THE PRESS LOVES COMING-OUT TALES WHICH DAMN THE CHURCH
For more great blogs as this one go to Daniel’s blog site at: www.Mannsword.blogspot.com
In a Huffington Post article, Hannah Brashers relates her painful “coming out” tale from a fundamentalist church to lesbianism. She claims that “Christianity is dangerous to queer people,” signaling the fact that the gay agenda is no longer “live and let live” but a frontal attack to silence and marginalize Christianity. She, therefore, recommends that if a Christian claims to be gay-affirming, they should “hold other Christians accountable.” They need to prove themselves by acts of “real allyship”:
∑ Hearing our cisgender, heterosexual allies promise to stand up for us and then actually seeing them follow through is what real allyship looks like.
This requires Christians to become agents committed to subverting any Christian prohibitions against sexual conduct. However, to say that the Bible is wrong in these matters is also to open the door to the possibility that the Bible might be wrong in many other matters, perhaps even in all matters. Either the Bible is the Word of God or it isn’t. We are not free to pick-and-choose which verses are trustworthy. Jesus didn’t. Instead, He affirmed every Word of the Scriptures during His conversation with the devil:
∑ But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” (Matthew 4:4)
However, I can sympathize with Brasher’s charge that “Christianity is dangerous to queer people,” in the same way that I can sympathize with a friend’s complaint about receiving a speeding ticket. Even though he was wrong for speeding and possibly endangering others, I can still sympathize with him. However, this doesn’t mean that we should get rid of police or the consequences for breaking the law.
Likewise, the Church issues important warnings from the Word of God about what happens when we refuse to repent of our sins. Similarly, I think that many had found Jesus’ Words highly disturbing:
∑ And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” (Luke 13:2-5)
For those who were willing to repent of their sins, I’m sure that, in the long run, this warning proved to be liberating. However, for those who refused to repent, this warning must have been experienced as condemnation.
Brashers felt condemned by her church because it was faithful to the Word, as it must be. We can only hope and pray that it had planted seeds that will germinate in time.
AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS
Agnostic and Bible critic, Bart Ehrman, had written:
∑ “The four Gospels... are all anonymous, written in the third person about Jesus and his companions. None of them contains a first-person narrative ("One day, when Jesus and I went into Capernaum..."), or claims to be written by an eyewitness or companion of an eyewitness.” (Book Cover; "Lost Christianities")
However, the testimony of the early Church Fathers for the traditional authorship of the four Gospels is quite compelling:
∑ The early church unanimously accepted traditional authorship for the Four Gospels. Matthew is accredited with the First Gospel by Papias, bishop of Hieropolis (c. A.D. 120) and Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons in Gaul (c. A.D. 175). John Mark is accredited with the Second Gospel, Luke is credited with the Third, and John is ascribed with the Fourth Gospel by Papias and preserved by Eusebius of Caesarea (A.D. 260-340). In addition, John is ascribed with the Fourth Gospel by Irenaeus in his work Against Heresies. The church unanimously accepted Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the authors. If one is to claim otherwise, there should be a great deal of evidence. No such evidence exists outside of modern skepticism. https://bellatorchristi.com/2016/11/14/reasons-why-one-should-accept-the-traditional-authorship-of-the-gospels/
Jonathan McLatchie argues for their authenticity because:
∑ …the gospels are ascribed to such minor characters as Mark and Luke — neither of whom, by any accounts, were themselves eyewitnesses. Had a forger wanted to acquire credibility for his writing he would undoubtedly have attributed it to someone like Peter, Thomas or James (as the later second and third century Gnostic gospels did). https://crossexamined.org/wrote-gospels-2/
This makes the traditional attributions of these two Gospels to Mark and Luke seem quite authentic, without any attempt to deceive. The same can be said about all four Gospels, which never explicitly mention the name of the author. It seems that they had nothing to prove. Why not? Probably because they understood that what they were writing was actually the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Therefore, to assign their name to their Gospel was to usurp what belongs to Jesus alone.
The much later Gnostic gospels, all written at least 100 years after the crucifixion, had all been falsely ascribed to one of the Apostles. Why? To attempt to deceive the early church into accepting them as Scripture! However, this was almost an impossible task because:
1. Their late date
2. The Church Fathers would not attest to their authenticity.
3. Even the Gnostic philosophers never quoted them.
4. Even the competitive Gnostic gospels never call into question their traditional ascription; nor do they contest their contents. Instead, they try to fill in the blanks left by lack of content about Jesus’ childhood and His post-resurrection teachings. This gives us the impression that the four Gospels had been extensively accepted as Scripture, perhaps even incontestable.
5. In many respects, their theology seldom reflected that of the Old or New Testaments.
McLatchie adds:
∑ Actually, there is some compelling evidence (both external and internal) that Mark penned the eyewitness accounts of Peter. For example, Justin Martyr, writing around A.D. 150, spoke of Mark’s Gospel as “the memoirs of Peter.” He suggested that Mark wrote down his material when he was in Italy (which concurs with other early tradition which indicates that the gospel of Mark was penned in Rome for the benefit of the Christians there. Iraeneus (writing approx. A.D. 185) referred to Mark as “the disciple and interpreter of Peter.” Most famously, Papias, the bishop of Hieropolis (writing approx. A.D. 140) wrote:
∑ “And the presbyter [the Apostle John] said this: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some sayings as he remembered them. For one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.”
We should be hesitant about accepting Ehrman’s judgments on the Scriptures in light on his many inconsistencies. For example, he also wrote:
∑ The oldest and best sources we have for knowing about the life of Jesus…are the four Gospels of the NT…This is not simply the view of Christian historians who have a high opinion of the NT and in its historical worth; it is the view of all serious historians of antiquity…it is the conclusion that has been reached by every one of the hundreds (thousands, even) of scholars. (“Truth and Fiction in the DaVinci Code,” p. 102)
The early dating of the Gospels is an important question. If they had been written by eyewitnesses, especially by the Apostles and their associates who had been martyred refusing to renege on what they had written, then these Gospels must be regarded are highly credible. Besides this, it would have been far more difficult to fabricate the accounts of Jesus’ life if many witnesses were still alive.
It is of note that the Magdalen fragment of the Gospel of Matthew is dated by some at 60 AD while others are placing this fragment at a later date. Fragments of what is believed to be the Gospel of Mark have been found in the Qumran caves and dated 50 and 68 BC. It will be interesting to see if consensus is ever reached regarding these fragments. They might argue for a much earlier dating of the Gospels.
No comments:
Post a Comment