The Historical Reliability of the Four Canonical Gospels

Some skeptical scholars date the Gospels late (70-100AD) and claim that they are largely the invention of the early Greek-speaking church, presenting an idolized, “politically-correct” Jesus. However, against this position, there are many powerful, objective reasons to suppose that the Gospels are historically authentic and paint an accurate picture of Jesus’ ministry (27-30AD). Here are several:

1. Multiple Attestations

2. Extra-Biblical Confirmation (Archeological and Explicit Affirmations)

3. Embarrassing Revelations (“My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” “Let this cup pass from Me!” Apostles are consistently presented in a negative light.) It seems that accuracy and not fabrication had been the goal of the Gospel writers.

4. Apostolic Credibility (They had nothing to gain by starting a new religion, but the martyrdom that eventually befell them. Besides, there is no evidence that any of them had ever reneged on their testimony, even when they would have been granted their lives by doing so.)

5. Even if we take the late dating suggested by the critics (70-100AD), there still would have been eyewitnesses present to contradict any fabrications. This would have made it very difficult to promote a fabricated Jesus.

6. Jesus’ teachings are difficult to understand and to live - “If your eye cause you to sin, pluck it out,” “sell all you have”- and therefore not likely to have been fabricated.

7. Jesus’ teachings were far more cryptic than what the early church would have invented to justify their own positions.

8. Jesus’ associations with society’s rejects.

9. Jesus’ words (Aramaic usage – “abba”) and figures of speech reflect early 1^st century Israelite culture.

10. Jesus demonstrated a thorough knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures and even their poetic structures, something that would have been very difficult for the early church to pull off.

However, New Testament scholar, Craig Evans, has presented another line of reasoning to argue against the notion of a fabricated Jesus:

• The oft-heard assertion that many of the sayings [of Jesus] were generated by questions and issues that the early church faced is called into doubt by the observation that many of these questions and issues (as seen in the New Testament letters) are nowhere addressed by the sayings of Jesus. There was disagreement over the question of circumcision, eating meat sacrificed to idols, spiritual gifts, Jew-Gentile relations, and the qualifications for church office, but not a saying of Jesus speaks to any of these questions. This shows that the Gospel writers were not in the habit of making things up. There is every reason then, to conclude…that the Gospels have fairly and accurately reported the essential elements of Jesus’ teachings, life death and resurrection. (Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels, 234)

Evans argues that if the early church had invented the words of Jesus to settle one of their many controversies, they would have invented different words and subjects that would have been a greater concern for them. In conclusion, there is absolutely no evidence that the Jesus of the four Canonical Gospels represents the fabrication of the early church.

The New Secular Religion and its Opposition to Prayer

Here’s one more story out of thousands on the same exact subject:

• For years, the Vermont town of Franklin near the Canadian border started Town Meeting with a prayer. A lawsuit stopped that from happening this year…Since the town votes from the floor and residents have to attend to be heard, the Vermont Chapter of the ACLU says residents are being compelled to attend religious worship.

What’s the matter with this picture? Well, let me suggest several flaws:

1. Perhaps the main one is that this violates the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…”

2. Historically, prayer had been part of the Congressional meetings of the USA. Evidently, no one then believed that prayer violated the Constitution.

3. There is no compelling reason for the Fed to trump local sovereignty. What if 90% of the community wants prayer in council meeting? Why should the values or religion of the federal government impose itself on a local, popularly chosen practice?

4. All laws and judgments reflect a certain values orientation, and these judgments are necessarily religious in nature. It seems hypocritical of the Federal government to censure the town council for a religious practice, when the Fed’s imposition is also religious. It is also hypocritical for the ACLU to fault the council that it “compelled [residents] to attend religious worship,” while the Fed and the ACLU are practicing their own forms of compulsion.

5. It is therefore hypocritical to discriminate against Christianity and not against other forms of religions. Our public schools have become indoctrination camps for the religions of naturalism, multi-culturalism, moral-relativism, and sexual permissiveness. While it is acceptable to present arguments in favor of sexual license, arguments to the contrary have been deemed “religious” and therefore proscribed.

6. Any public school student is “compelled” to do many things that they don’t want to do. It is therefore not enough to censure a council because it “compelled” its guests to be subjected to a prayer. This is certainly preferable to being compelled to hear the lies and distortions coming out of many meetings. In fact, we are compelled to do many things that go against our values. We have to pay taxes and drive within the speed limits.

