Is the Newsweek article about the Bible accurate?

Question:

I just read the Newsweek article, "The Bible: So Misunderstood It's a Sin." After having read that, how can anyone honestly remain a Christian?

Answer:

If anyone wishes to read this article, the full text can be found here.

If much of what the Newsweek article said were actually true, Christianity would be in serious trouble. The truth is the article is filled with false information, twisted facts, and insinuations that are simply not true.

The first few paragraphs paint a grim picture of biblical illiteracy and misuse in America. Personally, I think this part contains some valid criticisms, and we believers would do well to address these kinds of issues in our church.

Six paragraphs into the article is this claim:

No television preacher has ever read the Bible. Neither has any evangelical politician. Neither has the pope. Neither have I. And neither have you. At best, we’ve all read a bad translation—a translation of translations of translations of hand-copied copies of copies of copies of copies, and on and on, hundreds of times.

About 400 years passed between the writing of the first Christian manuscripts and their compilation into the New Testament. (That’s the same amount of time between the arrival of the Pilgrims on the Mayflower and today.)

Very little of what is said here is true.

Claim: "No television preacher has ever read the Bible. Neither has any evangelical politician. Neither has the pope. Neither have I. And neither have you. At best, we’ve all read a bad translation..."

Truth: The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, while the New Testament was written in Greek. There are tens of thousands, maybe even millions of people around the world, myself included, who can read these testaments in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek languages. 

But are they reading the Bible?

Claim: At best, we’ve all read a bad translation—a translation of translations of translations of hand-copied copies of copies of copies of copies, and on and on, hundreds of times.

Truth: While it is true the original first century documents no longer exist, with over 5800 Greek copies of the books found in the New Testament in existence, modern textual scholars have declared with a high degree of confidence that at least 96.4% of the Greek New Testament that exists today is letter for letter identical to the originals. Further, when it comes to confidence in the information related in the New Testament, the most conservative estimate is that 98.33% of the information related in our current Greek Text is identical to the information contained in the original. Further, when it comes to the fundamental doctrines, the "articles of faith," virtually all scholars are in agreement that the Greek New Testament as it exists today is 100% accurate to the doctrines taught in the original documents.

To those not familiar with the field of textual research, 5800 Greek copies of the New Testament might not seem like a lot. But consider this: there are more copies of the books in the New Testament than the next 100 ancient manuscripts combined! The second place for most copies goes to Homer's Illiad, of which there are now almost 1800 copies in existence, but after this, the numbers drop off rapidly. Third place goes to Sophocles, with 193 copies. In fourth place is Aristotle, with 49 copies. In fifth place is Tacitus with 20 copies. By the time we get to the manuscript in ninth place (Euripides), we are down to single digits at 9 copies. All other ancient manuscripts are less than that.

These 5800 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament are NOT translations. The originals were written in Greek, and these are COPIES of the Greek. For more on this information, you can read this article, this web site, or this blog.

Further, the oldest manuscripts of the NT are from the second century, and are likely only a few dozen copies out from the originals; maybe even closer than that. While many of them probably are copies of copies of copies out hundreds of times, there are so many copies in existence that by comparing them to each other, as noted above, provides us with a very high degree of confidence that what we are reading today is virtually identical to what the disciples wrote 2000 years ago.

So, yes, contrary to what this article claims, many tens of thousands of people around the world are literally reading what amounts to exact words of the New Testament as it was written 2000 years ago, and many millions more are reading ONE translation of the New Testament, directly from the Greek into their native languages.

Claim: About 400 years passed between the writing of the first Christian manuscripts and their compilation into the New Testament. (That’s the same amount of time between the arrival of the Pilgrims on the Mayflower and today.)

Truth: The implication of this statement is that for the first 400 years of Christianity, no one had access to the New Testament. The truth is that for the first several hundred years after the originals were written, the various books of the New Testament were copied and circulated individually. So while many early churches may not have had the entire New Testament in one binding, they did contain most of the content of the New Testament as individual books.

Further, we have proof that within a generation or two, many of the books were circulating in collections. We have copy of the four gospels together in a group (in the same order as they are today) and another copy of Paul's letters (plus Hebrews) that date to about 100-150 years after they were written (between 175 and 225 AD). And the first complete Bibles (including OT and NT) date to about 250 years after the manuscripts were completed (about 325 AD). We have TWO complete Bibles (created in two DIFFERENT scriptoriums) that date from this time period.

Claim: While there were professional scribes whose lives were dedicated to this grueling work, they did not start copying the letters and testaments about Jesus’s time until centuries after they were written. Prior to that, amateurs handled the job.

Truth: Papyrus 66, which contains the Gospel According to John, dates from sometime between 150-200 AD, and is now accepted to be the work of a professional scribe. That means the church employed professional scribes very early on.

However, many of the copies were done by amateurs. Papyrus 75, which contains both Luke and John, and dates to somewhere between 175-225 AD, is known to be a copy made by an amateur. Detailed analysis of both texts have revealed that P-66, which was produced by a professional, has at least four times as many provable copy errors as P-75, which was produced by an amateur. So the actual evidence shows that, contrary to the implications of this claim, just because a scribe was an amateur does not mean what he produced was sloppy or inaccurate.

Claim: And Koiné was written in what is known as scriptio continua—meaning no spaces between words and no punctuation. So, a sentence like weshouldgoeatmom could be interpreted as “We should go eat, Mom,” or “We should go eat Mom.”

First, all the oldest manuscripts have pauses and punctuation at the end of the thought, so we do have rudimentary punctuation.

Second, because all nouns, adjectives, verbs, and many other Greek words had endings that tell us how that word is being used in the sentence, it is actually not that hard to read once you learn the language. I've been reading scriptio continua manuscipts for so long that I barely notice any more, and I rarely have any difficulty reading the text.

Third, while there are a few places where punctuation really could change the meaning of the sentence, that is actually kind of rare, and for the most part, because Greek is a free form language, punctuation in the middle of a sentence would make no sense (and would be largely unneeded, as the endings tell us the function of the words).

For example, in Greek, the sentence above ("weshouldgoeatmom") would be crystal clear no matter what the word order, because the endings on the words would make it clear what function each word served in the sentence. With a few simple exceptions (such as plurals), English doesn't use endings to clarify the use of a word in a sentence. To get a feel for how it works in Greek, let's create a few "endings" that tell us how a word is being used. For our example, we will say that @ at the end of a word will indicate direct address (we are talking directly to that person), and $  at the end of a word will indicate the subject of the sentence.

Using our invented endings, the above sentence would read "we$shouldgoeatmom@." Now we know, no matter where the word "mom" appears in the sentence, we are talking TO mom, not suggesting that we eat her. This also means we can put these words in any order, and we will still know what the sentence means. Thus, if we read "mom@shouldgoeatwe$" or "shouldgowe$mom@eat", we still know that we are talking to mom, and the subject is "we." So, when you take into consideration that all verbs in Greek also had endings, with no punctuation or spaces, and regardless of word order, we can immediately decipher all of these to mean, "Mom, we should go eat."

This means that contrary to what this article implies, scriptio continua is not that hard to figure out in Greek, and is not that much of a hindrance to understanding the content of the New Testament manuscripts.

Claim: And what biblical scholars now know is that later versions of the books differ significantly from earlier ones—in fact, even copies from the same time periods differ from each other. “There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament,” says Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, a groundbreaking biblical scholar and professor at the University of North Carolina who has written many books on the New Testament.

