A friend of mine recently lost a beloved pet, a dog who had been a family member for many years. These sad occasions often result in grief that can be quite profound. The oft-quoted phrase “a dog is a man’s best friend” has a definite reality when one considers the unconditional love and devotion such a loyal animal can afford its master, and one’s heart goes out to another of God’s creatures who can provide such sure acceptance, companionship and more, creating a very special relationship. When one loses a friend of such measure, that is a great loss indeed.

How do we handle such losses? Well, I guess we grieve… just as we do should that be a close human who died. But what about all those Big Questions concerning an afterlife, if we will meet again, if animals have souls, if and if and if and if…?

My friend was given a copy of the poem called Rainbow Bridge which is a sweet story of what is said to happen to animals when they die. Click on the link in the previous sentence to read the story for yourself. The author is said to be unknown, and the story clearly brings comfort to many bereaved pet owners who naturally want to think of their pet healed and cared for and happy, and that they themselves will meet up again one day. When the Rainbow Bridge story was mentioned in a group of other friends, a number of them were familiar with it too. Some had also lost beloved pets and found the story a comfort. Many spoke of it as though it was true… what was that? True? Did they mean that it really is true? That is, really is for real?

I am sure that had I questioned the truth of this story, I would have been seen as something worse than a spoil-sport. It would be a hateful thing to do, as though trying to deprive someone of the comfort they should be given in such painful circumstances. And because of the need for comfort, maybe others joined in for the same reason - not that they believed the story to be true in reality, but because they were kind folk who did not want to upset the other unnecessarily.

I don’t know if this story is true or not. I have no way of knowing for certain. It is a kind sentiment, and it presents an image not unlike one that is commonly held of Heaven - a place where all is well. There is an assumption that such a place exists for animals, and an assumption that the animals we love will indeed go there. But I am not so sure of the level of comfort I would personally derive from a story that came from “author unknown” and must be regarded as fantasy unless we can find some truth to support its claim to be otherwise.

Before I am turned upon and torn to pieces by all bereaved pet-owners, I suspect that there may be something in the eternal future to take care of this matter. Our heavenly Father who created all things, the God of love, must surely have something in mind to deal with this situation. Just right now I don’t know what that is, but I believe He is trustworthy and it is safe to leave the matter in His hands. There is also the experience I have had of deep truths being embodied in fantasy, and we can respond to such at different levels of appreciation… such as that which exists in George MacDonald’s Phantastes. If there is truth in Rainbow Bridge, then I suspect it is far more likely to be metaphoric than literal.

However, there is something else that interests me right here. Why is it that so many folk are so willing to believe a fantasy as truth? I noted how readily it was accepted in that group without question. Does the truth not matter? Does it not matter if it isn’t the truth? Is it not important if it is the truth or not?

On a slightly different note, but still to do with truth, it was suggested to me today that I should respect the beliefs of another with whom I disagreed. I find that an odd thing to require of anyone. With regard to the belief, not to the person, I do not see that respect must be given all beliefs equally and that we should be compliant with such an expectation. Not all beliefs are equal in matter of worthiness, and respect based on worth must vary accordingly. Say for example, someone went about claiming that he believed that gravity is a figment of people’s imagination and that he could walk off the top of the Eiffel Tower and fly like a bird without wings. I’m afraid my respect for such a belief would have to falter. That belief is not as worthy as one that acknowledges gravity as a fact. That belief would surely lead to some massive injuries for the one who held it if he was to act on it. One’s “respect” for such a belief could lead one into serious trouble. So in that regard it is important not to have respect for all beliefs just because somebody happens to hold them.

Does the truth not matter at all? Personally I think it does. If we allow ourselves to be convinced by a fantasy we are at risk of endangering ourselves. In some things there is little personal risk - such as the Rainbow Bridge story perhaps. In other things there are many risks, and some with huge consequences. There is also the insight factor, that I am aware what I am doing when I accept something without regard to it’s veracity, and the extent to which I may do this. I personally respect the truth, but do not respect in the same measure those things that do not correspond with my knowledge of reality. Some beliefs are indeed more worthy than others in accordance with their correspondence to reality.

