1. What the majority of people – most especially those claiming to be Christian, think is not the litmus test for truth.

2. The most important things (things which will have the greatest impact on your life and others) can be the hardest or least desirable (IOW: quitting is not an option simply bc something hurts).

3. Jesus did (indeed) rise from the dead.

Because Jesus rose from the DEAD we are free from:

1. The power of sin and God’s wrath against those under it.

2. The lie that justice can be replaced by mercy.

3. The fear of missing out in this life.

1. Why do we believe the resurrection and why is it so important?
2. Why do so many reject it?

Acts 17:16-32 represents the discourse Paul delivered to the Athenians at Mars Hill (or the “Areopagus”). In it, we find a total of three reasons Paul chose Christianity (though other religions/viewpoints did exist). And they (along w/the resurrection) sb the same reasons you and I are Christians (today):

1. Because all people are religious whether they like it or not (22, 26-28).

Every human being’s moral choices are determined by the answer they give to three questions some philosophers call “the ultimate questions” since the answers (we all give) are – by reason of our absence/inability to be eyewitnesses, entirely faith-based. Those three questions are: 1) The question of our existence (How did I get here? Who or What made us?), 2) The question of our purpose (Why am I here? What is our human responsibility?), 3) The question of our future (Where am I heading? What is the end-game for humanity?). Paul (therefore) knew he wb a part of some religion whether he liked it or not (since he too was answering these questions by his lifestyle).

2. Because all other religions fail miserably in their answers and proof (regarding the ultimate questions) (23, 18, 29-30).

Paul was a Christian, not b/c it was the religion he was raised in, or b/c it was the one that best fit w/his lifestyle choices or made him feel good. He chose Christianity b/c he saw that the others failed miserably in their attempts to answer the three ultimate questions and their ability to prove they indeed had the absolute/unchanging truth. This includes Agnosticism, Atheism and all other non-Christian and pseudo-Christian religions. The response of Paul to our current culture’s love affair w/these false religions and man-made doctrines/gods would be the same as it was in his day (30).

3. Because Christianity is the only religion with the answers and the proof (regarding the ultimate questions).

3.1. The question of our existence (How did I get here? Who or what made us?)

Answer: The material universe of time, space and matter as well as the immaterial world of spirits, were intentionally and intelligently created by the exclusive, personal and sovereign God, Who is uncreated, eternal, and therefore outside the laws of time and space which govern the material world. He is likewise self-sustaining, or not dependent upon the either the material or immaterial world for His existence. Rather, we are fully dependent upon Him for all things. Human beings are also not the result of evolutionary mutation or the descendants of animals, but rather are the direct offspring of God (24-26).

Proof = Special Revelation (i.e. the Bible’s answer) is confirmed by General Revelation (e.g. Science and Philosophy: The Cosmological Argument or Law of Causality and the necessity of a primary cause/unmoved mover who is uncreated, eternal and outside time and space; The theory of General Relativity and evidence supporting the fact that the universe is not eternal but had a beginning; Intelligent Design as the conclusion to DNA complexity and the Teleological/Watchmaker Argument; Modern genetic studies such as the HapMap Project which reveals the DNA of all humans beings to be connected to a very small original population of human beings;  Mathematical impossibility of evolution).

3.2 The question of our purpose (Why am I here? What is our human responsibility?)

Answer: To pursue and experience a close relationship w/God through the imitation of His righteousness as His image-bearers (27-31).

Proof  = Humanity cannot escape the fact that objective/absolute morality exists and therefore demands an objective moral law giver. God and the Bible’s existence supply both the Objective Moral Lawgiver and the object Moral Law.

3.3. The question of our future (Where am I heading? What is the end-game for humanity?)

Answer: Judgment before the throne of the God-man Jesus Christ.

(31) “because He (God) has fixed a day when He will judge the world = This creation is not eternal. It instead has an ending date. And (according to Paul) that day has already been set (or “fixed”) by God. The last day will be a day of judgment for every human being who has ever lived. That this is what Paul is referring to when he uses the word “world” (in v31) is confirmed by (Rev 20:11-13 = No – one will escape standing before God’s throne in judgment. Just as the day is fixed, so also is our presence before God! We wb there whether we like it or not). That this judgment will indeed mark the last day of our current created order is also confirmed elsewhere in Scripture (2Pe 3:10-12). What is important not to miss about this coming judgment is two things: 1) it wb “in righteousness” = Human beings will be judged (i.e. commended or condemned) according to the morality they demonstrated during their life: did they practice righteousness or unrighteousness (1Joh 3:7-10)? Every mention of Judgment Day in the Bible is according to moral categories only (e.g. Ecc 12:14; Joh 5:28-29; Rom 2:6-11). Never does the Bible say that humanity’s judgment wb based on something else – e.g. “our faith/beliefs” (Jam 2:14-19) or our accomplishments for Jesus (Mat 7:21-23) or our pedigree (Joh 8:39; Rom 2:28-29). Even what John sees regarding this day implies morality as the sole deciding factor (Rev 20:12-13 – “what they had done” w/15 – “not found written in the book of life” = See Deu 29:18-20; Exo 32:33; Rev 3:5). 2) it wb by a man whom He (God) has appointed.”  = This is a reference to Jesus Christ, God’s Divine Son Who also became a man. This is confirmed by Paul’s reference to His resurrection (“and of this He has given assurance to all by raising Him from the dead.”). Jesus Himself also taught that He would be the One we (as human beings) stand before in judgment (Joh 5:22-23, 26-28). This is why Paul (elsewhere) calls it “the judgment seat of Christ” (2Co 5:9-10 – Notice again, the judgment is according to what we have done from a moral perspective – “good or evil”). This (then) is where everything –and everyone is headed. To an eternally fixed appointment (or “day”) that every human being will keep or be a part of. It will be the one day in all of creation’s days when every human being who ever existed in this world will exist together at the same time, and participate in the same event. This, the bible teaches is the end-game to our existence. This (btw) makes perfect sense given our purpose as righteous image-bearers. We would expect that if this is indeed our purpose for living (the reason God created us), then it must also be the key factor in deciding our eternal destiny.

3.3. Proof  (31) “and of this He has given assurance to all by raising Him from the dead.”  = Christianity stands out among the other religions of the world not only b/c it is the one religion whose answers (in special revelation) are confirmed by general revelation (science and philosophy), but also the one religion with supernatural proof. And this in the most grandiose way, the conquering of death. As such he resurrection of Jesus Christ is both Christianity’s greatest proof. If God did indeed raise “Him from the dead”, then the debate is immediately over (Christianity wins!). Making the case, however means working from the place of absence. The Bible records this event taking place sometime in the early to mid-thirties of the first century (i.e. almost 2,000 years ago), and shortly after that, Jesus ascending back to heaven. IOW: The physical evidence of the resurrected person of Jesus does not exist today.[1] For some, this lack of evidence is proof that Jesus’ miraculous resurrection never happened – nor could happen (i.e. miracles are impossible). Such lack of evidence however is more than compensated for by what remains. Here then is what must be considered by such skeptics:

3.3.1. If there is a God Who can act, then there can be acts of God (miracles) such as the resurrection.

IOW: Any argument launched against the resurrection due to its miraculous nature, is an argument that fails to consider how possible the impossible becomes once the fact of God’s existence is submitted to (since it is irrefutable given the aforementioned evidence/proof). This fact obviously eluded those laughing when Paul mentioned the resurrection (32).

3.3.2. The New Testament which proclaims the reality of Jesus’ miraculous resurrection, is itself a reliable historical source given:

3.3.2.1. The number of copies in existence.

The first place to start when assessing the validity of historical claims is its primary sources. In this respect, what is required (among other things) is sufficient documentation in the form of multiple copies written in close proximity to the originals.  In this regard, the NT crushes the competition[2].

