We Did Not Follow Cleverly Devised Myths

We'll begin with verse 16, 2

Peter chapter 1, in verse 16. There we read,

For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our

Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the

Father, such an utterance as this was made to him by the majestic glory, This is my beloved Son, with whom

I am well pleased. And we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with him on the holy mountain.

So we have the prophetic word made more sure to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

But know this first of all, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men, moved by the

Holy Spirit, spoke from God. This classic passage, and it is a classic text in regards to the inspiration of scripture, also provides us with our primary thought for today, verse 16.

There the apostle Peter says, We did not follow cleverly devised tales when we had known to you the power and coming of our

Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

In somewhat of a prophetic way, Pastor Fry mentioned on Wednesday evening to the men that were there, in light of the fact that 24 hours ago

I was in Newburgh, Oregon, at the Newburgh Christian Church.

And exactly at this time was in the midst of a debate with Mr. Dan Barker.

Mr. Barker is the co -president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

He is a former Christian by his own profession, that makes him an apostate, he is proud of that terminology.

And for 17 years he was involved in Pentecostal charismatic music ministry.

And then became an atheist over a certain period of time. Some of you who are old enough to remember this, possibly directly recalls this.

Back in the 1980s, about 1984, 85, somewhere around there, one of the first encounters

I had on the Tom Likas show, was with Mr. Barker. He had very recently become an atheist and was traveling about giving his story.

Having been a minister, he wrote a lot of Christian music, primarily children's Christian music, and was now an atheist.

The topic of our debate yesterday was, is the

Jesus story a myth cut out of the same fabric as all the other ancient religious myths in the world?

Now some of you may know that that is a very common claim today. If you are in any type of educational context, where you are taking undergraduate or graduate courses in Arizona State University, Phoenix College, Glendale Community College, Scottsdale, wherever it might be, and you take various classes there, you will be instructed by many, that in reality, the ancient world was filled with dying and rising gods.

That the idea of dying and rising again was an everyday thing in the ancient world.

That there were many people who were said to be born of a god, father, and a human mother.

And that the Jesus myth is just that, it's just mythology. It's been cobbled together out of all these other mythologies.

I seem to recall that it was last December, it might have been the year before that, but someone purchased advertising,

I think it was in London, might have also happened in New York. But someone purchased advertising on buses.

And on the buses they had these alleged parallels between Jesus and these mythological figures.

And there it said, you know, happy Saturnalia, happy winter solstice, etc.,

etc. All meant to promote this idea that Christianity is a fraud.

That it has been made up from all these other ancient religions. And those of you who are particularly amongst the younger of us, probably are aware of the fact that in the internet, especially on YouTube, there is a movie called

Zeitgeist. And this is a film that most, if you don't know what that is, that demonstrates you're no hungry young.

Sorry to break that news to you, but it just might communicate something to you along those lines.

I don't know about it, so what can we say. But the

Zeitgeist movie is a massive conspiratorial film. Conspiratorial in all sorts of areas, but it also contains a section about Christianity.

That again, draws from this concept that Christianity is but a bunch of pagan myths cobbled together and changed into a new religion.

And so I first want to emphasize the fact that the New Testament writers themselves specifically address the nature of what they have taught and what they have given to us in the

New Testament. Notice the words here of Peter. Notice I even say Peter. And when

I post this to that same internet, there are going to be people who as soon as they see it, they go, wait a minute, that's 2

Peter. Nobody believes Peter on 2 Peter. Notice how I put that. Nobody believes that.

As soon as you hear that kind of language, little red warning lights should be going off in your mind.

Because clearly there are many people. What they may be attempting to communicate is no one who really knows

New Testament theology believes Peter wrote 2 Peter. Well, that's not true either. What they're really saying is critical, unbelieving scholarship questions the authorship of 2

Peter. Well, that's nothing new. That would be a true statement. That would be a fair and valid statement.

