From Gary... More than a "fish" tale

From a human perspective, there is your truth and my truth and THE TRUTH. However, God is not human- He is so far above us that we can even completely understand HIM. And HIS TRUTH IS ABSOLUTE TRUTH BECAUSE HE IS ABSOLUTELY PURE. Man often will reject God's word as TRUTH because he rejects GOD.  This Pilate did and many still do today. Please take a moment to consider the Scriptures I have listed below...

John, Chapter 18 (WEB)

 33  Pilate therefore entered again into the Praetorium, called Jesus, and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” 

  34  Jesus answered him, “Do you say this by yourself, or did others tell you about me?” 

  35  Pilate answered, “I’m not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests delivered you to me. What have you done?” 

  36  Jesus answered, “My Kingdom is not of this world. If my Kingdom were of this world, then my servants would fight, that I wouldn’t be delivered to the Jews. But now my Kingdom is not from here.” 

  37  Pilate therefore said to him, “Are you a king then?” 

Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this reason I have been born, and for this reason I have come into the world, that I should testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” 

  38  Pilate said to him, “What is truth?” 

When he had said this, he went out again to the Jews, and said to them, “I find no basis for a charge against him. 

John, Chapter 4 (WEB)

 21  Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour comes, when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, will you worship the Father.   22  You worship that which you don’t know. We worship that which we know; for salvation is from the Jews.   23  But the hour comes, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such to be his worshipers.   24  God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” 

John, Chapter 8 (WEB)

42  Therefore Jesus said to them, “If God were your father, you would love me, for I came out and have come from God. For I haven’t come of myself, but he sent me.   43  Why don’t you understand my speech? Because you can’t hear my word.   44  You are of your father, the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and doesn’t stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks on his own; for he is a liar, and its father.   45  But because I tell the truth, you don’t believe me.   46  Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?   47  He who is of God hears the words of God. For this cause you don’t hear, because you are not of God.” 

Romans, Chapter 1 (WEB)

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,  19 because that which is known of God is revealed in them, for God revealed it to them.  20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse. 21 Because, knowing God, they didn’t glorify him as God, neither gave thanks, but became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless heart was darkened. 

Ephesians, Chapter 4 (WEB)

17  This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind,  18 being darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardening of their hearts;  19 who having become callous gave themselves up to lust, to work all uncleanness with greediness.  20 But you did not learn Christ that way;  21 if indeed you heard him, and were taught in him, even as truth is in Jesus:  22 that you put away, as concerning your former way of life, the old man, that grows corrupt after the lusts of deceit;  23 and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind,  24 and put on the new man, who in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of truth. 

Like so many people today, Pilate could not accept that there is an ABSOLUTE TRUTH and that TRUTH COMES FROM GOD ALONE. Why? There are probably almost countless reasons for disbelieving GOD'S TRUTH, but I think most of them revolve around the importance of SELF. If one's own opinion of SELF is put above the absolute of GOD, then those who do this become GOD in their own mind and therefore will not accept the absolutes of the ALMIGHTY.  This is what the devil did and those that follow in his footsteps share his blinded heart (John 8, above).

Want to know truth? Listen to Jesus, because he was sent from the father to tell you THE TRUTH. Don't want to listen to Jesus? Do so at your own peril. 

As always, these things apply to myself- so, listen to your own words, Gary!!!

And if they apply to me, then they apply to whoever reads this as well!!!

From Gary... Bible Reading October 7

Bible Reading  

October 7

The World English Bible

Oct. 7

Psalms 141-144

Psa 141:1 Yahweh, I have called on you. Come to me quickly! Listen to my voice when I call to you.

Psa 141:2 Let my prayer be set before you like incense; the lifting up of my hands like the evening sacrifice.

Psa 141:3 Set a watch, Yahweh, before my mouth. Keep the door of my lips.

Psa 141:4 Don't incline my heart to any evil thing, to practice deeds of wickedness with men who work iniquity. Don't let me eat of their delicacies.

Psa 141:5 Let the righteous strike me, it is kindness; let him reprove me, it is like oil on the head; don't let my head refuse it; Yet my prayer is always against evil deeds.

