The Intolerance of the Tolerant

Last week a young Muslim man attempted to blow up an airplane headed to Detroit. He's ben dubbed the 'underwear bomber' because he had half of a very powerful explosive in his underwear. Seems his attempt to add the other compound of the explosive failed and all he got was a burned crotch. Our government agencies, in an attempt to show how well they do they jobs, declared how well the 'anti-terror systems' worked, when in fact it was the mistake of a 23 yr old would-be terrorist, and the quick response of a British businessman that saved over 200 lives. Prior to this incident, our current administration wasn't able to stomach to words that we are 'at war' with an Islamic organization dedicated in the task of killing as many Americans as they can for the last 30 yrs. The man they all hate understood that on Sept 11th, 2001. At the same time, an interesting story concerning Google emerged about its search engine. Until it changes - hopefully soon, if you believe Google - go to Google.com, and in the search box on the screen, type in "Christianity is". Interesting possible search topics, huh? Now try "Hinduism is". OK, now try "Atheism is". Notice the results you get right in the search box? Now, type in "Islam is". Notice any difference? Right, nothing appears at all. Google calls it a 'bug', I call it par for the course - Islam is a protected religion because they kill people for much less infractions.

Recently, I got a chance to sit down and watch Ben Stein's "Expelled!" documentary. Ben is certainly no Michael Moore, but then he would have had to fabricate half of his information to be in his league. We normally think of "science" as the bastion of truth and objectivity. From "science" we get all of the technologies we love to use; electricity and electronics, mechanical contraptions, construction marvels, and many others. But there are a couple of areas in the field of science where truth and objectivity don't seem to have any place. Why? Because there's money involved. You see, you don't get any grants to disprove some of the absolutes in science, like evolution and global warming - oh! sorry, I mean climate change. Some one really smart once said, "Follow the money!", and it is really true in the world of educational grants. You don't get grants to disprove their sacred cows. As Stein showed in his documentary, 'intelligent design' is a dirty word, one that can get you fired. So much for 'freedom of speech'.

I've also had a chance to think a lot about the Army Psychiatrist who, in the name of Allah, gunned down over 40 people, killing 13 of them. And for days and days no one was asking the real questions about his actions. Everyone wanted to relegate this guy to the fringe as a psycho, but the sad fact of the matter is, he is sane, rational and purposeful in all of his actions. We don't like that because it doesn't fit in to our little Pollyanna world views - Christian, secular or otherwise. And why did this guy go on a rampage? It seems that he was feeling 'picked' on because of his religion. His response? Sadly, it was all too typical for one from his religious views. The "religion of peace" has once again shown itself as anything but tolerant. And as usual, no one seems to be seeing that.

You might be asking what these three examples have in common and if you are, its called tolerance. Some of you may be thinking that I'm being a bit intolerant right now in my statements, but I assure you I am the tolerant one. This website documents Islam's religious tradition of tolerance of others who might disagree with their view of what is acceptable. Its what is happening right now, all around our globe. But I WARN you now, you may not want to go to this website; its information and its images will disturb you. It is not for the faint of heart.

There is also the recent revelations in the global warming community about its tactics to promote their agenda to force the world's economies to limit their CO2 emissions. They have purposely fabricated some data and hidden others, to support their agenda. Anyone that disagrees with them and their agenda - even with good reasoned evidence to the contrary - is a 'denier'. They won't even listen to a reasoned arguments that are different than the agenda they are married to.

Its like the questions I asked the History Channel several years ago when they had done yet another hit piece on Christianity, "Would you ever, even think of doing the same to other religions, say like Islam? Or is Christianity just too easy of a target?" Christians are supposed to 'turn the other cheek', so attacking our belief system is 'ok'. You see, the perception is that Christianity is the only intolerant religion or belief system out there, making their attacks a reasoned way to help us become more 'tolerant'. A fanatic shoots an abortion doctor (who legally commits murder every day, but that's a different discussion for a different day) and all of Christianity is indicted as "intolerant". Meanwhile, Islam all over the world, including the USA, kills people every single day, and they are the "religion of peace", the tolerant faith. The death toll of Muslim incited violence is easily well over a 100 to 1 ratio in incidents as compared to Christianity - which is often cited, yet its only Christians that are intolerant. Honestly, it should make you want to know just what the real definition of "tolerance" is. So let's start there. Tolerance is defined as:

the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with; the capacity to endure continued subjection to something without adverse reaction.

There are of course people all over the world, Christians included, that are intolerant, but it does seem a bit odd that only Christians seem to be saddled with the moniker of intolerant. When a Christian scientist sees proof of intelligent design in the world, there doesn't seem to be a problem of being intolerant of his viewpoint by the so called enlightened secularists. His viewpoint can be ruthlessly refuted and even viciously ridiculed and somehow that's a 'proof' of tolerance. Yet, the secularist can never be questioned when he sees a lack of intelligent design in the world. Any questions to the contrary are ridiculed and the person blackballed from the educational community, making it nearly impossible to find employment. The same seems to be true of all other religious viewpoints with the exception of Christianity. I'm 'narrow-minded and bigoted' to believe that the Bible is God's Word to man and that there is no other way to God except by His Son, Jesus. Yet every other religious tradition believes the exact same thing - that they are right and all others are wrong. To burn the Quran is a sin punishable by death in the Muslim world, so it amazes me that no one in the secular world seems to see this as intolerant. People in the Army are prosecuted for doing something like that. The terrorist detainees routinely destroyed the Quran's we, the taxpayers of the USA, purchased for them in ways you simply would not believe. Yet Army guards are instructed to do anything and everything to protect these books that the detainees destroy and use as weapons.

Tolerance has degenerated to the level of a weapon to be welded against anyone that we disagree with. Intolerant is a label to be feared. Not surprisingly, it is usually used by the social and scientific elite, who are usually the most intolerant amongst us. Please understand, I'm not arguing for intolerance to spread, it already has. I am arguing for more tolerance from the one's who consider themselves to be the most 'tolerant'. The secularist has no reason and no motivation to practice it. They have no standard to live by, except for whatever they seem to think is the best standard they can find. Other religious traditions are really not much better, they practice it very unevenly, but some better than others. But it is the Christian that has every reason and all of the motivation to do so, but sadly they are just as uneven in their practice.

