ATONEMENT...Happy Resurrection Sunday 2023

 Letting you know...WE'RE STILL HERE...Unsold...not bought out...still on the battlefield!!! tALK TO YOU MORE...SOON...

Read more!

Resurrection Sunday Sunrise Service ~ No Greater Love

Thanks to Fred Hammond & Radical For Christ for our "A" Selection!

Read more!

Passion Week Celebration & Bible Study w/ Pastor Burnett

The Dunamis Word on Youtube

Read more!

Academic Confusion...Class DISMISSED!

Although I feel that a "higher education" in ministry is not required to be an effective minister, pastor or church leader, I certainly do not discourage them that pursue this avenue. However, and with that said, I feel for some of our families who send their children to Universities expecting that their faith in Jesus and in the bible to flourish often are disappointed when those same children come back confused and sometimes disillusioned by professors that are either agnostic about God or just flat out atheistic in their approach to explaining away the bible and the God presented within it.

Individuals such as Dr. Hector Avalos, a Professor of Religious Studies at Iowa State University, who is an atheist (see my debate with him HERE, HERE and HERE) and Dr. Robert Price, who was once the Chair of Theological Studies at Johnnie Coleman Theological Seminary, and of course, Dr. Bart Ehrman who is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.(Evidently a position of certain distinction) Along with Dr. Ehrman at UNC is Mr. "Jesus Dynasty" himself, Dr. James Tabor who continues to attempt to prove that not only is Jesus buried, but he was not the Messiah, is of no special concern upon history, certainly is not God, had a human father that was certainly not God and had a secret family here on earth. You certainly don't expect to be confronted with atheist dogmas when trying to learn the bible, but that's par for the course.

Dr. Ehrman, who is a sort of a reluctant favorite of mine, as I will purchase a book here and there to see his latest and greatest mis-hits, or should I say, mis-directions, is one that is a preeminent scholar in New Testament Literature and, whether you agree with him or not, is a staunch advocate for a real Jesus as opposed to the Jesus mythers who seem to believe the garbage and stink of Richard Carrier's ideas are somehow "fresh" and enlightening. 

So, even though I gave Dr. Ehrman my anti-Christ Advocate award, I will commend him for vehemently arguing the historicity of Jesus. It seems that when Dr. Ehrman believes something to be true, he acquiesces to that truth and what he believes, as long as there is evidence in support of his position. So all of my critique of Dr. Ehrman is not necessarily negative, and if we were to meet, I would be honored to discuss matters with him I'm sure. (provided that he didn't charge me like he does to be a member of his blog)

WITH THAT SAID, I MUST still continue to condemn atheists and agnostics in seminary leadership positions such as Ehrman, for making it a mission to de-convert students who have trusted that they will grow in their faith and learn truth. It seems that many will be confronted with a healthy dose of misdirection, confusion and flat out deceit.

There are two things to be said about this however. First, it could be that some non-believing individuals attend seminaries directed by atheists, so that they can further develop their unbelief. There are some individuals who graduate from seminary, see opportunity to only make money in and from ministry. I am reminded of a theology school student who said, he didn't believe in God, but he was only taking the course because the church offered him a pastoral leadership job. For these hirelings, there is no conviction or call of God. It is only a money making venture, or a place to gain accolades and attention. Still there are others who only want to expand there pursuit of seeking to "bring down" the Christian faith. Teachers and professors such as Ehrman are the gurus they need to employ to help them increase in knowledge and to gain some sort of credibility.

Secondly, and this may be the case, maybe the expectations of sincere students and families are misplaced. It comes down to this for them, they should do better research,  I believe that it is ultimately the responsibility of the student and their family to research these institutions just like they research everything else. So I can't lay the total fault at Ehrman's feet.However, having placed a child in college, I understand that sometimes individuals are so overwhelmed with college acceptance and the name and prestige of a University acceptance or chance to be a part of a University, that research sometimes takes the back seat and emotions take control.

