The Trauma to Triumph Story of Victor Marx

Is it really possible for a person to break the cycle of anger, abuse, addiction, divorce, and unforgiveness? Victor Marx is here to tell us that with the hope of Jesus Christ, you can!

At the tender age of 5, Victor was molested and left in a commercial cooler to die. He endured a childhood marked with physical and sexual abuse, multiple stepfathers, 14 schools, and 17 different houses. Later in life, he used drugs and alcohol to help numb the pain and, after his time in the Marines, was diagnosed with mental illness and PTSD. To most people, it seemed like Victor would never find a way to escape his life of pain and trauma–but God had other plans!

Today, Victor is a husband of 30 years, a father to five, and has used his military background to put his boots to the ground in places like Syria, Iraq, and Cambodia to physically rescue over 45,000 women and children from sex trafficking and other evil. His ministry, All Things Possible, exists to identify, interrupt and restore those affected by trauma all over the world.

In this one-of-a-kind episode, he sits down with Frank to share his personal testimony and explains how only God can bring help to the hopeless and transform the most hardened of hearts. He also shares advice on how to protect your family from sex trafficking in your own neighborhood. Victor’s story is an amazing account of God’s character, power, and presence in our world and evidence that the Holy Spirit is still at work today. Jesus raised the dead, healed the blind, and did so many miracles that all the books of the world could not contain them. But what is the greatest miracle we can all witness in our culture today? A changed life!

To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into great discussions with like-minded Christians while providing financial support for our ministry.

Learn more about Victor Marx and his ministry: https://victormarx.com/

If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.

Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

 

/by

Confrontando la homosexualidad en una cultura de identidad (parte 3)

By Josh Klein

As we enter the final section of the critique of the objections to the Orthodox view of homosexual activity as a sin, it is important to note, again, why I am spending a significant amount of time on these particular points. The rallying cry of the liberal theologian has been grace, mercy, and love, but as I set out in part one, [i] believe that true grace, mercy, and love must be grounded in the Truth set forth in God’s word. To have adequate compassion we cannot admit falsehood.

We know this to be true intrinsically. If your child believes with all his heart that he can fly and climbs to the top of your house to prove it, do you let him jump because it is unloving or unmerciful to tell him he is wrong? Or do you do whatever it takes to stop him from jumping even if it makes him cry, angry, or hate you? A good parent doesn’t even need to consider the issue. The correct response to the situation is natural.

Likewise, we must confront the sinful habits in our own lives and the falsehoods in the world. We cannot be compassionate toward the child as he allows it to plummet to its death, and we cannot be compassionate toward fellow believers as we watch them sink their lives into unrepentant sin. That would be unloving. So we must first establish what is true and then we can place true empathy and compassion on that foundation.

The following are just a sampling of other objections I have interacted with in my time of ministry. I believe we must respond to each of them with grace and truth, and any subsequent arguments should be handled in the same manner. I have attempted to do so here. I pray God has given me the power to succeed in that endeavor. I responded to one of the more technical objections in last week’s article. [ii]

Homosexuality is as much of a sin as eating shellfish in the Bible

This argument completely ignores the New Testament scriptures on the subject, is also incredibly theologically flawed, and is primarily used merely as an argument with which to denigrate those of faith as inconsistent or hypocritical.

This, of course, is an argument for Christians to continue eating shrimp and shellfish but not agree that the homosexual act is good/correct even though both come from the same book of the Bible. In Leviticus 11 we find that God prohibits the consumption of shellfish to his people, likewise, only seven chapters later in Leviticus 18 God prohibits men from sleeping with men and women from sleeping with women, going so far as to call the act an abomination.

The difference in language between these two things is paramount to understanding. While the Hebrews are to abhor shellfish, they are not commanded to abhor those who consume shellfish, but shellfish itself. Consuming shellfish is detestable, but it is not an “abomination,” but God calls sodomy (homosexuality) an abomination. We also find God removing the believer’s dietary restrictions (as well as the eternal restrictions of faith!) from Peter in Acts 10:9-16, but God does not do the same with homosexuality.

Some may try to include homosexuality in the interpretation of Acts 10, but the early church certainly did not. It seems that Peter and other apostles saw this view as a double permission for the consumption of food and for God to bring salvation to the Gentiles without forcing them to convert to Judaism first.

Furthermore, God had clearly defined rules for His chosen nation to be set apart from those around them. Quite simply, some of the Old Testament prohibitions were made simply to distinguish God’s chosen people from the Gentile nations around them. It is fair (and safe) to assume that God’s prohibition on clearly cultural differences (eating shellfish, wearing certain fabrics, circumcision, etc.) would dissolve over time as He ushered in the church age and Jesus became the fulfillment of what those laws were intended to convey, while His prohibition on moral issues (murder, theft, sex outside of marriage, homosexuality) would not change, because they are based on His character and His design for life, not simply on setting a nation apart for itself. There is, believe it or not, a hierarchical structure to God’s law.

Thus, Leviticus 18 carries a much more relevant prohibition than Leviticus 11 because one has to do with the character of God and the other with the establishment of Israel’s theocracy specifically. Much has been written on this topic and I cover it here only sparingly, but for a more comprehensive overview of the topic Jason Meyer’s book The End of the Law is a good resource. [iii]

Homosexual wasn’t even a word in the Bible until 1946

We have dealt with this argument a bit in Part 2, [iv] but here we will look at the lay argument. Homosexual was not a word in the English dictionary until the late 19th century, first appearing in the English dictionary in 1892. The term was coined by German psychologists in the 1860s in reference to the act of same-sex sexual intercourse. Bible translations tend to lag behind the common vernacular by a significant time interval, so the fact that the first use of homosexual in an English Bible was in the mid-1940s should not come as a significant surprise to anyone if they honestly follow the linguistic history of scripture translations.

Before the 1940s, the word translated homosexual would likely have been translated sodomite or sexually immoral. In fact, as we discovered last week, I think those are still better translations than homosexual in many cases, as they cover a broader range of sexual immorality rather than simply pointing to a homosexual relationship. However, to say that the word homosexual was not in the Bible until 1946 and is therefore a recent addition to the Bible is disingenuous. The intent of the passages was clear before the 1940s and helped form the decision to insert the word into the translation history after the 1940s. The interpretive history of these passages lent credibility to the use of the word initially and while it is not the best translation currently, I do not think it is a bad translation either, although, given the current cultural context of identity, I would still like to see clarity in the translation toward behavior and not simply attraction. My problem with the translation in general is that it is making an interpretive decision for the reader rather than simply translating the word, and this means that the narrowing of the meaning could leave out important sin issues such as pedophilia, rape, cohabitation, and more.

God was not wrong when he created me

In fact, God did not make a mistake in creating anyone. However, to continue the theme of Romans 1 from last week, we find that being born with a proclivity for a certain action does not necessarily make that action or desire good and right.

Being born as someone with a disposition toward addiction would not make becoming addicted to painkillers good or right. Similarly, being born as someone with a strong sexual inclination who desires to have multiple sexual partners does not make acting on those desires right and good.

In my view, homosexuality is the same kind of sin, but we have turned the discussion on its head. Turning homosexuality into a matter of identity rather than behavior did no one any good, and we are currently reaping the “rewards” of such a miscalculation.

Romans 1 indicates that homosexuality is part of the fall, for both men and women. In fact, the entire first section of Romans 1-4 is intended to help the Roman church understand the depravity of man and why we need a savior. Romans 1 is not meant to indicate personal behavior, but must be read in the context of all human history.

If we read Romans 1 correctly, we will not argue and argue about who was born which way and whether or not homosexuality is a choice. The fact is that homosexuality is a natural consequence of the original fall of man. Sin broke up God’s created order and introduced all kinds of behaviors that could be and have been considered natural, but are, in fact, evil. (I use the word “evil” in the theological sense, i.e. rebellion against God.)

