Easter Sunday… the celebration of the Resurrection of Christ. Many sceptics have become Christians while attempting to refute the Resurrection. To present all the evidences here would take too many words, but a summary list of salient points to address include:

~ this event occurred exactly as predicted
~ the Roman seal was broken and the Roman Guard (4 -16 man security force) gone missing
~ the huge heavy stone (1½ - 2 tons) was moved away, having to be pushed up an incline
~ Jesus was not in the tomb, but his burial bandages were left behind
~ over 500 eyewitnesses saw him alive, including disbelieving and hostile witnesses who were subsequently convinced it was He
~ the lives of His followers changed dramatically and despite torture and death they did not recant

The significance and explanations surrounding each of these points have been debated strenuously, and the proof evidence presented continues to point to the only reasonable conclusion, namely, that Christ rose bodily from death.

To follow these evidences and the arguments every way concerning them, click on the following links. Go on, I dare you! Sceptics and scoffers beware. If you are prepared to give honest consideration to what you read here, prepare for (at very least) a seed of doubt to enter your disbelief.

Evidence for the Resurrection by Josh McDowell
Evidence for the resurrection of Christ by Peter Kreeft
Evidences for the Resurrection by J. Hampton Keathley III, M.Th.
Evidence for the Resurrection from “Contend for the Faith“, an Apologetics and Theology Resource.

A comment from Peter Kreeft, Ph.D., professor of philosophy at Boston College:

The historical evidence is massive enough to convince the open-minded inquirer. By analogy with any other historical event, the resurrection has eminently credible evidence behind it. To disbelieve it, you must deliberately make an exception to the rules you use everywhere else in history. Now why would someone want to do that?

Ask yourself that question if you dare, and take an honest look into your heart before you answer.

Crossing one’s fingers behind one’s back means that what one is saying is not the truth.

The recent death has been reported of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This organization is a cult that preaches an aberrant non-orthodox Christian theology while claiming (falsely) to be Christian - see here. What really caught my eye about the report of their president’s death was a comment as follows… Over the years, Hinckley laboured long to burnish the faith’s image as a world religion far removed from its peculiar and polygamous roots. Still, during his tenure the Roman Catholic Church, Southern Baptist Convention and United Methodist Church - the three largest U.S. denominations - each declared Mormon doctrines depart from mainstream Christianity. “We are not a weird people,” Hinckley told Mike Wallace on “60 Minutes” in 1996. “The more people come to know us, the better they will understand us,” Hinckley said in an interview with The Associated Press in late 2005. “We’re a little different. We don’t smoke. We don’t drink. We do things in a little different way. That’s not dishonourable. I believe that’s to our credit.”

Yes, it may be considered to their credit… that they don’t smoke nor drink (although a little red wine has proven advantages to health, thus credit worthiness may be disputed) …and it is not dishonourable; not as a rule.

But that is NOT what was meant by the churches mentioned in the comment - the Roman Catholics, Southern Baptists and United Methodists. The now late Mr Hinckley sneakily shifted the topic of conversation sideways to avoid the issue of doctrine. Nobody was saying those things were dishonourable. It is their non-orthodox theology that is a departure from mainstream Christianity, and that was the issue which Mr Hinckley seemed to have preferred to avoid.

Sneaky, eh?

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.

Oops, most of July has slipped by and nothing added to my Journal ! But then, no-one has been after me to see where I might have got to, or if I truly had nothing to say for myself for once. Certainly that is not the case for I have been chatting on a forum or two instead. On a Christian website recently, a new member posted a list of things that (according to the unbeliever who devised it) a Christian is supposed to believe - or rather, a “religious nutcase”. The assumption was that the Christian is a religious nutcase, of course. On reading down the list I found myself having to conclude that I am no “religious nutcase” or at least, not the kind defined by this amazing set of beliefs.

Here is the full list of those “beliefs” here:

You know you’re a religious nutcase when…

- You feel the world owes you a favor and claim persecution when it doesn’t live up to it.
- When reality and the Bible contradict, you accuse reality of being wrong.
- You believe one’s political party determines their salvation.
- You believe every human life is sacred, but are willing to destroy it if said life belongs to a liberal, Jew, Muslim, atheist, homosexual, or feminist.
- You believe the universe revolves around the earth and all human affairs.
- You believe that a fertilized egg is more of a human being than the woman who carries it.
- You relish in telling people they are going to hell for arbitrary offenses like voting Democrat
- You propose the idealogy that it doesn’t matter how we treat the planet, as God will make a new one if we break this toy.
- You think that if God didn’t exist, you’d be a suicidal drug-abusing criminal, because apparently the promise of a reward in the afterlife is the only thing worth being a decent person for.
- You call people fascists for opposing a religious totalitarian government.
- You attribute all the world’s woes to arbitrary groups of people.
- You find pretty much anything that people do for fun to be sinful.
- You think the Jesus in Near Death Experiences is an imposter because he wasn’t a judgemental prick like yourself.
- You think ‘liberal', ‘atheist' and ‘satan' all mean the same thing.
- You think America was founded for Christians only.
- You think Bush has two-way conversations with God.
- You call for a boycott of telephone and electric companies because they inevitably provide services to homosexuals.
- You are incapable of finding humor in anything except human suffering.
- You think you’re going to be part of the .0000001% of humanity going to Heaven watching everyone who ever annoyed you, beat you at baseball, or proved you wrong logically burn in eternal torment and suffering. You also beleive that pride and wrath are sins.
- You’d rather change the english language to include “nucular” than admit that your president looks like a moron.
- You list sins in the following order of importance: Homosexuality; Abortion; Disbelief in any aspect of the bible; ‘Belief’ in evolution; Pedophila (unless church-related); Liberalism; Atheism; Communism; Promiscuity (particularly holding hands); Theft; Being foreign; Drinking alcohol (unless it’s the blood of Christ). Only then will you reluctantly bother to acknowledge: Murder; Rape; Incest; Nazism; Infanticide; War; Genocide.
- You assume everyone in the bible was white because you cannot conceive that holy men would be of another race
- You’re homophobic, but take great pleasure in graphic descriptions of anal sex.
- Your favorite debate tactic is putting your fingers in your ears and going LA LA LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU STUPID HEATHEN LA LA LA LA LA LA
- You’re not a mysogynist; if you hated women you wouldn’t want to own one
- You’re not a homophobe; if you were afraid of gays you wouldn’t hunt them down and beat the *beep* out of them
- You think Hitler is in heaven because he believed in Jesus but all the Jews he killed are in hell because they didn’t
- You think 9/11, Katrina, Virginia Tech, and soldier deaths in Iraq are God’s wrath against America for not putting gays in death camps.

The content of Judah’s Journal is copyright. If you are NOT reading this on Judah’s Journal, then it has been copied from there and is re-published illegally - in other words, stolen. Those who would do that are common thieves and lack moral integrity. Judah’s Journal

Well, whoever devised that list must surely have had far too much time on their hands. While it may or may not describe a “religious nutcase”, one thing it does not do is describe the Christian faith. It is little more than a list of straw man arguments - a collection of fallacies based on a wild misrepresentation of (in this case) Christianity.

