A Defense for the Hope: Series Intro

I want to help my brethren with logic and reason know that what they believe (that God exist, our Faith is not built on lies, the Bible can be trusted, etc) is true and they can be sure of it. I am not a scholar. So what I share is not as extensive as it would be if it were from a scholar, but it is still useful and beneficial.

In this series I'll be presenting numerous writings that I've written in past years that are great for strengthening a believer's foundation from a different angle. Each writing will share the title so you'll know which ones are a part of the series.

(Just so you'll know, I posted this series all on the same day in the order I wanted it to be read).

2009

A Defense for the Hope: Does God Exist?

Somewhere around 6,000 years ago someone declared, from a personal encounter, there is only one true Higher Power/Supreme Being– also known as, GOD. This declaration of theirs they passed on to the generations after them and told them to do the same, and it has gone on until this present day in time.
     From this point in history on people have made it a life endeavor attempting to prove this age old claim to be false. Now some will say that this age old claim was made from an assumption taken from independent reasoning. With this said, we can now see from the studies of certain things like *Astronomy, *Cosmology, and *Biology that those centuries ago who declared God exists aren't looney; which in turn means the burden of proof is truly on those who oppose this claim to not simply show reasonable doubt but “foolproof” doubt. Yet, if one who accepts the existence of God can show even an ounce of solid, concrete evidence for it the case against it, no matter how sophisticated it may be, is no more. For who can truly prove that something doesn’t exist if there is even one shred of solid evidence that says it does?
     Here are three things I believe is solid and simple evidence for the existence of God.

The Universe
Scientists say, by way of their “Big Bang Theory”, that the universe has always existed, originating in a coalition of energy: gravity, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear. Well, using their theory, energy––an effect and also a cause, but in this case an effect because of its four manifestations––cannot exist (come to be, occur) without the direct result of some other “cause” (action). In order for this such “cause” (i.e. action by somebody or something else) to create/cause this such “effect” (i.e. energy [and eventually matter] that makes up this immeasurable universe), this such “cause” would have to be something absolute––the origin/starting point of all “CAUSE”, something that always was, is, and will be. Otherwise, this universe remains an effect (a state) of energy (and eventually matter) without a sufficient “cause” (action by some “thing” completely separate from the “effect”), and that’s scientifically impossible. In all of the efforts to explain the “Big Bang” (the origin of the universe aside from a Higher Power), it still doesn’t and will never be able account for how the “Big” was provided for the “Bang” to take place.

The Earth
Earth is too perfectly placed within this galaxy. Any closer to the sun it would be too hot for life and any further away it be too cold for life, and it’s not blocked by the Asteroid Belt having a perfect view to view the rest of the universe. It's too perfectly suited for the different kinds of life forms on it to be an accident, chance, or luck. The percentage of that happening is in the billions times billionth percentile. Again, this is far too scientifically improbable to explain with certainty without some Higher/Supreme Power causing it.

Humankind
Evolution? Scientists from the same field aren’t all on the same page with evolution. (Scientists from the same field aren’t all on the same page on a lot of things, but that’s for another discussion). Scientists can only tell us educated guesses (empirical claims) not precise, absolute facts. They theorize from pictures of space, equations, certain species, and so forth of how life on earth came to be. (The same is to be said for their explanation for the universe and earth as well). For example, stories and reenactments from ages ago where we do not have anything credible or tangible to support them are fictitious and speculative not absolute or necessarily true. So the stories and reenactments we read and watch about dinosaurs, life ten’s of thousands to millions and billions of years ago, and so on, have no such support for how they are being told or described. Thus they are speculative not definite. They cannot tell us from a first person position only a third person position, and a third person position is not solid enough to be accepted as first-hand facts (in this case); which is exactly why they’re still called theories and not absolutes. Therefore, there is no “fail-safe” scientific way to explain the existence of humankind except for a Higher/Supreme Power; that is, atleast starting the process of “evolving” or something of the sorts. Again, humankind is such an “effect”, like that of the universe or the position of earth within the galaxy, that it needs such a “cause”.


