WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE?
WHY DO YOU BELIEVE IT?

In the world of ideas—particularly religious ideas—everyone has an opinion. At one time religion and philosophy were somewhat confined to particular cultures, cross-pollinating with one another on a limited basis through land travel. In latter times, due to the influence of mass media and the world having shrunken into a global village through the means of rapid transportation, every form of belief has found itself vying for the attention of many people across cultural and geographic lines. And while strong efforts are underway to bring about a unifying of the world’s population for the sake of peace, the fact remains that one’s religious and/or philosophical beliefs are integral to one’s personal identity.

Many will die for their religious beliefs; many will separate from their families; many will sacrifice their jobs or other means of temporal security; some will even kill for their religious cause. But few can offer a reasoned explication for why they believe what they believe, and what drives them to an impassioned defense of their beliefs.

Most people believe what they believe not because of empirical evidence for sound reasoning, but because of an emotional attachment to their belief system, for any number of reasons.

The world’s major religions comprise the bulk of humanity’s belief systems. These are Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam. Most all religious belief systems are either part of these major religions or can trace their roots to them. Other than primitive pagan religions there are few if any religious systems that are not a part of these five major players. Within each are myriad disciplines often at odds with each other.

Christianity is fractured into many diverse disciplines whose religious traditions revolve around the person of Jesus Christ and little else. Within the Christian religions He is held to be anyone from an enlightened man to God incarnate. All the world’s major religions have their subsets and sects-within-sects. Out of this mish- mash of ideological posturing one would expect to find the truth. Who is right, and who is wrong?

What is Truth?

This question, the Bible tells us, was asked of Jesus by Pontius Pilate. Skeptics still ask this question today. In some respects it is understandable that skeptics would arise in the face of so many philosophies and religions that claim to possess the truth. With all those voices clamoring for the attention of some six billion people, it would be confusing to anyone trying to sort things out for himself.

If there is such a thing as objective truth—reality for reality’s sake, regardless of what men think—obviously not every religious tradition can be true. All may be false, assuming that objective truth about God, man and nature has thus far eluded mankind, but only one can be true if, in fact, that objective truth has been revealed to mankind. The question is, which one?

Even within the various religious traditions, only one faction can possibly be true—or at least more true than the others. But again, which one?

It is not the purpose of this discourse to outline all the belief systems of the world and compare them tenet for tenet. Rather, it is to cause those who read it to think objectively about what they believe, and to examine in their hearts why they believe what they believe. This must assume an honest heart on the part of the reader—a heart that is willing to give up everything and everyone that stands in the way of following the truth.

But before we can do this we must first of all establish whether or not there is such a thing as objective truth—truth that exists on its own apart from the subjective reasoning of men. Is it possible that things are as they are regardless of how you or I think they are? To know the answer it is necessary to offer empirical evidence one way or the other.

Through the ages skeptics have arisen who question the reality of truth. They would say that truth is relative to what one perceives it to be; everyone has his own truth, and no one’s truth is superior to anyone else’s truth. To them I would say, “Prove it.”

But no less would I say “Prove it” to those who insist that there is objective truth. How do you know that what you believe is true unless you can prove it to be true? As we address these questions let us keep in mind that we are speaking of truth as it relates to philosophy and religion. Temporal facts are temporal facts: grass is green, or more properly, emits the green portion of the light spectrum as it reflects sunlight (if it is properly cared for), regardless of how one may view it through shaded glasses or how one perceives it due to colorblindness, etc. Philosophy and religion deal with issues of life (present and eternal) and living—how we behave ourselves toward other men and God (regardless of whom we perceive Him to be).

Let us first deal with the skeptic who insists that truth is relative. To do this we must use reason. If someone does not believe in reason there is no use even trying to convince him of anything; he is stuck in neutral trying to head uphill. We have no time for such; let him go his own way.

For those who are reasonable, but who have bought into the belief that truth is relative, again we ask, why do you believe that?

Do you know where the idea of relativism started? Do you know the character of those who earlier proposed the concept?

Historically, the first clear statement of relativism was posited by the Sophist Protagoras, as quoted by Plato: “The way things appear to me, in that way they exist for me; and the way things appears to you, in that way they exist for you” (Theaetetus 152a).

What Protagoras was saying is that there is no separate or objective truth apart from how every individual sees things. Therefore, there can be no falsehood. If this is true, then the concept itself is an objective truth, which disproves the concept at the outset.

The best a skeptic can say about his belief is that he thinks it’s true, but cannot say for sure. Otherwise he would be stating an objective truth by saying it’s true.

As I responded some years ago to a skeptic’s insistence that there is no such thing as objective truth, “Then what you’re saying is that you can’t be sure of anything.” To this he responded, “That’s right.” My logical next question incensed him: “Are you sure?”

He had no answer and left angry and frustrated.

In the area of reason, it is impossible to state empirically that there is no such thing as objective truth; for in doing so one states what he believes to be an objective truth. The best he can offer is a statement that he thinks that it is true. But if that is the best he can offer, why should anyone submit to his philosophy? If you are one who thinks that objective truth does not exist, then you have bought into the philosophy of Protagoras, and you don’t even know the man! Why do you believe him? And regardless of how many other men through the centuries have chosen to believe Protagoras, they have done so on no other basis than their subjective reasoning. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that Protagoras was right. In fact, the evidence suggests otherwise: to believe that there is no such thing as objective truth is to believe in nothing. And if one believes in nothing, one has no business trying to convince others that he is right. How can he be right if he doesn’t believe in anything being right?

