Lucy, the Ape

Lucy is No Longer in the Sky with Diamonds

In the Genesis creation account, the Bible describes that all land-dwelling creatures were created on Day 6, with man being the pinnacle of God’s creation. In chapter 2 of that same book, Moses describes the creation of man and woman in detail, informing readers “and the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being” (Genesis 2:7). In verse 20 of that same chapter we find Adam giving names to “all cattle, to the birds of the air, to every beast of the field,” indicating that he possessed the intelligence to name them and understand instructions from God. The Darwinian Theory describes man evolving from some primordial soup, initially carrying a club and living in a cave with not much intelligence. These two theories of origins could not be more diametrically opposed.

The evidence that Lucy was human, is not missing. It doesn't exist.

The evidence that Lucy was human, is not missing. It doesn’t exist.

So which is correct?

Scientific knowledge regarding the origin and antiquity of man is primarily based on fossil discoveries made by anthropologists, such as the world-famous Leakey family. Scientists would uncover fossilized bone fragments and then speculate as to what features the original creature possessed and precisely where it fit on the evolutionary tree of life. Each new discovery was heralded as a major scientific contribution—no matter how fragmented the fossil or how few remains were actually discovered. But as more and more fossils were unearthed, many scientists took delight in designating their finds as entirely new species, providing the scientist with the privilege of designating a new scientific name. While being able to name a new “species” of hominid was beneficial to one’s career, the real advantage came in announcing the discovery of the oldest upright-walking hominid fossil. The race was on to find the “missing link” that led back to a common ancestor that humans allegedly shared with the apes.

On November 30, 1974, Donald Johansson and graduate student Tom Gray loaded up in a Land Rover and headed out to plot an area of Hadar, Ethiopia, known as Locality 162. There they unearthed a fossilized skeleton that was nearly 40% complete. Dr. Johansson named his discovery Australopithecus afarensis meaning “the southern ape from Ethiopia’s Afar depression in northeastern Ethiopia.” The creature earned the nickname “Lucy” from the Beatles song “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds” that was playing in the camp the night of the discovery. While there was a great deal of pomp and circumstance offered by the mainstream media when Lucy was first announced, her star does not shine as brightly today. In fact, having over 20 years to examine the fossils, there are several problems wrong with Lucy. For instance:

A. She has curved fingers and ape-like limb proportions (see Stern and Susman, 1983, J. Phy. Anthrop., 60:280) that point toward her being an ape.

B. She has locking wrists—a trait identified in quadrupeds (see Richmond & Strait, 2000, Nature, 404:382-385). Maggie Fox reported in the March 29, 2000, San Diego Union Tribune: “A chance discovery made by looking at a cast of the bones of ‘Lucy,’ the most famous fossil of Australopithecus afarensis, shows her wrist is stiff, like a chimpanzee’s, Brian Richmond and David Strait of George Washington University in Washington, D.C., reported. This suggests that her ancestors walked on their knuckles” (Fox, “Man’s Early Ancestors Were Knuckle Walkers,” 2000, Quest Section, March 29.).

C. The microwear on the teeth indicate this creature was tree fruit eater (see Johanson and Edey, 1981, p. 358). Alan Walker, a professor of anthropology and biology at Penn State University, believes he might be able to reconstruct ancient diets from paleontological samples. In speaking of Alan Walker’s material, Johanson noted:

Dr. Alan Walker of Johns Hopkins has recently concluded that the polishing effect he finds on the teeth of robust Australopithecines and modern chimpanzees indicates that Australopithecines, like chimps, were fruit eaters…. If they were primarily fruit eaters, as Walker’s examination of their teeth suggests they were, then our picture of them, and of the evolutionary path they took, is wrong (Johanson and Edey, 1981, p. 358).

D. Lucy’s rib cage is conical like an ape’s, not barrel shaped like a human’s (see Leakey and Lewin, 1992, p. 193-194). Peter Schmid, a paleontologist at the Anthropological Institute in Zurich, Switzerland, received a replica of Lucy and noted,

When I started to put the skeleton together, I expected it to look human. Everyone had talked about Lucy being very modern. Very human. So I was surprised by what I saw. I noticed that the ribs were more round in cross section. More like what you see in apes. Human ribs are flatter in cross section. But the shape of the ribcage itself was the biggest surprise of all. The human ribcage is barrel shaped. And I just couldn’t get Lucy’s ribs to fit this kind of shape. But I could get them to make a conical-shaped ribcage, like what you see in apes (Peter Schmid as quoted in Leakey and Lewin, Origins Reconsidered, 1992, p. 193-194).

E. The semicircular canals of Australopithecines resemble an ape’s, not a human’s or a transitional creature’s (see Spoor et al., 1994, Nature, 369:645-648).

F. The pelvis of Lucy is not large enough to give birth, leaving one to wonder if she is really a “he” [“Lucy or Lucifer?”] (see Hausler and Schmid, 1995, J. Human Evol. 29:363-383).

