From Jim McGuiggan... The wreck of the universe

The wreck of the universe

"Isn’t that a bit radical?" That’s what he said. We’d been close friends some years ago but our friendship lost its way. Life has a way of working out like that. We’d been talking about the awful suffering of the world and I was claiming that the world’s suffering was God’s redemptive chastisement by which he intends to bring the world to glory. I had said that we rebelled, God in loving holiness responded in chastisement and so the combination of our sin and God’s relentless love means suffering; suffering that affects even innocent babies and righteous people. He was thinking of the horrific suffering in the world when he said, "Isn’t that a bit radical?" What could I do but agree?
But, then, what a paramedic does is radical when he comes to a car wreck and sees people on the verge of dying in agony. These caring professionals will cut into a woman’s throat with a penknife and shove a tube into it so she can breathe. Or they’ll shoot electric charges through a helpless body to galvanize heart muscle into action or they grab a saw and rasp their way through a child’s leg to keep it from dying in a fire that is threatening to break out at any moment. I’d say that any of that was a bit radical!
I suppose in the end that it all depends on how we assess the situation. Is life worth having? If yes, rip open the throat, amputate the arm or leg, assault the body with a strong electric charge or force the tube into the fluid filled lung. However radical all that is even gentle and loving parents would urge it on if it meant ultimate life and health for the one they love. They’d share the agony but they’d insist that the medic get on with his awful but life-saving work.
There is suffering in the world because the universe has had a horrendous moral wreck and the divine Paramedic will not permit us to go down to destruction without attempting to rescue us! It doesn’t really matter that we aren’t able to see our danger and loss in a true light. It doesn’t matter that we don’t love him or ourselves enough to care about real and glorious living. It only matters that he sees our loss for what it is and that he loves us enough to do what he knows is necessary.
It’s rubbish to say of a paramedic that he shreds the bodies of the endangered people because he’s sadistic—precisely the reverse is true! It isn’t pain and loss he enjoys; it’s life and health he longs to see and he pursues it whatever the cost. It is nonsense to say of God’s chastisement that it is vengeful over-reaction—it is a holy lover that’s at work, one that can’t bear to let us die. If we were to trust him the day would come when we would look back at the global hurt and fall to our knees blessing his name that he ignored our whining or our lofty criticism. We’d be speechless with gratitude that he went on with his redeeming work, enduring the sight and sound of us, immoral and pathetically limited as we are sitting in judgement on him. Like little insects born, living and dying during a thunderstorm and concluding that that is the sum total of reality.
And once we get into a rhythm we can describe the physical suffering and loss of the world in the most graphic terms and with increasing passion. And why not—doesn’t some of it absolutely beggar belief? But of the moral chaos of the world—not a word! We rant and rave about the horrors of the physical (and somebody should!) and puff at all talk about sin and the moral gloom that is the trigger for it all. We groan and weep about the car wreck and impatiently dismiss the moral wreck of the cosmos. The final proof that God won’t ignore the whole of it is the cross of Christ where humanity’s awful moral wreck is seen in blinding clarity. Did God think the cross was overkill? If the Lord Jesus Christ is the revelation of the one true God then God is prepared to do whatever it takes to bring us glory and life eternal.
(I have a thing called Celebrating the Wrath of God that you might find useful.)

©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.

Does Christianity Produce “Sexual Misery”? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1726

Does Christianity Produce “Sexual Misery”?

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Even though most Christians in twenty-first-century America recognize that we live in a sex-crazed society, it seems we rarely consider how Divine regulations concerning “sexual relations” are a chief reason why unbelievers reject Christianity. It has long been understood that some unbelievers refuse to accept the Bible as a God-inspired text because it would require them to live according to a set moral standard. Now, author Chaz Bufe has specifically mentioned “sexual misery” as a negative by-product of Christianity, and one of the main reasons why Christ and His doctrine should be rejected. In a pamphlet he wrote titled 20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity, Bufe listed “Christianity produces sexual misery” as reason number ten. He stated:

In addition to the misery produced by authoritarian Christian intrusions into the sex lives of non-Christians, Christianity produces great misery among its own adherents through its insistence that sex (except the very narrow variety it sanctions) is evil, against God’s law. Christianity proscribes sex between unmarried people, sex outside of marriage, homosexual relations, bestiality, and even “impure” sexual thoughts. Indulging in such things can and will, in the conventional Christian view, lead straight to hell (n.d.).

One thing that Chaz got correct is that engaging in sexual relations outside of a lawful marriage is “against God’s law” (cf. Matthew 19:1-10; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Galatians 5:19-21). And, as the writer of Hebrews warned, “[F]ornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Hebrews 13:4; cf. 1 Corinthians 5:10). But who actually are the miserable ones when it comes to sexual relations? Are those who submit to God’s laws on the matter suffering great “sexual misery,” or are the ones who live sexually promiscuous lives the actual ones who experience misery?
Truly, it is the sexually immoral who often suffer from various disorders caused by their licentious behavior. According to the American Center for Disease Control (CDC), more than 65 million people (or 22% of the U.S. population) live with one or more incurable sexually transmitted diseases (“Tracking..., 2004). Those who refuse to abide by God’s laws pertaining to sexual relations risk becoming one of these infected ones, who frequently suffer with lesions, warts, and genital inflammation, and may also experience pain while urinating or during sexual intercourse. Women with various STDs sometimes suffer with pelvic inflammation, cancer, infertility, and can even have problems with pregnancy and childbirth. Bufe contends that “Christianity produces sexual misery,” yet those who live according to God’s standards of morality are not the ones experiencing the debilitating effects of an ungodly, permissive sexual lifestyle.
Granted, the Christian life is not a walk in the park. Jesus’ way is “difficult” (Matthew 7:14). The disciple of Christ is instructed to “deny himself” sinful pleasures (Matthew 16:24) and “imitate” Jesus, the sinless One (1 Peter 2:21-22; 1 Corinthians 11:1). Sexual temptation certainly can be hard to resist, especially as an adolescent. But, the so-called “misery” that Christians go through when resisting the lust of the flesh in no way compares to the misery of the sexually immoral. Abiding by any number of laws can be difficult. One person may constantly get frustrated by having to abide by speed limits, while another may get irritated with various tax laws. People who want to lose weight must set dietary rules for themselves. Following these rules can be very trying (as most all who have tried to lose weight can attest), involving self-denial, self-control, and self-discipline. However, eventually, restricted eating habits will lead to one becoming much healthier. Similarly, the difficulties in restraining oneself sexually in order to comply with God’s laws regarding marriage can eventually lead to a great sexual relationship with one’s lawful spouse, not to mention a stronger relationship with God. What’s more, a child of God has the promise that “God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it” (1 Corinthians 10:13).
Without question, God’s way concerning sexual relations is the best way, and the right way. The fact that unbelievers list “sexual misery” as one of the top twenty reasons to reject Christianity simply reveals how weak their case really is against Christianity, as well as how easily they overlook problems that arise (e.g., STDs) from living lives contrary to God’s will.

