THE CHRISTIAN LIGHT

JESUS ETERNAL VIRGIN

2010-09-05T08:30:00.000-07:00

JESUS ETERNAL VIRGIN

Analysis of Martino Gerber and Guliano Lattes, biblical scholars

**********************************************************

In recent times many write books and novels which insist that Jesus was married or that He could do.
The Holy Bible, however, teaches that Jesus is the Eternal Virgin.

********************************

In the Gospel, Jesus teaches us that in the resurrected life the elected saints will live in the Kingdom of God,
and they will live like angels and do not take a wife or husband;

Luke 20: 34-37
34 Jesus replied, 'The children of this world take wives and husbands,
35 but those who are judged worthy of a place in the other world and in the resurrection from the dead do not marry
36 because they can no longer die, for they are the same as the angels, and being childenof the resurrection they are children of God.
37 And Moses himself implies that the dead rise again, in the passage about the bush where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham, the Godof Isaac and the God of Jacob

Now we see that both the angels and the elected saints resurrected, are children of God, they can not take a wife or husband, they can not have sex, but they live most chaste and pure.

**************************

Jesus before being born into this world, lived with God was the Word and the Son of God;

John 1: 1

1 In the beginning was the Word: the Word was with God and the Word was God.

John 1: 14

14 The Word became flesh, he lived among us, and we saw his glory, the glory that he has from the Father as only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth.

So Jesus existed before being born into this world, and He taught this;

John 3: 13

13 No one has gone up to heaven except the one who came down from heaven, the Son of man;

John 6: 51

51 I am the living bread which has come down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live for ever;
and the bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world.'

Jesus explains His eternal existence very clearly;

John 8: 58

58 Jesus replied: In all truth I tell you, before Abraham ever was, I am.

John 17: 5

5 Now, Father, glorify me with that gloryI had with you before ever the world existed.

John 17: 24

24 Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, so that they may always see my glory which you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.

So Jesus is God, and being in the world He can not get married, but He was like an angel.

**********************************************************************

We see that Jesus was not born from a marriage union, but through the Holy Spirit;

Matthew 1: 20-21

20 He had made up his mind to do this when suddenly the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said,
'Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because she has conceived what is in her by the Holy Spirit.
21 She will give birth to a son and you must name him Jesus, because he is the one who is to save his people from their sins.'

Luke 1: 26-35

26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth,
27 to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the House of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
28 He went in and said to her, 'Rejoice, you who enjoy God's favour! The Lord is with you.'
29 She was deeply disturbed by these words and asked herself what this greeting could mean,
30 but the angel said to her, 'Mary, do not be afraid; you have won God's favour.
31 Look! You are to conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you must name him Jesus.
32 He willbe great and will be called Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David;
33 he will rule over the House of Jacob for ever and his reign will have no end.'
34 Mary said to the angel, 'But how can this come about, since I have no Knowledge of man?'
35 The angel answered, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will cover you with its shadow.
And so the child will be holy and will be called Son of God.

Jesus was born as God incarnate, He can not marry, even if He takes human nature, He retains His divine nature.

****************************************************************************************

John the Baptist called Jesus the Lamb of God, to show His purity and holiness;

John 1: 35-36

35 The next day as John stood there again with two of his disciples, Jesus went past,
36 and John looked towards him and said, 'Look, there is the lamb of God.'

************************************************************************

Jesus makes His divine nature to be known by His Apostles, before the resurrection, in the transfiguration;
Matthew 17: 1-5

1 Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and his brother John and led them up a high mountain by themselves.
2 There in their presence he was transfigured: his face shone like the sun and his clothes became as dazzling as light.
3 And suddenly Moses and Elijah appeared to them; they were talking with him.
4 Then Peter spoke to Jesus. 'Lord,' he said, 'it is wonderful for us to be here; if you want me to, I will make three shelters here, one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.'
5 He was still speaking when suddenly a bright cloud covered them with shadow, and suddenly from the cloud there came a voice which said, 'This is my Son, the Beloved; he enjoys my favour. Listen to him.'

******************************************************************

Jesus appeared as the third person of the Holy Trinity, He is the Son of God, God is his Father, and with them is the Holy Spirit;

Matthew 3: 16-17

16 And when Jesus had been baptised He at once came up from the water, and suddenly the heavens opened and he saw the Spiritof God descending like a dove and coming down on him.
17 And suddenly there was a voice from heaven, 'This is my Son, the Beloved; my favour rests on him.'

Matthew 28: 18-20

18 Jesus came up and spoke to them. He said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19 Go, therefore, make disciples of all nations; baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 and teach them to observe all the commands I gave you. And look, I am with you always; yes, to the end of time.'

So Jesus being the third person of the Holy Trinity, He can not get married.

***********************************************************************

Jesus reveals His divine qualities, He teaches that He is the Bread that came down from heaven;

John 6: 51

51 I am the living bread which has come down from heaven.
Anyone who eats this bread will live for ever; and the bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the l life of the world.'

Jesus explains this well at the Last Supper;

Matthew 26: 26-28

26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had said the blessing he broke it and gave it to the disciples. 'Take it and eat,' he said, 'this is my body.'
27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he handed it to them saying, 'Drink from this, all of you,
28 for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Now Jesus the Bread of heaven can not get married.

********************************************************
Jesus teaches that He is the Light;

John 8: 12

12 When Jesusspoke to the people again, he said: I am the light of the world; anyone who follows me will not be walking in the dark, but will have the light of life.

Now Jesus the divine Light can not get married.

************************************************************
Jesus claims to be the Son of God;

John 10: 30

30 The Father and I are one.

Jesus the Son of God can not take a wife.

**********************************************
Jesus declares that He is the Resurrection;

John 11:25

25 Jesus said: I am the resurrection. Anyone who believes in me, even though that person dies, will live.

Jesus is the divine resurrection and the eternal life, He can not get married.

***************************************************

Jesus claims to be the Way, Truth and Life:

John 14: 6

6 Jesus said: I am the Way; I am Truth and Life. No one can come to the Father except through me.

Jesus is the divine Way, Truth and Life, He can not get married.

************************************************************

Jesus reveals that who sees Him sees the Father;

John 14: 7-11
7 If you know me, you willknow my Father too. From this moment you know him and have seen him.
8 Philip said, 'Lord, show us the Father and then we shall be satisfied.' Jesussaid to him,
9 'Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? 'Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father, so how can you say, "Show us the Father"?
10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? What I say to you I do not speak of my own accord: it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his works.
11 You must believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe it on the evidence of these works.

Jesus is God and He can not get married.

******************************************************************

Then Jesus lived virgin and He is virgin forever. Jesus also advised his followers to remain virgin for the kingdom of heaven;

Matthew 19: 12

12 There are eunuchs born so from their mother's womb,
there are eunuchs made so by human agency and there are eunuchs who have made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven.
Let anyone accept this who can.'

Now if Jesus asks to His followers to remain virgin, He virgin certainly.

********************************************************************

Even St. Paul advises believers to virginity;

1 Corinthians 7: 7-8

7 I should still like everyone to be as I am myself; but everyone has his own gift from God, one this kind and the next something different.
8 To the unmarried and to widows I say: it is good for them to stay as they are, like me.

1 Corinthias 7: 32-34

32 I should like you to have your minds free from all worry. The unmarried man gives his mind to the Lord's affairs and to how he can please the Lord;
33 but the man who is married gives his mind to the affairs of this world and to how he can please his wife, and he is divided in mind.
34 So, too, the unmarried woman, and the virgin, gives her mind to the Lord's affairs and to being holy in body and spirit;
but the married woman gives her mind to the affairs of this world and to how she can please her husband.

**************************************************************************

St. Paul imitates Jesus, then he is unmarried;

1 Corinthias 11: 1

1 Take me as your pattern, just as I take Christ for mine.

*************************************************

Jesus has His bride anyway, the church;

Ephesians 5: 21-33

21 Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 Wives should be subject to their husbands as to the Lord,
23 since, as Christ is head of the Church and saves the whole body, so is a husband the head of his wife;
24 and as the Church is subject to Christ, so should wives be to their husbands, in everything.
25 Husbands should love their wives, just as Christ loved the Church and sacrificed himself for her
26 to make her holy by washing her in cleansing water with a form of words,
27 so that when he took the Church to himself she would be glorious, with no speck or wrinkle or anything like that, but holy and faultless.
28 In the same way, husbands must love their wives as they love their own bodies; for a manto love his wife is for him to love himself.
29 A mannever hates his own body, but he feeds it and looks after it; and that is the way Christtreats the Church,
30 because we are parts of his Body.
31 This is why a manleaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his wife, and the two become one flesh.
32 This mystery has great significance, but I am applying it to Christ and the Church.
33 To sum up: you also, each one of you, must love his wife as he loves himself; and let every wife respect her husband.

*************************************************************
Conclusion: Jesus is divine and heaven nature, He was like an angel, He could not and did not want to marry.

Jesus loved the virginity and advised the virginity to those who could, for the Kingdom of Heaven.

Jesus taught us to pray that is the Rhine of Heaven soon, where all the angels and the elect saints will live holy and pure.

**************************************************************
Biblical quotations

New Jerusalem Bible

http://www.catholic.org/bible/

http://groups.google.com/group/christianbiblestudies?hl=it

Pentecost Sunday - Solemnity

2010-05-26T00:38:00.001-07:00

Sunday, 23 May 2010
Pentecost Sunday - Solemnity

Pentecost Solemnity

On the day of Pentecost when the seven weeks of Easter had come to an end, Christ's Passover is fulfilled in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, manifested, given, and communicated as a divine person: of his fullness, Christ, the Lord, pours out the Spirit in abundance. (Ac 2:36)
On that day, the Holy Trinity is fully revealed. Since that day, the Kingdom announced by Christ has been open to those who believe in him: in the humility of the flesh and in faith, they already share in the communion of the Holy Trinity. By his coming, which never ceases, the Holy Spirit causes the world to enter into the "last days," the time of the Church, the Kingdom already inherited though not yet consummated.

We have seen the true Light, we have received the heavenly Spirit, we have found the true faith: we adore the indivisible Trinity, who has saved us. (Byzantine liturgy, Pentecost Vespers, Troparion, repeated after communion)

The Holy Spirit - God's gift

"God is Love" (Jn 4:8.16) and love is his first gift, containing all others. "God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us." (Rm 5:5)
Because we are dead or at least wounded through sin, the first effect of the gift of love is the forgiveness of our sins. The communion of the Holy Spirit (2 Co 13:13) in the Church restores to the baptized the divine likeness lost through sin.
He, then, gives us the "pledge" or "first fruits" of our inheritance: the very life of the Holy Trinity, which is to love as "God (has) loved us." This love (the "charity" of 1 Co 13) is the source of the new life in Christ, made possible because we have received "power" from the Holy Spirit. (Ac 1:8)
By this power of the Spirit, God's children can bear much fruit. He who has grafted us onto the true vine will make us bear "the fruit of the Spirit: . . . love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control."129 "We live by the Spirit"; the more we renounce ourselves, the more we "walk by the Spirit." (Ga 5:25)
Through the Holy Spirit we are restored to paradise, led back to the Kingdom of heaven, and adopted as children, given confidence to call God "Father" and to share in Christ's grace, called children of light and given a share in eternal glory. (St. Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, 15,36)

Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 731-736 - Copyright © Libreria Editrice Vaticana

©Evangelizo.org 2001-2010

http://www.dailygospel.org/main.php?language=AM&module=saintfeast&localdate=20100523&id=13&fd=1

ASCENSION-DAY AND PENTECOST-DAY

2010-05-17T07:43:00.000-07:00

ASCENSION-DAY AND PENTECOST-DAY

ACTS 1, 1-2, 47

1

1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,

2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:

3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;

11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath days journey.

13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.

14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

2

1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?

13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.

16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:

20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:

21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:

26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:

27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.

29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles� doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.

44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

http://www.carm.org/kjv/Acts/acts_1.htm

http://groups.google.com/group/christianbiblestudies?hl=it

The Gifts and Fruits of the Holy Spirit

2010-05-17T07:42:00.000-07:00

The Gifts and Fruits of the Holy Spirit
Lesson 16
Author: Catholic.net | Source: Catholic.net

Lesson 16: ON THE GIFTS AND FRUITS OF THE HOLY GHOST

176.Q. What are the effects of Confirmation?

177.Q. What are the gifts of the Holy Ghost?

178.Q. Why do we receive the gift of fear of the Lord?

179.Q. Why do we receive the gift of piety?

180.Q. Why do we receive the gift of knowledge?

181.Q. Why do we receive the gift of fortitude?

182.Q. Why do we receive the gift of counsel?

183.Q. Why do we receive the gift of understanding?

184.Q. Why do we receive the gift of wisdom?

185.Q. Which are the beatitudes?

186.Q. Which are the twelve fruits of the Holy Ghost?

176. Q. What are the effects of Confirmation?

A. The effects of Confirmation are an increase of sanctifying grace, the strengthening of our faith, and the gifts of the Holy Ghost.

"Increase;" because we must be in a state of grace, that is, having already sanctifying grace in our souls when we receive Confirmation. "Strengthening´ " so that we have no doubt about the doctrines we believe.

177. Q. What are the gifts of the Holy Ghost?

A. The gifts of the Holy Ghost are wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, and fear of the Lord.

178. Q. Why do we receive the gift of fear of the Lord?

A. We receive the gift of fear of the Lord to fill us with a dread of sin.

On account of the goodness of God and the punishment He can inflict.

179. Q. Why do we receive the gift of piety?

A. We receive the gift of piety to make us love God as a Father, and obey Him because we love Him.

180. Q. Why do we receive the gift of knowledge?

A. We receive the gift of knowledge to enable us to discover the will of God in all things.

181. Q. Why do we receive the gift of fortitude?

A. We receive the gift of fortitude to strengthen us to do the will of God in all things.

Some know the will of God-what they should do-but they have not the courage to follow the dictates of their conscience. For example, a person goes with bad company: the gift of knowledge will teach him that he should give it up; but the gift of fortitude will enable him to do what his conscience shows him to be right.

182. Q. Why do we receive the gift of counsel?

A. We receive the gift of counsel to warn us of the deceits of the devil, and of the dangers to salvation.

The devil is much wiser than we are, and has much more experience, being among the people of the world ever since the time of Adam-about 6,000 years. He could therefore easily deceive and overcome us if God Himself by the gift of counsel did not enable us to discover his tricks and expose his plots. When at times we are tempted, our conscience warns us, and if we follow the warning we shall escape the sin. Counsel tells us when persons or places are dangerous for our salvation.

183. Q. Why do we receive the gift of understanding?

A. We receive the gift of understanding to enable us to know more clearly the mysteries of faith.

"Mysteries," truths we could never know by reason, but only by the teaching of God; and the gift of understanding enables us to know better what His teaching means. The Apostles heard and knew what Our Lord taught, but they did not fully understand the whole meaning till the Holy Ghost had come.

184. Q. Why do we receive the gift of wisdom?

A. We receive the gift of wisdom to give us a relish for the things of God and to direct our whole life and all our actions to His honor and glory.

"Relish," a liking for, a desire for.

185. Q. Which are the beatitudes?

A. The beatitudes are:

1. Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.
2. Blessed are the meek, for they shall possess the land.
3. Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted.
4. Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice, for they shall be filled.
5. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
6. Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God.
7. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.
8. Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice´ sake, for theirsis the kingdom of Heaven.

The beatitudes are part of a sermon Our Lord once preached to the people on the Mount. (Matt. 5). When Our Lord wished to preach, the Jews would not always allow Him to enter their synagogues or meeting houses; so He preached to the people in the open air. Sometimes He stood in a boat by the seashore; sometimes on a little hill, with the people standing or sitting near Him. Did you ever think how you would have acted if you lived at that time and were present when Our Lord preached? How anxious you would have been to get near to Him? How you would have pushed your way through the crowd and listened to every word? Why, then, do you sometimes pay so little attention in church or at instructions when the words of Our Lord are repeated to you? Our Lord instituted a Church which, as we know, is sometimes called the kingdom of Heaven. In this sermon He laid down the condition for being good subjects of His kingdom; that is, He gives the virtues we should practice to be good children of the Church. He tells us what rewards we shall have for practicing these virtues and leading a holy life: namely, God´s grace and blessing in this world and everlasting glory in Heaven.

1. (1) "Poor in spirit." One is poor in spirit if he does not set his heart upon riches and the goods of this world in such a way that he would be willing to offend God in order to possess them, or rather than part with them. Thus one who has no money but who would do anything to get it, would be poor, but not poor in spirit, and therefore not among those Our Lord calls blessed. If we are really poor and wish to be poor in spirit also, we must be contented with our lot--with what God gives us--and never complain against Him. No matter how poor, miserable, or afflicted we may be, we could still be worse, since we can find others in a worse condition than we are. We do not endure every species of misery, but only this or that particular kind; and if the rest were added, how much worse our condition would be! The very greatest misery is to be in a state of sin. If we are poor and in sin, our condition is indeed pitiable, for we have no consolation; but if we are virtuous in poverty, bearing our trials in patience and resignation for the love of God, we have the rich treasures of His grace and every assurance of future happiness. On the other hand, if one is very rich and gives freely and plentifully to the poor and works of charity, and is willing to part with riches rather than offend God, such a one is poor in spirit and can be called blessed. It is a great mistake to risk our souls for things we must leave to others at our death. Sometimes those who leave the greatest inheritance are soonest forgotten and despised, because the money or property bequeathed gives rise to numerous lawsuits, quarrels and jealousies among the relatives, and thus becomes a very curse to that family, whose members hate one another on its account. Or it may happen that the heirs thoughtlessly enjoy and foolishly squander the wealth the man, now dead, has labored so hard to accumulate, while he, perhaps, is suffering in Hell for sins committed in securing it. Again, how many children have been ruined through the wealth left them by their parents! Instead of using it for good purposes they have made it a means of sin; often lose their faith and souls on account of it; and in their ingratitude never offer a prayer or give an alms for the soul of the parent, who in his anxiety to leave all to them left nothing in charity to the Church or the poor. Surely it is the greatest folly to set our hearts upon that which can be of no value to us after death. When a person dies men ask: What wealth has he left behind? But God and the angels ask, What merits has he sent before him?
2. (2) "Possess the land"--that is, the promised or holy land, which was a figure of the Church. Therefore it means the meek shall be true members of Our Lord´s Church here on earth and hereafter in Heaven, and be beloved by all.
3. (3) "That mourn:" Suffering is good for us if we bear it patiently.
It makes us more like Our Blessed Lord, who was called the Man of Sorrows.
4. (4) "Justice"--that is, all kinds of virtue. "Filled"—that is, with goodness and grace. In other words,
5. if we ask and really wish to become virtuous, we shall become so. St. Joseph is called in Holy Scripture "a just man, to show that he practiced every virtue.
6. (5) If we are "merciful" to others, God will be merciful to us.
7. (6) "Clean of heart´!--that is, pure in thoughts, words, deeds, and looks.
8. (7) "Peacemakers:´ If persons who try to make peace and settle disputes are called the children of God, those who, on the contrary, try to stir up dissensions should be called the children of the devil. Never tell the evil you may hear of another, especially to the one of whom it was spoken; and never carry stories from one to another: it is contemptible, and sinful as well. If you have nothing good to say of the character of another, be silent,unless your duty compels you to speak. Never be a child of the devil by exciting jealousy, hatred, or revenge in anyone; but on the contrary, make peace wherever you can, and be one of the children of God.
9. (8) "Suffer persecution:´ Therefore, when you are badly treated on account of your piety or religion, remember you are like the martyrs of your holy faith, suffering for virtue and truth, and that you will receive your reward.

186. Q. Which are the twelve fruits of the Holy Ghost?

A. The twelve fruits of the Holy Ghost are charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, long-suffering, mildness, faith, modesty, continence, and chastity.

"Fruits," the things that grow from the gifts of the Holy Ghost. "Charity," love of God and. our neighbor, "Peace" with God and man and ourselves. With God, because we are His friends. With man, because we deal justly with all and are kind to all. With ourselves, because we have a good conscience, that does not accuse us of sin. "Benignity," disposition to do good and show kindness. "Long-suffering"--same as patience. "Modesty, continency, and chastity" refer to purity in thoughts, words, looks, and actions.

Catholics on the net

St Mark, Evangelist

2010-04-25T07:07:00.000-07:00

Sunday, 25 April 2010
St Mark, Evangelist

SAINT MARK
Evangelist
(1st century)

St. Mark was converted to the faith by the Prince of the Apostles, whom he afterwards accompanied to Rome, acting there as his secretary or interpreter. When St. Peter was writing his first epistle to the churches of Asia, he affectionately joins with his own salutation that of his faithful companion, whom he calls "my son Mark."

The Roman people entreated St. Mark to put in writing for them the substance of St. Peter's frequent discourses on Our Lord's life. This the Evangelist did under the eye and with the express sanction of the apostle, and every page of his brief but graphic gospel so bore the impress of St. Peter's character, that the Fathers used to name it "Peter's Gospel"

St. Mark was now sent to Egypt to found the Church of Alexandria. Here his disciples became the wonder of the world for their piety and asceticism, so that St. Jerome speaks of St. Mark as the father of the anchorites, who at a later time thronged the Egyptian deserts. Here, too, he set up the first Christian school, the fruitful mother of many illustrious doctors and bishops.

After governing his see for many years, St. Mark was one day seized by the heathen, dragged by ropes over stones, and thrown into prison. On the morrow the torture was repeated, and having been consoled by a vision of angels and the voice of Jesus, St. Mark went to his reward.

It is to St. Mark that we owe the many slight touches which often give such vivid coloring to the Gospel scenes, and help us to picture to ourselves the very gestures and looks of our blessed Lord.
It is he alone who notes that in the temptation Jesus was "with the beasts;" that he slept in the boat "on a pillow;" that he "embraced" the little children.
He alone preserves for us the commanding words "Peace, be still!" by which the storm was quelled; or even the very sounds of his voice, the "Ephpheta" and "Talitha cumi," by which the dumb were made to speak and the dead to rise.
So, too, the "looking round about with anger," and the "sighing deeply," long treasured in the memory of the penitent apostle, who was himself converted by his Saviour's look, are here recorded by his faithful interpreter.

Lives of the Saints, by Alban Butler, Benziger Bros. ed. [1894]

©Evangelizo.org 2001-2010

http://www.dailygospel.org/main.php?language=AM&module=saintfeast&localdate=20100425&id=10211&fd=0

THE PROMISE KEEPERS & Phallic Cults

2009-07-23T05:48:00.000-07:00

THE PROMISE KEEPERS

Dear Promise Keepers ~

I am a Stranger and a Pilgrim on the earth, having left the City of Destruction (which will soon be burned with fire) and do seek a better country, that is an Heavenly, wherein dwelleth Righteousness. I have read in my Book, The Holy Bible, that the coming of the Lord draweth nigh, which Revelation doth cause me to rejoice with Joy unspeakable and full of Glory. Indeed, I fain would be clothed with Immortality and to behold alway the face of Him who died on a Cross for my sins. Yea, this expectation would be all my Joy were it not for grievous thoughts which do assail me regarding certain travelers I have met with on my journey. These liberal-minded professors have not entered in at the Strait Gate, wherein I was instructed to go, that I may be eased of my Burden of Sin, but hath climbed up some Other Way. Even so, such Vain Persons are fully persuaded that the King of the Celestial City will receive them and bestow upon them the Promised Inheritance, which is incorruptible, undefiled and fadeth not away.

The first of these benighted souls is Mr. Worldly Wiseman, who doth abide in the town of Morality, which is under the rule of Legality. The next is Wanton Professor, who liveth in Pleasure being dead even while he liveth. And finally there is Ignorance, who will not endure Sound Doctrine that he may grow thereby, but walketh in the Vanity of his Own Mind. These three fellows Esteem Themselves more highly than they ought and ~ professing to be Wise ~ knoweth not that they are Fools. Methinks such men are greatly deceived in that they presume the King of yonder Celestial City will grant unto them Life Eternal when, of a truth, they will be sore ashamed before Him at the very Throne of Judgment. For many Deceivers are gone out into the world which through great swelling words of Vanity do promise them Life. Such are the Servants of Corruption that, verily, make of their disciples twofold more the Children of Hell than themselves. For this cause, I am of a mind to bid these beguiled fellows to an assembly of Promise Keepers, but must needs first inquire by what particular doctrine thy organisation doth seek to bring such Graceless persons to Christ.

Your Fellow Servant,

Christian

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PK PROMISE
KEEPERS

MEN OF INTEGRITY

Dear Chris,

We appreciate your interest in our organization, which would welcome your fellow travelers. Perhaps you may be overly harsh in assuming that such sincere persons are without hope and without Christ in this world. We would not be so intolerant, but would present to them a heart-warming message in the exciting and non-threatening atmosphere of a familiar sports arena. It is the purpose of the Promise Keepers to promote a contemporary version of Christianity in a doctrinally-free, recreational and multimedia setting. At Promise Keepers conferences, prominent Christian leaders like Chuck Colson assure the men, "If you trust in God it doesn’t matter what religion or race you are, we all belong to each other." Our ecumenical message is carefully designed so as not to offend, but to include all in the great worldwide move toward religious unity.

For example, Mr. Worldly Wiseman would find common interests with many Roman Catholics and Mormons who are encouraged by their churches to attend Promise Keepers conferences. Their particular brand of "faith" is never challenged as long as they profess to "love Jesus." Modeling these works-based religions, Promise Keepers requires that each member make Seven Promises which he tries to keep with the help of mentors. Such carnal methods of attaining to holiness were adopted from the rule of Legality over the town of Morality, where Mr. Worldly Wiseman resides. He will no doubt be familiar with such Promises, and be already hard at work trying to keep many of them.

Wanton Professor, we would suspect, suffers from being spiritually challenged. Instead of confronting his condition, which others would harshly label ‘sinful,’ Promise Keepers provides weekly encounter groups for the men to explore their masculinity in a psychological context. Rather than overwhelming Wanton with the deep truths of the Bible, he would be given reading materials that are better suited to his interests, such as The Masculine Journey, by Robert Hicks. This revolutionary book would inform him that Jesus was lustful just like he is, and introduce him to a host of alternatives to repentance, such as initiation rites, male-bonding and taking of oaths. In addition, The Masculine Journey and Study Guide would refer him to the secular men’s movement, where he may find more agreeable fellowship than a strict Bible-teaching church offers.

Ignorance will surely agree with many of the informative articles in our monthly publication, the New Man. Features such as "Fathers, Fossils and Faith" (1) provide skeptics an intellectually stimulating defense of "Biblical" evolution in contrast to the less scientifically supported view that is presented in Genesis 1. Renewed interest in pagan rites is also part of Promise Keepers’ program as we strive to incorporate the fashionable esoteric practices of New Age spiritualism. Our leaders received their training in the Vineyard Movement, which has been on the vanguard of the occult revival within the Church. In our efforts to further update the narrow doctrinal position of traditional Christianity, Point Men are assigned to local churches and communities who have been trained to pressure pastors to break down all denominational walls. Such modernization of the church we hope will provide easier access and travel for many, like your friends, who prefer the Broad, rather than the Narrow Way.

~ The Promise Breakers

"They kept not the covenant of God and refused to walk in his law." Psalm 78:10

Promise Keepers is a non-denominational parachurch organization, formed in 1990 to "celebrate Biblical manhood and motivate men toward Christ-like masculinity." Last year, nearly 1.1 million men attended Promise Keepers events at 22 stadiums around the United States. The movement has grown exponentially in the six years since it was founded by Bill McCartney, who was then the head football coach at the University of Colorado. It now has a full-time staff of 430 at its headquarters in Boulder, Colorado and an annual budget of $97 million. The headquarters produces videos and a radio show, maintains a Web site, publishes books and several newsletters, and keeps in contact with 38 state offices and a handful of international affiliates. Sixty percent of its budget comes from men who pay $60 apiece to attend the stadium events and the remainder from donations and sales of instructional materials. (2)

Promise Keepers plans to expand its outreach globally. Last summer, seventeen men from four countries that hold affiliate or near-affiliate status (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa) met at the PK headquarters in Colorado. Promise Keepers’ December 1996 New Man magazine reported that representatives of 30 nations have made official inquiries about forming a Promise Keepers organization in their countries.

President Clinton has endorsed the Promise Keepers movement on the McNeil-Lehrer Report and Hillary Clinton praised this non-denominational ministry to men in her book, It Takes a Village. (3) The L. A. Times ran a favorable article and the New York Times gave Promise Keepers front page recognition. A New Age Journal article noted that Promise Keepers combined the secular men’s movement (founded by New Age poet Robert Bly) with the political evangelicalism of Pat Robertson. (4) And the Atlanta Journal-Constitution gave the following appraisal: "Promise Keepers combines the Jesus Saves preaching of Billy Graham with the male-bonding message of Robert Bly, the call for racial conciliation of Martin Luther King, Jr., and the marital advice of Ann Landers." (5)

The Vineyard Movement

Bill McCartney founded the Promise Keepers through the inspiration of his Vineyard pastor, James Ryle. Randy Phillips, the president of Promise Keepers, is also a member of James Ryle’s Vineyard Fellowship. James Ryle claims to be a modern prophet with revelatory powers. His book, A Dream Come True: A Biblical Look at How God Speaks Through Dreams and Visions, forwarded by Bill McCartney, encourages Christians to seek Jesus through dreams and visions. (6) At a 1990 Vineyard Harvest Conference in Denver, Rev. Ryle stated that God had instructed him to reveal to the church that the Beatles and their music were the result of a special anointing of the Holy Spirit - and that God was looking for others upon whom to place that anointing in order to bring about a worldwide revival through music --

"The Lord has appointed me as a lookout and shown me some things that I want to show you…The Lord spoke to me and said, 'What you saw in the Beatles -- the gifting and the sound that they had -- was from me…It was my purpose to bring forth through music a worldwide revival that would usher in the move of My Spirit in bringing men and women to Christ…" (7)

In an evaluation, entitled "Promise Keepers: Growth and Caution," Chris Corbett of Point of View radio ministry chronicled the connection between Promise Keepers and the Vineyard Movement. This profile of the Vineyard, in fact, describes the doctrinal foundation upon which the Promise Keepers Movement was built:

"The Vineyard movement of churches is controversial even within its Pentecostal base. It has been labeled ‘hyper-Pentecostal’ by its detractors, which have included figures such as Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel and evangelist David Wilkerson. Currently, the Vineyard is a major conduit for the ‘Holy Laughter Movement’ in which those said to be filled with the Holy Spirit during a meeting might begin laughing uncontrollably, becoming paralyzed, roar like a lion or howl and bark like a dog.

"Promise Keepers founder Bill McCartney's pastor, James Ryle, who is on the Board of PK, is a highly controversial figure. His participation in the ‘Laughing Revival’ was written up in a Washington Post article (11/18/95) about the Laughing Movement at the Pasadena Vineyard Christian Fellowship: At the Pasadena church, James Ryle, chaplain of the University of Colorado football team, is telling the congregation how Jesus freed him from his own demons -- growing up in an orphanage and serving jail time for selling drugs. He tells many jokes about his missing middle finger, lost to a lawn mower. There are waves of tear-wiping laughter. Ryle makes sound effects, including some animal noises. He snaps his fingers, bangs the podium, paces and tells how God will appear here in suits of fire, oil, water. ‘You will feel! And the glory of the Lord will put you down!’ (A Rush of Ecstasy and Alarm, Carol McGraw)

"The Vineyard movement has been closely associated with the signs and wonders means of evangelism. Founder John Wimber follows closely the doctrines of George Eldon Ladd who was a professor of Biblical Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California. Ladd introduced radically new ideas of the kingdom, redemption and Christian unity. According to The Doctrines of the Kingdom of God, by Carl Widrig (1995), . . . Ladd’s ‘gospel of the Kingdom’ had a tendency to distract Ladd away from emphasizing the saving information of the gospel of Jesus' death on the cross." (8)

The Vineyard Movement has assumed the Gnostic mantle of William Branham, George Warnock, Paul Cain and others, who formerly tried to introduce Latter Rain/Manifest Sons of God teachings into the Pentecostal movement. Recently, when Kansas City Prophets Bob Jones and Earl Paulk were exposed for moral failure and Rev. Ernie Gruen challenged the error of modern false prophets, John Wimber provided a covering for their sin through affiliation with Vineyard Ministries. The issues of fornication and heresy were never dealt with and these prophets continue to promote their false doctrines through the Vineyard Fellowship.

The Word of God has carefully defined the eligibility criteria for those who shepherd the flock of God. I Thessalonians 5:12 commends believers to "know them which labour among you." However, leaders of parachurch ministries are often protected from scrutiny. I Timothy 3 sets forth precise qualifications for an elder candidate, who must be "above reproach" and "one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity (for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)…" A secular magazine, GQ, noted that Bill McCartney is "the only major college football coach in America with two illegitimate grandchildren sired by two different players upon his only daughter." (9) When the requirements of Scripture are ignored in the local church, the spiritual body becomes dysfunctional. Yet many parachurch leaders like Bill McCartney, who would not qualify as elders of a local church, are shepherding millions of Christians worldwide. In addition they receive millions of dollars in tithe money that rightfully belong to local churches. Jesus identified the hireling as a shepherd who does not receive his authority lawfully -- by the high standard given in the Word of God:

"He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber." (John 10:1)

The Ecumenical Movement

After the September, 1996 conference in New York, the Promise Keepers issued a press release:

"(Queens, NY) -- Like an army of Christian crusaders, 34,600 highly motivated missionaries and nearly 2,500 volunteers were turned loose on the New York metropolitan area today with the closing of the two-day Promise Keepers Conference at Shea Stadium. A nationwide radio broadcast on 398 stations reached over 250,000 listeners per quarter hour, while a strong national and international media presence assured the message would reach millions more…" (10)

What is the spiritual "message" that has almost overnight catapulted thousands of men across the nation to become missionaries to their cities and has also attracted the attention of national and international media? The multi-ethnic gathering of men in New York City heard from several popular Christian speakers, including Charles Colson, formerly a key political aide to President Nixon and the founder of Prison Fellowship. Colson shared the "message of Jesus" which he learned in jail: "If you trust in God, it doesn’t matter what religion or race you are, we all belong to each other." (11)

Perhaps this unifying message best explains the favorable coverage given to Promise Keepers in the secular press and the political arena. The message of Jesus Christ who said, "I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me." (John 14:6) is politically incorrect today. When Charles Colson received the $1 million Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion, presumably for his co-authorship of The Evangelicals and Catholics Together Document, he quoted John 14:6a -- but omitted the rest of the verse!