3.3.2.2. The fact that we have consistent-yet-dissimilar testimonies from multiple authors (e.g. Luk 24:4 w/Mat 28:3)[3].

Again, not other source document, ancient or modern has accomplished such a feat (e.g. Mormonism/Islam’s stmts about Jesus/OT).

3.3.2.3. Luke’s identification of over eighty specific people, places or things is confirmed by various non-Christian writers and archaeological discoveries proving his claims to careful research throughout both his books – Luke and Acts (Luk 1:1-4).

For instance, Josephus confirms the biblical accuracy of 29 historical figures including such contested people as John the Baptist, Annas the high priest, Gamaliel the Pharisee, Judas the Galilean (Luk 3:2; Act 5:34, 37), Likewise, two inscriptions found in 1909 near Lystra confirm Luke’s hotly-debated record of Zeus and Hermes worship as well as the fact that its inhabitants retained their native tongue of Lyconian though being a part of the Hellenistic (i.e. Greek-speaking) Roman world (Act 14:11-13)[4].

Given the above evidence, the New Testament more than adequately meets the criteria required by all scholars today to be considered a reliable historical source.

3.3.3. The recording of Jesus’ resurrection in the New Testament includes elements which – when considered together, also reveals its authenticity:

3.3.3.1. Multiple eyewitness testimonies, versus simply communicating the event.

(Peter = Act 2:32, 3:15, 5:30-32, 10:39-40; 1Pe 5:1; 2Pe 1:16; John = Joh 19:33-35, 20:24-30; 1Jo 1:1-2; the other apostles = 1Co 15:3-8; Heb 2:3-4).

3.3.3.2. The inclusion of embarrassing facts.

Another important tool used by historians to prove authenticity of an account is what is known as the “principle of embarrassment”. This principle operates on the idea that when people are making something up or skewing the facts, they will do so by leaving out those elements that make them look stupid or bad. In contrast, when a person is simply communicating what actually happened, all details will be conveyed- including the embarrassing ones. The events in and around the resurrection are filled with things that would have been considered embarrassing by those living in the first century (even today). This is especially true as it relates to Peter- the apostle mentioned most as an eyewitness to the resurrection (e.g. Peter is called “Satan” for trying to forbid Jesus from dying – Mar 8:33; Peter also denies Jesus three times after His arrest – Mat 26:33-35). We are also told that the apostles run away like cowards at Jesus’ arrest and later are found doubting His resurrection (e.g. Mat 28:17). Additionally, they do nothing to prepare Jesus a proper burial. They instead leave this to a man who was a part of the Sanhedrin- the very group of Jews who condemned Jesus to death! And, possibly more embarrassing than all of the above, is the fact that it is several women who are recorded as being the only ones kind enough to prepare His body after death, the only ones brave enough to visit His guarded tomb, and the first to discover Jesus alive after His death (e.g. Luk 20:1). If the account of Jesus’ resurrection was the fabrication of His disciples/apostles – why include such embarrassing details?[5].     

3.3.4.  The apostles proved their sincerity as eyewitnesses by their willingness to suffer.

People suffering for what they have accepted only by faith is understandable (e.g. Muslim martyrs). However, suffering for what you know to be a lie (i.e. you never saw the resurrected Jesus after His death, but claim that you did), is absolutely inexplicable – especially when considering that it was more than one person (i.e. all the apostles) who suffered for such claims. No-one recanted from their claims. Studies show perfect-mass collusion to be a product of convenience only. The only answer (then) is that the apostles were telling the truth.

3.3.5. Jesus’ death and resurrection find prophetic support in the Scriptures.

Christianity is not a novel religion. Rather it is the fulfilment of thousands of years of prophecy. This includes the death, resurrection and exaltation of God’s Messiah (Isa 53:1-12; Psa 16:8-11 w/Act 2:25-28; Psa 110:110:1 w/Act 2:34-36 w/Mat 22:41-46 w/Mat 22:23-33). Once more, no other religion can claim such credentials.

3.3.6. Several ancient non-Christian or even anti-Christian historians mention Jesus’ resurrection. (e.g. Josephus, Tacitus, Celsus)

This is not surprising, given Paul’s mention of its common knowledge w/in the Roman empire (Act 26:24-28).

[1] This is true even as it pertains to His current state in heaven, and what we will witness upon His return. He no longer possesses the crucified body after His death, but rather resides in His glorified-eternal body (Compare Joh 20:25-27w/Rev 1:12-18).

[2] Regarding the NT copies in our possession, Dr. Frank Turek states, “At last count, there are nearly 5,800 hand-written Greek manuscripts of The New Testament. In addition, there are some 20,000 manuscripts in other languages (e.g. Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Arabic). There is nothing from the ancient world that even comes close in terms of manuscript support. The next closest work is the Iliad by Homer, with 1,800 manuscripts. Most other ancient works survive on fewer than a dozen manuscripts, yet few historians question the historicity of the events those works describe. [In relation to time gaps between original and copies], the New Testament gap is 25 years and maybe less. The Iliad has the next shortest gap at about 500 years How (then) does the NT documents fare? Extremely well. The NT documents have more manuscripts, earlier manuscripts, and more abundantly supported manuscripts than the best ten pieces of classical literature combined.”(I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist”, p.225). In addition, these copies possess little to no variation in content (99.5% match, grammatical errors or content exclusion e.g. Joh 7:53-8:11 w/no doctrine being affected) exposing the false nature of those religions which claim the NT to be corrupt (e.g. Mormonism, Islam).

[3] Forensic historians find something less believable the more the accounts of particular events are the same since this is rarely (if ever) how witnesses recall or relay information regarding a shared experience. IOW: though there will be consistency, there will also be aspects of each person’s story that are unique to their vantage point or way of assessing things. This phenomenon historians call, “coherence with dissimilarity”. As such, the differences in testimony among those claiming to witness the same event, is actually a positive or convincing element of its veracity, where there is also consistency (versus contradiction). Likewise, a telling sign of collusion among people, is when their stories are exactly the same in every way or too similar in the number details left in or out.

[4] “Classical scholar and archaeologist William M. Ramsay began his investigation into Acts with great skepticism, but his discoveries helped change his mind. He wrote: ‘I began with a mind unfavorable to it (Acts)…It did not lie then in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself often brought into contact with the book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truths.’…Details like this led Ramsay to [also] say, ‘Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect to its trustworthiness,’ and ‘Luke is an historian of the first rank…(He) should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.’ Now, here’s where skeptics get very uncomfortable. Luke reports a total of 35 miracles in the same book in which he records all 84 of these historically confirmed details. And the miracle accounts show no signs of embellishment or extravagance – they are told with the same level-headed efficiency as the rest of the historical narrative. Now, why would Luke be so accurate with trivial details like wind directions, water depths, and peculiar town names, but not be accurate when it comes to important events like miracles? In light of the fact that Luke has proven accurate with so many trivial details, it is nothing but pure anti-supernatural bias to say he’s not telling the truth about the miracles he records. In other words, Luke’s credentials as a historian have been proven on so many points that it takes more faith not to believe his miracle accounts than to believe them.” – Frank Turek (ibid, p.260-262)