The Opportunity

This is where Professor Ehrman comes in. As I've stated, I believe that studying under him will   enlighten any student to certain truths and also certain errors. Certain materials that students would not normally be exposed to, appear to be discussed indepth. In addition I believe that he has a command of history and literature and would not relish a debate him on those singular issues. However, Dr. Ehrman's interpretation of biblical fact is very problematic and from the way his written material reads, the Professor seems to make whole cases off of a partial interpretations of scripture, and that is my problem with his presentations in general.e

Although I have never sat in or been a part of his class, I have however read some of his books and continue to review them from time to time (too much mis-information at once makes my head hurt) Dr. Ehrman does examine some complex Christian biblical "difficulties" but in most cases he conflates these "difficulties" to the level of faith breakers. In other words his presentation is one in which it would seem that he is saying, because this alleged "discrepancy" or proposed "contradiction" exists (whatever they are according to him) that the bible should be abandoned as the word of God and that the early church leaders did not know what Jesus they were referring to. Of course, this sort of narrative fits snugly into his overall premise as he seeks to hold out for his German predacessor, F.C. Bauer's theory of "competing Christianities", which seems to have been debunked ad nauseum by many in the scholarly community and especially by many of the fine authors and graduates of the Dallas Theological Seminary, and Biola University graduates, who's scholars produce some of the best reading available on religious studies. 

It seems that Dr. Ehrman's objective is to encourage believers to jettison the bible if something does not make sense to him or doesn't fit what he views as "evidence" for the Christian faith and faith belief. Rather than look for and present solid answers to his question, even if he maintains his question, Professor Ehrman takes the route that Christianity and the search of God through and by it is some kind of hopeless venture and that we are ultimately left to follow the dictates of our own minds and hearts.

The Heart Of The Matter

In this article, I will present one such topic about which Professor Ehrman makes a whole case without a thorough examination of the evidence and a point which may catch some of his students unprepared.

When Was Jesus God, Son Of God And Messiah?

Once such subject that Dr. Ehrman confuses the biblical text on is what the bible teaches about the deity of Jesus. This is the fundamental tenet of the Christian faith. One cannot be a Christian unless one considers Jesus as divine. Professor Ehrman however believes that Jesus being divine was nothing that was attributed to him in life but was only attributed to him after his resurrection. This is his argument in his book "How Jesus Became God" . The book Description says this:

"Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection. Only when some of Jesus’s followers had visions of him after his death—alive again—did anyone come to think that he, the prophet from Galilee, had become God. And what they meant by that was not at all what people mean today.

As a historian—not a believer—Ehrman answers the questions: How did this transformation of Jesus occur? How did he move from being a Jewish prophet to being God? The dramatic shifts throughout history reveal not only why Jesus’s followers began to claim he was God, but also how they came to understand this claim in so many different ways."

Ehrman makes somewhat of the same argument in his book, "Jesus Interrupted" [Harper Collins 2009].

On pgs. 94-95 speaking of Paul's preaching and teaching about Jesus, Ehrman notes:

"In Paul's speech to potential converts in Antioch of Pisidia, he speaks of God's raising o Jesus in fulfillment of Scripture: "What God promised to our ancestors he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, "You are my Son, today have I begotten you'(Acts 13:32-33)"

He then goes on to say:

"In this text the "day" Jesus became begotten as God's son was the day of the resurrection. But how does that square with what Luke says elsewhere? In Luke's gospel the voice utters the same words, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you"(Luke 3:22) when Jesus is baptized"

He draws it out further by pointing to Gabriel's instructions to Mary in confirming that the child that she would have would be divine (Lk. 1:35) saying:

"In this instance it appears that Jesus is the Son of God because of virginal conception: he is physically God's son"

He concludes by asking:

"How can Luke say all three things? I'm not sure its possible to reconcile these three accounts: it may be that Luke got three different traditions from three different sources that disagreed with one another on the issue."

This appears to be the argument that Professor Ehrman is making in his book, "How Jesus Became God" 

A student may have a difficult time answering this. Ehrman, certainly takes literally the term "this day" as to mean, that precise moment, locking Paul into a narrative that he taught that Jesus was only Messiah after his resurrection which may be in conflict with what the gospel writers contend. Again Ehrman sews the seed of hopelessness and non clarity. 

