Acts 29 and the SBC
From SBC Voices…
Acts 29 and Bad Science Fiction Movies
by Rick Patrick on March 30, 2012
Congratulations to the Acts 29 Network for selecting a President in Matt Chandler who is altogether less controversial than Mark Driscoll. The issues with Mark’s explicit visions, his edgy sex book, and the church discipline controversy seems to have provided a lot of baggage that this organization did not need. I am certain that these factors would not be cited by leaders as reasons for the change, but the move to Dallas and the transition in leadership can only help this organization to become more acceptable both in Southern Baptist life and in the evangelical world at large. While I have no problem with the latter, the former troubles me.
Have you ever seen one of those cheesy science fiction movies where the aliens take over the earth one body at a time as they either (1) possess the souls of existing humans on earth, or (2) transform their appearance so they pass for men and women when they are really something else? It’s an insidious form of infiltration that goes unnoticed until it is too late and they have completely taken over.
Southern Baptists, they walk amongst us. While our Southern Baptist rules allow ministers and congregations the freedom to hold either of the two major soteriological positions, Acts 29 rules strictly require that they adhere only to one. While there are certainly other clear differences between Acts 29 and traditional Southern Baptists in areas such as methodology, ecclesiology, hermeneutics and cultural engagement, it is this one primary rule that requires unyielding conformity to a specific salvation doctrine that appears to “stack the deck” in favor of the growing influence of Acts 29 churches within the Southern Baptist Convention.
To extend the metaphor, consider other denominations as civilizations living on other planets who are also being infiltrated by the Acts 29 aliens. Because they do not define themselves as one denomination, separate from the others, even though they possess their own leadership, their own literature, their own training and educational conferences, their own church planting process, their own specific doctrinal requirements, and all the other marks that define a denomination, they are able to infiltrate existing churches as well as plant new churches among many different denominations simultaneously.
Although it is not my intention to incite, this next analogy may do exactly that. When I compare traditional denominations to the existing sovereign nations on earth and liken Acts 29 to a terrorist network, I am certainly not speaking of their functional intent–these are brothers who are truly sharing the gospel–but only of their organizational structure. Just like a terrorist network contains infiltrating cells within a variety of nations while preserving their primary allegiance for the terrorist organization itself, Acts 29 churches appear to enjoy carte blanche in forming their own “denomination without walls.”
Since their organizational structure as a network will never wall themselves off as a separate denomination, the only way in which any boundary for their organization can ever truly be set is if the existing denominations themselves wall off Acts 29 churches, declaring them to be the denomination they so fervently insist they are not. Unless denominations are willing to do this, the Acts 29 Network will grow unhindered within several denominations simultaneously.
I believe this is a house divided, which as we know, cannot stand. It is not that I wish the Acts 29 Network any harm. If they called themselves a denomination tomorrow, allowing every member to “choose ye this day” whether they wanted to be Southern Baptist or Acts 29, I would consider them with the same collegial feelings of goodwill which I currently hold for the Methodists, the Presbyterians, the Evangelical Free churches and everyone else.
But as they are currently structured, I am concerned that their presence within the Southern Baptist Convention creates a denomination within a denomination, dividing our loyalties and possibly consuming some of our assets, such as church buildings, missions funding and, most importantly, the future young leaders of our denomination.
As I understand it, the new President of the Acts 29 Network was highly involved in the creation of our newest denominational Sunday School curriculum. He has preached in our seminaries and will gain even more access within Southern Baptist life than Mark Driscoll ever could. The Acts 29 Network is alive and growing within our denomination. If I seem a bit threatened by this, it is only because I disagree with enough of their theology and methodology to discern that Acts 29 and traditional Southern Baptist churches are simply not on the same page.
Just as Muslims embark upon both public holy wars and the more secretive infiltration of cultural subversion, religious denominations are subject to the same threats. While the liberalism a generation ago was a “holy war” fought over inerrancy, today we face the more illusive threat of subversion from within as the Acts 29 Network grows stronger and larger inside of us.
If you seek evidence for this growing influence of the Acts 29 Network upon Southern Baptists, consider that NAMB is transforming itself into an Acts 29 styled church planting network. A couple of our seminaries are strongly aligned with Acts 29. Lifeway appears absolutely smitten. Being fond of my retirement account, if they ever take over Guidestone, I suppose I’ll just have to convert, embrace all five points, read more Piper, preach in jeans, talk about meta-narratives, attend boot camps and use the word “gospel” to describe everything. I’ll eat a gospel breakfast, drive my gospel car and mow my gospel lawn.
Only God knows whether Matt Chandler is destined one day to become the new Adrian Rogers, but if he does, he will do it on a platform not of biblical inerrancy and cultural conservatism, but of Five Point Calvinism and cultural contextualization. While this entire post may deeply offend my Acts 29 brothers, I would simply ask that you try to understand my personal struggle with our changing Southern Baptist identity. From my perspective at least, the rising influence of Acts 29 upon our denomination seems, for lack of a better word…alien.
From: http://sbcvoices.com/acts-29-and-bad-science-fiction-movies/
My soul thirsts for You
Psalm 63
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
The Thirsting Soul Satisfied in God.
A Psalm of David, [a]when he was in the wilderness of Judah.
1 O God, You are my God; I shall seek You [b]earnestly; My soul thirsts for You, my flesh [c]yearns for You, In a dry and weary land where there is no water. 2 Thus I have seen You in the sanctuary, To see Your power and Your glory. 3 Because Your lovingkindness is better than life, My lips will praise You. 4 So I will bless You as long as I live; I will lift up my hands in Your name. 5 My soul is satisfied as with [d]marrow and fatness, And my mouth offerspraises with joyful lips.
6 When I remember You on my bed, I meditate on You in the night watches, 7 For You have been my help, And in the shadow of Your wings I sing for joy. 8 My soul clings [e]to You; Your right hand upholds me.
9 But those who seek my [f]life to destroy it, Will go into the [g]depths of the earth. 10 [h]They will be [i]delivered over to the power of the sword; They will be a [j]prey for foxes. 11 But the king will rejoice in God; Everyone who swears by Him will glory, For the mouths of those who speak lies will be stopped.
- Psalm 63:1 1 Sam 22:5; 23:14
- Psalm 63:1 Lit early
- Psalm 63:1 Lit faints
- Psalm 63:5 Lit fat
- Psalm 63:8 Lit after
- Psalm 63:9 Lit soul
- Psalm 63:9 Lit lowest places
- Psalm 63:10 Lit They will pour him out
- Psalm 63:10 Lit poured out by
- Psalm 63:10 Lit portion
Nearness of God is my good
Psalm 73
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
BOOK 3
The End of the Wicked Contrasted with That of the Righteous.
A Psalm of Asaph.
1 Surely God is good to Israel, To those who are pure in heart! 2 But as for me, my feet came close to stumbling, My steps [a]had almost slipped. 3 For I was envious of the [b]arrogant As I saw the prosperity of the wicked. 4 For there are no pains in their death, And their [c]body is fat. 5 They are not [d]in trouble as other [e]men, Nor are they plagued [f]like mankind. 6 Therefore pride is their necklace; The garment of violence covers them. 7 Their eye [g]bulges from fatness; The imaginations of their heart [h]run riot. 8 They mock and [i]wickedly speak of oppression; They speak from on high. 9 They have set their mouth [j]against the heavens, And their tongue [k]parades through the earth.