Whether or not he is right or wrong in what he believes, at least the person who believes in objective truth can confidently say, “It’s true.” But the one who denies the reality of objective truth can only say about what he believes, “I don’t know if it’s true or not.”

Enough of this. Anyone who wishes to continue in the irrational belief system of skepticism is a fool regardless of how wise or intelligent he may perceive himself to be. Ultimately we may ask him if he really is intelligent or if he only thinks he’s intelligent. He can’t answer that either. So we will leave him alone.

Now, for those who at least believe that there is such a thing as objective truth, let us posit some questions that beg objective answers:

Why should I believe what you say is true? What empirical evidence can you offer to prove that your belief system is true? Of course, you may ask the same of me. And if you are patient enough to endure my inquiry into your beliefs I will answer you. What you do with my answer is up to you; you may accept my reasons or reject them. Just be sure you know why you accept or reject them. I have already faced the same questions I am asking here, so I am comfortable in asking them of others. Let us start by addressing the major reasons why people believe what they believe.

I was born into my belief system

“I was born a Catholic (Buddhist, Muslim, Mormon, etc.) and I’ll die a (fill in the blank).”

Why?

“Because.”

Why because?

“Because I want to be a (fill in the blank). I take it on faith.”

What is faith? And whose faith are you relying upon?

“The Bible (Koran, Bhagavata, Book of Mormon, etc.) says so.”

Who wrote that book? What makes him/them right?

“It makes sense to me; it seems reasonable.”

So what? Relativism makes sense to others. And every religion makes sense to its adherents. Are you not being a relativist to make such a statement?

You can see where this line of questioning can lead: to a dead end, or to one taking stock of his reasoning processes and embarking upon the road to genuine objective truth.

Arguing that one was born into one’s belief system is characteristic of the majority of those who adhere to any belief system—particularly religious belief systems. But is it sufficient reason to believe the tenets of any of those systems?

I was born into Roman Catholicism. Does that make Roman Catholicism “the only true church” as it claims to be? Obviously not. And any honest Roman Catholic from the pope to the most ignorant layman will admit such. This is why any religion (or non-religious philosophy) must indoctrinate its adherents into its unique belief system. So what if you were born into a Baptist family? More people are born into Buddhism and into Roman Catholicism. If you hold to your traditions merely because your family held to them you are not concerned with truth but with comfort. And you are risking your eternal destiny.

I am not saying you are wrong; I am saying that in order to be right with a good conscience and an honest heart you must be able to prove you are right. What proof do you have?

I was converted into my belief system

Who converted you? Why did you believe him? What empirical evidence did he offer to convince you that what you believe is true?

“It made sense to me.”

So what? (Same questions as above.)

“I could feel it in my spirit.”

How do you know you have a spirit?

“Everyone knows you have a spirit.”

Everyone? Are you sure? How do you know you’re not just flesh and blood that one day will die and cease to exist?

“I just know.”

Many Christians say they have a witness in their spirit through the Holy Spirit that they are in the truth. Does that prove that what they believe and practice is true? Mormons say they believe what they believe because they have a “burning in the bosom” that convinces them. How do you know they aren’t right?

“Maybe they are right.”

If so, then you are wrong. Are you sure you weren’t converted into your belief system because it just sounded good to you?

It gives me peace

Listening to some types of music can give peace. Walking in the woods or along the seashore can give peace. There are many avenues to peace. Every religion offers the prospect of peace. But such peace is a subjective feeling; it is not proof that what you believe is true. What happens when that peace is shattered by circumstances?

I have seen God (love, truth) at work in my life through my church (religion, belief system, etc.).

How has God, etc. worked in your life? Have you been “slain in the Spirit,” healed of a sickness, experienced euphoria through the worship music?

In many churches today feelings have become the basis for “truth.” Yet experience is the primary criterion for belief in virtually all belief systems, Christian and non-Christian. Many even engage their adherents in religious exercises in order to induce feelings of euphoria and an altered state of consciousness that leaves them on a spiritual high. How do you know your belief system is true, and others which offer the same experiences are not true?

Do you believe your church has the truth because it teaches belief in supernatural healing? So do New Age practitioners.

Does your church believe in speaking in tongues? So do many Catholics, Mormons, New Agers, Hindus, and adherents to other religions.

What experience do you offer to prove that what you believe and practice is objectively true and pleasing to the god (or any other philosophical or spiritual authority) you claim to follow?

In the final analysis experience proves nothing, for the mind is capable of self-delusion, interpreting experiences within the framework of desired consequences. One wants to be healed, and the symptoms of one’s illness disappear (at least for a time); the assumption is that one is healed. But if one believes in supernatural healing, then one must also believe in the spirit realm through which that healing allegedly occurs.

Clinical studies have demonstrated that prayer and meditation are equally effective in speeding up the healing process for the sick or injured regardless of one’s belief system, who or what one prays to, or what one meditates upon.

