Mary Ann

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:23:30 GMT

So I'm sitting at work, BORED out of my mind! Our boss blocked MySpace, which sucks! I can still go on it with schoolunblocker.com, but that's just a pain! haha! And she's probably have a stroke if she found out we did that! So regardless of the sites that I go to, I delete ALL files and cookies and everything. I'm sure she's love to know I was blogging at work!! hahaha!

So not much has been happening lately. I'm looking for a place to rent that won't take ALL of my money because I'll still have to pay for utilities! lol! A friend of mine is very good friends with a girl who works for the state's Habitat for Humanity. So she's going to talk to her about what I might be able to get. I'm waiting!! That would be awesome. Low interest (low payment) mortgage...and I'd OWN the house one day!!

ummm...I still talk to Adam...almost everyday. Wade registers for MIDDLE SCHOOL (6th grade) tomorrow. It only depresses me because I remember starting middle school like it was yesterday...so I feel a little OLD! lol! I can remember many events from 6th grade!! So he's gonna give band a try. We'll see how that goes. And I've let him know that if he gets bad grades or gets in trouble then NO SPORTS. And in later grades the school won't let him play sports if he has bad grades or whatever. So I'm hoping that this can be the REBIRTH of behavior that he so desperately needs!! Hopefully middle school will be the difference he needs. I DON'T KNOW! I remember quite a few kids who were kinda bad in elementary school who either didn't act so bad in middle school or the school wasn't as "strict" as PTH! lol!

Speaking of PTH...I felt for them DEEPLY when I read the newspaper Friday (I think it was). Lee Walker (old CESCA principal) was named the interim principal at PTH. Poor poor PTH folks!!! I could go on and on about Lee Walker, but alas, I won't speak TOO ill of the battle-axe!!

Anyways, I know I've been a little slack at commenting, but I swear that I have been reading posts, but sometimes I just don't have the time to comment...especially at work!

from fridayfiver

Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:22:44 GMT

1. What is your local lake/river/sea?
Lake Wateree...then a small one which is Kendall Lake

2. Do you believe in dragons and unicorns?
no

3. What is your favorite fruit?
Granny Smith apples...and Grapples!!

4. Do you smoke?
yes

5. Friday fill-in:
Together they would BE HAPPY! - lmao!

RIP....Kurt Vonnegut

Thu, 12 Apr 2007 22:06:04 GMT

Kurt Vonnegut

The author of Slaughterhouse-Five and one of America's greatest humanists dies at 84.

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 23:16:52 GMT

I found this video made at the Pavilion in Myrtle Beach 2 weeks before it closed forever. Man, Myrtle Beach is not gonna be the same to me without the Pavilion. If you're from SC or been to Myrtle Beach, you probably know what a landmark the Pavilion was. I loved that place!!

RIP---Gerald Ford---1913-2006

Wed, 27 Dec 2006 06:21:27 GMT

Gerald R. Ford, who picked up the pieces of Richard Nixon’s scandal-shattered White House as the 38th and only unelected president in America’s history, has died, his wife, Betty, said Tuesday. He was 93.

“My family joins me in sharing the difficult news that Gerald Ford, our beloved husband, father, grandfather and great grandfather has passed away at 93 years of age,” Mrs. Ford said in a brief statement issued from her husband’s office in Rancho Mirage. “His life was filled with love of God, his family and his country.”

The statement did not say where Ford died or list a cause of death. Ford had battled pneumonia in January 2006 and underwent two heart treatments — including an angioplasty — in August at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

He was the longest living president, followed by Ronald Reagan, who also died at 93. Ford had been living at his desert home in Rancho Mirage, Calif., about 130 miles east of Los Angeles.

Ford was an accidental president, Nixon’s hand-picked successor, a man of much political experience who had never run on a national ticket. He was as open and straight-forward as Nixon was tightly controlled and conspiratorial.

He took office minutes after Nixon flew off into exile and declared “our long national nightmare is over.” But he revived the debate a month later by granting Nixon a pardon for all crimes he committed as president. That single act, it was widely believed, cost Ford election to a term of his own in 1976, but it won praise in later years as a courageous act that allowed the nation to move on.

The Vietnam War ended in defeat for the U.S. during his presidency with the fall of Saigon in April 1975. In a speech as the end neared, Ford said: “Today, America can regain the sense of pride that existed before Vietnam. But it cannot be achieved by refighting a war that is finished as far as America is concerned.” Evoking Abraham Lincoln, he said it was time to “look forward to an agenda for the future, to unify, to bind up the nation’s wounds.”

Ford also earned a place in the history books as the first unelected vice president, chosen by Nixon to replace Spiro Agnew who also was forced from office by scandal.

He was in the White House only 895 days, but changed it more than it changed him.

Even after two women tried separately to kill him, the presidency of Jerry Ford remained open and plain.

Not imperial. Not reclusive. And, of greatest satisfaction to a nation numbed by Watergate, not dishonest.

Even to millions of Americans who had voted two years earlier for Richard Nixon, the transition to Ford’s leadership was one of the most welcomed in the history of the democratic process — despite the fact that it occurred without an election.

After the Watergate ordeal, Americans liked their new president — and first lady Betty, whose candor charmed the country.

They liked her for speaking openly about problems of young people, including her own daughter; they admired her for not hiding that she had a mastectomy — in fact, her example caused thousands of women to seek breast examinations.

And she remained one of the country’s most admired women even after the Fords left the White House when she was hospitalized in 1978 and admitted to having become addicted to drugs and alcohol she took for painful arthritis and a pinched nerve in her neck. Four years later she founded the Betty Ford Center in Rancho Mirage, a substance abuse facility next to Eisenhower Medical Center.

Ford slowed down in recent years. He had been hospitalized in August 2000 when he suffered one or more small strokes while attending the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia.

The following year, he joined former presidents Carter, Bush and Clinton at a memorial service in Washington three days after the Sept. 11 attacks. In June 2004, the four men and their wives joined again at a funeral service in Washington for former President Reagan. But in November 2004, Ford was unable to join the other former presidents at the dedication of the Clinton presidential library in Little Rock, Ark.

In January, Ford was hospitalized with pneumonia for 12 days. He wasn’t seen in public until April 23, when President Bush was in town and paid a visit to the Ford home. Bush, Ford and Betty posed for photographers outside the residence before going inside for a private get-together.

The intensely private couple declined reporter interview requests and were rarely seen outside their home in Rancho Mirage’s gated Thunderbird Estates, other than to attend worship services at the nearby St. Margaret’s Episcopal Church in Palm Desert.

In a long congressional career in which he rose to be House Republican leader, Ford lit few fires. In the words of Congressional Quarterly, he “built a reputation for being solid, dependable and loyal — a man more comfortable carrying out the programs of others than in initiating things on his own.”

When Agnew resigned in a bribery scandal in October 1973, Ford was one of four finalists to succeed him: Texan John Connally, New York’s Nelson Rockefeller and California’s Ronald Reagan.

“Personal factors enter into such a decision,” Nixon recalled for a Ford biographer in 1991. I knew all of the final four personally and had great respect for each one of then, but I had known Jerry Ford longer and better than any of the rest.

“We had served in Congress together. I had often campaigned for him in his district,” Nixon continued. But Ford had something the others didn’t, he would be easily confirmed by Congress, something that could not be said of Rockefeller, Reagan and Connally.

So Ford it was. He became the first vice president appointed under the 25th amendment to the Constitution.

On Aug. 9, 1974, after seeing Nixon off to exile, Ford assumed the office. The next morning, he still made his own breakfast and padded to the front door in his pajamas to get the newspaper.

