Evidence of the Flood of Noah - Out-of-Place Metal Objects
"It is one thing to find evidence of human skeletal remains and footprints in the incredible past, but it is something else again to discover artifacts that prove the existence of advanced cultures in the strata as well. One of the characteristics of any high civilization is its ability to work metals. Conservative historians and archaeologists, who hold to the concept of linear cultural development, point to the ancient Middle East as the home of the very first metal production. Here, they claim, man began to melt and shape copper, iron, gold, and silver only 8,000 years ago. But unusual relics brought up from the depths of the rocky earth tell a different story.
In 1826, a well dug near the Ohio river in north Cincinnati failed to produce water, but did produce the unexpected. From a level 94 feet down, a buried tree stump was brought to the surface which showed the marks of an ax. The marks were deep and well-cut, indicating the use of a sharp and durable blade. The suspicion that the ax had been made of metal was confirmed when, embedded in the top of the stump, an advanced oxidized wedge of iron was found. The layer from which the stump came was estimated to be between 50,000 and 75,000 years old - nearly 10 times the accepted age of the supposed first metal usage.
A letter kept in the Archives of Madrid and dated 1572, records the account of the Spanish Viceroy in Peru and a strange artifact which came into his possession. In the year the letter was written, Indian miners removed from a subsurface layer of gravel a large conglomerate boulder, and broke it into pieces for easier disposal. As the mass shattered to the hammer blow, out of the center of it fell a perfect six-inch nail. The nail was later given to the Viceroy as a souvenir, who had it thoroughly examined, and verified its finding. The first mystery is that iron was unknown to the Peruvian Indians, so the nail did not originate with them. And the second mystery is that the rock from which the nail was freed was in the neighborhood of 75,000 to 100,000 years in age.
In the June, 1851 issue of Scientific American (volume 7, pages 298-299), a report was reprinted from the Boston Transcript about two parts of a metallic vase dynamited out of solid rock on Meeting House Hill, Dorchester, Massachusetts. When the two parts were put together, they formed a bell-shaped vase, 4 1/2 inches high, 6 1/2 inches at the base, 2 1/2 inches at the top and an eighth of an inch thick. The metal of the vase was composed of an alloy of zinc and a considerable portion of silver. On the sides were six figures of a flower in bouquet arrangements, inlaid with pure silver, and around the lower part a vine, or wreath, also inlaid with silver. The chasing, carving, and inlaying are exquisitely done by the art of some unknown craftsman - yet this curiosity was blown out of solid pudding stone from 15 feet below the surface. Estimated age - 100,000 years. Unfortunately, the vase was circulated from museum to museum, and then disappeared. It is probably gathering dust in some curator's basement, its identity or source long forgotten.
At Lawn Ridge, 20 miles north of Peoria, Illinois, in August of 1870, three men were drilling an artesian well, when - from a depth of over a hundred feet - the pump brought up a small metal medallion to the surface. One of the workmen, Jacob W. Moffit, from Chillicothe, was the first to discover it in the drill residue. A noted scholar of the time, Professor Alexander Winchell, reported in his book Sparks From a Geologist's Hammer, that he received from another eye-witness, W.H. Wilmot, a detailed statement, dated December 4, 1871, of the deposits and depths of materials made during the boring, and the position where the metal 'coin' was uncovered. The stratification took this form: Soil - 3 feet; yellow clay - 17 feet; blue clay - 44 feet; dark vegetable matter - 4 feet; hard purplish clay - 18 feet; bright green clay - 8 feet; mottled clay - 18 feet; paleosol (ancient soils) - 2 feet; coin location; yellowish clay - 1 foot; sand, clay and water - 11 feet. The strange 'coin-medallion' was composed of an unidentified copper alloy, about the size and thickness of a U.S. quarter of that period. It was remarkably uniform in thickness, round, and the edges appeared to have been cut. Researcher William E. Dubois, who presented his investigation of the medallion to the American Philosophical Society, was convinced that the object had in fact passed through a rolling mill, the edges showed 'further evidence of the machine shop.' Despite its 'modern characteristics', however, Dubois plainly saw that, upon the object, 'the tooth of time is plainly visible.'
Both sides of the medallion were marked with artwork and hieroglyphs, but these had not been metal-engraved or stamped. Rather, the figures had somehow been etched in acid, to a remarkable degree of intricacy. One side showed the figure of a woman wearing a crown or headdress; her left arm is raised as if in benediction, and her right arm holds a small child, also crowned. The woman appears to be speaking. On the opposite side is another central figure, that looks like a crouching animal: it has long, pointed ears, large eyes and mouth, claw-like arms, and a long tail frayed at the very end. Below and to the left of it is another animal, which bears a strong resemblance to a horse. Around the outer edges of both sides of the coin are undecipherable glyphs - they are of very definite character, and show all the signs of a form of alphabetic writing.
In 1876, the medallion was presented by Professor Winchell to a meeting of the Geological Section of the American Association in Buffalo. There was much speculation, but few answers. One participant, a conservative historian, Professor J.R. Lesley, tried to explain the object as a 'practical joke' dropped into a hole by a passing French or Spanish explorer. The professor even claimed to see the coin's figures as the astrological signs of Pisces and Leo, and read into the glyphs the date 1572. However, Winchell countered with these arguments against such an interpretation: 1. By no stretch of the imagination were the figures and glyphs decipherable in terms of any known symbology or script. 2. Who, as a practical joke, would have dropped a metal object into a hole and known that someone several hundred years later would happen to drill at that precise spot (within a 4-inch tolerance) and find it? The odds would be phenomenal. And 3. There is the very real problem of explaining the accumulation of 114 feet of deposit over the buried coin. Having examined all the evidence, Winchell was convinced the coin had indeed come from this depth. It had not fallen into a hole in the past - the sediments drilled through were uniform and undisturbed. And the amount of sedimentation was not what would have settled in only a few centuries. In fact, recent calculations based on uniform rates of alluvium deposition and radioisotope dates for this region estimate an age for materials from just below a depth of 100 feet to be between 100,000 and 150,000 years.
What conclusions can we draw about the mystery coin? A lost civilization once existed on the North American continent which worked in copper and other metals; possessed art and writing; attired themselves with crowns and other clothing; knew of and perhaps domesticated several animals including the horse; utilized acids for etching in a manner that is still not understood today; and perhaps the most disturbing, possessed forms of machinery for the cutting, rolling and processing of metal pieces.
As a sidelight, the enigmatic coin was not the only item that came from deep levels in Illinois. In 1851, in Whiteside County, another well-drilling bit brought up from a sand stratum 120 feet deep two copper artifacts: What appears to be a hook, and a ring. Their age is thought to be the same as that of the coin - about 150,000 years old.
On February 13,1961, three rock hunters - Mike Mikesell, Wallace Lane and Virginia Maxey - were collecting geodes about 12 miles east-southeast of Olancha, California. Geodes are spherical stones with hollow interiors lined with crystals. On this particular day, while searching in the Coso Mountains, they found one stone located near the top of a peak approximately 4,300 feet in elevation and about 340 feet above the dry bed of Owens Lake.
The rockhounds took it to be a geode, but later found it was not, because it bore traces of fossil shells. The next day when Mikesell cut the stone in half, he nearly ruined a ten-inch diamond saw in the process, for it did not contain crystals, but rather something totally unexpected. Inside were the remains of some form of mechanical device: Beneath the outer layer of hardened clay, pebbles and fossil inclusions is a hexagonal shaped layer of a substance resembling wood, softer than agate or jasper. This layer forms a casing around a three-quarter inch wide cylinder made of solid white porcelain or ceramic, and in the center of the cylinder is a two millimeter shaft of bright, brassy metal. This shaft, the rock hunters discovered, is magnetic, and after several years of exposure never showed traces of oxidation. Also, surrounding the ceramic cylinder are rings of copper, much of them now corroded. Embedded too in the rock, though separate from the cylinder, are two more man-made items - what look like a nail and a washer.
EDITOR' COMMENT: Several readers have stated that this artifact is indeed a spark plug from the 1920's."
~ Author: J.R. Jochmans, Litt.D., 1979
Source: (http://www.pureinsight.org/node/106)
More information on out-of-place objects (OOPARTS):
~http://www.bibleufo.com/articleembedded.htm
~http://www.timstouse.com/EarthHistory/outofplaceartifacts.htm
~http://home.att.net/~creationoutreach/pages/artifacts.htm
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Christian Quotes Collection 1
- "Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than going to the garage makes you a car." ~ Laurence J. Peter
- "Spare the rod and spoil the child - that is true. But, beside the rod, keep an apple to give him when he has done well." ~ Martin Luther
- "The first duty of the gospel preacher is to declare God's law and to show the nature of sin." ~ Martin Luther
- "The only reason some of us are not exiled or thrown into prison is simply because we do not preach as fervently and as sternly as did Paul, John, Peter and others. This modern "santa claus" religion that is sweeping country today is not the religion Jesus taught and John practiced." ~ Oliver B. Greene
- "The scriptures are given not to increase our knowledge, but to change our lives." ~ Dwight L. Moody
- "If the Holy Spirit guides us, He will do it according to the Scriptures and never contrary to them." ~ George Muller
- "Christian tithing is too hard on the poor and too easy for the rich" ~ Bernie Dehler (freegoodnews.com)
Saturday, April 25, 2009
A Little Leaven goes a Long Way
1 Corinthians 5:6 - "Know ye not that a little leaven leaventh the whole lump?"
"Christ is not about religion, but about relationship. Religion is man's attempt to get to God. It's based upon self-effort and performance. It puts the focus on us. Relationship is based upon faith and trust, and relying upon the finished work of Jesus.
A little leaven can go a long way. A little legalism, or a little religion, worked into our lives in Christ can blur our perspective of the perfect relationship we have with God that is based solely upon His love and grace." ~ Joel Brueseke (http://blog.graceroots.org/)
That's all it takes. Just a little bit of legalism and then it spreads; sometimes it sinks into people's minds and lasts for many years. They will actually think that some things they are doing in church or in their lives are scripturally sound but yet, they are not. We should always go to the Word and rightly divide God's truths and view them in the proper light and perspective, regardless of what we have been taught and have practiced as tradition.
Let's put it this way, the Law is religion, grace is truth and tradition are lies. Just because you have been doing something for so many years, doesn't mean that it's right. Check it and double check it by God's Word...for your own peace of mind.
Friday, April 24, 2009
What is the Purpose of the Church?
