June 22, 2016

Narrow path (but worth it) by Gary Rose


I have no idea where this is, except that it is VERY HIGH above the ground. Unless you are a mountain climber, you will have to take one of those very narrow bridges. Even those access points are not easy and will require you to be very, very careful about where you step.

Humm, reminds me of something Jesus said...

Matthew, Chapter 7 (WEB)
  13  “Enter in by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter in by it.   14  How narrow is the gate, and restricted is the way that leads to life! Few are those who find it.

Being a genuine disciple of Jesus is NOT easy, you have to be careful about what you say, what you do- even what you think. Frankly, not everyone can do it. But, I think its worth it; and so, until my dying day- I will keep trying. I hope you will as well!!!

Bible Reading June 22 by Gary Rose


Bible Reading June 22 (The World English Bible)

June 22
2 Samuel 7-9

2Sa 7:1 It happened, when the king lived in his house, and Yahweh had given him rest from all his enemies all around,
2Sa 7:2 that the king said to Nathan the prophet, See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of God dwells within curtains.
2Sa 7:3 Nathan said to the king, Go, do all that is in your heart; for Yahweh is with you.
2Sa 7:4 It happened the same night, that the word of Yahweh came to Nathan, saying,
2Sa 7:5 Go and tell my servant David, Thus says Yahweh, Shall you build me a house for me to dwell in?
2Sa 7:6 for I have not lived in a house since the day that I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day, but have moved around in a tent and in a tabernacle.
2Sa 7:7 In all places in which I have walked with all the children of Israel, spoke I a word with any of the tribes of Israel, whom I commanded to be shepherd of my people Israel, saying, Why have you not built me a house of cedar?
2Sa 7:8 Now therefore thus you shall tell my servant David, Thus says Yahweh of Armies, I took you from the sheep pen, from following the sheep, that you should be prince over my people, over Israel;
2Sa 7:9 and I have been with you wherever you went, and have cut off all your enemies from before you; and I will make you a great name, like the name of the great ones who are in the earth.
2Sa 7:10 I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in their own place, and be moved no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as at the first,
2Sa 7:11 and as from the day that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel; and I will cause you to rest from all your enemies. Moreover Yahweh tells you that Yahweh will make you a house.
2Sa 7:12 When your days are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall proceed out of your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
2Sa 7:13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.
2Sa 7:14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son: if he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men;
2Sa 7:15 but my loving kindness shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before you.
2Sa 7:16 Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before you: your throne shall be established forever.
2Sa 7:17 According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak to David.
2Sa 7:18 Then David the king went in, and sat before Yahweh; and he said, Who am I, Lord Yahweh, and what is my house, that you have brought me thus far?
2Sa 7:19 This was yet a small thing in your eyes, Lord Yahweh; but you have spoken also of your servant's house for a great while to come; and this too after the manner of men, Lord Yahweh!
2Sa 7:20 What can David say more to you? for you know your servant, Lord Yahweh.
2Sa 7:21 For your word's sake, and according to your own heart, have you worked all this greatness, to make your servant know it.
2Sa 7:22 Therefore you are great, Yahweh God: for there is none like you, neither is there any God besides you, according to all that we have heard with our ears.
2Sa 7:23 What one nation in the earth is like your people, even like Israel, whom God went to redeem to himself for a people, and to make him a name, and to do great things for you, and awesome things for your land, before your people, whom you redeem to you out of Egypt,from the nations and their gods?
2Sa 7:24 You established for yourself your people Israel to be a people to you forever; and you, Yahweh, became their God.
2Sa 7:25 Now, Yahweh God, the word that you have spoken concerning your servant, and concerning his house, confirm it forever, and do as you have spoken.
2Sa 7:26 Let your name be magnified forever, saying, Yahweh of Armies is God over Israel; and the house of your servant David shall be established before you.
2Sa 7:27 For you, Yahweh of Armies, the God of Israel, have revealed to your servant, saying, I will build you a house: therefore has your servant found in his heart to pray this prayer to you.
2Sa 7:28 Now, O Lord Yahweh, you are God, and your words are truth, and you have promised this good thing to your servant:
2Sa 7:29 now therefore let it please you to bless the house of your servant, that it may continue forever before you; for you, Lord Yahweh, have spoken it: and with your blessing let the house of your servant be blessed forever.

