Honor The King

UPDATED: 09:00 EDT/ GMT -4  on Monday, June 13, 2011

In conversation amongst Bible believers and at the same time contemplating current events and outrageous behavior by government (I know, I know; when does that not happen?), it seems inevitable that the Scriptural admonition to obey the rulers appointed over us comes into play.

Not that I have any illusions that folks so inclined to study only that which they want to, and believe that which they want to, are going to be swayed by anything I have to say on the matter, I've stewed over this issue in my mind and prayed about it for a couple of weeks now, wanting to be sure that I wasn't letting my own desire cloud my judgment regarding this matter.

I will continue to think on it long and hard and always be open to deeper truth about it, but right now, I'm ready to hold court.

There are several verses in the Bible regarding obedience to authority, but the one that gets misused and abused the most by Christians is Paul's admonition to the congregation in Rome; specifically in chapter thirteen.  Yet they take his words and not only do they isolate them from all the rest of the text of Scripture but they isolate the first part from the rest of the context in which Paul places it.

"Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities.  For there is no authority except from God, an those which exist are established by God. Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.  For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil.  Do you want to have no fear of authority?  Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good.  But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil. . . ."  Romans 13:1-5 (NASB)

I say this verse gets misused and abused because, going back to Bill Clinton, when the sitting president was doing things that were blatantly wrong, unlawful, and in direct violation of the Constitution and I expressed my disgust over such actions, I was admonished with the verse above.  When I have said that I have nothing but utter contempt for the president, be he Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush or the current golfer using the People's House, I have had Christians react as if I was doing something I should repent of and be ashamed for doing.  Truly wishing to do the right thing and honor the ultimate authority, the Creator of the universe, I've prayed for wisdom in this regard.  Following my own admonitions to take the entire Bible as my counsel, I will lay out the case in my defense.

God repeatedly warned His people that they should not want a king. He expressly warned them in 1 Samuel chapter 8 that requesting a king would result in lots of bad stuff.  The irony was that the people were asking for a king "like the other nations" because the sons of the priest Eli were corrupt.  But rather than pray to Adonai for deliverance, they choose to jump from the frying pan into the fire by asking for someone who would have greater, consolidated power over them to oppress them even more.  Go figure.  The bottom line is that those who ask for a human king are rejecting God.  What I have learned from this that when I talk to those who express concern over showing respect and deference to human rulers, I often find a corresponding lack of respect and concern for God's Word.  Perhaps I can delve more deeply into examples of that later, but the short of it is that I see many examples of Christians who will disobey God's direct commandments because they can use the cover of obeying man-made law.

God had rules for the king that He appointed.  When that king got out of line, God sent a prophet to give correction.  This scenario is repeated enough throughout the Bible that I shouldn't need to cite examples.  The text of Romans 13 quoted above has been abused for centuries, outside of the theocratic/monarchy of Israel, and is known as "divine right of kings" justifying monarchies in doing any damnable and horrific thing they wanted to do. Yet, if you read what Paul writes in whole and in context, the assumption is that our obedience is in the mundane, benign and beneficial aspects.  The instruction of Romans 13 is not to obey everything and in all circumstances.  Once again, in taking the whole counsel of the Bible, I can cite Peter in Acts, after having been commanded by the Sanhedrin to never preach about Yeshua/Jesus again, that the Apostles must obey God rather than men.  Yet here was a body of rulers who had the ostensible authority of God Himself.  And let's not forget that Yeshua Himself had told the disciples that those religious leaders sat in Moses' seat and had the authority to declare halakhah (the right way to do things).


In other words, we are called to obey when the rulers are ruling in the right way and demanding good behavior, but when the rulers are demanding that we directly disobey God, we have no choice but to rebel.
What I find very interesting in my own case is that I have not rebelled against any authority of the president of the United States.  I have merely expressed my contempt for the president and many members of congress showing flagrant disregard for the Law and the Constitution, appointing others who do the same and proceeding to destroy the United States of America.

Somehow this erroneous thinking has crept into the minds of Americans that we have a government system that is something like a monarchy or oligarchy.  This is wrong.  The founding fathers debated, argued and reasoned out that nothing good could possibly come from two forms of government: democracy and oligarchy.

Let me pause here to say that I am using oligarchy very broadly.  Elected representatives come and go, but the idea is that a group of people are ruling us and not representing us or following the supreme law of the land, the Constitution.  The whole purpose of creating a Constitution was to put chains on government.  To protect the individual as a sovereign entity, able to follow the dictates of his own conscience to follow God.  And do not make the mistake of leaving off the very important words "to follow God."  John Adams put it best when he said that the Constitution was designed for the governance of a religious and moral people and that it was wholly inadequate for any other.  Check the sidebar for my page on other essential quotes.

On the flip side of the coin, our founders totally detested the idea of democracy.  Yes, I said that correctly.  Yes, I do know what I'm talking about.  The proof of what I write is in the history, debates, writings, minutes of the meetings of Congress, the federalist and anti-federalist papers.  The founders loathed the idea of democracy.  It was a pleasure to find that idea expressed in the movie, "The Patriot" by Mel Gibson:

"Tell me, sir, why should I trade one tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants one mile away?  A legislature can trample a man's rights just as easily as a king can."

