Historically Ignorant "American atheists" advertisement

    One ally of atheism is historical ignorance.  When I hear attacks on Christianity historical ignorance is the answer to the attack quite often.  This comes up in many ways that I will explore separately later on in this blog.  Today Ill explore this advertisement that was taken out in New York's Time Square. 

  It depicts a picture of Santa Claus, and a picture of Jesus dying on the cross.  It encourages us in a very evangelistic way to keep the merry spirit of Christmas but to dump the "myth: of Jesus dying on a cross.

  What I find so surprising about this, is that many atheists I know and interact with online appreciate history.  Appreciate evidence, peer reviewed articles and the opinions of the consensus of scholarship.  Many atheists I know do appreciate history and would never say anything along the lines of Jesus of Nazareth not existing or that he didn't die on a Roman cross.  Especially considering this is one of the most well attested to facts in history.

  Even former Christian and now agnostic Bart Ehrman takes these history deniers head on quite often and even compares them to holocaust deniers  in this article from the huffington post.  "In a society in which people still claim the Holocaust did not happen, and in which there are resounding claims that the American president is, in fact, a Muslim born on foreign soil, is it any surprise to learn that the greatest figure in the history of Western civilisation, the man on whom the most powerful and influential social, political, economic, cultural and religious institution in the world -- the Christian church -- was built, the man worshipped, literally, by billions of people today -- is it any surprise to hear that Jesus never even existed?"

The simple fact is that Jesus did exist and was put to death on a Roman cross.  No scholars that I am aware of take the view seriously that Jesus didnt exist and was put to death on a Roman cross. It is simply an Internet circulated idea that no one with any credibility puts their name behind it.  As I said in a recent blog post, the only people that put their names behind it are simply not qualified to do so.

What I would like to see happen is for us to keep the merry of Christmas, to acknowledge historical facts such as the life of Jesus of Nazareth and for us to dump these silly historically ignorant attacks.  We can have a rational debate with out purposly misleading posters.

  I also find it very interesting that Christians are often ridiculed for evangelising. But this is one of the new attitudes in the new atheism.  That no only should religion be purged from the public square but also in the private lives of people.  I'm amazed to hear the new atheism evangelism, I personally enjoy encountering it because I enjoy engaging with people. 

Can even Santa Claus be saved???

    Santa Claus is very popular around the world.  The Santa Claus that we mainly see today is the Coca Cola version of the big, red and white Santa Claus.  So, was Santa Claus a real person? Who was he? Is he just a pagan idea?

  Most people simply do not realise the rich ancient heritage behind the Santa Claus story.  Santa Claus is a form of the Dutch name Sinter Klaas, which is a reference to Saint Nicholas.  St Nicholas was a fourth century Christian Bishop of Smyrna which is now part of modern day Turkey.  Today December 6th is actually Saint Nicholas day and in many European countries today is the day in which gifts are exchanged and Christmas day is a day of a feast and celebration of Christ.  Saint Nicholas was traditionally known as lavishing gifts on children and the needy.

  St Nicholas was born is 280AD and was raised in a Christian home.  He was forced to grow up quickly because of  the sudden death of his parents.  He inherited his parents wealth and was known for sharing his wealth for good.  He was elected Bishop of Smyrna and was known to be a faithful man and passionate for the gospel.

  Under the Roman Emperor Diocletian who ruthlessly persecuted Christians, Bishop Nicholas suffered for his faith, and was imprisoned.  After Emperor Constantine ordered the cessation of all persecution of the church, and the Christians were released from prisons Nicholas was released.  He later attended the Council of Nicea in AD 325, where he affirmed the Doctrine of the Trinity.

  Also at the Council of Nicea Arianism was declared heresy.  Arianism is the idea that contrary to John 1 Jesus was a created being and sub ordinate to God the father.  There is a weak tradition that Saint Nicholas got into a debate with Arius himself and as the heat increased Saint Nicholas actually punched out Arius! 

  So can Santa Claus be saved?  Yes! He can be known as a defender of the faith, as a man who stood by orthodox Christian doctrine, as a man who used wealth for charity, and as a man of passion for God.  If it is true that he punched Arius I don't agree at all with his action but I cant help but have a laugh and understand we all make mistakes, but I can also admire his passion

"Well, I dont think Jesus even existed!"

I am always surprised to hear this objection in person.  Usually I picture it as an Internet based issue that rational people don't really hold to.  But recently I encountered it again, so I thought I would write a quick blog about it.

  The claim that Jesus didn't even exist simply flies in the face of history and textual criticism.  In fact someone who would make this claim would be a history denier.  But I am amazed how strongly many people hold to this claim when in scholarship the view is considered to be quite silly.  In my conversation recently I was saying that I have never found a scholar to support this view can you suggest any?  The person then referenced the book "The Jesus Mysteries" by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy and added that they were scholars.  Well a quick google search turned out that these authors are not scholars, they do not have one peer reviewed paper between them also their education is a B.A and a M.A which I appreciate but their degrees are not relevant to the field and they are not scholars.  This book is mainly about the idea that Jesus was a myth.  I almost feel bad when I see how much the scholarly world is against Jesus mythicists.  In a article I read recently Bart Ehrman was saying of mythicists

"there is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world. And it is no wonder why. These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology."

Another objection along these lines that I often hear is that since the historical documents concerning Jesus are biased and contain supernatural claims they cannot be trusted.  This is simply not true at all.  All historical documents are biased and many contain supernatural claims.  This is simply the art and science of the historian and textual critic.


Also I hear people say "well of course there was a guy walking around first century Palestine named Yeshua but not who we now call Jesus Christ.  Since I am a layman Ill pass this one over to Bart Ehrman again:

"With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) -- sources that originated in Jesus' native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves). Historical sources like that are is pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind. Moreover, we have relatively extensive writings from one first-century author, Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus' life and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus' closest disciple Peter and his own brother James. If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it."