The recent Folsom Street Fair (San Francisco) provided such an explicit expression of “gay pride” which was abhorrent to many but, allowed to take place in a public place, appeared to be condoned by society and those authorities charged with upholding the law. Morals aside, the law was broken many times over but no sanctions applied. The Fair celebrated the moral decline of the western world. Apart from the presence of children who were exposed to these things, a form of child abuse in itself, another obscenity arose in the blessing given events by some clergy members of The Episcopal Church. I am no longer shocked by the depravity of humankind, thanks to the nature of my professional career, but it is disturbing to witness the mockery of God who is holy and who in His compassion for us made that ultimate sacrifice for the restoration of our relationship with Him.

To change tack a little, so often I have found that words from the Bible are used out of context, or only part of the message is given so that it is purposely distorted to mean something else instead. It is always worth going back to have another look for oneself and, casting aside any agenda, being prepared to open one’s heart to the teaching that those words were meant to provide in the first place.

For instance, it is so fashionable today among some to fire off the admonition not to judge others, and neglect to see that Jesus taught us that we are indeed to make judgements, but that they are to be “righteous judgements” that involve discernment, recognition of sin, based on God’s revelation of Himself and His word. These same people will often adopt a sanctimonious “it is not my place to judge others” stance in defiance of Christ’s instruction as given in John 7:24, making out that those who make such righteous judgements of sin are Pharisaical - that they are self-righteous, hypocritical and pushing a non-God-given doctrine. The problem is that these critics read their Bibles with an agenda, and usually one with a liberal bias heavily loaded towards the social gospel which largely ignores the primary reason for the Incarnation in the first place.

I have heard it said that those who speak those righteous judgements that Christ has told us to make (John 7:24) are lacking compassion. Whereas some may be doing so, I would suggest that the opposite is often the case. Truth may be spoken without love, but love without truth is not love at all. It is merely some sentimental sop condoning permissiveness. A traveller comes to a crossroads and has to decide a destination. He makes an inquiry and is told “I care about you deeply, fellow traveller, and will even carry your bag for you. But I wont tell you which path ends up where”. That is not compassion. His informant doesn’t care a damn!

This is splitting God’s love from His righteousness and holiness. They are not to be split, being two facets of the one God, integrated parts of His character. Indeed they cannot be split. God requires us to be holy as He is Holy. Without His word concerning what is sin we can not know just what dire situation we are in, that mankind’s behaviour has become so debauched and depraved that we are desperately in need of His compassionate act of redemption in Christ. These things cannot be divorced from each other. There is little compassion in ignoring the crimes against God that we sinners are capable of committing, and the consequences of them both here-and-now and eternally. Hush up the nature of sin and its horrific consequences and you steer people away from their need for God.

We hear it so often today - “God is love” - but just what that love really is has been forgotten. It is seen as a description of certain behaviours, the loving thing to do. Indeed it is that, but the real basis of this love - and what is truly meant by “God is love” - is in the Incarnation where Jesus came among us primarily to give Himself as the atonement for our sins, for our redemption. That it was necessary, that our sin made that so, and that He willingly did this great thing is the real love of God. That is the foundation of His compassion - it is His compassion. The rest of what Jesus did emanates from this primary purpose. Lose sight of that, and love becomes just another word, one we hope to see and exercise ourselves, but seldom close to the great act of compassion that took place on Calvary nearly 2,000 years ago.

God is not mocked. He is patient and gives us time and many second chances, but there is an end to his patience and that will be coming. It comes for each one of us when we get to confront Him face-to-face, and at the end of time itself.

The more I think on that terrible Passion of Christ, his scourging and crucifixion, the agony of His burden in the Garden of Gethsemane, the events of the next day, the humilation, the pain, the utterly horrendous torment and trauma… the more I grieve for those who are unregenerate and the great harm that they bring to themselves in their ignorance, defiance and mockery of God. Christians who are most cognizant of what it cost Jesus are not ones who go around with the kind of attitudes that rejoice in the sufferings of others, who want to punish and gloat. That has been said of conservative Christians. It is that cognizance of Christ’s sacrifice that spawns compassion, a truly deep compassion that bears fruit in our evangelism and actions towards others. Anything pharisaical is from a superficial brush with Christian ideals, not from deep in the heart where Christ’s Passion is known, where God’s mercy and forgiveness has been received with genuine humility. Having been forgiven much, one does not dare condemn another. Those players in the Folsom Street Fair do not need my condemnation as they manage to do that most generously for themselves. They need Christ’s compassion, and more desperately than they surely care to know.

