Uncategorized Archives | Page 34 of 35

Evidence or Speculation?

Posted on March 7, 2007April 14, 2020 by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

Recently, the book entitled “The Jesus Family Tomb” was released in bookstores, in addition the Discovery Channel aired a documentary on the same information called “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” on March 4, 2007. It was directed by Simcha Jacovici and produced by James Cameron, in order to argue that they may have found the bones of Jesus of Nazareth. The documentary pertained to ossuaries, which are burial boxes that were found in Jerusalem in 1980. Out of the ten ossuaries that were discovered, three they claim to be Jesus of Nazareth, Mary Magdalene and Judah son of Jesus. Although, they have produced a well developed film, is there really any evidence to their claim or is it pure speculation?

The suggested theory rests on the foundation that “Mariamene e Mara” is claimed to be Mary Magdalene and DNA testing supposedly proves that the ossuaries of Jesus, son of Joseph and Mariamene are not mother and son, but instead they imply that they are husband and wife. It is true that Jacovici, did do DNA testing on the small samples from the boxes of Mariamene and Jesus, Son of Joseph, HOWEVER, it was Mitochondrial DNA. This can only prove evidence regarding a mother and son relationship, not a father and daughter relationship. Therefore, this does not give any evidence to “Jesus, son of Joseph” and “Mariamene” being husband and wife. Read what Dr. James R. White wrote in his findings, “Will the book honestly discuss the limitations of mitochondrial DNA? Will they admit that such analysis can only speak to maternal relations, not to paternal relations? Will they tell us what Dr. Carney Matheson has confirmed that such a test cannot rule out that Jesus, son of Joseph was the father of Mariamne? Or will they spin the results? The answer was: spin, spin, spin. Look at this direct quote from the conclusion, page 207: “However, they were able to extract mitochondrial DNA from both the Jesus and Mariamne ossuaries. This allowed them to confirm that these were indeed Middle Eastern people of antiquity and that they were not related.” This is simply false. In an e-mail dated 2/26/07 Dr. Matheson frankly stated, “This can only identify maternal relationship of which the two remains do not share.”[1]

In addition, Mariamene is stated to be Mary Magdelen. She “has been associated with the woman in the city who was a sinner (Luke 7:37), who washed Jesus feet, but there is no scriptural basis for this. She is also associated with the woman whom Jesus saved from stoning after she had been taken in adultery (John 8:1-11) – again an association with no evidence.”[2] Jacovici makes the bold statement that she is the same Mariamene in a Gnostic gospel called the “Acts of Philip” (read it here ) however, there is NO evidence in this piece either. Once again, it is all pure speculation in the eyes of a journalist.

This is not so in the eyes of the witnesses that interacted with Jesus Christ, after His resurrection. “A great variety of persons testified that they had seen Jesus alive. He was seen on several different occasions and in various locations.”[3] Jesus the Christ “appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time” (1 Cor. 15:5-6).

Speculation is the cornerstone for the movie The Lost Tomb of Jesus, but evidence reported from eyewitnesses is only one element at the foundation for the risen Lord Jesus Christ. Do you want to build on speculation or evidence?

“And Jesus said to them, why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts” 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. And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. (Luke 24:38-40)”

Deanna

(1) White, James Dr., http://www.aomin.org/
(2) Lockyer, Herbert Sr., Nelson’s Illustrated Bible, Thomas Nelson, Nashville, TN,Thomas Nelson, 1986.
(3) Erickson, Millard, Christian Theology Second Edition, Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Academic,1998.

The Minimal Facts Approach, Fact #2

Posted on February 27, 2007April 14, 2020 by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

This post is a continuation of a series of posts by Mary Jo on the Minimal Facts Approach.

