Thankfulness

   It's Thanksgiving already! People remind us to be thankful for what we have. We're told to count our blessings, such as: family, friends, things we possess, our freedom, food-we do like to eat, clothing, etc.  
   The Apostle Paul writes in II Timothy 3:1-5 that "in the last days perilous times will come" when "men will be unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good...lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness, but denying its power. And from such people turn away!" It seems like we are living in those "last days". Many are not thankful for what they have and want what others have - robbery, murders, swindelers, and such are terrorizing our society!
  But, praise God for those who give to others. They are thankful, loving, kind people. They help "make the world go 'round". They are a blessing on our society to be thankful for, but the others are a blight!
   Yet that which we should be most thankful for is what God has done for us in our Lord Jesus Christ, Who died on Calvary's cross for our sin personally and was buried and the third day arose from the dead and sits at the right hand of God to intercede for us as we believe in Jesus - that He is the Son of God Who lived a sinless life and died a sinner's death for each one of us. Then we will want to live as God instructs in the Bible.
   Thank the Lord for His eternal life and His Word. In Romans 8:28 Paul tells us that "all things work together for our good." God can take bad things that happen to us and use them to make good things happen. When Joseph's brothers sold him as a slave to go to Egypt, it was evil, but God used it to save Joseph's family during a great famine. God still uses bad happenings to accomplish good today. So be thankful for what God allows in your life and see how He can use it for good. But thank Him most of all for sending Jesus to die for us that we may believe and live for Him and enjoy eternal life in heaven with Him. May God bless you with the knowledge of Him.

Sincerely,
Rick

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ

   Can anyone prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus arose from the dead? At first one might quickly say, "No, that's impossible!" Yet, if God had a part in it, it would be possible. Not for man, but for God. After all, He who made the world can change normal happenings and cause what we call miracles.

   If we look at the evidence given by those who lived in that day, in the light of current court evidence  and methods, we would be forced to accept the fact of the resurrection of Christ!

   Luke, who wrote the Gospel of Luke, has been proven repeatedly to be a top notch historian who was meticulous in his research. Also, archeology has proven him to be correct even when late historians thought him to be wrong.

   In the beginning of his Gospel he mentions his complete knowledge of his subject, and in the beginning of the book of Acts which he wrote, he again,  tells of Jesus showing Himself alive "by many infallible proofs". Read it! It's written down!

   Let's look at the evidence. 1. The tomb where Jesus was burried was empty! The women went to the tomb to anoint a dead body. When they got there the stone weighing tons was already removed from the opening, but there was no body there! They told the disciples who did not believe them. They thought it was an idle tale because they did not believe Jesus would rise again, but Peter and John ran to the tomb and saw the empty tomb! John specifically writes that "the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths(which were around His body), but folded together in a place by itself." Many feel that the linen cloths were lying as they had been wrapped around His body because of the meaning of the Greek word for "lying"- "to lie outstretched, be (appointed, laid up, made, set), lay, lie." (Strong's Concordance)

   You may say, "So what, the tomb was empty. The disciples came and took the body so they could say He arose. WAIT A MINUTE! THINK! According to Luke's narrative and in the other Gospels, the disciples were disheartened, didn't believe that He would rise from the dead. Even the women went to anoint a dead body!

   Now, also remember that Matthew 27:62-66 tells us that the Jewish leaders asked Pilate for a Roman guard to keep Jesus' disciples from taking the body of Jesus and saying He arose from the dead. The reason? "Because "that deceiver said 'After 3 days I will rise.'" Pilate granted their request. THIS IS THE GREATEST PROOF THAT JESUS REALLY AROSE FROM THE DEAD! The disciples could not have gotten to the stone, let alone carry away the body of Jesus with Roman soldiers guarding the tomb. If they failed in their job as guards, they would loose their life. That's why the chief priests gave the soldiers "a large sum of money" to say the disciples "came at night and stole Him away while we slept." The chief priests said that they would appease their superiors. So the soldiers took the money and said what they were told.(Matthew 28:11-15)

   There were many eye witnesses to the risen Christ. In I Corinthians 15:5-10 Paul lists many who saw christ alive after His resurrection. Over 500 brethren saw Him at one time. It was NOT halucinations! Paul includes himself in the list. He who fought aghainst the young church with such extreemes-to the death of those arrested-and then, suddenly, he became one of them! He tells the story in Acts 9:1-22.

Sincerely,
Rick

     

The Resurrection # 2

   Many historians have recorded the history of the ancient world, men such as Homer, Josephus, Tacitus, Xenophon, Herodotus and Thucydides. More trustworthy than all these men, according to Robert J. Morgan is Luke, the writer of the Gospel. In his book, "Beyond Reasonable Doubt", on which I am basing this study, he states, "All of them pale when compared to the historical pinpoint-accuracy of Luke."(page 6) Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, a Scottish scholar, thought that Luke made lots of mistakes in the details of his writings, the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. So he decided to go to Turkey and the Middle East to prove his thought to be correct. As he traveled where Luke had, he found out that Luke was "correct, even in minute details." Ramsay, himself was wrong! Ramsay wrote that "no period in ancient history is so assured and well attested..."as Luke's report. He wrote further that you could check out Luke's writings all you want, but his writings will be accurate to the tiny details; ie. dates, facts, etc., more than any other historian! He concluded that Luke "is not to be regarded as the author of historical romance, legend, or third or second-rate history. Rather he is the writer of an historical work of the highest order."(Quoted from "Beyond Reasonable Doubt)
   Remember that Luke wrote of the birth, life, death, AND the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead! In the book of Acts he repeatedly refers to the resurrected Christ as do the Apostles he writes about. Morgan quotes Wilber Smith as saying, "Of all the writers in the New Testament, Luke was the one who knew better than any of them, from his own medical experience, that it was utterly impossible for a dead body to come to life again by its own power. He was also a man who would have no faith in such a great doctrine as the resurrection of Christ, were it based upon a hallucination, a mental excitement, or the blowing of the wind or the rattling of a window. It was the conviction of this scientist and scholar, true Grecian and true Christian, that the Lord manifested (showed) Himself to His disciples in many (infallible) proofs." To reject the resurrection of Christ, you must reject the most accurate historian of the time; one who was accurate in the most minute details!

Sincerely,
Rick

The Circle

Biblical Error is Impossible

(While I do not agree totally with the Catholic Church, I do agree that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit.)
                                    
Here is the Vatican's position (from the Vatican website), in the words of Pope Leo XIII in 'Providentissimus Deus' (his 1893 encyclical on the Study of Holy Scripture):

"[I]t is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. These are the words of the last: "The Books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council (Trent) and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical. And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author." "