REFERENCES

Bufe, Chaz (no date), 20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity (Tucson, AZ: Sharp Press), [On-line], URL: http://www.seesharppress.com/20reasons.html#numberten.
“Tracking the Hidden Epidemics 2000” (2004), Center for Disease Control, [On-line], URL: http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/news/RevBrochure1pdfintro.htm.

Butt/Barker Debate Now A Book by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3592

Butt/Barker Debate Now A Book

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

A notable debate on the existence of God was conducted on February 12, 2009 between popular atheist Dan Barker and A.P.’s own Kyle Butt. In addition to the capacity crowd of 500 and the thousands that watched over the Internet, the debate has been viewed by many more by means of the DVD released by Apologetics Press last year. Having engaged in over 70 public debates, Dan Barker is widely considered among atheists to be well-qualified to articulate the atheist’s viewpoint.

Due to the brief nature of the debate, a total time of about two hours, several issues were broached that called for a more thorough treatment. While many of Barker’s atheistic contentions were answered in the main, we thought it would be beneficial to provide more comprehensive responses to his assertions. In that regard, we are pleased to announce the release of the book version of the debate, titled A Christian’s Guide to Refuting Modern Atheism, subtitled “An Expanded Study of the Butt/Barker Debate.”

This volume contains a complete transcript of the oral debate. However, it also contains an additional 200+ pages of detailed analysis and refutation of Barker’s atheistic allegations. Consequently, in addition to providing the reader with a response to Barker’s debate points, this outstanding book serves as a valuable guide to refute most modern atheistic attacks on the God of the Bible. Indeed, it offers a decisive defeat of atheism.

At a time when a tidal wave of skepticism, unbelief, and rejection of the Christian worldview is sweeping over the nation, this volume constitutes a welcome addition to the Christian arsenal in the never-ending war between good and evil. You will want this book in your library, and you will want to use it to bolster the Christian convictions of your children, grandchildren, and friends.

God and the Laws of Science: The Law of Causality by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3716

God and the Laws of Science: The Law of Causality

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

INTRODUCTION

The Law of Cause and Effect states that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause. The mass of a paper clip is not going to provide sufficient gravitational pull to cause a tidal wave. There must be an adequate cause for the tidal wave, like a massive, offshore, underwater earthquake (“Tsunamis,” 2000, p. 1064). Leaning against a mountain will certainly not cause it to topple over. Jumping up and down on the ground will not cause an earthquake. If a chair is not placed in an empty room, the room will remain chairless. If matter was not made and placed in the Universe, we would not exist. There must be an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause for every material effect. Perhaps the Law of Cause and Effect seems intuitive to most, but common sense is foreign to many when God is brought into the discussion.

CAUSALITY AND HISTORY

The Law of Cause and Effect, or Law/Principle of Causality, has been investigated and recognized for millennia. In Phaedo, written by Plato in 360 B.C., an “investigation of nature” is spoken of concerning causality, wherein “the causes of everything, why each thing comes into being and why it perishes and why it exists” are discussed (Plato, 1966, 1:96a-b, emp. added). In 350 B.C., Aristotle contributed more to the causality discussion by stipulating that causes can be “spoken of in four senses”: material, formal, efficient, and final (Aristotle, 2009, 1[3]). Moving forward two millennia in no way changed the established fact pressed by the Law of Cause and Effect. In 1781, the renowned philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote concerning the Principle of Causality in his Critique of Pure Reason that “everything that happens presupposes a previous condition, which it follows with absolute certainty, in conformity with a rule.... All changes take place according to the law of the connection of Cause and Effect” (Kant, 1781). Fast forwarding another 350 years, our understanding of the world still did not cause the law to be discredited. In 1934, W.T. Stace, professor of philosophy at Princeton University, in A Critical History of Greek Philosophy, wrote:

Every student of logic knows that this is the ultimate canon of the sciences, the foundation of them all. If we did not believe the truth of causation, namely, everything which has a beginning has a cause, and that in the same circumstances the same things invariably happen, all the sciences would at once crumble to dust. In every scientific investigation this truth is assumed (1934, p. 6, emp. added).

The truth of causality is so substantiated that it is taken for granted in scientific investigation.

A few decades later, the Law of Cause and Effect still had not been repealed. In The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Richard Taylor wrote, “Nevertheless, it is hardly disputable that the idea of causation is not only indispensable in the common affairs of life but in all applied sciences as well” (1967, p. 57, emp. added). Even today, when scientific exploration has brought us to unprecedented heights of knowledge, the age old Law of Causality cannot be denied. Today’s dictionaries define “causality” as:

• “the principle that nothing can happen without being caused” (“Causality,” 2009).
• “the principle that everything has a cause” (“Causality,” 2008).

Indeed, the Law of Cause and Effect is not, and cannot rationally be, denied—except when necessary in order to prop up a deficient worldview. Its ramifications have been argued for years, but after the dust settles, the Law of Cause and Effect still stands unscathed, having weathered the trials thrust upon it for thousands of years.

THE LAW OF CAUSALITY—A PROBLEM FOR ATHEISTS

Creationists have absolutely no problem with the truth articulated by this God-ordained law from antiquity. The Bible, in essence, articulated the principle millennia ago when in Hebrews 3:4 it says that “every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God.” A house must have a cause—namely, a builder. It will not build itself. However, evolutionists are left in a quandary when trying to explain how the effect of the infinitely complex Universe could have come about without a cause. Three decades ago, Robert Jastrow, founder and former director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, wrote:

The Universe, and everything that has happened in it since the beginning of time, are a grand effect without a known cause. An effect without a known cause? That is not the world of science; it is a world of witchcraft, of wild events and the whims of demons, a medieval world that science has tried to banish. As scientists, what are we to make of this picture? I do not know. I would only like to present the evidence for the statement that the Universe, and man himself, originated in a moment when time began (1977, p. 21).

