Essential Doctrines part 7 Resurrection

All Christians must believe Jesus died on the cross and on the third day was bodily raised from the dead.The Apostle Paul writes in 1 Cor. 15:17 “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.” Without the resurrection of Jesus, Paul says our faith is worthless and we are still in our sins; which means when we die we will pay the penalty for our sins, rather than Jesus.If Christ was not raised from the dead there is no eternal life; no possibility of heaven.

Paul is a credible source of information because he was an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ, having met Him on the road to Damascus. He writes in 1Corth. 15:20 “But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead.”

Paul then states, in the book of Romans, to be a follower of Christ you have to make Him the Lord of your life and believe God raised Jesus from the dead.Romans 10:9 “That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”Anyone who denies the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ can call themselves anything they want but not a Christian.

Finally, we hear from Peter at Pentecost, where is preaches a powerful sermon, launching the Christian Church. Luke records the words of Peter in Acts 2:31-32 Seeing what was ahead, he [King David looking to the future] spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. 32God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.”Peter spoke to a crowd of a few thousand people and said he and the disciples were eyewitnesses of the resurrection.Following this sermon the new believers in Christ took the message of the resurrection and preached it far and wide.They staked their lives on the truth of the bodily resurrection.  They believed Jesus rose from the dead and told others, serving as examples to us.

This is the final posting on the essential doctrines of Christianity.  Other doctrines could be added to this list but I wanted to make it manageable.  These doctrines are non-negotiable; you cannot deny any of the 6 doctrines and say you a Christian.  These doctrines were developed in response to heresies that threatened the church.  Essential doctrines are walls to protect the true beliefs of the true church.  This is why we need to reach Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses for Christ; they deny or alter all of the essential doctrines and will be held accountable by God.  They will be separated from God and spend eternity in hell.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Related Articles:

Looking for something?

Or visit the Site Map

If you enjoyed this article FEEL Free to TIP Biblical Worldview Academy:

Any Amount Welcome 🙂

Dash: XmARRjJ9y2zUUgiPWPMrjviWWCvpuogwKd

Dogecoin: D5vAJ9ydfsNX1VE6e93Wh16gmUfVSUSKQq

Bitcoin: 1BJbBAvdNHcZPZBnaFpyExUmAD9H1crosU

Litecoin: LXfkhyMe8gxdENyUc7Y5itHzFqr67F96nW

Bitcoin Cash: 1Q8njMG4LPqFYthtNu6rq2Rbq9JqKXaPg1

Ethereum: 0x60454606e1f66C09e4fD7977b844718b683B2836

{ 19 comments… add one }
  • Tom Wright September 10, 2010, 9:59 pm

    Any other eyewitnesses besides the disciples? If not, possibly collusion? After all, Steve we’re talking about a physically impossible event: returning to life 3 days after death.

  • Steve September 11, 2010, 11:48 am

    You ask if there were other eyewitnesses to the resurrection. What is wrong if there were no other eyewitnesses than the disciples? You would have more than 10 eyewitnesses to a miracle. Do you have a problem with over 10 witnesses?

    You think there could have been a conspiracy or collusion among the eyewitnesses. Read my series on the resurrection and you’ll see what these men received for their testimony of the resurrection. They were tortured, placed in prison, and executed without changing their testimonies. According to you, these individuals would have endured horrible deaths for a lie, they knew was a lie. As I said in my series, liars make lousy martyrs.

    However, there were many more eyewitnesses that go beyond the disciples. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 (KJV) “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.” These letters were circulating among an audience that could have verified the accuracy of what Paul writes. We have no one disputing this letter. He said there were around 500 eyewitnesses of the resurrection and many still living when this letter was distributed. Is that enough for you?

    You deny the resurrection, not based on the evidence, but because your belief system won’t allow for dead people to rise after 3 days in the tomb. It seems no amount of evidence will convince you. An atheist friend of mine said, “Any explanation, even without evidence and not even plausible, is better than believing the impossible; that a dead man rose from the dead.” What would it take to convince you Jesus rose from the dead? Is the weight of evidence enough as I demonstrate in my series? Or are you so committed to atheism, that nothing will convince you?