Fact #2 – Jesus’ appearance to the disciples

Evidences:

1) The disciples believed the risen Jesus appeared to them

2) The disciples’ transformation from frightened, hiding individuals to bold witnesses of the resurrection

The disciples’ belief that Jesus appeared to them post-crucifixion, is a fact that needs to be explained. The disciples wrote down their eyewitness testimonies to these appearances in the gospels. Plus, Paul discusses these appearances in 1 Corinthians 15: 3-11.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

Critics claim Paul’s writing in the previous passages as some of the earliest New Testament writings.[i] Paul quotes a creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, “For what I received, I passed on to you as of first importance…” Though Paul penned these words around twenty years after the crucifixion, he had this knowledge prior to writing these words. This very same knowledge of the appearances of the risen Jesus to the disciples is also found in the writings of the early church fathers; for example, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius, Origen, Tertullian, and Eusebius.[ii]

The disciples had an unusual transformation from individuals who were afraid and hiding to bold witnesses of the resurrection. Why would I call this transformation unusual? Let’s look at the circumstances surrounding their transformation.

First of all, the transformation of the disciples is one of the reasons virtually all scholars who study this material concede this point.[iii] The skeptical scholars try to offer explanations for what caused this transformation; they do not discern the disciples’ accounts as mythology, but instead offer explanations for what these men believed they saw.[iv] In the course of explaining this transformation, we have to take into account that the disciples were willing to suffer persecution and, eventually, martyrdom for the man that they knew personally (including their knowledge of Jesus’ claims to be the Son of God and his prediction of his own death and resurrection.[v]) If they knew Jesus’ resurrection was a fraud, they would be insane, at best, to die for him, because there was nothing to gain from following him: no political power and no future hope of resurrection for themselves. The disciples looked forward to immense suffering, outcast status in their culture, and death for the cause of that which they knew personally to be an untruth (since Jesus claimed to be God and predicted his own death and resurrection, if he was not raised from the dead, the disciples would know he was not raised and they would know he was a false prophet.) Yet, they were willing to bear all this. The best explanation of their unusual behavior after Jesus’ crucifixion was that they believed they literally experienced the risen Jesus.

Now we must account for the experiences of the disciples due to the facts that they believed they saw the risen Jesus and these appearances did transform their lives.

Mary Jo

[i] “Reports from such an early date would actually predate the written Gospels. A famous example is the list of Jesus’ resurrection appearances supplied by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. Most critical scholars think that Paul’s reception of at least the material on which this early creedal statement is based is dated to the 30s AD.”
Gary Habermas. Recent Perspectives on the Reliability of the Gospels. Available from: http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_recentperspectives/crj_recentperspectives.htm. Accessed December 1, 2006.

[ii] Habermas, Gary. Mike Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Kregel Publications: 2004. pgs.53-59.

[iii] Ibid. pgs.56-60

[iv] An example is found in the work of Jack Kent in The Psychological Origins of the Resurrection Myth. Kent attempts to explain the post-crucifixion appearances as grief-induced hallucinations on the part of the disciples.

[v] Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God, his prediction of his death and resurrection, and the evidence surrounding his subsequent death and resurrection set Jesus and His followers apart from other messianic claims and religions. If God raised a man from the dead, this would signify His approval of that man’s message. This is especially important considering that Jesus claimed to be God.
© Mary Jo Sharp 2007

Can There be Meaning in the Suffering?

Posted on February 21, 2007June 24, 2020 by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

I friend of mine wrote this reflection on suffering just after we started the original Confident Christianity blog together in 2006. I have updated the post with my added response to the reflection (2020).

Horatio Gates Spafford, in 1873 penned the lyrics to It is well with my soul. He wrote theses lyrics after losing his four daughters in an Atlantic Voyage, which came on the heels of losing his fortune in the Chicago fire. He is among the many that journey through the valley of suffering.

All people at some point in life are affected by suffering. It may be one of the most difficult aspects challenging the Christian faith. It can occur in many different forms, such as losing a loved one, battling a sickness, experiencing devastation from nature, losing a job and the list continues. So, where is God in all of this suffering?

“It needs to be said at once that the Bible supplies no thorough solution to the problem of evil, whether ‘natural’ evil or ‘moral’ that is, whether in the form of suffering or of sin. Its purpose is more practical than philosophical.
Consequently, although there are references to sin and suffering on virtually every page, its concern is not to explain their origin but to help us to overcome them.”[1]

Also note that evil was not originally created for this world and it is only temporary. There will be a new heaven and a new earth in which there will be no more pain (Rev. 21:1-4). However, there can be purpose in suffering and pain in the here and now.