2Sa 8:1 After this it happened that David struck the Philistines, and subdued them: and David took the bridle of the mother city out of the hand of the Philistines.
2Sa 8:2 He struck Moab, and measured them with the line, making them to lie down on the ground; and he measured two lines to put to death, and one full line to keep alive. The Moabites became servants to David, and brought tribute.
2Sa 8:3 David struck also Hadadezer the son of Rehob, king of Zobah, as he went to recover his dominion at the River.
2Sa 8:4 David took from him one thousand seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David hamstrung all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for one hundred chariots.
2Sa 8:5 When the Syrians of Damascus came to help Hadadezer king of Zobah, David struck of the Syrians two and twenty thousand men.
2Sa 8:6 Then David put garrisons in Syria of Damascus; and the Syrians became servants to David, and brought tribute. Yahweh gave victory to David wherever he went.
2Sa 8:7 David took the shields of gold that were on the servants of Hadadezer, and brought them to Jerusalem.
2Sa 8:8 From Betah and from Berothai, cities of Hadadezer, king David took exceeding much brass.
2Sa 8:9 When Toi king of Hamath heard that David had struck all the army of Hadadezer,
2Sa 8:10 then Toi sent Joram his son to king David, to Greet him, and to bless him, because he had fought against Hadadezer and struck him: for Hadadezer had wars with Toi. Joram brought with him vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and vessels of brass:
2Sa 8:11 These also did king David dedicate to Yahweh, with the silver and gold that he dedicated of all the nations which he subdued;
2Sa 8:12 of Syria, and of Moab, and of the children of Ammon, and of the Philistines, and of Amalek, and of the spoil of Hadadezer, son of Rehob, king of Zobah.
2Sa 8:13 David got him a name when he returned from smiting the Syrians in the Valley of Salt, even eighteen thousand men.
2Sa 8:14 He put garrisons in Edom; throughout all Edom put he garrisons, and all the Edomites became servants to David. Yahweh gave victory to David wherever he went.
2Sa 8:15 David reigned over all Israel; and David executed justice and righteousness to all his people.
2Sa 8:16 Joab the son of Zeruiah was over the army; and Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud was recorder;
2Sa 8:17 and Zadok the son of Ahitub, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, were priests; and Seraiah was scribe;
2Sa 8:18 and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over the Cherethites and the Pelethites; and David's sons were chief ministers.

2Sa 9:1 David said, Is there yet any who is left of the house of Saul, that I may show him kindness for Jonathan's sake?
2Sa 9:2 There was of the house of Saul a servant whose name was Ziba, and they called him to David; and the king said to him, Are you Ziba? He said, Your servant is he.
2Sa 9:3 The king said, Is there not yet any of the house of Saul, that I may show the kindness of God to him? Ziba said to the king, Jonathan has yet a son, who is lame of his feet.
2Sa 9:4 The king said to him, Where is he? Ziba said to the king, Behold, he is in the house of Machir the son of Ammiel, in Lo Debar.
2Sa 9:5 Then king David sent, and fetched him out of the house of Machir the son of Ammiel, from Lo Debar.
2Sa 9:6 Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, came to David, and fell on his face, and did obeisance. David said, Mephibosheth. He answered, Behold, your servant!
2Sa 9:7 David said to him, "Don't be afraid of him; for I will surely show you kindness for Jonathan your father's sake, and will restore you all the land of Saul your father; and you shall eat bread at my table continually."
2Sa 9:8 He did obeisance, and said, "What is your servant, that you should look on such a dead dog as I am?"
2Sa 9:9 Then the king called to Ziba, Saul's servant, and said to him, "All that pertained to Saul and to all his house have I given to your master's son.
2Sa 9:10 You shall till the land for him, you, and your sons, and your servants; and you shall bring in the fruits, that your master's son may have bread to eat: but Mephibosheth your master's son shall eat bread always at my table." Now Ziba had fifteen sons and twenty servants.
2Sa 9:11 Then said Ziba to the king, According to all that my lord the king commands his servant, so your shall servant do. As for Mephibosheth, said the king, he shall eat at my table, as one of the king's sons.
2Sa 9:12 Mephibosheth had a young son, whose name was Mica. All that lived in the house of Ziba were servants to Mephibosheth.
2Sa 9:13 So Mephibosheth lived in Jerusalem; for he ate continually at the king's table. He was lame in both his feet.

