Friday, December 30, 2016

Geologist Dr. Aryeh Shimron claims to have found the "lost tomb of Jesus" in Jerusalem, proclaimed the Drudge Report (9/18/16). This is known as the Talpiot Tomb, first discovered in 1980.

The implications of this claim, if it were true, are enormous — world-changing.

Writing for The Sun (UK), Hannah Farrett notes, "he apparently has proof that Jesus Christ is buried at a site in East Jerusalem. But now Aryeh has done some tests, which he says prove Jesus of Nazareth, his wife Mary Magdalene and SON Judah were laid to rest there."

She adds, "There are nine burial boxes in the tomb, and they all have names with links to the New Testament of the Bible on them …. This was highly controversial, given Christians believe Jesus was resurrected …. Some people rubbished the claims, saying all the names etched on the boxes were so common at the time there's no way of drawing any conclusions."

It certainly is "highly controversial." But is it true?

Short answer: No.

Dr. Paul L. Maier, Harvard-trained retired professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University, is a best-selling author. Most of his books are non-fiction. But he once wrote a novel called, A Skeleton in God's Closet.

The book deals with an alleged discovery of Jesus' tomb — providing actual "proof" that Jesus had not risen from the dead — bodily, historically, physically — and that the whole Christian church in all of its manifestations was, therefore, built on a lie. Soon, the whole thing (Christianity) collapsed — as well it should — if Jesus has not indeed risen from the dead.

For this column, I reached out to some leading New Testament scholars for comments.

Dr. Maier emailed me: "It seems that sensationalizing writers about Jesus always try twice to gain public attention with their bizarre claims when their first effort fails .... Now Israeli Geologist Aryeh Shimron has done the same thing in the case of the Talpiot Tomb in Jerusalem. Virtually the same headlines were used now as when the 'discovery' was first announced in 2007. It was junk then, it is junk now. The current warmed-over version will receive the same reception now as nine years ago: Dead on Arrival."

Dr. Michael Licona teaches at Houston Baptist University. The conclusion of his 700-plus page book, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, states: "Jesus' resurrection from the dead is the best historical explanation of the relevant historical bedrock" (p. 610).

He adds, "Since it fulfills all five of the criteria for the best explanation and outdistances competing hypotheses by a significant margin in their ability to fulfill the same criteria, the historian is warranted in regarding Jesus' resurrection as an event that occurred in the past."

Responding to this new story, Licona wrote me: "Some things in history are more certain than others. One fact that is virtually certain is Jesus' disciples were convinced their rabbi had risen from the dead and had appeared to them. The data supporting this fact are so secure that virtually 100 percent of all historians of Jesus grant it, whether Jewish, agnostic, or atheist."

And Licona notes, "Moreover, the earliest Christians proclaimed that Jesus had been raised bodily, leaving behind an empty grave. Dr. Shimron must explain how Jesus's corpse went missing, then received an honorable burial without any of His disciples ever learning about it. It seems more likely that Dr. Shimron is engaged in wishful thinking and that his claim to have found the family tomb of Jesus will soon be laid to rest in the graveyard of discarded fanciful hypotheses."

Dr. Gary Habermas of Liberty University is a walking encyclopedia on the resurrection of Jesus and has written on it voluminously. His book, The Secret of the Talpiot Tomb: Unraveling the Mystery of the Jesus Family Tomb (2008), shows why the Talpiot Tomb could not possibly contain the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth.

Habermas emailed me, "Thankfully, virtually no scholars support him [Shimron] at all."

Finally, I also received feedback on the alleged "lost tomb of Jesus" from Dr. Darrell Bock, one of the world's leading New Testament scholars. Bock teaches at Dallas Theological Seminary.

He emailed me, "Nothing has changed since this erroneous

conclusion was originally proposed. Jesus would not be

in a family tomb as his execution as a felon prevented

him by Jewish tradition from being buried in a

family tomb. In the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 6.5 says, 'And

they did not bury [the felon] in the burial grounds of his

ancestors.' So no burial with the family."

In short, the claim that the lost tomb of Jesus has been found is just recycled sensationalist rubble. As Maier noted: "I guess there is no end to the way these deluded sensationalists will try to whack a dead horse!"

