Faithful Words

Matthew Gospel

2013-06-29T02:22:00.000-05:00

2012-09-06T19:09:00.002-05:00

Politics: A Biblical Approach

Posted by Sandra Glahn on 03 Sep 2012

In an election year with conventions, platforms, and speeches in the news, we have a unique opportunity to converse in the public square. Having a Christian worldview should affect how we think and interact about politics. Here are some suggestions:

· Be intentional in how you present history. The biblical worldview that once helped shape society has given way to relativism and atheism. Pornography has invaded our homes, including those of our pastors. How the world has changed! Nevertheless, during the days when most could name the Ten Commandments, some Americans were less than full citizens under the law, and lynching was common. Women had no voting rights, nor could they serve on juries. Only a limited view of our history says we have been on a constantly downward slide since the days of the Puritans. My grandfather deserted my grandmother in the 1930s, leaving her with a small child in a day when the church judged the divorced. I met a woman last week who was date-raped in the 1960s, and she had to go into hiding to keep her church from finding out. The Christian sub-culture in America was not so long ago a dangerous place to be broken. Thank God that despite some declines we have also seen some improvements. The presentation of US history as only declining without qualification can sound racist and sexist—ways that are not of Christ.

· Eschew offering false fear and false hope. To offer any candidate as the solution for a country’s ills is to set up a false messiah. A candidate might have what we consider a better approach to healthcare or abortion rights or unemployment, but no candidate can “save our country.” We tend to err in the extremes of fear mongering or offering utopia. Neither approach lines up with the truth.

· Recognize the limits of politics. Christ, not legislation, is the ultimate solution for culture. Only when His kingdom comes shall His will be done on earth as it is in heaven. In the days when abortion was illegal, one of my relatives found a way to have one. Civil law, important as it is, is external and limited in its scope. But Christ brings new life from the inside out. While the law does help provide moral structure, the Christian’s hope for change lies in a “someone,” not in a secular system. Who does or doesn’t inhabit the oval office is of little consequence compared with the change available in Christ. Lobbying and boycotting can bring some external results, but they cannot effect inner change.

· Remember your roots. The Chick-fil-a fiasco reminded the world that the Christian sub-culture in America is large, powerful, and refuses to be pushed around. But the Christian sub-culture in most other parts of the planet was and is politically and socially weak—even powerless. Reading the New Testament helps us see the church can still flourish when the state hates Christians; even a Nero in power cannot prevail against the church. While in the States we have much social power that gives us freedom to worship in public, pray in public, and broadcast our worldview on the radio (wonderful freedoms!), such acceptance of Christianity also brings some unique temptations. We have at times been so cozy with politicians that people now tend to associate Christianity with one political party. A magazine I receive for editors lists words that have changed in meaning, and it listed a new primary meaning for the word “Christian” as “one associated with a right-wing political party.” Rather than perceiving that we address the greed and immorality rampant in both parties, the world sees us as too cozy with one kind of power. Our love for politics and politicians can blunt our ability to speak and even to hear the truth. ("If we acknowledge the bad in our favored party, the other party's guy might get elected.")

In the words of John MacArthur, “America's moral decline is a spiritual problem, not a political one, and its solution is the gospel, not partisan politics.” I encourage all Christians to involve themselves in serving to make the world a better place in any way possible. But we must be biblical and realistic in how we think and talk about what politicians and legislators can do. Jesus, not Caesar, is the answer for the world today. Let us render unto God the things that are God’s.

A new way of being Christian - The Washington Post

2012-05-08T06:26:00.001-05:00

A new way of being Christian - The Washington Post

Why I Am/Not Charismatic: What Are Spiritual Gifts? – C Michael Patton | Parchment and Pen

2011-08-11T06:31:00.001-05:00

Why I Am/Not Charismatic: What Are Spiritual Gifts? – C Michael Patton | Parchment and Pen: "One of the great messages of the Christian faith is that we are not optional. Of course, we believe in the aseity of God, which means that God is completely non-contingent. Translation: God does not need us for any aspect of his fulfillment. God is perfect just the way he is. He is not dependent on anyone or anything. However, in his grace, God has made us necessary. Because of God’s grace, there is not a useless or optional person among us, no matter their age, race, color, or sex. God has chosen to use those who believe in him in an extraordinary way. The end goal: to accomplish his purpose. The means: the church – the body of Christ."

Struck by this how the Aseity of God and the value of the Christian are never put in conflict with each other.
DJR

My God, My God, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me? - Algernon James Pollock - Bible Truth Publishers

2011-08-06T06:23:00.000-05:00

My God, My God, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me? - Algernon James Pollock - Bible Truth Publishers

Book Review of Bart D. Ehrman’s “Forged” – Part 3 | Parchment and Pen

2011-08-04T20:20:00.000-05:00

Book Review of Bart D. Ehrman’s “Forged” – Part 3 | Parchment and Pen

interesting review. Ehrmans flaws are nicely identified in Dan Wallace's review.

2011-08-02T09:38:00.002-05:00

Seeker Sensitive or Saint Sensitive Churches?

http://www.sermonaudio.com/rss_search.asp?speakeronly=true&keyword=Pastor+John+MacArthur

John MacArthur's thoughts , resonnate with my own.

Greg Carey: My Old Bible: An Honest Look at Young Faith

2011-07-10T07:05:00.000-05:00

Greg Carey: My Old Bible: An Honest Look at Young Faith

I find this most sad, destroying the faith, that this author grew up with, demeaning the Bible rather than supporting it. But modern liberalism will do anything rather than submit to God! And that is the final reason for the objection to "wives submit yourselves to your husbands" any more than he husband both accountable and submitting to God.

To deny infalliblitiy is to deny the existance of God, for if he does exist, does care he must by definition be capable of communicating to his creation in a medium that is untarnished by man's many failures in maintaining his transmission of the Word of God

Don Raymonde

What Brought Mary to the Cross

2011-07-01T15:38:00.000-05:00

Why then was Mary at the cross? It was because of her love to Him who had redeemed her from Satan's bondage. Jesus possessed her heart, and it was that which drew her to whatever place He went, and hence, as she had been identified with Him in life, she would also be identified with Him in His death. We have two glimpses of her at the cross, one before His death, and one afterward. John alone records the former: he says, "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene" (John 19:25). The beloved disciple also formed one of this company. At first, all the disciples, in the terror of the moment, when it was the hour of His enemies and of the powers of darkness, had forsaken their Master and fled. John had been recovered from his fear, and also Simon Peter in measure, for he "followed Him afar off into the high priest's palace, and went in, and sat with the servants, to see the end." But alas! Peter went in trusting in his own strength, and, notwithstanding the warning he had received, fell into the awful sin of denying his Lord. Of the other disciples not a single word is said. How pleasing then to the heart of the Lord it must have been to see these faithful four beside Him at His cross. He had felt it deeply, when in Gethsemane, that the chosen three could not watch with Him one hour. Now He was comforted in that there were four who were sustained to face the power of evil, which for the moment seemed to revel unchecked and triumphant, to overcome their own unutterable sorrows, as they were lost in the contemplation of His sufferings and grief, and to encounter all and every danger in their intense affection for Him who had become everything to their souls

By:Edward DennettFrom:Dennett BooksThree Marys http://bibletruthpublishers.com/Library/LibraryArticle.aspx?Content=56540#ShareButtonLabel

Some Valuable Lessons On Theological Learning From An Analysis of Origen (Lisa Robinson)

2011-05-30T10:25:00.000-05:00

Struck by Lisa' blog post, and her conclusions about reading the original sources, is humbling , since I have so little done this, so often accepting the views of JND , WK on the Church Fathers, the reformers and so on...... DJR

First off, this post is not really about Origen (c. 185-254). But it is about some lessons that I learned from studying Origen’s homilies in relation to how we do theology in general. Prior to taking an elective last fall in History of Exeges is, I had a certain idea about Origen and his interpretive methods. I had not read Origen’s work directly, but learned what I did of him from historical theology surveys and articles I read on the internet. Mainly, my impression of Origen being the father of Alexandrian school of exegesis was that he utilized a wildly allegorical style of interpreting scripture where symbolism ran amok and passages were assigned some arbitrary meaning. In fact, many of the descriptions I read of him identified him in relation to this but in more of a pejorative light. What I gathered was that Origen was just a wild and crazy guy when it came to interpretation.

