Recently, I was at a bookstore and came upon Conversations with God: An Uncommon Dialogue by Neale Walsch. In perusing certain parts of the book, the question of the book’s reliability came into mind. To put it concisely: Is there a possibility that such a book, such a dialogue with God, could be wholly true? In the same way that God spoke to the authors of the various books of the Bible, could it not also be possible that God continues to speak to men so that His Word may be known and understood in these times? I find it hard to believe that God stopped talking to men two thousand years ago, thereby limiting the expression of His Word to a single book we call the Bible. Any clarification on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

To answer you concisely, as long as any book on the market contradicts the Bible at any point, it cannot be wholly true. The Bible is without error and can be trusted; it is our benchmark of what is true. If anything varies from what God has told us is true, it cannot be trusted. There have been a number of books purporting to be from God, among them the Qur’an, A Course in Miracles and Betty Eadie’s Embraced by the Light, but since all of them contradict the Bible they cannot be from God. Conversations with God belongs in that category. It is a dangerous book.

I do believe (and experience) that God still speaks to us today, but when He does He will NEVER contradict what He’s already said in His book. What we need to know is in there. If He didn’t include it in the Bible, we don’t need to know it.

A letter from a discerning believer is making the rounds on the internet, exposing further some of the dangers of this book:

Two particular books, Conversations with God and Conversations with God for Teens, sound harmless enough by their titles alone. These books have been on the New York Times best sellers list for a number of weeks. These publications makes truth of the statement “Don’t judge a book by its cover/title”. The author purports to answer various questions from kids using the “voice of God.” However, the “answers” that he gives are not biblically-based and go against the very infallible word of God. For instance (and I paraphrase), when a girl asks the question “Why am I a lesbian?” His answer is that she was born that way because of genetics (just as you were born right-handed, with blue eyes, etc.). Then he tells her to go out and “celebrate” her differences. Another girl poses the question, “I am living with my boyfriend. My parents say that I should marry him because I am living in sin. Should I marry him?” “God’s” supposedly reply is “Who are you sinning against? Not me, because you have done nothing wrong.” Another question asks about God’s forgiveness of sin. His reply: “I do not forgive anyone because there is nothing to forgive. There is no such thing as right or wrong and that is what I have been trying to tell everyone do not judge people. People have chosen to judge one another and this is wrong because the rule is ‘judge not lest ye be judged.’” And the list goes on. Not only are these books the false doctrine of devils but in some instances even quote (in error) the Word of God. These books are being sold to school children (through The Scholastic Book Club) and we need to be aware of what is being fed to our children.

Conversations with God is a very unsafe book in anyone’s hands.

Sue Bohlin
Probe Ministries

© 2005 Probe Ministries

I read your article A Short Look at Six World Religions. Why are you lying to people about Islam? The prophet Muhammad himself is quoted to have said to his followers that even he would not enter paradise without the mercy of Allah, and the prophets were all free of any kind of sin. The word is composed of the Arabic words “Al” meaning “the” and “ilah” meaning “God.” The word “Allah” means “the God,” “the Creator,” the only one worthy of worship. Who can help you except for the one who created the heavens and the earth? Who can hurt you except for the one who created the heavens and the earth? When Jesus, whom we love as one of our prophets known to us and Isa bin Maryam, Jesus the son of Mary was on the earth, drinking God’s water and breathing God’s air, who could have stopped God had He decided to destroy the earth including Jesus? Don’t mix the creation and the Creator. Even the Christians cannot deny the singular power of Allah when they claim that He came in the form of Jesus (May Allah protect us from worshipping any figure of creation) Allah is one in control of everything. That belief may seem logical, but it is not a product of anybody’s mind because the mind cannot create a reality that already exists. The identity of God for the creation is that of the creator. How can Allah be seen as distant when according to Islam, He is closer to you than your own jugular vein? Allah is said to have 70 times the love for His creation that a mother has for her child.

I am a white American and I am pleading to you out of brotherly love for you and the people you reach to get your facts straight and print the truth about Islam. Allah loves the believers who when they do wrong, they turn to Him in repentance, yet we all know that Allah does not like lying. The Word Islam means “submission.” The way of all the prophets was submission to God. Noah (Nuh) preached submission to Allah, Moses (Musa) preached submission to Allah, and Jesus (Isa) preached submission to Allah and all other of the 124,000 or more prophets between Adam and Muhammad came with submission to Allah. To become Muslim, we say “La ilaha il lala Muhammad ur-rasululah mean that “There is none worthy of worship except Allah and Muhammad is his final messenger.” Please come to Islam.

I think perhaps as a white American, you are infusing your understanding of Islam with concepts about the biblical God. In effect, you are borrowing aspects of the God of the Bible and applying them to Allah. Noah, Moses and Jesus did not preach submission to Allah; they preached about a RELATIONSHIP with Yahweh, who is not the same as Allah.

