Dr Paul Allen

For a long time, a certain breed of Biblical scholars has spent most of their time and effort trying to disprove the historical reliability of the New Testament. I’ve always found it strange that Europeans living in another continent and culture 2,000 years after the events would know better than writers from the same culture and roughly the same time. This would be like someone from China in the year 3050 commenting on the accuracy of the Bayeux tapestry, which records the Norman conquest of England. One of the modernist Biblical scholars’ favourite critiques is to observe that the writers of the New Testament were unduly influenced by their own theology, their agenda and the surrounding Greek and Roman culture. In making this charge, they assume that their own interpretation of the Scriptures is not influenced by their theology, their agenda and the surrounding contemporary culture. European Shepherding Differs From Biblical Shepherding Biblical scholarship is full of “cultural infec...

In his best-selling book God is Not Great, the late atheist Christopher Hitchens argues that a Virgin Birth is scientifically impossible: “In any case, parthenogenesis is not possible for human mammals.” According to many atheists, this point is enough to end the discussion. A virgin birth would violate science, and since science has more credibility than religion, we can simply dismiss the miraculous story. Case closed. And yet the case is not that simple. In one sense, this atheist criticism is correct: humans, like other mammals, are normally incapable of parthenogenesis (a word that derives from Greek words meaning “virgin” and “birth”). However, this normative observation in no way proves that God could not cause a woman to conceive a child in her womb without the involvement of a human father. A Modern Example In a 2013 peer-reviewed periodical, two scientists in India explain that parthenogenesis, which they define as the process where “growth and development of em...

The glory of Christmas is that it is not the beginning of Christ. Long before that first Christmas, his story had begun — not just in various prophecies, but in a divine person. Christmas may be the opening of the climactic chapter, but it is not the commencement of Christ. Christmas does indeed mark a conception and a birth. We rehearse Mary’s magnificent song of submission, and the shepherds’ visit to pay homage to her newborn son, and read she “treasured up all these things, pondering them in her heart” (Luke  2:19 ). For mere humans, no doubt, such is the stuff of our origins. Prior to earthly beginnings, we simply did not exist. But it is not so with the Son of God. His “coming forth is from of old, from ancient days” (Micah 5:2). Unlike every other human birth, Christmas is not a beginning, but a becoming. Christmas isn’t his start, but his commission. He was not created; he came. No other human in the history of the world shares in this peculiar glory. As remar...

Why the God-Man: The Mystery of the Incarnation Jesus is the eternal Word of God in human flesh. In the opening of John's gospel, we learn that the Son of God became something He was not—a man. At the same time, He remained what He always was—the second person of the Trinity. As the God-Man, Jesus is one person with complete yet distinct divine and human natures. The biblical account of the incarnation raises one of the most important questions ever to be asked: Why the God-Man? This is the central role of the incarnation - understanding the person and work of Christ. You understand that and you will understand Christmas. Beginning with Moses: Christ in All the Scriptures The Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and authoritative Word of God. Although it consists of a collection of sixty-six writings by multiple authors spanning hundreds of years, it is one book with one message of salvation. From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible reveals how God saves sinners through His one and o...