Viewing 1 - 9 out of 12 Blogs.

Page:  1 | 2 | Next >  Last >>

Facing The Giants is an awesome movie everyone should see!!  It is the most inspiring Christian film I have seen since Left Behind.  It is an analogy of David and Goliath that is truly life changing.  Please, rent this movie. You won't regret it.

God bless you.

Debbie

My 15 year old son is trying to tell me what makes music Christian !  When I tell him that he is wrong he tells me that I don't trust his judgement.

Okay people it is time to stop fooling yourselves.  Christian music is all about the lyrics.  There are many bands that come out with Christian songs but that doesn't make them a Christian band.  Only if they do all Christian songs are they a Christian band.  One example of this is DCTalk who play all Christian songs, and Creed who do not.  Both bands are good and I approve of and like them, but they don't have lyrics like the following:

These words have slipped again.

Stitch the lips of the one that murmurs them.

Cloud your vision, make everyone disappear.

There's still time to wake up.

Get out while you still can speak.

This mud is too thick to see through.

The stitches are coming out.

The wounds won't heal.

Is this embedded status permanent?

So, I'm fearing the worst is yet to come.

Days are getting shorter.

Close your eyes for awhile.

Rest a little longer.

This mud is too thick to see through.

The stitches are coming out.

The wounds won't heal themselves.

Is this embedded status permanent?

Close your eyes for awhile.

Rest a little longer.

These shoulders are too weak to carry any more.

My will is too weak to carry on.

The Worst is Yet to Come by Still Ramains

My son is telling me that the above song and artist are Christian.  If anyone can show me how this is Christian or even less dark than what I am seeing, then I will re-evaluate my decision to ground my son from the computer without supervision until further notice.  He is getting a bad influence from kids at school and on myspace.   Either he will cooperate or he will lose his myspace.  I have given more than one chance to fix his myspace and get rid of the bad influences.  There are kids his age on myspace that lie about their age, and include questionable content on thier site.  I will not allow my son to be one of the bad influences!!

NOTE: If you are a parent of a child who has a myspace please monitor what they are doing, if you are not already.  There are too many bad influences both children and adult running wild on myspace!

God bless you all.

Debbie

Shriners Hospital My daughter has severe scoliosis, and although she was diagnosed with bowlegged ness when she was a toddler, and then scoliosis when she was 4, she has had it since birth. It is hereditary in Sams case, but there are over 300 diseases that can cause scoliosis and other bone deformities. If a child has problems walking or staying balanced, if they hunch over a lot, or if they have a shoulder blade or a ribcage that looks out of place; get it checked out! Dont just assume that they will grow out of it or that it is just part of the growing process. I took my daughter to the doctor early and often, and because of that she is walking today!! Yes you read correctly without treatment and the right kind of treatment my daughter would be in a wheelchair today, instead of walking on her own two feet upright not hunched over. Shriners Hospital was the best treatment in the United States that I could find for my daughter. They treated her aggressively and tried different things based on how her body responded to the treatment. She has had body braces, body casts, massage therapy, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and two very successful, and admittedly hard and painful surgeries. She will always have some back pain, and some deformity in her spine, but she is a happy healthy girl with a great outlook on life! The only limitations are some roller coasters, carnival rides (only those with warnings on them), bungee jumping, and anything that requires her to jump from an airplane. These limitations are life long, and are due to her condition not the surgeries. When Sam was first diagnosed I was naïve enough to think that the doctor should be able to fix this. I knew that this was incurable in my mind, but my heart kept insisting that there must be some kind of magical pill to spare my daughter from this. Silly, I know but I would have done anything to spare her from all that she has been through. Nobody wants their child to suffer, and most parents will do just about anything to shop it, but we cant, the best we can to is be there for them. The first orthopedist she saw was Samberg with Beaumont Hospital here in Michigan, and he put her in a very painful brace that forced her body into the correct position using strategically placed metal pieces and a strap on piece that literally pushed her ribcage in forcing it to be compacted, and left marks, rashes and sometimes bruises and even sores on her body. This did nothing to correct Sams curve, but caused her lots of pain. Within the next year she was wearing her brace 23 hours a day, taking it off only to take a bath and relax for an hour each day. She would cry and beg me to take it off, but I kept it on, unless she was sick and that only happened twice. Because the brace wasnt working the doctor blamed me, saying that I didnt have it on her enough, when I told him that she was wearing it for 23 hours he moved it up to 24 and gave her an even tighter brace to wear with more torture devices on it for the neck!!! At the brace shop we were told by the technician that there are many more aggressive ways of treating Samantha without hurting her so much, which would get better results. He had a lot of experience with making braces and getting results, because it was his job and had been for many years. He suggested a body cast, or a Lumbar brace that would be made with statically placed padded pieces to push her hips and her chest into the correct position w/o compressing her ribcage, which was causing her severe breathing problems. We asked him to talk to Dr. Samberg and scheduled a consult. Basically the doctor got very angry that we doubted his treatment of our daughter. We asked him for a long term prognoses with current treatment, and he said because of the severity of Sams curve, she would end up in a wheelchair. She was curving and twisting at an alarming rate, and nothing tried so was even slowing it down. But he wouldnt try anything else either. When we sought a second opinion from another orthopedist, we were told to go back to Dr. Samberg because he was the best in Michigan. We finally found Shriners Hospital after searching for a specialist that handles severe cases, and applied. We took her x-rays to Dr. Sanders at Shriners Hospital in Erie, PA, and the rest is history. The treatment that she got at Shriners helped keep her out of surgery until she was nine and her curve reached 85 degrees for the top and 45 degrees for the bottom, was twisting and compromised her spinal cord. When we first went to Shriners her curve was 75 degrees on top and 30 on the bottom and she was curving very fast. Now after over 11 years of being treated by Dr. Sanders and Shriners Hospital, her curve is down to 45 degrees on top and 25 degrees on the bottom and will never get worse. She has suffered a lot of pain, but with results rather than ending up in a wheelchair. We went to Shriners Hospital yesterday for a one year check-up after Sams last surgery and she is doing very well and even has some bone growth over the rods in her spine. This is good because it means that they are more secure and conforming to the bone. She has never felt better or walked straighter!! Please dont ever assume that your doctor is correct. If you question your doctor, get a second opinion, a third, or even a forth; until you are sure that there is no other way. I think that some doctors get a big head and think that they know what is best for their patient no matter what the patient says. Any good doctor will admit that the patient knows their body better than any doctor. I can say from personal experience that different people, need different treatment and a doctor should be willing to try new and different things to help a patient. If they are not willing and set in their ways, then find another doctor who will try newer and more aggressive treatments. Educate yourself and find out what treatments are available for yourself or a loved one. Through the years I have seen Shriners Hospital do some pretty amazing things to help children. My daughters story is only one of many. The Shriners Hospitals help thousands of children with almost any health problem that needs special care. They are funded by donation so if you can please give to the Shriners Hospitals for Children, for the children by calling the number bellow of visiting the website bellow. If you or someone you know has a child that needs special care call: in the United States, 1-800-237-5055 or 1-800-873-KIDS; or in Canada, 1-800-361-7256. Or visit: www.shrinershospitals.com God bless. Debbie