Christians are supposed to be people that are to be imitators of Christ. I don't really expect non-Christians, like Muslims, to be tolerant, which they are not. Neither do I expect it from the secularist. But the Christian simply doesn't have a choice. That doesn't mean they are to be blind to the truth and hypocritical reality around them. And it doesn't mean them should be silent either. But it is not our ability to organize against the world, or boycott organizations or TV programs that will affect the world. It will be our ability to imitate Jesus that will affect the world around us. Years ago, there was a 'WWJD?' campaign that asked a simple question - what would Jesus do? It has been copied and mocked, but the question was still a good one that is just as relevant today as it was 2000 yrs ago. Would Jesus turn to politics to solve the world's inequalities? Would he protest? Would he spew hatred towards others? Wouldn't he answer the Pharisee's one way, and the masses another? Do we know who the Pharisees are?

When Jesus talked about 'turning the other cheek', it wasn't about being the door mat for the world. No, it was about showing the world that we were willing to be wronged to show the world what was right. When Christians were killed by the Romans for their faith, what we forget is that they refused to deny Christ as Lord and God. The Romans were intolerant of their religious views, the Christians willingly gave up their lives to show that faith in Jesus was more important than their current life on this earth, more important than the intolerant world around them. It was a statement that spoke much louder than their words could have ever done. Remember, they will know we are Christians by our love.

It is not wrong to point out to the world its lack of tolerance, just don't be intolerant when you do it!

Who is Your God?

So here we are ending 2008, ready to start a new year, with a new president, an economy in recession and a nation that seems 'hell-bent' on continuing to throw away the very faith and values that created her and inspired a governmental structure unlike any other on the face of this planet. No, I'm not getting political or disregarding the 'too many to count' horrible things that have been done in the 'name of Christ' as so many like to point out. We all know these things to be true and are reminded of them continually by people whose motives most likely are suspect. So I'm not trying to put lemon juice on a paper cut, but I do think there's a hidden truth that seems to get overlooked by too many Christians feed up and tired of being brow-beaten with the actions of people that none of us knew, and wouldn't have been able to control had we been alive during their times, or present during their sinful actions.

Trying to 'fix' that perception we spend our time trying to change it, but only make it worse. Too many liberal Christians are consumed by the social aspects of the faith (anti-war, anti-poverty, anti-establishment), and too many conservative Christians are way too concerned by the legal aspects of the faith - the rights and the wrongs of everyone's actions. Sadducees and Pharisees, respectively. I would love to say a lot more about these two opposing and all too often counter-productive perspectives, but I don't want to side tract the point I'm wanting to make in this blog.

Just as I believe it to be wrong to be a hyphenated American (Jewish-American, African-American, Italian-American, etc), I believe its wrong to be a hyphenated Christian (liberal, conservative, black, white, etc). Extolling our 'diversity' does not unite us. Celebrating how we are different only makes it harder for us to work together. Instead of seeing the areas where the other side is right, all we do is focus on the other's wrong - the log in our brother's eye. These labels only serve to divide us, and anything that divides us should be rejected - by both sides! As Christians we are called to be Christ followers, not people followers, or cause followers, or racial or gender followers. Is it any wonder we have no clue how to be followers of Christ?

Whether on the left or the right - a Sadducee and a Pharisee, we are all wrapped up in the things that we should be doing. Well, then what is our calling? Anyone? We only have one:

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Matt 28:18-20 NAS95)

The Great Commission, right? So how do we make disciples if we don't know how to be one ourselves? That is a problem that Christians have been dealing with for 2000 yrs. If you make a disciple, what exactly does that involve? Conversion? Yes, but if you stop there you are not doing what we are called to be doing. (btw - the opposite - only concerned with Christian growth but not sharing your faith is just as wrong.) The rest of it is to help that person to become a 'lover of God' that can make other disciples as well, but for us to do that we must be able to be seen 'living' the Christian life first, and that is where we fail miserably. Why? Because too many of us don't have a clue how to do that ourselves, so how on earth can we help others! We hear all of the Christian cliches, like 'read your Bible and pray everyday', but to read through the Bible takes, like, a whole year, right? I can't wait that long! And praying - what am I supposed to say to God, He already knows everything, right? So, where do I run for help? I first try the church and friends that tell me the same thing I already know but am unwilling to do, because I'm just too impatient to do that. Some one tells me about a great book and how much it helped them, and off I run to the local Christian book store, finding a treasure trove of books on every sort of issue and malady imaginable.

Now understand, I don't blame people for looking for help on how to 'walk the walk', especially when too many churches don't even try to provide good discipleship for new believers. We all want to know HOW to live the Christian life, but our problem is that our motive is really impure - we want it yesterday, we don't want to work for it, or to have to contend for the faith. What we're looking for is the 'quick fix' to get our 'sanctification' (the theological term for our growing and maturing in Christ) the fastest way possible. None of us really want to learn anything the hard way. But the fact is, just because something worked for someone else, doesn't mean that it it will work for you. That's the dirty little secret of the 'Christian living' book empire.

What we're really looking for is a 'formula'. A formula is so much easier to deal with isn't it? I mean, all I have to do is implement the formula, follow the steps, the guidelines and I'm there, right? But have you ever stopped to consider what a formula really is? Isn't it just a form of legalism? I have to follow the rules laid out by the formula, no deviations allowed or the formula fails, right? So what do I do when the formula doesn't work for me? Well, that's easy - I head off to the local Christian bookstore again and find a new formula, right? Unfortunately, we think its much easier to just try to emulate someone else's life experiences by following what they did in their life and making the assumption that it is just as applicable to our own. This is the fatal flaw in all of the 'self-help' Christian living books sold world-wide. And book publishers promote that flaw and we buy into it, lock, stock and barrel.

So, why do we do that? Because down deep inside, we really don't want to do the hard work required to grow in Christ. The people that wrote their books did the hard work required, and we snap it up because we want to take the 'path of least resistance', the easy way out. We just want to apply the book's concepts to our life and magically everything in our life becomes ordered. But it doesn't work that way, does it? We run from book to book, from guru to guru looking for the rules that will finally bring that needed order to our chaos. We want 'legalism' because its easier to handle than meeting with a Holy and loving God who wants to help us deal with the trash in our lives. He shines a bright light on it, and we want it left in the dark.