No, God did not make a mistake in creating you. Scripture is clear that you are fearfully and wonderfully made ( Psalm 139:14 ), but it is also clear that you are a fallen human being with a natural inclination toward sin who needs to be rescued from yourself and your own passions and desires.  Romans 6-8 puts this struggle under the microscope. The transition from death to life is immediate and permanent, but it is also a process of understanding where we are broken and where we need to be repaired by the Holy Spirit.

And as Paul indicates at the end of chapter 7 , the only answer is through Jesus Christ, otherwise we are still under the headship of Adam and therefore in sin, and in death. This is why having a dual identity is so problematic. It means that God can remake only part of who we are, because we have removed His impact on our other identity. It is sequestered in a dark closet that His renewal team cannot touch. The exclusivity of Christ is of paramount importance in this discussion, but according to a recently conducted survey [v] of supposed “born-again” Christians, this foundational doctrine is also under attack. Ultimately, compassion without adherence to truth ends there. It is not a slippery slope fallacy if the slope is, in fact, slippery.

So no, God did not make a mistake in allowing anyone to be born, but that does not mean that we are all born perfect either. Two things can be true at once. God may have made a person in a fearfully and wonderful way, and that person may also be hopelessly damaged and beyond repair with natural inclinations toward evil and self-destruction unless God intercedes on his or her behalf. All people are worthy and deserving of love because they are image bearers of the Almighty, but all people are also image bearers broken by sin and must be repaired by their Creator.

I know, because I am. No, I am not a homosexual, but I am an evil depraved person. I need a savior, and I have that in Jesus. This same savior is available to all who will believe, and he will make them a new creation ( 2 Cor. 5:17 ) with the ability to find victory over any sinful proclivity they were born with, because in Jesus we are offered a completely new identity.

A homosexual in a consensual and committed relationship is fulfilling a marriage covenant

This is the last one we will have space for in this section, and it is both the easiest and the hardest to answer. The easiest, because I believe that understanding the real meaning of Romans 1 and the passages in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy will ultimately lead us to understand that marriage can only be, and has only been, ordained between one man and one woman and the marriage bed ( Heb 13:4 ) is not to include two of the same sex.

That being said, it is the hardest to answer because my heart truly aches for those who have such homosexual inclinations who desire to have a meaningful long-term relationship and have children and experience all the good things that come with those relationships. But empathy is all I can offer in that regard because the scriptures seem to be clear on the issue, and I don’t know a married couple who can (or should) abstain from sex in order to maintain a pure relationship. If my answers to the previous two sections are biblically correct, then the answer to this objection becomes obvious. And as we’ll see next week, there are many professing gay Christians who agree with this. Some resources are noted below.

So what?

I’m sure I haven’t covered all of the TikTok takes in the previous sections. I’m sure there are many more, but let’s move on. What then is the church’s responsibility? In part four I want to look at a better way to handle these things than what the church has done in recent generations. I think the church has fallen short in ministry to those who struggle in this area, and while I don’t have all the answers, I think we can begin to walk the path in a better way. One thing the book I mentioned in part 3 gets right is this: I think the church’s treatment of homosexuality has been short-sighted and graceless for many decades, and this needs to change (and is changing), but it needs to change without compromising the Truth.

Josh Klein is a pastor from Omaha, Nebraska, with 12 years of ministerial experience. He graduated with an MDiv in 2016 from Sioux Falls Seminary and spends his free time reading and engaging with current and past theological and cultural issues. He has been married to Sharalee Klein for 12 years, and they have three young children.

Footnotes

[i] https://freethinkingministries.com/confronting-homosexuality-in-a-culture-of-identity-part-1/

[ii] https://freethinkingministries.com/confronting-homosexuality-in-a-culture-of-identity-part-2/

[iii] https://www.christianbook.com/the-law-mosaic-covenant-pauline-theology/jason-meyer/9780805448429/pd/448429?event=AFF&p=1011693&

[iv] https://freethinkingministries.com/confronting-homosexuality-in-a-culture-of-identity-part-2/

[v] https://relevantmagazine.com/faith/church/survey-60-percent-of-born-again-christians-under-40-say-jesus-isnt-the-only-way-to-salvation/

Recommended resources in Spanish:

Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek

Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Josh Klein is a pastor from Omaha, Nebraska, with 12 years of ministerial experience. He graduated with an MDiv in 2016 from Sioux Falls Seminary and spends his free time reading and engaging with current and past theological and cultural issues. He has been married to Sharalee Klein for 12 years, and they have three young children.

Original Source: https://bit.ly/3UC2BQ2 

Translated by Jennifer Chavez

Edited by Yatniel Vega

 

/by

An Atheist’s Call To Make Our Case

,

By Bob Perry

St. Francis of Assisi may have died 800 years ago, but his influence still looms. He was a man who venerated nature and lived a life of great sacrifice in service to God and his church. But within the Christian ecosystem, he has become most famous for an adage that strikes a chord with anyone who is serious about sharing their faith:

Preach the Gospel always. If necessary, use words.

The modern interpretation of Assisi’s exhortation is clear. Our charge is to love people into the kingdom, not argue them there. If you’ve bought into that mindset it may surprise you to learn that it’s not accurate. And it may surprise you even more to learn that it flies in the face of an atheist’s call to make our case.

Here’s why.

A Gospel Without Words?

On one level there is no denying that, “who you are speaks so loudly that no one can hear what you say.” We certainly don’t want the life we live to deny everything about the faith we claim to represent. But is the Franciscan inversion of this exhortation also true? Can we proclaim the message through our actions alone?

The problem here is that the Gospel makes propositional truth claims about the nature of the world, the nature of man, and the remedy for man’s rebellion against God. It’s a story about reality. And it’s only “good news” if it’s actually true. So, how can we share the propositional truth claims of such a message and explain their implications without using words or giving answers?

I contend that we can’t. Furthermore, the attitude that says we can is not only harmful, but it also does violence to the Gospel it claims to love. This contention is not my own. A rabid atheist will back me up.

The Gift of a Bible

Penn Jillette and his partner, Raymond Teller, have been entertaining Las Vegas audiences for years. Their mixture of magic, music, and commentary – the Penn & Teller show – is the longest-running show at the same hotel in Las Vegas history. Jillette is a magician, actor, and inventor. He is also a hard-core atheist – so adamant about his denial of God’s existence that at one point in his life he is said to have owned three cars with vanity license plates that read: “atheist,” “nogod,” and “godless.”[i] “Strangely enough,” says Jillette, “they wouldn’t give me ‘infidel.’ He was also a happy participant in YouTube’s viral “blasphemy challenge,” in which participants publicly mock and denounce the Holy Spirit.

Penn Jillette is no friend of Christianity. But he has a message that every Christian should take to heart.

In July 2010, Jillette posted a video online[ii] in which he shared the story of a man who approached him after one of his performances. The man was extremely complimentary of the Penn & Teller show. He said he enjoyed Jillette’s honesty, his use of language, and his talent. The man was polite and humble. And he came bearing a gift.

“I was here last night,” said the man, “I brought this for you.” The man handed Jillette a pocket Bible containing the New Testament and the book of Psalms. Penn Jillette was genuinely humbled and impressed by the actions and attitude of this kind Christian man. And he is quite direct about how he received the gesture.

I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. If you believe there’s a heaven and hell … and if you believe that people could be going to hell, or not getting eternal life … and you think that it’s not worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward … How much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that? If I believed beyond the shadow of a doubt that a truck was bearing down on you and you didn’t believe it, there’s a certain point where I tackle you. And this is more important than that (emphasis mine).

Misquoting Assisi

Most of us don’t have a lot in common with a rabid atheist Las Vegas showman who mocks the Holy Spirit. But every Christian would do well to take seriously Penn Jillette’s reflection. Not only does it fly in the face of the just-love-them-into-the-kingdom mindset, but it also comports with what Assisi actually said … and with what he did.

It turns out the legendary quote attributed to St. Francis is nothing but a modern corruption of the words he actually wrote in 1221 AD:

Let none of the brothers preach contrary to the form and institution of the church … Nevertheless, let all the brothers preach by their works.