That was until I took the History of Exegesis class, where a good portion of it was spent on analyzing Origen’s interpretative methodology and some of his homilies on Luke that were delivered to new Christians. What I discovered was that there was a method to Origen’s seeming madness. Not only that, but he was consistent in his approach to interpretation. His multiple sense of interpretation always begin with the literal sense that is not divorced from the text albeit not necessarily concerned with historical accuracy. The spiritual sense of the texts correlated meaning to an overall analysis of what was going on. This would lead to the moral sense, which was to affect obedience to God. For Origen, this was the ultimate goal. Understanding the text corresponded to the reader’s spiritual maturity and the correlation between obedience to Christ and an illumination of the text. Origen’s interpretation was rooted in a strong Christology that sought to draw the reader to Him. Needless to say, this was quite a different understanding that I had going into the class. Moreover, I was refreshingly surprised at how much I was personally edified in my Christian walk as a result of better understanding of where Origen was coming from.

But like I said this was not about Origen but rather the affect of what I learned particularly as it relates to theological learning and discourse. It seems to me just as I had one impression of Origen’s interpretive methods that admittedly came with an attitude of scoffing, we often approach theological topics, positions, systems this same way. We have built an identity around particular issues or theologians that we have come to reject, treat as insufficient or just don’t agree with. And let’s face it, theological discourse can be very reactionary. Often times, that reaction can propel unexamined rebuttals that are not really honest to what is being proposed. But I propose guarding reactions in consideration of these key points that I found useful in my example of Origen.’s exegesis.

1) Always examine original sources: I think it’s safe to say that we cannot really know what a theologian or theological position espouses unless we get it right from the horses mouth. I often encounter folks who disagree with a particular doctrine or position but have not read what proponents of particular positions say. Opponents will typically find some way to cast that position in a negative light, especially since they don’t agree with it. Yet, if we take time to read and maybe analyze what others have to say, fairly and less reactionary, then we might find some agreement and some errors in our own assessment.

2) Temper your disagreement: Do not be so quick to react. Sometimes we may not have all the information needed to effectively evaluate a certain position. As noted in the first point, relying on opponents can be misleading and it is dishonest to regurgitate what they say without analysis on your part. We can certainly question statements, positions or scriptural interpretation that does not seem compatible to our theological understanding, but disagreements have to be tempered according to the facts we have. Reactions with insufficient information most likely will cause unnecessary divisions, and especially when misunderstandings are spread carelessly and irresponsibly.

3) Submit to learning: As long as a position and it’s advocates are striving to be honest to scripture and the historical witness of Christianity, there is something to be gleaned even if you don’t agree with all tenet’s or methodologies. I think if Origen were alive today and his interpretive methodology were subject to the many vehicles information is disseminated, he might meet with some harsh criticism. But I imagine there would be others who would be kind and patient enough to examine his theses and most likely determine that Origen was most concerned with the exaltation of Christ and Christian obedience to him, at least with these homilies anyway. In fact, there were a number of comments made from fellow classmates of how convicting Origen’s messages were. There was much to be learned from his homilies just as there is much to be learned from pastors/theologians and positions that we may not readily agree with. If they are seeking to honor Christ, there is something valuable there, even with the presence of disagreement.

So this post was not to advocate for Origen. I don’t agree with all of his theology, just as I find points of disagreement with other doctrinal positions or theological systems. But I am advocating for responsible and thoughtful learning and discourse. Let’s be honest folks and humble in our responses.

Is Hell Really Endless?

2011-05-09T07:20:00.000-05:00

Is Hell Really Endless?

400 Years of the KJV

2011-03-14T07:30:00.001-06:00

Here is a history of the KJV

Frugal Living : Buy Gas Mid-Week & Save Money

2011-03-02T03:53:00.001-06:00

via thriftculturenow.com

Needing all the help I can get

Wis. Schools face deep cuts under gov.'s budget - WAVE 3 News - Louisville, Kentucky

2011-03-02T03:17:00.001-06:00

via wave3.com

the injurious consequences of the Governors plan................

working on Stout class

2011-03-02T02:58:00.001-06:00

Trying to work through the twiter materials in the UW Stout course Implementing Instr Tech Innov-SP11-966S

Trying to re-post using my posterous account

Don

Inspiration of the Scripturoes and the force of "Every"

2011-01-10T19:50:00.000-06:00

"Every scripture [is] God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped completely for every good work" (vers. 16, 17). The Revisers, like some others, take "inspired of God," not as the predicate but as qualifying the subject; and the clause would then run, "Every scripture inspired of God [is] also profitable." But who will say that this is the natural meaning? who can deny that it involves a twofold awkwardness, but both by withholding the understood copula where one cannot but look for it, and by supposing it where it jars with the flow of the sentence? None of the constructions within or without the N. T. cited by Dean Alford approaches the one before us. One near in some respects is 1 Tim. 4: 4, where it would be intolerable to make καλὸν (good) part of the subject. Still nearer perhaps is Heb. 4: 13, where nobody doubts that "naked and laid open" is the true predicate; if so, "God-breathed and profitable" ought to be thus taken here.

The truth appears to be that the conjunction καὶ though indubitably genuine was overlooked by early versions, as the Memphitic, Peschito-Syr., and many of the Latin copies, besides the Clem. Vulgate: so too some fathers Greek and Latin. This error necessitated, one may say, the view that "God-breathed" belonged to the subject. Other Latin copies, with the Gothic, Harklean-Syr., Arm. and Aeth., interpreted καὶ in the sense of "also" as introducing the predicate. Taken thus, καὶ is here feeble, and so superfluous that it was easily forgotten; whereas, wherever it is correctly so taken, it has an emphatic or supplementary force, as in Luke 1: 36, Rom. 8: 29, 34, Gal. 4: 7. It would certainly become those who contend for their construction to produce a sentence where a like severance occurs, or indeed can be, between two adjectives ostensibly connected by a conjunction.

But, if possibly allowed as grammatical, can this rendering be counted tenable on internal grounds? For if θεόπνευστος be treated as part of the subject, it must be taken either as an assumption, or as a condition. If it be assumed that scripture is God. inspired, nothing is gained by those who favour so harsh a construction. The sense is substantially alike, whether you assume or assert the inspiration of every scripture. But if the aim be to understand a condition (i.e. "if divinely inspired," rather than "being divinely inspired)," you are confronted with the acknowledged fact that γραφὴ in the N. T. is appropriated to scripture and spoken of no other writing. Hence the conditional construction, in order to apply, contradicts the known usage, and would require the wholly unauthorised sense of mere "writing:" "every writing, if inspired of God, is also profitable," etc. If we understand γ., as we must, in the sense of "scripture," and take the epithet with the subject, we gain nothing but a strangely incoherent phrase, yet in substance agreeing with its natural sense: "every scripture, being inspired of God, is also profitable," etc., as in fact Origen long ago took it, but not Athanasius, nor Greg. Nyss, nor Chrysostom, who held as the A.V.

