Two days ago we uncovered the next cultural shift in the US, “secular morality”. We not only defined the term and what to expect now that we are in this new setting, but we also outlined what Jesus-followers need to do in response (expect, prepare and engage). One the expectations we should have is a renewed war on the Christian faith and last week’s Time magazine did exactly that. Likely their most famous cover came toward the end of the last century, all black with red letters asking, “Is God Dead”. They reproduced the artwork with a new question, “Is Truth Dead?”
You’ve probably heard the common criticism that the Bible has a split personality, that the Old Testament is all “judgment and vengeance” and the New Testament is “forgiveness and love”. I’d like to challenge that notion. Sure, the Old Testament contains the story of man’s fall, Noah’s flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and let’s not forget the prophets with their pronouncements of a doom and gloom future. But keep in mind the Old Testament covers a period of roughly 3,000 years; by contrast the New Testament covers about 50 years (not including the prophecies about the end times).
In 1859 Charles Darwin wrote about his belief that a human fetus underwent every stage of its evolutionary development in the womb. It started as a single cell, becoming a fish, a reptile, and an ape on its way to being born a completely human child. A little over a hundred years later the US Pro-Abortion movement would argue that a human fetus isn’t the same as a human life and is instead a piece of tissue that can be removed at any point during the pregnancy without moral consequence. A couple decades later, they were all proven wrong.
All this week we’ve been talking about how science relates to the Bible, in one way or another. I’ve been saving the best for last. We begin by setting the Way-Back Machine to 2004, when headlines were made by a mostly intact T-Rex skeleton found in Montana. What made these fossils so special, is that the skull contained in tact blood, and the leg offered up other soft tissue – still intact. Creationists (myself included) jumped on this find stating that such things as blood vessels couldn’t survive millions of years indicating that these bones were only a few thousand years old.
Personally, I’m not the kind of person who combs through the Bible looking at prophecy and trying to discern the signs and the times. Many of Scripture’s prophecies have already been fulfilled, and the remaining are leading up to the rapture and the end times – neither of which are anything man has control over. Since no man knows the hour of Jesus’ return, I live my life in light of the truth that he could return at any moment. Many of our readers, however, are curious about prophecy and the signs of their coming to pass and so I intend to address the latest sign coming later this year.
Was Buddha a Magi? No, not one of the magi that came to see Jesus -- they were 500 years later than Siddhartha Gautama – but he was possibly one of their ancestors and influencers. To understand this, and Buddha’s role in Biblical prophecy, we need to travel back – far back through the sands of time and winds of change to the era of calm after the storm to time immemorial and… and… sorry the metaphor well just ran dry. In short, we’re going back to the time of Noah to see just where Buddha and the magi came from.
This marks the start of a prolonged series on the Gospel of Luke. As we’ve already examined the book of Acts, it seems reasonable that the first Gospel we study should be Luke as both share a common author. Ask anyone to compare the gospels and two facts will almost always be mentioned: (1) that John is the Gospel of Love, and (2) that Luke is the Historical Gospel. While it is true that John gives us a look into Jesus’ personal struggles and relates stories not contained in any other gospel account, it is not true that Luke is purely a historical account.
This marks the start of a prolonged series on the Gospel of Luke. As we’ve already examined the book of Acts, it seems reasonable that the first Gospel we study should be Luke as both share a common author. Ask anyone to compare the gospels and two facts will almost always be mentioned: (1) that John is the Gospel of Love, and (2) that Luke is the Historical Gospel. While it is true that John gives us a look into Jesus’ personal struggles and relates stories not contained in any other gospel account, it is not true that Luke is purely a historical account.
Without getting into the politics of it all, the last US presidential election has polarized the nation and in doing so revealed a monumental change in the culture. It’s been said that we have moved into a post-Christian culture where moral relativity reigns supreme. That may have been true through the 1980’s an ‘90’s, but that’s not where things stand today. From the various marches and riots we’ve seen over the last six months I’d say that America is anything but morally relative and, if anything, it has shirked the coat of ambiguity and put on the mantle of moral absolutes.
Easter is only a few weeks away, and as usual the cynical, the atheists, and many in the liberal media are already pumping out the fake news stories questioning the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus is not a myth on the level of a Hercules or Thor, no matter how much these groups may want him to be. It’s frustrating to have to overcome objections that have already been refuted, time and again, both historically and recently but in the spirit of “always being prepared” to give a defense of the faith, we continue forward.
As a grade school age kid, I remember thinking about how few people brought their Bible to church with them. How can they follow along the pastor’s teaching if they can’t look at the text for themselves? I wondered. Back then we didn’t have tablets with Bible apps, nor were video projectors within the price range of most church budgets. As I got a little older I began to immerse myself more and more into God’s word. By the time I reached high school, I carried a pocket Bible with me everywhere I went and sometimes even a full sized Bible.
We’ve all been there, you’re at work and someone starts what they think is a highbrow argument about the infallibility of science and arrogantly scoffs at those who “believe the Bible instead.” They usually talk so much no one can get a word in edgewise and by the time their rant is over, no one wants to comment anyway. You, a firm believer, don’t want to let it go but you don’t want to appear as the “ignorant” straw man your coworker was just describing. After all, you still have to work with these people. What do you do?