Ask Augustine:

Question:  I recently saw the movie, "The Nativity Story" in which it gives the names of the Wisemen. Where are their names and such details of their travels given in the Bible?

For the most part the movie, "The Nativity Story" does a better job than most Hollywood productions in holding to the facts as recorded in Scripture. Of course to fill in the gaps of the story, the producers do take many liberties. But even in doing so, I did not find that they distorted the Truth of the story. In fact, I found that their extra-biblical "fill-ins" provided further illustrations of the significance of His birth. One such example is when the three Wisemen present their gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. The movie has them speaking words that are not recorded in Scripture, yet their words specifically identify each gift as acknowledging Jesus as "King, Priest and Prophet." One could assume that the film directors added these words due to the prophecy found in Isaiah 60:6b, "And they shall proclaim the praises of the Lord." My only criticism of the film was at the end. The movie has the Wisemen arbitrarily deciding not to return Herod, rather than showing that their decision was due to a "divine warning" as recorded in Matthew 2:12.

Some authorities incline toward the opinion that the shepherds' who visited the newborn Jesus were the same persons as the wise men who came from the East. Only the Gospel of Mathew records the story of the wise men, and only the Gospel of Luke records the story of the shepherds. The Gospels of Mark and John refer to neither the shepherds nor the wise men, or for that matter, any of the physical events surrounding Jesus' birth.

The passage in Luke (chapter 2 verses 8 through 20), which provides the only biblical information we have about the shepherds who visited the newborn Jesus, has many points in common with the story of the wise men related in Mathew (chapter 2 verses 1 through 12). Although some authorities regard the two as merely different versions of the same event, there is not sufficient evidence to establish that these shepherds and the wise men were the same persons. The conventional opinion is that they were not the same.

The names number and nationality of the wise men from the East who followed the star of the newborn Jesus to Jerusalem and Bethlehem are not given in the Bible. This beautiful story is told in Matthew 2:1-12, and that is all the information there is in the Bible about the wise men. Early traditional writers fixed their number at three, probably because three gifts are mentioned.

A legend, apparently dating from the second or third century, refers to them as kings. Later legends give them names: Gasper (white), Melchior (light) and Balthasar (lord of the treasury house). Many Bible scholars suppose the three wise men to have been Magi, members of the priestly caste in Persia. This opinion is supported by two circumstances: in Palestine the east generally refers to Persia; and the religion of the Magi, which was similar to that of Zoroaster, included belief in the advent of a messiah.

The book of travels by Marco Polo 1299 A.D. contains an interesting reference to this subject. Marco Polo wrote of a city in Persia called Saba, in which the three Magi are supposedly buried. A medieval legend speaks of them as "the three kings of Cologne." According to this legend, Helena, the mother of Constantine the Great, discovered the bones of the Magi in Persia and took them to Constantinople. In 1162 the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa took them from Milan to the Cologne cathedral where the skulls have been exhibited for many centuries. The names of the three kings were widely used as a charm, and it was believed that those who touched the bones would be healed of all diseases. However, all of this is, of course, extra-biblical.

Question:  Is God a He?

All of our language is but a human symbol. It describes a reality outside of itself. We humans will also use pictures, gestures, rituals, myths, metaphors, etc. as symbols.

Traditionally the Church has presented God as "He,"as King, as Lord, etc.; which some of the more recent feminists have resented because they maintain that those symbols exclude women. In 1976 a task force was formed with the worthwhile goal of finding ways to make worship and Christian education more inclusive for all participants. Thus, feminine liberation "theologians" like Letty Russell argued that using such symbols are powerful and thus assigned women to an inferior status, alienated women and ran the risk of making God too small. Feminist Virginia Mollenkott maintained that referring to God as Mother and Father broadens the concept of God. Another feminist theologian, Rosemary Radford Ruether further argued that those who imagined God as a male were guilty of idolatry. The dean of the Harvard Divinity School in the 1970's, Krister Stendal, agreed with Ruether.

Against all this it was argued that altering and renaming God is serious business. If these feminist theologians views are out of synchronization with who God "really is" (as He has revealed Himself), then it is not really God whom they are re-imagining and worshipping; thus, such re-imagining and worshipping on the part of these feminists would be the idolatry which the Bible condemns.

To this, the feminist theologians countered that Biblical words of faith are "ciphers of transcendence", alterable symbols, pointing to a God who was an impersonal or supra-personal force, or "ground of all being." Also, because the Bible symbolizes God as possessing feminine characteristics, they could take the liberty of calling God "She" or "Mother." They claimed that using female as well as male pronouns to address God would de-sexualize Him. (Actually the opposite happens, because when we switch from the masculine to the feminine in the description of God, we reduce God to sexuality.)

In presenting an image of a deity who is bisexual or androgynous one obviates the God of Scripture who transcends the polarity of the sexes. In renaming God as She/He, these feminist theologians strip God of independent, personalized existence. The God of Scripture is a personalized entity who chose to relate to us primarily as "male."

When these theologians further extend the practice or re-naming God to other metaphors such are "rock," "eagle," "door," etc., God's personality is further diffused to encompass all natural phenomena. By 1988, God became a "force" as feminist theologian Virginia Mollenkott further extended God's name from "She/He" to "She/He/It."

As these feminists argued that God should not be addressed as "Father, Lord, Ruler, Judge, Master, and King" due to the male patriarchal overtones of these words, Donald Bloesch of Dubuque Seminary argued that such words as Father and Lord, when applied to God were analogies "sui generis." That is, they were not derived from the "experience" of human fatherhood or lordship, but from God's act of revealing Himself as Father and Lord. Bloesch wrote, "It is not that God resembles a Father, but in calling Him Father the Bible challenges the human view of what a father should be. The same is true for descriptions of God as Judge, Lord, Savior, and Son."

Many feminist and liberal theologians recently have had field day in suggesting a number of alternative names to the traditional Trinitarian formula of Father/Son/Holy Spirit. They propose in its stead names such as Creator/Redeemer/Sustainer, Source/Servant/Guide, Fire/Rock/Wind, etc. The difficulty with this practice is that it speaks of what God "does" rather than to who He "is." Father/Son/Holy Spirit refers to a threefold self-relatedness within the Godhead and not to a human or societal relationship. Furthermore, it would have been easy for a Creator to sacrifice a Redeemer, or a Source to sacrifice a Servant, but it was not so easy for a Father to sacrifice His Son.