The Promise Keepers statement of purpose is: "To unite men through vital relationships to become godly influences in their world by making promises to Jesus Christ and to one another that last a lifetime." In order to become godly influences in their world, the men must keep the sixth of "Seven Promises of a Promise Keeper":

"A Promise Keeper is committed to reaching beyond any racial and denominational barriers to demonstrate the power of biblical unity . . .A Promise Keeper is willing to cross over the lines that have divided the church and meet with at least one man of a different race or denomination at least once a month."

Overseeing the implementation of the Promise Keepers’ agenda are Point Men or Ambassadors who are assigned to local churches and communities. The Ambassador Candidate booklet states:

"Because Promise Keepers is committed to building relational bridges, Ambassadors must avoid negative political and denominational remarks and discussions . . . walls of denominationalism are difficult to break down -- this process may take six months to a year." (12)

Many pastors have reluctantly yielded to the pressure placed upon them by these change agents, who exert substantial influence and generate enthusiasm for Promise Keepers within evangelical churches.

Those who benefit most from Promise Keepers’ ecumenical orientation are Catholic and Mormon leaders, who see in the movement an opportunity to build their own churches. They actively encourage their men to attend rallies and to form PK groups within their churches. After studying the feasibility and propriety of utilizing Promise Keepers at the Catholic parish level, Cardinal Roger Mahoney of Los Angeles concluded --

"There is no ‘doctrinal’ issue which should cause concern to the Catholic church. Promise Keepers places a very strong emphasis on returning to your own church, congregation or parish and becoming an active layman. There is no attempt at proselytizing or drawing men away from their faith to another church . . . The Promise Keepers seems to me to be a wonderful way to prepare for the Third Millennium of Christianity which begins in the year 2000." (13)

Presaging the spiritual direction that Promise Keepers will be taking is its clarion call for unity under a common leadership. In February of 1996, a National Clergy Conference was held in Atlanta to "tear the hearts of pastors wide open so that a single leadership can be produced." Bill McCartney continued, "And I think He's going to put them back together again as one. One leadership. We've got to have one leadership, one leadership only." (14) McCartney had lamented the division among the clergy at an April, 1995 meeting in Detroit and disrespectfully demanded a reason from any pastor who refused to attend the upcoming Clergy Conference:

"We have a great army that we are assembling. They're the Christian men of this nation. However, our leadership, our clergy are not uniform. Our clergy are divided. Division is many visions. There's no unity of command…there is tremendous division in our clergy…this gathering in Atlanta should exceed 100,000 clergymen. Why? Because we have many more than that, and every single one of them ought to be there. We can't have anybody pass up that meeting. If a guy says that he doesn't want to go, he needs to be able to tell us why he doesn't want to go." (15)

During this conference, an altar call was given for the pastors, who knelt while McCartney led them to confess sin for "putting up barriers on account of denominational dogma." Previously, McCartney had stated, "We need you (priests and ministers) to rightly divide the Word of Truth for us because we can't do it ourselves." Is Promise Keepers hereby calling Evangelicals to revert back to the style of church government from which the reformers struggled to release God’s people -- a united clergy under a single command? Should we also wonder who former Catholic Bill McCartney might have in mind for this "single command"? In his autobiography, From Ashes to Glory, McCartney refers warmly to his Roman Catholic background and remarks: "I never had the feeling I was discarding or even rejecting all that I had been taught." (16) However, in a negative reference to the Protestant Reformation, he proudly announced at the Atlanta Clergy Conference:

"No such meeting was held in the past 400 years, and it is exciting to see the denominational barriers come down as we have Protestants and Roman Catholics here together. The purpose of this meeting is to have the unity of the church."

The recurrent theme in conferences and Promise Keepers' literature is "Breaking Down Denominational Walls." A recent issue of the New Man carries an article written by founder and president of Concerts of Prayer, David Bryant, entitled "Prisoners of Hope." Bryant asserts that revival starts with brokenness, not over personal sin as set forth in Scripture, but for the lack of unity among denominations: "Repent of the disunity of the church that makes it impossible for God to pour out a broad-based spiritual awakening…We must repent of divisiveness caused by our denominationalism …" (17)

In Promise Keepers' rationale, maintaining a denominational preference is hate-mongering equivalent to racial prejudice. To commit the men to this social/religious agenda without undue delay, Promise Keepers now includes commitment cards with each conference attendee’s syllabus. The manufactured transgression of denominationalism is repeatedly the focus of altar calls in rallies and guilt projection onto readers of Promise Keepers literature. Remarkably, however, the weighty sin of homosexuality is marginalized in the Promise Keepers official statement as "a complex and potentially polarizing issue," and homosexuals must be included and sensitively tolerated within the movement.

"…Promise Keepers also recognizes that homosexuality is a complex and potentially polarizing issue. There is a great debate surrounding its environmental and genetic origins, yet as an organization we believe that homosexuals are men who need the same support, encouragement and healing we are offering to all men. While we have clear convictions regarding the issue of homosexuality, we are sensitive to and have compassion for the men who are struggling with these issues. We, therefore, support their being included and welcomed in all our events."

But what saith the Scriptures? I Corinthians 5 forbids fellowship with unrepentant fornicators for good reason: "Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?" That a Christian men's movement, where men will be congregating and bonding with other men in close relationships, would take a worldly position on homosexuality should sound an alarm within the Church. A powerful expose of the largely homosexual composition of the Nazi Party, The Pink Swastika, paints a somber portrait of the German Wandervogel youth movement, which in its early stages drew the attention of homosexual men. This wholesome hiking and camping society for boys was infiltrated by homosexual pederasts, who preyed upon the innocent. Authors Kevin Abrams and Scott Lively note that:

"Right under the nose of traditional German society, the pederasts laid the groundwork for the ultramasculine military society of the Third Reich. The Wandervogel was certainly not a ‘homosexual organization’ per se, but its homosexual leaders molded the youth movement into an expression of their own Hellenic ideology and, in the process, recruited countless young men into the homosexual lifestyle. The first members of the Wandervogel grew to manhood just in time to provide the Nazi movement with its support base in the German culture. As Steakley put it, ‘[the] Free German Youth jubilantly marched off to war, singing the old Wandervogel songs to which new, chauvinistic verses were added.’" (18)

This eye-opening book tracks another aggressive homosexual agenda -- in America -- and printed an essay written in 1987 by a certain "Michael Swift," which has also been placed in the United States Congressional Record:

"We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools [Project 10], in your dormitories [forced homosexual roommates], in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups [Wandervogel, Boy Scouts], in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses ['gays' in the military], in your truck stops, in your all-male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together." (19)

The Men's Movement

It was only as an adult, upon reading The Peter Pan Syndrome, (20) by Dan Kiley, that I understood Peter Pan to be a type of boy who refused to grow up. Never, Never Land was an enchanting utopia where children could remain children, never putting away their childish things. That America is beset with men who refuse the obligations of manhood is a recognized fact even in secular society. Census Statistics show record numbers of biological fathers who have abandoned their families. In 1993, 6.3 million children in the U.S. were living in a single parent home. In 1994, there were an estimated 11.4 million single parents, a number that has increased by an average of 3.9% per year since 1990. (21)

It seems that our permissive culture fosters irresponsibility at every level of society. Progressive education has succeeded in "dumbing down" American students, the mass media stoops low to accommodate the least common denominator of moral degeneracy and intellectual torpor, judicial legislators penalize law-abiding victims yet reward criminal behavior, a professional medical establishment for profit disposes of unwanted human products of conception and church pulpits withhold from spiritually famished congregations the sincere milk and strong meat of God’s Word.

The sad state of the union was the focus of the National Parenting Association Task Force on Youth Violence on December 15, 1995. Last year an editorial in the Wall Street Journal applauded the National Parenting Task Force on Youth Violence for meeting with Promise Keepers representatives to seek solutions for the breakdown of the family. When these spokesmen were asked the reason for the ministry’s success, the editorial made no mention of Promise Keepers leading men to faith in Jesus Christ, but rather "to affirm their commitment to Christianity..." (22) Surely, the world will give the Church a favorable opinion -- until it asserts that Jesus Christ is the exclusive Way of Salvation.

In response to the present state of emergency in families caused by rampant "Peter Pan Syndrome," the stated purpose of Promise Keepers is to move men toward Christ-like masculinity -- men of integrity and purity. This being a worthy goal, it is disappointing to discover that the practical premise of Promise Keepers is that spiritual maturity can be developed in men by means of pep rallies, psychological teachings, sharing, mentoring, male-bonding, making promises and rites of initiation rather than through the consistent application of God's Word. Supplementary to the stadia events, study guides are produced by Promise Keepers to guide the men in weekly or monthly meetings. The focus is not serious Bible study; rather the groups are modeled after the psychological encounter group format that was largely discredited after the 1970’s, even within the psychological community. In these vulnerable settings, men are encouraged to explore and expose their inmost feelings and intimate experiences before a group that is led, not by a church elder, but by random leaders and mentors.

The Masculine Journey

The study guide often used is based on a book entitled The Masculine Journey, which was a joint project of Robert Hicks, Promise Keepers and NavPress. This book derives its theories of manhood, not from Scripture, but from a variety of New Age authors, such as Daniel Levinson, Sam Keen, Robert Bly, Patrick Arnold, Robert Moore and occultists Carl Jung and Margaret Mead. Nor do the concepts used to define "the masculine journey" to become a "new man" parallel Biblical principles, but rather pagan systems of religion. Although Robert Hicks pays lip service to the Bible, he frequently betrays a low view of Scripture: "I am often amazed at how God sometimes uses secular sources to communicate His truth better than Christian ones." (23)

The Masculine Journey and its accompanying Study Guide glorify the heathen motifs found in the secular men’s movement. Terms such as "sage," "warrior," "phallic male," "noble savage," "wounding," and "rites of passage" are prevalent. In fact, The Masculine Journey encourages the Promise Keepers to "study the men’s movement" and make referrals to their friends. (24) Hicks liberally and favorably quotes the works of Robert Bly, which present the reader a panorama of the pagan concepts that permeate the secular men’s movement -- which he founded. Robert Bly’s ideology assumes that the basic need of men is to "go back to ancient mythology . . . to visualize the wild man that is part of every modern male." (25) His classic book, Iron John, which is frequently quoted in Masculine Journey, is characterized in Resurrecting Pagan Rites as --

"…a treatise on the need for men to experience the ancient occultic rites of initiation. This agenda is not hidden, but rather the entire theme of the book. Pagan rites of initiation are a cross-cultural phenomenon common to primitive societies past and present, and are also a component of secret male societies such as the Freemasons. In Iron John, it becomes evident that the life stages or cycle of the male journey is defined in terms of the stages of the rite of initiation. Initiation can be defined as:

"The methodology of the ancient Mysteries: long and intensive training with the aim of elevating the one who undergoes it go begin (initiate) living a new, higher life, often described as being on the level of Godhood, above and beyond the state of ordinary mortals -- hence, the initiates of former times were viewed as incarnate Gods by ordinary people. (Seekers Handbook, p. 297) An initiate is: someone who underwent the full course of training in the Mysteries, and who thereby became elevated to a superevolved or God-like state, gaining powers of knowledge and extraordinary faculties that allowed him to assume responsibility for teaching and guiding the human race, and specifically for initiating culture.

"Robert Bly writes that young boys ‘in our culture have a continuing need for initiation into male spirit, but old men in general don't offer it…the active intervention of the older men means that older men welcome the younger men into the ancient, mythologized, instinctive male world. (pp. 14,15)’" (26)

It is this pagan model for manhood, rather than the biblical model of holiness that is likewise archetypal throughout The Masculine Journey and Study Guide. Nowhere in either book is there a clear presentation of the Gospel. "Rather the study leads men through potentially intensive, emotional turmoil and abandons them at the doorstep of rituals and ceremonies that bear little resemblance to the Christian faith." (27) Carefully camouflaging the barbaric nature of pagan customs, Robert Hicks laments that the church lacks appropriate "rites of initiation" for young men, such as:

"…celebrating the experience of sin. I'm not sure how we could do it. But I do know we need to do it. For example, we usually give the teenagers in our churches such massive dose of condemnation regarding their first experiences of sin that I sometimes wonder how any of them ever recover. Maybe we could take a different approach. Instead of jumping all over them when they have their first experience with the police, or their first drunk, or their first experience with sex and drugs, we could look upon this as a teachable moment and a rite of passage. Is this putting a benediction on sin? Of course not, but perhaps at this point the true elders could come forward and confess their own adolescent sins and congratulate the next generation for being human." (28)

It is noteworthy that the Boulder Valley Vineyard, pastored by James Ryle and attended by Bill McCartney and Randy Phillips, sponsors "Rites of Passage: The Defining Moment of Manhood" (29) in which men progress from one "order" of manhood to another. Such "orders" or levels of initiation are not found in Scripture, but are an integral part of secret societies like the Freemasons.

The Masculine Journey makes much of the "wounded" and "warrior" stages which successively follow the "phallic" stage in male development. In pagan cultures and in the secular men's movement, there is a concerted effort to break the ties between men and women, replacing them with male-bonding. Hicks concurs with Bly that male bonding is a means to restore men's identities as members of a warrior class. These rites of passage often take the form of dehumanizing and traumatic rituals which inflict physical pain and involve sexual abuse. The survivor of this torture is presum5ed to have experienced "inner death" leading to the "new birth" of a "new man." (Is it mere coincidence that the Promise Keepers' magazine is entitled New Man?) It has been submitted that these rituals expose the individual to demonization:

"For some in the men's movement, then, the definition of manhood is clearly rooted in the rite of initiation, and it involves a change in consciousness. Moore and Gillette describe it graphically as ‘Death -- symbolic, psychological, or spiritual -- is always a vital part of any initiatory ritual.’ They advocate the use of active imagination as a psychological technique, but caution that it can cause one to possibly ‘encounter a really hostile presence…’The change in consciousness that results from these rites of initiation may in fact be demon possession, which is the ultimate intention of pagan rituals." (30)

In The Masculine Journey, Robert Hicks enthusiastically reflects on "phallic rites of initiation" and the "warrior rituals" of pagan cultures and suggests that corresponding rites are desperately needed in the church. To elevate this profanity to a spiritual level, Hicks launches into a breathtaking portrayal of Jesus Christ as a "phallic male," crediting The Last Temptation of Christ with presenting a true image of Jesus Christ. Hicks subtly implies that Jesus may have had sexual relations with a woman, but it just wasn't recorded -

"But it was never recorded that Jesus had sexual relations with a woman. He may have thought about it as the movie The Last Temptation of Christ portrays, but even in this movie He did not give in to the temptation and remained true to His messianic course. If temptation means anything, it means Christ was tempted in every way as we are. That would mean not only heterosexual temptation but also homosexual temptation? I have found this insight to be very helpful for gay men struggling with their sexuality." (31) (Italics added)

Hicks would not label homosexuality as sin, but rather draws upon the lustful presentation of Jesus in this movie to comfort those who struggle with their "sexuality." Yet Romans 1 declares that vile affections are God's judgment upon those who worship the creature rather than the creator -- hardly a description of Jesus Christ! Rick Meisel, of Biblical Discernment Ministries, takes great exception to this passage in Hick's book, calling it --

"More blasphemy -- the movie The Last Temptation of Christ is referred to in a positive light! Claiming that Jesus is a 'phallic male,' Hicks says Jesus 'may have thought about it as the movie… portrays.’ (p.81) -- referring to Jesus thinking about having sexual relations with a woman! But doesn't Hick's suggestion make Jesus guilty of the sin of lust, thereby embracing the movie’s blasphemy? In fact, the movie portrayed graphic sexual desire, not merely temptation.

"Hicks has an obsession with the male sex organ. He writes, 'We are called and addressed by God in terminology that describes who and what we are--zakar , phallic males. Possessing a penis places unique requirements upon men before God in how they are to worship Him. We are called to worship God as phallic kinds of guys, not as some sort of androgynous, neutered nonmales, or the feminized males so popular in many feminist-enlightened churches. We are told by God to worship Him in accordance with what we are, phallic men.’ (p. 49) This is the language of pagan religionists, not the Bible!

"Hicks makes numerous erroneous statements about male sexuality. Claiming that the second stage of manhood is the phallus (penis) stage (p. 48), Hicks goes on to state, ‘The phallus has always been the symbol of religious devotion and dedication.’ (p.51) And, ‘Improper teaching on the phallus will drive men into sexual sins because their spiritual God-hunger is not satisfied. Sexual energy is essentially spiritual.’ (p.55) (This is teaching from the demon worshippers in India; it's called TANTRA sex yoga.) Again, ‘Our sexual problems only reveal how desperate we are to express, in some perverted form, the deep compulsion to worship with our phallus.’ (p. 56)

"Hicks claims that what keeps men moving along this ‘masculine’ journey is having some other male mentors in their lives and seeing Jesus as the primary voice of God in each stage. ‘Jesus…was the second Adam…was very much human . . . was also very much zakar , phallic . . . I believe Jesus was phallic with all the inherent phallic passions we experience as men.’ (pp. 180-181) [This seems to be either the result of Freudian brainwashing or hanging out in locker rooms. Either way, it's blasphemous!]" (32)

Promise Keepers stopped distributing this controversial book at conferences upon the exposure of its contents and strong objections from numerous discernment-oriented ministries. However, the organization did not withdraw its endorsement of The Masculine Journey, but rather defends its theology as being Biblically sound:

"Several passages in The Masculine Journey by Robert Hicks (1993, NavPress) could be understood in more than one way. Some of the content of the book has unfortunately lent itself to a wide range of interpretations and responses involving theological issues which Promise Keepers does not feel called to resolve. These are controversies which neither Promise Keepers nor the author could have foreseen, and which have proven to be a distraction from the focus of our ministry. Therefore, Promise Keepers has discontinued marketing and distributing The Masculine Journey. At the same time, we believe Mr. Hicks's core theology is consistent with orthodox evangelical Christianity, and that The Masculine Journey was a forthright attempt on his part to deal with male issues from a biblical context" (33)

Meanwhile, a survey of Christian bookstores shows that men’s movement type books, with references to Robert Bly and other New Age authors, are proliferating in the Evangelical church. (i.e., Tender Warrior and Locking Arms by Stu Weber) Ezekiel’s prophecies concerning Israel somehow seem relevant to this present apostasy:

"Her priests (McCartney, Ryle, Hicks) have put no difference between the holy and the profane, neither have they showed the difference between the unclean and the clean." (Ezekiel 22:26)

In Promise Keepers' theology, Roman Catholicism is undifferentiated from Christianity, biblical separation is condemned as the equivalent of racial discrimination, and the holy Son of God is no different than sinful man.

Phallic Cults

There are other disconcerting implications regarding the stages of manhood and proposed rites of initiation found in The Masculine Journey. Webster’s defines "phallus" as: "a representation or image of the… reproductive organ, worshiped as a symbol of generative power, as in the Dionysiac festivals." The PsychoHeresy Awareness letter states, "There have been various phallic cults throughout history, such as the Celts and Druids. Barry Fell, in his book, America B.C., has a chapter on "The Ritual Phallic Cults." (34) The Druidic cult is still popular internationally with over one million members and there is evidence that the Order of Freemasons either evolved from or was patterned after the Druid tradition. Chapter Two in Masculine Journey is entitled "Noble Savage." Robert Hicks may have borrowed this term and other cultic concepts like initiation rites, oaths and male bonding from the Celtic Druids. In The Trojan Horse, How the New Age Movement Infiltrates the Church, Brenda Scott and Samantha Smith identify the Noble Savage with the Druidic custom of human sacrifice:

"Stuart Piggott, a respected archaeologist and recognized authority on Celtic history, agrees: ‘It is hardly realistic to exculpate the Druids from participation, probably active, in both the beliefs and practices involved in human sacrifice (which after all had only been brought to an end in the civilized Roman world in the early first century B.C.) The Druids were the wise men of barbarian Celtic society, and Celtic religion was their religion, with all its crudities. It is sheer romanticism and a capitulation to the myth of the NOBLE SAVAGE to imagine that they stood by the sacrifices duty bound, but with disapproval on their faces and elevated thoughts in their minds.’" (Stuart Piggott, The Druids, 1968, pp. 110-112) (35)

Scott and Smith also document the historic link between the Druids and present day Freemasonry:

"'Druid traditions were also preserved with Freemasonry, which is thought to have evolved from the Druids or at least alongside of them. This connection is addressed in Gould's History of Freemasonry. (James Bonwick, Irish Druids and Old Irish Religions, Salem N.H.: Ayer Co., 1984, p. 71) The three part structure of the masons is identical to the three offices of druidic priesthood: Ovates, Bards, and Druids. Also, ‘the secret teachings embodied therein are practically the same as the mysteries concealed under the allegories of Blue Lodge masonry.’ (Manly P. Hall, An Encyclopedic Outline of Masonic, Hermetic, Qabbalist and Rosicrucian Symbolic Philosophy, Los Angeles: The Philosophical Research Society, 1977, XXIII).

"Political and religious suppression forced the Druids to go underground. Many thought that the religion had disappeared, but it survived, handed down within families and villages to resurface again in the early eighteenth century. There are three main druidic colleges. . .In fact, druidism has become so accepted socially that Queen Elizabeth II and the Prince of Wales both accepted posts as honorary Druids in the Wales Gorsedd. (Sophie Moore, The Gnosis Interview) . . .By 1988, there were estimated to be over one million adepts (spiritual masters) and the movement is growing." (36)

Former 33rd degree Mason, James Shaw was the highest ranking adept to defect from the Masonic Order. After his conversion to Christianity, Rev. Jim Shaw wrote pamphlets and books to reach other Masons with the Gospel and to expose Freemasonry. In The Deadly Deception, Jim Shaw explained that the foundation of all Masonic symbolism is Phallic Worship.

"Since the true meaning of Masonic symbols (and thus, the true meaning of Masonry itself) is to be known only by the Prince Adepts of Masonry, we must hear what they say concerning them. They (Albert Pike, Albert Mackey, J.D. Buck, Daniel Sickles and others) teach that Masonry is a revival of the Ancient Mysteries (the mystery religions of Babylon, Egypt, Persia, Rome and Greece).

"These Ancient religions had two meanings, or interpretations. One was the apparent (exoteric) meaning, known to the uninitiated, ignorant masses; the other (esoteric) meaning was the true meaning, entirely different, known only to a small, elite group, initiated into their secrets and secret rituals of worship. These mystery religions were forms of nature-worship, more specifically and most commonly the worship of the Sun as source and giver of life to the Earth. Since Ancient times, this worship of the Sun (and of the Moon, stars and of nature in general) has been sexual in its outworkings and rituals. Since the Sun’s rays, penetrating the Earth and bringing about new life, have been central to such worship, the phallus, the male ‘generative principle,’ has been worshipped and the rituals climaxed with sexual union in the mystery religions of Isis and Osiris, Tammuz, Baal, etc. In summary, then, since the Ancient Mysteries (especially those of Egypt) are in fact the Old Religion of which Freemasonry is a revival, the symbols of Masonry should be expected to be phallic in true meaning. This, in very fact, is the case." (37)

It seems that there is more to Promise Keepers than meets the eye. In his recent book, The Illuminati Formula, researcher and author Fritz Springmeier, who has interviewed many former Illuminati, states: "The infiltration and control of the Christian religion has been one of the easiest tasks of the Illuminati." The lluminati is the elite body that controls the various orders of Freemasonry, which in turn help to finance their New World Order. When esoteric concepts and terminology show up in the Christian Church, it is not unreasonable to assume that those who introduce and promote them have some personal knowledge of these occult religions and perhaps even an affiliation with them. Of course, it is for this reason that the membership rolls of the Masonic Order are kept secret. The plan to infiltrate the Christian Church and convert it into a vehicle for the New World Order depends upon these subversive agents maintaining their cover within the Church.

Joel's Army

In Promise Keepers: Is What You See What You Get?, Al Dager examined the dynamics of a typical Promise Keepers conference --

"These mass meetings are characterized by group euphoria, religious commitments and technical exhibitions… Suddenly a low rumble (is it thunder?) begins softly and becomes louder. It’s the sound of a jet aircraft piercing the stadium from the huge speakers strategically placed for maximum effectiveness. The large screen displays the takeoff of a jumbo jet as the announcer welcomes the crowd to the flight for restored manhood. The stadium, full now, erupts in a cheer …They expect to hear words that will kindle in them a zeal for commitment to their role at home, in their church, and in their community. The first speaker, Greg Laurie, gives an impassioned message, calling for response to the offer of salvation or recommitment to Christ. To thunderous applause, about 3,000 men stream from every area of the stadium to take their position in front of the stage. A good beginning to an emotionally charged day just getting under way." (38)

As a young man, Latter Rain/Manifest Sons of God forefather, Paul Cain, first envisioned Joel’s Army in training and then graduating to fill the stadiums by the thousands. At the 1995 Prophetic Power and Passion Conference in Alabama, Cain recounted his dream:

"And I had a dream that became a recurring dream, and it was about all the stadiums -- and we've told this hundreds and hundreds of times all across America, all over the world, in fact -- and I saw these stadiums and football fields, soccer fields and sports arenas, all of them filled with thousands and thousands of people, sometimes over 100,000 in each place." (39)

Recently, Cain stated that the Promise Keepers Movement is the realization of his prophetic vision. Co-founder of PK, James Ryle, also responded in an interview to a question whether Promise Keepers could be fulfilling the prophecy of raising an army in Joel 2: "Yes…300,000 men have come together so far this year under Promise Keepers…Never in history have 300,000 men come together except to go to war. These men are gathered for War." (40) The Suitable Helpers newsletter for women participating in Promise Keepers also echoes the Gnostic militant theme of the Latter Rain/Manifest Sons of God: "Our Lord is calling out a great host of men ready and willing to become ‘Christs’ in their homes: Promise Keepers. In grand, bold sweeps, God is mustering an army." (41)

Al Dager advises extreme caution concerning religious/political coalitions: "We would do well to take a lesson from history and remember that Hitler made his plea for acceptance of Nazism based upon a platform of anti-communism, anti-homosexuality, patriotism and morality." Christians would benefit from the historical perspective presented in Richard Terrell’s book, Resurrecting the Third Reich. The following is an excerpt from this work, which reveals the diabolical origin of an elitist, controlling and militant mindset -- and its inevitable end.

"What was to take possession of the German consciousness was a militant romanticism . . . According to this way of thinking, the Divine Spirit is manifested in the spirit of a people, in their collective genius and total culture or Volkgeist . . . Germany developed a kind of communal mysticism which contained its own Teutonic concept of a chosen people, called to redeem civilization from its decadence . . . rallies were glorious pageants that stirred the emotions, which depended not on any revelation of Scripture, but on pure feeling . . . Even today, still photographs of these meetings have a powerful and gripping presence . . . The Volkish concept of the social organism was effectively symbolized in mass meetings that expressed a sense of eternity, awe, and mystery, effects stimulated by cathedral of light nighttime mass meetings in which antiaircraft lights sent brilliant shafts of illumination into the darkened sky.’ (42)

According to Terrell, orthodox Christianity was supplanted by the German Volkish faith, which was preached to the German masses in large rallies. The Christian Conscience notes the present parallels:

"Is Promise Keepers creating a new folk religion? The large mass rallies, the exaltation of emotion over reason, the lack of doctrinal integrity, the taking of oaths, the focus on fatherland and fatherhood, and the ecumenical inclusion of aberrant esoteric doctrines bears a disconcerting similarity to an era which gave rise to one of the most dreadful armies in history. The infiltration of Manifest Sons of God doctrines into Promise Keepers combined with New Age ideologies appears to create a new American folk theology: pantheism, the idolatry of self, the belief in a divine mandate to take the land, the superiority of a group, and the necessity of group hysteria."

A similar portrait emerges from the prophetic passages of Scripture. II Thessalonians 2 foretells that the delusion of a "divine spirit" will take possession of a deceived people. This watershed event will render a divine mandate for "Joel's army," under the command of a counterfeit Christ, to make war on the saints. The Gnostic doctrines of the Latter Rain are preparing many to believe the strong delusion of their own divine incarnation:

"The Glory, in the Latter Rain understanding, is the visible manifestation of the Spirit. Now, in light of the satanic nature of this deception, it is not surprising that deceived Christians are being led to expect a manifested spirit and not the visible return of the Lord Jesus . . . the return of the "lord" to his church, in glory, before (or perhaps even instead of?) the physical return of Jesus." (43)

Paul Cain has best expressed the Second Coming of the Latter Rain:

"I don't know what the second coming is to you, . . .but let me tell you he's coming to you, he's coming to his Church, he' s coming to abide in you, to take up his abode in you . . . I want you to know he's coming to the Church before he comes for the Church. He's gonna perfect the Church so the Church can be the Image, be Him, and be his representation." (44)

A recent best-seller by Francis Frangipane, The Days of His Presence, identifies Promise Keepers as a main catalyst for this worldwide transformation:

"The Spirit of the Lord is moving on so many fronts. In just the past ten months we have seen racial reconciliations take place among Southern Baptists in Atlanta; in Memphis, leaders from Pentecostal denominations, once divided along racial lines, are now reunited, while white Evangelical leaders repented with blacks in Chicago. We can truly say the Lord is moving mightily on his people. Mix in the March for Jesus [20,000,000] and the [1,100,000] Promise Keepers, and we are seeing the stage set for what I believe will be the greatest awakening of this century." (45)

Movements such as Promise Keepers are fully dedicated to breaking down all denominational walls, regardless of essential doctrine, in order to bring about a unified church with a "central command." Promise Keepers leaders say that they are building "Joel’s Army." Bill McCartney has even invited the Christian men of Louis Farrakhan's Million Man March to join the PK Million Man March this October. (46) If the radical homosexual movement infiltrates PK (and they have threatened to seduce our sons "wherever men are with men together") and PK merges with the secular men's movement and Louis Farrakhan's movement, we could one day have a monster like Hitler's S.A. or S.S. Few recall that it was the wholesome German Wandervogel movement, infiltrated by Nazi gay activists, which developed into the Hitler Youth Movement -- which later matured into the ultramasculine, militaristic, highly disciplined and dreaded Nazi Storm Troopers -- or S.A.

Revelation 17 describes a massive religious and political entity which has become skillful in the exercise of spiritual and political power. However, MYSTERY BABYLON is not "the Lord’s army" -- but the bloodstained warrior church. The various Gnostic streams of the Latter Rain will soon merge, becoming a deluge that rivals the days of Noah.

A SACRED ASSEMBLY OF MEN

ENDNOTES

New Man, July/August, 1996, pp. 52-54.
Washington Post, Laurie Goodstein, Dec. 16, 1996.
It Takes A Village, Hillary Rodham Clinton, (Simon & Schuster, 1996), pp. 41-42.
"Promise Keepers: Ecumenical ‘Macho-Men’ for Christ," Biblical Discernment Ministries, P.O. Box 679, Bedford, IN, 47421-0679, p. 26. http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/pk/
Ibid., p. 2.
James Ryle, A Dream Come True: A Biblical Look at How God Speaks Through Dreams and Visions, 1995, p. 228.
Ibid., p. 22. http://rapidnet.com/~jbeard/pklie.htm
Dallas/Fort Worth Heritage (June 1995), "Promise Keepers: Growth and Caution," Chris Corbett.
GQ, January, 1996, p. 111 as cited in "Promise Keepers:Ecumenical ‘Macho-Men’ for Christ," P. 25.
Official Promise Keepers Web Site on the Internet, 9/26/96 http://www.promisekeepers.org/pkpress/218a_142.htm
Ibid.
"PK: Ecumenical Macho-Men for Christ," Rick Meisel.
"Promise Keepers' Promises Spiritual Growth for Men," The Tidings Archdiocese of L.A. paper, March 31. 1995.
Promise Keepers, Detroit Silver Dome, April 29, 1995.
"An Open Letter to Bill McCartney," Rev. Bill Randles 8/95.
Bill McCartney, From Ashes to Glory, (Thomas Nelson Pub. 1995), p. 47.
"New Man," David Bryant, Strang Communications Co., 600 Rinehart Road, Lake Mary, FL 32746, p. 32.
The Pink Swastika, Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams, Founders Publishing Corp., Box 20307, Keizer OR 97307, 1995, Chap. 1, p, 34.
Ibid., Chap. 7, pp. 194, 195.
Dan Kiley, The Peter Pan Syndrome, Avon Books, 1983.
U.S. Census Bureau, Oct., 1996.
"Family Values Gain Ground," The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 28, 1995, p. A6.
Robert Hicks, The Masculine Journey, (NavPress, 1993, P.O. Box 35001, Colorado Springs, CO 80935,) p. 162.
Masculine Journey Study Guide, (NavPress 1993) pp. 42,90.
"Connecting With the Wild Man Inside All Males," Utne Reader, Nov./Dec., 1989, p. 58.
"Resurrecting Pagan Rites," Part I, Sarah and Lynn Leslie, The Christian Conscience, Dec., 1995.
"Promise Keepers: Encountering Men At Risk," Sarah Leslie, The Christian Conscience, Jan. 1995.
Robert Hicks, The Masculine Journey, p. 176.
"Rites of Passage" brochure, Boulder Valley Vineyard Conference, August 25-26, 1995.
"Resurrecting Pagan Rites," Part I, op. cit.
Robert Hicks, The Masculine Journey, p. 181.
"Masculine Journey," Rick Meisel, Biblical Discernment Ministries, http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/pk/
PK Web Site: http://www.promisekeepers.org/27ba.htm
PsychoHeresy Awareness Newsletter, of July/Aug. 1995.
The Trojan Horse: How the New Age Infiltrates the Church, Brenda Scott and Samantha Smith, Huntington House, pp. 51.
Ibid., p. 59.
James R. Shaw, The Deadly Deception, Huntington House, 1988, p. 143.
"Promise Keepers, Is What You See What You Get?," Albert Dager, Media Spotlight Ministries, p. 1.
Prophetic Power and Passion Conference, Christ Chapel, Florence, AL, Aug. 30, 1995.
"Latter Rain and the Rise of Joel's Army," Jewel van der Merwe, Discernment Newsletter, Sept./October 1994, p.7.
Suitable Helpers newsletter, February, 1995.
"The Christian Conscience," April, 1995, Resurrecting the Third Reich, Richard Terrell, Huntington House, 1994.
"The Significance of Filled Stadiums," Ed Tarkowski.
Grace Ministries tape, Nov. 1988.
The Days of His Presence, Francis Frangipane, 1996, Arrow Publication.
Washington Post, Laurie Goodstein, op. cit.

http://www.watch.pair.com/promise.html

Apostasy: The new service, from the Open Episcopal Church "host in the post"...... including atheists and even satanists

2009-06-10T06:43:00.001-07:00

CHRISTIAN BIBLE STUDIES

AGAINST APOSTASY

Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

By Martino Gerber and Giuliano Lattes

**********************************

The new service, from the Open Episcopal Church "host in the post"...... including atheists and even satanists

In recent years the communion wafer has been made available in a variety of forms - including patterned, wholemeal, crumb-proof and gluten-free - to satisfy the demands of modern life. Soon, altar bread will become even more convenient and accessible with the advent of the "host in the post".