Crash Goes the Da Vinci Code Dr. Ron Rhodes Since Dan Brown's novel, The Da Vinci Code, exploded on the scene, I have been asked numerous times to provide answers to the claims about Christianity in the book. I have generally responded to such requests via individual letters or emails. I had not originally intended to write a formal response to the book. However, the requests continue to come in. I have therefore written this brief report to provide an answer to the more glaring errors in The Da Vinci Code. This special report is arranged in a question–answer format. There are plenty of quotes from Dan Brown's book, so you will be clear where he stands on each issue. It will be demonstrated that when all the facts are considered, Brown's Da Vinci Code poses no threat to historic Christianity. Is Dan Brown's Da Vinci Theory Based On Fact Or Fiction? Dan Brown's Position (Based on an NBC Today Show Interview): • Matt Lauer: How much is this based on reality in terms of things that actually occurred? • Dan Brown: Absolutely all of it. Obviously, Robert Langdon is fictional, but all of the art, architecture, secret rituals, secret societies—all of that is historical fact.1 The Truth Of The Matter: Brown can be challenged in at least two areas: (1) There are things he claims to be historical which, in fact, are not historical at all; and (2) he completely misrepresents biblical history. Let us briefly consider these two points: (1) There are things Brown claims to be historical which, in fact, are not historical at all. A primary case in point is the Priory of Sion, an organization that is at the very heart of Brown's story, and which, if proven to be based on bogus history, undermines the entire infrastructure of Brown's theory. This organization is said to guard the secret of Jesus' marriage to Mary Magdalene. It is claimed to have been founded in Jerusalem in 1099 by a French King. The organization is believed to be watching over Jesus and Mary's descendants, and waiting for the perfect time to reveal its secret to the world. Because of constant threat of danger from the Roman Catholic Church, the organization has allegedly hidden its message in literature, paintings, and even architecture such that only learned people can decipher the meanings. Brown makes the following assertion regarding this organization on page one of The Da Vinci Code: "The Priory of Sion—a European secret society founded in 1099—is a real organization. In 1975 Paris's Bibliotheque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci." The question is: Are these parchments reliable? As a backdrop to answering this question, allow me to point out that Brown obtained much of his information on the Priory of Sion from a book entitled Holy Blood, Holy Grail, by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln. In this book we find a dependency on the above–mentioned parchments which allegedly prove that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, had a baby named Sarah, and, following Jesus' death on the cross, Mary relocated to a Jewish community in France. Their descendents were French allegedly royalty. Now, here is the big problem with all this. These parchments are completely bogus. Historically, in 1953, a Frenchman named Pierre Plantard spent time in jail for fraud. In 1954 he founded a small social club named the Priory of Sion. The purpose of the club was to call for low–income housing in France. The organization dissolved in 1957, but Plantard held on to the name. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, Plantard put together a number of bogus documents which "proved" the Jesus–Mary Magdalene theory, with French royalty being their descendants. Plantard claimed that he himself was one of the descendents of this couple. Some time later, a friend of the French president found himself in legal trouble and Plantard ended up being called to testify in the case. While under oath, the judge asked him about these documents about Jesus and Mary Magdalene, and he admitted he made the whole thing up. An associate of Plantard's also conceded that Plantard made the whole thing up. All this has been thoroughly documented by several French books and a BBC special.2 What all this means for The Da Vinci Code is that the Priory of Sion—and the accompanying Jesus–Mary Magdalene theory—is based on bogus information with a capital "B." Hence, Dan Brown's claim that his book is based on historical secret societies is flat wrong. (2) Dan Brown also completely misrepresents biblical history. He tries to argue that "history is always written by the winners. When two cultures clash, the loser is obliterated, and the winner writes the history books—books which glorify their own cause and disparage the conquered foe" (page 256). In this line of thought, the true version of Christianity was Gnostic Christianity, but orthodox Christianity became more powerful and won out over the Gnostics. Because the orthodox Christians won over the Gnostics, they wrote history in a way favorable to their version of Christianity. Such a claim is preposterous. To begin, anyone who knows anything about Christian history knows that the early Christians were anything but "winners." The early Christians were fiercely persecuted by the Roman authorities (as well as by Jewish authorities). Christianity itself was outlawed by the Romans in the second century, and in the third and early fourth centuries, there was widespread persecution and murder of Christians. Some Christians were thrown into the arena to be eaten by lions, to the entertainment of Roman citizens who were watching. Other Christians were tied up on poles, drenched with fuel, and lit as streetlamps at night. At the end of his life, Peter was crucified upside–down in Rome during Emperor Nero's persecution in A.D. 64. Previous to this, Peter had written two epistles to help other Christians being persecuted. Peter probably wrote from Rome at the outbreak of Nero's persecution. Having already endured beating at Herod's hands, Peter wrote his brethren in Asia probably to encourage and strengthen them in facing the Neronian persecution. It may well be that Peter recalled his Lord's injunctions: "Strengthen your brothers" (Luke 22:32), and "Feed my sheep" (John 21:15-17). Paul, too, suffered persecution and was beheaded during the Neronian persecution in A.D. 64. The fact that New Testament writers gave their lives in defense of their writings says something. No one chooses to die for something that was made up out of thin air! One of the purposes of the book of Revelation was to comfort Christians suffering persecution. The author is the apostle John, who himself had been imprisoned on the isle of Patmos (in the Aegean Sea) for the crime of sharing Jesus Christ with everyone he came into contact with (Revelation 1:9). The recipients of the book of Revelation were undergoing such severe persecution that some of them were being killed (see Revelation 2:13). Things were about to get even worse. John wrote this book to give his readers a strong hope that would help them patiently endure in the midst of suffering. Despite all this heavy persecution, the church survived and spread around the world. Christianity grew not because the Christians were "winners" and wrote a "winner's history," but rather Christianity grew despite being big losers under Roman persecution. Aside from all this, I must emphasize that Christianity is a religion in and of history. We find powerful substantiation for the true history of Christianity in archeology. The Bible's accuracy and reliability have been proved and verified over and over again by archeological finds produced by both Christian and non–Christian scholars and scientists. This includes verification for numerous customs, places, names, and events mentioned in the Bible. To date, over 25,000 sites in biblical lands have been discovered, dating back to Old Testament times, which have established the accuracy of innumerable details in the Bible. In view of such discoveries, we can conclude that archeology is a true friend of the Bible. In no case has an archeological discovery controverted a biblical fact, but rather always serves to support the veracity of the Bible. It is highly revealing that William Ramsey, a well–known historian and archeologist, set out to prove that Luke was not a reliable historian. He set out to show that both the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts (which Luke also wrote) were both unreliable in terms of chronology, places, names, and events. After a lifetime of study, he came to the conclusion that he had been utterly mistaken. He found Luke to be a first–rate historian whose work was flawless. (See his book, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, page 81.) This is not surprising, since Luke—a medical doctor committed to accuracy— speaks of his methodology right at the start of his gospel: "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." There is so much more that could be said. The above is sufficient, however, to demonstrate that while Dan Brown's theory is based on bogus evidence, Christianity and the Bible are backed by true historical evidence. Is All Religion Based On Fabrication? Dan Brown's Position: • "Every faith in the world is based on fabrication. That is the definition of faith—acceptance of that which we imagine to be true, that which we cannot prove." (Page 341) • "Those who truly understand their faiths understand the stories are metaphorical.... Religious allegory has become a part of the fabric of reality. And living in that reality helps millions of people cope and be better people." (Page 342) The Truth of the Matter: While it may be true that some world religions and cults are based on manmade fabrications, Christianity is based on historical God–sent revelation—both general revelation and special revelation. "General revelation" refers to revelation that is available to all persons of all times. An example of this would be God's revelation of Himself in the world of nature (Psalm 19). By observing the world of nature around us, we can detect something of God's existence, and discern something of His divine power and glory. We might say that the whole world is God's "kindergarten" to teach us the ABC's of the reality of God. Human beings cannot open their eyes without being compelled to see God. Indeed, God has engraved unmistakable marks of His glory on His creation. There are, of course, limitations to how much we can learn from general revelation, for it tells us nothing about God's cure for man's sin problem. It tells us nothing of the "gospel message." These kinds of things require special revelation. But general revelation does give us enough information about God's existence that if we reject it, and refuse to turn to God, God is justified in bringing condemnation against us (Romans 1:20). "Special revelation" refers to God's very specific and clear revelation in such things as His mighty acts in history, the person of Jesus Christ, and His message spoken through Old Testament prophets (like Isaiah and Daniel) and New Testament apostles (like Paul and Peter). God's Revelation in History God is the living God, and He has communicated knowledge of Himself through the ebb and flow of historical experience. The Bible is first and foremost a record of the history of God's interactions among Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the twelve tribes of Israel, the apostle Paul, Peter, John, and all the other people of God in biblical times. The greatest revelatory act of God in Old Testament history was the deliverance of Israel from bondage in Egypt. God, through Moses, inflicted ten plagues on the Egyptians that thoroughly demonstrated His awesome power (Exodus 7-12). God's demonstration of power was all the more impressive since the Egyptians believed their many false gods had the power to protect them from such plagues. Note that the historical miracles and events wrought by God were always accompanied by spoken words. The miracle or event was never left to speak for itself. Nor were human beings left to infer whatever conclusions they wanted to draw from the event (fabrications). God made sure that when a significant event occurred there was a prophet at hand to interpret it. For example, Moses was there to record everything related to the Exodus. The apostles were there to record everything related to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. God has revealed Himself in history, and He always made sure that His historical actions were adequately recorded! God's Ultimate Revelation in Jesus Christ The only way for God to be able to fully do and say all that He wanted was to actually leave His eternal residence and enter the arena of humanity. This He did in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus was God's ultimate "special" revelation. Scripture indicates that God is a Spirit (John 4:24). And because He is a Spirit, He is invisible (Colossians 1:15). With our normal senses, we cannot perceive Him, other than what we can detect in general revelation. Further, man is spiritually blind and deaf (1 Corinthians 2:14). Since the fall of man in the Garden of Eden, man has lacked true spiritual perception. So humankind was in need of special revelation from God in the worst sort of way. Jesus—as eternal God—took on human flesh so He could be God's fullest revelation to man (Hebrews 1:2,3). Jesus was a revelation of God not just in His person (as God) but in His life and teachings as well. By observing the things Jesus did and the things Jesus said, we learn a great deal about God. For example, God's awesome power was revealed in Jesus (John 3:2). God's incredible wisdom was revealed in Jesus (1 Corinthians 1:24). God's boundless love was revealed and demonstrated by Jesus (1 John 3:16). And God's unfathomable grace was revealed in Jesus (2 Thessalonians 1:12). These verses serve as the backdrop as to why Jesus told a group of Pharisees, "When a man believes in me, he does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me" (John 12:44). Jesus likewise told Philip that "anyone who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). Jesus was the ultimate historical revelation of God! God's Revelation in the Bible Another key means of "special" revelation is the Bible. In this one book, God has provided everything He wants us to know about Him and how we can have a relationship with Him. God is the one who caused the Bible to be written (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21). And through it He speaks to us today just as He spoke to people in ancient times when those words were first given. The Bible is to be received as God's words to us and revered and obeyed as such. As we submit to the Bible's authority, we place ourselves under the authority of the living God. (Dan Brown tries to argue against the reliability of the Bible. I shall address this claim later in this paper.) Is Christianity Rooted In Paganism? Dan Brown's Position: "Nothing in Christianity is original. The pre–Christian God Mithras—called the Son of God and the Light of the World—was born on December 25, died, was buried in a rock tomb, and then resurrected in three days. By the way, December 25 is also the birthday of Osiris, Adonis, and Dionysus." (Page 232) The Truth of the Matter: A common apologetic against Christianity is the idea that it borrowed from Greek pagan religions. The virgin birth is often cited as an example. The reality, if you look at Greek mythology and paganism, is that their male gods would come down and have sex with human women and give birth to hybrid beings. This is not what happened in terms of the virgin birth. Jesus is eternal deity. When the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, it was specifically to produce a human nature within her womb for the eternal Son of God to step into, after which he was born as the God–Man (100–percent God and 100–percent man) nine months later. This is entirely different from Greek paganism. One should also note that the virgin birth of Jesus was prophesied (e.g., Isaiah 7:14) hundreds of years before these pagan religions were setting forth their versions of a virgin birth. It is sometimes argued that Christianity borrowed its "miracles"—such as turning water into wine, walking on water, and the resurrection itself—from Greek pagan mythology. Dr. Ronald Nash has responded convincingly to such absurd claims. Below is a summary of key points based on an article Nash wrote.3 He has also written the book, The Gospel and the Greeks, which you may wish to purchase and read for more thorough documentation. Nash argues: * Many alleged similarities between Christianity and the Greek pagan religions are either greatly exaggerated or fabricated. Liberal scholars (such as those in the Jesus Seminar) often describe pagan rituals in language that they borrowed from Christianity, thereby making them appear to be "parallel" doctrines. * The chronology for such claims is all wrong. Nash writes: "Almost all of our sources of information about the pagan religions alleged to have influenced early Christianity are dated very late. We frequently find writers quoting from documents written 300 years [later]... We must reject the assumption that just because a cult had a certain belief or practice in the third or fourth century after Christ, it therefore had the same belief or practice in the first century." * New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger is quoted by Nash: "It must not be uncritically assumed that the Mysteries [i.e., pagan religions] always influenced Christianity, for it is not only possible but probable that in certain cases, the influence moved in the opposite direction." Nash notes that it should not be surprising that leaders of cults that were being successfully challenged by Christianity should do something to counter the challenge. What better way to do this than by offering a pagan substitute? Pagan attempts to counter the growing influence of Christianity by imitating it are clearly apparent in measures instituted by Julian the Apostate. * The chronology for such claims is all wrong. Nash writes: "Almost all of our sources of information about the pagan religions alleged to have influenced early Christianity are dated very late. We frequently find writers quoting from documents written 300 years [later]... We must reject the assumption that just because a cult had a certain belief or practice in the third or fourth century after Christ, it therefore had the same belief or practice in the first century." * New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger is quoted by Nash: "It must not be uncritically assumed that the Mysteries [i.e., pagan religions] always influenced Christianity, for it is not only possible but probable that in certain cases, the influence moved in the opposite direction." Nash notes that it should not be surprising that leaders of cults that were being successfully challenged by Christianity should do something to counter the challenge. What better way to do this than by offering a pagan substitute? Pagan attempts to counter the growing influence of Christianity by imitating it are clearly apparent in measures instituted by Julian the Apostate. * As for claims of resurrection among pagan gods, Nash comments: "Which mystery gods actually experienced a resurrection from the dead? Certainly no early texts refer to any resurrection of Attis. Nor is the case for a resurrection of Osiris any stronger. One can speak of a 'resurrection' in the stories of Osiris, Attis, and Adonis only in the most extended of senses. For example, after Isis gathered together the pieces of Osiris's dismembered body, Osiris became 'Lord of the Underworld.' This is a poor substitute for a resurrection like that of Jesus Christ. And, no claim can be made that Mithras was a dying and rising god. The tide of scholarly opinion has turned dramatically against attempts to make early Christianity dependent on the so–called dying and rising gods of Hellenistic paganism. Any unbiased examination of the evidence shows that such claims must be rejected." * The mysticism of the mystery religions was essentially nonhistorical. The religion of Christianity is grounded in history (see my earlier discussion). Is The Bible An Unreliable Document? Dan Brown's Position: • "The Bible is a product of man...not of God." (Page 231) • "The New Testament is false testimony." (Page 345) • "The New Testament is based on fabrications." (Page 341) • "The Bible... has evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions. History has never had a definitive version of the book." (Page 231) The Truth of the Matter: The Bible is not the product of man but is rather God–inspired. Inspiration does not mean the biblical writer just felt enthusiastic, like the composer of the "Star Spangled Banner." Nor does it mean the writings are necessarily inspiring to read, like an uplifting poem. The biblical Greek word for inspiration literally means "God–breathed." Because Scripture is breathed out by God— because it originates from Him—it is true and inerrant. Biblical inspiration may be defined as God's superintending of the human authors so that, using their own individual personalities—and even their writing styles—they composed and recorded without error His revelation to humankind in the words of the original autographs. In other words, the original documents of the Bible were written by men, who, though permitted to exercise their own personalities and literary talents, wrote under the control and guidance of the Holy Spirit, the result being a perfect and errorless recording of the exact message God desired to give to man. Hence, the writers of Scripture were not mere writing machines. God did not use them like keys on a typewriter to mechanically reproduce His message. Nor did He dictate the words, page by page. The biblical evidence makes it clear that each writer had a style of his own. (Isaiah had a powerful literary style; Jeremiah had a mournful tone; Luke's style had medical overtones; and John was very simple in his approach.) The Holy Spirit infallibly worked through each of these writers, through their individual styles, to inerrantly communicate His message to humankind. Second Peter 1:21 provides a key insight regarding the human–divine interchange in the process of inspiration. This verse informs us that "prophecy [or Scripture] never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." The phrase carried along in this verse literally means "forcefully borne along." Even though human beings were used in the process of writing down God's Word, they were all literally "borne along" by the Holy Spirit. The human wills of the authors were not the originators of God's message. God did not permit the will of sinful human beings to misdirect or erroneously record His message. Rather, "God moved and the prophet mouthed these truths; God revealed and man recorded His word."4 Interestingly, the Greek word for "carried along" in 2 Peter 1:21 is the same as that found in Acts 27:15-17. In this passage the experienced sailors could not navigate the ship because the wind was so strong. The ship was being driven, directed, and carried along by the wind. This is similar to the Spirit's driving, directing, and carrying the human authors of the Bible as He wished. The word is a strong one, indicating the Spirit's complete superintendence of the human authors. Yet, just as the sailors were active on the ship (though the wind, not the sailors, ultimately controlled the ship's movement), so the human authors were active in writing as the Spirit directed. I believe the New Testament writers were aware that their writings were inspired by God. In 1 Corinthians 2:13 the apostle Paul said he spoke "not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words." In this passage Paul (who wrote over half the New Testament) affirmed that his words were authoritative because they were rooted not in fallible men but infallible God (the Holy Spirit). The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth who was promised to the apostles to teach and guide them into all the truth (see John 16:13). Later, in 1 Corinthians 14:37, Paul said, "If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command." In 1 Thessalonians 2:13 Paul likewise said, "And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe." Again, the reason why Paul's words were authoritative is that they were rooted in God, not in man. God used Paul as His instrument to communicate His word to man. What about Dan Brown's claim that the New Testament is based on fabrications? The statement is patently false. The New Testament is not made up of fairytales but is rather based on eyewitness testimony. In 2 Peter 1:16 we read, "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." First John 1:1 affirms, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life." So convinced were these and other eyewitnesses that they ended up giving their lives in defense of what they knew to be true. While Dan Brown claims the Bible has evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions, he can only argue this way by ignoring well– established facts. First, while there have been numerous translations of the Bible into a variety of languages, each such translation utilizes the same basic set of Hebrew and Greek manuscript copies of the original writings of the Bible. There are more than 5,000 partial and complete manuscript copies of the New Testament. These manuscript copies are very ancient and they are available for inspection now. Following are some highlights: * The Chester Beatty papyrus (P45) dates to the 3rd century A.D., and contains the four Gospels and the Book of Acts (chapters 4-17). (P = papyrus.) * The Chester Beatty papyrus (P46) dates to about A.D. 200, and contains ten Pauline epistles (all but the Pastorals) and the Book of Hebrews. * The Chester Beatty papyrus (P47) dates to the 3rd century A.D., and contains Revelation 9:10-17:2. * The Bodmer Papyrus (P66) dates to about A.D. 200, and contains the Gospel of John. * The Bodmer Papyrus (P75) dates to the early 3rd century, and contains Luke and John. * The Sinaiticus uncial manuscript dates to the 4th century, and contains the entire New Testament. * The Vaticanus uncial manuscript dates to the 4th century, and contains most of the New Testament except Hebrews 9:14ff the Pastoral Epistles, Philemon, and Revelation. * The Washingtonianus uncial manuscript dates to the early 5th century, and contains the Gospels. * The Alexandrinus uncial manuscript dates to the 5th century, and contains most of the New Testament. * The Ephraemi Rescriptus uncial manuscript dates to the 5th century, and contains portions of every book except 2 Thessalonians and 2 John. * The Bezae/Cantabrigiensis uncial manuscript dates to the 5th century, and contains the Gospels and Acts. * The Claromontanus uncial manuscript dates to the 6th century and contains the Pauline epistles and Hebrews. * The Itala version (versions were prepared for missionary purposes) dates to the 3rd century. * The Vulgate version dates to the 4th century and later. * The Syriac version dates to the 2nd to 6th centuries. * The Coptic version dates to the 3rd and 4th centuries. * The Armenian version dates to the 5th century. * The Georgian version dates to the 5th century. There are also some 86,000 quotations of the New Testament from the early church fathers and several thousand Lectionaries (church–service books containing Scripture quotations used in the early centuries of Christianity). In fact, there are enough quotations from the early church fathers that even if we did not have a single manuscript copy of the Bible, scholars could still reconstruct all but 11 verses of the entire New Testament from material written within 150 to 200 years from the time of Christ. What about the variants that exist among the biblical manuscripts? It is true to say that in the thousands of manuscript copies we possess of the New Testament, scholars have discovered that there are some 200,000 "variants." This may seem like a staggering figure to the uninformed mind, but to people who study the issue, the numbers of variants are not so damning as it may initially appear. Indeed, a look at the hard evidence shows that the New Testament manuscripts are amazingly accurate and trustworthy. To begin, I must emphasize that out of these 200,000 variants, over 99 percent hold virtually no significance whatsoever. Many of these variants simply involve a missing letter in a word; some involve reversing the order of two words (such as "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ"); some may involve the absence of one or more insignificant words. When all the facts are put on the table, only about 40 of the variants have any real significance—and even then, no doctrine of the Christian faith or any moral commandment is affected by them. For more than 99 percent of the cases the original text can be reconstructed to a practical certainty. By practicing the science of textual criticism—comparing all the available manuscripts with each other—we can come to an assurance regarding what the original document must have said. Perhaps an illustration might be helpful. Let us suppose we have five manuscript copies of an original document that no longer exists. Each of the manuscript copies is different. Our goal is to compare the manuscript copies and ascertain what the original must have said. Here are the five copies: Manuscript #1: Jesus Christ is the Savior of the whole world. Manuscript #2: Christ Jesus is the Savior of the whole world. Manuscript #3: Jesus Christ the Savior of the whole world. Manuscript #4: Jesus is Savior of the whole world. Manuscript #5: Jesus Christ is the Savor of the world. Could you, by comparing the manuscript copies, ascertain what the original document said with a high degree of certainty that you are correct? Of course you could. This illustration may be extremely simplistic, but a great majority of the 200,000 variants are solved by the above methodology. By comparing the various manuscripts, most of which contain relatively minor differences like the above, it becomes fairly clear what the original must have said. Further, I must emphasize that the sheer volume of manuscripts we possess greatly narrows the margin of doubt regarding what the original biblical document said. I want to make mention of the Dead Sea Scrolls in this regard. (This is important, for Dan Brown seems to think the Dead Sea Scrolls support his position.) In these scrolls discovered at Qumran in 1947, we have Old Testament manuscripts that date about a thousand years earlier (150 B.C.) than the other Old Testament manuscripts previously in our possession (which dated to A.D. 980). The significant thing is that when one compares the two sets