Jun. 21, 22
John 19

Joh 19:1 So Pilate then took Jesus, and flogged him.
Joh 19:2 The soldiers twisted thorns into a crown, and put it on his head, and dressed him in a purple garment.
Joh 19:3 They kept saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!" and they kept slapping him.
Joh 19:4 Then Pilate went out again, and said to them, "Behold, I bring him out to you, that you may know that I find no basis for a charge against him."
Joh 19:5 Jesus therefore came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple garment. Pilate said to them, "Behold, the man!"
Joh 19:6 When therefore the chief priests and the officers saw him, they shouted, saying, "Crucify! Crucify!" Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves, and crucify him, for I find no basis for a charge against him."
Joh 19:7 The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God."
Joh 19:8 When therefore Pilate heard this saying, he was more afraid.
Joh 19:9 He entered into the Praetorium again, and said to Jesus, "Where are you from?" But Jesus gave him no answer.
Joh 19:10 Pilate therefore said to him, "Aren't you speaking to me? Don't you know that I have power to release you, and have power to crucify you?"
Joh 19:11 Jesus answered, "You would have no power at all against me, unless it were given to you from above. Therefore he who delivered me to you has greater sin."
Joh 19:12 At this, Pilate was seeking to release him, but the Jews cried out, saying, "If you release this man, you aren't Caesar's friend! Everyone who makes himself a king speaks against Caesar!"
Joh 19:13 When Pilate therefore heard these words, he brought Jesus out, and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called "The Pavement," but in Hebrew, "Gabbatha."
Joh 19:14 Now it was the Preparation Day of the Passover, at about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, "Behold, your King!"
Joh 19:15 They cried out, "Away with him! Away with him! Crucify him!" Pilate said to them, "Shall I crucify your King?" The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar!"
Joh 19:16 So then he delivered him to them to be crucified. So they took Jesus and led him away.
Joh 19:17 He went out, bearing his cross, to the place called "The Place of a Skull," which is called in Hebrew, "Golgotha,"
Joh 19:18 where they crucified him, and with him two others, on either side one, and Jesus in the middle.
Joh 19:19 Pilate wrote a title also, and put it on the cross. There was written, "JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS."
Joh 19:20 Therefore many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, and in Greek.
Joh 19:21 The chief priests of the Jews therefore said to Pilate, "Don't write, 'The King of the Jews,' but, 'he said, I am King of the Jews.' "
Joh 19:22 Pilate answered, "What I have written, I have written."
Joh 19:23 Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also the coat. Now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.
Joh 19:24 Then they said to one another, "Let's not tear it, but cast lots for it to decide whose it will be," that the Scripture might be fulfilled, which says, "They parted my garments among them. For my cloak they cast lots." Therefore the soldiers did these things.
Joh 19:25 But there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
Joh 19:26 Therefore when Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing there, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold your son!"
Joh 19:27 Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" From that hour, the disciple took her to his own home.
Joh 19:28 After this, Jesus, seeing that all things were now finished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, "I am thirsty."
Joh 19:29 Now a vessel full of vinegar was set there; so they put a sponge full of the vinegar on hyssop, and held it at his mouth.
Joh 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished." He bowed his head, and gave up his spirit.
Joh 19:31 Therefore the Jews, because it was the Preparation Day, so that the bodies wouldn't remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a special one), asked of Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
Joh 19:32 Therefore the soldiers came, and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who was crucified with him;
Joh 19:33 but when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was already dead, they didn't break his legs.
Joh 19:34 However one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.
Joh 19:35 He who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, that you may believe.
Joh 19:36 For these things happened, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, "A bone of him will not be broken."
Joh 19:37 Again another Scripture says, "They will look on him whom they pierced."
Joh 19:38 After these things, Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked of Pilate that he might take away Jesus' body. Pilate gave him permission. He came therefore and took away his body.
Joh 19:39 Nicodemus, who at first came to Jesus by night, also came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred Roman pounds.
Joh 19:40 So they took Jesus' body, and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as the custom of the Jews is to bury.
Joh 19:41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden. In the garden was a new tomb in which no man had ever yet been laid.
Joh 19:42 Then because of the Jews' Preparation Day (for the tomb was near at hand) they laid Jesus there. 

Why Not Just Be a Member of the Church? by J.C. Bailey


http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Bailey/John/Carlos/1903/Articles/whynot.html


Why Not Just Be a Member of the Church?

