Tag Archives: Catholic Church

Jesus’ Brethren

There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. (Mark 3:31)

One of the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church holds that Mary, the mother of Jesus, remained a perpetual virgin her entire life, but that is not what the Gospels teach. Here in this passage from Mark’s Gospel, as well as in Matthew 12:46-50 and Luke 8:19-21, we see a different story.

According to Mark, Jesus had just selected His twelve apostles (Mark 3:16-19) and “went into a house” – probably Peter’s house in Capernaum right across the way from the local synagogue. Jesus had just completed a long day of healing the sick and casting out demons, and it was time to sit back and enjoy dinner with His disciples, but “the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread” (Mark 3:20). Among the crowd were “scribes which came down from Jerusalem” (Mark 3:22) accusing Him of casting out demons by the power of “Beelzebub.”

Jesus exposed the absurdity of their charge. “And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end” (Mark 3:23-26).

Then He made this seemingly unrelated remark. “Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation” (Mark 3:28-29, emphasis mine). Note that Jesus, as God, spoke by His authority: “Verily [truly] I say unto you.” By leveling the charge that Jesus cast out devils by the power of Satan, the scribes blasphemed against God Incarnate. However, Jesus did not rain down fire on them for their blasphemy; instead, He overlooked it and only pointed out the absurdity of such a charge.

As Trinitarians, we believe in the three-in-one nature of God: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. It stands to reason, then, that blasphemy of one is blasphemy against all.  Then why did Jesus single out blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as the unforgivable sin? It is the role of the Holy Spirit to “reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment” (John 16:8). He is “the Spirit of truth” which “will guide you into all truth, for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come” (John 16:13). Therefore, when the Holy Spirit speaks to a person’s heart and convicts that individual of the truth of the Gospel and his need of the Savior, and that individual rejects the message, he has effectively called the Holy Spirit a liar. That blasphemy cannot be forgiven.

About that time, Mary and her sons showed up from Nazareth. “There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee” (Mark 3:31-32, emphasis mine). Apparently, Jesus’ mother and brothers were well-known by the people. Later, when He returned to Nazareth “he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?” (Matthew 13:54-56, emphasis mine).

Jesus was “the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:18), but He was not the only child of Mary. Jesus’ response to the notification that His family was calling for Him strikes us as somewhat aloof. “And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?” (Mark 3:33). This was not the first time Jesus distanced Himself from His earthly family. Luke records the first occasion around the time of Jesus’ bar mitzvah. “And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the [Passover] feast” (Luke 2:42). In all of the festivities, the boy Jesus got separated from His parents. They were on their way back to Nazareth a day’s journey before they noticed the missing child. When they returned, they found Him three days later in the Temple discussing Torah and astonishing the doctors of the Law (Luke 2:46-47). Like any worried parents, they laid the guilt trip on Him for worrying them, but Jesus’ response expressed where His true loyalty lay. “And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?” (Luke 2:49, emphasis mine).

On another occasion at the beginning of His earthly ministry, He was invited to a wedding in Cana. During the festivities, the wine ran out, and Mary came to ask His help. Obviously, she had faith that He would resolve the problem. Jesus’ response to her comes across as rather detached. “Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come” (John 2:4). Yet, as any good son, He complied with His mother’s request by turning water into wine.

However, we should not conclude that Jesus held no affection for His earthly family. Indeed, one His final acts from the cross was to see to the care of His mother. “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home” (John 19:25-27, emphasis mine). John, the disciple “whom He loved,” was a close relative, probably a cousin, whom Jesus entrusted the care of His mother.

So Jesus’ response to the announcement that His mother and brothers were calling for Him should not be taken as lack of affection for His earthly family. No, Jesus had a greater lesson to teach. “And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!” (Mark 3:33-34, emphasis mine). Not all that sat in that place qualified for the privilege. Among them were those who blasphemed against Him by charging that His power to cast out demons came from Satan. However, many in the crowd did meet the standard as Jesus explained. “For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother” (Mark 3:35, emphasis mine).

What is that will of God by which we join the family of God? “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). God’s will is “that all should come to repentance.” “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16, emphasis mine). “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name” (John 1:12, emphasis mine). “For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother” (Mark 3:35).


