Did Jesus Go to Hell? Did He Preach to Spirits in Prison? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=851

Did Jesus Go to Hell? Did He Preach to Spirits in Prison?

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

A significant misconception that has prevailed through the centuries within Christendom has been the idea that Jesus went to hell after His crucifixion, prior to His resurrection. The creedal statements of historic Christianity are largely responsible for generating this notion. For example, the Apostles’ Creed affirmed belief in Jesus on the following terms: “Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and buried; He descended into hell, the third day He rose again from the dead” (emp. added). The Athanasian Creed states: “He suffered death for our salvation. He descended into hell and rose again from the dead” (emp. added). “Church Fathers” and Reformers toyed with this viewpoint. John Calvin, in his voluminousInstitutes of the Christian Religion, treated the subject at length (1599, II.16.8-12). Calvin cited earlier theologians who agreed with him, including Hilary in his On the Trinity (IV.xlii; III.xv). The renowned medieval Catholic theologian, Thomas Aquinas, held a similar view (Summa Theol. III. 52. 5). The apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus, which dates from the fifth century A.D., claims that Jesus descended into hell and retrieved all the Old Testament saints, including Adam, David, Habakkuk, and Isaiah (see James, 1924, pp. 125ff.).

Further impetus for confusion was generated by the English translations of the 16^th and 17^thcenturies, due to translator confusion regarding the technical distinctions that exist between the pertinent Greek terms. Specifically, the Greek term hades generally was equated with gehenna.Hades refers to the intermediate state of the dead (disembodied spirits) who are awaiting the Judgment. Gehenna, on the other hand, refers to the location of the final state of the wicked after the Judgment. This confusion culminated in the King James Version’s rendering of hades as “hell” in all ten of its occurrences in the New Testament (Matthew 11:23; 16:18; Luke 10:15; 16:23; Acts 2:27,31; Revelation 1:18; 6:8; 20:13,14). Rendering hades as “hell” in Acts 2:27,31 leaves the reader with the impression that when Jesus exited His physical body on the cross, He went to hell. The first English translation to maintain the distinction between hades and gehennawas the English Revised Version and its subsequent American counterpart, the American Standard Version of 1901 (Lewis, 1981, p. 64).

In 1 Peter 3:18-20, a most curious reference appears on the surface to be an affirmation that Jesus descended into the spirit realm and preached to deceased people. However, a close consideration of the grammar will clarify the passage. First, the preaching referred to was not done by Jesus in His own person. The text says Jesus did the preaching through the Holy Spirit: “…the Spirit, by whom…” (v. 18-19). [“My Spirit” (Genesis 6:3) = the Spirit of God = the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9; Ephesians 2:17).] Other passages confirm that Jesus was said to do things that He actually did through the instrumentality of others (John 4:1-2; Ephesians 2:17). Nathan charged King David: “You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword” (2 Samuel 12:9), when, in fact, David had ordered it done by another. Elijah accused Ahab of killing Naboth, using the words, “Have you murdered and also taken possession?” (1 Kings 21:19), even though his wife, Jezebel, arranged for two other men to accomplish the evil action. Paul said Jesus preached peace to the Gentiles (Ephesians 2:17), when, in fact, Jesus did so through others, since He, Himself, already had returned to heaven when the first Gentiles heard the Gospel (Acts 15:7). So the Bible frequently refers to someone doing something that he, in fact, did through the agency of another person.

In fact, within the book of 1 Peter itself, Peter already had made reference to the fact that the Spirit “testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow” (1 Peter 1:11). But it was the prophets who did the actual speaking (vs. 10). Then, again in chapter 4, Peter stated that “the gospel was preached also to those who are dead” (1 Peter 4:6). Here were individuals who had the Gospel preached to them while they were alive (“in the flesh”), and who responded favorably by becoming Christians. But then they were “judged according to men in the flesh,” i.e., they were treated harshly and condemned to martyrdom by their contemporaries. At the time Peter was writing, they were “dead,” i.e., deceased and departed from the Earth. But Peter said they “live according to God in the spirit,” i.e., they were alive and well in spirit form in the hadean realm in God’s good graces.

