blogforjesus

One objection to God centers on the presumption that if God is all loving then why does He severely penalize or punish others who have violated His commands, decrees and laws as expressed through the biblical text? Along with this criterion a person may likewise include the concept of God who allows for pain and suffering in the world and acts of war or violence along with the eternal judgment of hell which I have previously addressed in a few of my other posts.

jesusandjews.com/wordpress/2009/10/29/is-hell-real/

jesusandjews.com/wordpress/2009/08/29/god-is-a-murderer/

jesusandjews.com/wordpress/2009/05/17/pain-suffering-and-evil/

I believe that the whole misunderstanding to this dilemma stems from the confusion about the nature of God who is ultimately good rather than inclusively loving. Goodness is more accurately defined as being balanced with the concept of justice coupled with the benefits of grace and mercy. For instance, humanely speaking we typically wouldn’t consider someone to be a good judge if he lovingly let the guilty party go free while allowing the innocent party to unjustly suffer. The exception to this is when the eternal Judge  grants clemency to those who are the beneficiaries of Christ’s substitutionary role as both victim and redeemer.

Anyway it’s pretty obvious why government to some degree mimics biblical principles in regards to having some moral absolutes by taking punitive actions towards matters of law otherwise you would end up with lawlessness and civil unrest. So for some to believe  that Darwinistic thought or naturalism will evolve to become a better alternative worldview by means of natural selection and survival of the fittest will only be disappointed to know that moral relativism will only result in the downfall not the uprising of mankind. We have seen this already acted out by the bloodiest regimes of this century that have killed more people than any other point in history as being under an atheistic ideology. This kind of rationale is what allows the abortions clinics to operate by justifying their actions in defining a baby as just an appendage of flesh. This kind of thinking is what is behind genocide which sees a need to exterminate life as based on its own criteria whatever that may be. Who knows perhaps it may be you who will one day be the victim of this godless system. When people become reduced to just animals and devalued to the point of classifying humanity as just another creature then this degradation leads to justify certain acts as instinctual. On the other hand to see the supremacy to human value in having a standardized view towards a  moral law code is to go beyond the confines of individualism to recognizing an overarching and sovereign principle of authority namely God.

So if  all these laws originate with God and not with man then these moral factors, if extrapolated  backwards in time and space from our immediate authority, will only end up at a source which is beyond mere humanity.

Thus mankind is innately hardwired with a moral conscious and it is only through the process of desensitization do we begin to loose touch with some of our moral capacity/faculties. Yet even then there remains a moral imprint which cannot be completely eradicated and the conscious is testable as with the polygraph machine which verifies that we know both psychologically and physiologically when we are being deceptive unless of course you are a sociopath. There has also been some research on this in which children were tested to see if they knew right from wrong and the results indicate that they are not merely a product of nurture but rather of nature.

The scriptures also bear witness to this in Romans which states that we are born with a capacity for morality that sets us apart as a special creation by which we bear the image of God in generally knowing right from wrong and good from evil so that even though mankind doesn’t have the biblical script as a divine guideline they still have an immediate general revelation of moral conscious towards a supreme creator so that they are without excuse. Therefore it is this law of conscience that results in guilt and shame when we transgress these internal law codes.

Romans 2:14-15

¹⁴ (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, ¹⁵ since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

So it is God’s intervention and impartation which is the basis for jurisprudence which allows for human civilization and yet this moral knowledge does not necessitate moral fortitude due to the sinfulness of the human nature.

Romans 1: 28-32

²⁸ Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. ²⁹ They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, ³⁰ slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; ³¹ they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. ³² Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. 

So even if the moral compass is off as seen through the variances among cultures there still remains universal standards of general law which always recognizes that such actions or conditions are invariably wrong such as the rape of a baby among other things.

These moral injunctions and responsibilities are actually an act of love in protecting the rights of others and to some degree even the rights of the offender by limiting the amount of retribution. This also mercifully portrays the boundaries of God’s law by informing us in order to preserve our life from God’s righteous judgments.

So I think what is really being challenged here is not so much the necessity of law and justice as it is the degree or the severity of which some of these crimes are to be punished.

Accordingly, the bible mentions such matters as capital punishment, annihilation and damnation as being ordered for certain individuals or societies. This may appear to be harsh or extreme to us but we can’t compete with an omniscient and omni benevolent God who knows the farthest outreaches of these evil actions and their subsequent consequences and therefore only He is best to judge the long term or ultimate effects of such unlawfulness. We can plainly see how some of these moral laws are neglected and their resultant effect on society which has led to some of the pain and suffering which is prevalent among our human cultures of which we are unable to heal the wounds of its injured victims nor reform the ways of its transgressors. Today some of these matters are not taken seriously and they are left to the realm of being archaic by the standards of modern society and contemporary trends of living. For instance sexual immorality is often trivialized and seen as a matter of preference to the point that society does not blush over these kinds of matters.

Yet much of these actions are at the very heart and center of what is to be viewed as essential for the health and survival of community and it is no wonder why these kinds of lawless societies begin to show signs of moral bankruptcy through their break up of families.

Yet more important than just these social factors is the idea that we are creaturely and are under the theocracy of a creator. So as a person intuitively and innately comes to this understanding they then become acutely aware that even though they may temporarily have freedom of choice they are ultimately responsible to the one who gave them life. Sin is not neutral and it no only affects and influences society but it is a flagrant offense of cosmic treason to the one who has given us the breath of life.

Part of the problem when looking at the consequences of violating God’s laws is that as humans we often underestimate our evil behavior and rationalize and trivialize matters until we numb our moral conscious towards matters of right and wrong by arrogantly making the assumption that we are basically good. Yet the problem is that we often wrongfully confuse our principle of goodness with God’s standard of righteousness.

Yet the biblical record states that according to God there is none righteous; not even one and all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Additionally our thoughts are not His thoughts nor our ways His ways and too often when measuring moral infractions we find ourselves just comparing apples to apples and yet God has overturned the applecart in search for something edible only to find that all apples are rotten at the core.

Also God is not to be completely associated or identified with the fruitlessness of humanity in that He exists as a “holy other.” Furthermore the relativity of this age may downplay offense through human comparisons but when compared against the righteousness of God’s character their acts according to the bible is no more than filthy menstrual clothes. A better analogy is if you had a scale in which you weighed the cumulative acts of all humanity against the holiness of God which would still not be enough to tip the scale in mankind’s favor. We can’t think that some good is good enough because God demands moral perfection as no flesh will glory in His sight. What acts of goodness that we are able to do is only just a miniscule reflection of something that is yet more glorious.

Additionally, the appearance of right actions does not mean a true intention or even right thinking as an individual could be motivated by the selfishness of greed, power, self piety, etc. In addition to this God omnisciently discerns and judges the very thoughts and motives of our hearts by which guilt is likewise imposed against the iniquitous party. For example fornication is extended to the point that you become an adulterer of heart through the eyes of lust or you become a coveter without even apprehending your desires or a murderer of sorts through inappropriate anger.

Matthew 5:21

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ ²² But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.

Matthew 5:27

²⁷ “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ ²⁸ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

So as you can see we all miss the mark of God’s target even though we may possibly perform some good acts throughout the course of our life. However, these acts or works are reckoned to us as being obligatory not meritorious and committing  one sin is the same as reaping the benefits or consequences of all sin whereby the penalty for sin is ultimately spiritual death or separation from God in that the soul that sins will die. This may appear to be an inequality of justice but all sin must be judged as God cannot eternally cohabit with sin or the sin nature.

