What is your advice on, or your opinion of, abortion?

This is another of those “loaded questions!” The problem with pulling this subject out of a practical context (thus, attempting to establish an axiomatic or universal doctrine – a kind of blanket answer that speaks to all and every case) is that the “Pro Choice” and/or “Pro Life” agendas come out with it. [I am using the term “agenda” in the specific sense of a total worldview that seeks to manipulate and control the masses.] I refuse to purposely take part in any kind of “agenda,” though I am often called upon as a pastor by followers of such “agendas” to make a stand on this subject. But I will answer like this:

[Please read my entire answer before you pass a judgment on it.]

Though I know that those of the “agendas” (and especially the “Pro-Lifers”) will not like it, I do not have a universal – an across the board – opinion or any cut and dry advice concerning abortion, and for several reasons.

The argument that abortion should not be used as birth control is an incomplete one. If one is premeditating the use of abortion as birth control, then I am certainly against it. It exemplifies a lack of responsibility and accountability. In short, grow up!

However, what do we do, for example, in cases of rape? Sure, we can take the moral high road and speak of all kinds of theological exemptions, but more practical questions begged, for example, are “Is the mother able to love the child in this situation?” Or “Will the child only be a painful reminder of something done to the mother?” There are more cases than I can count of the resentment of a mother (or the boyfriend or husband, for that matter) toward a child because he/she was a product of rape; not to mention the psyche of the child in this situation. Certainly there are many cases where everyone has “adjusted” marvelously, but do not be confused, that is another argument.

The argument equating abortion with child sacrifice is absurd. While there may be cases of murderous cults using abortion in religion, it is preposterous to assume all are the case. If and when it is the case, I am against it (obviously).

More specifically, the idea that abortion today equates to the child sacrifice of the ancient religions is theological suicide. In context, (for instance, the Old Testament accounts) in every case the participant purposely sacrificed their child/children to so-called gods in order to gain the favor of said gods. Are we to say that women are dedicating their unborn to gods in the abortion clinics? Oh, we can use clever hyperbole and play-on-words to speak about “sacrificing the unborn on the altar of ‘self,’” but again, is that always the case? And if it not, how, then, can we universalize it? Do I need to say that I am against this type of sacrifice?

The argument that abortions should be illegal is ignorant. What law is there which keeps someone from breaking laws? And how is that law not broken? We can rid the world of abortion clinics and doctors, but in their places will raise-up chop shops disguised as clinics and butchers disguised as doctors.

It is interesting (and another conversation, altogether) that the abstinence argument is cultural. Though there are exceptions to the rule (that is what makes it a rule), for many cultures not having sex is an alien concept.

As an aside, I must comment here (for it is as good a place as any) on the ridiculous argument of semantics. To argue the definition of abortion is dependent on whether or not the unborn is termed a “fetus” or not is asinine. Logically speaking, in order to make this argument, one must think that abortion is “wrong” and, therefore, in order to change the fact of being “wrong,” consider the definition of “life” to be a matter of trimesters. Really, do we not see the self-contradictory and flawed logic of this argument? If, according to this argument, “life” begins at a certain trimester, wouldn’t “ending the pregnancy” before said trimester end a “would be life?” I do not understand the difference, logically speaking.

And to the discussion of “partial birth abortions,” there is no satisfactory argument to support such a barbaric practice, including, but not limited to, the “stem cell research” argument. I will not waste anymore space on this insanity.

Now, have I ever suggested that someone should get an abortion? No, I have never. Neither have I, as if occurring in a vacuum, simply blurted out my opinion on the matter with anyone. In every conversation I have had with one considering abortion I have advised her to, first, pray about what she is considering. Second, I have always attempted to rationalize the decisions the situations dictate (i.e., whether adoption is an option). And third, contrary to any agenda, I have never “passed judgment” on a person for their decision.

There are, in many cases, mental and physiological “side effects” to abortion. I know of women who are haunted by, what they feel are, their unborn children. I know of women who have doubted, in some cases for the rest of their lives, their decisions to abort. And I know of women who can never have children again because of an abortion. Incidentally, I also know of women who have suffered none of these.

