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.

How Can a Loving God Condemn so Many to Hell?

Question:

I'm writing because I have a friend who is troubled with the idea that so many people are going to hell according to Christian doctrine. She is uncomfortable with the idea that so many good people, like Gandhi for example, can go to hell just for not accepting Christ, and she is uncomfortable with the notion that entire nations of non-Christian people are condemned to hell.

I regrettably wasn't able to help her much with her doubts because I share many of the same questions as her.

Answer:

I completely understand why you would have these kinds of doubts. There are no easy answers for that one. 

In order to understand my answer, we need to do a quick review on what sin is. The Greek word for sin does not mean "evil," or "bad," or "wicked." Believe it or not, it actually means, "to miss the mark, to be less than perfect, to be imperfect, to fail." This word that simply means "you missed, you weren't perfect" can, in theory, be applied to anything. In fact, it was often applied to archery contests in Greek culture, but in the Bible, it is applied to morality. Thus, our sins are about moral failures, and everything evil that we do or think is, therefore, a moral failure, or "a sin." 

But morally imperfect is NOT the same as hideously evil.

So the whole point of the Bible's position on sin is NOT that we are all in danger of becoming mass murderers, but that we are all, every one of us, morally imperfect. Further, it is not Jesus' fault that we are sinful. We did that to ourselves, and God is not obligated to clean up our mess. So the real and serious problem facing our world is SIN. Sin is real, and no one, not even Gandhi or Mother Theresa is without sin. Every single one of us is morally imperfect.

So why doesn't God just grant everyone salvation? 

Because that is not JUST. There are a lot of truly evil people in the world. Everyone is sinful, but not everyone is as thoroughly evil as a serial killer, or as our culture's favorite bad guy, Hitler. But we can't really grant salvation to all, not if we claim to have some tiny thread of justice in our dealings, when some people really are that evil.

The real problem, though, isn't the truly evil, but those in between the saints and the monsters (which is most of us). How about the majority of us who are somewhere in between? How do we judge the majority of humanity who do some good and some bad?

When you are dealing from a position of perfection, any standard you set is utterly and completely arbitrary. Exactly what percentage of the person's thoughts, words and actions need to be good? 25% 51%? 75%? 99%? And what about omissions? If we fail to do good when we can, how does that figure in? We can’t know what a person really thinks deep down in their heart, but God does. We can't know how many times someone had a chance to do good, and simply walked away, but God does. 

Does a person who is not seriously bad, but also doesn't go out of their way to do anything particularly good, qualify? And how do we weigh thoughts and attitudes against actions? Is a basically good person who makes an foolish choice and kills another person by driving intoxicated better or worse than a person who never really does anything wrong, but is filled with hate, greed, bitterness, covetousness, anger, lust, or envy? What about those socially acceptable sins, like abortion? There are more than 40 million abortions world-wide every year. According to the Guttmacher Institute, which is NOT a pro-life organization, close to 1 out of every 3 women in America will have an abortion by the age of 45 (Go here to see some very startling abortion statistics). How does a God who claims to know us in the womb (Psalm 139:13; Isaiah 44:24; 49:5; Jeremiah 1:5) balance killing our own unborn child against the rest of our life?

And do my good actions account for my evil thoughts? If I do many, many good things, but am filled with lust, how does that balance out?

And once some arbitrary standard is set, is our standard fair to the person who is 1/10 of 1% below that standard?

For a perfect God, anything short of 100% is completely unfair to the person who is the tiniest fraction below whatever arbitrary standard God sets. The only truly just and fair standard is to demand perfection. 100%. That standard is not arbitrary, because it is based on the standard of God Himself, which is the only truly absolute standard. 

And that is the standard God has adopted:

"Therefore be perfect, just as your Father in Heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48)

The only problem is that even the best of us cannot meet that standard. Which is where Jesus comes in. He washes away our sin, so that we can be made perfect by his payment. And what does God ask for in return? 

Just trust Me. Really, truly trust me with all your heart. 

And why does He ask for trust? Because the failure in the beginning that created this problem of sin was really about refusing to trust God. The core of our problem, whether we can or cannot see God, is in trusting Him. So why didn't He just reveal Himself to the whole world and say, "trust me, and you get salvation?"

Because if God steps in to offer salvation to the world, then how many of us will be satisfied just with salvation. Won’t we also want Him to solve all of humanity’s problems? We will want Him to heal the sick, feed the poor, and solve our many human ills.

First, that all sounds great, until you remember that His standard is perfection.

It sounds great to have God step in and physically prevent a rape, but not so great to step in and physically prevent me from cheating on my taxes, or on my spouse, or living with my girlfriend, or choosing to have an abortion, or lying, or cussing, or lusting, or coveting, or being greedy, or hating or any of the other myriad things that I might do or think or say that violate God's standards. We humans have a word for that kind of ruler, the kind who literally controls our every word, thought and action: tyrant. 