Contrary to these liberal feminine theologians, many Biblical feminists shun the radical revisions of Scripture and the alteration of core Christian doctrines. Understanding God as Father/Son/Holy Spirit as being in relationship within Himself is essential to understanding God. Theologians who deny this relationship, deny who God is.

Yes, there have been (and unfortunately still are) those who, under the guise of false Christian doctrine, have scorned women, have maligned those whom God has called holy, and have held to a prideful superiority of men. There are many false male "theologians" who have self-centeredly attempted to shape truth and reality. But their error does not justify feminism's quest to do the same.

The reality of God exists independent of our human distortion of that reality. God does not leave us on our own to blindly grope about for answers to our existence. He has revealed Himself in Scripture and we must allow Him to name Himself.

Question:  Does the Bible mention anyone who had 24 fingers and toes?

A Philistine giant mentioned in I Chronicles 20:6 had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot. This phenomenon, called polydactylism, is commonly known from ancient texts and art. In an early temple in Jericho, a six-toed clay statue was found. In Assyria, a child with six fingers on the left hand was considered a good sign, but six fingers on the right hand was a sign of bad fortune.

We never read of giants among the Israelites as we do of the giants of the Philistines. The biblical point of these stories is that our usefulness to God is not found in our bulk. Those who are on God's side need not fear the loftiness of giants (physical or problematic) nor of their mortifying lofty looks. We need not fear great men against us while we have the great God for us. What will a finger more on each hand do, or a toe more on each foot do, in contest with the Almighty?

Question:  What does it mean to "meditate on God's Word?"

The Hebrew word for meditation is "hagah" which is also used to describe the coo of a dove, the growl of a lion, the plotting of evil rulers as well as the reading of the Bible. Since, these things are all done audibly, when the Jews were instructed to meditate on God's word as in Psalm 1:2, this meant that they should recite it aloud to themselves.

Question:  Who were the Samaritans?

The Samaritans were Israelites who arose in and around Samarian and Mount Gerizim after the Assyrians sacked the city in 722 B.C. They were conservative in doctrine and only accepted the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) as Scripture. Occasionally they made changes for doctrinal reasons, such as substituting Mount Gerizim, which was their sacred mountain, for Mount Ebal in Deuteronomy 27:4, as the place where the law was to be written on the alter.

Question:  I hear some of my Jewish friends speak of the Tanakh; what is that?

The Tanakh is what Jews call their Bible and it is the acronym for the Hebrew Bible. The word Tanakh is based upon the three divisions of the Hebrew Bible: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. The Hebrew words for these are "Torah," "Nebi'im" and "Kethubim." The first three letters of these words are "TNK" which come together in the word Tanakh.

We are often challenged in our Bible study to give our interpretation of various characters the story of the Good Samaritan found in Luke 10:30-36. Did the early church have an interpretation?

Allegorical interpretation of this and other parables were popular in church history. Here is part of one early church father's, Origen's, interesting interpretation.

The man going down to Jericho = Adam; his starting point of Jerusalem = Paradise; Jericho = this world; the robbers = hostile influences and enemies; his wounds = sins; the priest = the law; the Levites = the prophets; the Good Samaritan = Christ; the animal on which the Good Samaritan set the man = the Body of Christ; the inn = the church; the innkeeper = guardian angels = the return of the Good Samaritan = the second coming of Christ.

Question:  Are earthquakes mentioned in the Bible?

The Bible mentions three actual earthquakes. First during the reign of Uzziah as recorded in Amos 1:1, second was on the day of Jesus' crucifixion just after He died as recorded in Matthew 27:51-53 and the third was when Paul and Silas were imprisoned at Philippi as recorded in Acts 16:26.

Dumb question: Does the Bible prohibit tattoos?

Leviticus 19:28 prohibits self-mutilation of any sort, "You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you." This prohibition was mainly because such self-mutilation was practiced in several pagan cults. A good illustration of this may be found in I Kings 18:28 where the prophets of Baal cut themselves with knives while they were trying to get Baal to send down fire from heaven.

Question:  What does the word "manna" mean?

The Israelites were provided with "bread from heaven" in the wilderness. It appeared each morning as a fine, white, flaky substance on the ground that tasted like wafers and honey. Its name came from the puzzled Israelites, who asked "man-hu?" which means "what is it?"

Question:  Others as well as yourself have done an effective job in debunking much of the Davinci Code, yet I think there is historical and biblical evidence that Jesus was married, as is argued by "Bishop" John Shelby Spong among others. John 2:1-12 recounts Jesus' own wedding since all his family were there and most Jewish men were married well before the age of 30. What do you think about this conclusion?

First, thank you for the compliment. Actually the Da Vinci Code was akin a slingshot trying to demolish Gibraltar. The Christian faith is based squarely on history not mythology, on fact and not fiction and thus we are well equipped to defend the faith against such assaults as were made in Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code.

Now let me address your specific question as to there being historical and biblical evidence about Jesus being married. Yes we know that most Jewish men did get married before age 30, which, according to Luke 3:23, is about how old Jesus was when He began His ministry. However, it is not true that all Jewish men married. Archeologically we know from the ruins of Qumran and biblically we know of special cases like John the Baptist that there were various exceptions. We also have Jesus" own teaching for His disciples in Matthew 19:10-12 that it is fine to be celibate for the sake of the coming Kingdom of God, especially if one cannot handle life-long fidelity in marriage. Therefore, for one to say that Jesus got married has to be a weak argument from silence unless John 2:1012 specifically says so.

John 2:1 tells us that there was a wedding in Cana and that not only were Jesus' brothers and disciples there, but also His mother were there. This is an odd statement if she was in fact the mother of the groom. It would not be necessary to emphasize that she was present if this was a wedding in which she had an important role to play. Verse 2 says that His disciples had also been invited to the wedding. Again, this is very odd language if this is a story about Jesus' own wedding or even a wedding of any of His siblings. Then in verse 3, when the wine runs out, Mary tells Jesus that they have no wine. To which Jesus replies, in verse 4, "What is that to you and to me?" Clearly neither Mary nor Jesus has any obligation in the catering affairs of this event, which they would have had were it His of a family member's wedding.

But the clincher that the story is not about Jesus' wedding is found in verse 12. We are told that Jesus went down from Cana to Capernaum after the wedding celebration WITH HIS MOTHER, His brothers AND His disciples. Now whatever else "Bishop" Spong and others might say about early Jewish weddings one thing is sure; when it is over the groom does not go home with his mother, his family and his friends.

