Debunking Christianity: Is Homosexuality Sinful? Yup

I am amazed how John Loftus likes to pretend to be Biblically literate and yet he thinks that the following graphic depicts the correct way to understand the Bible.  I mean really? Really?

The other thing is that the graphic is kind of old. The first time I saw this was August of 2012 and it was completely debunked (irony intended) by Dr James White and Dan Guinn. Here is more info.

Debunking Christianity: Is Homosexuality Sinful?

Debunking Christianity: "What Justifies the Scientific Method?"

Recently , John Loftus posted a link to a discussion between Dr Stephen Law and Dr Richard Dawkins.  Their discussion was around how do we know the scientific method works and is reliable.



I think the discussion misses some very important distinctions. It's sad that professors of philosophy and science can miss these. The distinctions are between the scientific method and natural materialism.  One can accept one and not the other. They treated these ideas as the same thing. They are not. The scientific method is the methodology for coming to scientific conclusions. These conclusions are not always correct and it is the conclusions that I take issue with not with the Methodology. The other thing to remember is that natural materialism is not the same thing as the method. It is a conclusion that some have erroneously drawn based on methodology that we all agree has it's flaws and can take a long time to arrive at reliable conclusions. Science and Technology such as computers, airplanes, medicine, cars, and other things are not dependent on the assumption of Natural Materialism. They are not the same thing.

Debunking Christianity: "What Justifies the Scientific Method?"

Answering Muslims: Muhammad in the Bible - Debate

Check out this debate on the question can Muhammad be found in the Bible.


Answering Muslims: Muhammad in the Bible - Debate

Eight Issues That Do NOT Make or Break Christianity - Apologetics 315

Recently I ran across an article on Apologetics 315 by C. Michael Patton. He writes an article about what he thinks are 8 subjects that often divide Christians and are often mistaken for drop dead arguments against Christianity. It's an important article. I really have to disagree with him on the inspiration of scripture, the flood, and the inerrancy of scripture. Here is the article.

Eight Issues That Do NOT Make or Break Christianity - Apologetics 315

Dr James White commented on this article last Thursday. Listen to it from this link:

Yesterday on the Dividing Line

2016: The Year of the Zettabyte [infographic]

Source: google.com via Marcus on Pinterest

Source: compixels.com via Marcus on Pinterest

Source: cache.gawker.com via Marcus on Pinterest

FacePlant of the Day - Does 2nd Peter Copy Jude?

Ryan Anderson has made the following challenge:

Well, considering that these passages are the same, it demonstrates it's [2 Peter has the same passages as Jude] more likely than not...


2nd Peter / Jude
1:5 / 3
1:12 / 5
2:1 / 4
2:4 / 6
2:5 / 5
2:6 / 7
2:10-11 / 8-9
2:12 / 10
2:13-17 / 11-13
2:18 / 16
3:2f / 17f
3:3 / 18
3:14 / 24
3:18 / 25

Let us try to cut Ryan Anderson a little slack and assume that he mean that 2 Peter quotes Jude word for word but only that 2 Peter was influenced by Jude. Keep in mind that Anderson has come to the conclusion that 2 Peter was not written by the Apostle Peter based on:

Because of these two premises, 1) The Epistle of Jude post dates Peter's death and 2) 2nd Peter is dependent upon the Epistle of Jude.  But again, I don't know that, it's just that both of those premises have far more support than their inverse making them more likely true than not. [quoted from his comments at this link

He has assumed that if 2  Peter was written after Jude and Jude was written after Peter's death and 2 Peter lifts its content from Jude then 2 Peter could not have been written by Peter. I completely disagree because no one can show that Jude was written after Peter's death (faceplant worthy in itself to base an argument on a premise that you can't show is relaible) and it's not true you can show that 2 Peter likely copies Jude.  In order to make that argument you have to think that 2 contemporary Christians would not agree on the same things and make similar points...independently of one another.  I ain't got enough faith to believe that. Let's look at the list Ryan Anderson has copied out of a book somewhere and see his premise makes sense.  It makes me wonder if he ever bothered to read the passages himself.

2 Peter 1:5 / Jude 3

⁵ For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; - 2 Peter 1:5 (NIV)

³ Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people. - Jude 3 (NIV)

Would Peter and Jude both want to encourage their fellow Christians? I think they would. I also don't think they are talking about the same thing.  You can't contend for the faith without adding goodness and knowledge to yourself, but "contending" seems to mean more than that. When you contend for something you are struggling against opposing forces. While Peter would no disagree with this, he seems to be referring more closely to his admonition to "make your election sure" - examining yourself (see 2nd Peter 1:10) People who make such arguments seem to forget that Paul makes the same admonitions and encouragements in many of his letters.