Second, when did Jesus do this preaching through the Holy Spirit? Notice in verse 20, the words “formerly” (NKJV) and “when”—“when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah.” So the preaching was done in the days of Noah by Jesus through the Holy Spirit Who, in turn, inspired Noah’s preaching (2 Peter 2:5).

Third, why are these people to whom Noah preached said to be “spirits in prison”? Because at the time Peter was writing the words, that is where those people were situated. Those who were drowned in the Flood of Noah’s day descended into the hadean realm, where they continued to reside in Peter’s day. This realm is the same location where the rich man was placed (Luke 16:23), as were the sinning angels (“Tartarus”—2 Peter 2:4). However, Jesus did not go to “prison” or “Tartarus.” He said He went to “Paradise” (Luke 23:43).

Fourth, why would Jesus go to hades and preach only to Noah’s contemporaries? Why would He exclude those who died prior to the Flood? What about those who have died since? Since God is no “respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11), Jesus would not have singled out Noah’s generation to be the recipients of preaching in the spirit realm.

Fifth, what would have been the content of such preaching? Jesus could not have preached the whole Gospel in its entirety. That Gospel includes the resurrection of Jesus (Romans 4:25; 1 Corinthians 15:4). However, at the time the alleged preaching was supposed to have occurred, Jesus had not yet been raised!

The notion of people being given a second opportunity to hear the Gospel in the afterlife is an extremely dangerous doctrine that is counterproductive to the cause of Christ. Why? It potentially could make people think they can postpone their obedience to the Gospel in this life. Yet the Bible consistently teaches that no one will be permitted a second chance. This earthly life has been provided by God for all human beings to determine where they wish to spend eternity. That decision is made by each individual based upon personal conduct. Once a person dies, his eternal destiny has been cinched. He is “reserved for judgment” (2 Peter 2:4; cf. vss. 9,17). His condition will not and cannot be altered—even by God Himself (Luke 16:25-26; Hebrews 9:27).

REFERENCES

Calvin, John (1599), Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (London: Arnold Hatfield).

James, M.R., trans. (1924), The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press).

Lewis, Jack (1981), The English Bible From KJV to NIV (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Bat “Vision” by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1450

Bat “Vision”

by	Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

Bats often fly speedily through stalactite-filled caves and seemingly impenetrable wooded areas. For bats, one wrong move or turn can mean serious injury or death. Contrary to popular opinion, most bats possess at least decent vision. However, bats’ hearing is so sensitive that, for navigational purposes, bats use their ears more than their eyes. Bats are capable of emitting a sound that humans cannot hear. Some species use this very high-pitched, shrill tone when flying to determine what is in front of them (see “Echolocation,” n.d.). The sound bounces off objects in a bat’s path, and the bat hears the echo. Amazingly, the bat is able to determine precisely the direction he should fly in order to avoid smashing into the looming object. This process is referred to as “echolocation.” Bats also use echolocation to find food, especially flying insects.

Bats make this sound from a few, to two hundred, times per second. Do not confuse this sound with the squeaky noise you hear when you stand next to the bat exhibit at your local zoo. That noise is made by bats when they are frustrated, excited, or mating. Bats use different sounds, along with their large ears, to perform echolocation. Scientists use bat detectors to transpose the sounds to a lower frequency—one that humans can hear (see “California Underground...,” 1999). Not all bats, however, use echolocation; approximately 200 species of fruit bats in Africa, Asia, and Australia have larger eyes and are able to use their sharp vision to quickly negotiate obstacles.

Other animals, including dolphins and orca and beluga whales, use echolocation under water, like sonar signals (see “Echolocation”). The process of echolocation also has been observed in terrestrial mammals such as rodents, insectivores, Megachiroptera, and in nocturnal cave-dwelling oil birds and cave swiftlets (see Uy, 1994, p. 1; Blackshear, n.d., p. 1.). In addition, scientific research over the past fifty years has revealed that the auditory system is a major tool employed by blind humans as a means of perception.

Did the complex auditory and navigation systems of bats evolve, as many would have us believe?

