Turning to the Lord, the Veil is Removed

But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed.

2 Corinthians 3:16

Paul, the First Century Hebrew of Hebrews, wrote the statement above. He knew what he was talking about. Before a personal encounter with the living, risen Jesus Christ, Paul was aggressively opposed to Jesus and his followers.

He experienced life with a veil over his eyes, but he didn’t know it. That is the nature of a veil: what’s behind it is hidden. You don’t know what you don’t know until the veil is removed. When the veil is removed, a person see what was once hidden from view.

For Paul, the veil was removed suddenly and in dramatic fashion. Complete with a flash of light, a voice from heaven and blindness that was removed when the truth of Paul’s encounter was revealed (Acts 9), Paul’s experience was a bit unusual.

These words, though, are a common description for many people, regardless of the drama, or lack thereof: when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. They resonate deeply with me.

The words, though, resonate deeply within me. The truth of Christ was veiled to me for many years. I became a searcher of truth, looking in all the suspect places, until “one day” the veil was removed when I turned to the Lord.

It wasn’t a sudden thing leading up to that point. It was a process. There were markers along the way that I followed, and some gates I went through. In the end, as it seemed the pointers were directing me toward Jesus, I turned to him; and, indeed, the veil was removed.

Looking back, we might say, I was blind, but now I see.” During the process, it doesn’t seem quite like that at all.

Continue reading “Turning to the Lord, the Veil is Removed”

The Resurrection: 2nd Century Legend? or 1st Century Factual Claim?

Silhouette of Jesus in the sunlight

Easter is just around the corner so thinking about the Christian claim that a man from Nazareth in 1st Century Palestine died and rose from the dead three days later is a timely consideration. The accounts of this event don’t read like mere story or legend. They have all the characteristics of Greek biographies that are to be considered historical accounts.

Many modern scholars accept the Gospels as part of the Greco-Roman biography genre (focusing on the similarities), while others find them uniquely Jewish (focusing on the differences). Overarching this ongoing debate is the apparent intent of the authors to assert a factual, historical narrative.[1] This is true even though they include fantastic claims of miracles and the resurrection and all of the theological statements, most of which are penned as coming from Jesus, himself.

From early to mid-19th Century, much of the biblical scholarship has leaned in a skeptical direction, and that inertia has continued robustly into the 21st Century. That scholarly trend has produced a progressive consensus that has viewed the Gospels, for instance, as 2nd Century manuscripts, written generations after Jesus lived and died, morphing the original message into something akin to legend. And, this, they say, accounts for the message of the resurrection.

This view begins with skepticism and ends with a skeptical conclusion explaining the resurrection claim by embellishment that comes with the passage of time. This was the consensus view when I studied religion in the 1970’s. But one man, wrestling with his own doubts, took the facts the skeptics would give him and pieced together an analysis that seems to nail the coffin shut on the view that the resurrection claim is a later embellishment of what the first followers of Jesus believed.

Continue reading “The Resurrection: 2nd Century Legend? or 1st Century Factual Claim?”