of manuscripts, it is clear that they are essentially the same, with very few changes. The fact that manuscripts separated by a thousand years are essentially the same indicates the incredible accuracy of the Old Testament's manuscript transmission. The copy of the Book of Isaiah discovered at Qumran illustrates this accuracy. Dr. Gleason Archer, who personally examined both the A.D. 980 and 150 B.C. copies of Isaiah, comments: Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling.5 The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the copyists of biblical manuscripts took great care in going about their work. These copyists knew they were duplicating God's Word. Hence they went to incredible lengths to insure that no error crept into their work. The scribes carefully counted every line, word, syllable, and letter to guarantee accuracy. Scholar L. Bevan Jones writes: The Massoretes...numbered the verses, words, and letters of every book. They calculated the middle word and the middle letter of each. They enumerated verses which contained all the letters of the alphabet, or a certain number of them; and so on. These trivialities, as we might rightly consider them, had yet the effect of securing minute attention to the precise transmission of the text; and they are but an excessive manifestation of a respect for the sacred Scriptures which in itself deserves nothing but praise. The Massoretes were indeed anxious that not one jot or tittle—not one smallest letter nor one tiny part of a letter—of the Law should pass away or be lost.6 I want to also make a few comments regarding Brown's claim that the New Testament has gone through numerous revisions, as if changes have been made century by century: * Within the first few centuries of Christianity, there were thousands of copies of the Bible dispersed over a large part of the world. To successfully revise or make a change in the Bible, all these copies would have to be meticulously gathered (assuming people around the world would be willing to surrender them, an impossible–to–believe scenario), and then the changes made. * Another scenario is that thousands of Bible–owning people from around the world met together and colluded to make the changes. But since most of these people were true believers, is it likely they would tamper with a book upon which they were basing their eternal salvation? Would such collusion even be physically possible? * Within the first few centuries of Christianity, the Bible was translated into a number of languages. Are we to believe these various translations were identically altered all over the world so they would have a uniform revision? * Scholar William J. Saal raises the point that if Christians corrupted the New Testament, wouldn't unflattering episodes about Christians have been removed from the New Testament (like Peter denying Christ three times, and the disciples scattering like a bunch of faithless cowards when Christ was arrested)? One would think so. In my view, the almighty God who had the power and sovereign control to inspire the Scriptures in the first place is surely going to continue to exercise His power and sovereign control in the preservation of Scripture. Further, God's preservational work is illustrated in the very text of the Bible. By examining how Christ viewed the Old Testament (keeping in mind that Jesus did not have in His possession the original books penned by the Old Testament writers, but possessed only copies), we see that He had full confidence that the Scriptures He used had been faithfully preserved through the centuries. Bible scholar Greg Bahnsen writes: "Because Christ raised no doubts about the adequacy of the Scripture as His contemporaries knew them, we can safely assume that the first– century text of the Old Testament was a wholly adequate representation of the divine word originally given. Jesus regarded the extant copies of His day as so approximate to the originals in their message that He appealed to those copies as authoritative."7 The respect Jesus and His apostles held for the extant Old Testament text is an expression of their confidence that God providentially preserved these copies and translations so that they were substantially identical with the inspired originals. We can deduce that the same is true regarding the New Testament and God's preservation of the entire Bible through history. Another related factor to note is that in Revelation 22:18-19 we read, "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." The Jews were also given similar commands in the Old Testament. Deuteronomy 4:2 says, "Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you." Deuteronomy 12:32 says, "See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it." Proverbs 30:5-6 says, "Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar." In view of such verses, one must ask how feasible it is to suggest that Bible–believing Christians would choose to corrupt and change God's Word? Such individuals would not only be damning themselves before God, but also misleading all their descendants (their children and their children's children) who would read the very Scriptures they corrupted. How likely is that? Were There Eighty Gospels Competing For Inclusion In The New Testament? Dan Brown's Position: "More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative few were chosen for inclusion—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John." (Page 231) The Truth of the Matter: Such a view is absolute nonsense. Aside from the four canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), history reveals there were only twelve other gospels in circulation during this general time, and these were clearly not "inspired Scripture." There were also Gnostic gospels that emerged later, but these are too late to be counted. The four gospels in our present Bible were chosen for good reason. First, early in church history, four centers of Christianity emerged: Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexander, and Rome. These centers of Christianity used the four gospels in our present Bible. Christian leaders who lived between A.D. 95 and 170 consistently point to the reliability of the New Testament Gospels. Following is a sampling. 1. Clement. Clement was a leading elder in the church at Rome. In his epistle to the Corinthians (c. A.D. 95), he cites portions of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and introduces them as the actual words of Jesus.8 2. Papias. Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia and author of Exposition of Oracles of the Lord (c. A.D. 130), cites the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, presumably as canonical. He specifically refers to John's Gospel as containing the words of Jesus.9 3. Justin Martyr. Justin Martyr, foremost apologist of the second century (A.D. 140), considered all four Gospels to be Scripture.10 4. The Didache. The Didache, an ancient manual of Christianity that dates between the end of the first century and the beginning of the second century, cites portions of the three synoptic Gospels and refers to them as the words of Jesus. This manual quotes extensively from Matthew's gospel.11 5. Polycarp. Polycarp, a disciple of the apostle John, quotes portions of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and refers to them as the words of Jesus (c. A.D. 150).12 6. Irenaeus. Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp (c. A.D. 170), quoted from twenty–three of the twenty–seven New Testament books, omitting only Philemon, James, 2 Peter, and 3 John.13 7. The Muratorian Fragment dates to about A.D. 175, and lists the four canonical gospels. Indeed, it lists 23 of the 27 books in the New Testament. 8. Papyrus 45, dated around A.D. 200, has all four canonical gospels together. Clearly, there are many early sources dating between A.D. 95 and 150 that refer to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as containing the actual words of Christ. History is therefore on the side of the New Testament Gospels. Did Constantine Choose Which Books Belong in the Bible for Political Purposes? Dan Brown's Position: • "The modern Bible was compiled and edited by men who possessed a political agenda ... to solidify their own power base." (Page 234) • "Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ's human traits and embellished those gospels that made Him godlike. The earlier gospels were outlawed, gathered up, and burned." (Page 234) • "The early Church needed to convince the world that the mortal prophet Jesus was a divine being. Therefore, any gospels that described earthly aspects of Jesus' life had to be omitted from the Bible." (Page 244) The Truth of the Matter: Such a view is nonsense! History is quite clear regarding the activities of Constantine, and one thing he had virtually nothing to do with was the canon right there in New Testament times, far before Constantine was even born. For example, in 1 Timothy 5:18, the apostle Paul joined an Old Testament reference and a New Testament reference and called them both (collectively) "Scripture" (Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). It would not have been unusual in the context of first–century Judaism for an Old Testament passage to be called "Scripture." But for a New Testament book to be called "Scripture" so soon after it was written says volumes about Paul's view of the authority of contemporary New Testament books. More specifically, only three years had elapsed between the writing of Luke's Gospel and the writing of 1 Timothy (Luke was written around A.D. 60; 1 Timothy was written around A.D. 63). Yet, despite this, Paul (himself a Jew— a "Hebrew of Hebrews") does not hesitate to place Luke on the same level of authority as the Old Testament book of Deuteronomy. Further, the writings of the apostle Paul were recognized as Scripture by the apostle Peter (2 Peter 3:16). Paul, too, understood that his own writings were inspired by God and therefore authoritative (1 Corinthians 14:37; 1 Thessalonians 2: 13). Paul, of course, wrote over half the New Testament. This means that hundreds of years before the time of Constantine, many of the New Testament books were already considered canonical. Later, when the heretic Marcion emerged on the scene (who came up with his own false canon), it became necessary for the church to formally put in concrete a list of canonical books. When the church made this formal pronouncement, it simply affirmed the books that had already been accepted as canonical by the church at large. It was like a final "stamp of approval." The basic rules that guided recognition of the canon are as follows, listed in question format: 1. Was the book written or backed by a prophet or apostle of God? This is the single most important test. The reasoning here is that the Word of God which is inspired by the Spirit of God for the people of God must be communicated through a man of God.14 Deuteronomy 18:18 informs us that only a prophet of God will speak the Word of God. Second Peter 1:20-21 assures us that Scripture is only written by men of God. In Galatians 1:1-24 the apostle Paul argued support for the Book of Galatians by appealing to the fact that he was an authorized messenger of God, an apostle. 2. Is the book authoritative? In other words, can it be said of this book as it was said of Jesus, "The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law" (Mark 1:22). Put another way, does this book ring with the sense of, "Thus saith the Lord"? 3. Does the book tell the truth about God and doctrine as it is already known by previous revelation? The Bereans searched the OT Scriptures to see whether Paul's teaching was true (Acts 17:11). They knew that if Paul's teaching did not accord with the Old Testament canon, it could not be of God. Agreement with all earlier revelation is essential (Gal. 1:8). 4. Does the book give evidence of having the power of God? The reasoning here is that any writing that does not exhibit the transforming power of God in the lives of its readers could not have come from God. Scripture says that the Word of God is "living and active" (Hebrews 4:12). Second Timothy 3:16-17 indicates that God's Word has a transforming effect. If the book in question did not have the power to change a life, then, it was reasoned, the book could not have come from God. 5. Was the book accepted by the people of God? In Old Testament times, Moses's scrolls were placed immediately into the Ark of the Covenant (Deuteronomy 31:24-26). Joshua's writings were added in the same fashion (Joshua 24:26). In the New Testament, Paul thanked the Thessalonians for receiving the apostle's message as the Word of God (1 Thessalonians 2:13). Paul's letters were circulated among the churches (Colossians 4: 16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). It is the norm that God's people—that is, the majority of them and not simply a faction—will initially receive God's Word as such. In the interest of accuracy, I will note that there were some books that were doubted for a time, but not for long. The books that were doubted for a time were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. Hebrews was doubted because the author of the book was unknown. However, the book eventually came to be viewed as having apostolic authority, if not apostolic authorship. James was doubted because of its apparent conflict with Paul's teaching about salvation by faith alone. The conflict was resolved by seeing the works James speaks of as an outgrowth of real faith. Second Peter was doubted because the style of this book differs from that of 1 Peter. It seems clear, however, that Peter used a scribe to write 1 Peter (see 1 Peter 5:12). So a style conflict is not really a problem. Second and 3 John were doubted because the author of these books is called "elder," not "apostle." However, Peter (an apostle) is also called "elder" in 1 Peter 5:1. So it seems clear that the same person can be both an elder and an apostle. Jude was doubted because it refers to two noncanonical books—the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses. This objection was eventually overcome because even Paul quoted from pagan poets (see Acts 17:28 and Titus 1:12). Moreover, Jude enjoyed early acceptance by most of the early believers. The Book of Revelation was doubted because it teaches a thousand–year reign of Christ. Since there was a local contemporary cult that taught the same, it was reasoned that Revelation must not be true Scripture. However, because many of the earliest church fathers believed in a thousand–year reign of Christ too, this objection was eventually seen as being without merit. One thing is certain. The biblical canon was firmly established long before Constantine's time. Hence, Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code is woefully inaccurate on this issue. Did Constantine Convert the World From Matriarchal Paganism to Patriarchal Christianity? Dan Brown's Position: "Constantine and his male successors successfully converted the world from matriarchal paganism to patriarchal Christianity by waging a campaign of propaganda that demonized the sacred feminine, obliterating the goddess from modern religion forever." (Page 124) The Truth of the Matter: Constantine did not convert the world from matriarchal paganism to patriarchal Christianity. Again, history is quite clear about what Constantine did and did not do, and matriarchal paganism was not something that even concerned him. Historical studies have proven that in almost all societies around the world, rule has been patriarchal in nature. This is not to deny the reigns of various queens in some cultures, but by and large, patriarchal rule has been the normal pattern throughout recorded history. This was certainly the case during New Testament times. It is therefore false to say that the early orthodox Christians overcame "early" matriarchal pagans so that their own "later" version of Christianity would prevail. Such a view involves the worst kind of revisionism, pure and simple. To say there was a campaign to demonize the "sacred feminine"—a view with ZERO historical support—is on a level of those who continue to claim Elvis sightings today. Are the Gnostic Gospels Reliable Documents? Dan Brown's Position: • The Nag Hammadi gospels "highlight glaring discrepancies and fabrications ... [in] the modern Bible." (Page 234) • The Nag Hammadi scrolls are "the earliest Christian records." (Page 245) • "Fortunately for historians... some of the gospels that Constantine attempted to eradicate managed to survive. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 1950s hidden in a cave near Qumran in the Judean desert." (Page 234) The Truth of the Matter: Christians have been concerned about false gospels since the early years of Christianity. In his classic Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies), Irenaeus (A.D. 130–200) refers to "an unspeakable number of apocryphal and spurious writings, which they themselves [heretics] had forged, to bewilder the minds of the foolish."15 One of the Gnostic gospels discovered at Nag Hammadi in 1945 is The Gospel of Truth, about which Irenaeus says: "It agrees in nothing with the Gospels of the Apostles, so that they have really no Gospel which is not full of blasphemy. For if what they have published is the Gospel of Truth, and yet is totally unlike those which have been handed down to us by the Apostles... [then] that which has been handed down from the Apostles can no longer be reckoned the Gospel of Truth."16 Origen (A.D. 185–253) noted that "the Church possesses four Gospels, heresy a great many."17 Presently there are three theories about the formation of the Nag Hammadi collection. One theory is that the library belonged to a Sethian Gnostic sect who lived in the Nag Hammadi area. Seth, a son of Adam, was highly regarded as the ancestor of the race of enlightened Gnostics and is mentioned prominently in some Nag Hammadi texts. A second theory is that the library was collected by Christian Gnostic monks before the time when such monks were considered heretics and consequently expelled. Such monks may have hidden their gospels for safekeeping. A third theory is that the library was collected by orthodox monks for use in refuting Gnostic heretics. Regardless of which theory is correct, Da Vinci Code enthusiasts believe the Gnostic Gospels are authentic. But are they? Most scholars agree that the Gnostic Gospels date far too late to be reliable. The earliest Gnostic Gospels may date as early as A.D. 150, but most date in the third and fourth centuries. Further, there are no historical or geographical elements in these "gospels" that can be objectively verified, as is true in the canonical gospels. There are certainly no genuine eyewitness accounts in these late gospels. Moreover, no one—not even liberal theologians—believes The Gospel of Thomas was written by the biblical Thomas, and that The Gospel of Philip was written by the biblical Philip. The canonical gospels have been thoroughly tested in regard to history, and have been found to be exceedingly accurate. Earlier I noted that scholar William Ramsey set out to prove, through many years of research, that Luke was not a reliable historian, either in his Gospel or in the book of Acts (which he also authored). Following his exhaustive study, Ramsey concluded that Luke was a first–rate historian in terms of geography, people, place names, and the like. And, as noted earlier, Luke's Gospel is dated at A.D. 60. Recall that Luke's Gospel is mentioned as Scripture in I Timothy 5:18, and 1 Timothy is dated at A.D. 63. Hence, Luke's gospel was recognized as Scripture within three years of its writing—hundreds of years before most of the Gnostic gospels. Related to this, I need to point out that the apostle Paul died during the Neronian persecution, which took pace in A.D. 64. Paul was certainly still alive as of the end of the book of Acts. This means Acts was written prior to A.D. 64. We further know that Luke wrote his Gospel ("Luke") before he wrote the book of Acts, which means that Luke was written around A.D. 60, which places him notably earlier than the Gnostic Gospels. Scholars have often pointed out that all four canonical gospels must date prior to A.D. 70 for one simple fact: All four of them fail to mention anything at all about the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in A.D. 70 at the hands of Titus and his Roman warriors. The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple would be on a par with the Holocaust in modern times. For this horrific event not to be mentioned can mean only one thing: the four canonical gospels must have been written prior to this time. As far as the Gnostic Gospels go, one does not have to read them for long to discover that they are irreconcilable with the New Testament Gospels. This is an important point, because if the historical evidence supports the New Testament Gospels (as I have argued above), the Gnostic Gospels are thereby proven to be false and doctrinally unreliable. Consider the following: 1. The Gnostic Gospels portray Jesus as commanding the disciples to keep his teaching secret, but the New Testament Jesus commissioned the disciples to share the good news with the whole world. The Gospel of Thomas begins with these words: "These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke...."18 The Apocryphon of John, another Gnostic document, contains a sober warning by Jesus of a curse that would fall on any who share his secret teaching with outsiders: "Cursed be everyone who will exchange these things for a gift, or for food, or for drink, or for clothing, or for any other such things."19 Jesus also allegedly commanded John to put written records of his secret teachings in "a safe place." Does this sound like the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount? It was quite common among Gnostics to be protective of the gnosis, or secret teaching. Nag Hammadi analyst John Dart comments: "The 'curse' of Jesus in The Apocryphon of John, put into Jesus' mouth by Gnostic authors, followed a time–honored practice of mystic groups warning their members that such sacred scriptures should not fall into the wrong hands. For historians, much more interesting was the advice to put the writings in a safe place. In the case of the Gnostic papyri, the place, wherever it was, had been 'safe' for centuries [until 1947]."20 Such a secretive attitude, however, is completely unlike the Jesus of the New Testament Gospels. In what is traditionally called "The Great Commission," Jesus commanded the disciples: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations…." (Matt. 28: 19). Before He ascended into heaven following His resurrection, Jesus said to the disciples: "You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth" (Acts 1:8). Clearly, the New Testament Jesus wanted people everywhere to hear the good news of salvation. 2. The teachings of Jesus in the New Testament Gospels are utterly incompatible with Gnosticism. Some of Jesus' teachings in the Gospels may be open to a variety of interpretations, but this is a far cry from saying that they can be construed to teach any form of Gnosticism. Among other things, the Gnostics taught (1) the existence of both a transcendent God and a lower God (the Creator–Demiurge), whom Gnostics equated with Yahweh of the Old Testament; (2) spirit is good but matter is evil; (3) man's spirit is imprisoned in the material body but will escape this imprisonment at death; and (4) there is no physical resurrection of the body. The New Testament Jesus taught none of these ideas. Contrary to Gnostic teachings, scholar Gary Habermas tells us that "Jesus does not refer to Yahweh as less than the supreme Creator and God of the universe. Neither does he speak of the physical body as a necessary evil which imprisons the soul. With regard to eternal life, Jesus taught the [physical] resurrection of the body, not the [mere] immortality of the soul."21 3. The Gnostic Gospels offer us a redemption through gnosis, whereas New Testament redemption is based wholly on faith in Christ. The truth of The Gospel of Truth (for the Gnostic) is the knowledge that he is "a being from above."22 This "gospel" assures us that "whosoever has knowledge understands from whence he has come and whither he goes."23 The Teachings of Silvanus, another Gnostic document, portrays Jesus as teaching salvation by enlightenment: "Bring in your guide and your teacher. The mind is the guide, but reason is the teacher. They will bring you out of destruction and dangers .... Enlighten your mind.... Light the lamp within you."24 Contrary to this, redemption in the New Testament is a free gift for those who believe in Jesus: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16); "Whoever believes in him [God's Son] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son" (John 3:18); "Everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:40b); "I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life" (John 6:47); "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies" (John 11:25). 4. The Gnostic Gospels portray Jesus as a "Gnostic Revealer" and not as Christ the Savior and Redeemer. In the New Testament, when Jesus asked Peter, "Who do you say I am?" (Matt. 16:15), Peter rightly responded, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (v. 16). In The Gospel of Thomas, however, Jesus and the disciples are portrayed in a much different light: Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to someone and tell Me whom I am like." Simon Peter said to Him, "You are like a righteous angel." Matthew said to Him, "You are like a wise philosopher." Thomas said to Him, "Master, my mouth is wholly incapable of saying whom You are like." Jesus said, "I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring which I have measured out." And He took him and withdrew and told him three things. When Thomas returned to his companions, they asked him, "What did Jesus say to you?" Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the things which he told me, you will pick up stones and throw them at me; a fire will come out of the stones and burn you up."25 F. F. Bruce, a noted Bible scholar who has done significant research on the Nag Hammadi documents, detects Gnostic elements in this encounter: "Here the answers [to Jesus' question] are attempts to depict Jesus as the Gnostic Revealer. Those who have imbibed the gnosis which he imparts (the 'bubbling spring' which he has spread abroad) are not his servants but his friends, and therefore 'Master' is an unsuitable title for them to give him."26 As for the three words Jesus secretly uttered to Thomas, Bruce says these words conveyed to Thomas Jesus' hidden identity and "are probably the three secret words on which, according to the Naassenes, the existence of the world depended: Kaulakau, Saulasau, Zeesar."27 Jesus as a Gnostic Revealer is often portrayed as communicating secret things to one or more disciples in the Gnostic Gospels. How unlike this is to the New Testament Jesus who openly communicated His teachings to all who would listen. 5. The Gnostic Gospels cannot properly be called gospels. Neither The Gospel of Truth nor The Gospel of Philip, as case examples, contain an orderly account of the birth, life, deeds, death, and resurrection of Christ. Both lack Old Testament background, ethical exhortations, and end–time eschatology. Ignorance is said to be the primary culprit of man's condition, not sin.28 Therefore, in no sense of the word can these documents be properly referred to as gospels. The Gospel of Thomas is another case example. F. F Bruce notes: "No collection of sayings of Jesus can properly be called a Gospel because by its nature it has no passion narrative, and the passion narrative is the core of the essential gospel. But least of all can this collection be called a Gospel because not only does it lack a passion narrative but it includes only one saying (55) remotely hinting at the passion."29 Moreover, unlike the New Testament Gospels, the content of The Gospel of Thomas is "anti–Judaistic, anti–Old Testament, anti–ritualistic and almost antimoralistic."30 By contrast, the four New Testament Gospels all contain orderly accounts of the birth, life, deeds, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They also point to the glorious "good news" of redemption in Jesus Christ, and are therefore "gospels" in the truest sense of the word. Did The God of the Bible Have A Female Goddess Companion? Dan Brown's Position: "Early Jews believed that the Holy of Holies in Solomon's Temple housed not only God but also His powerful female equal, Shekinah." (Page 309) The Truth of the Matter: Such a position is absurd, and can be easily answered with two primary points: (1) The Bible steadfastly argues for monotheism (belief in one God); and (2) the "Shekinah" refers only to the glory of God, not to some "powerful female equal." (1) The Bible steadfastly argues for monotheism (belief in one God). The fact that there is only one true God is the consistent testimony of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. It is like a thread that runs through every page of the Bible. An early Hebrew confession of faith—the Shema—is an example of this consistent emphasis: "Hear, O Israel: The lord our God is one lord" (Deuteronomy 6:4). In a culture saturated with false gods and idols, the Shema would have been particularly meaningful for the Israelites. In the Song of Moses, which Moses recited to the whole assembly of Israel following the "Exodus" from Egypt, we find God's own words worshipfully repeated: "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand" (Deuteronomy 32:39). The God of the Bible is without rival. After God had made some astonishing promises to David (see the Davidic Covenant in 2 Samuel 7:12-16), David responded by offering praise to God: "Wherefore thou art great, O lord God: for there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears" (2 Samuel 7:22). Later, in the form of a psalm, David again praised God with the words, "For thou art great, and doest wondrous things: thou art God alone" (Psalm 86:10). God Himself positively affirmed through Isaiah the prophet, "I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God" (Isaiah 44:6; see also 37:20; 43:10; 45:5, 14, 21-22). God later said, "I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me" (46:9). The Book of Isaiah shows us that God often demonstrated that He alone is God by foretelling the future— something that false pagan gods could never do (46:8-10). The oneness of God is also often emphasized in the New Testament. In 1 Corinthians 8:4, for example, the apostle Paul asserted that "an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one." James 2:19 likewise says, "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also