The new service, from the Open Episcopal Church, is aimed at people who either cannot attend Eucharist, through age or ill-health, or those who have drifted away from church, (including atheists and even satanists).

Jonathan Blake, the Open Episcopal Church bishop,he said the organisation was taking "care and concern" over appropriate packaging for the wafer, which is no more than a millimetre thick, to ensure it remained intact on arrival, before adding that anyone - including atheists and even satanists - could avail themselves of the service. "Jesus did not make these distinctions. He gave himself to anyone and everyone. It makes no difference, the body of Christ is redeeming."

06-09 2009

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/09/worship-communion-wafers-post

***********************************************************************************

Against Apostasy

Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

1 Corinthians 11 ; 23-32

11,23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.

27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

http://www.carm.org/kjv/1Cor/1cor_11.htm

1 Corinthians 5 ; 9-13

5,9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

http://www.carm.org/kjv/1Cor/1cor_5.htm

2 Corinthians 6 ; 14-18

6,9 As unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and, behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed;

10 As sorrowful, yet alway rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things.

11 O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged.

12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.

13 Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.

14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

http://www.carm.org/kjv/2Cor/2cor_6.htm

http://groups.google.com/group/christianbiblestudies?hl=it

Praise the Lord and post the Host: church's plan to woo worshippe......... including atheists and even satanists

2009-06-10T03:28:00.000-07:00

Praise the Lord and post the Host: church's plan to woo worshippe
Riazat Butt, Religious affairs correspondent
The Guardian, Tuesday 9 June 2009

Article history
In recent years the communion wafer has been made available in a variety of forms - including patterned, wholemeal, crumb-proof and gluten-free - to satisfy the demands of modern life. Soon, altar bread will become even more convenient and accessible with the advent of the "host in the post".

The new service, from the Open Episcopal Church, is aimed at people who either cannot attend Eucharist, through age or ill-health, or those who have drifted away from church.

Although the pre-consecrated wafer is free, there will be a charge for postage and packing. Receiving one host costs £2; receiving 500 costs £10.

Jonathan Blake, the Open Episcopal Church bishop who officiated at Jade Goody's wedding this year, said the initiative was also designed to reverse the way the church presented itself to people.

"The sense they have to go to places to worship is something their parents did. The churches we work with have got respect for the fact that we're taking the church to places it hasn't been before.

"It is a mistake to locate a church as those who gather in a building. There is a large population who have haemorrhaged away from church but regard themselves as committed Christians."

He said the organisation was taking "care and concern" over appropriate packaging for the wafer, which is no more than a millimetre thick, to ensure it remained intact on arrival, before adding that anyone - including atheists and even satanists - could avail themselves of the service. "Jesus did not make these distinctions. He gave himself to anyone and everyone. It makes no difference, the body of Christ is redeeming."

News of Blake's latest innovation did not elicit a response from the Church of England, which, as a rule, does not comment on the internal affairs of other churches.

One of his previous projects was a street mass using language more commonly associated with text messages: "JC said: 'I am the bread of life. Whoever eats this bread will live 4ever.'"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/09/worship-communion-wafers-post

Too Unorthodox Even for the Episcopal Church?

2009-06-10T03:26:00.000-07:00

Too Unorthodox Even for the Episcopal Church?
Church leaders appear to have vetoed a bishop-elect for the first time since the 1930s. But few opponents are celebrating.
Frank E. Lockwood in Little Rock, Arkansas | posted 6/08/2009 09:58AM

Barring a last minute change of heart by opponents, it appears certain that Episcopal Church leaders have rejected the consecration of a bishop-elect who denies traditional Christian teachings about sin, salvation, and Christ's atoning death at Calvary.

Evangelicals inside and outside the Episcopal Church say they would have been concerned if Kevin Thew Forrester had been given a ceremonial shepherd's staff and a sacred charge to "feed and tend the flock of Christ" in the Diocese of Northern Michigan, where he was elected on February 21. But few are seeing the rejection as a cause to celebrate.

According to church rules, elections of bishops must be confirmed by a majority of the church's House of Bishops (though not all members are allowed to vote) and a majority of its 111 diocesan governing boards, known as standing committees. While the results will not be official until mid-July, a majority of standing committees have voted to withhold consent, according to a survey by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Unofficial surveys show the bishop-elect trailing badly among bishops as well.

Thew Forrester, who has rewritten the church's baptismal covenant, the Apostles' Creed, and the Book of Common Prayer's Easter Vigil liturgy to remove historic Christian doctrines, would be the first bishop-elect to be vetoed by denominational leaders since at least the 1930s, according to the church's Office of Communication.

The 2.3-million-member Episcopal Church has had bishops who have denied core Christian doctrines like the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, and the Resurrection of Jesus. But the most prominent bishops to make such claims (such as John Shelby Spong and James Pike) reportedly did not do so until after they had been made bishop.

Critics on the theological left and the right said Thew Forrester's abandonment of church doctrine and liturgy, as contained in the Book of Common Prayer, placed him too far outside the mainstream to serve as a bishop and a successor to the Apostles.

Thew Forrester's rejection of atonement theology and his claims that the crucifixion was not the will of God were particularly troubling to some Episcopalians. According to Thew Forrester, Christ's blood doesn't wash away sin and Christ's death doesn't redeem and restore humanity. Jesus doesn't make us one with God, but simply reveals to us that we're already and always one with God, the bishop-elect maintains.

Such doctrinal innovations were too much for some bishops.

"There are a few things that are absolutely non-negotiable in the Christian faith because without them it ceases to be the Christian faith," said Bishop of West Texas Gary R. Lillibridge.

But a Thew Forrester supporter, Wyoming Bishop Bruce Caldwell, said Thew Forrester's theology "stretches us, but not to the point of breaking."

The bishop-elect defended his liturgical and theological changes, saying they reflected the "continually evolving" Christian faith.

"What we've done is quite responsible and appropriate, and indeed the church needs to do it in order to stay relevant in the 21st century," he said.

In addition to rejecting orthodox Christian teachings about the Cross, Thew Forrester denies that Satan exists, calls the Qur'an the Word of God, describes sin as being blind to our own goodness, and questions whether Jesus is truly the only begotten Son of God. A student of Zen Buddhism, Thew Forrester took Buddhist lay ordination vows and adopted a new Buddhist name—Genpo—meaning "way of universal wisdom."

Critics charged that Thew Forrester had also altered Christian liturgies to add Buddhist, Unitarian-Universalist, and New Age principles.

In a message posted on his blog, Bishop of Bethlehem (Pennsylvania) Paul V. Marshall warned that the denomination's failure to uphold historic Christian teachings had made it an embarrassment.

"As a Church we are increasingly a laughing-stock … because we do not consistently proclaim a solid core, words as simple as 'all have sinned and come short of the glory of God,' yet 'God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself,'" Marshall wrote.

Thew Forrester's theological and liturgical innovations are too extreme for a majority of the Episcopal Church, said Greg Griffith, founder of the conservative Anglican website StandFirmInFaith.com. But that doesn't mean that the Episcopal Church is ready to embrace the faith once delivered to the saints, he added.

"All the Episcopal Church has done is to say that someone who is clearly not a Christian may not be one of its bishops," Griffith said. "It may be history in the making, but it's hardly a grand or noble achievement, and certainly not a signal that the Episcopal Church is returning to orthodoxy."

"In any other church—evangelical, Catholic, Orthodox, Pentecostal—this person wouldn't get to go to seminary, let alone be able to lead" an entire regional body, said Kendall Harmon, canon theologian of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina. The fact that a diocese chose Thew Forrester and that nearly 30 standing committees have voted to confirm him is troubling, Harmon said.

Harmon and other theological conservatives also noted that the opposition to Thew Forrester is fragmented. A few oppose him because he was the only candidate for bishop on the ballot. Others say he should have gone before the proper channels before rewriting the Apostles' Creed and baptismal covenant. Only a minority oppose Thew Forrester because they believe the changes are contrary to Christian teaching, Harmon said.

"This is not something to celebrate. It's something to be sad about. It reveals a deeply, deeply unhealthy church," he said.

But Bill Carroll, rector at Episcopal Church of the Good Shepherd in Athens, Ohio, says the vote may be a turning point for his denomination. "I think history will remember this as the point when the Episcopal Church began to show some backbone about basic Christian doctrine," he wrote in a comments thread at EpiscopalCafe.com. "For too long, we have allowed our respect for difference to mean anything goes. There are boundaries."

Christian leaders outside the Episcopal Church said the church's handling of Thew Forrester has implications beyond the denomination.

"If a so-called bishop does not agree with the central elements of the Christian faith, then he should not call himself a Christian, let alone a bishop—nor should a church ordain him. He is an apostate from the Faith; and a church that ordains such a one is also apostate," said George O. Wood, general superintendent of the Assemblies of God.

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President Albert Mohler agrees.

"The difference between orthodoxy and heresy is of vital importance to every evangelical believer," he said. "We should feel grief and pain whenever we see a church that is involved in this kind of basic theological turmoil and where we hear the truth of the gospel denied, because it compromises the gospel witness of Christians around the world."

Copyright © 2009 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere:

Frank E. Lockwood, religion editor at the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, has been extensively covering the dispute over Kevin Thew Forrester at his blog, Bible Belt Blogger.

A Christianity Today article in March noted that Thew Forrester and a Muslim priest were raising questions about syncretism in the church.

More articles on the widening division in the Anglican Church are available in our full coverage area.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/juneweb-only/123-11.0.html?start=2© 2009 Christianity Today International

Partial Birth Abortion: Mercy or Infanticide?

2009-06-01T16:28:00.000-07:00

Partial Birth Abortion: Mercy or Infanticide?

Abstract

Partial birth abortion is a controversial method of abortion late in a woman’s pregnancy in which the baby is aborted by a craniotomy. Two organizations are commonly affiliated with abortion: Pro-choice supports abortion saying that what is in a woman’s body is her “property”, while Pro-life believes it is murder of innocent babies. Partial birth abortion is murder of innocent children and an abomination to basic human rights and values.

Partial Birth Abortion: Mercy or Infanticide?
Thesis Statement: Partial birth abortion is murder of innocent babies and an abomination to basic human rights and values.
I. The differing sides on Intact D&X are distinctly
opposite
A. Pro-choice supports abortions
1. Done 650 times a year and only when the
mother’s life is endangered or the child is
deformed
2. Says the public is mistaken in its knowledge
of Intact Dilation and Extraction
B. Pro-life doesn’t support abortions of any kind
1. Backed by medical experts it is claimed that
80% of partial birth abortions are purely
elective
2. Believes the baby is a living human being and
deserves the rights of a human
II. There are benefits and harmful consequences to P.B.A.
A. Many abortionists claim that the benefits far out
way the consequences
1. It is safer, quicker, and easier
2. Intact D&X is less traumatic to the mother
B. There are also many harmful effects
1. Risk of uterine and breast cancer is increased
2. Rates of depression also increase
III. The issue of partial birth abortion has come into our
courtrooms
A. Congress made its first attempt to ban P.B.A in 1996
1.Brenda Shafer R.N. testified to what she saw in
abortion clinic
2. Congress passed the ban, but President Clinton
vetoed the bill
B. The second attempt was made in 1997
1. Passed Congress again
2. President Clinton vetoed the bill

Imagine being in excruciating pain from a gaping hole in the back of your neck. Then you hear a slight “whirr” before your brains are sucked out through a tiny tube. Sadly this happens to many babies each day because they are unwanted, inconvenient, or imperfect. The abortionist first delivers the baby breech style except for the head, scissors are then jammed into the head at the base of the skull, and the brains sucked out, the skull then collapses. This procedure is commonly known as partial birth abortion or Intact Dilation and Extraction (Intact D&X) (“Partial Birth Abortion”, 1996). Adolph Hitler often used pregnant women for experiments, and procedures similar to this were used to torture the soon-to-be mothers. Partial birth abortion is murder of innocent children and an abomination to basic human rights and values.

Opposing Views
The opposing sides on the partial birth abortion issue are distinctly opposite. Pro-choice, which supports abortion, says that partial birth abortion is rarely done, and only then when the mother’s life is endangered or the child is deformed. Abortion supporters also say that the baby is only a fetus, and cannot feel any pain when the abortion happens. According to Sykes (2000), people are misled into thinking that partial birth abortion happens thousands of times a year, bu
they only happen about 650 times a year. She also argues that the name “partial birth abortion”, which was given to the method in 1995, alone is misleading in that it implies that a full-term baby is being killed while it is in the process of being born. The name “late term” is also said to be confusing because it implies a third trimester abortion (Sykes, 2000). According to Sykes (2000), Intact D&X has been around for a while and says, “The procedure is not new- a 19th century medical textbook I own describes a method of abortion that involves a craniotomy, and so does a 1930 edition of Williams Obstetrics…”
Pro-life supporters argue that partial birth abortion is done up to 4,000 times a year, and is usually used in situations that aren’t life threatening. Captured in a direct quote from Dr. Martin Haskell, an abortionist, it is seen that the procedure is usually not necessary, “20% are for genetic purposes, and 80% are purely elective.” Medical experts have said that it is never necessary to kill an infant in order to the save the mother’s life once the baby is almost fully delivered (“Partial Birth Abortion”, 1996). Pro-lifers believe that the fetus is not just tissue, but a living breathing human being that can feel pain. By 20 weeks, the earliest an abortionist will do an Intact D&X, the infant has a regular schedule of sleeping, turning, sucking, and kicking, and all of his/her organs are completely formed (“Information Page on Abortion”). According to “Partial Birth Abortion” (1996), during an Intact D&X, a mother is given anesthesia so she won’t feel any pain. Medical experts have testified that infants of that age can experience pain. This drug has very little to no effect on the infant, which means that the infant, before it is killed, is in excruciating pain.

Benefits and Harmful Effects
There are benefits and harmful effects to an Intact Dilation and Extraction. The benefits of partial birth abortion according to Dr. Martin Haskell are that it is safer, quicker, and easier than other abortions, and there is a lessened risk of infection (Sykes, 2000). It is also less traumatic to the mother than say, Intact Dilation and Evacuation, where the baby is torn apart limb-by-limb. The harmful consequences are also definitely something to consider. According to “Information Page on Abortion”, the risk of uterine and breast cancer is greatly increased, as is the rate of depression among mothers.

Banning Intact D&X
In the past decade, the controversial issue of partial birth abortion has come to light and into our courtrooms. One of the reasons it is hard to make it ethically right is when an infant’s head sometimes slips out during an Intact D&X, the infant has full legal rights as a U.S. citizen. Yet the abortionist will still perform the abortion. The abortion is now dancing the fine line between abortion and infanticide (Sprang and Neerhof, 1998). The contentious event of Intact Dilation and Extraction finally reached Congress in 1996. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act was then presented before the House of Representatives and the Senate, Brenda Shafer, R.N. testified:
…The doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks he might fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now
the baby was completely limp. I was totally
unprepared for what I saw…(Shafer, 1996)
This testimony, and numerous others helped Congress pass the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act in 1996. When this bill reached President Clinton for signing, he vetoed the ban on April 10, 1996. Clinton claims this was justified because it affects only hundreds and was necessary to save the mother. Again, on October 8, 1997, the ban was passed. President Clinton chose to veto the bill once more. The House then voted to override the veto, but the Senate
failed (“Partial Birth Abortion”, 1996).
Partial birth abortion’s biggest supporters and their biggest opponents are both adamant in their beliefs. Pro-life bases its beliefs on the Bible and what God has to say about abortion, whereas pro-choice bases its beliefs on what man has to say. Jeremiah 1:5a says, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you…” (New International Version). This shows that God loves the unborn child, and just like His children, will protect them. A clear statement against abortion is in Exodus 20:13, “You shall not murder.” (New International Version) I believe this applies to the child still in the womb. The difference of a couple weeks, and even just a few days separates the abortionist from a murderer, and the procedure from Infanticide. We need to take strong action against not only partial birth abortion, but also abortions of any kind by writing our representatives and senators.

References

Information Page on Abortion. Retrieved October 17, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://web.tusco.net/newone/abortion2.htm

Partial Birth Abortion (1996). Retrieved October 17, 2000
from the World Wide Web:
http://www.jeremiahproject.com/prophecy/partbirthabort.html

Shafer, B. P. (1996, March 21). Hearing on the Partial
Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR 1833). Retrieved October
23, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/testimony.html

Sprang and Neerhof (1998, August 26). Rationale for
Banning Abortions Late in Pregnancy. American
Medical Association 280 744-747. Retrieved
October 19, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.partialbirthabortion.org/welcome/what_is.html

Sykes, M. (2000). ‘Late Term’ Confusion, ‘Partial Birth’
Lies. Retrieved October 23, 2000 from the World Wide
Web:http://prochoice.about.com/newissues/prochoice/library/bllatetermlies.htm

This essay is only for research purposes. If used, be sure to cite it properly!

http://www.essaydepot.com/essayme/589/index.php

Tiller Killed: Dr. George Tiller, Operation Rescue, Late Term Abortion Procedure doctor murdered

2009-06-01T12:19:00.000-07:00

Tiller Killed: Dr. George Tiller, Operation Rescue, Late Term Abortion Procedure doctor murdered
By News Editor • on May 31, 2009

George Tiller (August 8, 1941 – May 31, 2009) was a physician in Wichita, Kansas in the United States. He was the medical director of an abortion clinic in Wichita, Women’s Health Care Services, which specializes in the provision of late-term procedures. Dr. Tiller was shot and murdered while serving as an usher at his Lutheran church on May 31, 2009.

The Women’s Health Care Services clinic is a family planning clinic in Kansas. In particular, Troy Newman and Operation Rescue have made it their goal to see the clinic closed. The clinic has been one of a limited number nationwide that provide late-term procedures.

The clinic itself is unusual in that it offers funerary services to its patients. Some of these services include photographs, footprinting and handprinting, baptism, cremation, arrangement for burial in or out of state, and arrangement for amniocentesis and/or autopsy. Tiller was the target of anti-abortion violence. On August 19, 1993, he was shot in both arms outside of the Wichita clinic by Shelley Shannon, who received an 11-year prison sentence for the crime. On May 31, 2009, Tiller was shot to death as he served as an usher during church services.

The anti-abortion group Operation Rescue condemned the murder:

“We are shocked at this morning’s disturbing news that Mr. Tiller was gunned down. Operation Rescue has worked for years through peaceful, legal means, and through the proper channels to see him brought to justice. We denounce vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place this morning. We pray for Mr. Tiller’s family that they will find comfort and healing that can only be found in Jesus Christ.”

Background
Tiller studied at the University of Kansas School of Medicine from 1963 to 1967. Shortly thereafter, he held a medical internship with United States Navy, and served as flight surgeon in Oakland, California in 1969 and 1970.

Controversy

Christin Gilbert
Christin Gilbert, a 19-year-old woman with Down Syndrome from Keller, Texas, died in January 2005 after a multi-day abortion procedure performed at Tiller’s facility, though reports conflict as to whether the abortion was performed by Tiller himself or by LeRoy Carhart. Gilbert had been 28 weeks pregnant. The autopsy stated that Gilbert died of sepsis following the abortion.[9] Tiller was cleared of any wrongdoing by the Kansas Board of Healing Arts. After a petition from Operation Rescue, a grand jury was convened to probe the death,[10][11] which resulted in no indictments against Tiller.

The O’Reilly Factor controversy
On Friday, November 3, 2006, Bill O’Reilly featured an exclusive segment on his show, The O’Reilly Factor, saying that he has an “inside source” with official clinic documentation indicating that George Tiller performs late-term abortions to alleviate “temporary depression” in the pregnant woman.[12] According to reporting data provided to the Kansas Board of Healing Arts for the year 1998, all of the post-viable “partial-birth” (dilation and extraction) abortion procedures performed in Kansas during that year were performed because “the attending physician believe[d] that continuing the pregnancy [would] constitute a substantial and irreversible impairment of the patient’s mental function.”[citation needed] Tiller responded to O’Reilly’s statements by demanding an investigation into the “inside source” through which the information was leaked, suggesting that Phill Kline, then the Kansas Attorney General, was responsible. Kline denied the charge.

Trial and acquittal
Tiller went on trial in March 2009, charged with nineteen misdemeanors for allegedly consulting a second physician in late-term abortion cases who was not truly “independent” as required by Kansas state law.[13][14]

The case became a cause célèbre for both supporters and opponents of abortion rights. Columnist Jack Cashill compared the trial to the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals,[15] while NYU Professor Jacob Appel described Tiller as “a genuine hero who ranks alongside Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King Jr. in the pantheon of defenders of human liberty.”[16]

On March 27, 2009, Tiller was found not guilty of all 19 misdemeanor charges stemming from some abortions he performed at his Wichita clinic in 2003.[17]

Death
George Tiller was shot dead around 10:00 am Sunday, May 31, 2009 while serving as an usher during worship services at Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita.[7] Local television station KAKE reported that a suspect fled the scene in a light or powder blue Ford Taurus.[18][19]

The suspect fled the scene in his vehicle and authorities are still investigating. The suspect was described as a white male in his 50’s or 60’s, 6′1,” 220 lbs, wearing a white shirt and dark pants. The car is licensed to Merriam, Kansas. The car was later pulled over near Gardner, Kansas and a person was arrested at the time. [18][20]

A candlelight vigil to honor Tiller has been announced for the night of May 31, 2009, in Old Town Square in Wichita.[21]

Reaction to murder
The Kansas chapter of the National Organization for Women issued a statement that read in part, “The Kansas National Organization for Women is deeply saddened at the cowardly act of violence committed against Dr. George Tiller, a champion for women’s reproductive freedom—an act that ultimately took his life. Dr. Tiller, although previously surviving many acts of terrorism and violence directed at him and his clinic, did not allow it to stop him from standing up for the rights of all women. Kansas NOW grieves not only the loss of Dr. Tiller, but also the loss that all women needing access to safe abortion have suffered due to this act of violence.”[22]

Anti-abortion activist Randall Terry, a founder of Operation Rescue, which is now under new leadership and known as Operation Save America, responded to Tiller’s death by issuing a statement in which he wrote: “George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God. I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller’s killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions. Abortion is still murder. And we still must call abortion by its proper name, murder.”[23]

The president of Operation Rescue, formerly known as Operation Rescue West in Wichita, Troy Newman, commented that “Operation Rescue has worked tirelessly on peaceful, non-violent measures to bring him to justice through the legal system, the legislative system […] Mr. Tiller was an abortionist. But this wasn’t personal. We are pro life, and this act was antithetical to what we believe. Our prayers go out to his family and the thousands of people this will impact”[24] The group also stated “We denounce vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place this morning”.[20]

“Dr. Tiller was a fearless, passionate defender of women’s reproductive health and rights,” said Nancy Northup, President of the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights, which had worked on a legal matters with Dr. Tiller. “It’s time that this nation stop demonizing these doctors, and start honoring them.” Former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline, who had prosecuted Tiller, issued a statement saying, “I am stunned by this lawless and violent act which must be condemned and should be met with the full force of law. We join in lifting prayer that God’s grace and presence rest with Dr. Tiller’s family and friends.” Bioethicist Jacob Appel, a longtime Tiller supporter, wrote, “George Tiller will now become for American women what Medgar Evers became for African-Americans. That is no consolations for his friends and family, but it is the lesson of hope to be drawn from this horrific crime.” Kansas Governor Mark Parkinson also condemned the murder.

http://elitestv.com/pub/2009/05/tiller-killed-dr-george-tiller-operation-rescue-late-term-abortion-procedure-doctor-murdered

ASCENSION-DAY AND PENTECOST-DAY

2009-05-30T16:31:00.000-07:00

Examples of Apostasy in the Christian church

2009-05-29T12:25:00.001-07:00

Examples of Apostasy in the Christian church
"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; 4and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths," (2 Tim. 4:3-4).

Following is a list of examples of church that claim to be Christian who are adopting unbiblical ideas. Note: individual churches do not represent denominations.

Changing the Bible to suit gender-neutral wording.
This has crept into the church periodically in the last 30 years. Due to pressure from the secular society, some Christian based Bible publishers are offering gender-neutral Bibles. This is sad. Is God's word any less true because it is not gender-neutral? Should Christians change God's word to suit the unbeliever? No and no.
Metropolitan Community Church which openly approves of homosexuality.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church (on homosexuality)
"The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America decided Monday to undertake its first major study on whether to endorse the morality of homosexual relationships...The Rev. Ann Tiemeyer of Woodside, N.Y., said she supports greater acceptance of gay church members and clergy. "It is time to send a message that we are a welcoming church, in our clergy as well as our pews," she said," (Associated Press Online, 08/13/2001, Lutherans to Study Homosexuality).
"The church currently allows homosexual clergy if they practice celibacy." (New Bishop for Evangelical Lutherans, ELCA, Associated Press Online, 10/06/2001.)
The Evangelical Lutheran Church (on evolution)
The ELCA doesn't have an official position on creation vs. evolution, but we subscribe to the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation, so we believe God created the universe and all that is therein, only not necessarily in six 24-hour days, and that he may actually have used evolution in the process of creation. (http://www.elca.org/co/faq/evolution.html)
The Episcopal Church (woman bishop to oust conservative priest)
"An Episcopal Church committee has backed efforts by Washington's acting Bishop Jane Holmes Dixon to oust a conservative priest. A nine-member panel of clergy and laity said Dixon followed church law when she rejected the decision of the Christ Church vestry to hire the Rev. Samuel Edwards and ordered him to leave by May 25. Edwards refused, and continues to conduct services and occupy the rectory," (Religion News in Brief, Associated Press Online, 09/27/2001),
The Mennonite Church (on homosexuality)
"After nearly two decades of negotiation, the nation's two largest Mennonite denominations overwhelmingly approved a merger Thursday that creates the 125,000-member Mennonite Church USA....Many delegates expressed mixed feelings about the new membership guidelines, under which the church will not recognize same-sex marriages. Individual congregations and regional conferences will decide whether homosexuals will be allowed as members. (Two Mennonite Groups Approve Merger, NASHVILLE, Tenn., Jul 05, 2001, AP Online via COMTEX).
The Presbyterian Church United States of America (on homosexuality)
"In a closely watched case, the highest court of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) refused to rule Tuesday on whether a homosexual man is eligible to serve as a church elder. The court said the dispute surrounding Wayne Osborne had become moot because the First Presbyterian Church of Stamford, Conn., had installed another group of elders," (Presbyterian Court Sidesteps Ruling; Ky., Dec 04, 2001, AP Online via COMTEX).
The United Church of Christ (on homosexuality)
"The United Church of Christ set up a $500,000 scholarship fund for gay and lesbian seminarians Friday and urged wider acceptance of homosexuals by other denominations." (United Church Makes Gay Scholarship, CLEVELAND, Jun 16, 2000, AP Online via COMTEX).
The United Methodist Church (on homosexuality)
"The supreme court of the United Methodist Church was asked Thursday to reconsider the denomination's ban on gay clergy. (Church court of United Methodists asked to decide on gay clergy ban, NASHVILLE, Tennessee, Oct 25, 2001, AP WorldStream via COMTEX).
In contemporary culture, homosexuality is gaining ground and acceptance. This should never bleed over into the Christian church. The fact that homosexuality is even in question in some denominations is a definite sign of apostasy since homosexuality clearly contradicts the plain teaching of scripture that homosexuality is a sin: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God," (1 Cor. 6:9-10).

Unfortunately, too many denominations are listening to the false gospel of the world and becoming secularized. They need to repent and stand on God's word, whether it is popular or not.

Home | Contact | Publications | Online Schools | Support CARM | Copying and Linking | Report an error | Statement of Faith

http://www.carm.org/christianity/-church/examples-apostasy-christian-church

The Compassion of Truth: Homosexuality in Biblical Perspective

2009-05-29T12:23:00.000-07:00

The Compassion of Truth: Homosexuality in Biblical Perspective
R. Albert Mohler Jr.

Homosexuality is perhaps the most controversial issue of debate in American culture. Once described as "the love that dares not speak its name," homosexuality is now discussed and debated throughout American society.

Behind this discussion is an agenda, pushed and promoted by activists, who seek legitimization and social sanction for homosexual acts, relationships, and lifestyles. The push is on for homosexual "marriage," the removal of all structures and laws considered oppressive to homosexuals, and the recognition of homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, and others as "erotic minorities," deserving of special legal protection.

The larger culture is now bombarded with messages and images designed to portray homosexuality as a normal lifestyle. Homoerotic images are so common in the mainstream media that many citizens have virtually lost the capacity to be shocked.

Those who oppose homosexuality are depicted as narrow-minded bigots and described as "homophobic." Anyone who suggests that heterosexual marriage is the only acceptable and legitimate arena of sexual activity is lambasted as out-dated, oppressive, and outrageously out of step with modern culture.

The church has not been an outsider to these debates. As the issue of homosexual legitimization has gained public prominence and moved forward, some churches and denominations have joined the movement--even becoming advocates of homosexuality--while others stand steadfastly opposed to compromise on the issue. In the middle are churches and denominations unable or unwilling to declare a clear conviction on homosexuality. Issues of homosexual ordination and marriage are regularly discussed in the assemblies of several denominations--and many congregations.

This debate is itself nothing less than a revolutionary development. Any fair-minded observer of American culture and the American churches must note the incredible speed with which this issue has been driven into the cultural mainstream. The challenge for the believing church now comes down to this: Do we have a distinctive message in the midst of this moral confusion?

Our answer must be Yes. The Christian church must have a distinctive message to speak to the issue of homosexuality, because faithfulness to Holy Scripture demands that we do so.

The affirmation of biblical authority is thus central to the church's consideration of this issue--or any issue. The Bible is the Word of God in written form, inerrant and infallible, inspired by the Holy Spirit and "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" [2 Timothy 3:16]. This is the critical watershed: Those churches which reject the authority of Scripture will eventually succumb to cultural pressure and accommodate their understanding of homosexuality to the spirit of the age. Those churches that affirm, confess, and acknowledge the full authority of the Bible have no choice in this matter--we must speak a word of compassionate truth. And that compassionate truth is this: Homosexual acts are expressly and unconditionally forbidden by God through His Word, and such acts are an abomination to the Lord by His own declaration.

Professor Elizabeth Achtemeier of Richmond's Union Theological Seminary states the case clearly: "The clearest teaching of Scripture is that God intended sexual intercourse to be limited to the marriage relationship of one man and one woman."(1)That this is so should be apparent to all who look to the Bible for guidance on this issue. This assessment of the biblical record would have been completely uncontroversial throughout the last nineteen centuries of the Christian church. Only in recent years have some biblical scholars come forward to claim that the Bible presents a mixed message--or a very different message--on homosexuality.

The homosexual agenda is pushed by activists who are totally committed to the cause of making homosexuality a sanctioned and recognized form of sexual activity--and the basis for legitimate family relationships. Every obstacle which stands in the way of progress toward this agenda must be removed, and Scripture stands as the most formidable obstacle to that agenda.

We should not be surprised therefore that apologists for the homosexual agenda have arisen even within the world of biblical scholarship. Biblical scholars are themselves a very mixed group, with some defending the authority of Scripture and others bent on deconstructing the biblical text. The battle lines on this issue are immediately apparent. Many who deny the truthfulness, inspiration, and authority of the Bible have come to argue that Scripture sanctions homosexuality--or at least to argue that the biblical passages forbidding homosexual acts are confused, misinterpreted, or irrelevant.

To accomplish this requires feats of exotic biblical interpretation worthy of the most agile circus contortionist. Several decades ago, the late J. Gresham Machen remarked that "The Bible, with a complete abandonment of all scientific historical method, and of all common sense, is made to say the exact opposite of what it means; no Gnostic, no medieval monk with his fourfold sense of Scripture, ever produced more absurd Biblical interpretation than can be heard every Sunday in the pulpits of New York."(2) Dr. Machen was referring to the misuse and misapplication of Scripture which he saw as a mark of the infusion of a pagan spirit within the church. Even greater absurdity than that observed by Machen is now evident among those determined to make the Bible sanction homosexuality.

Different approaches are taken toward this end. For some, an outright rejection of biblical authority is explicit. With astounding candor, William M. Kent, a member of the committee assigned by United Methodists to study homosexuality declared that "the scriptural texts in the Old and New Testaments condemning homosexual practice are neither inspired by God nor otherwise of enduring Christian value. Considered in the light of the best biblical, theological, scientific, and social knowledge, the biblical condemnation of homosexual practice is better understood as representing time and place bound cultural prejudice."(3) This approach is the most honest taken among the revisionists. These persons do not deny that the Bible expressly forbids homosexual practices--they acknowledge that the Bible does just that. Their answer is straightforward; we must abandon the Bible in light of modern "knowledge."