2 Peter 1:12 vs Jude 5

 ¹² So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. - 2 Peter 1:12 (NIV)

 ⁵ Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord^[a] at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. - Jude 1:5 (NIV)

Both Peter and Jude were writing to believers. You can't be a believer if you don't know what they are talking about.

2 Peter 2:1 vs Jude 4

But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. - 2 Peter 2:1

 ⁴ For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about^[a] long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. - Jude 4.


There are false prophets today just like among the people to whom Peter and Jude wrote.  Of course, they would want warn their people. It's more interesting to me that this warning is also good for today.

2 Peter 2:4 vs Jude 6

⁴ For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell,^[a] putting them in chains of darkness^[b] to be held for judgment; - 2 Peter 2:4

⁶ And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.  Jude 6

Ryan Anderson seems to be under the mistaken thought that the Book of Enoch was a gnostic book given that that he had also said that there is a gnostic influence here. I disagree. Beside the Book of Enoch predates all of the New Testament and Gnosticism. No way. And given that the Book of Enoch was a cultural force at that time of course Peter and Jude would refer to it. There is no reason why they would not. Their audiences would have been familiar with it.

2 Peter 2:5 vs Jude 5

⁵ if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; - 2 Peter 2:5 
 
⁵ Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord^[a] at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe - Jude 5

Again both Jude and Peter would use the flood story to demonstrate their point - the same point in different word.  They were all familiar with it.  Would  you expect one of them to use the TV show Lost  as an example? I would not.

2 Peter 2:6 vs Jude 7

⁶ if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; - 2 Peter 2:6

⁷ In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. - Jude 7

Accusing one of copying the other because they use the same story to illustrate the same point is really sloppy scholarship. If anything it shows that the authors expected their readers to be familiar with the same stories and believed the same things.

2 Peter 2:10-11 vs Jude 8-9


¹⁰ This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the flesh^[a] and despise authority.
Bold and arrogant, they are not afraid to heap abuse on celestial beings; ¹¹ yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not heap abuse on such beings when bringing judgment on them from^[b] the Lord.- 2 Peter 2:10-11

⁸ In the very same way, on the strength of their dreams these ungodly people pollute their own bodies, reject authority and heap abuse on celestial beings. ⁹ But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”^[a]
- Jude 8-9

Again Peter's audience would have been familiar with the stories both he Jude are alluding too and both are in a Jewish context. Each knew that their audiences were familiar with Jewish scriptures. Assuming that someone writing several generations would write the same way is way too far to stretch. 

2 Peter 2:12 vs Jude 10


¹² But these people blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish. - 2 Peter 2:12

¹⁰ Yet these people slander whatever they do not understand, and the very things they do understand by instinct—as irrational animals do—will destroy them. - Jude 10

Sounds like both Peter and Jude are describing godless atheists for today. Why would they not the same thing about people like that? Nothing here make it likely that 2 Peter came a long time after Jude.

2 Peter 2:13-17 vs Jude 11-13

¹³ They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.^{[a] 14} With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood! ¹⁵ They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Bezer,^[b] who loved the wages of wickedness. ¹⁶ But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey—an animal without speech—who spoke with a human voice and restrained the prophet’s madness. - 2 Peter 2:13-17

¹¹ Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam’s error; they have been destroyed in Korah’s rebellion.
¹² These people are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. ¹³ They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever. - Jude 11-13
Here Peter and Jude make the same point but makes it differently.  Again no reason to think 2 Peter came way after Jude and Peter's death. Certainly Peter would have known about these examples.
 
2 Peter 2:18 vs Jude 16



¹⁸ For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of the flesh, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. - 2 Peter 2:18

 ¹⁶ These people are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage. - Jude 16 

They both are making the same point. I really wish people like Ryan Anderson would listen to Peter and Jude.

2 Peter 3:2f  vs Jude 17f





Both Peter and Jude were looking forward to Jesus' return and his final victory of sin. Why would they both not talk about it? Nothing there supporting Ryan Anderson's premises. 

2 Peter 3:3 vs Jude 18



³ Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. - 2 Peter 3:3

¹⁸ They said to you, “In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.” - Jude 18

Kind of looks like Jude quoted Peter this time, not the other way around.