Truth: In case any of you are not familiar with the expert referenced here, Bart Ehrman is an atheist whose many books and articles on the Bible have one purpose: to discredit the Bible, and with it, Christianity. So when this article quotes Ehrman, it is using what an attorney would call, "a hostile witness," and this alone should make it clear the real intent of this article.

I've read almost every copy of every published copy of the New Testament from the first few hundred years of Christianity, and I can personally testify that there are ZERO significant differences between early manuscripts and later manuscripts. But if there are so many variations in the manuscripts, how can I make that claim?

Because while it might be technically true that there are more variations among the many manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament (400,000 variations when taking all manuscripts into consideration, and the NT in Greek contains 138,020 words), what this article doesn't say is that by far the vast majority of these variations literally have no impact on the meaning of the text, or are so subtle the differences cannot be translated into English.

When you get to variations that actually impact the meaning of the text, we are down to a few hundred, and if you go to variations that would literally change a teaching or doctrine, maybe a couple dozen. But when it comes to fundamental, critical doctrines, ZERO variations that would change the teaching (such as salvation, the death and resurrection, faith, grace, etc.). In case anyone is wondering, there are no scholars, including Ehrman, who dispute these facts.

Next, when referencing the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11), while it is true that John likely did not write it, the claims in this article are simply not true.

Claim: Unfortunately, John didn’t write it. Scribes made it up sometime in the Middle Ages.

This is blatantly wrong.

This passage is called the Pericope de Adultera, and first appears in Codex Bezea, which dates from somewhere in the range of 375-425 AD. Further, of the three complete Bibles that predate Codex Bezea, one is missing the page (Alexandrinus), so it is unknown if it does not contain it; one has diacritical marks at that spot (Vaticanus), indicating a known alternate reading exists; and one (Sinaiticus) does not contain it.

Didymus the Blind made it clear in his writings that most copies of John from about 300 AD on contained that passage (we should note the the oldest complete Bible in existence date from 325-400 AD, which is this same period). Jerome reports that it was found in most Greek and Latin texts by 375 AD. And further, several of the early church fathers from the first or second centuries (such as Papias) indicated a familiarity with the story.

All of that is a long, long time before the Middle Ages.

Claim: Moreover, according to Ehrman, the writing style for that story is different from the rest of John, and the section includes phrases that do not appear anywhere else in the Bible.

This is also misleading.

First, it is not clear that the writing style of this passage is different from the rest of John.

Second, there are 5446 different Greek words in the New Testament. Of these, almost half of them only appear ONE time in the New Testament. In fact, every single section of John contains words and phrases not found in any other section of John. For example, the famous opening section of John, 1:1-14, which is completely undisputed, contains three words not found anywhere else in John, and two words only found in ONE other place in John. And if you expand out to the whole first chapter, there are no less than 16 words that are not found anywhere else in John, and another 11 words that are only found in ONE other place in John.

It is true that at first glance, the Pericope de Adultera seems to have a high number of words not found anywhere else in John. In the 12 disputed verses, there are 13 words not found anywhere else in John. But this is not actually so unusual for John. In the 12 undisputed verses from John 19:30-41, there are 14 words not found anywhere else in John.

But when it comes to rare phrases, it should be noted that the critical command Jesus states at the end: "Go and sin no more" (In Greek: μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε) only appears ONE other time in the entire New Testament: John 5:14.

So the critical, most often quoted climax of the story uses a phrase only found in John.
After examining all the evidence, most modern scholars believe the story is authentic, but could have originated from one of the other disciples, and after being passed down orally for a while, was added to John so it would not be forgotten.

Claim: For Pentecostal Christians, an important section of the Bible appears in the Gospel of Mark, 16:17-18. These verses say that those who believe in Jesus will speak in tongues and have extraordinary powers, such as the ability to cast out demons, heal the sick and handle snakes. Pentecostal ministers often babble incomprehensible sounds, proclaiming—based in part on these verses in Mark—that the noises they are making show that the Holy Spirit is in them.

Truth: Having grown up in a Pentecostal church, I can tell you with no hesitation that I have never actually heard anyone reference Mark as evidence that believers will speak in tongues, heal the sick or cast out demons. There is no need, as all of these are recorded as historical events that happened to numerous believers in the book of Acts.

For example:

When the day of Pentecost was being celebrated, all of them were together in one place. Suddenly, a sound like the roar of a mighty windstorm came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw tongues like flames of fire that separated, and one rested on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages as the Spirit gave them that ability. (Acts 2:1-4)

When handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched his skin were taken to the sick, their diseases left them and evil spirits went out of them. (Acts 19:12)

And when it comes to handling snakes without harm, there is this:

Paul gathered a bundle of sticks and put it on the fire. A poisonous snake was forced out by the heat and attached itself to Paul's hand. When the people who lived there saw the snake hanging from his hand, they told one another, "This man must be a murderer! He may have escaped from the sea, but Justice won't let him live." But he shook the snake into the fire and wasn't harmed. They were expecting him to swell up or suddenly drop dead, but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god. (Acts 28:3-6)

So contrary to the claims of this article, none of these beliefs are based on a disputed passage of scripture since they are found in numerous other, undisputed passages.

Claim: But once again, the verses came from a creative scribe long after the Gospel of Mark was written. In fact, the earliest versions of Mark stop at 16:8.

I have previously addressed the facts of this claim in a previous post. You can read that post here. In short, the evidence for the inclusion of the last 12 verses of Mark is far, far stronger than the evidence against it.

Claim: Then comes the problem of accurate translation. Many words in New Testament Greek don’t have clear English equivalents. Sentence structure, idioms, stylistic differences—all of these are challenges when converting versions of the New Testament books into English.

While this is true, what this article doesn't point out is that this is true of translations between ALL languages, including any modern languages. French has words English doesn't have. English has words Spanish doesn't have. German has words Russian doesn't have. Russian has words Spanish doesn't have.

Further, as a person who can read Koine Greek, and have translated John and Philippians from Greek into English, I can assure you that these translation problems have not led to massive numbers of false doctrines. It is true that some peripheral teachings can be clarified and corrected by reading the Greek directly, but it brings no changes to the vast majority of doctrines, and no alterations of any kind to the fundamental articles of faith of Christianity.

Claim: The gold standard of English Bibles is the King James Version, completed in 1611, but that was not a translation of the original Greek. Instead, a Church of England committee relied primarily on Latin manuscripts translated from Greek.

Truth: While the KJV is a fine translation, and many people prefer it over all other translations, calling it the gold standard is opinion, not fact. But more than that, despite the claims here, the KJV is primarily a translation directly from the Greek and Hebrew. Latin was only employed in the translation of the Apocrypha. Even Wikipedia acknowledges this:

In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from Greek, the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew and Aramaic text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek and Latin. (See the full Wikipedia article here.)

Claim: In other words, with a little translational trickery, a fundamental tenet of Christianity—that Jesus is God—was reinforced in the Bible, even in places where it directly contradicts the rest of the verse.

The implication of this is, of course, that the Bible doesn't claim Jesus is God, and we Christians only believe it because of bad translations. It's not true, and I address one of the most blatant examples of the Bible teaching the deity of Jesus in a previous post, which you can read here. This is not even close to being the only place the Bible teaches that Jesus is God, but it does show that the closer we look at the Greek, the more obvious it becomes that the Bible openly and boldly teaches that Jesus is God.

