Christ's Burial Garments: An Argument For The Resurrection

          "and the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself." (John 20:7, NKJV)

          The significance of the facial cloth being separated from Christ's burial garments is not known for certain, but the details mentioned do have an interesting apologetic thrust. The point is simply this: If the resurrection story was an elaborate hoax, then why would the handkerchief that once rested on His face be moved and folded neatly in a separate spot of the tomb? Why would thieves waste their time doing such? Why would Jesus waste this much time, if He were an impostor who needed to escape quickly to bolster the credibility of some falsehood that He started? Without a doubt, this is a problem for theories circulated in an attempt to discredit the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The Enlightenment Got It Wrong: The West's Debt to Christianity

"It's a rock-solid Western conviction: All men—and women—are created equal. But where does it come from? Well, not the Enlightenment.

Few modern historians have done more to educate the public about the ancient and classical world than Tom Holland. His 2004 book, "Rubicon: The Last Years of the Roman Republisc," won the prestigious Hessell-Tiltman prize, which is awarded to history books of "high literary merit."

Subsequent books about the rise of the Persian Empire and the rise of Islam have received similar accolades. Put simply, when it comes to the ancient world, Holland knows his stuff, and no one doubts it.

That's why it's wise to pay attention to what he has to say about how the coming of Christianity, and in particular the writings of St. Paul, shaped our world.

Writing in the storied British literary and political journal, the New Statesman, Holland told readers how the Christianity of his childhood gave way to an obsession with ancient empires. "When I read the Bible," Holland wrote, "the focus of my fascination was less the children of Israel or Jesus and his disciples than their adversaries: the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Romans."

While he "vaguely continued to believe in God, [Holland] found Him infinitely less charismatic than [his] favourite Olympians: Apollo, Athena, Dionysus."

Like many historians, Edward Gibbons and other Enlightenment writers convinced Holland "that the triumph of Christianity had ushered in an 'age of superstition and credulity.' and that modernity was founded on the dusting down of long-forgotten classical values."

At this point his readers were probably thinking, "quite right!" But the story doesn't end there, as suggested by the title of the article, "Why I was wrong about Christianity."

He wrote that, "The longer I spent immersed in the study of classical antiquity, the more alien and unsettling I came to find it." Especially its callous disregard for human life. The Spartans, he noted, practiced "a peculiarly murderous form of eugenics." Julius Caesar may have killed a million Gauls and enslaved another million.

It wasn't only the body count, Holland says. It was also "the lack of a sense that the poor or the weak might have any intrinsic value." This led Holland to view the Enlightenment's insistence that it owed nothing to Christianity as not credible.

Let's assume that most people in the post-Christian West still believe "that it is nobler to suffer than to inflict suffering" and that every human life has equal value. We don't get that from the Greeks and Romans.

As Holland notes, it was St. Paul who proclaimed the "foolishness of the Gospel."

It was the honest evaluation of the historical record that led Holland, an agnostic, to write that "In my morals and ethics, I have learned to accept that I am not Greek or Roman at all, but thoroughly and proudly Christian."

Here's praying that he becomes Christian in other ways, as well. In the meantime, I'm grateful for this unexpected bit of apologetics. It's a much-needed reminder that even modern criticisms of Christianity are indebted to Christianity itself."

https://www.christianpost.com/voice/the-enlightenment-got-it-wrong-the-wests-debt-to-christianity.html

The Dangers Of Anti-Intellectualism

          Our mind is a gift of God, even though it is liable to error. It needs to be guided by divine revelation and grace. God is a rational and intelligent being. So are we, but not in the same way or to the same extent. Further, He created the universe in an orderly fashion. We are made in His image and likeness (Genesis 1:26). Therefore, to be anti-intellectual means failing to appreciate the multiple faculties that He has bestowed upon us. Our minds are meant to be used. This presupposes it being the means not only by which civilization is built up, but also us glorifying Him.

