May 17, 2017

A matter for reflection... continued by Gary Rose

Which means...
This past week has been a week of reflection for our family. The death of Linda's sister, Dorothy hit us hard. During the wake, I didn't say a great deal, but just kept looking at "Dot". I thought of many things, most of which centered around who she was and what she stood for as a person.
After these thoughts, I asked myself the same question. What do I stand for as a person. This didn't take long to answer- I thought about the fish symbol and what it meant. Later that day, I thought my own name (G.D.Rose) and what it stood for at my birth- if you can imagine the G D as a curse word, then that's what it meant (according to my father, anyway).
Many years after my birth, I learned the truth about Jesus and became a Christian. Since that time my name has taken on a new significance, as this picture of a recent watch purchase indicates....


Romans, Chapter 3 (World English Bible)
 21 But now apart from the law, a righteousness of God has been revealed, being testified by the law and the prophets;  22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ to all and on all those who believe. For there is no distinction,  23 for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God;  24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;  25 whom God sent to be an atoning sacrifice, through faith in his blood, for a demonstration of his righteousness through the passing over of prior sins, in God’s forbearance; 26 to demonstrate his righteousness at this present time; that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him who has faith in Jesus. (emp. added vss 24-26)
I don't know what your name means to you, but I hope it involves knowing God as your savior- anyway, just think about the fish, OK?

Bible Reading May 17 by Gary Rose

Bible Reading May 17 (World English Bible)

May 17
Joshua 15, 16

Jos 15:1 The lot for the tribe of the children of Judah according to their families was to the border of Edom, even to the wilderness of Zin southward, at the uttermost part of the south.
Jos 15:2 Their south border was from the uttermost part of the Salt Sea, from the bay that looks southward;
Jos 15:3 and it went out southward of the ascent of Akrabbim, and passed along to Zin, and went up by the south of Kadesh Barnea, and passed along by Hezron, went up to Addar, and turned about to Karka;
Jos 15:4 and it passed along to Azmon, went out at the brook of Egypt; and the border ended at the sea. This shall be your south border.
Jos 15:5 The east border was the Salt Sea, even to the end of the Jordan. The border of the north quarter was from the bay of the sea at the end of the Jordan.
Jos 15:6 The border went up to Beth Hoglah, and passed along by the north of Beth Arabah; and the border went up to the stone of Bohan the son of Reuben.
Jos 15:7 The border went up to Debir from the valley of Achor, and so northward, looking toward Gilgal, that is over against the ascent of Adummim, which is on the south side of the river. The border passed along to the waters of En Shemesh, and ended at En Rogel.
Jos 15:8 The border went up by the valley of the son of Hinnom to the side of the Jebusite southward (the same is Jerusalem); and the border went up to the top of the mountain that lies before the valley of Hinnom westward, which is at the farthest part of the valley of Rephaim northward.
Jos 15:9 The border extended from the top of the mountain to the spring of the waters of Nephtoah, and went out to the cities of Mount Ephron; and the border extended to Baalah (the same is Kiriath Jearim);
Jos 15:10 and the border turned about from Baalah westward to Mount Seir, and passed along to the side of Mount Jearim on the north (the same is Chesalon), and went down to Beth Shemesh, and passed along by Timnah;
Jos 15:11 and the border went out to the side of Ekron northward; and the border extended to Shikkeron, and passed along to Mount Baalah, and went out at Jabneel; and the goings out of the border were at the sea.
Jos 15:12 The west border was to the shore of the great sea. This is the border of the children of Judah according to their families.
Jos 15:13 To Caleb the son of Jephunneh he gave a portion among the children of Judah, according to the commandment of Yahweh to Joshua, even Kiriath Arba, named after the father of Anak (the same is Hebron).
Jos 15:14 Caleb drove out the three sons of Anak: Sheshai, and Ahiman, and Talmai, the children of Anak.
Jos 15:15 He went up against the inhabitants of Debir: now the name of Debir before was Kiriath Sepher.
Jos 15:16 Caleb said, "He who strikes Kiriath Sepher, and takes it, to him will I give Achsah my daughter as wife."
Jos 15:17 Othniel the son of Kenaz, the brother of Caleb, took it: and he gave him Achsah his daughter as wife.
Jos 15:18 It happened, when she came, that she had him ask her father fore a field. She got off of her donkey, and Caleb said, "What do you want?"
Jos 15:19 She said, "Give me a blessing. Because you have set me in the land of the South, give me also springs of water." He gave her the upper springs and the lower springs.
Jos 15:20 This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Judah according to their families.
Jos 15:21 The farthest cities of the tribe of the children of Judah toward the border of Edom in the South were Kabzeel, Eder, Jagur,
Jos 15:22 Kinah, Dimonah, Adadah,
Jos 15:23 Kedesh, Hazor, Ithnan,
Jos 15:24 Ziph, Telem, Bealoth,
Jos 15:25 Hazor Hadattah, Kerioth Hezron (the same is Hazor),
Jos 15:26 Amam, Shema, Moladah,
Jos 15:27 Hazar Gaddah, Heshmon, Beth Pelet,
Jos 15:28 Hazar Shual, Beersheba, Biziothiah,
Jos 15:29 Baalah, Iim, Ezem,
Jos 15:30 Eltolad, Chesil, Hormah,
Jos 15:31 Ziklag, Madmannah, Sansannah,
Jos 15:32 Lebaoth, Shilhim, Ain, and Rimmon. All the cities are twenty-nine, with their villages.
Jos 15:33 In the lowland, Eshtaol, Zorah, Ashnah,
Jos 15:34 Zanoah, En Gannim, Tappuah, Enam,
Jos 15:35 Jarmuth, Adullam, Socoh, Azekah,
Jos 15:36 Shaaraim, Adithaim and Gederah (or Gederothaim); fourteen cities with their villages.
Jos 15:37 Zenan, Hadashah, Migdal Gad,
Jos 15:38 Dilean, Mizpeh, Joktheel,
Jos 15:39 Lachish, Bozkath, Eglon,
Jos 15:40 Cabbon, Lahmam, Chitlish,
Jos 15:41 Gederoth, Beth Dagon, Naamah, and Makkedah; sixteen cities with their villages.
Jos 15:42 Libnah, Ether, Ashan,
Jos 15:43 Iphtah, Ashnah, Nezib,
Jos 15:44 Keilah, Achzib, and Mareshah; nine cities with their villages.
Jos 15:45 Ekron, with its towns and its villages;
Jos 15:46 from Ekron even to the sea, all that were by the side of Ashdod, with their villages.
Jos 15:47 Ashdod, its towns and its villages; Gaza, its towns and its villages; to the brook of Egypt, and the great sea with its coastline.
Jos 15:48 In the hill country, Shamir, Jattir, Socoh,
Jos 15:49 Dannah, Kiriath Sannah (which is Debir),
Jos 15:50 Anab, Eshtemoh, Anim,
Jos 15:51 Goshen, Holon, and Giloh; eleven cities with their villages.
Jos 15:52 Arab, Dumah, Eshan,
Jos 15:53 Janim, Beth Tappuah, Aphekah,
Jos 15:54 Humtah, Kiriath Arba (the same is Hebron), and Zior; nine cities with their villages.
Jos 15:55 Maon, Carmel, Ziph, Jutah,
Jos 15:56 Jezreel, Jokdeam, Zanoah,
Jos 15:57 Kain, Gibeah, and Timnah; ten cities with their villages.
Jos 15:58 Halhul, Beth Zur, Gedor,
Jos 15:59 Maarath, Beth Anoth, and Eltekon; six cities with their villages.
Jos 15:60 Kiriath Baal (the same is Kiriath Jearim), and Rabbah; two cities with their villages.
Jos 15:61 In the wilderness, Beth Arabah, Middin, Secacah,
Jos 15:62 Nibshan, the City of Salt, and En Gedi; six cities with their villages.
Jos 15:63 As for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah couldn't drive them out; but the Jebusites live with the children of Judah at Jerusalem to this day.

