Conversation With a Muslim

Written by Don Closson

[Leia este artigo em português]

Introduction

It is always easier to deal with religious belief systems in the abstract. Cataloguing what a particular religion believes concerning the nature of God, human nature, salvation, and morality is usually a straightforward affair. Actually dialoguing with someone who holds to these beliefs can be far more interesting and challenging. So, although I possessed a general knowledge of what Islam teaches, I found that only by carrying on a long-term discussion with a Muslim did I gain a sense of the mindset and attitudes of a follower of Allah. A door was opened for me to experience some of the passion and zeal to be found in the Muslim evangelist. The discussion occurred via email, which muted some of the emotions that often accompany religious exchanges, but they still came through with considerable intensity.

The opportunity to carry on a discussion with a Muslim apologist arose when a campus minister asked if I would help respond to charges against the claims of Christianity being made by an Islamic leader at his school. I agreed, and soon realized that a number of others, both Muslim and Christian would be listening in on our discussion. Once introduced to my Muslim counterpart, let's call him Ali, the interchange began quickly. I wish that I could report that at the end of our discussion Ali placed his faith in Christ. In fact, I don't think that I made much of an impact at all on his thinking. Ali, as with all of us, chooses what to accept as evidence. He refused to even attempt to see any of the issues we discussed from a Christian perspective. All I can do is pray that God might use our discussion down the road sometime, if God chooses to soften Ali's heart.

Over a six month period our discussion primarily focused on the person of Christ. Ali would ask questions and I would attempt to give an answer. I quickly realized that Ali's tactics and intentions were different from mine. He often used ridicule and intimidation in his responses and would pick and choose what to discuss and what to ignore, deciding when to move on to another topic in order to avoid really considering the material at hand. I have never considered myself a debater, I would much rather have a discussion with people who are really interested in the topic and graciously exchange viewpoints. If I were to enter another dialogue like the one with Ali, I would have to realize that I cannot assume that everyone thinks the way I do regarding dialogue across religious worldviews. The Bible tells us to be ready to give the reason for the hope that we have in Christ, and to do so with gentleness and respect. Don't assume the other person will follow the same rules.

Next we will look at the issue of the person of Jesus Christ from a Muslim perspective and begin to consider how one might make a biblical response.

Christological Mathematics

Since I had never spoken to a Muslim regarding the claims of Christianity, I was looking forward to the kinds of questions that might be raised. I was not surprised that the first issue that came up was the nature of Jesus Christ, since this really is the heart of the matter. Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet, perhaps even a unique prophet, but not in any sense God. Ali got the conversation going by declaring that there was no place in the Bible that says that Jesus is both 100 percent God and 100 percent man. Along with this initial challenge Ali pointed out that he was very sensitive to proper interpretation and would be looking for incidents of verse twisting in order to make a passage say something that it actually doesn't.

I sent Ali a 2500 word essay that I had written earlier that contained multiple arguments for the deity of Christ and numerous biblical examples of Jesus saying and doing things that only make sense if He were indeed equal with God the Father. My response included indications of Christ's self-perception as God, as well as statements made by His disciples portraying their belief in His deity. I assumed that Christ's humanity was not the real issue. So I did not see a need to defend it. Ali's response was interesting. He noted that Muslims do indeed believe that Jesus was born of a virgin and performed many miracles, with the help of God. But then he stated, "From your response I think we both agree that the Bible does not claim that Jesus is both 100% God and 100% man." He later added, "If you don't have any verses to give us then let's move on to the next point."

At first I thought that Ali had not gotten my entire essay. How could he have missed my point? He reassured me that he had gotten it and then declared that since there is no verse that states the 100 percent deity and 100 percent humanity of Christ, we can go on. What I eventually realized was that he was demanding a single verse that actually declared a mathematical set of percentages for the mixture of deity and humanity in Christ. I was a bit surprised to say the least. When I asked for confirmation, he said that that was indeed what he was looking for.

Most people know that the verse numbers in the Bible were added at a later date for convenience sake. After reminding Ali of passages like Philippians 2:6-7 and the first chapter of John, I asked him why it was necessary to find this complex truth in one verse. He ignored my question and responded by claiming victory that indeed, the Bible does not claim in one verse that Jesus is 100 percent God and 100 percent man, and he declared that we would now move on to the next point.

I must admit that I was a bit baffled, but not ready to concede the issue.
The Importance of Context

Ali's debating tactics might be called the "slash and burn" technique: never admit to using a weak argument and make good use of sarcasm to intimidate your opponent. He also likes to claim victory in the middle of an exchange of ideas and then declare that we are moving on to the next issue. However, before I moved on to his next question I tried once more to answer his first. All that got me was the charge that I was avoiding his second point. He wrote,

You see Don, what you have done in your last email is you completely avoided this verse, and then you went looking in the Bible for other verses in which you think Jesus claimed to be God and gave them to us thinking that it would some how make us "forget" about John 5:30.

What about John 5:30? Jesus says; "By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but Him who sent me." Ali claims that the verse shows that Jesus is inferior and helpless, that in fact He can do nothing. The key to this passage, as always, is in the context. I pointed out to Ali that in John 5:19-23 Jesus says that "He can do only what He sees His Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does." Jesus raises the dead, has been given all judgment, and is to be given the same honor that the Father is given. Ali replied, "Great, this is what a messenger does, this doesn't make him god."

I pointed out to him that a messenger communicates on behalf of someone else. He does not claim to do what someone else does. Muhammad claimed to be a messenger of Allah, not to do what Allah does. In fact, Jesus didn't claim to show the way as a messenger might, but He claimed that He was the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). In fact, the same chapter says that the Jews recognized that Jesus was claiming equality with God the Father and tried all the harder to kill him (John 5:18). Ali might disagree with this claim, that Jesus is God, but that is exactly the argument that is being made by this chapter and the rest of the book of John.

Ali pulls verses from their context and refuses to deal with the entire passage. When given evidence from the chapter that contradicts his views, he changes the meanings of words and ridicules what he finds to be unreasonable. Next we will look at Ali's rejection of the Trinity.
The Trinity

It is not surprising that Ali does not understand nor acknowledge the Trinitarian relationship between Jesus and the Father. Surah 4 verse 171 in the Qur'an calls on people of the book, Christians, not to commit excesses in their religion. It claims that Jesus was just a messenger of Allah and His Word, which was given to Mary. It literally tells Christians to "say not Trinity" for Allah is one. It is possible that Muhammad believed that the Trinity consisted of Jesus, the Father, and Mary. He rejected Jesus as the Son of God because he pictured Jesus as a physical offspring from a union of God the Father and Mary. This would commit the ultimate sin in the eyes of Islam, equating a physical thing with God the Creator (shirk). Ali writes, "To say that Jesus is God or Son of God is not only a mockery of Godhood, but blasphemy of the lowest order and an insult to the intelligence of men."

As a result, Ali alternates between denying that the Bible teaches that Jesus is God and ridiculing as illogical the notion the Jesus can be both God and man. He refuses to acknowledge the notion of the Trinity, even when it is the best way to bring together difficult passages. When enough evidence is given that the Bible does teach that Jesus is both God and man, admittedly a difficult concept, Muslims reject the Bible as having been corrupted. They really have no other choice since the Qur'an specifically rejects the Trinity. It literally comes down to either rejecting their prophet Muhammad or accepting the validity and message of the Bible.

An interesting side note to this discussion is that Ali's position is very similar to believers of other religious groups who respect Jesus but reject Christianity. Jehovah's Witnesses claim that the Bible was corrupted following the passing of the apostles, and that they now have its correct interpretation, as do Mormons and the Baha'is, an offshoot of Islam. Mormons claim that their prophet Joseph Smith received their view of Jesus, found in the Book of Mormon, from the angel Moroni. Muhammad claimed to have received the Qur'an from the angel Gabriel. It is obvious that all of these revelations cannot be true as they each give us a very different Jesus. Paul has something to say about these different gospels. He writes to the church in Galatia:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel--which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! (Galatians 1:6-8)

A Difficult Decision

As I mentioned earlier, the outcome of the six-month interchange was neither a conversion, nor even a congenial agree-to-disagree ending. In fact, I ended the dialogue after realizing that continuing the exchange could profit little and that my time might be better spent elsewhere. I must add that this was not an easy decision to make. I wondered whether I had given up too easily or had somehow not communicated adequately the hope that I have in Christ.

However, any hesitation to end the conversation was erased when I received a reply to my note to terminate the exchange. Ali told me that I could not quit. That in fact, he would announce on various web sites that both I and Probe Ministries had nothing to say regarding the reliability of the Bible if I did not respond to his challenges. This confirmed to me that Ali was simply using me to gain access to a larger audience in order to get out his message. He had no interest in a real discussion where ideas are considered and a minimal amount of graciousness exists.

I went back to the Scriptures to see how Jesus handled such people and what He taught His followers to do when they encountered ears that would not hear. In the synoptic Gospels, Jesus told his apostles that, "[I]f any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them." The meaning communicated was that those who reject the gospel must now answer for themselves. When the gospel is taught, it brings both judgment and salvation.