But unfortunately, that's not what you get. What you get is, well, Bart Ehrman doesn't think that Peter wrote 2

Peter. Well, congratulations. Again, that's not exactly an astounding thing. People will look at 2

Peter and go, well, this is obviously much later. This is after Peter would have died. This is someone using Peter's name.

Therefore, it's fraudulent in and of itself. What's the primary evidence of that? Well, we have a certain theory about how the early church looked.

And this reflects a later time, so it could have been when Peter died. But where did you get that theory?

What's the foundation of that theory? When you start pushing, you start looking for the facts, what it all comes down to is when you read 1 and 2

Peter, the Greek is very different between the two. And that's a fact. There's no question about it.

But you might notice something. And that is, if you look back at 1

Peter, chapter 5, verse 12, there's this little statement. Through Silvanus, our faithful brother.

What does that mean? Well, I suppose it could mean that it was being sent by him.

But most probably what it means is that Silvanus wrote 1 Peter.

Peter dictated it to him. Most of the New Testament writers used it. It was called an emmanuensis, a scribe.

And especially if Silvanus was translating. That is,

Peter was maybe speaking in Aramaic, rather than Greek. Then Silvanus' style would be put upon that.

And you go, oh, I don't like that, because what about inspiration? Remember, what does the

New Testament say about inspiration? It only uses the term one. It's better translated as being God -breathed.

What is inspired? Peter? No. What does 2 Timothy 3 .16 say? All Scripture is

God -breathed. Not the writer. It is the Scripture. It is the result. There is no question that Paul used scribes.

So, I've seen some of those nasty professors at the community colleges trying to use it.

Oh, see, that was due to your doctrine of inspiration. They use, most of the time, our own ignorance of the

Bible against us. Because they don't have much more than that to argue. That's how they get away with what they get away with.

So, the primary argument that Peter didn't write Peter? Well, it doesn't fit our theories of what

Peter was like, and what the early church was like. Well, congratulations, I don't buy your theory. And so, Peter says,

For me did not follow cleverly devised tales.

The term is actually myths. The Greek term. Is what would be directly translated as myths.

Cleverly devised. Cleverly constructed. What Peter is saying is there are people who engage in the creation of mythology.

And they're very clever. They put a lot of effort into constructing a myth that sounds truthful.

But we did not follow cleverly devised myths. When we made known to you the power and coming of our

Lord Jesus Christ. Why? We were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Now, if this isn't Peter, then this is a bold faced lie, obviously. But, where would

Peter have been an eyewitness of Jesus' majesty? Well, he goes on to tell you. For when he received honor and glory from God the

Father, such an utterance as this was made to him by the majestic glory. This is my beloved

Son with whom I am well pleased. What's Peter talking about? Well, I think most of us know, but it would be good to look at it.

Let's look at Matthew chapter 17. Actually, Matthew records it, Mark records it,

Luke records it, but we can just look at Matthew chapter 17. And there we have the story of the transfiguration.

Six days later, Jesus took with him, who? Beginning of verse 1, Peter and James and John, his brothers.

There are three disciples. They go up on the mount of what's called transfiguration. Led them up on a high mountain by themselves.

And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun. His garments became as white as light.

And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with him. Who would Moses and Elijah be? Moses and Elijah representing the law and the prophets.

Moses, the bringer of the law. Elijah, the first great one of the prophets. Peter said to Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here.

If you wish, I'll make three tabernacles here. One for you, one for Moses, one for Elijah. Luke is kind enough to tell us in his account that Peter didn't know what he was saying.

Peter talked a lot. Peter's mouth opened faster than his brain kicked into gear.

And so that's what Peter says. While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them. Behold, a voice out of the cloud said,

This is my beloved son, with whom I am well pleased. Listen to him. So here is the situation that Peter is making reference to in 2

Peter. And he says, We're not following these cleverly constructed myths.

We are eyewitnesses of these events. And then he gives evidence of that.