Jos 16:1 The lot came out for the children of Joseph from the Jordan at Jericho, at the waters of Jericho on the east, even the wilderness, going up from Jericho through the hill country to Bethel.
Jos 16:2 It went out from Bethel to Luz, and passed along to the border of the Archites to Ataroth;
Jos 16:3 and it went down westward to the border of the Japhletites, to the border of Beth Horon the lower, even to Gezer; and ended at the sea.
Jos 16:4 The children of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim, took their inheritance.
Jos 16:5 This was the border of the children of Ephraim according to their families. The border of their inheritance eastward was Ataroth Addar, to Beth Horon the upper.
Jos 16:6 The border went out westward at Michmethath on the north. The border turned about eastward to Taanath Shiloh, and passed along it on the east of Janoah.
Jos 16:7 It went down from Janoah to Ataroth, to Naarah, reached to Jericho, and went out at the Jordan.
Jos 16:8 From Tappuah the border went along westward to the brook of Kanah; and ended at the sea. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Ephraim according to their families;
Jos 16:9 together with the cities which were set apart for the children of Ephraim in the midst of the inheritance of the children of Manasseh, all the cities with their villages.
Jos 16:10 They didn't drive out the Canaanites who lived in Gezer; but the Canaanites dwell in the midst of Ephraim to this day, and have become servants to do forced labor.

May 16, 17
John 1

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him. Without him was not anything made that has been made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness hasn't overcome it.
Joh 1:6 There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John.
Joh 1:7 The same came as a witness, that he might testify about the light, that all might believe through him.
Joh 1:8 He was not the light, but was sent that he might testify about the light.
Joh 1:9 The true light that enlightens everyone was coming into the world.
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world didn't recognize him.
Joh 1:11 He came to his own, and those who were his own didn't receive him.
Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God's children, to those who believe in his name:
Joh 1:13 who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Joh 1:14 The Word became flesh, and lived among us. We saw his glory, such glory as of the one and only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth.
Joh 1:15 John testified about him. He cried out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me, for he was before me.' "
Joh 1:16 From his fullness we all received grace upon grace.
Joh 1:17 For the law was given through Moses. Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
Joh 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The one and only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.
Joh 1:19 This is John's testimony, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?"
Joh 1:20 He confessed, and didn't deny, but he confessed, "I am not the Christ."
Joh 1:21 They asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the prophet?" He answered, "No."
Joh 1:22 They said therefore to him, "Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?"
Joh 1:23 He said, "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, 'Make straight the way of the Lord,' as Isaiah the prophet said."
Joh 1:24 The ones who had been sent were from the Pharisees.
Joh 1:25 They asked him, "Why then do you baptize, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?"
Joh 1:26 John answered them, "I baptize in water, but among you stands one whom you don't know.
Joh 1:27 He is the one who comes after me, who is preferred before me, whose sandal strap I'm not worthy to loosen."
Joh 1:28 These things were done in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.
Joh 1:29 The next day, he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
Joh 1:30 This is he of whom I said, 'After me comes a man who is preferred before me, for he was before me.'
Joh 1:31 I didn't know him, but for this reason I came baptizing in water: that he would be revealed to Israel."
Joh 1:32 John testified, saying, "I have seen the Spirit descending like a dove out of heaven, and it remained on him.
Joh 1:33 I didn't recognize him, but he who sent me to baptize in water, he said to me, 'On whomever you will see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.'
Joh 1:34 I have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God."
Joh 1:35 Again, the next day, John was standing with two of his disciples,
Joh 1:36 and he looked at Jesus as he walked, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God!"
Joh 1:37 The two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.
Joh 1:38 Jesus turned, and saw them following, and said to them, "What are you looking for?" They said to him, "Rabbi" (which is to say, being interpreted, Teacher), "where are you staying?"
Joh 1:39 He said to them, "Come, and see." They came and saw where he was staying, and they stayed with him that day. It was about the tenth hour.
Joh 1:40 One of the two who heard John, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.
Joh 1:41 He first found his own brother, Simon, and said to him, "We have found the Messiah!" (which is, being interpreted, Christ).
Joh 1:42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas" (which is by interpretation, Peter).
Joh 1:43 On the next day, he was determined to go out into Galilee, and he found Philip. Jesus said to him, "Follow me."
Joh 1:44 Now Philip was from Bethsaida, of the city of Andrew and Peter.
Joh 1:45 Philip found Nathanael, and said to him, "We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, wrote: Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."
Joh 1:46 Nathanael said to him, "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" Philip said to him, "Come and see."
Joh 1:47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and said about him, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no deceit!"
Joh 1:48 Nathanael said to him, "How do you know me?" Jesus answered him, "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you."
Joh 1:49 Nathanael answered him, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are King of Israel!"
Joh 1:50 Jesus answered him, "Because I told you, 'I saw you underneath the fig tree,' do you believe? You will see greater things than these!"
Joh 1:51 He said to him, "Most certainly, I tell you, hereafter you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man."