In short, Jesus is risen indeed.

Geologist Says He Found Lost Tomb of Jesus; If True, Christianity Is a Lie

BY JERRY NEWCOMBE , CP OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

September 25, 2016|10:05 am

image: http://images.christianpost.com/full/67724/jerry-newcombe.jpg?w=262

Jerry Newcombe, D.Min., is an on-air host/senior producer for D. James Kennedy Ministries.

image: http://graphic.christianpost.com/images/homepage11/enlarge4.png

Geologist Dr. Aryeh Shimron claims to have found the "lost tomb of Jesus" in Jerusalem, proclaimed the Drudge Report (9/18/16). This is known as the Talpiot Tomb, first discovered in 1980.

The implications of this claim, if it were true, are enormous — world-changing.

It certainly is "highly controversial." But is it true?

Short answer: No.

For this column, I reached out to some leading New Testament scholars for comments.

Habermas emailed me, "Thankfully, virtually no scholars support him [Shimron] at all."

Finally, I also received feedback on the alleged "lost tomb of Jesus" from Dr. Darrell Bock, one of the world's leading New Testament scholars. Bock teaches at Dallas Theological Seminary.

He emailed me, "Nothing has changed since this erroneous conclusion was originally proposed. Jesus would not be in a family tomb as his execution as a felon prevented him by Jewish tradition from being buried in a family tomb. In the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 6.5 says, 'And they did not bury [the felon] in the burial grounds of his ancestors.' So no burial with the family."

In short, Jesus is risen indeed.

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/geologist-says-he-found-lost-tomb-of-jesus-if-true-christianity-is-a-lie-opinion-169953/#3tIxjBGMmsAMHqua.99

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/geologist-says-he-found-lost-tomb-of-jesus-if-true-christianity-is-a-lie-opinion-169953/#3p4r40s1xFLVC8K7.99

Thursday, December 29, 2016

Jesus Christ's Tomb --National Geography

I Photographed Jesus Christ's Tomb

Photographer Oded Balilty opened the window and showed the world one of the holiest sites

in Christianity

(Click the link below for the original article)

Photographed Jesus Christ's Tomb

The shrine that houses the traditional burial place of Jesus Christ is undergoing restoration inside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.

Members of the conservation team lift a stone to clean and digitally scan before reinstalling it on the façade of the Edicule, the shrine that houses what is believed to be the tomb of Jesus.

A Christian nun kneels in prayer at the "burial bed" of Christ inside the tomb shrine, known as the Edicule.

Steel girders supporting the Edicule will be removed when restoration work is completed next Spring.

(* note: the tomb of Jesus may refer to any place where it is believed that Jesus was entombed.)

Places that have been proposed as the location of such a tomb include:

Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem.
Garden Tomb, discovered in the 19th century outside the old city of Jerusalem
Talpiot Tomb, rock-cut tomb in the East Talpiot neighborhood,
five kilometers south of the Old City in East Jerusalem

No matter where the real location of Jesus' tomb is , His tomb is empty because He has risen from

death after 3 days in the tomb as He Himself predicted and as all the prophecies in OT Bible pointed

to. Jesus is living forever and will have 2nd coming at the end of the world.
tomb of christ

Jesus Has Risen!

Image result for jesus is risen from the dead

Saturday, December 24, 2016

Can I Marry a Robot? After Gay Marriage, Why Not?

BY MICHAEL BROWN , CP OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

Dec 24, 2016 | 9:50 AM

Do people have the right to marry the one they love, even if the one they love is a robot? If not, why not? After all, in the words of Lilly from France, who has fallen in love with her robot, "We don't hurt anybody, we are just happy."

Isn't that what matters in the end, that people are happy?

Lilly calls herself a "proud robosexual," and she fully plans on marrying her robot, whom she named InMoovator.

As explained in the Daily Mail, "Lilly is reportedly engaged to the robot and says they will marry when human-robot marriage is legalised in France."

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and has served as a professor at a number of seminaries. He is the author of 25 books and hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire.

But why should this surprise us? People have not only married their same-sex spouses (which has the merit of joining together fellow-humans, albeit completely opposite to the God-ordained male-female pattern), but they have married animals and inanimate objects and, with increasing frequency, married themselves.