I wrote this blog a few months ago when the movie had just come out Da Vinci Code is the #1 grossing film of the weekend!! Has the deceiver arrived?? In a way yes, and it has already grossed $224 million worldwide!!! So many are being deceived by this lie it is heart breaking to me, and I am sure that it is breaking Gods heart as well. Jesus doesnt deserve this after all that he has done for us! I just cant believe that Ron Howard and Tom Hanks would do such a thing. I pray that they find God and regret that they did this movie. I plan to go to the mall on Friday and handout flyers and the quote that I have bellow to try to save as many as I can from being deceived. There are absolutely no facts in the Da Vinci Code!!! It is all fiction, and cannot be proven, without assertions and assumptions. It is a lie and it is blasphemy against the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit!! Please click on the links at the bottom of this page and read the blogs that they take you to. These blogs though long provide proof that the Bible is fact and the Da Vinci Code is fiction. I believe that the author should publish these as a book because it may help to save some souls!!! I know I would buy it and make sure I give it to as many as possible. Dont be fooled by lies folks, there is only one God, and he came down to earth and died for our sins!!! Jesus is a savior not a sinner. He is now and has always been Holy, The way the truth and the life. (John 14:6) Please read the Bible and know that every word in it comes from God, and is the absolute truth and authority in life. In church we have an oath that we say and I believe in with all my heart and soul: This is my Bible. Gods message to me. It is the word of God. It comes from the Father, is of the Son. And given through the Holy Spirit. I contains the message and power of salvation. I am what it says I am. I can do what it says I can do. It is the absolute truth and authority in my life. I will appreciate by listening to it today. I will apply by obeying it today. This is my Bible. Gods message to me. Crash Goes The Da Vinci Code By Dr. Ron Rhodes The Bible is Fact not Fiction! I must emphasize that Christianity is a religion in and of history. We find powerful substantiation for the true history of Christianity in archeology. The Bible's accuracy and reliability have been proved and verified over and over again by archeological finds produced by both Christian and non-Christian scholars and scientists. This includes verification for numerous customs, places, names, and events mentioned in the Bible. To date, over 25,000 sites in biblical lands have been discovered, dating back to Old Testament times, which have established the accuracy of innumerable details in the Bible. In view of such discoveries, we can conclude that archeology is a true friend of the Bible. In no case has an archeological discovery controverted a biblical fact, but rather always serves to support the veracity of the Bible. It is highly revealing that William Ramsey, a well-known historian and archeologist, set out to prove that Luke was not a reliable historian. He set out to show that both the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts (which Luke also wrote) were both unreliable in terms of chronology, places, names, and events. After a lifetime of study, he came to the conclusion that he had been utterly mistaken. He found Luke to be a first-rate historian whose work was flawless. (See his book, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, page 81.) This is not surprising, since Luke-a medical doctor committed to accuracy-speaks of his methodology right at the start of his gospel: "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." There is so much more that could be said. The above is sufficient, however, to demonstrate that while Dan Brown's theory is based on bogus evidence, Christianity and the Bible are backed by true historical evidence. To read more of the above go to: The links do not work so I will post each of the parts as a blog. Crash Goes The Da Vinci Code (Part I) Crash Goes The Da Vinci Code (Part II) Crash Goes The Da Vinci Code (Part III) These are long, but well worth the read!!! To watch a video on this subject: The Da Vinci Code Video God, I pray that you put this blog and all referenced materials in the correct hands to save your children. In Jesus name. Amen

