The Bad Seed: The Health Risks of Genetically Modified Corn

By Caitlin Shetterly, Elle Magazine, July 28, 2013

The office of allergist Paris Mansmann, MD, sits on a grassy slope overlooking the Royal River, a wide waterway that originates in inland Maine and winds down across farmland and under train tracks until it hits the coastal town of Yarmouth, where it sloshes into the Atlantic Ocean. When I first came to Mansmann in February 2011, the river was covered with ice, and bare trees stood silver sentry on its shores. I was 36. I’d been sick for three and a half years.

During that time, when I wasn’t working as a writer and theater director or being a wife and mother, I visited doctors and had tests. I told few friends or members of my extended family how ill I was, because I didn’t have any way to explain what was wrong. I had no diagnosis, just a collection of weird symptoms: tight, achy pain that radiated through my body and caused me to hobble around; burning rashes that splashed across my cheeks and around my mouth like pizza sauce; exhaustion; headaches; hands that froze into claws while I slept and hurt to uncurl in the morning; a constant head cold; nausea; and, on top of all that, severe insomnia—my body just could not, would not, turn off and rest. I visited every doctor who’d see me and tried everything they threw at me: antidepressants; painkillers; elimination diets (including a long eight months when I went without any of the major allergens, such as gluten, nuts, dairy, soy, and nightshades); herbal supplements; iodine pills; steroid shots; hormone treatments; Chinese teas; acupuncture; energy healing; a meditation class—you name it, I did it. Nothing worked. After I maxed out the available rheumatologists, endocrinologists, nutritionists, gastroenterologists, Lyme disease specialists, acupuncturists, and alternative-medicine practitioners in the Portland metropolitan area, I was sent to neurologists in Boston. All of my tests came back normal.

In late 2010, after a long and unhappy antibiotic treatment for Lyme disease, my newest GP (who’s still my doctor today), Chuck de Sieyes, MD, announced that he was referring me to Mansmann: “Because I have no idea what’s going on with you, and he’s one of the smartest guys around. And frankly, I’ve had it!"

Mansmann had moved to Yarmouth with his wife and kids to be close to his parents, who’d retired in Maine. A third-generation allergist, he worked in his father’s allergy clinic, at Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia, during high school. While in college at Saint Joseph’s University, also in Philadelphia, he helped his dad develop two asthma drugs. Later, he headed an allergy and immunology clinic at a West Virginia hospital for 10 years.

Mansmann has a helmet of thick, graying hair and an intensely serious air. After escorting me into an exam room, he sat down across from me and promptly pushed aside my thick medical file. He’d read through it all, he said, but he wanted to hear the story from me. He listened patiently, asking questions every so often: When did my rashes flare? Was the pain an ache in my muscles, or did it feel deeper? Was I worse after I slept or at the end of the day? He seemed, as we spoke, to have all the time in the world. Then, with no pyrotechnics, he offered his theory: “I think it’s possible you’ve developed a reaction to genetically modified corn."

Genetically modified corn? Everyone’s heard of GMO corn, but I realized I didn’t know what it actually was. Mansmann explained that starting in the mid-1980s, the biotechnology giant Monsanto began to genetically alter corn to withstand its herbicide Roundup—the goal being to eradicate weeds but not crops—as well as to resist a pest called the corn borer. These small changes in the DNA of the corn are expressed by the plant as proteins. It’s those proteins, Mansmann believes, that can act as allergens, provoking a multisystemic disorder marked by the overproduction of a type of white blood cell called an eosinophil.

He swabbed inside my nose with a Q-tip, then placed the results under a microscope. “Take a look," Mansmann said. “See all those pink cells? Those are eosinophils." My nose, it seemed, was chock-full of them. When the immune system is working properly, eosinophils swarm certain invading substances, be they parasites or viruses, and work to eliminate them. Sometimes, however, an allergenic protein may prompt the immune system to release eosinophils. Then, it’s as if a faucet gets turned on but can’t be turned off—eosinophils just keep coming. Eventually they begin to leave the bloodstream and may infiltrate and damage the GI tract, esophagus, mucous membranes, lungs, the fascial system (the layer of connective tissue that surrounds the muscles, blood vessels, and nerves), and the skin—hence, the avalanche of symptoms. (Some allergists say that the best way to test for a true eosinophilic disorder is to look for the cells in the esophagus and GI tract with an endoscopy. But Mansmann thinks that once you have a preponderance of them in your nasal mucus, they’re likely to be elsewhere.)

Mansmann’s advice was to strip all corn, even that marked organic, from my diet. “It’s almost impossible to find a corn source in the United States that doesn’t have the [protein] in it," he said. The U.S. government started approving GMO corn and soybeans for sale in the mid-1990s, and today, 88 percent of corn, and 93 percent of soybeans, are the transgenic varieties. Moreover, Mansmann and others contend that due to cross-pollination via winds, birds, and bees, there’s no such thing anymore as a GMO-free corn crop. He estimated that it would take from two to four months of living without corn for the eosinophils to cycle out of my body, and almost a year before I’d feel entirely like myself.

While I quickly discovered that blaming GMO foods for any kind of health problem is controversial in the medical and biotech worlds, what’s beyond debate is the increase in the incidence of autoimmune disorders such as type 1 diabetes, lupus, and celiac disease, as well as of allergies. As for the latter, the National Health Interview Survey found, for instance, that since 1999, the number of children with food allergies has jumped by 50 percent, and those with skin allergies by 69 percent (and the increase isn’t merely a by-product of fuller reporting by parents, experts say).

I was desperate enough that I was willing to try the diet Mansmann recommended. After all, how hard could it be to give up corn? The answer was: way harder than I imagined. Corn was my Waldo, popping up everywhere: in tea bags, juice, and cheese culture; it lined my “to go" coffee cups and plastic bags of frozen vegetables; it coated my store-bought apples and was on the bottom of restaurant pizza—almost everything my family used, no matter how piously natural and organic, had corn in it. It came under the guise of dozens of names like “xanthan gum," “natural flavors," “free-flowing agents," “vitamin E," “ascorbic acid," “citric acid," and “cellulose," to name a few. Almost daily, I’d find a new culprit. “Damn, this toothpaste is full of corn!" Then: “Wait, our dish soap is made from corn!" Or: “Oh my God, iodized salt has dextrose in it!"

Not to mention the corn that is fed to animals whose meat and eggs I ate, whose milk I drank. I had to restrict my diet, Mansmann said, to vegetables, grains other than corn, grass-fed beef and dairy, wild fish, and game (if I was game). My husband and I threw ourselves into the corn-free diet with gusto: We began baking all our bread, we learned how to make our own flour tortillas and sweet treats like muffins and cakes. By luck, we met an intrepid farmer raising corn-free chickens (harder than you might guess, because chickens have literally been bred to get fat fast on corn). We eschewed anything premade and began gathering foods from local sources we could trust. I stopped taking every medicine or supplement with corn in it (which was most of them). Wherever I went, I took my own stainless-steel coffee cup.

The first thing I noticed was that my skin rashes began to dissipate. Then, slowly, my body stopped aching, and I could walk or even jog easily, for the first time in years. I started to have more energy, and I slept better at night. The head cold went away—poof—and I wasn’t going through a box of tissues a day. My hands became less stiff. I realized, in retrospect, that my frozen hands had been the hardest symptom to tolerate: I could barely button my son’s small shirts or apply a Band-Aid, which made me feel useless as a mother. Almost four months later, in late May, I felt pretty much like my old self. I was so startled by my physical well-being that I didn’t know how to enjoy it. Each night I’d go to bed preparing myself for the possibility that I might wake up sick again the next morning.

With the level of penetration of GMO foods, and the fairly widespread acceptance of them in America (certainly compared with Europe, where they’re banned in many countries), saying “halt" seems unlikely at this point. Definitely in the air, however, is better labeling of such products. The Connecticut legislature passed a measure this June to require it, and a whopping 96 percent of people favor GMO labeling, according to a 2011 MSNBC poll. Whole Foods Market announced this March that by 2018 everything it sells in the U.S. and Canada will be labeled for GMOs. How the store will implement that is hard to fathom given the ubiquity of industrial corn: Will the bastion of healthy eating plaster GMO stickers on practically every item on its shelves? “We’re very aware of how much of a challenge [labeling] is going to be," a company spokesman admitted, adding that they’re committed to it nonetheless.

My small family has been able to jettison GMOs, thanks to the local farmers we’ve found and our willingness to do without the vast majority of prepared foods. But my husband and I both have jobs, and there are days when we can’t imagine preparing everything from scratch forever. Yet when I was sick for all that time, my life felt totally out of control. I still rue the day when I was desperate enough for a diagnosis to believe I had chronic Lyme disease, which necessitated weaning my small son from my breast before either of us was ready so I could be bombarded with antibiotics.

