Category: Historical Jesus

Book Plunge: Atheist Universe Part 8

Did Schweitzer deny that Jesus existed? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This is going to be a sidebar. Throughout the book, Mills has snippets from other people throughout history making brief statements in favor of his atheism/skepticism. This is a common one from Albert Schweitzer that many people misuse.

“There is nothing more
negative than the result
of the critical study of the
life of Jesus. The Jesus
of Nazareth who came
forward publicly as the
Messiah, who preached the
Kingdom of God, who
founded the Kingdom of
Heaven upon earth, and
died to give his work its
final consecration, never
had any existence.” —ALBERT SCHWEITZER
(1875-1965), French physician,
philosopher and humanitarian,
in The Quest of the
Historical Jesus

Mills, David. Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (p. 143). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

As it turns out though, this is what he says:

THOSE WHO ARE FOND OF TALKING ABOUT NEGATIVE THEOLOGY CAN FIND their account here. There is nothing more negative than the result of the critical study of the Life of Jesus. The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give His work its final consecration, never had any existence. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism, and clothed by modern theology in an historical garb.

Schweitzer, Albert. The Quest of the Historical Jesus (p. 259). Kindle Edition.

The problem is if anyone ever bothers to read the book, they will find Schweitzer is not saying Jesus never existed. He is saying that a Jesus like this is a Jesus of imagination as the historical Jesus was not like this at all. Schweitzer will often speak of the historical Jesus as opposed to Jesus as seen by many of his time.

What we can learn from this overall is that Mills, like too many atheists, has just taken a snippet of something, presumed it means what he thinks it means, and ran with it. He did not bother to go and check and see what Schweitzer said in the text. There are too many Christians that simply believe everything that is told to them as long as it agrees with them. There are conservatives who do this in politics. There are leftists who do this in politics.

Also, atheists are quite prone to do this as well. This is not something that is a problem of any one belief system. This is a human problem. Hence, I encourage you to question what disagrees with you definitely, but also question what does agree with you. Try to verify everything that you can. If you are unsure, it is acceptable I think to go on Facebook and share it with the disclaimer that you have not verified it and if anyone knows more, please let you know. In this case, you are not sharing it as a fact, but as a quesiton.

If you will search this blog you will find many posts where I have taken down false claims made against people that I disagree with such as here and here and here. Truth should matter to all of us. We should not only care that our views are presented right, but we should make sure our opponents are treated right as well and not misrepresented. To take down a false view is to take down a straw man.

Mills is someone who does not do research at all. He is someone who balks at “creationists” who don’t understand science commenting on it, but he comments on numerous things he doesn’t understand. If it is his area that he cares about, it is wrong, but if it is areas he thinks are nonsense, it is okay.

Don’t be like Mills. Be a thinking person.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Book Plunge: Atheist Universe Part 2

Did Jesus exist? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This book sells itself as a thinking person’s response. Right now, I’m wondering when the thinking person is going to start responding. Mills’s book is full of cliches and straw men that should be seen as an embarrassment to the atheist community.

So let’s get back into it and brace ourselves for what’s coming.

So how about the simple question of if Jesus even existed:

Probably not. If He did actually live, then He was almost certainly illiterate, since He left no writings of his own—at least none that we know about. At the time that He supposedly lived, however, most people were illiterate, so I don’t mean to be critical of Him on this point. I too would have been illiterate. But it is curious to ponder an illiterate God.

Mills, David. Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (p. 35). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

If the answer to if he was illiterate is “Most people were” then you might as well say everyone was illiterate. Was Socrates illiterate? He didn’t write anything, but most people were so he probably was. Was Seneca illiterate? Well, we have some writings of him, but most people were illiterate so he probably was and these were by someone else. Why not?

Fortunately, for once, the interviewer had a pushback that was decent. What about secular references to Jesus?

And as per usual, Mills gave a reply that shows his ignorance on the topic.

You’re correct that there are secular historical references to Jesus. For example, Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, Seutonius, Pliny, and Justin Martyr all make reference to “Christ” or “Jesus Christ” in their historical accounts. But there is one monumental flaw in this argument: Not one of these secular writers was born until decades after Jesus’ alleged crucifixion. Thus, none of these writers could possibly provide firsthand knowledge of anything having to do with the life of Jesus. Their historical references to Jesus do provide evidence that the Christ legend was extant during the period in which they wrote. But that’s about it. Moreover, many of these secular sources who allude, decades afterward, to the life of Jesus also detail the lives and folklore of numerous other “miracle workers” completely apart from Jesus. Tales of mystical hocus-pocus were widespread in the ancient world and were incorporated into the holy books of many different religions. Such credulity naturally provided fertile ground for the acceptance and growth of Christianity as well.

Mills, David. Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (pp. 35-36). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

Don’t tell Mills that the overwhelming majority in the ancient world if not everything was written “decades after” the events took place. The majority of biographies of great people could even be written well over a century after they lived and are still considered valid. As for miracle-workers, Mills doesn’t give us any names. Note that many such miracle-workers would have been looked at with disdain by the elites of the time. Naturally, this leads to the idea of ancient people were stupid.

Reading Mills’s book, it looks like more modern people actually are.

The interviewer asks about contemporary references.

There is not a single reference to a “Jesus” or to “Jesus Christ” written by any secular source who lived during the years in which Christ supposedly walked the earth. To me, this fact is very revealing, since these years represent one of the most thoroughly documented periods of antiquity. Wouldn’t Jesus’ miracles have drawn the attention of hundreds of contemporary writers and record-keepers? Why is there no mention at all of Jesus’ existence? Why is there no historical record of Herod’s alleged Slaughter of the Innocents [plagiarized directly from Exodus] or of Matthew’s assertion that, following Jesus’ death, living corpses from nearby cemeteries were strolling the streets of Jerusalem? Were these “facts” too humdrum to be noted by historians of the day? To summarize my position on the “historical” Jesus, I once wrote a poem:

Today some say that Jesus died,

And still remains quite dead.

But these who speak have surely lied.

The real truth is, instead, T

hat Jesus Christ, Whose blood was spilled,

Is no corpse, I insist!

For how could someone have been killed,

Who never did exist?

Mills, David. Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (pp. 36-37). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

Somehow, I doubt there will soon be poetry seminars for Mills’s work.