The next step taken by those who follow this approach is to suggest that it is not sufficient for the authority of the Bible to be denied--the Bible must be opposed. Gary David Comstock, Protestant chaplain at Wesleyan University charges: "Not to recognize, critique, and condemn Paul's equation of godlessness with homosexuality is dangerous. To remain within our respective Christian traditions and not challenge those passages that degrade and destroy us is to contribute to our own oppression."(4) Further, Comstock argues that "These passages will be brought up and used against us again and again until Christians demand their removal from the biblical canon, or, at the very least, formally discredit their authority to prescribe behavior."(5)

A second approach taken by the revisionists is to suggest that the human authors of Scripture were merely limited by the scientific immaturity of their age. If they knew what we now know, these revisionists claim, the human authors of Scripture would never have been so closed-minded. Victor Paul Furnish argues: "Not only the terms, but the concepts 'homosexual' and 'homosexuality' were unknown in Paul's day. These terms like 'heterosexual,' 'heterosexuality,' 'bisexual,' and 'bisexuality' presuppose an understanding of human sexuality that was possible only with the advent of modern psychology and sociological analysis. The ancient writers were operating without the vaguest idea of what we have learned to call 'sexual orientation'."(6)

Indeed, Paul and the other apostles seem completely ignorant of modern secular understandings of sexual identity and orientation--and this truth is fundamentally irrelevant. Modern notions of sexual orientation must be brought to answer to Scripture. Scripture must not be subjected to defend itself in light of modern notions. Paul will not apologize to Sigmund Freud or the American Psychological Association, and the faithful church must call this approach what it is; a blatant effort to subvert the authority of Scripture and replace biblical authority with the false authority of modern secular ideologies.

A third approach taken by the revisionists is to deny that biblical passages actually refer to homosexuality at all, or to argue that the passages refer to specific and "oppressive" homosexual acts. For instance, some argue that Paul's references to homosexuality are actually references to pederasty [the sexual abuse of young boys], to homosexual rape, or to "non-committed" homosexual relationships. The same is argued concerning passages such as Genesis 19 and Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Yet, in order to make this case, the revisionists must deny the obvious--and argue the ridiculous.

Likewise, some argue that the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality, but inhospitality. John J. McNeill makes this case, arguing that the church oppressively shifted the understanding of the sin of Sodom from inhospitality to homosexuality.(7) The text, however, cannot be made to play this game. The context indicates that the sin of Sodom is clearly homosexuality--and without this meaning, the passage makes no sense. The language and the structure of the text are clear. Beyond this, Jude, verse 7, self-evidently links the sin of Sodom with sexual perversion and immorality, stating that "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire."

This verse is sufficient to indicate the severity of the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 speaks of male homosexuality as an "abomination"--the strongest word used of God's judgment against an act.

The most extensive argument against homosexuality is not found in the Old Testament, however, but in Romans 1:22-27, a passage which is found within Paul's lengthy introduction to his Roman letter.

"Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason, God gave them over to degrading passions; for the women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

As Romans 1 makes absolutely clear, homosexuality is fundamentally an act of unbelief. As Paul writes, the wrath of God is revealed against all those "who suppress the truth in unrighteousness."(8) God the Creator has implanted in all humanity a knowledge of Himself, and all are without excuse. This is the context of Paul's explicit statements on homosexuality.

Homosexual acts and homosexual desire, states Paul, are a rebellion against God's sovereign intention in creation and a gross perversion of God's good and perfect plan for His created order. Paul makes clear that homosexuality--among both males and females--is a dramatic sign of rebellion against God and His intention in creation. Those about whom Paul writes have worshipped the creature rather than the Creator. Thus, men and women have forfeited the natural complementarity of God's intention for heterosexual marriage and have turned to members of their own sex, burning with an illicit desire which is in itself both degrading and dishonorable.

This is a very strong and clear message. The logical progression in Romans 1 is undeniable. Paul shifts immediately from his description of rebellion against God as Creator to an identification of homosexuality--among both men and women--as the first and most evident sign of a society upon which God has turned His judgment. Essential to understanding this reality in theological perspective is a recognition of homosexuality as an assault upon the integrity of creation and God's intention in creating human beings in two distinct and complementary genders.

Here the confessing and believing Church runs counter to the cultural tidal wave. Even to raise the issue of gender is to offend those who wish to eradicate any gender distinctions, arguing that these are merely "socially constructed realities" and vestiges of an ancient past.

Scripture will not allow this attempt to deny the structures of creation. Romans 1 must be read in light of Genesis 1 and 2. As Genesis 1:27 makes apparent, God intended from the beginning to create human beings in two genders or sexes--"male and female He created them." Both man and woman were created in the image of God. They were and are distinct, and yet inseparably linked by God's design. The genders are different, and the distinction goes far beyond mere physical differences, but the man recognized in the woman "bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh."(9)

The bond between man and woman is marriage, which is not an historical accident or the result of socialization over time. To the contrary, marriage and the establishment of the heterosexual covenant union is central to God's intention--before and after the Fall. Immediately following the creation of man and woman come the instructive words: "For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed."(10)

Evangelicals have often failed to present this biblical truth straightforwardly, and thus many of our churches and members are unarmed for the ideological, political, and cultural conflicts which mark the modern landscape. The fundamental axiom upon which evangelical Christians must base any response to homosexuality it this: God alone is sovereign, and He has created the universe and all within by His own design and to His own good pleasure. Furthermore, He has revealed to us His creative intention through Holy Scripture--and that intention was clearly to create and establish two distinct but complementary genders or sexes. The Genesis narratives demonstrate that this distinction of genders is neither accidental nor inconsequential to the divine design. "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make for him a helper suitable for him," determined God.(11) And God created woman.

God's creative intention is further revealed in the cleaving of man to the woman ("his wife") and their new identity as "one flesh."(12) This biblical assertion, which no contorted interpretation can escape, clearly places marriage and sexual relations within God's creative act and design.

The sexual union of a man and a woman united in covenant marriage is thus not only allowed, but is commanded as God's intention and decree. Sexual expression is limited to this heterosexual covenant, which in its clearest biblical expression is one man and one woman united for as long as they both shall live.

Therefore, any sexual expression outside of that heterosexual marriage relationship is illicit, immoral, and outlawed by God's command and law. That fundamental truth runs counter, not only to the homosexual agenda, but to the rampant sexual immorality of the age. Indeed, the Bible has much more to say about illicit heterosexual activity than about homosexual acts. Adultery, rape, bestiality, pornography, and fornication are expressly forbidden.

As E. Michael Jones argues, most modern ideologies are, at base, efforts to rationalize sexual behavior. In fact, he identifies modernity itself as "rationalized lust." We should expect the secular world, which is at war with God's truth, to be eager in its efforts to rationalize lust, and to seek legitimacy and social sanction for its sexual sins. We should be shocked, however, that many within the Church now seek to accomplish the same purpose, and to join in common cause with those openly at war with God's truth.

Paul's classic statement in Romans 1 sets the issues squarely before us. Homosexuality is linked directly to idolatry, for it is on the basis of their idolatry that God gave them up to their own lusts [epithymia]. Their hearts were committed to impurity [akatharsia], and they were degrading [atimazo] their own bodies by their illicit lusts.

Their idolatry--exchanging the truth of God for a lie, and worshipping the creature rather than the Creator--led God to give them over to their degrading passions [pathos atimia]. From here, those given over to their degraded passions exchanged the natural use of sexual intercourse for that which God declared to be unnatural [para physin]. At this point Paul explicitly deals with female homosexuality or lesbianism. This is one of the very few references in all ancient literature to female homosexuality, and Paul's message is clear.

But the women involved in lesbianism were not and are not alone. Men, too, have given up natural intercourse with women and have been consumed with passion [orexis] for other men. The acts they commit, they commit without shame [aschemosyne]. As a result, they have received within their own bodies the penalty of their error.

Beyond this, God has given them up to their own depraved minds, and they do those things which are not proper [kathekonta]. The message could not be more candid and clear, but there are those who seek to deny the obvious. Some have claimed that Paul is here dealing only with those heterosexual persons who commit homosexual acts. The imaginative folly of this approach is undone by Scripture, which allows no understanding that any human beings are born anything other than heterosexual. The modern--and highly political--notion of homosexual "orientation" cannot be squared with the Bible. The only orientation indicated by Scripture is the universal human orientation to sin.(13)

In other letters, Paul indicates that homosexuals--along with those who persist in other sins--will not inherit the Kingdom of God. The word Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:10 is arsenokoites, a word with a graphic etymology. Some modern revisionists have attempted to suggest that this refers only to homosexual rapists or child abusers. This argument will not stand even the slightest scholarly consideration. The word does not appear in any Greek literature of the period. As New Testament scholar David Wright has demonstrated, the word was taken by Paul directly from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, and its meaning is homosexuality itself.(14)

The biblical witness is clear: Homosexuality is a grievous sin against God and is a direct rejection of God's intention and command in creation. All sin is a matter of eternal consequence, and the only hope for any sinner is the redemption accomplished by Jesus Christ, who on the cross paid the price for our sin, serving as the substitute for the redeemed.

Our response to persons involved in homosexuality must be marked by genuine compassion. But a central task of genuine compassion is telling the truth, and the Bible reveals a true message we must convey. Those seeking to contort and subvert the Bible's message are not responding to homosexuals with compassion. To lie is never compassionate--and their lie leads unto death.

1. Elizabeth Achtemeier, quoted in "Gays and the Bible," by Mark O'Keefe, The Virginian Pilot, Norfolk, Virginia (February 14, 1993), p. C-1.

2. J. Gresham Machen, "The Separateness of the Church," in God Transcendent, edited by Ned Bernard Stonehouse (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1982 [1949]), p.113.

3. From the statement by William M. Kent published in Report of the Committee to Study Homosexuality to the General Council on Ministries of the United Methodist Church, August 24, 1991.

4. Gary David Comstock, Gay Theology Without Apology (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 1993), p. 43.

5. Ibid.

6. Victor Paul Furnish, The Moral Teachings of Paul: Selected Issues (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985), p. 85.

7. John J. McNeill, The Church and the Homosexual, 3rd edition (Boston: Beacon Press, 1988).

8. Romans 1:18. All biblical references are taken from the New American Standard Version unless otherwise noted.

9. Genesis 2:23.

10. Genesis 2:24-25.

11. Genesis 2:18.

12. Genesis 2:24.

13. Romans 3:9-20.

14. D. F. Wright, "Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of Arsenokoitai." Vigiliae Christianae 38 (1984): 125-53.

http://www.albertmohler.com/article_print.php?cid=7 © 2009, All rights reserved, www.AlbertMohler.com

What does the Bible say about homosexuality?

2009-05-29T12:22:00.000-07:00

What does the Bible say about homosexuality?
by Matt Slick

There are those who like to say that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. Various verses are cited (out of context) and the verses that people use to show that homosexuality is wrong are explained away. The world wants to change God's words and meanings into something more suitable to its sinful desires. Nevertheless, the truth stands: The Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. Let's look at what it says.

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

Homosexuality is clearly condemned by the Bible. It goes against the created order of God. He created Adam and then made a woman. This is what God has ordained and it is what is right. Unlike other sins, homosexuality has a severe judgment administered by God Himself. This judgment is simple: They are given over to their passions. That means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins (Romans 1:18ff). As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing. Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance and trusting in Jesus. Without Jesus, they will have no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation.

What should be the Christian's Response to the Homosexual?
Just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (her). Homosexuality is a sin and like any other sin, it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible. It needs to be laid at the cross, repented of, and never done again.

As a Christian, you should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same you would any other person in sin. The homosexual is still made in the image of God -- even though he is in grave sin. Therefore, you should show him same dignity as anyone else you come in contact with. However, this does not mean that you are to approve of their sin. Don't compromise your witness for a socially acceptable opinion that is void of godliness.

******************

1. All Bible quotes are from the NASB Bible.
http://www.carm.org/questions/about-bible/what-does-bible-say-about-homosexuality

Christianity and Homosexuality
by Matt Slick

The homosexuals and lesbians have gained considerable political and social momentum in America. They have "come out" as the term goes, left their closets, and are knocking on the doors of your homes. Through TV, Radio, Newspapers, and Magazines, they are preaching their doctrine of tolerance, equality, justice, and love. They do not want to be perceived as abnormal or dangerous. They want acceptance and they want you to welcome them with open, loving arms, approving of what they do.

In numerous states in America several bills have been introduced by the pro homosexual politicians to ensure that the practice of homosexuality is a right protected by law. Included in these bills are statements affecting employers, renters, and schools. Even churches would be required to hire a quota of homosexuals with "sensitivity" training courses to be "strongly urged" in various work places. There is even legislation that would make the state pick up the tab for the defense of homosexuality in lawsuits, while requiring the non homosexual side to pay out of his/her pocket.

The Christian church has not stood idle. When it has spoken out against this political immorality, the cry of "separation of church and state" is shouted at the "religious bigots." But when the homosexual community uses political power to control the church, no such cry of bigotry is heard. Political correctness says it is okay for the homosexual community to impose its will upon churches, but not the other way around. Apparently, it isn't politically correct to side with Christians.

What does the Bible say?
The Bible, as God's word, reveals God's moral character and it shapes the morality of the Christian. There have been those who have used the Bible to support homosexuality, taken verses out of context and read into them interpretations that are not there. Quite simply, the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. Let's look at what it says.

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."
1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,1 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
With such clear statements against homosexuality, it is difficult to see how different groups can say the Bible supports homosexuality. But they try by redefining love, marriage, sex, homosexuality, etc. in order to accomplish their goal. But the truth is that God created man and woman, not man and man, or woman and woman. Nevertheless, the Bible is a powerful book, and because it is the homosexuals often try and make the Bible agree with its agenda. But it doesn't work. The Bible does not support homosexuality as we have seen from the scriptures above.

Unlike other sins, this sexual sin has a judgment administered by God Himself: He gives them over to their passions (Rom. 1:26-28). This means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins. As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing. Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance. Without repentance, there will be no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation.

Finally, with their hardened hearts, they seek to promote their lifestyle in society. This is become more real since homosexuals are gaining strength and forcing those with opposing views into confinement and penalty. So much for fairness. It is okay to demand it for themselves, but they balk at allowing it for those who disagree.

Should homosexuals be allowed to marry one another?
In this politically correct climate that relinquishes morality to the relativistic whims of society, stating that homosexuals should not marry is becoming unpopular. Should a woman be allowed to marry another woman? Should a man be allowed to marry another man? Should they be given legal protection and special rights to practice their homosexuality? No, they should not.

The Bible, of course, condemns homosexuality. It takes no leap of logic to discern that homosexual marriage is also condemned. But our society does not rely on the Bible for its moral truth. Instead, it relies on a humanistic and relativistic moral base upon which it builds its ethical structure.

Homosexuality is not natural. Just look at the male and female bodies. They are obviously designed to couple. The natural design is apparent. It is not natural to couple male with male and female with female. It would be like trying to fit two screws together and to nuts together and then say, "See, its natural for them to go together."

Homosexuals argue that homosexuality is natural since it occurs in the animal world. But this is problematic. It is true that this behavior occurs in the animal kingdom. But, it is also true that we see animals eating their prey alive. We see savagery, cruelty, and extreme brutality. Yet, we do not condone such behavior in our own society. Proponents of the natural order argument as a basis for homosexuality should not pick-and-choose the situations that best fit their agendas. They should be consistent and not compare us to animals. We are not animals. We are made in God's image. Logic says that if homosexuality is natural and acceptable because it exists in the animal world, then it must also be natural and acceptable to eat people alive. But, this is obviously faulty thinking. Therefore, appeal to the practice in the animal world as support for homosexual practice is equally faulty.

Political protection of a sexual practice is ludicrous. I do not believe it is proper to pass laws stating that homosexuals have 'rights.' What about pedophilia or bestiality? These are sexual practices. Should they also be protected by law? If homosexuality is protected by law, why not those as well?

Of course, these brief paragraphs can in no way exhaust the issue of homosexuality's moral equity. But, the family is the basis of our culture. It is the most basic unit. Destroy it and you destroy society and homosexuality is not helping the family.

What should be the Christian's Response to the Homosexual?
Just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (her). Homosexuality is a sin and like any other sin, it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible. It needs to be laid at the cross and repented of.

Christians should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same they would any other person in sin. They should treat homosexuals with the same dignity as they would anyone else because, like or not, they are made in the image of God. However, this does not mean that Christians should approve of their sin. Not at all. Christians should not compromise their witness for a politically correct opinion that is shaped by guilt and fear.

In fact the following verses should be kept in mind when dealing with homosexuals.

"Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. 6 Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person," (Col. 4:5-6).
"But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith," (1 Tim. 1:5).
You do not win people to the Lord by condemning them and calling them names. This is why God says to speak with wisdom, grace, and love. Let the love of Christ flow through you so that the homosexuals can see true love and turn to Christ instead of away from Him.

Objections Answered
1) If you want to say homosexuality is wrong based on the O.T. laws, then you must still uphold all of the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

The Old Testament laws are categorized in three groups: the civil, the priestly, and the moral. The civil laws must be understood in the context of a theocracy. Though the Jewish nation in the Old Testament was often headed by a king, it was a theocratic system with the Scriptures as a guide to the nation. Those laws that fall under this category are not applicable today because we are not under a theocracy.

The priestly laws dealing with the Levitical and Aaronic priesthoods, were representative of the future and true High Priest Jesus who offered Himself as a sacrifice on the cross. Since Jesus fulfilled the priestly laws, they are no longer necessary to be followed and are not now applicable.

The moral laws, on the other hand, are not abolished. Because the moral laws are based upon the character of God. Since God's holy character does not change, the moral laws do not change either. Therefore, the moral laws are still in effect.

In the New Testament we do not see a reestablishment of the civil or priestly laws. But we do see a reestablishment of the moral law. This is why we see New Testament condemnation of homosexuality as a sin but not with the associated death penalty.

2) That homosexuality is a sin if committed outside of a loving, committed, relationship. But a committed homosexual relationship is acceptable to God. This is a fallacious argument.

Homosexuality is never defined in the Bible in an acceptable behavior if it were practiced by individuals who had a loving relationship with each other. Homosexuality is always condemned. Homosexual acts are not natural acts and they are against God created order. As stated above in the article, male and female are designed to fit together -- in more ways than one. This is how God made us and he made as this way so that we could carry out his command of filling the earth with people. Homosexuality is an aberration from God's created order and makes it impossible to fulfill the command that God has given mankind.

Whether or not a homosexual couple is committed to each other is irrelevant to the argument since love and feelings do not change moral truths. If a couple, not married to each other but married to someone else, commits adultery yet they are committed to loving each other, their sin is not excused.

If homosexuality is made acceptable because the homosexual couple "loves" each other and are committed to each other, and by that logic we can say that couples of the same sex or even of different sexes who love each other and are committed to each other in a relationship automatically make that relationship morally correct. The problem is that love is used as an excuse to violate scripture. Second, it would mean that such things as pedophilia would be acceptable if the "couple" had a loving and committed relationship to each other. Third, the subjectivity of what it means to "love" and the "committed" to another person can be used to justify almost any sort of behavior.

3) That where homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible it is not how we relate to it in the 21st century. It meant something different to the people in Biblical times and has nothing to do with modern day homosexuality.

The four Scriptures listed above refute this idea. Let's look at what they say and see if there is some misunderstanding? The first scripture in Leviticus says that it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as he would lie with a woman. Obviously this is referring to sexual relationship and it is condemned. The second scripture in Leviticus says the same thing. The third scripture in 1 Corinthians outright condemns homosexuality. And finally, Romans clearly describes a homosexual act as being indecent.

There is no mistake about it, the view of homosexuality in the Old Testament as well as the New, is a very negative one. It is consistently condemned as being sinful.

Whether or not people of the 21st-century think homosexuality is acceptable or not has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is sinful before God. God exists and he is the standard of righteousness. Whether or not anyone believes this or believes that morality is a flowing and vague system of development over time, has no bearing on truth. God has condemned homosexuality as a sin in the Bible. It is a sin that needs to be repented of the same as any other sense and the only way to receive this forgiveness is through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

4) That the sin of Sodom was actually the sin of inhospitality.

This is a common error made by supporters of homosexuality. The problem is this explanation does not account for the offering of Lott's daughter to the men outside the home, a sinful act indeed, but one that was rejected by the men outside who desired to have relations with the two angels in Lot's home. Gen. 19:5 says, "and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.' Those men wanted to have sexual relations with the angels who appeared also as males. Does it make sense to claim that God destroyed two cities because the inhabitants weren't nice to visitors? If that were the case, then shouldn't God destroy every household that is rude to guests? Gen. 18:20 says that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was "exceedingly grave." Not being hospitable to someone has never been considered an exceedingly grave sin, especially in the Bible. But, going against God's created order in violation of his command to fill in multiply the earth in the act of homosexuality, is an exceedingly grave sin. In fact, we know that it is exceedingly grave because in Romans we read about the judgment of God upon the homosexuals in that he gives them over to the depravity of their hearts and minds. This is a serious judgment of God upon the sinner because it means that the sinner will not become convicted of his or her sins and will not then repent. Without repentance there is no salvation and without salvation there is damnation. Therefore, the argument that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they were not hospitable, carries no validity.

1. The word "homosexual" in the NASB version is the Greek aρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoites). It occurs two times in the New Testament. The KJV translates it as abuser of (ones) self with mankind once, and defile (ones) self with mankind once. 1 one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual. (Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the test of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurrence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.) (G733). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.) The 1901 ASV, the KJV, translate it as "abusers of themselves." The NASB and NKJV translate it as "homosexuals." The NIV as "homosexual offenders." The RSV as "sexual perverts."

http://www.carm.org:80/christianity/christian-issues/christianity-and-homosexuality

Matt Slick :President and Founder of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

2009-05-29T12:19:00.000-07:00

Matt Slick

President and Founder of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. Matt earned his Bachelors in Social Science from Concordia University, Irvine, CA in 1988. He earned his Masters of Divinity from Westminster Theological Seminary, in Escondido, CA, in 1991. He now resides in the Boise, Idaho area with his family. He is ordained. Matt started CARM in October of 1995 to respond to the many false teachings of the cults on the Internet when it first began.

Matt currently hosts Faith and Reason Radio, heard weeknights, 6-7 pm, M-F in the Boise area and over the Internet.

Matt does not post anywhere on the internet under the name "Matt Slick" except the following locations: CARM's own discussion Boards, CARM's own chat room, vbulletin.com, paltalk.com. This low profile is so impersonators can be easily spotted.

Matt also uses pseudonyms when exploring, gathering information, testing ideas, and generally does not affirm or deny who he is or isn't regarding pseudonyms.

Many people ask about Matt's testimony. So here is Matt Slick's Testimony. Also, here a clarification of Matt's personal beliefs in the article "What I believe".

Schedule
Nov. 7-11, 2007 - Charlotte, N.C., to attend apologetics conference. Meeting with CARMites on the 10th at 6pm, Outback Steak House, 8338 Pineville-Matthews Rd, Charlotte, NC 28226, (704) 759-9575.
Dec. 3-10, 2007 - St. Louis and Cape Girardeau, Missouri; Kansas City, Kansas. Will meet with two video specialists in Cape Girardeau.
Jan. 25-26, 2008 - Washington D.C., to speak at a church. Details to come.
Feb. 28-29, 2008 - New Jersey, not too far from Philadelphia.
Feb. 2008 - In town guest at CARM to work on video production.
Mar. 21-23, 2008 - 34th annual Atheist Conference, Minn. MN.
April, 17, 2008 - Debate with atheist on "Does God exist?" in Pensecola, FL.
May 12, 2008 - Debate with Oneness believer on "Is the Trinity biblical?" Boise, ID
May 13, 2008 - Debate with Oneness believer on "Is Water baptism necessary for salvation?" Boise, ID
Nov. 8-13, 2008 - Speaking at First Baptist Church in Weston, FL.
March 8-9, 2009 - Speaking at a Calvary Church in Overton, Nevada with Bill McKeever from mrm.org.
Late, 2009 - Debate with Mr. Shook, UCLA. Update: The debate has been postponed for a later date if it will happen at all. Updates will be forthcoming. The tentative topic was going to be: "Which is superior as an ethical system, Christianity or Secular Humanism?" Details to come.

Home | Contact | Publications | Online Schools | Support CARM | Copying and Linking | Report

http://www.carm.org:80/more-stuff/about-carm/matt-slick

What does the Bible say about homosexuality? Is homosexuality a sin?

2009-05-28T07:46:00.000-07:00

What does the Bible say about homosexuality? Is homosexuality a sin?

Question: "What does the Bible say about homosexuality? Is homosexuality a sin?"

Answer: The Bible consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Romans 1:26-27 teaches specifically that homosexuality is a result of denying and disobeying God. When people continue in sin and unbelief, God “gives them over” to even more wicked and depraved sin in order to show them the futility and hopelessness of life apart from God. 1 Corinthians 6:9 proclaims that homosexual “offenders” will not inherit the kingdom of God.

God does not create a person with homosexual desires. The Bible tells us that people become homosexuals because of sin (Romans 1:24-27) and ultimately because of their own choice. A person may be born with a greater susceptibility to homosexuality, just as some people are born with a tendency to violence and other sins. That does not excuse the person’s choosing to sin by giving in to sinful desires. If a person is born with a greater susceptibility to anger/rage, does that make it right for him to give into those desires? Of course not! The same is true with homosexuality.

However, the Bible does not describe homosexuality as a “greater” sin than any other. All sin is offensive to God. Homosexuality is just one of the many things listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 that will keep a person from the kingdom of God. According to the Bible, God’s forgiveness is just as available to a homosexual as it is to an adulterer, idol worshipper, murderer, thief, etc. God also promises the strength for victory over sin, including homosexuality, to all those who will believe in Jesus Christ for their salvation (1 Corinthians 6:11; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Philippians 4:13).
http://www.gotquestions.org/homosexuality-Bible.html

What does the Bible say about gay marriage / same sex marriage?

Question: "What does the Bible say about gay marriage / same sex marriage?"

Answer: While the Bible does address homosexuality, it does not explicitly mention gay marriage/same-sex marriage. It is clear, however, that the Bible condemns homosexuality as an immoral and unnatural sin. Leviticus 18:22 identifies homosexual sex as an abomination, a detestable sin. Romans 1:26-27 declares homosexual desires and actions to be shameful, unnatural, lustful, and indecent. First Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexuals are unrighteous and will not inherit the kingdom of God. Since both homosexual desires and actions are condemned in the Bible, it is clear that homosexuals “marrying” is not God’s will, and would be, in fact, sinful.

Whenever the Bible mentions marriage, it is between a male and a female. The first mention of marriage, Genesis 2:24, describes it as a man leaving his parents and being united to his wife. In passages that contain instructions regarding marriage, such as 1 Corinthians 7:2-16 and Ephesians 5:23-33, the Bible clearly identifies marriage as being between a man and a woman. Biblically speaking, marriage is the lifetime union of a man and a woman, primarily for the purpose of building a family and providing a stable environment for that family.

The Bible alone, however, does not have to be used to demonstrate this understanding of marriage. The biblical viewpoint of marriage has been the universal understanding of marriage in every human civilization in world history. History argues against gay marriage. Modern secular psychology recognizes that men and women are psychologically and emotionally designed to complement one another. In regard to the family, psychologists contend that a union between a man and woman in which both spouses serve as good gender role models is the best environment in which to raise well-adjusted children. Psychology argues against gay marriage. In nature/physicality, clearly, men and women were designed to “fit” together sexually. With the “natural” purpose of sexual intercourse being procreation, clearly only a sexual relationship between a man and a woman can fulfill this purpose. Nature argues against gay marriage.

So, if the Bible, history, psychology, and nature all argue for marriage being between a man and a woman—why is there such a controversy today? Why are those who are opposed to gay marriage/same-sex marriage labeled as hateful, intolerant bigots, no matter how respectfully the opposition is presented? Why is the gay rights movement so aggressively pushing for gay marriage/same-sex marriage when most people, religious and non-religious, are supportive of—or at least far less opposed to—gay couples having all the same legal rights as married couples with some form of civil union?

The answer, according to the Bible, is that everyone inherently knows that homosexuality is immoral and unnatural, and the only way to suppress this inherent knowledge is by normalizing homosexuality and attacking any and all opposition to it. The best way to normalize homosexuality is by placing gay marriage/same-sex marriage on an equal plane with traditional opposite-gender marriage. Romans 1:18-32 illustrates this. The truth is known because God has made it plain. The truth is rejected and replaced with a lie. The lie is then promoted and the truth suppressed and attacked. The vehemence and anger expressed by many in the gay rights movement to any who oppose them is, in fact, an indication that they know their position is indefensible. Trying to overcome a weak position by raising your voice is the oldest trick in the debating book. There is perhaps no more accurate description of the modern gay rights agenda than Romans 1:31, “they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.”

To give sanction to gay marriage/same-sex marriage would be to give approval to the homosexual lifestyle, which the Bible clearly and consistently condemns as sinful. Christians should stand firmly against the idea of gay marriage/same-sex marriage. Further, there are strong and logical arguments against gay marriage/same-sex marriage from contexts completely separated from the Bible. One does not have to be an evangelical Christian to recognize that marriage is between a man and a woman.

According to the Bible, marriage is ordained by God to be between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:21-24; Matthew 19:4-6). Gay marriage/same-sex marriage is a perversion of the institution of marriage and an offense to the God who created marriage. As Christians, we are not to condone or ignore sin. Rather, we are to share the love of God and the forgiveness of sins that is available to all, including homosexuals, through Jesus Christ. We are to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) and contend for truth with “gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15). As Christians, when we make a stand for truth and the result is personal attacks, insults, and persecution, we should remember the words of Jesus: “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you” (John 15:18-19).

http://www.gotquestions.org/gay-marriage.html

What does the Bible say about transsexualism / transgenderism? Is gender identity disorder / gender dysphoria the result of sin?

Question: "What does the Bible say about transsexualism / transgenderism? Is gender identity disorder / gender dysphoria the result of sin?"

Answer: Transsexualism, also known as transgenderism, Gender Identity Disorder (GID), or gender dysphoria, is a desire to change one’s sex or to fulfill the role of the opposite gender. Transsexuals / transgenders usually describe themselves as “trapped” in a body that does not match their gender. They will probably practice transvestism / transvestitism and may also seek hormone therapy and/or surgery to bring their bodies into conformity with their perceived gender.

The Bible has plenty to say about human sexuality. Most basic to our understanding of sex is that God created two (and only two) genders: “male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). All the modern-day speculation about numerous genders—or even a gender “continuum” with unlimited genders—is unbiblical.

In Psalm 139, we learn that God fashions each one of us. “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made. . . . My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. . . . your eyes saw my unformed body” (verses 13-16). God’s creation of each individual must surely include His designation of gender/sex. His wonderful work leaves no room for mistakes; no one is born with the “wrong body.”

After the fall of man, it did not take long for gender issues to become confused. In Abraham’s day, homosexuality was widespread in some cities (Genesis 19:1-7; Jude 7). The Bible is unmistakably clear that homosexuality is a sinful perversion of God’s gift of sexuality (Romans 1:18-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

In the Law, transvestism / transvestitism was specifically forbidden: “A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this” (Deuteronomy 22:5).

Another possible reference to transsexualism is 1 Corinthians 6:9, where “male prostitutes” is listed as a separate category from “homosexual offenders.” The King James Version uses the word “effeminate” here; that is to say, the “male prostitutes” might be transsexual men who act as women.

The Bible calls all such gender distortion sin. Transgenderism is not genetically based, and it is not simply a psychological disorder; it is rebellion against God’s plan. But following this realization is good news: sin can be forgiven and lives can be changed through faith in Christ. The Corinthian believers are an example of such a change: “And [homosexuals] is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11). There is hope for any sinner, transsexuals, transgenders, and transvestites included, because of God’s forgiveness available in Jesus Christ.

http://www.gotquestions.org/transsexualism-gender-identity-disorder.html

Is it possible to be a gay Christian?
Question: "Is it possible to be a gay Christian?"

Answer: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). There is a tendency to declare homosexuality as the worst of all sins. While it is undeniable, biblically speaking, that homosexuality is immoral and unnatural (Romans 1:26-27), in no sense does the Bible describe homosexuality as an unforgivable sin. Nor does the Bible teach that homosexuality is a sin Christians will never struggle against.

Perhaps that is the key phrase in the question of whether it is possible to be a gay Christian: “struggle against.” It is possible for a Christian to struggle with homosexual temptations. Many homosexuals who become Christians have ongoing struggles with homosexual feelings and desires. Some strongly heterosexual men and women have experienced a “spark” of homosexual interest at some point in their lives. Whether or not these desires and temptations exist does not determine whether a person is a Christian. The Bible is clear that no Christian is sinless (1 John 1:8,10). While the specific sin / temptation varies from one Christian to another, all Christians have struggles with sin, and all Christians sometimes fail in those struggles (1 Corinthians 10:13).

What differentiates a Christian’s life from a non-Christian’s life is the struggle against sin. The Christian life is a progressive journey of overcoming the “acts of the flesh” (Galatians 5:19-21) and allowing God’s Spirit to produce the “fruit of the Spirit” (Galatians 5:22-23). Yes, Christians sin, sometimes horribly. Sadly, sometimes Christians are indistinguishable from non-Christians. However, a true Christian will always repent, will always eventually return to God, and will always resume the struggle against sin. But the Bible gives no support for the idea that a person who perpetually and unrepentantly engages in sin can indeed be a Christian. Notice 1 Corinthians 6:11, "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

First Corinthians 6:9-10 lists sins that, if indulged in continuously, identify a person as not being redeemed—not being a Christian. Often, homosexuality is singled out from this list. If a person struggles with homosexual temptations, that person is presumed to be unsaved. If a person actually engages in homosexual acts, that person is definitely thought to be unsaved. However, the same assumptions are not made, at least not with the same emphasis, regarding other sins in the list: fornication (pre-marital sex), idolatry, adultery, thievery, covetousness, alcoholism, slander, and deceit. It is inconsistent, for example, to declare those guilty of pre-marital sex as “disobedient Christians,” while declaring homosexuals definitively non-Christians.

Is it possible to be a gay Christian? If the phrase “gay Christian” refers to a person who struggles against homosexual desires and temptations – yes, a “gay Christian” is possible. However, the description “gay Christian” is not accurate for such a person, since he/she does not desire to be gay, and is struggling against the temptations. Such a person is not a “gay Christian,” but rather is simply a struggling Christian, just as there are Christians who struggle with fornication, lying, and stealing. If the phrase “gay Christian” refers to a person who actively, perpetually, and unrepentantly lives a homosexual lifestyle – no, it is not possible for such a person to truly be a Christian.

http://www.gotquestions.org/gay-Christian.html

What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?
Question: "What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?"