Conclusion
I read somewhere, “People claim to not believe in God because it is “not scientific” or “because there is no proof.”” Yet, we can see that not believing in a Higher Power is actually what is “not scientific”. These three alone give ample enough evidence that there is a God out there who atleast is the cause for the universe, the positioning of and the situating of life on earth, and then humankind; as well as reasonable doubt on the allegation that there is no existence of God. It’s after acknowledging the existence of a Higher Power that we have to ask the question of, does this Higher Power want something to do with us, or did it start it all and leaves it to it’s own devices? This is where I believe some of the different faiths/beliefs come from, trying to answer this question. Nonetheless, the reality of the existence of God is much more credible than that of those who adamantly disagree. Even well-known, non-Christian scientists agree. Renowned astrophysicist and evolutionist Stephen Hawking said,

“The universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn’t combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn’t form the heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop and so on.”*

And again he said,

“It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.”*

Even Charles Darwin himself said,

“The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God … I am aware that if we admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came, and how it arose.”*

There’s an old saying I like to close with, “A fool says in his heart, there is no God.”* And that’s because you’d have to be a fool to not see the evidence of the existence of a Higher/Supreme Power, or dim-witted enough to cover ones eyes and say, “I don’t see anything.”


Here's a link to another site that shares a lot of information on this same topic:
http://www.bcrevolution.ca/collapse_of_evolution.htm
_________________________________________________________________

*1 - Astronomy is the scientific study of the universe, especially of the motions, positions, sizes, composition, and behavior of celestial objects.
*2 - Cosmology is the scientific study of the origin and structure of the universe.
*3 - Biology is the science that deals with all forms of life, including their classification, physiology, chemistry, and interactions.
*4, 5, 6 - One Heartbeat Away, Mark Cahill. Retrieved from http://audio.markcahill.org/Heartbeat.pdf, pg. 22, 24, 25.
*7 - Psalms 53:1

2009

A Defense for the Hope: True or False Witnesses

• Why would eleven Jewish men (thirteen including Matthias and later Paul) follow, live, and preach a Hebrew prophetic message that they knew they would be killed for, just as the one who taught it to them was, if they didn't believe it to be true (fulfilled)?
• Why would they lie about something as serious as the prophesied Messiah?
• What would be their reason for lying?

People lie or are deceitful to gain something or avoid something. These eleven had nothing to gain or avoid from this message if it was a lie. No money, property, respect, power, etc, was to be gained nor was any reason for avoidance from what they preached/taught. They had no reputation to lose if it was false. They had no reputation to gain if it was true. There was nothing to be gained, lost, or avoided from the message they were preaching/teaching. So why risk their lives; unless they knew what they knew was worth the consequences of preaching/teaching it.
     We can see during the first century that even though every Jew is taught of and awaits the promised Messiah, nobody was really analyzing each person to see if they were He. The Jewish people then went about their lives normally just as we do today––same stuff, different day. Again, why would normal, everyday Jews put all their eggs in one basket and risk their life for a false Messiah who did numerous miracles, feats, and such just as it was prophesied of Him to do? Why would normal, everyday Jews teach/preach the prophetic message (that they had come to learn) to every other Jew they came across (even the teachers), if what they had personally witnessed in the life of Jesus was not in accordance with the prophetic scriptures taught by the teachers of the Law? Why would the writers of the Gospels misquote or manipulate prophetic scriptures? Again, they had nothing to gain or avoid from this alleged deception. These Jewish writers, with the exception of Luke, were no more educated then whom they were writing to. To misquote or manipulate the holy Hebrew Scriptures simply to get other Jews to believe the message or follow their cause was truly not worth the consequences they would face––inevitably––if they were right or wrong.
     These Jewish followers of Jesus had a prime opportunity to let this blasphemy die out. Right after Jesus' crucifixion they were no longer in the public eye. They had all scattered. This was a perfect set-up to lay low and let everything die down if Jesus' was a false Messiah. So, as for the many who deny Jesus as the Messiah and only way to God, why would His followers further risk their life and steal His body just to cover up the so-called lie? No one was looking for them. They could've stayed in hiding, rather than risk Roman imprisonment, ex-communication from their culture, and death. But no, they say three days later an angel rolled the stoned away and their so-called Messiah rose from the dead. He even had the nerve to come to them and over 500 others as well. That's an over-reaching lie right there isn't it? If this wasn't true, they were making the situation way worst then what it was already with just Jesus doing and saying all that He did. Either they were the dumbest Jews alive, or again, they knew what they knew was unquestionably true and they were willing to die to tell everyone.
     Fifty days after Jesus' crucifixion, these normal, yet seemingly senseless Jewish followers of Jesus, arose from what appeared to be humiliation of their fallen false Messiah and took their region by storm. They went from outcasted nobodies to speaking multiple languages, prophesying, and doing similar miracles attributed to their so-called false Messiah. These ordinary Jews were doing extraordinary things. They had their life to lose but nothing to gain or avoid from preaching Jesus as the promised Messiah. To them they had already gained that which mattered most, eternal life. And all they wanted to do was offer that same life giving to them to everyone else for free. No deceit needed. Nothing intended to be gained. They just preached what they knew, what they witnessed, the Truth of God revealed.