2 Peter 3:14 vs Jude 24

¹⁴ So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. - 2 Peter 3:14

²⁴ To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy—   - Jude 24

Jude is making a farewell greeting praising God for who he is and what he has done for us who believe in him. Peter is admonishing us to do our part. No contradiction and two different point being made. Both are true.

2 Peter 3:18 vs Jude 25

¹⁸ But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen. - 2 Peter 3:18

²⁵ to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen. - Jude 25

In 2 Peter Peter ends his letter the same way Jude does. It's similar to how Paul so often ends his letters. Praising Jesus and identifying his deity. They were just on the same page and agreement. In no way does this list show that 2nd Peter wasinfluenced by or copied from Jude. In order to come to that conclusion you have to frontload yourself with the assumption that 2 Peter was not written by Peter and that Jude was written first.  Faceplants all around because you can't demonstrate that either of these are true. You have to assume them first.

Truthbomb Apologetics: Video: The Case for the Existence of the Soul by J.P. Moreland

Over at Truthbomb Apologetics Chad posted the following video from Dr JP Moreland. It's really good and begins to answer some of the issues into today's culture regarding the nature of the human soul.


I agree with much of what Dr Moreland says in this video. The problem I had was that he made no distinction between "soul" and "spirit". This is a major problem because the Bible makes a distinction so we should make a distinction also. May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. - 1 Thessalonians 5:23 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. - Hebrews 4:12

Truthbomb Apologetics: Video: The Case for the Existence of the Soul by J.P. Moreland

Happy Pi Day!!!!

Today is 3.14 2013 - Pi Day!

Tony Stark has a complicated relationship with...Morality

There is this great article I found on Tumblr exploring Morality through Iron Man in comics. It's really interesting exploring philosophy through fictional characters. The article even compares Iron Man's view of morality with Captain America.  They are friends and teammates but their worldviews sometimes conflict and makes you question your own worldview or at least think about what your worldview is. Here is a passage from the article.

The poster boy for deontology in the Marvel universe (and arguably one of the many icons for deontology and conventional morality in our own universe) is Captain America. As I said, most of the time there doesn’t have to be a conflict between the two schools of thought. The Crimson Dynamo is attacking New York? Stop him. Apartment building on fire? Rescue the inhabitants. The hard cases arise in situations like… Oh I dunno, you predict America’s ruin at the hands of a burgeoning super-hero population, unless you can regulate them in some way. Or perhaps universe after universe is cascading into one another, threatening your planet, your dimension, and even the entire multiverse. 

Whatever the case may be, Tony will do what he has to do to achieve the outcome that’s most beneficial. Captain America will do the right thing. Tony has to destroy a world to save the universe? He probably will, because the universe is something worth defending. Captain America on the other hand, well, destroy a world? How can you even consider that? It’s just plain wrong. It’s Cap’s view that tends to be the more conventional one as well, for the most part. He’s considered a paragon of virtue for a reason. Superman is much the same as a DC equivalent. These are both heroes who are for the most part, deontological in their reasoning.

The article makes some valid points. I think that somethings are truly wrong and good consequences is not enough to justify doing something wrong in the first place. Sometimes choices are tough. The article does not discuss the World War Hulk storyline, but in it the Hulk return to take vengeance on  Iron Man and some other heroes who tried to exile the Hulk into space.






At one point, Iron Man said "Sometimes, you have to play god",  I think that this sums up Iron Man's character and the article sums it up well.  He is willing to do whatever he has to do, even bad things he will feel guilty about later, in order to get the best results as he sees them.  Although I like reading about Iron Man it's not the king of Morality that I think that should be lived out - although there people who think this way.

Tony Stark has a complicated relationship with...

The Three Light of Reveatlion

I had the privilege of delivering the following sermon today . The slides I used and the verbage I had planned to use are below. This serves as my kind of "director's cut" for the presentation.

Slide 1

Good Afternoon, Church. There is a lot to cover this afternoon. So I will try to cover it as deeply as possible, given the limited time. What the topics we will be touching on boils down to is, how do we know God? Is it really the Holy Spirit convicting you, comforting you, guiding you or is it indigestion.  Given how limited we are, how can you be sure? I’m going to assume that most people, for the sake of this discussion, want to to know the answer to questions like these because we recognize the importance of such things and the conclusions we draw have an effect on every decision we make. 

Slide 2

Jesus, Himself, tells us that we have everything we need to know to know God. 