You see, our growth in Christ - our sanctification - is a slow and life-long process, and the longer you delay the start, the longer you will be in that frustrated spot of wondering why everyone else is growing and you are not. Please, do NOT go buy the latest self-help book; you're wasting your time and your money. Instead, make time for Christ. Sit down with Him, get to know Him, talk to Him and then listen to what He says. The book of Psalms is a great example of doing just that. We will hear His voice when we know how He speaks, and we will know how He speaks by reading His Word (Rom 10:17). And if you are reading it so you can judge some one else - you know, reading the Word to solve everyone else's problems, then you are not really reading the Word at all. Read it for YOU. You cannot control the actions or behaviors of others, so stop trying. Worry about yourself. Make time for God in your life, read your Bible everyday, not because you HAVE to, but because you want to, because you want to learn how to hear His voice and learn about who He is and what He wants for your life. As I've said in previous blogs, all we know about Jesus is contained in Scripture. If you want to find out who God is, then look where He's contained - in the Bible. The Holy Spirit resides inside of you, He will enlighten you, if you will take the time to listen. Don't look in the so-called Gnostic gospels, don't try to find Him in other people's books, go to the source! If you are looking for a formula to apply in your life, don't bother dropping your cash, it most likely won't work and you're out $10.

What you long for is to have a relationship with the eternal Creator of the universe; no one wants religion. God hates religion. I've repeated this before, and I'll repeat it again, "Religion is man's way of making himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God's way of making man acceptable to Himself." You don't have to do anything to earn God's favor. Its not about following steps, its not about following rules, its not about being moral or ethical, its not about passing laws - its not about what you do for Christ. Its about sitting down with Him and getting to know Him, and understanding what He wants for your life and then letting Him guide you and your actions. Stop thinking about everyone else's problems; stop trying to 'fix' them. When you aren't right yourself, you certainly can't fix anyone else. Start realizing that Jesus wants to meet with you right now! If you are willing to put in the time, you will become the person He created you to be. At that point, there still aren't any rules to follow, you just do the right things because you love Him and you want to please Him. You know, the law of Christ written on your heart? I don't have to practice not murdering, I don't want to because I want to please Him, not myself. I don't have to practice not coveting other people's things, my desire is to be like Christ and focusing on the material things of this world doesn't get me there.

I'm going to offend some of you, but you need to hear this - you don't have any rights anymore, you were bought and paid for, some one owns you (1 Cor 7:23). You are either going to belong to satan or belong to Christ - those are your only two choices. Its not about what you want anymore; its not about you. That is why we fail at the Christian walk; we're too concerned about our rights, how others have wronged us, social injustices, society's lack of morality, whatever. If you are wrapped up in these other things, then quite frankly, you haven't been broken yet, you haven't come to the end of yourself, you're still too selfish to follow Christ the way He has called you to; you are still too wrapped up in you. And while that is still going on, we are either living in the past - the person I could have been, or you're a religious Pharisee - following our man-made laws and judging others by our personal 'godly' standards. Isn't that what Mack was doing in the book, The Shack? He had run down every avenue, every path, and at the end of all of that running he was no closer to God. He was ready to chuck the 'faith' and live only for himself, which he was really already doing.

I want to challenge you. Where is the first place you run when you are feeling down, despondent, angry, discontent? Is it the same place you run when you are happy, when you're content? Most likely not, because we have a bad habit of only running to Jesus when we're in trouble. That actually exposes our heart - If I'm really in love with the God of the universe then I'm thankful in all things. Like David, I take my troubles to Him, but thank Him for always being with me in the midst of my trials. If you don't do that, then at least do what Jacob and Mack did - duke it out with Him. That's part of the process of completely surrendering to His will and abandoning your own. That is the secret to the abundant life: complete surrender to Christ, laying down your 'rights' as well as your wrongs. If you want to walk in Christ and be called a friend of God, then get serious about your Christian walk. Quit running from the only thing that works. Practice the presence of God. Pretend He is right next to you - would you say that? Would you do that? If you want counsel on what to do, ask. But whatever you do, figure out if you really want to be owned by the Creator, and if you really don't, then quit pretending and quit ruining the 'name of Christ' for the rest of us that do. We all have do that enough, and don't need your help ....

But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. (Php 3:7-12 NAS95)

Relationship not religion ...

Wow! It has been a really long time since my last blog. I have chosen to back out of a business venture because I just don't have time anymore; actually, I never had the time in the first place. It was an interesting little adventure and I'm glad I did it, but with a full-time job and all of my responsibilities at church, it was completely unrealistic to get involved with. As my partner said, "What we do for the Lord is much more important than what we do in the business world." He is of course correct.

Every church has a slogan, ours is, "Relationship not religion". But slogans are not always easy to live up to, so the question we should all be asking, which I am, is, "does that slogan match what we really are?" A lot of the time its what we really want to be, but not always what we really are. And with all of the transitions going on at my church and after reading a short book, I starting thinking about this and its relationship to my topic, the Trinity.

There was also the aspect that the subject I'm still on – the Trinity – is overwhelmingly huge! Some of the material I had read and still have to read was and still is daunting. The very worst part about this is that I really had not idea where to go from where I was – too many possible directions. So, as I made the decision to drop out of the business venture, the father of my daughter's boyfriend gave me a book to read called The Shack, by Wm Paul Young. Now all of you that just took a collective breath and are still holding it, please, go ahead and let it out. I'm not on the 'dark-side'. Although I liked the book quite a lot, there were a number of theological errors in the book. But that being said, too much is being made of some of the supposed errors - some of the criticism is out of context for a fictional, allegorical story; things like the Father being portrayed as a large black woman or the the Father and the Holy Spirit being visible or having a physical form. These might be legitimate issues if and only if the author was attempting to persuade you that he had had a visitation, or a secret knowledge of how God manifests Himself, but that is simply not the case. This is an allegorical story, a fictional novel whose purpose seems to be to help us realize how we can relate to God. Is there an irreverent element to this story? Some might answer that questions, "Absolutely!", but maybe we need our structured little “Christian” world turned upside down from time to time.

What struck me as I read and thought about this book was the relationship with God that was being described. The character in the book, Mack, is transported - if you will - to a place where he can interact with the person's of the Trinity. Because they are personified, Mack can easily walk and talk with them about both his deeply troubled youth and the death of one of his children - the source of the Great Sadness that grips his entire being. The rest of the book is the three person's of God helping Mack come to terms with his tacit rejection of God and the anger and despair that consumes him. All of the book's criticism is based on how it represents God, from the names for the Father and the Holy Spirit to the things they say to Mack along his weekend journey at the shack. I will leave you to make your own determination as to the validity of the criticisms, they are not the subject of this blog. I would like to deal strictly with the question that rose in my heart as I read the book; what is MY relationship with God? How am I expressing it? And finally, is that expression correct, or is it 'religious'? For me, that is a real important question; remember the church slogan above?