In Matthew 7:6 Jesus tells the apostles, "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." Dogs and pigs do not signify any specific race or ethnic group. Jesus is teaching that those who have treated the gospel with scorn and clearly rejected the salvation it offers and have been hardened by their contempt are to be avoided.

When Paul and Timothy were opposed by the Jews, who became abusive, the book of Acts (18:5) records, "[H]e shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, 'Your blood be on your own heads! I am clear of my responsibility.'"

I get little pleasure from reading these passages. I wanted to change Ali's mind. However, when I told Ali that I was praying for him, he replied, "Don't preach to me, prove it to me." Given that he had ignored much evidence already, it told me that his ears were closed. However, I will continue to pray that God will soften Ali's heart and that one day he might have ears to hear the Gospel.

©2001 Probe Ministries.

About the Author

Don Closson received the B.S. in education from Southern Illinois University, the M.S. in educational administration from Illinois State University, and the M.A. in Biblical Studies from Dallas Theological Seminary. He served as a public school teacher and administrator before joining Probe Ministries as a research associate in the field of education. He is the general editor of Kids, Classrooms, and Contemporary Education.

What is Probe?

Probe Ministries is a non-profit ministry whose mission is to assist the church in renewing the minds of believers with a Christian worldview and to equip the church to engage the world for Christ. Probe fulfills this mission through our Mind Games conferences for youth and adults, our 3 1/2 minute daily radio program, and our extensive Web site at www.probe.org.
Further information about Probe's materials and ministry may be obtained by contacting us at:
Probe Ministries
1900 Firman Drive, Suite 100
Richardson, TX 75081
(972) 480-0240 FAX (972) 644-9664
info@probe.org This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
www.probe.org

What is Global Warming?

Written by Dr. Ray Bohlin

[Leia este artigo em portugûes]

Over the last few months, dating back to the 2000 election, we have been bombarded with the news of global warming. Unfortunately, this issue has become highly polarized politically. Some scientists and politicians believe the warming has been fully documented as being caused by human interference and drastic measures are necessary to bring it under control, while others just as strenuously maintain that nothing has been proven and drastic measures will only ruin our economy for no reason. What are we to think?

First, let me say at the start of this article that I have been what some would call an environmentalist since high school. I cooperate fully with the recycling program offered by my city: collecting all newspaper, glass, aluminum cans, and certain plastics for pick-up every other week. I don't buy Styrofoam plates or cups since it is not reusable or biodegradable.
I have long been a nature enthusiast, previously as an avid bird-watcher and feeder. Zoos have always been an attraction for me, but even better are opportunities to see God's creatures in their natural habitat. A jog in the woods is more preferable to a run down the street, even with no traffic.

I drive a small fuel-efficient car and as soon as it is practicable for my family financially, I intend to purchase one of those new cars run by both battery and gasoline, which gets close to 60 miles to the gallon.

I think stewardship of God's creation is a good thing and I think we (meaning humans) have often sought our own needs to the unnecessary detriment of the rest of creation. So with this as a background, what do I think of global warming? I'm afraid that my position will not totally satisfy either of the extremes mentioned earlier. For I don't think global warming requires the drastic action being required by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But neither do I believe that the signs of global warming can be totally ignored, as some economists and political conservatives would have us think.

For instance, it does seem that there is credible evidence that both Arctic and Antarctic ice is receding, most glaciers worldwide appear to be in retreat, and sea levels are rising. The important question, however, is whether global warming is responsible for these events. And perhaps even more importantly, what can we realistically do about it even if rising global temperatures are even partly responsible for these disturbing trends?

In this article I will be examining the evidence for a human component to the increasing temperatures and whether the proposed remedies offered by the IPCC are the best means of effecting real change for the future.

Global Warming and the Kyoto Protocol

The issue of global warming has become a lightning rod issue the world over. When President Bush recently indicated that he would hold back on setting carbon dioxide limits for U.S. power plants, environmentalist groups around the world immediately demonized him. A campaign was put in motion to flood the White House with e-mails condemning his action.
To help understand this issue let's investigate the basics of the greenhouse effect on our planet and see what the fuss is all about. The greenhouse effect simply refers to the ability of some gases in our atmosphere to absorb and hold heat better than others. This creates a warming blanket around the earth without which life would be much more difficult for all life forms on earth.

It's similar to the effect produced by actual greenhouses with walls and ceilings of glass. Glass allows certain wavelengths of light and radiation in, but traps certain others from getting out. Leave your car in the full sun, even on a pleasant day, and you can later enter the car to blast furnace temperatures. That's a greenhouse effect.

Of great concern today is the fact that some greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, are increasing in the atmosphere and the average temperature of the earth at ground level has increased by about a full degree Fahrenheit since 1900 (0.5 degrees Celsius). Many have become convinced that the increase in carbon dioxide and the increase in temperature are cause and effect respectively.

Further, many believe that the increased carbon dioxide is due to the burning of fossil fuels. Some global climate computer models predict that this is only the beginning of the rise of global temperatures and that by the end of the 21st century, average global temperatures could rise by as much as seven degrees Fahrenheit (3.5 degrees Celsius). As a result, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, based on the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, issued the Kyoto Protocol in December of 1997.

Simply put, the Kyoto protocol calls on all agreeing nations to reduce their fossil fuel emission by at least five percent below their estimated 1990 levels by around 2010. Most nations were actually assigned reductions of 7-8 percent, including the United States. Now that doesn't sound like much at first glance. However, it is widely recognized, that with the growth in the U.S. economy since 1990, this would amount to as much as a 30 percent actual reduction in fossil fuel use by 2010. To achieve such a drastic reduction would require major shifts in U.S. energy policy and the economy. We'd better make sure it's worth it.

Next we'll look at the science of global warming.

Scientific Problems with Global Warming

Now I want to discuss some of the problems with the scientific evidence that purports to show that human produced carbon dioxide is responsible for global warming.{1} As I mentioned earlier, levels of carbon dioxide are increasing in the atmosphere and ground stations have reported a slight warming in this century. Many believe that the increase in carbon dioxide has caused the slight rise in temperature, and they fear this is only the modest beginning of more significant temperature increases in the 21st century. I think there are several reasons to strongly doubt this conclusion.

First, we need to consider the influence of long-term trends. The last ice age ended about 11,000 years ago by most estimates, and the planet has been warming ever since. Sea levels have been rising at the rate of 7-8 inches every 100 years. Therefore, the fact that sea levels are rising is not necessarily due to humanly caused global warming. There was a significant warming trend from around 900 A.D. to 1300 A.D. Greenland was actually green on its coasts at one time. This was followed by what is referred to as the "Little Ice Age" from about 1450 to 1850. Both of these trends occurred without human influence and the current warming trend could just be stabilization from this last Little Ice Age.

I have mentioned that the warming trend has been measured from ground stations. This distinction has been added because there is conflicting data from weather balloon and satellite data. The most significant warming has been measured in the last two decades. However the temperature of the atmosphere has remained constant over the last twenty years.
How can the ground temperatures increase and the atmospheric temperatures stay the same? To be honest, nobody really knows for sure, but there is evidence that the ground based temperatures are in error. This could be due to what is called the heat island effect. It has been noticed that urban measured temperatures have increased faster than rural temperatures. The concrete, asphalt, factories, motor vehicles, and population density of large cities may be biasing these readings and giving a false warming trend.

If the warming trend is real, there may be another significant factor involved that has nothing to do with human interference: the sun. A measurement of solar activity in terms of the sunspot cycle length shows a strong correlation with global temperatures over the last 100 years: including the rise from 1920-1940, the dip from 1940 to 1980, and the rise over the last twenty years.

All these data seem to indicate that global warming, if it exists, is not likely to be due to human action.

The Economic Effects of the Kyoto Protocol

Knowing that the science is highly questionable raises severe concerns about the Kyoto Protocol, which calls for at least a 30 percent reduction in U.S. fossil fuel use by 2010. Not only is this drastic reduction unnecessary to combat global warming, but also its effects on the U.S. economy could be catastrophic.

First, let me point out that some warming is not such a bad thing. It is widely recognized that increased carbon dioxide is good for plants. They grow faster and require less water. A slightly longer growing season is not a negative either. It is simply not factual to suggest that global warming is responsible for increases in severe weather, including hurricanes, tornados, floods, and droughts. Storms, in particular, have not shown any real increase in frequency or intensity.
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama and one of the lead authors of the IPCC report, said, "Hurricanes are not increasing. Tornados are not increasing. Storms and droughts do not show any pattern of increasing or decreasing . . . . Variations of climate have always occurred, even when humans could not have had any impact."{2}
Beyond these observations is the realization that the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol would have severe economic consequences. Our own U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) says Kyoto could drain more than $340 billion a year from the U.S. economy ($1,500 per person), double electricity prices, and cause the price per gallon to soar 65 cents for gasoline, 88 cents for diesel, and 90 cents for home heating oil. What is most significant about these rises in energy prices is that they would affect low-income families most severely. Upper and middle-income families can better shift resources to meet rising energy costs than the poor or the elderly on fixed incomes. Yet no one has talked about this.