Are things as hopeless as Ehrman claims?

I think NOT. Here is the primary reason why:

Interestingly, in the same book, "Jesus Interrupted", Ehrman lists a number of reasons why he does not believe in the authority of scriptures and why he believes that the church has either mis interpreted Jesus words, or that Jesus words just do not exist to affirm that Jesus was deity prior to his resurrection. 

Since Ehrman contends that the gospels are late creations "around" what is believed about Jesus and are an amalgamation of sources, then let us revert to a minimal facts argument. Let's agree that there are other works that are not in dispute which may help us settle this issue. Surprisingly enough, without saying a word, Professor Ehrman agrees that there are such books which are authentic and not in dispute about what is said within them 

On Pg. 112 of the same book in the chapter "Who Wrote The Bible" under the section, "Are There Forgeries In The New Testament?" Professor Ehrman states the following:

"Of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, only eight almost certainly go back to the author whose name they bear: the seven undisputed letters of Paul (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon) and the Revelation of John (although we aren't sure who this John was)"

Interestingly, in most scholarly circles, it is believed that these letters, the ones that Ehrman names, were written prior to the gospels. In fact according to the late F.F. Bruce in his 1943 work, "The New Testament Documents Are They Reliable?" the most preeminent work and authority on New Testament documents and their dating, the dating of the works that Ehrman names are as follows:

Romans: 57 AD

1 Corinthians: 54-56 AD

2 Corinthians: 54-56 AD

Galatians: 48 AD

Philippians: 54 AD

1 Thessalonians 50 AD

Philemon: 60 AD

Now, that creates somewhat of a conundrum for Ehrman at this point. He has previously argued that the gospels were late developments. (I mean read the book and his works on the subject and you'll see). However, these works, some of the first that Paul wrote, were early developments. Most if not all prior to AD 60 and one, Galatians some 15 to 18 years after Jesus crucifixion (depending upon the date) Because of this, Ehrman, like most critical scholars would contend that what these books say are the actual teachings of the early church on the subjects that they embark upon. 

Paul On The Deity Of Christ

Interestingly enough, Paul says specifically what he means about Jesus and who he was and when he was deity. 

Philippians 2:5-11 ~ 5-Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6-Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7-But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8-And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9-Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:10-That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11-And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. 

This what scholars have deemed a "hymn" was delivered to the New Testament church by Paul from an early account within ministry. It is clear that Paul did not contend that Jesus was deity only after the resurrection. He contends, rather clearly that Jesus was deity, PRIOR to his virgin birth because he was/IS God!

Here is another that conforms to the thought that Jesus was pre-existent as God:

1 Cor. 8:6 ~ But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Remember, Paul was a monotheist in the most strict sense of the word. The attribution of the one God by "whom are all things" is not in contradiction or contrast to the Lord Jesus Christ "by whom are all things, and we by him". The statements are in accord with one another. 

Then  Paul further affirms that Jesus was the "Son", once again, from the beginning and not just after his birth or resurrection. 

Gal. 4:4 ~ But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, (ESV)

According to what Paul alludes to, his teaching did not just simply begin with him. He says in 1 Cor. 11:23. "For I have received of the Lord..." Certainly the resurrected Christ met Paul on the road to Damascus. This would allow a further revelation of Jesus to Paul as he records in Galatians 1.

There is somewhat of a scholarly consensus that Paul receives his instructions directly from the Lord in regards to the sacrament of the church that was already in existence as something commonly held and believed among the church. In other words, what Paul receives, by revelation, is in accord with what the believers of the "Way" were already practicing and teaching among one another. This would be a confirmation to believers that Paul had indeed either met Jesus by revelation or had been with church leaders and was versed in the early creed of the faith. 

I present the 1 Cor. 11 passage to address issues that the church was not aware of these things and that these issues were developed by Paul. Clearly they were not his creation. The church already had a "high view" of Jesus prior to Paul's interaction with them.  

Conclusion

Here we have a claim of Ehrman that the church and followers of Jesus was inconsistent as to when Jesus was God and Messiah. However, when we examine the scripture it does not display the discord that Ehrman claims. 

