"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.

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

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.

"Well, if God created everything then who created God?"

   So I head this the other day as I was of course in a coffee shop in my neighborhood.  My favorite thing about reading my Bible or Christian themed books in the coffee shop is that in this city (which is world famous for being one of the most Atheistic cities in north America) is that you don't have to bring study questions, because the people in the coffee shop will ask you hard questions every time.

  So I am there reading away, and this fellow stands over my table as he is passing by and says you don't really believe that stuff do you?  I love this question by the way, I understand it offends many Christians.  But I love that people take a stance one way or another.  The hardest thing that I encounter is people who could care less about issues such as the Bible or God.  So I say, "Yes I do, I'm surprised that you don't, why don't you sit down and tell me why you don't believe the Bible?  So he gladly sat down and said to me, "The Bible says that God created everything, but that's a circular argument because who created God?!" he giggled and waited for my answer.  I had seen this many times before, many people expect that this is the first time we have heard this question and that it is a knock down argument and there is no answer to it.  Well actually I have been hearing this question since long before I was a Christian, in fact I remember hearing it on the playground of my elementary school.  I don't mean to be dismissive but really its a playground type question. 

  So, first off Christians dont believe in a "created God" and the question assumes that God is created and created Gods dont exist.  It is impossible for a timeless and spaceless being to come into existence, no thesit believes in a "created" God.  I showed him from John chapter 1 that people who believe the Bible believe in an uncreated God. Then I went ahead and asked the man "if we were to find machinery on the dark side of the moon, would we be reasonable to assume that it came from intelligence? or would we have to first assume that that said machinery formed itself by natural causes?"  He said that It would obviously be from an alien race. I then asked if we would first need to know who that alien race was and know about them before we would pause at the answer that that machinery was produced by them?"  He said no.  "So why then do we need to know who made God before we can pause at the answer that God created the universe?" "In order to recognize that an explanation is best, you don't have to have an explanation of the explanation."  Also now because of the Big Bang, we can understand that the universe, all matter, energy time and space came into existence.  Something must have caused this because everything that comes into being has a cause.  This cause must be timeless, space less, and supernatural, since acted outside of time space and nature.  That sounds like what we usually call God.  We chatted for another 20 minutes and exchanged numbers.  I'm expecting to meet up next week.

I will expand further in another blog but for now, the main ideas are, that for in order to recognize that an explanation is best, you don't have to have an explanation of the explanation.  You can used examples like machinery on the moon or finding artifacts here through archaeology. Also talk about what could have caused the universe to come into existence at the big bang.

 Karl Sagan is famous for saying "In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from? And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?" [Carl Sagan, Cosmos, page 257]

  In our age of astrophysical cosmology we just cant stop at the idea that the universe has always existed.  Because of the Big Bang we understand that the universe came into being, so that points to a transcendent cause of the universe.  I still meet people who believe that the universe is eternal, but really they just haven't caught up with contemporary cosmology.

Its my goal to keep these blogs short and just talk about my experiences, so I know there is tons of more information but Ill share it in another entry.

"What does it matter that the disciples died for their faith? Lots of different people die for their faiths"

I was proposed this at summer camp this past summer.  Especially in the last 10 years it has become well known that people are willing to die for what they believe in.  On average 171,000 Christians are martyred every year, but we also see people from the Muslim world willing to die for their faith.  So how can we Christians claim the validity of Christianity based on the martyrdom of Christians?

We have to look to the disciples themselves who all except John were executed for their faith.  The disciples did not willingly go to their deaths because of what they had come to believe in.  They went to their executions without recanting because of their confidence in what they saw with their own eyes and touched with their own hands.  This is the difference, people today die for what they believe in, the disciples died for what they knew to be true through evidence.