I am not lying to anyone about Islam. I think perhaps you are mistaken about both what I said and the nature of the one true God, whose name is “I AM,” and Who has also revealed Himself to be the loving Daddy (Abba) who is full of grace and truth. There is no grace in Allah. There is only the legalism of submission without personal intimacy.

You pleaded with me to come to Islam. I plead with you, please come to a PERSON—Jesus. He IS true Christianity.

Sue Bohlin
Probe Ministries

My best friend/boyfriend is Muslim. I have been brought up in a very Christian oriented family and have faith through Jesus Christ. My friend, has been attending church with me and at first was receptive to Christianity as he was overwhelmed with the amount of love in the church. He is very educated and does a lot of reading. He has read several books about Christianity many of them pointing out flaws in the religion. And at the same time is searching to find out if Islam is right. As of now he is content that Islam is right due to its proofs through sciences. Are there any books that go through Koran or talk about who Muhammed really was that will help him to find the Lord? Also, what are good Christian books that I can point him to that would give him EVIDENCE – in Christianity.

First of all, let me encourage you that NOTHING you do or say will be as effective as your prayers on your boyfriend’s behalf. That’s where the real power is, OK?

Secondly, check out the website “Answering Islam,” www.answering-islam.org . . . They really understand the different worldviews.

Third, I can’t recommend strongly enough Lee Strobel’s excellent books The Case for Faith and The Case for Christ. Mr. Strobel was a hardened atheist journalist who talked to a number of intelligent, articulate Christians who were able to “give an answer for the hope that is within,” and he came to faith. Wonderful, wonderful books, but be sure to read them first so you can talk intelligently with your boyfriend.

Fourth, I say this as a Titus 2 woman (where God instructs the older women to teach the younger)—DON’T MARRY HIM! Scripture is very strong about believers not marrying unbelievers. I send this with a prayer that you will guard your heart and your sexual purity so that you do not find yourself so soul-connected to him that you feel you have to marry him to make things right. It’s entirely possible that God wants to use you to draw your boyfriend to Himself, but don’t cross over any lines that would compromise your obedience to God’s best as revealed in His word, OK? (I say this as a mom who just saw my son marry a wonderful Christian girl who was worth waiting for and fighting the temptation to settle for less than God’s best.)

So glad you wrote!!

Blessings,

Sue Bohlin
Probe Ministries

I dare you to put this on your website!

As I see it, I could write thousands of words to try and prove a Trinitarian wrong. The reason I say this is because the Trinity belief changes depending on which Trinitarian you talk to. There exist hundreds of Trinity-teaching churches, all of which have different interpretations of what the Trinity is or is not. I have heard that Jesus was a Man-God, despite the scriptural reference that no man has ever seen God. I have heard that they (God the Father and Jesus) are the same, but NOT the same..????

In actuality, there is no clear-cut description of the Trinity Doctrine. It itself is written in such a way that you could come up with literally hundreds of combinations to make it work. And believe me, that has been done. Catholics, Mormons, Prodestants, Lutherans and countless other religions have their own interpretations of the Trinity teaching. How can that teaching be right if all these differing opinions exist on its meaning? Is not at least ONE of them absolutely right?

Here are a few points of view that should inspire any honest-hearted, truth-seeking person to carefully examine in an effort to shed light upon this teaching. Please keep in mind that the earliest DOCUMENTED proof of the Trinity teaching dates back to the Nicene Creed, a government-sanctioned document the purpose of which was to unify a splitting house of worship…notedly, the Roman Catholic Church. All other reports are speculation as to the meaning of certain author’s beliefs. All pre-Nicene opinions that I am aware of (not saying that I am familiar with them all) are from “fathers” of the Roman Catholic Church. It was the Nicene Creed that for the first time put it into an official, chuch stand.

All scripture quoted is from the New Internation Version of the Holy Scriptures. I invite you to read your own version of the Bible to compare to these quotes.

JESUS IS AN EQUAL PART OF THE GODHEAD

2 Peter 1:17 : “For he received honor and glory from the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” This scripture not only tells where Jesus’ glory came from, but also when…and it is critical. Jesus did not possess any glory on his own, it was given by the Father to him when he was 30 years old in front of witnesses at Jesus’ baptism. If he was deity in his own right, he would not have needed the Father to give glory to him, nor would he have had to wait until his baptism to receive it. Here, it is stressed in the scriptures that Jesus is God’s SON, not God himself. This points to Jesus’ subordinate place along the side of his Father. It is therefore reasonable to deduce that they are NOT equal.

John 14:28: “You heard me say ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.” Jesus here points out in no uncertain terms that he and the Father are not equal. In contrast to other scriptures that only insinuate a point, this scripture is direct in nature and states very clearly that the Father is greater than Jesus. They are NOT equal!

Philippians 2:9-11 “Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of the Father.”

God did the exalting and did so to his OWN glory. This entire passage speaks to God’s sole authority to do what He wants, in this case exalting His own Son. Jesus is NOT the exalt-ER, but the exalt-EE. One cannot exalt another unless there is superior position, rank or authority. Jesus is clearly the lesser of the two.