Thus, we are not dealing with Jesus' wedding in John 2:1-12 or anywhere else in the New Testament or in early Christian tradition. Even the less historically accurate Gnostic gospels do not tell us that Jesus was married, much less to Mary Magdalene. This is not because there is a theological problem with His being married but because historically is never happened.

Question:  Today, February 3 is the 64th. anniversary of sinking of the S.S. Dorchester. Would you repeat the heroic story about the four chaplains who went down with that ship?

I am please to repeat this story, which for me, was one of the greatest acts of heroism in American history. It is a story that brings me to tears each time I write or tell it

Yes, February 3 marks the anniversary of the sacrifice of the four chaplains. One was Methodist, one was Roman Catholic, one was Jewish and one was a Calvinist. The story begins on January 22, 1943.

The S.S. Dorchester, tied up at the Army embarkation pier in New York Harbor, was rusting through her battered gray paint. Soon she would be sailing out into the North Atlantic, the bitter battleground of the second winter of World War II.

Once the S.S. Dorchester had been a luxury cruise liner, accommodating 314 cabin passengers in style and opulence. Now, guttered and refitted, she became a troop ship. This trim little coastal steamer seemed too small and too slow for hazardous duty, but with Nazi submarines sinking Allied ships faster than they could be replaced, every available craft had to be pressed into service.

This night 534 soldiers (more than half of the 904 soldiers who would be sailing on the Dorchester) trudged aboard to be berthed in below deck bunks stacked four-high. Four Army chaplains, Lieutenants Fox, Goode, Poling and Washington were aboard the Dorchester. For Lt. George Fox, it was the second time around.

George Lansing Fox was not old enough when President Wilson called the nation to arms back in the spring of 1917, but Fox tells officials he is 18. He is assigned to an ambulance company and served in every major American campaign. Two days before Armistice, Fox is caught in an artillery barrage. His back is riddled with shrapnel and he is decorated with a Silver Star, a Purple Heart and the French Cross.

He returns to civilian life and gets a job as an accountant in his native state of Vermont, but feels a call to preach and enrolls in a Bible Institute in Chicago. He meets his future wife; they marry and have two children. At age 34 he is ordained by the Methodist Church and rides the circuit of half a dozen villages that are too small to afford their own pastor. He is content until the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor. Now past 40, he volunteers for the Corps of Chaplains.

On Saturday, January 23, 1943 the Dorchester joins a convoy of freighters, troopships, tankers and naval escorts steaming east through the swelling gray-green seas. After seasickness, the most compelling preoccupation was guessing where the ship was bound. "Hey come on Rabbi," someone called to Lt. Goode, "Tell us where we are going." Pledged to secrecy, Goode replied, "Vot! Und spoil da surprise?"

Three years to the day after the Armistice that ended WW I, on November 11, 1921, a hush fell over Arlington National Cemetery. Ten-year-old Alexander David Goode stands at the edge of a crowd and watches a soldier laid to rest. No one knows his name, he is America's unknown soldier whose name is known but to God. Tears fill young Goode's eyes as his heart swells with love for his country.

In high school, Goode joins the National Guard. His father is a rabbi, as was his father, and his father. And so, Alex Goode becomes a rabbi too. He marries his childhood sweetheart. When WW II breaks out he is leading the temple in York, PA. Goode joins the Corps of Chaplains and puts in for overseas duty.

On Saturday, January 30, 1943, at a fueling stop in Newfoundland, the soldiers no longer doubted their destination. As the Dorchester left Newfoundland three Coast Guard cutters escorted it. Two patrolled its flanks, while the third, the Tampa, was 3,000 yards out front. They were entering the dangerous waters where dozens of ships had been blasted to the bottom by German U-boats.

It turned bitterly cold. The sea rose and smashed against the ships. Ice began building up on the decks slowing the Dorchester to ten knots as the bulkheads groaned and the steering chain clanked with every correction, as the ships continued north through gale-force winds.

Clark Poling's family had a long tradition in the ministry, dating back seven generations. As a young man, Clark tells his father Daniel Poling (a noted clergyman of his day) that he is going to break family tradition and become a lawyer.

At Hope College in Holland, Michigan, Clark gets into mischief, and his grades suffer. During his sophomore year he tells his father, "Dad, I am going to preach. I can't deny the calling." Clark enters Yale Divinity School, is ordained in 1938, and is called to the First Reformed Church in Schenectady, NY. When WW II comes, Clark is married, has a two year old son and his wife is expecting. "Don't pray for my safe return," he tells his father, "Pray that I do my duty."

On Tuesday, February 2, 1943 the Tampa dropped back and swept the periphery but failed to detect the sub's position. In evening she returns to patrol the area up front as the other ships scrupulously follow.

Aboard the Dorchester, Capt. Hans J. Danielson ordered the men to sleep in their clothing with life jackets close at hand. They were only 150 miles from their destination and with daylight there would be cover from the American base.

All four chaplains are summoned to pierce the gloom that is growing among the men. Lt. Washington jokingly announced that God was prepared to forgive the poker players for raising the stakes from pennies to quarters. One soldier slyly asked him to bless his hand. Father Washington looked at the cards and stated loudly, "Bless a measly pair of deuces?" The men began laughing and the tension broke.

John Washington was the first of seven children born to Irish immigrant parents in Newark, NJ. The family doesn't have much, but like others in the neighborhood, join hands and celebrate: baptisms, first Communions, marriages and childbirths. At age 12 John is stricken with a severe throat infection and when the doctors have done all they can, the parish priest administered the last rites. But John survived and tells his sister, Anna, "God must have something special He wants me to do."

John becomes a Roman Catholic priest, and in 1937 is assigned to St. Stephen 's in Arlington, NJ. He has served there five years and when the Second World War comes, Father John applies for a chaplaincy. He now knows what God wants of him.

On Wednesday, February 3, 1943, just after midnight, very few of the men were asleep and even fewer were wearing their clothes despite the orders. Down in the hold it was just too hot.

At 12:55 AM a German U-boat caught the Dorchester in its cross hairs. The Dorchester was torpedoed. Men poured up out of the gangways, stunned and disoriented. The wound to the Dorchester was mortal; the ship took on water rapidly and began listing to starboard.

Without power, the radio was silenced. No one thought to send up a distress flare. The escort vessels pushed on into the darkness, unaware that the Dorchester was sinking. Overcrowded lifeboats capsized. Rafts drifted away before anyone could reach them.

The men milled around the deck. Many had come up from the hold without life jackets; others wearing nothing but underwear, felt the artic blasts and knew they had only minutes to live.

