Day 32 Devotion – Does the Law still have Value to us?

And God said to Abraham: “As for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant. Genesis 17:9-12


Many times as a Christian I hear people say that we are no longer under the law but now under Grace. I think many take this to mean that we can completely ignore the old law. I don’t think it is wise to totally fore go all of the wise council that the law contains. Sometimes science can show that there are things there that we should still hold onto. Circumcision is one of those things. Although circumcision may no longer be required for salvation, as the Apostle Paul illustrates so well, it is a beneficial practice. Health books will illustrate that circumcision is a practice of cleanliness. It is much more difficult to practice good personal hygiene on an uncircumcised penis. Statistics show the circumcised males have much lower incidences of urinary tract infections and penile cancer than uncircumcised males.


We see from the passage that circumcision was performed on the eighth day. This is when the baby’s body produces enough vitamin K, which is a blood clotting factor, to make the procedure safe. Nowadays, a baby is given a vitamin K shot in the nursery right after birth so the procedure can be performed before he is cleared to go home. This is most likely to occur in the first 72 hours. We see that Jesus’ parents observed this as he was taken to the temple on the eighth day for his circumcision and this is when Simon and Anna got to see him. Jesus himself said that he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. I think we need to use common sense and experience to determine what parts of the law to observe.

Where does time go?

Wow, I can't believe it's been over a month since I last blogged. The end of the semester was very busy for me. I've been working two jobs and of course had deadlines and finals to give. Well, I'm off on break now so maybe I can catch up a little. I'm not teaching every week now and I finished the Case for Christ study. I'm going to return to my devotions of walking through the Old Testament and approaching the interpretation from a scientist's perspective. Science vs Faith is a big issue and I believe a lot of the conflict stems from misperceptions on both sides of the issues. I want to show you how science actually strengthens my faith rather than weakening it. If you haven't checked out my previous devotions, go back to April 15 for Genesis chapter 1 and my last one was on July 2 for Genesis chapter 16.


I pray you all have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Sometime after the first of the year I should be teaching a lesson on versions of the Bible I will share with you. God Bless!

Origin of the Bible

On Sunday Nov 1, 2009 I taught a new Sunday School topic. I've been doing the Case for Christ for so long that I thought I would never get finished with it on my blog. My new topic is a little bit of a follow up to the Case for Christ. One of my favorite parts of the book was talking about the Biblical manuscript evidence. I thought I would do a lesson on the Origin of the Bible to show how we got from the manuscripts that were penned by men such as Moses, Isaiah and Paul to the one volume leather bound book you buy at the bookstore today. There will be a second part to this lesson in a few weeks. I am now on a teaching rotation.




Picture 1: Cave paintings discovered in France.


What do you think is the first thing man wrote on? Most Western Civilization text books will start with cave paintings. We also see ancient inscriptions on canyon walls and on the walls of buildings such as those in Egypt. One of the first breakthroughs in writing technology was the invention of the clay tablet. Clay tablets were portable and better for conveying information. Small clay tablets about the size of the palm of your hand would be molded and then a wedge shaped stick was used to press in symbols and then the tablet was baked to make it permanent. We have discovered tens of thousands of tablets in Mesopotamia and Egypt. This form of writing is called "cuneiform" from the wedge shaped stick used. Sumerian and Akkadian are two famous cuneiform languages. They are not alphabetic though and you have to memorize thousands of symbols to translate the language.




Picture 2: Inscriptions on canyon walls.


















Picture 3: Egyptian hieroglyphics inscribed on buildings.























Picture 4: Cuneiform tablet.


















Picture 5: Papyrus scroll of the book of Isaiah discovered at Qumran on the coast of the Dead Sea.


An aquatic plant called "papyrus" grew in Egypt. They discovered that the reeds of this plant could be pressed into a paper that could then be rolled into a scroll. Papyrus became the dominant medium for writing for about 3000 years up to the second century AD. Most of the Old Testament and the oldest New Testament manuscripts were written on papyrus scrolls. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and some Aramaic. The Aramaic is because the Jews were held in captivity by the Assyrians, Babylonians and Persians. Approximately 250 BC the Old Testament was translated into Greek because of the dominant influence of the Greek language after Alexander the Great conquerred most of the known world. This Greek translation is called the "Septuagint". The New Testament was also written in Greek. About the second century AD people started using animal skins (parchment) to write on. Also, they started making the pages into leaves that were bound on one side forming a primitive book called a codex. Three of the most famous Biblical manuscripts are parchment codices called the Codex Siniaticus, Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Vaticanus. They are named after where they were found, Mt. Sinai, Alexandria, Egypt and the Vatican respectively. All of these contain the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) version of the Bible. These manuscripts are considered work horses of Biblical translation because they are complete copies and have been around for a long time. Older manuscripts consisting of papyrus scrolls were discovered in the late 1800s and early 1900s. These are known as the Chester Beaty, John Rylands and Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls gave us a copy of Isaiah 1000 years older than what we previously had and the oldest New Testament manuscript called p52 or the John Rylands papyrus is dated at 117-125 AD and contains a portion of the Gospel of John.


Picture 6: Codex Siniaticus. An example of a parchment codex. Also, the text itself is the Septuagint version of the Old Testament.


In the fourth century the Roman Catholic church was rising to dominance and Latin was the language of the west. The Pope commissioned Jerome to translate the Bible into what is called the Latin Vulgate. This became the dominant version for over 1000 years up through the middle ages. During the protestant reformation the reformers began translating the Bible into the common languages of the people. Martin Luther produced a German translation and John Wycliffe produced the first English translation. The invention of the printing press approximately 1450 AD allowed us to begin producing the Bible in more modern book form. The Gutenberg Bible was the first entire book published on a printing press.

Picture 7: Gutenberg Bible.


Next time I want to discuss the various versions or translations you see today. Do you recognized these acronyms? KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, LB, NLT and the Message

Chapter 14 Discussion

1. What is circumstantial evidence? Circumstantial evidence is material that does not prove your case by itself but does not make much sense if the other material is not accurate.

2. Would you be willing to die for something that you knew was a lie or a hoax? Most people would say no to this question. Even skeptics admit that the fact that 10 out of 12 apostles died martyr's deaths means that they truly believed the resurrection was real.

3. Can you name anyone who you never expected to see become a Christian? Did it change their lifestyle and if so in what way? I think Saul of Tarsus is the classic example here. Saul was an upcoming Pharisee. He would have been very wealthy, popular and powerful. We see he turned from persecutor of Christians to become their foremost missionary voice, this drastically changed world history and he sacrificed everything.

4. Are there any behaviors from the Apostles and disciples of Christ that do not make sense if the resurrection is all based on a lie? Jews are big on the Law of Moses, obeying the Sabbath and monotheism. The first 3000 Christian were Jews and they immediately started teaching salvation by grace, switched their worship to Sunday, accepted the Triune God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) and gave up animal sacrifice believing that Jesus' sacrifice was once and for all.