1 Corinthians 15:25-28: (speaking of Jesus) “For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he ‘has put everything under his feet’. Now when it says that ‘everything’ has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God Himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him that put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.” Can a logical person even conceive that these two, God the Father and his Son, Jesus are equal from this scripture? This is one of the most direct passages describing their relationship in terms of rank, or position. Any part of the Godhead described by most Trinitarians is equal to the power of the other. This directly rejects that teaching. Here, in these verses, it is crystal clear who has the authority and who has been given authority. They CANNOT be equal.

JESUS IS ALL-KNOWING, AND THEREFORE IS GOD

Matthew 24:36, Jesus speaking: “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” While Jesus was certainly blessed by God with extraordinary powers, the claim that Jesus is all knowing is completely and utterly denied by Jesus’ own words here. Jesus does not know the hour in which the actual end will take place. If he were God, he most certainly would know for it is his (God’s) master plan. There exists no scripture, let alone Jesus’ own words, that says he is all-knowing. Some apostles asked Jesus that, since he knew all things, would he please explain this or that…but to claim that these scriptures say Jesus knows all would be in direct conflict with Jesus’ words here. We know it has to be one way or the other, so which is it? For me personally, I will trust in Jesus’ words that he does NOT know the hour of the coming of the end and therefore does not know all things.

[Note:. . .And six pages of verses and commentary from Revelation edited]

Thank you for your response and I will enjoy putting this on our web site. I can tell you are zealous in what you believe and I sense a strong disdain towards those who differ from you. I am sorry that with my heavy schedule I cannot address all your points but let me address just a few. Your response is typical of JW’s who have misunderstood the doctrine of the Trinity and have used Bible verses out of context.

Let’s take a look at a few.

The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that there is one God who has revealed Himself in three distinct persons all are equal in nature. They are distinct in person. The Father is not the Son. The Son is not the Holy Spirit. One God revealed in three distinct persons. JW’s mislead people when they say the trinity teaches Jesus and the Father are one in the same person. They are distinct in person, but equal in nature.

In regard to the passage from John 6:46 states, “No man has seen God…” you interpret this to mean no man has ever seen God at all. Let’s take a look at some passages and see if this is the case. Isaiah 6 states, “In the year King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on the throne, high and exalted….” Isaiah appears to have seen the Lord. In Exodus 3, Moses speaks with God at the burning bush. Deuteronomy 34:10 states, “Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face.” There are other passages where men have seen and spoken with God. So what John 6:46 is saying is, no one has seen God in His full glory. That no one could withstand. However, God has revealed Himself in veiled form, which we could see and withstand. Jesus is God the Son veiled in flesh. Philippians 2 if you read the entire passage states, that Jesus emptied himself or made himself nothing. He temporarily clothed himself in flesh and revealed himself to us. Later in Revelation 1, we see Jesus in glory.

The allegation that the Trinity was not taught until the Nicene council is incorrect. The Watchtower printed this in their magazine ‘Should You Believe in the Trinity.” There they quote pre-Nicene fathers as rejecting the Trinity. One interesting note, the Watchtower does not footnote any of it’s references. They use endless dots …. why are there no footnotes or references pointing to the exact location of these quotes. Typical Watchtower deception. In my article on the Probe web site called “Why You should Believe in the Trinity,” I quote several pre Nicene church fathers and give the exact reference. Here are a few the Watchtower misquoted.

Justin Martyr (165 A.D.): “…the Father of the universe has a Son; who being the logos and First-begotten is also God” (First Apology 63:15).

Irenaeus (200 A.D.) : (referencing Jesus) “…in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, . . .” (Against Heresies I, x, 1).

Clement of Alexandria (215 A.D.): “Both as God and as man, the Lord renders us every kind of help and service. As God He forgives sin, as man He educates us to avoid sin completely” (Christ the Educator, chapter 3.1). In addition, “Our educator, O children, resembles His Father, God, whose son He is. He is without sin, without blame, without passion of soul, God immaculate in form of man accomplishing His Father’s will” (Christ the Educator Chapter 2:4).

Tertullian (230 A.D.): “…the only God has also a Son, his Word who has proceeded from himself, by whom all things were made and without whom nothing has been made: that this was sent by the Father into the virgin and was born of her both man and God. Son of Man, Son of God, …” (Against Praxeas, 2).

Hippolytus (235 A.D.): “And the blessed John in the testimony of his gospel, gives us an account of this economy and acknowledges this word as God, when he says, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.’ If then the Word was with God and was also God, what follows? Would one say that he speaks of two Gods? I shall not indeed speak of two Gods, but of one; of two persons however, and of a third economy, the grace of the Holy Ghost” (Against the Heresy of One Noetus. 14).

Origen (250 A.D.): (with regard to John 1:1) “…the arrangement of the sentences might be thought to indicate an order; we have first, ‘in the beginning was the Word,’ then ‘And the Word was with God,’ and thirdly, ‘and the Word was God,’ so that it might be seen that the Word being with God makes Him God” (Commentary on John, Book 2, Chapter 1).