Said a ranking Democratic congressman: “Maybe he is a plodder, but right now the advantages of having a plodder in the presidency are enormous.”

It was rare that Ford was ever as eloquent as he was for those dramatic moments of his swearing-in at the White House.

“My fellow Americans,” he said, “our long national nightmare is over. Our Constitution works. Our great republic is a government of laws and not of men. Here the people rule.”

And, true to his reputation as unassuming Jerry, he added: “I am acutely aware that you have not elected me as your president by your ballots. So I ask you to confirm me with your prayers.”

For Ford, a full term was not to be. He survived an intraparty challenge from Ronald Reagan only to lose to Democrat Jimmy Carter in November. In the campaign, he ignored Carter’s record as governor of Georgia and concentrated on his own achievements as president.

Carter won 297 electoral votes to his 240. After Reagan came back to defeat Carter in 1980, the two former presidents became collaborators, working together on joint projects.

Even as president, Ford often talked with reporters several times a day. He averaged 200 outside speeches a year as House Republican leader, a pace he kept up as vice president and diminished, seemingly, only slightly as chief executive. He kept speaking after leaving the White House, generally for fees of $15,000 to $20,000.

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

James Brown, died this morning...at 73

Mon, 25 Dec 2006 17:05:29 GMT

James Brown, the dynamic, pompadoured "Godfather of Soul," whose rasping vocals and revolutionary rhythms made him a giant of R&B and an inspiration for rap, funk and disco, died early Christmas morning. He was 73. Brown was hospitalized with pneumonia at Emory Crawford Long Hospital on Sunday and died around 1:45 a.m. Monday, said his agent, Frank Copsidas of Intrigue Music.

Piggly Wiggly

Tue, 07 Nov 2006 22:06:34 GMT

I started a group on MySpace called Piggly Wiggly. For those who work at (or used to work at) Piggly Wiggly...anywhere. Hopefully it'll catch on. I hope that a lot of people from Piggly Wiggly Carolina stores join. I'm trying! lol!!! If you ever worked at the Pig then JOIN!!!!! http://groups.myspace.com/pigglywiggly78

And all you ever wanted to know about Piggly Wiggly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piggly_Wiggly

rapture...

Thu, 07 Sep 2006 12:18:26 GMT

This sends one heck of a message!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmLhyPjHVes

MY SOUTH

Sat, 29 Jul 2006 17:29:29 GMT

TO MY REBEL FRIENDS, THIS WILL PUT A LUMP IN YOUR THROAT.... ALL THEY LEFT OUT WAS ABOUT OUR PIG PICKENS, OYSTER ROASTS, SWEETGRASS BASKETS, CRABBIN ... AND THE SMELL OF PLUFF MUD TELLIN YOU YOU'RE HOME...... AND WE DO GO BARE-FOOTED AN AWFUL LOT.

My South

This was written by Robert St. John, executive chef and owner of the
Purple-Parrot Cafe, Crescent City Grill and Mahogany Bar of Hattiesburg,
MS.

Thirty years ago I visited my first cousin in Virginia. While hanging out
with his friend, the discussion turned to popular movies of the day. When
I offered my two-cents on the authenticity and social relevance of the
movie
Billy Jack, one of the boys asked, in all seriousness; "Do you guys have
movie theaters down there?" To which I replied, "Yep. We wear shoes too."

Just three years ago, my wife and I were attending a food and wine seminar
in Aspen, Co lo. We were seated with two couples from Las Vegas. One of
the Glitter Gulch gals was amused and downright rude when I described our
restaurant as a fine-dining restaurant. "Mississippi doesn't have
fine-dining
restaurants!" she insisted and nudged her companion. I fought back the
strong desire to mention that she lived in the land that invented the
99-cent
breakfast buffet. I wanted badly to defend my state, my region, and my
restaurant
with a 15-minute soliloquy and public relations rant that would surely
change her mind.
It was at that precise moment that I was hit with a blinding jolt of
enlightenment, and
in a moment of complete and absolute clarity it dawned on me ... my South
is the
best-kept secret in the country. Why would I try to win this woman over?
She might move down here. I am always amused by Hollywood's
interpretation
of the South. We are still, on occasion, depicted as a collective group of
sweaty, stupid,
backwards-minded, racist rednecks. The South of movies and TV, the
Hollywood South, is not my South.

THIS IS MY SOUTH...

My South is full of honest, hardworking people.
My South is the birthplace of blues and jazz, and rock n' roll.
It has banjo pickers and fiddle players, but it also has BB King,
Muddy Waters, the Allman brothers, Emmylou Harris and Elvis.
My South is hot.
My South smells of newly mowed grass.
My South has kick the can, creek swimming, cane-pole fishing and bird
hunting.
In my South, football is king, and the Southeastern
Conference and the Atlantic Coast Conference is the kingdom.
My South is home to the most beautiful women on the planet.
In my South, soul food and country cooking is the same thing.
My South is full of cornbread, butter beans, fried chicken, grits and
catfish.
In my South, our transistor radios introduced us to the
Beatles and the Rolling Stones at the same time they were introduced to
the rest of the country. The Beatles' performance on the Ed Sullivan Show
was
even on our TV's !
In my South, grandmothers cook a big lunch every Sunday,
so big that we call it dinner ... (supper comes later).
In my South, family matters.... deeply.
My South is blackberry cobbler, peach ice cream, banana pudding
and oatmeal cream pies.
In my South people put peanuts in bottles of Coca-Cola
and hot sauce on almost everything.
In my South the tea is iced
and almost as sweet as the women.
My South has air-conditioning.
My South is camellias, azaleas, wisteria and hydrangeas.
In my South, the only person that has to sit on the back of the bus
is the last person that got on the bus.
In my South, people still say ...
"Yes, ma'am," "No ma'am,"
"Please" and Thank you"
In my South, we all wear shoes.... most of the time.
My South is the best-kept secret in the country.
Please continue to keep the secret....
it keeps the idiots away.

Sat, 10 Jun 2006 17:02:27 GMT

How do we know Jesus rose from the dead?

Did Jesus actually rise from the dead? Does it really matter whether He did or didn't?

Ronald Gregor Smith gives a typical reply, "So far as historicity is concerned...it is necessary to explain: We may freely say that the bones of Jesus lie somewhere in Palestine. Christian faith is not destroyed by this admission.

"On the contrary, only now, when this has been said, are we in a position to ask about the meaning of the resurrection as an integral part of the message concerning Jesus" (Secular Christianity, London, Collins, 1966, p. 103).

Contrary to this point of view, it does matter to Christianity whether or not it is true that Christ came back from the dead because Christianity stands or falls on the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:12-19). If Jesus did not come back from the dead, then the Christian faith crumbles.

Fortunately, one of the most well-attested events in the ancient world is the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. When confronted by the religious leaders of His day, Jesus was asked for a sign to demonstrate that He was the promised Messiah.

He answered, "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign shall be given to it, but the sign of Jonah the prophet; for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:39, 40, NASB).

The sign of the resurrection was meant to set Jesus apart from anyone else who ever lived, and it would designate Him the Son of God (Romans 1:4).

The accounts of His appearances are recorded for us by eyewitnesses to whom Jesus appeared alive over a forty-day period after His public crucifixion. As the scriptural account sets forth, to these "he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking od the things pertaining to the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:3, KJV).

Writing about A.D. 56, the Apostle Paul mentions the fact that more than 500 people had witnessed to resurrected Christ at one time and most of them were still living when he wrote (1 Corinthians 15:6). This statement is somewhat of a challenge to those who might not have believed, since Paul is saying that there are many people yet living who could be interviewed to find out if Christ had indeed risen.