A Selfish, Greedy, Righteous Man by T. Pierce Brown

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Brown/T/Pierce/1923/greedy.html

A Selfish, Greedy, Righteous Man

In Genesis 13 we find that the herdsmen of Abraham and Lot were quarreling about where their herds should graze, so Abraham, a man of peace and good will, gave Lot the choice of which way they should go. Then we read in Gen. 13:10, "And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered every where, before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, even as the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt, as thou comest unto Zoar." Most of us who have spoken of Lot in this connection have characterized him as a selfish, materialistic man who had little concern for others or his own spiritual welfare. There is little doubt that he wanted for himself the best he could get of material things. Do you? Who does not? Is there anything especially reprehensible about that? If someone offered you a choice of a hundred-dollar bill or a dollar bill and he would take the other, which would you choose? If you had been in Lot's shoes, what would you have done? It is easy for us to say, "He should have left the choice to Abraham," but Abraham already had the choice, and gave it to him.

It is generally assumed, and, in my judgment highly probable, that Lot knew of Sodom and its wickedness. It is easy for us to say, "He should have considered what disadvantage there would be in living so close to such wickedness." Of course he should, as each of us should always consider the consequences of any action we may take, especially one that leans toward or leads toward wickedness. A parent who sends his child to a secular, ungodly university instead of to a Christian college or university should consider the consequences. A parent who sends his child to a Christian college or university where many of the teachers promote the idea that the denominational world is about as well off as the Lord's church, and that doctrinal matters are unimportant and that the church of Christ is merely an outgrowth of the Restoration Movement should consider the consequences. A businessman who moves to Detroit, New York or San Francisco from middle Tennessee to get a better paying job should consider the consequences. A Christian who dates a person who is not a Christian or does not have high moral standards should consider the consequences.

However my point here is that the fact that Lot made the wrong choice did not indicate that he was an ungodly, selfish, unusually materialistic wretch. As we see in chapter 19, even after he lived in Sodom he still showed courtesy, hospitality, shame at ungodliness, loyalty, gratitude and other good attributes. He was basically a righteous man. The outstanding lesson is: Regardless of how good or righteous one may be, the wrong choice can reap unexpected horrible consequences. The fact that Lot may have reasoned, "I know the city is wicked, but I do not have to participate in its wickedness" did not change the consequences. The fact that a young girl goes with a boy who is not a Christian or who has questionable morals and thinks, "We love each other enough that I will change him when we get married" will not change the consequences of her actions. Nelson's Bible Dictionary says, "Lot's character is revealed by the major decisions which he made throughout his life. He chose to pitch his tent with the worldly sodomites, seeking riches and a life of ease rather than a path of obedience to God. He prospered for a while, but this decision eventually led to his humiliation and the tragic loss of his wife and other members of his family." That may be true, but it is merely an assumption that he "chose a life of ease rather than a path of obedience to God." There is nothing in the story that indicates that he did not think he could obey God and still pitch his tent toward Sodom. There is nothing in the story that shows that he was disobeying God by moving closer to Sodom. The tragedy is that millions of others have followed his example. They have not chosen a path of deliberate disobedience to God. They have merely chosen a path that indicates an improper attitude toward sin and its influence and consequence. In 2 Peter 2:7-9 Lot is called a righteous man. Matthew Henry says, "This he was as to the generally prevailing bent of his heart and through the main of his conversation. God does not account men just or unjust from one single act, but from their general course of life. And here is a just man in the midst of a most corrupt and profligate generation universally gone off from all good. He does not follow the multitude to do evil, but in a city of injustice he walks uprightly."

Barnes suggests, "Perhaps it was one purpose of his remaining to endeavor to do them good, as it is often the duty of good men now to reside among the wicked for the same purpose. Lot is supposed to have resided in Sodom -- then probably the most corrupt place on the earth -- for 16 years; and we have in that fact an instructive demonstration that a good man may maintain the life of religion in his soul when surrounded by the wicked, and an illustration of the effects which the conduct of the wicked will have on a man of true piety when he is compelled to witness it constantly. (1) He will not be CONTAMINATED with their wickedness, or will not conform to their evil customs. (2) He will not become INDIFFERENT to it, but his heart will be more and more affected by their depravity. (3) He will have not only constant, but growing solicitude in regard to it -- solicitude that will be felt every day: 'He vexed his soul from day to day.' It will not only be at intervals that his mind will be affected by their conduct, but it will be a habitual and constant thing. True piety is not fitful, periodical, and spasmodic; it is constant and steady. It is not a 'jet' that occasionally bursts out; it is a fountain always flowing. (4) He will seek to do them good. We may suppose that this was the case with Lot; we are certain that it is a characteristic of true religion to seek to do good to all, however wicked they may be. (5) He will secure their confidence. He will practice no improper arts to do this, but it will be one of the usual results of a life of integrity, that a good man will secure the confidence of even the wicked. It does not appear that Lot lost that confidence, and the whole narrative in Genesis leads us to suppose that even the inhabitants of Sodom regarded him as a good man. The wicked may hate a good man because he is good; but if a man lives as he should, they will regard him as upright, and they will give him the credit of it when he dies, if they should withhold it while he lives."