5. Many people believe Jesus is the greatest moral teacher of all time or a prophet but reject his claim of being God or the Son of God. Is this a logical conclusion after seeing the evidence presented in this book? I believe that there is plenty of evidence to show that Jesus and his immediate followers (Apostles) taught that he was God the Son. There is no indication that Jesus behaved in any unusual way to suspect he was mentally unstable. I think there are only two choices: either He was who He claimed to be or a lying impostor. If he lied to make himself look like the Messiah then he cannot be a great moral teacher. The idea He was just a man and great teacher is not a logical conclusion. If I were not a Christian I would have to reject Him completely and want nothing to do with Him or the Bible. People who call themselves Christians but reject the divinity of Christ are just living in an artificial bubble they create to placate their lives and it is unrealistic.

I hope to post my responses tomorrow. Be looking for my next lesson in the near future. God Bless.

Chapter 14 Discussion Questions

Well, this is the last chapter. As much as I love this book I am ready to move on to the next topic. Here are some discussion questions to think about.


1. What is circumstantial evidence?


2. Would you be willing to die for something that you knew was a lie or a hoax?


3. Can you name anyone who you never expected to see become a Christian? Did it change their lifestyle and if so in what way?


4. Are there any behaviors from the Apostles and disciples of Christ that do not make sense if the resurrection is all based on a lie?


5. Many people believe Jesus is the greatest moral teacher of all time or a prophet but reject his claim of being God or the Son of God. Is this a logical conclusion after seeing the evidence presented in this book?


I hope to post my responses tomorrow. Be looking for my next lesson in the near future. God Bless.

Chapter 13 Discussion

Well, I finished the Case for Christ in my Sunday School connect group yesterday. I am trying to finish out on the blog this week. Below are some responses to the questions I posted from chapter 13. Next Sunday Nov 1st I will be teaching in another connect group. I am on a rotation in that class. I will teach a lesson on where the Bible came from starting with a discussion on the history of writing and writing materials. I will post that lesson next week.


1. Are there any eyewitnesses who saw Christ after the crucifixion and if so who are some of the famous ones? The four Gospel accounts all report witnesses who saw Christ raised from the dead. The Apostle Paul reports that over 500 witnesses saw Christ and Paul challenged skeptics to go ask them for themselves. The most famous eyewitnesses where Mary Magdalene, Peter, John, all the remaining apostles and James the half brother of Jesus.


2. Is the most likely scenario not that the resurrection is a legend that was created centuries or at least many decades after the crucifixion? Doesn't the list grow over time showing that it is a legend gradually blown out of proportion? This idea comes from listing the accounts in a proposed chronological order of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. Doing this makes the list look like it gets larger over time making it suspicious. However, Paul's writings are older than the Gospels and he reports the largest number so this hypothesis gets turned upside down.


3. Some people believe Jesus' resurrection was only spiritual and not literal, physical. What are some implications of that? My first reaction is shock that these people who are so skeptical are inventing an explanation that proves the existence of a spirit world and life after death. Secondly, it ignores the evidence of Jesus inviting people to touch his wounds and he even said he was not a phantom.


4. Could people have hallucinated the resurrection? This comes from people who reject the resurrection because it seems so impossible. The trouble is that hallucinations are unique to each individual. Masses of 500 people don't experience the same hallucination.


Chapter 14 is the last chapter and I will try to have that completed this week. Take care.

Chapter 13 Discussion Questions

Chapter 12 demonstrated that Jesus' tomb was in fact empty. The next question is what happened to the body? Is there any real solid evidence of Jesus' resurrection? Here are some questions to think about and I will respond to them within a few days.


1. Are there any eyewitnesses who saw Christ after the crucifixion and if so who are some of the famous ones?


2. Is the most likely scenario not that the resurrection is a legend that was created centuries or at least many decades after the crucifixion? Doesn't the list grow over time showing that it is a legend gradually blown out of proportion?


3. Some people believe Jesus' resurrection was only spiritual and not literal, physical. What are some implications of that?


4. Could people have hallucinated the resurrection?


This Sunday October 25, 2009 will be my last lesson on the book in my Sunday School connect group. We will be covering chapters 11-14. I will then again produce some CDs if you would like a copy. Be looking for my next study and devotions I will be posting in the near future.

Chapter 12 Discussion

Here are some responses to my chapter 12 discussion questions. If you haven't looked at them yet scroll down to the previous post and think about them before you read my responses.

1. The details of the empty tomb in the four Gospel accounts vary somewhat. They vary in sequence of events, how many angels were present, what women were present, etc. Does this mean the story should be suspect? Actually, lawyers will tell you that if different accounts agree too much even in the minor details that they are suspect because they feel the people have collaborated with each other. The basic facts are the same in all accounts of the women going to the tomb to anoint Jesus' body, they find it empty and report back to the Apostles.

2. Jesus being buried by a religious leader like Joseph of Arimathea seems highly unlikely, should I believe this part of the story? Since Jesus confronted the leaders, this does seem surprising but we do see that Nicodemus became a follower of Christ so it should not be ruled out. Actually, since all four Gospel accounts state this that gives it incredible clout.

3. Many crucified victims were left to be preyed upon by scavengers such as vultures and wild dogs or they were buried in mass graves. Is this a possible explanation why Jesus' grave cannot be found? There is too much evidence from authentic manuscripts to believe he was just abandoned on the cross. Besides, the Shroud of Turin - even if it is not Jesus' burial cloth - at the very least shows an example of one crucified victim that was buried.

4. What does the fact that the Gospels record that the first witnesses to an empty tomb were women such as Mary Magdalene tell us about the story? Women in the first century were not considered to be credible witnesses by Jewish men. If the Gospel accounts were fabricated you would expect them to ignore the women and have Peter, James and John be the first witnesses to the empty tomb.

5. What do the Jewish rebuttals to the resurrection tell us about the tomb? The Jewish story to refute the resurrection claimed that the body of Christ was stolen by the Apostles. This actually confirms that the tomb was in fact empty.

The next chapter looks at evidence for the resurrection itself.

Chapter 12 Discussion Questions

Chapter 12 is about the empty tomb and Chapter 13 is on the Resurrection. This may seem a little redundant but actually you can't talk about the resurrection until you can demonstrate that the tomb was in fact empty. Here are some questions to ponder.


1. The details of the empty tomb in the four Gospel accounts vary somewhat. They vary in sequence of events, how many angels were present, what women were present, etc. Does this mean the story should be suspect?


2. Jesus being buried by a religious leader like Joseph of Arimathea seems highly unlikely, should I believe this part of the story?


3. Many crucified victims were left to be preyed upon by scavengers such as vultures and wild dogs or they were buried in mass graves. Is this a possible explanation why Jesus' grave cannot be found?