Claim: That kind of manipulation occurs many times. In Philippians, the King James Version translates some words to designate Jesus as “being in the form of God.” The Greek word for form could simply mean Jesus was in the image of God. 

First thing you need to know is that the Greek in this passage is poetry, so it uses poetic language. Since Paul did not normally speak in poetic language, most scholars believe Paul was actually quoting a popular Christian hymn that would be well known to his readers.

Realizing this is poetry, here is what the Greek in this passage states:

First, that Jesus was in the very form of God,
second, that He did not misuse His equality with God,
third that He then took on the form of a servant, and
finally, that He was made to resemble a man.

Now, realizing this is poetic language, what else could this passage possibly be saying except that Jesus was originally God, and that he changed His APPEARANCE so that He looked like a man?

A very new translation, called the ISV (go here to find out more about this translation), recognizing that this passage is Greek poetry, has produced an ingenious translation that attempts to preserve the meaning of the words while presenting them in a form English speakers recognize as poetry. The result preserves the intent and meaning of each clause while beautifully communicating that this is a first and foremost, a poem, or more likely, a song.

In God's own form existed he,
and shared with God equality,
deemed nothing needed grasping.
Instead, poured out in emptiness,
a servant's form did he possess,
a mortal man becoming.
In human form he chose to be,
and lived in all humility,
death on a cross obeying.
Now lifted up by God to heaven,
a name above all others given,
this matchless name possessing.
And so, when Jesus' name is called,
the knees of everyone should fall
wherever they're residing.
Then every tongue in one accord,
will say that Jesus the Messiah is Lord,
while God the Father praising.
(Philippians 2:6-11)

Claim: Which raises a big issue for Christians: the Trinity—the belief that Jesus and God are the same and, with the Holy Spirit, are a single entity—is a fundamental, yet deeply confusing, tenet. So where does the clear declaration of God and Jesus as part of a triumvirate appear in the Greek manuscripts?

Nowhere.

This, again, is blatantly misleading. It is true that the NAME of the doctrine is not found in the Bible, as that was invented, for the sake of convenience, many centuries later. But that does NOT mean the teaching is not found in the Bible. It is actually pretty easy to prove that the Bible teaches that the Father is God, that the Son is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God, that these three interact with each other as distinct individuals, and yet somehow, the Bible repeatedly insists there is only one God. What the Bible does NOT do is try to explain how these can all be true. It just claims they are.

And that blatant New Testament teaching is what we call, "The Trinity."

The rest of the article contains just as many erroneous claims, distorted facts, and blatantly false implications as I have already addressed, but I think what I have presented here is more than enough to demonstrate that you should not to believe much of anything you read in this article.

If anyone reading this has a specific question about any of the other issues raised in this article (wise men, creation, flood, David and Goliath, homosexuality, women in authority, etc.), please feel free to contact me, and I will address them in detail.

If you would like to read a more scholarly, accurate and balanced evaluation of the Bible, there are many, many choices out there. One such book that is both scholarly and accessible to the average lay reader is "How We Got the Bible," by Neil R. Lightfoot (available through Amazon here). If you would like a deeper, more detailed (and more faith driven) account, I recommend "From God To Us Revised and Expanded: How We Got Our Bible," by Norman L. Geisler, which is available in a downloadable, Kindle version here.

Most of all, don't make the mistake of accepting anything said in this article at face value. It is, at best really, really bad scholarship, and at worst, a blatant, vicious hit piece intended to discredit both the Bible and Christianity.

Don't believe a word of it.

Social Morality Part One: Does the Bible Endorse Slavery?

Question:

Isn't the Bible's view on homosexuality kind of like the Bible's view on slavery? The Bible endorses slavery, yet Christians have long admitted the Bible was wrong and rejected slavery. If you were willing to reject what the Bible said on slavery, why are you not willing to do the same thing with homosexuality, and admit that the Bible is wrong about it as well?

Answer:

Your entire question is founded upon a premise that needs to be addressed before I can answer your question: Does the Bible endorse slavery? So in part one, I will address what the Bible actually says about slavery. In part two (which I will address in a few weeks, as there are a few other questions I want to get to first), I will address what the Bible actually says about homosexuality.

There are plenty of passages in the Bible that can lead to the idea that Slavery is perfectly fine with God. For example, here is Jesus talking about slaves and masters:

The student is not above the teacher, nor a slave above his master. (Matthew 10:24)

Far from condemning slavery, Jesus seems to be blatantly reinforcing the idea that slaves are genuinely inferior to their masters. Further, in Matthew 18:23-35 Jesus tells a parable where the master was about to sell a man's entire family, and although he initially showed mercy, he later demanded the slave be imprisoned and tortured until that slave's full debt could be repaid. There seems to be no indication in the story that Jesus Himself has a problem with the practice of slavery, selling slaves, or even of harsh treatment of slaves.

Paul follows this example, and rather than demanding that Christian masters free their slaves, goes no further than demanding they treat their slaves well.

Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free. And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him. (Ephesians 6:7-9)

Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven. (Colossians 4:1)

Not only is there no condemnation of slavery, passages like these, and many, many more seem to show at the very least that Jesus, Paul, and by extension God, are fine with slavery, and at most, they fully endorse the practice.

So does this mean that the Bible endorses slavery? Well, yes and no.

Saying that the Bible endorses slavery is somewhat parallel to saying that it endorses death. 

Does the Bible endorse death? Well, yes and no.

Adam and Eve were warned that breaking their one law would result in death, and we are told that because of their failure, death has reigned over the history of mankind. Murder, on the one hand, is forbidden, and even causing an accidental death requires the guilty party to make recompense. However, God Himself set up death penalty laws for certain crimes, and people were killed in wars that God authorized in the Old Testament.

Most striking of all, Jesus Himself came to the earth for the express purpose of being killed for crimes He did not commit.

However, the entire point of the gospel message, of the death and resurrection of Jesus, is to ultimately defeat death, and finally rid the world of death once and for all. So the Bible views death as a very bad thing, and God is working to eliminate it from our planet once and for all, but unfortunately, death is a reality of daily life, and is an necessary part of reigning in some kinds of sin.

How does this parallel the slavery issue?

The first thing you need to understand is that what we generally mean by slavery today, which is forced, life-long slavery based on sex or race, was virtually non-existent when the New Testament was written. The slavery that divided the United States during the civil war is rare in the Bible, and when it does occur, it is not viewed in a positive light at all. The sex slave trade that is so prevalent in the world today is NOT the "kind" of slavery that was practiced in the Bible. So on those two specific "kinds" of slavery, the New Testament says almost nothing, as they were not part of the experience of the first century church.

There were several different kinds of slavery during the first century (when the New Testament was being written), none of them were racial, the most common was the kind we call "bond service," and believe it or not, it was often, although not always, voluntary. That is to say that many of those who were slaves were in that state because they owed some kind of debt, and their bondage was a means of working off that debt. Notice, for example, in the parable that Jesus told above, the issue with each slave was "paying off a debt." Thus, slavery was rarely a life-long issue, and there were laws in existence in the Roman empire that allowed for slaves to earn their freedom (this was also true in the Old Testament, where slaves were to be set free after seven years of service). An internet search on slavery in ancient Rome can verify all of this.