Here are a few views to consider.

One of the purposes of suffering and pain is to “Bring Glory and Honor to God”[2]. In the book of John it is written:
As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him” (John 9:1-3).

Secondly, suffering “Reminds Us of the Fragility of Life”[3].
“Whereas you do not know what will happen tomorrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away” (James 4:14).

A Third purpose reveals the heart of a person and “Demonstrates a Person’s Character”[4]. Look at what God allowed in the life of Job.
“The Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, fearing God and turning away from evil” (Job 1:8). Job ended up losing his wealth and family, but ultimately realized that God truly was his refuge and one he could trust. In the end, he regained his wealth and was blessed with another family. Eventually, Job stated “I have heard of you by the hearing of the ear; But now my eye sees You” (Job 42:5).

At this point the idea must be considered that the ultimate goal in suffering is not a quick recovery, but instead a victory glorifying God. Jesus, himself is not untouched from suffering, but instead suffered for many. ‘For who could believe in God, if it were not for the cross. In the real world of pain, how could one worship a God who was immune to it?”[5] It is through the cross that people are able to run the race with endurance and find victory through suffering.

In closing, James put it this way “Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance, And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing”
(James 1:2-4).

Deanna

Books you can review on suffering:
The book of Job
Philip Yancy, Where is God when it hurts?
C.S. Lewis, Problem of Pain

My response
I would agree with Deanna that there is no thorough solution to moral and natural evil supplied in the Biblical text in some sense; such as in ending all evil here and now. However, I would caveat that there is a thorough solution to the overall problem of evil as found in the death and resurrection of Jesus. In the death of Jesus, we see God Incarnate taking on the devastating consequence of human evil. The resurrection of Jesus shows us that God has effectually put down or “defeated” this consequence of our evil, by reversing its major effect: death. Whereas there was once only the consequence of death, there is now and forever the redemption of life. God has redeemed his good creation through giving it life once again.

At least one of the reasons Deanna offered for why suffering exists at all relates to what is known as a “soul-building theodicy.” Humankind suffers to bring forth virtuous character qualities that may not be achieved without the testing of their character. However, I ascribe to a Plantingian Free Will Defense that there is no possible world that God could logically actualize in which humankind has true freedom and yet never commits any evil.

Some references for my response
– Alvin Plantinga, God Freedom and Evil
– Clay Jones, Why Does God Allow Evil?

[1] Stott, John R. W., The Cross of Christ, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press, 1986.
[2] Smith M.D., Robert D., The Christian Counselor’s Medical Desk Reference, Stanley NC, Timeless Texts 2000.
[3] Ibid
[4] Ibid
[5] Stott, John R. W., The Cross of Christ, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press, 1986.

The Minimal Facts Approach – Fact #1

Posted on February 19, 2007April 14, 2020 by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

Over the course of the next few posts, I will be presenting evidences for the Resurrection based on the research of Dr. Gary Habermas of Liberty University and Mike Licona of the North American Mission Board. This material can be found in their book, “The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.”

In the “Minimal Facts Approach,” I will only be using ‘facts’ from the New Testament that can satisfy the following two criteria: 1) they are strongly evidenced and 2) they must be acknowledged by a vast majority of scholars (atheist through conservative).1 By strongly evidenced, I mean that they satisfy some or all of the criteria used in textual criticism to establish historical probability.

Examples of these criteria are:

1) multiple, independent sources
2) enemy attestation
3) principle of embarrassment
4) eyewitness testimony
5) early testimony2

What I am not saying is that these facts prove the resurrection of Jesus historically. What I am saying is that the best explanation of these facts, when combined, is a resurrection of Jesus.

