Please watch the video to the right.
World Of Heraldry
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Oaths
In my life I have sworn several oaths. I swore an oath when I joined the Military, I swore an oath when I joined the Sheriff's Office, and I swore an oath as an Eagle Scout. I consider all of those oaths binding to this day. I have not abandoned them. Unfortunately the BSA has abandoned their oath. I now renounce my Eagle Scout Award and any affiliation with the BS of A, though I still hold true to the Scout oath.
The Meaning of the Boy Scout Oath
Excerpted from page 45-46, Boy Scout Handbook, 11th ed,
(#33105), copyright 1998 by BSA, ISBN 0-8395-3105-2
(#33105), copyright 1998 by BSA, ISBN 0-8395-3105-2
and from page 420-421, Webelos Scout Book, 1998 edition,
(#33108), copyright 1998 by BSA, ISBN 0-8395-3108-7
(#33108), copyright 1998 by BSA, ISBN 0-8395-3108-7
Before you pledge yourself to any oath or promise, you must know what it means. The paragraphs that follow will help you understand the meaning of the Scout Oath.
On my honor . . .
By giving your word, you are promising to be guided by the ideals of the Scout Oath.
. . . I will do my best . . .
Try hard to live up to the points of the Scout Oath. Measure your achievements against your own high standards and don't be influenced by peer pressure or what other people do.
. . . To do my duty to God . . .
Your family and religious leaders teach you about God and the ways you can serve. You do your duty to God by following the wisdom of those teachings every day and by respecting and defending the rights of others to practice their own beliefs.
. . . and my country . . .
Help keep the United States a strong and fair nation by learning about our system of government and your responsibilities as a citizen and future voter.
America is made up of countless families and communities. When you work to improve your community and your home, you are serving your country. Natural resources are another important part of America's heritage worthy of your efforts to understand, protect, and use wisely. What you do can make a real difference.
. . . and to obey the Scout Law; . . .
The twelve points of the Scout Law are guidelines that can lead you toward wise choices. When you obey the Scout Law, other people will respect you for the way you live, and you will respect yourself.
. . . To help other people at all times; . . .
There are many people who need you. Your cheerful smile and helping hand will ease the burden of many who need assistance. By helping out whenever possible, you are doing your part to make this a better world.
. . . To keep myself physically strong, . . .
Take care of your body so that it will serve you well for an entire lifetime. That means eating nutritious foods, getting enough sleep, and exercising regularly to build strength and endurance. it also means avoiding harmful drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and anything else that can harm your health.
. . . mentally awake, . . .
Develop your mind both in the classroom and outside of school. Be curious about everything around you, and work hard to make the most of your abilities. With an inquiring attitude and the willingness to ask questions, you can learn much about the exciting world around you and your role in it.
. . . and morally straight.
To be a person of strong character, your relationships with others should be honest and open. You should respect and defend the rights of all people. Be clean in your speech and actions, and remain faithful in your religious beliefs. The values you practice as a Scout will help you shape a life of virtue and self-reliance.
Note that the Boy Scout Oath has traditionally been considered to have three promises. Those three promises are delineated by the semicolons in the Oath, which divide it into three clauses. The three promises of the Scout Oath are, therefore:
- Duty to God and country,
- Duty to other people, and
- Duty to self
DUTY TO GOD AND COUNTRY: Your FAMILY and religious leaders teach you to know and serve God. By following these teachings, you do your duty to God.
Men and women of the past worked to make America great, and many gave their lives for their country. By being a good family member and a good citizen, by working for your country's good and obeying its laws, you do your duty to your country. Obeying the Scout Law means living by its 12 points.
DUTY TO OTHER PEOPLE: Many people need help. A cheery smile and a helping hand make life easier for others. By doing a Good Turn daily and helping when you're needed, you prove yourself a Scout and do your part to make this a better world.
DUTY TO SELF: Keeping yourself physically strong means taking care of your body. Eat the right foods and build your strength. Staying mentally awake means learn all you can, be curious, and ask questions. Being morally straight means to live your life with honesty, to be clean in your speech and actions, and to be a person of strong character.
