Lenten readings

This year for wednesday night services, we are having a series of "dramatic readings" that read like a testimony from each person from scripture that Jesus touched in a special way. Ash Wednesday featured Pastor Gary doing "the Leper", which reads as though he's there near the cross as Jesus is hanging there. It was outstanding, since Pastor Gary seems to have had considerable training in oration.

I've been asked to do one of these readings. I've been tasked with doing Lazarus on Maundy Thursday. Gary gave me the text from the reading booklet, and he also gave me one of the ones that he already completed a rewrite for. Each "reading" is not too bad on it's own, but He said that he felt they needed some work. He's letting me rewrite it.

It's pretty cool, actually. It means that I'm going to be reading during the time when the sermon is normally given. What's nice is, each reading is very much like a sermon and contains law and gospel. I'm about to record what I've written to an MP3 to send to the Pastor for his approval.

I'm excited.

Read more »

New graphics for a new perspective

I just finished doing a custom graphic package for "High Places". I wanted my own look that I haven't seen on a website before, one that glows and seems to be lit from behind.

The new perspective comes just as I find been accepted into a lutheran blog webring, "Blogging Lutherns". It's interesting seeing some people like myself perhaps just as interested in a new reformation as I am.

Read more »

More on "the Jesus tomb"

On KFUO this week, Tod Wilken talked to Dr. Paul Maier (Western Michigan University) about the so called "Jesus tomb" revelation in a documentary by Simcha Jacobovici and James Cameron (the Terminator). I'm amazed at what Cameron had to say about this. He says he's really not trying to derail Christianity, but rather provide for the first time real, tangible evidence that Jesus really existed.

What's he thinking? Very few people think that Jesus was a mere fairytale. Almost every modern scholar will tell you that Jesus was at least a real historical person. It's the resurrection that bothers people. If Jesus was not raised from the dead, then there is no Christianity.

Listen to Dr. Maier talk about these revelations.

Listen to Dr. Ben Witherington of Asbury Theological Seminary talk about "the Tomb".

Read more »

Odds are 1 in 600...

If you were being prosecuted in a court of law for murder, would you want to be convicted on a statistical probability? Lets say, for example that the prosecution says, "The murderer was in the same city as the victim, was wearing bluejeans, a black dresscoat, and had white hair. The defendant was was in the same city as the victim, was wearing bluejeans, a black dresscoat, and had white hair. The odds are only 1 in 600 that anyone that night would fit that description, so the defendant must be the murderer".

First of all, the prosecutor would be laughed out of the courtroom. Second of all, better evidence is needed to convict someone of murder. Statistical probabilities are not going to go very far in a court of law.

Enter James Cameron. (right) He and filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici have put together a documentary on a tomb that was discovered 26 years ago in Jerusalem. In the tomb was found some caskets, or ossuaries, that have inscribed on them the names of Jesus son of Joseph, Mary, and another Mary called "Mariamene", supposedly Mary Magdalene. The filmakers had some experts in statistics run the chances that these names would be found together and the results were 1 in 600. James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici say that this is conclusive and proves that Jesus died and was buried rather than raised from the dead.

Now, first of all, I want to address the name "Mariamene a mara". They say that this is Mary Magdalene. Nice try guys. First of all, "Magdalene" is not Her last name, but rather refers to where she is from. Mary of Magdala (Magdala near Tiberias, on the west shore of Galilee), like Jesus of Nazareth, or Joseph of Aremathia. The Filmmakers haven't even addressed what Mariamene a mara even means. Do a search of Google, look at any Greek dictionary... it can't be found.

Second of all, these names were extremely popular hebrew names. Joseph of course is famous in the old testiment as Joseph son of Jacob, who went down into Egypt and was made second by Pharoah. Mary, is famous from the name Mariam, sister of Moses. Jesus, or Yeshua, is famous because of Joshua, who led the Israelites into the promised land. Add to that the fact that after the time of Jesus, these names would have become even more popular because of their connection with the gospel accounts, and you could have lots of Josephs, Jesuses and Marys running around being related to each other, not to mention buried in a tomb together.

Third, the tomb was found inside Jerusalem's walls. Jesus was recorded as being born in Bethlahem, and lived in Nazareth. Mary, his mother, lived in that area as well. Same story with Joseph. Why would they be buried in Jerusalem rather than on their own family ground? And what about Mary of Magdela? Why would she be buried there as well? Why would Jesus' ossuary say "Jesus son of Joseph" while Mary Magdelene's says "Mary of Magdela"? Why wouldn't Jesus' say "Jesus of Nazareth"?

Fourth of all, the purpose of an ossuary was to make it easy to move the remains of the deceased. It was always Jewish custom to move the remains of relatives should they need to be moved, and it wasn't necessary that the remains be kept together because the hebrew people kept copious records of geneologies. So it's not entirely clear that any of the ossuaries that were found in the tomb were even related to each other.