The EIA also calculates that the Kyoto treaty could cost 3.2 million American jobs. An exhaustive study commissioned by a coalition of minority business groups concluded that 1.4 million of those lost jobs would be in our Black and Hispanic communities. And average annual family incomes in those communities would decline by between $2,000 and $3,000 under Kyoto.{3}

What is most disconcerting is that all this economic impact would be essentially for nothing, because not only is the science of human caused global warming suspect, but even if the Kyoto Protocol is followed, it would result in less than one-half of one degree reduction in global temperature by 2050. It hardly seems worth it.

So What Do We Do?

After exploring the question of global warming, we've found the science behind it to be questionable at best and the economic impact unnecessarily severe, particularly for minority families and businesses. This may raise a question in some people's minds as to why this is being pushed so uncritically by other world governments and by the media.
Well, the first clue comes from a quick perusal down the list of nations from the Kyoto Protocol itself. Some countries like the Russian Federation are simply asked to hold their emissions at 1990 levels with no reduction. Countries from Latin America, Asia, Africa, and Polynesia, including China and India aren't even on the list (except Japan)! The reason is that these countries are still developing their economies and will need unrestricted energy use. However, as these populous nations grow economically, they may well exceed the emissions output of western nations altogether.

Implicitly, this affirms the necessity of fossil fuel energy for healthy economies. This treaty may be little more than a tax on western nations, not a policy for climate change. The late Aaron Wildavsky, professor of political science at UC Berkeley, wrote, "Warming (and warming alone), through its primary antidote of withdrawing carbon from production and consumption, is capable of realizing the environmentalist's dream of an egalitarian society based on the rejection of economic growth in favor of smaller population's eating lower on the food chain, consuming a lot less, and sharing a much lower level of resources much more equally."{4}

Now I don't think all those things are bad in and of themselves. But I don't like the idea of being forced into it in the name of avoiding climate change. A recent Time cover story, apart from a wholly typical and irresponsible scare article promoting the myth of human induced global warming, actually provided some common sense activities for responsible environmental activities that save resources and money.{5}

Among them were: running your dishwasher only when it's full, replacing air-conditioning and furnace air filters regularly, and adjusting your thermostat to a little warmer in summer and a little cooler in winter. You can also set your water heater to no higher than 120 degrees (F); it saves money and is safer. Try low-flow showerheads to use less hot water and wash clothes in warm or cold water. Most detergents today clean just as well in cooler temperatures. Use energy efficient light bulbs. Improve your home insulation. And seal up all the cracks.
Since all of these save electricity, they save not only resources, but also money for you. It just makes sense.

Increased energy prices, which should occur as demand for oil and gas increases and supply remains steady temporarily but begins to drop in 20 to 40 years, will spur development for more renewal energy sources such as solar, wind, and geothermal power. Also, research is progressing in stimulating the ocean to be more biologically productive through seeding with iron to act as a sink for carbon dioxide, if levels are shown to be affecting the general climate.
But where is the voice of the church? For too long we have been silent on environmental issues. As Christians we should lead the way in care for the environment, since we claim to be rightly related to its Creator in the first place.

Notes

1. S. Fred Singer, 1997, 1999, "The Scientific Case Against the Global Climate Treaty," . All of the scientific evidences in this section can be found in this fair and reasoned report. Singer is a retired climatologist from the University of Virginia and has formed The Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) to help educate the public on global warming. This website is a great resource for up-to-date information on the global warming controversy. The report above is available with and without figures, but I reference and recommend the version with the figures copied with permission from peer-reviewed science journals for the full effect.
2. Quoted by James K. Glassman, in "Administration in the Balance," March 8, 2001, Wall Street Journal.
3. Paul Driessen, 2000, "Navigating the Treacherous 'Seven Cees' of Climate Care," The Issue Archive of CFACT (Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow) at http://www.cfact.org/Issues.htm.
4. Quoted by James K. Glassman, in "Administration in the Balance," March 8, 2001, Wall Street Journal.
5. "What Can You Do?" Time, April 9, 2001, p. 39.
©2001 Probe Ministries.

________________________________________

About the Author

Raymond G. Bohlin is president of Probe Ministries. He is a graduate of the University of Illinois (B.S., zoology), North Texas State University (M.S., population genetics), and the University of Texas at Dallas (M.S., Ph.D., molecular biology). He is the co-author of the book The Natural Limits to Biological Change, served as general editor of Creation, Evolution and Modern Science, co-author of Basic Questions on Genetics, Stem Cell Research and Cloning (The BioBasics Series), and has published numerous journal articles. Dr. Bohlin was named a 1997-98 and 2000 Research Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture.

What is Probe?

Probe Ministries is a non-profit ministry whose mission is to assist the church in renewing the minds of believers with a Christian worldview and to equip the church to engage the world for Christ. Probe fulfills this mission through our Mind Games conferences for youth and adults, our 3 1/2 minute daily radio program, and our extensive Web site at www.probe.org.
Further information about Probe's materials and ministry may be obtained by contacting us at:
Probe Ministries

1900 Firman Drive, Suite 100
Richardson, TX 75081
(972) 480-0240 FAX (972) 644-9664
info@probe.org This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it

The Prisoner's Peace Plan

Chuck Missler

On July 31, 2006 the Palestinian people will vote in a referendum on a proposal that has come to be known as the "prisoner's peace plan." The proposal has the support of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and it is popular among the Palestinian people. However the terrorist organization Hamas, which currently controls the Palestinian government, is vehemently opposed to the plan and has attempted to block the referendum.

Some members of the media have applauded the plan as a key step forward in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. They describe the 18-point plan as one which recognizes Israel, renounces terrorism, and abandons the Palestinian's claims to land beyond the 1967 borders. They imply that the plan is meant to bring peace with Israel. However nothing could be further from the truth.

What Does It Really Say?

The Palestinian referendum is not about making peace with Israel. It does not represent a willingness to compromise on the part of the Palestinian people, nor does it explicitly recognize the right of Israel to exist. The primary goal of the plan is to unite warring Palestinian factions under the banner of the PLO. Thus strengthening the PA and curtailing the outbreak of civil war.

The demands of the Palestinian people have not changed. They insist upon the complete withdrawal of Israel from all the occupied areas back to the 1967 border, the dismantling of all Israeli settlements in the West Bank, a Palestinian capitol in Jerusalem, and the right of return for Palestinian refugees and their descendants. They have also called for the removal of Israeli roadblocks, the release of some 8,000 Palestinians being detained in Israeli jails and military prisons, and the dismantling of the controversial security barrier.

The proposal begins with the following statement: "The Palestinian people at home and in exile seek to liberate their land and realize their right of freedom, return and independence, and their right to self-determination, including their right to establish an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital on all the land occupied in 1967, guaranteeing the right of return for the refugees, liberating all the prisoners and detainees, drawing upon our people's historic right in the land of our ancestors..."

Furthermore, the document does not disavow violence as a means of achieving these goals. It upholds the "Palestinian people's right to resistance by all means" and "rejects and condemns the unjust siege on [the Palestinian] people led by the United States and Israel." The plan states that one of its goals is to "form a united resistance front called the 'Palestinian resistance front' to lead and carry out the resistance against occupation and to unify and coordinate the resistance action..." In other words, the plan is to unite the PLO, Hamas, and the Islamic Jihad so they can carry out better coordinated attacks against Israel.

The Signatories

The press has dubbed the proposal the "prisoner's peace plan" because it was drafted by Marwan Barghouti, Sheik Abdel Khaliq al-Natsche, Sheik Bassam al-Saadi, and Abdel Rahim Malouh. All of whom are currently locked away in Israeli jails. Marwan Barghouti is serving five life sentences for murder plus an additional 40 years for attempted murder. Barghouti is one of the leaders of the Fatah movement and coordinated terrorist attacks during the Palestinian Intifadas. Sheik Abdel Khaliq al-Natsche is a senior Hamas leader who operated a network of charities that funded terrorist activities. Sheik Bassam al-Saadi lead the Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Jenin and Abdel Rahim Malouh was a key leader of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Malouh recruited DFLP members to carry out attacks against Israeli civilians and military targets. These men, although they are convicted terrorists, have been described by the press as a "moderate and influential force."

If the "prisoner's peace plan" is successfully implemented the Palestinian people will eventually stop fighting each other and unite against Israel. However, so far, the plan has done more dividing than uniting. Hamas is against it and some experts believe its passage could lead to new parliamentary elections. Meanwhile the Palestinian territories continue to spiral out of control.

For most Westerners it is difficult to understand why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has continued for so long or why it has resulted in so much violence. The fundamental problem is that the Palestinian leadership has ardently resisted making any concessions toward Israel and have maintained an all-or-nothing approach to peace negotiations. Too few Palestinians truly desire peace. Palestinian children are consistently taught in school to hate Israel. Most Arab nations have yet to officially recognize the right of Israel to exist, and many Muslim groups, like Hamas and Hezbollah, will not allow peace unless it comes in the form of Israel's destruction.

from the June 20, 2006 eNews issue
K-House

________________________________________

Worldviews

Jerry Solomon

A friend of mine recently told me of a conversation he had with a good friend we will call Joe. Joe is a doctor. He is not a Christian. This is how the conversation went: "Joe, you're an excellent doctor. You care deeply about your patients. Why do you care so much for people since you believe we have evolved by chance? What gives us value?" Joe was stunned by the question and couldn't answer it. His "worldview" had taken a blow.