I was on the mountain. I heard God say, This is my beloved son, with whom

I am well pleased. We ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with him on the holy mountain.

We are eyewitnesses to these events. But then did you notice what Peter goes on to say? So we have the prophetic word made more sure to which you do well to pay attention, to a lamp shining in a dark place.

He says, It's not just for me. I mean, sure, obviously my personal experience is a lot.

It means a lot to me. I'll never forget that event. That may be why tradition says

Peter could be crucified upside down. A horrible way to die.

But when you've been an eyewitness to these things, what can you do?

Can you deny what you saw or experienced? But you see, for a lot of people they go, Well, if I had seen that, if I had had

Peter's experience. But Peter says, But you have something that's even more sure than my experience, which is the prophetic word.

He hasn't left you without something. He has provided you the prophetic word which has been made more sure to which you do well to pay attention, to a lamp shining in a dark place until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

Knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter, the better translation is, is a matter of the prophet's own interpretation.

The point is, the prophet wasn't sitting around. It's not like the pagan religions where the prophet gets some smoke going, and gets some hallucinogenic stuff going, and goes into a trance, and comes up with scripture.

That's very common in the pagan religions. An altered state of consciousness. That's not where scripture comes from.

It's not the prophet who sits there and muses and thinks and tries real hard, Oh, okay,

I've got something. That's not where scripture comes from. It's not a matter of the prophet's own interpretation.

For no prophecy, and remember, prophecy is not just foretelling something in the future. It is a word from God.

The Old Testament as a whole is a word from God. No prophecy was ever made by an act of human will.

No one ever sat around and said, You know, I'm only through 47 chapters of my prophecy that's going to someday be called

Isaiah. I guess I need to get another one out today. You know, I'm going on vacation next week. I'm not quite up to my schedule.

So, my human will says it's time for a new chapter of Isaiah. That's not where scripture comes from.

No prophecy was ever made by an act of human will. But men, and I like this translation,

Men spoke from God as they were being carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Now, if you have the King James, the New King James, it doesn't quite read that way. It talks about holy men.

Holy men of God spoke. But I think that's an important textual issue.

Because in the better manuscripts it says, But men spoke from God as they were being carried along by the

Holy Spirit. Men spoke and what they spoke. They are speaking. They're using their language.

We can tell the difference between Peter and Paul. You can tell the difference between Luke and Mark.

The styles are different. We don't believe in automatic writing. We don't believe that all of a sudden

Mark just sort of sat down, and his eyes got glassy, and at the beginning was the gospel of Jesus Christ.

And it's just sort of like, Automatic writing. That's not what inspiration is.

Mark uses his language. Paul uses his language. That's why Paul can say things like, Brethren, pray for me.

That's him speaking. Very important. Men spoke, but what they spoke was from God.

And as they're doing this, they are being moved, literally, carried along by the

Holy Spirit. That's Peter's understanding of Scripture. It should be ours as well.

But note once again, we didn't follow cleverly advised texts. Myths.

And yet people are saying, Well, all these people were doing this. They were grabbing this myth over here, that myth over there, this religion over there, and cobbling it all together to create this thing called,

Christianity. Let me give an example before we look at another New Testament reputation of this.

Yesterday, Big book, isn't it? Yesterday, I had one of the most amazing experiences

I've ever had in 19 years of doing debates.

Getting close to somewhere between 85 and 90 moderated public debates

I've done now. Never had an experience like this in my life. I began my opening statement, what

I had done as I attempt to do in every debate, if it is at all possible, is

I had studied what my opponent has publicly proclaimed and published on the subject of the debate.

That's the only way I know how to do debates. I've never really understood why so many of my opponents will not even take the time to listen to anything

I've ever said. I've written over 20 books. Almost none of them will ever read anything that I've actually written.

