5/4/16

From Mark Copeland... "THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN" Chapter One 


                      "THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN"

                              Chapter One

John greets Gaius, praying for his prosperity and health, rejoicing to
hear that he is walking in truth (1-4).  John approves his hospitality
toward brethren and strangers, especially those serving the Lord (5-8).
John condemns the deeds of Diotrephes (9-10), commends the testimony of
Demetrius (11-12), and concludes with a hope to see Gaius soon (13-14).

POINTS TO PONDER

   *  The joy of seeing one’s converts growing in Christ

   *  The importance of hospitality in the spread of the gospel

   *  The contrast between spirituality and carnality among Christians

REVIEW QUESTIONS

1) What are the main points of this chapter?
   - Greetings, with an expression of great joy - 3Jn 1:1-4
   - The confirmation of Gaius - 3Jn 1:5-8
   - The condemnation of Diotrephes - 3Jn 1:9-10
   - The commendation of Demetrius - 3Jn 1:11-12
   - Concluding remarks - 3Jn 1:13-14

2) To whom is this epistle addressed? (1)
   - The beloved Gaius

3) For what does John pray in behalf of Gaius? (2)
   - That he may prosper and be in health, just as his soul prospers

4) What gave John his greatest joy? (4)
   - To hear that his children walk in truth

5) For what does John praise Gaius? (5-7)
   - His kindness toward brethren and strangers, especially those
     serving the Lord

6) What benefit do we receive when we support those who serve the Lord?
   (8)
   - We become fellow workers for the truth

7) Of what was Diotrephes guilty? (9-10)
   - Seeking preeminence, refusing to receive John
   - Prating against him with malicious words
   - Refusing to receive brethren, putting out of the church those who
     do

8) What exhortation does John give to Gaius?  Who does he commend?
   (11-12)
   - Do not imitate what is evil, but what is good; Demetrius, for his
     good testimony

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2015

eXTReMe Tracker 

From Mark Copeland... "THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN" Introduction 


                      "THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN"

                              Introduction

What was the early church like?  We know a lot about its early leaders,
such as apostles Paul and Peter; but what about the average Christians
themselves?  Were they more spiritual than Christians today?  Did they
experience the kind of problems seen so often in churches today?

Several books of the New Testament reflect the life of the early church,
and this is especially true of The Third Epistle of John.  It is a
private letter, between "The Elder" and a Christian named Gaius.  It
provides portraits of three different men, and in so doing gives us a
glimpse of 1st  century life in local churches.

When one examines the portraits found in this letter, we learn that
there is not much difference between people back then, and in the church
today. Therefore this epistle is very relevant, though we may live
almost 2000 years later.

AUTHOR

"The Elder" (3Jn 1:1) is believed by most conservative scholars to be
the apostle John.  The internal evidence for the third epistle is
similar to that of the second:

   *  The three epistles of John utilize much the same language and ideas

   *  All bear similarity to concepts and language to the Gospel of John

   *  The term "elder" would be a fitting description of John as the
      author, writing in his old age

The external evidence is slight, but Dionysius of Alexandria, living in
the third century A.D., credits John with being the author.

RECIPIENT

The epistle is addressed to "beloved Gaius".  Gaius was a common Roman
name, and appears five times in the New Testament (Ac 19:29; 20:4; Ro
16:23; 1Co 1:14; 3Jn 1:1).  Whether he is one of those mentioned by Luke
or Paul cannot be determined.  He was evidently a dear friend of John,
known for his hospitality (more below).

PLACE AND DATE

Ephesus is usually suggested as the location from which John wrote this
epistle, as he was known to live there in the later years of his life.
Estimation of the date of writing varies widely, some placing it before
the destruction of Jerusalem (70 A.D.).  Most however place it around
90-95 A.D.

PURPOSE AND THEME

The purpose of the epistle is threefold, related to the three men
mentioned by name:

   *  To confirm that Gaius did right in supporting those teachers who
      came his way, encouraging him to continue this hospitality - 3Jn  1:5-8

   *  To express his condemnation of Diotrephes for rejecting John and
      others whom he should had received - 3Jn 1:9-10

   *  To encourage Gaius to imitate what is good, commending Demetrius
      as a good example - 3Jn 1:11-12

As for the theme, with the examples of the three men preserved for us in
this letter, let me suggest one based on the words of John in verse 11:

             Do not imitate what is evil, but what is good

OUTLINE

Here is a simple outline of the book...

