Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Chuck Colson :: Townhall.com Columnist
It's Not About the Manger
by Chuck Colson
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


What image does the mention of Christmas typically conjure up? For most of us, it is a babe lying in a manger while Mary and Joseph, angels, and assorted animals look on.

Heartwarming picture, but Christmas is about far more than a Child’s birth—even the Savior’s birth. It is about the Incarnation: God Himself, Creator of heaven and earth, invading planet earth, becoming flesh and dwelling among us.

It is a staggering thought. Think of it: The Word—that is, Logos in the Greek, which meant all the knowledge that could be known—the plan of creation—that is, ultimate reality—becomes mere man? And that He was not born of an earthly king and queen, but of a virgin of a backwater village named Nazareth? Certainly God delights in confounding worldly wisdom—and human expectations.

Thirty years after His humble birth, Jesus increased the Jews’ befuddlement when He read from the prophet Isaiah in the synagogue at Nazareth: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor . . . to proclaim release to the captives . . . to set free those who are downtrodden . . . ” Jesus then turned the scroll back and announced: “Today, this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”

In effect, the carpenter’s Son had just announced that He was the King.

So, yes, the birth of Jesus is a glorious moment, and the manger scene brings comfort and joy and Christmas cheer. But it should also inspire a holy terror in us: that this baby is God incarnate, the King who came to set the captives free—through His violent, bloody death on the cross as atonement for us, His unworthy subjects.

It is through the Incarnation God sets His grand plan in motion. He invades planet earth, establishing His reign through Christ’s earthly ministry. And then Christ leaves behind an occupying force, His Church, which is to carry on the work of redemption until His return and the kingdom’s final triumph.

Do we get this? I am afraid most of us are so preoccupied, distracted by last-minute Christmas shopping and consumerism, that we fail to see God’s cosmic plan of redemption in which we, as fallen creatures, are directly involved.

The average Christian may not “get” this announcement, but those locked behind bars do. Whenever I preach in the prisons, and I read Christ’s inaugural sermon, Luke 4:18, and when I quote His promise of freedom for prisoners, they often raise their arms and cheer. The message of Jesus means freedom and victory for those who once had no hope. They are not distracted by the encumbrance of wealth and comfort.

People in the developing world get it, too. Whenever I have shared this message with the poor and oppressed people overseas, I see eyes brightening. Stripped of all material blessings, exploited by earthly powers, they long for the bold new kingdom of Christ.

Today is Christmas: Go ahead and enjoy singing about, and celebrating, the birth of the Savior. Set up a manger scene in your home. But do not forget this earth-shaking truth: The birth of the Baby in the manger was the thrilling signal that God had invaded the planet. And that gives us the real reason to celebrate Christmas.

For all of the staff of BreakPoint, this is Chuck Colson, in Washington, wishing you and your loved ones a very merry Christmas.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Chuck Colson was the Chief Counsel for Richard Nixon and served time in prison for Watergate-related charges. In 1976, Colson founded Prison Fellowship Ministries, which, in collaboration with churches of all confessions and denominations, has become the world's largest outreach to prisoners, ex-prisoners, crime victims, and their families.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Chuck Colson's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Thanks so much.
Chuck, we need to focus on JESUS. HE is continually
being ignored at Christmas, his celebration. I am listening to EWTN and a beautiful Mass.


Invasion?
You keep saying the birth of Christ was a sign God had invaded the earth. Three times you say that, but that is simply untrue. Christ has always been in the world and it's always taken the eye of faith to see him. Christ has been here from the beginning as John 1:10 says. In fact, the gospel was first preached to Adam and Eve in paradise. Gen 3:15.

Just because He became incarnate, it still takes the eye of faith to see him as Peter testifies when he says that Jesus is "the Christ, the son of the living God." It wasn't flesh and blood that revealed this to him, but faith.

No, the birth of Jesus reveals brightly God's glory, that is to say God's mercy; for the glory of God shines forth in His mercy towards sinners.

Gary Gordon

The Trouble with Jesus
is that very few people will recognize Him out in public much any more. A book published in 2004 by ? Stowell.

The Secret Miracle of Christmas
THE SECRET MIRACLE OF CHRISTMAS

Each year, more and more friends tell me they have become disillusioned with our modern Christmas. They are depressed by what Christmas now represents in the collective mentality of our society. The expensive sparkle of this once Christian holiday is even an economic burden for some people because they spend themselves into serious financial stress trying to satisfy everyone’s expectations. Gift giving is fine within reason as long as it doesn’t become the reason for the season.

Hollywood’s Christmas as emotional family gatherings, pleasant as they can sometimes be, is not the point of this day either. Astonishing as it may seem, the true meaning of Christmas is greater drama than anything the shallow moguls of Hollywood could possibly serve up.

Before Jesus appeared, mankind desperately needed, among other things, a far clearer message concerning the definitive purpose or principle by which we should live our lives. This is surely the most profound question each of us must face, so an answer becomes of utmost importance for our well-being.

It was decided in the august counsels of heaven that a divine Person, the Logos (John 1:1, New Testament Greek term for the pre-incarnate Christ Jesus) would permanently divest Himself of the superlative capabilities that had always been His prerogative amid the myriad splendors of the heavenly state. This glorious Personage of immense power and majesty would eventually shine mega wattage of theological light into our dark world. But first He had to be literally “morphed” into a divinely enlivened, minuscule human egg in the womb of a virtuous young Jewish girl and then be born as a tiny, helpless baby boy who would be named Jesus. His goal in this incarnation was that we might come to see in fully human terms His principle of benevolent motivation as the only possible basis for a harmonious one-to-one relationship with God the Father.



The Secret Miracle of Christmas cont.
As we can easily see, the secret miracle of genuine divine incarnation wonderfully illumines the true nature of Christmas as a joyous celebration of a deliberate, totally unselfish divine choice of self-giving long ago. A choir of a million glittering angels could never adequately praise the exquisite love of the mighty Logos of infinite power and glory who became our tiny baby Jesus and the potential Savior of each one of us that holy, crystal clear night so very long ago.

Now that’s biblical Christmas.

@AlpenaSD
You're being intentionally obtuse. The terminology of "invade" is clearly referring to God becoming man and imposing himself on the world in terms the world could understand. Obviously Colson is aware of Christ's omnipresence. Interestingly enough, if you want to debate the fine points, one could argue that the ONLY period that Jesus was not omnipresent was during His earthly incarnation.

In any case, this column is a strong reminder that God has a plan for his creation. The manager is all about Christ's sacrifice for each of us, should we decide to accept His offer. He sacrificed to shed His omnipotence/presence/science to become one of us and then He made the ultimate sacrifice when He died on a Roman cross to prove His love for us.

This was foretold.

In His earthly journey, Christ fulfilled over 300 OT prophesies. This is how we know He is God and the Bible is true.



Jesus is dead, you're in his stead
Willy: "The Trouble with Jesus is that very few people will recognize Him out in public much any more. A book published in 2004 by ? Stowell."
-------------------------
I remember the book, too. It seems that, because Jesus is too dead to testify on his own behalf, it is incumbent upon Christians to testify for him. And your lives are a testimony that us heathen find it hard to get past....

Praying for the simple things
In a very complicated world, this is refreshing to my spirit to read and allow to sink in.

"Whenever I preach in the prisons, and I read Christ’s inaugural sermon, Luke 4:18, and when I quote His promise of freedom for prisoners, they often raise their arms and cheer."

The simple things of God is what brings comfort the world cannot give with its knowledge.

All the knowledge in the world means nothing if it does not bring contentment to the heart and the soul of men.

The Peace of God found in Jesus Christ passes all understanding.


How do we update Christianity?

How do we update Christianity?
by Richard R. Tryon
12-25-07

Christmas in not only a joyous season for love, forgiveness and exchange of gifts as outward signs of the community needs of family and friends, it is also the time to commemorate the birth of Christ. The fact that the one who died for us on the Cross and rose from the dead to prove that God in Heaven wanted mankind or HSV (homo sapien variants to be all inclusive) is evident, but as impossible to explain as is any evidence of Divine intervention. Clearly God wants us to become aware that our species is unique! It is, because it is the only one that can be introspective and able to think ultimately about how creation is a continuing process now known to have started before the Big Bang 15 billion years ago. It is one that was and is brought to us by a Being, in whose image we are cast, after he had created countless others, so that we can ultimately know all, when we are qualified and ready.

Just as Christ and his message came to be known as a evidence of the New Testament, an action that made the original testament embodied in the Hebrew Torah, come to be known as the Old Testament, overshadowed by the New one. An event of greater magnitude by far than the second World War (WWII) that caused the first one to be changed from the Great War to World War I. See next part..

How do we update Christianity?