Not only in these instances, but also throughout their writings the ante-Nicene fathers strongly defend the deity of Christ.

I would challenge you to ask the leaders at your kingdom hall, Why doesn’t the watchtower magazine, on Page 7 footnote their references? Also, where exactly are these quotes located in the writings of the church fathers? If you know a little about church history, you will know that the early church suffered persecution under the Roman Empire. It was not until Emperor Constantine converted that they could have a church council. At Nicea then, they simply articulated what they already believed and taught.

2 Peter 1:17, states, “For he received honor and glory from God the Father….” Take a look 17:5 where Jesus prays, “And now Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.” Now take a look at Isaiah 42:8. God says, “I am the Lord, that is my name. I will not give my glory to another…” God will not give his glory to another. Yet Jesus shared in God’s glory before the world began. He shares God’s glory because He is in nature God.

Let’s look at John 14:28 where Jesus says the Father is greater than I. Greater refers to position not to nature. For example, you would agree with the statement, “George Bush is greater than you or I.” As the chief executive officer of our country, that is indeed true. But is George Bush a superior being to you or I? No. Greater refers to position, not nature. In the Trinity, there is an economy, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They are equal in nature, greater refers to position. In Hebrews 1:4 it states, “So he (Jesus) became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.” Here Jesus is not an angel because He is superior in nature to them. Or as the New World Translation states, “So he has become better than the angels,” Jesus is better, meaning superior in nature to the angels. If Jesus was an inferior being to the Father, He would have said, “the Father is better or superior than I.”

Let’s take a look at the verse you quoted in Philippians 2. You begin at verse nine, but you need to look at the verse in its context. Begin at verse 1. Paul is exhorting the Philippians to exemplify humility as Christ did. How did Christ demonstrate humility? Verse 6 states, “Who (Christ) being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped.” The Greek word there is “morphe” which means essential attributes. In other words, Jesus essential attributes was the nature of God. He humbled himself unto death and was exalted by God at the resurrection and sits at the Father’s right hand. Another interesting note, verse 11 states, “and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord…” In Isaiah 45:18 God states, “I am the Lord and there is no other.” Yet here when every tongue confesses Jesus is Lord, it brings glory to the Father. We can’t have two Lords and if God states, He is the only Lord and Jesus has that title as well, what must we conclude?

In regard to the Revelation passages, it would be helpful to outline the book of Revelation. State the theme and how it plays out through the book. The Watchtower has interpreted it incorrectly in many areas. In Chapter 1:7 Jesus is coming to the earth. In verse 8 it states, “I am the alpha and the Omega, says Jehovah God, the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.” God the Father is never referred to as coming soon. the one who is coming is Jesus. Verse 8 refers to the one coming soon in verse 7 who is Jesus. Jesus is called God in verse 8. The whole theme of chapter one is the Son of God. Even if you want to say verse 8 refers to Jehovah and not Jesus, look at 22:12-16. Who is the alpha and Omega there? Jesus. Jehovah is the Alpha and Omega in chapter one. You cannot have two Alphas and Two Omegas. You can only have one. It is Jehovah in chapter 1, Jesus in chapter 22. So we conclude Jesus is God the Son. In 1:17-18 it states, “I am the First and the Last. I am the living one; I was dead and behold I am alive forever and ever.” The First and the Last here is Jesus who died and rose again.

In Isaiah 44:6, Jehovah says, “I am the First and the Last; apart from me there is no God.” You cannot have two firsts and two lasts. You can only have one. Once again, Jesus is God the Son for He shares the same title. Just a study of Chapter one of Revelation reveals the deity of Christ. I would study Revelation without the Watchtower articles to see what it says for itself. It is the Watchtower interpretations that led to the numerous false prophecies of Jesus second coming in 1914, 1918, 1925, and 1975. Their record of false prophecies alone should have one question the credibility of this organization.

Sorry I do not have time for a detailed study of the rest of your passages. Perhaps at a later time. Thanks for your reply.

Patrick Zukeran
Probe Ministries

My friend is a Christian who practices Reiki and thinks that it’s the Holy Spirit working through her. She has a heart for healing and I don’t want to discourage her from pursuing that or deny that the Spirit is at work in her. But I fear that these counterfeits are keeping her from realizing her true potential in Christ.

I guess I have two questions: how can I lovingly discuss with her what the Bible says about these practices, when she doesn’t fully accept it as God’s Word; and can you tell me more about Reiki from a Christian perspective?

Thanks for your questions. It’s terribly difficult to reason with someone from the Scriptures if they do not already accept their Divine authority. If she’s open to doing some reading in the area, you may want to encourage her to look into what conservative scholarship has said about the inspiration, authority, and inerrancy of Scripture. A General Introduction to the Bible, by Norman Geisler and William Nix is a fairly exhaustive treatment of the subject. Many books on Christian apologetics have chapters dealing with the trustworthiness of the Bible. One book you may want to recommend is I’m Glad You Asked, by Ken Boa and Larry Moody. It is an excellent, beginner’s level text in apologetics and has a chapter entitled, “How Accurate is the Bible?,” which might prove helpful. Suffice it to say, until a Christian accepts the Bible as the inspired word of God, it is difficult to use it as the final authority for proper Christian belief and practice. Such a person can always claim that the texts they don’t like are simply not inspired by God, etc. Thus, this is a critical issue to deal with.

