Showing posts with label Jesus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jesus. Show all posts
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
The Old Cross And The New
By A.W. Tozer
ALL UNANNOUNCED AND MOSTLY UNDETECTED there has come in modern times a new cross into popular evangelical circles. It is like the old cross, but different: the likenesses are superficial; the differences, fundamental.
From this new cross has sprung a new philosophy of the Christian life, and from that new philosophy has come a new evangelical technique-a new type of meeting and a new kind of preaching. This new evangelism employs the same language as the old, but its content is not the same and its emphasis not as before.
The old cross would have no truck with the world. For Adam's proud flesh it meant the end of the journey. It carried into effect the sentence imposed by the law of Sinai. The new cross is not opposed to the human race; rather, it is a friendly pal and, if understood aright, it is the source of oceans of good clean fun and innocent enjoyment. It lets Adam live without interference. His life motivation is unchanged; he still lives for his own pleasure, only now he takes delight in singing choruses and watching religious movies instead of singing bawdy songs and drinking hard liquor. The accent is still on enjoyment, though the fun is now on a higher plane morally if not intellectually.
The new cross encourages a new and entirely different evangelistic approach. The evangelist does not demand abnegation of the old life before a new life can be received. He preaches not contrasts but similarities. He seeks to key into public interest by showing that Christianity makes no unpleasant demands; rather, it offers the same thing the world does, only on a higher level. Whatever the sin-mad world happens to be clamoring after at the moment is cleverly shown to be the very thing the gospel offers, only the religious product is better.
The new cross does not slay the sinner, it redirects him. It gears him into a cleaner and jollier way of living and saves his self-respect. To the self-assertive it says, "Come and assert yourself for Christ." To the egotist it says, "Come and do your boasting in the Lord." To the thrill seeker it says, "Come and enjoy the thrill of Christian fellowship." The Christian message is slanted in the direction of the current vogue in order to make it acceptable to the public.
The philosophy back of this kind of thing may be sincere but its sincerity does not save it from being false. It is false because it is blind. It misses completely the whole meaning of the cross.
The old cross is a symbol of death. It stands for the abrupt, violent end of a human being. The man in Roman times who took up his cross and started down the road had already said good-by to his friends. He was not coming back. He was going out to have it ended. The cross made no compromise, modified nothing, spared nothing; it slew all of the man, completely and for good. It did not try to keep on good terms with its victim. It struck cruel and hard, and when it had finished its work, the man was no more.
The race of Adam is under death sentence. There is no commutation and no escape. God cannot approve any of the fruits of sin, however innocent they may appear or beautiful to the eyes of men. God salvages the individual by liquidating him and then raising him again to newness of life.
That evangelism which draws friendly parallels between the ways of God and the ways of men is false to the Bible and cruel to the souls of its hearers. The faith of Christ does not parallel the world, it intersects it. In coming to Christ we do not bring our old life up onto a higher plane; we leave it at the cross. The corn of wheat must fall into the ground and die.
We who preach the gospel must not think of ourselves as public relations agents sent to establish good will between Christ and the world. We must not imagine ourselves commissioned to make Christ acceptable to big business, the press, the world of sports or modern education. We are not diplomats but prophets, and our message is not a compromise but an ultimatum.
God offers life, but not an improved old life. The life He offers is life out of death. It stands always on the far side of the cross. Whoever would possess it must pass under the rod. He must repudiate himself and concur in God's just sentence against him.
What does this mean to the individual, the condemned man who would find life in Christ Jesus? How can this theology be translated into life? Simply, he must repent and believe. He must forsake his sins and then go on to forsake himself. Let him cover nothing, defend nothing, excuse nothing. Let him not seek to make terms with God, but let him bow his head before the stroke of God's stern displeasure and acknowledge himself worthy to die.
Having done this let him gaze with simple trust upon the risen Saviour, and from Him will come life and rebirth and cleansing and power. The cross that ended the earthly life of Jesus now puts an end to the sinner; and the power that raised Christ from the dead now raises him to a new life along with Christ.