Remember, real holiness is not just about what we do, it is about our heart. All the evil that men do starts in their hearts. Every less than perfect moral decision, thought, word or deed we have ever done all started in our heart. What we do simply reflects our heart. To be truly holy, our heart has to be completely clean, it has to be perfect. Nothing less than perfect can be allowed.  The thing about perfection is that it is the ultimate zero tolerance standard. 

Second, that takes all the responsibility off of us. When God is solving the world's problems, we don't have to do anything. We don't have to sacrifice to meet other people's needs. We don't have to love those who annoy us. We don't have to grow in character or in spirit. We don't have to become more like Him, because we can just let Him do it all for us.

Make no mistake, some day He is going to show up and do all of this, but when He does, it will be too late. Once we stand before the judge, nothing we do from that point forward effects our case. No one ever sways a court case by telling the judge, "but ever since I got arrested, I've been a completely law abiding citizen."

None of this seems really convincing when faced with the deaths of loved ones who don't believe, or when faced with countries that are more than 99% unbelievers. But the thing we need to keep in mind is that this should motivate us to REACH them, not blame God because He doesn't do the work for us. Remember, God is not obligated in any way to get us out of the mess we put ourselves in. Anything He does, such as sending His Son to stand in our place and take our punishment, is purely a function of grace. God is not obligated nor required to help us.

However, God loves us, so He wants to help us, and He did.

But He did it in a way that reflects His character as well as His standards. Jesus pays for our sins with His death. But we still have that frighteningly mind bending thing God gave humanity at the beginning: free will. God's grace empowers us to accept His gift, but it does not force us to accept it. We can choose to reject this free gift.

Even more frightening is that we can refuse to tell others about this free gift. We can be almost immeasurably selfish by choosing to do the ultimate evil act of omission and disobey the last command from Jesus:

And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, All authority is given to Me in Heaven and in earth. Therefore go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things, whatever I commanded you. And, behold, I am with you all the days until the end of the world. Amen. (Matthew 28:18-20)

If someone truly desires God with all their heart, and seeks Him with all their might, He will reveal Himself to them and answer their prayers no matter where they live.

And you shall seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart. (Jeremiah 29:13)

The problem is that very, very few people realize they need God, nor do they seek Him with all their heart. Those who do this on their own are extremely rare. The vast majority of humanity are spiritually asleep, and it is OUR JOB to wake them up to their need, introduce them to their God, and offer them His gift of salvation.

Can you Return to the Faith if You Used to Believe, but Fell Away?

Question:

Is it true that if you once lived as a faithful Christian, but fell from Gods grace, there is no point trying to come back to God? Some from a group of Christians told me, there is no returning, based on this Bible passage: Hebrews 6:4-6.

Answer:

If a person has fallen away, and they desire to repent and return to the Lord, they most certainly can. God will not turn them away. This principle, that God will accept those who were once part of the faith, but have gotten lost from it, back to the faith, is a fundamental to many of Jesus' teachings.

Just a few examples are:

1) Jesus Himself will seek those who used to be part of the flock, and have wandered away.

"What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? And if he finds it, truly I tell you, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off." (Matthew 18:12-13)

2) The prodigal son is accepted back to his home with open arms, joy and celebration. The son who left clearly used to be part of the family, and was returning home to his family. (Luke 15:11-32)

3) Peter was a fervent and passionate follower of Jesus, yet openly and publicly denied Him in the strongest terms possible (Then he began to call down curses, and he swore to them, "I don't know the man!" Immediately a rooster crowed. - Matthew 26:74), and yet, was welcomed back into the faith after he repented by none other than Jesus Himself. This, despite the fact that the scripture says,

"If we deny him, he also will deny us." (2 Timothy 2:12b KJV)

4) If someone who used to believe wanders away from the Truth, we should seek to bring them back to save them from death.

My brothers and sisters, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring that person back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins. (James 5:19-20)

So what about the passage in Hebrews, that appears to say you cannot come back once you fall away? This question came with the verse quoted in the King James Version, so here is that verse from the KJV:

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. (Hebrews 6:4-6 KJV)

One of the problems with interpreting this to be a "once for all" proclamation is, as demonstrated above, it doesn't line up with the clear teaching in the rest of scripture about falling away and returning, but there is another problem: the tenses in the Greek don't support how this verse is often translated.

