Answers in a Nutshell

There are times when I know folks out there just want a quick explanation. I don't really encourage that, but sometimes a quick explanation is needed to either whet the appetite, or set the stage for better and more detailed understanding. That's what this new series is all about.

Below are Q and A pairings offering simplified answers to major questions. Almost all entries will also have links to more detailed material. Readers are encouraged to NOT use these pairings as final answers, but as springboards to a more detailed understanding. Therefore as well, persons desiring to write responses must respond to the depth articles, not these nutshell items.

If there is a subject you want to see "nutshelled" -- or if you would like to write a "nutshell" for us to edit and post -- drop me a line at jphold@earthlink.net

Indexed by Subject. You may prefer to use your browser's search function, or else use the site's full search function on the front page at tektonics.org, as not all conceivable entries are listed! These are just major issues.

[A] [B] [C] [D] [E] [F] [G] [H] [I] [J] [K] [L] [M] [N] [O] [P] [Q] [R] [S] [T] [U-V] [W] [X-Z]

Abortion

Isn't the Bible silent about abortion? More or less, but that doesn't mean much. The Hebrews were a society in which children were your survival in old age. A law against abortion would have been like a law against hitting yourself repeatedly with a hammer until you were dead.
Doesn't Ex. 21:22:25 show that a fetus was not valued? No, because it depicts the fetus being harmed because of an accidental rather than an intentional act. More here.

Alcohol

Does the Bible condemn the use of alcohol? Answer in brief:

Drunkenness as a condition is condemned.
The vast majority of Bible verses in alcohol give no moral advice one way or the other.
Moderate consumption is not condemned, except within the context of certain persons and certain times.
In light of our times, even moderate consumption of alcohol by a Christian is not a good idea. In ancient times the choice of fermented beverage was limited and by modern standards fairly weak. There was no equal to vodka or gin, or anything that would deliver a knockout punch in a shot glass. Wine was often purposely diluted to prevent drunkenness while still enjoying it. Generally such drinks were only affordable to the rich, or could only be rarely consumed. There is no parallel to our easy access to beer, wine, or vodka every day of the week and from every 7-11 or supermarket. Being a drunkard was not an easy habit; addiction was unlikely for all but the richest and most powerful (which fits in with the warning in Proverbs to kings!).

Learn more here.

Atonement

How did Jesus dying on the cross save us from our sins? And why did he have to die for our sins at all? Here's a simple way of explaining it:

All sin is an offense against God.
All offenses require payment of a price.
Jesus paid that price.

A deeper understanding will require more explanation. The people who lived in the time of the Bible valued honor, which means, they valued how others looked at them. Today most people in the world still value honor more than anything else, though people in Western societies are an exception.

Because God makes the rules, and is the most honorable being in existence, when we break His rules, we insult His honor. We say in essence, "You are not deserving to make rules. I do not pay any attention to you." When we sin we disregard God's authority and say He has and deserves no honor. Since this is untrue, a punishment is required, and the matching punishment is shame, the opposite of honor. And thus we cannot stand in His presence. (See more on this in entry on Hell.)

When Jesus was crucified, he underwent the most shameful treatment a person could have had in that time and place. But because he was deity, his own honor value was as high as God's. And so he paid the only price that would satisfy an "honor insult" to the God who was of greatest honor -- giving up his own greatest honor for our sake, and being "shamed" in our place.

But what about our deeds? Some err and say that deeds save us, but because we can never earn the same honor that God has naturally, this would not be possible. In fact, our good works should come as a natural result of our believing that Jesus saved us. Because we are (or should be) grateful to Jesus, we also ought to do things to serve him, to show we are grateful. That is where our good works come in: Not as a requirement, but as a result.

For more information, go here.
Can't God just forgive sins? No. In sum of the depth article here:

God's emotional response of wrath, anger, outrage is the only sane, appropriate, and morally authentic one.
God's commitment to each community, entails some actions on His part to maintain the basis of community.
Much of the punishment (or more simply: "consequence") of evil is 'built into' the system, and does not involve any 'extra' action on God's part. (I include eternal punishment on this category.)
God, in His role as community member, has the right to hold another member accountable, and in so doing, expresses the worth of that other member.

But Jesus was only on the cross a short time and was raised to life. How can that be sufficient payment for sin? Simply: Based on the above, and a summation of the depth article here:

Because this must be viewed in terms of honor and shame, "amount of time" does not matter; rather, quality of being does. Jesus' shameful death on the cross was an absolute reversal of his honor status; he did not even need to be on the cross for as long as he was for this to be accomplished.
Sacrifice, in the OT background for the NT understandings of Christ’s death, focused more on the giving element than on the death element and was essentially transfer of property from the offerer to God. The victim of the sacrifice became God’s possession, and God could do with it whatever He chose.
The nature of sacrifice did not depend in any way on the sacrifice "staying dead" — it just had to be transferred to God’s ownership.
The offerer could expect some later recompense or blessing from God.

Isn't penal substitution illegal or immoral? No:

It was clearly allowed within the OT sacrificial system. (It was also permitted in ancient pagan law.) So it was not illegal or immoral to them.
It is not merely "getting off scot free" but does involve a pledge of lifetime loyalty to YHWH. Thus a price is paid in ourselves.

For more information see the item here.
Isn't Jesus' death a violation of the command against human sacrifice? No. To sum up the item here:

What is forbidden is not so much "human" sacrifice as "child" sacrifice.
A noble, sacrificial death by a willing subject was perfectly acceptable.

Baptism

Is baptism required for salvation? No, but a person who is saved will naturally want to be baptized. The Bible operates on a premise that if you really believe, you will follow up with action. Thus if you truly wish to become part of the Body of Christ, you will gladly undergo its "initiation" ritual. For more see here.
Must baptism be by immersion? I see no reason why it must be, but clearly, it is the form that most closely parallels Christ's burial and resurrection, so it is hard to see why it would be refused if it were available. More here.

Bible

Why should the Bible be trusted as a source? To answer this question fully requires a great deal of depth work, but let's sum up some of the issues here.
A good first question in reply is, "How does someone or something earn trust?" The simple answer is that someone or something earns trust by being reliable. For a book like the Bible that would mean that it reflects what the truth is on places we can check, which means that we tend to give it credence on things we can't, or that it is our burden to explain why it should not be trusted. The same rules apply to any book of history.
How do we know that what the Bible says, is what the people who wrote the Bible originally wrote? Some like to say that later writers and copyists viciously changed the text for their own purposes. The science of textual criticism does not support this view. For more information, see this page under the entry for Textual Criticism.
How do we know the Bible writers were interested in telling the truth? We have two forms of evidence. The first is internal evidence: Do the Bible writers claim to be telling the truth? (This is not an exercise in circular reasoning, any more than it is to take as truth what a person says under oath.) For more on that issue see here. The second is external evidence: How well does the Bible cohere with what we find outside of it? This involves a great many arguments we can't sum up here, but if you want to check a specific issue, you should check our indexes. But generally this means that we check the Bible against physical evidence (through things like archaeology) and against other writings (like the works of the Jewish historian Josephus) to see if they agree -- keeping in mind of course that one cannot simply assume that where Josephus is right, the Bible must be wrong!
How do we know the Bible writers were qualified to tell the truth? Obviously if they were eyewitnesses to what the wrote about, this gives us all the more reason to trust them; though of course one need not be an eyewitness to report facts reliably. But for example, see the series here which defends the eyewitness authorship of the Gospels of Matthew and John, and the origin of the Gospels of Mark and Luke in authors with access to eyewitness testimony.
Isn't the Bible full of errors and contadictions? If you think so, use our resources to find the claim of error and contradiction to see what we say about it. Then get back to me. You can use our Scripture index which is on the front page of tektonics.org.
Wasn't the Pentateuch (the five books of Moses) fabricated? On this, see our entry for "JEDP".
How were the Gospels composed? On this, see our entry for "Q".