To any who may object to this or count it merely a narrow and private view of truth, let me say God has set His hallmark of approval upon this message from Paul's day to the present. Whether stated in these exact words or not, this has been the content of all preaching that has brought life and power to the world through the centuries. The mystics, the reformers, the revivalists have put their emphasis here, and signs and wonders and mighty operations of the Holy Ghost gave witness to God's approval.
Dare we, the heirs of such a legacy of power, tamper with the truth? Dare we with our stubby pencils erase the lines of the blueprint or alter the pattern shown us in the Mount? May God forbid. Let us preach the old cross and we will know the old power. (A. W. Tozer, Man, the Dwelling Place of God, 1966)
ALL UNANNOUNCED AND MOSTLY UNDETECTED there has come in modern times a new cross into popular evangelical circles. It is like the old cross, but different: the likenesses are superficial; the differences, fundamental.
From this new cross has sprung a new philosophy of the Christian life, and from that new philosophy has come a new evangelical technique-a new type of meeting and a new kind of preaching. This new evangelism employs the same language as the old, but its content is not the same and its emphasis not as before.
The old cross would have no truck with the world. For Adam's proud flesh it meant the end of the journey. It carried into effect the sentence imposed by the law of Sinai. The new cross is not opposed to the human race; rather, it is a friendly pal and, if understood aright, it is the source of oceans of good clean fun and innocent enjoyment. It lets Adam live without interference. His life motivation is unchanged; he still lives for his own pleasure, only now he takes delight in singing choruses and watching religious movies instead of singing bawdy songs and drinking hard liquor. The accent is still on enjoyment, though the fun is now on a higher plane morally if not intellectually.
The new cross encourages a new and entirely different evangelistic approach. The evangelist does not demand abnegation of the old life before a new life can be received. He preaches not contrasts but similarities. He seeks to key into public interest by showing that Christianity makes no unpleasant demands; rather, it offers the same thing the world does, only on a higher level. Whatever the sin-mad world happens to be clamoring after at the moment is cleverly shown to be the very thing the gospel offers, only the religious product is better.
The new cross does not slay the sinner, it redirects him. It gears him into a cleaner and jollier way of living and saves his self-respect. To the self-assertive it says, "Come and assert yourself for Christ." To the egotist it says, "Come and do your boasting in the Lord." To the thrill seeker it says, "Come and enjoy the thrill of Christian fellowship." The Christian message is slanted in the direction of the current vogue in order to make it acceptable to the public.
The philosophy back of this kind of thing may be sincere but its sincerity does not save it from being false. It is false because it is blind. It misses completely the whole meaning of the cross.
The old cross is a symbol of death. It stands for the abrupt, violent end of a human being. The man in Roman times who took up his cross and started down the road had already said good-by to his friends. He was not coming back. He was going out to have it ended. The cross made no compromise, modified nothing, spared nothing; it slew all of the man, completely and for good. It did not try to keep on good terms with its victim. It struck cruel and hard, and when it had finished its work, the man was no more.
The race of Adam is under death sentence. There is no commutation and no escape. God cannot approve any of the fruits of sin, however innocent they may appear or beautiful to the eyes of men. God salvages the individual by liquidating him and then raising him again to newness of life.
That evangelism which draws friendly parallels between the ways of God and the ways of men is false to the Bible and cruel to the souls of its hearers. The faith of Christ does not parallel the world, it intersects it. In coming to Christ we do not bring our old life up onto a higher plane; we leave it at the cross. The corn of wheat must fall into the ground and die.
We who preach the gospel must not think of ourselves as public relations agents sent to establish good will between Christ and the world. We must not imagine ourselves commissioned to make Christ acceptable to big business, the press, the world of sports or modern education. We are not diplomats but prophets, and our message is not a compromise but an ultimatum.
God offers life, but not an improved old life. The life He offers is life out of death. It stands always on the far side of the cross. Whoever would possess it must pass under the rod. He must repudiate himself and concur in God's just sentence against him.
What does this mean to the individual, the condemned man who would find life in Christ Jesus? How can this theology be translated into life? Simply, he must repent and believe. He must forsake his sins and then go on to forsake himself. Let him cover nothing, defend nothing, excuse nothing. Let him not seek to make terms with God, but let him bow his head before the stroke of God's stern displeasure and acknowledge himself worthy to die.