First, the verb ἀνακαινίζω (to renew, to restore) is in the Present Infinitive, which indicates continuous, repetitive action. Thus, it should read "to be continuously renewing them over and over again into repentence." The Greek infinitive is not used to express time, but aspect, and the Present Infinitive indicates that something is ongoing or repetitive, while the Aorist Infinitive indicates that something occurred once, or has a definitive beginning and end. For example:

Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me." (Mark 8:34)

"Follow me" is a Present Infinitive, and doesn't indicate that they need to follow Him once to the specific place He happened to be going at that moment, but that they need to follow Him in an ongoing fashion, for the rest of their life.

Contrast this with the Aorist Infinitive:

When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, "Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today." (Luke 19:5)

Here, the verb "stay" (the Greek literally says, "it is necessary for me to stay at your house...") is an Aorist Infinitive, indicating that Jesus was going to visit Zacchaeus' house one time, not take up residence there for an extended period of time.

So the first thing we need to notice is that this is not forbidding someone from returning to the Lord after having left, but rather, indicates that the problem is if they are continuously falling away and returning and then falling away and returning, on and on, as that is not true repentance. 

Further, the participle (ανασταυρουντας - recrucifying) following that indicates the ongoing state they are in, "continually recrucifying the Son of God..."

A far more accurate translation of this passage is found in the International Standard Version (ISV), which was just released in electronic form in 2013, and is not expected to be released in printed form until this year. You can find out more about the ISV, including how to download it to your computer, phone or other electronic device, here.

For it is impossible to keep on restoring to repentance time and again people who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have become partners with the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of God's word and the powers of the coming age, and who have fallen away, as long as they continue to crucify the Son of God to their own detriment by exposing him to public ridicule. (Hebrews 6:4-6)

In other words, if a person is not sincere in their desire to repent and follow Christ with their whole heart, a habit of constantly wandering in and out of the faith is a hypocritical lifestyle that subjects Jesus to public ridicule. This is the person who tries to join the faith for a while, then leaves it when it gets inconvenient; he rejoins later, then leaves again, then decides to come back, only to get bored and leave the faith again, and so on. That is not a struggling believer, nor is it a person who left once, and has, like the prodigal son, changed their mind and now wishes to return. This is a person who is unstable in their faith, with no real ongoing desire to serve Jesus, and frankly, probably only comes back when it is convenient (and then, only for a while), which is a completely different situation. This kind of person never fully repents and surrenders to Jesus.

This is NOT the same as a sincere follower who commits sins. We do not lose our salvation each and every time we sin. Nor is it a reference to the sincere follower who is struggling to overcome one particular sin (such as anger, or alcoholism). This person does not leave the faith each time they sin, but is immediately remorseful, as Peter was when Jesus looked at him, and he realized what he had just done.

But Peter said, "Mister, I don't know what you're talking about!" Just then, while he was still speaking, a rooster crowed. Then the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the word from the Lord, and how he had told him, "Before a rooster crows today, you will deny me three times." So he went outside and cried bitterly. (Luke 22:60-62)

If you used to attend, and then, for whatever reason, left the faith, but you want to return, the door is still open. Jesus will still greet you with open arms, and we will all rejoice with you at your return to the family. By all means, come back.

And may I be the first to say, "Welcome home."

Is Christianity Deceptively Selective About the Commands in the Bible?

Question:

The Bible lists things like eating shellfish right along side homosexuality as equally bad, because both are abominations, yet they [Christians] keep eating shrimp while saying homosexuality is wrong. Isn't this kind of selective obedience to the Bible hypocritical?

Answer:

There are three questions here.

1) Why do Christians seem to selectively pick and choose what parts of the Old Testament they obey?
2) What is an abomination?
3) Are "eating shrimp" and "homosexuality" really classified together in the Old Testament?

And maybe even a fourth question:

4) Are Christians hypocrites?

The simple answer to the first question is that we are told over and over again in the New Testament that the law, and the commands found in the law, no longer apply to those who believe in Jesus, as His death and resurrection have set us free from the law. This is a central issue for Paul, one that he addresses repeatedly in several letters.

For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man. So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. (Romans 7:2-6)

Paul insists that this is a central tenet of Christianity. The law could make us aware that we are not righteous, but it could not make us righteous. It could make us aware of our sin, but it could not cleanse us of our sin. That is why Jesus' death and resurrection were so important.

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing! (Galatians 2:20-21)

However, something that becomes clear in Paul's writings on the law is that the moral commandments in the law are simply an expression of God's character, and as such, are eternal. Both Paul and Jesus constantly insist that the moral part of the law is still binding on believers, because the moral commands embody the heart of God that we be holy and loving. Further, just for clarity, virtually every moral law from the Old Testament is repeated in the New Testament.