4. What does the fact that the Gospels record that the first witnesses to an empty tomb were women such as Mary Magdalene tell us about the story?


5. What do the Jewish rebuttals to the resurrection tell us about the tomb?

Chapter 11 Discussion

Scroll down to the previous post to see the questions for chapter 11 before viewing my answers here. Here are some responses I would give.

1. Have you ever heard of the Swoon Theory? The Swoon Theory is the idea that Jesus did not really die on the cross. This basically comes from people who do not believe a resurrection is possible so they need a natural explanation for the resurrection story of Jesus. They believe he passed out and appeared dead and then regained consciousness while in the tomb. When he got out of the tomb and people saw him they thought a miracle had occurred.

2. Is it possible Jesus survived the crucifixion without dieing? It is just not plausible to believe that Jesus only swooned on the cross. Jesus was already in bad shape from the whipping with massive blood loss and then the soldiers saw he was dead and that it why they did not break his legs. The final piece of evidence is that one soldier thrust a sword into Jesus' side. The fact that blood and water flowed shows that the sword pierced the pericardial sac around Jesus' heart so that would have killed him even if he was still alive. To believe the Swoon Theory you have to believe that the Apostles took a pathetically beaten and injured man, nursed him back to health without any antibiotics or cosmetic surgery, paraded him around to show off his "resurrection body" and then they all died martyr's deaths for this even though they knew it was a hoax. That takes more faith than the resurrection itself.

3. What would the whipping have been like for Christ? Roman whippings were very cruel. The whips had metal and sharp objects embedded into it that would have lacerated Jesus' skin all the way from his shoulders down to his knees. A historian named Eusebius from the fourth century said that you could see the internal organs such as the intestines after a whipping.

4. Why was Jesus nailed to the cross when most crucifixion victims were only tied? Many skeptics have said that crucifixion did not involve nailing but that the victims were only tied to the cross. Archaeologists have found that some crucifixions did involve nailing, a heel bone with the nail still in it has been unearthed. It appears nailing was reserved for the worst of the worst of criminals. What does that tell us of how badly the Jewish leaders wanted rid of Him?

5. Why did Jesus die so quickly when many victims lasted for days on a cross? Victims that were only tied to a cross could last for several days before they died of exposure. The Bible says Jesus died in about six hours. This shows that he was in such bad shape from the whipping and then the tortuous nailing on top of that took its toll very quickly in comparison.

6. Where would water come from to cause the blood and water to flow after the Roman soldier thrust his spear into Jesus' side? The doctor interviewed in this chapter talks about how inflammation and the overworking of the heart pumping hard to try to adjust for Jesus' low blood pressure would have caused fluid to build up in the pericardial sac around Jesus' heart. This was pierced by the soldiers sword and indicated that cause of death (COD) was probably cardiac arrest.

I'll put up chapter 12 in a few days. We are nearing the end of the book and then I look forward to resuming my daily devotions of walking through the Bible and looking at it from a scientific perspective.

Chapter 11 Discussion Questions

Well, things are going well but busy here. My wife and I went through the new member class at our new Church and this past Sunday I taught chapters 4 and 5 out of the book in Sunday School. On a personal note we found out the baby we are expecting is a girl and the due date is Feb 18, 2010. Here are some questions to think about for chapter 11.


1. Have you ever heard of the Swoon Theory?


2. Is it possible Jesus survived the crucifixion without dieing?


3. What would the whipping have been like for Christ?


4. Why was Jesus nailed to the cross when most crucifixion victims were only tied?


5. Why did Jesus die so quickly when many victims lasted for days on a cross?


6. Where would water come from to cause the blood and water to flow after the Roman soldier thrust his spear into Jesus' side?


This is a very interesting chapter as a medical doctor examines what Jesus' body would have gone through during this crucifixion.

Chapter 10 Discussion

This Sunday October 4 I will be covering chapters 4 and 5 in my Sunday School class. We are having great discussions and I can get you mp3 files of those if you want. Here are my responses to some questions I posted from chapter 10.


1. How much time do you think modern Jews spend teaching their children about the Messiah? I get the impression as Louis Lapides stated in this chapter that most Jews never really think about the Messiah or grow up studying the topic. Probably Orthodox Jews that may go on to be Rabbis or teachers are the only ones to give it much thought.


2. What opinion do you think most Jews have of Jesus? Most Jews would admit that Jesus was extremely influential on human history but have a negative view of him because they see him as someone who deceived people into thinking he was the Messiah when he really wasn't.


3. What are some objections Jews have with Christians about how we view the Messiah? I saw a Jew on Larry King Live that said they do not expect the Messiah to be God or the Son of God but just an exalted human being that God uses to deliver them. Since they are strict monotheists they are turned off by the Christian view of the Triune God.


4. What are some famous Old Testament Messianic prophesies you've heard? The most famous ones to me are Isaiah 53 with the suffering servant and Isaiah 7 and 9 that predict the virgin birth and Immanuel. Malachi's prediction of the Messiah being born in Bethlehem is also popular.


5. Could it be that Jesus just fulfilled these by accident or coincidence? You will see the odds against this are astronomical. Jesus fulfilled over 300 Old Testament prophesies.


6. Could it be that followers changed the biography of Jesus to make it look like he fulfilled prophesy when he really didn't? We have seen that the manuscripts of the New Testament are the most authentic we have in all of history so to doubt their wording would mean that we cannot know anything for sure about any of ancient history.


7. Could it be that Jesus studied these and then intentionally tried to fulfill them? I first saw this on a two hour Discovery special. An example they gave is that it was well known that the Messiah would ride a colt into a certain gate of the city proclaiming himself. So, this is what Jesus did in what we call the Triumphal entry on Palm Sunday. The problem I have with this is how did Jesus convince the crowd to praise Him. He had to have done other things to convince them. This explanation does not fit for prophesies he fulfilled that he had no control over. For instance, how did he choose where he would be born, or convince people he was born of a virgin? How did he get his parents to move to Galilee when he was just a toddler because the Messiah needed to have roots from there also? How did he control his genealogy so he would be a descendant of Abraham, Jacob, Judah, Jesse and David? Those are some pretty good magic tricks. Especially as you read the Gospel according to Matthew he emphasises how Jesus fulfilled prophesy from the Old Testament so you can see how a first century Jew knew what characteristics to look for.


8. Is it possible that Christians read these prophesies out of context and they really aren't Messianic prophesies at all? These prophesies are in the Jewish Old Testament and can be verified separately from Christianity when you look at what Jews expect from the Messiah. I went to the library the other day and got a copy of the Jewish Old Testament and it says on the inside cover that it is free from Christian contamination. Then opening up to those famous passages in Isaiah it says the same thing that the Messiah will be called Immanuel, Mighty God and by his stripes we will be healed. I find it fascinating that Jews do not anticipate the Messiah to suffer but to be a successful political leader.

Chapter 10 Discussion Questions

Here are some questions to think about for Chapter 10. Hope you are having a good week.