The historical evidence is more than sufficient to satisfy the curiosity of the honest inquirer. This can be seen not only by the positive defense that can be made for the case for the resurrection, but also by the lack of any evidence for an alternative explanation. The theories attempting to give an alternative explanation to the resurrection take more faith to believe than the resurrection itself.

Frank Morrison, who was an agnostic journalist, attempted to write a book refuting the resurrection of Christ. After much investigation, his opinions changed and he became a believer in Jesus Christ. This is how Morrison described what happened to him:

"This study is in some ways so unusual and provocative that the writer thinks it desirable to state here very briefly how the book came to take its present form. In one sense it could have taken no other, for it is essentially a confession, the inner story of a man who originally set out to write one kind of book and found himself compelled by the sheer force of circumstances to write another

"It is not that the facts altered, for they are recorded imperishably in the monuments and in the pages of human history. But the interpretation to be put on the facts underwent a change" (Who Moved the Stone?</b>, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971, preface).

Morrison discovered that Christ was publicly put in the tomb on Friday, but on Sunday morning the body was missing. If He did not rise from the dead, then someone took the body. There are three interest groups that could possibly have taken the body: the Romans, the Jews, or the disciples.

The Romans would have had no reason to steal the body, since they wanted to keep the peace in Palestine. The idea was to keep the provinces as quiet as possible, and stealing the body of Christ would not accomplish this objective.

The Jews would not have taken the body, because the last thing they wanted was a proclamation of the resurrection. They are the ones who asked for the guard, according to Matthew 27.

The disciples of Jesus had no reason to steal the body, and if they did, they later died for something they knew to be untrue. Moreover, the religion which they proclaimed emphasized telling the truth and not lying. Their actions would have been inconsistent with that which they knew to be true and commanded others to follow.

The other reasonable explanation is that Christ has risen, and the eyewitnesses make it plain this is the case. The disciples of Jesus may not have been as sophisticated as 20th century man in the realm od scientific knowledge, but they surely knew who was dead and someone who wasn't.

As Simon Peter said, "For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we make known to you the power and coming of out Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty" (2 Peter 1:16, NASB).

ADDITIONAL REFERENCE SOURCES:
Ladd, George. I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdumans, 1975).
McDowell, Josh. Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Rev. ed. San Bernardino, Calif.: Here's Life Pubs., 1979.
--------------------. "The Greatest Resurrection Hoax" (tape). Liberation Tapes, PO Box 6044, Lubbock, Tex. 79413.
--------------------. The Resurrection Factor. San Bernardino, Calif.: Here's Life Pubs., 1983.
Morrison, Frank. Who Maoved the Stone? Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971.
Stewart, Don. "The Resurrection: The Cornerstone of Christianity" (tape). The Word for Today, PO Box 8000, Costa Mesa, Calif.,92626.

Fri, 09 Jun 2006 14:16:24 GMT

Aren't there legitimate objections to the virgin birth that make it unbelievable to us today?

There are possibly other ways which God could have chosen to send His Son into the world, but the fact is the way He chose to do it was through the virgin birth.

The Gospels record that Mary and Joseph did not have sexual relations until after Christ was born, and he "kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a son, and he called his name Jesus" (Matthew 1:25, NASB).

The New Testament also relates that Joseph was known not to have fathered Jesus and that most people had assumed Mary had an illict relationship with someone.

Even though the virgin birth is given as a historical fact and certain things made the virgin birth essential, many still voice loud objections to its occurrence.

The main problem that people have with the virgin birth is that it is a miracle. Scripture does not treat this event as an ordinary occurence byt rather as a supernatural act of God. The miracle of the virgin birth should not pose any special problem if one grants the possibility of miracles.

Why, we may ask, is the virgin birth any greater miracle than say feeding of the 5000 or Jesus walking on water? If an all-powerful God does exist, who spoke all creation into existence, a virgin birth would not be beyond His capability.

A common objection to the virgin birth is that it is a biological impossibility, which was accepted by people ignorant of these things. C.S. Lewis made some pertinent observations in this view:

"Thus you will hear people say, 'The early Christians believed that Christ was the son of a virgin, but we know that this is a scientific impossibility.' Such people seem to have an idea that belief in miracles arose at a period when men were so ignorant of the course of nature that they did not perceive a miracle to be contrary to it.

"A moment's thought shows this to be foolish, with the story of the virgin birth as a particularly striking example. When Joseph discovered that his fiancee was going to have a baby, he not unnaturally decided to repudiate her. Why? Because he knew just as well as any modern gynecologist that in the ordinary course of nature women do not have babies unless they have lain with men.

"No doubt the modern gynecologist knows several things about birth and begetting which Joseph did not know. But those things do not concern the main point - that a virgin birth is contrary to the course of nature. And Joseph obviously knew that" (Miracles, New York, Macmillan, p.48).

Some have attempted to account for the virgin birth by tracing it to Greek or Babylonian mythology. They argue that the Gospel writers borrowed this story from the mythology of their day. This view does not fit the facts, for there is not any hero in pagan mythology for which a virgin birth is claimed, and moreover it would be unthinkable to the Jewish mind to construct such a story from mythology.

Many deities among the Greeks, Babylonians and Egyptians were reported born in an unusual manner, but for the most part these beings never actually existed. The accounts are filled with obvious mythological elements which are totally absent from the Gospel narratives. They are reports of a god or godess being born into the world by sexual relations between some heavenly being and an earthly woman, or by some adulterous affair among the gods and godesses.

Dr. Thomas Thorburn comments appropriately, "All these various stories of supernatural conceptions and births, which we meet within folklore and the history of mythology, have this one point in common - they serve to point not so much to the similarity as to the complete contrast and dissimilarity which exist between the Christian birth-story and the tales which are current in various pagan circles" (Thomas James Thorburn, A Critical Examination of the Evidences for the Doctrine of the Virgin Birth, London, 1908, p. 158).

Thus when we closely consider the objections to the virgin birth, we become more convinced that it did indeed occur just as the historical record in the Gospels states.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCE SOURCES:
Custance, Arthur. The Virgin Birth and the Incarnation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976.
Gromacki, Robert. The Virgin Birth. New York: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1974.
Machen, J. Gresham. The Virgin Birth of Christ. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1930.
Smith, Wilbur. The Supernaturalness of Christ. W.A. Wilde Co., 1954.

Fri, 09 Jun 2006 03:16:13 GMT

Was Jesus born of a virgin?

The miracle of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ has perplexed many people, and has actually kept them from accepting the truth of Christianity. However, the Bible declares that God decided that His Son would have a miraculous entrance into humanity.

Seven hundred years before the birth of Christ, the prophet Isaiah said, "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:14, NASB).

The New Testament records the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy: "Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin's name was Mary..."

"And the angel said to her, 'Do not be afraid, Mary: for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb, and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus.'

"And Mary said to the angel, 'How can this be, since I am a virgin?'

"And the angel answered and said to her, 'The Holy Spirit, will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy offspring shall be called the Son of God...For nothing will be impossible with God'" (Luke 1:26, 27, 30, 31, 34, 35, 37, NASB).

The virgin birth is set down in the Bible as a historical fact. The writers who recorded the story were Matthew - an eyewitness to the events in the life of Jesus - and Luke, the doctor, who presents many things in the life of Christ from the viewpoint of his mother, Mary.

The passages in both Matthew and Luke are authentic, with no evidence at all that they were later additions to the text. The doctrine of the virgin birth has been believed by the church from its beginning.

Ignatius, who lived at the beginning of the second century, wrote to the Ephesians and said, "For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived in the womb by Mary, according to a dispensation, of the seed of David but also of the Holy Ghost."