1 Corinthians 2: 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment.

There are three Christian forums (some prefer the Latin plural “fora”) to which I post now-and-then, in two of which (in the USA and NZ) I have Administrator and/or Moderator duties, and the third being the Anglican Mainstream Forum based in the United Kingdom. I hasten to add that I don’t hang out on forums all of the time as real life frequently intervenes and takes me elsewhere. But on one of those forums, all those with orthodox or traditional Christian beliefs are constantly challenged by those prefering a more liberal theology, and get to be called “Pharisees” for resisting the revision to our faith which has been handed down from the Apostles and taught by the Church for almost 2,000 years.

Well, it just ain’t so! That does not make one a Pharisee. No, not at all.

Why object to this term? Because it is used to derogate, to depreciate another, to imply a self-righteous judgemental attitude held by the one so called, and most usually, it is applied quite incorrectly as well. The semi-common usage of this term is to describe a hypocritical and arrogant person who places the letter of the law above the spirit of the law. It is used as ad hominem in a debate, is often a “red herring”, and unless ignored or refuted can obscure the issue. The use of the term needs to be addressed, and it’s meaning clarified for all who would bandy it around improperly.

Back in New Testament days the Pharisees were the “conservative party” within Judaism, holding very strictly to the Torah and the Talmud, and paying strict attention to detail in the observation of both. They were obsessed with adherence to the minutiae of doctrine, and their doctrine went far beyond that of Scripture to that instead of man-made tradition - “the precepts of men” (Matthew 15:9b). Thus their judgements of others were not based on Scripture, but on their own (and those of their predecessors) vain legalistic imaginations.

The heart of Pharisaism is found in Luke 18:9 - “confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else” (NIV); “trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt” (NASB); “trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and set all others at nought” (ASV); “trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others” (KJV).

The Pharisees epitomized self-righteousness, and they were zealous. But their zeal was not according to the knowledge of the righteousness of God. The righteousness of God is that based in the atonement - the righteousness of Jesus Christ alone, imputed to all believers. Not anything of our doing, but a gift of grace from God. The Pharisees sought to establish their own righteousness. Trusting in themselves, they based their righteousness on their own nit-picking law-keeping and believed themselves above all others. They looked down on, viewed with contemp, set at nought and despised - we are told.

The Pharisees were hypocrits. They believed that their own law-keeping recommended them to God, and in believing that, they believed that all law-breakers were not in favour with God. They judged others, but in denying the imputation of righteousness made through grace, they did not have that imputed righteousness themselves, the only righteousness that satisfied God’s demand - their own self-righteousness fell far short. They were sinners deserving of damnation and did not know it. Their standard was the wrong standard. They exalted themselves through their own efforts rather than boasting in the cross of Christ (Galations 6:14).

So what distinguishes a modern-day Pharisee? They are those who elevate themselves and despise others, ignoring the fact that we are all sinners whose salvation can not come from our own efforts but only from the imputed righteousness of Christ. They are those who make false judgements of others, not judging with the righteous judgement (John 7:24) as Christ has told us to do, but with the hypocrisy where in their hearts they deny their own sin and need for His mercy and forgiveness as well.

So, pointing out God’s moral law is not in itself “being a Pharisee” and doing so to teach or rebuke is not either, if the manner in which it is done is not one of self righteousness and superiority. But how quickly one is accused of being so if the other does not want to hear, does not want to know, or simply does not agree with the Scriptures that so clearly state it as so. No, no and no - it just ain’t so!

Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession.” Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.” “Yes, Lord,” she said, “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour. Matthew 15:21-28 (NIV)

I recently came across an interpretation of this passge (Matthew 15:21-28) which troubles me due to what it proclaims about Jesus. It is not an uncommon one as I have heard it a number of times. The interpretation concerned can be summed up as teaching the following ideas:

~ that there is no reason for Jesus to have the woman plead repeatedly with Him for her daughter’s healing
~ that this passage shows Jesus gaining a new insight into the inclusiveness of God, and thereby into his own role in showing that inclusion to others
~ that in growing up, Jesus had absorbed some of his cultural milieu and is acting out of that, acting without actually thinking it through completely
~ that it is the gentile woman with whom he is speaking who opens his mind to this new insight of inclusion
~ that he then realizes what she says is true, that being there is an abundance of God’s goodness for everyone, including non-Jews and other foreigners, who also qualify for a share in it
~ that Jesus is being taught an important lesson, and is humble enough to be taught, thus his greatness
~ that his subsequent healing of the woman’s daughter comes about due to his new commitment to this new insight

This interpretation does not present me with the same image of Jesus as taught to me by the rest of Scripture, nor is it, in my view, in tune with the Apostolic faith handed down the ages by the church fathers, confirmed by church councils in the early centuries of Christian history.

My reasons for this conclusion follow.

The Biblical evidence is compelling in its claim that Jesus is the Son of God - God incarnate.
We are told that He is the image of the invisible God ~ Colossians 1:15. He claims for Himself “I and the Father are one” ~ John 10:30.
The Nicene Creed states this as “being of one substance with the Father”.

Jesus was also born fully human - of flesh and blood - and subject to the same temptations and tribulations as all humankind but not giving in to them ~ Matthew 4:1-11. While being fully human, He remains of one substance with the Father (God), and somehow these two states are held in tension in the one person of Jesus Christ. He is considered the perfect human.

This may be hard to get one’s head around, but that is the conclusion reached by many great minds who have weighed the evidence and can see no better alternative. The Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) proclaimed that there was “no confusion, no change, no division, no separation” undergone by Christ’s two natures within Him; they are united in Him yet also distinct from one another. That statement has remained the traditional and orthodox belief of those who accept the basic tenets of the Christian faith.

So back to the story of the Canaanite woman…

The interpretation that troubles me holds that there is no reason for Jesus to have the woman plead with Him for her daughter’s healing. But this view ignores the greater context in which this event occurred, and the knowledge that we have of God’s overall plan that involved Jesus.

In the very first place, the Jews were God’s chosen people, those through whom He would recover the situation brought about by mankind’s fall from grace when man disobeyed God and went his own way - which is what we all do. Not to go into the details right here, Jesus was to be the One who would bring redemption - first to the Jews, and then to the Gentiles and all the rest of us up through the ages. The Canaanite woman was not a Jew, and thus her situation was not first call for Him. He tells her “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” and that is very clearly recorded so is certainly no mystery. This is the background to understanding the conversation between them.

It is important to realize that the Gospels are, beside an account of the “Good News”, a record of how Jesus taught His disciples. They had to learn God’s plan for His people, and the order and means by which it would come about. At that stage Jesus had not yet become the sacrifice that brought to fruition the plan of redemption. His work was among the Jews… until later. It was not until after His resurrection, and His appearance to Saul (the Apostle Paul) on the road to Damascus, that His work would be extended when Paul was appointed the Apostle to the Gentiles, and after the coming of the Holy Spirit that the disciples would begin their evangelistic missions.

But the woman persisted and kept calling upon Jesus. As her cries became more urgent, her faith grew with it. She had recognized Him, and she called Him her Lord. She humbled herself, acknowledging her own unworthiness in relation to Him. This is an essential part of the equation - we are not worthy on our own account, but only by His grace do we receive. Not of our own doing, but by He who shall have the glory.

This seemingly small matter of humility, the requirement that the woman persist in faith, must not be overlooked. Her answers were humble, made more so through her interaction with Jesus, and gave evidence of her great faith. Jesus commented thus, and as a result, He healed her daughter.