Filed under Apologetics, Christianity, Evangelism, Gospel, Hell, Religion, Salvation, Theology

Easter’s Wrong!


And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. (Acts 12:4)

The two highest church attendance days are Christmas and Easter. Easter probably wins the high attendance day of the two since it always falls on a Sunday. Neither day is historically accurate, but Easter typically comes nearer being right than does Christmas. Both holidays (holy days) come to us thanks to the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) in its attempt to “Christianize” the pagan celebrations of Saturnalia, which celebrated the return of the sun, i.e. the days getting longer, and Ishtar, whose origin is rather convoluted but basically has its source in the ancient fertility goddess of Babylon from whence come the icons of Easter eggs and bunnies.[1]

The pagans celebrated their “Queen of Heaven” on the first day of the week (Sunday) following the first full moon after the vernal equinox. Some form of this religious practice was observed by the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans. By the time the RCC came into power, pagans continued the practice, so, in order to accommodate the pagan population, the Church put a Christian spin on the celebration. There are several parallels that can be made between that pagan religion and what we believe as Christians.[2] Jesus was born of a virgin, He died, He was buried, and He rose again. Superficially, the pagan story sounds familiar, but this should not be surprising since Satan is the ultimate counterfeiter. Jesus said, “He [Satan] was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it” (John 8:44).  Since the celebration of Ishtar fell around the time as the Jewish Passover, and considering the parallels, it was not difficult to remake the pagan celebration into a Christian one. (Oh! Don’t be so shocked! We still do that today. In order to attract the “world” we adopt worldly practices, bring them into the church, and put a Christian face on them. Sometimes “Christian” events look no different than rock concerts. The only differences, if you can hear them, are the words of the songs. And for those of us who love the “old hymns” many of the tunes of those good old hymns originated in pubs and saloons. So, this is not unique to the RCC.)

Despite the title I chose for this article, my purpose here is not necessarily to bash our observance of Easter. (I prefer to call it “Resurrection Day” or “Resurrection Sunday.”) I believe that it is right and proper that we celebrate the Advent of our Lord and His death, burial and resurrection – the resurrection being key. They are highly significant events that altered the course of history and the destiny of man. But if we are going to celebrate these very special days, we should at least try to be “biblical” about it rather than “traditional.” Arguably, Christmas could remain as December 25th. While widely accepted by biblical scholars that the birth of Jesus probably took place around mid-September (more likely around the celebration of the Jewish Feast of Booths or Sukkot), counting back nine months would bring one to around December 25th as the time of conception, which would also be the actual “incarnation” when God came to be “with us” (Emmanuel) as a human embryo.

Easter, however, does not always line up exactly with Passover as is the case this year. Jesus was crucified on Passover. Jesus said, “Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified” (Matthew 26:2, emphasis mine). The Jewish day began at sundown, around 6:00 PM, unlike our western day which begins at midnight. On the afternoon before the Passover, Jesus sent His disciples to make arrangements to celebrate the Passover Seder (Matthew 26:18-19). “Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve” (Matthew 26:20, emphasis mine). “When the evening was come,” Passover had begun. After they had  finished the meal, Jesus went with His disciples to the Mount of Olives where He was arrested in the middle of the night – it was still Passover – and illegally tried and sentenced to death by crucifixion (Matthew 26-27, Mark 14-15, Luke 22-23, John 18-19). Jesus died at the ninth hour, 3:00 PM (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34; Luke 23:44-46), at the same time that the Passover lamb was being sacrificed at the Temple. It had to be this way in order to fulfill the Law of God given to Moses (Deuteronomy 16:1-6).

So, Jesus died on Passover, at precisely the right time in order to fulfill the Law of God and make a once for all atonement – a covering – for our sins. “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul” (Leviticus 17:11, emphasis mine). “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission [of sins]” (Hebrews 11:28, emphasis mine).

Biblically, then, Easter (Resurrection Day) should be celebrated in association with and very closely linked to the Jewish Passover. “Easter” is nowhere found in the Bible except as mistranslated in our beginning verse above (Acts 12:4). The Greek word translated “Easter” in this verse is pascha, the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew pesach or Passover. Evidently the translators of the King James Bible were taken in by centuries of RCC tradition.