10 Therefore [l]his people return to this place, And waters of abundance are [m]drunk by them. 11 They say, “How does God know? And is there knowledge [n]with the Most High?” 12 Behold, these are the wicked; And always at ease, they have increased in wealth. 13 Surely in vain I have [o]kept my heart pure And washed my hands in innocence; 14 For I have been stricken all day long And [p]chastened every morning.
15 If I had said, “I will speak thus,” Behold, I would have betrayed the generation of Your children. 16 When I pondered to understand this, It was [q]troublesome in my sight 17 Until I came into the [r]sanctuary of God; Then I perceived their end. 18 Surely You set them in slippery places; You cast them down to [s]destruction. 19 How they are [t]destroyed in a moment! They are utterly swept away by sudden terrors! 20 Like a dream when one awakes, O Lord, when aroused, You will despise their [u]form.
21 When my heart was embittered And I was pierced [v]within, 22 Then I was senseless and ignorant; I was like [w]a beast [x]before You. 23 Nevertheless I am continually with You; You have taken hold of my right hand. 24 With Your counsel You will guide me, And afterward receive me [y]to glory.
25 Whom have I in heaven but You? And [z]besides You, I desire nothing on earth. 26 My flesh and my heart may fail, But God is the [aa]strength of my heart and my portion forever. 27 For, behold, those who are far from You will perish; You have [ab]destroyed all those who [ac]are unfaithful to You. 28 But as for me, the nearness of God is my good; I have made the Lord [ad]GOD my refuge, That I may tell of all Your works.
- Psalm 73:2 Lit were caused to slip
- Psalm 73:3 Or boasters
- Psalm 73:4 Or belly
- Psalm 73:5 Lit in the trouble of men
- Psalm 73:5 Or mortals
- Psalm 73:5 Lit with
- Psalm 73:7 Lit goes forth
- Psalm 73:7 Lit overflow
- Psalm 73:8 Or they speak in wickedness; From on high they speak of oppression
- Psalm 73:9 Or in
- Psalm 73:9 Lit walks
- Psalm 73:10 Or His
- Psalm 73:10 Lit drained out
- Psalm 73:11 Lit in
- Psalm 73:13 Or cleansed my heart
- Psalm 73:14 Lit my chastening
- Psalm 73:16 Lit labor, trouble
- Psalm 73:17 Lit sanctuaries
- Psalm 73:18 Lit ruins
- Psalm 73:19 Lit become a desolation
- Psalm 73:20 Or image
- Psalm 73:21 Lit in my kidneys
- Psalm 73:22 Or an animal
- Psalm 73:22 Lit with You
- Psalm 73:24 Or with honor
- Psalm 73:25 Or with
- Psalm 73:26 Lit rock
- Psalm 73:27 Or silenced
- Psalm 73:27 Lit go to a whoring from
- Psalm 73:28 Heb YHWH, usually rendered LORD
Nice, But Not Good
I thought this was an interesting article.
Dawn
Nice, But Not Good – Discernment Skills For Modern Americans
We can all remember being told that someone we knew (or knew of) had gotten in trouble, been arrested for drug use, or in some way found with their pants literally or figuratively down. And we can all remember saying, “How could that be? He was so nice!“
We can all recall the television interviews of neighbors and co-workers after some ghastly disaster sends them all reeling into the streets with their pajamas on, some shooting spree or child molestation. And all of them have the same comment, “I don’t understand it. He was such a nice, quiet guy!” Bundy was so nice, women got into his Volkswagen ignoring or failing to even notice that there was no front seat. O.J. Simpson was charming to the very last wave of his bloody glove. Charles Manson, psychotic that he was, still sweetly lured the innocent and isolated into his cache of horrors.
What’s Nice? What’s Good?
Over coffee, my friend and colleague, Kevin Rexroad, MD, attempted to define the terms. Even though I’m a psychotherapist and Kevin’s a psychiatrist, it wasn’t as easy as we had expected. We had both had recent personal experiences with narcissistic individuals who made the difference vividly and viscerally clear, yet it was hard to quantify.
“With nice,” he mused, “it’s usually so nice that a part of me knows it’s too nice to be true. Good is different. It has a more obviously average quality about it.” I defined that further. Good is humble. There is no pretense. No boasting. No need for approval or accolades. It does what it does because it seeks to do the right thing. Period. So, on a rather large Starbucks napkin, I drew two columns.
Good People
- They understand the battle against evil but never take pleasure in its defeat, rather sadness in its necessity.
- They have consistent integrity.
- They say what they mean and mean what they say.
- Good men and women are warriors of a sort. They do not tolerate injustice but also do not seek to punish or seek revenge.
- They are temperate of mind and heart.
- They have substance.
- They are responsible in that they respond to others.
- They are appropriately (not helplessly or cunningly) selfless.
- They are empathic without being passive.
- There is no pretense in them and they are willing to be good without seeking approval or awards of any kind.
- They are the last ones to see themselves as good and definitely the last ones to tell anyone they are.
Super Nice People
- They are “charming.”
- They interact with a pseudo-intimacy, behaving as if they’d known you personally for years.
- They engage you on their terms only, even if you don’t realize it.
- They can seem very passive and quiet.
- They relate to you on the surface and let you in only so far.
- They do not respond to your needs but gloss over them in a way that makes you wonder whatever you needed that for.
- They are very intent on pleasing others or ingratiating themselves into a social network.
- They need to maintain a persona or a position in a social circle at all costs because how they are seen is more important than who they are.
- They manipulate.
- They are like perfume-very sweet but often used to cover what is deeply offensive.
- They have no compunction about lying to get what they want so long as they are nice about it.
- And…they will inevitably tell you how good they are.
As I wrote that last one, I told Kevin, “I know one woman who is constantly telling me (and anyone else who will listen) how humble and spiritual she is.”
He called her statements “self-contradictory.” But only someone who is paying attention can see that, however. It stunned me to think of how many people actually took her at her word without taking the time to look and see the incongruity of a person boasting about their humility. As we scrolled through the list, we realized that almost all sales were based in “niceness.”
“It’s like the old pharmaceutical reps,” Kevin recalled. “They’d come in and give you a pen and be super sweet and figure you now owed them something and had to write scrips for whatever meds they were selling.” In The Gift of Fear (1997, pg. 66) Gavin De Becker wrote: “Charm is another overrated ability. Note that I called it an ability, not an inherent feature of one’s personality. Charm is almost always a directed instrument…”
He suggests we see charm as a verb rather than a noun or adjective so that instead of a man being so charming we can see him as trying to charm us. He likens niceness to a decision and warns us that it is not the same as a character trait. It is a strategic form of social interaction. Niceness is conscious and deliberate. It is a social skill that is turned on and off, a vehicle for self-enhancement. Niceness is persuasive.
Perhaps it should not go without saying that a nice man may in fact be a very good man. Not all charm is a cover for sadism or cruelty, although very often it is. Good and nice can coexist. A good man may be quite charming and engaging. But not always. Only in the right circumstances and for the right reasons. In the choice between what is right and what is “nice”, a good man will choose what is right. He knows that true goodness is a Grace bestowed in brief moments. Sometimes a good man will say and do things that may offend, hurt someone’s feelings, or even lead to battle. I imagine Chamberlain thought he was being quite nice with Hitler. I don’t believe anyone in Czechoslovakia would have thought it was very good.