The testimonies of the survivors tell us that the sole order in that ferment of struggling men, that the only fragment of hope, came from the four chaplains who suddenly appeared on the sloping starboard side. Calmly they guided men to their boat stations, opened a storage locker and distributed life jackets. They coaxed men, frozen with fear, over the side.

One of the survivors, Coast Guard CPO John J. Mahoney (a Catholic) realized he had forgotten his gloves and started back to his cabin. He was stopped by Chaplain Goode, "Never mind," Goode said, "Take these; I have two pairs." Later Mahoney realized the truth. A man preparing to abandon ship doesn't carry extra gloves. Rabbi Goode had already decided he was not leaving the Dorchester.

Another survivor, Engineer Grady Clark saw the chaplains coolly handing out life jackets until there were no more left. Then he watched in awe as they gave away their own. By now the rail was awash and Engineer Clark slipped into the frigid water. Looking back as he swam away, he saw the chaplains standing, their arms linked, braced against the slanting deck. They were praying.

Other men drew close. There were no more outcries, no panic, just words of prayer in Hebrew, in Latin and in English, addressed to the same God as the Dorchester slid down into the sea.

Of the 904 men aboard the troop carrier, 605 were lost. Those who lived will never forget the chaplains' heroism. By vote of Congress on January 18, 1961, a Special Medal of Heroism, the only one ever given, was posthumously given to the four chaplains. February 3 became Four Chaplains Observance Day.

The heroism of these four chaplains continues to speak to something deep in our hearts. Father Washington did not call out for a Catholic when he handed over his life jacket, nor did Rabbi Goode for a Jew, nor did Fox for a Methodist, nor did Poling for a Calvinist. They gave them to the next soldier in line, and then stood shoulder to shoulder in mutually supporting faith. "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends," (John 15:13) and that is what the four chaplains did.

Question:  Would you please give us your personal thoughts (not those of any denomination or institution) regarding the "para-church" and "seeker sensitive" worship services?

In approximately 42 weeks it will be time to re-decorate my house for Christmas. It's always a sad day when we take down our Christmas decorations and in the weeks that follow, I avoid those winter blues by counting down the weeks until we re-enter the attic for those boxes of Christmas trimmings. But the decorations are not the only things I enjoy about the Christmas season.

At Christmas time there are these wonderful hymns. If we look at them, they are absolutely stunning. We can't help but worship when we speak the words that are expressed in these hymns. They are so much about God and His purpose, and are spoken in such sublime language. There is no "I" and "we" in those Christmas hymns. The focus is all on God.

But then after Christmas we often go back to singing songs that are all about us, about our experience, and how lucky God is to love us. And how we "feel" wonderful about ourselves. Is this what church is about? Do we think that God is about us? That is certainly the "feeling" one gets from many of the songs we sing in the modern seeker-sensitive church.

I've talked with a number of churches that have gone through "Forty Days of Purpose." The problem is that there is no Gospel in those forty days of purpose. It's used as a technique to get to non-believers to the church, to make them "feel" good, so they hear a message of good news without any bad news.

Some time ago I was walking around a lake in the suburban area north of Orlando when I came upon a small billboard advertising a new "para-church" that was meeting in the community. In addition to listing the name and meeting place of the church, the billboard described the church as seeker-sensitive, and stated, "Where church is NEVER normal."

As I stood and read, I could not help thinking how far the "para-church," The seeker-sensitive church has traded sound theological doctrine for the philosophy of pragmatism. Since when is it appropriate to speak of the Church, "bride of Christ, the body of Christ, the family of God, the elect, the redeemed, the communion of saints, the people of God" as "never normal."

Pragmatism ultimately defines truth as that which is useful, as that which works. It is inherently relativistic, rejecting the notion of absolute right and wrong. Biblical truth is not determined by testing what works and what does not. Scriptural truth holds to absolutes in what is right and wrong.

Nevertheless, an overpowering surge of ardent pragmatism is sweeping across the nation especially in these "seeker-sensitive churches." Why? Because these "seeker-sensitive churches" believe they will get more people in their buildings by amusing people, giving them success tips and pop-psychology instead of the Gospel. They emphasize experiences, how people "feel" about issues and they de-emphasize doctrine. When Biblical truth is preached, it is offered in small, diluted doses. Idolatry has always been more popular than true worship.

True worship is often being discarded or downplayed in these "seeker-churches" in favor drama, dance, comedy, variety, sideshow histrionics, pop-psychology and other entertainment forms just to draw larger crowds. The purpose of worship is not to entertain us. We are not the audience in worship, God is. It is little wonder that this new "para-church" boasted of being more rollicking than reverent. Theology has taken a back seat to methodology.

Don't get me wrong. I recognize that styles of worship are always in flux and that even our most traditional worship services today would bear little resemblance to those of centuries ago when there was no organ, public address system, PowerPoint and men and women often worshipped separately. I am not in favor of a stagnant church nor am I bound to any particular musical or liturgical style in worship. In fact I use PowerPoint whenever I preach or teach. What I am opposed to is, interpreting the Great Commission as a marketing manifesto.

How we worship is ultimately determined by our doctrine of God. For example, the deities of primitive cultures were offered sacrifices in worship to appease their wrath. Until the last third of the 20th. century, worship in Evangelical Protestant and Roman Catholic churches focused on the Word and the administration of the sacraments in accordance with appropriate church dogma. (Dogma sets forth in an organized and topical form the doctrinal content of the Christian faith. Doctrine states what the Bible and the church, in accordance with the Bible, teach about a particular topic.)

Before the late 1960's most Christians held to a common doctrine of God, man, sin, Christ, the Holy Spirit, the church, etc. Denominationally, Christians differed on various doctrines concerning the sacraments and justification. They also held to common as well as distinctive creeds and confessions. Worship often included an affirmation of doctrines through the recitation of these creeds and confessions. Over the past four decades we have experienced a decline in the formality of our worship and how we affirm our Christianity. Today, few worshipping Christians can recite the Apostles and the Nicene creeds from memory, although I am not implying that mere memorization be a test for true belief. Fewer still know what early Christian heresies caused them to be written.

Many evangelical and conservative Christians express displeasure when the Ten Commandments are removed from courtrooms and schoolrooms. Yet they remain silent when the reading of these Commandments (once a common practice) is no longer included in today's worship settings. Some further show a lack of doctrinal understanding when they defend not including the Commandments in worship because we "are under grace." Without the law, there can be no grace. Yes God is love, but He is also holy and just.