The concept of a worldview has received increasing attention for the past several years. Many books have been written on the subject of worldviews from both Christian and non-Christian perspectives. Frequently speakers will refer to the term. On occasion even reviews of movies and music will include the phrase. All this attention prompts us to ask, "What does the term mean?" and "What difference does it make?" It is our intent to answer these questions. And it is our hope that all of us will give serious attention to our own worldview, as well as the worldviews of those around us.

What is a Worldview?

What is a worldview? A variety of definitions have been offered by numerous authors. For example, James Sire asserts that "A worldview is a set of presuppositions (or assumptions) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously) about the basic makeup of our world."1 Phillips and Brown state that "A worldview is, first of all, an explanation and interpretation of the world and second, an application of this view to life. In simpler terms, our worldview is a view of the world and a view for the world."2 Walsh and Middleton provide what we think is the most succinct and understandable explanation: "A world view provides a model of the world which guides its adherents in the world."3 With the realization that many subtleties can be added, this will be our working definition.

The Need for a Worldview

Worldviews act somewhat like eye glasses or contact lenses. That is, a worldview should provide the correct "prescription" for making sense of the world just as wearing the correct prescription for your eyes brings things into focus. And, in either example, an incorrect prescription can be dangerous, even life-threatening. People who are struggling with worldview questions are often despairing and even suicidal. Thus it's important for us to give attention to the formulation of the proper worldview. Arthur Holmes states that the need for a worldview is fourfold: "the need to unify thought and life; the need to define the good life and find hope and meaning in life; the need to guide thought; the need to guide action."4 Yet another prominent need for the proper worldview is to help us deal with an increasingly diverse culture. We are faced with a smorgasbord of worldviews, all of which make claims concerning truth. We are challenged to sort through this mixture of worldviews with wisdom. These needs are experienced by all people, either consciously or unconsciously. All of us have a worldview with which we strive to meet such needs. The proper worldview helps us by orienting us to the intellectual and philosophical terrain about us.

Worldviews are so much a part of our lives that we see and hear them daily, whether we recognize them or not. For example, movies, television, music, magazines, newspapers, government, education, science, art, and all other aspects of culture are affected by worldviews. If we ignore their importance, we do so to our detriment.

Testing Worldviews

A worldview should pass certain tests. First, it should be rational. It should not ask us to believe contradictory things. Second, it should be supported by evidence. It should be consistent with what we observe. Third, it should give a satisfying comprehensive explanation of reality. It should be able to explain why things are the way they are. Fourth, it should provide a satisfactory basis for living. It should not leave us feeling compelled to borrow elements of another worldview in order to live in this world.

Components Found in All Worldviews

In addition to putting worldviews to these tests, we should also see that worldviews have common components. These components are self-evident. It is important to keep these in mind as you establish your own worldview, and as you share with others. There are four of them.
First, something exists. This may sound obvious, but it really is an important foundational element of worldview building since some will try to deny it. But a denial is self- defeating because all people experience cause and effect. The universe is rational; it is predictable.
Second, all people have absolutes. Again, many will try to deny this, but to deny it is to assert it. All of us seek an infinite reference point. For some it is God; for others it is the state, or love, or power, and for some this reference point is themselves or man.

Third, two contradictory statements cannot both be right. This is a primary law of logic that is continually denied. Ideally speaking, only one worldview can correctly mirror reality. This cannot be overemphasized in light of the prominent belief that tolerance is the ultimate virtue. To say that someone is wrong is labeled intolerant or narrow-minded. A good illustration of this is when we hear people declare that all religions are the same. It would mean that Hindus, for example, agree with Christians concerning God, Jesus, salvation, heaven, hell, and a host of other doctrines. This is nonsense.

Fourth, all people exercise faith. All of us presuppose certain things to be true without absolute proof. These are inferences or assumptions upon which a belief is based. This becomes important, for example, when we interact with those who allege that only the scientist is completely neutral. Some common assumptions are: a personal God exists; man evolved from inorganic material; man is essentially good; reality is material.

As we dialogue with people who have opposing worldviews, an understanding of these common components can help us listen more patiently, and they can guide us to make our case more wisely.

Six Worldview Questions

Have you ever been frustrated with finding ways to stir the thinking of a non-Christian friend? We are confident the following questions will be of help. And we are also confident they will stir your thinking about the subject of worldviews.

We will answer these questions with various non-Christian responses. Christian responses will be discussed later in this article.

First, Why is there something rather than nothing? Some may actually say something came from nothing. Others may state that something is here because of impersonal spirit or energy. And many believe matter is eternal.

Second, How do you explain human nature? Frequently people will say we are born as blank slates, neither good nor evil. Another popular response is that we are born good, but society causes us to behave otherwise.

Third, What happens to a person at death? Many will say that a person's death is just the disorganization of matter. Increasingly people in our culture are saying that death brings reincarnation or realization of oneness.

Fourth, How do you determine what is right and wrong? Often we hear it said that ethics are relative or situational. Others assert that we have no free choice since we are entirely determined. Some simply derive "oughts" from what "is." And of course history has shown us the tragic results of a "might makes right" answer.

Fifth, How do you know that you know? Some say that the mind is the center of our source of knowledge. Things are only known deductively. Others claim that knowledge is only found in the senses. We know only what is perceived.

Sixth, What is the meaning of history? One answer is that history is determined as part of a mechanistic universe. Another answer is that history is a linear stream of events linked by cause and effect but without purpose. Yet another answer is that history is meaningless because life is absurd.5

The alert Christian will quickly recognize that the preceding answers are contrary to his beliefs. There are definite, sometimes startling differences. Worldviews are in collision. Thus we should know at least something about the worldviews that are central to the conflict. And we should certainly be able to articulate a Christian worldview.

Examples of Worldviews

In his excellent book, The Universe Next Door, James Sire catalogs the most influential worldviews of the past and present. These are Christian Theism, Deism, Naturalism, Nihilism, Existentialism, Eastern Pantheism, and New Age or New Consciousness.6

Deism, a prominent worldview during the eighteenth century, has almost entirely left the scene. The Deist believes in God, but that God created and then abandoned the universe.
Nihilism, a more recent worldview, is alive among many young people and some intellectuals. Nihilists see no value to reality; life is absurd.

Existentialism is prominent and can be seen frequently, even among unwitting Christians. The Existentialist, like the Nihilist, sees life as absurd, but sees man as totally free to make himself in the face of this absurdity.

Christian Theism, Naturalism, and New Age Pantheism are the most influential worldviews presently in the United States. Now we will survey each of them.

Christian Theism

Let's return to the six questions we asked earlier and briefly see how the Christian Theist might answer them.

Question: Why is there something rather than nothing? Answer: There is an infinite-personal God who has created the universe out of nothing.

Question: How do you explain human nature? Answer: Man was originally created good in God's image, but chose to sin and thus infected all of humanity with what is called a "sin nature." So man has been endowed with value by his creator, but his negative behavior is in league with his nature.

Question: What happens to a person at death? Answer: Death is either the gate to life with God or to eternal separation from Him. The destination is dependent upon the response we give to God's provision for our sinfulness.

Question: How do you determine what is right and wrong? Answer: The guidelines for conduct are revealed by God.

Question: How do you know that you know? Answer: Reason and experience can be legitimate teachers, but a transcendent source is necessary. We know some things only because we are told by God through the Bible.

Question: What is the meaning of history? Answer: History is a linear and meaningful sequence of events leading to the fulfillment of God's purposes for man.

Christian Theism had a long history in Western culture. This does not mean that all individuals who have lived in Western culture have been Christians. It simply means that this worldview was dominant; it was the most influential. And this was true even among non-Christians. This is no longer valid. Western culture has experienced a transition to what is called Naturalism.

Naturalism

Even though Naturalism in various forms is ancient, we will use the term to refer to a worldview that has had considerable influence in a relatively short time within Western culture. The seeds were planted in the seventeenth century and began to flower in the eighteenth. Most of us have been exposed to Naturalism through Marxism and what is called Secular Humanism.

What are the basic tenets of this worldview? First, God is irrelevant. This tenet helps us better understand the term Naturalism; it is in direct contrast to Christian Theism, which is based on supernaturalism. Second, progress and evolutionary change are inevitable. Third, man is autonomous, self-centered, and will save himself. Fourth, education is the guide to life; intelligence and freedom guarantee full human potential. Fifth, science is the ultimate provider both for knowledge and morals. These tenets have permeated our lives. They are apparent, for example, in the media, government, and education. We should be alert constantly to their influence.

After World War II "Postmodernism" began to replace the confidence of Naturalism. With it came the conclusion that truth, in any real sense, doesn't exist. This may be the next major worldview, or anti-worldview, that will infect the culture. It is presently the rage on many of our college campuses. In the meantime, though, the past few decades have brought us another ancient worldview dressed in Western clothing.

