Jesus is God Article

Found this yesterday. Fantastic, scholarly, and covers all the bases. Enjoy!

____________________________________

http://www.y-jesus.com/jesuscomplex_1.php?gclid=CMbfuKuGrpwCFRHxDAodEh5ckA

JESUS COMPLEX:
Is Jesus God?

Have you ever met somebody with such personal magnetism that he/she is always the center of attention? Possibly his/her personality or intelligence---but something about him/her is enigmatic. Well, that’s the way it was two thousand years ago with Jesus Christ.
Jesus’ greatness was obvious to all those who saw and heard him. But, whereas most great people simply fade into history books, Jesus of Nazareth is still the focus of numerous books and media controversy. And much of that controversy revolves around the radical claims Jesus made about himself.
As an unheralded carpenter from an obscure Galilean village in Israel, Jesus made claims that, if true, have profound implications on our lives. According to Jesus, you and I are special, part of a grand cosmic scheme, with him as the center of it all. This and other claims like it stunned everyone who heard them uttered.
It was primarily Jesus’ outrageous claims that caused him to be viewed as a crackpot by both the Roman authorities and the Jewish hierarchy. Although he was an outsider with no credentials or political powerbase, within three years, Jesus changed the world for the next 20 centuries. Other moral and religious leaders have left an impact---but nothing like that unknown carpenter from Nazareth.

What was it about Jesus Christ that made the difference? Was he merely a great man, or something more?
These questions get to the heart of who Jesus really was. Some believe he was merely a great moral teacher; others believe he was simply the leader of the world’s greatest religion. But many believe something far more. Christians believe that God has actually visited us in human form. And they believe the evidence backs that up. So who is the real Jesus? Let’s take a closer look.
As we take a deeper look at the world’s most controversial person, we begin by asking: could Jesus have been merely a great moral teacher?
Great Moral Teacher?
Almost all scholars acknowledge that Jesus was a great moral teacher. In fact, his brilliant insight into human morality is an accomplishment recognized even by those of other religions. In his book Jesus of Nazareth, Jewish scholar Joseph Klausner wrote, “It is universally admitted … that Christ taught the purest and sublimest ethics … which throws the moral precepts and maxims of the wisest men of antiquity far into the shade.”1

Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount has been called the most superlative teaching of human ethics ever uttered by an individual. In fact, much of what we know today as “equal rights” actually is the result of Jesus’ teaching. Historian Will Durant said of Jesus that “he lived and struggled unremittingly for ‘equal rights’; in modern times he would have been sent to Siberia. ‘He that is greatest among you, let him be your servant’—this is the inversion of all political wisdom, of all sanity.”2

Some have tried to separate Jesus’ teaching on ethics from his claims about himself, believing that he was simply a great man who taught lofty moral principles. This was the approach of one of America’s Founding Fathers.
President Thomas Jefferson, ever the enlightened rationalist, sat down in the White House with two identical copies of the New Testament, a straight-edge razor, and a sheaf of octavo-size paper. Over the course of a few nights, he made quick work of cutting and pasting his own Bible, a slim volume he called “The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth.” After slicing away every passage that suggested Jesus’ divine nature, Jefferson had a Jesus who was no more and no less than a good, ethical guide.3
Ironically, Jefferson’s memorable words in the Declaration of Independence were rooted in Jesus’ teaching that each person is of immense and equal importance to God, regardless of sex, race, or social status. The famous document sets forth, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights …”

But the question Jefferson never addressed is: how could Jesus have been a great moral leader if he lied about being God? So perhaps he wasn’t really moral after all, but his motive was to begin a great religion. Let’s see if that explains Jesus’ greatness.
Great Religious Leader?
Did Jesus deserve the title of “great religious leader”? Surprisingly, Jesus never claimed to be a religious leader. He never got into religious politics or pushed an ambitious agenda, and he ministered almost entirely outside the established religious framework.
When one compares Jesus with the other great religious leaders, a remarkable distinction emerges. Ravi Zacharias, who grew up in a Hindu culture, has studied world religions and observed a fundamental distinction between other religious founders and Jesus Christ.
"Whatever we may make of their claims, one reality is inescapable. They are teachers who point to their teaching or show some particular way. In all of these, there emerges an instruction, a way of living. It is not Zoroaster to whom you turn; it is Zoroaster to whom you listen. It is not Buddha who delivers you; it is his Noble Truths that instruct you. It is not Mohammad who transforms you; it is the beauty of the Koran that woos you. By contrast, Jesus did not only teach or expound His message. He was identical with His message."4
The truth of Zacharias’s point is underscored by the number of times in the Gospels that Jesus’ teaching message was simply “Come to me” or “Follow me” or “Obey me.” Also, Jesus made it clear that his primary mission was to forgive sins, something only God could do.

