Oprah Winfrey and the One World Church

I came across this video today that does a great job of explaining exactly what Oprah Winfrey believes about God via her own words and the words of her spiritual leader.

Considering how many millions of followers she has, it is worth taking five minutes to develop a good understanding of her spiritual beliefs so you will know the truth next time her name comes up at the water cooler.

The Religion of Oprah Winfrey from ericbarger on GodTube.

Men Who've Had Abortions

When one thinks about abortion and its victims, the first thought that comes to mind is, of course, the killing of an innocent human being. After that perhaps thought is given to the millions of women who have spent every day since having their abortion, regretting the decision they made (See Here). But what about the father? Are men affected by the decision of a woman to have an abortion? Here is a look at that very question.


The following was written by Albert Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. It appeared on his blog on January 8, 2008.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A new voice is emerging in the abortion debate, and this voice is a powerful witness to the tragedy of killing the unborn. This voice is the voice of the fathers of abortion.

"We had abortions. . . . I've had abortions," says Mark B. Morrow, a Christian counselor and participant in arranging four abortions. Morrow was speaking to a gathering of men who have become antiabortion activists through reflection on their own experiences and their own lost children.

Stephanie Simon of The Los Angeles Times provides a report on this new movement in "Changing Abortion's Pronoun," published in the January 7, 2008 edition of the paper. Here is her introduction to the story:

Jason Baier talks often to the little boy he calls Jamie. He imagines this boy -- his son -- with blond hair and green eyes, chubby cheeks, a sweet smile. But he'll never know for sure. His fiancee's sister told him about the abortion after it was over. Baier remembers that he cried. The next weeks and months go black. He knows he drank far too much. He and his fiancee fought until they broke up. "I hated the world," he said. Baier, 36, still longs for the child who might have been, with an intensity that bewilders him: "How can I miss something I never even held?"

That question haunts many men, as Simon's report makes clear. These men are raising their voices against abortion and the Culture of Death, and they call themselves "post-abortive men." As Simon explains, "Abortion is usually portrayed as a woman's issue: her body, her choice, her relief or her regret. This new movement -- both political and deeply personal in nature -- contends that the pronoun is all wrong."

The concept of "post-abortion syndrome" has gained currency in recent years as women who have experienced abortions speak of their trauma and pain. As the paper's report acknowledges, these reports of post-abortion pain and deep distress were cited in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision allowing the government to ban partial-birth abortions.

The focus on the voices of men is new, but it reveals again that abortion takes a toll on all concerned, including those who are the fathers of aborted babies. The stories vary with the individuals involved. Some of these "post-abortive men" demanded and facilitated the abortion, others never knew of the pregnancy until it was too late.

More from Mark Morrow:

Morrow, the counselor, described his regret as sneaking up on him in midlife -- more than a decade after he impregnated three girlfriends (one of them twice) in quick succession in the late 1980s. All four pregnancies ended in abortion. Years later, when his wife told him she was pregnant, "I suddenly realized that I had four dead children," said Morrow, 47, who lives near Erie, Pa. "I hadn't given it a thought. Now it all came crashing down on me -- look what you've done." A few months ago, Morrow reached out to the ex-girlfriend who aborted twice. They met and prayed together, seeking peace. After they parted, she spilled her anger in a letter: "That long day we sat in that God-forsaken clinic, I hoped every moment that you would stand up and say, 'We can't do this'. . . but you didn't."

"Look what you've done." Those words come with a haunting sense of reality, guilt, and grief. These voices are also causing concern among abortion rights advocates. As Simon reports:

Abortion rights supporters watch this latest mobilization warily: If anecdotes from grieving women can move the Supreme Court, what will testimony about men's pain accomplish? "They can potentially shift the entire debate," said Marjorie Signer of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, an interfaith group that supports abortion rights.

We can only respond with the hope that she is right. While the primary focus of the pro-life movement should be on the unborn baby who deserves to be born, a focus on the effects of abortion on both the women and the men involved holds the potential of reaching more minds and hearts.

A new voice is being heard in the abortion debate -- and it's about time.

Why I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus

Last night I gave a two hour presentation at my church on "Why I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus." I spoke about what the resurrection is and is not and factors that increase reliability. Then I examined the evidence of the empty tomb, the multiple appearances and the changed lives of the disciples. I concluded with an examination of, and argument against, popular theories denying the resurrection such as the swoon theory, hallucination and legend.

This presentation was much more in depth and therefore a bit more heavy and intellectual than my series on the resurrection, so some readers may prefer just to read the series.

You can find a copy of my outline from last night's presentation HERE or click on the link under the "Topical papers" section.

The Tomb of Jesus?

Okay I realize the alleged discovery of the tomb of Jesus has been around for a few weeks and I haven't posted anything about it yet.

I came across a poll that said 97% of all people think that James Cameron's documentary is a fraud so I didn't think it was worth addressing. But after more thought I realized not everyone may see it the same way as I do and someone may come across a person from that remaining 3%.

Several well respected scholars and websites have already covered this topic extensively so I'm not going to reinvent what's been done. The following are the places I think do an excellent job while maintaining readability:

Associates for Biblical Research (By far the most thorough analysis, written by a friend of mine)

CARM (Always one of my favorite sites)

Stand To Reason (A review of the documentary from STR)

Bible Places Blog (This site has lots of links but you may need to do a little digging)

I also address the issue of the tomb of Jesus HERE, HERE, and HERE

The Guardian

Due to the busyness of my schedule I don’t often get a chance to go to the movies and when I do, I usually go to one that doesn’t require much heavy thinking, as a way to “escape” if you will. This blog is not a source for movie reviews, however it does focus on contemporary apologetics and after watching this movie, it got me thinking about something that I wanted to share with you.

I went and saw “The Guardian” a few days ago. The Guardian (staring Kevin Costner and Ashton Kutcher) is a movie about the United States Coast Guard rescue swimmers. Although the film takes some creative license, these men and women have arguable the most difficult job in the world. When you are far out to sea in the middle of a dangerous storm and your boat is sinking, these men and women risk their own lives, as their motto so clearly states, “So Others May Live.”

So others may live. What a noble concept; sacrificially ending one’s own existence so that someone else can extend theirs. It sounds nice but is it accurate?

Perhaps being accurate isn't the right question. Perhaps a better question would be to ask “Is believing in the nobility of laying down one’s life so that another can live, consistent with a person’s worldview?”

Let me try to unpack that a bit:

As a follower of Jesus Christ, I believe that human beings are valuable because they are made in the image of God (See Genesis 1:26). Sacrificing one’s own existence for another is noble and virtuous. John 15:13 says “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”

However not everyone can say that. There are many different worldviews and religions that teach many different things. Depending on your specific worldview/religious beliefs will determine whether you truly believe saving another’s life at great personal risk is noble, foolish, or moot.

