Closing the Show

It has been a blessing to help some believers to be edified and instructed in some things regarding the scriptures, but I (Brother Jonathan) feel that the time has come to end the podcast. 

If anyone is looing for a ministry that they can follow that is in agreement with the views and doctrinal persuasions of Remnant Bible Fellowship Podcast then please follow Blessed Hope Chapel out of Simi Valley, California. Pastor Joe Schimmel is an excellent teacher and preacher who can edify and encourage you better than myself. 

They have several podcast available for your edification: "Blessed Hope Chapel", "Good Fight Radio", and "The 511 News". These ministries are good and I support them wholeheartedly. 

For the foreseeable future my email will still be available for messages or questions. 

Thank You,

Brother Jonathan

Here's our new episode:

The Prodigal Son

In this episode, Brother Jonathan goes through the parable of the prodigal son and discusses parables in general. 

 

The Prodigal Son

S4EP4 

Remnant Bible Fellowship

 

1. Intro
   1. Today we are going to be talking about the parable of the prodigal son, and we’ll also be discussing some things about parables in general.
2. About Parables
   1. A “parable” is not an allegory. This is one way that the early church got away from handling the scriptures well. If you read some of the interpretations by some early Christian writers, like Augustine or Clement of Alexandria, you see that they distorted the scriptures by using an allegorical method of interpretation. Using that method, you can make the text say anything that you want.
   2. That is not what the parables are for or how they are to be interpreted. The word “parable” comes over into English from the Greek word “parabole”. In BDAG, the two entries define it as “something that serves as a model or example pointing beyond itself for later realization, type, figure (Heb. 9:9); a narrative or saying of varying length, designed to illustrate a truth especially through comparison or simile, comparison, illustration, parable, proverb, maxim.”
   3. In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament which was probably the version of the OT used by Christ and the Apostles, the Greek word “parabole” was translated from the Hebrew word “mashal”. In Holladay’s Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, the entry for this word has “saying of any of various categories; proverb; wisdom saying; mocking song”.
   4. You see that this is slightly different from what we think of in English as a “parable”. There are a wide range of forms that fall into the category of parable. In Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart’s excellent book on the basics of hermeneutics, “How to Read the Bible for all its Worth”, they say this:
      1. “The first thing one must note is that not all the sayings we label as parables are of the same kind. There is a basic difference, for example, between the Good Samaritan (true parable), on the one hand, and the Leaven in the Meal (similitude), on the other, and both of these differ from the saying, “You are the salt of the earth” (metaphor), or “Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?” (epigram). Yet all of these can be found from time to time in discussions of the parables.” (“How to Read the Bible for all its Worth”, Fee and Stuart, 2nd edition, 1993, p. 137)
   5. Its easy to see this when you sit down and read through the parables and see how they are different. Some are stories and some are just sayings maybe a sentence or two long. When you begin to think of the parables with the proper understanding their purpose becomes clearer. Their purpose is to provoke a response from the intended audience. This is why context is so important. You cannot separate passages of scripture of any kind from their intended audience or historical/grammatical context and come to the right interpretation. This is how people end up thinking that they have to wear artificial headcoverings, or do foot-washing as an ordinance, or something that is truly heretical—which headcoverings and foot-washing are not.
   6. Sometimes in the gospels we do have parables that are recorded for us without their original context. This is normal considering the practice of the day. It was not uncommon for parables and sayings to be repeated at various times in diverse situations. This is why we see the gospel-writers place some of the parables and sayings in different places. They are simply using normal rhetorical practices of the day. In addition to that, the Lord most likely repeated these things numerous times. We shouldn’t think that Jesus said everything that He said only once. He traveled and preached the message of the Kingdom of God in many places for a number of years.
   7. But the purpose of the parable is seen in understanding its context and intended audience. We’ll see this as we go through the text of the prodigal son.

• The Text
  1. The first thing that you must do when studying a passage, especially a parable, is to examine its context. So, with the parable of the prodigal son, which starts at Luke 15:11, we are going to start at v.1.
  2. “Now all the tax collectors and the sinners were coming near Him to listen to Him. Both the Pharisees and the scribes began to grumble, saying, "This man receives sinners and eats with them." (Luk 15:1-2)
     1. This is the beginning of the context for the following three parables given by Jesus. All three of the parables are Jesus’ response to the grumbling of the scribes and Pharisees about Jesus sitting with the non-religious Jews.
     2. The tax collectors were especially hated by the Jews; and not just the religious Jews. Tax collectors, sometimes translated as ‘publicans’, were Jews that opted to work for Rome, whether directly or through a contractor, to receive taxes from the Jews. They were seen as traitors to Israel for working for a pagan king to exact taxes from their own people. The situation made it so that many could be less than honest in their exacting from the people. The tax collectors would mark up the price that they would take from the people to increase their profit margin. This is referred to as “tax-farming”. As a result, many would get very wealthy. An example of this is the man Zacchaeus.

• You see here a contrast though in the response of the people, and this gives us the three reference points for the next three parables of Jesus’ response. The three reference points are Jesus (who receive sinners who come to Him), the sinners (who are coming to Him), and the scribes and Pharisees (who grumble about Jesus receiving the sinners who come to Him). We will be able to understand the next three parables in light of this situation.

1. “So He told them this parable, saying,” (Luk 15:3)
   1. Jesus begins to respond to the religious leaders’ grumbling. The Greek word “de”, a conjunction of lesser force than “kai”, is translated here as “so” in English to make clear that Jesus is indeed responding to them with these parables.
2. “"What man among you, if he has a hundred sheep and has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open pasture and go after the one which is lost until he finds it? "When he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. "And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!' "I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.” (Luk 15:4-7)
   1. This parable begins with a man who has a modest flock of sheep—one hundred sheep is a smaller flock than usual. When one of them goes astray, he intentionally leaves the others to go and find it. He then rejoices when he finds it and brings it back. He then celebrates with others that the sheep has been safely brought back. Jesus then ends with the statement that there is joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine “righteous” persons who don’t.
   2. This last statement by Jesus pretty well explains the meaning of the parable. The Father seeks the sinners who go astray. He rejoices when they return to Him. It is God the Father’s desire that sinners be saved and He himself is seeking them to return to Him. This is consistent with the rest of scripture. The Jews, knowing the scriptures, would’ve understood the message. In the prophets God repeatedly used the illustration of lost sheep going astray as sinners. Likewise, it is stated in many places that the Lord desires people to be reconciled to Him. The scribes and Pharisees though were self-righteous and felt that they had no need of repentance. The last statement by Jesus, “have no need of repentance,” may be an ironic jab at the Pharisees and scribes who saw themselves this way. This is more clear in the parable of the prodigal son.
      1. “All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.” (Isa 53:6)
      2. “"My people have become lost sheep; Their shepherds have led them astray. They have made them turn aside on the mountains; They have gone along from mountain to hill And have forgotten their resting place.” (Jer 50:6)