Matthew 24 Matthew 24:1-35 Signs of the End of the Age 1Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2"Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down." 3As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" 4Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 5For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,[a]' and will deceive many. 6You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8All these are the beginning of birth pains. 9"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. 15"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,'[b] spoken of through the prophet DanielÃ?let the reader understandÃ? 16then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. 18Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak. 19How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until nowÃ?and never to be equaled again. 22If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. 24For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the electÃ?if that were possible. 25See, I have told you ahead of time. 26"So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. 27For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather. 29"Immediately after the distress of those days" 'the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'[c] 30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. 32"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[d]is near, right at the door. 34I tell you the truth, this generation[e] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. My thoughts: Wow!!! There are so many things that Jesus describes in here that are very similar to things that are happening now. It is awesome and scary at the same time. Awesome, because I cannot wait to see my savior, and scary because there are so many out there who are not ready yet. Also scary because there are so many turning against the faith right now, so many souls will be lost, it is sad really. The way that Jesus describes the Glorious appearing is awesome!!! We will know it is really him because no matter where we are on earth we will see him!!! Wow!! Also in this description, he mentions gathering "the elect" meaning Christians. They will be gathered from the 4 winds and from one end of heaven to the other. I take this to mean that there will be very few Christians left on earth at this time. The ending verse: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away." This part confuses me. Maybe someone can help me with this one. Does this mean that at the end of everything after the final battle, Jesus carries on but we are all gone?? Or is he just saying that his word much like his love endures forever?? I have a question for you all: If someone threatened your life if you didn't denounce the name of Christ, would you, could you?? I would die singing praises to God and telling all who would listen about Christ. That's me a Jesus Freak till death:) Matthew 24:35-51 The Day and Hour Unknown 36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left. 42"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him. 45"Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? 46It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. 47I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 48But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, 'My master is staying away a long time,' 49and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. 50The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. 51He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. My thoughts: Wow again:) The only one who really knows when this will happen is God himself. Not even Jesus himself knows when he will come back!!! He will come when we are not expecting him, but according to what I read above in verses 40 and 41. Jesus will rapture his people. As far as verse 51 goes I think it is mentioning hell, which is the fate of a non believer, or someone fooled by a false profit or false Christ. God bless you, Debbie

