From Jim McGuiggan... NON SEQUITORS*

NON SEQUITORS*

“Non sequitur” is Latin. It means: it doesn’t follow. It’s usually used when someone makes an argument to prove something he/she is proposing that doesn’t support that proposal. In the past I’ve been the “king of non sequiturs” and I’m trying hard to lose my title. It’s a question of linkage.

For example I say: “We don’t really know how the ancients got those huge blocks to the top of the pyramids.” You say: “So?” I say: “Therefore they must have been built by beings from outer space.” You jeer at me and speak Latin: “Non sequitur!”

Part of the problem in non sequitur proposals is that the first claim may well be true and we’re fooled by that and don’t notice that the therefore is a lousy link; the truth of the first part doesn’t lead to the claim in the second part.

We hear non sequiturs all the time.

“Natural selection operates in the world therefore there is no God.”

Or: “Scientists can manipulate genes and affect human life therefore God didn’t create genes (or humans).

Or: “Scientists can routinely produce amino acids, the building blocks of life therefore there probably is no God.”

Or: “Scientists can imitate the first seconds after the Big Bang therefore God probably didn’t create the universe.”

Or: “If we spend gazillions of dollars and brain-power on space probes we might find the building blocks of carbon-based life on other planets and that will explain how we got here and it will help us get out of the mess we’re always in.”

Hmmm.

You hear this kind of thing from religious people as well.

“In the OT God blessed polygamous people therefore God approved of polygamy therefore God approves of polygamy today.”

“In the OT God gave laws regulating slavery therefore slavery had God’s approval and therefore God would approve of Christians having slaves today.”

“In the OT God gave laws regulating divorce ‘for any cause’ therefore God approved of it and therefore Christians have a right to divorce ‘for any cause’.”

“In the OT God regulated the drinking of intoxicating wine therefore it’s the Christian’s freedom to support the modern booze industry.”

“In the OT God gave “wine” (yayin, oinos) as a gift to mankind therefore he gave intoxicating wine to mankind as a gift.”

“God has given humanity intoxicating drink as a gift therefore the booze industry is doing us a favour by getting it into our hands therefore it's the irresponsible drunks who should be castigated and not the booze industry.”

“In the NT Jesus made barrels of wine (oinos) and shared it therefore it’s a Christian’s freedom to own bars, sell and promote the sale of booze (including whiskey, rum, brandy and the rest).

 

Hmmm.

©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.

Thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, theabidingword.com.

The Genealogies of Matthew and Luke by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=932

The Genealogies of Matthew and Luke

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

One of the charges of contradiction brought by skeptics against the Bible is the surface appearance of contradiction between Matthew’s genealogical list (1:1-17) and the one provided by Luke (3:23-38). As is always the case, the charge of contradiction is premature and reflects an immature appraisal of the extant evidence. In every case of alleged contradiction, further investigation has yielded additional evidence that exonerates the Bible and further verifies its inerrancy. The alleged discrepancies pertaining to Matthew and Luke’s genealogies were explained and answered long ago (e.g., Haley, 1977, pp. 325-326; McGarvey, 1910, pp. 344-346; McGarvey, 1974, pp. 51-55; cf. Lyons, 2003).
When one places the two genealogical lists side by side, several factors become immediately apparent that combine to dispel the appearance of conflict.

Click for Larger Image (132 Kb)

First, Matthew reported the lineage of Christ only back to Abraham; Luke traced it all the way back to Adam. Second, Matthew used the expression “begat;” Luke used the expression “son of,” which results in his list being a complete reversal of Matthew’s. Third, the two genealogical lines parallel each other from Abraham to David. Fourth, beginning with David, Matthew traced the paternal line of descent through Solomon; Luke traced the maternal line through Solomon’s brother, Nathan.
A fifth factor that must be recognized is that the two lines (paternal and maternal) link together in the intermarriage of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. But the linkage separates again in the two sons of Zerubbabel—Rhesa and Abiud. Sixth, the two lines come together once again for a final time in the marriage of Joseph and Mary. Joseph was the end of the paternal line, while Mary was the last of the maternal line as the daughter of Heli.
The reason Joseph is said to be the “son” of Heli (Mary’s father) brings forth a seventh consideration: the Jewish use of “son.” Hebrews used the word in at least five distinct senses: (1) in the sense used today of a one-generation offspring; (2) in the sense of a descendant, whether a grandson or a more remote descendant many generations previous, e.g., Matthew 1:1; 21:9; 22:42 (“begat” had this same flexibility in application); (3) as a son-in-law (the Jews had no word to express this concept and so just used “son”—e.g., 1 Samuel 24:16; 26:17); (4) in accordance with the Levirate marriage law (Deuteronomy 25:5-10; cf. Matthew 22:24-26), a deceased man would have a son through a surrogate father who legally married the deceased man’s widow (e.g., Ruth 2:20; 3:9,12; 4:3-5); and (5) in the sense of a step-son who took on the legal status of his step-father—the relationship sustained by Jesus to Joseph (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Luke 3:23; 4:22; John 6:42).
Notice carefully that Joseph was a direct-line, blood descendant of David and, therefore, of David’s throne. Here is the precise purpose of Matthew’s genealogy: it demonstrated Jesus’ legal right to inherit the throne of David—a necessary prerequisite to authenticating His Messianic claim. However, an equally critical credential was His blood/physical descent from David—a point that could not be established through Joseph since “after His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:18, emp. added). This feature of Christ’s Messiahship was established through His mother Mary, who was also a blood descendant of David (Luke 1:30-32). Both the blood of David and the throne of David were necessary variables to qualify and authenticate Jesus as the Messiah.
Once again, the Bible’s intricate complexities shine forth to dispel the critic’s accusations, while simultaneously demonstrating its own infallible representations. The more one delves into its intricacies and plummets its intriguing depths, the more one is driven to the inescapable conclusion that the Bible is, indeed, the Book of books—the inspired Word of God.