There are several reasons why the virgin birth was a necessity. The Bible teaches that the Word who became flesh was with God from the very beginning (John 1:1). The fact of the pre-existence of Christ is testified many times in the New Testament (John 8:58, Philippians 2:5-11, Colossians 1:15, 16).

When Jesus came into the world, He was not a newly created individual such as we are, but was rather the eternal Son of God. To be born into this world of the virgin Mary required divine intervention, and this is exactly what the Gospels record.

Another reason why Jesus needed to be virgin-born was because of His sinless nature. A basic New Testament teaching is that from the day He was born until the day He died, Jesus was without sin. To be a perfect sacrifice, He must Himself be perfect - without sin. Since our race is contaminated with sin, a miraculous entrance into the world would be required, hance the virgin birth.

Moreover, if Jesus had been sired by Joseph, He would not have been able to claim the legal rights to the throne of David. According to the prophecy of Jeremiah 22:28-30, there could be no king in Israel who was a descendant of King Jeconiah, and Matthew 1:12 relates that Joseph was from the line of Jeconiah. If Jesus had been fathered by Joseph, He could not rightly inherit the throne of David, since he was a relative of the cursed line.

The virgin birth of Christ is not only a historical fact, but it was also a necessary historical fact when one considers all the data.

Thu, 08 Jun 2006 17:39:17 GMT

Did Jesus claim to be God? Even if He did make the claim, why should I believe it?

Among the religious leaders who have attained a large following throughout history, Jesus Christ is unique in the fact that He alone claimed to be God in human flesh. A common misconception is that some or many of the leaders of the world's religions made similar claims, but this simply is not the case.

Buddha did not claim to be God; Moses never said that he was Yahweh; Muhammad did not identify himself as Allah; and nowhere wil you find Zoroaster claiming to be Ahura Mazda. Yet Jesus, the carpenter from Nazareth, said that he who has seen Him (Jesus) has seen the Father (John 14:9).

The claims of Christ are many and varied. He said that He existed before Abraham (John 8:58), and that He was equal with the Father (John 5:17, 18). Jesus claimed the ability to forgive sins (Mark 2:5-7), which the Bible teaches was something that God alone could do (Isaiah 43:25).

The New Testament equated Jesus as the Creator of the universe (John 1:3), and that He is the one who holds everything together (Colossians 1:17). The Apostle Paul says that God was manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16, KJV), and John the evangelist says that "the Word was God" (John 1:1). The united testimony of Jesus and the writers of the New Testament is that He was more than mere man; He was God.

Not only did His friends notice that He claimed to be God, but so did His enemies. There may be some doubt today among the skeptics who refuse to examine the evidence, but there was no doubt on the part of the Jewish authorities.

When Jesus asked them why they wanted to stone Him, they replied, "For a good work we do not stone. You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God" (John 10:33, NASB).

This fact separates Jesus from other religious figures. In the major religions of the world, the teachings - not the teacher - are all-important.

Confucianism is a set of teachings; Confucius is not important. Islam is the revelation of Allah, with Muhammad being the prophet, and Buddhism emphasizes the principles of the Buddha and not Buddha himself. This is especially true of Hinduism, where there is no historic founder.

However, at the center of Christianity is the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus did not claim to be teaching mankind the truth; He claim that He was the truth (John 14:6).

What Jesus taught is not the important aspect of Christianity, but what is important is who Jesus was. Was He the Son of God? Is He the only way a person can reach God? This was the claim He made for Himself.

Suppose this very night the president of the United States appeared on all the major networks and proclaimed that "I am God Almighty. I have the power to forgive sin. I have the authority to raise my life back from the dead."

He would be quickly and quietly shut off the air, led away, and replaced by the vice-president. Anybody who would dare to make such claims would have to be either out of his mind or a liar, unless he was God.

This is exactly the case with Jesus. He clearly claimed all these things and more. If He is God, as He claimed, we must believe in Him, and if He is not, then we should have nothing to do with Him. Jesus is either Lord of all or not Lord at all.

Yes, Jesus claimed to be God. Why should anyone believe it? After all, merely claiming to be something does not make it true. Where's the evidence that Jesus is God?

The Bible gives various reasons, including miracles and fulfilled prophecy, that are intended to convince us that Jesus is the one whom He said He was (John 20:30, 31). The main reason, or the sign which Jesus Himself said would demonstrate that He was the Son of God, was His resurrection from the dead.

When asked for a sign from the religious leaders, Jesus replied, "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:40, RSV).

In another place He said, when asked for a sign, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up...but he spake of the temple of his body" (John 2:19, 21, KJV). The ability to raise His life back from the dead was the sign that spearates Him not only from other religious leaders, but also from anyone else who has ever lived.

Anyone wishing to refute the case for Christianity must explain away the story of the resurrection. Therefore, according to the Bible, Jesus proves to be the Son of God by coming back from the dead (Romans 1:4). The evidence is overwhelming that Jesus did rise from the grave, and it is fact that proves Jesus to be God.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCE SOURCES:
Anderson, Sir Norman. Mystery of the Incarnation. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1978.
Green, Michael, ed. The Truth of God Incarnate. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977.
McDowell, Josh and Bart Larson. Jesus: A Biblical Defense of His Deity. San Bernardino, Calif.: Here's Life Pubs., 1984.
McDowell, Josh. Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Rev. ed. San Bernardino, Calif.: Here's Life Pubs., 1979.
------------. More Than a Carpenter. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1977.

Thu, 08 Jun 2006 02:28:31 GMT

How do you know Jesus ever existed?

There are still many people today who make the claim that Jesus never existed, that He was only a mythical character.

Bertrand Russell puts it this way, "I may say that one is not concerned with the historical question. Historically, it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him, so I am not concerned with the historical question, which is a very difficult one. I am concerned with Christ as He appears in the Gospels" (Why I Am Not a Christian, p. 11, note 8).

However, those who make such an accusation are certainly not historians, but are surprisingly ignorant of the facts.

The New Testament contains twenty-seven separate documents which were written in the first century A.D. These writings contain the story of the life of Jesus and the beginnings of the Christian church from about 4 B.C. until the decade of the A.D. nineties.

The facts were recorded by eyewitnesses, who gave firsthand testimony to what they had seen and heard. "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the Word of Life" (1 John 1:1, NASB).

Moreover, the existence of Jesus is recorded by the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, who was born in A.D. 37. "Now there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works - a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles.

"He was (the) Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those who loved him at the first did not foresake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; are not extinct at this day" (Antiquities, XVIII, III).

Although this passage has been contested because of the reference to Jesus being the Christ and rising from the dead, the fact of His existence is not in question.

Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 112), a Roman historian, writing about the reign of Nero, refers to Jesus Christ and the existence of Christians in Rome (Annals, XV, 44). Tacitus, elsewhere in his Histories, refers to Christianity when alluding to the burning of the temple of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This has been preserved by Sulpicius Severus (Chronicles, 30:6).

There are other references to Jesus or His followers, such as the Roman historian, Seutonius (A.D. 120) in Life of Claudius (A.D. 112) in his Epistles, X, 96.

The testimony, both Christian and non-Christian, is more than sufficient to lay to rest any idea that Jesus, in fact, never existed. In light of the evidence, it is absurd to hold such a view. We know more about the life of Jesus than just about any other figure in the ancient world. His birth, life and death are revealed in much more detail than most ancient figures whose existence is taken for granted by historians.

After examining the evidence about the life of the New Testament, Roderic Dunkerley concluded, "In none of these various testimonies to the fact of Christ is there any slightest hint or idea that he was not a real historical person.