Psa 141:6 Their judges are thrown down by the sides of the rock. They will hear my words, for they are well spoken.

Psa 141:7 "As when one plows and breaks up the earth, our bones are scattered at the mouth of Sheol."

Psa 141:8 For my eyes are on you, Yahweh, the Lord. In you, I take refuge. Don't leave my soul destitute.

Psa 141:9 Keep me from the snare which they have laid for me, from the traps of the workers of iniquity.

Psa 141:10 Let the wicked fall together into their own nets, while I pass by.

Psa 142:1 I cry with my voice to Yahweh. With my voice, I ask Yahweh for mercy.

Psa 142:2 I pour out my complaint before him. I tell him my troubles.

Psa 142:3 When my spirit was overwhelmed within me, you knew my path. In the way in which I walk, they have hidden a snare for me.

Psa 142:4 Look on my right, and see; for there is no one who is concerned for me. Refuge has fled from me. No one cares for my soul.

Psa 142:5 I cried to you, Yahweh. I said, "You are my refuge, my portion in the land of the living."

Psa 142:6 Listen to my cry, for I am in desperate need. deliver me from my persecutors, For they are stronger than me.

Psa 142:7 Bring my soul out of prison, that I may give thanks to your name. The righteous will surround me, for you will be good to me.

Psa 143:1 Hear my prayer, Yahweh. Listen to my petitions. In your faithfulness and righteousness, relieve me.

Psa 143:2 Don't enter into judgment with your servant, for in your sight no man living is righteous.

Psa 143:3 For the enemy pursues my soul. He has struck my life down to the ground. He has made me live in dark places, as those who have been long dead.

Psa 143:4 Therefore my spirit is overwhelmed within me. My heart within me is desolate.

Psa 143:5 I remember the days of old. I meditate on all your doings. I contemplate the work of your hands.

Psa 143:6 I spread forth my hands to you. My soul thirsts for you, like a parched land. Selah.

Psa 143:7 Hurry to answer me, Yahweh. My spirit fails. Don't hide your face from me, so that I don't become like those who go down into the pit.

Psa 143:8 Cause me to hear your loving kindness in the morning, for I trust in you. Cause me to know the way in which I should walk, for I lift up my soul to you.

Psa 143:9 Deliver me, Yahweh, from my enemies. I flee to you to hide me.

Psa 143:10 Teach me to do your will, for you are my God. Your Spirit is good. Lead me in the land of uprightness.

Psa 143:11 Revive me, Yahweh, for your name's sake. In your righteousness, bring my soul out of trouble.

Psa 143:12 In your loving kindness, cut off my enemies, and destroy all those who afflict my soul, For I am your servant.

Psa 144:1 Blessed be Yahweh, my rock, who teaches my hands to war, and my fingers to battle:

Psa 144:2 my loving kindness, my fortress, my high tower, my deliverer, my shield, and he in whom I take refuge; who subdues my people under me.

Psa 144:3 Yahweh, what is man, that you care for him? Or the son of man, that you think of him?

Psa 144:4 Man is like a breath. His days are like a shadow that passes away.

Psa 144:5 Part your heavens, Yahweh, and come down. Touch the mountains, and they will smoke.

Psa 144:6 Throw out lightning, and scatter them. Send out your arrows, and rout them.

Psa 144:7 Stretch out your hand from above, rescue me, and deliver me out of great waters, out of the hands of foreigners;

Psa 144:8 whose mouths speak deceit, Whose right hand is a right hand of falsehood.

Psa 144:9 I will sing a new song to you, God. On a ten-stringed lyre, I will sing praises to you.

Psa 144:10 You are he who gives salvation to kings, who rescues David, his servant, from the deadly sword.

Psa 144:11 Rescue me, and deliver me out of the hands of foreigners, whose mouths speak deceit, whose right hand is a right hand of falsehood.

Psa 144:12 Then our sons will be like well-nurtured plants, our daughters like pillars carved to adorn a palace.

Psa 144:13 Our barns are full, filled with all kinds of provision. Our sheep bring forth thousands and ten thousands in our fields.

Psa 144:14 Our oxen will pull heavy loads. There is no breaking in, and no going away, and no outcry in our streets.