I think the more direct point here concerns God. One’s opinion on abortion notwithstanding – whether you agree or not that abortion is birth control or child sacrifice, or whether or not you think abortion should be illegal – the ultimate question is, for the overwhelming concern of most of the women I know, “Will God forgive me?”

Forced agendas and the cold prejudices of the church have necessitated this question. Women are alienated (either imagined or real) from certain circles and certain churches because of their choices of abortion. And my understanding of the theology of the Vision, more than anything else, dictates my advice and opinion on this subject; and that, of God reconciling the world to Himself through Jesus Christ.

If there is something we can do that is greater than the Cross of Christ – of more effect than the shed blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins – then all hope is lost and we are altogether dead in our sins!

I am not debating whether or not abortion is a sin, I am debating whether or not God forgives us for the decisions (whether we think they’re right or wrong) that we make (either with or without His help).

The short answer is: God loves you, no matter what you have done or not. God, in the sacrifice of His Son, has forgiven humanity (and is still forgiving humanity) for every sin if they would only believe on His Son. This is the grace of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

God will and does forgive you if and when forgiveness is needed. We must learn to forgive ourselves if and when needed.

What is “the Cruciform” that you claim we all must enter into to truly be Christians?

The doctrine of the Cruciform finds its basis in Pauline (the Apostle Paul’s) theology. Its founding text is in the letter to the Philippians, its truest form and explanation is found in the letter to the Galatians, and evidence of the doctrine pervades nearly all of Paul’s letters.

The equivalent of the cruciform is expressed in Johannine (the Apostle John’s) theology, though with less detail, as being “born again” or “born from above” (John 3:1-6). Where John has Jesus saying that, “one must be born again – from above,” Paul explains that one must experience the form of the crucifixion. In the gospel account, “spirit is spirit and flesh is flesh;” Paul concurs by establishing that the fallen nature (the “flesh”) must be surrendered to the new nature (“in the spirit”).

[All Scripture quotations are taken from the NASB]

In Philippians, the basis for the cruciform is in 3:10-11:

“…that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.”

For Paul, “being conformed to His death” (the form of the crucifixion) is necessary to knowing Christ, in a way that only experience could express; it is necessary in knowing, in a way that only experience could express, the power of His resurrection [in this life] (the resurrection life). Let us not forget knowing, in a way that only experience could express, in the sharing of His sufferings (the pain of the flesh being killed); and the attaining to the resurrection from the dead [the resurrection that is eschatological – at the end of things). According to Paul, God’s plan and purpose is for the “Christian” to conform, not to the life of Christ, but to Christ’s death (Rom. 8:29).

There is a peculiar phrase that Paul utilizes in all but one of the letters bearing his name – an expression of a state of being; a position of standing; a reality that cannot be experienced by the works of the flesh (Gal. 3:3), but the metaphorical killing of it (Rom. 6:7) – that phrase is, “In Christ.” So numerous are the references (93 in all) that to quote each text would be ridiculous. Rather, I will simply list the Scriptures for you to investigate yourself:

Romans 3:22, 24; 6:11, 23; 8:1-2, 39; 9:1; 12:5; 15:17; 16:3, 7, 9-10
1Corinthians 1:2, 4, 30; 3:1; 4:10, 15, 17; 15:17, 19, 22, 31; 16:24
2Corinthians 1:21; 2:14, 17; 3:14; 5:17, 19; 12:2, 19
Galatians 1:22; 2:4, 16-17; 3:14, 22, 26, 28; 5:6
Ephesians 1:1, 3, 10, 12, 20; 2:6-7, 10, 13; 3:6, 11, 21; 4:15, 32
Philippians 1:1, 26, 29; 2:1, 5; 3:3, 9, 14; 4:7, 19, 21
Colossians 1:2, 4, 24, 28; 2:5-6, 11
1Thessalonians 1:3; 2:14; 4:16; 5:18
2Thessalonians 1:12; 3:12
1Timothy 1:14, 16; 3:13
2Timothy 1:1, 9, 13; 2:1, 10; 3:12, 15
Philemon 1:8, 20, 23

What Paul means by “in Christ,” in its truest form, is explained best in the letter to the Galatians 2:20, when he states:

“I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.”