1. How much time do you think modern Jews spend teaching their children about the Messiah?

2. What opinion do you think most Jews have of Jesus?

3. What are some objections have with Christians about how we view the Messiah?

4. What are some famous Old Testament Messianic prophesies you've heard?

5. Could it be that Jesus just fulfilled these by accident or coincidence?

6. Could it be that followers changed the biography of Jesus to make it look like he fulfilled prophesy when he really didn't?

7. Could it be that Jesus studies these and then intentionally tried to fulfill them?

8. Is it possible that Christians read these prophesies out of context and they really aren't Messianic prophesies at all?

Chapter 9 Discussion Part 3

Well, Chapter 9 has been quite a journey. I never dreamed it would take me this long to address all the issues. Here are some more responses to the questions I posted several days ago. Please go to my previous posts and think about these before looking at my responses. Let me know what you think.


6. How would you respond to the idea that Jesus was just a normal man and that the idea of him being God was made up by later followers, possibly as late as 325 AD by Constantine as Dan Brown proposes in the DaVinci Code? It is easy to prove that Dan Brown is way off base here. In previous posts I have demonstrated how Jesus' apostles worshipped Him as god and all those writings are dated to the first century. I'm also reading through the Antenicene Fathers which are Christian writings all dated before the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. It is a ten volume encyclopedia of writings that all call Jesus God. Even non-Christian writings such as Tacitus refer to how Christians were being persecuted for worshipping Jesus as God. All of this happened before Constantine was even born.


7. If Jesus did not claim to be God but merely the Son of God then what would he be like? Would any form of deity have rubbed off on him? Would he be half-man/half-God like Hercules? Would he have any supernatural powers? It is hard for me to imagine how Jesus can be the Son of God but only an exalted human being. At the very least Jesus should be half god or a lesser god. Reformed Christians believe in the virgin birth but not the Trinity so where did the other half of Jesus' human DNA come from that makes him only human. If he is the Son of God then some of God's deity should have rubbed off on him which should be evident from his power over the laws of nature. If you can believe in a virgin birth then why is the Trinity such a hard concept to grasp. We need to remember that God is far more complex than we can imagine but Reformed Christians try to put God in a box that explains him by our limited means. Physicists have shown that there are dimensions that we as humans cannot detect so it is conceivable that God could be triune but that it is hard to picture that in our limited four dimensions.


Chapter 9 also addresses the following questions:


8. If God is loving then why does he sentence people to Hell? God is loving but he is also just. He cannot allow unforgiven sin to enter Heaven. Besides, is it really God sending people to Hell or do they choose to go there? Why does someone who wants nothing to do with God on earth want to spend eternity with Him? It seems to me they would be happier in Hell where God wont bother them anymore.

9. If Jesus is so loving then why did he not speak out against slavery, which was so prevalent in the first century Roman world? We tend to picture slavery in light of the American Civil War. That form of slavery could be very cruel and harsh. But that is not what was going on in the Roman world. Slavery then had limits and was not necessarily based on race. A slave had to be released after seven years and some people voluntarily sold themselves into slavery to work off debts they could not pay monetarily. Remember, Jesus came to save us spiritually not to overthrow political powers or settle civil disputes. Also, Jesus came primarily to Jews so it should not be surprising that he did not address a Roman social issue. You have to be careful of saying Jesus supported something just because he didn't address it. It is not right to make a case out of silent evidence. I don't know anyone that would say that Jesus believed it was OK to keep young boys as sex objects but pederasty was a common Roman practice that Jesus didn't address either. Since he came to Jews who would not practice this you would expect Him to not talk about it.


Wow, that was a lot of material. Digest on this a few days and I'll get chapter 10 up next. Have a great week.

Chapter 9 Discussion Part 2

Today I want to respond to a couple more of the chapter 9 discussion questions from a previous post. We will focus today on evidence for the Trinity from both the Old and New Testaments.

4. What evidence would you give from the Old Testament for the Trinity? If the evidence is there then why are Jews such strict monotheists (Unitarians) that they reject Trinitarianism? It is quite obvious that there are much more references to the Trinity in the New Testament than the Old Testament. However, if the Trinity is true then there should be at least hints to it found in the Old Testament. The video entitled "The Human Jesus" I mentioned in a previous post points out something I have seen before called the "Shema". I believe Jews particularly quote this during Passover. It is basically the verse that says "Remember Oh Israel that the Lord God is one". Jews place an extreme amount of importance to this verse and this is why they are such strict monotheists. They reject the idea of the Trinity because even though Christians still believe in one God the idea looks so much like polytheism to them. I believe the first clue to look at is in Genesis chapter 1. God is called Elohim, which is actually the plural of El. This name is used with a singular verb showing that God has some plural attributes and some singular attributes. Later it says "Let us create man in our image" again showing a plural aspect to God. Some scholars say that they have seen in ancient literature what is called the "Majestic Plural" where a king would refer to himself in the plural to emphasize his power and that Moses is just using a literary technique to show God's power here. But if the Shema is so important and Moses was such a strict monotheist you would expect him to shy away from this because of the confusion it could cause. Later in Genesis we see Abraham being visited by three men representing God but the conversation is recorded as though he were talking to one. The three seem to be unusually unified in their purpose. Isaiah actually prophesies that the Messiah would be Mighty God, and called Immanuel, which means "God with us".

5. If you believe in the Trinity then what evidence do you see in the New Testament of this or that Jesus considered himself to be God in any way? The first verses most people will refer to here is when Jesus said "I and the Father are one" and "if you have seen me you have seen the Father". Next is the famous "I am" statement which refers to God speaking to Moses in the burning bush. Jesus appears to be claiming to be the God that spoke to Moses. In Greek, "I am" is a combination of the words "ego emei". This combination is found about eight times in the Gospels. "Ego" means "I" and "emei" means "I am" so in English this would be "I, I am". I am means to exist and humans exists because they were created by God. Jesus saying that I, I am means that he was not created but that he has always existed and by saying he existed before Abraham he is claiming to be the God who created the universe and was there at the beginning. John affirms this by calling him the Logos. Greek philosophers used the word Logos to refer to the creator and sustainer of the universe. Although not a famous verse I feel that Paul in Romans 9:5 makes the most outright claim of Jesus' deity when he says "...the human genealogy of Christ who is God overall be praised". This very clearly shows both the human and divine natures of Jesus. To reject Paul means to reject possibly the second most important figure in Christian history second only to Christ himself.

I'll have to cover more later. God Bless.

Chapter 9 Discussion Part 1

The questions I posted yesterday are pretty intense so I don't think I have time to answer all of them in one day. Please read the previous post before reading further and reflect on the questions before you see my response.