Canon

Is the canon controversial? No. To sum up articles here for the Old Testament and here for the New Testament:

The idea of a "canon" is a cultural norm of the ancient Near East, not something the Jews just "made up".
There are some clear criteria that were used to determine what belonged in the canon.
Those who dispute this need to "make a case" for any book they want added in or taken out -- not just make a list as though this proves anything.
Ultimately, what is true is more important than what is "canonized".
The canonizers were qualified to determine what was or was not canonical. See here.

Capital Punishment

Does the Bible support capital punishment? The Bible does permit is as an option. Passages used against it (like John 8 and Ex. 20:13) are not valid answers. For more see here.

Christianity

What is Christianity? The Oxford English dictionary defines it as, "The religion of Christ; the Christian faith; the system of doctrines and precepts taught by Christ and his apostles." Properly this excludes any group (like Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses) that do not teach such doctrines (though obviously they will argue that their views ARE the originals!) A "Christian" in turn is one "believing, professing, or belonging to the religion of Christ".
Hasn't Christianity perpetrated great evils in the name of its beliefs? This has been a common charge for many years. In the 1800s, Charles Pettit McIlvaine wrote in his book The Evidences of Christianity, and his comments are just as applicable today:
I am well aware, and I desire not to conceal, that it is very common with infidels to ascribe wars, intrigues, bloodshed, and persecutions, to the influence of Christianity, and to assert that the world has been covered with slaughter by the hand of the gospel. The truth is, that whenever any evils, such as wars or persecutions, arise, though infidels by profession, or mere nominal Christians, are at the bottom of them; though originated and carried on out of direct enmity to the gospel; yet, because the Christian name is involved in the contest, infidels set down the whole to the account of a religion, which, nevertheless, their chief men confess, has a direct tendency to make every body do his duty, and "to promote the peace and happiness of mankind."

Which leads to the corresponding question in the other direction: What good has Christianity done in history?
We would recommend the following reading for those wishing to support this general argument:

Christianity on Trial by Carroll and Shiflett -- Extravagant charges have lately been laid, or in some cases relaid, at Christianity's door...The problem with these condemnations is, of course, that they are all false, as Carroll and Shiflett demonstrate by restating the historical record and core Christian teachings and by putting specific events, such as the Crusades, and practices, such as slavery, in historical and cross-cultural perspective. -- summary
For the Glory of God by Rodney Stark -- [Stark] shows how beliefs in God--whether it was through the filter of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam--provoked and fueled human history. Of course many readers won’t dicker with his evidence that religious fervor influenced the witch hunts. But readers may be surprised by Stark’s assertion that the persecution of witches actually had more to do with the conflicts between the world’s major religions than the oppressive beliefs of fanatical clergy or sexist men. He also asserts that the same religious leaders who were the first to persecute witches were also the first to take a stand against slavery. And, contrary to many historical theories, Stark claims that religion may have been the driving force behind the emergence of modern science. -- Amazon editor review

McIlvane noted that even "infidels" admit that the model of Jesus is inconsistent with the described atrocities:

But hear on this head the eloquence of the profligate Rousseau, venturing for once to speak the truth: "I will confess that the majesty of the scriptures strikes me with admiration, as the purity of the gospel has its influence on my heart. Peruse the works of our philosophers with all their pomp of diction; how contemptible are they compared with the scriptures! Is it possible that a book at once so simple and sublime should be merely the work of man? Is it possible that the sacred personage whose name it records, should be himself a mere man? What sweetness, what purity in his manner! What sublimity in his maxims! What profound wisdom in his discourses! Where is the man, where the philosopher, who could so live and so die without weakness and without ostentation? If the life and death of Socrates were those of a sage, the life and death of Jesus were those of a God." Such are the confessions of a man whose vice and vanity constrained him to say: "I cannot believe the gospel." No wonder, when at the same time he was saying in his heart, I will not renounce my debaucheries. But such confessions abound in the writings of infidels, so that "the whole Christian argument might be maintained on the admissions of one or other of the leading infidel writers, and no contest remain, unless, if it could then be called one, with the miserable, ignorant ferocity of Paine and his associates." (see the full text of McIlvane's lecture here)

Christianity has been of benefit to the scientific advancement of society: Dr. Loren Eiseley (1907-1977), a Professor of anthropology, a science history writer and evolutionist, concluded that the birth of modern science was mainly due to the creationist convictions of its founders. “It is the CHRISTIAN world which finally gave birth in a clear articulated fashion to the experimental method of science itself ... It began its discoveries and made use of its method in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a Creator who did not act upon whim nor inference with the forces He had set in operation. The experimental method succeeded beyond man’s wildest dreams but the faith that brought it into being owes something to the Christian conception of the nature of God. It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.” See more here.
But what about ____________? Obviously there are people who make huge lists of Christian "atrocities". Some are valid, others are bogus, and there are all sorts in between. If you want to look up any specific one, we've got a whole lot of them covered in a project here, includes the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and so on. Just look up by date.
Did Christianity spread quickly? The text of Acts tells us as much, and it is the burden of the critic to explain them. Acts reports thousands of conversions, and of "multitudes" (Acts 5-6) thereafter, in the most critical area around Jerusalem. The NT bears witness to the faith spreading among the educated, literate classes who would be the least likely to join the new faith. Paley summed up the data as follows in his Evidences:
The institution, which properly began only after its Author's removal from the world, before the end of thirty years, had spread itself through Judea, Galilee, and Samaria, almost all the numerous districts of the Lesser Asia, through Greece, and the islands of the Aegean Sea, the seacoast of Africa, and had extended itself to Rome, and into Italy. At Antioch, in Syria, at Joppa, Ephesus, Corinth, Thessalonica, Berea, Iconium, Derbe, Antioch in Pisidia, at Lydda, Saron, the number of converts is intimated by the expressions, "a great number," "great multitudes," "much people." Converts are mentioned, without any designation of their number, at Tyre, Cesarea, Troas, Athens, Philippi, Lystra, Damascus. During all this time Jerusalem continued not only the centre of the mission, but a principal seat of the religion; for when Saint Paul returned thither at the conclusion of the period of which we are now considering the accounts, the other apostles pointed out to him, as a reason for his compliance with their advice, "how many thousands (myriads, ten thousands) there were in that city who believed."