But I digress.  The founding fathers did not want a king and they didn't want an oligarchy, and to try to prevent that from happening, they created a Constitution that was purposely designed to make it very hard and cumbersome to pass laws or do anything to rule over the people.  In fact, the founders created our form of government with the express idea that we DON'T HAVE RULERS.  We are supposed to have elected public servants who are supposed to understand that the power to administer only those things that are necessary to an orderly society, borrow their power from the sovereign people.  When you see members of Congress, or the Executive branch, or even the Supreme Court as rulers, you have fallen into a dangerous trap.  You have gotten stuck on stupid.  You deserve to be told what to do by people who think there are 57 States, vote on 2,000 page bills that create dictatorial power for bureaucrats, and send lewd and obscene pictures of themselves over the internet.  You need a first lady to be your nanny and tell you what to eat.



As another example of how evil it can be to carry the passage from Romans 13 to absurd extreme; what if you were living in Germany under Adolf Hitler after he acquired all the dictatorial control of the country?  Would you have quoted Romans 13 to Dietrich Boenhoffer or Corrie Ten Boom?  Would you have cooperated in revealing the hiding places of Jews or gone out to help round them up?

As a Christian in today's United States, would you work in an abortion mill?  It's the law of the land, right?  Five out of nine justices on the Supreme Court in 1973 said that the right to kill a baby in the womb was something that existed in the Constitution.  Right there.  In invisible ink.  Between the lines of other black marks. Somewhere.  It's there, just trust us.  We went to law school.

If you were a Christian during the civil rights movement in the sixties, how would you have felt if someone quoted Romans 13 to you in an effort to make you sit down and shut up while black people were being persecuted and denied their rights to equal treatment under the law?

It would be bad enough for so-called believers in God to try to correct me with Scriptures such as Romans 13 if we lived in an actual monarchy when the king or queen was doing things that were blatantly against God's law,  or even against plain decency and common morality.  But it truly makes me sick when they use Romans 13 as if it even remotely applies to an administration or congress or even the Supreme court that is openly and flagrantly violating the ultimate and supreme law of the land, and expects me to show respect for it.

I don't think so, Sparky.

The only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.  So I will continue to express the reasons why the president and many members of congress are fully deserving of contempt and derision for violating their oaths of office; for entering into their positions with the full intention of violating that oath and doing the things they do in order to "transform" this society.

You people who like to quote Romans 13 need to go look at the exchange between Paul and the high priest in the Temple in Acts 23. Ananias unrighteously orders that Paul be struck. When Paul calls him on his evil act, Ananias appeals to his own position of Kohen Gadol.  But Paul, in so many words, corrects that error by pointing out that the man's unlawful use of his power rendered his position meaningless.  I don't need to engage in any deep midrashic thought to understand the lesson there for myself as a believer.  It means that God does not condemn me for expressing contempt for those who abuse their position or authority.

Paul wrote that passage above because this radical new idea of freedom in Messiah was already being abused by some people as an excuse to not follow any law or earthly authority.  Such thinking needed to be corrected.

If we are never supposed to criticize anyone in authority, you need to explain to me why Yeshua said what He said to the Pharisees and Sadduccees.  I'm going to give you the same advice that Messiah gave to those same religious leaders:  "Stop judging by mere appearances and make a right judgment."

Some Good News

Via my good friend, Rabbi Michael Bugg's blog comes this encouraging story:


The Messianic ministry Revive Israel located just outside Jerusalem reports that its staff and partner ministries have experienced an upsurge in interest among secular and religious Israelis in the person and ministry of Yeshua (Jesus).


In their latest newsletter, Sahar S. writes that a group of 40 young Israeli college students recently visited the Revive Israel offices to ask questions regarding Jesus and the New Testament for a course on Israeli history and culture.


“They were surprised to discover that the promise of a new covenant is written in the Hebrew prophets (Jeremiah 31). The biggest news to them was that Yeshua loved the God of Israel and that His teachings were focused on a fulfillment of the moral law in the Ten Commandments (Matthew 5),” said Sahar.


“A number of them came with pre-conceived ideas and even anger towards Messianic Jews. At the end of the meeting a young religious man came and admitted that his perspective had changed about who we are – Israeli Jews who believe in Yeshua.”


The group was reportedly surprised at the level of kindness shown by the Messianics despite frequent harassment of and attacks on believers in Jesus in Israel.



I would like for my "Sunday brethren" as Rabbi Bugg calls them, to realize that those pre-conceived ideas and anger come from the idea that Messianics are traitors who have bought into the "Christian" view of who Messiah is and what He taught.  In many ways a distortion created by centuries of man-made church doctrine that does not properly understand the New Testament.


Since the gospel is "first for the Jew, and then for the Gentile," we would do well to make sure we have a proper understanding of Scripture and ask ourselves, "If the Jews are hostile to the gospel that I am preaching, is it because of the gospel itself, or is it my interpretation of it?"


