Joe@actsii

When I use the word liberal to describe someone, it is defiantly and insult. I have many friends who are liberals, and they are so blinded on many issues. I am a conservative, but not a republican. My wife and I are registered as independents because we think it should be about the person and the issues, not the political party. Having said that, we support the republicans more often then not. I live in Mass, and Kennedy is one of my Senators, but he does not represent my views. I my eyes, he is a bad man that supports evil things.

I like it. Arthur is this your quote or someone elses? Either way it is good.

www.actsii.org It was done by my pastors son. He is very smart and a computer wiz to boot. He is also a college student.

I read the original book 2 or 3 times. I loved it. I let some one borrow it, and they never returned it. I need to buy it again.

2 Tim 3:13-17 13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. KJV

My church preaches/teaches from the book of Acts, but then again look at the name of my church. ActsII Ministries. We use the whole Bible. ActsII Ministries

I think they meant Pentecostal. Off the top of my head, I don't know of any web sites with that kind of information. I own a great book on the subject, but that does not help anyone else. Sorry. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It would help others here if you revealed the name of this wonderful book. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Count me too. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "Handbook of Denominations in the United States" 11th Edition by Frank S. Mead & Samuel S. Hill, 11th Edition Revised by Craig D. Atwood. It is published by Abingdon Press.

I think they meant Pentecostal. Off the top of my head, I don't know of any web sites with that kind of information. I own a great book on the subject, but that does not help anyone else. Sorry.

I agree. I don't know about anyone else, but I fly right by those long posts. If I wanted to read a book I'd go to the library. Can't we debate with what's in our head? There's nothing wrong with using other sources, I do that all the time. But I put it in my own words, unless it's a scripture ref. Messages get lost in those long posts. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Token Atheist & NITE OWL, I gave credit to the author of these articles. I never said that anyone had to refute them. I posted them because I think they are very good and informative on this subject. If you don't want to read them that is fine, I just thought some people would find them helpful. As far as using my "own thoughts and words", I have found that when some one can say something better then me, I let them. NITE OWL, for the most part I have little to no desire to debate. I have no problem with people that want to, I even enjoy listening to debates. They can be very informative, but I have noticed that for the most part, debates do little to change peoples minds or views. I am sorry if the message gets lost, for there is a lot of good stuff in the above articles and from that website.