While it is true that Christ was crucified for our sins, according to Paul in Galatians 5:24, Christians are also crucified, as it were, to kill the power of the flesh:

Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

Speaking of himself as an example to be mimicked, in Galatians 6:14 he says:

“But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.”

And again, speaking collectively of all Christians, Paul explains in Romans 6:6-7 that:

“…knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin.”

So, the means of escaping our sin nature, then, is to experience the killing power of the cross. Where Christ was crucified, dead and buried, and resurrected, so we are to experience the same crucifixion, death and burial, and resurrection in a spiritual sense (Rom. 6:1-8; 8:6, 10, 17; Gal. 3:27; Col. 2:11-12, 20). When we take our place on the “cross of Christ” (1Cor. 1:17; Gal. 6:12, 14; Phil. 3:18) we receive that which our baptism is but a sign – a “new nature” (Rom. 12:1-2; 2Cor. 5:17; Eph. 4:22-24; Col. 3:1-4, 9-10). The sign of baptism exemplifies our dying and then being buried, and Christ, then, rising up from the water. We – our old fallen natures – are still dead and buried. We – our new natures – are really Christ living in and through us individually and corporately in the power of the resurrection life.

If we are attempting to live in our own strength as (so-called) “Christians,” seeing Jesus simply as an “example” (as though He is the long-since dead founder of an equally dead religion), then according to Paul’s line of thinking, we are expressing nothing more than a perversion – the Night of the Living Dead; the, as of yet, unburied dead.

Thus, “the Cruciform,” according to Paul, is necessary in order for the church to be the full expression of Christ on the earth. Logically speaking, the only possible way to fully express Christ is to have Christ fully living in us. And to possibly have Christ fully living in us we must quit making this about ourselves! You have died and it is Christ who lives in you!! This is the resurrection life of Christ working in full resurrection power through you!!!

Are the Jews saved, apart from Jesus, because they’re Jewish?

This is an interesting question because, of the many times I have been asked this, I am not convinced the full ramifications of the question are apprehended by the inquisitor. For example: If the Jews are saved because they’re Jewish, then by the same faulty logic any member of any nationality is saved simply because they’re a member of a nationality! “Wait,” you say, “I was speaking of the Jewish ‘religion.’” “Oh,” I say, “well that makes even less sense.”

Even if the Jews do not believe Jesus is the Messiah, religiously speaking, salvation still only comes to them through the Messiah according to their own religion (Judaism). In fact, until such Messiah appears, according to the Jewish canon, the Jews are not even sure where they go when they die. Thus, they certainly are not certain of any salvation. By the way, such salvation, as here referenced, is a Christian concept. The question of salvation itself is from a Christian perspective (which in and of itself defies the laws of logic by “stealing worldviews”).

Add to this that according to the Christian first principle (Scripture), Jesus exclaimed, “…No one comes to the Father but through me” (John 14:6). This is an exclusive exclamation. There cannot be any exceptions to this truth statement. Therefore, if the Jews are not included in the “no one” then everyone and every religion is an exception. If Jesus meant, “no one except the Jews comes to the Father but through me,” then the statement becomes irrelevant by self-contradiction because it actually means anyone can come to the Father by any means other than Jesus. There is no way around this! Either Jesus is the ONLY way or He is no way at all, not even the Christian way.

Now, another contradiction in the assumption that Jews have some other way to God is the fact that Jesus Himself was Jewish. If He were not Jewish, perhaps, then one could argue for a different way. But He was Jewish, and therefore the Messiah and the means by which Jews, too, must be saved (otherwise, both the Old and the New Testament, are bogus and we’re wasting our time).

So, the real argument is, “Is Jesus really the only way to the Father and, therefore, salvation?” This question is for another time and different heading. But I will decidedly say that, “Yes, Jesus is the only way to the Father and to salvation (He being salvation Personified)!” If not, I warn you, all logic and reason falls to the ground for lack of Epistemology (bygones – that, too, is another conversation).