[5] “Now think about this: If you were a New Testament writer, would you include embarrassing details if you were making up a story? Would you write that one of your primary leaders was called ‘Satan’ by Jesus, denied the Lord three times, [and] hid during the crucifixion? Would you depict yourselves as uncaring, bumbling cowards, and the women – whose testimony was not even admissible in court – as the brave ones who stood by Jesus and later discovered the empty tomb? Would you admit that some of you doubted the very Son of God after He had proven Himself risen to all of you? Of course not. What do you think the New Testament writers would have done if they were making up a story? You know perfectly well: they would have left out the ineptness, their cowardice, the rebuke, the three denials, and their theological problems, and depicted themselves as bold believers who stood by Jesus through it all and who confidently marched down to the tomb on Sunday morning right through the elite Roman guards to find the risen Jesus waiting to congratulate them on their great faith! It also would say that they declared the risen Jesus to the women, who were the ones hiding for fear of the Jews. And, of course, if the story was a concoction, no disciple, at any time, would have been portrayed as doubting (especially after Jesus had risen). In short, we don’t have enough faith to believe that the New Testament writers included all of those embarrassing details in a made-up story. The best explanation is that they were really telling the truth- warts and all.” – Frank Turek (ibid, p. 276-277)

Acts 17:16-32 represents the discourse Paul delivered to the Athenians at Mars Hill (or the “Areopagus”). In it, we find a total of three reasons Paul chose Christianity (though other religions/viewpoints did exist). And they (along w/the resurrection) sb the same reasons you and I are Christians (today):

1. Because all people are religious whether they like it or not (22, 26-28).

Every human being’s moral choices are determined by the answer they give to three questions some philosophers call “the ultimate questions” since the answers (we all give) are – by reason of our absence/inability to be eyewitnesses, entirely faith-based. Those three questions are: 1) The question of our existence (How did I get here? Who or What made us?), 2) The question of our purpose (Why am I here? What is our human responsibility?), 3) The question of our future (Where am I heading? What is the end-game for humanity?). As mentioned, these three questions are the “modus operandi” (i.e. mode of operation) of every thinking human being on the planet, which means (then) we are all religious, since (once more) we are all operating from a place of faith in the answers we give.

2. Because all other religions fail miserably in their answers and proof (regarding the ultimate questions) (23, 18, 29-30).

Paul was a Christian, not b/c it was the religion he was raised in, or b/c it was the one that best fit w/his lifestyle choices or made him feel good. He chose Christianity b/c he saw that the others failed miserably in their attempts to answer the three ultimate questions and their ability to prove they indeed had the absolute/unchanging truth. This includes Agnosticism, Atheism and all other non-Christian and pseudo-Christian religions. The response of Paul to our current culture’s love affair w/these false religions and man-made doctrines/gods would be the same as it was in his day (30).

3. Because Christianity is the only religion with the answers and the proof (regarding the ultimate questions).

3.1. The question of our existence (How did I get here? Who or what made us?)

Answer: The material universe of time, space and matter as well as the immaterial world of spirits, were intentionally and intelligently created by the exclusive, personal and sovereign God, Who is uncreated, eternal, and therefore outside the laws of time and space which govern the material world. He is likewise self-sustaining, or not dependent upon the either the material or immaterial world for His existence. Rather, we are fully dependent upon Him for all things. Human beings are also not the result of evolutionary mutation or the descendants of animals, but rather are the direct offspring of God (24-26).

Proof = Special Revelation (i.e. the Bible’s answer) is confirmed by General Revelation (e.g. Science and Philosophy: The Cosmological Argument or Law of Causality and the necessity of a primary cause/unmoved mover who is uncreated, eternal and outside time and space; The theory of General Relativity and evidence supporting the fact that the universe is not eternal but had a beginning; Intelligent Design as the conclusion to DNA complexity and the Teleological/Watchmaker Argument; Modern genetic studies such as the HapMap Project which reveals the DNA of all humans beings to be connected to a very small original population of human beings;  Mathematical impossibility of evolution).

3.2 The question of our purpose (Why am I here? What is our human responsibility?)

Answer: To pursue and experience a close relationship w/God through the imitation of His righteousness as His image-bearers (27-31).

3.2.1 In re: to pursuing and experiencing a close relationship w/God = (27) “that they [mankind -26] should seek God… and find Him.” God’s design for mankind from the beginning, has been that we would exist in close relationship w/ Him, experiencing all of the joys and blessings that brings. Such blissful existence, however would require that we give ourselves to its pursuit (i.e. to seeking and finding Him). That such discovery is for the purpose of experiencing close relationship w/God is not only implied by Paul’s mention of finding God, but more importantly the phrase “in the hope that they might feel their way toward Him.” (Lit. “If then indeed they might touch Him”. Verb form is the same used in Luk 24:39; Heb 12:18; 1Jo 1:11. Here it is meant to communicate the idea of close relationship – i.e. close enough to touch). Paul’s use of the word “indeed” (or as the ESV translates it, “hope”) tells us that this pursuit is not wishful thinking on our part, but a promise from God – we will find and experience close relationship w/Him, “if then” we give ourselves to that pursuit according to His direction (not our own).[1]

3.2.2. In re: to this relationship being realized through the imitation of His righteousness as His image-bearers = (27) “Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, (28) for ‘In Him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your poets have said, ‘For we are indeed His offspring.’” Paul’s point is simple yet powerful. Our existence is not the result of genetic/evolutionary mutation. We are instead made in the very image of God (we are again, “His offspring” or descendants). As such, our lives (i.e. our thoughts, choices and behavior) are either accurate examples of Him (i.e. we are exemplifying our divine parent), or hideous, perverted caricatures which bear no true resemblance. Paul’s words however communicate far more than just that. By connecting the statement, “He is actually not far from each one of us” to the words of the ancient poet, Aratus (“In Him we live and move and have our being”), Paul is making it clear that such thoughts, choices and behavior will also determine whether or not a relationship w/God is ever realized. IOW: experiencing God requires imitating God. And the way we imitate Him is through lives (i.e. thoughts, choices and behavior) which are righteous (i.e. morally right) since this is at the heart of God’s character (i.e. He is first and foremost, a Righteous God). When (then) we as God’s image-bearers live righteous lives, we are not only entering into and experiencing a closer relationship w/Him, but fulfilling our purpose in this world as proper/accurate image-bearers of Him (1Pe 2:24; Luk 7:28-30 w/3:3-18 = John preached the good news of salvation thru lives which repent – i.e. turn from unrighteous living and instead, practice righteousness).

The difference between seeking/living to fulfill our purpose versus seeking/living to be fulfilled as our purpose = The former leads to commitment and contentment/satisfaction whereas the latter leads to addiction and wanting/sense of lacking (Pro 27:20; Ecc 1:8, 5:10, 6:7; Luk 8:11-18; Mat 5:6, 6:33 w/Rom 14:17; Psa 34:8, 37:4)[2].

That living as righteous image-bearers (who – as a result, experience close relationship w/God) is indeed our purpose is confirmed by (29-31). The common denominator in these three verses is that they all deal with our obligation to be righteous in our thinking, behavior and choices (29 – “We ought not to think that the divine being is…” = We are to have right/righteous thinking in relation to God; 30 – “now He commands all people everywhere to repent” = We are to be turning away from all unrighteousness behavior; 31 – “He has fixed a day when He will judge the world” = Our entire lives wb assessed based on our choices during that time – were they righteous or unrighteous?). According to Paul (then), the main (or most important) purpose of our existence, is not about accumulating as much material possessions as we can or making as much money as we can, or even about seeking fulfillment, happiness, helping others, having kids or “healing the world” (e.g. Goldie Hawn), it is instead all about morality (our morality). Are we in our thoughts, behavior and choices being the righteous (and very accurate) image-bearers of our God to the world around us? This is our profoundly simple and sole purpose – as well as key, to (once again) experiencing a close and very real relationship w/God – one which grants to us both lasting satisfaction and the power to overcome all of life’s trials/temptation.