Were there abuses? We're talking about people here, so of course there were abuses, and according to some ancient sources, those abuses were fairly widespread. Either way, however, this "bond servant" practice of the first century, although not desirable, is viewed in the Bible as an unfortunate, but justifiable extension of the "bondage" of debt that is found through out all societies. It is not based on race, or for the purposes of abusing women sexually, but was in place as one of the means of controling and managing personal debt in their economy. Thus, scripture does not address "bond servant" slavery as a moral issue, any more than it addresses financial debt as a moral issue (although the treatment of slaves WAS considered a moral issue). If anything, it was viewed like prison incarceration today: a necessary thing that no one really likes, but for which there are very few realistic alternatives.

Through out the entire Bible, it is clear that bondage and slavery is not good or desirable, and to escape it is a very good thing. The Passover, for example, is a celebration of Israel's escape from RACIAL slavery (one of the few times that racial slavery IS addressed in scripture, and no tolerance is extended to it at all). In the New Testament, sin is compared to the kind of bondage one experiences in the "bond servant" kind of slavery, and we are taught that Jesus was literally tortured and murdered in order to set us free from that bondage. In fact, the wording used is that He "paid our debt" to set us free from the "bondage" of sin, which uses the language of the "bond service" form of slavery to explain how Jesus offers us eternal salvation.

Further, just as God was working to eliminate death from our planet, yet He also set up death penalties to punish and help reign in certain kinds of sin, so God is working to free us from every kind of bondage, yet over the history of our planet has often used slavery as a means of punishing and reigning in certain kinds of disobedience to His laws.

 Just as the Bible uses the word "death" to describe far more than physically dying, it uses "bondage" and "slavery" to describe far more than simple, physical slavery. So you can't just take the appearance of the words "slave" or "master" and extrapolate a general view of slavery in the Bible from any one passage. In the same way that the Bible understands that death is a bad, but inescapable part of life, it also views slavery as a bad, but inescapable part of life. In fact, according to the Bible, every single one of us is a slave to something, whether we like it or not. The only question is who is our master, and to what degree we are enslaved?

The Bible teaches, for example, that being in debt is a form of slavery, and it lays out specific principles to help us escape from this kind of slavery.

The wealthy rule over the poor, and anyone who borrows is a slave to the lender. (Proverbs 22:7).

In a central theme of the entire Bible, it states that the most serious form of slavery is to sin, because it results in eternal death.

Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thank God that, though you were once slaves of sin, you became obedient from your hearts to that form of teaching with which you were entrusted! (Romans 6:16-17)

And in a really interesting twist, the Bible says that one particular kind slavery, that is, slavery to righteousness through Jesus Christ, is a very good thing, and is the only way to be truly free.

And since you have been freed from sin, you have become slaves of righteousness. I am speaking in simple terms because of the frailty of your human nature. Just as you once offered the parts of your body as slaves to impurity and to greater and greater disobedience, so now, in the same way, you must offer the parts of your body as slaves to righteousness that leads to sanctification. For when you were slaves of sin, you were "free" as far as righteousness was concerned. What benefit did you get from doing those things you are now ashamed of? For those things resulted in death. But now that you have been freed from sin and have become God's slaves, the benefit you reap is sanctification, and the result is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in union with the Messiah Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:18-23 ISV)

This kind of slavery frees us to be who we were actually MADE to be by our creator. It is an intentional paradox that the only true liberty to be found in the universe is by becoming a slave of the creator of the universe.

The Bible does not use this kind of wording lightly. It is very serious about all forms of slavery, but particularly the ultimate bad form (sin) and the ultimate good form (righteousness). Notice how the New Testament writers often introduce themselves (note that the Greek word δοῦλος has a fundamental meaning of "slave," but is usually translated "servant" or "bond servant" in most translations when referencing believers, partly to distinguish between our modern concept of a "racial slave" versus the New Testament concept of a "bond servant" - I have reverted back to its fundamental definition below):

Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God--
(Romans 1:1)

Paul and Timothy, slaves of Christ Jesus, To all God's holy people in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons: (Philippians 1:1)

James, a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations: Greetings. (James 1:1)

Simon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours: (2 Peter 1:1)

So does the Bible endorse slavery? Absolutely.

It very much wants us to become slaves of the Lord Jesus, where we will find real freedom and eternal life, so that we can finally be set free from all other slavery, all of which will harm or kill us.

And . . . Not at all.

The Bible very much wants us to be completely set free from all forms of bondage that are endemic to the human experience: physical slavery, financial bondage, emotional bondage, spiritual bondage and relational bondage. And whenever possible, Christians have always resisted and discouraged all forms of slavery. I gave the quote from Paul, above, where he was giving Christian "masters" instructions about how to treat their "slaves." However, when presented with a situation in which Paul had the chance to do something about "bond servant" slavery, he did.

In the letter to Philemon, Paul literally uses emotional and social leverage to "force" Philemon into a corner on the issue of his slave, Onesimus. In arguing for Onesimus' freedom, he tells Philemon to charge all of Onesimus' debts to his own account (which would effectively set him free), THEN reminds Philemon about how much he already "owes" Paul (implying that Philemon is a "moral" bond servant to Paul), and issues a not so subtle warning that Paul himself will be personally checking up on all this by telling Philemon to prepare the spare bedroom, because he will be visiting soon. Paul uses the gentlest of words, wrapped in the iron of serious social and emotional arm twisting, to make it very clear he wants Onesimus to be set free.

So did Christianity suddenly decide that the Bible's take on slavery was wrong, and we should reject that teaching and condemn slavery? No, not at all.

Christianity recognized that the entire point of the gospel was to set us free from ALL forms of slavery, so that we can become slaves to the one true God, in the only kind of "bondage" that is not really slavery at all. And when the racial slavery of blacks was infecting our country, Christians quickly recognized that this was as unjustifiable as the racial slavery of Israel to the Egyptians, and called it what it was: evil.

So what the Bible does is recognize that some of the milder forms of slavery that are found in our lives are unavoidable, and tend to be endemic to the human experience, thus some of them must be tolerated, but they are NOT endorsed. They are NOT good, they are NOT encouraged, they are NOT supposed to be a part of our lives, and the goal of Christianity is to see us all set free from all of them.

Some, however, such as racial or sexual slavery, are not even to be tolerated.

So, no, Christianity did not suddenly decide the Bible was wrong about slavery. It actually recognized that there are many "kinds" of slavery; some are very bad, but unavoidable (such as slavery to sin), some are very unpleasant, but have to be tolerated (such as financial slavery), and some are unjustifiably evil and must be eliminated (such as racial or sexual slavery).

But for those of us who follow Jesus, the Bible promises that we will eventually be set free from all forms of bondage.

Is the Movie Religulous Correct about Horus and Jesus?

Question:

I recently saw the movie Religulous, and one part was completely devastating for Christianity, where Bill Maher showed how every detail of Jesus' life was copied from Horus. His entire story is an ancient Egyptian myth, so how can you keep believing it?

Answer:

For those who many have never seen Religulous, you can watch the relevant part here.

Before I get into the details, it should be noted that every god in every religion has certain traits in common: they perform miracles, they sometimes raise the dead, they are supernaturally powerful, and most pagan gods engage in sex and produce offspring.

Now, on to Bill Maher's movie, and the claims made within it. It turns out that Bill Maher did not actually read the Egyptian book of the dead, and he got all of his information from a bad series of sources that all originated with the book, "The Natural Genesis," written by Gerald Massey. Massey never documented a single one of his claims about the parallels between Jesus and Horus, and every single thing he wrote about them has been debunked by genuine Egyptologists.