So often these days I am finding people who are put off Christianity due to their misconceptions (like some of those in the list above) of what it is that a Christian believes, or what the Bible actually says, or what God is supposedly like. I am told that the Bible is full of contradictions, but interestingly, when I ask for an example I am given nothing specific - it “just is” I am told. There is no better obstacle to knowledge than a belief in some vague generalization without the wish to look into specifics in order to discover the truth. Start looking more critically at the specifics and the contradictions are frequently nowhere to be seen. And when it comes to what God is supposedly like, it is worth resisting the temptation to describe or explain Him in some positive way, to provide a pat answer. It is better to ask how the other views God. What often follows then is a painful misrepresentation of God - one in whom the true believer could never believe either. Maybe the nonbeliever, by virtue of his unbelief, is perhaps closer to a truer belief than first realized.

Unless holding a mirror in place and looking at the reflected image, it is not expected that we can look full on at one side of something and simultaneously see the opposite side of it. We can gaze at the full moon and see one half of the sphere, but while we do not see the other side of it, we do know logically that it must exist.

Today we are living in an age where naturalism is in ascendancy, and the belief of earlier ages in supernaturalism has declined. But to those of us holding a coherent Biblical Christian worldview, there are both these two elements - just like the front that is seen and the back that is unseen - that exist together. The visible and the invisible are present together, intimately connected to each other. Our physical senses can bring us objective knowledge of what exists, but they do not readily verify what appears not to exist - or what does exist but is outside perception by our physical senses.

Does this mean that the unseen world does not exist? Of course it doesn’t. You may not agree with me, but take one simple example where our common sense tells us that there is a back of the moon, an unseen half of the sphere. Or just as we know that, whereas our eye cannot see viruses, they can be detected by an electron microscope. Should we be able to travel back in time and tell first century man about radio waves, microwaves, x-rays, and all the rest of these invisible phenomena, he would be calling us the supernaturalists - and were he a naturalist, to him we would be the crazy believers and out of our heads.

The naturalist believes strongly in the existence of the physical world to the exclusion of a supernatural one, considering unprovable the existence of a spiritual world where spiritual beings and activity exists. So be it. However, the Christian worldview presupposes existence of this spiritual world, one where much is unseen and is outside of our normal awareness. It is revealed to us by spiritual means, by prayer, by fellowship with God, by His teachings from Scripture. It is the new horizon that we have acquired in accepting that we are more than mere mortals, that we have souls that persist into eternity long after our physical beings have perished. To the secular and unbelieving naturalist this is just silly nonsense. Because he cannot see the unseen, he readily declares it doesn’t exist and scoffs at the Christian whose horizon has thus extended well beyond his own.

This invisible world features persistently in the New Testament. God is spirit and dwells in the spiritual realm, but has a wide-reaching involvement in our physical realm, even to the extent of the incarnation of Christ, His miracles, the Transfiguration, the Resurrection, the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, the event of Pentecost, the meeting of Paul with Jesus on the road to Damascus… to name but a few.
The Apostle Paul tells us…

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. (Ephesians 6:12)

There is the recognition of an invisible world that exists beyond that of our physical one, and the battle for our souls rages there as much as it does in this physical world in which we live. It might well be unnerving to realize this, but all that happens - all that we think and do - is not quite as private as supposed by the naturalist. With the coexistence of the invisible spiritual world, consider this:

Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us.
(Hebrews 12:1)

The emphasis throughout Scripture is not that this spiritual or supernatural realm is far away, but that it is right here, very close indeed, and present with us now.

The content of Judah’s Journal is copyright. If you are NOT reading this on Judah’s Journal, then it has been copied from there and is re-published illegally - in other words, stolen. Those who would do that are common thieves and lack moral integrity. Judah’s Journal

As a teenager I was intrigued by the idea of another world that co-existed with the one I already knew. Perhaps that would explain the phenomena of ghosts? Perhaps I enter that world in my sleep, and when I dream dreams? And well before I came to know what was written in the Bible, I put those quandaries into verse…

Reality

Have you ever thought perchance
That life is just a life-long trance;
You’re sleeping in some crazy dream
And not awake as it may seem?

Perhaps the world you know as real,
And everything you think and feel,
Is mythopaeic, nothing more?
Of what you know, can you be sure?

If doubts arise then question this
That answers may not go amiss,
And consider then what sleep might be
When dreams of other worlds tease thee.

© Judah, 2007

Some of the questions posed by those who are non-believers concern the character of God. If God is indeed a loving God, then why does He not stop all the evil that is going on in the world? How can I believe in a God who lets such terrible things happen? Is He not all powerful after all? Or if He is, then isn’t He cruel not to prevent them when He could? Well… good questions! They may seem daunting to answer, but the answers have much to do with perspective and from where one sits to view.

First of all, it helps to consider Who is God. Is He greater than you, or are you greater than Him? Do you know more than Him, or does He know more than you? To find adequate answers to the original questions requires agreement that God is greater than all of us, and that His knowledge - and also His wisdom - is greater as well. It also requires a more basic agreement that God does exist and that we can have knowledge of Him (or why ask such questions in the first place?)

Now to digress for a moment… Our pet moggy got herself in a fight and was rewarded with a very nasty deep puncture wound in her neck. When we discovered it, the wound was already beginning to fester and it was obvious she needed to be seen by the vet. This always causes a problem for our moggy who hates travelling in vehicles almost as much as she hates taking medicine. But without medical treatment our moggy’s life would certainly be in considerable danger and a painfully miserable end be quite likely. So we bundled her into the car anyway, subjected her to the indignities of a thorough examination by a stranger, a needle stuck into her body, and a course of tablets daily for the following week. She howled in protest and her cries were piteous. Her torturers were the most evil beings imaginable for inflicting all this upon her. But how could she know, as we did, about the existence of pathogenic micro-organisms and what is required to combat their disastrous effects? Or that the vet had spent years at university studying such matters, or that the trip by car was necessary? How could she know that the tablets we had to force her to swallow were in effect saving her life, and that the evil we were doing was not evil at all? It would have helped us greatly if she could have had more faith in us, in that we knew more than she did about these things, and that the outcome would be best for her in the long run. But from our moggy’s perspective, we were certainly thumbs down.

If we believe that we are purely physical beings, that there is nothing more to us than a body and mind, and that these things which are temporal are all there is to us, then we are not sitting in quite the right place to have much of a view. The view stops at the temporal horizon and goes no further. There is no way to see anything beyond - into the spiritual realm. It is quite easy from there to say such a realm does not even exist. Of course that would seem so… if one does not see it. And if there is no acceptance of ourselves as spiritual as well as physical beings, and the existence of a spiritual realm, then questions about God (who is spirit) become rather meaningless anyway, as do accusations about Him. It is necessary to be somewhat open-minded to the view that we are not just physical beings, but spiritual ones also. And that our temporal existence is momentary in time, and secondary to our spiritual being. Could it be possible that God, who has greater knowledge and wisdom than we, is considering our spiritual well-being far beyond this temporal world wherein events occur that we call evil, even allowing this evil to occur while having our best interests at heart?