“Easter” is not biblical, and it becomes painfully obvious especially this year. As noted above, Easter is the first Sunday that follows the first full moon after the vernal equinox. This year, the vernal equinox took place on March 19. The first full moon after that will be on March 23, making the 27th Easter Sunday. The problem is that the Jewish calendar is lunar, not solar. Nissan (Abib in the OT) is the first month of the Jewish religious calendar, and Passover is celebrated on Nissan 15. This year, 2016, Nissan 15, Passover, begins on Friday, April 22 at 6:00 PM and goes to 6:00 PM Saturday, April 23. We are celebrating Resurrection Day nearly one month before Passover, and that, to me, just seems wrong. You cannot have “resurrection” before the Passover sacrifice! If we were being biblical instead of traditional, we should be celebrating Resurrection Day on Sunday, April 24. Instead, we will just go with the flow and celebrate it according to the Roman Catholic tradition. This is why, especially this year, Easter’s Wrong.


[1]  See “The Pagan Origin of Easter” http://www.lasttrumpetministries.org/tracts/tract1.html

[2]  Ibid.



Filed under Apologetics, Christianity, Easter, Evangelism, Gospel, Religion, Resurrection, Salvation, Satan

Is Pope Francis Preparing To Declare The ‘Virgin’ Mary To Be 4th Part Of The Trinity? – Now The End Begins : Now The End Begins

Is Pope Francis Preparing To Declare The ‘Virgin’ Mary To Be 4th Part Of The Trinity? – Now The End Begins : Now The End Begins.

This ties right in with my post for this week: “False Religion: Roman Catholicism

1 Comment

Filed under Apologetics, Christianity, Gospel, Religion, Theology

False Religion: Roman Catholicism


So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. (Revelation 2:15)

I took a brutal browbeating over my last article “False Religion: Protestantism” – not from unbelievers, but from Christian brothers and sisters. Granted, the title, on a cursory view, appears to be all-inclusive, but I wanted it to be provocative. The fact is that my focus was on “liberal” Protestantism and not Protestantism in general. But more than that, Jesus said, “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:3-5). How can we honestly critique or criticize what others believe without first taking a hard look at the beam that is in our own eye?

I believe I did that with my last post, so now let us examine the false religion of Roman Catholicism from an objective perspective. If the reader has been following my previous articles on false religions, the reader will recall I am evaluating false religions based on four characteristics: (1) the denial of the God of the Bible, (2) the denial or rejection of the deity of Christ, (3) the rejection of the Bible as the inerrant, infallible Word of God and (4) the teaching of salvation through the works or efforts of the individual believer.

Superficially, one might say that the Roman Catholic Church does not deny the God of the Bible or the deity of Christ. As I pointed out in my last post, “False Religion: Protestantism,” it is not necessarily what a religion professes to believe that matters, but rather what their practice demonstrates that is the true indicator of what they believe. So it is with the Roman Catholic Church; therefore, I need to begin with the last two characteristics to demonstrate that in practice, the Roman Catholic Church denies the God of the Bible and the deity of Christ.

The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) rejects the authority of the Bible as the inerrant and infallible Word of God. The RCC discourages parishioners from studying the Scripture for themselves claiming that it is too difficult for them to understand. Parishioners are taught that only a priest can give Scripture its proper interpretation, when in fact, priests are generally trained in church dogma only and not in the study of Scripture. The end result is that the RCC has an army of “blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch” (Matthew 15:14). The RCC teaches that Scripture along with tradition must be accepted and honored with equal reverence. In other words, the traditions of men are just as valid as God’s Word. In doing so, they supplant the authority of God with an authority of their own.[1] Up until the 16th century, the “Catholic” Bible contained only 66 books, but in the 16th century the Apocrypha was added to justify the doctrine of Purgatory.[2] In adding to Scripture, the RCC ignores God’s warnings against adding to or taking away from Scripture (Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:6, Revelation 22:18).