  • Tom Wright October 13, 2010, 9:27 am

    You’ll have to help me here. Did Paul say the 12 disciples saw the event or did they see it first hand and report it independently? Otherwise it is hearsay.
    In my English class at Palomar we’re studying the early days of the republic and many of the founding fathers were Deists. I’m sure you know their beliefs. Are they true Christians in your view?

  • Steve October 16, 2010, 5:43 am

    Tom here is what the Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:4-6 (NIV) that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

    Paul reported this information at a time where anyone could verify the truthfulness of the statement. In fact he said many of the 500 were still alive. He was encouraging people to go ask them. Remember this was written around 25 years after the resurrection. These letters circulated in the early church and all facts could be easily verified. If these reports were false or myths, Christianity would never have exploded. The resurrection was the key event for Jews turning away from their belief system and turning to Jesus. Why would they do this for a lie? Why would they do this for hearsay? They would only do this for the truth. People don’t change religious beliefs they have grown up with unless there is a compelling reason. The truth of the resurrection provides the motivation.

    Deists are not Christians. They believe God got things started and then backed off. However, your class doesn’t have the facts straight. Here is more accurate information concerning the founding fathers. You can find an article on this issue at:

    Among the delegates were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and only 3 deists–Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin–this at a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith.

    Many university professors spew out false information because they go by hearsay rather than the historical record. This information is public record and can be accessed by anyone; including your professor.

  • texastig October 16, 2010, 10:46 am

    The early historical information of the New Testament is what historical scholars like. It far outweighs any other historical person such as Alexander the great.

  • Tom Wright October 21, 2010, 7:50 pm

    Still confused. Was Paul an eyewitness to the event? Or was the event “according to the scriptures?”

  • texastig October 23, 2010, 6:26 pm

    The Apostle Paul was not an eyewitness when Christ resurrected because he was still a Pharisee and was hostile to Christ. But he was a post resurrection eyewitness.

    Scholars unanimously accept seven of the thirteen Pauline books as being authored by the Apostle Paul and authentic.
    The seven authentic epistles of the Apostle Paul are Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Philipians, 1 Thessalonians, Galatians and Philemon.

    Paul the Apostle had seen the post resurrected Christ.
    From Dr. Gary Habermas
    (1) Contemporary critical scholars agree that the Apostle Paul is the primary witness to the early resurrection experiences. A former opponent (1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13-14; Phil. 3:4-7), Paul states that the risen Jesus appeared personally to him (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8; Gal. 1:16). The scholarly consensus here is attested by atheist Michael Martin, who avers: “However, we have only one contemporary eyewitness account of a postresurrection appearance of Jesus, namely Paul’s.”[3]
    [3] Michael Martin, The Case Against Christianity (Philadelphia: Temple University, 1991), 81.

    (2) In addition to Paul’s own experience, few conclusions are more widely recognized than that, in 1 Corinthians 15:3ff., Paul records an ancient oral tradition(s). This pre-Pauline report summarizes the early Gospel content, that Christ died for human sin, was buried, rose from the dead, and then appeared to many witnesses, both individuals and groups.

    Paul is clear that this material was not his own but that he had passed on to others what he had received earlier, as the center of his message (15:3). There are many textual indications that the material pre-dates Paul. Most directly, the apostle employs paredoka and parelabon, the equivalent Greek terms for delivering and receiving rabbinic tradition (cf. 1 Cor. 11:23). Indirect indications of a traditional text(s) include the sentence structure and verbal parallelism, diction, and the triple sequence of kai hoti Further, several non-Pauline words, the proper names of Cephas (cf. Lk. 24:34) and James, and the possibility of an Aramaic original are all significant. Fuller attests to the unanimity of scholarship here: “It is almost universally agreed today that Paul is here citing tradition.”[4] Critical scholars agree that Paul received the material well before this book was written.[5]

    [4] Reginald Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives (New York: Macmillan, 1980), 10.
    [5] Of the vast number of scholars who agree, some examples include John Kloppenborg, “An Analysis of the Pre-Pauline Formula in 1 Cor 15:3b-5 in Light of Some Recent Literature,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 40 (1978), especially 351, 360; Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “Tradition and Redaction in 1 Cor 15:3-7,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 43 (1981), 582-589; John Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 2001), Vol. 2:139; Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, 277; Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective (Minneapolis: Augsberg, 1983), 97-99.