The content of Judah’s Journal is copyright.
If you are NOT reading this on Judah’s Journal, then it has been
copied from there and is re-published illegally - in other words, stolen.

Just as a wounded animal may not understand the reason for those things that it finds distressing and protests against, we often do not understand why God allows us to be afflicted by evil events. It is an assumption to jump from that lack of understanding to the conclusion that God is not all powerful to stop it, or that if He is all powerful then He is cruel to let it continue. Is it right to assume that evil events must always have evil outcomes? And that if evil events do not necessarily have evil outcomes, then in order to be loving that God must stop evil? I think those assumptions are fallacious; they are short-sighted. They are certainly understandable to entertain from a temporal perspective, but not so from a spiritual one. They are not accepting of the view that God has far greater knowledge and wisdom than I, and that He is indeed loving when He allows them to occur where their outcomes are in my best spiritual interests. This perspective acknowledges our temporal existence as momentary and secondary to our spiritual existence.

Only from this spiritual perspective can we have an adequate answer to the problem of evil in this world and how God, since He is sovereign, allows it to occur. If worldly answers are required, then they will be found wanting. And the one who wants an excuse not to address God and His invitation to meet at the foot of the cross will have found what he wants, albeit not in the best interests of his non-temporal soul.

1 Do not fret because of evil men or be envious of those who do wrong;
2 for like the grass they will soon wither, like green plants they will soon die away.
3 Trust in the LORD and do good; dwell in the land and enjoy safe pasture.
4 Delight yourself in the LORD and he will give you the desires of your heart.

Psalm 37

Another response 1
Another response 2
Another response 3
Another response 4

As a South Islander, a Cantabrian born and bred, I thoroughly approve of the new 50 cent stamp we are soon to be using for our regular letters.

Lake Coleridge, named after a descendant of the famous English poet, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, was created by glacier moraine. The water is snow-fed, freezing cold - testified to be so by one who once braved a skinny-dip therein! But to climb the surrounding mountains would require those scansorial feet that, as a native of the Canterbury Plains, I do not have.

This is the kind of natural beauty that tells me about the artistry and character of He who created all. To have spoken it all into being is quite some feat, and it has me wondering about the liberal theologians who say they believe in such a God but then go on to deny the intervention of His supernatural abilities whereby a virgin did give birth, and the crucified Jesus was bodily resurrected.

God is certainly not limited by liberal theology. It took Someone of incredible imagination to conceive of our world, and incredible artistry to design all its features. The only limits God exhibits are those self-imposed by virtue of His character, and of His being. The question may be asked, “can God create an object too heavy even for Himself to lift?” and the answer is neither yes nor no. If the answer is Yes, then it suggests that He is not omnipotent (all powerful) - and the same if the answer is No. The answer is that the question itself is meaningless nonsense. It is another form of the question “Is there something that is more than infinite?” And the answer to that is that it is logically impossible for anything to be more than infinite because infinity has no end. In short, the question represents a category mistake.

Our Creator has the power to do anything actually possible, even if it is impossible for ourselves to do, but He doesn’t attempt that which is meaningless nonsense as His character, His being, is not that of meaningless nonsense. The liberal theologians who attempt to strip away the truth of the Virgin Birth and the bodily Resurrection of Christ are confusing their own power (the lack of it) for His, laying on God their own human impotence. God who created all is far greater than that, as testified by His entire creation.

The content of Judah’s Journal is copyright. If you are NOT reading this on Judah’s Journal, then it has been copied from there and is re-published illegally - in other words, stolen. Those who would do that are common thieves and lack moral integrity. Judah’s Journal

To Nature

by Samuel Taylor Coleridge

It may indeed be fantasy when I
Essay to draw from all created things
Deep, heartfelt, inward joy that closely clings;
And trace in leaves and flowers that round me lie
Lessons of love and earnest piety.
So let it be; and if the wide world rings
In mock of this belief, it brings
Nor fear, nor grief, nor vain perplexity.
So will I build my altar in the fields,
And the blue sky my fretted dome shall be,
And the sweet fragrance that the wild flower yields
Shall be the incense I will yield to Thee,
Thee only God! and thou shalt not despise
Even me, the priest of this poor sacrifice.

Christians are often accused of being narrowminded, or not very tolerant. Together with such an accusation, it is assumed that being narrowminded and intolerant are negative things. It is thought not very nice to be narrowminded, and not very nice to be intolerant. Therefore Christianity is a not very nice kind of faith to have, and makes one into a not very nice person.

As far as these things being not very nice, there are some important points to consider before one is quite so judgemental of Christians. Yes, those who like to call Christians judgemental (intolerant and narrowminded) are often being the judgemental ones themselves!

To be narrow in one’s thinking is quite essential in certain things. Broadmindedness has no place in the world of scientific facts where water always boils at 212°F and freezes at 32°F at sea level, gravity causes objects to fall rather than rise, the compass points to magnetic north rather than east or west, and the sum of 3 and 3 in the decimal number system is always 6. We rely on narrowmindedness in these matters. Give a broadminded response to a request for directions to a point on a map, and the one asking will be left misinformed and confused. In a great many instances, the narrow way is the only rational way to go, and being narrow about an issue defines it precisely, clearly and accurately.

The words of Jesus were far from broadminded here:

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”
(Matthew 7:13-14)

And now that business of tolerance…

This is a favourite word of the day. It is considered a virtue to be tolerant, and of some things that is so. But is it really such a virtue to be tolerant (liberal, willing to put up with, permissive) of things that can be harmful to ourselves and society? This supposedly virtuous attitude has been made to cover too many aspects of life, and now in the name of tolerance we are accepting of bad behaviour that amounts to delinquency and criminal activity, slackness of moral convictions that have broken up families, and a welcoming of ideologies that promote self-serving attitudes fostering greed, poverty, disease, angst, hopelessness and despair.

Most caring parents know that loving a child does not mean being permissive, giving in to every want and whim, and withholding discipline. Being tolerant of bad behaviour gives permission for more of the same. Being tolerant in moral issues results in a lack of convictions. The more liberal and broad-minded, the more “anything goes”. Being tolerant is therefore not such a virtue after all. It is a vice.

One person who was decidedly not tolerant is Jesus. He was most definitely intolerant of a world that made us slaves to our appetites, covetness, selfishness, greed, lust, pride, and other sins. He was intolerant of hypocrisy and of falseness, of deception, of any form of unrighteousness. If one is looking for any kind of virtue in tolerance, one is looking in the wrong direction when these things are allowed to go unchecked. Thus there is virtue in intolerance, and we do well to be intolerant as Jesus Himself was of sin.

That leads one to being narrowminded, I hear. But if we are to be intolerant of such things as selfishness, then we are to be the opposite of that - selfless, unselfish, genuinely loving, giving what others truly and genuinely need. We are presented with a choice - to go the broad, easy, tolerant of sin, popular and secular way of the world, or to choose to follow the way shown by Jesus, the narrow way that is intolerant of sin, that is clear and precise and accurate in its way to He by whose grace we have life.