• In Ezekiel 34 we see that the Lord is angry with the “shepherds”, or the religious leaders, of that day because they were leading the people away from God. He then goes on to talk about how he will seek them out though they were led astray.
  1. “For thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I Myself will search for My sheep and seek them out. "As a shepherd cares for his herd in the day when he is among his scattered sheep, so I will care for My sheep and will deliver them from all the places to which they were scattered on a cloudy and gloomy day. "I will bring them out from the peoples and gather them from the countries and bring them to their own land; and I will feed them on the mountains of Israel, by the streams, and in all the inhabited places of the land. "I will feed them in a good pasture, and their grazing ground will be on the mountain heights of Israel. There they will lie down on good grazing ground and feed in rich pasture on the mountains of Israel. "I will feed My flock and I will lead them to rest," declares the Lord GOD. "I will seek the lost, bring back the scattered, bind up the broken and strengthen the sick; but the fat and the strong I will destroy. I will feed them with judgment.” (Eze 34:11-16)

1. “"Or what woman, if she has ten silver coins and loses one coin, does not light a lamp and sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? "When she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors, saying, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin which I had lost!' "In the same way, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents."” (Luk 15:8-10)
   1. The Lord continues along the same line of response. This is clear by how He begins the second parable. The Greek “h[” is a comparative conjunction, translated in English as “or”. He is continuing with another illustration for His audience.
   2. Again, we have something lost, it is found, and it is rejoiced over. The coins spoken of were drachmas. They were worth about a day’s wage each. So here we have a woman with ten days wages and she loses one whole day’s wage. The woman goes looking for it because it is desired by her. So, when she finds it, she naturally rejoices about it.

• In both this parable and the previous Jesus makes clear what He is saying to His audience. He states “In the same way” in v.10 in this parable, and “I tell you that in the same way” in v.7 of the previous parable. He is explaining to the audience that God the Father desires to see the lost repent and return to Him, and that He rejoices about their return and repentance, in the same way as the shepherd rejoices over a returning sheep and as the woman who finds her lost coin. This is all about the character of the Father toward the lost in contrast with the response of the religious leaders. This becomes clear with the parable of the prodigal son.

1. “And He said, "A man had two sons. "The younger of them said to his father, 'Father, give me the share of the estate that falls to me.' So he divided his wealth between them. "And not many days later, the younger son gathered everything together and went on a journey into a distant country, and there he squandered his estate with loose living. "Now when he had spent everything, a severe famine occurred in that country, and he began to be impoverished. "So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. "And he would have gladly filled his stomach with the pods that the swine were eating, and no one was giving anything to him. "But when he came to his senses, he said, 'How many of my father's hired men have more than enough bread, but I am dying here with hunger! 'I will get up and go to my father, and will say to him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me as one of your hired men."' "So he got up and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion for him, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. "And the son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.' "But the father said to his slaves, 'Quickly bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet; and bring the fattened calf, kill it, and let us eat and celebrate; for this son of mine was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.' And they began to celebrate. Now his older son was in the field, and when he came and approached the house, he heard music and dancing. "And he summoned one of the servants and began inquiring what these things could be. "And he said to him, 'Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has received him back safe and sound.' "But he became angry and was not willing to go in; and his father came out and began pleading with him. "But he answered and said to his father, 'Look! For so many years I have been serving you and I have never neglected a command of yours; and yet you have never given me a young goat, so that I might celebrate with my friends; but when this son of yours came, who has devoured your wealth with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him.' "And he said to him, 'Son, you have always been with me, and all that is mine is yours. 'But we had to celebrate and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found.'"” (Luk 15:11-32)
   1. This parable is different from the other two in that it not only describes the Father’s desire to see the lost repent and return but it also includes a part directly relating to the response of the religious leaders within it.
2. “And He said, "A man had two sons.” (Luk 15:11)
   1. We begin with this statement by Jesus that shows us the three points of reference again: a man and his two sons. These correspond to God, the sinners, and the religious leaders.
3. “"The younger of them said to his father, 'Father, give me the share of the estate that falls to me.' So he divided his wealth between them.” (Luk 15:12)
   1. The idea of a son, especially a younger son, requesting his inheritance from his father while he was still alive was highly unusual. This may show the character of the younger son being less than respectful to his father. Being the younger son, and not the firstborn, according to the Law of Moses he would receive less than his older brother.
      1. “"But he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; to him belongs the right of the firstborn.” (Deu 21:17)
   2. So the younger son would receive a third of the inheritance, and his older brother would receive two-thirds. The fact that the father would do this is odd because even in the Apocrypha (a set of books that were not accepted by the Jews as part of scripture but were nevertheless accepted for historical record) this was looked down upon.
      1. “Give not to son or wife, brother or friend, power over thee while thou livest; and give not thy estate to another, lest thou repent, and thou entreat for the same.” (Sir 33:20)

• Even in the proverbs the idea of taking an inheritance early was considered foolish.
  1. “An inheritance gained hurriedly at the beginning Will not be blessed in the end.” (Pro 20:21)