Narcissism: A Wicked Niceness
Nice can’t be discussed without at least mentioning narcissism. This is especially the case with unsolicited and seemingly inappropriate niceness. Narcissists are very nice until they don’t get their way. They are great charmers and can get most people to do and accept things they wouldn’t in their wildest dreams imagine themselves doing or accepting. Narcissists are often very adept con artists.
Narcissism in psychotherapeutic parlance is a term used to indicate a superficial personality type with a hyper-inflated sense of self to compensate for a grievously wounded core. They need a huge amount of support and reinforcement or applause to feel they have any existence at all. These are people you will often find in the media, in Hollywood, in politics, in positions where they are leading, lording over, or performing for many people. We may understandably expect them there. But we will also find them in car dealerships, in schools, and in our neighborhood associations because a narcissist is simply someone who puts himself in the center of the universe and fully, comfortably, and syntonically expects you to do the same.
As a result, what they want is paramount in any relationship-intimate or fleeting. They are people who don’t accept “no” for an answer easily because it so threatens either their plan, their sense of self-worth (which is actually quite flimsy), or both. In order to keep things moving where they want them to go, they will manipulate with sweetness and charm. If that doesn’t work, they will lie. And if that doesn’t work, in many cases (though not all) they will rage. Sometimes that rage is malignant and can result in profound emotional or bodily harm to others.
An example of emotional harm is a simple story:
Jane was once married to a narcissist. The ex-husband, Charlie, regularly demeaned and verbally abused Jane while they were married. He cheated on her. He had literally no empathy and no respect for her needs. This continued past their divorce. Some years ago, Charlie had their son call Jane to demand that Jane let Charlie and his new girlfriend stay at her house until their new home was painted, knowing that Jane was terrified of losing the affection of her son. She allowed herself to be manipulated and humiliated this way because she was made to feel like the perpetrator every time she tried to say no. Unlike narcissists, people who are trying to be good often have consciences and more highly developed senses of guilt.
An example of physical harm is something we hear about nearly every day in the news. It is a particularly malignant form of narcissism that extends into sociopathy or psychosis. A woman or child is abducted by someone who looked so “normal” or seemed so “nice.” They are deliberately and skillfully lured in with requests for help, invitations to look at a puppy, or by making small-talk and not letting it end in a normal fashion and pushing themselves on people who are timid or afraid of hurting someone else’ feelings. As De Becker points out, narcissists do not accept the word “no” because they need control.
“I have to tell a lot of my patients who are suffering with narcissistic partners–whether in business or at home–that they are not necessarily the fools for having given in or failed to see the con. Narcissists can be very, very good manipulators and like a super-train, you don’t see it coming until you feel the wind after it’s passed.”
A Personal and True Story
It was about a week after the terrorist attack in New York. I was walking my dogs-two large and not terribly benign rescues who loved me and were cautious with everyone else-down the small, winding street that led to our home. It was not a through street, so strangers were usually quite noticeable.
It was 7 in the morning when a man in a silver Jaguar pulled in front of us at a diagonal, blocking our passage. He stopped and got out of the car. A sheep dog was in the back with his paws on the top of the seat peering out at us. The man walked toward us wearing an FBI hat (ridiculous looking) and a silver running suit. At the time I was working with an NYPD group (POPPA) as a counselor and immediately I committed his license plate to memory.
I put my hands forward in a “stop” position as my dogs started barking and twitching. He didn’t stop quickly enough and I knew something was amiss.
“Hi there!” he chirped sweetly. Anyone would have said he was being quite nice. “I just moved into the neighborhood and I was hoping we could get a play date for the dogs…”
He would’ve kept talking and he was slowly moving closer and closer. Amazingly my 2 barking and animated 80lb. dogs didn’t deter him. So I did.
“Get back in your car now. They’re not friendly and neither am I.” (Actually, they were both quite friendly with people they trusted. They were clearly on alert.)
“You don’t have to be like that!” he said and nearly pouted, trying to make me feel awful for hurting his feelings and rejecting him.
“Yes I do. I’m warning you. They don’t take to strangers,” I moved forward with them and slackened my leashes so the dogs could lunge forward.
He stomped off after he gave me a tongue lashing for being rude. Mind you, I didn’t feel all that good about being “rude” at all and admittedly wondered for a day or so whether I had been too quick to judge or if I was just plain ol’ mean. UNTIL…I found out that his plates were from a town about a hundred miles away and nowhere near where we lived. So much for welcome to the neighborhood! If he had not been looking to perpetrate some harm, he would never have been so indignant about being told “no.” If he had been good man, he would have realized he’d overstepped a boundary and apologized (and meant it).
Narcissism is unfortunately one of the marks of success in modern Western culture. If you are sufficiently self-important to be important to others, you’ve made it. You’re on the cover of Time or People or Us. (Ironically, for a narcissist there is no “us.” It is the epitome of the royal “we” in which their “I” includes everyone else.)
Sounding the Cultural Alarm: Discernment
In 1940 C.S. Lewis was already sounding the alarm about this radical change in modern society. He stated emphatically that kindness (or niceness) was not the measure of goodness, just as apparent cruelty was not the measure of evil. For as Russ Murray points out in his blogspot (thekingpin68), someone can be quite nice and have the most base of intentions, citing as an example how Judas betrayed Jesus with a kiss. Doctors do the opposite all the time: they reset broken bones, suture ruptured skin, and remove decayed teeth sometimes causing awful (albeit temporary) pain in order to facilitate proper healing. Is it nice? Hell, no. Is it good? Until we have better means, yes, it is very good.
Because our culture puts such a premium on niceness, charm, and pleasure, ordinary, good people are put at a disadvantage when it comes to discernment. A narcissist can appear quite innocent because she has so mastered the technique of ingratiation. So much so, that she can make you feel that you have somehow committed a terrible injustice by denying her X or Y or Z as she positions herself as the victim.
As Gavin De Becker points out, this failure to see behind the mask of niceness can make the difference between life and death. World-wide, the crime records attest to the danger. A woman who can’t say “no” to a nice stranger’s unsolicited offer to escort her to her car at night, even though she doesn’t like him, may wind up filing reports of assault, rape, and attempted murder. This is not to blame the victim, rather to point out how charming that charm can be and how carefully we need to pay attention to the differences. So, what does a person do? How do you tell the difference?
The Lessons in Verbal First Aid
When I teach Verbal First Aid to emergency workers, a communication protocol used to facilitate healing in traumatic situations, I ask them what they think their most important tool is. Inevitably the hands go up: the defibrillator, the oxygen tank, the Jaws of Life. I tell them: No. Your most important and most healing instrument is you.
What makes them-or any of us-healing is at least in part what makes us good: the ability to develop rapport, our integrity and compassion, our benevolent presence and support. To be healing (or good) one must respect the patient (or person) before him and do what is necessary even if it is not “nice” to deal with the disease or the injury. Part of what is necessary in Verbal First Aid, of course, is dealing with the patient honestly and with a gentle, but firm authority. Manipulating and healing are mutually exclusive.
The Bible defines Good for us as “an inherent rightness of being.” It never ever mentions niceness. It never equates it with beauty or talent. It never, ever mistakes it for showmanship. (Moses himself had a lisp and timidly refused his mandate by God to lead the Jews out of Egypt.) If anything it warns us from the very beginning to beware of pretense.