Having said that, I think you are exactly right about your friend. There are very good grounds for rejecting Reiki if one is willing to listen to the Bible. In a book entitled Basic Questions on Alternative Medicine, a corporate project by members of the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1988), there is a short chapter on Reiki (pp. 61-63). I will draw some information from that chapter. Although Reiki claims to be an “ancient healing practice that Buddha (and Jesus) used,” all records of it were lost. It was allegedly rediscovered by Mikao Usui, a Zen Buddhist monk, in the mid-1800s “during a psychic experience.” Additionally, it is claimed that details about lost aspects of the practice have “been revealed through channeling.” Channeling is the New Age term for mediumship and involves contact with, and usually possession by, “spirit guides.” The authors of this chapter state that a second-degree Reiki practitioner “learns about spirit guides and how to contact and use them in healing sessions.” They further state that third degree Reiki masters give “complete control of healing sessions to their spirit guides.” Healing sessions appear to be based on the use of “life-energy” (i.e. ki, chi, or prana), which is sent from the practitioner into the patient’s body.

The greatest concern would seem to be the identity of the “spirit guides.” Since they are typically contacted in ways expressly forbidden in Scripture, and since they advocate unbiblical ideas and practices, it is honestly quite difficult to view them as anything other than the biblical demons. The authors of this chapter conclude by stating: “Reiki is antithetical to biblical Christianity. Channeling is a way of communicating with spirits to obtain information not otherwise accessible. It is denounced in the Bible as sorcery, mediumship, and spiritism (Lev. 19:26, 31; 20:6; Deut. 18:9-14…).”

It seems to me that Reiki has the potential to be spiritually harmful. I would pray for your friend and encourage her to give serious consideration to the biblical warnings mentioned above.

I wish you all the best with your friend.

Shalom,

Michael Gleghorn
Probe Ministries

+ + + + +

A former Reiki master who has become a Christian wrote this testimony to Sue Bohlin:

“Reiki is something that is very mis-stated, and misunderstood, by those outside of the Reiki circle. Having been in it, I can tell you everything you need to know. I will tell you right up front that it was a hard one to shake, that it was VERY real and beneficial, but that it is decidedly non-Christian.

“I highly recommend anyone looking into it to just stop. Prayer is very powerful, and is our direct link to God through Christ. If we petition directly for healing, it may come. If we have faith that it WILL come, our chances are far better. As with anything we are to test, does Reiki point either the practitioner or the client to Christ? No. Big no. It uses a Universal energy that is non-personal and can be manipulated. You can pray to God, to the Earth Mother, to Mother/Father God, etc. But it in fact leads you AWAY from Christ.

“It is all about what you FEEL in your hands, what you FEEL in your spirit, what the client FEELS in their body/emotions/spirit. In that regard it is very very real. My hands get hot, I hit a place of extreme peace and quiet, I heal people who feel a tingle or hot spot or whatever. Their headache, menstrual cramps, emotional distress, bruises, whatever, goes away. But is God glorified? No way. Is self glorified? Yes.

“If it is so good and right, why do practitioners go on to other things once they hit Master level? The teacher who taught me was going on to accupuncture and other new Reiki teachings. Always something else, something new, something you NEED to be a true master. Sound familiar? It is like everything else in this world, but Christ. There is no lasting peace, no connection with the universe, there is a big void in your soul that is not going away. WE ALL NEED CHRIST! I told my wife when she questioned my stopping in my search for peace once I found Christ (she had followed my years of searching through New Age theologies, etc) that Jesus Christ filled the hole. All the puzzle pieces fell into place and everything suddenly made sense. For a long time after that I tried to make Reiki fit into Christianity but it didn’t. I prayed a lot about it. God firmly and solidly showed me in Scripture how it couldn’t work. The two major things against it, regardless of how well it works, are 1) it does not point anyone to Christ and in facts points people away from a single triune God, and 2) it is no different than all the pagan rituals in the Old Testament that would have people pray to the rain god or fertility god, etc. They must have worked or people wouldn’t have kept praying to them, and God’s people wouldn’t have been attracted to them. But either way it isn’t what GOD has asked us to do. Everything we need is in Him. We can pray for any healing we need.”

I have read several of your articles on Islam, and have noted you state several times your belief that the Qur’an is not an inspired text, and the Bible is. Whilst I agree with you on this, I would be interested in the reasons and evidence you have for this belief.

Although I don’t know how others might respond to your question, my own view is this. First, the Bible claims to be an inspired text: “All Scripture is inspired by God” (2 Tim. 3:16). Of course, this does NOT prove that it really is inspired. However, if the Bible nowhere claimed to be inspired, then we would hardly have good reason to believe that it was. Thus, what the text claims for itself is important.