We see that from early documents, agreed upon to clearly have been written by the person claiming to have written them, that Jesus was taught to be not only God at birth or resurrection, but also preexistent and God before he came to earth. 

I haven't touched on the book of Revelation but if we go there, it is chalk full of more of the same information. At either rate, we do not see a church in conflict over when Jesus was Lord, Messiah or God. We see a church accepting that Jesus was God in a preexistent form, working miracles on earth and rising again from the dead to demonstrate his power over all life and death, ie: acting as God!

What are we to make of Luke's account in Acts 13 that Paul invoked Psalms 2 to say that "this day" or the day that Jesus was resurrected that he became the Messiah? Or that Jesus was somehow the Messiah only because he was born of a virgin?

Personally, I say not much!

Obviously, Paul taught that Jesus was God in a preexistent condition and therefore the Messiah at birth. To the Jews or Greeks who did not know, which was the context of Paul's preaching at Antioch, the resurrection, though having occurred prior to that day, would have been the day in which this revelation would have been made known unto them. Paul did not teach, in the early letters, neither did the church contend that Jesus became Lord or Messiah over time or because of some event that occurred during his lifetime no matter how special that event was. 

Further, Psalm 2 is a prophetic Psalm and was also alluded to by the writer of Hebrews to point to the deity of Christ as well. Similar to Peter's use of the book of Joel in Acts 2, Luke displays that Paul alludes to the time in which Jesus would reveal himself to the world, even the unbelieving Jew, by the irrefutable fact of the resurrection. 

What neither he nor Luke intend to convey is that the resurrection is the time in which Jesus would be made Messiah. While some would say that interpretation renders the use of the word "day" or "Yom" in Hebrew with undue ambiguity, because of the prophetic intent it is a moot point and one that does not have any bearing on the communication that Jesus was deity before he was born, was Messiah when he was born and is our savior because he shed his blood and demonstrated who he is through the act of resurrection. 

Clearly, that is what the church taught and what the church believed. Paul affirms this early as recorded in Acts. 

Blessed!

Read more!

The Resurrection Of Jesus, Critical Claims Debunked!

In this post I will refer you to the book "The Case For The Resurrection of Jesus" by Gary Habermas and Michael R. Licona [2004 Kregel Publications]. This is an excellent read presenting what is called the "minimal facts" approach to explaining the resurrection of Jesus and overcoming various objections and novel speculations. 

There are generally 5 primary objections to the resurrection of Jesus as recorded within the gospels. They are:

1- That there was no resurrection (this goes with that there was no Jesus, a concept which has been all but utterly debunked, even by many of the most liberal scholars)
2- Believers suffered from delusions
3- Believers suffered from hallucinations
4- Believers suffered an illusion
5- Believers suffered some sort of conversion disorder (Neurological disorder)

The first issue of "no resurrection" is also held by the religion of Islam, which claims that Jesus could not have risen because he didn't suffer death on the cross. This is also a view held by historic revisionists asserting that there was no Jesus of history (at least of biblical history) and that the gospel is a conflation of legend or ancient myth. I've noted that in my post, "The Raging Battle For The Jesus Of History". 

Although I don't plan to spend much time on either of those arguments in this post, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that both of those hypothesis are untrue. For one, even the most liberal scholars and even those whom I've deemed anti-Christ advocates, agree that there was certainly and without question  a Jesus of history, who's acts and actions were recorded within scripture. In addition, the extra-biblical record of Josephus, Tacitus, Lucien, Mara Bar-Serapion and the Talmud together provide strong evidence that not only did Jesus exist, but that he was crucified and died of crucifixion on the cross as the gospels recount. 

Read more!

Resurrection & The "Sign Of Jonah"

Matthew 12:38-40 ~ 38-Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. 39-But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: 40-For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

The front facade Of Ossuary 6

"We are convinced that the best explanation for these unusual epigraphic features in the Talpiot 

“patio” tomb is its proximity to the Jesus family tomb less than 45 meters away. What we apparently

have is a family connected to the Jesus movement who reaches beyond the standard burial norms of the 

Jewish culture of the period to express itself individually in these unique ways."