The history of the Old Testament reveals that idolatry was a very prevalent sin, not only among the heathen but also among the people of God. God made it very plain that He did not intend for it to be that way. In giving the Ten Commandments God said: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, nor any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, nor that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them, for I Jehovah thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and showing loving kindness unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments" (Exodus 20:3-6).
Despite this plain command of God, the history of the Old Testament reveals how the people of God wandered off into idolatry time after time. They were severely punished and would return to God, only to wander into idolatry again.
Finally, God, as punishment for their idolatry, sent them into slavery. The two tribes returned and small remnants of the other tribes. They learned their lesson. They were cured of their idol worship, and though they still have errors, the Jewish people do not worship idols.
They had learned that the best defense is an offense. After their return from captivity the Old Testament Scriptures were translated from the Hebrew into Greek. What English is today in the literary world, Greek was in that day. Through reading of the Bible there were many people in the world who were no longer idolaters when Jesus came. They had not embraced the Jewish faith but they did believe in the God whom the Old Testament reveals. Cornelius, in Acts 10, is an example. In the world of today wherever faith in the Bible goes, idolatry ceases.
The Old Testament reveals there is one God. The New Testament makes that truth even plainer.
Just as the Bible reveals one God, it reveals that there is one church. In fact it is explicit in teaching that sobering fact. There is no place in the plan of God for more than one God and there is no place for more than one church. The church was in the mind of God from eternity: "to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in the heavenly places might be made known through the church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which he purposed through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Ephesians 3:10,11).
Two truths are evident from this passage: that the manifold wisdom of God was to be made known through the church and that the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, is to be made known through the church. The work of the church was not an afterthought in the mind of God but it was His eternal purpose. 
In the plan of God, the church was not to belong to one nation but to all the nations. This is how the Holy Spirit through Isaiah described the coming church: "And it shall come to pass in the latter days, that the mountain of Jehovah's house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it" (Isaiah 2:2). The Holy Spirit informs us that the house of God is the church of the living God (I Timothy 3:15). In plain language God said He would establish one church for all nations and Paul told us in Ephesians 3:10,11 that it was established for all time. He says further: "Now unto Him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, unto Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus unto all generations for ever and ever" (Ephesians 3:20,21).
So as God is from everlasting to everlasting (Psalm 90:2) so the church is to exist for all time and for all eternity. We shall establish it more clearly but just as idolatry has no place in the plan of God, so denominations have no place in the plan of God. Jesus built His church (Matthew 16:18). He said the gates of Hades would not prevail against His church (Matthew 16:18). Denominations are made by men and Jesus said they would all be rooted up: "Every plant which my heavenly Father planted not shall be rooted up" (Matthew 15:13). God by Christ planted one church and He says that it will last for all time and for all eternity but those plants which He did not plant shall be rooted up. The teaching is plain, isn't it?
Denominations try to justify their existence by saying they are different branches of the church. Any student of church history knows that the various denominations were formed by men. Some are very ancient; some are new, but they were formed by men. But Christ built His church(Matthew 16:18). There is one body (Ephesians 4:4). That body is the church: "And he put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all" (Ephesians 1:22,23).
Just as surely as there is only one God, there is only one church. The work of Jesus Christ is to be done in that church.
We find a very sad thing in the church of the New Testament. They belonged to the church. They had obeyed the Lord Jesus Christ, but then they began to follow men. In the church at Corinth there were those who said --- "I am of Paul --- I of Apollos --- I of Cephas; I of Christ" (I Corinthians 1:12). This was wrong. Paul asks the question, "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you or were you baptized into the name of Paul?" Though they were members of the church yet they became divided into contending factions. How bad is that? "For ye are yet carnal, for whereas there is among you jealousy and strife, are ye not carnal and do ye not walk after the manner of men? For when one says, I am of Paul, and another I of Apollos, are ye not men? What then is Apollos? and what is Paul? Ministers through whom ye believed" (I Corinthians 3:3-5). So when we follow men instead of Christ (or think we follow both), the Holy Spirit says we are carnal.
What does it mean to be carnally minded? The Holy Spirit says that to be carnally minded is death: "For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be" (Romans 8:6,7).
It took hundreds of years for men to learn that there was only one God. That did not alter the fact that it was true, even though they did not believe. Men are better now. Wherever the Bible goes, men believe in one God. And if men believe there is only one God because the Bible says so, then they can only believe in one church and should serve God in that church. Let us quote again: "Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, unto him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus unto all generations for ever and ever. Amen" (Ephesians 3:20, 21).
The power that works in us is our faith in the gospel (Romans 1:16). I tell my Indian brethren that I am afraid that they sometimes have more faith in me than they do in Christ. If they do, then the time will come when that faith will be of no use. Some brethren put their trust in the philosophies or methods of certain men. Thus the church is divided. "My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness. I dare not trust the sweetest frame, but wholly lean on Jesus' Name."
J.C. Bailey (1987, Bengough, Saskatchewan)

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

The Resurrection Narratives by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=294&b=Mark

The Resurrection Narratives

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

INTRODUCTION—THE NEW TESTAMENT IS THE MOST
HISTORICALLY ACCURATE BOOK OF ANTIQUITY
Dismissing the miracles documented in the New Testament is a favorite pastime of many skeptics, and even some religious leaders. However, this “dismissal” game gets extremely complicated, because the miracles are so closely blended with historical facts that separating the two soon becomes like trying to separate two different colors of modeling clay. Take, for instance, the plight of Sir William Ramsay. His extensive education had engrained within him the keenest sense of scholarship. Along with that sense of scholarship came a built-in prejudice about the supposed inaccuracy of the Bible (especially the book of Acts). Ramsay noted: “... [A]bout 1880 to 1890 the book of the Acts was regarded as the weakest part of the New Testament. No one that had any regard for his reputation as a scholar cared to say a word in its defence. The most conservative of theological scholars, as a rule, thought the wisest plan of defence for the New Testament as a whole was to say as little as possible about the Acts” (1915, p. 38).
As might be expected of a person trained by such “scholars,” Ramsay held the same view—for a little while. He held the view for only a brief time, because he decided to do what few people of his time dared to do. He decided to explore the actual Bible lands with an open Bible—with the intention of proving the inaccuracy of Luke’s history in the book of Acts. However, much to his surprise, the book of Acts passed every test that any historical narrative could be asked to pass. After his investigation of the Bible lands, he was forced to conclude:

The more I have studied the narrative of the Acts, and the more I have learned year after year about Graeco-Roman society and thoughts and fashions, and organization in those provinces, the more I admire and the better I understand. I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it here [in the Book of Acts—KB]. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian’s, and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment, provided always that the critic knows the subject and does not go beyond the limits of science and of justice (1915, p. 89).