Following is my witness that I write to people. When I talk to people I usually shoot from the hip, but I plan everything I say when I write. Please read it and give me some feed back or suggestions that have worked well for you: Need to hear God's side of the story from a Christian not a scientist or sociologist? I teach Sunday school and lead a bible study. I will tell you like it is, the good and the bad. God sees how you are whether you believe in him or not, he created you starting with Adam and Eve, with one exception we are human and therefore flawed. We all sin and fall short of the glory of God. If you are a good person and don't follow God, and you think you're good deeds will get you into heaven, you are wrong, very, very, very wrong. God has some laws that he wants us to live by. These laws are mostly simple. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Do not judge others or you too will be judged by the same standards. Do not kill, do not have any other Gods, and man should not sleep with a man as a woman sleeps with a man. I will not list them all because I wan you to investigate this yourselves. Please read the bible for more of these rules like the Ten Commandments located: Exodus Chapter 34:10-27. The one most important law that God wants us to live by is: Jesus Christ is the way the truth and the life, no one can come to the father except through him. Believe in Jesus and pray to God in his name and praise all three God the father, Jesus the son, and the Holy Spirit with all of your heart. You cannot go to heaven without following this rule; God knows what is in your heart. If you want to read more about this and other guidelines for living the Christian life please read all four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and the book of Acts. You don't have to give up your life style; you will want to change your life style upon getting to know Christ. You can be a Christian as you are now and change as you become closer to Christ. You do not have to be holy as a matter of fact none of us are or will ever be while we live on this earth. Jesus died on a cross for our sins, and we are to, as Christians and while growing in that faith. We are all running out of time. God only promised us today and that is all we have so live each day thanking God for what you have not pinning for what you don't have. Go to church, find a church that is right for you and learn more about the holy trinity; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, before you run out of time and then Jesus will say, "I hardly knew you" or "I never knew you." As I have said several times you need a relationship with God, Christ and the Holy Spirit. To simply believe is not enough. The devil believes in the trinity, but he is the enemy of our God. He doesn't love!!! Heaven or Hell, it is your choice, but at least I know that I have given you the choice and God can help you if would only seek him. He is waiting for you and he loves you no matter what sins you may have committed. He loves us all enough to have sacrificed his only son for our sins. Believing in God is not enough you have to have a relationship with the trinity, love them as much as they love you. What is it about unconditional love that scares people into thinking that it means brainwashing?? I would like to add one comment to those who chose not to believe. If I am wrong nothing happens and we end up the in same place, but if you are wrong you go to hell. Do you really want to take that chance? Dear heavenly father; I pray that this post gets read by the right people at the right time in their lives to seek you and open their hearts to you. I know that one of the biggest problems we face today is that most people who don't believe in you have never really been told about you and therefore they are not Christians because nobody has ever told them of your awesome love, and grace. I pray that this helps some of them to seek you and get into a church were they can worship you as I do with all of their hearts. I pray for each and everyone who reads this to have their eyes and hearts open to your word Lord. In Jesus name I pray. Amen Debbie