Psa 144:15 Happy are the people who are in such a situation. Happy are the people whose God is Yahweh.

Oct. 7

Galatians 4

Gal 4:1 But I say that so long as the heir is a child, he is no different from a bondservant, though he is lord of all;

Gal 4:2 but is under guardians and stewards until the day appointed by the father.

Gal 4:3 So we also, when we were children, were held in bondage under the elemental principles of the world.

Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent out his Son, born to a woman, born under the law,

Gal 4:5 that he might redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of children.

Gal 4:6 And because you are children, God sent out the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, "Abba, Father!"

Gal 4:7 So you are no longer a bondservant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

Gal 4:8 However at that time, not knowing God, you were in bondage to those who by nature are not gods.

Gal 4:9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, why do you turn back again to the weak and miserable elemental principles, to which you desire to be in bondage all over again?

Gal 4:10 You observe days, months, seasons, and years.

Gal 4:11 I am afraid for you, that I might have wasted my labor for you.

Gal 4:12 I beg you, brothers, become as I am, for I also have become as you are. You did me no wrong,

Gal 4:13 but you know that because of weakness of the flesh I preached the Good News to you the first time.

Gal 4:14 That which was a temptation to you in my flesh, you didn't despise nor reject; but you received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.

Gal 4:15 What was the blessing you enjoyed? For I testify to you that, if possible, you would have plucked out your eyes and given them to me.

Gal 4:16 So then, have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?

Gal 4:17 They zealously seek you in no good way. No, they desire to alienate you, that you may seek them.

Gal 4:18 But it is always good to be zealous in a good cause, and not only when I am present with you.

Gal 4:19 My little children, of whom I am again in travail until Christ is formed in you--

Gal 4:20 but I could wish to be present with you now, and to change my tone, for I am perplexed about you.

Gal 4:21 Tell me, you that desire to be under the law, don't you listen to the law?

Gal 4:22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the handmaid, and one by the free woman.

Gal 4:23 However, the son by the handmaid was born according to the flesh, but the son by the free woman was born through promise.

Gal 4:24 These things contain an allegory, for these are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children to bondage, which is Hagar.

Gal 4:25 For this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answers to the Jerusalem that exists now, for she is in bondage with her children.

Gal 4:26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Gal 4:27 For it is written, "Rejoice, you barren who don't bear. Break forth and shout, you that don't travail. For more are the children of the desolate than of her who has a husband."

Gal 4:28 Now we, brothers, as Isaac was, are children of promise.

Gal 4:29 But as then, he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now.

Gal 4:30 However what does the Scripture say? "Throw out the handmaid and her son, for the son of the handmaid will not inherit with the son of the free woman."

Gal 4:31 So then, brothers, we are not children of a handmaid, but of the free woman. 

Prophetic Precision by Brad Bromling, D.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=440

Prophetic Precision

by	Brad Bromling, D.Min.

One of the most amazing things about the Bible is that it contains information that could not have been known by its human authors. A perfect example of this is seen in the prophecy concerning the city of Tyre. At least six specific predictions were recorded in Ezekiel 26: (1) King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon would destroy the city (vss. 7-8); (2) Many nations would come against Tyre (vs. 3); (3) The city would be leveled and scraped clean—like a bare rock (vs. 4); (4) The city’s stones, timber, and soil would be cast into the sea (vs. 12); (5) The area would become a place for the spreading of nets (vs. 5); and (6) The city never would be rebuilt (vs. 14).

Each of these items came to pass exactly as Ezekiel said. Tyre, a coastal city of ancient times, had an island about one-half mile offshore. Within a few years of Ezekiel’s oracle, Nebuchadnezzar besieged the mainland city (586 B.C.). When he finally defeated Tyre 13 years later, the city was deserted—most of the inhabitants already had moved to the island. Things remained that way for about 241 years. Then in 332 B.C., Alexander the Great took the island city for Greece. This was accomplished by scraping clean the mainland city of its debris and using those materials to build a land-bridge to the island. Although Alexander brought much damage to the city, it still stood. Tyre persisted for the next 1,600 years. Finally, in A.D. 1291, the Muslims thoroughly crushed Tyre, and the city has remained in ruins ever since. Aside from a small fishing community, nothing is left.