Renowned archaeologist Nelson Glueck put it like this: “It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which conform in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible” (1959, p. 31).
Considering the fact that the land of Palestine in the days of the New Testament writers tossed and turned on a sea of political, economical, and social unrest, I would say that its historical accuracy is pretty amazing. But please remember, this argument is not being used in this discussion to claim that the New Testament is inspired (although some have used it in this way quite effectively). It is inserted at this point in the discussion to show that the books that discuss the Resurrection the most have proven to be true when confronted with any checkable fact. Travel to the Holy Lands and see for yourself if you doubt New Testament accuracy. Carry with you an honest, open mind and a New Testament, and I assure you that you will respect the New Testament writers as accurate historians.
ON SUPPOSED CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN THE GOSPELS
So, maybe the New Testament documents are accurate when they discuss historical and geographical information. But what about all the alleged contradictions between the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection? Charles Templeton, in his bookFarewell to God, devoted several pages to comparisons among the statements from the four Gospels, at the end of which he stated: “The entire resurrection story is not credible” (1996, p. 122). Another well-known preacher-turned-skeptic, Dan Barker, delights in attempting to find contradictions in the different accounts of the resurrection. In his book Loosing Faith in Faith, he filled seven pages with a list of “contradictions” that he found among the narratives. Eventually he stated: “Christians, either tell me exactly what happened on Easter Sunday, or let’s leave the Jesus myth buried...” (1992, p. 181) Interestingly, it should be noted that the fact that Barker asks for “exact” details about a day in ancient history that happened almost 2,000 years ago speaks loudly of the legitimacy of the resurrection story. Since no other day in ancient history could ever be examined with such scrutiny. Historians today cannot tell “exactly” what happened on July 4, 1776 or April 12, 1861, but Christians are asked to give the “exact” details of Christ’s resurrection? Furthermore, these requested details can be (and have been) supplied by the Gospel writers—without contradiction. Let’s examine the evidence.
HEAD ON COLLUSION
Collusion: “A secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose” (page 363, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, fourth edition, 2000, p. 363). Even if we have not heard the word before, most of us understand the situation it describes. Suppose four bank robbers don their nylon-hose masks, rob the city bank, stash the cash away in a nearby cave, and each go back to his own house until the police search blows over. The first robber hears a knock on his door. He opens it to find a policeman who “just wants to ask him a few questions.” The officer asks, “Where were you and what where you doing on the night of June 1, 2001?” The thief promptly answers, “I was at Joe Smith’s house watching television with three other friends.” The policeman gets the three friends’ names and addresses and visits each one of their homes. Every robber tells the exact same story. Was it true? Absolutely not! But did the stories all sound exactly the same, with seemingly no contradictions? Yes.
Now, let’s fit this principle into our discussion of the resurrection narratives. If every single narrative describing the resurrection sounded exactly the same, what do you think would be said about the narratives? “They must have copied each other.” In fact, in other areas of Christ’s life besides the resurrection story, when the books of Matthew and Luke give the same information as the book of Mark, many people today claim that they must have copied Mark, because it is thought to be the earliest of the three books. Another raging question in today’s upper echelons of biblical scholarship is whether Peter copied Jude in 2 Peter 2:4-17, or whether Jude copied Peter, because the two segments of scripture sound so similar.
Amazingly, however, the Bible has not left the prospect of collusion open to the resurrection narratives. Indeed, legitimately it cannot be denied that the resurrection accounts come to us from various independent sources. Tad S. Clements, in his book Science Versus Religion , vigorously denied that there is enough evidence to believe in the resurrection. However, he acknowledged: “There isn’t merely one account of Christ’s resurrection but rather an embarrassing multitude of stories that disagree in significant respects” (1990, p. 193). And he makes it clear that the Gospels are separate accounts of the same story. Dan Barker admitted the same when he boldly stated: “Since Easter [the resurrection story—KB] is told by five different writers, it gives one of the best chances to confirm or disconfirm the account. Christians should welcome the opportunity” (1992, p. 179). One door, which everyone involved in the resurrection discussion admits has been locked forever by the resurrection accounts, is the dead-bolted door of collusion.
DEALING WITH “DISCREPANCIES”
Of course it will not be possible, in these few paragraphs, to deal with every alleged discrepancy between the resurrection accounts. But some helpful principles will be set forth that can be used to show that no genuine contradiction between the resurrection narratives has been found.
Addition Does Not a Contradiction Make
Suppose a man is telling a story about the time he and his wife went shopping at the mall. The man mentions all the great places in the mall to buy hunting supplies and cinnamon rolls. But the wife tells about the same shopping trip, yet mentions only the places to buy clothes. Is there a contradiction just because the wife mentions clothing stores while the husband mentions only cinnamon rolls and hunting supplies? No. They are simply adding to (or supplementing) each other’s story to make it more complete. That happens in the resurrection accounts quite often.