Testing Religious Truth Claims by Gregory Koukl How do we know whether a particular thing is true or not, especially when it comes to religious issues? Greg discusses several ways we can know the truth...and ways we can deal with those who reply "Who's to say?" It's not unusual for someone to say to me, "I'd like to get together with you and pick your brain." To this I have a standard response: "You can't pick my brain unless you're a brain surgeon, and only then if you use a scalpel. You can only pick my mind ." I have to modify that a bit when I have dinner with my brain surgeon friend. We get together every couple of months. He frequently brings friends with him, generally non-believers. The brain surgeon is a growing Christian, learning how to defend his faith and stand up for Christ. On our dinner jaunts I'm sort of the hired gun. He lobs me a softball to bring the conversation around to spiritual issues, then I respond and the conversation moves along from there. It makes for a very stimulating evening. At our last dinner. my brain surgeon friend invited a radiologist he worked with. He was a very well-trained and intelligent man, but suspicious of spiritual truth claims--an agnostic, not an atheist. We spent most of the evening discussing whether Christianity is true or not. The heart of the radiologist's challenge was this: How could anybody know whether a thing is true or not, especially when it comes to religious issues? I was quite surprised to hear what this otherwise very intelligent person had to say against my view. I outlined three basic ways we know things are true. (I deal with these in detail in the Stand to Reason tape, "Any Old God Won't Do.") Incidentally, this is what epistemology deals with. You might have heard this twenty-five-cent philosophical word before, but not known what it meant. Epistemology deals with the field of knowledge. It answers the question: How do we know what we know? So when asked how we test religious truth claims, I give some epistemological tools. These tools are nothing fancy, nothing out of the ordinary. Basically, you respond to religious truth claims in the same general way you deal with any other claims. The first way we know something is by authority. Frankly, most of the things we think we know we don't know because we've discovered them ourselves, but rather because someone we trust told us they were so. If I wanted to know something about radiology, for example, I'd ask a radiologist whose credentials I trusted. Even if I consulted books on radiology, it would have amounted to the same thing: taking the word of someone who was an expert in the field. I wouldn't start from square one to rediscover radiology all on my own. I'd fall back on the books or the counsel of others who know better, and would probably be justified in believing what they had to say. It's interesting how people will sometimes balk at the notion at trusting an authority like the Bible, when virtually everything they think they know, they've gotten from some authority or another. Think about everything you know about the past before your own lifetime. Think about everything you know about things that are too small for you to examine yourself--the microscopic world, for example--or too big, too distant for you to examine, like distant stars. Think about every place you think you have accurate information about that you've never personally visited. Think about everything you think you know about disciplines in which you didn't personally do the primary research. This probably amounts to about 99.9 percent of all of the things we think we know. We don't know them through testing of our own, but through the testimony of others we think we have reason to trust. So, rather than being odd that we would take certain things on authority, it's actually the foundational way we know things. We trust the words of other people who are reliable. The reliability and credibility of the authority is the key issue. This teaches us an important lesson. It's very natural for us to function on the principle that if the authority is credible, then we're justified in believing the information he gives us. I think a good case can be make that Jesus was that kind of authority. First He made certain claims about the nature of the universe, about Himself, and about God. He then worked miracles, cast out demons, raised the dead, predicted his own crucifixion, death and resurrection, and then self-consciously raised himself from the dead. Now if Jesus, in fact, did those things, I think He's earned the right to speak authoritatively about spiritual things. He's got my vote. So first we might be able to verify the truth of a religious claim, at least in principle, based on the authority of the one who made it. If he's a credible authority-- if he's trustworthy-- then we can trust what he says. But there's a second test that's really valuable. It has to do with the definition of truth. When we say that a thing is true-- and this is the garden-variety definition of "truth"-- we mean the thing itself corresponds to the way the world really is. This is the "correspondence" definition of truth. A thing is true if it corresponds to the way the world really is. Simply put, if you know what a lie is, truth is just the opposite. So if I said that it's true that Greg Koukl is in the studio broadcasting a radio show right now, that claim is true if I am, in fact, in a studio broadcasting a radio show. My claim corresponds to the way the world really is. So the second test for the truth of religious claims is to see if those claims fit the world. Hinduism, for example, says the world is an illusion--Maya. We're not real. God is just dreaming about us and we are part of that dream, so to speak. Our "salvation" involves transcending the illusion and to get back to the godhead. Now I have to ask myself, "Is that claim true?" I'll tell you something, I don't think it is. My own cursory examination of the world seems to indicate that I am real and the world is real. I live my life as if it were real. I experience the world first person, firsthand. Now, I could be mistaken, but I don't know how I'd know I were mistaken if I were just an illusion. In fact, it's almost a nonsensical claim. If I'm an illusion and I don't really exist as an individual self, then how is it that I could have accurate, factual knowledge that I don't