The R. V., whether intentionally or not, is ambiguous: "every scripture inspired of God [is] also profitable," etc. If it was not meant to raise a doubt, why was it so left? If it was, is it possible to conceive an object more opposed to the context? For the Spirit of God is furnishing the invaluable and needed safeguard against the difficult times of the last days; and after dwelling among the rest on the fact of Timothy's privilege in knowing from a babe the sacred writ of the O.T., he crowns all with the universal principle (which applies to the N.T. no less than to the O., and to what might yet be written as well as to what was), "every scripture [is] God-inspired, and profitable for teaching," etc.

The apostle gives first, as was most reverent and worthy, its relation to God, the Author of this incomparable boon as of all others; next, its profitable uses for the blessing of the man of God. For as no creature but man in virtue of his spirit can know the things of man, no more can one know the things of God save by the Spirit of God, Who both revealed and communicated them, and enables the believer to discern them, as we have already seen. Scripture teaches us in our ignorance, convicts us of obstinacy or errors, corrects us when shirking or straying, and disciplines us in righteousness inward and outward, that in our stand for God we might be complete on every side, and with equal fulness furnished for every good work.

A learned dignitary (in loco) speaks of "God-inspired" not excluding verbal errors or possibly historical inaccuracies, and those of human transmission and transcription. But is not this doubly a mistake of grave import? It would first make the written word a divine guarantee of untruth, both originally as well as in its dissemination. Next, how he could mix up the two points is hard to say; for clerical blunders have nothing to do with the question of God's inspiration, solely with man's responsible use of its fruit. The former is a virtual denial of "God-inspired," unless the God of truth can lie: if He sanction errata in trifling matters, why not in greater things? But "scripture cannot be broken," said the Lord. Compromise is unworthy of faith. "It is written" was His answer to Satan's temptations, and is the guide and standard of all saints since grace gave scripture. It is not a question of man's spirit, but of God's, Who is beyond doubt able to secure the truth absolutely, as the Lord and the apostles and the prophets everywhere assume and assert. To imply such weakness in man as is beyond the power of God is a feeble, not the full, inspiration, taught in the Bible. But when philosophy is sought as the ally of divine truth, the issue cannot but be vacillating, inconsistent, and misleading. "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God." It is a singularly loose comment on "every scripture is also inspired of God," etc. One can scarce doubt that a rendering so halting and strange tempts to a hesitating interpretation, even though not a whisper be given that they hold any scripture to be uninspired. Yet it is a plain and peremptory utterance of the apostle, galling for a version and a comment of no uncertain sound.

In ordinary thoughts and discussion on inspiration it is not always remembered that the apostle claims it authoritatively for "every scripture." This goes far beyond what men uttered from God, moved or borne along by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1: 21). For we are taught, not only what the Holy Spirit gave by His living instruments, but that what is written by Him abides now of at least equal divine authority. It is painful to see the readiness of any Christian to allow the compatibility of this divine power with historical or any other inaccuracies, natural enough to man's spirit. But the apostle Paul in the text before us leaves no room for evasion or uncertainty. "Every scripture" is either assumed, as some argue, or asserted as others believe, to be God-inspired. Does He fail to exclude verbal errors? Is He capable of historical or any other inaccuracies?

The imputation really leaves God out, as every measure of scepticism does. It dwells on human infirmity and ignorance, which no believer ought for a moment to forget. But God's inspiration of "every scripture" gives to faith the certainty that no such inaccuracies attach to the written word as it came from Him; and this is all that plenary inspiration means. It in no way excludes mistakes in transcription, translation, or interpretation. But it is an abuse of language, calculated to deceive the simple and gratify the enemy, if one allow divine plenary inspiration in word and then annul it in deed. For as God cannot lie, so He does not pledge His inspiration so as to sanction errors ever so small. He used men of God as the vehicle for carrying out His purpose in giving His word; He employed their mind and heart as well as their language and style; but He communicated His own wisdom in fulfilment of His design beyond the measure of the instrument, and in absolute exclusion of mistake.

For any then to contend that plenary inspiration admits of "leaving" inspired men to themselves in any respect is really to leave out God, and to blow hot and cold in the same breath. It is openly and absolutely to contradict the apostolic canon here laid down. Not only were the writers moved by the Holy Spirit, but "every scripture is God-inspired." Scripture is no mere accident, nor simply a providential arrangement, where blemishes may naturally be. If it was God's purpose to give us His word, the Holy Spirit wrought to effectuate it in a wisdom, power, order, and end which bespoke Himself. One can understand unbelief blind even to the grace and the truth which came through Jesus Christ, and seeing only discrepancies and blunders in the Gospels, where spiritual intelligence finds the deepest demonstration of the divine mind, and a perfect result produced to Christ's glory before the eyes of faith. How strange and distressing that any who hear that word and believe Him Who sent the Lord fail to perceive that, of all theories, none is less satisfactory, tenable, or reverent! For it means that the Holy Spirit Who inspired the evangelists recalled facts and words imperfectly to their remembrance, and stamped misleading memoirs with the authority of God's word. What more inexplicable than that there should be no less than a divine Person for such compilations, supposed to be mutually inconsistent as well as defective in small points?

Here is not the place to show, not only how baseless is this unbelief, but the divinely admirable truth which the Holy Spirit set out in these inspired accounts of our Lord as everywhere else in the Bible. It would demand volumes and can be found by those who seriously enquire. But such speculations ought never to have been entertained for a moment. Their source is evil, though good men be ensnared by them. "Every scripture is God-inspired." We are entitled as believers to set one's seal to it that He is true; so is His word. We are bound in simple faith to deny errors or discrepancies in scripture as He wrote it. We may not be able to answer every objection, or to clear up every difficulty which ingenious ill-will or even weakness may muster; for this depends on our intelligence, which may be small. But if we believe the apostle's deliverance on the Bible to be "the commandment of the Lord" (as he claims generally and for smaller things in 1 Cor. 14), we are warranted to rest in the peaceful certainty that "every scripture is inspired of God."

So our Lord acted with friend or foe. So He taught His own, as He had confronted the great enemy. "It is written" was the conclusive answer to temptation and to question; and if scripture were perverted, "It is written again" is the short and best refutation. What an example for us, so ready to trust in our dialectic skill of defence or in dissecting an adversary's ignorance and error! The simplest believer can reckon on the word and Spirit of God. This honours Him and His word, and is for us the humblest, holiest, and safest ground.

In vain then do men argue that there are many things in the scriptures which the writers might have known, and probably did know, by ordinary means; that for some things they must have been supernaturally endowed; and that other things again required nothing less than direct revelation The aim of this is unconsciously to lower scripture, and bring as much as possible within man's capacity. Now no believer need question God's use of means, if He pleases, or rising above them if for His glory. But "every scripture is inspired of God" settles all questions. We have there wicked men's hypocritical words, and their rebellious ones; we have even Satan's temptations and his accusations in scripture; but "every scripture is God-breathed." To present the least fact, to record the simplest word in scripture, was as truly of God's inspiration, as to reveal "the mystery" or to disclose the future glory of heaven and earth. Documents or none, the insertion in scripture was God-inspired: else the apostolic rule were infringed. But as our Lord said (John 10: 35), "the scripture cannot be broken."

As Jehovah magnified His saying above all His name, so did our Lord take His stand on the written word, the scriptures, as the most authoritative of all testimonies. All scripture, every part of it even, is God-inspired for permanence, and the true end of controversy for those that believe; while such as believe not must learn their sin and folly in the judgment. The question is in no way, whether the writers knew or did not know what they wrote (for both are found abundantly in scripture), but whether they were inspired of God to write it. And "very scripture" is so inspired. This alone makes it God's word, not its known truth or usefulness, but His inspiring it; and this we have in every scripture. Some writers may be sublime and others simple; some may be pathetic and others severe; but all are God-inspired; and the plain proof is that they are part of the scriptures. In the N.T. we have differences as wide as sever the Epistle of James from those of Paul, and the Gospel of Mark from that of John. But inspired they are equally, as their writings are part of the scriptures. Inspiration of God is a fact, and does not admit of varying degrees.