So we have numerous independent accounts, we have sources that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (I'm pretty sure he is talking about the creed in 1Corinthians 15 there), we have the writings of Paul and testimony from Peter and Jesus' own brother.  Seems like pretty good evidence to me. 

   When I do go through this with friends they will usually change their opinion to that Jesus did exist BUT there is no reason to accept the supernatural claims.  At this point that is fine for the moment, because I believe in trying to stay on one topic at a time.  At least if you review the evidence with someone they may stop publicly preaching about how Jesus didn't even exist.  Which is great because the case for Christianity is a cumulative case, so when we take down a roadblock like "Jesus never existed" that's just one part of the cumulative case.

Biblical Hermaneutics in a Union Meeting

So I was in a Union meeting for my job the other day.  The union rep is talking about a respectful workplace and an upcoming vote when he turns to talking about the book of rules, policies and procedures.  He said "this book is just like the Bible, its all up to interpretation and everyone reads it differently."  So of course I spoke up.  "Actually that is not what the Bible is like at all, we have a discipline called hermeneutics which is the art and science of text interpretation"  The union rep let out a groan, and said OK its not like the Bible and moved on.  But the point here is this really is how many people view the Bible which is shocking!

   We Christians do recognise the Bible as the inspired word of God, but it is very important to understand that many of the interpretations of the Bible are not.  The Bible along with most texts is not a book where you just pick it up and can fully understand it.  The Bible was not written yesterday and in our own culture and context so some extra work has to be done to get a full understanding of the text.

  Really I just want to give a quick introduction to Biblical hermeneutics, so here are a few points to consider when reading the Bible.

 1.  Who is the author of this passage?
 2.  Who is the intended audience?
 3.  What is the context of the passage?  Both directly and over the larger picture
 4.  What is the cultural context? 
 5.  Where have similar themes or quotes appeared before in the Bible?
 6.  Are there certain words that require further examination?

As I write this I'm already sure that I will edit it later on, Ill be walking down the street and remember I should add more.  But really this is just for consideration for you to dive deeper into the Bible and to know that the Bible is not a book where we can all interpret it differently.  We work together in community and follow Hermeneutics to fully understand the Bible

"Will there be animals in Heaven?"

Ive received a few questions from my blog recently, which I really enjoy.  Mostly this blog has been about objections I receive but I am very happy to give it my best shot to answer questions.  I just want to clarify again, I am merely a layman.  I'm just trying to be a $1 apologist is J Warner Wallace suggests :)

    First I would like  to point out that we do not have a straight forward answer regarding this question in scripture.  But that does not mean that we don't have many verses that speak towards this issue.  Also before I begin I would like to say that animals are very important to God.  Just see Psalm 50:11 "I know every bird in the mountains, and the creatures of the field are mine."  Also its amazing to see the deep emotional connections that humans make with animals.  I have had 2 cats pass away and the loss was very deep.  So I would also like to point out that animals are very important to people, and people are very important to God so something meaningful is going on here.



   Animals were a big part of the original creation, in Eden.   Animals are an amazing part of creation, maybe one of the best parts!  So in the restored creation it makes sens that animals would continue to be a part of creation.  The is just simply no reason to think that this amazing part of creation would be left out in Heaven.

   "But will my cat Puddles be there?  Do animals have souls?"

Animals are referred to as "living creatures" in Genesis 1:20 and throughout church history this has been understood as having a soul.  But a soul that is qualitatively different than a human soul.  Thomas Aquinas taught that an animal's soul is dependent on the body.  So when the body dies so does the soul.  This also hard to back up with scripture but there is a good point there.

So will my same pet be in Heaven?  Why not? is my answer.  There is no reason to not think so.  I am open to more info, but for right now I don't really know but have no reason to not think so.  God is a God who loves to lavish love on his children, so what ever is in store will be good.

"In the earliest Gospel Mark, Jesus doesnt even claim to be God" Thats only in later Gospels and must have been added in"

  I was very surprised when I first heard this argument from an atheist friend in a coffee shop.  Mainly because I had been hearing it from Jehovah's Witnesses for many years before that.  I really have nothing bad to say about JW's other than their doctrine.  One of the reasons I am a Christian today is because a group of four JW's met with me weekely for many months to discuss issues of God.  I still have JW's over to the house every couple of months, they are always welcome here. 

  So I am in the coffee shop with me friend and the topic of Jesus being God comes up and I hear that in Mark, that Jesus never claimed to be God.  So maybe he was just a good man who after he died people made it up that he claimed to be God.

   Frankly this objection is quite silly, the evidence in overwhelming for Jesus's personal claims.  First I asked my friend if he had actually read the Gospel of Mark and the answer was no.  But that this was a popular claim on the Internet.  With this said, I then asked "why do you think Jesus was crucified?"  To which the answer was "I'm not sure"  so then I decided to speak about two points, the same two points I always talk about with my JW friends. 

   First we read Mark 4:35 - 5:13

³⁵ That day when evening came, he said to his disciples, “Let us go over to the other side.” ³⁶ Leaving the crowd behind, they took him along, just as he was, in the boat. There were also other boats with him. ³⁷ A furious squall came up, and the waves broke over the boat, so that it was nearly swamped. ³⁸ Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion. The disciples woke him and said to him, “Teacher, don’t you care if we drown?”
³⁹ He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, “Quiet! Be still!” Then the wind died down and it was completely calm.
⁴⁰ He said to his disciples, “Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?”
⁴¹ They were terrified and asked each other, “Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!”

