that a translation of the Hebrew gospel of Matthew into Greek would have resulted in translations slightly different from the Luke accounts. But since some of the accounts are identical, it is proposed that Matthew and Luke shared a common reference source. This is perfectly reasonable and we do see differences in translations as well as identical wording. Is this the result of an unknown document known as Q? Perhaps, but there is no way to be sure since it is possible that one copied from another or copied from Mark. Following is a small sample chart of some of the sayings in Matthew and Luke that are identical as is demonstrated by being underlined. The text is taken from the NASB. Matt. 3:7-10, But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8"Therefore bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance; 9and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. 10"And the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Luke 3:7-9, "He therefore began saying to the multitudes who were going out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8"Therefore bring forth fruits in keeping with repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father,’ for I say to you that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. 9"And also the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." Matt. 23:37, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. Luke 13:34, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it! Matt. 11:2-6 Luke 7:18-23 Matt. 8:18-22 Luke 9:57-62 Matt. 17:19-20 Luke 17:5-6 Matt. 25:14-30 Luke 19:11-27 ...etc. As I said above, another theory is that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark. Please consider the following quote which deals with both the Q theory and the Markan Source theory. "It is plain as a pikestaff that both our Matthew and Luke used practically all of Mark and followed his general order of events. For this reason Mark has been placed first on the pages where this Gospel appears at all. But another thing is equally clear and that is that both Matthew and Luke had another source in common because they each give practically identical matter for much that is not in Mark at all. This second common source for Matthew and Luke has been called Logia because it is chiefly discourses. It is sometimes referred to as "Q."2 The above quote from A.T. Robertson, one of the foremost Greek scholars of the 20th century, is a good reflection of the position of many scholars. It may be that there was a common source for Matthew and Luke, either Q or Mark, or a combination of both. If Q is true, are the gospels inspired? Some people say that the Q theory invalidates the inspiration of the gospels since it would mean that the writers copied their material from one another and were then not inspired of God. But this does not invalidate inspiration at all. If Q is an actual source it does not invalidate the validity of the gospels. Why would copying from an earlier source invalidate the Gospels or say they were not inspired? Can God not inspire a writer as he copies from another document? Of course. If anything, the existence of Q would mean that the time between the actual events and their written record is lessened. In other words, Q would have to precede Matthew and Luke. This would mean that there is a source even earlier than the those gospels which only adds to the validity of the accuracy of the gospels since it shortens the time between the event and the record. If Mark was a source of Matthew and Luke, then... Furthermore, if Mark was used as a source for Matthew and Luke, how would he have known what to write about if he wasn't an eyewitness? This isn't a problem because Mark was a disciple of Peter and Peter was in the inner circle with Jesus. Therefore, Mark received his information from Peter who was an eyewitness. Also, Matthew, who was a disciple, agrees with the account of Mark's gospel concerning Jesus and the events surrounding Him as is evidenced in his account. There is no disagreement between them, only confirmation and verification. So, we have confirmation of Mark's accuracy. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 39: WHY ISN'T THERE OTHER EVIDENCE OF THE MASSACRE OF THE BABIES? ======================================================================== "Then when Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he became very enraged, and sent and slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its environs, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the magi," (Matt. 2:16). If Herod really did slaughter all the male babies in Jerusalem, why isn't there any mention of it in historical accounts outside the Bible such as the Jewish historian Josephus or some other Roman historians? Since we find none, doesn't that mean that it didn't happen or at the least cast doubt upon the validity of the event? After all, killing a town full of babies being slaughtered is something that would have been recorded. First of all, not having any evidence outside the Bible of the slaughter of the babies, does not mean it didn't happen, especially since the Bible does record it and the Bible has already been proven to be historically accurate. Second, Bethlehem as far as the Romans was concerned, was an insignificant and very small town located about five miles south of Jerusalem at around 2500 feet elevation. It probably had a population of no more than 500 - 600 people. Micah 5:2 it says, "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity.” Notice that Micah (written around 500 B.C.) prophecies that from Bethlehem, a small town, Jesus will be born. If there were as many as 600 people in Bethlehem, how many children would have been under the age of two? Ten, twenty, thirty? Whatever the number, it would not have been hundreds. It would have been relatively few. Add to this the fact that Herod was known for committing horrendous crimes against people and you could see why this event in an insignificant village in the Jewish area, would be ignored. "But it is not surprising that he [Josephus] and other secular historians overlooked the death of a few Hebrew children in an insignificant village, for Herod’s infamous crimes were many. He put to death several of his own children and some of his wives whom he thought were plotting against him. Emperor Augustus reportedly said it was better to be Herod’s sow than his son, for his sow had a better chance of surviving in a Jewish community."1 Third, there were more "important" things happening in the Roman Empire which would occupy the details of historical writers. Take a look at the chart below and notice that at the time of Christ, some major events were taking place. Undoubtedly, Roman historians would have focused on issues more appropriate to the Empire. Year Event Roman Empire Israel 20 B.C. - Herod begins remodeling of the Temple 12 B.C. - Beginning of war between the Pannonians and the Romans. 9 B.C. - Pannonians are defeated. 7 B.C. - Rome is divided into 14 regions. - Herod executes his son. 4 B.C. - Herod dies. - Herod burns alive 40 Jews who destroyed a golden eagle. - Possible date of the slaughter of the babies 3 B.C. - Archelaus (Herod's son) kills 3000 Jews in the Temple - 0 - (Note that the chronology of Jesus' birth is probably 4 years too late. Therefore, Jesus was probably born around 4 B.C.) 1 A.D. - War in Germany 2 A.D. - Peace made with Persia 3 A.D. - Roman decree permitting Jews to follow their religious customs 4 A.D. - Tiberius subdues Germany 6 A.D. - Pannonians revolt. - Herod Archelaus deposed by Augustus - Judea is absorbed into the Roman Empire We must remember that the Bible has demonstrated itself to be reliable and accurate countless times. It may very well be that some inscription is waiting to be uncovered which will, like many inscriptions in the past, validate yet another biblical event. In the meantime, we can trust the Bible to be the accurate document of historical record that it is. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 40: REGARDING THE QUOTES FROM THE HISTORIAN JOSEPHUS ABOUT JESUS ======================================================================== Flavius Josephus was a Jewish priest at the time of the Jewish Revolt of A.D. 66. He was captured by the Romans, imprisoned, set free and then retired to Rome where he wrote a history of the Jewish Revolt called the "Jewish War." Later he wrote "Antiquities" as a history of the Jews. It is in Antiquities that he mentions Christ. The mention is called the Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. 18.63-64; see below). Josephus was born in Jerusalem around 37 A.D. He died around the year 101. The problem with the copies of Antiquities is that they appear to have been rewritten in favor of Jesus as they are very favorable, some say too favorable to have been written by a Jew. Add to this that the Christians were the ones who kept and made the copies of the Josephus documents throughout history and you have a shadow of doubt cast upon the quotes. However, all is not lost. First of all, there is no proof that such insertions into the text were ever made. They may be authentic. The Testimonium is found in every copy of Jesusphus in existence. Second, Josephus mentions many other biblically relevant occurrences that are not in dispute (see outline below). This adds validity to the claim that Josephus knew about Jesus and wrote about Him since he also wrote about other New Testament things. Nevertheless, though there may be some Christian insertions into the text, we can still reconstruct what may have been the original writing. Two researchers (Edwin Yamauchi and John P. Meier)1 have constructed a copy of the Testimonium with the probable insertions in brackets and underlined. The following paragraph is Yamauchi's: “About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man [if indeed one ought to call him a man.] For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. [He was the Christ.] When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. [On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him.] And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.” Though this may be a correct assessment of the Testimonium, we should note that an Arabic version (10th Century) of the Testimonium (translated into English) is in basic agreement with the existing Josephus account: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."2 The Arabic version was copied from a Greek version. What is not known is which one? But if you notice the comparison below, if the Arabic version was a direct translation of the Greek, then why the differences? Nevertheless, what is important in the Arabic Version is that the resurrection of Christ is maintained. Greek Version Arabic Version “About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man [if indeed one ought to call him a man.] "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. [He was the Christ.] And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. [On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him.] And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.” They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." To summarize, the Testimonium Flavianum cannot be so easily dismissed as pure Christian interpolation (insertion into the text). Though it seems probable that interpolation did occur, we cannot be sure what was added. Also, the Arabic version contains very similar information as the Greek one regarding Jesus in His resurrection. Even if both versions have been tampered with, the core of them both mentions Jesus as a historical figure who was able to perform many surprising feats, was crucified, and that there were followers of Jesus who were still in existence at the time of its writing. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 41: 1 CORINTHIANS 15:3-4 DEMONSTRATES A CREED TOO EARLY FOR LEGEND TO CORRUPT ======================================================================== One of the criticisms raised against the historic validity of Jesus, His crucifixion, and resurrection, is that after Jesus' time, legend crept in to the stories about Him and corrupted the true accounts of His life. If that is so, then the earlier we can find information concerning the fundamental events of Christ's crucifixion, the less likely error and legend would have crept into the story and the more believable it will be. 1 Cor. 15:3-4 is considered by many scholars to be an extremely early creed of the Christian church. A creed is a statement of belief. In 1 Cor. 15:3-4 we see that Paul says he received this information. It reads, "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve," (1 Cor. 15:3-5, NASB). If we were to take a chronological look at some important events and their dates related to this subject we find that the time period between the event and the record is very small. EVENT DATE DOCUMENTATION Jesus' Crucifixion 30 A.D. Paul's conversion 32 A.D. Strobel, Lee, The Case for Christ, (Grand Rapids, Mi: Zondervan), 1998, p. 35 34-37 A.D. The New Bible Dictionary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.) 1962. Paul's first visit to Jerusalem since conversion 37-38 A.D. The New Bible Dictionary, Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.) 1962. The Chronological Bible, (Nashville, TN: Regal Publishers), 1977, p. 1429. Writing of 1 Corinthians 54-55 A.D. Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harper’s Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.) 1985. Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985. If the Crucifixion was in 30 A.D., Paul's Conversion was as early as 34 A.D., and his first meeting in Jerusalem was around 37 A.D., then we could see that the time between the event of Christ's crucifixion and Paul receiving the information about His death, burial, and resurrection (in Jerusalem) would be as short as seven years (five if we use the earlier date). That is a very short period of time and hardly long enough for legend to creep in and corrupt the story. This is especially important since the apostles were alive and spoke with Paul. They were eyewitness accounts to Christ's death, burial, and post death appearances. Paul himself had seen the Lord Jesus prior to His death and after His resurrection (Acts 9). Paul's account agreed with the other Apostles' account and Paul wrote it down in 1 Cor. 15 around the year 54. So, since 1 Corinthians was written as early as 54 A.D., that would mean that from the event (Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection) to writing it down is 24 years. That is a very short period of time. Remember, there were plenty of Christians around who could have corrected the writings of Paul if he was in error. But we have no record at all of any corrections or challenges to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ from anyone: Roman, Jew, or other Christians. We must note here that some critics of the Bible claim that there is no extrabiblical evidence of Christ (not true) and that because of it, He didn't exist. The sword cuts both ways. If they can say that Jesus' events aren't real because there is no extrabiblical evidence mentioning them, then we can also say that since there are no extrabiblical accounts refuting the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, then it must be true. In other words, lack of extrabiblical writings does not prove that Christ did not live and did not die. Furthermore, Paul corroborated the gospel accounts (He wrote before the gospels were written) and verified several things: Jesus was born in as a Jew (Gal. 4:4), Jesus was betrayed (1 Cor. 11:23) and Jesus was crucified (Gal. 3:1; 1 Cor. 2:2; Phil. 2:8). Jesus was buried in rose again (1 Cor. 15:4; Rom. 6:4). Obviously, Paul considered Jesus was a historical figure, not a legend or a myth. Furthermore, Paul was a man of great integrity who suffered much for his faith. He was not the kind of person to simply believe tall tales. After all, he was a devout Jew (a Pharisee) and a heavy persecutor of the Church. Something profound had to happen to him to get him to change his position, abandon the Jewish faith and tradition, suffer persecutions, whippings, jail, etc. The most likely event that fits the bill is that Jesus died, was buried, and rose again from the dead, and appeared to Paul, just as Luke said in Acts 9. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 42: EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE. ======================================================================== The phrase "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" was popularized by Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996), a well-known astronomer and author who hosted a TV series called "Cosmos," published hundreds of scientific articles, and was professor of astronomy at Cornell University in New York. The statement is self explanatory; if someone makes an extraordinary claim, there better be extraordinary evidence to back it up. If, for example, someone made the claim that an alien race has made contact with earth, we would need sufficient evidence to verify the claim, such as an alien space craft, or an actual alien. The extraordinary claim would need extraordinary evidence. At the heart of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a healthy and normal skepticism. There are far too many charlatans and con-men in the world who make extraordinary claims without evidence to back them up. Unfortunately, too many people lack the necessary skepticism and critical thinking skills to help them avoid being duped by con artists and wild theories. Personally, except for a few qualifications, I agree with the sentiment of the statement "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Those qualifications follow. Presuppositions Requiring extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims sounds good on the surface. But, it is subjective. The fact is that a person's presuppositions strongly affect how and to what degree the statement is applied. In Jesus' resurrection, for example, Christians presuppose that God exists and that He could easily have raised Jesus from the dead. The evidence of fulfilled prophecy, eyewitness records, and changed lives of the disciples is enough to convince many people who believe in God that Jesus rose from the dead. This is a logical conclusion based on the presupposition and the evidence. Atheists, on the other hand, would negate the resurrection by default since their presupposition that there is no God1 would require that God involved event cannot occur. Therefore, for an atheist the extraordinary evidence would have to be "exceptionally" extraordinary in order to overcome his atheistic presuppositional base. In other words, evidence would need to be presented that was rock solid and irrefutable. This is why the skeptic must require "extraordinary evidence." It enables him to retain his presupposition should the extraordinary level of the evidence not be met. Therefore, requiring extraordinary evidence effectively stacks the deck against the claim. What would qualify as extraordinary evidence? When debating skeptics, I often ask them to tell me what would qualify as extraordinary evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Generally, nothing sensible is offered. Normal evidence would be written accounts. Extraordinary evidence would be a film, but we know that this extraordinary evidence is not reasonable. Therefore, can the requirement that extraordinary claims (Christ's resurrection) require extraordinary evidence apply to Jesus' resurrection? It would seem not. Since Jesus' resurrection is alleged to be a historical event, then it seems logical that normal historical evidence and normal historical examination of that evidence would be all that we could do. The resurrection is supposed to be an event of history and since it claims historical validity, then typical criteria for examining historical claims should be applied. What criteria do they use to determine what is extraordinary evidence? The reality is that there is no precise scientific method for determining the validity of historic events. There is a degree of subjectivity involved. Different people will claim different requirements for validating ancient phenomena based upon their presuppositions and the type of evidence involved. Also, since ancient events dealing with human history and claims cannot be observed or repeated, we must look at the evidence differently. This makes the application of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" somewhat subjective and invalid for determining ancient phenomena. Is the criteria for extraordinary evidence reasonable? The skeptic often requires "proof" that God exists, or "absolute proof" that Jesus rose from the dead. I have heard many atheists, for example, say that the only proof they would accept of Jesus' resurrection would be if it could be tested using the scientific method. Of course, we know that is an impossibility since the scientific method means observation, experimentation, and repetition and we can't apply that to an event that occurred 2000 years ago. Atheists know this and that is why they require it. When the Christian fails to produce a scientific method or scientific evidence, the atheist feels safe in his position. However, the requirement for absolute proof ignores the fact that there is a category of "sufficient evidence." In logic, there is deduction and induction. Deduction is drawing a conclusion based on facts. It is reasoning from the general to the specific. Induction is process of drawing general principles from specific facts. It is from the specific to the general. Often times, we use deductive and inductive reasoning to arrive at conclusions about events in history. In so doing, there is no requirement of "extraordinary evidence." The evidence is simply examined contextually; that is, it is examined according to the genre in which it fits. This is what I mean... We do not apply the logical requirement of establishing a fact that is thus established through experimentation and repetition to the subject of Napoleon's existence. The genre, history, does not fit that methodology. Yet, the skeptic will sometimes require that experimentation and repetition be applied to Jesus' resurrection, thereby, misapplying evidential and logical analysis. Furthermore, we cannot ascertain all things with absolute certainty. We cannot, for example, prove that Alexander the Great (356-323 B.C.) ever lived by observing him. But, we have ancient writings from eyewitnesses concerning his existence. Skeptics readily believe in Alexander the Great without involving the scientific method and without requiring "extraordinary evidence." However, a skeptic might say that Alexander the Great never claimed to have risen from the dead and that normal evidence would be sufficient to determine his existence with a reasonableness of probability. But, Alexander the Great, according to history, performed an extraordinary feat. By the age of 33 he had conquered the known world. That is indeed an extraordinary event in history. So, I ask, "Where is the extraordinary evidence to back that extraordinary claim up?" Has any skeptic in Christ's resurrection, equally applied the principle of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," to Alexander the Great's conquest of the known world? If not, then this brings us full circle to the issue concerning presuppositions. With an atheist, for example, the presupposition that God does not exist means that the extraordinary claim of Christ's resurrection requires extraordinary evidence but Alexander the Great's world conquest does not, yet both are extraordinary claims of history. Conclusion If it is true about Alexander the Great, no big deal. It won't have any effect on anyone and it won't change anything in anyone's life outside of just having the information that he conquered the known world by age 33. But, if it is true about Jesus, then that is completely different. Jesus claimed to be divine and He had a message for people about heaven and hell and that salvation is only through Him. Such a claim requires extraordinary evidence, such as a resurrection from the dead. This would have a profound effect on people and it can make them uncomfortable. Therefore, people will not want it to be true and will desperately try to hold onto their presuppositions; hence, the claim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Nevertheless, when defending the Bible and dealing with the claim that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," address the following issues. Will their presuppositions allow unbiased examination of the evidence? What would qualify as extraordinary evidence? What criteria is used to determine what is extraordinary evidence? Are criteria for extraordinary evidence reasonable? Hopefully, a healthy dialogue can be had by both parties. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 43: DOES THE BIBLE PROVIDE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE FOR JESUS' RESURRECTION? ======================================================================== If you read the paper on extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, then you read the concluding points about the validity and weaknesses of the position and addressing four major points: Will their presuppositions allow unbiased examination of the evidence? What would qualify extraordinary evidence? What criteria is used to determine what is extraordinary evidence? Is the criteria for extraordinary evidence reasonable? Nevertheless, does the Bible actually provide extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims? I believe so. But, instead of providing a list of various claims and evidences, I want to focus on the most important one in the Bible: Christ's resurrection. Basically, does the extraordinary claim that Jesus rose from the dead have any extraordinary evidence to back it up? But, since this is a subject of history, we cannot apply the methods of experimentation and repetition to see if it happened. We don't have any film. All we have is the evidence presented in the Bible, a document of history. Like the extraordinary Alexander the Great who conquered the known world by the age of 33, the resurrection of Jesus is also a historic event. Following is a chart that categorizes some Biblical facts into two categories. I admit this is a bit subjective, but I think that my analysis is sound. Afterwards, I will briefly comment on each one. Extraordinary claim: Jesus physically rose from the dead Extraordinary evidence Not so extraordinary evidence 1. Textual reliability of the ancient document 5. Accounts written by eyewitnesses 2. Retention of crucifixion wounds post event 6. No counter historic information 3. Post death appearances to many people 7. Jesus' body is gone from the tomb 4. Prophetic fulfillment 8. Changed lives Textual reliability of the ancient document The New Testament documents are 99.5% textually pure. This is indeed an extraordinary fact since all other ancient documents do not even approach this level of accuracy. Retention of crucifixion wounds post event This would indeed be an extraordinary evidence of a resurrection to see the actual holes in Jesus' hands and side after he had died on the cross. John 20:27, "Then He *said to Thomas, "Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing." Post death appearances to many people It is indeed extraordinary to have someone who has died in public at an execution to appear to many people afterwards. John 20:26, "And after eight days again His disciples were inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus *came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst, and said, "Peace be with you." Prophetic fulfillment Fulfilling prophecies made hundreds of years earlier about Jesus birth, death, crucifixion, and resurrection is indeed extraordinary. Accounts written by eyewitnesses It is perfectly ordinary to have people write about what they saw. History is full of such accounts. No counter historic information There is no contradictory historical information concerning Jesus' resurrection. This doesn't prove anything, but when the gospels were written, people contemporary to the described events (Jews, Romans, etc.), could have easily written something refuting or correcting the resurrection account. No such writings exist. This isn't extraordinary, but it is important. Jesus body is gone from the tomb It is not extraordinary for a body to disappear from a tomb if we realize that it could have been stolen. We can see that there is sufficient reasons to believe that the Bible does indeed provide extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim; namely, the resurrection of Jesus. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 44: IT IS IMPROBABLE THAT JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD. ======================================================================== When someone says that it is improbable that Jesus rose from the dead, he is speaking logically. The fact is that probability strongly works against Jesus rising from the dead. After all, how many people have risen from the dead in this century? If it had happened, would not the news have reported it? Would not the doctors have known about it? Anyone rising from the dead would be a noteworthy event. So, on one hand, it is true that it is improbable that Jesus rose from the dead. However, on the other hand is not. If there were no God in the universe and if all things followed the natural laws that we know and universe then indeed it would be highly improbable that anyone would rise from the dead. But if there were a God who controls the natural laws and is in fact the author of those laws, then it would be easy for him to raise someone from the dead. The issue of improbability cannot be examined without examining the concept of whether or not God exists. After all, if he does exist the resurrection of Christ is certainly possible. So we see that someone's presuppositions about the existence of God will affect whether or not he or she can accept the idea that Jesus can rise from the dead. Even though statistically it is not normal that anyone would rise from the dead, the statistical improbability does not mean that it is impossible. But we see in the New Testament eyewitness accounts of people seeing Jesus after He was crucified, died, and buried. Take, for example, the following accounts of Jesus appearing after His death and burial. John 20:25-28, "The other disciples therefore were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I shall see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.” 26And after eight days again His disciples were inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst, and said, “Peace be with you.” 27Then He *said to Thomas, “Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing.” 28Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” Luke 24:39, "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." Of course, simply quoting the Bible is not sufficient for skeptics who cannot or will not believe in the resurrection of Christ. But it is difficult to blame them because someone rising from the dead is indeed improbable. In fact, they would say that such an extraordinary claim would require extraordinary evidence. This is not unreasonable if applied fairly and consistently to the context of history. I have written on this in the paper "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Does the New Testament provide extraordinary evidence for the resurrection of Christ? Quite frankly, yes it does. It does in that the eyewitness accounts which were written down by the apostles of Christ, were preserved on an extraordinary good level. There is absolutely no comparable ancient document or documents that even approaches the accuracy and reliability of the New Testament documents. This is indeed extraordinary. To see more on this, please read "Does the Bible provide extraordinary evidence for Jesus' resurrection?" Just because something is improbable, does not mean that it is impossible. Given that God exists in that he is involved in human history, and that Jesus performed many miracles, walked on water, and raised others from the dead, it is not improbable to conclude that he has risen from the dead. In fact, in light of the eyewitness accounts that have been accurately transmitted to us, it is perfectly reasonable to trust in his resurrection. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 45: THE CHRISTIANS WERE MISTAKEN ABOUT JESUS' RESURRECTION ======================================================================== Sometimes critics of Christianity say that Jesus' disciples were mistaken about His resurrection. They say that because no one can rise from the dead, then the disciples were wrong when they said that Jesus rose from the dead. First of all, they are assuming something that may not be true. After all, if there is a God, then why can't a resurrection happen? But, when I ask them to explain how it was possible to be mistaken about something like a person rising from the dead according to the gospel accounts, I don't get any answers except, "Well, they were wrong." It is true that the disciples made mistakes. After all, they were only human. But, how could they be mistaken about something as serious and as monumental as Jesus rising from the dead? Is it likely that they simply goofed, that somehow after seeing Jesus die on the cross, and after fleeing and going into hiding, that the figure that appeared before them in the closed room that looked like Jesus and sounded like Jesus and had holes in His hands and feet really wasn't Jesus? Were the women who saw the empty tomb also mistaken when they looked into it and saw that the body wasn't there? Was the apostle John mistaken when he said that Jesus appeared before Thomas and said, "Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing," (John 20:27). Was it Jesus or not? If not, then who was it? Did the disciples make up the story? Did the apostle John lie when he wrote the account? If so, where are the records refuting this preposterous notion? There aren't any. Is it possible that all the disciples were mistaken about the same thing at the same time especially when they were believing that Jesus had died and was still dead? What would cause them all to switch from believing that when you're dead you're dead to believing that Jesus died and rose from the dead? Was Paul the apostle also mistaken when he was riding along the road to Damascus and claims to have encountered Jesus? Remember, Paul was a persecutor the Christians. He had authority to arrest the Christians and imprison them. He was a devout Jew and quite powerful in the Jewish religious system. How is it that he changed his mind so drastically and claims to have seen the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 9:1)? Was he also simply mistaken? If so, how? What did he see on the road to Damascas that changed his life if not something incredible? Is all of Christianity a big "oops"? Might we meet the disciples in the afterlife and have them say to us, "Uh, remember that resurrection thing about Jesus we wrote about? Well, we goofed. It really didn't happen. We mistook the empty tomb -- never did find His body -- the prophecies of the Old Testament about Him rising (Psalm 16:10), the prophecy of Jesus saying He'd rise (John 2:19-21), the accounts of the women saying that they had seen Him risen, the appearances of a man who looked like Jesus and who had holes in his hands and feet and appeared to us in closed rooms, the conversion of Paul -- that was weird -- oh, and all those miracles He did and those that we then did afterwards, too, well, that was all a big mistake. Also, it was a big mistake going around Israel and all of the Mediterranean proclaiming Jesus had risen from the dead while we suffered persecution and death...yeah, it was all a big mistake. Hope there are no hard feelings." Is it rational to think that the disciples were simply mistaken about something as serious as stating that Jesus had risen from the dead? How do you mistake someone rising from the dead? What would have to happen for numerous people to change their minds about someone coming back to life? Or is it more rational to simply conclude that the disciples weren't mistaken and that Jesus actually did rise from the dead? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 46: THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS CONSPIRED TOGETHER TO GAIN POWER. ======================================================================== It is certainly possible that the New Testament writers worked together and concocted a plan to use a good man named Jesus, who had recently died, in order to gain power and influence for themselves. But just because something is possible does not mean that it is a reality. It is possible that there is an ice cream factory on Jupiter, but that does not mean that one exists. When we look at the New Testament claims of Christ do we see what looks like an elaborate deception concocted by several people? Or do we see that their behavior is more consistent with the idea that Jesus actually did do miracles and rise from the dead? It is the latter explanation that best fits the facts. Following is a list of reasons why the conspiracy theory does not work. It would require great coordination of events and writing over a long period of time. First of all, in order for this conspiracy to work several people would have needed to get together and write documents that were not only inspirational but reflected accurate historical accounts, could stand up to cross examination, and agreed with each other sufficiently to avoid being exposed as a fraud. After all, if their stories and writings were contradictory, their conspiracy would fall apart. This means that there had to be large and sophisticated collusion and careful, deliberate fabrication over a long period of time since the New Testament documents were written over approximately a 50 year span. The writers would have to be very careful about who was named and what places were mentioned. Why? Because the accounts dealt with actual places and people and they would have to make sure it was all correct. If these people wanted to gain power and influence by concocting a plan as grandiose as this, is it logical to say that they agreed to make up a story about this person Jesus, who was known to many people, and say things about Him that were not true, and then get people to believe that He had risen from the dead? Does it make sense that they would go against not only the Jewish system but also that of the Roman Empire, all so that they could try and gain power and influence in an area already dominated by two powerful cultures, the Jewish and Roman? Or is it more logical to say that they didn't conspire to deceive, but simply wrote and testified to what they saw? Doesn't it make more sense to say that they wrote what they knew, recorded the facts, the places, and the events and that it was all true and that that explains the New Testament documents better than anything else? It would mean that the NT writers wrote about truth based on a lie The writers of the New Testament used the words "true" and "truth" 170 times. They lived for the truth of what they believed and they died for it as well. They wrote about truth (Rom. 9:1; 2 Cor. 4:2), honesty (Luke 8:15), love (1 Cor. 13:4-8), integrity (2 Cor. 7:2), compassion (Col. 3:12), forgiveness (Col. 3:13), etc., and it was all based upon their love for and dedication to the truth of Jesus. They spoke against hypocrisy (Rom. 12:9), lying (Col. 3:9), jealousy (James 3:13), and selfish ambition (James 3:16). In fact, they lived according to their words. Does it really make sense to say that the NT writers deliberately conspired to misrepresent the truth and then go to great depths, even to suffer beatings and death, all while they were continuously telling people to believe in a lie? Add to this how they knew they would be persecuted for this alleged conspiracy of lies and we have serious problems explaining their behavior. It would make far more sense to simply acknowledge that they were telling the truth and that it was not a conspiracy to deceive. It would mean that the conspiracy would have to survive cross examination For the conspiracy to work, it would have to face cross examination. Remember, the gospels were written as historical documents mentioning places, people, and events. There certainly were many people who were still alive and who could verify and/or deny the miraculous events concerning Jesus. If you want to make a conspiracy work, you don't offer verifiable facts. Instead, you make up stories that cannot be verified but sound good. This is what Joseph Smith did when he began Mormonism. Nothing of his great cities and civilizations in the Book of Mormon have been verified since 1830 when he published his book of Mormon. Smith's religion isn't based on historical fact with verifiable locations and events. Instead, it is based on a story that cannot be verified. This is not the case with the New Testament books. The Gospels contained records of Jesus performing many miracles and eventually rising from the dead in Jerusalem. He was crucified at the hands of the Romans who were urged by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This was verifiable at the time especially since names and places are listed in the gospels and epistles. All anyone would have to do is contact those people (or check the court records) and go to those places to verify the accounts. If it was all a conspiracy, then where are the contradictory accounts refuting what the New Testament writers claimed? The problem is that there are no contradictory documents known anywhere that attempt to refute the claims recorded in the Gospels. In other words, there is no contradictory evidence even though there were plenty of people around who could have written material contrary to the claims of the New Testament. After all, Pontius Pilate was named (Matt. 27:2), as was Herod, king of Judea (Luke 1:5), the high priest Caiaphas (Matt. 26:3), Elizabeth (Luke 1:57), Mary (Matt. 1:25), John the Baptist (Matt. 3:1), Paul the apostle a convert from Judaism (Acts 9), etc. Locations were cited: Damascas (Acts 9:10), Cyprus and Cyrene (Acts 11:20), Jerusalem (Matt. 16:21), etc. Also, claims of Old Testament prophetic fulfillment were made (see Prophecy, the Bible, and Jesus) and all people had to do was read the Old Testament to check. In other words, there were plenty of people, most of whom were still alive, and places to go to and check in order to expose the conspiracy. But we find no contrary evidence or writings concerning the miraculous events of Jesus life, death, and resurrection. If there is no contrary evidence, no contrary writings, then does it make sense that it was all a conspiracy? Of course not. If it was a conspiracy, then where is the evidence for it? It would mean the conspirators would have to face persecution Undoubtedly, if the writers of the New Testament documents wanted to gain power and influence by writing about a new religious system that would go against the culture of Judaism as well as that of the Roman Empire, they most assuredly knew they would face persecution. We have to remember that the culture of the time was not beset with litigation and polite procedures. People often reacted irrationally and would spontaneously try to kill people (John 8:59). It also means that those who wrote the New Testament faced certain social, economic, and theological pressures. In the Jewish culture the religion was intimately interwoven into the social and economic fabric. Anyone who would go against that system would knowingly risk starvation, mockery, beatings, ridicule, loss of family and friends, etc. This is not something to be considered lightly. Perhaps a single demented individual might consider doing such a thing, but how is it possible to get Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, Jude, Timothy, Apollos, etc. to all join in the charade, risk loss of family, reputation, economic stability, be persecuted and maybe even face death? Is this something that is rational to consider? Should we believe that they were all working together to deceive people so they could gain power, fame, and influence? It is simply extremely unlikely and full of problems as a theory. It would have to explain Paul's Conversion How did the Christian conspirators persuade Paul who was a devout Jew, educated in Jerusalem at the school of Gamaliel, (Acts 22:3), a Pharisee of Pharisees (Acts 22:3), and who was given letters of authority by the Jews to go out and arrest Christians (Acts 9:1-2), to become a Christian and thereby give up everything he had come to believe and stand for? Remember, Paul was a heavy persecutor of Christianity: "And Saul was in hearty agreement with putting him [Stephen] to death. And on that day a great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles," (Acts 8:1). The most logical reason for Paul's conversion is that Jesus actually appeared to him on the Road to Damascus in Acts 9. It would take something pretty severe to cause Paul to abandon everything he had been taught his whole life and to not only convert, but to also advocate, and teach about the risen Lord Jesus -- and he did this for years before he was finally killed for his faith. So, how would the conspiracy theory account for Paul's incredible conversion and life long pursuit of proclaiming Jesus as Lord and Savior? If an adequately plausible explanation cannot be offered, then the simplest one is best; namely, that Jesus appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus and Paul was then converted. Occam's Razor There is a principle known as Occam's Razor. This principle states that generally the simplest explanation is the best. When we examine the facts about the New Testament claims is it simpler to say that the New Testament writers conspired over many decades to write about actual places and people in such a way so as to convincingly deceive thousands of people into believing that Jesus was the Messiah, fulfilled Old Testament prophecy, healed the sick, cured diseases, claimed to be divine, raised Lazarus from the dead, was crucified by Romans after enduring the religious court of the Sanhedrin, was buried, and rose from the dead or that it simply all happened and they recorded it? Which is the simpler explanation? Which requires greater faith? Did the conspirators get what they were after? Finally, if power and influence were sought by the New Testament writers, did they attain it? At best, what they have gained by such an elaborate hoax would have been influence in a small group of people who were outcasts in Israel as well as Rome. Remember, to get followers into Christianity meant that you went against not only the Jewish system but also the Roman system, not to mention being able to concoct a story that could stand scrutiny. Obviously the odds are extremely against such a thing. Did they get what they were after? They were outcasts in their own society. They were beaten, ridiculed, accused of debauchery, jailed, beaten, and executed. If it was all a conspiracy, did they get the influence and power they were after? It doesn't seem so. Instead, it simply makes more sense to believe the New Testament than to say it was all a hoax. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 47: JESUS WAS A MAGICIAN WHO MADE PEOPLE HALLUCINATE ABOUT HIS MIRACLES ======================================================================== All sorts of excuses and challenges have been offered to contradict or explain away the miraculous accounts of Jesus' life. Among the weaker challenges offered is that Jesus was some sort of a magician who was able to get people to hallucinate about His miracles. In other words, countless people were all seeing Jesus do things that were not really happening and it was Jesus who was perpetrating this deception upon them. Let's take the account of where Jesus feeds the five thousand with five loaves and two fish (Matt. 14:19-21). Though it is certainly possible to have one person hallucinate about this, how do the critics account for five thousand people hallucinating about the same thing at the same time? Or how about the resurrection? How do the critics explain the accounts of Jesus appearing to the disciples with holes in His feet and hands? How did Jesus get numerous people to believe a lie about His resurrection (a mass hallucination?) after the Romans, who were experts at executions, not only flogged Him severely, beat Him, and hung Him on a cross for six hours and then pierced His side where water and blood came out? How did Jesus do that? Some have alleged that Jesus went to the far east and learned many "tricks" and techniques for influencing people as well as controlling His bodily functions so as to appear dead. Of course, this kind of theory lacks any evidence at all and is nothing more than conjecture and guesswork. Besides, the Bible says in Luke 2:51 that Jesus from a very young age continued in subjection to His parents. This means that in that culture, Jesus was obligated to stay with His earthly parents and care for them in accordance to the Ten Commandments which stated that He was to honor His mother and father. His obligation was to be there and care for them in their old age, not abandoning them for some journey to the far east in order to learn techniques of mind control. Hallucinations are misperceptions, false interpretations of reality. It is certainly possible for a single person to have a hallucination about something. But, how do you get two, three, or four people to misperceive reality and claim to see the same thing at the same time -- like Jesus' resurrection? That is very difficult to do. In fact, have you ever heard of a group of people succumbing to a mass hallucination and all of them believe the same thing? But then, some might say that Jesus was able to hypnotize people which would account for the mass hallucination. But you must remember that if Jesus were hypnotizing people, then He would have had to do it over and over again in different circumstances (in homes, in temples, in open fields, in boats, from the cross, etc), with hostile audiences (Pharisees, Sadducees, etc.), as well as those who were already believing Him. If Jesus was so good a hypnotizing people and getting them to believe things that weren't true (which makes Him a deceiver), then why did He not fool people and escape the sentence of being beaten and crucified? Or is it all part of the incredibly great hoax that Jesus somehow managed to accomplish on hundreds and hundreds of people. Also, did Jesus teach His disciples how to do mystical and/or mind control techniques? If that is so, then where is the evidence? Merely claiming that Jesus could do it, does not mean that it is true. There must be some compelling evidence to support the claim. Simply stating that miracles cannot happen and this must mean that Jesus was a magician or some sort, is begging the question. In other words, the critics assume to be true the thing they are trying to prove; namely, that miracles cannot happen. They then base conclusions upon that assumption which cannot be proven at all. In order to maintain the theory that Jesus was a master magician who caused people to hallucinate it would seem that the person holding that position must himself be hallucinating. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 48: JESUS ONLY APPEARED TO HAVE DIED ON THE CROSS - SWOON THEORY. ======================================================================== The swoon theory is the theory that Jesus never really died on the cross but that He was crucified and came very close to death. It further states that after He was taken down from the cross and laid in the tomb, after three days the coolness of the tomb revived Him and He managed to, roll away the stone, out of the tomb and appear to the disciples making them think He'd risen from the dead. The swoon theory has been thoroughly refuted by many people and very few continue to bring it up as a possibility. Nevertheless, following is an outline of why the Swoon theory can't work. Basically, it is because Jesus' ordeal was far too serious to permit Him to survive. Six trials - three before Jewish officials (Annas, John 18:12-14; Caiaphas Matthew 26:57-68; the Sanhedrin, Matt. 27:1-2), and three before Roman officials (Pilate, John 18:28-38; Herod, Luke 23:6-12; Pilate, John 18:39-19:6). In these trials, Jesus was beat on the face (Matthew 26:67). Scourging Scourging was done with a flagrum, a short whip with several leather strips which were either embedded with pieces of metal and glass or small metal balls were tied to the ends of the leather strips. The victim was either tied to a post or tied bent over an object with his back exposed. The person inflicting the blows had been trained on how to properly administer the beating so as to assure the most painful and damaging punishment. The whipping consisted of 39 lashes. Each lash was administered and pulled across the back so as to rip the back open. Often the back muscles were so badly shredded that the skeletal structure was exposed. People very often died from this punishment alone. Jesus suffered 39 such lashes. Undoubtedly, his back was very badly beaten and bloody. Crown of thorns A crown of thorns was placed on the head of Jesus (Matt. 27:29). There are different thorn bushes growing in the region with thorns being very short to quite long. Even short thorns can tear the scalp. The crown was woven and then pressed down around the head ripping the skin. Bleeding would then occur. Purple Robe Wearing a purple robe (John 19:5) may not seem like a physically harmful thing to do. But, when you consider that Jesus had just undergone a terrible scourging and that His back had been ripped open and was quite bloody and raw, the robe on His back would cause additional pain by rubbing against it. Additionally, as the blood began to congeal, it would congeal into the fabric of the robe. When the robe was ripped off, more excruciating pain would result. Crucifixion The arms are pulled apart and nails driven through the wrist into a cross beam which is raised in place. This dislocates the shoulders. The nails in the wrists sever the median nerve resulting in a burning pain as well as paralysis in the hand. To breathe Jesus had to press up on the nails in His feet, scraping His raw back on the wood. The body gradually drains of blood causing the heart to beat faster and faster. Dehydration is occurring. The breathing becomes more labored and intense as well as frequent adding to the agony. The blood loss results in extreme thirst as the body craves water to restore the lost blood. Jesus said, "I thirst" (John 19:28). The heart beats so hard trying to compensate for the loss of oxygen (due to the lack of blood) in the body, that it eventually ruptures. At this point the chest cavity fills with fluid. The soldier pierced Jesus' side and out came blood and water, signifying that the heart had stopped beating and the blood was settling in the chest cavity. Jesus was dead. Burial Jesus' body was wrapped in linen (Matt. 27:59). This wrapping was done tightly around the whole body from head to toe. We see from the resurrection of Lazarus, that Lazarus had to be unbound (John 12:44) since help was needed to get out of the linens. Three days without medical attention in the cold tomb The tomb was cold and Jesus laid in it for three days without medical attention. Moving the stone A "large stone" had been placed over the entrance to the tomb (Matt. 27:60). Unless Jesus had some help, which isn't mentioned, He would have had to move the large stone. The stone had to be large enough to cover an entrance big enough for people to walk into. Even if they ducked to get in, the stone was large enough that it would take more than one person to move it in place. Presence of the guards The Romans guards on the tomb were given the job to guard the tomb. Since there had been rumors that the body of Jesus might be stolen, they were ready to meet the challenge. In Roman society, if the prisoner of the guard escaped, the guard would then take the prisoner's place in punishment. The guards had a strong motivation to not let anyone take the body of Jesus. Walked on pierced feet to get to the disciples. Jesus appeared to several people after His resurrection. Does this mean He walked on feet with holes that had been made by nails several inches long? The swoon theory falls apart quickly when you consider that Jesus had undergone six trials, been beaten, then scourged with 39 lashes that left His back raw, exposed, and bloody, had a crown of thorns forced upon His head, ripping His scalp, been crucified with nails in the hands and feet, hung there for six hours bleeding and dehydrating, had his side pierced with a spear which emitted blood and water, was left in a tomb for three days, and was tightly wrapped up. Was anyone in this condition able to revive, get himself out of the tight wrappings, walk on pierced feet, and single handedly move a large stone with hands that were unusable due to the wrist piercings which severed the median nerve in the hands and paralyzed them, and then some how got by the armed guards given the charge of watching the grave side? Are we to further believe that Jesus managed to walk a long distance on feet which had been pierced through and appear to the disciples as a victorious conqueror of death? It makes no sense. In fact, it would take more to believe this ridiculous conjecture than it would to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 49: THE DISCIPLES STOLE JESUS' BODY AND FAKED HIS RESURRECTION. ======================================================================== This possibility has been raised by critics ever since Jesus rose from the dead. But it has never taken root except in some Jewish circles because the New Testament account does not support a faked resurrection theory. Nevertheless, in order for the disciples to have faked the resurrection of Jesus, several conditions must have been met. Let's take a look at them and analyze them. The disciples would need to concoct an elaborate plan. The disciples would have to have a plan. You can't just walk to a tomb guarded by Roman soldiers and ask for Jesus' body. So, in order to fake Jesus' resurrection the disciples would have to obtain and dispose of the body of Jesus without any hostile witnesses seeing them do this. This would mean that the guards in front of Jesus' tomb would need to be bribed (discussed later). It would further mean that several people would have to be involved in carrying the body of Jesus to an area where it could be disposed of. A single person would not be able to carry another human body a long distance. Therefore, these several people would have to agree to steal the body of Jesus and risk arrest by the guards and the Jewish leaders. Furthermore, this plan would also have to include other people outside the circle of the disciples since such an "impossible" occurrence as a resurrection would be more convincing if others who were not biased followers of Jesus said that they saw Jesus after the crucifixion. This means that the disciples would have to convince a lot of people to go against the Jewish religious leaders, thereby risking their own economic and social security, as well as risk bringing conflict into the region since the Jews who sent Jesus to the cross, could easily persecute these new apparent converts. Additionally, this would bring further attention of the Romans to the issue thereby escalating tension which was not something the Jewish people wanted. One more thing, it would be very obvious to the disciples that to continue claiming Jesus rose from the dead, would bring the harsh attention of the religious leaders upon them. Remember, the Jewish leaders knew who Jesus' disciples were. Therefore, easy attention could be focused on them in the form of persecution. Unlike others, the disciples would be easy targets. Since the Jewish leaders had just sentenced Jesus to die a horrible death on the cross, what would stop them from continuing with the disciples who would then start proclaiming Jesus had risen from the dead? The disciples had to know what they were getting into. They were risking their families and their own lives. In all, concocting an elaborate plan to deceive many people has too many difficult variables in it to overcome. It would simply make more sense to assert that the reason the disciples proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus is because they actually saw the resurrected Jesus. A sufficient motive would have to be offered to account for the disciples' intended deception? Remember, we have many people in the Bible who said that Jesus rose from the dead. Did these people all agree to lie? If so, why would they do that? What would motivate various people, who have differences of opinions, differences in needs and desires, to all agree to testify to something false? Could it be that they were dissatisfied with the Roman Empire ruling over the Jewish nation? But what would they accomplish by proclaiming Jesus' resurrection? Did they think that the Roman Empire would suddenly leave Israel because of that? Not a chance. Or perhaps the people were tired of the hypocrisy of the Jewish religious leaders and it motivated them to claim Jesus rose from the dead in order to undermine their authority. But if this is the case then we have an inconsistency between motive and behavior because people who would be upset with someone else's hypocrisy are not likely to proclaim such an incredible lie as a resurrection -- thereby being even bigger hypocrites than the leaders. Does this make sense? Also, since Jesus taught love, truth, and self sacrifice, such deceptive actions would be in direct contradiction with the teachings of the One they were following. At best all anyone can do is guess about what the disciples may have been thinking or what might have motivated them to devise an elaborate deception. Guessing is all that can be done. But we would need to ask if any proposed motives of the disciples could be harmonized with the facts of their preaching and teaching about truth, long-suffering, patience, kindness, and love. No one can read their hearts or their minds and insert into a scenario 2000 years old the motivations of people long gone. It is best to simply let the facts speak for themselves. They lived, suffered, proclaimed, and died for the truth of the resurrection. The guards at the tomb would need to be bribed. The problem of bribing works both ways. The disciples could have bribed the guards to not say anything about them taking the body of Jesus. But, the Jews could also have bribed the guards into saying that the disciples stole the body of Jesus. In fact, the only bribing we see in the gospel accounts of the guards is done by the Jewish leaders. Matt. 28:11-15 says, "Now while they were on their way, behold, some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened. 12And when they had assembled with the elders and counseled together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, 13and said, "You are to say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep.’ 14"And if this should come to the governor’s ears, we will win him over and keep you out of trouble." 