3.2.3. Proof (that morality is our purpose requires two things. General revelation provides the first, Special revelation the second):

3.2.3.1.  General revelation’s contribution: humanity cannot escape the fact that objective/absolute morality exists.

Despite the fickleness of people’s hearts and constant changing of their moral views, it sb clear that there is an objective/absolute (or unchanging) morality governing the whole of humanity. IOW: We cannot deny – nor escape the fact that at our core we are moral creatures believing in an objective/absolute (or unchanging) morality (e.g. 5 people on a lifeboat w/food and water only for 4 – tough decision? 5 toothpicks on a lifeboat w/only room for 4 – tough decision? The difference between people and toothpicks demonstrates our moral makeup as image-bearers of God)[3]. This by consequence (whether we like it or not) demands the existence of an objective/absolute Moral Lawgiver (The Moral Lawgiver argument).

3.2.3.2. Special revelation’s contribution: the existence of the Objective and Divine Moral Lawgiver.

To say that something is absolutely right or wrong from a moral perspective (i.e. that something is always right/wrong no matter the circumstances or culture; e.g. rape is always wrong), requires that it not be subjective (i.e. not based on the changing/differing opinions, preferences or feelings of human beings).  IOW: Its source must be something objective (i.e. outside us or not dependent on our opinions, preferences or feelings to be true) w/the right to have such authority over us. There is only one being/source that fits such criteria, and the bible (or once more – Paul in our verses) provides the answer: God – Who is (24) “the Lord of heaven and earth” (i.e. the creator-owner of us all). He and He alone provides the necessary objective source for a morality that does not change like the opinions/preferences and feelings of fickle human beings. IOW: We can possess a moral compass that will never lead us off course[4].

[1] It is crucial that we make this distinction, since so many end up never finding or experiencing close relationship w/God for this very reason: they pursue it according to their own design or direction versus His. Their conclusion is oftentimes as erroneous as their path: “I sought God but He hid Himself from Me”. God hides from no man who seeks Him according to His directions (Jer 29:13). In this respect, consider also (Pro 19:3).

[2] This then is the core reason people (including professing Christians) have no power over temptation – i.e. no self-control. Because they seek fulfilment as their purpose for living, they live powerless lives since power (i.e. self-control) comes through purpose (or living to fulfill purpose). Even pagans understand this principle and achieve respectable levels of self-control when living to fulfill purpose – versus living to be fulfilled as their purpose (e.g. athletes, soldiers, other religions, PETA – vegetarians). Lack of self- control among those seeking to be fulfilled is also the necessary by-product of such pursuits given the temporary nature of any/all fulfillment in this life (i.e. only the fulfillments of eternity are eternal or lasting). Hence the resulting addiction – or stringent loyalty to continually seeking more (above all else). Such addiction to pleasure/fulfillment can be understood from a psychological perspective as well. Because we live for fulfillment, we eventually begin to believe we need fulfillment to live.

As such, the moment temptation comes (i.e. the opportunity to fulfill ourselves doing something sinful), we “think” it necessary to give in as a means to our survival (e.g. “If I don’t masturbate, I’m going to die, go crazy, etc.”). In the words of Depeche Mode, “I give in to sin, because I have to make this life livable”. The danger (then) of making fulfillment our purpose in life versus our life being about the fulfillment of our purpose (i.e. to be righteous image-bearers in close relationship w/God) sb obvious – as well as why so many children struggle to stay on the path of righteousness (i.e. their entire world – including the home environment, operates according to the principle of seeking fulfillment -versus righteous behavior in all things as the daily goal/purpose). As a means to discovering just how prevalent this is in our own thinking consider what we communicate as the difference between a good day and a bad day. Is it based on our moral choices/behavior/thoughts to the situations we encountered or the situations themselves? (e.g. “How was your day? It was great! I won a million dollars!” versus “How was your day? It was great! I submitted in obedience and respect to my husband/parents/boss irrespective of the fact that I was super tired!”)

[3] “Everyone knows certain principles. There is no land where murder is virtue and gratitude is vice.” (J. Budziszewski, Written On the Heart: The Case For Natural Law, p. 208-209); “Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud for double-crossing all the people who had kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. As an atheist my argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing the universe with when I called it unjust?” – C. Lewis, (“Mere Christianity, p.19, 45); “For the person who denies all value (i.e. morality or rights), values his right to deny them. Further he wants everyone to value him as a person, even while he denies that there are values for all persons. In other words, those who deny all values (i.e. morality or rights) nevertheless value their right to make that denial. And therein lies the inconsistency. Moral values are practically undeniable. Our reactions also indicate that relativism is ultimately unlivable. People may claim they are relativists, but they don’t want their spouses, for example, to live like sexual relativists. Nearly every male relativist expects his wife to live as if adultery were absolutely wrong and would react quite negatively if she lived out relativism by committing adultery. And even if there are a few relativists who wouldn’t object to adultery, do you think they would accept the morality of murder or rape if someone wanted to kill or rape them? Of course not. Relativism contradicts our reactions and common sense. Without (an) objective standard, any objection (to evil) is nothing more than your personal opinion. Without (an objective) Moral Law, you (can’t) know what (is) right or wrong…The United States was established by the belief that there was both an objective Moral Law and a Divine Moral Lawgiver (i.e. the Declaration of Independence – “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”). The Nazis were condemned at the Nuremburg trials under the same understanding (i.e. that God had given to human beings certain [objective, absolute, unchanging] laws/rights and that those had been violated.” – Norm Geisler (I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be AN Atheist, p.173)

[4] Even atheists will admit to their weakness in presenting a viable case for the existence of morality without a Divine Moral Lawgiver. Richard Dawkins for example said, “It’s pretty hard to get objective morality without religion.” Atheist Louise Antony said it this way, “Any argument for moral skepticism will be based upon premises which are less obvious than the existence of objective moral values themselves.” People’s denial of morality as objective (and coming from God) is inevitably not an intellectual problem, but interestingly – or ironically, also tied to the issue of morality. In other words, it is not that they lack the proper information or persuasion but rather the desire to comply. Atheism allows them to remain rebels while Christianity (and objective morality) calls them to repent. Pascal said it this way, “People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.” More revealing are the admissions of prominent atheists such as Fredrick Nietzsche, who wrote, “God is dead and we have killed him. If one were to prove this God of the Christians to us, we should be even less able to believe in him.” Or NYU professor Thomas Nagel who said, “I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I am right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time.” Such motives are not exclusive to the atheist. This is also the motivation behind many of those professing Christianity yet denying its demand for morality as necessary to salvation.

Acts 17:16-32 represents the discourse Paul delivered to the Athenians at Mars Hill (or the “Areopagus”). In it, we find a total of three reasons Paul chose Christianity (though other religions/viewpoints did exist). And they (along w/the resurrection) sb the same reasons you and I are Christians (today):

1. Because all people are religious whether they like it or not (22, 26-28).

Every human being’s moral choices are determined by the answer they give to three questions some philosophers call “the ultimate questions” since the answers (we all give) are – by reason of our absence/inability to be eyewitnesses, entirely faith-based. Those three questions are: 1) The question of our existence (How did I get here? Who or What made us?), 2) The question of our purpose (Why am I here? What is our human responsibility?), 3) The question of our future (Where am I heading? What is the end-game for humanity?).

2. Because all other religions fail miserably in their answers and proof (regarding the ultimate questions) (23, 18, 29-30).