REFERENCES

Blackshear, Jim (no date), “A Research Proposal: Echolocation—How Can We Best Teach It?,”Stephen F. Austin State University, [On-line], URL: http://hubel.sfasu.edu/courseinfo/SL02/jb2echolocation.htm.

“California Underground: Bat Echolocation Station” (1999), Oakland Museum of California, [On-line], URL: http://www.museumca.org/caves/onli_echo.html.

“Echolocation” (no date), National Parks Conservation Association, [On-line], URL: http://www.eparks.org/wildlife_protection/wildlife_facts/bats/echolocation.asp.

Uy, Christine (1994), “ ‘Seeing’ Sounds: Echolocation by Blind Humans,” ed. Bridget Wagner, Tony Chen, Harvard Undergraduate Society for Neuroscience, [On-line], URL: http://hcs.harvard.edu/husn/BRAIN/vol1/echo.html.

Clinton: No Creation of Embryos for Research by Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=350

Clinton: No Creation of Embryos for Research

by	Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.

In June of 1993, a Democrat-dominated Congress lifted former President Ronald Reagan’s 1980 ban on federal support for research on human embryos. Previously, scientists had to use private funds if they wanted to study “spare” embryos created by in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures. This effectively curtailed laboratory experimentation on fertilized eggs. With the legal roadblocks removed, Uncle Sam, in the guise of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), now can pick up the tab for such research.

During 1994, a special NIH panel met to formulate funding guidelines. Following the lead of several other countries, the panel gave the green light for work on embryos until the fourteenth day. Embryos could come from IVF procedures, or could be produced specifically for research purposes. Either approach creates serious ethical problems, because it is extremely unlikely that the embryos in these experiments will be implanted after the two-week limit; they will die in the lab.

Fortunately, thirty-five congressmen, led by Rep. Robert Dornan (R-Calif.), have taken the initiative in challenging NIH policies. “Congress has not examined these initiatives,” they reminded NIH Director Harold Varmus in a June 16 letter, “and the American people are largely unaware that the NIH is even contemplating using their tax dollars to fund such bizarre experiments on living human embryos.” In particular, many conservatives were incensed that human embryos could be created specifically for research.

Apparently these concerns, bolstered by a change of guard on Capitol Hill, spurred President Bill Clinton to action. On December 2, 1994—only hours after the NIH accepted its panel’s guidelines—Clinton announced the following: “I do not believe that federal funds should be used to support the creation of human embryos for research purposes, and I have directed that NIHnot allocate any resources for such research.”

Thankfully, also, the panel advised against support for research on more advanced embryos, and ruled twinning and nuclear cloning unacceptable. However, comments from various panel members suggest that they did not base their decisions on ethical absolutes. Rather, they weighed pragmatic considerations against the feelings of people “out there,” to use the words of panelist Pamela Davis. The scope of eligible research may change when feelings change. Further, the policies adopted by NIH are guidelines, not laws or rules, and are limited to federally funded projects.

Even this is no guarantee of compliance. In early December, National Public Radio revealed the results of an inquiry by George Washington University into the controversial cloning work of Robert Stillman and Jerry Hall. Although not conducted with federal funds, Stillman and Hall’s project had not received timely approval from a review board, and they did not obtain informed consent from embryo donors. Clearly, there is no room for complacency.

Did Jesus Deny His Deity? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=4833&b=Matthew

Did Jesus Deny His Deity?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

The New Testament writers repeatedly testified to the fact that, though Jesus “was in all points tempted as we are,” He was “without sin” (Hebrews 4:15). Paul claimed that Jesus “knew no sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21). Peter said that Christ “committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth”—that He was the perfect sacrificial Lamb, “without blemish and without spot” (1 Peter 2:22; 1:19). Likewise, John wrote that in Christ “there is no sin” (1 John 3:5). Jesus was supremely “pure,” “righteous,” and “good” (1 John 3:3; 2:1; John 10:11,14).