  • Tom Wright November 6, 2010, 9:01 pm

    Good comment from texastig, but is there a record of any of the 500 eyewitnesses stating, with Paul, they saw a resurrected Jesus?

  • Steve November 9, 2010, 5:11 pm

    I am not sure what you want. Here is what Paul writes: 1 Corinthians 15:4-6 “and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;” Paul was an eyewitness and he reported 500 other witnesses of the resurrection. This letter is written to the church and read by many. Why did he include such a wide range of eyewitnesses? So that people could talk to the eyewitnesses and the truth could be verified. Are you saying 500 eyewitnesses aren’t enough? Do you need their individual testimonies? If that’s what you need then we don’t have that. But how does that diminish the evidence. Anyone at that time could prove Jesus never rose from the dead if they could prove Paul a liar. The only record we have of Paul was he was a man of great integrity and historical scholars don’t call his character into question. Do you believe Paul was a liar? If yes, what is your proof? If no, then you don’t need individual testimonies, you have Paul and at the time there were 500 additional eyewitnesses. Thousands radically changed their religious beliefs from Judaism to Christianity based on the evidence for the resurrection. What evidence do you have to keep you from leaving atheism?

  • Tom Wright December 13, 2010, 9:03 pm

    Only Paul states that 500 saw the event. This is still hearsay. According to your statement above, there is no record of any of the 500 stating they saw the event. What is your proof he wasn’t lying? Isn’t this still the testimony of one person? I can’t prove he was lying, but all I’m saying this probably wouldn’t hold up in a court of law.

  • Steve December 16, 2010, 6:10 am

    The focus of your letter has been on Paul, the testimony of one eyewitness of the resurrection. However, if you want more, here is a list of eyewitnesses.

    1. Simon Peter, fisherman, the brother of Andrew
    2. Andrew, fisherman, the brother of Simon Peter
    3. John, fisherman, the brother of James
    4. James, fisherman, the brother of John
    5. Philip, who introduced his friend Nathanael to Jesus
    6. Nathanael, also called Bartholomew
    7. Matthew, tax collector, also called Levi
    8. Thaddaeus, also called Judas or Jude
    9. James the Less, son of Alphaeus, possibly the brother of Matthew
    10. Simon the Zealot, member of a radical Jewish party
    11. Thomas, a twin
    12. Matthias, elected to take Judas Iscariot’s place
    13. Paul, apostle to the Gentiles
    14. James, half brother of Christ and head of the Jerusalem church
    15. Plus the 500 Paul talked about

    This list contains two enemies of Jesus (Paul & James ½ brother), who both became followers after seeing the risen Christ. How would this stand up in court? If you were to do background checks on the individuals listed, they would all be counted as men of integrity. Historians assume this unless they have good reasons not to. In court the testimony of two enemies, dramatically changed, would be strong evidence for the truth of the resurrection. I have two enemies and hundreds of others (at least 14 by name). How many more eyewitnesses will it take to convince you Jesus rose from the dead?

  • Tom Wright December 18, 2010, 9:30 pm

    Didn’t know this. However, Jesus rising from the dead is not credible without suspending belief in medical science and physics. I also understand that resurrection as a theme was a part of some pre-Christian pagan religions.

  • Steve December 30, 2010, 6:27 am

    What I find interesting in our discussion is I meet your challenges and then you move to another one. You wanted credible eyewitnesses and when I provided you with them, you simply ignore the power of their testimony. It seems your real issue is you’re committed to your atheistic belief system and a miracle of God is not possible in your worldview. So when evidence is strongly presented against your prior beliefs, you simply cast them aside and move on to the next challenge. You need to ask yourself, is my belief system faulty? Or why do I strongly cling to my beliefs?