If you are preaching a gospel that distorts Yeshua's message and tells people that they can disregard the Torah, Jews have every right to declare that you are preaching a false gospel, and promoting a false Messiah.

Three Days, Three Nights

When did Yeshua die and when did He rise?

When I was still identifying with Christians, I would encounter skeptics and later on Muslims using the same questions to point out that Christians were either stupid, inconsistent, or both.  I would often sidestep the problems or simply chalk it up to a lack of faith on the part of the skeptic.  I didn't want to have to recognize and deal with my own error or the laziness I had for dealing with that error.  It was pretty silly considering I was also teaching apologetics; teaching why you could trust the Bible on everything it said, but I didn't want to deal with certain issues because it would cause ill feelings in the church itself.  I liked the traditions and didn't want to change them either, and I certainly didn't want to risk the alienation of friends and family by pointing out error and correcting it.  I'd already gone through that when discovered that the pre-tribulational view of eschatology was wrong and I had family members get very angry with me for pointing out where Scripture made it clear that it was wrong.

Now that I've taken on Christmas and Easter as not just being pagan, but in direct violation of God's Word, I should also tackle the issue of Yeshua's death and resurrection and how important it is that we get this right.  I can't just put it on the back burner of insignificant details any more.  I've invested too much time and energy into telling people that the biggest difference between belief in the Bible and the Messiah versus all other religions in the world is that the Bible is verifiable truth in history.  These aren't just fantastic stories or myths designed to illustrate some "greater truth."  If the Bible is not telling the actual truth about people, places, and events, then I'm an idiot and no one should listen to me.  So if I pass off traditions of the church that are proveably false and which skeptics can use to discredit the Bible, I'm not doing God any favors.  And while it is one thing to pass on bad information in ignorance, it is evil to pass on lies when you know they are lies.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Yeshua HaMashiach, or the man that many in the Western world refer to as Jesus Christ, was not crucified and did not die on a Friday.  He also did not rise from the grave on Sunday morning.  Yeshua, the promised Messiah was crucified on a Wednesday afternoon during the same time that the Passover lambs were being slaughtered.  In keeping with prophecy, both in the Tanakh (Old Testament) and the words of Yeshua Himself, he would be dead in the grave for three days and three nights.  In case you have never thought of it before, you can't get three full days out of Friday night to Sunday morning at sunrise.  If the Friday night to Sunday morning scenario is how it went down, that would make Jesus out to be a liar.  That's not what I am out to prove.  I'm out to prove that God and His Word are true and that the traditions of men are at fault.  Now, if you love your denomination and your tradition more than you love God and the truth, this is going to be very difficult for you to look into.  I wouldn't be surprised if I've lost some readers into the first paragraph.

In order for us to understand how this error occurred, we need to understand history.  We also need a better understanding of the Hebrew, Biblical roots of the faith.  Since the Roman Empire hijacked Christianity in the fourth century, several things have happened.  First is that much understanding of the Tanakh, or "Old Testament" became lost to the Gentile converts.  Secondly, a lot of pagan beliefs and practices got blended into church practices with a veneer of new meaning to make it palatable to believers.  Third, an insidious hatred of anything Jewish or of "The Law" crept into the churches. And finally, the calendar and almost everything about reckoning time became corrupted from God's way to man's way.

How many times have you wondered why the Jews keep the Sabbath on Saturday?  I know that as a kid, I always thought it odd that the Calendar shows Sunday as the first day of the week.  Why is that?  Because it is.  Know why it's called Sunday?  In honor of the Sun god.  You can call him Osiris, but it actually goes back to Nimrod, a grandson of Noah. In Hebrew, Sunday is simply Yom Rishon, or "day first."  I like how the Spanish language preserves the proof of what some of these days actually are.  Saturday is Sabbados, not hard to figure that one out.  Monday is really "moon day" as the Spanish confirmes by calling it Lunes, as in lunar. Explaining all of this background may make for a somewhat lengthy post, but all of this information really helps to comprehend how we got to this tangled mess.

Because the vast majority of Gentile Christians don't understand the Torah or the rest of the Old Testament that well, they will gloss over or miss, or just flat out misinterpret many details in the New Testament.  The issue over the death and resurrection of Yeshua is a wonderful example.  People read that they were in a hurry to get the body of Yeshua down off the cross because Sabbath was approaching.  All days begin and end at Sundown in the Biblical way of reckoning.  Why?  Because starting in Genesis, God said, "There was evening, and then morning, one day."  Now the problem for Gentiles untrained in the Scriptures is that they assumed that all Sabbaths are the seventh day of the week.  Not so.  God appointed several feast days and the two most notable feasts are the Passover and Sukkot (Feast of Booths or Tabernacles) in which the first and seventh days are "High Sabbaths" and they occur according to specific months and dates, instead of according to the week.  We just experienced it this month with Passover.  We observed the High Sabbath starting at sundown on Monday the 18th (going into the 15h day of Nisan)  Then we celebrated Shabbat on Saturday, and then we had a High Sabbath the very next Tuesday.