Pericope?

2010-12-21T08:32:00.001-06:00

What is a “Pericope”?

O

ne of the most commonly used words in Biblical studies is “pericope.” Sitting on the page, it looks like a misspelling of “periscope.” One might even think it should be pronounced in a similar way. Both assumptions are incorrect.

            The prefix “peri” is from the Greek. It means “about,” “around,” or “beyond.” The rest of the word – “cope” – is from the Greek kope, which means “a cutting.” It is pronounced ko-pay. A pe-ri-ko-pay is a section of text from a book or a document. It has been “cut around” and identified as a literary unit. The Bible is made up of myriad literary units or pericopes. To study a verse of Scripture without consideration for the larger literary unit of which it is a part is to take it out of its immediate context.

            We find the word pericope used as a technical term in Hellenistic literature in the 3^rd century of our era. There it refers to a short section or passage of writing. Jerome (340? - 420 AD) carried the term over into Latin to designate portions of Scripture.

            Scholars often focus on pericopes as self-contained units of text. For example, Mark 3:1-6 is a pericope. It tells the story of Jesus’ encounter in a synagogue with a man with a withered hand. Verse 1 opens the story and verse 6 closes it. To understand any of the verses in this literary unit, one must study the whole pericope – that is, the whole literary unit.

            Is Mark the only Gospel writer who includes this story? No. Matthew includes it as well, but the details differ somewhat from Mark’s account. We find Matthew’s pericope in Matthew 13:53-58. Matthew does not include the account of the man with the withered hand, yet he includes and emphasizes other parts of the story.

            What about Luke? Does he include this story in his Gospel? Yes, but the pericope in Luke is out of order in the normal flow of the Gospel account. It is found in Luke 4:16-30. Luke’s wording is also at variance with the other two accounts.

            If we are going to understand the story of Jesus’ entrance into the synagogue at (probably) Capernaum, “his home town,” we must study all three pericopes together. In doing so, we must ask, “Who wrote first?” Who borrowed from whom? Whose account is the most authentic? Why does one writer include something while another omits it? Why did Luke place the story where he did in his account?

Recommended Bible Help

In studying Scripture, it is vital to first assemble all of the relevant pericopes on any given subject for consideration as a whole. An excellent Bible help for doing this for the first three Gospels is Gospel Parallels by Burton H. Throckmorton. It is more current and far more helpful than the old harmonies of the Gospels commonly used by many. If you purchase it, be sure to read the explanatory material at the beginning before proceeding.

            Incidentally, it is not enough to simply study the English-language translations of these pericopes. Though it is good to compare 5-7 translations of any given pericope, it is also helpful to examine the Greek texts themselves. Translations cannot always be relied upon to remain faithful to the intent of the original.

Chapters & Verses

Originally, most of the “books” or scrolls of Scripture had no chapters or verses. The text simply flowed continuously. The one exception is the Book of Psalms which was originally divided into chapters with titles. When Jerome made his Latin translation of the Catholic version of the Bible, he subdivided the first section of Scripture – the Pentateuch – into 175 pericopes. The word “Pentateuch” is Greek. “Penta” is “five.” This is the name given to the five Mosaic books that were originally a part of single scroll at the time the Greek-speaking pharaohs ruled Egypt. We call this translation the Septuagint (LXX). The Hebrew name for these books is the Chumash which means “fivefold” or pentad. The first five books of the Bible also constitute the first of three divisions of what we erroneously call “The Old Testament.” To the Jews, it is the TaNaKh. This is an acronym taken from three words, the first of which is Torah. The word Torah does not, as is commonly supposed, mean “Law.” It means “instruction” or “teaching.”

            The word Torah also refers to the whole Hebrew Bible, and to the entirety of Oral Law – in other words, it is all of the instruction that God has ever given to His people from the beginning of time to the present. We will discuss this further in a study on the subject of “Torah.”

            Suffice it to say that the Bible was not originally divided into discreet pericopes. It was written mainly as a continuous narrative. Pericopes were considered when the chapter and verse divisions were made for both Testaments. Chapters and verses, as Halley’s Bible Handbook (p. 755) reminds us, “…were added by Cardinal Caro (A.D. 1236) and Robert Stephens (A.D. 1551).” Stephens, whose real name was Robert Stephanus, or Etienne, published a Greek and Latin edition of the New Testament in Geneva in 1551. Many have questioned the apparent arbitrariness of Stephen’s verse divisions that were made while on a journey from Paris to Lyons. His own son suggested that horse bumps may have caused his pen to jump from time to time.

            Be cautious in identifying pericopes for study. Often, modern translations tend to identify them by the way the page is laid out. For the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), Throckmorton’s (mentioned earlier) is most helpful.

- Brian Knowles

via godward.org

Sermon on the Mount

2010-12-13T09:01:00.000-06:00

Listening to Dr. Wayne Grudem; a series of talks on his Systematic Theology, that he observes that the statements that the Lord makes , "you have heard it said" is in reference to the held teachings of the Rabbi's of the time; and the extensive body of Jewish literature , called the Talmud ,that was in opposition to God's intent and teaching, then the Lord goes beyond, Moses authorial intent, giving Kingdom light on the OT Law.

Faithful words

2010-12-10T05:33:00.001-06:00

Recently struck by the idea , that has failed me previously , that "faithful sayings" were commonly held thoughts in the early church , that Paul is citing, in his ministry to Timothy. This is a confirmation of this by Sadler

There is, however, one phrase ocourring several times in these Epistles which requires notice. In no other Epistles have we the " faithful sayings." " This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners " (1 Tim. i. 15). "This is a faithful saying" (rendered in the authorized " true ") (1 Tim. iii. 1). " This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation " (iv. 9). " It is a faithful saying " (2 Tim. ii. 11). How is it that St. Paul quotes four of these faithful words in his later Epistles and not elsewhere ? Evidently because in his later years a number of sayings or short sentences had become proverbial, and were in everyone's mouth: and so St. Paul appealed to three or four of these in support of what he was writing. It is simply an interesting circumstance, but critics must be very hard up for arguments to use it as a reason for rejecting these Epistles.

The Epistles of St. Paul to the Colossians, Thessalonians, and Timothy

By Michael Ferrebee Sadler

http://books.google.com/books?id=dpwXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA177&lpg=PA177&dq=what+is+paul+quoting+in+%22faithful+words%22&source=bl&ots=kLOYGoNnel&sig=oLpNmXgn1EOFCTwY5TNliANFkg8&hl=en&ei=_uT_TKO1BYKr8AbYgd2ZAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

