You are here: Home / Archives for Jesus Christ

The Incoherence of Adventist & Watchtower Christology

04/19/2011 2 Comments


Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses share the view that Jesus and the Archangel Michael are one and the same:

Michaeal Heb.Mika’el, literally, “who [is] like God?” He is here described as “one of the chief princes [Heb. śarim].” Later He is described as Israel’s particular protector (Dan. 12:1). His identity is not definitely stated here, but a comparison with other scriptures identifies Him as Christ. Jude 9 terms Him “the archangel.” According to 1 Thess. 4:16, the “voice of the archangel” is associated with the resurrection of the saints at the coming of Jesus. Christ declared that the dead will come forth from their graves when they hear the voice of the Son of man (John 5:28). It thus seems clear that Michael is none other than the Lord Jesus Himself .

Francis D. Nichol, The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Volume 4 (Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1978; 2002), 860.
From the Watchtower Bible and Tract society (Jehovah’s Witnesses) :
At times, individuals are known by more than one name. For example, the patriarch Jacob is also known as Israel, and the apostle Peter, as Simon. (Genesis 49:1, 2; Matthew 10:2) Likewise, the Bible indicates that Michael is another name for Jesus Christ, before and after his life on earth.
“Who is Michael the Archangel?”  http://www.watchtower.org/e/bh/appendix_11.htm (accessed 4/19/2011).

Yet one wonders, how they can hold such a view in light of the scriptures. For example, in the book of Jude, an argument is made against false teachers and apostates who have infected the church. Jude makes an argument that they blaspheme “glorious ones”  or beings of higher status themselves. To drive the point home he argues that Michael did not dare pass judgment on Satan:

Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones. But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.”(Jud 8-9)

If Michael is actually Jesus Christ the eternal glorious second person of the trinity upon whom all fullness of God dwells (Col. 1:19), then how could it possibly be so that he lacked authority to judge the devil?  It is logically incoherent! This argument only makes sense in light of the orthodox position that Satan is a rebel archangel himself giving him equal status to Michael. Adventist and Watchtower theology has demoted Christ. It is heresy.

Jesus had no qualms against rebuking and judging the devil,

You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.(Jn 8:44)

Michael is an angel. Angels are created beings. That they were created is clearly implied in Psalm 148:2, 5: “Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his heavenly hosts.… Let them praise the name of the Lord, for he commanded and they were created.” They were in fact created by Christ,

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.(Col 1:16)

Jesus is not Michael. The Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses are preaching a different Jesus.

Filed Under Apologetics Tagged With Archangel Michael, Cult, Heresy, Jehovah's Witness, Jesus Christ, Seventh Day Adventist, Watchtower

Is The Shroud of Turin Evidence For Jesus’ Resurrection?

01/27/2011 6 Comments

I just listened to a lecture by Dr. Gary Habermas at the EPS apologetics conference, and according to Gary it turns out there is very strong evidence in favor the Shroud’s authenticity. There are paintings of Jesus from the third through the tenth centuries that look they copied the face from the shroud. If the shroud was their model it had to preexist the artwork.  It’s not a casual similarity, they have the same bruise marks and all. Forensic scientists have verified that the blood is real and that the body was in a state of rigamortis. Not to mention there is pollen from Jerusalem on it which is an unlikely find if it was a medieval European forgery as skeptics assert.  As usual, skeptics have written it off as a hoax, which is understandable.  In fact, I had discounted it as a forgery like so many other “relics” the medieval church attempted to pass off.  Mainly because there was a carbon 14 test in the 1980s that dated it to the Middle Ages. So you would think that would be the end of it…

However it has now been demonstrated that the cloth they tested was a patch woven into the shroud from when it was scorched by fire – the original fibers are much older. At a symposium in 2005 it was demonstrated that newer fabric was spliced and woven into the old in the sample taken for the test. The carbon 14 test from the 1980s is now regarded as unreliable. Here is the peer reviewed scientific journal article that discredits the 1988 carbon dating.

Abstract :

In 1988, radiocarbon laboratories at Arizona, Cambridge, and Zurich determined the age of a sample from the Shroud of Turin. They reported that the date of the cloth’s production lay between a.d. 1260 and 1390 with 95% confidence. This came as a surprise in view of the technology used to produce the cloth, its chemical composition, and the lack of vanillin in its lignin. The results prompted questions about the validity of the sample.

Preliminary estimates of the kinetics constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin indicate a much older age for the cloth than the radiocarbon analyses. The radiocarbon sampling area is uniquely coated with a yellow–brown plant gum containing dye lakes. Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud.

Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin by Raymond N. Rogers

The image on the Shroud of Turin has not been explained by science and appears to be holographic in nature according to particle physicists who have examined the image. Far from being painted on the cloth , there is no other image like it in the world. It appears to be burned into the very top layer of the fibers similar to (but not identical to) radiation. The holographic nature strongly controverts ancient forgery methods, could it be that it evidences Jesus’ miraculous transformation from death to life?