Consider the following:

Evolution/Naturalism – An evolutionist (or naturalist) believes that mankind exists as the result of pure accident. That protons, neutrons and atoms just happened to combine the right way to create life and over billions of years humans are the latest in a series of life forms. But if you believe in evolution you can’t ascribe worth to a human any more than you can a rock. Neither has more value than the other. Jumping from a helicopter into 20 foot seas to save a person is no more noble than trying to save a piece of granite.

Furthermore, risking your life to save another is contradictory to the “survival of the fittest” philosophy embraced by Charles Darwin. Darwin stated that mankind’s chief end is to survive in order to pass down your genes to the next generation. Those most fit to survive will pass on their genes and those least fit will die off, thereby continuing the evolutionary process. But by risking your life to save someone else, you not only risk removing yourself from the gene pool, but enabling one “less fit” to continue to pass their genes on. Rather than being a righteous action, the rescue swimmer is simply demonstrating his/her own “less fit” status for passing on genes than that of the victim. Saving another’s life at risk to your own is a complete contradiction of Darwin’s philosophy. (To further develop this concept read my post on “What is a Right?” by Clicking Here).

Hinduism – A Hindu would have a hard time finding the nobility in sacrificing your life because the victim essentially had it coming to them. Hindu’s would argue that the victim’s potential drowning must have been bad karma from his/her previous life. They would say that hopefully in the next life the victim would do better in breaking free from the cycle of reincarnation.

Buddhism – A Buddhist would find no nobility or justification in self-sacrifice because there really isn’t a problem at all. The victim isn’t really drowning and you’re not really there to save them because you, the victim, and the raging seas around you don’t really exist in the first place. You just appear to be a person at a specific point in the cycle towards reaching enlightenment. It's simply an illusion.

Atheism – An atheist would have to find the rescue swimmer foolish to sacrifice his/her life. Since atheists don’t believe in God they can’t justify or attribute any value to human beings, and since they don’t believe in an afterlife, there would be no “reward” in heaven (or paradise etc.) for the foolish actions of the rescue swimmer. Nothing to look forward to but complete nothingness as your body rots away.

When I look at these different worldviews in this situation I find myself struggling with what I know to be true in reality. That deep down in my heart, saving another's life is a good thing. While sitting in that theatre I don’t know how many Buddhists, Hindu’s, Atheists, or Naturalists there were, but I presume there had to be some. However I couldn’t find a single person in that theatre that seemed to be feeling anything less than genuine admiration for the rescue swimmers of the US Coast Guard. Nobody mumbled about “foolish acts for no good reason.” Nobody yelled out that “Nothing that film depicts really existed so what’s the big deal?” Nobody sighed outloud “He must have deserved to drown due to Karma. I’m sure he’ll do better in the next life.”

Not one single person. In actuality it was quite the opposite. I personally believe that’s because deep down in all of our hearts we know that sacrificing our life for another is among the most noble, generous, loving things we can do.

We can make up all kinds of excuses about where we came from, whether we have a second shot at life, or whether we even exist at all, but when it comes time to put our beliefs to the test, all these beliefs will fail, most without even realizing it, because God didn’t create us that way.

God loves mankind so much that he sacrificed his Son for us, and being made in his image and following his example, it is the supreme act of love to do it for another and for that reason alone, do we find self-sacrifice for the benefit of others to be among the most noblest of all deeds.

Did They Really Say That? # 2

"The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy"

-- Bringham Young in Journal of Discourses 11:269 on August 19, 1866

(Bringham Young was the second prophet and former President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints [Mormon])

Jesus Walked on Ice? (part 2)

<--- Modern Day Sea of Galilee

Since some of you may not be familiar with the story of Jesus walking on the water, I will start this post by looking at the biblical account first. The story of Jesus walking on the water can be found in three of the four gospels. It is recorded in John 6:16-21, Mark 6:45-52, and Matthew 14:22-33. Since the account in Matthew has the most detail, I will use it as my base passage.

"Immediately Jesus made the disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowd. After he had dismissed them, he went up on a mountainside by himself to pray. When evening came, he was there alone, but the boat was already a considerable distance from land, buffeted by the waves because the wind was against it. During the fourth watch of the night Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. "It's a ghost," they said, and cried out in fear. But Jesus immediately said to them: "Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid." "Lord, if it's you," Peter replied, "tell me to come to you on the water." "Come," he said. Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!" Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. "You of little faith," he said, "why did you doubt?" And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."

- Matthew 14:22-33


The Sea of Galilee is 650 feet below sea level, 145 feet deep and surrounded by hills. These physical features make it subject to sudden windstorms that cause massive waves.

Okay, so let me paint the picture for you. Earlier in the evening Jesus sent the disciples on ahead out to sea while he stayed back to pray. Now it’s roughly four o’clock in the morning and there’s a boat full of experienced fishermen out about 3 ½ miles from shore. They are tired from a long night out at sea and then the storm comes in. Because of the geographical features of this sea, fierce winds pick up and massive waves begin crashing around the boat. Verse 24 states that the wind was so strong that the boat couldn’t move against it.

Are you picturing this scene?

For arguments sake, let’s set aside that Jesus, as God incarnate obviously would have the ability to control the laws of nature (after all, he created them). Let’s bring Nof’s theory of ice on the Sea of Galilee into the picture and see what that looks like.

So how is it Jesus, in his sandals and robe, manages to maintain his balance on a piece of floating ice, through a storm fierce enough to hold back a fishing boat full of experienced fishermen, for 3 ½ miles? Have you ever walked on a frozen pond or an ice skating rink without ice skates? It’s incredibly difficult to do even under the best of conditions. I would argue that it would be impossible for a man to do what Jesus did, under the conditions argued by Nof.

But let’s look deeper. In verse 29 we see that Peter wanted to join Jesus on the water. After an invitation by Jesus, Peter gets out of the boat, and walks to Jesus. After a few moments Peter realizes the ferocity of the storm, and takes his focus off of Jesus and onto the waves around him and subsequently begins to sink.

Of course this raises questions for me. If Peter was on ice, why did he begin to sink? Furthermore, if there truly was ice on the water, wouldn’t Peter or the other disciples be able to see it as he readied himself over the edge? Wouldn’t one of them be able to counter Jesus’ apparent miracle with an eyewitness account of floating ice? Yet we have no hint that that happened.

Obviously Nof takes none of this into consideration. His biased approach of supporting his predetermined conclusion leaves no room for critical analysis or plain old common sense.

Coming from a background in law enforcement, I tend to put a lot more weight on eyewitness testimony than I do any other form of evidence. In analyzing this journal article, whether I look at problems with the study, or problems that arise when compared with the biblical account, I am left with one definitive and critical question: If Jesus was doing nothing more than merely surfing on a piece of ice, than why did all of the disciples worship him saying ‘Truly you are the son of God’”?