All this points to the fact that today's worshipping Christian is less willing and able to understand the historical and theological context that makes Christianity what it is. Along with this comes a reduced involvement in doctrinal affairs. Emotive worship styles have all too often supplanted doctrinal understandings. Feel good Christianity has tended to replace the nuts and bolts of our creeds and confessions. It is a shift that ill serves our churches for it diverts our attention from substantive theological and doctrinal concerns and offers in their place, bogus solutions.

God must first be in our heads before He can be in our hearts. When we give way to "emotional expressivism" in worship, emotions are not balanced with intellect and the resulting worship style focuses on our concept of God, rather than on God as He is, as He has revealed Himself in Scripture and in a tradition that is in accord with that Scripture. Although Christians should be solemnly warned not to be schismatic in spirit or given to divisive or quarrelsome spirits, they must also be warned of the obligation to separate themselves from false, apostate communions or "seeker-churches."

The "normal" church transcends history yet remains concretely historical. Although the reformation of the church "in accordance with the Word of God" is a never-ending task, every true church exhibits the true marks of a church to some degree. In the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19 & 20), Jesus says, "All authority has been given me on heaven and earth. Go therefore and make DISCIPLES."

The problem is that too many seeker-sensitive churches use the church only for evangelism rather than making disciples. Those in attendance are not getting taught. There is nothing preached in a seeker-sensitive service that a non-regenerate person cannot understand or find uncomfortable.

Non-Christians shouldn't "feel" comfortable in a church because they are not right with God. If they are, it's probably because we've changed the message. And that is shallow. Yes we should be doing evangelism but for the main purpose of training disciples in the church. You see that practiced in the early church. In Acts 2 people get saved, they devote themselves to the Apostles' preaching and teaching, to the breaking of bread, and to prayer.

The church is the place where the Christians are taught so they can go out and do the works of ministry, to go into the marketplace and to have an impact for Christ. That's what Jesus taught; that's what He modeled. That' s what the early disciples taught; that's what they modeled. The message was not solely one of purpose; it was a message of sin and salvation, of the bad news and the good news. And the world was turned upside down with that message.

We have to abandon the seeker-sensitive model. Find me anywhere in the Scriptures where the church gathers as Christians for the purpose of watering down the Gospel message to get people to come to church.

In the history of the early church, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, when the Gospel is preached their message was about fallen humanity, about sin and righteousness and judgment; that Jesus came to restore man to their Creator against whom they have persistently rebelled. Their message was one about building discipleship. That's the message that saves and builds churches. That is the church's Great Commission - to make disciples who can evangelize for the Kingdom.

Question:  I recently read a Religious News Service article about Purim, which begins at sundown, today - March 3. The article suggests parallels to "the experience of gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans-gendered people coming out of the closet" and that it become "a National Jewish Coming Out Day."Q

I am no longer amazed how the deconstructionists of our day continue to deny that there is any single correct meaning or interpretation of a passage or text. At the heart of the deconstructionist theory of interpretation are two primary ideas. First is the idea that no passage or text can possibly convey a single reliable, consistent, and coherent message to everyone who reads or hears it. The second is that the author who wrote the text is less responsible for the content than are the impersonal forces of culture such as language and their unconscious ideology. Therefore, the very basic tenets of deconstructionism are contrary to the clear teaching of the Bible that absolute truth does exist and we can indeed know it.

The deconstruction approach to interpreting the Bible comes out of postmodernism and as such it is simply another denial of the existence of absolute truth, which is one of the most serious logical fallacies anyone could ever commit. The reason the denial of absolute truth is a logical fallacy of the greatest magnitude is because it is a self-contradictory statement. The deconstructionist or postmodern thinker who denies absolute truth cannot rationally make such a statement because to do so would be stating an absolute which is what they are saying does not exist.

Like other philosophies that developed during the postmodern movement, deconstructionism celebrates human autonomy and places the autonomy of man at both the beginning and the end of determining what can be deemed to be truth. According to the postmodern thinker all truth is relative and there is no such thing as absolute truth. At the heart of this type of postmodernism and the deconstructionist thought process is pride and arrogance. The deconstructionist thinks that they can discover a personal or social motivation (hence the gay liberation agenda proposed for Purim in the Religious News Service article to which the questioner refers) that lies behind what is said and therefore can determine what is really being said. The end result is a very subjective interpretation of the passage or text in question. Instead of accepting what it actually says the deconstructionist is arrogant enough to think they can determine the motive behind what was written and come up with the real or hidden meaning of the text. However if one were to take deconstructionism to its logical conclusion then the results of the deconstructionist's efforts would have to be deconstructed themselves to determine what the deconstructionist really said and the endless line of circular reasoning is therefore self defeating.

The deconstructionist does not study the Bible or a text in to find out the meaning intended by the writer, but instead tries to read between the lines to find out the cultural and social reasons and motives behind what was written. To the deconstructionist there is no right or wrong interpretation and the meaning of the passage or else text becomes very subjective and one that can only determined by the reader. The deconstructionist on the other hand would attribute the primary meaning of the text to the reader not the author. Therefore, there is no one right way of interpretation and the reader's cultural and social background will influence the meaning of the passage.

In my opinion these deconstructionist scholars clearly miss the point of Purim and the book of Esther, which illustrates not "a coming out of the closet experience," but that redemptive history takes place within the context of ordinary time. With God there is no linear dimension to time and redemptive history has a transcendent and vertical dimension to it. In redemptive history the eternal intersects the temporal, the infinite God touches our finite horizontal dimension of time.

The Old Testament gives us multiple examples of the intersection of redemptive history with secular history. One such example is seen in the narrative history of Esther, who was born at the precise second and in the precise place that God had ordained from the foundation of the world.

Question:  It is true that there were several problems with the Jewish canonization of the book. Except in Roman Catholic versions of the Bible, the name of God is nowhere found in the book of Esther's 167 verses (yet the King of Persia is mentioned 190 times), Esther was married to a non-Jew, and Purim was a pagan festival. Yet it is a most popular book among Jews. It is the only book (beside the Pentateuch) that has two Aramaic translations; there are more medieval manuscripts of Esther than any other Old Testament book; and its record of deliverance encourages readers to expect a similar deliverance.

Yet even without the name of God mentioned, the book of Esther displays a profound faith in Providence. The Hand of God, which is hardly burlesque or low comedy, is seen throughout its reading. In the story of Esther, the king of Persia made a seven-day feast and summoned his queen, Vashti, to present herself to the dignitaries assembled to display her beauty. Vashti refused and she was forever forbidden to come before the king again.

