Bible Study 1 (Photo credit: DrGBB)

Conservative Christians find ourselves in the middle of a major cultural battle over homosexuality whether we want to be or not. The question is –do we want to continue on a course that many say is on the ‘losing side of history’? Currently our reputations and religious freedoms are being challenged.

Some are now calling us bigots and homophobes and ‘hate mongers’ while others are even questioning whether we should even have the right to continue teaching ‘out dated’ traditional biblically based teaching about homosexuality.

Then there are some fellow Christians who have popularized the idea that ‘Jesus didn’t really say anything against homosexuality’ so we shouldn’t either since He taught that we should love everyone and treat others like we would hope to be treated. Besides, they reason, Leviticus is Old Testament and the teaching of Paul is more culturally bound and he really wasn’t one of the original Apostles who walked with Jesus anyway. So the question for Bible believers is whether or not we still believe in its teaching when it comes to homosexuality or anything else for that matter.

One thing for sure, we all need to have a clear understand of what the Bible actually has to say about this issue particularly since Bible believers are risking so much. In the following article Biblical theologian Wayne Grudem does an excellent job at bringing clarity to the actual teaching of the Bible on marriage and homosexuality and dispels some of the popular theories (excuses) in the process:

“The Bible and homosexuality”

God’s Original Design

In God’s original design, human sexual conduct was to occur within the context of marriage between one man and one woman. The first chapter of the Bible says, “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he cre­ated him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). Differentiation of the human race into two complemen­tary sexes (“male and female”) is the first fact mentioned in connection with being “in the image of God.” In Genesis 2, which describes in more detail the process summarized in 1:27, God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him” (Genesis 2:18). Genesis then applies the example of Adam and Eve to all marriages: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). This “one flesh” sexual union was thus established as the pattern for marriage generally, and Jesus cites Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as the normative pattern that God expects all marriages to follow (see Matthew 19:4–6). Fur­thermore Paul, as a good disciple of Jesus, likewise strongly echoes Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 in his two primary texts on homosexual practice, Romans 1:23–27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9. Jesus and Paul both assume the logic of sexual inter­course implied in Genesis: a sexual bond between a man and a woman requires two (and only two) different sexual halves (“a man” and “his wife”) being brought together into a sexual whole (“one flesh”).

<Read the whole very fine and poignant article>            *Top

             (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Here’s link s to some of the best articles from the past on Easter and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ:

-Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?

Yes!

If not, as Paul says (I Cor. 15:14) the entire Christian faith is in vain.

Here’s a link to a great article on all of the facts concerning the resurrection of Jesus–a timely pursuit for the Easter season:

“Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?”

by William Lane Craig, professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California.

This is the best and most concise article that I have found on the Resurrection of Jesus.

-Was Easter Really Borrowed From a Pagan Holiday?

Here’s a good article by Anthony McRoy that contradicts the popular notion that the Christian celebration of Easter was borrowed from pagan sources:

“Was Easter Borrowed from a Pagan Holiday?”

McRoy provides historical evidence that the name ‘Easter’ was actually derived from the Old High German ‘eostarum’ which meant "dawn" and not from the name of a supposed pagan goddess.

-Resurrection of Christ: Wright On!

Listen to this! New Testament scholar N.T. Wright is right on in this short video on the Resurrection (2:23)

*Top

             (Symbol of Polyamory: Wikipedia)

We are just now getting used to Ellen referring to her ‘wife’ and homosexuals demanding state sponsored recognition for their monogamous relationships.

Now evolutionists are telling us that monogamy itself is ‘unnatural’ after all. Our supposed monkey ancestors enjoyed uninhibited sexual relationships with multiple partners and so should we?

The implication is that somehow our misguided culture and religion have messed us all up. Already introspective intellectual articles are starting to show up and question the whole basis of monogamous relationships and marriage in particular. The reasoning around this issue is that if we really were descended from monkeys, why should we be restricted by outdated religious beliefs and made-up conventions of the past when we should be free ‘to evolve’ into what ever type of relationships we may want in the future?