When I think back to how suffocatingly powerless I felt, how sidelined as a wife, mother, and productive person, I just feel, well, sick. Although Dr. Mansmann told me that most people allergic to GMO corn can end up tolerating small amounts after a couple years of abstinence, each time I’ve dared cheat, I’ve awoken the next morning with a frozen left hand, a sore hip, and a facial rash. So for now, at least, the extra work isn’t really a choice; it’s a way of life, one that reminds me daily that our modern world is full of challenges—dietary, economic, environmental—that at times feel overwhelming. And perhaps that’s the gift in this: I’ve had to slow down and think about my food—how it was grown, what’s in it, and which trade-offs were made in the journey from a seed to my plate. That consciousness has to be worth something bigger than just my health.

Read More

Evolution vs God

Read More

Aeon

Aeon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the geologic time, see eon (geology). For other uses, see Aeon (disambiguation).

The word aeon /ˈiːɒn/, also spelled eon, originally means "life" or "being", though it then tended to mean "age", "forever" or "for eternity". It is a Latin transliteration from the koine Greek word ὁαἰών (ho aion), from the archaic αἰϝών (aiwon). In Homer it typically refers to life or lifespan. Its latest meaning is more or less similar to the Sanskrit word kalpa and Hebrew word olam. A cognateLatin word aevum or aeuum (cf. αἰϝών) for "age" is present in words such as longevity and mediaeval.[1]

Although the term aeon may be used in reference to a period of a billion years (especially in geology, cosmology or astronomy), its more common usage is for any long, indefinite, period. Aeon can also refer to the four aeons on the Geologic Time Scale that make up the Earth's history, the Hadean, Archean, Proterozoic, and the current aeon Phanerozoic.

Contents

Eternity or age

Further information: In saecula saeculorum

The Bible translation is a treatment of the Hebrew word olam and the Greek word aion. Both these words have similar meaning, and Young's Literal Translation renders them and their derivatives as “age” or “age-during”. Other English versions most often translate them to indicate eternity, being translated as eternal, everlasting, forever, etc. However, there are notable exceptions to this in all major translations, such as Matthew 28:20: “…I am with you always, to the end of the age” (NRSV), the word “age” being a translation of aion. Rendering aion to indicate eternality in this verse would result in the contradictory phrase “end of eternity”, so the question arises whether it should ever be so.[3] Proponents of Universal Reconciliation point out that this has significant implications for the problem of hell.[4] Contrast Matthew 25:46 in well-known English translations with its rendering in Young's Literal Translation:

And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during. (YLT)[5]

Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. (NIV)[6]

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. (NASB)[7]

And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. (KJV)[8]

And these will depart into everlasting cutting-off, but the righteous ones into everlasting life. (NWT)[9]

Philosophy and mysticism[edit]

Plato used the word aeon to denote the eternal world of ideas, which he conceived was "behind" the perceived world, as demonstrated in his famous allegory of the cave.

Christianity's idea of "eternal life" comes from the word for life, zoe, and a form of aeon,[10] which could mean life in the next aeon, the Kingdom of God, or Heaven, just as much as immortality, as in John 3:16.

According to the Christian doctrine of Universal Reconciliation, the Greek New Testament scriptures use the word "eon" to mean a long period (perhaps 1000 years) and the word "eonian" to mean "during a long period"; Thus there was a time before the eons, and the eonian period is finite. After each man's mortal life ends, he is judged worthy of eonian life or eonian punishment. That is, after the period of the eons, all punishment will cease and death is overcome and then God becomes the all in each one (1Cor 15:28). This contrasts with the conventional Christian belief in eternal life and eternal punishment.

Read More

Parable of the Two Debtors!

The Stories Jesus Told—The Two Debtors, Luke 7:36–50
Video length: 24:25
Download Video: High (151MB) Low (71.5MB)
Audio length: 23:34
Download Audio (33.9MB)

The parable of the two debtors, or as it’s sometimes referred to, the parable of the Pharisee and the sinful woman, is told in Luke 7:36–50. This is a beautiful story of love, mercy, and thanksgiving. One New Testament scholar describes it as one of the “treasured religious possessions of the Western world.”[1] The parable portion of the story is very short, only two verses sandwiched in the center of the action and dialog surrounding Jesus’ visit and meal at the house of Simon the Pharisee. Brief though the parable is, it sheds a bright light upon God’s forgiveness and the proper response to it.

The story begins with:

Now one of the Pharisees was requesting [Jesus] to dine with him, and He entered the Pharisee’s house and reclined at the table.[2]


This seems like a fairly straightforward statement of events. However, it’s whatdoesn’t happen that is one of the central aspects of the story. Those who were present would have immediately understood that a terrible breach of decorum had occurred, and that it was deliberate.


The custom at the time dictated that when a guest entered a home, the host would greet the visitor with a kiss, either on the cheek or hand. Next, water and olive oil would be brought to wash the guest’s hands and feet. One of the uses of olive oil in those days was as soap. In some instances the host would anoint the head of the guest with the oil. None of these courtesies were extended to Jesus by Simon. It was a terrible breach of protocol and manners.


Pharisees regarded their dining tables at home to be like the altar of the temple; they strove to maintain the state of ritual purity required of priests in the temple within their households and among their eating companions. They only ate with those who were also in a ritual state of purity. Simon’s invitation for Jesus to eat with him showed that he considered Jesus to be in such a state.[3]


Later in the story he calls Jesus “teacher.” According to early Jewish writings, to host a teacher or scholar in one’s home was considered an honor. Having been invited to Simon’s house, the least Jesus could have expected was a kiss of greeting, some water for His feet, and olive oil to use in washing His hands. But none of these were offered, and the other guests would have noticed this. At this point Jesus could have rightfully said, “I am not welcome here,” and left in anger. But He didn’t. Though Simon’s lack of hospitality would have been considered an affront, Jesus absorbed the insult and reclined at the table, with unwashed hands and feet.[4]


The fact that they reclined at the table would indicate that the meal was a formal one. At such meals the diners reclined around a central table on couches which would most commonly be arranged in a U-shape. At these formal meals it was expected that there would be discussion of serious subjects of mutual interest, and in this case, since the meal was in the house of a Pharisee, the expectation would be discussions involving scripture.[5]


The next scene of the story now unfolds:


And behold, a woman of the city, who was a sinner, when she learned that [Jesus] was reclining at table in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster flask of ointment, and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head and kissed his feet and anointed them with the ointment.[6]


The woman, who was known within the city to be a sinner, learned that Jesus was going to be eating at Simon’s house that day, so she was present when Jesus arrived. The most widely accepted interpretation is that the woman was likely a prostitute. Now, how is it that this woman was allowed to attend the meal at Simon’s house? No Pharisee would have her as a dinner guest, as evidenced by the fact that the Pharisees criticized Jesus for eating with sinners.[7] So the presence of a prostitute, and her subsequent actions, was extremely offensive to the Pharisee and his other guests. She was, however, allowed to be there.


One author explains:


At traditional Middle Eastern village meals, the outcasts of the community are not shut out. They sit quietly on the floor against the wall, and at the end of the meal are fed. Their presence is a compliment to the host, who is thereby seen as so noble that he even feeds the outcasts of the community. The rabbis insisted that the door be open when a meal was in progress lest you ‘lack of food’ (i.e., lest you shut out the blessings of God).[8]


The woman was there not as an invited guest, but as one of those who were allowed to observe the meal, but not join in on the meal. But why was she there? What was her reason for attending? In all likelihood, she was there because she had heard Jesus speak earlier and was transformed by what He said. All of the research material I read in regard to this parable brought out that the woman must have had an encounter with Jesus prior to this meal, and that this encounter changed her. While this isn’t specifically stated in the Bible, it is inferred, and it becomes clear as the story develops.


Most likely both Simon and the woman had heard Jesus speak while He was in their town. Simon invited Jesus for a meal, which would have been a normal courtesy extended to a visiting teacher or rabbi. The woman enquired where Jesus would be, and when she learned that He had been invited to dine at Simon’s house, she went there. Later in the story we hear Jesus tell Simon, “From the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet,” which shows that she was there before Jesus, or that she had arrived in time to witness the discourteous reception Jesus had received upon His arrival.


The woman may have heard of Jesus’ reputation for being willing to mix with sinners. She probably heard Him speak about forgiveness of sins, that God loved her and those like her, that His grace was available to her even though she was sinful. She received what He said and was transformed by it. She was joyful that her sins were forgiven, that she was set free, and she came to the house to show her gratitude to the one who had shared this good news with her.