1. “"And not many days later, the younger son gathered everything together and went on a journey into a distant country, and there he squandered his estate with loose living.” (Luk 15:13)
   1. The young man quickly leaves and goes far away from his family and the authority of his father. He then proceeds to squander his money. The verb underlying squander is one that emphasizes scattering. It’s very descriptive of being wasteful and reckless. The young man did not invest his money, or try to build for himself a home and life by patience and wisdom, he simply lived recklessly in indulgence. This shows the intent and heart of the young man was desiring the pleasure of the world.
2. “"Now when he had spent everything, a severe famine occurred in that country, and he began to be impoverished. "So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. "And he would have gladly filled his stomach with the pods that the swine were eating, and no one was giving anything to him.” (Luk 15:14-16)
   1. Now the young man is brought very low. He has wasted all of his money, he is impoverished, he then becomes a servant to a gentile, and even goes so far as to be hired by a gentile to feed pigs. The idea of this was detestable to a Jew. Pigs were considered unclean by the Law of Moses. This would’ve resonated very deeply with Jesus’ original audience.
   2. Not only was this young man foolish and intentionally go live recklessly and foolishly, but he then became defiled by working for a Gentile feeding an unclean animal. The young man was himself defiled and unclean in their sight. He was even brought so low as to desire to feed on what the pigs dig. He was envious of the pigs’ food. The image to Jesus’ audience was of a significantly out-of-the-way young man.
3. “"But when he came to his senses, he said, 'How many of my father's hired men have more than enough bread, but I am dying here with hunger! 'I will get up and go to my father, and will say to him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me as one of your hired men."'” (Luk 15:17-19)
   1. Here is where the young man realizes his foolishness in leaving his father’s household. This is his moment of repentance. He makes up his mind to go home and humble himself to his father; and being satisfied with just being a servant to his father and not a son anymore. He realizes what he has done.
4. “"So he got up and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion for him, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. "And the son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.'” (Luk 15:20-21)
   1. The young man does exactly as he planned. He gets up and returns to his father. His father, seeing him coming, runs to his son and embraces him. Embracing was a sign of acceptance. The son begins to confess his sins to his father, including his understanding that he has sinned against God. This practice of referring to “heaven” or “in the presence of the angels” was common among the Jews because they revered the name of God so much that they avoided saying it. This is called circumlocution. But the young man is acknowledging his sin in the sight of God and is humbling himself before his father.
5. “"But the father said to his slaves, 'Quickly bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet; and bring the fattened calf, kill it, and let us eat and celebrate; for this son of mine was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.' And they began to celebrate.” (Luk 15:22-24)
   1. Now, in response to his son, the father does much more than his younger son desires, and clothes him fine clothes. He puts a ring on his hand, which was a symbol of authority. He puts sandals on his feet, because slaves were the ones who walked barefoot in those days. He restores him to his place of sonship before the father. He brings out the fattened calf and the father and his servants rejoice to have him back. He acknowledges that his son was as good as dead and lost but now is alive again and found.
   2. This is so far consistent with the two previous parables. Something is lost, it is sought, it is found, and there is rejoicing. The parable up to this point shows that this is the heart of God for the lost. He desires them to come to Him. He seeks them and rejoices when and if they return. But now Jesus continues with the parable to illustrate in this context how the religious leaders were acting toward the repentant sinners who came to Him.
6. “"Now his older son was in the field, and when he came and approached the house, he heard music and dancing. "And he summoned one of the servants and began inquiring what these things could be.” (Luk 15:25-26)
   1. Just as the older son inquires about what people are celebrating the scribes and Pharisees inquired about Jesus’ ministry.
7. “"And he said to him, 'Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has received him back safe and sound.'” (Luk 15:27)
   1. The scribes and Pharisees saw that multitudes of sinners, irreligious Jews, were coming to Jesus and were being changed. They were putting off their sins and being healed of everything from sickness to demonic possession. These non-religious Jews of every kind were repenting and being made right with God.
8. “"But he became angry and was not willing to go in; and his father came out and began pleading with him. "But he answered and said to his father, 'Look! For so many years I have been serving you and I have never neglected a command of yours; and yet you have never given me a young goat, so that I might celebrate with my friends; but when this son of yours came, who has devoured your wealth with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him.'” (Luk 15:28-30)
   1. Now this first part of v.28 is very telling. The older brother was angry when he heard about this and he was not willing to go in. Where was his love for his brother? Was he not glad to see his brother safely return?
   2. In the same way, the religious leader recoiled at the effects of Jesus’ ministry. Sinners were coming to God and they were angry because it was not through them or because it was not being done in a way that they thought was acceptable. When, if they truly followed the Law and the Prophets, they would’ve understood that this was the heart of God. He wants the wicked to forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and for him to return to His God who would abundantly pardon him. (Isaiah 55:6-7) The sacrifices of God are a broken and a contrite heart. (Psalm 51)

• Where was the love of the Pharisees toward these people? Why couldn’t they rejoice over the fact that these people were repenting? It may be seen in what the older brother says. He seems like he almost begrudgingly has obeyed his father and was more concerned with what he could get out of it. Likewise, the religious leaders were more concerned with their system that they had and keeping their place. Even later on in Jesus’ ministry the leaders were more concerned that the Romans would not come and take away THEIR place and THEIR nation—as though it belonged to them and not God. (John 11:48)

1. The irony is that the celebration by the Father and his servants has made the older son to separate himself from the celebration and go outside of it out of resentment. Just like the Pharisees would not enter in to the Kingdom of God because they did not like the nature and character of Jesus’ ministry.
   1. “"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.” (Mat 23:13)
2. “"And he said to him, 'Son, you have always been with me, and all that is mine is yours. 'But we had to celebrate and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found.'"” (Luk 15:31-32)
   1. The Father reminds the son that he has always been with him and all that belongs to the father is his. He had continually been with his father. The father’s love and compassion for his younger son is set in contrast to the self-centeredness of the older son. It is right for the father to rejoice that his younger son has returned.
   2. The parable ends openly with no mention of the older son’s response. Likewise, we don’t see the Pharisees and scribe’s response in this passage. It is likely that Christ was still offering an entrance to the Kingdom at that time. Later though we see that the religious leaders would by-and-large reject Christ and be shut out. Christ himself would make many statements expressing their condemnation as a result. (Matthew 23)

• It is the response of the crowd that is being provoked. Christ uses the parables to address the scribes and Pharisees and by setting up these parables He intends to shine light on the situation and provoke a response from them. He compares the situation of God seeking the lost and rejoicing at their repentance to a shepherd seeking lost sheep, a woman seeking a lost coin, and (to address their response) a reckless son returning to his father.

1. The original audience would’ve clearly understood these parables. Whether they would respond with acceptance was another matter. Many of the parables are misunderstood because they are separated from their context and not made clear to a modern-day audience in regards to cultural references.
2. Christ’s main point that He was trying to make clear was that God desires the sinners of the world to come to Him in humility and repentance. He would accept them if they came in that manner and He would rejoice to do so. We, as Christians, should have the same attitude toward the lost. We should really be examining ourselves to see if we are reacting to the lost around us as the Pharisees, who just looked down on the people, or the Father, who in compassion seeks them and rejoices when they come.
3. One thing to keep in mind is that everyone of us who are truly Christians was at one time that younger son who humbled himself and came to the Father. I’m very grateful that when we do come to Him we don’t encounter someone with the older brother’s attitude.

Here's our new episode:

That's Your Interpretation!

In this episode, Brother Jonathan talks about how to answer someone when they tell you: Well that's just your interpretation!

 

That’s Your Interpretation

S4EP4

Remnant Bible Fellowship

 

1. The Argument
   1. You are talking to someone about something regarding a passage of scripture, could be doctrinal, practical, or maybe you are witnessing to them, and they retort back: “Well, that’s your interpretation!” As though that somehow makes you wrong or invalidates what you said.
2. Assess the Person
   1. Figure out where they are coming from.
      1. Do they honestly believe what they’re saying?
      2. Is it a philosophical problem?
         1. deconstructionism

• Is it just an excuse?
  1. Are they just saying this to get away from the meaning of the passage? Is there an ulterior motive?
• How to Answer
  1. Counter-argue with an example.
     1. “If written documents don’t have a fixed and understandable message then how does texting work? Or emails? Or letters?” Or literally any other written document (books, novels, etc.)
     2. Do they live consistent with what they’re saying?
  2. Explain why they are wrong.
     1. Documents are written with an intended meaning from the author.
     2. Grammar, historical context, the lexical definition of words, all constrain the meaning of the text.
  3. Restate the correct interpretation.
     1. Give the reasons for your interpretation to be the correct one.