15And they took the money and did as they had been instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day." The bribe would be very necessary since the guards were at risk of their lives if they had failed at their duty. It was the custom of the Roman military that if a prisoner escaped, then the guard(s) who was in charge of guarding the prisoner would take the prisoner's place. This is a very strong motivation to make sure that they carried out their duty, bribe or not. In Acts 16:25-30 when Paul was in prison, there was an earthquake that opened the cell doors which would have allowed the prisoners to escape. When the jailor saw this he intended to kill himself. Undoubtedly, this is because he knew he would have to take their place should they escape. But Paul called out and said in verse 28, "Do yourself no harm, for we are all here!" This shows that the guard did not want to take the place of the prisoners. In fact, in Acts 12:18-19 we read of how Herod ordered guards to be executed who had allowed Peter to escape. Therefore, for the guards to risk their lives, a large bribe would be necessary. Who was more likely to have enough money to bribe the guards, the religious leaders or the disciples? Also, who had a greater motive, the disciples who wanted to have Jesus rise from the dead (risking further persecution), or the Jews who wanted to complete their attempt to be rid of Jesus? The body of Christ would need to be disposed of to prevent disproof of his resurrection. If the scenario of an elaborate plan with bribed guards and collusion on the part of many non followers of Jesus were to be effective, the body of Jesus would need to be disposed of. If the disciples could get a hold of His body and get away from the population, it would not be difficult at all to bury it someplace. It would then be necessary that the disciples promised that they would never disclose the location. This is a possibility but it would mean that the disciples were liars and thieves. Is this basis for their faith consistent with their writings about truth, honesty, etc., combined with their dedication to their assertion of Jesus' resurrection that cost them their lives? Various witnesses would need to be arranged As I have already stated above, many people would be to be coached into lying about seeing the risen Lord. Is this probable for so many Jews who grew up under the idea that lying was a sin? Perhaps. But, is it easy to convince people to lie about an event that they know would bring them economic, familial, social, and religious difficulties? The answer, of course, is no it is not. The Jewish people were living under Roman rule. The Romans served both as oppressors and protectors. They were oppressors and that they forced many of their own rules upon the Jewish people. On the other hand, they protected the land of Israel from hostile nations surrounding them. Friction in the region is not something people would want to have, especially if they have families with children and parents to take care of and to love. Does it really makes sense that so many people would agree to such a great lie for such a great consequence? The Apostle Paul But what about Paul the Apostle? Did the disciples plan on converting one of their greatest enemies into a Christian? How did they get Paul to agree to the conversion and in so doing convince Paul to give up everything he had stood for and worked for his entire life in order to be ostracized, condemned, persecuted, shipwrecked, beaten, and finally martyred by both the Romans and the Jewish leadership? Does a faked resurrection account for such a bold and profound conversion of someone who had been seeking to destroy the very Christians that he later proclaimed? Remember, Paul claimed to have seen the Lord on the road to Damascus (Acts 9; 1 Cor. 9:1)? What would motivate him to give up everything and to proclaim Christ's resurrection? What would he have to gain? Power? Money? Fame? If Paul wanted power, then perhaps it could be said he achieved it since he wrote much of the New Testament and had great influence in the Christian Church. But, power is not what he demonstrated over anyone. The New Testament does not demonstrate any wielding of power. Some of Paul's writings are the greatest testimonies to truth, love and wisdom that have ever been written. Are the words of Paul in 1 Cor. 13, or Col. 3, and the entire book of Romans the words of one man who knew that everything he was writing and teaching was based on a lie just so he could get power? It just doesn't make sense to say so. If it was money Paul was after, then why did he preach without charge (2 Cor. 11:7)? Why did he often go without food (2 Cor. 11:27)? Why did he have odd jobs in order to make a living (Acts 18:3)? It does not make sense to say that he was in it for the money. If it was fame that he was after, then he certainly attained it. Paul the apostle is still a famous person throughout all of Western civilization. But we cannot know if this was a motive or not since we cannot ask him. What we can do is read what he wrote and do our best to discern his motives there. It would be up to the reader to read his epistles and see if the quest for fame is woven into his words. Personally, I see no such thing when I read his works. I see a man who preached Jesus and Him crucified and risen from the dead. Conclusion It is very unlikely that the disciples faked the resurrection of Christ. In summation, this is why: They would need an elaborate plan involving many unpredictable elements: guards, other witnesses, etc. There is a large problem in developing a motive to deceive that would be greater than the consequences of that deception. Remember, the disciples would be risking their security, safety, families, and their lives for their beliefs. The guards at the tomb would have to be bribed, but the only bribing we see is from the Jewish leaders (Matt. 28:11-15) who had a very strong motivation to finish what they had started with Jesus. Various witnesses not involved with the disciples would have to be obtained in order to validate the story. But this means that a strong incentive would have to be offered to the additional witnesses since their story would likely get them in deep trouble with the Jewish leadership. The apostle Paul. He is a wild card. What illegitimate thing would motivate him to proclaim the resurrection of Jesus when it didn't happen? Remember, he was a heavy persecutor of the church. Something happened to change him. According to him, it was the appearance of the risen Lord Jesus. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 50: THERE ARE NO NON-BIBLICAL ACCOUNTS TO THE RESURRECTION ======================================================================== First of all, saying that there are no non biblical accounts of the resurrection does not invalidate the resurrection. The New Testament documents, particularly the Gospels, were written by eyewitnesses or under the direction of eyewitnesses before the death of the apostles. Therefore there were plenty of people around who could have contested the post crucifixion appearances of Christ. We must first understand that the Gospels are historical documents and they are reliable ones. Second, it is not accurate to say that there are no extra biblical accounts of the resurrection of Christ. There are other historians who have written about this. However, the problem with most of them is that they were not contemporaries of Jesus. They were written well after the fact. This, therefore, tends to invalidate the reliability of these extra biblical accounts according to the critics. But if the extra biblical accounts are not valid because they were written after the fact by non eyewitnesses, then that indirectly supports the gospel accounts which were written by the eyewitnesses, by those who knew Jesus, and encountered him after his resurrection. Third, how do you have witnesses to the resurrection? Even the disciples didn't see Him rise from the dead. Instead, they saw Him after He had risen, as was evidenced by the wounds in His hands and side when He appeared to them (John 20:27). He appeared to those who most needed to see Him. They were the ones who had spent years with Him, watching Him do miracles, watching Him heal the sick, and teaching great wisdom and love. After Jesus died, their faith in Him had been shattered. It was necessary that Jesus appear to them in order to establish the truth of who He said He was; namely, God in flesh (John 8:24,58; 10:30-33). Fourth, Jesus would have to appear only to those who had seen Him before His crucifixion since appearing to someone who had never seen Him nor knew that He died, would prove nothing. This means that the ones whom Jesus would appear to were those who were following Him in the area of Israel. This further means that at best, other records of His resurrection would have to be hearsay, written well after the fact, by those who did not know Jesus. Fifth, we do have non-biblical accounts of the resurrection of Jesus. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. There is debate among scholars as to the authenticity of this quote since it is so favorable to Jesus. For more information on this, please see Regarding the quotes from the historian Josephus about Jesus No sign would be given Jesus typically would not demonstrate anything miraculous to those who refused to believe in Him. It is, therefore, consistent with Jesus' method to demonstrate Himself to those who were in need of Him and who did not mock Him and doubt Him. Like it or not, this is how He operated. It would be logical to assume that He would deal in the same manner after His resurrection and only appear to those who knew Him and followed Him. For verification of Jesus' denial to those who doubted him, please note the following quotes. "And the Pharisees came out and began to argue with Him, seeking from Him a sign from heaven, to test Him. 12And sighing deeply in His spirit, He *said, "Why does this generation seek for a sign? Truly I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation." 13And leaving them, He again embarked and went away to the other side," (Mark 8:11-13). "Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered Him, saying, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from You." 39But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign shall be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; 40for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth," (Matt. 12:38-40). "And the Pharisees and Sadducees came up, and testing Him asked Him to show them a sign from heaven. 2But He answered and said to them, "When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.’ 3"And in the morning, ‘There will be a storm today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ Do you know how to discern the appearance of the sky, but cannot discern the signs of the times? 4"An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and a sign will not be given it, except the sign of Jonah." And He left them, and went away," (Matt. 16:1). "For the heart of this people has become dull, and with their ears they scarcely hear, and they have closed their eyes lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart and return, and I should heal them," (Matt. 13:15). Jesus plainly taught that He would not "perform" for those who denied Him. He did, however, do public miracles in order to validate who He was, God in flesh (John 1:1,14; 8:24; 8:58). This great truth is a matter of faith and is not something proven with a calculator or a camera. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God which, in that culture, meant to claim equality with God (John 5:18). Jesus said that "Before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58) a statement that infuriated the Jews who were familiar with God's self description to Moses in Exodus 3:14 when He said, "I AM that I AM. Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you." It is a claim made real by evidence. The evidence was His miracles. Conclusion The real issue of the resurrection deals with its evidence. This evidence consists of the testimony of many people who stated that they had seen Jesus after His crucifixion and death. The same people who testified of the resurrection of Christ also gave up their social and economic security and put their lives on the line in order proclaim that Jesus had risen. Does it make any sense at all to say that they knew Jesus did not rise from the dead and had concocted an elaborate plan in order to deceive a great many people into believing that Jesus had risen? Why would they do that? Does it also make any sense that they would continue in this lie while being persecuted, ostracized from family and friends, beaten, imprisoned, and finally killed for what they believed? It makes more sense to believe that their actions were consistent with their teaching. In other words, they taught about self-sacrifice, dedication to truth, love, peace, etc., and they based it all on the risen Lord. It was based upon the truth that they had seen. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 51: MIRACLES CANNOT HAPPEN ======================================================================== Before we can decide whether or not miracles can happen, we must first define what a miracle is. Basically, a miracle is an event that cannot be normally explained through the laws of nature. In the context of Christianity, miracles are the product and the work of God who created the natural laws as well as the universe. However, vital to the discussion of whether or not miracles can occur is the issue of a person's presuppositions. If someone believes that there is no God and also believes in what is called naturalism - that all things in the universe are subject to natural physical laws - then miracles are defined out of existence. That is, the universe is defined in such a way as to make miracles impossible. Therefore, if someone says that miracles cannot happen, then it is most probable that they deny the existence of God and/or believe in naturalism along with its companion, evolution. On the other hand, if someone believed that there was a God and that God is involved in the world, then it is easy to acknowledge that miracles can occur. If God created the universe as the Bible states (Gen. 1), why can't God also intervene in our world and perform miracles? Take the resurrection of Jesus, for example. With an atheistic, naturalistic presupposition the resurrection of Christ could not occur since people simply do not rise from the dead, no matter what is said. Therefore, the account of Jesus' resurrection must be wrong. Either the Bible is untrustworthy, the witnesses collaborated on a lie, Jesus never died, He only appeared dead, His body was stolen to make it look like He'd risen, or someone else died in His place. Either way, the non-God, non-miraculous presupposition would not allow the skeptic to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, especially after three days of being in the tomb. It just could not have happened, no matter what. The problem is that with this kind of presupposition, objectivity can be thrown out the window. This is especially ironic since many atheists consider the Christians to be the ones who lack objectivity. Weigh the Evidence If someone believed that miracles were possible because he believed that God exists, then all he needs to do is look at the Bible, weigh the evidence and decide to believe or not believe in miracles -- like Jesus' resurrection. Again, consider Jesus. From the accounts of the eyewitness testimonies in the Gospels we can see many people believed that Jesus rose from the dead. After all, the Romans, who were expert at crucifixion, killed Jesus, and put guards on the tomb. Yet, the tomb was found empty. The disciples who had all fled and were in hiding, suddenly started proclaiming that Jesus had risen. These same disciples risked life and limb in order to teach that Jesus had risen. Why would they do that for a lie that would cost them their lives, their livelihood, their family ties, etc., unless it really happened? Since Christians do not have a presupposition that excludes the miraculous, we are able to look at the resurrection of Christ as recorded in the Bible, weigh the evidence, and make a choice to believe or not believe. Of course, Christians by default believed in the resurrection of Christ. Logic Finally, it would be basically illogical to state that miracles cannot occur. This is because in order to logically state that miracles cannot occur, a person must either know all things in the universe so that he can rightfully state miracles cannot occur, or he must have some logical proof why miracles cannot occur, or possess a sufficiently sophisticated knowledgebase to conclude the miraculous cannot occur, etc. Furthermore, it is not enough to state that there is no evidence for the miraculous since a person's experiential base is limited. It may very well be that miracles have occurred and this person is simply not aware of it. Therefore, at best someone could simply say "I do not believe that miracles occur because (insert reason)." At least this leaves open the possibility that they may occur. And if they might indeed occur, why not have the possibility that Jesus who claimed to be God (John 8:58 with Exodus 3:14), who fulfilled Old Testament prophecies (i.e., Psalm 22:11-18; Isaiah 7:14; 9:6, Micah 5:1-2, etc.), who predicted his own death and resurrection (John 2:19-21; ), appeared to people after his public execution (Luke 24:39; John 20:25-28), did indeed actually rise from the dead? Since the eyewitness accounts have been accurately transmitted to us, would it not be logical to believe the witnesses who described what they saw? It would seem so. Can miracles occur? Yes, they can because there is a God in the universe. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 52: WAS JESUS JUST A MYTH? ======================================================================== Was Jesus simply a mythical figure, a fabrication by religious zealots who wanted a symbol to rally behind for whatever reason they needed at the time? Or, was Jesus an actual person who lived in Israel 2000 years ago? Most often, those who deny Jesus as a historic figure denounce the New Testament writings, particularly the gospels, as fabrications or highly embellished stories passed down through the years. They must do this. Otherwise, they would have to acknowledge that Jesus lived. In reality, a person must ignore a great deal of evidence establishing the historic accuracy of the gospels. In other words, the Bible alone is sufficient evidence that Jesus lived, whether or not the critics want to admit it. But making this claim doesn't establish it as fact. So, let's look at reasons why Jesus is not a mythical creation, but an actual man who lived in Israel. The Gospels as history - date of authorship According to the Christian church, the four Gospels were written by the apostles and/or those under the direction of the apostles of Jesus. That means that they were written under direction of eyewitnesses of the actual events. Also, none of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. This is significant because Jesus had prophesied concerning the temple when He said "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:5, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). If the gospels had been written after that date and if they were fabrications, then surely they would have contained the account of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple which are known historical facts. Yet, Matthew, Mark, and Luke contain no such information. Luke was written before Acts (Acts 1:14). The book of Acts, a history of the Christian church, which doesn't mention the fall of Jerusalem either, nor does it record the deaths of Paul, James, and Peter which all happened in the early 60's. This means that Acts was written at least by A.D. 62 and Luke was written before that. Therefore, the time between the events and the writings is around 30 years. This further means that the eyewitnesses were around who could have corrected any statements written in the gospels. Yet, we have absolutely no corrective or contradictory writings from that time, from anyone, denying the accounts of the gospels. For more information on this please see When were the gospels written and by whom? Therefore, we can conclude that the gospels were written well before the close of the first century. The Gospels as history - historical content The gospels do not have the sense of myth. If anything, they are written as eyewitness accounts. Consider the first four verses of the gospel of Luke which clearly states that it is a researched document. Luke 1:1-4, "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word have handed them down to us, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you might know the exact truth about the things you have been taught." This is not how myths are made. This is how you uncover evidence and record it. Luke examined the witnesses, interviewed them, and checked out the facts. In Luke 2:1-2, we have historically verifiable information: "Now it came about in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. 2This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria." Also, see Luke 3:1-2, "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, 2in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness." We clearly see numerous historical statements that have been verified through archaeology. This is precise record keeping, not extravagant additions. In fact, "Sir William Ramsey has shown that in making reference to 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands he made no mistakes!"1 Sir William Ramsey (1851-1939) was a classical scholar and archaeologist. He taught at Oxford England, Aberdeen. He authored several scholarly books dealing with archaeology and had a major influence upon it as a science. Nevertheless, there are many verifiable things found in the gospel accounts. Herod, king of Judea, (Matt. 14:1; Luke 1:5). Herodias, the wife of Herod's brother Philip, (Matt. 14:3). Pool of Bethesda, (John 5:115). Pool of Siloam, (John 9:7). etc. There are many many more citations verified by archaeology that demonstrate the accuracy of the gospels. When they mention events dealing with rulers, places, events like a census, who was governor, etc., they are all accurate historically. The Gospels as history - accuracy of transmission A very important issue is whether or not the Gospels have been accurately transmitted from the original writings down to the copies that we have today. Yes, they have been accurately transmitted to us. The truth is that the New Testament documents are 99.5% textually pure. This means that only 1/2 of 1% of all the documents, of all the copies in existence has any question about the text. If this is compared to any other ancient writing, the New Testament comes out way ahead. See Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability for more information on this. Nevertheless, the accuracy is really even greater than 99.5%. The reason is because many of the copies that have spelling errors, minor word omissions and additions, etc., are copied and those copies contain those various minor errors. So, for example, if one manuscript has "Jesus Christ" and it is copied only as "Jesus", then the following manuscripts will contain only the word "Jesus" where other manuscripts might contain "Jesus Christ." All that is needed is to compare the copies, see which of them is the oldest, which fits into the lineage of copies that is correct, or has an error, etc., and the mistake is usually very easily cleared up by comparing copies. Therefore, we can know what the original said in almost every case. Also, if 10 copies contain the same copying error, then the total number of copies with error increases. But in reality by tracing the text back through parent manuscripts that are uncovered to archeology, we can uncover manuscripts that shed light on which rendering is correct. Following is a partial chart detailing various copies of various ancient writings. It should be obvious that the New Testament documents are extremely well preserved. Therefore, if the New Testament cannot be considered reliable, then neither can any of the other writings listed below. Author2 Date Written Earliest Copy Approximate Time Span between original & copy Number of Copies Accuracy of Copies Plato 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 yrs 7 ---- Caesar 100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. 1000 10 ---- Aristotle 384-322 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1400 49 ---- Homer 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 yrs 643 95% New Testament 1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D. approx. c. 130 A.D. less than 100 years 5600 (in Greek) 99.5% *For a larger, more complete chart please see Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability. Miscellaneous Information Noted Oxford expert on literature and myths, C. S. Lewis, said, "I have been reading poems, romances, vision-literature, legends, myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that not one of them is like this [the Gospels]."2 Regarding the gospel of Mark. "A date before a.d. 50 leaves no time for mythological embellishment of the records. They would have to be accepted as historical."3 "New Testament books appeared within the lifetime of eyewitnesses and contemporaries. Luke was written by about 60, only twenty-seven years after Jesus’ death, before Acts in 60–62 (see Hemer, all). First Corinthians was written by 55–56, only twenty-two or twenty-three years after Jesus’ death (cf. 1 Cor. 15:6-8). Even radical New Testament scholar John A. T. Robinson dates basic Gospel records between 40 and 60...there is no time or way for a legend to develop while the eyewitnesses were still alive to refute the story."4 Conclusion There is no reason to doubt the reality of Jesus as a historic figure. The gospel accounts are four different accounts from four different people. They were penned by either eyewitnesses or under the direction of the eyewitnesses. These same gospels were distributed throughout the region very quickly and we have no account anywhere on any of the contemporaries attempting to refute any of the facts written in them -- including those accounts dealing with the miracles of Jesus. In order for Jesus to be a myth, it would have to be shown that the gospel accounts were highly embellished and inaccurately copied and transmitted. But, considering that there are other, non biblical accounts mentioning Jesus, it would be very difficult for anyone to demonstrate that He never lived. ___________ 1. Geisler, N. L., & Howe, T. A. 1992. When critics ask : A popular handbook on Bible difficulties . Victor Books: Wheaton, Ill., p. 384. 2. C. S. Lewis, Christian Reflections (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), 154–55. cited in Geisler, N. L., & Saleeb, A. 2002. Answering Islam : The crescent in light of the cross (2nd ed.) . Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich., p. 244. 3. Geisler, N. L. 1999. Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker reference library . Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich., p. 188. 4. Geisler, N. L. 1999. Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker reference library . Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich. p.518 ======================================================================== CHAPTER 53: DID JESUS REALLY DIE ON THE CROSS? ======================================================================== Yes, Jesus really did die on a cross. The scriptures teach this in numerous places. Following are two of them: "And as they were coming out, they found a man of Cyrene named Simon, whom they pressed into service to bear His cross," (Matt. 27:32). "Therefore the soldiers did these things. But there were standing by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene," (John 19:25). There is dispute on the Greek word for "cross" which is "stauros." It can mean an upright stake or a cross. Therefore, some groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses, say that Jesus died on a vertical stake. But then, others simply deny that Jesus was crucified at all and they claim He died of old age or some other natural sickness. Both of these conjectures are in error according to the New Testament. First of all, there is a verse in the New Testament that demonstrates Jesus did not die on a vertical stake without a cross bar. If Jesus died on a vertical stake, then His hands would have been placed together over His head, one on top of another. It would be very easy to then take a single nail and drive it through both wrists at the same time. This is how crucifixion was done when victims were crucified in this manner. However, if a person was crucified on a cross, then two nails were required, one for each wrist, since the hands would be spread apart. If we look at John 19:25 we see that the plural word "nails" is used in reference to Jesus' hands. "The other disciples therefore were saying to him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I shall see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe," (NASB). The plural form "nails" is used. This means that more than one nail was used upon Jesus' hands. Therefore, we can conclude that the most logical explanation for the plural use of nails is that there is at least two nails, one for each hand that was stretched out from left to right as would be done if Jesus were crucified on a cross. This would mean that the torture stake, or the vertical stake theory would be invalid. Did Jesus really die on the cross? According to the gospel accounts, Jesus went through six different trials before He was condemned to die on a cross. Three of the trials were before Gentiles and three were before the Jews. He was repeatedly put before people to be tried and the whole time He was under heavy guard. They knew who Jesus was. So, this excludes the possibility of mistaken identity. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that the Romans would have crucified a man by mistake. Remember, Jesus had been performing many miracles and was quite well known in the area. Since the Roman soldiers had Him in their possession during the trials, during the beatings, and finally on the way to the cross, the most logical conclusion is that they did not make a mistake and crucified someone else instead of Jesus. Therefore, we can logically conclude that Jesus really did die on a cross. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 54: DID JESUS RISE FROM THE DEAD? ======================================================================== This is one of the most important questions of all of history. If Jesus arose from the dead, then what he said about himself is true. If he did not arise from the dead, then what he said about himself is not true. Jesus claimed to be the only way to God (John 14:6). He claimed to be able to forgive sins (Luke 5:20). He also claimed to be divine (John 8:24; 8:58 with Exodus 3:14). Therefore, his extraordinary claims are tied to his resurrection. Of course, it is one thing to "say" that Jesus arose from the dead, it is another thing to prove it. But the problem is we cannot prove that he rose from the dead. The reason is because the documents that describe Him are 2000 years old. At best, all we can do is look at those documents to determine if they are reliable and accurate. If they are, then we simply need to look at what they say in order to see if they support His resurrection or not. It is then up to the individual to accept or reject the claims thus presented. This becomes an important issue because a person's presuppositions will govern how he interprets the data. If a person presupposes that God does not exist, or that miracles cannot happen, then it would be virtually impossible to convince such a person that the resurrection of Jesus occurred. On the other hand, if a person presupposes that there is a God and that miracles can happen, then it would be easier to convince a person that the resurrection of Jesus did happen. So, what are your presuppositions? Do your presuppositions allow you to objectively look at the evidence in order to make an "unbiased" conclusion about it? In my paper Can we trust the New Testament as a historical document? I cover the information necessary to validate the New Testament documents as being accurate and reliably transmitted to us today. If you are interested in reading a more detailed examination of this, please click on the link above. Nevertheless, I will review the information in brief here. The New Testament is reliable First of all, the New Testament documents have a greater reliability to them in any other set of ancient documents in existence. The New Testament documents are 99.5% textually pure. This means that there is less than 1/2 of 1% of all the 26,000 copies we have of the various documents included in the New Testament. Added to this the incredible redundancy of copies, and their almost 100 percent agreement, and we can easily conclude that the transmission of the documents to us has been extremely reliable. If anyone were to dismiss the New Testament documents by saying that they are corrupted, then he must also throw out all other ancient documents including those of the writings of Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, and many others because none of them come close to approaching either the number of manuscripts in existence, their reliability, or the accuracy of the copies that exists in the New Testament documents. Second, since the documents are reliable then we must look at them to determine whether or not the content supports the resurrection of Jesus. At this point, it becomes very easy to demonstrate this since the Bible definitely teaches that Jesus rose from the dead. There are many scriptures that teach Jesus' resurrection. Following are three of them. Luke 24:56, "and as the women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, "Why do you seek the living One among the dead? 6 "He is not here, but He has risen..." John 2:19-21, "Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20The Jews therefore said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22When therefore He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had spoken." 1 Cor. 15:3-4, "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." Did Jesus rise from the dead? According to the Bible, yes He did. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 55: DIDN'T JESUS SIMPLY RISE IN A NON-PHYSICAL, SPIRIT FORM? ======================================================================== Some people say that Jesus' resurrection was not physical, but a spirit form. Groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses hold to this. But, the Bible teaches that the resurrection of Jesus was physical, not simply spiritual. In John 2:19-21, Jesus said, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews therefore said, 'It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?' But He was speaking of the temple of his body." Notice that Jesus was speaking of His body. The apostle John gives the commentary that Jesus was prophesying that His physical body would be raised from the dead. Is this what happened? After Jesus' resurrection He appeared to Thomas. "Then He said to Thomas, 'Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing,'" (John 20:25). Notice that Jesus still retained the hole in His side where he was pierced during the crucifixion: "But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and immediately there came out blood and water" (John 19:34). This clearly shows that Jesus retained the wounds in His body. The only way this is possible is if He was raised from the dead physically. But some people refer to 1 Cor. 15:44 that says, "it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body." They conclude that Jesus was raised in a spiritual form, not a physical one. But, the truth is that He was raised physically. His body was a glorified body. It was the same body, but it was slightly different. That is, His body was raised physically, but it had been glorified. It had been changed. If we look at the context of the verse we see that Paul is repeatedly stating that the thing that is sown, is also the thing that is raised. "So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body," (1 Cor. 15:42-44). Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God The Bible says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50). If this is so, then how could a physical body have been raised? The answer is simple. After His resurrection Jesus said, "Touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have" (Luke 24:39). You must note that Jesus did not say, "flesh and blood." He said, "flesh and bones." This is because Jesus’ blood was shed on the cross. The life is in the blood and it is the blood that cleanses from sin: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul," (Lev. 17:11). See also, Gen. 9:4; Deut. 12:23; and John 6:53-54. Jesus was pointing out that He was different. He had a body, but not a body of flesh and blood. It was flesh and bones. I am of the opinion that Jesus' body had no functioning blood in it. Remember, after the resurrection He still retained the wounds in His hands, feet, and side. But, His blood was the thing that cleanses us of our sins: "but if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin," (1 John 1:7). His body was raised, but it had no blood flowing through its veins. It was a glorified, physical body. This explains why Paul said in Col. 2:9, "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form." And also, 1 Tim. 2:5 that says, "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." In these two verses, written after Jesus' resurrection and ascension, Jesus is said to be in bodily form and also to be a man. How could he be in bodily form and be a man if He does not have a body of flesh and bones? Therefore, Jesus rose from the dead in a physical body. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 56: IF JESUS IS GOD IN FLESH, WHY DID HE NOT INHERIT ORIGINAL SIN? ======================================================================== If all people have original sin and Jesus was a human being, then didn't Jesus need to have had a sin nature? Before we can answer this question, we need to know what the term "original sin" means. This is a term used to describe the effect of Adam's sin on his descendants (Rom. 5:12-32). Specifically, it is our inheritance of a sinful nature from Adam. The sinful nature originated with Adam and is passed down from parent to child. We are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 3:2). So, if we inherit our sinful nature from our parents, then Jesus, who had Mary as a parent, must have had a sin nature. Right? Not necessarily. I believe that the sin nature is passed down through the father. Let me explain. Some Bible commentators, with whom I agree, hold the position that the sin nature is passed down through the father. Support for this position is found in the fact that sin entered the world through Adam, not Eve. Remember, Eve was the one who sinned first. However, sin did not enter the world through her. It entered through Adam. Rom. 5:12 says, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned." The concept behind this is called Federal Headship. This means that a person (a father) represents his descendants. We see this concept taught in Heb. 7:9-10, "And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, 10for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him." We see in Hebrews that Levi, a distant descendant of Abraham, is said to have paid tithes to Melchizedek when Abraham was the one offering the tithes, not Levi. What this means is that there is biblical support for the idea that the sin nature was passed down through the father. Since Jesus had no literal, biological father, the sin nature was not passed down to Him. However, since He had a human mother, he was fully human but without original sin. Jesus has two natures: God and man. Col. 2:9 says, "For in Him dwells all the fullness of deity in bodily form." Jesus received His human nature from Mary, but He received His divine nature through God the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Jesus is both God and man. He was sinless, had no original sin, and was both fully God and fully man. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 57: CAN'T ALL OF JESUS' MIRACLES BE EXPLAINED NATURALLY? ======================================================================== Can Jesus' miracles be explained naturally? It is certainly possible that some might be explained with non-divine answers, but can all of them? I don't see how. It could be said that the gospel accounts were simply altered to make it look like Jesus was performing miracles which never happened. This is a possibility, but it is not very probable. Briefly, the eyewitnesses of Jesus' miracles were still around when the gospels were written and could have easily refuted such claims. Yet, we have no record of any such refutations. The disciples died for what they believed. Remember, this is not simply dying for a principle(s) or philosophy like Buddhism. They died for their belief in the risen Lord Jesus who claimed to be God and performed miracles in front of their very eyes. This is far different than believing in something that wasn't tangible or was merely a belief for the sake of believing and being good. Therefore, I will not address the idea that the disciples were deceivers in their attempt to recount Christ's work. For further reading on this, please see Can we trust the New Testament as a historical document? and Since the NT writers were biased, can we trust what they wrote? In the following outline, I have stated a miracle, then offered a potential explanation, and then rebutted the explanation. Jesus was born of a virgin (Matt. 1:25). It could be said that Jesus was born normally, and myth crept into the story of Christ's birth in order to make Him seem special. After all, how do you verify a virgin birth? But, Mary, the mother of Jesus was probably still around when the gospels were written. As was James, Jesus' brother. If the gospel accounts of Jesus' virgin birth were fictitious, certainly those who "knew" the situation would have refuted it. Yet, we have no account of any such refutation. Jesus changed water into wine (John 2:6-10). It is possible that Jesus switched the water for wine or had some help in doing it. There is no indication in the account of John that would lead anyone to believe that this was the case. Given that the six jars of wine were very heavy (minimum of 160 pounds each, maximum 240 pounds each), Jesus would have had help to do this. But, if that is so, who was it and why? Did Jesus secretly arrange for a large supply of wine to be delivered to a party long after it had begun? Again, there is no evidence of this. It is possible that the members of the party were simply mistaken about the wine running out. This is possible, but we have the wine steward tasting the wine and commenting on how good it is. His speech displays clarity of thought so he was not drunk. Not being drunk, he was easily able to recognize the quality of the new wine. Therefore, it is very unlikely that this was a mistake regarding the water for wine. Jesus caused the disciples to catch a large load of fish (Luke 5:4-6). The only explanation I can come up with to account for the time when Jesus instructed the disciples to cast their net into the water and they caught a large amount of fish even though they had been fishing all night long and caught nothing is that from shore, Jesus was somehow able to see into the water and see the fish swimming there. The problem with this is that Jesus told them to go out into the deep water. Deep water is far from shore and it is basically impossible for Him to have seen so far out into the water at any depth. Remember, many of the disciples had been life long fisherman and they knew how to catch fish. If all it took was to look into the water to see fish, they would have long ago used that method. Jesus cast out demons (Matt. 8:28-32; 15:22-28). It is possible that demons were never cast out of anyone. It is possible that the people were pretending to be sick and then appeared cured after Jesus did whatever He did to cure them. Though this is possible, it is merely conjecture. It isn't as though this is a repeatable experiment we can do in a laboratory. After all, the existence of demonic forces is something that must be taken on faith. Jesus healed diseases (Matt. 4:23,24; 8:3 Luke 6:17-19; 17:14). Jesus had knowledge of herbs and roots that when applied to various ailments cured people. Therefore, it would not be miraculous. This is possible, but where is the evidence of them doing that? How can Jesus cure leprosy with herbs, or heal a withered hand, or raise the dead using herbs and roots. Sure, maybe, just maybe some herbs and roots were applied to basic ailments, but such an explanation cannot account for many of the miracles accounted to Jesus. Jesus faked the healings I am not sure how it would be possible to fake the healing of leprosy and disease. The people of the time knew what the disease was and what it looked like. People's fingers and hands would fall off from leprosy. How it would be possible to restore hands and feet and fingers and have it all be a trick would be an amazing thing to do. I cannot think of any way to fake such a thing especially since so many of the lepers were known by the people around them and cures would have been obvious. Jesus healed the paralytic (Mark 2:3-12). In order to make it look like Jesus healed a paralytic, it would require that the paralytic be willing to appear paralyzed in order to fool those around him. This is possible since Jesus could have had enough time to employ the individual. In the account of Mark, the paralytic is let down through the roof because there were so many people that they could not bring him in on a stretcher. Jesus then healed the man. If the paralytic was in the employ of Jesus in some way, the men who lowered him through the roof must also have been in His employ since they helped to accomplish the ruse -- if that is what it was. But, simply stating that this is a possibility does not mean that it is a reality. All the text says is that there was a paralytic who was let down through a roof and Jesus healed him. There is no information that would lead us to believe that collusion was occurring. Jesus raised the dead (Matt. 9:25; John 11:43-44). Those who were dead were really only appearing to be dead. Given that the people of the time were not aware of many of the medical intricacies that can lead to people looking dead when they were not really dead. This explanation is certainly possible, but is it really that likely? People in ancient times were far more familiar with death than we are. Our people die in hospitals away from the families. Undoubtedly, we are less familiar with death then they were. It is more probable that they knew when people were actually dead, especially since the dead were left in stasis for several days as they were washed and prepared for burial. The John 11 account of Lazarus' resurrection Jesus restored sight to the blind (Matt. 9:27-30; John 9:1-7). The blind were not really blind but were working with Jesus in order to make it look like He was able to perform miracles. This is a possibility, but it has no basis or evidence. Furthermore, how can anyone account for the man born blind in John 9:1-7. He was known, from birth, to be blind and yet he was healed by Jesus. How can anyone account for this other than to say that the man was healed? Jesus cured deafness (Mark 7:32-35). The deaf person was not really deaf. It was a trick, a previously arranged setup to make Jesus look good. If this is the case, where is the evidence? Simply saying this is what happened doesn't make it so. Jesus fed the multitude (Matt. 14:15-21; 15:32-38). The disciples had previously arranged a large stash of food sufficient to feed a great many people. This is a possibility but we see no evidence of it. Also, it means that the account is, basically, a lie which doesn't fit the character of Jesus and the disciples who wrote so much about integrity. The people had already brought their own food and were sharing it with each other at the urging of Jesus so it was written to make it look like He'd done a miracle. This, of course, has no evidence for it either. The account simply states that Jesus fed the multitude with just a few fish and some bread. What would be wrong with simply writing the truth, if it were true, that everyone had brought food? Besides, that isn't what it says. Jesus walked on water (Matt. 14:22-24). There was either a ledge Jesus was walking on near shore or He was in a low profile boat in which He was standing. This way it only appeared that He was walking on water. Matt. 14:24 says that the boat was many stadia away. A stadia is about 600 feet. So, they were way out on the lake when the storm hit. How could Jesus have gotten out into the middle of the lake during a storm and manage to find a ledge to stand on that happened to be close to the disciples' boat? It is extremely unlikely. If Jesus was in a low profile boat out in the middle of a lake during a storm, it would have sunk long before He got out to them. So, this wouldn't work as an explanation. Jesus calmed a storm with a command (Matt. 8:22-27; Mark 4:39). It was merely a coincidence. Jesus grew up around the area and knew when storms were coming and going. He simply knew what to look for, waited, and then commanded the storm to be quiet at the right moment. If Jesus, who was a carpenter, knew when storms were coming and going, then why didn't the disciples who also grew up in the area and who were fishermen also know this? If they did, then they would have been very unimpressed by Jesus' command. In fact, they would have thought He was pretending to be able to command the storm to stop when in reality He couldn't. This would cause them to doubt Him, not to believe in Him more as the account suggests. Jesus rose from the dead (Luke 24:39; John 20:27). The disciples stole Jesus' body and lied about His resurrection. This is unlikely since the guards were there in front of the tomb. Also, the disciples later died for their belief in the risen Lord. Add to this the various persecutions they received during their lives and it doesn't make sense that they endured so much pain and suffering for what they knew was a lie. Also, what about the apostle Paul? He claims to have seen the risen Lord as well. Was he, a heavy persecutor of the church, conned by the disciples into joining with them, losing his place in Jewish culture and society, also suffering persecution and martyrdom all for what he knew was a lie as well? It makes no sense. Jesus never died in the first place. This is sometimes called the swoon theory that states that Jesus almost died. But it does not fully consider the severe trauma that Jesus had undergone before He got to the cross, let alone the actual crucifixion itself which was incredibly painful. Also, the Romans were experts at killing by crucifixion. The evidence of the water and blood coming out of Jesus' side after being pierced is evidence enough that Jesus had died since that is a sign of blood flow having stopped. Jesus appeared to disciples after resurrection (John 20:19). This was because Jesus had never died. He almost died. This is sometimes called the swoon theory that states that Jesus almost died. But it does not fully consider the severe trauma that Jesus had undergone before He got to the cross, let alone the actual crucifixion itself which was incredibly painful. Also, the Romans were experts at killing by crucifixion. The evidence of the water and blood coming out of Jesus' side after being pierced is evidence enough that Jesus had died since that is a sign of blood flow having stopped. Someone else who looked like Jesus died in His place. This is an unsubstantiated and completely fictional fabrication. There is no evidence of this at all. Besides, the Jews and Romans knew exactly who Jesus was, along with the disciples. They'd know if a "fake" was taking Jesus' place. The disciples lied. Jesus never appeared to them. This has been answered here. Since the NT writers were biased, can we trust what they wrote? Jesus ascended into heaven (Acts 1:9). Only the disciples saw this. Therefore, they fabricated the ascension. It is possible that they lied, but then we are still stuck with explaining why they would lie, why they would continue in the lie, why they would preach and teach honesty and truth based upon a lie, why they would suffer persecution for a lie, and why they would die for a lie. It just doesn't make sense. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 58: ARE THE NEW TESTAMENT THEMES FOUND IN THE OLD TESTAMENT? ======================================================================== The concepts in the New Testament were not derived out of thin air. Amos 3:7 says, "Surely the Lord God does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel to His servants the prophets." What is mentioned in the New Testament is revealed in the Old Testament either clearly or in types and figures. Gen. 22 is a great example of the sacrifice of Jesus, the Son in Typology represented by the sacrifice of Isaac. Some critics of Christianity state that Christianity borrowed its concepts from pagan sources like Mitrha, Osiris, Apollonius, etc. Admittedly, there are similarities in some pagan religions with Christianity, but that does not mean Christian writers borrowed from them any more than similarities between Communism and Democracy mean one is from another. Similarities abound in many religions. Hinduism has moral statements similar to Christianity as does Taoism. But they are unrelated to each other. There are, however, several reasons working against the idea that the people who wrote the New Testament copied ideas from pagan myths. First of all, the writers of the New Testament were Jews. As Jews they would have nothing to do with paganism in any form. They knew specifically that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament which is why they followed Him. Second, the Old Testament has almost all the New Testament themes from which a devout Jew would refer when writing the New Testament. Third, there is no proof at all that the New Testament writers borrowed from pagan sources and incorporated them into the New Testament. It is up to the critics to supply reasonable evidence for this if they want to hold the position. Just saying it happened doesn't mean anything. Fourth, so what if there are similarities? What does it prove? If two writers in the same city both write similar articles about the President of the U.S., does it mean one used another's concepts? Not at all. Similarities happen all the time when dealing with similar subjects. Besides, it makes sense that common themes would be around an area at the same time in history when all nations served various gods. Undoubtedly, some similarities will occur, but that doesn't mean one was borrowed from another. Finally, there is another possibility worth examining. The concepts of redemption, the incarnation, resurrection, etc., are prophesied in the Old Testament and these documents were around for hundreds and hundreds of years. It is quite possible that if any borrowing was done, it was done by the pagans who incorporated Old Testament concepts since these documents existed prior to many of these pagan myths. Nevertheless, following is a chart that exemplifies many of the themes that were revealed in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New. It is easy to see that there is no need at all for the Christians to borrow from any source outside the Old Testament. John 5:39, "You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me." Theme Old Testament Reference New Testament fulfilled in Jesus Ascension of Jesus to the right hand of God Ps. 110:1 Matthew 26:64; Acts 7:55-60; Eph. 1:20 Atonement by blood Lev. 17:11 Heb. 9:22 Baptism Exodus 40:12-15; Lev. 16:4; Gen. 17:10; Ezek. 36:25 Matt. 3:16; 28:19; Col. 2:11-12; Heb. 10:22 Begotten Son, Jesus is Psalm 2:7 Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5 Creative work Gen. 1; 1:26 John 1:1-3; Col. 1:16-17 Crucifixion Psalm 22:11-18; Zech. 12:10 Luke 23:33-38 Damnation and Salvation Dan. 12:2 Matt. 25:46 Eternal Son Micah 5:1-2; Psalm 2:7 Heb. 1:5; 5:5 First and Last Isaiah 41:4; 44:6; 48:12 Rev. 1:8,17; 22:13 God among His people Isaiah 9:6; 40:3 John 1:1,14; 20:28; Col. 2:9; Matt. 3:3 Incarnation of God 1)Ex 3:14; 2)Ps. 45:6 Isaiah 9:6; Zech. 12:10 1)John 8:58; 1:1,14; 2)Heb. 1:8; Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:1-3 Monotheism Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8; 45:5 John 10:30; Eph. 4:5 Only Begotten Son Gen. 22:2. See Typology John 3:16; Heb. 11:7 Priesthood of Jesus Psalm 110:4 Heb. 6:20; 7:25 Resurrection of Christ Psalm 16:9-10; 49:15; Is. 26:19 John 2:19-21 Return of Christ Zech. 14:1-5; Mic. 1:3-4 Matt. 16:27-28; Acts 1:11; 3:20 Sacrifice of the Son Gen. 22. See Typology Heb. 9:27 Salvation by grace 1)Gen. 12:3; 2)15:6; Hab. 2:4 1)Gal. 3:8-11; 2)Rom. 4:9 Sin offering Ex. 30:10; Lev. 4:3 Rom. 8:3; Heb. 10:18; 13:11 Sin offering made outside the camp Ex. 29:14 Heb. 13:12-13 Sin offering without defect Ex. 12:5; Lev. 22:20; Deut. 17:1 Heb. 9:14 Son of God Psalm 2:7 John 5:18 Substitutionary Atonement Isaiah 53:6-12; Lev. 6:4-10,21 Matt. 20:28; 1 Pet. 2:24; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:18; Trinity 1)Gen. 1:1,26; Job 33:4; 2) Gen. 17:1; 18:1; Ex. 6:2-3; 24:9-11; 33:20; Num. 12:6-8; Psalm 104:30; 23)Gen. 19:24 with Amos 4:10-11; Is.48:16 1)John 1:1-3; 2)John 1:18; 6:46; 3)Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14 Virgin Birth Isaiah 7:14 Matt. 1:25 Worship of Jesus Psalm 97:7 Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9; John 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6 ======================================================================== CHAPTER 59: APOLLONIUS OF TYANA ALSO DID MIRACLES AND ROSE. WHAT ABOUT HIM? ======================================================================== Apollonius of Tyana (a city south of Turkey) is sometimes offered as a challenge to the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. It is said that Apollonius, who lived in the first century, also performed miracles, had disciples, died, and appeared after his death the same as Jesus. Therefore, critics conclude, what Jesus did isn't unique. Some even say that this is evidence that the Christian account of Christ's healings, miracles, and post death appearances were merely copied from the accounts of Apollonius. Are these accusations supportable? No, they aren't. First of all, the accounts of Apollonius were written well after he is supposed to have lived by a man named Philostratus (170 - 245 A.D.). This is long after the New Testament was written. Therefore the written accounts of Apollonius were not written by eyewitnesses as were the gospels. If critics want to maintain that the New Testament is full of myth and must be discredited, then so must the accounts of Apollonius since the writings are written several generations after the fact. By contrast the New Testament was written by the eyewitnesses of Jesus' life. Logically, it is the New Testament accounts that are far more reliable than those of Apollonius. Also, this would mean that if any borrowing was done, it was done by Philostratus, not by the gospel writers. Second, the eyewitness accounts of the New Testament writers were written before the close of the first century. For example, we know that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts do not contain the account of the fall of Jerusalem which occurred in 70 A.D. This fall included the destruction of the Jerusalem temple which was prophesied by Jesus in Matt. 24:1, Mark 13:1, and Luke 21:5. Such an incredibly major event in Jewish history would surely have been included in Acts and the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) if they were written after 70 A.D. since they would verify Jesus' predictive abilities. But, it is not included. Therefore, it is safe to say that they were written by the eyewitnesses of Jesus' life, unlike the accounts of Apollonius. Third, Philostratus is the only source for the accounts of Apollonius where the Bible is multi-sourced. In other words, we have different writers writing about Jesus. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, etc., are different writers who's epistles were gathered by the Church and assembled into the Bible. That means that there is no verification for Apollonius other than the single writing of Philostratus. Fourth, Philostratus was commissioned by an empress to write a biography of Apollonius in order to dedicate a temple to him. This means that there was a motive for Philostratus to embellish the accounts in order satisfy the requirement of the empress.1 It is not likely in the slightest that the gospels borrowed from Apollonius. It is most probably the other way around, especially since Philostratus had a motive to satisfy the empress who had commissioned him to write a biography of the man for whom a temple had been constructed. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 60: DOESN'T MITHRA PROVE THAT CHRISTIANS BORROWED FROM THIS MYTH? ======================================================================== Some critics of Christianity teach that the Christian religion was not based upon divine revelation but that it borrowed from pagan sources, Mithra being one of them. They assert that the figure of Mithra has many commonalities with Jesus, too common to be coincidence. Mithraism was one of the major religions of the Roman Empire which was derived from the ancient Persian god of light and wisdom. The cult of Mithraism was quite prominent in ancient Rome, especially among the military. Mithra was the god of war, battle, justice, faith, and contract. According to Mithraism, Mithra was called the son of God, was born of a virgin, had disciples, was crucified, rose from the dead on the third day, atoned for the sins of mankind, and returned to heaven. Therefore, the critics maintain that Christianity borrowed its concepts from the Mithra cult. But is this the case? Can it be demonstrated that Christianity borrowed from the cult of Mithra as it developed its theology? First of all, Christianity does not need any outside influence to derive any of its doctrines. All the doctrines of Christianity exists in the Old Testament where we can see the prophetic teachings of Jesus as the son of God (Zech. 12:10), born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), was crucified (Psalm 22), the blood atonement (Lev. 17:11), rose from the dead (Psalm 16:10), and salvation by faith (HHab. 2:4). Also, the writers of the gospels were eyewitnesses (or directed by eyewitnesses as were Mark and Luke) who accurately represented the life of Christ. So, what they did was write what Jesus taught as well as record the events of His life, death, and resurrection. In other words, they recorded history, actual events and had no need of fabrication or borrowing. There will undoubtedly be similarities in religious themes given the agrarian culture. Remember, an agriculturally based society, as was the people of the ancient Mediterranean area, will undoubtedly develop theological themes based upon observable events, i.e., the life, death, and seeming resurrection of life found in crops, in cattle, and in human life. It would only be natural for similar themes to unfold since they are observed in nature and since people created gods related to nature. But, any reading of the Old Testament results in observing the intrusion of God into Jewish history as is recorded in miracles and prophetic utterances. Add to that the incredible archaeological evidence verifying Old Testament cities and events and you have a document based on historical fact instead of mythical fabrication. Furthermore, it is from these Old Testament writings that the New Testament themes were developed. Following is a chart demonstrating some of the New Testament themes found in the Old Testament. Theme Old Testament Reference New Testament fulfilled in Jesus Ascension of Jesus to the right hand of God Ps. 110:1 Matthew 26:64; Acts 7:55-60; Eph. 1:20 Atonement by blood Lev. 17:11 Heb. 9:22 Begotten Son, Jesus is Psalm 2:7 Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5 Crucifixion Psalm 22:11-18; Zech. 12:10 Luke 23:33-38 Eternal Son Micah 5:1-2; Psalm 2:7 Heb. 1:5; 5:5 God among His people Isaiah 9:6; 40:3 John 1:1,14; 20:28; Col. 2:9; Matt. 3:3 Incarnation of God 1)Ex 3:14; 2)Ps. 45:6 Isaiah 9:6; Zech. 12:10 1)John 8:58; 1:1,14; 2)Heb. 1:8; Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:1-3 Only Begotten Son Gen. 22:2. See Typology John 3:16; Heb. 11:7 Resurrection of Christ Psalm 16:9-10; 49:15; Is. 26:19 John 2:19-21 Return of Christ Zech. 14:1-5; Mic. 1:3-4 Matt. 16:27-28; Acts 1:11; 3:20 Sin offering Ex. 30:10; Lev. 4:3 Rom. 8:3; Heb. 10:18; 13:11 Son of God Psalm 2:7 John 5:18 Substitutionary Atonement Isaiah 53:6-12; Lev. 6:4-10,21 Matt. 20:28; 1 Pet. 2:24; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:18; Virgin Birth Isaiah 7:14 Matt. 1:25 (For a more complete list please go to Are the New Testament themes found in the Old Testament?) As you can see, there is no need for any of the Christian writers to borrow from anything other than the Old Testament source in order to establish any Christian doctrine concerning Jesus. If the argument that pagan mythologies predated Christian teachings and therefore Christianity borrowed from them is true, then it must also be truth that the pagan religions borrowed from the Jewish religion because it is older than they are! Given that all of the Christian themes are found in the Old Testament and the Old Testament was begun around 2000 B.C. and completed around 400 B.C., we can then conclude that these pagan religions actually borrowed from Jewish ideas found in the Old Testament. Think about it, the idea of a blood sacrifice and a covering for sin is found in the first three chapters of Genesis when God covered Adam and Eve with animals skins and prophesied the coming of the Messiah. Furthermore, those who wrote about Jesus in the New Testament were Jews (or under the instruction of Jews) who were devoted to the legitimacy and inspiration of the Old Testament scriptures and possessed a strong disdain for pagan religions. It would have been blasphemous for them to incorporate pagan sources into what they saw as the fulfillment of the sacred Old Testament scriptures concerning the Messiah. Also, since they were writing about Jesus, they were writing based upon what He taught: truth, love, honesty, integrity, etc. Why then would they lie and make up stories and suffer great persecution, hardships, ridicule, arrest, beatings, and death all for known lies and fabrications from paganism? It doesn't make sense. At best, Mithraism only had some common themes with Christianity (and Judaism) which were recorded in both the Old and New Testaments. What is far more probable is that as Mithraism developed, it started to adopt Christian concepts. "Allegations of an early Christian dependence on Mithraism have been rejected on many grounds. Mithraism had no concept of the death and resurrection of its god and no place for any concept of rebirth -- at least during its early stages...During the early stages of the cult, the notion of rebirth would have been foreign to its basic outlook...Moreover, Mithraism was basically a military cult. Therefore, one must be skeptical about suggestions that it appealed to nonmilitary people like the early Christians."1 What is more probable is that with the explosive nature of the Christian church in the 1st and 2nd century, other cult groups started to adapt themselves to take advantage of some of the teachings found in Christianity. "While there are several sources that suggest that Mithraism included a notion of rebirth, they are all post-Christian. The earliest...dates from the end of the second century A.D."2 Therefore, even though there are similarities between Christianity and Mithraism, it is up to the critics to prove that one borrowed from the other. But, considering that the writers of the New Testament was written by Jews who shunned pagan philosophies and that the Old Testament has all of the themes found in Christianity, it is far more probable that if any borrowing was done, it was done by the pagan religions that wanted to emulate the success of Christianity. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 61: WHY BELIEVE IN CHRISTIANITY OVER ALL OTHER RELIGIONS? ======================================================================== Critics often ask why Christianity is any better than any other religion in the world. After all, of all the religions that exist how can it be that only Christianity is true? If God exists, why can't God use different religions? Don't all paths lead to God? These kinds of questions are asked all the time of Christians and unfortunately the answers aren't always very good ones particularly when dealing with people who have a relativistic truth base and don't believe in absolutes. Therefore, in an attempt to demonstrate why Christianity is true and all other religious systems are false, I've prepared the following list of reasons for Christianity's superiority. There are such things as absolute truths If truth is relative, then the statement that truth is relative is an absolute truth and would be self defeating statement by proving that truth is not relative. But, if truth is absolute, then the statement "truth is absolute" is true and not self defeating. It is true that truth exists. It is true that truth will not contradict itself as we have just seen. In fact, it is absolutely true that you are reading this paper. If we can see that there is such a thing as truth in the world, then we could also see that there can be spiritual truth as well. It is not absurd to believe in spiritual absolutes anymore than physical or logical absolutes. Even the statement that all religions lead to God is a statement held to be a spiritual absolute by many people. This simply demonstrates that people do believe in spiritual truth. Why? Because truth exists. However, not all that is believed to be true actually is true. Therefore, all belief systems cannot be true since they often contradict each other in profound ways. Religions contradict each other; therefore, they cannot all be true. Mormonism teaches that there are many gods in existence and that you can become a god. Christianity teaches that there is only one God and you cannot become a god. Islam teaches that Jesus is not God in flesh where Christianity does. Jesus cannot be both God and not God at the same time. Some religions teach that we reincarnate while others do not. Some teach there is a hell and others do not. They cannot all be true. If they cannot all be true, it cannot be true that all religions lead to God. Furthermore, it means that some religions are, at the very least, false in their claims to reveal the true God (or gods). Remember, truth does not contradict itself. If God exists, He will not institute mutually exclusive and contradictory belief systems in an attempt to get people to believe in Him. God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that there can be an absolute spiritual truth and that not all systems can be true regardless of whether or not they claim to be true. There must be more than a mere claim. Fulfilled Prophecy concerning Jesus Though there are other religions that have prophecies in them, none are 100% accurate as is the Bible and none of them point to someone like Jesus who made incredible claims and performed incredible deeds. The Old Testament was written hundreds of years before Jesus was born. Yet, the Old Testament prophesied many things about Jesus. This is undoubtedly evidence of divine influence upon the Bible. Please consider some of the many prophecies of Jesus in the following chart. Prophecy Old Testament Prophecy New Testament Fulfillment Born of a virgin Isaiah 7:14 Matt. 1:18,25 Born at Bethlehem Micah 5:2 Matt. 2:1 He would be preceded by a Messenger Isaiah 40:3 Matt. 3:1-2 Rejected by His own people Isaiah 53:3 John 7:5; 7:48 Betrayed by a close friend Psalm 41:9 John 13:26-30 His side pierced Zech. 12:10 John 19:34 Crucifixion Psalm 22:1, Psalm 22:11-18 Luke 23:33; John 19:23-24 Resurrection of Christ Psalm 16:10 Acts 13:34-37 Fulfillment of prophecy can have different explanations. Some state that the NT was written and altered to make it look like Jesus fulfilled OT prophecy (but there is no evidence of that). Others state that the prophecies are so vague that they don't count (but many of the prophecies are not vague at all). Of course, it is possible that God inspired the writers and Jesus, who is God in flesh, fulfilled these prophecies as a further demonstration of the validity of Christianity. The Claims and Deeds of Christ Christianity claims to be authored by God. Of course, merely making such a claim does not make it true. Anyone can make claims. But, backing up those claims is entirely different. Jesus used the Divine Name for Himself (John 8:58), the same Divine Name used by God when Moses asked God what His name was in (Exodus 3:14). Jesus said that He could do whatever He saw God the Father do (John 5:19), and He claimed to be one with God the Father (John 10:30; 10:38). Likewise, the disciples also called Him God (John 1:1,14; John 10:27; Col. 2:9). By default, if Jesus is God in flesh, then whatever He said and did would be true. Since Jesus said that He alone was the way, the truth, and the life and that no one can find God without Him (John 14:6), this all becomes incredibly important. Again, making a claim is one thing. Backing it up is another. Did Jesus also back up His words with His deeds? Yes, He did. Jesus changed water into wine (John 2:6-10). Jesus cast out demons (Matt. 8:28-32; 15:22-28). Jesus healed lepers (Matt. 8:3; Luke 17:14). Jesus healed diseases (Matt. 4:23,24; Luke 6:17-19) Jesus healed the paralytic (Mark 2:3-12). Jesus raised the dead (Matt. 9:25; John 11:43-44). Jesus restored sight to the blind (Matt. 9:27-30; John 9:1-7). Jesus restored cured deafness (Mark 7:32-35). Jesus fed the multitude (Matt. 14:15-21; Matt. 15:32-38). Jesus walked on water (Matt. 8:26-27). Jesus calmed a storm with a command (Matt. 8:22-27; Mark 4:39). Jesus rose from the dead (Luke 24:39; John 20:27). Jesus appeared to disciples after resurrection (John 20:19). The eyewitnesses recorded the miracles of Jesus and the gospels have been reliably transmitted to us. Therefore, we can believe what Jesus said about Himself because Jesus performed many convincing miracles in front of people who testified and wrote about what they saw Him do. Christ's resurrection Within Christianity, the resurrection is vitally important. Without the resurrection, our faith is useless (1 Cor. 15:14). It was the resurrection that changed the lives of the disciples. After Jesus was crucified, the disciples ran and hid. But when they saw the risen Lord, they knew that all that Jesus had said and done proved that He was indeed God in flesh, the Savior. No other religious leader has died in full view of trained executioners, had a guarded tomb, and then risen three days later to appear to many many people. This resurrection is proof of who Jesus is and that He did accomplish what He set out to do: provide redemption for mankind. Buddha did not rise from the dead. Muhammad did not rise from the dead. Confucius did not rise from the dead. Krishna did not rise from the dead, etc. Only Jesus has physically risen from the dead, walked on water, claimed to be God, and raised others from the dead. He has conquered death. Why trust anyone else? Why trust anyone who can be held by physical death when we have a Messiah who is greater than death itself? Conclusion Why should anyone trust in Christianity over Islam, Buddhism, Mormonism, or anything else? It is because there are absolute truths, because only in Christianity is there accurate fulfilled prophecies of a coming Messiah. Only in Christianity do we have the extremely accurate transmission of the eyewitness documents (gospels) so we can trust what was originally written. Only in Christianity do we have the person of Christ who claimed to be God, performed many miracles to prove His claim of divinity, who died and rose from the dead, and who said that He alone was the way the truth and the life. All this adds to the legitimacy and credibility of Christianity above all other religions -- all based on the person of Jesus. If follows that if it is all true about what Jesus said and did, then all other religions are false because Jesus said that He alone was the way, the truth, and the life and that no one comes to the Father except through Him (John 14:6). It could not be that Jesus is the only way and truth and other religions also be the truth. Either Jesus is true and all other religions are false or other religions are true and Jesus is false. There are no other options. I choose to follow the risen Lord. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 62: PAPYRI, P1 THROUGH P76; 200 AD TO 700 AD COPIES ======================================================================== The following are extant papyrus fragments and copies. These manuscripts, designated by p1, p2, etc., are part of the overall existing biblical manuscript scope that we now possess. This range of papyri are very old. They represent the extant copies made in the dates so designated. This demonstrates that the copies we have of the New Testament documents are very old. Manuscript Number Content Location Date Copied (Century) p1 Gospels Philadelphia 3rd p2 Gospels Florence 6th p3 Gospels Vienna 6th/7th p4 Gospels Paris 3rd p5 Gospels London 3rd p6 Gospels Strassburg 4th p8 Acts Berlin 4th p10 Epistles of Paul Cambridge, Mass 4th p11 Epistles of Paul Leningrad 7th p13 Epistles of Paul London and Florence 3rd/4th p15 Epistles of Paul Cairo 3rd p16 Epistles of Paul Cairo 3rd/4th p18 Revelation London 3rd/4th p19 Gospels Oxford 4th/5th p21 Gospels Allentown, Pa. 4th/5th p22 Gospels Glasgow 3rd p23 General Epistles Urbana, 111. Early 3rd p24 Revelation Newton Center, Mass. 4th p25 Gospels Berlin Late 4th p26 Epistles of Paul Dallas About 600 p27 Epistles of Paul Cambridge 3rd p30 Epistles of Paul Ghent 3rd p33 Acts Vienna 6th p36 Gospels Florence 6th p37 Gospels Ann Arbor, Mich. 3rd/4th p38 Acts Ann Arbor, Mich. About 300 p39 Gospels Chester, Pa. 3rd p40 Epistles of Paul Heidelberg 3rd p41 Acts Vienna 8th p45 Gospels, Acts Dublin: Chester Beatty, and Vienna 3rd p46 Epistles of Paul Dublin: Chester Beatty, and Ann Arbor, Mich. About 200 p47 Revelation Dublin: Chester Beatty Late 3rd p48 Acts Florence Late 3rd p49 Epistles of Paul New Haven, Conn. Late 3rd p50 Acts New Haven, Conn. 4th/5th p51 Epistles of Paul P. Oxy. 2157 About 400 p58 Acts Vienna 6th p59 Gospels New York: P. Colt 3 7th p6O Gospels New York: P. Colt 4 7th (60 p61 Epistles of Paul New York: P. Colt 5 About 700 p63 Gospels Berlin About 500 p64 Gospels Oxford About 200 p65 Epistles of Paul Florence 3rd p66 Gospels Geneva: P. Bodmer ii About 200 p67 Gospels Barcelona About 200 p68 Epistles of Paul Leningrad 8th? p70 Gospels P. Oxy. 2384 3rd p71 Gospels P. Oxy. 2385 4th p72 General Epistles Geneva: P. Bodmer xvii 3rd/4th p74 Acts, General Epistles Geneva: P. Bodmer xvii 7th p76 Gospels Geneva: P. Bodmer xiv, xv Early 3rd p76 Gospels Vienna 6th ======================================================================== CHAPTER 63: EVIDENCE OF BIBLICAL INSPIRATION ======================================================================== Is the Bible inspired? Christians claim it is. If that is so, then where is the evidence for its inspiration? Simply saying it is inspired isn't enough. Let's see some facts. First of all, we must understand the the inspiration of the Bible is in reference to the original documents, not the copies. Christianity holds that the original writings, the autographs, were without error in everything they address. It is not the copies that are inspired. What we have are copies of inspired documents and the truth is, some copying errors have woven themselves into some of the biblical copies. However, this does not mean that the Bible is not trustworthy. Textually speaking only 1/1000th of the Bible has any textual variation in the copies. That means that the Bible as a whole is around 98.5% textually pure. The New Testament is about 99.5% textually pure. Furthermore, there is enough redundancy in the copies that have been unearthed via archaeology, that we can reconstruct the Bible to almost 100% accuracy. It is a remarkably well preserved series of different books. For more information on this, please see Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability. In practical terms, this means that because of various copying errors, usually numbers, word order, spelling, and punctuation, we have Bible Difficulties; hence, the section on CARM dealing with many of them. Therefore, even though we can see some surface issues, we can still very easily see evidence of its inspiration. Prophecy One of the greatest proofs of the Bible's inspiration is prophecy. Following are some of the prophecies of both secular and religious fulfillment. In other words, the first section deals with prophecies of the secular world. The second part deals with prophecies about Jesus. Secular Prophecies In Daniel 2 four kingdoms are described in the interpretation of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar who was the king of Babylon. The four were the Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greek and the Roman empire (Dan. 2:39-43). These four kingdoms occurred just as prophesied. The following cities were prophesied to be destroyed and never rebuilt which has come true since they have not yet been rebuilt. Nineveh (Nah. 1:10; 3:7,15; Zeph. 2:13-14), Babylon (Isaiah 13:1-22), and Tyre (Ezek. 26:). Daniel 12:4 prophesied that knowledge would increase as well as the ability to travel great distances. Of course, this has occurred given our present rise in technology. Messianic Prophecies Jesus would be born of a virgin Isaiah 7:14, "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." Fulfilled in Matt. 1:18,25, "This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary...was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit... But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus." Jesus' place of birth in Bethlehem Micah 5:2, "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times." Fulfilled in Matt. 2:1, "After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem." Jesus would be preceded by a messenger Isaiah 40:3, "A voice of one calling: 'In the desert prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God.'" Fulfilled in Matt. 3:1-2, "In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the Desert of Judea and saying, 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.'" Rejected by His own people Isaiah 53:3, "He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not." Fulfilled in John 7:5, "For even his own brothers did not believe in him," and John 7:48, "Have any of the rulers or the Pharisees believed in Him?" Jesus' side pierced Zech. 12:10, "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one mourns for an only son." Fulfilled in John 19:34, "Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water." Jesus would be crucified Psalm 22:1, Psalm 22:11-18, "For the director of music. To the tune of "The Doe of the Morning." A psalm of David. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?...Do not be far from me, for trouble is near and there is no one to help. Many bulls surround me; strong bulls of Bashan. Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet. I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing." Fulfilled in John 19:23-24, "When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom. Let's not tear it, they said to one another. "Let's decide by lot who will get it." This happened that the scripture might be fulfilled which said, "They divided my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing." So this is what the soldiers did." Other information The Bible also contains information about physical phenemona that is particularly unusual. The Shape of the Earth "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in" (Isaiah 40:22, NIV). This may or may not be construed to support the spherical shape of the earth. The horizon is a circle and a circle is flat. The Earth is suspended in nothing "He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing" (Job. 26:7, NIV). This is particularly interesting considering that the cosmology of other cultures at that time did not have the earth suspended in nothing, but rather upon pillars, or people, or animals. The Existence of Valleys in the Seas "The valleys of the sea were exposed and the foundations of the earth laid bare at the rebuke of the LORD, at the blast of breath from his nostrils" (2 Sam. 22:16, NIV). The Existence of Springs and Fountains in the Seas "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month -- on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened" (Genesis 7:11, NIV). See also Gen. 8:2; Prov. 8:28. The Existence of Water Paths (Ocean Currents) in the Seas "O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!...When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,...You made him [man] ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet...the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas" (Psalm 8:1,3,6,8, NIV). The Hydrologic Cycle "He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight" (Job. 26:8, NIV). "He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind" (Job. 36:27-28, NIV) "The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, NIV). Though nothing in the above lists "prove" biblical inspiration, they are strong evidence that it is indeed inspired. Add to them that millions of people all over the world testify to having an encounter with the God of the Bible, the seemingly powerful nature of the words of the Bible, the changed lives of countless people and you have further, though more subjective, evidence that the Bible is the inspired word of God. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 64: WHEN WERE THE GOSPELS WRITTEN AND BY WHOM? ======================================================================== Dating the gospels is very important. If it can be established that the gospels were written early, say before the year 70 A.D., then we would have good reason for believing that they were written by the disciples of Jesus Himself. If they were written by the disciples, then their reliability, authenticity, and accuracy are better substantiated. Also, if they were written early, this would mean that there would not have been enough time for myth to creep into the gospel accounts since it was the eyewitnesses to Christ's life that wrote them. Furthermore, those who were alive at the time of the events could have countered the gospel accounts and since we have no contradictory writings to the gospels, their early authorship as well as apostolic authorship becomes even more critical. Destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. , Luke and Acts None of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. This is significant because Jesus had prophesied concerning the temple when He said "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:5, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burned the temple. The gold in the temple melted down between the stone walls and the Romans took the walls apart, stone by stone, to get the gold. Such an obvious fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy most likely would have been recorded as such by the gospel writers who were fond of mentioning fulfillment of prophecy if they had been written after 70 A.D. Also, if the gospels were fabrications of mythical events then anything to bolster the Messianic claims -- such as the destruction of the temple as Jesus said -- would surely have been included. But, it was not included suggesting that the gospels (at least Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written before 70 A.D. Similarly, this argument is important when we consider the dating of the book of Acts which was written after the gospel of Luke by Luke himself. Acts is a history of the Christian church right after Jesus' ascension. Acts also fails to mention the incredibly significant events of 70 A.D. which would have been extremely relevant and prophetically important and garnered inclusion into Acts had it occurred before Acts was written. Remember, Acts is a book of history concerning the Christians and the Jews. The fact that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple is not recorded is very strong evidence that Acts was written before A.D. 70. If we add to this the fact that acts does not include the accounts of "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65),"1 and we have further evidence that it was written early If we look at Acts 1:1-2 it says, "The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen." Most scholars affirm that Acts was written by Luke and that Theophilus (Grk. "lover of God") "may have been Luke’s patron who financed the writing of Luke and Acts."2 This means that the gospel of Luke was written before Acts. "At the earliest, Acts cannot have been written prior to the latest firm chronological marker recorded in the book—Festus’s appointment as procurator (24:27), which, on the basis of independent sources, appears to have occurred between A.D. 55 and 59."3 "It is increasingly admitted that the Logia [Q] was very early, before 50 A.D., and Mark likewise if Luke wrote the Acts while Paul was still alive. Luke's Gospel comes (Acts 1:1) before the Acts. The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly."4 For clarity, Q is supposedly one of the source documents used by both Matthew and Luke in writing their gospels. If Q actually existed then that would push the first writings of Christ's words and deeds back even further lessening the available time for myth to creep in and adding to the validity and accuracy of the gospel accounts. If what is said of Acts is true, this would mean that Luke was written at least before A.D. 63 and possibly before 55 - 59 since Acts is the second in the series of writings by Luke. This means that the gospel of Luke was written within 30 years of Jesus' death. Matthew The early church unanimously held that the gospel of Matthew was the first written gospel and was penned by the apostle of the same name (Matt. 10:2). Lately, the priority of Matthew as the first written gospel has come under suspicion with Mark being considered by many to be the first written gospel. The debate is far from over. The historian Papias mentions that the gospel of Matthew was originally in Aramaic or Hebrew and attributes the gospel to Matthew the apostle.5 "Irenaeus (ca. a.d. 180) continued Papias’s views about Matthew and Mark and added his belief that Luke, the follower of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by that apostle, and that John, the Beloved Disciple, published his Gospel while residing in Asia. By the time of Irenaeus, Acts was also linked with Luke, the companion of Paul."6 This would mean that if Matthew did write in Aramaic originally, that he may have used Mark as a map, adding and clarifying certain events as he remembered them. But, this is not known for sure. The earliest quotation of Matthew is found in Ignatius who died around 115 A.D. Therefore, Matthew was in circulation well before Ignatius came on the scene. The various dates most widely held as possible writing dates of the Gospel are between A.D. 40 - 140. But Ignatius died around 115 A.D. and he quoted Matthew. Therefore Matthew had to be written before he died. Nevertheless, it is generally believed that Matthew was written before A.D. 70 and as early as A.D. 50. Mark Mark was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus' life. He was a disciple of Peter and undoubtedly it was Peter who informed Mark of the life of Christ and guided him in writing the Gospel known by his name. "Papias claimed that Mark, the Evangelist, who had never heard Christ, was the interpreter of Peter, and that he carefully gave an account of everything he remembered from the preaching of Peter."7 Generally, Mark is said to be the earliest gospel with an authorship of between A.D. 55 to A.D. 70. Luke Luke was not an eyewitness of the life of Christ. He was a companion of Paul who also was not an eyewitness of Christ's life. But, both had ample opportunity to meet the disciples who knew Christ and learn the facts not only from them, but from others in the area. Some might consider this damaging to the validity of the gospel, but quite the contrary. Luke was a gentile convert to Christianity who was interested in the facts. He obviously had interviewed the eyewitnesses and written the Gospel account as well as Acts. "The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. 3 To these He also presented Himself alive, after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God," (Acts 1:1-3). Notice how Luke speaks of "them," of those who had personal encounters with Christ. Luke is simply recounting the events from the disciples. Since Luke agrees with Matthew, Mark, and John and since there is no contradictory information coming from any of the disciples stating that Luke was inaccurate, and since Luke has proven to be a very accurate historian, we can conclude that Luke's account is very accurate. As far as dating the gospel goes, Luke was written before the book of Acts and Acts does not mention "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65)."8 Therefore, we can conclude that Luke was written before A.D. 62. "Luke's Gospel comes (Acts 1:1) before the Acts. The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly."9 John The writer of the gospel of John was obviously an eyewitness of the events of Christ's life since he speaks from a perspective of having been there during many of the events of Jesus' ministry and displays a good knowledge of Israeli geography and customs. The John Rylands papyrus fragment 52 of John's gospel dated in the year 125-135 contains portions of John 18, verses 31-33,37-38. This fragment was found in Egypt. It is the last of the gospels and appears to have been written in the 80's to 90's. Most scholars say it was written in the early 90's. This means that the time span between the original writing of John and its earliest copy (fragment) is approximately 35-45 years. Of important note is the lack of mention of the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. But this is understandable since John was not focusing on historical events. Instead, he focused on the theological aspect of the person of Christ and listed His miracles and words that affirmed Christ's deity. Though there is still some debate on the dates of when the gospels were written, they were most assuredly completed before the close of the first century and written by eyewitnesses or under the direction of eyewitnesses. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 65: WHY ISN'T THERE ANY RECORD OF MILLIONS OF JEWS WANDERING IN THE DESERT? ======================================================================== There has been a lot of speculation on the route of the Exodus and why the traditional site hasn't yielded any archaeological evidence. After all, if two million people wander in a desert for forty years, you'd think that at least something would be found to support it. But, nothing at all has been unearthed in the Sinai Peninsula supporting the biblical account of the Exodus. Various explanations for this range from the idea that it is naturally difficult to find any archeological evidence in a desert of sand to the explanation that the traditional site is the wrong one. First of all, no archaeological find has ever contradicted the Bible. Archaeology has only confirmed what the Bible says. As has been the case with so many other things in the Bible, as archaeology progresses, they will most certainly uncover evidence in the future. The Bible has yet to be proven wrong by archaeology. Second, lack of evidence doesn't mean there wasn't an Exodus. However, this is a slippery slope since having a lack of evidence for an ice cream factory on Jupiter doesn't mean that there is one. What we need is evidence and it is fair to say that there should be some evidence for the wanderings of two million people for forty years in a desert. Third, it may be that the traditional site of Mt. Sinai is incorrect. Gal. 4:25 says "Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children." Present theories dealing with Mt. Sinai's location have it in the Sinai Peninsula, yet the Bible says it was in Arabia. The map to the right shows the traditionally accepted route (in black) and the currently accepted location of Mt. Sinai. The problem is that there has been absolutely no archaeological evidence unearthed at that site to verify the Exodus. The route in red shows an alternate path that is consistent with Paul's description in Gal. 4:25. This would have Mt. Sinai be in Arabia, which is now Saudi Arabia, instead of the traditionally accepted Sinai peninsula. In a recent book titled "In search of the Mountain of God," by Bob Cornuke and David Halbrook (Broadman and Holman, 2000), Bob Cornuke (a Christian) recounts his story of going into Saudi Arabia with his friend Larry Williams (a non-Christian commodities trader). They uncovered evidence of an alternate site where the real Mt. Sinai might be. Bob Cornuke was a police officer, swat team member, and crime scene investigator in Southern California and is the President of the Bible Archaeology Search and Exploration (BASE) Institute BaseInstitute.org. He and Mr. Williams have produced a video and book (available on that site) where they claim to have found evidence in Saudi Arabia to support that Mt. Sinai is located within its borders. Now, I must admit that this has not been verified by any "official" archaeologists, but the video, which I have seen, does raise some interesting possibilities. Mr. Cornuke and Williams claim to have simply let the Bible guide them as they attempted to locate the actual route of the Jews of the Exodus. Through trial and error over several weeks, they followed what they believed was the route as is laid out by the Bible and they found the items described in Exodus 13 - 19 including, springs, a split rock, an altar, an underwater land bridge at the end of the Sinai Peninsula where the people of Israel could have crossed, and much more. The present location of Mt. Sinai, according to the locals in their account, is known as Jabal Al Laws as is traditionally known by them as the mount of Moses. The Saudis have the area fenced off with warning signs in Arabic and English telling people not to enter. If this is so, why would the Saudis not want anyone to know about the place? It might be because if Mt. Sinai is located in Muslim territory then one of the most holy places of the Jewish and Christian religions it could pose serious political problems. I must admit that this is speculative at present and it has not been verified. But the video was compelling. Whether or not this is a valid option is yet to be determined and it is supportive of the idea that the traditional location of Exodus route might indeed be incorrect, as Gal. 4:25 seems to suggest. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 66: DO THE LOST BOOKS OF THE BIBLE PROVE THAT THE BIBLE HAS BEEN ALTERED? ======================================================================== There is much talk these days about lost books of the Bible. Sometimes people claim that the Bible was edited to take out reincarnation, or the teaching of higher planes of existence, or different gods, or ancestor worship, or "at-one-ment" with nature, anything that disagreed with what the people in power didn't like. But, none of this is true. The "lost books" were never lost. These so called lost books were already known by the Jews and the Christians and were not considered inspired. They weren't lost nor were they removed from the Bible because they were never in the Bible to begin with. These so called lost books were not included in the Bible for several reasons. They lacked apostolic or prophetic authorship; they did not claim to be the Word of God; they contain unbiblical concepts such as prayer for the dead in 2 Macc. 12:45-46; or have some serious historical inaccuracies. These books were never authoritative, inspired, or authentically written by either the Jewish Prophets or the Christian Apostles. Nevertheless, in spite of these problems the Roman Catholic church has added certain books to the canon of scripture. In 1546, largely due in response to the Reformation, the Roman Catholic church authorized several more books as scripture known as the apocrypha. The word apocrypha means hidden. It is used in a general sense to describe a list of books written by Jews between 300 and 100 B.C. More specifically, it is used of the 7 additional books accepted by the Catholic church as being inspired. The entire list of books of the apocrypha are: 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the Rest of Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, (also titled Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, The Letter of Jeremiah, Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, The Additions to Daniel, The Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. The books accepted as inspired and included in the Catholic Bible are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees Wisdom of Solomon Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch The Pseudepigraphal books are "false writings." They are a collection of early Jewish and "Christian" writings composed between 200 BC and AD 200. However, they too were known and were never considered scripture. A list of these would be the Epistle of Barnabas, the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, the Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, the The letter of the Smyrnaeans or the Martyrdom of Polycarp, the The Shepherd of Hermas, the The Book of Enoch, the Gospel of Thomas (140-170 AD), the The Psalms of Solomon, the The Odes of Solomon, the The Testaments of the twelve Patriarchs, the Second Baruch, the Third Baruch, the The Books of Adam and Eve. The Deuterocanonical (apocrypha) books are those books that were included in the Greek Septuagint (LXX) but not included in the Hebrew Bible. The recognized deuterocanonical books are 1 Esdras (150-100 BC), 2 Esdras (100 AD), Tobit (200 BC), Judith (150 BC), the Additions to Esther (140-130 BC), the Wisdom of Solomon (30 BC), Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) (132 BC), Barach (150-50 BC), the Letter of Jeremiah (300-100 BC), the Susanna (200-0 BC), Bel and the Dragon (100 BC), the Additions to Daniel (Prayer of Azariah (200-0 BC), the Prayer of Manassesh (100-0 BC), 1 Maccabees (110 BC), and 2 Maccabees (110-170 BC).1 These pseudepigraphal and deuterocanonical books were never considered scripture by the Christian church because they were not authoritative, inspired, written by either Prophets or Apostles, nor do they have the power of the word of the books of the existing Bible. Therefore, since the books are not lost and were never part of the Bible to begin with, they have no bearing on the validity of the Bible. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 67: IS THERE NON-BIBLICAL EVIDENCE OF A DAY OF DARKNESS AT THE CRUCIFIXION? ======================================================================== In Luke 23:44-46 there is the record of darkness falling upon the land during Christ's crucifixion. "And it was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45the sun being obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two. 46And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, "Father, into Thy hands I commit My spirit." And having said this, He breathed His last." Is there any non-biblical evidence of the day of darkness mentioned at Christ's death? The answer is yes, there is. "Circa AD 52, Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. This work itself has been lost and only fragments of it exist in the citations of others. One such scholar who knew and spoke of it was Julius Africanus, who wrote about AD 221...In speaking of Jesus’ crucifixion and the darkness that covered the land during this event, Africanus found a reference in the writings of Thallus that dealt with this cosmic report. Africanus asserts: '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.'"1 One might wonder why other historians of the time did not also mention the darkness. First of all, the darkness was localized so it would not be a widespread phenomena that other historians would naturally record. Second, other historians like Pliny, Tacitus, and Josephus, generally were focusing on events that could be verified and were not based in the miraculous. The fact that Thallus mentions the darkness tells us that something did happen and that there is extrabiblical citation for the event. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 68: CAN WE TRUST THE NEW TESTAMENT AS A HISTORICAL DOCUMENT? ======================================================================== Many people do not believe that the Bible is a reliable document of history. But, it is a very very trustworthy historical document. If we were to look at a chart that compared the biblical documents with other ancient documents, we would see that the Bible is in a class by itself regarding the number of ancient copies and their reliability. Please consider the chart below Author1 Date Written Earliest Copy Approximate Time Span between original & copy Number of Copies Accuracy of Copies Lucretius died 55 or 53 B.C. 1100 yrs 2 ---- Pliny 61-113 A.D. 850 A.D. 750 yrs 7 ---- Plato 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 yrs 7 ---- Demosthenes 4th Cent. B.C. 1100 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ---- Herodotus 480-425 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ---- Suetonius 75-160 A.D. 950 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ---- Thucydides 460-400 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ---- Euripides 480-406 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1300 yrs 9 ---- Aristophanes 450-385 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 10 ---- Caesar 100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. 1000 10 ---- Livy 59 BC-AD 17 ---- ??? 20 ---- Tacitus circa 100 A.D. 1100 A.D. 1000 yrs 20 ---- Aristotle 384-322 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1400 49 ---- Sophocles 496-406 B.C. 1000 A.D 1400 yrs 193 ---- Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 yrs 643 95% New Testament 1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D. 2nd Cent. A.D. (c. 130 A.D. f.) less than 100 years 5600 99.5% It should be obvious that the biblical documents, especially the New Testament documents, are superior in their quantity, closer in time span from original writing, and better regarding textual reliability. The Bible is a book of History It could be said that the Bible is a book of history -- and it is. The Bible describes places, people, and events in various degrees of detail. It is essentially an historical account of the people of God throughout thousands of years. If you open to almost any page in the Bible you will find a name of a place and/or a person. Much of this can be verified from archaeology. Though archaeology cannot prove that the Bible is the inspired word of God, it has the ability to prove whether or not if some events and locations described therein are true or false. So far, however, there isn't a single archaeological discovery that disproves the Bible in any way. Nevertheless, many used to think that the Bible had numerous historical errors in it such as Luke's account of Lysanias being the tetrarch of Abiline in about 27 AD (Luke 3:1). For years scholars used this "factual error" to prove Luke was wrong because it was common knowledge that Lysanias was not a tetrarch, but the ruler of Chalcis about 50 years earlier than what Luke described. But, an archaeological inscription was found that said Lysanias was the tetrarch in Abila near Damascus at the time that Luke said. It turns out that there had been two people named Lysanias and Luke had accurately recorded the facts accurately. Also, the walls of Jericho have been found, destroyed just as the Bible says. Many critics doubted that Nazareth ever existed, yet archaeologists have found a first-century synagogue inscription at Caesarea proving it existed. Finds have verified Herod the Great and his son Herod Antipas. The remains of the Apostle Peter's house have been found at Capernaum. Bones with nail scars through the wrists and feet of people who had been crucified have been uncovered demonstrating the actuality of crucifixion. The High Priest Caiaphas' bones have been discovered in an ossuary (a box used to store bones). There is, of course, a host of archaeological digs that corroborate biblical records such as Bethsaida, Bethany, Caesarea Philippi, Capernaum, Cyprus, Galatia, Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, etc. For more on this see, Archaeological Evidence verifying biblical events and places. An inscribed stone was found that refers to Pontius Pilate, named as Prefect of Judaea.’ (The New Bible Dictionary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.; 1962.) Luke 3:1, "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea..." "A decree of Claudius found at Delphi (Greece) describes Gallio as proconsul of Achaia in ad 51, thus giving a correlation with the ministry of Paul in Corinth (Acts 18:12)." (The New Bible Dictionary) Acts 18:12, "But while Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews with one accord rose up against Paul and brought him before the judgment seat." Excavations have revealed a text naming a benefactor Erastus which may be a reference relating to the city-treasurer of Rom. 16:23. (The New Bible Dictionary) Rom. 16:23, "Gaius, host to me and to the whole church, greets you. Erastus, the city treasurer greets you, and Quartus, the brother." At Ephesus parts of the temple of Artemis have been uncovered as is mentioned in Acts 19:28-41. (The New Bible Dictionary) Acts 19:28, "And when they heard this and were filled with rage, they began crying out, saying, "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians." "It is known that Quirinius was made governor of Syria by Augustus in AD 6. Archaeologist Sir William Ramsay discovered several inscriptions that indicated that Quirinius was governor of Syria on two occasions, the first time several years prior to this date...archaeology has provided some unexpected and supportive answers. Additionally, while supplying the background behind these events, archaeology also assists us in establishing several facts. (1) A taxation-census was a fairly common procedure in the Roman Empire and it did occur in Judea, in particular. (2) Persons were required to return to their home city in order to fulfill the requirements of the process. (3) These procedures were apparently employed during the reign of Augustus (37 BC–AD 14), placing it well within the general time frame of Jesus’ birth."2 "The historical trustworthiness of Luke has been attested by a number of inscriptions. The ‘politarchs’ of Thessalonica (Acts 17:6,8) were magistrates and are named in five inscriptions from the city in the 1st century ad. Similarly Publius is correctly designated proµtos (‘first man’) or Governor of Malta (Acts 28:7). Near Lystra inscriptions record the dedication to Zeus of a statue of Hermes by some Lycaonians, and near by was a stone altar for ‘the Hearer of Prayer’ (Zeus) and Hermes. This explains the local identification of Barnabas and Paul with Zeus (Jupiter) and Hermes (Mercury) respectively (Acts 14:11). Derbe, Paul’s next stopping-place, was identified by Ballance in 1956 with Kaerti Hüyük near Karaman (AS 7, 1957, pp. 147ff.). Luke’s earlier references to *Quirinius as governor of Syria before the death of Herod I (Luke 2:2) and to *Lysanias as tetrarch of Abilene (Luke 3:1) have likewise received inscriptional support." (The New Bible Dictionary.) There are many such archaeological verifications of biblical events and places. Is the Bible trustworthy? Absolutely! Remember, no archaeological discovery has ever contradicted the Bible. Therefore, since it has been verified over and over again throughout the centuries, we can continue to trust it as an accurate historical document. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 69: THE WRITINGS OF JOSEPHUS MENTION MANY BIBLICAL PEOPLE AND PLACES ======================================================================== Flavius Josephus (37-101 A.D.) was a Jewish priest at the time of the Jewish Revolt of A.D. 66. He was captured by the Romans, imprisoned, set free and then retired to Rome where he wrote a history of the Revolt called the "Jewish War." Later he wrote "Antiquities" as a history of the Jews. Following is a brief listing of some people and places mentioned by Josephus that correspond to biblical references. They demonstrate that the Bible is not alone in its description of people, events, and places. Antipas mentioned 17:8:1, "And now Herod altered his testament upon the alteration of his mind; for he appointed Antipas, to whom he had before left the kingdom, to be tetrarch of Galilee and Berea, and granted the kingdom to Archelaus." Rev. 2:13, "‘I know where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is; and you hold fast My name, and did not deny My faith, even in the days of Antipas, My witness, My faithful one, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells." Herod is mentioned numerous times 17:8:1, "And now Herod altered his testament upon the alteration of his mind..." 18.5.3, "Whereupon he ordered the army to march along the Great Plain, while he himself, with Herod the tetrarch, and his friends, went up to Jerusalem to offer sacrifice to God, an ancient festival of the Jews being then just approaching." See also, 18:2:1,2,3; 18:4:3,5,6; 18:5:1,2,3; 18:7:2, etc. Luke 3:1, "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene." The Galatians are mentioned 17:8:3, "First of all went his guards, then the band of Thracians, and after them the Germans; and next the band of Galatians, every one in their habiliments of war." 12:10:6, "And when he was dead, the people bestowed the high priesthood on Judas; who, hearing of the power of the Romans, d and that they had conquered in war Galatia, and Iberia, and Carthage, and Lybia." Gal. 1:2, "and all the brethren who are with me, to the churches of Galatia." Jericho mentioned 17:8:2, "...when Salome and Alexas gathered the soldiery together in the amphitheater at Jericho..." Num. 22:1, "And the children of Israel journeyed, and encamped in the plains of Moab beyond the Jordan at Jericho." Jerusalem is mentioned 20:9:2, "Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem..." Matt. 21:10-11, "And when He had entered Jerusalem, all the city was stirred, saying, "Who is this?" 11 And the multitudes were saying, "This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee." Jesus is mentioned 18:3:3, "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." 