We are told that she brought an alabaster flask of ointment. Alabaster is a soft stone which was crafted into small vials to hold fragrant oil. In some translations, the word ointment is translated as fragrant oil or perfume. Women would wear a vial with perfumed oil around their neck, which hung down between the breasts, used to both sweeten the breath and perfume the wearer.[9] Such perfume was very expensive at the time. When the woman found out where Jesus would be, she took the perfumed oil with her in order to anoint Jesus’ feet as an expression of gratitude for what Jesus had done for her.


However, witnessing the cold and rather insulting reception that Jesus received by Simon deeply saddened her. The one who had set her free with His message of God’s love and forgiveness was being humiliated.[10] Simon hadn’t washed Jesus’ feet, a sure sign that he considered Him inferior. He hadn’t even made water available for Jesus to wash His own feet. No kiss of greeting was given. Upon seeing this, the woman weeps. What could she do to make up for the obvious lack of hospitality shown to the man who had changed her life?


Looking at the scenario, we see Jesus reclining at the meal, lying on His side, leaning on His left elbow, eating with His right hand. His feet were at the end of the couch facing away from the table, near the woman since she was sitting against the wall. Looking at His unwashed feet, she decided to do what Simon had not done, so she used her tears to wet His feet. She didn’t have a towel to wipe and dry them, so she let down her hair and used it to dry His feet. She then kissed His feet. The Greek word used for “kiss” in this instance means to kiss again and again, over and over. So she showered kisses upon Jesus’ feet.


The dinner guests are shocked by this display! They would see this as wrong on a number of levels. A woman letting her hair down is an intimate gesture which would never be done in front of anyone other than her husband. According to some rabbinical writings, if a woman let her hair down in public, it was considered grounds for divorce. And here is an immoral woman, doing that very thing in the presence of a dinner table full of men. To make matters worse, she is touching a man who is not a relative; this is something that no moral woman would do. For Simon and his dinner guests, this would have been completely unacceptable.


Then, in a beautiful gesture of gratitude, she uses the perfumed oil from her alabaster vial to anoint Jesus’ feet. It seems that anointing His feet with the oil was the reason she came to the house where Jesus was dining, as she wanted to demonstrate her gratefulness. The acts of washing His feet with her tears and drying them with her hair were most likely spontaneous responses to the incivility Jesus was shown by the host. Since Jesus had received no water to wash His feet, then she would wash them with her tears and dry them with her hair. Since He had received no kiss of greeting, she would kiss His feet over and over.


Kissing Jesus’ feet was a public sign of deep humility, devotion, and gratitude. In the Talmud there is a story of a man accused of murder who kisses the feet of the lawyer who got him acquitted and thus saved his life.[11]


The woman is deeply grateful for the forgiveness of her sins; she has repented and her life has been changed. She brought expensive perfumed oil and used it to anoint Jesus’ feet in gratitude for what He had done for her. Since she felt hurt by the way Jesus was treated, she goes further in her public demonstration of gratitude and honor. Her actions are seen as scandalous by those in attendance, just what they would expect from an immoral woman. They have no idea she has been forgiven; they see her only as an unworthy sinner. They can’t believe Jesus is allowing a woman of such ill repute to do these things to Him. But He is.


The story continues:


Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner.”[12]


Having been shown up for his failures as a host doesn’t seem to affect Simon in any way. Instead, he is silently criticizing Christ. Having heard Him preach and teach, Simon was probably wondering if Jesus was a true prophet or not. He seems to be rejecting any idea that He might be, because in Simon’s mind, if Jesus were a prophet He would know that the woman touching Him was immoral and was thus defiling Him.


Perhaps Simon’s intention in inviting Jesus to a meal was to test Him, to see if He truly was a prophet. After viewing this display and mentally noting what he felt was a deep lack of discernment on Jesus’ part, Simon was probably convinced that Jesus didn’t meet the spiritual standard one would expect from a prophet of God. No man of God would put up with the behavior of this woman.


But Simon is wrong. Jesus does know the spiritual state of the woman. He knows she has been a sinner, for He later states that “her sins are many.” He also knows that she has been forgiven for her sins because she believed, by faith, the words about God’s forgiveness that she had heard Him speak earlier. Besides that, Jesus shows He is a prophet by discerning Simon’s thoughts. Though Simon hasn’t verbalized his thoughts, Jesus nevertheless responds to him.


And Jesus answering said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” And he answered, “Say it, Teacher.”[13]


The phrase “I have something to say to you” is a classical Middle Eastern idiom that introduces blunt speech that the listener may not want to hear. And this is exactly what follows.[14]


It’s at this point in the story that Jesus tells the short parable of the two debtors.


“A certain moneylender had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they could not pay, he cancelled the debt of both. Now which of them will love him more?”[15]


One denarius was an ordinary day’s pay for an ordinary day’s work. Therefore, one debtor in the parable owed the moneylender the equivalent of 500 days’ pay, the other debtor 50 days’ pay. Quite a difference. The moneylender generously cancels both debts when the borrowers are unable to pay.


Author Kenneth Bailey said:


In both the Old and New Testaments the phrases “canceling a debt” and “forgive a debt/sin” overlap and indeed at times are expressed with the same words.[16]


In this case the verb used for canceling the debt has its root in the Greek word charis, which is often translated as grace. Throughout the New Testament the verb “to forgive” is used both as a financial term, as in forgiving a debt, and as a religious term, as in forgiving sins. Jesus was speaking in terms of financial debt in the parable, but as we will see, the creditor/debtor language is being used in reference to God and His forgiveness of sin.


To the question of who will most love the one who forgave the debt:


Simon answered, “The one, I suppose, for whom he cancelled the larger debt.” And [Jesus] said to him, “You have judged rightly.”[17]


Simon, realizing that the parable is somewhat of a verbal trap that he has been caught in, answers rather weakly, with “I suppose.” Despite being treated poorly, Jesus commends Simon for his correct answer.


The point of the parable is that love is the correct response to grace, to undeserved favor; that the one who has been forgiven the greater debt would love the most and would show the most gratitude. Having made that point, Jesus then delivers the blunt speech to Simon.


Then turning toward the woman he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.”[18]


These words were spoken to Simon, but Jesus turned to face the woman as He spoke them. He asks, “Simon, do you see this woman?” He was trying to get Simon to look at her as a person, not as a sinner. Jesus wanted to transform Simon’s view of the woman in particular, and through that, of people in general.


Simon saw the woman’s actions as offensive, out of place, and in alignment with his low opinion of her as a sinner and a prostitute. He didn’t understand that she was a forgiven person who was loved by God. Jesus was trying to help him to see the woman as He did, as someone who has been forgiven for much and who therefore loves much, and demonstrates her love and gratitude by her actions. He wanted Simon to realize and accept that her sins had been forgiven, that she was no longer a prostitute. Because if he and the others at the table accepted this, she could be welcomed back into the community, no longer as a sinner, but as a child of God.


Jesus verbalized Simon’s failures, those things which he had omitted, where he had fallen short. He contrasted Simon’s omissions with the woman’s noble actions—actions that went far beyond what Simon should have done, but didn’t.—Actions which were extravagant. Actions based on her love and gratefulness. Jesus then linked her great love to the multitude of her sins that had been forgiven.


And [Jesus] said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”[19]


Jesus wasn’t saying that He was forgiving her sins right then, but rather that her sins were already forgiven. The love she showed and her emotional outpouring of gratitude was in response to the forgiveness she had already received upon hearing Jesus speak earlier. From what He said, it’s evident that she understood that God’s grace, His forgiveness, is received by faith and not by one’s good works. Learning that God graciously forgives sin even when the person needing forgiveness is not holy and religious, brought her great joy and freedom.


The woman’s response was one of deep thankfulness. She wanted nothing more than to see Jesus, who had delivered this beautiful message to her, in order to express her profound appreciation.


The other guests at the table missed the point completely. They were focused on the wrong thing and misinterpreted what Jesus said.


Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, “Who is this, who even forgives sins?”[20]


Though Jesus did forgive people’s sins throughout the Gospels—something the religious leaders felt was blasphemous—He wasn’t forgiving the woman’s sins at that moment; they were already forgiven.


And he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”[21]


Her faith saved her. She believed in God’s grace; she accepted it. She knew she didn’t deserve it. Her sins were many. There was nothing she could do to merit salvation. She believed and accepted what the Lord had told her—that her faith, belief, and acceptance were sufficient.


