- The claimant is a Hollywood producer with a film ready for release from which he stands to make a great deal of money
- The film is coming out very shortly after the Da Vinci Code which was a runaway financial success based on the myth of Jesus' marriage
- The claimant is not an Archaeologist - rather the Archaeologist who first studied these artefacts says the claim is nonesense (and, being a Jew, would have reason to support the claim)
- The claim is made some 27 years after the discovery of the artefacts - why wait so long? ($?)
- Archaeologists who have studied the artefacts on are not sure about the names on the inscriptions. Even if they are Jesus, Joseph, Marie, these were common Jewish names 2000 years ago and appear on other similar ossaries
- The claimant has tried to suggest that he his claim (if true) does not destroy Christianity. He obviously fails to understand that without resurrection there is no hope and no Christianity.
- In order for him to make this suggestion he must dismiss the mountains of manuscript evidence from eyewitnesses and others as to Jesus life, death and resurrection. That is, he is saying that 3 boxes with barely decipherable scratches provide greater certainty than all the Biblical texts put together
- Furthermore, he is insinuating that the writers of the Gospels and NT letters where either lying about Jesus' resurrection or all mad. There is no evidence for either. Furthermore, they and many others were cruelly murdered for their belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus. An unlikely occurrence if they were lying (they had nothing to gain).
- He is also insinuating that the NT writers somehow "forgot" to mention Jesus' marriage, or deliberately and assiduously failed to mention it. There appears to be no ancient belief that Jesus was married ... in fact the first suggestion that he was appeared around the 12th century.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Dotcom 2: Was Jesus buried with his wife and son?
James Cameron, Hollywood producer, has claimed that some ossaries (boxes that once contained bones and were used in Israel to bury dead in about 2000 years ago) contained the remains of Jesus, of Mary of Magdalene (supposedly his wife) and of his son. He is claiming this is revolutionary. Here are some thoughts in response.
Dotcom 1: What is the Bible?
What does it mean to say "I believe in the Bible" or that the Bible is the "Word of God"? Here are a few notes to stimulate your thinking ...
"I believe in the Bible" for me is a statement more about God than the books of the Bible. I am, in effect, saying God has authority and I sit under than authority. God has chosen to reveal himself to me through the Biblical story, therefore I better take note of it!
"The Bible is the inspired word of God." This is another cliche. In 2 tim 3:14-17 Paul uses a word sometimes translated as "inspired" "All scripture is inspired by God ..." (NRSV translation)
In other translations it uses the term (closer to the Greek) of "God breathed" which reminded Timothy and us of God breathing life into Adam. So the Bible get's its life - it's very meaning - from God. This helps me because it reminds me that if I try and interpret any particular passage from the Bible I must remember that it's God who gave and gives it life. Any meaning I try and give it must be submitted to God for checking ... it must be consistant with the whole Bible (let the Bible interpret the Bible), with the Biblical Story (ie it must fit in with how God is trying to restore all people to himself) and with the character of God.
In the 2Tm passage mentioned Paul talks of "All Scripture" being profitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. Interestingly he is speaking of what we now call the Old Testament. Amongst some people there is the temptation to read the New Testament only and a few selected parts (eg Psalms) of the OT. I think this warns us to take the scripture as a whole and not to neglect parts of it. It also tells us that it's purpose is to help make and keep me right with God so that I can do good work.
The Biblical story, therefore, is still being carried out in our lives as we are still part of God's story as we become more righteous, build the church, and await the completion of the story.
Literal v Liberal interpretations
I've noticed that there tends to be a polarisation in the mind of some that there are only two possible positions to take with respect to the Bible, namely: "Liberal" where what is interpreted from the Bible depends much on what is socially acceptable amongst the wider community of the day and "Literal" where every word of the Bible must have a concrete meaning relating directly to today. I believe both views are fundamentally flawed. The flaw being the same for both ... they tend to fail to take into account what the original writers and hearers/readers first understood with what was written. This way of interpreting the Bible is known as eisegesis. Simply put eisegesis is giving a meaning from outside with minimal regard to the original meaning. Some very liberal interpreters do that over moral issues - such as homosexuality, saying that because we know more now and we "should" accept homosexuals and that God is love that the passages in the Bible that condemn homosexual acts no longer apply. Similarly some literal interpreters will find in the Bible allegories to almost every modern situation (such as Barry Smith did with Revelations when he said the world would end in 1985).