We have plenty of direct information in the gospels that tell us that Yeshua's crucifixion took place at Passover. This point is beyond argument.  The problem comes from Gentiles who started running the church in the fourth century tryin to impose things into the understanding of the events and introducing pagan rituals and customs into the celebration of Christ's death and resurrection. Remember that the religious leaders were hanging on every word of Yeshua, looking for a chance to discredit him as Messiah.  By the time of this Passover things had reached a boiling point because the people were all believing that Yeshua must be the Messiah.  Interestingly enough, Yeshua had made his triumphal entry on a donkey four days prior in fulfillment of the prophecy in Daniel 9, and that was the same day that all the households of Israel were to choose a lamb to take into their houses for the three day period of inspection to make sure that the lamb met the flawless standard for sacrifice.  Coincidence?  I think not.

Yeshua has to celebrate the Passover Seder with His disciples a day early because He has an appointment with destiny. To what is us would be Tuesday night Yeshua gathers with His disciples in the upper room and conducts the Seder.  Wednesday is the fourteenth of Nisan.  Preparation day to the Jews.  This is unique to the Passover feast.  It is the last day to make sure that all the leaven (Chametz) has been cleared from the house.  This is the day when the lambs are slain at the time of the afternoon sacrifice at the Temple.  Yeshua was arrested in the middle of the night or in the early dark of morning of that Wednesday.  By the time the morning sun was well above the horizon, Yeshua had endured a kangaroo court trial by a handful (not a quorum) of the Sanhedrin, and been to Herod's palace.  Hundreds, if not thousands, of lambs were bleating in the Temple courtyard awaiting their slaughter for the Passover feast.  Women everywhere were rushing about making whatever final preparations were necessary because the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Matzot) was about to begin at sundown.  Now the crucial thing to remember that the leaders wanted to catch Yeshua in a lie or in violating Torah.

Matthew 12:38-40 "Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas (Jonah) was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

Three days and three nights.  You can't lie down on Friday night, get up Sunday morning and call that three days and three nights.  No amount of verbal or linguistic gymnastics by either Catholic or Protestant theologians is going to get around that.  There is no need to, unless your purpose is to preserve tradition over the truth of Scripture.

According to the gospel text, we know with certainty which day it was on the Hebrew calendar (God's calendar), because John 19:31 states: "The Jews therefore, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away."  This means that the crucifixion took place on the 14th of Nisan, regardless of what day of the week it was. There is only one "day of preparation" on the Hebrew calendar.   But first an explanation for those who might be wondering: why the breaking of the legs?

Crucifixion is so incredibly slow and painful a death because it is the slowest, most agonizing form of asphyxiation.  However, the body still retains the overwhelming desire to survive so to take a breath is involuntary.  In crucifixion this means pushing one's feet against the stapes.  By breaking the legs of the victim, he can no longer push himself up to take a breath, and the pulmonary edema speeded up to hasten the death.  Torah demanded that none of the bones of the Passover lamb be broken (Exodus 12:46).  Scripture prophesied that no bones of the Messiah would be broken (Psalm 34:20).

As Yeshua was being raised up on the cross the priests in the Temple were slaughtering lambs as fast as they could as twighlight was approaching.  It must have been about this time that Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus were getting permission to take the body and a shroud, and hope they could get the body in Joseph's tomb before the High Sabbath was upon them.  Then they needed to get back home to observe the Passover, have the Seder meal and begin the Sabbath rest of the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.  At sunset of that Thursday evening, that Sabbath would be over and then the women could purchase and work on preparing the spice mixture that they intended to use on the body of the Messiah.  But they would only have the daylight of Friday to do all that.  Then they needed to observe the weekly Sabbath that began at sundown on Friday night.

Luke 23:50-56  "And behold, a man named Joseph, who was a member of he Council, a good and righteous man (he had not consented to their plan and action), a man from Arimathea, a city of the Jews, who was waiting for he kingdom of God; this man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.  And he took it down and wrapped it in a linen cloth, and laid Him in a tomb cut into the rock, where no one had ever lain.  And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath was about to begin. And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment."

A lot of information is crammed into the verse above, but the events are in chronological order. Luke is known for being a very careful historian.  He doesn't mention anything about spices being brought by Nicodemus or Joseph. Maybe they did.  The time element here is important.  There wasn't time to do anything with the body because the sun was setting on the day of preparation.  There was only enough time to put the body in the linen shroud and lay it in the tomb.  The women followed along so they could know exactly where the body was and deal with the spices and wrapping of the body when there would be more time.  Luke doesn't explain religious procedure here because the assumption is that the reader understands all of that.  The women returned home, but they didn't start working on preparation of spices and ointments as soon as they got home.  When they got up the following morning, on what we would call Thursday, they were observing a High Sabbath.  It would be Friday morning before they would begin working on the spices and ointments and tearing up the cloth strips for wrapping the body and getting everything set to go back to the sepulchre.  Even though the text doesn't say it explicitly, it stands to reason that they all knew that a guard had been posted until at least the third day if not indefinately.  But there was not enough time on Friday to both get the anointing stuff and bindings prepared and go to the tomb and work on the body before the weekly Sabbath arrived, so they would have to wait until that Sabbath was over as well.  Even though the sabbath ended when three stars were visible in the sky on Saturday night, who would go to a tomb at night?  The women planned on going to the tomb at daybreak of the first day of the week, Yom Rishon.