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
(John 14:6)

The content of Judah’s Journal is copyright. If you are NOT reading this on Judah’s Journal, then it has been copied from there and is re-published illegally - in other words, stolen. Those who would do that are common thieves and lack moral integrity. Judah’s Journal

Are you someone who thinks that folk who lived around 2000 years ago were less intelligent than ourselves? Do you think they were easily duped, could not reason as well or as effectively, and that their minds had less processing power than do ours today? For one thing, I doubt that most of us could remember details anywhere near as well with our easy reliance on writing it down and storing it in various forms for quick and accurate retrieval. Without the need to memorize as folk did back then, our minds could be said to have become somewhat lazy, relatively speaking. And while memorizing doesn’t necessarily mean comprehension, there is still nothing to indicate that intelligence is greater today than in any other age of homosapien existence. Critics were just as astute and cynical, their reasoning just as precise, and their observations requiring particular attention to detail for reports and later accurate recall. Only the arrogant can waive aside the evidence that convinced so many back then and since that the man who died so hideously had truly come alive and walked free from his embalment and burial.

For the Resurrection to have any significance, Jesus had to be well and truly dead first. It must not be forgotten that He was scourged beforehand - repeatedly beaten and whipped with a 3-lash scourge that had pieces of bone or metal attached to the ends which would tear into the skeletal muscles setting the stage for circulatory shock. A crown of thorns was pushed on to his head. Nails that were between 5 and 7 inches long and almost half an inch square were hammered through his wrists and feet. He was speared through the ribcage, his right lung and pericardal sac and heart pierced releasing both blood and pleural fluids. Just that wound in itself would have been fatal. Most unusually, his legs were not broken - but there was no need to do so as he was already undeniably dead. Later his body was embalmed in up to 100 pounds of spices and bound in bandages, these hardening as the spices and pastes dried. Even had he only swooned and then woken up in the tomb, he was firmly encased. The tomb had a huge stone weighing up to 2 tons rolled across its entrance on a carved downward track, a seal fixed across it, and a Roman guard set in place. Pilate required, and was given, official assurance that Jesus was dead. Any assumptions that Jesus had only just swooned fly right in the face of modern medical knowledge.

Not only did He die, but Jesus also rose in the same physical body in which He died. There are many alternate explanations for the disappearance of Christ’s dead body, but none of them satisfy the facts of the case. Many sceptics have become Christians while attempting to refute the Resurrection. To present all the evidences here would take too many words, but a summary list of salient points to address include:

~ this event occurred as predicted
~ the Roman seal was broken and the Guard gone missing
~ the huge heavy stone was moved away
~ Jesus was not in the tomb, but his burial bandages were left behind
~ over 500 eyewitnesses saw him alive, including disbelieving and hostile witnesses who were subsequently convinced it was He
~ the lives of His followers changed dramatically and despite torture and death they did not recant

The significance and explanations surrounding each of these points have been debated strenuously, and the proof evidence presented continues to point to the only reasonable conclusion, namely, that Christ rose bodily from death. To follow these evidences and the arguments every way concerning them, click on the following links. Go on, I dare you! Sceptics and scoffers beware. If you are prepared to give honest consideration to what you read here, prepare for (at very least) a seed of doubt to enter your disbelief.

The content of Judah’s Journal is copyright. If you are NOT reading this on Judah’s Journal, then it has been copied from there and is re-published illegally - in other words, stolen. Those who would do that are common thieves and lack moral integrity. Judah’s Journal

Evidence for the Resurrection by Josh McDowell
Evidence for the resurrection of Christ by Peter Kreeft
Evidences for the Resurrection by J. Hampton Keathley III, M.Th.
Evidence for the Resurrection from “Contend for the Faith“, an Apologetics and Theology Resource.

A comment from Peter Kreeft, Ph.D., professor of philosophy at Boston College:

The historical evidence is massive enough to convince the open-minded inquirer. By analogy with any other historical event, the resurrection has eminently credible evidence behind it. To disbelieve it, you must deliberately make an exception to the rules you use everywhere else in history. Now why would someone want to do that?

Ask yourself that question if you dare, and take an honest look into your heart before you answer.

The lovely picture below is again the Southern Alps of New Zealand, taken from across the foreshore of the east coast South Island fishing village of Kaikoura.

Every so often I go through phases of thinking “what on earth am I doing this for?” and feel like walking away from my website, full of doubts about it’s usefulness to anyone. This is not a crisis of personal faith (doubting the truth claims of Christianity) since that remains strong throughout such times, but more about the worthiness of myself to have anything to say to anyone else, and how much it matters… that kind of thing. So I don’t post for a little while, going off to play at other things, and before I know it my Inbox is receiving emails from all over the place - people who don’t necessarily make comments on-line but who want to tell me what my site has meant to them, or to ask a faith-type question, or to give encouragement and blessings. How can I walk away from that? And so it seems I get turned right around and told to get back to the job.

Up until such time that a Christian friend pointed me to the writings of some great Christian apologists I had no idea that our Faith was so substantial. And that’s just it… our Christian Faith does not substitute for something real, rational, intelligent. True Faith actually is all of those things - real, rational, intelligent - and often more so than worldly knowledge, since it goes well beyond this present earthly existence of ours and addresses the eternal reality. Truth is that which corresponds to reality, and the truth of the Christian Faith corresponds to eternal reality embedded in our Creator Father God. Believe on that and you are leaning on a rock and cannot fall over. Believe on man-made cultural constructs and a crisis can knock you flat.

I have heard the Bible disregarded as a collection of old books written by man and for use as a guideline only. That description saddens me as I know the Bible to be far more than that. There is objective truth about God in Scripture. It is revealed truth. It is proving very difficult to discover God by scientific means, unless you realize that science reveals knowledge of Him through the vehicle of His creation. But when it comes to the Bible, if you let it do so, you will notice that what you read can “ring true” spiritually - not all of it all the time since it is a journey of discovery rather than a time machine to some immediate destination. A healthy scepticism is useful as it stops one from being gullible, but to toss the whole thing out as “just some old guidelines” is to throw away the greatest written account that we have of God and the Christian Faith. Just because something is not immediately understood does not mean that it can never be understood, is not understandable, or is nonsense, or false - nor even self contradictory. More often than not it means one’s own knowledge is lacking instead.

The content of Judah’s Journal is copyright. If you are NOT reading this on Judah’s Journal, then it has been copied from there and is re-published illegally - in other words, stolen. Those who would do that are common thieves and lack moral integrity. Judah’s Journal

Christian Apologetics may be defined simply as the defence of the Christian Faith. In fact, it is more than just a defence. Different apologists have emphasized different functions of apologetics, but generally these include the presentation of a rational basis for faith, the answering of objections of unbelief, the challenge and refutation of non-Christian beliefs, and the persuasion that goes beyond intellectual assent such that the other tests the credibility of Christian truth claims for himself. One of the first Christian apologists was the Apostle Paul, and another was Luke, writer of his Gospel and also the Acts of the Apostles, and another John. Paul words his message to appeal to the ears of his listeners, to speak in terms by which they will best understand, although in doing so he does not dilute or distort the message itself. Paul comments on this himself where he says…

1 Corinthians 9:19 Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible.
20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.
21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.
22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.
23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

And of course Peter gives the classic biblical statement for the Christian mandate to engage in apologetics with his words that I have written on the image at the top of this post. We are always to be prepared to give an answer.