Indeed, it was just a few days ago that Good Housekeeping – not some radical, far-out, tabloid – ran the story, "WHY I MARRIED MYSELF. Self-marriage is a small but growing movement around the world."

The article speaks at length (and with seriousness) about "solo weddings" and references people like Dominique, who "is a self-marriage counselor and minister, offering services including consulting sessions and private ceremonies through her website, Self Marriage Ceremonies, which she runs from her home in northern California."

The article also include self-marriage vows like these: "I will never leave myself." "I promise to ask for help when I'm suffering." "I promise to look in the mirror every day and be grateful." "I promise to give you the incredible life that you long for."

If, then, you can "marry" yourself — I ask again, why not, since you're not hurting anyone, which has been one of the loudest arguments used by advocates of same-sex "marriage" — why can't you marry a robot? At least the robot can provide both companionship and unflinching loyalty, also helping to lighten your daily load by performing some menial chores. And now, in ever increasing measure, robots can provide sex as well.

Just yesterday, the BBC ran a story in its Technology section called "Sex robots: Experts debate the rise of the love droids."

The article begins with these words: "Would you have sex with a robot? Would you marry one? Would a robot have the right to say no to such a union?

"These were just a few of the questions being asked at the second Love and Sex with Robots conference hastily rearranged at Goldsmiths University in London after the government in Malaysia, the original location, banned it."

Yes, this was a subject of a conference at a London university, and it ended with a speech by Dr. David Levy, who said, "We have companion robots and a partner robot is the logical continuation of the trend.

"In the next 10 years it is perfectly achievable in software to create a robot companion that is everything that people might want in a spouse — patient, kind, loving, trusting, respectful and uncomplaining," he said.

In light of these arguments, not to mention the personal story of Lilly (among others of like mind), I can think of only reason anyone would oppose robot marriage: robophobia. (Please forgive the sarcasm.) After all, robot marriage harms no one, robot marriage makes people happy, and perhaps robot marriage will even help bring sexual release to people who might otherwise show their aggression in socially harmful ways. And surely, in an increasingly robophilic world, I do not want to be categorized as robophobic. I'm no robophobe!

In all seriousness, I do understand that some people are very lonely and that, just like they can build deep bonds with their pets, they can build deep bonds with their (increasingly animated) robot companions. And I certainly make a clear distinction between gay "marriage" (which I recognize as potentially loving and committed, even while I reject it as real marriage) and robot "marriage."

But all this simply underscores the point that marriage advocates like myself have made over and again for years: Once you redefine marriage you render it meaningless. As further evidence I now present to you robot marriage.

And if you say in protest, "But marriage is the union of two people," I reply, "Who said that it's limited to two people or that it even requires two people?"

The fact is that once you move marriage away from its divinely intended, one man-one woman union for life, you open the door to virtually anything, including robot marriage.

Why not?

The Astronomy Behind The Star Of Bethlehem :

Myth or Reality?--The Star and the Magi

Can Astronomy Explain the Biblical Star of Bethlehem? | National News | US News

www.usnews.com

By David A Weintraub

Bright stars top Christmas trees in homes around much of the world. The faithful sing about the “Star of Wonder” that guided the wise men to a manger in the little town of Bethlehem, where Jesus was born. They’re commemorating the Star of Bethlehem described by the Evangelist Matthew in the New Testament. Is the star’s biblical description a pious fiction or does it contain some astronomical truth?

Puzzles for astronomy

To understand the Star of Bethlehem, we need to think like the three wise men. Motivated by this “star in the east,” they first traveled to Jerusalem and told King Herod the prophecy that a new ruler of the people of Israel would be born. We also need to think like King Herod, who asked the wise men when the star had appeared, because he and his court, apparently, were unaware of any such star in the sky.

These events present us with our first astronomy puzzle of the first Christmas: How could King Herod’s own advisers have been unaware of a star so bright and obvious that it could have led the wise men to Jerusalem?

Next, in order to reach Bethlehem, the wise men had to travel directly south from Jerusalem; somehow that “star in the east” “went before them, ’til it came and stood over where the young child was.” Now we have our second first-Christmas astronomy puzzle: How can a star “in the east” guide our wise men to the south? The North Star guides lost hikers to the north, so shouldn’t a star in the east have led the wise men to the east?