In the New Testament, the word “church” is used in six ways. One way the church was used was as a legal assembly of craftsmen that gathered together to make decisions as a trade union (Acts 19:23-41). The second way church is used is by referring to the gathering of the Israelites at Mount Sinai where God gave them His Law (Acts 7:38; Heb. 2:12). Furthermore, the same usage is found also in Hebrews 2:12 and Psalm 22:22, where the Israelites gather together at the Temple during the time that King David ruled Israel.
The third usage refers to the regularly scheduled, appropriately convened assembly of Christians (Matt. 18:17; 1 Corinthians 11:17-18; 14:4-5, 18-19, 23, 28, 34-35). In Matthew 18:17 the Christians met to render a decision about sin. In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul deals with a meeting of the “church” to eat the Lord's Supper. Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 14 refers to the gathering of the “church” for open discussion, with edification as the chief goal.
The fourth way that “church” is used is not so much as a meeting of believers but it was used to refer to rather the totality of Christians living at one place (Acts 8:1; Rom. 16:1; 1 Thess. 1:1 and Rev. 2:1, 8, 12, 18). The fifth way “church” is used refers to the assembly of believers that regularly gathered at a Christian’s home. These house churches, when considered as a whole, constituted the one city church in which they were located; though they may never have all met together (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Philemon 2).
The sixth way that “church” is used refers to the universal church of Christ. It is the total of all Christians who have ever lived, in all places and in all ages. A meeting of this universal church will not occur until the second coming of Jesus.
In Matthew 16:18 Jesus said, “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (JKV).”
The English word “church” is actually the Greek word “ekklesia.“ This Greek word is a secular word and it signifies political overtones and suggests decision making. So why did Jesus choose such a politically "loaded" word as “ekklesia,” rather than something like “synagogue” to describe His people and their meetings? Evidently, because Jesus intended for the meetings of Christians to parallel the meetings of the Greek legislators in the sense that believers are to decide things in their meetings and in the sense that any kingdom citizen could speak and propose matters for discussion.
Immediately after this, Jesus referred to the “keys” of the kingdom. Keys represent the ability to open and to close something, "kingdom" is a political term, and binding and loosing involves the authority to make decisions.
In reality, the church is not so much the coming together of God's people, it is what occurs when God's people come together. As professed Christians, we are authorized by the Lord Jesus to make decisions about the correct application of Scripture. We are expected by the Lord to enforce the law of Christ (within the family of God) and to deal with issues as they arise. This is a part of what is to occur in our open, participatory church meetings.
Problems must not be swept under the rug. Questions of correct conduct must be resolved. Of course, there will not be issues on the docket every week (or even most weeks), but God's people must ever bear in mind their obligation to function as an ekklesia when necessary.
This understanding of the full meaning behind ekklesia also has a direct bearing on church government. In its human organization, the church is not supposed to be a pyramid with power concentrated at the top in one or a few men. Decisions are not to be made behind closed doors and then handed down from on high for the church to follow. The church is not supposed to be run as a business. The church is rather like the senate or a congress in the sense that the assembly as a whole is to deliberate upon and decide issues. The church's leaders are to facilitate this process and to serve the church by providing needed teaching and advice, but they are not the church's lords.
In conclusion, allow me to ask, does the typical Christian church of today resemble this picture of what the original church portrays? Why not?
(Some quotes from: elseroad.com)
The third usage refers to the regularly scheduled, appropriately convened assembly of Christians (Matt. 18:17; 1 Corinthians 11:17-18; 14:4-5, 18-19, 23, 28, 34-35). In Matthew 18:17 the Christians met to render a decision about sin. In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul deals with a meeting of the “church” to eat the Lord's Supper. Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 14 refers to the gathering of the “church” for open discussion, with edification as the chief goal.
The fourth way that “church” is used is not so much as a meeting of believers but it was used to refer to rather the totality of Christians living at one place (Acts 8:1; Rom. 16:1; 1 Thess. 1:1 and Rev. 2:1, 8, 12, 18). The fifth way “church” is used refers to the assembly of believers that regularly gathered at a Christian’s home. These house churches, when considered as a whole, constituted the one city church in which they were located; though they may never have all met together (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Philemon 2).
The sixth way that “church” is used refers to the universal church of Christ. It is the total of all Christians who have ever lived, in all places and in all ages. A meeting of this universal church will not occur until the second coming of Jesus.
In Matthew 16:18 Jesus said, “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (JKV).”
The English word “church” is actually the Greek word “ekklesia.“ This Greek word is a secular word and it signifies political overtones and suggests decision making. So why did Jesus choose such a politically "loaded" word as “ekklesia,” rather than something like “synagogue” to describe His people and their meetings? Evidently, because Jesus intended for the meetings of Christians to parallel the meetings of the Greek legislators in the sense that believers are to decide things in their meetings and in the sense that any kingdom citizen could speak and propose matters for discussion.
Immediately after this, Jesus referred to the “keys” of the kingdom. Keys represent the ability to open and to close something, "kingdom" is a political term, and binding and loosing involves the authority to make decisions.
In reality, the church is not so much the coming together of God's people, it is what occurs when God's people come together. As professed Christians, we are authorized by the Lord Jesus to make decisions about the correct application of Scripture. We are expected by the Lord to enforce the law of Christ (within the family of God) and to deal with issues as they arise. This is a part of what is to occur in our open, participatory church meetings.
Problems must not be swept under the rug. Questions of correct conduct must be resolved. Of course, there will not be issues on the docket every week (or even most weeks), but God's people must ever bear in mind their obligation to function as an ekklesia when necessary.
This understanding of the full meaning behind ekklesia also has a direct bearing on church government. In its human organization, the church is not supposed to be a pyramid with power concentrated at the top in one or a few men. Decisions are not to be made behind closed doors and then handed down from on high for the church to follow. The church is not supposed to be run as a business. The church is rather like the senate or a congress in the sense that the assembly as a whole is to deliberate upon and decide issues. The church's leaders are to facilitate this process and to serve the church by providing needed teaching and advice, but they are not the church's lords.
In conclusion, allow me to ask, does the typical Christian church of today resemble this picture of what the original church portrays? Why not?
(Some quotes from: elseroad.com)
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Are you living under the Law of Moses, under the Grace of Jesus Christ or following the Tradition of Men?
If you would like to take the quiz, answer the following questions:
1. Do you…
a. Pay tithes with 10% of your income to your local church every paycheck? Law
b. Give freely if you are able, to a ministry with purpose in mind with any amount of money God lays upon your heart? Grace
c. Tithe my 10% plus over and above my 10% expecting to be blessed a hundred fold? Tradition
d. Refuse to give any amount of money to my church but instead give it to poor people on the street who need it? Grace
2. Do you…
a. Try to obey the Ten Commandments? Law
b. Let love be your reason to be a good person? Grace
c. Obey Jesus’ commandments founded upon love? Grace
d. Try to be good because it’s the right thing to do? Tradition
3. What’s more important?
a. Wearing your Sunday best clothes to church? Law
b. Giving to charity and claiming it on your taxes? Tradition
c. Seeing some poor people and letting them you know that you will pray for them? Law
d. Giving food, clothes or shelter to people who are poor? Grace
4. The Law of Moses is…
a. Good for man to follow. Law
b. Is a burdensome yoke. Grace
c. Applicable to Christians today in some ways. Tradition
5. You are truly free indeed when you…
a. Love God with everything you have and love others. Grace
b. Obey the Ten Commandments. Law
c. Tithe 10% to your local church every payday. Law
d. Do what you want to do and whatever feels good. Tradition
6. You receive the Holy Spirit by…
a. Being a good person. Tradition
b. The grace of God. Grace
c. Obeying the laws in the Mosaic Law. Law
7. People are saved by…
a. Obeying the Ten Commandments. Law
b. Being a good person. Tradition
c. Receiving Christ as Lord and Savior. Grace
8. If you sin after becoming a Christian…
a. You must pray 10 hails Mary’s and give up pork for a month. Tradition
b. Repent and ask God to forgive you of that sin. Law
c. All of my sins, past and present, have been forgiven. Grace
9. If you are a Christian and something goes wrong in your life it must be…
a. Because you didn’t tithe this month. Law
b. Because you have unrepentant sins. Tradition
c. Because God takes a bad situation and makes it beneficial to you. grace
10. The Law of Moses was given…
a. To all men for the benefit of all other nations, tribes and people. Tradition
b. To everyone and is still in effect today in the modern Christian church. law
c. To the Israelites only and does not apply to any other nation, tribes or people. Grace
The Law is religion, grace is truth and tradition are lies.
1. Do you…
a. Pay tithes with 10% of your income to your local church every paycheck? Law
b. Give freely if you are able, to a ministry with purpose in mind with any amount of money God lays upon your heart? Grace
c. Tithe my 10% plus over and above my 10% expecting to be blessed a hundred fold? Tradition
d. Refuse to give any amount of money to my church but instead give it to poor people on the street who need it? Grace
2. Do you…
a. Try to obey the Ten Commandments? Law
b. Let love be your reason to be a good person? Grace
c. Obey Jesus’ commandments founded upon love? Grace
d. Try to be good because it’s the right thing to do? Tradition
3. What’s more important?
a. Wearing your Sunday best clothes to church? Law
b. Giving to charity and claiming it on your taxes? Tradition
c. Seeing some poor people and letting them you know that you will pray for them? Law
d. Giving food, clothes or shelter to people who are poor? Grace
4. The Law of Moses is…
a. Good for man to follow. Law
b. Is a burdensome yoke. Grace
c. Applicable to Christians today in some ways. Tradition
5. You are truly free indeed when you…
a. Love God with everything you have and love others. Grace
b. Obey the Ten Commandments. Law
c. Tithe 10% to your local church every payday. Law
d. Do what you want to do and whatever feels good. Tradition
6. You receive the Holy Spirit by…
a. Being a good person. Tradition
b. The grace of God. Grace
c. Obeying the laws in the Mosaic Law. Law
7. People are saved by…
a. Obeying the Ten Commandments. Law
b. Being a good person. Tradition
c. Receiving Christ as Lord and Savior. Grace
8. If you sin after becoming a Christian…
a. You must pray 10 hails Mary’s and give up pork for a month. Tradition
b. Repent and ask God to forgive you of that sin. Law
c. All of my sins, past and present, have been forgiven. Grace
9. If you are a Christian and something goes wrong in your life it must be…
a. Because you didn’t tithe this month. Law
b. Because you have unrepentant sins. Tradition
c. Because God takes a bad situation and makes it beneficial to you. grace
10. The Law of Moses was given…
a. To all men for the benefit of all other nations, tribes and people. Tradition
b. To everyone and is still in effect today in the modern Christian church. law
c. To the Israelites only and does not apply to any other nation, tribes or people. Grace
The Law is religion, grace is truth and tradition are lies.