The most notable convert to the so-called prophesied Messiah's message was Saul of Tarsus, later known as Paul. Paul was a teacher of the Law and an original persecutor of Jesus' followers. Why would this man, who knew the scriptures much much more then his eventual counterparts, risk his reputation, status, and life on something he didn't know for certain to be true? No follower converted Paul. Luke records Paul's story saying Paul was converted by the One who claimed to be the Messiah Himself. Who else could have converted Paul? Paul watched and assisted in the stoning of one of Jesus' followers. He wasn't moved by Jesus' follower's words. He knew too much to be won over by a nominal follower. Only one smarter than Paul could've convinced him that Jesus, who they called the Christ, was the prophesied Messiah. And Paul eventually came to the same conclusion, without any interference or influence of Jesus' followers, that Jesus was the promised Messiah. He then went on (by way of person and writing) to preach and teach Jews, and for the first time non-Jews (Gentiles), the now revealed Truth of God found in Jesus.
     The same that was said for Jesus' first followers can be said for Paul. Why would Paul misquote or manipulate the holy Hebrew Scriptures, which he probably held to much stricter than the others being a former teacher of the Law, simply to get other Jews and non-Jews to believe Jesus' message or follow Jesus' cause? What would Paul have to gain from preaching/teaching a false Jewish message? Paul, just as the others, had no reason to lie and no intention to gain, he just preached what he knew was the Hebrew Scriptures fulfilled in Jesus.

Now you tell me, why would these men (and women) risk their lives and their family's lives on a lie? Why would they preach lies to other Jews who would be able to tell if it wasn't in accordance with the Hebrew Scriptures? What did they have to gain from preaching/teaching their so-called false message? How did they do all the extraordinary things they did, which had not been seen before among the Jews except that of Jesus (and the prophets of old), if what they witnessed and knew was not the Truth? To me, there is no other logical answer to how they came to do what they did or why, except that Jesus is the promised Messiah, the Truth of God revealed.

2009

A Defense for the Hope: Simple Apologetics

First and foremost I must say this is a simple explanation, it’s not extensive.

There are two core facts in understanding the defense for our hope.

1. We know a Creator/Supreme Supernatural Being exist for the fact that there is overwhelming evidence due to the detailed explorations of science through Astronomy, Cosmology, and Biology; in addition to the fact that there is no way to concretely prove He does not exist.
2. The Holy Bible is the written source for the Christian Faith (not Jehovah's Witness or Mormons). Therefore, true Christians believe that the Creator/God that exists is the Covenant God of the Holy Bible.

After these two facts (and also according to Paul in Romans 1:20-21) its obvious one cannot rationally (legitimately, validly) deny the existence of God. And as we are about to see, the Bible cannot be rationally denied as well. So note it, understand it, and memorize these two facts, because in order to properly explain and/or defend our Faith as irrefutable truth we have to make sure these two facts remain coherent (agreeable).

Now that the core facts have been stated, let’s move onto a more literal documented fact. The Bible––which was written over a span of 1,500 years by roughly 40 different authors––has been sourced by the scientific, academic, and philosophical (non-religious) communities as a historical document due to the accuracy of the people, places, events, and the track record of fulfilled prophecies within in it. No other religious manuscript has been vetted and shown to be accurate more than the Holy Bible. Thus, all other religions are banking their so-called "truth" (and lives) on unvetted and unproven manuscripts. Therefore, continue to hold fast to these facts as solid evidence for the trustworthiness of the Bible.

The facts we just discussed now lead us to three “Faith facts”––facts of our Faith. As Christians, these Faith facts we ourselves need to know (believe and accept) to be the undeniable truth.

