In his book titled Twenty-Six Reasons Why Jews Don’t Believe in Jesus, author Asher Norman outlines twenty six reasons why Jews reject both Jesus and Christianity.  He attacks the person of Jesus, the reliability of the New Testament, and the need for salvation as taught in Christianity.  It would take a book to respond to each and every argument proposed by Norman.  However, this paper will address arguments that lie at the heart of his objections.  It will respond to his objections concerning Jesus as Messiah, the New Testament as inspired, and the need for atonement as taught in the Bible.  The paper will also demonstrate that Norman’s objections to Jesus and Christianity are without merit.

Throughout the history of western thought, numerous philosophers and great thinkers have struggled with what is known as The Problem of Evil.  A number of influential philosophers have posited the incompatibility between the existence of God and the existence of evil.  A number of theists have defended their co-existence.  Former Oxford professor of Philosophy J.L Mackie took the theist to task by attempting to expose their arguments as invalid and unpersuasive.  Mackie represents a number of non-theistic criticisms of theistic arguments for The Problem of Evil.[1]  Because of this, I will examine Mackie’s arguments from a theistic perspective and demonstrate that it is Mackie who has failed to be persuasive in his arguments against the positions that reconcile the existence of God with evil.

As a Christian Apologist, I often engage people who are atheist or of different faiths.  If we talk long enough, the topic of the Crusades is bound to come up.  In this paper, I would like to present a view of the Crusades that goes against the commonly held beliefs of most people.

This paper will focus on the First Crusades.  It will examine the Crusades from a traditional view and then from a historical view.  Both views will then be evaluated.

I remember when I first started learning about the three great arguments for the existence of God.  The first argument is the argument from the universe.  It basically goes like this: everything that comes into existence needs a cause, the universe came into existence, therefore the universe needs a cause.  The argument goes on to demonstrate, scientifically, that the cause is consistent with the God of the Bible.

If there is one assertion that can safely and accurately be made about the Muslim view of the Bible it would be that there is no one unified Muslim view of the Bible. The truth is that Muslims and their scriptures often differ on this subject. Additionally, Muslims differ with one another concerning how to view the Bible.