As I have said in an earlier post, contrary to Mills’s thinking, Jesus was not worth talking about in His time. Mills says this is the most documented time, but gives no basis for that. I’m not saying he’s wrong, but he gives me no reason to think he’s right. The slaughter of the innocents would likely kill a dozen infants at most, hardly the most telling instance of Herod’s life. As for the rising of the saints, even if taken literally, it would likely be dismissed by anyone who wasn’t there.

At this point, even the interviewer doesn’t think he’s being fair and asks about someone like George Washington’s existence. Hardly a good parallel. Washington lived in a time where literacy was far more common and writing was less expensive. Better parallels could be people like Hannibal or Queen Boudica. Mills is right to point out the far better resources we have for Washington, but then he also says Washington has no miracles to his name. Naturally, this comes out. Dismiss all ancient claims of miracles and then say miracles have never happened. Really easy to do.

The interviewer then asks who moved the stone from Jesus’s tomb, which seems to me like a profoundly ignorant question to ask if the person you are talking to says He never even existed, to which Mills lists all the events he doesn’t believe in involving Jesus. Not really much new to cover.

And with that, we will be done as the historical Jesus is not the theme from now on, and we are still just in the first chapter.

I would like to say the worst is behind us, but with atheist books, you never know.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

 

 

Book Plunge: Atheist Universe Part 1

Is there any reason in the atheist universe? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I get email subscriptions for Kindle books on sale and I saw David Mills’s Atheist Universe for sale. It sells itself as the thinking person’s answer to Christian fundamentalism. Those who can’t do, obviously teach.

I really strive to be open when I read different books and be as fair as I can. I have said a number of Christian apologetics books are no good. If I see good points in an atheist book, I will point that out. Your book is not automatically good because it’s Christian or bad because it’s not. The same holds in this case.

No. This book has thus far found a number of other reasons to be bad.

The first chapter is an interview Mills had with someone who I didn’t see named. Unfortunately, whoever it was gave a lot of softball questions. On the other hand, Mills could have sought them out for that reason. Who knows?

I wasn’t too long into this book before it was so bad I was sharing the quotes on Facebook.

So let’s start with one question asked. Why don’t you believe in God? In that answer, we find this gem:

Indeed I’ve written three full-length books devoted to thrashing out these arguments myself in great detail. But I now believe that it is a perfectly acceptable philosophical position to dismiss the god idea as being self-evidently ridiculous as Darrow quipped. Christians instantly disregard the Greek gods as being figments of an overactive imagination, and so I view the Christian god in the same way that the Christians view the Greek gods.

Mills, David. Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (p. 28). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

In this, Mills treats all forms of theism as the same. I reject the Greek gods because none of them are ultimate. They are all dependent beings that depend on something else for their existing and are pretty much just superhuman beings. This is not at all like the deity in all three monotheistic faiths. Mills rejects them because they are gods.

But to answer your question directly, I am an atheist because no more evidence supports the Christian god than supports the Greek or Roman gods. There is no evidence that God—as portrayed by any religion—exists.

Mills, David. Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (p. 28). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

Which is frankly a nonsense statement. You can say there is insufficient evidence for the Christian God. You can say you don’t find it convincing. To say there is no evidence means that all the people out there who believe in the Christian God, including brilliant intellectual minds, do so without any reason whatsoever.

It’s fairly easy to demonstrably prove that the Genesis accounts of Adam and Eve, and Noah’s worldwide deluge, are fables. It’s easier to prove these stories false because, unlike the notion of God, the Creation account and Noah’s flood are scientifically testable. Science may explore human origins and the geologic history of Earth. In this regard, science has incontrovertibly proven that the Book of Genesis is utter mythology. So while, on esoteric philosophical grounds, I hesitate to claim absolute proof of a god’s nonexistence, I will claim proof that the Bible is not “The Word of God” because much of it has been shown by science to be false.

Mills, David. Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (pp. 28-29). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

Perhaps if you went with a literalistic YEC interpretation and even then, I know some YECs who I am sure could give Mills a run for his money in a debate.

Remember that the rules of logic dictate that the burden of proof falls upon the affirmative position: that a god does exist.

Mills, David. Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (p. 29). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

Actually, they don’t What is the reality is that whoever makes the claim has the burden to prove it. Suppose I was unable to convince Mills that God exists. It does not follow from that that God does not exist. What follows is I didn’t have good reasons to believe or Mills is not following an argument properly for whatever reason. If I do show up and say “God exists” it is my burden to demonstrate that. If you show up and say “Christianity is false”, it is your burden to show that.

We should recognize that all children are born as atheists. There is no child born with a religious belief.

Mills, David. Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (p. 29). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

Actually, there are studies that have been done that seem to indicate children instinctively find purpose and design in places. Also, children are not born knowing their multiplication tables or the laws of physics. So what?

The interviewer later asks how the universe could have been created without God. The response?

Leaving aside your presumptuous use of the word “created”—that line of reasoning is known as the Aquinas cosmological argument. Thomas Aquinas, who lived during the 13th century, argued that everything needs a cause to account for its existence. Aquinas believed that if we regress backward in time through an unbroken chain of causation, then we would eventually arrive at the cause of the universe itself. Aquinas argued that this “First Cause” could be nothing other than God Himself.

Mills, David. Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (pp. 29-30). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

Well, Aquinas didn’t say anything about backward in time. He actually didn’t think the universe having a beginning could be established by reason alone. He even wrote a small book arguing against that notion. Other than that, what could possibly go wrong here with Mills’s argument?

Many of you probably know where this is going and are waiting for it.

This so-called “First Cause” argument, however, is a textbook illustration of ad hoc reasoning. For if “everything needs a cause to account for its existence,” then we are forced to address the question of who or what created God? If God always existed, and therefore needs no causal explanation, then the original premise of the cosmological argument—that everything needs a cause—has been shown to be erroneous: something can exist without a cause. If everything except God requires a cause, then the “First Cause” argument becomes ad hoc [i.e., inconsistent and prejudicially applied] and is thus logically impermissible. If we can suppose that God always existed—and thus requires no causal explanation—then we can suppose instead that the mass-energy comprising our universe always existed and thus requires no causal explanation. Many people, including some atheists and agnostics, misinterpret Big Bang theory as proposing that mass-energy popped into existence ex nihilo [i.e., out of nothing] before the universe began its current expansion. This something-from-nothing belief is not only false, but flagrantly violates the law of the conservation of mass-energy.