Here's our new episode:

Have we lost the original text of the Bible?

In this episode, Brother Jonathan answers this very common question.

 

Have we lost the original text of the Bible?

S4EP2

Remnant Bible Fellowship

 

1. Introduction
   1. One of the most common questions or arguments that is brought up by people wanting to invalidate the Bible is the idea that the original text of the Bible has been lost either by transmission or translation. A lot of people repeat this idea without doing any actual research. People blindly believe this idea, because no one who actually does an investigation into the data believes it.
   2. For example, one of the leading textual critics, atheist/agnostic Bart Ehrman, who authored the book “Misquoting Jesus”, which has turned more people against the Bible than most books, had this to say in the appendix:
      1. “Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.”
   3. So, from one of the leading critics of the Bible you have heard up front that there is not a single cardinal doctrine of Christianity that is affected by the differences, or variants, of the manuscripts underlying the Bible. What is a ‘variant’? Let me tell you.
2. Variants
   1. A variant happens when someone who is copying a manuscript (a handwritten copy of the New Testament whether partial or whole) makes an error in copying or a correction. Then, what results is that you now have two manuscripts that differ. Later, someone copies that same manuscript and another person copies the other. Now you have four manuscripts that read differently, because most likely when they copied again there was a new variant added also. This happens many times over.
   2. So, what do you think? Do all those variants add up to a completely different text, thus forever hiding what the original New Testament said? Not at all. For one thing, this view assumes that there is no one who is double-checking these things. We know for a fact that this is not true. The early Christians wrote about how they noticed some of these copying errors and talked about it. Another thing is that they still had the one they copied originally. Yes, the originals wore out after time because of the incessant copying and circulating of them, but that doesn’t mean that the text was lost.
   3. Here’s an example for you. A professor of a college class with one-hundred students gives a copy of the Gettysburg Address to everyone. Their assignment is to hand copy it word-perfect. They all come back and turn their copy in. The teacher collates them all and checks them. Errors were made. In fact, everyone made at least one error. What does this mean?
   4. Well, for one thing, do you think that every single student made the same exact error in the same exact places? No. Each student would make individual errors. This also would prove that no one cheated. There was not one person who just superseded everything and erased everyone else’s copies and substituted his own. It is the fact that each student’s work had its own variants that proves that there was no mass control or revision done.
   5. You could easily gather all the papers, note the differences, and where they all agreed you would know was right. And where there were oddball variants that didn’t match any of the others you would know that that student just goofed there.
   6. This is what the situation of the New Testament is like. We have all these copies with variants, but they agree the overwhelming majority of the time.
   7. But, let’s consider what type of variants there are.

• Types of variants
  99. There are roughly 300 to 400,000 variants in the New Testament manuscripts. That sounds like a depressingly large number. That’s more than there are words in the New Testament. But guess what? 99.75% of those variants don’t affect the translation at all. Less than one-half of one percent of these affect how the text is translated at all. It’s usually things like a name of a person or place is spelled differently. A large number of variants is because there was no standard understanding of how to spell John’s name. So the smallest number of variants are the ones that are both meaningful (that is, they affect meaning in some way) and viable (that is, actually possible).
  100. But what constitutes ‘meaningful’? Well, when I say meaningful what I mean is that it affects that translation in some way. But when you start looking through these you see that most are trivial or insignificant. Like how do you spell Bethesda? Or, in Mark 9:29, does Jesus mention just praying does he add fasting? People like Bart Ehrman will often use examples like the pericope of the woman caught in adultery in John 8 or the last twelve verses of Mark as examples of textual issues. They imply that these are normal. That’s completely false. Most textual variants are spelling issues, then you have word order issues (which rarely affects translation in Greek), and you also have a choice of this word or that word. For example, sometimes the manuscript said “Jesus did this or that” and another says “the Lord did this or that”. Either way you know who its referring to. Does it affect meaning? Yes. Does it affect doctrine. Not at all.
  101. Doctrines such as the deity of Christ and whether or not the early Christians believed that Jesus was the Son of God are not affected at all by these variants. What the Bible says about salvation is not affected. Whether or not Jesus is going to return and how is not affected. Christianity is not affected at all by anything in the manuscript tradition. Those who say that it is are speaking from ignorance or just simply lying to you.

1. What about translation?
   1. It’s more common to hear that the text has been lost by the constant translating. Those who say this actually don’t know what translating is. You take the meaning from these words over here and bring their meaning over into another language. Languages have rules you know. We have bilingual or trilingual people that we meet in everyday life. Ask them if meaning is lost. Yes, sometimes nuances particular to a language is hard to convey, but its not lost. Especially since we have the text as it was written. Not a single doctrine is affected.
2. Perspective
   1. Let me put it this way. No, we don’t have the actual physical original copies of the New Testament text. But we have about 6,000 copies of it in the exact same language. If you expand that to include other languages then you get up to around 25-26,000 copies. That is miraculous by secular historical standards. The differences between these copies, as we already talked about, are minor and insignificant. Some important texts passages that explicitly state the deity of Christ, for example, are exactly the same in every single manuscript. We have manuscripts that are within decades of when the New Testament was completed. Over 100 in the second century alone. We have a fragment of the gospel of John that is from the first century. That gospel was written in the 90s AD. That’s single digit year difference.
   2. But, setting all that aside we have the writings of the early Christians, sermons, homilies, lectionaries, etc. They did not have the gift of brevity. Sometimes they quote almost whole chapters. With these quotations alone we can reconstruct the New Testament in its entirety. They also verify that the Christians back then believed the exact same gospel message that is preached today. They believed in the deity of Christ. They believed in saved by grace through faith. Some of these were written by the disciples of the apostles themselves.
   3. In short, we know what the original text said and we know what the original Christians believed.
3. Conclusion
   1. Now, does that validate that church on your corner? No. Just because we have the text of the Bible doesn’t mean that people follow it or obey it. But I’ll tell you one thing, when I started reading the Bible I saw that my home church and many around me were not getting what they believed from the Bible. They were just propagating what others told them. If you want to know what God said, just go get a Bible and start reading. Start in Matthew.
   2. Jesus said that we must repent of our sins (that is acknowledge them and turn from them) and follow Him because we believe that He died for our sins according to the scriptures. In closing, I will read the passage from scripture that was written by the Apostle Paul in 55 ad. Scholars acknowledge that this passage is based on an early Christian confession from the time immediately following the resurrection of Jesus—about 33-4 ad.
      1. “Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.” (1Co 15:1-8)
   3. You have no excuse for not believing that the text of the Bible is original.

Here's our new episode:

Can Women Teach?

In this episode, Brother Jonathan answers a question about women in ministry.

 

Can Women be Pastors?