So let's start where we should always start, with Scripture;

They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, "Where are you?" (Gen 3:8-9 NAS95)

A crowd was sitting around Him, and they said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You." Answering them, He said, "Who are My mother and My brothers?" Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother." (Mark 3:32-35 NAS95)

This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends. You are My friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you. (John 15:13-15 NAS95)

We talk about Jesus being our "friend" or "brother" and several other familiar terms, some that are, quite frankly, difficult for us to comprehend let alone accept. Many of us have been Christians all our lives, or have become Christians and have learned what to expect as our "approved" behavior, which we turn around and impose on others. Anything that has the slightest hint of irreverence, as we've come to understand it, is abhorrent to us. Yet our biblical examples are of a relationship that we don't really practice, but is actually represented in this book. Still I sense that this is in a way offensive to our sensibilities, and judging from some of the criticism of the book I found, I think I'm right about that. Forget about some of the theological problem areas of this book, that is not my focus. Please understand that I'm not excusing, condoning or ignoring the problem areas in this book. My focus is on our relationship with God, which the book makes as a center piece to the story's presentation, and my central question - what is that really supposed to be? What does it look like? Are we really supposed to walk around praying and talking to God in King James English? That answer should be obvious.

In Gen 3, we see that God regularly walked and talked with Adam in the garden. That is the only conclusion we can come to since God seems to be surprised not to find Adam there. Imagine if you will, that type of relationship. Don't you wonder what they talked about? How often they did this? Or how long their walks were? Next we see Mark 3 and Jesus clearly calls believers His brothers and sisters. Remember, He's still God, yet we are His family, warts and all. Isn't there an inherent love in families? No matter what our earthly brothers and sisters do, we still love them, even when we dislike what they do. And finally, in John 15, we are no longer slaves, but friends, friends of God with the inside scoop on what's going on. These three passages speak volumes, without hardly saying anything at all! All of those unspoken things that we just know.

Please understand, I'm not trying to make these few Scriptures say more than they really are, but my sincere belief is that we make too little of them to begin with. What are the examples of relationships with Jesus in the Bible? Aren't they of familiarity - Jesus with His disciples and His disciples with Him? Isn't it one similar to how we would relate with a good friend? Your wife or husband? Now, think carefully, is that the type of relationship you have with Christ? Is it really? Don't focus on whether Jesus would wear a tool belt, or whether the Father would appear as a 'large black woman'. To me, the absurdity of the hyperbole the author uses is self evident. Remember its an allegorical representation. If God was going to confront a clansman, I can't see a reason why he wouldn't choose a form that would turn that person's world completely upside down. God would use the very opposite of what they would be expecting, as He often did with the Pharisees. Remember what happened to Peter when God confronted him about his sudden Jewishness around his Jewish and Gentile 'brothers'? God presented Peter unclean animals and told him, "Kill and eat!" Peter was repulsed at the thought, and needed this shock treatment three times for the light bulb to turn ON! And before we get to 'high and mighty', I'll bet we'd need more than three treatments for our wake up call.

I want us to see the Jesus of Scripture, so let's look at John 11 and the raising of Lazarus. Verse 3 says,

So the sisters sent word to Him, saying, "Lord, behold, he whom You love is sick."

Interesting statement isn't it, the one that Jesus loves is sick. This expresses an intimate friendship with another human being. Don't you think that Lazarus felt the same way about Jesus? This same statement is made about John later in the book. Moving on to verse 11,

This He said, and after that He said to them, "Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I go, so that I may awaken him out of sleep."

And here, once again, Jesus calls Lazarus His friend, but not just "His" friend, Lazarus was friends with all of the disciples as well. Jesus is showing us a relational aspect of who He is, and how we are supposed to be ... with Him, as well as with others. We know we're supposed to be relational with each other, but what about our relationship with the Almighty God as Father Son and Holy Spirit? If we can't get it right with Him, can we really get it right with each other? Do we really understand what it means to be in relationship with each other? Let's continue in verses 33-36:

When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her also weeping, He was deeply moved in spirit and was troubled, and said, "Where have you laid him?" They said to Him, "Lord, come and see." Jesus wept. So the Jews were saying, "See how He loved him!"

Here Jesus is moved to tears about a friend that He already knew was dead when He arrived, and already knew that He was going to raise from the dead. Yet seeing his friend's tomb causes Jesus to openly weep. Now go back and re-read the whole passage. Don't you see His close interaction with His disciples, and Mary and Martha? It would even appear that both Martha and Mary understood just who Jesus was. Is that how we relate to Jesus?

If we take a look at John 21:1-18 we see the story of Jesus restoring Peter after his denials of Christ before the crucifixion. They had breakfast together, is that the Jesus you know? How did Jesus relate to His disciples? When Peter understood that Jesus was God - did it change how he related to God, how he talked to God? What about Adam before the fall? He "walked with God in the cool of the day" (Gen 3:8-9) - isn't that how God wanted to relate to us all along? And that is one of the central points of The Shack.

The depiction of Mack's relationship with the triune God embarrassed me about my own relationship, especially in light of the fact of my church's slogan. I had to ask myself if my actions showed that I actually believed it. Is my relationship with Jesus like my relationship with my good friend Bob or my wife? I can talk about anything with either one of them; but can I do that with Jesus? And more, do I relate to Him like I relate to Bob? Think about your prayers; if you inserted the name of your best friend - like Bob - would that prayer conversation sound silly? For most of us, I fear the answer is yes. And if it does, then maybe you should change the way to talk to God. Really, it doesn't have to sound religious. He's there with you, having a morning cup of joe, or driving to work, or watching television, and even when you're sleeping. If we are believers, then we can't help but take Him everywhere we go because the Holy Spirit resides IN us, continually. If we are believers, He never leaves us, ever. Does that scare you or excite you?

Yes, there are plenty of places where people fell on their faces before both God and Jesus in reverence and awe, but that doesn't negate the times they walked and talked with Him, as friends do, sharing life, troubles and pain. If we are believers, then Jesus calls us His friends too and calls us to a relationship, where we share life, not just our laundry list of prayers.