This doesn’t stop textbooks or museums from perpetuating the lie. For instance, at the “Living World” located in the Saint Louis Zoo, they have built a shrine to Charles Darwin. As you walk into the “Introduction to the Animals” hall, you are immediately confronted by a life-size animatronic version of Charles Darwin. The area also features a life-size replica of the alleged Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy) proclaiming: “This life-sized model shows a likely ancient ancestor of the human family.” However, there were never any feet or hand fossils discovered. The question becomes how can they be so sure about what this creature looked like? According to David Menton from Washington University, the statue is “a complete misrepresentation. And I believe they know it is a misrepresentation.” When asked how in good conscience they could display a creature possessing feet and hands without fossilized evidence, Bruce L. Carr, the zoo’s director of education, declared, “Zoo officials have no plans to knuckle under. We cannot be updating every exhibit based on every new piece of evidence. We look at the overall exhibit and the impression it creates. We think the overall impression this exhibit creates is correct” (St. Louis Post Dispatch, July 22, 1996, p. 1). In other words, the impression supports evolution—let’s just forget what the evidence shows. Donald Johanson admitted:

There is no such thing as a total lack of bias. I have it; everybody has it. The fossil hunter in the field has it…. In everybody who is looking for hominids, there is a strong urge to learn more about where the human line started. If you are working back at around three million, as I was, that is very seductive, because you begin to get an idea that that is where Homo did start. You begin straining your eyes to find Homo traits in fossils of that age…. Logical, maybe, but also biased. I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils, which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain (Johanson and Edey, 1981, p. 257, 258, emp. added).

He went on to state: “It is hard for me now to admit how tangled in that thicket I was. But the insidious thing about bias is that it does make one deaf to the cries of other evidence” (p. 277).

The evidence clearly demonstrates that Lucy was nothing more than an ape. Entire books have been written about alleged missing links. But what does the evidence really show? One hundred and fifty years ago, Charles Darwin published On the Origins of Species describing the lack of transitional fossils as “the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory,” but explained it by the extreme imperfection of the geological record. He believed that time would prove his theory correct. Grains of sand have indeed passed through the hourglass of time—but those shifting sands have never turned up Darwin’s missing links.

References

Hausler, Martin and Peter Schmid (1995), “Comparison of the Pelvis of Sts 14 and AL 288-1: Implications for Birth and Sexual Dimorphism in Australopithecines,” Journal of Human Evolution, 29:363-383.

Johanson, Donald C. and Tim D. White (1979), “A Systematic Assessment of Early African Hominids,” Science, 203[4378]:321-330, January 26.

Johanson, Donald, Lenora Johanson, and Blake Edgar, (1994) Ancestors: In Search of Human Origins (New York: Villard Books).

Leakey, Richard and Roger Lewin (1992), Origins Reconsidered: In Search of What Makes Us Human (New York: Doubleday).

Richmond, Brian G. and David S. Strait (2000), “Evidence that Humans Evolved From a Knuckle-Walking Ancestor,” Nature, 404:382-385, March 23.