For those who would like to stop reading now, the quick summary of the following section is that every single claim made in the movie Religulous is ridiculous, and completely false. If anyone is interested, almost everything I post here can be verified by a simple Wikipedia search on Krishna, Mithra and Horus.

Now, on to each claim individually.

Claim: Krishna was a carpenter.
Truth: Neither Krishna nor his father are ever mentioned working with wood in any fashion, nor are they ever called carpenters.

Claim: Krishna was born of a virgin.
Truth: Krishna's mother and father were locked in a prison cell where they had seven children prior to his birth, and all of these were the result of sex with her husband, so clearly, she could not have been a virgin.

Claim: Krishna was baptized in a river.
Truth: Baptism is not a Hindu concept, and there is no record of Krishna ever being baptized, in a river or any other place.

Claim: Mithra was born on December 25.
Truth: First, the Bible does not claim Jesus was born on December 25. That idea is first appears in Christian writings in the fourth century. Even today, no one really knows the date of His birth. Second, Mithras was not actually born, as he sprang full grown from a rock, and the date of this event is not recorded anywhere.

Claim: Mithra performed miracles.
Truth: All "gods" are recorded as having performed miracles, in every religion in every age in every culture. That is part of the whole "god" thing.

Claim: Mithra was resurrected on the third day.
Truth: This would be difficult as there is no record of Mithras ever dying, thus, there are no stories of his resurrection.

Claim: Mithra was known as the Lamb, the Way, the Truth, the Light, the Savior, and the Messiah.
Truth: There is no record of any of these terms ever being used in reference to Mithra. The closest is that he was a sun-god, which happens to give off "light." But he was never called, "the light." The word "Messiah" is an exclusively Jewish concept, and is never found in any other culture. Mithra WAS called a "Mediator," however, he was not a mediator between man and god, but between the good gods and the evil gods. Further, almost all of the references we have to Mithra appear more than 100 years AFTER Christianity was already on the scene.

Claim: Horus is the son of Osiris
Truth: Yes, he is described as the son of Osiris. He was birthed as a result of sexual intercourse between two gods, and was not eternal, as Jesus is.

Claim: Horus was born to a virgin mother.
Truth: Isis had sex with Osiris after having reconstructed his various parts (he had been killed and chopped up) and temporarily brought him back to life. His phallus could not be found, so a gold phallus was constructed, and substituted, which allowed her to have sex with Osiris, become impregnated, and later give birth to Horus. Clearly, she was neither a human woman NOR a virgin.

Claim: Horus was baptized in a river by Anup the Baptizer, who was later beheaded.
Truth: There is no record in any Egyptian text of a guy named Anup the Baptizer, and the concept of "baptism" did not exist in ancient Egypt, so Horus was never baptized by anyone. Clearly, if there is no reference to the guy, he could not have been beheaded.

Claim: Horus was tempt while alone in the desert.
Truth: Horus fought the god Seth in the desert. Seth was not trying to tempt him, he was trying to kill him. Not the same thing.

Claim: Horus healed the sick, the blind, cast out demons and walked on water.
Truth: Horus did perform miracles, as he was a god. But none of these particular miracles are ever recorded as having been performed by Horus. Supposedly there was a monument to Horus that had a spell on it that could heal the sick. If chanted, the spirit of Horus possessed the person and healed them. That's as close as it gets.

Claim: Horus raised Asar from the dead; Asar translates as Lazarus.
Truth: Actually, Asar is the original Egyptian name for Osiris (Osiris is the Greek name). Osiris was briefly brought back to life so that Isis could have sex with him, get pregnant, and give birth to Horus. Horus had nothing to do with this, and Asar is NOT the Egyptian form of the Hebrew name Lazarus.

Claim: Horus had 12 disciples.
Truth: At various times there were four or six guys who followed him around (some of them were semi-gods), and various people at various times would follow him. At no time are 12 followers mentioned, and the total number of followers he had at various times does not add up to twelve.

Claim: Horus was crucified.
Truth: Crucifixion was a Roman form of execution, so obviously, it could not happen in ancient Egypt. There are two recorded "deaths" of Horus; one was being chopped up as a child, the other was from poisoning (by Seth). He is often depicted with his arms outstretched, but that is not connected to being crucified, but to his expansive power.

Claim: After three days, two women annouced that Horus, the savior of humanity, had been resurrected.
Truth: As a child, Horus was torn to pieces and the pieces were thrown into the river. He was brought back to life when his mother prayed to the Egyptian crocodile god who collected the pieces for her so she could bring him back to life (remember, his mother was a god herself). No women announced the event.

There are numerous claims from a variety of sources, including books and movies, that the elements of Jesus' story are copies of some ancient pagan gods, including Horus, Mithra, Osiris, Dionysus, and Krishna. A refutation of each and every one of these claims can be found at numerous places on the web. One that addresses most of these is found here.

Bottom line, despite Bill Maher's assurances, not a single parallel he touts in his movie is in any way historical, or even remotely accurate. It is all false.

The story of Jesus is true, accurate, and completely unique.

For those interested in a little humor, here is a recent parody produced by "The Lutheran Satire" called "Horus Ruins Christmas" that takes on some of these claims in a witty, humorous fashion.

Horus Ruins Christmas

Can I be Gay and still be a Christian?

Question:

Hi. I'm 16 years old, I believe in Jesus, but I am gay. I was sexually abused by my uncle as a child, and the thought of sex with a man is completely revolting to me. Can I be gay and a Christian at the same time?

Answer:

A resounding, but qualified, "yes."

Now, if you stop reading right there, you will miss most of this answer, since "yes" is not the whole answer. As with most things in life, there is more to this answer than just "yes" or "no."

At its core, being gay is about having a sexual attraction to a member of the same sex. This attraction is a temptation to engage in sex with a member of the same sex. The temptation is not a sin, but if you give in to that temptation and actually engage in sex, it is a sin. Temptation is temptation, but temptation is not sin. Jesus was tempted to sin, but resisted the temptation, and did not sin.

Let me state a few things up front.

First, it is possible that your attraction to women is more a result of your sexual abuse than a natural born inclination, however, I am not even remotely qualified to make that diagnosis, so it is also possible I am wrong about that. I hope you are getting counseling about the violence that you suffered as a child so that those scars may begin to heal.

Either way, even if it is a natural born inclination, being "born" that way does not justify the behavior. We are all "born" sinful (meaning that we are all born with lusts and desires to commit sinful acts), and it doesn't make our sin OK in God's eyes. So it is possible that you really were born with that particular temptation. That does NOT mean that "God made me this way," nor does it mean that following that inclination is OK.

Second, it is entirely possible that you will remain tempted by other women for the rest of your life. In other words, I find it highly unlikely that God will "deliver" you from this temptation by removing it. God never promises to eliminate temptation, only to give us the power to overcome temptation. For example, I, myself, am attracted to women, and I will never be "delivered" from that temptation. But I take careful steps to avoid that temptation, in fact, I am careful to keep myself from being in a situation where I might even have to "resist" the temptation. I guard my heart constantly.

So here is the bottom line: Christians are tempted to sin. Every single one of us. And every single one of us give in to some of those temptations, and actually commit sin. And we are also forgiven for the sins we commit, because we deeply and sincerely repent of them (meaning we are sorry, and we commit ourselves to surrendering to God's grace so we can overcome that temptation and not commit that sin again). Jesus death on the cross covers our sins; those we committed in the past, as well as any we may commit tomorrow.

So, yes, you can be tempted with homosexual desires and still be a Christian.