Response: Many Christian leaders were made fun of by the main stream media when they warned that re-defining marriage to include same-sex relationships could open the door to the regularization of other types of relationships like polygamy, polyamory, various kinds of ‘group’ marriages and who knows what else.

Now that same-sex marriage seems to be winning in America and elsewhere in the West, our fears are beginning to be realized. Now monogamy itself is in the ‘cross hairs’ and the drumbeat has already begun. Already the definition of a ‘family’ has been changed to include a number of different possibilities and relationships. What is next?

In final analysis it really is a battle over religion and culture. If the majority in the dominant culture come to accept a godless evolution as the best explanation for our origins than there is really no reason to be limited by religious traditions that define relationships. However, if the majority continue to believe in a Creator than it follows that the divine being would naturally have some ideas about what is best for his own creation which would include humans and their relationships.

Western civilization is at the crossroads.

The real danger from my perspective lies in the third alternative which is a popular prevailing attitude even among believers to let go and let others live what ever way they want. It sounds enlightened and Christians are supposed to love their neighbors regardless. But it is my contention that these different types of ‘family’ relationships are not all equal when it comes to raising children and when it comes to the future of our nation.

While we should always be tolerant of different life-style choices, not all forms of relationships should be encouraged and some (like sexual relations between children and adults) should continue to be illegal.            *Top

Does religion have a place in the 21th Century? Here’s a debate that explored the motion that it doesn’t. However, religion seems to have won the day and a reprieve in this friendly confrontation.

Famous atheist Professor Richard Dawkins usually runs into difficulty when he debates someone who is well qualified and versed in all aspects of religion and Christianity in particular. Dr. Rowan Williams who is now Master of Cambridge University’s Magdalene College shows that he is more than up for the task.

From the Christian Post:

The former Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, defeated prominent atheist professor, Richard Dawkins, in a debate at the University of Cambridge in England on Thursday night, as a vote taken at the conclusion of the debate ruled that religion does have a place in the 21st century.

The debate motion that "religion has no place in the 21st Century" was well-defeated at the event held in front of an audience of about 800 people, mostly students, at the Cambridge Union Society’s chambers, according to the U.K.’s Independent newspaper.

Dawkins lost the debate by 324 votes to 136, as he failed to convince the house that religion has no place.

<Read the whole article>

Below is a video of the debate:

*Top

Are you now or have you ever been ‘Anti-gay’? That seems to be the new ‘witch hunt’ question driving the major media when it comes to Christian ministers. It also now seems to be a major qualifying question to be answered in the negative for anyone participating in the 2nd Inauguration of President Barack Obama.

It all started when Pastor Louie Giglio was chosen to give the benediction at the Inaugural this year. He was being honored for his leadership in combatting human slavery around the world. Then a homosexual rights group uncovered a recording of a sermon preached by the pastor 18 years ago presenting a Biblical teaching on homosexuality and all heck broke loose.

Soon Pastor Giglio withdrew from giving the prayer and the White House made the following statement:

We were not aware of Pastor Giglio’s past comments at the time of his selection and they don’t reflect our desire to celebrate the strength and diversity of our country at this Inaugural. Pastor Giglio was asked to deliver the benediction in large part for his leadership in combating human trafficking around the world. As we now work to select someone to deliver the benediction, we will ensure their beliefs reflect this administration’s vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans.

We were all caught up in the whirlwind events that followed the ‘Giglio debacle’ earlier this month but now after a few days to consider and evaluate what happened we now realize that there are dark future implications for Christians who still believe in the Bible in the zeitgeist of this radically changing culture.

Looking at the White House statement it is very clear that they were apologetic for choosing him in the first place because of his obvious ‘heretical’ non-PC views when it comes to homosexuality.  Also the statement makes it rather clear that most Bible believing evangelicals need not apply in the future for any White House sponsored events unless they can answer this primary PC question in the negative:

“Are you now or have you ever been ‘anti-gay’?

