"WHERE IS THAT FOUND?"
Here are some passages that come in mighty handy when you are counseling or witnessing. Please note the references and memorize them so you'll be able to help others.
1. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,”declares the LORD.
WHERE IS THAT REFERENCE FOUND? ISAIAH 55:8
2. "No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it."
WHERE IS THAT REFERENCE FOUND? 1 CORINTHIANS 10:13
3. “There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death."
WHERE IS THAT REFERENCE FOUND? PROVERBS 14:12
Here are some passages that come in mighty handy when you are counseling or witnessing. Please note the references and memorize them so you'll be able to help others.
1. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,”declares the LORD.
WHERE IS THAT REFERENCE FOUND? ISAIAH 55:8
2. "No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it."
WHERE IS THAT REFERENCE FOUND? 1 CORINTHIANS 10:13
3. “There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death."
WHERE IS THAT REFERENCE FOUND? PROVERBS 14:12
PROPHECIES
Find these messianic prophecies and tell me what they are:
Prophecy: Isaiah 53:12 Fulfillment: Luke 23:34
Prophecy: Psalm 109:25 Fulfillment: Matthew 27:39
Prophecy: Psalm 22:18 Fulfillment: John 19:23-24
Prophecy: Psalm 69:21 Fulfillment: John 19:28-29
Prophecy: Psalm 34:20 Fulfillment: John 19:33, 36
Prophecy: Amos 8:9 Fulfillment: Matthew 27:45
Find these messianic prophecies and tell me what they are:
Prophecy: Isaiah 53:12 Fulfillment: Luke 23:34
Prophecy: Psalm 109:25 Fulfillment: Matthew 27:39
Prophecy: Psalm 22:18 Fulfillment: John 19:23-24
Prophecy: Psalm 69:21 Fulfillment: John 19:28-29
Prophecy: Psalm 34:20 Fulfillment: John 19:33, 36
Prophecy: Amos 8:9 Fulfillment: Matthew 27:45
DISCOURSE BETWEEN AN ATHEIST AND A CHRISTIAN ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD:
Atheist: I'll tell you why I doubt people's claims that God exists. Simply because there has never been a shred of evidence.
Christian: There's a problem with your claim, because it can't be logically defended. If you're going to make this claim that you would need to know all the evidences that have been presented at all times, and you simply cannot do that, it's impossible.
Atheist: What do you mean?
Christian: If you claim there has never been a shred of evidence for God, you are asserting a universal negative. In other words, you would have to be omniscient yourself in order to make that claim. You would have to be a god.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Matthew Slick, carm.org:
Apologetics is like a field. In the center of the field is a garden. This garden has one door, and that door is Jesus. There is one path that leads to that door. Inside the garden is eternal life in the presence of God. Outside the field, however, are rocks, boulders, thorns, thistles, valleys, hills, and many false paths that lead nowhere.
The apologist resides in the field and points people to the true path so they can find the Garden. The apologist seeks to remove the intellectual thorns and emotional rocks that prevent people from finding the true path to God. Also, there are many people who are walking false paths (cults, philosophies, etc.) who will never reach that Garden. The apologist gently guides the person, removes the obstacles, and points in the direction of the Garden. When people arrive there, it is between them and God as to whether or not they enter.
Picture yourself as a laborer in the field.
The apologist resides in the field and points people to the true path so they can find the Garden. The apologist seeks to remove the intellectual thorns and emotional rocks that prevent people from finding the true path to God. Also, there are many people who are walking false paths (cults, philosophies, etc.) who will never reach that Garden. The apologist gently guides the person, removes the obstacles, and points in the direction of the Garden. When people arrive there, it is between them and God as to whether or not they enter.
Picture yourself as a laborer in the field.
SCHOOL OF APOLOGETICS
"....but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence" (1 Pet. 3:15, NASB).
Apologetics, from the Greek word "apologia," means, "a verbal defense."
It deals with answering critics who would debate or outright deny things about Christianity ranging from the deity of Christ to the authenticity of the Bible.
This page will be an ever-expanding help in the area of knowing the Scriptural truths and general knowledge that would help you give an answer to those who want to oppose or question your faith in Jesus.
HERE ARE VARIOUS QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER BUT GO AHEAD AND START YOUR STUDY...
"....but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence" (1 Pet. 3:15, NASB).
Apologetics, from the Greek word "apologia," means, "a verbal defense."
It deals with answering critics who would debate or outright deny things about Christianity ranging from the deity of Christ to the authenticity of the Bible.
This page will be an ever-expanding help in the area of knowing the Scriptural truths and general knowledge that would help you give an answer to those who want to oppose or question your faith in Jesus.
HERE ARE VARIOUS QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER BUT GO AHEAD AND START YOUR STUDY...
SKEPTIC'S CLAIM - "THE UNIVERSE NEVER HAD A BEGINNING. IT IS INFINITE."
THE BIG QUESTION FACING THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN AN INFINITE UNIVERSE FACE THE DILEMMA KNOWN AS "OLBER'S PARADOX."
"IF THE UNIVERSE IS INFINITE, WHY IS THERE STILL DARKNESS IN THE SKY?"