For The Love of Life Having been through enough in my life to make some people including myself just say "Forget it I am done," "I can't do this anymore," or "Why me God?" My choice question was, "Why me God?" His answer to me was: "Why not you? What makes you so special that you cannot handle the life you were meant to lead? I will never give you more than you can handle. You are strong, and with my help you can get through anything." Through the early years of my life I faced many trials and made many tough decisions, which God helped me do. Some I regret, some I thank God I did, and some I thank God I didn't do. I really do thank God for unanswered prayers. When I was young I sometimes wanted things I shouldn't have had and I thank God for not letting me have those things, or helping me decide not to get them. God was working in my life before I even knew him. In my adult life, the real problems started. I got married at 21 and was a mother 6 months later. My husband, David, has been an epileptic since he was about 10. His seizures increased, and the doctor increased his medications. He was down to 125 lbs and taking enough medication to kill a man. Before I knew it I was taking care of 2 young children, a house, and a husband who would work 10 hours, and sleep for 12-14 hours a day. Taking care of him was like taking care of another child, but I loved him and taking care of him was part of that. David became unable to work in 1995 and I had to go to work as soon as possible to support the family. He is still unable to work now, but he is doing much better. As the years passed and they changed his medications he has gotten more control over his seizures. When my daughter was 4 she was diagnosed with severe scoliosis and between my husband, my daughter, and my accident prone son I have spend much time in ERs and in hospitals in general through the years. Not to mention money problems, medical bills, and dealing with the constant emotional strain all of this caused my children, my husband, and me. This also put a strain on my marriage. As if that wasn't enough my sister had a brain tumor and I lost her in 1998. Then I lost her son in an accident in 2004. My parents both were diagnosed with heart conditions within the last 6 years, and another sister has cancer and is going through chemo. So why do I love life?? I love life because of everything above. Because no matter what happens I know that I can handle it. In all of the things that have happened in my life so far he has been there for me and even to carry me when I was weak. He gave me the strength to face my problems head on!! Also, because of my life so far I can offer help and the knowledge of experience to those in need. I know that all my problems are not behind me, but I also know that no matter what happens I have God to comfort, guide, and strengthen me. He is my rock!! With God's help I am too stubborn to give up on life. Because of that stubbornness I now have a very strong marriage, a great family, and my financial status is improving every year. People have told me that I am strong, week, stupid to stick with it, and naïve to think that things could ever improve just because I am making the effort. Through it all I have had every emotion possible; love, anger, regret, determination, hate, disillusion, depression, thankfulness, and mad dog mean (the last, mostly when dealing with insurance companies, doctors, nurses, and the government) just to name a few Currently it is love and determination that keep me going. I still sometimes feel down when things are bad but now I have a shoulder to lean on!! I love life because what you put into it is what you get out of it! I love life because God created me, is always with me, and loves me!! PS: I am not writing this to air my trash, just to share my experience, so that when others want to give up they can realize that there is a way to get through and they can do it! I trust God to put in the right persons hands when they need it most. God Bless!! Debbie