REFERENCES

Haley, John W. (1977), Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Lyons, Eric (2003), The Anvil Rings (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
McGarvey, J.W. (1910), Biblical Criticism (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).
McGarvey, J.W. (1974 reprint), Evidences of Christianity (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

From Mark Copeland... The First Day Of The Week (Acts 20:7)

                          "THE BOOK OF ACTS"

                   The First Day Of The Week (20:7)

INTRODUCTION

1. For almost 2000 years, Christians have assembled on Sunday to observe
   the Lord's Supper...
   a. Why on Sunday (the first day of the week)?
   b. Why not on the Sabbath (the seventh day of the week)?

2. In Ac 20:7, we find the first reference to worship on a Sunday...
   a. When disciples came together to break bread
   b. When Paul spoke to them 

[Some might wonder whether this passage refers to a weekly observance,
and whether Christians did in fact assemble on the first day of the
week to partake of the Lord's Supper.  Consider the evidence for...]

I. THE OBSERVANCE OF THE SUPPER

   A. THE BIBLICAL EVIDENCE...
      1. When the church began, they continued steadfastly in "the
         breaking of bread" - Ac 2:42
      2. Disciples came together on the first day of the week to "break
         bread" - Ac 20:7
      3. "Breaking bread" is likely a reference to the Lord's Supper 
         - cf. 1Co 10:16-17
      4. Other indications of a weekly observance:
         a. The church at Corinth was coming together to eat the Lord's 
            Supper, though they were abusing it - cf. 1Co 11:17-22
         b. Instructions concerning the collection suggest their coming
            together was on the first day of the week - cf. 1Co 16:1-2
      -- Seemingly slight, the Biblical evidence weighs more than any
         human opinion

   B. THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE...
      1. The earliest historical evidence outside the Bible confirms the
         day and frequency
         a. The Didache (ca. 95 A.D.) indicates Christians were to come
            together on the first day of the week to break bread 
            - Didache 14:1
         b. Justin Martyr (ca. 150 A.D.) records how Christians assembled
            on Sunday and partook of the Supper - Apology I, 67
         c. "...the early church writers from Barnabas, Justin Martyr, 
            Irenaeus, to Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Cyprian, all 
            with one consent, declare that the church observed the first
            day of the week. They are equally agreed that the Lord's 
            Supper was observed weekly, on the first day of the week." 
            - B. W. Johnson, People's New Testament
      2. Religious scholars confirm this was the practice
         a. "As we have already remarked, the celebration of the Lord's
            Supper was still held to constitute an essential part of 
            divine worship every Sunday, as appears from Justin Martyr
            (A.D. 150)..." - Augustus Neander (Lutheran), History Of 
            Christian Religion And Church, Vol. I, p. 332
         b. "This ordinance (the Lord's Supper) seems to have been
            administered every Lord's day; and probably no professed 
            Christian absented themselves... - Thomas Scott 
            (Presbyterian), Commentary On Acts 20:7
         c. "This also is an important example of weekly communion as the
            practice of the first Christians." - A. C. Hervey 
            (Episcopalian), Commentary On Acts 20:7
         d. "It is well known that the primitive Christians administered
            the Eucharist (the Lord's Supper) every Lord's day." - P. 
            Doddridge (Congregationalist), Notes On Acts 20:7
         e. "We understand v. 7 to indicate that the Breaking of Bread on
            the first day of the week was customary during the apostolic
            period." - F. F. Bruce, (Open Brethren), New International 
            Bible commentary (p. 1302)
      -- The overwhelming consensus of extra biblical sources supports
         the conclusion that the Biblical practice was to observe the 
         Lord's Supper each first day of the week

[But as asked in the introduction, why Sunday?  Why not the Sabbath Day?
Consider the following regarding...]