Mills, David. Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (p. 30). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

There is not a single defender of the cosmological argument that has ever put forward such a thing, and by defender, I mean someone who knows the literature well, not Pastor Steve down at your local Baptist Church. Aquinas would want Mills to explain the actualizing of potential in the universe to which Mills would likely give a blank stare and say the typical atheist quip about word salad.  Then, Mills goes and repeats the other false notion about the argument.

But let me summarize by saying that the “First Cause” argument not only begs the question logically and is scientifically bankrupt, it also fails to address which god is supposedly proven existent by the argument! In other words, Zeus or Allah has just as much claim to being the “First Cause” as does Jehovah or Jesus.

Mills, David. Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (pp. 30-31). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

And?

The first cause argument is not meant to prove which God does exist. It’s meant to prove that some God does exist. Mills is faulting an argument for not proving what it was never meant to prove in the first place.

How about beauty and order? How is that explained?

There is some degree of beauty and order within Nature. But each year, Nature also cruelly victimizes millions of perfectly innocent men, women and children through natural disasters:

Mills, David. Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (p. 31). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

But is there beauty and order? How does that get explained? Christians have a ready explanation for the cruelty we see. We live in a fallen world. You can think that’s a cop-out, but it is fully consistent and an essential part of the Christian claim on reality.

Christians are masters of selective observation—or “counting the hits and ignoring the misses.” Anything Christians perceive as attractive or orderly is counted as evidence for God’s existence. But anything Nature offers that is grotesque or in disarray is never counted against God’s existence. Any theological conclusions based upon such selective observation are therefore meaningless.

Mills, David. Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (p. 31). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

It appears there’s only one master here of selective observation. Mills has brought up all the cruelty and said “No God”, but the beauty is not explained at all. He needs to explain both. Christians freely admit the problem of evil and have written numerous theodicies explaining it. Has Mills written something on what Chesterton called “The Problem of Pleasure”?

On another question he says:

Atheism is synonymous with freedom and freedom of thought, which, in my opinion, are highly positive and desirable.

Mills, David. Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (p. 33). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

It’s hard to say how they are synonymous since some atheists say that on atheism, you have no free-will. You’re just matter in motion and doing what the matter in you has to do. On that, I agree with them. As for my Christianity, I do value freedom of thought and freedom in general and think God provides for both of those.

Then he is asked about a sort of Pascal’s Wager question:

That argument is known as Pascal’s Wager, because it was first articulated by Blaise Pascal, a 17th-century French philosopher. There are several fallacies in the argument. But the most obvious is that the same argument can be applied to any religion—not just to Christianity. For example, I could say that, since we have everything to gain and nothing to lose by converting to Islam, we should all become Muslims. Or since we have everything to gain and nothing to lose by being Hindu, we should all adopt Hinduism. Christians never stop to consider that they are in just as much danger of going to the Muslim hell as I, an atheist, am in danger of going to the Christian hell. Pascal’s Wager is also flawed in its premise that a person has everything to gain, and nothing to lose, by converting to a religion. The fact is that, whether we like it or not, our earthly life is the only life we’re ever going to experience. If we sacrifice this one life in doormat subservience to a nonexistent god, then we have lost everything!

Mills, David. Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (pp. 33-34). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

It’s a shame this is the one argument Pascal seems to be remembered for the most. Everyone should go and read the whole of Pensees and hear his other thoughts. Not only this, but I don’t understand Mills’s reasoning at the end. How have we lost everything? After all, if atheism is true, you’re not going to be kicking yourself in an afterdeath wishing you had lived differently.

In talking about Christians, he says:

No wonder His followers are so intolerant. They are only following Jesus’ declarations that anyone who disagrees with their religious beliefs deserves eternal incineration.

Mills, David. Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (pp. 34-35). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

Well first off, many Christians like myself don’t believe Hell is a fiery torture chamber. Also, Christian societies are by and large extremely tolerant. Let Mills go to a Muslim country and see how well he does arguing that there is no Allah or arguing in favor of the LGBTQ+ community.

There is more in just this first chapter. When we return to it, we will start looking at the historical Jesus and what Mills has to say.

Brace yourselves.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Cor. 8:6 and the Trinity

Does this verse demonstrate that Jesus is included in the divine nature? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I’m a member on Facebook for a group to debate the doctrine of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Sadly, many witnesses really do not know what they’re arguing against when it comes to the Trinity. Most arguments against the Trinity are arguments against modalism. Also sadly, too many Christians outside of this group that are lay Christians would probably explain the Trinity using modalistic descriptions.

One passage that can regularly come up from JWs is 1 Cor. 8:6. They seem to think it really makes the case. Let’s look at it.

yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

There you have it! There is one God, the Father! Jesus is not that one God. Jesus is Lord, but He is not God. On a surface level, one can say, “If that’s the case, then the Father is God, but He is not Lord.” That is indeed problematic enough, but let’s go further in looking at this text.

There are two parallel themes.

1A: For us, there is but one God, the Father.

1B: From whom all things came and for whom we live.

2A: And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ,

2B: Through whom all things came and through whom we live.

There is indeed parallelism here, which is fascinating, but could there still be something more. Imagine that a Jew makes a statement that there is one God. What will other Jews immediately think of? The Shema, Israel’s great monotheistic statement.

Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

The terms Lord, God, and One, are all repeated here. Paul is using intertextuality to call to mind an Old Testament text. The same takes place in Romans 1. Paul uses terms like creator, and “male and female” to point to Genesis 1 as the basis for his argument for divine revelation in creation and for the wrongness of same-sex erotic practice.

What then Paul is doing is he is taking Jesus and he is slipping him into the Shema, Christianizing it and putting Jesus in the divine nature. Rather than denying the deity of Christ, Paul is emphasizing it in strong terms. Also, Jesus is presented as the means of creation, which is incredible since in Isaiah 44:24, God is said to have done creation alone.

“This is what the Lord says—
your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb:

I am the Lord,
the Maker of all things,
who stretches out the heavens,
who spreads out the earth by myself,

Some can see this as wisdom, but if you read Jewish writings like the Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom was taking on a more and more role of deity as a hypostasis of God. The formula is always the same in the New Testament be it John 1, 1 Cor. 8, Hebrews 1, or Col. 1. The Father is the source and the Son is the means.

I have presented this several times asking JWs to show where my exegesis is wrong. To date, no one has. Let’s look at some objections that are brought up.

“But Jesus is not His Father!”