Additionally, the New Testament has much to say about the divine nature of Christ. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (Mark 14:62; John 4:25-26), Whom Isaiah prophesied would be “Mighty God” and “Jehovah” (Isaiah 9:6; 40:3). Jesus accepted worship while in the form of a man (John 9:38)—implying that He, too, was Deity (Matthew 4:10; cf. Acts 12:21-23; 14:14-15). Jesus forgave sins, which only God can do (Mark 2:5-10). The apostle John said that Jesus “was God” (John 1:1). Jesus claimed to be “one” with God (John 10:30), leading His hearers to believe that He made Himself “God” (10:33). And, after the apostle Thomas called Jesus “Lord” and “God” (John 20:28), Jesus immediately acknowledged Thomas’ faith, rather than deny the deity that Thomas had just professed. In his letter to the Philippians Paul wrote that Christ Jesus “being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God” (Philippians 2:6). In fact, “in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9).

In light of the fact that the Bible claims repeatedly that Jesus was both “good” and “God,” some contend that in Mark 10:18 (and Matthew 19:17) Jesus said just the opposite. In an article titled “New Testament Contradictions,” Paul Carlson stated that Mark 10:18 (among other passages) is “an embarrassment to the church,” as it indicates “Jesus did not consider himself sinless” (1995). By saying, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God” (Mark 10:18), allegedly “Jesus made a clear distinction between himself and God,” and, according to Muslims, Matthew and Mark “believed that Jesus wasnot God” (“The Bible Denies…,” 2014, emp. added). According to skeptic Dennis McKinsey, in Mark 10:18, “Jesus is not only admitting that he is not perfectly moral but that he is not God” (McKinsey, 2000, p. 247).

Does Jesus actually admit not being “good” and “God” in Mark 10:18? How did Jesus respond to the wealthy young ruler who asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” Did He deny being perfectly moral and Divine? The simple fact is, Jesus never denied being good or God.

So what did Jesus mean? Before answering this question, one must keep in mind that Jesus often responded to questions in unexpected, masterful ways. He offered thought-provoking, soul-searching answers (often in the form of questions) that, unfortunately, many people have misinterpreted. [Consider, for example, when the Pharisees asked Jesus about why His disciples allegedly broke the law of Moses and plucked heads of grain as they walked through the fields on the Sabbath. Rather than explicitly deny that the apostles were disregarding the Law of Moses, Jesus asked His accusers two very appropriate (and very perceptive) questions:

Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless? (Matthew 12:3-5).

Although many have misinterpreted Jesus’ response on this occasion to justify situation ethics, Jesus did nothing of the sort. The only “law” that Jesus’ disciples broke while going through the grain fields (Matthew 12:1-8) was the Pharisaical interpretation of the Law (see Lyons, 2003 for more information; see also Miller, 2004).]

The rich young ruler was confident in his keeping of various commandments (Mark 10:20), but he surely never thought that Jesus would instruct him to sell whatever he had and give it to the poor—to leave everything and follow Him (10:21). Similarly, when the young ruler initially came to Jesus, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” he never expected Jesus to say, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God” (10:17-18).

The young man seems to have regarded himself as “good” (since he professed to have kept all of the commandments that Jesus mentioned—Mark 10:20). Perhaps the gentleman simply wanted to know—from one good man to another good man (a “good teacher”)—what do I need to do to inherit eternal life. Rather than immediately answer the young man’s question, however, it seems Jesus first wanted (1) to humble him, by highlighting that he was not as “good” as he considered himself to be, and (2) for him to realize Who exactly he was questioning. He wasn’t merely petitioning a “good” (Greek agathos) man.

The Bible records various (mere) human beings who were called “good” (agathos). Luke recorded that “Barnabas was a good man” (Acts 11:24). Paul indicated that Christians are to “do good to all” (Galatians 6:10). (Are Christians who do good, “good” Christians?) Even Jesus stated previous to His encounter with the rich young ruler that “a good man out of the good treasure of his heart, brings forth good things” (Matthew 12:35). Thus, clearly when Jesus spoke to the wealthy ruler He was not using “good” in the sense of a man being “good.” Rather, He was using it in the sense of God being absolutely, supremely good. The kind of goodness to which He referred belonged only to God. The only way man can objectively call someone “good” is if there is an ultimate standard for goodness—the supreme, unblemished, good God.