The Law of Moses
The Law of Moses (Mosaic Law) was given to Moses and was meant to be obeyed by the Israelites (Lev. 26:46; Ps. 78:5). The Mosaic Law was not given to any other nation (Deut. 4:8; Ps. 147:20). The Law of Moses was a burdensome yoke upon men (Acts 15:10). The Law of Moses was given to the Israelites, not to make them right with God, but to reveal their sin and the righteousness of God (Gal 3:19). The Mosaic Law was intended to be our schoolmaster, to teach us, and lead us to faith in Christ (Gal. 3:24). The Law of Moses was supposed to be only temporary and was to be replaced by a new covenant founded by having faith in Jesus Christ (Jer. 3:16; Dan 9:27; Rom 10:4; Eph 2:15; Heb 10:1, 9; Gal 3:10-12; Gal 5:1).
The Grace of Jesus Christ
The grace of God came through one man, Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:15; Jn. 1:17; 1 Cor. 1:4). The Holy Spirit comes to the believer and fill him with the Spirit of Grace (Heb. 10:29). Grace is given to the humble by God (Js. 4:6). Grace completely justifies the believer in Jesus and is opposed to the works of the Law (Rom. 4:4, 5; 11:6; Gal. 5:4). Just as Jesus is full of grace, Christians are heirs of it (Jn. 1:14; 1 Pet. 3:7). Christians are covered completely under grace. Christians are what they are by grace (1 Cor. 15:10). Christians should abound in the gifts of grace, be established in grace, be strong in grace, grow in grace and speak gracefully (Rom. 6:14; Acts 4:33; Heb. 13:9; 2 Tim. 2:1; 2 Pet. 3:18; Eph. 4:29). Since Christians are in the grace of God, we are no longer under the Mosaic Law. We are not under any obligation to obey the Mosaic Law; that includes tithing, following the Ten Commandments or trying to be good in order to earn favor with God. By the way, Christians were never were under the Law of Moses to begin with, of course unless you are a Jew. Christians are justified because of Christ’ righteousness. It is by having faith in Christ that Christians are counted as righteous and they are blessed with the very same blessing Abraham was given by God.
The Traditions of Men
The traditions of men have absolutely no authority (Matt 15:3-20; 1 Tim. 1:4). Man’s traditions are simply what man commands, they are false and deceitful (Matt. 12:1-8; Col. 2:8; 1 Pet. 1:18). The traditions of the philosophy of men are not sufficient for an adequate knowledge of God (1 Cor. 1:21, 22). The traditions of men and ideas made my men are not enough for salvation through the atonement of Christ (1 Cor 2:6-10). Man’s wisdom, philosophies, philosophical inductions and deductions relating to God and His providence are incorrect (Job 5:8-20; Job 9; 10:2-21; 12:6-24; 33:12-30). Human reasoning and philosophy are not sufficient to guide men rightly (Deut. 12:8; Prov. 3:5; 14:12). Even the truth of the gospel cannot be explained through reasoning with man’s philosophy and traditions (1 Cor. 1:18-28; 2:1-14). Truth is only found in Christ Jesus and found only in His Word, the Holy Bible. You cannot reason your way through a Christian life. Just because your parents went to church, doesn’t mean that you are going to heaven. Even if you have going to church your whole life, that doesn’t mean you are going to heaven. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me (John 14:6).”
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Pleasing Men or God?
Galatians 1:10 “For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ (KJV).”
Versus
Romans 15:2 “Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification. (KJV).”
And…
1 Corinthians 10:33 “Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved (KJV).”
Is there a contradiction?
Obviously, Paul was very concerned with the Galatia church members who were “being fooled by those who twist and change the truth concerning Christ (Gal. 1:7/NLT).” Paul was so serious about this that he said in Galatians 1:8-9, ”Let God’s curse fall on anyone, including myself, who preaches any other message than the one we told you about. Even if an angel comes from heaven and preaches any other message, let him be forever cursed. 9 I will say it again: If anyone preaches any other gospel than the one you welcomed, let God’s curse fall upon that person (NLT).”
Paul’s point is that in order to please men, the gospel would have to be watered down, twisted and manipulated and in order to gain favor with men. In other words, he would have to tell people what they wanted to hear instead of telling people what the hard but loving truth was, just as Jesus did. So, to make his point clear about pleasing men, Paul cursed anyone, including himself, who preached a different gospel other than what the Apostles taught. By this he says in Galatians 1:10, “Obviously, I’m not trying to be a people pleaser! No, I am trying to please God. If I were still trying to please people, I would not be Christ’s servant (NLT).” Paul is addressing the subject of the gospel in Galatians 1:10.
Versus
Romans 15:2 “Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification. (KJV).” Paul is addressing the subject of criticism here. Romans 15:1 (which is the beginning of the chapter) says, “We may know that these things make no difference, but we cannot just go ahead and do them to please ourselves. We must be considerate of the doubts and fears of those who think these things are wrong (NLT).” What are “these things” that Paul is talking about? Well, if you go back to the previous chapter of Romans 14, we would see that Paul is addressing the topic of criticizing others for not believing in the same things you believe in.
An example of this criticism is the letter of Romans 14:15-16, in which Paul says, “ I know and am perfectly sure on the authority of the Lord Jesus that no food, in and of itself, is wrong to eat. But if someone believes it is wrong, then for that person it is wrong. 15 And if another Christian is distressed by what you eat, you are not acting in love if you eat it. Don’t let your eating ruin someone for whom Christ died. 16 Then you will not be condemned for doing something you know is all right (NLT).” Thus, we have here Paul referring to criticism. We should not criticize but have the right attitude in order to win the hearts of your neighbor and build them up in faith in Christ.
Romans 14:18-19 sums it up perfectly, “If you serve Christ with this attitude, you will please God. And other people will approve of you, too. 19 So then, let us aim for harmony in the church and try to build each other up (NLT).”
Moreover, in 1 Corinthians 10:33 the Apostle Paul states, “Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved (KJV).” Is Paul referring to pleasing men by not criticizing them over trivial matters? Yes.
Now, lets look in 1 Corinthians 10:27-33 at the example Paul gives, “ If someone who isn’t a Christian asks you home for dinner, go ahead; accept the invitation if you want to. Eat whatever is offered to you and don’t ask any questions about it. Your conscience should not be bothered by this. 28 But suppose someone warns you that this meat has been offered to an idol. Don’t eat it, out of consideration for the conscience of the one who told you. 29 It might not be a matter of conscience for you, but it is for the other person. Now, why should my freedom be limited by what someone else thinks? 30 If I can thank God for the food and enjoy it, why should I be condemned for eating it? 31 Whatever you eat or drink or whatever you do, you must do all for the glory of God. 32 Don’t give offense to Jews or Gentiles or the church of God. 33 That is the plan I follow, too. I try to please everyone in everything I do. I don’t just do what I like or what is best for me, but what is best for them so they may be saved (NLT).”
What can we conclude here? That Paul only pleases men in the sense of not offending them in trivial matters concerning food or other things that cause them to stumble or lose faith. However, we should not try to please men in the sense of going against what Jesus taught and the truth of the gospel.
There is no contradiction.
Versus
Romans 15:2 “Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification. (KJV).”
And…
1 Corinthians 10:33 “Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved (KJV).”
Is there a contradiction?
Obviously, Paul was very concerned with the Galatia church members who were “being fooled by those who twist and change the truth concerning Christ (Gal. 1:7/NLT).” Paul was so serious about this that he said in Galatians 1:8-9, ”Let God’s curse fall on anyone, including myself, who preaches any other message than the one we told you about. Even if an angel comes from heaven and preaches any other message, let him be forever cursed. 9 I will say it again: If anyone preaches any other gospel than the one you welcomed, let God’s curse fall upon that person (NLT).”
Paul’s point is that in order to please men, the gospel would have to be watered down, twisted and manipulated and in order to gain favor with men. In other words, he would have to tell people what they wanted to hear instead of telling people what the hard but loving truth was, just as Jesus did. So, to make his point clear about pleasing men, Paul cursed anyone, including himself, who preached a different gospel other than what the Apostles taught. By this he says in Galatians 1:10, “Obviously, I’m not trying to be a people pleaser! No, I am trying to please God. If I were still trying to please people, I would not be Christ’s servant (NLT).” Paul is addressing the subject of the gospel in Galatians 1:10.
Versus
Romans 15:2 “Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification. (KJV).” Paul is addressing the subject of criticism here. Romans 15:1 (which is the beginning of the chapter) says, “We may know that these things make no difference, but we cannot just go ahead and do them to please ourselves. We must be considerate of the doubts and fears of those who think these things are wrong (NLT).” What are “these things” that Paul is talking about? Well, if you go back to the previous chapter of Romans 14, we would see that Paul is addressing the topic of criticizing others for not believing in the same things you believe in.
An example of this criticism is the letter of Romans 14:15-16, in which Paul says, “ I know and am perfectly sure on the authority of the Lord Jesus that no food, in and of itself, is wrong to eat. But if someone believes it is wrong, then for that person it is wrong. 15 And if another Christian is distressed by what you eat, you are not acting in love if you eat it. Don’t let your eating ruin someone for whom Christ died. 16 Then you will not be condemned for doing something you know is all right (NLT).” Thus, we have here Paul referring to criticism. We should not criticize but have the right attitude in order to win the hearts of your neighbor and build them up in faith in Christ.
Romans 14:18-19 sums it up perfectly, “If you serve Christ with this attitude, you will please God. And other people will approve of you, too. 19 So then, let us aim for harmony in the church and try to build each other up (NLT).”
Moreover, in 1 Corinthians 10:33 the Apostle Paul states, “Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved (KJV).” Is Paul referring to pleasing men by not criticizing them over trivial matters? Yes.