Having stripped the Bible of its authority, the RCC has elevated the word of the Pope above the Word of God so that “by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, [he] has full supreme and universal power over the whole church, a power he can exercise unhindered.”[3] As such, the RCC teaches a different gospel of salvation. Since the RCC has assumed supreme authority over Scripture, it now dictates the requirements for salvation. Salvation can only be found in the Catholic Church. The Catholic believer is obligated to comply with the requirements or “sacraments” of the Church. There are seven: (1)Baptism (typically as an infant), (2) Confirmation, (3) Eucharist, (4) Confession and Penance, (5) Holy Unction (anointing of the sick and last rites), (6) Holy Orders, and (7) Matrimony. In addition, the good Catholic must practice church membership, obey the commandments, and do good works. The good Catholic lives with the constant threat of failing at any point and dying in that condition, at which point the poor soul ends up in purgatory and special masses must be held (at a price to surviving family members, of course) until the full atonement is satisfied and the soul can enter into heaven. How many masses will be required is anybody’s guess. “The pope [sic] claims to have the power to transfer the merits of one sinner to another to reduce their punishment for sin.”[4] The Bible teaches that “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9, emphasis mine). But the RCC says, “If anyone says the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, let him be anathema.”[5] Furthermore, the RCC “condemns with anathema those who say that indulgences are useless or that the Church does not have the power to grant them.”[6] “Rome also condemns anyone who believes they are assured of eternal life.”[7] The Bible says, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8). That word “accursed” is the same Greek word, anathema that the RCC uses.

The Mass brings Christ down from heaven and sacrifices Him anew.

The Mass brings Christ down from heaven and sacrifices Him anew.

When the word of man is made superior to the Word of God, and the Gospel of Grace is replaced with the gospel of works, the RCC has effectively set itself in the place of God to decide what is right and what is wrong at the whim of a mere mortal man – the Pope. In effect, then, the RCC has denied the God of the Bible, and by their continuing practice of the mass (which brings Christ down from heaven and sacrifices Him anew), they have denied the deity of Christ “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Hebrews 10:10, emphasis mine). By offering prayers to the saints and confessing sins to a priest, the RCC has replaced Christ as the sole mediator between God and man. “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5). So, by the criteria I formerly laid out, Roman Catholicism is a false religion.

The highest ranking member is the Pope who sets himself up in the position of Christ and rules the people by fiat.

The highest ranking member is the Pope who sets himself up in the position of Christ and rules the people by fiat.

One final indictment that may not exactly fit the four characteristics of a false religion is the charge leveled by Jesus Himself in our beginning verse: “So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate” (Revelation 2:15). The word “Nicolaitans” is a transliteration of the Greek compound word Nikolaitēs. The first part comes from the Greek word nikaō meaning to subdue or to conquer, overcome, prevail, get the victory over. The second part comes from the Greek word laos from which we get our word “laity” meaning people. So, the Nicolaitans are those who subdue, overcome or conquer the people, and in this case, Jesus was referring to His Church. This is exactly what the RCC has done. They have set up a hierarchal system where the highest ranking member is the Pope who sets himself up in the position of Christ and rules the people by fiat. Such rule goes against Scripture and defies Christ, Who emphatically states that it is a thing He hates. That is a strong indictment from the One Whom the Pope claims to represent.

Is it possible for a Catholic to be saved? Yes, of course it is. Salvation, according to the Bible, is an individual matter that has nothing to do with religion, as I have stated in previous articles. My question is, why would someone who is saved by grace (Ephesians 2:8-9) want to continue in bondage to the Church of Rome? Instead, the Word of God urges, “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues” (Revelation 18:4).



[1] Mike Gendron, “Roman Catholicism-Apostolic or Apostate?” http://www.worldviewweekend.com/news/article/roman-catholicism-apostolic-or-apostate/, accessed September 12, 2014.

[2] Ibid.

[3] The New Catholic Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 882.

[4] Mike Gendron, “Roman Catholicism-Apostolic or Apostate?”

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

1 Comment

Filed under Apologetics, Christianity, Gospel, Religion, Salvation, Theology

An Atheist’s Challenge – Round Two

DNA Double Helix

… evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

(2 Timothy 3:13)

The atheist about whom I wrote last week actually responded. It surprised me. Something I’ve noticed about atheists is their inability to focus on any one thing and examine it thoroughly. Instead they resort the “fire hose tactic” by trying to overwhelm their opposition with more “evidence” than one can respond to – all of it unsubstantiated, of course. I find that one advantage of writing over speaking is that I can select the topic to which I will respond, and rather than going into great detail to defend my position, I just refer the atheist to articles written by real scientists that present a contrary view. The atheist prides himself in being “open-minded,” so this allows him to practice what he preaches.