Christmas in not only a joyous season for love, forgiveness and exchange of gifts as outward signs of the community needs of family and friends, it is also the time to commemorate the birth of Christ. The fact that the one who died for us on the Cross and rose from the dead to prove that God in Heaven wanted mankind or HSV (homo sapien variants to be all inclusive) is evident, but as impossible to explain as is any evidence of Divine intervention. Clearly God wants us to become aware that our species is unique! It is, because it is the only one that can be introspective and able to think ultimately about how creation is a continuing process now known to have started before the Big Bang 15 billion years ago. It is one that was and is brought to us by a Being, in whose image we are cast, after he had created countless others, so that we can ultimately know all, when we are qualified and ready.

Just as Christ and his message came to be known as a evidence of the New Testament, an action that made the original testament embodied in the Hebrew Torah, come to be known as the Old Testament, overshadowed by the New one. An event of greater magnitude by far than the second World War (WWII) that caused the first one to be changed from the Great War to World War I. See next part..

Updating Christianity
While most Christians continue to accept that the miracle of the birth of Jesus from the Virgin Mary is a fact, it is certainly reasonable for skeptics, among others, to point out that CNN did not have any forerunner in place to document the Christmas story. Therefore, it is interesting to be able to say to atheists that the message of love and forgiveness- the heart of the New Testament- can only be recognized as being all that much more greater, if skeptics choose to deny the Bible’s account of the birth of Christ. Christianity is perpetual, because of the greater evidence supporting the death by crucifixion and the resurrection and ascension of God’s Son. The one, who called himself the son of man to avoid being forced to act as a mighty warrior King, did not need to establish his credentials, and in fact came when he did to avoid the need to do so.

Had Christ been born as a baby that quickly grew to adulthood and then claimed an earthly throne, using awesome evidences of power to force acceptance, the Jews might have accepted Him, but others would not have understood. No, Christ had to live with us as one of us and only come to realize his role with God at the time of his ministry that was appropriate. Therefore, we Christians now need to allow that proof of how, when and where is a matter of faith; but all can agree, He was here and we will again as individuals have a chance to be with Him again when our time is right and our soul is prepared either at the end of our time on Earth or elsewhere as only God can know.

Does the Gospel need editors?
Why would any man suppose God has no right to copy rights and original thought?

Does anyone feel he is capable of rewriting Shakespeare?
Maybe bring Shakespeare up to date?

To leave God Himself out of the subject of His Word is incredibly arrogant.

Why do we not instead just focus on the Words that Jesus Christ Himself had to say.
To reject His Words to accept an update just defies logic for me.

I cannot imagine the Jesus Christ of the bible, the Son of God, God Himself dressed up in flesh needing an editor.

What part of this needs editing?

John 18:37 -
Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.


As the Voice from Heaven said

Matthew 17:5 -
While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

Who hears?

"Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. "

AlpenaSD: Jots and Tittles
That's just what we need on this day: a dispute over literary license amongst Christians. That's helpful! Without getting into hermeneutics and exegesis, don't you think it would be safe to say that Mr. Colson was not challenging the validity of John 1:1 (plainly put the omnipresence of Christ) but was maybe making the point that in the omniscence of God in His Creation, He knew a manifested, human representation of what it would take to save our sorry conditions would be necessary for whatever reasons He thought of since He's the omniscient One not us?

Mr. Colson is making the point that we are so busy fighting over the jots and tittles of Scripture we more often than not neglect to understand the letters beneath and around minor distinctions. But you--in effect--take his literary license to task as if it were his attempt to doctrinalize a concept you read into his words. So you dotted his "i" not him.

Merry Christmas all!

Great promises...
...fulfilled and yet to be fulfilled.

Mr. Colson thanks for giving us the gospel. The grace of God has come in Christ and with Him the fulfillment of great promises, including the forgiveness of sin and the circumcision of the heart. Rather than on tablets of stone, the Law is now written on hearts of flesh.

The Son of David has come and the promise that the throne of David will be established forever is fulfilled because the kingdom of God is an everlasting kingdom, not like the kingdoms of this world that fade and pass away.

The Seed of Abraham has come and the covenant promise is fulfilled that all the nations of the earth are blessed in Him. Men from every nation, kindred, tribe and tongue bow before His rule according to His word. Many stand today in the grace of God in fulfillment of this promise. We hope in this promise that our children of yet unborn generations will take their place in the great congregation.

The grace of God has come teaching us to deny ourselves and to live in expectation of the glorious day when the graves will give up their dead. Our bodies of corruption will be exchanged for glorious bodies like unto Christ’s resurrection body. The redemption of the whole person will be complete according to the great promise yet to be fulfilled. [John 6:39-40]

‘What shall I render to the Lord for all His benefits toward me?…I will offer to You the sacrifice of thanksgiving’ [Psalm 116]

God did literally invade our world!

The issue of God invading the earth is particularly worthy of discussion at this time of the year because that, in fact, is precisely what happened with the coming of Christ Jesus. Neither God the Father nor the Logos (two separate divine Beings who were “one” in loving purpose as seen in Jn. 17) had been here on a continuing basis before that, in spite of all theological blather to the contrary. The Father put in an appearance when he gave Moses the Ten Commandments, but his ongoing presence was only by way of his earthly representatives, his messengers, the angels (the Shekinah glory above the altar is said in Scripture to have been a great angel representing the Father's glorious presence). This is how the Bible portrays the unseen spiritual world of which we now speak.

God is shown in the New Testament to be “our Father in heaven,” (The Lord’s Prayer) meaning he lives in a specific place or dimension of reality called heaven, and that literal place should never be confused with where we currently reside here on earth.

The theological concept of omnipresence along with all the other theological omnis cursed us as the early church apostatized into fraudulent Christianity which was and remains pure religious paganism. This "great apostasy" posing as profound truth brought much confusion making it easy for skeptics since then to laugh at silly "church" doctrine.

I am a theologian, so, I understand the purpose and methods of theology, but twisting Scripture to make God seem falsely more "impressive" to fools is not now and has never been a legitimate purpose of genuine biblical theology. The simple truth of Scripture will always represent God to mankind as he should be seen. In the final analysis, theological twaddle, no matter how lofty sounding and well intentioned, will always do great harm to our understanding of the character and nature of God.


God did literally invate our world cont.
The divine Logos was born as a boy baby in a manger and became a real, genuine man to reveal to us a true concept of God's character as self-giving love in terms we as fellow human beings can more fully understand. Let us now appreciate that for what it was in all its simplicity, and live in the light of what it implies for our supreme benefit.

Thank God for the ordinary folk
It seems to me that the last thing we need at this time is a round of hair splitting theological pronouncements, brought forth as though these educated folk actually knew the mind of God. As I recall, the only people Jesus ever criticized were the highly educated, all knowing leaders of his own religion who were so obsessed with their rules and regulations that they could not accept the simple words He spoke. So He chose ordinary people -- fishermen, a hated tax collector, and the like. A woman of questionable character became the first evangelist as she went from the well to tell the good news to the townspeople. And his message spread and the number of believers grew. The theologians with expert knowledge of God demanded that Jesus be killed and the power of the government went along with it. But the Word, the Way, continued to spread, as it does yet today, still attacked by one species of The Knowledgeable and hindered by the hair splitting theologies of the another species of The Knowledgeable.

May God continue to bless the simple folk who simply accept the love and the grace of an Almighty God upon faith and muddle onward as best they can.

Thank God for the ordinary folk
It seems to me that the last thing we need at this time is a round of hair splitting theological pronouncements, brought forth as though these educated folk actually knew the mind of God. As I recall, the only people Jesus ever criticized were the highly educated, all knowing leaders of his own religion who were so obsessed with their rules and regulations that they could not accept the simple words He spoke. So He chose ordinary people -- fishermen, a hated tax collector, and the like. A woman of questionable character became the first evangelist as she went from the well to tell the good news to the townspeople. And his message spread and the number of believers grew. The theologians with expert knowledge of God demanded that Jesus be killed and the power of the government went along with it. But the Word, the Way, continued to spread, as it does yet today, still attacked by one species of The Knowledgeable and hindered by the hair splitting theologies of the another species of The Knowledgeable.

May God continue to bless the simple folk who simply accept the love and the grace of an Almighty God upon faith and muddle onward as best they can.

Sorry for the double posting
For all I could tell, it did not post on the first try.

Paul Harvey's story
The Birds (I think that's the name of it) illustrates to us why God had to "invade" in the form of a Man. We used to hear it every Christmas on our radio station but for some reason it hasn't been broadcast for the past several years.

Further to that, it isn't insignificant to know that He was born most likely in the autumn during the Feast of Tabernacles. (Did He not come to tabernacle amongst us-John 1.1ff?)

What a truly amazing fulfillment of prophecy our Lord is! And what incredible grace and mercy that He should come to rescue us who hardly deserve it.

God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen!

Christmas
Anything that Jesus said or did has long since forgotten by Christmas season profit reports that serve only to bail out the economy for another year. If you see Christ's house in Nazareth, as I have, then look at the long lines at Wal-Mart scrambling in a holiday that now only serves commercialism to make CEO's, popes, presidents, etc. rich, it is enough to make you sick. Christmas is more about spend, spend, spend, than anything else.