The opposite of eisegesis is exegesis. Exegesis requires us to first understand what was written, by whom and for whom. We must see how that fits into the whole Biblical story and with the character of God. From that (Ex being "out of") we may draw conclusions as to what it may mean to us today. For me, exegesis is always the starting point.
I do, though, believe we should take a literal interpretation of the Bible in the sense that we should take a liberal interpretation of ALL we read. Namely, when I read a novel I take it literally as a made up story, when I read a set of instructions for a microwave I take them as instructions that must be followed, not re-interpreted as a myth, when I read a scientific text book I take it as science, or a poem as poetry. The same goes for the Bible - I read poetry as poetry, historical narrative as historical narrative, parable as parable, allegory as allegory etc.
So, when I approach a Bible passage I ask the questions:
"What genre?"
"What is the author's purpose?"
"Who were the audience?"
"How did they react?"
"Why is it in the Bible?"
"How does it fit with the Biblical story?"
"What does it tell be about God?"
and, only then
"What can it suggest to me about the world about me, about the church, about who God wants me to be?"
"I believe in the Bible" for me is a statement more about God than the books of the Bible. I am, in effect, saying God has authority and I sit under than authority. God has chosen to reveal himself to me through the Biblical story, therefore I better take note of it!
"The Bible is the inspired word of God." This is another cliche. In 2 tim 3:14-17 Paul uses a word sometimes translated as "inspired" "All scripture is inspired by God ..." (NRSV translation)
In other translations it uses the term (closer to the Greek) of "God breathed" which reminded Timothy and us of God breathing life into Adam. So the Bible get's its life - it's very meaning - from God. This helps me because it reminds me that if I try and interpret any particular passage from the Bible I must remember that it's God who gave and gives it life. Any meaning I try and give it must be submitted to God for checking ... it must be consistant with the whole Bible (let the Bible interpret the Bible), with the Biblical Story (ie it must fit in with how God is trying to restore all people to himself) and with the character of God.
In the 2Tm passage mentioned Paul talks of "All Scripture" being profitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. Interestingly he is speaking of what we now call the Old Testament. Amongst some people there is the temptation to read the New Testament only and a few selected parts (eg Psalms) of the OT. I think this warns us to take the scripture as a whole and not to neglect parts of it. It also tells us that it's purpose is to help make and keep me right with God so that I can do good work.
The Biblical story, therefore, is still being carried out in our lives as we are still part of God's story as we become more righteous, build the church, and await the completion of the story.
Literal v Liberal interpretations
I've noticed that there tends to be a polarisation in the mind of some that there are only two possible positions to take with respect to the Bible, namely: "Liberal" where what is interpreted from the Bible depends much on what is socially acceptable amongst the wider community of the day and "Literal" where every word of the Bible must have a concrete meaning relating directly to today. I believe both views are fundamentally flawed. The flaw being the same for both ... they tend to fail to take into account what the original writers and hearers/readers first understood with what was written. This way of interpreting the Bible is known as eisegesis. Simply put eisegesis is giving a meaning from outside with minimal regard to the original meaning. Some very liberal interpreters do that over moral issues - such as homosexuality, saying that because we know more now and we "should" accept homosexuals and that God is love that the passages in the Bible that condemn homosexual acts no longer apply. Similarly some literal interpreters will find in the Bible allegories to almost every modern situation (such as Barry Smith did with Revelations when he said the world would end in 1985).
The opposite of eisegesis is exegesis. Exegesis requires us to first understand what was written, by whom and for whom. We must see how that fits into the whole Biblical story and with the character of God. From that (Ex being "out of") we may draw conclusions as to what it may mean to us today. For me, exegesis is always the starting point.
I do, though, believe we should take a literal interpretation of the Bible in the sense that we should take a liberal interpretation of ALL we read. Namely, when I read a novel I take it literally as a made up story, when I read a set of instructions for a microwave I take them as instructions that must be followed, not re-interpreted as a myth, when I read a scientific text book I take it as science, or a poem as poetry. The same goes for the Bible - I read poetry as poetry, historical narrative as historical narrative, parable as parable, allegory as allegory etc.