In the Genesis creation account, the Bible describes that all land-dwelling creatures were created on Day 6, with man being the pinnacle of God’s creation. In chapter 2 of that same book, Moses describes the creation of man and woman in detail, informing readers “and the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being” (Genesis 2:7). In verse 20 of that same chapter we find Adam giving names to “all cattle, to the birds of the air, to every beast of the field,” indicating that he possessed the intelligence to name them and understand instructions from God. The Darwinian Theory describes man evolving from some primordial soup, initially carrying a club and living in a cave with not much intelligence. These two theories of origins could not be more diametrically opposed.
So which is correct?
Scientific knowledge regarding the origin and antiquity of man is primarily based on fossil discoveries made by anthropologists, such as the world-famous Leakey family. Scientists would uncover fossilized bone fragments and then speculate as to what features the original creature possessed and precisely where it fit on the evolutionary tree of life. Each new discovery was heralded as a major scientific contribution—no matter how fragmented the fossil or how few remains were actually discovered. But as more and more fossils were unearthed, many scientists took delight in designating their finds as entirely new species, providing the scientist with the privilege of designating a new scientific name. While being able to name a new “species” of hominid was beneficial to one’s career, the real advantage came in announcing the discovery of the oldest upright-walking hominid fossil. The race was on to find the “missing link” that led back to a common ancestor that humans allegedly shared with the apes.
On November 30, 1974, Donald Johansson and graduate student Tom Gray loaded up in a Land Rover and headed out to plot an area of Hadar, Ethiopia, known as Locality 162. There they unearthed a fossilized skeleton that was nearly 40% complete. Dr. Johansson named his discovery Australopithecus afarensis meaning “the southern ape from Ethiopia’s Afar depression in northeastern Ethiopia.” The creature earned the nickname “Lucy” from the Beatles song “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds” that was playing in the camp the night of the discovery. While there was a great deal of pomp and circumstance offered by the mainstream media when Lucy was first announced, her star does not shine as brightly today. In fact, having over 20 years to examine the fossils, there are several problems wrong with Lucy. For instance:
A. She has curved fingers and ape-like limb proportions (see Stern and Susman, 1983, J. Phy. Anthrop., 60:280) that point toward her being an ape.
B. She has locking wrists—a trait identified in quadrupeds (see Richmond & Strait, 2000, Nature, 404:382-385). Maggie Fox reported in the March 29, 2000, San Diego Union Tribune: “A chance discovery made by looking at a cast of the bones of ‘Lucy,’ the most famous fossil of Australopithecus afarensis, shows her wrist is stiff, like a chimpanzee’s, Brian Richmond and David Strait of George Washington University in Washington, D.C., reported. This suggests that her ancestors walked on their knuckles” (Fox, “Man’s Early Ancestors Were Knuckle Walkers,” 2000, Quest Section, March 29.).
C. The microwear on the teeth indicate this creature was tree fruit eater (see Johanson and Edey, 1981, p. 358). Alan Walker, a professor of anthropology and biology at Penn State University, believes he might be able to reconstruct ancient diets from paleontological samples. In speaking of Alan Walker’s material, Johanson noted:
Dr. Alan Walker of Johns Hopkins has recently concluded that the polishing effect he finds on the teeth of robust Australopithecines and modern chimpanzees indicates that Australopithecines, like chimps, were fruit eaters…. If they were primarily fruit eaters, as Walker’s examination of their teeth suggests they were, then our picture of them, and of the evolutionary path they took, is wrong (Johanson and Edey, 1981, p. 358).
D. Lucy’s rib cage is conical like an ape’s, not barrel shaped like a human’s (see Leakey and Lewin, 1992, p. 193-194). Peter Schmid, a paleontologist at the Anthropological Institute in Zurich, Switzerland, received a replica of Lucy and noted,
When I started to put the skeleton together, I expected it to look human. Everyone had talked about Lucy being very modern. Very human. So I was surprised by what I saw. I noticed that the ribs were more round in cross section. More like what you see in apes. Human ribs are flatter in cross section. But the shape of the ribcage itself was the biggest surprise of all. The human ribcage is barrel shaped. And I just couldn’t get Lucy’s ribs to fit this kind of shape. But I could get them to make a conical-shaped ribcage, like what you see in apes (Peter Schmid as quoted in Leakey and Lewin, Origins Reconsidered, 1992, p. 193-194).
E. The semicircular canals of Australopithecines resemble an ape’s, not a human’s or a transitional creature’s (see Spoor et al., 1994, Nature, 369:645-648).
F. The pelvis of Lucy is not large enough to give birth, leaving one to wonder if she is really a “he” [“Lucy or Lucifer?”] (see Hausler and Schmid, 1995, J. Human Evol. 29:363-383).
This doesn’t stop textbooks or museums from perpetuating the lie. For instance, at the “Living World” located in the Saint Louis Zoo, they have built a shrine to Charles Darwin. As you walk into the “Introduction to the Animals” hall, you are immediately confronted by a life-size animatronic version of Charles Darwin. The area also features a life-size replica of the alleged Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy) proclaiming: “This life-sized model shows a likely ancient ancestor of the human family.” However, there were never any feet or hand fossils discovered. The question becomes how can they be so sure about what this creature looked like? According to David Menton from Washington University, the statue is “a complete misrepresentation. And I believe they know it is a misrepresentation.” When asked how in good conscience they could display a creature possessing feet and hands without fossilized evidence, Bruce L. Carr, the zoo’s director of education, declared, “Zoo officials have no plans to knuckle under. We cannot be updating every exhibit based on every new piece of evidence. We look at the overall exhibit and the impression it creates. We think the overall impression this exhibit creates is correct” (St. Louis Post Dispatch, July 22, 1996, p. 1). In other words, the impression supports evolution—let’s just forget what the evidence shows. Donald Johanson admitted:
There is no such thing as a total lack of bias. I have it; everybody has it. The fossil hunter in the field has it…. In everybody who is looking for hominids, there is a strong urge to learn more about where the human line started. If you are working back at around three million, as I was, that is very seductive, because you begin to get an idea that that is where Homo did start. You begin straining your eyes to find Homo traits in fossils of that age…. Logical, maybe, but also biased. I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils, which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain (Johanson and Edey, 1981, p. 257, 258, emp. added).
He went on to state: “It is hard for me now to admit how tangled in that thicket I was. But the insidious thing about bias is that it does make one deaf to the cries of other evidence” (p. 277).
The evidence clearly demonstrates that Lucy was nothing more than an ape. Entire books have been written about alleged missing links. But what does the evidence really show? One hundred and fifty years ago, Charles Darwin published On the Origins of Species describing the lack of transitional fossils as “the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory,” but explained it by the extreme imperfection of the geological record. He believed that time would prove his theory correct. Grains of sand have indeed passed through the hourglass of time—but those shifting sands have never turned up Darwin’s missing links.
References
Hausler, Martin and Peter Schmid (1995), “Comparison of the Pelvis of Sts 14 and AL 288-1: Implications for Birth and Sexual Dimorphism in Australopithecines,” Journal of Human Evolution, 29:363-383.
Johanson, Donald C. and Tim D. White (1979), “A Systematic Assessment of Early African Hominids,” Science, 203[4378]:321-330, January 26.
Johanson, Donald, Lenora Johanson, and Blake Edgar, (1994) Ancestors: In Search of Human Origins (New York: Villard Books).
Leakey, Richard and Roger Lewin (1992), Origins Reconsidered: In Search of What Makes Us Human (New York: Doubleday).
Richmond, Brian G. and David S. Strait (2000), “Evidence that Humans Evolved From a Knuckle-Walking Ancestor,” Nature, 404:382-385, March 23.
Posted in Brad Harrub | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Lucy, the Ape