Answer: What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah? It is abundantly clear that homosexuality was the primary evil. The biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah is recorded in Genesis chapters 18-19. Genesis chapter 18 records the LORD and two angels coming to speak with Abraham. The LORD reiterated His promise to Abraham that he would have a son through Sarah. The LORD also informed Abraham that "the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous." Verses 22-33 record Abraham pleading with the LORD to have mercy on Sodom and Gomorrah because Abraham's nephew, Lot, and his family lived in Sodom.

Genesis chapter 19 records the two angels, disguised as human men, visiting Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed. The Bible then informs us, "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'" The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver. Lot and his family flee the city, and then "the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah — from the LORD out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities — and also the vegetation in the land."

The men of Sodom and Gomorrah, thinking that the visiting angels were men, wanted to have sex with them. Those who attempt to explain away the biblical condemnations of homosexuality claim that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was inhospitality. While the men of Sodom and Gomorrah were certainly being inhospitable, that clearly was not all. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah desired to perform homosexual gang rape on the angels. Also, God never declared inhospitality to be an abomination to Him, while Leviticus 18:22 makes God’s view of homosexuality clear: “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”

While Sodom and Gomorrah were surely guilty of many other horrendous sins, homosexuality was the reason God poured fiery sulfur on the cities, completely destroying them and all of their inhabitants. To this day, the area where Sodom and Gomorrah were located remains a desolate wasteland. Sodom and Gomorrah serve as a powerful example of how God feels about sin in general, and homosexuality specifically.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Sodom-and-Gomorrah.html

What does the Bible say about bisexuality? Is being a bisexual a sin?

Question: "What does the Bible say about bisexuality? Is being a bisexual a sin?"

Answer: The Bible nowhere directly mentions bisexuality. However, it is clear from the Bible's denunciations of homosexuality that bisexuality would also be considered sinful. Leviticus 18:22 describes a person having sexual relations with the same sex as an abomination. Romans 1:26-27 condemns sexual relations between the same sex as abandoning what is natural. First Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexual offenders will not inherit the kingdom of God. These truths apply equally to bisexuals and to homosexuals.

The Bible tells us that a person becomes bisexual or homosexual because of sin (Romans 1:24-27). This does not necessarily mean sins the person has committed. Rather, it refers to sin itself. Sin warps, twists, and perverts everything in creation. Bisexuality and homosexuality are caused by sin "damaging" us spiritually, mentally, emotionally, and physically. Sin is the plague, and bisexuality is simply one of the symptoms.

Many Christians mistakenly focus on bisexuality and homosexuality as particularly evil sins. The Bible nowhere describes homosexuality as being any less forgivable than any other sin. A bisexual is the same number of steps away from salvation as the "moral" legalist—one. God offers forgiveness to anyone and everyone who will trust in Jesus Christ for salvation. This includes those involved in bisexuality. Once salvation through Christ is received, God will begin the process of destroying the acts of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21), including any and all homosexual tendencies, and developing the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). The promise of a "new creation" is available to anyone who will trust in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17).

http://www.gotquestions.org/bisexual-bisexuality.html

Gay minister's appointment divides Church of Scotland

2009-05-28T07:42:00.000-07:00

Gay minister's appointment divides Church of Scotland
• More than 12,000 church members signed petition in protest
• Activists for equal rights say decision is blow against prejudice
Severin Carrell, Scotland correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 24 May 2009 18.39 BST
Article history

Campaigners for gay rights have welcomed a landmark decision by Scotland's largest Protestant church to appoint an openly gay minister to a new post.

The Church of Scotland voted late last nightto allow the Rev Scott Rennie to become minister at a church in Aberdeen, despite a vigorous protest campaign against his appointment by conservative and anti-gay evangelical groups.

Rennie is the first openly gay clergyman in a sexually active relationship in the UK to have his appointment officially confirmed by his church's governing body, breaking with centuries of Protestant tradition.

More than 12,000 people, including 272 serving Church of Scotland ministers, more than 700 ministers from Protestant and Catholic churches in Britain and Ireland, and more than 500 ministers from overseas, signed an online petition objecting to his new posting.

After a four-hour debate last, the church's general assembly, its governing body, voted by 326 to 267 to uphold his new posting. It will debate a new motion on whether to completely bar gay men and lesbians from the church – a vote the conservatives now face losing.

Senior gay rights campaigners in the Church of England, which is trying to prevent a deep split in the worldwide Anglican communion over the ordination of gay clergy, said Rennie's victory would significantly strengthen the pressure for reform.

The Rev Colin Coward, the chairman of the Anglican pressure group Changing Attitudes, said there were hundreds of gay clergy and several gay bishops in the Church of England, and bishops who supported civil partnerships. Their case for official recognition that gay men and lesbians in long-term partnerships had the same rights within the church would be "enhanced" by Rennie's appointment.

"It's very significant that the Church of Scotland has voted in this way," he said. "The pressure is especially on conservatives in the church to examine carefully the distinction they try to make between orientation and practice."

The Rev Martin Reynolds, of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, said: "This is a significant moment. I think the Church of England is stuck in refusing to acknowledge the presence of lesbian and gay people in its ranks."

Senior Church of Scotland traditionalists were furious about the vote, arguing that it created a worldwide precedent that authorised the ordination and appointment of gay clergy and "brought shame" on their church. "It sends a clear signal to the world that our denomination has departed from the teaching of the Christian Scriptures, upon which its very existence depends. It is a deeply painful day for all who love Christ and his Gospel," said the Fellowship of Confessing Churches.Two leading conservatives, the Rev David Court from Edinburgh and the Rev William Philip from Glasgow,, played down earlier warnings that it would lead to a split in the Scottish church, but warned it would alienate many lay members: "We deeply regret the decision of the general assembly, which has brought great shame on the name of our lord, Jesus Christ, and his church by publicly proclaiming as holy what God, the Bible, and orthodox Christianity all down the ages, and all over the world, unambiguously call sin.

"This is about far more than just sexuality. The very nature of the Christian gospel is at stake."

Rennie's confirmation came after 12 conservative and evangelical Church of Scotland several members in the Aberdeen presbytery, the area's ruling body, objected to his appointment as minister of Queen's Cross church in January. A divorcee who is currently minister of Brechin cathedral, Rennie told the Queen's Cross congregation he was gay and in a permanent relationship. The protesters said that contradicted the church's decision in 2007 to delay making policy on ordained gay or lesbian ministers.

The Rev Ian Aitken, the protesters' spokesman, said the, told the general assembly that Aberdeen presbytery was unilaterally making church policyand challenging its unity when it endorsed Rennie's appointment. "Our presbytery struck out on its own, and effectively made a decision for the rest of the church," he said.

Rennie, whose campaign was supported by his former wife, Helen Rennie, told The Guardiantoday he was "humbled" that the general assembly had endorsed him.He had been "personally hurt" by the attacks on his appointment and private life, he said, but added that it would help open up the church to all Christians. "I think the gospel is about hope and not about fear," he said. "I hope that a lot of people across Scotland and the UK will receive this decision as one of hope, and whatever the future holds, we need a spirit of hope so we talk together and we're not paralysed by fear. Fear has nothing to do with the gospel. In fact Jesus so often said to his disciples 'do not be afraid'."

He added: "I'm already serving in a parish and so are other gay ministers serving in a parish. Are we never to move?

"The question was about the call of God in my life, the call of God in a congregation's life, and we've to respond. Everybody responds to the call of God. Just because I'm gay doesn't mean that I shouldn't."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/may/24/scotland-aberdeen-gay-priest-protestant

Who is Jesus Christ

2009-05-20T07:33:00.000-07:00

Who is Jesus Christ
http://www.crosswalk.com/who-is-jesus/

Christ the Messiah... The Prince of Peace… The Word made man… Savior and Lord… The King of Kings… The Lion of Judah… The Lamb of God

When Christians answer the question "Who is Jesus Christ?" they build their answer on the Bible – on things Jesus said about Himself, on prophecies from the Old Testament that foretold His coming, and the doctrines laid out about Jesus Christ and His Church through the rest of the New Testament.

There is little doubt historically that Jesus Christ existed, but people do often wonder about His divine nature, His miracles, and God’s offer of eternal salvation by grace through Jesus Christ "first to the Jew and also to the Gentile" (Romans 1:16)… in other words, to all mankind who would believe.

Because the love that Jesus offers comes in the form of a "personal relationship" with Him, many believers have particular definitions about who Jesus Christ is to them. We want to give you the Biblical basics about this amazing, paradoxical Savior who purports to be simultaneously the Son of God and Son of Man.

The gospel of Jesus is literally "good news," so we hope you enjoy exploring the miracle and wonder of what the God of all creation did for you through His Son.

Let's begin our study on the identity of Jesus Christ in the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 16, where the Lord put the very question to His own disciples:

When they came to the area of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his followers, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" They answered, "Some say you are John the Baptist. Others say you are Elijah, and still others say you are Jeremiah or one of the prophets." Then Jesus asked them, "And who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus answered, "You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because no person taught you that. My Father in heaven showed you who I am." (vs. 13-17)

The same questions are being asked to this day: Who does everyone else say Jesus Christ is, but then, who do you say He is? It is the most important question to settle during your lifetime, for reasons we'll examine shortly.

The New Testament book of Hebrews is another source that attempted to answer the same question for an uncertain group of people. As the Ryrie Study Bible states, "The theme of the book is the superiority of Jesus Christ and thus of Christianity." But superior to what? Among other things: prophets, angels, Moses/The Law, priests, and other powers. In other words, Jesus Christ is supreme among any thing that has issued from God, or any person that is beloved of God. "For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it," says Hebrews 2:1 about the nature of the Messiah’s identity. This is why even Christians continually study these precepts; it is not merely skeptics, seekers, and unbelievers who benefit from asking the question, "Who is Jesus Christ?"

The Apostle Paul, before his conversion, was known as Saul, a legalistic Jew who persecuted Christians… until he was confronted with the answer to our question in a most dramatic way that changed his life and the course of history (read about it in Acts Chapter 9). After that, Paul would often refer to himself as a "bond-servant of Christ Jesus," someone little more than a voluntary slave, but one sharing in the same servitude. How did Paul answer our question? In Philippians 1:21 he would express his secure devotion to the Lord when he wrote: "For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain."

You see, finding the answer can be jarring and life-altering. It can also fill what has seemed to be missing inside you, since the Father sent His Son to reconcile you to your original purpose – communion with a wonderful, holy Creator. So as you pursue knowledge of the Savior, consider yourself joyfully warned.

WHAT JESUS SAID OF HIMSELF
He is the Son of God, equal with God, and with authority from the Father

“Then they all said, ‘Are You then the Son of God?’ So He said to them, ‘You rightly say that I am’” (Luke 22:70).

“For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother" (Matthew 12:50).

“Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth’” (Matthew 28:18).

“Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God” (John 5:17-22).

Bear in mind that while a man claiming to be God is a radical thought, Jesus is the only leader of a world religion to have made the claim – not to mention backed it up. How? Keep reading…

He lived a sinless life

“Can any one of you convict me of a single misleading word, a single sinful act? But if I'm telling the truth, why don't you believe me?” (John 8:46, The Message).

Jesus had the ability to sin; if He weren’t able to sin, He could not have been tempted genuinely and would be unable to be our sympathetic High Priest (Hebrews 4:15). When He was tempted, He always rebuked the thought with scripture (Luke 4:1-13).

Because He didn’t sin, God was able to accept His sacrifice. 1 Peter 3:18 says, “Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit.”

He said He is the one and only way to God

“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me” (John 14:6).

Who is Jesus Christ - New Testament Son of God

“So Jesus tried again. ‘When you raise up the Son of Man, then you will know who I am - that I'm not making this up, but speaking only what the Father taught Me. The One who sent Me stays with Me. He doesn't abandon Me. He sees how much joy I take in pleasing Him’” (John 8:28-29, The Message).

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being” (John 1:1-3, NAS).

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16, NLT).

From The Book of Acts

The Book of Acts describes how Christianity moved from being seen as a sect of Judaism into a world religion because the spirit of God moved in the lives of those who had witnessed Jesus, and who now carried His message of salvation into all the world.

At Pentecost, Peter preaches, “Let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ – this Jesus whom you crucified” (Acts 2:22-36).

From Paul’s Letters

The Apostle Paul wrote numerous letters to the churches he helped establish in southern Europe and Asia Minor, helping to answer questions or solve disputes over Christian theology.

“Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 5:1).

“For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:11).

“Just as the sufferings of Christ are ours in abundance, so also our comfort is abundant through Christ” (2 Corinthians 1:5).

“It was for freedom that Christ set us free” (Galatians 5:1).

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her” (Ephesians 5:25).

“Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:5-7).

“And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation” (Colossians 1:15).

From The Book of Hebrews

The Book of Hebrews is about the superiority of Christ – over prophets, angels, Moses, and priests. He made Himself our High Priest, so that we can all become priests with our own access to the Father.

“God… has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things” (Hebrews 1:1-2).

From The Book of Revelation

“Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the first-born of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (Revelation 1:5).

From Demons

“Suddenly they cried out, saying, "What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?" (Matthew 8:29).

What’s a Testament?

The Old and New Testaments are covenants God has made with His people. Covenants are binding agreements made with blood. The New Testament represents the new agreement God has with man because of all the requirements and prophecies Jesus fulfilled.

Who is Jesus Christ - Humanity of Son of Man

It was one of Jesus’ favorite ways to refer to Himself. He’s quoted 85 times in the King James Version of the New Testament calling Himself the “Son of Man.” Here are some of His human characteristics:

Jew who grew up in Nazareth, learned carpentry from his earthly father, “grew in wisdom & stature, and in favor with God and man,” (Luke 2:52) and began a ministry throughout Israel at age 30.
The cousin of John the Baptist, who proclaimed the coming of the Messiah.
Was baptized by John at the beginning of His ministry, at which point a voice from the heavens proclaimed, “Thou art My beloved Son; in Thee I am well-pleased.” (Luke 3:22, NAS)
Was tempted by Satan in the wilderness for 40 days, at which time He fasted and prayed, and resisted temptation by quoting scripture.
Was misunderstood by His family and those of His hometown.
The half-brother of James, who authored the Book of James, and was a leader of the early church.
After ministering, healing, and teaching for three years, was crucified outside Jerusalem during the feast of Passover by the Romans at the demand of Jewish religious leaders.
Had human needs to eat, drink, and sleep.
Showed human emotions of love, happiness, sadness, and anger… but not fear, hatred, or pride.
Born in Bethlehem into a poor family where the mother, Mary, was a virgin. Both she and Joseph the “step-father” were of the line of David and the tribe of Judah, fulfilling prophecies from: Micah 5:2, Genesis 3:15, Isaiah 7:14, Genesis 49:10, Psalm 132:11, Jeremiah 23:5, and Isaiah 11:10.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CHRIST'S HUMANITY

Living on earth for 33 years, Jesus experienced every temptation you and I face, which is why “the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation” (2 Peter 2:9). He also showed us how to model our behavior. 1 Peter 2:21 says, “Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps.”

So, He knows what we go through. A god-savior could forgive sins, but would not be able to relate to the sinners. A man-savior would be able to relate to humanity, but would not have the authority or power to forgive sins or return from the dead. It was necessary that Jesus be both.

In doing so, he became “the New Adam.”

“For as in Adam [the first man, through whom sin entered the world] all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive. So also it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living soul.’ The last Adam became a life-giving spirit” (1 Corinthians 15:22, 45).

WHO KILLED JESUS?

With the release of the film The Passion of the Christ, this question again became something of an issue. Was Pilate responsible? Was it Rome? Was it the Sanhedrin, or the entire Hebrew Nation? Or did you and I kill Jesus?

Yes. And no. First, He’s not dead. Upon His death He descended into Hell, where He took the keys and ministered to the dead. After three days, He came back to life, and not as a spirit, but with flesh and bones. When, after 40 days, He left His followers again, He ascended into Heaven, where He sits at the right hand of the Father until the time comes when He will return.

Second, Christ offered Himself up as a sacrifice, which is why we are to daily offer up ourselves as “living sacrifices” (Romans 12:1). With armies of angels and the power of the heavens at His command, would it have been possible to hang the Son of God on a cross without His permission? What’s more, how awful would it be for us now had nobody “killed” Jesus? We required His perfect blood to wash our sins away. “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22).

Therefore, to blame any individual or group for “murdering” Jesus is incorrect, and a dishonor to His sacrifice.

It’s also interesting to note that Jesus did not call himself the destination, but the way, indicating that while salvation is immediate for the confessed and forgiven sinner, our Christian walk is a journey.

Who Jesus Christ was Not - Bible Truth

JESUS WAS NOT SIMPLY A GOOD MORAL TEACHER.

How, in the name of logic, common sense, and experience, could an impostor -- that is a deceitful, selfish, depraved man -- have invented and consistently maintained from the beginning to end, the purest and noblest character known in history with the most perfect air of truth and reality? How could He have conceived and successfully carried out a plan of unparalleled beneficence, moral magnitude, and sublimity, and sacrificed His own life for it, in the face of the strongest prejudices of His people and age? (Philip Schaff, The Person of Christ. New York: American Tract Society, 1913, 94-95)
C.S. Lewis, one-time atheist and author of The Chronicles of Narnia, put the dilemma this way:

A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said [about Himself] would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic -- on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg -- or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon, or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come away with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. (Mere Christianity)
Jesus would have to have been lying or insane (not the qualities of a good moral teacher) to call Himself the Son of God and the Savior of mankind if it weren’t true.

Therefore, to separate what is comfortable about Jesus – His kindness, His message of unconditional love, His healing of the sick – from that which is less comfortable (He was born of a virgin, He claimed to be God, He rose from the dead) isn’t really possible.

There are four options open to a person dealing with Jesus. You may consider Him: a legend, a liar, a lunatic, or Lord and God. If He existed, then He's not a legend. If He's a liar, that goes against everything else we know about His character. If He's a lunatic, how to explain the consistency in His message, the constancy of His love? If those options are removed, where does that leave you?

JESUS WAS/IS NOT A POLITICAL MESSIAH

This is one reason some Jews of Jesus’ time could not believe He was their Savior – He didn’t deliver them from the oppression of their Roman occupiers. He never actually intended to. The deliverance Christ offered and still offers today is of a spiritual nature, reconciling mankind to God (Matthew 11:27). The peace this Messiah brings is internal. His hope is for each human to be restored to a relationship with God, which sin has broken.

Who is Jesus Christ - Messiah Salvation

JESUS – literally, “God saves.” In the original Hebrew, the name is Yeshua, “salvation,” and/or “The Lord who is salvation.” It is the name the Angel of the Lord told Joseph to bestow upon Him (Matthew 1:20-21).

And there is power in His name: “And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:8-11).

CHRIST – Not His last name. It’s a Greek title meaning “Anointed Messiah.”

It denotes that He was… consecrated to his great redemptive work as Prophet, Priest, and King of his people… To believe that ‘Jesus is the Christ’ is to believe that He is the Anointed, the Messiah of the prophets, the Savior sent of God, that He was… what He claimed to be. This is to believe the gospel, by the faith of which alone men can be brought unto God. That Jesus is the Christ is the testimony of God, and the faith of this constitutes a Christian (1 Corinthians 12:3; 1 John 5:1). (Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary).
MESSIAH – The deliverer whose coming was foretold by the prophets of the Old Testament. Jews still await the coming of their Messiah today (link to MessiahRevealed.org).

SALVATION – The condition of being redeemed by faith, saved by grace from an eternity of damnation. Salvation is also the belief that the death and resurrection of Christ accomplished:

Substitution – Christ sacrificed Himself in the place of sinners, just for unjust
Redemption – He paid the price of sin for each individual who accepts it
Reconciliation – Man is no longer alienated from God
Propitiation – God is satisfied with the sacrificial death of His perfect lamb as payment for sin
The Fulfillment of The Law
LINKS

More about Jesus:

Who Is Jesus? (from WhoIsJesus-Really.com)
The Jesus Film Project
Related Topics:

Receiving Salvation (The “Romans Road” to salvation at Contender Ministries)
What Is Christianity? (Continue reading more at Christianity.com)
Historical Evidence of Jesus (from Probe Ministries)
The Only Way to Heaven? (from John MacArthur)
He had the power to forgive sins and provide everlasting life

Who is Jesus Christ - Salvation

THE PROBLEM: Holy God and sinful man.

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).

"The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 6:23).

The word “sin” is used in a lot of ways, but the essential meaning and result of sin is separation from God, since it involves pride -- man thinking more highly of his own ways than God’s. Without Jesus, His sacrifice and resurrection, connecting to God is not possible because of sin. We all have sinned, the results of which are death and an eternity separated from God. Since God is Holy, there can be no imperfection in His presence.

But death was not God’s plan for us. Abundant and eternal life (John 10:10) is what Jesus came to bring.

Why? Because even though man was broken and earth given over to evil, God never stopped loving us. Romans 5:8 says, "But God showed His great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners."

THE RE-CONNECTION TO GOD

Nothing but Jesus could have permanently fixed the problem – it was a gap that could not be bridged. Your best work just can’t get you to Heaven. Even if you could somehow achieve a score of 99 out of 100 in life, you’d still need a sacrificial savior to make up the difference and pay off your debt. That’s the difference between Grace and the Law. James 2:10 says, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all."

However, “God saved you by His special favor when you believed. And you can't take credit for this; it is a gift from God. Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it.” (Ephesians 2:8-9). You can’t earn a gift – it's an unmerited favor. You do, however, have to make the choice to accept it.

So, we all, as sinners, have to turn to God for forgiveness of sin, and trust that Jesus died to give us new life that we may be born again (John 3:3; 1 Peter 1:23).

Faith is the key. It’s the cause and effect of our hope for salvation. If there is truly “no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12), then your acceptance of God’s gift, your admission that you are a sinner, your repentance (changing of your mind), and your faith in the real-but-unseen Lord is all that can bring eternal and abundant life.

If knowing about Jesus has stirred your heart to hear even more, receive forgiveness for your sins, renew your Christian walk, or get involved in ministry, you may pray the following prayer, and/or follow the links below to any of our excellent ministry partners:

"Lord God, thank you for loving me enough to send your one and only Son to die for me. I know I am a sinner, and that Jesus was crucified and raised to life to pay a debt I was unable to pay, in order that I may live with You forever. I want to turn from my way of life and follow Jesus. I invite Jesus into my heart as the Lord of my life. Thank you, Father, for giving me new life in the name of Jesus. Amen!"

What’s the next step? Connect with other Christians, learn more, find a church… these ministries can help you with those concerns!

MINISTRIES

The complete list of Salem Web Network Ministry Partners

Harvest Ministries: How to Know God
Harvest Christian Fellowship: How to Know God
Answers with Bayless Conley: What To Do Next
Christian Research Institute: The Essentials of Salvation
Grace to You: How Can I Be Sure of My Salvation?
PowerPoint: Your New Life in Christ
Use FindAChurch.com

“Jesus said to her, ‘I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die” (John 11:25).

http://www.crosswalk.com/who-is-jesus/

“When Jesus saw their faith, He said, ‘Friend, your sins are forgiven.’ The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, ‘Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?’” (Luke 5:20-21).

"For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:40).

“I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.” (John 6:47).

He predicted his own death and resurrection

“Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, ‘We are going up into Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again’” (Luke 18:31-33).

He said He would come back

Matthew 24:27-30 "So as the lightening comes from the east and flashes to the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man... At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory."

Mark 14:61-62 "Again the high priest asked him, 'Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?' 'I am,' said Jesus. 'And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.'"

Jesus clearly knew He was the Lamb of God, the Messiah spoken of in the Old Testament. He knew He had to live a life without sin, no matter what. When He returns, He will judge the sins of the world… except for those who have already acknowledged conviction, entered a plea of guilty, and sought His mercy by believing on Christ.

Who is Jesus Christ - Old Testament Messiah Prophecy

He was wounded for our transgressions; He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5)

The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone. (Psalm 118:22)

He will swallow up death for all time, and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces, and He will remove the reproach of His people from all the earth. (Isaiah 25:8)

EXCERPTED FROM www.whoisjesus-really.com:

The Old Testament was completed hundreds of years before Jesus was born. A large number of prophecies were made in astonishing detail by many people throughout these books. In fact, fulfilled prophecy is one of the distinguishing marks of the Bible, authenticating its claim to be the inspired Word of God.

For example, the Old Testament indicated Jesus would be betrayed by someone he trusted. "Even my close friend whom I trusted, he who has shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me" (Psalm 41:9). The New Testament, which records Jesus' life and resurrection, reveals that one of the 12 people Jesus chose to be part of his inner circle betrayed him: "Then Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, went to the chief priests to betray Jesus to them" (Mark 14:10).

More than 300 Messianic prophecies like this were made in the Old Testament and then fulfilled through Jesus' life, death and resurrection. The chances of one person fulfilling a mere eight of these prophecies are one-in-100,000,000,000,000,000. For one person to fulfill 48 of these prophecies, the number becomes staggering – one chance in 10-to-the-157th power. Add to that the 250 other prophecies, and it becomes impossible for any other person except Jesus to ever fit that particular sequence of time and events. A FEW EXAMPLES

A FEW EXAMPLES

Messiah to be born of a virgin: Prophesied – Isaiah 7:14; Fulfilled – Matthew 1:18-25

Messiah to be accursed and crucified: Prophesied – Deuteronomy 21:22-23, Psalm 22, Psalm 69:21; Fulfilled – Matthew 27:34-50; John 19:28-30, Galatians 3:13

Messiah to be raised from the dead: Prophesied – Psalm 16:10; Fulfilled – Acts 13:35-37

For a more thorough discussion of Messianic prophecies fulfilled by Jesus, visit greatcom.org.

http://www.crosswalk.com/who-is-jesus/christ/

Homosexuality: The Christian Perspective

2009-05-20T02:52:00.000-07:00

Homosexuality: The Christian Perspective
By: Lehman Strauss , Litt.D., F.R.G.S. Homosexuality: The

Q. What is homosexuality?

Homosexuality is the manifestation of sexual desire toward a member of one's own sex or the erotic activity with a member of the same sex. (The Greek word homos means the same). A lesbian is a female homosexual. More recently the term "gay" has come into popular use to refer to both sexes who are homosexuals.

Q. How does one determine if the practice of homosexuality is right or wrong?

That depends upon who is answering the question. The Christian point of view is based solely upon the Bible, the divinely inspired Word of God. A truly Christian standard of ethics is the conduct of divine revelation, not of statistical research nor of public opinion. For the Christian, the Bible is the final authority for both belief and behaviour.

Q. What explicitly does the Bible teach about homosexuality?

This question I consider to be basic because, if we accept God's Word on the subject of homosexuality, we benefit from His adequate answer to this problem. I am concerned only with the Christian or biblical view of homosexuality. The Bible has much to say about sex sins in general.

First, there is adultery. Adultery in the natural sense is sexual intercourse of a married person with someone other than his or her own spouse. It is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments (Exodus 20:14; I Cor. 6:9, 10). Christ forbids dwelling upon the thoughts, the free play of one's imagination that leads to adultery (Matthew 5:28).

Second, there is fornication, the illicit sex acts of unmarried persons which is likewise forbidden (I Corinthians 5:1; 6:13, 18; Ephesians 5:3).

Then there is homosexuality which likewise is condemned in Scripture. The Apostle Paul, writing by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, declares that homosexuality "shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (I Corinthians 6:9; 10). Now Paul does not single out the homosexual as a special offender. He includes fornicators, idolators, adulterers, thieves, covetous persons, drunkards, revilers and extortioners. And then he adds the comment that some of the Christians at Corinth had been delivered from these very practices: "And such were some of you: But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the spirit of our God" (I Corinthians 6:11). All of the sins mentioned in this passage are condemned by God, but just as there was hope in Christ for the Corinthians, so is there hope for all of us.

Homosexuality is an illicit lust forbidden by God. He said to His people Israel, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13). In these passages homosexuality is condemned as a prime example of sin, a sexual perversion. The Christian can neither alter God's viewpoint nor depart from it.

In the Bible sodomy is a synonym for homosexuality. God spoke plainly on the matter when He said, "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel" (Deuteronomy 23:17). The whore and the sodomite are in the same category. A sodomite was not an inhabitant of Sodom nor a descendant of an inhabitant of Sodom, but a man who had given himself to homosexuality, the perverted and unnatural vice for which Sodom was known. Let us look at the passages in question:

But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house around, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. (Genesis 19:4-8)

The Hebrew word for "know" in verse 5 is yada`, a sexual term. It is used frequently to denote sexual intercourse (Genesis 4:1, 17, 25; Matthew 1:24, 25). The message in the context of Genesis 19 is clear. Lot pled with the men to "do not so wickedly." Homosexuality is wickedness and must be recognized as such else there is no hope for the homosexual who is asking for help to be extricated from his perverted way of life.

Q. You said that sexua1 intercourse outside of marriage is condemned in the Bible. How do you explain marriage ceremonies in which two persons of the same sex are united by an officiating clergyman or justice of the peace?

There are cases on record where a marriage license was issued to persons of the same sex. I recall one such incident in Phoenix, Arizona. A marriage license was issued in the Maricopa County clerk's office to two men 39 and 21 years old respectively. The two men are reported to have "married" in a private ceremony.

However, to call a union of two persons of the same sex a "marriage" is a misnomer. In the Bible, marriage is a divinely ordered institution designed to form a permanent union between one man and one woman for one purpose (among others) of procreating or propagating the human race. That was God's order in the first of such unions (Genesis 1:27, 28; 2:24; Matthew 19:5). If, in His original creation of humans, God had created two persons of the same sex, there would not be a human race in existence today. The whole idea of two persons of the same sex marrying is absurd, unsound, ridiculously unreasonable, stupid. A clergyman might bless a homosexual marriage but God won't.

Q. A Jesuit Priest, John J. McNeill, reportedly said in a conference (Christianity Today, June 3, 1977), "There is no clear condemnation of homosexual activity to be found anywhere in the Bible." How does a church leader arrive at such a conclusion?

This particular Jesuit priest, like some other supposedly Christian theologians, have totally ignored the Scriptures as the guidelines for Christian behaviour in regard to homosexuality. McNeill does not speak for the Roman Catholic Church, but for a small segment of priests who, having vowed themselves to celibacy, that is, to abstain from marriage and sexual intercourse, have found sexual gratification in homosexual acts.

However, religious sex perverts are plentiful among protestants. Protestant leaders on both sides of the Atlantic have gradually eased away from the Scriptures. In England men like Bishop John Robinson, in his book Honest to God made a play on the term "The New Morality," which in reality was a plea to open the door to immorality making it respectable and thus acceptable. The Bishop went so far as to describe the unscriptural adulterous relationship as "a kind of holy communion." This modern concept of Christian ethics rejects totally the precepts laid down by God in His Word. It is blasphemous and atheistic.

Recently in America ten homosexually oriented religious organizations, comprised of men and women from more than a dozen denominations, and from seventeen states and Canada, met at Kirkbridge, a retreat and study center near Bangor, Pennsylvania. The retreat was entitled, "Gay and Christian." But the two terms, "gay" and "Christian" are mutually exclusive, incompatible, incongruous.

Representing the women at that retreat, Nancy Krody a lesbian, spoke on "The Lesbian Christian Experience." Here again is a misnomer. A practicing Christian, from the biblical viewpoint, will not be a practicing homosexual. Of course, I make the distinction between a professing Christian and a practicing Christian. Calling one's self a Christian does not make one a Christian.

Malcolm Boyd speaks about "The Gay Male Christian Experience." Boyd, a protestant clergyman, says he has been a homosexual secretly for years. Only recently he made a public announcement of his homosexuality. He claims that his public announcement of his homosexuality has brought him back to the church. Boyd does not tell us what he means by the "church"!

Following is one point on which the speakers at Kirkbridge agreed: "A monogamous homosexual relationship characterized by fidelity, honesty and love is possible, desirable, and honoring to God."

Any evil condemned in Scripture cannot be honoring to God. Homosexual religious leaders attempt to smooth over the breaks and rough places with Christian terminology so that a euphoria predominates, but God is not in it. A truly born again person, who loves and understands the Bible as God's revelation to him, will not condone an evil that God condemns. "If ye know that He is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of Him" (I John 2:29). "Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are His. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity" (II Timothy 2:19). Practicing homosexuals are engaged in a divinely forbidden evil.

Q. Why do homosexuals refer to themselves as "gay"?

The word "gay" means merry, exuberant, bright, lively. More recently it has been adopted by homosexuals. In its original use it did not have this double meaning. The clever adaptation of the word "gay" by homosexuals has robbed it of its pure meaning, thereby corrupting a once perfectly good word. I never use the word "gay" when referring to homosexuals. There are many bright, exuberant, merry people in this world who are not sexual perverts.

Q. You made reference to First Corinthians 6:9-11. What is the meaning of the word "effeminate" in verse 9?

There are certain words in every language that can be used in a good or bad sense. In the context of this verse the use of "effeminate" is obviously in a bad sense. It is listed among other evils which are condemned. It describes feminine qualities inappropriate to a man. It is normal and natural for a woman to be sexually attracted to a man; it is abnormal and unnatural for a man to be sexually attracted to another man. Many male homosexuals are effeminate, but not all. Nor are all lesbians unduly masculine.

Q. Are there other Scriptures in the New Testament which deal with homosexuality?

Yes. Romans 1:24-27; I Timothy 1:10 and Jude 7. If one takes these Scriptures seriously, homosexuality will be recognized as an evil. The Romans passage is unmistakably clear. Paul attributes the moral depravity of men and women to their rejection of "the truth of God" (1:25). They refused "to retain God in their knowledge" (1:28), thereby dethroning God and deifying themselves. The Old Testament had clearly condemned homosexuality but in Paul's day there were those persons who rejected its teaching. Because of their rejection of God's commands He punished their sin by delivering them over to it.

The philosophy of substituting God's Word with one's own reasoning commenced with Satan. He introduced it at the outset of the human race by suggesting to Eve that she ignore God's orders, assuring her that in so doing she would become like God with the power to discern good and evil (Genesis 3:1-5). That was Satan's big lie. Paul said that when any person rejects God's truth, his mind becomes "reprobate," meaning perverted, void of sound judgment. The perverted mind, having rejected God's truth, is not capable of discerning good and evil.