Jesus never said what skeptics, Muslims, and others allege He said—that He was not good, or that He was not God. Instead, Jesus attempted to get the rich young ruler to see the implications of calling Him “good teacher.” Do good (merely) humanteachers claim to be the Messiah? Do good men accept worship and honor due only to God (John 5:23)? Do good men claim to have the power to forgive sins? Absolutely not! But Jesus had the power to forgive sins. He actually claimed to be the Messiah and accepted worship. So what was Jesus implying when He asked the young ruler, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God”? As Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe observed:

Jesus was saying to him, “Do you realize what you are saying when you call Me Good? Are you saying I am God?”… Jesus was forcing him to a very uncomfortable dilemma. Either Jesus was good and God, or else He was bad and man. A good God or a bad man, but not merely a good man. Those are the real alternatives with regard to Christ. For no good man would claim to be God when he was not. The liberal Christ, who was only a good moral teacher but not God, is a figment of human imagination (1992, p. 350).

To contend that Mark 10:18 proves that Jesus thought Himself to be neither morally perfect nor God is (1) to disregard the overall context of the Bible, (2) to twist the Scriptures like untaught and unstable people do—“to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16), and (3) to take a superficial reading of the text. Far from denying the deity of Christ, Mark 10:17-22 actually affirms it. The young ruler “called Christ a ‘good teacher,’ with no indication that he understood Jesus to be the Messiah. Jesus seized on the word ‘good,’ pointed out that if the man thought He was good, then He must be God” (Roper, 2:203), because only God is innately and supremely good.

REFERENCES

“The Bible Denies the Divinity of Jesus” (2014), A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam, http://www.islam-guide.com/ch3-10-1.htm.

Carlson, Paul (1995), “New Testament Contradictions,” The Secular Web,http://infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html.

Geisler, Norman L. and Thomas A. Howe (1992), When Critics Ask (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books).

Lyons, Eric (2003), “Did Jesus Condone Law-Breaking?” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=1276.

McKinsey, Dennis (2000), Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books).

Miller, Dave (2004), “Situation Ethics,” Apologetics Press, https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1064.

Roper, David (2003), The Life of Christ (Searcy, AR: Resource Publications).

Was Shealtiel or Pedaiah the Father of Zerubbabel? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=465&b=Haggai

Was Shealtiel or Pedaiah the Father of Zerubbabel?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

If a teenage boy whom you just met told you that his parents were “David and Marie,” but then a few minutes later you overheard him tell a county clerk that he was the son of “John and Joanne,” you might assume that the teen had lied either to you or to the county clerk. The fact of the matter is, however, the teen could be telling the truth. It may be that most people recognize his parents by their middle names—David and Marie, but for more official business his parents use their first names—John and Joanne. Or, perhaps the boy had been reared by his grandparents because his parents had died in a tragic car accident when he was an infant. The boy may refer to his grandparents as “mom” and “dad” since they were the only “mom” and “dad” he ever really knew (experientially). In turn, the grandparents may refer to him as their “son.” In most all unofficial documents and casual conversations the terms “mom,” “dad,” and “son” are used. For nearly all official documents and in most formal conversations, the terms “grandparents” and “grandson” are used. These are two very real possibilities as to why a teenage boy may refer to his parents by different names. Assuming and alleging the worst about the teen without knowing all of the facts would be unfair and inappropriate.

The fact is, family ties are often complicated (and especially confusing to outsiders who are unaware of others’ family history). I met two teenage girls a few years ago who informed me that their mother was also their grandmother. I was puzzled initially. Then they told me (if I recall correctly) that their mother had abandoned the family several years earlier and that their dad eventually married their birth mother’s mother. In time, the girls began calling their grandmother “mom.”

There are many names and family ties in Scripture that can be confusing—even in the genealogy of Jesus. Abraham married Sarah, his half-sister (Genesis 20:12; cf. 17:15-16; 22:17). Their son, Isaac, married Rebekah, his second cousin (Genesis 22:20-23; 24:4,15). Jacob, Abraham’s grandson, married his first cousins, Rachel and Leah, who were sisters (Genesis 24:29; 29:15-30). Years later, Jacob’s son, Judah, committed sexual immorality with his own daughter-in-law (thinking she was a prostitute), and she subsequently gave birth to two sons—Perez and Zerah. In one sense, these boys were his sons; in another sense, they were his grandsons (Genesis 38:12-30).

