ELCA

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three. Three-three-four-one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white.

Thanksgiving Plans and the Missing Skype Line

Hey, good morning. Welcome to the dividing line for the only dividing line this week I have no intentions of being here at four o 'clock on Thursday afternoon. I Intend to be getting ready to start snitching dressing From the turkey at my parents house.

That is a family tradition. It is it's something you only get to do twice a year and so about this time we start getting ready to drag that big bird out and We just make lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of dressing and the stuff on the outside Gets a little bit more burnt to see than the stuff on the inside.

See so Man, I better stop this right now because I'm starting to get really Hungry Because there's nothing like like my father's like my father's turkey and dressing so we will be There on Thursday afternoon.

If you want to tune in to listen to the byline Thursday afternoon, you feel free to do so. But you're gonna be humming the sounds of silence during the entirety of the program because I ain't gonna be here so we've got to get it all in today at eight seven seven seven five three three three four one, but No Skype address yet, but it's coming.

We know that it's coming. Yes someday It will arrive and then we'll have it sound like you're in the in the studio with me right up until the point where you try to call in with dial-up and.

Like all in and it'll be really remember max headroom. That's what it'll sound like. You don't remember. Yeah, I do.

I do. I just don't necessarily. Okay, all right, I I don't know I didn't really watch that stuff. I was a Christian when I was younger but anyway. Okay, I don't see anybody in the other room right now.

There's feet dangling in the air. I think I took him out with one shot on that one. All right. Hey, there's some interesting stuff going on here while the huge crowds line up on the phone lines there.

ELCA Ordains a Lesbian Pastor Despite Celibacy Policy

I was pointed to a a A article in the Chicago Tribune. Lesbian ordained despite refusal to take vow of celibacy. Pastor says vow of celibacy for gays is discriminatory. This is from November 18th and it says sitting inside of her father and grandfather both Lutheran ministers.

Jen rude on Saturday became the first ordained lesbian pastor since the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. That's ELCA for those of you who are wondering urged bishops to not penalize Congregations who violate the celibacy requirement for gay clergy.

Ain't much of requirement if you're doing that now, is it it doesn't seem to be. Several of the more than 100 congregants who Present wept as the 27 year old stood before them a beaming smile drawn across her face.

Under church policy homosexual minister is required to make a vow of abstinence outside of marriage. Oh shocking a vow of abstinence outside of marriage how discriminatory is that. Oh Rude who is not in a relationship believes the policy discriminates against gay clergy.

Who may not marry. This paragraph as published has been cancelled corrected in this text. Just thought I'd add that in there since they correct it. We all realized that sexual orientation has nothing to do with how well a person can minister a congregation.

Said Kathy young a member of the Resurrection Lutheran Church in Lakeview where the ordination was held. Young was absolute about the decision to violate church policy by ordaining rude. This is who we are and this is what we do.

At National Assembly in August members passed a resolution that allowed bishops some breathing room about the vow celibacy issue until a church task force Releases a comprehensive statement on sexuality in 2009.

Well, there you go. This need to wait to 2009 to know what God says about sexuality because we have no way of knowing in the LCA. Since they stopped believing the Bible a long time ago. But it did not change Church's policy of requiring gay clergy to remain celibate rude.

Who will be installed at the church on Sunday said she is grateful to the Lakeview congregation for making her call to ministry complete. Yeah, well, that's the only place that call came from was from those group of people.

So they didn't come from a place else. It's meaningful me and meaningful to me in the sense that my call is being affirmed not only by God. But by the people of God. She said. Chicago's Bishop Wayne Miller who took office in September said he met with the congregation in October to discuss potential Consequences should the National Church choose to enforce the policy in the future.

The congregation could be expelled from the denomination for calling rude to serve. This does not imply any bitterness or any hostility. It's simply where we are right now. Miller said an interview last week.

My goal is to keep people in the conversation and I do not see this as an issue that should be dividing the church. I think it's one of the many places where differences of opinion can make the church Stronger and healthier as long as people stay at the table and keep talking.