The 4th century B.C. philosopher, Aristotle, is given credit for the three original laws of logic. In the 17th century A.D. a German logician, Leibniz, formulated a so-called fourth law to close an assumed flaw concluded in the original three (which flaw, if valid, made the laws of logic, themselves, illogical). The ‘Laws of Logic’ (Formal Logic), without which rational discourse cannot be had, are as follows:

1. Law of Non-Contradiction
This law states that two opposing judgments cannot both be true. Both judgments can be false simply because neither one is true. (A) cannot equal (-A).

2. Law of the Excluded Middle
This law states that two opposing judgments cannot be at the same time true and false. One judgment must be true and the other false, for there is no third option (“middle ground”). If one is established as true the opposite judgment cannot also be true. If (A) is (A) then (A) cannot also be (B).

3. Law of Identity
This law states, for example, that each word in a given language must have the same meaning. If there are different meanings to a word (as there usually are in the English language) a proper meaning must be agreed upon in order to have a logical (or intelligible) conversation.

[It is argued whether or not a fourth law is necessary, or if simply qualifying the original definitions to the exclusion of a fourth law is in order.]

4. Law of Sufficient Reason (or Ground)
For example, concerning the original three laws, (A) can be (-A) if they are occurring in different places or at different times. The statement, “It is raining and it is not raining” can be true if the statement concerns two different places and/or at different times. So, (A) “it is raining” and (B) “it is not raining” can both be true in respect to two places and/or times. Without qualifiers {to the first three laws), this law is especially important concerning the third law (Identity) because sufficient reason is paramount when determining which meaning of a word is to be used. However, by simply adding the phrase “…at the same place/time” to the definitions of the laws, the necessity of another law is avoided. For example: (A) cannot, at the same time, equal (-A). Likewise, (A) cannot, at the same time, also be (B). And it cannot possibly be raining at the same place and/or time that it is not raining at that particular place and/or time.

There are other laws, categorized as “second-order laws” (for example, validity, and truth statements; as well as proof formulas, such as syllogisms), which are also a part of formal logic but are beyond the scope of this writing.

It is important to realize that the laws of logic are an expression of the mind of God. Because God has a mind, we, too, have the ability to think. And the laws of logic, whether we admit it or not (it logically doesn’t change the fact), give evidence that God exists.

I have been reading your blog and in the section that asked “Is homosexuality a sin” you made the statement “When God made humanity, He made Eve out of Adam. He took from Adam, not a rib (that is another conversation), but literally, a “part or compartment” and made from it Eve.” Can you explain this? I have not been able to find an explanation other than “a rib” that was taken from Adam.

The word “rib” in Hebrew is, “sela or tsela,” meaning: “side, side room, chamber; compartment, part.” It refers to building materials. An interesting thing about this Hebrew word is it is in the feminine tense.

Thus, it was not a “rib” (the English translation of “sela or tsela”) which God removed from Adam, but a part or compartment of him.

Incidentally, for centuries humanity believed that men are one rib short of women because of this translation. Later it was discovered that this was an inaccurate assumption. Humanity’s misinterpretation had began the downward spiral of faith (rather, the lack thereof) in the Scriptures. Not because Scripture is wrong, but that our interpretations (and translations) are flawed.

So, when God killed Adam (“deep sleep”) He took from Adam that which, afterwards, Adam no longer had. What God removed from Adam, Adam was thereafter missing, and it could only be found in Eve (“God closed up the wound where the thing was removed”).

Another interesting note is that the place where God “closed up,” in the Hebrew, is the masculine sense of “flesh,” or “body.” So from the masculine place God removed the feminine part, which was my argument in “homosexuality.”

Now, all this, though literal in my opinion, is but a “shadow” of a truer reality. For Christ was killed by God (put into a “deep sleep,” for three days) and what was produced from His death was His bride.

But what exactly is it that was in Christ and, therefore, Adam that a bride was made for each? Well, precisely that which each had in common as a human being – emotion of flesh.