Fact #1 – Jesus died by Roman Crucifixion

1) Jesus’ crucifixion was recorded in all four Gospel accounts
2) Jesus’ crucifixion was recorded in non-Christian sources

a. Josephus, Jewish Historian Antiquities 18, chapter 3

b. Tacitus, Roman Historian Annals 15.44

c. Lucian of Samsota, Greek Satirist
The Works of Lucian, Vol. IV “The Death of Peregrin” (scroll down to 11)

d. Mara Bar-Serapion, Syrian prisoner
A Letter of Mara, Son of Serapion (scroll down to just after footnote 19)

e. The Jewish Talmud

3) Jesus’ death on a cross is one of the most well-attested events of ancient history

“That he [Jesus] was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”
– Skeptical scholar John Dominic Crossan, “Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography” pg.145; to read, type in “that he was crucified” in search box

Jesus’ death by Roman crucifixion is a historical event.

Mary Jo

1 Habermas, Gary. Mike Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Kregel Publications: 2004. pg.47.
2 Ibid. pgs. 36-40.

Historically Reliable?

Posted on February 13, 2007October 17, 2015 by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

Since the New Testament is a document from ancient history that we have available to investigate, if we put it through the same rigorous textual criticism as other ancient texts, when our investigation is complete and we find there are historically probable events that are only satisfactorily explained by one of numerous tested hypotheses, should we then trust that one hypothesis to be historically reliable (in so far as can be expected from ancient documentation)?

What do you think?

Part Two – In Search for the Truth

Posted on February 5, 2007April 18, 2022 by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

Why should you read the Bible in search for the truth? “If you are an intelligent person, you will read the one book that has drawn more attention than any other.”[1] It is unique in nature and the one book that is relevant to everyday life, although it was written centuries ago.

Webster defines being unique as “being the only one” or “being without a like or equal.”[2] The Bible stands alone in its accuracy of translation. “Not only does the New Testament text have far superior evidence for reliability than the classics, but it also is in better textual shape than the thirty-seven plays of William Shakespeare written in the seventeenth century, after the invention of the printing.”[3] As well as the fact that it was written on three continents and in three different languages.

The Bible is also unique in the fact that it has survived attacks that have tried to burn it, ban it and outlaw it throughout history. Of course, this is no surprise to God since it is consistent with His Word. “The sum of your Word is truth, and every one of your righteous ordinances is everlasting” (Psalm 119:160). Cleland B. McAfee penned it this way, “if every Bible in any considerable city were destroyed, the Book could be restored in all its essential parts from the quotations on the shelves of the city public library.”[4]

Relevance is another unique factor of the Bible. Although it was written centuries ago, it speaks to daily practical application. For example, it speaks to finances, sickness, child rearing as well as, who am I, why do I exist and what will happen after this life?

You may have the question, how can I find the truth in the midst of the Bible that lacks chronological order. Of course, it may appear this way if you are opening the Bible for the first time, but think of this thought. “If God wants the Bible to be a book that interests and challenges people around the globe for their whole lives, that guides us into life’s deep mysteries, that trains us to see the world from diverse points of view and in so doing, stretches us to not be so limited by our own inherited point of view then of course it can’t be like the phone book or a high school biology textbook. If God wants the book to be an authentic medium of spiritual enlightenment and instruction, then how can it be a book that we feel we can fully grasp, have control over, take pride in our knowledge of, feel competent in regards to.”[5] Instead, it is brought about by a wonderful creator whose ways are higher than our ways.

In conclusion, in your search for truth you can find that the Bible is unique and one of a kind that bleeds truths through every page for the meaning of life and the practical living of life. Are you one opposing the truth before ever reading it?

“Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heeds the things which are written in it; for the time is near.”
The Apostle John from the book of Revelation

Deanna

[1] McDowell, Josh and Wilson, Bill, The Best of Josh McDowell “A Ready Defense”Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville TN. 1993.
[2] Webster’s Dictionary
[3] McDowell, Josh and Wilson, Bill, The Best of Josh McDowell “A Ready Defense”Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville TN. 1993.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Newman, Randy. Questioning Evangelism. Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids MI. 2004.

The Blasphemy Challenge

Posted on February 1, 2007September 15, 2023 by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

The Blasphemy Challenge: A Few Responses

I could not help but post on this latest stunt of the Rational Response Squad (RRS), because of the impact it appears to have had on so many people. The challenge itself is based in logically fallacious thinking which makes me concerned for why so many people find this challenge so “cool,” …especially if the promoting organization using “rational” in their name.