See Chapter IX on The Propagation of Christianity here. See also article here, Point 18. McIlvane also noted:

I have now set before you a miracle, the evidence of which no eye can be too blind to see: Christianity universally propagated; and yet propagated by no earthly influence but that of the apostles. This is the miracle. It is as directly contrary to the laws of nature and to universal experience, as if, at the word of man, the desert of Arabia should bud and blossom like a fruitful garden, or the sepulchre give up its dead. As long as this one fact, the propagation of Christianity, shall remain; the gospel will be supported by a pillar of evidence which infidels can only remove by taking away the foundation of all inductive evidence, and bringing down the whole temple of human knowledge to their own destruction.

See McIlvane's full argument in the chapter, "The Propogation of Christianity," Lecture IX of the item here. Bolton also noted:
Observe, that the earliest defenders of Christianity were willing to test the truth of their cause in any and every accredited way; by argument or abstract reasoning, more plausible than the speculations of philosophy; by testimony or external evidence, more trustworthy than the traditions of other systems; and by experience or subjective proof, more efficient, ample, and durable than that of any human influence whatsoever; in short, that they placed Christianity upon a truly rational, a truly historical, a truly moral foundation. Such a religion, they justly concluded, was unique, must be true, must be divine.

As can be seen, the principles of "The Impossible Faith" are a proper defense, and always have been. See Bolton's full argument The Evidences of Christianity.
What about other religions that spread just as fast? Such as...? Critical examination shows that there is no comparison to Christianity in terms of social parallels. To note the most likely example, Islam: "In light of what is offered above, I must conclude that Islam, whether one chooses to see it as the truth or not, does not pass the test as an "impossible faith." Muhammed was clearly an amazing individual, like the CEO of today who gambled and won big. But one may reasonably ask whether matters would have turned out the same had his gambles come to nought." -- summation of article here; plus see McIlvane item referenced above, and Chapter 9 of the item here by Paley.

Corporal Punishment

Does the Bible support corporal punishment? The Bible does permit is as an option, but modern application requires caution. Education in Bible times was a matter of survival, of ensuring that what there was of civilization did not slip over that fine line from order into chaos. Thus all of the Ancient Near Eastern wisdom literature is filled with pithy sayings along the lines of, "A student's back is his ear." Even as today students had to be taught to want to learn -- the only differences are that the options for distraction have become more diversified (i.e., video games, versus, i.e., trips to the prostitute's house), and most of us aren't perceptive enough to see through our society's complexity to know that chaos is just as possible here and now. The severe corporal punishment of the Bible was perfectly appropriate for its time; whether it is today needs to be taken on a by-case basis.

Cruelty

Was the God of the Bible excessively cruel to...

The Amalekites (1 Samuel 30)? No. To sum up a depth item here:

The case of Amalek does not conform to known patterns of genocide, and therefore cannot legitimately be so called.
We have real-life trade-off decisions involving human life that create a presumption against the unilateral application of the "to kill a child is always unjust" without qualification or situational variance.
The Amalekites had a long and violent history of aggression against early Israel (and other nations as well), raiding, plundering, and kidnapping them for slave trade. Nomadic groups such as the Amalekites were violent and terrifying problems all over the ancient world.
There was a solid line of anti-Semitic and misanthropic treachery/behavior by successive generations of Amalekites.
The fate of the innocents was a direct result of the horrible actions of their leaders--the warrior class.
The military action was designed to completely eliminate the Amalekite presence in the desert, and the only option was wholesale destruction of the warrior/military population.
There were only a couple of options as to what should be the fate of the Amalekite dependents. There were no options to absorb the people into Israel, and there were no options for welfare, or relief programs in the ANE. The only two choices were leave them to die slowly/agonizingly or kill them quickly/violently. People themselves normally chose to die quickly (i.e., in cases of individual suicide or group suicide) rather than go into foreign slavery or lingering torturous death (at the hands of others or at the mercy of the harsh environment and times). The ancients considered suicide/euthanasia for anticipated (but only for certain-to-occur) extreme and terminal sufferings to be morally acceptable.
In modern situations and times, this action against the innocents could likely be considered "war crimes", but in the radically different ANE/desert situation, the label of 'war crimes' would not make sense. [It was much more of a euthanasia-type of action.]

The Canaanites (Joshua)? No. To sum up a depth item here:

The Canaanites were a maliciously destructive people given over to various forms of moral depravity, and they had also destroyed a more vibrant culture in the same land.
The primary focus was not to kill, but to drive out the Canaanites; only those who refused to evacuate were killed.
Those who refused to leave were doing so in light of knowledge of how YHWH had brought Israel out of Egypt, and culuturally, were indicating that they believed that their local Canaanite gods were superior to and could defeat YHWH.

The Israelites, because He ordered cannibalism? No, because the verses that mention cannibalism do not say, "You will eat your sons and daughters. Here are some recipes." They do predict what will happen as a judgment upon sin after an extended period of warnings and lesser judgments (so there can be no excuse of blaming God for these actions). Critics who still complain might want to put themselves in the place of the average ANE inhabitant who had to scrape to survive.

The firstborn of Egypt? No. To sum up a depth item here:

The actual number slain would be less than 69,000, versus over 2.75 million Jewish infants killed by Pharaoh's order.
Ample warning was given prior to implementation.
Ancient moral belief that "you reap what you sow" meant that "if Pharaoh said it was okay to kill someone else's children, then he was implicitly agreeing (morally) that it was okay to kill his own peoples' children."

The children attacked by bears? No. To sum up a depth item here:

The "children" were young men between the ages of 12 and 30 -- and there were likely far more than the 42 that were hurt.
The confrontation of Elijah was a public insult following his own miracle at Jericho; in essence, an expression of support for his opponents.
The word used for their injuries could apply to anything as minor as a scratch from a claw.

Divorce

Does the Bible allow divorce (and remarriage)? In specific contexts, yes.

Remarriage is allowed after death of a spouse. This one is easily based on 1 Cor. 7:39, 1 Tim. 5:14, and Rom. 7:32.
Divorce and remmariage is allowed after adultery. This we have discussed extensively here.
Divorce and remarriage are allowed after an unbelieving partner leaves. Paul's comments in 1 Corinthians about an unbelieving spouse (1 Cor. 7:15) and about a believer no longer being in bondage make the most sense if he is saying that they are free to remarry, rather than that they are free to remain separate. This makes divorce because of desertion a valid practice today, for according to Greco-Roman law within which Paul spoke, the mere act of leaving amounted to a legal divorce.
Divorce is allowed because of emotional or physical neglect. Rabbis of Jesus' day -- in both Hillel and Shammai's school -- agreed that neglect was grounds for divorce. They debated over what constituted "neglect", and while material neglect led to divorce, emotional neglect was treated first with attempts at conciliation and fines before divorce was granted. We do not have direct Biblical counsel for this area, but of course one may practice a form of neglect that amounts to #2 above.