"Indeed it has been argued - and I think very rightly - that myth theories of the beginnings of Christianity are modern speculative hypotheses motivated by unreasoning prejudice and dislike. 'It would never enter anyone's head,' says Merezhovsky, 'to ask whether Jesus had lived, unless before asking the question the ming had been darkened by the wish that he had not lived'" (Roderic Dunkerley, Beyond the Gospels, pp. 29, 30).

ADDITIONAL REFERENCE SOURCES:
Bruce, F.F. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977.
McDowell, Josh. Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Rev. ed. San Bernardino, Calif.: Here's Life Pubs., 1979.

answer to a comment posted for question 14

Mon, 05 Jun 2006 01:39:04 GMT

reply from my brother who is a Baptist preacher:

First you must correct the statement about Baptism. The act of Baptism is one of the two obedience commandments given by the Lord (the other being the Lord's Supper). Baptism is done as an act of public affiliation with Christ. After a person is saved they are commanded to follow the Lord in Baptism to demonstrate the act of the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord. That same thing happens to a person spiritually when they are saved. Baptism is an outward expression of an inward transformation. Baptism doesn't wash away our sin.

About the Gnostic Gospels. They were found in 1945 at the Jabal al-Tárif mountain in Naj 'Hammádì, Egypt. They were found by a poor Arab named Muhammad 'Alí al-Sammán. The documents were handled very poorly and were even used as fire starter by the discoverers mother on accident. After a while the documents were sold on the black market to American collectors.

When the documents were deciphered the translator freaked when he finished the first line which said, ""These are the secret words which the living Jesus spoke, and which the twin, Judas Thomas, wrote down." The document made the claim that Jesus had a twin brother. This is a huge problem! We have more documents proving otherwise than we do proving it to be so.

These gospels were also self-proclaimed as the "Secret" gospels.

Included in these documents were the gospels of Thpmas and Phillip. Here is an excerpt frrom one of the manuscripts.

. . . the companion of the [Savior is] Mary Magdalene. [But Christ loved] her more than [all] the disciples, and used to kiss her [often] on her [mouth]. The rest of [the disciples were offended] . . . They said to him, "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Savior answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you as (I love) her?"

Other sayings in this collection criticize common Christian beliefs, such as the virgin birth or the bodily resurrection, as naïve misunderstandings.

You have to ask yourself why these documents have been hidden from man for nearly 2,000 years. Could it be that God wanted them to be hidden to keep the church from wandering into heretical doctrines?

The Gnostic Gospels are a collection of secret gospels, poems, and quasi-philosophic descriptions of the origin of the universe, to myths, magic, and instructions for mystical practice.

The Nag Hammadi texts, and others like them, which circulated at the beginning of the Christian era, were denounced as heresy by orthodox Christians in the middle of the second century.

There is very little debate about the dating of these manuscripts. The copies found in Nag Hammadi were very likely written around the middle of the 3rd century. The originals are strongly believed to be written somewhere around 225-250AD

The New Testament manuscripts were written inbetween 65-95AD, and the older copies that we have now were produced from the 2nd-3rd century. So you can see that there's not alot of difference between the time that the Gnostic gospels and the real New Testament gospels were written.

The content of the gnostic gospels are completely contrary to the content of the New Testament gospels. The gnostic would say that Jesus came to enlighten and help man understand his full potential as it relates to self-sufficiency. This is far from what He taught in the New Testament, that He came to save humanity from their sin.

Jews and Christians both claim that God is an individual and is completely seperate from his creation. The Gnostic would say that self-knowledge is knowledge of God; the self and the divine are identical. This is incorrect in 5,000 different ways. Man is in no way divine! The more man becomes aware of himself the more he sees the need for a saviour. Man is corrupt, he is totally cut off from God because of his wickedness.

The Bible we have today has to be accurate, if not, God is a liar. God said that His word is forever settled in heaven. He also claims that His word is true and cannot be tainted, neither will it come back void. If one can't believe that God has preserved His word, then man has no hope and is better off living life as he sees fit. If God's word is inaccurate we might as well close our church doors and go home.

The Gnostics were a Christian sect that emerged during the second century AD. The mystical group believed one had to possess a certain secret knowledge in order to obtain salvation.

They developed their own brand of theology, which was quickly condemned by Orthodox Christians.

When the Gnostics began producing documents the church faced the tremendous task of cleaning up a huge mess (and I express the word "mess").

Its also important to note that Egypt was a melting pot of idol worship and pagan practice. Alexandria was widely known for it's heretical biblical manuscripts. The manuscripts that were used in the New Testament came out of Antioch, which was known as a place of orthodoxy among Christians. Having said that, which manuscripts should be trusted? The scripts that came from a place known for heresy and were completely contrary to what everyone knew to true about Christ, or the scripts that were consistent with the character of Christ and the church?

The choice is yours.

About the other comment, that the Jews didnt turn the other cheek. I agree, the Jews did alot of stuff that was disgusting in God's sight. God even called them a stiff-necked people. But, this doesn't change the fact that God loved them inspite of their stupidity, just as He does today.

And the most important factor in the Christian life is that of faith. Without faith it impossible to please God (Heb.11). If one doesn't have the faith in God to beleieve that He has kept His word over the years, then they may want to think very hard about their life and their inability to keep themselves out of hell.

Hope this helps Sissy, hopefully I'll get a chance to write more. Standing for God isn't easy, but its worth every second. the disciples thought themselves blessed to be able to suffer for Christ's sake.

e-mail from my cousin...

Sun, 04 Jun 2006 18:55:33 GMT

(We have a picture like this at my house now--MAS)

Who God Uses

God, grant me the Serenity to accept the people I cannot change, the Courage to change the one I can, and the Wisdom to know it's me.

The next time you feel like GOD can't use you, just remember...

Noah was a drunk
Abraham was too old
Isaac was a daydreamer
Jacob was a liar
Leah was ugly
Joseph was abused
Moses had a stuttering problem
Gideon was afraid
Samson had long hair and was a womanizer
Rahab was a prostitute
Jeremiah and Timothy were too young
David had an affair and was a murderer
Elijah was suicidal
Isaiah preached naked
Jonah ran from God
Naomi was a widow
Job went bankrupt
John the Baptist ate bugs (crickets and honey...to be exact--MAS)
Peter denied Christ
The Disciples fell asleep while praying
Martha worried about everything
The Samaritan woman was divorced, more than once
Zaccheus was too small
Paul was too religious
Timothy had an ulcer
and Lazarus was dead!

No more excuses now. God can use you to your full potential.
Besides, you aren't the message, you are just the messenger.

1. God wants spiritual fruit, not religious nuts.
2. Dear God, I have a problem, it's me.
3. Growing old is inevitable. Growing up is optional.
4. There is no key to happiness. The door is always open.
5. Silence is often misinterpreted but never misquoted.
6. Do the math. Count your blessings.
7. Faith is the ability to not panic.
8. Laugh every day, it's like inner jogging.
9. If you worry, you didn't pray. If you pray, don't worry.
10. As a child of God, prayer is kind of like calling home everyday.
11. Blessed are the flexible for they shall not be bent out of shape.
12. The most important things in your house are the people.
13. When we get tangled up in our problems, be still. God wants us to be still so He can untangle the knot.
14. A grudge is a heavy thing to carry.
15. He who dies with the most toys is still dead.

Share this with a friend or two. In the Circle of God's love, God is waiting to use your full potential.

May God Always Bless You !

Sun, 04 Jun 2006 17:55:02 GMT

Isn't the God of the Old Testament of hate while the God of the New Testament is one of love?