In Romans 1:26-31 twenty-three punishable sins are listed with homosexuality leading the list. Paul wrote, "For this cause God gave them up into vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet" (Romans 1:26, 27). These verses are telling us that homosexuals suffer in their body and personality the inevitable consequences of their wrong doing. Notice that the behaviour of the homosexual is described as a "vile affection" (1:26). The Greek word translated "vile" (atimia) means filthy, dirty, evil, dishonourable. The word "affection" in Greek is pathos, used by the Greeks of either a good or bad desire. Here in the context of Romans it is used in a bad sense. The "vile affection" is a degrading passion, a shameful lust. Both the desire (lusting after) and the act of homosexuality are condemned in the Bible as sin.

Q. There are those persons who say that homosexuality, even though a perverted form of the normal, God-ordained practice of sex, is a genetic problem, constitutionally inherited. Is there evidence to support this view?

I read in a periodical that in June, 1963 a panel of specialists in medicine, psychiatry, law, sociology and theology participated in a conference on homosexuality called by the Swiss Evangelical Church Union. That group reached the conclusion that homosexuality is not constitutionally inherited, it is not a part of one's genetic makeup. The ill-founded and unverifiable myth that homosexuality results from genetic causes is gradually fading away.

There are possibly a number of different ways in which homosexual practices could begin. When boys and girls reach puberty and the genital organs develop, it is not uncommon for boys to experiment with boys, and girls with girls. In prisons where men and women are denied access to persons of the opposite sex for long periods of time, some are introduced to homosexuality for the first time.

A young Christian woman came to our office in Detroit for counseling. She became involved in lesbianism when her marriage began to fail. She was introduced to her first homosexual experience by a divorcee who was her neighbor. After six months of practicing lesbianism she was convicted of her sin and sought help. We were able to show her from the Bible that she was sinning and that God stood ready and willing to forgive and cleanse her. She confessed and forsook her sin, and continues to this day to live a happy, normal Christian life.

Homosexuality must be accepted for what God says it is-- sin. Some homosexuals will attempt to circumvent the plain teaching of the Bible with the insipid reply that they are the way God made them. There is not the slightest bit of evidence in Scripture to support this false concept. God never created man with a so-called "homosexual need." No baby is born a homosexual. Every baby is born male or female. In every place the Bible refers to homosexuality, the emphasis is upon the perversion of sexuality. The practicing homosexual is guilty of "leaving the natural use of the woman" (Romans 1:27), meaning that his behaviour is "against nature" as in the case of the lesbian (Romans 1:26). Inasmuch as homosexuality is opposed to the regular law and order of nature, the genetic concept must be ruled out completely. If homosexuality were a genetic problem, there would be little hope for the homosexual simply because there is no way that the genes in a person can be changed.

Q. Are there contributing factors to homosexuality for which a homosexual might not be responsible?

Yes, I believe there are. I have not done much research in this area, however, studies made by others showed varied deviations from the average or normal parent-child relationship. For example, clinical cases show that some homosexuals have not had a normal or natural relationship with the parent of the same sex. In some instances there has been a wide gap between father and son. There are those boys who have been neglected by their unaffectionate fathers. The boy who has not had a good and wholesome relationship with his father could have an unfulfilled need for a father relationship with a man. Now that need will not start out as a sexual one, but there are cases on record in which the sexual relationship has developed. I know one case of a homosexual adult who seduced a 13 year old boy whose father had forsaken him. Before the boy's contact with the older man he had no knowledge whatever of homosexuality. The older man seduced the boy.

Lesbianism has been known to follow this same pattern. Some mother-daughter relationships are not conducive to a normal social and sexual development. One young woman came to her pastor seeking help. She had gotten involved with a lesbian in the community where she lived, a woman twenty-one years her senior. The girl's parents had a defective marriage which ended in divorce when the daughter was ten years old. Her mother became bitter and resentful against all men. She convinced her daughter that men were not to be trusted, and that man's one goal was to exploit women sexually. The daughter grew up with a fear of men, a fear totally unwarranted. She was an easy victim of the seductive older lesbian. The good and wise pastor showed the counselee from the Bible that homosexuality was sinful and that God condemned it. She confessed her sin to God and received Jesus Christ as her Savior and Lord. Today she is happily married to a fine Christian man.

Q. Do you believe that the homosexual controversy is causing problems for the churches of America?

Evil in any form is a problem in the church. It always has been. The greater problem, however, is the church's failure to discipline evil when it arises. Karl Menninger's book, Whatever Became of Sin?, deals directly with that point. There are ministers, priests, and rabbis who never talk about sin. There was a time when the minister of God's Word preached the whole counsel of God. Today many pulpits are silent on the sin question. Sin has become fashionable and therefore acceptable. When sin gets its victim into serious difficulty, the psychiatrist and psychologist tell him he is sick. The church must face the fact of sin squarely.

Q. Does the Bible tell us how the church should deal with sexual sins?

In Old Testament times in Israel God dealt severely with homosexuals. He warned His people through Moses, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13). Every Jew knew that homosexuality was an abomination, a disgusting practice to be loathed, hated. This was God's attitude toward that evil practice. He hated it to the extent that He considered it worthy of punishment by death. Now God loved His people Israel dearly, and it was from His great heart of love that He chastened them. The Epistle to the Hebrews says, "For whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth" (Hebrews 12:7). When God issued His law forbidding homosexuality, and the punishment for those persons who violated that law, He did so in order to prevent them from sinning. However, when anyone broke the law, the offender paid the penalty due him. God is a holy God who hates and judges sin. Parents who love their children will not refrain from warning them of prevailing evils, nor will they fail to chasten them when they disobey. The church today not only tolerates sin but in some instances condones it. God does neither.

In the New Testament the principle of discipline was applied with apostolic authority. In the church at Corinth the young man who was committing fornication with his step-mother was excommunicated. Paul instructed the church to take that action "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . and with the power (i.e. the authority) of our Lord Jesus Christ" (I Corinthians 5:1-8). In Romans 1:21-32 where Paul shows the Gentile world in its downward plunge into sin, including the sin of homosexuality, verse 32 concludes with the words, "who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death . . . " Worthy of death, yes. But today we are not under law but under grace. People used to hear and heed the Gospel-truth, the message that God is holy, man is a sinner, and that through faith in the substitutionary death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, sinful people can be born again and thereby delivered from the guilt and penalty and practice of their sins.

Q. Do you have any suggestions or recommendations for the church?

Nothing is more foundationally essential for the church and the world than a return to the truth. Recently I read where someone said we are suffering from a famine of the worst kind, "a truth-famine." Our modern culture is in a degenerating, deteriorating stage caused by a departure from the truth. And I must say unequivocally that truth does not exist independently of God, and His written Word the Bible, and His Son Jesus Christ. Truth is in no sense of man's imagination or contrivance. Man in his fallen state does not know truth, and that is why he continues to go on sinning. A civilization without the truth is doomed to oblivion. Every ancient civilization that ignored God and His laws has crumbled. Our present civilization is well on the road to doom. We cannot survive independently of God and His Word.

The Church must return to the truth, the whole truth, the sum total of truth founded and grounded upon Him Who said, "I am the truth" (John 14:6). In our Lord's high priestly prayer for His own He prayed, "Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy Word is truth" (John 17:17). There must be in our churches the clear exposition of the Scriptures and a continuing exaltation of the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ if our civilization is to be saved from the disasters that overcame past civilizations. Any civilization with a philosophy or a doctrine which denies the real truth cannot survive.

Q. Do you see any prophetic significance in the recent homosexual upsurge?

Yes, I do. However, I would suggest caution on this point. It is not uncommon for preachers to attach a prophetic meaning to every earthquake, riot, war, moral scandal or political disaster, labeling all such events as "signs of the times."

The modern homosexual upsweep is one phase of a declining trend in morals. When the disciples asked our Lord, "What shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the consummation of the age?" He told them that "iniquity shall abound" (Matthew 24:3, 12). There is today a permissiveness and a promiscuity in sexual behaviour unprecedented in the history of America. There is little restraint upon the widespread of material containing pictures and writing depicting erotic behaviour intended to cause sexual excitement. This would be included in our Lord's prophecy about abounding iniquity.

There is also a prophetic statement in Paul's Second Epistle to Timothy which has some bearing upon the subject we are discussing. Paul said, "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection . . . " (II Timothy 3:1-3). Homosexuality is an unnatural affection, practiced by persons "that defile themselves with mankind" (I Timothy 1:10), translated in the New American Standard Version "homosexuals," and in the New International Version, "perverts." I conclude, in the light of these Scriptures, that the rise of homosexuality is very definitely a trend which indicates the approaching end of the age.

Q. Have you personally counseled with homosexuals?

Yes, in two pastorates over a period of twenty-five years. In each instance the homosexual was a man in his thirties who had seduced teen-aged boys. The seduction of younger persons is a pattern most homosexuals follow. They seem to prefer gratifying their lust with youth. This is a pattern typical of men who marry several wives. Men who do not respect their marriage vows pursue women younger than themselves. One man of wealth was reportedly married and divorced six times. Most of his wives were young enough to be his daughters. The two homosexual men who applied for a marriage license in the Maricopa County Clerk's Office in Arizona were 39 and 21 years old, quite a variation in ages.

Q. Do you attach any significance to the age factor you mentioned?

Yes, I do. I see a potential threat to young people who are exposed to homosexuals. Older practicing homosexuals are a threat to the youth.

Q. Do you care to make any comments on the Anita Bryant crusade in Dade County, Florida?

In my judgment Anita Bryant was justified in the action she pursued. She did not want her children exposed to the influence of a practicing homosexual in the public school classroom. Inasmuch as homosexuality is classified in the Bible as an evil, to insist that children be exposed to homosexual teachers in the public schools would be an infringement upon the rights of parents and their children. Under no condition would I permit my children to be subjected to the influence of a sex pervert. As an American citizen I consider that choice to be my right. Anita Bryant laid her career on the line in the bold and courageous stand she took. She should not have to fight the battle alone. Christians should support her.

Q. What should be the Christian's attitude toward the homosexual?

We must always keep before us the fact that homosexuals, like all of us sinners, are the objects of God's love. The Bible says, "But God commendeth His love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8). Jesus Christ "is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" (I John 2:2). The Christian who shares God's love for lost sinners will seek to reach the homosexual with the gospel of Christ, which "is the power of God unto salvation, to every one that believeth" (Romans 1:16). As a Christian I should hate all sin but I can find no justification for hating the sinner. The homosexual is a precious soul for whom Christ died. We Christians can show him the best way of life by pointing him to Christ. Our Lord said, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15). We are obligated to take the gospel to all.

Q. How can we help Christians who get involved in the practice of homosexuality?

We can help them by seeking to draw their attention to what God says in His Word. In a kind and loving spirit we can show them that they are wrong. However, the homosexual must admit to the fact that he is living in sin and that he has the desire to be made free from it. Without a genuine conviction of God's displeasure and a strong desire to do God's will, there is no hope. A truly born again person cannot continue to practice sin without reaping the results of miserable unhappiness brought on by loss of fellowship with God, the fear of retribution and the anxiety produced by guilt. The homosexual must ask himself, "Is the temporary gratification of the flesh worth all the penalty and losses I must suffer?"

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1302

Angels & Demons make huge errors in history, theology, philosophy, church history

2009-05-18T06:20:00.000-07:00

Although Dan Brown's Angels & Demons did not enjoy nearly the success of his DaVinci Code, & although the Ron Howard, Tom Hanks movie Angels & Demons doesn't appear to be headed for the same popularity as the DaVinci Code movie, both versions of Angels & Demons make huge errors in history, theology, philosophy, & church history that could undermine the faith of credulous Christians and affirm the skepticism of credulous non-believers. Christians should be prepared with some good answers to the main errors.

A Catholic publisher, Ascension Press, has published a free e-book: Answering Angels & Demons, by Catholic apologist Mark Shea, that is a handy primer for those who want quick answers to the main errors.

This e-book does a good job of summarizing the major errors in Angels & Demons, & mostly sticks to the common articles of faith all Christians share, regardless whether we are Protestants, Catholics, or Orthodox. Although I have specific reasons I am not Catholic, & although I don't agree with everything in this handy answer, I do believe it is a good defense of the true Christian faith specifically against the kinds of errors promoted in Angels & Demons, & I am confident if you read the free e-book, you will be well equipped to answer people's general questions about Christianity that may arise from the book or move.

Blessings in Christ,
Gretchen Passantino
Director
Answers In Action

Religious Affairs: Jesus's Zionists

2009-05-03T10:09:00.000-07:00

Religious Affairs: Jesus's Zionists

Apr. 30, 2009
Matthew Wagner , THE JERUSALEM POST
Like most religious Zionists, Aryeh Bar-David sees the hand of God in the establishment of the Jewish state and the Jewish people's repeated victories against its enemies. Yom Ha'atzmaut has religious meaning as a tangible sign that God is fulfilling his biblical promises to the Jewish people. "God's intervention in the course of history is so clear that, for me, it is absurd that people think we are just another secular democratic country," said Bar-David, who met me on Remembrance Day outside the Old City's Damascus Gate.

"This," said Bar-David, gesturing toward the outer wall of the Old City, "is the manifestation of God's prophecies as stated in Ezekiel, Jeremiah and other places in the Bible," referring to the victory in the Six Day War which gave Israel control of east Jerusalem, including the Old City.

Also similar to many religious Zionists, Bar-David, a veteran of four wars, is convinced that his religious faith helped him cope with life-and-death situations in combat. Under Ariel Sharon, he took part in some of the bloodiest battles for control of the Suez Canal during the Yom Kippur War. As platoon sergeant, Bar-David was forced to take over command when the platoon commander was killed in an ambush. "No matter how dangerous things got, I never feared anything. In a way I had a longing to be in heaven, closer to God. So I was not ever scared by the prospect of dying."

But, unlike most Jewish religious Zionists - who see the establishment of the state as a precursor to the yet-to be-revealed messiah - Bar-David has a radically different eschatology. That's because Bar-David is a Messianic Jew.

"Days are coming when the Jewish people will be forced to realize that Yeshua is the only solution to all our troubles," said Bar-David, using the Hebrew name for Jesus.

Bar-David, 62, is a second-generation Messianic Jew, whose father, a Bulgarian Jew, "came to the faith" while studying in Switzerland and immigrated to Israel before the Holocaust.

Bar-David is one of about 10,000 Messianic Jews living here who believe that Jesus is the messiah and the son of God, and that accepting him as such is a precondition for spiritual redemption. They call themselves Jewish because most were born to a Jewish mother or father.

Still, the belief that Jesus is the messiah who already revealed himself once and will be making a second coming normally places someone squarely outside the Jewish fold. In fact, it is difficult to imagine anything less Jewish. Historically, one of the centerpieces of the Jewish faith was its categorical rejection of Christianity. Throughout the ages since the advent of Christianity, thousands of Jews have preferred martyrdom to accepting Jesus.

But Bar-David and other members of the Messianic community see themselves not only as Jews, but also as ardent Zionists and patriotic Israelis. They reject Christian replacement theology that sees, for instance, the Catholic Church, as the new chosen people. For the Messianic community, the Jewish people are still God's chosen people, even if they rejected Jesus. The establishment of Israel is a tangible manifestation of the prophecies of the Bible. The ingathering of the exiles, the return of the Jewish people to the land of Israel, is part of God's master plan for the final redemption. Fighting in the IDF against Israel's enemies is tantamount to taking part in the fulfillment of biblical prophecies. To be on Israel's side means to be on God's side.

THIS "FAITH-BASED" Zionism is what motivated about 2,000 Messianic Jews and Evangelical Christians from all over Europe including Finland, Norway, Switzerland, France, Germany, Italy and Cyprus to meet in Geneva last week and demonstrate against Durban II.

"I'd say we were probably the largest single pro-Israel contingent in Geneva," said Calev Myers, a Jerusalem-based attorney who heads the Jerusalem Institute of Justice, a legal advocacy group for religious rights that represents mostly Evangelical Christians and Messianic Jews.

Myers, who works in the law firm established by Gideon Hausner, the attorney-general who prosecuted Adolf Eichmann, gave a speech in Geneva in which he strongly defended Zionism and called Iran, China, Libya and other countries that took part in Durban II members of the "fourth Reich."

But Messianic Jews' variety of religious Zionism is not always appreciated. In probably the most violent attack against a Messianic Jew that took place, Ami Ortiz, 15, a dual American-Israeli citizen and the son of a Messianic Jewish pastor, was seriously wounded when a bomb exploded in his home in Ariel on Purim (March 20) last year. The bomb was concealed in a gift basket placed on the doorstep.

This is not an isolated incident. The US State Department's Annual Report on International Religious Freedom, released in September 2008, pointed to a marked rise in violence against Messianic Jews. Some of the incidents mentioned included a public burning of the New Testament in Or Yehuda in May 2008, and the fire-bombing of the Baptist church on Jerusalem's Rehov Narkiss, the meeting place of a Russian-language Messianic Jewish congregation.

Members of the Messianic community are also singled out by the Interior Ministry. For instance, a Christian Chinese couple who came for a pilgrimage was recently detained at Ben-Gurion Airport after they gave border-control officials the name of a Messianic Jew as a contact person here. They were released only after they signed an affidavit assuring they would not proselytize during their visit.

As a result, men like Daniel Yahav, the son of Holocaust survivors who "came to the faith" as a young man and now serves as pastor of a Messianic congregation in Tiberias, are wary of media exposure which might attract unwanted attention. Yahav preferred not to divulge the name of his congregation or its size.

Yahav said that the open animosity some Israelis show toward Messianic Jews does not dampen his or others' Zionist fervor. "We are willing to stand up for our beliefs, even if most Israelis reject them, and that shows our sincerity and faith," said Yahav, who said that he was the first Messianic Jew to become an officer after the IDF changed its exclusionary policies in 1980s.

Do messianic Jews seek out suffering for their faith as a way of emulating Jesus?

"No one wants to suffer," Yahav said. "We want to live a comfortable life like everyone else. Still, when suffering comes, it is a merit, and there will be reward in heaven for it."

AN INTERESTING phenomenon that arises again and again in conversations with Messianic Jews is their strong commitment to military service as part of their loyalty to the state. Yahav said that there are two IAF pilots who are members of his congregation, and several others who belong to elite combat units. The situation is similar at Moshav Yad Hashmona, a small cooperative settlement of about 20 families, most of them Messianic Jews, located west of Jerusalem, according to Ayelet Ronen, its secretary.

Like the Orthodox religious Zionists who see their military service as a mitzva, Messianic Jews also see it in religious terms. In fact, several Messianic Jews said they respected religious Zionists for their selfless service to the state, and felt they had many things in common with them - except, of course, for the belief in Jesus.

Messianic Jews' dedication to the military is based on their belief that one must be a good citizen and pray for the success of the state no matter where one lives. But it also has to do with a type of religious Zionism.

"Part of Messianic community's success in military service has to do with discipline," said Ronen. "We put a lot of emphasis on behavior and conduct. For instance, premarital sex is not accepted, and young people are expected to act in a responsible way. These values seem to help our young people when they get to the IDF.

"Also, our youths are encouraged to reach a deep level of religious conviction independently. Faith is not forced on them. So when someone does commit himself to the faith, it is a result of an internal, not an external, process. And this gives them a lot of strength. But most importantly, we know that when we fight for the Jewish people, we are fighting on God's side."

According to Michael - who helps run Mercaz Netiva, a youth organization for Messianic Jews aged 13 through 17 that includes a one-week premilitary preparation course called Netzor - there are presently 200-300 Messianic Jews serving in the IDF.

Messianic Jews see no contradiction between Jesus's pacifist teachings, such as the Sermon on the Mount, in which the faithful are taught to turn the other cheek to their enemies, and Messianic Jews' service in the IDF.

Michael, who is an officer in the Givati Brigade, believes that Jesus's teachings make military service more of a challenge.

"As believers, we are obligated to love and respect our enemies. But we are also citizens of Israel, which obligates us to serve in the IDF. Every believer has to ask if he is doing what is right and good. The most difficult test is when we are involved in policing the Palestinian population at checkpoints or during patrols inside Palestinian villages.

"I personally see it as an opportunity to behave in a compassionate, ethical way, and serve as a witness for Jesus's teachings. There are about 200 or 300 of us spread out throughout the IDF having a positive impact, serving as examples.

"We believe this state of affairs will not last forever, though. Eventually, there will be a time of peace ushered in by the prince of peace. In that day, everyone will recognize that Jesus is the messiah."

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710831191&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
[ Back to the Article ]
Copyright 1995- 2009 The Jerusalem Post - http://www.jpost.com/
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710831191&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

What about the Gospel of Thomas?

2009-05-03T10:07:00.000-07:00

Question....
..........What about the Gospel of Thomas?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Created: 8/24/96

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The issue of the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas comes up in different ways and in different places. For example, this question that came into the Tank...

Recently, and quite by accident, I stumbled across a version of the Apocryphal(sp?) Gospel of Thomas. After reading it, and being quite amazed by the similarities to the Synoptic Gospels and John, I have the following question:

What is the great "theological argument" against this Gospel? At least 60% of it has direct correlations in Scripture and some rather inspiring extra sayings. I understand there is a good deal, I estimate 40%, of the Gospel that is clearly Gnostic, but does that discredit a valuable (in my mind) resource of early Christianity?
GTh also is important to discussions of the "Jesus Seminar" and those dependent upon that stream of argument (e.g. James Stills' web-writings). Some of the claims are quite exorbitant--that it represents the oldest Jesus material available, much older than our canonical gospels. This material needs careful analysis, since so much is made of it.

What is the Gospel of Thomas?

The GTh is "an anthology of 114 'obscure sayings' of Jesus, which according to its prologue, were collected and transmitted by St. Didymus Jude Thomas. The sayings do not appear within a biological narrative about Jesus, although some of them individually contain elements of dialogue or an abbreviated setting. Instead, Jesus' sayings in Gth are unconnected and in no particular order." [GS:376] It is part of a collection of Gnostic writings known as the Nag Hammadi Library.

The Nag Hammadi Library is a collection of Coptic documents, found in Upper Egypt in 1945, dated late fourth century AD:

The most important collection of Gnostic writings are the Nag Hammadi Codices (NHC). Thirteen codices, containing fifty-two tractates, were discovered in upper Egypt in 1945. Six of these tractates were duplicates. Six others were already extant. The remaining forty represented wholly new finds. [Evans, in NWNTI:164]
All [texts] were found together in a large jar sealed by a bowl and buried beneath a boulder at the base of cliffs on the right bank of the Nile, some six miles northeast of the town of Nag Hammadi and within sight of the ruins of the Pachomian monastery at Phbow. [BREC:171]
The texts are a varied lot: some are Christian, some are gnostic, some are Christian-gnostic, some are Hermetic, and two are philosophical--the Sentences of Sextus and a fragment of Plato's Republic.[BREC:171]
[TankNote: When Egyptian was written in the Greek alphabet, it was called "Coptic". The NHC was written in TWO different Coptic dialects, and reflect the handwriting styles of several different scribes (NHL:13ff)]

How old is this library (including the GTh)?

The manuscripts are dated to the late 4th century, on several grounds, the two strongest are (NHL:16):

First, there is a reference in Codex VI (containing The Concept of our Great Power) to the heresy of the Anomoeans--which briefly flourished in the region in the late 350's.

Second, some of the 'packing materials' in the jar are literary pieces themselves (like we might use newspaper to pack a box of delicate objects). There are three dates that show up in these packing materials of Codex VII: 341, 346, 348 ad. "This indicates that the cover of Codex VII was manufactured no earlier than the latest date [348ad], but perhaps as much as a generation after these dates."

This, of course, describes only the age of the manuscripts themselves--NOT the literary content of those mss.

What does the GTh contain?

The Coptic Gospel of Thomas was translated from the Greek. Fragments of this gospel in the original Greek version are extant in the Oxyrhynchus Papyri 1, 654 and 655, which had been discovered and published at the beginning of this century, but were identified as parts of The Gospel of Thomas only after the discovery of the Nag Hammadi Library. The first of these Greek papyri contains sayings 26-30, 77, 31-33 (in this order!), the other two the sayings 1-7 and 36-40, respectively. At least one of these Greek fragments comes from a manuscript that was written before 200 C.E.; thus the Greek version of this gospel was used in Egypt as early as the second century. [Koester , in NHL:124]
A large number of the sayings of The Gospel of Thomas have parallels in the gospels of the New Testament, in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), as well as the Gospel of John (parallels with the latter are especially striking: cf., e.g., sayings 13, 19, 24, 38, 49, 92). Some of the sayings are known to occur also in noncanonical gospels, especially in the Gospel According to the Hebrews (cf. saying 2) and the Gospel of the Egyptians (cf. saying 22), which are both attested for the second century by Clement of Alexandria (floruit 180-200).[Koester, in NHL:124-125]
How old IS the GTh itself?

If we have Greek mss with fragments of Gth that can be dated to pre-200 AD, then clearly the GTh must be at least that old. But some highly visible minority (i.e. the Jesus Seminar) have claimed that it can be dated to 50-60ad, BEFORE the canonical gospels, so we need to see exactly what evidence exists by which to date the Gth.

In other words, do we have any HARD evidence by which to date GTh so early?

"The only firm evidence for dating this document is its earliest Greek fragments (P. Oxy. 1), which was written no later than about A.D. 200." (TJQ:49)

"The first reference to the document by name occurs no earlier than Hippolytus, who was writing between A.D. 222 and 235." (TJQ:49)

The author of Gth shows a decided dependence on the canonical Gospels (see below for the evidence), demonstrating a later date for its composition than they.

The scholarly community is generally (apart from the Jesus Seminar minority) in agreement as to a mid-2nd century date:

But how early that Gospel was composed is debated. Although some seek to place its origins in the first century, the view that it was actually composed near the middle of the second century (ca. A.D. 140) is more commonly held. [RNC:11]
Hultgren (op.cit.) lists the "early-daters" as Koester, S. Davies, Cameron; and for the majority view Guillaumont, Puech, Cullmann, Quispel, R. McL. Wilson, Gartner, Frend, Fieger, Hengel.

The early-daters are all closely associated with two schools: Claremont and Harvard (homes of Koester and Robinson). All of these early daters are either colleagues or students of these (with the exception of Crossan).

Richard Hayes, a non-evangelical teaching at Duke, wrote an article demonstrating how the Jesus Seminar did NOT represent a cross-section or consensus view of non-evangelical scholarship in "The Corrected Jesus", First Things 43 (1994). He called the seminar's dating of GTh "an extraordinarily early dating, " a highly controversial claim," and a "shaky element in their methodological foundation." (cited by Bock, in JUF:90).

And Blomberg sums it up thus: "In other words, the document may have first been written as early as about A.D. 150, but no actual evidence permits us to push that date a century earlier as the Jesus Seminar does." [JUF:23]

[It should be mentioned that an important, specialist work on the Syrian area, where GTh was possibly written, argues that GTh is dependent on Tatian's Diatessaron, which would dates it after 180ad--see H.J.W. Drijvers, in "Facts and Problems in Early Syriac-Speaking Christianity", The Second Century, 2 (1982), pp.157-175.]

So, we get a range of 150-180ad for its composition. The implication of this, obviously, is that at such a date it CANNOT be chronologically prior to the canonical gospels--all of which were in their final form LONG BEFORE this date.

THE BIG QUESTION: Was GTh dependent on the Gospels? [arguments summarized in MJ:1.128]

This is the major question. If the GTh was dependent on the canonical gospels, then its value for research into the origins of Christian literature is limited (its value for research into early Gnosticism is already significant).

The main "arguments FOR" the chronological priority of the GTh material over the canonical gospels:

Some of these sayings, when translated back into Aramaic, reflect a rhythm and rhetoric scholars associate with the authentic sayings of Jesus;

If the Synoptics WERE being followed, we would expect to find such an order in GTh. We do NOT find such an order. Therefore, it is unlikely that GTh WAS dependent on the Synoptics.

The stories that are paralleled in GTh and the Gospels, generally reveal that GTh has a more streamlined or less elaborate version. The Jesus Seminar believes that these simpler forms indicate an earlier form of the tradition, and that the canonical gospels elaborated and developed upon these.

The main arguments AGAINST the "arguments FOR" the chronological priority of the GTh material over the canonical gospels.

These arguments FOR are easily shown to be irrelevant, questionable, or simply wrong.

The one, about being re-translated into Aramaic is, of course true, but, if the GTh was written in Syria (as most scholars believe) this point is totally irrelevant [MJ:1.158n99]

The one about the order of the sayings is simply an assumption, that runs counter to the author's 'right to redact' as well as the mss. witness itself.

Gnostic writers of the 2nd-century customarily arranged material around themes/catchwords:

Grant (Gnosticism and Early Christianity, 185) notes that one of the striking features of the Gospel of Thomas is its tendency to combine sayings found separately in the Synoptic Gospels and to change the order of the sayings: "Such combinations and alterations were common among Christian writers of the second century, but they were especially characteristic of Gnostics." [cited in MJ1.161n.116]
For example, we know of one place where the Coptic redactor CHANGED the order from the "older" Greek version (POxy.1) for usage in his Coptic version, so as to organize it around catch-words. The saying on "spitting the wood" which in POxy1 is at the end of saying 30, becomes part of the 2nd half of saying 77 in the Coptic version. This creates a link-word between 77a+b; both halves of the spliced verse contain the Coptic verb meaning "attain" or "split" [Tucker, cited in MJ:1.161n.117]

"According to Jean-Marie Sevrin, GThom 63, 64, and 65 have been clustered as part of the writer's polemic against wealth and materialism." [SHJ:499]

But even with this license and pattern, the Synoptic order DOES SEEM to "show through" sometimes.
Some sayings in Thomas seem to follow each other for no reason other than that is their sequence in the Synoptic Gospels. For example, Saying 65 gives a version of the parable of the wicked tenants (cf. Mark 12.1-8 pars.), which Saying 66 follows up with a version of Jesus' teaching about the 'cornerstone' (cf. Mark 12.10-11). But without anything corresponding to Mark 12.9 to connect the two sayings, no one would guess they were related. It is more probable, therefore, that Thomas knew the Synoptics but omitted the connection (as this work does throughout in listing sayings in isolation from each other) than that Mark or someone else created a connected narrative out of two originally independent thoughts.[JUF:24]
The survival of the Synoptic order in a few places is especially striking since--as we have seen--Thomas reorders the Synoptic sayings around clusters of similar motifs and catchwords. For example, the order of Luke 10:8-9 peeks through in part of saying 14: "If you fast you will acquire sin...And when you go into any land, when they receive you, eat whatever they will set before you (= Luke 10:8). Heal those among them who are sick (= Luke 10:9). For nothing that enters your mouth will defile you...." Thomas has gathered these diverse sayings around the leitmotif of eating (fasting, eating what is set before you, what enters yours mouth). The reference to healing is completely intrusive in Thomas' context; it plays no function, comes from nowhere, and goes nowhere. Or rather, it comes clearly from Luke 10:9, where it makes sense within Luke's missionary discourse, following Luke 10:8 and introducing the proclamation of the coming of the kingdom in Luke 10:9b. Indeed, so closely does Luke 10:9 follow upon Luke 10:8 that it has followed it straight into the Gospel of Thomas, even though it makes no sense there, given the leitmotif Thomas has chosen for his cluster. [MJ:1.137-138// Meier also adduces sayings 65 and 66 as an example.]
The NET: The authors of the 2nd century routinely re-arranged material, explaining much of the groupings in GTh, and, in spite of this, sometimes the Synoptic order DOES show through. The 'argument for' turns out to be an assumption that is inappropriate to the situation.

The MAIN one--that of 'simpler is earlier; more elaborate is later' is HIGHLY questionable--esp. in written literary productions.

For example, even within the Synoptics this is not true--irrespective of Markan or Matthean priority positions!

Assuming the majority view of Markan priority, Meier can say:

It is no means invariably true in the Gospel tradition that the shorter text is earlier than and independent of the longer text containing the same material. Matthew usually shortens and streamlines Mark's miracle stories, but he is no less dependent on Mark for all the brevity. In fact, it is quite possible that a tradition may not develop along a straight line of shorter to longer or longer to shorter, but may meander back and forth. [MJ.1.132]
Meier cites a Matthean abbreviation example (non-miracle): the divorce passage in Mark 10.11-12--containing a two-part clause relevant to Mark's Greco-Roman setting--is shortened to a one-part clause in Matthew (19.9), relevant to HIS Jewish-Christian setting.

Charlesworth and Evans can point out the problem in the argument as well, using examples of Luke's abbreviation [SHJ:501]:

Advocates of Thomas' independence of the intracanonical Gospels often point to the abbreviated form that many of the parables and sayings have in the former. One of the best known examples is the Parable of the Wicked Tenant Farmers (Matt 21:33-41 = Mark 12:1-9 = Luke 20:9-16 = GThom 65). In the opening verse of the Marcan version approximately eleven words are drawn from Isa 5:1-7 to form the backdrop of the parable. Most of these words do not appear in Thomas. For Crossan this is a telling indication that the older form of the parable has been preserved in Thomas, not in Mark. However, in Luke's opening verse only two words (ephuteusen ampelona) remain. Assuming Marcan priority, we have here a clear example of abbreviation of the tradition. Other scholars have concluded that the version in Thomas is an edited and abridged form of the Lukan version. The same possibly applies to the rejected stone saying (Matt 21:42 = Mark 12:10-11 = Luke 20:17 = GThom 66). Mark's longer version quotes Ps 118:22-23. But Luke only quotes Ps 118:22. Once again Luke, who is further removed from the original form of the tradition, has abbreviated the tradition. The shorter form also appears in Thomas. Thus, it is risky to draw firm conclusions relating to priority on the basis of which form of the tradition is the shortest.
And, if one does NOT assume Markan priority (but rather Matthean), then much of Mark is an obvious abbreviation of Matthew (as some of the Church Fathers held).