It is possible that a group of people would be willing to die for a lie, a lie that they thought was true.  We can see this through history, cult groups for example.  But how improbable would it be for a group of people to die for a lie that they KNEW was a lie?  They were all given the opportunity to recant, none of them received power or riches from this.  Also they were proclaiming what they saw in the very city that Jesus was killed and resurrected.   As they got ready to drive 6 inch long spikes through Peter's wrists and feet to hang him on an upside down cross I would think that would be the time to say "hey guys, actually its all a lie" or when they picked up stones to stone James, he could of said "OK everyone you win, we made it all up"  but they didn't, they had confidence in the next life because they saw Jesus in his resurrection body therefore they knew they also would be raised from the dead in glory.

Also it amazes me to hear people propose that the disciples somehow cooked up the story.  First, I would suggest to actually read the New Testament.  If men from the 1st century were writing a story, this would not be it at all! Second what sense would it make to cook up a story that would result in them all being thrown into prison, tortured and eventually killed?  No profits, no power, no sex, nothing along the lines of what people make up stories for.  We have nothing in the history or nature of man to compare this to.

I suggest that the best explanation of these events is that they actually did see what they said they did and what they were martyred for

Where did Cain's wife come from?

I havent heard this objection in a while but heard it today in a coffee shop.  A friend and myself were chatting about God and this guy who had overheard us talking asked us this question.  My friend said that its an easy question and the answer is that God just created a wife for Cain.  Is this the answer?

First I have to say that of all the things in the bible that people honestly object to or have a hard time understanding I dont run into this very often.  But it is a question and it deserves and answer

I can understand why my friend would think that God just created a wife for Cain, but that is reading meaning into the text, rather than reading the meaning of the text.  We read in Acts 17:26 that "From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live."  so we can see that God did not supernaturally create other people.  Also in Genesis 1:28 we read that God said to Adam and Eve "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

So from these texts we can see that from one man all of mankind was born and that Adam and Eve were fruitful and multiplied.  So it makes sense that Cain would have married either his niece or sister.

Now that is very hard for us to understand today.  I could never participate in this, but this is how the human population started, and it makes sense.  Also God did prohibit incest in to law in Leviticus 18:9

Its not an easy answer, its not a comfortable answer but it is the truth.  When we can answer these questions rather than deflecting them we can move onto other questions and take down roadblocks to the Gospel

Also I have to say on the lighter side, when I was searching for an image to use for this blog Pictures of John McCains wife kept coming up, so that made me laugh :)

"Can we be good without God?" "I dont need the Bible to tell me whats moral or not"

I think this is one area of arguement that anyone can have an opinion on.  I hear it a lot recently.  Christians will bring up the idea that morals are grounded in the nature of God and that He has written them on our hearts. Atheists often confuse this arguement with that they cannot be moral people.  In fact as Christians we believe you dont need the bible to know whats moral but that God himself has written the moral code on all of humankind's hearts.

The arguemnet lies in what is the basis for morals and do absolute morals exists?

I was recently in a conversation with friends, where they were talking about the horrors commited in the name of God and religion.  The crusades, religious intollerance etc.  I think that most people will affirm that absolute morals do indeed exist.  While I was in school we were always taught that "everything is relative" but I rarely see that being believed and put into peoples lives.  As my friends and I were discussing this topic, we did agree on the idea that somethings are really right, and somethings really wrong. 

As they said that God does not exists because of all the evil that religion causes, I said that it is true that a lot of evil is done in the name of religion, but in the case of Christianity it is the people acting outside of the Christian worldview who are commiting these evil acts.  Jesus never acted in these ways or condones this behavior.  Also this behavior is actually anti biblical.  It goes against what the Bible teaches.  Remember how when they came to arrest Jesus, and Peter pulled his sword and cut off the guards ear.  Jesus told Peter to put his sword away and healed the guards ear. 

Next I asked why they believed theseacts to be evil.  I then heard arguements such as "its wrong to hurt others, its wrong to take away someones freedom, its wrong to kill, its wrog to torture, its wrong to take away peoples possesions" etc etc.