7. There is no neutrality. A prayer-less council meeting represents an imposition of another kind – one that can be equally offensive to religious people. This enforced silence conveys the ideas of secular humanism - the belief that prayer is not necessary.

8. A democratic nation must rule by the consent of its people. If it fails to do so, it will loose this consent and thrust the nation into turmoil. There are no vital national at stake to justify squelching diversity and the will of local communities. There are no reasons why the Fed must enforce uniformity. Such enforcement pushes us closer to having a totalitarian state.

We tend to forget that our legal climate wasn’t always this way.  Up until recently, it has been characterized by the understanding that living together required tolerance and the respect for the conscience and free expression of others, even for those with whom we disagreed. For example, in 1940, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case involving Jehovah Witness children who refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance. Justice Felix Frankfurter argued for the majority that our common national interests for patriotic cohesiveness required the Pledge. In response, Justice Harlan Stone retorted that religious liberty argued for,

·             “The freedom of the individual from compulsion as to what he shall think and what he shall say, at least where the compulsion is to bear false witness to his religion.”

According to Stone, our freedom of religion and expression should even take precedence over certain national interests. In contrast, now even the passing fads of political correctness have been elevated over our religious freedoms.

Thankfully, Frankfurter’s decision did not stand. In 1943, in a very similar case, Justice Robert Jackson wrote for the majority and affirmed:

·             “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

Sadly, now an invasive national orthodoxy is attempting to squelch all expressions of religious diversity. In contrast, in 1965, the Court heard a case that directly impacted national security but ruled to grant qualified U.S. citizens the status of “conscientious objector.” However, this designation could only be given to “those persons who by reason of their religious training and belief are conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form.” 

This was a ruling that would certainly be divisive and could actually compromise national security. However, there was still enough respect for religion and the sanctity of the conscience that the court overruled national security concerns. Even the liberal Justice Stephen O. Douglas concurred with the majority:

·              “…any person opposed to war on the basis of a sincere belief, which in his life fills the same place as a belief in God fills in the life of the orthodox religionist, is entitled to exemption under the statute.”

Even in this critical area where there were legitimate concerns about national security, the Court ruled against imposing a uniform solution. Respect for sincerely held faith was deemed more important than the immediate national interests. How far have we come!

Koran Burning, Apologies, Confrontation and Free Speech

In this age of Islamic violence, our right to free speech is undergoing reconsideration. George Stephanopoulos lamented the fact that Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer thought that Koran burning might be added as an exception to free speech – like crying fire in a crowded theatre:

• But Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer told me on “GMA” that he’s not prepared to conclude that — in the internet age — the First Amendment condones Koran burning. 

However, the court has protected free speech in the past, even when offensive and encouraged criminal behavior, according to Charles Lane of the Washington Post:

• Over time, the court developed today's standard, which allows even the advocacy of illegal conduct unless it is both intended, and likely, to incite "imminent lawless action." Indeed, in 1949 the court allowed a Chicago demagogue to make a racist speech in a packed theater, even though police said it would cause an opposing crowd outside to riot: "A function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute," the court opined. "It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger." And, of course, in 1989 the court upheld a constitutional right to burn the American flag, despite arguments by proponents of a ban that flag-burning might trigger riots by offended patriots. 

We live in an age when just about everyone is offended by one word or another. If offense became a basis to disqualify speech, then there would remain little to say apart from, “It’s a nice day today!”

Free speech is the grease of a democratic society. Without it, no society can remain robust, dynamic, and accountable to its citizens. We sometimes need to hear unpleasant ideas. So where does Koran burning fit into this picture, especially in view of the fact that innocent people are murdered because of this.

Should the prevention of such offenses be the goal of Christian love or would this “love” enable unacceptable behavior?

Sometimes, love must be expressed as a “tough love” – a love that requires dialogue and confrontation rather than placation. If my son refused to ever do the dishes but demonstrated that instead he was willing to joyfully do any other chore that I might require of him, I might be insensitive to push for confrontation and “tough love.” Perhaps he merely has a strong aversion to dishes for some inexplicable reason, while he demonstrates a willingness to cooperate in a hundred other ways. I think, in this case, wisdom would require that I indulge him.