Since the writings of the Christian apologists persuaded my own belief and strengthened my own faith considerably, I have used my website to build a resource where others may also find the answers they seek, encouragement, and support in their own Christian witness. I take no credit for the work of others, but simply offer a list of links to a number of excellent sites where this apologia is found. Look on the left-hand side bar of this page to find the heading “Christian Apologia and Theology” and a list of no less than 18 sites loaded with gold. You most certainly wont be short of some fascinating reading that should bless you greatly on your journey in faith.

Matthew 7: 1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

The world often takes this passage of the Bible (out of its context) and uses it to accuse Christians of being “judgmental” when they speak of sin. The context of this passage from Matthew is revealed in verse 5 - the Christian is not to judge hypocritically or self-righteously.

Scripture repeatedly exhorts believers to evaluate carefully (John 7:24) and to choose between good and bad people and things:
~ sexually immorality (1 Corinthians 5:9)
~ those who masquerade as angels of light (2 Corinthians 11:14)
~ dogs, those who are evil (Philippians 3:2)
~ false prophets (1 John 4:1)
The Christian is to “test everything” (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

However, while Jesus is telling His disciples not to judge one another hypocritically, He also says…

“Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.”

(John 7:24)

Thus, if a man steals, lies, commits adultery or murder, etc., the Christian can make a (righteous) moral judgment and say that the actions were morally wrong, and that these sins will have eternal consequences. This is stating (teaching, repeating) the Moral Law already revealed by God - God’s own judgement of what is right or wrong.

To say of oneself in relation to Christians, in a manner of accusing them of being judgemental for stating God’s moral laws, something like “I will not judge but will leave it up to God to judge what is right and wrong” simply ignores what Jesus has told Christians to do, and what God has already revealed.

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.

As explained by Visiblesoul*…

The spiritual man judges all things but he does not judge them by his own understanding or “human wisdom”; he judges all things by the revealed knowledge of God. He is not subject to any man's judgment because the natural man cannot comprehend why the spiritual man thinks and acts the way he does. But the spiritual man does understand the natural man because the spiritual man once lived in the same natural mindset. As a wise man once said —

The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn,
shining ever brighter till the full light of day.

But the way of the wicked is like deep darkness;
they do not know what makes them stumble.
(Proverbs 4:18-19 NIV)

*(see a previous post to Judah’s Journal on this subject: Judgement - and please don't shoot the messenger!)

For a more detailed treatment of this subject, read:
“Who Are You to Judge Others?” - In Defense of Making Moral Judgments by Paul Copan

It's been said that the most frequently quoted Bible verse is no longer John 3:16 but Matthew 7:1: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” We cannot glibly quote this, though, without understanding what Jesus meant. When Jesus condemned judging, he wasn't at all implying we should never make judgments about anyone. After all, a few verses later, Jesus himself calls certain people “pigs” and “dogs” (Matt. 7:6) and “wolves in sheep's clothing” (7:15)! Any act of church discipline (1 Cor. 5:5) and rebuking false prophets (1 John 4:1) requires judgment. What Jesus condemns is a critical and judgmental spirit, an unholy sense of moral superiority. Jesus commanded us to examine ourselves first for the problems we so easily see in others. Only then can we help remove the speck in another's eye—which, incidentally, assumes that a problem exists and must be confronted.

Check out what John (Omnipotent Grace) has to add in his post here.
As John goes on to explain concerning the misuse of Matthew 7:1 …

Of course, closer examination of the passage and the verse demonstrate that to use it in such a manner is quite ridiculous. We are all to be judged one day on the basis of our life on earth.

But if we have to believe those who so love to quote this verse and use it as ammunition for whatever heresy they are defending, then it is quite simple:

If we don't judge, then we won't be judged, and therefore, if we are not judged, we won't have to account for our sins. And if we are not called to account for our sins, we have no need for a Savior, and we are assured of our safe entry into the presence of God. And that, dear friend, is heresy of the highest order.

So quite simply, taking the argument to its logical conclusion, not judging people is replacing Christ.

It has come up again - the idea that we must not single out the laws mentioned in Leviticus and apply some today and not others.

I want to address that issue in this post so that I can refer back to the teachings concerning these laws without needing to rewrite it all over and over again. In doing so I will draw heavily on the writings of someone I simply know as “farstrider”, now a Church of England theological student planning to enter the ordained ministry very soon, but an experienced and learned student of the Bible with a considerable knowledge of traditional Scriptural exegesis, and sound understanding of Biblical Hebrew and Greek. Should “farstrider” ever get to read this, I would like him to accept my heartfelt thanks for his teaching and hope he doesn’t mind too much my reproducing much of it here (mostly in his own words) for others to read too.

There are many ways that people have used to try to get out of obeying the Biblical commands. Revisionists often attempt to denigrate the Old Testament’s moral laws (particularly those touching upon homosexuality in Leviticus) by pointing out that we now eat shellfish, wear garments of mixed fibres, and don’t execute Sabbath-breakers, etc. If we have “abandoned” the latter laws, they ask, why do we hold onto the former laws as absolutes? Surely we are being inconsistent, picking and choosing, rejecting some and applying others?

The answer is No, we are not being inconsistent and making arbitary whimsical decisions about which to apply and which to ignore. Far from it. Instead, we are applying scholarly knowledge concerning the different categories of those laws and the intentions for which each category was given. To lump them all together without further consideration is to show ignorance of their different purposes.

The Christian faith teaches that God’s over-arching purpose has always been to restore mankind to Himself. We are told that all of us, each one of us, has sinned (done wrong things) and fallen short of His glory - messed up in relation to Himself who alone is holy and righteous.

In the Old Testament we read how God had a plan to bring about this reconciliation and restoration, and began to unfold this plan by calling out a man from Ur of the Chaldees - Abram. God then made a covenant with Abram, promising to make him a nation and bless him so that he could be a blessing to all nations (all of humanity is in focus here). Israel would be a light to the nations and would ultimately produce the Messiah who would restore all of humanity - and indeed all of creation - to God.

Israel was given a unique place in God's grand scheme, although while honourable, was temporary. At the right time God would draw all nations to himself through an “ideal Israel” as found in her rightful King (Jesus) and would create a new people not distinguished by language or ethnicity. So how does this touch upon the laws written in Leviticus?

The Law:

God used the law to transform a rabble of ex-slaves into a holy nation that would reflect his glory to the nations. It acted as a kind of constitution for Israel, defining the rights and responsibilities that they shared in their covenant with God. It had to tell them what was right and wrong (moral), and it had to tell them what kind of nation they would be (national).

1. Moral

The moral components deal with what is right and wrong - it is right to love the Lord your God and your neighbours, to care for the needy, to shelter orphans etc. It is wrong to commit murder, to steal, to have sexual relations with animals, near relations, members of the same sex, and so on. These morals find their origin in the unchanging holiness of God, and are in themselves unchanging. It is worth noting that one finds them echoed in the New Testament as well as the Old. These laws remain absolutes - it is wrong to murder, steal, commit adultery and so on whenever and wherever you live. They are universal laws.