That’s how the story ends. There is no indication of Simon’s response. Does he get the point? Does he see that he was wrong in his judgment of the woman? Does he accept that she was one who had many sins forgiven and therefore loved much? Does he see himself as one who loves little? Does Simon understand he’s a debtor as well—that he’s a sinner in need of God’s love and forgiveness—or is he only focused on the sins of the woman? Does he accept that the woman is forgiven, that she’s now changed, and will he accept her back into the community? These questions aren’t answered; instead, we who read the story are left to ponder and to draw our own conclusions.


When thinking about what transpired in Simon’s house, questions arose in my mind as to how I treat the Lord and others. It’s healthy to reflect on these matters. Questions like: Can we accept that those who have greatly sinned can be forgiven and can change, becoming new creatures in Christ? Do we still respond with thankfulness and gratitude at our own salvation? Do we praise and thank God for our redemption? Do we remind ourselves of what it cost Jesus to take the punishment of our sins? Have we lost the joy and wonder of our salvation?


Having invited Jesus into our lives, how do we treat Him? Do we treat Him as Simon did—coldly, with disrespect? Or do we give Him the honor and respect He deserves?—Our time, our attention, our love. Do we take the time to both listen to His words and to absorb them? Do we apply them? Do we obey them? Do we give back to Him through tithes and offerings, through showing compassion to the poor and needy?


The woman had that deep joy which comes when you realize your sins are forgiven. Her appreciation was manifested in her actions. Are we appreciative enough to act on the knowledge of our forgiveness and salvation both internally through praise and externally through obedience?


Do we look at others in the manner that Jesus did, recognizing that He died for them too, and wants them to receive the great gift of salvation? In gratefulness for our forgiven debt, are we motivated to help others find that same forgiveness?—To love them, to speak to them, to give of ourselves, our time, effort, and energy to bring them to salvation? No matter who they are?—The poor, the rich, the young, the old, the unlearned, the intellectual, the unlovely, the lovely, the sinners, the pious, the outcasts, the accepted? Jesus seeks to save them. Are we doing our part to make that happen?


Does our love and thankfulness translate into action? We have all been forgiven for much. Do we love much?


The Two Debtors, Luke 7:36–50 NAU/ESV


36 Now one of the Pharisees was requesting Him to dine with him, and He entered the Pharisee’s house and reclined at the table.


37 And behold, a woman of the city, who was a sinner, when she learned that he was reclining at table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask of ointment,


38 and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head and kissed his feet and anointed them with the ointment.


39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner.”


40 And Jesus answering said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” And he answered, “Say it, Teacher.”


41 “A certain moneylender had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty.


42 When they could not pay, he cancelled the debt of both. Now which of them will love him more?”


43 Simon answered, “The one, I suppose, for whom he cancelled the larger debt.” And he said to him, “You have judged rightly.”


44 Then turning toward the woman he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair.


45 You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet.


46 You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment.


47 Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.”


48 And he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”


49 Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, “Who is this, who even forgives sins?”


50 And he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”
Notes


Unless otherwise indicated, all scriptures are from the Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.



[1] C.G. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, 2nd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1927), 2:437, quoted in Klyne Snodgrass, Stories With Intent (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2008), 77.


[2] Luke 7:36 NAU.


[3] Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 796.


[4] Kenneth E. Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 243.


[5] Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 799.


[6] Luke 7:37–38.


[7] Luke 15:2.


[8] Kenneth E. Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 246 footnote 15.


[9] Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Complete and Unabridged in One Volume(Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1993), 390.


[10] Kenneth E. Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 247.


[11] Kenneth E. Bailey, Poet & Peasant, and Through Peasant Eyes, combined edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1985), 10.


[12] Luke 7:39.


[13] Luke 7:40.


[14] Kenneth E. Bailey, Poet & Peasant, and Through Peasant Eyes, combined edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1985), 12.


[15] Luke 7:41–42.


[16] Kenneth E. Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 252.


[17] Luke 7:43.


[18] Luke 7:44–47.


[19] Luke 7:48.


[20] Luke 7:49.


[21] Luke 7:50.

Read More

Biological Design- scientific quotation

"Anyone with common sense can look at a camera and the human eye and compare how they are put together. There is no possible way that a camera could have been put together by natural, random chance means; neither could the human eye. Someone will say that you can not compare the eye with a camera because a camera is not alive; it is a machine. Newsflash- your body is made up of micro-machines that are every bit more complicated and intricate than man-made machines, so the comparison is a valid and justified one knowing what we know today about physiology."

From "The Assumptions Behind the Theory of Evolution" by Dave A, Schoch

Read More

My Love- From Jesus with Love

My love is patient and understanding in a world of intolerance. My love is tender and kind when people are callous or indifferent. My love comforts in times of sorrow. My love consoles the lonely. My love brings clarity of mind to those who are confused, rest to the weary, help to the helpless, and renewed strength to those who feel they can't go on, My love brings peace in the midst of life's storms.

My love can heal broken bodies. It can even soothe and mend broken hearts. My love melts away tension, worry, and strain. My love gives faith and courage in place of fear, hope in place of despair. My love is light and drives away the darkness, My love will descend to any depth to save, go to any length to rescue. My love knows no stopping place. There is no problem that my love can't overcome.

My love is My special gift to you. It has always been there for you, and always will be. Won't you take it now?

Read More

Bill Salus - The Future of America in Bible Prophecy

Read More

Our Created Solar System- what you aren't being told about astronomy!

Read More

Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?

https://y-jesus.com/wp-content/tcpdf-pdf/Did-Jesus-Rise-From-The-Dead.pdf

We all wonder what will happen to us after we die. When a loved one dies, we long to see him or her again after our turn comes. Will we have a glorious reunion with those we love or is death the end of all consciousness?

Jesus taught that life does not end after our bodies die. He made this startling claim: “I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die like everyone else, will live again.” According to the eyewitnesses closest to him, Jesus then demonstrated his power over death by rising from the dead after being crucified and buried for three days. It is this belief that has given hope to Christians for nearly 2000 years.

But some people have no hope of life after death. The atheistic philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote, “I believe that when I die I shall rot, and nothing of my own ego will survive.”[1]Russell obviously didn’t believe Jesus’ words.

Jesus’ followers wrote that he appeared alive to them after his crucifixion and burial. They claim not only to have seen him but also to have eaten with him, touched him, and spent 40 days with him.

So could this have been simply a story that grew over time, or is it based upon solid evidence? The answer to this question is foundational to Christianity. For if Jesus did rise from the dead, it would validate everything he said about himself, about the meaning of life, and about our destiny after death.

If Jesus did rise from the dead then he alone would have the answers to what life is about and what is facing us after we die. On the other hand, if the resurrection account of Jesus is not true, then Christianity would be founded upon a lie. Theologian R. C. Sproul puts it this way:

The claim of resurrection is vital to Christianity. If Christ has been raised from the dead by God, then He has the credentials and certification that no other religious leader possesses. Buddha is dead. Mohammad is dead. Moses is dead. Confucius is dead. But, according to…Christianity, Christ is alive.[2]

Many skeptics have attempted to disprove the resurrection. Josh McDowell was one such skeptic who spent more than seven hundred hours researching the evidence for the resurrection. McDowell stated this regarding the importance of the resurrection:

I have come to the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted upon the minds of men, OR it is the most fantastic fact of history.[3] McDowell later wrote his classic work,The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict, documenting what he discovered.

So, is Jesus’ resurrection a fantastic fact or a vicious myth? To find out, we need to look at the evidence of history and draw our own conclusions. Let’s see what skeptics who investigated the resurrection discovered for themselves.

Cynics And Skeptics

Sadly, not everyone is willing to fairly examine the evidence. Bertrand Russell admits his take on Jesus was “not concerned” with historical facts.[4] Historian Joseph Campbell, without citing evidence, calmly told his PBS television audience that the resurrection of Jesus is not a factual event.[5] Other scholars, such as John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar, agree with him.[6] None of these skeptics present any evidence for their views.

True skeptics, as opposed to cynics, are interested in evidence. In a Skeptic magazine editorial entitled “What Is a Skeptic?” the following definition is given: “Skepticism is … the application of reason to any and all ideas – no sacred cows allowed. In other words … skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe.”[7]

Unlike Russell and Crossan, many true skeptics have investigated the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. we will hear from some of them and see how they analyzed the evidence for what is perhaps the most important question in the history of the human race: Did Jesus really rise from the dead?

Self-Prophecy

In advance of his death, Jesus told his disciples that he would be betrayed, arrested, and crucified and that he would come back to life three days later. That’s a strange plan! What was behind it? Jesus was no entertainer willing to perform for others on demand; instead, he promised that his death and resurrection would prove to people (if their minds and hearts were open) that he was indeed the Messiah.