When Jastrow says that there is no “known cause” for everything in the Universe, he is referring to the fact that there is no known natural cause. If atheism were true, there must be a natural explanation of what caused the Universe. Scientists and philosophers recognize that there must be a cause that would be sufficient to bring about matter and the Universe—and yet no natural cause is known. The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms says that “causality,” in physics, is “the principle that an event cannot precede its cause” (2003, p. 346). However, the atheist must concede that in order for his/her claim to be valid, the effect of the Universe not only preceded its cause, but actually came about without it! Such a viewpoint is hardly in keeping with science. Scientifically speaking, according to the Law of Cause and Effect, there had to be a Cause for the Universe. The only book on the planet which contains characteristics that prove its production to be above human capability is the Bible (see Butt, 2007). The God of the Bible is its author (2 Timothy 3:16-17), and in the very first verse of the inspired material He gave to humans, He articulated with authority and clarity that He is the Cause Who brought about the Universe and all that is in it.

UNCAUSED CAUSE?

Often the atheist or skeptic, attempting to distract and side-step the truth of this law without responding to it, retorts, “But if everything had to have a beginning, why does the same concept not apply to God?” Notice that this statement is based on a misunderstanding of what the Law of Cause and Effect claims concerning the Universe. The law states that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause. The God of the Bible is a spiritual Being (John 4:24) and therefore is not governed by physical law.

Recall also what Professor W.T. Stace wrote in A Critical History of Greek Philosophy concerning causality. “[E]verything which has a beginning has a cause” (1934, p. 6, emp. added). As mentioned above, scientists and philosophers recognize that, logically, there must be an initial cause of the Universe. [Those who attempt to argue the eternality of the Universe are in direct contradiction with the Second Law of Thermodynamics (see Miller, 2007).] However, God, not being a physical, finite being, but an eternal, spiritual being (by definition), would not be subject to the condition of requiring a beginning. Therefore, the law does not apply to Him. Psalm 90:2 says concerning God, “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God” (emp. added). The Bible describes God as a Being who has always been and always will be—“from everlasting to everlasting.” He, therefore, had no beginning. Hebrews 3:4 again states, “every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God,” indicating that God is not constrained by the Law of Cause and Effect as are houses, but rather, is the Chief Builder—the Uncaused Causer—the Being who initially set all effects into motion. The point stands. The Law of Cause and Effect supports the creation model, not the atheistic evolutionary model.

REFERENCES

Aristotle (2009), Metaphysics, trans. W.D. Ross, http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.1.i.html.

Butt, Kyle (2007), Behold! The Word of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/Behold%20the%20Word%20of%20God.pdf.

“Causality” (2009), Collins English Dictionary—Complete & Unabridged, 10th ed. (New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers), http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Causality?x=35&y=25.

“Causality” (2008), Concise Oxford English Dictionary, (Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press), http://www.wordreference.com/definition/causality.

Jastrow, Robert (1977), Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton).

Kant, Immanuel (1781), The Critique of Pure Reason, trans. J.M.D. Meiklejohn (London: Henry G. Bohn), 1878 edition, http://philosophy.eserver.org/kant/critique-of-pure-reason.txt.

McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (2003), pub. M.D. Licker (New York: McGraw-Hill), sixth edition.

Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,” Reason & Revelation, 27[4]:25-31, April, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3293.

Plato (1966), Plato in Twelve Volumes, trans. Harold North Fowler (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0170%3Atext%3DPhaedo%3Asection%3D96a.

Stace, W.T. (1934), A Critical History of Greek Philosophy (London: Macmillan and Co.).

Taylor, Richard (1967), “Causation,” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Paul Edwards (New York: Philosophical Library).

“Tsunamis” (2000), The Oxford Companion to the Earth, ed. Paul L. Hancock & Brian J. Skinner (Oxford University Press).

Jesus, Rudely Interrupted by Dewayne Bryant, M.A.

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=2827

Jesus, Rudely Interrupted

by	Dewayne Bryant, M.A.

Criticism of the Faith is nothing new. Whether big-budget documentaries, bestselling books, or blockbuster movies, the media is glutted with criticism aiming to overturn the faith of millions. It seems that every year a new angle emerges during the seasons when people step back to reflect upon their faith. As believers consider the truths of Christianity, hostile criticism attempts to revamp, revise, and rewrite what Christians have believed for two millennia. Christmas and Easter are perennial target release dates for books, articles, and television documentaries promising to reveal secrets that will turn Christianity upside down.
One of the most recent contributions of New Testament scholar and textual critic Bart Ehrman is a book entitled, Jesus, Interrupted. Released in 2009, this book picks up where his earlier work, Misquoting Jesus, leaves off. Ehrman continues his assault on the Christian Faith, assuring believers that his criticism does not controvert Christianity, but informs it. Since this information started him on the journey to agnosticism, it is easy to see how his assertions could be construed as disingenuous.

PARDON THE INTERRUPTION

Raised in a “fundamentalist” Christian home, Ehrman graduated high school and attended the conservative Moody Bible Institute. He continued his studies at Wheaton College in Illinois, and later received his Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary under the watch of Bruce Metzger, one of the foremost textual scholars of the 20th century. Somewhere along the way, he became increasingly disenchanted with the Christian Faith. Although he was a denominational minister during his time in graduate school, Ehrman has now left his Christian upbringing far behind. He now considers himself a “happy agnostic” (2005, p. 258). Jesus, Interrupted goes farther than his previous work, claiming not only that the Bible is full of scribal errors, but that the gospel accounts are fraught with contradictions and late inventions. In this sense, according to Ehrman, the story of Jesus—the historical man—was “rudely interrupted” by late insertions into the text. Though it has been well received on the popular level, Ehrman’s work has not met with approval from those best quipped to evaluate his claims. In his blog, respected New Testament scholar Ben Witherington III critiques Ehrman’s book, saying,

It is mystifying however why he would attempt to write a book like Jesus, Interrupted which frankly reflect [sic] no in-depth interaction at all with exegetes, theologians, and even most historians of the NT period of whatever faith or no faith at all. A quick perusal of the footnotes to this book, reveals mostly cross-references to Ehrman’s earlier popular works, with a few exceptions sprinkled in.... What is especially telling and odd about this is Bart does not much reflect a knowledge of the exegetical or historical study of the text in the last thirty years. Even in a work of this sort, we would expect some good up to date bibliography for those disposed to do further study, not merely copious cross-references to one’s other popular level books.... The impression is left, even if untrue, that Ehrman’s actual knowledge of and interaction with NT historians, exegetes, and theologians has been and is superficial and this has led to overly tendentious and superficial analysis (2009, emp. added).