Jesus Walked on Ice? (part 1)

<---- Current Location of the Sea of Galilee (AKA Lake Kinneret)
[click on photo to enlarge]

There is a new study out by Florida State University Professor Doron Nof in the April edition of the Journal of Paleolimnology. The study claims Jesus didn’t walk on water, rather an obscure and rare storm caused part of the Sea of Galilee to freeze, enabling him to walk on ice. Once I was able to stop laughing at the absurdity of this statement, I decided to investigate it for myself and I actually read through the article. (For those of you without access to the journal, you can checkout a news article about it by CLICKING HERE.)

As I began to read the article, I realized that there were some major problems with Professor Nof’s arguments. For ease of reading, I decided to categorize these flaws into two different categories: problems with the study and problems when compared to the biblical text.

My first problem with this study is that it’s speculative and just plain bad science. Professor Nof started his study as a witch-hunt. With a reputation for developing theories of natural causes to biblical accounts (i.e. the flood, parting of the red sea) Nof appears to develop his conclusion first and then tries to find data to support his conclusion. Any 6th grader could tell you that this is the opposite of the true scientific method which seeks to derive its conclusion from the data rather than vice versa.

For example, Nof states “With the idea that much of our cultural heritage is based on human observations of nature, we sought a natural process that could perhaps explain the origin of the account that Jesus Christ walked on water.”

Doesn’t this sound like they aren’t so much interested in discovering truth, no matter where it lies (i.e. the scientific method) but rather intentionally seek to find data establishing a non-miraculous explanation?

In an interview after the study, Nof said “I’m not trying to provide any information that has to do with theology here, all we’ve thought is about the natural process. What theologians or anybody else does with that it’s their business so to speak.”

This may sound nice at first, but think about what he’s actually saying “all we’ve thought about is the natural process.” This means he automatically excludes anything that isn’t a natural process, right from the start. The cards are already stacked against anything miraculous from even being a possibility. His pursuit isn’t to seek truth, but rather to cast doubt. It’s no different than a junior high girl starting a rumor just because she doesn’t like someone.

Nof makes numerous other statements supporting this such as “…our present explanation does not exactly address ‘walking on water’ but rather provides a plausible physical process that has some characteristics similar to those described in the New Testament” but I think you get the point.

But in the interest of fairness, let’s look at what arguments Nof himself claims. Remember, Nof’s whole argument is that the water in the Sea of Galilee was frozen, thereby allowing Jesus to appear to walk on water when in actuality he was walking on ice. Nof argues that while just about impossible for the sea to freeze today, it possibly froze a handful of times over the past 2600 years.

The following are quotes taken directly from Nof:

Throughout recent history there have been no known records of a total ice formation on its top. Furthermore, given that convection requires an initial cooling of the entire lake down to 4°C, it is difficult to imagine how such a low-latitude lake, presently subject to two-digit temperatures during the winter, could ever freeze.

Such a perfect combination of conditions on the low-latitude Kinneret [Sea of Galilee] might well seem miraculous. In the last 120 centuries, Nof calculates the odds as roughly once in 1,000 years. However, during the life of Jesus the prevailing climate may have favored the more frequent formation of springs ice -- about once in 30 to 160 years

"In today's climate, the chance of springs ice forming in northern Israel is effectively zero, or about once in more than 10,000 years."

As natural scientists, we simply explain that unique freezing processes probably happened in that region only a handful of times during the last 12,000 years,"."

So let me make sure I understand, in the last 12,000 years the sea has probably frozen over 12 times, and in today’s world (which is the time frame we are doing the study) it’s practically impossible to have it freeze over, we are discounting the eyewitness testimony from those actually at the scene and are now asserting that the timing was so perfect as to allow an opportunity for Jesus to present himself as a fraud?

In the next post we’ll compare the study to what the Bible has to say about the events of that day.

Humans Are No Different Than Apes?

This seems to be the case according to the London zoo. I read an article a few weeks ago that said the London zoo was now putting human beings on display. (You can read the article and see pictures for yourself by CLICKING HERE).

As I read through this article several thoughts popped into my mind. The first was, “Are you serious?”

According to the zoo, the purpose of this display is to show that humans are no different than animals. Rather we are simply primates like an ordinary monkey. Polly Wills, the spokeswoman for the zoo, said “Seeing people in a different environment, among other animals…teaches members of the public that the human is just another primate [emphasis mine].”

Just another primate? How many other primates use the telephone on a daily basis? How many other primates invented mass entertainment like television and movies? How many other primates invented methods of transportation allowing them to visit their primate relatives anywhere else in the world in less than 24 hours? How many other primates have put their species on the moon AND the depths of the ocean? Seems to me that at the very least our accomplishments and lifestyle should put us into a whole other category which brings me to my next point.

Aren’t classifications like “primate” and “species” a human invention? Sure there are types of animals that may look similar to the eye, but there is no law that nature imposed on itself in regards to classifications. Prior to scientists developing this classification system there was nothing like it in nature. So to say that humans are just another primate seems kind of pointless. Classifications change and many scientists disagree on certain animals belonging with other animals in the same category.

Perhaps most of all I was surprised by the inconsistencies in the zoo administration’s actions and beliefs. For example, these humans on display are wearing bathing suits with fig leaves on them. My question is why? If we are just another primate shouldn’t we be in the nude as that is our natural state? To put humans in bathing suits is like putting a blanket around the elephant, it isn’t found in nature. I would presume that zoo officials would argue they are wearing clothes so as not to offend anyone. Offend another member of the same species by appearing in our natural state? Hmmm, that’s interesting as I can’t think of a single other animal that does that. Could it be because we have morals and values which are ALSO something that no other species has? How can we be “just another primate” if we are the only ones with morals and values?

My second question is why are the humans allowed to go home at night? Why don’t we just walk down the street, kidnap a few humans and through them in and lock away the key? No other animals get to go home at night. It’s because we have certain values and rights (like respecting life and freedom) which we grant to each other. No other animal does this. So how can we be observing humans as “just another primate” if we have created all of these unnatural stipulations?

For my final thought I find it fascinating that humans in the zoo are covered by fig leaves. Why fig leaves? The only answer that makes sense to me is that it’s taken from the story in Genesis chapter 3. (In Genesis 2:25 we find Adam and Eve, the first man and woman, were naked and felt no shame. After being tempted to, and subsequently, rebelling against God, Adam and Eve “…realized they were naked, so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.” [Genesis 3:7])

But this is peculiar because the zoo officials seem to not have much difficulty taking that part of the story out but they sure don’t buy into the part about God creating man. Seems to me that isn’t very intellectually honest; but that’s a post for another time.

In conclusion, I’d like to leave you with the words from Almighty God himself on how He feels about humans, and let you decide on your own if, as the London zoo advocates, we’re “just another primate.”