Notice that Francis did not render preaching the gospel a contingent option. Instead, he linked words and actions directly together.

Francis of Assisi devoted himself to the kind of life for which he is now known after being convicted by a sermon he heard in 1209. He took a vow of poverty, felt connected to nature and the beauty of the creation, and demonstrated empathy for others. But he was also known for the powerful sermons he delivered. He lived out the Gospel, and he was happy to tell others about it.

Words Are Always Necessary

Arguments and evidence are far from arrogant intellectual add-ons to the Gospel.[iii] They are integral to it. God saturated our world with truths that could never be adequately expressed through our actions alone. There are plenty of examples of militant atheists who have turned to God after hearing about them. C. S. Lewis, Antony Flew, Lee Strobel, and J. Warner Wallace[iv] come to mind. Penn Jillette isn’t on that list – yet. That’s his choice, not ours. Don’t hate him for it. Be winsome and kind. But by all means, don’t be silent.

Footnotes

[i] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_Jillette

[ii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6md638smQd8

[iii] https://truehorizon.org/the-gospel-requires-us-to-give-answers/

[iv] https://salvomag.com/article/salvo24/the-evidentialist

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)      

How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and the culture at truehorizon.org. He is a Contributing Writer for the Christian Research Journal and has also been published in Touchstone, and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of military and commercial flying experience. He has a B.S., Aerospace Engineering from the U. S. Naval Academy, and an M.A., Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown sons.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3UxOXgU

/by

Examining Historical Evidence for the Resurrection | with Mike Licona

Do Christians have good historical reasons to put our faith in the resurrection of Jesus? Can we really know what happened 2,000 years ago? No one doubts the works of Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar or the history written about them, so what makes the historicity of Jesus so special? And what do non-Christian scholars say about the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus?

If anyone knows the answers to these questions, it’s New Testament scholar Dr. Michael Licona! His seminal work, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, has been praised by many as the most thorough and useful tool to those looking for an in-depth study of the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Mike currently serves as Associate Professor in Theology at Houston Christian University and president of Risen Jesus, Inc. In this special midweek episode of ‘I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist,’ he sits down with Frank to discuss the following topics as they relate to Jesus and the resurrection:

  • problems with postmodernist history

  • the uncertainty of historical knowledge

  • what is a historical fact?

  • the tools and rules of historical research

  • how our worldview affects how we study history

  • objections to the resurrection of Jesus

  • the intersecting philosophies of science, history, and theology

This is a fascinating and in-depth discussion, and you’ll definitely learn something new! To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into great discussions with like-minded Christians (including Frank) while providing financial support for our ministry.

Mike’s seminal work: https://a.co/d/iPv6CN6

Mike at Houston Christian University: http://bit.ly/3OPAKdT

Mike’s website: https://www.risenjesus.com/

If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.

Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

 

/by

A Dragon at Christmas

By Ryan Leasure

 “Away in a manger no crib for a bed, the little Lord Jesus laid down his sweet head. The stars in the sky looked down where he lay, the little Lord Jesus asleep on the hay. The cattle are lowing, the baby awakes. But little Lord Jesus no crying he makes. . .”

What a peaceful scene. It’s as every Christmas card portrays it. Sweet baby Jesus cooing softly in his manger with smiles all around. The only problem is that it doesn’t portray reality. Aside from the point that Jesus most certainly would have been crying as any normal baby would, Revelation 12 describes the Christmas story as a dangerous event, loaded with spiritual warfare.

The Dragon Fights

Chapter 12 is a prime example that Revelation does not record history chronologically. As I’ve argued previously,[i] Revelation provides several complementary, parallel visions. In this way, several of the visions recapitulate, or retell, the same story from slightly different angles. I made this point specifically with the seven seals, trumpets, and bowls.[ii]

Chapter 12 stands as a unique chapter in that it speaks of the incarnation. In verse 1, John describes a vision of a woman dressed in the sun, standing on the moon, and wearing a crown of twelve stars on her head. Scholars debate the identity of the woman. I think one can make a good case that she represents the people of God, though some argue for Mary. The cosmic images demonstrate the exalted status of this figure, especially the crown of twelve stars on her head. We read elsewhere in Revelation that God made his people rulers (Rev 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). And the number twelve symbolically represents the people of God (twelve tribes and twelve apostles).[iii]

Verse 2 notes that the woman was pregnant and in labor. Repeatedly throughout the OT, we read that Israel suffers labor pains before their Messianic salvation comes (Isa 26:17-18; 66:7-10; Mic 4:10). At the same time, a great red Dragon with seven heads, ten horns, and seven diadems on its heads swept down a third of the stars of heaven to the earth. The dragon is a clear reference to Satan (Rev 12:9; 20:2).

The dragon attempts to mimic Jesus who also has horns and diadems (Rev 5:6; 19:12). We read later in Revelation 17:12 that the ten horns represent ten earthly kings. In other words, the Dragon accomplishes his evil schemes through earthly kingdoms and rulers.[iv] And though many think the stars represent angels, most likely the stars represent people as they did in Daniel 8:10 when Antiochus Epiphanes also threw down “stars.” In other words, John appears to making the same point Daniel was making: the enemy will persecute God’s people.

Meanwhile, the woman gives birth to a son. And not just any son, but a son who will rule the nations with an iron staff. This language most certainly refers to Psalm 2:9: “You shall break them with a rod of iron.” This Psalm, which speaks of the Lord’s “anointed” (the Messiah), also says of the anointed, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you” (Ps 2:7). This son is none other Jesus of Nazareth who would bring blessing to the nations (Gen 12:3).

And how would he bring blessing? Verse 5 says that the child was “caught up to God and to his throne.” That is to say, even though the dragon sought to devour this male child, he would triumph over the dragon by means of his resurrection and ascension to the right hand of the Father.

And though Christ defeated Satan, the dragon continues to fight against God’s people while he still can. We read in verse 6 that the woman flees into the wilderness for 1,260 days (3.5 years). There in the wilderness, God nourishes his people, just as he did ancient Israel.

While scholars differ on their interpretation of the 1,260 days, I believe they represent the time span between Christ’s resurrection and eventual return. The time of 1,260 days most likely comes from Daniel 9:27 which prophesies that sacrifices will end for “half of a week.” A week in that context referred to seven years. So half of a week refers to forty-two months or 1,260 days.

Daniel, it seems, was prophesying that Christ’s future death would bring sacrifices to an end for the final 1,260 days which symbolically represents the time between Christ’s two comings. In chapter 11, we read that enemies will trample the people of God for forty-two months (1,260 days). And it’s during this 1,260 days that the two witnesses (the church) will prophesy to the world. Each of these texts supports the idea that 1,260 days refers to the present church age.

The Dragon Falls

While some want to locate the fall of Satan and his angels from heaven before the dawn of the human race, the context goes against this position. True to apocalyptic form, this vision pulls back the curtain to give us a glimpse of a cosmic battle between the dragon and Michael. Michael represents the people of God and overpowers the dragon, casting him down to the earth.

Verse 9 notes that “the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world.” Certainly, these images allude back to the serpent in the garden (Gen 3), the Leviathan (Job 41:1; Isa 27:1), Rahab (Job 26:12), and the sea monster (Ps 74:13; Ezek 29:3). Each of these serpent creatures (snakes and sea monsters) represent Satan’s opposition to God’s people.

We read that the dragon and his angels are expelled from heaven because of “the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony.” It seems, then, that Satan used to stand before God and accuse people of their sin (Job 1:9; Zech 3:1). But Christ’s substitutionary death silenced the accuser![v] Satan, therefore, is cast out of heaven, and is further defeated by the proclamation of the gospel. God’s people continue to proclaim the message, even though they suffer for it.

Though the dragon has been defeated, he doesn’t just lay down. He takes down as many as he can with him.

