Who Wrote the Gospels?
Many have questioned who the original authors of the Gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John – were. Skeptics and those with a revisionist liberal agenda love to argue that the Gospels are anonymous. They will even argue that Matthew copied from Mark and Luke copied from one or all of the others. For the record, opinions are split as to who did author the first Gospel, Mark or Matthew. Origen of Alexandria, an early Christian scholar provided the following synopsis:
“Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the Gospel according to Matthew, who was at one time a publican and afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, was written first; and that he composed it in the Hebrew tongue and published it for the converts from Judaism. The second written was that according to Mark, who wrote it according to the instruction of Peter, who, in his General Epistle, acknowledged him as a son, saying, “The church that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Mark my son.” And third, was the Gospel according to Luke; and last of all, that according to John.”
Concerning the argument that one or more Gospel authors copied another Gospel author, there’s simpler explanations for common material. One is that Matthew and Peter and John most likely sat around campfires after Jesus’ resurrection and recalled what Jesus said and did. No doubt Jesus went over everything with them in the 40 days after his resurrection and before his ascension. The disciples may have even taken notes on parchment to be used later in their separate Gospels. In addition, John 14:26 clearly cites the Holy Spirit as helping them recall what Jesus said and taught.
John 14:26 – “But the Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name—he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I have told you.“
That’s the source skeptics tend to ignore and sweep under the rug because they refuse to admit God and the supernatural exist.
Study Bibles such as the NIV Study Bible like to try to have it both ways when attributing authorship. The NIV Study Bible says, and I quote, “Although the first Gospel is anonymous, THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS WERE UNANIMOUS IN HOLDING THAT MATTHEW, ONE OF THE 12 APOSTLES, WAS ITS AUTHOR.” The fact is, the early church fathers were unanimous that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the gospels that bear their names. That’s the best evidence available.
Following are web pages that contain the quotations of the early church fathers, confirming traditional Gospel authorship:
Matthew
https://renewal-theology.com/2019/04/15/1-church-fathers-and-matthews-gospel/
Mark Authorship
https://renewal-theology.com/2019/04/15/2-church-fathers-and-marks-gospel/
Luke Authorship
https://renewal-theology.com/2019/04/15/3-church-fathers-and-lukes-gospel/
John Authorship
https://renewal-theology.com/2019/04/15/4-church-fathers-and-johns-gospel/
–The Righter Report
Eyewitnesses to Jesus
June 18, 2020
Conservative scholars have largely agreed that a great deal of eyewitness testimony is recorded in the first century New Testament accounts. For starters, the gospels of Matthew and John were written by two of Jesus’ original disciples. The early church fathers were UNANIMOUS in the authorship of the four traditional Gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Early church tradition claims that Mark’s gospel was based on the preaching of the apostle Peter (another eyewitness of Jesus’ life and ministry). And Luke’s gospel begins by noting the importance of eyewitness testimony to the ministry of Jesus:
Luke 1:1-4 has the following:
“Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”
Peter (in his second epistle) wrote: “We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.”
In addition, the apostle John begins his first epistle this way:
“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.” (1 John 1:1-4).
Next was the Apostle Paul, who wrote about seeing Jesus after his resurrection: “Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord?” (1 Corinthians 9:1)
What’s more, there were over 500 individuals who reportedly saw the risen Jesus.
Paul wrote about this in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8:
“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also…”
The 1st Corinthian passage above is one of the oldest creeds in Christianity and is said to have originated just a handful of years after the resurrection of Jesus.
Liberal theologian John Dominic Crossan writes,
“Paul wrote to the Corinthians from Ephesus in the early 50’s C.E. But he says in 1st Corinthians 15:3 that “I handed on to you as of first importance that which I in turn received.” The most likely source and time for his reception of that tradition would have been Jerusalem in the early 30’s when – according to Galatians 1:18 – he “went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas (Peter) and stayed with him fifteen days.”
Regarding the early dating of 1 Corinthians 15, Scholar Dr. Gary Habermas notes:
“Even critical scholars agree that it has an exceptionally early origin.” Ulrich Wilckens (German historian and New Testament scholar) declares that this creed “indubitably goes back to the oldest phase of all in the history of primitive Christianity.” Joachim Jeremias (German Lutheran theologian and scholar of Near Eastern Studies) calls it “the earliest tradition of all.” Even the non-Christian scholar Gerd Ludemann says that, “I do insist that the discovery of pre-Pauline confessional foundations is one of the great achievements in the New Testament scholarship.”