Now, lets look in 1 Corinthians 10:27-33 at the example Paul gives, “ If someone who isn’t a Christian asks you home for dinner, go ahead; accept the invitation if you want to. Eat whatever is offered to you and don’t ask any questions about it. Your conscience should not be bothered by this. 28 But suppose someone warns you that this meat has been offered to an idol. Don’t eat it, out of consideration for the conscience of the one who told you. 29 It might not be a matter of conscience for you, but it is for the other person. Now, why should my freedom be limited by what someone else thinks? 30 If I can thank God for the food and enjoy it, why should I be condemned for eating it? 31 Whatever you eat or drink or whatever you do, you must do all for the glory of God. 32 Don’t give offense to Jews or Gentiles or the church of God. 33 That is the plan I follow, too. I try to please everyone in everything I do. I don’t just do what I like or what is best for me, but what is best for them so they may be saved (NLT).”
What can we conclude here? That Paul only pleases men in the sense of not offending them in trivial matters concerning food or other things that cause them to stumble or lose faith. However, we should not try to please men in the sense of going against what Jesus taught and the truth of the gospel.
There is no contradiction.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Light or Dark?
It seems that some people are confused about where God lives. Some Atheists, Agnostic or skeptics say that the Bible says that God lives in darkness (1 Kings 8:12; 2 Chronicles 6:1; Psalm 18:11; Isaiah 45:3; Lamentations 3:2; Exodus 20:21; Amos 5:18). Furthermore, those same people will say that God lives in the light (1 Timothy 6:16; 1 John 1:5; 1 Peter 2:9; Psalm 104:1-2 ; John 8:12). Which is it, light or dark? Is there a contradiction here?First, lets look at some obvious verses that we can dismiss right off the bat. Look at Amos 5:18 which says, “Woe unto you that desire the day of the LORD! to what end is it for you? the day of the LORD is darkness, and not light (KJV).” This verse is not saying that God lives or dwells in the darkness, what it says is “the day of the LORD is darkness, and not light.” Again, the “day of the LORD” is darkness, not light.” The “day of the Lord” is an event that will occur in the last days at the return of Christ from heaven (1 Thessalonians 5:2; 2 Peter 3:10). According to Amos, that day would be a period of great darkness for any in rebellion against God, whether Jew or Gentile. That day would be a time of judgment (Isaiah 13:6, 9; Jeremiah 46:10), as well as restoration (Isaiah 14:1; Joel 2:28–32; Zephaniah 1:7, 14–16; 1 Thessalonians 5:2; 2 Peter 3:10).
The second verse we can take off the list is Lamentations 3:2 which states, “He has led me and made me walk in darkness and not in light (KJV).” Obviously, “He” is God and “me” is the author who penned this verse. So, we have God leading and making the author walk in darkness and not in light. Now, in this case, darkness symbolizes blind judgment, rebellion or no knowledge of righteousness and the light symbolizes having knowledge of God, obedience and being in the will of God. This verse says nothing about where God lives or where He dwells.
The next verse we can ignore is Exodus 20:21. In this case, we need the two verses before it to set up our circumstances so we will know what‘s going on. In this situation, Moses had just come down from the mountain where he received the Ten Commandments and was speaking to the people at the foot of the mountain. Exodus 20:18-21 says, “And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off. 19And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die. 20And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not. 21And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was (KJV).”
The Lord dwelt in the cloud upon the mercy-seat (1 Kings 8:12), the cloud of glory. When the psalmist (Psalm 97:2) describes the inscrutable nature of God's workings among the sons of men, he says, "Clouds and darkness are round about him." In this case, God only dwells in thick darkness temporarily, for a time or season in history. In Exodus 20:18 we see that the mountain Moses was just on was “smoking.” Isn’t smoke thick and dark? Are the skeptics suggesting that God lives on top of a mountain and that He lives inside the smoke? I doubt it. My God is much, much bigger than that! It’s not that God lives or dwells on the mountain or inside the thick dark smoke. However, it’s that God chose to appear to Moses on the mountain inside the smoke. God appears to man in many places and in many forms. This verse never says that God lives or has made the thick darkness His home or His throne.
The next verse we can knock off the list is Isaiah 45:3 which says, “And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel (KJV).” The person “thee” in this verse is Cyrus and God is proclaiming blessings upon him. God states what He will do for Cyrus. God says He will “ loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut; 2I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron: 3And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places (Isaiah 45:1-3).”
God is not saying that He lives or dwells in darkness. He is saying to Cyrus that He will give him treasures that are hidden in the darkness and in secret places. These treasures may be hidden in dungeons, caves, tombs and in places that only God knows where they are. God never says that he lives or dwells in the darkness.
The next verse we can remove from this list is Psalm 18:11, which states, “He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies (KJV).” David sang this to the LORD after the LORD had rescued him from his enemies, but especially from Saul. Look at the two verses before it in Psalm 18:9-10, “He opened the heavens and came down; dark storm clouds were beneath his feet. Mounted on a mighty angel, he flew, soaring on the wings of the wind (KJV).” In Other words, through the poetic expressions in the obvious and figurative language of David, he was implicating that darkness was God’s robe or that God enshrouded Himself with darkness which veiled his approach as He was coming down, hiding Him from sight with dense clouds dark as murky waters as God came in to protect him. This verse never suggests nor gives any hint or implies that God lives or dwells in the darkness.
1 Kings 8:12 and 2 Chronicles 6:1 are the same reference which states, “Then spake Solomon, The LORD said that he would dwell in the thick darkness (KJV).” Without understanding the context, anyone reading this verse could assume that Solomon is suggesting that God lives or makes His home in thick darkness. However, the darkness is referring to the darkness of the Holy of Holies. The darkness of the Holy of Holies was symbolical of the dwelling place of Jehovah. The word “dwell” in this sense simply means that God chose to reside in the cloud temporarily or in the form of a cloud.
1 Kings 8:6-7,10 says, “Then the priests brought in the ark of the covenant of the LORD to its place, into the inner sanctuary of the temple, to the Most Holy Place, under the wings of the cherubim. 7For the cherubim spread their two wings over the place of the ark, and the cherubim overshadowed the ark and its poles.” 10“And it came to pass, when the priests came out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the house of the LORD, 11so that the priests could not continue ministering because of the cloud; for the glory of the LORD filled the house of the LORD (NKJV).” God appears in the cloud above the mercy seat which is above the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark is located inside the Temple in the room called the Holy of Holies (Leviticus 16:2). The cloud is not the home of God but the form in which God chose to appear. God does not live or dwell in thick darkness but temporarily chose to appear before the Priests and to Moses in a thick cloud of smoke.
The Bible says that God’s home or dwelling place is in heaven (Deuteronomy 26:15; 1Kings 8:30,39,43,49; 1Kings 8:30,39,43,49; 1Chronicles 16:31; 1Chronicles 21:26; 2Chronicles 2:6; 2Chronicles 6:18,21,27,30,33,35,39; 2Chronicles 30:27; Nehemiah 9:27; Job 22:12,14; Psalms 2:4; Psalms 11:4; Psalms 20:6; Psalms 33:13; Psalms 102:19; Psalms 103:19; Psalms 113:5; Psalms 123:1; Psalms 135:6; Ecclesiastes 5:2; Isaiah 57:15; Isaiah 63:15; Isaiah 66:1; Jeremiah 23:24; Lamentations 3:41,50; Daniel 4:35; Daniel 5:23; Zechariah 2:13; Matthew 5:34,45; Matthew 10:32,33; Matthew 11:25; Matthew 12:50; Matthew 16:17; Matthew 18:10,14; Mark 11:25,26; Mark 16:19; Acts 7:49; Romans 1:18; Hebrews 8:1; Revelation 8:1; Revelation 12:7-9; Revelation 21:22-27; 22:1-5).
1 Timothy 6:16 says that God is the “Father of Lights.“ 1 John 1:5 says that “God is light.” 1 Peter 2:9 says that Christians were chosen by God and have “called you out of darkness into His marvelous light (NKJV).” This simply means that God has brought them out of spiritual blindness into the realty of spiritual truth.
Psalm 104:1-2 says, “Bless the LORD, O my soul! O LORD my God, You are very great: You are clothed with honor and majesty, Who cover Yourself with light as with a garment, Who stretch out the heavens like a curtain (NKJV).” Obviously, if God is light (1John 1:5) then he would be the Father of lights (1 Timothy 6:16) then naturally God would be clothed in light.
In John 8:12 Jesus says, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life (NKJV).” Again, the phrase “walk in darkness” refers to spiritual blindness and the “light of life” refers to the figurative spiritual truth and light that everyone will see inside a Christian since God has placed His Holy Spirit inside every believer.
When Jesus says He is “the light of the world,” He is referring metaphorically of truth and its knowledge, together with the spiritual purity associated with it. Also, He is the Passover lamb, the Lamb of God, that was to exposed and inspected to the view of all, openly, publicly. Furthermore, the “light of the world” suggests that Jesus is the power of understanding especially moral and spiritual truth.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Do the four Gospels agree on the Resurrection?
Some atheists say that there are inconsistancies and contradictions in the resurrection story. I believe they are in error.
The four gospel versions of the same story are NOT in conflict with each other. Haven't you atheists ever heard of a contradiction? What is a contradiction?
A contradiction is and "opposing statement that opposes or disagrees with somebody or something."
The four gospel versions of the same story are NOT in conflict with each other. Haven't you atheists ever heard of a contradiction? What is a contradiction?
A contradiction is and "opposing statement that opposes or disagrees with somebody or something."
First, let me illustrate what a contradiction is NOT:
i.e.
1. The flying spaghetti monster has a red eye.
2. The flying spaghetti monster has two eyes.
3. The flying spaghetti monster has green eyes.
Are these three statements in contradiction or are they inconsistent with each other?
No, they are not. Why? Because the flying spaghetti monster has at least two eyes, they are red and green. As a matter of fact, just because I said that he has two eyes does not limit the amount of eyes; he may have 1000 eyes. The monsters eyeballs (where our whites are) are red and green is where the pupil is. It is true that the monster has a red eye, but was it a contradiction NOT to mention the other red eyeball? No, it’s not a contradiction at all, even if there where 100 eyes.
"Where's the earthquake? Where's the angel rolling back the stone? Did they just miss it? Was he an angel or a boy?"
Just b/c Mark doesn’t mention the earthquake doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. Mark just decided not to mention it or place any importance on it. Just b/c Mark doesn’t mention the angel rolling back the stone, doesn’t mean that it hadn't happened already? That angel was just sitting upon the stone. But, the angel worth mentioning to Mark, was inside the tomb. Just b/c Mark failed to mention the first angel inside the tomb doesn’t mean that the second angel wasn't present.
