Keep sharing good news without ads.
Sunday morning sermon at PRBC on the real nature of Christian proclamation over against the inane attacks of modern atheists.
We did not follow cleverly devised tales of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is my beloved son. We ourselves heard that you do well to pay attention to the Morning Star Arise. In somewhat of a Christian mind, for seventeen years, you studied at 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 by the Father.
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, in December, 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 are particularly conspiring. And so I first want to 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. That same internet, there are going to be people who, as soon as they say it, go, wait a minute, that's 2 Peter. Nobody believes Peter wrote 2 Peter. Notice how I put that. Nobody believes that.
As soon as 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. What they are 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.
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, what it all comes down to is, when you read 1 and 2 Peter, the Greek is very different. You might notice something.
Statement. Through Silvanus, Peter dictated it to him. Most of the New Testament writers. So, I've seen some of those against us. It doesn't fit our theories of what Peter was like, and what the early church was like.
And so, Peter says, For we did not follow cleverly devised tactics. The term is actually, Jesus is met by the majestic glory. This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased. What's Peter talking about?
Duration. Unlike the Son, 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. He said, This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased. Listen to the situation that Peter is making reference to in 2 Peter. And he says, Witnesses.
And he gives evidence. 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 said? 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.
Peter says, Peter could be crucified upside down. 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 to you, 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.
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, you know, 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. It's not the prophet's own interpretation, for no prophecy, and remember, prophecy is not just for telling something to future.
It is a word from God. The Old Testament has a, no prophecy was ever made, by an act of human will. No one ever sat around and said, I guess I need to get another 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.
An act of human will, but men spoke from, holy, spoke from God, as they're being carried along, 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 that all of a sudden, Mark just sort of sat down, and his eyes got glassy in the beginning. That's not what inspiration is.
Mark uses his language, Paul can say things like, brethren pray for me, that's him speaking. What they spoke was, from, myths. New Testament, doing debates. Full citation, book, from 2000, got 20 seconds, in Malden State.
Point of order, he actually said, I might have changed my mind. He said, excuse me, are you selling the book? You're selling it out there, but you don't want me to quote it. He well knows. Ask yourself a question.
Yeah, I'm going to respond to these. What would be going through your mind? Let's say you're on, someone notices that you're reading a Christian book. And they come over to you, and they start throwing this stuff out at you.
Mithra, was born on the 25th of December. Conquered son, which was finally taken over by Christians, in the 4th century AD, as the birthday of Christ. 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 them blind, seeing 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 sacred, 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, a sacred cave. He was withdrawn from it, and was said to live. Christianity, Mithraism, was an ascetic, anti-female religion, of celibate men, led by Semitic Eremites, those were monks.
And some cultists, like the Essenes, and Byron, the rigid discipline, and vivid battle imagery, of Mithraism, appropriate for. So, a serious scholar, we live in the, can publish, nowhere in the, so they say, oh, oh Mithraism came from Persia, it was, it was a thousand years before Christ.
Yeah, ancient Mithra, or the middle of the, show me, the first century, and how, keep that in mind. The question is, Mithraism was dying, Christianity, so much more likely. Charles Trump, the more popular, simple thing of, history.
So, when it says, it was finally taken over, by Christians, in the fourth century, from secondary, what, so often, 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, the twelve signs, of Zodiac.
Where do you get that from? 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?
And he became, the zombified, lord of the underworld, and that's supposed to be, the parallel. Or Dionysus, he's virgin born, and it's absurd! And yet, there are, book, after book, after book, after book, being sold, to people, who want a reason, to disbelieve.
Just ask him. But they did have, a supper, but you see, the thing is, missing the bull, and from the blood of the bull, came the fertility, of the land. It was a vegetation cycle, which Christianity, never won.
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, has some kind of a, of a, fellowship meal.
But there was nothing, about sin, atonement, salvation, eternal life, anything like that, at all. It was simply, a sacramental meal. Did they use that term? Why use that term? This is one of seven, Mithraic sacraments.
The models, of the Christian, seven sacraments. Think about it. When did the seven sacraments, of Roman Catholicism, develop? In the New Testament, about seven sacraments, to begin with. More, historic, true, nothing like it, whatsoever.
And to say, that the Christian notion, of salvation, was almost wholly, a product, of a Persian, eschatology, of warfare, blissfully, so what do we find? We find, that there are many, many, who are doing, exactly, what Peter described, here, in second Peter.
It's like, James Michener. James Michener, writes, historical fiction. Historical situations, and he'll place, his story, 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, don't say that. Specific book, of history, of the early church. It became separated, from one, in its own way.
Remember, Luke acts, as meant to be, one story, for thinking. It's documents, that you submit, to the court, in regards, to a case, where you're not necessarily, the one, on trial, or, but you're, you have an interest, and you, you think the court should know, about these things.
And 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 proven, to be, putting up, a, an opposition, to the Roman Empire? 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. With all that, have a reduction, to his own, in as much, as many have undertaken, to compile, just as they were handed down, witnesses, 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.
In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest, named Zechariah. And the story, that he tells, he doesn't say, one day, upon Mount Olympus, give you a specific date. Now, they didn't use calendar.
He can't say, on September 26th, of the year X. They generally did, that kind of thing. 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 birth of Jesus. One of the things, that only he's done, as far as I can, is he's gone back, and we can look, at these orders, of the priests, and when they served, and when they, to throw a light, upon that.
My point is, this is the writing, of someone who's saying, this took place, on a particular, day. And telling those guys, on a specific day, I know exactly, 2001, we all remember, seeing 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.
Luke says, well Herod, is king of Judea. This is a particular place. These are particular, people of particular names, and particular time. What does Luke say? 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, was it, was it people going around, saying, well you tell me, your memories of Jesus. You were at the, which one of Jesus' sermons, were you at?
What do you remember, about that? But Luke tells us, that he's not the first one, who started it. And he says, these things, were handed down to us, by those who were, from the beginning, were eyewitnesses.
Not, 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. He'll talk about, in different cities. He doesn't just simply say, you know, around here, we have police officers, we've got the sheriff. 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, just as language, would 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 companion, 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 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. Luke is one, of logical 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, the consecutive order, so that you may know, the what? Truth, about the things, you have been taught. A bold, faced, deceiving, liar, or someone, who truly believes, that what he's presenting, is a, accurate, that the New Testament right.
Because you see there, actually,.