Looking at the timeline again, we see that Yeshua would have been dead Wednesday night and placed in the tomb.  That's Wednesday night, Thursday night, Friday night; Thursday day, Friday day, and Saturday day until sundown.  Three days, and three nights.  And because Messiah is the Lord of the Sabbath, it would make sense that he rose from the dead at the end of the Sabbath day, not on Sunday morning, well into the first day of the week.  No need to push the resurrection to that artificial time frame.  The women couldn't come to the tomb until that time, but that is no reason to assume that God raised Him from the dead just before the women showed up hours after the first day of the week had begun.  We are told what the women saw after the fact, not that they witnessed the resurrection. There was an angel there to tell them He was gone, but the guards had all vanished by this time.

Another important piece of evidence to this case is the fact that for the first 300 years following the resurrection, the above scenario was accepted and taught by the early ekklesia (church).  Epiphanus, Victorinus of Petau in 307 AD, Lactantius, Wescott, Cassiodorus, and Gregory of Tours. Later, Finis Dake and R.A. Torrey also believed in a Wednesday crucifixion.  This is because they took the time to study Scripture and understand the God appointed Feast and how it was all observed by the Jews.

There are a couple of good essays that cover the same information with other details that you can find here and here.

Why the church changed to celebrating Easter is another issue that should be dealt with at length in another post.  Why the protestant churches still celebrate pagan holidays with pagan symbols and rituals is still another issue that we need to think about.

What is Sinless?

This is post number twelve in the series: Why I Am Not A Christian.  This series is posted so that you can start at the beginning and go from post to post in order.  If you are new here, this will make much more sense if you start at the beginning.


Let’s pretend for a moment that the churches in the modern world, and especially the United States, have not been so thoroughly infected with post-modern, relativistic thought; that there are actually people who believe that there is such a thing as objective truth.  I know that this is hard to swallow, considering the research that’s been done by Barna and his firm, but for the purposes of this study, let’s probe the idea that there are people who wish to claim allegiance to the Messiah of the Bible on the basis of the One who created everything and not the opinions of created beings.

Before anyone can undertake to be a disciple of the God of the Bible, one must decide who is the judge and who sets the standard.  If you have decided that you are going to pick and choose which things in Scripture apply to you, you might as well go off and start your own religion and be honest about what you call it.  “St. McGillicuddy’s Church of My Opinion,” for example.  If you are going to spend most or all of your time and energy focusing on one or two doctrines and only looking for those select texts that support your argument, then you’ve descended into making yourself the judge of Scripture.  It can be done very subtly, but done nonetheless.

In this installment, I decided to use sin as the example.  In many of the older denominations, sin is hardly, if at all, talked about.  But then people rarely talk about things that have no importance in their lives, whether positive or negative. And while sin may get preached about from the pulpits of the hyper-excitement charismatic denominations, it is practically undefined.  I’ve heard it said that it is not doing what you know you should do and doing what you know you should.  Alternately I could simply say, let your conscience be your guide.

Is that right?  Is that the Biblical standard?  I don’t think so.  Scripture tells me that “the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth;” (Gen. 8:21).  “The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9)  In order to be clear, I must stop here and define what the Scripture is talking about when it says “heart.”  It means your mind.  Not a blood pump.  Not your emotions; although your emotions are inextricably linked to it.  Not your cogitating intellect.  It is talking about your non-physical being.  The part of you that needs the rational intellect to control it.  The corresponding feature in animals would be instinct.  It’s the part of you that has desires and needs.

When men simply decide that their own conscience is the standard, they can rationalize all kinds of things.  Do you think that Hitler thought of himself as evil?  Of course not.  He believed he was doing everything he did for the good of the people of Germany.  Geoffrey Dahmer admitted in an interview with a reporter that the reason he could justify killing and eating his victims was because if we are all evolved from the primordial slime, why should we not do whatever we want?  In a very sick way, Hitler made more moral sense than Dahmer, because at least Hitler was trying to do something he felt was good for his country, while Dahmer did what he did simply because it didn’t matter.  Or someone could argue that Hitler was more evil than Dahmer, because what’s the big deal of killing and eating a few people compared to murdering about eight million people?

Each person walking the planet can have their own, individual set of standards that they can call their conscience. In reality, that means that there is no standard at all.  This is why God gave us the Torah; His “Teaching.”  And because the vast majority of churches have abandoned the standard of Torah for what does and does not constitute sin, there is confusion and chaos.  You can go to one church and be made to feel guilty for wearing make-up or pants if you’re a woman.  You can go to another church and be a practicing homosexual and be made to feel that you are just fine the way you are and what you are doing is your own business.  There are people who quit going to church because they didn’t want to be convicted of sin, while there are other people who quit going to church because they are tired of there being no real standard and the hypocrisy drives them nuts.