          It is a truth that God is more concerned with our hearts than personal achievements. He even intends to restore our fallen bodies. However, that does not mean the use of our rational faculties is to be pitted against our emotions, which are the language of the soul. An anti-intellectual attitude is not an acceptable approach to the Christian life. Hosea 4:6 says that the people of God are destroyed for a lack of knowledge. The Apostle Paul told his audience to not be children in understanding, but wise and examples of purity (1 Corinthians 14:20).

          Ignorance can be a rather dangerous thing. At the least, it certainly is nothing to be proud of. For example, toddlers get their fingers burnt when they touch a hot stove as a result of their uninformed curiosity. We should know and understand our worldview, which is the means by which we interpret events around us. God gave us a mind. We learn and understand new concepts by utilizing it.

          If literally everybody were to stop seeking higher levels of education, then that would inevitably collapse our civilization because nobody would be competent to work jobs that require obtaining those more advanced skills. Examples would include the legal and medical fields. This demonstrates an anti-intellectual worldview to not be workable. If a person has systematic distrust in scholarship, and takes that level of skepticism to its logically consistent end, then he will inevitably be led to agnosticism. Nothing can be known for sure. That is insanity.

          An anti-intellectual worldview is psychologically unhealthy. An anti-intellectual worldview is cultic. Using the mind is not inherently sinful. It is also not wrong to learn from people that we disagree with. In the real world, we will encounter people with non-Christian worldviews. What we should be on guard against is turning our pursuits into idols. What we should be on guard against is our tendency to become prideful as a result of our earthly accomplishments.

Connections Between Homosexuality And Pedophilia

The most comprehensive gay networking website, the Queer Resource Directory (www.qrd.org), links every gay group in the country including NAMBLA [the North American Man-Boy Love Association] and other homosexual groups that focus on youth. NAMBLA marches in gay pride parades with the consent of the gay leadership. Many of the homosexual movement’s most prominent leaders endorse NAMBLA and its goals. Gay authors and leaders such as Allen Ginsberg, Gayle Rubin, Larry Kramer (founder of ACT-UP), Pat Califia, Jane Rule, Michael Kearns, and Michel Foucault have all written in favor of either NAMBLA or man-boy relationships. Harry Hay, whom many consider the founder of the American homosexual movement, invited NAMBLA members to march with him in the 1993 "March on Washington" gay rights parade. He also marched in the 1986 Los Angeles gay parade wearing a shirt emblazoned with the words "NAMBLA walks with me."

Leading mainstream homosexual newspapers and magazines such as the Advocate, Edge, Metroline, The Guide, and The San Francisco Sentinel have not only published pro-NAMBLA articles and columns but also many have editorialized in favor of NAMBLA and sex with children. The editor of The Guide, Ed Hougen, stated in an interview with Lambda Report, "I believe they [NAMBLA] are generally interested in the right of young people to be sexual . . . . I am glad there is a group like NAMBLA that is willing to be courageous." The San Francisco Sentinel was more blunt: "NAMBLA’s position on sex is not unreasonable, just unpopular. [W]hen a 14 year old gay boy approaches a man for sex, it’s because he wants sex with a man."

There is also the matter of NAMBLA’s membership status in the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA), recognized at one time by the United Nations as the official Non-Government Organization (NGO) representing the gay community worldwide. When NAMBLA’s ILGA membership became public, a whirlwind of international controversy erupted. Some gay leaders viewed this attention as harmful to the gay movement’s image and goals and urged the expulsion of NAMBLA for purely political purposes.

However, the media failed to report that ILGA itself had hosted workshops on pedophilia and passed resolutions in 1985, 1988, and 1990 to abolish age of consent laws claiming that "same sex age of consent laws often operate to oppress and not to protect" and supported "the right of every individual, regardless of age, to explore and develop her or his sexuality."

Eventually, reacting to congressional legislation threatening the reduction of $119 million in financial support, the United Nations kicked out ILGA in 1995 for refusing to sever ties with a half dozen member groups that advocated or promoted pedophilia. Revealingly, even though ILGA did expel NAMBLA (many say it was for show), it could not muster enough support among its membership to expel other more powerful and discreet pro-pedophile organizations from Germany and other countries. It is extremely revealing that the majority of members of the world’s leading homosexual coalition, the ILGA, decided they would rather be excluded from UN deliberations than vote out groups that advocate sex with children.