The Dragon Flails

Though Satan fell to earth, he continues to wage war on the woman and her “offspring.” While some may want to distinguish between these two, I think its best to read them as referring to the same entity—the people of God. If one wants to parse them out, one could possibly think of the woman as the church and the offspring as individuals of the church.

As the dragon seeks to attack the church, we read that God delivers them on the wings of eagles into the wilderness, just as he did at the exodus (Exod 19:4). Again, we read that God nourishes his people in the wilderness for “a time, times, and half a time.” This phrase is just another way of saying 3.5 years or 1,260 days. As I already stated earlier, this time frame represents the span of time from Jesus’ resurrection[vi] till his return. That is to say, it’s during this current church age that God is protecting his people from Satan’s attacks.

At the same time, Satan continues to attack the church. He continues to accuse, though he cannot accuse legitimately now that Christ has died. His only recourse is to lie. It’s imperative, therefore, that believers constantly remind themselves of the gospel as to fight off Satan’s accusations. Though Satan continues to wage war, God will ultimately protect his people and bring them safely home.

The Dragon-Slayer

The story of the Bible, then, proclaims that Jesus came as the seed of the woman to crush the head of the serpent.[vii] All throughout Scripture, we see hints of the dragon’s opposition through individuals like Pharaoh, Goliath, King Herod, and the Jewish leaders. But as we see here in Revelation 12, it was really the great serpent pulling the strings. And while this dragon may be a fierce enemy, he is no match for the great dragon-slayer Jesus.

We read of the dragon’s ultimate demise in Revelation 20:2-10, “And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. . . . And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.”

Footnotes

[i] https://ryanleasure.com/reading-revelation/

[ii] https://ryanleasure.com/seals-trumpets-and-bowls-oh-my/

[iii] https://ryanleasure.com/who-are-the-144000-in-revelation/

[iv] https://ryanleasure.com/the-seven-churches-in-revelation/

[v] https://ryanleasure.com/what-did-the-cross-accomplish/

[vi] https://ryanleasure.com/jesus-brother-james-and-the-resurrection/

[vii] https://ryanleasure.com/serpents-dragons-and-the-bible/

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)

Cold Case Resurrection Set by J. Warner Wallace (books)  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ryan Leasure holds a Master of Arts from Furman University and a Masters of Divinity from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Currently, he’s a Doctor of Ministry candidate at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He also serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3VKGTtY

 

/by

Is it Wrong to Doubt? | with Travis Dickinson

Is it wrong to have doubts about your Christian faith? Many people assume that doubt is the opposite of faith and that wandering among the hard questions of faith will lead us further away from God. True believers, the assumption goes, never waver in their confidence in the fundamental truths of Christianity.

Professor and philosopher Travis Dickinson disagrees! Instead, he says, our doubts and hard questions about the Christian faith are actually an important way we can express our commitment and love to God. Doubt isn’t our destination, but as Christians, it’s in our job description to ask questions as we approach God with intellectual curiosity in order to love Him with all our heart, soul, and mind.

In this week’s podcast episode, Travis sits down with Frank to share insights from his new book, Wandering Toward God: Finding Faith Amid Doubts and Big Questions.

Some of the big questions they address include:

  • Do we have to be 100% certain that Christianity is true in order to be a Christian?

  • What’s the difference between “deconstructing” and “wandering with purpose”?

  • Why isn’t God more obvious?

  • What does it really mean to have faith?

To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into great discussions with like-minded Christians (including Frank) while providing financial support for our ministry.

Travis’ book: https://a.co/d/dU3sXHl

Travis’ website: https://www.travisdickinson.com/

SPECIAL OFFER FOR OUR LISTENERS: Use the code EXAMINED to get 30% off the ebook and hard copy (plus free shipping) at ivpress.com, only available from 12/2-12/16!

If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.

Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

 

 

Download Transcript

 

/by

Cómo obtuvimos nuestra Biblia: recepción canónica del Nuevo Testamento

Por Ryan Leasure

Este artículo es el quinto  de una serie de nueve partes sobre cómo conseguimos nuestra Biblia. En la primera parte se analizó la inspiración y la inerrancia. En la segunda parte se analizó el desarrollo del Antiguo Testamento. La tercera parte examinó el canon del Antiguo Testamento y los apócrifos. En la cuarta parte se examinaron los atributos canónicos de los libros del Nuevo Testamento. En este artículo se explica cómo la Iglesia primitiva recibió el canon del Nuevo Testamento.

Marción (85-160 d.C.)

Antes de entrar en la recepción corporativa del canon, es necesario decir unas breves palabras sobre Marción. Según el historiador de la Iglesia Henry Chadwick, Marción fue “el más radical y para la Iglesia el más formidable de los herejes”[i] ¿Cuál era la herejía de Marción? Promovía el gnosticismo, es decir, la creencia de que el dios que creó el mundo era malo y, por tanto, el AT era malo. Esta creencia llevó a Marción a rechazar todo el AT y la mayoría de las partes del NT que hablan positivamente del AT.

Por lo tanto, el canon de Marción incluía una versión mutilada de Lucas que dejaba fuera todas las referencias positivas al AT, así como cualquier indicio de que Jesús pudiera haber sido realmente un humano físico. El gnosticismo, después de todo, enseñaba que el mundo físico era malo. Jesús, entonces, sólo parecía ser humano -un punto de vista conocido como Docetismo.

La Iglesia rechazó universalmente a Marción. Ningún padre de la iglesia tiene nada remotamente positivo que decir sobre él. De hecho, después de que Marción hiciera una considerable donación a la iglesia de Roma, se la devolvieron tras conocer sus opiniones heréticas.

¿Cuándo recibió la Iglesia el canon?

El llamado canon de Marción sugiere que la Iglesia ya tenía algún tipo de canon funcional a mediados del siglo II. Lo que plantea una pregunta importante: ¿Cuándo recibió la Iglesia el canon del NT? La respuesta a esta pregunta depende en gran medida de cómo se defina el canon. Michael Kruger da tres definiciones:[ii]

Canon exclusivo – La Iglesia solidificó los límites canónicos en el siglo IV.

Canon funcional – Los textos canónicos fundamentales funcionaban con autoridad en el siglo II.

Canon ontológico – Los textos tenían autoridad desde que los apóstoles terminaron de escribirlos.

El resto de este post se centrará principalmente en el canon funcional y un poco en el canon exclusivo. Para más información sobre el canon ontológico, véase el primer artículo de esta serie sobre la inspiración de los textos bíblicos. En ese artículo, llamo la atención sobre el hecho de que los autores bíblicos eran conscientes de que estaban escribiendo una Escritura con autoridad.

La recepción del canon del Nuevo Testamento

En el espacio restante, voy a argumentar que la iglesia reconoció la mayor parte del NT como fidedignoen el siglo II. Posteriormente, la Iglesia afirmó los márgenes del canon en el siglo IV. Para apoyar esta afirmación, consideraré cuatro puntos clave.

  1. Declaraciones de los Padres de la Iglesia

Varias declaraciones de los padres de la iglesia sugieren que reconocían ciertos textos como autorizados. Ireneo (180 d.C.), por ejemplo, señala: “No es posible que los evangelios puedan ser ni más ni menos que el número que son. Porque como hay cuatro zonas del mundo en que vivimos y cuatro vientos principales… 2026 también los querubines tenían cuatro caras”[iii]. Si bien podemos rascarnos la cabeza ante la lógica de Ireneo, una cosa es segura: él creía que cuatro y sólo cuatro Evangelios tenían autoridad.

Justino Mártir (150 d.C.) también reconoció su autoridad cuando mencionó que la iglesia leía estos textos en el culto comunitario junto al AT. Señala: “Y en el día llamado domingo, todos los que viven en las ciudades o en el campo se reúnen en un lugar, y se leen las memorias de los apóstoles o los escritos de los profetas, siempre que el tiempo lo permita”[iv]. Nadie cuestiona que la iglesia primitiva reconociera la autoridad del AT. El hecho de que leyeran textos del NT junto con el AT sugiere que creían que ambos eran Escrituras.