This is not an indictment of anyone; its a challenge for us all.

Jesus in Isa 48:16

This is a comment I posted on a Jehovah's Witness' Yahoo 360 blog some time back, in response to a posting he still currently has on his site questioning the Trinity. I was turned onto this site by a friend who asked me what I thought of his post. I felt and still feel that he asked some really good questions and I really, truly felt, and still do, that he needed to enter into a discussion about the questions he asked, since he obviously does not understand Christian teachings. Its doubtful that he understands his own JW teaching either since it didn't take me long to discover that his questions came directly from one of his JW pamphlets, “Should You Believe in the Trinity?”, but I was hoping that he really wanted to discuss the topics he raised. Sorry, that was just a little sarcastic because JW's usually don't discuss or debate anything, and he was certainly no exception since all he did was delete my comments. Most unfortunate, but not unexpected. Why post questions or beliefs if you are not ready to hear some one disagree with you. Honestly, people that disagree with you make you think, and that's a good thing. Oh well. But I wanted to post this once I got into the Trinity. This is a little out of order concerning a systematic theological presentation of the doctrine of the Trinity, but I hope you will find some value in the post.

~~~~~~~~~~~

The Trinity is such an interesting topic. It is misunderstood by nearly everyone. Sadly, too many Christians have no clue how to explain it, being easily confused by those that understand it even less, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons. Too often people begin at the wrong starting point, giving themselves no hope of arriving at the truth. An example is that some people reject the Trinity simply because the word, “trinity” is not in the New or Old Testaments. But neither are the words omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresence or immutable, yet there is little disagreement that God is all knowing, or that He is all powerful, or present everywhere all of the time, or never changes. So the word not being in the OT or NT is a proverbial “straw-man.”

To be able to understand the Trinity, one must understand God's attributes, only then can we begin to see His great plan for mankind. Starting in the middle means that we have to redefine words and their meanings just to make our points understandable. That is where I started when I started blogging, but I got sidetracked into Islam and now feel compelled to start a series on the Trinity, and so I haven't really completed His glorious attributes. Unfortunately, not knowing much about them will be a bit of a handicap here, but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. We will also have to deal with Jesus' subordination to the Father; it always comes up in the discussion, and frankly no Christian should be afraid of this topic either. But all in good time; we've got some ground to cover before we're ready to discuss that topic.

Also, let me state that this will be a series of posts because one cannot have a quick one liner answer to what the Trinity is, and properly make its defense. So, this will be the first part of my answer. I don't profess to be a theologian or a scholar, but I read and study continually. Likewise I don't profess to be an expert on non-Christian belief systems, but I'm not afraid to engage people when they knock on my door, or approach me in an airport, or on-line.

So, let's get started. By the way, I read the New American Standard Bible, so my quotes will be from that version. So, let's just let the real cat out the bag; what we really want to deal with is John 1:1-3, right?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. (John 1:1-3)

Now, before we dive into this verse - which will not be this blog, let' define exactly what the Trinity is, OK? I'll use my working definition from James White,

Within the One being that is God, there exists eternally three co-equal and co-eternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. (from The Forgotten Trinity)

So, what exactly does this mean? Let's start with De 6:4:

Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!

Any definition of the Trinity must start with the fact that God is ONE being. First and foremost, Trinitarians are Monotheistic (James 2:19; 1 Cor 8:6; 1 Ti 2:5-6), they are not tri-theistic or polytheistic (three Gods), nor Modalistic (one God who manifests Himself in three modes of existence), nor do they accept Arianism (the Son being subordinated to the Father).

The second tenet of the Trinity is that there are three who are God. There are three distinct persons within the divine essence. All three persons exist at the same time. (Is 48:16; 61:1-2; Mt 3:16-17) This is where we're going to spend the bulk of our time. Because its were the real questions are, and the real confusion.

The third tenet of the Trinity is that Scripture joins the three together in unity and equality (Mt 28:19-20; 1 Cor 8:6; 2 Cor 13:14; John 5:21-23; Mt 12:31, Rom 8:39). This can be seen in nearly ever book of the NT, and I'll give plenty of examples. But not before we deal with point two.

So, let me make clear what I am NOT saying. Unlike some people that think mankind can attain god-hood, or others that, once pressed, will admit that Jesus is a “lesser” god, Trinitarians believe that God is one being who exists as three persons. We do not believe that God changes into the Son some times, and into the Holy Spirit at other times. God the Father always exists and has always existed, the same is true of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Likewise, we do not believe that Jesus is subordinate to the Father; He willingly subordinated Himself to the Father while on earth, which is something totally different altogether. Jesus was never an angel; angels are created beings and cannot change there state. Each – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit – have an eternal role, which was fulfilled and brought to consummation in the birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ Jesus.

As we all know, the real question is not about the Father, its about the role of the Son and the Holy Spirit. But once the point is made about who Christ is, its not that hard to see the role of the Holy Spirit in the Godhead. So, the question is really boiled down to, “Who and what is Jesus?” So that's where we'll start. By the way, Athenaeus covered all of this in the 4th century when he stood against the Arian heresy, which took another 50 to 75 yrs to be worked out into the church (it was actually longer than that). He left us a record of this struggle, On the Incarnation. Its worth the read, if you have the time. And he didn't even use John 1:1 to defend the deity of Christ!

I want to start our discussion with Isa 48:16, because there is something quite unique for us to see here.

“Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, From the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit.” (Isa 48:16)

This is a most interesting verse, because, first, its in the OT, and second, it talks about all three person's of the Godhead in one verse. Now I know what you will say, “But this is all about King Cyrus, not Jesus!” Yes, that is true, but as with other passages in the OT its not only about King Cyrus, as you will see as we go through this passage. Some will focus on the supposed subordination aspect seen at the end of this verse, and will miss the third important aspect about this verse. And what is that? It's that this is Jesus speaking in the OT. Now for the real trip: go back to Isa 45:18. Now read the whole section in context up to and including Isa 48:16. What makes this narrative so unique is that this is one long quote of Jesus. I know your first reaction will be, “No way!” Yes, way! One long quote of Jesus. Honestly, I had never seen this before just the other day. So, how can you tell this is true? Everything is first person from Isa 45:18 to 48:16. Its really quite remarkable.

So what is said in this passage? Well, let's just see.

The last sentence of Isa 45:18 says: “I am the LORD, and there is none else.” The word “Lord” is the word, Jehovah, or more appropriately, “Yahweh.” Jesus states, “I am Jehovah or Yahweh, and there is no other.”

Now let's start reading from 45:18. Let's pause at 45:21-23:

"Declare and set forth your case; Indeed, let them consult together. Who has announced this from of old? Who has long since declared it? Is it not I, the LORD? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me. Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other. I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness And will not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.

The end of verse 21 says “Is it not I, the LORD (Yahweh)? And there is no other God (Elohiym) besides Me, A righteous God (Elohiym) and a Savior; There is none except Me.” At some point we'll need to deal with just what it means to be a Savior, but we'll save that for a future discussion. Right now what we see is Jesus once again stating that He is the one and only Yahweh/Jehovah, and there is no other. And in verse 22, He repeats it again, “For I am God, and there is no other”. And at the end of verse 23 we see another direct reference to who is speaking with a familiar passage that we here Him saying in the NT, “That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.” (See Rom 14:11; Php 2:10)

Let continue reading and pause at Isa 46:9-10.

Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me. Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, ‘My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure.’

This is Jesus saying once again saying, “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me.” Not only that – as if that's not enough – Jesus is talking about establishing His purposes, and accomplishing His will. Isn't that cool! What's more, isn't that a bit surprising? Did you expect to see Jesus speaking in the OT like this? If you didn't expect it, you should have, because there is nothing new in the New Testament. The same God of the OT is in the NT. Let's continue reading, and pause again at 46:13.

I bring near My righteousness, it is not far off; And My salvation will not delay. And I will grant salvation in Zion, And My glory for Israel.

Here we see that Jesus is bringing His righteousness, and His salvation, and His glory. But I thought only God brought salvation; only He could save? Yes, that's exactly right – only God can save mankind, because Jesus is – go ahead, finish it – Jesus is God. Let's continue reading and pause again at 48:9.

For the sake of My name I delay My wrath, And for My praise I restrain it for you, In order not to cut you off.

Again, it is Jesus that is talking about His name, His wrath to come, and the restraining of His wrath. Because He doesn't anyone to miss out on Salvation. Let's continue reading, pausing again at 48:12-13.

Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called; I am He, I am the first, I am also the last. Surely My hand founded the earth, And My right hand spread out the heavens; When I call to them, they stand together.

Jesus calls Himself the first and the last, much like He does in Revelations (Rev 1:17; 2:8; 22:13; you might also check out 1 Cor 15:45). He says that it is He that called Israel, and He says that He is the one that founded the earth and spread out the heavens; in other words, creator of all (Col 1:16). As we have read this together, there is little doubt about who is speaking, and what He has said and implied. Jesus has said that He is God, and there is none like Him. There is little doubt as to who is being referenced in this passage. Some will fight its obvious meaning, but it clearly states that Jesus is God Almighty, “Elohiym”.

Now I would think that a Jehovah's Witness would be ready to pounce right now, so let's go there to answer the question, OK? You see, a JW would not disagree that Jesus created the heavens and the earth. They have gone through great lengths to add the word “other”into Colossians 1:15-18, like 4 times, making Him creator of all “other” things. But how would they be able to escape the clear passage above that Jesus is calling Himself “Elohiym” God? He does the same thing in the NT, but we're not there yet. What I would like to ask a JW is, taking the above passages in context, what do you now do with Isa 44:24:

Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone,

If Jesus is the creator of the heavens and the earth, then He would be speaking above as well, right? In Isa 46:13, it is Jesus that brings salvation, right? Which means He is the “redeemer” here, right? I would also ask, “Who is speaking in Isa 48:17-19?”

Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, "I am the LORD your God, who teaches you to profit, Who leads you in the way you should go. If only you had paid attention to My commandments! Then your well-being would have been like a river, And your righteousness like the waves of the sea. Your descendants would have been like the sand, And your offspring like its grains; Their name would never be cut off or destroyed from My presence."

So, what we've seen in this passage is Jesus calling Himself God, and God alone. One time, you might be able to explain it away, but 5 times?! There's a much deeper meaning here, and there is no way to explain ita way as an anomaly, or reading something into a passage. No, Jesus is Jehovah or Yahweh, that is clear from this passage. But there is more and we can examine that next time.

Concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, we are nowhere close to proving it with the exception that we have shown pretty conclusively that Jesus is presented as God in the OT, and not “a god”, but the God. As I said in the beginning, to understand the Trinity, we must understand who and what Jesus is. Only with this as a backdrop can we hope to understand what and who He really is. And that will help us understand if the Trinity is or is not true.