Which reminds me that I need to do a comprehensive post on what is and is not hypocrisy.  That is another word that has been abused into near meaninglessness.

So, when the Bible speaks of Yeshua (Jesus) of being without sin, what does it mean?  If your concept of what constitutes sin is based on nothing more than your own personal conscience, then you can define Yeshua’s sinlessness as whatever you want to.  Have you ever thought about that?

If you choose not to study the same Scriptures that Yeshua studied which defines the standard of righteousness, and you instead have some undefined idea of what sinlessness is, then you create an image for yourself and apply that image to God.  This is backwards.  This is wrong.  This is idolatry.

What if you had been there when He made a whip of cords and drove the money-changers out of the Temple courts?  Not only was he angry, but he was downright violent.  Why was that not sinful?  When He was twelve and remained at the Temple asking questions and caused his parents to be worried, why wasn’t that sinful?  Then there was sassing His momma by asking her why she didn’t know that He had to be about His Daddy’s business.

If you have never studied Torah in depth and then only read the Gospels through the eyes of a modern Gentile, you are not going to understand what the writers of the Gospels meant when they said that Yeshua was without sin.  To the “Christianized” mind, a sinless Jesus is indefinable.  Seriously.  Take a moment and ponder this.  Can you, if you claim to be a Christian, clearly define to another person, what exactly made Jesus a sinless man?  Could any two people agree on that definition?

Would you say that Jesus was the embodiment of love?  Really?  Then why did he make so many people angry?  Do the words of Yeshua in Matthew 23 sound like someone full of love for everyone?  I remember being at a dinner with distant relatives and being chastised for believing in a standard of holiness. Someone said, “Jesus’ whole reason for coming to earth was to bring us peace and love.”

Really?  Matthew 10:34-39 quotes The Master as saying:

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.  For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.  He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life shall lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake shall find it.”

Can you see why it is dangerous to make broad statements when you don’t really know what you are talking about?  Don’t misunderstand my point and think that I am advocating for dominion theology or some form of militant Christianity.  In order to understand that quote above, you must take into account all of the teachings of Yeshua, and that includes what Torah says as well.  Could you consider the statement above to be hyperbole?  Yes and no.  As an aside I have to point out that it is ironic that “liberals” like to accuse us “Bible Thumpers” of only seeing things in black and white, and no shades of grey, when just the opposite is true.

Do I believe that some families will be torn apart over following Yeshua?  Absolutely.  Imagine you are an orthodox Jew who converts to Christianity.  Your family will consider you dead, mourn your loss, and may even have a formal “memorial” service for you.  If you are a muslim who converts, they may actually try to kill you.  So there is no hyperbole in such a case.

But you may simply have a stressful time dealing with family relationships once you become a devout believer in the God of the Bible.  The point is that discipleship can cost you a lot, but the ultimate reward is worth whatever sacrifice you may have to make.   Back to the question of what constitutes sin.

Another reason we need the Torah and the rest of Scripture to be the standard for what is and is not sin, is because there are a lot of people who like to run around saying that God told them something.  Even when I was still only a young Christian of about five years experience, and didn’t know near as much as I do now (which will never be enough), I used to get in some heated arguments with folks when I questioned the crap that was being taught by the likes of Benny Hinn and Kenneth Copeland and a lot of the bilge that comes from the Trinity Broadcasting Network.

I’ve heard people like Fred Price and Jesse Duplantis say some stupid and downright heretical things which should have gotten them banned from speaking in most churches, but instead they get applauded for it.  The particulars are not what’s important for the purposes of this essay, the point is that there has to be an immovable standard that settles any arguments.  That standard has to be Scripture.

By surrendering to the knowledge that Torah is eternal; that Yeshua is Torah and Torah is Yeshua; that the Holy Spirit would never, ever, contradict Scripture, and therefore, would never tell a believer something contradicted by Scripture; I can be assured that if I do my best to follow Torah, I need not be ashamed.  When I do fall short and violate Torah, I have the ultimate High Priest and advocate in Yeshua.

Yeshua has told us plainly and clearly that Torah is eternal and is still in effect.  He came to help us understand it better, and the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) is here to give us the power to carry it out daily if we are willing to listen and submit our will to His.

Knowing God: Part 5

I was pondering whether or not to launch into Equidistant Letter Sequencing (ELS) codes that prove the Bible is of supernatural origin, but my guest, "tpmoney," brought up the issue about "which version."  This is worth covering here before I move on to ELS codes, because before we had the discovery of those codes -- made possible only with modern computers -- we have always had manuscript evidence.

One of the myths that critics of the Bible like to casually throw around or repeat is the idea that the Bible we have today can't possibly have survived until now without serious redactions, editing, or alteration.  This myth easily gets perpetuated because the vast majority of folks who call themselves Christians are too lazy or don't care to answer the false charge.  That is why in my last post I talked about Josh McDowell and Evidence That Demands A Verdict.  You see, I don't need to re-invent the wheel here.  That volume meticulously demonstrates that the manuscripts of the Old Testament have been faithfully copied down through the centuries with only the minutest of errors that don't even change any of the meaning of the texts. We also have many extant manuscripts that date very close to the first century CE, and the writings of the early disciples of the apostles to testify as to what should be considered Scripture and what is not.  If you are serious about knowing whether or not the Bible is true or not, you can go check out McDowell's work or Stroebel's work.  McDowell's work is heavily footnoted to all of the source material.  Let me deal with each of TPMONEY's points.