    Bringing in medical science and physics to provide evidence against the resurrection is again trying to apply science to prove a supernatural event. Science deals with the physical and God is non-physical. I believe in medical science and physics; I also believe in a God who can perform miracles. No suspension of belief in science is necessary; you just need to believe in the God who created the universe, who can also intervene into human history and perform incredible miracles, such as the resurrection. Science cannot prove or disprove miracles but the historical record can provide ample evidence the resurrection is the best explanation of the facts. Medical experts have looked at the historical facts of the crucifixion of Jesus and concluded no one could have lived through the ordeal. If Jesus was 100% dead, then you have to come up with an explanation for his appearances. You have yet to provide evidence Jesus didn’t rise from the dead.

    As far as the resurrection coming about from pre-Christian pagan sources, this is a perfect example of the “genetic fallacy.” You are trying to cast doubt on an event based on possible previous sources. Even if there were some resurrection stories prior to Jesus rising from the dead, this is not an argument against His resurrection. First you have to show evidence the resurrection didn’t happen before you even try to attempt to dream up why they made up the story (genetic fallacy). What historical evidence to do have? Can you explain the empty tomb? Do you have evidence to discount all the eyewitnesses? Can you explain why thousands of individuals who had incredibly strong Jewish beliefs from birth, upon hearing about the resurrection, would dramatically change and become followers of Jesus Christ? Again possible pagan sources cannot negate solid historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.

    Now a few thoughts on the pagan dying and rising gods you mentioned. Scholars almost universally say there were no dying and rising gods that preceded Christianity. They all post-dated the first century. Obviously, Christianity couldn’t borrow an idea of the resurrection if myths of dying and rising gods weren’t circulating before the first century.

    Only a few radical scholars believe in the myths prior to the resurrection. One of the leading radical scholars T.N.D Mettinger makes this statement, “There is, as far as I am aware, no prima facie evidence that the death and resurrection of Jesus is a mythological construct, drawing on the myths and rites of the dying and rising gods of the surrounding world.” Even a radical scholar doesn’t believe the evidence negates the strong evidence for the resurrection. If you are interested, Lee Strobel has an entire chapter on this subject in his book, “The Case for the Real Jesus.” If you would be willing to look at the evidence I would give you a copy.

    Please examine why you reject evidence; is it because it is lacking or is it because your belief system won’t allow it. If my evidence is poor, then where is your counter evidence? If you reject because your belief system won’t allow it, then you may want reexamine what you believe.

  • Tom Wright December 30, 2010, 5:23 pm

    I suppose I move on to another objection without replying is because I doubt your “evidence”, and no amount of discussion either way will sway either of our beliefs. You say that science can neither prove or disprove….because the events described are supernatural. By not being able, at least until now, to duplicate the supernatural events using known principles of medical science and physics, wouldn’t this serve to disprove?
    Also, I forgot to ask a question about the list of eyewitnesses: were these on-site eyewitnesses who described what they themselves saw? Is this information in the bible? Also, are there any contemporary accounts by disinterested people?

  • Steve January 1, 2011, 11:05 am

    You begin your letter with, “I suppose I move on to another objection without replying is because I doubt your “evidence”, and no amount of discussion either way will sway either of our beliefs.” Sounds like you are saying my mind is made up and no matter what you say or what evidence you present I have totally closed my mind. Is that what you meant?

    The evidence I presented was not supernatural, it was historical. This can be tested by normal historical standards. It is only my conclusion that I bring forth a supernatural explanation. Based on the historical facts I reach the conclusion I believe has the best explanatory power; that Jesus rose from the dead. Here are the facts the majority of historians believe 1) Jesus was crucified and died on the cross, 2) was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea, 3) the tomb was empty, 4) the appearances of Jesus to the disciples and others, including two known enemies of Christianity, and 5) the dramatic changed lives of the witnesses of the resurrection. What you have to do is take all these historical facts and come up with an explanation that will satisfy these accepted facts.

    You say, “By not being able, at least until now, to duplicate the supernatural events using known principles of medical science and physics, wouldn’t this serve to disprove?” Again my evidence was not supernatural. Historians do not test ancient records through medical science and physics. Are you saying unless historians can test their conclusions with scientific experiments, then all history can be doubted? We have historical records that lead to the conclusion Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. What experiment do you want to conduct to show those records are true?