NETBible: Faithful Sayings

2010-12-08T08:52:00.001-06:00

FAITHFUL SAYINGS [ISBE]
FAITHFUL SAYINGS - sa'-inz (pistos ho logos): "This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation" (the King James Version). These words form a striking formula which is found--with slight variations--only in the Pastoral Epistles, in 1 Tim 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; 2 Tim 2:11; Tit 3:8. A similar expression occurs in Rev (21:5 and 22:6 the King James Version), "These sayings are faithful and true."
The Five "Sayings."
Paul's faithful sayings are thus five in number, and "were no doubt rehearsed constantly in the assemblies, till they became well-known watchwords in the various churches scattered over the Mediterranean-washed provinces of the Roman empire" (Ellicott, New Testament Commentary on 1 Tim 1:15).
1. The First "Saying":
The first of the faithful sayings speaks of the pre-existence of Christ, of His coming into the world, and the purpose why He came is distinctly stated--to save the lost, irrespective of race or nationality, sinners who, apart from Christ, are without God and without hope.
2. The Second "Saying":
The second of the faithful sayings refers to the work of being a minister of the gospel, a work then so full of danger and always full of difficulty. The office in question is honorable and Christlike, and, in those early days, it meant stern and ceaseless work, grave and constant danger. This faithful saying would act as a call to young men to offer themselves for the work of proclaiming the gospel to the world, and of witnessing for Christ.
3. The Third "Saying":
The third saying is that godliness has an influence that is world-wide; it consists, not merely in holiness and in that fellowship and communion with God which is the very life of the soul; it is also an active force which springs from "the love of Christ constraining us," and manifests itself in love toward all our fellow-men, for they are God's creatures. Godliness transfigures every rank and condition of life. It has the promise of the life that now is: to those who seek the kingdom of God first, all other things will be added. And it has the promise of the life that is to come, the rich prospect of eternal blessedness with Christ. Compare with this saying the remarkable words in Tit 1:2, "in hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised before times eternal." Godliness gives all gladness here, and future glory too. This is a faithful saying.
4. The Fourth "Saying":
The fourth of the faithful sayings speaks of the Christian believer's union with Christ, and of the blessedness of that union. The Christian is "dead with Christ," he "suffers with Christ." But the union with Christ is eternal, "We shall also live with him; .... we shall also reign with him" in life that is fadeless, endless and full of glory. Surely then, no one will draw back, for "if we deny him," "if we believe not," "he also will deny us," for "he abideth faithful, he cannot deny himself."
5. The Fifth "Saying":
The fifth and last of the faithful sayings speaks of our former unconverted state, "for we also once were foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures. But .... the kindness and love of God .... toward man appeared, not by works which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us." Blessedness is now the Christian's lot, and this is the result not of our works: we owe it all to the tender love of God, to His Divine pity, to His redeeming grace. Yes, this is a faithful saying.
John Rutherfurd

via net.bible.org

Was Paul citing a held source or stating a biblical position?

DJR

The Jesus Seminar

2010-12-08T08:45:00.001-06:00

Probe Ministries

The Jesus Seminar

Jimmy Williams

Introduction

"Jesus did not ask us to believe that his death was a blood sacrifice, that he was going to die for our sins."

"Jesus did not ask us to believe that he was the messiah. He certainly never suggested that he was the second person of the trinity. In fact, he rarely referred to himself at all."

"Jesus did not call upon people to repent, or fast, or observe the sabbath. He did not threaten with hell or promise heaven."

"Jesus did not ask us to believe that he would be raised from the dead."

"Jesus did not ask us to believe that he was born of a virgin."

"Jesus did not regard scripture as infallible or even inspired."
So says Robert W. Funk, Architect and Founder of the Jesus Seminar, in a Keynote Address to the Jesus Seminar Fellows in the spring of 1994.(1) The Jesus Seminar has been receiving extensive coverage lately in such periodicals as Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, as well as on network television.

Biographical

The Jesus Seminar Fellows
The Jesus Seminar is a group of New Testament scholars who have been meeting periodically since 1985. The initial two hundred has now dwindled to about seventy-four active members. They initially focused on the sayings of Jesus within the four Gospels to determine the probability of His actually having said the things attributed to Him in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Each scholar offered his/her opinion on each "Jesus" statement by voting with different colored bead:

Red: Jesus undoubtedly said this or something very like it.

Pink: Jesus probably or might have said something like this.

Gray: Jesus did not say this, but the ideas are close to His own.

Black: Jesus did not say this; it represents a later tradition.
Their voting conclusions: Over 80% of the statements attributed to Jesus in the Gospels are, by voting consensus, either gray or black. This means that only 20% of Jesus' statements are likely to have been spoken by Him. The other 80% are most assuredly, they say, unlikely to have ever been uttered by Jesus.
Their conclusions were published in 1993 in a book entitled, The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus. The primary author of the book, Robert W. Funk, also the Founder and Chair of the Jesus Seminar, crafted the results of their deliberations in a slick, color-coded format with charts, graphics, appendices, and copious footnotes. (The Gospel of Thomas is to be included with the traditional four gospels, they say.)
Who are these scholars, and what are their credentials? Robert W. Funk, former professor of the New Testament at the University of Montana is the most prominent leader. He is joined by two other major contributors, John Dominic Crossan, of DePaul University, Chicago, who has authored several books including The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, The Essential Jesus, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, and Marcus Borg of Oregon State University, also the author of several books including: Jesus: A New Vision and Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time: The Historical Jesus and the Heart of Contemporary Faith.
Of the remaining active participants, only fourteen are well-known scholars in New Testament studies. Another twenty are recognizable within the narrow confines of the discipline, but they are not widely published beyond a few journal articles or dissertations. The remaining forty are virtually unknowns, and most of them are either at Harvard, Vanderbilt, or Claremont College, three universities widely considered among the most liberal in the field.
The public, exposed by the mass of publicity and attention given to the Jesus Seminar by the media has been inclined to assume that the theories of these scholars represent the "cutting edge," the mainstream of current New Testament thought. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Nearly all of these scholars are American. European scholarship is nearly non-existent and, that being the case, it would be inaccurate, if not deceiving for the Jesus Seminar participants to present themselves, their work, and their conclusions as a broad, representative consensus of worldwide New Testament scholarship.
While the media and the general public may tend to be gullible and naive about the authority and findings of the Jesus Seminar, Christians need not be intimidated.

Philosophical
Why is this movement important? Should Christians be concerned with this? Haven't the gospel traditions had their skeptics and critics for centuries? What is different about the Jesus Seminar?
Scholars since the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century have questioned such things as the miracles, the prophecies, and the extraordinary claims of Christ in the Gospels.
Beginning in Germany, a separation began to occur between the "Jesus of History" and the "Christ of Faith"; that is, it came to be popularly believed that a man named Jesus really lived, but that fantastic myths grew up around Him and about His powers and claims, and thus He became for many the "Christ of Faith" in story, symbol, and worship. Scholars promoting this separation conclude that biblical history is not what is important; but rather, one's personal experience, one's search for meaning and timeless truths. Those are of primary importance to an individual.
The Jesus Seminar stands in this tradition. But what is most significant about their work is that it has widened the circle of awareness (i.e., the general public) to New Testament studies and criticism, and a focus upon issues which up until now have been primarily restricted to academic discussions among New Testament scholars.
This group has brought into question the very authenticity and validity of the gospels which lie at the center of Christianity's credibility. If what the Jesus Seminar espouses is historically accurate, the sooner the naive Christian community can be educated to these facts the better, according to these scholars.
A major presupposition of the Jesus Seminar, therefore, is philosophical naturalistic world view which categorically denies the supernatural. Therefore they say one must be wary of the following in the Gospels:

Prophetic statements. Predictions by Jesus of such things as the destruction of the Temple, or of Jerusalem, or His own resurrection are later literary additions or interpolations. How do we know this? Because no one can predict the future. So they MUST have been added later by zealous followers.

Miracles. Since miracles are not possible, every recorded miracle in the Gospels must be a later elaboration by an admiring disciple or follower, or must be explained on the basis of some physical or natural cause (i.e., the Feeding of the 5,000: Jesus gave the signal, and all those present reached beneath their cloaks, pulled out their own "sack lunches," and ate together!).

Claims of Jesus. Christ claimed to be God, Savior, Messiah, Judge, Forgiver of sin, sacrificial Lamb of God, etc. All of these, say the Jesus Fellows, are the later work of His devoted followers. The historical Jesus never claimed these things for Himself, as Funk infers in his above-mentioned statements. Reality isn't like this. It couldn't be true.