Another of the frequent accusations against the Bible is that it contains two different conceptions of God. The Old Testament allegedly presents only a God of wrath, while the New Testament allegedly depicts only a God of love.

The Old Testament contains stories of God's commanding the destruction of Sodom, the annihilation of the Canaanites and many other stories of God's judgement and wrath. The accusers claim this demonstrates a primitive, warlike deity in contradistinction to the advanced teachings of Jesus to love one another and to turn the other cheek, as contained in the Sermon on the Mount.

These ideas about God seem to be in direct conflict, but a monent's reflection will show otherwise. Jesus Himself declared that the Old Testament may be summed up by the commandments to love God and love your neighbor (Matthew 22:37). He also observed that God in the Old Testament had continually desired love and mercy rather than sacrifice (Matthew 9:13; 12:7).

This attitude can be seen with statements such as, "Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked...and not rather that he should turn away from his way and live?" (Ezekiel 18:23, RSV).

God would not have destroyed certain nations except that He is a God of justice and their evil could not go unchecked and condoned.

He did intend and desire to punish them as a part of His plan, in consistency with His holy nature and jealousy for His wayfaring people. What He desires in consistency with His pure character, He does in justice, in their case, providing they have not repented and come into harmony with His nature (Jeremiah 18).

In the case of the Amorites, God gave them hundreds of years to repent, yet they did not (Genesis 15:16). Noah preached 120 years to his generation before the great flood (Genesis 6:3). The proper Old Testament picture is one of a very patient God who gives these people untold opportunities to repent and come into harmony with Him, and only when they continually refuse does He judge and punish them for their evil deeds.

Contrary to some popular belief, the strongest statements of judgement and wrath in the Bible were made by the Lord Jesus Himself. In Matthew 23, for example, He lashed out at the religious leaders of His day, calling them hypocrites and false leaders, and informing them that their destiny was eternal banishment from God's presence.

In Matthew 10:34 (KJV), Jesus says that the purpose of His mission is not to unite but to divide. "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." He goes on to say that His Word will cause a father against his son, a mother against her daughter, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law (Matthew 10:35).

We find judgement throughout the New Testament, and love and mercy as well as judgement throughout the Old Testament. God is consistant and unchangingm but different situations call for different emphases. Therefore, when the two Testaments are read the way they were intended, they reveal the same holy God who is rich in mercy, but who will not let sin go unpunished.

Sun, 04 Jun 2006 17:24:18 GMT

Like I told margaret75, I'm gonna start posting questions from a book I read called "Answers to Tough Questions: Skeptics Ask About the Christian Faith" by Josh McDowell and Don Stewart.

Why is Jesus the only way to get to God?

People are constantly asking, "What's so special about Jesus? Why is he the only way that someone can know God?"

Along with the problem of those who have never heard about Jesus, there is no question asked more often than this one. We are accused of being narrow-minded because we assert there is no other way to get to God.

The first point to make is that we did not invent the claim of Jesus, being the only way. This is not our claim; it is His. We are merely relating His claim, and the claim of the writers of the New Testament.

Jesus said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through me" (John 14:6, NASB), and "For unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins" (John 8:24, NASB). The Apostle Peter echoed these words, "Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12, KJV).

St. Paul concurred, "There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus..." (1 Timothy 2:5, KJV). It is therefore the united testimony of the New Testament that no one can know God the Father except through the person of Jesus Christ.

To understand why this is so, we must go back to the beginning. An infinite-personal God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1) and man in his own image (Genesis 1:26). When He had finished creating, everything was good (Genesis 1:31).

Man and woman were placed in a perfect environment, with all their needs taken care of. They were given only one prohibition; they were not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, lest they die (Genesis 2:17).

Unfortunately, they did eat of the tree (Genesis 3), and the result was a fall in four different areas. The relationship between God and man was now broken, as can be seen from Adam and Eve's attempting to hide from God (Genesis 3:8).

The relationship between man and his fellowman was severed, with both Adam and Eve arguing and trying to pass blame to someone else (Genesis 3: 12, 13).

The bond between man and nature also was broken with the ground producing thorns and thistles and the animal world no longer being benevolent (Genesis 3:17, 18). Man also became separated from himself, with a feeling of emptiness and incompleteness, something he had not experienced before the fall.

However, God promised to make all these things right and gave His word that He would send a Savior, or Messiah, who would deliver the entire creation from the bondage of sin (Genesis 3:15). The old testament kept repeating the theme that some day this person would come into the world and set mankind free.

God's word did indeed come true. God became a man in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14, 29). Jesus eventually died in our place in order that we could enjoy again a right relationship with God. The Bible says, "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him (2 Corinthians 5:19, 21, KJV).

Jesus paved the way! God has done it all, and our responsibility is to accept that fact. We can do nothing to add to the work of Jesus; it has all been done for us.

If mankind could have reached God any other way, then Jesus would not have had to die. His death illustrates the fact that there is not other way. Therefore, no other religion or religious leader can bring someone to the knowledge of the one true God.

But the death of Jesus is not the end of the story. Let us illustrate why we prefer Jesus over other religious leaders. Suppose a group of us are hiking in a very dense forest. As we get deeper into the forest, we become lost.

Realizing that taking the wrong path now might mean we will lose our lives, we begin to be afraid. However, we soon notice that ahead in the distance where the trail splits, there are two human forms at the fork in the road.

Running up to these people, we notice that one has on a park ranger uniform, and he is standing there perfectly healthy and alive, while the other person is laying there face down, dead. Now which of these two people are we going to ask about the way out? Obviously, the one who is living.

When it comes to eternal matters, we are going to ask the one who is alive the way out of the predicament. This is not Muhammad, not Confucius, but Jesus Christ. Jesus is unique. He came back from the dead. This demonstrates He is the one whom He claimed to be (Romans 1:4), the unique Son of God and the only way by which a person can have a personal relationship with the true and living God.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCE SOURCES:
McDowell, Josh. More Than a Carpenter. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1977.
Stewart, Don. So What's So Special About Jesus? (tape). The World for Today, PO Box 8000, Costa Mesa, Calif. 92626.
------------------. You Be the Judge. San Bernardino, Calif.: Here's Life Pubs., 1983.

Why Go To Church?

Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:28:57 GMT

A Church goer wrote a letter to the editor of a newspaper and
complained that it made no sense to go to church every Sunday.
"I've gone for 30 years now," he wrote, "and in that time I have
heard something like 3,000 sermons. But for the life of me, I
can't remember a single one of them. So, I think I'm wasting my
time and the pastors are wasting theirs by giving sermons at all."

This started a real controversy in the "Letters to the Editor"
column, much to the delight of the editor. It went on for weeks
until someone wrote this clincher:

"I've been married for 30 years now. In that time my wife has
cooked some 32,000 meals. But, for the life of me, I cannot
recall the entire menu for a single one of those meals. But I
do know this ... They all nourished me and gave me the strength I
needed to do my work. If my wife had not given me these meals, I
would be physically dead today.

Likewise, if I had not gone to church for nourishment, I would be
spiritually dead today!"

My mom sent this e-mail to me.

Sun, 29 Jan 2006 20:14:23 GMT

Looking through some Charleston sites...trying to do some family tree work. Well, I came across a Gullah tours site and thought it was interesting. Here's the site for a Gullah dictionary: http://www.gullahtours.com/gullah_dictionary.html. Now, if you've ever been to the Charleston area, you'll know that ALOT of people really do talk like this (STILL)...black and white. Sometimes it's hard to understand what's being said. I guess those yankees can say the same about all southerners! lol! But of course, I can't understand a lot of yankees either. haha! Anyway, people in Charleston have their own accent, different from anywhere else in the south.