Yes, that's all they have left is people at a table talking. They don't have God talking because they stopped listening to that a long time ago. Miller did not stand in the way of the ordination, but also did not attend the ceremony.

Little plausible deniability there. He said he believes the celibacy rule should be lifted. But also believes bishops should follow the rule the church. Aren't politicians great. I just I just love politicians.

They're they're wonderful. I Have happily come to the place of following the wise counsel of the church and being restrained. He said It takes away the problem of having to pit matters of personal opinion against the official boundaries of my office.

That's at this point in time. Of course, that's a more pleasant situation to be in for me. That's a nice way of saying I'm being politically correct here, and I'm not gonna give you a meaningful response.

Miller's predecessor Reverend Paul Lindahl attended Sunday's ordination under Lindahl's leadership gay clergy and relationships were allowed to serve in Chicago as Long as they were in consultation with the bishop Lindahl who serves as acting director of candidacy for Chicago's Lutheran School of Theology.

Oh great said the seminary's board recently approved an unprecedented welcoming statement affirming Inclusion. Great when that wonderful rudes ordination allows her to offer sacraments during Holy Communion.

Which she will do for the first time Sunday. But she still won't be in a fit on the official roles of the ELCA clergy. Instead her name will be added to the list of gay clergy ordained by extraordinary Lutheran ministries an Independent group that supports gay Lutheran clergy and the congregations that call them.

Isn't that great? Extraordinary Lutheran ministries. The 4 .8 million member Evangelical Lutheran Church in America based Chicago is the nation's largest Lutheran denomination. The Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod are separate denominations that accept a literal I love this a literal interpretation of the Bible and do not ordain women or gays.

That's the way that's the way it was originally written. It's right there in the text. I can see it's different font that was being used. So anyway Even the reporter can tell those other Lutherans are different.

They actually believe the Bible and so they don't do this. And so they they don't do that. So What do you do after a while? I mean, I These denominations when when do you just say Ichabod did you know these these these denominations?

Long long long ago left having any Meaningful or serious view of the scripture as the Word of God. They long long ago left having any idea of the Bible as having authority the Bible's being normative is being they are new stuff left that stuff long long time ago and every denomination that does.

What is the response? What is the result? It's always the same. The result is the The destruction of all meaningful theology morality. Everything it's it's all all God over time. Sad thing now. I Saw this link while I was down in Tucson for alternative Tucson which I wrote on Saturday the 80-mile portion of it and I Have only seen this here and so that makes me wonder because I would think this would be being discussed Right left and center.

So I bring this to you only to go. Hmm. Well, someone mentioned this. I don't get the feeling that they're quite right, but It's the only place I've seen this discussed. So This is from November 16th.

Ravenna Document and the Orthodox-Roman Catholic Schism

Vatican joins historic talks to end 950 year rift with the Orthodox Church. This is from Ruth Gledhill religion correspondent and Paul Bompard in Rome the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches took tentative steps towards healing their 950 year rift yesterday by drafting a joint document that acknowledges the primacy of the Pope.

For those of you who are Not quite up on your church history 1054 the split between the East and the West so it's been 953 years to be specific. The 46 paragraph Ravenna document written by a special commission of Catholic and Orthodox officials envisages a Reunified church in which the Pope could be the most senior patriarch among the various Orthodox churches.

Just as Pope John Paul II was driven by the desire to bring down communism. So so Pope Benedict the 16th hopes passionately to see the restoration of a unified church. Although he is understood to favor closer relations with traditional Anglicans.

The Anglican Communion communion is unlikely to be party to the discussions because of its ordination of women and other liberal practices. And I doubt they'll be talking to the ELCA anytime soon either.

Unification with the Orthodox churches could ultimately limit the authority of the Pope. Lessening the absolute power that he currently enjoys within Catholicism. In Contrast a deal would greatly strengthen the Patriarch of Constantinople in his dealings with the Muslim world and the other Orthodox churches.