Having done this let him gaze with simple trust upon the risen Saviour, and from Him will come life and rebirth and cleansing and power. The cross that ended the earthly life of Jesus now puts an end to the sinner; and the power that raised Christ from the dead now raises him to a new life along with Christ.
To any who may object to this or count it merely a narrow and private view of truth, let me say God has set His hallmark of approval upon this message from Paul's day to the present. Whether stated in these exact words or not, this has been the content of all preaching that has brought life and power to the world through the centuries. The mystics, the reformers, the revivalists have put their emphasis here, and signs and wonders and mighty operations of the Holy Ghost gave witness to God's approval.
Dare we, the heirs of such a legacy of power, tamper with the truth? Dare we with our stubby pencils erase the lines of the blueprint or alter the pattern shown us in the Mount? May God forbid. Let us preach the old cross and we will know the old power. (A. W. Tozer, Man, the Dwelling Place of God, 1966)
Thursday, March 1, 2007
45 Reasons Why They Haven't Found The Tomb of Jesus
(Compiled By Todd Friel)
1. Explain to me why a poor family from Bethlehem would be buried in a middle class grave in Jerusalem.
2. Mary, Jesus and Joseph were the most popular names in Israel at this time. That is why the Jewish archaeologists who first discovered these caskets in 1980 NEVER claimed these belonged to the family of Jesus. The odds are too preposterous.
3. Israeli archaeologist Joel Rosenberg believes this new film is nonsense.
4. So does Jewish archaeologist Amos Kloner.
5. There is no credible evidence that Jesus was ever married. The only possible reference to Jesus being married is in a 14th century manuscript (Acts of Phillip) that nobody deems credible.
6. There is no evidence that Jesus had children.
7. They claim they have proof that Jesus had a baby. We can’t even determine the father of Anna Nicole Smith’s baby. (Jay Leno)
8. As there is no credible evidence that Jesus was married with children, this discovery does not prove that Jesus was married; it proves that these caskets don’t belong to Jesus. If Jesus was not married to Mary, this whole theory collapses.
9. If Jesus had a wife and children, wouldn’t Jesus have told John to only take care of His mother when He was on the cross?
10. Jesus son of Joseph is hardly legible.
11. Professor Stephen Pfann in Jerusalem believes the name “Jesus” should actually be interpreted “Hanun.”
12. For such an esteemed Rabbi, the family sure did a sloppy job of inscribing His name on the casket.
13. Jesus is never referred to as “The son of Joseph” in early Christian witness. That is the inscription on the casket.
14. If you were going to hide a casket, would you put it in Jerusalem and label it “Jesus”?
15. Why did they only test the DNA of the Jesus and Miriamne casket and not the caskets of the others? Because if they discovered that the DNA didn’t match, their story would crumble.
16. The scientist who did the limited DNA testing said, “Don’t be deceived by the media. This type of DNA testing cannot test every relationship.”
17. There is no DNA baseline available to prove this was the burial box of Jesus.
18. Miriamne e Mara is not legible, they are speculating.
19. Miriamne e Mara is almost certainly interpreted wrong. “Mara” is probably a contraction of Martha and is probably a second name.
20. Miriamne is NOT Mary Magdalene. Mary Magdalene is not written on the casket.
21. Is the Yose (Joseph) married to Maria? Who knows?
22. Is Jesus married to Miriamne? Who knows?
23. The name Miriamne is not found in any credible text. Not one. The only time that we can find the name Miriamne is in reference to Herod’s wife, Miriamne.
24. Matya (they claim that is Matthew) is found on one of the caskets. If this is Matthew, why would Jesus’ disciple be buried with him?
25. There is no evidence that Jesus had a brother named Matthew.
26. Defenders claim that if Joseph and Mary had more children than what the Bible lists, “The name Matthew is consistent with the type of name that Mary and Joseph might have named one of their children.” That is not a credible argument.
27. They simply left Matthew out of the picture to make the statistical analysis look better.
28. They are doing their statistics backwards. They start with the presupposition that this is Jesus tomb and then try to determine the odds. You can’t do that.
