Was the Tomb Really Empty?
In his essay “Was the Tomb Really Empty?” Robert H. Stein believes that Christianity without resurrection of Jesus Christ is no more gospel or “good news”. The foundation of Christian faith is laid on the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. The gospel without resurrection has no hope and future. For this very reason, the authenticity of the empty tomb of Jesus transformed the lives of the disciples – turning them to bold, courageous, and confident men as well as assuring and guarantying of their victory over death and of salvation. Despite historical evidences, non-Christian scholars have been rationalizing against the foundation of Christian faith for thousands of years regarding the resurrection of Jesus.
In defense of the historicity of the resurrection, Stein writes that evangelical apologetics have supported the fact of resurrection by the rational arguments of periodical resurrection appearance. Secondly, the existence of the Church also testifies the bodily resurrection. Thirdly, he says that the transforming life of believers around the world is also the “existential experience of the risen Christ”. Fourthly, the witness of the empty tomb is the evidence of the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Continue reading Was the Tomb Really Empty?
Character Sketch: Isaiah
Isaiah, the prophet borne this name as Yesha’yahu, signifies “the salvation of Jehovah”. His name itself magnifies the ample scope of his forthtelling and foretelling messages. However, this name was very common one in his time. Some other biblical characters also had borne this name. David’s head singer had the same name (1 Chronicles 25:3, 15); a Levite with the same name is also recorded in the book of Chronicles 26:25; a companion of Ezra who returned from exile to Jerusalem (Ezra 8:7), and a Benjamite in Nehemiah (11:7).
Isaiah 1:1 tells us that he was the son of Amoz. The name seems very confounding to be distinguished from the prophet Amos. We have no further information about him. The Jewish traditional maintains that Isaiah might have royal bloodline, as he had regular access to the kings of Judah. Nevertheless, the access to the court can hardly validate the claim that Isaiah belonged to royal lineage, since prophet Nathan had also appeared to the royal court (2 Samuel 7:2-17; 12:1-15; 1 Kings 1:22-27). He was a scribe and official historiographer of the king (2 Chronicles 26:22). Continue reading Character Sketch: Isaiah
Summary on ‘Divine Omnipotence and Divine Goodness’ in ‘the Problem of Pain’ by CS Lewis:
Clive Staples Lewis makes the main point for the Divine Omnipotence and Divine Goodness by addressing the atheistic objection that is solely centered on the noteworthy ineffectuality of the universe. The problem of pain in the simplest form is, “If God were good, He would wish to make His creatures perfectly happy, and if God were almighty He would be able to do what He wished. But the creatures are not happy. Therefore God lacks either goodness, or power, or both.” He proposes that the answer to the problem of pain depends on our understanding of the terms ‘good,’ ‘almighty’ and ‘happy.’
He examines what it really means to say that God is omnipotent. Omnipotence means “all-powerful to do everything.” However, the very nature of God is inherent to his character. So, he cannot revoke his own laws and act self-contradictory. For this reason, God cannot be both righteous and unrighteous (non-contradictory law) at the very same time.
There is a freedom of choice for human beings – a single naked choice, as Lewis says either to love God more than self or love self more than God. This choice certainly has a probability to pave the way to evil. God could have straightened the results of this abuse of free will every time by modifying the effect of the cause; but he did not, because it would violate whole natural order. Continue reading The Problem of Theodicy (I): C.S. Lewis