Therefore the Jesus Fellows assert that the Gospels could not have been written by eyewitnesses in the mid-first century. On the basis of this philosophical presupposition, the Jesus Seminar considers itself personally and collectively free to select or discard any statement of the Gospels which is philosophically repugnant.
There is nothing new about this approach in New Testament scholarship. Thomas Jefferson, a great American patriot and president did the same thing in the late 1700s with almost identical results. He admired Jesus as a moral man, but like the Jesus Fellows, he assumed all supernatural and extraordinary elements in the Gospels were unreliable and could not be true. With scissors and paste, Jefferson cut out of the Gospels any and everything which contravened the laws of nature and his own reason.
When he had finished his project, only 82 columns of the four Gospels out of his King James Bible remained from an original 700. The other nine-tenths lay on the cutting room floor. Jefferson entitled his creation The Life and Morals of Jesus, and his book ended with the words, "There laid they Jesus . . . and rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulcher and departed."(2)
Jefferson and the Jesus Fellows, like all skeptics, prefer their own reason and biases over the possibility that the Gospels are accurate in what they say about miracles, prophecy, and the claims of Christ. They are like the man who visited the psychiatrist and informed him of a grave problem: "I think I'm dead!" The psychiatrist said, "That is a serious problem. May I ask you a question? Do you believe that dead men bleed?" The man quickly answered, "Of course not. Dead men don't bleed." The psychiatrist reached forward, and taking a hat pin, he pricked the man's finger. The man looked down at his bleeding finger and exclaimed, "Well, what do you know! Dead men bleed after all!"

Canonical
The Jesus Fellows, on the basis of their naturalistic bias, conclude that at least the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) could not have been written at the time tradition and many New Testament scholars assume they were. The "Priority of Mark" as the earliest gospel written has strong (but not universal) support. And yet Mark 13 records Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the temple, something that did not actually occur until A.D. 70.
Since the Jesus Fellows do not believe prophecy is possible, they judge Mark, the "earliest" of the Gospels, to have been written after the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in A.D. 70 by the Romans. If Mark was written in the early 70s, still later dates are then required for Matthew and Luke, to say nothing of the Book of Acts which must follow them with an even later date.
Now, this gives the Jesus Scholars a "window" of about 40 years from the time of Jesus' death (a A.D. 32.) to the fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70) to look for earlier sources devoid of miracles and extraordinary claims. They think they have found two such primary sources which fit their assumptions. The first of these is the "Q" source, or "Quelle."

Synoptics/Quelle
It has long been observed that Matthew, Mark, and Luke must have had some kind of symbiotic relationship, as if they were aware of one another, or used the same sources, or some of the same sources. The prevailing theory is that Mark (the shortest of the three) was written first, and was later substantially incorporated into both Matthew and Luke. There is a high, but not total agreement, in the parallel accounts of Matthew and Luke where the two reflect the book of Mark.
But Matthew and Luke have additional material, some 250 verses (i.e., the Christmas stories, greater elaboration on the resurrection events, etc.). And there are some verses which are common to both Matthew and Luke, but not found in Mark. Thus many scholars conclude there was some other document or source available to Matthew and Luke which explains why they contain these additional 250 verses along with the corpus of Mark. The scholars have designated this material as "Q," or "Quelle," which is the German word for "Source." Outside of the Synoptic gospels, there is no written documentary evidence to substantiate Quelle.
A number of New Testament scholars thus claim that Quelle must have been an early, written document which preceded the writing of the Synoptic gospels and was incorporated into them. And they claim that in these 250 verses we only find a very "normal, human" Jesus who is more likely to have been the historical man.

The Gospel of Thomas
The second source given high priority and preference by the Jesus Seminar Fellows is the Gospel of Thomas. In fact, they value it so highly they have placed it alongside the four traditional ones, giving it equal, if not superior, value and historical authenticity.
A complete copy of The Gospel of Thomas was discovered in the 1940s at an Egyptian site called Nag Hammadi, where archaeologists found an entire library of ancient texts including the Gospel of Thomas. It was dated around A.D. 400 and written in Coptic, the language of the ancient Egyptian church. This astonishing cache consisted of early Christian and Gnostic texts.
This Gospel of Thomas has now been studied for forty years, and the overwhelming conclusion of scholars worldwide has been that the document carries many of the identifying marks of a Gnostic literary genre, from a sect prominent in Egypt and the Nile Valley during the second, third, and fourth centuries.
It has been almost universally assumed that the parallels in Thomas to the New Testament Gospels and epistles were copied or paraphrased (not the reverse, as the Jesus Fellows claim) to suit Gnostic purposes, teachings which were opposed to all ideas about a supernatural God in the flesh Who could perform miracles, forgive sin, and rise from the dead. The Jesus Seminar Scholars have fit Thomas nicely together with "Q" to frame an historical portrait of Jesus based primarily upon these two sources.
The Jesus Scholars have declared that the Gospel of Thomas and the Q Source were written within the forty years between Jesus' death and the fall of Jerusalem, pushing forward the writing of the four canonical gospels (a necessity on their part to uphold their theory) to very late in the first century.

Chronological
Apart from completely ignoring Paul's epistles which were written between A.D. 45 and his martyrdom at the hands of Nero in A.D. 68, the Jesus Fellows have a critical problem in fitting their theory into first century chronology.
In the last chapter of the Book of Acts (28), Luke leaves us with the impression that Paul is in Rome, and still alive. Tradition tells us he died in A.D. 68. In Acts, Luke shows keen awareness of people, places and contemporary events, both within and without the church. And he records the martyrdoms of both Stephen and James. It is highly unlikely, if the deaths of Paul and Peter and the fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70) had already occurred when Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles, that he would have failed to record these most important events.
New Testament scholars are in strong agreement that whoever wrote Acts also wrote the Gospel of Luke two volumes by one author, both addressed to a man named "Theophilus." And since Luke is supposed to have incorporated Mark and the Q Source material into the writing of his own Gospel, and Acts was written after Luke, but before Paul's death (A.D. 68) and the fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70), then Mark and Quelle must have been written by the mid 60s. The same difficulty in Luke exists with Mark, who is said to have written his gospel with Peter as his source, Peter having been martyred in Rome about the same time as Paul.
It is highly unlikely that these two obscure sources, Quelle and the Gospel of Thomas, could have been circulating throughout the Christian community and having such impact that they overshadowed what Paul was at the very same time saying about Jesus in all of his epistles.
Real church history is not kind to the Jesus Fellows at this point. The church did not first flourish in the Nile Valley and spread elsewhere. The clear pattern of expansion from both biblical and the earliest patristic writings is from Jerusalem to Antioch, Asia Minor, Greece, and finally Rome. Ironically, the earliest of the Church Fathers, Clement of Rome (ca. A.D. 30 to ca. A.D. 100) writes from Rome at the end of the first century an epistle to the Corinthians (1 Clement) which is considered to be the oldest extant letter after the writings of the Apostles. It had such stature in the early church that it was initially considered by some to be a part of the Canon. All the other early church fathers (2nd century) are scattered around in cities within the areas mentioned above, with the exception of Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 150 to c. A.D. 215) who reflects some Gnostic ideas in his teachings.
The more traditional and accepted chronology for the documents under consideration is as follows:

Dating/chronology of First Century Authorship
(All dates are A.D.)
Uncontested:
End of First Century: 100
Fall of Jerusalem: 70
Martyrdom of Paul and Peter: 68
Epistles of Paul: 45-68
Some Oral Tradition: 32-70
Crucifixion of Jesus: 32

Traditional:(3)
Clement of Rome: 96
Revelation (John): 96
Epistles of John: 90-94
Gospel of John: 85-90
Acts of Apostles: 66-68
Matthew & Luke: 64-66
Gospel of Mark: 64-65

Jesus Seminar:(4)
Gospel of John: 85-90
Acts of Apostles: 80-100
Gospel of Luke: 80-100
Gospel of Matthew: 80-90
Gospel of Mark: 70-80
Gospel of Thomas: 70-100

In comparing the two chronologies, it appears there simply is not enough time for the simple Jesus of history to evolve into the Christ of faith. Myths and legends need time to develop. There is none available in the first century to accommodate the Jesus Seminar's theory.