Even Atheist and New Testament critic Bart Ehrman reached the following conclusion about the eyewitness testimony in the Gospels: “This (the Gospels) is as close to eyewitness testimony as we can get.”
God bless
– The Righter Report
Royal Professors of Law and History on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ
June 18, 2020
If you were to meet the greatest scholar in the history of the law school of Harvard University, it would be Simon Greenleaf, Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, who made that school what it was. He was the greatest single authority on legal evidences in the history of Law, and who authored the classic three volume work, “A Treatise on the Laws of Evidence.” Many of the laws of evidence used in our courtrooms today were written by Simon Greenleaf. He was once challenged to examine the evidence for the resurrection of Christ. After having examined every thread of evidence for the Resurrection, this man, who started as a disbeliever, concluded that if the evidence for the resurrection of Christ were presented before any unbiased courtroom in the world, they would have to conclude that Jesus Christ actually rose from the dead. – Professor Dr. Simon Greenleaf, “Testimony of the Evangelists.”
Or consider Lord Lyndhurst, recognized as one of the greatest legal minds in British history. He had conferred upon him the highest honors any judge or jurist could ever have. He was elected as Solicitor-General of the British government in 1819, then the attorney general of Great Britain, and finally, he was the High Chancellor of England. He was elected as the High Steward of the University of Cambridge, thus holding in one lifetime the highest offices that any judge in Great Britain could ever have conferred upon him (and which no other person ever received). What did he say? If this isn’t a statement of incredible humility, I have never heard one. This man, with all those titles, said: “I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the Resurrection [of Christ] has never broken down yet.”
One more – Thomas Arnold, who said this: “I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead.” – Thomas Arnold, Regius Professor of History at Oxnard University and author of the three volume work, “History of Rome.” Source: Christian Life, Its Hopes, Its Fears, and its Close,” 6th ed. (London: T. Fellowes, 1859), pp. 15-16.
God bless!
– The Righter Report
Who wrote about Jesus early on?
May 9, 2020
Who wrote about Jesus early on?
We do know of over forty different authors, nine of whom were secular, who mentioned Jesus within 150 years of his death. Scholar Gary Habermas, in his Book “The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus” (p.233), listed the following: 9 authors from the New Testament – Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Author of Hebrews, James, Peter, and Jude. 21 early Christian writers outside the NT – Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Didache, Barnabus, Shepherd of Hermas, Fragments of Papias, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Athenagoras, Theophious of Antioch, Quadratus, Aristo of Pella, Melito of Sardis, Diognetus, Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, and Epistula Apostolorum. 4 heretical writings – Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, Treatise on Resurrection. And 9 secular non-Christian sources, including Josephus, Tacticus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Lucian, Celcus, Mara Bar-Serapion, Seutonius, and Thallus.
Why not more? New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg, who served as an editor and contributor to a large scholarly work on the Gospels (‘Gospel Perspectives’), provides four reasons why more was not written on Jesus in his time: “the humble beginnings of Christianity; the remote location of Palestine on the eastern frontiers of the Roman empire; the small percentage of the works of ancient Greco-Roman historians which have survived, and the lack of attention paid by those who are extant to Jewish figures in general.” We know that about half of what the Roman historian Tacitus wrote is no longer available. Only a fragment of what Thallus wrote in the first century about ancient Mediterranean history has survived. Seutonius was aware of the writings of Asclepiades of Mendes, yet his writings are no longer available. Herod the Great’s secretary, Nicholas of Damascus, wrote a Universal History in 144 books, none of which have survived. Livy, the great Roman historian, has suffered a similar fate. Only his early books and excerpts of the rest survived.” “We also know of several early Christian writings that are no longer available. For example, an influential church leader of the early part of the second century named Papias wrote five books that are quoted by several early church fathers. However, none of these books survived. Only a few citations and slight summary information remain. Quadratus was a Christian leader who wrote a defense of the Christian faith to the Roman Emperor Hadrian around 125. However, if Eusebius had not quoted a paragraph and mentioned his work, we would be totally unaware of its composition. The five books of ‘Recollections,’ written by Hegesippus in the second century, have likewise been lost.” – The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, page 127
God bless.