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-- everything that has the breath of life in it-- I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

-- Genesis 1:26-30

Conclusion to the Series on Intelligent Design

Recent support for the Intelligent Design movement has caused a major wave in scientific communities. Historically Darwinists could write off those that support Intelligent Design as ignorant religious fundamentalists. However a new understanding of the differences between Intelligent Design and Creationism has driven a wedge into their argument. Although Intelligent Design does claim to find substantial evidence in the world for a designer, Intelligent Design does not claim to have knowledge about that designer nor does it seek it.

Intelligent Design has forced many in the scientific community to realize that there is a difference between philosophical assertions and scientific ones. For example, a true Darwinist cannot look at something in the world and say it is “bad.” For that would either be contrary to the “natural selection” viewpoint or it would pre-suppose a designer who made a mistake. Either way it would be a philosophical observation and not a scientific one. It is important for academic integrity for philosophy to remain philosophy and science to remain science.

Intelligent Design has also shown many that its foundational concepts are used in everyday life and accepted without challenge. Crime Scene Investigators, Archeologists, Military Cryptographers and many more use Intelligent Design to help them with their tasks all the time. Yet when these same proven and trusted precepts are moved over to the biological realm, a huge uproar occurs. Intelligent Design has shown that many people are ignorantly living in an inconsistent worldview.

Intelligent Design has brought to the surface several hypocrisies in the scientific community. Scientists are trying to have the best of both worlds when they exclude Intelligent Design when trying to explain origin of life but embrace it when they need to figure out whether something is a worthless rock or priceless artifact. Intelligent Design has also forced the scientific community to reveal its ugly side. As more and more overwhelming evidence for Intelligent Design becomes apparent, more and more of the arguments against it turn to smear campaigns against the person’s character rather than against the theory itself.

In the past few years the Intelligent Design movement has gained massive momentum. More and more top scientists are beginning to study the concepts Intelligent Design utilizes and are beginning to realize the truth behind it. History has shown that there is a pendulum of public opinion that sways back and forth. Since 1859 the pendulum has been swinging towards the theory that evolution contains the answers to the origin of life. However, with the recent developments in Intelligent Design, I believe that pendulum has clearly reached its apex and is rapidly swinging the other direction.

Thank you for taking the time to bear with me through this series. I realized Intelligent Design is not an easy topic to understand and you may be even more confused than when you started. But I hope you have learned a few things and realize that when held to the same standard of other sciences, biology must at least look at Intelligent Design theory as a possibility until evolution moves from a theory to a scientific law.

Is Intelligent Design Used Today?

In our last post I briefly mentioned the concept of consistency. Today I want to look at examples of Intelligent Design being not only used, but widely accepted in a wide variety of disciplines in today’s world. As we take this quick journey I hope you can quickly see that opponents of Intelligent Design are …….

The concepts behind Intelligent Design are used today in many different disciplines of science. In fact, many different fields of science would not be able to function or even exist without some form of acceptance of Intelligent Design.

For example, a Crime Scene Investigator uses Intelligent Design when he approaches a crime scene and has to determine whether a person died as an accident or the result of foul play.

If an Archeologist finds a weird shaped rock he must determine if it is the result of abnormal weathering or if it was chipped that way by a pre-historic hunter.

A Military Cryptographer must decide if a piece of paper handed to him with jumbled letters is just a random sequence or the enemy’s secret code. All three of these disciplines use precepts, such as specified complexity, found in Intelligent Design.

Naturalists claim that we must have solid natural explanations to work with. Eugenie Scott in her essay entitled The Nature of Change (Click Here to read the article), wrote “…but even if we didn’t [have solid explanations to work with], science only has tools for explaining things in terms of natural causation.”

Again we are faced with an incompatible situation. Scott is claiming that science can only explain things in terms of natural causation. This is true if, and only if, the person establishing scientific guidelines decides to incorporate it. In and of itself there is no reason natural causation has to be a criterion. In fact, it seems quite suspicious that it would be there in the first place. The only logical reason would be to ensure that it could exclude any theory that relies on something that mere human reasoning cannot explain. Again we are faced with the scientific community not actually being interested in the truth, but what fits with their agenda.

Another point to consider is that if Intelligent Design is well received in certain scientific fields but not others, serious problems begin to arise. As seekers of truth and academic integrity we must begin to ask questions about this. For example, how can we trust the Archeologist or Crime Scene Investigator if the objective methods used are only true for his field and not others? Wouldn’t truth be truth regardless as otherwise it would be relative?

Phillip Johnson raises a great question when he asks “If design is a legitimate subject for scientific investigation in the case of computers, communications from space aliens, and peculiar markings on cave walls, why should it be arbitrarily excluded from consideration when dealing with the biological cell or the conscious mind?” We must hold those in the scientific community accountable for hypocritical practices.

I hope you can see that those opposed to Intelligent Design theory really aren’t opposed to the theory in any field whatsoever, except biology. When one becomes opposed to a theory based on personal preferences instead of pursuit of truth regardless of where it leads, we no longer have science, we have chaos.

Arguments against Intelligent Design

Okay, so now we (hopefully) have a basic understanding of what Intelligent Design is. However not everyone believes in this theory. I want to take a moment and look at some of the more common objections that are out there.

One of the biggest problems opponents of Intelligent Design face is that of not mixing scientific assertions with philosophical or religious ones. True science requires a neutral mind open to all possibilities in the pursuit of truth. Yet most naturalists assert that Intelligent Design has no place in science academia and should be kept to religious circles.

Phillip Johnson wrote in Signs of Intelligence:

“Scientific materialists think that advocates of Intelligent Design are either irrational or dishonest because they are advocating as science a proposition that ought to be confined to religion, namely the claim that scientific evidence points to the reality of a designing intelligence in the origin and development of life.”

But how can science honestly say it is pursuing truth if it already has preconceived stipulations set in place?

For example, Robert T. Pennock states in his essay Mystery Science Theater that:

“The origin of species once seemed equally mysterious, but Darwin followed the clues given in nature to solve that mystery. One may, of course, retain religious faith in a designer who transcends natural processes, but there is no way to dust for his fingerprints.”

Here we can already clearly see that Pennock has closed his mind to a creator God simply because he can’t see evidence of it that is up to his standard. In other words, “dusting for fingerprints” would have to fit his own subjective criteria of evidence as opposed to another person’s criterion where the intricacies of ecosystems or complexities of plate tectonics could suffice.

Dembski has a great retort to this problem. In The Design Revolution he says:

“So long as intelligent design has a demonstrable secular purpose – advancing science, enriching the science curriculum, preventing viewpoint discrimination, promoting academic freedom – its motivation even if religious is legally irrelevant.”