No other major religious leader ever claimed the power to forgive sins. But that is not the only claim Jesus made that separated him from the others. In The World’s Great Religions, Huston Smith observed, “Only two people ever astounded their contemporaries so much that the question they evoked was not ‘Who is he?’ but ‘What is he?’ They were Jesus and Buddha. The answers these two gave were exactly the opposite. Buddha said unequivocally that he was a mere man, not a god—almost as if he foresaw later attempts to worship him. Jesus, on the other hand, claimed … to be divine.”5
Did Jesus Claim to be God?
Clearly, from the earliest years of the church, Jesus was called Lord and regarded by most Christians as God. Yet his divinity was a doctrine that was subjected to great debate . So the question—and it is the question—is this: Did Jesus really claim to be God (the Creator), or was his divinity something invented or assumed by the New Testament authors? (See “Did Jesus Claim to be God?”)
Some scholars believe Jesus was such a powerful teacher and compelling personality that his disciples just assumed he was God. Or maybe they just wanted to think he was God. John Dominic Crossan and the Jesus Seminar (a fringe group skeptical of scholars with presuppositions against miracles) are among those who believe Jesus was deified in error.
Although books like The Da Vinci Code argue that Jesus’ divinity was a later doctrine of the church, evidence shows otherwise (See “Was there a Da Vinci Conspiracy?”). Most Christians who accept the gospels as reliable insist that Jesus did claim deity. And that belief can be traced all the way back to Jesus’ immediate followers.
But there are those who accept Jesus as a great teacher, but are unwilling to call him God. As a deist, Thomas Jefferson had no problem accepting Jesus’ teachings on morals and ethics while denying his deity.6 But as we’ve said, and will explore further, if Jesus was not who he claimed to be, then we must examine some other alternatives, none of which would make him a great moral teacher.
Even a superficial reading of the Gospels reveals that Jesus claimed to be someone more than a prophet like Moses or Daniel. But it is the nature of those claims that concern us. Two questions are worthy of attention.
• Did Jesus actually claim to be God?
• When he said “God,” did Jesus really mean he was the Creator of the universe spoken of in the Hebrew Bible?
To address these questions, let's consider Jesus’ words in Matthew 28:18: “I have been given complete authority in heaven and on earth.” What does it mean that Jesus has been “given” authority?
Prior to Jesus taking on human form, we are told that he eternally coexisted with his Father, and as God he had all authority. But Philippians 2:6-11 tells us that even though Jesus had existed in the form of God, he “stripped himself” of God’s powers to be born a human being. Yet the same passage tells us that after his resurrection Jesus was restored to his former glory, and someday “every knee will bow to him as Lord.”
So, what did Jesus mean when he claimed to have complete authority in heaven and on earth? Authority” was a well-understood term in Roman-occupied Israel. At that time, Caesar was the supreme authority in the entire Roman world. His edict could instantly launch legions for war, condemn or exonerate criminals, and establish laws and rules of government. In fact, Caesar’s authority was such that he himself claimed divinity.

So, at the very least Jesus was claiming authority on a par with Caesar himself. But He didn’t just say he had more authority than the Jewish leaders or Roman rulers; Jesus was claiming to be the supreme authority in the universe. To those he spoke to, it meant that he was God. Not a god—but the God. Both their words and actions testify to the fact that they truly believed Jesus is God.
Did Jesus Claim to be the Creator?
But is it possible that Jesus was just reflecting God’s authority and was not stating that he was the actual Creator? At first glance that seems plausible. Yet Jesus’ claim to have all authority seems to make sense only if he is the Creator of the universe. The word “all” encompasses everything–including creation itself.

As we look deeper into Jesus’ own words, a pattern seems to emerge. Jesus made radical assertions about himself that, if true, unmistakably point to his deity. Here is a partial list of such statements as recorded by eyewitness accounts.
• “I am the resurrection and the life.” (John 11:25)
• “I am the light of the world.” (John 8:12)
• “I and my Father are one.” (John 10:30)
• “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.” (Revelation 22:13).”
• “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” (John 14:6)
• “I am the only way to the Father [God].” (John 14:6)
• “If you’ve seen me, you’ve seen the Father.” (John 14:9)Once again, we must go back to context. In the Hebrew Scriptures, when Moses asked God his name at the burning bush, God answered, “I AM.” He was telling Moses that He is the only Creator, eternal and transcendent of time.
Since the time of Moses, no practicing Jew would ever refer to himself or anyone else by “I AM.” As a result, Jesus’ “I AM” claims infuriated the Jewish leaders. One time, for example, some leaders explained to Jesus why they were trying to kill him: “Because you, a mere man, have made yourself God” (John 10:33).

But the point here is not simply that such a phrase fumed the religious leaders. The point is that they knew exactly what he was saying—he was claiming to be God, the Creator of the universe. It is only this claim that would have brought the accusation of blasphemy. To read into the text that Jesus claimed to be God is clearly warranted, not simply by his words, but also by their reaction to those words.
What Kind of God?
The idea that we are all part of God, and that within us is the seed of divinity, is simply not a possible meaning for Jesus’ words and actions. Such thoughts are revisionist, foreign to his teaching, foreign to his stated beliefs, and foreign to his disciples’ understanding of his teaching.

Jesus taught that he is God in the way the Jews understood God and the way the Hebrew Scriptures portrayed God, not in the way the New Age movement understands God. Neither Jesus nor his audience had been weaned on Star Wars, and so when they spoke of God, they were not speaking of cosmic forces. It’s simply bad history to redefine what Jesus meant by the concept of God.

But if Jesus wasn’t God, are we still okay by calling him a great moral teacher? C. S. Lewis argued, “I am trying here to prevent anyone from saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say.”7

In his quest for truth, Lewis knew that he could not have it both ways with the identity of Jesus. Either Jesus was who he claimed to be—God in the flesh—or his claims were false. And if they were false, Jesus could not be a great moral teacher. He would either be lying intentionally or he would be a lunatic with a God complex.
Was Jesus a Liar?
One of the best-known and most influential political works of all time was written by Niccolò Machiavelli in 1532. In his classic, The Prince, Machiavelli exalts power, success, image, and efficiency above loyalty, faith, and honesty. According to Machiavelli, lying is okay if it accomplishes a political end.

Could Jesus Christ have built his entire ministry upon a lie just to gain power, fame, or success? In fact, the Jewish opponents of Jesus were constantly trying to expose him as a fraud and liar. They would barrage him with questions in attempts to trip him up and make him contradict himself. Yet Jesus responded with remarkable consistency.

The question we must deal with is, what could possibly motivate Jesus to live his entire life as a lie? He taught that God was opposed to lying and hypocrisy, so he wouldn’t have been doing it to please his Father. He certainly didn’t lie for his followers’ benefit. (All but one were martyred.) And so we are left with only two other reasonable explanations, each of which is problematic.
Benefit
Many people have lied for personal gain. In fact, the motivation of most lies is some perceived benefit to oneself. What could Jesus have hoped to gain from lying about his identity? Power would be the most obvious answer. If people believed he was God, he would have tremendous power. (That is why many ancient leaders, such as the Caesars, claimed divine origin.)