Greetings, with an expression of great joy (1-4)
The confirmation of Gaius (5-8)
The condemnation of Diotrephes (9-10)
The commendation of Demetrius (11-12)
Concluding remarks (13-14)

REVIEW QUESTIONS

1) Who is author of The Third Epistle Of John?
   - The Elder, likely John the apostle who wrote the gospel of John

2) Who was the recipient of this epistle?
   - The beloved Gaius, identity otherwise unknown

3) When was it written?  From where?
   - Most date it from 90-95 A.D.; Ephesus

4) What has been suggested as its threefold purpose?
   - To confirm Gaius did right
   - To condemn Diotrephes for doing wrong
   - To commend Demetrius as a good example

5) What has been suggested as its theme?
   - Do not imitate what is evil, but what is good

6) What are the main divisions of this epistle as outlined above?
   - Greetings, with an expression of great joy (1-4)
   - The confirmation of Gaius (5-8)
   - The condemnation of Diotrephes (9-10)
   - The commendation of Demetrius (11-12)
   - Concluding remarks (13-14)


Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2015

eXTReMe Tracker 

Have the Bones of Jesus Been Found? by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=2102

Have the Bones of Jesus Been Found?

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.
Simcha Jacobovici, a television director, and movie director James Cameron (of Titanic fame) have teamed up to produce a television documentary for Discovery Channel titled “The Jesus Family Tomb.” In this production, Jacobovici suggests that the real tomb of Jesus has been discovered, complete with ossuaries for His body, Mary Magdalene’s body, His mother Mary’s body, and the body of Judah, allegedly the son of Jesus. This outlandish claim, although supposedly backed by scientific and historical “evidence,” is another sad example of senseless hype surrounding baseless claims about Jesus Christ.
The available historic evidence overwhelmingly destroys the false assertions made by Jacobovici. First, the idea that Jesus’ bones were buried would contradict the most historically accurate book ever written—the Bible. As Newsweek writers Miller and Chen wrote: “Good sense, and the Bible, still the best existing historical record of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, argue against Jacobovici’s claims” (2007). Indeed they do. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the most historically documented event in ancient history (see Butt, 2002). The New Testament documents have been examined with a scrutiny beyond any applied to other historical books, and their authenticity and reliability have dumbfounded the most skeptical observers. With one voice, the books of the New Testament declare that Jesus Christ was buried in a borrowed tomb, rose three days after His death, and ascended to heaven, leaving no bones behind to be buried in an ossuary.
Furthermore, besides the fact that Jacobovici’s idea goes against the Bible, other details militate against the tomb being Jesus’ (not that any are needed). For instance, the names on the ossuary were very common. In fact, almost one-fourth of women in Jerusalem at the time would most likely have been named Mary or some derivative form of the name (Miller and Chen, 2007). In addition, the tomb is of a wealthy family and was located in Jerusalem. But Jesus’ family was poor from Nazareth. As Alan Segal, religion professor at Barnard College, stated: “Why would Jesus’ family have a tomb outside of Jerusalem if they were from Nazareth? Why would they have a tomb if they were poor?” (as quoted in Miller and Chen).
In truth, this latest “discovery” is little more than an attempt to cash in on the hype created by Dan Brown (author of The Da Vinci Code) and his ilk. It is so devoid of truth and legitimate historical scholarship that it is more of a science fiction film than a documentary. This and a host of future attempts to cast doubt on the biblical narratives will come and go, but rest assured that “the Word of the Lord endures forever.”

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2002), “Jesus Christ—Dead or Alive?” Reason & Revelation, 22:9-15, February, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/121.
Miller, Lisa and Joanna Chen (2007), “Raiders of the Lost Tomb?” Newsweek, March 5, [On-line],URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17328478/site/newsweek/.

Exceptional Spider Silk by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2150