And we have yet a third first-Christmas astronomy puzzle: How does Matthew’s star move “before them,” like the taillights on the snowplow you might follow during a blizzard, and then stop and stand over the manger in Bethlehem, inside of which supposedly lies the infant Jesus?

The astronomer in me knows that no star can do these things, nor can a comet, or Jupiter, or a supernova, or a conjunction of planets or any other actual bright object in the nighttime sky. One can claim that Matthew’s words describe a miracle, something beyond the laws of physics. But Matthew chose his words carefully and wrote “star in the east” twice, which suggests that these words hold a specific importance for his readers.

Can we find any other explanation, consistent with Matthew’s words, that doesn’t require that the laws of physics be violated and that has something to do with astronomy? The answer, amazingly, is yes.

Astronomer Michael Molnar points out that “in the east” is a literal translation of the Greek phrase en te anatole, which was a technical term used in Greek mathematical astrology 2,000 years ago. It described, very specifically, a planet that would rise above the eastern horizon just before the sun would appear. Then, just moments after the planet rises, it disappears in the bright glare of the sun in the morning sky. Except for a brief moment, no one can see this “star in the east.”

We need a little bit of astronomy background here. In a human lifetime, virtually all the stars remain fixed in their places; the stars rise and set every night, but they do not move relative to each other. The stars in the Big Dipper appear year after year always in the same place. But the planets, the sun, and the moon wander through the fixed stars; in fact, the word planet comes from the Greek word for wandering star. Although the planets, sun and moon move along approximately the same path through the background stars, they travel at different speeds, so they often lap each other. When the sun catches up with a planet, we can’t see the planet, but when the sun passes far enough beyond it, the planet reappears.

And now we need a little bit of astrology background. When the planet reappears again for the first time, and rises in the morning sky just moments before the sun, for the first time in many months after having been hidden in the sun’s glare for those many months, that moment is known to astrologers as a heliacal rising. A heliacal rising, that special first reappearance of a planet, is what en te anatole referred to in ancient Greek astrology. In particular, the reappearance of a planet like Jupiter was thought by Greek astrologers to be symbolically significant for anyone born on that day.

Thus, the “star in the east” refers to an astronomical event with supposed astrological significance in the context of ancient Greek astrology.

What about the star parked directly above the first crèche? The word usually translated as “stood over” comes from the Greek word epano, which also had an important meaning in ancient astrology. It refers to a particular moment when a planet stops moving and changes apparent direction from westward to eastward motion. This occurs when the Earth, which orbits the Sun more quickly than Mars or Jupiter or Saturn, catches up with, or laps, the other planet.

Together, a rare combination of astrological events (the right planet rising before the sun; the sun being in the right constellation of the zodiac; plus a number of other combinations of planetary positions considered important by astrologers) would have suggested to ancient Greek astrologers a regal horoscope and a royal birth.

Molnar believes that the wise men were, in fact, very wise and mathematically-adept astrologers. They also knew about the Old Testament prophecy that a new king would be born of the family of David. Most likely, they had been watching the heavens for years, waiting for alignments that would foretell the birth of this king. When they identified a powerful set of astrological portents, they decided the time was right to set out to find the prophesied leader.

If Matthew’s wise men actually undertook a journey to search for a newborn king, the bright star didn’t guide them; it only told them when to set out. And they wouldn’t have found an infant swaddled in a manger. After all, the baby was already 8-months-old by the time they decoded the astrological message they believed predicted the birth of a future king. The portent began on April 17 of 6 B.C. (with the heliacal rising of Jupiter that morning, followed, at noon, by its lunar occultation in the constellation Aries) and lasted until Dec. 19 of 6 B.C. (when Jupiter stopped moving to the west, stood still briefly, and began moving to the east, as compared with the fixed background stars). By the earliest time the men could have arrived in Bethlehem, the baby Jesus would likely have been at least a toddler.

Matthew wrote to convince his readers that Jesus was the prophesied Messiah. Given the astrological clues embedded in his gospel, he must have believed the story of the Star of Bethlehem would be convincing evidence for many in his audience.