Which shows the person doesn’t understand Trinitarian thinking. Saying Jesus is God is theological shorthand. It really is saying Jesus fully partakes of the divine nature. It in no way means Jesus is the Father.

“But the Shema never mentions Jesus!”

True, and irrelevant. This is progressive revelation. This assumes God had to reveal Himself as triune from the get-go or else He isn’t.

“But what about these passages that show Jesus is not God?”

And whatever passage is brought up needs to be discussed, but unless a JW wants to deny inerrancy, which I don’t think they do, then they need to explain this passage as well and show where my exegesis is wrong. If not, then you are saying this one passage teaches X and the other one teaches non-X, which is a denial of inerrancy.

The gauntlet has been cast down. I wait to see if any JWs are willing to pick it up and take the challenge. Show where the exegesis is wrong.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Book Plunge: Obsessed With Blood Part 5

Does Baker have a case with the New Testament? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This is easily the worst chapter of the book. There’s really not much about blood in here. It reads more as a compendium of bad arguments against the New Testament. What am I talking about? Well….

Josephus never mentions anything about Jesus of Nazareth, Paul or the Acts of the Apostles in any of his historical records. In reading the gospels and the book of Acts, the events that occurred would surely have been known by everyone, including the historian Josephus. The known world was still a very small place and events of this magnitude would have definitely been noticed. Christians and non-Christians alike, would have recorded them. Yet not surprisingly these things are only recorded in Christian writings.

Preacher, Ex; Baker, Barnaby. Obsessed with Blood (The Crazy Things Christians Believe Book 1) (p. 87). Kindle Edition.

The first part is just wrong. Most scholars agree that while the Testimonium has some interpolations in it, there is a part of it there that is accurate and part of what Josephus wrote. The second reference is not nearly as debated at all. Both of these refer to the historical Jesus.

For the second one, he gives us no reason why anyone would write about these events. He just assumes it. I often present skeptics today with many claims of miracles taking place all over the world today. How many are investigated? None. The ancient Roman world was also not interested in claims they would deem bizarre coming from communities that were full of the ignorant. Some things never change.

Not only that, very few people could write in the ancient world and if they could, there were many other things they were interested in. What about Josephus? Josephus was interested in things relevant to Jerusalem and Judaism. Why would he care about saying anything about miracles going on in a sect that was deemed heretical by Jews at the time? As I have said before, in the ancient world, Jesus was not worth talking about.

It is very important to understand that not one of the New Testament writers actually witnessed the events they wrote about. In other words, they were writing hearsay. Secondhand accounts as told by supposed witnesses of the events recorded in the Gospels and Acts. Certainly, this cannot be considered as reliable information. The followers of any leader, religious or otherwise, most definitely exaggerate the character of the people they follow.

Preacher, Ex; Baker, Barnaby. Obsessed with Blood (The Crazy Things Christians Believe Book 1) (pp. 87-88). Kindle Edition.

Unfortunately, not a single citation about this is given and if this was even true and Baker went with this consistently, he would have to throw out the majority of ancient history. However, there is no interaction with works like Redating the New Testament. There is no interaction with conservative arguments for early dates or even people like James Crossley, an agnostic who argues Mark was even written in the 40’s.

Fortunately for the writers of the New Testament, several of the Old Testament prophets spoke of a messiah, a savior who would put to death the enemies of God. So all the followers of Jesus had to do was start spreading the word that He was the prophesied messiah, the Son of God! Even though this was a slap in the face to many Jews, those desperate for change and freedom after years of oppression from the Roman Republic would easily follow such a belief. The early Christian church was still predominantly a Jewish sect that had simply added the belief Jesus was the prophesied messiah. Followers of this teaching were called “Jewish Christians.”

Preacher, Ex; Baker, Barnaby. Obsessed with Blood (The Crazy Things Christians Believe Book 1) (pp. 89-90). Kindle Edition.

Again, no citation is given for any of this. Why would they believe they could get freedom and oppression from Jesus? He was crucified by Rome. That was a dealbreaker. The only reason they would is they believed Jesus had already conquered by rising from the dead. Baker does not understand the social culture of the ancient world at all.

In the book of Acts we see Saul, a Roman and supposed persecutor of Christians, have an encounter with the long dead Jesus while travelling to his home in Damascus. Saul was convinced by a blinding apparition of light and a heavenly voice to take the message of Christ to the Gentiles. After a rather dubious miracle that restored his eyesight, he changed his name and became the Apostle Paul, writer of more than half the New Testament.

Preacher, Ex; Baker, Barnaby. Obsessed with Blood (The Crazy Things Christians Believe Book 1) (p. 90). Kindle Edition.

I am curious what he means by a supposed persecutor. I don’t know any scholar in the field really who doubts this. It is also unclear what is meant by a dubious miracle. I can understand saying “I don’t think the account is historical”, but I think if someone loses their eyesight and suddenly upon prayer has it back, it’s not dubious to think a miracle has taken place.

Although places like Ephesus, Philippi, Corinth and Athens looked magnificent, they were also home to tens of thousands of poor, desperate people who were the perfect audience for the Christian message of eternal life by faith, and not by works.

Preacher, Ex; Baker, Barnaby. Obsessed with Blood (The Crazy Things Christians Believe Book 1) (p. 91). Kindle Edition.

Look. I am fully Protestant apologist and I do believe in justification by faith definitely, but that was not the main message that would be preached, but rather the Kingdom of God and the resurrection of Jesus. Also, Jews at the time would actually think that they were not saved by works either. They were saved by being part of the covenant people. They would have to ask if they would truly be part of the covenant people if they became Christians. I actually recommend Baker read Paul Was Not A Christian, which I have reviewed here. It is written by a non-Christian Jewish New Testament scholar and clarifies a number of points, even though I have a number of criticisms per my blog.

In much the same way, we have seen the prolific increase in the past century of religions such as the Latter Day Saints and Christian scientists. They have a basis in Christianity, yet their teachings differ, sometimes greatly, from the original. But still having recognizable themes interwoven throughout their theology makes them more readily acceptable. The one true God, that both Jews and gentiles alike were familiar with, began to evolve into something totally different.

Preacher, Ex; Baker, Barnaby. Obsessed with Blood (The Crazy Things Christians Believe Book 1) (p. 94). Kindle Edition.