¹⁶ For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. ¹⁷ For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. ¹⁸ Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. ¹⁹ This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. ²⁰ Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. ²¹ But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God. – John 3:16-21

Therefore if we wanna know God and what God’s will is we have to be willing to step into the light and that does require admitting and confessing to those evil deeds we are guilty  of because that is only way we can truly see them. The Bible often uses light as a metaphor for  revelation.  Revelation is the only way we can get to know God.  Without God’s revelation we love the darkness and hate God.

⁵ Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. ⁶ The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. ⁷ The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. ⁸ Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. – Romans 8:5-8 

That describes every single one of us before we came to Christ.\

Slide 3

The Bible describes three ways – three lights – God has revealed Himself to humanity, This is where Romans starts and then builds on this idea for the whole of its 16 chapters.

•       Light of Creation

•       Light of Conscious

•       Light of Christ

We will be discussing each one today. It is deep. You could spend years on either one. Unfortunately, we are going to be to hit some of the high lights.  We are going to be looking at what the Bible reveals and how God has revealed himself even to people who are skeptical of the Bible.

It’s unfortunate that some of our brothers and sisters don’t take this as seriously as we should. The kind of faith that God requires of us does not mean that you should check your brain at the front door. Our faith is big enough that it’s supported by facts.

Slide 4

No one has an excuse for not knowing that there is a God. 

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

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

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. ²⁵ They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. - Romans 1:18-25

Even the most superficial examination of the created universe has to honestly lead you some knowledge that God exists and some insight into his power and wisdom.  In verse 20, the word translated “excuse”  is “apologea”  and it also means “defense”.  Another way of looking at it is that they are without a defense if they deny that God exists. This is also the word that we get “apologetics” from  which is defending what you believe.  If you deny God’s existence, you have no apologetic. 

Here is a short video on the size of the universe. Just think about how big the things we can see are and how far apart there are.

Slide 5

This video was produced by non-believers. But look at what they recognize: we are not the center of the Universe. But what is missing? They don’t know why?  If you at least accept this much revelation, God will bless you with more. 

Slide 6

Take a moment to think about sheer scale and sizes we have to consider when we think of the stars. Not just the relative sizes of these heavenly bodies but also the distances between them. For example, the sun is 93 million miles away from the earth. All the other planets in our solar system are much further away from the sun,  and without those other planets, moons, and other things orbiting the sun, life on earth would not be possible. The more I learn about the universe, the more I see the hand of God. The more I see God’s divine attributes and His power. God not only created everything but God signed His signature just as sure and an artist signs his completed masterpiece of art. 

Slide 7

The second light in Romans is the Light of Conscious . In this we are talking about the fact that people have moral values and agree that there are things that are truly right and that there are things that are wrong.

¹² All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. ¹³ For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. ¹⁴ (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. ¹⁵ They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) ¹⁶ This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. – Romans 2:12-16

Before I give you two good examples of these requirements that have been written on the hearts and minds of people all around us, consider that these are such a part of us that they have always influenced the fiction and entertainment through out time. Let’s take a modern example.  Let’s look at the moral responsibility we know we have to one another. 

Slide 8

These are two scenes from the very first Spider-Man movie. The moral message here is that every person has abilities and  talents that others don’t and we have the responsibility to use them to help others. The more. The more unique those talents,  the greater the responsibility to use them to help others.  In the most recent film, this ides was restated this way.

 Slide 9

The quote is:

“You’re a lot like your father. You really are, Peter, and that’s a good thing. But your father lived by a philosophy, a principle really. He believed that…that if you could do good things for other people, you had a moral obligation to do those things. That’s what at stake here. Not a choice, responsibility.”

I’ll leave the question aside of whether we needed another Spider-Man origin movie just 10 years after the first one,  but instead let’s look at this ethic. The world sees and agrees  that we have this responsibility and have an obligation. I think everyone would applaud these idea and agree that this is true. But here is the problem. Where do these talents come from? Why do we have this responsibility?  Who are we responsible to? Jesus gives us that answer.

Slide 10

⁴⁸ But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. – Luke 12:48

Jesus is clear. And it’s similar to what the statement embedded in the Spider-man mythology has but points out that not only do we have this responsibility but we are accountable to God for what  we have done with those gifts and it was God who gave them to us. This is why God has every right to hold us accountable. 

Slide 11

Here is another example, let’s look at the Golden Rule.  We have a lot of religions from all over the world who enshrine the Golden Rule.  It usually stated in one of two ways.