We can start to tell the difference by remembering that there is a difference.
Judith Acosta, LISW, is a licensed psychotherapist, crisis counselor and homeopath in private practice in New Mexico. She is the co-author of The Worst Is Over: What To Say When Every Moment Counts, hailed as the “bible of crisis communications” and Verbal First Aid (Penguin, 2010). She lectures around the country on Verbal First Aid, trauma, stress, and animal-assisted therapy. She may be reached at her website: http://www.wordsaremedicine.com.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Judith_Acosta
On Pride
PRIDE
(J. C. Philpot, from his “Reviews” 1853)
“I hate pride and arrogance.” Proverbs 8:13
“The Lord detests all the proud of heart. Be sure of this: They will not go unpunished.” Prov. 16:5
Of all sins pride seems most deeply imbedded in the very heart of man. Unbelief, sensuality, covetousness, rebellion, presumption, contempt of God’s holy will and word, hatred and enmity against the saints of the Most High, deceit and falsehood, cruelty and wrath, violence and murder–these, and a forest of other sins have indeed struck deep roots into the black and noxious soil of our fallen nature; and, interlacing their lofty stems and gigantic arms, have wholly shut out the light of heaven from man’s benighted soul. But these and their associate evils do not seem so thoroughly interwoven into the very constitution of the human heart, nor so to be its very life blood as pride. The lust of the flesh is strong, but there are respites from its workings; unbelief is powerful, but there are times when it seems to lie dormant; covetousness is ensnaring, but there is not always a bargain to be made, or an advantage to be clutched. These sins differ also in strength in different individuals. Some seem not much tempted with the grosser passions of our fallen nature; others are naturally liberal and benevolent, and whatever other idol they may serve, they bend not their knee to the golden calf. Strong natural conscientiousness preserves many from those debasing sins which draw down general reprehension; and a quiet, gentle, peaceable disposition renders others strangers not only to the violent outbreaks, but even to the inward gusts of temper and anger.
But where lust may have no power, covetousness no dominion, and anger no sway–there, down, down in the inmost depths, heaving and boiling like the lava in the crater of a volcano, works that master sin, that sin of sins—pride! As Rome calls herself the Mother and Mistress of all the churches, so is Pride the Mother and Mistress of all the sins; for where she does not conceive them in her ever-teeming womb, she instigates their movements, and compels them to pay tribute to her glory.
The origin of evil is hidden from our eyes. Whence it sprang, and why God allowed it to arise in his fair creation, are mysteries which we cannot fathom; but thus much is revealed, that of this mighty fire which has filled hell with sulphurous flame, and will one day involve earth and its inhabitants in the general conflagration, the first spark was pride!
It is therefore emphatically the devil’s own sin; we will not say his darling sin, for it is his torment, the serpent which is always biting him, the fire which is ever consuming him. But it is the sin which hurled him from heaven and transformed him from a bright and holy seraph into a foul and hideous demon. How subtle, then, and potent must that poison be, which could in a moment change an angel into a devil! How black in nature, how concentrated in virulence that venom, one drop of which could utterly deface the image of God in myriads of bright spirits before the throne, and degrade them into monsters of uncleanness and malignity!
Be it, then, borne in mind that the same identical sin which wrought such fearful effects in the courts of heaven was introduced by the Tempter into Paradise. “You shall be as gods,” was the lying declaration of the father of lies. When that declaration was believed, and an entrance thus made into Eve’s heart, through that gap rushed in pride, lust, and sinful ambition. The fruit of the forbidden tree was “pleasant to the eyes;” there was food for lust. It was a tree “to be desired to make them wise;” there was a bait for pride. “They would be as gods;” there was a temptation to sinful ambition. The woman tempted the man, as the serpent had tempted the woman; and thus, “by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” (Rom. 5:12.)
There are sins which men commit that devils cannot. Unbelief, infidelity, and atheism, are not sins of devils; for they believe and tremble, and feel too much of the wrath of God to doubt his threatenings or deny his existence. The love of money is a sin from which they are exempt, for gold and silver are confined to earth, and the men who live on it. The lusts of the flesh in all their bearings, whether gluttony, drunkenness, or sensuality, belong only to those who inhabit tabernacles of clay. But pride, malignity, falsehood, enmity, murder, deceitfulness, and all those sins of which spirits are capable, in these crimes, devils as much exceed men as an angelic nature exceeds in depth, power, and capacity a human one.
The eye of man sees, for the most part, only the grosser offences against morality; it takes little or no cognizance of internal sins. Thus a man may be admired as a pattern of consistency, because free from the outbreaks of fleshly and more human sins, while his heart, as open to God’s heart-searching eye, may be full of pride, malignity, enmity, and murder, the sins of devils. Such were the scribes and pharisees of old; models of correctness outwardly, but fiends of malice inwardly. So fearful were these holy beings of outward defilement, that they would not enter into Pilate’s judgment-hall, when at the same moment their hearts were plotting the greatest crime that earth ever witnessed—the crucifixion of the Son of God!
All sin must, from its very nature, be unspeakably hateful to the Holy One of Israel. It not only affronts his divine Majesty and is high treason against His authority and glory, but it is abhorrent to His intrinsic purity and holiness. It is, indeed, most difficult for us to gain a spiritual conception of the foul nature of sin as viewed by a Holy Jehovah; but there are, perhaps, times and seasons when, to a certain extent, we may realize a faint idea of it. It is when we are favored with the presence of God, see light in his light, and have the mind of Christ. Then how do we feel towards our base backslidings and filthy lusts? With what eyes does the new man of grace then view his sinful yoke-fellow–that base old man, that body of sin and death, that carnal mind in which dwells no good thing, that heaving reeking mass of all pollution and abomination, which he is compelled to carry about with him while life lasts? He views it, how can he but view it, except with loathing and abhorrence. But what is this, for the most part, short and transient, and, in its very nature, weak abhorrence of evil, compared with the enduring and infinite hatred of God against sin, though it may aid us in obtaining a dim and faint conception of it?
But among all the evils which lie naked and open before the eyes of Him with whom we have to do, pride seems especially to incur His holy abhorrence; and the outward manifestations of it have perhaps drawn down as much as, or more than, any other sin, his marked thunderbolts. His unalterable determination against it, and his fixed resolve to bring down to the dust every manifestation of it, is no where so pointedly or so fully declared as in that striking portion of Holy Writ which forms the second chapter of the Prophecies of Isaiah. And this is the theme of the whole, “And the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the haughtiness of men shall be made low; and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day.” (Isaiah 2:17.)
But, besides these general declarations, the sacred record teems with individual instances of God’s anger against this prevailing sin. Pride cost Sennacherib his army and Herod his life; pride opened the earth to Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, and hung up Absalom in the boughs of an oak; pride filled the breast of Saul with murderous hatred against David, and tore ten tribes at one stroke from the hand of Rehoboam. Pride drove Nebuchadnezzar from the society of his fellow-men, and made him eat grass as oxen, and his body to be wet with the dew of heaven, until his hairs were grown as eagles’ feathers, and his nails like birds’ claws.