Another problem facing opponents of Intelligent Design is that they are acting inconsistently with their worldview. They claim that they will not accept Intelligent Design as a legitimate theory because it has religious suppositions behind it. Yet those in science and academia conceptually accept and even use Intelligent Design in their everyday lives. Although the next post will specifically focus on these areas, I want to bring up one example here.

This is an example Phillip Johnson gives in his chapter of Signs of Intelligence; “If they [science academia that currently reject Intelligent Design] were to receive a signal containing a sequence of prime numbers as portrayed in the movie Contact, they would conclude it came from intelligent beings – without the need for independent evidence of the existence and nature of aliens.”

Here you can see an example of where the scientific community would be stuck between a rock and a hard place. The evidence would clearly show signs of intelligent life, yet the method used to assert this is the very method they deny as religiously based.

Robert Pennock addresses this issue in his essay Mystery Science Theater. (Click Here to read the article). Here he brings up the very issue of the movie Contact and claims:

"…a design inference like that in the movie Contact, for instance, would rely on background knowledge about the nature of radio signals and other natural processes, together with the assumption that a sequence of prime numbers is the kind of pattern another scientist might choose to send as a signal. But the odd sequences found within DNA are quite unlike a series of prime numbers."

But Pennock is mistaken. He is so focused on the specifics involved with the radio signals, that he completely misses the concept being represented; namely that it is possible to make an inference of something you don’t know about from something that you do know about.

Okay, my guess is by now your head is spinning, I know mine is, let’s call it a day and come back later for an analysis of Intelligent Design in use today.

Intelligent Design is not Creationism

One of the ACLU’s biggest arguments is that Intelligent Design is just hidden Creationism. However, Intelligent Design and Creationism are not the same thing!

According to Webster’s New World Dictionary, Creationism is “the doctrine that ascribes the origin of matter, species, etc. to acts of creation by God.” This differs from Intelligent Design in that Intelligent Design only looks for a designing intelligence, and not for information about the designing intelligence. In fact we could be living in a world designed by Martians and as long as it was designed by the Martians this would be totally consistent with the theory of Intelligent Design.

Perhaps William Dembski said it best when he wrote “Creation is always about the source of being of the world. Intelligent Design is about arrangements of preexisting materials that point to a designing intelligence. Creation and Intelligent Design are therefore quite different. One can have creation without Intelligent Design and intelligent design without creation.” (The Design Revolution, 38)

Some people will argue that Intelligent Design is just disguised theology but if they really understand the theory they will realize that it is not. Although it is similar to Creationism in that it has theological implications, it differs in that it does not require specifically theological, biblical presuppositions (i.e. earth created in a day). In fact, even if the Intelligent Design of some structure has been established, it is still a separate question whether a wise, powerful and beneficent God ought to have designed a complex information structure one way or another. (Signs of Intelligence, 10)

Intelligent Design is not concerned with why the designer decided to do something one way and not the other, it is not concerned with what the designer was thinking at the time, and it is not concerned with who the designer is/was. Intelligent Design is only concerned with the fact that there is a designer.

This difference between Intelligent Design and Creationism seems to be a difficult concept to grasp for many Darwinists. For reasons unknown, many seem to attack the individual supporting Intelligent Design instead of attacking the theory of Intelligent Design itself. If you are like me, you may have experienced this yourself.

It seems that because many who support Intelligent Design also happen to be Christians (even though Christianity and Intelligent Design do not have to correlate) makes for an easy target on religious grounds.

For example, Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southern Louisiana University, wrote a paper titled The Newest Evolution of Creationism. In this paper she states her views on the Intelligent Design movement. The following are some quotes from that paper: (It should be noted that Wells and Johnson are well known supporters of the Intelligent Design movement).

[Jonathan] Wells, influenced in part by Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon, earned Ph.D.'s in religious studies and biology specifically "to devote my life to destroying Darwinism.”

[Phillip] Johnson, a law professor, whose religious conversion catalyzed his antievolution efforts…

At heart, ID proponents are not motivated to improve science but to transform it into a theistic enterprise.

Note that none of these statements have anything to do with the suppositions set forth by Intelligent Design, but have everything to do with the person that supports it. The quotes listed above are not selected at random but rather give a complete picture as to the nature of the essay. (Click Here to read the article) It is sad to see that those who are considered professionals in their field struggling so badly to find faults with the theory that they are reduced to avoiding it altogether and simply attacking the person.

I hope you’ve been able to see that Intelligent Design theory, although compatible with Creationism, is NOT a requirement for, nor is it a component of creationism.

What is Intelligent Design?

Seems like we should probably start out by defining exactly what Intelligent Design is. According to William Dembski (perhaps the world’s leading scholar in the field of Intelligent Design), Intelligent Design is the name given to a theory of science that states “there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence.” (William Dembski’s The Design Revolution, page 27).

Now Intelligent Design uses several factors including specified complexity (independent improbable patterns [more on this later]) and irreducible complexity (organisms that cannot be broken down into smaller functioning organisms like some kinds of bacteria) as proof of its existence.

But it is important to define what we mean by the word “intelligent.” According to the book Signs of Intelligence (by Dembski and Kushiner), the intelligent design community understands “intelligent” to refer to “an intelligent agency, irrespective of skill or mastery.”

Confused yet? I hope not, but I had to get that out of the way to set up our foundation.

Intelligent Design is the antithesis of Darwinism. Darwinism, also known as Naturalism, states that the natural world is all there is. It believes the world is exclusively explained in natural terms. Darwinism states that factors such as natural selection and random variation account for life on the planet. When a naturalist (it should be noted that naturalist and Darwinist are interchangeable for this series of posts) talks about science, he will speak from the perspective that the natural world is all there is.

This perspective is contrary to one who subscribes to Intelligent Design. A supporter of Intelligent Design would feel that the results of an intelligent agency can be detected empirically and that the natural world bears evidence of intelligent agency. They would also likely say that naturalism is not only bad philosophy but bad science (we’ll look at this more in depth later).

When dealing with Intelligent Design there are two important facts to keep in mind. First, Intelligent Design is not creationism. I will go into more details later but let me state that Intelligent Design does not account for who designed the world, only that it was designed. In other words, Intelligent Design does not require a belief in God.

Secondly, from a Christian perspective, it is important to remember that Intelligent Design is not an apologetic. Although it does have implications for use in apologetics, it is more pre-evangelistic in nature. (Kind of hard to use it to defend God’s existence if it doesn’t require God’s existence eh?)

Okay, I think that’s good enough for a brief introduction to our topic. I think that this post will be the most complicated of all of them because it sets the foundation. I would recommend re-reading it a few times if you are still confused.

Introduction to Intelligent Design

Parents listen up. If you have children in the United States public school system, these next few posts will be very important to you. As the debate over evolution becomes more and more common in our court system, you need to be armed with a basic understanding of the issues.