What followed was an attempt to find a suitable replacement for the queen. A spectacular beauty pageant was held and a young Jewish girl named Esther becomes Queen. (Modern liberal theological scholarship's primary argument for the book of Esther being fiction rests on the point that secular history contains no record of a Jewish queen in Persia. But, since Esther could not reveal her nationality, why would there be a record, outside of the Bible, of a Jewish Queen in Persia?)

Esther then "just happens" to be in a position to counter a villainous plot to exterminate her people. Yes God is nowhere mentioned in the story, but God is everywhere implied in a series of "non-coincidences" throughout the book. Esther "just happens" to win the beauty contest to become queen; her uncle Mordecai "just happens" to foil a plot to kill the king; wicked Haman "just happens" to be hung on the gallows he prepared for Mordecai.

Some deconstructionist theologians argue that the book of Esther contains no ritual or other Jewish religious practices. I guess they must have skipped those passages that speak of the Jewish people responding to the lethal decree of the king by fasting. This fasting implies the belief in and reliance upon God. If the Jewish people had no hope of surviving, why would they fast? They would eat drink and be merry for tomorrow they die. This was no time for Esther and her maidens to go on a crash diet!

The fast was a way of the Jewish people reaching out (as they often did throughout the Old Testament) to God, of humbling themselves and acknowledging complete dependence upon Him. God's Providence is everywhere demonstrated throughout the book of Esther, and the people's only hope was in God is also implied in the passages on fasting.

Today Purim is celebrated as a noisy and fun festival. True, some view it as a kind of Jewish April Fool's Day. Perhaps the humor is in keeping with the irony of how God "chose" to preserve His people during the time, and particularly how He elevated the humble Mordecai and Esther and brought down the proud Haman. It is not an allegory for "coming out sexually" but a story that calls us to remember the serious danger the Jewish people faced, and to remember the necessity of total dependence upon God's preserving power.

Question: With so many denominations and so many of you theologians differing on the interpretation of Scripture, how do I know what is the correct interpretation?

The difference of opinions as to what the Bible teaches dismays many people. Even if we agree that the Bible is the word of God, people will differ on the interpretation of many passages. As a result of various interpretations many people have fallen into a view of relativism, which completely destroys the real significance of Scripture. While I may disagree with my good Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist and Methodist friends on the proper interpretation of various portions of Scripture, part of the reason we disagree among ourselves on matters of biblical interpretation, is that we (that is, those of us who hold to the more orthodox tradition of our various denominations) all agree it is crucial to understand the word of God correctly.

There are several reasons why learned theologians disagree on fundamental issues. First, we are prone to logical errors. We have the capacity to reason but we are not perfect in our reasoning powers. We make illegitimate inference and we do commit logical errors. Second, we make empirical errors. Our own perspectives and experiences limit us. None of us has all of the data. Third, we are limited by our own biases and predilections. We don't want to believe what the data is telling us. Even as Christians we are not fully cleansed of our ability to sin. Often we don't want to believe what the Bible teaches and so we make errors of interpretation as a result of the hardness of our hearts. Fourth, we have not studied all of the ancient languages sufficiently nor are we able to make legitimate inferences due to a variety of combinations and permutations of immediate inferences. But the main reason Christians disagree on what the Bible teaches is that we are all sinners.

Roman Catholics believe that one function of the church is to be the authorized interpreter of Scripture and while that somewhat ameliorates the problem for them, it does not eliminate it altogether. They still have to interpret the infallible interpretations, as there are hosts of differences in interpretations on what the popes and what the church councils say, just as there are hosts of different interpretations what the Bible says.

So if we theologians can't agree how are you, beloved lay readers of this column, going to understand whose analysis and interpretation is correct? I would remind you that these differences of opinion are found in other fields as well. Physicians, accountants, economists, etc. all have experts who differ on important matters. When faced with variant opinions in these matters a prudent person would look at the credentials to see who has the best training, who are the most reliable and respected in their respective fields, and then evaluate the various positions and judge which is the most cogent. The same thing goes when you evaluate differences in biblical and theological interpretations.

When it comes to biblical and theological interpretations I will counsel with as many people as possible and read the writings of sound sources. I will not delimit my research to contemporary sources but will explore the great minds of Christian history. It's amazing to me the tremendous amount of agreement there is on the essentials of the faith among Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, and other recognized titans of Church history. As my namesake so aptly put it, "On essentials unity, on non-essentials liberty and on all things charity."

Question:  Is there a correct and incorrect interpretation on Scripture?

It is true that everyone has the right to interpret the Bible however they want. Our forefathers died for the right of private interpretation and every Christian has the right to read the Bible and interpret it for themselves.

When interpretation became an issue during the Reformation, the Council of Trent took a dim view of it. One of the canons at the fourth session of this Roman Catholic council said that no one has the right to distort Scripture by applying private interpretations to them. Insofar as that statement is recorded at Trent, many of my readers may be surprised that I fully agree with it because it is right. Even though I have the right to read the Bible, I have the responsibility to interpret it accurately. No one has the right to interpret it inaccurately.

There can only be one correct interpretation. My interpretation may not be right and yours may not be right, but if they are different they both cannot be right. That would be relativism. We need to get to the objective and not the subjective (that is we need to get beyond a personal prejudicial) meaning of the text. As I said in the answer above, when faced with conflicting interpretations consult the titans of Church history because they are the best.

Question:  What is your opinion regarding recent reports by James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici that the tomb of Jesus has been found?

Less than two weeks ago the Discovery Channel aired the premier of the film, "The Lost Tomb of Jesus." The film presupposes that a tomb in Jerusalem, originally unearthed in 1980, contains the remains of Jesus of Nazareth, Mary Magdalene (to whom they allege He was married) and their son, Judah.

Christians must be open to the discoveries of scientists, historians, archaeologists, etc. If we maintain, and I believe we should, that our Christianity is a faith founded on fact, then our factual assertions must at least be subject to evidential testability. Therefore, we need not run from new evidence.

But, that said, biblical and secular critics alike have highlighted significant flaws in the methods and interpretations of Jacobovici. Scholarship is a communal activity wherein theories and archeological findings are published in peer-reviewed journals because only in so doing our peers can point out inaccuracies. Jacobovicici did not do this but instead has taken his claims about Jesus' alleged family life directly to the popular media, thus denying professional scholars the chance to scrutinize his evidence, methods and reasoning.