Ignacio (110 d.C.) reconoce la autoridad de los apóstoles frente a la suya cuando dice: “No os mando como Pedro y Pablo. Ellos fueron apóstoles, yo estoy condenado”[v]. Ignacio fue un influyente líder eclesiástico en el siglo II. Pero incluso él reconoció que los escritos de Pedro y Pablo estaban en un nivel totalmente distinto al suyo.

Al examinar detenidamente los primeros padres de la iglesia, encontrarás varias citas que hacen referencia a la autoridad de los textos del NT.

  1. Apelación a los textos como si fueran la Escritura

Los primeros padres de la Iglesia no sólo afirman que los textos del Nuevo Testamento eran fidedignos, sino que también apelan a ellos como Escrituras de inspiración divina. La Epístola de Bernabé (130 d.C.), por ejemplo, utiliza la fórmula “está escrito” cuando cita el Evangelio de Mateo. Es bien sabido que los autores del NT emplean con frecuencia esta fórmula cuando citan un texto del AT. La Epístola de Bernabé dice: “Como está escrito: Muchos son los llamados, pero pocos los escogidos”[vi].

Policarpo (110 d.C.) hace una referencia aún más explícita. Señala: “Como está escrito en estas Escrituras: “Airaos, pero no pequéis; no se ponga el sol sobre vuestro enojo”[vii]. Curiosamente, Policarpo cita dos textos y se refiere a ambos como “Escritura”. El primer texto era el Salmo 4:5, y el segundo era Efesios 4:26.

De hecho, entre mediados y finales del siglo II, unos cuantos padres de la Iglesia conocidos apelan a un conjunto básico de libros canónicos, indicando que creían que esos libros eran de hecho Escritura. Ireneo apela a los siguientes libros como Escritura:

Mateo, Marcos, Lucas, Juan, Hechos, Romanos, 1 Corintios, 2 Corintios, Gálatas, Efesios, Filipenses, Colosenses, 1 Tesalonicenses, 2 Tesalonicenses, 1 Timoteo, 2 Timoteo, Tito, Hebreos, Santiago, 1 Pedro, 1 Juan, 2 Juan y Apocalipsis.[viii]

Sólo faltan Filemón, 2 Pedro, 3 Juan y Judas.

Igualmente, Clemente de Alejandría apela a los siguientes libros como Escritura:

Mateo, Marcos, Lucas, Juan, Hechos, Romanos, 1 Corintios, 2 Corintios, Gálatas, Efesios, Filipenses, Colosenses, 1 Tesalonicenses, 2 Tesalonicenses, 1 Timoteo, 2 Timoteo, Tito, Filemón, Hebreos, 1 Pedro, 1 Juan, 2 Juan, Judas y Apocalipsis.[ix]

Sólo faltan Santiago, 2 Pedro y 3 Juan.

Alrededor del año 250 d.C., Orígenes nos da una lista canónica completa en su homilía sobre Josué. Fíjate bien en todos los libros a los que hace referencia:

Pero cuando viene nuestro Señor Jesucristo, cuya llegada designó aquel anterior hijo de Nun, envía a los sacerdotes, sus apóstoles, portando “trompetas martilladas”, la magnífica y celestial instrucción de la proclamación. Mateo hizo sonar primero la trompeta sacerdotal en su Evangelio; Marcos también; Lucas y Juan tocaron cada uno sus propias trompetas sacerdotales. Incluso Pedro grita con trompetas en dos de sus epístolas; también Santiago y Judas. Además, Juan también toca la trompeta a través de sus epístolas 2026, y Lucas, al describir los Hechos de los Apóstoles. Y ahora viene el último, el que dijo: “Creo que Dios nos muestra a los apóstoles en último lugar”, y en catorce de sus epístolas, tronando con trompetas, derriba los muros de Jericó y todos los artificios de la idolatría y los dogmas de los filósofos, hasta los cimientos[x].

Notarás que Orígenes atribuye a Pablo catorce cartas en lugar de trece. La explicación más probable de este error es la creencia común de que Pablo escribió el libro de Hebreos.

  1. Evidencia de los manuscritos

Uno de los mejores indicios de que los libros del NT funcionaban con autoridad en los siglos II y III es la cantidad de manuscritos existentes que tenemos en nuestro poder. En este momento, tenemos más de sesenta manuscritos del NT de los siglos II y III. El Evangelio de Juan es el que más tiene, con dieciocho. Mateo es el segundo con doce. En comparación, tenemos diecisiete manuscritos de los siglos II y III de todos los textos apócrifos combinados. En otras palabras, tenemos más manuscritos de Juan que de todos los libros apócrifos juntos. El texto apócrifo con más manuscritos es el Evangelio de Tomás, que tiene tres.

La cantidad de manuscritos existentes indica qué libros utilizaba la iglesia con más frecuencia. Juan y Mateo fueron aparentemente los dos libros más populares en la iglesia primitiva, según el número de manuscritos existentes que poseemos. El hecho de que casi no  tengamos manuscritos apócrifos indica que la Iglesia primitiva no los utilizaba mucho.

También hay que destacar el hecho de que todos los manuscritos del Nuevo Testamento de los siglos II y III están en formato de códice (precursor de los libros modernos). Ninguno está en un pergamino. Dicho esto, el pergamino era la forma de libro más popular de los siglos II y III. Con el tiempo, a medida que el cristianismo crecía, el códice se convirtió en la forma de libro dominante en el mundo antiguo.

Aunque ninguno de los textos del Nuevo Testamento está en un pergamino, los textos apócrifos sí lo están. Además, como el códice permitió a la Iglesia colocar cómodamente varios libros en un solo códice, tenemos varios códices con múltiples Evangelios y cartas de Pablo. El P46, por ejemplo, es una colección de nueve cartas de Pablo. El P75 contiene Lucas y Juan. P45 es un códice con cuatro Evangelios. No tenemos ningún códice que combine los evangelios canónicos y los apócrifos. En otras palabras, ningún manuscrito tiene Mateo, Marcos, Lucas, Juan y Tomás. Los manuscritos nos dicen todo lo que necesitamos saber sobre los libros que la iglesia primitiva consideraba autorizados.

  1. Listas canónicas

En 1740, Lodovico Antonio Muratori publicó una lista en latín de los libros del NT conocida como el Fragmento Muratoriano. Este fragmento contiene una lista canónica temprana que la mayoría remonta a la iglesia del siglo II en Roma. El canon incluye los siguientes libros:

Mateo, Marcos, Lucas, Juan, Hechos, Romanos, 1 Corintios, 2 Corintios, Gálatas, Efesios, Filipenses, Colosenses, 1 Tesalonicenses, 2 Tesalonicenses, 1 Timoteo, 2 Timoteo, Tito, Filemón, 1 Juan, 2 Juan, Judas y Apocalipsis.

Sólo faltan Hebreos, Santiago, 1 Pedro, 2 Pedro y 3 Juan. Esta lista, junto con las listas de los primeros padres de la iglesia, indica que la iglesia del siglo II reconoció un grupo central de libros canónicos a mediados o finales del siglo II. Sólo faltan algunos libros marginales. Con el paso del tiempo, la iglesia acabó afirmando el canon de veintisiete libros que tenemos hoy.

Alrededor del año 320, el historiador de la Iglesia Eusebio dio una lista canónica que subdividió en cuatro categorías:[xi]

Libros reconocidos: Eusebio señala que estos libros eran universalmente aceptados.

Mateo, Marcos, Lucas, Juan, Hechos, Romanos, 1 Corintios, 2 Corintios, Gálatas, Efesios, Filipenses, Colosenses, 1 Tesalonicenses, 2 Tesalonicenses, 1 Timoteo, 2 Timoteo, Tito, Filemón, Hebreos, 1 Pedro, 1 Juan y Apocalipsis.

Libros controvertidos: Eusebio comentó que estos libros eran “discutidos pero conocidos por la mayoría”.