How can we account for Ezekiel’s precision regarding the history of this city? We cannot—apart from a miracle. How could he look almost 1,900 years into the future and predict that Tyre would be a bald rock where fishermen would spread their nets? God must have told him!

A Look at the Jesus Seminar by Brad Bromling, D.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=439

A Look at the Jesus Seminar

by	Brad Bromling, D.Min.

One day Philip was told, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus” (John 12:21). “Seeing” Jesus has been on the minds of humanity ever since. What does Jesus look like? The answer depends on whom you ask. Peter tells of a Chief Shepherd (1 Peter 5:4). Isaiah paints a tragic portrait of a sacrificial lamb led to the slaughter (Isaiah 53). The writer of Hebrews shows a glorious scene of One Who is high and lifted up—the perfect replica of God’s bright glory (Hebrews 1). These different pictures confuse some, so they ask, “Will the real Jesus please stand up?” It would seem that the most natural place to go in search of the bare essentials of Jesus’ identity is to His biographies. So we turn to the books we call Gospels. But again, we encounter multiple portraits. In Mark we meet a busy servant of God and humanity. Matthew describes a King. Luke tells of a great, compassionate man. John contributes a picture of Jesus Who is God in the flesh! This diversity has led some people to conclude that the New Testament writers were not divinely inspired, and that we must seek a new, more accurate picture of Jesus (see Funk, et al., 1993, p. 6).

Many men and women have devoted life-long study to finding the true Jesus. They have begun at essentially the same point and sought in different ways to discover a better picture of Jesus. Unfortunately, they have reached diverse and contradictory conclusions. In fact, there are about as many modern portraits of Jesus as there are people seeking them (see Wright, 1992, pp. 1-18; Wright, 1993, pp. 22-26; Borg, 1994, pp. 40-45).

THE JESUS SEMINAR

Some time ago, a new portrait was presented to the public. It was composed by the Fellows of the Jesus Seminar and has received broad media coverage and wide public attention (see Ostling, 1994; Watson, 1994). Their activities have received notice among conservative journalists as well (see for example Jackson, 1994; Carson, 1994). To understand their picture, it is essential to examine the methodology that led them to it.

In 1985, thirty critical scholars convened and formed an alliance known as the Jesus Seminar. Their purpose was to revive the search for the historical Jesus, and to disseminate their findings beyond the cloistered halls of academia. Since its inception, the number of Fellows has grown to more than 200. The group is comprised of men and women who have advanced academic credentials and who, in some respects, represent the elite of liberal biblical scholarship.

Voting on the Words of Jesus

Their first order of business was to collect all the sayings attributed to Jesus from the first three centuriesA.D., and to translate them afresh from their original languages. Each of the sayings (approximately 1,500 versions of about 500 sayings) then was put to a vote by the Fellows at each of their semiannual meetings to determine which sayings should be attributed to Jesus. Voters were given four choices concerning each saying. They cast their vote by placing a colored bead into a box according to how closely the statements agreed with the following choices (see Funk, et al., 1993, pp. 36-37):

Red bead = Jesus undoubtedly said this or something very like it (i.e., That’s Jesus!).

Pink bead = Jesus probably said something like this (i.e., Sure sounds like Jesus.).

Gray bead = Jesus did not say this, but the ideas in it are close to His own (i.e., Well, maybe.).

Black bead = Jesus did not say this; it represents the perspective or content of a later or different tradition (i.e., There’s been some mistake.).

BOX 1. Jesus Seminar translation and color coding for Matthew 5:43-48 (after Funk, et al., 1993, p. 145). 43.“ As You know, we once were told, ‘You are to love your neighbor’ and ‘You are to hate your enemy.’ 44.But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for your persecutors. 45.You’ll then become children of your Father in the heavens. {God} causes the sun to rise on both the bad and the good, and sends rain on both the just and the unjust. 46. Tell me, if you love those who love you, why should you be commended for that? Even the toll collectors do as much, don’t they? 47. And if you greet only your friends, what have you done that is exceptional? Even the pagans do as much, don’t they? 48.To sum up, you are to be unstinting in your generosity in the way your heavenly Father’s generosity is unstinting.” Key: Red = Jesus said this, or something like it. Pink = Jesus probably said this. Gray = Jesus did not say this, but it may represent his idea. Black = Jesus did not say this; it represents other people's ideas.