Faith fact #1: God is in control of all things past, present, and future.
Faith fact #2: The Holy Bible is God’s divine word to us, everything that is written in it is exactly what He wants us to have, no more no less.
Faith fact #3: Because God is in control of all things and the Bible is His word to us, He would never allow anyone nor anything to tamper, change, add, or take away from what was is in our written source to Him. As a result, He has protected and preserved its originality and trueness from the moment it was written, up to now, and forevermore.

I’ll wrap it up saying this. Considering the two core facts, the historical actuality (people, places, events, and the track record of fulfilled prophecies) of the Bible cited by Christians and reputable non-Christians alike, and the three “Faith facts”, one can see the logical reasoning in understanding why the Christian tenaciously (uncompromisingly) believes and claims that the Bible and its information inside are flawless. Indicating the life, purpose, and divinity of Jesus Christ is truth and reality. These facts, along with the testimony of the original witnesses of Jesus, one can’t substantially (with concrete evidence) deny the Christians claim of the Bible's authenticity. As long as this is the case, the Bible will be authentic until proven otherwise.

Standing on the two core facts, the historical documentation, the three Faith facts, and the testimony of the original witnesses and of what you’ve experienced to be true and what Jesus has done for you––as well as any other facts you may possess––is an adequate defense for our hope.

Note: Possessing some knowledge of Church history, other religions, as well as science and philosophy is a tremendous asset to have for proving and defending the case for our Faith. Moreover it will also strengthen one's own personal foundation and faith.

2009

Blog Debate: Is the Word of God literal, spiritual, or both?

I’ve had numerous blog debates. This is one I had in April 2008. I believe it can serve to edify the Body. I’ll be posting other blog debates later on. They are long, but they are worth the read.

Michelle: The stories [in the Bible] are not literal, but symbolic. They have complete Spiritual meaning. We know this is true when we apply the spiritual meaning to our lives - Not the literal. The literal would be silly... I myself can not ‘hear’ the literal any longer...

Me: “The stories are not literal, but symbolic”, by what means? Are you familiar with the historical educational and generational system of the Jews? Because if you were, you would be aware of how and what they took literal and symbolic by way of they’re writing. From Genesis to Esther are considered by Jews as historical (with respect to the Torah). They take the accounts recorded within these books as literal, not symbolic. The Poetic, Wisdom, and Prophetic books contain historical and symbolic language. These you can argue about what to take literal or not, but the first 17 books are considered by the people who God used to present the Bible to us as historical not symbolic. They know better than us of what’s written in it is literal and symbolic. Ask any Jewish rabbi about the Garden of Eden, the Genesis account of Creation and so on, I guarantee you they say it is literal not symbolic.

And what’s so “not so” about a snake talking? In the story of Balaam the donkey spoke. I guess you’ll question that story’s reality as well huh? What about the burning bush, not literal? Mount Sinai, not literal? The Passover, not literal? Jesus in the wilderness with Satan, not literal? The Resurrection, not literal? Pentecost, not literal? His second coming, not literal?

“As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, rooted and built up in Him and established IN THE FAITH, as you have been taught, abounding in it with thanksgiving. BEWARE lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.” (Col. 2:6-8)
___________
IF I based my reverence for God/Jesus Christ on any speck of His professed believers, then I wouldn’t believe in Him either (like those who don’t for this exact reason), because His people do a horrible job of representing Him. We’re all over the board when it comes to explaining Him and His Word. No wonder they think we’re simple or gullible, we can’t even come together on one Book.

------------------
Michelle: I agree there is a very real Jewish history, and Moses account of history. However, the problem is that Christians take the whole bible literal - Heaven, Hell, the fire, Satan, streets of gold, etc. The truths of the Kingdom are hidden in the literal things all around us (trees, relationships, look at all Jesus parables - not litereral, symbolic!). Trees are literal, yet Jesus uses them for our understanding of a deeper truth - This is my point!!!

In what God has shown me TODAY, the Spiritual meaning applies individual for my understanding of how awesome He is... Yes, I believe much of the bible has a literal history, but how does that change me from the inside (the letter?), No, it is the Spirit that gives life!!!

Gods creation is so amazing that whats around us has Spiritual meaning (the changing life, seasons, times, etc.) - The question is do we have Spiritual eyes and ears or carnal?

Me: Hey, I get what you are saying and have no problem with what you stated, but... “the problem is that Christians take the whole bible literal - Heaven, Hell, the fire, Satan, streets of gold, etc.”