At this point it becomes quite obvious that there is no one who can live up to the demands of God’s righteousness requirements and even the disciples of Jesus were feeling the weightiness of these commandments by stating “who then can be saved from God’s wrath” whereby Jesus stated “with man it is impossible but with God all things are possible.”

Therefore all sin will be judged accordingly as none of us can be truly spared in that the rigor mortis of spiritual death is a condition of the human soul from inception to the grave. It is only the new birth of the Spirit than can overcome this natural birth of the womb.

In retrospect to this matter the response concerning God is that He is good and His mercy endures forever and therefore God has made a way in making a provision of love, grace, and mercy through the saving act of Christ who delivered us from the ultimate consequences of judgment which is hell. This took place as God himself took on the form of humanity as our representative in bearing the justice of our sins and imputing to us His righteousness which would have otherwise left everyone guilty before the tribunal of God because all have sinned and likewise would have perished. That’s why it is amazing grace because God did for us what we couldn’t do for ourselves even through our best efforts of humanism and religion.

In response to this moral dilemma the bible says that there is no greater love than this then for a man to lay down his life for his friends and yet Christ died for us while we were yet His enemies. The godly interceding for the ungodly and that is something to muse about my friend when questioning God’s capacity for love.

Now in returning to the supposed controversy regarding the severity of sin some may contend  that this is somehow God’s fault in that He created mankind knowing we would be weak and fallible creatures which in turn would make evil choices and therefore we were set up to fail from the get go.

Yet when God formed his original creation it was good but the dilemma to free nature is the dichotomy for the potential of good/evil and without this choice then we are delegated to being robotic entities. God made mankind in such a way in which we would willfully serve or deny him which sets us apart from the animal world regarding our intellect as free moral agents in response to God.

So whether its through personal experience or worldwide observation we see bad things happening and yet even with all of this resident evil the earth may still be considered the best of all potential worlds which God could have possibly made therefore minimizing the impact of evil. Regardless, it is not possible to have a sinless world as we are not God and because we all have a will then sooner or latter the inevitable presence of sin will emerge, such as with Adam and Eve, and so it’s not a matter of “if” mankind would fall but rather “when”. God’s original goodness of man didn’t even make it past the glorious garden and so how much better do you think any of us would have fared on this outcome? Only God himself is perfect and in order for sinless beings to exist means that we would all have to be God which is a contradiction at this point as we are diametrically distinguished as contingent beings apart from God’s necessary being in which we are ontologically different as the creature is not the creator. At best we are made in God’s image as He has left an impression of the divine will upon our hearts.

Yet in spite of this shortcoming it was God who lovingly and mercifully gave us a means of rescue and salvation before the foundation of the world was even laid by providing Christ as our mediator in giving His life as an exchange on our behalf consequently putting to death our fallen adamic nature.

Again the primary infraction is the universality of a sin nature by which we repress our capacity to know and worship God in accordance with the general revelation of truth. For instance we may favor naturalization over intelligent design or Freudian thought against a mind that is cognizant and conscious towards a supreme moral being.

Therefore the primary sin is denial and rejection of God and the honor and glory that is due His name.

Romans 1:18-25

¹⁸ The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, ¹⁹ since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. ²⁰ For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 

²¹ For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²² Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools ²³ and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 

²⁴ Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. ²⁵ They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. 

Continuing on in referring to God’s perpetual justice; if this earthly existence is all there was then what justice might there be to allow wickedness to go unpunished in this life or righteousness to be left unrewarded in this domain. Yet determinately God has provided for the realms of life and death according to the eternal habitation of heaven and hell.

In the final analysis, like it or not , it is God’s prerogative to make the rules and we can either obey them or reject them. At this point it is more of a matter concerning moral choice rather than an intellectual problem. It is God who should be consulted on matters of law as it is His gavel which overrules all human government. So if God “is” then His standards are absolute and like Job we must humbly see ourselves as a lump of clay who submits to being molded according to the craftsmanship of the master potter by which we have been designed according to God’s purposes and not our own.

In conclusion the hostile sinner challenges God’s love as they only see God’s wrath and impending judgment but to their fault they neglect to apprehend the salvific benefits of Christ. Maybe the question we should ask ourselves is why in His long suffering has He not already destroyed us in our wickedness and why has He persevered with the human race as long as He has without wiping us off the face of the earth? The scripture tells us plainly why God withholds his judgment and that is because His desire it that none should perish but that all should have everlasting life. So after all maybe you have overlooked  God’s love because you are just looking for love in all the wrong places.

Lastly you may not have no immediate conviction from this post and yet just like the emperor who had no clothes you are unsuspectingly displaying your nakedness in plain sight of all without being aware of your true nature which is spiritually barren and destitute. You may lift your head up high in your prideful procession in life; not willing to look at yourself in fear of noticing your true condition but nonetheless that does not make you any less revealing before God and others. You can’t ignore the fact and it just a matter of time before your parade will be over.

Perhaps you may be convicted by these very words that I spoke of here and maybe these statements may cause you to fear concerning the severity of God’s law then hopefully this will help serve to motivate you to do some serious soul searching. This post was not designed to leave you hopelessly paralyzed with despair nor was it intended to be the sole basis of your decision to follow Christ. One thing that I hope it accomplished was to give you a  glimpse of revelation concerning the essence of God’s goodness and love in which He sent Jesus to personally save you by lovingly allowing you to respond to His kindness which leads us to repentance.

Anyway this may not satisfactorily answer your questions but minimally God’s goodness of justice and love go hand in hand in bringing forth the righteousness of His eternal law which informs, protects, rewards, punishes as well as honors the name of God in bringing about His will and purpose for mankind.

Finally I would like to leave you with a scripture which helps portray the love by which Christ has shouldered our moral burden.

Matthew 11:28-30

²⁸ “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. ²⁹ Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. ³⁰ For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” 

How to know God

Atheist and Agnostic Resources

English Articles on Atheism and Agnosticism

Often times when we read a scholastic book we often take it for granite that we are reading a factual account of reality. Yet these resources sometimes carry an agenda which is elusive to the general populace but finds public acceptance and approval as being trustworthy without challenge. This is the situation with some scientific studies and findings which are not only bogus but they are intellectually dishonest and downright corrupt. These illusions and misconceptions have poisoned the minds of all ages giving them a basis on which to establish a fallible worldview as related to evolutionary theory as afforded by this pseudoscientific pretense.

An example of this is the “peppered moth” study which was supposed to be a good example of natural selection but what these textbooks won’t tell you is that these moths don’t naturally appear on trees trunks and that the pictures were fraudulent as they were glued to the tree.

There is also the exaggerated drawings of Ernst Haeckel who took the artistic liberties of depicting different drawings of various animal embryos to give the appearance of making unrelated species look similar. This was a way of portraying that all of life has evolved through similar stages as being interrelated through a common ancestry. What these spectators don’t take into account is that these living creatures are hardly discernable at the earliest stages of life and that there are certain life supporting components that are essential to all of these creatures which utilize the same common elements within the environment. In response to these drawings there were actual photographs taken in 1997 by the embryologist Dr. Michael Richardson which refutes the artistic imagination of Haeckel.