The rub with this explanation is that Jesus shunned all attempts to move him in the direction of seated power, instead chastising those who abused such power and lived their lives pursuing it. He also chose to reach out to the outcasts (prostitutes and lepers), those without power, creating a network of people whose influence was less than zero. In a way that could only be described as bizarre, all that Jesus did and said moved diametrically in the other direction from power.

It would seem that if power was Jesus’ motivation, he would have avoided the cross at all costs. Yet, on several occasions, he told his disciples that the cross was his destiny and mission. How would dying on a Roman cross bring one power?

Death, of course, brings all things into proper focus. And while many martyrs have died for a cause they believed in, few have been willing to die for a known lie. Certainly all hopes for Jesus’ own personal gain would have ended on the cross. Yet, to his last breath, he would not relinquish his claim of being the unique Son of God. Jesus used the terms “Son of Man” and “Son of God” to identify his dual nature as both man and God .
A Legacy
So if Jesus was above lying for personal benefit, perhaps his radical claims were falsified in order to leave a legacy. But the prospect of being beaten to a pulp and nailed to a cross would quickly dampen the enthusiasm of most would-be superstars.

Here is another haunting fact. If Jesus were to have simply dropped the claim of being God’s Son, he never would have been condemned. It was his claim to be God and his unwillingness to recant of it that got him crucified.

If enhancing his credibility and historical reputation was what motivated Jesus to lie, one must explain how a carpenter from a poor Judean village could ever anticipate the events that would catapult his name to worldwide prominence. How would he know his message would survive? Jesus’ disciples had fled and Peter had denied him. Not exactly the formula for launching a religious legacy.

Do historians believe Jesus lied? Scholars have scrutinized Jesus’ words and life to see if there is any evidence of a defect in his moral character. In fact, even the most ardent skeptics are stunned by Jesus’ moral and ethical purity. One of those was skeptic and antagonist John Stuart Mill (1806–73), the philosopher. Mill wrote of Jesus,
"About the life and sayings of Jesus there is a stamp of personal originality combined with profundity of insight in the very first rank of men of sublime genius of whom our species can boast. When this pre-eminent genius is combined with the qualities of probably the greatest moral reformer and martyr to that mission who ever existed on earth, religion cannot be said to have made a bad choice in pitching upon this man as the ideal representative and guide for humanity.8"
According to historian Philip Schaff, there is no evidence, either in church history or in secular history, that Jesus lied about anything. Schaff argued, “How, in the name of logic, common sense, and experience, could a deceitful, selfish, depraved man have invented, and consistently maintained from the beginning to end, the purest and noblest character known in history with the most perfect air of truth and reality?”9

To go with the option of liar seems to swim upstream against everything Jesus taught, lived, and died for. To most scholars, it just doesn’t make sense. Yet, to deny Jesus’ claims, one must come up with some explanation. And if Jesus’ claims are not true, and he wasn’t lying, the only option remaining is that he must have been self-deceived.
Was Jesus a Lunatic?
Albert Schweitzer, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1952 for his humanitarian efforts, had his own views about Jesus. Schweitzer concluded that insanity was behind Jesus’ claim to be God. In other words, Jesus was wrong about his claims but didn’t intentionally lie. According to this theory, Jesus was deluded into actually believing he was the Messiah.

C. S. Lewis considered this option carefully. Lewis deduced the insanity of Jesus’ claims—if they are not true. He said that someone who claimed to be God would not be a great moral teacher. “He would either be a lunatic—on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell.”10

Even those most skeptical of Christianity rarely question Jesus’ sanity. Social reformer William Channing (1780–1842), admittedly not a Christian, made the following observation about Jesus: “The charge of an extravagant, self-deluding enthusiasm is the last to be fastened on Jesus. Where can we find traces of it in history? Do we detect them in the calm authority of His precepts?”11

Although his own life was filled with immorality and personal skepticism, the renowned French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–78) acknowledged Jesus’ superior character and presence of mind. “When Plato describes his imaginary righteous man, loaded with all the punishments of guilt, yet meriting the highest rewards of virtue, he describes exactly the character of Christ. … What presence of mind. … Yes, if the life and death of Socrates are those of a philosopher, the life and death of Jesus Christ are those of a God.”12

Schaff posed the question we must ask ourselves: “Is such an intellect—thoroughly healthy and vigorous, always ready and always self-possessed—liable to a radical and most serious delusion concerning his own character and mission?”13

So, was Jesus a liar or a lunatic, or was he the Son of God? Could Jefferson have been right by labeling Jesus “only a good moral teacher” while denying him deity? Interestingly, the audience who heard Jesus—both believers and enemies—never regarded him as a mere moral teacher. Jesus produced three primary effects in the people who met him: hatred, terror, or adoration.

And today, 2,000 years later, Jesus is still the most polarizing person in our world. Yet it is not his morals, ethics, or legacy that enflames passions. The message Jesus brought to the world was that God made us for a purpose–and that purpose is wrapped up in His Son.

The claims of Jesus Christ force us to choose. As Lewis stated, we cannot put Jesus in the category of being just a great religious leader or good moral teacher. This former Oxford professor and skeptic challenges us to make up our own minds about Jesus:
"You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."14
In Mere Christianity, Lewis explains why he concluded that Jesus Christ is exactly who he claimed to be. His careful examination of the life and words of Jesus led this great literary genius to renounce his former atheism and become a committed Christian.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Permission to reproduce this article: Publisher grants permission to reproduce this material without written approval, but only in its entirety and only for non-profit use. No part of this material may be altered or used out of context without publisher’s written permission. Printed copies of Y-Origins and Y-Jesus magazine may be ordered at: www.JesusOnline.com/product_page
© 2007 B&L Publications. This article is a supplement to Y-Jesus magazine by Bright Media Foundation & B&L Publications: Larry Chapman, Chief Editor.

God and America Part 2 - main article to come

The Barna Group of Ventura, California
A Biblical Worldview Has a Radical Effect on a Person's Life

December 1, 2003


(Ventura, CA) - Any objective social analyst would conclude that the United States faces its fair share of moral and spiritual problems. A new research study from the Barna Research Group'suggests that a large share of the nation's moral and spiritual challenges is directly attributable to the absence of a biblical worldview among Americans.