And Christmas is not the day that Christ was born. It is the winter solstice of the pagans that Constantine tagged to the birth of Jesus to convince them to join Christ. Santa claus is a mythical figure from Norse lore; Christmas trees are a rite of the pagans. Nothing that Christ said applies anymore to the day. Like Christmas, Christianity is a fraud, even though Jesus had the right ideas.

WC
Well if Christ had the right ideas, how can He also be a fraud?

He is liar or Lord. You can only pick one.

Christmas trees: Evergreen, for eternal life.
Lights: He is the Light of the world.
St Nicholas: A Turkish bishop who gifted out of love.
Gifts: The example of the wise men, certainly, (and you better believe their gifts did not come from WalMart) but also a reflection of the love God bears us in gifting us with His son. Nothing wrong there.
Feasting: Just wait until Heaven if you think the food here can be good! The marriage feast of the Lamb will go on eternally!
Carols: Not always Biblically accurate (the herald angels did not sing, they simply spoke), but still the main point is Christ is born, now peace has been made between God and man.

Pagan rituals/icons have no significance except to pagans. As for me and my house, we'll take those same things and turn 'em around to serve the Lord.

What really matters?
Does it really matter on what day of the year Jesus actually was born? Does it matter that Santa Claus is a mythical figure? Does it matter whether one decorates a tree in celebration of the birth of Jesus? Aren't there more important things to ponder? Instead of arguing about, or even discussing, these small things that have been attached to Christmas over the ages, wouldn't it be better to dwell upon the Message? His real Message in word and in deed? It is not recorded that He ever mentioned the date of his birth or anything about Santa Claus, bringing a tree into the house, decorating with flashing lights, or shopping at Wal-Mart. If anyone prefers to celebrate his birth in March or October, just go ahead and do it! Is there any reason why you must bring a tree into your home or any reason why you must not bring a tree into your home? Don't go shopping at all during the month of your celebration if you wish. It's okay!

Please, let us get past the silly stuff and think seriously about what He taught, by word and example, and try harder to do as He taught us.


watercloset - Jesus Christ and Christmas



watercloset writes: “Anything that Jesus said or did has long since forgotten by Christmas season profit reports that serve only to bail out the economy for another year.”


Anything Jesus said or did was never known by inanimate “profit reports” to begin with...



~~~



watercloset writes: “Christmas is more about spend, spend, spend, than anything else.”


As you pointed out, “Christmas” is a man-made holiday. It is lamentable that something with ostensibly good intentions would become so corrupted in so many ways, but since it is of man and not of God, is it not also unavoidable and entirely predictable?



watercloset - memorial of Jesus’ death


watercloset writes: “And Christmas is not the day that Christ was born. It is the winter solstice of the pagans that Constantine tagged to the birth of Jesus to convince them to join Christ.”


Does a very similar problem not also exist with “Easter”?


Christians are neither commanded nor Scripturally Authorized to celebrate Lent, Christmas or Easter as “holy” days.



The only Christian religious memorial we are commanded to observe is the memorial of Jesus’ death:


"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." (Luke 22:19-20, KJV)


We read the same command in Matthew 26:26-29 and Mark 14:22-24.



We also read from Paul in his first letter to the Lord’s church at Corinth:

"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." (1 Corinthians 11:23-26, KJV)



watercloset - first day of every week...

Christians are commanded to observe the memorial of Christ’s death on the first day of every week, when Christians assemble together for worship.


We have Scriptural example from Christ Himself after the resurrection:


“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.” (Luke 24:1-3, KJV) (emphasis mine)


“And, behold, two of them went THAT SAME DAY to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem [about] threescore furlongs.” (Luke 24:13, KJV) (emphasis mine)


"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." (Luke 24:29-31, KJV) (emphasis mine)




Paul’s example is of course in harmony with Christ's teaching:

"And upon the first [day] of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight." (Acts 20:7, KJV)




The observance of the Lord’s Supper as a memorial, on the first day of the week, can clearly be harmonized and reconciled with God’s Word in the Bible, and importantly, it is NOT contradicted by God’s Word in the Bible - key tests of true doctrine.


"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. [12] Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few." (Acts 17:11-12, KJV)


watercloset - God's Word is true :-)


watercloset writes: “Nothing that Christ said applies anymore to the day.”


As you pointed out, December 25th has nothing to do with Christ’s actual date of birth. If He had wanted us to know His actual birthday, He would have told us, and if He had wanted us to celebrate His birthday as a “holy observance”, He most certainly would have told us that too.


The truth is, He did neither.


If an observance or memorial was not instituted by God, then by definition, must these things not be the doings of man, the traditions of men?


I am not saying that man cannot create and memorialize man-made observances, and much more importantly, God’s Word in the Bible does not say we cannot do this. BUT, we CANNOT make “religious holy days” without God’s Authority, can we?


Or to put it another way, if man declares a day to be a religious “holy day”, but God does not, who (or Who) is right, and who is wrong?




~~~




watercloset writes: “Like Christmas, Christianity is a fraud, even though Jesus had the right ideas.”


That may be your opinion at this point in time, but you do not speak for me, you do not speak for Christianity, and you certainly do not speak for Christ.


Clearly you have investigated some of the history behind the man-made creation and observance of “Christmas”, but that has nothing to do with the truth of Christianity or Jesus Christ. I encourage you to also investigate God's Word in the Bible, and to distinguish the words and wisdom of men from the Word and Wisdom of God.


If I can assist in pointing you to the truth of His Word (not to the doctrines, traditions or commandments of men), then I would very much like to do so. If you would like to know the truth, I believe your eyes can be opened to it, if you will diligently seek it.



PROOF CHRISTIANITY IS NOT BASED ON MYTH
Tis' the season to expect desperate Bible Skeptics to make wild conspiracy claims against those who follow Christ Jesus as their Lord and Savior. Such skeptics make alleged parallels between Christianity and pagan religions that is based on outdated speculations that were never supported by the archaeological evidence. Skeptics do not realize that MOST CHRISTIANS ALREADY UNDERSTAND that December 25th is NOT the birthday of Christ and the FACT that the Bible NEVER GAVE A DEFINATIVE DATE OF HIS BIRTH. And so my basic response is SO WHAT? Just because a backslidden Catholic Church attempted to Christianize paganism does not change the fact that Jesus was born and that His life and events in the Bible have been CONFIRMED by archaeology and historical record.

Get the Facts
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&frie ndID=60763520&blogID=341187070

Also DARWINISM and ATHEISM: UNSCIENTIFIC & MYTHICAL

http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com


PROOF CHRISTIANITY IS NOT BASED ON MYTH!
Tis' the season to expect desperate Bible Skeptics to make wild conspiracy claims against those who follow Christ Jesus as their Lord and Savior. Such skeptics make alleged parallels between Christianity and pagan religions that is based on outdated speculations that were never supported by the archaeological evidence. Skeptics do not realize that MOST CHRISTIANS ALREADY UNDERSTAND that December 25th is NOT the birthday of Christ and the FACT that the Bible NEVER GAVE A DEFINATIVE DATE OF HIS BIRTH. And so my basic response is SO WHAT? Just because a backslidden Catholic Church attempted to Christianize paganism does not change the fact that Jesus was born and that His life and events in the Bible have been CONFIRMED by archaeology and historical record.

Get the Facts

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&frie ndID=60763520&blogID=341187070

Also DARWINISM and ATHEISM: UNSCIENTIFIC & MYTHICAL

http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com

"Out of the mouth of babes"...
...there are words uttered which hold more truths then the casual reader, listener, hears. Mr. Colson wrote such words, "Christ leaves behind an occupying force, His Church,", as he puts human limitations on the Words message. Jesus was a gift given to an occupying force so they would not be left behind by the worlds limitations. By associating that force with "His Church" that will bring about contention among the babes reading his article. I believe the inclusive message of the Word would have structured that sentence a little different. "Christ's occupying force, His Congregation, walk, and work together, in reflection of the gift." Redemption is not in the structure, and traditions, of a building, or a single organization occupying it. Redemption is recognizing Gods glory, the Words message of Love, and acting accordingly to all of Gods creation. Jesus did not build a church structure, or traditions within a structure, he rebuilt what humans destroyed, and still do. An occupying force cannot fulfill its potential when divided by commanders of singular direction, for self glory. They may have the same blueprints, but that being built can never be unified without coecion. Christ was a single gift, but has been divided by human greed, for individuals seeking self glory. Seperate churches claiming to be the one, and only, truth.

Merry Christmas
Nice article. I like a lot of what Chuck writes and speaks on the radio. Although I've never been able to understand how he can logically reconcile the Gospel with his belief in Theologic Evolution.