Another myth is that we have vestigial organs, which at one timed numbered over 100,  and these organs were thought to be  the leftover remains of our evolutionary past and therefore they are depicted as just some extra form of human baggage. Yet these organs have been proven to be beneficial to contemporary man and just because something can be surgically removed, such as the appendix or the tonsils, doesn’t mean that we are cutting off a needless body part and to do so can compromise or alter our health and well being.

Also there are the images of Neanderthal man which have been altered to make it look like the lower jaw is a protrusion resembling that of a monkey. This fakery was accomplished by dislocating the jawbone and jutting it forward in order to give it this appearance. However when the jaw is properly placed it looks no different then that of modern man.

In addition to this there are those drawings of the evolutionary tree which is to somehow show the relationship between the species but in reality it is only the wishful thinking of the evolutionary theorists who forcibly manipulate an association between these groups. The problem with this diagram is that it is missing all the links or transitional life forms which are necessary to make sense of this otherwise unintelligible philosophy. Ironically there are no provable specimens to date that fill in these gaps and with all of the fossil evidence that we have it appears that this is a figment of human invention and imagination in attempting to make a leap of faith to formulate this faulty logic and imagery.

Finally there is Stanley Miller and Harold Urey who supposedly re-created the early stages of life in producing amino acids and yet their tests were conducted under the wrong conditions as their gaseous mixture was not the right atmosphere for the earth which would have contained volcanic gases instead of a hydrogen rich environment and therefore their test results were invalid.

In conclusion the conspiracy behind these theoretical beliefs and hoaxes is that they are still being taught within our educational system today. This shows that the scientific community is more interested in tickling the ears of the general public by taking advantage of misinformed individuals in preaching their message of propaganda which favors a worldview that is hostile to God as its exploits science at the expense of the scientific endeavor to discover and explore truth.

How to know God

Atheist and Agnostic Resources

English Articles on Atheism and Agnosticism

Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., “Survival of the Fakest,” The American Spectator, December 2000/January 2001, p.20

One thing to consider when contemplating the miracles of Jesus is whether or not you have a God concept to begin with. If God exists then it isn’t too hard to bridge the gap between nature and super nature. So to begin with if you have questions related to agnosticism and atheism I have written some posts about this subject at

Atheist /Agnostic/ Non-Theist

Anyway when contemplating this question perhaps a person should first consider their own preconceptions and biases before delving into the objections regarding the idea of the miraculous. I think the best approach is to be open to the possibilities and even see the supernatural as a plausible explanation to what may be classified as mysterious or unidentifiable phenomena.

Skepticism as related to this matter is built into the framework of our society as we at times have been deceived by impostors but just because we have had some bad experiences doesn’t necessitate us taking a position where we throw out the baby with the bath water.

Also as finite creatures we have only just begun to discover the tip of the iceberg when it comes to obtaining phenomenal knowledge as none of us are either omniscient or omnipresent. That’s why science uses such loose words as theory because there is always the element of unknown factors that arise to be discovered. Sometimes these ideas have to be retheorized as they may either be wrong or insufficient. However some in the scientific field would rather look the other way and provide ad hoc arguments rather than violate their limited vocabulary by allowing the term God or miracles to be mentioned. Many in the scientific community may argue that they can not study these entities or ideals and therefore they would categorize them as being mythological in nature and yet they are inconsistent in their position by making certain a priori assertions by pursuing such unknown things as quarks, strings, gravitons and black holes. They can even speak dogmatically about these things to the point that it is believable and use their authority of academia and education to swoon you to believe. On the positive side of scientific inquiry it may be surprising for you to know that there have been notable contributors and prominent scientists that do not always have a faith system of naturalism when it comes to the cosmos. Here is a list of scientists who were recognized and accomplished in their fields and still held on to a theistic worldview which would include the storyline of the bible along with miracles.

www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html

It is also interesting to note that there is an audience that is enamored with all of these paranormal reality shows and maybe this is because 8 out of 10 Americans believe in miracles which includes a third of the American public who have claimed to of experienced them.

We live in a sophisticated and technological world and these belief systems aren’t just limited to tribal groups but these are people who are educated in modern society and therefore not everybody believes the press about atheism and anti-supernaturalism. Also most of the world has a religious position and some of those who subscribe to atheism are individuals who have been suppressed by a Godless system. For instance we are seeing the resurgence of religion in Russia after the fall of Communism in the Soviet Union and this is a sign that religion cannot be effectively exterminated by an anti-God philosophy.

In moving on to the evidence for the miracles of Jesus it may seem minute from a historical vantage point yet there are still miracles happening today as there was then. I am including some links about people who from a world wide audience have experienced the miracles of Jesus and even though I can’t verify each of these cases perhaps you could at least give them some consideration by listening to their testimonies and then you can judge accordingly.

www1.cbn.com/videos/more/miracles

www.bibleprobe.com/miracles.htm

So from an ancient perspective the discussion of miracles is more difficult to substantiate apart from the bible as there are only a few external resources which make reference to Jesus.

Of these limited sources that are available there are not enough documents during this particular era of history regarding this specific region that would allow us to peer objectively into the life and miracles of Christ. In spite of this Jesus has been mentioned in both Jewish and Roman resources which gives credence to Him as being a historical character even though it does not confirm nor deny His miracles. Perhaps the lack of material was due to an inadequate knowledge which at times may have been second hand and minimal as Christianity was initially localized and was more of Jewish movement which was primarily maintained in the Jewish sector as an in house matter. Nevertheless as this movement began to grow Rome began to take notice of them as well and from here some of these reports were being generated.

The fact that these letters did not contain information about the miracles of Jesus may be because they were only dealing with the matter at hand versus writing an autobiography on the person and works of Christ.

It’s really speculation why this information is not found and from an opponents view this may seem like an argument for the latter addition of mythological components into the text since there is no mention of miracles from this correspondence and yet these biblical documents were developed quite early enough that it is unlikely that these myths could of been fabricated as a apart of the storyline which usually takes place over a period of two generations. However, there is a reference that is recorded in the Jewish Talmud which is unsympathetic towards Jesus and which mentions these miracles and healings but gives credit to Him as a sorceress. It is understandable how the Jewish sector would know more about this since they were Jesus’ primary audience and mission. So I believe that it is a credible source document because it is hostile to Christ and therefore his enemies have countered these suppositions by giving some verifiable evidence concerning His miracles even though the source or nature of these events is misdirected. So anyway in light of the testimony of this Jewish resource we really don’t have any good reason not to believe in the miracles of Christ.

In addition to this there is some internal evidence which I believe gives credence to these miracle stories when using the Bible as a primary source document and therefore I have written a post about the reliability of the bible which adds to the authenticity of these miraculous accounts.

jesusandjews.com/wordpress/2010/02/03/is-the-bible-reliable/

Also the New Testament letters and documents were written from either the primary witnesses or interviewers of such witnesses to these Christ events.

This is important because as Christians they held to a strict moral code that if they were to tamper with these texts in a fraudulent matter this would have been considered damnable based on the New Testament teaching about liars. So it is inconsistent to see a conspiracy theory as based upon this criterion.

Additionally many of these eyewitnesses were persecuted and condemned to death and so to perish for a cause that you have been far removed from in time and space is one thing but its quite another to knowingly die for a lie.

Moreover when considering the miracles of Jesus they are relatively demythologized compared to the Nag Hammadi gnostic gospels which show more of a mythical portrayal of Christ by eradicating his humanity. At least from a New Testament perspective the miracles of Jesus are referred to in real life variables not as unicorns, tooth fairies, Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny.