¡EXISTE UNA IGLESIA!

¡EXISTE UNA IGLESIA, Y SOLAMENTE UNA QUE PERTENECE A CRISTO!

UNA PROMESA QUE NO FALLO

La Iglesia: Una promesa que no Fallo.

La Iglesia: Una promesa que no Fallo.

Las palabras que se encuentran registradas en Mateo 16:18, ciertamente son unas de las más importantes, quizás en toda la Biblia para el hombre “…edificaré mi Iglesia…” Si la Iglesia no existiera el ser humano simplemente No podría ser salvo. Note con particularidad que más allá de eso la frase revela una promesa que Cristo mismo está haciendo, El mismo iba sin duda alguna a edificar SU Iglesia, una y solo una. El Señor NO dijo: “una de las iglesias” o, “ “alguna iglesia”. Nuestro pasaje en cuestión se encuentra (gramaticalmente hablando) en Singular- posesivo. Es decir; iba a construir la  “I-g-l-e-s-i-a” (una) que le iba a pertenecer a EL. Por Ejemplo: Si colocamos mis anteojos en una mesa y yo le dijera a usted; tome los anteojos que prefiera ¿Cual Sería su respuesta? -Tal vez algo como ¡No existen opciones, más que una! y eso es exactamente correcto en la mesa solo se encuentran los anteojos que le pertenecen a Heiner. Amados amigos Dios NO ha dado el derecho a ningún ser humano para decidir a que iglesia añadirse. El ha establecido una y solo una para poder alcanzar la salvación y cuando alguien obedece el verdadero evangelio de Cristo, el Señor le añade a su Iglesia (Hechos 2:47), no ningún hombre ni siquiera usted mismo sino que es el Señor. 

EXISTIO SOLO UNA IGLESIA EN EL SIGLO PRIMERO

Algunos proclaman ser la única iglesia verdadera, pero no solamente porque yo me desmaye gritando que ¡los caballos vuelan, en realidad los caballos vuelan!. Todo razonamiento correcto demanda evidencias que lo acompañen. En 1517,  Martín Lutero abiertamente se reveló contra el catolisismo y sus distorsiones a la verdad. De ahí en adelante inicia la proliferación del protestantismo. Ninguna denominación puede probar su existencia antes de esa fecha, siendo la más reciente de todas la sexta de los evangélicos, comenzando cerca del año 1900 y los Luteranos los protestantes más antiguos regresando a los 1500’s. Por otra parte la Iglesia Católica Romana de hecho es la más antigua de las denominaciones, regresando al año 300  D.C aproximadamente y la alianza que inicia con el emperador Romano Constantino. La Iglesia de Cristo no responde ninguna de estas fechas más que al año 33 D.C cuando en el día de Pentecostés se predicó la palabra de Dios y una multitud como de 3000 personas obedecieron el evangelio a travez del bautismo (Hechos 2:41). Nadie podía decir algo como ¿A que Iglesia iremos este domingo?, ¿Sabe la razón del porqué?,  Porque no existía ninguna otra, así de simple. Pablo en su carta a los Romanos envía saludos de parte de “las iglesias de Cristo” (Romanos 16:16). Alguien ha dicho: Sí, pero es solo un versículo que lo menciona. Bueno podrá ser un versículo pero está ahí y no podemos arrancar esa hoja de la Biblia, por el lado contrario quisiéramos ver uno, SOLAMENTE UN versículo, que diga: “ os saludan todas las iglesias evangélicas, o católicas, o mormonas, o testigos de Jehová, o bautistas… permítame ahorrarle tiempo, NO existe tal versículo. En el primer siglo existió Una iglesia y solo una, la Iglesia de Cristo. Jesús prometió edificar su Iglesia como antes lo vimos, y de hecho lo hizo. Decir que todas las iglesias llevan a Dios es hacer a Jesús mentiroso porque no estableció una como dijo lo haría, sino muchas. Yo  personalmente no creo que El haya mentido ¿y usted?.