And as it has cut off the wicked from the earth, and left them neither son nor nephew, root nor branch, so it has made sad havoc even among the family of God. Pride shut Aaron out of the promised land; and made Miriam a leper white as snow; pride, working in the heart of David, brought a pestilence which cut off seventy thousand men; pride carried captive to Babylon Hezekiah’s treasure and descendants, and cast Jonah into the whale’s belly, and, in his feelings, into the very belly of hell. It is the only source of contention; (Prov. 13:10;) the certain forerunner of a fall; (Prov. 16:18;) the instigator of persecution; (Psalm 10:2;) a snare for the feet; (Psalm 59:12;) a chain to compass the whole body; (Psalm 73:6;) the main element of deceitfulness; (Jer. 49:16;) and the grave of all uprightness. (Hab. 2:4.) It is a sin which God especially abhors, (Prov. 8:13, 16:5,) and one of the seven things which he abominates; (Prov. 6:17;) a sin against which he has pronounced a special woe, (Isaiah 28:1) and has determined to stain it, (Isaiah 23:9,) to abase it, (Dan. 4:37,) to mar it, (Jer. 13:9,) to cut it off, (Zech. 9:6) to bring it down, (Isaiah 25:11,) and lay it low (Prov. 29:23.)
Pride was one of the crying sins of Sodom, (Ezek. 16:49), desolated Moab (Isaiah 16:6, 14,) and turned Edom, with Petra, its metropolis, into a land where no man should dwell, and which no man should pass through. (Obadiah 3, 4, 9, 10; Jerem. 49:16-18.)
But pride is not content with her dominion over the children of this world (Job 41:34), her native born subjects and willing slaves, among whom she rules with lordly sway, at once their tormenting mistress and adored sovereign. Not only does she set up her worship in every family of the land, and reigns and rules as much among the low as the high, swelling the bosom of the blind beggar who holds his hat for a half-penny as much as of that high-born dame who, riding by in her carriage, will not venture to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness. Not only does pride subject to her universal influence the world of which Satan is god and prince, but she must needs intrude herself into the Church of Christ, and exalt her throne among the stars of God.
She comes indeed here in borrowed garb, has put off her glittering ornaments and brave attire, in which she swells and ruffles among the gay flutterers of rank and fashion; and with demure looks, and voice toned down to the right religious key, and a dialect modeled after the language of Canaan, takes her seat among the sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty, much as Satan stood up among the sons of God. (Job. 1:6.) And as she has put off her apparel, so has she changed her title, assuming that which shall give her the readiest and most unquestioned passport. “Humility” is the name with which she has newly christened herself; and, slipping into the camp by the most lowly portal, she moves onward, aiming at no lower seat than the throne, and no less weapon than the scepter.
Some, however, of Zion’s watchmen, and no one more than the writer of the work before us, have lifted up her veil, found out her real character, and, having first branded her on the forehead, “SPIRITUAL PRIDE,” have labored hard, though hitherto ineffectually, to cast her out of the congregation of the saints. But as all their labors have hitherto been ineffectual, and she still dwells in our midst, it may be well to describe some of the features of this dangerous intruder.
1. Ignorance, and that worst species of it—ignorance of one’s own ignorance—is evidently a main feature in her face. In this point she wonderfully resembles that stolid brother of hers who is so much in every company—worldly pride. We are all ignorant, sadly ignorant of everything that belongs to our peace; but the first step out of ignorance is to be conscious of it. No people are so thoroughly impracticable, so headstrong, so awkward to deal with, so deaf to all reason, so bent on their own will and way, so self-conceited, and so hopelessly disagreeable, as those unhappy people, whether in the world or in the church, who are ignorant of their own ignorance. Touchy, sensitive, quarrelsome, always grumbling and complaining, unable to lead and yet unwilling to follow, finding fault with everything and everybody, tyrannical where possessed of power, though abject enough where any advantage is to be gained, bungling everything they do and yet never learning to do any better, making up in a good opinion of themselves for the general ill opinion of them by others—such people are the plague of families, workshops, churches, and congregations. When people of this stamp become, as it is called, religious, being all the time really destitute of grace, their pride runs in a new channel, and with a strength in proportion to the narrowness of the banks. In them we see the disease at its height.
But there are many of the Lord’s people who exhibit strong symptoms of the same evil malady. Yet what can be more opposed to grace or to the spirit and example of Him who said, “Learn of me, for I am gentle and humble in heart?” Where the true light shines into the soul there is a discovery of the greatness and majesty of God, of his holiness, purity, power, and glory; and with this there is a corresponding discovery of our own nothingness, insignificance, sinfulness, and utter worthlessness. This divine light being accompanied by spiritual life, there is raised up a tender conscience as well as an enlightened understanding. Thus is produced self-abasement, which every fresh discovery of the holiness of God and of our own vileness deepens and strengthens. This lays the foundation for true humility; and when God’s mercy meets man’s misery, and Christ is revealed to the soul, it cannot too much abase itself before his blessed Majesty, nor lie low enough in the dust of self-loathing and self-abhorrence. Humility is the daughter of grace, as pride is the child of ignorance.
2. Another marked feature in this impostress, is her self-deceptiveness. She may not succeed in deceiving others, but she rarely fails in deceiving herself. Thus she usually hides her real character most from those who are under her special influence. They are ‘patterns of humility’ externally to others—and patterns of humility internally to themselves. Sweet is the incense which regales their nostrils from the admiration of others; but sweeter far is the odor of their own admiration of themselves. Other sins are not so self-deceptive, so self-blinding, so self-bewitching. Sensual thoughts, blasphemous or rebellious imaginations, anger, carnality, prayerlessness, deadness, coldness, unbelief—these and similar sins wound conscience, and are, therefore, at once detected as essentially evil.
But the swellings of spiritual pride, though not hidden from a discerning eye and a tender conscience, are much concealed from those very religious people whose ‘amazing humility’ and undeviating obedience are ever sending forth a sweet savor to delight their approving nostrils.
3. The grossness and universality of her appetite is a no less prominent feature. Other sins feed only on a limited and appropriate diet. Covetousness is confined to the love of money; sensuality, drunkenness, gluttony, to their peculiar gratifications. But pride is omnivorous! To her greedy appetite, no food comes amiss. Like the eagle, she can strike down a living prey; or, like the vulture, banquet on putrid carrion. Some are proud of their knowledge, others of their ignorance; some of their consistency, others of their freedom from all tight restraints; some of their gifts, others of their very graces; some of their ready speech, others of their prudent silence; some of their long profession, others of their deep experience; some of their Pharisaic righteousness, others of their Antinomian security.
The minister is proud of his able sermons; the deacon of his wise and prudent government; the church member of his privileges above the rest of the congregation. Some are proud because they attend to the ordinances, others because they are not tied up in the yoke of church discipline; some are proud of the world’s contempt, and others of the world’s approbation; some are proud of their sophistication and culture, and others of their vulgarity; some of their learning, and not a few of their lack of it; some of their boldness to reprove, and others of their readiness to forgive; some of their amiability, and others of their austerity; some because others think well of them, and others because nobody thinks well of them, but themselves.
Thus, as some weeds flourish in every soil, and some animals feed on every food, so does pride flourish in every heart, and feast on every kind of food. When an apostle was caught up into the third heaven, pride assailed him as soon as he came back to earth, so that it was needful for a thorn to be given him to rankle in his flesh for the remainder of his life, in order to let out its venom. Pride would have been too much even for Paul’s grace, but for this messenger of Satan daily to buffet him. Pride set the twelve disciples to argue who would be the greatest; and pride widened, if it did not originate, the breach between Paul and Barnabas.