The interpretation ignores that point. It claims there is no reason for initially denying the woman’s request. However, I see four reasons - the three already mentioned (His purpose in relation to God’s plan, growing her faith, seeking her humility for God’s glory) plus another lesson for the disciples, that of refusing to act simply for the sake of expediency, for getting the woman off their backs so to speak. This was a teaching moment not to be missed.

And now the crunch! The interpretation claims that Jesus had absorbed some of his cultural milieu and is acting out of that, acting without actually thinking it through completely. It claims that Jesus is being taught an important lesson by the Gentile woman.

What does this say about who Jesus is? Jesus has become so human in this view that His perfect nature is now compromised such that He has become flawed like the rest of us. This interpretation has Jesus, the Son of God, succumbing to the cultural conditioning of the day, not thinking something through completely, thus making an error of judgement and requiring to be taught by us instead. What kind of Jesus is that? This comes dangerously close to the “kenosis theory” heresy.

The Kenosis theory states that Jesus gave up (emptied himself of) some of His divine attributes (omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence) while He was a man here on earth. It states that Christ did this voluntarily so that He could function as a man in order to fulfil the work of redemption. This view was first introduced in the late 1800s in Germany with Gottfried Thomasius (1802-75), a Lutheran theologian. The Kenosis theory is a dangerous doctrine because, if it were true, then it would mean that Jesus was not fully divine. And if Jesus was not fully divine, then His atoning work would not be sufficient to atone for the sins of the world. This would bring down the whole plan of redemption and Christianity would be gutted, made another worthless religious belief. If God stopped being God for one instant, the infinite suddenly stops being infinite, the immutable undergoes a mutation, and the universe comes to an end. Jesus certainly emptied Himself of something, as the Apostle Paul tells us (Philippians 2:6-9), but rather than that being His divine attributes, it was His divine perogatives - His glory and His privileges.

The correct doctrine is that of the Hypostatic Union which states that Jesus is both fully God and fully man (Col. 2:9) and did not give up any divine attributes as a man on earth. He was not “God changed into a man”, nor some mixture of God and man, nor was He man made divine. Jesus was able to see into the hearts of men and discern with great accuracy. He knew those who encountered Him before they even opened their mouths. He made no error of judgement and His perception did not need correction. This doctrinal statement from the Council of Chalcedon has not been rebutted by any Protestant reformer and is accepted universally within mainstream Christianity. It remains the understanding of Biblical truth.

In summary, this interpretation sounds revisionist, the product of liberal theology, were Jesus is being made more human than He is a member of the Godhead. He is being reconstructed to be more believable to those who suffer from disbelief. The intention may be to assist us to identify with Him, but in doing that, Scripture is being redefined to accommodate a lack of faith - and also a lack of knowledge of God. The temptation to worship Christ’s human nature is one of the most subtle and deceptive forms of idolatry. In this interpretation there is a neglect of context, both the immediate one whereby the disciples are being taught and the woman is attended to spiritually, and the over-reaching one whereby God’s plan of redemption is revealed. There is a bending of Scripture to satisfy another agenda altogether - the fashionable notion of “inclusiveness” which is actually contrary to what this event is about.

What saddens me greatly (about this skewed interpretation that I found) is that I have come across it now a number of times, and I don’t think it is at all helpful in teaching us the truth about Jesus.

Bring into a discussion the name Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius, or some of the ancient Greek gods, and the conversation continues with reasonable calm. But mention the name Jesus Christ and people start to get edgy. Why is that?

I reckon I know. If someone has to bring up that subject, then they are usually a religious nutter - a person who has lost his marbles and believes a lot of nonsense, who has swallowed it whole and wants you to do so as well, and is arrogant enough to think he is right and everyone else is wrong. Those types can become quite embarrassing, wanting you to listen when the subject is highly personal and nothing can be proven one way or another. They can be scary. Some will even bring out a Bible and point you to things in it, as though that means they are right and you are not. It can get awfully irritating and you just wish they will go away and keep it to themselves. True?

