Ex 33:12-16
14 The LORD replied, “My Presence will go with you, and I will give you rest.”

There are so many commercials for sleep aids these days. Lunesta, Sominex, etc. Can it be as simple as a right relationship with the Heavenly Father?

Don’t dismiss this thought so quickly…Why don’t you sleep on it?

Pray for those who are having trouble sleeping.

Ex 29:45
45 Then I will dwell among the Israelites and be their God.

God instructed Moses to construct a “Tent of Meeting” where God would appear to his people. God says in this way he will live with the Israelites.

Well, with Jesus, God is with all people forever. Immanuel, God with us. There is no need for a tent. Jesus is as close as our attention.

Pray for those who are camping this summer.

What are you passionate about? That probably goes a long way in analyzing issues from Jesus’ perspective in yesterday’s post. People make decisions most often by our passions and emotions rather than by pure principled logic. So, we naturally go to the “Jesus card” when it comes to our own passions.

Of course Jesus would have… (fill in the blank).

Well, like other Christians, I am called to speak for Jesus as he is using me as a conduit for what he wants known in the places in the world I find myself. This includes many actions, few words. Here are some rules of thumb I look to, in order to patiently and respectfully be a conduit, in particular with those whom you disagree.

I am not about using condemning absolutes. I am not about condemning at all. I can’t declare a person is outside of God’s care or love, because it is not my business to declare anything like that and through examining the Bible and the model of Jesus, I don’t believe that is true. God’s care is for all people and God’s love is for those who seek him and can recognize it as such. Not that he doesn’t love, but when I use the word in this context, it presupposes some sort of relationship to know the love. God is the final judge of everyone.

Don’t try to assume you know what is going on in a person’s mind and soul when you disagree with them. I don’t spend a lot of time trying to figure Michael Shiavo out, for instance, though I didn’t agree with many of his decisions. I believe he was wrong in the process, but I am not saying he was intentionally trying to wrong Terri. He may have thought he was doing what was best. We may not have known what was going on in Terri’s mind and soul, but neither do we know Michael, either.

More rules of thumb to follow.

Everyone wants Jesus on their side. If you want only men in key leadership positions in churches you bring up the fact that all 12 of Jesus’ key leaders in his job training program were male. If you want women in key leadership positions you speak of the women who followed Jesus, and who appear to be the venture capitalists, funding his project (Luke 8:1-3). Everyone knows, “money talks.”

If you want to approve homoerotic behavior, you mention Jesus didn’t talk about it so he must not have been against it. Except that the evidence from ancient Jewish culture is this was considered such a forbidden practice that he wouldn’t need to address it (e.g. Robert Gagnon’s work)

You might say, “Jesus would never support war,” because he said, “Turn the other cheek.” Of course in the context of the Sermon on the Mount he is describing what Kingdom Life looks like for a disciple, not giving military advice to the nations.

Jesus wasn’t married and so priests shouldn’t marry. Jesus said, “Tithe.” Jesus didn’t say, “Tithe.” This list is endless, but I will stop.

So, what is going on here? Obviously Jesus gives us the general model of the godly life. His words and actions from the Gospels are key to understanding God. But, if you are a Christian, why stop there. Normal, straightforward teaching of Christianity is that Jesus is the source behind the whole Bible, not just the Gospels. You may disagree with Peter or Paul or any other of the 40+ authors of Scripture but Jesus doesn’t disagree with them. Why would he disagree with himself?

Certainly we are always interpreting the Bible through our own filter and we have challenges and confusion with many passages. But overall the source of the message of Jesus is Genesis- Revelation, not just Matthew- John.

The Christian faith spread rapidly from the Holy Land outward. There is evidence of Christian influence from Great Britain to India, sweeping through North Africa and the Middle East, all within 100 years of the resurrection of Jesus.

Now what is so remarkable about this spread of the preaching of the good news is that this is also a time of persecution and hardship for those who preached Jesus. Eventually there would be no property ownership rights, lack of right to employment, imprisonment, and during some periods, execution for Christians. This all took place during the absolute rule and authority of the Roman dictatorship.

The Christians faced tremendous obstacles. So, we see how compelling the message of the eyewitnesses and their students must have been. Teaching a holy man who was crucified was no big deal. This had happened frequently. Preaching the Son of God who died and rose from the dead, now that was a big deal! What is more compelling evidence than the actual response of the earliest Church that Jesus is indeed risen Lord?

But what about Islam? It spread rapidly through the Middle East and North Africa within 100 years of the time of Mohammed. Why doesn’t this make the spread of Islam unique? The spread of Islam, like Alexander the Great’s conquest and the Roman Empire before, and Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan after, was by the sword. Islam spread through military force. Sweeping through countries with the message, “Surrender or die,” is a little different than the Christian message, “Surrender to Jesus and die to yourself for the sake of others and you will live.”

The constant reporting of suicidal murder by militant Islamists makes this seem like an everyday part of our world now.

How many people were killed this time?
How did the Lakers do last night?

Purposely trying to kill innocent people for your religious cause is astoundingly arrogant and narcissistic. “Unless you think exactly as I do I will try to kill you.” Why do these bombers do it?

First of all, when you mix a cult of death and hate it is a deadly combination. There is an obsession with death that is hard to comprehend. The bombers die willingly because they believe they will go directly to Paradise. Most of the bombers are young men and for many of them their imam’s (religious teachers) are telling them they will receive 72 virgins to have sex with in Paradise as a reward for blowing up babies on purpose at restaurants, or children on school buses, and so forth.

Not a very attractive worldview. And a lie. Unfortunately, dying for a false cause is not uncommon. The suicidal murderers don’t realize you don’t get to “party with the babes” when you hate and destroy. Not only is that sick (sexist, as well, by the way), but I don’t think that’s exactly what God has in mind for these young men.