So, when I approach a Bible passage I ask the questions:
"What genre?"
"What is the author's purpose?"
"Who were the audience?"
"How did they react?"
"Why is it in the Bible?"
"How does it fit with the Biblical story?"
"What does it tell be about God?"
and, only then
"What can it suggest to me about the world about me, about the church, about who God wants me to be?"
Monday, February 05, 2007
What are the questions?
In the previous post - "The hope that we have" I talked of some of the questions people have about Christ, the Church, your faith.
I'd like us to begin a discussion and help each other to provide answers to such questions. Please just post a question with some context and I'll do a bit of thinking and give an answer as a starting point for discussion.
John
I'd like us to begin a discussion and help each other to provide answers to such questions. Please just post a question with some context and I'll do a bit of thinking and give an answer as a starting point for discussion.
John
Saturday, February 03, 2007
The hope that we have - 1 Peter
Place: St Christopher’s
Date and Time: 7pm. 5 Feb 2007.
Title: Apologetics
I wonder if any of these statements are familiar to you ….
“I believe all religions are the same …”
“Jesus was a good man, but …”
“Obviously it’s true for you, but don’t push it down my throat”
“Christianity is so intolerant …”
“How can God allow that little girl to die?”
“All truth is relative …”
I like the last one in particular because the obvious answer is “Are you absolutely sure?”
What comments have you heard?
When you or I respond to questions like this we are engaging in something called “Apologetics”, this comes from the Greek word Apologia which means to give a word back. It was used in biblical times for the response an accused gave in defence of themselves in court. For example, a Roman governor (Festus) in Acts (25:16) said that in line with Roman traditions Paul had the right to make an Apologia to his accusers “face to face.”
How many of you have been to an Alpha course?
How many have read some of CS Lewis?
How about having heard Ravi Zacharias on the radio or read one of his books?
If so, then you’ve benefited from some of the best apologists of the last 50 years. These people and others all help us understand the answers to some of the difficult questions
- “Where is God when it hurts?”
- “How can God allow evil?”
- “How can Christianity be so exclusive?”
etc.
It is not the apologetics of intellectual giants that I want to talk about today, but the apologetics that you and I are exhorted to engage in by Peter in his first letter where he wrote:
“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” 1 Peter 3:15
Apologetics is the “give the reason” bit.
Peter was not writing to CS Lewis or Nicky Gumbell exclusively, but to Christians who, like us, a minority living amongst non-believers – pagans – who, at best were indifferent to them, at worse they hassled them.
CONTEXT
Peter was in probably in Rome and he was writing to Christians dispersed across what we not think of us North and East Turkey
It was a
•Fearful society (3:14) [Recall Paul in Athens who found an alter to an "unknown god" whom people offered sacfices to just in case this god got upset and caused them some problems!]
•Unrestrained society - drink and sex (4:3)
•Pluralistic society – idols (4:3)
•Hostile society to Christians
–Fiery ordeal (4:12)
–Maligned as evildoers (2:12)
–Considered shameful
This hostility was not from the Roman authorities (whom Peter told the Christians to honour), but from the locals. The exact nature of the persecution is uncertain but it appears to have involved a lot of false accusations – some of them quite serious. You may recall that Paul got in trouble with locals once when the local silversmiths got upset because his preaching diminished their trade in silver idols! They may have also been accused of things like cannibalism because of the communion ritual. In short, their suffering was because they were different, others were ignorant of what they were really about, and because of fear.
Another aspect of the society around them was that it was extremely concerned with showing honour to others - something that usually involved praising publicly the good deeds of others. They also were extremely concerned to avoid shame.
Peter reminds the Christians that their honour does not come from others, or the emperor, but through the genuiness of their faith and their behaviour during the siffering. In fact should they suffer for doing right (3;23) then it is to their honour and to the shame of those who persecute them.
PARALLELS
I see many parallels here with us and the society we live in …
Fearful
From yesterday's Press:
Dire climate warning
By PAUL GORMAN and PATRICK CREWDSON - The Press 05:00am
More violent floods and hurricanes, acute droughts and frequent heat-waves will plague the Earth if there are no massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, scientists say.
We are fearful – not so much of capricious Gods, but of what will happen to us and our planet. Will global warming “get us” as this Press article suggests.