Ehrman spends a great deal of time demonstrating what he considers to be problems with the gospel accounts. The discussion includes the nature of authorship, supposed inconsistencies and contradictions, and the idea that the gospel accounts present different accounts of events in Christ’s life. This includes the assertion that no one knows who wrote the gospel records. It was not Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as tradition claims, because Jesus’ disciples consisted of “[l]ower-class, illiterate, Aramaic-speaking peasants from Galilee” (2009, p. 106). Someone else far removed from the original historical setting must have written them.
Ehrman overplays the old chestnut that the gospel accounts were written anonymously. They are considered formally anonymous because none ever identifies their author. John’s gospel account gives the “Beloved Disciple” as the one responsible for its writing, and many believe that Mark mentions himself as the young man who runs away while Jesus is arrested (cf. Mark 14:51). Authors in the ancient world often referred to themselves indirectly in their work, and this is as close as any of the gospel accounts come to identifying their authors.
While the evangelists did not sign their work, this is a far cry from not knowing who wrote the gospel accounts. There was virtually no dispute in the early church over who wrote each one. If they had truly been written anonymously, there would be no end to the debate. In one sense we could compare the book of Hebrews to the gospel accounts. Like the gospel records, it, too, is formally anonymous. However, no one really knows who wrote it, and no less than a half dozen possibilities are cited as potential authors. If the gospel accounts were truly in the same category, the debate over their authorship would have continued to the present.
Ehrman notes that, “[s]tories were changed with what would strike us today as reckless abandon.... They were modified, amplified, and embellished. And sometimes they were made up” (2006, p. 259). He never explains why he chooses to believe that the stories concerning Jesus are legendary or fictitious. Biography, legend, and fiction are different genres, each with its own distinguishing characteristics. This is common fare for Christianity’s critics: to announce the Bible as fiction, legend, myth, or fairy tale without justification or supporting evidence. Ehrman notes:

For nearly twenty-five years now I have taught courses on the New Testament in universities, mainly Rutgers and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In all this time, the lesson that I have found most difficult to convey to students—the lesson that is the hardest to convince them of—is the historical-critical claim that each author of the Bible needs to be allowed to have his own say, since in many instances what one author has to say on a subject is not what another says. Sometimes the differences are a matter of stress and emphasis; sometimes they are discrepancies in different narratives or between different writers’ thoughts; and sometimes these discrepancies are quite large, affecting not only the small details of the text but the very big issues that these authors were addressing (2009, pp. 98-99).

One of the episodes Ehrman cites as a bona fide “error” in the gospel records is Christ’s cleansing of the Temple. John locates this event in the Passion Week, while the Synoptics present the incident early in Jesus’ ministry. So which is it? Which one made the mistake? Actually, it never would have crossed the minds of the ancient audience. The ancients did not insist on chronological accuracy in the same way moderns do. Ancient authors often arranged their material chronologically, but they also arranged it topically, and, in the case of the gospel accounts, theologically. To force an ancient work written in another culture to conform to modern Western standards is scholastic arrogance at its worst.
Many moderns put the Bible under a literary microscope, analyzing every chapter, every verse, every word. In the eyes of hostile critics, even the tiniest difficulties balloon into monumental testaments to the inaccuracy and unreliability of the Bible. Ben Witherington makes an interesting point in this regard. He says that we can think of the authors of the four gospel accounts much like painters. Each painted a portrait of Jesus based on his own perspective, as well as the purpose and rationale intended by the Holy Spirit. They selected the material to include in their work, a selectivity that is individualistic in nature. That the gospel writers would highlight different events, or give different angles on the same events, is expected. Modern biographers work the same way. Critics expect the authors to record the life of Jesus with a high-resolution, all-seeing lens. Rather than holding the biblical books to the same standards in use during the time they were produced, critics insist on modern standards in a way that is as unreasonable as it is irrational. To force the ancient text to conform to modern standards is bad interpretive method. It is a fundamental building block of reading ancient literature—the Bible included, of course—that one must seek to understand the context in which the literature is written. One cannot read ancient Greco-Roman literature by modern standards any more than one should read a modern newspaper with the same frame of mind as a citizen of ancient Rome. To continue Witherington’s analogy, this would be like criticizing Leonardo Da Vinci for not using a digital camera to photograph the Mona Lisa.
To point out one supposed contradiction highlighted in Jesus, Interrupted, Ehrman argues there is an irreconcilable difference concerning the death of Judas as recorded in Matthew and Acts. Matthew says that Judas hanged himself and the place became known as the Field of Blood because it was purchased with blood money (Matthew 27:3-9). In Acts, Luke claims that the Field of Blood is called that because, as Ehrman puts it, Judas burst open and bled all over the place. The reading in Acts is not as different as Ehrman suggests. Both accounts agree that the property is purchased with Judas’ money. Luke is ambiguous as to why the field was named the Field of Blood, while Matthew is explicit. Ehrman barely gives a passing nod to suggested attempts to reconcile the two, and downplays them accordingly. It is highly likely that Judas hanged himself, and after death, when the immune system is no longer working, bacteria began to multiply and produced gases that bloated Judas’ body. If the rope broke or Judas’ body fell when others were taking him down, Judas’ body would have ruptured upon striking the ground. This is not imaginative speculation, but the practical stuff of elementary biology.
Another problem in Jesus, Interrupted is the absence of comparative data concerning manuscript evidence from other ancient sources. Other Greco-Roman sources ranging from Greek philosophers to Roman government officials demonstrate far less attestation than the New Testament. The average classical author may have a work represented in only a couple of dozen manuscripts. The oldest copy of these works is often many centuries after the original date of writing. For instance, in the cases of Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, their most famous works are represented by a handful of manuscripts dating to the medieval period. Comparing the New Testament to these writings, the Bible has well over 5,700 copies. Roughly a dozen date to within a century of the original authors, and about four dozen exist that date to within two centuries. The earliest copy of a New Testament text is P⁵², otherwise known as the John Rylands papyrus. Housed in the British Library, this fragment of John’s Gospel dates to approximately A.D. 115-135. The contrast between the textual evidence of the New Testament and the manuscript evidence from the classical world could not be more vivid. The noted historian F.F. Bruce recounts the words of Sir Frederic Kenyon, former director of the British Museum: “The interval between the dates of the original composition and the earliest extant evidence [is] so small as to be negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed” (Bruce, 1972, p. 20).