1. When you read the Old Testament what impression do you get about God? Is he primarily wrathful? As I read the Old Testament I actually see God's compassion and slowness to anger more than his anger. With Sodom and Gomorrah He said he would spare the whole wicked cities if only 10 righteous people could be found. He often says that he gives evil empires (Assyria, Babylonia and Persia) time to repent before He will bring destruction on them. He sent Jonah as a missionary to Assyria. He tells the Jews that they are too caught up with sacrifice and that He "desires mercy more then sacrifice". He instructs Hosea to marry a prostitute to symbolize how patient He is with the unfaithfulness of Israel. God appears pretty patient and kind here to me.

2. When you read the New Testament do you get the impression that Jesus thought of himself as God? I find it impossible to read the New Testament and not see where both Jesus claimed to be God and his immediate followers (apostles) and second generation Christians worship Him as God. If this is wrong then the very people closest to Jesus (Peter, James and John and Paul who wrote two thirds of the New Testament) are in great error. If this error is so blatant then everything else taught about Christ must be suspect. Jesus said "before Abraham was, I am". He is saying that he is the I am that spoke to Moses in the burning bush. In Greek I am means that I exist by my own power or in other words Jesus is saying that he is not a created being but always has existed and was alive even before Abraham ever walked the earth. John calls Jesus the Logos which Greek philosophers used to refer to the God who created and sustains the universe. People argue against this but all you have to do is look at the reaction of the Jewish leaders and see that they understood exactly what he was saying. They tore their robes and wanted him crucified for blasphemy.

3. Historians give credit to Tertullian developing the doctrine of the Trinity about 180 AD so why do Christians accept it as an essential of the faith when it was not developed until 150 years after Jesus' ministry? On the surface this fact would make you find the Doctrine of the Trinity suspect. However, it should not be discarded until we see if there is a Biblical basis for it and that the concept is in the New Testament. Above I mentioned Jesus calling himself the "I am" and John calling Him the Logos. Jesus also taught with is own authority unlike other Rabbis who referred to other witnesses. Jesus said "you have heard...but I say to you", this means he has authority of God not man. Jesus forgave sins which the Jewish leaders said only God has the right to do. Jesus accepted worship and said if you see him you also see the Father for they are one. These are too many occurrences from Jewish people (Jesus and the apostles were Jews) if believing that Jesus is God is a violation of strict Jewish monotheism. One verse not many people know about is actually the most blatant reference of Christ being God. Romans 9:5 is where Paul says that "Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God,..." It can't be put much clearer than that. Many people claim that the idea of Jesus being God was instituted later by Constantine in 325 AD. I am currently reading Christian writings from the first three centuries and it is littered with references to Christ as God. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Tatian and several others from the late first century and second century say this. The reason it comes up is because they want to know why they are being persecuted by the Romans for their belief in Christ being God when the Romans believe the Zeus had sex with a woman and had Hercules or that Caesar was god in the flesh. Why is Christianity considered ridiculous and the Roman mythology actually honored? If Jesus being God is legendary then what we should see is that the apostles and early Christians refer to him as only a man and then the deification taking place in the late first or second century. Actually the opposite is true. The apostles and early Christians refer to Jesus as God and then the idea that he was not God creeps in later. I am forced to conclude that the evidence weighs heavily in favor of the Trinity.

I hope to post more over the next few days. Take care!

Chapter 9 Discussion Questions

Chapter 9 brings up a topic that so many people struggle with and have a hard time accepting about Jesus. This chapter deals with profiling and tackles the question of whether Jesus fits the profile of God. Some people argue that the God of the Old Testament comes across as judgmental and wrathful while Christ comes across as compassionate and forgiving so, how can they be the same person? I will respond more tomorrow but I want you the think about the following questions on your own before you let someone else influence your thought process. If you scroll down a couple of posts you will see that a gentleman, whose computer screen name is "Adam Pastor", posted a friendly disagreement with me. He says that Jesus never claimed to be God but only claimed to be the "Son of God". He then left a link to a two hour video. So far I have watched the first 15 minutes and will respond more tomorrow but if you want to check it out do so and let me know what you think.


1. When you read the Old Testament what impression do you get about God? Is he primarily wrathful?


2. When you read the New Testament do you get the impression that Jesus thought of himself as God?


3. Historians give credit to Tertullian developing the doctrine of the Trinity about 180 AD so why do Christians accept it as an essential of the faith when it was not developed until 150 years after Jesus' ministry?


4. What evidence would you give from the Old Testament for the Trinity? If the evidence is there then why are Jews such strict monotheists (Unitarians) that they reject Trinitarianism?


5. If you believe in the Trinity then what evidence do you see in the New Testament of this or that Jesus considered himself to be God in any way?


6. How would you respond to the idea that Jesus was just a normal man and that the idea of him being God was made up by later followers, possibly as late as 325 AD by Constantine as Dan Brown proposes in the DaVinci Code?


7. If Jesus did not claim to be God but merely the Son of God then what would he be like? Would any form of deity have rubbed off on him? Would he be half-man/half-God like Hercules? Would he have any supernatural powers?


Chapter 9 also addresses the following questions:


8. If God is loving then why does he sentence people to Hell?


9. If Jesus is so loving then why did he not speak out against slavery, which was so prevalent in the first century Roman world?


Thank you Adam for you food for thought and the video to challenge us. I pray that as I take time to evaluate your arguments that you will do the same. Everyone take time to think about these questions and I will post responses by tomorrow or soon after.


May God Bless us in our search for Truth!

Chapter 8 Discussion

Here are some responses to the Chapter 8 Discussion questions.


1. Some people respond that they think Christ was a great man with great talent but was a little off mentally when he thought he was God, how would you respond? We will see more specific responses in the following questions but my first response is what evidence is there to indicate insanity. Jesus responded in very normal, humble and compassionate ways. Even the instances of anger he showed we reasonable because He was angry that the less fortunate were being taken advantage of.


2. What are some characteristics of an emotionally unstable person from what you have observed? I see them as unkempt, very odd socially and usually display strange outbursts of emotion. The book points out dressing oddly, inappropriate emotions, unsuitable behavior and not able to carry on a logical conversation.


3. Do you think Jesus displayed any of these characteristics? Jesus was often approached as a Rabbi so his dress was probably that of a typical teacher. His teaching is respected world wide so obviously His conversation is quite logical. Some of the things He did were not understood until later but again even His anger was easily justified. I don't think an insane person could function in society as well as He did.


4. What do you think about the idea that Jesus used hypnosis to trick people into thinking he was God? Hypnosis is not that powerful. It only works in small groups on people willing to submit to it. Jesus could not have used hypnosis to control large crowds or convert skeptics such as his half brothers and Paul. Since Paul's conversion was after the crucifixion, the fact that Jesus hypnotized Paul as a ghost from the grave would be quite and awesome magic trick.