II. THE DAY OF THE OBSERVANCE

   A. WHY THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK...?
      1. Jesus rose from the dead on Sunday - Mt 28:1; Mk 16:2,9; Lk 24:1; Jn 20:1
      2. Jesus appeared to His disciples on Sunday - Jn 20:19
      3. The church began on Pentecost, which was on a Sunday - Ac 2:1-42
      4. The command to lay by in store was to be carried out on a
         Sunday - 1Co 16:1-2
      5. Jesus appeared to John on "the Lord's Day", later understood to
         be Sunday - Re 1:10
      -- The Scriptures do not explicitly declare the above to be reasons
         why Christians assembled on the first day of the week, but it 
         might indicate why they did

   B. WHY NOT THE SABBATH...?
      1. The Sabbath was the sign of the Mosaic Covenant (Exo 31:16,17;
         Neh 9:14; Eze 20:12), whereas Christians are under the New 
         Covenant (2Co 3; He 8)
      2. There is no NT command to keep the Sabbath
      3. The first command to keep the Sabbath was not until the time of
         Moses (Ex 16:23-30; 20:8)
      4. The Jerusalem Council (Ac 15) did not order Gentile believers to
         keep the Sabbath
      5. Paul never cautioned Christians about breaking the Sabbath
      6. The NT explicitly teaches that Sabbath keeping was not a
         requirement (Ro 14:5; Ga 4:10-11; Col 2:16-17)
      -- The above reasons are from The MacArthur Study Bible (Acts 20:7), 

         For why Scripture does not require Christians to observe
         the Saturday Sabbath

   C. AS PER ENCYCLOPEDIAS...
      1. "Sunday, first day of the week; in Christianity, the Lord's Day,
         the weekly memorial of Jesus Christ's resurrection from the dead.
         The practice of Christians gathering together for worship on 
         Sunday dates back to apostolic times..." - Encyclopedia
         Britannica
      2. "From the apostolic era to the present it has been customary
         for Christians to assemble for communal Sunday services..." 
         - Encyclopedia Americana
      3. "The celebration of the Lord's Day in memory of the resurrection
         of Christ dates undoubtedly from the apostolic age. Nothing 
         short of apostolic precedent can account for the universal 
         religious observance in the churches of the second century. 
         There is no dissenting voice. This custom is confirmed by the 
         testimonies of the earliest post-apostolic writers, as Barnabas,
         Ignatius, and Justin Martyr." - History Of The Christian Church,
         Philip Schaff, vol. 1, pg. 201-202
      -- Both internal and external evidence from the Bible indicates
         that Christians met together on the first day of the week, i.e.,
         Sunday

CONCLUSION

1. Again from Philip Schaff, History of Christian Church, Vol. 1, pg.
   478-479...
   a. "...it appears, therefore, from the New Testament itself, that
      Sunday was observed as a day of worship, and in special 
      commemoration of the Resurrection, whereby the work of redemption 
      was finished."
   b. "The universal and uncontradicted Sunday observance in the second
      century can only be explained by the fact that it has its roots in
      apostolic practice."

2. Some may say that the Biblical evidence is scarce...
   a. But a whisper of God's Word is worth more than a blast of man's
      opinions
   b. The apostolic example is more authoritative than any human 
      tradition

If you are a disciple of Christ, do you assemble with other Christians
on the first day of the week to break bread (observe the Lord's Supper)?
If not, why not...?

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2013

From Gary... FUNNY, you say...

What makes something humorous? And why do we laugh? Probably for a variety of reasons, depending on the circumstances. And for that matter, are there "restrictions" on what a Christian should find laughable?  Today, as I began my daily search for a post, I came across this picture and pondered these things.  Relax, I have no intention of telling you what to laugh at or not, as I think humor is a very personal thing. But, I do think the Scriptures give us a few general guidelines...

Galatians, Chapter 5 (NASB)

(Gal 5:16)  But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.
(Gal 5:17)  For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.

(Gal 5:18)  But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.

(Gal 5:19)  Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,

(Gal 5:20)  idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions,

(Gal 5:21)  envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

(Gal 5:22)  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

(Gal 5:23)  gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

(Gal 5:24)  Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

(Gal 5:25)  If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.

Generally, if we find humor in the things of the flesh (from the list above), I think its time to ask yourself WHY you are laughing. Instead, look for gentle, subtle humor that is harmless. To me, Verse 25 above says it all. If anyone has thoughts on this, I would appreciate your comments....