When Jesus turned the water into wine we understand all of the components that surround the miracle as being materially real and identifiable unless you are one of those who think everything is an illusion.

Lastly it would be difficult for this early community of believers to thrive an multiply since these claims of resurrection and miracles could of been easily challenged or refuted since Jesus went public with many of these signs and wonders.

In regards to Jesus’ miracles some have responded in promoting a gratuitous position to these events by assigning them to the realm of the allegorical as a figure of speech but this approach is contrary to the scholarly approach of sound hermeneutics and exegesis which strives to get at the true intent or meaning of these miracle stories.

Finally you may be one of those who believe in the supernatural but deny God and yet by taking such a position does nothing to disprove that God exists as a part of this realm and if anything it helps to open the door in allowing the possibility of God to waltz right on in.

In dealing with the supernatural this should beg the question for a deeper reality of importance in going beyond the sensationalism of the unknown as in being confronted with the matter of ontology as it relates to a conjunction between the material and non-material world. It should cause us to think beyond the peripheries of life to that of a more significant existence and to perhaps contemplate a personal association or responsibility towards a reality which could bring the potential for there being a God kind.

You may say well if God exists then he would miraculously show himself to me and yet the Psalmist says that he already displays His work in creation and in the book of Romans the scripture reads that we are given the moral capacity to understand God so that through this general revelation we are without excuse. Yet you may be saying I need the special revelation of God and perhaps you will receive it but does seeing necessitate believing? Is that really the only thing that is coming between you and God is some mysterious manifestation or is this just a red herring for you to claim a state of ignorance and innocence to your unbelief?

Again you may see the paranormal as something fascinating and entertaining but I believe it overlooks the more relevant questions or conclusions to the message of the supernatural such as the existence of God and who am I and what is my purpose in relationship to this God or Jesus.

If this kind of logic or reasoning makes you feel uncomfortable, resistant, and hostile by rejecting the idea of God then perhaps you need to ask yourself what is the true motivation for your feelings.

The bible states that the human heart is deceitful above all things and therefore if you fail to identify the true reason to this dilemma then I would encourage you to seek God on this matter as a starting point.

If you are sincere in resolving this tension but are unsure then it would behoove you to approach God with a simple and genuine prayer in asking Him to open up your heart to understand what can’t always be readily embraced. In so doing I  pray that God would make Himself known to you in a fuller way so as to entrust your life to Him and then see what He will do.

In conclusion I know I didn’t answer every question or address every issue  to the miracles of Jesus but I hope it got you to think about what you may have considered unthinkable before or maybe at least it left you with a reasonable doubt to a anti-miracle position.

In the final analysis taking a position on this matter is not like frivolously choosing a favorite ball team but rather this is about facing the reality of the most important aspect of living which is a relationship to this God of miracles. In the end it doesn’t matter what I want to believe nor does it matter in what you want to avoid but rather we should seek after truth and allow the evidence to direct us through the bases of life with the goal of reaching home plate having been declared safe by this umpire called truth.

In closing I will leave you with my personal testimony.

jesusandjews.com/wordpress/my-personal-testimony-with-jesus/

How to know God

Atheist and Agnostic Resources

English Articles on Atheism and Agnosticism

“Beyond Opinion” Copyright 2007 by Ravi Zacharias and fellow author Alister McGrath Ch. 2, published by Thomas Nelson, Nashville, Tennessee

“Jesus Under Fire”  Copyright 1995 by Michael J. Wilkins, J.P. Moreland, Craig Blomberg, Darrell Bock, William Lane Craig, Craig A. Evans, Douglas Geivett, Gary Habermas, Scot McKnight, and Edwin Yamauchi

Used by Permission from Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49530

Mutations supposedly benefit the advancement of life through the concept of evolutionary theory by means of natural selection. Yet mutations have not been proven to progress life but rather they have shown to be either neutral or harmful towards an organism. Also mutations do not add any new genetic information to the gene pool but only leads to a loss of information as DNA can not be improved on and will more than likely lead to sterilization and death versus a proliferation of life.

All of this mutation business is to somehow lead to the configuration of a new species but if we were to look at the fossil records there is only the evidence for extinction rather than an emerging/transitional species which requires new genetic information.  If makes you wonder if life really occurred billons of years ago and based on the evidence of  extinction its any wonder that there should be any life at all and therefore it appears that there is a better case for the demise of all living organisms versus the rise of species. After all we hear on a regular basis about extinctions but when have you ever heard about a new species?

Additionally, if this process is a necessary means to the end regarding the survival of the fittest then why should we use modern conservationism to try to save those species which are considered endangered contrary to the historical and natural processes of elimination?

If we really thought that mutations meant the advancement of life then why don’t these same scientists who support this theory put themselves and their family and pets in some nuclear hotspots to benefit the race such as with Chernobyl or Three Mile Island? That’s because they realistically know that exposure to radiation is harmful and not helpful in advancing society unless you see population control as being beneficial.

Also why doesn’t society outlaw abortion for those women who have abnormal pregnancies as this could mean a developed improvement with time? You may argue that it appears to be presently harmful which becomes a judgment call and a immediate inference in light of what distant and future genetic mutations may take place to advance the human genome.

Again, along this line of thought it takes special pleading to somehow show that these mutations take long periods of time to be beneficial which based upon the fossil evidence and modern phenomena these transitional species are non-existent. Not only that but to base science on the inductive reasoning of naturalism by assimilating a deductive hypothesis of  beneficial mutations is more an inspiration of mythological speculation and imagination then the scientific method.

Now in regards to manipulated genetic modifications it is one thing to see diversity for instance in the dog kingdom due to the loss of  genetic information but in the end a dog is still a dog. Micoevolution within a species is not a problem as we readily see variations within species but to be indoctrinated to believe that all of these small variations lead over time to a huge jump (of faith) towards the macroevolutionary process of molecule to man is a fraudulent and unfounded claim. It is a desperate attempt to salvage the question of life with a naturalistic philosophy versus a theistic view of reality.

Whatever future course that science takes  it will be a biased and predisposed approach towards embracing something in opposition to an innately obvious sense of otherness. Evolution is the predominate secular theory for now but based on their own philosophical presuppositions they are subjected to their own criteria which states that most everything is in a constant  state of flux and therefore as their theory continues to be proved obsolete or inadequate it may have to be replaced with the obvious and superior evidence of intelligent design as the future of this movement appears to be bleak.

If science commits to an alternative view of intelligent design then perhaps they will take a position that life was somehow generated from an unknown and advanced alien race while avoiding the God question at all cost. Maybe the true motivation behind any futuristic revisionist outlook to the concept of origins is really more about a science of escapism rather than objective truth.

In summary with all of the technological advancements and modern technology that we have available there has never been any scientist that has ever observed a random mutation to produce a new hormone, enzyme or simple organ.

When looking at DNA as the building blocks of life we see thousands of pages of complex and technical information which is essential and basic for all of life’s functionality. This information requires a code which in turns involves a mental source rather than some mindless random act of chance.

Life abounds in the language of the cell and yet can this degree of intelligence, by which we have only discovered the tip of the iceberg, be formed by a state of non-intelligence?

Could it be that the language of the cell is really been programmed by a “Creator” who  not only speaks to us from a cosmic plane but also on a cellular level as well?