Citing the findings from a just-completed national survey of 2033 adults that showed only 4% of adults have a biblical worldview as the basis of their decision-making, researcher George Barna described the outcome. "If Jesus Christ came to this planet as a model of how we ought to live, then our goal should be to act like Jesus. Sadly, few people consistently demonstrate the love, obedience and priorities of Jesus. The primary reason that people do not act like Jesus is because they do not think like Jesus. Behavior stems from what we think - our attitudes, beliefs, values and opinions. Although most people own a Bible and know some of its content, our research found that most Americans have little idea how to integrate core biblical principles to form a unified and meaningful response to the challenges and opportunities of life. We're often more concerned with survival amidst chaos than with experiencing truth and significance."

Not Just Any Worldview

The research indicated that everyone has a worldview, but relatively few people have a biblical worldview - even among devoutly religious people. The survey discovered that only 9% of born again Christians have such a perspective on life. The numbers were even lower among other religious classifications: Protestants (7%), adults who attend mainline Protestant churches (2%) and Catholics (less than one-half of 1%). The denominations that produced the highest proportions of adults with a biblical worldview were non-denominational Protestant churches (13%), Pentecostal churches (10%) and Baptist churches (8%).

Among the most prevalent alternative worldviews was postmodernism, which seemed to be the dominant perspective among the two youngest generations (i.e., the Busters and Mosaics).

For the purposes of the research, a biblical worldview was defined as believing that absolute moral truths exist; that such truth is defined by the Bible; and firm belief in six specific religious views. Those views were that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life; God is the all-powerful and all-knowing Creator of the universe and He stills rules it today; salvation is a gift from God and cannot be earned; Satan is real; a Christian has a responsibility to share their faith in Christ with other people; and the Bible is accurate in all of its teachings.

The Difference a Biblical Worldview Makes

One of the most striking insights from the research was the influence of such a way of thinking upon people's behavior. Adults with a biblical worldview possessed radically different views on morality, held divergent religious beliefs, and demonstrated vastly different lifestyle choices.


People's views on morally acceptable behavior are deeply impacted by their worldview. Upon comparing the perspectives of those who have a biblical worldview with those who do not, the former group were 31 times less likely to accept cohabitation (2% versus 62%, respectively); 18 times less likely to endorse drunkenness (2% versus 36%); 15 times less likely to condone gay sex (2% versus 31%); 12 times less likely to accept profanity 3% versus 37%); and 11 times less likely to describe adultery as morally acceptable (4% versus 44%). In addition, less than one-half of one percent of those with a biblical worldview said voluntary exposure to pornography was morally acceptable (compared to 39% of other adults), and a similarly miniscule proportion endorsed abortion (compared to 46% of adults who lack a biblical worldview).

Among the more intriguing lifestyle differences were the lesser propensity for those with a biblical worldview to gamble (they were eight times less likely to buy lottery tickets and 17 times less likely to place bets); to get drunk (three times less likely); and to view pornography (two times less common). They were also twice as likely to have discussed spiritual matters with other people in the past month and twice as likely to have fasted for religious reasons during the preceding month. While one out of every eight adults who lack a biblical worldview had sexual relations with someone other than their spouse during the prior month, less than one out of every 100 individuals who have such a worldview had done so.

Some Groups Are More Likely to Have a Biblical Worldview

Adults who have a biblical worldview possessed a somewhat different demographic profile than those who did not. For instance, individuals who attended college were much more likely than those who did not to have this perspective (6% versus 2%, respectively). Married adults were more than twice as likely as adults who had never been wed to hold such a worldview (5% versus 2%). Whites (5%) were slightly more likely than either blacks (3%) or Hispanics (3%) to hold this ideology. One of the largest gaps was between Republicans (10% of whom had a biblical worldview), Independents (2%) and Democrats (1%).

Residents of Texas and North Carolina were more likely than people in other states to have a biblical worldview. Among the states in which such a worldview was least common were Louisiana and the six states in New England. The nation's largest state - California - was average (i.e., 4% of its residents had a biblical worldview).

Attributes such as gender, age and household income showed no statistical relationship to the possession of a biblical worldview.

Some Churches Are Helping People

The research found that one of the most effective methods of enabling people to develop a biblical worldview is by addressing seven critical questions that consistently lead to beliefs and behaviors that are in tune with biblical teaching. Outlining that process in a new book he has written as an outgrowth of the research, entitled Think Like Jesus, Barna also noted that many churches are already helping their congregants to implement such a way of addressing daily challenges and opportunities.

"The emphasis of these churches is to not only teach biblical perspectives," according to Barna, "but also to help people connect the dots of the core principles taught. Rather than simply provide people with good material and hope they figure out what to do with it, these are churches whose services, programs, events and relationships are geared to weaving a limited number of foundational biblical principles into a way of responding to every life situation. The goal is to facilitate a means of interpreting and responding to every life situation that is consistent with God's expectations. These are not perfect people, but once they catch on to the critical principles found in the Bible and train their minds to incorporate those views into their thinking, their behavior varies noticeably from the norm."


Research Source and Methodology

The data described above are from telephone interviews with a nationwide random sample of 2033 adults conducted during September through November 2003. The maximum margin of sampling error associated with the aggregate sample is ±2.2 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All of the interviews were conducted from the Barna Research Group telephone interviewing facility in Ventura, CA. Adults in the 48 continental states were eligible to be interviewed and the distribution of respondents coincided with the geographic dispersion of the U.S. adult population. Multiple callbacks were used to increase the probability of including a reliable distribution of adults.

The data from the 2003 survey was compared with figures on worldview possession compiled from Barna Research Group surveys conducted in 2002 in order to assess the reliability of the new data. The 2002 surveys also showed that just 4% of the aggregate population and 9% of the born again segment had a biblical worldview. Other repeated measures were compared, producing virtually identical results to the current measures.

"Born again Christians" were defined in these surveys as people who said they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today and who also indicated they believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. Respondents were not asked to describe themselves as "born again." Being "born again" is not dependent upon any church or denominational affiliation or involvement.