LA LOGICA DEMANDA EXCLUSIVIDAD

“Logofobia”, es el termino correcto que describe la oposición a la lógica.  Dios siempre ha pedido al hombre razonar (Isaías 1:18), la nueva hermenéutica se opone tajantemente a la lógica volviendo al hombre casi insensato. La palabra griega traducida como razonable es logikos, definido por Vine como “ uno que hace uso de sus facultades mentales, razonable, racional”. Con esto mente por favor considere con nosotros:

  1. La Iglesia es descrita como La ESPOSA de Cristo (Efe. 5:22-23; Rom. 7:4;  2Co. 11:2) Cristo mismo enseño la monogamia (Un hombre para una mujer, Mateo 19:4) ¿enseño el una cosa y ahora práctica otra en referencia a la iglesia?¿Tiene el Señor muchas esposas o solamente una?.
  2. Cristo es el pastor de su REBAÑO. Existe solamente un rebaño, una Iglesia (Hechos 20:28; 1Ped. 5:2; Juan 10:16) Decir que existen diferentes rebaños nos traería también a la conclusión que existen otros pastores aparte de Cristo, eso es  profundamente interesante ¿No cree usted?
  3. La iglesia es la FAMILIA de Dios (1Tim. 3:15; Efe. 3:14-15; Hech. 10:2) Está más que claro que Dios no tiene más que una familia. Si esa familia de acuerdo a estos pasajes es la Iglesia entonces, no hay más que una Iglesia. Simplemente no puedo ni siquiera imaginarme a Cristo con muchas diferentes familias.
  4. Un Dios, un camino, una Iglesia. Muchos pueden citar Juan 14:6 de memoria, y están en acuerdo; Cristo es el camino, y ¡hábleme todo el día de Cristo!, no hay ningún problema, Mahoma no salva, ni la virgen solamente Cristo. También El es la verdad, existe una verdad que es la que va a salvar al mundo y todo esto es aceptable y bien visto para la gente pero… ¡Existe solamente una Iglesia!, ahí si NO es del agrado de muchos… Amigos ES IMPOSIBLE separar a Cristo de su Iglesia a como es imposible separar a la Cabeza del Cuerpo (Efe. 1:21-22).  Sí existe un Dios por sobre y sobre todos, Sí existe un evangelio que salva, Sí existe un Señor que se entregó por nosotros, Sí existe un solo bautismo, Sí existe una sola fe y una sola esperanza ENTONCES… EXISTE UNA SOLA IGLESIA, LA IGLESIA DE CRISTO. Y esto se llama “razonar correctamente”.

Algunos pueden observar todo lo anterior presuntuoso y hasta falsamente acusarnos de arrogancia. Sin embargo esto no tiene origen en ninguno de nosotros. El plan de exclusividad de la Iglesia fue de Dios a El le plació en la eternidad pensar en un grupo de personas llamados Iglesia de Cristo, porque iban a ser comprados con sangre por El para salvación (paráfrasis de Efe. 1:3-4), El punto es ¿Porque defender lo indefendible? Entra tanta confusión religiosa y tantas Iglesias y denominaciones de acuerdo a la la Biblia, Existe hoy una Iglesia y Solamente una que pertenece a Cristo. ´El un día regresará por segunda vez  a llevar a su esposa la iglesia que `EL estableció aquel día de pentecostés en Hechos 2. Es mi ruego que usted para ese entonces sea ya parte de la Iglesia de Cristo. 

Posted in Heiner Montealto | Tagged , , | Comments Off on ¡EXISTE UNA IGLESIA!

When Jesus Returns

Your Final Act Before the Final Trumpet

When Jesus foretold the time when not a single stone of that majestic temple in Jerusalem would rest upon another, the disciples asked for signs which would precede the destruction of that temple and the end of Judaism (Mark 13:4; Luke 21:7). The Lord gave at least eight distinct signs which would come before that event. He then foretold of another event which would happen for which there was one single sign to announce its coming. Jesus spoke of a day when, not the temple, but heaven and earth would pass away. He gave no sign for that day, for it will come as an unannounced thief (Mark 13:31-32).

When Jesus Returns, what will be happening?

When Jesus Returns, what will be happening?

It will happen when men are doing things which happen all the time—eating, drinking, marrying and weddings. It will be unannounced and will come when no one is expecting it to happen (Matt. 24:44). What is happening on that day will be the same things which happen every other day. What kinds of events will be happening when Jesus returns?