THE OTHER SINS OF EHRMAN

Ehrman plays his hand with considerable calculation. In his The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, he asserts, “there is not a single reference to Jesus or his followers in pagan literature of any kind during the first century” (2008, p. 41). While technically correct, it is somewhat misleading. Josephus is Jewish—and therefore not pagan—yet he mentions Christ in two passages in his Jewish Wars at the end of the first century, references which are undisputed among scholars specializing in Josephan studies. If we were to include the first two decades of the second century, we would have to include several pagan authors: the Roman historians Suetonius and Tacitus, along with Pliny the Younger, governor of the Roman province of Bithynia.
The assertion that no references to Jesus and His followers exist in the first century has one important qualification that Ehrman seems to have omitted deliberately. While there are no extant references to them known to scholars today, Suetonius and Tacitus would have needed historical records or official documents in order to produce their biographies of the Roman emperors. While these documents no longer exist today, first-century records seem to have been readily available to historians. In other words, these documents did exist, but have perished with the passing of time. Ehrman’s rather misleading statement should have read, “there are no surviving references to Jesus or his followers in strictly pagan literature during the first century A.D. known to scholars presently.”
New Testament scholar Robert Yarbrough points out in Ehrman’s work the  “traditions of (much later) noncanonical gospels are consistently privileged vis-à-vis their canonical counterparts; the assumption is that we must treat their assertions as potential historical fact even though the assertions were not written down for a century, at least, after their putative origin” (2000, p. 366). Ehrman tends to elevate the non-canonical gospel records over those of the New Testament even though they were written centuries after the life of Christ. The constant claim that the gospel accounts cannot be trusted because they were written decades later than the events they describe vanishes, and the non-canonical gospels are considered relatively trustworthy despite the fact that the amount of time that separates them from the events they purport to describe is not decades as with the gospel accounts, but centuries.
As an example of his approach, Ehrman notes that the Gospel of Peter features “[a] giant Jesus and a walking, talking cross,” adding, “It’s hard to believe that this Gospel was ever lost” (2009, p. 209). He seems to think that Christianity was like any other religion, accepting the fantastic with little regard for reality. Many of the extracanonical gospels Ehrman prizes demonstrate the same features. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas has a number of odd miracle stories. The author appears to enjoy telling fantastic stories of weird happenings during the fictional childhood of Jesus, and the more bizarre the better. This provides a vivid contrast with the canonical gospel accounts, which record the happenings of Jesus’ life in sober fashion. It should be no wonder why the Christians dismissed the tall tales of gospels like Peter and Thomas. They preferred believable biographies to other “gospels” that were the ancient equivalent of science fiction.

THE HERMENEUTIC OF SUSPICION

As a text critic, Ehrman is quite good. As an interpreter he is abysmal. He insists on a rigidly literal interpretation of the text that does not allow for nuances or for passages from one book to complement those from another. In some cases, individual authors may state components of a biblical doctrine individually, but Ehrman forces them into different camps. It seems almost as if his method aims to pit the biblical authors against one another rather than allowing them to work together. In this way, Ehrman is able to create contradictions where none actually exist. In some places, he appears to deliberately distort the theological viewpoint of the biblical authors in order to manufacture divergent viewpoints. He typically notes that scholars have attempted to reconcile these positions, unsatisfactorily as far as he is concerned. After explaining what appear to be perfectly legitimate and convincing solutions to each problem he discusses, Ehrman then reverts to an unorthodox reading of the text and pronounces the difficulty unsolvable.
For Ehrman, the ultimate reason why more people do not know about these supposed contradictions is because the population is largely ignorant—the very problem he seeks to remedy. In his view, scholarship has not written popular-level books, and seminary-trained ministers are unwilling to share this information with their church members. When discussing his view that most of the New Testament books were not written by the actual authors, he asks with incredulity, “why isn’t this more widely known? Why is it that the person in the pew—not to mention the person in the street—knows nothing about this? Your guess is as good as mine” (2009, p. 137). It never seems to cross his mind that seminary-trained ministers and biblical scholars who know about these views find that they fail to agree with the evidence.
Yarbrough makes a powerful point about the cavalier attitude Ehrman takes toward the biblical text: “the early Christians who supposedly invented stories about Jesus...and then believed them were not deconstructionists engaged in teaching careers in comfortable university positions but tradesmen and professionals who knew the daily struggle for survival and were willing to die for their convictions” (2000, p. 370). For those living in the first century, the Christian faith was not a detached system of belief that could be adopted or discarded without consequence. Mistrust, discrimination, and even persecution ever loomed above the heads of the early Christians. Making the choice to follow Christ was a genuine commitment that had real—and often highly unpleasant—consequences.
The reader of Jesus, Interrupted must be careful to sort through Ehrman’s arguments. He is an accomplished textual critic, but allows preconceptions and personal bias to color his conclusions. Rarely, if ever, does Ehrman engage the opposing viewpoint. He seems to delight in manufacturing biblical contradictions and then refuses to allow them to be solved. His work makes it seem as if he has uncovered a secret hoard of biblical knowledge previously denied to all others. To those who are academically equipped to evaluate the truthfulness of Ehrman’s claims, this treasure trove of trade secrets is nothing more than fool’s gold.

REFERENCES

Bruce, F.F. (1972), The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press).
Ehrman, Bart (2005), Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (San Francisco: HarperSanFransicso).
Ehrman, Bart (2006), Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend (New York: Oxford University Press).
Ehrman, Bart (2008), The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (New York: Oxford University Press).
Ehrman, Bart (2009), Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them) (New York: HarperOne).
Witherington, Ben (2009), “Bart Interrupted—A Detailed Analysis of ‘Jesus Interrupted’ Part 1,” [On-line], URL: http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2009/04/bart-interrupted-detailed-analysis-of.html.
Yarbrough, Robert (2000), “The Power and Pathos of Professor Ehrman’s New Testament Introduction,” Perspectives in Religions Studies, Winter, 27[4]:363-370.