~~~~~~~~~~

So that was my response to a JW's blog post. As I said, instead of a reply, a debate, or disagreement, I was summarily deleted, but not unexpectedly. Why discuss anything with some one with a brain when you're only interested in cherry picking the uneducated people of the world? And that is the sad facts about today's JW's. They never want to talk to knowledgeable Christians (throwing pearls to the swines, don't you know), and that really isn't very unexpected either. No one likes to be told that their wrong, and that is the risk that you run when you discuss your beliefs with others. Its the risk that I willingly embrace with my posts. I purposely step a little too close to the lines sometimes because I want people to think; I want people to know what they believe and why they believe it – even a JW, because they don't think at all. Too many Christians fear JW's, but all they are is better trained, because that's all they do. Part of their salvation is tied to how many hours they spend knocking on doors. All they know is what they're told in their little booklets, and what and how they are told to respond in their weekly or monthly 'roll-play' training sessions. Very few JW's ever attend college, and the ones that have are usually converts after the fact. So who exactly are we afraid of, and why? College educated Christians afraid of JW's! Simply amazing. (Now I don't mean to promote the idea that college is the end all; it isn't. My only point is the irony that educated people are scared to death to confront uneducated people.) We Christians have all kinds of 'worldly' education, but we spend almost no time training ourselves in in the knowledge of the word of God. Why is that? Why is knowing the word of God so uninteresting to us?

Christians, WE HAVE THE WORD OF GOD ALMIGHTY ON OUR SIDE! Either you believe that, or you don't. And if you don't, then why on earth are you a Christian? Are you just looking for 'fire insurance'? Go talk to State Farm or All State instead ...