How can you not take the existence of Satan (i.e. the Devil, Lucifer, etc.) literally? Again, do you deny Jesus’ wilderness experience with Satan? What about when Jesus said He saw Satan fall from heaven (Lk. 10:18)? Right there He takes care of Satan and heaven as literal. How do you explain not taking that literal?

Now whether Hell is really called hell with fire and brimstone or whatever is not worth going back and forth over. But by saying it’s a problem taking Hell (i.e. “the place where the eternal separation from God is served”) literal, you just rejected a number of passages within the Bible that clearly affirms this. How do you explain not taking that literal?

Streets of gold and such, that’s no big deal if some take it literal and others not. But to say it’s a problem taking Heaven (i.e. the promised New Heaven; also the paradise of being in a place with the presence of the Almighty for eternity) literal, again is rejecting a number of passages within the Bible that clearly affirms this. Even Jesus Himself affirms this (Jn. 14:3). How do you explain not taking that literal?

Yes we should be mindful of the literal and the symbolic. Yes we should know what scriptures fall in what category. YET, we should not water down one just to further emphasize the other. That was the problem with the second and third century Church. Paganism crept in and tried to emphasize on the symbolic and ignore (even deny) the scriptures that were literal. What happened as a result of that was “sacramentalism” and a host of other junk that sent the Church into a serious sick symbolic state for 1300 years, right up ‘til the Reformation.

Be careful not to over spiritualize the Bible, just as one needs to be careful not to over literalize the Bible. There are times, places, and things to take literal, and there are times, places, and things to take it symbolic. We have to be very careful teetering on that line and not make what is absolute as relative, and what’s relative as absolute.

Oh and it takes “Spiritual eyes and ears” to be able to receive what is literal, as literal (1Cor. 2:1-5, 13-14).

------------------
Michelle: Just two little things, How can I overspiritualize God, He is Spirit! God has shown me the Spirit gives life, not knowledge! Carnal mind is the enmity...

And I do not ignore scriptures when I study a topic or the bible, I just read them with different glasses now....

It may come to surprize that I do not find it required to read and study the bible to find God - His word is not letters on a paper, but His Word is Chirst in me, and ears to hear His Word for me personally,

God Bless

Me: I didn’t say over spiritualize God, I said don’t over spiritualize the Bible.

Yes the Spirit gives life, but what life is that? Is it not the life that our eyes, ears, hearts, and minds have been opened? Did not Jesus say that eternal life is that they (that would be us) may *know* the Father and Jesus Christ whom He sent (Jn. 17:2-3)? God even said my people perish for the lack of *knowledge* (Hos. 3:6). The knowledge God desires is knowing Him. This is not a bad or carnal thing, it is what God wants from us (Hos. 6:6).

“Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom,
Let not the mighty man glory in his might,
Nor let the rich man glory in his riches;
**But let him who glories glory in this,
That he understands and knows Me,**
That I am the LORD, exercising lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness in the earth.
**For in these I delight**,” says the LORD.” (Jer. 9:23-24)


I agree with your last statement. His word is more than simply words, they are words of Life and words of Truth! Without His word, how would we have known Truth or Life?

-------------------
Michelle: We need to have our own testimony of God and Know Him (not just words on paper), I agree!!! This knowledge comes from our own personal experience and testimonies, not others. (not even those who wrote the bible). To know God is to know love and to deny self absorbant ways. To me God has made this wisdom much easier then the bible scholars have through His Holy Spirit and Word in me. The change is inward, not outward - thats about all in a nutshell, at least the way I have come to know God.

Me: Yeah, we just have to be careful not to water down or give little weight to the Word of God. If the Bible was removed from the planet, a whole lot more of professing believers would fall sway to the ways, ideas, philosophies, and teachings of the world and/or false teachers. It’s bad enough a whole lot are already falling sway now with the Bible available, and that’s because they water it down and/or don’t take it seriously.

The Bible is our guideline/boundary, kind of like the lane dividers on the street that keep us in our respected lanes for our safety. If the lines begin to blur, vanish, or people just stop regarding them, how much more chaos and disorder would our streets be filled with? And how safe would we truly be on the road? That’s how life would be without the Word of God, or even a failed respect for the Bible- ex. what we see today.

Yes there is a personal responsibility to our testimony, but the Bible also plays a part in our development and relationship with God. Again, we wouldn’t truly know who we are believing in if it were not for the Bible. God has presented and preserved the Bible for us for a reason much greater than it just being words on paper.

4/2008