Now here comes the hard part.

If you genuinely love Jesus, then you will need to be serious about avoiding and overcoming sin, and that includes homosexuality. While it is true that all believers sin, sexual sins are not the same as many other kinds of sins. By that I do NOT mean they are more evil, or worse, or anything like that.

What I mean is that sexual sins have a tendency to result in much more immediate, visible and devastating ramifications (diseases, relationship damage, unwanted pregnancies, emotional scars, etc.) than many other sins, and like drugs, they produce physical pleasure, an actual chemical reaction in the brain. Further, if engaged with another person (as opposed to pornography, for example), they spiritually bind us to that person. All of these mean that it is easy for sexual sins to lead us into emotional, physical and/or spiritual bondage. Being in bondage to something means that we literally do not have the ability on our own to overcome it. We cannot resist the temptation. We are a slave to that desire. We are emotionally, spiritually or physically addicted to that behavior or person. Drugs and sexual sins quickly produce this kind of emotional, spiritual and/or physical bondage, so I strongly recommend you do NOT play around with sexual sins or drug abuse (and I am certainly NOT saying that homosexuality has anything to do with drugs, any more than heterosexuality has something to do with drugs . . . just saying both kinds of sins produce physical and emotional bondage).

So in all likelihood, you will probably need to commit yourself to leading a celibate life as a believer. This may sound unfair at first, but it depends on how serious you are about your relationship with Christ. Many hundreds of thousands of people down through the centuries have committed themselves to celibate lives for no other reason than a deep and sincere devotion to God and God alone, and they did not want ANYTHING, not even a relationship with another person, to come between them and God.

So can I be gay and be a Christian?

Absolutely, in exactly the same way that any person tempted by any other sins can be a Christian. But no person can claim to follow Christ and at the same time knowingly and intentionally commit sins with no repentance, and no intention of ending those sins. This is the same for every believer: I cannot claim to follow Christ and unabashedly live with my girlfriend, or cheat others without remorse in my business, or lie constantly to my constituents, or continuously cheat on my wife, or get drunk every chance I get. As a believer, Jesus does not want me to live in any kind of continuous, intentional, unrepentant sin. Jesus absolutely will, and does, forgive us of our sin, and wash it away. Not so that we can keep doing it, but so that we can be set free from sin, and not do it any more.

All believers get the same message from Jesus:

Then Jesus stood up and asked her, "Dear lady, where are your accusers? Hasn't anyone condemned you?" "No one, sir," she replied. Then Jesus said, "I don't condemn you, either. Go home, and from now on do not sin any more." (John 8:10-11)

So may I live a "normal, homosexual lifestyle" and be a Christian?

No, not really.

The point of our faith in Jesus is NOT so that we may continue in sin, but so that we may overcome our sins, and "not sin any more."

The grace of Jesus covers all sin, and there is no sin so great that God's grace cannot cover it. Your failings, my failings, everyone's failings. The bigger the sin, the bigger grace is to wash it away.

I'll let Paul finish this thought:

What should we say, then? Should we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 

Of course not! 

How can we who died as far as sin is concerned go on living in it? Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into union with the Messiah Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore, through baptism we were buried with him into his death so that, just as the Messiah was raised from the dead by the Father's glory, we too may live an entirely new life. 

For if we have become united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old natures were crucified with him so that our sin-laden bodies might be rendered powerless and we might no longer be slaves to sin. For the person who has died has been freed from sin. 

Now if we have died with the Messiah, we believe that we will also live with him, for we know that the Messiah, who was raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has mastery over him. For when he died, he died once and for all as far as sin is concerned. But now that he is alive, he lives for God. 

In the same way, you too must continually consider yourselves dead as far as sin is concerned, but living for God through the Messiah Jesus. (Romans 6:1-11)

Does John 1:1 actually say, "the Word was a god"?

Question:

I got into a conversation with some Jehovah's Witnesses, and they said that according to Greek grammar, John 1:1 should read, "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." Is this true?

Answer:

No.

In order for me to explain why that is wrong, I'm going to need to explain a few rules of Greek grammar, which most people will find horribly boring. I apologize, but unfortunately, this is the best way to refute this claim, so if you really want to know why this JW doctrine is wrong, you will need to bear with me. If not, feel free to stop reading now.

The Jehovah's Witnesses claim that Greek only has a definite article ("the"), and does not have an indefinite article ("a"). This is true. They also claim that since Greek normally attaches the definite article ("the") to the noun, any time it does NOT attach the definite article to the noun, it automatically implies the indefinite article ("a"). This is NOT completely true, but the really irritating part is that the Jehovah's Witnesses KNOW this is not completely true, which I shall prove at the end of this post with their own translation.

You can read the Jehovah's Witnesses full argument on this issue here. If anyone is interested, I have the writings of most of the scholars they reference, and it is NOT true that those scholars support their interpretation of John 1:1. Their explanation is, at best, the kind of thing a first year Greek student might come up with before he gets a wider, and much more in depth understanding of Greek beyond the bare basics.

Now, it is true that the only way to imply the indefinite article is to leave off the definite article, and that construction DOES occur in the New Testament, however there are at least ten ways to make a noun definite in Greek, and attaching a definite article to it is only one of the ten ways. This means that an indefinite article is only implied in about 15% of all cases in the New Testament where the definite article is missing. In other words, there are other rules that help us determine if a noun that is missing a definite article is supposed to be indefinite. So what rule applies to John 1:1?

Ok, now comes the really boring Greek grammar stuff. You have been warned.

The first thing you need to know is that Greek is a highly inflected language, meaning the endings on most words, particularly the nouns and verbs, tell us the role they are playing in the sentence (subject, primary verb, object, predicate, etc.). As a result, the word order rules in Greek are much more flexible than in English, and because of that, many Greek words can appear anywhere in the sentence. Greek writers typically used this inherent word order flexibility to emphasize or de-emphasize specifics words and concepts within a given sentence. Most of this is extremely subtle, but it can occasionally have a huge impact on what the writer is trying to say.

The third clause in John 1:1 is normally translated "And the Word was God," which the JW's claim is incorrect because the noun "God" does not have an article, and thus, it should be translated with the indefinite article as "a god."

Here is the clause in question in Greek:

και θεος ην ο λογος

And God was the Word.

Just as in English, a sentence in Greek in which the connecting verb was some form of "to be" (is, was, are) has a subject and predicate (rather than a normal sentence which has a subject and object). In English, the subject is always first, and the predicate is always second, and it is used to equate the predicate to the subject. For example, "John is king," "Jane is black," "Bill is cold," or "Sue is angry" are all this kind of construction. In most cases, it matters which of these is the subject and which is the predicate. In the sentence, "Bill is cold," we are saying that "being cold" is something Bill is experiencing. We are not saying that "being Bill" is something cold is experiencing.

In Greek, we would normally determine which noun is the subject and which is the object from the endings, but in predicate constructions, this is a problem, as both nouns are in the same case, so they have the same ending. Since a Greek writer can put these words in any order, determining which is the subject and which is the predicate could be a problem . . . except that Greek has a rule for this. Here is how the rule works:

If both nouns have the article, or neither noun has the article, then the first noun is the subject and the second noun is the predicate. Thus, in the following sentences (shown in English for ease of understanding), "John" is the subject and "king" is the predicate:

A)   The John was the king.
B)   John was king.

In example (B), since there is no particular reason for leaving off the article, it would be legitimate to translate that sentence, "John was a king," or maybe, if the context was not clear as to who "John" was, it might be translated, "A John was a king."