The Fellows determined by their votes that only about 18% of what usually is attributed to Jesus is authentic. The rest was put into the Lord’s mouth by the various Gospel writers.

Their conclusions were published in the book, The Five Gospels (Funk, et al., 1993). This volume contains a brief summary of the Fellows’ philosophy and agenda, their color-coded translation (called the Scholar’s Version) of Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, and the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas (in that order), and a commentary-like discussion of all the passages containing the words attributed to Jesus.

The purpose for their voting and color-coding was to lead the scholars to a point where they could, based on Jesus’ authentic words, determine something of His identity. What did they decide? Simply put, Jesus was a traveling “laconic sage” who “traded in wisdom” (Funk, et al., 1993, pp. 32, 27). This picture of a wise man of few words “emerged” for various reasons.

In the main, though, the image of sage is based upon the Fellows’ decision to grant two sources a privileged status above the others. They were Q and the Gospel of Thomas (Funk, et al., 1993, pp. 25-26). “Q” is the abbreviation for quelle—a German word that means simply “source.” In the 1800s, German scholars postulated that the authors of Matthew and Luke employed a common source of sayings when they compiled their Gospel records. That common material, now extracted from Matthew and Luke and printed as an independent “Gospel,” is primarily a collection of short wisdom statements [see accompanying article on the alleged discovery of Q]. The Gospel of Thomas (discovered in 1945 at Nag Hammadi, Egypt) is also a collection of 114 short, pithy, wisdom statements attributed to Jesus. Since the Fellows decided that Q and Thomas represent the oldest of written Gospel materials—which they date between A.D. 50-60—they assume these sources are the closest to what Jesus actually said (Funk, et al., 1993, pp. 26, 128). And since these “oldest” materials are short “sayings,” they must best characterize Jesus’ mode of teaching.

This decision has a devastating effect upon the status of the Gospel of John. In John’s record, Jesus usually preaches in longer segments and often makes claims about Himself. Because of this, and the late date assigned to John (c. A.D. 90), the Fellows see virtually nothing of Jesus’ actual identity in John. By their account, John contains no red-bead statements. The only passage that rates a pink bead is John 4:44: “a prophet has no honor in his own country.” Only two statements were granted gray status:

Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain. He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life (John 12:24-25).

Most assuredly, I say to you, he who receives whomever I send receives Me; and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me (John 13:20).

That is all; everything else John attributes to Jesus supposedly was manufactured by someone else and then projected back into the Lord’s mouth.

Although the Fellows believe Mark was the earliest of the canonical gospels (and that Matthew and Luke used much of Mark’s material), they concede only one red-bead statement to Mark: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Mark 12:17). They grant Mark’s record less than 20 pink sayings. Matthew and Luke fare only slightly better, partly because they allegedly contain Q.

The question that naturally arises is this: What would lead the Jesus Seminar to reject the authenticity of most of what the Gospel writers say Jesus spoke? The answer is based upon two things: (1) the ideological platform upon which they stand; and (2) the criteria employed to decide between authentic and unauthentic sayings.

The Ideological Platform

For the Jesus Seminar, as well as for many other scholars currently involved in Gospel research, the starting point is an ideological platform composed of at least the following planks (see Funk, et al., 1993, pp. 1-16):

1. Many years of oral tradition intervened between the actual life of Jesus and the time the Gospels were written. During the intervening period, theological constructions and romantic embellishments were wrapped around the core of facts that was actually known about the man called Jesus.
2. There is, therefore, a difference between the historical person called “Jesus” and the early church’s embellished version of that person (referred to as the “Christ of faith”).
3. The writers of Matthew, Mark, and Luke present pictures of Jesus that more closely describe Him than does John.
4. Each Gospel writer told his story of Jesus in a way that best appealed to his own community of faith.
5. The Gospel of Mark was the earliest Gospel written, and was used by the writers of Matthew and Luke as they compiled their accounts.
6. The writers of Matthew and Luke both employed a book of Jesus’ sayings (called Q) in conjunction with the Gospel of Mark to compose their biographies. They possibly employed other sources as well.
7. Only by stripping away the layers of the Gospel writers’ embellishments can we catch an accurate glimpse of the real, historical Jesus.