First, let me explain the premise of the challenge. The RRS has set a challenge for people to commit the “unpardonable sin” of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, which is to deny his existence. It is based on the Scripture from Matthew 12:31. The first 1001 people to upload a You Tube video denying the Holy Spirit get a free DVD of “The God Who Wasn’t There.” There’s more to unpack here, but even the very premise of the challenge, denying the Holy Spirit’s existence, shows a lack of attention to and knowledge about Christian theology.

Christians discuss, and conflict, on what constitutes this blasphemy. None of them, however, say it is denying the existence of the Holy Spirit (at least to my knowledge). Conversely, here’s one explanation of this Scripture from R.C. Sproul:

If the Holy Spirit has opened your eyes and caused you to see that Jesus is the Christ, and then, after knowing by the power of the Holy Spirit that Jesus is the Son of God, you accuse Jesus of being satanic, you have now committed the unforgivable sin.

Sproul states that this explanation would mean that the sin is theoretically committed by a believer in God, not an unbeliever. Whoa! Talk about getting your stunt mixed up. Sproul backs this potential explanation up with the context of the previous verses, which involves Jesus healing a demon-oppressed man and afterward being accused by the religious leaders of doing so through the power of Satan. So, the passage is not technically addressing atheists. And before anyone gets theologically spicy with me, even Sproul states that this is only a theoretical situation described by the unpardonable sin when he exegetes the passage (check it out in the full article). He further acknowledges the theological doctrines that would be affected if a genuine believer could indeed commit an unpardonable sin. So again, this is not the only historic theological explanation, but I think it’s a good place to start an investigation. The basic point here is to demonstrate the faulty thinking behind the blasphemy challenge that failed to consider how Christians have historically interpreted the passage (and therefore constitutes a straw-man fallacy).

Second, let me explain a further logical problem of this challenge. A person is supposed to deny the existence of that which they already believe does not exist. So, the atheist is making a claim that is very close to, if not the same as, a tautological claim, such as “an atheist is an atheist.” Tautologies do not provide any new information between the subject and predicate of a sentence, so they don’t really say anything.

The statement of “I deny the existence of the Holy Spirit” can, in effect, be a statement of the denial of God’s existence when it’s in accordance with Trinitarian Monotheism. The Holy Spirit is the third person of God, one in essence with God. Due to this theological commitment, to deny the Spirit’s existence is to deny God’s existence…if, again, we are dealing with actual Christian Trinitarianism. So, again, the challenge in light of Christian Trinitarianism amounts to atheists denying the existence of God. Therefore, the premise of this challenge seems to be to publicly verbalize that “An atheist is an atheist.” Or, perhaps, more specifically, the challenge amounts to an identity statement of “I, an atheist, deny the existence of God.”

Third, The Blasphemy Challenge seems to be a media stunt for those who already agree with the RRS, leading an emotionally-charged public condemnation of Christianity towards building a certain kind of atheist camaraderie (not all atheists would condone or engage in this kind of activity). One thing I noticed is that the RRS is not challenging people to blaspheme any of the other religious ideas of god or gods. This challenge is specifically targeting Christian Trinitarian Monotheism. [1] Perhaps, targeting religious minority groups in our society would be viewed as grossly, or negligently, intolerant, bringing too much undesired heat to the challenge. So the organization might be purposefully avoiding condemning those beliefs about God. Lacking a fuller philosophical spectrum of denouncement of belief in God, or gods, this challenge seems more gimmicky, giving a sort of fan-service to the internet new atheist.

Finally, as C.S. Lewis stated, “Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.” Though the RRS is attempting to do something splashy to get people to think rationally about belief in God, it appears that they have really done the opposite through the use of logical fallacy. A person cannot blaspheme that which they deny. A straw-man theology of Christianity doesn’t communicate anything true about it. A tautological statement is not helpful in thinking through beliefs. And finally, in taking the challenge, people commit to the premise that their denial means something, which implies their belief in the reality of God…and I’m guessing that’s not the desired outcome.