Bible scholar Wilbur Smith remarked about Jesus:

When he said that He himself would rise again from the dead, the third day after He was crucified, He said something that only a fool would dare say, if He expected longer the devotion of any disciples – unless He was sure He was going to rise. No founder of any world religion known to men ever dared say a thing like that.[8]

In other words, since Jesus had clearly told his disciples that he would rise again after his death, failure to keep that promise would expose him as a fraud. But we’re getting ahead of ourselves. How did Jesus die before he (if he really did die) rose again?

A Horrific Death And Then . . . ?

You know what Jesus’ last hours of earthly life were like if you watched the movie by road warrior/braveheart Mel Gibson. If you missed parts of The Passion of the Christ because you were shielding your eyes (it would have been easier to simply shoot the movie with a red filter on the camera), just flip to the back pages of any Gospel in your New Testament to find out what you missed.

As Jesus predicted, he was betrayed by one of his own disciples, Judas Iscariot, and was arrested. In a mock trial under the Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate, he was convicted of treason and condemned to die on a wooden cross. Prior to being nailed to the cross, Jesus was brutally beaten with a Roman cat-o’-nine-tails, a whip with bits of bone and metal that would rip flesh. He was punched repeatedly, kicked, and spat upon.

Then, using mallets, the Roman executioners pounded the heavy wrought-iron nails into Jesus’ wrists and feet. Finally they dropped the cross in a hole in the ground between two other crosses bearing convicted thieves.

Jesus hung there for approximately six hours. Then, at 3:00 in the afternoon – that is, at exactly the same time the Passover lamb was being sacrificed as a sin offering (a little symbolism there, you think?) – Jesus cried out, “It is finished” (in Aramaic), and died.[9]Suddenly the sky went dark and an earthquake shook the land.[10]

An even greater darkness of depression annihilated the dreams of those who had become infatuated with his charisma and joyful vitality. Former Lord High Chancellor of Britain, Lord Hailsham, notes, “The tragedy of the Cross was not that they crucified a melancholy figure, full of moral precepts, ascetic and gloomy … What they crucified was a young man, vital, full of life and the joy of it, the Lord of life itself … someone so utterly attractive that people followed him for the sheer fun of it.”[11]

Pilate wanted verification that Jesus was dead before allowing his crucified body to be buried. So a Roman guard thrust a spear into Jesus’ side. The mixture of blood and water that flowed out was a clear indication that Jesus was dead. “The dead do not bleed, ordinarily, but the right auricle of the human heart holds liquid blood after death, and the outer sac hold a serum called hydropericardium.”[12] Once his death was certified by the guards, Jesus’ body was then taken down from the cross and buried in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb. Roman guards next sealed the tomb, and secured it with a 24-hour watch.

Meanwhile, Jesus’ disciples were in shock. Dr. J. P. Moreland explains how devastated and confused they were after Jesus’ death on the cross. “They no longer had confidence that Jesus had been sent by God. They also had been taught that God would not let his Messiah suffer death. So they dispersed. The Jesus movement was all but stopped in its tracks.”[13]

All hope was vanquished. Rome and the Jewish leaders had prevailed – or so it seemed.

Something Happened

But it wasn’t the end. The Jesus movement did not disappear (obviously), and in fact Christianity exists today as the world’s largest religion. Therefore, we’ve got to know what happened after Jesus’ body was taken down from the cross and laid in the tomb.

In a New York Times article, Peter Steinfels cites the startling events that occurred three days after Jesus’ death: “Shortly after Jesus was executed, his followers were suddenly galvanized from a baffled and cowering group into people whose message about a living Jesus and a coming kingdom, preached at the risk of their lives, eventually changed an empire. Something happened … But exactly what?”[14] That’s the question we have to answer with an investigation into the facts.

There are only five plausible explanations for Jesus’ alleged resurrection, as portrayed in the New Testament:

· Jesus didn’t really die on the cross.

· The “resurrection” was a conspiracy.

· The disciples were hallucinating.

· The account is legendary.

· It really happened.

Let’s work our way through these options and see which one best fits the facts.

Was Jesus Dead?

“Marley was deader than a doornail, of that there was no doubt.” So begins Charles Dickens’s A Christmas Carol, the author not wanting anyone to be mistaken as to the supernatural character of what is soon to take place. In the same way, before we take on the role of CSI and piece together evidence for a resurrection, we must first establish that there was, in fact, a corpse. After all, occasionally the newspapers will report on some “corpse” in a morgue who was found stirring and recovered. Could something like that have happened with Jesus?

Some have proposed that Jesus lived through the crucifixion and was revived by the cool, damp air in the tomb. But that theory doesn’t square with the medical evidence. An article in the Journal of the American Medical Association explains why this so-called “swoon theory” is untenable: “Clearly, the weight of historical and medical evidence indicated that Jesus was dead. The spear, thrust between His right ribs, probably perforated not only the right lung, but also the pericardium and heart and thereby ensured His death.”[15] But skepticism of this verdict may be in order, as this case has been cold for 2,000 years. At the very least, we need a second opinion.

One place to find that is in the reports of non-Christian historians from around the time when Jesus lived. Three of these historians mentioned the death of Jesus.

Lucian (c.120 – after c.180 ) referred to Jesus as a crucified sophist (philosopher).[16]

Josephus (c.37 – c.100 ) wrote, “At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, for he was a doer of amazing deeds. When Pilate condemned him to the cross, the leading men among us, having accused him, those who loved him did not cease to do so.”[17]

Tacitus (c. 56 – c.120) wrote, “Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty … at the hands of our procurator, Pontius Pilate.”[18]

This is a bit like going into the archives and finding that on one spring day in the first century, The Jerusalem Post ran a front-page story saying that Jesus was crucified and dead. Not bad detective work, and fairly conclusive.

In fact, there is no historical account from Christians, Romans, or Jews that disputes either Jesus’ death or his burial. Even skeptical scholars who deny the resurrection agree Jesus was dead. Noted skeptic James Tabor stated, “I think we need have no doubt that given Jesus’ execution by Roman crucifixion he was truly dead.”[19] John Dominic Crossan, co-founder of the notoriously skeptical Jesus Seminar, agrees that Jesus really lived and died. He states, “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”[20]

In light of such historical and medical evidence, we seem to be on good grounds for dismissing the first of our five options. Jesus was clearly dead, “of that there was no doubt.”

The Matter Of An Empty Tomb

No serious historian really doubts Jesus was dead when he was taken down from the cross. However, many have questioned how Jesus’ body disappeared from the tomb. English journalist Dr. Frank Morison initially thought the resurrection was either a myth or a hoax, and he began research to write a book refuting it.[21] The book became famous but for reasons other than its original intent.

Morison began by attempting to solve the case of the empty tomb. The tomb belonged to a member of the Sanhedrin Council, Joseph of Arimathea. In Israel at that time, to be on the council was to be a rock star. Everyone knew who was on the council. Joseph must have been a real person. Otherwise, the Jewish leaders would have exposed the story as a fraud in their attempt to disprove the resurrection. Also, Joseph’s tomb would have been at a well-known location and easily identifiable, so any thoughts of Jesus being “lost in the graveyard” would need to be dismissed.

Morison wondered why Jesus’ enemies would have allowed the “empty tomb myth” to persist if it weren’t true. The discovery of Jesus’ body would have instantly killed the entire plot.

And what is known historically of Jesus’ enemies is that they accused Jesus’ disciples of stealing the body, an accusation clearly predicated on a shared belief that the tomb was empty.

Dr. Paul L. Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University, similarly stated, “If all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable … to conclude that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was actually empty on the morning of the first Easter. And no shred of evidence has yet been discovered … that would disprove this statement.”[22]

The Jewish leaders were stunned. They accused the disciples of stealing Jesus’ body. But the Romans had assigned a 24-hour watch at the tomb with a trained guard unit (from four to 16 soldiers). Josh McDowell notes that these were not ordinary soldiers. “When that guard unit failed in its duty – if they fell asleep, left their position, or failed in any way – there are a number of historical sources that go back and describe what happens. Many of them are stripped of their own clothes, they are burned alive in a fire started with their own garments or they are crucified upside down. The Roman Guard unit was committed to discipline and they feared failure in any way.”[23]

It would have been impossible for anyone to have slipped by the Roman guards and to have moved a two-ton stone. Yet the stone was moved away and the body of Jesus was missing.

If Jesus’ body was anywhere to be found, his enemies would have quickly exposed the resurrection as a fraud. Tom Anderson, former president of the California Trial Lawyers Association, summarizes the strength of this argument:

With an event so well publicized, don’t you think that it’s reasonable that one historian, one eye witness, one antagonist would record for all time that he had seen Christ’s body? … The silence of history is deafening when it comes to the testimony against the resurrection.[24]

So, with no body of evidence, and with a known tomb clearly empty, Morison accepted the evidence as solid that Jesus’ body had somehow disappeared from the tomb.