The in-depth discussion of emotions is not within the scope of this writing. However, we do need to understand that woman is emotional, where man is logical. Not that women are not logical (some of the most logical people I have ever met are women and, likewise, some of the most irrational people I’ve ever met are men), but that the woman signifies 100% humanity (as the church entails 100% humanity) and, therefore, contain 100% emotion (that which was removed from Adam and that which was a part of Christ that made the church). If Christ was not human, the church was never instituted. And if emotion was not that which was removed from Adam, Eve was never created.

Adam was killed and from his side came his bride – “bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh.”
Christ was killed and from His “side” (the bloodshed) came His bride – “body,” the church – “bone of His bone and flesh of His flesh.”

There is no issue with the English rendering of “rib” as long as we understand the ramifications of that removed “rib.” But, theologically, a “rib” does not do justice to the matter at hand.

Do you believe in the “Rapture,” even though the term, “rapture of the church,” nor the word “rapture” are found in the Bible?

First, to conclude that, neither the word nor the term is found in the Bible would necessarily depend on what translation one uses to draw such conclusion.

Second, based on the qualifications set-forth by the question, the word “grandfather” is not found in the Bible either. In fact, the word “Bible” is not found in the Bible, based on the questions qualifications. Are we to assume, then, that there are in fact no such things as grandfathers or Bibles?

Third, the Greek word, “harpazo” means, “to seize, snatch up, catch away” (1Thes. 4:17; 2Cor. 12:4; Rev. 12:5); and its Latin form, “rapeabo” is the English word, “rapture.”

Therefore, the word rapture is in fact found in the Bible in the sense of its original languages.

Fourth, concerning the “rapture of the church”:

In Revelation 12:5, John the Revelator records that the child born was “caught up” to God in the heavens.

In 2Corinthians, the apostle Paul is explaining how one was “caught up” into the third heaven.

And in 1Thessalonians 4:17 Paul explains how the believers in Christ will be “caught up” into the air with the Lord, and so shall forever be with the Lord.

Therefore, we can conclude that this Greek word necessarily means that the subject or subjects are taken outward and upward.

Thus, in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, Paul is speaking of this as being done to the church, which is affectionately termed, “The Rapture of the Church” by its proponents.

Fifth, hermeneutics, or the interpretation of Scripture, also must be taken into consideration.

For those who interpret the Book of Revelation as, “The things seen” (chapter 1), “The things that are” (the churches – chapters 2-3), and “the things which must come here after” (chapters 4-22), the rapture of the church is promised in 3:10 when Christ says, “I will keep you from the hour of testing that will come upon the whole world…” The word,”from,” in “keep you from,” is the Greek word, “ek,” meaning “out of.”

If John would have meant that Christ would keep believers safe “through” the time of testing (as the Israelites were kept safe by God through the plagues of Egypt) he would have used the Greek word, “dia.”

But John does not say that Christ will keep them safe “through,” but that Christ will keep them “from” the testing upon the whole world. [This supports a pre-tribulation rapture.]

Also in Revelation, the church is never mentioned again until chapter 22, save for a parenthetic break when Christ repeats the phrase, “let those with an ear hear,” but unlike in chapters 2-3 doesn’t finish the phrase, “… what the Spirit says to the churches” (13:9) because the churches have been raptured.

Sixth, Scripture clearly teaches a bodily resurrection of the dead/rapture of the living church (1Thes. 4:13-18; 1Cor. 15:20, 23, 40, 42-44; 51-55; Phil. 3:21).

Seventh, as in any good New Testament theology there is an Old Testament precedent. God “took” Enoch (Genesis 5:21-24).

The Hebrew word for “took” is, “laqach,” meaning, “to carry away.” This can be easily translated, like the Latin version, “raptured.”

Likewise, in 2 Kings 2:11 Elijah is “taken up” (Hebrew, “alah”) into the heavens.

Eighth, there is, in the Old Testament, an analogy of the rapture of the church (Isaiah 26:19-21).

Ninth, there is, in the Old Testament, an argument from silence for the rapture of the church (Zechariah 15:5).
[How did these holy ones come down from heaven with God if they did not first go up to Him?]

Tenth, we shall not, here, enter into the analogy of the ancient Jewish wedding ceremony, which speaks of the rapture of the church.