For example, the Gospel of Matthew names “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary” as women who visited the tomb early on the first day of the week (Matthew 28:1). Mark cites Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome as the callers (Mark 16:1). Luke mentions Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and “the other women” (Luke 24:10). Yet John mentions Mary Magdalene visiting the tomb early on Sunday (John 20:1). (Dan Barker cites these different names as discrepancies and contradictions on page 182 of his book.) Do these different lists contradict one another? No, not in any way. They are supplementary, adding names to make the list more complete. But they are not contradictory. If John had said “only Mary Magdalene visited the tomb,” or if Matthew stated, “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were the only women to visit the tomb,” then there would be a contradiction. As it stands, no contradiction occurs. To further illustrate this point, suppose that you have 10 one-dollar bills in your pocket. Someone comes up to you and asks, “Do you have a dollar bill in your pocket?” Naturally, you respond in the affirmative. Suppose another person asks, “Do you have five dollars in your pocket?,” and again you say yes. Finally, another person asks, “Do you have ten dollars in your pocket?” and you say yes for the third time. Did you tell the truth every time? Yes. Were any of your answers contradictory? No. Were all three statements about the contents of your pockets different? Yes—supplementation not contradiction.
Also fitting into this supplementation discussion are the angels, men, and young man described in the different resurrection accounts. Two “problems” arise with the entrance of the “holy heralds” at the empty tomb of Christ. First, how many were there? Second, were they angels or men? Since the former question deals with supplementation, we will discuss it first. The account in Matthew cites “an angel of the Lord who descended from heaven” and whose “appearance was as lightning, and his raiment white as snow” (28:2-5). Mark’s account presents a slightly different picture of “a young man sitting on the ride side, arrayed in a white robe” (16:5). But Luke mentions that “two men stood by them [the women—KB] in dazzling apparel” (24:4). And, finally, John writes about “two angels in white sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain” (20:12). Do any of these accounts contradict any of the others as to the number of men or angels at the tomb? Factoring in the supplementation rule, we must answer, “No.” Although the accounts are quite different, they are not contradictory as to the number of messengers. Mark does not mention “only a young man,” nor does Luke say there were “exactly two angels, no less or no more.” Was there one messenger at the tomb? Yes. Were two there as well, Yes. No contradiction here.
The second question concerning the messengers is their identity: Were they angels or were they men? Most people who are familiar with the Old Testament have no problem answering this question. Genesis chapters 18 and 19 mention three men who came to visit Abraham and Sarah. These men stay for a short time, and then two of them continued on to visit the city of Sodom. Yet the Bible tells us in the first verse of Genesis 19 that these “men” were actually angels. But when the men of Sodom came to do violence to these angels, the city dwellers asked: “Where are the men that came in to thee this night” (Genesis 19:5). Throughout the two chapters, the messengers are referred to as men and as angels with equal accuracy. They looked like, talked like, walked like, and sounded like men. Were they men? Yes. Were they angels? Yes.
To illustrate, suppose you saw a man sit down at a park bench and take off his right shoe. As you watched, he began to pull out an antenna from the toe of the shoe and a number pad from the heel. He proceeded to dial a number and began to talk to someone over his “shoe phone.” If you were going to write down what you saw, could you accurately say that the man dialed a number on his shoe? Yes. Could you say that he dialed a number on his phone? Indeed you could. The shoe had a heel, a sole, a toe, and everything else germane to a shoe, but it was much more than a shoe. In the same way, the messengers at the tomb would accurately be described as men—they had a head held in place by a neck, perched on two shoulders, a body complete with arms and legs, etc. Thus, they were men, but they were much more than men, so they were just as accurately described as angels, holy messengers sent from God to deliver an announcement to certain people. Taking into account the fact that the Old Testament often uses the term “men” to describe angels, it is fairly easy to show that no contradiction exists concerning the identity of the messengers.
Perspective Plays a Part
What we continue to see in the independent resurrection narratives is not contradiction, but merely a difference in perspective. For instance, suppose a man had a 4x6-inch index card that was solid red on one side and solid white on the other. Further suppose that he stood in front of a large crowd, asked all the men to close their eyes, showed the women in the audience the red side of the card, and then had them write down what they saw. Suppose, further, that he had all the women close their eyes, showed the men the white side of the card, and had them write down what they saw. One group saw a red card, and one group saw a white card. When their answers are compared, it looks at first like they are contradictory, yet they are not. The reason the descriptions look contradictory is because the two groups had a different perspective, each looking at a different side of the card. The perspective phenomenon plays a big part in everyday life. In the same way that no two witnesses ever see a car accident the exact same way, none of the witnesses of the resurrected Jesus saw the activities from the same angle as the others.
I have not dealt with every alleged discrepancy in the resurrection accounts in this section. However, I have discussed some of the major ones that can be shown to be supplementation or items viewed from a difference of perspective. An honest study of the remaining “problems” reveals that not a single legitimate contradiction exists among the narratives—they are different, but they are not contradictory. Furthermore, the differences prove that no collusion took place, and instead offer the diversity that would be expected from different individuals relating the same event.
REFERENCES
Barker, Dan (1992), Loosing Faith in Faith (Madison, WI: Freedom from Religion Foundation).
Clements, Tad S. (1990), Science vs. Religion (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus).
Glueck, Nelson (1959), Rivers in the Desert: A History of the Negev (New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Cudahy).
Ramsay, William (1915), The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1975 reprint).
Templeton, Charles (1996), Farewell to God (Ontario, Canada: McClelland and Stewart).

