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
King Herod’s ‘Slaughter of the Innocents’
By Pete Righter
In the Book of Matthew (2:13-18) there is an account of the “slaughter of innocents” in Bethlehem, in ancient Judea, which is recorded as follows:
“…an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.”
So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”
When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah (31:15) was fulfilled:
“A voice is heard in Ramah,
weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted,
because they are no more.”
Skeptics of Christianity and the Bible argue such an occurrence is highly unlikely, and that there are no confirmations from any other 1st century sources of the massacre. Of course, their argument is a logical fallacy – known as an “argument from silence.” But that’s another subject altogether.
In response, the following should be noted:
First, King Herod the Great (73/74 BC – 4 BC) was no stranger to having people murdered, including three sons in his own family. According to the Associates for Biblical Research,
“The first two, Alexander and Aristobulus, the sons of Mariamme, were strangled in Sebaste (Samaria) in 7 BC and buried at the Alexandrium (Antiquities 16:392-394; LCL 8:365-367; Netzer 2001:68-70). The last, only five days before Herod’s own death, was Antipater who was buried without ceremony at Hyrcania (Antiquities 17:182-187; LCL 8:457-459; Netzer 2001:75; Gutfeld 2006:46-61).”
Also, according to the Jewish-Roman historian Josephus, during the last four years of his life Herod had some 300 military leaders executed (Antiquities of the Jews, 16:393-394; LCL 8:365).
And that’s the short list.
So, we see that King Herod was a psychotic murderer and very familiar with commanding individual and mass executions. The “slaughter of the innocents” now doesn’t seem quite so unlikely.
Next, how many children age two and under would have been murdered?
Bethlehem was known by the Biblical prophet Micah as one of the smallest communities in all of Judea. Micah 5:2 (which in Christianity is also a Messianic prophecy about the birthplace of Jesus Christ) states:
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.”
So, just how many infants 2 years old or younger were actually slaughtered? Skeptics argue up to 3,000, though neither Jeremiah or Matthew records a specific number. A much, much lower number is likely, though, based on the research of Archaeologist William F. Albright:
“Professor William F. Albright, the dean of American archaeology in the Holy Land, estimates that the population of Bethlehem at the time of Jesus’ birth to be about 300 people (Albright and Mann 1971:19). The number of male children, two years old or younger, would be about six or seven (Maier 1998:178, footnote 25). This would hardly be a newsworthy event in light of what else was going on at the time.” Source: Associates for Biblical Research
Conclusion: Considering all the butchery King Herod was involved in, even murdering multiple individuals in his own family, it’s highly unlikely that the Bethlehem massacre of the innocents would be a major news story in ancient Judea, especially since CNN, FOX and today’s other news networks didn’t even exist back then. The skeptic’s argument is thus of no avail.
God bless,
– The Righter Report
The Death of Biblical Minimalism
by Dewayne Bryant, M.A.
Originally published by Apologetics Press
It is a good time to be a Christian. Information is more readily available and accessible than ever before. Whether it appears in books, in articles in print and on Web sites, or in podcasts and other media formats, Christian apologists are producing vast amounts of material in defense of the Christian Faith. In the field of archaeology alone, new discoveries are unearthed every year, adding to our body of knowledge about the biblical world. Because of new information, old theories are being continually revised and refined. In some cases, this information is completely overturning critical theories.
The May/June 2011 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review is an exciting one. On the cover, some of the topics of the issue are listed, at the top of which are the words, “The End of Biblical Minimalism.” Minimalists are those who believe that only the barest minimum of the Bible is true, and then only if it can be incontrovertibly corroborated by extrabiblical evidence. This perspective is one that is eminently skeptical of the Bible. This is not how ancient documents are generally treated, which naturally raises suspicion that the Bible is being treated with a double standard for no other reason than that it is the Word of God. Speaking a little more generously than usual, minimalist Philip Davies claims that the Bible is indispensible for the historian, even though its “stories may be false, true, or a mixture of fact and fiction” (Davies, 2008, p. 5). For those who see the biblical text as a purely manmade production, the Bible is a mixture of a few facts and mostly fiction. As senior Israeli archaeologist Israel Finkelstein puts it,
The historical saga contained in the Bible—from Abraham’s encounter with God and his journey to Canaan, to Moses’ deliverance of the children of Israel from bondage, to the rise and fall of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah—was not a miraculous revelation, but a brilliant product of the human imagination (Finkelstein and Silberman, 2001, p. 1).