Both of these groups also arose in America which has very different ways of handling movements like these than the Roman Empire did. In the Roman Empire, not embracing the Roman gods in any way was treason. Jews being an ancient sect were granted leniency so long as they at least sacrificed for and prayed for the emperor. This has not been the case in America.

It is also true the Mormons had some persecution, but they also had soldiers known as Danites who were willing to fight for them. Not only that, they could easily pick up and move somewhere else. Eventually, they moved all the way out west to Utah. As for Christian Science, it was never really a movement that presented the problems that Mormons did so it was live and let live.

The ancient world was not like this.

Now, let’s talk about the virgin birth, which I do affirm.

I recently read a popular Christian rebuttal for this fact, and in the interest of fairness; I thought I would share it with you:

“This sort of objection [Paul not mentioning the virgin birth] demonstrates a lack of realization that there is NO relevance for the virgin birth in the places where it is lacking mention. Remember, the NT materials were written to people who ALREADY believed the Gospel. By the time they were reading this stuff, they had already accepted all of the basic tenets, and already had all the basic information.”

This would be a good defense except the Bible is supposed to be inspired for instruction and teaching – Surely God would want believers who were not around at the time of Paul’s writing, to also learn about this important point concerning His Son! If these believers already knew all the basic teachings, why did Paul say he could not write to them as spiritually mature but as mere infants in Christ?

Preacher, Ex; Baker, Barnaby. Obsessed with Blood (The Crazy Things Christians Believe Book 1) (pp. 97-98). Kindle Edition.

Baker might not realize it, but he isn’t even touching the argument. It is as if the audience of Paul can only believe what they read in a letter from him, which is Scripture, and get absolutely nothing from oral tradition. So, if the virgin birth is part of background knowledge, Paul would not have needed to mention it. Baker is assuming though that it wasn’t and then saying “Paul didn’t mention it so it couldn’t have been part of their knowledge.” He is essentially using circular reasoning.

Finally, why could Paul say they were not being spiritually mature? Simple. Maturity is not about having a lot of knowledge. Fans of a show like The Big Bang Theory can easily say Sheldon Cooper has a lot of knowledge. Does he have a lot of maturity? Not at first definitely. Fans of the series like myself see him growing throughout the series. Knowledge does not equal maturity.

During this translation from Hebrew to Greek it appears the translator made a mistake. Erroneously translating the Hebrew word almah into the Greek word parthenos which means virgin. Almah actually means, a young women or maid. There is even one case where the word almah is used to refer to an adulteress.

Preacher, Ex; Baker, Barnaby. Obsessed with Blood (The Crazy Things Christians Believe Book 1) (p. 99). Kindle Edition.

There is no citation here from Baker and I cannot find where the word Almah is used to refer to an adulteress. The only possible reference could be the way of a man with a maid in Proverbs 30 not being understood, but that does not mean an adulteress. Men do crazy things around women they’re just attracted to.

So we have no reason for thinking this is a mistranslation then.

The writer of Matthew, familiar only with the erroneous Greek translation jumped to the crazy conclusion that Jesus, being the prophesied messiah, had to be born of a virgin. His understanding of Greek Mythology, which had several gods born of virgins, may have added to this delusion.

Preacher, Ex; Baker, Barnaby. Obsessed with Blood (The Crazy Things Christians Believe Book 1) (p. 99). Kindle Edition.

Baker then assumes that Matthew made this up since this had to be the case for the Messiah, but no reason is given why he would do this. This would automatically be admitting Jesus was born out of wedlock. It would be a mark of shame to skeptics and would only be accepted by people who were believers, that is, those who already believed in the virgin birth, which I do affirm.

Finally, we have this:

If Jesus really was the messiah prophesied in the Old Testament, don’t you think that the Jewish people would have accepted him as such? The Jews had been living and studying the prophecies regarding their messiah for the previous 700 years or so – surely they would have been in the best position to verify this claim. They didn’t. They never have.

Preacher, Ex; Baker, Barnaby. Obsessed with Blood (The Crazy Things Christians Believe Book 1) (pp. 103-104). Kindle Edition.

Well, no. I don’t. Jews sadly have a history of rejecting YHWH and His prophets. Why think when the greatest one of all who was YHWH Himself that things would be any different? Baker gives us no reason. He just assumes that they would be right about who the Messiah was.

By the way, this is also someone who claims to be a freethinker but apparently wants those people who had “bronze age beliefs” to determine what he should think.

Amusing in a sense.

We shall continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

God Came Down

Merry Christmas.

What does Christmas mean?

Christmas is about the time that God entered into our world in the most personal sense, that of a human being. This wasn’t just a temporary appearance. This was beginning as a zygote and then naturally going through a gestation process and coming out of the birth canal of Mary and living life as a baby. This would be a baby who would need to have his diaper changed and be cradled and everything else.

At this point, I also want to clarify what I mean when I say that God came down. A lot of people who are anti-Trinitarians assume that if you say God, you mean a being who is unipersonal and if you say Jesus is God, you’re either saying Jesus is the Father or that Jesus is the Trinity. What is meant is that a person who fully possesses the nature of God became a man. It’s just a lot easier to say “Jesus is God” every time.

This is something unthinkable to Muslims. You mean God pooped? Yes. God fully took on the human experience. He had to eat and drink and sleep. He got His feet sore walking on the streets. He worked up a sweat and got callouses on His hands and had body odor.

To many, this seems unthinkable, and let’s face it. There’s a point to that. It is incredible to think of God doing something like this. Not only to do all of the above, but to end with dying on a cross in the greatest act of shame at the time. He was abandoned and rejected by those closest to Him.

It sounds odd to think of humility on the part of God, but that is what we have. We see it in the great hymn of Philippians 2. We see Jesus not clinging to glory, but taking on the form of a slave. We see God going to the greatest lengths to bring about salvation to man.

Revelation 12 actually depicts the incarnation taking place. We think of Christmas as a happy time, and it is, but the original wasn’t. In the original story, Herod goes and has children killed to make sure that he has no competition. It wasn’t a happy time.

Christmas is when the battle became personal. Christmas is when God entered into the world directly. In a war, the last thing the enemy would expect is for the ultimate head of the army to march out on the battlefield and engage the enemy himself. However, this is exactly what happens in the Christmas story.