S4EP3

Remnant Bible Fellowship

 

1. Intro
2. Experience over Word
   1. Many women who become pastors or preachers do so on the basis of their own subjective experience and not on the basis of God’s Word. Most say something along the lines of “well God lead me to this” or “I was called”. The fact of the matter, as we’ll see later, is that that’s not possible. The Word of God says the opposite.
   2. There are some people who go farther than that and they simply ignore the scriptures as being authoritative. This happens usually in one of two ways: (1) they believe the Spirit can lead contrary to the written word, or (2) they believe that this is a cultural thing that is not to be continued today.
      1. The Holy Spirit is the author of the scriptures.
         1. “ for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” (2Pe 1:21)
      2. The Words of God are spiritual themselves.
         1. “"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.” (Joh 6:63)

• Christians are led by the Spirit of God (Rom. 8:14). Jesus said that for us to remain in Him, or abide in Him, we are to keep His commandments:
  1. “"If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. "My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples. "Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love. "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love.” (Joh 15:7-10)

1. We are specifically told that if someone does not consent to the teachings of Jesus that they are false teachers.
   1. “If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.” (1Ti 6:3-5)
2. Quite simply, if someone does not yield themselves to the words of scripture then they have exalted themselves above it. This is the mark of another spirit and a false teacher. When someone believes that the Spirit of God is going to contradict Himself by telling us to do one thing, but then telling individuals to do something completely different and ignore the first thing, that’s simply confusion and spiritual deception.

1. The second thing brought up sometimes is that of cultural context. Some venture to say that Paul is merely going by cultural norms at the time because the average woman in the first century was uneducated and therefore shouldn’t teach.
2. Very simply…no. Paul nowhere makes that appeal. On the contrary, he appeals to the divine order of creation—which we’ll look at later particularly. Paul in other places does quite clearly appeal to culture, such as in the case of headcoverings in 1 Corinthians 11. Several times in that passage he appeals to culture and subjective judgment instead of doctrine or divine commandment. Even in the NASB there is a serious mistranslation that makes it kind of ambiguous. In 1 Corinthians 11:16 the word translated “other” should be translated “such”. There is no reason other than the subjective judgment of the translators that it is translated that way. But several times Paul makes clear that it’s a cultural issue of appropriateness and not a divine commandment.
3. Paul does no such thing with this issue. There is a divine order that he appeals to and that’s it.

• Not to Teach?
  1. “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.” (1Ti 2:11-15)
  2. There are two things that Paul says he does not allow a woman to do in v.12: “to teach” or “exercise authority”.
     1. “didaskw” – BDAG “to tell someone what to do, instruct; to provide instruction in a formal or informal setting, teach.”
     2. “auqentew” – BDAG “to assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, dictate to.”
  3. Some people try to conflate these two ideas together to say that they form a hendiadys—when two words separated by a conjunction express the same idea. This is where some think that Paul is merely saying that a woman should not authoritatively teach, that is, without being under an authority like a pastor herself but that she can do lay-teaching in Sunday school or home bible studies. This fails for one notable reason. The two words, in the original, are several words apart. If this was intended to form a hendiadys they would be side-by-side. So a woman is being told to not teach at all and not just that she can’t be a pastor/preacher/teacher in a position.
  4. Regarding that, the first thing to ask is “what should they not teach?” Is this regarding any subject at all, or just teaching biblical content? Bill Mounce in his commentary on the Pastoral Epistles had this to say:
     125. “Paul does not identify what it is that women may not teach… [didaskein] in the PE [Pastoral Epistles] is used in a positive sense of teaching the truth of the gospel (1 Tim. 4:11; 6:2; 2 Tim 2:2)… the cognate noun [didachē], “teaching,” occurs twice in the PE, both times describing the gospel message. The cognate [didaskalia], “teaching,” occurs fifteen times in the PE, and every time except one (1 Tim 4:1, referring to doctrine of demons) it refers to the gospel (1 Tim 1:10; 4:6, 13, 16; 5:17; 6:1, 3; 2 Tim 3:10, 16, 4:3; Titus 1:9; 2:1, 7, 10)… the overwhelming use of the word group in the PE is to describe the positive teaching of the gospel, often (as the context shows) by a person in authority (especially 2 Tim 2:2; 1 Tim 5:17; Titus 1:9; c.f. 1 Tim 3:2).” - (William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, in Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 46, ed. by Bruce Metzger, Ralph P. Martin, and Lynn Allan Losie (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 124-125.) [Brackets mine]
  5. So the context for the use of the Greek word in the Pastoral Epistles indicates that what is being spoken of is biblical content. That means that a woman is not being banned from speaking about a particular skill or profession that they know. (e.g. accounting, literature, science, etc.) A woman is particularly banned from teaching biblical content to men. This should seem like common sense. Since a woman is not inferior in essence or worth, they are co-heirs with us male believers in the exact same salvation, then it makes sense that it is not just some arbitrary command for a woman to “sit down and shut up”. That idea is absent from the scriptures.
  6. On the contrary, Paul acknowledges that women should indeed teach at certain times in particular ways:
     1. “Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it.” (Pro 22:6)
        1. Women are obviously included in general commandments about raising children. I don’t know of anyone that would disagree.
     2. “She opens her mouth in wisdom, And the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.” (Pro 31:26)

• “Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, so that they may encourage [or ‘train’] the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.” (Tit 2:3-5)

1. It’s clear then that women are free to teach things other than biblical content, and they are also free to teach other women.
2. What should be their demeanor then? Paul tells us in the context and gives us a reason why.
   1. “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. [soundness of mind; self-control]” (1Ti 2:11-15)
3. There are a couple of words to emphasize here. In v.11 Paul says that a woman must “quietly” receive instruction. He then mentions it again in v.12 saying “but to remain quiet”. He sets this in contrast to her teaching and exercising authority over men. The Greek word used for quietness is “hJsuciva” meaning “state of quietness without disturbance, quietness, rest; state of saying nothing or very little, silence” (BDAG). It is the same word used in 2 Thessalonians 3:12:
   1. “Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread.” (2Th 3:12)
4. The second word to look at is where Paul says that they are to be quiet with entire “submissiveness”. The Greek word here is “uJpotaghv” and it has the sense of “the state of submissiveness, subjection, subordination, as opposed to setting oneself up as controller” (BDAG). It’s translated in the NASB as “obedience” in 2 Corinthians 9:13, and as “subjection” in Galatians 2:5. It is also used again in 1 Timothy 3:4 when describing the qualifications for a bishop/pastor/elder (synonyms) when Paul says that they ought to have their children under “control”. The word underlying “control” here is the same Greek word.
5. So let’s put these couple of things together when we consider the passage.
   1. “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.” (1Ti 2:11-15)
6. Paul says that a woman is not allowed to teach biblical content nor to exercise authority over a man. He contrasts this by emphasizing that they ought to receive instruction with quietness and submissiveness. Then he says FOR Adam was first created. He refers to the Biblical order of creation. I truly believe that is what is at the heart of this issue. Contrary to what some liberal theologians/scholars say, Christianity is not sexist. Consider the following passages:
   1. “Indeed, true companion, I ask you also to help these women who have shared my struggle in the cause of the gospel, together with Clement also and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.” (Php 4:3)
   2. “You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.” (1Pe 3:7)

• In addition to these two places, Paul gives the wife the right over her husband’s body in 1 Corinthians 7, and in fact she’s given the same rights as the husband. Men are given commandments to make sure that they treat women well. They are commanded to treat all older women like their mother and the younger women as their sisters. They’re commanded to love their wives like their own bodies and like Christ loves the Church.