And eleventh, likewise, we shall not, here, enter into the mystical hermeneutics of Matthew 17:1; 1 Kings 18:12; Acts 8:39; 2 Corinthians 12:2-4; and Revelation 11:12; 12:5 (but I urge you to look at them again and see them anew).

Therefore, while in some translations the “rapture of the church” is not strictly mentioned, the over-arching ideology of it is all-throughout the Scriptures.

And finally, do not blame this doctrine, as some erroneously do, on Scofield or Darby; for, what I have enumerated here is biblical, etymological, and far more theological than any one person’s doctrine.

If we all come from Adam and Eve, aren’t we all products of incest?

This is definitely a Freudian (Sigmund Freud) conclusion, but no. In fact, the same conclusion could be drawn since we are all descendants of Noah (only eight people of the same family walked off the boat), but it would still be “no” as an answer!

For one, if this were in fact true, why is it that Asians are far different appearing than Westerners? And why the different skin pigment?

Genesis 11:1-9 is the story of the “Tower of Babel,” which is actually an account of the people of the earth attempting to build the first city in history with a tower that would reach “to the heavens.”

God (it is interesting that He said “let Us” go down as the people were saying “let us” go up, but that is another conversation) moves instead to “confound their language so that they will not understand one another’s speech.”

But, rather, He not only changed the “one language” that the people spoke into multiple languages, He “scattered them over the face of the whole earth.”

And I tell you, not only that, but He instantly changed their DNA as well; if their language and location were miraculously changed, why not their genetic make-up as well?

That being true, then, no, we are not all products of incest; for, since the “Great Dispersion” every group (or tribe) had their own language, geographic location, and DNA.

Now, the idea that certain tribes of people may have migrated across “land bridges” at some point and time in history notwithstanding, the biblical historical account of world-wide population is that God scattered them abroad.

Likewise, the Evolutionary idea that the reason for different skin pigments and facial features is a matter of “Adaptation” (the idea that different climates and surroundings, over time, will change the features and pigments of entire groups or tribes) is an illogical leap from the Empirical evidence (“science”). While adaptation because of natural surroundings (like weather, geography, etc.) does occur in human beings (as it does in animals) in some degree, it does not necessarily follow that this is the reason for the far reaching differences from race to another. It is far easier to explain (and believe) that God changed, on bio-molecular levels, each group of human beings.

Were certain books excluded from the Bible Canon because of something the church was hiding?

In short, no. The idea that there is some kind of conspiracy in how the Bible came together, and that some books were “hidden” because of some embarrassment to the church lacks credence as much as it does historical knowledge. Ignorance of facts and hatred for the Medieval Church fuels the myths of this sort, which is precisely what the early church is accused of in this legend.

“Canon” means “rule” or “standard.” In the second century, before there was an official “Bible,” a standard was set for proper teaching in corporate worship by selecting which writings were acceptable for the church. The Jewish Canon of what Christians call the Old Testament was generally accepted. Irenaeus, in the second century A.D., called for the “Catholicity” and “Apostolicity” of any and all accepted books as a standard.

“Catholicity” means that any book that was to be used in public worship had to be one recognized by all the church and not just certain corners of it. “Apostolicity” means that any book that was to be used in public worship had to be one written by an apostle or, at least, an eye-witness of an apostle.

The first Christian canon from antiquity is known as the Muratorian Canon (2nd century) [believed by many to be based on the collection of Origin of Alexandria]. Some scholars believe it to be a reaction to a heretic of the times, a man named Marcion. Marcion created a canon of his own, which consisted only of a mutilated Gospel of Luke (with any reference of Israel’s promises removed) and ten letters of Paul. At any rate, the Muratorian Canon contained, as its core, the “Pauline Canon.” The Pauline Canon was thirteen letters contributed to the Apostle Paul (the Letter to the Ephesians has instead, “To the Laodiceans”). The four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles were present. The letters of Jude and 1st and 2nd John are also included. Yet another inclusion is the “Book of Wisdom.” The books 3rd John, 1st and 2nd Peter, Hebrews, and Revelation are not contained, listed, nor mentioned.