New Age Pantheism

Various forms of Pantheism have been prominent in Eastern cultures for thousands of years. But it began to have an effect on our culture in the 1950s. There had been various attempts to introduce its teachings before then, but those attempts did not arouse the interest that was stirred in that decade. It is now most readily observed in what is called the New Age Movement.
What are the basic tenets of this worldview? First, all is one. There are no ultimate distinctions between humans, animals, or the rest of creation. Second, since all is one, all is god. All of life has a spark of divinity. Third, if all is one and all is god, then each of us is god. Fourth, humans must discover their own divinity by experiencing a change in consciousness. We suffer from a collective form of metaphysical amnesia. Fifth, humans travel through indefinite cycles of birth, death, and reincarnation in order to work off what is called "bad karma." Sixth, New Age disciples think in terms of gray, not black and white. Thus they believe that two conflicting statements can both be true.

On the popular level these tenets are presently asserted through various media, such as books, magazines, television, and movies. Perhaps the most visible teacher is Shirley MacLaine. But these beliefs are also found increasingly among intellectuals in fields such as medicine, psychology, sociology, and education.

Conclusion

We have very briefly scanned the subject of worldviews. Let's return to a definition we affirmed in the beginning of this article: "A worldview provides a model of the world which guides its adherents in the world." If your model of the world includes an infinite-personal God, as in Christian Theism, that belief should provide guidance for your life. If your model rejects God, as in Naturalism, again such a belief serves as a guide. Or if your model asserts that you are god, as in New Age Pantheism, yet again your life is being guided by such a conception. These examples should remind us that we are living in a culture that puts us in touch constantly with such ideas, and many more. They cannot all be true.

Thus some of us may be confronted with the need to think more deeply than we ever have before. Some of us may need to purge those things from our lives that are contrary to the worldview of Christian Theism. Some of us may need to better understand that our thoughts are to be unified with daily life. Some of us may need to better understand that the good life and hope and meaning are found only through God's answers. Some of us may need to let God's ideas guide our thoughts more completely. And some of us may need to let God's guidelines guide our actions more fully.

Paul's admonition to the believers in ancient Colossae couldn't be more contemporary or helpful in light of our discussion. He wrote:

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ
(Co. 2.8).

Notes
1. James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1988), 17.
2. W. Gary Phillips and William E. Brown, Making Sense of Your World (Chicago: Moody Press, 1991), 29.
3. Brian J. Walsh and J. Richard Middleton, The Transforming Vision (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1984), 32.
4. Arthur F. Holmes, Contours of a Worldview (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 5.
5. Sire, 18.
6. Ibid.


©1994 Probe Ministries.

Part 4 of 'The Da Vinci Deception': Eagles and Bees?

Chuck Missler

[Português]

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears. And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
2 Timothy 4:3,4

In our series of articles reviewing some of the background behind Dan Brown's book, The Da Vinci Code, we have explored his deceitful presentation of the so-called "Facts" precedent to the novel itself, the blasphemous heresies regarding Mary Magdalene and the related Merovingian legends, as well as the false representations from the spurious "Gnostic Gospels."
What makes all this disinformation even more disturbing is that there are powerful leaders behind the emergence of the "New Europe" who take these myths seriously.

In this final article, we will explore some of the "codes" that Dan Brown hasn't resorted to (at least not yet!).

One of the curious facets of the Merovingian legends was their apparent obsession with the Tribe of Dan. While this aspect didn't emerge in Dan Brown's novel, it has a high likelihood of coming up in some of the related fanciful speculations that will emerge in the days ahead.

The Tribe of Dan

Although we do not take the myths of the "Ten Lost Tribes" of Israel seriously,1 it is interesting to examine the strange maneuvers of the Tribe of Dan. Their disappointing performance seems to have been anticipated, enigmatically, by Jacob on his deathbed as he prophesied over each of his sons:

Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward.
Genesis 49:17

This identification with a serpent was changed by Ahiezer, the leader of the Tribe of Dan during the Exodus, to an eagle with a serpent in its mouth as their tribal ensign.2
When the conquest of Canaan was completed and the tribes received their land allocations, the Tribe of Dan was given the land west of Benjamin, placing them between Jerusalem and the Philistines. (Even though Dan was one of the largest tribes, it received one of the smallest - and most troublesome - allocations.)
The primary hero of this tribe is, of course, Samson. Although the subject of several colorful episodes, he actually accomplishes little of practical value. His riddle involving bees resulted in an additional identity idiom for his tribe.3

After Samson's death, the tribe was unable to adequately deal with their Philistine adversaries 4 and sought an alternative location, which was ultimately found in the North.5

It is interesting that in the "Song of Deborah," commemorating the victory over Sisera, Dan is chided for his distancing himself from the perils of the emerging nation:

Gilead abode beyond Jordan: and why did Dan remain in ships? Asher continued on the sea shore, and abode in his breaches.
Judges 5:17

Dan's descendants apparently became skilled sailors and migrated north and westward to seek their own futures. It is remarkable that Moses had previously anticipated this in his prophetic summary:

And of Dan he said, Dan is a lion's whelp: he shall leap from Bashan.
Deuteronomy 33:22

How could he "leap from Bashan" (the Golan Heights) if he had been officially allocated the area west of Jerusalem? This prophecy by Moses anticipated his relocating to the North!

Editorial Derision?

The Tribe of Dan was the first to fall into idolatry.6 Dan's disconnection from the commonwealth seems to be anticipated by the Holy Spirit in His dealing with the tribe throughout Scripture: the names of his sons are omitted in genealogies;7 Dan is either mentioned last,8 or his name is blotted out altogether!9

His omission from the list of tribes in Revelation 7 is a well-known mystery. Irenaeus explains this omission by suggesting that the Antichrist is to come from the tribe of Dan - a belief which he bases on Jeremiah 8:16 from the Septuagint version ("from Dan shall we hear the noise of his swift horses").10

The Bee Identity

When the tomb of one of the earliest Merovingian kings was unearthed, a treasure including 300 tiny gold bees was discovered. These bees are regarded as a symbol of the Tribe of Dan, linked with Samson's riddle.11

When Napoleon was crowned, he insisted that his coronation cloak included the 300 bees embroidered into it, apparently evidencing his desiring an identity with the Merovingians and the Tribe of Dan. When he married Marie Louise Habsburg, he insisted that these same bees be embroidered into her wedding gown.

The Merovingian legends - and the Magdalene heresy - are taken seriously by many of the royal families in Europe and among some of the powerful activists behind the European Union today.

(It is also interesting that the Mormon Church accepts the Magdalene heresy and that the state symbol of Utah is the bee.)

The Eagle Identity

It is also worth noting that the ensign of Israel's enemies always seems to be that of an eagle: Herod, the Romans, the Germans, the Czars, et al. (It is interesting that even Sparta and Troy may have links with the Tribe of Dan!12)

It disturbs some to note that the symbol of the United States is also, of course, the eagle. The apparent Masonic symbolism on the Great Seal of the United States also disturbs many (look at your dollar bill and consult these images: 1,2,3,4):

The 32 feathers of the right wing are said to represent the 32 degrees of the Freemasonry. The 33 feathers on the left wing include the honorary 33rd degree of the Scottish Rite. The nine tail feathers are said to highlight the Council of Nine when the Illuminati merged with the Freemasons on May 1, 1776.

The ostensible occultic significance seems even more pronounced on the reverse side: the All Seeing Eye (the "Open Eye" of Egypt and the "Mind's Eye" of the Gnostics) and the Latin phrases "Annuit Coeptis" (announcing the birth of) "Novus Ordo Seclorum" (New World Order).
The occult agenda behind world politics should surprise no serious student of Daniel Chapter 10. Satan seems to love symbols.

More Surprises Coming?

Did you know that there appears to be a 151 ft. statue of Mary Magdalene, dressed in a Roman toga, holding the "Holy Grail" as a torch, in one of the most prominent international harbors today? Designed by Auguste Bartholdi, it was privately funded by the French Freemasons and presently adorns New York Harbor.

Are there other occultic surprises around the corner? Will the rise of paganism and apostasy in America bring about a final evil twist as we plunge into the End Times? Will America ultimately join the world in challenging the Abrahamic Covenant by also turning against Israel?
We must not take our Christian heritage for granted. It came at a very high price, paid by those who invested in their posterity. We must take our responsibilities seriously, or we will be disenfranchising our children and grandchildren. (See David Barton's article here.)

* * *

See here for details on our latest briefing, The Da Vinci Deception, available now on video, DVD, audio tape cassette, audio CD and MP3 download.