Second, I think there is strong evidence to embrace biblical inspiration for a number of reasons. For sake of time, let me mention only one: the accurate fulfillment (in the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus) of very specific Messianic prophecies (made centuries before Jesus was even born). The specificity of these prophecies, and their accurate fulfillment in the life of Jesus, constitutes strong evidence for divine inspiration. After all, who else knows the future with that kind of accuracy other than an omniscient God?

Finally, if the Bible is inspired by God, then it would seem logically impossible for the Qur’an to also be divinely inspired. Why? Because both texts teach very different doctrines, doctrines that are not logically consistent with one another. For example, the Qur’an denies the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the Incarnation, etc. But the Bible teaches both doctrines. Clearly, both texts cannot be correct, for this would violate the law of non-contradiction. Thus, if the Bible is inspired by God, then it logically follows that the Qur’an is not (because it contradicts clear biblical teaching on a number of important doctrines).

Hope this helps.

Shalom,

Michael Gleghorn
Probe Ministries

I was briefly looking over your site. I find it amusing when I have nothing else to do to see if you anti-Mormons have come up with anything new since 1830. It appears you have not. For members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints like myself, we indulge in the challenge of finding answers to such shortsighted claims as are found on your site. To help in these boring times I would ask for something different. To start out if you would quit using phrases like “orthodox christians”, and “historic christianity”, it would first eliminate a great deal of confusion for those whom you would blind by your craftiness. After all what does it matter if people believed something for thousands of years. If it is wrong it will always be so. Thus, just because “orthodox christians” believed in the trinity for hundreds of years that doesn’t make it any more true than when it was spawned by uninspired men. This will force your mind to think of new lies to tell people as you divert them from the Spirit of Truth. However I’m sure you will misconstrue and misrepresent my words. But at least you will know that you had to shade the truth to advance your own cause.

Thanks for reading the article on Mormon Doctrine of God. It is difficult to take your response seriously since you are simply making personal attacks, which involve name-calling and cynical remarks. This hardly represents the attitude the Bible teaches believers to have. 1 Peter 3:15 states, “But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you the hope you have, but do this with gentleness and reverence.” I see none of that displayed in your remarks here. Your conduct and attitude says a great deal about your religious faith. I hope this is not typical of the attitude of the Mormon Church. A biblical critique of my article on a more scholarly level would be more profitable. Not only a biblical critique of my work but also a biblical defense of your position leaving out the sarcasm and personal insults would be very profitable for all parties. Until then, I cannot take your comments seriously.

Patrick Zukeran
Probe Ministries

I found your article on A Course in Miracles very disturbing. This person is telling me that his opinion is the one I should follow because he is a Christian. I have been a practicing Catholic most of my life and I was under the impression that Christians are supposed to be charitable in that they gently pose their opinions, not slap you over the head with the idea of If You Don’t Follow Me You Are Not Following Jesus!! I do have a STRONG belief in Jesus but I do not profess any organized church as my own. Does this mean that because I don’t go to a church every Sunday that I also will burn in the fires of Eternal Damnation? Please excuse me. I have been reading information on “A Course In Miracles” and as the information I have read has stated this course can be interpreted many different ways. However, so can the Bible, and this person takes the idea that Satan has written “A Course In Miracles” and that anyone taking it will meet the devil and his minions face to face a bit too far. Please excuse me once again but God forbid that any of us should follow Jesus’ path and meet the devil face to face and say through the strength Jesus brings “Get Thee Behind Me Satan”!

Mother of 2

Thank you for writing with your concerns about our article on “A Course in Miracles.” Although I didn’t write the article, it is my privilege to respond to your letter as one “Mother of 2” to another.

This article was written to educate and warn people about the true source of the Course, because most people don’t know what the Bible says and therefore they don’t recognize spiritual danger. As a mom, you can recognize dangers that your kids can’t because they aren’t as well-educated in the ways of the world as you are, and because you know more about how life works than they do. The author of this article, Russ Wise, has been studying the occult for many years and is extremely well-versed in the many doors into it. He wrote this article in the same spirit in which we as moms lovingly warn our kids, because it really IS a doorway to demons even if it looks innocent and spiritual on the outside.

As I read your letter, it seems to me that you’re angry about religious things that have nothing to do with either this article or The Course. I can understand that. . . I was REALLY angry with God and with the church when I stopped going in high school. I found out later that my anger wasn’t about God at all, it was about the frustrations of the emptiness of organized religion when what my soul longed for was a personal relationship with God. It took me several years to discover that I could have that relationship, through Jesus.

I’m glad to hear you have a strong belief in Jesus. That’s great, since He has a strong belief in YOU! [smile] And that’s why we have articles like this one on The Course, because it very subtly attacks His rightful place as King of Kings and Lord of Lords by making him just another spiritual guru, and one of many ways to God. But Jesus said He was the ONLY way to the Father, and proved it by dying on the cross in our place and coming back to life three days later.