Santiago, 2 Pedro, 2 Juan, 3 Juan y Judas

Libros espurios: Eusebio señala que se trata de libros que la iglesia primitiva consideró útiles, pero que no eran Escrituras.

Hechos de Pablo, Pastor de Hermes, Apocalipsis de Pedro, Epístola de Bernabé, Didajé y Evangelio de los Hebreos

Libros heréticos: Eusebio dice que estos libros han sido universalmente rechazados.

Evangelio de Pedro, Evangelio de Tomás, Hechos de Andrés, Hechos de Juan y Evangelio de MatíasObsérvese que entre los libros reconocidos y los controvertidos que eran “conocidos por la mayoría”, está presente todo el canon del Nuevo Testamento. También vale la pena señalar que Eusebio creía que los libros heréticos eran totalmente repulsivos. Considere sus palabras:

Nos hemos sentido obligados a dar este catálogo para que podamos conocer tanto estas obras como las que son citadas por los herejes bajo el nombre de los apóstoles, incluyendo, por ejemplo, libros como los Evangelios de Pedro, de Tomás, de Matías, o de cualquier otro además de ellos, y los Hechos de Andrés y Juan y de los otros apóstoles, que nadie perteneciente a la sucesión de escritores eclesiásticos ha considerado digno de ser mencionado en sus escritos. Y además, el carácter del estilo está en desacuerdo con el uso apostólico, y tanto los pensamientos como el propósito de las cosas que se relatan en ellos están tan completamente fuera de acuerdo con la verdadera ortodoxia que claramente se muestran como ficciones de los herejes. Por lo tanto, no deben ser colocados ni siquiera entre los escritos rechazados, sino que todos ellos deben ser desechados como absurdos e impíos.

En otras palabras, no fue que estos libros “casi”  entraron en el canon. El canon no se redujo a una votación arbitraria. La iglesia rechazó estos libros desde muy temprano debido a su naturaleza diabólica.

Siguiendo a Eusebio, Atanasio dio una lista canónica completa con los veintisiete libros en el año 367. En los años 393 y 397, los concilios de Hipona y Cartago también afirmaron los veintisiete libros en el canon.

Reconocido No determinado

Para terminar, quiero aclarar un punto importante. La iglesia no concedió autoridad a ningún texto del NT. Se limitó a reconocer los libros que ya tenían autoridad en la iglesia. Como dice J. I. Packer, “La Iglesia no nos dio el canon del Nuevo Testamento como Sir Isaac Newton no nos dio la fuerza de la gravedad. Dios nos dio la gravedad… Newton no creó la gravedad, sino que la reconoció”.

En el próximo post, pasaremos a la preservación del texto del NT. En concreto, examinaremos la tradición de los manuscritos y la crítica textual.

Notas de pie de página:

[i] Henry Chadwick, The Early Church, 39.

[ii] Michael Kruger, The Question of Canon, 29-46.

[iii] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.11.8.

[iv] Justin Martyr, First Apology, 67.3.

[v] Ignatius, Romans. 4:4.

[vi] Epistle of Barnabas 4.14.

[vii] Polycarp, Philippians, 12.1.

[viii] Michael Kruger, Canon Revisited, 228.

[ix] Michael Kruger, The Question of Canon, 168.

[x] Origen, Homily on Joshua 7.1.

[xi] Eusebius, Church History, 3.25.1-7.

Recursos recomendados en Español:

Robándole a Dios (tapa blanda), (Guía de estudio para el profesor) y (Guía de estudio del estudiante) por el Dr. Frank Turek

Por qué no tengo suficiente fe para ser un ateo (serie de DVD completa), (Manual de trabajo del profesor) y (Manual del estudiante) del Dr. Frank Turek

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ryan Leasure tiene un Máster en Artes por la Universidad de Furman y un Máster en Divinidad por el Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Actualmente, es candidato a Doctor en Ministerio en el Seminario Teológico Bautista del Sur. También sirve como pastor en Grace Bible Church en Moore, SC.

Fuente Original del blog: https://bit.ly/3Uo2SWG

Traducido por Jennifer Chavez 

Editado por Mónica Pirateque

 

/by

Is Every Bible “New Age”… Except the King James?

By Melissa Dougherty

Some people see the King James Bible as far superior to other translations. They believe other translations are heretical, full of redactions with verses purposely and vindictively taken out. Any attempt to “modernize” the language is seen as compromising the very Word of God. Some people in this group see the 1611 English King James Version as even far superior to the Greek copies themselves! Some also believe that the Bible that might be on your shelf is actually… New Age.

I know this because I used to be a King James Onlyist. A KJO.

I want to clarify two things. First, I think the King James is a fine version, and I don’t believe that everyone who prefers the King James is a KJO. Second, I understand that there’s a spectrum of beliefs within the KJO community. I’m going to share what I would consider the most common claims people make on why they believe the King James is superior. I still read this version sometimes. If you like it, that’s great. But some elevate it to an idolatrous level. I want people to know this information, especially the ex-new agers. Many are afraid to read a modern version because they’ve been told the KJV is the only true version and have scared them by saying these other versions are New Age when they’re simply not.

In my time as a KJO, I noticed there are spectrums to this position from the extreme where even putting the King James on the floor is a horrendous sin to the more passive. But, in general, this group basically believes that the true word of God is the King James Version of the Bible, and all others are corrupt and are infiltrated by the New Age. Some are so extreme that they believe the English King James corrects the Greek!

In other words, the King James Bible is the Word of God, not the Greek and Hebrew that it was copied from. This is one reason you see extra verses in the King James and don’t see it in your Bibles, but more about that later.

I personally took more of a middle road in the spectrum and used to believe that the King James Bible was the most reliable and complete, and the rest of these other versions were either missing verses or were compromised somehow. I looked down on people who used different versions, which only furthered my misconceptions about how we got the Bible and how it was translated. When I came out of the New Age, one of the first things I did was research how we got the Bible, and I was amazed by what I learned. The fancy word for this is called “Textual Criticism.”

Here are three main aspects to consider and why other reputable versions are not New Age:

1.) Conspiracy to Deceive.

One of the arguments from the KJO camp is that there’s a New Age conspiracy to deceive people into preparing the way for the antichrist. This is done by creating other Bible translations that they claim take essential doctrines out of the Bible to deceive millions. They say the deity of Christ is taken out and the Gospel itself. This is demonstrably false. First of all, a conspiracy is a pretty terrible one if virtually everyone knows about it. Second, it’s ironically a conspiratorial mindset someone has to be in even to claim there’s a New Age conspiracy. In other words, many KJOs believe this out of a fear-based mindset rather than a factual one. The misinformation that is out there on this is staggering and only hurts the people that promote this as they seem to take a more “cultish” position on this than an academic one. One of the biggest issues they bring up is that the King James is “complete” because it has verses other Bibles don’t. This brings me to my second point.

2.) Supposed missing verses.

This is one of the most significant claims from this camp. They pride themselves in owning a “complete ” version, while we have these second-class versions that are demonic and belong in the garbage. This was probably the #1 reason I ascribed to the King James as superior. For those that might not know, if you compare the King James and New King James Versions with the newer translations (e.g., the New International Version, English Standard Version, Christian Standard Bible, New Living Translation, etc.), you will see that several verses seem to be missing from the newer translations. We usually see these passages or texts in the footnotes in other versions. Along with these supposed missing verses are many words and phrases that are “missing” from newer translations. Why are these omitted? Are the newer translations taking verses out of the Bible, in a grand New Age conspiracy, as some claim? No. Not at all. When I researched this a long time ago, this part of my research was startling, but in a good way.

I learned that there are no Bible verses. What I mean by that is that the King James translators added the chapters and verses to help the reader navigate the text, and this is not a bad thing. This is helpful. But it’s important to know that the original authors never wrote like this. It was intended to be read as a letter or book. And second, the real game changer is that these newer translations are striving to present what the biblical writers originally wrote correctly, which means leaving out anything that was not part of the original text. In other words, any content that’s supposedly “missing” in newer translations? Is believed by most scholars not to have been in the Bible to begin with.