Pope Benedict pet the head. Pope Benedict has called a meeting of Cardinals from all over the world in Rome on November 23rd. That's Friday when the document will be the main topic of discussion. The Ravina roadmap Concedes that elements the true church are present outside the Catholic Communion.

It suggests that means be sought out. To set up a new ecumenical council similar to those the early church which drew up the Nicene and other creeds into which the Catholic and Orthodox bishops would be invited.

Such a council would attempt formally to end the schism of 1054 between east and west. If the proposals move forward the Pope would be Acknowledged as the universal primate as he was before the schism.

Although it is not stated outright. He would be expected and listen to this. Here's where it gets a little bit weird. He would be expected by the Orthodox churches to relinquish the doctrine of infallibility.

The proposals could also allow married priests in the Catholic Church as already happens in the Orthodox. Now if you're listening to this and you know something about Roman Catholicism, you're going. Mmm.

That's really however continuing disputes within the Orthodox Church between Constantinople and Moscow mean that there is unlikely to be agreement among the entire Orthodox community about reconciliation with Rome.

The document the ecclesiological and canonical consequences of the sacramental nature of the church. Don't just love long titles like that has been produced by a commission of Orthodox and Catholic bishops and theologians that met in Ravenna in Western Italy last month.

The Russian delegate walked out of the meeting an Indication of the enduring disputes within the Orthodox Church. Let me just stop there for a moment. Anybody who knows anything about Orthodoxy knows?

That there is no such thing as an Eastern Orthodox Church period I mean Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox and and this group in that group the the cultural and ethnic lines there are so distinct That to even talk about a single unified Eastern Church is just it's just silly and The Patriarch of Moscow is not going to do anything that would bump him any lower in the food chain shall we say and Letting Rome into the food chain would certainly bump him lower.

So that ain't happening anytime soon but anyway. Referring to the early councils of the church whose decisions are still central to doctrine throughout Christendom the document adds in the course of history when serious problems arose effect in the universal communion and concord between churches in regard either to the authentic interpretation of the faith or to ministries in a relationship the whole church or the common discipline which Fidelity the gospel requires.

Recourse was made to ecumenical councils. These councils which assemble bishops from Rome Constantinople Alexandria Antioch and Jerusalem are still regarded as binding by Catholics in the Orthodox in particular.

The means which will allow the reestablishment of ecumenical consensus must be sought out. The document states. The Catholics at the Ravina meeting were led by Cardinal Walter Casper of the Council for promoting Christian unity.

The Orthodox were headed by Metropolitan Zizoulas of the ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. A delegate from Moscow blamed Constantinople for upsetting the talks. And that the and the final text published by the Vatican was agreed without the input of the Moscow Patriarchate.

After Rome and Constantinople Moscow was agreed to be third in the hierarchy of equals. But it is still at odds with Rome over the Union Catholics in Ukraine whose loyalty is to the Pope and by the way one Could argue I think rather successfully that Moscow really doesn't deserve that it's a political thing.

I mean Moscow was not one of the apostolic sees or anything like that. So this is clearly just a matter of Politics. Quite obviously if the Orthodox were able to move closer to Rome the Constantinople Patriarchate Would have much stronger influence in its dialogue with the Muslim world in Turkey and beyond healing the schism Would in effect turn Patriarch Bartholomew into an Orthodox Pope.

The document suggests that the Pope always referred to in the text as Bishop of Rome Could be the first among the regional Patriarchs. But this would be only a primus inter partes with his authority resting firmly on the support and consensus of the other Patriarchs.

Certainly Rome could not be the absolute center of administration with authority over all the others. Greek Metropolitan Athanasios Chatzopoulos one of the participants of the Ravina Conference said the primus would not be able to do anything without the consent of the other Patriarchs.

On July 16th 1054 Pope Leo the 9th Excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople the Patriarch Silurius soon reciprocated Excommunicating the Pope. Christianity has since been split into two. Largely because of three words the Nicene Creed.