We think Barnes is mostly right, but to say that a good man will not be contaminated by the wickedness of those with whom he lives for sixteen years is to go too far. We cannot but wonder why he even moved into the city if it "vexed his righteous soul" as Peter said it did. The only reason that makes sense to us is that he must have assumed that he was so righteous that it would not be worth the effort to stay outside, for he would not be influenced or contaminated by their evil ways. It may be that his family had friends there whose company they enjoyed, or that his wife was so attracted to the sights and shops in the city that she nagged at him until he moved there. Whatever the reasons are, the lesson is the same: The wrong choices we make can have far- reaching and disastrous consequences, not only for ourselves, but also for our families and others.

We cannot argue with the statement that he was a righteous man, at least compared to those about him, for the Bible says so. But we can recognize that even a righteous man can have improper motives and certainly unwise choices and take care that we do not follow in his steps. This is true with every choice we make, whether it is in the political realm, the business arena, scholastic choices, marriage or even where we will spend our vacation. Choose to live in such a way that all you do in word or deed will be to the glory of God.
T. Pierce Brown


Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

Jesse's Missing Son by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=799&b=1%20Samuel

Jesse's Missing Son

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Some time ago, I received a letter from a woman who was seeking an answer to a question that an unbeliever had presented to her. The question that gave her so much trouble, and that seemed to plant a seed of doubt in her mind about the inerrancy of Scripture, was this: “Did Jesse (the father of David) have seven sons or eight?” This question arises from a comparison of the information about Jesse’s family in 1 Samuel 16-17 with the genealogy given in 1 Chronicles chapter two.
First Samuel 16 states that Jesse made seven sons pass before the prophet Samuel, in hopes that God would anoint one of them as the next king of Israel (16:10). Samuel then informed Jesse that God had not chosen any of these seven sons that passed before him, but was looking for another. Of course, that other son was David, “the youngest” (16:11) of Jesse’s “eight sons” (17:12). The “problem” with this information is that the genealogy in 1 Chronicles 2:13-15 specifically states that David was “the seventh” son of Jesse. How is it that David could be both the seventh son and eighth son of Jesse? Some are eager to call this a legitimate Bible contradiction. Even many Bible students (like the one who wrote me about this question) read these statements for the first time and wonder if this is an “inconsistency in the Word.” What is the answer? How many sons did Jesse have? And was David Jesse’s eighth son or seventh?
The answer is really quite simple. It seems that one of Jesse’s sons shown to Samuel at Bethlehem must have died while young and without posterity. Thus, at one time David was the youngest of eight sons, and at another time he was the youngest of seven sons. We must keep in mind that Hebrew genealogies often included only the names of those who have some significance for future generations (Richards, 1993, p. 106; Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 1986). It makes sense that if one of David’s brothers died before marrying and begetting children (or before doing something extraordinary), he would not have been mentioned.
Lest you think this situation sounds too bizarre, consider the following. Fifty years ago, whenever my father engaged in a discussion about his family, he would tell people that he had five brothers and two sisters. Today, when he converses with others about his family he often speaks of his four brothers and two sisters. Is he being dishonest when he does so? No. Sadly, when my dad was 19 years old, one of his younger brothers died in a tragic accident. Although this brother was loved deeply and is missed greatly, usually when my father is asked about his siblings he simply says: “I have four brothers and two sisters.” If he has time or feels there is a need, he then will mention his other brother who died at a very young age. The point is, whether my dad tells someone that he is the oldest of eight children or the oldest of seven children, he is telling the truth.
Admittedly, the Bible does not say specifically that one of David’s brothers died at a young age. But, it most likely is implying such a thing when one less son is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 2:13-15. [And considering David’s three oldest brothers were warriors in Saul’s army (1 Samuel 17:13ff), one certainly would not be surprised if one of David’s other brothers also became a soldier and died in battle.]
To say that one of David’s brothers dying at a relatively young age is not an option is to assert that the Bible does not teach by implication. [Yet, as anyone who has studied the Bible knows, it most certainly does teach by implication (cf. Acts 8:35-36).] Furthermore, if people today who have lost children or siblings can speak legitimately about their family number in two different ways, should we not also give Bible writers the same freedom in their recording of historical families?
REFERENCES
“Genealogy,” (1986), Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Thomas Nelson Publishers).
Richards, Larry (1993), 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered (Grand Rapids, MI: Revell).