However, this is not the case with Koran burning. If the burning of Korans was only the offense, I would argue for indulgence. However, there seems to be an endless list of unpardonable offenses. This intolerance is partly fueled by the Koran, which forbids any form of criticism of Islam:

• [Surah 33:57-58] Those who insult God and His Messenger will be rejected by God in this world and the next—He has prepared a humiliating punishment for them—and those who undeservedly insult believing men and women will bear the guilt of slander and obvious sin. (Haleem)

• [Surah 33:59-61] Prophet, tell your wives, your daughters, and women believers to make their outer garment hang low over them, so as to be recognized and not insulted. God is most forgiving, most merciful. If the hypocrites, the sick of heart, and those who spread lies in the city [Medina] do not desist, We shall arouse you [Prophet] against them, and then they will only be your neighbors in this city for a short while. They will be rejected wherever they are found, and then seized and killed. (Haleem)

Consistent with the above surahs, James Arlandson recounts one of the sayings of Mohammad through which he okayed his followers to kill someone taunting him:

• “Angered by the poems and now able to strike back after the Battle of Badr, Muhammad had had enough. He asked, "Who would rid me of [Kab]?" Five Muslims volunteered, one of whom was Kab’s foster-brother named Abu Naila. They informed him, "O apostle of God [Muhammad], we shall have to tell lies." He answered, "Say what you like, for you are free in the matter." (Arlandson, 5)

Instead of indulgence, confrontation is required. Questions need to be asked. Are Muslims willing to be part of a Western democracy where their beliefs will be questioned and subjected to criticism? Will they retaliate violently? Do they even believe in democracy or merely the imposition of Shariah Law, making everyone else second class citizens?

If we believe in free speech and its necessity for a healthy society and transparent relationships, then we need to ask these questions. We don’t need to burn Korans, but I think that there are many valid concerns that are being buried out of fear, hoping that they will just disappear.

Proof of the New Testament

When we think of proofs for the New Testament (NT) as the very Word of God, our thoughts usually turn to the miracles and fulfilled prophecies of the NT. We might also think about its wisdom and how faith in its Gospel message has transformed lives and societies. We might even point to extra-biblical testimony, including archeological finds. However, many are unaware of another highly impressive body of proofs – the NT/OT (Old Testament) harmony.

Jesus expressed this harmony to the Pharisees in terms of the correspondence between Himself (and what He taught) and what the Hebrew Scriptures had always taught:

• “You do not believe the one he sent. You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me.” (John 5:38-39)

His declaration meant that He and His message didn’t represent innovations – creative outpourings – but the very message and Person of the Hebrew Scriptures. He was the embodiment of everything that the Pharisees should have understood.

The Apostle Paul said the same thing but in a different way. While making his defense before the Roman governor, Festus, and King Agrippa, Paul asserted:

• “I stand here and testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen-- that the Christ would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would proclaim light to his own people and to the Gentiles." (Acts 26:22-23)

Paul explained that, far from deviating from the Jewish revelation, he was opening it up to show its fulfillment in the promised Messiah.

At this point, the Jewish scholars and rabbis alike will protest. In The Jew and the Christian Missionary, Gerald Sigal dissents:

• The New Testament misinterprets our Hebrew Scriptures claiming that the Mosaic Covenant kills and is superseded by a new one. Instead, Scripture teaches that God’s Word doesn’t change (Isaiah 40:8) and that the Commandments impart life (Psalm 119).”

God’s Word certainly “doesn’t change.” In line with this fact, we find much OT evidence that the “Mosaic Covenant” came to perform only a temporary ministration by preparing a way for the promised Messiah. For one thing, it placed everyone under a curse, teaching Israel that their lives depended upon the sheer, unmerited mercy of God:

• "Cursed is the man who does not uphold the words of this law by carrying them out." Then all the people shall say, "Amen!" (Deut. 27:26)

The Prophets of Israel also revealed that the mosaic covenant was temporary:

• "Return, O backsliding children," says the LORD; "for I am married to you. I will take you, one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion. And I will give you shepherds according to My heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding. Then it shall come to pass, when you are multiplied and increased in the land in those days," says the LORD, "that they will say no more, 'The ark of the covenant of the LORD.' It shall not come to mind, nor shall they remember it, nor shall they visit it, nor shall it be made anymore.”  (Jeremiah 3:14-16; also Isaiah 65:17)

Jeremiah cryptically revealed that the Mosaic Covenant had a limited place in time. The “ark of the covenant” would no longer be remembered, sought, visited or made. The ark contained the Ten Commandments and represented the Covenant with Moses more centrally than any other symbol.