    If your point was unless you can duplicate events by scientific experiments they cannot be true, then you have eliminated multiple disciplines and all the content from the past. Events that cannot be tested in a lab are: All historical facts, forensic medicine, big bang theory, origin of life, etc. Does all truth have to be tested in a laboratory?

    Lastly, you wrote: “Also, I forgot to ask a question about the list of eyewitnesses: were these on-site eyewitnesses who described what they themselves saw? Is this information in the bible? Also, are there any contemporary accounts by disinterested people?”

    I will begin to answer in reverse order. Were there any contemporary accounts by disinterested people? The answer is no. However, we have very little written during the first century that has survived, so this is an issue. We do have Roman historians that refer to the historical Jesus such as Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and Josephus. Another problem is enemies of Jesus (ex. Paul and James) after being an eyewitness became full-fledged followers. The strength of some like Paul is you cannot level the accusation only advocates wrote about Jesus. Paul was out to capture and have Christians executed when he met the resurrected Jesus. Before experiencing the resurrection he hated Christianity; after meeting the risen Jesus he was Christianity’s greatest advocate. Plus even if only followers wrote about Jesus, do you really believe they cannot record with historical accuracy? Would you level the same accusation on a Jewish historian who lived through the holocaust? Would you say a Jewish historian couldn’t accurate record the events? What evidence do you have the eyewitnesses of the resurrection were dishonest?

    Second you asked was the information in the Bible? This is a classic error in the thinking of many people. They erroneously think of the Bible as one book. The New Testament was not in existence at the time of the eyewitnesses; there was no “Bible.” What you have is letters written by independent authors to be copied and circulated. We find people circulating these letters city by city. Historians treat each of these letters as “multiple independent attestations.” The completed Bible comes into existence hundreds of years later. So the information was not found in the Bible; the Bible wasn’t in existence.

    Finally, were the writers on-site eyewitnesses? Most of the writers were. Some, like Luke and Mark got their information from eyewitnesses Peter and Paul respectively. Paul would not be considered an on-site eyewitness but his account was written in the first person. If you discount his testimony you have to say he lied about the event or he was a fool. You cannot read Paul’s writings and believe he was a fool. Many count Paul as one of the greatest intellectuals in the history of the world. And by all accounts he was an incredible man of integrity. Yet, he had his head cut off because he preached Jesus rose from the dead and testified to the fact he was an eyewitness of the resurrected Jesus. As it is said, “liars make lousy martyrs.” Nobody dies for a lie they know is a lie. Which do you believe? Paul was liar, a lunatic, or wrote the truth and supported it with his life.

    Finally, I’d like to wrap up my letter by quoting a true expert on this subject. Dr. William Lane Craig is one of the foremost experts on the resurrection. What you read below is copied from his opening statement in his debate with Bart Ehrman.

    “On different occasions and under various circumstances different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead. This is a fact which is virtually universally acknowledged by scholars, for the following reasons:

    1. Paul’s list of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection appearances guarantees that such
    appearances occurred. Paul tells us that Jesus appeared to his chief disciple Peter, then to the inner circle of disciples known as the Twelve; then he appeared to a group of 500 disciples at once, then to his younger brother James, who up to that time was apparently not a believer, then to all the apostles. Finally, Paul adds, “he appeared also to me,” at the time when Paul was still a persecutor of the early Jesus movement (I Cor. 15.5-8). Given the early date of Paul’s information as well as his personal acquaintance with the people involved, these appearances cannot be dismissed as mere legends.

    2. The appearance narratives in the Gospels provide multiple, independent attestation of the appearances. For example, the appearance to Peter is attested by Luke and Paul; the appearance to the Twelve is attested by Luke, John, and Paul; and the appearance to the women is attested by Matthew and John. The appearance narratives span such a breadth of independent sources that it cannot be reasonably denied that the earliest disciples did have such experiences. Thus, even the skeptical German New Testament critic Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”


  • Tom Wright January 23, 2011, 7:16 pm

    Paragraph 1. I’m afraid the answer is yes because you have so much invested in your view and me in mine.
    Para. 2. I have no explanation for these facts, and would gladly believe your supernatural explanation if natural laws didn’t have to be violated in the process.
    Other points:
    If a historic event, and you cite Lincoln and the Holocaust, includes a supernatural element, which these don’t, then natural laws would have to be employed.
    I guess what I’m saying is that if a supernatural event violates natural, scientific law, it should be considered false because the principles have been verified countless times.