Just b/c Mark mentions one angel doesn’t mean that there wasn't another angel present. Luke mentions two angels. Just b/c Luke mentions 2 angels doesn't mean that Mark is committed to mention them both, does it? No, each writer told the story from their own sources and their own perspectives; it doesn't mean they are all wrong or different. And, so on and so forth. I believe you get the point.
This is an illustration of a true contradiction:
i.e.
1. An angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone, and sat upon it
2. A white dove ascended from a dark cloud and came and blew up the wall, and sat upon a tree.
Nothing matches at all and everything is in opposition to each other. Where it was a “Angel of the Lord” in the first sentence, the second says it was a “white dove.” You see? It’s a complete contradiction. It is an "opposing statement that opposes or disagrees with somebody or something!"
If you combine all the elements of all four versions together, you will get most detailed story that we may know of. I can guarantee you; you will NOT find any clear contradictions in any of the versions.
The story are a combination of Matthew 28:1-10, Mark 16:1-8, Luke 24:1-11 and John 20:1-18
~ Resurrection Story Combined with all Four Gospels ~
"Now after the Sabbath, toward early dawn of the first day of the week, when the Sabbath was past and while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary the mother of James, and Salome, brought spices which they had prepared, went to see the sepulcher so that they might go and anoint him. And they were saying to one another "Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?" And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone, and sat upon it. His appearance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow. And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men. When the sun had risen, and looking up, they saw that the stone was rolled back; for it was very large.
And entering the tomb, they did not find the body. While they were perplexed and amazed by this, behold, two men stood by them, one on the left and one on the right of the women, wearing white dazzling robes. And, the women were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground. One of the angels, who appeared as a young man was on the right side, and the angel said to the women, "Why do you seek the living among the dead? Do not be afraid; for I know that you seek Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise? He is not here; for he has risen. Come; see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. Lo, I have told you."
i.e.
1. The flying spaghetti monster has a red eye.
2. The flying spaghetti monster has two eyes.
3. The flying spaghetti monster has green eyes.
Are these three statements in contradiction or are they inconsistent with each other?
No, they are not. Why? Because the flying spaghetti monster has at least two eyes, they are red and green. As a matter of fact, just because I said that he has two eyes does not limit the amount of eyes; he may have 1000 eyes. The monsters eyeballs (where our whites are) are red and green is where the pupil is. It is true that the monster has a red eye, but was it a contradiction NOT to mention the other red eyeball? No, it’s not a contradiction at all, even if there where 100 eyes.
"Where's the earthquake? Where's the angel rolling back the stone? Did they just miss it? Was he an angel or a boy?"
Just b/c Mark doesn’t mention the earthquake doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. Mark just decided not to mention it or place any importance on it. Just b/c Mark doesn’t mention the angel rolling back the stone, doesn’t mean that it hadn't happened already? That angel was just sitting upon the stone. But, the angel worth mentioning to Mark, was inside the tomb. Just b/c Mark failed to mention the first angel inside the tomb doesn’t mean that the second angel wasn't present.
Just b/c Mark mentions one angel doesn’t mean that there wasn't another angel present. Luke mentions two angels. Just b/c Luke mentions 2 angels doesn't mean that Mark is committed to mention them both, does it? No, each writer told the story from their own sources and their own perspectives; it doesn't mean they are all wrong or different. And, so on and so forth. I believe you get the point.
This is an illustration of a true contradiction:
i.e.
1. An angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone, and sat upon it
2. A white dove ascended from a dark cloud and came and blew up the wall, and sat upon a tree.
Nothing matches at all and everything is in opposition to each other. Where it was a “Angel of the Lord” in the first sentence, the second says it was a “white dove.” You see? It’s a complete contradiction. It is an "opposing statement that opposes or disagrees with somebody or something!"
If you combine all the elements of all four versions together, you will get most detailed story that we may know of. I can guarantee you; you will NOT find any clear contradictions in any of the versions.
The story are a combination of Matthew 28:1-10, Mark 16:1-8, Luke 24:1-11 and John 20:1-18
~ Resurrection Story Combined with all Four Gospels ~
"Now after the Sabbath, toward early dawn of the first day of the week, when the Sabbath was past and while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary the mother of James, and Salome, brought spices which they had prepared, went to see the sepulcher so that they might go and anoint him. And they were saying to one another "Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?" And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone, and sat upon it. His appearance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow. And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men. When the sun had risen, and looking up, they saw that the stone was rolled back; for it was very large.
And entering the tomb, they did not find the body. While they were perplexed and amazed by this, behold, two men stood by them, one on the left and one on the right of the women, wearing white dazzling robes. And, the women were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground. One of the angels, who appeared as a young man was on the right side, and the angel said to the women, "Why do you seek the living among the dead? Do not be afraid; for I know that you seek Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise? He is not here; for he has risen. Come; see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. Lo, I have told you."
So they departed quickly from the tomb with trembling fear and great and astonishing joy, and ran to tell the disciples; for they were afraid. And they remembered the words of the angel, and returning from the tomb they told all this to the eleven and to all the rest.
Now, it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James, Salome and the other women with them who told this to the apostles. Mary Magdalene went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him." But, these words seemed to them as idle tale, and they did not believe them." Peter then came out with the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb. They both ran, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first; and stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter cane, following him, and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths lying, and the napkin, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; for as yet they did not know the scripture, that he must raise from the dead.
But Mary stood outside by the tomb weeping, and as she wept she stooped down and looked into the tomb. And she saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. Then they said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid Him.” Now when she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, and did not know that it was Jesus.
Now, it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James, Salome and the other women with them who told this to the apostles. Mary Magdalene went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him." But, these words seemed to them as idle tale, and they did not believe them." Peter then came out with the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb. They both ran, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first; and stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter cane, following him, and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths lying, and the napkin, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; for as yet they did not know the scripture, that he must raise from the dead.
But Mary stood outside by the tomb weeping, and as she wept she stooped down and looked into the tomb. And she saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. Then they said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid Him.” Now when she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, and did not know that it was Jesus.
Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?” She, supposing Him to be the gardener, said to Him, “Sir, if you have carried Him away, tell me where you have laid Him, and I will take Him away.” Jesus said to her, “Hail Mary; do not be afraid!” She turned and said to Him, “Rabboni!” (Which is to say, Teacher) And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him. Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God. Go and tell my brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see me." Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that He had spoken these things to her."
Marks summarizes the whole event from the beginning to the part where the disciples are told about what happened in just three verses. “Now when He rose early on the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven demons. She went and told those who had been with Him, as they mourned and wept. And when they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they did not believe.” ~ Mark 16:9-11
Just because Mark summarizes the event does not mean that the details aren’t included, does it? No, to summarize the event does not mean that the details of the event did not occur, does it? No.
I suggest atheists actually find a contradiction next time.
Marks summarizes the whole event from the beginning to the part where the disciples are told about what happened in just three verses. “Now when He rose early on the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven demons. She went and told those who had been with Him, as they mourned and wept. And when they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they did not believe.” ~ Mark 16:9-11
Just because Mark summarizes the event does not mean that the details aren’t included, does it? No, to summarize the event does not mean that the details of the event did not occur, does it? No.
I suggest atheists actually find a contradiction next time.
______________________________________
(This blog is in response to: http://scienceavenger.blogspot.com/2008/03/biblical-easter-story-versions-i.html)
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
The Sword of Christ
Is it true that even many of the staunchest defenders of Jesus admit that His comment in Matthew 10:34 "I came not to send peace but a sword"contradicts Matthew 26:52 "Put up again thy sword into his place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword?”
Is there a contradiction?
Well, maybe some Christians might but its possible they haven’t looked into what Jesus meant by the “sword.” It makes you wonder if Atheists have ever heard of a metaphor?
Jesus uses figurative language in Matthew 10:34, which means that it involves figures of speech or symbolism and does or does not literally represent real things. Besides the other significant reasons why Jesus came to earth, Jesus is speaking of the sword as to say that He came to bring trouble (Luke 12.51-53; 14.26, 27).
There are no verses in the entire Bible that mention that Jesus actually carried or handled a real, physical sword. Do people physically “tackle” problems to solve them? Sure, mentally but not literally! Do teenage boys really “crush” on teenage girls? Sure, emotionally but not physically! If a teenage boy were to literally crush a teenage girl, it would be a horrible mess!
Why did Jesus say this and what does He mean? Well, the very next verse explains it. Matthew 10:35-36 “I came to turn sons against their fathers, daughters against their mothers, and daughters-in-law against their mothers-in-law. 36 Your worst enemies will be in your own family (CEV).”Ah! So that’s what He means! Why would Jesus want to make enemies within people’s families? Jesus wouldn’t intentionally want family members to be enemies but when people come to Christ and get saved, other people notice, especially close family members. As a result, some people resist God and His people. Thus, sons will turn against fathers and mothers against daughters and so on. You can’t be on both sides and you can’t serve two masters. You either hate one or love the other.
Matthew 26:51-52 “One of the men with Jesus pulled out a sword and slashed off an ear of the high priest’s servant. 52 “Put away your sword,” Jesus told him. “Those who use the sword will be killed by the sword (NLT).” Isn’t this obvious? There is actually a physical and literal sword at this event that was recorded in Matthew 26:51-52. In one case we have Jesus using the sword as a metaphor (Matthew 10:34) and the other case, He tells one of His disciples to put away the sword that he used to cut off a servants ear!
There is no contradiction.
Well, maybe some Christians might but its possible they haven’t looked into what Jesus meant by the “sword.” It makes you wonder if Atheists have ever heard of a metaphor?
Jesus uses figurative language in Matthew 10:34, which means that it involves figures of speech or symbolism and does or does not literally represent real things. Besides the other significant reasons why Jesus came to earth, Jesus is speaking of the sword as to say that He came to bring trouble (Luke 12.51-53; 14.26, 27).
There are no verses in the entire Bible that mention that Jesus actually carried or handled a real, physical sword. Do people physically “tackle” problems to solve them? Sure, mentally but not literally! Do teenage boys really “crush” on teenage girls? Sure, emotionally but not physically! If a teenage boy were to literally crush a teenage girl, it would be a horrible mess!