This article was originally published in the
October 2004 Personal Update NewsJournal.
For a FREE 1-Year Subscription, click here.
________________________________________
**NOTES**
________________________________________

1. This unbiblical myth arises from confusing the original geographical allocations with the subsequent individual commingling resulting from the disruptions from the separation of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms after Solomon's death. Those who wanted to remain faithful to the Temple worship migrated to the South. Those who favored idol worship migrated to the North (2 Chronicles 11:13-17). For a complete discussion of the myth of the "Ten Lost Tribes," see our Expositional Commentary on the Twelve Tribes, appended to our Commentary on Joshua. This is also summarized in our Expositional Commentary on James.
2. Numbers 1:12 2:25 10:25;1 Chronicles 12:3. Merrill F. Unger, Unger's Bible Dictionary, Moody Press, Chicago, 1966, pp.235-236.
3. Judges 14:14.
4. Judges 16 - 21.
5. Judges 19:47.
6. Judges 18:30; Golden Calves: 1 Kings 12:28,29; 2 Kings 10:29.
7. Genesis 46:23; Numbers 26:42; Hushim?, Shuham? = "pit digger."
8. Numbers 10:25; Joshua 19:47-49; 1 Chronicles 27:16-22.
9. 1 Chronicles 1-10; Revelation 7.
10. Adv. Haer. 5. 30. 2
11. Judges 14:14.
12. 1 Maccabees 12:5-23; 14:20-23; Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews Bk 12:4; 13:5.

Part 3 of 'The Da Vinci Deception': Another Gospel

Chuck Missler

[Português]

As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Galatians 1:9

As we've said in our previous two issues, the popular but shamefully blasphemous novel by Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code, has raised many troubling questions, particularly among the less informed, and with a major motion picture in the works, this subject will be a popular topic of conversation for months to come.

In his novel, Dan Brown attempts to support his outrageous notions by using allusions from the Gnostic Gospels and twisted distortions of the early church councils, all of which raise serious questions: What makes us so confident that our Bible is what it purports to be? How do we know? What about these "missing" books of the Bible?

Brown's distortion of history is rampant throughout his novel. He assumes that Constantine made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire-rather, he simply granted freedom of worship in his Edict of Milan in A.D. 313. It was a subsequent successor, Theodosius (379-395), who made Christianity the state religion in 381. Brown's Constantine "upgraded a mortal Christ to deity," and "secured male dominance and suppression of women"... "converting the world from matriarchal paganism to patriarchal Christianity." He insists that Constantine canonized selected favorable Gospels from "more than 80 available." His deliberate distortions are, of course, contradicted by clear historical records.

Council of Nicaea

The Council of Nicaea was convened in A.D. 325 with 318 bishops to settle disputes about Christology, not to dispute or modify the "canon." ("Canon," meaning standard, refers to those Scriptures that were accepted by the early churches as God-breathed, or inspired.) The principal precipitating issue was between Arius and Athanasius. Arius argued that Jesus was simply a created being. He was a great communicator and was causing deep disputes throughout the Empire. Athanasius argued for the full deity of Christ and was clearly vindicated by the proceedings of the Council (as exemplified by the famous Nicene Creed).

Brown's Version

"It was at the Council of Nicaea in 325 that Church leaders decided by vote to make Jesus divine...Until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet."
And, according to Brown, it was a "close vote"! According to him, the presently accepted Gospels were selected from "more than 80" available. All of this is deliberate misrepresentation to support his attack on Jesus Christ and His church.

Twenty rulings were issued at the Council of Nicaea and the contents of all of them are still in existence: not one of them involved issues regarding the canon.

As for the vote that was finally taken, only 5 out of 318 dissented; only two of those refused to sign the resulting resolutions, which reaffirmed the deity of Christ, not issues regarding the canonical Gospels.

If Christ was not fully God, then God was not the Redeemer of mankind.
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Colossians 1:16 (Also, see Jn 1:1; Rom 9:5; Heb 1:1-8; etc.)
During the 1st century-two centuries before the Council of Nicaea - even before the end of His earthly ministry, Christ's divinity was already being acknowledged, as evidenced by Thomas: "My Lord and my God!"1

During the 2nd century - still a hundred years before the Council of Nicaea - we have ample quotes from the early church fathers:

Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (A.D. 110): "There is One God who manifests himself through Jesus Christ his son"; "Son of Mary and Son of God…Jesus Christ our Lord…God Incarnate…Christ God," etc.

Polycarp of Bishop of Smyrna (A.D. 112-118), in his letter to the church at Philippi, assumes the divinity of Jesus, His glorification, etc.

Justin Martyr (~A.D. 150): "being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God"2; "...both God and Lord of hosts."3

Irenaeus (~A.D. 185): "our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King."4

Clement of Alexandria (~A.D. 200): "truly most manifest Deity, He that is made equal to the Lord of the universe; because he was His Son."5

Another of the often-overlooked rebuttals to those who deny Christ's claim to deity were the persecutions in Rome, and the voluntary martyrdom of the early Christians for their refusal to worship the emperor. Their martyrdom was a result of their exclusive commitment to Christ as God.

How We Got the New Testament

The New Testament was canonized in the 1st century while the apostles were alive and all facts could be checked out (Lk 1:2; Acts 1:21,22; 1 Jn 2:3). It was endorsed by Christ in advance (Jn 14:25-26) and was considered a "more sure word of prophecy" (2 Pet 1:16-19).

The Process

Letters were received and then circulated by the early church, and a growing group of them became recognized as authoritative (Apostolic) and in harmony with accepted doctrine. All 27 books were accepted by the end of the 1st century and every New Testament book was cited as authoritative by a church father within one generation.

The Gnostic Gospels

The term "gnostic" refers to gnosis, or knowledge. However, here it refers to the concept of hidden, secret, or special knowledge. The Gnostics were a growing problem in the early church and many of the New Testament epistles, as well as the numerous quotes from the early church fathers, were in rebuttal to the several heresies promoted by the Gnostics.

(In fact, Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians was a response to a forgery being circulated as if from him.6)

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
2 Timothy 4:3

A large number of spurious documents emerged during the centuries following the ministries of the Apostles and were universally rejected by the early church. Copies of a group of these were found at Nag Hammadi (in Egypt) dating from the 3rd and 4th centuries, and these are uncritically accepted by Brown as accurate. These include The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Philip, The Gospel of Mary, The Gospel of Truth, and about four dozen others
They are not "Gospels" at all, but rather speculative opinions, totally devoid of any verifiable facts. Furthermore, they were written under false pseudonyms in an attempt to gain legitimacy. The early church rejected any documents under pseudonyms as being inconsistent with the concept of God-breathed inspiration.7

Lastly, they were all written centuries after the Gospel period - in contrast to the contemporaneous eyewitness accounts in the New Testament - and make no pretense of being actual records of events - in fact, they are anti-historical rather than simply non -historical!
In particular, Brown leans on The Gospel of Philip and its out-of-context fragmentary reference to a kiss - in which Jesus ostensibly kissed his other students as well - but this still suggests nothing about marriage or any sexual innuendo. Brown leans on a word in the "Aramaic" (although The Gospel of Philip came to us in Coptic!) that he maintains means "spouse." The word actually happens to be a loan word from the Greek: koinonia , which can mean companion, as in fellowship, etc.

The Gospel of Philip makes no reference that supports any of Brown's contentions. But even if it did, it would be irrelevant since it was written more than two centuries after the Gospel period, under a pseudonym posing as someone he wasn't. No serious scholar can take it seriously as having any historical merit.

(Many would seem to accept Napoleon's cynical perspective: "What is history, but a fable agreed upon?")
The popular novel is, indeed, malicious, deliberate fiction - posing subtly as factual - and is clearly, itself, a fulfillment of prophecy:

Even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you:
2 Peter 2:1-3

But it can also be a blessing by causing serious Christians to "do their homework" and find out just how the Bible came into being and the process by which the New Testament achieved codification during their early years.8

For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
1 Corinthians 11:19

Codes Brown Didn't Include

We will continue this series with a review of some surprising aspects involving the Tribe of Dan, the associated Merovingian Myths, and some of the contemporary implications of the Magdalene Heresy and their possible role in the unification of the New Europe today. We will also highlight some bizarre speculations regarding a 150 ft. statue of "Mary Magdalene," wearing a toga and holding the "Holy Graal," that graces an international port to this day. Stay tuned.

This article was originally published in the
September 2004 Personal Update NewsJournal.
For a FREE 1-Year Subscription, click here.
________________________________________
**NOTES**
________________________________________

1. John 20:28. See also John 1:1; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8-10; 1 Peter 1:1, et al.
2. First Apology , ch. 63.
3. Dialogue with Trypho , ch 36.
4. Against Heresies , bk1, ch 10.
5. Exhortation to the Heathen, ch 10, Vol 2. All of these references can be found in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers : Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, 10 Vols.
6. 2 Thessalonians 2:2.
7. The Epistle to the Hebrews is the notable exception. It appears to be the 3rd of a trilogy on Habakkuk 2:4, along with Romans and Galatians.
8. These topics are covered in our Learn the Bible in 24 Hours publication , and also in our briefing package, How We Got Our Bible.

The Gospel of Judas

Chuck Missler

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables" (2 Timothy 4:3).