5 They went across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes.^{[a] 2} When Jesus got out of the boat, a man with an impure spirit came from the tombs to meet him. ³ This man lived in the tombs, and no one could bind him anymore, not even with a chain. ⁴ For he had often been chained hand and foot, but he tore the chains apart and broke the irons on his feet. No one was strong enough to subdue him. ⁵ Night and day among the tombs and in the hills he would cry out and cut himself with stones.

⁶ When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees in front of him. ⁷ He shouted at the top of his voice, “What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? In God’s name don’t torture me!” ⁸ For Jesus had said to him, “Come out of this man, you impure spirit!”
⁹ Then Jesus asked him, “What is your name?”
“My name is Legion,” he replied, “for we are many.” ¹⁰ And he begged Jesus again and again not to send them out of the area.
¹¹ A large herd of pigs was feeding on the nearby hillside. ¹² The demons begged Jesus, “Send us among the pigs; allow us to go into them.” ¹³ He gave them permission, and the impure spirits came out and went into the pigs. The herd, about two thousand in number, rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned.



Thank you for reading all that first :)

OK so what we have here first is Jesus and the disciples are in the boat, and a storm comes and they are afraid until Jesus tells the wind and the waves "Quiet, be still" and then Mark makes it clear that the disciples were more scared of Jesus after that than they were of the storm.  Keep in mind here the context.  We are reading a Jewish narrative.  Why were they terrified?  Because in their context, who alone tells the seas what to do?

The next story we have which is connected, because when Mark was written there was not chapters and verses, they were added later.  The very next story we get is Jesus encountering a very scary demon possessed man.  Jesus asks the impure spirit "what is your name?"  to which the spirit replies "Legion"  now what would the name Legion bring up in the minds of the first listeners within the Jewish culture?  They would have thought about the Roman Legion which was a basic Roman army unit comprised of up to 5000 soljers.  The Romans were oppressing the Jews at the time and they longed for freedom from the Romans.  So Jesus then casts Legion into the pigs and they run into the water and drown.

So ask yourself this question.  In the Jewish narrative, who alone controls the waters and then drowns Israels enemies in it?  This is a direct reflection of the Exodus story where God parts the red sea and then drowns Pharaoh's armies in it.

Second I will read Mark 14:60-64

⁶⁰ Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” ⁶¹ But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.
Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”
⁶² “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
⁶³ The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. ⁶⁴ “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”

So here Jesus is before the Sanhedrin and is brought up on charges.  People are giving false testimony so the high priest just straight up asks Jesus if he is the son of God.  Jesus replies powerfully and says that he is indeed the Son of Man, and the high priest tears his robes because of the perceived blasphemy. 

So that is my usual two talking points when it comes to this topic.  Since the objection is bible based you have to actually read the bible for the answer.  So here I just use two points so not to overwhelm people, but if they are interested then I would go further. 

I  reviewed this with my friend, and he said "alright, fine" and that was the end of that.  I still go deeper on this though with my JW friends, my only bit of advice with JW's is that you be willing to use their bible. It is a pretty bad translation, but you can do it :)

Jesus is just a reinvention of Mithras and other pagan religions!!

   Well first I want to say I took a serious break from blogging, but over the last few months I have still been collecting many stories to share about the interesting encounters I have as a Christian in Vancouver a city with one of the lowest rates of Church attendance in North America.

  So last week I was having coffee with a young Christian friend of mine, who's faith was rocked by the accusation of this idea of Jesus Christ just being a reinvention of the Gods of the mystery religions.  He was specifically impacted by a picture that he saw on reddit. 

So as you can see this was some kind of advertisement taken out by people trying to refute Christmas and the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Personally Ive never seen the ad, but it looks a little funny to me so I actually think its Photoshop, but Im sure someone will help me out with this. I'm amazed how much I run into this issue, its been dead for 100+ years but it still pops up on the internet mainly because a lie can travel half way across the world on the internet before the truth can even get ready.  What amazes me most is when in conversations with Atheists who say they prise critical thinking, peer review, evidence etc will then throw out this mystery religions idea when their only source is an internet based movie like Zeitgeist.  So lets have a quick look at these claims on this advertisement.

First Ill say that Mithraism was one of the major religions of the Roman empire.  It was very popular within the military and Mithra was Mithra was the god of war, battle, justice, faith, and contract.

Mitras was born of a virgin on December 25th...Just like Jesus?  False
Mitras was born from a mountain or a cave, and there is no record at all of the Date of his birth.  Also everyone knows Dec 25 is not the date that Jesus was born, it is the date that we celebrate his birth.

Mithras had 12 disciples...Just like Jesus?  False
Mithras is said to have had one to two disciples, but not twelve.  There is a stone carving though that shows Mithras killing a bull while 12 people watching.

Mithras was known as the Son of God...Just like Jesus?  I'm not sure
I did really look for this one, but all I could find was that Mithras was of course the son of a god.  But when Jesus referred to himself as son of God this was not his claim to divinity.  This is something that Christians mix up quite a bit.  Many people referred to themselves as son of God.  It was actually the claim of being the Son of Man from chapter 7 of the book of Daniel that Jesus used to claim divinity.

Mithras was resurrected three days later after his death...Just like Jesus?  Absolutely false
Actually there is absolutely zero mention of Mithras death or anything about a resurrection in Mithraic texts.  In fact there is no reference, none at all of any dying and resurrected Gods before the first century. 

So really, I feel sorry for the atheist that chooses to spend money on an ad like this.  Also for the atheist who uses this in a debate.  But what breaks my heart is when I see Christians have their faith challenged because they never decided to educate themselves on what they believe and why they believe it.

"Hey are you ever afraid you'll miss the Rapture and be left behind?"

  So, many people are familiar with the widely popular Left Behind fiction book series and the following movies starring Kirk Cameron.  The Rapture is the idea that Jesus is going to come back again secretly and invisibly and take his church out of the world, leaving behind non Christians to face the terrible tribulation. 