The Righter Report
When Liberty Enslaves
by Pete Righter
“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe…” – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, “Planned Parenthood vs. Casey,” U.S. Supreme Court, 1992
Sounds okay, right? Not so fast. Conservative pundit and author William Bennett derided Kennedy’s pronouncement as an “open-ended validation of subjectivism” that paves the way for drug abuse, assisted suicide, prostitution, and “virtually anything else”; George Will said it was “gaseously” written. Clifford Goldstein, a “progressive” Seventh Day Adventist, contends that “it’s hard to see how in principle how any freedom-loving American, especially a classical small-government-lower-taxes-gun-owning-strong-military conservative could reject Kennedy’s basic message.”
Wow.
So, what’s wrong with Anthony Kennedy’s pronouncement, and Clifford Goldstein’s endorsement that true liberty is to be defined by the individual? There are a number of things wrong with that. First, if that’s true, then there can be as many individual definitions of liberty as there are people walking the planet. Man defines his own principles and morality, apart from God. Dr. D. James Kennedy calls such a person, the “anonymous man” – a law unto himself.
Second, as various founding fathers have noted, there is no liberty without virtue. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence who was also known as the “Father of Public Schools,” once had this to offer: “The only foundation for a republic is…religion. Without it there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty.” Don’t miss the significance of that last statement: “…without virtue there can be no liberty…” The principle is clear – a lack of virtue engenders bondage. As another writer noted, “Intemperate men can never be free because their passions give rise to their fetters (bindings).” The more liberties a godless people achieve, the more enslaved they can ultimately become in their worldly obsessions and immoral practices. Still another founding father, the Reverend John Witherspoon, mirrored Benjamin Rush when he declared, “…Civil liberty cannot long be preserved without virtue….” We see that illustrated repeatedly in the Old and New Testaments, where the ungodly “liberties” of unregenerate men and nations result in the wrath and judgment of Almighty God. Where is their vaunted “liberty” then?
And third, when the progressive concept of individual liberty is adopted by the state, then whoever is in power can define what’s moral and what’s not. Which brings us to the classic fight of Christian conservatism vs. progressive (regressive), godless liberalism. God’s laws and morality vs. man’s subjective moral relativism, where Pete Buttigieg’s revisionist “Christian” sodomy, and Nancy Pelosi’s unquenchable thirst for the blood of the innocent unborn are defended and even celebrated. And that’s when all Hell can break loose.
Former Orlando Sentinel columnist Charley Reese once had this to say about liberalsm: “The violent and decadent society that the liberals so despise is the very one they have created. They wanted sexual promiscuity, drugs, disregard for the law, no censorship of pornography, no laws against sodomy or public profanity, abortion on demand, quick and easy divorces, acceptance of homosexuality, Miranda rights, a welfare system that paid women to have illegitimate children, a tax system that penalizes marriage, and a godless education system. And they got it, every last bit of it.”
It’s become clear over the last half-century that “progressive” liberal fundamentalism substantially undermines the basic effectiveness of the government and other societal elements of democracy. Despite the idealistic goals of liberalism, attempts to build a Utopian liberal society in America have only led to heightened outbreaks of AIDS, VD, porno-related crime, social divisions, divorce, abortion, drug addictions, deficit spending, the welfare state, a crushing tax burden, the breakdown of the family unit, moral depravity, and numerous other such scourges which have resulted in enormous societal suffering and discontent. As a result, liberal fundamentalism is strongly associated with left-wing fanaticism, reverse-racism, anti-intellectualism, elitism, nihilism, godlessness, and societal violence. There is no endearing or enduring liberty in progressivism. Only in God and virtue can we find true liberty.
So read that statement by Justice Anthony Kennedy again – this time with a little moral clarity.
– The Righter Report
Sun Darkened during the Crucifixion
March 9, 2017
In the video are ancient references to the strange darkness that occurred during the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, as recorded in Matthew 27:45.
God bless,
The Righter Report
Christian Scholar answers Jewish Skeptic about Jesus
Renowned Messianic Christian scholar Dr. Michael L. Brown responds to a Jewish caller about Jesus
As a Jewish believer in Jesus, Dr. Michael L. Brown is active in Jewish evangelism, debating rabbis on radio, TV, and college campuses, as well as teaching the Church about God’s eternal purposes for Israel and the Jewish people. He is also a published Old Testament and Semitic scholar, holding a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University. He has served as a visiting or adjunct professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Fuller Theological Seminary, Denver Theological Seminary, the King’s Seminary, and Regent University School of Divinity.
See Dr. Brown on Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/AskDrBrown
God bless,
– The Righter Report
Was Jesus a liberal?