Grave Robbing?

As Morison continued his investigation, he began to examine the motives of Jesus’ followers. Maybe the supposed resurrection was actually a stolen body. But if so, how does one account for all the reported appearances of a resurrected Jesus? Historian Paul Johnson, in A History of the Jews, wrote, “What mattered was not the circumstances of his death but the fact that he was widely and obstinately believed, by an expanding circle of people, to have risen again.”[25]

The tomb was indeed empty. But it wasn’t the mere absence of a body that could have galvanized Jesus’ followers (especially if they had been the ones who had stolen it). Something extraordinary must have happened, for the followers of Jesus ceased mourning, ceased hiding, and began fearlessly proclaiming that they had seen Jesus alive.

Each eyewitness account reports that Jesus suddenly appeared bodily to his followers, the women first. Morison wondered why conspirators would make women central to its plot. In the first century, women had virtually no rights, personhood, or status. If the plot were to succeed, Morison reasoned, the conspirators would have portrayed men, not women, as the first to see Jesus alive. And yet we hear that women touched him, spoke with him, and were the first to find the empty tomb.

Later, according to the eyewitness accounts, all the disciples saw Jesus on more than ten separate occasions. They wrote that he showed them his hands and feet and told them to touch him. And he reportedly ate with them and later appeared alive to more than 500 followers on one occasion.

Legal scholar John Warwick Montgomery stated, “In 56 A.D. [the Apostle Paul wrote that over 500 people had seen the risen Jesus and that most of them were still alive. (1 Corinthians 15:6ff.) It passes the bounds of credibility that the early Christians could have manufactured such a tale and then preached it among those who might easily have refuted it simply by producing the body of Jesus."[26]

Bible scholars Geisler and Turek agree. “If the Resurrection had not occurred, why would the Apostle Paul give such a list of supposed eyewitnesses? He would immediately lose all credibility with his Corinthian readers by lying so blatantly.”[27]

Peter told a crowd in Caesarea why he and the other disciples were so convinced Jesus was alive.

We apostles are witnesses of all he did throughout Israel and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by crucifying him, but God raised him to life three days later … We were those who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. (Acts 10:39-41)

British Bible scholar Michael Green remarked, “The appearances of Jesus are as well authenticated as anything in antiquity … There can be no rational doubt that they occurred.”[28]

Consistent to the End

As if the eyewitness reports were not enough to challenge Morison’s skepticism, he was also baffled by the disciples’ behavior. A fact of history that has stumped historians, psychologists, and skeptics alike is that these eleven former cowards were suddenly willing to suffer humiliation, torture, and death. All but one of Jesus’ disciples were slain as martyrs. Would they have done so much for a lie, knowing they had taken the body?

The Islamic terrorists on September 11 proved that some will die for a false cause they believe in. Yet to be a willing martyr for a known lie is insanity. As Paul Little wrote, “Men will die for what they believe to be true, though it may actually be false. They do not, however, die for what they know is a lie.”[29] Jesus’ disciples behaved in a manner consistent with a genuine belief that their leader was alive.

No one has adequately explained why the disciples would have been willing to die for a known lie. But even if they all conspired to lie about Jesus’ resurrection, how could they have kept the conspiracy going for decades without at least one of them selling out for money or position? Moreland wrote, “Those who lie for personal gain do not stick together very long, especially when hardship decreases the benefits.”[30]

Chuck Colson, implicated in the Watergate scandal during President Nixon’s administration, pointed out the difficulty of several people maintaining a lie for an extended period of time.

“I know the resurrection is a fact, and Watergate proved it to me. How? Because 12 men testified they had seen Jesus raised from the dead, and then they proclaimed that truth for 40 years, never once denying it. Every one was beaten, tortured, stoned and put in prison. They would not have endured that if it weren’t true. Watergate embroiled 12 of the most powerful men in the world – and they couldn’t keep a lie for three weeks. You’re telling me 12 apostles could keep a lie for 40 years? Absolutely impossible.”[31]

Something happened that changed everything for these men and women. Morison acknowledged, “Whoever comes to this problem has sooner or later to confront a fact that cannot be explained away … This fact is that … a profound conviction came to the little group of people – a change that attests to the fact that Jesus had risen from the grave.”[32]

Were The Disciples Hallucinating?

People still think they see a fat, gray-haired Elvis darting into Dunkin Donuts. And then there are those who believe they spent last night with aliens in the mother ship being subjected to unspeakable testing. Sometimes certain people can “see” things they want to, things that aren’t really there. And that’s why some have claimed that the disciples were so distraught over the crucifixion that their desire to see Jesus alive caused mass hallucination. Plausible?

Psychologist Gary Collins, former president of the American Association of Christian Counselors, was asked about the possibility that hallucinations were behind the disciples’ radically changed behavior. Collins remarked, “Hallucinations are individual occurrences. By their very nature, only one person can see a given hallucination at a time. They certainly aren’t something which can be seen by a group of people.”[33]

Hallucination is not even a remote possibility, according to psychologist Thomas J. Thorburn. “It is absolutely inconceivable that … five hundred persons, of average soundness of mind … should experience all kinds of sensuous impressions – visual, auditory, tactual – and that all these … experiences should rest entirely upon … hallucination.”[34]

Furthermore, in the psychology of hallucinations, the person would need to be in a frame of mind where they so wished to see that person that their mind contrives it. Two major leaders of the early church, James and Paul, both state forcefully that they encountered a resurrected Jesus, neither expecting, or hoping for the pleasure. The apostle Paul, in fact, led the earliest persecutions of Christians, and his conversion remains inexplicable except for his own testimony that Jesus appeared to him, resurrected.

The hallucination theory, then, appears to be another dead end. What else could explain away the resurrection?

From Lie to Legend

Some unconvinced skeptics attribute the resurrection story to a legend that began with one or more persons lying or thinking they saw the resurrected Jesus. Over time, the legend would have grown and been embellished as it was passed around.

On the surface this seems like a plausible scenario. But there are three major problems with that theory.

· First, legends simply don’t develop while multiple eyewitnesses are alive to refute them. One historian of ancient Rome and Greece, A. N. Sherwin-White, argued that the resurrection news spread too soon and too quickly for it to have been a legend.[35]

· Second, legends develop by oral tradition and don’t come with contemporary historical documents that can be verified. Yet the Gospels were written within three decades of the resurrection.[36]

· Third, the legend theory doesn’t adequately explain either the fact of the empty tomb or the historically verified conviction of the apostles that Jesus was alive.[37]

Therefore, the legend theory doesn’t seem to hold up any better than other attempts to explain away this amazing claim. Furthermore, the resurrection account of Jesus Christ actually altered history, beginning with the Roman Empire. How could a legend make such an enormous historical impact within such a short time period?

Why Did Christianity Win?

Morison was bewildered by the fact that “a tiny insignificant movement was able to prevail over the cunning grip of the Jewish establishment, as well as the might of Rome.” Why did it win, in the face of all those odds against it?

He wrote, “Within twenty years, the claim of these Galilean peasants had disrupted the Jewish church … In less than fifty years it had begun to threaten the peace of the Roman Empire. When we have said everything that can be said … we stand confronted with the greatest mystery of all. Why did it win?”[38]

By all rights, if there were no resurrection, Christianity should have died out at the cross when the disciples fled for their lives. But the apostles went on to establish a growing Christian movement.

J. N. D. Anderson wrote, “Think of the psychological absurdity of picturing a little band of defeated cowards cowering in an upper room one day and a few days later transformed into a company that no persecution could silence – and then attempting to attribute this dramatic change to nothing more convincing than a miserable fabrication … That simply wouldn’t make sense.”[39]

A Surprise Conclusion

With myth, hallucination, and a flawed autopsy ruled out, with incontrovertible evidence for an empty tomb, with a substantial body of eyewitnesses to his reappearance, and with the inexplicable transformation and impact upon the world of those who claimed to have seen him, Morison became convinced that his preconceived bias against Jesus Christ’s resurrection had been wrong. He began writing a different book – entitled Who Moved the Stone? - to detail his new conclusions. Morison simply followed the trail of evidence, clue by clue, until the truth of the case seemed clear to him. His surprise was that the evidence led to a belief in the resurrection.