Will it be terrorism?
Will we be destitute?
Will our friends still like us if we don’t get drunk with them?
Will he still like me if I don’t go to bed with him?
We are still a fearful society
Unrestrained
From yesterday's Press:
Alleged sex act by police officers
By STAFF REPORTERS - The Press 05:00am
Christchurch police are investigating allegations that two officers had sex outside a city station.
Such headlines should cause us shock, but they don't anymore because we are so used to a society which has seperated sex from love and revels in the debauchery involved.
Pluralistic
"Tolerance" is the new meta-religion.
Even our own church leaders have fallen for the myth that we must somehow show our tolerance by accepting other religions. Last year they allowed the erction of Buddhist statues on Cathedral property, and a Hindu text on an alter cloth.
Hostile
There are plenty who are publicly hostile to Christianity. One of the most vehement in recent times in Biologist and popular author who has not dropped all pretence of being a scientist and come out scathingly against the church in a new book called "The God Delusion" in which he
asserts the irrationality of belief in God and the grievous harm religion has inflicted on society, from the Crusades to 9/11.
On a local scale - I heard this mornign how a son-in-law had been preventing a grandmother from taking her 2 year old granddaughter to church.
You'll have your own stories of hostility.
PETER'S RESPONSE
You must Remeber (read the first chapter of 1 peter):
–Who you are in Christ – chosen, made holy (1:2)
–What God’s done – Prophets (1:10) – Jesus – New Birth (1:3)
–What God will do
•Inheritance – revealed in the “last time” (1:6)
•Give honour when Jesus returns (1:7)
•Fulfil our purpose – salvation of our souls (1:9)
Peter’s response was to remind everyone of who they where, what God has done and what God will do.
We live in a society that resists any overarching story (metanarrative) – a characteristic of postmodernism has been to reject the idea that anyone or any country can some how say how history really is.
We need to be reminded that God created, we messed up, and God put in a plan that peaked with Christ’s coming, but is yet to be fully played out.
In short
and Peter continues
THEREFORE (we must ask what is it there for) prepare your minds for action.
In those days the mind was not centred in the brain but in the heart. When the Bible speaks of heart it is not speaking of passion or some ill defined feeling, but the core of our thinking that drives our behaviour.
What we put into our mind will ultimately come out of us – positively we focus on the promises of Christ – of Jesus coming again to right all wrongs, to bring us to completion in him
Negatively, we reject the ways of the fearful, pluralistic society around us and we set our lives aside for Christ. We are to be holy even as God is holy – a big call, but by the grace of God one we can strive towards every day of our lives.
In this way, Peter says, we will influence those around us – our friends, our bosses, our spouses. Even when some are hostile there will be questions to be answered and by preparing our minds for action we will be prepared to answer them.
Why should we be prepared?
I began talking of some of the things people say
“Jesus was a good man, but ….” “All truth is relative …” “Science has proved there is no God …” “If there is a God he wouldn’t have allowed …”
It is very tempting not to rock the boat and just ignore those comments. I can easily in my mind justify this by saying “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion “ (a postmodern cliché), or “God doesn’t need my help to defend the gospel”
This, though is very muddled thinking. We are asked to “give a reason” for two reasons
1. to prevent evil.
Today’s ideas are tomorrows actions, look at where some ideas led ...
–There is no God therefore everything is permissible (Nietzsche) – Hitler
–“Religion is the opiate of the masses” (Marx) – Stalin
– belief in God is not just wrong, but potentially deadly (Dawkins) - ????
Hitler was some one's grandson, he was someone's class mate, he was someone's work mate ... if one of them had managed to give him reasons for hope centred on Christ, how different history would be!
Who knows about those around you - they will be teachers, parents, and leaders. Are you ready to respond to them to prevent evil.
2. so that others too may have hope
We have no right to deny anyone hearing of the hope that we have. To the contrary for the sake of their souls – for the sake of their eternal life and all the other people they may come into contact with and may influence we must be prepared to speak of the hope that we have – of who we are in Christ, of Christ who has dies, Christ who has risen and Christ who will come again.
HOPE
Unlike lotto our hope is not pie in the sky – a “might”.
It is not individualistic, but for everyone.
Our hope is a certainty.