(Updated June 11, 2016)
By Pete Righter
“The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.” – Ecclesiastes 10:2
Was Jesus a liberal? Regularly, on talk shows, in speeches, in the liberal media and in Hollywood, we hear all across America that “Jesus was a liberal.” He ate with prostitutes, he opposed the religious establishment, he helped the poor, he didn’t cast stones and judge sin (i.e. the adulteress), and assuming there is a Hell in the liberal mind, he wouldn’t send anyone there. Jesus would also surely embrace (illegal) aliens.
Really?
We’ll take a closer look at some of these claims, but first we need to recognize some of the major influences of modern liberalism:
“So, I think we need to clarify that modern American liberalism, or ‘progressivism,’ is a particular ideology informed by the social, political, religious, and sexual philosophies of guys like Machiavelli, Kant, Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx — the ‘pillars of unbelief,’ as Peter Kreeft calls them. Contemporary Western liberalism — with its defense of abortion, gay ‘marriage,’ relativism, forced wealth redistribution, pornography, massive government, and its attacks on the family, faith, life, and liberty — is truly a unique abomination.
When you claim Jesus as a liberal, you are putting him under the same umbrella as these men. But if The Lord were to come back, call you up into the mountain like Peter, James, and John, and bless you with another scene like the Transfiguration, somehow I doubt that, instead of making Moses and Elijah appear before you, He would summon the souls of Friedrich Nietzsche and Karl Marx.” – Matt Walsh Satan is a Liberal
Jesus ate with prostitutes and sinners:
While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” – Matthew chapter 9
Here we see the reason Jesus ate with sinners – Jesus was a spiritual doctor attending to sinners. The context shows they were not well – they were in fact “sick” with sin. He wasn’t there to condone or embrace their sins, but to lead them to righteousness. And just what exactly do you think would happen today if Jesus (or even better, one of his followers) attended a liberal dinner party and started telling them to give up their worldly pursuits and attitudes and live for Christ and righteousness? You’re right. They would quickly escort him out the door.
Jesus opposed the religious establishment:
This argument would have you believe Jesus would not approve of today’s churches and religious organizations.
The reason Jesus was so opposed to the Sadducees and Pharisees (the religious “establishment” of his day) is that they were teaching the doctrines of men, vs. the truths of God. This is evident in Matthew chapter 23 (Jesus speaking):
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are…you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness….you are full of greed and self-indulgence…. You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.”
So it wasn’t the religious establishment, per se, that Jesus condemned, but a corrupt and hypocritical power structure that taught and practiced principles contrary to what God and the Bible embrace. Logically, then, Jesus would not disapprove of churches or a modern religious establishment that embraced, taught, and practiced righteous, Biblically-based principles. And that is exactly what a great many of today’s churches do. We should also not paint with a broad brush of condemnation all churches, because some are unbiblical.
Jesus helped the poor, so he must be a liberal!
What!? Conservatives are opposed to helping the poor?
That’s not what the studies show. In the following article there’s example after example of how conservatives out-give liberals in both time and money: Conservatives are More Liberal Givers
Liberals are generous, though, WITH OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY. They also consider Obama’s socialistic “Redistribution of Wealth” economic scheme to be just what the doctor ordered for the poor. But as is documented in Obama vs. the Bible – Redistribution of Wealth, that’s ridiculous.
Although giving and charity are commanded by the Lord, nowhere in the Bible does it say that giving must first be filtered through a bloated and inefficient government bureaucracy. The Bible says that a man shall reap what he sows, but it doesn’t say we should live off of what other people sow. What’s more, Scripture teaches that if a man does not work, he shall not eat (2 Thessalonians 3:10).
Redistribution of Wealth is, at its core, a radical left wing economic scheme centered in greed for other people’s money, rather than exercising personal responsibility and earning it one’s self.
Redistribution of Wealth actually COVETS what other people have, and make. Scripture commands us not to covet what belongs to our neighbor:
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” Exodus 20:17
From religion to our founding fathers to our Constitution we are taught that coveting others property is wrong. The Constitution guarantees us equal opportunity – not an equal outcome.
Next, Jesus didn’t make judgments about people’s sins.
Well he sure did with the scribes and Pharisees (see examples above)!
But the scripture most often referenced in this argument is the sin of the adulteress in John chapter 8.
The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared.
The kicker, of course, is the following verse, which the liberals love to ignore. Jesus said to the adulteress,
“Go now and leave your life of sin.”