I'm reading this of course a Nicene Creed of the Roman Church Says that the Holy Ghost perceives in the Father and the Son. The Orthodox Church claims the Holy Ghost originates with the Father alone. The filial clause was the official reason for the Great Schism, but other disputes Would now need to be clarified before the churches could Unite and I didn't see anything there in regards to The Trinitarian issues and how they would get together.

And certainly Moscow stands in the way there. But let me tell you if something were to happen and obviously Especially Orthodox churches that are feeling and have been feeling for hundreds and hundreds of years the tremendous pressure of Islam Would find it shall we say somewhat? advantageous for them to consider this this move this reunification and It would be helpful for them and it would have quite an impact within our own country even though Eastern Orthodoxy is not exactly the major influence around here and the Roman Catholicism of America is a grab bag at best.

Still you you see today this movement toward Rome on the part of scholars and intellectuals who again having been deeply infected with a a Western view that diminishes the authority of scripture and the sufficiency of scripture are always looking for something to add to that something to allow them to Speak the world's language in essence and think like the world along those lines and and so they Those very same type of ecumenically minded folks Would be truly stepping up the pressure if there was a united church because now they'd look at the Protestants and they'd say well look If we've been able to get together It's you know given the threat of Islam and given The threat of secularism and a militant atheism.

We all just need to get together. You need to stop being so picky about these little things. Like how a person's made right before God and whether the sacrifice of Christ is complete and sufficient in and of itself.

You need to get over all this this gospel stuff and this scripture stuff. And we need to stand united now, of course. What you're standing on would become a bit of a question if you stand united normally you have to have some kind of a foundation or something like that, but we don't have to worry too much about about that, but The pressure would be much greater.

For people to just give in and say well, you know If we're gonna allow at least for some variation some differences, but we're all you know united in in looking at these Patriarchs is having you know certain authority blah blah blah blah blah well The pressure is gonna be on so what's gonna come of this?

Well, like I said, I've not heard anybody else talking about it now. I I looked this morning I didn't have anything in my RSS feeds and I would assume that certain Catholic blogs would just be all a chatter about something like this, but maybe this particular article is just way overblown we'll find out the meeting is this weekend and We'll see what what really is going on with it.

But I I know that the move toward reconciliation with Eastern Orthodoxy was probably The primary reason that John Paul II did not define the fifth Marian dogma as a dogma of the church. Because he knew that that would be a tremendous stumbling block because the Marian the last Marian dogmas Are not so much Rejected by the East as the East doesn't like them because they were unilaterally defined as dogma by Rome and All those things that were unilaterally defined as dogma by Rome after 1054 Are are going to have to be discussed.

Now the only way I can see that happening is basically Rome allowing for I guess the only way I could describe it would be a fluffy interpretation of those dogmas a sort of yes of floating on the cloud fluffy warm fuzzy puppy dog eye Interpretation of those particular dogmas.

And again that that creates a unity that isn't a unity. You know and it it it really comes down to the idea of that. Well, these dogmas weren't really dogmatic. Well, were they or weren't well were they or were they not were they part of the gospel were they not part of the God, I mean the Roman Catholic apologists have got to be looking at this going.

Oh now. Because there's just there's no way to defend this you have to go Whatever the church says, but just don't ask me what the church is or don't ask me specifics, you know, we just got to Sort of let it, you know slide the way it is and they've got to be just shaking their head going how on earth.

Are you going to you know defend something like this because there's really nothing left to defend. It's all just Really squishy and stuff like that. So I find it fascinating. I would be interested in Excuse me.

Yeah, it's over here. I just didn't reach it in time. Yes. I've got a cough drop. See it's right there I can touch it like that. It cuts me in and out like just like that. Did that work? Oh, yeah, that's right that that's cutting the other one off.

It don't work at all, man I can sit here and hit this thing forever. It's it's cutting that microphone right over there off. Where is our sound man? Where is the guy who strings this stuff up, huh?