______________________

[1] Someone will inevitably say, “But Christianity is the only one claiming the ‘unpardonable sin,’ and so that’s why it’s the only religion addressed. My response is two-fold: 1) that seems theologically and philosophically lazy or disingenuous, because 2) other religions have statements that could be similarly utilized as ‘tests’ for true believers, as well as punishments or consequences for disbelievers and/or sin (even if also pulled out-of-context). Further, it is culturally fashionable and acceptable, at this time, to denigrate the Christian religion (and possibly some forms of atheism), but not necessarily other belief systems.

History from the New Testament?

Posted on January 9, 2007October 17, 2015 by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

The New Testament is a collection of ancient literature. So much has been debated about the New Testament’s reliability that I think maybe this point has been missed. Namely, the New Testament does exist as a collection of ancient works, and can be looked at as such for historical facts. As I look at other works of ancient history, I am going to apply the same criteria to all of them, including the New Testament. I will look for facts from the work that are 1) strongly evidenced and 2) accepted by virtually all the scholars who studied the material.

As Gary Habermas and Mike Licona have reminded us in their book, “The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus“, Historians recognize that most writings of antiquity contain factual errors and propaganda. They still can identify kernels of historical truth in those sources. If they eliminated a source completely because of bias or error, they would know next to nothing about the past.”1 Why, then, cannot a skeptic of the New Testament look into the evidence surrounding the strongly attested passages and glean truths (facts) from the material? They can and they do.

Gary Habermas has been researching the scholarly work on the New Testament from 1975 to the present. He has combined the research of over 2000 scholars who are atheists, skeptics, liberals, middles, and conservatives. In doing this research, Habermas has noted some trends in what these scholars grant as historically reliable material from the New Testament.2 What? There is historically reliable material in the New Testament? Shouldn’t we just accept Christianity on faith and leave the reasoning to other aspects of our lives? “You Christians would have it made if you would just admit that your faith is just that: faith.” No thank you. I did not become a Christian merely based on feelings and emotions. (please see endnote on explanation of “faith”)3 Plus, Paul, in the New Testament, says

And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. I Corinthians 15: 14-15

I do not see a lot of room for debate here. The passage is clear. It goes on to talk more specifically about the general idea of resurrection, but it also makes a clear statement about “just believing.” It doesn’t leave a lot of wiggle room for a postmodern philosophy of each narrative (religion, community, place and time in history) containing the same amount of truth for those who participate; ie. “All religions have truths.” Our narrative denounces itself if it is not the truth!

As Christians, we should be committed to seeking truth and wisdom. Check these out:

Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21

Do not forsake wisdom, and she will protect you; love her, and she will watch over you. Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding. Proverbs 4:6-7

If you are wise, your wisdom will reward you; if you are a mocker, you alone will suffer. Proverbs 9:12

Okay, so now I am little off the subject, which was originally about using the New Testament to glean truths, at least in the same manner as any other ancient document. Why should I accept a double standard regarding the history in the New Testament? In discussing the New Testament, Christian and skeptic alike should be able to use the same standards in scrutinizing the history of the text.4 Now I am interested in discovering if there is another ancient document (2nd century or earlier) with at least the same amount of sources (enemy attestation, multiple, independent sources, eyewitness testimony, etc.) and early manuscripts as the New Testament. At this point, I do not know of one.

We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 2 Peter 1:16

Mary Jo

_______________________________________

1 Habermas, Gary. Mike Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Kregel Publications: 2004. pg.45

2 I have listed a couple more of Gary Habermas’ sources here for further investigation:

Habermas, Gary. The Risen Jesus and Future Hope. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers. 2003.

________. Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying?
Available from http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005.htm

________. Recent Perspectives on the Reliability of the Gospels. Gary Habermas. Available from www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_recentperspectives/crj_recentperspectives.htm

________. Experiences of the Risen Jesus: The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection. Available from
http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/dialog_rexperience/dialog_rexperiences.htm

3 Faith is much more complex than the treatment given here. I am referring to the skeptic’s view of faith (un-reasoned belief), not the deep complexity of faith that develops in a Christian; faith including heart, soul, mind, and strength.

