The whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I find it discomposing that so many Christians are willing to sacrifice the word of God in order to make their faith easier for them.  For example, in John 5:2-6 there is spoken of a pool which an angel is said to visit at a certain time, after which whomever steped into the water first would be healed.  I have heard several Christians dismiss this as a Jewish superstition.  But wait, does our own Christian New Testament not make it a statement of fact that this actually occurred?  I cannot interpret the reading any other way but as a statement of fact.

My objective on this post is to encourage the reader to be unwavering when it comes to the word of God.  It is my belief that if a believer waivers on one word in the Bible he is then compromising the integrity of the Bible as a whole for himself and for those he is a witness to, and is thus weakening his own faith and testimony.  According to Paul

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.  2 Timothy 3:16-17

Now, if all Scripture is given by God, can any scripture be false?  Yes, God spoke it and man wrote it, and yes man is capable of mistakes whereas God is not. However, would the almighty God allow man to negatively influence or corrupt His holy word which is supposed to be passed down throughout generations?  I am not saying that there are no incorrect interpretations of His word, but that these false teachings and writings shall be made evident to those who seek His true word.  I find support for this in Matthew 5:18.  Also, stated in Psalm 119:151, all of God's commandments (scripture) are true.  So, how could a person honestly say that they believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, when they reject any part of His Word?  I find the two inseparable since John wrote "the Word was with God and the Word was God" in John 1:1.

Moving on to the heart of what I foresee to be the foundation of several upcoming post.  The book of Genesis should be understood by Christians as an inerrant part of the recorded history of the world.  I have been told by some that the story of creation is written in poetry, and should not be interpreted as literal, but I challenge those to show me where the poetry ends and the true record begins.  When reading Genesis it is one written account, smoothly transitioning through time.  Even so, if it were written in poetry, it would still be factually accurate according to Psalm 119:151.  Additionally, creation is referred to other places in the Bible.  One New Testament statement on creation is found in John,

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  He was in the beginning with God.  All tings were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.  In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.  And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.  John 1:1-5

 In closing, I would like to ask, if a Christian accepts that one scripture is in error, then how would he defend his belief in any other scripture?  If the Bible as a whole is not the complete inerrant word of God, how can one be certain any part of it is?  I encourage you to hold firm to every written word, to study out the scriptures, to be able to defend what it is that you believe in.  No part of the Bible has ever been proven untrue.  On the contrary, throughout history the Bible has revealed truth, even before the science of the day had accepted this truth.

As always, feel free to post questions or comments below anytime, I will answer questions to the best of my ability, or refer you to an appropriate source.  Please bare in mind at this time however that I will be going into much more detail on points of creation in the near future, but your questions will still be welcomed now, I will simply refer you to the new post if applicable.

Is Jesus a real historical figure?

I want to give further detail to a point made in a previous post, that there is significant reliable non-Christian records supporting that Jesus not only walked among us as a true human but that He was viewed as the Son of God from the beginning of His ministries.  I want to acknowledge the source for the vast majority of the knowledge and research comes from The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh D. McDowell, Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville, 1999.   I highly recommend this book to anyone who would like to be able to intelligently and historically defend their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and His Holy Scriptures or for those who are questioning their faith and are willing to do honest research on such.

As quoted in McDowell, The New Evidence page 60,

Michael Wilkins and J.P. Moreland conclude that even if we did not have ay Christian writings, "we would be able to conclude from such non-Christian writings as Josephus, the Talmud, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger that: (1) Jesus was a Jewish teacher; (2) many people believed that he performed healings and exorcisms; (3) he was rejected by the Jewish leaders; (4) he was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius; (5) despite this shameful death, his followers, who believed that he was still alive, spread beyond Palestine so that there were multitudes of them in Rome by A.D. 64; (6) all kinds of people from the cities and countryside - men and women, slave and free - worshiped him as God by the beginning of the second century." (Wilkins, Michael J., and J.P. Moreland, eds.  Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus.  Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995. page 222)

I would like first to show how the Jews recorded the life of Jesus in the words of the Jewish general and historian Flavius Josephus.

Now there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.  He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles.  He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him.  For he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day. (Josephus, Flavius. The Antiquities of the Jews.  New York: Ward, Lock, Bowden & Co., 1900 18.3.3)

Now keep in mind that Josephus was a Jew and did not believe Jesus was the Christ, but was hear stating the belief of the Christians, in a sarcastic "if it be lawful to call him a man."  However, we gain some historical knowledge of Jesus from this writing.

Now, in a writing of Justin Martyr, quoting The Acts of Pontius Pilate, a work which no longer exist, states,

And the expression, 'They pierced my hands and my feet,' was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in his hands and feet.  And after he was crucified, they cast lots upon his vesture, and they that crucified him parted it among them.  And that these things did happen you can ascertain from the 'Acts' of Pontius Pilate. (Martyer, Justin.  First Apology.  A.D. 150)

 Further support for the once existence of and further details of The Acts of Pontius Pilate can be found written by Saint Epiphanius of Salamis in Against Heresies, and by Tertullian in Apology.  Now, I find this very fascinating that this document by Pontius Pilate would confirm not only the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, but also collaborate the Biblical text involving the events surrounding His crucifixion.

I feel as I should continue, but I could continue on at length citing sources revealing the historically accurate account of Jesus, but I feel I would lose many readers with the multitude of quotes being written in this format.  Instead, I encourage those who wish to know more or have more questions either to ask in the comments section here and I will answer to the best of my ability or follow the links provided to purchase the reading material I have sourced.  However, I do believe I have supplied sufficient extra-Biblical evidence here, however brief, to defend the fact that Jesus was indeed a living historical figure who was crucified by Pilate and was looked upon as the Christ by the earliest of Christians.