Friday, December 23, 2016

Did Adam & Eve have some knowledge before they ate the forbidden fruit?

According to Genesis man was already intelligent before partaking the fruit of the forbidden tree. At that time, Adam had already named the animals. And upon seeing Eve, his words take the form of Hebrew poetry.

This is bone of my bone
and flesh of my flesh
she shall be called woman
for she was taken out of man.

(Note the parallelism especially in the first two lines.)

*So I think A&E were not as ignorant as many think, that they couldn't have resisted the temptation of a stranger.( the ancient serpent) ( this above comment is inserted by me)

Frank Luke is on the right track when he suggests that there are different kinds of knowledge, and that Adam, prior to his fall, had already been endowed with knowledge and had used it in various ways, which included his fellowship with God. Knowledge is part of what it means to be created in the image of God. Call it intellect, call it rational and abstract thinking, or call it knowledge. What kinds of knowledge are there?

There is head knowledge.

There is experiential knowledge.

There is knowledge that is an admixture of the two.

What I have to say next may seem like a digression, but it's not, so bear with me. Years ago as a counselor at a Christian rescue mission in New York City, I got to know a resident at the mission by the name of Craig. He was a longtime drug addict, but he had been clean and sober for awhile and he manifested certain encouraging signs that he was on the road to recovery.

One day as I was chatting with him, he suggested that I would be a better counselor to him, a drug addict, if I myself had had struggles with drug addiction, too. Somehow, to him at least, my not being a recovering drug addict made me less competent to counsel him than someone else who had walked in his moccasins, so to speak.

Was Craig right? Before you answer my question, go back immediately to God's prohibition to Adam in Genesis 2. Keep in mind that the "knowledge of good and evil" is a Hebraism that means "the whole gamut of knowledge, from one extreme to the other, and everything in between." Would Adam somehow be a better counselor to his progeny if he were to disobey God, thereby acquiring experiential knowledge of death (separation from God)? I hope you respond by saying "God forbid!" or "May it never be thus!"

Was God withholding anything good from His creatures by telling them there was a kind of knowledge that was off limits to them? Again, I would hope you'd say "No!" All the things you mention in your question--"creativity, intelligence, innovations, explorations and discoveries" were already aspects of God's endowment to Adam and his soon-to-be wife. One thing "missing" from that endowment was a kind of experiential knowledge in one direction, and one direction only, and that was in the direction of evil.

If God did not withhold anything good from Adam, ergo Adam was not lacking anything good. [I insert an edit here:] Via the vehicle of God's gift of eternal life to Adam--God's Plan A, as it were, Adam had the privilege of discovering in time and space more and more of: 1) God's goodness, and 2) all the good things God had created both for Adam's benefit and God's glory, and which God had pronounced "very good" (Ge 1:31). [edit ends here]

Now, go back to Craig. Was he correct in his thinking? In one sense, yes he was! It is obviously easier to empathize with people when you have been in their shoes. Perhaps recovering drug addicts do make better counselors to other recovering drug addicts, in part because both groups have experiential knowledge of an obvious evil. However, is the message of recovery any different whether it is coming from a non-drug addict or a recovering one? No.

Adam's heeding God's message would have led him to grow in the right kind of knowledge (both "head" knowledge and "experiential" knowledge) as he continued to live in the path God had laid out for him.

Would Adam's progeny have been better off had their first parents not acquired the knowledge of evil? Most definitely. Not only would they have lived forever, physically and spiritually, but their "creativity, intelligence, innovations, explorations and discoveries" would have been enhanced and would not have been, as we know they became, alloyed with the stigma of sin.

ADDENDUM:

A question arises, "If Adam already knew the good, what's the point of there being a tree of good AND evil--why not just EVIL?" (I.e., "Why would the tree offer him what he already had?")

Adam's having been created in the image of God meant that he possessed not only intellect (knowledge) but also volition (will). Since evil had already entered the universe through Satan, whom God also gave volition, there must be from God's perspective something special about volition--and there is! Had God wanted to create man without volition, He could have. That He created man with volition implies He wanted man to have what volition itself implies: the ability to choose obedience. Obedience was, as it were, Adam's "default setting."