exist? You see the contradiction here? You might put it this way: Does Charlie Brown know he's a cartoon character? I doubt it, because Charlie Brown is fictitious. He only exists in our imagination and therefore can't know anything. For me to claim that I know I don't exist turns out to be self-contradictory. Do you know what that means? That means I don't even have to pause for more than a second and consider the viability of Hinduism as an accurate view of the world, because its foundational tenet-- that the world is just an illusion-- is obviously false. And, by the way, this throws into question everything else built on that foundation including reincarnation. If the foundational tenet is false, then everything built on top of it begins to crumble. If you're looking for truth in religion, then you want to narrow your search to religions that take the real world seriously and don't dismiss it as an illusion. Christianity and Judaism do, by the way, which is why modern science was birthed in the West and not in the East. Since this religious claim corresponds to the way we discover the world to be, it's evidence that Christianity and Judaism are true, at least at this point. And there are other claims biblical theism makes that correspond to the world as we seem to discover it. So when the radiologist asks how one could know whether religious claims are true or not, I answer: You apply the same general principles of knowledge to religious claims that you apply to test any other kind of truth: authority and correspondence. If you do, you find that the Christian view of the world is very well substantiated. As the conversation moved forward I introduced another concept: intelligent design. I'm actually convinced that most people believe the world was designed for a purpose. I know this because there are many things in their language that betray this conviction. Whenever we talk about things being "made for" something, we're actually expressing our conviction that they've been designed for a purpose. People say our bodies are not "made for" junk food, but for natural, healthy food. The goal is to be healthy. Health is an optimal functioning of something, that is, operating at the level it was intended to operate at. The notion of health, then, depends for its meaning upon a design concept, an intention. Intentions are functions of minds, not things. Whenever we talk about health of the human body or any other living thing, then, it implies we believe it was intended to function a certain way. Here's another way of putting it. How would you know if any machine was broken? Say you stumbled upon some kind of machine on alien planet, a technological remnant of a forgotten culture. How would you know whether the machine was broken or not. How would you know if it was functioning properly? The only way you could know that is if you knew what it was made to do. And if it didn't fulfill that function well, or if didn't do it at all, then you could say there was something wrong with it. It was broken. Our ability to see that things in the world are broken--that some living systems are unhealthy, for example--is evidence that we understand that some things in the world were designed for a purpose. They didn't happen by accident. Our language reflects our discovery of design and purpose. Now this discovery in the world corresponds to an important detail of the Christian world view. Christianity teaches that God created and designed things for a purpose. So we have another touchstone, so to speak, a way in which a particular truth claim about Christianity seems to match the world as we experience it. Clearly this doesn't match certain philosophies people hold about the world, but it does seem to match the world itself. This is evidence that those philosophies which don't correspond to the world are falsified at that point, and Christianity is affirmed at that point. I also talked about Big Bang cosmology and how, according to current scientific consensus, everything came into being at a moment called the "singularity" some 14 to 17 billion years ago. If the universe came into being, then it's an effect, and all effects have causes. So we can ask, what is an adequate cause for the effect of this universe? In one sense, this is a very scientific question about the origin of the universe. This is where the radiologist started getting very uncomfortable. It was becoming obvious to him that I was leading up to the big "G"-- the God issue. He didn't like that and started objecting. Maybe something else was responsible for the universe and not God, he said. One could postulate lots of different scenarios. Who's to say it wasn't a principle or force that we don't know about that was responsible for everything? Of course, it's fair to raise the question, but the question itself doesn't count as evidence. Yet that seems to be the way he treated it. The minute I began making sense, building a legitimate and compelling case for design, he began inventing all kinds of stories. They were not probative, offering actual evidence against my view. They were just imaginary speculations ending with the dismissal, "Who's to say?" Whenever somebody says to you, "Who's to say?," you know you're probably winning the argument. Usually when they say that they' begin inventing options that don't exist. They are giving you phantom arguments because they don't have any real ones to offer you. The answer to the question "Who's to say?" is " We are the ones to say. We are to look at the evidence, weigh it and draw reasonable conclusions based on what we know, not on what we don't know." My radiologist friend responded with a stunning remark. I've often said that some of the most intelligent, educated people say some of the most foolish things when spiritual issues are at stake. This was a stellar example. He said to me, "Wait a minute. You're saying you believe in something just because you have all this evidence for it and because there is no evidence for contrary views. That's not a good reason to believe anything." I replied, "Did you hear what you just said? Think about it for a moment. You're faulting me for believing in something because there's evidence for it, and rejecting things that don't have evidence for them." That wasn't a fault, it was a virtue. "I rest my case." This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only.