Eschatology

What's my view? I adhere to what is called orthodox preterism.
What is preterism? A belief that some substantial portion of Biblical prophecy now taken to refer to the "End Times" actually was fulfilled by 70 AD, coincident with the destruction of Jerusalem. The core proof point for us is that we take Jesus' warning of things taking place in "this generation" to clearly mean that they must take place within the next 40 years. Such time texts are a cornerstone for the preterist case.
What does this imply in terms of the future for us? It means, the popular understanding of a Rapture, a 7 year Tribulation, and an Antichrist figure are not in our future of necessity. If they are, it will be as a "double fulfillment" but is not necessary to fulfill Biblical prophecy. The chief preterist view holds that all that surely remains in our future is final resurrection and judgment.
Chief preterist view? Are there others? Yes, there is a view sometimes called full preterism (or by proponents, "consistent preterism") which holds that ALL Biblical prophecy is now fulfilled, including those that preterists of my school say refer to the final resurrection. This view is considered heretical by preterists of my school, who are often called "partial" preterists but are here called preterists.
So what about verses that refer to the Rapture? Preterists see those as references to the final resurrection, which is in our future still.
And verses that refer to the Tribulation? Preterists understand the Tribulation to have occured during (but not exhausting) the 7 year period to have been fulfilled in the Jewish War which lasted from 66-73 AD. The Trib does not take up the full 7 years but is centered on the years 67-70.
What about the Anti-christ, 666? We usually see Nero as having filled that slot, though I know others have suggested Titus, Vespasian, and others.
So what has been fulfilled and what hasn't? Preterists say that the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in the Jewish War or in the time leading up to it, as was Daniel 9, and all of Revelation up until part of the last two chapters. According to preterists, we are NOW in the "millenium" of Rev. 20. What is past that, and the final resurrection (referred to in John 5, in 1 Corinthians and the Thessalonian correspondence, and elsewhere) is yet to come.
Is this some sort of weirdo view? If you consider R. C. Sproul a weirdo, I suppose it is. He is the most prominent proponent of the preterist view today. Gary DeMar is less prominent but has written much more on the subject.
What do people like Tim LaHaye think of preterism? From what I have read, they are fairly clueless about it. Most critics of preterism end up mixing up the orthodox version with the heretical version to some extent. Most though are just too caught up in a too-Western, too-literal interpretation of the Bible. I have found preterism to be far more consistent with a reading of the text that would have been understood by the people who wrote the Bible.
Read more in our series here.

Essenes/Dead Sea Scrolls

What is the significane of this group wih respect to Christianity? The Essenes and the documents associated with them provide us a unique insight into Judaism at the time of Jesus. It goes too far to do as some do and say that Christians and Essenes are the same. There are many differences between the movements, but the most important are that

There is heavy emphasis on observing of the Mosaic Law among the Essenes, versus the minimal importance of this in the Gospels. .
The Essenes expected a restoration of Temple worship. Christians expected the Temple to be destroyed, to be replaced by God and Jesus [215; cf. Rev. 21:22] and a Jerusalem with no Temple.
Celibacy was compulsory for most Essenes, but only a limited ideal for some in the Christian movement.
Christ purified the sinner; the Essenes avoided the sinner.
The Essenes apparently believed in two Messiahs, one priestly, the other Davidic. In Christianity Jesus was seen as filling both roles (cf. Hebrews).

For further reading see here.

Faith

What is Biblical faith? It does mean the loyalty, based on evidence of performance. It does not mean feelings and it is not "blind". More here.

Gospels

Can we be sure who wrote the Gospels, and when? Yes. When we make comparisons to available testimony and evidence for secular ancient documents, the Gospels come out way ahead of the curve. Learn more here.
Did the Gospels just make up words for Jesus? The evidence would suggest NO. Some points to consider, if this claim is true:

Why would the church have created such a difficult and offensive faith to follow?
Why are there no passages relevant to later church issues like circumcision? We will discuss this in more detail shortly.
Eyewitnesses would not permit such creation and strong, reliable oral tradition guards against such fabrication.
The idea of "prophets" in the church who invented words for Jesus has no historical evidence.

Are the Gospels too biased to be reliable? No. As Glenn Miller sums up his article here: I have given tons and tons of detail to demonstrate the realistic and restrained and authentic character of the NT documents. I have shown from representative historians (of ALL 'bias' persuasions) that these documents are excellent material to work with in building historical understandings. I have cited professional historians to show that the 'skeptical' doubt is both NOT required and is, in fact, NOT admissible as proper method in scholarly historical research.
Are the Gospels too contradictory to be reconciled? No. To sum up my findings in a series here:

Ancient writers often used certain literary and narrative devices to artificially adjust their reports to reflect specific themes, or to save space (in a time when paper was scarce and expensive).
Ancient writers had a looser view of what constituted "error" that is more like what we preserve in our popular writngs.
Ancient people transmitted information orally (95% of the population was illiterate) and this caused natural variations in presentation for the purpose of making thing easier to remember.
The alleged "problems" in the Gospels are no different than "problems" that can be found in the works of modern, professional historians whom no one distrusts.
The classic apologist Simon Greenleaf composed a harmony of the Gospels, and applied principles of legal witness and testimony to show that these issues do not detract from the reliability of the Gospels. To learn more about these, see here as well as here (his classic work, Testimony of the Evanglists).

Aren't human memories too fallible to trust the NT witness? No. As Miller sums up here, concerning one particular study of the unreliability of memory:

. Most of the factors discussed that DO or MIGHT apply to the NT, support its reliability for accuracy!
Unlike individual test subjects in these studies, gospel production was a collaborative effort, with significant checks-and-balances on the factors discussed by ET.
The gospel production goal was factually-based, composite belief--not uniform memories.
The better model for the disciples as participants is that of learners, not as bystanders or victims.
The presence of the powerful figure of Jesus of Nazareth--admitted by adherents of MOST worldviews as an incredible leader and teacher--would have created a learning environment radically different than simply memory experiments.

Heaven

What is heaven like? Heaven is not like the cartoons or the classic paintings, with people wearing halos and sitting on clouds strumming harps. The evidence indicates rather that heaven is a place of honor, one in which people will have direct fellowship or discourse with God. Otherwise there is no reason to suppose that our daily life will be much different than it is now (aside from the absence of sin).
Do people go to heaven immediately after they die? If heaven is not so much a place as a state, then the question is moot. Heb. 9:27 would suggest that people enter judgment upon death, which would suggest that the answer is yes.
For further and more detailed reading:

Randy Alcorn's book Heaven does an excellent job beyond the first 50 pages; find it in our Bookshop
On the state of the afterlife

Hell

What is hell like? Hell is also not like the cartoons or the classic paintings, with naked people writhing in literal flames, and demons with pitchforks poking them as if to see if they are done. The evidence indicates rather that hell is a place essentially of shame, one in which people will have no fellowship or discourse with God. Biblical pictures of flame are clearly metaphors, first because if taken literally they result in contradiction (how can there be flames, yet also darkness, as the Bible says?); second, because as metaphors they fit in with other metaphors (flames and thirst as the opposite of water, which is in Scripture a metaphor for God's Spirit) and also fit a literal experience of shame (think of being ashamed and your face burning). Furthermore, other descriptions of hell, such as people weeping and grinding their teeth, match with expressions of shame in the ancient world, but not physical pain.

Why are people sent to Hell? First, see the answer above under Atonement. Then I would use this analogy: God is like a magnet, and the unsaved have the wrong "polarity" and are thus driven to go further from God. In this God is, I'd say, not actively sending people to hell as a "decision" but rather that people are driven there by their unsaved nature.
Will people in hell see and talk to other people? Probably, but if so their shame before God will drive them further from others and will drive them always to be further away from God. C. S. Lewis wrote a book called The Great Divorce which I think illustrates what will happen perfectly.
Is hell eternal? Many have argued that it is not, and one of their main arguments is emotional, based on the idea that hell IS a place of physical torture. But if it is not, even their emotional argument has no grounds. But otherwise, the Bible is clear about the eternal nature of hell.