  So I get asked this question today by an atheist friend of mine, trying to push a button I guess.  So I had a bit of a chuckle and simply answered no, and had a little chat about "the Rapture"

  The Rapture is a wide spread belief in evangelical Christianity today, especially considering that the Left Behind series has sold more than 50 million copies.  The Rapture is a wide spread belief even though this belief is actually quite new!  Actually its even newer than Mormonism.  Absolutely no one was preaching about the Rapture before 1830 AD, this is not a traditional belief of the Christian church.  The early church taught that Jesus Christ was coming back once, just once, not 2 or even 3 times.  But if you subscribe to the idea of the Rapture you believe Jesus is coming back more than once. 

  I thought I would expand a bit on the work Parousia (second coming or appearing) which is a big word when it comes to the Rapture.  When Paul uses this word he is using it in the context of what the audience would have understood it to be in that day, they would have understood it in the context of Caesar.  After Caesar would have been away from the city or off fighting a battle, when he would return to the city in victory and glory all the people of the city would go out to meet him, to welcome him back.  In this same theme Jesus will one day come back and we who have relationship with him will welcome him back on bended knee. 

It is in this context that we read 1Thessalonians 4:13-18:
Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope. ¹⁴ For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. ¹⁵ According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. ¹⁶ For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. ¹⁷ After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. ¹⁸ Therefore encourage one another with these words.

  This verse is about Christians giving Jesus a royal welcome back to earth in the air.  Those who have died rise to meet Christ first then those that are still alive.  This has nothing to a Rapture, it has to do with Jesus coming back to Judge the world and Christians giving him a Royal welcome back to earth.  The Thessalonians understood how to welcome kings.  In fact their city was named after Alexander the Great's sister, and was a walled city.

One verse Id like to quickly menton is a favorite of many people who defend the Rapture.  Matthew 24:36-41 
“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.³⁷ As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. ³⁸ For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; ³⁹ and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. ⁴⁰ Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. ⁴¹ Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

So in the Noah story who was taken away and who was left behind?  The lost were taken away and the righteous were left behind.  Those left behind were happy to be left behind!  So this has nothing to do with a "Rapture"

  I have heard the Rapture referred to as "theological comfort food" because in popularity during the civil war.  It was sort of an escape plan, a way to get out of suffering. I have to agree with this since the Rapture is pretty much teaching that "we can get out of here"  Today the teaching of the Rapture is mainly spread through popular level books and tracts among laymen, because this is not a teaching rooted in church history.  When we read the Bible we are looking for the original intended meaning of the text, not a new interpretation hundreds of years later.

  With most Christians who ascribe to the teaching of the Rapture I usually just ask them is Jesus coming back once or many times? 

  I really enjoy this topic but I don't want to go on forever in this short blog.  If I receive any objections though Ill tackle them.  Also its after midnight and I am typing this in a hurry so Im sure its not high quality, but I wanted to get it out before I forgot :)

So to close, am I worried about being "left behind"?  no, I'm saved and in relationship with Jesus.  Also the Rapture is not something I need to consider, because its a belief newer than Mormonism, supported biblically and Jesus is coming back once.

"Come on now, we cant trust anything that happened 2000 years ago"

  The other day I was on the bus and decided to start up a conversation with the guy sitting next to me.  I asked him, "if your favourite dog was drowning and your nasty neighbour was drowning who would you rescue?"  He has a good laugh, said it was actually a really hard question but he would save his nasty neighbour because of the value of human life.  I asked him why he felt that way and we started a conversation. 

   After a few minutes I told him I was a christian and he has another good laugh.  I asked him why he thought that was funny and he said "because you believe in things that might have happened 2000 years ago.  We cant trust anything that happened 2000 years ago"

  So is this true?  Can we not trust historical events or that historical people existed so long ago? 

I asked him if he believed Alexander the Great was a real person and if he actually did the things that were attributed to him.  He laughed and said of course.  I asked why and he explained that Alexander the Great was a historical person and the historical records prove that.  So I explained that the first records about Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch 400 years after his death, yet historians consider these records very reliable and accurate regarding this Greek conqueror.

  In history the time gap that is the most important is the gap between the events and when they were recorded, not how long ago they were recorded.  When we weigh evidence what matters is the time gap between the events and the recording of that evidence.  Good evidence does not become bad evidence because it was recorded a long time ago.

When it comes to the life of Jesus and the events of the New Testament these records were written down within the lives of the eyewitnesses.  The New Testament was written while the eyewitnesses were still alive.  The New Testament was not recorded like much of the history in the time of Antiquity some hundreds of years after the events.  This is what sets the New Testament apart, it was written by eyewitnesses, and recorded from the testimony of eye witnesses.  Not some 400 years later.  The famous legends about Alexander the Great did not come around till centuries after Arrian and Plutarch's records.

So can we trust that certain detailed events occurred some 2000 years ago? The answer is it depends on the quality of the evidence.  In regard to the New Testament, the evidence is overwhelming from a historical point of view.

Philippians 4:13 : The Superman Verse???

"I can do all this through him who gives me strength" (Philippians 4:13) 

We see this verse on many many athletes.  It is tattoo's on the chest of current UFC light heavy weight champion Jon Jones.  It was also famously written under the eyes of NFL quarterback Tim Tebow and on the shorts of former heavyweight boxing champion Evander Holyfield.  So is this verse speaking about the idea that you can accomplish anything with the help of God?  Is this the verse to hold onto when you wonder if you can accomplish anything?  While this may very well be true, this is not what this verse is talking about at all.