1. There is a very high standard, especially when taking it in the context of the first century, of how women are to be regarded and treated. Even in Christ’s earthly ministry it was women who are mentioned several times as faithfully following and ministering to his temporal needs like food and stuff.

1. Equal but Different
   1. The only aspect of Christianity that sets forth a significant difference in women and men is the fact that they are created differently. The world and the flesh despise this. Paul appeals to the fact that men were created first, then woman was created as a “helper suitable” for him. Woman was designed and made by God to be the perfect counterpart to man. They are complementary intellectually, socially, physically, and spiritually, in every respect. Anyone who has a good marriage understands and knows this.
   2. I believe that this is at the heart of what Paul is rebuking. Things being out of the order in which God designed men and women to operate in. I don’t need to go very far into this for you to get the point. When women begin taking the role of men in the home, church, etc., does it result in increased godliness? This cuts both ways. When men try to play the role of women does it result in increased godliness? No. Our society right now is running rampant of every kind of perversion imaginable of people rebelling against how God designed things to be. Women wanting to be men, while saying that men are pigs. Men wanting to be women, because they think that God made a mistake or something. Men not wanting to work and be responsible for providing and protecting their families. Women who have become loud and contentious as a result of wanting to usurp the male role in their lives. All that is at the heart of these things is rebellion against God’s order.
   3. Now, am I saying that as it pertains to the issue of women pastors that that is what is at women’s hearts? Not necessarily. A lot of women who have taken it upon themselves to make themselves pastors/preachers/teachers because they have simply rejected God’s word on the matter. They have exalted experience, that I shouldn’t say delusion, over what God simply said. They say things like “God lead me to this”…no He didn’t, because His word disagrees with you.
   4. Some people are very sincere and they are simply ignorant of the scriptures. Others simply don’t regard the scriptures as authoritative. That means they’re a false teacher and you know exactly what spirit led them there in the first place. The fact of the matter is that God has designed men and women to be in different roles. To say anything else is a denial of His right over His creation.
   5. Another contribution to this issue, and I believe a major one, is that Biblical manhood has fallen by the wayside. Try to get men to be godly and responsible men anymore and you’ll find yourself banging your head against a wall. A godly man, that is one who has the Spirit of God leading him, doesn’t want to sit at home while his wife works. He doesn’t want to outsource his decision making. He understands that he is responsible for his home and what goes on there. He doesn’t sit around playing video games when he should be studying God’s word. He puts his family’s needs before his own. He helps to raise and teach his children. He makes sure his wife doesn’t get burnout. He always treats his wife respectfully. That is biblical headship. It’s not simply a thing where you tell your wife “I’m the head of this house so do what I say!” A godly woman doesn’t have to be beaten over the head about the headship of her husband because he’s earned her respect and she has it written on her heart by the spirit of God to be a helper suitable for him.
   6. And all these things transfer to the church house from the home life. No men have backbones anymore in the church. So many churches are run by the women because there’s no men that are willing or even able to stand up.
   7. A friend of mine, who has since died, was once visiting a mid-size Baptist church. They were considering him as their pastor. He was preaching in the evening service and he felt that the Lord wanted him to preach on this subject so he set aside his notes and preached on the biblical roles of men and women. Afterwards, a group of the elders and deacons came up to him together with their heads hanging low (you know like dogs when they know they’re in trouble). They said, I kid you not, “Our wives told us to give this to you…” And they handed him a note. He was rejected from being pastor. He was fine with it because that’s not the kind of church you want to pastor.
   8. So it’s not just women who are making this problem. There is a vacuum of godliness in the professing church and it has resulted in these things. Women absolutely can serve the Lord—even in evangelism. They can witness. They can discuss theological issues. They offer their insights in bible studies and Sunday school classes. They’re not stupid or inferior. I believe I could lock my wife in a room with three average pastors and she could probably school them on what it means to walk with God. The only difference is the roles that God has assigned to us, and the Maker knows what He has made. He knows where we will thrive, where we will be effective, and where we will be happy.
   9. Paul touches on the same point as he does here in 1 Timothy in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35:
      1. “The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.” (1Co 14:34-35)
   10. Contrary to what Cessationists, rather stupidly, try to assert sometimes, God does allow women to speak in a church fellowship. The context here is things being done in an unorderly manner (v.33). Paul has just explained that God is not the author of confusion. He proceeds to tell women to not be out of order either. Not that they cannot open their mouths in the fellowship, because Paul has already stated that they were allowed to pray in the fellowship and exercise spiritual gifts in the fellowship. Those gifts of utterance are specifically said to be given for the benefit of the body. I’ve heard Cessationists do hermeneutical backflips trying to explain some of these passages away or reinterpret them. But even scholars admit that what Paul is emphasizing for women is they should not speak out of turn like asking question when they don’t understand something. This makes sense when you consider that the average woman in the first century was uneducated. Alford says:
       1. “This prohibits another kindred irregularity—their asking questions publicly. They might say in answer to the former σιγάτωσαν, ‘But if we do not understand anything, are we not to ask?’ The stress is on μαθεῖν…--ἰδίους, confining them to their own husbands, to the exclusion of other men.”
       2. Adam Clarke says the same thing: “The Jews would not suffer a woman to read in the synagogue; though a servant or even a child, had this permission; but the apostle refers to irregular conduct, such conduct as proved that they were not under obedience, 1Co_14:34.”
   11. I find that the only people who interpret this differently are usually Cessationists, especially Baptists.
2. What about Deborah?
   4. There is one person in the Old Testament who is consistently brought up during a conversation about this issue. There was a judge during the time of the judges that was a woman. It specifically says in the book of Judges that Deborah, a prophetess, was judging Israel at that time in Judges 4:4. Sometimes people will point to her and somehow draw an idea that women can be pastors. There is one or two problems with that.
      1. The context of the book of Judges is that Israel was pretty much doing their own things without following God. The constant cycle throughout the book is that Israel would turn away from following God, God would chastise them and give them over into the hands of their enemies, the children of Israel would cry out to God and humble themselves, God would have mercy and raise up a judge to deliver them, and then after some time they would turn away from God again. That is the context of this book.
      2. Notably, Deborah is not told by God to go and deliver Israel from their enemies. God tells her to send for Barak the son of Abinoam. She merely relays the message from God to him telling him what to do.