5. If Jesus was crazy then that would make him similar to David Karesh or Jim Jones, do you see any similarities of them with Christ? The only similarity is that they thought they were messiahs. Notice that in order to control their followers they withdrew into private communes. Jesus operated on the streets of society. They also committed cruel acts against their followers such as kidnapping, sexual molestation and ultimately forced suicide. Jesus only showed compassion and gave people free will to follow him or not.

Chapter 8 Questions

We had a great discussion on the first three chapters Sunday. I will be getting that mp3 out tonight hopefully. Here are some questions for chapter 8 to ponder on.


1. Some people respond that they think Christ was a great man with great talent but was a little off mentally when he thought he was God, how would you respond?


2. What are some characteristics of an emotionally unstable person from what you have observed?


3. Do you think Jesus displayed any of these characteristics?


4. What do you think about the idea that Jesus used hypnosis to trick people into thinking he was God?


5. If Jesus was crazy then that would make him similar to David Karesh or Jim Jones, do you see any similarities of them with Christ?

Chapter 7 Discussion

Here are some responses to chapter 7 questions.


1. Some people say that Jesus never claimed to be God, do you think he did? There are numerous examples of Jesus claiming to be God. He referred to himself as "I am" and that he existed before Abraham. He also said that "I and the Father are one".


2. Can you list some clues that Jesus viewed himself as God? Jesus had 12 Apostles that indicate that Jesus view himself as God leading the 12 tribes of Israel. Jesus forgave sins even if they weren't against Him.


3. What are some examples of things that Jesus did that were very different from the way a normal Rabbi would teach? When Jesus said "Verily, Verily I say..." He was teaching by his own authority. Rabbis didn't ever teach by there own authority because they felt you needed at least two witnesses to agree. Jesus was basically saying that since He was God he didn't need any other witnesses to agree with Him.

Chapter 7 Questions

Sunday September 6 I taught the first lesson again for the next class. Lesson one covers chapters 1-3 but I still haven't covered the whole book on my blog. So here is chapter 7 and you can scroll down for previous posts.


1. Some people say that Jesus never claimed to be God, do you think he did?


2. Can you list some clues that Jesus viewed himself as God?


3. What are some examples of things that Jesus did that were very different from the way a normal Rabbi would teach?

Chapter 6 Discussion

Here are some responses to yesterday's questions.


1. Have you ever heard of the Jesus Seminar? I had not heard of them before this book but have noticed them being interviewed on shows on the History Channel and other stations now that I am aware of them.


2. If you heard a council was going to meat to discuss how authentic the four Gospel accounts are, what topics do you think would come up in the discussion? I would expect them to look at a document and figure out from the number of copies and archeology when the document was written and by who. Then they should compare with other known documents to determine which is the most authentic. The Jesus seminar just takes a vote with colored beads on their opinion. There is no scholarship to their techniques and they have the audacity to reject the Bible for manuscripts that are less authentic like the Gospel of Thomas that have only one copy, was written later and was not written by an eyewitness.


3. What are the concepts of "double dissimilarity" and "multiple attestation"? Double dissimilarity is when they say that what we know about Jesus was made up later by Christians and Jewish believers so they reject anthing Jesus said that was Jewish or Christian. That's a little ridiculous since Jesus was a Jew and started the Christian church. Multiple attestation is having more than one reference to an event. This is a good principle but they consider the Bible as one source rather than the multiple manuscripts it is derived from.


4. What documents do scholars that reject the Bible actually like to refer to as authentic in their minds? I mentioned above the Gospel of Thomas. There are also the Gospels of Barnabas and Judas and many other gnostic writings. I wander if they actually read these documents since they think Jesus was a feminist but the Gospel of Thomas says a female has to become male in order to be saved. (I guess Sonny and Cher's daughter is on the right path after all, oops, I'm gonna have to ask for forgiveness for that later.)


5. Does the Jesus Seminar have a valid point that the Jesus of history probably was quite different than the Jesus of Faith? Actually no! The New Testament manuscripts are all very authentic being written less than 30 years after events before legendary material could enter into them. Since most other ancient writings can't claim this then to doubt the Jesus of Faith you would have to doubt major historical figures such as Plato, Julius Caesar, Hannibal and Homer.

Chapter 6 Discussion Questions

Well, now that fall semester has started I hope to finish out the Case for Christ on my blog. I finished the series in Sunday School but am repeating the course with a new class starting September 6. Here are questions that go with chapter 6. I will post comments tomorrow.

1. Have you ever heard of the Jesus Seminar?

2. If you heard a council was going to meat to discuss how authentic the four Gospel accounts are, what topics do you think would come up in the discussion?

3. What are the concepts of "double dissimilarity" and "multiple attestation"?

4. What documents do scholars that reject the Bible actually like to refer to as authentic in their minds?

5. Does the Jesus Seminar have a valid point that the Jesus of history probably was quite different than the Jesus of Faith?

Chapter 5 Discussion

I've been busy with meetings this week so am a little behind. Last Sunday I taught the last session from the Case for Christ book. I should be e-mailing out the audio link soon, by tomorrow. Now that I have finished I am going to put the entire course on CD so if you would like a copy, e-mail me and I'll send you one. Here are some responses to some questions from chapter 5 material.


1. Does archaeology generally agree or disagree with the Bible? There has never been an archaeological discovery that directly contradicts the Bible. There are many parts of the Bible where nothing has been found though. Examples would be that there is not much from the time of Joshua and Judges. Many archaeologists have been surprised to find things right where the Bible said it would be.


2. Have there been any archaeological discoveries that definitely disprove the Bible? No, see above response.


3. What are some examples that show that Luke told accurate history? Luke mentions an office called politarch that archaeologists had never found but eventually Roman inscriptions were found to verify Luke's claim.


4. What is an example of John reporting accurate history? John said there were five porticoes at the pool of Bethesda and archaeologists have excavated these five.


5. Skeptics have said that Quirinius was not governor at the right time for Jesus' birth, how would you respond? A coin was found during this time saying that Quirinius was governor so either there were two men with this name or the same man served two terms.


6. Skeptics said that Nazareth did not even exist in the first century so how can Jesus' biography be trusted, how would you respond? More recent excavations show that Nazareth did exist in the first century but that it was a very small insignificant town at this time.


7. If Matthew is the only record we have of Herod killing the babies can we trust this single source? This story fits with Herod's personality because he killed people he thought were trying to take his thrown away from him including his wife and several sons.


8. How does the Book of Mormon fair when tested against archaeological data? Not one shred of evidence exists to support the Book of Mormon. There are no synagogues or temples or coins or cities from Jewish people living in America during the fifth century BC.

Chapter 5

Well, I'm back for fall semester and getting back into the swing of things so maybe I can blog a little more regularly. I will be finishing the book in class this Sunday but will go ahead and post chapter material so you can continue to study at your own pace. Let me know if you need anything. Here are some discussion questions for chapter 5 and I will post responses in a few days.