However, if only one of the nouns had the article, then the rule is that the noun with the article is the subject, while the noun without the article is the predicate. Thus, although they read oddly in English (remember, we are pretending that our English words are actually Greek words), in both of the following sentences, "John" is the subject and "king" is the predicate.

C)   The John was king.
D)   King was the John.

Here are the two really important things to remember: First, Greek uses word order for emphasis, and second, if both words have the article, the FIRST word is the subject, and the SECOND word is the predicate.

Remember that the third clause of John 1:1 follows the pattern of example (D) above, where one noun has the article (ο λογος = "the Word"), and one noun does not have the article (θεος = "God").

So we know that "the Word," although it appears at the end of the clause, is actually the subject, and "God," although it appears at the beginning of the clause, is actually the predicate. From this rule, we know this clause SHOULD be translated, "And the Word was God," NOT "And God was the Word."

Ok, so why did John place θεος ("God") at the beginning of the clause? For emphasis. The effect is something like this, "And the Word was GOD!"

But how do we know it is not supposed to be translated "a god"? Simple, remember that if both words have the article, then the first word is the subject and the second word is the predicate? That means, according to the rules of Greek grammar, you cannot place the predicate at the beginning of the sentence AND also give it the article. So, Greek grammar demands that if you want to place the predicate at the beginning, as John did in this clause, you MUST drop the article (so that your readers will know this is the predicate, NOT the subject).

This means that John could NOT do both. He could EITHER give it the article and leave it without any particular emphasis, OR place it at the beginning of the sentence for emphasis, where he would be required to drop the article. If he chose to place it at the beginning for emphasis, the rules DEMAND that he must drop the article.

When the rules demand that you drop the article, the absence of the article does not, in fact, cannot indicate the indefinite.

Thus, the effect is the exact opposite of what the JW's claim. By placing the predicate θεος at the beginning of the sentence, John is required to drop the article, but in so doing, he is placing extra emphasis on the noun θεος, which gives it extra force in the sentence, and produces the result, "And the Word was GOD."

Now, here is the really underhanded part of this argument from the Jehovah's Witnesses. They actually DO know that the absence of the article only rarely indicates the indefinite, as proven by their own translation, the New World Translation (Available online here).

John 1:6 reads as follows in the New World Translation:

There came a man who was sent as a representative of God; his name was John. [emphasis mine]

Here is how the Greek reads in that verse:

εγενετο ανθρωπος απεσταλμενος παρα θεου ονομα αυτω ιωαννης.

The word θεου ("of God") does not have an article, which according to their claims, means it should be translated, "of a god." But they know their claim is not true, and they demonstrate that in this verse.

How about John 1:12 where the New World Translation reads:

However, to all who did receive him, he gave authority to become God’s children. [emphasis mine]

And the Greek reads:

οσοι δε ελαβον αυτον εδωκεν αυτοις εξουσιαν τεκνα θεου γενεσθαι

Again, θεου ("of God," the Greek literally reads, "the children of God") has no article, so by their rules, it should read, "the children of a god."

Here is the next verse, John 1:13. New Word Translation:

And they were born, not from blood or from a fleshly will or from man’s will, but from God. [emphasis mine]

And the Greek:

οι ουκ εξ αιματων ουδε εκ θεληματος σαρκος ουδε εκ θεληματος ανδρος αλλ εκ θεου εγεννηθησαν.

Again, θεου does not have an article attached to it (εκ is a preposition meaning "from"), so according to their own arguments, this should be translated, "from a god."

These are all from the same writer as John 1:1, in the same chapter.

Just so you can verify this for yourself, because Greek is an inflected language, the article can have 17 different spellings. I will list them all here (in alphabetical order) so you can see that there is no article attached to θεου in any of these sentences: αι, η, ο, οι, τα, ταις, τας, τη, την, της, το, τοις, τον, του, τους, τω, των.

There are numerous other examples directly from their own translation I can give where it is clear they either don't really understand how the article works in Greek, or are being intentionally deceptive about the rules governing its use.

The bottom line is that John 1:1 tells us, to quote preeminent Greek scholar Daniel B. Wallace, "Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But He is not the first person of the Trinity. All this is concisely confirmed in και θεος ην ο λογος." [Quoted in Basics of Biblical Greek, by William D. Mounce, pages 27-28].

Far from meaning what the JW's claim, this verse, when coupled with verse 14 (and the Word become flesh, and dwelt among us), actually proclaims the deity of Jesus with emphatic boldness that leave no room for doubt about the claims John is making about Jesus: He is the God, He is the creator, He was not created (he was already there in the beginning), and He became flesh to pay for our sins so that we could be saved.

Is Christianity Intolerant?

Question:

Why are you Christians so intolerant of the beliefs of others?

Answer:

Unfortunately, there really are people out there carrying the title of "Christian" who are terribly intolerant of the beliefs of others (I will come back to this at the end), but there are also many serious believers who are not intolerant in the slightest. In fact, believers are encouraged in many places in scripture to be tolerant of the beliefs of others.

In order to understand what this really going on here, we will once again need to define our terms. The word "tolerance" is used quite a bit in our culture today, but to paraphrase Inigo Montoya, that word does not mean what they think it means.

According to the dictionary, to be tolerant means, "showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with."

In today's culture, most people believe that tolerance means, "to accept as equally valid and fully endorse the beliefs, opinions or behaviors of all people."

Real tolerance is about how you treat people with whom you deeply disagree. It is about being civil and polite to those who hold opinions that you believe to be filled with errors. It is, as Ravi Zacharias has said, disagreeing without being disagreeable.

You see, we don't need tolerance for things with which we are in agreement, only for those things with which we disagree. If I think someone's view that Jesus might rapture the church at any moment is valid, and I can endorse it, there is no difference between what I have just done and agreement. If I "endorse" a person running for office, I'm telling you that I agree with her, and I want her to win. If I "endorse" a scientific theory, I'm telling you that I agree with it, and I believe it to be true. Likewise with philosophical ideas, theological doctrines, or social and private morality. Endorsement means agreement.

If, on the other hand, I have a different view of the end times, then I can't really say that I think their view is valid, nor can I endorse it. If I do not agree with the positions of a person running for political office, I cannot endorse him. And no one who believes a scientific theory is in error would ever endorse it. We simply cannot accept as valid a theory or belief that we think is in error, nor can we endorse something that we believe to be wrong.

So it should be noted above all else that the current definition of tolerance is nonsense. No one really does it, and to expect others to do it when no one actually does is ridiculous. In the same way that no atheist would EVER endorse the beliefs of Christianity, Christians cannot be expected to endorse the beliefs of others.

However, there is no reason that I must treat someone with hostility, call them names, belittle, mock and ridicule their views, or simply be anything less than polite and civil simply because we disagree. We can disagree and treat each other with respect at the same time.

With that in mind, I am going to contrast two confrontations. The first is between Jesus and a woman who is sleeping with a man to whom she is not married, and on top of that, holds doctrinal beliefs with which Jesus disagrees.

The second is between members of a church who believe any kind of politeness shown to those with whom we disagree is wrong, and anything less than hostility, name calling, and rudeness is akin to endorsement.

First, Jesus encounter with the woman at the well.

A Samaritan woman came to draw water, and Jesus told her, "Please give me a drink," since his disciples had gone off into town to buy food. 