Exceptional Spider Silk
by Eric Lyons, M.Min.
To the average person, a spider’s web looks rather weak and flimsy. With the greatest of ease, a person can destroy a web. In only a second, the spider’s house is razed with the wave of a hand. Even Job’s uninspired friend, Bildad, testified of the fragileness of webs when he likened the unrighteous to those “whose trust is a spider’s web” (Job 8:14), who are leaning upon a house that easily perishes. So why are scientists increasingly mesmerized by the spider’s silk webbing?
Scientists are so enamored with spider silk because it has an “exceptional capacity to absorb kinetic energy” (Cunningham, 2007). Although it may not seem strong and tough from the vantage point of a human who easily can tear down a spider’s web, pound-for-pound, the silk from certain kinds of spiders is five times stronger than steel. What’s more, it can stretch 30 percent farther than the stretchiest known nylon, and is twice as flexible. Scientists have discovered that spider silk can even stretch 40 percent beyond its original length without breaking. In fact, due to its amazing strength and flexibility, it has been said that you could stop a jumbo jet in mid-flight with a spider web made of silk only one centimeter thick.
Since harvesting silk from spiders is impractical, scientists are attempting to make synthetic “spider silk” that could be used for countless things, including bulletproof vests, bridge suspension cables, and artificial tendons. Scientists especially covet the silk’s “exceptional capacity to absorb kinetic energy” and are hoping to copy what they call its “winning formula.” How have scientists fared thus far? In truth, even “[t]he best industrial fibers don’t absorb as much kinetic energy as spider silk does.... Despite years of research, scientists still can’t make a material as tough as the silk found within a spider web” (Cunningham, emp. added). Zoologist Chris Holland admitted that synthetic fibers “can’t even come close to” equaling the amazing qualities of spider-produced silk (as quoted in Cunningham).
What explanation do scientists give for the origin of spiders and their exceptional silk? To what do we owe this “winning formula” that intelligent scientists have been attempting to copy for years? According to Holland, “[s]piders...evolved the capacity to spin silk” (as quoted in Cunningham, emp. added). The mastermind behind the unequalled, “energy-efficient, high-performance” fibers in spider silk is, allegedly, mindless evolution. Truly, “the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Corinthians 1:25). “For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God” (Hebrews 3:4).

REFERENCE

Cunningham, Aimee (2007), “Taken for a Spin,” Science News, April 14, [On-line], URL:http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070414/bob8.asp.

Differences Do Not Demand Discrepancies by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=459

Differences Do Not Demand Discrepancies

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.
Sometimes statements differ because they are contradictory. The fact is, nothing can both be and not be for the same person, place, or thing, at the same time, and in the same sense (cf. Jevons, 1928, p. 117; Aristotle, 3:4). It is impossible for a single door to be completely shut and completely open at the same time. It is contradictory for a man to say, “Yesterday I never left my house to go to the store,” if indeed he did leave his house yesterday to go to the store. Differences in stories may very well be the result of lies and contradictory statements.
At the same time, differences do not necessarily mean that various accounts are discrepant. For example, a person may affirm, “I went shopping with my daughter yesterday.” That same person might also tell someone, “Yesterday, I went to several different stores with my best friend.” Both of these statements, though different, easily could be true. Perhaps the mother went shopping with her daughter and her best friend, Melissa. Or, it could be that the daughter is the mother’s best friend. Either way, it would be irresponsible and unreasonable to interpret such differences as contradictions.
People generally understand that differences can abound in various accounts without a person needing to resort to charges of discrepancy. Imagine how long an employee would keep his job if he operated under the assumption that every time one of his colleagues said something that differed from a previous comment or from what another colleague stated, “someone was lying.” Such an employee would soon find himself unemployed. Generally speaking, people who make accusations without sufficient evidence to prove their case are quickly marginalized and distrusted.
Sadly, when it comes to the Bible, many people leave behind reason and fair-mindedness. Different accounts must be “contradictory.” Different wordings by different writers must mean someone was wrong. Though unproven and unprovable assertions in nearly every other area of life are quickly exposed as baseless allegations, when it comes to the Bible, differences are often thought to equal discrepancies.
The fact is, the different but truthful wordings in Scripture are exactly what a person should expect to find in a book composed of 66 smaller books written by approximately 40 different writers, who wrote to different people, at different times, and in different places. Furthermore, the differences in Scripture are parallel to the justifiable differences we expect from each other’s accounts in modern times.
  • Why must Luke be mistaken about the temptations of Jesus because he wrote them in a different order than Matthew (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13; see Lyons, 2004)? Can a person not give an honest description of something without everything being in chronological order? If a person never said the details are in the precise order in which they occurred, would he not have the freedom to arrange his story however he chose (e.g., climactically or thematically)?
  • Was it essential for the apostle John to mention every woman who came to the tomb of Jesus on the morning of His resurrection, or was he at liberty to mention as few as he wanted (John 20:1; cf. Matthew 28:1; Luke 24:1; cf. Butt, 2004)? If Mary Magdalene was at the tomb on that Sunday morning, and John recorded that she was there, without ever denying that others also were there, could his record of the events be truthful? Of course. Differencesexist among the gospel writers’ accounts, but no one can prove that they are dischordant. Just as a person might say, “I went to the park with Bill, Bob, and Bubba,” he might also truthfully say, “I went to the park with Bill and Betty.” These statements are not contradictory. One merely supplements the other. A person may only mention Bill and Betty in one setting (e.g., at worship where the church knows the married couple), while at another setting (e.g., at the office where only the men are known) he may truthfully just mention the men.
The fact is, if the apostles and prophets wrote independently of each other, and penned their accounts at different times, in different places, to different people, and for different reasons, differences should be expected. However, the differences are not demonstrated discrepancies. They are only “contradictions” in the minds of those (1) who reject reason, and/or (2) who refuse to “retain God in their knowledge” (Romans 1:28).