Emphasis added
The Anglican Problem
I am a literalist. The Bible was “God breathed” it is the inspired word of God and infallible. If any writings of man contradict the Bible then the Bible is the fall back and only truth. While I rely on the writings of man to inspire me to dig deeper, or to offer insights that the Holy Spirit has shown them, the truth is always in the word. Solo Scriptura is my motto. If you can invalidate even one small part of the scriptures you have destroyed the whole. We cannot pick and choose the scriptures we like and ignore the rest, (see the current scandal with the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopalian church and her statements in Curacao).[1][1] Therefore any discussion as to which parts of the Gospels are “True” or “Historically accurate” and which parts are fabrications added later are foolishness. The only source we need for an accurate and true depiction of Jesus the Bible. Other sources may add credence for the unbeliever, but for me I only need the Bible. The Gospels are 100% accurate and wholly reliable.
The Anglican Church is gone. Their current Presiding Bishop is not a Christian. I know I will take some flak for that statement but I can see no other way of saying it.
To be a “Christian” is to be a follower of Christ. The Bible is the inspired and infallible word of God. Whole of Scriptures are true, and no part can be discarded or it all crumbles to the ground. Homosexuality is a sin. I do not say that, the Bible does. To say that that teaching was just a prejudice of Paul or a cultural norm that does not apply today is blasphemy. We all sin, don’t get me wrong there, and all sin is equal. Homosexuality is no greater sin then lying, stealing, adultery or fornication. The difference is in the acceptance of sin. We cannot accept sin and pretend it is okay. We are commanded to confront sin in all its forms. When we sin, and we all do, we are to repent and seek forgiveness. When our brothers sin we are to go to them in love to help them through their sin. We do not judge the sinner, we judge the sin. And confront it no matter where we see it. In us or in others, If I am openly living in any sin and deny that it is sin, and my brother confronts me I should thank him, not accuse him of being a bigot or a hater.
In my humble opinion it is not possible to be an openly practicing homosexual, adulterer, or any other sin, parsing the word to suit your own morality and denying the divinely inspired word and still call yourself a “Christian”.
Monday, May 6, 2013
The Man of Genesis 32:24
Who was the “man” with whom Jacob wrestled?
We are not told in the scriptures who the man Jacob that was wrestling with was. Was he a mere man, an angle, or a theophany? Jacob asks the “man” for a blessing, and the “man” gave him a new name. When Jacob asks his name, the “man” replies asking “why do you ask my name?” implying that Jacob should already know who it is he is dealing with. This has led some to believe that the man was an angel or the pre-incarnate Jesus. Talbot also notes that, “This was both a literal wrestling match and a spiritual one.”[1] “He (Jacob) was convinced that he had been in a struggle with God himself, and he was grateful that he not only survived but that he was a changed man”[2] Jacob believed the “man” was able to bless him and had the authority to give him a new name.
So who was this man? It is interesting to note that Jacob was in his nineties at this point and even so the prospect of besting an angel at any age seems ludicrous. If we consider it as mainly a spiritual battle it makes more sense. John Walton notes that “The ease at which he inflicts physical damage on Jacob (32:25) indicates that any inability must be in the spiritual arena, not the physical one.”[3] Hosea 12:4 clearly indicates that the “man” was an angel “4 He struggled with the angel and overcame him; he wept and begged for his favor. He found him at Bethel and talked with him there.” (NIV). Whether it is an angel or “The Angel of the Lord (Jesus)”, we do not know for sure.
Jacob struggled all of his life, he struggled with his family, he struggled with himself and he struggled with God. At the conclusion of this fight, Jacob was convinced this struggle was with God “Jacob’s remark did not necessarily mean that the “man” with whom he wrestled was in fact God. Rather, as with other similar statements (e.g. Judg 13:22, when one saw the “angel of the Lord” it was appropriate to say that he had seen the face of God.”[4] Jacob knew he had been bested, and submitted to the man after receiving his blessing. Jacob realized this man was God.
I lean towards the belief that the “man” was the pre-incarnate Jesus. In Genesis 32:30, Jacob calls him Elohim, while it is true that that word does not necessarily refer to God, I believe that here it does. Jacob was wrestling both physically and spiritually with God and himself.
[1] Gordon Talbot, A Study of the Book of Genesis,(Harrisburg: Christian Publications, 1981), 200.
[2] Ibid, 201.