• Next, when Barak is hesitant to obey God, possibly because he was afraid, he asks her to go with him. Her reply is not “that’s my job” or “let me show you how its done”. She responds by telling him that she will go with him but God is not going to give him the honor for killing Sisera anymore. God had just told Barak, through the prophetess, that He would deliver Sisera into his hands. When Barak was afraid and would not go alone God responded by taking the honor of the victory away from Him.

1. This is not in any way a picture, or support, for a woman to be a pastor. If anything, it is support for the reason that I said earlier. Usually these things happen when men don’t fulfill their roles properly.

1. Closing
   1. To summarize: a woman can teach other women, she can even teach children, but she cannot operate in a position of teaching biblical content in church life over men. I would include any kind of title of “pastor”, “elder”, “bishop”, or “deacon”.
   2. God is not leading women to disobey His Word. Any spirit that is leading someone against what is written in the scriptures is not the Holy Spirit. Your experience is not authoritative. God’s Word is authoritative.
   3. A woman is allowed to pray in the congregation or to operate in a spiritual gift like tongues, prophecy, or interpretation. It should be according to Paul’s commands in 1 Corinthians 14 though. She should not speak out of turn in the congregation though like arguing or constantly asking questions. I would honestly apply that to the men as well. That’s not order in the fellowship.
   4. A woman can engage in evangelism, and she can give advice to other Christians in her daily life just like a man. This is pretty much what Priscilla did with her husband Aquilla when they helped Apollos to better understand the scriptures. She can help a minister like how there were women who helped Paul in his ministering.
   5. A woman, if she knows a particular skill or science, is allowed to teach that to others. There is no prohibition against that in the scriptures. Actually, women are specifically encouraged in certain ways to teach others.
   6. I will end by emphasizing one thing: women are free to disobey their husbands if their husbands are contradicting God. You are still an individual who is accountable to God. Don’t allow a man, whether father, husband, or preacher, to lead you into error or sin.

Here's our new episode:

Do all paths lead to God?

In this episode, Brother Jonathan answers the questions, "Do all paths lead to God?"

 

Do all paths lead to God?

S4EP1

Remnant Bible Fellowship

 

1. Intro
   1. There are many ways to restate this question. Are all religions the same? Do all religions worship the same God? Does everybody go to heaven no matter what they believe—you know…except the really bad people like Hitler.
   2. The fact is though that many people assume that propositions like these are true without ever really examining them or thinking them through. Most people accept these things as axiomatic, or self-evident, without ever applying a healthy dose of skepticism. Most people do not apply the same level of criticalness and skeptical analyzing to their own views as they do to opposing viewpoints.
   3. But if we care about what is true, as opposed to just what makes us comfortable, then we must do that. We must examine our own views in light of logical reasoning, philosophy, and evidence. If something, be it a worldview/religion/philosophy, is true then it must bear witness to reality. For example, have you ever looked at a picture of Mount Rushmore—you know, the mountain in the USA that has the faces of four past presidents carved into it—and immediately thought, “Wow, isn’t it amazing that time plus matter plus chance resulted in such amazing likenesses of these men?” No, you’ve never thought that. But in fact, if you believe in Darwinian evolution then you believe that the actual heads, and minds, of those men is a result of time plus matter plus chance. Do you see what I mean? Exactly how much skepticism have you applied to your own views?
   4. But let’s consider the question at hand, do all paths lead to God? Do all religions end up at the same destination? Do they all worship the same God?
2. Logically
   1. Well, let’s consider it logically. I believe that most people agree with those statements because they really don’t know what many religions believe. Let me contrast some of these beliefs really quick for you:
   2. About God
      1. Islam believes that there is one god, but no trinity.
      2. Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the trinity, and believe Jesus is the angel Michael.

• Mormons believe in millions of gods. Because man grows up to be a god too. They just believe that there is one main god over our planet.

1. Deists believe in a distant deity or force that has no intimate interaction with the world.
2. Hinduism believes in millions of expressions of god. They don’t believe in a personal knowable god, but simply that god is a mystical impersonal force called Brahman.
3. Atheism denies that any god exists anywhere at any time.

• Agnosticism is a veritable “I don’t know.” But they live like god doesn’t exist.

1. Authority/revelation
   1. Islam believes the Koran and the Hadith.
   2. Jehovah’s Witnesses created their own version of the Bible which doesn’t follow any of the original language manuscripts in existence. They also have magazines and materials produced by the Watchtower Society which are updated and changed as they need to.

• Mormons have multiple books written by their prophet Joseph Smith. They also have prophets that change things today as they see fit.

1. Deists believe that this distant god has never revealed himself to mankind in any way. You have to think your way to god.
2. Hindus accept the Vedas, Upanishadas (Vedanta), and the epics, Ramayana and Mahabharata, are seen as scriptures. The Bhagavad-Gita is often studied as a key text.
3. Atheism generally believes that man is the ultimate authority over himself.

• Agnosticism, generally, doesn’t really acknowledge any authority but what is pragmatically useful.

1. Man
   1. Islam believes that man is able to do good by himself but that he still needs help.
   2. JWs believe that man is free to do good works.

• Mormons believe that men and women are the literal spiritual offspring of Heavenly Father God and that we are reborn on earth and need to re-attain our godhood.

1. Deists believe that man is a rational being who directs his own destiny.
2. Hinduism believes that men are part of Brahman, individually as atman. The physical reality doesn’t exist and is a false distinction. You just have to realize that you are part of god, Brahman.
3. Atheism believes that man is simply a result of time plus matter plus chance. Given enough time particles become people. Man is just another animal no more valuable than pond scum or algae.

• Agnosticism, generally, believes the same as atheists.

1. Sin
   1. Islam believes that sin is breaking Allah’s commandments, but that man is not necessarily born with sin.
   2. JWs believe that physical death forgives all your sins.

• Mormons believe that sin is disobeying God and other commandments outside the Bible.

1. Deists believe that morals are relative and vary from person to person. There is no absolute morality.
2. Hinduism vaguely identifies sin as bad deeds. Though, to them, there is no absolute standard of right or wrong.
3. Atheists hold that there is no absolute standard of right and wrong but do not live that way, and when they do they are Adolf Hitler. If there are no absolutes why whine and complain if someone stole your car, murdered your children, or raped your wife? It’s not consistent with what they say.

• Agnostics believe as is pragmatically useful for them.

1. Salvation
   1. Islam believes that man can earn salvation by doing good works, if your good outweighs your bad then you go to heaven. There is no way to know this though.
   2. JWs believe that you earn your own salvation and that there is no eternal hell.

• Mormons believe that all people except Satan and the demons, and apostate Mormons, will inherit one of the three levels of glory in heaven.

1. Some deists believe in an afterlife or need of some kind of redemption, but not many.
2. Hinduism believes that salvation is breaking the cycle of samsara and achieving oneness with Brahman.
3. Atheists believe that man doesn’t need any kind of redemption and that with enough education, money, and time, man can create his own heaven on earth. This is of course why the world is getting better and better every day. Notwithstanding all evidence to the contrary.