First lets consider the context of this verse.  One of my favoirte teachers Dr Ben Witherington said in a lecture I was recently “a text without a context is just a pretext for whatever you want it to mean.”  This speaks directly to people who say that "there are many many interpretations of the Bible", or that "you can make the bible say whatever you want it to."  I have only taken a few history classes in college but I remember one professor would always say "context, context context" and "context is everything" This is completely true, even if we look at our own lives, most of us at one time or another have been "taken out of context" and its terrible.  It usually takes a lot of explaining and clean up to help whoever it is to understand that you were taken out of context and what the intention of your words were.

So the setting of the book of Philippians is Paul being held in prison.  Forget what you think about prison as we know it today.  This type of prison was a place where people were sent to rot.  Paul probably wouldn't have even eaten unless someone who knew him brought him a meal.  He didn't sit around watching TV all day and exercising in the yard, this was a terrible place.  So now that we have the setting lets just simply have a look at the verses before verse 13.  Most people know that you should always read the verses preceding a verse which will help you to not take it out of context.

Philippians 4:10-13
I rejoiced greatly in the Lord that at last you renewed your concern for me.  Indeed, you were concerned, but you had no opportunity to show it. ¹¹ I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances.  I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. ¹³ I can do all this through him who gives me strength.

Now it is quite clear what Paul is talking about here.  He is thanking the Philippians and saying that he is able to endure all things.  Whether he is experiencing highs and lows, if he is hungry or well fed, in the penthouse or in the outhouse.  He is not talking about dreaming about the future and thinking the sky is the limit!  Now I don't know why these athletes have this verse all around them, I really don't know much about the faith of Jon Jones (but I know a lot about his fights) I don't know much about the Theology of Evander Holyfield except that he is steeped in the "health and wealth prosperity gospel" which Ill address in a later blog.  One thing I will say is that prosperity gospel people would probably interpret this verse to be a superman verse.  Finally with Tim Tebow, I really don't know enough, but I will say that all that I do know points to him being legit.  He seems to be humble, volunteers overseas, and his doctrine seems to be sound, but I am open to the evidence. 

So this is an amazing verse, but we cannot take it and twist it to suit our purposes.  It is clearly about being content in all situations, if we are rich or poor, hungry or well fed.  So when bad things happen in our lives, and we question God's plan, we should turn to this verse.  If we lose our jobs, and cant pay the bills, we should remember that Paul was content in prison.  When our friends abandon us and people make fun of us we should cling to this verse for strength. 

When we dream big, we should just say "Lord willing"
 
James 4:13-16
^"13 Now listen, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.”¹⁴ Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. ¹⁵ Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.” ¹⁶ As it is, you boast in your arrogant schemes. All such boasting is evil."

"Does God punish people for the sins of their fathers?"

Just the other day I was in a conversation about this issue on a facebook forum that I frequent.  We were speaking about this issue, because one atheist fellow was telling a story about how how his Christian father had told him that the reason his daughter was afflicted with a medical condition was because God was punishing him because God knew he would become an atheist one day.  Me and him went back and forth and a few bible verses came out and that was that for me.  But a person on the forum who just watches wrote me an email asking me to expand further because it was a big issue for them.  So I answered their email and will also do a short write up here.

  So, does God actually punish people for the sins of their fathers?

Being a Star Trek fan the first thing that popped into my head was how Klingons do shame children for the sins of their fathers and in one episode Captain Picard refused to judge Duras for the sins of his father, like the Klingon empire did to Worf. (I hope I didn't sound like too much of a nerd there)

So the first verse that came out was Exodus 20:5 "_fyou shall not bow down to them nor ₂ serve them.  For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God,  visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me"  This is a tough one isn't it?  What do we do with this verse?  Because we also have verses such as:

Ezekiel 18:20 "The soul who sins shall die.  The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself,  and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."  It doesn't get much clearer than this, that we are responsible for ourselves, and we will not be held responsible for the sins of our parents.  We also have many more verses to support the idea that God does not punish for the sins of the parents but Ill just concentrate on these two verses.

It was then presented to me after these two verses that this was an obvious "Bible contradiction" so we have to look into it because if the Bible does actually contradict itself we have a very big problem on our Christian hands.  So lets have a look.

The context of Exodus 20 is the practice of idolatry.  This section of scripture is speaking towards consequences of sin, not necessarily punishment from God.  Are there consequences to sin that do follow down through generations?  Of course there are.  I think of divorce for example.  Divorce can cause a wake of consequences that follow the children and the children's children.  There is much pain, and disillusionment in the sanctity of marriage.  Also the then divorced parents may remarry and carry the consequences there.  Also how about alcoholism?  Many alcoholics effect the lives of many around them, their spouse, their children, their parents and that can leave scars that effect how they then treat others.  Of course there are consequences to sin.  So in an idolatrous culture, the participants in idolatry will pass the lessons onto their children and teach them to continue in the way of the ways of idolatry on and on through generations.  All one would have to do is look at the life of David to see if there are consequences to sin in this world.  See what happened to him and his life as a result of his sin with Bathsheba.

Yet, anyone who could be effected by the consequences of the sins of their parents can turn to Jesus, who was perfect and had no sin, actually was put to death on a cross as a ransom for our sin.  Anyone can come to Jesus and the sins of their parents would not be held against them at all.(Corinthians 5:21)  Anyone who comes to Jesus in faith is considered righteous in the sight of God and can know God. 
Personally one of my favourite things about God is that he really can make all things new (Revelation 21:5) and really can restore the lost years.  Personally I know many people who are hurt by the sins of their parents, and I am not going to tell you it will be all better if you come to Jesus, it will still be a long tough road.  But Jesus will stand with you and forgive you and work together with you.  




So, does God punish people for the sins of their parents? No.  Is there such a thing as generational curses or the like? No.  Can children's lives be effected by the sins of their parents? Yes.  Are there consequences to sin? Yes.  Can God restore, heal and forgive all sin? Yes.