The Wisdom of Accountability Measures by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1625

The Wisdom of Accountability Measures

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

If a person wants to be wicked, there is no stopping him. There are not enough accountability measures to put in place to stop a free moral agent from willfully choosing to sin. A parent could go so far as to lock up a teenager in an empty room in hopes of keeping him from sinning against God, but even then the teen could think and say wicked things. Even though Adam and Eve lived in a sinless world at one time; even though they were surrounded by good things (Genesis 1:31); even though they were able to walk and talk with God, live in the midst of the tree of life, and freely eat of every tree of the garden with the exception of one (Genesis 3:8; 2:9,16-17), they eventually chose the one thing that God forbade.
Generally speaking, however, Christians do not want to sin. Rather, we desperately desire to live in accordance with God’s will. The reason we call ourselves Christians is because we want to be Christ-like. That said, we are not perfect. More than we like to admit, we give in to “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life” (1 John 2:16). For this reason, (1) we pray that we are not led into temptation, but instead are delivered from it (Matthew 6:13), and (2) lest we fall, we “take heed” (1 Corinthians 10:12) and walk carefully (Ephesians 5:15).
One area in which all Christians in the 21st century need to walk carefully is the World Wide Web. With one or two clicks of a button, a Christian can find himself “walking” in the filthiest places on Earth. More evil can be discovered more quickly on the Internet than anywhere in world history. In 1996, the U.S. Department of Justice argued, “Never before in the history of telecommunications media in the United States has so much indecent (and obscene) material been so easily accessible by so many minors in so many American homes with so few restrictions” (1996, emp. added). Literally, in just a few seconds, with merely a few clicks of a mouse, or by typing in only three or four words in a search engine, men and women, boys and girls, can view almost any wicked thing imaginable.
What proactive steps can Christians take to shield ourselves and our families from the many dangers on the Internet? Some Christians may think that they and their children are strong enough to withstand whatever temptation comes their way over the Internet. Such an attitude is seen to be very unwise in light of the apostle Paul’s admonitions to Christians. Not only did he warn the Corinthians to “let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall,” he also wrote to the churches of Galatia, saying, “For if anyone thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself” (Galatians 6:3). Admittedly, we will never be able to put so many safety measures in place that the possibility of sinning is removed. But, there is much wisdom in being “careful” to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness,” including those “shameful” things “done…in secret” (Ephesians 5:11-15).
Every Christian family that uses the Internet, seriously needs to consider filtering and accountability software. Filtering software, such as that offered by OpenDNS® or Safe Eyes® (among others), can block a myriad of different kinds of sinful sites that we might be tempted to visit. Though filtering software is not effective 100% of the time at blocking immoral sites, it can be a great safety measure most of the time.
Perhaps an even better (or additional) line of defense for Christians is accountability software such as that provided by Covenant Eyes®. This software tracks every site you visit and every search you make, whether on a computer, a phone, or a tablet. It then passes that information on to an accountability partner of your choosing (e.g., husband, wife, parent, close friend, etc.). For example, a parent can install this software on a teen’s laptop, tablet, or smart phone, and once a week get a report of what web sites the teen has visited or attempted to visit. This enables families to have continual informed and meaningful discussions about how Christians can wisely use the Internet in a Christ-like way.
Most all of us put various kinds of physical safety measures in place in our lives. Whether it is a law or not, many of us wear our seat belts faithfully. We may purchase security systems for our house or apartment in case of break-ins. We teach our children how to escape from their rooms in case there is a fire. Sometimes the physical precautions we put in place seem almost endless. Unfortunately, most people either forget or ignore the need for all of the spiritual defense measures that can help Christians continue walking in the light, rather than be continually tempted to stumble in darkness. It seems to me, two of the best tools that Christians can use in the 21st century are filtering and accountability software. I would encourage you to visit such helpful Web sites as www.safeeyes.com and www.covenanteyes.com.

REFERENCE

U.S. Department of Justice (1996), Post Hearing Memorandum of Points of Authorities, at I, ACLU v Reno, 929 F. Supp. 824 in Parenting the Internet Generation (2012), (Owosso, MI: Covenant Eyes).

Jurassic Park—The New Orthodoxy? by Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1103

Jurassic Park—The New Orthodoxy?

by  Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.

Q.

In the movie Jurassic Park, scientists used frog DNA to recreate dinosaurs? Could such a feat actually be accomplished in real life, or is this just “Hollywood magic”?
A.
Dinosaurs roam a private island off the coast of Costa Rica. Moats and high voltage fences keep the vicious Tyrannosaurus away from its natural prey, and their human keepers. A giant Apatosaurus strolls gracefully across the fields, while an ostrich-like Gallimimus pauses to drink from a lake. This is Jurassic Park, a dinosaur zoo positioned in the theme-park market.
Yet before it has opened to the public, things begin to go awry. There are the usual budget overruns, but there are also accidents among the workers. The investors get nervous, and send a delegation of scientists to inspect the park. They are joined by two of the owner’s grandchildren, and so begins an exciting adventure packed with teeth and claws.
The movie Jurassic Park broke box-office records. Promotion and merchandising reached heights all their own. Once again, Steven Spielberg delivered thrilling, wonder-filled entertainment.
No one has missed the educational impact of this movie. Kids love dinosaurs, right? Of course, many of them will not see the movie because it gets very intense and graphic. But parents and teachers can still use the deluge of Jurassic Park paraphernalia to teach children all about dinosaurs. With such an intense interest, even little ones can master basic paleontology, nomenclature, and dinosaur biology.
Jurassic Park rode on the crest of a dinosaur craze that has been going on for many years now. The movie, and countless books on the subject, teach that dinosaurs were the product of evolution, and that millions of years separated man and dinosaurs. Fortunately, creationists can counter with good materials that teach a biblical perspective (e.g., Taylor, 1987; Gish, 1992). However, the movie warrants attention because it made such special claims.

CAN DINOSAURS BE CLONED?