Dr. James D. Tabor Professor University North Carolina, Charlotte

Replica of ossuary 6 on display at Discovery Time Square, NY.

Professor, and historian Dr. James D. Tabor, University Of North Caroline Charlotte, and a team of archaeologists discovered what is being hailed as the earliest extra-biblical evidence that there was a belief in a resurrection among the first century believers of Christianity consistent with the gospel teachings of the "sign of Jonah" referenced by Jesus in the narratives of the gospel writers. 

Read more!

Lee Strobel, The Resurrection Took Me From Atheist To Apologist

Christian apologist Lee Strobel recently spoke to the Wall Street Journal in response to an atheists defense of why he was an atheist. The problem is that Lee was also a practicing atheist until he went on a two years search to undermine the facts of Christianity in effort to debunk the faith of his wife.

Lee decided to bump the small things and go straight to the heart of the Christian faith...The Resurrection. You see Lee knew that if the resurrection was false, then all of Christianity fails and Jesus is no more than a man if not only a myth in the minds of those seeking a world apocalypse. After 2 years on this search Lee surrendered to Christ and found a faith so vibrant that since 1981 he's been in full gear trying to share it with everyone that would listen.

How could this be from a trained professional journalist at the height of his secular career and trained in legal issues and evidences? What was offered so great that a person would risk all of his life and take courage to find something so vibrant and, living and true that he would be consumed by merely presenting the facts and helping others to discover the joy that he had found? 

What changed Lee's mind? It was the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 

Read more!

The Miracle Of Life After Death

Against miracles Philosopher David Hume stated; " “…a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm  unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined”…."nothing is esteemed a miracle if it never happened in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man seemingly in good health should die on a sudden: because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There must therefore be a uniform experience Against every miraculous event, otherwise that event would not merit that appellation. And as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle, nor can such a proof be destroyed, or the miracle rendered credible, but only an opposite proof which is superior.” (Emphasis mine) [David Hume “Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals 3rd. Edition”, Oxford, Clarendon Press 1992, pg. 144-146 & 148]

In my 2 posts on antisupernaturalism and miracles, found HERE and HERE, I discuss Hume's assertions that miracles don't exist. Although some interpret that he left the door open to miracles, for all practical purposes Hume defines miracles out of existence. Those arguments and his assertions have been thoroughly dealt with and handled throughout the years, but many of his concepts of radical metaphysical naturalism are popular among academics, college campuses and most any atheist internet web site. It is the assertions of Hume that fuel sentiments against miracles as "violations" of natural law.

Dead For 15 Minutes

John King: "You're a miracle, you're a miracle in many ways"

On Thursday May 13th on CNN's John King USA Capt. Joshua A. Mantz gave his story of life, death and life again.

Capt. Mantz, a proud Army Soldier, was serving in Iraq doing his duty when both he and Staff Sgt. Marlon Harper  were suddenly stuck with a sniper's bullet. The attack happened so suddenly that Captain Mantz recalls that he only had time to act on instinct and impulse. The shot had taken Sgt. Harper's life almost instantly but had sent shrapnel with force into his leg severing his femoral artery and causing a serious bleed out. Capt. Mantz grabbed his fellow soldier of 275 lbs under an adrenaline rush, hauling him to safety as the medic was called into action. Having to decide who to save, the medic began trying to work on Captain Mantz but he would eventually go on to experience death for 15 minutes as documented in Army records.

Hear Capt. Mantz for himself in the following video:

Read more!

The New Anti-Christ Advocates

Click Here For The Historical Facts Of The Resurrected Jesus

1 John 2:19 ~ "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us."

Normally I reserved this space to take a slightly different approach in discussing the condition of the church. My more Bible study oriented material can be found at The Dunamis Word 2. With that said however, I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to do a little teaching on the Resurrection of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ, because it and the complete Biblical record are under more scrutiny and flat out attacks today than seemingly ever before.

The resurrection of Jesus is arguably the most debated and discussed topic in history. In fact, the resurrection is the centerpiece of Christianity. Without it, Jesus becomes nothing more than a man and in fact the most deceitful man that ever lived on the face of the Earth. Paul too understood this and said to the Corinthian church in about AD55:

I Cor. 15:17-19 ~ "And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable."