In the case of GTh, we see also one tendency of the redactor to deliberately make clear traditions into 'hidden' or 'secret' sayings--in keeping with his theology stated at the beginning of his work. So Meier [MJ.1.133]:
The upshot of this hermeneutic is that the redactor of the Gospel of Thomas will purposely drop from the tradition anything that makes Jesus' sayings too clear or univocal, or anything that employs the general saying to highlight one specific (often moral or ecclesial) application. Thus, the redactor naturally undoes what the four canonical evangelists have struggled so hard to do: for, by allegory or other redactional additions and reformulations, the four evangelists often explain the meaning of Jesus' statements or apply them to concrete issues in the church.
It is these clarifying additions that Thomas systematically drops, thus creating a shorter, tighter version of a saying or a parable. The whole gnostic approach of Thomas makes him favor a laconic, "collapsed," streamlined form of the tradition. This form may indeed, at times, approximate by coincidence what form critics imagine the primitive tradition to have looked like.
Thomas ALSO tends to shorten the traditions for theological reasons. The gnostic system as a whole had no place for the deeds of Jesus', nor generally of His words that spoke of revelation and salvation in history. Salvation for the gnostic was through self-knowledge. I want to quote Meier here on this, for even though the quote is long, it not only shows the basic motive behind much of the GTh redaction, but also illustrates the basic structures of gnosticism (for readers perhaps less familiar with the system of thought) [MJ:1.134]
Thomas' gnostic vision has no room for a multi-stage history of salvation, with its early phase in the OT (replete with prophecies), its midpoint in Jesus' earthly ministry, death, and resurrection, its continuation in a Church settling down in the world and proclaiming the gospel equally to all men and women, and its climax in a glorious coming of Jesus the Son of Man to close out the old world and create a new one--in other words, so much of what the Four Gospels teach as they related the words and deeds of Jesus. Thomas' rejection of the material world as evil also means a rejection of salvation history, of a privileged place in that history for Israel, of the significance of OT prophecies, of any real importance given to the "enfleshed" earthly ministry of Jesus leading to his saving death and bodily resurrection, of a universal mission of the Church to all people (instead of only to a spiritual elite), and of a future coming of Jesus to inaugurate a new heaven and a new earth.
In other words, Thomas' view of salvation is ahistorical, atemporal, amaterial, and so he regularly removes from the Four Gospels anything that contradicts his view. Severin, for instance, demonstrates convincingly how Thomas pulls together three diverse parables in sayings 63, 64, and 65 (the parables of the rich man who dies suddenly, of the great supper, and of the murderous tenants of the vineyard) to develop his own gnostic polemic against "capitalism," while rigorously censoring out of the parables any allegory, any reference to salvation history, and any eschatological perspective. The result is a dehistoricized, timeless message of self-salvation through self-knowledge and ascetic detachment from this material world. At times, Thomas will introduce amplification into the tradition, but they always serve his theological program.
The NET: the argument from 'simple to early; elaborate to late' is just too simplistic, and doesn't even hold up among the Synoptics (where there is STRONG evidence of inter-dependence).

SUMMARY: the "arguments FOR" the chronological priority of GTh over the canonical gospels just don't work. They either are irrelevant, inappropriate, or simply contradicted by the textual data of the GTh and canonical gospels.

The "argument FOR" the dependence of GTh on the canonical gospels.

It is one thing to shoot down the opposition's arguments; it is also important to give some affirmative data for your own position. What I would like to do here is to summarize the main lines of evidence that show the dependence of GTh on the canonical gospels as we have them today.

How could we determine if the GTh was dependent on the "final editions" of the gospels as opposed to some more ancient traditions BEHIND those gospels?

There are a couple of 'places to look':

You would check to see if parallels in GTh match material UNIQUE in a specific gospel (other than Mark). This would indicate close familiarity with either (1) a stream of oral tradition associated with a specific community; or (2) the literary product (i.e. gospel) from that community. If this type of material surfaces for MORE THAN ONE gospel (reducing the probability that the redactor was in touch with the ORAL traditions of multiple communities), then the claim of the GTh to be an 'independent stream of tradition' is weakened considerably, and the assurance of dependence on these final-form written gospels (as opposed to oral traditions BEHIND those gospels) is confirmed.

Further, if GTh included elements that were redactional elements by the gospel authors, then the conclusion is much more certain. In other words, if GTh includes references to elements that were 'last minute changes' of the evangelists (e.g. word substitutions, omissions) that would ONLY exist in the final literary product, then it will be obvious that the GTh redactor was working from those final documents.

The more of these (presumably) disparate traditions that are used by GTh, the greater the likelihood that he drew from a "consolidated source" of these multiple-streams. The only such sources available were a collection of the documents themselves (i.e. written gospels, all generally available) or documents based on them (e.g. Tatian's Diatessaron).

Further, if GTh included elements that showed up in the post-canonical literary transmission process (e.g. textual elements in 2nd century writings, compilations, and Coptic translations), this would show its dependence on the literary products--not just the oral tradition.

So, let's see what we can find of these...

Usage of passages (traditions) UNIQUE to an individual gospel. [data from SHJ:498]

The material unique to Matthew is called "special M" in the literature. It refers to material available to Matthew (and used by him) that does NOT show up in Mark, Luke, or John. There are many passages in GTh that cite/refer to this Special M:

Matt 5.10--GTh 69a
Matt 5.14--GTh 32 (=POxy1.7)
Matt 6.2-4--GTh 6,14 (= POxy654.6)
Matt 6.3--GTh 62
Matt 7.6--GTh 93
Matt 10.16--GTh 39
Matt 11.30--GTh 90
Matt 13.24-30--GTh 57
Matt 13.44--GTh 109
Matt 13.45-46--GTh 76
Matt 13.47-50--GTh 8
Matt 15.13--GTh 40
Matt 18.20--GTh 30 (= POxy1.5)
Matt 23.13--GTh 39, 102 (= POxy655.2)

This represents a close familiarity with Matthean tradition--either oral or written!

The material unique to Luke is called "special L" in the literature. It refers to material available to Luke (and used by him) that does NOT show up in Mark, Matthew, or John. There are several passages in GTh that cite/refer to this Special L:

Luke 11.27-28 + 23:29--GTh 79
Luke 12.13-14--GTh 72
Luke 12.16-21--GTh 63
Luke 12.49--GTh 10
Luke 17.20-21--GTh 3 (= POxy654.2), 113

This represents close familiarity with Lukan tradition--either oral or written.

There are also several passages in GTh that cite/refer to material in John :

John 1.9--GTh 24 (= POxy655.24)
John 1.14--GTh 28 (= POxy1.28)
John 4.13-15--GTh 13
John 7.32-36--GTh 38 (= POxy655.38)
John 8.12; 9.5--GTh 77

This represents close familiarity with Johannine tradition--probably written [so R. E. Brown and Meier, MJ:1.136-137].

"A major problem with viewing the Gospel of Thomas as independent of the intracanonical Gospels is the presence of a significant amount of material that is distinctive to Matthew ("M"), Luke ("L"), and John...If Thomas really does represent an early, independent collection of material, then how is one to explain the presence of so much M, L, and Johannine material?...It is much more likely that the presence of M, L, and Johannine elements in Thomas indicates that the latter, at least in its extant Coptic form, has been influenced by the New Testament Gospels." [SHJ:498-499].

THE NET: the presence of M, L, and Johannine elements is strong evidence for literary dependence on the canonical gospel writings!

The use of the gospel authors' redactional elements by the GTh. [data: SHJ.499ff; MJ:1.135f]

These elements look like idiosyncrasies of the individual authors in how that 'modified' the sources they used. Word changes, omissions, etc. illustrate this redactional process.

GTh's use of Matthean redactional elements.

Matt 15.13--GTh 40 (may be a redaction; listed above as well)
Matt 13.24-30--GTh 57 (may be a redaction; listed above as well)
(Similarly, Mt 11.28-30 and 7.6 above)
GTh 34b uses Matthew's wording in Matt 15.11(instead of Mark's) in the Triple-Tradition passage.
GTh 99 uses Matthew's wording in Matt 12.50 (instead of Mark's) in the Triple-Tradition passage.
Matthew's unique juxtaposition of alms, prayer, fasting (6.1-8) appears to be echoed in GTh 6 ( = POxy654.6), 14.
GTh 33 uses Matthew's precise wording of a Marcan or Q tradition (on preaching from housetops)

This argues that GTh was familiar with the FINAL literary form of Matthew's gospel!

GTh's use of Lukan redactional elements.

Luke 8.17 "redacts" Mark 4.22, and this final form shows up in GTh 5-6, with the Greek parallel in POxy654.5 matching Luke's exactly.
GTh 10 influenced by Luke 12.49
GTh 14 influenced by Luke 10.8-9
GTh 16 influenced by Luke 12.51-53
GTh 55 and 101 influenced by Luke 14.26-27
GTh 73-75 influenced by Luke 10.2

This argues that GTh was familiar with the FINAL literary form of Luke's gospel!

Together, this data argues quite powerfully that GTh drew heavily and widely from the final literary products of Matthew and Luke.

The WIDE and VARIED usage of all the sources.

Thus, the GTh cites/refers to/is influenced by the following sources/traditions:

Q (obviously)
special M
special L
written John
Matthean redactional elements
Lukan redactional elements
Triple-Tradition (material shared in all three Synoptics)
parable of the sower (Saying 9)
parable of the mustard seed (Saying 20)
parable of the murderous tenants of the vineyard (Saying 65)

The force of this wide a range of reference is staggering. Meier states it pointedly [MJ:1. 137]:
We arrive, then, at an intriguing picture: the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas that resemble sayings found in the canonical Gospels are not simply parallels to the Q material. Besides many Q sayings, there is a good deal of special M material, a fair representation of special L material, indications of Matthean and Lucan redactional traits, some pericopes from the triple tradition (though not necessarily in the specific Marcan form), some possible redactional traits from Mk, and a few parallels to statements in John's Gospel. This broad "spread" of Jesus' sayings over so many different streams of canonical Gospel tradition (and redaction!) forces us to face a fundamental question: Is it likely that the very early source of Jesus' sayings that the Gospel of Thomas supposedly drew upon contained within itself material belonging to such diverse branches of 1st-century Christian tradition as Q, special M, special L, Matthean and Lucan redaction, the triple tradition, and possibly the Johannine tradition? What were the source, locus, and composition of this incredibly broad yet very early tradition? Who were its bearers? Is it really conceivable that there was some early Christian source that embraced within itself all these different strands of what became the canonical Gospels? Or is it more likely that the Gospel of Thomas has conflated material from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, with possible use of Mark and John as well? Of the two hypotheses I find the second much more probable, especially given all we have seen of such conflating tendencies in other 2d-century Christian documents. Indeed, it may even be that the Gospel of Thomas is directly dependent not on the four canonical Gospels, but on some conflation of them that had already been composed in Greek.
Blomberg is more succinct, but no less forceful in drawing the implications of this [JUF:23]:
Parallels emerged in Thomas to every one of the four Gospels and to every "layer" of the Gospel tradition--that is, to material common to all three Synoptic Gospels, information from "Q"..., and traditions unique to each of the four Gospels. It seems unlikely that every Gospel and every Gospel source would independently use Thomas at an early date; rather, it is far more probable that Thomas knew and relied upon the later fourfold Gospel collection.
This WIDE and VARIED use of the Gospel sources argues powerfully for literary dependence on the ENTIRE collection of canonical gospel writings.

Finally, it should be pointed out that the Coptic version of GTh SEEMS to reflect the 2nd-century milieu in many ways (arguing that it was a post-canon phenomenon).

The distinctives of the Coptic version parallels alterations of the Gospel tradition found in later 2nd- through 4th-century documents, including Coptic translations of the Gospels. [JUF:24]

Other distinctives parallel the development of the Diatessaron in the late 2nd century [JUF:24]

The freedom of citation and interpretation fits the 2nd-century tendency to produce the Christian equivalent to Jewish targum and midrashim (MJ:1.131)

"Indeed, if the Gospel of Thomas used all Four Gospels, the frequency with which each Gospel is used would roughly mirror what we see throughout the rest of 2d-century Christian literature: of the Synoptics, Matthew is used most often, then Luke, and least of all Mark. Before the time of Irenaeus, John stands to one side, and in some writings we have at best weak echoes rather that clear citations or allusions. The tendency to conflate, reorder, and paraphrase Gospel sayings is likewise common to the 2d century. Thus, rather than diverging from the common pattern of 2d-century Christian literature, Thomas by and large conforms to it." [MJ:1.139]

The NET: the GTh looks like a 2nd-century document--in content, provenance, usage of sources.

The cumulative weight of the above is formidable! The evidence for GTh's dependence on the finished literary works (and maybe even subsequent derivative works like the Diatessaron) of the Gospels is so strong as to render all speculation to the contrary rather vacuous.

Just to finish this off, let me cite a few summary statements of modern scholars who hold this mainstream position...

Summary statements by scholars/reviewers:

The standard assessment until recently has been that GosThom is essentially dependent upon the canonical Gospels and thus does not represent a significant independent source for new knowledge about Jesus (Boyd in CSSG:53)
No doubt there is independent tradition in Thomas as well, but the bulk of the material seems to have its origin in the canonical Gospels. (Snodgrass, cited in CSSG:134)
...ever since the 1964 landmark study of Wolfgang Schrage, much of German scholarship has been convinced that Thomas is largely dependent upon the canonical gospels. (CSSG:134)
Since I think that the Synoptic-like sayings of the Gospel of Thomas are in fact dependent on the Synoptic Gospels and that the other sayings stem from 2nd-century Christian gnosticism, the Gospel of Thomas will not be used in our quest as an independent source for the historical Jesus. [ Meier, in A Marginal Jew, MJ1:139.
...it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the author of the Gospel of Thomas knew the New Testament gospels as they now stand, even though he may have quoted them fairly loosely. [BLOM:211]
To these may be added the impressive names of Chilton, Craig Evans, Charlesworth, Dehandshutter, Menard, Neirynck, Tuckett [for biblio, see CSSG: 333n19] and Grant, Gartner, Haenchen, Lindemann [for biblio, see SHJ:501n.53].

..............................................................................................................................

Conclusions:

The GTh is late (150-200ad), not early (50-75ad). It dates from AFTER the completion and collation of the FourFold gospel.

The GTh may contain an authentic extra-biblical tradition or two (a subject we did NOT discuss here--for discussion, see JUF:217ff, Hofius in GAG:336-360), but by and large is dependent on ALL the canonical gospels in their finished form.

Since it appears in history 100-150 years later than the alleged Sayings Document called "Q", its value to demonstrate the existence of such a genre as "Sayings Document" is negligible. As a late document, is looks more like popular theme books of today--"The Parables of Jesus" or "The Gaililean Miracles"--subsets of the Gospel data for specific purposes, as opposed to a comprehensive statement of the "gospel". (The use of "gospel" at the end of the document carries precious little weight in this regard, since by this time the gospel genre had been so stretched by the flood of apocryphal gospels as to be meaningless.)

The fact that this single document can witness to the general availability of the Fourfold gospel in the mid-late 2nd century has implications for canonical studies. It demonstrates that the Fourfold gospel was accepted as the ONLY authoritative source for teaching--by the very fact that its citations were predominantly from those gospels! And the fact that the four gospels were available to a single redactor at that time confirms the rather rapid and frequent distribution and exchange of Christian literature in the period (cf. BREC:82ff).

To the Christian, this bare-bones gnostic "How to work your way to heaven" document should remind us vividly of the completeness of God's provision for our salvation in Christ. He broke into history, joined our "matter" in solidarity, and MADE a way--not just SHOWED a way! He "shrank not back from death" and did MORE than just reveal truth; He also unleashed grace (John 1!).

Glenn Miller, 8/24/96

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gthomas.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Buddhist monk raised from the dead

2009-04-30T09:23:00.000-07:00

Buddhist monk raised from the dead
"We first heard of the events from a number of Burmese church leaders, who investigated the reports and have no doubt as to their authenticity. The monk, Athet Pyan Shintaw Paulu, has turned his life around, and suffers and risks much to tell his story. Nobody would undergo such hardship for nothing. He has already led hundreds of monks to Jesus, has been imprisoned, despised by his relatives, friends and colleagues, and been threatened with death if he does not tone down the reports. His current whereabouts are not certain: one Burmese source claims that he is in prison and may have been murdered, another that he is free and preaching." (Asian Minorities Outreach)
Monk's personal account
My name is Athet Pyan Shintaw Paulu I was born in 1958 in Bogale in the Irrawaddy Delta, Southern Myanmar (Burma). When I became 18 years of age, my Buddhist parents sent me as a novice to a monastery. At 19, I became a monk, entering the Mandalay Kyaikasan Kyaing monastery, where I was instructed by probably the most famous Buddhist teacher of the time, U Zadila Kyar Ni Kan Sayadaw, who was killed in a car crash in 1983. I was given a new name when I entered the monastery: U Nata Pannita Ashinthuriya. I tried to deny my own selfish thoughts and desires; even when mosquitoes landed on my arm, I would let them bite me instead of brushing them away.
Doctors give up
I became very ill, and the doctors diagnosed a combination of Malaria and Yellow Fever. After a month in hospital, they told me that they could do no more for me, and discharged me so that I could prepare myself for my death. Back in the monastery, I became ever weaker, and finally lost consciousness. I only discovered that I had died later: my body started to decay and smelled of death, my heart had ceased beating. My body was put through the Buddhist cleansing rites.
Lake of fire
But my spirit was wide awake I found myself in a powerful storm which blew everything away. Not a single tree, nothing was left standing. I was in an empty plain. After some time, I crossed a river, and saw a terrible lake of fire. I was confused, because Buddhism knows no such thing. I did not know that it was Hell until I met Yama, the King of Hell. His face was that of a lion, his feet like snakes, and he had many horns on his head. When I asked his name, he said 'I am the King of Hell, the Destroyer'. I then saw the saffron-coloured robes of Myanmar's monks in the fire, and upon looking closer, saw U Zadila Kyar Ni Kan Sayadaw's shaven head. 'Why is he in the lake of fire?' I asked. 'He was a very good teacher; his cassette "Are you a human or a dog?" helped thousands of people recognise that they are worth more than a dog.' 'Yes, he was a good teacher,' said Yama, 'but he did not believe in Jesus Christ. That's why he is in Hell.'
Buddha in Hell
I was then shown another man, with long hair bound in a ball on the left side of his head. He also wore a robe, and when I asked who he was, I was told 'Gautama, who you worship (Buddha).' I was distraught. Buddha in Hell, with all of his ethics and moral character?' 'It is not important how good he was. He did not believe in the eternal God, so he is in Hell,' answered the King of Hell. I also saw Aung San, the revolutionary leader. 'He is here because he persecuted and killed Christians, but mainly because he did not believe in Jesus Christ,' I was told. Another man was very tall, wearing armour and carrying a sword and shield. He had a wound on his forehead. He was larger than anyone else I could see, around eight feet tall. The King of Hell said 'That is Goliath, who is in Hell because he mocked the eternal God and his servant David.' I had never heard of either Goliath or David. Another 'King of Hell' approached me and asked 'Are you also going into the lake of fire?'. 'No,' I said, 'I am just here to look.' 'You are right,' the creature said. 'You only came to look. I can't find your name. You'll have to go back to where you came from.'
Two paths
On the way back, I saw two paths, one wide, one narrow. The narrow path, which I followed for about an hour, was soon made of pure gold. I could see my own reflection perfectly! A man calling himself Peter told me 'Now go back to tell the people who worship Buddha and other gods that they will end up in Hell if they do not change. They should believe in Jesus. He then gave me a new name: Athet Pyan Shintaw Paulu (Paul, who returned to life). The next thing I heard was my mother crying. 'Son, why are you leaving us now?!' I realised that I was lying in a coffin. When I moved, my parents cried out 'He's alive!', but the others around them did not believe them. When they saw me, they were frozen with fear, and started shouting 'It's a ghost!'. I noticed that I was sitting in about 3½ cups of an odorous liquid, which must have come from my body as I lay in the coffin. I was told that they were about to cremate me. When a monk dies, his name, age and the number of years of his service as a monk are inscribed in the coffin. I had already been registered as dead, but as you can see, I'm alive!"
Source: Asian Minorities Outreach, P.O. Box 901, Palestine, TX 75802, U.S.A.; e-mail: monkstory@yahoo.com. Full story: Archived webpage

http://www.jesus.org.uk:80/dawn/2000/dawn0015.html

Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you

2009-04-13T17:29:00.001-07:00

Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you

The Gospel of Luke
22: 1-24,53
[1] Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.
[2] And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people.
[3] Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.
[4] And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them.
[5] And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money.
[6] And he promised, and sought opportunity to betray him unto them in the absence of the multitude.
[7] Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed.
[8] And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat.
[9] And they said unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare?
[10] And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he entereth in.
[11] And ye shall say unto the goodman of the house, The Master saith unto thee, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?
[12] And he shall shew you a large upper room furnished: there make ready.
[13] And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.
[14] And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.
[15] And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
[16] For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.
[17] And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
[18] For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
[19] And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
[20] Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
[21] But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.
[22] And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed!
[23] And they began to inquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing.
[24] And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.
[25] And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
[26] But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
[27] For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.
[28] Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.
[29] And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
[30] That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
[31] And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
[32] But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
[33] And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death.
[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.
[35] And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
[36] Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
[37] For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
[38] And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
[39] And he came out, and went, as he was wont, to the mount of Olives; and his disciples also followed him.
[40] And when he was at the place, he said unto them, Pray that ye enter not into temptation.
[41] And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,
[42] Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
[43] And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.
[44] And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
[45] And when he rose up from prayer, and was come to his disciples, he found them sleeping for sorrow,
[46] And said unto them, Why sleep ye? rise and pray, lest ye enter into temptation.
[47] And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.
[48] But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?
[49] When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?
[50] And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.
[51] And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.
[52] Then Jesus said unto the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders, which were come to him, Be ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and staves?
[53] When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness.
[54] Then took they him, and led him, and brought him into the high priest's house. And Peter followed afar off.
[55] And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were set down together, Peter sat down among them.
[56] But a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked upon him, and said, This man was also with him.
[57] And he denied him, saying, Woman, I know him not.
[58] And after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou art also of them. And Peter said, Man, I am not.
[59] And about the space of one hour after another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this fellow also was with him: for he is a Galilaean.
[60] And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.
[61] And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
[62] And Peter went out, and wept bitterly.
[63] And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him.
[64] And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?
[65] And many other things blasphemously spake they against him.
[66] And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying,
[67] Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe:
[68] And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go.
[69] Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.
[70] Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.
[71] And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Luke.23
[1] And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate.
[2] And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King.
[3] And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it.
[4] Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man.
[5] And they were the more fierce, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place.
[6] When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the man were a Galilaean.
[7] And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time.
[8] And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him.
[9] Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing.
[10] And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused him.
[11] And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate.
[12] And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves.
[13] And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people,
[14] Said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him:
[15] No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him.
[16] I will therefore chastise him, and release him.
[17] (For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)
[18] And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas:
[19] (Who for a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison.)
[20] Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to them.
[21] But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him.
[22] And he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him, and let him go.
[23] And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified. And the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed.
[24] And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required.
[25] And he released unto them him that for sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom they had desired; but he delivered Jesus to their will.
[26] And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus.
[27] And there followed him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented him.
[28] But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.
[29] For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.
[30] Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us.
[31] For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?
[32] And there were also two other, malefactors, led with him to be put to death.
[33] And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.
[34] Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.
[35] And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God.
[36] And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar,
[37] And saying, If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself.
[38] And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
[39] And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
[40] But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
[41] And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
[42] And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
[43] And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
[44] And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.
[45] And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.
[46] And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.
[47] Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man.
[48] And all the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things which were done, smote their breasts, and returned.
[49] And all his acquaintance, and the women that followed him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things.
[50] And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counseller; and he was a good man, and a just:
[51] (The same had not consented to the counsel and deed of them;) he was of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews: who also himself waited for the kingdom of God.
[52] This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus.
[53] And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.
[54] And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.
[55] And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid.
[56] And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Luke.24
[1] Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.
[2] And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
[3] And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.
[4] And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:
[5] And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?
[6] He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,
[7] Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.
[8] And they remembered his words,
[9] And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.
[10] It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.
[11] And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.
[12] Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.
[13] And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs.
[14] And they talked together of all these things which had happened.
[15] And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.
[16] But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.
[17] And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad?
[18] And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass therein these days?
[19] And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:
[20] And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.
[21] But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.
[22] Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre;
[23] And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive.
[24] And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not.
[25] Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
[26] Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
[27] And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
[28] And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further.
[29] But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.
[30] And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
[31] And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
[32] And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
[33] And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,
[34] Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.
[35] And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.
[36] And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
[37] But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
[38] And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
[39] Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
[40] And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
[41] And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
[42] And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
[43] And he took it, and did eat before them.
[44] And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
[45] Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
[46] And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
[47] And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
[48] And ye are witnesses of these things.
[49] And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.
[50] And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.
[51] And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.
[52] And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:
[53] And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/luke-kjv.html

http://groups.google.com/group/christianbiblestudies?hl=it

Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple

2009-04-13T17:26:00.000-07:00

Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple

The Gospel of Matthew
21: 1-17
[1] And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples,
[2] Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.
[3] And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them.
[4] All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying,
[5] Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.
[6] And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,
[7] And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.
[8] And a very great multitude spread their garments in the way; others cut down branches from the trees, and strawed them in the way.
[9] And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.
[10] And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this?
[11] And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.
[12] And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
[13] And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
[14] And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them.
[15] And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they were sore displeased,
[16] And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?
[17] And he left them, and went out of the city into Bethany; and he lodged there.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/matthew-kjv.html

http://groups.google.com/group/christianbiblestudies?hl=it

The Return Of Jesus Christ

2009-03-30T20:00:00.000-07:00

The Return Of Jesus Christ
by Wayne Blank

For the past nearly 2,000 years, there has been an ongoing debate regarding the Return of Jesus Christ. Many believe that He will literally return, exactly as The Bible says that He will, perhaps even within the lifetime of those alive today. Others have come to their own opinion, apart from what the Scriptures plainly say, and believe that the Return of Christ will not be an actual physical event, but was meant symbolically somehow. And others have decided, for themselves, that the existence of the Christian church (or in reality, hundreds of conflicting churches calling themselves Christian) serves the same purpose.
What does the Bible actually say about it? What does Prophecy actually say about it? What did Jesus Christ Himself actually say about it?

The Mount of Olives / The Mount of Olivet
Jesus Christ Is Going To Actually Return

"So when they had come together, they asked Him, "Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which The Father [see also The Logos] has fixed by His own authority. But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth."
And when He had said this, as they were looking on, He was lifted up, and a cloud took Him out of their sight. And while they were gazing into heaven as He went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, and said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, Who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw Him go into heaven." Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem." (Acts 1:6-12 RSV)

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken [see Signs In The Heavens]; then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory; and He will send out His angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other" (Matthew 24:29-31 RSV)

"Then The Lord will go forth and fight against those nations as when He fights on a day of battle. On that day His feet shall stand on The Mount Of Olives which lies before Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives shall be split in two from east to west by a very wide valley; so that one half of the Mount shall withdraw northward, and the other half southward [see Earthquake!]. And the valley of my mountains shall be stopped up, for the valley of the mountains shall touch the side of it; and you shall flee as you fled from the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then The Lord your God will come, and all the holy ones with Him." (Zechariah 14:3-5)

"For The Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel's call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet The Lord in the air." (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 RSV) [see The Last Day]

"And The Lord will become king over all the earth; on that day The Lord will be one and His Name one." (Zechariah 14:9 RSV) [see King Of The Mountain]

"It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of The Lord shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be raised up above the hills; and peoples shall flow to it, and many nations shall come, and say: "Come, let us go up to the mountain of The Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; that He may teach us His ways and we may walk in His paths." For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of The Lord from Jerusalem. He shall judge between many peoples, and shall decide for strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more; but they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree, and none shall make them afraid; for the mouth of The Lord of hosts has spoken." (Micah 4:1-4 RSV) [see The Kingdom of God]

"And he said to me, "These words are trustworthy and true. And The Lord, the God of the spirits of the Prophets, has sent His angel to show His servants what must soon take place. And behold, I am coming soon." Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book." (Revelation 22:6-7 RSV)
Fact Finder: Will the time of The Return of Jesus Christ be filled with great distress and tribulation in the world?
Matthew 24:21
See also The Seven Seals

Daily Bible Study
Copyright Information
Contact the Author or Web Site Administrator

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/theretrn.htm

Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit—The “Unpardonable Sin”

2009-03-29T18:45:00.001-07:00

Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit—The “Unpardonable Sin”
by Kyle Butt, M.A.

Printer version | Email this article

Through the years, numerous writers have taken on the task of explaining the comment spoken by Jesus concerning the “unpardonable sin”—blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. From these writings have come countless false doctrines, insinuations, and suggested explanations. It is the purpose of this article to explain what “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” is not, what it actually is, and to offer comment concerning whether it still can be committed today.

Three of the four gospel accounts contain a reference to the statement made by Jesus concerning blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. These three passages read as follows.

Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come (Matthew 12:31-32).

Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation—because they said, “He has an unclean spirit” (Mark 3:28-30).

And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven (Luke 12:10).

Each of these references to the statement made by Jesus verifies that Jesus did clearly state that there is a specific sin that “will not be forgiven.” The American Standard Version describes the sin as an “eternal sin” (Mark 3:29). Jesus defined that sin as “the blasphemy against the Spirit.” What, then, is blasphemy against the Spirit?

In order to explain this sin fully, a look at the general context of the statement is critical. Matthew’s account offers the most detail concerning the setting in which Jesus’ statement was made. In Matthew 12:22, the text indicates that a certain man who was demon-possessed was brought to Jesus to be healed. As was His common practice, Jesus cast out the unclean spirit, and healed the man of his blindness and inability to speak. After seeing this display of power, the multitudes that followed Jesus asked, “Could this be the Son of David?” (12:23). Upon hearing this remark, the Pharisees, wanting to discredit the source from which Jesus received His power, declared that Jesus was casting out demons by “Beelzebub, the ruler of demons.” Jesus proceeded to explain that a kingdom divided against itself could not stand, and if He were casting out demons by the power of demons, then He would be defeating Himself. It was after this accusation by the Pharisees, and Jesus’ defense of His actions, that Christ commented concerning the blasphemy against the Spirit. In fact, the text of Mark clearly states that Jesus made the comment about the blasphemy against the Spirit “because they said, ‘He has an unclean spirit.’ ”

Another critical piece of information needed to clarify Jesus’ statement is the definition of blasphemy. Wayne Jackson wrote: “Blasphemy is an anglicized form of the Greek term blasphemia, which scholars believe probably derives from two roots, blapto, to injure, and pheme, to speak. The word would thus suggest injurious speech” (2000). Bernard Franklin, in his article concerning blasphemy against the Spirit, suggested:

The word “blasphemy” in its various forms (as verb, noun, adjective, etc.) appears some fifty-nine times in the New Testament. It has a variety of renderings, such as, “blasphemy,” “reviled,” “railed,” “evil spoken of,” “to speak evil of,” etc. Examples of these various renderings are: “They that passed by reviled him” (Matthew 27:39). “He that shall blaspheme” (Mark 3:29). “They that passed by railed on him” (Mark 15:29). “The way of truth shall be evil spoken of ” (2 Peter 2:2). “These speak evil of those things” (Jude 10). It is evident from these that blasphemy is a sin of the mouth, a “tongue-sin.” All New Testament writers except the author of Hebrews use the word (1936, pp. 224-225).

Furthermore, Jesus defined the term when, after referring to blasphemy, He used the phrase “speaks a word against” in Matthew 12:32.

WHAT THE UNPARDONABLE SIN IS NOT

With the working definition of blasphemy meaning, “to speak against,” or “speak evil of,” it is easy to rule out several sins that would not qualify as the unpardonable sin. Occasionally, murder is suggested as the “unpardonable sin.” Such cannot be the case, however. First, since blasphemy is a “tongue sin,” murder would not fall into this category. Second, several biblical passages show the sin of murder can be forgiven. When King David committed adultery and had Uriah the Hittite murdered, the prophet Nathan came to him, informing him that God had seen that David “killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword” (2 Samuel 12:9). When David confessed to Nathan and repented, the prophet told David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die” (12:13). And, although David was punished for his iniquity, it was forgiven. The Bible plainly demonstrates that murder is not the unpardonable sin.

Adultery surfaces as another sin put forward as unpardonable. Yet the same reasoning used to discount murder as the unpardonable sin can be used to disqualify adultery. First, it does not fit the category of blasphemy. Second, David was forgiven of adultery, just as surely as he was forgiven of murder. The apostle Paul gave a list of no less than ten sins (including adultery) of which the Corinthian brethren had been forgiven (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Adultery cannot be the unpardonable sin.

Another sin set forth as the unpardonable sin is blasphemy of any kind, not specifically against the Holy Spirit. We know, however, that blasphemy in general cannot be unforgivable for two reasons. First, in the context of the unpardonable sin, Jesus clearly stated that “whatever blasphemies” men may utter (besides against the Holy Spirit) could be forgiven. Second, Paul confessed that before his conversion, he had formerly been “a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief ” (1 Timothy 1:13). These two biblical passages rule out the possibility of general blasphemy as the unpardonable sin.

We begin to see, then, that we cannot arbitrarily decide which sins we think are heinous, and then simply attribute to them the property of being unpardonable, especially considering the fact that even those who were guilty of crucifying the Son of God had the opportunity to be forgiven (Acts 2:36-38). Therefore, since the unpardonable sin falls into a category of its own, and cannot be murder, adultery, general blasphemy, etc., some scholars have set forth the idea that the unpardonable sin is not a single sin at all, but is instead the stubborn condition of a person who persists in unbelief. This understanding, however, fails to take into account the immediate context of the “unpardonable sin.” Gus Nichols, commenting on this idea of “persistent unbelief,” stated: “It is true, great multitudes are going into eternity in rebellion against God to be finally and eternally lost; but it is for rejecting and neglecting pardon graciously extended in the gospel while they live, not because they have committed the unpardonable sin” (1967, p. 236). Wendell Winkler, under a section titled, “What the Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit is Not,” wrote that it is not

postponement of obedience until death. The text implies that those who commit the eternal sin continue to live while having lost all opportunity of salvation; whereas those who postpone obedience to Christ (except those who commit the eternal sin) could have obeyed at any time previous to their death (1980, p. 20).