"Oh I dont share the gospel with many people, I do what St Francis of Assisi said “Preach the gospel at all times; when necessary, use words”

how many times have you heard this? I hear people say it on a weekly basis, because I know a lot of people that believe they can fulfil the great commission without using words. 

  Its supposedly a quote from St Francis of Assisi.  I hear it because its a common question for me to ask my fellow Christians "who did you share your faith with recently?" many Christians get very uncomfortable with this question.  Its common for me to hear, "well I just try to live a good life and wait for questions", to which I will follow up with "when is the last time you were asked questions because of the good life you are living?"  Many Christians think that we are not all evangelists, and unless we feel called or are gifted in evangelism we don't have to share our faith.  Many people think of this quote and think they can just live the gospel at their workplace or social groups.

 When dealing with this quote that people take on as a philosophy of their life it completely goes against scripture. I really appreciate what Ray Comfort said regarding this supposed quote from St Francis that it is comparable to saying“feed the hungry – if necessary, use food.”  its an insane idea that if our goal is to feed children that we just become friends with them instead.  Also if our goal in life is to follow the great commission and make disciples of all nations and we don't share the content of the gospel, that is just as wrong.  Jesus said in Matthew 28:19-20  '¹⁹ Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ²⁰ and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”  Seems pretty clear to me.

I really feel that this quote of “Preach the gospel at all times; when necessary, use words” just supports postmodernism, that people believe words have no meaning.  Well if that is true why not throw out the Bible?  We are a people that believe the word of God does have meaning, and that our words do have meaning.  To fall into this postmodernism is to deny the truth of the word of God.

All you have to do is look at the book of Acts and see if your life would make any sense in that book.  Paul used powerful words, Peter used powerful words, so did Stephen.  Would it make sense if there was then this other character who never used works but just lived a good life and waited for people to ask him why he lived that way?  Lets see what Paul says in Romans 10:14: "How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?"

  This is a Christian myth, and its sad to see it so prevalent today in my culture.  Many people who are not Christian live amazingly kind and giving and beautiful lives.  So whats different between Christians and them?  The difference is that Jesus has the words of life and we should share them with people.

Your words are needed to preach the Gospel, so please forget this silliness about living a good life and waiting for questions and using this quote by St Francis to justify it.

Jesus did say its harder for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God....but did you know he was talking about the needlegate?"

  I was at a small group recently and we were talking about the doctrine of salvation.  One fellow was saying that riches were particularly a tough thing for him to deal with in his life.  That it was tough for him not to pursue wealth and to live for his own desires rather than God's.  We all shared how pursuing wealth was tough for us not to seek after. 

One guy brought up the verse in Matthew 19:24  "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."  we all spoke about this verse for a while until one guy said, "Yes Jesus did say that but did you know that he was talking about a gate called the needle gate that after dark that is how you had to enter.  your camel would have to get down on its knees to enter the city.  So what Jesus was saying was rich people can get in no problem as long as they are on their knees."

While I appreciated the guys message, he was continuing a myth in christian culture and its completely untrue.  Also it is doctrinally false! 

First there simply was no needle gate or needles eye in Jerusalem at this time.  Simply it is false historically, it is propagated among people in the church all the time, i have heard it personally many times.

Secondly its 100% wrong doctrinally.  Jesus is very clear in Matthew 19:26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”  so the idea that a camel could actually squeeze through a needle gate on its own is possible. not impossible!

This is called eisegesis, it is people reading their own meaning into the text.  The plain meaning of the text is that this is an impossible image...it would be shocking to hear.  To tell people that Jesus was actually referring to the needle gate is plain false and it changes the teaching to mean that with hard work you can squeeze into the kingdom of heaven

"why would you go want to go to church? Haven't you heard of Bill Maher?"

  this past Sunday morning I was honoured with the opportunity to preach about Colossians 3:1-11 at church.  While I was a few blocks away from church I decided to pop into Starbucks and have a coffee and review my notes.  There was a guy sitting in one of the big comfy chairs and had his jacket covering the chair next to him.  I asked if I could sit next to him and he relied yes as long as wasn't going to be speaking on the phone.  I said "I wont be on the phone but I will be mumbling a bit because I'm going to speaking at church this morning and need to review my notes."  He laughed out loud and very loudly said "why would you want to go to church? Haven't you heard of Bill Maher?" 

I replied yes, and that it is a regular thing for me to watch his movie "religulous" with people and talk about how easy it is to refute his claims in the movie.  The man then said "well Bill has shown that God doesn't exist because there is no evidence for him and he has shown that church is a big sham." 

I said the reason that I go to church is closely connected to what I was talking about that morning which was that I believe we can know that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

I then said "well as a Christian I search for truth in history, evidence, science and reason.  I respect your opinion, but I don't search for truth in the claims of a stand up comic, I would rather study the work of scholars.  So lets talk about evidence for God, but first what kind of evidence would you be looking for?  Because it has been my experience that if I start speaking about scientific evidence people sometimes then switch the category and say they want legal evidence.  So what should we speak about?"

He then got up and said "I'm leaving, I don't want to get into this with you"  I then said "I'm sorry to hear that, but my church is right down the street I hope you will come join us."  But the man left and I kept and eye out for him while I was speaking but didn't see him.

So, there isn't really any apologetic teaching in this blog here except to show that most people don't have arguments against god.  Most people just have a reason that they have an idea they have latched onto but have never really explored and looked into.  I think this is also true for some Christians.  But as Christians, we are all called to be apologists and and "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" 1Peter 3:15 

Also I would highly recommend you to watch Bill Maher's movie Religulous and see if you could answer his objections if he were to meet you and ask you questions about your faith.  Would you be ready to give an answer when asked about the reason for the hope you have?  Would your answer be blind faith? or would you have solid ground to stand on?