There is Still Hope for Israel by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=4186

There is Still Hope for Israel

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Many years after God gave laws through Moses in Exodus 34:10-16 and Deuteronomy 7:1-5 pertaining to marriage, the people were exiled in Babylon. When the Persians toppled the Babylonian Empire, the Persian king Cyrus issued a decree in 536 B.C. permitting Israelites to return to Palestine and rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. Zerubbabel led the first wave of Jewish exiles back to their homeland and eventually the temple was rebuilt by 515 B.C. (Ezra 1-6). Over 50 years elapsed when, in 458 B.C., Artaxerxes, then king of Persia, granted permission for Ezra to gather a second wave of exiles to return to Jerusalem (Ezra 7-10). Ezra was a teacher well versed in the Law of Moses. It took him and his traveling companions five months to get to Jerusalem.
Ezra’s great purpose was to bring religious reform to the Jews in Palestine, to re-establish Mosaic institutions, and to revive the spirituality of a people who had degenerated socially, morally, and religiously. He worked feverishly to call them back to God’s written Word. Ezra sought to do what Jeremiah had tried to do: “ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein” (Jeremiah 6:16). Ezra was just the man for the job: “For Ezra had devoted himself to the study and observance of the Law of the Lord, and to teaching its decrees and laws in Israel” (Ezra 7:10). When God’s Israel today (cf. Galatians 6:16) grows lax and neglectful of God’s will, we, too, stand in dire need of men who know the truth and who will teach it to the church!
So in Ezra 8:15, Ezra began to tackle the enormous task before him, beginning by organizing the financial offerings as well as sacrificing burnt offerings to God. But then things got tough. Obeying God and bringing one’s self back into harmony with God’s wishes is often tough. Read carefully Ezra 9:1-­10:12 and notice the following six lessons to be learned:
  1. If a marriage relationship is unauthorized (i.e., not in harmony with God’s will), it must bedissolved. This proves that divorce or putting away is not always wrong, but is, in certain situations, God’s command.
  2. Even if children have been born to the illicit marriage union, the relationship still must bedissolved. Yes, submission to divine authority sometimes entails the sacrifice of human companionship to facilitate fellowship with God (Luke 18:29­-30).
  3. Repentance, in the case of relation­shipsentails more than simply acknow­ledging or confessing one’s sin. It includes the termination of that union in order for God to be pleased.
  4. We need more members of the church who will possess the deep sorrow and penitent shame that Ezra manifested, instead of excusing sin or proposing absurd quibbles or foolish arguments in an effort to dodge the stringency of God’s will. We need people who, instead of grasping for straws or scraping the bottom of the barrel in a frantic effort to justify adulterous unions, will just face and accept the truth like Shechaniah: “We have been unfaithful to our God.... Let it be done according to the Law” (Ezra 10:2-3).
  5. We need to understand that if there was hope for Israel then (10:2), there is hope for Israel now—not by expecting God to just look the other way, or wave His hand and make unrenounced sin go away. God has given “a little space” of grace (9:8). He has punished us less than our sins deserve (9:13). Our hope lies in our resolute decision to repent and turn from relationships that are out of harmony with God’s will. Then He will forgive and bless. Refusal to do so must be confronted with expulsion from the congregation (10:8; cf. 1Corinthians 5:13).
  6. We need to get ourselves back to “trembling at the word of the Lord” (9:4; 10:3).We’re just not too impressed by divine words anymore. We do not know what it means to “fear God” (Ecclesiastes 12:13) or to “fall into the hands of the living God” (Hebrews 10:31). Ezra did. He asked rhetorically: “Should we again break Your commandments and join in marriage with the people of these abominations? Would You not be angry with us until You had consumed, so that there would be no remnant or survivor?” (9:14). Ezra was right in step with the words of Paul: “Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men” (2 Corinthians 5:11). He knew that there would be no substitute for straightforward obedience if, indeed, “the fierce wrath of our God is turned away from us in this matter” (10:14).
The Bible teaches us that, sooner or later, we will reap what we have sown. Jesus said there are only two possibilities—repent or perish (Luke 13:3). Let us never be reluctant or hesitant to bring our lives into conformity with God’s will, regardless of the hardship or difficulty involved. Let us love Him (1 John 5:3), for “there is still hope in Israel.”

When Bryan Took the Stand by Brad Bromling, D.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=274

When Bryan Took the Stand

by Brad Bromling, D.Min.