However, the information that has been presented by Cameron and Jacobovici lacks substantial evidence and the logic they have presented thus far is faulty. I state this for several reasons. I question the objectivity of Cameron and Jacobovici because they refuse to cite scholars (both Christian and secular) who disagree with their conclusions. In fact, the vast majority of archaeologists and others dispute their claim.

To cite just six examples, first David Mevorah, curator of the Israel Museum said, "Suggesting that this tomb was the tomb of the family of Jesus is a far-fetched suggestion" (NY Times). Second, Jodi Magness, an archaeologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill wrote, "This whole case [for Jesus' tomb] is flawed from beginning to end" (Washington Post). Third, Amos Kloner, one of the first men to excavate the tomb in 1980, called The Lost Tomb of Jesus "nonsense" (AP). Fourth, Joe Zias, (Middle East researcher, biblical anthropologist and the archaeology curator of the Israeli Antiquities Authority) dismissed the documentary as a "hyped-up film, which is intellectually and scientifically dishonest" (ibid.). Fifth, Chris Frillingos, an assistant professor of religion at Michigan State University, agrees with the critics and states, "the film cannot be taken seriously." And sixth, Television news commentator Ted Koppel, who holds no particular brief for orthodox Christianity, called the film, "archaeo-porn."

Jacobovici argues that the inclusion of the bones of Mary of Magdalene (who he says was Jesus' wife) in the tomb substantially increases the probability that the tomb found was that of Jesus. If Jesus had been married why did Paul not use Jesus as his prime example for a right to take a wife? Instead Paul cites the other apostles, the brothers of Jesus and Cephas, but NOT Jesus to make his point (I Corinthians 9:5).

Since the custom was to bury the dead in their hometown, I question why Mary and Joseph's family tomb would be in Jerusalem instead of Nazareth? Moreover, how could Jesus' family afford such a tomb? Joe Zias states, "It (the tomb) has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus, he was known as Jesus of Nazareth, not Jesus of Jerusalem, and if the family was wealthy enough to afford a tomb, which they probably weren't, it would have been in Nazareth, not here in Jerusalem."

If Jesus had been buried in a tomb surely Jesus' enemies, the Jewish leaders at that time, would have exposed the tomb. They searched unsuccessfully throughout Jerusalem for any evidence of Jesus' body, claiming that Jesus' disciples had stolen it. They would have been elated to discover His tomb, if it indeed existed.

The Romans would have exposed the inscriptions as belonging to Jesus. Roman soldiers controlled the entire city of Jerusalem, and they knew His body was missing from a tomb they had been guarding. Certainly early Roman or Jewish historians would have written about the tomb. But we do not have one single early historian mentioning the tomb in question.

Jesus' disciples and family endured torture for claiming He was resurrected. I find it hard to believe that at least one of them would have held to the "hoax" under such torture if they knew it was a hoax. It makes no sense for Jesus' family or followers to bury His bones in a family plot and then turn around and be tortured for preaching that He had been physically raised from the dead.

Cameron and Jacobovici cite as one of the reasons for the tomb's validity the James Ossuary, which has been labeled a forgery. CBS News correspondent Mark Philips reports, "the archeological establishment has lined up to label this claim as bunk. This is the second time The Discovery Channel has been involved in a disputed claim about an ancient tomb," reports Phillips. "The man at the center of the previous case is now facing trial for forgery."

I find it interesting that Jacobovici and Cameron waited until just prior to Easter to launch both the book and documentary. Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site, said the idea fails to hold up by archaeological standards but makes for profitable television. "They just want to get money for it," Kloner said. Nevertheless, I personally find that their launching of the book and documentary at this time to be a blessing in that it has increased interest in what really happened and so provides an opportunity for Christians to more openly discuss their beliefs.

Question:  Over the next several weeks, would you answer a series of questions on Islam, and where appropriate contrast it with our Judaic-Christian beliefs? My first question is, who was Muhammad?

Islam is a world religion (of over one billion people) founded by an Arabian visionary whose name has variant spellings of Muhammad and Mohammed who lived from approximately 579 to 632 A.D. Muhammad was born in the city of Mecca in Arabia.

According to tradition his father died before his birth and his mother when he was six years old. He then became the ward of two leading chiefs, first his grandfather and then his uncle. Both his grandfather and uncle were prominent members of the tribe that held the position of trustee of the Ka'bah (literally "the cube"), the holiest shrine in Arabia.

In some far past the people of that part of Arabia had been startled by the rush of a meteor. (Another tradition holds that the first Ka'bah was built by Adam from a celestial prototype and was rebuilt by Abraham and Ishmael.) Afterwards the awed inhabitants worshipped the Ka'bah calling it "the black stone which fell from heaven in the days of Adam."

Near the Ka'bah was the holy well Zemzem, whose waters were sacred to the pilgrims. The people of Mecca had an old tradition that after Hagar was expelled from Abraham's tent she came with her little son Ishmael to the future site of their city, which at that time was a barren valley. Because Ishmael was dying of thirst Hagar left him lying on the hot earth while she searched despairingly for water. Ishmael, in a tantrum kicked his heels into the ground and the waters of the Zemzem welled up into a depression and saved his life. In recognition of this supposed event, it was considered meritorious for pilgrims to add to the circling of the Ka'bah in imitation of Hagar's search.

As Muhammad came to maturity, he began to look critically on many of the beliefs and customs. He was disturbed by constant quarreling in the avowed interests of religion, the idolatrous polytheism and animism and the immorality at religious conventions. His need to resolve his religious doubts grew during the leisure that his marriage to a rich widow allowed him. Fifteen years his senior Muhammad's wife mothered him and encouraged his religious interests. The two sons she bore him died in infancy and of their three daughters on one survived him. All three of his daughters married his associates. In all Muhammad had 11 to 13 wives depending on the reference used, one of whom, Aisha or Ayesha, was but five or six years old when he married her. That marriage was consummated when Aisha was 9 years old.

According to tradition, in 610 A.D. Muhammad visited a cave a few miles north of Mecca when suddenly one night (Moslems call it "The Night Of Power and Excellence") the archangel Gabriel appeared to him with a revelation. When the vision ended, Muhammad was able to reproduce the entire revelation. He continued to receive the messages until his death. Because Muhammad could neither read nor write his followers wrote them down which writings was called the Qur'an.

The Qur'an, according to Islam is God's final word to man, superseding anything previous. Our Old and New Testaments play a very minor role in Islam. Moslem authorities hold that wherever the Qur'an differs from the Bible, the Jews and Christians have corrupted or perverted the Biblical text. Moslems may refuse to approve translations of the Qur'an but since over 90 percent of Muslims around the world do not know Arabic and must use a translation, the point seems to be moot.