Other evidences reveal that the life of this Covenant was specifically related to a particular people and a particular land:

• You shall not at all do as we are doing here today--every man doing whatever is right in his own eyes-- for as yet you have not come to the rest and the inheritance which the LORD your God is giving you. (Deut. 12:8-9) 

Although some requirements of the Mosaic Covenant (MC) were in place as the Jewish nation wandered the desert for 40 years, it is also obvious that Israel was free in regards to much of the Covenant. They were doing “whatever is right in [their] own eyes,” because they had not yet entered the land. Instead, it was the promised “seed” of the woman (Gen. 3:15) who would have universal and eternal application. It was the “branch” coming from the lineage of David who would set up an everlasting kingdom to which even the Gentiles would come (Isaiah 9:6-7; 11:1-10). It wouldn’t depend on the success of Jewish law-keeping under the MC, just as the NT reveals!

Consistent with this, the OT never once describes the MC as “eternal” or “everlasting.” Instead, it is the other covenants that are described in this way:

1.                  THE COVENANT GOD GAVE TO NOAH—“The rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will look on it to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth." Genesis 9:16

2.                  TO THE PATRIARCHS-  Then God said: "No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him. Genesis 17:19; Psalm 105:9-10; 1 Chron. 16:15-17)

3.                  TO DAVID- "Although my house is not so with God, yet He has made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and secure. For this is all my salvation and all my desire; will He not make it increase? (2 Samuel 23:5; Isa 55:3)

In contrast, for the Orthodox Jew, everything rides upon the MC. Consequently, Jewish scholar, David Klinghoffer writes,

• Theologically, we may put the truth in one word: Sinai. Jews have always considered the meaning of their existence to be summarized in the event before the mountain of God where they encamped…to hear God’s commandments. It was the moment of birth for the Jewish people…There was no other purpose to Jewish existence---To abandon those commandments [as becoming Christian would cause them to do] was to abandon the whole meaning of Jewish existence. (Why the Jews Rejected Jesus)

Although Moses’ “commandments” were regarded as “the whole meaning of Jewish existence,” the Hebrew Scriptures do not seem to agree – never once indicating that the MC would endure eternally. In fact, Jeremiah explicitly tells us otherwise:

• "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. (Jeremiah 31:31-33)

This “new covenant” would not resemble the MC. Jeremiah adds:

• “Then I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me forever, for the good of them and their children after them. And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from doing them good; but I will put My fear in their hearts so that they will not depart from Me. Yes, I will rejoice over them to do them good, and I will assuredly plant them in this land, with all My heart and with all My soul.” (Jeremiah 32:39-41)

By itself, the MC lacked the provisions to keep Israel from departing from their God. The “new covenant” would change all that, guaranteeing that God would never turn away from them.

And Jeremiah wasn’t the only prophet to talk about this ultimate hope of Israel – a brand “new covenant.” Perhaps all of the prophets, if not explicitly, pointed in the direction of this Messianic hope. The Prophet Ezekiel wrote:

• “Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them…Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them, and it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; I will establish them and multiply them” (Ezekiel 36:25-27; 37:26)

The Prophet Hosea reveals just how extensively the new covenant would depart from the old:

• “In that day I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, with the birds of the air, and with the creeping things of the ground. Bow and sword of battle I will shatter from the earth, to make them lie down safely. I will betroth you to Me forever; yes, I will betroth you to Me in righteousness and justice, in lovingkindness and mercy.” (Hosea 2:18-19)

This prophecy about the NC must have been shocking to Israel. They would become the wife of God – so utterly different from the MC! Such intimacy was utterly unthinkable under the MC, where an Israelite was forbidden to even enter into the presence of God! Something would have to radically change! Israel’s God promised that He would no longer be angry with them:

• "For this is like the waters of Noah to Me; for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah would no longer cover the earth, so have I sworn that I would not be angry with you, nor rebuke you. For the mountains shall depart and the hills be removed, but My kindness shall not depart from you, nor shall My covenant of peace be removed," says the LORD, who has mercy on you. (Isaiah 54:9-10; 59:21; 61:8-9)

But what would change to take away this anger and bring Israel into intimacy with their Savior? Ezekiel explained that God would have to provide a mysterious atonement:

• I will establish an everlasting covenant with you. Then you will remember your ways and be ashamed… And I will establish My covenant with you. Then you shall know that I am the LORD, that you may remember and be ashamed, and never open your mouth anymore because of your shame, when I provide you an atonement for all you have done," says the Lord GOD. (Ezekiel 16:60-63)

Of course, the NT recognizes this atonement as Messianic – the very blood of Jesus the Messiah! Of course, the rabbis will strongly protest this conclusion. The rabbis of today even dispute the idea that blood atonement is necessary. Rabbi David Rosen writes:

• Judaism does not accept the idea of vicarious atonement. We can only atone for our own sins and are responsible for our own actions.

• Our ancient sages affirm that… “sincere repentance and works of lovingkindness (charity) are the real intercessors before God’s throne” (TB Shabbat 32A) and that “sincere repentance is the equivalent to the rebuilding of the Temple, the restoration of the altar and the offering of all the sacrifices” (TB Sanhedrin 43B). In terms of Jewish understanding of the sacrificial rites in the temple, while the blood of the sacrifice did indeed represent life, it was seen precisely in a representational role symbolizing “the complete yielding up of the worshipper’s life to God” (citing Hertz, Pentateuch and Haftorahs)

David Klinghoffer adds:

• The idea that penitence was not enough would have come as a surprise to the large majority of first-century Jews, who lived in the Diaspora and therefore had no regular access to the Temple rites. In not availing themselves of these rites at all times, they were relying on scripture, which taught that forgiveness could be secured without sacrifice.

Klinghoffer is probably wrong that this idea would have surprised 1^st century Jews (John 11:50). However, in any event, substitutionary atonement blankets the entire MC. Animal sacrifices weren’t gentle suggestions; they were mandates. If Israel failed to offer an atoning animal, they would bear their sins and their consequences. However, this wasn’t the atonement that God had promised Israel. It was a special atonement – one that God Himself would make on behalf of Israel (Deut. 32:43; Psalm 79:9), as He had revealed to Abraham on Mt. Moriah (Gen. 22). A child would be born, rejected, and sacrificed for the sins of the world:

• He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:3-6)

 This is the Messiah of whom all the Prophets pointed to, the Messiah revealed in the NT. Of course, the present-day rabbis protest that this account couldn’t be about the Messiah. However, the ancient Jewish sage Maimonides was of a different mind:

• “Yet he carried our sicknesses, being himself sick and distressed for the transgressions which should have caused sickness and distress in us, and bearing the pains which we ought to have experienced [53:4): But we, when we saw him weakened and prostrate, thought we were healed [53:5] – because the stripes by which he was vexed and distressed will heal us: God will pardon us for his righteousness and we shall be healed from our own transgressions and from the iniquities of our fathers.”

Likewise, the highly esteemed Zohar states:

• The children of the world are members one of another. When the Holy One desires to give healing to the world, he smites one just man amongst them, and for his sake heals all the rest. Whence do we learn this? From the saying, “He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities.” (NUMBERS, PINCHUS 218a, - Isaiah 53:5).”

I find it incredible that the uneducated writers of the NT – simple men - displayed such an accurate understanding of the OT Scriptures - the traditional domain of only the highly educated! Meanwhile, the highly educated profoundly misunderstood them. How can we explain this? Jesus explained it this way:

• He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.” (Matthew 13:11)

For those of us who approach the Scriptures with an open mind, this truth has become very clear.

   

The Illegality of the Bible

Scripture has often been deemed offensive. Possession and the use of the Bible have often faced legal hurdles, sometimes costing the very life of its owner. However, the Bible has also seen better times:

• JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, our sixth president said, "So great is my veneration of the Bible that the earlier my children begin to read it, the more confident will be my hope that they will prove useful citizens to their country and respectable members of society. I have for many years made it a practice to read through the Bible once a year."

• JOHN ADAMS, our second president said, "The Bible is the best book in the world." He also believed, "Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their own law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited...what a utopia; what a paradise this region would be!"

Consequently, under the direction of such widespread sentiments, pray and the Bible had even found an abiding home within the halls of the United States Congress. However, its high national regard is quickly deteriorating. Rather than being prescribed reading, the Bible is now often proscribed! Here’s one recent example:

• The Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Ohio has agreed to weigh the arguments in a case involving elementary students who were prevented from reading the Bible on the school's playground during recess.