The part of the law that was ceremonial, such as the cleanliness laws, dietary laws, festivals, sacrifices and so on were intended to point us to Christ, and those were never really intended to be eternal. You can still do them if you really, really want to, but there is not really a point to it any more. They are just a shadow; Jesus has come, and He is the reality that they were pointing to all along. So live the reality, not the shadow.

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. (Colossians 2:16-17)

Thus, none of the dietary commands are binding on believers, but the commands to be truthful, to refrain from adultery, theft, murder, coveting and so on are all still in effect. This means that Christians are not really "picking and choosing" which parts of the Old Testament they want to keep, and throwing out the stuff they don't want to keep. The quick and dirty guideline is this: if it is a moral command, it is still binding (and has been repeated in the New Testament), if it is a ceremonial law (sacrifices, dietary, cleanliness, festivals, etc.), it is no longer required for followers of Jesus Christ.

Second, is an abomination a especially horrible sin?

The Hebrew word usually translated "abomination," תּועבה, means "disgusting, loathsome, nasty, horrible," but here is the really important part: this word appears 117 times in the Old Testament, and is attached to virtually every moral or idolatrous sin in the Bible. Among the sins listed as abominations are (in alphabetical order), adultery, atheism, bestiality, breaking a vow, cheating, creating discord, demon worship, evil schemes, hardening the heart, homosexuality, incest, justifying wickedness, lying, magic, murder, oppressing the poor, pride, shedding innocent blood, theft, and violence. And this is not an exhaustive list.

The point is simply that God finds all sin disgusting. Sin is an abomination to God.

Ironically, despite this common connection in our culture, one of the things not on this list is eating shrimp.

There is a second Hebrew word, שׁקץ, that is used almost exclusively of foods that are ceremonially unclean. It only appears 11 times in the Old Testament, and means, "filthy, dirty, polluted, very unclean." In some translations, such as the KJV, this word is also translated "abomination." This is the word used in the passages where Israel is forbidden from eating shellfish (which would include shrimp).

So are homosexuality and eating shrimp really equated in the Bible? No. Homosexuality is treated as a moral issue while eating shrimp is an issue of ceremonial cleanliness (meaning the ban on eating shrimp has been lifted in the New Testament).

On the other hand, contrary to what some seem to imply, homosexuality is not treated as some especially horrible sin that is set apart in God's mind from all other sins. Sin is sin, and God finds all sin disgusting (an abomination), including that lie you told last week, the time you gossiped back in middle school, and the pencil you stole from work. However, while God clearly finds all sin disgusting, He really does know the difference between something that is truly evil, such as plotting and carrying out a murder, and a victimless sin, such as stealing a paper clip. All are equally sin, but they are not all equally evil. See my post, "Do All Roads Lead to God?" for a more in depth discussion of the difference between "sin" and "evil," and the real meaning of "sin."

So the bottom line is that the Old Testament law has moral commands that are eternally binding on all believers, while it also has ceremonial laws which were always intended to be temporary, point to something greater, and now that the greater, Jesus, has arrived, they are no longer binding on believers. In other words, God Himself has given us permission to be selective in what we obey concerning ceremonial laws.

Theologically speaking, there is  much more to this, but there is no where near enough room in this forum for what God was really doing with those ceremonial laws, and why it is that Jesus said, "I did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it," as well as why Paul calls the "fulfilled" law, "the Law of the Spirit of Life."

As for the last question, "Are Christians hypocrites?"

Frankly, in the strictest sense, yes we are. We constantly preach holiness and love, yet are often sinful and selfish. We talk about being set free from sin, yet all too often there is no discernible difference in our behavior from that of any self proclaimed modern pagan. The difference, however, is that most of us are aware that we are imperfect, that we are constantly failing, and that we are unlikely to attain a true moral perfection in this life. We don't claim to be perfectly sinless, we claim to be forgiven, to be washed, and to have access to a God who is, little by little, helping us correct the flaws in our character so that we can sin less and less. And because we are so keenly aware of our own failings, we have no desire to beat you up about yours. We once were where you are now, we have not forgotten it, and we are deeply aware that our current state is due to Jesus, not to anything we did.

A real hypocrite is not the person that Christ is gradually healing who is trying to help you find that same healing for your wounds; a real hypocrite is the person who stands above you bruised and bleeding, claiming to have no injuries of any kind, while castigating you for your cuts and lacerations. The real hypocrite tries to make you feel like you are less so they can be more. The real believer treats you like you are priceless, worth every minute and effort, and that you can become more like Jesus, not more like them.

In other words, the essence of the hypocrite is pride, arrogance and selfishness, while the essence of the believer is humility, humbleness, and selflessness. And we freely admit we are not there yet. 

We who believe in Jesus and have the eternal life He promised are on a journey, and much to our delight, there is room on this bus, right here next to us, for you to join in the journey.

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)