To get back to your original letter, I would suggest that perhaps it would be good to do some research on your own—find out if it really is true that saying that The Course will lead one to demons is going “a bit too far.” Either it’s true or it’s not. If it’s not, there’s nothing to fear. If it is, that’s a very scary proposition. . . and that’s why we posted this article.

I pray God’s good and rich blessings on your life and heart.

Sue Bohlin
Probe Ministries

My daughter’s philosophy professor posed the question, “Does God saying something is right make it right?” He says that if the answer is “yes” then God is arbitrary, and thus not loving, and if the answer is “No” then right and wrong had to exist prior to God and He is not all powerful. (The professor says that the later is the Catholic view, and seems to indicate that these are very early levels of philosophical thought.)

On a Web site about Socrates’ ideas on the good life (http://academics.vmi.edu/psy_dr/socrates.htm), there is this paragraph:

In the Euthyphro the main question raised is: Are right/good acts right/good just because God (or the gods) says so, or does God say so because they are right/good? If it is just because God says so, then God’s commandments seem arbitrary. And what if God does not exist? Does anything go? On the other hand, if God’s commandments are made for a reason, i.e. if there is something else (other than God’s arbitrary decree) about bad acts that makes them bad, what is it? And is God then irrelevant to ethics?

The answer to the next-to-the-last question is the option your daughter’s professor didn’t offer, namely, the nature or character of God. Theologian J. Oliver Buswell said this about God’s law: “The divine character is expressed by the divine will in the divine law” (A Systematic Theology, 1:264). What God says is good is good because it reflects the character of God which is good. What makes things bad is being against God’s character. If God just plucked a law out of thin air, He would be arbitrary. However, seeking some other source of right and wrong wasn’t the only other option. God’s law reflects God’s character. Thus, the answer to the last question in the above paragraph is no–God isn’t irrelevant to ethics. Morality is grounded in His nature and made known by His will.

I hope this helps.

Rick Wade
Probe Ministries

I am a Christian and have been one all of my life. I am moderately well versed in apologetics. As far as I can tell, as of now, there is only one real argument against Christianity and that comes from Zoroastrianism. I do not know how much you know about this religion, but it was founded by someone called Zoroaster or Zarathushtra who was born around 1200 BC and has a holy text called the “avesta.” It used to be one of the most popular religions in the world, but has since dwindled down to about 140,000 members, most in India.

The argument that people make is that the Jewish ideal of a savior comes from Zoroastrianism, apparently there is a strong savior figure in Zoroastrianism that will die, become resurrected, and then judge the dead. People claim that when the Jews were taken in Babylon they were exposed to this faith and adopted parts of it as their own; they say this explains why the idea of a savior figure emerges in the parts of the Bible that were written during or after the Jews’ stay in Babylon. People will then go on to say that Zoroastianism developed many cults, particularly among Romans, about the time of Jesus that claimed a divine figure will come to earth and defeat “the bull” or something like Satan or the devil, and then judge everyone. These people claim that this made the acceptance of Jesus much more likely and also point out that the three wisemen that went to see Jesus were called “magi” which is a priest in Zoroastrianism. One of the tenants of Zoroastrianism says that the savior figure will be found by following a certain star, which is what the three wisemen did. Also Zoroastrianism seems to hint that the savior will be born by a virgin (but I am not sure of that).

People would claim that the prophecies that are fulfilled in the New Testament are added in by the authors and would counter the martyrdom of the authors as evidence for belief by saying that they eventually grew to believe it, which is possible according to modern day psychology. They would then say that Jesus was either made up, or a historical figure that happened to be very intelligent but also insane in a way that was not apparent to people around him. A very unlikely event, but one that must be used to explain something amazing as the spread of Christianity according to them.

Now I have of course not cited any evidence for my references on the argument for Zoroastrianism leading to Christianity which is because much of what I have learned is from people who I think reference A History of Zoroastrianism by Mary Boyce. I have not read that book (it is in two volumes I believe), so I cannot judge its arguments, but from a purely historical point of view, if Zoroastrianism really said all the aforementioned material before Jesus was around and then it traveled to Babylon, it does seem like a good argument against Christianity.

I must admit that there some things wrong with this theory, one is that Zoroastrianism is very big about purification by fire, which Christianity never mentions, although it would be possible to think that Zoroastrianism was diluted by the time it got to Babylon and Christianity also does talk about hell being very fiery. I do not know how much of the language the avesta is written in we can actually translate, maybe all, maybe not that much. And I also am well aware of people distorting facts to suit their own purpose and I have no idea how respected Mary Boyce is among historians. I would also like you to check out the web page www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/religion/zoro.html as it argues that Christianity is the result of a cult and cites sources.

Please tell me your thoughts on this matter and on any other argument that Christianity resulted from cults or other religions; it has been pulling at my heart for a while.