Do people go to hell immediately after they die? If hell is not so much a place as a state, then the question is moot. Heb. 9:27 would suggest that people enter judgment upon death.
For further and more detailed reading:

Honor and Pain -- especially the last paragraph or so
Why did God create us if He knew so many would end up in Hell? -- part 2 is of special relevance
On annihilationism
On the state of the afterlife

Holy Spirit

Is the Spirit a person? Yes. The Spirit is said to take personal actions and to do things only a person could do. More here

Honor and Shame

How did people of the Bible think differently than we do? The people of the Biblical world were not modern Americans who shared American values. They differed from modern Americans in two very important respects that affect how we interpret the Bible.

We are a "guilt culture" and they were a "shame culture". What's the difference? In a guilt culture, you are mainly concerned about what you think is right. In a shame culture, you are more concerned about what others think is right. "Conscience" as we know it did not exist; "conscience" came from others, not from within yourself. In a shame culture, a person seeks honor or recognition and treasures it as a value. In a guilt culture, honor is not as important and indeed we sometimes try to turn what others regard as shameful into something we can be proud of because we are "different". Which leads to the second difference:
We are "individualist" and they were "collectivist." We put the individual first while they put the group first. People did not go out to "find themselves" because they found identity in the group they were in: Family, religion, friends.

For further and more detailed reading:

An atheist learns a lesson about not assuming that our culture is the same as the one in the Bible.
Biblical versus Japanese culture -- a comparison.
Honor and Group Orientation in the New Testament World by Lita Cosner -- one of our readers sums up the matter with examples.

Inerrancy

Does inerrancy mean that out Bibles as we have them now have no errors? No. Major statements on the subject such as the Chicago Statement specifically say that only the original manuscripts of the Bible were inerrant, not current copies like your NIV or KJV.
Why couldn't God have kept copies inerrant? He could have, but He ought not to have. An inerrant manuscript could easily become an idol or a distraction. For more on this see Inerrancy and Human Ignorance.
Does inerrancy mean that we don't need anything but our Bible? In other words, is Scripture sufficient? The answer is yes, but the problem is that some people think this excludes the use of study aids to understand what the Bible is saying. It does not -- even the first readers of the Bible needed an outside referent (Hebrew/Greek language) to understand the Bible, so it is absurd to say we can't use other "externals" to understand it now, especially since so much is different in our culture and world. For more on this see here and here.

JEDP Theory

Maybe you have heard of the "JEDP" theory, or else, have heard of theories that Moses did not write the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy), and that it was written later in Israel's history. What does JEDP stand for?

J is supposed to be Jawhist (or Yahwist), a writer who had a thing for the name "Yahweh" and viewed God as very personal
E is supposed to be Elohimist, a writer who had a thing for the name "Elohim" and viewed God as somewhat distant
D is supposed to be Deuteronomist, a writer who composed Deuteronomy and maybe did a few tweaks here and there
P is supposed to be Priestly, a writer who took the works of J, E and D and mashed them together into what we have now, adding his own touches

The JEDP theory has a lot of mutations, with some people adding other letters, and offering a variety of ideas about when each writer did their work, though all agree that little if any of the first five books of the Bible were written by Moses.

What's wrong with this theory? It started with certain ideas that further research has shown to be false. In particular, the idea that the books of the Bible could be divided by the use of the two names for God, Yahweh and Elohim, has been found to have reasonable cause that a single author allows. But it was one of the original criteria for dividing parts of the Pentateuch into J and E sections, and now, theorists will either ignore the later research, or else continue to change the theory to keep it alive. One way they do this is by turning "P" into a genie who edited and changed the text at various places for no discernible reason (other than, maybe, to confuse modern JEDP theorists into thinking there was a problem for their theory). For another example, certain features of the text that were once taken as proof for JEDP are now known to simply reflect normal writing practice for ancient people, and thus work with an idea of just one author writing. JEDP also did not conceive of the idea of such things as scribes writing on behalf of others, or of later writers making minor updates to texts to keep them from becoming anachronistic.
Today many scholars still hold to JEDP because they do not know what else to put in its place, and they don't consider Mosaic authorship an option.

For further and more detailed reading:

Specific Case Studies on some texts said to support JEDP:

Gen. 12:10-20, 20:1-18, and 26:1-11
Gen. 15 and 17
Gen. 21:14-21
Gen. 37
Exod. 17:2-7, Num. 20:2-13
Num. 16
Deuteronomy
1 Samuel 16-18

General Studies

The Making of the Old Testament [Off Site] -- includes pertinent commentary showing the internal unity of items like the Flood story
A Brief Case for Moses as author of the Pentateuch [Off Site] Summations: The data indicates a reliable stream of information, from earliest times down to at least the time of Moses. The historical particulars reflect a pre-mosaic time and indicate a fixity and reliability of transmission....What emerges from this, is an overall pattern of close control over the OT information. There are long-standing institutions--as a check and balance to one another--that are both skilled, empowered, and organized well enough to support the community and cultic information needs of the Israelite community. The pictures we get of THAT community life demonstrate a 'thick and rich' information flow tapestry. The net result of this rich flow of usage/transmission and the stability of the protective institutions is the high degree of both 1) dissemination of the information AND 2) the relative accuracy of the usage of that information (irrespective of age of data).
More on what "Mosaic authorship" means [Off Site]
Was the Pentateuch adulterated by later additions? [Off Site]
Satire of JEDP principles used on the works of A. A. Milne (Winnie the Pooh) [Off Site]

Book Reviews

The Pentateuch as Narrative by John Sailhamer
Review of The Hidden Book in the Bible by Richard Elliott Freidman
Who Wrote the Bible? by Friedman

Jesus

Was the story of Jesus copied from pagan myths? It is claimed by some that everything in the story of Jesus was stolen from the profiles of pagan gods, to that rituals like the Lord's Supper were imitations of pagan meals. Which gods? Gods you don't hear much about these days: Mithra, Dionysus, Attis and Osiris seems to be the main examples used. What's the main problem with this? Four flaws are typical:

The information about the pagan god or ritual is either well past the time of Jesus (so if there was any "copying" it was the other way around);
The information is just plain wrong;
The information is stretched waaaaay out into oblivion to create a parallel where there really isn't one.
It is all promoted by people without any serious or relevant credentials. Joseph Campbell comes closest of any credentialed scholar to saying such things, but even he tried to explain it as some sort of psychological phenomenon, not as Christians stealing ideas from pagans. Even the leading atheist website tends to take a dim view of these ideas. Maybe one exception: A guy who is also a member of the Jesus Seminar, which will tell you enough about the credibility of this sort of thesis; and he's critical of other people who promote it as well.

For more information, go here for a whole series on the various claims about the pagan gods.