In Pastor Giglio’s case, he was found to be wanting because he had actually (gasp!) preached a Biblical sermon on homosexuality 18 years ago and refused to back away from it now.  Under these same conditions and questions most major pastors in America will be disqualified in the future including a majority of black ministers.

In the media firestorm which followed there were a gaggle of editorial writers and political TV and radio commentators falling all over themselves for the opportunity to call Pastor Louie’s 18 year old message ‘hate speech.’ It didn’t really matter that they had obviously never listened to message at all or had even read a complete transcript of it. Nevertheless they made their rash judgments against it based upon self-serving out-of-context quotes. Then there was the spectacle of several major media folks ignorantly clamoring for the Bible to be ‘rewritten’ and for Christians to change their outdated religious beliefs.

Worst of all were the so-called indignant (and also Biblically ignorant) ‘progressive’ Christians who continue to make the claim that we should only teach and follow what Jesus taught about loving everyone and that Pastor Giglio and other conservative Christians are hopelessly misrepresenting where the church needs to be in the 21st century.

What does this portend for the future?  Bible believing Christians may increasingly find themselves on the outside looking in as movers and shakers of the American culture.  A traditional Biblical stand on homosexuality and marriage may become a major disqualifier for participation in the major media and even in some political offices.The spectacle of an evangelical preacher like a ‘Billy Graham’ going to the White House as a friend and spiritual advisor to the president will no longer be tolerated -there is a new test for all who enter there:

“Are you now or have you ever been ‘anti-gay’?

However, an exception will be still made for Muslim leaders –the PC battle against Islamophobia trumps it all for now. Welcome to a brave new PC world where Bible believing Christians need not apply.            *Top

Happy New Year- 2013!

It is a good time to begin the year right with a prayer for peace around the world.

Remember to pray for the peace in Jerusalem and in the Middle East. Also let’s remember to pray that the Iranian drive for nuclear weapons will somehow be peacefully resolved.

It is also a great time to pray for our economy which seems to be stuck in recession with all sort of folks (self appointed experts) warning that maybe the worst is yet to come?

Meanwhile, we have political leaders in Washington DC that seem to be more interested in pushing their own agenda and increasing their own political power above that which might be best for the country and the world. Let’s pray that this tendency will be turned around in 2013.

There are Christians all around the world being persecuted for their faith. Let’s remember them in our prayers. Just in the last week – Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani was re-arrested and taken from his family in Iran on Christmas Day, 12 Christians were killed by Muslim terrorists in Nigeria during Christmas Eve services, 41 Christians were arrested by the religious police in Saudi Arabia for having a Christmas party in a private home, a Christian man in Syria was beheaded by the Islamist rebels and fed to  animals, and 10 million+ Coptic Christians in Egypt are now facing a new reality of life under a newly approved radical sharia supporting Constitution.

It is also a good time to pray that revival will come to places all around America and that the American church will experience a new reformation of hope and finally stand up and bear the light and hope of the Good News of Jesus Christ to a darkening culture and people that desperately need good news and hope in their lives.

May God bless us all in 2013.                *Top           

                           (Birth of Jesus Matthew 2:1: Wikipedia)

Every Christmas Eve when we traditionally read the Christmas story in the Bible to our children (and now our grandchildren) the genealogies are usually avoided or quickly glossed over since they seem to get in the way of the ‘real’ story.

However the genealogies in Matthew (1:1-17) and Luke (3:23-38) are far more important than many of us realize. They actually answer the question posed by the traditional Christmas carol- ‘What child is this?’ The genealogies identify who this baby really was and how the child born to Joseph and Mary was not only a descendent of David but the rightful heir of the kingly line and a fulfillment of the prophecies concerning the lineage of the Messiah.

The Bible foretold that the coming Messiah would be of the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:10) and a descendant of David ( Is.9:7;  2Sam.7:12-13) and an heir to the throne. However, one major problem stood in the way of anyone in the kingly line of David ever actually becoming the Messiah. The prophet Jeremiah put a prophetic curse on the Davidic kingly line following King Jeconiah (Jer. 22:30):

Jer 22:30- “for no more shall a man of his seed (Jeconiah’s) prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling in Judah.”