Unlike the Old Testament, which contains two thousand predictive prophecies, there is only one instance of a specific prophecy in the Qur'an. It is the self-fulfilling prophecy that prophet Muhammad himself would return to Mecca. On the other hand the prophecies in the Old Testament are incredibly specific and detailed and their fulfillments did not take place until hundreds of years after the death of the prophet. In many cases, the fulfillment came after the completion of the entire Old Testament and even after its translation into Greek in 150 B.C.

I find it interesting that the Qur'an itself acknowledges that if it contains any errors anywhere, it did not come from God (Sura 4, "Women," verse 82). Yet, a careful reading of the Qur'an will disclose that Muhammad did not have a clear grasp of what classic orthodox Christianity was teaching about the Trinity in the seventh century A.D. He was hearing views that had been totally rejected by the early fathers of the church. Muhammad's consistent representation of the Trinity suggests that he conceived the idea of a trinity along the lines of crude tri-theism, a heresy that Christianity had consistently repudiated.

To wit, in Sura 5, "The Table," verse 116, he teaches that Christians believe that God's "three-ness" is composed of Allah, Jesus (whom he believed ill-informed Christians had wrongly deified), and (are your reading this carefully), Jesus' mother Mary. Now whatever sub-scriptural oddities some church fathers may have espoused over the early centuries of the church and even today in some new re-imaginings about God as Trinity, I can declare categorically that not one of them ever taught that God's "three-ness" included the mother of Jesus, nor has any ecumenical council ever endorsed such a notion. This is an error of massive proportions on Muhammad's part and shows ignorance of Christian teaching.

It also shows that the Qur'an contains a significant error respecting this major doctrine in the belief system of one of its major religious contenders. Christianity has historically declared in its creeds and confessions that within the unity of the one living and true God eternally exist three persons or persona: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit; that these three are one ("eschad" in Hebrew) God, the same in substance and equal in power and glory.

Muhammad died on June 8, 632 A.D. at the age of sixty-three. He is buried in what was his house. At the end of Mohammad's life, his failure to name a successor resulted in the major divisions of Islam into the majority Sunni (about 90%) and the minority Shiite branches, each claiming to be true Islam.

QUESTION:  As you continue to deal with Islam, my second series of questions are: Why is Islam important?

Islam is important because it is the fastest growing (some would say fastest growing "enforced") religion in the world. It is a driving force behind some 50 nations in the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Some 35 countries now have populations that are at least 87 percent Muslim. Islam is now the second largest religion in Europe and the third largest in the U. S.

There are now almost 1.5 billion followers of Islam in the world. The collective power of Islam is able to dramatically influence the world economy through OPEC (the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries). Arab nationalism and the Muslim religion have become the single most crucial issue in the volatile Middle East.

Question:  And what are the basic Muslim beliefs?

Muslims must accept six articles of Islamic faith:

1. Faith in Allah. Muslims believe there is only one true God, Allah is his name and his will is supreme.

2. Angels. Muslims believe in angels, such as Gabriel who allegedly transmitted the Qur'an (see last week's column) to Muhammad.

3. The Holy Books. Muslims believe that Allah has given a long series of revelations, including the Old and New Testaments. These revelations ended with the Qur'an, which supercedes and abrogates the others to such an extent that wherever the Qur'an differs from the Bible, Muslims maintain that the Jews and Christians have corrupted or perverted the Biblical text.

4. The Prophets. Muslims believe Allah has sent numerous prophets to mankind; the Qur'an mentions 28 prophets. Their six principal prophets are Adam, "the chosen of Allah;" Noah, "the preacher of Allah;" Abraham, "the friend of Allah;" Moses, "the speaker of Allah;" Jesus, "the word of Allah;" and Muhammad, "the apostle of Allah." Because Muhammad's revelation is considered the greatest of all, he is called the "Seal of the Prophets" and the "Peace of the World," among other appellations given him. Muhammad is the "seal" of those who appeared before him. None is his equal, either in knowledge or in authority; none has received or handed down so perfect a revelation. However, Muhammad was not divine; he was simply "man at his best" and God is the wholly Other, the One with whom Muhammad was united in will but not in substance. Although they teach that Jesus is a faithful servant to Allah and virgin born, He is not divine in any sense, nor did He die on the cross for man's sin. They believe that Judas was crucified in place of Jesus. Jesus, according to the Qur'an, was taken unharmed directly to heaven (Sura 3, "The Imrans," verse 55 and Sura 4, "Women," verses 156-158.) Therefore, Moslems believe, because the Qur'an teaches some very true and proper things about Jesus, Christians should be laudatory of them and look upon them as supportive of Christian beliefs. Nevertheless a theological problem exists for them in this regard because they hold Jesus to be only a prophet but not divine. You see, for Islam and in other religions as well, a prophet cannot lie. So if Jesus was not divine, how can Islam hold Him to be a prophet if Jesus lied about His own divinity? Or if Jesus did not lie about His own divinity, how can Islam hold Muhammad as a prophet, because then Muhammad would be lying about whom Jesus was?

5. Fatalism. Muslims believe that everything that happens must be; all that happens is by Allah's immutable decree and there are no contingencies. This differs from the Christian view of predestination in which we hold that what ever God ordains, must be. For us, God knows and allows for all contingencies, but He does not know such contingencies, contingently.

6. Belief in judgment, and paradise and hell. On the Day of Judgment the good and evil deeds of people will be placed on a scale of justice. Only those having sufficient personal merit and righteousness and the requisite favor of Allah will go to eternal heaven; all others, unbelievers and sinners in Islam, will go to eternal hell. Paradise is a place of every (including sexual) delight. The concept of having a relationship with Allah is not found anywhere in the Qur'an. Christianity is not about moral laws or religious practices - it is about a relationship with a living Savior, Jesus Christ. It is the desire of every Christian to be found in Christ, not having a righteousness of our own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ. For Christians it is a transferred righteousness (an alien righteousness, a righteousness outside ourselves) that comes from God and is by faith in Christ alone.

One of the saddest things about the Moslem belief system is, that like many others, they believe that they will either make it to heaven or not, based on either their good works outweighing their bad deeds, or maybe that God (Allah in their case) will simply decide to let them in. According to their beliefs, there is no way to know in advance whether or not they are going to paradise or not. For a Muslim there is no assurance until the final judgment.

Christians, on the other hand, have the words of assurance from the writer of 1 John 5:1-13, "And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that YOU MAY KNOW that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God."