For ProfessorX
A few factoids to add for you:
(1) Darwin also had once stated "if you don't find the complete missing-links fossil-record by the 40th anniversary of my passing, my entire collection of works should be binned".
(2) Also, another (somewhat roundabout) evidence of the Bible's historicity was found at Hansi (near Bidar, in India) in 1922--a pillar, erected by Emperor Ashoka (reigned around 275-230 BC) which mentions "Greek kings Amtiyok...and Aliksudar", referring to Antiochus II "Theos" (grandfather of the infamous Antiochus IV "Epiphanes") and Alexander of Epirus
(1) The fact that Thomas ("Doubter") was murdered by priestly-caste Hindus for showing salvation possible for those NOT of priestly-caste (even more specific, those FORBIDDEN by Hindu writings to even hear/learn Sanskrit); the book "The Confusion Called Conversion" (it's really more relevant for Indian Christians than others, but please bear with me) includes evidence that Thomas had attempted to evangelise (albeit unsuccessfully) in 43 AD at Taxila (about 30 km from Islamabad)--nine years prior to his coming to the southern parts of the Peninsula.

ALIVE IN HIM writes:
"Well if Christ had the right ideas, how can He also be a fraud? He is liar or Lord. You can only pick one."

Well, a knowing fraudster can still manage to tell the truth about *some* things, can't he? Heck, don't *most* liars tell the truth at least some of the time?

After all, if I were to say that (a) you should love your neighbor as yourself, and also claim that (b) I'm the Lord -- or Superman, or President of these United States -- well, then, whether I have the right idea about the former has *nothing* to do with whether I'm a fraud about the latter.

And, of course, that still applies if Jesus was honestly mistaken rather than a knowing fraudster; why, there are all *sorts* of reasons why someone can get various things right while getting other things wrong. The point is the possibility.

COME TO DINNER
If Jesus were to come back to earth today, liberals would invite Him over to dinner, listen politely to Jesus, and then laugh at him and ridicule His wisdom.

This is what passes for "tolerance" and "moderation" to liberals who hate that term, and instead call themselves the benevolent and patronizing "progressives," while reserving the hateful and condescending term of "neocons" for those of us they despise.

Paucoremhominem, and dinner.
__The liberal left, progressives, or whatever nomenclature they chose to hide behind, take from the Lords supper daily. With tears in their eyes they cry before the Words congregation, "We need to cure, and assist, the ills within our society." A compassionate congregation, over 200 million strong, rejoices as it relieves their burden. Now they can drive-by the ills within our society, as there is a government program out there to fix the ills. Over 200 million, "tithing the mint", to a government bureaucracy that continues to grow. Progressing right along for those who have secured power, and possessions, at the Lords table of passion. A table serving bread, and wine, the body of Christ's congregation, and blood that gives the congregation life, to share with others. It makes it a lot easier for them when they do not need to personally deliver, and they put their faith in man.

Regularguy - mathematical possibilities


Regularguy writes: “Well, a knowing fraudster can still manage to tell the truth about *some* things, can't he?”


That game wouldn’t last for long. The Jews stoned false prophets to death, and they were looking for mistakes. They tried to ensnare and entrap Jesus many times.



~~~



Regularguy writes: “And, of course, that still applies if Jesus was honestly mistaken rather than a knowing fraudster; why, there are all *sorts* of reasons why someone can get various things right while getting other things wrong. The point is the possibility.”


Have you ever looked into the mathematical possibility that one Man could fulfill more than 300 prophecies, being in the right place at the right time for all of them, many of which required the free-will actions of others as a necessary component of the fulfillment?


If “possibility” is your stumbling block, please investigate this mathematical possibility (or, lack thereof).


I think you will be surprised.



Scott writes:
"Have you ever looked into the mathematical possibility that one Man could fulfill more than 300 prophecies"

Well, as Jews pointed out at the time, it's pretty danged easy to do all sorts of improbable stuff if you're in league with the devil; Jesus replied that, well, he was casting out demons, and "if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then shall his kingdom stand?"

His logic was merely awful; the tactic is standard procedure for con artists and undercover operatives, making yourself look good by having the other guy take a dive. If that's the best he's got, the Jewish objection remains in full force.

Because the Jewish objection takes *note* of prophecies and wonder-workers, in DEUTERONOMY: "If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known ... Thou shalt not harken unto that prophet ... Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God."

Jesus was a prophet? Wonders came to pass? None of that matters if he tells a story about God invading some woman without her consent as explanation for why "not what I will, but what thou wilt" is a possibility: because two separate beings, willing separate things, are helpfully referred to when launching a religion in which the Jewish dietary restrictions and holidays are to be ignored.

DEUTERONOMY makes clear *exactly* how someone like that should be dealt with: he should be treated like any other such blasphemer. The whole reason there still *are* Jews is because they of course believe now what Jews believed then: that Jesus doesn't qualify.

Regularguy, your "fraud" was God
He was no con artist, He was no man. He was the ultimate, eternal, blood-sacrifice. The Jews had been illustrating His redemptive work by sacrificing to Jehovah for centuries after God gave the Torah.

After Immanuel shed all His blood, conquered sin and removed the veil that had separated man from God, He conquered death, rose again and fulfilled God's Plan for redeeming man from sin.

God became a man. The Righteous One invaded a sinful creation and showed us how to live; how to love. He showed us how to die; how to rise. He loved us with an everlasting love and made that love available to all... especially to a Regularguy.

Merry Christmas

Uh-Huh
That's what Jesus's birth was about...but it's not what xmas is about. Xmas is a secular holiday, proven by the fact that our gov. declared it a federal holiday. If it ISN'T secular than our government has established a religion which makes it perfectly acceptable to abolish the whole gov. and start over. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Merchants and money are the reason for the season and not everyone is fooled by the fools who proclaim it otherwise. Happy pagan holiday!

Regularguy, dodging the issue you raised


Scott wrote previously: “Have you ever looked into the mathematical possibility that one Man could fulfill more than 300 prophecies, being in the right place at the right time for all of them, many of which required the free-will actions of others as a necessary component of the fulfillment?”


Regularguy replied: “Well, as Jews pointed out at the time, it's pretty danged easy to do all sorts of improbable stuff if you're in league with the devil; Jesus replied that, well, he was casting out demons, and ‘if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then shall his kingdom stand?’ ”


That’s called dodging the issue. You raised the issue of possibility. I encouraged you to pursue the issue, but instead you ran away from it.



~~~



Regularguy writes: “His logic was merely awful; the tactic is standard procedure for con artists and undercover operatives, making yourself look good by having the other guy take a dive. If that's the best he's got, the Jewish objection remains in full force.”


“His logic was merely awful”?

Really?


If Christ was a fraud, then His very life was at stake during the aforementioned exchange described in Matthew 12:24-26, Mark 3:22-26 and Luke 11:15-20.


They would surely kill him for cause, if they could find it. But Christ’s “awful logic” seemed to be more than the Pharisees were able to overcome.


Is it not reasonable to conclude that the Pharisees were more expert in Jewish law than thee?


Or do you claim more knowledge and understanding of the Law of Moses than the Jewish leaders had in the 1st century?


Zena Pagan
I hope you enjoyed your pagan holiday. I had a wonderful day celebrating the Advent; the entrance of Messiah; the joy of acknowledging that God became a babe in a manger.

I invite you to spend the next year setting aside your bitterness and anger. It's clear that you've experienced great disappointment in your life. Why not turn your attention to the Bible and to the God of the Bible. He will never disappoint you.

Maybe by next Christmas, you can join me in celebrating a Merry Christmas!

Regularguy - Fighting against God's Word


Regularguy writes: “Jesus was a prophet? Wonders came to pass? None of that matters if he tells a story about God invading some woman without her consent as explanation for why "not what I will, but what thou wilt" is a possibility: because two separate beings, willing separate things, are helpfully referred to when launching a religion in which the Jewish dietary restrictions and holidays are to be ignored.”



But Jesus did NOT tell this "story"; it was Isaiah, whom both Christians AND the Jews recognize as being an inspired prophet of God, who told this prohpecy, hundreds of years before the coming of the Messiah:


"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14, KJV)



Regularguy - As the Jews did to Stephen?


Regularguy: “DEUTERONOMY makes clear *exactly* how someone like that should be dealt with: he should be treated like any other such blasphemer.”


Like the Jews treated Stephen, for speaking the truth about their disobedience to God?


“Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers [did], so [do] ye. [52] Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: [53] Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept [it]. [54] When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with [their] teeth. [55] But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, [56] And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. [57] Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, [58] And cast [him] out of the city, and stoned [him]: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul. [59] And they stoned Stephen, calling upon [God], and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. [60] And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.” (Acts 7:51-60)


Saul (above) was well-educated in the law:


“I am verily a man [which am] a Jew, born in Tarsus, [a city] in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, [and] taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.” (Acts 22:3)


“And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him.” (Acts 22:20)

Regularguy - Neither Moses nor Christ...