NOTE: This blog is kind of old I posted it on myspace a while before I got on JCFaith, but I have been thinking about this again due to certain influences in my life lately. Gay Official, or Officially Gay: SIN Reverend Robert Taylor should not have his position in St. Marks! Not because he is gay, but because he chooses to continue a life of sin. All I hear from people is that all sin is equal in Gods eyes. Who are we to say? How do we as mere humans know? I am going to go out on a limb here and say that we should look to the bible on this one. Not about homosexuality, that has been hammered to death, by both sides, but about sin itself. The bible states: Ezekiel 3:18 When I say to a wicked man, 'You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his evil ways in order to save his life, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. Ezekiel 3:20 "Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, and I put a stumbling block before him, he will die. Since you did not warn him, he will die for his sin. The righteous things he did will not be remembered, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. As you can see in Gods words, we are to hold each other accountable for our sin. Both sides agree that homosexuality is a sin. This being the case lets look at the fact that being !@#$ is a sin. God wants us to know that we need to warn each other when we sin so that we can correct the situation, and save our souls. Not just any sin all sin!! Do you really think that all sin is equal? Did you ever read the story of Cain and Abel? Cain killed his brother Abel and as punishment God killed Cain, spiritually. Knowing what you know about Cain, if he was an official in your church would you trust him? Would you want him to remain a leader of the church knowing that he killed someone in cold blood? I would not. What about a church official that cheats on their spouse? Would you want a pastor who actively cheats on his wife to lead your church? What about somebody who abuses or sexually abuses children? What about somebody who drinks and drives? I have only outlined a few sins, but my point has been made. At some point you have to draw a line and say, this is not acceptable because it doesn't honor or please God. We all sin and fall short of the Glory of God, but when we give our lives to God and ask forgiveness of all our sins, we also make a promise to change our lives and become as sinless as humanly possible. Church officials are supposed to be the leaders of Christianity and teach us by example and by the bible how to avoid sin and beat temptation. Reverend Robert Taylor should be asked to change, or to step down from his position at the church. He should not actively sin and lead a church. I know that it would bother me if I were in his shoes. I would have to stop sinning or step down myself; nobody would have to ask me to do so. People have gotten so wrapped up in the fight for or against homosexuality that the real matter has been pushed aside here. Let me clarify this for all: If you sin, and do not repent, you will go to hell!!!!! No matter what that sin is, but some sin is worse than other sin, and if you doubt this please read the following books of the bible: Deuteronomy-Gods law and commandments Leviticus-Rules for Priests and Various Laws Exodus-Laws!!! Among other locations in the bible these will give you a good idea of what God expects of us all. Remember we are fighting a war against sin not homosexuality!! Some tend to forget this, and that is exactly what Satan wants them to do. "The number 1 cause of atheism in the world today is christians, who say that they love God. Then walk out the door and deny God with their lifestyle. This is what an unbeleiving world simply finds unbeleivable." I did not quot word for word but you get the meaning. In Jesus name. Debbie

Page:  1 | 2 | Next >  Last >>