Silly people. A 1 in 600 chance isn't good enough. It wouldn't stand up in a court of law, and it shouldn't stand up in the court of public opinion either.

Read more »

Part 6, Prosperity gospel

Syncreti-city

Reverend Hugh Beck, Lutheran campus pastor at Texas A. & M. University, writes in his book, What Should I Believe:

Some people understand the Bible to be basically a code book which, if properly deciphered, gives one access to the very mind of God. Some people understand theBible to be basically a sort of catechism with answers for any and every question that may come to our attention. Some people understand the Bible to be basically a presentation of certain beliefs and doctrines that are to be dug out of various parts of the Bible without regard to the setting in which they appear, are to be pieced together into a whole, and then must be believed in just that way.22

A classic case of this kind of eisegesis can be found in Kenneth Copeland’s the Laws of Prosperity. After conflating the two covenants into one, he lays down his system for prosperity. He writes, “In Deuteronomy 28, we see the blessings that come from obeying the Word of God. For instances, verses 11-12 state, “And the Lord shall make thee plenteous in goods, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy ground, in the land which the Lord swore unto thy fathers to give thee. The Lord shall open unto thee his good treasure.” You see, God blessed Abraham and his descendants with prosperity because He swore it in the covenant. Praise God!23” We can see clearly here that Brother Copeland has confused the Abrahamic covenant with the Mosaic Covenant, which St. Paul clearly distinguished in his letters as separate and even conflicted covenants!

Brother Copeland continues, “God did not curse Adam; He built a garden for him and provided everything he could possibly ever need or want. Satan is the one who brought in the curse. When Adam united with Satan, everything in the earth was cursed.24” Here we begin to see an air of dualism, with God and Satan being equals. In the paragraph before Brother Copeland states, “Then beginning with verse 15, we find an outline of the curse of the law. “But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statues…that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee.” This curse spells complete and total poverty in every area of life. Poverty is not a blessing from God. To believe that it is, that it carries with it some sort of humility, is to believe that God is the author of the curse, and He is not! God is the author of the blessing.”25 Brother Copeland’s version of God appears to not be sovereign, and incapable of punishment on His own. At this point the author of this paper would have to ask brother Copeland, “Who brought on the plagues of Egypt?”

Then the LORD said to Moses, “Get up early in the morning, confront Pharaoh and say to him, ‘This is what the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, says: Let my people go, so that they may worship me, or this time I will send the full force of my plagues against you and against your officials and your people, so you may know that there is no one like me in all the earth. For by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with a plague that would have wiped you off the earth. But I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. (Exodus 9:13-16 NIV)

Just one clear example from Scripture that God is the one who brings both blessings and curses. The author to the Hebrews wrote in chapter 10, verses 30 and 31, “For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” He was quoting several passages of Old Testament scripture:

It is mine to avenge; I will repay. In due time their foot will slip; their day of disaster is near and their doom rushes upon them. (Deuteronomy 32:35)

The LORD will judge his people and have compassion on his servants when he sees their strength is gone and no one is left, slave or free. He will say: “Now where are their gods, the rock they took refuge in, the gods who ate the fat of their sacrifices and drank the wine of their drink offerings? Let them rise up to help you!(Deuteronomy 32: 36-38)

Brother Copeland’s confusion of the two covenants is, the author of this paper believes, a fundamental confusion of Law and Gospel. St. Paul makes a clear distinction between the two covenants in Galatians, Chapter 3, verses 16 through 18:

The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. (Galatians 3:16-18 NIV)

But, Brother Copeland states clearly in his book:

Let’s stop and consider for a moment that when God made His Covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, He promised to take care of them and their descendants. They were free men! Consequently, every Jewish slave who bore the lash under Egyptian rule was a free man! There was only one problem… they didn’t know it! Therefore, God called Moses and gave him the ability and authority to write down the covenant God had made with Abraham. This way, the people would know what had been done and what had been agreed to. Moses went forth in the name of the covenant, performed miracles by the power of God in the face of Pharaoh, and led God’s people out of bondage. They could have gone free 400 years before, but they didn’t know their covenant!26

Moses wrote down the covenant made with Abraham? Does brother Copeland mean to suggest that Moses wrote down the Law? Or the covenant? Abraham’s covenant is based on promises made by God, and in that covenant only one command is given, and that’s circumcision. In the quote above, brother Copeland seems to suggest that there were certain agreements made and Moses wrote them down before Mt. Sinai, indeed, before the people even left Egypt!

Let’s look at the covenant that was made with Abraham, known then as Abram. Chapter 15 of Genesis.