Paul was a Christian, not b/c it was the religion he was raised in, or b/c it was the one that best fit w/his lifestyle choices or made him feel good. He chose Christianity b/c he saw that the others failed miserably in their attempts to answer the three ultimate questions and their ability to prove they indeed had the absolute truth. This includes Agnosticism, Atheism and all other non-Christian and pseudo-Christian religions. The response of Paul to our current culture’s love affair w/these false religions and man-made doctrines/gods would be the same as it was in his day (30).

3. Because Christianity is the only religion with the answers and the proof (regarding the ultimate questions).

3.1. The question of our existence (How did I get here? Who or what made us?)

Answer: The material universe of time, space and matter as well as the immaterial world of spirits, were intentionally and intelligently created by the only, personal and sovereign God, Who is uncreated, eternal, and therefore outside the laws of time and space which govern the material world. He is likewise self-sustaining, or not dependent upon either the material or immaterial world for His existence. Rather, we are fully dependent upon Him for all things. Human beings are also not the result of evolutionary mutation or the descendants of animals, but rather are His direct offspring (24-26).

3.1.1. In re: to God as personal, sovereign and the only One = (24) “The God (not “a god” – indicating exclusivity as the Only God) who (not “it” – indicating personhood or conscious awareness as a personal being versus an impersonal force/power) made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth…” (a reference to both God’s exclusivity and supreme sovereignty as rightful ruler and owner of all in the material and immaterial realms of existence – Deu 4:39, 10:14; Neh 9:6 w/Psa 103:19-22 w/1Ki 22:19; Psa 135:6, 148:13).

3.1.2. In re: God’s intentional and intelligent creation of both the material (time and space) universe and the immaterial world (of spirits) yet existing as uncreated, eternal, and therefore outside the laws of time and space which govern matter or the material world = (24) “The God who made the world (God did not watch/witness creation happening as though it was the act of another. Neither was He simply its catalyst. The phrase “who made” indicates God’s direct involvement in creation from beginning to end. IOW: God intentionally and intelligently created “the world” – referring here to both the material and immaterial realms of existence since according to Paul, this again includes both “heaven and earth”; Gen 1:1; Exo 20:11, 31:17; Isa 37:16; e.g. Heb 1:7 w/Psa 33:6) and everything in it…”(There is nothing in all that exists that is not the result of God’s creative action – including then all the laws affecting time and space. God is the first cause in the Law of Causality[1].  Since God is the Creator of all that exists, or the first cause of all creation, He is neither the creation of man [i.e. “formed by the imagination or art of man” – 29] or a part of creation [i.e. pantheistic in nature]. Since the Law of Causality demands a primary cause or “unmoved mover” – i.e. a cause which possesses no previous cause, this means that God must also be uncreated, eternal, and therefore outside the laws of time and space which govern matter or the material world – Psa 90:2, 93:2[2]), “(26)…having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their [humans] dwelling place.”(Another statement pointing to intelligent creation or design. Everything – even our life-spans and zip-codes were determined/planned by God versus the product of randomness or chance. Life in all its complexity declares the glory of its intelligent Creator[3]; Psa 19:1-6 – This text is what today, apologists call “the Watchmaker argument”[4]).

3.1.3. In re: to God as self-sustaining, or not dependent upon the either the material or immaterial world for His existence = (24) “The God who made the world and everything in it… does not live in temples made by man, (25) nor is He served by human hands as though He needed anything… (In theology, this is called the aseity of God. He is independent of His creation in no need of us or this world in any respect – Exo 3:14 [“I AM WHO I AM” = I AM SELF-SUFFICIENT/EXISTING. The statement’s present tense form speaks also to God’s independence from time – or the material world]; Act 7:48-50; Isa 66:1-2)”.

3.1.4. In re: to us being fully dependent upon God for all things as His direct offspring and not the result of evolutionary mutation or the descendant of animals = (24) “The God who made the world and everything in it… does not live in temples made by man, (25) nor is He served by human hands as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything (God is the Sustainer of all His creation, not simply mankind. Without Him, we perish – or cease to exist – Psa 104:10-30). (26) And He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth…(Paul’s allusion is to the historical person of Adam from whom every human being is descended[5]. This coupled with the fact that Paul also mentions that we are “God’s offspring” [i.e. made in His image, 28-29] negates the fantasy of evolutionary anthropological origins/descent from animals[6])”.

Proof = Special Revelation (i.e. the Bible’s answer) is confirmed by General Revelation (e.g. Science and Philosophy: The Cosmological Argument or Law of Causality and the necessity of a primary cause/unmoved mover who is uncreated, eternal and outside time and space; The theory of General Relativity and evidence supporting the fact that the universe is not eternal but had a beginning; Intelligent Design as the conclusion to DNA complexity and the Watchmaker argument; Modern genetic studies such as the HapMap Project which reveals the DNA of all humans beings to be connected to a very small original population of human beings;  Mathematical impossibility of evolution).

[1] “Everything that had a beginning had a cause – is the Law of Causality, which is the fundamental principle of science. Without the Law of Causality, science is impossible. In fact, Francis Bacon (the father of modern science) said, ‘True knowledge is knowledge by causes.’ In other words, science is the search for causes. That’s what scientists do- they try to discover what caused what. Even the great skeptic David Hume could not deny the Law of Causality. He wrote, ‘I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause. In fact to deny the Law of causality is to deny rationality. The very process of rational thinking requires us to put together thoughts (the causes) that result in conclusion (in effects). So if anyone ever tells you he doesn’t believe in the Law of Causality simply ask that person, ‘What caused you to come to that conclusion.’” – Dr. Frank Turek (I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist, p.75)

[2] Today, this is referred to as the Cosmological argument for the existence of God. The principle undergirding it however (i.e. an uncreated, eternal creator) has been a staple of philosophy and science for thousands of years (e.g. Aristotle – 4^th cent. B.C.). Even the great scientist, Albert Einstein understood the need for a primary cause. At one time, he (like many scientists today) believed the universe itself to be eternal (or primary cause). To his irritation however, this all changed the moment he made his most famous discovery – the theory of General Relativity. In the words of Dr. Frank Turek, “It was 1916 and Albert Einstein didn’t like where his calculations were leading him. If his theory of General Relativity was true, it meant that the universe was not eternal but had a beginning. Einstein’s calculations indeed were revealing a definite beginning to all time, all matter, all space. This flew in the face of his belief that the universe was static and eternal. Einstein later called his discovery ‘irritating.’ He wanted the universe to be self-existent – not reliant on any outside cause – but the universe appeared to be one giant effect. In 1919, British cosmologist Arthur Eddington conducted an experiment during a solar eclipse which confirmed that General Relativity was indeed true- the universe wasn’t static but had a beginning. Like Einstein, Eddington wasn’t happy with the implications. He later wrote, ‘Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of nature is repugnant to me…I should like to find a genuine loophole.’ Meanwhile, Dutch astronomer Willem de Sitter had found that General Relativity required the universe to be expanding. And in 1927, the expanding universe was actually observed by astronomer Edwin Hubble. Looking through the 100-inch telescope at California’s Mount Wilson Observatory, Hubble discovered a ‘red shift’ in the light from every observable galaxy, which meant those galaxies were moving away from us. In other words, General Relativity was again confirmed- the universe appears to be expanding from a single point in the distant past. In 1929 Einstein made a pilgrimage to Mount Wilson to look through Hubble’s telescope for himself. What he saw was irrefutable. The observational evidence showed that the universe was indeed expanding as General Relativity had predicted. With his cosmological constant now completely crushed by the weight of evidence against it, Einstein could no longer support his wish for an eternal universe. Einstein [no] said he wanted ‘to now the God who created the world.’” (I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist, p.73-74). In other words, Einstein now knew that the primary cause, uncreated and eternal element of the universe existed outside of it in the person of God. Einstein would as a result, also conclude that, “Science without religion is lame.”