First, we have to remember that Jurassic Park is science fiction. As one reviewer commented, the science “is only stuffing to ease the suspension of disbelief ” (Gee, 1993). The fantasy behind the story is that scientists can clone dinosaurs. This was explained quite well in the movie, although the book by Michael Crichton (1990) discussed the process in more detail.
It began millions of years ago with mosquitoes sucking on dinosaur blood. Some of the pesky insects landed on trees, where they were trapped by sticky resin. After many years, the resin hardened into amber, thus preserving the insects and their meal. It is then up to scientists at Jurassic Park to extract the stomach contents and isolate the dinosaur. However, the DNA is not intact, so they use sophisticated equipment to fill the gaps. Where this does not work, they use DNA from other organisms, such as frogs. Finally, they insert the completed DNA sequence into crocodile ova, and the dinosaurs are allowed to grow in artificial eggshells.
This whole scheme brings up some important questions. For example, can scientists clone dinosaurs? The answer right now is “No.” The reason is that dinosaurs, like humans, are very complicated organisms. Scientists could clone individual cells or portions of DNA, but they will need a lot more than mummified blood cells. As David Grimaldi quipped, trying to reconstruct the whole dinosaur DNA sequence “would be like trying to reconstruct Tolstoy’s War and Peace from a gigantic vat of alphabet soup” (1993, 102[6]:61).
Has anyone actually found dinosaur DNA? Not yet, but someone may announce a discovery in the near future. Already, scientists believe they have recovered DNA from insects, plants, pollen, mushrooms, and microscopic creatures entombed in amber. But if this amber is millions of years old, how could something as fragile as DNA survive for so long? Tomas Lindahl (1993) is so skeptical about recovering DNA from ancient amber that he is willing to suggest that labs are analyzing samples contaminated with modern DNA! The other alternative, and the one consistent with a biblical view of the world, is that the amber really is only a few thousand years old. Further, organisms preserved in amber are strikingly similar to their living counterparts (see DeSalle, 1992; Cano, et al., 1993; H.N. Poinar, et al., 1993; G.O. Poinar, et al., 1993). This suggests that general stability, not large-scale change, is the dominating feature of life on Earth.
One last point bears mentioning while we are on the issue of cloning. As stated earlier, Jurassic Park scientists patched dinosaur genes with DNA from frogs. This was a reasonable thing to do, we are told, because all animals have a common ancestry, and so their DNA is very similar (Crichton, 1990, p. 209). However, similarity can also mean common design. Most cells carry out basic tasks that have to do with perpetuating life. Also, we would expect to find similarities in cells that perform the same function in different animals. Evolutionists are quick to point out that our DNA is 99% the same as chimpanzee DNA. But this does not explain why we are flying space shuttles, while they have climbed little higher than the tree tops.

DID BIRDS EVOLVE FROM DINOSAURS?

One recurrent theme in the movie, and certainly one emphasized in the book, is that birds evolved from dinosaurs. This theory, developed by John Ostrom, is especially favored among paleontologists (Norman, 1991, p. 137). Ornithologists, however, are not convinced by this theory. They count all the differences between birds and dinosaurs, while Ostrom counts all the similarities.
The point is that evolutionists cannot agree on the origin of birds, and neither paleontologists nor ornithologists can account for something as fundamental as the feather.

CONCLUSION

Jurassic Park exerted great influence because it was such a juggernaut of a movie. Overnight, speculation became conventional wisdom. However, the idea of finding and cloning dinosaur DNA raises many questions that challenge evolution. The story also suggests that birds are modern dinosaurs, and yet there are many problems with this theory.
Dinosaurs, though extinct, are here to stay. They have the power to spur the imagination of young minds, but let us not quash this fascination. Yes, evolutionists are using them to promote their theory, but we can use them to teach about God’s creation. Let us give our children the tools to recognize good science, and interpret it correctly.

REFERENCES

Cano, Raúl J., et al. (1993), “Amplification and Sequencing of DNA from a 120-135-Million-Year-Old Weevil,” Nature, 363:536-538, June 10.
Crichton, Michael (1990), Jurassic Park (New York: Ballantine).
DeSalle, Rob, et al. (1992), “DNA Sequences from a Fossil Termite in Oligo-Miocene Amber and Their Phylogenetic Implications,” Science, 257:1933-1936, September 25.
Gee, Henry (1993), “Jaws with Claws,” Nature, 363:681, June 24.
Gish, Duane T. (1992), Dinosaurs by Design (El Cajon, CA: Creation-Life Publishers).
Grimaldi, David (1993), “Forever in Amber,” Natural History, 102[6]:58-61, June.
Lindahl, Tomas (1993), “Instability and Decay of the Primary Structure of DNA,” Nature, 362:709-715l, April 22.
Norman, David (1991), Dinosaur! (New York: Prentice Hall).
Poinar, G.O., B.M. Waggoner, and U-C. Bauer (1993), “Terrestrial Soft-Bodied Protists and Other Microorganisms in Triassic Amber,” Science, 259:222-224, January 8.
Poinar, H.N., R.J. Cano, and G.O. Poinar (1993), “DNA from an Extinct Plant,” Nature, 363:677, June 24.
Taylor, Paul (1987), The Great Dinosaur Mystery and the Bible (San Diego, CA: Master Books).
Wieland, Carl (1993), “Meet ‘Mr. Living Fossils’—An Informative Interview with Dr. Joachim Scheven,” Creation Ex Nihilo, 15[2]:14-19, March-May.

The Passion and Antisemitism: Who Murdered Jesus? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=1084

The Passion and Antisemitism: Who Murdered Jesus?