...[O]ver the last fifteen years the homosexual community and its academic allies have published a large quantity of articles that claim sex with children is not harmful to children but, as stated in one homosexual journal, "constitute an aspect of gay and lesbian life." Such articles have appeared in pro-homosexual academic journals such as The Journal of Homosexuality, The Journal of Sex Research, Archives of Sexual Behavior, and The International Journal of Medicine and Law. The editorial board of the leading pedophile academic journal, Paidika, is dominated by prominent homosexual scholars such as San Francisco State University professor John DeCecco, who happens to edit the Journal of Homosexuality.

Indeed, the Journal of Homosexuality is the premier academic journal of the mainstream homosexual world and yet it published [in 1990] a special double issue entitled, Male Intergenerational Intimacy, containing dozens of articles portraying sex between men and minor boys as loving relationships. One article states that parents should view the pedophile who loves their son "not as a rival or competitor, not as a theft of their property, but as a partner in the boy’s upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home." . . .

A 1995 content analysis by Dr. Judith Reisman of the Institute for Media Education, focusing on advertisements in the nation’s most influential homosexual newspaper, The Advocate, reveals that 63% of the personal ads sought or offered prostitution. Many of them openly solicit boys. The Advocatealso advertises a "Penetrable Boy Doll . . . available in 3 provocative positions." Reisman found that the number of erotic boy images per issue of TheAdvocate averaged fourteen. . . .

Indeed, NAMBLA and other pro-pedophile literature can be found wherever homosexuals congregate (homosexual bookstores, bathhouses, festivals, gay bars, etc.) [examples follow] . . . .

The most popular gay fiction books on the market today are rich with idyllic accounts of intergenerational relationships according to writer Philip Guichard in a Village Voice article. Doubleday published a book in 1998, The Gay Canon: Great Books Every Gay Man Should Read, which recommends numerous works that portray sex with boys in a positive manner. The Border bookstore chain sells a book, A History of Gay Literature: The Male Tradition, which includes a chapter devoted to the history of pro-pedophile literature as an indisputable part of homosexual literary history [examples follow] . . . .

"Mainstream" homosexual conferences commonly feature speeches about intergenerational sex as it is now called. For example, at one of the nation’s largest homosexual gatherings, the annual National Gay Lesbian Task Force convention, featured a workshop at its 2001 confab entitled, Your Eyes Say Yes But the Law Says No, which included a speech by an S&M activist about laws affecting intergenerational sex. The convention also featured another workshop entitled Drag 101: How to Turn Kids in Make-up into Kings and Queens.

Pick up any gay newspaper or gay travel publication and one finds ads for sex tours to Burma, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and other countries infamous for boy prostitution. . . . The most popular travel guide for homosexuals, Spartacus Gay Guides, is replete with information about where to find boys for sex and, as a friendly warning, lists penalties in various countries for sodomy with boys if caught. . . .

Homosexual Internet sites are no different. A quick search using the words "gay" and "boys" easily locates thousands of homosexual sites that promote sex with young boys and/or contain child pornography. Indeed, it is the mainstream homosexual groups who filed suit to block Virginia Legislation, passed in 2001, restricting Internet use that proves harmful to children (such as chat rooms commonly used by pedophiles to find victims)….

The Holy Grail of the pedophile movement is the lowering or elimination of all age of consent laws. The main warriors in this political and legal battle are "mainstream" homosexual groups [examples follow]...

Steve Baldwin, "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement", cited by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D., "Immoralism, Homosexual Unhealth, and Scripture A Response to Peterson and Hedlund’s “Heterosexism, Homosexual Health, and the Church” Part II: Science: Causation and Psychopathology, Promiscuity, Pedophilia, and Sexually Transmitted Disease", Section IV.