Zerubbabel is another historical figure in the genealogy of Christ around whom there is some confusion. While the books of Ezra (3:2,8; 5:2), Nehemiah (12:1), Haggai (1:1,12,14; 2:2; 2:23), Matthew (1:12), and Luke (3:27) all indicate that Zerubbabel was the “son of Shealtiel,” the chronicler noted the following about his immediate ancestry: “[T]he sons of Jeconiah, the prisoner, were Shealtiel his son, and Malchiram, Pedaiah, Shenazzar, Jekamiah, Hoshama, and Nedabiah. And the sons of Pedaiah were Zerubbabel and Simei” (1 Chronicles 3:17-19a, NASB, emp. added). The obvious question is: “Why does 1 Chronicles indicate that Pedaiah was Zerubbabel’s father, if everywhere else in Scripture his father is said to be Shealtiel?”

Skeptics are quick to list 1 Chronicles 3:19 as a contradiction. The truth is, however, there are reasonable, potential solutions to this conundrum. First, it may be that Zerubbabel was sired by one brother and reared by another. Recall that Mordecai was a father figure to Queen Esther (he “had brought up” the future queen of Persia; Esther 2:7), though he was actually her cousin. Jesus, “being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph,” was, in reality, “of God,” not of man (Luke 3:23). Joseph helped to rear Jesus, and was perceived to be His biological father (Matthew 13:55), but in no way was he Jesus’ father in the normal sense. The fact is, sometimes a “son” is reared by a “dad,” who is not his father in the strictest sense of the word.

Another legitimate, possible explanation to the differences in the aforementioned verses involves a Law of Moses with which many are unfamiliar—the levirate marriage law. According to Deuteronomy 25:5-6,

If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. And it shall be that the firstborn son which she bears will succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel (emp. added; cf. Matthew 22:24-26).

If Shealtiel had been married, yet died prior to siring a son, his brother Pedaiah may have taken Shealtiel’s wife to be his wife. If such was the case, their firstborn son (Zerubbabel) would be called after Shealtiel, not Pedaiah (even though, in the strict biological sense, Zerubbabel would be Pedaiah’s son).

Admittedly, the Bible does not explain why 1 Chronicles 3:19 differs from the other passages in Scripture that refer to Zerubbabel as Shealtiel’s son. What can be established, however, is that logical possibilities exist for the differences. In truth, without more information, it would be just as unfair to accuse the chronicler of lying about Zerubbabel’s father as it would be to disparage a teenager we meet in the community who refers to his grandfather as his “dad.” Surely we can see the rationality of restraint and the foolishness of jumping to unproven conclusions.