I want to know where he is. That was supposed to be a guest microphone just because you liked it better.

What can I say, well, you know there's this thing about being able to see the computers that you're reading from that is sort of important that one's way over there and It it it takes up much more. This one goes up and down so we will Have to play with the cough drop and get that fixed.

Huh? What do you think? Where is that sound guy? I haven't seen him around for a while. He did all this wiring and then left. But now he seems to be doing other stuff. Yeah, so anyway, eight seven seven seven five three three three four one for those of you who would like to comment on either of those two stories and Let me look at yeah, I've got time here to get into our next topic before we take our break.

Tony Costa sent out an email November 6th now some of you don't know who Tony Costa is. Tony's up in Toronto the Toronto area and He has debated Shabir Ali much more often than I have and in fact they had a series of dialogues as they called them right after we had the debate up in in Seattle and He sent out a letter to to Shabir in light of Shabir's comments and Those comments came up in our debate as well, and we're pretty close to having that debate ready.

Hopefully we'll have it soon and one of the citations that Shabir has used more than once I had heard it. He used it in our debate. There is a series of books and and some of these books are really useful and some of them are really bad.

This is one of the really bad ones. The Oxford University Press puts out the very short introduction series. There's at least a hundred and sixty or hundred and seventy of these things. The 42nd in the series is called Paul a very short introductions by E .P. Sanders now E .P. Sanders again.

Here's one of those situations where you go E .P. Sanders is a great scholar. Yeah. Well, what do you mean by great scholar? He's a smart fellow. Yes. Does he start from even semi meaningful? Presuppositions that would result in in something being useful within the church.

No, he doesn't that's the problem and he makes you know very Well on this page that that Shabir cites this is why Shabir likes him page 29 of E .P. Sanders work. The other difference between Paul's summaries of what he preached and Peter's sermons and acts is that the former?

Emphasizes the nearness of the return of the Lord as time passed and the Lord did not return this motive Receded the author of acts probably revised Peter's sermons accordingly. So here you have just you know, just thrown out.

No, no documentation given. I'd realize these are short introductions, but this is the the the motif of modern scholarship you us you start with the assumption that the only thing that cannot possibly be the case is that what we have in Scripture is Actually truthful that it actually represents what was said why it was said that it's harmonious you start with the assumption that can't be and so once you once you break the text apart and turn it into Little building blocks where you can pick and choose what you want to put into your your particular Structure and what you don't then it's easy to go.

Well, you know We're gonna interpret we're gonna look at what happened in in the Thessalonica where people clearly Misunderstood the concept of the coming of the Lord and they're out there sitting on the hilltop type thing.

We're gonna take that and Since that fits into our mold of what we think these people were like. We're gonna take that as as what was actually first preached. But then there's a disappointment Jesus doesn't come back when he's expected something like that.

So we're gonna we're gonna throw that out there. And so then when it doesn't happen Then we're gonna redact the text and we're gonna have the author of acts whoever the rule that was because it couldn't have been Luke.

Even though you know, he in essence Dishonestly lies because you know the pronouns indicate this person claims to have been a part of what was going on partly, he's recording what he's heard from others and partly he's Participating because it goes from they to we and stuff like that.

And yeah, okay. So this particular author is just like super accurate in always using the exact Terminology that archaeology when it allows us to do so demonstrates was being used exactly of who was a leader and what they were called in That particular area.

Okay, so he's you know, but the author of Acts whoever it was Is just doing that to try to fool us. See he's just being this he's just being historically accurate just simply to try to fool us and so We just to sort of take that and we we then go well what's going on with the author of acts?

Is that now that Jesus hasn't returned? He's originally, I guess maybe Peter did talk more about the coming Lord, but but we're just gonna tone that down. We're gonna cut that down and no we don't have any evidence of this.