REFERENCES

Aristotle, Metaphysics, trans. W.D. Ross, http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.4.iv.html.
Butt, Kyle (2004), “Addition Does Not a Contradiction Make,” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=541.
Jevons, W. Stanley (1928), Elementary Lessons in Logic (London: Macmillan).
Lyons, Eric (2004), “In What Order Did Satan Tempt Jesus?” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=746.

Was Jesus Married? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=4519

Was Jesus Married?

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.
The parade of alleged gospels that purport to alter the foundational doctrines of the Christian religion is endless. Most recently, a papyrus fragment written in Coptic that dates to the fourth century has created a stir. Among its eight badly faded lines are two phrases, “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife...’” and a second provocative clause that is believed to say, “she will be able to be my disciple” (Goodstein, 2012). No matter how tentative and flimsy the evidence, liberal scholars and atheists glory in any item that might discredit Christ and Christianity. Yet, even the lead expert on the fragment, historian at the Harvard Divinity School, Karen King, repeatedly cautioned that it “should not be taken as proof that Jesus, the historical person, was actually married. The text was probably written centuries after Jesus lived, and all other early, historically reliable Christian literature is silent on the question” (Goodstein, emp. added).
Many Christians and non-Christians fail to grasp the fact that the legitimacy and credibility of Christianity does not finally depend on archaeological discovery. If the Bible can be proven to possess the attributes of inspiration, demonstrating its divine origin, then no artifact will ever be discovered that will contradict that truth. If any manuscript or artifact appears to do so, it is being misinterpreted and misconstrued. Since we know that the Bible is the inspired Word of God (based on a careful and thorough analysis of its internal attributes—see the category “Inspiration of the Bible” at apologeticspress.org), then we know that Jesus never married just as the New Testament represents. [NOTE: That is not to say that the Catholic notion of celibacy finds biblical support—it does not. See Pinedo, 2008, pp. 60ff.]
Furthermore, the truth of the matter is that the textual basis of the New Testament was settled and fully authenticated many years ago. The longstanding discipline of Textual Criticism has yielded abundant evidence for the trustworthiness of the text of the New Testament. Over the last two centuries, the manuscript evidence has been thoroughly examined, resulting in complete exoneration for the integrity, genuineness, and accuracy of the Bible. Prejudiced university professors refrain from divulging to their students that the vast majority of textual variants involve minor matters that do not affect salvation nor alter any basic teaching of the New Testament. Even those variants that might be deemed doctrinally significant pertain to matters that are treated elsewhere in the Bible where the question of genuineness is unobscured. No feature of Christian doctrine is at stake. When all of the textual evidence is considered, the vast majority of discordant readings have been resolved (e.g., Metzger, 1978, p. 185). One is brought to the firm conviction that we have in our possession the Bible as God intended.
The world’s foremost textual critics have confirmed this conclusion. Sir Frederic Kenyon, longtime director and principal librarian at the British Museum, whose scholarship and expertise to make pronouncements on textual criticism was second to none, stated: “Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established” (Kenyon, 1940, p. 288). The late F.F. Bruce, longtime Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism at the University of Manchester, England, remarked: “The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice” (1960, pp. 19-20). J.W. McGarvey, declared by the London Timesto be “the ripest Bible scholar on earth” (Brigance, 1870, p. 4), conjoined: “All the authority and value possessed by these books when they were first written belong to them still” (1956, p. 17). And the eminent textual critics Westcott and Hort put the entire matter into perspective when they said:
Since textual criticism has various readings for its subject, and the discrimination of genuine readings from corruptions for its aim, discussions on textual criticism almost inevitably obscure the simple fact that variations are but secondary incidents of a fundamentally single and identical text. In the New Testament in particular it is difficult to escape an exaggerated impression as to the proportion which the words subject to variation bear to the whole text, and also, in most cases, as to their intrinsic importance. It is not superfluous therefore to state explicitly that the great bulk of the words of the New Testament stand out above all discriminative processes of criticism, because they are free from variation, and need only to be transcribed (1964, p. 564, emp. added).
Noting that the experience of two centuries of investigation and discussion had been achieved, these scholars concluded: “[T]he words in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly amount to more than a thousandth part of the whole of the New Testament” (p. 565, emp. added).
Think of it. Men who literally spent their lives poring over ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, devoting their lives to meticulous, tedious analysis of the evidence, conversant with the original languages, without peer in their expertise and qualifications, have concluded that the Bible has been transmitted accurately. No scrap of papyrus written 200+ years after the fact can overturn the last two centuries of scholarly investigation and validation—let alone the Bible’s own inspired testimony to the contrary.