Thanks so much for writing! The argument that Judaism/Christianity borrowed from Zoroastrianism is, as yet, unproven. In fact, if any borrowing was done, it was quite possibly the other way around (i.e. Zoroastrianism borrowed from Judaism/Christianity).

In the first place, the evidence actually indicates that Zoroaster wasn’t even born until about the time of the Babylonian Captivity. Kenneth Boa states that his dates are sometimes given as 628-551 B.C. (Cults, World Religions and the Occult [Illinois: Victor Books, 1990], 45). Other scholars give similar, though not identical, dates (e.g. Herzfeld, 570-500 B.C.; Jackson, 660-583 B.C – see W.S. Lasor, “Zoroastrianism,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter Elwell [Michigan: Baker Book House, 1984], 1202). If these dates are even relatively accurate then it is quite possible that Judaism did not borrow from Zoroastrianism. Rather, it may actually have been Zoroaster who borrowed from the religion of the Jewish captives in Babylon.

It is certainly true that Zoroaster spoke of such things as “… the coming of a savior and the resurrection of the body,” etc. (Ibid., 44). But he may have borrowed these ideas from the Jewish captives in Babylon. Indeed, it appears that all of these ideas can be found in the Jewish Scriptures PRIOR to the Babylonian Captivity.

For instance, even if we grant the contention of the person who wrote the web article you referred me to, that Isaiah offers the first, full monotheistic conception of God (e.g. Isaiah 43:10-13), it by no means follows that Isaiah borrowed this conception from Zoroastrianism! Indeed, Isaiah wrote his book BEFORE Zoroaster was even born! The period in which Isaiah was writing was roughly that of 740-680 B.C. Thus, if there was any borrowing, it was Zoroaster borrowing from Isaiah–not vice-versa. Besides this, LaSor argues that Zoroaster was not a true monotheist anyway, but a polytheist. At most he was a dualist: “He exalted Ahura Mazda…as supreme among the gods…and viewed the world as an agelong struggle between Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu” (Ibid., 1202).

In addition, the coming of a savior is promised as early as Gen. 3:15 in the Bible. This was long before the birth of Zoroaster. Genesis was probably written between 1450-1410 B.C. And there are numerous other Messianic prophecies before the Babylonian Captivity (e.g. in Numbers 24:17 (Law); Psalm 22–especially v. 1, 7-8, 14-18 (writings); Isaiah 52:12-53:12 (Prophets)). All of these prophecies were given BEFORE the birth of Zoroaster and the development of Zoroastrianism. Thus, we need not think that Judaism/Christianity borrowed the idea of a Savior from Zoroastrianism; likely it was just the reverse.

The resurrection of the body seems clearly alluded to in Job 19:25-27. Although this book may have been written during the time of Solomon (approx. 965 B.C.), the events themselves are almost certainly from the patriarchal period (approx. 2000 B.C.). Additionally, Psalm 16:10, written by David long before the Babylonian Captivity also alludes to the physical resurrection of the Messiah (see Acts 2:25-32). Thus, the idea of bodily resurrection (including the resurrection of the Messiah) would seem to predate the advent of Zoroastrianism.

Finally, angels are mentioned in the Bible frequently in Genesis (e.g. 3:24; 19:1; 28:12; etc). Thus, the biblical doctrine of angels is also prior to the beginning of Zoroastrianism.

As for the NT authors adding in Messianic prophecies after the fact, it is simply false. For example, a copy of the text of Isaiah, dating to around the 2nd cent. B.C., was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. This copy of Isaiah is thus PRIOR to the birth of Christ. The prophecies are genuine. Not only this, they also predate the origin of Zoroastrianism as I mentioned previously.

As for Jesus being either unhistorical or insane, both conjectures are entirely without merit. The first flies in the face of an immense amount of information from both ancient Christian and non-Christian sources that were roughly contemporary to Jesus. For instance, aside from the NT and early Christian writers, there are references to Jesus in the Talmud, Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, etc. The second notion, that Jesus was insane, is pure speculation with virtually no evidence whatsoever to support it. People say all sorts of strange things, but the evidence in support of these theories is flimsy in the extreme. And the evidence against such ideas is truly overwhelming.

I hope this sets your mind at rest a little. The ties between Judaism/Christianity and Zoroastrianism are certainly interesting, but the evidence is insufficient to say that the former borrowed from the latter. Indeed, if any borrowing was done, it was likely Zoroastrianism borrowing from Judaism/Christianity.

God bless you,

Michael Gleghorn, Ph.D.
Probe Ministries

***

I thank you for answering my question. I would just like to add to that response, which detailed how the Jews did not “steal” from Zoroastrianism, that in Deuteronomy 18:10 the Jews are forbidden to have anyone “pass through fire,” a practice that Zoroastrianism used and adopted. The passage goes on to say that they are forbidden to do many things that the other pagan cults did, such as the Zoroastrians. That would suggest that the adoption of Zoroastrian traditions would be unlikely considering that they were forbidden to have anything to do with them.

Thanks, ______, for this addendum!

Sue Bohlin
Probe Ministries Webmistress