Baptism: Salvation or Symbolism

A friend of mine asked me a question about baptism a week or so ago. He has sat under the teaching that baptism is required for salvation as well as the teaching that baptism is ceremonial in nature. His question is one that has been around for a long time, and in some respects the questions is nearly as old as the church is. Is salvation really that simple: repent and believe? Or are there things I must do as well? Is baptism a work or a sacrament, a rite of observance that must be performed to seal the repentance and belief? It also reminded me of something I had recently taught in my little weekly Bible study, but we'll get to that in a few minutes.

There are in fact three views on baptism: The first is that baptism is a means of salvation. This is normally called the Roman Catholic view, but I'm more familiar with it as a view held by the churches of Christ, usually the Boston and Indiana versions. The second view is that baptism is a sign and a seal of the new Covenant God made with the Gentiles. This is the Reformed and Presbyterian view. And the third view is that baptism is an outward sign of an inward work. Now, which of these views is the correct one? The answer is: number 3. Now I will not attempt to explain all three views because my already too long blog will be three or four times as long as my all to often normally long blogs I usually write. But I will justify why I believe that # 3 is the correct answer to the question. (please understand that I am being quite general and incomplete in describing these three views. For instance, I am not attempting to equate the Catholic and the Boston CoC views, they are in fact significantly different from one another, although they both believe that baptism saves you. I view BCoC as a cult, but I do not consider Catholicism a cult.)

The first two views almost always involve infant baptism and I just do not accept that belief. But that is not the subject of this blog, so I will let that “sleeping dog lie.” And I already know that some will write that “... that is the key – you can't omit that!” Please feel free to correct me, but I have never found the reasons and justifications for infant baptism to be compelling, especially when one considers the relative confusion as to when baptism should occur in the early church, as well as Scriptures absolute silence on the matter. Constantine was baptized on his death bed because it was customary during his time to believe that if some one sinned after baptism that they had in essence crucified Christ all over again, and in essence had committed the unforgivable sin. The church settled on infant baptism, but not, as I understand it, because it was 'historical', although it did become church tradition. I also have a problem with calling things 'sacraments'. I know that word meant something else when it was first coined, but it became something that “only the church should do” and the “proper” church official at that, otherwise the act – whatever it was – was not official or worse, the act was heretical. 1 Pet 2:9 makes it quite clear that we are all priest unto God (i.e., the priesthood of all believers) and is why God ripped the four inch thick veil that separated the holy place and the holy of holies from top to bottom between, thus eliminating the physical and spiritual barrier that separated God and man (but then that was always His plan, Ex 19:6) . But these are all subjects for another blog....

To me, the question is easily answered when one looks at the cross. Jesus told one of the two thieves that he would be with Him in paradise that very day. The thief was never baptized. Now the 'you have to be baptized to be saved' crowd will tell you that 'well, that is because it was Jesus, and it was before His resurrection', but that's a technicality, and not very convincing.

If you want a good parallel of what baptism should be for us, let's take a little stroll down 'memory lane' and take a look at circumcision and its references in the OT and NT. Circumcision, you say? Yes, I do. It was not what you think it was. Believe it or not, I just taught on this very subject a month back in the home Bible Study I host. This probably won't come as much of a surprise, but I've been teaching every Wednesday night for the last 1 1/2 years on Colossians - we're on Col 2:14. Now, in my defense, we have a lot of 'sidebar' discussions which don't always relate to the subject of Colossians, but we are also going through it slowly because my purpose is to disciple this little group of believers. And there is no better book in the NT to do that (other than the Gospel of John), IMHO.

So, my view is somewhat of a consolidation of part of what is taught in view number two with view number three, but not all of two, since I have stated I do not believe in infant baptism. I would like to present part of my Colossians Bible study notes for chapter 2, verses 11 and 12. As you read this please understand that I 'stand on the shoulders' of the great men in church history. Men like Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Gill, Albert Barnes, John MacAurthur, Matthew Poole, and many, many others. They are the ones that did the hard work of exegesis; I merely compiled their great works into something readable for today. My notes below, although containing some original material, are mostly a collection, condensation and organization of the material found in the ten commentaries that I use to create my Colossians Bible study, most of which are readily available in the Online Bible program. I use, and John MacAurthur's commentary on Colossians. Also my notes are in an outline format, so I hope you will be able to follow along.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Complete Salvation

11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. (Col 2:11-12)

There are two opposite tendencies ever at work in human nature to corrupt religion. One is of the intellect; the other of the senses. The one is the temptation of the cultured few; the other, that of the vulgar many. The one turns religion into theological speculation; the other, into a theatrical spectacle. But, opposite as these tendencies usually are, they were united in that strange chaos of erroneous opinion and practice which Paul had to front at Colossae. From right and from left he was assailed, and his batteries had to face both ways. Here he is mainly engaged with the error which insisted on imposing circumcision on these Gentile converts. (Expositor's Bible Commentary, p/o the Online Bible, Computer Program, © 1987-2005)

This seems to be a fitting way to put into context some of the verses we are about to cover.