[3] John H. Walton, The NIV Application Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 605.
[4] John H. Sailhamer,The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Vol 2, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 210.
"What is the 'desire of woman?'” (Genesis 3:16)
In ‘Paradise to Prison’, Dr. Davis states that Eve will have “a deep natural attraction: to Adam.[1] Davis implies that the word is best translated as a physical and emotional desire. Verse 3:16 of Genesis is God telling Eve the consequences of her sin. The KJV reads: “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.“ Different translations have translated the Hebrew here as “desire” differently. The NIV: “Your desire will be for your husband”, the NLV says, “desire to control”, the ISV: "since your trust is turning toward your husband”, the NET: “You will want to control your husband” The same word is used three times in the Old Testament.
Dr. Talbot interprets this verse to mean that”(Eve) was created to be a “help meet for him” (Gen 2:20), but now her role as his companion would be a submissive one.”[2] Talbot seems to imply that the desire is more for the position of authority of Adam, then a physical desire. She will certainly have physical and emotional desire for her husband, but those desires were already present prior to the sin. Dr. Sailhamer agrees and relates it to the pre fall marriage and the post fall marriage. Sailhamer calls the pre-fall marriage a “harmonious partnership” and the post-fall marriage will be tainted by the curse of the sin.[3]
I tend to agree more with Sailhamer and Talbot then Davis. I believe that the physical and emotional desire of a wife to her husband is a gift from God that has no relation to the fall. The woman’s desire will be her desire to control the man and her life but she will be submissive unto her husband.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
The Nakedness of Noah
Genesis 9:20-23 “20 And Noah began to be a farmer, and he planted a vineyard. 21 Then he drank of the wine and was drunk, and became uncovered in his tent.
22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness.” (NKJV)What was the ‘nakedness of Noah’ and what was Ham’s sin?
On an initial reading Genesis 9:20-23 is a very simple narrative. Ham discovered his father ‘exposed’ in his tent. There have been many attempts to find some deeper or extra meaning in the text. In his commentary on Genesis, John Walton cites many of the differing theories about just what the “nakedness of Noah’ was. Walton writes; “The results have been incredible, insofar as Ham has been accused of incest with his mother, homosexual activity with his father, or even the castration of his father.”[1] While ‘nakedness’ is used as a metaphor for sexual acts elsewhere in the bible, Shem and Japheth’s act of walking backwards to cover their father leads me to believe that it was Noah lying exposed and unconscious. Walton also points out that since in Leviticus 18, the nakedness of the wife, is the nakedness of the husband; “is it possible that both Noah and his wife became drunk and falling into unconsciousness after intercourse, lie exposed in the tent?”[2] I believe that the nakedness of Noah was just that, he and his wife or Noah by himself was lying in their tent naked and exposed.
Which leads us to the second part of the question; what was Ham’s sin? Gordon Talbot thinks; “The discovery of Noah’s nakedness was not the offense, but Ham’s disrespect for his father.”[3] Ham discovered his father and ran and told his brothers, we are not told what this motivation was but it was almost certainly not respectful or edifying to his father. The disrespect is even greater if both Noah and his wife were exposed. Ham’s behavior and actions were what was reprehensible not his discovery.
I personally try not to read too much into the narratives in the Bible. God has given us all the information we need and the Holy Spirit to interpret it. When we try too hard to find secret or hidden meanings we often look like fools and can destroy the meaning that is there.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Who was Melchizedek? An historical character or “something” other?
We are first introduced to Melchizedek in Genesis14:18-20 “18 Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, 19 and he blessed Abram, saying, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. 20 And praise be to God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand.” Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.” (NIV). We see Melchizedek once more in the Old Testament in Psalm 110:4. The significance of Melchizedek is expounded upon in the New Testament book of Hebrews.
Who was Melchizedek? It has been suggested that Melchizedek was not an actual historical character. What does the Bible say about him?
In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, John Sailhamer treats Melchizedek as a real person and the King of Salem. Sailhamer notes that “After his return from Battle, Abraham was met by two kings in the “Valley of Shaveh” (Lit.,”the king”).[1] Sailhamer identifies these two kings as the King of Sodom and the King of Salam. Sailhamer believes that these two kings are presented as a contradiction. The response to the King of Salem is positive, while the response to the King of Sodom is negative. Sailhamer sees no indication that Melchizedek was anything other than a real historical character.