• Samuel and Tina Whitson, parents of Knoxville (TN) student Luke Whitson, filed suit in June 2005, claiming Karns Elementary School principal Cathy Summa violated their son's First Amendment rights by stopping the Bible studies. They chose to pursue the matter even though the school soon thereafter changed its policy to permit students to read religious texts during their own time. A Knoxville jury sided with the school district in 2009 and a U.S. district judge turned down a request to overturn that decision, prompting the appeal.

The Bible has been banned for numerous reasons. Some kings had perceived that the Bible had dignified the common man – the masses – and this might make them less manageable. Others banned the Bible because they wanted a monopoly on religion and feared that once the masses had the Bible in hand, their monopoly would be shattered.

Today, our secular authorities cry out, “separation of church and state,” as if using a Bible in the public schools would violate the First Amendment. Such an argument is highly disingenuous, especially in light of how those who have venerated the First Amendment exalted the use of the Bible:

• Our first president, GEORGE WASHINGTON said, "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."

Certainly, Washington saw no conflict between government and the use of the Bible.

• Our third president, THOMAS JEFFERSON said, "The Bible is the source of liberty." He further stated, "The Bible makes the best people in the world."

Clearly, Even the deistic Jefferson understood that the public use of the Bible constituted no violation of the “separation” clause. How could "The Bible [be] the source of liberty," if it is to be hidden under a bushel basket as many are today demanding? It could only “make…the best people in the world" if it is openly used.

By attempting to separate the Bible from any public use, the secularists may be using a slight-of-the-hand by appealing to the First Amendment – the very Amendment which guarantees that government would not prohibit the free exercise of religion in any context.

If the secularists’ are not concerned about the intention of the Constitution, then from where does their concern arise? I think that Jesus would have had something to say about this:

• "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember the words I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. (John 15:18-20)

In Defense of Rush

I am not going to defend Rush Limbaugh for calling the 30-year-old Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute,” and neither does he. (Fluke had argued that she was entitled to insurance coverage for her birth control pills, even though this would force Christian institutions to subsidize them against their beliefs.)

However, the left-leaning Mainstream Media seems to be taking a hypocritical stance by trying to eliminate Limbaugh, while they themselves have a well-established history of going beyond a few offensive words to an avalanche of words amounting to character assassination. Newsbusters details some of these:

• Everyone remembers Ed Schultz calling Laura Ingraham a “slut” on his radio show.

• MSNBC suspended him for a week, but none of Schultz’s advertisers dropped his show under media pressure. There was no pressure. Some of the same sponsors now pulling out of Rush’s show still support Schultz.

• What Schultz said is nothing compared to his colleagues.

• Fellow talk show host Mike Malloy hoped Sarah Palin “drives herself into madness” and insisted Michele Bachmann is an “evil bitch from Hell” who would have gladly supervised the Holocaust.

• Montel Williams rooted on Air America for Bachmann to slit her own wrist or throat.

• Randi Rhodes insisted that teenage boys weren’t safe from Palin’s advances if they stayed over at her house. There’s no news coverage or “war on women” narrative when the mud-covered women are conservatives.

• Maybe these hosts aren’t prominent enough?

• Then consider the case study of Bill Maher, who’s welcomed all over TV news shows.

• A year ago on his HBO show, he called Sarah Palin a “dumb twat.”

• He followed up days later in a Dallas stand-up routine by calling Palin the C-word.

• Last July on HBO, he said Palin was “a bully who sells patriotism like a pimp, and the leader of a strange family of inbred weirdos.”

• Last September on his show, Maher said Palin would have sex with Rick Perry if he was black.

• Maher bragged on his show Friday critics can’t touch him because “I don’t have sponsors.” But that doesn’t mean he should be coddled, either, and yet he’s regularly honored across the media as a special guest, be it news networks or entertainment shows.

• Days after he called Palin the T-word, he appeared with then-CNN host Eliot Spitzer, where Spitzer concluded, “Your show is brilliant. I love watching it.”

• On Sunday, Democratic Party chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz huffed on “Meet the Press” that "I don't know any woman in America that thinks that being called a slut is funny." But two months ago, she accepted an invitation to sit on the set with the man who called Palin a “c---.”

• Limbaugh has been singled out and condemned across the national media – ABC, CBS, NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, Associated Press, The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and USA Today. 