Pride was the pest of the first Christian churches as well as of our own. The pride of gifts was the besetting sin of the Corinthian church; the pride of legal observances the sin of the Galatian church, the pride of vain philosophy of the Colossian church. Timothy was not to allow novices to preach, for pride was their besetment; and he is especially cautioned against those who will not consent to wholesome words as being “proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof comes envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness.” (1 Tim. 6:4, 5.)
None are exempt from pride’s baneful influence. She works in the highest Calvinist as well as in the lowest Arminian; swells the bosom of the poorest, most illiterate dissenting minister, as well as puffs up the lawn sleeves of the most lordly bishop. And, what is far worse, even in those who know, love, and preach the truth, spiritual pride often sets brother against brother, friend against friend, minister against minister. She is full of cruel jealousy and murderous envy, greedily listens to the slanderous tales of whisperers and backbiters, drinks down flattery with insatiable thirst, measures men’s grace by the amount of their approbation, and would trample in the mire the most honored of God’s servants, that by standing upon them she might raise herself a few inches higher!
The very opposite to charity, pride is not patient, and is never kind. She always envies, and ever boasts of herself. She is continually puffed up, always behaves herself rudely, is ever self-seeking, is easily provoked, perpetually thinks evil of others, rejoices in the iniquity of others, but never rejoices in the truth. She never bears with others, believes nothing good in a brother, hopes nothing good for others, and endures nothing. She is ever restless and ever miserable, tormenting herself and tormenting others, the bane of churches, the fomentor of strife, and the extinguisher of love.
May it be our wisdom to see, our grace to abhor, and our victory to overcome pride!
“I hate pride and arrogance.” Proverbs 8:13
“The Lord detests all the proud of heart. Be sure of this: They will not go unpunished.” Prov. 16:5
Was Christianity influenced by paganism?
This is an exerpt from:
Christianity was not influenced by paganism
A review and response to claims that Christianity was influenced by paganism and other religions.
Read full article here: http://www.about-jesus.org/paganism.htm
Krishna
Some scholars and writers have claimed that there are striking parallels between Krishna, of the Hindu religion, and Christ, including:
• The sound and meaning of their names.
• Being born on Dec. 25.
• Being born in a manger.
• Being born of a virgin.
• Having a carpenter for a father.
• Being targeted by an act of infanticide.
• Being killed by crucifixion.
• Being resurrected.
Many of these claims were popularized by Kersey Graves, a 19th century writer, and others who rely on his work as a basis to claim that Christianity borrowed from paganism and other traditions. Graves’ work continues to be influential, especially with Web sites that attack Christianity.
Although the words Krishna and Christ might sound phonetically similar, they have different meanings. “Krishna” means “the black one,” or “dark one,” whereas the “Christ” means “anointed one” or “messiah.”
As for the Dec. 25 “similarity,” the New Testament says nothing of that date in regards to the birth, life or death of Jesus Christ. Many Christians commemorate the birth of Jesus on Dec. 25, but the date is a matter of tradition, not theology. Hindus celebrate the birth of Krishna in August.
The Mahabharata, a Hindu religious text with details about the life and teachings of Krishna, says that Krishna was born in a prison, not a manger, and that his father was a nobleman, not a carpenter.
As for a virgin birth, the Mahabharata says that Krishna’s parents were Princess Devaki and Vasudeva, (Mahabharata Book 12, Section 48), who had several children before he was born.
As for the claim of infanticide, there is an account of this in the Mahabharata, which says that Devaki and Vasudeva were imprisoned by her cousin, Kamsa, because he was told that one of her sons would kill him. Kamsa killed the first six children born of Devaki.
The infanticide described in the New Testament involved a massacre that targeted the young children in the town of Bethlehem, because King Herod feared that the Christ-child, who was to be born in Bethlehem, would rise up and assume the throne. Herod, an Idumean, had been appointed as “king” by the Romans to rule over the land of the Jews. By trying to kill Jesus, Herod was hoping to secure his illegitimate claim to the throne.
While it is true that the Mahabharata and the New Testament both contain an account of infanticide, it should be noted that Herod’s act has more in common with events described in the Old Testament than with the Mahabharata. During turbulent times in ancient Israel, usurpers would attempt to kill the children of a king, in the hopes of illegitimately seizing the throne.
As for the crucifixion and resurrection, it is true that the Mahabharata says that Krishna, who is alternately referred to as Keshava, is killed and that he returns to life, but he was not crucified. Instead, he receives a mortal injury to the heel while meditating in the forest:
“A fierce hunter of the name of Jara then came there, desirous of deer. The hunter, mistaking Keshava, who was stretched on the earth in high Yoga, for a deer, pierced him at the heel with a shaft and quickly came to that spot for capturing his prey.” – Mahabharata, Book 16, Section 4.
There are other texts associated with Hinduism that contain other accounts of Krishna, but these texts are believed by many scholars to have been composed from 400 AD to 1000 AD, which makes it difficult, if not impossible, to prove that the first-century New Testament could have been influenced by them.
Even with the Mahabharata, a person faces a difficult task in trying to claim that it could have been an influence on the New Testament. Even though the writing of the Mahabharata is believed to have been started during pre-Christian times, many scholars claim that it wasn’t completed until at least a few centuries after the time of Jesus. One example is Edward Washburn Hopkins, an American Sanskrit scholar who lived during the 19th century, who claimed in his book, “The Religions of India,” that most of the scholars known to him would agree that the Mahabharata was completed by the sixth or seventh century, after the time of Jesus.
Mithras
One of the more common claims that Christianity was influenced by paganism involves the ancient Roman cult of Mithras. This might be partly due to the popularity of the best-selling novel, The Da Vinci Code, by fiction writer Dan Brown:
Most of what we know about Mithras comes from speculative interpretations of artwork that postdates Christianity.
“Nothing in Christianity is original. The pre-Christian god Mithras – called the Son of God and the Light of the World – was born on December 25, died, was buried in a rock tomb, and then resurrected in three days. By the way, December 25 was also the birthday of Osiris, Adonis, and Dionysus. The newborn Krishna was presented with gold, frankincense, and myrrh.” – The Da Vinci Code.
As is true with many of the claims that Christianity borrowed from paganism, there are no historical sources to support the allegations:
“Mithraic studies do not find any attribution of the titles ‘Son of God’ or ‘Light of the World,’ as Brown claims. There is also no mention of a death-resurrection motif in Mithraic mythology. … There is not a single story in actual Hindu mythology of Krishna being presented with gold, frankincense, and myrrh at his birth.” – de-coding Da Vinci: The facts behind the fiction of The Da Vinci Code, by Amy Welborn.
And as for the claims involving Dec. 25, it is important to note that the New Testament does not claim that Jesus was born on Dec. 25, and that the tradition of Christmas on that date is a matter of tradition, not a matter of theology. The pagan celebrations that took place on or near Dec. 25 during ancient times did not change Christian theology. Christian theology, however, did change the nature of the celebrations involving Dec. 25.
The ancient practitioners of the cult of Mithras did not provide us with writings about their beliefs. They did not leave behind a religious text for us to study. Much of what we presume to know about the traditions of Mithras comes from scholarly speculations about artwork found in Mithraeums that were created during the second, third and fourth centuries, after the time of Jesus Christ.