The sturdiness of this platform will determine the stability of the research that is built upon it.

The Criteria Employed

Accepting the above platform, the scholars then decided upon a standard by which to judge the authenticity of words attributed to Jesus. The criteria employed for this decision are lengthy and involved. However, the principles quoted in Box 2 (below) are representative. These tests (and others like them) were employed by the Fellows to determine if a particular saying truly came from the mouth of Jesus. Sayings that passed the tests could then be evaluated to see what kind of Jesus was represented.

BOX 2. Criteria used by the Jesus Seminar (Funk, et al., 1993, p. 19-32). A. Words borrowed from the fund of common lore or the Greek scriptures are often put on the lips of Jesus. B. The evangelist frequently attribute their own statements to Jesus. C. The Christian community develops apologetic statements to defend it's claims and sometimes attributes such statements to Jesus. D. Sayings and narratives that reflect knowledge of events that took place after Jesus' death are the creation of the evangelist or the oral tradition before them. E. Only sayings and parables that can be traced back to the oral period, 30-50 C.E. [viz., A.D.—BB], can possibly have originated with Jesus. F. The oral memory best restains sayings and anecdotes that are short, provacative, memorable—and oft’ repeated. G. The most frequently recorded words of Jesus in the surviving gospels take the form of aphorisms and parables. H. The earliest layer of the gospel tradition is made up of single aphorisms and parables that circulated by word of mouth prior to the written gospels. I. Jesus' characteristic talk is distinctive—it can usually be distinguished from common lore. Otherwise it is futile to search for the authentic words of Jesus. J. Jesus' sayings and parables cut against the social and religious grain. K. Jesus' images are concrete and vivid, his sayings and parables customarily metaphorical and without explicit application. L. Jesus does not as a rule initiate dialogue or debate, nor does he offer to cure people. M. Jesus rarely makes pronouncements or speaks about himself in the first person. N. Jesus makes no claim to be the Anointed, the messiah.

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE PLATFORM AND CRITERIA

The ideological platform upon which much modern Jesus research is built is weak and faulty in various respects. The central problem with all of the planks mentioned above is that they fail to take into account divine inspiration. The interval between Jesus’ life and the writing of the four Gospels is irrelevant if the authors wrote by the inspiration of the Spirit of God. God’s Spirit would have no memory problems. Concern over embellishment and the reliability of John (because of the late date of his record) is also needless for this reason.

The idea that the writers of Matthew and Luke employed oral or written sources to compose their Gospels is not a sufficient argument in itself to cast suspicion upon the authenticity of the words attributed to Jesus in each Gospel. Luke admitted he was aware of preexisting sources that were circulating in his day (Luke 1:1-4). If the Gospel writers were guided by the Spirit of God to use such sources in the composition of their own accounts, the alleged evidence of borrowing between Mark, Luke, and Matthew is no reason for alarm. It is important to note, however, that there is serious scholarly work available that challenges the “borrowing” hypothesis (Linnemann, 1992). Likewise, what the liberals label as “embellishment” is, in reality, a particular insight into the character of Jesus that the Spirit allowed one writer to emphasize that the others did not.

The Fellows’ use of the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas is also misleading. Since its discovery, it has been classified as pseudepigraphal (i.e., carrying a false name), and has been rejected by conservative scholars as a candidate for inclusion in the New Testament. The book originated in the early part of the second century (contrary to the date assigned by the Fellows), reflects the heretical theology of the gnostics, and contains many absurdities (Geisler and Nix, 1986, p. 302; see also Blomberg, 1987, pp. 208-212). For example:

Jesus said, Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human (Funk, et al., 1993, p. 477).