When Jesus returns, some will be sitting in worship. Every day there are gatherings of Christians in various time zones around the world like Bible classes, devotions, gospel meetings, lectureships and special church events. This was brought home to me when I preached in Columbus, Ohio, several years ago. A brother prayed, “Lord, if you are assembling your angels right now to come to judge the world, we beg you to wait long enough for brother Dan to finish his sermon and let us sing one more song.” It could happen. It is truly possible that He will come before the end of an evangelistic sermon.

When Jesus comes, some will be attending a funeral. For all the reasons given above, just imagine what it would be like to be at a funeral or at a graveside when that shout comes from heaven. All of the grieving which accompanies these events will be meaningless. Such thoughts should help us deal with the loss of our loved ones. It is truly possible that He will come before a funeral filled with grief ends.

When Jesus comes, some will be involved in sinful actions. Imagine those who are cursing and blaspheming God and His holy name just as the last trumpet sounds. Imagine those who are involved in sexual immorality as the shout from heaven comes. It is possible that just as words profaning His name leave someone’s lips the heavens will be rolled up as a scroll.

When He comes, many will be involved in “washing the feet” of those around them. What a joy to think that when He comes we will be doing right. Think about this. Live every minute of every day knowing that that minute is when He might come!

Posted in Dan Jenkins | Tagged , , | Comments Off on When Jesus Returns

Matthew 1:18-25 Birth

The Birth of The King

Vs. 18 – Matthew begins to describe how Jesus birth took place. He makes it clear that Mary and Joseph’s relationship was in the betrothal phase and that this was prior to any sexual activity (i.e. “before they came together”). Betrothal was similar to what we would consider “engaged” in our country, though, it was much more legally complex under Rabbinical Law (see verse 19 below). Matthew states that she was found to be with child and then explains that the child was “of the Holy Spirit.” Luke tells us that an angel appeared to Mary and explained to her, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). We ought not to think of Mary’s conception as something carnal as taught by the Mormons. On the contrary, her conception was miraculously accomplished by the power of God.

Jesus's birth was a miraculous event given by God.

Jesus’s birth was a miraculous event given by God.

Vs. 19 – No doubt it was a bit of a shock for Joseph to find this out. Mary, being the innocent woman that she was, would not have been expected by Joseph to behave in the normal way in which pregnancy generally results. But one could hardly argue with such evidence and so he proceeded to divorce her. We don’t know much regarding the conversation that took place between Joseph and Mary. One could imagine Joseph’s incredulity upon hearing Mary’s claim that this was God’s doing, but the scriptures don’t speak regarding those details. He evidently assumed the worse.

Matthew calls Jospeph Mary’s “husband” in lieu of the betrothal. In betrothal, one was considered legally bound to one’s future mate and a formal declaration of divorce had to be obtained to dissolve the relationship. Such could be obtained publicly to the shame and embarrassment of the one being put away; however, Joseph chose not to do that, but instead, he was minded to handle the matter privately, indicating his respect for Mary and her family, and also a godly attitude. It showed that Joseph did love her (Proverbs 17:9) and that he was indeed a “just” man.

Vs. 20 – Joseph was evidently preoccupied with the whole affair because Matthew tells us that he gave it some deliberation, i.e. he thought about it. I’m not sure that any fiance wouldn’t have thought about it, but Joseph evidently gave it much consideration. It was while he was so engaged in considering it that the angel appeared to him “in a dream.” The word for “dream” in this verse is used exclusively by Matthew in the New Testament. Verse twenty-four tells us he was sleeping. Was this a nap or did it come to him in the night? I’m not sure we can tell. The natural thing would be to assume it was a dream during the course of the night. One often finds relief in sleep during difficult periods in one’s life. It wouldn’t be too much of a stretch of the imagination to suggest that Joseph, being distressed by this situation, sought temporary solace in this manner. The bed of a young man with such troubles often softens such boisterous thoughts. Thus, having thought on these things he slept and dreamed.

The word “angel” literally means “messenger,” but has been transliterated by our translators to distinguish a heavenly sent messenger from an earthly one. There are occasions where the word is transliterated in the New Testament when perhaps it should not be, but usually the word is used to refer to heavenly messengers. It is clear in this text that this was a heavenly messenger being described as an “angel of the Lord.” The message of this messenger follows.

The messenger reminds Joseph that he is a son of David; he is in the royal lineage. This reminder opens Joseph’s mind to the possibility that God indeed was telling him something as it was not unheard of in Israel for God to so communicate with royalty. Moreover, many were in expectation of the coming of the Messiah at this time and Joseph, no doubt, would have known of such discussions. Reminding him of his lineage reminds him of God’s promise that the Messiah would indeed come through David and this was wholly acknowledged in his day (Matthew 22:42-45).

Joseph was not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife. Why would he have had reason to fear? One has much to fear from an unchaste woman: disease, infidelity, psychological problems, and in Joseph’s day, the stigma of shame that one might receive from one’s family should such a thing be known. Joseph may also have been concerned about the potential presumption that he, Joseph, may have been the offending party. But happily, such fears were unwarranted in this case.