Given the evidence that healings occur within the context of myriad diverse philosophical and religious disciplines, then reason states that truth is not necessary to the implementation of healing (or other seeming miracles, signs and wonders). This does not mean that truth is not evident in some of these phenomena; but it cannot be evident in all. There must be other factors at work besides a God of truth.

Almost every argument for why people believe what they believe is subjective. Actually, there can only be one truly objective reason for belief in any religion or philosophy. The basis for that religion or philosophy must possess objective character that exists on its own merits. It’s interesting that subjectivity is the basis for believing in something that claims objectivity.

Let’s face it, the bottom line of all philosophy is the attempt to prove that either God(s) exists, or that He/they does not exist. One cannot be a skeptic and yet believe in God or anything else apart from what he can observe through his natural senses. But while one’s natural senses may be trustworthy in addressing the physical universe, they cannot be trusted for assessing spiritual truth.

This is why the skeptic cannot believe in objective truth beyond what his senses tell him. So he assumes (subjectively) that man is the highest form of life in the universe known to man. If man is the highest form of life in the universe, then man can determine for himself what he wants his truth to be. Therefore, all forms of “truth” are equal to one another.

Even the New Age axiom, “All truth is God’s truth,” cannot be true, because it is predicated upon subjective “truth” (which is nothing more than personal opinion), not any empirically provable, objective truth. The equation falls apart when someone else’s “truth” infringes upon the “truth” of the skeptic. If someone’s “truth” is that robbing the skeptic is perfectly alright, the skeptic’s “truth” would be offended. And if the skeptic’s “truth” is true, then mankind is at best left to his own devices for determining how he will be governed. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the anarchy and chaos that would arise (and has arisen) under the skeptic’s terms.

Yet this does not prove the existence of God or any other entity that may be superior to mankind and who may set the rules by which the human race must live. Perhaps religion really is just an invention of man for the purpose of controlling society. After all, virtually every society throughout history has predicated its moral judgments upon a religious foundation, however true or false that foundation may be.

Protagoras aside, skepticism really began to take root only as late as the middle of the nineteenth century. It was when the common man was able to read for himself and books began to be published on a wide scale that skepticism gained sufficient adherents to influence society. Up until that time there were few, non-religious people. Skepticism had no basis as a viable force. Yet, obviously, there was a sufficient number of people ready to receive that new “truth” as evidenced by its increase in the mainstream of human affairs of late.

With the publishing of Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1859, many in the scientific world embraced the idea that man exists as the product of “natural selection,” through “survival of the fittest.” Even today, after many of Darwin’s theories have been proven erroneous, his evolutionary theory is stated as a matter of fact not only in scientific journals, but in the mainstream press. It is not unusual to see in newspapers articles dealing with archaeology or paleontology written as if evolution were an established fact rather than a still unproven theory. Statements such as “When man came down from the trees of his ancestral primates…” abound as if they are not even subject to question. Yet there has been no empirical evidence to prove the theory of evolution. Even if evolution were a fact, such treatment of it is dishonest until it is proven to be a fact.

What has caused mankind to largely accept the atheistic/agnostic skepticism of evolution and subjective “truth” while still claiming to be religious and to believe in a god or gods? Could it be that in their hearts the majority of mankind wants the best of both worlds: to believe that God exists so that man can have the assurance of eternal life or some form of existence in the hereafter, yet be free to live his life as he pleases without having to answer to the God in whom he professes to believe?

Does this not explain the condition of the churches today? While claiming to believe in God they deny the Bible’s authority, even though the Bible is the foundation upon which the churches have based their belief systems. (I’m speaking of the Christian churches; non-Christian religions have their own problems with which to contend.) Yet if the Bible has no authority, then God has no authority because the Bible claims to be the word of God to His people, and there is no authority regarding the God of the Bible apart from the Bible itself. And if any part of the Bible is untrue, then it cannot be relied upon at all.

But this is the degree to which skepticism has taken hold in the hearts and minds of professing Christians everywhere.

So we are still left with the question: does God exist? And if He does, what is the basis of proof for His existence? Or has He left us clueless?

Nature

Men, Christian and otherwise, often point to nature as proof of God’s existence. How can anything as intricately designed as the universe, from the microcosm to the macrocosm, not be the product of a superior being? Christians quote the Bible verse, Psalm 19:1:

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

It must be admitted by even the skeptic that the balance of nature is incredible. Life on earth would cease to exist were it not for hundreds of millions of factors which operate in perfect balance with incredibly minor margins for allowable error. Could this be the product of blind chance—of a “Big Bang”?

The odds for that are astronomical. In spite of some trying to put numbers to the odds, there are no numbers sufficient. The best analogy I’ve heard for the odds of this happening would be the same as an explosion in a print shop producing a perfect copy of any edition of Webster’s Dictionary—with nothing left over!

Yet while nature may offer physical evidence of God’s existence, it does not, in itself, prove the existence of God. Certainly it gives no details of His character.

If God exists, only He can prove His existence. To do that He would have to communicate with man directly.

Here we have another problem. Many men have claimed to speak for God. They tell us that God told them what they are to tell us. But how and why should we believe them? Is this not the dilemma caused by the world’s religions? Which are we to believe and why?