I do not want to burden my readers with every detail of the conversation, but the following are some of the points the atheist attempted to make, along with my commentary.

  • Some species that have evolved throughout the recorded history of mankind. Examples – The fish in the Hudson River evolving to survive the toxic waste, the South-East Fence Lizard which has learnt [sic] a defensive ‘dance’ to fight off ant predators, the Lerista Skink that’s evolved to shrink its legs to travel through the Australian sands more efficiently, slithering instead of walking with legs.

Here the atheist is equivocating. I had previously warned the atheist not to do this, but there is only so much one can expect from a reprobate mind (Romans 1:28).  Evolutionists often confuse “adaptation” (microevolution) with macroevolution – one kind of animal changing into another. In his examples, the fish is still the same species of fish. It did not change into a whale or grow legs to walk out of the polluted waters. The lizard is still the same species of lizard. The lerista skink genus, according to the Wikipedia, “is especially notable for the variation in the amount of limb reduction. The variation ranges from short-bodied forms with large legs bearing five toes, to elongate forms completely lacking legs” (emphasis added). “Variation” does not equal “evolution.”

  • Humans share (approx) 96% of their genes with Chimpanzees, 90% with Cats, 80% with Cows, 75% with Mice (90% of Mice’s genome can be lined up with certain regions on the human genome, also with 99% of Mice’s genes turning out to have analogues in humans), 60% of Fruit Flies’ DNA is shared, 60% of genes with Chickens, and so on.

If anything, the similarity in DNA among animals and even plants speaks to a common designer not to evolution. The information coded and stored in DNA are the instructions necessary to make a human being human or a dog either a Great Dane or a Chihuahua.  Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins, biologist with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) has written much on this subject. His research shows that the similarities between human and chimp DNA are not as close as first proclaimed, and the gap grows greater the more he investigates. (See: Chromosome Comparison Shows More Chimp-Human Differences.)

The atheist then pointed to Darwin’s finches at the Galapagos Islands. That really is no different than what has already been covered above. Typically, what I have noticed about atheists is that they parrot things that they have heard without bothering to think critically about what they have heard. They simply regurgitate what they have been fed. His next point is a good example:

  • Big Bang Theory… 13.7 billion years ago (somewhere around that mark), not 5,000 years (almost hilarious to believe the world is that young with the overwhelming amount of proof), something quite large happened. Not an explosion like most Religious parties believe happened, nothing like if a balloon were to pop and all its contents were to spill out in all different directions. It happened more like a small balloon finitely expanding to the size of the Universe as it is now. What caused this, no-one knows, the mathematics behind it are [sic] crazy and extreme for humans to even grasp.

If “religious parties” portray the Big Bang as an “explosion,” it is because that is how it was initially portrayed by Sir Fred Hoyle (and others), the man who coined the phrase in 1949. Current theoretical physicists promulgate this idea by what is presented on the mass media. While they speak about “inflation,” they present images that imply an explosion. Contrary to the atheist’s portrayal of “religious parties,” creation scientists would lean more toward the side of “inflation” (without the billions of years) as this view lines up better with biblical instruction (Job 26:7; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; 44:24; Zechariah 12:1). The atheist ignores that there are competing views among secular scientists on how the Big Bang developed. The jury is still out on which is the correct interpretation. So, like all fools, the atheist builds on a foundation of sand (Matthew 7:26).

  • Our sun alone is 4.57 billion years old, after it collapsed (along with many other stars) from being a part of a giant molecular cloud (Hydrogen + Helium). For god to have created the sun 5,000 years ago, it would still be in the process of its collapse and Earth would still being in its process of creation, much more flat and disc-shaped.

In the first place, gas does not collapse; it expands, which is an argument against current star formation theories. This is a carefully guarded secret. As for God not being able to create in a short amount of time, obviously the atheist is not familiar with the omniscient, omnipotent God of creation.