The Barna Research Group, Ltd. is an independent marketing research company located in southern California. Since 1984, it has been studying cultural trends related to values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors. If you would like to receive regular e-mailings of a brief overview of each new bi-weekly update on the latest research findings from the Barna Research Group, you may subscribe to this free service at the Barna Research web site (www.barna.org).


Copyright Disclaimer: All the information contained on the barna.org website is copyrighted by The Barna Group, Ltd., 1957 Eastman Ave. Ste B, Ventura, California 93003. No portion of this website (articles, graphs, charts, reviews, pictures, video clips, quotes, statistics, etc.) may be reproduced, retransmitted, disseminated, sold, distributed, published, edited, altered, changed, broadcast, circulated, or commercially exploited without the prior written permission from The Barna Group, Ltd.
Click here to obtain reprint permission

God and America part 1

The Following link was taken from KLTY 94.9 Family Friendly Morningshow Website. It is a link to a copy of President Ronald Reagan's speech to a convention in Texas on the importance of religion and morality IN POLITICS! For those who talk about separation of church and state all the time, you will have your opinions checked by the comments this man made. A wonderful speech, and a powerful message.

http://www.klty.com/mp3/reagan-audio.mp3


The next link is from the same website and is a simple compilation of speech segments from President George W. Bush and Evangelist Billy Graham.

http://www.klty.com/mp3/freedom.mp3

I have been working on compiling some information for a piece I'd like to add here, but the html is slow workings, so I will have that up as soon as possible. For now, Enjoy these links and let their messages sink in.

------------------

Athos

Exorcism

I recently had some questions posed to me on exorcism. Should it be done?, and if so, how frequently? Should only men perform exorcisms as spiritual leaders? Is it a good thing to do, or does it cause more problems than it solves? Well, here are my answers. I would invite feetback!

-------------------------------

Issue #1: Frequencey

Exorcism isn’t very much of an activity in the normal sense of the term. An activity is something you do on your own decision, by your own will, as often as you choose to do it. Being that Exorcism is a battle and authority claim in the spiritual realm, I would say that it is only done (frequency-wise) upon the leading of the Holy Spirit. With that as a starting point, you would do it ONLY as often or as little as the Holy Spirit prompted you to do so. Case in point, you don’t see a situation and say to yourself, “Self, I think you should perform an exorcism right now because it seems like the thing to do. Then we’ll go have lunch.” It doesn’t work that way. It happens in specific cases [e.g. the Geserene demoniac = 1 isolated case where Jesus cast out Legion-Mat. 8:28-34, Mk. 5:1-20, Lk. 8:26-39], and it works in broad case [e.g. the bible records that Jesus went to a town and spent all day casting out evil spirits and healing the sick among the many other activities He did while He got down with His God self - Mat. 10:1,8; Luke 6:18-9:11]. So it’s not governed by frequency, but by the leading of the Holy Spirit. Note: Jesus is God, and so is the Holy Spirit so His choosing to spend all day casting out demons is no big deal on principle, it also gives him the perfect ability and right to give that authority to the disciples who later did the same exact thing. Conclusion: If the Holy Spirit of God can give Jesus (Himself…it’s that whole Trinity thing) and the disciples the same ability to cast out demons en masse or 1 by 1, then He can do the same thing today (and probably does and would more if more Christians didn’t treat the Holy Spirit as something that only worked in power 2000 years ago…..but I digress…).



Issue #2: Male or Female or Both

We must always keep in mind the context of the world-through-the-eyes-of-God. In reality, anytime someone is possessed, they have a family, friends, or church that could in fact be called upon by the Holy Spirit to be an instrument of God for the freeing of that person from that demon. With that in mind, we have the issue of headship. Many would argue that if a spiritual battle is going to take place within the life of a person, then FIRST ( not only) it would fall to the God-given head of that family to lead the effort of prayer and war against the evil spirit. That would be part of his duties as the spiritual head of the family. It is assumed by those who support this view that the leading of the Holy Spirit would by necessity go to this person because his role of head-of-family is God-established, and God doesn’t contradict Himself. If the possessed person was also a member of a local church, it would then fall to the “heads” of the church (biblically instructed to be men – aka elders, presbyters, shepherds, etc.) to assist the head of the family or to take the lead if no head of the family is available, for the same reasons as listed above. Both of these situations assume present, available, God-led men are a part of the situation. But what if there are only women available? What if a man is not willing to fulfill his role? Can we say that the Holy Spirit would never lead a woman to take on the role of authority over an evil spirit? I don’t believe that we can. When the bible mentions Jesus and His “disciples” we automatically think of “the 12”, but this is not always an accurate picture. For instance, Jesus sent out 70 of His disciples on one occasion, and the gender is not specified, it is only said that the disciples traveled 2 by 2 – Luke 10:1-24. According to Luke 24:33 and Acts 1:12-15, there were those who stayed in company with “the 12” who were women and were disciples. Could any of these women have been capable of casting out of a demon. Well, back to the headship issue. In the above contexts of headship, we would say that the leadership would fall to the men, but with no men available, the leadership would fall to God Himself. Why? Because in an exorcism, the “headship” that is being established is not between man or women, but between God and Satan. In said context, full authority and ability is at the disposal of God to call whom He wishes, and that person would not be committing the sin of setting up female headship where it should not be so, but would rather be establishing the headship of God in the possessed person’s circumstances over the powers of Satan. Also the exOrcism of a demon is in very simple terms the exErcising of the power of God over the power of not-God himself, Satan. NEVER in scripture is that ability given only to men, in fact many examples are given where women speak and act in the power and authority of God. Also, exorcism is never listed as being an issue of male/female instruction, which stands in contrast to topics such as Pastoring, or being head of household, where the position is given to be exclusively male. There is also the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20. Christ claims that ALL authority has been given to Him, and then, BECAUSE of that, he sends the disciples out with HIS authority at their disposal through the Holy Spirit. Exercising spiritual authority of God over the powers of Satan was considered to be a primary action of Jesus disciples while He was on Earth, and was limited only by their faith. Being that He again begins the great commission with the issue of authority, there is no reason to assume that any of Christ’s disciples should downplay that same primacy in their own lives. That would simply be the error that many Christians have fallen into in assuming that Spiritual warfare is something you only read about that would only happen to someone else. It should also be considered that women would be considered disciples under the great commission, as that commission is considered a mandate to ALL who follow Christ. Conclusion: It can be seen that not only is the exorcising of a demon a Holy Spirit-led activity occurring with the frequency of His leadership, but that the authority being established is that of God over Satan, and can therefore not be limited to men only. Women would be just as capable and probable to be asked to fill this duty.