In his first chapter, “The Book That Refused to Be Written,” this former skeptic explained how the evidence convinced him that Jesus’ resurrection was an actual historical event. “It was as though a man set out to cross a forest by a familiar and well-beaten track and came out suddenly where he did not expect to come out.”[40]

Morison is not alone. Countless other skeptics have examined the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection, and accepted it as the most astounding fact in all of human history. C. S. Lewis, who once had even doubted Jesus’ existence, was also persuaded by the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. He writes, “Something perfectly new in the history of the Universe had happened. Christ had defeated death. The door which had always been locked had for the very first time been forced open.” [41]

Let’s consider just one more skeptic who was persuaded by the evidence.

A Stunned Professor

One of those who originally thought the resurrection was simply a myth, only to reverse his position like Morison, was one of the world’s leading legal scholars, Dr. Simon Greenleaf. Greenleaf helped to put the Harvard Law School on the map. He wrote the three-volume legal masterpiece A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, which has been called the “greatest single authority in the entire literature of legal procedure.”[42] The U.S. judicial system today still relies on rules of evidence established by Greenleaf.

While teaching law at Harvard, Professor Greenleaf stated to his class that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was simply a legend. As an atheist, he thought miracles to be impossible. In a rebuttal, three of his law students challenged him to apply his acclaimed rules of evidence to the resurrection account.

After much prodding, Greenleaf accepted his students’ challenge and began an investigation into the evidence. Focusing his brilliant legal mind on the facts of history, Greenleaf attempted to prove the resurrection account was false.

Yet the more Greenleaf investigated the record of history, the more stunned he was at the powerful evidence supporting the claim that Jesus had indeed risen from the tomb. Greenleaf’s skepticism was being challenged by an event that had changed the course of human history.

Greenleaf was unable to explain several dramatic changes that took place shortly after Jesus died, the most baffling being the behavior of the disciples. It wasn’t just one or two disciples who insisted Jesus had risen; it was all of them. Applying his own rules of evidence to the facts, Greenleaf arrived at his verdict.

In a shocking reversal of his position, Greenleaf accepted Jesus’ resurrection as the best explanation for the events that took place immediately after his crucifixion. To this brilliant legal scholar and former atheist, it would have been impossible for the disciples to persist with their conviction that Jesus had risen if they hadn’t actually seen the risen Christ.[43]

In his book The Testimony of the Evangelists, Greenleaf documents the evidence that caused him to change his mind. In his conclusion he challenges those who seek the truth about the resurrection to fairly examine the evidence.

Greenleaf was so persuaded by the evidence that he became a committed Christian. He believed that any unbiased person who honestly examines the evidence as in a court of law will conclude what he did – that Jesus Christ has truly risen.[44]

But the resurrection of Jesus Christ raises the question: What does the fact that Jesus defeated death have to do with my life? The answer to that question is what New Testament Christianity is all about.

Endnotes – Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?

1. Paul Edwards, “Great Minds: Bertrand Russell,” Free Inquiry, December 2004/January 2005, 46.

2. R. C. Sproul, Reason to Believe (Grand Rapids, MI: Lamplighter, 1982), 44.

3. Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict (San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life, 1999), 203.

4. Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1957), 16.

5. Joseph Campbell, an interview with Bill Moyers, Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth, PBS TV special, 1988.

6. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, eds, Jesus Under Fire (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995), 2.

7. “What Is a Skeptic?” editorial in Skeptic, vol 11, no. 2), 5.

8. Wilbur M. Smith, A Great Certainty in This Hour of World Crises (Wheaton, ILL: Van Kampen Press, 1951), 10, 11

9. The Aramaic word Jesus uttered, tetelestai, is an accounting term meaning “debt paid in full,” referring to the debt of our sins.

10. Historian Will Durant reported, “About the middle of this first century a pagan named Thallus … argued that the abnormal darkness alleged to have accompanied the death of Christ was a purely natural phenomenon and coincidence; the argument took the existence of Christ for granted. The denial of that existence never seems to have occurred even to the bitterest gentile or Jewish opponents of nascent Christianity.” Will Durant, “Caesar and Christ,” vol. 3 of The Story of Civilization (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1972), 555.

11. Lord Hailsham, The Door Wherein I Went (London: Collins, 1975), 54.

12. Jim Bishop, The Day Jesus Died (New York: Harper Collins, 1977), 257.

13. Quoted in J. P. Moreland interview, Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 246.

14. Peter Steinfels, “Jesus Died – And Then What Happened?” New York Times, April 3, 1988, E9.

15. William D. Edwards, M.D., et al., “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,”Journal of the American Medical Association 255:11, March 21, 1986.

16. Lucian, Peregrinus Proteus.

17. Josephus, Flavius, Antiquities of the Jews, 18. 63, 64. [Although portions of Josephus' comments about Jesus have been disputed, this reference to Pilate condemning him to the cross is deemed authentic by most scholars.]

18. Tacitus, Annals, 15, 44. In Great Books of the Western World, ed. By Robert Maynard Hutchins, Vol. 15, The Annals and The Histories by Cornelius Tacitus (Chicago: William Benton, 1952).

19. James D. Tabor, The Jesus Dynasty (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006), 230.

20. Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2004), 49.

21. Frank Morison, Who Moved the Stone? (Grand Rapids, MI: Lamplighter, 1958), 9.

22. Paul L. Maier, Independent Press Telegram, Long Beach, CA: April 21, 1973.

23. Josh McDowell, The Resurrection Factor Part 3, Josh McDowell Ministries, 2009, http://www.bethinking.org/bible-jesus/intermediate/the-resurrection-factor-part-3.htm.

24. Quoted in Josh McDowell, The Resurrection Factor (San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life, 1981), 66.

25. Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews (New York: Harper & Row, 1988), 130.

26. John W. Montgomery, History and Christianity (Downers Grove, ILL: InterVarsity Press, 1971), 78.

27. Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004), 243.

28. Michael Green, The Empty Cross of Jesus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1984), 97, quoted in John Ankerberg and John Weldon,Knowing the Truth about the Resurrection (Eugene, OR: Harvest House), 22.

29. Paul Little, Know Why You Believe (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1967), 44.

30. J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2000), 172.

31. Charles Colson, “The Paradox of Power,” Power to Change,www.powertochange.ie/changed/index_Leaders.

32. Morison, 104.

33. Gary Collins quoted in Strobel, 238.

34. Thomas James Thorburn, The Resurrection Narratives and Modern Criticism (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd., 1910.), 158, 159.

35. Sherwin-White, Roman Society, 190.

36. Habermas and Licona, 85.

37. Habermas and Licona, 87.

38. Morison, 115.

39. J. N. D. Anderson, “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” Christianity Today,12. April, 1968.

40. Morison, 9.

41. 41. C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000 ), 159.

42. Simon Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice (1874; reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1995), back cover.

43. Ibid., 32.

44. Ibid., back cover.

Read More

Esperando com Paciência

Palavras de Jesus

Entregue o seu caminho ao Senhor; confie nele, e ele agirá: Ele deixará claro como a alvorada que você é justo, e como o sol do meio-dia que você é inocente. Descanse no Senhor e aguarde por ele com paciência.—Salmo 37:5–7 NVI



Esta é a forma mais pura da simplicidade: confie no Senhor de todo o seu coração e não se apoie no seu próprio entendimento. Se você quer simplicidade, se quer paz sem confusão, então confie em Mim explicitamente. Aí está a paz perfeita.

Quando confia em Mim de todo o seu coração e em cada aspecto da sua vida, pode ter certeza que o guiarei à Minha vontade. Então, se quer ter perfeita paz, confie. Confie em Mim. Confie em Mim para a sua vida. Confie em Mim para a sua morte. Confie em Mim para a sua saúde. Confie em Mim para os seus filhos.

Os que confiam têm fé que Eu gerei todos os que queria gerar por meio deles, por isso sentem paz em relação a essa questão.

*

Tu guardarás em perfeita paz aquele cujo propósito está firme, porque em ti confia! Confiem para sempre no Senhor, pois o Senhor, somente o Senhor, é a Rocha eterna. A vereda do justo é plana; tu, que és reto, torna suave o caminho do justo. Também no caminho das tuas ordenanças esperamos em ti, Senhor. O teu nome e a tua lembrança são o desejo do nosso coração. A minha alma suspira por ti durante a noite; e logo cedo o meu espírito por ti anseia. — Isaías 26: 3-4, 7-9



Na atual circunstância você se pergunta: "Por que, Senhor? Por que tenho que passar por tantas batalhas difíceis? Será que estou Lhe desagradando? Eu O amo. Por que tenho que passar por estas coisas?"

Muitos cristãos no decorrer das eras fizeram esse tipo de pergunta. Em cada caso foi o Meu Espírito tomando-os, porque a menos que se tornassem fracos, a Minha força não poderia se aperfeiçoar neles. A menos que ficassem quebrantados Eu não podia ensinar-lhes compaixão; não podia dar-lhes a empatia, o interesse sincero que precisavam ter. Eu não podia ter-lhes dado os muitos e belos dons do Meu Espírito que esse quebrantamento e essas batalhas trazem consigo.