Now, what happens if people don’t obey Christ’s command to turn from their sins? One of the answers can be found in John chapter 5. Jesus had just healed an invalid and then said to him,
“Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you.”
In another example, Jesus said the following in Revelation chapter 2:
“Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways.”
So, Jesus did make judgments regarding people’s sins, and what’s more he assigned either a warning of judgment, or a judgment itself, as a consequence. All this is before the final judgment after a person dies.
Here’s another liberal mantra:
“Jesus / God loves everyone and would never send anyone to Hell.”
Another fallacy. Jesus had many teachings concerning Hell and Judgment.
“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” – John 3:36
“I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.” – John 8:24
“Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” – John 14:6
“But unless you repent, you too will all perish.” – Luke 13:3
Need more? What did Jesus say about Hell?
One more, from Luke 16 – The Rich Man and Lazarus:
“There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
“The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
“But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’
“He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.”
‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'”
Here’s another liberal fairy tale: Jesus is fine with alternative lifestyles such as homosexual relations and shacking up.
In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, fornication (including “shacking up”) and homosexual relations are identified as sins that will assuredly keep the violators from entering heaven.
“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.”
Other scriptures identifying gay sexual relations as being sinful can be seen Here
Some argue that Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality. That’s not really true. Jesus is God. As God, Jesus is the one who gave Moses the Levitical law against gay sexual relations to begin with; and he’s the one who inspires all Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), including prohibitions against gay sexual relations in Romans 1:26-27 and I Corinthians 6:9-10, etc.
It’s also worth noting that Jesus didn’t mention wife beating or other sins such as pedophilia either, and there are not many folks who would argue he approved of those behaviors. So Jesus was under no obligation to reiterate the moral laws against homosexual sin that already existed, unless there were clarifications to be made.
But the liberals will protest, and argue that these are loving relationships, and God embraces those who love.
Does that mean that God embraces adulterous relationships where the participants are in love with each other? Not a chance. Adultery is condemned in the Ten Commandments. Also see 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 above.
In addition, 1 Corinthians 13:6 makes it real clear that love and sin do not go together:
“Love does not rejoice in iniquity.”
And one more from Romans 13:10:
“Love does no harm to a neighbor.”
Love does no harm to a neighbor, such as enticing one’s neighbor into a sinful relationship that has negative temporal and/or eternal consequences.
What does the Bible say about transgenderism and “transgender bathrooms”?
“A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.” – Deuteronomy 22:5
Then we have this claim:
Jesus would certainly approve of (illegal) aliens coming to America.
Here I differentiate between LEGAL immigration (which I favor) and ILLEGAL immigration. Would Jesus approve of illegals breaking American laws by entering America in the first Place? Would Jesus approve of the liberals bankrupting America when providing illegal aliens with trillions of dollars in benefits, some of which aren’t even available to American citizens or our beloved Veterans? Would Jesus approve of the mayhem caused by illegal alien criminal activity: murders, robberies, rapes, DWI manslaughter, etc.? And where does it say in the Bible that Jesus won’t love and bless illegal immigrants if they stay in Mexico? Would Jesus approve of illegal sanctuary cities such as San Francisco, where a beautiful young lady by the name of Kate Steinle was murdered by an illegal alien who had amassed numerous felony convictions? I don’t think so. God created borders in the Old Testament, and he did that for a reason, so that tribes and nations would know the limits of their boundaries. And it doesn’t seem proper for tens of millions of illegal aliens wanting to turn America into the same kind of third world Hell-hole from which they came.
Rabbi Aryeh Spero put it this way:
“Nor did the Bible request that the decency we extend to strangers result in national suicide. It never encouraged a virtual open-border situation where the host country is overrun and loses its indigenous culture, suspends its laws, invites disarray, or forfeits its ability to flourish as a unique and sovereign entity.”
Many in the liberal left want to abolish our borders and make America into an “International Community”. However, they disregard or abrogate the laws of American immigration, as does Barack Obama when he issues unconstitutional executive orders. America is either a nation of laws or we are an anarchy state. If people want different border laws they should go through the United States Congress, which has power to make or change our immigration and border laws.
Does Leviticus 19:34 justify illegal immigration?