Our hope is based on Truth and the Truth shall set you free. One of the greatest challenges as a Church in New Zealand is to responds to a society that rejects absolute claims to truth. Personally, this is a challenge I have given myself – to try and understand the various subcultures of New Zealand and to find ways to respond to their questions with the truth. I am very interested in working with anyone else who wants to help me build bridges to convey the truth of the gospel and the hope that it brings.
The Challenge
Where do you place your hope?
Are you prepared?
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.
Date and Time: 7pm. 5 Feb 2007.
Title: Apologetics
I wonder if any of these statements are familiar to you ….
“I believe all religions are the same …”
“Jesus was a good man, but …”
“Obviously it’s true for you, but don’t push it down my throat”
“Christianity is so intolerant …”
“How can God allow that little girl to die?”
“All truth is relative …”
I like the last one in particular because the obvious answer is “Are you absolutely sure?”
What comments have you heard?
When you or I respond to questions like this we are engaging in something called “Apologetics”, this comes from the Greek word Apologia which means to give a word back. It was used in biblical times for the response an accused gave in defence of themselves in court. For example, a Roman governor (Festus) in Acts (25:16) said that in line with Roman traditions Paul had the right to make an Apologia to his accusers “face to face.”
How many of you have been to an Alpha course?
How many have read some of CS Lewis?
How about having heard Ravi Zacharias on the radio or read one of his books?
If so, then you’ve benefited from some of the best apologists of the last 50 years. These people and others all help us understand the answers to some of the difficult questions
- “Where is God when it hurts?”
- “How can God allow evil?”
- “How can Christianity be so exclusive?”
etc.
It is not the apologetics of intellectual giants that I want to talk about today, but the apologetics that you and I are exhorted to engage in by Peter in his first letter where he wrote:
“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” 1 Peter 3:15
Apologetics is the “give the reason” bit.
Peter was not writing to CS Lewis or Nicky Gumbell exclusively, but to Christians who, like us, a minority living amongst non-believers – pagans – who, at best were indifferent to them, at worse they hassled them.
CONTEXT
Peter was in probably in Rome and he was writing to Christians dispersed across what we not think of us North and East Turkey
It was a
•Fearful society (3:14) [Recall Paul in Athens who found an alter to an "unknown god" whom people offered sacfices to just in case this god got upset and caused them some problems!]
•Unrestrained society - drink and sex (4:3)
•Pluralistic society – idols (4:3)
•Hostile society to Christians
–Fiery ordeal (4:12)
–Maligned as evildoers (2:12)
–Considered shameful
This hostility was not from the Roman authorities (whom Peter told the Christians to honour), but from the locals. The exact nature of the persecution is uncertain but it appears to have involved a lot of false accusations – some of them quite serious. You may recall that Paul got in trouble with locals once when the local silversmiths got upset because his preaching diminished their trade in silver idols! They may have also been accused of things like cannibalism because of the communion ritual. In short, their suffering was because they were different, others were ignorant of what they were really about, and because of fear.
Another aspect of the society around them was that it was extremely concerned with showing honour to others - something that usually involved praising publicly the good deeds of others. They also were extremely concerned to avoid shame.
Peter reminds the Christians that their honour does not come from others, or the emperor, but through the genuiness of their faith and their behaviour during the siffering. In fact should they suffer for doing right (3;23) then it is to their honour and to the shame of those who persecute them.
PARALLELS
I see many parallels here with us and the society we live in …
Fearful
From yesterday's Press:
Dire climate warning
By PAUL GORMAN and PATRICK CREWDSON - The Press 05:00am
More violent floods and hurricanes, acute droughts and frequent heat-waves will plague the Earth if there are no massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, scientists say.
We are fearful – not so much of capricious Gods, but of what will happen to us and our planet. Will global warming “get us” as this Press article suggests.
Will it be terrorism?
Will we be destitute?
Will our friends still like us if we don’t get drunk with them?
Will he still like me if I don’t go to bed with him?
We are still a fearful society
Unrestrained
From yesterday's Press:
Alleged sex act by police officers
By STAFF REPORTERS - The Press 05:00am
Christchurch police are investigating allegations that two officers had sex outside a city station.
Such headlines should cause us shock, but they don't anymore because we are so used to a society which has seperated sex from love and revels in the debauchery involved.