4 While I believe the Bible to be trustworthy and inspired, I cannot expect a skeptic or non-believer to do the same, which is why I have presented my case in this manner.

The Universal Solution

Posted on December 18, 2006April 14, 2020 by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

Today in the world you can find a gamut of problems. All you have to do is watch reality T.V. or sports games to identify the anger and behavioral problems of today. Of course the list goes on with lying, cheating, stealing and then some in all parts of our world today. “Human beings, all over the world have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it.”[1] Therefore, these behaviors are sought to be cured. It is interesting that Psychology identifies itself as having a solution for many of these problems or what they would call disorders. However, their solutions are usually medication with a short lived plan.

Naturally, one can not deny that there are problems, but what is the root of these problems? What is it that causes us to lash out at people, lie to others or cheat in our business life?

The problem is that that we desire to serve ourselves and not the one true God. People crave to serve their own desires or label them as disorders instead of claiming to the truth that it is their sinful heart inside of themselves that is leading. People since the beginning of time have always wanted to blame others.

Nevertheless, “there must be a universal solution, if there is a universal problem”[2]. The solution is a heart transplant, not one from a medical doctor, but from God through Jesus Christ.

Have you had a heart transplant? The answers for life and godliness have been given to you through the Bible. Are you seeking solutions to survive in this life or the solutions that will make you thrive even through eternity?

“Cast away from you all your transgressions which you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit.” Ezekiel 18:31

Deanna

[1] Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis
[2] Sermon Preaching on Luke 2, The Universal Solution is Christ, Pastor Mark DeMoss

Exposed – by guest author, Jana

Posted on December 7, 2006October 17, 2015 by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

Like any woman, I have always admired those women who are considered ‘natural beauties’ requiring no fuss, no pretension, no makeup. With nothing to hide, they attractively tout perfect skin and hair, even after getting caught in the rain!

However, flawless perfection was not a reality for me. With naturally frizzy (a/k/a p.c. ‘color challenged’, ‘textured’) hair and sallow skin, I quickly learned that adequate preparation and camouflage became my best friends lest flaws and imperfections be revealed. Makeup application became an art form, supplying the artificial external beauty left shy by birth. Cover stick and hair color became staples in my cosmetic arsenal toward creating a desired illusion. Examining myself in the mirror, particularly with each passing birthday, the thought “just don’t get too close and I might pass” frequently comes to mind (maybe if they squint…).

Revealing my ‘natural morning beauty’ is reserved for those who know and love me for who I really am, beyond the surface. It is only in this disclosure that truth can be discovered and authentically exchanged, undisturbed and unlimited by the threat of exposure.

Many philosophies of the world have painted themselves with pretty faces – attractive, full of rationality, promises and solutions. With airbrush and plastic surgery, humanistic worldviews create a facade, effectively hiding the sobering realities of lies and devastation left in their trail. Unwilling to face the stark implications of life void of value, purpose, and meaning and unwilling to give up their self-destructive human autonomy, they move in an illusive world – desirable on the surface, but with emptiness and deceit housed within. The deception is powerful, but when the makeup is removed and the philosophies are laid bare, their true colors are revealed.

In fact, many anti-theistic scholars openly admit that their underlying biases against God directly limit honest pursuit of the truth. Naturalistic philosophies disallow their underbelly to be exposed. They change their look to entice, appease, and justify humanity’s driving passions, and exclude the opportunity to be revealed for who they really are. At the same time, they demean those who promote seeking after knowledge, reality and truth in all of its forms, including the supernatural.

Admittedly, Christianity has historically used masks to cover their own imperfections, but the truths of God stand exposed for all to examine. God has nothing to hide, and in fact invites all to come and know Him. We are called to honestly seek after the knowledge of God that stands revealed, freely accessible. Compare His truths with the world’s and determine which one is trying to prevent full disclosure. Perception is not always reality. Personally, I prefer to live in the light where all can be seen for what it is.