Suggested Resources

Wars and Rumors of Wars by Roy Davison

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/wars.html

Wars and Rumors of Wars

Man likes to forget how evil he is. War is a grim reminder. "Their feet are swift to shed blood; destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace they have not known" (Romans 3:15-17).
In Paul's time the swiftest means of bloodshed was a horse-drawn war chariot or a Roman galley, rowed by slaves. Man has come far since then.
Now he sits in his comfortable control room and directs a rocket to the far side of the earth. From a plane he drops bombs and watches the smoke of destruction billowing toward the sky. He only hears the whine of the engines. He's too far away to hear the moaning and the weeping of those left alive in the rubble. From a hovering helicopter he rains deadly bullets on his fellow man. A pilot in Vietnam had painted on his helicopter: "Killing is our business. Business is fine."
Yes, man has come far since Paul's day. "Their feet are swift to shed blood; destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace they have not known."
In Old Testament times even God's people were involved in war. They longed for peace, just as we do. Through Isaiah, God made a promise. He spoke of a time when the word of the Lord would go forth from Jerusalem and God's people would learn war no more (Isaiah 2:3,4).
God sent His Son to teach us the ways of peace. Two thousand years have passed. Millions give lip service to His words but few really do what He says.
What does Jesus say about war? "You will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom" (Matthew 24:6,7).
"Wars and rumors of wars," that's human history in a nutshell. When men are not fighting a war, they are preparing for one.
And being troubled is the natural reaction to war. When we recall the destruction of recent wars, when we consider the possibility -- if not the probability -- that nuclear weapons will be used again, our hearts skip a beat and our blood runs cold.
Yet Jesus says: "See that you are not troubled," "Do not be afraid." How is this possible? How can we remain calm?
The answer is found in the basic attitudes Jesus taught us to have toward God, toward this world, and toward our fellow man.
War does not alarm a Christian because he trusts in the providence of God.
With the Psalmist we can say: "God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. Therefore we will not fear, though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea" (Psalm 46:1,2).
"Do not be afraid." These words appear more than 25 times in the New Testament.
Even in difficult days the Christian knows, "that all things work together for good to those who love God" (Romans 8:28). "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?" (Romans 8:35). "So we may boldly say: 'The Lord is my helper; I will not fear. What can man do to me?'" (Hebrews 13:6).
The words of Jesus are written on our hearts: "Do not be afraid; only believe" (Luke 8:50).
Our Lord is Ruler of the kings of the earth. What does the King of kings and Lord of lords tell us? "When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be troubled" (Mark 13:7).
War does not alarm a Christian because his mind is not set on earthly things.
"If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth. For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God" (Colossians 3:1- 3).
A Christian is not devoted to possessions. Many people loose their lives in times of war because they try to save their goods.
In connection with the destruction of Jerusalem, Jesus told His disciples to leave their possessions behind: "Let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let him who is on the housetop not come down to take anything out of his house. And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes" (Matthew 24:16-18).
Christians are not to be alarmed by war, but they are instructed to flee the dangers of war, without regard for their goods.
When a Christian's property is destroyed or confiscated, he does not react as worldly people do. We read in Hebrews 10:34, "You had compassion on me in my chains, and joyfully accepted the plundering of your goods, knowing that you have a better and an enduring possession for yourselves in heaven."
A Christian is not alarmed at the loss of his property because his true wealth cannot be taken away. His treasures are in heaven.
Because a Christian sets his mind on things above, he is not even devoted to his physical life.
Jesus says in Luke 12:4,5: "My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him!"
A Christian has already died to this world in Christ. He has eternal life. He is not dismayed at the thought of being killed, because his life is hid with Christ in God.
War is a carnival of Satan. But Satan has no power over a Christian. "Then I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, 'Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death'" (Revelation 12:10,11).
With Paul, a Christian can say: "But none of these things move me; nor do I count my life dear to myself" (Acts 20:24). "For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain" (Philippians 1:21).
A Christian does not war against his fellowman, even for spiritual values, much less for physical life or worldly goods, because his citizenship is in heaven (Philippians 3:20). Jesus told Pilate: "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here" (John 18:36).
A Christian does not war against his fellowman because he is engaged in a nobler battle, a battle, not against nations or men, but against evil. "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds" (2 Corinthians 10:3,4).
Paul tells us to put on the whole armor of God: "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places" (Ephesians 6:12).
The armor of God protects us against the evils of war:
The Christian is not deceived by the false propaganda of war, because his waist is girded with truth.
He is not carried along with the unrighteousness of war, because he wears the breastplate of righteousness.
He has peace in the midst of war, because his feet are shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace.
He is not overcome by doubt, because he holds the shield of faith.
He does not fear destruction, because he wears the helmet of salvation.
He does not dread the sword of man, because he wields the sword of the Spirit.
War is an attempt to overcome evil with evil, at best; or at worst, an attempt to overcome good with evil. A Christian can overcome evil with good because he sets his mind on things above. "Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, 'Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,' says the Lord. Therefore if your enemy hungers, feed him; if he thirsts, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:17-21).
War does not alarm a Christian because he trusts in the providence of God. His mind is not set on things of this world. He is not enslaved to possessions or even to physical life. His citizenship is in heaven. He overcomes evil with good. With this mentality, he is able to obey the command of Christ: "When you hear of wars and commotions, do not be terrified" (Luke 21:9).
A Christian is not alarmed by war because he loves his fellowman.
Motivated by this love, he is a peacemaker, not a warmonger. And when does the world need peacemakers more than in times of war. "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God" (Matthew 5:9).
In 1 John 4:18 we read: "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear." Hate for our enemies makes us afraid. When we love our enemies and do good to them, we foil Satan and overcome fear.
How should we treat our enemies? Are we to shoot them? Drop bombs on their cities? Destroy or pollute their water supply? What does Jesus tell us? "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect" (Matthew 5:43-48). With this attitude toward our enemies, war becomes a special opportunity to do good and to demonstrate to the world that we are truly followers of Christ.
Peter had trouble learning this lesson.
He was ready to fight and die for Jesus. He drew his sword to defend Christ, and cut off a man's ear.
Jesus reprimanded Peter and healed the man -- someone who came out to arrest Him so He could be crucified.
Peter had learned to love his Lord. But he had not yet learned to love his enemy. And because of that weak love, he was afraid -- so afraid that he denied Christ three times to avoid admitting that he had been in the garden.
Like Peter, many Christians have learned to love the Lord but they have not yet learned to love their enemies. They place more trust in worldly force than in the providence of God. And they are afraid of war.
Christians who wage war have reason to be afraid. The warning Jesus gave to Peter also applies to them: "Put your sword in its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Matthew 26:52). This principle is repeated in Revelation 13:10: "He who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword."
Peter learned his lesson. After that he did battle with the sword of the Spirit. And many years later he penned these words: "For this is commendable, if because of conscience toward God one endures grief, suffering wrongfully. For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer for it, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God. For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: 'Who committed no sin nor was guile found in His mouth'; who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously" (1 Peter 2:19-23).
"And who is he who will harm you if you become followers of what is good? But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you are blessed. And do not be afraid of their threats, nor be troubled" (1 Peter 3:13,14).
What is the Christian attitude to war?
Wars and rumors of wars: automatic rifles, tanks, helicopters, planes, missiles, land mines and bombs. War will be with us until that Day when the Father says, "Enough!" and a new age begins.
Meanwhile Christians are not troubled. We trust in the providence of God. Our treasures are in heaven. Our physical life is not precious to us if only we may serve the Lord during the time He gives us. For us, to live is Christ and to die is gain. We fight the good fight of faith. With our whole heart we fight against evil by doing good. We love our enemies, and follow Christ to the cross, and beyond the cross to the eternal city where rumors of wars shall be heard no more.
"And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of sorrows. Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name's sake. And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. But he who endures to the end shall be saved" (Matthew 24:6-13).