We don't have any documents of this and yeah We're having to do mind-reading and we're gonna have to having to basically accuse people of being dishonest. Starting presupposition determines all this but that's scholarship you see that's that's serious scholarship because we can write 800 page books where we do this on every page and being able to keep that kind of effort up that long means we are a great scholar and That's why I don't fit in there very well because I go, you know, that's not really a really solid argumentation.

But anyway, it's on this particular page In fact the very next paragraph that Shabir Ali takes his quote. We will look at that and what Tony has said about that and the context of that. But we're gonna take a break and your phone calls eight seven seven seven five three three three four one.

Justification by Faith and the Gospel of Grace

We'll be right back. The history of the Christian Church pivots on the doctrine of justification by faith. Once the core of the Reformation the church today often ignores or misunderstands this foundational doctrine.

In his book The God Who Justifies theologian James White calls believers to a fresh appreciation of understanding of and dedication to the great doctrine of justification and then provides an exegesis of the key scripture texts on this theme.

Justification is the heart of the gospel in today's culture where tolerance is the new absolute. James White proclaims with passion the truth and centrality of the doctrine of justification by faith. Dr. Jay Adams says I lost sleep over this book.

I simply couldn't put it down. James White writes the way an exegetically and theologically oriented pastor appreciates. This is no book for casual reading. There is solid meat throughout an outstanding contribution in every sense of the words.

The God Who Justifies by dr. James White. Get your copy today at a omen org. Public crimes the criminal mishandling of God's Word may be James White's most provocative book yet White sets out to examine numerous crimes being committed in pulpits throughout our land every week as he seeks to leave no stone unturned.

Based firmly upon the bedrock of Scripture one crime after another is laid bare for all to see. The pulpit is to be a place where God speaks from his word. What has happened to this sacred duty in our day?

The charges are as follows prostitution using the gospel for financial gain pandering to pluralism cowardice under fire felonious eisegesis entertainment without a license and Cross-dressing ignoring God's ordinance regarding the roles of men and women.

Is a public crime occurring in your town. Get pulpit crimes in the bookstore at a omen org. This portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God.

The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church. The elders and people of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming Lord's Day.

The morning Bible study begins at 9 30 a .m. And the worship service is at 10 45. Evening services are at 6 30 p .m. On Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7. The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix.

You can call for further information at 602 2 6 grace. If you're unable to attend you can still participate with your computer and real audio at prbc .org. Where the ministry extends around the world through the archives of sermons and Bible study lessons available 24 hours a day.

And welcome back to the dividing line talking a little bit about a citation. Some of you may recall it if you were at the the debate Citation that should be Raleigh uses from a little very small book Paul a very short introduction by EP Sanders published by Oxford and here's here's the context.

Here's what says. Modern people have a difficult time seeing how believable the basic message was to many ancients if We now heard the proclamation of resurrection. The first question would probably be how do you know he was really dead and what was resolute resurrection like?

What form did it take? These questions did later come up and Paul replied to the second first Corinthians 15 36 to 50 his answer which we shall consider in the next chapter was the resurrection was of a spiritual body not a physical body not flesh and blood which Further demonstrates EP Sanders has no idea what Paul is actually teaching.

But anyway, I continue the first question in the ancient world where many believe that humans were basically immortal seems to have been. How do we know that God raised this man to heaven appointed him Lord Paul testified to his own vision?

Of and commissioning by the risen Lord and it is evident that many believed him accepted Jesus as their Savior. You can see again why we can hardly recommend this as an overly useful Introduction to Paul's thought given the gross bias of EP Sanders.

But anyway The the quotation that is used is If we now heard the proclamation of resurrection The first questions would probably be how do you know he was really dead and what was resurrection light what form did it take?

Clearly in the context of this particular book EP Sanders is talking about what modern people would ask. He is not saying that that there was no crucifixion. He was not saying Jesus didn't die on a cross.

He was not promoting a swoon theory. He he wasn't addressing any of that. He was just simply saying modern folks. This is what they would say now. Shabir has used this to imply anyway that EP Sanders is supportive of his own swoon theory and so I I go to Tony Costa's letter to Shabir and I think you will Find him to lay this out fairly.