At this point, the atheist begins his assault on God. He begins his attack with words straight from the devil’s mouth: “You’re god is the only true god?” Then he lists several pagan gods. Interestingly he finds the parallels between the pantheon of Asherah, who is impregnated by a ray from the sun god, gives virgin birth to a son, who is killed and rises again. There are several variations of this theme in ancient pagan religions which predate Christianity. Asherah is called the “Queen of Heaven,” a title which is currently carried by the Virgin Mary of the Roman Catholic Church. Let us face it; Satan is not stupid. He is the foremost counterfeiter. Jesus called him the father of lies (John 8:44). Sadly, the atheist has willfully accepted the lie as evidenced by his charge that “Christianity and its bible [sic] is simply a mish-mash, hand-me-down of all the most memorable elements and factors of thousands of different ‘pagan’ religions that came a long time before it.”

As previously stated, often the atheist’s strategy is to overwhelm his opponent with a barrage of stupid questions. (Yes, there are stupid questions – those that are not thought out before presenting them.) Here are some examples:

  • About Adam and Eve … They ate from the ‘Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil’ which disobeyed god…right? Just one problem: How could have Adam and Eve been expected to comprehend the implications of their actions if, prior to their indiscretion, they had no concept of right and wrong, punishment, evil, pain, suffering and death? Even if god had been successful in adequately explaining all these beforehand, this means that he would have had to give them knowledge of good and evil anyways, which turns the entire story into one big ridiculous farce. A loving, just and secure god would realise [sic] that simply not believing in him is not a crime worthy of hellfire.

The atheist assumes that Adam and Eve were supposedly created with lower intelligence rendering them incapable of understanding God’s only rule (Genesis 2:16-17). This rule seems straightforward and simple enough that any child can comprehend it. This was answered in last week’s post, so I will not comment on it further other than to say the atheist was either not paying attention or his reprobate mind kept him from seeing it.

  • God doesn’t make mistakes, as you put it, he is perfect in every aspect, therefore his creations were perfect too… so why then did he flood the entire Earth killing thousands, if not millions of innocent people, along with some of the ‘sinners’… they couldn’t have been ‘sinful’ because god made them, and he’s perfect and so were his creations. There would be no way they could have turned against him, because they were perfect (research the word ‘perfect’ think you’re using the wrong one).

The atheist missed the part about the fall of man (Genesis 3:6), also covered in last week’s post. That is what makes these kinds of questions stupid, and they are designed to distract the opponent from the main point – that God is Creator of all and His creation is accountable to Him – like it or not.

The atheist went on to make more absurd arguments, and I do not want to bore my readers; but what follows is the saddest thing of all. This was his response to the Gospel message that I presented to him:

  • Jesus’ “sacrifise” [sic] … For Jesus to have made a blood sacrifice for our sins is impossible. A blood sacrifice cannot ‘pay’ for a person’s sin, it is an archaic, deeply flawed view of morality that says that, as long as there is blood spilled to appease god (and with Jesus’ blood being innocent at that), then the crime is forgiven. How can someone else pay for your sins? In what sense is morality and justice served if someone, let’s say, offers to take the place of a condemned criminal in the electric chair? Does this change the fact that the condemned criminal has not been held responsible for his actions? And how is the innocent death anything more than a sad, pointless waste that doesn’t add anything to the overall moral equation?

It intrigued me that he should see the futility of blood sacrifices. God shares the same attitude: “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4). But the innocent, sinless blood of the God-Man is ultimately superior: “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Hebrews 10:10).

The atheist had much more to say, but I found it wearisome, tedious and mind-numbing. The Bible tells us to “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15). But the Bible does not put the burden of conversion on the shoulders of the witness; that work is for the Holy Spirit. But we should not withdraw when challenged by an unbeliever just because we assume it will be time wasted. Often, your words, no matter how well put together or how brilliantly argued, will fall upon deaf ears. Occasionally though, you may find that one that is ignorant, knows it, and truly wants to learn the truth. That one is worth the effort!


Filed under Apologetics, Atheism, Christianity, Creation, Evangelism, Evolution, Gospel, Religion, Salvation, Theology