Religion

The world recognizes what it calls “holy men” and “sacred texts” on the basis of nothing more than accepting their being what they call themselves. What makes a person a “holy man,” or a writing a “sacred text”? Should we not be able to demand some reason beyond the subjectivity that the religions present to accredit themselves?

They may offer what seem to be reasonable instructions on how to live life, and some of their instructions, if followed, may offer a semblance of internal peace and harmony. But that still doesn’t prove them to be of God; nor does it even prove that God exists apart from the figments of their own imaginations.

People follow their priests and/or pastors, prophets, ministers on the basis of nothing more than a blind trust that these “men of God” are telling them the truth. But each has a different “truth” to tell.

So religion cannot prove that God exists. The claim that “God told me” is subjective to everyone apart from the person making the claim.

God

Only God can prove that God exists. And only God can communicate His will to man. But Has God done so apart from the “holy men” and “sacred texts” of the world’s religions? The answer is “yes and no.” Yes, He has done so through specific men and specific texts. But He has not done so through the vast majority of men or texts that claim to speak for Him.

At this point it is time for me to tell you what I believe and why I believe it.

You may accept, or you may reject, what I offer. But you will not be able to say that I do not have a rational reason to believe what I believe. Nor will you be able to offer any sound reason to reject what I believe. If you can offer proof that what I state is not true, then I am open to receive it. But it had better be empirical evidence that stands up at least as well as the evidence I offer here.

The Bible

Of all the writings in the world, there is only one ancient compilation of texts that claims to be the inspired Word of God to man. None of the writings that the world’s religions consider “sacred texts” make that claim. Nor do they offer the intricate details of what is expected of man in order to live up to the standards that any true Creator would demand of His creation. The one compilation of ancient text is what is known within Christianity as the Bible. Still, this does not prove Christianity to be true, especially considering all the diverse theological systems that call themselves “Christian.” All of Christianity’s errors and foolish pandering to human weaknesses aside, the Bible stands as a beacon of not only instruction for man, but hope for eternal life.

Okay, I admit it. I believe that the Bible is the Word of God to man, and is the basis of proof for not only the existence of God, but for everything that pertains to living in accordance with His will. I will prove this to you from reason and from science.

Now, when I say I will prove it from science I do not mean that there is a scientific method for proving the existence of God; were that so there would be no need for faith. Yet true faith is reasonable and does not exist in a vacuum; it is compatible with true science. When I say I will prove from science the existence of God and that the Bible is His Word to man, I mean that there are no contradictions between true science and the Bible, which reveals His existence. True science is defined apart from what is commonly acepted as “science” but is based on theory and speculation rather than empirical proofs.

Of course, if any writing from men is to be considered inspired by God, it must be inerrant in all respects; there can be no contradictions between it and true science, and there can be no contradictions among its own statements. The only way we can know if the Bible is true is if it is totally inerrant; otherwise we would be left to our own devices to determine which parts of it are true and which are not. This is the dilemma in which those who lack a reasoned faith find themselves. Lacking proper understanding of the Bible they make assumptions of error within its pages, or between it and faulty reasoning by scientists, and then rely upon their own faulty human reasoning to determine which portions they will believe and which they will not believe. This is the foundation for higher criticism which has taken root in most churches today to one degree or another.

The problem with relying upon human reasoning is the fallibility of that reasoning, which leaves us in a position similar to that of the skeptic: each man determines in his own mind what is true. But, again, we cannot all be right.

Admittedly, even with all the evidences to support the truth of the Bible, it is ultimately belief within the heart that determines one’s faith. Because of our inherent self-centered- ness, men tend to believe what they want to believe even in the face of empirical evidence to the contrary. Rather than answer the question that would expose their faithlessness they ask questions in return to throw off the inquirer into their unbelief. They are not willing to admit that they do not have a reasonable answer to support their untenable position.

That said, let us look at the Bible from three premises which support its inerrancy and, thus, its origins from the mind of God: archaeology, history and prophecy.

Archaeologically & Scientifically Sound

Even today’s academic science texts are being found to contain significant errors. Various publishers relying upon the expertise of scientists for their instructional texts offer differing points of view and conclusions based upon scientific experimentation. Through rigorous testing using trial and error, mankind has determined some scientific absolutes that are not open to question: the rules of mathematics, the elements that make up the universe (at least as far as what have been discovered to date), weights, measures and all the tools needed to practice science in the first place. But there are areas where assumptions are often taken for scientific truth—theories are accepted as scientific fact.

Now, the word “theory” holds two different meanings within science: 1) a body of knowledge based upon facts used to explain a particular phenomenon; 2) an unproven hypothesis within the realm of scientific inquiry. Within the field of evolution, for example, certain evidences have been used to expound theories that are not provable. The evidences themselves may be matters of fact, but the conclusions drawn are, at best, educated guesses which are called theories. To avoid confusion it would be better if the theory of evolution were called the speculation of evolution. The truth is that, while the majority of today’s scientists have been persuaded that evolution is a scientific fact, many have not been so persuaded, and new evidences continually call the speculation of evolution into further question. In short, there is no empirical proof that evolution across species is a scientific fact. Yet assumptions stated as fact abound.