The May issue of National Geographic magazine hasn’t even hit the news stands, but it has already triggered widespread debate. The feature article in next month's issue describes a 1,700 year old manuscript that claims to tell the story of Christ's last days from the point-of-view of history's most notorious traitor. This so-called "Gospel of Judas" conflicts greatly with the Biblical account and is only one of several noncanonical gospels, often called the "Gnostic Gospels". Scholars widely agree that none of these texts contain historically reliable information about the life of Jesus and that all were likely written in the second century or later. However they do help us learn more about false teachings that early church leaders like the Apostle Paul preached against in book of Colossians and elsewhere.

Gnosticism is a system of false teachings that existed during the early centuries of Christianity. Its name came from the Greek word for knowledge, gnosis. The Gnostics believed that knowledge was the way to salvation. For this reason, Gnosticism was condemned as false and heretical by several writers of the New Testament. The Gnostics consisted of diverse groups, from high-minded ascetics to licentious charlatans.

Sources

Our knowledge of Gnosticism comes from several sources. First, there are the Gnostic texts, which are known as the New Testament Apocrypha. These texts are not recognized as Scripture because they contain teachings which differ from those in the Bible. Then, there are the refutations of the Gnostics by the early church fathers. Some of the more important ones are Irenaeus, Against Heresies; Hippolytus, Refutations of All Heresies; Epiphanius, Panarion; and Tertullian, Against Marcion.

A third source on Gnosticism is the New Testament itself. Many Gnostic teachings were condemned by the writers of the New Testament. Paul emphasized a wisdom and knowledge that comes from God and does not concern itself with idle speculations, fables, and moral laxity (Colossians 2:8-23; 1 Timothy 1:4; 2 Timothy 2:16-19; Titus 1:10-16). John, both in his gospel and in the epistles, countered heretical teaching which, in a broad sense, can be considered Gnostic.

Gnostic Gospels

A large number of spurious documents emerged during the centuries following the ministries of the Apostles and were universally rejected by the early church. Copies of a group of these were found at Nag Hammadi in Egypt dating from the 3rd and 4th centuries. These include The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Philip, The Gospel of Mary, The Gospel of Truth, and about four dozen others.

They are not "gospels" at all, but rather speculative opinions, totally devoid of any verifiable facts. Furthermore, they were written under false pseudonyms in an attempt to gain legitimacy. The early church rejected any documents under pseudonyms as being inconsistent with the concept of God-breathed inspiration. Lastly, they were all written centuries after the Gospel period - in contrast to the contemporaneous eyewitness accounts in the New Testament.

False Teaching

Ethical behavior among the Gnostics varied considerably. Some sought to separate themselves from all evil matter in order to avoid contamination. Paul may be opposing such a view in 1 Timothy 4:1-5. For other Gnostics, ethical life took the form of libertinism. For them, knowledge meant freedom to participate in all sorts of indulgences. Many reasoned that since they had received divine knowledge and were truly informed as to their divine nature, it didn’t matter how they lived. Such an attitude is a misunderstanding of the Gospel. Paul, on a number of occasions, reminded his readers that they were saved from sin to holiness. They were not to have an attitude of indifference toward the law. They had died to sin in their baptism into Christ (Romans 6:1-11) and so were to walk “in newness of life.” John reminded the Christians that once they had been saved they were not to continue living in sin (1 John 3:4-10).

These Gnostic teachings also had a disruptive effect on fellowship in the church. Those who were "enlightened" thought of themselves as being superior to those who did not have such knowledge. Divisions arose between the spiritual and the fleshly. This attitude of superiority is severely condemned in the New Testament. Christians are “one body” (1 Corinthians 12) who should love one another (1 Corinthians 13; 1 John). Spiritual gifts are for the Christian community rather than individual use; they should promote humility rather than pride (1 Corinthians 12-14; Ephesians 4:11-16).

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" (Colossians 2:8).

K-House

The Da Vinci Deception

By Chuck Missler

[Portuguese]

We continue to get many questions which derive from the popular but shamefully blasphemous novel by Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code. Despite the fact that it is a work of fiction, it has raised many troubling questions, especially among the less informed. Because of our widely distributed text, Cosmic Codes, many continue to turn to us for a response.1
We also understand that director Ron Howard is working on a major motion picture with Columbia on this subject, so the book will continue to be a popular topic of conversation. The Da Vinci Code has challenged many in their understanding of the Biblical texts and in dealing with some of the malicious heresies that have been twisted from a highly flawed view of the history - and related medieval legends that have sprung up through the centuries - surrounding the events described in the book.

The Plot

It is easy to see why this book made all the "Best Seller" lists. It's an engaging, fast-paced thriller with an exotic mix of secret societies, mysterious assassins, intrigues involving famous historical figures and controversial institutions, all linked together with a delicious series of secret codes and riddles to figure out. And behind it all emerges the most astonishing (and outrageous) "conspiracy theory" anyone could possibly imagine.

The story opens with the murder of the curator of Paris' most famous museum, during which he leaves enigmatic clues in the form of codes that our hero, Robert Langdon, an expert on occult symbology, and Sofie Neveu, a professional cryptologist who joins him, must solve.

Several of these clues involve hidden messages among the sketches and paintings of Leonardo da Vinci, from which the novel gets its name (see "The Vitruvian Man" figure).

As it develops, our hero Langdon is being viewed as the prime suspect himself, and the urgency of solving the increasingly complex sequence of subsequent codes, riddles, and clues intensifies. The hidden agenda of a secret order behind the Knights Templar and the sinister intentions of committed operatives of Opus Dei, an official arm of the Roman Catholic Church, all weave a tapestry of intrigue and rapidly developing dangers.

It is quite a challenging ride. Short, engaging chapters - each unfolding a new mystery or plot twist - make this book virtually impossible to put down. (However, even after 105 chapters, the principal plot elements are not really resolved.)

Entertaining fiction has captured our imagination ever since Homer's epics, the Iliad and the Odyssey, so many centuries ago. In addition to challenging entertainment, a well-written historical novel is often an enjoyable sugarcoated way to experience a glimpse of history. However, that presumes that the thread of the fictional story is entwined within a tapestry of competent historical research.

The Problem

What makes any critique of Dan Brown's book particularly disturbing is his deliberate attempt to pass on the view that it is based on fact. The reader is immediately confronted with a preliminary page declaring certain parts of the book to be factual (see text box): His last sentence on that page is, unfortunately, not true and is a major contributor to the confusion surrounding this shameful and blasphemous challenge for the uninitiated reader.
Beyond simply twisting history to suit his purposes and relying on falsified documents of disputed origins, Dan Brown's book raises thought-provoking questions about very real fundamental issues including:

• The reliability of the Bible.
• The true nature of Jesus Christ.
• The origin of Christian beliefs.
• The realities within the early church.
• The role of the "lost books of the Bible" and the many spurious heretical attempts to undermine the Gospels of the first century.

These issues are not incidental to the novel: they are central to its theme and constitute an intentional attack on Jesus Christ personally and on His church. This became particularly apparent during Dan Brown's public interviews in an ABC News Special and during his interview on Good Morning America. 2 His intentions were clearly deliberate and targeted.

Fortunately, Dan Brown's cleverly contrived romp has been brutally assaulted by numerous real facts and can only survive among the uninformed. The popularity of the novel, however, can open meaningful and constructive discussions regarding the foundations of the Christian faith and the reality of just who Jesus Christ really is. But, as always, one needs to be prepared.
The Underlying Premise

The fundamental theme lying behind (pun intended) the entire chain of events is the infamous Merovingian Heresy: that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a child that ultimately resulted in the bloodline of the Merovingian kings of medieval France and which still continues behind the intrigues throughout the Europe of today.

Much of this was adapted from a book by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln, Holy Blood, Holy Grail , published in 1982. (The name of one of the key "experts" in Brown's novel, Leigh Teabing, is an anagram involving Leigh and Baigent.)

The mysterious secrets surrounding the fabled search for the "Holy Grail," according to the "expert" explanations embedded in Brown's novel, were but coded references to this bloodline.

The Da Vinci Connection

As an example of the several da Vinci-related "codes" suggested in the novel, from which it gets its name, is the notion that in the famous painting, The Last Supper, the person seated to Christ's right is not John (as is commonly assumed) but a woman! And this, of course, and other features are contrived to support the elevation of Mary Magdalene as His consort and "right hand." The Mona Lisa and the Madonna on the Rocks also participate in Brown's contrived twists to support his tale.

The novel doesn't limit itself to classical art objects alone: there are several "cryptexes,"3 the use of Hebrew atbash codes,4 and assorted riddles and anagrams, etc. One cannot deny the clever exploitation of these intriguing plot devices to carry the reader along.
But despite these colorful devices, and although the numerous scholastic rebuttals easily shred the many twisted and contrived allusions that are fostered to support Brown's engaging tale, serious foundational issues remain to unsettle any thoughtful reader.

Some Questions Raised

• Who was Mary Magdalene? How do we know that Jesus wasn't married?
• Why do we rely on the four Gospels and reject others? How and why were they chosen?
• What were the Gnostic Gospels and why were they - and the "lost books of the Bible" - rejected?
• Was there an editorial conspiracy within the early church?
• Does the Priory of Sion really exist? What is its agenda?
• Is there a "Merovingian" agenda behind the "New Europe"?
We will continue this review in our next issue and will also highlight the ultimate "code" that remains hidden behind the novel, The Da Vinci Code .