  • Steve February 6, 2011, 6:36 am

    I am sorry to hear you admit you are closed to views that don’t match yours. Are you saying you don’t care about evidence because you want to protect your prior beliefs, even if you cannot support them? Isn’t this blind faith?

    You look at my facts and agree they are strong but reject them because you are committed to a belief there is no supernatural. What facts do you have to support there are no supernatural events? What is your evidence?

    You then say you cannot believe in the supernatural because they violate the natural, scientific law. According to your beliefs, how can there be a natural scientific law? Where does that come from? Why is it called a law? How can you justify its existence?

    Once you answer the above questions, why can’t a supernatural agent (you’ll have to suppose one exists) violate those laws? If I drop an apple from above my head and catch it below my waist, does that violate the laws of gravity? This is an example of an agent stopping the fall of an apple before it strikes the ground. Is this a violation?


  • Tom Wright February 21, 2011, 7:48 pm

    The subject is the veracity of the supernatural.
    Simply put, it is my belief that if a supernatural event violates natural law, it cannot be true.
    You state; “How can there be a natural scientific law”? How about gravity, the impossibility of the dead returning to life and other physical impossibilities…..water to wine? If the events you state are true, your “evidence” should include scientific verification, which means to me independent peer reviewed findings.
    Before you get to a “supernatural agent violating those laws” you must scientifically verify the existence of that supernatural agent, I would think.

  • Steve February 23, 2011, 6:17 am

    Your atheist worldview cannot account for the existence of scientific laws because in order the have a universal law in the universe you have to have uniformity of nature. David Hume, a famous Scottish philosopher, wrote about the uniformity of nature. He said the validity of scientific laws was undermined because there is no rational basis for expecting the future to be like the past. Or shall we say for every event in one place there is no basis to expect a similar event to act the same way in different place. So Hume is saying there is no rational basis for scientific laws based on the fact you have no way to predict the future will be like the past. How can atheism, which is random and mindless, produce uniformity? What is your evidence to expect the future to be like the past? What is your evidence all electrons in the universe will always act the same way anywhere and at anytime in the universe?

    Please don’t point out more examples uniformity or that we see uniformity in the universe all the time. When you do that all you are doing is making a case for intelligent design. You have to give scientific evidence for how your worldview can rationally support uniformity.

    Uniformity of anything points to design. Whenever we see standards and rules we find someone who created the standards or rules. You pointed out laws exist (gravity etc.) and the existence of those laws is another evidence for the existence of an intelligent law giver. Only a Christian worldview, which has a designer sustaining the uniformity of nature, can there be an accounting for laws of science. Are you saying the creator of those laws cannot temporarily suspend them or as you say it, temporarily violate them?

    Since you made the claim, “my belief that if a supernatural event violates natural law, it cannot be true,” then you bear the burden of proof for that claim. Please answer my questions, rather than shift the questions to me; I didn’t make the claim, you did. I cannot argue against beliefs. You need proof for your statements.

    One more thing: Does all truth have to be verified scientifically? Are there truths in the world beyond what science can prove?

Leave a Comment

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.

Next post:

Previous post:

Do Objective Morals Exist?
Answering Tough Questions
Counting the Cost
Is God the Author of the Bible?
God’s Holiness and Love Wins
Ministering to Mormons in Utah
Challenging a Jehovah’s Witness
What Ever Happened to Hell?
Accurately Interpreting the Scriptures
Understanding the Christian Worldview
Accused of Partnering in Wickedness
Set Apart Christ as Lord
Sharing with Knowledge & Wisdom
Becoming a Good Ambassador for Christ
How to Persuade Others

Video Introduction

Exposing the Deceit of the Watchtower Organization
Go to Site Map
About Us | Statement of Faith | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Site Map
Never Miss an UPDATE Simply Enter Your Best Email