Christological
On the basis of the Gospel of Thomas and Quelle, the Jesus Fellows believe the historical Jesus was simply a sage, a spinner of one- liners, a teller of parables, an effective preacher. This is what He was historically according to these scholars. The "high Christology" (supernatural phenomena, the messianic claims, the miracles, the substitutionary atonement, the resurrection) all came as a result of a persecuted church community which needed a more powerful God for encouragement and worship. His suffering, ardent followers are responsible for these embellishments which created the "Christ of Faith." The real Jesus was a winsome, bright, articulate peasant, sort of like Will Rogers.
Various other portraits of Jesus have proliferated among the Jesus Fellows, suggesting that he was a religious genius, a social revolutionary, an eschatological prophet. He was all of these things, we would say, but offer that He was something more.
The Jesus Seminar assumes a "low christology" (Jesus as a peasant sage) preceded the "high christology" created later by the church. Is there anything that would suggest otherwise?

The Epistles of Paul
The Apostle Paul conducted his church-planting ministry between approximately 40 to the time of his death, A.D. 68. It was also during this time that he wrote all of his epistles. While some New Testament scholars question the authenticity of Paul's authorship of a number of these epistles, virtually all, even the most liberal, will accept Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians as genuinely Pauline.
What kind of "Christology" do we find in these epistles? A high christology. The Jesus Seminar is asking us to believe that at the very same time the Gospel of Thomas and the Q source were alleged to have been written portraying Jesus as a wise, peasant sage, Paul was planting churches across the Mediterranean world and ascribing to Jesus the same high christology found later in the four gospels!
The Jerusalem Council recorded in Acts 15 clearly indicates that Paul was aware of and connected to Jerusalem and its church leadership (Peter and James). After the Council Paul and Barnabas were given the express task of taking and distributing to the churches a written document of the Council's instructions about how Gentiles were to be incorporated into the church.
The Jesus Seminar simply chooses to ignore this mass of clear, Pauline evidence almost universally accepted by New Testament scholars. The notion that a high christology (the Gospels and the epistles) evolved from a low christology (the Gospel of Thomas, Quelle) is unsupportable.

Jesus the Sage
If we accept the Jesus Seminar notion that the historical Jesus was a simple peasant later revered and deified, with what are we left? Jesus is so stripped down that He becomes the "Christian dummy" of the first century church! The community is more brilliant than the leader! Even Renan, the French skeptic said, "It would take a Jesus to forge a Jesus." Further, if Jesus was such a "regular guy," why was He crucified? Crucifixion by the Romans was used only for deviants, malcontents, and political revolutionaries (like Barabbas). What did this simple peasant do to create such a stir that He would suffer such a death?
The Jesus Seminar portrayal of Jesus simply cannot explain the explosion of Christianity in the first and second centuries. With their view of Christ, they cannot create a cause monumental enough to explain the documented, historical effects that even they must accept.
© 1996 Probe Ministries
Notes
1. Robert W. Funk, "The Gospel of Jesus and the Jesus of the Gospels," The Fourth R (November/December, 1993), p. 8.
2. Smithsonian.
3. Merrill F. Unger, Unger's Bible Handbook (Chicago: Moody, 1967), Matthew, 470ff (Mt), 493 (Mk), 511 (Lk), 543 (Jn), 567 (Acts).
4. Robert J. Miller, Editor. The Complete Gospels (Harper SanFrancisco, a division of Harper Collins Publishers, 1994). pp. 10 (Mk), 56 (Mt), 198 (Jn). Note: a date for Luke-Acts is not provided, but on the basis of the book's date for Mark, we would assume 80 to 100 A.D.
5. James R. Edwards, "Who Do Scholars Say That I Am?" Christianity Today: March 4, 1996, p. 17.

About the Author
James F. Williams is the founder and past president of Probe Ministries International, and currently serves as Minister at Large. He holds degrees from Southern Methodist University (B.A.) and Dallas Theological Seminary (Th.M.). He also has pursued inter-disciplinary doctoral studies (a.b.d.) in the humanities at the University of Texas at Dallas.
During the past thirty-five years, he has visited, lectured, and counseled on more than 180 university campuses in the United States, Canada, Europe, and the former Soviet Union.
He has also served on the faculties of the American, Latin American, and European Institutes of Biblical Studies. Jimmy can be reached via e-mail at jwilliams@probe.org.

What is Probe?

Probe Ministries is a non-profit ministry whose mission is to assist the church in renewing the minds of believers with a Christian worldview and to equip the church to engage the world for Christ. Probe fulfills this mission through our Mind Games conferences for youth and adults, our 3-minute daily radio program, and our extensive Web site at Probe.org

Further information about Probe's materials and ministry may be obtained by writing to:

Probe Ministries
2001 W. Plano Parkway, Suite 2000
Plano, TX 75075
(972) 941-4565
info@probe.org
www.probe.org

Copyright (C) 1996-2010 Probe Ministries
Printer-Friendly Version
See Related Resources
--> Email this to a friend

copyright © 1995-2010 Leadership U. All rights reserved.
Updated: 14 July 2002

via leaderu.com

Refutation of the errors of the Jesus seminar
DJR

Biblical Training Institute: New Testament | How the Bible was Written

2010-12-08T08:36:00.001-06:00

© 2000-2010 BiblicalTraining.org | Privacy | Terms of Service | Copyright | Contact Us | Your Account | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube

via biblicaltraining.org

Started going through this material; helpful so far

Monergism :: The Aseity (Self-Existence) of God

2010-11-30T04:35:00.001-06:00

via monergism.com

Studying the Theology Program Trinitarianism, the self-existance or Aseity of God

Is Jesus God?

2010-11-27T06:52:00.002-06:00

Appreciating the Clarity here, and the errors that some seek to force from the Early Church writings.

DJR

From time to time scholars suggest the divinity of Jesus is a later invention of the Church. Jesus, they claim, did not believe himself to be God, nor did he claim to be. His first followers, and the early church, likewise did not believe he was God but rather thought of him as a good teacher and moral example. The Da Vinci Code echoes such sentiments by declaring that “Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet . . . a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal.” He was not considered to be God until the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325.

The problem with this view, however, is that the NT records clearly and repeatedly state otherwise. Paul, writing in the A.D. 50s, said Jesus is the “Christ, who is God over all, forever praised” (Rom. 9:5). Equally clear is his statement, penned in the early A.D. 60s, that “Christ Jesus, who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped” (Phil. 2:6). Similarly, he noted that “in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Col. 2:9). Elsewhere, he spoke of “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (Tit. 2:13).

The Gospels uniformly attest to Jesus’ claim to be God and to his followers’ belief that he was God. Peter confessed that Jesus was “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16). Mark wrote “the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1). Before the Jewish high priest at his trial, when charged under oath by the living God to state whether he was the Christ, the Son of God, Jesus responded, “Yes, it is as you say. But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One . . .” (Matt. 26:63–64).

Perhaps the clearest affirmations of Jesus as God in any of the Gospels are found in the Gospel of John. In the opening verse, John identifies “the Word” (i.e. Jesus) as God (John 1:1). Jesus’ claim to be God was clearly understood by his opponents during his earthly ministry, as is made clear in John 5:18: “For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.”

In John 8:58, Jesus claims, “before Abraham was born, I am,” using the OT name of God. Again, this implicit claim to deity was clearly understood by Jesus’ Jewish opponents, who picked up stones to stone him for blasphemy. Later, Jesus is recorded as saying, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), and Thomas confesses him as his Lord and God (John 20:28). Finally, in his first epistle John wrote, “And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.”