20:9:1, "Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done;" For information on the Testimonium Flavanium (the quotes of Josephus about Jesus) please see Regarding the quotes from the historian Josephus about Jesus Judea is mentioned 20:9:1, "AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator." See also, 20:1:1; 20:5:1,2,3; 20:6:1,2; 20:7:1,2; 20:8:5,10; 20:11:1; etc. Matt. 2:1, "Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem..." John the Baptist is mentioned 18.5.2 Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and was a very just punishment for what he did against John called the Baptist [the dipper]. For Herod had him killed, although he was a good man and had urged the Jews to exert themselves to virtue, both as to justice toward one another and reverence towards Matt. 3:1-2, "Now in those days John the Baptist *came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, 2"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Pontius Pilate is mentioned 18:3:1, "But now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Cesarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter quarters there, in order to abolish the Jewish laws." See also, 18:3:1,2,3; 18:4:1,2,5, etc. Luke 3:1, "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene." Sadducees mentioned 20:9:1, "But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees." Matt. 16:1, "And the Pharisees and Sadducees came up, and testing Him asked Him to show them a sign from heaven." The Samaritans are mentioned 18:4:1, "But the nation of the Samaritans did not escape without tumults." Luke 10:33, ""But a certain Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion." Tiberius Ceasar is mentioned 18.6.4, "And now Agrippa was come to Puteoli, whence he wrote a letter to Tiberius Caesar, who then lived at Capreae, and told him that he was come so far in order to wait on him, and to pay him a visit; and desired that he would give him leave to come over to Caprein." Luke 3:1, "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene." There are many other such references. But what they do is help to establish that the Bible was not written in isolation. It was written in the context of ancient Israel when and where it claims to have been written. This is important when authenticating the Bible and this is why external references are sometimes useful. In this case, Josephus who was a contemporary of the disciples, is referenced in support of biblical accuracy. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 70: ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE VERIFYING BIBLICAL CITIES ======================================================================== There is very little doubt in anyone's mind about the reality of so many of the Old and New Testament cities mentioned in the Bible. Therefore it is hardly necessary to document their existence. Nevertheless, following is a partial list of some of the cities mentioned in the Bible that have been found and excavated by archaeologists. This is simply more evidence that the Bible describes actual locations that can be verified. This means that at the very least, the Bible accurately reflects the locations and cities of ancient times. Remember, this is only a partial list. There are hundreds of biblical cities that have been verified in archaeological digs. Arad Num. 21:1, "When the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who lived in the Negev, heard that Israel was coming by the way of Atharim, then he fought against Israel, and took some of them captive." Num. 33:40, "Now the Canaanite, the king of Arad who lived in the Negev in the land of Canaan, heard of the coming of the sons of Israel." "Arad 30 km NE of Beersheba, excavated from 1962 to 1974 by Y. Aharoni and R. B. K. Amiran." (The New Bible Dictionary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.; 1962.) "The site consists of an upper mound or acropolis, where excavation has revealed an Iron Age (post thirteenth century b.c." (Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harper’s Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.) 1985. The remains of a Hebrew temple were uncovered at Arad, (Horn, Siegfried H., Biblical Archaeology: a Generation of Discovery; Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan; 1985. p.45-46.) Bethel Amos 7:12-13, "Then Amaziah said to Amos, "Go, you seer, flee away to the land of Judah, and there eat bread and there do your prophesying! 13 "But no longer prophesy at Bethel, for it is a sanctuary of the king and a royal residence." "W. F. Albright made a trial excavation at Bethel in 1927. Albright then mounted a full excavation in 1934. His assistant that year, J. L. Kelso, continued the excavation in 1954, 1957, and 1960." (Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harper’s Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.; 1985.) Capernaum Matt. 17:24, "And when they had come to Capernaum, those who collected the two-drachma tax came to Peter, and said, "Does your teacher not pay the two-drachma tax?" "Identified since 1856 with Tell Hum, Capernaum has been sporadically excavated for the past 130 years." (Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harper’s Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.; 1985.) Chorazin Matt. 11:21, "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes." "Excavations of the now deserted town indicate that it once covered an area of twelve acres and was built on a series of terraces with the basalt stone local to this mountainous region." (Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harper’s Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.; 1985.) Dan Judges 18:29, "And they called the name of the city Dan, after the name of Dan their father who was born in Israel; however, the name of the city formerly was Laish." "The excavation of Dan began in 1966 under the direction fo Avraham Biran." (Horn, Siegfried H., Biblical Archaeology: a Generation of Discovery; Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan; 1985. p. 42) "Formerly called Laish, it is mentioned in the execration texts, the eighteenth-century b.c. Mari tablets, and the records of the Egyptian pharaoh Thutmose III. It is identified with Tel Dan (modern Tell el-Qadi) covering about 50 acres in the center of a fertile valley near one of the principal springs feeding the Jordan River...Tel Dan has been excavated by A. Biran since 1966. The earliest occupation, probably the full extent of the tell, goes back to about the middle of the third millennium b.c." (Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harper’s Bible Dictionary; San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.; 1985.) Ephesus Eph. 1:1, "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to the saints who are at Ephesus, and who are faithful in Christ Jesus." "Austrian archaeologists in this century [2oth] have excavated the 24,000-seat theater and the commercial agora, as well as many other public buildings and streets of the first and second centuries a.d., so that the modern visitor can gain some impression of the city as known by Paul. (Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harper’s Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.; 1985.) Gaza Acts 8:26, "But an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip saying, "Arise and go south to the road that descends from Jerusalem to Gaza." Gaza was was excavated by W. J. Phythian-Adams in 1922. (Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harper’s Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.; 1985.) Gezer Joshua 16:10, "But they did not drive out the Canaanites who lived in Gezer..." R.A.S. MacAlister "directed the Palestine Exploration Fund for many years and conducted extensive excavations at Gezer (1902–1909). (Douglas, J. D., Comfort, Philip W. & Mitchell, Donald, Editors, Who’s Who in Christian History, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.; 1992.) Hazor Joshua 11:1, "Then it came about, when Jabin king of Hazor heard of it, that he sent to Jobab king of Madon and to the king of Shimron and to the king of Achshaph." Jer. 49:48, "Concerning Kedar and the kingdoms of Hazor, which Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon defeated. Thus says the Lord, "Arise, go up to Kedar and devastate the men of the east." "This large Canaanite and Israelite city in upper Galilee was excavated under Yigael Yadin's direction from 1955 to 1958 and from 1968 to 1970." (Horn, Siegfried H., Biblical Archaeology: a Generation of Discovery; Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan; 1985. p. 40.) Hesbon Josh. 12:2, "Sihon king of the Amorites, who lived in Heshbon, and ruled from Aroer, which is on the edge of the valley of the Arnon..." Excavations were undertaken by Andrews University from 1968 to 1976. (Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harper’s Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.; 1985.) Jericho Num. 22:1, "Then the sons of Israel journeyed, and camped in the plains of Moab beyond the Jordan opposite Jericho." "Jericho was the oldest inhabited and fortified city ever excavated." (Horn, Siegfried H., Biblical Archaeology: a Generation of Discovery; Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan; 1985. p. 37) "The city of OT times is represented today by a mound 70 feet high and 10 acres in area...The ancient city was excavated by C. Warren (1867), E. Sellin and C. Watzinger (1907-09), J. Garstang (1930-36), and K. Kenyon (1952-58)." (Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harper’s Bible Dictionary; San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.; 1985.) "The first scientific excavation there (1907-9) was by Sellin and Watzinger (Jericho, 1913)." (The New Bible Dictionary; Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.; 1962.). Joppa Acts 9:38, "And since Lydda was near Joppa, the disciples, having heard that Peter was there, sent two men to him, entreating him, "Do not delay to come to us." "During excavations of the site of ancient Joppa a thirteenth-century b.c. citadel gate was uncovered..." (Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harper’s Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.; 1985.) Nineveh 2 Kings 19:36, "So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed and returned home, and lived at Nineveh." Jonah 1:1-2, "The word of the Lord came to Jonah the son of Amittai saying, 2 "Arise, go to Nineveh the great city, and cry against it, for their wickedness has come up before Me." Excavated in from 1845 to 1857 by Austen H. Layard. (Douglas, J. D., Comfort, Philip W. & Mitchell, Donald, Editors, Who’s Who in Christian History, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.; 1992.) Shechem Gen. 12:6, "And Abram passed through the land as far as the site of Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. Now the Canaanite was then in the land." Gen. 33:18, "Now Jacob came safely to the city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, when he came from Paddan-aram, and camped before the city." "Excavations were carried out at Shechem, first by Austrian-German expeditions in 1913 and 1914, and again from 1926 to 1934, under several directors, and then by an American expedition from 1956 to 1972....Excavation of the sacred area revealed a courtyard sanctuary and a later fortress temple dedicated to El-berith "the god of the covenant." This temple, which was destroyed by Abimelech, the son of the judge Gideon (Judges 9) has provided us with a date of the judges period." (Horn, Siegfried H., Biblical Archaeology: a Generation of Discovery; Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan; 1985. p. 40) Most recently a structure identified as an Israelite altar has been excavated on the northeastern slope of Mt. Ebal. Dating to the 13th to 12th centuries B.C., considered to be the time of Joshua, the altar suggest the possibility that it may be the altar built by Joshua and described in Deuteronomy 27, 28." (Horn, Siegfried H., Biblical Archaeology: a Generation of Discovery; Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan; 1985. p. 40) Susa Neh. 1:1, "The words of Nehemiah the son of Hacaliah. Now it happened in the month Chislev, in the twentieth year, while I was in Susa the capitol, Esther 1:2, "Now it took place in the days of Ahasuerus, the Ahasuerus who reigned from India to Ethiopia over 127 provinces, 2 in those days as King Ahasuerus sat on his royal throne which was in Susa the capital, Escavations were conducted by Marcel Dieulafoy from 1884 to 1886 (Douglas, J. D., Comfort, Philip W. & Mitchell, Donald, Editors, Who’s Who in Christian History, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.; 1992.) ======================================================================== CHAPTER 71: NON-BIBLICAL ACCOUNTS OF NEW TESTAMENT EVENTS AND/OR PEOPLE ======================================================================== Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?, a Jewish historian) mentions John the Baptist and Herod - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 5, par. 2 "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." Note: There is dispute as to the reliability of the Josephus accounts. However, there is no textual/manuscript reason for doubting them since the extant Greek manuscripts all agree with the texts in question; namely, the quotes shown on this page. However, the reason the quotes are in doubt is because of the text in italics in the various quotes; they seem a little too favorable regarding Christ. Also, it appears that the writings of Josephus were transmitted to us through the Christian community. Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Jesus - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. There is debate among scholars as to the authenticity of this quote since it is so favorable to Jesus. For an examination of this please see Regarding the quotes from the historian Josephus about Jesus. Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions James, the brother of Jesus - Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 19. "Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done." Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Ananias the High Priest who was mentioned in Acts 23:2 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 Acts 23:2, "And the high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him [Paul] on the mouth." Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "christus" who is Jesus - Annals "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 Judaea, 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." Ref. from http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.mb.txt Thallus Circa AD 52, eclipse of the sun. Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. His writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus who wrote about AD 221 mentioned Thallus' account of an eclipse of the sun. "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." Is this a reference to the eclipse at the crucifixion? Luke 23:44-45, "And it was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 the sun being obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two." The oddity is that Jesus' crucifixion occurred at the Passover which was a full moon. It is not possible for a solar eclipse to occur at a full moon. Note that Julius Africanus draws the conclusion that Thallus' mentioning of the eclipse was describing the one at Jesus' crucifixion. It may not have been. Julius Africanus, Extant Writings, XVIII in the Ante–Nicene Fathers, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), vol. VI, p. 130. as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996. Pliny the Younger mentioned Christ. Pliny was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Pliny wrote ten books. The tenth 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." Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996. The Talmud "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!" Gal. 3:13, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." Luke 22:1, "Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was approaching. 2And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how they might put Him to death; for they were afraid of the people." This quotation was taken from the reading in The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, p. 281 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996. Lucian (circa 120-after 180) mentions Jesus. Greek writer and rhetorician. "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." Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 11–13, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), vol. 4, as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996. Though Lucian opposed Christianity, he acknowledges Jesus, that Jesus was crucified, that Christians worship him, and that this was done by faith. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 72: ILLUSTRATION OF BIBLE TEXT MANUSCRIPT TREE AND VARIANT READINGS ======================================================================== The following diagram illustrates manuscript corruptions in the biblical texts that are produced, for whatever reason, and copied down to later manuscripts. The purpose of the illustration is to show how errors are copied down from one manuscript to another, how they are counted, and how we can determine which is the correct reading. In this example, of the 26 existing manuscripts (represented by solid black and red sheets) nine of them have a textual problem where a phrase was incorrectly copied. Therefore, in this illustration, we would have a total of nine variants in 26 manuscripts. But, it is really only one. However, manuscripts can be categorized in family trees by analyzing their location of discovery, jars found in, type of papyri written on, type of ink used, style of writing, etc. Therefore, daughter manuscripts can be matched very accurately to father manuscripts. In this example we see that the word "only" was omitted from a 3rd century document and copied in subsequent, daughter documents. All we need to do is to take a look at the manuscripts and even though we see nine variants here, actually we can tell that there is only one which has been copied. Also, we can accurately determine which is the correct reading by looking at the father document from the 2nd century. With this type of method, the New Testament documents can be reconstructed with an incredible accuracy. Furthermore, the New Testament is approximately 99.5% textually pure. This means that of all the manuscripts in existence they agree completely 99.5% of the time. Of the variants that occur, mostly are easily explainable and very few have any effect on the meaning of passages. In all, no New Testament doctrine is affected by any variant reading. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 73: LETTER UNCIALS; 4TH TO 10TH CENTURY COPIES ======================================================================== Uncials are uppercase Greek letters and are used to designate another set of manuscripts. Uncials are designated with the initial "0". All these manuscripts were written in the uncial form; that is, the uppercase Greek style. Manuscript Contents Location Date Coppied (aleph) 01 Gospels, Acts, Epistles of Paul, Revelation London: Sinaiticus 4th A 02 Gospels, Acts, Epistles of Paul, Revelation London: Alexandrinus 5th B 03 Gospels, Acts, Epistles of Paul Rome: Vaticanus 4th C 04 Gospels, Acts, Epistles of Paul, Revelation Paris: Ephraemi Rescriptus 5th D 05 Gospels, Acts & Catholic Epistles Cambridge:Bezae Cantabrigiensis 5th/6th D 06 Epistles of Paul Paris: Claromontanus 6th D-abg1 - Epistles of Paul (Ab8chrift, i.e. copy of 06) Leningrad 9th E 07 Gospels Base] 8th E 08 Acts Oxford: Laudianus 6th F 09 Gospels Utrecht 9th F 010 Epistles of Paul Cambridge 9th G 011 Gospels London and Cambridge 9th G 012 Epistles of Paul Dresden: Boernerianus 9th H 013 Gospels Hamburg and Cambridge 9th H 014 Acts Modena 9th H 0165 Epistles of Paul Athos and elsewhere: Euthalianus 6th I 016 Epistles of Paul Washington 5th K 017 Gospels Paris 9th K 018 Acts, Epistles of Paul Moscow 9th L 019 Gospels Paris: Regius 8th L 020 Acts, Epistles of Paul Rome 9th M 021 Gospels Paris 9th N 022 Gospels Leningrad and elsewhere 6th O 023 Gospels Paris 6th P 024 Gospels Wolfenbiittel 6th P 025 Acts, Epistles of Paul, Revelation Leningrad 9th Q 026 Gospels Wolfenbiittel 5th R 027 Gospels London 6th S 028 Gospels Rome 949 T 029 Gospels Rome 5th U 030 Gospels Venice 9th V 031 Gospels Moscow 9th W 032 Gospels Washington: Freer Gospels 5th X 033 Gospels Munich 10th Y 034 Gospels Cambridge 9th Z 035 Gospels Dublin 6th (gamma) 036 Gospels Leningrad and Oxford 10th (delta) 037 Gospels St. Gall 9th (theta) 038 Gospels Tiflis: Koridethi 9th (lambda) 039 Gospels Oxford 9th (xi) 040 Gospels London: Zacynthius 8th (pi) 041 Gospels Leningrad 9th (sigma) 042 Gospels Rossano 6th (phi) 043 Gospels Berat? 6th (psi) 044 Gospels, Acts, Epistles of Paul Athos 8th/9th (omega) 045 Gospels Athos 9th ======================================================================== CHAPTER 74: IF GOD IS ALL POWERFUL AND LOVING, WHY IS THERE SUFFERING IN THE WORLD? ======================================================================== It is often asked why is there suffering in the world if God is all powerful and loving. Why doesn't He stop it? Can He or is He weaker than we think? Suffering can fall into three simple categories: emotional, mental, and physical suffering. But, there are a variety of causes for suffering: morally corrupt (evil) people, disease, earthquakes, floods, famine, etc. There are different explanations for why God allows suffering, but none of them can satisfy everyone. Therefore, I will simply list various reasons offered to account for suffering and evil in the world. Free will God has given us freedom of choice. Having this freedom means that we can rebel against God and make choices that are contrary to His desires. Since we can say that evil is anything contrary to God's perfect and holy will, then anyone who chooses anything contrary to God's perfection is committing evil. But this is the risk of being able to have freedom of choice. Evil and suffering are the result of making bad free choices. But how could this account for natural disasters and sickness that brings suffering? Biblically, Adam represented not only all of his descendents, but he was also the head of the created order since he was given dominion over the earth. Therefore, when he fell, sin entered into the world (Rom. 5:12) and with it the effects of being fallen spread to the earth as well as to humanity. God cannot stop evil and suffering because He is powerless Of course, this does not stand up to biblical truth. God allows evil to occur partly for reasons we do know and partly for those we do not. We know that God uses evil to discipline people (Prov. 3:11) and to teach them (Prov. 15:32). But we cannot know all the reasons that God has for allowing evil and suffering in the world. It is not logically necessary that since God has not stopped evil and suffering in the world, that He cannot. God could be using suffering for His divine plan, in order to teach, for discipline, because people are free, etc. The existence of suffering does not at all mean that God cannot stop all of it. It means that He simply has chosen not to do so. How much evil should be stopped? The question of stopping evil means that if God is to stop evil, then He must stop all evil. This means that the murderer must be stopped along with the thief. But it also means that thinking evil, which is in rebellion against God, must also be stopped as well; that is, if all evil is to be stopped. Therefore, for God to stop evil and suffering may very well mean that He must remove the ability for people to freely choose what they want to do. So, if God is going to stop evil, is He required to stop all of it or just some of it? If only some of it, then the question would still stand. If He stops all of it, would we be free? Prevention of further evil It is possible that human suffering (cancer, disease, etc.) can be a means that God uses to remove the person from further suffering, worse suffering, or future suffering. Of course, this not seem to be a very good option because if God or intending to stop further suffering, why would He use suffering to stop it? Also, what about floods and earthquakes that cause suffering? How would they fit into God decreasing or stopping suffering except perhaps by people's deaths which ends suffering? This is difficult to answer. Though it may be that God might use some suffering to prevent even greater suffering, this explanation cannot answer all issues concerning it. For the greater plan Undoubtedly, God has a plan. Since God knows all things He is not surprised by the presence of evil and sin in the world that brings about suffering. But if God knows all things from all eternity, then He is perfectly capable of using suffering in the world in His greater plan. The best and simplest example of this is the suffering of Christ at the hands of evil men. It is by Christ's suffering and death on across that we are able to be redeemed. It was God's plan from all eternity that Christ die for our sins yet Christ was crucified by evil people (Acts 4:27-28). This means that God had incorporated into His divine plan the reality of evil and suffering in order to accomplish His will. Of course, this does not mean that God is the author of evil, but it does mean that God is above it all and can use it to accomplish a greater good. If this is true on a large-scale, why cannot it also be true on a smaller one in each of our individual lives? For discipline and instruction The Bible tells us that God disciplines those whom He loves (Heb. 12:6) and that no true child of God is without discipline and instruction. It is obvious that the results of our rebellion against God brings suffering and it is also true that we can learn through our suffering that such rebellion is bad. We then could glorify God during and after our suffering by proclaiming the truth of His word that urges us to follow God and His ways. Sometimes we learn our greatest lessons after having suffered the consequences of our actions -- and this is good. If we see that there are consequences through the acts of suffering in this world, it is logical to conclude that there will be suffering in the next as a consequence of our rebellion now. This could easily lead us to conclude that we need to be delivered from our rebellion against God. Of course, Jesus is the answer to this. It is the result of sin Biblically speaking, pain and suffering are the results of sin in the world. Adam, who represented all humanity as well as creation, rebelled against God and brought suffering into the world (Rom. 5:12). Sin is more than simple rebellion and breaking of God's law. It is permeating throughout all of God's creation bringing imbalance, famine, earthquakes, disease, etc. This does not mean that God created evil. Instead, it is God who is allowing evil and suffering to continue for His divine plan. To serve as a warning Evil and suffering in the world can serve as a warning against breaking God's law and then people can see the necessity of following God's truth. God's ways are right and good and following them leads to security and safety. The consequences of disobeying God's word are manifested in suffering. Therefore, suffering in the world easily serves as a demonstration of the need to follow God's words thereby vindicating what God has said To make a point It is possible that God is simply allowing evil and suffering in the world to prove that rebellion against Him brings pain and suffering. God may be allowing sin to take its natural course in the world so that on the day of judgment God can say "Do you see what rebellion against my words brings?" This may seem overly simplistic but it may prove to be one of the reasons that God allows pain and suffering. After all, did He not make us in His image and give us the freedom to choose? And in our freedom have we not rebelled? Yes, we have. Should God then make us robots or restrict our freedom so much that we have no choices at all? Of course not. But since we are limited in our knowledge and have used our freedom to rebel, God allows us to have what we desire and in the end, our sins will prove that God's way is the right way. To serve as a means to bring the Son The death of the Son is the means by which God has redeemed those who would receive Jesus. This death cannot occur if Jesus were not a man. In order to be a man he had to be born as one. But since Jesus was sinless, death has no power over Him. Therefore, in order to die and in order to redeem us, His death must be at the hands of evil people. But, without sin, suffering, and evil in the world, Jesus could not have been sent to the cross. So, it could be said that suffering in the world is necessary in order to bring about the cross which in turn demonstrates the great and awesome love of God. Jesus said that the greatest act of love is to lay one's life down for another (John 15:13). If God is love (1 John 4:8) and love gives (John 3:16), can it be that God must demonstrate the greatest act of love? If so, it can only be done through suffering in the world. We don't know. Biblically speaking, pain and suffering are the results of sin in the world. Adam, who represented all humanity as well as creation, rebelled against God and brought suffering into the world. This sin is more than simple rebellion and breaking of God's law. It is an offense against a holy God. Sin is permeating throughout all of God's creation bringing imbalance, famine, earthquakes, disease, etc. This is not have God created things but it is God who is allowing them to continue for his divine plan. Ultimately, we can't know all the reasons why God allows suffering, we just know that He does. What does the Bible tell us that God has done about evil? It tells us that he sent to his son Jesus to die for our sins and to deliver us from pain and suffering. Ultimately, God is allowing evil in the world for a purpose, otherwise, he would not let it exist. Therefore, we must trust Him that He knows what He is doing. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 75: A LOVING GOD WOULD NEVER SEND ANYONE TO HELL ======================================================================== The idea of a loving God sending people to hell for eternity is not easy to accept. Why would God, who is full of mercy and grace, send people to a place of torment for ever and ever for not trusting in Jesus even though they are nice people, or never heard of Jesus, or were sincerely trying to find God? Is that fair? Is that right? When people ask these questions, they are appealing to what they perceive as fairness. They are looking at the issue from their human perspective. But this perspective is not necessarily the right one. If God exists, and He does, then it is He who is the One who says what is right and fair, not us. So, we need to see what the Bible says about what is right regarding sin and salvation and make a decision afterwards. The Bible tells us that God is holy, "You shall be holy, for I am holy," (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness is incorruptibility, perfection, purity, and the inability to sin, all of which which are possessed by God alone. Holiness is the very nature of God's character. His character is perfect, without flaw, and He is the standard of all that is right and good. The Bible also says that God is infinite , "Great is our Lord, and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite," (Psalm 147:5). If God's understanding is infinite, then God is infinite in nature. The Bible tells us that God is love. "And we have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him," (1 John 4:16). God cares about us and seeks our well being and security. His thoughts about us are infinite and His love is too. This is why God does not desire that anyone go to hell, but that all come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9). The Bible tells us that God is righteous. "God is a righteous judge," (Psalm 7:9). His righteousness is part of His character just as are mercy and love. Righteousness deals with justice and justice deals with the Law. This means that God will always do that which is right and He does so according to the righteous Law that He has set forth. God cannot do anything wrong. God must do that which is right, otherwise He would not be righteous. Jesus said that "out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks," (Matt. 12:34). So too with God. He speaks out of the abundance of His heart. God spoke the universe into existence, "Let their be light," (Gen. 1:3) and He also spoke forth the Law (Exodus 20 - the Ten Commandments, etc.). Therefore, the Law of God, is a reflection of God's character, because it comes out of what He is, holy, perfect, righteous, and good. Therefore, the Law is a standard of perfection. It is perfect and if we do not keep it perfectly, then we have offended the God who gave it; after all, it is a reflection of His character. To break God's Law is to offend (sin against) God. Since it is law, there is punishment because there is no Law that is a law without a punishment. This means that when we break the Law of God, we fall under the judgment of the Law of God. Since He is infinite, our offense against Him is takes on an infinite quality because we have offended an infinitely holy and righteous God. Must God punish? Yes, God must punish those who break His law because it is the right thing to do. Just as a parent should punish a child for doing something wrong (intentionally), so God must punish those who do wrong. You see, if God did not punish the person who does wrong, then He would be unjust and unrighteous. He would be breaking His own law -- which He cannot do. But, someone might say that the punishment of a parent on a child is temporary whereas God's punishment is eternal. Why the difference? The answer is two fold. First, God is infinite and a parent is not. Second, God is the standard of all righteousness and the parent is not. Because God is infinite, when we sin, we are offending an infinite God. This is incredibly significant. The reason sin is so bad is not so much because of the one committing the sin, but because of the One who is offended. In other words, sin is so incredibly bad because it takes on a horrible quality by the very fact of who it is against: an infinitely pure, holy, and righteous God. A parent is not the standard of righteousness. God is. A parent is (or should be) using the righteous standard of God in raising children. Therefore, though a parent's punishment is temporary because it is instruction and correction, the punishment of God is eternal because our sin is against an eternal God. There is a big difference. Can we please God on our own? Is it possible to earn one's place before God by what we do (being good, etc.)? Is it possible for a finite being to please an infinite one? If so, then that means a sinner who has offended an infinite God, is able please God by his efforts. But, if he is a sinner, then aren't those "good" things he does also touched by sin since they are motivated out of the heart of a sinner? Yes. This is what the Bible declares since it says that our hearts are deceitful and not to be trusted (Jer. 17:9; Mark 7:21-23). But then someone might say that if the person is sincere when he does the good works, then that should be acceptable to God. But, saying it should be acceptable doesn't mean it is. Remember, according to the Bible we cannot trust our own hearts (Jer. 17:9). This means that we cannot even trust our own sincerity. God is the judge, not us. If we could please God by our efforts or sincerity, then it would mean that a finite person can appease an infinite God by doing good works. It further means that sincerity becomes a meritorious condition of the heart. It would be like saying, "God, I am worthy to be with you because of the good works I have done and the good and sincere condition of my heart." Can any mortal who has fallen into sin ever do anything good enough to please an infinite God? The answer is no. Gal. 2:21 says, "I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.” In other words, if we could get to heaven by what we do, then Jesus didn't need to die on the cross. Therefore, God has established that our works and sincerity cannot be good enough. Finally, for those who still maintain that we can please God by our efforts, we must ask how many good works must he perform in order to undo an offense against an infinitely holy God? Is there a standard by which we can judge which sin requires how many goods works to cancel out? There is none. Therefore, he is left in a predicament. Since God must punish the sinner for offending Him (breaking His holy and righteous law), and our works cannot undo the offense against God, then how are we going to escape so great a righteous judgment? The way of escape The only way to escape the righteous judgment of God is to trust in the provision He has made. This provision is found in Jesus. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life," (John 3:16). Jesus is the only way to salvation (John 14:6). Jesus is also God in flesh (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9). Therefore, Jesus' life is of infinite value. This means that His sacrifice is sufficient to cleanse you of your sins. It is capable of satisfying the infinitely righteous standard of God that is required to match His infinite holiness. Jesus' sacrifice is the only provision acceptable to God the Father. If you want to escape the eternal judgment of God, you must put your trust in Jesus and what He did on the cross and in nothing else. Without Him, there is no hope of escape on the Day of Judgment. How do you do this? You receive Jesus (John 1:12). You trust in Him alone. You can ask Jesus to forgive you of your sins (John 14:14). Trust Him alone. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 76: IT IS INTOLERANT TO SAY THAT CHRISTIANITY IS THE ONLY TRUE RELIGION. ======================================================================== Yes it is intolerant. In fact, it is very intolerant to say that Jesus is the way the truth and the life and that no one can get to God except through Him as Jesus Himself said in John 14:6. It is also intolerant to state that there is no other name under heaven other than Jesus by which a person can be forgiven of his sins as Peter said in Acts 4:12. It is intolerant to say that there is only one true God as Jesus said in John 17:3. It is also intolerant to say that trying to enter into heaven by any other way than Jesus is to be a thief and a robber as Jesus said in John 10:1. Jesus was intolerant when He said that He is the one who reveals God to people (Luke 10:22). Jesus was even more intolerant of religious hypocrisy when He condemned the religious know-it-alls and called them hypocrites and deceivers (Matt. 23:25-26). Jesus was extremely intolerant of the buying and selling in the temple when He drove the people out of it by force and overturned their money tables (John 2:13-16). Jesus was intolerant of hatred when He said "love your enemies" (Luke 6:27). Jesus was intolerant of ignorance when He taught the people truth (Matt. 5). Jesus was intolerant of prejudice when He gave the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37). Yes, Christianity is intolerant because its founder, Jesus, was intolerant. Christianity is intolerant of false gods and false gospels. Why is it so intolerant? Because it is shaped after Jesus. It is intolerant because there is a hell and Jesus, who is God in flesh (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9), who died for our sins (1 Pet. 2:24), has made the only way to forgiveness a reality: through Him alone (John 14:6) and without Him comes damnation. On the other hand, Christianity is very tolerant. It teaches to be very forgiving (Matt. 18:21-22), to be patient and kind (Gal. 5:22-23), and to be honest and wholesome (Phil. 4:6-8). Jesus taught us to love and to heal and to be examples of kindness and truth in the world. Jesus was intolerant of religious hypocrisy and bigotry. He was very intolerant of false teachers. He was intolerant of pride, rebellion, sin, covetousness, adultery, lying, cheating, stealing, fornicating, and murder. He was intolerant of husbands treating their wives poorly. He was intolerant of pain and was saddened by suffering. Yet, at the same time He demonstrated the greatest love and patience with those who were guilty of all these things. Why? Because He is God in flesh, incarnate love, incarnate righteousness, incarnate humility. The whole issue of whether or not Christianity is intolerant lies in who Jesus is, what He claimed, and what He did. If what Jesus said and did is true, then Christianity isn't intolerant. It is simply true and it is the world that is intolerant of that truth. Likewise, it is true that Jesus lived. It is true that Jesus walked on water (Matt. 8:26-27). It is true that Jesus healed the sick (Matt. 8:5-13). It is true that Jesus calmed a storm with a command (Mark 4:39). It is true that Jesus raised the dead (Matt. 9:25; John 11:43-44). It is true that Jesus claimed to be God (John 5:18; 8:24; 8:58 -- see Exodus 3:14). It is true that Jesus was killed on a cross (Luke 24:20). It is true that Jesus rose from the dead (Luke 24:39; John 20:27). These are not feeble claims made by crazy people who wanted to gain power and fame. These are the claims of Christ Himself and of those who followed Him and suffered for Him and died for Him. Either it is all true or it is not. Either Jesus performed miracles or He did not. Either Jesus rose from the dead or He did not. Based solely and completely on who Jesus is and what He did, Christianity is the truth and by necessity all other religions that disagree with Jesus are wrong. Truth is, by nature, intolerant of falsehood. If Christianity is not true, then Jesus was not God, then Jesus did not do miracles, then Jesus did not heal the sick, then Jesus did not walk on water, then Jesus did not die and rise from the dead after three days. But, if He did do these things, then Christianity alone is true since in all the religions in the world, only Christianity has the person of Jesus and Jesus said that He alone was the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). Christianity is only as intolerant as Jesus is true. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 77: WHY DID ANIMALS HAVE TO DIE FOR THE SINS OF ADAM AND EVE AND OTHERS? ======================================================================== In the Old Testament, animal sacrifices were a representation of the true future sacrifice of Jesus. These Old Testament animal sacrifices were not able to cleanse anyone of their sins (Heb. 10:4). Yet, they were offered as a predictive representation. In other words, they were a type, a representation, a picture of the final and real sacrifice that was to occur when Jesus died on the cross bearing our sins in His body (1 Pet. 2:24). In the Garden of Eden after Adam and Eve sinned, God covered them with animal skins (Gen. 3:21). This was the beginning of the animal sacrifice system and it was instituted by God. The amazing thing is that it is also God who is the one who fulfilled this sacrificial requirement by becoming one of us (John 1:1,14), bearing our sins in His body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24), and cleansing us of our sins (1 John 1:7). All of the Old Testament sacrifices pointed ahead to the real one offered by Jesus. This way, the Old Testament saints could, by faith, trust in God's provision: "The just shall live by faith," (Hab. 2:4), and "Then he [Abraham] believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness," (Gen. 15:6). So, it really wasn't that the animals were dying for anyone's sins. They simply were a type of the true sacrifice made by Christ. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 78: WHY WOULD GOD HAVE TO DIE TO SAVE PEOPLE FROM HIMSELF? ======================================================================== Why would God have to die to save people from Himself? Because there is no other way to save anyone from their sins. Because God is holy and righteous, He must punish anyone who breaks His law. Since He is the one who administers the punishment, we then need to be saved from His righteous judgment. But, since we are not capable of pleasing God by our mere works, the only one left who can cleanse us is God Himself. The one offended is the one who must pardon. If I offend you, I do not ask forgiveness from your neighbor. I have to ask you. The same goes with God. If we sin against Him we have to go to Him to be forgiven. But, simply asking for forgiveness isn't enough. The reason is because when we sin, we sin against a holy and infinite God. But, God is also righteous and He must do what is right. Therefore, it is right to punish those who defy Him. But the problem is that since God is infinite and we are not, we cannot do enough to please an infinite God. An analogy Let's say I am at your house or apartment with my wife. We are talking about church and in my zeal I accidentally knock over your lamp. Now, this lamp is special. A dear friend gave it to you and it has great sentimental value, and besides, you need a light in your room. After a moment or two you realize that the damage is done and decide to forgive. You say to me, "That is alright, Matt. I forgive you for breaking the lamp, but give me ten dollars." Is asking for ten dollars after you've just forgiven me, true forgiveness? Certainly not! When God forgives our sins, He says He will remember them no more (Jer. 31:34). Forgive and forget are similar in spelling and similar in meaning. If you forgive me can you demand payment from the one forgiven? No, because a forgiven debt does not exist. Let's say that instead of asking me for ten dollars you turn to my wife and say, "Matt broke my lamp. You give me ten dollars for it." I ask you again. Is that true forgiveness? No. You are simply transferring the debt to someone who was not involved in the original offense. But, we have a problem. The lamp needs to be replaced. In true forgiveness, then, who pays for its replacement? (Think about this a bit before you go on to read the answer.) Who pays? You do! You're the only one left. Remember, if you've forgiven me the debt, how can you demand payment? Now, who was my offense against? You. Who forgives? You do. Who pays? You do. When we sin, who do we sin against? God. Who forgives? God. Who pays? God! Did you get that? God pays! How does He do that? Simple. 2000 years ago on a hill outside the city of Jerusalem He bore our sins in His body and died on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24). He took our punishment: "Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried... He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him..." (Isaiah 53:4-5). God is just. God is merciful. God is gracious. In the justice of God, He took our place. In the mercy of God we don't get punished. In the grace of God, He gives us eternal life. Even though we are unworthy of salvation, even though we are unworthy of God's love, even though we are unworthy of mercy, even though we are worthy of wrath, God saved us. He did so not because of who we are, but because of who He is, not because of what we do, but because of what He did. God is love (1 John 4:16). God is holy (1 Peter 1:16). God is good (Psalm 34:8). We could never fathom the depths of His purity and kindness (Rom. 11:33). We could never, through our own efforts, attain Him. There is only one thing left for us. We must worship Him, love Him, and serve Him. He alone is worthy. Blessed be the name of the Lord. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 79: IF GOD IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSION, WHAT ABOUT THE TOWER OF BABEL? ======================================================================== This isn't a difficult issue at all. On one hand, God is not the author of confusion: "For God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints," (1 Cor. 14:33). The context of this verse is dealing with the gift of tongues as were spoken in Christian churches in its early years. Foreigners would attend these churches and hear their own languages being spoken. There would often be interpretations of these tongues. Also, Christians would be over eager in their use of various tongues and this would often lead to confusion as people did not do things in order. Therefore, in the immediate verses prior to (1 Cor. 14:33), Paul had just given instruction on the proper use of the tongues in the church, a use which stated order and sequence. The goal was not to produce a confusion among the hearers so that they would not understand the gospel. Instead, it was to produce an orderly service of worship. The context of the Tower of Babel is quite different. The people of the earth were attempting to build a tower that would "...reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name; lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth." (Gen. 11:4). The sin of the people was their great pride. They were seeking to remain one group in one location under their own efforts. Ultimately, this was a defiance of God's proclamation to fill the earth (Gen. 9:1). God wanted them to spread out. "So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped building the city. 9Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of the whole earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of the whole earth," (Gen. 11:6). Therefore, there is no contradiction since each is a different context and a different subject. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 80: IF BABIES GO TO HEAVEN WHEN THEY DIE, WHY IS ABORTION WRONG? ======================================================================== There is debate on whether or not all babies go to heaven when they die. But, for the sake of argument, let's say that all babies go to heaven when they die. If that is so, then why would abortion be wrong since it would be sending the person to heaven? The reason abortion is wrong is because it is taking the life of the unborn child who has committed no wrong. In other words, the child is not being put to death for a sin that it has committed. It is simply being put to death to make someone else's life more convenient.1 It is God who gives life and takes it away. There is an exception though where God makes allowance for capital punishment. "For it [governing authorities] is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil," (Rom. 13:4). This latter condition is, of course, carried out under due process of law and is reserved for those who "practice evil," i.e., murderers, rapists, kidnappers, etc. The unborn do not fall under this category deserving capital punishment. They are simply unborn, human lives. When people have abortions they are taking into their own hands the taking life that is not permitted by God. Whether or not aborted babies go to heaven is not the issue because the ends does not justify the means. God is the taker of life, not man. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 81: CULTS! AN OUTLINE ANALYSIS OF THEM. ======================================================================== Cults are everywhere. Some are mainstream and widely accepted. Others are isolationist and hide from examination at great expense. They are growing and flourishing. Some cause great suffering while others appear very helpful and beneficial. Which ever group it is, the ultimate end is their destruction when the Lord returns to claim His own. What is a cult? Generally, it is a group that is unorthodox, esoteric, and has a devotion to a person, object, or a set of new ideas. New Teaching - has a new theology and doctrine. Only True Teaching - often considers traditional religious systems to be apostate and it alone possess the complete truth. Strong Leadership - often an individual or small but powerful leadership group holds control of the group’s teachings and practices. Asset Acquirement - often requires tithing and/or property transfer to the religious system. Isolationist - to facilitate control over the members physically, intellectually, financially, and emotionally. Controlling - exercises control over the members. Sometimes this is through fear, threatening lose of salvation if you leave the group. Sometimes through indoctrination. Indoctrination - possesses methods to reinforce the cult’s beliefs and standards where opposing views are ridiculed and often misrepresented. Apocalyptic - to give the members a future focus and philosophical purpose in avoiding the apocalypse or being delivered through it. Experience - various practices including meditation, repetition of words and/or phrases, and ‘spiritual’ enlightenment with God are used as confirmation of their truth. Depravation - sleep and food deprivation which weakens the will of the subject. This is uncommon, though practiced by more severe cults Persecution - predictions of being persecuted and often combined with claiming any opposing views demonstrated against them as a form of persecution. Many have a non-verifiable belief systems For example, they would teach something that cannot be verified. A space ship behind Hale-Bop comet Or, that God, an alien, or angel appeared to the leader and gave him a revelation The members are seeded angels from another world, etc. Often, the philosophy makes sense only if you adopt the full set of values and definitions that it teaches. With this kind of belief, truth becomes unverifiable, internalized, and easily manipulated through the philosophical systems of its inventor. The Leader of a Cult Often charismatic who is considered very special for varying reasons: The leader has received special revelation from God. The leader claims to be the incarnation of a deity, angel, or special messenger. The leader claims to be appointed by God for a mission The leader claims to have special abilities The leader is often above reproach and is not to be denied or contradicted. Cult ethos Usually seek to do good works, otherwise no one would join them. They are usually moral and possess a good standard of ethical teaching. Many times the Bible is used or additional "scriptures" are penned. The Bible, when used, is always distorted with private interpretations. Many Cults recruit Jesus as one of their own and redefine him accordingly Cult groups vary greatly. From the ascetic to the promiscuous. From esoteric knowledge to very simple teachings. From the rich and power to the poor and weak. Who is vulnerable to joining a cult? Everyone is vulnerable. Rich, poor, educated, non-educated, old, young, previously religious, atheistic, etc. General Profile of cult member (some or all of the following) Disenchanted with conventional religious establishments. Intellectually confused over religious and/or philosophical issues Sometimes disenchanted with society as a whole Has a need for encouragement and support Emotionally needful Needs a sense of purpose. Financially needful Recruitment techniques They find a need and fill it. One of the ways they do this is called "Love Bombing" - Constant positive affection in word and deed. Sometimes there is a lot of physical contact like hugging, pats on the back, and touching. Cult group members will lend emotional support to someone in need. Help them in various ways...whatever is needed. The person then becomes indebted to the cult. Compliment them, reassure them, and make them the center of attention. Many Cults use the influence of the Bible and/or mention Jesus as being one of their own; thereby adding validity to their system. Scripture twisting Those that use the Bible take verses out of context Then mix their misinterpreted verses with their aberrant philosophy. Gradualism Slow altering of thinking processes and belief system through repeated teaching People usually accept cult doctrines one point at a time. New beliefs are reinforced by other cult members. Why would someone join? The cult satisfies various needs: Psychological - Someone could have a weak personality, easily lead. Emotional - Someone could have recently suffered an emotional trauma Intellectual - Someone has questions that this group answers. The cult gives them approval, acceptance, purpose, and a sense of belonging. The cult is appealing for some reason. It could be . . . Moral rigidity and purity Financial security Promises of exaltation, redemption, higher consciousness, or a host of other rewards. How are they kept in the cult? Dependence People often want to stay because the cult meets their psychological, intellectual, and spiritual needs. Isolation Outside contacts are reduced and more and more of the life of the member is built around the cult. It then becomes very easy to control and shape the member. Cognitive Reconstruction (Brainwashing): Once the person is indoctrinated, their thinking processes are reconstructed to be consistent with the cult and to be submissive to its leaders. This facilitates control by the cult leader(s). Substitution The Cult and cult leaders often take the place of mother, father, priest, teacher, and healer. Often the member takes on the characteristics of a dependent child seeking to win the approval of the leader and or group. Indebtedness The member becomes indebted to the group emotionally, financially, etc. Guilt The person is told that to leave is to betray the leader, God, the group, etc. The person is told that leave would mean to reject the love and help the group has given. Threat Threat of destruction by God for turning from the truth. Sometimes physical threat is used, though not often. Threat of missing the apocalypse, or being judged on judgment day, etc. How do you get them out? The best thing is to try not to let them get trapped in the first place. If you are a Christian, then pray. But, to get a person out of a cult takes Time, energy, and support. Teach them the truth. Give them a true replacement for their aberrant belief system Show the cult group's philosophic inconsistencies Study the group and learn its history seeking clues and information. Try and get them physically away from the cult group. Give them the support they need emotionally. Alleviate the threat that if they leave the group they are doomed or in danger. Generally, don't attack the leader of the group...that comes later. Converts often feel a loyalty and respect for the founder of the group. Confront them when needed. Hopefully, this basic outline will give you information to see how Cults work and how to avoid them. If you have someone who is lost in a cult, you need to pray and ask the Lord to remove them and give you the insight and tools needed. It can be a long and arduous task and very often ends in failure. This is not an easy ministry. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 82: WHAT MAKES A CHURCH OR GROUP NON-CHRISTIAN? ======================================================================== There are many non-Christian religions and cults in America: Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Unity, The Way International, Unitarianism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. They all claim special revelation and privilege and those that use the Bible invariably interpret it in disharmony with standard biblical understanding. And, groups like the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses object to the label "cult" because it often gets an emotional reaction as well as is a label they want to avoid. The dictionary defines cult as "a system of religious worship or ritual"; "devoted attachment to, or extravagant admiration for, a person, principle, etc.", "a group of followers." This is a typical secular definition and by it, any believer in any god is a cultist, even atheists since they have an admiration for a principle and are a group of followers of the philosophy of atheism. Therefore, this is too broad a definition since it doesn't sufficiently address the issue of true and false religious systems. The definition I use (and other Christian ministries and theologians use as well) for "non-Christian cult" or "non-Christian religion" is a group that may or may not include the Bible in its set of authoritative scriptures. If it does include the Bible, it distorts the true biblical doctrines that effect salvation sufficiently so as to void salvation.1 If it doesn't use the Bible, it is a non-Christian religion and does not participate in the benefit of divine revelation. In Christian bookstores, there are almost always 'cult' sections which include the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. So, I am not alone in describing what a non-Christian, bible based cult is. Nevertheless, what makes something non-Christian is when it denies the essential doctrines of the Bible. The Deity of Christ, which involves The Trinity the Resurrection, and Salvation by Grace All of them add to the finished work of Jesus on the cross. Some cult groups even add to the Bible, i.e., Mormonism which has the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. Also Christian Science has added Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. The Jehovah's Witnesses, however, have actually changed the text of the Bible to make it fit what they want it to. For information on this see Jehovah's Witnesses and how they have changed the Bible. Cults add their own efforts, their own works of righteousness to the finished work of salvation accomplished by Jesus on the cross. All Cults say that Jesus' sacrifice is sufficient, but our works must be 'mixed with' or 'added to' His in order to prove that we are saved and worthy of salvation. They say one thing but believe another. They maintain that they must prove themselves worthy and that they must try their best to please God and prove to Him that they are sincere, have worked hard, and are then worthy to be with Him. In other words, they do their best and God takes care of the rest. This is absolutely wrong. The Bible says that we are saved by grace not by works "For by grace you have been saved through faith...not as a result of works, that no one should boast, (Eph. 2:8-9, NASB); not by anything we do "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law" (Rom. 3:28, NASB). Because if there was anything that we could do to merit the forgiveness of our sins, then Jesus died needlessly "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified...I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly (Gal. 2:16, 21, NASB). People in cults will often cite James 2:26 where it says that faith without works is dead in an attempt to demonstrate that works are part of becoming saved. While it is true that faith without works is dead, it isn't the works that save us. James is saying that if you have real and true faith, it will result in real and true works of Christianity. In other words, you do good works because you are saved, not to get saved. He isn't saying that our works are what saves us, or that they, in combination with the finished work of Christ, save us. James is simply telling us that if we say we have faith (James 2:14) but we have no works in correspondence to that faith, then that faith won't save us because it is a dead faith. This agrees with Paul who tells us that faith is what saves us, "Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. 5:1). This faith is real faith, or true saving faith, not just an empty mental acknowledgement of God's existence which is what those who "say" they have faith but show no corresponding godliness are guilty of. Incidentally, you should realize that faith is only as good as who you put it in. Just having faith in something doesn't mean you're saved. That is why it is important to have the True Jesus, because if you have great faith but it is in the wrong Jesus, then your faith is useless. In Mormonism Jesus is the brother of the devil begotten through sexual intercourse from a God who came from another planet. In Jehovah's Witnesses he is Michael the Archangel who became a man. In the New Age Movement he is a man in tune with the divine consciousness. Which is true? The only true Jesus is the one of the Bible, the one who is prayed to (1 Cor. 1:1-2 with Psalm 116:1; Acts 7:55-60); worshipped (Matt. 2:2, 11, 14:33, John 9:35-38, Heb. 1:8), and called God (John 20:28; Col. 2:9). The Jesus of the Cults is not prayed to, worshipped, or called God. And since the Jesus of the Bible is the only one who reveals the Father (Luke 10:22) so that you may have eternal life (John 17:3), you must have the true Jesus who alone is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). Another common denominator among the Cults is their methods for twisting scripture. Some of the errors they commit in interpreting Scripture are: 1) taking Scripture out of context; 2) reading into the Scriptures information that is not there; 3) picking and choosing only the Scriptures that suit their needs; 4) ignoring other explanations; 5) combining scriptures that don't have anything to do with each other; 5) quoting a verse without giving its location; 6) incorrect definitions of key words; and 7) mistranslations. These are only a few of the many ways Cults misuse Scripture. If you want to be able to witness well to a person in a cult, you need to understand their doctrines as well as your own. It would be a good idea to study both Christian Doctrine: the Bible, God, Creation, Man... and Christian Doctrine: Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Salvation... as well as the The Essential Doctrines of Christianity to become better equipped. Through study you will be able to answer questions that often come up in witnessing encounters. A Christian should know his doctrine well enough to be able to recognize not only what is true, but also what is false in a religious system (1 Pet. 3:15; 2 Tim. 2:15). Jesus warned us that in the last days false Christs and false prophets would arise and deceive many (Matt. 24:24). The Lord knew that there would be a rise of the spirit of Antichrist (1 John 4:1-3) in the last days. Its manifestation is here in the forms of Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the New Age Movement, among others. _________________ 1. This definition of "cult" is not sufficient to cover all that needs to be discussed in cult theologies and practices nor is it broad enough to address the topic of world religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam which are do not fall under the definition I've employed. The term cult can range from any group of worshippers of any God who pay no attention to the Bible, to a small, highly paranoid, apocalyptic people who gather around a charismatic leader that uses the Bible to control them. Nevertheless, I've chosen a definition. I'll probably modify it as I learn more. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 83: JESUS' HUMBLED STATE AND WHAT IT MEANS ======================================================================== Many of the non Christian cults attack the deity of Christ by citing verses such as Jesus not knowing something (Matt. 24:36), where He is growing in wisdom (Luke 2:52), or says that the Father is greater than He (John 14:28). They claim that if Jesus was God He would know all things, would not grow in wisdom, and would not be lesser than the Father -- and this is where their analysis stops. Unfortunately, they either purposely (because it doesn't suit them) or accidentally (through ignorance) skip the biblical references dealing with Jesus in His humbled state where He functioned completely as a man under the Law of God. Furthermore, those in the cults very often fail to incorporate the standard Christian response to their criticisms of Jesus' deity. That is, instead of responding to and including the Christian answers, they continue to ask the same questions and raise the same points ignoring the answers to their objections. Sometimes they say that the Christian answers don't make any sense. But that is almost always a blanket complaint to brush away our answers because they do not like them, not because they are illogical or unbiblical. Nevertheless, I will address those scriptures and concepts the cults raise to deny the deity of Christ and show why their reasoning is incorrect. I will do this by relating to the fact that Jesus was in a humbled state and under the Law. Jesus' incarnation: God in flesh. Hypostatic Union The nature and natural effects of Jesus' humbled state Scriptures dealing with Jesus in His humbled state 1. Jesus' incarnation: God in flesh. The Hypostatic Union Perhaps the most commonly misunderstood Christian doctrines among the cults is the Hypostatic Union; that is, that in the single person of Jesus there are two natures: human and divine. John 1:1,14 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." There is absolutely no logical reason why Jesus cannot be both human and divine at the same time. It is not a logical impossibility. The question is whether or not it is a biblical teaching. What does the Bible say? John 1:1,14, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God....14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." John 20:28, "Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” Col. 2:9, "For in Him [Jesus] all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form." Col. 1:19, "For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him," Phil. 2:6-8, "...although He [Jesus] existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Heb. 1:8, "But of the Son He says, “Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom." Following is a small chart referencing the Scriptures that support the doctrine that Jesus is both God and Man at the same time. It is not exhaustive but it can help you quickly see that scripture points to both Jesus' humanity as well as His deity. JESUS AS GOD JESUS AS MAN He is worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33). He worshiped the Father (John 17). He was called God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8) He was called man (Mark 15:39; John 19:5). He was called Son of God (Mark 1:1) He was called Son of Man (John 9:35-37) He is prayed to (Acts 7:59; 1 Cor. 1:2). He prayed to the Father (John 17). He is sinless (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15). He was tempted (Matt. 4:1). He knows all things (John 21:17). He grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52). He gives eternal life (John 10:28). He died (Rom. 5:8). All the fullness of deity dwells in Him (Col. 2:9). He has a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). Therefore, Jesus is one person with two natures: divine and human. This is not a logical impossibility and it is something that is supported in scripture. 2. The nature and natural effects of Jesus' humbled state As a man and as a Jew, Jesus was in a humbled state, under the Law, and lower than the angels. As a result of these conditions, Jesus had to operate in agreement with His humbled condition; that is, He had to act as a man, completely as a man who was under the Law of God. Let's review: Incarnation of Jesus means that the Word became flesh, became a man. John 1:1,14, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." Jesus emptied Himself Phil. 2:5-8, "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." As a man, Jesus is under the Law Gal. 4:4, "But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law," As a man, Jesus was made for a while lower than the angels Heb. 2:9, "But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels..." We have already seen that Jesus is the incarnate Word (that was God) made flesh (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9), found in appearance as a man, and that He humbled Himself to the point of death (Phil. 2:8). What we also need to understand is that He was made under the Law (Gal. 4:4) and that He was lower than the angels (Heb. 2:9). This is very important because it will tell us what to expect from Jesus as He walks the earth doing His Father's will (John 5:30). Being under the Law means that Jesus was subject to the Law. This is natural because He was a man, a good Jew who would properly be subject to the Torah, the Law. Also, since He is God in flesh, and since as God He authored the Law, He would naturally be subject to it. Let me clarify this. God spoke the Law. The Law is a reflection of the character of God. It is wrong to lie because God cannot lie. It is wrong to bear false witness because God cannot bear false witness. The Law reflects God's nature and character. God spoke it to us as a revelation of moral truth. Jesus said that we speak out of the abundance of our hearts (Matt. 12:34). Therefore, Jesus, as God in flesh, would naturally live and reflect that Law which God had given so long ago which God spoke out of the abundance of His own heart. Under the Law In order for the Word (John 1:1) to be under the Law (Gal. 4:4), He would have to become a man, born of a woman. To be under the Law would mean that Jesus would have to be circumcised. This can only happen if He was a baby. He would then grow in wisdom and stature (Luke 2:52). It means that He would be subject to His parents per Exodus 20:12. It means that He would have to wait until the appropriate time in His life to enter into the ministry to accomplish the will of the Father who sent Him. None of these things negates His divine nature. Being under the Law necessitates that He be a man, that He behave as a man, and that being a man means that all the limitations and qualities of being a man are also His -- at least to the extent that the Divine allows itself to experience limitation while incarnated. Again, this does not mean that He does not possess a divine nature. It means that as He emptied Himself to become a man (Phil. 2:7) and that He cooperated with the limitations of being a man under the Law. Furthermore, Jesus did all His miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit. By the Power of the Holy Spirit Jesus was baptized to enter into the Melchizedek Priesthood. This is very significant because it means that Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit and did all His miracles by the Power of the Holy Spirit -- because He was a man made completely under the Law. Let me lay this out for you here. Jesus was baptized because He had to fulfill the legal requirements for entering into the priesthood. He was a priest after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4; Heb. 5:8-10; 6:20). Priests offered sacrifice to God on behalf of the people. Jesus became a sacrifice for our sin (1 Pet. 2:24; 2 Cor. 5:21) in His role as priest. To be consecrated as a priest, He had to be washed with water (Lev. 8:6; Exodus 29:4, Matt. 3:16); This was fulfilled in the water of baptism when Jesus was baptized. He had to be anointed with oil (Lev. 8:12; Exodus 29:7; Matt. 3:16), This is fulfilled when the Holy Spirit came upon Jesus as a dove. Both of these were bestowed upon Jesus at His baptism. Additionally, He may have needed to be 30 years old - (Num. 4:3). Now, if we look at Matt. 12:22-32 we see the account of Jesus casting out demons. The Pharisees said He did it by the power of the devil. But, Jesus responds by stating that you could insult the Father and the Son and be forgiven. But, if you insult the Holy Spirit, that would not be forgiven. Why? Because Jesus was doing His miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit because Jesus was completely a man under the Law and functioned as a man just as we would -- with the Holy Spirit working through us. Lower than the Angels Heb. 2:9 says that Jesus was made for a while lower than the angels. This means that Jesus was in a humbled position. The angels are far greater creatures than humans in power and mental abilities. Jesus was made lower than them. That is, He was made a man. He was not exercising His Lordship over all of creation. This further means that Jesus was operating, walking, talking, living, and acting as a man who was subject to the Law. What does this mean? Because Jesus was made lower than the angels, as a man, there are certain ramifications to this humbled and emptied condition. That Jesus was subject to the Law, (Gal. 4:4). Jesus was subject to the Father who sent Him, (John 5:30). Jesus would be circumcised, (Luke 1:59). Jesus would grow in wisdom and stature, (Luke 2:52). Jesus would not know all things (Mark 13:32). etc. The above facts do not negate the deity of Christ. God could easily become a man, humble Himself, join Himself to human nature and then be subject to the Law, to grow, to learn, etc. This would be a natural result of being a man, wouldn't it? And, it would not negate the deity of Christ at all. It only demonstrates that the Word made flesh was fully a man. Col. 2:9 says, "For in Him [Jesus] all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form." Now, let's look at those verses that exemplify the above stated information and see how we might comment about them. 3. Scriptures dealing with Jesus in His humbled state Matthew 20:23, "My cup you shall drink; but to sit on My right and on My left, this is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by My Father." Jesus was sent by the Father to accomplish what the Father had given Jesus to do (John 5:30; 1 John 4:10). Since Jesus is the Word made flesh with all the fullness of deity dwelling in Him, this statement of Jesus in no way negates Jesus' deity. He was completely a man and as a man, He would naturally be subject to the Father. Mark 13:32, "But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." Jesus had emptied Himself and was cooperating with the limitations of being a man. Therefore, He did not know all things. However.... In John 21:17, Peter says that Jesus knows all things and Jesus does not correct him. The point is that before the resurrection of Jesus, it is said of Him that He did not know all things. But, after Jesus' resurrection, Jesus knew all things -- and He was still a man since He was resurrected bodily (John 2:19-21; Luke 24:39). Luke 2:52, "And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men." Jesus was born from His mother Mary. Phil. 2:5-8 says that though he was in the form of God He had emptied Himself and became a man. To be a man, he had to be born. If He is born of a woman, then He would naturally grow up and learn. This is perfectly consistent with what it would mean for the Word (which was God - John 1:1) to become flesh (v. 14) and grow up as a man. If Jesus has two natures, and if Jesus was cooperating with the limitations of being a man, it would also mean that Jesus' divine nature was subjected to the human and its limitations. Luke 18:19, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone." Was Jesus saying that He was not good? Of course not. Jesus says He is good when He says He is the Good Shepherd (John 10:11). Jesus is not denying His deity. If only God is Good and Jesus says that He is the Good Shepherd, then Jesus must be God. John 5:19, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner." Jesus, as a man, was performing His miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit. This is why He did only what He saw the Father doing. Also, can an angel of a mere man do whatever God the Father does? Hardly! Jesus, God in flesh, can do what God the Father can do. Not doing anything of Himself simply means He was willingly subject to the Father to do the Father's will -- because He emptied Himself to become a man (Phil. 2:5-8). This was the necessary state of Him being a man, lower than the angels, and under the Law. Interestingly, can we do anything of ourselves? Of course we can. We can walk and talk freely. So did Jesus. So what did He mean by His statement? Probably that since He came for the purpose of doing's God's will, that He could do nothing of His own will. John 5:20, "For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and greater works than these will He show Him, that you may marvel." As a man and naturally being subject to the Father, the Father would show Him all things. Interesting to note that the Father does not show all things to anyone else. Only the Son? Why? Perhaps because as God in flesh, Jesus could then know and comprehend all things shown to Him. John 5:22, "For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son," Judgment was indeed given to the Son. The reason was because Jesus had humbled Himself by becoming a man and made under the Law. Therefore, the Father would give Him the act of Judging people. This is a natural consequence3 of being human. It does not mean that Jesus is not divine. It means that Jesus was human. Also, isn't God the judge of all men? How could such judgment be given to an angel or a mere man? In order to righteously judge all people, the one judging would have to know all things about that person's life. Only God has such knowledge. Remember, after the resurrection Peter said that Jesus knew all things, (John 21:17). John 5:26, "For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself." Jesus, as a man under the Law, was moving and acting as a man who was doing the will of the Father (John 5:30). This is proper since Jesus was a man. Therefore, as a man, life would be given to Him from the Father. Jesus is speaking of His humanity, not His divinity. John 5:27, "and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man." Jesus, as a man under the Law, cooperated with the limitations of being a man. As a man, authority would have to be given Him. Remember, Jesus was not moving out of His divine nature, but was moving and walking as a man in order to fulfill the Law completely and properly. John 5:30, "I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me." Because Jesus came to do the will of the Father, He could do nothing of His own initiative because it wasn't His purpose to do His own will. Instead, He did whatever He saw the Father do (John 5:19). His food was to do the will of the Father (John 4:34). This doesn't mean that Jesus isn't God. It means that Jesus was completely a man just as the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union teaches. John 6:37, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me." What about this verse means that Jesus is not divine as well as human? Nothing. The Christian doctrine of the incarnation is that Jesus is both divine and human and that Jesus humbled Himself to become a man. As a man He didn't come to do His own will. Jesus simply states that He came from heaven to do the will of the Father. This means that Jesus (the Word) was in heaven with the Father before He came a man. John 8:28, "Jesus therefore said, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me." Because Jesus came to do the will of the Father, He could do nothing of His own initiative because it wasn't His purpose to do His own will. Instead, He did whatever He saw the Father do (John 5:19). His food was to do the will of the Father (John 4:34). This doesn't mean that Jesus isn't God. It means that Jesus was completely a man just as the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union teaches. John 14:28, “The Father is greater than I.” Because Jesus was in a lower position that the Father, He could say that the Father was greater than He. This is not denying Jesus deity any more than saying a wife is in a lesser position than her husband (speaking of authority in the family) means that she is different in nature than her husband. Jesus was simply speaking of position, not nature. Jesus did say, after all, that He and the Father were one (John 10:30) and after say that, the Jews wanted to kill Him because they said He was claiming to be God. John 17:3, "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." As a man, Jesus would naturally and properly have someone He would call his God. In this case, He called the Father the only true God because that is the proper thing for a Jew, in this case Jesus, to say. If the word "only" here means that Jesus cannot then be God, then that same logic applied to Jude 4 means that God is not our Lord. "...ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." This verse using the word "only" must necessarily mean that God is not our Master and Lord -- if we use the same logic used by the critics of Jesus' deity who cite John 17:3. But, of course, we know that to make a doctrine out of one verse is an improper way to do theology. Acts 2:36, "Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified." Jesus was sent from the Father (1 John 4:10). He was made flesh (John 1:1,14). Therefore, He was made both Lord and Christ by the Father since Jesus position had been humbled, lowered, made under the Law. The incarnation of the Word meant that Jesus was made both Lord and Christ. Some say that if Jesus is God then He would not have to be made Lord and Christ. But this implies that the terms "lord" and "Christ" both mean God since if He is God He would already be "Lord". The only way that would be a valid complaint would be if the word "Lord" meant divine. If that was the case then the statement "Jesus is Lord" would mean Jesus is God. Jesus is Lord and Jesus is Christ. Some say that Jesus was made Lord at His resurrection. But, Jesus was Lord before His resurrection. "And after He had come into the house, the blind men came up to Him, and Jesus *said to them, "Do you believe that I am able to do this?" They *said to Him, "Yes, Lord," (Matt. 9:27). "But when Simon Peter saw that, he fell down at Jesus’ feet, saying, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!" (Luke 5:8). So when was Jesus made Lord and in what sense? 1 Corinthians 11:31, "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ." Because Jesus was in a lower position than the Father, due to His incarnation, the God the Father would be His Head. This is a natural proper condition of being made a man under the Law. Incidentally, Jesus is eternally a man, (1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 7:25). 1 Corinthian 15:28, "And when all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, that God may be all in all." Jesus is a man (1 Tim. 2:5). He is eternally a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek so that He can eternally offer intercession for us (Heb. 7:25). As a man He would eternally be subject to the One He calls His Father. This is a result of His humility that resulted in our redemption. This is consistent with the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union which states that within the one person of Christ are two natures: human and divine. Hebrews 2:10, "For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings." As a man, Jesus was perfected though suffering. As a man, he was made perfect; that is, He was as a completed sacrifice by the finished work of propitiation. Heb. 10:14 says, "For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified." Hebrews 2:17, "Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people." This is necessary because Jesus is both human and divine. As a man He was made like His brethren in all things. In no way does this negate the divinity of Christ. Hebrews 4:15, "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin." Some say that Jesus could not be God because He was tempted and God cannot be tempted. But the truth is that God can be tempted. Psalm 106:13-15 says, "They quickly forgot His works; They did not wait for His counsel, 14But craved intensely in the wilderness, and tempted God in the desert. 15So He gave them their request, but sent a wasting disease among them." The manner that God was tempted was that someone was presented to Him. In the same way Jesus was tempted. So, as God can be tempted, so can Jesus. Hebrews 5:9, "And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation." As a man, Jesus was perfected though suffering. As a man, he was made perfect; that is, He was as a completed sacrifice by the finished work of propitiation. Heb. 10:14 says, "For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified." Conclusion The fact that Jesus moved in a limited context while accomplishing His ministry does not mean that He is not God. It means that He cooperated with the limitations of being a man so that He could do what He had to do. He has two natures: God and man. He emptied Himself to become a man (Phil. 2:7) and He cooperated with the limitations of being a man under the Law. This explains the verses that show His limitedness. Finally, if the cults want to say that the limited aspect of Jesus' behavior means that He cannot be divine, then what do they do with the scriptures that teach that He is all knowing and ever-present? John 21:17, "And he [Peter] said to Him, 'Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.' Jesus *said to him, 'Tend My sheep.'" After Jesus' resurrection, so Jesus was in His glorified body, Peter states that Jesus knew all things...and Jesus did not correct him. Matt. 28:19, "...I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Jesus spoke this to His disciples, and therefore to all Christians. He stated that He would be with them always. This is only possible if He is omnipresent. If Jesus is not God because He learned, then He must be God if He knew all things. If Jesus is not God because He was a man, then He must be God since He will be with all disciples everywhere. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 84: LIST OF CULTS ======================================================================== There are many more out there and I'll add names in here as time goes on. At least if you can find a group listed here, you'll know it is not Christian. I'll add links as time permits. Alamo Christian Foundation Anthroposophical Society Astara Children of God Christadelphianism Christian Family Fellowship Christian Identity Movement Christian Science Church of Armageddon Divine Light Mission Eckankar Est Foundation of Human Understanding (Roy Masters) Jehovah's Witnesses Krishna Life Spring Mormonism Oneness Pentecostal Rosicrucianism Scientology Self Realization Fellowship Silva Mind Control Swedenborgianism The Farm The Unification Church The Way International Theosophy Two by Two's Transcendental Meditation Unitarian Universalist Unity School of Christianity Urantia ======================================================================== CHAPTER 85: A TEST: DO YOU HAVE THE TRUE JESUS? ======================================================================== There is a simple way to see if someone has the true Jesus or not. By true Jesus, I mean the one of the Bible, not the one of Mormonism who is the brother of the devil, nor the Jehovah's Witness Jesus who is Michael the Archangel, and certainly not the one of the New Age Movement who is simply a man in tune with the divine consciousness. The Jesus of the Bible is prayed to (Acts 7:55-60; Psalm 116:4 and Zech. 13:9 with 1 Cor. 1:1-2). The Jesus of the Bible is worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9; John 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6) The Jesus of the Bible called God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8). In cult theologies, Jesus is a creation in one form or another (this is why the Jehovah's Witnesses add the word ‘other' four times to Col. 1:16-17). Therefore, He is not to be prayed to, worshiped, or called God. If you are a Christian then you will be able to pray to Jesus, not just through. You will be able to worship Jesus equally with the Father. And you will be able to call Jesus your Lord and God. A cultist cannot do this. A cultist has a false Jesus, and, therefore, a false hope of salvation. The following is an expansion of the above points If you put your faith in a Jesus that is not true, then your faith is useless. The power of faith does not rest in the act of believing, but in its object; the greatest faith in someone false is the same as no faith at all. Sincerity and false messiahs do not bridge the chasm of sin between God and man, only the Jesus of the Bible does that. Who then, is the true Jesus? Jesus said that He was the only One who reveals the Father (Matt. 11:27 and Luke 10:22): "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him" (NIV). So, to know the true Father you must first know the true Jesus. The question is, how do you recognize the true Jesus? Simple, look in the Bible. If you were to say, "Father receive my spirit," who would you be praying to? The Father, right? If you were to say, "Jesus receive my spirit," who would you be praying to? Jesus. In Acts 7:59, Stephen, while full of the Holy Spirit (v. 55), prayed to Jesus: And they went on stoning Stephen as he called upon the Lord and said, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." (See also Acts 9:14; Rom. 10:13.) Stephen prayed to Jesus, not just through Him. If it is acceptable for him then it should be alright for you. The Jesus of the Bible is prayed to. I pray to Jesus. Do you? If yes, good. If not, why? But you might say, "Jesus said to pray to the Father." I do. But I also pray to Jesus as Stephen did. If the church is only to pray to the Father then why did Stephen, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, address Jesus in His prayer? Was he wrong? See also 1 Cor. 1:1-2 with Psalm 116:4 where calling upon the name of the Lord is prayer and prayer is addressed to Jesus by the Corinthian church. Jesus was also worshipped. The verses are: And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, "You are certainly God's son! (MMatt. 14:33). And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him (Matt. 28:9). See also Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9; John 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6. The Jesus of the Bible is prayed to and worshiped. Do you do what Jesus' disciples did? Do you pray to and worship the true Jesus? Since it is against Mormon and Jehovah's Witness theologies to pray to Jesus but only through if you do worship Jesus, how can you do that without praying to Him? And, do you honor Him equally with the Father as Jesus said to do in John 5:23? If you do not, then why not? There is just one more issue to address. Do you call Jesus your Lord and God? After Jesus' resurrection He showed Himself to many people. One of them was Thomas. John 20:28: Thomas answered and said to Him [Jesus], "My Lord and my God!" The literal Greek says, "The Lord of me and the God of me." "My God!" is a pagan expression used today. Two points can be made from this. First, do you agree that Thomas a devout Jew was swearing, like a pagan of today? Second, there is no biblical account of swear words. Peter did swear in Mark 14:71 by swearing he did not know Jesus. To say Thomas was swearing, or merely exclaiming profound surprise has no evidence. God calls Jesus God in Heb. 1:8: But of the Son He [the Father] says, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever..." Unfortunately, in the Jehovah's Witness Bible in Heb. 1:8 you'll see that it says, "God is your throne, forever and ever." This, technically speaking, is a legitimate translation. The reason this is so lies in the nature of the Greek language and the fact that the form of the word "God" and "Throne" both end in a noun construction that is interchangeable, therefore making the NWT translation legitimate. It is unfortunate that the Watchtower has chosen to do this. Nevertheless, if you'd like to read more about this, then go to The Jehovah's Witnesses and Heb. 1:8 and Psalm 45:6. Conclusion: The Jesus of the Bible is prayed to (Acts 7:55-60; Psalm 116:4 and Zech. 13:9 with 1 Cor. 1:1-2), worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9; John 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6), and called Lord and God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8). If I have the wrong Jesus, and therefore I serve the wrong God, then why do I pray to Jesus, worship Him, and call Him my Lord and God as the Scriptures teach? But, if you have the true Jesus, why is it you don't do those things? Why does JW theology not agree with the scriptures? I think the answer is simple. The Jesus of the cults is not the true Jesus. Therefore, they are wrong. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 86: INTRODUCTION TO CHRISTADELPHIANISM ======================================================================== Christadelphianism is relatively new religious system. It claims, like many other non-Christian cults, to be the authentic Christian Church with authentic Christian doctrines. However, it denies the Trinity doctrine as well as the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit. In addition, it states that the Devil is not a real person but is, instead, our natural tendency to sin. It also says that Jesus was a created being who had a fallen nature who himself needed to be redeemed. I say these things upfront as an introduction to Christadelphianism because we need to understand what the heart of this group is. Again, it is not Christian. There are, however, disagreements within the camp of Christadelphianism. Several Christadelphians have pointed out to me that there are differences of opinion within their sect regarding the fallen nature of Christ. Nevertheless, they all deny the deity of Christ and this is enough to put them outside the camp of Christianity. A Jesus who is not divine, cannot save anyone -- especially one that needs to be redeemed himself. In my opinion, Christadelphianism is a dangerous cult because it brings people to eternal damnation by teaching a false God and false gospel. It deviates from the central doctrines of the Christian faith sufficiently to make them non-Christian. I would like to add that many years ago I had the opportunity to spend five months attending a Christadelphian Church during their midweek Bible studies. The people there were very warm and friendly. They freely allowed me to present the "opposing view" to their Bible study group on a regular basis. I was impressed by this. They also were very knowledgeable about scripture and listened intently to what I had to say. I found them to be polite and well studied and I enjoyed my time with them. However, they still denied the essential doctrines of the faith even when I "stumped" them in doctrinal matters. Though I remember them with fondness, I am saddened to know that they have chosen to deny the true and living God. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 87: WHAT DO THE CHRISTADELPHIANS TEACH? ======================================================================== Though they acknowledge many truths found in the Bible, they deny many others. They believe the Bible is the infallible and inerrant word of God. (The Christadelphians: What They Believe and Preach, p. 82) They teach there is only one God. (Isaiah 43-45) They teach that Jesus had a sin nature (What They Believe, p. 74) They teach that Jesus needed to save himself, before he could save us. (Christadelphian Answers, p. 24) They teach that Jesus will return and set up his kingdom on earth. (What They Believe , p. 268) They believe that there has been an apostasy and that Christianity is a false religious system. (A tract titled “Christendom Astray Since the Apostolic Age, Detroit Christadelphian Book Supply) They believe annihilation of the wicked. (What They Believe, p. 187). They believe that baptism is necessary for salvation. (What They Believe , p. 71,72, 207-210) They believe that it is possible to lose one’s salvation. (What They Believe , p. 212) They deny the doctrine of the Trinity. (What They Believe, p. 84-87) They deny that Jesus is God in flesh. (Answers, p. 22) They deny that Jesus existed prior to his incarnation. (What They Believe , p. 85,86) They deny the personhood and deity of the Holy Spirit. (What They Believe , p. 115) They deny the substitutionary atonement of Christ. (Answers, p. 25; What They Believe, p. 71) They deny salvation by grace through faith alone. (What they Believe, p. 204) They deny immortality of the soul. (What They Believe , p. 17). They deny that a person exists after death. (What They Believe, p. 17) They deny the existence of hell and eternal punishment. (What They Believe, p. 188-189) They deny the existence of the fallen angel Lucifer as the devil. (Answers, p. 100) As you can see, the Christadelphians deny some essential doctrines of Christianity; namely, the deity of Jesus and salvation by grace. Like so many other cult groups that claim to be the restored truth, they have their own interpretations of the Bible that deviate greatly from orthodox Christianity. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 88: CHRISTADELPHIAN HISTORY ======================================================================== Christadelphianism is a religious movement begun by Dr. John Thomas who was born in London England on April 12, 1805. In 1832 he immigrated to the United States. On the way to New York, his ship encountered several terrible storms that threatened shipwreck and death. Dr. Thomas promised God that if he were delivered, he would devote his life to the study of religion. He made it to America and kept his promise. Upon arrival, he joined the Campbellite group also known as the Disciples. He was baptized and began to study. He studied greatly and soon found himself at odds with the Campbellites and left. Many from the Campbellite group followed him. This is the beginning of the Christadelphian movement, though it wasn’t called that yet. In 1834 Dr. Thomas started a magazine called "The Apostolic Advocate." This is where he really began to disseminate his teachings. He was greatly interested in prophecy and devoted much effort to understanding biblical eschatology. In 1839 Thomas moved to Illinois and in 1842 he became editor of a magazine called "The Investigator." Five years later, he started another magazine called "The Herald of the Future Age." By this time he was living in Virginia. In 1848, near the time when Christadelphianism was founded in America, he returned to England to speak on his brand of religion and found the soil there fertile. To this day, England has the largest number of Christadelphians. While in England, he wrote the book called "Elpis Israel" which means "Hope of Israel." It is a thorough work of his beliefs discussion creation, God’s law, sin, death, immortality, religion, the coming Kingdom, and a host of other subjects. He then returned to America. The Christadelphians do not believe in participating in war. So, when the Civil War broke out, they refused to go. In order to be recognized as a religious group that did not believe in fighting, they needed a name. Dr. Thomas gave them the name "Christadelphian" which, in Greek means "Brethren of Christ." In 1862, Thomas returned to England again and found that his book "Elpis Israel" had helped to bring about congregations that followed his theology. He lectured extensively and helped to anchor Christadelphianism in England. He returned to America again. Thomas visited England one more time in 1869 after writing the book "Eureka." On March 5, 1871 Dr. Thomas died in New York. He is buried in Brooklyn. Thomas was a tireless worker who sought to study and discover God’s true meaning and doctrine of the Bible. Unfortunately, despising the counsel and wisdom of those more learned than himself, he sought to single-handedly "rediscover" the true gospel which, in his opinion, had been lost from the earth. Like so many others in the 19th century, he began a religious movement that really is a development of his personal beliefs. Therefore, the Christadelphian religion, like Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Christian Science, is merely another erring religious system begun by a single person who claimed to know more than anyone else about the Bible. It is a non-Christian cult. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 89: IS CHRISTADELPHIANISM CHRISTIAN? ======================================================================== No, Christadelphianism is not Christian. Like all cults, Christadelphianism denies one or more of the essential doctrines of Christianity: Jesus is God, the physical resurrection, and salvation by grace. In this case, it is the deity of Christ and salvation by grace through faith are the problems with this group. In regards to Jesus, it teaches that.... Jesus had a sinful nature The Christadelphians, What They Believe, by Harry Tennant, The Christadelphian, England, p. 74 - this is a Christadelphian book.) Jesus needed salvation, (Christadelphian Answers, ed. by Frank G. Jannaway, The Herald Press, p. 25 - another Christadelphian book). Jesus is not God in flesh (Answers, p. 22). That Jesus' atonement was not substitutionary (Answers, p. 25; What They Believe, p. 71). Baptism is necessary for salvation (What They Believe , p. 71,72, 207-210) Of primary importance is what the Christadelphians say about Jesus. They deny He is divine in nature. According to John 1:1,14, John 8:58 (with Exodus 3:14), and Col. 2:9, Jesus is God. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth," (John 1:1,14). Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am," (John 8:58). With, "And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you,’" (Exodus 3:14). "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form," (Col. 2:9). Furthermore, Jesus said in John 8:24, "I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am, you shall die in your sins." Also, John the Apostle said in 1 John 4:2-4, "By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world." You can see that denying that Jesus has come in the flesh (that He is God in flesh per John 1:1,14), is the spirit of antichrist. Since we are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9), it is crucial to crucial to have the proper object of faith. All Satan has to do is to get someone to believe in a false Jesus and the person is lost (Matt. 24:24). A false Jesus cannot save and only the true Jesus reveals the true God (John 14:6; Luke 10:22; John 17:3). Since Jesus is actually God in flesh (John 1:1,14; 20:28; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8; Heb. 1:8), it follows that those who deny His divine nature -- and ascribe a sinful one to Him as the Christadelphians do -- cannot have the true Jesus and are, therefore, serving a false God. Second, the Christadelphians deny the substitutionary atonement of Jesus. They say that He did not take our place on the cross and that He did not bear our sins. This is in direct contradiction to Scripture. 1 Pet. 2:24 says, "He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed." Instead, they teach a kind of representation that was not effective to remove sin and say, "Christ did not die as our substitute, but as our representative" (Answers, p. 25). Additionally, in Answers, page 24, it says, "But it is equally true that, being 'made sin for us' (2 Cor. 5:21), he himself required a sin offering..." In other words, they are saying that Jesus Himself also needed to be saved. This is absolutely unbiblical and heretical and needs to be labeled for what it is: false doctrine. Jesus was without sin (1 Pet. 2:22), the exact representation of the nature of God (Heb. 1:3). Since God is sinless and Holy, so is Jesus in nature and essence. Furthermore, the Christadelphians, by having a Jesus who has a sin nature, cannot have a proper sacrifice by which their sins are atoned for. According to the Old Testament, the sacrifice for sins had to be without blemish (Deut. 17:1). Having a sin nature would definitely be a blemish which would invalidate the sacrifice. Third, the Christadelphians add a work to salvation. They say that baptism is part of the saving process. But, baptism is not necessary for salvation. Instead, it is a representation of the inward reality of regeneration (1 Pet. 3:21), a covenant sign of God's work upon the heart (Col. 2:11-12). Gal. 5:1-12 speaks of the grave error of some people who thought that they needed to partake in some part of the Law (circumcision) to be saved. Paul quickly denounced them with very strong words (Gal. 5:12). Additionally, Rom. 5:1 says that we are justified by faith, not by faith and baptism. Rom. 3:23 says we are saved not by the works of the Law; that is, not by anything that we do. Since our righteous deeds are filthy rags before God (Isaiah 64:6), we must completely rely upon the grace of God for our salvation -- which is by faith in Jesus who is God, the creator, in flesh. The Christadelphian religion is a false religion. it is definitely not Christian. This is not to say that there are not decent people who intend to serve God honestly and truthfully. But sincerity does not bridge the gap between God and man. Only the blood of the real Jesus does that, not a false Christ with a sin nature who himself needed salvation. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 90: WHAT DOES CHRISTIAN SCIENCE TEACH? ======================================================================== The following doctrines are referenced out of the primary Christian Science work, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, by Mary Baker Eddy. It is supposed to be a companion to the Bible. Science and Health together with the Bible are called the Pastor of Christian Science. God is infinite...and there is no other power or source, S&H, 471:18. God is Universal Principle, S&H 331:18-19 God cannot indwell a person, S&H 336:19-20 God is the only intelligence in the universe, including man S&H 330:11-12 God is Mind, S&H 330:20-21; 469:13 God is the Father-Mother, S&H 331:30; 332:4 The Trinity is Life, Truth, and Love, S&H 331:26 Belief in the traditional doctrine of the Trinity is polytheism, S&H 256:9-11 Christ is the spiritual idea of sonship S&H 331:30-31 Jesus was not the Christ, S&H 333:3-15; 334:3 "Jesus Christ is not God, as Jesus himself declared..." S&H 361:12-13 Jesus did not reflect the fullness of God, S&H 336:20-21 Jesus did not die, S&H 45:32-46:3 The Holy Spirit is divine science, S&H 331:31 There is no devil, S&H 469:13-17 There is no sin, S&H 447:24 Evil and good are not real, S&H, 330:25-27; 470:9-14 Matter, sin, and sickness are not real, but only illusions," S&H 335:7-15; 447:27-28. Life is not material or organic, "S&H, 83:21 The sacrifice of Jesus was not sufficient to cleanse from sin, "S&H, 25:6. True healings are the result of true belief, "S&H, 194:6" Additionally, Christian Scientists prefer not to use doctors, medicine, or immunizations. Christian Science Practitioners are used to help people through the false reality of illness. Proper prayer and training are employed to battle the "non-reality" of illness. They have no ordinances like the Lord's Supper or baptism. Church services are interspersed with Bible reading and readings from Science and Health. Mary Baker Eddy is highly regarded as a revelator of God's word, almost equal to Jesus. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 91: CHRISTIAN SCIENCE HISTORY ======================================================================== Christian Science was founded by a woman named Mary Baker Eddy. She was born Mary Ann Morse Baker in New Hampshire in 1821. (She died in 1910.). She was the daughter of a New Hampshire Congregationalist church member. As a child, she was frequently ill and highly emotional. She is said to have been "domineering, quarrelsome, and extremely self centered."1 At age 22, she married George Glover. He died seven months later. She then married Dr. Daniel Patterson, but that marriage failed in divorce. In 1862, while suffering from an illness, she visited a man named Phineas Quimby. He taught a system of healing dealing with the mind. He taught that the mind had the power to heal the body. He exerted a significant influence on her thinking regarding spiritual matters. In 1866, she fell and was seriously injured and she was not expected to recover. She apparently read Matt. 9:2 ("And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee") and experienced a miraculous cure. It was this experience that convinced her of the truth of Christian Science. She first published "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures" in 1875, when she was 54. She claimed it was the final revelation of God to mankind and asserted that her work was inspired of God. The word "Key" in the title of her book is in reference to her being the woman of Revelation 12; that she is the key to unlocking the Bible which she called a dark book. She claimed the Bible had many mistakes and that her writings provided the "Key" spoken of in Rev. 3:7. She married Asa Eddy in 1877. In 1879, four years after the first publication of Science and Health, Mary Baker Eddy and some of her students voted organized the church of Christ (Scientist) in Boston Massachusetts. Of course, like all cults, it claimed to be the restoration of the original New Testament Church. In 1881 she opened a metaphysical college and charged $300 for 12 healing lessons. The Church was reorganized in 1892, and the Church Manual was first issued in 1895 which provided the structure for church government and missions. She died in 1910, a millionaire. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 92: IS THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE RELIGION CHRISTIAN? ======================================================================== Of all the biblically based cults in America today, Christian Science is one of the most interesting. Not only does it deny the essential doctrines of Christianity, but it has completely reinterpreted the Bible. It drastically redefines the Bible’s culture and terminology and rips thousands of scriptures out of their historical and biblical contexts. The result is a non-Christian mixture of metaphysical and philosophical thoughts. Christian Science is so foreign to the Bible that, if it didn’t use words like Jesus, Trinity, Love, Grace, Sin, etc., you’d never suspect it had anything to do with the Bible at all. Additionally, the book Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, which is the Christian Scientist’s mainstay of spiritual knowledge, reads with a rhythm of pseudo logical statements that has the tendency to dull the senses when read long enough. Is Christian Science Christian? Definitely not. Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures is the primary interpretive source of the Bible and source guide of Christian Science. It interprets the Bible in a radically different way. It is so different, in fact, that it absolutely rejects the substitutionary atonement of Jesus and states that it had no efficacious value (S&H, 25:6). It denies that Jesus is God, second person of the Trinity (S&H, 361:12-13). It says that sin is a false interpretation of Divine Mind and is nonexistent (S&H, 335:7-15). And it says that the Holy Spirit is Divine Science which is best represented by Christian Science (S & H, 331:31). The list can go on and, unfortunately, it does. To the Christian Scientist, God (the Father-Mother) is a Principle known as the Divine Mind. It has no personhood and no personality. A catch phrase used in their literature is that God is "All in All." In other words, God is all that exists and what we perceive as matter is an interpretation of divine mind. Since God is love, it means that sin and sickness are only errors of interpreting the Divine Mind and have no true reality (S & H, 330:25-274; 470:9-14). To the Christian Scientist, Jesus is a Way-shower. He is someone who epitomized the true principle of the Christ Consciousness which indwells us all. Therefore, Jesus did not really die on the cross. He was not God in flesh. He made no atonement in shedding His blood (S&H, 25:6). Christian Science teaches that man does not have a sinful nature and is a reflection of Divine Mind. To achieve "salvation," he needs only to find the true reality of understanding, as revealed in Christian Science teachings. Unfortunately, these teachings are from Mary Baker Eddy a woman who founded the religion in the 1870's and not from God. The Christian Scientists consider their philosophy to be consistent with the original teachings of Jesus. They consider truth a matter of higher understanding and learning. But the reality is that Christian Science has only produced unbiblical and false doctrines. Eternal destruction is the only thing that will result from its false teaching. The fires of hell will be a bitter reality for those who have been taught that they don’t exist. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 93: TERMS AND DEFINITIONS OF CHRISTIAN SCIENCE ======================================================================== Angels are God’s thoughts passing to man, an inspiration of goodness, purity that counters evil and material reality. Atonement is not the shedding of Christ’s blood, but "At-one-ment." "Lifting the whole man into Christ Consciousness." The Biblical account is metaphorical, not real. Baptism means the daily, ongoing purification of thought and deed. Eucharist is spiritual communion with God, celebrated with silent prayer and Christian living. It is a "submergence in Spirit." Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the belief that God created disharmony in the world. Body is "the form of expression of both spirit and soul" (Metaphysical Bible Dictionary, p. 628). It is the apparent materialization of the limits of soul as influenced by a person’s conscious development in Christian Science Principles. Christ is the divine idea man. Jesus was not the Christ but a perfect representation of the Christ consciousness that is the true and higher self of every person. Christ is the manifestation of all that is good and true, the realization of divine principle. A Christian Scientist can say, "I am Christ." Creation is the product of Divine Mind. There is only one reality which emanates and is part of the Divine Mind. Anything that is not in harmony with the Divine Mind is not a reality, but a lack of understanding of the principles of divine mind brought about by people. Death - "An illusion, the lie of life in matter." Devil - "Evil, a lie, error." He is not an entity, not a person, has no existence. "A belief in sin, sickness, and death." Evil spirits are false beliefs Flesh - "An error of physical belief; a supposition that life, substance, and intelligence are in matter; an illusion." Gods - "A belief that life, substance, and intelligence are both mental and material; a supposition of sentient physicality. God is Spirit who is a ever-present, all-knowing, all-powerful, and good. God is the Father/Mother God. Other names for God are Divine Mind, Soul, Principle, Life, Truth, Love. To the Christian Scientist God is the governing Principle of the universe to which a person must harmonize his belief system. Healing is accomplished by correct thinking according to Christian Science principles. A change in belief that effects physical symptoms. (SH p. 194:6) Heaven is not a literal place of eternal bliss, but a harmonious condition of understanding where a person’s consciousness are in harmony with Divine Mind. "Harmony; the reign of Spirit; government of divine Principle." Hell is a state of mind which can include the effects of their improper understanding of Divine Mind and Christian Science Principles. Hell is not a literal place of damnation and eternal torment. Hell exists when a person’s thoughts are out of harmony with the reality of Divine Mind. "Mortal belief, error; lust; hatred, sin; sickness; effects of sin." Holy Spirit, the, is Divine Science. is the spirit of God and is only discernable and knowable by a person through his spiritual awareness. It is an emanation, a presence, "a law of God in action." Jesus’ stripes is simply his rejection of error, not the beating he received in the flesh (S&H, 20:15). Knowledge - "Evidence obtained from the five corporeal senses; mortality; beliefs and opinions. The opposite of spiritual Truth and understanding." (S. H. 590). Material reality is really non-existent. It is only an interpretation of Divine Mind. Even though someone might feel pain or sickness, in reality it does not exist. Mortal Mind - "Nothing claiming to be something, for Mind is immortal; error creating other errors." Pastor really means the combined books of the Bible and Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. Personhood is an aspect and reflection of Divine Mind. Prayer is contemplation and internalization of divine truths. "The taking hold of God’s willingness." It is an affirmation of God’s being in relation to man. Resurrection is "Spiritualization of thought; a new and higher idea of immortality, or spiritual existence; material belief yielding to spiritual understanding." Salvation is "Life, Truth, and Love understood and demonstrated as supreme over all; sin, sickness, and death destroyed." Sickness is the false understanding given the appearance of reality by the unfaithful and ignorant of Divine Principle and Mind. Sin is not understanding and behaving according to Divine Law of God and the law of our being. Soul is "man’s consciousness -- that which he has apprehended or developed out of Spirit. . . Soul is both conscious and subconscious" (Metaphysical Bible Dictionary, p. 628). Spirit is another name for God. Divine substance; Mind; divine Principle; all that is good." Christ Wrath is really the working out of the law of God’s being upon a person. It is not God’s judgment upon a sinner. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 94: WHAT IS THE INTERNATIONAL CHURCH OF CHRIST? ======================================================================== The International Church of Christ (ICC) is a break-off of the Church of Christ denomination. The ICC is Christian in its basic theology but has some aberrant practices. The ICC was influenced by the discipling movement on the 1950's. Its roots can be traced back to 1967 to the Crossroads Church of Christ, in Gainesville Florida. The crossroads Church had a program on discipling which became known as the Crossroads Movement. It is out of this Crossroads connection that the present leader of the ICC, Kip McKeen, received his start. He and Roger Lamb were fired from the Houston, Texas, Church of Christ. Kip McKeen then found a Church in Boston MA, was asked to come on board and began what has come to be known as the Boston movement. The Boston Church grew by leaps and bounds due to its heavy discipling program. Soon other churches were being planted in the United States and then in England. The ICC did not become known as the "International Church of Christ" until 1993 and its headquarters became Los Angeles, California. The ICC considers Christian denominations to be sinful. They will cite biblical passages that speak of the apostles establishing one Church per city, and claim that there should only be one Church in each city. Of course, the one Church should be an ICC Church. As of the year 2001, the ICC claims to have over 400 churches with a membership of 130,000 worldwide in over 150 countries. The international Church of Christ considers itself to be "a family of Christian churches whose members are committed to living their lives in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ as found in the Bible." This commitment to biblical living includes a very strong emphasis on discipling. In fact, it is this overly strong emphasis on discipling that has drawn much criticism from outside the church as inside from those who were once were members. The ICC is Orthodox affirms the Trinity, salvation by grace, Jesus' virgin birth and physical resurrection, His deity, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, heaven and hell, and much more. But, it deviates from orthodoxy in both its requirement of baptism as a necessary element for salvation and its heavy requirement of discipleship. According to the ICC, baptism must be done in their church with the person being baptized having an understand that baptism saves. Combined with this, the ICC method of discipleship includes strong accountability to other members of the church as a necessary element to be considered a Christian. According to the ICC, one cannot be a Christian if he is not a true disciple, and being a disciple must precede baptism. Therefore, the International Church of Christ tends to be very legalistic and controlling. Many of its former members attest to requirements that they confess their sins to their disciple leaders, that they submit to the decisions of their disciple "leaders" regarding dating, frequency of sexual relations for married couples, jobs to take, places to move, and so on. This discipling operation with in the ICC has drawn much criticism for its intrusive practices and has been labeled as a form of the brainwashing and psychological and emotional manipulation. There are numerous web sites on the Internet devoted to ex-members of the International Church of Christ who warn people not to be involved with the movement. There are also support groups to help those who have left to find healing and, hopefully, true Grace in Christ instead of legalism and bondage. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 95: WHAT DOES THE INTERNATIONAL CHURCH OF CHRIST TEACH? ======================================================================== The international Church of Christ is Orthodox in most of its theology. It accepts and affirms the following doctrines. The Trinity is one God and three persons: Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The deity of Christ The deity of the Holy Spirit. The physical Resurrection of Christ The Bible is the inspired word of God and the ultimate source of authority. Baptism is for adults only. there is a literal Hell. Satan is a literal fallen Angel. Aberrant Doctrines/Practices Baptism, by emersion, is essential to salvation. Baptism must be as a true "disciple" or it is not valid. Baptism must be performed in the International Church of Christ to be valid. Being a disciple is necessary to be a Christian. There should only be one Church in each city or town. The ICC is the true remnant of God's people as the true Church. Only ICC baptized members are saved. Sin lists of disciples are often kept. Heavy influence into the personal lives of disciples. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 96: IS THE INTERNATIONAL CHURCH OF CHRIST A CULT? ======================================================================== The answer to the question, "Is the International Church of Christ a cult?" depends on the definition of what makes a group a cult. The definition of a cult that CARM uses is a group that may or may not include the Bible in its set of authoritative scriptures. If it does include the Bible and it deviates from biblical doctrines sufficient to make salvation of no effect, then it is a cult. However, it is possible to have a truly Christian group that has cult like tendencies, such as the exercise of an abnormal amount of control over its people. This control may be centered around theological or social particulars. It is this issue of excessive control that to the international Church of Christ is known for. Add to this an exclusive attitude that it is the only true Church, it is no one wonder that the ICC has been labeled a cult by many people. Therefore, it is possible to have a Christian Church with cultic practices and still have it be, technically, Christian and aberrant. Additionally, the doctrines that make Christianity "Christian" are the Trinity, the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, the physical resurrection of Jesus, and salvation by grace. There can be deviations within Christianity on other issues such as the mode of baptism, frequency of communion, when the rapture will happen, etc. Usually, it is these sorts of non-essential issues which cause denominational splits. The International Church of Christ (ICC), does not deny any of the essential doctrines of Christianity. Aside from its requirements on baptism as a necessary part of salvation, it is Orthodox. Therefore, I do not categorize the ICC as a non-Christian cult. Rather, I see the ICC as a Christian Church with some serious problems; namely, legalistic and excessive control over its members. I recommend that people avoid this group. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 97: WHAT IS ISLAM? ======================================================================== Islam (1.2 billion adherents) is one of the major world religions that, along with Christianity (1.9 billion adherents) and Judaism (14 million adherents), teaches monotheism which is the doctrine that there is only one God in all existence. Like Christianity and Judaism, Islam traces its roots back to the patriarch Abraham (Gen. 12). The word "Islam" means "surrender" or "submission"1 and it comes from the root word "salam" which means "peace." A Muslim (or Moslem - which means one who surrenders to God) is an adherent of Islam, a religion with precise theological doctrines about God, judgment, heaven, hell, angels, prophets, salvation, etc. The Arabic word for god is "allah" which has become a kind of name of God in Islam. Islam teaches that Allah is the one and only deity in all existence (Qur'an 5:73; 112:1-4). He is supreme, all knowing (40:20), ever-present, different from all of creation (3:191), and in complete control of all things. According to Islam, Allah created the universe in six days (2:29; 25:61-62) and all that is in it continues to exist by his permission and will. Allah is non-Trinitarian (5:73), absolute, and eternal. The Koran (or Qur’an, which means "the reading" in Arabic) is the sacred book of Islam and is broken up into 114 chapters called Suras which cover the subjects of ethics, history, law, and theology. It is highly revered by Muslims as the direct, literal word of God. The Qur'an (also spelled Quran and Koran) was delivered by the angel Gabriel (also known as the Holy Spirit) to Muhammad over a 23 year period after Muhammad's initial encounter with Gabriel in a cave when he was 40 years old. Muslims consider Muhammad (full name of Muhammad Ibn Abdullah) to be the final prophet of God to the world. Muhammad was born in 570? AD in Mecca and died in 632 AD. Second only to the Islamic belief in the unity/oneness of God is the supremacy of Muhammad as Allah's prophet. But, Islam acknowledges that several prophets preceded Muhammad. The major ones are Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and Jesus. These prophets gave revelations from God which were written as scriptures; mainly, the Old and New Testaments. These predecessors to Muhammad are considered great prophets who spoke for God to specific people and whose message was meant for that time. Jesus, then, was simply one of many prophets according to Islam. Therefore, they deny the Christian doctrine of the deity of Jesus, the need for His atoning sacrifice (4:157-158), the Trinity (5:73), and much more. According to Islam, no sacrifice is needed to be forgiven, only faith in Allah, sincere repentance, and obedience to Islamic law (3:135; 7:8-9; 21:47; 49:14; 66:8-9). In fact, in Islam, the greatest of sins, called shirk, is to attribute "partners" to God. In other words, to say that God is a Trinity of persons is an unforgivable sin to a Muslim. In addition to the Qur'an is the Hadith. It is another source of authority in Islam, though it is secondary to the Qur'an. The Hadith are the sayings and deeds of Muhammad as recorded by his companions. They are oral traditions and are considered authoritative and instructive as commentaries and applications of Qur'anic principles. The Hadith has additional principles not found in the Qur'an. The Hadith are the inspired truths of God transmitted to us in the style and words of Muhammad where the Koran is the exact words of God which is supposed to be protected from corruption by Allah. In Islam, all Muslims are united by the common faith irrespective of class, location, race, or gender. Therefore, they have a special bond of unity and equality. The primary "truth" of Islam is found in the the first pillar of Islam known as the shahda: "There is no true God except Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah." Islamic theology also teaches that angels were created from light, that jinn are another race of beings, created from fire, who are invisible yet all around us, that there is an eternal judgment to Paradise for the good and hell for the bad, that Jesus was never crucified, that drinking alcohol is forbidden as is gambling, etc. Within the first two centuries after its inception in Arabia, Islam spread very quickly, often aided by sword (jihad2), into North Africa, up through Europe to Spain, and east to India. Presently, about 1 billion people are Muslim world wide with adherents on every continent and nation. It is the world's fastest growing religion and second in size only to Christianity. Like most ancient religions, there are sects. Islam is no different. The major sects in Islam are the Sunnites and the Shiites. The Sunnites are the largest group and comprise about 90% of all Muslims. The Shiites, though smaller in number, are significant in Islamic history and presently occupy the lands of Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi-Arabia, Yemen, and Persian Gulf states. The most important place of worship for the Muslim is the Mosque which is always pointed towards Mecca, the birthplace of Muhammad which is located in Saudi Arabia. All Muslims must face Mecca during their times of prayer because in Mecca is the Ka'aba, a cube structure allegedly built by Abraham which contains a sacred stone. When a Muslim is in Mecca, he or she faces the Ka'aba. Many Muslims hope for shari'ah the complete rule of Islamic law in the world. To this end, Muslims are seeking more converts, attacking other religious systems both by the sword and by word, moving into every nation, and seeking political power wherever they can achieve it. Islam is a growing reality. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 98: WHAT ARE THE DOCTRINES OF ISLAM? ======================================================================== God There is only one God (5:73; 112:1-4). God is called Allah by Muslims (5:73) Allah sees all things (40:20), is present everywhere (2:115; 7:7). Allah is the sole creator and sustainer of the universe (3:191). Allah is not a Trinity, but is one (5:73). Allah is all-knowing (2:268; 10:61) and all powerful (6:61-62). Allah created the heaven and earth (2:29; 6:1, 73; 25:61-62; 36:81; 46:33). Salvation and Judgment Allah will judge all people on the day of judgment (3:30; 35:33-37; 99:6-8). If your good deeds exceed your bad deeds, and you believe in Allah, and sincerely repent of sins, you may go to heaven (3:135; 7:8-9; 21:47; 49:14; 66:8-9). There is an eternal hell for those who are not Muslims, not practicing and of the truth faith (3:77). Hell is a place of unlimited capacity (50:30) eternal torment (2:39; 14:17; 25:65; 39:26), fire (9:63; 11:16; 25:11-12; 104:6-7), with boiling water (38:55-58; 55:43-44), where skin is burned and renewed (4:56), for unbelievers (3:13; 19:49) and Jinn (11:119), with faces covered with fire (14:49-50). There is a tree in hell, named Tree of Zaqqum, from which bad fruit is given and the damned are forced to eat (37:62-67; 44:43-48; 56:52-55). Heaven (Paradise), a Garden (79:41) of bliss and fruit (69:21-24), has rivers (3:198), with maidens pure and holy (4:57), and carpets and cushions, (88:8-16). There will be a physical resurrection of all people (19:93-95) on the day of judgment (3:77; 15:25; 16:38; 42:29). Judgment is based on a person's sincere repentance (66:8-9) and righteous deeds (5:9; 24:26; 45:21-22; 64:7). Other There is an afterlife (2:154;75:12). There are such things as angels, created by Allah, that are created from light. Angels are obedient slaves incapable of refusing to do Allah’s will. The angel Gabriel brought the revelation of the Koran to Muhammad (2:97). The Holy Spirit is the angel Gabriel (2:97; 16:102). There is no actual verse where the Holy Spirit is said to be Gabriel or is identified as Gabriel. These verses show that both the Holy Spirit and Gabriel brought down the revelation. Jinn are unseen beings, created (51:56) from fire (15:27; 55:15), but are not angels. They have communities. There are good and bad Jinn. The Devil, called Iblis, (2:34) is a bad Jinn. Jesus was a great prophet but not the son of God (9:30), is not divine (5:17, 75), was not crucified (4:157). Muhammad is Allah’s greatest and last prophet and his message supercedes all other past prophets including Jesus. The Koran is Allah’s word. He literally spoke it to Gabriel who gave it to Muhammad. There are other holy writings but they are superceded by the Koran. The other works are Torah - the First Five books of Moses Injeel - the message that Jesus gave, written down, but no longer exists. The writings have been altered by scholars. Whatever agrees with the Koran is true. Zaboor - the Psalms Pre-ordainment (Qadar) is the teaching that all things, good and bad, are preordained to occur. Fasting is to be observed during the month of Ramadan (2:185). Drinking alcohol is forbidden (2:219; 4;43; 5:93-94; 16:67) Gambling is forbidden (2:219; 5:90-94). Man is made from the dust of the earth (23:12). There is no last minute repentance (4:18). ======================================================================== CHAPTER 99: THE FIVE PILLARS OF ISLAM ======================================================================== The Five Pillars of Islam are core beliefs that shape Muslim thought, deed, and society. A Muslim who fulfills the Five Pillars of Islam, remains in the faith of Islam, and sincerely repents of his sins, will make it to Jannah (paradise). If he performs the Five Pillars but does not remain in the faith, he will not be saved. Shahada The Shahada is the Islamic proclamation that "There is no true God except Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah." This is the confession that Allah is the one and only true God, that Allah alone is worthy of worship, that Allah alone is the sovereign lord who does what he wills with whoever he wills. It means that all his rules and laws found in the Koran are to be followed. It means that the Christian doctrine of God as a Trinity is false as are all other belief systems including pantheism. Muhammad is the true and greatest prophet of Allah and recognition of Muhammad as the Prophet of God is required. It was through Muhammad that Allah conveyed the last and final revelation. Prayer (Salat) Prayer involves confession of sins which begins with the purification of the body and ends with the purification of the soul. Prayer is performed five times a day. The first prayer is at dawn and the last at sunset. The names of the prayers are Fajr, Dhuhr, Asr, Maghrib, Isha. The Maghrib prayer is the sunset prayer. Isha is the prayer that is said after sunset. There is also a prayer that is said right after Fajr known as Shurooq. Fasting (Saum) The month of Ramadan is the month of fasting in Islam. It is an act of worship where the faithful follower denies his own needs and seeks Allah. Usually, this fasting entails no drinking, eating during, or sexual relations during the daylight hours for the entire month of Ramadan. Alms-giving or charity (Zakat) Charity given to the poor. It benefits the poor and it helps the giver by moving him towards more holiness and submission to Allah. Alms-giving is considered a form of worship to God. Pilgrimage (Hajj) This is the pilgrimage to Mecca. All Muslims, if they are able, are to make a pilgrimage to Mecca. It involves financial sacrifice and is an act of worship. Muslims must make the pilgrimage the first half of the last month of the lunar year ======================================================================== CHAPTER 100: TRUE FAITH IN ISLAM ======================================================================== The pillars of the faith of Islam can be compared to the concept of a Statement of Faith, or Articles of faith. These are Islamic concepts of essentials of the faith. Allah Allah is the supreme being of all. He is uncreated, the creator of all, without beginning or end. He is completely sufficient to himself and needs no other. He does not have offspring nor a spouse. He knows all things, is everywhere, and is all powerful. He hears all prayers. Everything that occurs, does so by his permission. His Angels Angels reside in the unseen world and carry out the commands of Allah. They cannot sin. Muhammad stated that it was the angel Gabriel that brought the message of the Koran to him. His Messengers People who have been sent from Allah to a particular group of people for the purpose of giving to them the message revealed by Allah. Some of them are Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus, and, of course, Muhammad. Islam teaches that all messengers previous to Muhammad were sent to limited people groups where Muhammad was sent to all people. His Books Islam recognizes many sacred scriptures that have been given by Allah throughout history. However, Muslims claim that only the Quran is trustworthy and that the other scriptures have been compromised because we do not posses their original manuscripts. They assert that the accounts of the Bible were written down hundreds of years later and cannot be considered inerrant, and they were written in ancient languages which have been lost. Therefore, exact translations are not possible. Nevertheless, the scriptures recognized in Islam are: The Koran - The Koran (Qur'an) is the inspired word of Allah given to people through the Prophet Muhammad and it supercedes all other scriptures before it including. It alone is inerrant and trustworthy as a revelation for today. It is unchanged from the beginning. The Torah -the first five books of Moses. The Injil - the gospel message of Jesus in the New Testament The Psalms - the sacred writings given to David. The Last Day There is a future day in which this world and its governments and systems will come to end and all people will face judgment based upon their deeds. Muslims go to paradise and non-Muslims go to hell. Divine Preordainments good or bad In Islam, Allah is completely control of all things and ordains all things that occur. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 101: ISLAMIC TERMS ======================================================================== Adhan - The call to prayer. Ahmad - Another name for Muhammad. Allah - The Arabic word for "god." It is often used as a name for God in Islam. Badr - The place of the first significant battle between and the pagans of the Quraish. It is located in Saudi Arabia. Caliph - A Muslim ruler. Dajjal - Antichrist. Dawah - The proliferation of Islamic teachings through word and deed. Din - Obedience to the revelation of Allah's Qur'an (Koran). It involves total submission. Fatwa - Legal verdict given based on the Qur'an (Koran) and the Sunnah which are the recorded sayings and deeds of Muhammad. Fiqh - Religious law. Hadith - The sayings and deeds of the prophet Muhammad recorded by his followers. Considered authoritative and perfect. A saying is called a Sunnah. Hajar - The Black Stone set into the corner of the Ka'aba in Mecca. Tradition states it fell from heaven. Hajj - The pilgrimage to Mecca which takes place in the last month of the Islamic calendar. One of the five pillars of Islam. Hawijah - The sixth level of hell which is the place for Christians. Hegirah - Muhammad's immigration to Medina. It begins the Muslim calendar. Hijrah - Moving from a land where a Muslim cannot practice his faith to a land where he can. Ibadah - All the words and deeds with which Allah is pleased. These deeds could be prayer and charity. Iblis - Satan, a fallen Jinn. Imam - The political head of an Islamic state. Injil - The inspired sayings of Jesus. The message of Jesus. Islam - Submission, the religion of all the prophets of Allah culminating in Muhammad. Jannah - The heavenly garden, Paradise. The place of the faithful in the afterlife. Jihad - Striving. Fighting against one's own sinful self. Also, a physical fight for the truth of Islam, not allowing anyone to steal the ability to worship. It also can mean "holy war." Jinn - Supernatural, invisible beings race of beings, below angels. They were made from fire and are capable of looking like humans or animals. Some may dwell in rocks, trees, etc, and may possess black dogs, and black cats. There are good and bad Jinn and all will be judged on Judgment Day. Ka'aba - A cube shaped building in Mecca containing a stone laid there by Abraham and Ishmael. All Muslims face this cube when praying. Koran - Also spelled Qur'an. The holy book of Islam given to Muhammad by Allah through the Archangel Gabriel. Koran literally means "the recital." It is the final revelation of Allah given to the prophet Muhammad. It has 114 surahs, or chapters. Kufr - Disbelief Khutbah - A sermon given in a Mosque, usually on Friday. Maksiat - Sinful act Masjid - A center for Muslim activity. It is like a local mosque. Mecca - The Holy City of Islam. It is the birthplace of Muhammad. Medina - The city, then called Yathrib, that Muhammad fled to after announcing Islam. Mosque - A Muslim house of worship. Muhajir - Immigrant, one who leaves his home town to join a Muslim community. Muhammad - the final messenger/prophet of God whose message abrogated all previous revelations. He received the Koran through the angel Gabriel over a 23 year period. Muhammad ibn Abd Allah - the full name of Muhammad. Muslim - Someone who holds to the religion of Islam. Nas - The multitude of people who are not dedicated to Allah and sway to and fro to various teachings. Nasara - A word used in the Koran to designate those who are Christians. P.B.U.H. - A shortened designation for "Peace be upon him" which is placed in writing or said after the word "Muhammad" is used. Paradise - Another word for heaven. A garden (79:41) of bliss and fruit (69:21-24), has rivers (3:198), with maidens pure and holy (4:57), and carpets and cushions, (88:8-16). It is the hope of all Muslims. Qadar - Preordainment is the teaching that all things, good and bad, are preordained to occur. Qatl - Murder Qibla - The direction which Muslims turn for daily prayers, towards Mecca. Quraish - An ancient Arab tribe to which Muhammad once belonged. Rakat (rak'ah) - One complete cycle of sacred words and gestures during the ritual prayer. Ramadhan - The ninth month of the Islamic calendar which is the month of the fast. Salat - Prayers Sawm - Fasting Shi'ites - A sect of Islam that teaches that leaders should be political rulers. Shirk - Associating another god with Allah. Associating anything with Allah that is not true and revealed in the Koran. Sirq - Theft Sufi - A sect of Islam. It is very mystical and teaches strong self denial with the hope of union with God. Sunnah - The life, practices, and sayings of Muhammad recorded as examples of perfect conduct in society, religion, action, etc. They contain the Hadith. Sunnis - One of the sects of Islam Surah - A chapter of the Koran. Taghut - Everything that is worshipped or followed other than Allah. Taiyib - Pure, clean, wholesome. Taqwah - Proper fear and veneration of Allah. A divine spark that enables the person to understand God. Tauhid - Monotheism in Islam is the teaching that there is only one God who alone is worthy of worship. Tauhid-ar-Rububiyah - Declaring that God is one, the sovereign who performs all his will. Tauhid-al-Uluhiyah - Declaring that God is the only one worthy of worship. Ummah - A religious community, usually referring to an Islamic one. Umrah - A Minor form of pilgrimage to Mecca. Wa Alaikum Assalam - The Arabic way of saying "peace be upon him." Zaboor - The Psalms Zakat - The third pillar of Islam. Alms giving, charity that is given to the poor. Zinah - Fornication and adultery. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 102: METHODS MUSLIMS USE TO ATTACK CHRISTIANITY. ======================================================================== When dealing with Muslims it is wise to understand some of the approaches used by them to discredit Christianity. Much could be written on each of the following subjects with numerous examples. But, instead, I will simply expound on the areas common among Muslim approaches and point out what to watch for. No. 1 Attack the validity of the Bible This is expected. If the Muslim can undermine the strength and integrity of God's word, then it would be much easier for him to win arguments, confound the Christian, and make converts of those who don't know the truth and power of the Bible. This is what the devil did in the Garden of Eden. Satan said, "You truly will not die," (Gen. 3:4). I am not calling Muslims satanic. I am simply pointing out that that is how deception begins, by bringing doubt upon God's word, and that this is exactly what Muslims do. They try and get people to doubt the Bible and then tell you how great Islam is. Various methods are used here to accomplish this: Stating that the Bible has numerous contradictions Of course, I cannot go through all the alleged Bible contradictions here. But my observation has been that the majority of "biblical contradictions" raised by Muslims are nothing more than examples of their lack of understanding of biblical theology and context. Always read the context of verses. Don't let a Muslim simply state that there are contradictions and leave it at that. Ask him to give you one. If you cannot answer it, do research and get back to him. Sure, there are some tough areas of scripture, but there are no contradictions in God's word.1 Criticizing the lack of original manuscripts The point here is that because we do not have the original manuscripts of the Bible, we cannot really know what the originals said and, therefore, the Bible could have been corrupted. They then compare the Bible to the Koran and state that the Koran is the guaranteed, preserved, direct word of Allah given by the angel Gabriel to Muhammad. Of course, what they fail to mention is The Bible documents are well attested as being reliable and accurate. (See the book, Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.) Regarding the Koran, Muhammad couldn't read or write, so he recited the Koran to people who then wrote it down. There is no evidence at all that the Koran was written down in its entirety in Muhammad's lifetime and compiled as a unit. So how could he have verified its truth? Shortly after Muhammad's death, the Muslim Uthman ordered all sets of the Koran manuscripts to be destroyed except the codex of Zaid. Why? Is it because Zaid's copy was better? If so, how do we know? Did differences in the copies arise so quickly that discrepancies were evident and Uthman recognized the need for a standardized copy lest Islam suffer division? It raises doubt on the Koran's supposed incorruptibility. Muslims claim that Allah said the Koran would be preserved. But, the mere claim is not enough. It is using the Koran to substantiate the Koran which is circular reasoning. Claiming that the Bible is false because it contradicts the Koran. This is simply begging the question. That means that one assumes the validity of the thing that he is trying to prove. The Muslim assumes the validity of the Koran and because it contradicts the Bible, therefore the Bible is wrong. Well, the Christian can just as easily state that the Koran is wrong because it contradicts the Bible. But the Muslims would not accept that. Therefore, why should we accept their argument? No. 2 Attempt to set Paul against Jesus Muslims often make the claim that Paul never met Jesus and was not a disciple or apostle of Jesus. Of course, this is not true. Paul encountered Jesus on the road to Damascus in Acts 9, after Jesus' resurrection. Jesus spoke to him and commissioned him. So, Paul met Jesus. Also, Peter, who was a disciple of Jesus, authenticated Paul's writings by calling them scripture in 2 Pet. 3:15-16. If they are inspired, then they cannot contradict Jesus' words. In addition, many Muslims claim that Jesus never claimed to be God and that Paul is the one who wrote that Jesus was God. First of all, if they admit that Paul wrote that Jesus was God, then remind them of 2 Pet. 3:15-16 where Peter calls Paul's writings Scripture. Nevertheless, they sometimes assert that Paul hijacked Christianity and took it over and made Jesus into something He was not. This claim is false. Perhaps the primary area where Muslims think Paul and Jesus contradict is in the area of who Jesus is. Paul states that Jesus is God in flesh: Col. 2:9 says, "For in Him the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form." Muslims assert that no where in the Gospels did Jesus claim to be God. Therefore, they claim, Paul's words are not true and the Bible is not trustworthy. This attack by Muslims is an attack based out of opinion. Jesus did claim to be God In John 8:56-59, it says, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." 57The Jews therefore said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" 58Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." 59Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple."2 Why did the Pharisees want to kill Jesus? They explain their reason in John 10:33 when they say, "For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God," (KJV). Whether or not the Muslim will accept this, let alone agree that this is correct, matters little because his presupposition will not allow him to accept, no matter what. Nevertheless, the text clearly states that the Pharisees understood that Jesus was claiming to be God. Also, consider John 5:18 where the Apostle John says, "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God," (KJV). In this verse Jesus healed on the Sabbath and the Pharisees thought He was breaking the Sabbath law. John the Apostle also states that when Jesus claimed that God was His Father, that it was "making himself equal with God." The Muslim will always find a way to argue out of these texts. But, two facts remain. First, Jesus claimed to be God. Second, the Pharisees denied that Jesus was God and the Muslims agree with them. There are other areas that the Muslims will say are where Jesus and Paul do not agree, but when they bring it up, always ask for an example. Each time I've done this, I've discovered that the Muslim did not have a sufficient understanding of what the text is saying. Remember, always read the context. No. 3 Misrepresentation of Christian doctrine Sadly, this is a very common error of the Muslims. The single greatest instance of this is in the doctrine of the Trinity. Muslims so often attack a false understanding of the Trinity by stating that it is three gods. That is not the correct Christian definition of the Trinity doctrine. Christianity does not teach there are three gods. It never has and it never will. The doctrine of the Trinity is that there is only one God who exists in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Trinitarianism is monotheistic. If a Muslim continues to proclaim that the Trinity is three gods, then I simply stop discussing the issue with him because he is not willing to accept what the definition is and it isn't possible to have a meaningful dialogue. Another Christian doctrine they fail to understand is the Hypostatic Union. This is the teaching that Jesus is one person with two natures. He is both God and man as is declared in Col. 2:9, "For in Him [Jesus] dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily." Because Jesus was also a man, we have verses such as John 14:28 where Jesus says "the Father is greater than I." Muslims will say that if Jesus is God, how could He be greater than Himself? Of course, they fail to understand the Trinity (three persons) and they fail to understand that Jesus, as a man (Phil. 2:5-8), cooperated with the limitations of being a man and was in a lower position than the Father (Heb. 2:9) for a while. Sometimes Muslims refuse to accept Christian explanations for things because it doesn't fit their agenda nor their preconceived ideas of what they think Christianity is. Oddly enough, Christians often contribute to this problem by offering inadequate and sometimes erring explanations of Christian doctrine. Thus, many Muslims are led into error regarding what Christianity really teaches. Christians need to know their doctrine, and Muslims need to understand the proper explanations for those doctrines. No. 4 Misinterpreting various Scripture passages A very good example of misrepresentation of biblical passages can be found in a dialogue I had with a Muslim regarding John 1:1, 14. These verses say, "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God." Verse 14 says "and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us..." The Muslim I was speaking to reasoned thus: If the word is God then we can insert the word "god" into the verse each time it says "word." Therefore, we would have it say 'In the beginning was the God and the God was with God and God was God.' As you can see, this makes no sense. Therefore, when you go to verse 14 where it says the word became flesh, it cannot mean that God became flesh, because John 1:1 makes no sense." As you can see, this kind of logic is very bad. First of all, John 1:1 does not say what he said it does. It does not speak in contradictory terms the way he tried to make it sound. Instead, it uses both the word "word" and the word "god" in the sentence. I told him that he needed to go with what the text does say and not with what it does not say. In other words, he reconstructed it in such a way as to purposely not make sense and then he attacked that. Another verse, or verses, that they misinterpret is when Jesus says that He is the Son of God. To the Muslim, this means that God literally had a wife and produced a literal son. Of course, this is not what is meant by the biblical account. Sonship is in relation to the Fatherhood of God in a spiritual and metaphoric sense. After all, Jesus says that God is spirit (John 4;24). Of course, God would not have a body of flesh and bones with which to procreate children. What the Muslims are guilty of doing is imposing Islamic understandings upon biblical texts and then complaining about the biblical texts in light of how they interpret them. This is not how one should go about "refuting the opposition." Rather, the Muslim should seek to understand the biblical/cultural context and deal with the issue from that perspective not a fabricated one as this example shows. No. 5 Failing to differentiate between Protestant and Catholic doctrines Sadly, Christianity is not in complete unity in all things which is why we have denominations. I am dismayed at the fragmentation within Christianity and think it is a poor witness to the world. But, the fact is that differences of opinions among Christians do occur. In fact, we are allowed to have differences of opinion according to God's word found in Rom. 14: 1-13. True Christians are all united in the essentials of the faith and are often divided on the non-essentials. This does not mean we are not all Christians, but that we have differences of opinions on some things. However, in the 1500s, there was a major split in the Catholic church. It was called the Reformation. As a Protestant, I believe the Reformation was necessary because the Catholic church had adopted some dangerous and erroneous doctrines that extend far beyond mere differences of opinion; namely, prayer to Mary, purgatory, indulgences, etc. Muslims often fail to differentiate between Catholicism and Protestantism in their arguments. I've heard and read where Muslims attack, for example, the Catholic teaching of the Eucharist where the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper are claimed by the Catholics to actually become the body and blood of Christ during the communion service. Of course, we Protestants strongly disagree with this. But this disagreement is rarely, if ever, brought up when attacking Christian doctrine. So, when Muslims say "Christians believe ...", be careful that they do not make too broad a generalization as they continue their attack. No. 6 Claim their logic is correct and Christian logic is incorrect Many Muslims have told me that what I am saying about God, Salvation, the Bible, etc., isn't logical. Now, perhaps some things I say are not logical. But, I've not heard any convincing arguments yet demonstrating what is and is not logical regarding Christian doctrine. Usually, the Muslim will simply say that Jesus having two natures is not logical or that the Trinity being three persons doesn't make sense. But saying so doesn't make it so. There is nothing illogical about a part of God being able to become a person and add human nature to Himself. It may not be the easiest thing in the world to understand, but it is not illogical. Neither does saying that the Trinity is three persons is illogical make it so. Surely anyone would agree that when we encounter God and His self revelation there will be things that are difficult to understand. The Trinity certainly falls under that category. But, the Trinity doctrine is not against logic. It would be illogical to say that one God is three gods, or that one person is three persons. But that is not what Christianity teaches. I've found that when dialoguing with Muslims and when reading their material against Christianity, that their claim to know real logic is really an extension of their Muslim thought and not a mastery of logic at all. No. 7 Switching topics when challenged Sometimes when discussing subjects that Muslims find difficult to answer, they will quickly change the subject. Very often this change involves attacking the Bible. Other times they will testify that they know Islam is true or they will simply say that you do not known what you are talking about. But when they change the subject you must be patient. Lovingly bring them back to the subject at hand. I have had to do this many times when discussing Islam with Muslims. This is a small but very important point. Too many Christians fall into the trap of allowing themselves to be diverted from the subject at hand. Do not let a Muslim simply ignore a question and start a new subject when it gets tough. Likewise, Christians should not simply change the subject when it gets difficult for them either. Instead, if you do not know the answer to a question, simply admit it. Go to some research and then get back with them. Always remember to be gracious. You will not win the Muslim to the Lord with cruelty and rudeness. And remember that we are in the spiritual battle. Love and truth in the name of Jesus is more powerful than any perfect answer. When dialoguing with Muslims, please remember to be respectful and patient. But, check everything they say and listen to them. They do not have the market cornered on truth, even though they think they do. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 103: DOES ISLAM TEACH SALVATION BY WORKS? ======================================================================== Generally speaking, there are only two methods of salvation in all the religions of the world: grace and works. Christianity is a religion of salvation by grace alone: "For by grace through faith you have been saved, not of works..." (Eph. 2:8-9). All other systems rely totally or in part on the works of the believer to merit salvation. Mormons, for example, say that you are saved by grace through faith after all you can do. In Roman Catholicism, God's grace is infused into a believer that enables him to do good works by which he is judged for salvation. In Islam, forgiveness is based on a combination of Allah's grace and the Muslim's works. On the Day of Judgment, if a Muslim's good works outweigh his bad ones, and if Allah so wills it, he may be forgiven of all his sins and then enter into Paradise. Therefore, Islam is a religion of salvation by works because it combines man's works with Allah's grace. Consider the following verses from the Qur'an. (All quotes from the Qur'an are from this version unless otherwise specified.) "To those who believe and do deeds of righteousness hath Allah promised forgiveness and a great reward" (Surah 5:9). "And He answers those who believe and do good deeds, and gives them more out of His grace; and (as for) the unbelievers, they shall have a severe punishment," (42:26, online, trans. by M.H. Shakir). "O you who believe! If you are careful of (your duty to) Allah, He will grant you a distinction and do away with your evils and forgive you; and Allah is the Lord of mighty grace," (8:29, online, trans. by M.H. Shakir). Of course, the Muslims will tell us the Qur'an teaches that Allah is gracious to them and that they do not earn their forgiveness. I acknowledge this. The Qur'an says, ". . . Allah is the Lord of grace unbounded," (8:29), and also, ". . . But Allah will choose for his special mercy whom he will - for Allah is lord of grace abounding," (2:105). But, as you can see from the quotes 1, 2, and 3 above, Allah's forgiveness is tied to the Muslim's works. Therefore, I ask the question, how is it really grace if it is by also by works? Isn't grace the unmerited favor from God? It would seem the Islamic system of salvation is more a reward than grace. For further confirmation that Allah's grace is dependent upon the deeds of faithful Muslims, here are more quotes from the Qur'an: "O you who believe! be careful of (your duty to) Allah and speak the right word, He will put your deeds into a right state for you, and forgive you your faults; and whoever obeys Allah and His Apostle, he indeed achieves a mighty success," (33:70-71, online, trans. by M.H. Shakir). ". . . But if ye obey Allah and his messenger, he will not belittle aught of your deeds: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Mmerciful," (49:14). "If you obey GOD and His messenger, He will not put any of your works to waste. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful." (49:14). Notice how the Qur'an teaches forgiveness based upon Allah's grace and man's works. Can any Muslim be assured of his salvation before his God? No.1 Numerous Muslims have told me that they do not know if they will make it to heaven because they do not know if their good deeds outweigh their bad ones. Unlike Christianity where we have assurance of salvation (1 John 5:13), there is no assurance in Islam because it rests in part on the obedience and good works of Muslims. Unlike Christianity where salvation is an unearned, free gift from God (Rom. 4:3; Eph. 2:89), the Muslim can at best only hope he has performed enough good works to outweigh his bad ones and that Allah so wills to forgive him. Another requirement for forgiveness for the Muslim is sincerity when repenting of sins. "O ye who believe! Turn unto Allah in sincere repentance! It may be that your Lord will remit from you your evil deeds and bring you into Gardens underneath which rivers flow, on the day when Allah will not abase the Prophet and those who believe with him. Their light will run before them and on their right hands; they will say: Our Lord! Perfect our light for us, and forgive us! Lo! Thou art Able to do all things," (66:8-9). "God accepts the repentance of those who have sinned in ignorance and who realizing the ugliness of their deed swiftly turn toward Him in repentance" (3:16). I am not saying that we should not be sincere when repenting of our sins. But, the problem with sincerity is that it can easily become a form of pride. After all, if a person says he is truly sincere enough to be forgiven of his sins, then isn't he appealing to something within himself, a finite sinner, as part of the basis of receiving forgiveness from a holy and infinite God? Is that not presumptive and prideful to do? Furthermore, the issue of sincerity is a subjective thing. How do you know you are being sincere enough? Is it because the Muslims simply believes he is? It seems to me that at best, the Muslim can only hope he is sincere enough. But how can he really know for sure. Instead, the Bible says that the heart is desperately wicked and deceitful and cannot be trusted (Jer. 17:9). In Christianity, we appeal to the work of Christ on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24) completely and totally and in nothing in ourselves as a basis for forgiveness, because no good thing dwells within us (Rom. 7:18); that is, apart from Christ. We sincerely believe in Christ, but we never claim that forgiveness is in anyway merited or gained because of our sincerity or our works. Rather, our forgiveness is based on faith and trust in God in what He has done for us in Christ. Salvation in Christianity is God centered. In Islam, forgiveness of sins is man-centered in that it is dependent upon man's sincerity and man's works in combination with Allah's forgiveness. Both Christianity and Islam teach that we must have faith in God. But in Christianity, this faith in God is enough to save us (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:89). In Islam, faith in God it is not. In Islam, the Muslim's works will be weighed on the Day of Judgment and it will then be decided who is saved and who is not -- based upon whether the person was a Muslim, whether or not they were sincere in repentance, and whether or not they performed enough good works to out weigh the bad ones. Please consider the following verses from the Qur'an about how a Muslim's deeds are weighed in the balance on Judgment Day to see if he might be saved or not. "Then those whose balance (of good deeds ) is heavy, they will be successful. But those whose balance is light, will be those who have lost their souls; in hell will they abide," (23:102-103). "And We set a just balance for the Day of Resurrection so that no soul is wronged in aught. Though it be of the weight of a grain of mustard seed, We bring it. And We suffice for reckoners," (21:47). "They are those who deny the Signs of their Lord and the fact of their having to meet Him (in the Hereafter): vain will be their works, nor shall We, on the Day of Judgment, give them any weight," online Qur'an, 18:105 Is the Islamic system of salvation really enough to save Muslims? They will say that it is. But, as a Christian, I cannot see how anyone in Islam can have security and honest expectation of obtaining Paradise. How can anyone who must be completely sincere in repentance and be required to perform more good works than bad, ever hope to make it to heaven? The problem with being saved by God's grace and human works is that human works are never sufficient to please God. God is infinite and holy. How can we finite sinners ever hope to please God by our deeds? Muslims need the gospel Instead of relying in any way on our own works, the gospel of Jesus teaches us we do not have to do that. The gospel of Jesus is that He died for our sins and rose again from the dead (1 Cor. 15:1-4). He fulfilled all the Law so we don't have to (Rom. 8:3-4). He took our place and received the punishment due our sins (2 Cor. 5:21). Because we are sinners and because we cannot please an infinitely Holy God on our own, because we can never fulfill the Law of God perfectly, and because God's eyes are too pure to look upon evil (Hab. 1:13), salvation must be by total grace (Eph. 2:8). Salvation must be the work of God, not of man (Gal. 2:21). 1 John 5:13 says, "These things were written so you may know you have eternal life..." Can the Muslim say he knows he has eternal life? He cannot. I know I do as a Christian precisely because it is not of my works. So, why would a Muslim want me to give up my assurance and free gift of salvation found in Jesus for the Islamic system of works that, at best, only provides the possibility of salvation if I have been sincere enough and if I have done enough good works? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 104: QUESTIONS FOR MUSLIMS ======================================================================== Dear Muslim, I do not post these questions as a "proof" that Islam is false. I do not believe that is possible with a simple list of questions. Nevertheless, they are here to encourage discussion that the truth may be known. The Qur'an says "To those who believe and do deeds of righteousness hath Allah promised forgiveness and a great reward" (Surah 5:9). Question: Are you doing enough good deeds to receive salvation on the Day of Judgment? Question: Are you doing all you can or are you relaxing in your dedication to Allah? The Qur'an says, "O ye who believe! Turn unto Allah in sincere repentance! It may be that your Lord will remit from you your evil deeds and bring you into Gardens underneath which rivers flow, on the day when Allah will not abase the Prophet and those who believe with him. Their light will run before them and on their right hands; they will say: Our Lord! Perfect our light for us, and forgive us! Lo! Thou art Able to do all things," (66:8-9). Notice how it says if you are sincere you may receive forgiveness. Question: How do you know you are sincere enough to be forgiven of Allah? Question: Does it give you peace to know that even if you are very sincere that at best, you may receive forgiveness? Question: If you say that you know you are sincere enough in your repentance before Allah, how do you know you are not deceiving yourself? Question: Is your heart really good enough to muster enough sincerity before a Holy and Righteous God? Question: If you say yes, I honestly and humbly ask you, "Are you being prideful?" Question: If you say you are not being prideful, then are you boasting in your sincerity? In Christianity, Jesus is God in flesh who paid for our sins on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24). Because of that, we Christians are secure in Him and do not have to worry about doing enough good works to please God since we are saved by grace through faith in Him, (Eph. 2:8-9). Question: Why should we Christians give up our guarantee of salvation in Jesus for the requirements of your Qur'anic law when you yourselves don't even know if you have done enough good deeds to be saved on the Day of Judgment? The Bible says that God is love (1 John 4:16) and that He loves all people (Matt. 5:43-48; John 3:16). The Qur'an never says that "God is love." In fact, the Qur'an says that Allah does not love unbelievers (2:98; 3:32). Question: If Allah does not love unbelievers, can you say that Allah is love, especially if the Qur'an does not say it? Question: If you say yes, that Allah is love, then why does he only love the Muslims and not all people? Question: If you say Allah is love, is he more loving than the God of the Bible who loves all people? In the Bible, Jesus said in John 15:13, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." In Christianity, the greatest act of love is performed by God Himself -- since Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1, 14; Col. 2:9). Jesus is the one who fulfilled His own words on this. He laid His life down for us. Question: What is the greatest act of love performed by Allah? Question: If what Jesus said is true, then hasn't someone besides Allah has performed the greatest act of love? Question: Why do you, as a Muslim, want me to give up such a great love performed by God Himself (from a Christian perspective) for your belief in Allah who only loves people if they are Muslims? Islam teaches that the Holy Spirit is Gabriel. In the Bible, the Holy Spirit lives in the Christians. Question: If the angel Gabriel is the Holy Spirit, how can he dwell in us? (Note: According to the Nestle Aland Greek New Testament Textual Apparatus, there are no textual variations any of the following biblical references. They are recorded and transmitted to us accurately.) "Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you," (2 Tim. 1:14, NASB). "Do you not know that you are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?" (1 Cor. 3:16, NASB). ======================================================================== CHAPTER 105: WHAT DO THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES TEACH? ======================================================================== There is one God in one person, Make Sure of All Things, p 188. There is no Trinity, Let God be True, p. 100-101; Make Sure of All Things, p.386. The Holy Spirit is a force, not alive, Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp. 406-407. The Holy Spirit is God's impersonal active force, The Watchtower, June 1, 1952, p. 24. Jehovah's first creation was his 'only-begotten Son'. . . was used by Jehovah in creating all other things", Aid to Bible Understanding, pp. 390-391. Jesus was Michael the archangel who became a man, The Watchtower, May 15, 1963, p. 307; The New World, 284. Jesus was only a perfect man, not God in flesh, Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp. 306. Jesus did not rise from the dead in his physical body, Awake! July 22, 1973, p. 4. Jesus was raised "not a human creature, but a spirit." Let God be True, p. 276. Jesus did not die on a cross but on a stake, Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp. 89-90. Jesus returned to earth, invisibly, in 1914, The Truth Shall Make You Free, p. 300. Jesus' ransom sacrifice did not include Adam, Let God be True, p. 119. Their church is the self-proclaimed prophet of God, The Watchtower, April 1, 1972, p. 197. They claim to be the only channel of God's truth, The Watchtower, Feb. 15, 1981, p. 19. Only their church members will be saved, The Watchtower, Feb, 15, 1979, p. 30. Good works are necessary for salvation, Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 1, pp. 150, 152. The soul ceases to exist after death, Let God be True, p. 59, 60, 67. There is no hell of fire where the wicked are punished, Let God be True, p. 79, 80. Only 144,000 Jehovah's Witness go to heaven, Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp. 166-167, 361; Let God be True, p. 121. Only the 144,000 Jehovah's Witness are born again. Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, p. 76.; Watchtower 11/15/54, p. 681. Only the 144,000 may take communion, Blood transfusions are a sin, Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp. 72-73. The Cross is a pagan symbol and should not be used, Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp. 90-92. Salvation is by faith and what you do, Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 1, pp. 150,152. It is possible to lose your salvation, Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp. 358-359. The universe is billions of years old, Your will Be Done on Earth, p. 43. Each of the 6 creative days of God in Genesis 1, was 7000 years long. Therefore, Man was created toward the end of 42,000 years of earth's preparation, Let God be True, p. 168. They also refuse to vote, salute the flag, sing the "Star Spangled Banner," or celebrate Christmas or birthdays. They are not allowed to serve in the armed forces. Satan was entrusted with the obligation and charged with the duty of overseeing the creation of the earth, Children, p 55 ======================================================================== CHAPTER 106: JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES IN A NUTSHELL ======================================================================== According to Jehovah's Witness' theology, God is a single person, not a Trinity, who does not know all things and is not everywhere. He first created Michael the Archangel through whom He created all "other things," including the universe, the earth, Adam and Eve, etc. This creative work took God 42,000 years. At one point, The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society taught that God ruled the universe from somewhere in the Pleiades star system. They have since modified this to say that the "Pleiades can no longer be considered the center of the universe and it would be unwise for us to try to fix God's throne as being at a particular spot in the universe."1 Such changes and even contradictions in teaching are frequent in the Watchtower organization and when a doctrine changes, they tell their followers that the light of truth is getting brighter. After Adam sinned, the paradise which God had created for them, was ruined. So, God instituted a system of redemption which was revealed in the Bible and would ultimately lead to the crucifixion of Jesus the messiah. But, in the meantime, God needed to have a visible, theocratic organization on earth to accurately represent Him. Throughout history, this true organization had a remnant of faithful Jehovah's Witnesses (Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, etc.) but it wasn't until the late 1800's that Charles Taze Russell formerly began what is now known as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society which is run out of Brooklyn, New York. This organization claims to be the only true channel of God's truth on earth today and that it alone can properly interpret God's word since it is the angel directed, prophet of God on earth. When it came time for the savior to be born, Michael the Archangel became a human, in the form of Jesus. Jesus grew and kept all the laws of God and never sinned. Finally, when Jesus died, it was not on a cross, but on a torture stake, where he bore the sins of mankind -- but this did not include Adam's sins. Jesus rose from the dead as a spirit, not physically (his body was dissolved and taken by God) and during his visitations to people on earth, he manifested a temporary physical body for them to see and touch. Thus began the true Christian church of Jehovah's followers. Throughout history there have been faithful Jehovah's witnesses who have managed to keep The Truth in spite of the "demonic" doctrine of Trinitarianism that has permeated the Christian church in "Christendom." Christendom is filled with pastors who are antichrists, in churches run by Satan, and who support the earthly governments which are all of the devil. In other words, all of Christianity is false and only the Jehovah's Witness "theocratic" organization lead by several men in Brooklyn, New York, is true. In the late 1800's, a young man of 18 years, by the name of Charles Taze Russell, organized a Bible class in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In 1879 he sought to popularize his ideas on doctrine so he co-published The Herald of the Morning magazine with its founder, N. H. Barbour and by 1884 Russell controlled the publication and renamed it The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom, and founded Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society (now known as the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society). Russell served as the teacher and guide for the organization which taught that Jesus returned invisibly in 1914 and is now reigning in heaven. When Jesus finally returns physical to earth, which will happen at the time of the Battle of Armageddon, He will set up his earthly 1000 year kingdom. During this 1000 year period, people will be resurrected and have a second chance to receive eternal salvation by following the principles of Jehovah's Organization on earth known as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. After the millennium, those who reject God and His organization will be annihilated; that is, they will cease to exist. The rest of the Jehovah's Witness who have faithfully followed God's organization on earth will be saved from eternal annihilation and reside forever on Paradise earth. Heaven, however, is a place for a special group of 144,000 Jehovah's Witnesses -- the only ones who are "born again" and who alone are allowed to take communion in their annual communion service. These are the ones who have "immortal life," all other Witnesses have "everlasting life." Those with immortal life do not have resurrected bodies. They have "spirit bodies." Those on Paradise Earth have everlasting life and consists of a resurrected body that must be maintained through eating, rest, etc. When you study with the Jehovah's Witness, you agree to attend five meetings a week where you are taught from Watchtower literature. You cannot be baptized until you have studied their material for at least six months and have answered numerous questions before a panel of elders. Men are not supposed have long hair or wear beards and women are to dress in modest apparel. They refuse to vote, salute the flag, sing the "Star Spangled Banner, celebrate birthdays or Christmas, won't take blood transfusions, and they can't join the armed forces. A schedule of door-to-door canvassing is required where you distribute the Watchtower literature, acquire donations, and forward all monies to the headquarters in Brooklyn, New York. If you ever leave the Jehovah's Witness organization, you are considered an apostate and are to be shunned. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 107: JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES' HISTORY ======================================================================== The Jehovah's Witnesses was begun by Charles Taze Russell in 1872. He was born on February 16, 1852, the son of Joseph L. and Anna Eliza Russell. He had great difficulty in dealing with the doctrine of eternal hell fire and in his studies came to deny not only eternal punishment, but also the Trinity, and the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit. When Russell was 18, he organized a Bible class in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In 1879 he sought to popularize his aberrant ideas on doctrine. He co-published The Herald of the Morning magazine with its founder, N. H. Barbour and by 1884 Russell controlled the publication and renamed it The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom, and founded Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society (now known as the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society). The first edition of The Watchtower magazine was only 6,000 copies each month. Today the Witnesses' publishing complex in Brooklyn, New York, churns out 100,000 books and 800,000 copies of its two magazines--daily! Russell claimed that the Bible could be only understood according to his interpretations. A dangerous arrangement since he controlled what was written in the Watchtower magazine. This kind of assertion is typical among leaders of cult religions. After the death of Russell on Oct. 31, 1916, a Missouri lawyer named Joseph Franklin Rutherford took over the presidency of the Watch Tower Society which was known then as the Dawn Bible Students Association. In 1931 he changed the name of the organization to "The Jehovah's Witnesses." After Rutherford's death, Nathan Knorr took over. After Knorr, Frederick William Franz became president. Today the Society is led by Mr. Henschel. The group has over 4 million members world wide. The Watchtower Society statistics indicate that 740 house calls are required to recruit each of the nearly 200,000 new members who join every year. The Jehovah's Witnesses have several ‘book studies' each week. The members are not required to attend, but there is a level of expectation that gently urges converts to participate. It is during these ‘book studies' that the Jehovah's Witness is constantly exposed to counter Christian teachings. The average Jehovah's Witness, with his constant Watchtower indoctrination, could easily pummel the average Christian when it comes to defending his beliefs. The Jehovah's Witnesses vehemently portray the doctrine of the Trinity as pagan in origin and that Christendom, as a whole, has bought the lie of the devil. Along with denying the Trinity is an equally strong denial of the deity of Christ, the deity of the Holy Spirit, the belief in hell, and eternal conscious punishment in hell. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 108: IS THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS RELIGION CHRISTIAN? ======================================================================== The answer to the question is, "No. It is not Christian." Like all non-Christian cults, the Jehovah's Witness organization distorts the essential doctrines of Christianity. It denies the deity of Christ, His physical resurrection, and salvation by grace. This alone makes it non-Christian. To support its erring doctrines, the Watchtower organization (which is the author and teacher of all official Jehovah's Witness theology), has even altered the Bible to make it agree with its changing and non-Christian teachings. Typical with cults that use the Bible to support its position is a host of interpretive errors: Taking verses out of their immediate context. Refusing to read verses in the entire biblical context. Inserting their theological presuppositions into the text. Altering the Biblical text to suit their needs. Latching onto one verse to interpret a host of others. Changing the meanings of words. Proclaiming some passages to be figurative when they contradict their doctrines. Adding to the Word of God. Additionally, the Jehovah's Witness organization requires of its members regular weekly attendance at their "Bible Study" meetings where they are repeatedly indoctrinated with anti-Christian teachings. This is done by reading the Watchtower magazine, following along with what it says, reading the questions it asks, and reciting the answers it gives. In other words, the Watchtower Organization carefully trains its members to let the Organization do their thinking for them. For confirmation of this, please read Does the Watchtower organization control the JW's thinking? The Witnesses are told they will be persecuted when they go door to door teaching their doctrines. They are further told that this is simply the enemy fighting against God's organization because they are in "the truth." So, when someone disagrees with them, they are conditioned to reflect on what the Watchtower has told them. They then feel confirmed in being in God's true organization on earth (like all cults claim). They are strongly encouraged to have friends and acquaintances that are only JW’s, thereby keeping outside examination to a minimum. They are told to shun those who leave their group, that way, there is no way to see why someone has left and no way to find out that they are in error from those who have found the truth in Christ. They are conditioned to shy away from any real biblically knowledgeable person. An example of this is frequently found on the Internet. I was once banned from a Jehovah's Witness chat room after I not only answered their objections to the Trinity and deity of Christ, but challenged them in return. Subsequently, my name was passed around to all other Jehovah's Witness rooms where I was banned from them as well. This is a frequent occurrence on the Internet where the Jehovah's Witnesses are alive and well. It is obvious that critical examination of their doctrines is not encouraged by the Watchtower Organization. The Jehovah's Witnesses consider themselves to be Christians because they believe they are serving the true and living God. Like many cults, they think they are the only true church on earth. Yet, they deny the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, Jesus' physical resurrection, and salvation by grace through faith. The Jehovah's Witnesses are discouraged from looking into Jehovah's Witness history or old Watchtower literature which is replete with contradictions, altered doctrines, and false prophecies. Instead, they are indoctrinated repeatedly against basic Christian doctrines (Trinity, deity of Christ, etc) and into the notion that they alone are the true servants of God and that all others are either in "Christendom" or simply unbelievers. Primarily, the Jehovah's Witness organization is a mind control organization that uses its people to pass out literature and send in "donations" to the headquarters in Brooklyn, New York. "Thus the Bible is an organizational book and belongs to the Christian congregation as an organization, not to individuals, regardless of how sincerely they may believe that they can interpret the Bible." The Watchtower, Oct. 1, 1967. p. 587. The Watchtower organization of the Jehovah's Witnesses is a non-Christian organization that uses its people to promulgate false doctrines, sell a multitudinous amount of literature, and expand its grip into the lives of its members and their families. It is a non-Christian cult. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 109: JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES ARE REALLY "WATCHTOWERITES." ======================================================================== Jehovah’s Witnesses faithfully go door-to-door preaching the "Kingdom of God" that is taught them via the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. They are usually quite polite and sincere in their efforts of communicating "Jehovah’s Good News." As always, they carry with them several books and magazines, some of which are the New World Translation (their Bible which has been altered in many places), the Awake Magazine, and, of course, the ubiquitous Watchtower Magazine. The Jehovah’s Witnesses receive their direction from The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society headquartered in Brooklyn, New York. This organization claims to be the channel of communication from God to his people, that it represents Jesus on earth, and that you cannot find Scriptural guidance outside of it as an organization. Consider the following quotes: "It should be expected that the Lord would have a means of communication to his people on the earth, and he has clearly shown that the magazine called The Watchtower is used for that purpose." 1939 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, p. 85." Make haste to identify the visible theocratic organization of God that represents his king, Jesus Christ. It is essential for life. Doing so, be complete in accepting its every aspect." The Watchtower, October 1, 1967, p. 591. "We all need help to understand the Bible, and we cannot find the Scriptural guidance we need outside the ‘faithful and discreet slave' organization." The Watchtower, Feb. 15, 1981. Obviously, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society assumes a great deal, including being God’s "visible theocratic organization" and the ‘faithful and discreet slave" teaching true Christian doctrine. The only problem is that the Watchtower brand of doctrine is not biblical doctrine. It is heavily filtered doctrine through Watchtower interpretations combined with selective questions and scripture quotes. Of course, the Jehovah’s Witnesses will strongly disagree with this statement. They say that they read and study their Bibles and only use the Watchtower literature as a guide to understanding God’s word. But it is this very admission which condemns them because their doctrines are not found in the Bible. The proof is found, believe it or not, in the Watchtower’s own writings. Consider this quote from The Watchtower Magazine, August 15, 1981 that says: "From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah's people those, who, like the original Satan, have adopted an independent, faultfinding attitude...They say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. But, strangely, through such ‘Bible reading,' they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom's clergy were teaching 100 years ago..." The Watchtower, August 15, 1981. Did you get that? If you read the Bible by itself, you will become a Trinitarian because that is exactly what the Watchtower is referring to here when it says "apostate doctrines." In other words, if you read the Bible alone, you will not arrive at Watchtower doctrines. This is an amazing admission by the Watchtower organization. It is clear, Jehovah's Witnesses do not get their teachings from the Bible, but from the Watchtower literature. Therefore, Jehovah's Witnesses are Really Watchtowerites The average Kingdom Hall (Jehovah's Witness church) has "Book" studies several times a week. It is in these meetings that the Jehovah's Witness gets new Watchtower publications, studies with the help of the Watchtower aids, and discusses doctrines in ‘Bible studies." This is how they are indoctrinated. Whether or not a Jehovah's Witness likes or dislikes what is being taught is not the issue. Rather, the Jehovah's Witness is supposed to accept and believe what is taught via the Watchtower Literature and is discouraged from independent thinking. Another quote: "We should eat and digest and assimilate what is set before us, without shying away from parts of the food because it may not suit the fancy of our mental taste...We should meekly go along with the Lord's theocratic organization and wait for further clarification…" The Watchtower, February 1, 1952, pp. 79-80. This quote clearly shows that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is the Jehovah's Witness' teacher and those who follow its teachings are Watchtowerites. That is, they are students of the Watchtower which is why, basically, all Jehovah's Witnesses all believe the very same thing. Of course, they will say that this is unity and not confusion as is found in Christendom’s denominations. But precise unity in beliefs among a people is a sign not of freedom, but of control. Within Christianity’s denominations are the core beliefs that unite Christians all over the world. We are allowed differences of opinions on non-essential doctrines (Rom. 14:1-7). Not so with the Jehovah's Witnesses. They are all taught the same doctrine from the same publications. They each give identical Watchtower responses to questions and challenges, and all present the identical claims of "The Kingdom of God," "the Errors of the Trinity," the "Coming Armageddon," etc. Essentially, if you’ve spoken to one Jehovah's Witness, you’ve spoken to them all. If you want to learn what the average Jehovah's Witnesses believes, you don’t read the Bible, you read the Watchtower Magazine. This is because the Watchtower is the source of their theological beliefs, not the Bible. If you want to quickly learn what the Watchtower teaches, spend an hour with any Jehovah's Witness. The Jehovah's Witness is, quite plainly, a Watchtowerite. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 110: A BIBLICAL RESPONSE TO JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES ======================================================================== Their attacks on the Deity of Jesus. Why did Jesus pray to the Father? (John 17). Because as a man He needed to pray to the Father. Because He was both God and man (Col. 2:9; John 8:58 with Ex. 3:14). The two natures of Christ are why we have two types of scripture concerning Jesus: those that seem to focus on His divine-side, and those that seem to focus on His human-side. The Jehovah's Witnesses are simply ignoring, or changing, the divine-side scriptures and concentrating on those that describe His human-side. Why did He say the Father was greater than He (John 14:28)? This is because His position was different than that of God, not His nature. Heb. 2:9 that Jesus is made for a little while lower than the angels; that is, when He became a man. The Father sent the Son (1 John 4:10). Why did He say, "Why call me good, only God is good?" (Luke 18:19)? Jesus was confirming His own deity because what He was doing was good. Ask them, "Was Jesus good?" Why did Jesus say that He could only do those things that He saw the Father do? (John 5:19). This is an interesting verse and it is one that proves the divinity of Christ, not that He wasn't God. Ask the Jehovah's Witness who can do the same things God the Father can do? Could an angel? Could a man? Of course not. Jesus, however, says He could do whatever He saw the Father do. "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does." The answer to these and other verses like them is that Jesus has two natures. Jesus was fully man as well as fully God and as a man there will be verses that show His humanity. Witnessing Approaches using the Bible. John 1:1: They translate as "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was a god." Ask if Satan is a true god or a false God. The Jehovah's Witness will say a false god. Then have them read aloud John 1:1 again in their Bible and ask them if Jesus is a true god or a false one. If he says "true god," he's in trouble because that would make Jesus true God -- which the JW's do not believe. If he says "false god," he's in trouble because that would make Jesus a false God. If Jesus is a god, then doesn't that mean there are two gods? They often answer, "Yes. But Jesus is not the Almighty God, He is only the mighty god. And besides, there are those in the Bible who are called gods but really aren't." But, in Isaiah 10:21, God is called the Mighty God. So if Jesus is not the Almighty God and only the mighty God, then that makes Jesus God since GOD is called the mighty God. The problem with this is that every God besides Jehovah is a false God. God says to have no other God before Him (Exodus 20:3) because they are not by nature gods (Gal. 4:8). But, there are those who are called gods such as Deut. 7:1 where God says to Moses, "See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet," (NASB). God is not, of course, making Moses a god, but He is saying that Moses will exhibit the power of God. But Jesus is not said to be God in the same sense as Moses was said to be "as" God. Col. 1:15: Is used by the Jehovah's Witnesses to say that Jesus is the first created thing. This verse says, "He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation." The Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that "firstborn" means first created. This cannot be the case because... There is a Greek word for "first created" and it is not used here. "First born" is proto, "first," with tikto "to bring forth, bear, produce." There is no word used in the New Testament for "first created." However, if there were, the construction would be proto, "first," with ktizo "to create." And this is not the construction used in Col. 1:1 Firstborn can certainly mean the first one born in a family. However, it can also mean preeminence. For example: In Jeremiah 31:9, the firstborn title is attributed to one of the tribes of northern Israel. "They will come with weeping; they will pray as I bring them back. I will lead them beside streams of water on a level path where they will not stumble, because I am Israel's father, and Ephraim is my firstborn son." Understanding biblical culture is important when interpreting Scripture. Firstborn was a title, not only of the first born male, but also of preeminence which is precisely what is occurring when it is said that Jesus is the firstborn. Col. 1:15-17 in the Jehovah's Witness Bible has an addition of four words. Their version reads, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist," (Their word "[other]" is in their Bible with the brackets. They maintain that they know it isn't in the original Greek Scriptures but the word is implied and should be there.) Instead of refuting the bad translation, simply ask them if this means that Jesus created everything. They will say yes. Review this and be very clear and get them to admit that it was Jesus who created everything. Then turn to... Isaiah 44:24 "This is what the LORD says -your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself." If Jesus created everything, then why does it say that the Lord (Jehovah in the Hebrew) did it by Himself? The only answer is that Jehovah is not simply the name of the Father, but that it is the name of God the Trinity. Therefore, since Jesus is God in flesh, it could be said that Jesus created all things and that Jehovah did it alone. You can also ask them to try to read the section of verses and omit the word "other". You will find it to be an interesting experience. John 8:58 in the Jehovah's Witness Bible says, "...Before Abraham came into existence, I have been." They have translated the present tense ego eimi, in the Greek, into the perfect tense, I have been. Though this can be done rarely in the New Testament, it is not correct here because Jesus was quoting the O.T. verse of Exodus 3:14 where God was telling Moses who He was: "God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: "I AM has sent me to you."'" Jesus was purposely using the divine title: I AM. The Jehovah's Witness won't agree. So ask him if Jesus was saying that He "had been" before Abraham, then why does it say in the next verse that the Jews pick up stones to kill him? Additionally, about 250 years the Jews translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. It is called the Septuagint, also known as LXX. In the Septuagint Exodus 3:14 is translated in the Greek in a present tense, i.e., I AM... The correct translation is, therefore, "Before Abraham was, I AM." If this verse should really be translated as "I have been" then why did the Jews want to kill Jesus? The answer is simple: They knew He was claiming to be God, see the next example. John 10:30-34 is a section of verses where the Pharisees say that Jesus is making Himself out to be God (v. 33). "I and the Father are one." Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." You can say, "See, even the Jews knew He was claiming to be God. The Jehovah's Witness (if he's quick enough) will say something like, "Jesus wasn't God, the Jew's only thought that Jesus was claiming to be God." Then you can say, "Oh, I see. Then let me get this right. You agree with the Pharisees, Jesus wasn't God? Is that correct? The Jehovah's Witness will not like it that he agrees with a Pharisee. Plurality in the Godhead The following group of scriptures strongly suggests a plurality within the Godhead. These verses are translated correctly in the Jehovah's Witness Bible so you can encourage them to use it. The NIV is not as literal in its translation in the Amos verses, so I recommend using either the King James or the New American Standard Bible when doing your own. Gen. 1:26, "Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness . . . " They will say that angels are the ones who helped God make man. However, there is no scriptural evidence for that. God is the only creator. You can also take him to Col. 1:15-17 where it says that Jesus is the creator of all things--including man. Gen. 19:24, "Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven." Is this saying there are two Lords, two Jehovah's? Amos 4:10-11, "‘I sent a plague among you after the manner of Egypt; I slew your young men by the sword along with your captured horses, and I made the stench of your camp rise up in your nostrils; yet you have not returned to Me,' declares the LORD. ‘I overthrew you as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah . . . '" Jehovah is the one talking and He says, "I overthrew you as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah..." Very interesting. Isaiah 44:6, "Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides me . . . ‘" See also, Isaiah 48:1 If you are reading these verses to a Jehovah's Witness he might say something like, "Are you trying to show the Trinity from these verses?" You can then say, "You got the Trinity out of these? That's very interesting." These verses and others are more fully developed in The Plurality Study, which is a powerful tool for witnessing to the Witnesses. John 20:25 says, "The other disciples therefore were saying to him, ‘We have seen the Lord!' But he said to them, ‘Unless I shall see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe'" (NASB). The Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus was crucified on a cross. They say it happened on a torture stake where His wrists were put together over His head and a single nail was put through both. If that is true, then why does Thomas say "Unless I shall see in His hands the imprint of the nails..." In the Greek the word used here for "nails", helos, is in the plural. Therefore, there was more than one nail used in the hands of the crucifixion of Christ. First and Last How many firsts and lasts are there? In the Bible God is called the first and last and so is Jesus. Since God says there is no God apart from Him and Jesus and God are both addressed by the same title, then that poses a problem for the Jehovah's Witness. Isaiah 44:6, "This is what the LORD says -Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God." Revelation 1:8, "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." Revelation 1:17-18, "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades." Obviously, Rev. 1:17-18 can only refer to Jesus. Revelation 22:12-13, "Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End." Here, both the "Alpha and the Omega" and the "First and the Last" are said to be one and the same. Also, at this point go to Titus 2:13 where it says that Jesus is the one who is coming soon, therefore, Jesus and Jehovah are the same. The Holy Spirit Jehovah's Witnesses teach that the Holy Spirit is an active force like radar. They deny that He is alive, that He is a person. This is, of course, because they deny the Trinity. Yet, if the Holy Spirit is simply a force then... Why is He called God (Acts 5:3-5)? How is it that He can teach (John 14:26)? How can He be blasphemed (Matt. 12:31,32)? How can be the one who comforts (Acts 9:31)? How is it possible for Him to speak (Acts 28:25)? How then can He be resisted (Acts 7:51)? How can He be grieved (Eph. 4:30)? How can He help us in our weaknesses (Rom. 8:26)? If the Holy Spirit is a force, then how is it possible that the above mentioned phenomena are attributed to Him? A force doesn't speak, teach, comfort, etc. Nor can you blaspheme against a force. The Resurrection of Jesus The Jehovah's Witnesses deny the physical resurrection of Jesus. They say that if the sacrifice of Jesus were real then the body had to stay in the grave. They say that He rose in a spirit body. This body was a manifestation similar to the way angels manifested themselves in the Old Testament. The problem with their view is that the angels were not incarnated. Jesus became a man by birth, therefore, He had a real, physical body, a permanent body. In fact, right now, Jesus is in heaven in the form of a man. He still has two natures, God and man, and will eternally be that. For scriptural proof of Jesus being raised in the same body He died in, consider the following verses. In John 2:19-22 before the crucifixion Jesus said, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up...He was speaking of the temple of His body." Since Jesus said He would raise the same body He died in, then it must be true. This last verse is worth focusing on. Remember, Jesus said He would be the one to raise His body. So, it must be true. John 20:27 -(to Thomas) "reach your finger...and put it into My side..." If Jesus were not raised from the dead, then why did He have a physical body. They will reply that it was a temporary body materialized so the apostles would believe that He was raised. Yet, this is not what Jesus said in John 2:19-22. He said He would raise His very body. Luke 24:39 - "a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have." Jesus said that He had "flesh and bones" not "flesh and blood." This is important because flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50). The blood of Jesus was the sacrifice for sin (Rom. 5:9). It is the blood that cleanses us of our sin (Heb. 9:22). The blood of Jesus was shed on the cross and so, most probably, Jesus doesn't have any functioning blood in His body. Similarities between the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Pharisees: Both deny the Trinity and the Deity of Christ Both deny the physical resurrection of Christ and salvation by grace alone. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 111: STUDYING WITH THE MORMONS? THINKING OF JOINING THE MORMON CHURCH? ======================================================================== Are you interested in joining the Mormon church? Are you curious about it? Maybe you are taking or have taken the missionary lessons. Perhaps you even think that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a good Christian church that is family oriented and filled with godly people. If so, there are some things you need to know before you sign on the dotted line. Mormonism is considered a non-Christian cult by all of Christianity. All you need to do is go to any Christian bookstore and look in the cult section. You will see books on Mormonism there. Now, are we "anti-Mormons" simply people who have a grudge against the LDS church? I can't speak for all who oppose Mormonism, but I have no grudge against it at all. I was never a Mormon and no Mormon injured me in the past. They are nice people. The problem isn't with them. It is with what they teach. It simply isn't Christian. Mormon missionaries will tell you that there was an apostasy and that Joseph Smith was the one who restored the true gospel to this earth. This is a typical claim by every cult. Every one of them says that the present Christian church is false and that their initial leader restored the "truth." They have to invalidate present Christianity in order to get you to accept their brand of it. Christianity teaches that there is only one God. Mormonism teaches that there are many gods. Christianity teaches you cannot become a god. Mormonism says you can. In fact, Mormonism teaches that God used to be a man on another planet who became a god and brought one of his wives with him to this world. In case you doubt this, check out the documentation below which is taken from Mormon writers. Like all non-Christian cults, Mormonism uses the Bible to support its doctrines and does so improperly. For example, when the Bible says that there are no other gods besides God (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8), Mormons quickly add "of this world." That means that there really are other gods out there and that the Bible is talking only about this world and not about others. They often quote 1 Cor. 8:5-6 which mentions the existence of other gods. But when doing this, they fail to read exactly what it says, that there are "so-called gods." In other words, they are called gods, but really are not gods. Paul was speaking about false gods, not the true and living God. Mormons frequently misrepresent scripture and take verses out of context to make it say what they want. Those who do not know what the Bible really teaches will easily be fooled by this cult. Why is this important? This is important because eternal salvation is at stake. God warned us to not serve false gods (Exodus 20), which are really not gods by nature (Gal. 4:8). He warned us to believe in the true Christ, not the false ones of the cults (Matt. 24:24). The god of Mormonism is false and cannot save you or anyone. If you believe in a false god, you will be damned to eternal hell. Why, because ultimately, false gods do not exist except in the mind of the believer. In spite of being good, in spite of attending the Mormon church with its polished appearance, in spite of believing in Mormon doctrine about a man from another planet, you will go to hell if you believe in Mormon doctrine. It cannot save you from the righteous requirements that God requires. Only the true Jesus can save you from your sins. Not a god from another planet. Only the true God who alone is God in all the universe can save you. Do you want to trust Mormon doctrine? Following is a list of a few doctrines of Mormonism. Do you want to put your eternal trust in a church that teaches the following doctrines? The true gospel was lost from the earth. Mormonism is its restoration, Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce R. McConkie, p. 635. They teach there was an apostasy and the true church ceased to exist on earth. There are many gods, Mormon Doctrine, p. 163. There is a mother god, Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443. God used to be a man on another planet, Mormon Doctrine, p. 321. Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, Vol 5, pp. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol 2, p. 345, Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333. After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pages 345-347, 354. If you want further information, information that the Mormons won't tell you until you are very well entrenched in their cult, then read more of this site. It is full of information about why Mormonism is nothing more than a clever, false look-alike that cannot help you before God. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 112: WHAT DOES MORMONISM TEACH? ======================================================================== The doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) are very interesting. Most of the 'odd' ones are not initially taught to potential converts. But they should be. Instead, "they are are revealed later as one matures and gains the ability to accept them." The LDS Church tries to make its official doctrines appear Christian but what underlies those Christian sounding terms is far from Christian in meaning. Following are the teachings of its officials throughout the years. Please note that these teachings are documented from Mormon writers, not anti-Mormon writers. Finally, many Mormons respond that most of the the citations below are not from official Mormon writings, as if that disproves the doctrines they teach. If they are not official, fine. But, if not, then why have the Mormon apostles and high officials taught them, written them, and why are their books sold in Mormon bookstores? The truth is, the following is what Mormons are taught. The true gospel was lost from the earth. Mormonism is its restoration, Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 182-185 We need prophets today, the same as in the Old Testament, Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 444-445 The book of Mormon is more correct than the Bible, History of the Church, 4:461. If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation. There is no salvation [the context is the full gospel including exaltation to Godhood] outside the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mormon Doctrine, p. 670. There are many gods, Mormon Doctrine, p. 163. There is a mother god, Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443. God used to be a man on another planet, Mormon Doctrine, p. 321. Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, Vol 5, pp. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol 2, p. 345, Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333. After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pages 345-347, 354. God the Father had a Father, Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 476; Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 19; Milton Hunter, First Council of the Seventy, Gospel through the Ages, p. 104-105. God resides near a star called Kolob, Pearl of Great Price, pages 34-35; Mormon Doctrine, p. 428. God the Father has a body of flesh and bones, Doctrine and Covenants, 130:22. God is in the form of a man, Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 3. God is married to his goddess wife and has spirit children, Mormon Doctrine p. 516. We were first begotten as spirit children in heaven and then born naturally on earth, Journal of Discourse, Vol. 4, p. 218. The first spirit to be born in heaven was Jesus, Mormon Doctrine, page 129. The Devil was born as a spirit after Jesus "in the morning of pre-existence," Mormon Doctrine, page 192. Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both, Mormon Doctrine, p. 163. A plan of salvation was needed for the people of earth so Jesus offered a plan to the father and Satan offered a plan to the father but Jesus' plan was accepted. In effect the Devil wanted to be the Savior of all Mankind and to "deny men their agency and to dethrone god." Mormon Doctrine, page 193; Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, page 8. God had sexual relations with Mary to make the body of Jesus, Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, p. 218, 1857; vol. 8, p. 115. - This one is disputed among many Mormons and not always 'officially' taught and believed. Nevertheless, Young, the 2nd prophet of the Mormon church taught it. Jesus' sacrifice was not able to cleanse us from all our sins, (murder and repeated adultery are exceptions), Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 247, 1856. Good works are necessary for salvation, Articles of Faith, p. 92. There is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, p. 188. Baptism for the dead, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. II, p. 141. This is a practice of baptizing each other in place of non-Mormons who are now dead. Their belief is that in the afterlife, the "newly baptized" person will be able to enter into a higher level of Mormon heaven. There are three levels of heaven: telestial, terrestrial, and celestial, Mormon Doctrine, p. 348. The Holy Ghost is a male personage, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, by Le Grand Richards, Salt Lake City, 1956, page 118; Journal of Discources, Vol. 5, page 179 Some Mormons may disagree with a few of the points listed on this page, but all of what is stated here is from Mormon authors in good standing of the Mormon church. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 113: MORMONISM IN A NUTSHELL ======================================================================== Mormonism teaches that God used to be a man on another world and that he became a god by following the laws and ordinances of his god on his home world. He brought his wife to this world, a woman he had married on the other world. She is, essential a goddess. In his present god-state, he rules our world. He has a body of flesh and bones. Since god and his wife are both exalted persons, they each possess physical bodies. In their exalted states as deities, they produce spirit children that grow and mature in the spiritual realm. The first spirit born was Jesus. Afterwards Lucifer was born along with the rest of us. So, Mormonism teaches that we all pre-existed in the spirit realm having been produced from the union of god and his goddess wife. Therefore, we all existed in spirit form before coming down down and entering the bodies of human babies that are being born on earth. During this ‘compression' into the infant state, the memories of their pre-existence is 'veiled.' God the father, who is called Elohim, was concerned for the future salvation of the people on earth. In the heavenly realm, the Father had a plan for the salvation of the world. Jesus endorsed the Father's plan. Lucifer did not. Lucifer became jealous and rebelled. In his rebellion he convinced a large portion of the spirits existing in heaven to side with him and oppose god. God being more powerful then they, cursed these rebellious spirits to become demons. They can never be born in human bodies. The remaining spirits sided with God. Since they chose the better way, when it comes time for them to live on earth, they have the privilege of being born in races and locations that are relative to their condition and choice made in the spirit realm.1 In the Mormon plan of salvation there needed to be a savior: Jesus. But Jesus was a spirit in heaven. For him to be born on earth, Brigham Young the second prophet of the Mormon church said that instead of letting any other man do it, God the Father did it with Mary. He said that the birth of our savior was as natural as the birth of our parents. Essentially, what this means is that Brigham Young taught that god the father came down and had relations with Mary, his spirit daughter, to produce the body of Jesus. Though many Mormons will not entertain such incestuous thoughts about God and Mary, this is what Brigham Young taught and as far as we know, this has not been denied by the Mormon church. Nevertheless, Jesus was born, got married, and had children.2 He died on the cross and paid for sins -- but not on the cross only. According to Mormonism, the atonement of Christ was not only on the cross. It began in the Garden of Gethsemane before he went to the cross. In Mormonism, men and women have the potential of becoming gods. President Lorenzo Snow said, "As god once was, man is. As God is, man may become." In order to reach this exalted state of godhood, a person must first become a good Mormon, pay a full ten percent tithe to the Mormon church, follow various laws and ordinances of the church, and be found worthy. At this point, they receive a temple recommend whereupon, the Mormon is allowed to enter their sacred temples in order to go through set of secret rituals: baptism for the dead, celestial marriage, and various oaths of secrecy and commitment. Additionally, four secret handshakes are taught so the believing Mormon, upon entering the third level of Mormon heaven, can shake hands with god in a certain pattern. This celestial ritual is for the purpose of permitting entrance into the highest level of heaven.3 For those who achieve this highest of heavens, exaltation to godhood awaits them. Then, he or she, will be permitted to have his or her own planet and be the god of his own world and the Mormon system will be expanded to other planets. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 114: MORMONISM'S HISTORY ======================================================================== Mormonism began with Joseph Smith Jr. who was born on Dec. 23, 1805, in Vermont. He was the fourth child of Lucy and Joseph Smith. Joseph senior was known as a money digger and sought after buried treasure, particularly that of Captain Kidd. His mother was highly superstitious. Joseph Smith Jr. stated that he was disturbed by all the different denominations of Christianity and wondered which was true. In 1820, when he was 14, he went into the woods to pray concerning this and allegedly God the Father and Jesus appeared to him and told him not to join any of the denominational churches. Three years later, on Sept. 21, 1823, when he was 17 years old, an angel called Moroni, who was supposed to be the son of Mormon, the leader of the people called the Nephites who had lived in the Americas, appeared to him and told him that he had been chosen to translate the book of Mormon which was compiled by Moroni's father around the 4th century. The book was written on golden plates hidden near where Joseph was then living in Palmyra, New York. Joseph Smith said that on Sept. 22, 1827 he received the plates and the angel Moroni instructed him to begin the translation process. The translation was finally published in 1830 as the Book of Mormon. Joseph claimed that during this translation process, John the Baptist appeared to him and ordained him to accomplish the divine work of restoring the true church by preaching the true gospel which, allegedly, had been lost from the earth. The Book of Mormon is supposed to be the account of people who came from the Middle-East to the Americas. It covers the period of about 600 B.C. to 400 A.D. It tells of the Jaredites, people from the Tower of Babel who came to central America but perished because of their own immorality. It also describes some Jews who fled persecution in Jerusalem and came to America led by a man called Nephi. The Jews divided into two groups known as the Nephites and Lamanites who fought each other. The Nephites were defeated in 428 A.D. The Lamanites continued and are known as the American Indians. The Book of Mormon is the account of the Nephite leader, Mormon, concerning their culture, civilization, and appearance of Jesus to the Americas. After the publication of the Book of Mormon, Mormonism began to grow. Because their religion was so deviant from Christianity, i.e., plurality of gods, polygamy (Joseph is said to have had 27 wives), etc., persecution soon forced them to move from New York to Ohio, then to Missouri, and finally to Nauvoo, Illinois. After being accused of breaking some laws in Nauvoo (for destroying a printing press that was publishing harmful information on Mormonism), Joseph and his brother Hyrum ended up in jail. A mob later broke into the jail and killed Joseph and his brother. After the shooting, the church divided into two groups: One led by his widow which went back to Independence Missouri. They are known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They claim to be the true Church and lay claim to the legal succession of the church presidency which was bestowed upon Joseph's son by Joseph Smith himself. The other group was led by Brigham Young and they went to Utah where, in 1847, they ended up in Salt Lake and founded Salt Lake City. Brigham had 25 wives and accumulated much wealth. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 115: IS MORMONISM CHRISTIAN? ======================================================================== "Is Mormonism Christian?" is a very important question. The answer is equally important and simple. No. Mormonism is not Christian. If you are a Mormon, please realize that I am not trying to attack you, your character, or the sincerity of your belief. If you are a non-Mormon looking into Mormonism, or if you are a Christian who is simply researching Mormonism, then this paper should be of help to you. The reason Mormonism is not Christian is because it, like any other cult, denies one or more of the essential doctrines of Christianity. Of the essential doctrines (Jesus is God in flesh, forgiveness of sins is by grace alone, and Jesus rose from the dead physically), Mormonism distorts two of them: the person of Jesus, and His work of salvation. Mormonism teaches that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones (D. & C. 130:22) and that Jesus is a creation. It teaches that he was begotten in heaven as one of God’s spirit children (See the Book, Jesus the Christ, by James Talmage, p. 8). This is in strict contrast to the biblical teaching that he is God in flesh (John 1:1, 14), eternal (John 1:1, 2, 15), uncreated, yet born on earth (Col. 1:15), and the creator all (John 1:3; Col. 1;16-17). Jesus cannot be both created and not created at the same time. Though Mormonism teaches that Jesus is god in flesh, it teaches that he is "a" god in flesh, one of three gods that comprise the office of the Trinity (Articles of Faith, by Talmage, pp. 35-40). These three gods are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This is in direct contradiction of the biblical doctrine that there is only one God (Isaiah 44:6,8; 45:5). See Trinity for a correct discussion of what the Trinity is. Because Mormonism errors in who Jesus is, salvation (the forgiveness of sins) does not occur and the Mormon is still in his sins. Christians are saved from their sins and judgment by putting their trust in Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins. But, faith is only as good as the object in which it is placed. The Mormon Jesus is not the one of the Bible, even though they call him Jesus, say he died for sins, and was born in Bethlehem. The Mormon Jesus does not exist. It is the nature of Jesus that is the issue. Jesus must be God in flesh, (second person of the Trinity) not "a" god in flesh who is the brother of the devil. He must be uncreated, not created. He must be the creator (Col. 1:16-17). This is who the true Jesus really is: God, creator, uncreated, not the brother of the devil. Mormon theology teaches that god used to be a man on another planet, that he became a god by following the laws and ordinances of that god on that world, and that he brought one of his wives to this world with whom he produces spirit children who then inhabit human bodies at birth. The first spirit child to be born was Jesus. Second was Satan, and then we all followed. The Jesus of Mormonism is definitely not the same Jesus of the Bible. Therefore, faith in the Mormon Jesus, is faith misplaced because the Mormon Jesus doesn't exist. Mormonism teaches that the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross itself (and receiving it by faith) is not sufficient to bring forgiveness of sins. It teaches that the forgiveness of sins is obtained though a cooperative effort with God; that is, we must be good and follow the laws and ordinances of the Mormon church in order to obtain forgiveness. Consider James Talmage, a very important Mormon figure who said, "The sectarian dogma of justification by faith alone has exercised an influence for evil" (Articles, p. 432), and "Hence the justice of the scriptural doctrine that salvation comes to the individual only through obedience" (Articles, p. 81). This contradicts the biblical doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace through faith (Rom. 5:1; 6:23; Eph. 2:8-9) and the doctrine that works are not part of our salvation but a result of them (Rom. 4:5, James 2:14-18). To further confuse the matter, Mormonism further states that salvation is twofold. It maintains that salvation is both forgiveness of sins and universal resurrection. So when a Mormon speaks of salvation by grace, he is usually referring to universal resurrection. But the Bible speaks of salvation as the forgiveness of sins, not simple universal resurrection. Where Mormonism states that forgiveness of sins is not by faith alone, the Bible does teach it. Which is correct? Obviously, it is the Bible. Mormonism, to justify its aberrant theology, has undermined the authority and trustworthiness of the Bible. The 8th article of faith from the Mormon Church states, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." The interesting thing is that Joseph Smith allegedly corrected the Bible in what is called The Inspired Version, though it is not used by the LDS church. Though they claim they trust the Bible, in reality they do not. They use Mormon presuppositions to interpret it. For example, where the Bible says there are no other gods in the universe (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8), they interpret it to mean "no other gods of this world." They do not trust what it says and they often state that the Bible is not translated correctly. This is what I have encountered numerous times when speaking to Mormons. Why is Mormonism a non Christian cult? Because it adds works to salvation. It denies that Jesus is the uncreated creator. It alters the biblical teaching of the atonement. It contradicts the Christian teaching of monotheism. It undermines the authority and reliability of the Bible. I do not deny that Mormons are good people, that they worship "a" god, that they share common words with Christians, that they help their people, and that they do many good things. However, Jesus said in Matthew 7:21-23, " Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name? And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!" (NKJV). Becoming a Christian does not mean belonging to a church, doing good things, or simply believing in God. Being a Christian means that you have trusted in the true God for salvation, in the True Jesus -- not the brother of the devil. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 116: WHAT IS THE NEW AGE MOVEMENT? ======================================================================== What is the New Age Movement? The New Age movement has many sub-divisions, but it is generally a collection of Eastern-influenced metaphysical thought systems, a conglomeration of theologies, hopes, and expectations held together with an eclectic teaching of salvation, of "correct thinking," and "correct knowledge." It is a theology of "feel-goodism," "universal tolerance," and "moral relativism." In the NAM. Man is central. He is viewed as divine, as co-creator, as the hope for future peace and harmony. A representative quote might be: "I am affected only by my thoughts. It needs but this to let salvation come to all the world. For in this single thought is everyone released at last from fear." (A course in Miracles, The Foundation for Inner Peace, Huntington Station, N.Y. Lesson 228, p. 461.) Unfortunately for the NAM. the fear they want to be released from might very well be the fear of damnation, of conviction of sin, and it is even, sometimes, fear of Christianity and Christians. Though the NAM. is tolerant of almost any theological position, it is opposed to the "narrow-mindedness" of Christianity that teaches Jesus is the only way and that there are moral absolutes. The NAM. is difficult to define because "there is no hierarchy, dogma, doctrine, collection plate, or membership." It is a collection, an assortment of different theologies with the common threads of toleration and divergence weaving through its tapestry of "universal truth." The term "New Age" refers to the "Aquarian Age" which, according to New Age followers, is dawning. It is supposed to bring in peace and enlightenment and reunite man with God. Man is presently considered separated from God not because of sin (Isaiah 59:2), but because of lack of understanding and knowledge concerning the true nature of God and reality. The New Age Movement is a religious system with two basic beliefs: Evolutionary Godhood and Global Unity. What is Evolutionary Godhood? It is the next step in evolution. It will not be physical, but spiritual: For the most part, the NAM. espouses evolution, both of body and spirit. Man is developing and will soon leap forward into new spiritual horizons. Many New Age practices are designed to push one ahead into that horizon. Some of them are astral projection which is training your soul to leave your body and travel around; contacting spirits so they may speak through you or guide you; using crystals to purify your body's and mind's energy systems; visualization where you use mental imagery to imagine yourself as an animal, in the presence of a divine being, or being healed of sickness, etc. Evolutionary Godhood also means that mankind will soon see itself as god, as the "Christ principle." The NAM. teaches that Man's basic nature is good and divine. This opposes God's Word which says... that we are sinners: "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned" (Rom. 5:12, NIV). and that our nature is corrupt: "All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath" (Eph. 2:3, NIV). It teaches that since man is divine by nature, he then has divine qualities. This is an important part of NAM. thinking. Because the average New Ager believes himself to be divine, he can then create his own reality. If, for example, a person believes that reincarnation is true, that's fine because that is his reality. If someone he knows doesn't believe in it, that is alright too because that is someone else's reality. They can each have a reality for themselves that "follows a different path." In contrast to this, the Bible says that God alone is the creator: "This is what the LORD says -- your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself" (Isa. 44:24, NIV). The New Ager who believes in his own divinity and ability to create usurps the authority and position of God. He also is still listening to the lie of the devil who spoke to Eve and said she would be like God (Gen. 3:5). Reincarnation Though not all New Agers adhere to reincarnation, most believe in some form or another. And, many believe the Bible was changed to remove any verses that might have taught reincarnation. But this accusation only shows the limitation of their knowledge. The Bible never had any references to reincarnation. Reincarnation opposes the Word of God which says that it is appointed for man to die once, and after this comes judgment (Heb. 9:27). The second major element of the New Age Movement is Global Unity which consists of three major divisions: Man with Man; Man with Nature; and Man with God. Man with man. The NAM teaches that we will all learn our proper divine relationship with one another and achieve harmony and mutual love and acceptance through the realization and acceptance of this divine proper knowledge. Within this hoped harmony is economic unity. The average New Ager is looking for a single world leader who, with New Age principles, will guide the world into a single harmonious economic whole. It is also hoped that this leader will unite the world into a spiritual unity; that is, a one world religion. The New Age hope is reminiscent of the Scriptures that speak of the coming Antichrist: 2 Thess. 