Roy Davison

The Scripture quotations in this article are from
The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982,
Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers unless indicated otherwise.
Permission for reference use has been granted.

Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

Atheism by Gary Rose

There has been a concerted effort during the past few decades to ridicule belief in God. Consider the reasoning in the picture and ask yourself- how much sense does this make?

But God says....

Psalm 14 (WEB)

 ¹  The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”...

Psalm 53 (WEB)

  ¹  The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”...

Notice one simple thing- God repeats himself for emphasis!!!  Perhaps the second time was in case the reader wasn't paying attention the first time!!!

hummm..

Without God

There is only this life.

There is no hope for your loved ones; they are dead and its completely finished (except for the rotting corpse, of course).

Civility and morals make no sense- just do what you want, when you want.

Human being become animals and society is brutal.

Then, there is the continuation of this thought from the previous passages, more completely quoted....

Psalm 14 (WEB)

 ¹  The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”

They are corrupt.

They have done abominable works.

There is no one who does good.

  ² Yahweh looked down from heaven on the children of men,

to see if there were any who understood,

who sought after God.

  ³ They have all gone aside.

They have together become corrupt.

There is no one who does good, no, not one.

Psalm 53 (WEB)

¹  The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”

They are corrupt, and have done abominable iniquity.

There is no one who does good.

  ² God looks down from heaven on the children of men,

to see if there are any who understood,

who seek after God.

  ³ Every one of them has gone back.

They have become filthy together.

There is no one who does good, no, not one.

These verses are essentially identical and for good reason: Without God, human beings degenerate into unreasoning animals.

The Scripture says "The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” 

for a very good reason-

TRUTH