These are especially found in the areas of anthropology and archaeology. It is especially within these texts that there are found disagreements between scientists. Why? Because there are constantly being found discrepancies and outright errors within the textbooks of these systems.

What does this have to do with the Bible? While the Bible is not specifically written as an archaeological or scientific text book, it makes many statements about ancient civilizations, people, places, etc. And while the best scientific books on archaeology are found to contain errors regarding these things, there have never been any errors found within the Bible.

That’s not to say that the Bible contains all archaeological information to be found. But what it does contain has never been successfully challenged as untrue. This in spite of many attempts by skeptics to disprove the Bible from the point of view of archaeology. There have been accusations made that certain civilizations mentioned in the Bible did not exist because archaeology has not discovered them. But that is faulty reasoning. Because something has not been discovered does not mean it never existed. The best the skeptic can say about any yet undiscovered evidences of biblical sites is that they have not yet been found. And in spite of the skeptics’ best efforts to disprove the Bible with these claims, new evidence is constantly being found to substantiate the Bible and refute the skeptics.

If we are to put any stock in scientific texts that are found to be fraught with contradictions and errors do we not at least owe the Bible some consideration for not containing any such contradictions and errors? Is it not at least as reliable in that area as the scientific texts so readily cited by experts in the field of archaeology? And considering that it was written over a span of thousands of years by different authors, would they not have been closer to the time of the civilizations of which they wrote?

On the first count, we find that the Bible is absolutely trustworthy in the area of archaeology. As for the rest of science, there have been no successful challenges to the Bible’s trustworthiness there either. The Bible may speak in metaphors about nature (the sun rising and setting, etc., when we know the earth revolves around the sun. But those metaphors are used by scientists even today. No true scientist has yet found a scientific anomaly within any literal biblical text. And, again, this in spite of attempts by skeptics to do so.

Historically Sound

Just as true science has not found any contradictions between it and the Bible, so history as determined by credentialed historians has found no contradictions. There is no historical evidence to suggest that the history found in the Bible is erroneous. And just as there are errors within the scientific texts of modern man, the same can be said about history texts. Even more so in view of the subjective nature of history as written and endorsed by the powers that be at any given time. For example, there are two or more histories of every war: that of the conqueror, that of the conquered, and those of outside observers. Whose is 100% correct?

Careful study on the part of historians can approximate the truth, and there are some things that are not open to question because of the preponderance of evidence in their favor. Yet even the best history texts contain discrepancies and errors due to faulty research and subjective interpretation of the facts. And while these may be easily recognized by comparison of the texts of different history books, none have ever been found when comparing the Bible to the historical records of ancient civilizations. Again, that is not to say that everything in the Bible has been verified; that is a work in progress, just as archaeology and science continue to unearth corroborating evidence for the Bible’s reliability. But no history found within the Bible has ever been refuted by sound historical evidence.

Since it deals primarily with spiritual matters, the Bible is not a compilation of scientific or historical writings. Even so, there are no contradictions between history and true science and the Bible.

Granted some passages are written in a metaphorical sense, but these are clearly metaphorical and not to be taken literally in the scientific sense. One of these passages  is John 6:47-63, which records Jesus saying that his flesh is meat to be eaten and His blood is to be drunk in order to have eternal life.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

I am that bread of life.

Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:47-63)

Jesus told His disciples that He was speaking spiritually, not literally. Yet some religious people have taken these words to mean that the bread of their communion service is literally His body, and the wine is literally His blood. The same is true of the verses that relate to the Last Supper:

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom. (Matt 26:26-29)

Why is this metaphorical? Jesus was still in His body when he made the statement. He was not holding His body, which had not yet been put to death. Also, He clearly calls the wine “this fruit of the vine,” signifying that it had not changed in its nature.

Without something more conclusive than this, it is dishonest to insist that Jesus meant that the communion bread and wine are literally His body and blood. Yet millions of people believe this on the basis of nothing more than their trust of certain religious leaders’ proclamations.

This is merely one example of metaphorical language in the Bible. The key to understanding is first of all an honest heart on the part of the student of Scripture. If one with such a heart prays for understanding for the purpose of learning the truth in order to follow it, God will give him understanding. The rules for understanding Scripture are called hermeneutics. The basic rule of hermeneutics is to keep what is said within the context of the entire message. To whom was it written; when was it written; what is the overall message; etc. Subjective applications of human reason produce nothing but confusion. But this approach, unfortunately, is often used by religious leaders attempting to convince listeners of the validity of their unique “understanding.” This is what results in diverse religious sects and even cults.

There are other examples of metaphor in the Bible, but, again, the context is clearly metaphorical or allegorical, just as we find in many writings today. But do the skeptics reject the principles found in modern (or even other ancient) writings that contain metaphor and allegory on the basis that the writings are “not scientific”? On the contrary, the skeptics often endorse those writings as containing truth.

But there is something about the Bible that causes men to reject it outright while accepting even the most subjective, faulty writings of human origin. What is it that the Bible contains which puts it in this unique category?

Reason tells us that if all men’s writings are fallible, which no sane person would deny, and that the one writing found to be infallible in the areas cited above is rejected out of hand by the majority of mankind, there must be something unique about that one writing. Could it be that men reject the Bible because it contains the full truth of God which challenges mankind at the core of his being: his imperfection or sinfulness? Above all, the Bible is a compilation of books that deal with the spiritual aspect of mankind. And it cuts to the heart all who believe that they are intrinsically good and worthy of good things from God or whatever higher power they perceive controls their destiny.