While Adam could have chosen to live his life on this default setting, he chose evil instead. Remember, God in His wisdom had already allowed evil to infect the universe by allowing Lucifer to rebel against Him, and Lucifer took with him perhaps a third of the angelic hosts.

At this point in my addendum we cannot avoid the subject of theodicy, which is in essence a way to reconcile two seemingly irreconcilable axioms: 1) God is holy, omniscient, and omnipotent; and 2) God imparted His attribute of volition to His creatures, both celestial and terrestrial, fully knowing they would exercise their wills in opposition to His.

A good theodicy suggests that while God could have prevented evil from raising its ugly head, His eternal decrees prevented Him from doing so. From a human and necessarily finite perspective, we might ask: Would it not have been better for God simply to take a mulligan, as it were, annihilate Satan and his cohorts, and simply start over again? No.

Despite His hating evil, God knew from eternity past that He would eradicate evil from His universe once and for all, but only after He implemented in time and space His plan for the ages and within the grand arc of history. Through this plan He would 1) vindicate His holy character; 2) gather a people unto Himself who would willingly and obediently choose to follow Him; and 3) usher in a new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells forever and ever.

Satan and his world system and all who align themselves with that system, will one day be separated eternally from God's new creation, and sin thereafter will be eternally powerless to infect that new creation. From our finite perspective, we are tempted to rail against God and ask "WHY? Why did you allow sin to enter the universe in the first place? Weren't you powerful enough to prevent evil?"

If there were ever a best time to invoke the words of Isaiah, perhaps it would have to be now:

"'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,' declares YHWH. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.'"

Recall what I said above about God's other attributes which co-exist with His omnipotence; namely, His holiness and His omniscience (or infinite wisdom). At this point I would add a fourth attribute: His love, the kind of love which can be expressed only in a relationship.

Here is where Judaism and Christianity have to part ways. If love cannot exist apart from relationship, then either a relationship already existed from all eternity within the Godhead, among Father, Son, and Spirit), or God, whom Jews and Muslims alike insist must not be associated with any other infinite being, could express His love only by creating sentient beings with whom He could have a relationship.

Christians cannot accept the latter assumption in that it suggests God is somehow incomplete without us. Even the Tanak makes it clear that God needs neither anything or anyone in order to be complete. He is already, always was, and always will be perfectly complete.

Because God is love He chose to create us in His image so that we could share in the love fest with Him. This is our inestimable privilege if we choose to enter into a relationship with Him. We can do so, however, only on His terms, not ours. Sad to say, many people, even religious people, think we are all children of God by virtue of having been born. Not so, which John 1:11-13 makes clear:

"[Jesus] came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."

Perhaps I am oversimplifying, but for me, I choose to believe that God is a triune God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son, and Spirit. Love within the Godhead triggered the creative work of God, and while from our finite point of view God seems to have made a mistake by creating sentient beings (first, angels, and then, humans), I am willing to defer to God in what are, ultimately, only partially-answerable questions. He alone is God. I, on the other hand, am just a man. He is the Potter, and we all are the clay, literally:

"Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being" (Ge 2:7).

and figuratively:

"But now, O YHWH, You are our Father, We are the clay, and You our potter; And all of us are the work of Your hand" (Isa 64:8).

"Will the clay say to the potter, 'What are you doing?'" (Isa 45:9).

"Shall the potter be considered as equal with the clay, That what is made would say to its maker, 'He did not make me'; Or what is formed say to him who formed it, 'He has no understanding'?" (Isa 29:16).

"The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it?" (Ro 9:20,21).

In conclusion, we creatures of clay may struggle with doubts about the Potter's modus operandi, but at least three things can assuage the doubts and questions with which we grapple: 1) God loves us too much to be in the least bit threatened by us or upset with us for all our doubts and questions; 2) God invites us to enter into relationship with Him, to choose the good and refuse the evil; and 3) God will have the last word regarding both good and evil, and His last word, though a terror to some, will also be music to the ears of others.

(p.s. above quotes are taken from this link below.)

genesis - Could the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" mean "tree of ...

hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/5444/...of-knowledge...mean.../5449

Jul 22, 2013 -

In Lions' Den 獅穴尋光

Labels

Friday, December 30, 2016

Lost Tomb of Jesus?