Here is a fine explanation put forth on the Physics and Relativity FAQ by Scott Chase:
Why isn't the night sky uniformly at least as bright as the surface of the Sun? If the Universe has infinitely many stars, then presumably it should be. After all, if you move the Sun twice as far away from us, we will intercept one quarter as many photons, but the Sun's angular area against the sky background will also have now dropped to a quarter of what it was. So its areal intensity remains constant. With infinitely many stars, every element of the sky background should have a star, and the entire heavens should be at least as bright as an average star like the Sun.
(We say "at least as bright" because the stars of such a bright universe would begin to absorb heat from their neighbours, and precisely what happens when a star is heated is a technical matter for thermodynamic and nuclear theories. We don't expect such stars to cool down, but neither do we expect them to heat up indefinitely. Olbers' Paradox originated before physicists had developed the nuclear theory of how stars shine; thus, it was never concerned with how old the stars might be, and how the details of their energy transactions might affect their brightness.)
The fact that the night sky is not as bright as the Sun is called Olbers' paradox. It can be traced as far back as Kepler in 1610, and was rediscussed by Halley and Cheseaux in the eighteen century; but it was not popularized as a paradox until Olbers took up the issue in the nineteenth century.
There are many possible explanations which have been considered. Here are a few:
The premise of the second explanation may technically be correct. But the number of stars, finite as it might be, is still large enough to light up the entire sky, i.e., the total amount of luminous matter in the Universe is too large to allow this escape. The number of stars is close enough to infinite for the purpose of lighting up the sky. The third explanation might be partially correct. We just don't know. If the stars are distributed fractally, then there could be large patches of empty space, and the sky could appear dark except in small areas.
But the final two possibilities are surely each correct and partly responsible. There are numerical arguments that suggest that the effect of the finite age of the Universe is the larger effect. We live inside a spherical shell of "Observable Universe" which has radius equal to the lifetime of the Universe. Objects more than about 13.7 thousand million years old (the latest figure) are too far away for their light ever to reach us.
Historically, after Hubble discovered that the Universe was expanding, but before the Big Bang was firmly established by the discovery of the cosmic background radiation, Olbers' paradox was presented as proof of special relativity. You needed the red shift to get rid of the starlight. This effect certainly contributes, but the finite age of the Universe is the most important effect.
References: Ap. J. 367, 399 (1991). The author, Paul Wesson, is said to be on a personal crusade to end the confusion surrounding Olbers' paradox.
Darkness at Night: A Riddle of the Universe, Edward Harrison, Harvard University Press, 1987
-----
The Physics and Relativity FAQ, as a collection, © 1992—2009 by Scott Chase, Michael Weiss, Philip Gibbs, Chris Hillman, and Nathan Urban. The individual articles are © 1992—2009 by the individual authors credited. All rights are reserved.
"IF THE UNIVERSE IS INFINITE, WHY IS THERE STILL DARKNESS IN THE SKY?"
Here is a fine explanation put forth on the Physics and Relativity FAQ by Scott Chase:
Why isn't the night sky uniformly at least as bright as the surface of the Sun? If the Universe has infinitely many stars, then presumably it should be. After all, if you move the Sun twice as far away from us, we will intercept one quarter as many photons, but the Sun's angular area against the sky background will also have now dropped to a quarter of what it was. So its areal intensity remains constant. With infinitely many stars, every element of the sky background should have a star, and the entire heavens should be at least as bright as an average star like the Sun.
(We say "at least as bright" because the stars of such a bright universe would begin to absorb heat from their neighbours, and precisely what happens when a star is heated is a technical matter for thermodynamic and nuclear theories. We don't expect such stars to cool down, but neither do we expect them to heat up indefinitely. Olbers' Paradox originated before physicists had developed the nuclear theory of how stars shine; thus, it was never concerned with how old the stars might be, and how the details of their energy transactions might affect their brightness.)
The fact that the night sky is not as bright as the Sun is called Olbers' paradox. It can be traced as far back as Kepler in 1610, and was rediscussed by Halley and Cheseaux in the eighteen century; but it was not popularized as a paradox until Olbers took up the issue in the nineteenth century.
There are many possible explanations which have been considered. Here are a few:
- There's too much dust to see the distant stars.
- The Universe has only a finite number of stars.
- The distribution of stars is not uniform. So, for example, there could be an infinity of stars,
but they hide behind one another so that only a finite angular area is subtended by them. - The Universe is expanding, so distant stars are red-shifted into obscurity.
- The Universe is young. Distant light hasn't even reached us yet.
The premise of the second explanation may technically be correct. But the number of stars, finite as it might be, is still large enough to light up the entire sky, i.e., the total amount of luminous matter in the Universe is too large to allow this escape. The number of stars is close enough to infinite for the purpose of lighting up the sky. The third explanation might be partially correct. We just don't know. If the stars are distributed fractally, then there could be large patches of empty space, and the sky could appear dark except in small areas.
But the final two possibilities are surely each correct and partly responsible. There are numerical arguments that suggest that the effect of the finite age of the Universe is the larger effect. We live inside a spherical shell of "Observable Universe" which has radius equal to the lifetime of the Universe. Objects more than about 13.7 thousand million years old (the latest figure) are too far away for their light ever to reach us.