Although the tests and criteria used to decide between authentic and unauthentic words may appear thorough, they are subjective and rest upon circular reasoning. Notice the list in Box 2 again. Taken as a whole, it denies Jesus the ability to employ Jewish wisdom sayings and to quote from the Old Testament. Since (they allege) the Gospel writers were likely to put words in Jesus’ mouth, anytime Jesus is presented as saying something the Fellows’ feel came from an evangelist’s pen, they dismiss it. In each case, personal conviction is the deciding factor.

The identity of Jesus is supposedly based upon only those words He actually spoke. Yet, the words credited to Him are determined by the preconception that He would say only certain things. Note again, the Fellows decided beforehand that Jesus: would not defend or explain Himself; would not preach extended sermons, but would instead talk in short aphorisms and parables; would make no claims on His identity, and offer to heal no one. Further, they determined that everything He said was unique to Him and always cut against the social grain. The circular reasoning involved in all these restrictions shows that the Fellows had a definite picture of Jesus in mind before they started “looking” for Him!

What is the origin of this picture? It is painted with three brush strokes. First, when scholars suspected that Matthew and Luke employed a source (Q) containing only “sayings” (without narrative framework), they decided it would be older and more representative of the real Jesus. Second, the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas proved to them that a “sayings” Gospel was not only possible, but a reality since Thomas was an example of such; this granted the scholars permission to isolate all the sayings from the Gospels. Third, they decided that since Thomas and Q are mainly comprised of short, aphoristic (provocative) statements that lack any reference to crucifixion and resurrection, Jesus was simply one of a large number of traveling sages Who made no special claims for Himself. What separated Jesus from other first-century wise men was that His followers deluded themselves into deifying Him.

CONCLUSION

The crucial issue is this: were the Gospels written under divine guidance or by mere human wisdom? If the former, then the Jesus Seminar’s picture of Jesus is purely fictional and wholly inadequate. If the latter, then there is little reason to be a Christian; a traveling sage (who was neither the Son of God, nor the resurrected Christ) would have no power or desire to make salvation claims upon humanity.

The question might linger, though, as to why the New Testament writers present a gallery of different portraits of Jesus and not simply the same portrait. Obviously, the multiple portraits are intended by the Master Painter to present the many sides of Jesus. He is not a monolithic figure of the ancient past, He is Alpha and Omega, Son of God and Son of man, Good Shepherd and Lamb of God, Prophet, Priest, Prince of Peace, King of kings, Lord of lords, Lion of the Tribe of Judah, the Way, the Truth, and the Life Who is from everlasting to everlasting. How could any one portrait adequately convey all that? The Fellows of the Jesus Seminar need to heed their own advice: “Beware of finding a Jesus entirely congenial to you” (Funk, et al., 1993, p. 5). The challenge has always been for people to lay aside preconceived ideas about Jesus and to be open to His multi-faceted nature presented in the inspired Gospels.

REFERENCES

Blomberg, Craig L. (1987), The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).

Borg, Marcus (1994), “Profiles in Scholarly Courage,” Bible Review, 10[5]:40-45, October.

Carson, D.A. (1994), “The Five Gospels, No Christ,” Christianity Today, 38[5]:30-33.

Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar (1993), The Five Gospels—The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (New York: Macmillan).

Geisler, Norman L. and William E. Nix (1986), A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago, IL: Moody, revised edition).

Jackson, Wayne (1994), “The Jesus Seminar” Christian Courier, 30[2-3]:5-10, June.

Linnemann, Eta (1992), Is There a Synoptic Problem? (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Ostling, Richard N. (1994), “Jesus Christ, Plain and Simple,” Time, pp. 38-39, January 10.

Watson, Russell (1994), “A Lesser Child of God,” Newsweek, pp. 53-54, April 4.

Wright, N.T. (1992), Who Was Jesus? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Wright, N.T. (1993), “The New, Unimproved Jesus,” Christianity Today, 37[10]:22-26.

Perceptions About Homosexuality by Brad Bromling, D.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=438

Perceptions About Homosexuality

by	Brad Bromling, D.Min.