Why did Jesus say this and what does He mean? Well, the very next verse explains it. Matthew 10:35-36 “I came to turn sons against their fathers, daughters against their mothers, and daughters-in-law against their mothers-in-law. 36 Your worst enemies will be in your own family (CEV).”Ah! So that’s what He means! Why would Jesus want to make enemies within people’s families? Jesus wouldn’t intentionally want family members to be enemies but when people come to Christ and get saved, other people notice, especially close family members. As a result, some people resist God and His people. Thus, sons will turn against fathers and mothers against daughters and so on. You can’t be on both sides and you can’t serve two masters. You either hate one or love the other.
Matthew 26:51-52 “One of the men with Jesus pulled out a sword and slashed off an ear of the high priest’s servant. 52 “Put away your sword,” Jesus told him. “Those who use the sword will be killed by the sword (NLT).” Isn’t this obvious? There is actually a physical and literal sword at this event that was recorded in Matthew 26:51-52. In one case we have Jesus using the sword as a metaphor (Matthew 10:34) and the other case, He tells one of His disciples to put away the sword that he used to cut off a servants ear!
There is no contradiction.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
When did the Luke 2 Census Occur? and Mark!
Contradiction Solved!
No one is lying, your just uninformed, King Heathen. Caesar Augustus was Emperor of Rome in 4 B.C. (Luke 2:1) Cyrenius was procurator of Syria once & governor once, Luke 2:1 was the 1st office and the second office of governorship was in 6 A.D. - he served two terms (Lk. 2:2; Lapis Tiburtinus - CIL, 14. 3613; Apology 1:34). Joseph & Mary go to Bethlehem in 4 B.C.
Notice Luke 2:2 says that this was the “first” census; implying that there was second. Herod dies in 4 B.C. Thus, the “second” census was done in 6 A.D. (Josephus, Antiquities XVIII, 26 [ii.1]).
This “second” census was the official tax census mentioned by Josephus. "Taxed" in Luke 2:1 is a mistranslation; it should be “registered” not “taxed.“ How? The word “taxed” in Scripture is “apographo,” which in Greek means “to be written” as in a registration (i.e. Hebrews 12:23, written). Joseph & Mary were simply going to Bethlehem for a "registration" census. After all, Rome was getting ready to officially take control over Judea in 6 A.D. It is true that Judea did not “technically” become a Roman province until 6 AD, but Judea was under Roman control from circa 48 B.C. with Pompey.
Luke does not say that Mary & Joseph went “straight” back to Nazareth. Actually, it says that after they had done what was “according to the Law of the Lord,” they "returned into Galilee." Luke was simply summarizing just like he did with the very next verse in Luke 2:40 which says, "And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him (KJV)." Just because Luke doesn't mention the flight to Egypt, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Mark was the nephew of Barnabas:
- Colossians 4:10 "Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him;) (KJV)"
Mark was a disciple of Jesus:
- Acts 12:12,25 - "And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying (KJV)."
- Acts 13:5,13 - "And when they were at Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John to their minister (KJV)."
Paul and Barnabas contend concerning mark:
- Acts 15:36-39: "And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the LORD, and see how they do (KJV)."
Mark was a convert of Peter:
- 1Peter 5:13 - "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son."
Mark was a fellow-worker with Paul at Rome:
- Colossians 4:10,11: "Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him;) (KJV)"
- 2Timothy 4:11 - "Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry (KJV)."
- Philemon 1:24 - "Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, my fellowlabourers."
Mark is "one of the evangelists," and "author of the Gospel bearing his name. (Marcus was his Latin surname. His Jewish name was John, which is the same as Johanan (the grace of God). We can almost trace the steps whereby the former became his prevalent name in the Church. "John, whose surname was Mark," in Acts 12:12, 25; 15:37, becomes "John" alone in Acts 13:5, 13, "Mark" in Acts 15:39, and thenceforward there is no change. Col. 4:10; Phm. 24; 2 Tim. 4:11. The evangelist was the son of a certain Mary, a Jewish matron of some position who dwelt at Jerusalem, Acts 12:12, and was probably born of a Hellenistic family in that city. Of his father we know nothing; but we do know that the future evangelist was cousin of Barnabas of Cyprus, the great friend of St. Paul. His mother would seem to have been intimately acquainted with St. Peter, and it was to her house, as to a familiar home, that the apostle repaired, a.d. 44, after his deliverance from prison. Acts 12:12.
This fact accounts for St. Mark’s intimate acquaintance with that apostle, to whom also he probably owed his conversion, for St. Peter calls him his son. 1 Pet. 5:13. We hear of him for the first time in Acts 15:25, where we find him accompanying Paul and Barnabas on their return from Jerusalem to Antioch, a.d. 45. He next comes before us on the occasion of the earliest missionary journey of the same apostles, a.d. 48, when he joined them as their "minister." Acts 13:5. With them he visited Cyprus; but at Perga in Pamphylia, Acts 13:13, when they were about to enter upon the more arduous part of their mission, he left them, and, for some unexplained reason, returned to Jerusalem to his mother and his home.
Notwithstanding this, we find him at Paul’s side during that apostle’s first imprisonment at Rome, a.d. 61–63, and he is acknowledged by him as one of his few fellow laborers who had been a "comfort" to him during the weary hours of his imprisonment. Col. 4:10, 11; Phm. 24. We next have traces of him in 1 Pet. 5:13: "The church that is in Babylon . . . saluteth you, and so doth Marcus my son." From this we infer that he joined his spiritual father, the great friend of his mother, at Babylon, then and for some hundred years afterward one of the chief seats of Jewish culture.
From Babylon he would seem to have returned to Asia Minor; for during his second imprisonment, a.d. 68, St. Paul, writing to Timothy, charges him to bring Mark with him to Rome, on the ground that he was "profitable to him for the ministry." 2 Tim. 4:11. From this point we gain no further information from the New Testament respecting the evangelist. It is most probable, however, that he did join the apostle at Rome, whither also St. Peter would seem to have proceeded, and suffered martyrdom along with St. Paul. After the death of these two great pillars of the Church, ecclesiastical tradition affirms that St. Mark visited Egypt, founded the church of Alexandria, and died by martyrdom.—Condensed from Cambridge Bible for Schools.—Ed.)" ~ (Smiths Bible Dictionary)
Somehow, this heathen thinks that he has some sort of "proof" of a contradiction in the bible. As I have tried to educate atheists and heathens alike, a contradiction is NOT what this is. A contradiction is an "opposing statement." An opposing statement is a statement that is in opposition to each other.
Examples of two "non-opposing" statement:
- The flying spaghetti monster has red eyes.
- The flying spaghetti monster has green eyes.
Why is this a "non-opposing statement?" Because the flying spaghetti monster may have both colors in his eyes. His eyes may have red, where our whites are, and green in the pupil area (the center). If he had eyes on his tenticles or used "feelers" to judge his surroundings, as in using them as a form of vision, then he would still have eyes. This is NOT a contradiction nor is it a non-opposing statement.
Examples of two "opposing" statements:
- The flying spaghetti monster has red eyes
- The flying spaghetti monster has no eyes.
This is a clear and concise contradiction. One statement says that the flying spaghetti monster "has eyes" (regardless of the color or colors) and the other statement says that the flying spaghetti monster has "no eyes." He either has eyes or he doesn't. If he had eyes on his tenticles, he would still have a form of vision. So, by this example, we see that this is what an actual contradiction is.
For more information on this topic, you can go to:
Monday, April 13, 2009
My Identity in Christ & Giving
It's not that we shouldn't give; we should. But, I believe we should give out of love and from the freedom of knowing Christ. It's in our nature to give if Christ is in us and we want to give; but not because we have to. A close friend once told me that if I didn't tithe, that my finances would be cursed! When she told me that, I was flabbergasted. I was shocked and felt judged and condemned. For some reason, that did not sit right with me and my spiritual discernment radar was sounding the alarm! So, I thought about and prayed about it and came up with this.
As a Bible believing Christian who takes God’s Word literally for what it says and for what it means, I understand it to be exact and without error. In other words, God says what he means and mean what he says; God cannot tell a lie.
God’s Word clearly states that:
With this in mind, how can I keep from hearing the errors of my Christian brethren, of an Old Testament accusation directed towards Israel (“ye sons of Jacob, “Mal. 3:6) under the Mosaic Law which states, “Will a man rob God? Yet you have robbed Me! But you say, ‘In what way have we robbed You?’ In tithes and offerings. You are cursed with a curse, For you have robbed Me, Even this whole nation. Bring all the tithes into the storehouse, That there may be food in My house, And try Me now in this,” Says the Lord of hosts, “If I will not open for you the windows of heaven And pour out for you such blessing That there will not be room enough to receive it (Malachi 3:8-10, NKJV).”
This rebuke in Malachi was not for Christians; he was rebuking the Levite priests who were robbing God by not obeying the Law. The bible says that if we try to obey the Law in order to gain favor with God, we are under its curse. Why would I want to bring a curse upon myself by obeying any part of the Mosaic Law?
I have heard from my own spiritual family members in whom I love that because I chose not to tithe a tenth of my earned income, that I am robbing God! Here is my concern and the root of this little essay about my identity in Christ Jesus.
Since I am a Christian, the Scriptures declare that I have been adopted as a son of the Creator of heaven and earth and I have been grafted and established into the family of God; I am a child of God. Therefore, if I am a child of God and He is my heavenly Father and I am an heir of God through Christ, how then can I be accused of robbing God of anything that is promised to be mine already?
You may ask, “By what motivation does this message come from me?” And, “By what authority do I have in order to reprove such a large audience of hearers and believers?” This Scripture of Malachi 3:8-10 has been used to figuratively "beat people over the head" in order to get them to give money to the churches. By threatening their church members of the curses of God does not encourage people to give from a cheerful heart.
By the way, according to the Law, tithing was only done by people who owned cattle or crops; the tithe was never money. It was to be brought to the storehouse and eaten there at the storehouse in front of the priests (Deut. 12:18,27). The leftovers were stored away in the storehouse for the staple of the Levite priests. Furthermore, people who had occupations such as masons, toolmakers, carpenters, fishermen and such that worked with their hands were not obligated to tithe (that means that Jesus or any of his disciples never tithed). Also, the poor were not obligated to tithe if they owned less than 10 cattle or if their crops were on the decrease for that season.
Concerning the modern church's traditional teaching of the tithe, I once heard a great quote which said, "Tithing doesn't work; it's too hard on the poor and too easy for the rich."