It’s important to mention that the King James translators in 1611 used the manuscripts they had available to them at the time, and that’s when the King James Version was written. Since then, older manuscripts have been found that don’t have these verses. Over 1,500 years, some words, phrases, and even sentences were added to the Bible, intentionally or accidentally. So “missing verses” are simply not found in some of the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. Also, there’s a fancy word called “expansion of piety.” This is a desire to fiercely protect the sacredness of Jesus, which led people to expand the titles of Jesus, possibly even without meaning. It’s ironic because the accusation is that the modern translations removed them when the actual situation was that they were added. This does NOT downgrade the King James Version. Again, I think it’s a fine translation to use.

3.) This brings me to my last point. Why are there so many translations, then? This is easier to answer than you think! Again to someone who holds a King James only position, it’s because there’s a New Age conspiracy, and all the older manuscripts have been infiltrated and compromised. For them, this only holds more reason why the King James is the most authentic version. The Bible is written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. So all these partial and complete manuscripts we find scattered everywhere are copies, but the good news is that they match. This can be a bit divisive when we talk about it being translated into English because there are so many different ways to translate a word sometimes. For this reason, it’s beneficial to compare translations. I think some versions are to be avoided, such as versions with only one translator or loose paraphrases. An example of this is the Passion Translation or the Message. Because Greek and Hebrew aren’t English, you will have different words translated differently in different versions. The King James Version is a testament to how language can change over time. Following this logic, if the King James truly is the very Word of God, then in another few hundred years, people would practically have to learn another language to read it. Language evolves and changes over time, and this includes English. Nobody speaks Old English today.

For these reasons, there are trustworthy modern translations that are not New Age. They are excellent to read and study and compare to one another.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)       

How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Melissa Dougherty is a Christian Apologist best known for her YouTube channel as an ex-new ager. She has two associate’s degrees, one in Early Childhood Multicultural Education, and the other in Liberal Arts. She is currently pursuing her bachelor’s degree in Religious Studies at Southern Evangelical Seminary.​

 

/by

How To Explain the Trinity to Muslims

,

By Sherene Khouri

Islam and Christianity claim to be monotheistic religions. They both believe in one supreme God; however, their concept of the nature of the divine being is different. The Islamic understanding affirms in a strong sense the absolute oneness of God through the doctrine of tawhid (Surah 4:171). Allah is one, and he has no partner, rival, or equal. The Christian understanding, on the other hand, upholds the trinitarian nature of God. “God is one (Deut 6:4), while including in that unity of the Father, who sent his Son; the Son, who is sent: and the Spirit, who is sent by them both.”[i] God is an eternal co-inhering community of equals. While the Qur’an portrays the Trinity in terms of a holy family—Holy God, Holy Mother, and Holy Son (Surah 6:101; 5:116), there is no historical evidence that orthodox Christianity ever described the Trinity in this way. This article discusses the biblical, historical, theological, and philosophical understandings of the Trinity to help Christians explain and discuss the doctrine of the Trinity with their Muslim friends.

The Biblical Explanation

The word “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible because this doctrine was formulated in the fourth century during the ecumenical council of Nicene. The later formulation, however, does not mean that this doctrine is fabricated or unbiblical. On the contrary, God being trinitarian in nature is a biblical concept that is deeply rooted in Scripture. For example, the concept of God being a father is not a foreign concept to Jews. It was used in the Old Testament (Exodus 15:2 NIV), and Jesus’s teachings emphasized the personal aspect of the fatherhood of God by using the term “abba” to portray his intimate relationship with God. “[W]hen [Jewish] men addressed God as Father,” as Arthur Wainwright explains, “they would use the more formal ‘abuna’ (our father), but one’s own father would be addressed by using the absolute state of the noun, which is ‘abba’.[ii] Jesus used this term to introduce the Father to the Jews and to explain the Father’s relationship to himself.

God, the Father is distinguished from Jesus (God the Son) in the New Testament. This distinction is clear in Jesus’ prayers before the crucifixion. Jesus prayed to the Father and asked him to “glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you … this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3). Jesus was not praying to himself, but to another person (the Father), distinguishing himself from the Father. In the same way, the Apostle Paul makes a similar distinction between the Father and the Son, explaining that “there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (Eph 4:6). God the Father is not the mediator, but Jesus is the mediator between God and men.

In addition to Jesus being distinguished from the Father, the Holy Spirit is introduced to the divine Godhead in a way that distinguishes him from the Father and the Son. The Spirit is often described in a personal way, which suggests that he is a person, and can speak to men (1 Tim 4:1; Heb 3:7). Jesus tells his disciples about the παράκλητος (paráklētos), who is the third person of the Trinity, whom God will send to dwell with believers after the ascension of Christ. He states, “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me” (John 15:26). Jesus, in this verse, distinguishes between the Father, Himself, and the Holy Spirit.

In the Bible, the Holy Spirit is not portrayed as a mere state or power because He acts in his distinct personhood. He grieves (Ephesian 4:30), speaks (Mark 13:11-12), teaches (John 14:26), leads (Rom 8:14), and cries (Gal 4:6). Additionally, the Johannine writings call the Spirit παράκλητος (paraklētos), which means the “one who helps, advocates, or comforts someone on behalf of another.”[iii] A “something/someone” who speaks, leads, teaches, and advocates cannot be a mere state or power. On the contrary, he is the One who gives power; therefore, he is a person.

God is revealed in the Bible as one divine being, yet there are distinctions (persons). He was not revealed as a single divine being, as traditionally had been conceived. God is one being in one sense and three persons in a different sense. He is one God who created the universe in one sense and three persons who share the same essence in a different sense.[iv] There are three persons denominated: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who deserve to be called God, and yet there is but one God. The scene of the baptism depicts a clear picture of God as Trinity. When Jesus was in the water, “the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased’” (Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32). This scene shows that the Christian God is one divine being in three persons.

The prologue of the Gospel of John has the strongest argument for the Trinity. John says in the first verse of the book: “The Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Here is an indication of the divinity of the Word. There is a clue that the Son is distinct from the Father, yet there is fellowship between them. As Wayne Grudem suggests, “the preposition pros (“with”) does not connote merely physical proximity to the Father but an intimacy of fellowship as well.”[v]

Jesus is described as the word and the spirit of God in the Qur’an (Surah 4:171) as well. Most Muslims believe that the word of God is eternal; however, they do not believe that Jesus is eternal with God.

A Historical Explanation

Believing in the trinitarian God does not mean believing in three separate gods but believing in one divine being who is revealed in three persons. Since the doctrine of tawḥid implements numerical meaning, it is hard for Muslims to understand the word Trinity in a non-numerical sense—a metaphysical sense. This is the reason that pushed the Christian Arab apologists to use the word اقنوم  (pl. اقانيم) (Uqnoum, pl. Aqanim) to convey the idea of the Greek word ὑπόστασις (hypostasis). The word Aqanim is never used in the Arabic language, except in the doctrine of the Trinity to covey the idea of the divine persons and illuminate the similarities with the concept of the human person. According to Imad Shehadeh, who is a leading contemporary scholar on the subject of the Trinity in Jordan, “the only benefit from using this word [Uqnoum] in Arabic language is to distance the word ‘person’ from God and substitute it with a foreign and an unknown word that conveys its meaning.”[vi] In other words, dedicating a special terminology to the divine Person indicates a special meaning and illuminates the confusion with the human/physical meaning of the word person. In my opinion, this term should be used in conversation with Muslims to avoid the tritheism confusion that might arise from the human concept of a human being as individual consciousness. The divine Aqanim (persons) are three in a way that does not apply to human persons and cannot be read off from human experience apart from revelation.