As the sun was setting, Abram fell into a deep sleep, and a thick and dreadful darkness came over him. Then the LORD said to him, “Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years. But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. You, however, will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a good old age. In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.” (NIV Genesis 15:12-16)

Now, here we have God stating quite plainly that the people would most definitely be enslaved for four hundred years. In fact, God’s reasoning for them staying in Egypt for four hundred years was “for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure”. God’s judgment on the people of land of Canaan would later be carried out by Israel led by Joshua as they conquered the territory, just as God had promised. Brother Copeland seems to think that the people of Israel could leave anytime, had they known they were free.

Look also at what God himself did to seal this promise. In Verses eight through eleven, when Abram asked God how he would know he would take possession of the land, God tells him to get a “heifer, a goat and a ram, each three years old, along with a dove and a young pigeon”, that Abram then slaughters, cuts in half (minus the dove and the pigeon), and arranges the pieces opposite each other. This kind of arrangement was later talked about by God through the prophet Jeremiah, Chapter thirty-four verse 17, “The men who have violated my covenant and have not fulfilled the terms of the covenant they made before me, I will treat like the calf they cut in two and then walked between its pieces.” This ceremony was a solemn ceremony whereby an agreement was made between two parties, and then the covenant was sealed in blood when the two parties walked between the pieces signifying that if one or the other party breaks the covenant, they would become like the dead animal. God takes his covenants seriously.

So when Abram has set up the animals in this same covenantal fashion, he falls into a deep sleep. Then after God makes his promises to Abram, God passes between the pieces of the animals alone.

When the sun had set and darkness had fallen, a smoking firepot with a blazing torch appeared and passed between the pieces. On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram… (NIV Genesis 15:17-18)

Abram was asleep. He didn’t walk between the pieces with God, but rather God walked between the pieces alone. The promise that God made, He covenanted in blood to uphold Himself, by Himself regardless of whether the people believed it or not. In fact, God meant all along to uphold this covenant through blood (Jesus’ blood) and His own death. Interesting, since in Christ, God Himself did actually die. What this means is that the covenant that God made with Abram was fulfilled in Jesus death and resurrection. The promise was broken by the people, but God upheld the promise in the death of Jesus and his resurrection. This is why the writer to the Hebrews can say that this covenant is based on better promises. (Hebrews 8:6)

St. Paul says that these two covenants are distinct from one another. In fact he says that, “The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise”. How could the law be introduced 430 years later if it had already been introduced 430 years earlier? The answer is that the law wasn’t given until Moses.

St. Paul says that these two covenants are distinct from one another. In fact he says that, “The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise”. How could the law be introduced 430 years later if it had already been introduced 430 years earlier? The answer is that the law wasn’t given until Moses.

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. (Romans 5:12-13 NIV)

This verse is being taken out of context, but the point is to show that St. Paul, at least, believed that the covenant laws as they were given at Mt. Sinai were not given till that time, rather than believing that they were given to Abraham 430 years earlier.

So thus far we can see some characteristics of pagan beliefs creeping into the prosperity gospel.

Pelagianism
Confusion of Law and Gospel
Dualism, pitting God against Satan as equals
Positive thought theology imported from Christian Science
Faith defined as “a force”, or force at least defined as a characteristic of faith
Man is seen a having a god like will

There is a disconnect between historic Christianity and the word of faith prosperity gospel. They teach a mitigated gospel not too different from Roman Catholic teachings.

In fact, one could make the argument that the prosperity gospel isn’t even remotely Christian other than in name.

22 What Should I Believe, Hubert Beck, Published by Concordia Publishing House, ISBN 0-570-03800-6 page 61
23 The Laws of Prosperity, 1974 Kenneth Copeland, page 41
24 The Laws of Prosperity, 1974 Kenneth Copeland, page 41
25 The Laws of Prosperity, 1974 Kenneth Copeland, page 41
26 The Laws of Prosperity, 1974 Kenneth Copeland, page 43

Read more »

This week on the Whitehorse Inn

The Question of Tolerance

This week at the Inn, Mike Horton, Kim Riddlebarger, Rod Rosenbladt, and Ken Jones discuss tolerance and intolerance and today's postmodern culture's tendency to be intolerant to so called "intolerant religions".

I would add to the conversation that this issue amounts to namecalling. People today get on Christians for saying that Jesus is the only way (and free at that), and express intolerance towards us even as they call us intolerant without noticing what they are doing. Click here to listen to the show.

Read more »

People making weird truth claims...

Semper Reformanda ~ Always reforming.

