Toughest Questions in Christianity

The Toughest Questions in Christianity

It is all about Acts 9. Why? Because Paul said He saw Jesus, and Paul is the best testimony in the Church. Jesus said He would be raised 3 days later and according to disciples (Thomas) and women, they said they touched Him physically. The tomb was empty. No one provides a plausible alternative explanation (see below). The Jews agree the tomb was empty. Then James saw Jesus resurrected, and believed when he had not believed his own brother was God. Paul was with James and Peter and John (Gal. 1 & 2) and reported that James saw Jesus resurrected (1 Cor. 15). Jesus' brother Jude did not believe He was God, then believed. What amazing transformations. I am beside myself.

Is the Mark 14 text the earliest know Christian writing? I think the key to verifying things is to know the earliest known documents closest to the action of His life and death on the cross as well as any other commentaries outside the Bible written as close as possible to 30 A.D. Just recall yourself what you can remember even 10 years ago. It becomes quite sketchy. The more I think about it, even outside documents have little validity. All that matters is do you trust the Gospel writers or don't you? Do you trust Paul or not? Do we trust people or not? Do we trust what they said of Jesus or not? What a choice eh? He clearly lived as a person. This is impossible to deny. There is too much evidence from too many angles to deny it. He said some things that are quite spectacular, like he would be raised in 3 days, and then he was seen physically by the same people who died for this claim He was resurrected. How do you fathom it a lie then? If you have no reason, then you must give your life to Christ.

Do we believe the Godhead held council to decide to have the 2nd Person break into creation? Or is it a lie and God leaves us without much, but ourselves and the choices we make in life? Do we get one life, or will we be resurrected? There has been at least 50 billion souls so far. Is God really going to resurrect all of us, and another 250 billion souls from the millennium? The Bible clearly says YES. If you read the Bible, the Word has made itself clear on this FACT.

Is God seeking a million generations from now what the human race will become (aiming for the last successful generation), or is God seeking this century for Christ to return to reign in Person during the millennium and reward overcomers in Him (who are raised from Hades)? Do we stand up for the man that believed He died for us who thought He was God? Do we call Him a liar that though his heart was good, he was fooled by the expectations of the law of Israel? There has never been a man like Jesus, and Jesus was deceived? How could someone that good and selfless be deceived?

Do the miracles make Christianity untrue, like splitting bread to feed 5000? Or is then 2nd Person of the Godhead doing these things that only God could do? What an amazing predicament. It looks like we have little to go on except the Gospels and Paul's testimony. Other testimonies become less and less credible, much further removed from the events in-hand. It is hard to believe that God didn't design it this way for us to make the choice for Him. History bears out trust is an issue with historical documents, but should it be any other way? We are bound by natural parameters, record keeping, etc. Can we expect such incredible vile corruption that the story was entirely changed from its humble beginnings? It is hard to believe that a million years from now the Gospels would still not be the most beautiful thing ever in Christ.

The most popular book in the world is the Bible and 1 in 3 people say they are Christians, though not necessarily saved. Is it mass delusion to stand with one who was killed? What's your thought? Did Paul see a vision or Jesus in Person bodily? He seems to be not as clear as He could be by saying it straight out, but why must he say it just the way we need to hear it? Why can't he just say it as he said it plainly? - he said He saw Jesus not by a wispy spirit (1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1, Phil. 3). Were these ideas added subsequent to embellish? It doesn't seem likely for then it would contradict what he and the disciples previously and subsequently said. John had this vision in Revelation. It was real to him. It was all so real to the disciples it had to be said just as it was said. Such wonderful things must be spoken of in visions because man is not ready to hear them yet straight out.