John Walton treats Melchizedek as a real person as well. Walton equates Salem to Jerusalem and indicates that Melchizedek, the King of Salem, “is portrayed as the principle king of the region”[2]. Many commentators view Melchizedek as a priest/king of Jehovah God. Walton disagrees. Walton claims that “Since El Elyon could represent the designation of a Canaanite god, we have no reason to think of Melchizedek as a worshiper of Yahweh or even as monotheistic.”[3]
Gordon Talbot, in his book ‘A Study of the Book of Genesis’, says that Melchizedek is “a mysterious person”. Talbot admits that it is possible that Melchizedek is a Theophany as some scholars believe, but thinks it more likely that Melchizedek was a real person. Talbot asserts that Melchizedek was a priest and worshiper of Jehovah God. “He was not only the king of Salem, but he was also a priest of the most high God. Somehow the concept of Jehovah, the true God, had penetrated the heart of this man.”[4]
I believe that Melchizedek was in fact a real historical person. I also believe he was the king of Salem, (Jerusalem) and a priest of Jehovah God. I see no indication otherwise. Abraham showed him reverence and gave a tithe to him. The New Testament claims that Jesus “has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.” (Hebrews 6:20b NIV). If Jesus is a priest in the order of Melchizedek, it only makes sense that Melchizedek was a priest of the same God Jesus served, namely God the Father, Jehovah.
[1] Sailhamer, John, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol. 2, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 122.
[2] Walton, John H., The NIV Application Commentary, Genesis, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 418.
[3] Walton, John H., The NIV Application Commentary, Genesis, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 419.
[4] Talbot, Gordon. A Study of the Book of Genesis, (Harrisburg:Christian Publications, 1981), 101.
Friday, April 12, 2013
The evil that is abortion
So much better then anything I could say, please check out Vox Day and his post on abortion.
http://www.voxday.blogspot.com/2013/04/abortion-is-slaughter.html#comment-form
http://www.voxday.blogspot.com/2013/04/abortion-is-slaughter.html#comment-form
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Gay marriage and Polygamy
I believe God created and sanctioned marriage as one man-one woman. Throughout history marriage has always been defined by the majority of people, cultures and countries as, one man-one woman. Recently the SCOTUS has been hearing two cases revolving around the definition of marriage and the States or Federal government’s recognition of said marriages.
I have long held that the Federal government has no business recognizing marriage beyond any other legal contract. There should be no special rights or privileges granted based on marriage. I knew several “couples” in the military that got married solely for the benefits that marriage brought. They received more pay, free housing, and more privileges.
Whit the current argument, I can’t see how any of the pro-gay marriage crowd can deny polygamy. What argument can they possible present against it? If it is okay for a man-women, man-man, woman-woman to get married why not man-man-woman, man-woman-woman. Why stop there why not man-woman-daughter. Does it have to be two humans? Can I marry my dog?
Someone please give me a valid reason why if we can redefine what marriage is, why stop at two people?
At this point I say fine, Let whoever marry whoever. The government gets completely out of the marriage business. No marriage certificates, not divorce, no benefits for getting married, no tax advantages. Marriage again would be a vow between God and those involved.
JUST AS GOD INTENDED. God never gave authority to government to sanction marriage.
Stop all government interference in marriage period.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Do not read if you if you are pro-choice (pro-murder)
Let me be clear, I believe that abortion is murder. I am not condemning anyone who has had an abortion, Only God can do that. I am simply stating my opinion. Members of my own family disagree with me, but I have to go with what I believe.
Abortion is pure and simple murder, life begins at conception and to believe otherwise is delusional. Whether you are a Christian, or not whether you believe in Creation or Evolution, Science proves that once the sperm enters the egg, and the cells divide, an unstoppable chain of events lead to a baby looking you in the eye. Unstoppable that is unless you “terminate” the pregnancy; and by that I mean Murder the child. I don’t care what your reason is I consider all abortion murder. Before you try to say my opinion does not matter because I am a man; that is a straw man argument, I am human. And don’t they to tell me I would feel different if it was my daughter that was raped, been there too. And don’t try and say who will adopt all these babies? There are so many couples out there waiting that that would not be a problem, (I have also adopted 3 precious girls). If it is not a baby at three weeks, a month, two months, then when is it. I have had some tell me until it takes a breath it is not a person. That is ridicules; by that logic the day before birth it can be killed. Others have said when it is viable outside the womb. That is equally crazy since a baby that is otherwise not able to survive outside the womb, sucks it thumb, moves has all its body parts and looks like a tiny little baby. It is a baby. Also applying that logic a newborn is not able to survive without constant intervention for months. Are they a person? Can we snuff them out at will too?