Why Christianity?

After one has accepted that there is a god, how does that person find the God?  There are to many religions to list, or count for that matter, as some say that there are as many religions as are individuals on Earth, each haveing his own personal belief.  Where can you find the truth in all of this?  First, you have ruled-out many religions by accepting that there is a Creator who sustains His creation.  But now what?  I cannot rule-out each false religion one-by-one in this setting, but I will pose a few questions which you must consider.

First, would this creator, which existed before time, nay, created time itself, be omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient?  I say yes! If He made all then certainly there is no power greater than His, and nothing He could not control?  If He created time and space, could He be restrained by either time or space?  Again, if He created all, can there be anything He is unaware of?


Now let us continue this line of thought a bit further.  If we conclude that this god is omnipotent, would we expect Him to be able to control heaven and Earth in order to fulfill His will?  I would.  If we have concluded that this god is omniscient, would we expect Him to reveal himself as the one true God through prophecy?  I would.  If we conclude that this god is omniscient, would we expect God to be able to know our hearts and thoughts?  I say certainly yes.

I am no professor of religions, but I know of no other god who could fit these qualifications other than the Judeo-Christian God.  If an individual can show me a religion where their god does meet these qualifications I am more than willing to investigate that religion with an open mind, not because of my lack of faith but because I am confident in my faith. So now we are left with Judaism and Christianity.  So, what separates these two religions when they both serve the same God some may ask.  In a simple answer, a new covenant made between God and man, sealed by the sacrificial death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God incarnate.  Any serious research will reveal that Jesus was indeed a historical figure, and as stated by Dr. Geisler:

 The primary sources for the life of Christ are the four Gospels.  However there are considerable reports from non-Christian sources that supplement and confirm the Gospel accounts.  These come largely from Greek, Roman, Jewish, and Samaritan sources of the first century.  In brief they inform us that:

1. Jesus was from Nazareth
2. he lived a wise and virtuous life;
3. he was crucified in Palestine under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tibrius Caesar at Passover time, being considered the Jewish King;
4. he was believed by his disciples to have been raised from the dead three days later;
5. his enemies acknowledged that he performed unusual feats they called 'sorcery';
6. his small band of disciples multiplied rapidly, spreading even as far as Rome;
7. his disciples denied polytheism, lived moral lives, and worshiped Christ as Divine.

This picture confirms the view of Christ presented in the New Testament Gospels.  (Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics.  Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998 p384-385)

Jesus fulfilled all of the Old Testament prophecies of the coming Messiah, although denied by many Jewish leaders.  Consider now, we have great evidence that Jesus was a true historical figure, he was accepted by many Jews and Gentiles as the promised Christ, but rejected by the religious leaders.  Why would this be?  I surmise that these leaders rejected Jesus because of what He represented, a new era that would overturn their religious government which had become corrupted.

Now, Jesus as the Christ identifies Christianity as a unique religion, one in which man no longer makes sacrifices to a god or gods but where God has made himself a perfect sacrifice for all mankind, all we must do is to accept the blood shed on our behalf.  There are volumes of information pointing to the Judeo-Christian God as the one true God, as well as for Jesus being God incarnate, self-sacrificed for our salvation.  These volumes are to tremendous to document in this format, but if anyone should have specific questions I will either address them in the comments section on this page, or choose to post a new entry on this blog on the subject.

Is there a creator?

The first question I and anyone considering any serious inquiry of religion should pose would be "is there a creator?"  At this point I am not going to be looking for who that creator may be, but simply if reason would lead me to the conclusion that there is a creator of all the physical universe.  According to the Bible, which is the ultimate truth, we are without excuse to believe in God and all of creation shall praise him. If this is to be trusted then we should be able to reach a conclusion using science.  This science should consist of only the facts, and not of theories.  It should be based on evidence, not on anyone's interpretation of the evidence, but let it lead me to my own conclusions.

Fact: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.  In any process in an isolated system, the total energy remains the same. ---  First Law of Thermodynamics

Fact: Metric expansion of space, an intrinsic expansion—that is, it is defined by the relative separation of parts of the universe and not by motion "outward" into preexisting space. (In other words, the universe is not expanding "into" anything outside of itself).

Now, ponder what the metric expansion of space means.  Space is ever growing, at a prescribed rate.  Now reverse engineer that.  You would mathematically be able to arrive at a point where you have all space contained in an infinitely small space, and then arrive to a point where actually nothing exist.  I have been taught in my public school instruction that it was at this point that the "Big Bang" occurred, but where did the energy come from to cause this explosion?  According to the First Law of Thermodynamics energy had to be introduced into this system, it could not have been created of itself by any natural means.  If this energy could not have come from within this system it must have been added by an outside source.

Furthermore, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the universe is ever-nearing equilibrium, a state of lifelessness.  It must have begun at its most perfect state of being and the entropy of the universe must increase overall.  Now, applying this law to the previous information we find that it is impossible for the universe to have began with "nothing." 

We now know that the universe had a beginning, because we are traveling away from that beginning state.  We know that energy had to be inserted into this system (the universe), since it could not have produced energy of its own.  We know that at the beginning of the universe the universe must have been at its most perfect state ever, because of entropy. 

So, where does that leave us?  What are we to believe?  Me, I am lead to believe that there must be a power beyond the natural that designed the universe and created it in it's most perfect form.  I am further inclined to believe that for there to be laws, there must be a lawgiver.  I am also inclined to believe that for a law to be constant, there must be a law keeper.  Since I know that there are many laws governing nature, that these same laws are forever constant, then I am forced to the conclusion that there was a lawgiver in the past and there is also a force that continues to maintain these laws through the present.  Who was this creator, lawgiver and law keeper?  This will be the topic of a future post.