From Mark Copeland... "THE FLESH AND THE SPIRIT" The Fruit Of The Spirit - Goodness

                       "THE FLESH AND THE SPIRIT"

                            The Fruit Of The Spirit - Goodness

INTRODUCTION

1. At this point in our study on "the fruit of the Spirit", we are 
   examining those graces which relate especially to our dealings with
   our fellowman...
   a. Longsuffering, defined as "that quality of self-restraint in the
      face of provocation which does not hastily retaliate or promptly
      punish." (VINE)
   b. Kindness, defined as "the sympathetic kindliness or sweetness of
      temper which puts others at their ease, and shrinks from giving
      pain" (PLUMMER)
   c. And now we come to goodness...

2. The Greek word is agathosune {ag-ath-o-soo'-nay}...
   a. This word is perhaps the most difficult to define, for it is so
      general in nature
   b. The difficulty is seen in that the word "goodness" takes it 
      meaning from its context
      1) E.g., we might say "that is a good animal", or "he is a good man"
      2) But good in what way?  The context defines the sense...
   c. The problem with its use in Ga 5:22 is that there is little in
      the context to guide us

3. But there may be at least two ways we might be able to come to a
   proper understanding of this word...
   a. Comparing it to the words "just" and "evil"
   b. Considering two examples in the New Testament of "good" people

[Let's begin by...]

I. COMPARING "GOODNESS" TO THE WORDS "JUST" AND "EVIL"

   A. THE GREEKS OFTEN COMPARED "GOODNESS" WITH "JUSTICE"...
      1. BARCLAY writes of how the Greeks compared these words:
         a. "Justice, they say, is the quality which gives a man what
            is due him;"
         b. "...goodness is the quality which is out to do far more 
            than that, and which desires to give a man all that is to
            his benefit and help."
      2. Again, BARCLAY writes:  "The man who is just sticks to the
         letter of his bond; the man who is good goes far beyond it."
      -- This suggests that the primary idea of goodness is "generosity"

   B. IN THE NT, THE WORD FROM WHICH "GOODNESS" COMES IS OFTEN
      CONTRASTED WITH "EVIL"...
      1. In a few places, the words "evil" and "good" have particular meanings
      2. In the parable of The Laborers (Mt 20:15), "evil" means 
         "envious", while "good" is used for "generous"
      3. In Mt 6:19-23...
         a. The context speaks of an "evil" (or "bad") eye which is 
            begrudging and ungenerous - cf. Pr 28:22
         b. In contrast to the eye that is "good" which lays up 
            treasure in heaven (by being generous to others, cf. 1Ti 6:17-19)

   C. NOW WE CAN BEGIN TO DEFINE "GOODNESS"...
      1. The person who displays goodness is not like the person who is
         simply just...
         a. The person who is simply just gives only to another what he
            has earned
         b. Whereas the person who is good is generous to give what was
            not deserved
      2. The person who displays goodness is not like the person who is evil...
         a. The person who is evil begrudges everything he has to give
         b. The person who is good is open-hearted and open-handed, 
            i.e., generous

[It has been said that goodness "is easier to recognize than to 
define".  With that in mind, consider...]

II. TWO EXAMPLES OF "GOOD" PEOPLE

   A. BARNABAS WAS A "GOOD" MAN - Ac 11:24
      1. He was generous with his possessions
         a. Cf. Ac 4:32-37
         b. This is consistent with our definition above, that one who
            is good is generous to give to others what is not deserved
      2. He was happy to see the progress of others; i.e., he was not
         envious
         a. Cf. Ac 11:23
         b. Again this is consistent with our definition; he was not
            begrudging another's success
      3. Barnabas was an encourager of others
         a. Cf. Ac 11:23
         b. He was liberal with his good words, which is how he got his
            name - cf. Ac 4:36

   B. DORCAS WAS A "GOOD" WOMAN - Ac 9:36
      1. She was "full of good works and charitable deeds"
      2. Even in her death, her goodness was being felt
         a. Cf. Ac 9:39, where the widows were showing tunics and 
            garments she had made
         b. I doubt they were praising her ability to sew, but rather
            her charity in making such clothes for others (such as the widows)

CONCLUSION

1. All those who are truly led by the Spirit of God will produce the
   quality of "goodness" - cf. Ep 5:8-9

2. That is, doing kind things beyond what is expected or required
   a. Such was the case of Barnabas and Dorcas
   b. Paul was confident such was true of the brethren in Rome - Ro 15:14
   -- Would he have written the same of us?

3. That we should be "full of goodness" is only natural...
   a. For God who is our Father demonstrated His own "goodness"
   b. This He did by giving His Son to a sinful world undeserving of 
      such grace - Tit 3:3-7
   
Have you submitted to His saving mercy, that "washing of regeneration and
renewing of the Holy Spirit"? - cf. Jn 3:5; Mk 16:16; Ac 2:38

If not, then why not do so today, and then heed Paul's call to "goodness"...

   "This is a faithful saying, and these things I want you to affirm
   constantly, that those who have believed in God should be careful
   to maintain good works.  These things are good and profitable to
   men." (Tit 3:8)

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

From Gary... Number two

 

I remember when I was about 10 or 11, my big treat was going to Lansingburg to a store which sold comic books. My favorite was anything to do with Superman; HE was my HERO!!! Heroes are hard to find today (apart from the military, police and first-aiders). Often, even some of them let you down. If you think about the people listed in the picture, you will recognize them as GODLY HEROES. Jesus would obviously be first on any list, but who would be in second place? My choice is the author of the following...

 

1 Timothy, Chapter 1 (WEB)

14 The grace of our Lord abounded exceedingly with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.  15 The saying is faithful and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. 16 However, for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first, Jesus Christ might display all his patience, for an example of those who were going to believe in him for eternal life.  17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

Paul is my second favorite. Why? Verses 15 and 16 are why!!!  He realized his privileged condition of salvation was because of what Jesus did and nothing of his own merit.  I guess Paul's humility impresses me the most!! Who is your number two?

From Gary.... Bible Reading July 30

Bible Reading  

July 30

The World English Bible

July 30

2 Chronicles 22-24

2Ch 22:1 The inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his place; for the band of men who came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest. So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned.