Objection Overruled by Gregory Koukl Here is an approach for someone who wants 'physical' proof of God's existence. Once in a while a piece of e-mail gets passed on to me that I respond to personally. One was a challenge from some attorneys. How do you deal with an attorney's objections to Christianity? It's natural to think attorneys are really hard people to deal with because we consider them so smart and articulate. They're more formidable--in our eyes--than the rank and file. Because they're used to vigorously rebutting opposition, we're less likely to take on an attorney. I've mentioned frequently--and I'll say it again, because I think it's worth remembering--that the most intelligent and articulate people often make the most foolish mistakes in thinking and reasoning when it comes to spiritual things. It's amazing to see people turn from hard-headed rationalists into mystics in a single moment. They are confident objectivists until spiritual things come up; then they turn into radical skeptics. They refuse to treat religious ideas with the same care that they deal with other ideas. Attorneys are no exception. When a friend was confronted by two attorneys with the challenge, "Prove that God exists," I suggested she ask the same question I ask anyone who says, "Prove it." "What kind of evidence would count as proof?" This is a test to see if they're really fair with their challenge. If they say, "I think God should appear right in front of me and show himself to me," then ask, "Is that the same kind of evidence you would require in a court of law for something to be demonstrated as true?" I ran into a similar situation with the question that was e-mailed to me: "An attorney for whom I work as a computer information coordinator has told me he would believe there was a God if this God's interaction with someone could somehow be measured in terms of the impact that God has upon the person." The key word here is "measure." The note continued, "I think he means some physical manifestation of God's interaction with me when I pray, or something like that. Is there a way to respond to this?" Then he adds, "He also says that if the soul existed, then we could measure its existence--that when a person dies and when a soul leaves the body, there should be some way to measure the fact that the soul is not with the body anymore, if the soul is part of the 'real world.'" Notice the use of the words "measure" and "real world." By the way, there is a way to measure when the soul leaves the body. It's called death. That seems obvious to me. At any rate, maybe he wanted to measure the soul's absence by putting the body on a scale and noting that the dying man lost some weight--maybe an ounce or something--right when he died. (People actually do lose a smidgen of weight, but I think that's because they exhale. The air in the lungs actually weighs something.) How does this attorney justify his fee when, on his view of proof, he's constantly working on things which don't even exist in the "real world"? The attorney in this particular case had made a fundamental error. He assumed that anything "real" must be physically measurable. That's an odd statement, coming from an attorney. If that same attorney attempted to convict a criminal, he'd have to show that the defendant had a motive. But a motive is not a physical thing. It may be inferred from physical circumstances or from physical evidence, but the motive itself is not physical. Would this attorney consider it a legitimate response if the defense said, "Counselor, if there really is this invisible thing called a motive that you attribute to the defendant, please show it to us. Where is it? Put it on the table so we can label it 'Exhibit 1.' If this motive exists, as you say, if it's part of the real world, then we should be able to measure its existence." Do you see how I've taken the objection the attorney raised about the existence of the soul and put the exact same objection in the context of law? By this attorney's reasoning, something like a motive would be impossible to prove. Clearly this isn't going to do. The attorney's entire livelihood depends on being able to prove as a matter of fact in the real word a whole host of things that can't be measured physically. This teaches us that there are different ways to prove a thing's existence. If a thing is physical, then some physical test should be able to reveal it, at least in principle. But if a thing is not physical--like a motive, a soul, an idea, or a host of other things--then a person has to infer its existence by different means. Attorneys do this all the time. They infer the existence of a motive by other means of reasoning. Why can't a soul be demonstrated to exist, at least in principle, in the same way? Even a crime can't be measured the way our attorney friend is demanding. A crime is not a physical thing; it's an historic event, a relationship of individual actions that happened in the past and is gone forever. Corporate lawyers face the same problem because a corporation is not physical. A corporation may own physical things like buildings or machinery, but it isn't physical. It is real, but it's not physical. Frankly, I'm hard-pressed to think of anything an attorney deals with that is principally physical. Even a contract is not physical. The paper and ink are not the contract. Rather, the contract is the invisible information tokened by the markings on the paper. You know the contract is not physical because that same contract can be on ten pieces of paper at the same time. It can also be on your computer disk. Physical things cannot be in more than one place at one time. The contract, therefore, is real, but not physical.. So here's the question I ask: How does this attorney justify his fee when, on his view of proof, he's constantly working on things which don't even exist in the "real world"? When an attorney asks me how I prove there's a soul, I can appeal to his own discipline, law, which already has a rigorous methodology of proving the existence of things that aren't physical. I find that when an attorney objects to the existence of the soul because I can't provide physical proof for such a thing, I can go back to him and say, Listen, you don't demand physical proof for a motive, which isn't physical. You infer a motive from other evidence. You negotiate contracts; they're not physical. You deal with corporations; those aren't physical. So why do you make a demand on me and on my religious claim that you would never make on yourself when deciding weighty matters of law? Why won't you play by the same rules? And if the attorney applied the same rules to spiritual questions that he applies every day to issues of law, his challenge could never be sustained. Objection overruled. PS. You might have noticed a useful tactic in my response. When a person asks me a question, I've found it helpful to try to frame my response in the context of his own discipline or profession. This tactic makes it easier to persuade him, because he sees the issue in light of things he already knows to be true, or procedures he's already familiar with. This is an important step of establishing common ground. This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only.