Distinguishing Between Sociology And Morality

"A common mistake of relativists is to confuse behavior with value. That is, they confuse what is with what ought to be. What people do is subject to change, but what they ought to do is not. This is the difference between sociology and morality. Sociology is descriptive; morality is prescriptive."

Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, p. 182

A Theological Analysis Of Roman Catholic Marian Prayers

• Defining the Issues

          -For centuries, a profound theological divide has existed between Roman Catholics and Protestants over the practice of offering religious devotion to saints through prayers, ceremonies, and iconography. The Roman Catholic Church, in particular, has become known for its deep veneration of those who have passed into the spiritual realm.
          -Critics often accuse the Church of Rome of idolatry, while defenders insist they are merely honoring those deemed worthy of reverence. However, the arguments advanced by Catholic apologists in support of venerating saints ultimately falter, since their own words and actions betray a form of devotion that closely mirrors worship, which Scripture reserves for God alone.

          -Catholics claim they do not pray to saints and angels, but rather ask them to intercede. Yet such a distinction collapses under scrutiny. Since saints are not physically present, any request for their intercession must be made through prayer. This renders the claim semantic at best. Furthermore, if the saints are merely relaying our petitions to God, then why not go directly to Him? Many Marian prayers, in particular, are composed in a tone and structure that unmistakably resemble direct supplication.

          -In the Bible, prayer is consistently portrayed as an act of worship. For both Jews and Christians, prayer was always directed to God alone. It encompassed not only requests, but also praise, adoration, thanksgiving, and repentance. Nowhere in the Bible do we find God’s people praying to anyone other than God, not to angels, not to saints, and not to Mary.

• The Memorare Prayer:

          -“Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who fled to thy protection, implored thy help, or sought thine intercession was left unaided. Inspired by this confidence, I fly unto thee, O Virgin of virgins, my mother; to thee do I come, before thee I stand, sinful and sorrowful. O Mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not my petitions, but in thy mercy hear and answer me.”
           *This prayer is a direct appeal to Mary for spiritual protection and mercy. The petitioner approaches her with sorrow and contrition, as though she were a source of forgiveness. Such language and posture are indistinguishable from worship. If believers can place this much trust in Mary, why not place all trust in God alone, as the psalmists did? “God is our refuge and strength” (Psalm 46:1–2); “He is our confidence” (Proverbs 3:26). Nowhere does Scripture ascribe these roles to Mary. Christians are called to stand before God, seeking His mercy through Christ, who “always lives to make intercession” (Hebrews 7:24–28). Prayers like the Memorare contain elements that rightly belong to Christ alone.

• The Hail, Holy Queen Prayer:

          -“Hail, holy Queen, Mother of mercy, hail, our life, our sweetness and our hope. To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve: to thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this vale of tears. Turn then, most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us, and after this our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus, O merciful, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary!”
           *This prayer attributes to Mary titles and roles that Scripture reserves for God and Christ. The Psalmist declares, “Our soul waits for the Lord; He is our help and our shield” (Psalm 33:20). Jesus is our advocate before the Father (1 John 2:1–2), our redeemer (Matthew 1:21), and the sole mediator of grace (2 Peter 1:1). Hebrews 4 teaches that we now have direct access to God through Christ, which means that no intermediary is needed. Entrusting such hope and affection to Mary not only lacks biblical precedent, but also elevates her to a divine status, infringing upon the sufficiency of Christ.

• The Hail Mary Prayer:

          -“Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.”
           *This is perhaps the most frequently recited Marian prayer in Catholic tradition. While the first half is drawn from Scripture (Luke 1:28, 42), the second half introduces theological concerns that cannot be ignored. The title “Mother of God,” though Christologically accurate, has been used to elevate Mary’s status in ways that go beyond biblical boundaries. Scripture never suggests that this title grants her spiritual authority or access to divine power. The petition “pray for us sinners” implies that Mary has an ongoing intercessory role, which contradicts the clear biblical teaching that Christ alone intercedes for believers (1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 7:25).
           *The phrase “now and at the hour of our death” suggests that Mary plays a role in our final moments and eternal destiny. Yet Scripture teaches that believers are to call upon the Lord in times of trouble (Psalm 50:15), not upon any human figure. This prayer, like others in the Marian tradition, subtly shifts the believer’s focus from Christ to Mary. Though Catholics insist this is not worship, the language used, especially in repetition, fosters a dependence on Mary that rivals the trust and intimacy Scripture reserves for God alone.