"How do you know when to take the Bible literally?"

  I get asked this question quite a lot.  Usually more aggressively in the way of "everybody knows you cant trust the bible, its not to be taken literally" or things along those lines.  But this is not actually a very hard question to answer.  But I will tell you now that when you do answer this question it will lead to harder ones.

  Lets say you decide to write an account of the events of the summer last year.  You send it into your local newspaper and explain that this is a true story of the events of last summer and you were there for some of the events as well you also interviewed eye witnesses about the events.  But when it gets published it gets published under fiction, or in the poetry section.  This would make no sense at all.  You were very clear this was non fiction, and was not up to personal interpretation. 

  Which brings us to a book like Luke-Acts.  How does he start the account? This is from the ESV
 
"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, ²  just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, ³ it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, ⁴ that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught." 

Luke states that he has complied a narrative, interviewed eye witnesses, followed things closely, and has written them down in an orderly fashion.  There is no room here for anyone to suggest that it can be interpreted as symbol or metaphor, or that it is up for interpretation.  Someone could suggest that it is a lie.  That is one of the tough questions that will follow after you address this concern  We will talk about that in a future blog about how you can know the Bible to be true. 

The main point here is context.  In all documents context is key.  "Context context context" if I were to write in this blog that yesterday here in Vancouver it was raining cats and dogs, you would immediately know what I was talking about and probably wouldn't decide that my account was unreliable.  There is symbol, and metaphor in the Bible.  Actually the bible is filled with all the beautiful uses of literature.  But how do you know what is real, and what is interpretive? Context, just like you would understand any other document.

Jesus>Religion???

Well I have been seeing this video go viral over the past week.  Especially on facebook where people are amazed by it.  It is a spoken word poem by Jefferson Bethke who is a young performer.  I have had 3 young people this week talk to me about it.  One kid was telling me that this is what he has been looking for.  Confirmation that he can have a relationship with God in his own way.  Another said she was glad she doesn't have to go to church or tithe.  The last just said it doesn't seem right and she was trying to explain to her brother why, who told her this is why he doesn't have to pray and read his bible every day.  So please watch the video for yourself and be prepared to think critically about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IAhDGYlpqY  

My first impression of Jefferson Bethke is that he is a genuine young Christian who does want to introduce the world to Jesus.  While the poem does contain a lot of truth it also contains many half truths and is misleading.  When he says "religion" what he actually means is legalism, or a Pharisaical heart, or people who come to church on Sunday and act like the devil for the rest of the week.  He is not talking about religion.

I have been to more than one youth service or gathering where people stand up and say that they are tired of religion or hate religion but love Jesus and have a relationship with Him.  I think these people are mislead. This year I have seen many ways people are trying to make Christianity easier to consume for the masses.  I do believe that this comes from good intentions and a love for Jesus but it is wrong. I read a great article earlier where the author went through the poem verse by verse so I thought I would do the same.  Lets go.  Again, approach this with critical thinking.
 
 Verse 1
What if I told you Jesus came to abolish religion
What if I told you voting republican really wasn’t his mission
What if I told you republican doesn’t automatically mean Christian
And just because you call some people blind
Doesn’t automatically give you vision

Well first off, I can tell you Jesus did not come to abolish religion.  But this is the whole point of his poem.  So what does Bethke mean when he says "religion"?  Again what he means is is legalism, or a Pharisaical heart, or people who come to church on Sunday and act like the devil for the rest of the week.  Also he is comparing "religion" to many of the worlds religions that would say we could follow rules and do good deeds and maybe at the end of our life we will have done enough good things to enter heaven.  A works and man centred theology.  This is not the Christian religion.  Christianity is about God's grace and is not about our own works.  So I have a question for you....Was Jesus religious?  Take a minute and actually thing about your answer.

Jesus was a Jew, so what did that entail in the 1st century?  Jesus went to synagogue, so that is the answer to my friend who thinks this video means he doesn't have to go to church.  Jesus also observed the sabbath.  Jesus practiced a quiet time of prayer and spent time with God.  Jesus read scripture, so much so he memorized scripture.  He held a high view of baptism and instructed his followers to baptise others and make disciples.  Jesus emphasised doctrine.  Jesus preached about Hell.  Jesus talked about peoples sin, and instructed them to repent and believe.  Jesus instituted sacraments like the Lord's Supper.  I really could go all day on this, but I think I've made my point.  Jesus was religious.  For Bethke to say that Jesus hated religion is plain wrong.

The lines about Jesus not being republican is really just a jab at popular media, and its just plain silly I don't think I need to address this idea here.  I do agree that some people need to hear that, but it is a very small group of Christians.

Verse 2
I mean if religion is so great, why has it started so many wars
Why does it build huge churches, but fails to feed the poor
Tells single moms God doesn’t love them if they’ve ever had a divorce
But in the old testament God actually calls religious people whores

Well here we go, the first time I saw this this is where my discernment alarms went off full blast.  Just do a simple survey of all the wars throughout history and you will find out that only about 2% of all wars had anything to do with religion.  I personally hear this argument from Atheists all the time who say that religion is bad for the world.  Ill always ask them to name one.  They will usually only ever say "the Crusades"  well compare the death toll to how many were killed under the Atheist regimes of the 20th century.  Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot.  I guarantee you will be shocked.  Ill also ask them to name 5 wars and they are usually all wars that have nothing to do with religion.  So why does religion cause so many wars?  It simply doesn't.  Mankind fights wars over power, oil, money, terrorism and such.

In regards to "huge churches but fail to feeld the poor"  he is plain wrong again. The Christian Church is the champion of the poor and needy worldwide.  Christians open hospitals and schools worldwide.  Share love and healing with broken hearts and give food, supplies and money more so than any group in the world hands down.  The huge churches and huge bank accounts is another issue.  When it comes to Christians in general, no one, and yes I mean no one does more for the poor and widows and those in need than Christians. 