We could go on and cite additional NT evidence (such as Heb. 1:3, 8 or 2 Pet. 1:1), but the above examples show that there is ample biblical support for the belief that Jesus knew himself to be God and claimed to be God during his earthly ministry and that his first followers—as well as his opponents—clearly understood him to claim divinity for himself. In fact, all but one of the Twelve and many other early Christians suffered martyrdom for this belief.

For further study, see my recently released booklet on The Da Vinci Code. See also Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (Baker, 1992). I am also working on a book tentatively titled Father, Son, and Spirit: The Trinity and John’s Gospel (NSBT; IVP, forthcoming), in which I will deal with Jesus’ deity in light of first-century Jewish monotheism.

by Andreas Köstenberger - March 27th, 2006.
Filed under: Bible, Theology.

One Comments to “Is Jesus God?”
Andreas Kostenberger says:
April 20, 2006 at 11:03 am
A reader responded to Dr. Köstenberger’s blog, “Is Jesus God?”

The reader claims that Jesus is begotten, that is, created, and that, since God is One, not Three, Jesus had a beginning.

He also claims that Jesus is only the Son of God, not God. He says Jesus never referred to himself as God. Rather, Jesus called God his “God” or “Father.”

Dr. Köstenberger’s response:

Thank you for your reply to my blog.

I completely agree that, as you say, “We must allow Scripture to be our only source for truth, even if it goes against what our beloved pastors and teachers have taught us.” I would challenge you to live by this maxim of yours and to consider carefully the following Scripture passages in each of which Jesus is clearly called “God.”

• Romans 9:5: “Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.”
• Philippians 2:6: “Christ Jesus, who, being in very nature God.”
• Titus 2:13: “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.”
• Matthew 1:23: “they will call him Immanuel, which means, ‘God with us.’ “
• Hebrews 1:8: “But about the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever.’ ”
• 2 Peter 1:1: “our God and Savior Jesus Christ.”
• John 20:28: [Thomas worshipping Jesus:] “My Lord and my God!”
• 1 John 5:20: “even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God . . .”

Note that in all these passages Jesus is not merely called “the Son of God” but “God.” Note also that these passages span the entire New Testament, including Matthew, John, Paul, Peter, and the author of Hebrews. Note, finally, that the early Christians, like Thomas, worshipped Jesus as God. This is the testimony of Scripture.

Sincerely,

Andreas J. Köstenberger

1 Thessalonians 2:13 and an Emerging Canon Consciousness

2010-11-24T06:18:00.000-06:00

1 Thessalonians 2:13 and an Emerging Canon Consciousness

Daniel B. Wallace

Having been occcupied with this topic lately , the thought of the emerging Canon being in the mind of the NT authors, here Paul is very striking.
DJR

“And so we too constantly thank God that when you received God’s message that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human message, but as it truly is, God’s message, which is at work among you who believe” (NET).

“And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers” (ESV).

“And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe” (TNIV).

On the surface, 1 Thess 2:13 includes some of the major elements of bibliology: dual authorship—human personality involved in delivering God’s message, though God is the effective cause; canonicity—the Thessalonians accepted the Pauline teaching as the word of God; illumination/transformation—ἐνεργεῖται (this message is now working in those who believe). The point about canonicity is clearer in the ESV and the TNIV than in the NET because the NET has translated λόγον θεοῦ as ‘God’s message’ while the ESV and TNIV translate it as ‘the word of God.’
Does this verse mean that Paul really knew that he was speaking and writing scripture? If so, it is the earliest reference to such canon consciousness within the New Testament. And if that is the case, then we have an excellent basis for seeing this emerging canon consciousness as something that was from the beginning.

If we compare this statement to Peter’s admonition (1 Pet 4.11) about spiritual gifts, however, we may get a different take on things: “Whoever speaks must do so as one speaking the very words of God” (NRSV); “If you speak, you should do so as one who speaks the very words of God” (NET) [εἴ τις λαλεῖ, ὡς λόγια θεοῦ]. Should we say that those with teaching gifts are uttering new revelation when they teach? Even minimally, are their words inspired? Yet Peter’s statement comes at least a dozen years after Paul’s. Has he retreated from Paul’s self-conscious inscripturating activity? Or has he included countless unnamed individuals to the list of those who penned scripture?

It might be argued that a different word for ‘word’ is used in 1 Peter 4: λόγια instead of λόγος. This is true, but probably irrelevant since, if anything, λόγια is a stronger, more specific term than λόγος.
But to keep to the exact phrase, we do see in the New Testament that many are said to proclaim the ‘word of God.’ Consider the following texts (every reference has λόγος θεοῦ in Greek; the translation is that of the NET):

Acts 4:31—“they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak the word of God courageously”

Acts 6:7—“The word of God continued to spread, the number of disciples in Jerusalem increased greatly, and a large group of priests became obedient to the faith.”

Acts 8:14—“Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them.”

Acts 13:5—“When they arrived in Salamis, they began to proclaim the word of God in the Jewish synagogues.”

Acts 13:46—“Both Paul and Barnabas replied courageously, “It was necessary to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we are turning to the Gentiles.”

Acts 17:13—“But when the Jews from Thessalonica heard that Paul had also proclaimed the word of God in Berea, they came there too, inciting and disturbing the crowds.”

2 Cor 2:17—“For we are not like so many others, hucksters who peddle the word of God for profit, but we are speaking in Christ before God as persons of sincerity, as persons sent from God.”

2 Tim 2:9—“for which I suffer hardship to the point of imprisonment as a criminal, but God’s message is not imprisoned!”

Heb 13:7—“Remember your leaders, who spoke God’s message to you; reflect on the outcome of their lives and imitate their faith.”

Rev 1:9—“I, John, your brother and the one who shares with you in the persecution, kingdom, and endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony about Jesus.”

Rev 6:9—“Now when the Lamb opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been violently killed because of the word of God and because of the testimony they had given.”

It is evident in most of these passages that ‘the word of God’ is speaking about the Christian message. The standard lexicon by Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich, in fact, says that each of these passages, and plenty more, is speaking about the Christian message rather than the Bible. To be sure, there are some passages in the New Testament in which ‘word of God’ refers to the written word of God, that is, the Old Testament (e.g., Matt 15:6; John 10:35; Rom 9:6), but this is a far less common meaning.
What should be recognized in at least the majority of the texts quoted above is that, on the one hand, the apostolic witness to Christ regarded itself as verbalizing the word of God—or the message from God about Christ—because the ultimate revelation was in Jesus. When Paul speaks of “carrying out the proclamation of the word of God” (Col 1.25) he is not speaking about proclaiming scripture (which would have been the Old Testament) but proclaiming the message about Jesus. Even in 1 Thess 2.13, this must be the case: the ‘word of God’ that Paul is referring to is the proclamation he and Silas made in Thessalonica, not the letter of 1 Thessalonians since he is referring to what he and Silas proclaimed in person before this letter was ever penned. Hence, we must not think that ‘word of God’ = Bible as a rule. On the other hand, Paul recognized that his message originated with God, not with himself. And at some point, it was a natural development for the early church to regard the apostolic writings as scripture, though this did not seem to explicitly happen, except in isolated instances, until the latter half of the second century.
There is thus an emerging ‘canon consciousness’ with respect to the apostolic writings. By AD 50, it is not yet there. There are two passages in the New Testament, both written much later, that are often cited as proof texts that the New Testament writers were self-consciously writing scripture, or at least that they were calling other portions of the New Testament ‘scripture.’ We will examine those in another study, but for now the question that we are raising is this: When did the early church begin to see the writings of the New Testament as scripture? When did they begin to place them explicitly on the same level of authority as the Old Testament? Did it take place within the pages of the New Testament itself, or only later? And, if later, how much later? All of this is part and parcel to the theological development within the New Testament (and beyond) that begins with the death and resurrection of Jesus. It is that radical event that ultimately changed how a small band of Jews would think of God, scripture, the people of God and, above all, the Messiah.