Issue #3: Is Exorcism a good or bad thing?

Considering that a) God is never bad, wrong, evil, incorrect, misplaced, etc. in His leadership, b) retaining a demon within one’s life is never seen to be a blessing or good thing in any way physically, mentally, emotionally, or spiritually in scripture, c) exorcising of a demon is a living example of the freedom from sin found in Christ, and d) every establishing of God’s power and authority (based on issues answered above) is an opportunity for God to be glorified through the actions of His people acting in the power of His Holy Spirit, it can with all reason be assumed that exorcism is a very good thing.



----------------------------------------------------

Athos

KARATE PHOTOS!!!!

Here are some of the pictures I've been able to obtain from our Kihido Classic Tournament, and from 2nd Degree Black Belt Testing, and from our recent MayFest Demo. Enjoy!

Doing Kata: Kanku Dai. One of the longest kata in our system



Sparring: High round kick at Evan's Head


He went to the floor off this one!


Sparring: LapSao worked great! 1 point


So did the spinning backfist :-) 1 point


Awarded 1st Place Adult BlackBelt Division
Sparring


Doing Matayoshi Sai Kata for Weapons Demo


2nd Degree Black Belt Testing Pictures!!!!



Combo. #5 Bunkai...Application is
everything...I like to play uke
Mr. Wilcoxen is Teaching here


Just recieved my 2nd Degree!



The Westpoint Testers and Pre-Testers


Same photo again with Mr. and Mrs. Wilcoxen

MayFest Demo Team Pics --- Explains the different Uniforms




Kata for Demo


Playing a bully for random grabs



Team kata for Demo




Well, there they all are! I'll try to get more up as I get them sent to me. Enjoy!

Athos

John MacArthur on Plexiglas Preaching

I f0und this at the blog of a friend of mine who had dug it up on an online bulletin board. It's rather good and certainly full of insight for pastor's in churches today or in training. Also, for members of churches to use as a way of accountability among pastors. Enjoy!


Fifteen Evil Consequences of Plexiglas PreachingbyJohn MacArthur

Copyright 2003, Pulpit - Shepherds' Fellowship. All Rights Reserved. For more information about Shepherds' Fellowship and how to join go to: www.gracechurch.org/sfellowship/

Armed with a “big business” mentality, many in the seeker-sensitive movement have replaced Bible-based sermons with anecdote-filled talks. After all, that’s the stuff that sells. In light of this growing evangelical trend, John MacArthur examines what happens when preachers put the seeker before the Savior and abandon God’s Word for ear-tickling entertainment.


Everyone who knows anything about my ministry knows I am committed to expository preaching. It is my unshakable conviction that the ministry of God's Word should always be the heart and the focus of the church's ministry (2 Tim. 4:2). And proper biblical preaching should be systematic, expositional, theological, and God-centered.

Such preaching is in short supply these days. There are plenty of gifted communicators in the modern evangelical movement, but today's sermons tend to be short, shallow, topical homilies that massage people's egos and focus on fairly insipid subjects like human relationships, "successful" living, emotional issues, and other practical but worldly—and not definitively biblical—themes. Like the ubiquitous Plexiglas lecterns from which these messages are delivered, such preaching is lightweight and without substance, cheap and synthetic, leaving little more than an ephemeral impression on the minds of the hearers.

I recently hosted a discussion at the Expositors' Institute, a small-group colloquium on preaching hosted by the Shepherds' Fellowship. In preparation for that seminar, I took a yellow legal pad and began listing the negative effects of the superficial brand of preaching that is so rife in modern evangelicalism.
I initially thought I might be able to name about ten, but quickly my list had sixty-one entries. I've distilled them to fifteen by combining and eliminating all but the most crucial ones. Here they are, roughly in the order they occurred to me. This is what is wrong with superficial, marginally biblical preaching:

1. It usurps the authority of God over the soul. Whether a preacher boldly proclaims the Word of God or not is ultimately a question of authority. Who has the right to speak to the church? The preacher, or God? Whenever anything is substituted for the preaching of the Word, God's authority is usurped. What a prideful thing to do! In fact, it is hard to conceive of anything more insolent that could be done by a man who is called by God to preach.

2. It removes the lordship of Christ from His church. Who is the Head of the church? Is Christ really the dominant teaching authority in the church? If so, then why are there so many churches where His Word is not being faithfully proclaimed? When we look at contemporary ministry, we see programs and methods that are the fruit of human invention; the offspring of opinion polls and neighborhood surveys; and other pragmatic artifices. Church-growth experts have in essence wrested control of the church's agenda from her true Head, the Lord Jesus Christ. Our Puritan forefathers resisted the imposition of government-imposed liturgies for precisely this reason: they saw it as a direct attack on the headship of Christ over His own church. Modern preachers who neglect the Word of God have yielded the ground those men fought and sometimes died for. When Jesus Christ is exalted among His people, His power is manifest in the church. When the church is commandeered by compromisers who want to appease the culture, the gospel is minimized, true power is lost, artificial energy must be manufactured, and superficiality takes the place of truth.

3. It hinders the work of the Holy Spirit. What is the instrument the Spirit uses to do His work? The Word of God. He uses the Word as the instrument of regeneration (1 Pet. 1:23; James 1:18). He also uses it as the means of sanctification (John 17:17). In fact, it is the only tool He uses (Eph. 6:17). So when preachers neglect God's Word, they undermine the work of the Holy Spirit, producing shallow conversions and spiritually lame Christians—if not utterly spurious ones.