The article, “The Birth and Death of Biblical Minimalism” written by archaeologist Yosef Garfinkle, traces the biblical minimalist position from its inception 30 years ago to the present time, where discoveries have undermined it to the point of it becoming untenable. He focuses on one of the hot-button issues in archaeology: the existence of the United Monarchy.
For biblical minimalists, the United Monarchy is very nearly a fiction. They believe that if David and Solomon existed, they were nothing more than petty chieftains. Hoffmeier summarizes the minimalist position this way: “[I]f David and Solomon did exist, they were simply pastorialist chieftains from the hills of Judea, and the military exploits of David and the glories of Solomon were gross exaggerations from later times” (Hoffmeier, 2008, p. 87). In other words, there were no grand palaces and no royal inscriptions. In short—no kingdom.
Garfinkle focuses on one particular archaeological site called Khirbet Qeiyafa, where he serves as co-director of the dig. In ancient times, it was a heavily fortified town on the Israelite/Philistine border in Judah. This one site, as small and out-of-the-way as it is, has done a great deal to dismantle biblical minimalism. Garfinkle states: “The argument that Judah was an agrarian society until the end of tenth century B.C.E. and that David and Solomon could not have ruled over a centralized, institutionalized kingdom before then has now been blown to smithereens by our excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa” (Garfinkle, 2011, p. 50). Discoveries at the site clearly demonstrate that a large bureaucracy was needed to construct the town. The site had massive walls, far beyond the ability of a couple of petty chieftains to construct. Also found at the site was the earliest example of Hebrew (although it is written in a different kind of script). This kind of writing could only be produced by a scribe who had been trained for government service. Since the site was in a remote location, it must have been important enough to justify sending a scribe from Jerusalem. That could only be done if there was a government of sufficient size with the resources and ability to train professional scribes. As Finkelstein himself states: “The power of the chief was limited…. The economic and military capacity of a chiefdom was severely limited” (Finkelstein and Silberman, 2006, p. 99). Khirbet Qeiyafa could not have been built, fortified, or administrated by a chieftain. It required a king.
As one of the chief proponents of the idea that the United Monarchy is largely fiction, Israel Finkelstein has developed what is called the “Low Chronology.” This approach states that whatever evidence that exists that might point to a tenth century B.C. kingdom under David and Solomon has been misinterpreted. Instead, the credit for building activity thought to have taken place during the time of the United Monarchy should go to the ninth century king Ahab instead. Though architecture can be difficult to date accurately at times, Finkelstein has yet to win many converts. With the information being unearthed at Khirbet Qeiyafa, he may even find himself losing what support he already has.
Finkelstein is commonly labeled a minimalist, although he denies that label. He does share many things in common with biblical minimalists, such as a skeptical attitude toward the Bible and a clear bias in interpreting the archaeological evidence. This goes against standard procedure among scholarship. Generally, ancient texts are given the benefit of the doubt unless sufficient reason exists to doubt their veracity. Since the Bible has a long track record of accuracy, to dismiss it out of hand shows a clear bias against it. Second, evidence should drive interpretation and lead to conclusions—not start with conclusions and interpret all the evidence to support those conclusions. Finkelstein’s skepticism points to a preconceived conclusion that seeks evidence to justify itself, which, naturally, can only be done poorly.