Através dessas aflições estou ensinando-lhe a lutar - não com a sua própria força, mas com a Minha força em oração, buscando-Me para todas as situações na sua vida. Porque Eu a amo, e a chamei para ser uma das Minhas discípulas. Você pediu para ser útil no Meu reino, e estou atendendo à sua oração. Confie e olhe para Mim.




Cada dia da minha vida é repleto de alegria incomensurável — muito mais do que alguém poderia merecer. Eu sei que essa alegria vem de saber que Cristo morreu por mim e do meu desejo de dedicar a minha vida a servir a Ele. É a alegria de estar no centro da vontade de Deus e observá-lo planejar tudo perfeitamente. É uma alegria de poder olhar em uma carinha queimada do sol, aparentemente sem esperança alguma, e lhe dizer que Jesus a ama... Mas isso não significa que não doa ficar longe daqueles que tanto amo. Dói bem no fundo, como Paulo disse, “Quero conhecer a Cristo, ao poder da sua ressurreição e à participação em seus sofrimentos, tornando-me como ele em sua morte”. ... “O Reino dos céus é como um tesouro escondido num campo. Certo homem, tendo-o encontrado, escondeu-o de novo e, então, cheio de alegria, foi, vendeu tudo o que tinha e comprou aquele campo.” Às vezes fico triste porque sinto falta de certas coisas, mas isso sempre me faz lembrar que realmente vale a pena abrir mão de tudo. — Katie Davis[1]

*

O homem não vê como Deus vê, e você não se vê como Eu o vejo. Você vê a fraqueza, a falta de talento. Eu, porém, vejo a joia preciosa cintilando com a Minha luz. Você tem os dons de amar, de ouvir, de compreender e consolar, são dons humildes. Portanto, não se desanime, Meu pequenino. Desenvolva esses dons.

São dons que ajudam a consolar os outros. Esses são os dons que exigem que você deixe de pensar em si próprio e dê aos outros, que ouça os seus clamores e os console. Porque assim você tem condições de consolar outros com o mesmo consolo com que tem sido consolado.

Você é como uma pedra preciosa que não reflete luz apenas mas que reflete calor — calor de espírito, de compreensão, de consolo e de amor. Mas entenda e lembre-se de que o verdadeiro calor de Deus, o verdadeiro consolo, compreensão e amor divinos são consequência do seu convívio Comigo, com as Minhas Palavras, e de permitir que Eu habite em você. Não é possível derramar o amor, a compreensão e o consolo divinos sem estar repleto de Mim.

Venha e aprenda a descansar nos Meus braços, a ter comunhão Comigo, a receber o que tenho para lhe dar, a absorver as Minhas Palavras, Meu Espírito e amor, para poder ter isso para derramar aos outros quando precisarem, para consolar o sobrecarregado, para entender o incompreendido, para amar o desprezado e para ajudar quem precisa.

Você precisa aproximar-se de Mim para poder transbordar, e assim o Meu Espírito escorrer de você abundantemente. Como pode fazer isso? Amando-Me, buscando-Me, absorvendo as Minhas palavras, acreditando, submetendo-se, pondo em prática e fazendo aquilo que Eu lhe digo para fazer. É com esses pequenos atos de amor e obediência que você aprenderá a ficar perto de Mim e repleto do Meu amor e do Meu Espírito.

Venha a Mim e deixe-Me segurá-lo. Deixe-me envolvê-lo nas Minhas mãos, para que você possa absorver o Meu calor e então refletir a Minha luz; para que o Meu calor emane de você para outros.

*

Não estranhe a ardente prova que veio sobre você para o tentar, sabendo isto, que a prova da sua fé obra a paciência. Que a paciência tenha a sua obra perfeita para poder ser perfeito e completo sem nada faltar. Completo mas quebrantado; em pedaços, mas inteiro.

Mas é por uma razão, é um teste. Pois tal como o metal é aquecido e forjado no fogo, colocado debaixo da marreta, jogado no frio, jogado novamente no calor e novamente golpeado na bigorna com a marreta para fortalecê-lo e temperá-lo, o mesmo acontece com você. Essa é a fornalha do Meu amor, e o calor da fornalha queima as impurezas, a madeira, a palha e o restolho. A marreta e a bigorna retiram toda a força falsa, a independência, o orgulho e o ego. As águas frias afogam o mundanismo e o desejo pelas coisas do mundo. E este processo continua vezes sem conta até que o metal fique forjado e forte, e pronto para ser usado pelo Mestre.

Então, se for lutar, lute para ficar perto de Mim, lute para confiar em Mim, lute para ter fé em Mim, nas Minhas palavras e promessas. Eu o honrarei com humildade, com desespero, e o honrarei aproximando-o de Mim. Pois honra maior não pode ser dada ao homem do que estar tão lá embaixo que Eu possa tocá-lo, e ser tão fraco que Eu possa guardá-lo, e estar tão desesperado que Eu o ouça. Pois a honra de Deus é diferente da honra do homem, e Eu lhe concedo a honra de Deus.




Graça, verdade, e um tempo trabalhando juntos ajuda a desenvolver a capacidade de suportar do tipo mencionada por Tiago: “Meus irmãos, considerem motivo de grande alegria o fato de passarem por diversas provações, pois vocês sabem que a prova da sua fé produz perseverança. E a perseverança deve ter ação completa, a fim de que vocês sejam maduros e íntegros, sem lhes faltar coisa alguma. ... Jesus, que transcende o tempo, conseguia ver a condição de Pedro naquele momento, como ele erraria no futuro, e que amadureceria como consequência dessa falha e poderia ajudar outros como ele. E Ele aceitou Pedro totalmente, apesar disso. O Senhor nos aceita por completo, mesmo sabendo que vai ser preciso tempo e paciência para limar as arestas. Ele não Se surpreende com nossos erros. — Dr. Henry Cloud.[2]

*

Pensem nas árvores. Eu criei diferentes tipos de árvores, mas cada uma é útil. Cada uma tem um propósito específico. Algumas servem para dar sombra. Outras para proteger do vento. Algumas árvores as crianças usam para construir casinhas, para subir ou para pendurar um balanço de cordas ou para se balançarem. As árvores dão muitos tipos de frutos: maçãs, laranjas, toranja, limões. Apesar de serem tão diferentes e criadas com diferentes propósitos, cada uma é muito importante para Mim.

À medida que uma árvore cresce e suas raízes ficam mais profundas, os galhos espalham-se e a árvore fica mais alta, ela se torna mais forte. Apesar de levar tempo, está se tornando numa árvore forte que Me será útil. Não dá para ver o crescimento, mas ela está crescendo. Está cumprindo o Meu desígnio, absorvendo a água e o sol.

Vocês são como as árvores, cada um designado para um propósito específico no Meu reino, mas cada um de um jeito, com dons e talentos diferentes. O Reino não pode ser composto apenas de macieiras, laranjeiras, pinheiros ou carvalhos. O Meu reino precisa de muitas árvores, pois são muitos os ministérios, por isso criei todos vocês diferentes.

Às vezes você se pergunta: "Por que é que Você me fez assim?" Eu o criei com pontos fortes e fracos específicos. — Pontos fortes que serão usados para a Minha glória; pontos fracos que o aproximarão de Mim. Saiba, porém, que Eu o criei exatamente como é e do jeitinho que quero que seja.

Você é uma árvore especial no Meu reino, desenhada para cumprir o Meu propósito. Toda árvore é importante no Meu reino, e tem um propósito específico. Então seja uma árvore feliz por Mim!



"Mas bendito é o homem cuja confiança está no Senhor, cuja confiança nele está. Ele será como uma árvore plantada junto às águas e que estende as suas raízes para o ribeiro. Ela não temerá quando chegar o calor, porque as suas folhas estão sempre verdes; não ficará ansiosa no ano da seca nem deixará de dar fruto.

Ao contrário, sua satisfação está na lei do Senhor, e nessa lei medita dia e noite. É como árvore plantada à beira de águas correntes: Dá fruto no tempo certo e suas folhas não murcham. Tudo o que ele faz prospera! — Jeremias 17:7-8; Salmo 1:2-3 NVI



Publicado originalmente em 1997. Atualizado e republicado em julho de 2013.
Tradução Hebe Rondon Flandoli.


[1] Kisses from Katie, de Katie Davis de 24 anos, fundadora da Amazima Ministérios em Uganda.

[2] Changes That Heal (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993), 41.

Read More