I asked where these absolute moral standards came from.  If we are products of naturalism, where in naturalism can morals come from?  When a lion kills another animal, its kills it...it doesnt murder it.  Or when a pack of hyeanas take a fresh kill away from a leopard, they take it they dont steal it.  Because animals are not moral creatures.

If our origins are only naturalistic how could we have come up with this morality.  Philosopher Michael Ruse says “morality is a biological adaptation no less than our hands or feet or teeth.  Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory.  I appreciate when someone says love thy neighbor as thyself they think they are referring above and beyond themselves never the less such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction and any deeper meaning is issusory”

 But if you do observe abolute morals, that some things are truly right and some things truly wrong, then you must agree that God exists.  Because without God as the source of the moral code, who can say what is right or wrong.  Who can say that behaviors we observe in the animal kindom are truly wrong only when they happen to us humans?  Without God as the objective standard for the moral code then we are just floating around in relativism and we have no right to say what is right or wrong, good or evil.

But we do observe moral absolutes, to not would make life unlivable.  Therefore God exists. 

"There are no writings from eyewitnesses of Jesus in the bible"

As I was riding the skytrain today I overheard people behind me laughing at christians and discussing how silly the bible is especially since there are no writings in the Bible by eyewitnesses of Jesus.  I instantly remembered watching Bill Maher's "Religulous" movie.  Where he says more than once that the writers of the New Testament were not eyewitnesses.  He actually says "gospel writers never met Jesus"  "No one who wrote about Jesus ever met him"  I was amazed that this statement actually made it into the movie.  He could have gone to any Bible college, or seminary or contacted any biblical scholar and asked this question, but he didnt.  He went to a truck stop chapel.  Im pretty sure if I was making some kind of documentary against science and went to a grade 8 classroom or interviewed first year biology students, everyone would say that I was choosing the path of least resistence.  I will review religulous some other time, but for now I would say all Christians should watch this movie, so you can learn what the objections to Christianity are.  Then learn the answers to the objections.

So there I am on the skytrain, and I had limited time to talk.  After joining in on the conversation I asked how they came to understand that there were no eyewitnesses to Jesus among the biblical writers.  One guy said "well everyone knows that"

Among the eyewitness to Jesus in the Bible are Matthew, John, Peter, James, Paul. Mark the gospel writer was a close companion of Peter and Luke was examining the evidence, and interviewed eyewitnesses.  Luke is considered to be a reliable historian.

Accoring to Sir William Ramsay who is one of the greatest archaeologists ever said that "Luke is a historian of the first rank ... this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians"

In 2 Peter 1:16 peter says: "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty."

So I shared what I could in the short time, and they said they would look into it further so I suggested a couple sources.

This issue opens up into a larger one such as were the witnesses credible, and are the documents in the New Testament reliable.  I will blog about those another day.  But for now, the answer to the objection is yes there are writings from eyewitnesses of Jesus in the bible.

"You are only a Christian because you were raised in a christian country"

I got this last week as I was in a coffee shop,I am surprised to hear this objection here as we live in one of the most multicultural cities in the world.  I dont believe anyone would call Vancouver a "christian city" but we do definitely benefit from christian influence.  Things such as "moral standard" and recognizing the intrinsic value of human beings.  But I would not say that people are influenced to become christian based on the culture.


First I would say that the truth of an idea has nothing to do with where it came from.  Democracy is still a great idea and holds truth even though I was raised in a democratic culture.


Second I would point to the countries in which Christianity is exploding.  It is not in the "christian cultures" like the united states but countries like China.  Ive read that there is approximatly 100 million christians in China now, this can not be because it was a christian culture.  In fact christians have been pursecuted in China heavily yet continues to grow rapidly.  The same is true for Christians in countries such as the Phillipines, North Korea, and Islamic countries.  Also christianity was born out of persecution and hardship, yet people held tight to the truth of Christianity even to their deaths.


As much as Christian influence from friends and family and culture does add to the decision making process, the finaly decision is one based on truth not culture.