[3] “Even though they cry that intelligent design is not science, some prominent atheists agree that the cause of biology might be an intelligent being. Due to the enormous amounts of information and the machinelike interconnectedness of biological systems, atheists such as Francis Crick, Fred Hoyle, Stephen Hawking, and even Richard Dawkins have suggested that aliens could be responsible for seeding our planet with life. The theory is called panspermia, meaning seeds everywhere. One prominent atheist was open to following the evidence beyond aliens all the way to God. Antony Flew was the most prolific atheist philosopher of the last century. But in 2004, after fifty years of writing in support of atheism, Flew announced he became a theist precisely because of the evidence provided by DNA. ‘What I think the DNA material has done, ‘ Flew said at a symposium at New York University, ‘is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.” – Dr. Frank Turek (Stealing From God, p.72-73)

[4] Speaking in regard to the Watchmaker argument, Dr. John Morris writes, “In the early 1800s, William Paley published a carefully argued paper entitled ‘Natural Theology,’ which developed a convincing case for the necessity of a Designer to produce the intricate design we see in living systems. He referred to human machines such as a watch, claiming we would never conclude, upon discovery of a watch, that it was the result of natural processes such as wind and rain. By observing the order of the organism, the purpose of each part, and the interdependence of the parts, one would never conclude that it happened by chance. This, I think, is a key Biblical argument for creation. In a strict sense, it is not a scientific argument, but it is an intuitive argument. In the debates in which I have participated, I always call attention to the design in living things. Perhaps the best example is a simple, single-celled organism. Although the simplest of all organisms, such a protozoan is very complex, comprised of scores of functioning parts, each performing a specific function and all working together for the good of the whole. Remove any one of these functioning parts, and the whole organism dies. There are, by some estimates, tens of thousands of enzyme reactions occurring within each cell, all necessary right from the start. Of course, almost all of this information comes from the wondrous DNA code, the precise arrangement of genes which directs all growth and function. Furthermore, each gene, each aspect of the cell is made up of complex protein molecules—specifically arranged chains of amino acids precisely placed for a particular purpose. To propose that a living, replicating cell arose without design from non-living matter is easily the weakest point of evolution theory—so weak that many famous scientists, who have worked for years to find a plausible way it might have happened (like Nobel Prize-winning geneticist, Dr. Francis Crick), have concluded that life evolved somewhere out in space where conditions are different from those here on Earth, because it evidently could not happen here. Today’s evolutionists ignore Paley’s argument for design in living systems, attributing such complexity to the workings of natural selection [i.e. accidentally through the random chance mutations of evolution]. Things are changing today, however, for the more science digs into the structure of living systems, the more the ‘machine’ analogy seems appropriate. When the workings of life were poorly known, science could rightly profess bewilderment, and claim that life is different. But now we can see something of how life works (not how it originated) and it bears rough resemblance to an intricate computer-driven machine, although far more complex. Experts feel that science has only begun to understand the machine-like workings of a cell. The analogy has been validated. Life is something like an amazingly well-designed machine, but much more complex than those designed by humans. Such evidence of design speaks eloquently for a Designer.”

[5]  The findings of modern genetic studies are consistent with the anthropological origins of the bible (i.e. two people – Adam and Eve). This consistency is seen in the fact that the human genome—for all its diversity—actually has far less diversity than would be expected if humanity did not share the same original parents. For instance, the International HapMap project found that the differences in DNA between any two humans is incredibly low (0.1 percent). Reflecting on this very low percentage, some scientists posited, “This proportion is low compared with those of many other species, from fruit flies to chimpanzees, reflecting the recent origins of our species from a small founding population” (“Genome Variations”, Genome News Network). Also stated was the fact that, “many places in which the human genome varies occur in only two versions”. This too is consistent with an original population of only two people.

[6] “In 1996, Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe published a book entitled ‘Darwin’s Black Box’ [Free Press], whose central theme is that every living cell is loaded with features and biochemical processes which are ‘irreducibly complex’–that is, they require the existence of numerous complex components, each essential for function. Thus, these features and processes cannot be explained by gradual Darwinian improvements, because until all the components are in place, these assemblages are completely useless, and thus provide no selective advantage. Behe spends over 100 pages describing some of these irreducibly complex biochemical systems in detail, then summarizes the results of an exhaustive search of the biochemical literature for Darwinian explanations. He concludes that while biochemistry texts often pay lip-service to the idea that natural selection of random mutations can explain everything in the cell, such claims are pure ‘bluster’, because ‘there is no publication in the scientific literature that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred.’ Behe’s book is primarily a challenge to this cornerstone of Darwinism at the microscopic level. Although we may not be familiar with the complex biochemical systems discussed in this book, I believe mathematicians are well qualified to appreciate the general ideas involved. And although an analogy is only an analogy, perhaps the best way to understand Behe’s argument is by comparing the development of the genetic code of life with the development of a computer program. Suppose an engineer attempts to design a structural analysis computer program, writing it in a machine language that is totally unknown to him. He simply types out random characters at his keyboard, and periodically runs tests on the program to recognize and select out chance improvements when they occur. The improvements are permanently incorporated into the program while the other changes are discarded. If our engineer continues this process of random changes and testing for a long enough time, could he eventually develop a sophisticated structural analysis program? (Of course, when intelligent humans decide what constitutes an ‘improvement’, this is really artificial selection, so the analogy is far too generous.) If a billion engineers were to type at the rate of one random character per second, there is virtually no chance that any one of them would, given the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth to work on it, accidentally duplicate a given 20-character improvement. Thus our engineer cannot count on making any major improvements through chance alone. But could he not perhaps make progress through the accumulation of very small improvements? The Darwinist would presumably say, yes, but to anyone who has had minimal programming experience this idea is equally implausible. Major improvements to a computer program often require the addition or modification of hundreds of interdependent lines, no one of which makes any sense, or results in any improvement, when added by itself. Even the smallest improvements usually require adding several new lines. It is conceivable that a programmer unable to look ahead more than 5 or 6 characters at a time might be able to make some very slight improvements to a computer program, but it is inconceivable [i.e. impossible] that he could design anything sophisticated without the ability to plan far ahead and to guide his changes toward that plan. The biologist studies the details of natural history, and when he looks at the similarities between two species of butterflies, he is understandably reluctant to attribute the small differences to the supernatural. But the mathematician or physicist is likely to take the broader view. I imagine visiting the Earth when it was young and returning now to find highways with automobiles on them, airports with jet airplanes, and tall buildings full of complicated equipment, such as televisions, telephones and computers. Then I imagine the construction of a gigantic computer model which starts with the initial conditions on Earth 4 billion years ago and tries to simulate the effects that the four known forces of physics (the gravitational, electromagnetic and strong and weak nuclear forces) would have on every atom and every subatomic particle on our planet (perhaps using random number generators to model quantum uncertainties!). If we ran such a simulation out to the present day, would it predict that the basic forces of Nature would reorganize the basic particles of Nature into libraries full of encyclopedias, science texts and novels, nuclear power plants, aircraft carriers with supersonic jets parked on deck, and computers connected to laser printers, CRTs and keyboards? If we graphically displayed the positions of the atoms at the end of the simulation, would we find that cars and trucks had formed, or that supercomputers had arisen? Certainly we would not, and I do not believe that adding sunlight to the model would help much. Clearly something [mathematically impossible] has happened here on our planet, with the origin and development of life, and especially with the development of human consciousness and creativity.” – Granville Sewell (“A Mathematician’s View Of Evolution”, The Mathematical Intelligencer 22, no. 4, University of El Paso, Texas, pp5-7)