Were Jesus' miracles invented by the Gospel writers? Glenn Miller sums up his extended series here: The gospel literature does not manifest the characteristics of anthropological myth, especially of the setting in some distant, sacred, pre-history; the gospel literature is not in the genre of 'myth' since there is no such genre in G-R lit at the time; the gospel literature is not even written in any of the genres that were used to express myth, at the time of their origination; not only are the gospels overall not myth in genre or character, but they also do not seem to include mythic scenes or elements which are explicit, recognizable, and functioning as myth; the New Testament epistles specifically distance the Jesus story from the word/concept 'myth', demonstrating that they never intended the gospels to be taken as myth.
Aren't the Gospels hopelessly contradictory? No. Miller sums up from this item: I have shown that the methods used by thinking and conscientious evangelicals--harmonization and integrative narrative reconstruction--are legitimate and important....I have argued that the Christian does not necessarily have to submit to external and foreign criteria for 'plausibility,' and that the historical student should be a critical thinker relative to those who would attempt to impose arbitrary criteria on the process....I have argued that the apparent divergence at the surface level of the narrative accounts is actually something to appreciate! That these differences are important for both understanding and the extra 'weight' of credibility of the gospel accounts. Learn more at our series here summed up thus: While not chosen specifically for this purpose, we may see how easily the four biographies [of Lincoln] match in intent the four Gospels. Masters is our Matthew, an admirer presenting a vision for his people; Oates is our Mark, a paperback author presenting brief sketches for popular consumption. Donald is our Luke, a careful, detailed and consummate historian. Basler is our John, giving a divergent, but nevertheless just as faithful, account of the life of Lincoln as well as the regard given him. Obviously...I regard these authors neither as conspirators nor as incompetent. Nor do I find their works to be hopelessly irreconcilable and contradictory: only by careless reading and lack of thinking can we see any of the above citations as contradiction - the same way that skeptics, regrettably and almost invariably, read the Bible. By engaging the principles of harmonization, we would have a complete picture of Lincoln - just as by harmonizing the Gospels, we have a more complete picture of Jesus Christ....[critics] cannot admit that the differences in the Gospels are merely the normal products of point-of-view reporting - different witnesses seeing different things in a different light at different times; but this does not automatically mean that what they say is untrue. We should first determine if it is possible to detect an underlying harmony before we trash the whole account.
Were the stories of the NT "ripped off" from the OT? No. To sum up an article here:

Recasting of stories in terms of previous stories was a normal practice and admired skill in this day. The NT writers had an actual story of Jesus which they proceeded to retell, with skill, using as many allusions to the OT as they could.
Deliberate imitation was praxis. Jesus would purposely re-enact, if possible in an amplified way, the miracles of OT figures in order to show himself greater than those persons.
Oral tradition procedures encouraged patterns of imitation as aids to memorization.

Is the resurrection really the best explanation of what happened? Yes.

"I propose that there is only one, broad explanation for Christianity overcoming these intolerable disadvantages, and that is that it had the ultimate rebuttal -- a certain, trustworthy, and undeniable witness to the resurrection of Jesus, the only event which, in the eyes of the ancients, would have vindicated Jesus' honor and overcome the innumerable stigmae of his life and death. It had certainty that could not be denied; in other words, enough early witnesses (as in, the 500!) with solid and indisputable testimony (no "vision of Jesus in the sky" but a tangible certainly of a physically resurrected body) and ranks of converts slightly after the fact (the thousands at Pentecost) who made it harder to not believe than to believe. Skeptics and critics must explain otherwise why, despite each and every one of these factors, Christianity survived, and thrived. A consistent witness, one that was strong enough to reach into the second century in spite of these factors, is the only reasonable candidate. Skeptics will need to find a better excuse than, 'They was just stupid'!" -- summation of item here
McIlvane in his lecture on The Evidences of Christianity still sums it up well:
Now, in conclusion, let us see what an unbeliever must believe in consistency with his profession. He must believe that the apostles were either such weak-minded men as to imagine that their crucified Master had been with them, from time to time, during forty days after his burial, had conversed with them, and eaten with them, and that they had every sensible evidence of his resurrection, while in truth he had not been near them, but was still in his sepulchre; or else that they were so wicked and deceitful as to go all over the world preaching that he was risen from the dead, when they knew it was a gross fabrication. Suppose the unbeliever to choose the latter of these alternatives. Then he believes, not only that those men were so singularly attached to this untruth as to give themselves up to all manner of disgrace, and persecutions and labour, for the sake of making all the world believe it, knowing that their own destruction could be the only consequence; but also, what is still more singular, that when they plunged, immediately at the outset of their ministry, into an immense multitude of those who, having lately crucified the Saviour, were full of enmity to his disciples; they succeeded, without learning, eloquence, power, or a single conceivable motive, in making three thousand of them believe that he, whom they had seen on the cross, was indeed alive again; and believe it so fully, as to renounce every thing, and be willing to suffer any thing, for the sake of it, and this on the very spot where the guards that had kept the sepulcher were at hand to tell what was become of the body of Jesus. He must believe, moreover, that although in attempting to propagate a new religion to the exclusion of every other, they were undertaking what was entirely new, and opposed to the views of all nations; although the doctrines they preached were resisted by all the influence of the several priesthoods; all the power of the several governments; all the passions, habits, and prejudices of the people; and all the wit and pride of the philosophers of all nations; although the age was such as insured to their fabrications the most intelligent examination, with the strongest possible disposition to detect them; although, in themselves, these infatuated men were directly the reverse of what such resistance demanded, and, when they commenced, were surrounded by circumstances of the most depressing kind, and by opposers specially exulting in the confidence of their destruction; although the mode they adopted was of all others most calculated to expose their own weakness and dishonesty, and to imbitter the enmity and increase the contempt of their opposers, so that they encountered everywhere the most tremendous persecutions, till torture and death were almost synonymous with the name of Christian; although they had nothing to propose, to Jew or Gentile, as a matter of faith, but what the wisdom of the world ridiculed, and the vice of the world hated, and all men were united in despising; although they had nothing earthly with which to tempt any one to receive their fabrication, except the necessity of an entire change in all his habits and dispositions, and an assurance that tribulations and persecutions must be his portion: Yet when philosophers, with all their learning, and rank, and subtlety, and veneration, could produce no effect on the public mind, these obscure Galileans obtained such influence, throughout the whole extent of the Roman empire, and especially in the most enlightened cities, that, in thirty years, what they themselves (by the supposition) did not believe, they made hundreds of thousands of all classes, philosophers, senators, governors, priests, soldiers, as well as plebeians, believe, and maintain unto death; yea, they planted this doctrine of their own invention so deeply that all the persecutions of three hundred years could not root it up; they established the gospel so permanently that in three hundred years it was the established religion of an empire co-extensive with the known world, and continues still the religion of all civilized nations. This, says the unbeliever, they did simply by their own wit and industry; and yet, he well knows that, preachers of the gospel, with incomparably more learning, with equal industry, in far greater numbers, and in circumstances immeasurably more propitious, have attempted to do something of the same kind among heathen nations, and could never even approximate to their success. Still the apostles had no help but that of their own ingenuity and diligence! Such is the belief of the unbeliever. To escape acknowledging that the apostles were aided by miraculous assistance, he makes them to have possessed in themselves miraculous ability. To get rid of one miracle in the work, he has to make twelve miracles out of the twelve agents of the work. The Christian takes a far different course. "Paul planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase." The weapons of their warfare were not carnal, but mighty through God, to the pulling down of strong holds. To which solution, philosophy or common sense would award the prize of rational decision, it is easy to determine.