Unwed pregnancies are a big problem, America has far too many single mothers. The answer is not murder. The answer is personal responsibility, both the man and the woman. The answer is NO SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE, ( that would also cure all STD’s if everyone applied it). Is that going to happen? No, we are fallen and sinful creatures that are ruled by our flesh. Still murder is not the answer. I have known many couples that have sorely desired to be parents but were unable to conceive. The waiting list for a newborn is gigantic; many couples wait for years to get their baby.
Below is a news clip from MSNBC. The host is claiming that by murdering his child he saved his live. His act of murder was not because of rape, incest, violence, or the life of the mother. It was selfishness. He said he was not ready to be a dad. He was ready for sex apparently; just not man enough to take responsibility. Later in the story he said he is the father of two kids, I wonder; will he tell them one day how he helped kill their older sibling?
Read below if you have a strong stomach:
MSNBC Host: ‘I Thank God and Country…Abortion Was There to Save Me’
During MSNBC’s “The Cycle” on Friday, co-host Toure celebrated the 40th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade decision to legalize abortion by telling the story of when he and an old girlfriend decided to have an abortion 15 years ago.
“In some ways that choice saved my life,” Toure said.
He said he was extremely thankful abortion was an option because wasn’t ready to be a dad and going through with the pregnancy would have just made “a mess of three lives” because she “wasn’t the one.”
“I thank God and country that when I fell into a bad situation, abortion was there to save me and keep me on a path toward building a strong family I have now. And I pray that safety net stays in place,” Toure said.
Being able to choose to have an abortion makes for a “stronger America,” he concluded.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Acts – Tongues and the Holy Spirit
Acts – Tongues and the Holy Spirit
Kyle Anderson
“Acts 1:8?”
Acts 1:8 is a promise and a command from Jesus. The assembled Apostles were Jews and the Jewish perspective was that they were God’s people and the message was to the Jews. Jesus here lays out a promise of the coming Holy Spirit and the command to preach the Gospel to the world, starting in Jerusalem and spreading to the World. This was surely not the first time the Apostles had heard this message. They were witnesses to Jesus’ work with the Samaritans, (John 4), and other teachings of Jesus to reach the world with the Gospel. The point was brought home again here and shortly after the events at Pentecost the Gospel will spread to the Gentiles. “This text contains the promise of Pentecost and the mandate to witness for Jesus in the following geographical areas: Jerusalem, Samaria and the World (Kistemaker 1990, 53) . The Apostles will receive power and will carry the Gospel to the World; ” But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth. (Holy Bible (NKJV) 1982) ”
“Brothers and Sisters”
From the context of verse 1:16 Peter is addressing the other 10 Apostles present, there are certainly other believers present, and they are witnesses to the event, but Peter is addressing the remaining 10 regarding Judas, who is no longer with them. The majority of Bible translations translate the first two Greek words in Acts 1:16 “Ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί (Marshall 1998, 464) ” as “Men, brethren” or simply as “Brothers”. The minority translate the verse as “Friends” or something else. While it is certain that there were women present in the group of believers, Luck mentions Mary and women, I do not agree with a gender neutral or inclusive translation. Luke writing in the social norms of his time and the Apostles speaking to the group of believers with an emphasis on the primacy of the male role used the term, “Men, brothers” I believe that in Acts 1:16, a straight forward interpretation is proper and right and conveys the original meaning of the text better the “Brothers and sisters.” While societies norms have changed and women are certainly not of lesser importance. The Greek used addresses men and should be translated as such. See also the following verses with the literal English translation of the Greek: 2:14 “Men, Jews”; 2:22 “Men, Israelites”; 3:12 ”Men, Israelites”; 5:35 ”Men, Israelites”; 17:22 ”Men, Athenians”; 17:34 “men”; 19:35 ”Men, Ephesians”; 21:28 ”Men, Israelites” in most of these verses it is certain that women are present, Peter or Paul address the crowd using the masculine “Men.” I disagree with Dr. Bock that translation of the word “Ἄνδρες” in verse 17:34 includes a woman. Reading the verse it says, “ But some “men” (Ἄνδρες) joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and “a woman” (γυνὴ (Marshall 1998, 548) ) named Damaris and others with them. (Holy Bible (NASB) 1995) ” Some men, and a women.