But sometimes the discussion gets interesting, especially when a wide range of ideas can be tossed around, or it gets into the spooky ghost story stuff about haunted houses and the doppelgänger. Or it may be interesting if one has a serious concern and is seeking a spiritual answer, or is at some crossroads in life and genuinely wondering about “God things” or what-have-you. Interesting, that is, if the other is prepared to listen and enter into a discussion without badgering and going beyond comfortable limits.

All the same, it intrigues me that the mention of Jesus, more so than any other religious identity, causes such a strong reaction. I think it has to do with the unique claim that He made… that He is God Incarnate, God in human flesh. That is an astounding thing to say. The immediate response to such a statement might well be that He had to be a fruitcake, suffering from delusions of grandeur in the extreme. People with good mental health just don’t go around saying stuff like that. Some schizophrenic people have those kind of ideas occasionally, but you just need to look at them and their lifes to know that isn’t the case. And then there is all that impossible carry-on about a virgin birth and a physical resurrection. Most people who have navigated puberty are in the know on baby-making, and that dead bodies don’t get up and walk away except on a Hollywood shoot. It just isn’t real. People don’t function that way.

But what if there was evidence to the contrary? What if it really did happen once …say around 2,000 years ago? You might shake your head and say it is not possible, but do you actually know beyond a shadow of a doubt that is the case? Are you just saying that, just making an assumption …or did you objectively look into the matter, look thoroughly that is, then consider and weigh all the evidence yourself?

Some will answer “No need! I don’t have time for nonsense. I have better things to do!” OK then, you had probably better go and get them done. But if the evidence pointed convincingly to the very real possibility these things did happen once, how important are your better things to do compared with such a discovery?

The evidence really is worth a look. It is both substantial and substantive. If you haven’t done so already, I challenge you to do so.

Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was one of the founders of Harvard Law School. He authored the authoritative three-volume text, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (1842), which is still considered “the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure.”1 Greenleaf literally wrote the rules of evidence for the U.S. legal system. He was certainly a man who knew how to weigh the facts. He was an atheist until he accepted a challenge by his students to investigate the case for Christ’s resurrection. After personally collecting and examining the evidence based on rules of evidence that he helped establish, Greenleaf became a Christian and wrote the classic, Testimony of the Evangelists.

“Let [the Gospel's] testimony be sifted, as it were given in a court of justice on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth.” 2

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sir Lionel Luckhoo (1914-1997) is considered one of the greatest lawyers in British history. He’s recorded in the Guinness Book of World Records as the “World’s Most Successful Advocate,” with 245 consecutive murder acquittals. He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II — twice. Luckhoo declared:

“I humbly add I have spent more than 42 years as a defense trial lawyer appearing in many parts of the world and am still in active practice. I have been fortunate to secure a number of successes in jury trials and I say unequivocally the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.” 3

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lee Strobel was a Yale-educated, award-winning journalist at the Chicago Tribune. As an atheist, he decided to compile a legal case against Jesus Christ and prove him to be a fraud by the weight of the evidence. As Legal Editor of the Tribune, Strobel’s area of expertise was courtroom analysis. To make his case against Christ, Strobel cross-examined a number of Christian authorities, recognized experts in their own fields of study (including PhD’s from such prestigious academic centers as Cambridge, Princeton, and Brandeis). He conducted his examination with no religious bias, other than his predisposition to atheism.

Remarkably, after compiling and critically examining the evidence for himself, Strobel became a Christian. Stunned by his findings, he organized the evidence into a book entitled, The Case for Christ, which won the Gold Medallion Book Award for excellence. Strobel asks one thing of each reader - remain unbiased in your examination of the evidence. In the end, judge the evidence for yourself, acting as the lone juror in the case for Christ…4

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1 Knott, The Dictionary of American Biography, back cover of The Testimony of the Evangelists.
2 Simon Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence, Kregel Classics, 1995, Backcover.
3 Sir Lionel Luckhoo, The Question Answered: Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Luckhoo Booklets, back page. http://www.hawaiichristiansonline.com/sir_lionel.html.
4 Lee Strobel, The Case For Christ, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998, 18.

Source

Check out this fascinating website - All About the Journey - where Randall Niles shares his journey from atheism to Christian belief. Lots of interesting stuff here for those with the big questions.