And that brings us to the spiritual aspect of the Bible which proves itself to contain the truth of God: its total reliability in the area of prophecy: foretelling the future beyond what could reasonably be explained as predictability. True prophecy goes beyond science and predictability, and thus must have a spiritual origin. It cannot be conjured within the material realm or it would fall under the category of science.

Prophetically Sound

One-fourth of all Bible verses deal with prophetic statements. The Bible contains thousands of prophecies of such a nature that they could not be the product of astute analyses of probabilities. These prophecies have to do with the rise and fall of nations, written centuries before some of those nations existed. They have to do with the birth and role of people in history centuries before they were born. They have to do with God’s intervention in the affairs of mankind—most notably the birth and life of Jesus Christ. There are over three hundred prophecies written about Him alone—centuries before He came on the scene— every one of which has been fulfilled except those pertaining to His coming again. The odds against even five prophecies being fulfilled are astronomical. They increase exponentially with every one added. For any person to fulfill the hundreds of prophecies related to God’s Son would be impossible except for God’s hand in it. Just as the odds of the universe creating itself from a “Big Bang” would be equivalent to the explosion in a print shop analogy, the same odds would apply to the prophecies regarding Jesus Christ.

We must realize, however, that not all prophecies attributed by Christian scholars as applying to Christ are so clearly stated. They are considered to apply to Christ by the rule of “double fulfillment,” which assumes that a prophecy has a dual application—one for the present and one for the distant future. An example would be Isaiah 7:14:

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Kept in its original context, the initial application of this prophecy would apply to Isaiah’s son born of his wife, the prophetess, as a sign that Judah’s enemies, Rezin, the king of Syria and Pekah, the king of Israel, would fall before the child reached the age of reason (Isaiah 7:1-8:4).

Since it is not within the scope of this writing to present all the prophecies attributed to the life of Christ, we will present only a few which were written specific to the future coming Christ, and cannot be classified among the double fulfillment prophecies. As for others I will leave it to the reader to search the Scriptures for himself to determine the truth. An honest heart will do so; those who will not believe will not believe no matter how many prophecies they are confronted with. Which are you?

The Book of Daniel records a prophecy which pinpoints the time that the Messiah would come to Jerusalem:

Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.

And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding.

At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.

Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. (Daniel 9:21-27:)

This is a specific prophecy regarding the nation of Israel and the Messiah. Verse 24 states that a specific period of seventy weeks (lit. seventy “sevens,” or seventy times seven years—490 years) would pass until God’s dealing with Israel would be completed. To “seal up” the vision and prophecy meant to complete it, and to anoint the most Holy meant the coronation of the coming eternal King when He comes into His earthly Kingdom.

The most striking part of this prophecy is found in verse 25, where Gabriel states that the Messiah would come seven plus threescore and two weeks (483 years) after the decree came to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem. It was from the time of that decree that the 490 years would commence. The Messiah would come into Jerusalem after 483 years, or seven years before the end of God’s dealing with Israel. Let us see what history has proven:

The initial decree for Israel to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple came from Cyrus, king of Persia in the first year of his reign (539BC). This was not specific to the building of the wall of Jerusalem, but only to the temple. Due to opposition from Israel’s enemies, the decree was not implemented. Not until Artaxerxes I (reigned 465- 425 BC) gave the decree to Nehemiah to build Jerusalem’s wall did the work commence. The Book of Nehemiah records that Nehemiah went to rebuild Jerusalem’s wall in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes’ reign—about the year 445 BC.

Due to inaccurate historical dating, historians put the birth of Jesus at somewhere between 7 BC and AD 6. The Encyclopedia Britannica states:

The course of Jesus’ life and the geographic setting of his ministry can only be given in rough outline. The details are surrounded by many uncertainties. The period within which his ministry and death occurred may, however, be narrowed down with considerable accuracy on the basis of a synchronistic dating of the appearance of John the Baptist in the 15th year of Tiberius (Luke 3:1)—i.e., AD 28/29—which is confirmed by non-biblical sources. But the year and place of Jesus’ birth are uncertain. Mark and John say nothing about them. The only sources for them are the widely divergent birth and childhood legends in Matthew 1 and 2, where Jesus’ birth and early lot are set in the time of Herod I and the change of regime (4 BC), and the narrative of Luke 2, which links Jesus’ birth with the first registration in Judea under the emperor Augustus (AD 6). There is also historical evidence of a census carried out about 8 BC. With all of this in mind, many sources estimate the year of birth as 7-6 BC. (The use of BC [before Christ] and AD [Anno Domini, or “in the year of the Lord”] was not common until the Middle Ages.)

If we allow that Jesus began His ministry at about the same time John the Baptist came on the scene, according to New Testament accounts, then we would add 445 BC to AD 29 to reach the approximate period of 474 years. Jesus would minister for approximately three to four years before being crucified. He came into Jerusalem being hailed as the King of the Jews or Messiah a few days before His death. Add four years to 474 years and we have 478 years. This still falls a few years short of the 483 years according to Gabriel’s prophecy to Daniel.