It is always amusing to see the people who are so adamant about how evil it is to celebrate Christmas because of alleged pagan origins. Even if that argument was true, so what? No one today is doing this to celebrate a pagan deity, but to celebrate Jesus. If you can’t celebrate Messiah coming into the world, what can you celebrate? That’s what I celebrate today. I celebrate the virgin birth, which I do affirm. I celebrate the incarnation.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Book Plunge: Why Christians Are Wrong About Jesus. Paul vs. Judaism

Did the beliefs of Paul go against Judaism’s central beliefs? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Sometimes it’s hard to come back to this book because while these claims need to be answered, it can get tiresome to see the same kinds of things show up. Granted, Campbell is not as much a fundamentalist as many others are, he still is one in his approach. Nevertheless, let’s leap back into the matter. This time, we’ll see if Paul went against core beliefs of Judaism.

Obviously, the Christians would disagree with some beliefs of Judaism of their day, such as the role of the Law and if the Messiah had come, but there would be a lot of overlap. Christians use the same Old Testament that Jews see as their Scriptures today. Despite what many non-Christians would tell you, Christianity, which includes belief in the Trinity, is monotheistic. We do believe a good God created all things as well.

Campbell tells us that the Tanakh says repeatedly that God will not take human form. He gives four references. Let’s look at them. The first is Numbers 23:19.

God is not human, that he should lie,
    not a human being, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
    Does he promise and not fulfill?

Next is Exodus 33:20

But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”

Followed by 1 Samuel 15:29:

He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a human being, that he should change his mind.”

And last is 1 Kings 8:27

“But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!

Now maybe I’m missing it, but I don’t see anywhere in those God saying “I will never dwell in human form among you.” It’s apparent that Campbell didn’t bother looking up any Christian scholarship on this. I don’t say that because Christian scholarship is unbiased, but if you’re going to say the Christian position can’t handle these verses, you need to at least look and see what they say about it.

With the Numbers reference:

God is different and separate from mankind, transcendent beyond the realm of humanity with all of its tendencies toward falsehood, deceit, misfortune, and calamity. Therefore he has no need to repent of any moral or ethical turpitude or misdeed. God is immutable, and his word bespeaks his incomparable integrity. On the other hand, Balaam and Balak were the antithesis of God, men of banal character. Concerning this pagan prophet Allen remarks, “He is himself the prime example of the distinction between God and man.” Balaam’s words were ineffective before God, for as the prophet often explained, “I can speak only what Yahweh speaks to me!” On the other hand, God’s word is entirely efficacious; what he says he will do, what he speaks he will accomplish.” His word is never uttered into the void and never fails to produce what he intends (Isa 55:11).
The word for God used here for the first of three times in this oracle is ʾēl, which derives from the basic word for deity in Semitic languages. Most often in the Hebrew Bible the term occurs in the plural form Elohim, denoting the power or majesty of the One True God (though occasionally of the multiple gods of the nations), or ʾēlîm, the plural form often used in reference to the plethora of gods and goddesses of the nations. The short form ʾēl often occurs in epithets that highlight some aspect of the relationship between God and his people, such as ʾēl-šadday (“God Almighty,” Gen 17:1), ʾēl-ʾĕmet (“God of Truth,” Ps 31:6). The present form ʾēl occurs by itself most often in the poetic materials of the wisdom, hymnic, and prophetic literature such as the Books of Job, Psalms, and Isaiah.

R. Dennis Cole, Numbers (vol. 3B; The New American Commentary; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 411.

The point in Numbers is about the behavior of God. Men lie and cheat and change their minds. God does not do that. His behavior is not like that of a man. It does not mean that God cannot take on the nature of a man. Man is not essentially a fallen creature. Man is fallen by virtue of Adam’s fall.

For Exodus:

God will only partially fulfill Moses’ request; he will let his goodness pass before him (v. 19) for no man can see God’s face and live. God further says that when his goodness passes before Moses, the name Yahweh will be proclaimed as part of the theophany. The proclamation of the divine name might hint that something of God’s eternal qualities are revealed to Moses. But even in this manifestation Moses has to be protected (vv. 21–22). God’s glory is to be more fully revealed in Jesus Christ: “we have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father” (John 1:14).

James K. Hoffmeier, “Exodus,” in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible (vol. 3; Baker reference library; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1995), 361.

God’s glory always comes veiled. There are theophanies in the Old Testament as well where people are said to see God. In the incarnation, there was a veil as well. 1 Samuel 15:29 is much akin to Numbers 23 so there’s no need to expand there further. The difference that is worthwhile is that this is a judgment God has made and God is not going to change His mind in it.

And for 1 Kings:

A crucial theological issue emerges before Solomon begins his specific petitions. If God is unique “in heaven above or on earth below” (8:23), and if “even the highest heaven cannot contain” the Lord, then Solomon correctly exclaims, “How much less this temple I have built!” Though Moses was a man “whom the LORD knew face to face” (Deut 34:10), he was not allowed to see all God’s glory (Exod 33:7–23). God’s magnitude would simply overwhelm a human’s capacity to grasp it. Tokens of the Lord’s presence, such as clouds and pillars of fire (Exod 40:34–38; 1 Kgs 8:10–11), appear, of course, and people cannot stay near them. On what basis, then, can Solomon hope that God will dwell on earth, in this temple? How will the Lord “live among the Israelites and … not abandon” (1 Kgs 6:13) them?
Solomon’s confidence in God’s willingness to condescend to human level must ultimately emerge from four principles. First, he knows God has revealed himself in the past, particularly in the lives of Moses, Joshua, and David (cf. 1 Kgs 8:21–26). Thus, Solomon does not pray for a brand new occurrence. Second, the king understands that the covenant described in written Scripture, in the Pentateuch, teaches that God desires a relationship with Israel as a nation and with individual Israelites (cf. Deut 7:7–9; 1 Kgs 8:23). He can approach God in prayer because he is the Lord’s “servant” and because Israel is the Lord’s people (8:30). Such assurance comes from the covenant itself.
Third, Solomon can expect God to fulfill the promise made in Deut 12:4–11 to “put his Name” (Deut 12:5) in a central worship site. Fourth, he can hope for God’s presence because of what he knows about God’s character. Since God is loving (1 Kgs 8:23), faithful (8:24), consistent (8:25), and relational (8:30), it is reasonable to assume that he will continue to meet human beings where they live. God is lofty, holy, and mysterious, yet approachable and personal at the same time. The temple will serve as the physical symbol of these divine realities. Here the unapproachable Lord becomes approachable and ready to help those who worship, sacrifice, and pray.