Athanasius, in his Easter Letter (A.D.367), lists the exact 27 books of the present 21st century Bible as “being canonized… as they have been received.”

In Africa, the Synod of Hippo (A.D.393) and the Councils of Carthage (A.D. 397 and 419) [overseen by Augustine of Hippo] canonized the same 27 books.

They also canonized the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Jewish canon) to “close” the canon of the Bible.

Incidentally, other writings were read and used for teaching (though not for public worship), such as “The Shepherd of Hermes,” writings from “Clement,” and many writings not included in the Jewish canon but respected nonetheless.

The Latin Vulgate (Roman Catholic) includes the Apocrypha as canonized. Eastern Orthodox recognize 1 Esdras, Psalm 151, The Prayer of Manasseh, and 3 Maccabees.

The Russian Orthodox adds to this 2 Esdras.

These additions were rejected by most (if not actually all of the ancient fathers) as authorized, but certainly good for edification.

So, unless this conspiracy began in the late first century or at the latest the early second century (which confounds all reason for lack of need) there is simply no evidence of a cover-up by the church. The only books that ever caused any controversy were actually books that, in fact, made it into the canon (especially James). And two books were used as much as the canon, but were not canonized – 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermes.

The books of controversy today (the Gnostic books) were never in contention because they were not “handed down” from the apostles and eye-witnesses.

What do you say to someone who doesn’t believe in God?

Because someone doesn’t believe in God doesn’t make God any less existent. I can say I don’t believe in taxes, but they are still due on April 15th (whether I pay them or not is irrelevant to their existence).

If one doesn’t believe in God then that one is either an Atheist or an Agnostic. Either way, that one defies the Laws of Logic and is thereby illogical. Though Christians are the one’s labeled “ignorant,” by definition the Atheist and Agnostic are the ones uninformed, and not for a lack of information (Agnostic) or evidence (Atheist).

While there are many ways that we could go about this – like arguing the definition of “Atheist” and how the point is lost to thus be and the unintelligibility of an “Agnostic” to ultimately know if he/she exists or not, or using a strict theological debate where the insistence is to keep everything biblical, or strict debate according to the Laws of Logic where we deal with first principals, subsequent principles, and syllogisms – I will limit my answer to deductive reasoning only as it is the best way that I have found to have a discussion without enflaming the person to which I speak (and vice-versa).

The point of my argument, here, is not to prove God (which is illogical, God needs not proving), but to get the person to deduce the necessity of a “God” or, for this intent and purpose, a “First Cause.”

It should also be noted that some people are simply opponents (not because I want them to be, but because they only want to argue) and no amount of reason will sway them from their delusion.

So it begins:

I ask – “How did we get here?”
The person replies – “Evolution…”

[Now, it is here that we could launch into a tirade about the improbability (rather, impossibility) of the Evolutionary Hypothesis but, at this point, I continue on with the dialogue.]

I ask – “From what did we Evolve?”
The person’s reply – “Monkeys, fish, primeval pool of single celled organisms, etc…”

I ask – “From where did this string of events come?”
The person’s reply – “From random ‘living matter…’”

I ask – “From where did this ‘living matter’ come?”
The person’s reply – “From dead matter…”

[Again, it is here that we could point out the improbability (rather, impossibility) that dead matter could produce living matter. I mean, even Darwin explained that something “outside of creation” had to produce the “energy” to bring life to dead matter, which I would then ask the origin of this “something outside of creation.” He would never admit God but, really, what else can you call something “outside of creation” other than God?]

[But, I digress…]

I ask – “From where did the dead matter come?”
The person’s reply – “From the ‘Big Bang…’”

[Again, I digress…]

I ask – “So, all matter came as a result of the ‘Big Bang?’ From where, then, did the ‘bang’ come? From your own account, something from outside of matter (creation for the Christian) must have ‘banged’ the material being ‘banged.’”

See, the argument is that it is illogical to think that something uncreated suddenly decides to create itself. It cannot “decide” anything, for it doesn’t exist. Something that doesn’t exist cannot make itself exist. Something outside of itself must decide that it wants it to exist. And this something is the “First Cause.” I call Him “God” because He likes it!