A Philosophical Explanation

Muslims believe that Allah is an eternal divine being and the creator of the world. In other words, there was no time before Allah, there was nothing that existed before him, and there was no time in history when Allah did not exist. However, this explanation does not make Allah the greatest conceived being because it does not show the relational nature of Allah before creating the universe. Allah has to be relational in nature because he listens, communicates, and receives worship. This is to say that Allah has a relationship with his creation, he did not create the world and left it to face its own destiny. However, if Allah is truly unipersonal and relational with his creation, what about his relationality before the creation? Who was Allah hearing, seeing, and watching before the creation of the cosmos? To whom was he showing kindness and love? All these divine attributes/names require either otherness in the inner being of Allah or another person/creation external to him. Before creation, there could not have been co-communion, mutual recognition, or altruism in Allah because there is no external differentiation to him or internal diversity in him. This limitation makes Allah dependent on his creation. He needs it in order to be the Hearer (as-Sami’), the Seer (al-Baṣir), the Kind (al-Laṭif), the Watcher (ar-Raqib), and the Loving (al-Wadud.) These attributes were disabled before creation. They were not actualized until Allah created the cosmos.

In Christianity, this problem does not exist because of the doctrine of the Trinity. God lives eternally in an intra-relationship (not alone) within himself, and in an inter-relationship with humanity after creation. The three Aqanim are united by their common divinity or whole generic essence. “The persons are also unified by their joint redemptive purpose and work,” says Cornelius Plantinga, “Their knowledge and love are directed, not only to their creatures but also primordially and archetypally to each other. The Father loves the Son, and the Son loves the Father. . .  The Trinity is thus a zestful community or divine light, love, joy, mutuality, and verve.”[vii] The divine richness is understood in terms of relationality, with a communion of unity among the three Aqanim. The terms Father and Son are relational terms. One cannot be a parent without having a child and vice versa. Hence, by referring to God as Father, Christians conceive God as being eternally in relation to Himself; this relationship of fatherhood is, in the eternal sense, with the Son.[viii] God is not three separate persons/beings, such as in human person/individual. Instead, He is a unity in diversity.

The belief that God is one divine being and three Aqanim is not self-contradictory because the supposition that “God is either one or three” is logically fallacious. This belief represents the false dichotomy or, what is called, a false dilemma or the black/white fallacy. This fallacy occurs when only two choices are presented yet more exist.[ix] Suggesting that God is either one or three, ignores the option that Christianity presents. The Trinity is a divine, transcendent community of three divine Aqanim: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Theologians tend to be very careful about how to use analogies to explain the Trinity because many of the analogies that were historically used conveyed a form of modalism or tritheism. The following analogy is not meant to be literal, but it is intended to answer the question: “how can God be one and three without any contradiction?” Every man/woman is made as one human being and one person. Beethoven, for instance, is a human being because he belongs to the human race, and he is a unique person because of his musical skills, talents, DNA, personality… etc. His personhood is what makes him unique from Mozart or other musicians. He is a human being in one sense and a unique musician/person in another sense. In other words, he is both without a contradiction. In like manner, Christians believe that the Trinity is not a self-contradictory argument because while God is a divine being, He is also three Aqanim. He is a divine being in one sense because He belongs to the divine realm (not to the human race), and he is three Aqanim—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—in a different sense because He belongs to his own realm Sui generis, where nothing is like him. It would be considered a contradiction if God is one divine being and three persons in the same sense.

Bibliography

Athanasius. Ad Antiochenos 6. Accessed April 30, 2020, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2818.htm.

Erickson, Millard. Introducing Christian Doctrine. 3rd ed. MI: Baker Academic, 2015.

Holland, Richard, jr. and Benjamin K. Forrest. Good Arguments: Making Your Case in Writing and Public Speaking. Baker Academic, 2017.

McCall, Thomas H. “Relational Trinity: Creedal Perspective.” In Two views on the Doctrine of the Trinity. Edited by Sexton, Jason S. MI: Zondervan, 2014.

Plantinga, Cornelius, jr. “Social Trinity and Tritheism.” In Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement: Philosophical and Theological Essays. Edited by Ronald J. Feenstra and Cornelius Plantinga Jr. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989.

Shehadeh, Imad. Al-Ab wa al-Ibn wa al-Roh al-Qudus Ilah wahid … Amin: Dharoret al-Ta’adudiyah fi al-Wahidaniyah al-Ilahiyah [The father and the Son and the Holy Spirit On God …Amin: the Necessity of the multiplicity in the divine oneness]. Al-Matin, Lebanon: Dar al-Manhal, 2009.

Wainwright, Arthur. W. The Trinity in the New Testament. London, UK: S. P. C. K., 1975

Footnotes

[i] “Trinity,” s.v. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, (Baker Academics, 2017).

[ii] Arthur W. Wainwright, The Trinity in the New Testament (London, UK: S. P. C. K., 1975), 45.

[iii] “παράκλητος (paraklētos),” s.v. Lexham Theological Wordbook, (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press), 2014.

[iv] Athanasius. Ad Antiochenos 6, accessed April 30, 020,

[v] Millard Erickson, Introducing Christian Doctrine, 3rd ed., (MI: Baker Academic, 2015), 112.

[vi] Imad Shehadeh, al-Ab wa al-Ibn wa al-Roh al-Qudus Ilah wahid … Amin: Dharoret al-Ta’adudiyah fi al-Wahidaniyah al-Ilahiyah [The father and the Son and the Holy Spirit On God …Amin: the Necessity of the multiplicity in the divine oneness], (al-Matin, Lebanon: Dar al-Manhal, 2009), 31. The original Arabic renders as: “الفائدة الوحيدة في استخدام هذه الكلمة في اللغة العربية هي ابعاد كلمة ’الشخص’ عن الله واستبدالها بكلمة اجنبية غير معروفة في معناها.”

[vii] Cornelius Plantinga jr. “Social Trinity and Tritheism,” in Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement: Philosophical and Theological Essays, ed. Ronald J. Feenstra and Cornelius Plantinga Jr. (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), 31.

[viii] Thomas H. McCall, “Relational Trinity: Creedal Perspective,” in Two views on the Doctrine of the Trinity, Sexton, Jason S. ed., (MI: Zondervan, 2014), 133.

[ix] Richard Holland Jr, and Benjamin K. Forrest. Good Arguments: Making Your Case in Writing and Public Speaking (Baker Academic, 2017), 39.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Answering Islam by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD Set, Mp4 and Mp3)

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sherene Khouri was born into a religiously diverse family in Damascus, Syria. She became a believer when she was 11 years old. Sherene and her husband were missionaries in Saudi Arabia. Their house was open for meetings, and they were involved with the locals until the government knew about their ministry and gave them three days’ notice to leave the country. In 2006, they went back to Syria and started serving the Lord with RZIM International ministry. They traveled around the Middle Eastern region—Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and United Arab Emirates. Sherene was also involved in her local church among the youth, young adults, and women’s ministry. In 2013, the civil war broke out in Syria. Sherene and her husband’s car was vandalized 3 times and they had to immigrate to the United States of America. In 2019, Sherene became an American citizen.

Sherene is an assistant professor at Liberty University. She teaches Arabic, Religion, and Research classes. She holds a Ph.D. in Theology and Apologetics, an M.A. in Christian Apologetics from Liberty University, and a B.S. in Biblical Studies from Moody Bible Institute. She is also working on a Master of Theology in Global Studies at Liberty University and an M.A in Arabic and Linguistics from PennWest University.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3udDybq​

 

/by

The lies that are killing us: A conversation about suicide | with Jon Noyes

After four years of speaking to rooms overflowing with young people at Reality conferences across the country, Jon Noyes from Stand to Reason has some powerful insights to share on the topic of suicide. Incredibly, over half of all suicides occur among people who have no diagnosed mental health issues. This indicates a couple of things:

  1. There are many people who need to be evaluated by a mental health specialist but are not seeking help.
  2. A tremendous number of suicides are not the result of mental health.

So why is it happening? In this revealing discussion, Jon Noyes speaks with Frank about the most common reason people (churched and unchurched) lose hope today and what we can do about it.

To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST for either of these interviews, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into great discussions with like-minded Christians while providing financial support for our ministry.

If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.

Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

 

/by