• A Papal Perspective:

          -“The history of Christian piety teaches that Mary is the way which leads to Christ and that filial devotion to her takes nothing from intimacy with Jesus; indeed, it increases it and leads to the highest levels of perfection. The countless Marian shrines throughout the world testify to the marvels wrought by grace through the intercession of Mary, Mother of the Lord and our Mother.” (Pope John Paul II, General Audience, May 7, 1997)
           *This statement, while sincere, lacks biblical support. Nowhere does Scripture teach that Mary is the way to Christ. Jesus Himself declared, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). The claim that Mary is “our mother” is a theological construct, not a biblical doctrine. God has said with unmistakable clarity, “I am the Lord; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another, nor my praise to idols” (Isaiah 42:8). This declaration is not merely about avoiding paganism. It is a divine boundary that guards the uniqueness of God's majesty. Any practice, however well-intentioned, that ascribes to a creature the roles, titles, or trust that belong to God alone, crosses that boundary. The language of exaltation, the posture of dependence, and the expectation of supernatural aid, when directed toward anyone but God, inevitably infringes on His exclusive glory. Salvation is found in Christ alone (Acts 4:12), and no one comes to the Father except through Him. Mary, though honored as the mother of Jesus, plays no role in the dispensation of saving grace. To suggest otherwise is to diminish the exclusive mediatorship of Christ and to offer to another what God has reserved for Himself.

Lying Signs And Wonders Of The Charismatic Movement

"It is ironic that Charismatics, who consider themselves experts on the Holy Spirit, completely misunderstand the purpose of the Holy Spirit’s ministry. Does the Bible teach that the Holy Spirit came so that we could have a wonderful, subjective experience? So that we could have wonderful religious sensations? So that we could feel electric current in our bodies? So that we could have an exciting, mind-blowing experience? So the our worship services would make people go, “Wow, how thrilling”? Does the Bible teach that the Holy Spirit came so that people would focus on the Holy Spirit? So that people would hang banners with representations of doves in their churches and have seminars on Spirit-baptism, etc.? No, not at all. Listen carefully to what Jesus Christ says about the Spirit’s ministry: “When He, the Spirit of truth, has come…He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you” (Jn.16:13-14). The Holy Spirit came to point me to Christ and to glorify Christ. After Peter was baptized in the Spirit, did he stand up and tell the crowd about his wonderful experience? Did he say, “Men and brethren, I have just received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and I want to tell you how wonderful it is. When it came upon me, it was like being thrilled with a vital electric current. I felt such a beautiful love and peace course through my whole body, right down to the balls of my feet”? On the contrary, Peter made no reference to himself or his feeling. His message was Jesus Christ and Him crucified: “Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God…” (Ac. 2:22). . . .

The Bible teaches that signs are public, visible, miraculous events. Their purpose was not to give believers exciting worship services or a wonderful experience but to authenticate a divine message or messenger, to prove publicly that the person performing miracles was sent from God."

Brian M. Schwertley, The Charismatic Movement: A Biblical Critique, pg.10-11, 30-31.

Man Becomes Puffed-Up In His Ignorance

"...the less ability a man has, the more he tries to raise and swell himself out, as those of short stature exalt themselves on tip-toe, and the weak use most threats."