“Tongues”
What are the “Tongues” spoken of in Acts 2:4? At the Pentecost celebration the believers were filled with the Holy Spirit. They received the power and the gifts of the Spirit. One of the gifts was the gift of tongues. The Apostles, mostly uneducated or simple men from Galilee, started to speak, or were perceived to speak in languages that there was no reasonable expectation for them to know. The “tongues” mentioned are spoken languages of the assembled believers and not some “unknown, or heavenly” language that men do not know. Simon Kistemaker said, “The word tongue is the equivalent of the concept spoken language (Kistemaker 1990, 77) . The literal translation of the Greek word “διαλέκτῳ (Marshall 1998, 466) ” is “language” and is the root word for our English word “dialect”. Verse 6 clearly states that each believer present was hearing their “heart” language, not some unknown language. Each was hearing the message in as clear a language as they could so the that full intent and import could be conveyed, there could be not possibility of a poor translation or misunderstanding in the word. Thus the Glory of God was shown through the power of the Holy Spirit. Assuming that all 12 Apostles were present and that they were all preaching to the gathered, there were at least 15 different language groups represented. Verses 9-11 detail 15 nations represented in the gathering with the possibility of more. Later in the Bible Paul admonishes believers that the gift of tongues is useless unless there are some present that can interpret. If nobody understands what is being said who gets the Glory? God or man?
Bibliography
Bock, Darrell, L. Acts. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007.
Halley, Henry H. Halley's Bible Handbook. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1965.
Holy Bible (NASB). The Lockman Foundation, 1995.
Holy Bible (NKJV). Thomas Nelson, 1982.
Kistemaker, Simon J. Acts. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1990.
Marshall, Alfred. Interlinear NIV. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998.
Friday, January 18, 2013
John - The most Jewish Gospel
Israel Abrahams was perhaps the most distinguished Jewish scholar of his time. In 1924 he gave a lecture where he proclaimed that John was the most Jewish of the four Gospels.
John is my favorite of the four Gospels because of its simplicity, yet is has a much deeper often overlooked side. Dr. Elmer Towns said “The Gospel of John seems to be the simplest of all books…. But at the same time, it is the most profound book in the Bible. (Towns, 2002, p. xi) ”
Why does Israel Abrahams say it is the most Jewish of the four Gospels? While John is a simple and beautiful picture of the Christ, it has many deep and subtle points that are often overlooked by the modern reader. John alludes to the Old Testament throughout his Gospel, relying heavily on Isaiah, assuming that the reader is already familiar with the Messiah and the prophecies in the Old Testament. John also dates Jesus ministry based upon the Jewish Festivals and feastsLastly, John uses the landmarks of Jerusalem in a way that can only be relevant to a Jew of the time that is familiar with them. John’s use of the geography and description of sites also proves that John he was very familiar with the Israel of Jesus’ time. “There are no errors in geography or history found in John. Instead, we find that John is intimately acquainted with Palestine's land, cultures and traditions.
The Gospel of John is a simple and beautiful presentation of the Gospel that can be easily understood by a new believer today. The Gospel of John is an incredible deep look into Jesus the Messiah. The Gospel of John is the Word. That is why the Gospel of John is my favorite of the four Gospels.
Bibliography:
Holy Bible (NKJV). (1982). Thomas Nelson.
Morris, L. (1989). Jesus is the Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.
Roberts, M. (2009). Is John's Gospel Historically Accurate? Retrieved January 18, 2013, from Westside Church of Christ, Irving Texas: http://static.justchristians.com/abundantLife/051996/6.html
Towns, E. (2002). John. Chattanooga, TN: AMG.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)