I don't find that to be a respectful way of dealing with people. I figure if someone's written a book,

I'm going to debate him, I better read it. If they've lectured on the subject, I better listen to their lectures. That's how you show respect for them and how you show respect for the audience, because if I'm having to waste the audience's time learning what the other guy is all about, well, it doesn't make for as good of a debate.

And so I had prepared my opening statement through full citation of my opponent's book from 2007, which has an entire chapter on this one subject of the debate.

I figured that was fair. I've got 20 seconds in my opening statement. Point of order! It's never happened before.

My opponents objected to the moderator that I was quoting his own book.

He didn't think that was fair. He actually said, well, I might have changed my mind. He said, excuse me, are you selling the book out in the foyer?

Yeah. Really? Published two years ago, right?

Two years ago. You're selling it out there, but you don't want me to quote it in my opening presentation.

Most amazing thing I've ever had happen. The moderator later told me that he was having a very hard time keeping from laughing because it's the most, like I said, the most absurd thing that's ever happened in a debate.

And of course he overruled that and I made my presentation. Part of the reason he did that was because he knows, he well knows, that the presentation he made there is ridiculous.

He's still selling his book, but it's ridiculous. The primary source that he quoted, and I'm going to read some things to you here, is this book that I have in front of me.

Yes, if I have time, I will even check out the sources that my opponents are using to try to be as fair as I possibly can be.

I'm going to read to you some words and I want you to ask yourself a question. Yeah, I'm going to respond to these.

But how would you respond to these words if we weren't in the situation we're in right now?

What would be going through your mind? Let's say you're on our uber super cool light rail system.

Which I'm sure we all are on just all the time. And someone notices you're reading a

Christian book. And they come over to you and they start throwing this stuff out at you.

How are you going to respond? What kind of response do you give? Here's some of the quotes that became a part of the debate just, well, 24 hours ago right now.

Mithra was born on the 25th of December. Called Birthday of the Unconquered Son, which was finally taken over by Christians in the 4th century

AD as the Birthday of Christ. Let's see.

Others said Mithra had no mother but was miraculously born of a female rock. I'm not sure,

I didn't know that there were such things as female rocks, but anyways. This is where Mithra came from. Mithra's birth was witnessed by shepherds and by magi who brought gifts to his sacred birth cave of the rock.

Mithra performed the usual assortment of miracles, raising the dead, healing the sick, making the blind see, and the lame walk, casting out devils.

Before returning to heaven, Mithra celebrated a last supper with his 12 disciples who represented the 12 signs of the

Zodiac. In memory of this, his worshippers partook of a sacramental meal of bread marked with a cross.

This was one of seven Mithraic sacraments, the models of the Christian seven sacraments. It was called

Miz, the Latin Missa, English Mass. Mithra's image was buried in a rock tomb, the same sacred cave that, a sacred cave.

He was withdrawn from it and was said to live again. Like early Christianity, Mithraism was an ascetic, anti -female religion.

Its priesthood consisted of celibate men only. Finally, there is one more here that I want to get to, about salvation.

And I'm trying to find it here very quickly. There it is.

The Christian notion of salvation was almost wholly a product of this Persian eschatology adopted by Semitic Eremites.

Those are monks. And some cultists, like the Essenes, and by Roman military men who thought the rigid discipline of vivid battle imagery of Mithraism appropriate for warriors.

And I think that's pretty much most of the things we would throw out there.

So, sounds pretty bad, doesn't it? I mean, how do you respond?

That's the kind of stuff that was put on those buses. Who was born on December 25th?

He had 12 disciples. Had a supper with his disciples, and rose again from the dead, and so on and so forth.

Well, his name's Mithra, and it's a Persian religion from a thousand years before Christ. Happy winter solstice.

What were most people thinking when they read that? How many of us have ever studied Mithraism before?

Not many. Not exactly a fascinating study, even at that. This is the kind of stuff that's being thrown out there.

And while this kind of stuff, from a serious scholarly perspective, has been debunked for 50 to 60 years, we live in the day of Internet scholarship.