Quintilian's Institutes of Oratory, Book 2, Chapter 3

1 John And Assurance Of Salvation

          "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life." (1 John 5:13)

          The Apostle John spells out his purpose in writing this epistle. It closely mirrors the evangelistic appeal of John 20:30-31 in that Christ is said to lead us to eternal life. With His name, comes the good news that fallen humanity can have the kind of life that is enduring and otherworldly. It is not the result of natural birth, but comes from God. Throughout his epistle, John includes various standards (i.e. "these things") for us to use in evaluating our standing before Him. The inclusion of such details presupposes that we can have assurance of salvation from sin and its domination.

          According to 1 John 2:1-6, assurance of salvation is based on whether or not we obey Him. One who genuinely knows Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior also does what He says. That man's profession of faith is grounded in the reality of his life. The validity of his profession corresponds to the way in which he lives. Therefore, false professions of faith have no validity. Such people have no right to claim Christ as their own. The love of God reaches its fullest potential in genuine believers, and will perfectly show itself in the kingdom that is to come.

          If Christians fail to live up to what God expects of them, then their situation is anything but hopeless. They do not become flawless, but grow in spiritual maturity over time. Further, Jesus is their advocate before God the Father (1 John 2:1). He pleads the sinner's case on his behalf. Christ does so on the basis of His own personal merit. This is analogous to an attorney who intercedes before a judge in a courtroom for a defendant. Christ is the one who made the forgiveness of sin even possible. Not even believers have power in and of themselves to love perfectly as God Himself loves. 

          A Christian life is characterized with a desire to serve God (1 John 5:2-3). That is the purpose for which we have been called. This is not merely a matter of outward conformity to some abstract moral standard or a program of personal betterment, for that would only bolster man's pride. God detests that state of heart. Christian love extends itself outward for the benefit of others. This desire stems from hearts that have been energized and empowered by the Spirit of God. Obedience to God is the believer's natural way of being. God's commandments are a source of joy and blessing to him. Love of Him is expressed through us toward each other.

          A lack of concern regarding one's status with God is reason to question his spiritual standing, especially if he professes to know Christ. This is a call for one to examine what has gone wrong in his spiritual life. A saved person will seriously confront the presence of sin in his life. A person who loves God and loves neighbor can confidently assert being justified before Him (1 John 3:16-24). John appealed to the example of Jesus laying down His life for others. The apostle did so to encourage his audience to live as Christ lived. We can have assurance of salvation because God is greater than our hearts and knows everything. 

          A Christian loves truth and is changed by the Holy Spirit (1 John 4:4-6). That God is greater than the things of this world, is the believer's greatest assurance that he is right with Him. That person's profession is rooted in truth, as God is the God of truth. In Him, exists no lie or deceit. The source of deliverance from sin and the assurance that we have been so are Him. Our assurance of salvation is not based on our current emotional state, but certain objective facts. The Apostle John's epistle is not intended to be some sort of a legalistic checklist. To utilize his teaching in this way, is to turn the spirit of his message on its head.

Jehovah's Witnesses And Blood Transfusions

          The Watchtower Society forbids adherents from receiving blood transfusions on the grounds that such procedures somehow violate commandments given by God in the Old Testament to not consume blood. Members who proceeded to do so in spite of official teaching have been expelled from their religious community.

           Blood transfusions were not possible during biblical times because they did not even exist. These procedures were only made possible due to technical advances in medicine and machinery. Even if blood transfusions technically did go against commandments to not drink blood, consider the instant of King David eating the shewbread to feed himself. The Law allowed for exceptions.

          The oral consumption of blood is not the same as intravenously transferring blood from one individual to another who has the same blood type. The first process involves digesting so as to nourish the body, whereas the latter involves a substitute to carry on the same bodily functions. Blood transfusions are not meals. 

          The blood itself is not sacred, but the life thereof. Blood transfusions are a voluntary undertaking, not coerced. No sacrificial offering or murder is done in the process. Blood transfusions are done to preserve life. Jesus Christ commended self-sacrifice for the welfare of others (John 15:13).

           Even if the Jehovah's Witnesses governing body were to change its official teaching on this issue, that would only prove it is not guided by God as is claimed. They do not have prophetic insight like real prophets of God had. Both stances cannot be right at the same time, in the same sense.