Regularguy writes: “The whole reason there still *are* Jews is because they of course believe now what Jews believed then: that Jesus doesn't qualify.”


No, the “whole reason there still *are* Jews” is because now (just as then) many are disobedient toward God, as their fathers were before them.


They don’t believe Moses, and they don’t believe Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God:


“Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. [40] And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. [41] I receive not honour from men. [42] But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. [43] I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. [44] How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that [cometh] from God only? [45] Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is [one] that accuseth you, [even] Moses, in whom ye trust. [46] For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. [47] But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:39-47, KJV)




SCOTT wrote:
"That’s called dodging the issue. You raised the issue of possibility. I encouraged you to pursue the issue, but instead you ran away from it."

How is that dodging the issue? You said it's unlikely for a man to do something so improbable; I'm saying it's *entirely* possible for the devil to manage all of it.

"If Christ was a fraud, then His very life was at stake during the aforementioned exchange ... They would surely kill him for cause, if they could find it. But Christ’s “awful logic” seemed to be more than the Pharisees were able to overcome."

No, it's bad logic because it doesn't prove things *either* way: they couldn't prove he was doing it demonically, and he couldn't prove he was doing it divinely, and I agree with 'em: that standoff isn't cause to kill. Later they caught him claiming to be a god, and killed him for cause.

"But Jesus did NOT tell this 'story'; it was Isaiah, whom both Christians AND the Jews recognize as being an inspired prophet of God"

Isaiah said "there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else."

"They don’t believe Moses, and they don’t believe Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God"

No, see, you're just saying that, and so is John, and so is anyone else who says that. And I'm just saying they believe Moses but disbelieve Jesus the fraudster, and other people say that likewise -- none of which proves anything, and none of which disproves it either.

Invasion?
The problem I have with the word "invasion" is that it implies that God has come into the world to take possession of it. Many postmillenialists believe that and so now a golden age is coming for the Church. But there will be no goldne age for the Church since Christ's kingdom "is not of this world." John 18:36.

A better term to use would be "unveiling," since Christ has always been here, but now in the flesh. Still, my point was not the omnipresence of Christ, but that He cannot be seen except by the eye of faith, whether in the flesh or not.

The term "invasion" is better reserved for the second coming of Christ when every eye will see him (and they will call for the mountains to fall on them). That will be a true invasion in every sence of the word.

Gary Gordon

Regularguy - possibilities and logic


Regularguy writes: “How is that dodging the issue? You said it's unlikely for a man to do something so improbable; I'm saying it's *entirely* possible for the devil to manage all of it.”


Because you questioned the possibility in the context that “Jesus was honestly mistaken rather than a knowing fraudster” (see below):


Regularguy wrote earlier: “And, of course, that still applies if Jesus was honestly mistaken rather than a knowing fraudster; why, there are all *sorts* of reasons why someone can get various things right while getting other things wrong. The point is the possibility.”