Where anybody with a computer, a modem, and a small amount of software, can publish anything, no matter how shallow and ridiculous it actually is.

Let me just go through some of the things I read to demonstrate that. Nowhere in the

Bible does December 25th appear. Interestingly enough, the earliest date that Christians discussed the birth of Christ was

January 6th, not December 25th. But even at that, the earliest Mithraic reference to December 25th may well be after the earliest

Christian reference to December 25th. They don't tell you that part. So they say, oh, Mithraism came from Persia.

It was a thousand years before Christ. Yeah, ancient Mithraism. But they don't tell you they're talking about later

Mithraism, after it came into the Roman Empire, and there's no evidence of Mithraism in the

Roman Empire before the middle of the second century. That's a hundred years too late to be the origin of anything in Christianity.

One of the things I challenged my opponent on was real simple. Show me that anyone living in the first part of the first century in Palestine knew anything about Mithraic religion.

You can't. It's anachronistic. They're reading things backwards. I don't give you the dates.

The atheists aren't big on those factual things. They want you to have a reason to disbelieve.

Whether it's a truthful reason or not is irrelevant to the atheists. Keep that in mind. So, the question is, by the third and fourth centuries,

Mithraism was dying. Christianity, as an external religion at least in the Roman Empire, was on the increase.

So what's more likely? That the dying religion borrows from the more popular religion, or vice versa?

Simple thing of history here. That's why we do these debates, so that we can get some of these folks to actually stand behind us.

My opponent refused to do so. He basically admitted that all this stuff he was abandoning.

So, I guess we accomplished something in that one. So, when it says it was finally taken over by Christians in the fourth century

AD as the birthday of Christ, it's backwards. And it doesn't deal with the issues of January 6th, which has a much greater historical background to it than December 25th.

That's why, by the way, it's called the Twelve Days of Christmas. Twelve days from December 25th to January 6th. It was a lengthy thing.

It wasn't just a one -day thing with sales on the 26th. That's not how it works.

Let's see. Most of this material, when you look at the references provided by this author at the end, come from secondary sources.

They don't come from historical sources. What so often happens to this stuff is one person will throw it out there, and then they get quoted by somebody else, and they get quoted by somebody else, until you build up this pseudo -body of scholarship that has absolutely no basis in reality at all.

You try to go, where did you get this thing about, for example, before returning to heaven,

Mithra celebrated the Last Supper with his twelve disciples, who represented twelve signs of the zodiac. Where do you get that from Mithraic sources?

You can't. You see, what they do is they'll use Christian language to describe pagan beliefs, and then go, look at the parallels!

For example, people will say, Osiris, the Egyptian god, experienced baptism.

You know what that means? When he was killed, they threw his coffin in a river.

That's baptism. That's supposed to be the parallel to our Christian baptism. And Osiris was a dying and rising god, just like Jesus!

The problem is that, in reality, Osiris' body was cut up into fourteen pieces, and then his wife found, in some stories, all fourteen, in some stories, only thirteen, which is a bummer, and put it back together again, and he became the zombified lord of the underworld.

And that's supposed to be the parallel to resurrection. That's not what the Jews believed about resurrection!

Or Dionysus, he's virgin -born! Actually, the little fetus, a god killed his mom, and so Zeus took the fetus out of her, and sewed it into his thigh, and it grew in his thigh, and that's how

Dionysus was born. And that's supposed to be the virgin birth. When you really start digging into this stuff, it's absurd!

And yet there are, if you want to go to Amazon, you will find book, after book, after book, after book, being sold to people who want a reason to disbelieve.

And they'll take it, and believe it, no matter how absurd it is.

Just ask Dan Brown. Just ask Dan Brown's accountant. How does lying sell?

Well, there you go. Peter says, I'm not going to lie! He dies upside down at a cross.

In our world, you lie if you get rich from it. So, there's no evidence that Mithra had 12 disciples.