IN THIS AGE OR IN THE AGE TO COME

Jesus said that blasphemy against the Spirit would not be forgiven “in this age or in the age to come” (Matthew 12:32). Certain religious organizations have seized upon this statement to suggest that Jesus has in mind a situation in which certain sins will be remitted after death—but not this sin. This idea of a purgatory-like state, where the souls of the dead are given a “second chance” to do penance for the sins they committed in their earthly life, finds no justification in this statement made by Christ (nor in any other biblical passage, for that matter). R.C.H. Lenski stated that Jesus’ use of the phrase under discussion meant simply “absolutely never” (1961, p. 484). Hendriksen concurred with Lenski when he wrote:

In passing, it should be pointed out that these words by no stretch of the imagination imply that for certain sins there will be forgiveness in the life hereafter. They do not in any sense whatever support the doctrine of purgatory. The expression simply means that the indicated sin will never be forgiven (1973, p. 528).

As the writer of Hebrews succinctly wrote, “it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27).

It also has been suggested by several writers that the “age to come” discussed by Jesus refers to the Christian Age. According to this idea, Jesus made the statement in the Jewish Age, when the Law of Moses was in effect, and the “age to come” denoted the Christian Age immediately following, when the Law of Christ would prevail. Putting this meaning to the phrase often leads the advocates of this theory to conclude that the unpardonable sin could be committed in the Christian Age, after the resurrection of Christ. As Winkler surmised, “Thus, since our Lord was speaking while the Jewish age was in existence, he was affirming that the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost would not be forgiven in (a) the Jewish age, nor in (b) the Christian age, the age that followed” (1980, p. 21). Nichols, after affirming the same proposition, concluded:

It follows that this sin, therefore, could be committed during the personal ministry of Christ, and was then committed, as we have seen, and could also be committed under the gospel age or dispensation. They could have attributed the works of the Spirit to Satan after Pentecost, the same as before (1967, p. 234).

Two primary pieces of evidence, however, militate against the idea that Jesus’ reference to the “age to come” meant the Christian Age. First, in Mark 10:30, the gospel writer has Jesus on record using the same phrase (“in the age to come”) to refer to the time when the followers of Christ would inherit “eternal life” (see Luke 18:30 for the parallel passage). This is a clear reference to life after death, since Paul said “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 15:50). Second, Mark’s account of the unpardonable sin describes the sin as an “eternal sin.” The translators of the New King James Version recorded that the person who commits the sin “never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation” (Mark 3:29). Mark’s account, with its emphasis on eternity, shows that the phrase simply is meant to underscore the fact that this sin will “absolutely never” be forgiven (Lenski, p. 484). It is incorrect, then, to use the phrase “in the age to come” to refer to purgatory. It also is tenuous to use the phrase to refer to the Christian Age. The best explanation, to quote Hendrickson again, is that “the expression simply means that the indicated sin will never be forgiven” (p. 528).

WHAT THE UNPARDONABLE SIN IS

As was noted earlier, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only sin in the Bible that is given the status of unpardonable or eternal. In fact, Jesus prefaced His discussion of this sin by stating that, “every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men,” except for blasphemy against the Spirit. Using the working definition of blasphemy as “speaking evil of,” it becomes clear that the sin described by Jesus was a “tongue sin” that the Pharisees had committed, or at least were dangerously close to committing.

What had the Pharisees done that would have put them in jeopardy of committing the unpardonable sin? According to His own testimony, during Jesus’ time on this Earth He cast out demons by the “Spirit of God” (Matthew 12:28). When the Pharisees saw that Jesus had performed a verifiable miracle, they could not argue with the fact that Christ possessed certain powers that others (including themselves) did not have. Therefore, in order to cast suspicion on the ministry of Jesus, they claimed that He was casting out demons by Beelzebub, the ruler of demons. The name Beelzebub is simply another name for Satan (Franklin, 1936, p. 227), as can be seen from Jesus’ reference to Satan in Matthew 12:26. Even when faced by the miraculous working of the Holy Spirit through Jesus, the Pharisees were, in essence, attributing Jesus’ power to Satan, and claiming that Jesus was “Satan incarnate instead of God incarnate. It is this, and nothing else, that our Lord calls the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (or Spirit—KB)” (Franklin, p. 227). Maxie Boren wrote: “The context of Matthew 12:22ff. shows clearly that this was indeed the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit—attributing the miracle done by Jesus to the power of the devil. Jesus said it was done ‘by the Spirit of God’ (verse 28) but they (the Pharisees—KB) said it was done by Beelzebub” (n.d., p. 1). It is clear that blasphemy against the Spirit was a definite, singular sin, which could be committed by the Pharisees during the life of Jesus.

IS THE “UNPARDONABLE SIN” THE
SAME AS THE “SIN UNTO DEATH”?

John, in his first epistle, mentioned the fact that “there is sin leading to death” and “there is sin not leading to death” (1 John 5:16-17). His statement in these verses has been connected by more than a few people to Jesus’ remark about the “eternal sin.” It is evident, however, that this connection is based more on opinion than on textual Bible study.

First, there is no biblical evidence that connects the passage in 1 John with the Pharisees’ accusation. Furthermore, the entire context of 1 John gives the Christian readers hope of forgiveness for all sins that they might have committed. John wrote: “All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death” (1 John 5:17). Several chapters earlier, he wrote: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9, emp. added). In the scope of John’s epistle, any unrighteousness committed by his readers could be forgiven if the transgressor took the proper steps of repentance and confession. Apparently, the “sin unto death” in 1 John is not a specific sin for which it is impossible to receive forgiveness, but rather, is any sin for which a person will not take the proper steps demanded by God to receive the forgiveness available. On the other hand, blasphemy against the Spirit was a specific, eternal sin that never would be forgiven.

CAN THE UNPARDONABLE SIN BE COMMITTED TODAY?

The next question usually asked concerning this sin is whether or not it is still possible to commit it today. Opinions on this question certainly vary, and scholars seem to be divided in their positions. The evidence, however, seems to point toward the idea that this sin cannot be committed today.

First, the circumstances under which the sin is described cannot prevail today, due to the fact that the age of miracles has ceased (see Miller, 2003). No one today will have the opportunity to witness Jesus performing miracles in person (2 Corinthians 5:16).

Second, there is no other mention of the sin in any biblical passage written after the resurrection of Christ. None of the inspired New Testament writers refers to the sin in any epistle or in the book of Acts, and none offers warnings to new converts about avoiding the sin post-Pentecost. Franklin observed:

If it were possible for it to be committed, would there not have been some warning against it? Were there any danger regarding it, would the Apostle Paul, who wrote half the books of the New Testament, have failed to warn against its commission? Paul does not even mention the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The sin in question was actually committed in the days of our Lord’s ministry on earth, but it does not necessarily follow that it could be committed in His absence (p. 233).

In discussing this matter, Gus Nichols wrote: “It seems that all sins committed today are pardonable, and that all can be saved, if they will” (1967, p. 239). V.E. Howard, commented along the same lines when he stated that “there is no unpardonable sin today” (1975, p. 156).

In conclusion, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only unpardonable sin mentioned in the Bible, and it is mentioned in the context of the Pharisees accusing Jesus of being possessed by the Devil. The context indicates that it was a specific sin, and not a series of forgivable sins, or an attitude of persistent unbelief. After the resurrection, no inspired writer mentions the sin, and no warnings against it were recorded. There is no concrete evidence that it can be committed today. The fact that it is not mentioned after the resurrection, lends itself to the idea that it cannot still be committed. In fact, the indication from passages such as 1 John 1:7,9 is that “all unrighteousness” that a person could commit today can be forgiven by the blood of Jesus. As Howard said when concluding his remarks about the eternal sin: “In the same scripture our Lord gave full assurance that every sin and blasphemy against the ‘Son of man’ shall be forgiven him. Today the gospel of Christ is to be preached to every man on earth and any man on earth may be saved by obeying the gospel (Mark 16:15-16)” [p. 157].

REFERENCES

Boren, Maxie B. (no date), “The Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit,” Class Handout, Brown Trail church of Christ, Bedford, Texas, Lesson 4.

Franklin, Barnard (1936), “The Blasphemy Against the Holy Ghost: An Inquiry into the Scriptural Teaching Regarding the Unpardonable Sin,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 93:220-233, April.

Hendriksen, William (1973), The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Howard, V.E. (1975), The Holy Spirit (West Monroe, LA: Central Publishers).

Jackson, Wayne (2000), Blasphemy—What Is This Great Sin?, [On-line], URL: http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/blasphemy.htm.

Lenski, R.C.H. (1961 reprint), The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).

Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern-day Miracles, Tongue-speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation,” Reason and Revelation, 23(3):17-23, March.

Nichols, Gus (1967), Lectures on the Holy Spirit (Plainview, TX: Nichols Brothers).

Winkler, Wendell, ed. (1980), What Do You Know About the Holy Spirit? (Fort Worth, TX: Winkler Publications).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 2003 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Scripturally Speaking" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org

Browse Scripturally Speaking Browse all articles

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2272

The Presentation of the Lord - Feast

2009-02-02T14:08:00.000-08:00

* Monday, 2 February 2009
The Presentation of the Lord - Feast

Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 2,22-40.

When the days were completed for their purification according to the law of Moses, they took him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord,
just as it is written in the law of the Lord, "Every male that opens the womb shall be consecrated to the Lord,"
and to offer the sacrifice of "a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons," in accordance with the dictate in the law of the Lord.
Now there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon. This man was righteous and devout, awaiting the consolation of Israel, and the holy Spirit was upon him.
It had been revealed to him by the holy Spirit that he should not see death before he had seen the Messiah of the Lord.
He came in the Spirit into the temple; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus to perform the custom of the law in regard to him,
he took him into his arms and blessed God, saying:
Now, Master, you may let your servant go in peace, according to your word,
for my eyes have seen your salvation,
which you prepared in sight of all the peoples,
a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and glory for your people Israel."
The child's father and mother were amazed at what was said about him;
and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, "Behold, this child is destined for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be contradicted
(and you yourself a sword will pierce) so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed."
There was also a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years, having lived seven years with her husband after her marriage,
and then as a widow until she was eighty-four. She never left the temple, but worshiped night and day with fasting and prayer.
And coming forward at that very time, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were awaiting the redemption of Jerusalem.
When they had fulfilled all the prescriptions of the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth.
The child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the favor of God was upon him.

02 February
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Presentation of Child Jesus in the Temple

THE law of God, given by Moses to the Jews, ordained that a woman, after childbirth, should continue for a certain time in a state which that law calls unclean, during which she was not to appear in public, nor presume to touch anything consecrated to God. This term was of forty days upon the birth of a son, and double that time for a daughter. On the expiration of the term, the mother .vas to bring to the door of the tabernacle, or Temple, a lamb and a young pigeon, or turtle-dove, as an offering to God. These being sacrificed to Almighty God by the priest, the woman was cleansed of the legal impurity and reinstated in her former privileges.

A young pigeon, or turtle-dove, by way of a sin-offering, was required of all, whether rich or poor; but as the expense of a lamb might be too great for persons in poor circumstances, they were allowed to substitute for it a second dove.

Our Saviour having been conceived by the Holy Ghost, and His blessed Mother remaining always a spotless virgin, it is evident that she did not come under the law; but as the world was, as yet, ignorant of her miraculous conception, she submitted with great punctuality and exactness to every humbling circumstance which the law required. Devotion and mal to honor God, by every observance prescribed by His law, prompted Mary to perform this act of religion, though evidently exempt from the precept. Being poor herself, she made the offering appointed for the poor; but; however mean in itself, it was made with a perfect heart, which is what God chiefly regards in all that is offered to Him. Besides the law which obliged the mother to purify herself, there was another which ordered that the first-born son should be offered to God, and that, after its presentation, the child should be ransomed with a certain sum of money, and peculiar sacrifices offered on the occasion.

Mary complies exactly with all these ordinances. She obeys not only in the essential points of the law, but has strict regard to all the circumstances. She remains forty days at home; she denies herself, all this time, the liberty of entering the Temple; she partakes not of things sacred; and on the day of her purification she walks several miles to Jerusalem, with the world's Redeemer in her arms. She waits for the priest at the gate of the Temple, makes her offerings of thanksgiving and expiation, presents her divine Son by the hands of the priest to His Eternal Father, with the most profound humility, adoration, and thanksgiving. She then redeems Him with five shekels, as the law appoints, and receives Him back again as a sacred charge committed to her special care, till the Father shall again demand Him for the full accomplishment of man's redemption.

The ceremony of this day was closed by a third mystery—the meeting in the Temple of the holy persons Simeon and Anne with Jesus and His parents. Holy Simeon, on that occasion, received into his arms the object of all his desires and sighs, and praised God for being blessed with the happiness of beholding the so-much-longed-for Messias. Re foretold to Mary her martyrdom of sorrow, and that Jesus brought redemption to those who would accept of it on the terms it was offered them; but a heavy judgment on all infidels who should obstinately reject it, and on Christians, also, whose lives were a contradiction to His holy maxims and example. Mary, hearing this terrible prediction, did not answer one word, felt no agitation of mind from the present, no dread for the future; but courageously and sweetly committed all to God's holy will. Anne, also, the prophetess, who in her widowhood served God with great fervor, had the happiness to acknowledge and adore in this great mystery the Redeemer of the world. Simeon, having beheld Our Saviour, exclaimed: "Now dismiss Thy servant, O Lord, according to Thy word, because my eyes have seen Thy salvation."

This feast is called CANDLEMAS, because the Church blesses the candles to be borne in the procession of the day.

Lives of the Saints, by Alban Butler, Benziger Bros. ed. [1894]

http://www.dailygospel.org/www/main.php?language=AM&localTime=02/02/2009

What is the Epiphany of our Lord?

2009-01-06T02:02:00.000-08:00

What is the Epiphany of our Lord?

By Dr. Richard P. Bucher

The day of the Epiphany of our Lord is an important and ancient Christian holy day. Unfortunately, it is little understood and seldom celebrated by many American Christians and pales in comparison to the popularity of Christmas and Easter, for example. This is regrettable, for it is a rich and joyous day, which, along with the corresponding Epiphany season, commemorates important events from the life of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Through questions and answers, this simple article will attempt to explain what the Epiphany is and to place it within its historical context. By the time you finish, I hope you agree that the Epiphany is a day and season worth celebrating!

When is the day of the Epiphany celebrated?

Since ancient times, the day of the Epiphany has been celebrated on January 6. The season of Epiphany is from January 6 until the day before Ash Wednesday (the first day of Lent).

What does the word "epiphany" mean?

The word "epiphany" comes from two Greek words, the preposition epi and the verb phainen, and can variously mean, "to shine upon," "to reveal," or "to appear, manifest." The verb epiphainen as well as the noun epiphaneia both occur in the Greek New Testament. For example, 2 Timothy 1:8-10 joyously declares,

God, who has saved us and called us to a holy life--not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, but it has now been revealed through the appearing [epiphaneia] of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.

At times the word is used to refer to the first appearing or revealing of Jesus (either His birth or the beginning of His Messianic ministry) as in the verse above, Titus 2:11, 3:4, and Luke 1:79. At other times it is the revealing and appearing of Jesus at the end of time which is in view as in 1 Timothy 6:14, 2 Timothy 4:1,8, and Titus 2:13.

Whereas most of the occurrences of epiphaneia or epiphaino carry the meaning "to reveal" or "to appear," in Luke 1:79 it means "to shine upon." In Luke 1, Zechariah prophesies that his newborn son John the Baptist will

give his people the knowledge of salvation through the forgiveness of their sins, because of the tender mercy of our God, by which the rising sun will come to us from heaven to shine on [epiphaino] those living in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the path of peace (Luke 1:77-79).

This passage is one of the reasons that light is so emphasized at Epiphany time, as is the case, for example, in the Orthodox Church's "Festival of Lights." It also partly explains why candles are so often used.

What is the "Epiphany of our Lord"? Or put another way, What are we celebrating on the Epiphany?

The short answer is this: the Epiphany celebrates God's revealing or manifesting of Jesus' identity as true God, Messiah, and Savior of the world. It not only commemorates the fact that Jesus appeared to save us, but that God revealed the identity of Jesus to the world. So what particular "epiphany" does the day of the Epiphany remember? The answer to this is not so simple, since throughout history, Christians have celebrated several different epiphanies of Jesus. To learn more about this, turn to the next question.

When did Christians first celebrate the Epiphany and what exactly were they celebrating?

First, allow me to restate what has often been stated. The first Christians did not celebrate an annual day of the Epiphany. Nor did they annually celebrate Christ's birth, death, or resurrection. The New Testament documents show us that the early Church gathered on a weekly basis in some places, specifically on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2). That the Christians met on the "first day of the week" coupled with John's mention of "the Lord's day," suggest that Christians chose their weekly day of worship in remembrance of Christ's resurrection on that same day.

The first annual Christian festival appears to have been the Pascha (the Christian Passover). The Pascha, as first practiced, commemorated Christ's death and resurrection, and was observed on the 14th/15th of Nissan, the same time as the Jewish Passover. In his Church History, Eusebius of Caesarea informs us that in the second half of the 2nd Century, a controversy broke out among the Christians over the correct time of the year to celebrate the Pascha. His account, among other things, tells us that Christians had been annually celebrating the Pascha for many years prior to this (Eusebius, Church History, Book 5:23-25). Besides the Pascha, Pentecost was celebrated as an annual festival at least by the early 3rd Century, as both Tertullian (Concerning Fasting 14) and Origin (Against Celsus 8:22) specifically mention it.

When was the day of the Epiphany first annually celebrated? The first explicit mention of it is in a writing of 361, but there are other evidences that suggest that it was observed earlier than this in some places.

Earlier I stated that the Epiphany celebrates God's revealing or manifesting of Jesus' identity as true God, Messiah, and Savior of the world. However, very different revealings of Jesus' identity were celebrated by the early Church.

Since the time of Leo I of Rome and St. Augustine and following their example (late 4th to mid 5th Century), Roman Catholicism and the Reformation churches have focused on God's revealing of Jesus' identity to the magi/wise men, as recorded in Matthew 2:1-12. But throughout history other revealings have been emphasized, including Christ's birth, His baptism, and His first miracle at Cana. In fact, among Christians living in the eastern portion of the Roman Empire, the event of Christ's life that was predominately celebrated on the day of the Epiphany was His baptism. This is explained in a 4th Century document called The Apostolic Constitutions:

Let them rest on the festival of the Epiphany, because on it a manifestation took place of the divinity of Christ, for the Father bore testimony to Him at the baptism; and the Paraclete [Holy Spirit], in the form of a dove, pointed out to the bystanders Him to whom the testimony was borne (Apostolic Constitutions 8:33).

Christ's baptism was seen as an exemplary "epiphany" because both the Father by His voice and the Spirit by His action in alighting upon Jesus clearly revealed who Jesus was: God's Beloved Son.

Why Do Lutherans Emphasize the Account of the Magi on the Day of the Epiphany?

Because, as just mentioned above, it is a clear example of God revealing the true identity of Jesus as God and Messiah. Through the star and the Scriptures (while in Jerusalem, the magi were directed to Bethlehem on the basis of Micah 5) God revealed Jesus to the Gentile magi. They received Him and responded by worshiping Him and bestowing gifts.

Though the epiphany to the magi is our main focus on the day of the Epiphany, we do emphasize Christ's baptism in the Epiphany season that follows, specifically, on the first Sunday after the Epiphany.

Do the Eastern Orthodox celebrate the Epiphany on January 6?

The Eastern Orthodox celebrate both Christ's birth and His Epiphany on January 6. The epiphany (or "theophany" as they choose to call it) they emphasize, however, is Christ's baptism.

Why is the Epiphany worth celebrating?

It is worth celebrating because, regardless of which epiphany is commemorated (the event of the magi or Christ's baptism), all are permeated with grace and Gospel. In what sense? In the sense that in every epiphany, God took the initiative. In other words, God did not demand that we discover on our own who Jesus of Nazareth is. He condescended to us and revealed Jesus to us in ways that we could understand. He sought out the magi and revealed Jesus' Person and Mission to them through the star and Scripture. They never could have discovered this on their own if He hadn't revealed it by grace. He had mercy on John the Baptist and others at the Jordan on the day of Jesus' baptism. No one there on that day could have possibly perceived the true identity of Jesus as John baptized Him. But God condescended to them and allowed them to hear and see the testimony of the Father and the Spirit. Once again, God took the initiative by His grace and revealed Jesus as eternal God as well as man.

Remembering the Epiphany reminds us that we also have been sought out. God has come looking for us through His Word and Sacraments. Through these He has revealed His Son to us personally, so that through faith we know Jesus to be the mighty God, the Savior of the world; and we believe Him to be our God and our Savior. Have a blessed Epiphany celebration!

http://www.orlutheran.com/html/epiph.html

HOLY NAME OF JESUS

2009-01-05T07:26:00.002-08:00

Holy Name of Jesus

We give honour to the Name of Jesus, not because we believe that there is any intrinsic power hidden in the letters composing it, but because the Name of Jesus reminds us of all the blessings we receive through our Holy Redeemer. To give thanks for these blessings we revere the Holy Name, as we honour the Passion of Christ by honouring His Cross (Colvenerius, "De festo SS. Nominis", ix). At the Holy Name of Jesus we uncover our heads, and we bend our knees; it is at the head of all our undertakings, as the Emperor Justinian says in his law-book: "In the Name of Our Lord Jesus we begin all our consultations". The Name of Jesus invoked with confidence

brings help in bodily needs, according to the promise of Christ: "In my name They shall take up serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover". (Mark 16:17-18) In the Name of Jesus the Apostles gave strength to the lame (Acts 3:6; 9:34) and life to the dead (Acts 9:40).
It gives consolation in spiritual trials. The Name of Jesus reminds the sinner of the prodigal son's father and of the Good Samaritan; it recalls to the just the suffering and death of the innocent Lamb of God.
It protects us against Satan and his wiles, for the Devil fears the Name of Jesus, who has conquered him on the Cross.
In the Name of Jesus we obtain every blessing and grace for time and eternity, for Christ has said: "If you ask the Father anything in my name he will give it you." (John 16:23) Therefore the Church concludes all her prayers by the words: "Through Our Lord Jesus Christ", etc.
So the word of St. Paul is fulfilled: "That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth" (Philippians 2:10).
A special lover of the Holy Name was St. Bernard, who speaks of it in most glowing terms in many of his sermons. But the greatest promoters of this devotion were St. Bernardine of Siena and St. John Capistran. They carried with them on their missions in the turbulent cities of Italy a copy of the monogram of the Holy Name, surrounded by rays, painted on a wooden tablet, wherewith they blessed the sick and wrought great miracles. At the close of their sermons they exhibited this emblem to the faithful and asked them to prostrate themselves, to adore the Redeemer of mankind. They recommended their hearers to have the monogram of Jesus placed over the gates of their cities and above the doors of their dwelling (cf. Seeberger, "Key to the Spiritual Treasures", 1897, 102). Because the manner in which St. Bernardine preached this devotion was new, he was accused by his enemies, and brought before the tribunal of Pope Martin V. But St. John Capistran defended his master so successfully that the pope not only permitted the worship of the Holy Name, but also assisted at a procession in which the holy monogram was carried. The tablet used by St. Bernardine is venerated at Santa Maria in Ara Coeli at Rome.

The emblem or monogram representing the Holy Name of Jesus consists of the three letters: IHS. In the Middle Ages the Name of Jesus was written: IHESUS; the monogram contains the first and last letter of the Holy Name. It is first found on a gold coin of the eight century: DN IHS CHS REX REGNANTIUM (The Lord Jesus Christ, King of Kings). Some erroneously say that the three letters are the initials of: "Jesus Hominum Salvator" (Jesus Saviour of Men). The Jesuits made this monogram the emblem of their Society, adding a cross over the H and three nails under it. Consequently a new explanation of the emblem was invented, pretending that the nails originally were a "V", and that the monogram stands for "In Hoc Signo Vinces" (In This Sign you shall Conquer), the words which, according to a legendary account, Constantine saw in the heavens under the Sign of the Cross before the battle at the Milvian bridge (312).

Urban IV and John XXII are said to have granted an indulgence of thirty days to those who would add the name of Jesus to the Hail Mary or would bend their knees, or at least bow their heads when hearing the Name of Jesus (Alanus, "Psal. Christi et Mariae", i, 13, and iv, 25, 33; Michael ab Insulis, "Quodlibet", v; Colvenerius, "De festo SS. Nominis", x). This statement may be true; yet it was only by the efforts of St. Bernardine that the custom of adding the Name of Jesus to the Ave Maria was spread in Italy, and from there to the Universal Church. But up to the sixteenth century it was still unknown in Belgium (Colven., op. Cit., x), whilst in Bavaria and Austria the faithful still affix to the Ave Maria the words: "Jesus Christus" (ventris tui, Jesus Christus). Sixtus V (2 July, 1587) granted an indulgence of fifty days to the ejaculation: "Praise be to Jesus Christ!" with the answer: "For evermore", or "Amen". In the South of Germany the peasants salute each other with this pious formula. Sixtus V and Benedict XIII granted an indulgence of fifty days to all as often as they pronounce the Name of Jesus reverently, and a plenary indulgence in the hour of death. These two indulgences were confirmed by Clement XIII, 5 Sept., 1759. As often as we invoke the Name of Jesus and Mary ("Jesu!", "Maria!") we may gain an indulgence of 300 days, by decree of Pius X, 10 Oct., 1904. It is also necessary, to gain the papal indulgence in the hour of death, to pronounce at least in mind the Name of Jesus.

About this page
APA citation. Holweck, F. (1910). Holy Name of Jesus. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved January 3, 2009 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07421a.htm

MLA citation. Holweck, Frederick. "Holy Name of Jesus." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 3 Jan. 2009 .

Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Paul Koenen. Dedicated to Kathleen, Brigid, Deirdre, Liam, Patrick, and the Holy Name Society of St. Paul's Parish in Hingham, Mass.

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is feedback732 at newadvent.org. (To help fight spam, this address might change occasionally.) Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.

Copyright © 2008 by Kevin Knight. Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07421a.htm

ST. JOHN EVANGELIST

2009-01-05T07:26:00.001-08:00

St. John the Evangelis

Feastday: December 27

Saint John the Divine as the son of Zebedee, and his mother's name was Salome [Matthew 4:21, 27:56; Mark 15:40, 16:1]. They lived on the shores of the sea of Galilee. The brother of Saint John, probably considerably older, was Saint James. The mention of the "hired men" [Mark 1:20], and of Saint John's "home" [John 19:27], implies that the condition of Salome and her children was not one of great poverty.

SS. John and James followed the Baptist when he preached repentance in the wilderness of Jordan. There can be little doubt that the two disciples, whom Saint John does not name (John 1:35), who looked on Jesus "as he walked," when the Baptist exclaimed with prophetic perception, "Behold the Lamb of God!" were Andrew and John. They followed and asked the Lord where he dwelt. He bade them come and see, and they stayed with him all day. Of the subject of conversation that took place in this interview no record has come to us, but it was probably the starting-point of the entire devotion of heart and soul which lasted through the life of the Beloved Apostle.

John apparently followed his new Master to Galilee, and was with him at the marriage feast of Cana, journeyed with him to Capernaum, and thenceforth never left him, save when sent on the missionary expedition with another, invested with the power of healing. He, James, and Peter, came within the innermost circle of their Lord's friends, and these three were suffered to remain with Christ when all the rest of the apostles were kept at a distance [Mark 5:37, Matthew 17:1, 26:37]. Peter, James, and John were with Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane. The mother of James and John, knowing our Lord's love for the brethren, made special request for them, that they might sit, one on his right hand, the other on his left, in his kingdom [Matthew 20:21]. There must have been much impetuosity in the character of the brothers, for they obtained the nickname of Boanerges, Sons of Thunder [Mark 3:17, see also Luke 9:54]. It is not necessary to dwell on the familiar history of the Last Supper and the Passion. To John was committed by our Lord the highest of privileges, the care of his mother [John 19:27]. John [the "disciple whom Jesus loved"] and Peter were the first to receive the news from the Magdalene of the Resurrection [John 20:2], and they hastened at once to the sepulchre, and there when Peter was restrained by awe, John impetuously "reached the tomb first."

In the interval between the Resurrection and the Ascension, John and Peter were together on the Sea of Galilee [John 21:1], having returned to their old calling, and old familiar haunts.

When Christ appeared on the shore in the dusk of morning, John was the first to recognize him. The last words of the Gospel reveal the attachment which existed between the two apostles. It was not enough for Peter to know his own fate, he must learn also something of the future that awaited his friend. The Acts show us them still united, entering together as worshippers into the Temple [Acts 3:1], and protesting together against the threats of the Sanhedrin [Acts 4:13]. They were fellow-workers together in the first step of Church expansion. The apostle whose wrath had been kindled at the unbelief of the Samaritans, was the first to receive these Samaritans as brethren [Luke 9:54, Acts 8:14].

He probably remained at Jerusalem until the death of the Virgin, though tradition of no great antiquity or weight asserts that he took her to Ephesus. When he went to Ephesus is uncertain. He was at Jerusalem fifteen years after Saint Paul's first visit there [Acts 15:6]. There is no trace of his presence there when Saint Paul was at Jerusalem for the last time.

Tradition, more or less trustworthy, completes the history. Irenaeus says that Saint John did not settle at Ephesus until after the death SS. Peter and Paul, and this is probable. He certainly as not there when Saint Timothy was appointed bishop of that place. Saint Jerome says that he supervised and governed all the Churches of Asia. He probably took up his abode finally in Ephesus in 97. In the persecution of Domitian he was taken to Rome, and was placed in a cauldron of boiling oil, outside the Latin gate, without the boiling fluid doing him any injury. [Eusebius makes no mention of this. The legend of the boiling oil occurs in Tertullian and in Saint Jerome]. He was sent to labor at the mines in Patmos. At the accession of Nerva he was set free, and returned to Ephesus, and there it is thought that he wrote his gospel. Of his zeal and love combined we have examples in Eusebius, who tells, on the authority of Irenaeus, that Saint John once fled out of a bath on hearing that Cerinthus was in it, lest, as he asserted, the roof should fall in, and crush the heretic. On the other hand, he showed the love that was in him. He commended a young man in whom he was interested to a bishop, and bade him keep his trust well. Some years after he learned that the young man had become a robber. Saint John, though very old, pursued him among the mountain fastnesses, and by his tenderness recovered him.

In his old age, when unable to do more, he was carried into the assembly of the Church at Ephesus, and his sole exhortation was, "Little children, love one another."

The date of his death cannot be fixed with anything like precision, but it is certain that he lived to a very advanced age. He is represented holding a chalice from which issues a dragon, as he is supposed to have been given poison, which was, however, innocuous. Also his symbol is an eagle.

From The Lives of the Saints by the Rev. S. Baring-Gould, M.A., published in 1914 in Edinburgh.

http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=67

SAINT STEPHEN

2009-01-05T07:23:00.000-08:00

26 December
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SAINT STEPHEN

The first martyr

Feast

Saint Stephen is one of the first deacons chosen by the early church in Acts of the Apostles.

Upon the death of Jesus, Stephen began to work hard to spread what was then called The Way. He preached the teachings of Jesus and participated in the conversion of Jews and Gentiles. Acts tells the story of how Stephen was tried by the Sanhedrin for blasphemy and was then stoned to death by an infuriated mob encouraged by Saul of Tarsus, the future Saint Paul. He died praying for those who killed him : "Lord, do not hold this sin against them".

Saint Stephen's name is simply derived from the Greek Stephanos, meaning "crown", which translated into Aramaic as Kelil. Saint Stephen is traditionally invested with a crown of martyrdom for Christianity and is often depicted in art with three stones and the martyrs' palm. In Eastern Christian iconography he is shown as a young beardless man with a tonsure, wearing deacon's vestments, and often holding a miniature church building and censer.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lord,

today we celebrate the entrance of Saint Stephen

into eternal glory.

He died praying for those who killed him.

Help us to imitate his goodness

and love our ennemies.

http://www.dailygospel.org/www/main.php?language=AM&localTime=12/26/2008#

MARY MOTHER OF GOD

2009-01-01T04:19:00.000-08:00

01 January
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MARY, MOTHER OF GOD

O marvelous exchange!

Man's Creator has become man,

born of a virgin.

We have been made sharers in the divinity of Christ who humbled himself to share in our humanity.

Mary has given birth to a King

whose name is everlasting ;

hers the joy of motherhood,

hers the virgin's glory.

Never was the like seen before,

never shall it be seen again, alleluia.

By your miraculous birth of the Virgin

you have fulfilled the Scriptures :

like a gentle rain falling upon the earth

you have come down to save your people.

O God, we praised you.

Christian Prayer : The Liturgy of the Hours; Daughters of St. Paul * St. Paul Editions * 1976

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God our Father,

may we always profit by the prayers

of the Virgin Mother Mary,

for you bring us life and salvation

through Jesus Christ her Son

who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit,

one God for ever and ever.

Amen.

http://www.dailygospel.org/www/main.php?language=AM&localTime=01/01/2009#

CHRISTMAS NIGHT AND CHRISTMAS STAR

2008-12-21T18:18:00.000-08:00

CHRISTMAS NIGHT AND CHRISTMAS STAR

CHRISTMAS NIGHT

LUKE : 2, 1-20

2,1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)

5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

8 And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.

9 And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.

10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

15 And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.

16 And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.

17 And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child.

18 And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.

19 But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.

20 And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.

http://www.carm.org/kjv/Luke/luke_2.htm

*********************************************

THE CHRISTMAS STAR

MATTHEW: 2,1-12
2 1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying, 2 "Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the East, and have come to worship him." 3 When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him; 4 and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. 5 They told him, "In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it is written by the prophet:
6 `And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will govern my people Israel.'"
7 Then Herod summoned the wise men secretly and ascertained from them what time the star appeared; 8 and he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, "Go and search diligently for the child, and when you have found him bring me word, that I too may come and worship him." 9 When they had heard the king they went their way; and lo, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came to rest over the place where the child was. 10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy; 11 and going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh. 12 And being warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed to their own country by another way.

http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/it/flz.htm#h

http://groups.google.com/group/christianbiblestudies?hl=it