Yet how do you feed 5000 with a few loaves of bread, with baskets left over? This is physical bread. Only God could do this. No human could ever do this. Only God could manipulate His creation to perform this amazing miracle and others. We have no reason to believe such a thing could happen, unless God did it! What a quandary before us to accept it or not to accept it. We are asked to believe some amazing things, yet one thing we can not deny, that Jesus did walk the earth, was crucified and people did see Him resurrected, for they died for their claims. They are not liars. They died because they really believed they saw Him raised. Is this hallucinations of great love lossed in His death? How many times do they have to see Him for it to be believed? It is not possible to see a person in different group settings, to hug him and hold him, to touch his side for it to be an hallucination.

If it was not hallucination, then the only other possibility would be that these additions were added to make the story holy and beautiful, the most beautiful story ever told by men for men and women. But for men to do this is evil! How could men just make stuff up and then take it on faith in their beliefs. Is it a mental condition of self-delusion to make oneself feel good? Paul was a Pharisee and believed in the bodily resurrection, so is it so unreasonable he would carry such expectation into Christianity, which fits quite well? Or is it reasonable that such previous truths under the law are part of God's design to lead to Christ's resurrection? Is a lie more true than the truth? How could such good men lie who were with Jesus? Did they not lie, but were martyred, then lies were said about them because their martyrdom was love?

Why be martyred in the first place if you are not still preaching Jesus? They could have been preaching Jesus one way, were martyred, then the story changed to fit the reasons for the martyrdom as being more than just preaching a good man. Do documents morph like that each decade until the final version need not change anymore? Is that reasonable to suspect that? How can we believe this? Isn't that unholy that something would morph into entirely something else. Besides, what is the point of preaching just a good man? If early non-Christian sources also speak of His Deity, which we have 7 sources that do, then are they made up also? Why is everything made up just because it was 2000 years ago? It feels so real, and they really did die in His name, not for some mythological god.

And if He was preached as God, how do they twist one message into entirely something else without a trace of the earlier thought being present? It appears there is not a plausible alternative than to believe the Gospel accounts are true. If no plausible scenario can be drawn up otherwise, then that alone should be our proof.

A plausible scenario of morphing the ideas each decade is too much to take, for that would require Paul, Peter, James and John all to be liars, in some form or another, and so many liars would need to be involved in this fraud. It would become unbearable as they die for all those lies. They wrote their versions in the 1st century and had it in their hearts daily. The more one prays on this, the more one is left with cause and effect that doesn't allow for any other possibility than it is all true!

For example, though I reject the false tongues of Asuza Street in 1906 (celebrating its 100 year anniversary this year), the story does not get morphed. With all that has gone on since then (far more busy and complicated), the story maintains its integrity however deceived they may be under this replicatory work of the evil spirit. 2000 years ago, there was less complexity so the events of such importance would maintain even more integrity, for the teachings, life, death and resurrection of Jesus involved more of a person's time, thought and energy than we seem to have time for today. You have a choice to call all these men and women liars in Christ who subsequently wrote again about these happenings to doubly confirm them, or you can believe when they were martyred they went to their deaths knowing death is harmless because of the resurrection of Jesus they had seen personally and touched.

I choose to believe death is harmless, and my resurrection will prove that. The death of Jesus is one thing. His resurrection is something else. My faith is false if His resurrection never happened (1 Cor. 15). He said it would happen. And it did happen. I was there with Him: for I died with Him and am raised with Him in resurrection life living the kingdom now, which is only the beginning with more of the kingdom-to-come at my bodily resurrection.

I can find no reason, none whatsoever not to believe in the risen Christ. His love compels and impels me. This is why since being saved distinctly Jan. 2001 my faith has never waned. I am blessed because the foundation was so solid: 1) new birth, not emotion, but sensed intuitively in my inner man, 2) soon experienced a dividing of my spirit, soul and body, 3) which caused an amazing experience as though I had touched some part of 3rd heaven in some way (I will never ever forget it), 4) realized partial rapture was God's plan for the consummation of this age, 5) realized gap restoration was God's way of working in creation and restoration, 6) found that the way of God's salvation is agreed to by osas arminian, and 7) the most important thing to the Church before the return of Christ is Biblical locality.

And to this aim I work for Christ without another option available.