Love

What is Biblical love? It does mean the "value of group attachment and group bonding", in essence, looking out for each others' best interests. It does not mean sentimentality or emotion. It also does not exclude attacking verbally those who try to subvert the truth.
For more reading:

What is love?
Is it wrong to engage in satire?

Miracles

Could Jesus' healings have been natural? If they are, critics have a burden to explain why. A popular explanation that Jesus cured "conversion disorders," but this does not explain the data because:

Jesus' means of intervention was against recommended procedure for dealing with conversion disorders;
Conversion disorder is exceptionally rare, and it would be hard to explain how Jesus found so many cases in Judaea;
The culture of the Bible would not be amenable to conversion disorder

For more, see here
Aren't miracles a violation of laws of nature, and so impossible? No, they do not violate the laws of nature any more than we "violate" the law of gravity when we pick up a box. Miracles are just God acting in nature as a person would or could, even if some of what God does is beyond our own abilities.
Why not more records of miracles? To sum up this article:

The dynamics of orality, literacy, and writing production in the Biblical world as a whole do not make such records likely.
Evidence shows that even literate people didn't necessarily record earthshaking events.
Many miracles reported are local events, not witnessed by large groups of people.

Did the Gospel authors just "make up" the miracles of Jesus? To sum up this large series of articles:

Modern historical scholarship disagrees with (or at least heavily qualifies) any thesis of "ubiquitous credulity" to suggest that people were gullibky accepting claims of miracles.
Christians of the NT and immediate post-NT period seem to be on the side of the "critics"--not on the side of the "credulous".
Many of the readers and writers of the NT would have been practiced in the debunking of the miraculous, by the educational process required for semi-literary reading/writing skills.
What quantitative data we have suggests the "non-suggestibility" or limited credulity of the larger populace.
Actual miracle claims in the period are very, very rare.
The merchant class--the primary group among which Jesus worked and taught--were likely the most pragmatic (and least "gullible") of the social groups of the day.
The NT miracles of Jesus are sufficiently different and "larger" than the common-claims of the day (e.g., low-level magic), making comparison questionable.
The pervasive emphasis in the NT on critical thinking and avoiding deception and the like, again differentiates its originating group from the allegedly "credulous masses".
The small-town setting for the ministry of Jesus (with many members of the disciples having long histories with one another) proves more "control" over charlatan-claims than would a larger urban setting.

Prayer

Does prayer mean we can get whatever we want? No. The Bible itself, and the culture it emerged from, placed clear contextual restrictions on the "power of prayer". For more, see here.

Prophecy

Does the NT misuse the OT for prophecy "fulfillment"? No. Summation of depth article found here:

In NT times, ALL major groups within the Judaism of the day could, and did, use various text types. The early Christians were accordingly NO DIFFERENT than their non-Christian counterparts; they reflected the prevailing 'methods' and understandings of 1st century "good Jewry."
The NT authors were not in any way departing in radical fashion from their non-Christian counterparts in 1st century Judaism, in the area of exegetical practice. Instead, they were squarely within acceptable praxis, and indeed, may have constituted the most exegetically conservative of the groups at the time.
For specific prophecies, see here.

But Jesus did not fulfill OT prophecies. He did indeed, under exegetical rules that would have been allowed at the time. Summation of depth article here:

The OT/Tanaach describes a wide range of roles for the messiah, some of which are at tension with others.
Attempts to resolve the tensions concentrated around splitting the messianic figure into two figures, making the descriptions conditional, or ascribing them to different times/situations in a single messianic figure. The tensions are mainly concerned with how to integrate the data describing a Suffering/Rejected messiah, and the data describing a Triumphant/Acclaimed messiah.
The “one-messiah, two-appearances” option does a better job of explaining the biblical textual details, without unwarranted introduction of multiple messianic figures, and without compromising fulfillment of all the messianic promises.

Q and Marcan Priority

What is Q? A funny answer but accurate answer is, "Whatever someone wants it to be." Generally Q is used to refer to whatever is common to Matthew and Luke, which was supposed to be (at one time) an early document, now lost, like a Gospel. Some say Q was a document held by people who did not believe Jesus was divine. Others say it was an early form of Matthew. What you believe about Q corresponds, often, with a theory of how Christianity came to be. Skeptical people will use Q in the form of the first example, and say that it is proof that Christianity evolved and is not a revealed faith. Others will use Q the second way and say that it is just a very early example of how Christians wrote about Jesus. There are as many theories about what was IN Q as what its purpose was.
What is the big deal about Mark writing first? Mark writing first among the Gospels is claimed based on literary comparison of the Gospels. Like the Q document, there are also social and historical theories that go with it. Skeptical persons may say that Mark is "primitive" and evidence that Christianity evolved. Others will do as they do with Q and just say it is the first example of how Christians wrote about Jesus.
What are the alternatives? There are several, but the most popular:

Q and Marcan priority. Either Mark or Q wrote first, the other second; then Matthew and Luke each combined the two their own way, adding some of their own stuff.
Marcan priority without Q. Mark wrote first, and Matthew and Luke used Mark and added their own stuff. In some theories Luke used Matthew and Mark, and in much fewer cases, it is said instead that Matthew used Luke and Mark.
Matthean priority. Matthew wrote first; Mark wrote second, and Luke used Matthew and Mark. This is sometimes called the Greisbach hypothesis and it was popular a couple of hundred years ago. It is also essentially what the early church fathers believed.
Lucan priority. A tiny handful of people say Luke wrote first and that Matthew and Mark used Luke.

What's wrong the theories of Q and Marcan priority? Like the JEDP theory (see entry above), it started with certain ideas that further research has shown to be false. It did not consider how ancient writers did their compositions, which offers explanations for similarities and differences among the Gospels better than those offered by Q and Marcan priority. It also ignores or explains away the clear external testimomy of church writers that Matthew wrote first. But theorists often simply adjust the theory to suit the facts. The most important point to remember is that the social theory someone pairs with their literary theory isn't proven by their literary theory.

For More Detailed Reading

Q/Marcan Priority series -- look within for links on specific passages
Literary dependence [Off Site] -- relevant commentary from the ThinkTank -- summation:

There is a significant erosion of the confidence in theories about the Synoptic problem
Cases of 'redaction' (in spite of the difficulty of identifying them) cannot reveal 'motives' by themselves.
The argument from verbal identify, used to support LD, is not very strong at all.
The argument from order, used to support LD, is not very strong at all.
The argument from scribal practice, used to deny LD, is fairly strong, since it uses the only control data available from the period.

Reply to James Still [Off Site] -- more from the Tank on this subject
Simon Greenleaf on Marcan Priority -- a premier legal apologist recognizes the fallacy

Salvation

What about those who never hear the Gospel? The Bible makes two assertions which may be paired here for an application:

The evidence for God is clear, so that men are without excuse (Ps. 19, Rom. 1-2). The heavens aleady declare God's existence and majesty. Broken Vector of course would disagree with this, but within the context of the present discussion this is not relevant.
He who seeks, finds (Matt. 7:7//Luke 11:9).