The Samaritan woman asked him, "How can you, a Jew, ask for a drink from me, a Samaritan woman?" Because Jews do not have anything to do with Samaritans. 

Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who is saying to you, 'Please give me a drink,' you would have been the one to ask him, and he would have given you living water." 

The woman told him, "Sir, you don't have a bucket, and the well is deep. Where are you going to get this living water? You're not greater than our ancestor Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it, along with his sons and his flocks, are you?" 

Jesus answered her, "Everyone who drinks this water will become thirsty again. But whoever drinks the water that I will give him will never become thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become a well of water for him, springing up to eternal life." 

The woman told him, "Sir, give me this water, so that I won't get thirsty or have to keep coming here to draw water." 

He told her, "Go and call your husband, and come back here." 

The woman answered him, "I don't have a husband." 

Jesus told her, "You are quite right in saying, 'I don't have a husband,' because you have had five husbands, and the man you have now is not your husband. What you have said is true." 

The woman told him, "Sir, I see that you are a prophet! Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain. But you Jews say that the place where people should worship is in Jerusalem." 

Jesus told her, "Believe me, dear lady, the hour is coming when you Samaritans will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You don't know what you're worshiping. We Jews know what we're worshiping, because salvation comes from the Jews. Yet the time is coming, and is now here, when true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth. Indeed, the Father is looking for people like that to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." 

The woman told him, "I know that the Anointed One is coming, who is being called 'Messiah'. When that person comes, he will explain everything." 

"I am he," Jesus replied, "the one who is speaking to you." (John 4:7-26)

This Samaritan woman was sinning by living with a man who was not her husband, and she held doctrinal views that differed from Jesus. On the theological front, Jesus  lets her know that the Messiah coming through the Jews vindicated their doctrines, and showed the Samaritans were wrong. And yet, notice the tone of this entire exchange. Jesus treats her with respect, and is able to disagree with her without any harsh language or name calling. He did not condemn her for her sins, nor did he treat her harshly because she held views about worship that were in error. 

What did He do? He gave her the truth with gentleness and grace. He corrected her theology while treating her with respect and dignity, and offered her a chance to believe the Truth. Because of His tolerance, she did not become defensive, but responded with enthusiasm to His words:

Then the woman left her water jar and went back to town. She told people, "Come, see a man who told me everything I've ever done! Could he possibly be the Messiah?" The people left the town and started on their way to him. (John 4:28-30)

The end result of this respectful tolerance coupled with a gentle delivering of the Truth?

Now many of the Samaritans of that town believed in Jesus because the woman had testified, "He told me everything I've ever done." So when the Samaritans came to Jesus, they asked him to stay with them, and he stayed there for two days. And many more believed because of what he said. They kept telling the woman, "It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, because now we have heard him ourselves, and we know that he really is the Savior of the world." 

(John 4:39-42)

Contrast how Jesus treated a woman who was theologically in error AND was living with a man out of wedlock with the following clip of members of the Westboro Baptist Church interacting with Russell Brand, who is a supporter of homosexual marriage. Notice that not only did Jesus never called the Samaritan woman a "slut" or a "whore," but did the opposite, addressing her with respect when He called her a, "dear lady." In contrast, notice how they call Russell Brand a "pimp," and the homosexuals, "fags," and claim that the despicable behavior that the members of WBC show others is actually "loving," while being polite, civil and refraining from name calling would be "hateful."

Russell Brand Interviews Westboro Baptist Church

The end result of Jesus' encounter with the Samaritan woman where he demonstrated real tolerance? Many Samaritans believed and were saved.

The end result of the encounter between members of Westboro Baptist Church and Russell Brand where they demonstrated no tolerance of any kind? No one is even remotely interested in becoming as hate filled as these two representatives from WBC.

Despite the attempt by Westboro Baptist Church to redefine the meaning of the words "love" and "hate," no one is really fooled. We all know loving behavior when we see it, and we all know vile, filthy name calling when we see it. Whether or not these WBC people really are believers, their behavior does not imitate that of our Lord.

Christians are called to be tolerant of the beliefs and behaviors of others. We are not commanded to accept ideas we believe to be in error nor endorse behaviors we believe are wrong, but we are commanded to treat others with kindness, respect and civility. 

Make no mistake, this culture is NOT tolerant of our beliefs, but that does NOT mean we return the favor.

You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I say to you, Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you and persecute you. (Matthew 5:43-44)

Now THAT is tolerance.

We are charged to give this world a message of Truth and grace while being genuinely loving, gentle and kind. Both because it is the right thing to do, and because it is the only way to truly reach this generation.

Let us all go, and do likewise.

Did Jesus Claim to be God?

Question:

I know that Christians believe Jesus is God, but I can't find any place where Jesus claims to be God. Isn't that a problem for Christians?

Answer:

Well, if Jesus never did claim to be God, it might be a problem. However, the Truth is He did claim to be God on several occasions. The most blatant, and most enlightening, is found in the eighth chapter of the Gospel According to John. In this chapter, starting in verse 12, Jesus is involved in a prolonged confrontation with some of the Jewish leaders. In verses 21-24 we see this exchange:

Later on he told them again, "I am going away, and you will look for me, but you will die in your sin. You cannot come where I am going." So the Jews were asking, "He isn't going to kill himself, is he? Is that why he said, 'You cannot come where I am going'?" He told them, "You are from below, I am from above. You are of this world, but I am not of this world. That is why I told you that you will die in your sins, for unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins." (Joh 8:21-24 ISV)

The words translated "I AM" in verse 24 are εγω ειμι (ego eimi), which literally means "I am." Jesus is using this as a direct reference to Exodus 3:14, where Moses had asked God how he should answer the question when the Israelites asked him for God's name, and God responded with:

God replied to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM," and then said, "Tell the Israelis: 'I AM sent me to you.'" (Exo 3:14 ISV)

The problem is that in Greek, the phrase εγω ειμι was a really common phrase that was normally understood to mean "I am the one," or "I am he," or even "that is me." So all those listening understood Jesus to be saying something like "I am who I say I am," which is why they immediately responded with:

Then they asked him, "Who are you?" (Joh 8:25a ISV)

So how do we know that Jesus really meant this as a claim to divinity? Because He makes it crystal clear at the end of the chapter when the confrontation finally comes to a head.

Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day, and he saw it and was glad." Then the Jews asked him, "You are not even 50 years old, yet you have seen Abraham?" Jesus told them, "Truly, I tell all of you with certainty, before there was an Abraham, I AM!" (Joh 8:56-58 ISV) 

The phrase "Before there was an Abraham, I AM" actually makes no sense in Greek. It is grammatic nonsense akin to someone telling me, "I made this for you tomorrow. Yesterday I'm going to make you another one." The only possible way to read this statement is that Jesus is claiming to be the I AM of the Old Testament, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the one who gave the law to Moses, rescued Israel from Egypt, and established the nation of Israel.

And because this statement could not be interpreted any other way, the Jews immediately responded to what they saw as blasphemy:

At this, they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the Temple. (Joh 8:59 ISV)

This also means earlier, in verse 24, Jesus made His identity central to our faith. By stating "unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins." Jesus made it crystal clear that faith in His deity was not optional, but was, in fact, absolutely necessary for salvation. Jesus is the Lord of creation, the God of the universe, and making this the center of the Christian faith was not something the Church did hundreds of years later, but rather, something Jesus did before the Church even existed. It is because of this clear claim by Jesus that Paul later explains that salvation involves two parts:

If you declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Rom 10:9 ISV)