Your changed the subject to blaming the devil instead of pursuing the mathematical possibility regarding a “knowing fraudster”, but in the context you hypothecated of being “honestly mistaken”, that does not apply. If He was honestly mistaken, we can examine the mathematical probabilities that such a person could fulfill over 300 prophecies.



~~~



Scott wrote earlier: "If Christ was a fraud, then His very life was at stake during the aforementioned exchange ... They would surely kill him for cause, if they could find it. But Christ’s “awful logic” seemed to be more than the Pharisees were able to overcome."


Regularguy replied: “No, it's bad logic because it doesn't prove things *either* way: they couldn't prove he was doing it demonically, and he couldn't prove he was doing it divinely, and I agree with 'em: that standoff isn't cause to kill.”


And as I said, if Christ had NOT been the Son of God, then they could have easily killed Him if they could find cause, and they very much wanted to find cause. So IF Christ had been a fraud, then His very life was on the line with His reply.


The logic He employed prevented the Jewish leaders and lawyers from accomplishing their goal, and so from any objective understanding, it was far from “awful logic”. It was entirely effective in accomplishing His will, while preventing theirs.


Regularguy - He was innocent; no cause..


[Regularguy, please understand that I am contesting these points because I believe they are of a nature that can be reasoned-out and resolved in favor of the truth, while recognizing that anyone who reads our exchanges will necessarily have to reach his or her own conclusions. I would have mentioned this in my previous post, but I was already up to 1,900 characters and I was running out of room!]


Regularguy writes: “Later they caught him claiming to be a god, and killed him for cause.”


It cannot be “just cause” if He was telling the truth; the truth is a legitimate defense.


In this case, the truth was the only legitimate defense. And the truth was His.


But, then as now, they did not want the truth.


So they paid Judas Iscariot 30 pieces of silver to betray Him, and they sought Him out in the dark of night. He did not resist, but even restored the ear of one who came to arrest Him.


Being under the Authority of the Roman government at the time, the Jews did not have the power to execute Him themselves, so Jesus was passed around to various Roman Authorities in a series of sham trials, each of which found no guilt in Him, because He was innocent.


“Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? [They] all say unto him, Let him be crucified. [23] And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified. [24] When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but [that] rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed [his] hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye [to it]. [25] Then answered all the people, and said, His blood [be] on us, and on our children. [26] Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered [him] to be crucified.” (Matthew 27:22-26, KJV)


Regularguy - Is Isaiah a false prophet?


Scott quoted Isaiah 7:14 (KJV): “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”


Regularguy replied: “Isaiah said ‘there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else.’ ”


Are you suggesting Isaiah is a false prophet now, or suggesting God has lied by contradicting Himself through His prophet?


God cannot lie:

“In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;” (Titus 1:2, KJV)


If a prophet is found to be false in one thing, we should not believe or fear his words about anything else:


“But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. [21] And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? [22] When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.” (Deuteronomy 18:20-22, KJV)


So which is it?


Is Isaiah a false prophet, in which case the Jews and Christians must disavow all 66 chapters in the book of Isaiah?


Or have you tripped-up God, discovering the first genuine, credibly sustainable contradiction in God’s Word in the history of Biblical scholarship, which would then be cause to disavow all of God’s Word?


These are serious charges, with serious implications.


If one is going to argue from the Jewish perspective, his position certainly must harmonize and reconcile with the Word of God in the Old Testament.


So far your position does not, and the Jews encountered this exact same problem in the 1st century AD, just as they do today.


Regularguy -it's not "he said, she said"


Scott wrote: “They don’t believe Moses, and they don’t believe Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God:"


Regularguy replied: “No, see, you're just saying that, and so is John, and so is anyone else who says that.”


It was Jesus Christ who said it. John wrote by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, just as men wrote by inspiration in the OT. We test the claims of the OT in the same ways and by the same standards as we test the claims of the NT:


“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” (1 John 4:1, KJV)


"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." (Acts 17:11)


“And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, [3] Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.” (Acts 17:2-3)


We verify if God’s Word in one part of the OT or NT can be reconciled with all other parts of His Word on the same subject. We then search the Scriptures to make sure our understanding of His Word in one part of the Bible is not contradicted by any other part of the Bible.


The inspired Word of God passes this test throughout Scripture; it harmonizes with itself, it is internally consistent from beginning to end.


When the words of men are in error, they cannot be harmonized with all of God’s Word in the Bible on a given subject. The ‘disputers of this world’ (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:20) contradict God’s Word; their words cannot be reconciled with His Word. This is how we determine what is true and what is false.


So it is not that I am “just saying that, and so is John, and so is anyone else who says that.”


It is not simply a case of “he said, she said”.


Regularguy - the truth can't be known?

Regularguy: “And I'm just saying they believe Moses but disbelieve Jesus the fraudster, and other people say that likewise -- none of which proves anything, and none of which disproves it either.”


Are you suggesting the truth cannot be known?


Not according to God’s Word, in the OT or the NT.


To suggest God is unable to preserve His Word or communicate to mankind in a way that man is able to understand is to accuse God of failure, but this is refuted by much OT & NT Scripture:


“So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it.” (Isa 55:11)


“Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” (Jhn 17:17)


"Every word of God [is] pure: he [is] a shield unto them that put their trust in him. [6] Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." (Prov 30:5-6)


“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” (Matt 24:35)


"For the LORD [is] good; his mercy [is] everlasting; and his truth [endureth] to all generations." (Psa 100:5)


“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” (Jhn 1:14)


“[He is] the Rock, his work [is] perfect: for all his ways [are] judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right [is] he.” (Deut 32:4)


“For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received [it] not [as] the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.” (1 Thess 2:13)


“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Tim 2:15)


If there is any failure, certainly it is on the part of man, not God?


SCOTT wrote:
"Your changed the subject to blaming the devil instead of pursuing the mathematical possibility regarding a “knowing fraudster”, but in the context you hypothecated of being “honestly mistaken”, that does not apply. If He was honestly mistaken, we can examine the mathematical probabilities that such a person could fulfill over 300 prophecies."

No, you're leaving aside the possibility that Jesus was honestly mistaken about being in league with the devil; it's possible that he was a wonder-working dupe who innocently failed the same test failed by everyone else duped by him.

"The logic He employed prevented the Jewish leaders and lawyers from accomplishing their goal, and so from any objective understanding, it was far from “awful logic”. It was entirely effective in accomplishing His will, while preventing theirs."

You're still not getting it: so long as he was just working wonders, he doesn't *need* logic to prevent their will, because they *already* can't prove his wonders are from the devil rather than from God. He then employs bad logic anyway, but no harm is done to his cause; his logic fails to prove the wonders are from God, but the Jewish leaders still can't prove said wonders are from the devil.

The wonders signify nothing either way. That's the whole point of the test in DEUTERONOMY: if someone works wonders and prophecies get fulfilled, then we should (a) point out that he might be a blaspheming sack of crap *anyway*, but (b) not make up our minds one way or the other until we catch him teaching folks to ignore commandments and worship some other god, at which point we should reject him utterly.

More in the next post...

Why a womb of a teenager?
Why did God go that route instead of creating a Jesus like he created Adam and Eve? I challenge any Theologian to come up with an explanation? Why bothering a young girl for 9 month plus all else? If an older man today impregnates a young girl is he not immediately hauled into court and for sure jailed? Yes, even Coulson gives an explanation that may be valid, however, why not really more so to speak? Christendom accepts Adam and Eve as humans, so again the question: Why not a Jesus the same fashion? Right off the bat, I suggest that Jesus as a man would have more credibility than is the case! Besides, I wish Mr. Coulson would welcome letters addressed to him directly, as even Jesus himself would were he here toay or so it seems to me?

SCOTT writes:
"It cannot be “just cause” if He was telling the truth; the truth is a legitimate defense."

It would be, yes. But if he wasn't telling the truth, then that's irrelevant.

I'm asking whether the NT is blasphemous drivel, and you're countering by -- quoting Titus or John or Acts or Corinthians Thessalonians? That's even worse logic than Jesus used; you can't prove a thing is true by just noting that it says it's true.

I don't get to win a debate by just adding that I'm telling the truth, and neither should the NT.

"Are you suggesting Isaiah is a false prophet now, or suggesting God has lied by contradicting Himself through His prophet?"

In your quote, Isaiah said a virgin would conceive, and bear a son, and call his name Immanuel; there's no contradiction in believing that a virgin would conceive, and bear a son, and call his name Immanuel, but he's not going to be a second god or anything, and you shouldn't ever ignore the OT's strictures, and, oh, yes, there's also going to be some other guy named Jesus who blasphemes a lot.

That said, the Hebrew isn't nearly as definitive as you'd like it to be -- but that's an aside; nothing in the quote you supplied proves Jesus should be prayed to, only that a guy with a name called Immanuel will be born under specified circumstances.

"Are you suggesting the truth cannot be known?"

No, I'm suggesting that someone who works wonders while prophecies come true is quite *definitely* supposed to be treated as a scummy blasphemer if he ever tells people to ignore Jewish strictures and worship some other god. Which is what got Jesus killed in the first place; like you said, the Romans didn't see it as a crime, but the OT was clear on this point, and the Jews acted accordingly.

Regularguy - God, or Satan? (Part 1)



Hi RG,

I’m very much encouraged that our conversation is proceeding along the lines of generally accepted principles of reason and logic, mostly without incivility. These discussions often degenerate into personal attacks and/or veer into Scripturally unsupportable positions. A great deal of time and effort is often required to re-establish why logic and reason are necessary, and why what the Scriptures actually say (whether relying on the OT, the NT, or both) is a higher Authority than the words of men.


I realize you only seem to observe the authenticity of the OT, but you seem willing to adhere to it as a source of Authority, and you seem willing to remain within the bounds of logic and reason. For this I am grateful.


Regularguy writes: “No, you're leaving aside the possibility that Jesus was honestly mistaken about being in league with the devil; it's possible that he was a wonder-working dupe who innocently failed the same test failed by everyone else duped by him.”


You have attempted to reduce Jesus Christ, the most righteous, just, kind and loving Man in recorded history, to a “wonder-working dupe” of Satan... but do you think this will stand up under the scrutiny of Scripture, secular accounts or simple tests or logic and reason?


Your contention, even your clear skepticism of the entire New Testament, now appears to hinge on the argument that Jesus Christ was “honestly mistaken about being in league with the devil”.


God has promised to preserve His Word beyond the end of the earth, and His Word is truth.
(see my post from Dec. 27 @ 2:52AM for much substantiation, both OT and NT)


In the KJV of the Bible, Satan is mentioned by name 56 times. He is specifically referred to as the “Serpent” 8 times, and appears to be referred to as “the” Devil (as opposed to lesser devils) 32 times.


Clearly God has gone to some effort to make sure we understand who our adversary, the Devil, is.


(Continued next post)



Regularguy - God, or Satan? (Part 2)


(Continued from previous post)



Who is Isaiah talking about in chapter 53?


"He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were [our] faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. [4] Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. [5] But 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. [6] All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. [7] He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. [8] He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. [9] And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither [was any] deceit in his mouth. [10] Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. [11] He shall see of the travail of his soul, [and] shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. [12] Therefore will I divide him [a portion] with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." (Isaiah 53:3-12, KJV)


Regularguy -God, or Satan? (Part 3 of 3)


(Continued)


If Jesus was an unwitting dupe of Satan, surely Satan could not resist using Jesus for evil. Yet Jesus was just and righteous, doing more good works than we have space to recount, and many more that are not written (cf. John 20:30-31).


Not counting your disagreement about Jesus’ claim to deity, which you count as blasphemy, can you point to a single unjust, unrighteous or evil act committed by Jesus Christ?


Conversely, can you point to a single just, righteous or good act committed by Satan?


Does Satan rebuke himself, or dupe others into reproving him (cf. Matthew 4:4-10, Luke 4:4-10)?


Your entire case rests upon Satan being behind the works of an “honestly mistaken” “wonder-working dupe”.


But Satan is only mentioned by name in 15 verses among only 4 books in all of the OT. Eleven of those verses occur in the first two chapters of Job. Satan is mentioned once more in Psalm 109:6, twice in Zechariah (3:1-2) and once in 1 Chronicles 21:1. He is never referred to as the “Devil” in the OT, and only referred to as the “Serpent” 5 times in the OT (Genesis 3).


Conversely, Satan is mentioned 37 times in the NT. The word “Devil” in reference to Satan occurs 32 times (est.). Satan appears to be identified as the “Serpent” 3 times, for an estimated total of 72 occurrences in the NT.


Is your position regarding Satan’s supposed influence over Jesus based on the OT alone, or are you relying on the NT to support your position as well?


If the NT is not the work of God, then the “400 years of silence” from God between the last prophet of the OT and the coming of Christ is actually the nearly 2,400 years of silence, according to Jewish belief?


If this is correct, then God has stood by silently, apparently without care or concern, allowing Satan to dupe untold billions of souls away from Himself and into hell, without offering any correction over the last 24 centuries?


To what purpose?


(more later!)


Regularguy - Same "logic" for OT and NT


Regularguy writes: “You're still not getting it: so long as he was just working wonders, he doesn't *need* logic to prevent their will, because they *already* can't prove his wonders are from the devil rather than from God. He then employs bad logic anyway, but no harm is done to his cause; his logic fails to prove the wonders are from God, but the Jewish leaders still can't prove said wonders are from the devil.”


What logic proved the wonders and miracles that confirmed the prophets of the Old Testament?

Whatever logic it was, it must surely apply in the same way to the wonders and miracles performed by Christ and His Apostles.


Those who worked wonders and miracles in the 1st century AD (recorded in the NT) must be held to the same standard as those who did such things before Christ (recorded in the OT). No double-standard.


If you accept the one, how can you logically reject the other?


Jesus also confounded the Pharisees with the question “What think ye of Christ? Whose son is he?”

It is the same question every man must confront.


What is your response, whose son is the Christ?

“While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, [42] Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, [The Son] of David. [43] He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, [44] The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? [45] If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? [46] And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any [man] from that day forth ask him any more [questions].” (Matthew 22:41-46, KJV)


Regularguy -How will Jews recognize Him?


Regularguy writes: “The wonders signify nothing either way. That's the whole point of the test in DEUTERONOMY: if someone works wonders and prophecies get fulfilled, then we should (a) point out that he might be a blaspheming sack of crap *anyway*, but (b) not make up our minds one way or the other until we catch him teaching folks to ignore commandments and worship some other god, at which point we should reject him utterly.”


Except Jesus was not pointing to “some other god”, He was pointing to His Father in heaven, He was pointing to OT prophecies, and He was fulfilling those prophecies.


It was the prophets of the LORD in the OT who declared the Messiah would come, and what signs to watch for.


And it was Jeremiah, the prophet of the LORD who declared that He would make a New Covenant:


"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:" - (Jeremiah 31:31 KJV)


We already discussed your rejection of the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 as pertaining to the Messiah, but you have not yet commented on Isaiah chapter 53. Is that prophecy yet to be fulfilled?


What is the Jewish position on the prophecy of Jeremiah regarding the coming of a “new covenant”? Is that yet to happen as well?