29. If we found a gravesite today with the names John and David, John’s son (the equivalent to Jesus and Joseph) could we conclude which John this was? How many John’s have had a wife named Mary and a child name David in the last two centuries? Then if you knew that David was unmarried and from Los Angeles, but the tomb was found in New York, would you feel confident you had identified the right David?
30. Joseph’s tomb is missing. Why?
31. Jesus’ half-brother Jude is missing. Why?
32. Jesus’ half brother Simon is missing. Why?
33. Jesus sisters may be missing. Why?
34. If Jesus was buried and didn’t rise from the dead, why did Jesus’ half brother, James, die preaching that Jesus rose from the dead?
35. Ditto for Jude.
36. How could the family have kept this a secret from the early church?
37. Wouldn’t the Romans been able to find this casket and end the dispute?
38. Wouldn’t the Jews happily dug up this casket to put an end to this new Jewish cult named Christianity?
39. Trying to resolve whose caskets these are is like trying to figure who put the first dagger in Julius Caesar.
40. While science and CSI techniques can be helpful, we don’t have a time machine to take us back to the first century.
41. Eisegesis is when you form a conclusion and then go find the evidence for your theory. That is what they have done here.
42. There are a thousand scenarios to explain this. To assign ownership to Jesus is simply not reasonable.
43. We have films and eyewitnesses of the JFK assassination and we still can’t figure out who killed him.
44. If this were a civil case, it would be laughed out of court.
45. Wow! You trust this film more than the Bible? Now that’s faith. The Bible is a more reliable source of information than this circus of evidence.
Sources: Dr. Albert Mohler (www.albertmohler.com) Dr. James White (www.aomin.org ), Dennis Ingolfsland (www.reclinercommentaries.com)
Nathan Busenitz (http://faithandpractice.blogspot.com/)
1. Explain to me why a poor family from Bethlehem would be buried in a middle class grave in Jerusalem.
2. Mary, Jesus and Joseph were the most popular names in Israel at this time. That is why the Jewish archaeologists who first discovered these caskets in 1980 NEVER claimed these belonged to the family of Jesus. The odds are too preposterous.
3. Israeli archaeologist Joel Rosenberg believes this new film is nonsense.
4. So does Jewish archaeologist Amos Kloner.
5. There is no credible evidence that Jesus was ever married. The only possible reference to Jesus being married is in a 14th century manuscript (Acts of Phillip) that nobody deems credible.
6. There is no evidence that Jesus had children.
7. They claim they have proof that Jesus had a baby. We can’t even determine the father of Anna Nicole Smith’s baby. (Jay Leno)
8. As there is no credible evidence that Jesus was married with children, this discovery does not prove that Jesus was married; it proves that these caskets don’t belong to Jesus. If Jesus was not married to Mary, this whole theory collapses.
9. If Jesus had a wife and children, wouldn’t Jesus have told John to only take care of His mother when He was on the cross?
10. Jesus son of Joseph is hardly legible.
11. Professor Stephen Pfann in Jerusalem believes the name “Jesus” should actually be interpreted “Hanun.”
12. For such an esteemed Rabbi, the family sure did a sloppy job of inscribing His name on the casket.
13. Jesus is never referred to as “The son of Joseph” in early Christian witness. That is the inscription on the casket.
14. If you were going to hide a casket, would you put it in Jerusalem and label it “Jesus”?
15. Why did they only test the DNA of the Jesus and Miriamne casket and not the caskets of the others? Because if they discovered that the DNA didn’t match, their story would crumble.
16. The scientist who did the limited DNA testing said, “Don’t be deceived by the media. This type of DNA testing cannot test every relationship.”
17. There is no DNA baseline available to prove this was the burial box of Jesus.
18. Miriamne e Mara is not legible, they are speculating.
19. Miriamne e Mara is almost certainly interpreted wrong. “Mara” is probably a contraction of Martha and is probably a second name.
20. Miriamne is NOT Mary Magdalene. Mary Magdalene is not written on the casket.
21. Is the Yose (Joseph) married to Maria? Who knows?
22. Is Jesus married to Miriamne? Who knows?
23. The name Miriamne is not found in any credible text. Not one. The only time that we can find the name Miriamne is in reference to Herod’s wife, Miriamne.