"So which version of the Bible contains the truth? While the original scribes may have been intent of preserving the history as it was, we've since had 2000 years of editing and cutting and politics interfering."

Over the years when I have heard someone make the claim of redacting or editing of the Bible, my question is always: "Give me an example."  To which I get nothing.  I keep asking and I keep getting nothing.  The reason is because you would have to have manuscript or archaeological evidence that at some point the text said one thing, and then later it was found to say something else.  Is everybody clear on that?  Upon questioning further, I find out that this is what they heard somebody else say with no evidence to back it up.  Once again, it's all about empirical evidence. Most critics of the Bible haven't got a clue about how the process of copying Holy Scripture is done.  Which is why they just assume that errors must have occurred as their imagination warrants.  So let me explain.

A Torah scroll is considered a very, very sacred object. The standards for how the Hebrew Scriptures must be written was established by Moses and has been carried down ever since. It must be written on kosher animal skin (most likely lamb).  It must be written with a certified kosher quill that meets very demanding standards.  In order to be a scribe who is going to create a faithful, kosher (perfect) copy of a Torah scroll, you not only must have been educated and bar mitzvahed and considered a righteous man, you then must spend five years learning the most intricate details of forming the sacred letters of a scroll. The picture to the right is of the letter "tsade" (pronounced tsah-dee). You can see that this isn't like gouging cuniform into clay tablets. This isn't like taking dictation or mass producing books to sell to the general public.  The act of writing the letters was considered creating holy art.  The characters in a Torah scroll are not like the common Hebrew you see every day or in other writings. There are special quirks all throughout a Torah scroll that seem to have hidden meaning, but that must be faithfully reproduced to look exactly like the original. This is why even the least expensive kosher Torah scrolls can cost tens of thousands of dollars. Strange things like oddly larger than normal or smaller than normal characters in certain spots, some letters that are stretched way out on the page.  Places where gaps of a certain length must be kept.  Some words have special little strokes placed a certain way above each letter.  After each segment is copied by a scribe with the special attention to all of this detail, it must be inspected by at least three and possibly five other more experienced scribes to make sure that each detail has been faithfully executed.  One of the inspectors even counts the characters backward on the scroll to make sure the numbers match.  If a scribe makes an error while writing any regular word on a segment, he may carefully scrape off the layer of ink and make the correction as long as it is not visible to the naked eye, but if he makes any mistake in copying the tetragrammaton, the Holy Name of God (Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey) that entire segment becomes unredeemable and must be set aside for burial.  It cannot be used under any circumstances. If a segment is found to contain an error after the whole segment was completed, it also is set aside for burial.  It cannot be used.  There was no editing.  Creating a new scroll of Holy Scripture as a copy is not like copying your friend's history essay in high school.  It's more like creating a forgery of the Mona Lisa that you'd like to sell.

When the first copies were starting to be written, it was still fresh in the minds of the Jews that they were dealing with the One and Only God who wiped out the Egyptians and struck fear in the hearts of every inhabitant of the middle east from as far south as Ethiopia to as far north as what is now Lebanon.  When the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in a cave in Qumran, their discovery was monumental because they proved that the modern day copies of the book of Isaiah, the most complete examples found there, were essentially identical, meaning that a thousand years of faithful transmission by copying had preserved the text.

Political interfering?  What would that be?  Israel didn't have a king for the first 400 years of their history after Moses.  If there was to be political interference, where would it come from and why?  Regardless of that, where is there any evidence of that?  Asking me, "What about political interference?" is like asking me, "What about the influence of the Australian Aborigines?"  I made the statement before that the Bible records about the kings of Israel (both kingdoms) just as they are, warts and all.  If someone had political reasons to edit Scripture, who were they, what were their reasons, and what is the evidence for it?

I'm one of those people who get's fairly peeved by that silly bumper sticker saying, "If it ain't King James, it ain't Bible"  The King James Version has some good things going for it, but as a translation from the original language it can't be perfect.  Sorry if this is the first you are hearing this, and it upsets your sensitivities, but that's the way it is.  Some poor, undereducated folks have seen that word "Authorized" in the KJV and thought somehow it got there by the hand of God Himself.  Sorry, not so.  What that "authorized" means is that it was finally authorized by King James of England after centuries of it being illegal, on pain of death, to translate the Scriptures from the Latin into English so the laity could read it for themselves. [UPDATE: see comment below, somebody did some serious research to correct a misperception of mine. Apparently not all of Europe had problems with the Bible being translated into local languages. Congrats to good research.]  Some of the KJVs were so fraught with errors that they had to be recalled.  Gutenberg's invention had made printing so easy in comparison to hand copying that it made it easy to get careless.