~~~



Scott wrote: "It cannot be “just cause” if He was telling the truth; the truth is a legitimate defense."


Regularguy replies: “It would be, yes. But if he wasn't telling the truth, then that's irrelevant.”


You have asserted that Jesus did not meet the qualifications of the Messiah.


If I understand correctly, the Jews believe that the Messiah is *yet to come*; they do not believe Jesus was the Messiah.


What do you believe the qualifications for the Messiah are, and how will the Jews recognize Him?


Especially if “wonders signify nothing either way”?


Regularguy - Explanation of references.


Regularguy writes: “I'm asking whether the NT is blasphemous drivel, and you're countering by -- quoting Titus or John or Acts or Corinthians Thessalonians? That's even worse logic than Jesus used; you can't prove a thing is true by just noting that it says it's true.”


No, I quoted Titus to establish that God is truth, and He cannot lie; I can establish the same using OT Scripture, and I did so:

“[He is] the Rock, his work [is] perfect: for all his ways [are] judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right [is] he.” (Deuteronomy 32:4).

The word “truth” is self-evident, and certainly we can agree that if God is “without iniquity, just and right [is] he.”, then He cannot lie.


1 John 4:1 tells us to be wary of false doctrine, Acts 17:11 to show that searching the Scriptures is the logical way to ascertain truth (certainly practiced by the Jews) and Acts 17:2-3 to show that Paul (a Pharisee instructed and taught in the Law and Prophets by Gamaliel) reasoned with the Jews from the Scriptures.


I referenced 1 Corinthians 1:20 in further support of 1 John 4:1, in that we are warned that many who claim wisdom are false prophets who will challenge and contradict God’s Word.


Here is 1 Corinthians 1:19-20:

“For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. [20] Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?” (KJV)


Where is it “written”?


The OT, of course:

“Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, [even] a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise [men] shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent [men] shall be hid.” (Isaiah 29:14, KJV)


1 Thessalonians 2:13 shows the teaching of the Apostles was claimed to be of God and that it was received as though it was from God, not men.


H.D. Smith
H. D. Schmidt writes: Thursday, December, 27, 2007 8:07 AM
Why a womb of a teenager?
Why did God go that route instead of creating a Jesus like he created Adam and Eve? I challenge any Theologian to come up with an explanation?

No theologian here, but quite simply - to fulfill the prophecy that the seed of the woman would bruise the head of the serpent. Also to qualify him as a substitute for our punishment, a man like us, tempted in every way.


H.D. Smith ...
...also it is our nature to reject him.

You seem to imply that had he been more forceful in revealing his deity we would have accepted him.

Eden disproves this: a perfect situation, no question at all about diety - yet God was rejected for the prideful desire to be like God.

How many people do you have to raise from the dead ? You would think one would do, but...

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
(Luke 16:31)

The cross was the plan before the world was created. The offense of the cross and the abject humility and submission it requires leave no room for pride, which caused the original sin. Gods plan is to eradicate sin, and its wages, death. It will be his victory, he will share his glory with no other.

His ways are higher than our ways.

Regularguy - What do you say?


Regularguy: “I don't get to win a debate by just adding that I'm telling the truth, and neither should the NT.”


Agreed, and neither should the OT.


Whatever method(s) we use to establish the truth of the inspired Word of God in the OT must also be used to test the veracity of the NT.


No double-standard.



~~~



Regularguy: “In your quote, Isaiah said a virgin would conceive, and bear a son, and call his name Immanuel; there's no contradiction in believing that a virgin would conceive, and bear a son, and call his name Immanuel, but he's not going to be a second god or anything, and you shouldn't ever ignore the OT's strictures, and, oh, yes, there's also going to be some other guy named Jesus who blasphemes a lot.”


Here is the verse:

“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14)


Do you dispute Matthew’s interpretation of “Immanuel”?

“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” (Matthew 1:23)


What do you say “Immanuel” means?



~~~



Regularguy: “That said, the Hebrew isn't nearly as definitive as you'd like it to be -- but that's an aside; nothing in the quote you supplied proves Jesus should be prayed to, only that a guy with a name called Immanuel will be born under specified circumstances.


Clearly it is impossible to conceive a child and remain a virgin without a miracle of God; Isaiah tells us it is God who will give us this sign, and unless you dispute Matthew 1:23, “Immanuel” means “God with us”.


What do you think Isaiah 7:14 means? If it only means that “a guy with a name called Immanuel will be born under specified circumstances”, why do you suppose God would have had it recorded for all time?


Is God in the habit of including prophecies of little or no importance in His Word?


SCOTT wrote:
Regularguy: “I don't get to win a debate by just adding that I'm telling the truth, and neither should the NT.” Agreed, and neither should the OT. Whatever method(s) we use to establish the truth of the inspired Word of God in the OT must also be used to test the veracity of the NT. No double-standard."

I think you're missing my point: since *you* aren't disputing the OT, I don't yet need to establish the truth of it; you're essentially granting it. Feel free to start disputing it, if you like, at which point I'll respond; until then, though, you're *not* disputing the OT, and I likewise won't yet bother, but the NT is under dispute because at least one of us is disputing it.

That said, though:

"Those who worked wonders and miracles in the 1st century AD (recorded in the NT) must be held to the same standard as those who did such things before Christ (recorded in the OT). No double-standard. If you accept the one, how can you logically reject the other?"

Because said OT wonder-workers didn't postulate multiple gods while establishing religions in which it's okay to ignore the Old Testament's commandments. Look, it's not like there aren't *other* wonder-workers in the OT; when Moses goes before Pharaoh, various of 'em in fact duplicate the stick-into-snake miracle, and likewise duplicate the water-into-blood one, and ditto for the bit with the frogs -- and, okay, then fail to duplicate the sand-into-lice one, but that's still pretty danged impressive. What are we to make of *those* wonder-workers?

What, indeed, is the whole *point* of that warning in Deuteronomy, if not to make explicit that wonders and prophecies are to be greeted with skepticism precisely because they *don't* guarantee authenticity?

SCOTT wrote:
"Regularguy: “That said, the Hebrew isn't nearly as definitive as you'd like it to be -- but that's an aside; nothing in the quote you supplied proves Jesus should be prayed to, only that a guy with a name called Immanuel will be born under specified circumstances." Clearly it is impossible to conceive a child and remain a virgin without a miracle of God; Isaiah tells us it is God who will give us this sign, and unless you dispute Matthew 1:23, “Immanuel” means “God with us”."

Er, no -- I was referring to how the Hebrew language had two words that essentially meant "virgin": one that literally meant it, and one that had said connotation because it meant "young woman". The verse in question uses the latter word, for some reason. (It's a minor point, but worth clarifying.)

"Who is Isaiah talking about in chapter 53?"

Israel, possibly. Or maybe another deliverer like Moses, who of course wouldn't be a god or anything. In fact, so long as it's not another god, I'm okay with all sorts of interpretations.

"What do you believe the qualifications for the Messiah are, and how will the Jews recognize Him? Especially if “wonders signify nothing either way”?"

Well, he won't say anything at odds with what's come before: folks who listen to him will still think eating pork and shellfish is forbidden, will still be strict monotheists, will still find adultery off-limits -- all of it.

But, also, it's maybe not going to be a Messiah the way you're thinking: many Jews don't believe in an afterlife, and the idea of a worldly deliverer like Moses fits the bill just fine. That's also the problem with the following:

"If this is correct, then God has stood by silently, apparently without care or concern, allowing Satan to dupe untold billions of souls away from Himself and into hell, without offering any correction over the last 24 centuries?"

What hell?

SCOTT wrote:
"...Jesus was just and righteous, doing more good works than we have space to recount, and many more that are not written (cf. John 20:30-31). Not counting your disagreement about Jesus’ claim to deity, which you count as blasphemy, can you point to a single unjust, unrighteous or evil act committed by Jesus Christ? Conversely, can you point to a single just, righteous or good act committed by Satan?"

See, this, to me, is especially interesting.

You and I presumably agree on what makes for a good act or an evil one: we can of course ask whether Jesus did anything unjust or whether Satan did anything righteous, since we can evaluate what they've done accordingly.

Already knowing that, we have no need of a redundant teacher; I'd keep doing my best to perform good acts regardless of what Jesus taught, regardless of whether he did anything wrong. Had he engaged in theft while teaching that stealing was now allowed, I'd think he was wrong while continuing to abstain; as it happens, he didn't so, which means I -- still abstain, because, well, heck, I knew that anyway.

So what does it matter which example he sets? You and I already know what we're supposed to do; what does it matter that he gets it right aside from the blasphemy I'm alleging and you're denying?