Allowing for inaccurate dating of ancient events, five years is a blink of an eye over the span of nearly 500 years. The reasonable question to ask is, who else in the history of Israel fits the role of the Messiah prophesied in Daniel’s encounter with Gabriel?

The dating of Daniel’s writing has been set by historians at somewhere between 616-536 BC. It was not written after the fact of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem. Even secular historians do not dispute the events of the last week before Jesus’ crucifixion.

The prophecy also states that the Messiah would be cut off immediately after His appearance:

And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: (26a).

So Messiah would come 483 years after the decree to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem and would immediately be cut off. For what purpose, then, did He come? Why would God’s Messiah come and then be put to death? Would that not defeat His purpose? The answer is that He died, “not for himself,” but for those whom He came to redeem for His eternal Kingdom.

From that point, the final week for God’s dealing with Israel has been put on hold. Paul states it this way in relation to Israel’s failure to receive her Messiah and the Gentiles being grafted into Israel through their faith in the Messiah:

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. (Romans 11:25)

The mystery of which Paul wrote is the making of two diverse people—Israel and the rest of the Nations—into one new people: the people of God through faith in Israel’s Messiah.

The blindness in part upon Israel is the result of a prophetic curse that those who demanded the death of Jesus placed upon themselves:

When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.

Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. (Matthew 27:24-25)

This has resulted in the sword that Jesus prophesied He would bring upon the nation:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward.

And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward. (Matthew 10:34-42)

 This is true not only of Jewish households, but of many households among the nations where individuals give their lives to Christ.

No other person in history has had the impact upon nations and individuals that this Jesus has had. And only His arrival on the scene of history matches the specific prophecy recorded in Daniel 9.

It may be argued that other prophecies attributed to Jesus are “double fulfillment” prophecies that may or may not apply to Him in addition to applying to others. But this prophecy could apply to only one man among the billions born throughout history.

It is reasonable, then, to assign other prophecies which describe His life, ministry, death and coming again to Him without any specific naming of the person, but with clear implications of a coming Messiah. But, again, we will offer only two, which are the most graphic prophecies regarding the death of God’s “servant” as revealed in Isaiah 52 and 53:

Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.

As many were astonished at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:

So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.

Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?

For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Surely he hath borne our grief’s, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

And he made his grave with the wicked and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. (Isaiah 52:13-53:12)

Secular historians bear testimony to the death of Jesus on the cross. He was numbered with the transgressors, crucified between two thieves, yet with no proof of wrongdoing on His part. Psalm 22:6-18 is even more graphic, describing Jesus’ ordeal on the cross centuries before the crucifixion as a method of execution was known to men:

But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.

All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,

He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.

But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother’s breasts.

I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother’s belly.

Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help.

Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round.

They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion.

I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.

My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.

For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.

They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

Skeptics insist that Jesus and His disciples plotted to have Him crucified in order to fulfill this prophecy. What they are suggesting is that Jesus was some crazy guru who was merely deluded into thinking He was the prophesied Messiah. But considering that no man has ever fit the many prophecies of the Messiah—the glorious ones as well as the ignoble ones—and specifically the prophecy that timed His appearance on the scene, whom do the skeptics offer in His place? No one.

Yet they beg reason to suggest that Jesus’ disciples would risk their own lives—and, in fact, surrender their lives in the long run—for a patent lie. I suppose there are a few weird people in the world who would do this, but certainly not the hundreds of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. And certainly not those whose writings contain what even the world recognizes as the most lofty ideals ever embodied in any system of belief.

No, reason must conclude that the skeptics are wrong on this

And if they are wrong, then the many prophecies attributed to Jesus must be true. In which case, we must all examine ourselves to see if we are resisting the truth—if we are resisting what God requires regarding our relationship to Him through His only begotten Son.

Now it is up to you, the reader to pursue the truth. I have only laid the groundwork for you to do so.

Ultimately, each of us must search out the truth for ourselves. No one can actually can prove that God exists. He has chosen to require of us faith that searches for the truth. As Jesus said:

If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. (John 8:31-32)

His Word is in the Bible, which meets the criteria for authorship beyond the mental capabilities of its physical authors.

The fact that sixty-six books, written over a span of nearly two thousand years by various authors would be so cohesive and prophetically sound makes the Bible unique among all the writings of men found throughout history. And we are speaking of billions of writings of varying types and lengths. Such uniqueness begs examination as to its claim to be the inspired Word of God:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Tim 3:16-17)

Add to this its unique reliability in the areas of science and history, not being found with any errors in spite of the best efforts of skeptics to find them, and the question remains why anyone would be foolish enough to place their faith in the fallible pronouncements of men whose glaring errors abound in their works. With that understanding, it is incumbent upon all men to believe the truth of God’s Word and live their lives by its dictates. Yet in fairness I cannot expect the reader to accept all I’ve stated without being willing to allow him the opportunity to investigate what I have said for himself. And that would be the start of an honest heart seeking truth for truth’s sake.

The first step on the path to truth is for one to question oneself as to what he truly believes and why he believes it. Whatever your philosophical or religious proclivities may be, are you willing to seek empirical evidence to substantiate them? Any beliefs you hold must be confirmed by an authority at least as substantive as the evidence that the Bible gives for its own authority. Anything less would fail in its ability to stand.