4. It demonstrates appalling pride and a lack of submission. In the modern approach to "ministry," the Word of God is deliberately downplayed, the reproach of Christ is quietly repudiated, the offense of the gospel is carefully eliminated, and "worship" is purposely tailored to fit the preferences of unbelievers. That is nothing but a refusal to submit to the biblical mandate for the church. The effrontery of ministers who pursue such a course is, to me, frightening.

5. It severs the preacher personally from the regular sanctifying grace of Scripture. The greatest personal benefit that I get from preaching is the work that the Spirit of God does on my own soul as I study and prepare for two expository messages each Lord's day. Week by week, the duty of careful exposition keeps my own heart focused and fixed on the Scriptures, and the Word of God nourishes me while I prepare to feed my flock. So I am personally blessed and spiritually strengthened through the enterprise. If for no other reason, I would never abandon biblical preaching. The enemy of our souls is after preachers in particular, and the sanctifying grace of the Word of God is critical to our protection.

6. It clouds the true depth and transcendence of our message and therefore cripples both corporate and personal worship. What passes for preaching in some churches today is literally no more profound than what preachers in our fathers' generation were teaching in the five-minute children's sermon they gave before dismissing the kids. That's no exaggeration. It is often that simplistic, if not utterly inane. There is nothing deep about it. Such an approach makes it impossible for true worship to take place, because worship is a transcendent experience. Worship should take us above the mundane and simplistic. So the only way true worship can occur is if we first come to grips with the depth of spiritual truth. Our people can only rise high in worship in the same proportion to which we have taken them deep into the profound truths of the Word. There is no way they can have lofty thoughts of God unless we have plunged them into the depths of God's self-revelation. But preaching today is neither profound nor transcendent. It doesn't go down and it doesn't go up. It merely aims to entertain.
By the way, true worship is not something that can be stimulated artificially. A bigger, louder band and more sentimental music might do more to stir people's emotions. But that is not genuine worship. True worship is a response from the heart to God's truth (John 4:23). You can actually worship without music if you have seen the glories and the depth of what the Bible teaches.

7. It prevents the preacher from fully developing the mind of Christ. Pastors are supposed to be undershepherds of Christ. Too many modern preachers are so bent on understanding the culture that they develop the mind of the culture and not the mind of Christ. They start to think like the world, and not like the Savior. Frankly, the nuances of worldly culture are virtually irrelevant to me. I want to know the mind of Christ, and bring that to bear on the culture, no matter what culture I may be ministering to. If I'm going to stand up in a pulpit and be a representative of Jesus Christ, I want to know how He thinks—and that must be my message to His people, too. The only way to know and proclaim the mind of Christ is by being faithful to study and preach His Word. What happens to preachers who obsess about cultural "relevancy," is that they become worldly, not godly.

8. It depreciates by example the spiritual duty and priority of personal Bible study. Is personal Bible study important? Of course. But what example does the preacher set when he neglects the Bible in his own preaching? Why would people think they need to study the Bible if the preacher doesn't do serious study himself in the preparation of his sermons? There is now a movement among some of the gurus of "seeker-sensitive" ministry to trim, as much as possible, all explicit references to the Bible from the sermon—and above all, don't ever ask your people to turn to a specific Bible passage—because that kind of thing makes "seekers" uncomfortable. (Some "seeker-sensitive" churches actively discourage their people from bringing Bibles to church lest the sight of so many Bibles intimidate the "seekers.") As if it were dangerous to give your people the impression that the Bible might be important!

9. It prevents the preacher from being the voice of God on every issue of his time. Jeremiah 8:9 says, "The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken. Behold, they have rejected the word of the Lord; so what wisdom do they have?" When I speak, I want to be God's messenger. I'm not interested in exegeting what some psychologist, or business guru, or college professor has to say about an issue. My people don't need my opinion; they need to hear what God has to say. If we preach as Scripture commands us, there should be no ambiguity about whose message is coming from the pulpit.

10. It breeds a congregation that is as weak and indifferent to the glory of God as their pastor is. "Seeker-sensitive" preaching fosters people who are consumed with their own well-being. When you tell people that the church's primary ministry is to fix for them whatever is wrong in this life—to meet their needs, to help them cope with their worldly disappointments, and so on—the message you are sending is that their mundane problems are more important than the glory of God and the majesty of Christ. Again, that sabotages true worship.

11. It robs people of their only true source of help. People who sit under superficial preaching become dependent on the cleverness and the creativity of the speaker. When preachers punctuate their sermons with laser lights and smoke, video clips and live drama, the message they send is that there isn't a prayer the people in the pew could ever extract such profound material on their own. Such gimmicks create a kind of dispensing mechanism that people can't use to serve themselves. So they become spiritual couch potatoes, who just come in to be entertained, and whatever superficial spiritual content they get from the preacher's weekly performance is all they will get. They have no particular interest in the Bible, because the sermons they hear don't cultivate that. They are wowed by the preacher's creativity, manipulated by the music, and that becomes their whole perspective on spirituality.

12. It encourages people to become indifferent to the Word of God and divine authority. Predictably, in a church where the preaching of Scripture is neglected, it becomes impossible to get people to submit to the authority of Scripture. The preacher who always aims at meeting "felt needs" and strokes the conceit of worldly people has no platform from which to confront the man who wants to divorce his wife without cause. The man will say, "You don't understand what I feel. I came here because you promised to meet my felt needs. And I'm telling you, I don't feel like I want to live with this woman any more." You can't inject biblical authority into that. You certainly wouldn't have an easy time pursuing church discipline. That is the monster superficial preaching creates. But if you are going to try to deal with sin and apply any kind of authoritative principle to keep the church pure, you must be preaching the Word.