1. Does archaeology generally agree or disagree with the Bible?


2. Have there been any archaeological discoveries that definitely disprove the Bible?


3. What are some examples that show that Luke told accurate history?


4. What is an example of John reporting accurate history?


5. Skeptics have said that Quirinius was not governor at the right time for Jesus' birth, how would you respond?


6. Skeptics said that Nazareth did not even exist in the first century so how can Jesus' biography be trusted, how would you respond?


7. If Matthew is the only record we have of Herod killing the babies can we trust this single source?


8. How does the Book of Mormon fair when tested against archaeological data?

Chapter 4 Discussion

I'm a little behind on my blog so I'll try to post quite a bit this week. Here are some responses to the chapter four questions.


1. Can you think of references to Jesus Christ in ancient literature that are not in the Bible? References in Josephus, Tacitus and by Pliny the Younger are probably the most famous but 39 such references have been documented.


2. Who was Josephus and why is he so important? There are not many surviving first century writings outside of Josephus and the New Testament. Since many scholars reject the Bible this means they rely very heavily on Josephus as a source.


3. How do many people explain the darkness that occurred during the crucifixion? They explain it as a solar eclipse and there was one in Jerusalem in 33 AD. The problem of this is that it is impossible to have a solar eclipse on Passover because it is close to a full moon not a new moon.


4. Why does the Bible paint a picture of Pilate being compassionate towards Jesus when secular history says he was very inconsiderate to Jews? Passover was a pilgrimage festival with Jew travelling from all over to be in Jerusalem. Tension was high between the Jews and Romans so with large crowds, Roman officials were expected to keep order. If a riot broke out, Pilate new he may be killed and replaced by another official. Any compassion he showed was to save his own skin not because he cared about Jesus being innocent. How compassionate was he when he crucified a man he knew to be innocent?


5. How does Jesus' biographical material compare with that of leaders of other world religions? As we have seen, Jesus' biographies can be dated between 35-50 years of his life on earth. Most other famous leaders such as Muhammad, Buddha and Zarathustra were written down hundreds of years later.

Chapter 4 Discussion Questions

Here are some discussion questions to think about for chapter 4. I will post some responses in a couple of days.


1. Can you think of references to Jesus Christ in ancient literature that are not in the Bible?


2. Who was Josephus and why is he so important?


3. How do many people explain the darkness that occurred during the crucifixion?


4. Why does the Bible paint a picture of Pilate being compassionate towards Jesus when secular history says he was very inconsiderate to Jews?


5. How does Jesus' biographical material compare with that of leaders of other world religions?

Chapter 3 Discussion

Here are some responses to the questions I posed for chapter 3.



1. If we don't have the original manuscripts how can we know that the wording of the books of the Bible is authentic? It is important to remember that we don't have the originals for any other ancient manuscript either, except for those carved in stone, so the Bible is not unique here. Authenticity is verified by gathering the oldest copies you can and then if there are multiple copies you compare their wording. Unanimity between copies increases your trust in their wording.




2. How do some other famous pieces of ancient literature compare with the Bible when it comes to the number of copies and time gap from the original to the oldest copy we possess? Most other pieces of literature exist in only a handful of copies and usually not even in the original language. They are dated centuries after the original. We do however possess literally thousands of Biblical manuscripts with many dating less than 100 years after the original. They are also in the original Hebrew and Greek.




3. What is the earliest New Testament manuscript we have? The earliest fragment is called P51. The P stands for papyrus and they are numbered in the order they were discovered and studied. It has several verses from the Gospel of John on it and is dated between 117-138 AD. Since John probably wrote his Gospel around 90 AD we actually possess this fragment that is only 30-50 years after the original. No other ancient piece of literature can claim this.


4. How many total New Testament manuscripts do we have and are any of them in the original language? We have a total of over 24,000 manuscripts and over 5000 of them are in the original Greek.


5. What is a variant reading and how serious are they when examining the New Testament? A variant reading is when one manuscript copy does not match word for word with another. Most of these are spelling variations or word order changes. Since word order is not critical in Greek then most variants do not change the meaning of the verse. No major ideas or doctrines are affected by these variants.


6. The DaVinci Code claims that the Gospel of Thomas is more trust worthy than the Bible and that Jesus was a feminist, how would you respond to this? The Gospel of Thomas only exists in one or two documents that are dated about 200 AD so they are not as authentic as the traditional Gospels. Ironically, Jesus shows respect to women in the real Gospels but in the Gospel of Thomas he is supposed to have said that a woman has to become a man in order to be saved. You have to wonder if these people actually read the books they claim are more trustworthy than the Bible.


7. Do you think books such as the Gospels of Thomas, Judas and Barnabas should have been included in the Bible? They can be found in collections such as "The Lost Books of the Bible". These books are not nearly as authentic as the traditional New Testament books. All of these were written in the second, third and fourth centuries and we know they could not have been written by the person they are claimed to be authored by. One standard for Biblical books is "Apostolic Authority" which means they should be authored by a direct apostle or eyewitness of the events or a close associate. All of the New Testament books were written in the first century and fulfill this requirement. The Church was right to reject these books.


I will be covering chapters 4 and 5 this Sunday August 2nd. I hope you are enjoying the study.

Chapter 3 Questions

We finished the handout from last week this morning and that puts us through chapter 3. Here are some questions to think about and I will post some responses in a couple of days.


1. If we don't have the original manuscripts how can we know that the wording of the books of the Bible is authentic?


2. How do some other famous pieces of ancient literature compare with the Bible when it comes to the number of copies and time gap from the original to the oldest copy we possess?


3. What is the earliest New Testament manuscript we have?


4. How many total New Testament manuscripts do we have and are any of them in the original language?


5. What is a variant reading and how serious are they when examining the New Testament?


6. The DaVinci Code claims that the Gospel of Thomas is more trust worthy than the Bible and that Jesus was a feminist, how would you respond to this?


7. Do you think books such as the Gospels of Thomas, Judas and Barnabas should have been included in the Bible? They can be found in collections such as "The Lost Books of the Bible".


Begin reading chapters 4 and 5 for next week. Have a blessed week and let me know if you have any questions.

Chapter 2 Discussion

We will be discussing Chapter 2 in class on July 26 so what I am posting today you will be able to hear more of if you are getting the mp3 files. Chapter 2 covers eight legal tests that are used to determine the authenticity of a document being submitted as evidence. Let's see how the Bible holds up under the same scrutiny.

1. If a document was being submitted as evidence for a trial in a court of Law, what type of tests do you think would be run on it to make sure it was authentic? The eight tests covered here are Intention, Ability, Character, Consistency, Bias, Cover-up, Corroboration and Adverse Witness.

2. How authentic do you think the Bible manuscripts are? Chapters 1 and 3 show how the New Testament is the most authentic of any ancient manuscript when you study the number of copies and the time gap between the original and the oldest one we possess.