• Agnostics usually respond with an “I don’t know”.

1. I can go on and on and on describing the beliefs of Wicca, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, whatever, but the question you have to ask yourself is can they ALL be true simultaneously? The only logical answer is no.
2. Christianity and Islam cannot both be simultaneously true because Christians believe they only get to heaven because of what Jesus did on the cross. Islam believes that you earn your way to heaven.
3. Hinduism and Judaism cannot both be simultaneously true because Hinduism believes that there is no personal knowable God. Judaism believes that God is personal and knowable.
4. Atheism and ANY religion cannot be simultaneously true.
5. Wicca and most other religions cannot be simultaneously true.
6. New Ageism and Christianity, Islam, or Judaism cannot be simultaneously true.
7. New ageism and Hinduism teach that you are god and Christianity, Islam, and Judaism say that you send you to hell.
8. Zoroastrians are dualists, most other religions are not.
9. The fact of the matter is that if you believe ANY religion or philosophy then you exclude all others. People think that some religions like Hinduism believe that all are true, that’s false. Hinduism believes that everyone is part of Brahman no matter what they believe. That’s very different.
10. You have to think logically. If I say “the car is red” and you say “the car is not red”, then we cannot both be right. But this is exactly what some people believe without reason or evidence. Religions say that god is this way or that way. That is a propositional statement. The contradictory one cannot be simultaneously true. Not at least according to logical or science.

• To accept all is to deny all.
  1. The basic truth that you must understand is that if you accept all religions then you must deny all of them simultaneously. If you accept naturalism then you deny God’s existence. If you accept the idea of there being a hell then you deny any religion that denies its existence.
  2. There can be no such thing as the COEXIST movement’s ideology without compromising every single religion’s exclusive truth claims. You ought rather to call it ERRADICATE or COMPROMISE. Besides, we all do coexist because we all exist together right now on the same planet at the same time. What those who care about what is true cannot do is affirm everything. I’m sorry. That’s not something that a rational person can do. That’s not something that a scientific person can do.

1. The real question
   1. So the real question that you must ask yourself when you are confronted with a religion or philosophy is: is it true? Can you prove that? It’s not about how you feel. Every time you are corrected about something you’re going to feel some kind of uneasiness. It’s not about what something is asking of you. If God exists the implications of His existence affect not only your daily life but your eternal destiny. You are going to spend a lot more time after you die than before you die, and nothing that you do in this world, nothing that you earn materially, not even necessarily your family or friends, are going to walk through death’s door with you to accompany you. Is that bleak? It shouldn’t be. Not if you’ve investigated the truth claims of those who believe that there is a God.
   2. So how do you prove a religion is true or not? I’ve done a three-part series on this in detail if you want to look those episodes up “One good reason to believe”, “from ‘god’ to God”, and “Defending the Resurrection”. Let me sum it up here though.
   3. In all of human history there is only a single religion that has set forth a single, objectively verifiable, historical event as the crux upon whether or not it is true. There is only one. Atheism can’t even prove how everything came from nothing or how chaos led to the laws of physics. They want you to accept it by faith. Islam says if you believe the Koran is pretty then that’s what proves it…no joke. I’ll give you the verse numbers if you ask me. Mormonism says in the book of Mormon, book of Moroni chapter 10, that if you feel a tingling in your bosom then that proves it.
   4. Jesus of Nazareth said, “I’m the Son of God. You have to repent of your sins and believe in me in order to be forgiven. I’m gonna be crucified by the gentiles and die. On the third day afterwards I’m gonna rise bodily from the dead. Then you’ll know that I am who I say I am.” That’s completely objectively verifiable historiographically. We can easily prove or disprove that.
   5. Some people reject the idea of resurrection a priori because they’ve never seen or experienced it (David Hume’s argument). Well by that same logic you should’ve believe in any country that you’ve never been to either. Or, you shouldn’t believe in death altogether because you’ve never died before. It’s silliness.
   6. But among historical scholars, and I mean non-religious ones. There are four historical facts that are almost unanimously agreed upon:
      1. Jesus of Nazareth died under the reign of Pontius Pilate by crucifixion.
      2. Jesus’ disciples sincerely believed that He appeared to them bodily after His death.

• The Jew who persecuted the Christians as evil, Saul of Tarsus, converted to Christianity after claiming that Jesus appeared to Him post-death.

1. Jesus’ half-brother, James, who believed that Jesus was a false prophet who died for his own sins, suddenly became a Christian after the death of Jesus. He claimed that Jesus appeared to Him.

1. The 5th point is accepted by about 75% of historical scholarship as true.
   1. The third day after Jesus was crucified His tomb was empty.
2. All of these are attested by historical documents, eyewitness testimony, even by enemies of Christians in ancient times—all without even viewing the Bible as the inspired Word of God. The main body of historical scholarship, that is, those who operate in the academic field of historiography and have degrees in it, does not question these points. They are only questioned by people speaking outside of their fields and who don’t know the data.
3. So, people say “the disciples stole the body”. No, the disciples really believed that Jesus appeared to them. If the body was stolen, then why was Saul of Tarsus converted? He wasn’t a sympathizer. Why was James converted? They separately, and individually, that Jesus appeared to them.
4. “Maybe someone else stole the body”. Then why was Paul converted, why James? Why did the disciples truly believe that He appeared to them? This, at best, only explains the empty tomb. But it was that the tomb was empty that anyone believed. Even in the bible, when the tomb was empty no one believed that Jesus rose. THEY thought that someone stole the body. It was only after He appeared to people, showing the marks in his hands and feet, that they believed.
5. Maybe they went to the wrong tomb. That doesn’t account for the appearances to the disciples. His followers were not convinced by an empty tomb but by appearances. Paul wouldn’t have been converted then. James wouldn’t have been converted then. There is literally no source in history that puts forth this idea. Besides, the tomb’s location was known to many people. The religious leaders could’ve literally walked to the tomb and pointed and shown that he was still there.

1. Conclusion
   1. Biblical Christianity is the only religion that can prove itself. Now, I’m not saying that that church on your corner is right, Christianity as it is set forth in the Bible is absolutely proven. Like I said earlier, the implications of the existence of God affect not only your life today, now, but your eternity.
   2. Jesus said that we must repent of our sins (that is acknowledge them and turn from them) and follow Him because we believe that He died for our sins according to the scriptures. In closing, I will read the passage from scripture that was written by the Apostle Paul in 55 ad. Scholars acknowledge that this passage is based on an early Christian confession from the time immediately following the resurrection of Jesus—about 33-4 ad.
      1. “Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.” (1Co 15:1-8)
   3. Jesus rose from the dead. He said repent, and follow Him, and He would come and manifest Himself to you, John 14:21-23. What are you going to do about it?

Here's our new episode: