User Menu Search
Close

The Sum of the Parts: Not only did Jesus DO miracles, he WAS the miracle.

It has been said that the test of a person’s greatness is their use or abuse of power.  On this score how did Jesus fair, we may ask?

The four gospels’ collective portrait of Jesus is not just that he was a doer of miracles, but that he was himself a miracle. In all of world history, never has there been any other historical figure to whom so many miracles have been attributed, from birth to death—nay, even beyond death. Never another historical figure to whom so much other-worldly power has been ascribed—power over disease and disability, power over nature, power over demonic forces, power over discourse, and power over death itself. In conjunction, never has there been an historical figure to whom so much humanitarian goodness has been attributed. Power and goodness.

            

  • 13 June 2019
  • Author: Scott Cherry
  • Number of views: 51
  • Comments: 0

How variants in the canonical gospels prove they were not redacted.

The Bible’s four canonical gospels are the world’s best information for the person and work of Jesus, bar none. That is my position that is shared by a great many scholars, past and present. And yet there is an apparent problem with several facets: 1) Why are there four?  2) Why are the first three gospels—so called the synoptics (Matthew, Mark, Luke)—so similar to each other yet so different from the fourth (John)?  3) Why do even they have so many differences among them, some of which look like contradictions? And 4) Why do they have so many similarities among them, including even identical material? ...If the early church community had been predisposed to redaction ('super-editing') they could have thoroughly redacted the gospels to edit out all the discrepancies, especially any bonafide contradictions. Almost certainly, if there had been a Master Editor or, say, a Master Board of Redaction for the New Testament, they would have done so.  It would have been in their better interests because the presence of variants and apparent discrepancies is inconvenient at best. But they did not. That they did not strongly suggests that their primary interests were authenticity and truth.



  • 5 June 2019
  • Author: Scott Cherry
  • Number of views: 123
  • Comments: 0

Why The Apocryphal Gospels Pale In Comparison to the 4 True Gospels

The gospels of Thomas, Mary, Judas and Peter are nonsense. These and many more are included in a collection of 52 gnostic manuscripts discovered in the village of Nag Hammadi, Egypt in 1945.  Today they are readily accessible online.  Myriad online sources say that they are all in Coptic and largely dated to the 4th century. The exception is the gospel of Thomas which is generally dated (in apparently the most prominent system) as early 132 AD, but which is no longer viewed as “gnostic” by one of the  foremost experts on them, Elaine Pagels.  Then there’s the gospel of Peter, the one to which I was assigned to give special attention on this occasion: Apparently, the author of our textbook, John Dominic Crossan believes that its original composition predates even the New Testament’s synoptic gospels (Wikipedia on Gospel of Peter).  But almost no scholars agree. In broad strokes, the gnostic writings are a menagerie of esoteric sayings and reports that bear some resemblance to the stuff of the canonical four Gospels. If they didn’t then they would hardly be included in this category. It exists as a grouping of writings that were not invited to the “in-group” and that some say could have or should have been.  But I think not.  One reason is that they contradict each other, let alone the canonical gospels. Another is that they contain material that would be considered nonsense and/or repugnant by most thinking people. Another is their blatantly false authorship, and still another is their extremely late dating—far later than the gospels.
  • 4 June 2019
  • Author: Scott Cherry
  • Number of views: 101
  • Comments: 1

Why did Jesus try to conceal his identity?

by Zenon Sommers—

The gospel of Mark tells of a man named Jesus who spends a year preaching love, sacrifice, and repentance to others and to God. The focus of Jesus’ message is the coming of the kingdom of God, a time on earth where God would reign over all and the oppression of the Jews would end. What Jesus does not tell the world is that he is the Messiah, God’s anointed one, sent to bring God’s kingdom to earth. Whenever someone realizes Jesus is the Messiah, Jesus immediately moves to silence them. In Mark’s gospel, Jesus concealed his identity as the Messiah because his mission and message ran counter to everything the Jewish people expected from a Messiah.

*Zenon is a sophomore psychology student at UM Dearborn.

  • 30 May 2019
  • Author: Guest Blogger
  • Number of views: 177
  • Comments: 2

Was Jesus an illiterate peasant? (part 1)

by Ben Witherington in Patheos.com

There is an awful lot of loose talk and pontificating on the basis of loose talk when it comes to the issue of Jesus’ social level, and his ability to read or write, or whether he could have been multi-lingual. Sometimes the discussion is even based on irrelevant data— for example the fact that Galilee was not inhabited by scads of Gentiles (see Mark Chancey’s fine monograph on how Gentile was Galilee). The ethnic makeup of Galilee is frankly irrelevant to the issue of whether Greek was used in the first century in Galilee or not for the very good reason that all of the Holy Land had long since been Hellenized for centuries.

Click here to read this article in full.

  • 29 May 2019
  • Author: Guest Blogger
  • Number of views: 112
  • Comments: 1
RSS

Article Search

Terms Of UsePrivacy StatementCopyright 2019 by Advance Ministries
Back To Top