Earlier this week I read a news article entitled Pennsylvania Lawmakers Debate Evolution in Schools. The article went on to explain that there was a big debate over whether or not to allow “Intelligent Design” theory in public schools before a federal court. Definitely not uncommon. However, having studied this concept at the Master’s level, I was more than interested to read the article.

Predictably, I was saddened at the lack of understanding of Intelligent Design theory, especially by such a large group of educated people.

As such, I’ve decided to do a series on Intelligent Design. As you can imagine ID can be a pretty complex topic so my goal is to break it down into bite sized pieces that make sense.

I want to look at topics like: What is Intelligent Design? Is Intelligent Design really just hidden creationism? Is it in use anywhere today?

Now I’ll be upfront, the purpose of this series is NOT to defeat Darwinism or evolution; nor is it designed to explain Specified Complexity. Those are a topics better suited to a different series at some point in the future. The purpose of this series is simply to help make the theory of Intelligent Design a little more understandable. As always, I’ll do my best to quote from reputable Scholars so you have a chance to research what I have stated, on your own.

As you go through the series and learn more about what Intelligent Design is and is not, I’d like you to keep in mind the following quote from the article as it shows a very common attitude from the ACLU towards the theory of Intelligent Design”

“’How many new biotechnology companies will want to locate here in Pennsylvania if our students are being taught a watered-down version of the complexities of evolution?’ asked Larry Frankel, legislative director for the state’s ACLU chapter”

If you would like to read the article in its entirety, Click Here

Did Jesus Really Rise From The Dead? – Conclusion

Over the past 8 posts you’ve joined me on a journey to determine whether or not Jesus of Nazareth really died on the cross and rose again from the dead, or if the story is just a legend passed on for centuries. In our journey we covered a lot of territory and I want to briefly recap what we learned. First we looked at what the resurrection is and is not.

We then looked at five separate factors increase the reliability of information we are looking at. While none of these factors alone can 100% prove anything, taken together they make for a powerful argument.

Next we looked at the evidence of the empty tomb. We examined the burial procedures that were used and we identified participants and eyewitnesses that ensured Jesus’ body made it into the tomb. We learned that both believer and skeptic alike agreed that the tomb was empty and we identified by name, those that discovered and verified that the tomb was empty.

We then examined the multiple appearances of Jesus after his death. We saw how sometimes he appeared to individuals and other times he appeared to large groups. We also saw the consistency that ran throughout these appearance narratives.

After looking at the appearances we examined the behavior of the eyewitnesses. In other words, we put their words aside and looked at their actions. We saw that despite having every reason not to, the disciples were convinced of Jesus’ resurrection. We concluded by determining that no one dies for what they know to be a lie, and yet every single disciple (minus 1 who was banished to a remote island) were executed for their belief in the resurrection.

We then finished our study by looking at some of the alternative views to the resurrection. We examined what each theory claims and then looked at them in light of what we learned about the resurrection.

I hope you have been able to see that there are clear, rational, and logical reasons for believing in the resurrection of Jesus as a true historical event. Perhaps in the past you’ve asked yourself “What makes Jesus so different from any other historical figure?” Well, I can take you to the grave of Buddha, Mohammad, and Gandhi, but I cannot take you to the grave of Jesus Christ. Jesus is the only person in all of history to claim to be God, and then back it up by raising himself from the dead. I can’t think of any stronger evidence one can show than by single handedly conquering death and for that I believe in him and his message; that because of our sins, the only way to God is by belief in his Son Jesus.

Did Jesus Really Rise From The Dead? – Alternative Views

So far I’ve laid out what I believe to be a strong case for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. However, having studied apologetics extensively I have come across several “alternative views” to the resurrection. I’d like to take a closer look at some of the most popular alternative views and then comment on them in light of what we’ve learned in the past several posts.

The first alternative view is the “Legend Theory.” That is, the New Testament accounts of the resurrection are the product of a legend produced over time. Well there are some basic evidentiary problems with this view. The biggest problem is that the historical documents narrating the event can be traced back to a time period when eyewitnesses were alive whom could easily refute the account. These documents trace back to the original disciples that were involved as well as the original location (Jerusalem) of the resurrection. Additionally, many Scholars agree that a legend takes a minimum of 2 generations to develop. Therefore, there simply wasn’t enough time, nor is there enough evidence to support this theory.

The second alternative view is the “Swoon Theory.” This view holds that Jesus didn’t really die on the cross, he just swooned, and was awakened while in the tomb. No one really holds to this view anymore except for Muslims. Here’s the problem – to hold to the swoon theory one must believe:

First, Christ didn’t die on the cross. Then the professional Roman executioners whose lives were on the line if the punishment wasn’t carried out, didn’t ensure he was dead. (Remember they didn’t need to break his legs). Next, the spear in his side which both split open his lung and pierced his heart didn’t kill him. The incredible agony and stress leading up to his execution in addition to his weakened state due to the floggings and beatings didn’t precipitate his death. Then with no food or drink or way to ease his suffering he had to lay in a pitch black tomb. Next, in his weakened condition he would have to get up from under 92 pounds of spices and burial clothes that were bound so tight they eliminated any movement. He would then need to find and roll back the stone at the entrance of the tomb which historians agree was a wheel made of granite, 8 feet in diameter and 1 foot thick weighing about 4 tons, all by himself. He would have to do this silently because after he moved back the stone he would still need to sneak past the guards and escape so he could appear to his disciples as active and radiant.

Is this reasonable to believe? I’ll leave that for you to decide.

The third alternative view is that someone stole the body. Well right off the bat there are two things to notice. First, it presupposes the tomb was indeed empty, and second it assumes that someone knew where the correct tomb was located. But there are some big problems with this theory. First, it doesn’t explain why the disciples believed they saw the risen Jesus. Second, it doesn’t explain why Paul or James (neither of which believed in Jesus while he was alive) converted to Christianity. Thirdly, even if this was true, it would only explain the empty tomb, it wouldn’t disprove the resurrection.

The fourth alternative view I’ve heard is the “Wrong Tomb Theory.” That is, Jesus’ followers went to the wrong tomb. This theory is full of problems. First, we have absolutely no ancient documents that say they went to the wrong tomb (Remember, we know from Matthew that the Jewish authorities had to bribe the guards so say the body was stolen, not that they went to the wrong tomb). Secondly, we know the tomb was owned by Joseph of Aramethea (and his servants) and therefore could have easily been pointed out the location of the correct tomb. But perhaps the most powerful evidence is that the Bible claims the correct location of the tomb was known by many (See Mark 15:47, Matthew 27:61, Luke 23:55, John 19:39). But regardless, even if the disciples did go to the wrong tomb, it still wouldn’t account for the appearances of the risen Jesus to the disciples.