Pluralistic
"Tolerance" is the new meta-religion.
Even our own church leaders have fallen for the myth that we must somehow show our tolerance by accepting other religions. Last year they allowed the erction of Buddhist statues on Cathedral property, and a Hindu text on an alter cloth.
Hostile
There are plenty who are publicly hostile to Christianity. One of the most vehement in recent times in Biologist and popular author who has not dropped all pretence of being a scientist and come out scathingly against the church in a new book called "The God Delusion" in which he
asserts the irrationality of belief in God and the grievous harm religion has inflicted on society, from the Crusades to 9/11.
On a local scale - I heard this mornign how a son-in-law had been preventing a grandmother from taking her 2 year old granddaughter to church.
You'll have your own stories of hostility.
PETER'S RESPONSE
You must Remeber (read the first chapter of 1 peter):
–Who you are in Christ – chosen, made holy (1:2)
–What God’s done – Prophets (1:10) – Jesus – New Birth (1:3)
–What God will do
•Inheritance – revealed in the “last time” (1:6)
•Give honour when Jesus returns (1:7)
•Fulfil our purpose – salvation of our souls (1:9)
Peter’s response was to remind everyone of who they where, what God has done and what God will do.
We live in a society that resists any overarching story (metanarrative) – a characteristic of postmodernism has been to reject the idea that anyone or any country can some how say how history really is.
We need to be reminded that God created, we messed up, and God put in a plan that peaked with Christ’s coming, but is yet to be fully played out.
In short
Christ has Died, Christ has Risen, Christ Will Come Again
and Peter continues
THEREFORE (we must ask what is it there for) prepare your minds for action.
In those days the mind was not centred in the brain but in the heart. When the Bible speaks of heart it is not speaking of passion or some ill defined feeling, but the core of our thinking that drives our behaviour.
What we put into our mind will ultimately come out of us – positively we focus on the promises of Christ – of Jesus coming again to right all wrongs, to bring us to completion in him
Negatively, we reject the ways of the fearful, pluralistic society around us and we set our lives aside for Christ. We are to be holy even as God is holy – a big call, but by the grace of God one we can strive towards every day of our lives.
In this way, Peter says, we will influence those around us – our friends, our bosses, our spouses. Even when some are hostile there will be questions to be answered and by preparing our minds for action we will be prepared to answer them.
Why should we be prepared?
I began talking of some of the things people say
“Jesus was a good man, but ….” “All truth is relative …” “Science has proved there is no God …” “If there is a God he wouldn’t have allowed …”
It is very tempting not to rock the boat and just ignore those comments. I can easily in my mind justify this by saying “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion “ (a postmodern cliché), or “God doesn’t need my help to defend the gospel”
This, though is very muddled thinking. We are asked to “give a reason” for two reasons
1. to prevent evil.
Today’s ideas are tomorrows actions, look at where some ideas led ...
–There is no God therefore everything is permissible (Nietzsche) – Hitler
–“Religion is the opiate of the masses” (Marx) – Stalin
– belief in God is not just wrong, but potentially deadly (Dawkins) - ????
Hitler was some one's grandson, he was someone's class mate, he was someone's work mate ... if one of them had managed to give him reasons for hope centred on Christ, how different history would be!
Who knows about those around you - they will be teachers, parents, and leaders. Are you ready to respond to them to prevent evil.
2. so that others too may have hope
We have no right to deny anyone hearing of the hope that we have. To the contrary for the sake of their souls – for the sake of their eternal life and all the other people they may come into contact with and may influence we must be prepared to speak of the hope that we have – of who we are in Christ, of Christ who has dies, Christ who has risen and Christ who will come again.
HOPE
Unlike lotto our hope is not pie in the sky – a “might”.
It is not individualistic, but for everyone.
Our hope is a certainty.
Our hope is based on Truth and the Truth shall set you free. One of the greatest challenges as a Church in New Zealand is to responds to a society that rejects absolute claims to truth. Personally, this is a challenge I have given myself – to try and understand the various subcultures of New Zealand and to find ways to respond to their questions with the truth. I am very interested in working with anyone else who wants to help me build bridges to convey the truth of the gospel and the hope that it brings.
The Challenge
Where do you place your hope?
Are you prepared?
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