Fri, 20 Jan 2006 03:30:07 GMT

What is the Trinity? Do Christians worship three Gods?

One of the most misunderstood ideas in the Bible concerns the teaching about the Trinity. Although Christians say that they believe in one God, they are constantly accused of polytheism (worshipping at least three gods).

The Scriptures do not teach that there are three Gods; neither do they teach that God wears three different masks while acting out the drama of history. What the Bible does teach is stated in the doctrine of the Trinity: there is one God who has revealed Himself in three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and these three persons are the one God.

Although this is difficult to comprehend, it is nevertheless what the Bible tells us, and is the closest the finite mind can come to explaining the infinite mystery of the infinite God, when considering the biblical statements about God's being.

The Bible teaches that there is one God and only one God: "Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!" (Deuteronomy 6:4, NASB). "There is one God" (1 Timothy 2:5, KJV). "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God beside Me'" (Isaiah 44:6, NASB).

However, even though God is one in His essential being or nature, He is also three persons. "Let us make man in our image" (Genesis 1:26, KJV). "God said, Behold the man has become like one is us" (Genesis 3:22, RSV).

God's plural personality is alluded to here, for He could not be talking to angels could not and did not help God create. The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ, not the angels, created all things (John 1:3; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:2).

In addition to speaking of God as one, and alluding to a plurality of God's personality, the Scriptures are quite specific as to naming God in terms of three persons. There is a person whom the Bible calls the Father, and the Fatheris designated as God the Father (Galatians 1:1).

The Bible talks about a person named Jesus, or the Son, or the Word, also called God. "The Word was God..." (John 1:1, KJV). Jesus was "also calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God" (John 5:18, NASB).

There is a third person mentioned in the Scriptures called the Holy Spirit, and this person - different from the Father and the Son - is also called God ("Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?...You have not lied to men, but to God" (Acts 5:3, 4, RSV).

The facts of the biblical teaching are these: There is one God. This one God has a plural personality. This one God is called the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, all distinct personalities, all designated God. We are therefore lead to the conclusion that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God, the doctrine of the Trinity.

Dr. John Warwick Montgomery offers this analogy to help us understand this doctrine better:

The doctrine of the Trinity is not "irrational"; what is irrational is to suppress the biblical evidence for Trinity in favor of unity, or the evidence for unity in favor of the Trinity.

Our data must take precedence over our models - or, stating it better, our models must sensitively reflect the full range of data.

A close analogy to the theologian's procedure here lies in the work of the theoretical physicist: Subatomic entities are found, on examination, to possess wave properties (W), particle properties (P), and quantum properties (h).

Though these characteristics are in many respects incompatible (particles don't diffract, while waves do, etc.), physicist "explain" or "model" an electron as PWh. They have to do this in order to give proper weight to all the relevant data.

Likewise the theologian who speaks of God as "three in one." Neither the scientist nor the theologian expects you to get a "picture" by way of his model; the purpose of the model is to help you take into account all of the facts, instead of perverting reality through super-imposing an apparent "consistency" on it.

The choice is clear: either the Trinity or a "God" who is only a pale imitation of the Lord of biblical and confessional Christianity (How Do We Know There Is a God? pp. 14, 15).

ADDITIONAL REFERENCE SOURCES:
Boa, Kenneth. God, I Don't Understand. Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1975.
Martin, Walter. "Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity" (tape). Christian Research, Box 500, San Juan Capistrano, Calif. 92693.
Montgomery, John Warwick. How Do We Know There Is a God? Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1972.

Thu, 19 Jan 2006 03:59:09 GMT

It's been a while since I posted a question from the book I've been reading. I haven't read any in a few days. So, here's the next question:

Where did God come from? What was He doing before He created the universe?

These questions assume that everything, including God, is subject to the limitations of time and space, as man is; that there is nothing outside of time and space, an assumption that the scientific community has questioned and virtually dismissed since Albert Einstein's theory of relativity.

Einstein showed that time can actually be altered, slowed down, speeded up, when objects begin to travel at extremely high speeds. This would suggest that the common concept that all things originate and operate within the context of fixed time and space, is not necessarily correct.

While not totally understandable, the facts do make it easier to accept the biblical teaching that God exists outside of time and space as we know them (Psalm 90:4; Colossians 1:17; 2 Peter 3:8). To accept that God exists outside the time and space framework as we know it renders any question og where He came from and what He was doing before He created what we know as the universe totally meaningless.

These questions might be legitimate if God is subject to time and space, which He is not. The Bible teaches that God is not bound by time or space, and that He has not chosen to reveal to us (from our perspective) all that took place before He created the universe.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCE SOURCES:
Montgomery, John Watwick. How Do We Know There Is a God? Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1972.
Schaeffer, Francis. Genesis in Space and Time. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1972.

Thu, 12 Jan 2006 23:38:32 GMT

How do you know God exists?

Is there truly a God? How can anyone be sure such a being exists?

We believe that the existence of God, and questions such as these relating to it, can be intelligently answered. The reason we know that God exists is because He told us so, and has revealed Himself to us.

It would be no help to us at all in our human predicament if God were silent, but happily this is not the case. God not only exists, but also He has communicated that fact to us. He has told us all about who He is, what He is like and what His plan is for planet earth.

He has revealed these things to mankind through the Bible. The Bible has demonstrated itself to be more than a mere book; it is the actual Word of God. The evidence is more than convincing to anyone who will honestly consider its claims.

Because of the boasts the Bible makes for itself, many have tried to destroy it, as related in this statement by Martin Luther:

Mighty potentates have raged against this book, and sought to destroy and uproot it - Alenxander the Great and princes of Egypt and Babylon, the monarchs of Persia, of Greece and of Rome, the Emperors Julius and Augustus - but they prevailed nothing.

They are gone while the book remains, and it will remain forever and ever, perfect and entire as it was declared at first. Who has thus helped it - who has protected it against such enemy forces? No one, surely, but God Himself, who is master of all things (cited by Fritz Ridenour, Who Says, G/L Publications, Regal Books, 1967).

Even the French skeptic, Rousseau, saw something different in the Scriptures. "I must confess to you that the majesty of the Scriptures astonishes me; the holiness of the evangelists speaks to my heart and has such striking characters of truth, and is, moreover, so perfectly inimitable, that if it had been the invention of men, the inventors would be greater than the greatest heroes" (Frank Mead, Encyclopedia of Religious Quotations, p. 32).

The Bible, therefore, gives us sufficient reason to believe that it is the Word of the living God, who does exist and who has revealed Himelf to the world.

Another reason that we know God exists is because He has appeared in human flesh. Jesus Christ was God Almighty who became a man. The Bible says, "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14, RSV), and it is clear about the fact that Jesus came to earth to reveal who God is and what He is all about (John 1:18).

If someone wants to know who God is and what He is like, he only needs to look at Jesus Christ. As Lord Byron said, "If ever man was God or God was man, Jesus Christ was both" (Frank Mead, Encyclopedia of Religious Quotations, p. 81).

Instead of man reaching up to find God, God reached down to man, as Casserley explains, "The gospel provides that knowledge of ultimate truth which men have sought through philosophy in vain, inevitably in vain, because it is essential to the very nature of God that He cannot be discovered by searching and probing of human minds, the He can only be known if He first takes the initiative and reveals Himself" (J.V. Langmead Casserley, The Christian in Philosophy, New York, Chsrles Scribner's Sons, 1951, p. 21).

Jesus, in coming back from the dead, establishing Himself as having the credentials to be God, and it was this fact that demonstrated its truth to the unbelieving world. As Machen says, "The great weapon with which the disciples of Jesus set out to conquer the world was not a nere comprehension of eternal princciples; it was a historical message, an account of something that had happened; it was the message, 'He is risen'" (J.G. Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, pp. 28, 29).