Acts 17:16-32 represents the discourse Paul delivered to the Athenians at Mars Hill (or the “Areopagus”). In it, we find a total of three reasons Paul chose Christianity (though other religions/viewpoints did exist). And they (along w/the resurrection) sb the same reasons you and I are Christians (today):

1. Because all people are religious whether they like it or not.

(22)  – “I perceive that in every way you are very religious” (lit. devoted to practicing your religion) = Paul believed this to be true of not only those he met in Athens, but all people (26-28 = God created us w/feelings for Him and for seeking Him out wherever we live. We are hard-wired for God and religious things seeing that we are “His offspring”). A study conducted at Oxford University’s Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology confirmed as much. It found that all human beings are innately, very religious. This can be shown to be true however, much more easily by considering the fact that every human being’s moral choices are determined by the answer they give to three questions some philosophers call “the ultimate questions” since the answers (we all give) are – by reason of our absence/inability to be eyewitnesses, entirely faith-based. Those three questions are: 1) The question of our existence (How did I get here? Who or What made us?), 2) The question of our purpose (Why am I here? What is our human responsibility?), 3) The question of our future (Where am I heading? What is the end-game for humanity?). As mentioned, these three questions are the “modus operandi” (i.e. mode of operation) of every thinking human being on the planet, which means (then) we are all religious, since (once more) we are all operating from a place of faith in the answers we give. Paul’s comment regarding the Athenians’ religious nature was therefore more than just the conclusion he was drawing about them based on observing their city filled w/various religious objects (16, 23a). It also represented what Paul knew about all people -including himself. IOW: Paul knew all people are religious, whether they like it or not. We are all making moral choices based on the faith we possess regarding the ultimate questions of life. The question is, is that faith-based religion –where we are putting our faith, getting our answers and deciding our morality, – is it the right one?

For Paul then, the answer to the ultimate questions was found in Christianity—and so that is what he “proclaimed” to the people. The remaining reasons tell us why.

2. Because all other religions fail miserably in their answers and proof (regarding the ultimate questions).

Paul was a Christian, not b/c it was the religion he was raised in, or b/c it was the one that best fit w/his lifestyle choices or made him feel good. He chose Christianity b/c he saw that the others failed miserably in their attempts to answer the three ultimate questions and their ability to prove they indeed had the absolute truth:[1]

2.1. Agnosticism (23) – “To the unknown god” = The most popular religion on planet earth today. I will choose to answer the ultimate questions w/ “I don’t really know nor do I really care: How we got here/Who or what made us, Why I am here/What my purpose is as a human being and Where I am heading/What is the end-game for humanity. My ignorance is my bliss”. As such, those in this camp could also be called the world’s laziest people since that which matters most is what is most left undone (and as a result they will most assuredly be condemned if there is a God unless he is a cosmic creampuff who doesn’t care what people do or who they serve). Usually what places a person (here) is they are so pre-occupied w/ and mesmerized by the trivial things of this world (e.g. entertainment) that they have no time or energy for any serious pursuit of absolute truth regarding ontological/spiritual/religious things. That being said, this group would include those who make claims to being Christian, yet do so only b/c: 1) it was part of their upbringing (i.e. momma fed and daddy led), 2) it’s the over-arching religion of their immediate culture (i.e. they live in Oklahoma, Kansas or Texas), 3) they like watching Little House On The Prairie, Touched By An Angel, reading Anna of Green Gables and listening to K-Love, 4) they like a religion which tells them Jesus accepts them, loves them, died for them and has a wonderful plan for their life since they never got around to having such a plan and everyone else thinks they’re total bums. IOW: they are fake (or flake) Christians, who know nothing about (nor care to know) what the Bible really teaches or Who Jesus really is. So then, though they use the same Christian buzz-words, the altar they serve at is (in reality) that of the Agnostic (an “unknown god”) since the true God of heaven and earth is unknown to them. Regarding the issue of proof (as a legitimate religion/religious position -or as an answer to the ultimate questions), this too sb obvious. Agnosticism doesn’t even make an attempt since (once more) it is the position of complete cop-out. Paul was no looking for a cop-out – but rather to “knock out the cop-outs” (23 –  “What therefore you worship as unknown, I proclaim to you”).

2.2. Atheism = The second biggest religion on the planet. Its answers to the ultimate questions are the same as the “Epicurean and Stoic philosophers” who “conversed with” Paul (18) since both were essentially atheistic in their religious views. Here then are the atheist’s answers: 1) Our existence is an accident = The material world (including human beings) are not the product of purposeful design, but rather millions of years of cellular matter randomly colliding and coming together by chance to eventually evolve into advanced organisms such as ourselves (E/S = “God” is simply the name we give to the atomic matter that makes up the material world – including the natural forces/law – e.g. gravity, thermodynamics. As such, god is impersonal, unintelligent and unintentional in what comes forth from it or as a part of it), 2) Our purpose is futility = Since we along w/everything else in the universe are nothing more than evolutionary accidents, our reason for existence can also possess no real intention. What we do or how we choose to live is therefore pointless. Morality doesn’t exist and only matters if it benefits us. The number one thing is surviving as long as we can and having as many fun-yet-futile experiences before our dismal demise (E = Seeking pleasure is man’s highest good; S = Avoiding pain is man’s highest good, morality is a cultural phenomenon[2]), 3) Our future is insignificant = All we have to look forward to is simply providing raw material back (i.e. our dead bodies) to the meaningless, futile and accidental universe so that other organisms can use it to fuel their equally insignificant existences before doing the same (E = No after-life or judgment, just non-existence, death and decay; S = No end to this world. Everything just returns back to the universe and is recycled[3]).  Most Atheists are in denial of what history has already demonstrated to be the atrocious consequences associated w/their beliefs – esp. the necessary by-product of no objective morality (e.g. Atheist-Communist regimes: Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, The Columbine Massacres, serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer[4]). Sadly, all of them are too stupid to realize how much their beliefs are based on fantasy science[5].  Paul however was no dummy – nor attempting to escape reality. As such, he knew the answer to the ultimate questions was not found in this religion either (Psa 14:1).