Psalms 19:1-4

¹ The heavens declare the glory of God;

the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

² Day after day they pour forth speech;

night after night they display knowledge.

³ There is no speech or language

where their voice is not heard.

⁴ Their voice goes out into all the earth,

their words to the ends of the world.

Romans 1:18-23

¹⁸ The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, ¹⁹ since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. ²⁰ For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.²¹ For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²² Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools ²³ and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. (false religion and philosophy)

How to know God

Atheist and Agnostic Resources

English Articles on Atheism and Agnosticism

Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (London:Rider Press, 1981), pp.67,68

When writing about the resurrection it is the cornerstone of the Christian faith whereby this movement stands or falls. 1 Corinthians 15:17 ¹⁷ And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

To begin with Jesus is seen as a historical character, unlike some mythological beings, who underwent the brutal death of crucifixion of which even the New Testament critics will acknowledge.

Unfortunately when reporting on this event we didn’t have the benefit of the BBC or CNN news. Nor did we have the convenience of electronic media or the printing press. Nevertheless even if we had these great means and modes of communication a person must still wade through the quagmire of bias from a mostly liberal media.

Anyway in addition to the bible I will try to give some external resources to help build a case concerning the plausibility of this event but regrettably these secondary accounts are mostly inferences.

To begin with the New Testament will be the primary source document in which I will be referencing. In exploring the NT it is often set apart in ancient literature as containing exceptional textual evidence regarding its historical and archaeological accuracy yet in spite of this the critic would be quick to point out that there are supposedly mythical components to this text as well. Yet to begin an analysis with this kind of presupposition regarding everything that is related to super nature is already a prejudicial view towards a monumental work which I believe is unwarranted. Anyway I have written some posts about Atheism and Agnosticism which deals with the possibilities of God and therefore if Jesus is deity according to the biblical testimony then anything is possible.

Atheist /Agnostic/ Non-Theist

Now regarding the circumstances that surround the details of the crucifixion/resurrection as published in the NT there is what is referred to as the embarrassment  factor which helps to authenticate the credibility of the gospels.

Such criteria for this premise would be the cowardice of the disciples such as the denial of Christ and fleeing the scene to hide. We even see one disciple initially rejecting the testimony of the postmortem resurrection appearances of the Lord. Additionally, it was the women at the tomb who were the first witnesses to the resurrection instead of the inner circle of men who were considered his closest companions and associates such as John, James, and Peter. In ancient times a women’s testimony was invalid and yet they are the key observers of this initial appearance.

Also much of the Bible is given in very realistic language  and is often not overly sophisticated or glamorous in its descriptive rhetoric which often gives a less than favorable light especially towards those who are considered its caregivers.  Many ancient texts if given enough time through their oral traditions or resultant large gaps  between the original and subsequent copies have a tendency to mythologize the text and we can see this clearly with the invention of the apocryphal books such as the Egyptian Hag Namadi documents which give a more mystical and fanciful decor to the outlook of the NT by concocting a legendary scene of the biblical worldview. So the New Testament is considered relatively demythologized already as based on the comparisons of these texts which I have written about in another blog as well

jesusandjews.com/wordpress/2010/10/24/da-vinci-code-fact-or-myth/

jesusandjews.com/wordpress/2010/12/31/the-jesus-seminar/

So is it more likely to believe in a hyper form of script or is it more plausible to affirm a simplified version which is portrayed as being unpolished in an ordinary version concerning the person and work of Christ?

Also when considering the sincerity of the disciples of Jesus it is inconceivable how they would be willing to lay down their lives for a dead lie, such as the resurrection, especially if the scuttlebutt was that they supposedly stole the body  as what many critics both past and present have suggested.

Additionally, the NT records that the disciples were hiding themselves which seems like a more common reaction then having a boldness to move the body by violating the edict of Caesar who enacted a large fine for anybody who would violate another persons burial site and who later issued a death sentence for grave robbery or disturbing the burial plot. So to put oneself in harms way unnecessarily is contrary to how the New Testament portrays this often fearful group and is contrary to self preservation especially since many of these disciples suffered rather than temporarily benefiting from this growing faith.

It is understandable how someone may sacrifice their lives as a martyr when they revere a person of whom they have been far removed from in time or space or say a charismatic person who has swayed and hypnotically convinced them of his or her greatness. People can be disillusioned and spell bound by being caught up in a cultish affinity of devotion in a follow the leader type of mentality. You know there is nothing unique about this phenomena as this is a common occurrence among rock stars to cult leaders. Yet to continue to follow someone who has instilled in His followers hearts a death and resurrection scenario only to fulfill one half of the equation is just plain crazy even from a cult phenomena. If he had only risen in their hearts in a spiritual or a allegorical/metaphorical dimension then the NT would support this stance by changing the headlines of their story and yet the bible does not communicate it this way but rather it displays the text in a very literally graphic way which gives no leeway for misinterpretation. Also how plausible would it be for all the disciples to have hallucinatory visions which some have suggested?

In addition to this the belief in the resurrection was not an evolutionary apologetic invention as it encapsulates the oldest recognizable creed of the early church as found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8  stating that Jesus died for our sins and was buried and raised from the dead on the third day and appeared to them not in visions or dreams but who manifested Himself tangibly and visibly. After all they could of just made up another story which would be more in agreement with the Jewish expectations of their time which only saw the resurrection as an end time event and not as an isolated incident as we have here with Jesus. They could of still held out His glory and enshrined His tomb and just said that He will return and restore all things in the coming age. Ironically, if their purpose was to somehow benefit personally from this message then it wouldn’t make sense to fabricate  a story about a resurrection when the people you were reaching out to were not in agreement to this gospel message which at times even befuddled the apostles as well.

To say that these Apostles anticipated all of these objections by putting together a script that had such levels of sincerity and ignorance as a way to seduce others into a messianic frenzy is highly unlikely. In order to fabricate a text like this that has the appearance of originality and truthfulness is a complicated sophistication that normally evolves with age and yet based on the relativity short duration between the autograph and the copy leaves a short period of time whereby to embellish the texts.

I think another criteria for authenticity is Luke’s gospel which has a commitment to displaying the facts through the careful interviews of contemporary eyewitness accounts such as described by his historical approach in which he plainly explains his intent and motivation from the onset of his letter, Luke 1.

Another aspect to the testimony of the New Testament is its emphasis on the nature of truth which is at the very heart of Christian ethics and so for the apostles or the copyist to perjure themselves this way would put them in danger of eternal judgment.

Finally in conclusion to the testimony of the reliability of the New Testament I have written a post which may be of interest to you

jesusandjews.com/wordpress/2010/02/03/is-the-bible-reliable/

In moving on to dealing with secondary references there were not many resources  available that were reporting at this time in history about this particular geographical location and even if there were it wouldn’t necessarily guarantee that the reporting would be right on target. Of those records that have survived they are diverse enough to give us some idea of what had taken place which includes both Jewish and Roman sources which are both unsympathetic towards this movement and these records can be found in the Talmud, Tacitus, Josephus and Pliny the younger which confirm the life and death of Jesus along with his alleged resurrection.

We also see a historical figure of James or Jacob the brother of the Lord who was the head of the Jerusalem church and who at one time was not supportive towards his brother in that he mocked Him and thought Him to be crazy. So for James to be convinced enough to be a leader of the movement and then die as a martyr is a paradox at worst. James more than most knew the real Jesus in a very ordinary way as they both lived together under the same roof and for him to be committed to worship a member of his own household is a strange devotion for someone who would have been considered a charlatan.

Another secondary source is the jewish Tanakh or the hebrew bible and even though Christians use this Old Testament as their sacred scriptures its origination predates  Christianity as proven by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and therefore it is a good resource when contemplating such matters.

The Old Testament speaks of a chief Messianic figure who would die an unduly or untimely death. Yet God would not allow this holy one to see decay by giving Him the light of life as seen in the motif of Psalms 16 and Isaiah 53. These scriptures may seem to be vague and a bit obscure for a definitive case but in turn we don’t see any concrete evidence which would adequately refute this position either.

Another aspect of controversy is that Jesus is identified with the dying and rising gods of other ancient religions which were associated with the seasonal cycles of life and death and yet these gods were presented in a mythological fashion of which the literature postdates Christianity. So to associate the origin of this belief on foreign sources is erroneous.

carm.org/was-resurrection-story-borrowed

Also there have been a lot of theories on how Christ may have been resuscitated instead of resurrected such as the swoon theory where Jesus regains consciousness and is able to  just walk away after he had been severely scourged, crucified, and speared and then somehow naturally recovers from this death blow. However, in spite of this theory there is no alleged record of His recovery whether it be secular or religious. Had Jesus recovered like this then perhaps this may of helped their case by which He miraculously overcomes death. Also how could they preach a resurrection if He was still alive knowing full well that they were just propagating a falsehood?

To come up with theories may be intriguing to some as based on our insatiable desire for the unknown regarding conspiracy theories but just because we can be entertained with these notions seems more like the efforts of an escape artist versus and kind of academic entreaty.

Also to preach the resurrection among their contemporaries would be quite difficult due to the popularity of Jesus gravesite. After all if Jesus was still in the tomb then it could be easily proven whether or not His grave was occupied.

Some other things to consider is my own personal life transformation which cannot be argued against from an experiential point of view because I am a life that was radically changed literally overnight. It’s one thing to change your mind about something or even to have an emotional spiritual experience but what I am referring to is a sense of  immediacy which was so abrupt that from a human standpoint I know that it would be impossible for me to change myself apart from divine intervention and so for me to deny the identity of the resurrected Christ who gave me life would be a lie and an act of hatred towards others by withholding this gospel truth. Many people try religion from a do and don’t approach of works or some form of self help program but what I am talking about here is what is referred to in the bible as being born again when the Lord changes you from the inner part of your being much like taking a bath on the inside. I speak more about this in my personal testimony at

jesusandjews.com/wordpress/my-personal-testimony-with-jesus/

Actually this is not only my story but is characteristic of many hundreds of millions of people from all walks of life such as doctors, politicians, historians and scientists and to say that my experience is coincidental is just close mindedness.

Also for those of you who are interested in Near Death Experiences I am also including a link regarding the testimonies of others who have seen the risen Christ.

www.truthnet.org

One other thing that boggles the mind is the universal acceptance of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah when much of the non-jewish world has been antisemitic and hostile towards the Jews at different times in history.

Lastly as children we played the game of “where’s Waldo” and as adults we were wondering if somehow Elvis faked his death as people claimed to have seen him. Yet today we have people who would like to associate this matter as a game or a conspiracy theory because normally dead men don’t rise.

This reminds me of when people first see the showcase of Ripley’s freakish anomalies where our minds have a tendency to automatically associate this stuff with some kind of trickery and that’s because its largely outside of our sphere of experience. This even happens among the scientific elite of our society who specialize in the knowledge of phenomena and even in their field of expertise they are at times shocked by their discoveries or they find that there are limitations regarding their knowledge of certain things and so like this show these matters may have unknown natural explanations but this does not necessarily rule out metaphysical possibilities of which we as finite creatures are yet to break through the barrier of omniscience.

Finally, can you honestly ask yourself if you had been there and witnessed what the apostles and others had testified to that you would have readily embraced this faith by surrendering your life to Jesus? If there is a hesitancy to submit yourself to this concept  then perhaps your real motivation of skepticism is beyond the need for evidence but rather it is a matter of willful volition.

In closing all I would challenge you to do  is to be open to the possibilities that I have expressed in regards to “where is Jesus” and to just ask God with an honest heart to make Jesus tangibly real so that you can trust Him as the Lord and Savior of your life.

Lastly as you trust in God’s intervention of revelation regarding Jesus this matter will still need to be resolved by you, believe it or not.

How to know God

Atheist and Agnostic Resources

English Articles on Atheism and Agnosticism

“Jesus Under Fire” Copyright 1995 by Michael J. Wilkins, J.P. Moreland, Craig Blomberg, Darrell Bock, William Lane Craig, Craig A. Evans, Douglas Geivett, Gary Habermas, Scot McKnight, and Edwin Yamauchi

Used by Permission from Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49530

“Reprinted by permission. “(A Ready Defense), Josh McDowell and Bill Wilson, copyright 1990, Thomas Nelson Inc. Nashville, Tennessee. All rights reserved.”

For such a small and obscure group they have made a large impact on secular society by which the news media has catered to their controversial position as if they had something significant to add to the world of academia by their skeptical views of biblical orthodoxy.

The media in turn is not as concerned with truth as much as they are interested in the sensationalism that comes with these conspiracy theories. The general audience prefers novelty and concepts of the mysterious and therefore they find these issues intriguing due to the marketing nature of the entertainment industry.

Anyway not only does the seminar muddy the waters of the gospels by questioning the biblical Jesus but they do so in such a way where it casts a shadow of doubt on most everything that the bible gives us about the person and work of Christ and therefore through reductionism the gospels can no longer be taken seriously based on their analysis.

To begin with their platform is primarily one of anti-supernaturalism and everything is filtered through this medium of belief or should I say unbelief. After all we live in a modern scientific age of enlightenment and these kinds of ideas aren’t conducive to evolutionary man. Yet in spite of this propaganda there remains a God concept by which intelligent and educated people have been counted among the ranks of the religious.

This isn’t a matter of some backwoodsy ignorant people or just some transient cultural experience but rather these are people that have made sincere and intelligent decisions about God.

That’s do in part  because such questions as morality, ultimate purpose and meaning, origins, and mortality come from the deepest level of our psyche and though science would attempt to answer these relevant questions or eradicate them they have miserably fallen short of giving us anything concretely significant.

There is a real sense of “otherness” in our universe which shouts so loudly that we have to deaden our ear follicles to the noise of belief and this has been accomplished as we have been subjected to the constant bombardment of anti-religious rhetoric through the brainwashing of naturalism.

Actually the more we are able to see the complexities of scientific knowledge the more convinced we should be in visualizing life as the handiwork of God as based on the elements of design versus a mindless randomness of chance. I actually find that it takes a blind leap of faith to believe on an order without  intelligence. An orchestra without a conductor.  A painting without an artist. A building without a builder.

How can life be mobilized by chance when chance is nothing nor does it have any power or   substance but it is only useful when contemplating mathematical probabilities. It amazes me that the human mind is the most complex component of the universe and is able to figure out great things and yet it overlooks the very simple matters of general revelation through an awe inspiring landscape. The problem isn’t a lack of insight but rather a suppression of knowledge of which mankind is guilty of.