The fifth alternative view is that of naturalism. That is, “Only science proves what is true.” However we must look at exactly what science is. Science only relates to what can be observed and tested. By definition, a historical event cannot be observed and tested and therefore all historical events must then be disqualified. So you can’t argue that science can be used to “prove” historical events. But a more important aspect of this view is that it is self-refuting. Science, in and of itself, cannot prove that only what science proves is true. In other words, you can’t put take “science” into a laboratory, observe it and record observations and discover that only what science proves is true. Therefore, the statement cancels itself out. As if that wasn’t enough, there are many things we accept that are outside of the purview of science. Things like "love" and "ideas" cannot be observed or measured but no one denies they exist.

The sixth and final alternative view is the “Hallucination Theory.” That is, the disciples must have hallucinated when they saw the risen Christ. This view may seem reasonable at first glance, but let’s look a little deeper. Hallucinations occur to individuals, they do not appear to groups. However Jesus appeared to both individuals AND groups (remember appearing to the 500 at one time). He was also seen by friend AND foe over a period of forty days. Hallucinations don’t last for 40 days. According to most Psychiatrists, hallucinations generally only appear to certain kinds of people: those that are high-strung, highly imaginative, and very nervous. Yet Christ appeared to multiple people, in a strict Jewish culture, under very different circumstances. It doesn’t seem logical for all of them to have a hallucination. But even if one does hold to the hallucination theory, it still doesn’t explain the empty tomb.

I realize there are many other alternative views out there but space doesn’t allow me to address them. I hope that you are able to see that when people give you alternative views to the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, you don’t need to be nervous. Instead look deeper into what they are claiming and compare it to what you’ve learned about Christ’s resurrection. I believe you will quickly see that when one objectively looks at the evidence of Christ’s resurrection, the truth of the event shines through and all other views quickly fall away.

Did Jesus Really Rise From The Dead? – Dying For A Cause

So far we’ve looked at written documents left behind by the eyewitnesses of Jesus’ resurrection. I’d like to transition from looking at their writings to looking at their lives. I don’t know if you are like me, but often times I feel that “talk is cheap.” I am much more interested in actions than I am in words. That’s why I believe the evidence of the eyewitnesses’ lives is just as powerful as the documents they left behind. The Disciples clearly believed they had seen Jesus Christ appear to them after they saw him executed; their words, actions and the course of the rest of their lives hinged on this one central belief.

Before we can truly understand their behavior, we must look at what their mindset was to help us understand what was really going on. For those who have studied the Bible you know that the Messiah was supposed to liberate Israel from the Roman oppressors. He was not supposed to be executed by them. This is what made it so difficult for the Disciples to understand Jesus’ predictions about his death. So when we examine the behavior of the Disciples, we see a group of men who abandoned and denied Jesus at the time of his arrest and execution who suddenly turned into men who boldly and publicly proclaimed his resurrection to the point they were executed for it. We must ask ourselves what was the origin of this belief? There are really only two options: influence from either Jewish or Pagan sources (you can’t argue for Christian influence because Christian influence hadn’t been invented yet).

To argue the origin was from Pagan influences is absurd. People will often quote ancient Greek mythology stories involving a resurrection (unfortunately these people don’t realize the first traceable mythological resurrection story is dated to 100 years AFTER Jesus’ time). To claim that the early Disciples thought their friend would come back to life based on Greek folk tales would be like you thinking your friend came back from the dead because you saw the movie E.T. Clearly Pagan mythology is not the appropriate way to understand the resurrection story.

The second option is from Jewish influences. We know that the concept of the resurrection wasn’t a new concept for a Jew as it was found in many places throughout the Old Testament (Isaiah 26:19, Daniel 12:2, Ezekiel 37). However the Jewish belief of the resurrection was ALWAYS after the end of the world and NEVER before that. This is the frame of mind the disciples brought with them in approaching the resurrection. This helps explain why it was so hard for them to understand Jesus’ predictions about rising from the dead; the resurrection only occurs at the end of the world. Given the 1st century Jewish beliefs about resurrection you cannot explain the Disciples and other early Christians belief in the resurrection of Christ outside of the actual event itself

But let’s put this aside for a moment. I want to focus on what I think is the most powerful argument that the Disciples saw Jesus Christ raised from the dead. The Disciples were willing to die for their belief. Now let me be clear about this, being willing to die for a cause does not verify the truth of their statements, it just verifies the sincerity of their statements. (For example, the terrorists that flew into the world trade center were sincere in their beliefs that this horrific act would secure their place in paradise, but that doesn’t mean that the act actually did secure their place). Every single one of the Disciples (minus John who was banished to an island) and numerous other witnesses of Christ’s resurrection were executed for their belief in the resurrection. Now many of these people weren’t killed immediately. Some had up to 30+ years before their death. It just doesn’t make sense why someone would go 30+ years knowingly believing a lie and then giving their lives for that lie. So how do we know the Disciples died specifically because of their belief in Jesus? Well, in addition to the Bible we have several non-Biblical sources that record these accounts: Clement (1 Clement 5:2-7), Ignatius (Letter to Smyrna 3:2-3), Polycarp (To the Philippians 9:2), Dionysus of Corinth (cited by Eusebius in Eccleastical History 2:25:8), Tertullian (Scorpiace 15), and Origen (Contra Celsum 2:56, 77) are just a few.

It is very important that we take into consideration the behavior of the disciples after Christ’s resurrection. We know they believed they had seen the risen Jesus, despite having every reason to the contrary, to the point they willingly gave their lives in defense of that belief. That is powerful evidence! Perhaps Jewish Rabbi Pinchas Lapide said it best:

“This scared, frightened band of the apostles, which was just about to throw away everything in order to flee in despair to Galilee; when these peasants, shepherds, and fishermen, who betrayed and denied their master and then failed him miserably, suddenly could be changed overnight into a confident mission society, convinced of salvation and able to work with much more success after Easter than before Easter, then no vision or hallucination is sufficient to explain such a revolutionary transformation”

Did Jesus Really Rise From The Dead? – The Appearances

Well, so far we have looked at the accuracy of the burial account and established the fact that the tomb was empty. But big deal, all an empty tomb tells us is that the body wasn’t there. This leads us to our second area of evidence for the resurrection of Jesus; the multiple appearances of Jesus Christ after his execution. Had Jesus only appeared to one of the disciples, it would be pretty difficult to believe he had resurrected from the dead. But Jesus didn’t appear to just one person. Instead he appeared to many different people, individually and in groups, over a span of time. I won’t go into exquisite detail of the resurrection appearances as books have been written about this topic, nor do I want to investigate the appearances as recorded by the gospels, rather I want to examine the appearances from the perspective of Paul as recorded in 1 Corinthians 15:5-8. Although the gospels record the different appearances of Jesus quite adequately, I want to look at Paul’s account for two reasons. First, almost all Scholars agree that Paul’s writing of 1 Corinthians predates all four of the Gospels which makes it the earliest account that we have. Secondly, because in reading 1 Corinthians we have an authentic letter from the former chief persecutor of the Christian church who was an eyewitness to, and also in contact with other eyewitnesses to, the risen Jesus. This makes his testimony much more powerful than any of the gospel writers.