Historically, after Hubble discovered that the Universe was expanding, but before the Big Bang was firmly established by the discovery of the cosmic background radiation, Olbers' paradox was presented as proof of special relativity. You needed the red shift to get rid of the starlight. This effect certainly contributes, but the finite age of the Universe is the most important effect.
References: Ap. J. 367, 399 (1991). The author, Paul Wesson, is said to be on a personal crusade to end the confusion surrounding Olbers' paradox.
Darkness at Night: A Riddle of the Universe, Edward Harrison, Harvard University Press, 1987
-----
The Physics and Relativity FAQ, as a collection, © 1992—2009 by Scott Chase, Michael Weiss, Philip Gibbs, Chris Hillman, and Nathan Urban. The individual articles are © 1992—2009 by the individual authors credited. All rights are reserved.
Click on this link to watch the video of Bill Nye attacking creationists
...and be sure to read the response. http://pugnaciousirishman.com/ If it is not on the front page, find the September 3, 2012 entry.
SKEPTIC'S CLAIM - "OUTSIDE OF THE BIBLE THERE ARE NO PLACES THAT HAVE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES."
SKEPTICS WOULD NEED TO OVERLOOK THE RABBINICAL WRITINGS THAT HAVE BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS.
The Sibylline Oracles state clearly about the coming Messiah: "And being beaten He shall be silent lest any one should know what the word is, or whence it came, that it may speak with mortals; and He shall wear the crown of thorns." Sibylline Oracles (B.C. 184-117) This was written over 100 years before Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
"Out of thee Bethlehem shall messiah go forth before me, to exercise dominion over Israel. Whose name has been spoken from of Old from the day of Eternity." Targum Jonathan.
"Out of thee (Bethlehem) shall come forth unto me Messiah, the Son of David." R. Jarchi.
Both of these rabbinical writings attested that the Messiah would come from the little town of Bethlehem.
"Then he (my servant Messiah) will become despised, and will cut off the glory of all the Kingdoms; they will be prostrate and mourning, like a man of pains, and like One destined for sickness; and as though the presence of the Shekinah had been withdrawn from us, they will be despised, and esteemed not." - Targum Jonathan. As noted in the Scripture, the Messiah will surprisingly be rejected by His very own people.
"And after sleeping three days, He shall put an end to the fate of death; and then releasing himself from the dead, He shall come to light, first showing to the "called ones." the beginning of the Resurrection. - Sibylline Oracles. This prophecy states that the Messiah will rise from the dead after three days.
The Sibylline Oracles state clearly about the coming Messiah: "And being beaten He shall be silent lest any one should know what the word is, or whence it came, that it may speak with mortals; and He shall wear the crown of thorns." Sibylline Oracles (B.C. 184-117) This was written over 100 years before Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
"Out of thee Bethlehem shall messiah go forth before me, to exercise dominion over Israel. Whose name has been spoken from of Old from the day of Eternity." Targum Jonathan.
"Out of thee (Bethlehem) shall come forth unto me Messiah, the Son of David." R. Jarchi.
Both of these rabbinical writings attested that the Messiah would come from the little town of Bethlehem.
"Then he (my servant Messiah) will become despised, and will cut off the glory of all the Kingdoms; they will be prostrate and mourning, like a man of pains, and like One destined for sickness; and as though the presence of the Shekinah had been withdrawn from us, they will be despised, and esteemed not." - Targum Jonathan. As noted in the Scripture, the Messiah will surprisingly be rejected by His very own people.
"And after sleeping three days, He shall put an end to the fate of death; and then releasing himself from the dead, He shall come to light, first showing to the "called ones." the beginning of the Resurrection. - Sibylline Oracles. This prophecy states that the Messiah will rise from the dead after three days.
Educator Rich Bordner's question to an atheist:
What do you mean by something being "good"?
This goes much deeper than the common atheist rallying cry: "you can be good without God." If the material world is all that exists, then the atheist and believer alike might *think* they are acting good, but "good" is without robust meaning. All that exists are preferences, pragmatics, and the herd morality. Upon what basis do you say racism or homophobia is wrong? Not wrong "for you," but wrong, period. What would you say to someone who comes from another culture who holds those things to be good? Is *anything* wrong universally (rape? murder? judging?), and if so, what are you prepared to do to enforce that morality? Why should someone be concerned, on atheism, about obeying the herd morality and following our evolutionary past, especially when he can get away with it and benefit from it personally?
This goes much deeper than the common atheist rallying cry: "you can be good without God." If the material world is all that exists, then the atheist and believer alike might *think* they are acting good, but "good" is without robust meaning. All that exists are preferences, pragmatics, and the herd morality. Upon what basis do you say racism or homophobia is wrong? Not wrong "for you," but wrong, period. What would you say to someone who comes from another culture who holds those things to be good? Is *anything* wrong universally (rape? murder? judging?), and if so, what are you prepared to do to enforce that morality? Why should someone be concerned, on atheism, about obeying the herd morality and following our evolutionary past, especially when he can get away with it and benefit from it personally?