So the line was to be condemned for all time and no descendent would ever prosper or sit on the throne? So how then would a Messiah ever come out of the kingly line of David as prophesied and yet the curse of Jeremiah continue to be fulfilled? A real dilemma.

Hundreds of years later, we find the direct descendent of Jeconiah living as a poor carpenter in Nazareth far from the throne and the centers of power and wealth in Jerusalem. Nevertheless, the genealogy in Matthew 1:1-7 which we usually ignore proves that this poor carpenter named Joseph was from the tribe of Judah and a direct descendent of David and heir of the kingly line.

Another problem, according to Christmas story in the Bible, Mary was a virgin (as foretold in Is.9:14) and therefore even if Joseph was of the kingly line of David, Jesus wasn’t really his natural son. How then can it be claimed that this child born in a manger in Bethlehem was the fulfillment of the scriptures- from the tribe of Judah, a direct descendent of David and heir to the kingdom?

The other genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 helps us to answer a couple of these questions. It tells us that Jesus was the ‘supposed’ son of Joseph and then gives us a different genealogy than Matthew. One that confirms that Jesus was of the tribe of Judah and a descendent of David but not an heir of the kingly line through Jeconiah.

An early Christian tradition is that the Lucan genealogy actually represents Mary’s family. It does make sense, Mary was a virgin so had to be from the tribe of Judah and a descendent of David if the Biblical requirements were to be fulfilled. However, this still leaves us with one problem- How can her son Jesus be the heir of Joseph and heir to the throne of David? As an adopted son Jesus could only inherit the property of Joseph but not the familial right to the throne.

The Christmas story in the Bible actually explains how this was possible.  When Joseph fulfilled his marriage to Mary who was pregnant at the time, rather than breaking it off, he was in essence accepting the coming child as his own. On the eighth day after Jesus was born he was circumcised and later Joseph along with Mary took him to the Temple to be registered and consecrated as his ‘first-born’ son (LK 2:22-24). Therefore Joseph officially recognized Jesus as his son (not by adoption) and first-born heir in the line of David and the tribe of Judah.

Jesus therefore was confirmed to be of the tribe of Judah and a descendent of David through the genealogy of his mother but received his legal rights to the throne of David from Joseph who recognized him as his son and first-born heir.

The Matthew genealogy identifies Joseph as heir of the kingly line through Jeconiah. Therefore if Jesus had been his natural son he would have been subject to the curse. However, as the recognized first-born son and heir he received the inheritance of the kingly line without the curse. Jesus was not from the literal seed of Jeconiah (Coniah) yet was the heir.

While we can’t prove today that the genealogy in Luke was Mary’s this whole scenario is supported by the fact that over 50,000 Jews in Jerusalem alone did end up believing that Jesus was the Messiah prior to 70 AD (CE) while the temple records were still available and the genealogies could still be confirmed. This included a large number of well educated Pharisees who converted to the faith. The genealogies probably received a prominent place in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke because they were very important to the early Jewish-Christian community even if they are not so meaningful to us today.

Therefore, the next time you gloss over the genealogies of Jesus, remember their importance and why they are there in the first place. They confirm that the child born of Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem was from the tribe of Judah, a descendent of David, and the legal heir to the messianic throne. They are the credentials that prove that Jesus fulfilled all of the lineage requirements of the Messiah. Also they provide a unique resolution of the thorny and contradictory problem posed by God’s curse (Jeremiah 22:30) on the messianic kingly line.                *Top

The media has taken sides long time ago in the same-sex marriage debate raging in America. Media folks are consistently badgering Christians when it comes to this issue and counseling us to be ‘tolerant’ but what they really mean is that we need to change our views and conform to the current PC culture. The assault on Pastor Rick Warren in the video above is an example of how Christian leaders are consistently treated when it comes to this issue.