24. Matya (they claim that is Matthew) is found on one of the caskets. If this is Matthew, why would Jesus’ disciple be buried with him?
25. There is no evidence that Jesus had a brother named Matthew.
26. Defenders claim that if Joseph and Mary had more children than what the Bible lists, “The name Matthew is consistent with the type of name that Mary and Joseph might have named one of their children.” That is not a credible argument.
27. They simply left Matthew out of the picture to make the statistical analysis look better.
28. They are doing their statistics backwards. They start with the presupposition that this is Jesus tomb and then try to determine the odds. You can’t do that.
29. If we found a gravesite today with the names John and David, John’s son (the equivalent to Jesus and Joseph) could we conclude which John this was? How many John’s have had a wife named Mary and a child name David in the last two centuries? Then if you knew that David was unmarried and from Los Angeles, but the tomb was found in New York, would you feel confident you had identified the right David?
30. Joseph’s tomb is missing. Why?
31. Jesus’ half-brother Jude is missing. Why?
32. Jesus’ half brother Simon is missing. Why?
33. Jesus sisters may be missing. Why?
34. If Jesus was buried and didn’t rise from the dead, why did Jesus’ half brother, James, die preaching that Jesus rose from the dead?
35. Ditto for Jude.
36. How could the family have kept this a secret from the early church?
37. Wouldn’t the Romans been able to find this casket and end the dispute?
38. Wouldn’t the Jews happily dug up this casket to put an end to this new Jewish cult named Christianity?
39. Trying to resolve whose caskets these are is like trying to figure who put the first dagger in Julius Caesar.
40. While science and CSI techniques can be helpful, we don’t have a time machine to take us back to the first century.
41. Eisegesis is when you form a conclusion and then go find the evidence for your theory. That is what they have done here.
42. There are a thousand scenarios to explain this. To assign ownership to Jesus is simply not reasonable.
43. We have films and eyewitnesses of the JFK assassination and we still can’t figure out who killed him.
44. If this were a civil case, it would be laughed out of court.
45. Wow! You trust this film more than the Bible? Now that’s faith. The Bible is a more reliable source of information than this circus of evidence.
Sources: Dr. Albert Mohler (www.albertmohler.com) Dr. James White (www.aomin.org ), Dennis Ingolfsland (www.reclinercommentaries.com)
Nathan Busenitz (http://faithandpractice.blogspot.com/)
Friday, April 14, 2006
Easter Thoughts
I'm deeply moved each year during this holy week as we again get a fresh reminder of the suffering that Jesus endured for each of us. I'm reminded again that it was my fingerprints on the whip that struck our Savior that day. My prints were on the hammer that drove the nails. These sobering facts always bring a freshness to my relationship with Jesus. This year I'm especially drawn to the scourging that Christ endured. It's interesting to me that a scourging was never usually given with any other punishment, but Jesus got that plus the crucifixion. The Romans actually never expected the prisoner to survive the scourging and in fact would try to wrap the tails of the whip around the abdomen of the victim in order to disembowel them. This way soldiers didn't have to stand out in the heat for hours while the victim died the slow suffocating death of crucifixion. So forty stripes save one were administered. Thirteen on the left shoulder - thirteen on the right shoulder - and 13 on the loins. The psalmist said:
Psalm 129:3 - "The plowers plowed on my back; they made their furrows long."
I've no doubt that Mel Gibson's Passion, as graphic as it was, could not even do justice to what Jesus went through in that horrific 6 minutes of scourging.I certainly am not trying to downplay the importance of the cross, because that's where Jesus died for our sins and bought our salvation - but I believe the whipping post was just as powerful. At the whipping post He took those stripes that bring emotional and physical healing and deliverance:
Isaiah 53:5 - "But He was wounded for our transgressions. He was bruised for our inquities; the chastisment of our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all."
Every stripe He took was for each sin we've ever committed. Somebody had to pay - and it was all laid on Him. Make's this weekend a whole lot more special.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)