How Do You Know Christianity Is True? by Gregory Koukl Greg explains how you can respond when a young person asks this question. A friend of mine (and someone who is very involved with Stand to Reason) told me that she was asked by her son, "Why do we believe Christianity is true?" She had to pause for a minute. The reason she had to pause is that she had all of this information from being exposed to Stand to Reason and she had to sort through and decide what the best way was to communicate to her young son and answer his question. It is possible to go into all kinds of lines of thinking about the authority of the Bible, about the necessity of the existence of God, about fulfilled prophecy, about the historical Jesus, about discussion of a philosophic nature--there are all kinds of different ways of approaching his question. I got to thinking about that myself, and I thought how I would answer that question from a youngster? What is the simplest, most direct way-- without sacrificing the compelling nature of an argument--to answer this question? Why do I believe that Christianity is true? Not only is it good to have an answer, but to have a simple, direct, but useful answer for someone who is younger and perhaps can't negotiate the details of a more philosophic and complex argument. And there happen to be a lot of other people who just aren't interested in that kind of thing. Even if they are adults, they aren't going to sit still long enough to listen to that kind of argument. Even if they are adults, they aren't going to sit still long enough to listen to that kind of argument. It reminded me of a time maybe six years ago when I was doing some speaking about witnessing on airplanes and how I explain the Gospel in a simple way. I gave my answer "I believe Christianity is true because Jesus said it was." Of course more follow up dialogue is important here, and I will show you in just a moment that there are some liabilities here. But there is something really cogent and powerful about this answer because what it does is remove all the responsibility from your shoulders to be the expert and the one who has all the answers. In fact, what it amounts to is an admission that we have to go to an expert to answer questions like this. If a youngster would ask me a question like that I would say, "What do you do when you have a difficult question about an area you don't have a lot of knowledge of? Well, you come to your parents, right? Why would you come to ask me? Because you don't know something and you think that I might because I've been around longer and I have more knowledge. That is a wise thing to do." Of course, the question then is, "Does the person you go to have the qualifications to answer the question well?" That is why it is helpful to defer the question one more step. You can say, "You come to me because you think I know better, and I'll tell you how I solve this. I go to someone else that I think knows better than me. I seek out an expert, someone who has the qualifications to know what he is talking about in a given area--in this case, the area of spiritual truth. Simply put, I believe Christianity is true because Jesus said it was. Or to put it more precisely, Jesus said He was true . So I believe Jesus and Jesus' explanation of knowing God and understanding the spiritual realm, accessing the Father and being accepted by Him. Jesus' statement was that He had the truth, and I think Jesus had tremendous credibility." In other words, this is an argument by authority. The simplest way to answer the question is just to appeal to Jesus. There is a liability that in the minds of many people what Jesus had to teach was open to vast interpretation. This can work against you unless you know how to handle that issue. What's amazing to me is that most people actually have a respect for Jesus; they are very willing to quote Him when they think something that He said substantiates their own point of view. But when you call up Jesus, they object that that's just your interpretation and no one can know for sure. Sometimes this is the case of the tail wagging the dog. Jesus isn't right because he agrees with you, you're right because you happen to agree with Him. Most people genuinely look up to Jesus as some sort of spiritual and ethical authority. The liability in using Jesus as an authority is that you have to have a clear idea of what Jesus taught. You must understand something about the life of Jesus and his teachings in order to defer to Jesus' authority on these things. Most people genuinely look up to Jesus as some sort of spiritual and ethical authority. That is why it always mystifies me that those who quote Jesus almost have never given His life and His teachings a very thorough study. They sometimes end up attributing to Jesus sentiments that were exactly the opposite of what He taught. If people are willing to quote Jesus as somebody who is an authority, doesn't it seem to make sense to be careful to quote not just Jesus' words, but Jesus' ideas. We can't just pluck statements that Jesus made out of context to support our point of view. We under gird our point of view by referring back to Jesus as an authority, but that only works if we accurately understand what Jesus had to say. The only way we can do so is by studying the teachings of Jesus in some kind of systematic fashion. It's mystifying to me that so many people who quote Jesus in this fashion have not the slightest idea of what Jesus was all about and what He taught. "Who are you to say? That is just your own interpretation." When you appeal to Jesus' authority like that, the rejoinder you might get--and this represents the liability in presenting this kind of argument--is something like this: "Who are you to say? That is just your own interpretation." It's an effective parry unless you know how to deal with it because this objection misses the point entirely. My response is this: "I am no one to say. That's the point. I am not speaking about spiritual things on my own authority. I am deferring to Jesus. I am not asking you to listen to my view of the truth. Jesus is the one who is the expert, so let's listen to Him." What about the issue of it being your own interpretation? That is why we have to look closely at what Jesus said. I've studied Him for twenty some years. I've studied His teachings carefully. That doesn't mean that I necessarily understand everything accurately. However it strikes me that one who has given more consideration to the full body of Jesus' teachings in the context of the language, culture, and thinking of the time is more likely to give an accurate interpretation than someone who has given no thought whatsoever to it and is simply plucking sayings out of the sky hoping that it will substantiate his own point of view. This brings us, by the way, to the goal of interpretation. The goal of interpretation is not to invent ideas that I can put into Jesus' mouth and then call it my interpretation. The goal of interpretation is to figure out what Jesus meant since He is the authority, not I. This, by the way, is where the argument turns into a liability--not for me, since I've clarified now what we are trying to accomplish with interpretation and who the authority is, but it turns it into a liability for the objector. The reason is because Jesus' teaching is not all that hard. It certainly is not as hard as people make it out to be. It just takes a little attention. Quite frankly, the real problem is that much of what Jesus taught is not only obvious, but so deeply offensive to the modern mind, that only the most benign and general of His teachings and moral principles can be seized upon without much threat. People who make these kinds of statements never seize on statements of the woes and judgment that will fall on those who reject Him and don't believe Him. Rather, they seize things like "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Or, "You must have the faith of a child to enter the Kingdom of God." Or, "The Kingdom of God is within you." All this kind of mysterious, gentle, easy-going ideas that don't make a strong challenge to your moral choices. . . .Jesus was among the most judgmental of all people if you look at the corpus of His teachings and His work, but He judged properly and appropriately. Don't forget the one that is quoted more often than any other of Jesus' sayings: "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Of course, that is always brought up to get out from underneath the thumb of Jesus. They don't know where it is at or what it means, but it sounds like it gets them out of a fix. "Don't judge Me." That's what Jesus said. Ladies and gentlemen, Jesus was among the most judgmental of all people if you look at the corpus of His teachings and His work, but He judged properly and appropriately. Other than those simple sayings, virtually everything else that Jesus taught is so obviously an indictment that it is avoided, ignored, or dismissed as only your interpretation. The one strong sentiment that those who are non-believers do raise has to do with religious hypocrisy. Almost without exception, that statement of Jesus, rather than being a tool that they can use against Christians, becomes a weapon that God uses against them. Curiously, people say to you, "Get out of here with your 'Jesus only' business. I'm not a sinner. I am not in need of salvation. I haven't done anything really wrong. You religious people, you are the people that Jesus squawked about. He was more on my side, like the people with the prostitutes, and the homosexuals, and all the down and out." Jesus wasn't on their side. Jesus was against anyone who felt that they didn't need forgiveness because of their own sense of righteousness. Jesus aligned Himself with those who, because their unrighteousness was so obvious to them, were willing to reach out and ask for forgiveness. How do I know Christianity is true? Jesus said it was. I think Jesus knows what He is talking about. He is the expert, not me. If you don't believe me, just read it. It's all there, plain as day. This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only.

Jesus, Plain and Simple by Gregory Koukl Who do you believe about Jesus--those who were closest to Him, or those who are two thousand years removed from the events? The recent edition of Time magazine, January 10, 1994, the one with Las Vegas on the cover, has an article called "Jesus Christ, Plain and Simple." This is like a whole raft of other articles that you see at different times that seem to be the expression of scholars all over the country that undermine, essentially in their conclusion, the beliefs of many Christians. Christians are made to look like the local yokels that really don't know the truth and the truth is that the Bible is a bunch of malarky, myths and made-up stories to make us feel better about life after death. Well, there is an intelligent response to these kinds of articles. I want to give some specific responses to these claims, apply some simple clear thinking to these assertions so that you'll have a clearer idea of what's going on here. This article is about three new scholarly books that, as the subtitle suggests, "Try to strip away the traditional Gospel accounts of the man from Nazareth." Now, it's not uncommon to read articles like this in publications like this, though of late the publication that has majored in this kind of story is U.S. News & World Report . I think in the last few years there have been six or seven cover articles that deal with the issue of the Bible or some religious theme. One difficult thing about this is they are a bit disconcerting because they imply that the scholars really know the truth and the scholars are of one mind on this issue. That one mind is simply this, the Bible is a book of legends, books, ideas of the early church tossed in to make preaching points. There are quite a few explanations as to how the Bible came about and what it actually represents. But what there seems to be one voice on is what it does not represent is historical truth. So the millions of Christians out there that believe that God is speaking definitively through the Bible are simply uninformed. They are narrow-minded, provincial types, the Fundamentalists who just haven't caught up with twentieth century scholarship. Well, I'm here today to calm your fears a little bit. I want to make a few points in general and then respond to some of the specifics in the article. Let me read parts of this article to give you an idea of what we're talking about here. It was written by Richard Osling in the Religion section of the January 10, 1994, Time magazine. It starts out, "'Who do you say that I am?' When Jesus posed this question to his disciples in Matthew's Gospel, Peter emphatically and faithfully replied, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' And what might the answer be today? Three newly published scholarly books put forth a startling revisionist reply. While Jesus may have been a carpenter, that probably meant that he was illiterate and belonged to a low caste of artisans. He did not preach salvation from sin through sacrifice. He never said 'Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the sons of God.' Neither did he say 'Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.' For that matter, he probably never delivered the Sermon on the Mount. As for the question posed to Peter and the Disciples, Jesus never asked it. And he never cured any diseases. As for the other miracles, no loaves and fishes, no water into wine, no raising of Lazarus, and certainly no resurrection. What happened to his body then? Most likely it was consumed by wild dogs." It goes on to report that "scholars are coming out of the closet, demanding public attention for the way they think." Among such works are Jesus a Revolutionary Biography , The Lost Gospel , and also The Five Gospels . Then it goes on to explain a little bit more of the points that they've made. The first thing is that there is a difference between an assertion and an argument. All that's in here are the statements of the opinions of these different scholars.... The second observation is that it's always a good idea to ask yourself the question, "How is it possible that someone could know such a thing?" I want to give some specific responses to these claims, apply some simple clear thinking to these assertions so that you'll have a clearer idea of what's going on here. Also, you'll get the picture that there's a lot more fiction than fact in these assertions, even though the assertions are made by scholars. The article says, "For Crossen [the author of Jesus, A Revolutionary Biography ], the deification of Jesus was akin to the worship of Augustus Caesar, a mixture of myth, propaganda and social convention. It was simply a thing that was done in the ancient Mediterranean world." By the way, folks, often you'll hear this in college classes dealing with the Bible as literature. Where the point is made that Jesus is God, the alternate point, which is what Crossen is making here, is that that was just in vogue back then. A lot of people claimed to be God and that was merely something people did back then, and it bears no relationship to the truthfulness or falsity of whether Jesus was God or not. In other words, we can't depend that this is what Jesus said because what's actually going on here is more of the same that happened all around the world, a fictitious assessment of Jesus as God just like they did with Augustus Caesar. It goes on to say this, "Christ's pedigree, his virgin birth in Bethelem of Judea, home of his reputed ancestor King David, is retrospective myth making by writers who had already decided on the transcendental importance of the adult Jesus. The journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem is pure fiction, a creation of Luke's own imagination. Jesus may not have been Jesus' first born and the man that the Bible calls his brother, James, was the eldest child." Crossen argues that Jesus did not cure anyone but that he did heal people by refusing to ostracize them because of their illnesses. He also goes on to say that the incidents of demon exorcism were actually Jesus' ability to use trance-like therapy to "exorcise" demons. "But the incidents themselves were chiefly used to characterize Roman Imperialism as demonic possession." Some heavy claims. There's even a statement here that Jesus was put to death because He was an itinerant preacher and the Romans believed that such wanderlust spread subversion and so they executed Christ. Well, ought we believe the "revisionist view of Jesus" or not? How might we respond to this? Yesterday we talked about the Jesus Seminar, a group of liberal scholars. They look at the words of Jesus and cast ballots based on whether they think particular statements were actually uttered by Jesus. The ballots are cast by color. They have four different colors that indicate their opinions about a particular verse. The first one is "Jesus undoubtedly said this." The second category is "probably from Jesus." The third one is "doubtful as to whether it's from Jesus or not." And the last one is "Jesus never said this." I'm bringing some of these things up because there will be many times that you'll read articles like this and you'll wonder what to make of them. I want to equip you a little bit and give you a perspective of the landscape. The first thing is that there is a difference between an assertion and an argument. All that's in here are the statements of the opinions of these different scholars. Now, an assertion is different from an argument in that an argument gives the reasons behind why a particular conclusion is arrived at and why you ought to adopt the same conclusion that they do. Often, conclusions or assertions pass as arguments. I just want to make the point that what you have here are assertions and very few arguments, very little evidence given in support of the conclusion they come to. Just because lots of people claim they were God doesn't mean that none of them were God. It's a non sequitur--one doesn't follow from the other. The second observation is that it's always a good idea to ask yourself the question, "How is it possible that someone could know such a thing?" Again, I talked about this a bit yesterday and I won't belabor the point, but many of the problems are not things that I had to go through encyclopedias to resolve. I just stopped and thought about it for a moment. You'll see that in a moment's reflection, some weaknesses of certain assertions become evident. So I encourage you not to