In the process media wonks usually cite polls and stats to show that the tide is turning against the Biblical understanding of traditional marriage between one man and one woman. Then they actually expect that the cultural change should be enough to bring us to our knees and accept the inevitability of it all. It just demonstrates their ignorance when it to religion and particularly the Christian faith- at least of those who still take the Bible seriously.  In the end there will be no compromises with a culture that is increasingly secular and unreceptive to traditional Christian values and views.

Toleration? Yes, conservative Christians will show toleration and even reach out in love towards those on the other side. However, it is conservative Christians who really need greater tolerance when it comes to this issue. Pastor Rick in the CBS interview above rightly points out that the word ‘tolerant’ has come to mean something entirely different than it use to:

"The problem is that tolerant has changed its meaning. It used to mean ‘I may disagree with you completely, but I will treat you with respect.

Today, tolerant means – ‘you must approve of everything I do.’ There’s a difference between tolerance and approval.

Jesus accepted everyone no matter who they were. He doesn’t approve of everything I do, or you do, or anybody else does either. You can be accepting without being approving."

Pastor Warren is entirely correct. The media, the left, and the gay activists are all on the same page and demand that Christians be more ‘tolerant’ but really are seeking for unconditional approval instead. Meanwhile they are anything but tolerant of conservative Christians calling us bigots and homophobes for supporting traditional marriage as it has been in Western civilization for several thousand years? Who really needs to be more ‘tolerant’ –in the original sense of the word?                *Top

            ("The First Thanksgiving at Plymouth": Wikipedia)

Thanksgiving is a uniquely American celebration that began nearly four centuries ago with a deeply religious people, the Pilgrims, giving thanks to God for preserving them though a very hard year and bringing them their first bountiful harvest which they gratefully shared with their indigenous neighbors.

It was our first President George Washington who proclaimed that our first official national day of public thanksgiving should be dedicated by observing and:

“…by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God.“

In recent years the ‘politically correct’/secular crowd has rewritten the history of the first Thanksgiving placing an emphasis upon the hand that the indigenous American Indians played in helping the original Pilgrim community to survive. In the process they have redirected the emphasis on thanks towards neighbors and away from the providence of Almighty God.

While it is always good to be thankful for others who have enriched our own lives and certainly that has a good part to play in the celebration. Nevertheless the major emphasis of Thanksgiving should always be upon God as it was at the very first.

For me and my family, we will be praising and thanking the Lord God Almighty for the bounties and the providence that he has bestowed upon us this year in the name of his Son Jesus Christ. May Our Heavenly Father bless your family today and continue to bless all of us and this nation in the year to come.           *Top

                                         (Richard Dawkins: Wikipedia)

Did Richard Dawkins’ book- ‘The God Delusion’ actually end up leading many to find God? That‘s what one minister in the UK claims.

From the Christian Post:

One of Scotland’s leading Christian thinkers has said that atheist professor Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion book has actually paved the way for the Church to share its message about God, because it drew millions of people around the world to the debate on God and the Bible.

"Richard Dawkins has done us a big favor," said the Rev David Robertson, a minister from the Free Church of Scotland, …

"A book about God and the Bible has become a bestseller and as a result has opened up a discussion that many people thought was over."   …

"I actually know of people who have been converted through reading ‘The God Delusion’ and interacting with the discussion. Dawkins has opened the door. We now have to walk through it." 

<Read the whole article>

Response: This is something that most Christians have known and observed over the years. God uses even the opposition many times to bring people closer to him.  Funny thing but true, any time the Bible is cited it does not return void but inspires folks to make a decision one way or another.

The rise of Richard Dawkins and the ‘new’ atheists have resulted in the cream of Christian thinkers also rising to the top to meet the challenge. Lately Dawkins has been avoiding the best Christian apologists refusing to meet them directly in a debate after being soundly beaten on several occasions.

Dawkin’s is one of the top scientists in his field but religion and philosophy is really not his forte. He have written a ground shaking book but dozens have also come forth to challenge his work on every point. The battle continues for the minds and souls of humanity. God still has the last word even if Dawkins doesn’t agree or recognize His existence.            *Top