I can tell you honestly that it is my love for the church, the body of Christ, that I desire a necessity to reprove of her. How would you know that the reproof is from God and not from my flesh? The answer is that if the reproof is for correction, then you know it’s from God (Psalm 39:11). In other words, this message is sent to you not as punishment or accusations but instead to correct (to remove and indicate errors), encourage and modify. This message is from God and His Word declares it.
The answer is that I have not robbed God. How can anyone who is in God’s family suggest such a thing? For His Word asserts that, all that is His, is now mine also. Am I robbing from myself? In fact, the answer is, “No.” The contemporary church has been corrupted for a very long time. And, the traditions of men with no biblical basis have perpetuated this curse in this age of grace and generous giving that should come from a freedom in the heart of our souls. The doctrine of tithing has been abused, manipulated and used for capital gain by pastors who buy new homes, new cars and go on extravagant vacations when there are people hurting and going hungry in their own churches. There is absolutely no basis in the New Testament that we are obligated to continue the practice of tithing in the Mosaic Law.
Proverbs 17:11 “A single rebuke does more for a person of understanding than a hundred lashes on the back of a fool (NLT).”
Honestly, I haven't seriously tithed on a steady basis for at least 3 years and we've had our ups and downs, in which I believe are totally unrelated. However, we have given to missionaries, poor beggers on the streets and to charities as the Lord has blessed us; with a purposeful heart and cheerful heart and we have been wonderfully blessed in return. My wife and I actually have been able to save enough money to put into an savings account for the first time in 15 years of marriage. We just had someone buy us a brand spanking new engine for our van. They spent over $7000 on us without asking for anything in return. We were so thankful and grateful for God's blessings! I just got a new job offer to be the main cook at Woody's BBQ in San Marcos, TX making $2 more than any other person there. All my children are healthy and doing very well in school and my wife has a wonderful position at her seasonal place of employment. For years, I have prayed for a job where my boss was a Christian and I was home everyday! It was most definitely a God thing!
God is moving in our lives, not because we tithe, but because we have been given a promise. This promise is confirmed in Galatians 3:9 which says, "All who put their faith in Christ share the same blessing Abraham received because of his faith (NLT)." We are blessed because we have faith in Christ Jesus, not by tithing.
“Grace will never cause you to do any less than legalism will.” ~ Steve McVey
(Some qualities borrowed from: http://www.goodmorningbible.com/about71.html)
"The more you reaffirm who you are in Christ, the more your behavior will begin to reflect your true identity!" ~ (From Victory Over the Darkness, by Dr. Neil Anderson)What does the bible say about me? In what way does God’s Word describe me? Who am I? What is my identity in Christ Jesus?
As a Bible believing Christian who takes God’s Word literally for what it says and for what it means, I understand it to be exact and without error. In other words, God says what he means and mean what he says; God cannot tell a lie.
God’s Word clearly states that:
- I am God's child. (John 1:12)
- As a disciple, I am a friend of Jesus Christ. (John 15:15)
- I have been justified. (Romans 5:1)
- I am united with the Lord, and I am one with Him in spirit. (1 Corinthians 6:17)
- I have been bought with a price and I belong to God. (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)
- I am a member of Christ's body. (1 Corinthians 12:27)
- I have been chosen by God and adopted as His child. (Ephesians 1:3-8)
- I have been redeemed and forgiven of all my sins. (Colossians 1:13-14)
- I am complete in Christ. (Colossians 2:9-10)
- I have direct access to the throne of grace through Jesus Christ. (Hebrews 4:14-16)
- I am free from condemnation. (Romans 8:1-2)
- I am assured that God works for my good in all circumstances. (Romans 8:28)
- I am free from any condemnation brought against me and I cannot be separated from the love of God. (Romans 8:31-39)
- I have the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16)
- I have been established, anointed and sealed by God. (2 Corinthians 1:21-22)
- I am hidden with Christ in God. (Colossians 3:1-4)
- I am confident that God will complete the good work He started in me. (Philippians 1:6)
- I am a citizen of heaven. (Philippians 3:20)
- I have not been given a spirit of fear but of power, love and a sound mind. (2 Timothy 1:7)
- I am born of God and the evil one cannot touch me. (1 John 5:18)
- I am a branch of Jesus Christ, the true vine, and a channel of His life. (John 15:5)
- I have been chosen and appointed to bear fruit. (John 15:16)
- I am God's temple. (1 Corinthians 3:16)
- I am a minister of reconciliation for God. (2 Corinthians 5:17-21)
- I belong to Christ and am a true child of Abraham (Galatians 3:29).
- I am an heir of Abraham and all the promises God gave to him, belong to me (Galatians 3:29).
- I am a son of God (Galatians 4:6)
- I am an heir of God through Christ (Galatians 4:7)
- I am seated with Jesus Christ in the heavenly realm. (Ephesians 2:6)
- I am God's workmanship. (Ephesians 2:10)
- I may approach God with freedom and confidence. (Ephesians 3:12)
- I can do all things through Christ, who strengthens me. (Philippians 4:13)
With this in mind, how can I keep from hearing the errors of my Christian brethren, of an Old Testament accusation directed towards Israel (“ye sons of Jacob, “Mal. 3:6) under the Mosaic Law which states, “Will a man rob God? Yet you have robbed Me! But you say, ‘In what way have we robbed You?’ In tithes and offerings. You are cursed with a curse, For you have robbed Me, Even this whole nation. Bring all the tithes into the storehouse, That there may be food in My house, And try Me now in this,” Says the Lord of hosts, “If I will not open for you the windows of heaven And pour out for you such blessing That there will not be room enough to receive it (Malachi 3:8-10, NKJV).”
This rebuke in Malachi was not for Christians; he was rebuking the Levite priests who were robbing God by not obeying the Law. The bible says that if we try to obey the Law in order to gain favor with God, we are under its curse. Why would I want to bring a curse upon myself by obeying any part of the Mosaic Law?
I have heard from my own spiritual family members in whom I love that because I chose not to tithe a tenth of my earned income, that I am robbing God! Here is my concern and the root of this little essay about my identity in Christ Jesus.
Since I am a Christian, the Scriptures declare that I have been adopted as a son of the Creator of heaven and earth and I have been grafted and established into the family of God; I am a child of God. Therefore, if I am a child of God and He is my heavenly Father and I am an heir of God through Christ, how then can I be accused of robbing God of anything that is promised to be mine already?
You may ask, “By what motivation does this message come from me?” And, “By what authority do I have in order to reprove such a large audience of hearers and believers?” This Scripture of Malachi 3:8-10 has been used to figuratively "beat people over the head" in order to get them to give money to the churches. By threatening their church members of the curses of God does not encourage people to give from a cheerful heart.
By the way, according to the Law, tithing was only done by people who owned cattle or crops; the tithe was never money. It was to be brought to the storehouse and eaten there at the storehouse in front of the priests (Deut. 12:18,27). The leftovers were stored away in the storehouse for the staple of the Levite priests. Furthermore, people who had occupations such as masons, toolmakers, carpenters, fishermen and such that worked with their hands were not obligated to tithe (that means that Jesus or any of his disciples never tithed). Also, the poor were not obligated to tithe if they owned less than 10 cattle or if their crops were on the decrease for that season.
Concerning the modern church's traditional teaching of the tithe, I once heard a great quote which said, "Tithing doesn't work; it's too hard on the poor and too easy for the rich."
I can tell you honestly that it is my love for the church, the body of Christ, that I desire a necessity to reprove of her. How would you know that the reproof is from God and not from my flesh? The answer is that if the reproof is for correction, then you know it’s from God (Psalm 39:11). In other words, this message is sent to you not as punishment or accusations but instead to correct (to remove and indicate errors), encourage and modify. This message is from God and His Word declares it.
The answer is that I have not robbed God. How can anyone who is in God’s family suggest such a thing? For His Word asserts that, all that is His, is now mine also. Am I robbing from myself? In fact, the answer is, “No.” The contemporary church has been corrupted for a very long time. And, the traditions of men with no biblical basis have perpetuated this curse in this age of grace and generous giving that should come from a freedom in the heart of our souls. The doctrine of tithing has been abused, manipulated and used for capital gain by pastors who buy new homes, new cars and go on extravagant vacations when there are people hurting and going hungry in their own churches. There is absolutely no basis in the New Testament that we are obligated to continue the practice of tithing in the Mosaic Law.
Proverbs 17:11 “A single rebuke does more for a person of understanding than a hundred lashes on the back of a fool (NLT).”
Honestly, I haven't seriously tithed on a steady basis for at least 3 years and we've had our ups and downs, in which I believe are totally unrelated. However, we have given to missionaries, poor beggers on the streets and to charities as the Lord has blessed us; with a purposeful heart and cheerful heart and we have been wonderfully blessed in return. My wife and I actually have been able to save enough money to put into an savings account for the first time in 15 years of marriage. We just had someone buy us a brand spanking new engine for our van. They spent over $7000 on us without asking for anything in return. We were so thankful and grateful for God's blessings! I just got a new job offer to be the main cook at Woody's BBQ in San Marcos, TX making $2 more than any other person there. All my children are healthy and doing very well in school and my wife has a wonderful position at her seasonal place of employment. For years, I have prayed for a job where my boss was a Christian and I was home everyday! It was most definitely a God thing!
God is moving in our lives, not because we tithe, but because we have been given a promise. This promise is confirmed in Galatians 3:9 which says, "All who put their faith in Christ share the same blessing Abraham received because of his faith (NLT)." We are blessed because we have faith in Christ Jesus, not by tithing.
“Grace will never cause you to do any less than legalism will.” ~ Steve McVey
(Some qualities borrowed from: http://www.goodmorningbible.com/about71.html)
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Who Wrote the letter to the Romans?
Did the Apostle Paul write the book of Romans or did someone else? In many Bibles the Title of the book of Romans says, “The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans”
~Versus~
Romans 16:22 “I, Tertius, who wrote this epistle.…”
~Versus~
Romans 16:22 “I, Tertius, who wrote this epistle.…”
______________________________________________
Nelsons New Illustrated Bible Dictionary says that Tertius was “the scribe or secretary to whom the apostle Paul dictated his letter to the Romans.
Smith’s Bible Dictionary says that Tertuis was “probably a Roman, was the amanuensis [assistant] of Paul in writing the Epistle to the Romans (A.D. 55).”
New Nave’s Topical Bible says that Tertuis was “Paul’s amanuensis [copyist] in writing the book of Romans.”
Easton’s Bible Dictionary says that Tertuis was “{the third}, a Roman Christian whom Paul employed as his amanuensis in writing his epistle to the Romans.”