But they did have a supper. Almost every religion has, in one way or another.

But you see, the thing is, Mithra's greatness came from his slaying the bull. And from the blood of the bull came the fertility of the land.

It was a vegetation cycle, which Christianity never was, neither was Judaism. And so what would happen is, this meal would be on a table, spread with the skin of a bull.

And it was a fellowship -type meal. Almost every ancient religion, almost any religion you could think of, had some kind of a fellowship meal.

But there was nothing about sin, atonement, salvation, eternal life, anything like that at all.

It was simply a fellowship meal. Notice the use of this. In memory of this, his worshippers partook of a sacramental meal.

Did they use that term? Why use that term? To try to create a parallel that isn't there. This is one of seven

Mithraic sacraments. Couldn't find any foundation for that. The models of the Christian seven sacraments. Think about it. When did the seven sacraments of Roman Catholicism develop?

Long after Mithraism was dead. And there's nothing in the New Testament about seven sacraments to begin with.

More historical anachronism. True Mithra scholars tell us there's no resurrection of Mithra.

Nothing like it whatsoever. And to say that the Christian notion of salvation was almost wholly a product of a

Persian eschatology of warfare only demonstrates that the author of such words is blissfully ignorant of what the

New Testament teaches concerning the concept of salvation. So what do we find?

We find that there are many, many people today who basically are doing exactly what

Peter described here in 2 Peter 1. These are books of cleverly devised myths.

They are the ones creating the myths, not the Christians. People creating myths and asking us to believe that these things are true.

Now my opponent said, well what you need to understand is these Gospels, these Gospel stories, they're just historical fiction.

You see, it's like James Michener. James Michener writes historical fiction.

And he'll bring in all sorts of true history. He'll do a bunch of research on historical situations and he'll place his story in a historical context.

But then he'll fictionalize events around those historical things. And that's what the

Gospels are. Sure, there's some sound history there, but the main story is this fiction that's been inserted.

Well, I first of all point out that the writers don't say that.

But at one point, I asked my opponent a simple question. I said, do you think

James Michener would be willing to die for his historical fiction?

And he said he might. Atheism twists the mind.

Let me tell you something. This is a man who's not just a member of Mensa. He's a member of the

Promethean Society. Promethean Society. That's 99 .997

on the IQ chart. That doesn't change how a rebellion against God can twist even the most brilliant mind.

And man have I seen it. Man have I seen it. Turn with me to Luke chapter 1.

The Gospel of Luke chapter 1. Remember what Peter has said. Eyewitnesses.

We haven't followed these carefully constructed myths. Of all the

New Testament books, there's really only one specific book of history of the early church in the canon of Scripture.

And that, of course, is the book of Acts. We need to realize that Luke -Acts was originally meant to be, in essence, one volume.

They became separated from one another when the Gospels were bound together as one. And Acts sort of went its own way.

Remember, Luke -Acts was meant to be one story. In fact,

I think there's really good reason for thinking that Luke -Acts is

Luke's amicus brief. Do you know what an amicus brief is? We have a lawyer amongst us who knows what an amicus brief is, but I'll explain it.

It's a friend of the court brief. It's documents that you submit to the court in regards to a case where you're not necessarily the one on trial.

But you have an interest, and you think the court should know about these things.

It seems to me that probably what Luke -Acts was, was Luke's submission at Paul's trial in Rome.

As demonstration of what it was that Paul's preaching. Why is Paul preaching these things?

What has Paul been up to? What's Paul been active doing? Why are the Jews accusing him of these things?

And is this Christianity really something that is putting up an opposition to the

Roman Empire? And if that's the case, then we know that Paul is facing that trial somewhere around the beginning of the 60's.

Which would give us a date for Luke. And would probably make Mark earlier than that.

With all that having been said, notice Luke's own introduction to his own work in chapter 1.

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile and account the things accomplished amongst us.

Just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.

It seemed fitting for me as well. Having investigated everything carefully from the beginning.