Paul R. House, 1, 2 Kings (vol. 8; The New American Commentary; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 143–144.

The point here is Solomon knows God will dwell with man, but he can’t believe it will happen. How can it be? This God who cannot be contained by the heavens will dwell with men? Solomon’s mind would be blown by the revelation in Christ.

Let’s give one final quote from Campbell.

Paul considers his authority from the visionary Christ so great that Paul can even contradict Moses. In Romans, Paul states that Moses was wrong when writing “the man who practices the righteousness which is based on the Law shall live by that righteousness.” Rom. 10:5-13. The passages Paul references, Lev. 18:1-5 and Deut. 6:24-25, clearly state that if a man keeps God’s laws he shall be righteous. But Paul vehemently disagreed. Paul even claimed the teaching of Moses brought death by leading people away from “the Spirit of the Lord.” 2 Cor. 3:7-18. Because Moses is, according to Leviticus and Deuteronomy , speaking on God’s behalf, Paul is saying that God was wrong too, and that Paul’s authority is greater than that of God. Not surprisingly, Paul’s message was poorly received by the Jews of his day.

Let’s just say this. If you are interpreting this passage and you think you have interpreted it right so that Paul is not only saying Moses was wrong, but God is wrong, you need to recheck your interpretation.

We shall continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Death Denial

Do we act like it’s no longer real? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Several years ago, a man named John Boswell wrote a book on Christianity, tolerance, and homosexuality. His thesis was that in Christian history, homosexuality really wasn’t viewed as that big of a deal and that Scripture could not be used to make a case against it. Boswell was himself a homosexual and claimed Roman Catholic (I say claimed since many Roman Catholics would not really accept someone approving of and practicing same-sex sexual relationships). There was certainly a lot of information put in the book and I thought I remembered him being on Unbelievable? one time to debate it.

So I looked it up and found out that since Boswell died in 1994, that I was probably wrong. However, I have to say I was not surprised that he died of AIDS. It’s my understanding that we have better treatments for AIDS now, but when it came out, it was a killer in the community of the same-sex attracted. It was originally even known as GRID for Gay-Related Immuno Deficiency.

That got me thinking about how this man spent so much of his life defending a practice that led to his death and not only his death, but the deaths of many others. For a look at how this can happen, look at And The Band Played On by Randy Shilts. Shilts was himself someone with same-sex attraction who died of AIDS.

It’s part of our culture that we always think that this won’t happen to us. Many of us remember growing up and thinking somehow we would escape death. Some potion of immortality or something would be found in our lifetime. I somewhere suspect that many Christians think that we are “The generation” because surely their time won’t come. Surely God won’t allow us to suffer.

We all do this. We know it because we do many things that are unhealthy every day. This is especially prevalent in our sex culture. People sleep around as if the action won’t have any consequences, and when they come, such as pregnancy, STDS, failed relationships, guilt, etc., they’re shocked. Our age is an age that thinks somehow we can shun personal responsibility and not suffer consequences. Watch a sitcom or a movie. No one gets an STD. I used to tell men about to marry that when they were preparing for sex for the first time, to think about everything they had seen in movies and TV and then throw it out because it’s completely unrealistic.

Death comes in like something of a shock to us even though it has been a companion with us for the longest time. One can play a game where the character gets several extra lives, and indeed, we need to have that suspended disbelief because frankly, none of us would play many games where if you died, that was it and you had to start all the way from the beginning.

My ex-wife and I used to know someone named Steve. Steve was a big and tough biker type dude, but someone as gentle as can be. You could see a picture of him cuddling a kitten. He got esophageal cancer and he was shriveled up in the end. How much so? I would look tougher than he did at that point. I hate saying it, but such was the case.

When he died, I remember being at the funeral home. I remember walking around at one point while others were socializing and I went to the room where the casket was and I was thinking this had to be a mistake. Death came for the wrong man. In a gaming mindset, part of me wished I could have had an RPG battle with death then and get my friend back. Completely unrealistic to think about? Yep. I think we can all relate somehow though.

We often react to not just death, but any suffering, as if there is something unusual in the world. Shouldn’t our lives be happy and joyous always? If anything, the level of freedom that we can have in this country (Living in America) would be astounding to our ancestors of the past. As I write this, I think that I do have scoliosis. Today, I walk straight because I was treated with the unbelievable treatment of a steel rod on my spine. Who would have thought of such a thing in the past, and yet here it is a reality. Me 100 years ago would be walking like Quasimodo instead.

Our challenge is not to defeat death. We can’t. Not only that, we don’t need to. It’s already been done. Christ conquered it on the cross. We can realize it as an intruder still, but we also need to learn to accept it as real. Denying death won’t make it go away. We can try to fight against reality all we want, but in the end, reality will always win.

However, once again, as Christians, that’s a good thing. Reality is Jesus Christ conquered death and rose again. I remember years ago working with a friend who is a devout Christian now, but was severely doubting and sometimes it was exhausting. One day I went to my emails and saw one from him with the subject line “Jesus of Nazareth.” I braced myself for an onslaught of questions.

Instead, I saw this.

“He really did walk out of that grave, didn’t He?”

I still smile even as I think about that and write it out.

Yes, He did.

In a temporal sense, sometimes we hate reality.

But in the end, the real God revealed in the real Jesus who walked out of that real grave will give us a reality we can all enjoy and love.

I look forward to it.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Why Christians Are Wrong About Jesus — The Self-Appointed Apostle

Did Paul appoint himself as apostle? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I am returning to this one again to continue looking at the question of Paul. Campbell considers it dubious since Paul is the only one privy to his vision and we have no one else outside of Luke referring to Paul as an apostle. However, if Paul really believed he had this encounter with Jesus, rightly or wrongly, then it’s hard to see how he is self-appointed. In his mind, he is, rightly or wrongly, following the orders of a higher authority.

However, Campbell goes on to list this as self-serving. How, he never explains. What benefits did Paul gain from the Jesus movement? If he was wrong, he had forfeited an incredible position and career in Judaism, taken a position that would be blasphemous to YHWH if Jesus did not rise from the dead, and took on a position that resulted in the many trials that he underwent as described in 2 Cor. 11. The benefits certainly do not weigh out the costs, unless, of course, Christianity is true.

He also tells us Jesus only chose as apostles those who had been with him from the beginning, heard his teachings, witnessed his miracles, and been with him through his trials. He stresses that it was very important to Jesus that His disciples meet this criteria since they would be passing along His teachings.