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The furor surrounding Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion of the Christ preceded by many months the release of the movie on February 25. The official Web site states: “Passion is a vivid depiction of the last 12 hours of Jesus Christ’s life” (Passion Web site). Special emphasis is placed on the physical suffering Christ endured. Throughout the film, the language spoken is the first-century Jewish language, Aramaic, except when the Romans speak their language, i.e., Latin (Novak, 2003). Gibson, who both produced and directed the film, sank $25 million of his own money into the venture.
Much of the stir over the film stems from the role of the Jews in their involvement in Christ’s crucifixion. In fact, outcries of “anti-Semitism” have been vociferous, especially from representatives of the Anti-Defamation League. Their contention is that Jews are depicted in the film as “bloodthirsty, sadistic, money-hungry enemies of God” who are portrayed as “the ones responsible for the decision to crucify Jesus” (as quoted in Hudson, 2003; cf. Zoll, 2003). The fear is that the film will fuel hatred and bigotry against Jews. A committee of nine Jewish and Catholic scholars unanimously found the film to project a uniformly negative picture of Jews (“ADL and Mel…”). The Vatican early avoided offering an endorsement of the film by declining to make an official statement (“Vatican Has Not…”; cf. “Mel Gibson’s…”). This action is to be expected in view of the conciliatory tone manifested by Vatican II (Abbott, 1955, pp. 663-667). Even Twentieth Century Fox decided not to participate in the distribution of the film (“20th Decides…”; cf. “Legislator Tries…”; O’Reilly…”).
Separate from the controversy generated by Gibson’s film, the more central issue concerns to what extent the Jewish generation of the first century contributed to, or participated in, the death of Christ. If the New Testament is the verbally inspired Word of God, then it is an accurate and reliable report of the facts, and its depiction of the details surrounding the crucifixion are normative and final. That being the case, how does the New Testament represent the role of the Jews in the death of Christ?
A great many verses allude to the role played by the Jews, especially the leadership, in the death of Jesus. For some time prior to the crucifixion, the Jewish authorities were determined to oppose Jesus. This persecution was aimed at achieving His death:
So all those in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, and rose up and thrust Him out of the city; and they led Him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw Him down over the cliff (Luke 4:28-30, emp. added).
Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God (John 5:18-19, emp. added).
After these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for He did not want to walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill Him… “Did not Moses give you the law, yet none of you keeps the law? Why do you seek to kill Me?” (John 7:1-2,19, emp. added).
“I know that you are Abraham's descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you. I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you do what you have seen with your father.” They answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham. But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this.” Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by (John 8:37-41,59, emp. added).
Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him…. Therefore they sought again to seize Him, but He escaped out of their hand (John 10:31-32,39, emp. added).
Then, from that day on, they plotted to put Him to death…. Now both the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a command, that if anyone knew where He was, he should report it, that they might seize Him (John 11:53, 57, emp. added).
And He was teaching daily in the temple. But the chief priests, the scribes, and the leaders of the people sought to destroy Him, and were unable to do anything; for all the people were very attentive to hear Him (Luke 19:47-48, emp. added).
And the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might kill Him, for they feared the people (Luke 22:2, emp. added).
Then the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders of the people assembled at the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and plotted to take Jesus by trickery and kill Him (Matthew 26:3-4, emp. added).
These (and many other) verses demonstrate unquestionable participation of the Jews in bringing about the death of Jesus. One still can hear the mournful tones of Jesus Himself, in His sadness over the Jews rejecting Him: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! See! Your house is left to you desolate” (Matthew 23:37-39). He was referring to the destruction of Jerusalem and the demise of the Jewish commonwealth at the hands of the Romans in A.D. 70. Read carefully His unmistakable allusion to the reason for this holocaustic event:
Now as He drew near, He saw the city and wept over it, saying, “If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side, and level you, and your children within you, to the ground; and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation” (Luke 19:41-44).
He clearly attributed their national demise to their stubborn rejection of Him as the predicted Messiah, Savior, and King.
Does the Bible, then, indicate that a large percentage, perhaps even a majority, of the Jews of first century Palestine was “collectively guilty” for the death of Jesus? The inspired evidence suggests so. Listen carefully to the apostle Paul’s assessment, keeping in mind that he, himself, was a Jew—in fact, “a Hebrew of the Hebrews” (Philippians 3:5; cf. Acts 22:3; Romans 11:1; 2 Corinthians 11:22). Speaking to Thessalonian Christians, he wrote:
For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, just as they did from the Judeans, who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16, emp. added).
This same apostle Paul met with constant resistance from fellow Jews. After he spoke at the Jewish synagogue in Antioch of Pisidia, a crowd of people that consisted of nearly the whole city gathered to hear him expound the Word of God. Notice the reaction of the Jews in the crowd:
But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy; and contradicting and blaspheming, they opposed the things spoken by Paul. Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles….” But the Jews stirred up the devout and prominent women and the chief men of the city, raised up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them from their region (Acts 13:45-46,50-51).
Paul met with the same resistance from the general Jewish public that Jesus encountered—so much so that he wrote to Gentiles concerning Jews: “Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake” (Romans 11:28). He meant that the majority of the Jews had rejected Christ and Christianity. Only a “remnant” (Romans 11:5), i.e., a small minority, embraced Christ.
What role did the Romans play in the death of Christ? It certainly is true that Jesus was crucified on a Roman cross. First-century Palestine was under the jurisdiction of Rome. Though Rome permitted the Jews to retain a king in Judea (Herod), the Jews were subject to Roman law in legal matters. In order to achieve the execution of Jesus, the Jews had to appeal to the Roman authorities for permission (John 18:31). A simple reading of the verses that pertain to Jewish attempts to acquire this permission for the execution are clear in their depiction of Roman reluctance in the matter. Pilate, the governing procurator in Jerusalem, sought literally to quell and diffuse the Jewish efforts to kill Jesus. He called together the chief priests, the rulers, and the people and stated plainly to them:
“You have brought this Man to me, as one who misleads the people. And indeed, having examined Him in your presence, I have found no fault in this Man concerning those things of which you accuse Him; no, neither did Herod, for I sent you back to him; and indeed nothing deserving of death has been done by Him. I will therefore chastise Him and release Him” (for it was necessary for him to release one to them at the feast). And they all cried out at once, saying, “Away with this Man, and release to us Barabbas”—who had been thrown into prison for a certain rebellion made in the city, and for murder. Pilate, therefore, wishing to release Jesus, again called out to them. But they shouted, saying, “Crucify Him, crucify Him!” Then he said to them the third time, “Why, what evil has He done? I have found no reason for death in Him. I will therefore chastise Him and let Him go.” But they were insistent, demanding with loud voices that He be crucified. And the voices of these men and of the chief priests prevailed. So Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they requested. And he released to them the one they requested, who for rebellion and murder had been thrown into prison; but he delivered Jesus to their will (Luke 23:14-25).
It is difficult to conceptualize the level of hostility possessed by the Jewish hierarchy, and even by a segment of the Jewish population, toward a man who had done nothing worthy of such hatred. It is incredible to think that they would clamor for the release of a known murderer and insurrectionist, rather than allow the release of Jesus. Yes, the Roman authority was complicit in the death of Jesus. But Pilate would have had no interest in pursuing the matter if the Jewish leaders and crowd had not pressed for it. In fact, he went to great lengths to perform a symbolic ceremony in order to communicate the fact that he was not responsible for Jesus’ death. He announced to the multitude: “I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it” (Matthew 27:24). Technically, the Romans cannot rightly be said to be ultimately responsible. If the Jews had not pressed the matter, Pilate never would have conceded to having Him executed. The apostle Peter made this point very clear by placing the blame for the crucifixion of Jesus squarely on the shoulders of Jerusalem Jews:
Men of Israel…the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His Servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go. But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses (Acts 3:12-16, emp. added).
Notice that even though the Romans administered the actual crucifixion, Peter pointedly stated to his Jewish audience, not only that Pilate wanted to release Jesus, but that the Jews (“you”)—not the Romans—“killed the Prince of life.”
Does God lay the blame for the death of Christ on the Jews as an ethnic group? Of course not. Though the generation of Jews who were contemporary to Jesus cried out to Pilate, “His blood be on us and on our children” (Matthew 27:25, emp. added), it remains a biblical fact that “the son shall not bear the guilt of the father” (Ezekiel 18:20). A majority of a particular ethnic group in a particular geographical locale at a particular moment in history may band together and act in concert to perpetrate a social injustice. But such an action does not indict all individuals everywhere who share that ethnicity. “For there is no partiality with God” (Romans 2:11), and neither should there be with any of us.
In fact, the New Testament teaches that ethnicity should have nothing to do with the practice of the Christian religion—which includes how we see ourselves, as well as how we treat others. Listen carefully to Paul’s declarations on the subject: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham's seed” (Galatians 3:28-29, emp. added). Jesus obliterated the ethnic distinction between Jew and non-Jew:
For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity (Ephesians 2:14-17).
In the higher sense, neither the Jews nor the Romans crucified Jesus. Oh, they were all complicit, including Judas Iscariot. But so were we. Every accountable human being who has ever lived or ever will live has committed sin that necessitated the death of Christ—if atonement was to be made so that sin could be forgiven. Since Jesus died for the sins of the whole world (John 3:16; 1 John 2:2), every sinner is responsible for His death. But that being said, the Bible is equally clear that in reality, Jesus laid down His own life for humanity: “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep…. Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again” (John 10:11,17-18; cf. Galatians 1:4; 2:20; Ephesians 5:2; 1 John 3:16). Of course, the fact that Jesus was willing to sacrifice Himself on the behalf of humanity does not alter the fact that it still required human beings, in this case first-century Jews, exercising their own free will to kill Him. A good summary passage on this matter is Acts 4:27-28—“for of a truth in this city against thy holy Servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, were gathered together, to do whatsoever thy hand and thy council foreordained to come to pass.”