The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a maxim,^[1] ethical code, or morality^[2] that essentially states either of the following:

• (Positive form of Golden Rule): One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.^[1]
• (Negative form of Golden Rule): One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated.

Source(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule)

The World likes think that they are saying the same thing and one of the things they want to do is ignore Jesus and pretend that what he said wasn’t unique.  But let’s look at what Jesus said.

Two passages in the New Testament quote Jesus of Nazareth speaking the golden rule:

Matthew 7:12

¹²Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Luke 6:31

³¹And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

Jesus used the positive form of the rule and we should recognize that it’s better than the negative one. The reason it is better because it improves society. If I only don’t steal from you because I don’t want you to steal from me it only mean that we won’t steal from one another. If  I do to you the things that I want you to do, not only will I not steal or hurt you but I will be a blessing to you and help you because I would want you to do the same towards me. So yeah, Jesus’ way is the best way.

Slide 12

One last point about Morality. I don’t want to make it sound like nonbelievers have never recognized that  they have a problem for what basis they can base our morality on without God. Many people have tried to come up with a solution.  I recently came across this sign on the internet and I wanted you to see it. IT represents how some people have tried to solve this problem.  It doesn’t and I almost wish I could try to call it a good try, but I’d be lying. Empathy does not give a viable basis for morality.  People don’t do the right thing just because they feel like it. True moral action is doing the right thing even when you don’t feel like doing it. Empathy, while a good thing, isn’t enough. 

 

Slide 13

Now on to the “third light of revelation” – the light of Christ. This is when God gifts one with the desire to want to turn away from sin and to be with Jesus. It is the kind of understanding that causes you to become “Born-again”.  This is when God takes out your heart of rebellion and replaces it with the desire to love Him and obey Him.  In short this is the Gospel. This what most of the Book of Romans is about. 

²¹ But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. ²² This righteousness is given through faith in^[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, ²³ for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ²⁴ and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. ²⁵ God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,^[i] through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— ²⁶ he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

²⁷ Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. ²⁸ For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. ²⁹ Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, ³⁰ since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. ³¹ Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. – Romans 3:21-31

This passage tells us what being born-again looks like. If you accept the gift of God and the forgiveness of your sin – you know you have been born-again. I think we need an example to demonstrate and remind us what an unregenerate mind will come up with not to deal with the reality of Christ.  Here is a verse from the Bible where there are 40 Greek words  that also sum up the Gospel.

Slide 14

Here is an English translation of those words. 

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. – Galatians 2:20

Now I want to show you a video that puts these words against 40 Arabic words from the Qur’an. 

Slide 15

So this is what the point is, Muslims are willing to put aside a clear and undisputed fact of History just because of 40 Arabic words said to have been spoken by a man 600 years after with no connection to the event of Jesus’ Crucifixion. The Gospel literally depends on Jesus’ crucifixion. Denying it, denies everything about Christianity. No crucifixion – No Resurrection. Muslims are not the only ones who deny the truths of Christianity – all people who turn their backs on God do the same.  We must pray for  all people as God sends up out in the mission field to be his witnesses and ambassadors with the message that they do not have to stay trapped in sin. If we walk in the lights of revelation that God has graciously given us, we can be free.

Slide 16

Unfortunately this is how some people think about what the Gospel of Christ is. Indeed think about it. Mary was not impregnated. The wording invokes the wrong understanding. Just stick to what the Bible says what happened. Jesus is God but Mary did not give birth to God. This shows a lot of confusion on what the Trinity is. God did not originally create hell for human beings…and don’t forget that hell itself will be thrown into the lake of fire. There is nothing wrong with the way God has communicated to us. The Bible does not contradict with itself and none of the Bible has anonymous authorship ultimately because it came from God. And one last thing.

About Isaiah 7:14

14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Some argue that this is a mistranslation of Hebrew. using “virgin” but they don’t realize that the Jewish translators who first made the Greek Old Testament used the Greek word for virgin so they thought that it meant virgin and besides that the word translated “sign” is only used for supernatural miracles. I’m giving you this example because it is evidence that the Bible is reliable and if you just push on objections against the Bible they collapse and fold faster than Superman on  laundry.  day. God is speaking to us. He’s not hiding from us and has revealed himself ultimately though Jesus our Lord. Our Savior.  Our God. 

The three lights online version from Marcus McElhaney

Slide Share:

Macroscopic Invisibility Cloak - YouTube

Macroscopic Invisibility Cloak - YouTube