Character assassination has become a team sport, where only the winning liberal team is allowed to play. Such hypocrisy is egregious and unacceptable, especially when coming from an institution charged with the important task of providing oversight and accountability for a democratic nation – an institution that has therefore been granted special First Amendment protections.

The late Andrew Breitbart saw through the Media hypocrisy and wrote:

• “For these people to tell me with a straight face that they don’t come to the media and their jobs from a political perspective, from a left-of-center perspective, is just a bald-faced lie.”

• “I want to break down this politically correct paradigm. These are rules that tell conservatives: you're not allowed to say this, you're not allowed to think that. This type of Orwellian thought crime crap is what I'm fighting against." 

And we have a long way to go! (Please view one of the last Breitbart interviews: http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/the-need-for-the-right-voice/1445859698001)

Confidence in Our Four Canonical Gospel Accounts

Why should we be confident that our four canonical Gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – are the very Gospels that our Lord would want us to have? Skepticism about this was given new life in 1946 when the Gnostic Gospels (GG) were uncovered at an Egyptian site – Nag Hamadi. Although we had already known about these “gospels” from the writings of the Church Fathers, who excoriated them, in many cases, this was the first time that scholars actually had them in hand.

Since then, some extreme voices have declared that these “gospels” are just as valid as the Biblical ones. Dan Brown’s fictional work, The DaVinci Code, even expounded the position that the church had used all of these “gospels” until the Council of Nicea in 315 when they were finally banned. However, there are many compelling reasons to retain our confidence in the four Canonical Gospels (CG):

1. The GGs reflect a theology alien to the Bible and more in line with Greek and Eastern thought. For instance, they maintain that the creation is evil, created by an evil sub-god. This directly contradicts the Biblical creation account which holds that God had regarded the creation as “very good” (Genesis 1:31). In contrast, the CGs do not contradict the Hebrew Scriptures in any way – exactly what we’d expect to find if God is the author of all.

2. The GGs are all pseudonymous – falsely attributed to an Apostle. This was clearly a device used in hope of gaining acceptance within the church. In contrast, the CGs are all unnamed. Seemingly, they had nothing to prove and were concerned more about truth than in gaining acceptance.

                                                                                          

3. The GGs are consistently dated late into the 2nd century and therefore could never have been regarded as Apostolic or as eyewitness accounts. In contrast, the CGs are all dated within the 1^st century, even by the skeptics. One liberal scholar, J.A.T. Robinson had dated the CGs 40-65 AD. The Church Fathers all contend that the Gospels were Apostolic. Consistent with this, they claim that Mark’s Gospel recorded Peter’s eyewitness accounts, while Luke’s Gospel reflects Paul’s sermons.

4. The CGs were universally accepted by the church. There was never any indication that the church had ever questioned any of the four. In contrast, the GGs were accepted by none! No ancient Bible manuscripts contain them alongside of other NT writings. The only times that a Church Father quoted them was when he wanted to criticize them. Even the Gnostic philosophers never cited them as canonical. Nor did they write commentaries on them. Meanwhile, they did write commentaries on a couple of the CGs!

5. The Gnostic philosophers site the NT CGs as authoritative. One Gnostic philosopher, Marcion 160 AD, identified his “bible” as containing simply the Gospel of Luke and ten of Paul’s Epistles. None of the Gnostics ever cited GGs as part of their bible.

6. While all of the ancient canonical lists contain the four CGs, they never contain any of the GG.

7. The Gnostics either claimed that they had been privileged to have received secret knowledge from the Apostles or from within. However, they were never able to produce any evidence of such a transmission of material. Nor is there any evidence that the GGs were ever part of anyone’s church. In fact, the Church Father Irenaeus (180) attempted to check out their claims by interviewing a number of church elders who would have knowledge of any secret transmission of teachings. However, he reports that they were all unaware of any such teachings.

8. The CGs are all God-centered. As such, even the Apostles are portrayed in a disparaging light. Clearly, the CGs are not self-promoting, but instead, seem committed to presenting a factual picture of the life of Jesus. In contrast, the GGs are very self-promoting. It is only the superior who are capable of understanding their secret message and of being saved.

9. The GGs disappeared, while the CGs remained. The Bible declares that the Word of God endure forever (Isaiah 40:8). This certainly could not be said about the GGs!

Our Lord has promised that He would protect His Word. We therefore can assume that we have the books that He has ordained.