Furniture is heavy. Conversations while moving furniture can also be heavy.

I did a day's temp work yesterday shifting furniture at a local furniture shop - double beds, sofa beds, bookcases, wardrobes, that sort of thing. Turns out that a) they don't sell cheap and nasty mdf furniture, and b) real wood is really heavy.

I also spent a fair chunk of the afternoon debating belief in God with one of the other temps who was there that day. I used to do it loads at school in philosophy lessons, but I've been learning recently about the distinction between simply arguing generically for the existence of 'god', and actually pointing someone to Jesus. The problem with arguing in the abstract is that I'm not really trying to defend belief in 'a god', only belief in the one true God of the Bible. I'm not trying to say 'religion is good' - false religion isn't good - I'm actually kinda with Richard Dawkins on that much.
Ultimately the reason I believe in God, and think Him worth following, isn't because of the Design Argument or the Cosmological Argument (or even the Ontological Argument), it's because I believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus - who was God and man and died to take away my sin, rising again to prove that He had succeeded.

These are the most important questions to answer: who is Jesus? Was He really God? What did He do when He died? Did He rise again? And therefore - can I have a relationship with a God who loves me?
The Death and Resurrection of Jesus is the thing that the whole Bible hinges on - the Old Testament points towards it, and the New Testament exists because of it. All other apologetics are to some extent secondary, they are bridges to these questions - the identity and work of Jesus is of first importance. It is the proof of the validity of the whole Bible and it is the revelation of the character of the God of love and it is the way we can be reconciled to God. (For more on the love of God, check out the latest post on Denise's blog.)

How people respond to Jesus will govern how they respond to God ('if you've seen me you've seen the Father'). I still think apologetics questions are worth answering - but if you never come to the question of Jesus and the Gospel, you won't be coming to the true God.

I'm still learning how to effectively move a conversation from abstract intellectual stuff onto the Gospel - any thoughts? How would you go about that kind of conversation?

And what do you think of Jesus? Is He who He said He is - and why?

Does the Bible's account of the Resurrection add up?

I was on the interwebs today and came across a 'quiz' by an atheist that included some questions about the events in the gospel accounts surrounding the Resurrection, with the purpose of showing that the Bible accounts were inconsistent.

I confess I hadn't noticed these before, so I had a look at the Gospel accounts to see if this was accurate, turns out there are a few apparent inconsistencies (pertaining who went to the tomb when, and who they met when there etc.). Here are the 4 accounts:

Matthew 28:1-10

Mark 16:1-14

Luke 24:1-12

John 20:1-9

Dilemma, eh? Well, I had a look on the internet, and found what seems to be a pretty good accounting for the whole thing here.

As an interesting aside, it is also of note that the Bible characters confound the popular myth that is put round that people in those times where credulous and prepared to believe any old miracles, because they were superstitious and not naturalists like us. Well, in actual fact, I think the Jews of that time were probably not that different. Sure, they believed the Old Testament miracles, but there had been 400 years since the last significant prophetic activity - I imagine they saw miracles as a thing of the past.

However, more than that, firstly, Luke was a doctor, and he describes his intent to put together an orderly account based on interviews of eyewitnesses - he was systematic and thorough in seeking the facts.

Secondly, the couple on the road to Emmaus were also sceptical. They had been told that Jesus was risen, and yet rather than rushing to believe in a miracle, they were doubtful, and it was only when Jesus appeared to them, explaining how the whole Bible pointed to Jesus and His resurrection, that they actually believed.

Thirdly, Thomas was a thorough sceptic. Even when the other 11 said that they had actually seen Jesus, he still refused to believe until he saw Jesus for himself. He did not believe until he saw Jesus for himself.

Lastly, the Gospels also describe that Jesus explicitly told them that he must die and rise again, but when he did, rather than taking what he said at face value, the disciples debated what he meant by 'rising from the dead'. If they were quick-to-believe primitives, surely they would have worked out what Jesus meant? But they knew that dead men did not rise from the dead (even though they had seen Jesus do miracles, they were still slow to believe).

The Gospel account of the Resurrection is coherent, and is not simply the work of gullible, superstitious believers. The whole of the Christian faith hangs on the Resurrection - it is the evidence that proves that Jesus' redeeming work on the Cross worked. As Paul says in 1 Cor. 15 - if He did not rise from the dead, we will not also rise, and thus we have no hope for the future and of all men, Christians are the most pitiable. If we believe the Resurrection, we can believe anything else that the Bible says, because it is the summit - the whole Bible is aiming to this point.

The Resurrection is the central truth of the Christian faith - everything else stands or falls with it - so what do you think, do you find it credible?