Well, let me read it for you. Hi Shabir. Thanks to the reference that you supplied me with by EP Sanders Paul a very short introduction Oxford University Press Oxford 1991 page 29. Where any States modern people have a difficult time seeing how unbelievable the basic message was to many ancients if we now heard the proclamation The resurrection the first question would probably be how do you know he's really dead and what was resurrection like what form did it take?

These questions did later come up and Paul replied the second first Corinthians 15 36 to 50. I think it is important to place this in context. Sanders is clearly speaking what modern people would say the resurrection claim.

Yes. Some like a try Morris and F Schleiermacher in the late 1600s and 1700s did suggest the swoon theory or apparent death theory. I either Jesus not really die but this has been discarded universally by New Testament scholarship as far back as 1835 as We see with the radical critic David Strauss in his book.

That's Laban Yesu the life of Jesus who laid it to rest. The question of Jesus death Was also denied by the Gnostics in the second century because they denied that Jesus was a true human being. To begin with assuming that the divine could not be material which they saw as inherently evil is important to note.

However that Sanders points out that Paul answered the second of the questions posed above in other words There was no denial in the first century that Jesus died on the cross until the Gnostics challenged it as I said into the second century CE.

The death of Jesus was clearly presumed both internally in the New Testament and in the extra biblical sources Tacitus Suetonius Josephus Babylonian Talmud, etc. If we call it our debate at McMaster I'd had challenged you to produce one New Testament scholar who denied that Jesus died on the cross during the rebuttal period or conclusion.

You said EP Sanders and the text above in Support of your contention that Jesus did not truly die on the cross and posited that was an answer to my challenge. I know that after the debate was formally over you had told me person EP Sanders did not deny Jesus died on the cross.

I wish that you had stated that to the audience because I think that you gave the impression that Sanders was one New Testament scholar who sided with you in adopting the apparent death theory or swoon theory when in fact It is not for instance in the quote above Sanders is not disputing that Jesus died but simply stating what questions modern people would raise in regard to the resurrection claim.

In Support of my contention that New Testament scholars including EP Sanders accept the death of Jesus is indisputable. I cite Sanders in the same book quote he Paul preached the death resurrection and lordship of Jesus Christ.

Yet Jesus dreadful death as a condemned criminal was also central to Paul's message Jesus Crucifixion then the beginning of the Christian proclamation was not a defeat but a step to ultimate redemption.

His Jesus execution temporarily undermined the disciples expectation. But the resurrection convinced them that their former master was now their Lord and that he would return to establish his kingdom.

Jesus death was sacrificial. That comes from pages 25 26 32 and 92 of EP Sanders Paul a very short introduction in an earlier work. EP Sanders lists Jesus's crucifixion as one of several facts about Jesus's career and Its aftermath that can be known beyond doubt.

EP Sanders Jesus and Judaism, Philadelphia Fortress 1985 page 11 and. So Tony finishes his letter. If you do cite this passage from Sanders in the future, please keep these points above in mind. I think it's important that if you cite Sanders that you emphasize his position on the issue.

Thanks again for the time and I look forward to exciting future engagements with you. Take care in best regards. And that's of course Tony Costa written to a Shabir Ali so Shabir has used that same citation in in our debates as well.

And it is quite clear that that I believe is a misuse of Sanders words. All he is in essence saying is if we heard that proclamation today. Then this is how we would respond to it. These are the questions we would ask but we are modern people and we ask different questions.

That the and then the ancient people now, I don't agree with almost anything that Sanders says in that context his view of that time period I think is quite slanted and the idea of viewing people as immortal Is again extremely simplistic and I don't think overly accurate as to really what the question was.

Certainly you do not have secularistic Naturalistic presuppositions and scholarship that you have today. That's a given but I Think there's a real snootiness amongst modern men as to the beliefs of the ancient world and and The mind of the ancient world and we tend to think that of ourselves as being much smarter than those people because we have gadgets.