2Ch 22:2 Forty-two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem: and his mother's name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

2Ch 22:3 He also walked in the ways of the house of Ahab; for his mother was his counselor to do wickedly.

2Ch 22:4 He did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, as did the house of Ahab; for they were his counselors after the death of his father, to his destruction.

2Ch 22:5 He walked also after their counsel, and went with Jehoram the son of Ahab king of Israel to war against Hazael king of Syria at Ramoth Gilead: and the Syrians wounded Joram.

2Ch 22:6 He returned to be healed in Jezreel of the wounds which they had given him at Ramah, when he fought against Hazael king of Syria. Azariah the son of Jehoram king of Judah went down to see Jehoram the son of Ahab in Jezreel, because he was sick.

2Ch 22:7 Now the destruction of Ahaziah was of God, in that he went to Joram: for when he was come, he went out with Jehoram against Jehu the son of Nimshi, whom Yahweh had anointed to cut off the house of Ahab.

2Ch 22:8 It happened, when Jehu was executing judgment on the house of Ahab, that he found the princes of Judah, and the sons of the brothers of Ahaziah, ministering to Ahaziah, and killed them.

2Ch 22:9 He sought Ahaziah, and they caught him (now he was hiding in Samaria), and they brought him to Jehu, and killed him; and they buried him, for they said, He is the son of Jehoshaphat, who sought Yahweh with all his heart. The house of Ahaziah had no power to hold the kingdom.

2Ch 22:10 Now when Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah saw that her son was dead, she arose and destroyed all the royal seed of the house of Judah.

2Ch 22:11 But Jehoshabeath, the daughter of the king, took Joash the son of Ahaziah, and stole him away from among the king's sons who were slain, and put him and his nurse in the bedchamber. So Jehoshabeath, the daughter of king Jehoram, the wife of Jehoiada the priest (for she was the sister of Ahaziah), hid him from Athaliah, so that she didn't kill him.

2Ch 22:12 He was with them hid in the house of God six years: and Athaliah reigned over the land.

2Ch 23:1 In the seventh year Jehoiada strengthened himself, and took the captains of hundreds, Azariah the son of Jeroham, and Ishmael the son of Jehohanan, and Azariah the son of Obed, and Maaseiah the son of Adaiah, and Elishaphat the son of Zichri, into covenant with him.

2Ch 23:2 They went about in Judah, and gathered the Levites out of all the cities of Judah, and the heads of fathers' houses of Israel, and they came to Jerusalem.

2Ch 23:3 All the assembly made a covenant with the king in the house of God. He said to them, Behold, the king's son shall reign, as Yahweh has spoken concerning the sons of David.

2Ch 23:4 This is the thing that you shall do: a third part of you, who come in on the Sabbath, of the priests and of the Levites, shall be porters of the thresholds;

2Ch 23:5 and a third part shall be at the king's house; and a third part at the gate of the foundation: and all the people shall be in the courts of the house of Yahweh.

2Ch 23:6 But let none come into the house of Yahweh, save the priests, and those who minister of the Levites; they shall come in, for they are holy: but all the people shall keep the instruction of Yahweh.

2Ch 23:7 The Levites shall surround the king, every man with his weapons in his hand; and whoever comes into the house, let him be slain: and be with the king when he comes in, and when he goes out.

2Ch 23:8 So the Levites and all Judah did according to all that Jehoiada the priest commanded: and they took every man his men, those who were to come in on the Sabbath; with those who were to go out on the Sabbath; for Jehoiada the priest didn't dismiss the shift.

2Ch 23:9 Jehoiada the priest delivered to the captains of hundreds the spears, and bucklers, and shields, that had been king David's, which were in the house of God.

2Ch 23:10 He set all the people, every man with his weapon in his hand, from the right side of the house to the left side of the house, along by the altar and the house, around the king.

2Ch 23:11 Then they brought out the king's son, and put the crown on him, and gave him the testimony, and made him king: and Jehoiada and his sons anointed him; and they said, Long live the king.

2Ch 23:12 When Athaliah heard the noise of the people running and praising the king, she came to the people into the house of Yahweh:

2Ch 23:13 and she looked, and, behold, the king stood by his pillar at the entrance, and the captains and the trumpets by the king; and all the people of the land rejoiced, and blew trumpets; the singers also played on instruments of music, and led the singing of praise. Then Athaliah tore her clothes, and said, Treason! treason!

2Ch 23:14 Jehoiada the priest brought out the captains of hundreds who were set over the army, and said to them, Have her forth between the ranks; and whoever follows her, let him be slain with the sword: for the priest said, Don't kill her in the house of Yahweh.

2Ch 23:15 So they made way for her; and she went to the entrance of the horse gate to the king's house: and they killed her there.

2Ch 23:16 Jehoiada made a covenant between himself, and all the people, and the king, that they should be Yahweh's people.

2Ch 23:17 All the people went to the house of Baal, and broke it down, and broke his altars and his images in pieces, and killed Mattan the priest of Baal before the altars.

2Ch 23:18 Jehoiada appointed the officers of the house of Yahweh under the hand of the priests the Levites, whom David had distributed in the house of Yahweh, to offer the burnt offerings of Yahweh, as it is written in the law of Moses, with rejoicing and with singing, according to the order of David.

2Ch 23:19 He set the porters at the gates of the house of Yahweh, that no one who was unclean in anything should enter in.

2Ch 23:20 He took the captains of hundreds, and the nobles, and the governors of the people, and all the people of the land, and brought down the king from the house of Yahweh: and they came through the upper gate to the king's house, and set the king on the throne of the kingdom.

2Ch 23:21 So all the people of the land rejoiced, and the city was quiet. Athaliah they had slain with the sword.

2Ch 24:1 Joash was seven years old when he began to reign; and he reigned forty years in Jerusalem: and his mother's name was Zibiah, of Beersheba.

2Ch 24:2 Joash did that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh all the days of Jehoiada the priest.

2Ch 24:3 Jehoiada took for him two wives; and he became the father of sons and daughters.

2Ch 24:4 It happened after this, that Joash was minded to restore the house of Yahweh.

2Ch 24:5 He gathered together the priests and the Levites, and said to them, Go out to the cities of Judah, and gather of all Israel money to repair the house of your God from year to year; and see that you hasten the matter. However the Levites didn't hurry.

2Ch 24:6 The king called for Jehoiada the chief, and said to him, Why haven't you required of the Levites to bring in out of Judah and out of Jerusalem the tax of Moses the servant of Yahweh, and of the assembly of Israel, for the tent of the testimony?