At the end of verse twenty, the angel here reiterates what Matthew has already told us. See comments on vs. 18 above.

Vs. 21- The message also contained the promise of Mary’s Son’s birth and the name by which He was to be called, “Jesus.” In Hebrew the name is “Joshua.” It means, “God saves.” The messenger also tells us the thing from which the people would be saved, namely, their sins and so He did (Matthew 26:28, 1 Corinthians 15:3, Galatians 1:4, Ephesians 5:2, 1 Peter 2:24).

The “people” that are referred to in this particular verse are the Jewish people, that is, “His people.” But we know that it was God’s plan to save not only the Jews, but also the Gentiles (Romans 1:16). Matthew’s mentioning salvation for Jesus’ people testifies as to the unique Jewish character of the account.

Vs. 22 – We need not suppose that the angel’s message continues here as Matthew interposes some editorial comments at this point. He explains to us that this was done to fulfill prophecy. Matthew, more than any other accountant of the gospel story, tells us of more prophecies fulfilled by Jesus. Another sign that the flavor of his account was to engage the Jewish mind. The prophecies that Matthew cites are convincing proof that Jesus is indeed the Messiah. Isaiah is, of course, the prophet under consideration now through which the Lord spoke. Matthew confirms what Peter explicitly states that it was God who moved through these prophets to speak the things that they uttered (2 Peter 2:20, 21). The word “prophet” is another word that has been transliterated from the Greek language. It literally means one who speaks forth or a foreteller. The Hebrew equivalent means “to bubble forth.” While we normally consider “prophecy” to be related to events of the future, the word may encompass anything spoken by God’s authority whether it relates to the future, past, or present. In this case, of course, the prophet spoke of future events.

Vs. 23 – Matthew quotes from Isaiah 7:14. This is perhaps one of the great controversies in the religious world. Many suggest that the Hebrew “Almah” simply means young woman and thus deny the force of the prophecy. Matthew, however, clearly understands Isaiah to be speaking regarding a virgin (Greek: “parthenos”). Matthew, himself being a Hebrew, would be in a position to know what the Hebrew word “Almah” meant and he makes his understanding clear. The Septuagint (LXX), a translation composed prior to and independently of the New Testament writers, confirms Matthew’s understanding of the word by using the Greek word “parthenos” in Isaiah 7:14. There is no reason to translate “Almah” as “young woman” in Isaiah 7:14 except to prejudicially deny what Matthew affirms. Indeed, a virgin, Mary, did conceive, by power of the Holy Spirit; a Son was born, Jesus, and He was, in fact, God in human form (Isaiah 9:6, Titus 2:13).

Matthew, in a parenthetical statement, explains to the Greek reader what the Hebrew word “Immanuel” means, “God with us.” It is not sufficient to believe that Jesus was anything less than God, the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. John affirms such in John 1:1. Jesus himself affirmed, “Before Abraham was born, ‘I AM'” (John 8:58). Paul also states clearly that Jesus is God the creator (Colossians 1:15-17). Peter too, in 2 Peter 1:1, states that Jesus is “God and our Savior.” The divinity of Christ is one of the central tenets of Christianity; those who deny it, deny the gospel.

Vs. 24 – Joseph was no fool. Now that he realized the truth of Mary’s circumstance, he obeyed the heavenly message and took Mary as his wife; he forewent the divorce and finalized the betrothal by marrying her.

The expression “took his wife” we must understand to mean as they married one another. It is interesting to note here that this passage makes it clear that one does not need to “consummate” a marriage in order to be married. Joseph and Mary were 100% married though Joseph did not know Mary (sexually) until after Jesus birth.

Vs. 25 – Joseph respected the situation. While the two were married, they did not have carnal knowledge of one another until after Jesus was born. The word “until” signifies that he did know her in this way after Jesus’ birth. This is a clear refutation of the Catholic doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Again we find Joseph obedient to the heavenly messenger. He named Mary’s (and God’s) Son, Jesus as commanded.

In chapter we will see how Matthew answers the question of how Jesus fulfilled all prophecies concerning his locative origins and came to be of Nazareth.

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Matthew 1:18-25 Birth

Should We Pray to Jesus?

Should We Pray to Jesus?

The question is raised: should we pray to Jesus?

Should We Pray to Jesus?

Should We Pray to Jesus?

Perhaps the better way to praise the question is: does a Christian have Biblical authority to pray to Jesus.

Those who would answer in the negative on this question often base their position on the the Lord’s model prayer, in which He told His followers, “When you pray, pray thusly: Our Father in Heaven…” (Matthew 6:9). Similarly, Peter notes that his readers call on the Father (1 Peter 1:17). Clearly, prayer to the Father is authorized and expected of the saints. The question is whether this authorization precludes prayer to God, the Son.