I'm so tired of people making inconsistant statements. Take this post on a Blog I found on a "lutheran" Webring.

http://recoveringlutherans.blogspot.com/2007/02/thursday-thirteen-1.html

First of all, this person is so badly catechised, it's not even funny. The blogger makes this claim:

2. Judging others.

We're all guilty of doing this from time to time because it is human nature, but I really hate it when I hear Christians judging other people, especially when they go so far as to speculate that another person is not a "true" or "real" Christian or question where the person in question will be spending eternity. We are commanded to "judge not, let you also be judged."

Then turns around in the next point and judges other Christians.

3. Displaying an attitude of superiority as compared to other religions.

Too often Christians act as though they have "a lock" on the truth and everyone else
is so ignorant that they don't deserve to be treated as equals. Our truth is just that: Our truth as we understand and believe it. I am a firm believer in John 3:16. But I also believe that, as Jesus commanded, I should strive to maintain an attitude of humility at all times, even when it comes to the fact that I have discovered what I believe to be the truth.

And in that particular point, states that they believe Christians don't have a "lock" on the truth, then turns around says:

5. Denying the inherent truth of the Gospels.

At first glance, this might seem like a contradiction of above items. But it is not.I have actually heard Christians say shocking things like, "Well, I don't believe in hell" or "I don't think there really is a devil." In my opinion, if you are going to adopt the label of "Christian," you must embrace the core concepts of the belief system without reservation.The most basic tenet of Christianity is set forth in John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." He also said that no one will come to the Father except through Him. Therefore, as we understand the truth, the possibility of eternal damnation for those who reject those basic tenets is real. Christians are called upon to proclaim the Gospels boldly, not shrink from their message because it is unpopular or unpalatable to some.

The blogger had already stated in an earlier point that:

1. Attempting to convert co-workers.

There is a time and place for everything and it is most inappropriate to proselytize in the workplace. Sure, if you happen to know that one of your colleagues is a Christian, it is acceptable to mention your shared beliefs at lunchtime, during breaks, etc. so long as the conversation takes place in appropriate locations and does not interfere with other folks' rights.

So let's see... Rules for Christian living include:

1. Proclaim the Gospels boldly
2. Do not shrink from the message because it is unpopular or unpalatable to some.
3. Don't bother your coworkers with the message because it would be unpopular or unpalatable to some
4. Don't say the gospel is true because we don't have a lock on the truth
5. Don't say the gospel is untrue
6. Don't interfere with other people's rights
7. Don't deny the inherent truth of the gospel, just deny it by denying Genesis is true history so that Jesus, "the second Adam", is a fulfillment of an allegory rather than a fulfillment of God's will for the history of redemption.

Yup, that's consistant alright. Sorry, I'm a polemic. Get used to it.

Read more »

Blasphemy Challenge: Atheists Pwned by upstart theologian!

I don't know if anyone reading this knows it, but on youtube.com, there's a thing going on called "the blashphemy challenge". Atheists are asked to submit videos in which they "blaspheme" the Holy Spirit. I've watched a number of these and they all get it wrong. They think that all they have to do is deny the Holy Spirit, Deny God and deny the Jesus is God. It's funny though, because in order to actually blaspheme the Holy Spirit they would have to attribute the work of the Holy Spirit to the devil, which means they'd have to admit there is a God, which means they aren't really atheists in the first place.

But I digress.

This video, from a Christian, makes the best case against Atheism I've heard on Youtube yet. He's good, although I think he went to quickly past some complex ideas (in Mathematics we'd say, "he didn't show all his work").

Read more »

Today on the Whitehorse Inn...

Today on the Whitehorse Inn, Mike Horton and the usual cast of Characters discuss Postmodernism and the Emergent Church. I find this subject fascinating. I'm starting to see that Brian McClaren and his contemporaries are in actuality reacting to the previous generation's "church" by creating a form that is formless. The whole thing kind of reminds me of what happens with each generation's music. The want their music to be so radical that it disturbs their parents while it affirms the new generation's sense of self.

If that's true, then the emergent church is basically a selfish endeavor designed to make it's practitioners feel good about themselves. Listen carefully when Shane Rosenthal asks Brian McClaren "what is orthodoxy and how can a Christian know what is in bounds and what is out of bounds". McClaren basically says that a community needs to be built first, around principals and ethics, then doctrine can be discussed.

Brian, if you ever read this, keep in mind that our forfathers first and foremost had a message to shout out, and around that message a community was built. Think of it this way: no one would have wanted to see the movie "Star Wars" if no one had first talked about it. Fans talked about it, discussed it, learned it, and around that a fan community was built. For Pete's sake people, even the secular world knows this. Why doesn't the church?

Click here to listen to the show.

Read more »

Sunday, bloody Sunday

This is got to be one of the funniest, yet thought provoking web produced video I've seen in a long time.



It's post modern to the hilt, but it get's it's point across in good fashion. George W. Bush rockin' out with his own version of U2's "Sunday, bloody Sunday".

Read more »