The vast majority of "Christians" know little to nothing about their own church's history, let alone the history of translations from the Greek Septuagint to the Latin Vulgate.  Most Christians in America don't know that the KJV wasn't even accepted by most of the puritans who fled to these shores precisely because it was King Jame's Bible.  They were mostly all using something called the Geneva Bible.  Many of the most educated of our founding fathers and others in Europe, such as Sir Isaac Newton, studied Hebrew and Greek in order to study the Bible in it's original language.  Newton spent most of his life trying to discover the hidden codes that he was sure existed in the Bible.  Alas, he was ahead of his time.

I'm still learning Hebrew, but I know enough to read it in the original language and compare it to the interlinear versions and cross reference to the concordances and lexicons.  Some of the greatest difficulty stems from the fact that Hebrew has a very small vocabulary compared to English.  Where we may have twenty different words with various shades or connotations of meaning, there is just one word in Hebrew and the context determines the meaning.  For the most part, it is pretty straight forward, especially in the historical sections.  The only places I run into problems, along with scholars far beyond my ability is when it comes to prophetic passages that have yet to be fulfilled.  I'm still stunned by people who can be shown all the stuff that has been fulfilled and still don't believe, but then I covered that in a previous post.

TPMONEY also said: "what about things like the gnostic gospels?"

The gnostic gospels are called that because they apparently were written by men who had their own mystical ideas about Christ and what it took to be saved.  The term "gnostic" comes from the Greek word "gnosis" meaning knowledge, and in this case, arcane or mystical knowledge that had nothing to do with the historical and factual Jesus.  They are an extreme contrast to the canonical gospels since the gnostic "versions" were not discovered until many centuries later.  Far removed from any eyewitnesses, let alone tertiary or more separation from anybody who knew the apostles.  They are no more important than 17th century novels about Jesus.  The canonical gospels were already circulating within 30 to 70 years of Yeshua's resurrection. Matthew's possibly earlier, having started out in Hebrew.  We know from the impeccable historian Luke that the body of believers was growing rapidly due to the appeal of eyewitness testimony of those who had seen and heard all that had happened with Yeshua. Luke compiled his gospel in a chronological fashion and interviewed many eyewitnesses, friends and family members of the Messiah and His followers. Had there been any significant mistakes in the accounts of the gospels, there would have been plenty of people who could have stepped up and said, "Hey, wait a minute; that's not how it happened at all."  And before I move on, let me make this point: because the apostles and all the initial disciples of the Messiah were Jewish, they would have regarded the recordings of the sayings and actions of the Messiah as on par with Torah.  Therefore, when it came to making copies of those writings for distribution to the congregations throughout Israel and beyond, they would have taken the same great care with the transmission of copies, and this is borne out in the extant manuscripts that scholars know of today.

TPMONEY continued:  "If the included gospels can have such differing interpretations of the same even  [sic](IIRC, of the 4 gospels, only 2 mention that the crucifixion had two other prisoners, and only 1 mentions that one was repentant, while the other say s they were both mocking) how can we be sure whichever version we have is "correct"? Or perhaps a better question is how did you decide which version to accept?

The mistake that my guest makes here would be well known to any law enforcement officer.  If you get just two, let alone four "witnesses" apart for questioning, and each of their stories are identical in every detail, you immediately know that something is wrong.  It's a concocted story.  Don't take my word, go ask a detective or google investigative techniques.

As for the differences, each of the gospel writers had slightly different perspectives on the events.After the arrest of Jesus, the disciples scattered.  Even after the resurrection, there were times when the disciples weren't all together all the time.  The gospel accounts weren't given as testimony in a court where there was a prosecutor cross examining and asking why one writer didn't mention something that another one did.  Missing details don't make a story false.  Conflicting details can.  Some things that were important to one guy weren't important to note for the other.  The important thing is that none of the four gospel accounts disagree with each other on any substantive issues.  One writer didn't say Jesus said one thing, and another writer said he said something just the opposite.  The four writers also had reasons for emphasizing different aspects of Yeshua's ministry, which obviated the need to tell of some things and not others, and finally, the gospels are all incredibly short, considering they spanned three years of the Messiah's life.  But a much more in depth study of the question of the four gospels and their qualities comes from a distinguished professor of law.

Dr. Simon Greenleaf specialized in law and was responsible for writing the standards for documentary evidence and examination of testimony of witnesses.  He was challenged by his students regarding the truth of the four gospel accounts. Dr. Simon Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen.  The result of his research and his conclusions is in the book, The Testimony of the Four Evangelists.  It completely puts to rest any idea that there is a problem or any conflict between the gospels.

Once again, I'm barely scratching the surface here when it comes to the overwhelming evidence that the Bible of the Hebrews is a book that defies explanation as an invention of mere men.  I can't take 25+ years of just my learning and stuff it all into this blog.  I wish I could take everything I've learned and download it to your brain like a few JPEG files, but it doesn't work that way.  If nobody raises any more questions for me to answer in the next day or so, I'll move on to ELS codes.