To write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus. So that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

And then notice what he does. In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah.

So he goes into the story. And the story that he tells is not introduced as myth.

He doesn't say, in a galaxy far, far away. He doesn't say, one day upon Mount Olympus.

He gives you a specific date. Now they didn't use calendars the way we use calendars today.

So he can't say on September 26th of the year X. They generally did that kind of thing on the basis of the rulers of a particular area.

Or especially the Roman Empire. By the ruler of a particular area. Who was Caesar at that particular point in time.

So here in the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah. Of the division of Abijah.

We can go back. If you ever want to read something fascinating, read Roger Beckwith's discussion.

Of the date of the birth of Jesus. One of the things that only he's done, as far as I can tell.

As far as any serious publication. Is he's gone back. And we can look at these orders of the priests.

And when they served. And when they would have been in the temple. And he's used that to throw a light upon that question.

My point is, this is the writing of someone who's saying, this took place on a particular day.

As I was flying back last night. I ended up sitting next to, on the flight.

A lady who used to teach up at Northwest Community School. Up there.

In fact, it had some connections with Grace. Back when my kids had gone there. And stuff like that.

And I mentioned to her. I said, you know, I remember. It was like the first day of classes.

I was getting ready to go to teach. I was teaching that year in 2001. When September 11th took place.

And I said, I remember. Standing in front of that class. And telling those young people.

Your lives change today. In a way that you cannot possibly today understand.

Your lives change today. Now, I put that on a specific date.

I know exactly when that date was. September 11th, 2001. We all remember we were doing that date. And that's what

Luke's doing. Luke is placing things in history. Not like the myth that said, well, there was a day when

Zeus was on Mount Olympus. And he looked down and he saw this woman. And blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

That's mythology. That's a story that you can sort of morph and change. And it's okay because everyone knew.

That it didn't happen at a particular point in time. But Luke says, well, Herod is king of Judea.

This is a particular place. These are particular people and particular names and particular time. And so what does

Luke say? He says, well, I'm not the first one to do this.

In those first decades of the Christian church, there were others. Who tried to compile an account of the things accomplished among us.

Now, was that a written account? Is he talking about Mark, maybe? We don't know. Was it more of a memorized thing?

Was it people going around saying, well, you tell me your memories of Jesus. Which one of Jesus' sermons were you at?

What do you remember about that? We're not told. But Luke tells us that he's not the first one who started this.

And he says, these things were handed down to us by those who were from the beginning were eyewitnesses.

Not just at the end of Jesus' ministry, but we have people who went all the way back. This is early enough that I've had contact with these people who are absolutely eyewitnesses.

Luke himself was not. Even though he's a great historian. A tremendous historian.

Modern archeological digs have verified that for a long time people wondered, why is it that when

Luke's writing Acts, he'll talk about the people who were in charge in different cities, and he keeps using different words.

He doesn't just simply say, you know, around here we have police officers, we've got the sheriff. You know, there are a lot of places in the

United States that don't have a sheriff. That's not even, most people, that's just out west, back in the olden days.

Matt Dillon or something like that. But we still have a sheriff. And Luke, as he's going around, he'll use all these specific words for the people who were involved in law enforcement, or the person who was a judge, and things like that.

And he keeps changing the words. Well, as we've done archeological digs and know more about the ancient world, what we've discovered is, just as language can be different in different places, so, the terms that people would use of their political, social leaders would change as well.

And Luke reflects this. He uses, instead of just using generic terms, he demonstrates that he knows exactly what the people in these particular cities called their leaders.

Tremendous historian. And so, these things are handed down by eyewitnesses.

Sometimes Luke himself is an eyewitness in the book of Acts. When it goes from Paul and his companions to we, that generally indicates that Luke has joined up with them.

So he becomes an eyewitness himself. It seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning.

Those are not the words of a person writing historical fiction.