CONCLUSION

The movie is, indeed, graphic. Despite various inaccuracies and additions that usually come with an attempt to transfer a biblical narrative to the screen, The Passion of the Christ nevertheless does a credible job of reenacting the excruciating torment that Jesus endured by undergoing Roman scourging and crucifixion. The film fosters a renewed appreciation of the suffering that Jesus subjected Himself to in behalf of sinful humanity.
Anti-Semitism is sinful and unchristian. Those who crucified Jesus are to be pitied. Even Jesus said concerning them: “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do” (Luke 23:34). But we need not deny or rewrite history in the process. We now live in a post-Christian culture. If Gibson would have produced a movie depicting Jesus as a homosexual, the liberal, “politically correct,” anti-Christian forces would have been the first to defend the undertaking under the guise of “artistic license,” “free speech,” and “creativity.” But dare to venture into spiritual reality by showing the historicity of sinful man mistreating the Son of God, and the champions of moral degradation and hedonism raise angry, bitter voices of protest. The irony of the ages is—He died even for them.

REFERENCES

Abbott, Walter, ed. (1966), The Documents of Vatican II (New York, NY: America Press).
“ADL and Mel Gibson’s ‘The Passion,’ ” [On-line], URL: http://www.adl.org/interfaith/gibson_qa.asp.
Hudson, Deal (2003), “The Gospel according to Braveheart,” The Spectator, [On-line], URL: http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old&section=current&issue= 2003-09-20&id=3427&searchText=.
“Legislator Tries to Censor Mel Gibson’s ‘The Passion,’ ” [On-line], URL: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/8/27/124709.shtml.
“Mel Gibson’s ‘Passion’ Makes Waves,” [On-line], URL: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/08/entertainment/main567445.shtml.
Novak, Michael (2003), “Passion Play,” The Weekly Standard, [On-line], URL: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/014ziqma.asp.
“O’Reilly: Elite Media out to Destroy Mel Gibson,” [On-line], URL: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/9/15/223513.shtml.
Passion Web site, [On-line], URL: http://www.passion-movie.com/english/index.html.
“20th Decides Against Distributing Gibson’s ‘The Passion,’ ” [On-line], URL: http://www.imdb.com/SB?20030829#3.
“Vatican Has Not Taken A Position on Gibson’s Film ‘The Passion,’ Top Cardinal Assures ADL,” [On-line], URL: http://www.adl.org/PresRele/VaticanJewish_96/4355_96.htm.
Zoll, Rachel (2003), “Jewish Civil Rights Leader Says Actor Mel Gibson Espouses Anti-Semitic Views,” [On-line], URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/09/19/ national1505EDT0626.DTL.