Next he addresses the hurt experienced by Divorced single mothers.  I myself have never ever ever heard someone saying that "God doesn’t love them if they’ve ever had a divorce" that is solved by reading the Bible.  As Christians we do need to affirm how terrible divorce is, but the idea that God does not love them?  Wow what a jump.  I do know that this has been said to people I am not denying that.  But a simple read of the bible shows that to be untrue.  A religious person who reads the Bible daily and has a vibrant prayer life should know better and should work for change within the church.

Verse 3
Religion might preach grace, but another thing they practice
Tend to ridicule God’s people, they did it to John The Baptist
They can’t fix their problems, and so they just mask it
Not realizing religions like spraying perfume on a casket
See the problem with religion, is it never gets to the core
It’s just behavior modification, like a long list of chores
Like lets dress up the outside make look nice and neat
But it’s funny that’s what they use to do to mummies
While the corpse rots underneath

Like I said at the beginning, his definition of "religion" is actually is legalism, or a Pharisaical heart, or people who come to church on Sunday and act like the devil for the rest of the week.  He is not talking about religion.  But does he have a point?  Yes indeed.  If you are a Christian you have met these people.  It is something we need to address and fix.  But we don't blame religion to do that.

Verse 4
Now I ain’t judgin, I’m just saying quit putting on a fake look
Cause there’s a problem
If people only know you’re a Christian by your Facebook
I mean in every other aspect of life, you know that logic’s unworthy
It’s like saying you play for the Lakers just because you bought a jersey
You see this was me too, but no one seemed to be on to me
Acting like a church kid, while addicted to pornography
See on Sunday I’d go to church, but Saturday getting faded
Acting if I was simply created just to have sex and get wasted
See I spent my whole life building this facade of neatness
But now that I know Jesus, I boast in my weakness

No complaints about this verse at all.  We as Christians are called to think critically and work in community.  If there is problems we are to work together to solve the problems within.  I think we all put our best selves on display and have lots of problems underneath.  We need to work on openness, unity and community.


Verse 5
Because if grace is water, then the church should be an ocean
It’s not a museum for good people, it’s a hospital for the broken
Which means I don’t have to hide my failure, I don’t have to hide my sin
Because it doesn’t depend on me it depends on him
See because when I was God’s enemy and certainly not a fan
He looked down and said I want, that, man
Which is why Jesus hated religion, and for it he called them fools
Don’t you see so much better than just following some rules
Now let me clarify, I love the church, I love the Bible, and yes I believe in sin
But if Jesus came to your church would they actually let him in
See remember he was called a glutton, and a drunkard by religious men
But the Son of God never supports self righteousness not now, not then

Well again, as long as we clarify terms I like this verse.  People often ask why there are so many people in church with problems and I respond with Jesus' words in Luke 5:31 Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. ³² I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”  The Church is a hospital for sick people.  We have problems and they are on display in a trusting community so we can help each other and receive help from God.

One important point here is that Jesus does call us to follow rules.  Yep I just said that.  Read John 14:5 and tell me what you think.  "If you love me, keep my commands."

Verse 6
Now back to the point, one thing is vital to mention
How Jesus and religion are on opposite spectrums
See one’s the work of God, but one’s a man made invention
See one is the cure, but the other’s the infection
See because religion says do, Jesus says done
Religion says slave, Jesus says son
Religion puts you in bondage, while Jesus sets you free
Religion makes you blind, but Jesus makes you see
And that’s why religion and Jesus are two different clans


the only think I think I need to say here is that Christianity does actually say "slave".  Not negating "son" but just read the New Testament especially verses like Matthew 6:24 "“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money." also Ephesians 6:6.  Or if you are interested further on the word slave just do a word study on the greek work "doulos" in the Bible.

Verse7
Religion is man searching for God, Christianity is God searching for man
Which is why salvation is freely mine, and forgiveness is my own
Not based on my merits but Jesus’s obedience alone
Because he took the crown of thorns, and the blood dripped down his face
He took what we all deserved, I guess that’s why you call it grace
And while being murdered he yelled
“Father forgive them they know not what they do.”
Because when he was dangling on that cross, he was thinking of you
And he absorbed all of your sin, and buried it in the tomb

Which is why I’m kneeling at the cross, saying come on there’s room
So for religion, no I hate it, in fact I literally resent it
Because when Jesus said it is finished, I believe he meant it

I have no problems with this verse and love it.   I think its a beautiful message to people in need of God and salvation. 

In closing, the main thing I want to make clear is that religion is a beautiful thing.  I meet young people all the time, truthfully weekly that say things along the lines of "I don't feel close to God"  "I don't hear God's voice" "I don't feel God"  how do we rekindle intimacy with God?  A friend of mine was telling me once that the spark in his marriage once had faded out.  So what did he do?  He took her out for a date every Wednesday even though he didn't feel like it, he took her dancing every Saturday even thought he didn't feel it, he picked her a flower every day, and he sat down with her for an hour every day just to listen to her about her day.  This went on for a while then he started to look forward to date night, he had a spring in his step as he thought about how his wife giggled as he gave her the flower, he laughed and cried as he listened about her day and shared his, and he learned new moves to impress her on the dance floor.  The point is sometimes disciplines are how we rekindle intimacy.  


With God, when we feel far we should pray earnestly, not just mumble out a prayer in the last few minutes as we fall asleep.  We should devote time to reading the Bible in books not bits, rather than just opening to a random verse and hoping God will pick the perfect one.  We should honour God with our money and time, because He is where our hearts are.  As time goes on, we will rekindle intimacy with him.  Many people call this "religion" but I think it is clear that it is a loving relationship.