Next,  are you willing to have your beliefs challenged by the Bible? If so, I urge you to examine the validity of the only ancient writing that claims to be God’s inspired Word. I have offered clues to its reliability and spiritual origins. Check out these clues for yourself. The best way to do that is to read the Bible after having offered a prayer for God to guide you into all truth. If you have no previous background in the Bible you will no doubt encounter passages that stump you—passages that relate to ancient customs, traditions, and the like. Do not be discouraged but set them aside momentarily while you seek the greater truths that relate to your personal relationship to God. Focus on the spiritual aspects of the writings rather than on the temporal aspects. The latter can be sorted out later; the former are the reason for the writing in the first place.

As you read, do not become bogged down by genealogies and compilations of numbers relating to the technical aspects of ancient Israel. It would be best to start with Genesis, the first book, and then move on to the Gospels that begin the New Testament portion of the Bible. The Book of John would be the best to begin with there. With this approach you will have a good basis upon which to understand the rest of the Bible. In them you will find what is called the Gospel or “Good News” that God has brought to mankind by which He has opened the way for fellowship with Him and for eternal life in His Kingdom.

Do not let anyone, even your religious leaders, tell you that you cannot understand the Bible without their interpreting it for you. You may be persuaded that you cannot understand the Scriptures because you are not a Hebrew or Greek scholar, or you do not hold any philosophical or theological degrees. First, it is not necessary to know everything; we learn truth by degrees. Second, if the Bible really is the Word of God, then it is only reasonable to believe that God will give understanding to anyone who seeks the truth unselfishly. This is His reason for giving the Holy Spirit:

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. (John 16:13-14)

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. (I John 2:27)

The wise of this world are foolish in God’s eyes. This includes the wise men of the established religions, including Christianity. This is not to denigrate the idea of scholarship; we should acknowledge those who work hard to gain certain knowledge. But scholarship without the Holy Spirit is foolishness. Look at all the men and women with theological degrees who disagree among themselves on major issues. They cannot all be right. Though every man may be in error, and even a liar, yet God is true (Romans 34).

In the realm of religion, men learn what other men tell them they must believe. In order to receive their degrees they must agree with what they are taught and pass the tests that prove their acquiescence to the belief system under which they are studying. They come to believe that particular theological system and require that anyone who will receive their endorsement must also believe that particular system. This is the bane of theological seminaries and Bible schools. They do not allow for honest academic questioning of their belief systems without punishing with failure those who question them too far. As a result, the vast majority of people trust teachers who trusted their teachers who trusted their teachers, ad infinitum.

Given the choice of learning through honest inquiry with the help of God’s Spirit as opposed to trusting others to interpret the Word of God for me, I would opt for the former if I were a seeker of truth. If I merely want to learn a religious theological system in order to pander to my naturally religious spirit, I would opt for the latter— especially if it offers a liturgical system of sacramentalism which “guarantees” me God’s mercy and pleasure for my acquiescence to it.

This is something we must all be cautious of. Liturgy, while pleasing to the senses, gives a false sense of security. Liturgy assumes that much repetitive speaking and worship pleases God by its quantity. But this is contrary to what God tells us. Just before telling His disciples how to pray “the Lord’s prayer,” Jesus said:

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him. (Matt 6:5-8)

Yet rather than taking the Lord’s prayer as a model, religious people pray it repetitiously—even superstitiously—contrary to Jesus’ command!

Liturgy also allows us to do religious things and admire the pomp and circumstance of religious systems conducted by people in flowing, religious garb. It instills the idea that we need priests to intercede for us rather than being able to enter into the presence of God on our own. Some of the most corrupt people on earth wear religious garments. But those garments cannot hide from God the nakedness of their souls.

Do not believe what men tell you.

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. (2 Tim 2:15-16)

As for entering into the presence of God, Jesus instructed His disciples:

And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.

These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.

At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you:

For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God. (John 16:23-27)

Jesus came to open the door of fellowship with the Father—God. Religion interposes “priests” who tell us that we cannot have fellowship with God apart from their blessing. Popes, bishops, even Protestant ministers stand as “priests” to the people of God though God Himself calls us all kings and priests (Revelation 1:6; 5:10).

You do not need priests. Priests offer sacrifices and intercede to God on behalf of people who cannot stand before God on their own. We may all intercede on the behalf of one another, and there is one sacrifice—Jesus Christ—already offered for our sins once and for all He is our High Priest who intercedes for all who would come to God:

Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.…

For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.…

Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.

From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

And having an high priest over the house of God;

Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. (Hebrews 9:11-10:22)

This is the essence of the true Gospel or “Good News”—God sent His only Son into the world to die for the sins of those who would believe in Him. To believe means to trust in His sacrifice to pay the full penalty for our sins, with a conscious determination on our part to live according to His will for our lives. Yet this is only the bare essence of the Gospel.

Today there are many “gospels” preached in different churches. Some preach only a partial gospel. To find out what the Bible offers clearly as the true and full Gospel, see our article, What is the True Gospel on this Website.

Media Spotlight
P.O. Box 290
Redmond, WA 98073-0290

Media Spotlight