Like it or not, any reasonable person must agree to this deduction of a “First Cause.” And then we can talk about this being the God of the Bible.

Incidentally, the person to whom you speak will probably, at some point, ask, “From where did God come” or “Who created God?”

To which I would reply, “God, by definition, cannot ‘come from’ anywhere. He cannot be created or He is not God and I am talking about whoever made him. Being outside of creation (or matter) there is no need for Him to be created.”

Ultimately this will lead to where you want to be, in a conversation about God.

Remember, there is nothing to fear from any “scientific” argument, for real “science” will always give evidence of God.

The Empirical Method (“science”) is the study of the natural processes of creation.

God is supernatural, and not only outside of the natural, but the Creator of it.

I fear death. What does the Bible have to say about the subject?

Even in the Old Testament there are accounts of hopelessness when it comes to death (Eccl. 3:19-21). Many religions attempt to get around the huge stone of death by imagining reincarnation of one sort or another.

There is, in fact, no hope outside of one simple yet profound fact: The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The great stone has been “rolled away;” the division between the known and the unknown as been removed; the dead end of death has become a freeway to life unending.

In the Old Testament there was a distant hope of eternal life, but the means thereof were not discernable in that time. Life, in essence, revolved around “namesake” and leaving a legacy for generations to come was the goal. What happened at the point of death was an uncertainty, as the writer of Ecclesiastes exclaims, “Humanity has no more hope than an animal. Who is to say that the spirit of a human being ascends at death and doesn’t descend like that of an animal?” Truth-statements are not the point here, but the thought process is.

What follows is some common philosophy concerning death.

In the midst of life we are in death – Unknown

Some believe Death to be mysterious and inexplicable

William Morris – “Death have we hated, knowing not what it meant.”

Bacon – “Men fear death as children fear to go in the dark.”

Hamlet – “That dread of something after death.”

Some believe Death to be the one inevitable thing in life

Shakespeare makes Caesar say in Julius Caesar: “It seems to me most strange that men should fear; seeing that death, a necessary end, will come when it will come.”

In Cymbeline he writes, “Fear no more… and come to dust.”

Some believe Death to be sheer extinction

Roman poet Catullus pleading with Lesbia for her kiss says: “… Live and love! Care not for many things; but when our short day takes flight, sleep we must one endless night.”

Some believe Death to be the supreme terror, the unmitigated evil

Shakespeare, in Measure for Measure, makes Claudio say: “Death is a fearful thing!”

Robert Burns – “But oh! Fell deaths untimely frost that nipt my flower so early!”

Some see Death as Escapism

Keats – “I am half in love with easeful death.”

Shakespeare in one of the sonnets cried: “Tired with all these, for restful death I cry.”

Nicholas Row – “Death is the privilege of human nature.”

Swinburne in The Garden of Prosperpine writes: “From too much love of living, from hope and fear set free, we thank with brief thanksgiving… That no man lives forever.”

Some are a little closer, and believe

Death to be a transition, yet still unknown

Longfellow – There is no death! What seems so is transition; this life of mortal breath is but a suburb of the life Elysian, whose portal we call death.”

George Meredith – “Death met I too, and saw the dawn glow through.”

Some believe Death to be an adventure

Barrie made Peter Pan say: “To die will be an awfully big adventure.”

Charles Frohman’s last words (died in the Lusitania disaster): “Why fear death? It is the most beautiful adventure in life.”

Unknown scholar – “Do you realize that in an hour or two I will know the answers for which we have been searching all our lives?”

However, due to Christ’s resurrection, think what you will of the philosophy of death, Scripture is clear to the truth of the matter:

Removal of the “Great Stone” called Death (Mark 16:4)

Death is an entrance into the personal presence of God.

“If we have lived in Christ, then we can also die with Him, certain that, in dying, we go to be forever with the Lord.”

So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. (2Cor. 5:6, 8)

My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. (Phil. 1:23b)

But we do not want you to be uniformed about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. (1Thes. 4:13)