Having investigated everything carefully from the beginning. I've been careful with my sources. There seems to be good evidence when you look at Luke.

He can tell us what Mary was thinking at certain times. How did that happen? Well, sure, it's a supernatural element, but most probably,

Luke is the one who gives us so much information about the women in Jesus' ministry.

Did Luke know them? Had he interviewed them? Had he talked with them? Did Luke know Mary? Why not?

Investigated everything carefully from the beginning to write it out for you in consecutive order. It sounds like chronological order, but I don't think that's necessarily the way to take it.

Consecutive order, I think, has to do with ideas. With a consecutive order so you can follow it.

Luke, I think, brings a lot of teachings together into consecutive order so it's understandable.

So that you may know the what? Exact truth about the things you have been taught.

Those are either the words of a bold -faced deceiving liar, or someone who truly believes that what he's presenting is an accurate, researched account that communicates the exact truth about the things that theophilus has been taught.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the New Testament writers were sitting around, and you'd have to get all of them together, you'd have to come up with your conspiracy theories.

Because you see, they're actually writing at different times, in different places. You've got to remember, you couldn't whip out your cell phone and go,

Hey Paul, I'm working on chapter 17 here, and I need to confirm with you about what we're going to do with this certain doctrine that we're putting into the

New Testament here. How did you handle that in one of your letters? Okay, thanks for that. Talk to you later.

You couldn't do that. You couldn't do that. Conspiracy is a little harder, pretty easy today.

Harder back then, to communicate. These books are written by different people, at different times, in different places.

And the scary part is, some of them are written after other people who've written their death. Sort of hard to get them to fit into the conspiracy at that point.

There's no evidence that these are historical fiction. It is amazing to me that people will come to the subject of Christianity, and they have one overriding concern.

I've got to get out from underneath this! So many of the most rabid atheists, when they were young people, were sitting in a pew just like that.

And I think it's a confirmation of our theology. Why do

I say that? Because an unregenerate heart that hates

God, and yet is held down and constrained, gets to adulthood, and how many times have you seen it?

Rebellion. Detestation of everything. It was given to me with a silver platter.

Oh my, what judgment awaits. So, here you have these individuals.

There are some in the audience. As soon as I get done with my closing statement, one of the atheists in the audience cries out,

What about Islam? Yeah, like I haven't addressed that one too.

But that's, that you just see the seething arrogance in these rebels against God.

They detest what God has revealed. So they come to the text and, I've got to get out from underneath this, so I'll believe anything!

What's the most obvious background and source of everything we find in the story of Jesus?

Second Temple Judaism in the first few decades of the first century. The Greek Septuagint translation of the

Old Testament, The Scribes and the Pharisees, The Temple, The Prophecies of the

Old Testament. Oh, well that's not exciting. You can't get books published about that. We've got to come up with something else. That's not going to sell.

Ask Anne Brown. And so, even though you have right in front of you the most obvious, consistent source, you would not believe the mythology that people agree with.

All to give reason to people to disbelieve. The only reason any of us are here this day, the only reason we haven't given in to the temptation to embrace those things, is the supernatural.

It's not because we're good. It's not because we're smart. It's not because we knew more about Mithraism or Diabetes. It's because the

Spirit of God knows who the elect are. He guides and protects us.

What did Jesus say in John 10? I know my sheep and my sheep. The reason that we have not been lost is because we have a good shepherd.

What he taught us remains true. Let's pray. Dear Heavenly Father, we thank you for your truth.

We thank you for your Spirit that has protected your truth down through the ages. We would ask that even as we live in a land where so many rebel, they rebel in their rebellion, their hatred of you.

Lord, that we would be bold witnesses. That we would be able to give reason for the hope that's within us.

Lord, we know people even within our own families who believe these things, who look for reasons to disbelieve.

May we, as we have opportunity, be used of your Spirit to give testimony of the truth.

May you have mercy. Draw many unto yourself. We thank you for this time.