Franz Cumont, a scholar credited with the beginnings of scholarly research into the study of Mithras, paradoxically, and without explanation, claimed that the birth of Mithras was witnessed by shepherds and that Mithras was born before men and animals were created. Compare these two passages from Cumont’s The Mysteries of Mithras, which was published in 1903:
Statue of Mithras being hatched from egg of rock
• “The tradition ran that the ‘Generative Rock,’ of which a standing image was worshipped in the temples, had given birth to Mithras, on the banks of a river, under the shade of a sacred tree, and that shepherds alone, ensconced in a neighboring mountain, had witnessed the miracle of his entrance into the world. They had seen him issue forth from the rocky mass, his head adorned with a Phrygian cap, armed with a knife, and carrying a torch that had illuminated the somber depths.” – page 132 of an English translation of The Mysteries of Mithras.
• “For although the shepherds were pasturing their flocks when he was born, all these things came to pass before there were men on earth.” – page 133 of an English translation of The Mysteries of Mithras.
Given the incompatible accounts involving the birth of Mithras, one might conclude that the myth of his birth changed over time, adopting and adapting elements from Christianity, even though those elements conflicted with the original Mithraic myth. In any event, there is a fourth century AD bas-relief depicting the birth of Mithras that includes figures who appear to be shepherds. But this artwork is too recent to have influenced the New Testament, and not old enough to prevent someone from claiming that it was influenced by the New Testament.
Aside from any debate involving the chastity of the rock from which Mithras is hatched, there is little, if any, opportunity to seriously compare the “virgin” birth of Mithras to the birth of Jesus.
Osiris
Perhaps the oldest example of a pagan tradition involving a god who supposedly died and was resurrected is that of Osiris, an Egyptian deity who might have originated about 5000 years ago. Many scholars and writers have claimed that Christianity was influenced by the tale of Osiris.
Some writers, including Farrell Till, editor of the Skeptical Review, claim that Osiris died and was resurrected, and had thousands of believers, long before the time of Jesus, repeating a claim that was popularized during the 1800s by writer Kersey Graves, in his The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors. The implication is that the Osiris tradition includes a bodily resurrection that the New Testament writers could have borrowed.
Till took part in a debate in 1994 with a Bible scholar named Norman Geisler. Below are some comments that Till made in regards to the “resurrection” of Osiris:
“Dr. Geisler made the statement that the pagan saviors were not like Jesus because they did not experience bodily resurrection. But I want to assure you, my friends, that that is not so. O-s-i-r-i-s, write it down, O-s-i-r-i-s, he was an ancient Egyptian, virgin-born, savior-god who died, and he was resurrected. You research and you’ll find that his [wife] searched for his body that had been torn to pieces, put it back together, sort of like in Frankenstein manner, and he was resurrected bodily back to life. That’s just one example that I could give you…He [Geisler] is depending upon your ignorance, people. And I’m not trying to be insulting to you. Your preachers do it all the time. You get the wool pulled over your eyes, and it’s your own fault, because you don’t know the Bible, first of all, and you certainly know very little about the history of religion. If you would go examine the evidence, you would see that many of the things that he is telling you have no basis in fact.” – The Geisler-Till Debate, 1994, “Did Jesus of Nazareth Bodily Rise from the Dead?,” featuring Norman L. Geisler and Farrell Till.
Despite the claims, the tradition of Osiris does not involve a bodily resurrection. The traditions do allow for what some scholars phrase as a “resuscitation” or a “revivification,” of the type that is consistent with other pagan deities whose traditions were intertwined with the annual dying and rising of crops, but not a bodily resurrection as characterized by the Bible.
A basic outline of the Osiris myth is provided by Plutarch, in his work entitled Osiris and Isis, that Osiris is tricked into lying in a wooden box which then is nailed shut like a coffin. The trapped Osiris is then drowned in the Nile. But his body is later recovered and dismembered, divided up into 14 or more pieces and scattered throughout the land. Isis, the wife of Osiris, collects the pieces of his body and re-assembles them, by wrapping them with linen.
There are two passages within the writing of Plutarch that might lead one to assume that the reconstruction of Osiris leads to a resurrection:
• “Later, as they relate, Osiris came to Horus from the other world and exercised and trained him for the battle.” – Plutarch, Osiris and Isis.
• “In this way we shall undertake to deal with the numerous and tiresome people, whether they be such as take pleasure in associating theological problems with the seasonal changes in the surrounding atmosphere, or with the growth of the crops and seed-times and ploughing; and also those who say that Osiris is being buried at the time when the grain is sown and covered in the earth and that he comes to life and reappears when plants begin to sprout.” – Plutarch, Osiris and Isis.
In the first passage, it is clear that Osiris returns in some form, but some scholars, including Anthony Mercantante, conclude that he returns in spirit form, not in body. In the second passage, the phrase “comes to life” is too ambiguous to conclude a bodily resurrection, because we are not being told whether he “comes to life” (or in some English translations, “returns to life”) in a spirit form, or in a purely symbolic sense, or whether is coming to life as the plants themselves.
The traditions referenced above are at best too ambiguous to support claims of a bodily resurrection. And, at worst, they are too consistent with other pagan traditions, especially those that have been intertwined with the annual dying and rising of crops, to be of use as a prototype for a one-time-for-always bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.
It also should be noted that Plutarch, who lived during the second-half of the first century AD, is credited with writing the first coherent and detailed account of Osiris. There is no account within Plutarch’s Osiris and Isis that could be construed as a virgin birth for Osiris, who is said to have been born of two other Egyptian deities, namely the god of the sky and the god of the earth.
Further complicating any claim that Osiris had a bodily resurrection is a writing from a Greek traveler named Strabo, who lived from about 63 BC to about 24 AD, and wrote of his travels throughout ancient world. In his book entitled Geography, Strabo wrote:
“A little above Sais is the asylum [tomb] of Osiris, in which the body of Osiris is said to lie; but many lay claim to this, and particularly the inhabitants of the Philae which is situated above Syene and Elephantine; for they tell the mythical story, namely, that Isis placed coffins of Osiris beneath the earth in several places (but only one of them, and that unknown to all, contained the body of Osiris), and that she did this because she wished to hide the body from Typhon, fearing that he might find it and cast it out of its tomb.” – Strabo, Geography, Book XVII.
The key point here is that Strabo records a legend in which the body of Osiris is believed to be lying in a tomb, flatly contradicting the claim of Till or Graves that the Osiris legend culminates with a bodily resurrection.
The mythology of Osiris, in fact, culminates not with a bodily resurrection but with Osiris becoming some sort of a spirit who rules the underworld.
Horus, son of Osiris and Isis. A striking resemblance to Jesus?
While on the topic of Osiris, there are also claims that his son Horus is similar to Jesus in that he was born of a virgin (Isis) and a god (Osiris). But, according to Plutarch, Isis lost her virginity before she was born:
“… but Isis and Osiris were enamoured of each other and consorted together in the darkness of the womb before their birth. Some say that Arueris came from this union and was called the elder Horus by the Egyptians, but Apollo by the Greeks.” – Plutarch, Osiris and Isis.