* * *

Part 2 of 'The DaVinci Deception'
Mary, Mary? Quite Contrary!
by Chuck Missler
________________________________________

[Portuguese]

The popular but shamefully blasphemous novel by Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code, has raised many troubling questions, particularly among the less informed. Since Ron Howard is planning to bring it out as a major motion picture with Columbia next summer, this book will continue to be a popular topic of conversation, and it will continue to challenge many in their understanding of the Biblical texts.

Review

Dan Brown's fictional story opens with the murder of the curator of Paris' most famous museum, in which the victim leaves enigmatic clues in the form of codes that our hero, Robert Langdon, an expert on occult symbology, and Sofie Neveu, a professional cryptologist who joins him, must solve. Several of these clues involve hidden messages among the sketches and paintings of Leonardo da Vinci, from which the novel gets its name.

As the story develops, Langdon is viewed as the prime suspect, and the urgency of solving the increasingly complex sequence of subsequent codes, riddles, and clues becomes intensified. The hidden agenda of a secret order behind the fabled Knights Templar, and the sinister maneuvers of committed operatives of Opus Dei, an ostensible arm of the Roman Catholic Church, all weave a tapestry of intrigue and rapidly developing dangers.

What has ignited a serious controversy among uninformed readers is that this work of fiction poses as factual and constitutes a deliberate, blasphemous attack on Christianity, the Bible, and Jesus Christ Himself.

The Priory of Sion

The reader of Brown's book is immediately confronted with a preliminary page declaring: "FACT: The Priory of Sion - a European secret society founded in 1099 - is a real organization. In 1975 Paris's Bibliothèque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci..."

It is this introductory presentation, which positions these "facts" as foundational truths, that compromises Brown's novel as simply a work of fiction and has caused confusion among so many.

It turns out that "the Priory of Sion" was organized in 1956, with Pierre Plantard as its Grand Master, an anti-Semite with a criminal record for fraud. Its background was, indeed, "proven" by a cache of documents that were "discovered" in the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris.
However, they were planted there by Pierre Plantard himself! One of his henchmen admitted to assisting him in the fabrication of these materials, including the genealogical tables and lists of the Priory's grand masters. This hoax was exposed in a series of French books and a BBC documentary in 1996.

To claim membership of these famous persons is actually an assault on their respective memories and reputations. And Leonardo da Vinci's alleged involvement is, of course, fundamental to Brown's storyline.

The alleged mission of the "Priory" is the protection of a deep secret which, it is insisted, would jeopardize the entire Christian Church as we know it: that Jesus Christ was married to Mary Magdalene, and a daughter born to them was secreted off to (what is now) France and subsequently led to the Merovingian dynasty of kings.

The Knights Templar is presented as the military arm of the Priory of Sion, charged with protecting this bloodline and its attendant secrets. The "Holy Grail" (Graal, Old French for "cup") is, thus, not the legendary chalice, but a code name for this bloodline (Sang Real, "Holy Blood").

Many twists on the legends, fables, and controversies surrounding the Knights Templar are exploited to embroider Brown's tale and to support the blasphemous myth it promotes. (The many misstatements and distortions concerning this Brotherhood lie outside our purposes here and are incidental to the main themes of Brown's book.)

The Merovingians

The Merovingians were a dynasty of Frankish kings from the 5th to the 8th centuries. According to tradition, they descended from Merovech, chief of the Salian Franks, whose son was Childeric I and whose grandson was Clovis I, the founder of the Frankish monarchy, who died in A.D. 511. They are sometimes called "the first race of the kings of France."

The allegation that they descended from the union of Jesus and Mary Magdalene lacks any credible evidence whatsoever. However, there are those who claim their lineage links many of the major royal families of Europe and belief in these legends may lie behind some of the activism toward the "New Europe." (These fables were popularized by a book by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, published in 1982.)

Opus Dei

Offsetting the intrigues of the Priory of Sion in Brown's novel are the machinations of Opus Dei. The "Prelature of the Holy Cross and Opus Dei" ("Work of God") was founded in Spain in 1928 by a 26-year-old Catholic priest, Josemaria Escriva, who died in 1975 and was canonized by Pope John Paul II in 2002. This organization helps its 80,000 recruited and indoctrinated members, and others, to a call to holiness by means of a rigorous daily routine, retreats, courses, and other undertakings. Fabulously wealthy and highly secretive, in Brown's novel the operatives of the Priory of Sion are subject to the intrigues - even assassinations - by ostensible operatives of Opus Dei, painted as a kind of "Vatican Mafia" for the purposes of Brown's plot tensions.

Magdalene Maligned

A spate of books has been published to catalog the numerous misstatements, distortions, and deliberate deceptions in Brown's book. But the primary offense - among many - is his trumpeting the Magdalene Heresy. This clearly is the central issue.
To add to the confusion, there are more than six Marys in the Scripture who are often misidentified:

1. 1) Mary the Mother of Jesus (deified by Catholics and virtually ignored by Protestants);1
2. 2) Mary, Mother of John Mark,2 prominent in the Jerusalem church, related to Barnabas,3 and owned a large home used for assembly;4
3. 3) Mary of Bethany, sister of Martha and Lazarus, contrasted with her sister Martha in her devotion5 and remembered for her memorial anointing.6 [Often also confused with a similar event in Galilee at a Pharisee's home also named Simon;7 the location, occasion, motivation, and atmosphere there seems distinct from the Bethany episode].
4. 4) Mary, Mother of James and Joseph,8 one of the group of Galilean women who supported Jesus financially9 and were present at the crucifixion, entombment, and witnessed the resurrection.
5. 5) Mary of Rome. Having served Paul and his party well elsewhere, moved to Rome;10
and, of course,
6. 6) Mary Magdalene, much maligned in both reputation and, here, ironically, in blasphemous libel. She was identified by her native city, Magdala, on the northwest shore of the Sea of Galilee. She was healed by Jesus of seven demons11 and was a person of means and a leader among the women.

However, in A.D. 591, Pope Gregory the Great gave an Easter sermon in which he erroneously declared that the prostitute of Luke 7 was Mary Magdalene of Luke 8. In 1969, The Vatican corrected centuries of misrepresentation by acknowledging that there was no basis for her identification as a prostitute.

Mary Magdalene is very visible in the Gospel record: She followed Jesus from Galilee, ministered to Him,12 beheld the crucifixion from afar,13 stood by the cross,14 located and watched the tomb,15 came early to the tomb with spices,16 was first to see the risen Lord,17 and reported the resurrection to the disciples.18

There is no basis to even suggest that Jesus was married, or that He had an "affair" with Mary Magdalene. This very notion demonstrates that the author has no concept of just Who Jesus is! Or what He was all about.

The Magdalene Heresy

Legends about Jesus and Mary Magdalene began to emerge in southern France during the 9th century, some even linking with the pagan goddess, Isis, etc. (Also, these were accompanied by myths about John the Baptist, whose successor was thought to be the Gnostic sex magician, Simon Magnus.19 )

Brown's novel attempts to support these outrageous notions by allusions from the Gnostic Gospels, in particular The Gospel of Philip. An out-of-context fragmentary reference to a kiss - in which Jesus kissed his other students as well - still suggests nothing about marriage or any sexual innuendos. Brown leans on a word in the "Aramaic" (although The Gospel of Philip came to us in Coptic) that he maintains means "spouse." The word happens to be a loan word from Greek, koinonia, which can mean companion, as in fellowship, etc.

The Gospel of Philip makes no reference that supports any of Brown's contentions. But even if it did, it would be irrelevant since it was written more than two centuries after the Gospel period, under a pseudonym posing as someone he wasn't. No serious scholar can take it seriously as having any historical merit.

But the reliance on The Gnostic Gospels, and twisted distortions of the early church councils, all raise serious questions: What makes us so confident that our Bible is what it purports to be? How do we know? What about these "missing" books of the Bible?

We will continue this series next month with a review of these "missing books," and some contemporary implications of the Magdalene Heresy and the associated Merovingian Myths, and their ostensible role in the unification of the New Europe today. We will also highlight some bizarre speculations regarding a 150 ft. statue of "Mary Magdalene" that graces an international port today. And we will also unveil the ultimate "code" that will be evident only to the most discerning reader! Stay tuned. "Film at eleven."

Notes:
1. Cf. 2 John as John's personal letter to her!
2. Acts 12:12.
3. Colossians 4:10.
4. Acts 12:12; mention of servants v.13.
5. John 11, 12.
6. John 12:3, Matthew 26:1-13; Mark 14:3-9.
7. Luke 7:36-50.
8. Matthew 27:56; 28:1; Mark 15:40,47.
9. Mark 15:40; Luke 8:2,3.
10. Romans 16:6.
11. Mark 16:9; Luke 8:2.
12. Matthew 27:56.
13. Mark 15:40.
14. John 19:25.
15. Matthew 27:61.
16. Mark 16:1, John 20:1.
17. Mark 16:9.
18. Luke 24:10, John 20:18.
19. Acts 8:9-25.