I really hate to be sarcastic but why am I doing all the research for these Atheists? If Atheists really wanted the answers to these questions then they would find them. They simply have to put in a little effort to find the answers for themselves. If they truly wanted to find the truth about the bible, all they have to do it seek it!
Matthew 7:7-8 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8“For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. (NLT).”
Smith’s Bible Dictionary says that Tertuis was “probably a Roman, was the amanuensis [assistant] of Paul in writing the Epistle to the Romans (A.D. 55).”
New Nave’s Topical Bible says that Tertuis was “Paul’s amanuensis [copyist] in writing the book of Romans.”
Easton’s Bible Dictionary says that Tertuis was “{the third}, a Roman Christian whom Paul employed as his amanuensis in writing his epistle to the Romans.”
I really hate to be sarcastic but why am I doing all the research for these Atheists? If Atheists really wanted the answers to these questions then they would find them. They simply have to put in a little effort to find the answers for themselves. If they truly wanted to find the truth about the bible, all they have to do it seek it!
Matthew 7:7-8 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8“For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. (NLT).”
Saturday, April 11, 2009
No Seafood? I don't think so!
I was just scanning through the blogger, going from one to the next and came upon this blog.
- According to Leviticus 11:9-12 (King James Version) - "These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move
in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an
abomination unto you:
They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you." - Deuteronomy 14:9-10 (King James Version) - "These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you."
Romans 14:14 - "I know and am perfectly sure on the authority of the Lord Jesus that no food, in and of itself, is wrong to eat. But if someone believes it is wrong, then for that person it is wrong (NLT).
Friday, April 10, 2009
The Bright and Morning Star
Is the "morning star" in the bible Jesus or Lucifer and are they the same person? Their not the same person! Here is the difference:
Jesus is referred to as "the bright and morning star" (Rev 22:16). Lucifer is referred to as "son of the morning" (Isaiah 14:12). The word "Lucifer" means "morning star" and is the Latin name for the planet Venus. The word "Lucifer" is the Hebrew word heylel, which is "light-bearer" or shining one.
In Rev. 22:16, each word in the text is separated. For example, "bright and morning star" is originally written and transliterated in the Hebrew text as "lampros kai orthrinos aster." "lampros kai orthrinos aster" is translated word for word. "lampros" means "bright," "kai" means "and," "orthrinos" means "morning" and "aster" means "star." In other words, it is not like "Lucifer" which is a single word that is translated into something specific.
Thus, Jesus is not the same as "Lucifer." In Rev. 22:16, Jesus calls himself the "bright and morning star" because he is referring to Numbers 24:17. Basically, Jesus is saying, "I - as God, am the root - And source of David's family and kingdom; as man, and descended from his loins. I am the star out of Jacob (Num 24:17); like the bright morning star, who put an end to the night of ignorance, sin, and sorrow, and usher in an eternal day of light, purity, and joy." In other words, He is the morning star that ushered in the day of grace in the beginning of this dispensation (church age) and that shall usher in the everlasting day of glory at its close.
Jesus is referred to as "the bright and morning star" (Rev 22:16). Lucifer is referred to as "son of the morning" (Isaiah 14:12). The word "Lucifer" means "morning star" and is the Latin name for the planet Venus. The word "Lucifer" is the Hebrew word heylel, which is "light-bearer" or shining one.
In Rev. 22:16, each word in the text is separated. For example, "bright and morning star" is originally written and transliterated in the Hebrew text as "lampros kai orthrinos aster." "lampros kai orthrinos aster" is translated word for word. "lampros" means "bright," "kai" means "and," "orthrinos" means "morning" and "aster" means "star." In other words, it is not like "Lucifer" which is a single word that is translated into something specific.
Thus, Jesus is not the same as "Lucifer." In Rev. 22:16, Jesus calls himself the "bright and morning star" because he is referring to Numbers 24:17. Basically, Jesus is saying, "I - as God, am the root - And source of David's family and kingdom; as man, and descended from his loins. I am the star out of Jacob (Num 24:17); like the bright morning star, who put an end to the night of ignorance, sin, and sorrow, and usher in an eternal day of light, purity, and joy." In other words, He is the morning star that ushered in the day of grace in the beginning of this dispensation (church age) and that shall usher in the everlasting day of glory at its close.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
The Proper Context
One thing that I have noticed while debating with Atheists or skeptics is that they continually quote Scriptures without taking into the account of proper context. Somehow they believe that by taking the verse into the proper context is our way of side-stepping the issues. Now, if it were them defending what they believe, wouldn't they want us to have the complete story or perspective before jumping to conclusions?
The Merriam-Websters Dictionary says that context is "the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning," and "the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs."It's not fair to them if we cannot get the point they are trying to make and it's not right to take something spoken by an Atheists and misconstrue his or her words. They would probably agree with that, if they have any honor or dignity, and I would hope that they would do the same with us.
Next time a non-believer tries to say that the bible is in error, ask him or her, "Where?" Show me what you mean and let’s get the whole picture." What are the circumstances involved? What are the surroundings? More than likely, if the proper context, environment and surroundings are viewed, they are more likely to see the errors of misunderstanding.
If a genuine problem exists in Scripture that you cannot figure out or understand, do not give a wrong or made up answer to pacify the Atheist. Seek wisdom in prayer and let God show you and lead you to the truth. Sometimes I have asked for wisdom on a particular subject and God has revealed it to me through someone else's "pearls."
So far in my studies of Scripture, I have only come across a few discrepancies that I could not answer. It's not because there not an answer, it's that I do not have the answer, yet. We have to ensure that the answer that we give is correct, and our own conscience will convict us if we simply create an answer without wisdom, knowledge or spiritual revelation from God.
I have heard or read that it's very rare, but some things mentioned in the Bible are mysteries and we will never know what they mean until we go to be with our Lord.
If you get stumped on answer like that, the words of Jesus come to mind in Luke 16:31in which Jesus quotes Abraham saying, "If they won’t listen to Moses and the prophets, they won’t listen even if someone rises from the dead." In other words, it doesn't matter what answer you give them or what miracles they see, some will still choose not to believe.
The Merriam-Websters Dictionary says that context is "the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning," and "the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs."It's not fair to them if we cannot get the point they are trying to make and it's not right to take something spoken by an Atheists and misconstrue his or her words. They would probably agree with that, if they have any honor or dignity, and I would hope that they would do the same with us.
Next time a non-believer tries to say that the bible is in error, ask him or her, "Where?" Show me what you mean and let’s get the whole picture." What are the circumstances involved? What are the surroundings? More than likely, if the proper context, environment and surroundings are viewed, they are more likely to see the errors of misunderstanding.
If a genuine problem exists in Scripture that you cannot figure out or understand, do not give a wrong or made up answer to pacify the Atheist. Seek wisdom in prayer and let God show you and lead you to the truth. Sometimes I have asked for wisdom on a particular subject and God has revealed it to me through someone else's "pearls."
So far in my studies of Scripture, I have only come across a few discrepancies that I could not answer. It's not because there not an answer, it's that I do not have the answer, yet. We have to ensure that the answer that we give is correct, and our own conscience will convict us if we simply create an answer without wisdom, knowledge or spiritual revelation from God.
I have heard or read that it's very rare, but some things mentioned in the Bible are mysteries and we will never know what they mean until we go to be with our Lord.
If you get stumped on answer like that, the words of Jesus come to mind in Luke 16:31in which Jesus quotes Abraham saying, "If they won’t listen to Moses and the prophets, they won’t listen even if someone rises from the dead." In other words, it doesn't matter what answer you give them or what miracles they see, some will still choose not to believe.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Church Signs Collection
These are collections of witty and clever sayings I have read on some church signs from all over the country. They are updated as I remember them. Enjoy.
- "Dusty Bibles lead to Dirty Lives."
- "God says, 'This is the Deal," not "Let's make a Deal."
- "Directions to Cross - Make Right, Go Straight Ahead."
- "ATM Inside - Atonement, Truth and Mercy."
- "Change your thinking and God will change your Life."
- "Our Real Home Security- Jesus Christ"
- "Your not to bad to stay out and not to good to come in."
- "If God is your co-pilot, then switch seats!"
- "Just like Dairy Queen - We have great Sundays too"
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
The Cock Crows - The Prophecy of Denial
According to some Atheists, Jesus' prophecy in John 13:38 (“The cock shall not crow, till thou [Peter] hast denied me three times”) is false. Mark 14:66-68 shows the cock crowed after the first denial, not the third. Let’s open the prophecies up to see them as they are written.
Prophecy: Matthew 26:34 - "Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice." (KJV)
- Matthew 26:40
- Matthew 26:72
- Matthew 26:74 (cockcrows)
- Confirmation - Matthew 26:75
Prophecy: Mark 14:30 - "And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice." (KJV)
- Mark 14:68 (cock crows)
- Mark 14:70
- Mark 14:71 (cock crows)
- Confirmation - Mark 14:72
Prophecy: Luke 22:34 - "And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me." (KJV)
- Luke 22:57
- Luke 22:58
- Luke 22:60 (cock crows)
- Confirmation - Luke 22:61
Prophecy: John 13:38 - "Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice." (KJV)
- John 18:17
- John 18:25
- John 18:27 (cock crows)
So, is there a contradiction? No, they all fulfill the prophecy that was given for each one and they do not contradict each other. The reason that Mark is different (even though the cock crows after the third time just like the others) is because the cock crows once after the first denial and then twice after the third denial; which is exactly what Jesus had said!
It could have been very well that in the Matthew, Luke, and John versions that the cock crowed once before the third denial but it was not mentioned because it wasn't the focus. The focus was the third time and that's when the cock crowed. Even if a cock crowed once in Matthew, Luke and John it still would not contradict Mark's version because Mark's version fits the Mark Prophecy. It could have very well been that the prophecy given to Peter from Jesus in Mark was the full version and the other three (Matthew, Luke and John ) versions simply failed to mention the first cock crow (not that it didn't happen).
Here's what I have to say about this issue. If your hanging on this issue as a reason to deny God's Word then you have more issues with yourself than with what the Bible says. There may be a few unanswered questions, a few mysteries and some things that may seem foreign to us in the Western world but that will detour me from believing in God. God has a personal relationship with me and I won't let a few mysteries get in the way. God's ways are not our ways and I'll let Him be God, not me.
Matthew 13:13 - "Therefore speak I to them [unbelievers] in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)