One Christian Thought

"We each need to make sense of coronavirus in three different ways: intellectually, emotionally and spiritually. All are important—and together they present a formidable challenge to anyone." Mathematician and apologist John C. Lennox sincerely believes this, and I agree. Thus, it makes sense that an apologist is someone who doesn't fit the typical description of a religious person -- they argue for their belief system on an objective, rational level.  It would take me a while to get my hands on a physical copy of Lennox's book " Where is GOD in a Coronavirus World? " but fortunately, the kind hearts (and minds!) at RZIM have published a free excerpt.  I don't keep up with the news, and information I get about issues of the large world around me usually comes from my family. I do know that tens of thousands of people, at least, have already perished from this dreary phenomena. So it's very serious -- we are in the midst of unmistakable evil.   Or are

Gospel of Peter, or Gospel of Mark? This idea came from Christian apologist Rice Broocks. After summarizing some other evidence, he said, "Equally significant, the name Mark was attached to manuscripts dating back to the second century. Mark was not a major figure in the early church, so his name would not likely have been associated with a Gospel unless he was the actual author. These facts fit well with the traditional claim that the gospel is the recollections of Peter, recorded by Mark." (1) With the other side, famous skeptical scholar Bart Ehrman explains the non-Christian view of Gospel authorship: "We call these books, of course, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And for centuries Christians have believed they were actually written by these people: two of the disciples of Jesus, Matthew the tax collector (see Matt. 9:9) and John, the 'beloved disciple' (John 21:24), and two companions of the apostles, Mark, the secretary of Peter, and Luke, the travelin

When I started this blog in January, the first argument I made originally for it was titled "The True Lost Gospel of Peter."  This was because I find it important that Mark's reliable Gospel comes from the Disciple Peter. You don't have to read either in order to understand this Blog Project, though. I almost leave out every piece of internal evidence that makes this biography of Jesus look like it has Peter's perspective because that would make here unnecessarily long; only when needed to show that it all wasn't invented do I explain a certain point, because these posts unpack proof for the story's authenticity. The conclusion reached back in the primitive post from January was, " So the next time you get your hands on the Bible, maybe open it up to the unidentified true lost Gospel of Peter, and read about the life of Jesus Christ. It's pretty amazing, and accurate, too." That's what I seek to defend now. Of course, it would be foo

Religious Beliefs about Faith and Facticity 1. Pinchas Lapide's View(s?) Throughout the book, I was confused. I seemed at one time to come across a subject like proving the resurrection from historical evidence, and soon afterward run into "faith, not proof"; the Gospels should be completely ignored post-crucifixion, but then their core story can be defended. Here are some examples I can recall so you can know the picture of confusion I endured. If some of these quotes sound familiar, it's probably because you read them in an earlier post. "Christianity as a historical religion of revelation is based on two fundamental events -- the death of Jesus of Nazareth on the cross and his resurrection. While the first event may be considered historically certain, both according to statements of the evangelists which are basically in agreement, and also from non-Christian sources, the latter event is still controversial, cannot be conceived historically, and has led fr