get worried when you read something like this, but take a moment to separate the assertions from the argument. And then, even when supporting evidence is not given, ask yourself the question: is this a valid assertion? Is it reasonable? Is it the kind of thing that one could even know? That will take you a long way in resolving some of these issues. Now, let me look at some of the details here. First of all, there's a comment that "the scholars are coming out of the closet." This information is not new. It isn't that the scholars are just now coming out of the closet and they've known this for a long time and they're just telling everybody else this new information that seriously discredits the Bible. This information has been around in one form or another for almost two centuries. The higher critical school of thought, the Modernist school is what they were called in the early part of this century, has been trenchantly refuted. All of these points that were mentioned in this article have been refuted by conservative scholars long ago. Fortunately, in this article there was some reference to some of those conservative scholars that have spoken against this and some of their arguments are given. So I appreciate the balance in this article. This isn't new and you can have access to the arguments against it. Let's look at another point. This is a little bit of an argument, not just an assertion, that Crossen says that this deification of Jesus was simply something that was done in the ancient Mediterranean world. People were in the habit of deifying their leaders, therefore it's easy to understand how such a thing could have happened with Jesus. Ergo, Jesus was not really God and the original writers of the Gospels, the writers of the accurate historical information, don't include this deification and it was added afterwards. That's the argument. First of all, the argument doesn't work. Just because lots of people claim they were God doesn't mean that none of them were God. It's a non sequitur--one doesn't follow from the other. Remember when Howard Hughes had disappeared and they were trying to find him because they wanted to know what to do with all of his money? All of these people were popping up saying they were Howard Hughes. There was a cultural reason why people might claim to be Howard Hughes. But because a lot of people claim to be Howard Hughes, it doesn't follow that a real Howard Hughes doesn't exist. Lots of people in Jesus' time claim to be the Messiah. It doesn't follow that therefore none of them could be the Messiah. That's really the thrust of this particular argument. Lots of people were deified, therefore Jesus couldn't have been God and this was a fictitious assertion. This was just the same kind of deification that people were doing to their leaders. Basically, the point doesn't follow. Here's another point. This did not happen among the Jews. People were not in the habit of deifying their leaders among the Jews. This objection doesn't apply to the Gospel accounts. Have you noticed the tendency in the statements that were made to trust some parts of the Biblical accounts and not others? If you sit back and reflect on some of these points, you realize that there are some problems with it even without doing a lot of research. Have you noticed the tendency in the statements that were made to trust some parts of the Biblical accounts and not others? For example, this author says that the firstborn of Mary was the one that the Bible called James. Now, the Bible calls James Jesus' brother. But this author is suggesting that James is the firstborn, therefore Mary wasn't a virgin, obviously, and Jesus is the younger brother. But why should we trust the details in the Bible about Jesus' younger brother James and not the details about Jesus? But that's preceisely what he's doing. He goes on to say that Jesus didn't heal anyone, but He did heal them by His refusing to ostracize anyone because of their illness. Wait a minute. How do we know that Jesus didn't ostracize people because of their illness? Because we read it in the text. But it's the same text that says that Jesus did in fact heal them as well. It doesn't mean that we are to believe without a critical mind everything that is written there, but it seems to me we should have good reasons to reject something. Is there contrary evidence or is the reason to reject it just a bias against the supernatural? It says here that Jesus had some ability to use trance-like therapies to exorcise demons, but their chief use was to characterize Roman Imperialism as demon possession. Now, two things here. First, why don't we believe there are demons? These guys accept that there was a type of exorcism, but not the fact that it was demons. Instead, they cast Roman Imperialism as demon possession. Where does anyone get that idea from the context? Jesus ignored the Romans. Why is it unreasonable to believe that it is really demons here? The point I'm making is, do you see how this explanation in ignoring the details of the text is a complete fabrication? It's almost as lame as the claim that Jesus was executed because Jesus and His Disciples were itinerants and the Romans believed that wanderlust spread subversion. Where do they get that? Is there a single testimony to that explanation, Biblical or secular? Even by reading it you can ask yourself the question, which account is myth? There are people saying that Bible is myth. What really happened? Jesus was executed because He wandered about. Where did you get that? See my point? Regarding the resurrection--which they flatly disavow--they say that "tales of entombment and resurrection were tales of later day wishful thinking." They say Christians were hoping and wishing that there was life after death so they invented the idea and wrote it into the Bible. Think about this for a moment, the disciples, most notably Peter and Paul (and this is by secular record, not by Biblical record), did not consider the resurrection wishful thinking but actually staked their lives on it. Remember, Paul lost his head on the Apean Way in 64 A.D. Peter said, "Crucify me upside down before I contend that the resurrection of Jesus Christ did not happen. I saw it!" That's pretty strong testimony if you ask me. Finally, this idea of "Jesus Christ, Plain and Simple" makes it hard to imagine how such a Jesus could transform the world. I have a quote here from Will Durant. He's the author of The Story of Civilization . In part three, "Caesar and Christ: A History of the Roman Civilization and of Christianity from Beginnings to A.D. 325," Will Durant writes this. Now remember, this guy is a world class historian. He mentions that at first there seem to be contradictions between one Gospel and another and there are dubious statements of history and suspicious resemblance to legends of old pagan gods, etc. All this granted he says, "In the enthusiasm of its discoveries, the higher criticism has applied to the New Testament text tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies, Hammurabi, David, Socrates, would fade into legend. Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that many inventors would have concealed. No one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic, and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels. After two centuries of higher criticism, the outlines of the life, character and teachings of Christ remain reasonably clear and constitute the most fascinating feature in the history of Western man." Here is a man of world class status that says the higher critics are out in left field and if we follow their methodology nothing would be considered reliable history. The simple question could be asked, how would one know what Jesus actually said? The answer is simple: you read what those closest to Jesus wrote about Him, rather than take the word of those who are two thousand years removed from the events, those who cast their vote on a multiple choice quiz, choosing among undoubtedly authentic, probably form Jesus, doubtful, and Jesus never said this. Listen friends, the disciples who walked with Jesus, the ones who said, "We did not follow cleverly devised tales, but were eye witnesses," these who heard, who saw with they eyes, who behold, whose hands handled regarding the world of life, these men signed their testimonies with their lifeblood and they all answered with one voice, "Undoubtedly authentic." This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only.