Radiocarbon dating provides a solid link between the ancient evidence and the biblical text. Garfinkle states: “Independent dating suggests that the kingdom of Judah rose in approximately 1000 B.C.E., as indicated by the radiometric results from Qeiyafa. The northern kingdom of Israel, on the other hand, developed around 900 B.C.E., as indicated by the radiometric dates obtained from that region. The Biblical tradition and the radiometric dating actually support each other” (Garfinkle, 2011, p. 52). [EDITOR’S NOTE: For a discussion of the weaknesses of radiocarbon and radiometric dating techniques, see DeYoung, 2005.] The radiometric dating of wood fragments and olive pits at the site indicates that the site was built in the late eleventh century and destroyed in the early tenth century. Since this is precisely the time of the reign of king David, it would appear that David ruled a well-organized kingdom.
This small site has yielded a wealth of evidence that clearly demonstrates the shortcomings of biblical minimalism, although it remains on life support thanks to the hyper-skepticism of a few noted archaeologists. Even William Dever—who is no friend to the traditional interpretation of Scripture—has fiercely opposed the minimalists, whom he calls “revisionists.” He says, “the ‘revisionists’…declare that ‘the Hebrew Bible is not about history at all,’ i.e., it is mere propaganda. For them, if some of the Bible stories are unhistorical, they all are—a rather simplistic notion” (Dever, 2001, p. 97). It is the typical case of “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”: the Bible is a religious book, therefore it cannot be historically accurate. Ongoing excavations argue otherwise.
There are many other discoveries besides those at Khirbet Qeiyafa that argue for the presence of a centralized government in ancient Israel at the time David ruled. The Izbet Sartah Inscription is an example of writing dating to the time of the judges (Hess, 2002, p. 86). The inscription seems to be a practice exercise used to learn the alphabet. This is particularly noteworthy, since Izbet Sartah was a small village in the hill country in the eleventh century B.C. Even in this small village, at least one scribe was practicing his alphabet. The same goes for tenth century inscriptions, such as the Tell Zayit Inscription and the Gezer Calendar, which also appear to be practice exercises used in training scribes. These examples of writing would never have appeared without considerable governmental organization.
In his book On the Reliability of the Old Testament, Kenneth Kitchen surveys the history of minimalism over the past two centuries. He notes that “our present-day minimalists are not a sudden, new phenomenon without precedent. It all began a long time ago, and the present efflorescence is merely a development of some 150/200 years that has in a way come to a head, but simply more scathing of others and more extreme in its views than were its precursors” (Kitchen, 2003, p. 449, italics in orig.). Emerging at a time when the study of the ancient Near East was in its infancy, it could only be expected that time would prove the minimalist’s assumptions false. As mountains of evidence have come to light, minimalism is looking more and more like a thing of the past. Biblical scholarship has a long track record of confounding the critics, and it isn’t stopping anytime soon.
Though much of the minimalists’ work is respected by other scholars, they are supremely guilty of allowing their biases to dictate their interpretation of the evidence. They make selective use of the facts and ignore or reinterpret evidence that disagrees with their position. Some of them grew up in fundamentalist homes, giving the impression that their interpretations are more the result of rejecting the faith of their early years rather than sound scholarship. This approach can be maintained only so long before the body of evidence will get to the point of being beyond their ability to manipulate. The archaeologist’s spade will continue to unearth more evidence season by season, year after year. It is only a matter of time before the minimalist position will become a relic enshrined in the museum of discarded ideas.
REFERENCES
Davies, Philip R. (2008), Memories of Ancient Israel: An Introduction to Biblical History—Ancient and Modern (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press).
Dever, William G. (2001), What Did The Biblical Writers Know & When Did They Know It? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
DeYoung, Don (2005), Thousands…Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).
Finkelstein, Israel and Neil Asher Silberman (2001), The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts (New York, NY: Touchstone).
Finkelstein, Israel and Neil Asher Silberman (2006), David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible’s Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition (New York, NY: Free Press).
Garfinkle, Yosef (2011), “The Birth and Death of Biblical Minimalism,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 37[3]:46-53,78, May/June.