There has always been an continue to be theistic scientists who hold to a biblical view of creationism apart from macroevolutionary theory and so we can’t just relocate God to the pre scientific age and yet society would  prefer to keep these witnesses silent by assigning them to the fringes of their cultural milieu in preference to elevating scientific theory to the level of a god. Anyway I have written more about evolution in this post:

jesusandjews.com/wordpress/2010/06/07/the-evolution-of-man/

Ok, I am going to stop here as my concern is not to present philosophical arguments for God but rather to give a general propositional framework for discussing personal filters which shape our worldview.

When speaking of the bible and more specifically the miraculous this is where many of the objections come in when deciphering the works of Jesus.

Yet if we can build a bridge towards a God concept then it no longer becomes so difficult to establish the possibilities of the metaphysical and super-nature phenomena. Signs and wonders can become plausible instead of merely mythical or superstitious.

So whether it is the God dilemma or the supernatural, mankind cannot adequately refute these concepts but rather is reduced to taking a middle position of agnosticism.

Until man can exhaust all knowledge and resources then these possibilities cannot be ruled out and if a person is open to looking at the evidence there is a plausibility that supersedes it negation.

If God is real then the story line of Jesus doesn’t necessarily become so far-fetched either. Therefore Jesus does not have to be categorized as one who was portrayed as a mythical figure much like the ancient gods and goddesses of pagan cultures who were not even real persons.

Though we might all agree that miracles as recorded in the bible aren’t a part of our day to day experience this however does not demand that we must identify them as impossible as we are not able to fully discern these matters due to our limitation of experiential knowledge in exhausting the cosmos. After all to make such a statement it would take a omniscient and omnipotent being who could only know the answer to that matter.

Science has only scratched the surface of knowledge and therefore by no means have they scoured the entire universe. So whether it be the secrets that are reserved in the depths of the oceans or the outer limits of space mankind’s portal of knowledge has a very limited view to reality.

Science is based largely in theories and it remains in a constant state of flux. Yet what I find fascinating is how dogmatic scientists can be on their findings in opposition to such concepts by having a matter of fact attitude against anything that smacks of God or the supernatural. Though these matters may sometimes elude the physical properties of normal sense perception how is this any different than what we knew prior to the advent of modern instrumentation?

Also to state that the scientific community at large takes an unbiased approach to scientific inquiry is not even conceivable and is oxymoronic to its field by formulating the cart of deduction before the horse of induction. So that whatever is coming through the lens of the microscope or telescope is perceived and interpreted as based on the filtering of preconditioned presuppositions.

So which way do you think the scientific community is slanted towards on these matters?  Would they be predisposed towards wanting to prove these conceptual ideas as right or wrong? They know from a job security position that they would be laughed and ridiculed right out of their professional careers and jeopardize their livelihood if they would even consider for a moment the possibilities of such ideas to begin with.

Bottom line the natural scientists has just as much to do with philosophical views  against God as does the theologian who favorably answers towards the reality of God.

In moving on about the miracles of Jesus we aren’t talking about the manifestation of fable like stories which portray imaginary figures like unicorns but rather we are looking at real life imagery. Like the miracle of changing the water into wine in which we can identify with the water, wine, wedding banquet, people in attendance, vessels to hold the wine, etc as well as it occurring in a setting which can be identified as a real historical time along with its location or space. This isn’t the problem in dealing with real things or objects  but rather it has to do with the transformation of one natural substance into another natural substance even though wine is already around 80% water.

Anyway this wasn’t some magicians trick either as such sophistication to this story would be nonsensical.

Even outside sources like the Talmud which are not sympathetic to Jesus give some credit to Him as first of all being a real person and then secondly stating that He was able to perform signs and wonders even though His actions were wrongly credited to the inspiration of the demonic.

Also I think when contemplating all this that there are psychological reasons why people would want to reject all these possibilities and it would come down to the responsibility and repercussions of such knowledge.

Take for instance all these reality shows on television that deal with the paranormal by making it an alleged science and though we can or want to believe in the spiritual entities of evil we don’t want to grapple with the antithetical aspect of this same concept because on one hand we find it entertaining while on the other it becomes convicting to our conscious.

When contemplating God and all the possibilities related to such a being mankind responds with hostility as he wants to be the king or master of his own universe and destiny. Humanity strives for dominance and autonomy and therefore the idea of a sovereign God intrudes on our individualism which in turn contradicts a personal agenda therefore making God a threatening obstacle by which to overcome.

As a Christian I have noticed that its ok to generalize with agnostics about God until you mention the name of Jesus which now puts a face on God as someone who is identifiable and knowable and therefore real. A transcendent God appears to be less threatening due to a default position of ignorance but when thinking about a tangible person then these matters become frightening.

Well anyway now to get to my subject. As a professor once said to me I said all that to say this and hopefully my intro just wasn’t a rabbit chase but rather a prelude to the reality behind this cultish group.

To begin with much of the group’s scholarship is unknowable and a percentage of them have not done any significant work regarding the New Testament and yet how can we trust their expert opinions on their critique of orthodox Christianity when they don’t have the academic prowess to be seriously considered under the pretense of critical scholarship.

In their pseudo research they like to conveniently  include the apocryphal book of the gospel of Thomas which downplays Jesus miraculous side and yet they avoid the other  Nag Hammadi documents of which was found alongside this same text. Perhaps the reason is because these other works contain even more mystical or magical elements than those of the gospel accounts.

These Gnostic authors made such extraordinary claims as denying the human element of Jesus by portraying Him as an illusion or phantom without a material body and not even the New Testament makes such claims and compared to these texts the gospels have been demythologized.

So in order to be consistent then why aren’t these other apocryphal works to be equally considered rather than just using a selective script to form the criteria for their claims?

Additionally the dating of these Nag Hammadi documents, if they were the originals, is long after these supposed authors had lived therefore the falsification of these forged works should not even be considered as credible or authoritative resources in comparison to the biblical data due to their lack of accreditation. You may also counter that this is the same dilemma that faces the gospels and I deal with this issue in one of my other posts

jesusandjews.com/wordpress/2010/02/03/is-the-bible-reliable/

Also one of the groups main proponents is Marcus Borg  who was considered an agnostic upon entering his seminary studies even though he initially retained a favorable view of Jesus. Yet I am not sure how you can disassociate Jesus with God unless he was already predisposed to seeing Jesus as only a mere man to begin with. Additionally, how ironic and contradictory to first accept the biblical claims of Jesus but have doubts about the God of the same source document which is the bible. Perhaps it is this inconsistency which led him towards his revisionist view of the text?

This same kind of logic goes into the Jesus Seminar way of thinking in which they pick through and disseminate or discriminate in reorganizing the gospels by accepting small  portions of the literature while rejecting its overall testimony. This duplicity is largely a result of liberal theology which also influenced Borg to eventually reject the biblical portrait of Jesus.

In addition to this  much of this group is against anything that speaks of super-naturalism and yet Borg claims to latter of had a mystical experience himself which has experientially conditioned his philosophy and understanding independent of scholastics by which he has formed a  mystical new age outlook on the God concept.

Based on this criteria God is preferentially relative and is basically a conglomeration of whatever you want to define as God. This kind of research is not centered on scholarship but upon the whims of a persons emotional state. Hardly the hard proof that is needed to adequately refute or counter the biblical record.

It may be liberating to generalize God because then a person can subjectively reduce God to whatever is meaningful to the individual therefore making a God after their own image and likeness rather than seeking out the source for objective truth.