2. National

The first category:

The national components cover everything from administrative, criminal, and civil laws to ritual laws.
The first category describes how God wants Israel to function - and it is comprehensive. They are told where to put toilets in relation to the camp, how kings should reign, how to deal with refugees, how to punish crimes and resolve disputes and more. Food laws (shellfish would be unsafe to eat in that climate, there being no refrigeration!) and food hygiene (prevention of illness) was spelled out. While we can learn lots from it (it reveals God's heart and is full of wisdom), it remains their constitution and not ours.

The second category (ritual) operates on at two levels:

a) It deals with how one relates to God (issues of sin, atonement through the shedding of blood and the releasing of the scape-goat, remembrance of God’s acts in the Passover and other festivals, and so on). These served as “types” (pictures) foreshadowing what Christ would accomplish through his life, death and resurrection. They were fulfilled in him, and so they no longer apply.

b) It also explains how Israel, as a nation, is to keep itself holy, separate from its pagan neighbours. That included instructions on how to cut ones beard, and what kind of clothes to wear, which are examples of this level. Again, Israel's place at centre stage was temporary. Now, through Christ, there is no longer any distinction between Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female - all peoples have been made clean through Christ's acts. The laws of separation no longer apply.

Therefore, in summation:

Basically moral laws are to be distinguished from ritual and other laws.
Having had seminary educations the revisionists shouldn’t have so much trouble with these categories, but maybe that’s not the real point for them.

There is an over-arching narrative within (and surrounding) the books of Scripture.
Genesis 1-11 serves as an introduction - God creates all things; creation is good; something goes badly wrong; God makes a promise to fallen humanity (Genesis 3:15). Humanity continues to go from bad to worse.
The rest of the Old Testament deals with how God begins to unfold his promise to Adam and Eve.
Firstly, he sets apart a nation to serve as a show-case of the kingdom. This nation has to be distinct, for they were to be a light to the nations. This nation (a la Exodus) is refined in the fires of Egypt and then the Sinai, but when they come out of the wilderness they are a people, united by the law, (but, alas, without a land).
Then they supplanted the peoples of Canaan, who had been given almost 500 years to repent before their sin had reached its full measure, thus leaving God no choice but to judge them (Genesis 15:16), but Israel herself proved to be unfaithful.
Throughout Israel’s history the promise of God, first given in Genesis 3:15, became more and more precise. The “seed of the woman” would be a descendant of Abraham; he would be from the tribe of Judah; he would be a son of David; he would be born in Bethlehem; he would be both a king and a suffering servant.
The coming of Jesus, the promised seed, marks the end of one age and the beginning of another - and the putting aside of one covenant for another (the New Covenant which had been prophesied in advance by Jeremiah, Ezekiel and others).

The question for the early Christians, and for Christians today, is this: what is the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament?

As explained above, we see the main difference. The Mosaic Covenant was given to a particular people at a particular time for a particular purpose. Yet that covenant describes for us the difference between good and evil (the moral component), and this moral aspect is anchored in the very nature of the God who is Holy. Paul, in Romans notes that this moral law, revealed most clearly in the Torah, is nonetheless separate from the Torah. The Gentiles, who did not have Moses, still understood the basics of right and wrong (Romans 2:14). This is what theologians have refer to as “Natural Law” - it is most clearly evidenced in the human conscience. The moral aspects of the Torah are still in effect because they are in accordance with the nature of God and in accordance with the moral laws that are woven into creation itself.

Not so the ritual laws. Hebrews is very careful to point out that these were merely shadows pointing to Christ.
Not so the racial laws. Paul, in Galatians (and most of his Epistles) demonstrates that these laws have fulfilled their purpose. They set Israel apart until the time when Messiah would make an end to racial divisions, creating a new people of God which encompasses every nation (in accord with God’s first promise to Adam and Eve).

Revelation serves as a conclusion to the Biblical narrative (although we are still living within that narrative). There, in Rev 5 and 7 we see the redeemed from every nation gathered around the throne worshiping the Lamb. In Rev 21 and 22 we see the earth itself remade and joined together with heaven.

Some of the following may be nothing more than a re-telling of the original post, but it is important to see the basic “breakdown” of Scripture.
Introduction - A good Creation gone wrong, and a promise
Israel - the people of promise
Christ and the people of Christ - the promise fulfilled/being fulfilled
Conclusion - the consummation of the Promise
This big picture helps us see where the pieces fit, and helps to makes sense of them.

 

 

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —  

Postscript (added 30 December, 2006): An excellent outline and explanation of these different categories of Old Testament laws can be found here on the Covenant Theology blog, written by contributor August.

 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

It is commonly claimed that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, and from there an argument is made that He did not consider it a sin. But Jesus does speak of sexual immorality. In those Biblical times there was no such word as “homosexual” as the concept of such was not understood then as it is today. A wide range of sexual behaviours outlined in the Torah (as written in Leviticus) were considered abhorrent to God, considered to be a sin, a transgression against God’s holy and righteous character. These behaviours included incest, paedophilia, bestiality, sodomy, adultery, etc. The Jews understood that lust for another, of either gender by either gender, and sexual behaviour that followed on from that outside of marriage was sin covered by the term “sexual immorality”. This was their knowledge and understanding, and that this umbrella term included the full range of forbidden behaviours. Jesus does not single out incest and bestiality either, but it would be utterly foolish to assert the argument that, by not naming the actual behaviour, He did not regard bestiality and incest as sin either.

The following are the words of Jesus.

Matthew 15: 16 “Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. 17 “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man ‘unclean.’ 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what make a man ‘unclean’; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him ‘unclean.’ “

So Jesus is indeed recorded as having made mention of sexual immorality (the full range of sexual sins written in the Torah - in Leviticus) despite what revisionists would have us believe. He was being asked by some Pharisees why His disciples break the tradition of the elders and don’t wash their hands before they eat. Jesus taught the distinction between the Moral Law and the Mosaic Covenant (national law) and that sin arises from within our own hearts and minds.

 

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —  

One teleological argument put forward for the existence of an intelligent designer of the universe was based on the watchmaker analogy refined by William Paley in 1805. It suggests that one can tell by looking at something that it must have had a designer, than it could not really have happened “naturally” as a series of random events coming together without any organization of their occurrence.

As an example to demonstrate this idea, the picture is painted of someone walking on a heath and spying a watch on the ground by one’s feet. On picking up and examining the watch, it is noticed how all its parts have been so constructed to function together to tell the time. Did it just happen, a random occurrence of atoms, or was there some intelligence behind it’s existence - a designer at work? Most people would confidently state that someone, or a team of people working together, designed and made it. Indeed, we know this to be true just as we know that such a thing did not exist until it was designed and made in that way.

And so likewise, if you look at some natural phenomenon (a particular organ or organism, the structure of the solar system, life, the entire universe) for each of these too they can be easily surmised to have been designed and built by an intelligent creator/designer.

This analogy is not a complete argument in itself, but a preamble that suggests features such as purpose of design, orderliness and complexity, and plausibility lead one to consider the real possibility that the existence of things did not just happen, not without intelligence initiating, driving and orchestrating the process.