2:3-4, "Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God." See also Rev. 13:17,14:9,11; 16:2; 19:20. Man with nature Since the NAM. says that God is all, and all is God, then nature is also part of God. Man must then get in tune with nature and learn to nurture it and be nurtured by it. In this, all people can unite. American Indian philosophies are popular among New Agers because they focus on the earth, on nature, and man's relationship to them. New Age philosophy generally seeks to merge with those philosophies that put man and nature on an equal level. We are no more or less important or different than our cousin the animal, bird, or fish. We must live in harmony with them, understand them, and learn from them, is the general philosophy of the New Age. This is opposed to the Scriptural teaching of man's superiority over animals (Gen. 1:26-27; 2:19). This does not mean that Man must abuse what he is over, but Man is given the responsibility of caring for and being stewards of God's creation (Gen. 2:15). God will hold Christians responsible for the stewardship that has been entrusted to them. The New Agers have a name for the earth. It is Gaia. Gaia is to be revered and respected. Some New Agers even worship the earth and nature. This opposes the Scripture that says we are not to have any other Gods before God (Ex. 20:3). Man with God Since the NAM. teaches that man is divine by nature, all people, once they see themselves as such, will be helped in their unity of purpose, love, and development. The goal is to fully realize our own goodness. It is obvious that this contradicts Scriptures, c.f., Rom. 3:10-12: "As it is written: ‘There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one." Additional beliefs of the NAM. view of God are: He (it) is impersonal, omnipresent, and benevolent -- therefore he (it) won't condemn anyone. The New Age god is impersonal. An impersonal God will not reveal himself nor will he have specific requirements as to morality, belief, and behavior. This is why reincarnation appeals so much to them. With it, there is no judgment, there is a second chance, a third chance, and fourth, etc. It should be noted that because the New Ager seeks to elevate himself to godhood, he must lower the majesty and personhood of the true God. In other words, the universe isn't big enough for one true God, but it is big enough for a bunch of little ones. There are no moral absolutes in the New Age. Therefore, they claim to have a spiritual tolerance for all "truth systems." They call this "harmonization." There is an obvious problem here. To say that there are no moral absolutes is an absolute in itself which is self contradictory. Also, if morality is relative, then stealing may be right sometimes, along with lying, adultery, cheating, etc. Living in a world of moral relativism would not bring a promising future. It would follow that if reality is relative and truth is too, then driving a car would be difficult. After all, if one New Ager thinks the light is red and another thinks its green, when they collide, their different realities will come crashing down on them. That is something most interesting about New Agers, they don't live what they believe. That is because in reality, New Age thinking doesn't work. The New Age movement does espouse honesty, integrity, love, peace, etc. It just wants to do it without the true God. It wants to do it not on His terms, but on its own. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 117: MORE ON THE NEW AGE MOVEMENT ======================================================================== What the New Age Movement does. It is a sponge that attempts to absorb all religions, cultures, and governments. It seeks to unify all systems into one spiritual, socio-economic unity. It uses various means to have mystical experiences with God and/or nature and/or self. Some of the methods were described in Omni Magazine (How to Have a Mystical Experience. Dec. 1988, p. 137-145) as imagining, where you are told to imagine your own reality; transcendence, going beyond the limits of time; sleep deprivation, with the purpose of inducing a mystical experience; focusing, "to experience all of reality as unified and not as a collection of disparate objects"; avoidance, where communication with the outside world is stopped in order to reinterpret the world without its influence on you; identification, "To trade places mentally with a dog or a cat, canary, or animal in the zoo"; reflection, an exercise designed to help you to view the year to come, differently; and star-gazing, "to induce a sense of objectivity about your life and a feeling of connectedness to the rest of cosmos." What the New Age Movement does not do. It does not teach that man is a sinner - Rom. 5:12; Eph. 2:3. It does not teach that man is dependent upon God for all things - Isaiah 43:7; James 1:17. It does not teach that punishment is eternal - Rev. 14:11. It does not teach that the wages of sin is eternal separation from God - Rom. 6:23; Isaiah 59:2. It does not teach that Jesus is the only way to God - Matt. 11:27; John 14:6. It does not accept Christianity as the truth - 2 Tim. 3:16. New Age Terminology According to the Bible, Man is the image bearer of God (Gen. 1:26), and as such, is a creature of speech. Remember, God said, "...Let there be light" (Gen. 1:3). In the New Age, words are very important. In fact, the New Age has some of its own special words. Some of them are: Holistic, holographic, synergistic, unity, oneness, harmony, at-one-ment, transformation, personal growth, human potential, awakening, networking, energy, and consciousness. These words are prevalent in New Age conversations and writings. In fact, if you were to go to a New Age Bookstore and read the titles or their books, you would see a disproportionate amount of them containing the word "self." The New Age Interpretation of Christianity God is not a personal heavenly Father but an impersonal force. God is all and all is God. God is not the "wholly other" creator of all, but part of all that exists. There is nothing that is not God. (This is pantheism.) There is no sin, only incorrect understanding of truth. Knowledge is what saves, not Jesus. Hell is not a place but an experience here on Earth; it is a state of mind. Jesus was just one of many way showers of divine truth. He exemplified the Christ consciousness probably better than anyone else. Christ is a consciousness, a form of the higher self. It is possessed by all because everyone is divine. "It is not Christ that can be crucified" (Miracles, Lesson 303, p. 441). "A miracle is a correction...It merely looks on devastation, and reminds the mind that what it sees is false. It undoes error" (Miracles, p. 164). A miracle to a New Ager is not God's intervention into this world to perform His will but the realization of the true reality that God is all and that you are God. The New Age View of Man Since all is God, and man is part of all, then man is God. This is pantheism. This is an eastern mystical belief system that has crept into mainstream America. God is not part of creation. He is separate from it and made it (Isaiah 44:24). Man is not God, he is a creation (Gen. 1:26). Therefore, man is good by nature. Man is not good by nature (Eph. 2:3). Man has infinite potential. This arrogant conclusion based upon false concepts of grandiose self worth, is a deceptive, self-satisfying indulgence into pride. As Satan wanted to be like God (Isaiah 14:12-17) and encouraged Adam and Eve to be like God also (Gen. 3:1-5), the New Ager listens to the echo of that Edenic lie and yields to it willingly. Man is one with the universe. Again the difference between man and creation is blurred. Man is made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26). The universe is not. Man is different than creation. The New Age View of Salvation Salvation in the NAM. means to be in tune with the divine consciousness. In tune means to be in harmony with reality and whatever is perceived to be true. Since the NAM. doesn't acknowledge sin or sinfulness, there is no need for a redeemer like Jesus. Salvation, to them, is simply the realization of our divine nature. "I am not a body. I am free. For I am still as God created me. Salvation of the world depends on me" (Miracles, Lesson 206, p. 380). Such arrogance is mind-boggling. It is a form of knowledge, of achieving correct thought. Therefore we need to be saved from ignorance, not sin. Salvation, in the New Age sense, is self achieved through understanding your natural godlikeness and goodness, combined with proper knowledge. As you can see, the New Age Movement is not a biblical teaching by any means. It is a false religious system authored by the evil one. It contradicts Christianity in almost all of its main tenets. It is to be avoided, to be guarded against, and to be destroyed. And so it will on that glorious day when the Lord Jesus returns. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 118: BIBLICAL RESPONSES TO THE NEW AGE MOVEMENT ======================================================================== God is personal. If God were impersonal, then the following qualities could not be His. God speaks and has a self given name: "I AM" (Exodus 3:14). God is long suffering, (Psalm 86:15; 2 Peter 3:15). God is forgiving (Daniel 9:9; Ephesians 1:7; Psalm 86:5). God hates sin (Psalm 5:5-6; Habakkuk 1:13). Man is not divine, but a sinner (Romans 3:23). He is deceitful and desperately sick (Jer. 17:9). He is full of evil (Mark 7:21-23). He loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19). He is unrighteous, does not understand, does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12). He is helpless and ungodly (Rom. 5:6). He is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1). He is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3). He cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). Salvation is not correct thought, but deliverance from the consequence of our sin (Romans 6:23; Ephesians 2:8-9). Salvation is God's deliverance from damnation (Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 1:18; 2:5; 5:9). This salvation is found in no one but Jesus alone (Acts 4:12). Miracles are from God not from the mind of man (Matthew 8:1-4; Mark 6:30-44; Luke 17:12-19; John 2:1-11). Miracles imply an action by someone that is greater than ourselves. If God is impersonal, miracles cannot occur. But they do occur today as well as in Bible times and are not simply proper thoughts or understanding. Christ means "anointed. Jesus was the Christ, the anointed one." It does not mean a consciousness or quality of people. Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah, the Deliverer from sin. Jesus is the Christ (Matt. 16:16,20; Luke 9:20). "Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory" (Luke 24:26). "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead the third day" (Luke 24:46 ). "...we have found the Messiah (which translated means Christ)" (John 1:41). "He [David] looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ..." (Acts 2:31). "...God has made Him both Lord and Christ this Jesus whom you crucified" (Acts 2:36). "For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly" (Rom. 5:6). "Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life" (Rom. 6:4). Christ is crucified (1 Cor. 1:23). You sin against Christ (1 Cor. 8:12). The blood of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16). Only the Bible has the message of Grace. Grace is the unmerited favor of God upon His people. Grace is the undeserved kindness of God. Grace is getting the blessings we do not deserve. At the death of Christ we are blessed; we are given grace; we are given eternal life and forgiveness of sins. Only Christianity has the message of free forgiveness given. Every other religious system on earth has some form of salvation dependent totally or in part on what the adherents do. Not so with Christianity. Humanity is not unlimited, but just the opposite: it is under bondage (Romans 5:12). Sin is its master and a deadly and deceitful one at that. True morality is that which is revealed by God in the Bible (Exodus 20). Anything else is only an imitation, a set of ideas laid down by man that originate from the mind of sinful man. The Bible opposes almost all the tenets of the New Age Movement. As Christians, we should be watchful to recognize what is false and teach what is true. We should be wary because the Edenic lie still rings strong in the hearts of the deceived -- and they want us to believe as they. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 119: WITNESSING TO NEW AGERS ======================================================================== Ask questions If we are all God, then why do we act so badly? They might say it is because we all have not come to a full realization of our true divine potentials. It is ignorance that leads to bad deeds. Then ask them how, if we are divine, our mere ignorant self could so easily override our divine goodness. Why do our "realities" contradict each other? They might say that they don't contradict each other. They are simply different shades of light on the same picture (or something vague like that). Then ask if truth contradicts itself. It does not. The logic is that if we are all in different forms of truth, then these different truths can't ultimately contradict each other--or they wouldn't be true. However,... The NAM says that Jesus is only one of many ways to God. But Jesus said He was the only way to God (John 14:6). They can't both be right; therefore, the NAM teaching that we can create our own truths can't be true. Don't let them take Christian words and use them out of the context of biblical meaning. New Agers recognize the tremendous influence and spotless reputation of Jesus. They want Him to be associated with their beliefs. As a result, you might find yourself facing a New Ager who uses Christian words--but with non-Christian definitions. Listen carefully, and don't let them steal what is Christian and transplant it into their system. You must question the terms they use. You need to make sure that what they mean by Christian terms is the same thing that you mean by them. Listen for internal contradictions. As mentioned above, truth does not contradict itself. You must listen to what they are saying and ask questions. Sooner or later you catch on to inconsistencies. Inconsistencies usually arise when discussing the relationship between reality and belief. For example, a New Ager might say that you can create your own reality. I might reply, "Good. Then if I believe red lights are really green, would you want to go driving with me?" Tell them that God is personal, that he loves them, and that Jesus died for sin. The Word of God will not come back empty without accomplishing what God wishes it to (Isaiah 55:11). If you focus on Jesus, tell them the truth about sin and salvation, and use Scripture, then, at least, they will have heard the truth. Praise be to Jesus the Christ. Remember, God's word is powerful. Whether or not they accept it isn't the issue. You simply need to present the truth in an accurate and loving manner (Col. 4:5-6; 1 Tim. 1:5). ======================================================================== CHAPTER 120: INTERESTING QUOTES FROM NEW AGE SOURCES ======================================================================== "I am an entity much like you, Barbara. I simply don't have a body at this time." It was Dr. Carstairs talking. Dr. Carstairs is an English physician from the 1860's. His spirit generally spends its time floating around the astral plane, I am told, but at this particular moment it had taken up residence in the Body of Bonney Meyer, a registered nurse from San Diego. [The San Diego Union, Their spirits are willing, Section C. pg. 1 Nov. 12, 1987.] There are many entities about such as myself. Man is not the only living, thinking, breathing creature in the galaxy. Entities that come from other planets right now are about your planet waiting for the time to introduce themselves. [The San Diego Union, Their spirits are willing, Section C. pg. 1 Nov. 12, 1987.] Jach Pursel, a former Florida insurance agent living in Los Angeles, squints his eyes and speaks with the voice of Lazaris, a spiritual entity of uncertain origins. "How old are you?" he asked. "In our reality, we have no time," says Lazaris. "Why are you making your presence known to man?" "Because you are ready now..." "Is the world about to end?" "No. In a word, no. This is not the ending. This is the beginning." [Time, New Age Harmonies, page 66, Dec. 7, 1987.] "Jo Ann Karl is a tall blond who...gets $15 a customer for channeling the archangel Gabriel and a spirit named Ashtar. [Time, New Age Harmonies, page 66, Dec. 7, 1987.] Shirley Maclaine said, "We are at any given moment living the totality of everything....The vibrational oscillation of nature is quickening....Just remember that you are God, and act accordingly." "In Egypt, a few bemused camel drivers and tourist guides looked on as a lone young man in white shorts and a glittering shawl danced near the pyramids at Giza. ‘I am God, I am God,' he shouted." [Paul Nussbaum and Rick Lyman, The San Diego Union, "5,000 greet new age at Mt. Shasta." Aug. 17, 1987, A-2.] "War is not man's great and terrible disease; war is a symptom, a result. The real disease is the virus of national sovereignty." [The Urantia Book, 1491.1] "The goal of eternity is ahead! The adventure of divinity attainment lies before you! The race for perfection is on! Whosoever will may enter, and certain victory will crown the efforts of every human being who will run the race of faith and trust, depending every step of the way on the leading of the indwelling Adjuster and on the guidance of the good spirit of the Universal Son, which so freely has been poured out upon all flesh." [The Urantia Book, 365.4] "T.I.C.'s (The Inner Christ) purpose is to assist every individual to know themselves as a Christ, to clearly and safely channel guidance and prophecy for themselves from their own Inner Christ and to gain dominion over their life circumstances through prayer and self-revelation. T.I.C. makes the intellectual concept that we are God a reality." [From a tract from the Teaching of the Inner Christ, What is T.I.C.?] "The Pleiadians are a collective of extraterrestrials from the star system the Pleiades. The Pleiadian culture is ancient and was ‘seeded' from another universe of love long before earth was created. They have formed a tremendous society which operates with love, with ideas and ideals with which we are yet unfamiliar. Although the Pleiadians exist in what we would call our future, they call themselves our ancient family because many of us came here from the Pleiades to participate in the experiment of earth. As they once promised us, the Pleiadians have returned to earth and are now here to help guide us during this time of planetary awakening as earth moves through her transition from the third to the fourth dimension and to assist each of us in our personal journeys of remembering, deepening awareness and knowing." [From a handout at the San Diego Convention Center, The Pleiadians, Channeled by Barbara J. Marciniak] "Representatives of some of the nation's largest corporations, including I.B.M., A.T.&T, and General Motors, met in New Mexico in July [1986] to discuss how metaphysics, the occult and Hindu mysticism might help executives compete in the world marketplace." [The New York Times, Spiritual Concepts Drawing a Different Breed of Adherent. Section Y page 8. Sept. 29, 1986.] At Stanford University's well-regarded Graduate School of Business, the syllabus for a seminar on "Creativity in Business" includes meditation, chanting, "dream work," the use of tarot cards and discussion of the "New Age Capitalist." [The New York Times, Spiritual Concepts Drawing a Different Breed of Adherent. Section Y page 8. Sept. 29, 1986.] One concept commonly transmitted in these sessions [seminars and workshops on human potential]...is that because man is a deity equal to God he can do no wrong; thus, there is no sin, no reason for guilt in life. [The New York Times, Spiritual Concepts Drawing a Different Breed of Adherent. Section Y page 8. Sept. 29, 1986.] The following excerpt is from a handout at a New Age Convention: "Awareness. . . Building a Better World. In Seven Days of Self-Transformation, You Will: reclaim your infinite potential; Learn how to resolve any emotional issue which limits the quality of YOUR life, in any way; Discover what Higher Consciousness is all about; Re-establish an intimate, knowledgeable relationship with YOUR HIGHER SELF. Restore all the Peace, Love, & Joy YOUR LIFE DESERVES." Learn the Ancient secrets of Creating Perfect Health within Your Being. The Essenes were the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Their ability as Natural Physicians and Healers, their Psychic expertise, their knowledge of Nature, and their Mastery of the Order of the Universe is legendary. Among their adepts are Pythagoras and Jesus. The Essenes knew the secrets of healing utilizing all the elements of nature; including sun, air, water, touch, breath and centeredness. [From a handout for a seminar by David Carmos, Lecture 5/58/95, San Diego Convention Center] "The ancient prophecies of Mesoamerica pinpoint the return of Quetzalcoatl, Lord of the Dawn to the time that correlates with August 16/17, 1987 in the Gregorian Calendar. Quetzalcoatl represents the force of cosmic intelligence, the spiraling, serpentine pattern that governs the movement of all things in this universe. Quetzalcoatl is the enlightened state, the kundalini energy soaring to the crown chakra. Quetzalcoatl lives as potentiality, a seed within each one of us. 144,000 Human Beings will emerge to be the sprouting of that seed on the day of Harmonic Convergence, and will grow to flower and seed again towards the awakening of all humanity in the years that follow." [Handout from the International Sacred Sites Festival - 3/15/87] "The ‘Key to Visualization Course’ teaches: The Most Powerful and Correct use of visualization The strongest and most effective visualization techniques How to easily apply the meditative technique How to remove blockages successfully How to stay focused without using mind control The process of falling apart/falling together How to release with confidence and feel light Relationships - blending of male/female energy systems The power exercise and being a transparency. [Handout on Inner Vision Dynamics, 3419 Via Lido, Suite 346, Newport Beach, CA 92663] "The following is a guideline for interpreting the meaning of the colors in your energy field: Red - Red is the color for vitality and physical health. Red also can represent anger or the use of anger to create change. Orange: Orange is a healing color, if you have a lot of orange in your energy field then you are a natural healer or you are doing some healing work on yourself. Yellow: Yellow represents personal power and/or a highly developed intellect. Green: Green represents high affinity between the body and soul. Or green could represent growth and/or changes ahead of in present time. Blue: Blue in your energy field indicates high certainty or a lot of creativity. In most cases, this represents that the individual’s creative channels are clear. Violet: very psychic, much spiritual information and/or in the process of spiritual transmutation. White: This individual is a highly evolved being who has the ability to focus or concentrate his/her energy in or around the body. were The following is the description for a New Age workshop. Fee $5. "FULL MOON MEDITATION. — This Full Moon is called the Moon of Humanity, and the Festival of Goodwill. This time is a gateway to higher worlds, through acts of service. The Moon is in Sagittarius, sign of higher mind, philosophy, the traveler, and teacher. The Sun is in the opposite sign of Gemini, mental sign of communication and the exchange of ideas. This combination creates a time where the mind is stimulated and there is an understood duality, balance, change, resolve opposition, and seek inspiration especially outdoors in nature. The symbol is the winged Caduceus the magic wand where positive and negative energies are beautifully balanced producing light." ======================================================================== CHAPTER 121: WHAT IS ONENESS PENTECOSTAL THEOLOGY? ======================================================================== Oneness Pentecostal theology affirms that there exists only one God in all the universe. It affirms the deity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. However, Oneness theology denies the Trinity. The Trinity is the doctrine that there is one God who manifests Himself as three distinct, simultaneous persons. The Trinity does not assert that there are three gods, but only one. This is important because many groups who oppose orthodoxy, will accuse Trinitarians of believing in three gods. But this is not so. The doctrine of the Trinity is that there is one God in three persons. Oneness theology denies the Trinity and teaches that God is a single person who was "manifested as Father in creation and as the Father of the Son, in the Son for our redemption, and as the Holy Spirit in our regeneration."1 Another way of looking at it is that God revealed himself as Father in the Old Testament, as the Son in Jesus during Christ’s ministry on earth, and now as the Holy Spirit after Christ’s ascension. In addition, oneness theology also maintains that baptism is a necessary part of salvation; that is, in order to be saved, one must be baptized, by immersion. If you are not baptized you cannot be saved. However, not only must baptism be by immersion, it must also be administered with the formula "In Jesus’ name" rather than the formula "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" which is mentioned in Matt. 28:19. Finally, this baptism must be administered by a duly ordained minister on a church that maintains oneness theology: United Pentecostal, United Apostolic, etc. Oneness churches also teach that speaking in tongues is a necessary manifestation of the Holy Spirit. Since a person cannot be saved without the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:9), it follows that only those who have spoken in tongues are really saved. There is, therefore, an emphasis that Oneness church members speak in tongues to "demonstrate" that they are saved and have the truth. Oneness groups are decidedly Arminian in the doctrine of salvation. They deny predestination and maintain that it is completely up to the individual to decide whether or not he wants to be saved. They also teach that it is possible to lose one's salvation. There is within the Oneness movement an attempt to represent themselves in a modest and holy manner. This is to be commended. However, sometimes it tends to become legalistic in that women are required to abstain from wearing makeup and pants. They also must have their heads covered. Likewise, men should be well dressed, preferably in ties (this has been my experience with them). Such practices are not wrong in themselves, and are good examples of propriety. However, when they become requirements for acceptance in a church, it is legalistic. Legalism leads to bondage and the requirements of keeping the law to maintain salvation. It then becomes a means by which a person's spirituality is judged. Oneness churches strongly imply that if you go to movies, or have a TV, or wear makeup, etc., then you are not "really" a Christian. I am not saying that the Oneness Theology necessarily leads to legalism, but it seems to be quite evident that it has taken over much of Oneness practice. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 122: WHAT DOES ONENESS PENTECOSTAL THEOLOGY TEACH? ======================================================================== Oneness Pentecostal people are many and varied. The two main groups that hold to Oneness theology are the United Pentecostal Church International (the largest) and the United Apostolic church. There are others like the Assemblies of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Bible Way Churches of Our Lord Jesus Christ as well as a host of independent Oneness churches scattered throughout the United States. The following points of doctrine are generally held to by the Oneness Pentecostal groups. Within Orthodoxy There is only one God in all existence The Bible is God's inerrant word Jesus was born of a virgin Jesus had two natures. Justification by faith Baptism must be by immersion.1 The elements of communion are bread and wine and are only for believers. Foot-washing (John 13:4-5), is a divine institution to be practiced by church members.2 Abstain from joining secret societies (James 5:12; 2 Cor. 6:14-18). There will be a future rapture of the Church where the Christians will be transformed (1 Thess. 4:13-17; 1 Cor. 15:51-54; Phil. 3:20-21). Outside of Orthodoxy Denies the doctrine of the Trinity. Denies justification by faith alone by stating that baptism is also required for salvation. Jesus is God the Father. Jesus is the Holy Spirit. The name of God is "Jesus." Baptism is necessary for salvation. Denies pre-existence of the Word as the Son. Teaches that the He existed as the Father. Being born again means repentance, baptism, and speaking in tongues. Baptism must be administered by an ordained Oneness minister to be valid. Baptism must be administered with the phrase, "In the name of Jesus" instead of the phrase, "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19). Speaking in tongues is a necessary requirement to demonstrate that a person has been baptized in the Holy Spirit, and is, therefore, saved. It is claimed to be the initial sign of the infilling of the Holy Ghost. Restitution of all things, though the devil and the angels will not be restored. Women may be pastors.3 Only Oneness people will go to heaven. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 123: ONENESS AND THE WORD "PERSON" ======================================================================== Oneness theology denies the Trinity doctrine and claims that there is one person in the Godhead who has manifested himself in three different forms: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These "forms" are not three separate persons, but one person who occupied consecutive modes. The Trinity, on the other hand, is the teaching that there is one God who exists in three separate, simultaneous, persons. Please note, though, this is not saying there are three gods. In defending the doctrine of the Trinity and in examining the Oneness doctrine regarding the Godhead, it is first necessary to define the terms that are used. Since the Trinity doctrine states there are three persons in one God, and Oneness Pentecostal theology states there is only one person, we first need to know what a "person" is before we try to discover whether or not God is three persons or one. Therefore, what qualifies someone as having "personhood"? I offer the following analysis as an attempt to adequately define personhood. After the outline, I will attempt to show that the definition and/or characteristics of personhood can be applied to both the Father and the Son in a context that shows they both existed as persons at the same time, thereby proving Oneness theology is incorrect. What are the qualities and attributes of being a person? A person exists and has identity. A person is aware of his own existence and identity. This precludes the condition of being unconscious. A self aware person will use such a statement as "I am", "me", "mine", etc. A person can recognize the existence of other persons. This is true provided there were other persons around him or her. Such recognition would include the use of such statements as "you are", "you", "yours", etc. A person possesses a will. A will is the capability of conscious choice, decision, intention, desire, and or purpose. A single person cannot have two separate and distinct wills at the same time on the exact same subject. Regarding the exact same subject, a person can desire/will one thing at one moment and another at a different moment. Separate and simultaneous wills imply separate and simultaneous persons. A person has the ability to communicate -- under normal conditions. Persons do not need to have bodies. God the Father possesses personhood without a body, as do the angels. Biblically speaking, upon death we are "absent from the body and home with the Lord" (2 Cor. 5:8). God qualifies as having personhood in that He exists, is self aware, has identity, uses terms such as "Me", "I AM", "My", and possesses a will. The question now becomes whether or not there are more than one "persons" in the Godhead. "Let this cup pass from Me." "And he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, 42Saying, 'Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done'" (Luke 22:42). "And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, 'O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt'" (Matt. 26:39). In both Luke 22:42 and Matt. 26:39 (which are parallel passages), the context is Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, right before His betrayal. He was praying to the Father about the ordeal He was about to undergo. Several points are worth bringing out here. First, in this passage, Jesus addresses the Father. He says, "Oh my Father..." Note that Jesus says "my" and "Father." These two words designate a "me and you" relationship. Second, "If it be possible" is Jesus expressing a desire, a hope. What is that hope or desire? It is that "this cup pass from me." The cup Jesus is speaking of is the immanent ordeal of betrayal, scourging, and crucifixion. Jesus did not want to go through this. He was expressing His desire. It was His will not to undergo the severe ordeal ahead of Him. If this was not so, He would not have expressed the desire to have the cup pass from Him. Third, in Matt. 26:39, Jesus says, "Nevertheless., not my will, but thine, be done." In Luke 22:42 he says, "Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." With this, Jesus is expressing His will and contrasting it to the will of the Father. Yet, He is stating that even though He does not want to undergo what lay ahead, "Nevertheless," He would submit to the will of the Father. This shows that the person of Jesus had a separate and different will than the Father. Since we have two separate simultaneous wills, we have two separate and simultaneous persons and Oneness Pentecostal theology is incorrect. Questions to ask the Oneness person: Is Jesus His own Father? If Jesus' will and the Father's will were identical (in an attempt to demonstrate that there is only one will), then why did Jesus express the desire to escape the cup but resigns Himself not to His own will, but the will of the Father? Was Jesus praying to Himself at this point? Was Jesus saying, "Not My will, but My will be done?" if there is only one person and one will involved? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 124: WHAT IS OPEN THEISM? ======================================================================== Open theism, also called openness and the open view, is a theological position dealing with human free will and its relationship to God and the nature of the future. It is the teaching that God has granted to humanity free will and that in order for the free will to be truly free, the future free will choices of individuals cannot be known ahead of time by God. They hold that if God knows what we are going to choose, then how can we be truly free when it is time to make those choices since a counter choice cannot then be made by us because it is already "known" what we are going to do.1 In other words, we would not actually be able to make a contrary choice to what God "knows" we will choose thus implying that we would not then be free. In open theism, the future is either knowable or not knowable. For the open theists who hold that the future is knowable by God, they maintain that God voluntarily limits His knowledge of free will choices so that they can remain truly free.2 Other open theists maintain that the future, being non existent, is not knowable, even by God.3 Gregory Boyd, a well know advocate of Open Theism says, "Much of it [the future], open theists will concede, is settled ahead of time, either by God's predestining will or by existing earthly causes, but it is not exhaustively settled ahead of time. To whatever degree the future is yet open to be decided by free agents, it is unsettled."4 But open theists would not say that God is weak or powerless. They say that God is capable of predicting and ordaining certain future events because He is capable of working in the world and bringing certain events to pass when the time is needed. Therefore, God could inspire the Old Testament writers to prophecy certain events and then He could simply ensure that those events occur at the right time. Furthermore, open theists claim that they do not deny the omniscience of God. They, like classical theologians, state that God is indeed all knowing. But the differ in that the God can only know that which is knowable and since the future has not yet happened, it can not be exhaustively known by God. Instead, God only knows the present exhaustively, including the inclinations, desires, thoughts, and hopes of all people. In open theism God can make mistakes because He does not know all things that will occur in the future. According to them God also takes risks and adapts to the free will choices of people. They claim biblical support for their position by citing scripture where God changes His mind (Exodus 32:14), is surprised (Isaiah 5:3–7), and tests people to see what they will do (Genesis 22:12). Finally, open theism tends to portray the God of orthodoxy as distant, controlling, and unyielding while promoting the God of openness as involved, adapting, loving, interacting, and caring for humanity. Orthodox Christianity Historic Orthodox Christianity states that God knows all things, even the entirety of the future, exhaustively. 1 John 3:20 it says, "...for God is greater than our heart, and knows all things." Likewise, Peter said to Jesus in John 21:17, "...You know all things; You know that I love You..." God's sovereignty is clearly taught in scripture and His sovereignty is tied to His omniscience. Orthodox Christianity teaches that God is very loving, very involved, and even condescends to our level and interacts with us in a manner that we can understand. This means that we will see what appears to be instances of God changing His mind, testing, and adapting. But, this is all due to God's working with creatures who have limited vision, short life spans, and are sinners. God must work on our level since we cannot work on His. God and time The question about God's knowledge of the future is very important because it deals with the actual definition of God's nature in relation to the nature of the future. Is God all knowing about the future or not? Is God existing in the future or not? Is God limited to the present or not? The answers to these questions reflect the very nature and scope of God's existence. The open theists are pushing a description of God that reduces God from knowing all things, past, present, and future, to not knowing all things in the future. God's omnipresence is also in jeopardy in open theism, since some open theists deny the existence of the future and thereby deny the omnipresence of God in the future. Conclusion My opinion is that openness is a dangerous teaching that undermines the sovereignty, majesty, infinitude, knowledge, existence, and glory of God and exalts the nature and condition of man's own free will. Though the open theists will undoubtedly say it does no such thing, it goes without saying that the God of open theism is not as knowledgeable or as ever present as the God of orthodoxy. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 125: WHAT ARE THE BASIC TENETS OF OPEN THEISM ======================================================================== Following are the basic tenets of open theism. It is with these presuppositions that open theists approach the Bible and interpret it. God's greatest attribute is love This attribute of God is often elevated above His other attributes and used to interpret God in such a way as to be a cosmic gentleman who wants all to be saved, mourns over their loss, Man's free will is truly free in the libertarian sense. Man's free will is not restricted by his sinful nature but is equally able to make choices between different options. By contrast, compatibilist free will states that a person is restricted and affected by his nature and that his nature not only affects his free will choices, but also limits his ability to equally choose among different options. God does not know the future This is either because God cannot know the future because it does not exist, or... It is because God chooses to not know the future even though it can be known. God takes risks Because God does not know the future exhaustively, He must take risks with people whose future free will choices are unknowable. God learns Because God does not know the future exhaustively, He learns as the realities of the future occur. God makes mistakes Because God does not know all things and because He is dealing with free will creatures (whose future choices He does not know), God can make mistakes in dealing with people. Therefore, God would change His plans accordingly. God changes His mind God can change His mind on issues depending on what He learns and what He discovers people do. Usually, God's change of mind is due to Him being surprised by something He didn't not plan for or expect. As you can see, open theism presents a view of God contrary to classical and historic Christianity which sees God as sovereign, all knowing, and unchanging. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 126: UNIVERSALISM ======================================================================== Universalism is the teaching that God, through the atonement of Jesus, will ultimately bring reconciliation between God and all people throughout history. This reconciliation will occur regardless of whether they have trusted in or rejected Jesus as savior during their lifetime. This universal redemption will be realized in the future where God will bring all people to repentance. This repentance can happen while a person lives or after he has died and lived again in the millennium or some future state. Additionally, a few universalists even maintain that Satan and all demons will likewise be reconciled to God. Nevertheless, both facets of universalistic belief are in error. People will suffer eternal damnation (Rev. 14:11) and the demonic forces have no redeemer. But, it is important to note that holding to universalism in itself does not make one a non-Christian. Universalism alone is simply a non-essential theological error held by some people. However, there are those within the universalist camp who also deny the doctrine of the Trinity and, thereby, the incarnation of the Word of God as God the Son. They also deny the personhood and deity of the Holy Spirit. Usually, these denials are held by Unitarian Universalists, though others who are not of the Universalist camp also deny the Trinity. Those who deny these essentials cannot be classified as Christians. To deny the deity of Christ, is to deny one of the essential doctrines of salvation. In this sense, those universalists who deny the deity of Christ are in a false religious belief system. Of course, when one essential doctrine is denied, many other historic biblical doctrines are also denied and salvation is void because the object of faith is false. There is no official "Universal Salvation Church" denomination but there is a Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA). The UUA can be classified as non-Christian because it denies the deity of Christ, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, etc. It is not possible to categorize all of universalists into one tidy doctrinal category. Its adherents vary in belief. Some are Arian (God is one person, Jesus is a creation). Some are Trinitarian. Others even lean toward new age concepts of man's divinity. So, universalism is not really a doctrine that identifies a group. Rather, it is a doctrine of different, even contradictory groups, who all claim universalism. The problem with words The cults are particularly guilty of using biblical words with non-biblical definitions. This is absolutely necessary among them in order to maintain some sort of internal consistency of theology. So too, with many universalists. Hell can mean non-existence, after-life consciousness, or this present life on earth. Some universalists believe that all punishment is accomplished here on earth, while others believe it is future event with a loss of rewards, and not a physical punishment. The punishment in both groups is corrective and limited. It will last only as long, and only be as severe, as it takes to accomplish its corrective purpose, which is to bring all mankind to a state of holiness and happiness in obedience to God. Of course, the problem with this is that it strongly suggests that a person is made worthy to be with God through his own sufferings and corrections in the afterlife. In universalism, the word "eternal" means "without end" when it comes to salvation, but not when referring to damnation, even though the same word is used for both and in the same context (Matt. 25:46). Universalists divide history and the future into different "eons" or "ages" and assert that punishment is "age-lasting," not eternal. The term "Son of God" is claimed by all groups as an accurate description of Jesus, yet to some it means a created being and to others it means God in flesh. Therefore, determining which belief is held by which universalist is often difficult and it requires digging. Misrepresentation Universalists often use the most negative terms to represent historic positions they disagree with. For example, regarding the damnation of the unsaved, instead of saying that historic Christianity teaches that those who reject Christ will suffer eternal damnation, they frequently say that historic Christianity teaches that "God can't save everyone and wants to torture most of humanity forever." Or, it is often implied that God will not torture people forever because "God is not sadistic enough to send people to hell." Such emotionally slanted words reveal a hostile bias against historic doctrines and is an unfair description of those beliefs. It is a surprisingly common tactic among universalists which demonstrates their lack of objectivity and sheds an automatic cloud of doubt upon their observations. Conclusion As you can see, universalism covers a wide range of beliefs. Under its umbrella can dwell the real Christian as well as the false prophet. Though belief in universalism, in and of itself, does not void salvation, it has the potential danger of allowing false teachers to abide alongside true believers. Therefore, to determine if a universalist is Christian, you must delve further into other areas of his belief. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 127: CHRISTIAN UNIVERSALISM ======================================================================== Christian universalism is the teaching that all of mankind will ultimately be saved through Jesus whether or not faith is professed in him in this life. It claims that God's qualities of love, sovereignty, justice, etc., require that all people be saved and that eternal punishment is a false doctrine. Salvation is not from hell, but from sin. There are two main camps in Christian Universalism: Those who teach that the unrepentant will be punished in a future state, and that their punishment will be proportional to the degree of sin committed in the mortal state. They generally hold that the punishment is moral and not physical. There is no hell. They do not maintain that salvation is merited through these sufferings. Those who teach that all the punishment for sin occurs in this life and that God's discipline in our lives is for the purpose of purifying us, though this purification is not our merit for salvation. In eternity, there will be a loss of reward for those who did not trust in Christ in this lifetime. Christian Universalists claim to hold many of the tenets of historic Christianity: Trinity, deity of Christ, deity of the Holy Spirit, salvation by grace, etc. As always, it is necessary to inquire and ask what is meant by the terms they use because the diversity that exists in universalist beliefs warrants further examination. Nevertheless, the Christian universalists claim to affirm: The inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. From what I have seen here, they are orthodox. There is only one God. From what I have encountered, most universalists who claim the title "Christian universalists" do not accept the standard doctrine of the Trinity, but lean more towards either Arianism (God is one person, Jesus is created) to modalism (God takes different forms in history). Jesus is the Son of the Living God Many cult groups say the same thing. What they mean by the phrase is what is important. The Christian Universalists tend to say the Son is a manifestation, an image, a representation of God's essence, yet he is not equal to the Father. Therefore, they are denying His true deity. Of course, not all Christian Universalists deny this. Some hold that Jesus is not God but that He is divine. This is perplexing since divinity is a quality of God, not angels or men. Jesus' Resurrection Most Christian Universalists affirm the physical resurrection of Jesus. But, some claim he did not rise from the dead physically, but was assumed into heaven to dwell with God. "The Crucified is living forever with God, as our hope. Resurrection does not mean either a return to life in space and time or a continuation of life in space and time but the assumption into that incomprehensible and comprehensive last and first reality which we call God."1 If, by the above quote, the physical resurrection of Jesus is denied, as it seems it is, then anyone who holds to that position is indeed a non-Christian since it denies one of the essential doctrines of Christianity. The Holy Spirit is God's presence There is a surprisingly common denial of the personhood of the Holy Spirit. (personhood is self-awareness, a will, the ability to speak, etc.). This is a serious error on the part of those who hold to it. But to be fair, many universalists affirm the Holy Spirit as the third person in the Godhead. There is no salvation without accepting Jesus as Savior This statement is problematic for two reasons: Since to many universalists, Jesus is not truly God by nature, they have an improper object of faith (denying the Trinitarian nature of God and the deity of Christ). Their faith, then, is useless since they have violated the command to worship no other God (Exodus 20) and are worshiping a false god. The Jesus they believe in, is not the real one. There is a second chance theology at work here where people who have rejected Jesus in this life can come to faith in the next life, even though he has flatly rejected Jesus' sacrificial atonement. Some Universalists believe... in consciousness after death, others do not. in limited punishment of sinners in a type of hell that is not of fire, but of some moral chastising. that punishment in the afterlife was for a limited period during which the soul was purified and prepared for eternity in the presence of God. Conclusion Christian Universalism is meshed with many other unorthodox and erroneous teachings. To determine if a "Christian Universalist" really is Christian, you must ask more pointed questions of individuals. This belief system should be avoided. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 128: CAN A CHRISTIAN BE A UNIVERSALIST? ======================================================================== The answer to this question is very easy. Yes. A Christian can be a universalist. Universalism in itself does not make a person a non-Christian. Universalism is the teaching that all people eventually will be reconciled to God. This is not one of the doctrines taught in scripture as a requirement for salvation. The essential doctrines of Christianity have been debated for centuries. These doctrines include the physical resurrection of Jesus, salvation by grace, and that Jesus is God in flesh. With the last, many conclude that the doctrine of the Trinity is also essential. Though the doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly stated as a requirement in God's word, it is logical to conclude that the true believer will accept the Trinity teaching. The Trinity, then, becomes a test to see if someone is in faith. However, I will admit that God casts his net further then we do and I do not believe that God will condemn all people for their lack of the proper understanding of the Trinity doctrine. On the other hand, I believe that those who openly reject it are not of God. There are many doctrines that are not essential to salvation and it is these that lead us into the differences of denominational beliefs. Where one group believes that baptism must be by immersion, another teaches that sprinkling is acceptable. One denomination says that the charismatic spiritual gifts have ceased, yet another that they continue. These types of the differences, and many others, do not affect whether or not a person is saved. They are merely differences of opinion on the non-essentials. In this, the Scriptures give us a great deal of leeway. See Romans 14. A Christian can be a universalist, but not all universalists are Christian. It is not whether you accept or deny universalism that makes you a true believer. Rather, it is faith in and acceptance of the true and living God and Savior, Jesus. We have agreement in the essential doctrines that unite all Christians and all denominations under one true God and we are allowed to have differences of opinions. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 129: UNIVERSALISM AND THE CULTS ======================================================================== Universalism teaches that all people will ultimately be saved no matter what they believe here on earth. You could deny God, hate Him, blaspheme against Him, join a satanist group and murder people and still go to heaven. Bible based, non-Christian cults are those groups that claim to be Christian, use the Bible, yet have redefined God, Jesus, and the gospel sufficiently to make salvation of no effect. Part of CARM's purpose is to refute error and teach the truth so that people will not go to hell. Universalism is definately an error that needs to be address. Let me take Mormonism, for example. Is Mormonism wrong? Is it dangerous to the soul? Does it lead to damnation? The universalist would have to say no, even though Mormonism teaches that god came from another planet, has a goddess wife, and that we can become gods (obvious false teaching), universalists teach that Mormons go to heaven. Of course universalists who claim to be Christain might assert that Mormon theology is wrong. But, they would also maintain that in the after life, they would be able to repent and follow the true God. Logically, then, we could make the case that the universalist would encourage the spread of Mormonism since it has good morals. Mormonism is not Christian. It is false. It is a compilation of lies from the devil. It damns people for believing in a false god, false gospel, and a system of works righteousness that is supposed to help them become saved. But, to the universalist, such heresy amounts only to a goof, an error in judgment, with the ultimate result being heaven. It makes no difference if a person is a universalist, a Mormon, a Jehovah's Witness, or an orthodox Christian since they are all going to heaven according to universalism. To a universalist, there would be little or no need to refute Mormonism. Why? Because what is the universalist going to warn him about? Damnation in hell? Not at all. Rather, he'd have to threaten him with heaven! Instead, the universalist is more concerned with converting someone to "truth of universalism." In so doing, they endanger the souls of all who they contact. Let me illustrate this with a Universalist witnessing to a Mormon. Universalist: "Listen here Mormon, if you continue to believe that you can become a god, that Satan and Jesus are literal brothers, that God has a body of flesh and bones and has a goddess wife, and that you can become a god of your own world, you know what is going to happen to you? You're going to heaven! So there!" Mormon: "Sounds good to me." So, where is the power of universalism to correct Satan's lies? Does it carry a warning for those who serve false gods except to say that it isn't nice to believe such things as Mormon doctrines? But, so what? It doesn't matter. Mormonism, and other cults, would lead to heaven. Is there orthodoxy in Universalism? Does it have the power and right to refute the errors of the cults? I don't see how. But, I do see that it is dangerous. ======================================================================== Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/christian-apologetics/ ========================================================================