Never mind that the first apostles Jesus chose hadn’t had any of these experiences at all. Never mind also that we only see these criteria being used in Acts 1 and we never see a divine word choosing another apostle. I am not saying they were wrong to do so, but this is never something that is said to be spelled out by Jesus. The requirements for being an apostle are simply being sent by Jesus and if Paul’s encounter is true, then Paul is an apostle. Also, there were others called apostles, such as Junia and her husband in Romans 16.

Campbell also says that when the eleven chose a replacement for Jesus, they pointedly did not choose Paul. Geez. Why could that be? Could it be because Paul was not a part of the Jesus movement then and it would be ridiculous to choose an outsider who had not embraced the message? Of course, if Jesus wants to do this, He can do so. Campbell acts like this was a deliberate rejection on the part of the apostles when it was that Paul wasn’t in the running at the time. Somehow, this translates to later times as if to show that the apostles were always suspicious of Paul.

Much of the material from here on is the same kind of material that you can find in a lot of anti-Paul materials that assumes an intense warfare going on between Paul and the apostles, something never mentioned by them or their own students, the early church fathers. (If 2 Peter is authentic, Peter did accept Paul, but of course, Campbell never bothers to look at this question.)

We will continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Pastors. Consider This For Your Sermons

What are some things I would like changed in sermons? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

As readers should know, I am in therapy here recovering from my divorce and learning social skills for dating. My therapist was asking me about how I’m doing spiritually and one thing we talked about were sermons I attend. I mentioned some concerns I have with them and I would like to write about them now.

The first point I want to make is that too many sermons seem to focus on the experience of the pastor. I get especially concerned when I hear them talk about things that God told them. Those are dangerous words. That is giving divine authority to whatever you say next. Are you willing to do that? While I realize we don’t live in Old Testament times, in those times, the penalty for saying “God said” when He did not say was death. We can say that that won’t happen anymore, but are we to think God doesn’t still take seriously people claiming to say what He didn’t say?

I often hear people who give announcements at church say the same thing. “Well, God brought in enough money for us to do XYZ” or “God laid it on our hearts to build the new building” or “God put this idea in us for the new Vacation Bible School.” How do you know? I always want to ask that question. It’s not just a Protestant thing. I have heard it in Catholic and Orthodox churches as well.

Pastors. If you spend too much time on your experience, you will be the focus. It will not be what the church is to do in Christ. It will be about what you think Christ is doing in you. I don’t come to church to hear about you. I come to church to hear about Jesus.

Second, is that too often we focus on application which boils down to advice. I am not saying application is not part of a sermon, but it should be the minimal part after the main message has been given. Lewis once said the world is full of good advice and if all Jesus came to do was give us good advice, it was a wasted effort. We have rejected much advice before. Why not the best of all?

If this is all we do, then we are not different from many other groups except we sprinkle a little bit of Jesus in there to sound spiritual. We’re pretty much a club at that point. Now I get that part of coming to church is community and we should have that, but the main draw should not be community. The main draw should be Jesus.

There’s a reason we have negative terminology for preaching and a sermon. If someone starts telling us what to do over and over we say “Don’t preach at me” or “I don’t need to hear a sermon.” Those are negative terms and really, they’ve been sadly earned. If you’re a pastor, do you want your sermon to sound like that?

Finally, present the grandeur of God in Christ in all your sermons somehow. For instance, when I was at church Sunday, the sermon I heard was on Mark 4. What’s it about? Jesus calming the storm. You know what we too often make the sermon about? Jesus can calm the storms in your life!

Well, yes, He can. But He won’t always. However, before saying that Jesus can calm the storms in our lives, let’s look at what this text is actually about.

Jesus calming an actual storm.

I’m going to wager a hunch that very few of you reading this have successfully gone outside to face a horrendous storm of some kind and calmed it down by your words alone. I’ll even say most of you have never attempted such a thing before. Who are we to calm storms, after all? Yet Jesus did it!

What does that tell me about Jesus? What does that show me about who He is? What does that tell me about the power that He has?

Another passage like this is David and Goliath. The passage becomes about facing your giants. What are the Goliaths in your life? Can you take them down? Let’s look at what the story is about.

It’s about the covenant God of Israel having a faithful servant in the next king, David, who trusts so much in YHWH to fulfill His covenant promises if one is faithful to Him that he is willing to face the giant on this God’s behalf.

The story of the three Hebrew boys thrown into the fire is about three Hebrew boys being faithful to YHWH in a pagan kingdom against a pagan king not even knowing if they would be spared. The miraculous preservation of them showed that yes, God can deliver, but it also showed something else. God is superior to the will of the pagan kings.

We could go on and on easily. In all of these stories, by jumping to application, you miss the message. Do you think Mark really wrote the story of Jesus calming the sea to show that God can calm the storms in your life? No. He wrote it to tell us about Jesus.  The writer of Samuel did not write to tell us God can overcome your Goliaths. He wrote to tell us about faithfulness to YHWH by David in a time when Israel was under oppression by an evil foreign adversary.

The story of the Hebrew boys was not written to show God can deliver you from your furnace. It was written to show that God was faithful even in a foreign land and greater than the gods of the most powerful empire on Earth at the time. It was written to show His covenant had not been abandoned.

Think back to a time when you fell in love with someone. Did you need to hear advice about how to love them? Not saying it wouldn’t have helped, but generally, when you were presented with the loved one and who they were, you wanted to do the good automatically. There’s a reason the saying was that the face of Helen of Troy could launch a thousand ships. Present a man with the beauty of the woman and he will tend to want to do great things. Beauty is very inspirational.

What will a man do when presented with the glory of Christ?

Now if you want to say God can calm the storms in your life and other things, make sure that is secondary. The primary thing is what God has done in Christ and in the lives of the saints of the past. Present them this God that they are to trust in and if God calms the storm, great! If not, He will be with them through it.

For those of us who are Protestants, we stand on a treasure trove of great theology. I am part of an Aquinas Zoom meeting on Thursday nights and I hear good theology as we discuss what Aquinas says about God. That’s our theology also. The Reformers and immediate predecessors would have no problem with much of medieval theology. It’s only in more recent times that we started having people seriously question simplicity, impassibility, omniscience, etc.

We have a great God. Let people see Him. We have a great savior in Christ. Let people see Him.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)