The analogy is debated strenuously by evolutionists including Charles Darwin and more recently, Richard Dawkins. But concepts of evolution and natural selection are only theories as well, despite a general misunderstanding of many that they are proven beyond reasonable doubt. Such is not so.

Today I was shown a flash animated movie that was made presumably to counter the criticism levelled at the watchmaker anaology, and it is so delightful and cleverly done that I want to present it here for others to “watch” also. It runs for only a few minutes and with no apologies for the pun, it is well worth “the watch”.

Click here: The Watchmaker Analogy

A letter to the editor appeared in this morning’s paper and was headed “Difficulties with the Bible“.
It read as follows:

I attend church regularly but can’t accept parts of the Bible. I’m told I should do so. Can someone assist me? Three ministers have failed to give clear answers. One refused to even try.

My difficulties are with:

~ Lot’s offer to the men of Sodom that they were welcome to use his daughters rather than his male guests;
~ Anyone smiting his father should be put to death;
~ If a son be rebellious he shall be stoned to death;
~ Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live;
~ If two men fight and one’s wife tries to help by taking hold of one by the “secrets”, she shall have her hand cut off.

My adult children call this a load of rubbish. Fundamentalist Christians call it the word of God. How can I explain to my family that going to church is important to me and persuade them to return to the Christian faith?

It is not surprising that people have become sceptics. A lot of what is generally believed (but falsely so) about God, and about what is written in the Bible, is not actually believable. Often it makes far more sense not to believe it. Then on top of that, some of what really is found in the Bible creates difficulties caused simply by a gross lack of knowledge. It is like expecting someone to understand the workings of calculus when they have not yet been taught basic arithmetic.

Instead of understanding that God created us in His own image, a great many people go off the rails by reversing the idea and trying to create God in their own image instead. How often have you heard “I don’t believe God would do that!” or “I wouldn’t, therefore I don’t think God would either!” ? The misconceptions that people devise usually ignore and deny a great deal of what God has revealed about Himself. They come close to the human creation of a false god instead. One would be quite right not to believe in an errant inadequate image of God, one that did not truthfully match God’s revelation of Himself. Mistaking the misconception for the real thing justifies the lack of belief, but the ignorance of one’s own error often puts an end to further inquiry.

After disbelieving a false image of God, having presumed it to be the real thing, the next compounding error is to quote odd Bible verses out of context, or to be so vague as in “Doesn’t the Bible say something about…?” and “I thought that..” and “I’m sure it says somewhere that…” that no critical thinking seems apparent at all.

Then I commonly hear the advice given as a supposed solution to doubt “but you need to have faith”. The assumption is that faith is blind, that it takes the place of real evidence, that it is irrational and unreasonable therefore somehow fits, and that it accepts as true what simply cannot be true. Fortunately that is not the case. The Greek word for “faith” as used in the New Testament is “pistis“. As a noun, pistis is a word that was used as a technical rhetorical term for forensic proof - as in real hard evidence! One does not need “blind faith” and the faith spoken of is certainly not blind - far from it. To follow up on this click here.

Then comes those questions like the ones up above. They arise out of a pure lack of knowledge. Yes, there are proper answers for each of them and if the writer is correct in saying that three ministers she asked were unable to answer them, it is really not one bit surprising that people walk away from Christianity calling it “a load of rubbish”. Having just read of a pastor who said that he was not really looking forward to heaven as he thought it would be boring, sitting around on clouds and playing a harp all day, I can quite well believe the writer’s experience. Where in the Bible did that pastor discover that bizarre image? Nowhere. It is a cultural creation, not a true Biblical one. To hear that from just anyone is one thing, but from a Christian pastor it is really quite shocking.

The problem is the lack of teaching in matters of our faith. There is a huge degree of Biblical illiteracy not just among the general public, but among church-going Christians as well. On top of that, there is a lack of theological knowledge - not just what the Bible says, but a knowledge of “background” to give a proper understanding of the context and meaning as well. Fortunately, there is considerable Christian apologia available that provides a substantial case for the Gospel message, and answers to questions such as those above. Look to the left-hand side-bar of this page and there you will see links to many good websites providing this knowledge. As C.S. Lewis wrote in Surprised by Joy, “A young man who wishes to remain a sound aetheist cannot be too careful of his reading.” That comment back in 1955 was made well before there was any Internet for the easy proliferation of knowledge. Look around and you will be well rewarded for your efforts.

A journalist investigates scientific evidence that points toward God.

Softcover: 427 pages
Publisher: Zondervan Publishing Company (March, 2005)
Language: English
ISBN: 0310252946
Product Dimensions: 6.75 x 4.25 inches

From the back cover:

“My road to atheism was paved by science . . . But, ironically, so was my later journey to God.” - Lee Strobel.

During his academic years, Lee Strobel became convinced that God was outmoded, a belief that colored his ensuing career as an award-winning journalist at the Chicago Tribune. Science had made the idea of a Creator irrelevant - or so Strobel thought.
But today science is pointing in a different direction. In recent years, a diverse and impressive body of research has increasingly supported the conclusion that the universe was intelligently designed. At the same time, Darwinism has faltered in the face of concrete facts and hard reason.

Has science discovered God? At the very least, it’s giving faith an immense boost as new findings emerge about the incredible complexity of our universe. Join Strobel as he reexamines the theories that once led him away from God. Through his compelling and highly readable account, you’ll encounter the mind-stretching discoveries from cosmology, cellular biology, DNA research, astronomy, physics, and human consciousness that present astonishing evidence in The Case for a Creator.

Mass market edition available in packs of six.

Lee Strobel interviews some wellknown devout Christian Biblical scholars for the answers to questions that he puts to them. The contents of the book are divided into chapters with the following titles, the name of the interviewee in parenthesis:

1. Doubts about Darwinism (Jonathan Wells)
2. Where science meets faith (Stephen C. Meyer
3. The evidence of cosmology: beginning with a bang (William Lane Craig)
4. The evidence of physics: the cosmos on a razor’s edge (Robin Collins)
5. The evidence of astronomy: the privileged planet (Guillermo Gonzales & Jay Wesley Richards)
6. The evidence of biochemistry: the complexity of molecular machines (Michael J. Behe)
7. The evidence of biological information: the challenge of DNA and the origin of life (Stephen C. Meyer)
8. The evidence of consciousness: the enigma of the mind (J.P. Moreland)

Lee Strobel concludes with a chapter entitled The Cumulative Case for a Creator, and provides excellent notes and references for further exploration.

Again, another great book from Lee Strobel, one I have enjoyed reading and can recommend to provide answers to challenges aimed at the Christian faith.

A journalist investigates the toughest objections to Christianity.

Softcover: 409 pages
Publisher: Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan (2000)
Language: English
ISBN: 0-310-23528-6
Product Dimensions: 6.75 x 4.25 inches

One reviewer who posted to Amazon.com had the following to say:

“If you have questions about your faith, then this is a good starting point for your investigation. There are other books that go into more detail on all the issues raised here, and you may want to purchase these as well for further study. But this is a very good starting point for answering those nagging doubts about your faith in Christianity and one’s faith in the person of Jesus.”