Hess, Richard S. (2002), “Literacy in Iron Age Israel” in V. Long, D. Baker, and G. Wenham, Windows into Old Testament History: Evidence, Argument, and the Crisis of “Biblical Israel” (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), pp. 82-102.
Hoffmeier, James K (2008), The Archaeology of the Bible (Oxford: Lion Hudson).
Kitchen, Kenneth A. (2003), On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
__________________________________________________________________________________________
– 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
Addressing the Problem of Evil
Renowned Christian theologian Ravi Zacharias addresses the issue of, “If a good God exists, why then is there evil?”
“Whenever a person raises the problem of evil, they are also positing the existence of good. When you say something is evil you assume something is good. If you assume there’s such a thing as good, you also assume there’s such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. If you assume there’s such a thing as a moral law, you must posit a moral law giver, because if there’s not a moral law giver, there’s no moral law. If there’s no moral law, there’s no good. If there’s no good, there’s no evil. So what is their question?” – Ravi Zacharias
Righter Report Opinion: Free will. That’s another answer to the ‘why’ of evil. God created men and angels with free will, to do good or evil, so they can be free moral agents. This is for a limited time, until the final Judgment, or until God levies judgment on men or nations. God gave this free will because there is no true love without freedom to choose either God of Satan. He did this to allow men and angels to operate on their own accords – to test God’s ways, and see if their ways are better, so that in the end there can be a final comparison and determination about whose way was better. We actually see an illustration of this in the 1st and 2nd chapters of the Book of Job – God allowing Satan to challenge his ways.
In the end, God’s righteousness, along with his grace, love and mercy, will prevail, and evil will ultimately be extinguished – not by politically correct men, but by the hand of Almighty God.
– The Righter Report
“THE” Angel of the Lord
In the Old Testament there is a very special ‘angel,’ although when you study this particular individual you will find that this really isn’t an angel at all, but none other than the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ – the God of Israel.
An important thing to note in studing this issue is to understand what the Hebrew word ‘malak’ means. In some passages it means angel. In another passage it is translated ‘messenger’ (Malachi 3:1). But in CONTEXT, when you see this particular angel (“THE” Angel of the Lord) in scripture, he is either speaking or acting as God.
As the linked article below notes, “Angel” in both Hebrew (malak) and Greek (aggelos or angelos) means a messenger, and Jesus as the Word of God (Jn 1:1; Re 19:13-note) is the ultimate Messenger sent from the Father with a message of the good news of God’s covenant love for sinful mankind…”
As you will see in the study, it is none other than Jesus Christ as God in the Burning Bush (Exodus chapter 3).
“At the burning bush, it was THE “Angel of the Lord” Who appeared and Who called to Moses from the midst of the bush; Moses “hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God”.
Exodus 3:2, 3, 4, 5, 6 – And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed…4 When the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush & said, “Moses, Moses !” And he said, “Here I am.” 5 Then He (the Angel of the LORD) said, “Do not come near here; remove your sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground. 6 He said also, “I Am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” (an allusion to God’s covenant first with Abram and passed on to and through Isaac and Jacob – see Abrahamic Covenant) Then Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God (the Angel of the LORD)
TESTIMONIES FROM THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS
Justin Martyr – “Our Christ conversed with Moses out of the bush, in the appearance of fire. And Moses received great strength from Christ, who spake to him…”
Irenaeus – “The Scripture is full of the Son of God’s appearing: sometimes to talk and eat with Abraham, at other times to instruct Noah about the measures of the ark; at another time to seek Adam; at another time to bring down judgment upon Sodom; then again, to direct Jacob in the way; and again, to converse with Moses out of the (burning) bush.”
If you will spend a little time on this study – click the link below – you will understand anew who Moses was speaking with in the burning bush, and who this “Angel of the Lord” really is – the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ.
Special recognition and thanks to Precept Austin for making this study available.
Jewish Rabbis Confirm the Messiah Would be God
– 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 