13. It lies to people about what they really need. In Jeremiah 8:11, God condemns the prophets who treated people's wounds superficially. That verse applies powerfully to the plastic preachers that populate so many prominent evangelical pulpits today. They omit the hard truths about sin and judgment. They tone down the offensive parts of Christ's message. They lie to people about what they really need, promising them "fulfillment" and earthly well-being—when what people really need is an exalted vision of Christ and a true understanding of the splendor of God's holiness.

14. It strips the pulpit of power. "The word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword" (Heb. 4:12). Everything else is impotent, giving merely an illusion of power. Human strategy is not more important than Scripture. The showman's ability to lure people in should not impress us more than the Bible's ability to transform lives.

15. It puts the responsibility on the preacher to change people with his cleverness. Preachers who pursue the modern approach to ministry must think they have the power to change people. That, too, is a frightening expression of pride. We preachers can't save people, and we can't sanctify them. We can't change people with our insights, our cleverness, by entertaining them, or by appealing to their human whims and wishes and ambitions. There's only One who can change sinners. That's God, and He does it by His Spirit through the Word.

So preach the Word, even though it is currently out of fashion to do so (2 Tim. 4:2). That is the only way your ministry can ever truly be fruitful. Moreover, it assures that you will be fruitful in ministry, because God's Word never returns to Him void; it always accomplishes that for which He sends it, and prospers in what He sends it to do (Isa. 55:11).


Added to Bible Bulletin Board's "John MacArthur Collection" by:
Tony CapocciaBible Bulletin Board Box 119Columbus, New Jersey, USA, 08022Our websites: www.biblebb.com and www.gospelgems.com Email: tony@biblebb.comOnline since 1986


~~~~~~~~~~~

Comments?

Athos

Blog Response

I recently saw a trailer for the movie EXPELLED, which promises to be a fascinating look at the viciousness of attacks against the Intelligent Design (I.D.) theory of the beginnings of the universe. You can view the trailer at the following link: www.expelledthemovie.com

I checked the website and posted on their blog just to put some clarification into the arguments which I felt was missing because of both sides just trying to beat each other up. Maybe they didn't want the clarification, but it's an open blog so I'm allowed :-) Anyway, here is a copy of what I wrote. If you wish to see it on their site, I am number 675 on the post title "c'mon, you guys can do better than that". Please reply if you desire to do so! I always enjoy a good conversation either in person or by computer. God Bless.
~~~~~~~~~~~~

I would like to put this question up in response specifically to Kelly, and to anyone else who would care to chime in:

While it is true that no one can “scientifically test” the theory of intelligent design (one can’t go back and run tests on God at the beginning of time to see how and if He did it), I would ask you to please give one little piece of “Scientific testing” of the beginning of life through the big-bang….
Of course, this is absurd. The FACTS on the issue are these: 1) We are here on a planet in the solar system that is one of many in the universe. 2) NO ONE was around to see the beginnings of the Earth or anything else for that matter. 3) Scientific testing using the scientific method has proven that the Law of Uniformity doesn’t apply uniformly to the natural processes at work on Earth. Why? Glad you asked. Everything from Fossils being created in weeks-months instead of lots of years to canyons being carved by natural disasters and high amounts of erosion that displace LARGE amounts of soil at once instead of a little at a time mess up the “uniform” processes we would say are at work.

So, what you have as an end result then is this. 1) 2 competing THEORIES. NEITHER can be scientifically proven correct beyond doubt. 2) BOTH theories have the exact same FACTS to work with. We don’t have any evidence in one camp that the other camp doesn’t have intellectual access to (no one has an ace-in-the-hole called an “I know something you don’t know, nah nah nah nah nah nah). 3) What makes the difference is how your presuppositions and interpretations of facts play in. I.D. campers say that there had to have been a designer, and they START with that presupposition and base information off of that (non-scientific). Evolution campers say that there was NOT a designer, that it all happened by chance, and they START there with that presupposition and base all information off of that position (also non-scientific). The only science is done by observation and testing. NO ONE on earth can re-test the beginnings of the world or universe. Neither can we look at the present and guaranteed accurately extrapolate the past. It would be a nice luxury, but we don’t have that.

NOW, all that being said, I as a Christian believe that the Bible is true. Yes, that’s a FAITH issue. If the Bible is true, then it is a true record of true history, in which case there IS an eyewitness to creation…God Himself who gave us the account so we would know where we came from. Therefore, my creationism view is clear from reading Genesis chapters 1-11.

If you’re an evolutionist, then you probably believe that the Bible is NOT true, and THAT is a FAITH issue as well ( because you cannot prove it otherwise. In fact, the bible is supported by the raw scientific facts that we have discovered so well, that it is almost laughable to hear that the bible and science contradict each other anymore. Only the interpretations of fact contradict each other).

So there you have it, the most accurate rendition of this whole fight, and intellectually why it is occurring. Please comment with thoughts, questions, or concerns! I welcome the input!!!
Athos

Everything

Fantastic Video: Have to see about doing this one with our youth group Please watch. The words are listed below:





Find me here
And speak to me
I want to feel you
I need to hear you
You are the light
That's leading me to the place
Where I find peace again

You are the strength
That keeps me walking
You are the hope
That keeps me trusting
You are the light to my soul
You are my purpose
You're everything

And how can I stand here with you
And not be moved by you
Would you tell me how could it be
Any better than this

You calm the storms
And you give me rest
You hold me in your hands
you won't let me fall
You still my heart
When you take my breath away
Would you take me in take me deeper now

And how can I stand here with you
And not be moved by you
Would you tell me how could it be
Any better than this


And how can I stand here with you
And not be moved by you
Would you tell me how could it be
Any better than this

Cause you're all I want
You're all I need
You're everything, everything
You're all I want
You're all I need
You're everything, everything
You're all I want
You're all I need
You're everything, everything
You're all I want
You're all I need
Everything, everything

And how can I stand here with you
And not be moved by you
Would you tell me how could it be
Any better than this
And how can I stand here with you
And not be moved by you
Would you tell me how could it be
Any better any better than this
And how can I stand here with you
And not be moved by you
Would you tell me how could it be
Any better than this
Would you tell me how could it be
Any better than this

Song: EVERYTHING Artist: Lifehouse