Lee Strobel, a former atheist and now devout Christian, has a Master of Studies in Law degree from Yale Law School and was the award winning legal editor of the Chicago Tribune. He brings his skills as a legal investigative journalist to the examination of evidence in support of the Christian faith, asking wellknown Christian Biblical scholars for their answers to some of the toughest questions asked of Christianity.

The following are the objections (questions) raised to which the book gives a rational and intelligent response:
1. Since evil and suffering exist, a loving God cannot.
2. Since miracles contradict science, they cannot be true.
3. Evolution explains life, so God isn’t needed.
4. God isn’t worthy of worship if He kills innocent children.
5. It’s offensive to claim Jesus is the only way to God.
6. A loving God would never torture people in hell.
7. Church history is littered with oppression and violence.
8. I still have doubts, so I can’t be a Christian.

Lee Strobel concludes with a chapter called The Power of Faith, and provides excellent notes and references for further study.

I wholeheartedly recommend this book as a worthwhile introduction to some of the most difficult questions that are raised to challenge the faith and beliefs of Christians. Also, the responses herein may well bring a seeker to faith in Christ.

An investigative legal affairs journalist probes the evidence for the divinity of Jesus.

Paperback: 304 pages
Publisher: Zondervan (September 1, 1998)
Language: English
ISBN: 0310209307
Product Dimensions: 8.6 x 5.6 x 0.8 inches

Lee Strobel, former legal editor at the Chicago Tribune and a former non-Christian skeptic, sets out in his book to “determine if there’s credible evidence that Jesus of Nazareth really is the Son of God.” He interviews 13 devout Christian Biblical scholars and puts to each of them basic questions concerning credible evidence that supports the divinity of Jesus. He continues to probe their answers to produce a compact and interesting summary of the apologia that exists to support the case for Christ.

One major criticism of his work is that no critics of Christianity are interviewed, and so no counter-arguments are explored except very briefly in the form of questions to develop the answer of his interviewee. The result therefore is hardly balanced reporting although he does produce a good case for one side of the debate, a case that cannot be dismissed without serious consideration.

All the same, as the publisher comments on the back page: “This remarkable book reads like a captivating, fast-paced novel. But it’s not fiction. It’s a riveting quest for the truth about history’s most compelling figure. What will your verdict be in The Case for Christ?”

The questions asked (and the scholars who respond) are as follows:
1. Can the biographies of Jesus be trusted? (Dr Craig Blomberg)
2. Do the biographies of Jesus stand up to scrutiny? (Dr Craig Blomberg)
3. Were Jesus’ biographies reliably preserved for us? (Dr Bruce Metzger)
4. Is there credible evidence for Jesus outside His biographies? (Dr Edwin Yamauchi)
5. Does archaeology confirm or contradict Jesus’ biographies? (Dr John McRay)
6. Is the Jesus of history the same as the Jesus of faith? (Dr Gregory Boyd)
7. Was Jesus really convinced that He was the Son of God? (Dr Ben Witherington III)
8. Was Jesus crazy when He claimed to be the Son of God? (Dr Gary Collins)
9. Did Jesus fulfill the attributes of God? (Dr D. A. Carson)
10. Did Jesus - and Jesus alone - match the identity of the Messiah? (Louis Lapides, M.Div., Th.M.)
11. Was Jesus’ death a sham and His resurrection a hoax? (Dr Alexander Metherell)
12. Was Jesus’ body really absent from His tomb? (Dr William Craig Lane)
13. Was Jesus seen alive after His death on the cross? (Dr Gary Habermas)
14. Are there any supporting facts that point to the resurrection? ((Dr J. P. Moreland)

There is a summary conclusion that addreses the question: What does the evidence establish, and what does it mean today?
Strobel’s bibliographical recommendations at the end of each chapter seem to be generally excellent.

This is a worthwhile book for those seeking intelligent rational answers in support of Christian beliefs about Jesus.

A Journalist Investigates Cuttent Attacks on the Identity of Christ

Paperback: 311 pages
Publisher: Zondervan (2007)
Language: English
ISBN: 978-0-310-24061-7
Product Dimensions: 8.0 x 5.25 x 0.75 inches

Lee Strobel, with a journalism degree from the University of Missouri and a Master of Studies in Law degree from Yale Law School, was the award-winning legal editor of the Chicago Tribune and a spiritual skeptic until 1981. His wife became a Christian and Lee was antagonistic to her beliefs.

But deciding to be fair and objective, as much as he could from his bias towards atheism, he decided to sift through and weigh up the evidence for the Christian claims about Jesus. After all, a fair trial of the available evidence was a sound legal move and one by which he, as a legal journalist, should surely grant the claims made concerning the one called Christ. Setting out to interview the most highly regarded scholars of Christianity, he was staggered by what he discovered.

As a result, given the veracity of the evidence, he too became a Christian. Lee has since published the results of those interviews so that others may also consider the evidence, and in their role as jurors of one, decide the outcome of the “Case” he presents.

This latest “Case” book considers further the truth about Jesus. From the back cover of this book comes the following summary:

Today, the traditional picture of Jesus is under intellectual onslaught from critical scholare, popular historians, TV documentaries, Hollywood movies, bestselling authors, Internet bloggers, Muslim debaters, and aetheist think tanks. They’re capturing the public’s imagination with a radical new portrait of Jesus that bears scant resemblance to the picture historically embraced by the church.

How persuasive is this new image of jesus? Is it based on well-supported facts and arguments - or does it fade away when exposed to the hot light of scrutiny?

In this dramatic investigation, award-winning writer and former legal editor Lee Strobel explores such controversial questions as:

* Did Christianity suppress “alternative gospels” that portray Jesus more accurately than the New Testament?
* Did the church distort the truth about Jesus by tampering with the early Biblical texts?
* Have fresh insights and explanations finally disproved the resurrection?
* Were the essential beliefs about Jesus stolen from earlier mythology?
* Have new objections disqualified Jesus from being the Messiah?

Evaluate the evidence for yourself as leading experts grapple with the latest objections from today’s foremost critics. Then reach your own verdict in The Case for the Real Jesus.

This book is very timely. Even in Christian circles there is a movement away from the traditional understandings of God, how Scripture should be regarded, and the nature of Jesus. This movement is fuelled by philosophies since the Enlightenment, the liberal theologies derived from them, and heat-set by elements of today’s post-modernism. Liberalism in the mainstream Christian churches is tearing into the Christian faith, modernizing doctrine towards more fashionable cultural trends in the effort to attract more adherents but actually achieving the opposite instead. Unbelief is what this is about. Doubts are raised, and the truth is watered down to make it more acceptable to the modern thinker - except doing so also makes it no longer truth at all.

So… just who exactly is Jesus? Could He really be “God Incarnate”, or is that just a myth disproven by today’s more sophisticated knowledge and sensibilities? If you are to be fair and objective, then give Him a fair trial by examining the evidence for yourself. Lee Strobel brings it to you in all his “Case” books (several of which you will find reviewed right here) and you, the lone juror, must decide one way or the other for yourself.