Borg’s emotional state would be a major player as the willy nilly which has led him through the evolutionary process of formulating a progressive belief from that of the agnostic view to now a more advanced mystical experience which seems inconsistent with the position of the seminar. I am not just trying to pick on Borg but just to emphasize that this isn’t about education but rather it is about preferences against a formidable belief system.

His predisposition is to reject much of the new testament literature allowing him to reconstruct and redefine his own narrative to the person he wants to portray as a historical figure. Jesus is to be reinvented and reinterpreted to whatever makes him significant to the Seminar’s own personal values and beliefs.

By doing so the life of Jesus becomes reduced to being no more then just another religious guru who was influential over a religious body of believers and therefore can be routinely catalogued and categorized as one of the many who has left a legacy or a religious imprint on the heart and minds of mankind but is nonetheless neutralized in His claims of exclusivity as being the only way.

To make a Jesus after ones own image as based on a contemporary mindset in bowing to the god of cultural  correctness is to make a more manageable humanity which is just plain idolatry.

This isn’t  scholarship but rather dishonesty as it purports a bias to influence others to gravitate towards their scandalous agenda to downplay Jesus.

I wonder if the real issue is about hushing the words of the gospels  in order to avoid the difficulties of such intolerant language and views as the exploits of  hell and eternal judgment?

Are they trying to make a more tolerable and universal Jesus to fit their our own self image? A messiah that is more compatible to their own lifestyle and worldview? Kind of like the song of me and Jesus got our own thing going.

In order to accommodate for this kind of ideology the inscripturated pages of the text need to be literally ripped out or whited out when the red lettering seems to conflict with ones own criteria.

Ask yourself what is it that you find offensive about the gospel narrative and then look at your own life and see how they differ and perhaps that may be the truer measure of the matter rather than throwing out Jesus with the baptismal water?

When looking upon the favorability of the gospels it is presented in a historical context rather than it being classified in the mysterious language of poetic or wisdom literature.  There is a coherency which doesn’t intend to deceive or distort  truth by intermingling fact with fiction. Luke intends to give an accurate recording as he states at the onset of his letter and to think that honesty, which is one of the most virtuous aspects of Christianity, would be given over to falsehood would be unthinkable due to its repercussions for all liars to be cast into the fiery inferno of hell therefore making it even more unlikely that they would purposely tamper or alter the contents of the text due to their fear of God. Again you may argue that this is because of a late authorship in which people ignorantly embellished the scriptural data but yet there was such a relatively short period between the autograph and the events that anyone who was to hear an inaccurate or falsified rendering would of easily refuted and rejected such claims.

Another inherently and interesting trait about the gospels is the embarrassment factor which I believes gives some credence to its content.

This can be readily seen in which the heroes of the faith, namely the Apostles, are shown in a less than favorable light while elevating those of lesser stature. Also this literature would have been culturally challenging for a religious system that was intended to have a universal impact of world wide acceptance.

Additionally, why would you purposely leave in numerous scriptural paradoxes without trying to reconcile any perceived differences?

Why would all the disciples live and die for a lie if the resurrection was just another myth? It’s one thing when those who are removed from the event in time and space to have such a devotion but what can you say about the contemporaneous followers that remained devoted to Jesus after his death if the resurrection didn’t really happen? After all it wasn’t believed at this point in history that the Messiah would die and rise but rather it was thought  that once he appeared on the world scene that He would then restore all things. So to preach such a message would be mere foolishness to these people.

The Jesus seminar sets its own criteria in critiquing the biblical Jesus not with the view to prove the text right but to disprove its content. Is this skepticism altruistic or has it resulted from a biased agenda which permeates with unbelief?

Is their approach to this subject a responsible attitude towards biblical scholarship or is it just a hunch?

Since the bible has proven itself as a reliable piece of literature couldn’t they at least give it the benefit of the doubt or the same consideration as any other ancient historical document until proven otherwise rather than prematurely passing a verdict of guilt?

Yet it has been the approach of this movement to censor and silence the biblical Jesus by giving the press a hodgepodge of loose sayings which in the final analysis leaves nothing coherently significant to communicate about Jesus by rendering His character as impotent thus neutering His cause.

In conclusion if there is a God who created us it is conceivable that He is relational towards us as based upon the intrinsic and universal values which we all hold to as being definably human in fulfilling the basic needs of our social and emotional requirements. Are these desires to be experienced only horizontally or could it hold to another dimension along a vertical plane as being our ultimate fulfillment and destiny? Jesus incarnation is coherently compatible with this view as He serves an intercessory role for mankind in fleshing out the intimate needs between God and man.

In regards to purpose and meaning are we an assembly line of a fabricated parts or just another brick in the wall? Are we insignifical atoms competing in a environment of indifference? This kind of logic leads a person to embrace irrational thoughts of nihilism and its no wonder Nietzsche saw suicide as a way of dealing with the outcome of ultimate meaninglessness when he assigned a grave to God.

Don’t get me wrong its not a matter of whether or not a person wants God to exist as our hopes and desires doesn’t create reality except only in the land of make believe. Me hoping there is a God or you hoping there is not does nothing to extend the reality of what is.

The folly of Kant’s philosophy is that we should live as if there is a God in regards to making sense of morality which again doesn’t forcibly answer this ultimate question but rather it just leaves the door cracked open a little just in case someone is there.

If God exists and he desires to be in relationship with us by sending us the divine Logos or Word  in the person of Jesus then is it too much to ask then to capture the content of His inspirational teachings by recording them in the  gospel accounts? Additionally, if we can conceive of His words and teachings being put on a parchment would it be too difficult then for an Almighty God to oversee the procedure for preservation? After all what a waste if  He only temporarily entered into time and space to influence a handful of people just to leave us a few morsels of truth as based on the outcome of the Jesus Seminar folks.

God is speaking to us through the revelation of Jesus, the scriptures, a created order, and by the morality of conscious. He bears witness continually if we are able to use the sensory perception which he has divinely enabled us with. Jesus speaks of ears to hear and eyes to see so that we may know what the Spirit of God is revealing to us.

Finally, perhaps you have at one point felt the need to fill the void of your soul. Maybe the world was not able to satiate your deepest longings and desire and has left you with the feelings of disillusionment  and emptiness in which you have asked yourself “is this all there is to life?”

I realize a few thousand words may not be enough to convince you but perhaps it can get you to at least consider such ideas. After all if there is a God it would behoove you to seek Him out in knowing how to relate to Him.

Also I am not asking that you now pacify your emotions on finding spirituality in counterfeit religions but rather to seek out a relationship with the one who is definably your Creator.

Lastly my simplistic plea is that you would be open and considerate to the possibilities of Jesus and to pray to Him that He would reveal Himself to you in such a way whereby you can entrust your life to Him as Lord and Saviour.

 
How to know God

Atheist and Agnostic Resources

English Articles on Atheism and Agnosticism

Other related links

www.bethinking.org/bible/the-jesus-seminar

www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/RF_podcast/Debate-with-The-Jesus-Seminar.mp3

playpopup.asp

jesusandjews.com/wordpress/2010/10/24/da-vinci-code-fact-or-myth/

“Jesus Under Fire”  Copyright 1995 by Michael J. Wilkins, J.P. Moreland, Craig Blomberg, Darrell Bock, William Lane Craig, Craig A. Evans, Douglas Geivett, Gary Habermas, Scot McKnight, and Edwin Yamauchi

Used by Permission from Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49530