“The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.” – Leviticus 19:34
Answer:
“Modern nations are not expected to adopt Israel’s civil law. It is hoped that authorities will enforce laws that provide peace and security to the citizens (Romans 13:1-7) and be founded on a respect for God’s ethical law, such as no murder, no stealing. But God leaves the specifics to each nation. The biblical view of illegal immigration, therefore, is that an immigrant is illegal if they break the law. In many countries, it is illegal to immigrate outside of proper channels. Romans 13:1-7 says that residents of a nation are required to obey the laws of that nation. If it is illegal to immigrate, God’s view is to not do it.”
http://www.compellingtruth.org/illegal-immigration.html
Romans 13:1-5 – “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.”
Finally, conservative commentator Ann Coulter does a nice job of laying these arguments out in her article Beware of liberals who come in evangelicals clothing.
Beware of Liberal Facism / Fundamentalism
Rather than truly embrace “freedom,” liberal fundamentalists seek to control virtually every aspect of the lives of the masses that are unfortunate enough to be under their fundamentalist rulership. They seek to outlaw SUV’s, impose smoking bans while advocating marijuana use, prohibit freedom of religious expression in government and public schools, advocate compulsory training in politically correct opinions and attitudes, seek to enforce Bible bans in schools and the workplace, embrace a de-facto litmus test against pro-life judicial nominees, seek to criminalize pro-life demonstrations through the RICO racketeering statute, try to squelch legitimate religious speech via “hate-speech” laws, and generally engage in a wide range of behaviors designed to subvert the U.S. Constitution and traditional American values. They violate the 2nd Amendment by legislating gun bans and other unconstitutional restrictions; dictate school lunch menus and what kind of light bulbs you can use; impose a horrendous, bureaucratic healthcare program on people who are otherwise happy with their current choices; use the IRS to target conservative groups who apply for non-profit, free speech status, and violate the rights of free press individuals and organizations under the guise of protecting national security. They also have their own politically correct liberal lexicon, which changes Good Friday to “Spring Break,’ and Christmas to “Winter Holidays.” And those just for starters.
Conclusion: Jesus may not have been a right-wing fanatic, but he sure as heck wasn’t a left-wing liberal. Keep in mind that liberalism is a worldly philosophy that takes liberties with the Word of God, twisting or abrogating the principles and commandments of God and replacing them with the subjective tenets of mankind. Liberalism is a scourge to mankind and an affront to God. As Carl Henry noted,
“America has turned its back on God. It mocks God. Instead it worships a twentieth century Baal, incarnated in sensuality, materialism, and immorality of every kind.”
America needs to turn from its liberal, anti-God agenda and return to traditional American values before we lose our country.
– The Righter Report
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
In 2003, scientists Arvind Borde and Alexander Vilenkin and Alan Guth published a paper documenting that the universe cannot be infinitely old (the universe is expanding). It had to have a beginning. Dr. William Lane Craig, a doctor of philosophy and theology, quoted Vilenkin in defense of his Kalam Cosmological Argument:
“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place (that the universe had a beginning), cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”
No longer can men argue that the universe has been around forever. Be thinking about a divine Creator.
Jesus is Lord!
– The Righter Report
Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus
Dr. Michael Brown is one of the world’s foremost experts on the Biblical Jesus as he relates to Old Testament Judaism and Messianic Rabbinic literature. Dr. Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and is an accomplished Old Testament and Semitic Scholar. He has debated Jewish Rabbis on TV, radio, and on college campuses, and is a prolific author of numerous theological works.
In his 5 volume series he answers objections and provides documentation for questions such as:
If Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, why don’t more Jews believe in him?
If Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, why isn’t there peace on earth?
Why did God allow six million Jews to die in the Holocaust?
Are Jews correct in saying the Messiah will only come once?
Why did the ancient Rabbis apply Isaiah chapter 53 to the Messiah?
Did Jesus really fulfill hundreds of Old Testament prophecies?
Do the Gospels portray a mythical Jesus?
These and scores of other questions and objections are shared by Jews, atheists, and skeptics alike and are answered in Dr. Brown’s following works, available now:
Volume 1 – General and Historical Objections
Volume 2 – Theological Objections
Volume 3 – Objections to Messianic Prophecy
Volume 4 – New Testament Objections
Volume 5 – Traditional Jewish Objections
– The Righter Report
-
Archives
- March 2022 (2)
- December 2021 (1)
- June 2021 (1)
- April 2021 (1)
- March 2021 (1)
- December 2020 (1)
- June 2020 (2)
- May 2020 (1)
- April 2020 (1)
- January 2018 (1)
- July 2017 (1)
- March 2017 (1)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
The Righter Report 