As the summer heat was beginning to swelter in the small Tennessee town of Dayton, a cultural war raged in its packed courtroom. Ostensibly, John Thomas Scopes, a high school coach and temporary biology teacher was being tried in court for violating the State’s Butler Act, which prohibited the teaching of evolution. In reality, the public’s views about the relationship between Darwinism and the Holy Scriptures were placed in the spotlight of global attention.
As the world watched, the famed defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, and the silver-tongued, former Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan, clashed like two territorial badgers. The contest reached its climax on the seventh day of the trial. Co-defense attorney Arthur Hays called Bryan to the witness stand so that Darrow could cross-examine him as an expert on the Bible. Although it was an unusual request, Bryan agreed to be questioned, provided that afterward he would be allowed to question Darrow. Looking back over the trial, this was the first of three major weaknesses in Bryan’s efforts to prosecute this case.
By taking the stand, he automatically placed himself on the defensive. This was both unnecessary and damaging to his cause. Darrow’s intention of ridiculing Bryan for his belief in Scripture was obvious, and he carried out his plan with malicious delight. Most of his questions were irrelevant, and asked for the sole purpose of getting Bryan to admit ignorance. By painting Bryan into a corner with such questions as, “Do you know anything about how many people there were in Egypt 3,500 years ago, or how many people there were in China 5,000 years ago?,” Darrow attempted to convey the impression that Bryan really did not know what he was talking about (World’s Most Famous Court Trial, 1925, p. 293). As long as Darrow had the floor and was leading the discussion, he could malign and appear to discredit anything Bryan said, which he often did.
Second, Bryan occasionally failed to offer reasonable, biblical answers to Darrow’s questions. He even resorted to humor a few times. For example, when Darrow asked: “Did you ever discover where Cain got his wife?” (one of skepticism’s favorite questions), Bryan replied: “No sir; I leave the agnostics to hunt for her” (World’s, 1925, p. 302). Levity aside, Bryan failed to offer the reasonable implication of Scripture (i.e., Cain married one of his sisters). The discussion continued:
  • Darrow:
    You have never found out?
    Bryan:
    I have never tried to find.
    Darrow:
    You have never tried to find?
    Bryan:
    No.
    Darrow:
    The Bible says he got one, doesn’t it. Were there other people on the earth at that time?
    Bryan:
    I cannot say.
Whereas earlier Bryan admitted he had studied the Bible for more than fifty years, the audience saw that Darrow was capable of stumping him on apparently simple matters. Another instance related to Jonah:
  • Darrow:
    Now, you say the big fish swallowed Jonah, and that he there remained how long—three days—and then he spewed him upon the land. You believe that the big fish was made to swallow Jonah?
    Bryan:
    I am not prepared to say that; the Bible merely says it was done.
    Darrow:
    You don’t know whether it was the ordinary run of fish, or made for that purpose?
    Bryan:
    You may guess; you evolutionists guess.
    Darrow:
    But when we do guess, we have the sense to guess right.
    Bryan:
    But do not do it often (p. 285).
Once again, Bryan had faltered. The Bible says plainly, “Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah” (Jonah 1:17), clearly implying divine involvement in the process. If Bryan had called upon Darrow to simply read the passage (as he did later on other questions), this needless confusion could have been avoided. Instead, he once again appeared ignorant. According to Irving Stone, Darrow had presented all of these questions to Bryan two years earlier (Stone, 1958, p. 277). Bryan declined to answer them at that time, and was embarrassed by them in the trial. It was a mistake for Bryan to take the stand without having studied these questions in advance—doubly so, because he tried to avoid the questions with mere humor.
The third (and major) weakness of Bryan’s defense of creation was his failure to take the Bible seriously with regard to the days of creation. This appears to be his only significant error of content. Whereas on the one hand he said, “I believe everything in the Bible should be accepted as it is given,” on the other hand, when Darrow asked, “Do you think the earth was made in six days?,” he responded: “Not six days of twenty-four hours” (World’s..., 1925, pp. 285, 299). He accepted the Day-Age Theory and believed that the days actually were periods of unknown duration. He said that creation “might have continued for millions of years” (pp. 302-303). Bryan could not argue consistently that the Bible should be “accepted as it is given,” and then turn around and suggest that the days of Genesis were indefinite periods of time.
Sadly, many continue to make the same mistake. But, this view was, and remains, an unneeded attempt to compromise the creation account with evolutionary dating schemes. All of the efforts to substantiate the Day-Age Theory are futile (see Thompson, 1995, pp. 125-156).
Because Darrow’s examination of Bryan yielded nothing germane to the trial, Judge John T. Raulston ruled that it would be expunged, and he disallowed Bryan to question Darrow. On the eighth day of the trial, the jury retired for deliberation. After only nine minutes, they returned with their verdict—guilty. Scopes was fined and the case was closed until a later appeal (which overturned the verdict on a legal technicality).
After nearly seventy-five years, the Scopes Trial continues to capture the imagination and curiosity of the Western world. Movies and plays about the trial still draw audiences, and the event persists as a landmark encounter in the history of the creation/evolution debate. The trial has been portrayed and interpreted in a variety of ways. The popular version of the event portrays Bryan as the obvious loser of the contest. While it is true that initially he won the battle, ultimately he lost the war. Blackmore and Page have explained why.
Sadly Bryan, a first-rate politician but no Bible scholar, allowed himself to be examined as an “expert witness” on the Bible. With Bryan in the witness box, the sharp-witted Darrow ruthlessly highlighted his opponent’s ignorance, and mocked his inconsistencies. At the end the state law was upheld; the high-school teacher had broken the law. But the lasting image, at least with the intelligentsia back in New York, was of pitiful ignorance and superstition arrayed against science and learning (1989, p. 134).
While creationists may be pleased, in large measure, with the efforts of William Jennings Bryan to defend the Truth, it is crucial that we learn from his mistakes and realize that for our listening, modern world, the case against evolution must be based upon accurate knowledge of both science and the Bible.

REFERENCES

Blackmore, Vernon and Andrew Page (1989), Evolution: The Great Debate (Oxford, England: Lion Books).
Stone, Irving, (1958), Clarence Darrow for the Defense (New York, NY: Bantam Books).
Thompson, Bert (1995), Creation Compromises (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
World’s Most Famous Court Trial—Tennessee Evolution Case (1925), (Dayton, TN: Bryan College, second reprint 1990).