Oh...Oh... pick me...pick me!

I have nothing to add at this time, I just wanted to say that this is very interesting and informative. Thank you for the 411.

Tongues are Not Learned or Known Languages by Jason Dulle JasonDulle@attbi.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There have been many attacks leveled against the Biblical teaching of speaking in "tongues," or speaking in "languages." One of the newer arguments against tongues-speaking surfacing among certain Christian circles is the notion that the tongues spoken of in the book of Acts and in I Corinthians 12-14 are not referring to unknown languages given to the speakers by God, but to languages learned and known by the speakers. It is particularly noted that the word "unknown" which appears before "tongues" in the KJV does not appear in the Greek text, and that most English versions no longer include "unknown" in their translations. It is believed that without the word "unknown" we have no reason to conclude that the tongues spoken of are referring to a supernatural gift from God, but rather that they are referring to learned languages spoken by the Corinthian believers (those who were bilingual and trilingual). I wish to demonstrate why it is impossible to conclude that the tongues spoken of in the Scripture are referring to learned languages. "Tongues" comes from the Greek word glossa which can refer to the physical organ of the body, or to languages. When the Bible speaks of "speaking in tongues" it means that the people were speaking in other languages, supernaturally. The languages they spoke in were not learned, but were given them by God. These languages are not understood by the speaker, or by the hearer unless interpreted. It is true that in I Corinthians 14 all appearances of the word "unknown" are supplied by the translators, not appearing in the original Greek text. While it is important to note that, it does not mean that the text is not inferring that the tongues are "unknown" to the speaker. The context makes it clear that the languages Paul was discussing were unknown. For example, Paul said that the person who speaks in a language is not speaking to men, but to God, because no man understands him (I Corinthians 14:2). If this was referring to a language known by men, then others would be able to understand him (Corinth was a seaport city that would have had people from all parts of the world who spoke all sorts of languages, so surely somebody would understand besides the speaker). What sense would it make to say that if I speak in Spanish, that I am speaking mysteries? I would not be speaking mysteries, because every other Spanish believer would understand what I was saying. Yet Paul said no man understands him. If the languages Paul was discussing were normal human languages, why would an interpreter be needed (I Corinthians 14:5; 27-28)? Does every person in the congregation speak a different language? No. Besides, Greek was the language of the empire. While people would know other languages, virtually every person in that day spoke Greek. There would be no need for an interpreter because even if the guy speaking spoke in some language that only he knew, he would also know Greek and could communicate with the others in the Greek language. If the languages Paul was discussing were normal human languages why is the person who speaks in them supposed to pray that he may be able to interpret them (I Corinthians 14:13)? Would he not understand them naturally seeing that he had learned the language which he is speaking? Of course. The reason he needs to pray to interpret the language is because the language is unknown to him. If the languages being discussed were normal human languages why does Paul say that when he prays in languages that his spirit is praying, but his understanding is unfruitful (I Corinthians 14:14)? If they were known languages he was praying in his understanding would be fruitful. So what did Paul decide to do? He decided to pray and sing with the spirit (in context it means tongues) and with the understanding (meaning his known language). Why contrast these two (spirit, understanding) if Paul is only referring to known languages? Paul thanked God that he spoke in tongues more than all the Corinthians, but would rather speak five words that he understood so that the whole church could be edified from his speech, and not just himself (I Corinthians 14:18-19). Why does Paul contrast speaking in languages with speaking words with understanding, if the languages that he thanked God for speaking in more than the Corinthians were languages he understood? Clearly the tongues Paul is speaking of are languages unknown to the speaker by natural learning, but supernaturally imparted to the believer from the Spirit. That is why only God understands the believer unless another believer interprets what is being said. In the Book of Acts we see that they spoke in languages "as the Spirit gave them utterance" (Acts 2:4). It was not of human initiative, but of divine initiative. Even the onlookers realized it to be of divine origin, for they knew that those 120 in the upper room could have never learned the languages they were speaking in, because they were all residents of Galilee and had not lived in countries where they could have learned those languages naturally (Acts 2:6-11). There is no Biblical basis to believe tongues-speaking is of natural origin. Clearly they are supernatural in origin, unknown to the speaker as to their meaning, unless interpreted. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I copied this from http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/tonguelearned.htm

Your questions says it all. Either sit and babble or enroll in a school that teaches spanish or some other language. Or, you can go to Wal Mart and find a CD that teaches other tongues. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> KA, with all do respect, if you choose not to believe in tongues, that is your choice, but please don't make fun & light of a biblical gift of God. I don't think that you are trying to offend people, but you may be doing just that. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I wasn't making fun, I was answering the question. And what is called tongues today is not biblical. Read Acts Chapter 2. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have done more then read it, I have experienced the same Spirit that they where blessed with.

Your questions says it all. Either sit and babble or enroll in a school that teaches spanish or some other language. Or, you can go to Wal Mart and find a CD that teaches other tongues. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> KA, with all do respect, if you choose not to believe in tongues, that is your choice, but please don't make fun & light of a biblical gift of God. I don't think that you are trying to offend people, but you may be doing just that.

If you get a chance, I would like to recommend this book. They Spoke with Other Tongues About this title: John Sherrill was a skeptic as far as miracles were concerned. Then he set out to report on the phenomenom of speaking in tongues. Before long he became a believer. As Sherrill relates the historical background, significant contemporary events, and his personal experience, he gives valuable insight into this gift of the Holy Spirit.

My friends and I sometimes call it "Reading your mail." When a minister or someone, just "knows" things about you. When it is real, it is God flowing through someone. I have been used in this way. Something people need to be careful of, is someone just being judgmental and calling it discernment.

If you would like to read a good book on the subject, try "Hair Length in the Bible: A Study of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16" by Daniel L. Segraves.

Mona t. try this web site, you can download e-sword for free. I think you will find it helpful in your Bible study. http://www.e-sword.net/ Also the more that you study, pray, listen to Biblical teaching & preaching, the more the Word will sink in and take root. Also the fruit from that is so sweet and enriching.

I am not sure if this was meant towards me? If so, I am not a new christian, and as someone else has touched on, being a christian is a process (hopefully with growth). I have to say that I have grown a lot over the years. I am not where I want to be, or where God wants to lead me, but I am light years away from where I was (Thank God). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I disagree that being a Christian is "a process." You're either a saint, or you ain't. It's that simple. However, there is a process that is called sanctification. That is where God is molding us more and more into the image of His Son, Jesus Christ. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Maybe I can say it better this way. Being a christian is like being born, it does not end there, if it does there is something wrong. Like a physical baby, we need to grow and develop in of spiritual life. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, but you are never "more" of a Christian then you are the moment you are born-again. You may mature in the Lord, but you are just as saved as you ever were. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree with you. You are not "more" of a christian, just a better christian (hopefully), a more mature christian, with a deeper understanding of God and His Word.

Halifaxchristian, I would also like to add that I hope nothing that I said above is coming across as me being angry or with an attitude? I do not feel that way, and I don't want to come across that way.