REFERENCES

Brigance, L.L. (1870), “J.W. McGarvey,” in A Treatise on the Eldership by J.W. McGarvey (Murfreesboro, TN: DeHoff Publications, 1962 reprint).
Bruce, F.F. (1960), The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), revised edition.
Goodstein, Laurie (2012), “A Faded Piece of Papyrus Refers to Jesus’ Wife,” The New York Times, September 18, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120919&moc.semityn.www.
Kenyon, Sir Frederic (1940), The Bible and Archaeology (New York, NY: Harper).
McGarvey, J.W. (1956 reprint), Evidences of Christianity (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).
Metzger, Bruce M. (1978 reprint), The Text of the New Testament (New York, NY: Oxford University Press), second edition.
Pinedo, Moises (2008), What the Bible says about the Catholic Church (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), http://apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/wtbsatcc.pdf.
Westcott, B.A. and F.J.A. Hort (1964 reprint), The New Testament in the Original Greek (New York, NY: MacMillan).

Assumption-Based Rejection of Design by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2522

Assumption-Based Rejection of Design

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.
In a recent New Scientist article titled “Evolution: A Guide for the Not-Yet Perplexed,” Michael Le Page expressed great confidence in The General Theory of Evolution, even going so far as to declare, “Evolution is as firmly established a scientific fact as the roundness of the Earth” (2008, 198[2652]:25). Le Page then proceeded to suggest various reasons why evolutionists reject Intelligent Design. After alleging the Earth is 4.5 billion years old (see DeYoung, 2005 andThompson, 2001 for refutations of this idea), Le Page wrote:
Suppose for a moment that life was designed rather than having evolved. In that case organisms that appear similar might have very different internal workings, just as anLCD screen has a quite different mechanism to a plasma screen. The explosion of genomic research, however, has revealed that all living creatures work in essentially the same way: they store and translate information using the same genetic code, with only a few minor variations in the most primitive organisms (p. 26, emp. added).
Le Page continued: “[I]f organisms had been designed for particular roles, they might be unable to adapt to changing conditions. Instead, countless experiments...show that organisms of all kinds evolve when their environment is altered, provided the changes are not too abrupt” (p. 26, emp. added).
Notice Le Page’s reasons for rejecting Intelligent Design: (1) if life was designed, “organisms...might have very different internal workings,” and (2) designed organisms “might be unable to adapt” to changing environments (p. 26, emp. added). As should be obvious to anyone reading this recent issue of New Scientist, Le Page’s arguments are pure speculation. Neither the similarities in the genetic make-up of living organisms nor the ability of living things to adapt to their environments are reasons to reject design and accept evolution.
Creationists have long recognized similarities among animals and humans. In fact, such similarities (even on a cellular level) should be expected among creatures that drink the same water, eat the same food, breathe the same air, live on the same terrain, etc. But, similarities are just that—similarities. Evolutionists interpret these similarities to mean we all share common ancestors, but they cannot prove it. Likewise, the ability of animals to adapt to their surroundings could just as easily be explained as the product of an omniscient Designer programming life long ago with the ability to adapt to its environment.
New Scientist’s assumption-based rejection of design is completely unsubstantiated. Neither homology nor organisms’ adaptation abilities are proof of The General Theory of Evolution.

REFERENCES

DeYoung, Don (2005), Thousands...Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).
Le Page, Michael (2008), “Evolution: A Guide for the Not-Yet Perplexed,” New Scientist, 198[2652]:24-33, April 19.
Thompson, Bert (2001), “The Young Earth,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1991.
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)