2Ch 24:7 For the sons of Athaliah, that wicked woman, had broken up the house of God; and also all the dedicated things of the house of Yahweh did they bestow on the Baals.

2Ch 24:8 So the king commanded, and they made a chest, and set it outside at the gate of the house of Yahweh.

2Ch 24:9 They made a proclamation through Judah and Jerusalem, to bring in for Yahweh the tax that Moses the servant of God laid on Israel in the wilderness.

2Ch 24:10 All the princes and all the people rejoiced, and brought in, and cast into the chest, until they had made an end.

2Ch 24:11 It was so, that whenever the chest was brought to the king's officers by the hand of the Levites, and when they saw that there was much money, the king's scribe and the chief priest's officer came and emptied the chest, and took it, and carried it to its place again. Thus they did day by day, and gathered money in abundance.

2Ch 24:12 The king and Jehoiada gave it to such as did the work of the service of the house of Yahweh; and they hired masons and carpenters to restore the house of Yahweh, and also such as worked iron and brass to repair the house of Yahweh.

2Ch 24:13 So the workmen worked, and the work of repairing went forward in their hands, and they set up the house of God in its state, and strengthened it.

2Ch 24:14 When they had made an end, they brought the rest of the money before the king and Jehoiada, of which were made vessels for the house of Yahweh, even vessels with which to minister and to offer, and spoons, and vessels of gold and silver. They offered burnt offerings in the house of Yahweh continually all the days of Jehoiada.

2Ch 24:15 But Jehoiada grew old and was full of days, and he died; one hundred thirty years old was he when he died.

2Ch 24:16 They buried him in the city of David among the kings, because he had done good in Israel, and toward God and his house.

2Ch 24:17 Now after the death of Jehoiada came the princes of Judah, and made obeisance to the king. Then the king listened to them.

2Ch 24:18 They forsook the house of Yahweh, the God of their fathers, and served the Asherim and the idols: and wrath came on Judah and Jerusalem for this their guiltiness.

2Ch 24:19 Yet he sent prophets to them, to bring them again to Yahweh; and they testified against them: but they would not give ear.

2Ch 24:20 The Spirit of God came on Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest; and he stood above the people, and said to them, Thus says God, Why do you disobey the commandments of Yahweh, so that you can't prosper? because you have forsaken Yahweh, he has also forsaken you.

2Ch 24:21 They conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the commandment of the king in the court of the house of Yahweh.

2Ch 24:22 Thus Joash the king didn't remember the kindness which Jehoiada his father had done to him, but killed his son. When he died, he said, Yahweh look on it, and require it.

2Ch 24:23 It happened at the end of the year, that the army of the Syrians came up against him: and they came to Judah and Jerusalem, and destroyed all the princes of the people from among the people, and sent all the spoil of them to the king of Damascus.

2Ch 24:24 For the army of the Syrians came with a small company of men; and Yahweh delivered a very great army into their hand, because they had forsaken Yahweh, the God of their fathers. So they executed judgment on Joash.

2Ch 24:25 When they were departed for him (for they left him very sick), his own servants conspired against him for the blood of the sons of Jehoiada the priest, and killed him on his bed, and he died; and they buried him in the city of David, but they didn't bury him in the tombs of the kings.

2Ch 24:26 These are those who conspired against him: Zabad the son of Shimeath the Ammonitess, and Jehozabad the son of Shimrith the Moabitess.

2Ch 24:27 Now concerning his sons, and the greatness of the burdens laid on him, and the rebuilding of the house of God, behold, they are written in the commentary of the book of the kings. Amaziah his son reigned in his place.

 

Jul. 30, 31

Acts 18

Act 18:1 After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth.

Act 18:2 He found a certain Jew named Aquila, a man of Pontus by race, who had recently come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome. He came to them,

Act 18:3 and because he practiced the same trade, he lived with them and worked, for by trade they were tent makers.

Act 18:4 He reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded Jews and Greeks.

Act 18:5 But when Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia, Paul was compelled by the Spirit, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ.

Act 18:6 When they opposed him and blasphemed, he shook out his clothing and said to them, "Your blood be on your own heads! I am clean. From now on, I will go to the Gentiles!"

Act 18:7 He departed there, and went into the house of a certain man named Justus, one who worshiped God, whose house was next door to the synagogue.

Act 18:8 Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his house. Many of the Corinthians, when they heard, believed and were baptized.

Act 18:9 The Lord said to Paul in the night by a vision, "Don't be afraid, but speak and don't be silent;

Act 18:10 for I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you, for I have many people in this city."

Act 18:11 He lived there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.

Act 18:12 But when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews with one accord rose up against Paul and brought him before the judgment seat,

Act 18:13 saying, "This man persuades men to worship God contrary to the law."

Act 18:14 But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, "If indeed it were a matter of wrong or of wicked crime, you Jews, it would be reasonable that I should bear with you;

Act 18:15 but if they are questions about words and names and your own law, look to it yourselves. For I don't want to be a judge of these matters."

Act 18:16 He drove them from the judgment seat.

Act 18:17 Then all the Greeks laid hold on Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment seat. Gallio didn't care about any of these things.

Act 18:18 Paul, having stayed after this many more days, took his leave of the brothers, and sailed from there for Syria, together with Priscilla and Aquila. He shaved his head in Cenchreae, for he had a vow.

Act 18:19 He came to Ephesus, and he left them there; but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews.

Act 18:20 When they asked him to stay with them a longer time, he declined;

Act 18:21 but taking his leave of them, and saying, "I must by all means keep this coming feast in Jerusalem, but I will return again to you if God wills," he set sail from Ephesus.

Act 18:22 When he had landed at Caesarea, he went up and greeted the assembly, and went down to Antioch.

Act 18:23 Having spent some time there, he departed, and went through the region of Galatia, and Phrygia, in order, establishing all the disciples.

Act 18:24 Now a certain Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by race, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus. He was mighty in the Scriptures.

Act 18:25 This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, although he knew only the baptism of John.

Act 18:26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside, and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

Act 18:27 When he had determined to pass over into Achaia, the brothers encouraged him, and wrote to the disciples to receive him. When he had come, he greatly helped those who had believed through grace;

Act 18:28 for he powerfully refuted the Jews, publicly showing by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.