Isis and Osiris were not only husband and wife, they were brother and sister. In fact they were twins. And in accordance to their mythology, they had consummated their love for one another before they were born. There is also a tradition that Isis later marries her son Horus, further complicating any reasonable comparisons to Christianity.
But even so, such comparisons continue to persist in scholarly and non-scholarly works. Read full article here: http://www.about-jesus.org/paganism.htm
When He sees their strength is gone
Repost:
Deuteronomy 32
The Song of Moses
1 “Give ear, O heavens, and let me speak; And let the earth hear the words of my mouth. 2 “Let my teaching drop as the rain, My speech distill as the dew, As the droplets on the fresh grass And as the showers on the herb. 3 “For I proclaim the name of the LORD; Ascribe greatness to our God! 4 “The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are [a]just; A God of faithfulness and without injustice, Righteous and upright is He. 5 “[b]They have acted corruptly toward Him, They are not His children, because of their defect; But are a perverse and crooked generation. 6 “Do you thus repay the LORD, O foolish and unwise people? Is not He your Father who has bought you? He has made you and established you. 7 “Remember the days of old, Consider the years of all generations. Ask your father, and he will inform you, Your elders, and they will tell you. 8 “When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, When He separated the sons of [c]man, He set the boundaries of the peoples According to the number of the sons of Israel. 9 “For the LORD’S portion is His people; Jacob is the allotment of His inheritance. 10 “He found him in a desert land, And in the howling waste of a wilderness; He encircled him, He cared for him, He guarded him as the pupil of His eye. 11 “Like an eagle that stirs up its nest, That hovers over its young, He spread His wings and caught them, He carried them on His pinions. 12 “The LORD alone guided him, And there was no foreign god with him. 13 “He made him ride on the high places of the earth, And he ate the produce of the field; And He made him suck honey from the rock, And oil from the flinty rock, 14Curds of cows, and milk of the flock, With fat of lambs, And rams, the breed of Bashan, and goats,With the finest of the wheat— And of theblood of grapes you drank wine.
15 “But [d]Jeshurun grew fat and kicked— You are grown fat, thick, and sleek— Then he forsook God who made him, And scorned the Rock of his salvation. 16 “They made Him jealous with strange gods; With abominations they provoked Him to anger. 17 “They sacrificed to demons who were not God, To gods whom they have not known, New gods who came lately, Whom your fathers did not dread. 18 “You neglectedthe Rock who begot you,And forgot the God who gave you birth.
19 “The LORD saw this, and spurned them Because of the provocation of His sons and daughters. 20 “Then He said, ‘I will hide My face from them, I will see what their end shall be; For they are a perverse generation, Sons in whom is no faithfulness. 21 ‘They have made Me jealous with what is not God; They have provoked Me to anger with their [e]idols. So I will make them jealous with those who are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation, 22 For a fire is kindled in My anger, And burns to the lowest part of [f]Sheol,And consumes the earth with its yield, And sets on fire the foundations of the mountains.
23 ‘I will heap misfortunes on them; I will use My arrows on them. 24 ‘They will be wasted by famine, and consumed by [g]plague And bitter destruction; And the teeth of beasts I will send upon them, With the venom of crawling things of the dust. 25 ‘Outside the sword will bereave, And inside terror— Both young man and virgin, The nursling with the man of gray hair. 26 ‘I would have said, “I will cut them to pieces, I will remove the memory of them from men,” 27 Had I not feared the provocation by the enemy, That their adversaries would misjudge, That they would say, “Our hand is [h]triumphant, And the LORD has not done all this.”’
28 “For they are a nation [i]lacking in counsel, And there is no understanding in them. 29 “Would that they were wise, that they understood this, That they would discern their [j]future! 30 “How could one chase a thousand, And two put ten thousand to flight, Unless their Rock had sold them, And the LORD had given them up? 31 “Indeed their rock is not like our Rock, Even our enemies [k]themselves judge this. 32 “For their vine is from the vine of Sodom, And from the fields of Gomorrah; Their grapes are grapes of poison, Their clusters, bitter. 33 “Their wine is the venom of [l]serpents, And the [m]deadly poison of cobras.
34 ‘Is it not laid up in store with Me, Sealed up in My treasuries? 35 ‘Vengeance is Mine, and retribution, In due time their foot will slip; For the day of their calamity is near, And the impending things are hastening upon them.’ 36 “For the LORD will vindicate His people, And will have compassion on His servants, When He sees that their [n]strength is gone, And there is none remaining, bond or free. 37 “And He will say, ‘Where are their gods, The rock in which they sought refuge? 38 ‘Who ate the fat of their sacrifices, And drank the wine of their drink offering? Let them rise up and help you, Let them be your hiding place! 39 ‘See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me; It is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded and it is I who heal, And there is no one who can deliver from My hand. 40 ‘Indeed, I lift up My hand to heaven, And say, as I live forever, 41 If I sharpen My [o]flashing sword, And My hand takes hold on justice, I will render vengeance on My adversaries, And I will repay those who hate Me. 42 ‘I will make My arrows drunk with blood, And My sword will devour flesh, With the blood of the slain and the captives, From the long-haired [p]leaders of the enemy.’ 43 “Rejoice, O nations, with His people; For He will avenge the blood of His servants, And will render vengeance on His adversaries, And will atone for His land and His people.”
44 Then Moses came and spoke all the words of this song in the hearing of the people, he, with [q]Joshua the son of Nun. 45 When Moses had finished speaking all these words to all Israel, 46 he said to them, “Take to your heart all the words with which I am warning you today, which you shall command your sons to observe [r]carefully, even all the words of this law. 47 For it is not an idle word for you; indeed it is your life. And by this word you will prolong your days in the land, [s]which you are about to cross the Jordan to [t]possess.”
48 The LORD spoke to Moses that very same day, saying, 49 “Go up to this mountain of the Abarim, Mount Nebo, which is in the land of Moab [u]opposite Jericho, and look at the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the sons of Israel for a possession. 50 Then die on the mountain where you ascend, and be gathered to your people, as Aaron your brother died on Mount Hor and was gathered to his people, 51 because you broke faith with Me in the midst of the sons of Israel at the waters of Meribah-kadesh, in the wilderness of Zin, because you did not treat Me as holy in the midst of the sons of Israel. 52For you shall see the land at a distance, butyou shall not go there, into the land which I am giving the sons of Israel.”
- Deuteronomy 32:4 Or judgment
- Deuteronomy 32:5 Lit It has
- Deuteronomy 32:8 Or Adam
- Deuteronomy 32:15 I.e. Israel
- Deuteronomy 32:21 Lit vanities
- Deuteronomy 32:22 I.e. the nether world
- Deuteronomy 32:24 Lit burning heat
- Deuteronomy 32:27 Lit high
- Deuteronomy 32:28 Lit perishing
- Deuteronomy 32:29 Or latter end
- Deuteronomy 32:31 Lit are judges
- Deuteronomy 32:33 Lit dragons
- Deuteronomy 32:33 Lit cruel
- Deuteronomy 32:36 Lit hand
- Deuteronomy 32:41 Or lightning
- Deuteronomy 32:42 Lit head
- Deuteronomy 32:44 Lit Hoshea
- Deuteronomy 32:46 Lit to do
- Deuteronomy 32:47 Lit where
- Deuteronomy 32:47 Lit possess it
- Deuteronomy 32:49 Lit which is opposite