Before going further, let us make two observations which should not be controversial for those who believe the Scriptures. The first is that, as the Lord taught, the Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35). All scripture is given by inspiration of God, all Scripture is true, all Scripture is profitable, and all Scripture is authoritative (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16). As the Proverbs note, every word of God is pure (Proverbs 30:5). A derivative of this principle is that the Scriptures, being absolutely true, cannot contradict themselves.

The second observation is a logical extension of the first. When our interpretation or application of one Scripture contradicts other Scripture, or is contradicted by that Scripture, then our interpretation is false. When we find ourselves in such a situation, the humble servant of God acknowledges his error and seeks to correct his interpretation.

Concerning prayers to Jesus, in order to establish authority, we need that which is required for all authorized practices: commands, approved examples or a binding necessary inference. Specifically, we need either direct commands to pray to Jesus, divinely approved examples of men who prayed to Jesus, or else, a passage which infers, of necessity, that prayer to Jesus is permissible.

If we examine the New Testament, it is rather easy to find apostolic examples of prayers to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Let’s look at two. The first is found in 2 Corinthians 12:8. The apostle Paul recounts to the Corinthians concerning a thorn in the flesh, and then says concerning the thorn that three times he pleaded with the Lord to remove it. The context of the passage, verses 9 and 10 in particular, wherein Jesus replies to Paul,show that the person to whom Paul was praying was none other than Jesus. Thus, we have a clear example, provided in an inspired book, that the apostle Paul prayed to Jesus, not once, but three times, and Jesus, rather than rebuking the apostle for doing so, instead replied and explained why He was not going to fulfill the request.

The second example is found at the end of Revelation. There as the apostle John is closing out the last book of the Bible, he ends with a prayer, “Come Lord Jesus.” (Revelation 22:20) Now, its not a long prayer, but it’s still a prayer. It is a direct request from a man on earth, to the Savior in heaven, asking Jesus to return to earth and claim the final victory.

With two or three witnesses, God establishes a principle or a truth, and here we have two obvious apostolic examples of inspired men who prayed to Jesus, and were directed by the Holy Spirit to record the behavior for our benefit.

When a passage of Scripture contradicts an interpretation of Scripture, we should, in humility re-examine our interpretation. Those who would say there is no authority for such prayers must accuse the apostles of wrongdoing.

It seems likely that sometimes people try to over-distinguish between the work of the Father and the work of the Son. While clearly there is a delineation of roles between the Father and the Son, Jesus said, “Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me,” (John 14:11) and said concerning prayer, “whatever you ask in My name, that I will do,” (John 14:13), clearly putting Himself in the position of answering prayers.

Jesus is God (cf. John 1:3; Hebrews 1:1-3). He is not God the Father, but He is fully divine. He sits on high on the throne of God (cf. Hebrews 12:2; Revelation 3:21), and, as the Creator of all things (cf. Colossians 1:16), the Judge of all men (cf. Matthew 25:31-32; Acts 17:31), and the King of Kings (1 Timothy 6:15), He has been given all authority in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18). He is almighty God, and, seeing as how He is not on earth, if you want to communicate with Christ, the only avenue open to you is prayer.

But what about Jesus’ clear teaching to pray to the Father?

Let us note a couple of things about that. Firstly, the apostles prayed to God the Father. We have clear examples of them doing so, and the Scriptures tell us we should call on the Father. No man should stop praying to the Father. Jesus certainly encouraged us to do so, and to do so often.

But a principle can be binding without being exclusive.

The model prayer, which Jesus taught His disciples is not an exclusive prayer which of itself forbids all other prayers not molded in the exact same image. Rather it is an outline of a potential prayer, and a very good prayer at that, which covers many of the things we should pray about. But there are other prayers in the New Testament which do not follow the exact same pattern. Jesus’ prayer in the garden for instance, was quite a different prayer (Matthew 26:39). As was His prayer recorded in John 17. Jesus obviously did not always structure prayer after the one model prayer He provided. Likewise, we see the apostles praying for boldness to speak, a thing not directly addressed in the model prayer (Acts 4:23-30). And Paul writes to Timothy and tells him that Christians should pray for their leaders and those in authority; another subject not addressed in the model prayer (1 Timothy 2:2).

Clearly the model prayer is not an exclusive prayer, forbidding any prayers that depart from its pattern. And we should not treat it as such.

It is wrong to add to God’s word. It is also wrong to take away from God’s word, forbidding what God has allowed. Clearly, examples of prayers to the Father outweigh examples of prayers to the Son, and we have an obligation and a privilege towards such prayers. No one should forbid such prayers. Yet, at the same time, there is clear authority to pray to our Lord and Brother, and we should not seek to bind our interpretation on others when that interpretation is contradicted by inspired examples of men who did the very thing we are teaching against, and were approved in doing so.

by Jonathan McAnulty

Posted in Jonathan McAnulty | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Should We Pray to Jesus?