Filed Under Apologetics Tagged With Authentic, Carbon Dating, Gary Habermas, Hologram, Jesus Christ, Peer Reveiwed Science, Proof, Resurrection, Shroud of Turin

The Ultimate Apologetic!

08/19/2010 Leave a Comment



There has been a lot of insistence by skeptics for extraordinary evidence lately, reminds me of this:

Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.”  But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.” (Mat. 12:38-39)

I have been hard at work on a resurrection evidence project for a few months now. Several videos have been produced. Many books have been read. It’s not just any project. I’m preparing to confront YouTube skeptic community with a challenge. True faith is founded on historical facts, which eye witnesses have corroborated. I believe there was an event that occurred 2000 years ago that was so phenomenal that it transformed the very nature of reality. It’s not just about the gospel or apologetics… it’s the ultimate apologetic.

This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.(Acts 2:32)

Jesus performed many miracles or signs which authenticated his public ministry.  The Gospel of John was written with a purpose. It is unique amongst the four accounts of Jesus in that its author sets down the purpose that the reader would “believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and that by believing have life in his name” (Jn. 20:31).  Scholars have distinguished two divisions by dividing the fourth Gospel into the “Book of Signs”, chapters 1 through 12, since they record Jesus’ public miracles and the “Book of Glory”, chapters 13 through 21, because of his glorious death and resurrection.[1] In addition to the seven signs found in Book of Signs there is an eighth positioned at the end of the book. John uses the Greek word semeion seventeen times in his gospel in reference to miracles. In Greek literature the word often means an event that indicates or confirms an intervention by a transcendent power.[2] Dr. Elmer Towns contends that this word choice emphasizes the spiritual significance of the eight miracles, whereas the synoptic gospels employ the Greek dunameis accentuating power.[3] The eight signs are: (1) turning water into wine (Jn. 2:1-11), (2) healing of the nobleman’s son (Jn. 4:46-54), (3) healing of the lame man (Jn. 5:1-9), (4) feeding of the 5,000 (Jn. 6:1-14), (5) walking on water (Jn. 6:15-21), (6) healing of a blind man (Jn. 9:1-12), (7) raising Lazarus from the dead (Jn. 11:1-44), (8) the miraculous catch of fish (Jn. 21:1-11). John seems to have organized the signs in particular settings as a commentary on the institutions and festivals of Judaism. Accordingly, there appears to be a connection between the seven discourses and the seven signs found with the “Book of Signs.” [4] Each sign uniquely facilitates John’s purpose to lead the reader to believe by pointing to a unique aspect of Jesus divine power. But what about Jesus’ own resurrection?

Was His resurrection just another sign amongst many? In a sense that it authenticated Jesus yes, but in the same manner as the other signs no. While the resurrection is certainly the central evidence authenticating Jesus ministry, I think it stands apart from the other signs. It is the very foundation of the Christian faith. Christianity “stands or falls with the question of His bodily resurrection.” [5] When Jesus resurrected Lazarus, it was called a sign by the Pharisees (Jn. 11:47). Morris contends that this sign and the “good shepherd” discourse are linked to “set forth emphatically that Christ has supreme authority over death.”[6] Yet he does not call the resurrection a sign. When Jesus rose, he was considered dead. So in this sense, he was not performing a sign. It was external from the physical person of Jesus. Thus tt was much more than a “sign” in the sense of Jesus other miracles. In fact, it was necessarily an external authentication from heaven. The NT is clear that the Father raised Jesus (Gal. 1:1, Rom. 10:9). Boice writes, “The resurrection proved that Jesus Christ is who he claimed to be and that he accomplished what he claimed to have come to earth to accomplish.”[7] The resurrection was a supernatural event so well evidenced and undeniable that it has served to validate the Christian faith for the last 2000 years. Paul wrote in his first letter to Corinth that if “Christ is not raised, your faith is in vain” (1 Cor. 15:17a). It was the ultimate and final sign to stand for all time. It stands alone in a unique category as the ultimate apologetic.

Stay tuned for the Resurrection Challenge!

[1]Gary M. Burge, The NIV Application Commentary: John (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000), 41.

[2]William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 920.

[3]Elmer Towns. The Gospel of John: Believe and Live. Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2002, xiii.

[4] Leon Morris. Jesus is the Christ: Studies in the Theology of John. Grand Rapids MH: Eerdman’s Publishing Co., 1989, 22.

[5]John F. Walvoord, Jesus Christ Our Lord (Galaxie Software, 2008; 2008), 191.

[6] Leon Morris. Jesus is the Christ: Studies in the Theology of Lohn. Grand Rapids MH: Eerdman’s Publishing Co., 1989, 38.

[7]James Montgomery Boice, Foundations of the Christian Faith : A Comprehensive & Readable Theology (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 341.

Filed Under Apologetics Tagged With Apologetics, Gospel, Jesus Christ, Resurrection, Resurrection Challenge, Sign of Jonah