“If you had to guess, what percent of people living in America are homosexual?” That was the question I put before a group of teenagers. The answers were fired back in quick succession. One said, “Thirty-something percent.” “No,” another spoke up, “forty percent.” Then the number escalated to sixty percent. The final figure thrown out was an incredible seventy percent! Thinking that perhaps the meaning of percentages was lost on them I asked, if ten percent of a hundred people were homosexual, how many would that be. “Ten” was the immediate response. I hesitated a second to see if anyone would disagree; no one did. When I told them that recent studies suggested that the number was only about three percent, they mumbled in disbelief (see Watson, 1993).

This was not a rough bunch of inner-city kids from Los Angeles or New York. This was a small town in the South, half of whom were home schooled. They were “our” kids! Most of them probably have not yet met a homosexual. They did not have reason to; after all, only three out of a hundred are homosexual and not all of them are open about it. So, how can we account for this distorted perception? No doubt television has played the biggest role. Regularly we are shown protest marches, and “gay pride” parades on the evening news. Comedy shows touch on the subject for laughs, and movies often deal with bigotry and violent acts committed against this minority. Our government’s new policies to allow gays in the military, and in high levels of public office, have contributed as well.

Perhaps another reason for such confusion is related to the way some Christians talk about the subject. Some of the things our children overhear about homosexuality may leave them with the impression that it is so widespread and heinous that the blood of Jesus won’t touch it. If so, that is a tragedy. It is true that the Scriptures condemn homosexuality as sin (e.g., Romans 1:26-27), but the Bible does not promote the exaggerated hostility that often characterizes conversations and attitudes about people who engage in this sin. Do many of us entertain the thought of sharing the Gospel with a gay man? Paul said “such were some of you” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11); someone had brought homosexuals to Christ in Corinth. How many of us would have attempted to do so? Each of us must answer for ourselves whether our attitude toward this sin is more harsh than toward adultery, drunkenness, or gossiping. Likely, our teenagers can tell.

Our task is difficult. We must counter the misinformation of the media, while maintaining a personal balance between expressing hostility toward homosexual people and ignoring the issue altogether. Since our children’s perceptions are largely shaped by our attitudes, this task is crucial.

REFERENCES

Watson, Traci (1993), “Sex Surveys Come Out of the Closet,” Science, 260:615-616, April 30.

The Saga of Shebna by Wayne Jackson, M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=437

The Saga of Shebna

by	Wayne Jackson, M.A.

In the days of Hezekiah, King of Judah, prior to Sennacherib’s siege of Jerusalem, there was an ambitious official in the king’s service whose name was Shebna. Out of an inflated sense of prominence, and perhaps fueled by ambition, Shebna had carved for himself a magnificent tomb from solid rock (a custom usually reserved for royalty). How he must have relished the day of his death!

When Isaiah learned of the deed, he approached the corrupt treasurer and rebuked him. [“The oracle against Shebna (Isa. 22:15-23) is the only instance in Isaiah of an oracle against a named individual”—Cundall, 1975, 5:380.] The prophet informed Shebna that Jehovah would cast him into a far country, and there he would die; accordingly, the dignitary would have no use for his elaborate mausoleum. The record of this exchange is found in Isaiah 22:15ff.

In 1953, an archaeologist by the name of N. Avigad translated an inscription taken from the lintel of a rock tomb in Jerusalem. Written in archaic Hebrew, and dating to the time of Hezekiah, the inscription (with some restoration) said, “This is the sepulcher of [Shebna]yahu [a more complete form of the name], who is over the house [cf. Isa. 22:15]. There is no silver or gold here but only his bones, and the bones of his slave-wife with him. Cursed be the man who breaks this open.”

Some scholars believe this stone lintel is from the tomb of the Shebna rebuked by Isaiah (Blaiklock, 1983; Cundall, 1975, 5:380). Apparently, though Shebna had this inscription made for his tomb, he was never to inhabit his rock-hewn home, since God’s prophet declared that he would be exiled and die in an alien land. Where men propose, God can dispose.

Though we do not deprecate making plans for one’s burial (in fact, such is a wise procedure that will assist one’s children), in the final analysis it is best to focus attention upon eternity!

REFERENCES

Blaiklock, E.M. (1983), “Shebna,” New International Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology, ed. E.M. Blaiklock and R.K. Harrison (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), p. 410.

Cundall, A.E. (1975), “Shebna,” Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Merrill Tenney (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), 5:380-381.