Thus we have the Bible, and the person of Jesus Christ, as two strong reasons arguing for the existence of God. No other religion or philosophy offers anything near to demonstrate that a God exists.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCE SOURCES:
Craig, William Lane. The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe. San Bernardino, Calif.: Here's Life Pubs., 1979.
Geisler, Norman. Philosophy of Religion. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974.
Plantinga, Alvin. God and Other Minds. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Univ. Press, 1967.
Schaeffer, Francis. He Is There and He Is Not Silent. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1972.
-----------. The God Who Is There. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1974.
Sire, James. The Universe Next Door. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1976.

Sat, 07 Jan 2006 18:15:07 GMT

What is the Apocrypha? Why aren't these books found in Protestant Bibles?

Today the word apocrypha is synonymous with the fourteen or fifteen book of doubtful authenticity and authority. These writings are not found in the Hewbrew Old Testment, but they are contained in some manuscripts of the Septuagint, the Geek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, which was completed around 250 B.C. in Alexandria, Egypt.

Most of these books were declared to the Scripture by the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent (1545-1563), though the Protestant Church rejects any divine authority attached to them.

Those who attribute divine authority to these books and advocate them as Scripture argue that the writers of the New Testament quote mostly from the Septuagint, which contains the Apocrypha. They also cite the fact that some of the Church fathers, notably Iraneaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria, used the Apocrypha in public worship and accepted them as Scripture, as did the Syriac Church in the fourth century.

St. Augustine, who presided over the councils at Hippo and Carthage, concurred with their decision that the books of the Apocrypha were inspired. The Greek Church adds its weight to their belief in the Apocrypha. Among the fragments at Qumran are copies of some of the apocryphal books written in Hebrew. These have been discovered alongside other Old Testament works.

The case for including the Apocrypha as holy Scripture completely breaks down when examined. The New Testament writers may allude to the Apocrypha, but they never quote from it as holy Scripture or give the slightest hint that any of the books are inspired. If the Septuagint in the first century contained these books, which is by no means a proven fact, Jesus and His disciples completely ignored them.

Appealing to certain Church fathers as proof of the inspiration of the books is a weak argument, since just as many in the early church, notably Origen, Jerome and others, denied their alleged inspriation.

The Syriac Church waited until the fourth century A.D. to accept these books as canonical. It is notable that the Peshitta, the Syriac Bible of the second century A.D., did not contain them.

The early Augustine did acknowledge the Apocrypha, at least in part. But later, Augustine's writings clearly reflected a rejection of these books as outside the canon and inferior to the Hebrew scriptures.

The Jewish community also rejected these writings. At the Jewish Council of Jamnia (c. A.D. 90), nine of the books of our Old Testament canon were debated for differing reasons whether they were to be included. Eventually they ruled that only the Hebrew Old Testament books of our present canon were canonical.

Citing the presence of the Apocrypha among the Old Testament fragments proves little regarding inspiration, as numerous fragments of other, nonscriptural documents were also found.

It cannot be overemphasized that the Roman Catholic church itself did not officially declare these books as Holy Scripture until 1545-1563 at the Council of Trent.

The acceptance of certain books in the Apocrypha as canonical by the Roman Catholic Church was to a great extent a reaction to the Protestant Reformation. By canonizing these books, they legitimized their reference to them in doctrinal matters.

The arguments that advocate the scriptural authority of the Apocrypha obviously leave a great deal to be desired.

There are some other telling reasons why the Apocrypha is rejected by the Protestant Church. One of these deals with the unbiblical teaching of these questionable books, such as praying for the dead.

Praying for the deceased, advocated in 2 Maccabees 12:45-46, is in direct opposition to Luke 16:25, 26 and Hebrews 9:27, among others. The Apocrypha also contains the episode which has God assisting Judith in a lie (Judith 9:10, 13).

The Apocrypha contains demonstratable errors as well. Tobit was supposedly alive when Jeroboam staged his revolt in 931 B.C. ans was still living at the time of the Assyrian captivity (722 B.C.), yet the Book of Tobit says he lived only 158 years (Tobit 1:3-5, 14:11).

Finally, there is no claim in any of these apocryohal books as to divine inspiration. One need only read these works alongside the Bible to see the vast difference.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCE SOURCES:
Geisler, Norman and William Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. Chicago: Moody Press, 1973.
Metzger, Bruce M. An Introduction to the Apocrypha. New York: Oxford, 1957.
Unger, Merrill. Unger's Bible Dictionary. Rev. ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1971.
Young, G. Douglas. "The Apocrypha" in Revelation and the Bible. Edited by Carl Henry. Grand Rapids: Baker.

Thu, 05 Jan 2006 16:02:56 GMT

Why do Christians appeal to fulfilled prophecy to show that the Bible is God's Word?

Believers in Jesus Christ are constantly being asked why they believe the Bible to be inspired, and a common response is because of fulfilled prophecy. The argument from fulfilled prophecy is one of the strongest imaginable.

The Apostle Peter, after testifying that he had seen Jesus Christ in all His glory, said, "And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts" (2 Peter 1:19, NASB). Peter here is appealing to fulfilled prophecy as a witness to the truth of the Scriptures.

The Bible itself gives the purpose of prophecy, "Remember the former things long past, for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no other like Me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things which have not been done..." (Isaiah 46:9, 10, NASB).

"I declare the former things long ago, and they went forth from Mt mouth, and I proclaimed them. Suddenly I acted, and they came to pass. Therefore I declared them to you long ago, before they took place I proclaimed them to you, lest you should say, 'My idol has done them, and my graven image and my molten image have commanded them'" (Isaiah 48:3, 5, NASB).

The New Testament spoke of the coming of Jesus Christ, "Which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures" (Romans 1:1-4, RSV).

The testimony of the Scriptures is that the purpose of phophecy is to let us know that God exists and that He has a plan for this world. By the foretelling of persons, places and events hundreds of years before their occurrence, the Bible demonstrates a knowledge of the future that is too specific to be labeled a good guess. By giving examples of fulfilled prophecy, the Scriptures give a strong testimony to their own imspiration.

An example of this would be the prophecy of King Cyrus (Isaiah 44:28; 45:1). The prophet Isaiah, writing about 700 B.C., predicts Cyrus by name as the king who will say to Jerusalem that it shall be built and that the temple foundation shall be laid.

At the time of Isaiah's writing, the city of Jerusalem was fully built and the entire temple was standing. Not until more than 100 years later would the city and temple be destroyed by King Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C.

After Jerusalem was taken by the Babylonians, it was conquered by the Persians in about 539 B.C. Shortly after that, a Persian king named Cyrus gave the decree to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. This was around 160 years after the prophecy of Isaiah!

Thus Isaiah predicted that a man named Cyrus would not be born for about 100 years, would give command to rebuild the temple which was still standing in Isaiah's day and would not be destroyed for more than 100 years. This prophecy is truly amazing, but it is not isolated.

There are, in fact, literally hundreds of prophecies which predict future events. The idea that the fulfillment of the predictions is a result of coincidence or chance is absurd, in light of the evidence. God has given sufficient evidence of His existence and of the divine inspiration of the Scriptures by means of fulfilled prophecy.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCE SOURCES:
McDowell, Josh. Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Rev. ed. San Bernardino, Calif.: Here's Life Pubs., 1979.
Stewart, Don. You Be the Judge. San Bernardino, Calif.: Here's Life Pubs.: 1983.
Stoner, Peter. Science Speaks. Chicago: Moody Press, 1958.