3. Do you thin the Biblical authors had the intent to tell the truth or exaggerate? There is nothing to point toward these men lying. Tradition shows they were upstanding men whose lives were changed by their encounter with Christ. We do not see the exaggeration in the Gospels that we see in apocryphal writings. Luke even states his intent to tell accurate history at the beginning of Luke and Acts.

4. Does a person have the ability to accurately record an event 30-50 years after it happened? If an elderly person wrote memoirs of their childhood you would not question their accuracy even though the events were more than 30-50 years earlier. Also, in the ancient Jewish world they relied heavily on oral tradition which means they used memorization skills more than we do today. Lastly, it is important to see that most of other ancient documents such as the biography of Alexander the Great were written centuries later so to question the authenticity of the New Testament would mean questioning practically all of history.

5. Do you thing the authors of the Gospel accounts were men of good character? There is no evidence to cause us to picture these men as other than outstanding individuals.

6. Many people say that parallel stories in the Gospels differ in details therefore the Bible is in error. If two peoples stories are 100% consistent in every minor detail would you trust them more? It is interesting that if two witnesses or suspects agree too much they are actually doubted as conspiring with each other. Everybody experiences life differently and if two people see the same event they will describe it differently. The fact that the four Gospel accounts tell the same basic story with slight differences in minor details actually shows the authors were not conspiring.

7. Do yo think the Biblical authors are biased so they cannot be totally trusted? There is some bias from the point that they wanted to convince people that Jesus was the Christ. However, archaeology shows that they were truthful in reporting historical events so they did not overstep their bounds as eyewitnesses.

8. Do yo think the Apostles covered up embarrassing moments to make Jesus and themselves look more impressive? It's actually amazing how truthful they were. It would have been easy to leave out some of Jesus' harder teachings and difficult to explain events. A good example is Mark reporting that Peter denied Christ even though we believe Mark was writing from Peter's perspective. He did not leave out the embarrassing material.

9. Are there any documents you know of that mention Jesus apart from the Bible? 39 references to Christ apart from the Bible have been found. The most famous are those by Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny the younger.

10. How many documents do you know of that were written by Jesus' opponents and speak badly of him? There are references to Christ in the Jewish Talmud and Mishnah. They usually refer to him as a deceiver leading people astray by sorcery and committing blasphemy and being born illegitimately. Even though negative, these statements show that Jesus was known for an uncommon birth, claimed to be God and performed great feats.

The Bible passes these tests pretty well, much better that many other documents. What fascinates me is how people who reject the Bible refer to other documents that they trust such as the Gospel of Thomas or Gospel of Judas that make outrageous claims, offensive statements and that we only have one manuscript copy of.

Chapter 2 Discussion Questions

I taught session two this morning but ran out of time. We really only covered chapter one. I e-mailed out the mp3 link so let me know if you haven't received it and want a copy. Here are some questions to think about for chapter two. I will post some discussion on these probably on Tuesday. Have fun and Take care.


1. If a document was being submitted as evidence for a trial in a court of law, what type of tests do you think would be run on it to make sure it was authentic?


2. How authentic do you think the Bible manuscripts are?


3. Do you think the Biblical authors had the intent to tell the truth or exaggerate?


4. Does a person have the ability to accurately record an event 30-50 years after it happened?


5. Do you think the authors of the Gospel accounts were men of good character?


6. Many people say that parallel stories in the Gospels differ in details therefore the Bible is in error. If two people's stories are 100% consistent in every minor detail would you trust them more?


7. Do you think the Biblical authors are biased so they cannot be totally trusted?


8. Do you think the the Apostles covered up embarrassing moments to make Jesus and themselves look more impressive?


9. Are there any documents you know of that mention Jesus apart from the Bible?


10. How many documents do you know of that were written by Jesus' opponents and speak badly of him?


Read chapter two to get an idea how to respond to these questions. It's pretty neat to apply modern legal tests to the Bible to see how it stands up.

Chapter 1 Discussion

If you haven't tried the discussion questions on your own for chapter 1 you can scroll down to the previous post. Here are some answers or responses to the questions.

1. If you were on a jury, how important would eyewitness testimony be in helping you make your decision? Eyewitness testimony is crucial. If the prosecution has an eyewitness, the defense knows they only chance they have is to discredit the character and reputation of that witness or to show they are lieing or have a motive for being dishonest.

2. What eyewitnesses do we have for Jesus' life? Paul claimed there were over 500 eyewitnesses still alive when he was writing. The most important ones are the ones we have writings from. I would say that Matthew, John and Peter would rank as most important in the New Testament.

3. How do the author's names on the four Gospel accounts compare with that of apocryphal writings? Apocryphal writings are false writings meaning we know they were not written by the claimed author and usually are written long after that author actually lived. Apocryphal writings usually choose famous and very highly revered people as the author. These include people like Peter, Abraham, Mary, Daniel and Enoch. The Gospels include Matthew who was a tax collector and therefore scum of the earth. Luke was not an eyewitness and was also not Jewish. If there was a cover-up here these names would not have been used.

4. How do the four Gospel accounts differ from modern biographies? The Gospels focus most of there attention on the Passion week. They do not even cover Jesus' childhood very well. This sounds strange to us today but they were not interested in history as much as they were what Jesus did as Son of God and Savior.

5. What the heck is the Q-document? The letter "Q" is used from the German word quelle which means source. It is believed to have been a collection of sayings of Christ, sort of like a book of his best quotes. It is important to realize that we do not possess this document so its contents are highly speculative if it existed at all. Sometimes you will notice that parallel passages in the Gospel accounts have word for word identical quotes of Jesus. Scholars say they have to be either quoting each other or quoting some source document.

6. What are the synoptic Gospels and what makes the Gospel of John so unique? The synoptics are Matthew, Mark and Luke because they track Jesus' ministry in a similar manner. John does not really follow the same pattern and it emphasizes more the divinity of Christ. Scholars call this writing with a higher Christology.

7. If the Gospels were not written until about 30 years after Christ then how can they be trusted? How does this compare with other ancient pieces of literature? If an elderly person wrote memoirs of their life they would be writing about events over 30 years old and we would not question their accuracy. The Jews memorized many things and focused on an oral tradition so when it was written down it was considered to be highly accurate. Most ancient pieces of literature were not written down until centuries later so actually the New Testament is the most authentic work we have.

8. Are there any New Testament books that are older than the Gospels? All of Paul's writings which make up two thirds of the New Testament were written down before the Gospels were.

9. Dan Brown claims in the DaVinci Code that Christians did not worship Christ as God until after 325 AD. How would you respond to that after reading chapter one? The creeds of the Bible such as the one found in 1 Corinthians 15 can be placed to within 5 years of Jesus' crucifixion (about 35-38 AD). Paul's writings are dated in the 50s and there are numerous writings from the second century that refer to Christ as God. Actually, Tertullian developed the doctrine of the Trinity in the late second century.

I hope you are enjoying the material. I'll post some stuff for chapter 2 tomorrow.