And, incidentally, as to the 300 prophecies, let me add that I'm likewise not actually seeing it, since many of them *are* the very topic under debate: that he'll be hated without a cause, that he will reign on David's throne, that he will be the judge, that he will be salvation for Israel, that he will establish an everlasting kindgom, that he will bruise Satan's head -- you're just assuming all of that is true, and then using that as evidence that he fulfilled those prophecies. And other stuff (like being the seed of David, or having Elijah return to herald his coming) doesn't actually seem to fit in the first place.

Regularguy - I ask only equal standards.

Regularguy: “I think you're missing my point: since *you* aren't disputing the OT, I don't yet need to establish the truth of it; you're essentially granting it.”


I believe the OT is the inspired Word of God; it’s foundational to both Judaism (as I understand it) and Christianity, but you've missed my point.


If it’s archeological discovery, scientific analysis, textual criticism, fulfilled prophecy, internal consistency, etc., that gives you good cause to believe the OT, the same must be applied to determine if the NT is true.


We can’t apply one standard of truth to the OT, and have a different standard for the NT.


Whatever reason we have to believe prophecy in the OT (e.g., it came true?), the same reasoning must be applied to the NT.


If archeological evidence establishes truth in the OT, the same must establish truth in the NT.


If secular historical records are enough to verify truth in the OT, then secular accounts of similar credibility must be enough to verify truth in the NT.


There is no justifiable cause to hold the NT to a different or higher standard of truth than we hold the OT. We can’t just discount evidence because we don’t like the necessary conclusion.


This inequity is often exhibited by those who don’t believe the Bible at all. They require evidence from 3 or 4 (or more) independent sources before considering a Bible claim valid, but accept single sources of evidence for secular historical accounts.


They may say that because a document is claimed to be inspired by God, it should be held to a much higher standard of proof.


But that’s dishonest, because they don’t believe the document is inspired by God in the first place, so they have no cause to hold it to a higher standard.


I seek no special standard; I ask whatever standard is ordinarily employed to be applied equally, and let the cards fall where they may.


That which is true will stand, and that which is false will be found out.

SCOTT wrote:
"There is no justifiable cause to hold the NT to a different or higher standard of truth than we hold the OT. We can’t just discount evidence because we don’t like the necessary conclusion."

No, see, here's my point: the NT says the OT is true, right?

If so, then anyone trying to claim that the NT is true (in this case, you) *needs* to claim that the OT is true; it's a "necessary conclusion," like you were just saying.

Now, sure, it's also possible for people to instead reject both -- and if some wonder-worker stepped forward tomorrow claiming that the OT and the NT were both false, maybe all sorts of tricky questions about evidence and standards could get debated.

But, see, Christianity's wonder-worker *isn't* like that. Jesus said what you're saying: that the OT was true. To argue in favor of the NT *already* requires one to grant, for the *sake* of argument, that the OT is true.

And so, in the case of Christianity, I don't need to judge the OT by any standard; if the OT is true, then I can apply it to the NT -- but if the OT is false, then the NT is already false.

Now, that wouldn't work for some proponent of the Norse gods, or the Greek gods, or the nonexistence of all gods; in any such case, he and I would need to come up with a standard by which to judge beliefs against each other. But for a proponent of Christianity, either (a) the OT and the NT are both false; or (b) what the OT says about a wonder-worker like Jesus can already be taken at face value.

Re: It's not about the manger.
I appreciated Mr. Colson's column, but there is one thing said I do not think is correct. Mr. Colson said:

"It is through the Incarnation God sets His grand plan in motion. He invades planet earth, establishing His reign through Christ’s earthly ministry. And then Christ leaves behind an occupying force, His Church, which is to carry on the work of redemption until His return and the kingdom’s final triumph."

First, Christ has not yet established "His reign," here on earth. Christ is a Royal exile. He will establish His reign upon His return. He did leave an occupation force, but that was the "little flock" of the nation of Israel, and those added to that Jewish kingdom church on the day of Pentacost. It was not and is not the church the body of Christ.

And their message was not about redemption, although Christ certainly did provide that. The little flock's message, as it had been since John the Baptist, was Christ is their messiah. Israel needed to believe this and to get ready for the messianic kingdom.

The good news about the redemptive work of Christ for all, was given to the apostle Paul. That gospel, that good news, Paul calls, "my gospel." God interrupted His program and purpose with Israel and began something new with Paul. When this age of grace comes to an end, God will then resume His program with Israel.

Matt Coyle Hampton, Va.


Matt Coyle - Part 1 of 3


Hi Matt,


I just read your post today (3/24/08), when I was making a correction to an earlier post of my own.


Matt writes: “First, Christ has not yet established "His reign," here on earth. Christ is a Royal exile. He will establish His reign upon His return.”


Unless you can support any of this with Scripture from the Bible, it is nothing more than errant human theology, assertion without substantiation, i.e., opinion.


If you are referring to “pre-millennialism” here, I realize that is a very popular doctrine (popularized even more by the “Left Behind” series), but I do not believe you can reconcile that doctrine with God’s Word in the Bible.


The earth is going to be burned up and destroyed, not according to manmade doctrines, but according to God’s own inspired Word:


"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." (2 Peter 3:10, KJV)



~~~



Matt writes: “He did leave an occupation force, but that was the "little flock" of the nation of Israel, and those added to that Jewish kingdom church on the day of Pentacost.”


Not at all sure what you’re talking about here.


The kingdom was opened to the Jews on Pentecost in Acts chapter 2, and then to the Gentiles when Peter preached the Gospel to Cornelius in Acts chapter 10.


It is not and was not intended to be a “Jewish kingdom church”.


As always, if you have Scripture(s) to substantiate any of your contentions, I would be very interested to see them.


Matt Coyle - Part 2 of 3


(continued from previous post)


Matt writes: “It was not and is not the church the body of Christ.”


Book, chapter and verse are required, please. What you are claiming is in contradiction to so much Scripture that you will have your hands full trying to explain it all away.


We can start with Paul’s salutation to the Romans:


“Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.” (Romans 16:16, KJV)


If “churches of Christ” does not in fact mean “churches of Christ”, then you must explain what it means, and I don’t believe you can, not in a way that reconciles and harmonizes with the rest of God’s Word in the Bible.



~~~



Matt writes: “And their message was not about redemption, although Christ certainly did provide that. The little flock's message, as it had been since John the Baptist, was Christ is their messiah. Israel needed to believe this and to get ready for the messianic kingdom.”


Again, I have no idea what theological perspective you are presenting here (Jehovah’s Witness?), but your doctrine is simply not supported by God’s Word in the Bible.


(concluded next post)


Matt Coyle - Part 3 of 3


(continued from previous post)


Matt writes: “The good news about the redemptive work of Christ for all, was given to the apostle Paul. That gospel, that good news, Paul calls, "my gospel." God interrupted His program and purpose with Israel and began something new with Paul. When this age of grace comes to an end, God will then resume His program with Israel.”


God’s plan was designed before the foundation of the world.


God knows the end from the beginning:

“Remember the former things of old: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else; [I am] God, and [there is] none like me, [10] Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:” (Isaiah 46:9-10, KJV)


It is the height of human arrogance to think anything we might do could cause God Himself to alter, change or otherwise “interrupt” His perfect plan.


Unless you can present book, chapter and verse from God’s Word in the Bible to prove the things you have said here, which I don’t believe you have any hope of doing, I can only conclude that you are teaching a false Gospel:


“I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: [7] Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. [8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. [9] As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:6-9, KJV)


It is my sincere hope that you will discover the error of your religious belief while there is still time, and seek the truth which can only be found in God’s Word in the Bible.


Scott


watercloset - Correction / Lord’s Supper


I realize chances are very low that anyone will ever check this record to see this update, but it was important to me to make this correction just the same.


After giving the subject of the Lord’s Supper more thought, I consulted one of our church elders and engaged in further study.


I am confident that observing the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week (i.e., Sunday) is correct according to Scripture, based on Paul’s example recorded by Luke in the Book of Acts:


"And upon the first [day] of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight." (Acts 20:7, KJV)


However, I also used an example from Luke chapter 24 (see post dated 12/26/07, 6:12am) as Scriptural support, and after further study, I believe Luke chapter 24 is not conclusively applicable to the Lord’s Supper. The conclusion I reached regarding Luke chapter 24 is a “possible” conclusion, but it is NOT a “necessary” conclusion, and therefore I should not have used it.


Scriptural error is something I am very concerned about, and something I take very seriously. I do not ever want to point anyone in the wrong direction. In this case, my conclusion that the Lord’s Supper is to be observed every Sunday is born out by Scripture, but part of the Scriptural support I used was inadequate to be considered “conclusive”.


Please accept my apology, and as always, I encourage everyone to check anything that men say against what God’s Word in the Bible says.


Even (sometimes especially) with the best of intentions, men are fallible.


God is not!

Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.