1 Corinthians 15:5-8 reads:

“and that he appeared to Peter and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.”

Although this passage takes up a little bit of space, it packs in lots of important information. Paul first mentions that Jesus appeared to Peter. This account is independently attested to in Luke 24:33-34. (Remember what I said earlier, that events are much more credible if more than one source records it [Multiple Independent Attestation in Scholar speak]). Paul then mentions that Jesus appeared to the 12 disciples. This is account is independently attested to by Luke in Luke 24:36-43 and John in John 20:19-20.

Next Paul mentions that Jesus appeared to over 500 people at once. 500 people! Now sometimes when I mention this people will point out that this account isn’t found anywhere else in the New Testament (which I guess implies it isn’t as credible?). But I’m not so sure about that. Some people believe, me included, that this appearance to the 500 is recorded in Matthew 28:16-17 which reads “But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful.”

Let me tell you why I believe these were the same appearance. First, it was on a mountain. Mountains were necessary to accommodate large groups of people (remember the feeding of the 5,000 and the teaching of the Beatitudes were on mountains). Secondly, it was by appointment. The disciples were told to go there and wait for Jesus. This provided plenty of time for other people to hear the news and gather together as well. Thirdly, Matthew records that “some doubted.” Who were these people? Surely not the disciples. Could they have been some of those 500 that had gathered around? I know my argument isn’t airtight but that’s okay, it doesn’t have to be. Even if Matthew is talking about a totally different appearance that doesn’t discount the authenticity of Paul’s record. It simply means we don’t have a second record of it. More important than the number of sources is Paul’s challenge. When Paul writes “most whom are still living yet some have fallen asleep” he is directly challenging his readers to verify the accounts for themselves. By knowing that some have died (fallen asleep) Paul is showing he isn’t just passing along some story but that he is personally acquainted with these individuals. He must know who these people are to know which ones are dead and which ones are alive. On a side note, just to help explain the magnitude of these 500 witnesses seeing Jesus alive after his execution, if all 500 of these witnesses were brought into a courtroom and each one spoke for only 6 minutes, you would have 50 hours of courtroom testimony.

Continuing on with our study, we see that next Jesus appeared to James, Jesus’ own brother. Now according to Galatians 1:19, we know that Paul had firsthand information of this appearance by talking directly with James when he traveled to Jerusalem. Okay, quick pause for background information, even though they grew up together, James did NOT believe that his brother Jesus, was the Messiah nor the son of God. We know this from both Mark 3:21 and John 7:5. We also know that after Jesus’ death James DID become a believer in Jesus. We know this because James was executed by the Sanhedrin in 65 AD for leading the church in Jerusalem. So how do we explain this conversion of James to faith in Jesus? Here’s an even better question: what type of event would need to take place to convince you that your brother was the Lord and would cause you to be willing to be executed for that belief? I don’t know about you, but for me it would take nothing less than seeing my brother come back from the dead.

According to Paul, Jesus then appeared to the apostles again and then finally appeared to Paul himself. Although we’ve only looked at one small passage regarding the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, I hope you can see that Jesus appeared to many people over a span of time in the very city he was killed in. He didn’t appear to just one person way out in the woods never to be heard from again; that is of course unless you believe the account of Joseph Smith in the Book of Mormon.

Did Jesus Really Rise From The Dead? – The Empty Tomb – Part 3

So far we’ve looked at several different aspects of the empty tomb. We know that we have reliable and accurate information telling us that the body was placed into the tomb. We know that the resurrection account started in very location the death and burial took place providing many opportunities for those eyewitnesses involved to be thoroughly questioned. Next we discovered that despite every logical reason for it to be the disciples, it was women who discovered the empty tomb. Finally we examined that both Peter and John went and verified the women’s story.

In wrapping up our analysis of the empty tomb, I want too look at a few other factors that I think provide further evidence the tomb was indeed empty. The first factor is Jewish cultural reverence for its Rabbis. In ancient Judaism the graves of Rabbis were carefully cared for and honored. In some cases, the Rabbi’s students would visit the grave of their Rabbi every year. This is important for two reasons. First, people would have a vested interest in knowing where the tomb was in order to visit it. Many had been healed or had their lives changed by Jesus’ ministry. It is reasonable to think that they would have an interest in where the gravesite was. This leads credence to the fact that the location of the tomb was known by many. Secondly, there is no report of people hanging around Jesus’ tomb years after his execution. Although it doesn’t “prove” anything, the absence of veneration at the tomb of Jesus does highly suggest that the tomb was empty. In other words, if the tomb was empty, than it would have lost its significance as an object of veneration.

A second, and very powerful, evidence for the empty tomb is the response by the Jewish authorities. The very first, and only, response we have from the Jewish authorities is found in Matthew 28:12-15 which says “And when they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, and said, "You are to say, 'His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep.' "And if this should come to the governor's ears, we will win him over and keep you out of trouble." And they took the money and did as they had been instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day.” Now for a moment let's ignore the rather obvious information presented here, that is, that the Jewish authorities had to bribe the guards to cover the incident up. Instead let’s look at the inferences that can be made from this account. First off, the fact that they were trying to bribe the guards to say the disciples stole the body presupposes that the tomb was empty. If the tomb wasn’t empty, why say the body was stolen? Secondly, this account eliminates the argument of “they went to the wrong tomb.” If the Jewish authorities were bribing the guards, then they not only knew the tomb was empty, but they knew the location of the correct tomb. The fact that the earliest, and only, Jewish response to the empty tomb allows for both the location of the tomb to be known as well as a verification of the tomb being empty provides a very powerful argument in favor of Jesus’ resurrection.

Although the gospel accounts can easily stand up to the toughest scrutiny, there are other accounts outside of the Bible that specifically mention the empty tomb. Justin Martyr, Trypho 108, and Tertullian De Spectaculis 30 are just a few of the sources that validate that the tomb was empty.

As our examination of the empty tomb comes to a close I’d like you to remember what I said in the introduction to this series. First, we need to access what are the facts. So far we’ve investigated the burial account, eyewitness testimony, the Jewish leader’s response and non-biblical sources, all of which independently verify the truth that the tomb of Jesus was empty two days (three by Jewish timekeeping) after his execution. The second thing we need to do is ask ourselves what is the most reasonable explanation of these facts? The way I understand it, there are only two possible explanations for the empty tomb. The first explanation is that it was a human work. But which humans? Jesus’ enemies had the power to empty the tomb, but they had no motive. Jesus’ followers had the motive to empty the tomb, but they lacked the power. I believe the most reasonable explanation to the empty tomb is the second option, that is that God in his incredible and limitless power, raised Jesus from the dead.