2.3. All other non-Christian or pseudo-Christian religions (29) = Scripture is filled with examples of religions whose “divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man” (e.g. Baal, Asherah, Molech, Dagon, Rephan, Kiyyun; 1Sa 5:1-4; 2Ki 11:18, 21:7; 2Ch 33:22; Jer 32:35; Amo 5:26; Act 19:24-36). God told His Old Covenant people to never take their names upon their lips or marry their followers. Instead they were to utterly destroy them whenever or wherever they found them in their land (Exo 23:13; Num 33:52; Deu 7:1-5, 25, 12:3). The reason for such intolerance, was the same as Paul states (here). They are the creation of men, the figment of an idiot’s imagination, no better or more powerful than the wood or precious metals the artist had used to make them, false gods who could not deliver or do anything for those who worshipped them (Isa 40:19-20, 41:6-7, 29, 44:9-20 w/45:9). If then that is the case, the answers we are all looking for (to the ultimate questions) cannot be found in them – since how can that which was created by us, be our creators? Or the ones who have determined our purpose- or the direction in which we are all headed? Paul had enough common sense to see the folly in following any religion – or religious viewpoint made up by human beings. Like Atheism, this (too) was just another form of fantasy for losers. That being said, such thinking has always occupied a large contingency among those claiming to be spiritual. Even today, countless throng to the temples of imaginary gods and worship at the feet of divine beings formed by the art of man claiming no more validity/proof to what they believe than personal experience or the experience of untrustworthy witnesses. This would include (for example), Mormonism (Adherents claim to be true Christians yet their theology is in complete contradiction w/the Biblical witness -e.g. man becomes a god vs. God becoming a man; Joseph Smith, the founder of LDS/Mormonism, was a career criminal, charged with over a dozen crimes during his life including bank fraud, perjury and conspiracy to murder; the Book of Mormon’s claim that American Indians were a part of the bloodline of Israel has been proven patently false through DNA testing;  Its claim to be a history of ancient America has never been considered as credible in any respect.), Islam (The Quran affirms both the Old Testament and the Gospels as the Word of God yet teaches a theology which is also in complete contradiction to it – e.g. Jesus was a prophet but not divine vs. Jesus was the Divine Prophet[6]), Scientology (the religion of Hollywood elites such as Tom Cruise or John Travolta, admits to being the invention of L. Ron Hubbard), most of Evangelical Protestant Christianity, all of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy (The common denominator in each of these pseudo-Christian groups is their possession of a gospel/soteriology whose origins are man-made versus biblical – e.g. all are ultimately antinomian and works-based: faith alone is the only real condition to being saved; salvation is a works-based system; the Law/Word of God was not ever truly necessary except for Jesus – consider: how did Abe, Moses and the OT saints get to heaven according to what pseudo-Christianity teaches? By faith only. Which means then the Law truly only applied to Jesus – can that be right?). The response of Paul to our current culture’s love affair w/created religion and man-made doctrines/gods would be the same as it was in his day (30).

3. Because Christianity is the only religion with the answers and the proof (regarding the ultimate questions).

[1] By “absolute truth” what is meant is that which is always true for all people at all times in any place according to its point of reference (e.g. “The temperature was above freezing in Denver at noon yesterday”. Though it may have been freezing for those in Breckenridge, what can be acknowledged by all people anywhere at any time is that for Denver at 12 pm on May 15^th, 2017, it was not below 32˚F). Absolute truth or what is known in logic as the Law of Non-Contradiction (a ­­­­­­­­­≠ ⌐a) is both a logical and empirical necessity (e.g. Math and its practical implications). When dealing with those who would posit an argument against the existence of such truth, the principle of applying their argument to itself is helpful for exposing its folly and self-defeating nature. For example: 1) There is no absolute truth (Therefore this statement is absolutely not true), 2) There is no way of knowing absolute truth (Therefore there is no way of knowing whether this statement is absolutely true).

[2]In the words of atheist biologist, Richard Dawkins, “In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good [i.e. morality/right and wrong doesn’t exist], nothing but blind, pitiless indifference…DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music…Absolutist moral discrimination is devastatingly undermined by the fact of evolution” (River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, p. 133, The God Delusion, p.301)

[3] “Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.” – William Provine (Debate w/Philip Johnson at Cornell University)

[4]In re: to Atheist-Communist Regimes = “ The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined” – Theodore Beale (Vox Day), In re: to the Columbine Massacres = On the day of the shooting, Harris (one of the shooters) wore a white T-shirt with the words “Natural Selection” emblazoned on it (“Columbine,” 2008). This was not coincidental, but was designed to make a statement. According to the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office Report, in a document found in his room, Harris wrote: “I would love to see all you f—heads die. I love it! sometime in April me and V will get revenge and will kick natural selection up a few notches” (ibid). His diary also stated: “I will sooner die than betray my own thoughts. but before I leave this worthless place, I will kill whoever I deem unfit for [from the standpoint of evolution], anything at all, especially life”; In re: to Jeffry Dahmer (why he killed and ate people) = “Because I always believed…that evolution is truth, the theory of evolution is truth. That we all just came from the slime, and when we died, you know, that was it. There was nothing. So the whole theory cheapens life…. If a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought, anyway” (Dateline Interview w/Stone Philips, 1994)

[5] Take for example, the atheist’s claims regarding: 1) a “no-causality” universe (out of nothing comes something) = Even the prominent atheist scientist Stephen Hawkings now believes the universe had a beginning, yet can posit no explanation for how it began that removes the answer being found in God and direct causation. IOW: Nothing magically produced something! In response to such poor thinking Richard Dawkins has stated, “science just needs more time”. Faith then is clearly at work in the atheist camp—a blind faith to be exact! More detrimental to atheist’s position on this point is what must be concluded if it is indeed possible for something (i.e. the universe) to come from nothing. In the words of Dr. Willian Lane Craig, “If atheists are going to claim that things can pop into existence uncaused out of nothing, then why doesn’t everything do so? Why don’t iPads, Teslas, atheist books and pizzas pop into existence out of nothing? If you’re hungry for a pizza right now, does it make more sense to order one or to just wait and hope? Talk about faith.” 2) we get all truth from scientific proof = That statement doesn’t come from science, it is instead a philosophical claim. Not only that, but it is impossible to do anything scientific without presupposing certain philosophical principles/beliefs -e.g. morality or ethics cannot be proven by science. You cannot condemn what the Nazis did based on science, yet are we to say that our condemnation of such acts is not truth since there is no scientific process for proving it? Thought science is an essential component to truth, clearly not all truth is derived from just science.  3) evolution = It takes more faith to belief in the possibility of evolution than anything the Bible teaches: “Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is one chance out of 10⁶⁰. The number 10⁶⁰, if written out, would be ‘one’ followed by sixty ‘zeros.’ In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular ‘parts’ [humans are made up of about 100 trillion cells]. The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 10¹⁸ seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth’s 10¹⁴ square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 10⁹) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 10³⁹ attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 10⁶⁰, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 10³⁹ attempts might be successful is only one out of 10⁶⁰ – 10³⁹, or 10²¹. All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible... Furthermore, since the law of increasing entropy, or the second law of thermodynamics [i.e. things go from usable to unusable], is essentially a statement of probabilities, many writers have also used that law itself to show that evolution on any significant scale is essentially impossible…[since] in the world of scientific observation, no more complex system can ever ‘evolve’ out of a less complex system…[hence] the probability of the naturalistic/accidental/non-causal origin (i.e. evolution) of even the simplest imaginary form of life is zero. The existence of complexity of any kind is [instead] evidence of intelligent design.” – Dr. Henry Morris (Creation Research Society, Institute Of Creation Research)

[6] See http://crossexamined.org/simple-reason-quran-word-god/

1. The Resurrection is why God’s people now meet on Sunday for corporate worship.
2. The Resurrection established the church as the only way to now have a tangible, loving relationship with Jesus.
3. The Resurrection makes faithful obedience to all of God’s commands an expectation rather than simply an obligation.
4. The goal in this life is to get to the resurrection in the next.

Philippians 3:1-11; 1 Corinthians 15:12-19

Paul is talking about 1) avoiding those Jewish Christians who teach that gaining justification requires becoming a Jew. Such righteousness is now gained by ALL through simple faith in Christ. 2) about maintaining a life which attains to our own resurrection from the dead.

We acknowledge the resurrection through the Lord’s Table, Baptism and our lives.

Why the resurrection of Jesus Christ is important and necessary, Part 2.

Why the resurrection of Jesus Christ is absolutely necessary and important.

1. Jesus went to the cross to pay the penalty for our sins.
2. Jesus went to the cross to appease God’s wrath.
3. Jesus went to the cross to bring us back to God.
4. Jesus went to the cross to deliver us from slavery.
5. Jesus went to the cross to demonstrate God’s love for us.

The biggest question is not what proves the resurrection but what does the resurrection prove about the man Jesus Christ? At least 4 things regarding: -His person -His power -His purchase -His promise