For those who don’t already know, there is a new round of form and textual criticism has been levied against the church through books and publications from individuals and educators such as Microbiologist Richard Dawkins who in his book 'The God Delusion' claims supremacy of manking and materialism over God because, in his world, God does not exist. Therefore, according to Dawkins, the Bible is little more than a collection of pious fictions and is irrelevent to the plight of mankind. Dawkins is at odds with all religion but especially the Christian religion and dogma.

Richard Carrier who in his book ‘The Empty Tomb’ argues that "the earliest Christians probably believed Jesus had received a new body in the resurrection, and that stories of his old body disappearing from its tomb were developed later." He also argues it is less likely but still possible the original body of Jesus was misplaced or stolen.
There are others such as reported atheist Robert Price who is the Chair Of Theological Studies at Johnnie Coleman Theological Seminary, and Fellow of the Jesus Seminar. Has also, in books, such as ‘The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man’, ‘Deconstructing Jesus’ and ‘Beyond Born Again: On Putting Away Childish Things,’ has consistently challenged Biblical literalism and has argued for a more skeptical and humanistic approach to Christianity. He has also helped popularize the Gnostic tradition and has questioned the idea of a historical Jesus. Among atheists and agnostics his books and publications are very popular.

There continues to be a growing list of other atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and so called free-thinkers, promoting a continued rise in ant-Christ and anti-Biblical sentiments.

Even some "supposedly" Christian scholars such as fundamentalist Bart D. Ehrman who is currently a confirmed and "happy agnostic" and the author of 'Misquoting Jesus' (Click Here For A Summary Critique) and 'Orthodox Corruption Of Scripture' , have gone off the deep end into fantasy and sensationalism. Ehrman is also the Religious Studies Professor at UNC Chapel Hill. Professor Ehrman has concentrated on various aspects of Walter Bauer's thesis that Christianity was always diversified or at odds with itself. Ehrman is often considered a pioneer in connecting the history of the early church to textual variants within biblical manuscripts and in coining such terms as "Proto-orthodox Christianity." Professor Ehrman recently received much press and accolades from atheists with claims that the bible is unreliable and full of as many as 200,000 material errors called variants. What he fails to admit is that his number represents less than 5% of the Biblical text and most of the variants that he claims are a result of spelling and translation errors. Beyond that the rest of the supposed variants primarily deal with changes that had to be made to clarify meaning of the text, such as changing pronouns like "he and they" to proper nouns like "Jesus and The Disciples". In short when all things are considered there is no change in any essential doctrine that the Bible sets forth and certainly no change in any mainline Christian beliefs.

Then finally there are the near religiously insane such as Fr. John Dominic Crossan Co- founder of the Jesus Seminar who maintains the Gospels were never intended to be taken literally by their authors and the Body of Jesus was probably eaten by dogs ('Search For Jesus' ABC June 26th 2000) and possibly even drug through the streets.

These men and others have rejected the faith, claiming that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, and that the scriptures are erroneous and contradictory, and because of their weakness, continue to postulate ridiculous fantasies with no basis in actual events, facts, or history.

The aim of the enemy through them is to create doubt against the clear and overwhelming evidence for the historicity of the Jesus of the Bible and the resurrection account which confirms that only Jesus has power over life, death and sin.

II Timothy 4:4 ~ "And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables"

It is interesting to note that these men have done this because of the foolishness of their hearts. It is crucial that the Christian is able to know not only what he or she believes, but also why he or she believes it.

Romans 1:21~ "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened"

Because of the danger of abundant error, ignorance can not be an excuse for the serious follower of Jesus. I have written The Historical Fact Of The Resurrected Jesus In this article I will set forth some of the primary reasons why we as Christians can rest assured that our savior lives and that he rose on the third day as he said he would some 2000 years ago. The anti-Christ advocate looses EVERY battle and looses the war. I read the end of the book.

Heb. 10:35 ~ "Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward."

Blessed!

Read more!