Now, contrast this to the first disciples of Jesus. They followed the cause of life and love. Because they knew Jesus personally, and knew he had died (they had seen it happen) and had raised from the dead (they had spent time with him after), they were embolden by the Holy Spirit to spread his message of hope and new life throughout the world. Tradition tells us they got pretty far. From Great Britain to India.

If you didn’t think like the disciples and trust in Jesus as your Savior, they didn’t blow you up, they just moved on to the next town to see if there was a more receptive audience for their message, following the example of Jesus (Mark 6:1-6). And they prayed for you to change your mind.

The disciples didn’t kill for their cause. They died for it. Tradition tells us every disciple but John was killed for their faith. But unlike suicide murderers, the disciples died for the truth. You see every disciple except John was killed because they would not recant (go back) on witnessing to the living Jesus. If he hadn’t risen from the dead, there was no reason to die for something you knew for a fact wasn’t true. They had seen Jesus alive.

This is powerful evidence for the truth of the resurrection. People will die for what they think is true. In the disciples case, a truth they were eyewinesses to. No one gives their life for a lie knowing it is a lie.

In my post for yesterday, we saw how we have discovered manuscript evidence so close to the actual events, that there were eyewitnesses alive as the message is being passed along. Unlike other ancient writings and the sacred writings of other religions, the New Testament doesn’t give much time to develop legendary material. Another compelling piece of evidence is the simple fact of the first recorded witnesses of the empty tomb and first sighting of the resurrected Jesus.

By women! (Matthew 28:1-10)

Women were not allowed to testify in court at this time. They were not considered reliable witnesses. It makes absolutely no sense to attribute the first witnesses of the resurrected Jesus to women. Why would the authors of the gospels mention the women at all?

a. To make their case stronger?

No, it weakens their position to use less “trusted” witnesses.

b. Because this is what actually happened?

Ah, that’s more like it. The Bible records women as the first witnesses because—they were.

The Bible records eyewitness accounts to the death of Jesus and the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. Of course the actual physical resurrection occurrence was not witnessed at the very moment as Jesus was in a tomb when it happened. The standard procedure of following the evidence would suffice it to say it happened if the appearances are legitimate.

1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is the earliest account of the resurrection appearances. There are eyewitnesses alive at the time who can deny Paul’s reporting of the event. They do not. There are Jewish writers at the time who can refute the eyewitnesses during their lifetime. They do not. There is no denial. But, how accurate is the Bible?

Compare the New Testament to other ancient writings. In the Bible days there were, of course, no printing presses. Books were passed down orally from one generation to the next. If something were extremely important, it would painstakingly be written down on stone, animal hide, or papyrus. Obviously the earlier it was copied, the more accurate it would be. So how does the Bible compare to other ancient writings?

We all have heard of the writings of Aristotle and his teacher, Plato. Chances are somewhere in high school or college you were introduced to these philosophers. Much of modern thought can be traced partially to these two men’s teaching.

Well let’s compare how many ancient pieces of manuscript we have today that are from Plato or Aristotle, and how many manuscript pieces are there from the New Testament. Then let’s compare how close the age of the manuscript piece is to the actual time of the person. These are two tests that archeologists use to measure the authenticity of texts.

Source Copies Time from actual event Plato 7 excerpts 1200 years after
Aristotle 49 excerpts 1400 years after
New Testament 24,633 excerpts 25 years after first excerpt

Also, within 350 years after the whole New Testament is available!

Now, philosophers don’t seem to question the accuracy of Plato or Aristotle, but the same people may question the accuracy of scripture. There is no ancient document that even comes close to the historical accuracy of the Bible! The evidence compelling.

The physical resurrection of Jesus is the foundation of the Christian faith. Everything else rises or falls on this historical event. Trusting that Jesus did rise from the dead and is ruling now is what identifies us as Christians. Not trusting in this, or considering it a figment of the early church’s imagination makes you a non-Christian. To say “Jesus is a wonderful role model and had some noble teachings” is not an option for a Christian. The miracle of the resurrection is the ultimate evidence that Jesus is God.

I have posted several times on the recent announcement by Antony Flew, world’s most prominent atheist that he now believes in God. He doesn’t believe in the particular God of the Bible, but he did say if he was to believe in a specific God, it would be the God of Jesus, Why? He doesn’t believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus, but he thinks it is the most compelling possible miracle.

The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. Its outstandingly different in quality and quantity, I think, from the evidence offered for the occurrence of most other supposedly miraculous events.

Flew is close.

So, what is the evidence that Jesus really did rise from the dead? Let’s highlight four areas in the coming days:

1. eyewitness accounts
2. women as witnesses
3. willingness of the apostles to die for this belief
4. rapid and non-violent spread of Christian faith

A common example of opposition to government is the protest. Protest can be an effective media event. At the same time, it is probably the most common act of civil disobedience if city law is being violated by the event. Protests, many times, become simply ad hominem (name calling rather than stating your case in a principled, reasonable fashion) events. Many protests are rather arbitrary.

Take the most recent anti-war protests concerning Iraq. One of the main issues of protest was no “UN OK” for going into Iraq. Yet, I don’t recall massive demonstrations when we went into Bosnia without UN support.

Should Christians be involved in protest? It depends. Does it support arbitrary thinking? Are we using logical fallacies and spin to lift up our cause? Then we aren’t “loving the Lord with all our mind.”

Are any laws being violated? Then we need to be willing to suffer the consequences. There may be times when a Christian would stand up and be counted at a protest (think recent protests against the Syrian occupation in Lebanon), but it would have to be done in a truthful, respectful, and reasonable fashion. In many cases, there are probably other ways for a Christian to spend their time being an influence that would be more effective.