Those who want to know, will be given the knowledge needed for salvation. Those who seek God will have God sufficiently revealed to them.
Are we saved by faith or works? Actually, works are regarded as a natural product of true faith, so this is like asking, "When we fall, are we hurt by the ground, or by the trip down?" For more information see here.

Slavery

Isn't the Bible immoral for promoting slavery? No. To sum up items found here:

In the OT, what was practiced was not "slavery" but rather, overwhelmingly, voluntary "indentured servitude" -- and this was a mechanism that enabled survival for ancient people.
Disciplinary measures on such servants mirrored those used on "free" persons by the state.
In the NT era, the complexity of the historical situation argues against the feasibility of any "unilateral abolition".

Sin

What is sin? It is pointed out often that the word used most often for "sin" in the Bible means "missing the mark." So we might suggest that sin is a case of trying, but failing, to achieve a target goal; and God plays the role of the one who sets or represents that goal.
What is "original sin"? Most commentators argue that "original sin" involves the following:

Adam and Eve, the forbears of the human race, were sinless when created.
The committed the first transgression or sin against God.
Because they were the first of the human race, they represented the whole of it, and their sin also affects us.

A critical question is how, exactly, that sin affects us. Most argue that we are in some sense held responsible for their sin. My own view is slightly different: That their sin set a legal pattern whereby we too can be tried for our own sins. (See more here.) It may also be suggested that in our "unfallen" state we lacked that which compels the pattern of sin (the fulfilling of needs as infants) and so a pattern emerged in which we are born "selfish" (though innocent).
What is the role of sin in the life of the Christian? There are two extreme views here:

That the believer will be sinless. This is most often rooted in a strained interpretation of 1 John 3:9. But most scholars say rather that it means something more subtle: That we no longer sin (positionally) because our sins are paid for by Jesus Christ; or, someone born of God does not go on habitually sinning; or, as I would say, it is no more an absolute than the ancient proverb "a wise man cannot fall."
That the believer is no less likely to sin than a non-believer. This is based on an understanding of Romans 7 as Paul referring to his own current life; but Paul is here using rather a form of speech in which he relates the universal experience of men.

A more balanced view recognizes that the difference between a Christian and non-Christian in terms of sin is that the Christian will be more sensitive to sin and more ready to repent of it than they would be as a non-Christian. Note that the comparison is to be made between each person before and after salvation -- not between persons.

Thomas, Gospel of

Is this a valid document? No. Factors that work against this are:

Wide and varied use of passages from the canonical Gospels, including specific redactional elements.
GThom reflects a second century milieu and is clearly "infected" with Gnostic thought.

Learn more here.

Trinity

What is the best analogy to explain the Trinity? There isn't one that is perfect. But the best is like this:

Father = a lamp, star, or other light source
Son (Jesus) = the light from the lamp
Holy Spirit = the heat from the lamp

The plus side of this analogy is that:

It correctly captures the nature of the relationship between the members of the Trinity. All three persons -- Father, Son, Spirit -- together make one thing: a lighted lamp, which can be equated with "God". The Son and the Spirit come from the lamp.
It explains the relationship of Jesus and the Spirit to ourselves fairly well. Jesus is the "light" of the Father (compare John 1), and the way whereby we see the Father (John 16:9). The Spirit indwelling us is the "heat" of the Father, the way whereby we experience the Father's fellowship.

The bad side of this analogy is that:

A lighted lamp, and its light and heat, are not persons. To make the analogy complete, the lamp itself, the light it makes, and the heat it makes, would each need to have their own personality.
A lighted lamp, and its light and heat, are not eternal. A lamp is a creation; God of course is not. And you can turn off the light and heat from a lamp, whereas that is not possible with Jesus and the Spirit. To put it another way, the Father has always existed, and He has always "shone" with the light of Jesus, and radiated the "heat" of the Spirit.

How do other religions misunderstand the Trinity? There are three possible errors that can be made, by denying one of these facts about the Trinity:

Co-eternality. All three of the members of the Trinity must be eternal, meaning, that they have always existed in the past and will always exist in the future. Some belief systems make the mistake of saying that Jesus or the Spirit were not eternal, but were created by the Father later in time. This belief was what caused the Arian controversy resulting in the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. Today the Jehovah's Witnesses are the ones who take this view. The analogy would be that the lamp was off at some point, but later turned itself on.
Co-substantiality. In other words, the analogy made would not be of lamp-light-heat, but of three different lamps side by side. Today this is a belief of Mormons. It is also what many (like some Muslims) falsely think is Christian belief.
Three persons. Here the analogy would be that lamp, light and heat do not each have their own personality, but that there is one personality that in turn acts as lamp, light, and heat. Today this is believed by Oneness Pentacostals.

Is the Trinity just an invention of the church? No. In fact, evidence shows that the Jews had "pre-Trinitarian" ideas long before the church existed. The earliest example is found in Proverbs 8, where "Wisdom" is a figure much like Jesus as described in the lamp-light analogy. There were also more such ideas in Jewish writings between the Old and New Testament. To learn about the background of ideas used to express the Trinity, particularly where Jesus is involved, see here. To learn about the background of ideas concerning the Holy Spirit, see here.

TULIP (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, etc.)

What's my take on this? You won't be able to identity me with any particular school of thought, though some tell me I'm most like a Molinist. Here is a summation:

Total Depravity -- on this one we essentially agree with the standard Calvinist position that no person can come to Christ without assistance from God. We did not find that the doctrine was as clearly taught in many of the usual cites in favor, but it is nevertheless there.
Unconditional Election -- a "neither side is right" finding on this one. In our view "election" takes place in terms of primary causality: God chooses to make this world and thereby also chooses all events that take place within it. Since it is not logically possible to create a world in which all will be saved, the very choice of God to make this world constitutes a sovereign choice for the elect and non-elect.
Limited Atonement -- a somewhat positive finding for the doctrine of limited atonement. Actually it's more like a "what difference does it make" finding. One way or the other, the elect are the only ones for whom Christ's death will have been efficacious, so why ask about the non-elect in this regard?
Irresistible Grace -- a somewhat negative finding for the doctrine of irresistible grace. In light of our finding on unconditional election, and the parallel use of the terms "grace" and "faith" in the New Testament world, we conclude that God's grace may indeed be offered to all; but that can only be said with certainty in terms of the elect.
Perseverance of the Saints -- a mildly negative finding for the doctrine of eternal security. We conclude that no sin will ever get you kicked out of the kingdom, but that a definitive rejection of the covenant will -- and it is very, very hard to do that!

Learn more here.

Virgin Birth

Why should we believe in the virgin birth? If you mean, in terms of evidence, the answer is that we believe it on the same grounds as we do many of Christ's miracles -- historical testimony plus the authority granted by the Resurrection and the reliability of the accounts where they have been tested. The virgin birth, like many events recorded in history, isn't something that leaves evidence we can sift through.
If you mean, theologically, that is an open question. The idea that it was a way to keep Jesus from being tainted by original sin is not one I think necessary (see here. The Bible treats it as something that merely happened and ascribes no theological significance to it. That does not show up until the second century.

Learn more here.