• ‘and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;’ (2:11) –
• ‘and in Him you were also circumcised’ –
  • Define: ‘circumcise’ – The Greek word, peritemno { per-ee-tem’-no } literally means to cut around. Circumcision was a religious covenant rite performed on every male child on their eighth day of life where the priest would remove the foreskin from the male's penis.
  • Circumcision was an ordinance that symbolized that all sin was being cut off or renounced, and that he who was circumcised was to be devoted to God and to a life of holiness.
  • Throughout Israel's history there had been two views on circumcision. One view stated that circumcision was enough to put a man right with God. It didn't matter whether he was good or bad; all that mattered was that he was an Israelite and that he had been circumcised. The other view was supported by the great spiritual leaders and prophets of Israel. As Barclay put it, “They insisted that circumcision was only the outward mark of a man who was inwardly dedicated to God. They used the very word in an adventurous [symbolic] sense. They talked of uncircumcised lips (Ex 6:30), of a heart which was circumcised or uncircumcised (Lev 26:41; Deut 6:10; Eze 44:7, 9; Deut 30:6; Jer 9:26; Act 7:51); of the uncircumcised ear (Jer 6:10). To them being circumcised did not mean having a certain operation carried out on a man’s flesh but having a change effected in his life. Circumcision was, indeed, the badge of a person dedicated to God; but the dedication lay not in the cutting of the flesh but in the excision from his life of everything which was against the will of God.” (William Barclay’s Daily Bible Study on Colossians, p/o the Online Bible, Computer Program, © 1987-2005.) John MacArthur put it this way:
    • ... The cutting away of the male foreskin on the reproductive organ was a graphic way to demonstrate that man needed cleansing at the deepest level of his being. No other part of the human anatomy so demonstrates that depth of sin, inasmuch as that is the part of man that produces life – and all that he produces is sinful. That is the biblical view. From the beginning, circumcision was used symbolically to illustrate the desperate need man had for cleansing of the heart. In Duet 10:16 Moses commanded the people of Israel, saying “Circumcise then your heart, and stiffen your neck no more.” Duet 30:6 adds, “Moreover the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, in order that you may live.” The Lord commanded the Israelites of Jeremiah's time to circumcise themselves to the Lord and remove the foreskins of their hearts (Jer 4:4; cf. 9:26). God was always concerned with the heart, not with the physical rite. (John MacAurthur, The MacAurthur New Testament Commentary: Colossians & Philemon, (Moody Bible Institute: ©1992) p. 107.) (emphasis added)
  • Because of this as well as what was said throughout the NT, it is the second view which Christians understand as what was intended by God from the beginning. Circumcision was a physical act to symbolize the covenant God had made with Abraham and his descendants, but it was never intended to be merely a ceremonial act of obedience. In Duet 10:16, God tells Israel that they need to circumcise their hearts, in which His intention was for them to start manifesting the spiritual qualities of commitment and obedience to His will in their lives. And this was repeated in Jer 4:4 because of Israel's evil deeds. However, it would seem that the vast majority of Jews saw the first view as what God intended.
  • It should also be noted as is stated in Baker's Evangelical Dictionary that,
    • When Greek paganism threatened to swamp Judaism some two centuries before Christ was born, circumcision became a distinctive indication of Jewish fidelity to the covenant. Thus John the Baptist was circumcised (Luke 1:59), as were both Jesus (Luke 2:21) and Saul of Tarsus (Php 3:5), on the eighth day of life, making them accredited members of the covenant people. But Jesus was already casting doubt on the preeminence of the rite when he stated that his healings made people completely whole (John 7:22-23). Stephen reinforced this by accusing contemporary Judaism of the very tendencies that Jeremiah had condemned (Acts 7:51). Although in the period of the primitive church the believers maintained Jewish religious traditions, problems began to arise when the gospel was preached among Gentiles. Christians who had come from a Jewish background felt that Gentiles should become Jews through circumcision before being able to experience Christ’s saving work.
    • This attitude rested partly upon the contemporary notion that circumcision was a necessary part of salvation, as well as being its effective guarantee. Others repudiated this view of salvation by works, particularly when uncircumcised Gentiles received God’s outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:44-48). They saw that the prophecies of Ezekiel, in which the Lord promised a clean heart and an indwelling of his Holy Spirit (36:25-27), and the dramatic proclamation of Joel that God would pour out his Spirit upon all flesh (2:28; cf. Acts 2:17), were now being fulfilled. The spiritual significance of circumcision had been achieved by divine grace without the performance of the physical rite, thus making the latter obsolete. (Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, p/o the Online Bible, Computer Program, © 1987-2005.)
  • So concerning this portion of the verse, it would seem that there was a Jewish bent to the false teachers, a teaching that seemed to demand that Gentile Christians be circumcised to be considered God's people (Gen 17:10). Paul reminds the Colossians that circumcision was not about what was done to the physical body but about what was done to the believer's heart. It was not about cutting off a piece of flesh, but about the putting off the body of sin.
  • For the Christian, circumcision was not intended to be a mere outward ceremony, but to symbolize the believer's renunciation of the flesh with its corrupt tendencies. It was a putting off of every part of mankind's human nature that was in opposition to God. Believers were to be spiritually separated from an unclean world by being completely dedicated to God. Anyone can perform a ritual like circumcision, but a ritual does not change you. Only God can cut away those things that keep us from being obedient children of Him. (De 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:29; Php 3:3)
• ‘with a circumcision made without hands’ –
  • And here, Paul drives home one of the central themes of Scripture, that circumcision is not about a ceremonial rite, but about a spiritual truth. It was not a transaction in the flesh, but one in the spirit because human involvement is not required for it to take place. It was not the removal of some ceremonial impurity of the body, but the spiritual cleansing of the human heart from sin. A ceremony does not bring salvation. Circumcision was to be done in the heart by the cutting off or renouncing of all sin. It was something that Christ did by His actions, not something that mankind can do by their actions. The circumcision that God intended from the beginning was supposed to be a spiritual act, done by the Holy Spirit to affect a change in the human heart. (Duet 30:6)
  • A man may be physically circumcised and be spiritually uncircumcised because there is no understanding or renunciation of the sin in his life. Spiritual “heart” circumcision cannot occur until he comes to a true understanding of his own sin and how much that sin hurts God. This does not mean that everyone else sees his sins, but that the sinner sees his sin for what it is. As John Gill put it, “when the callousness and hardness of his heart is taken off and removed, and the iniquity of it is laid open, the plague and corruption in it discerned, and all made naked and bare to the sinner’s view; and when he is in pain on account of it, is broken and groans under a sense of it, and is filled with shame for it, and loathing and abhorrence of it:” it is then that he can be “circumcised with a circumcision made without hands”, a true circumcision of the heart. (Mark 14:58; Acts 7:48; 17:24; 2 Co 5:1; Eph 2:11; Heb 9:11,24)
• ‘in the removal of the body of the flesh’ –
  • Define: ‘removal’ (‘putting off’ - KJV) – The Greek word, apekdusis { ap-ek’-doo-sis } literally means a putting off, laying aside, a stripping off. It is a stripping off from one's self as with clothes or armor (getting out of your clothes).
  • The 'body of the flesh' is a symbolic reference to man's corrupt human nature. Although this really isn't one of Paul's topics in Colossians, it is important for us to remember that we are all born into sin, that our human nature is corrupt at its very core. In the book of Romans, Paul demonstrates that sin is not simply something which we do, but is a condition of our heart. (Rom 3:10-12) And in Ephesians Paul states that we are “by nature children of wrath.” (Eph 2:3; cf. Rom 3:9; Gen 6:5; 8:21; Job 14:4; 15:14-16; Ps 51:5; Mr 7:21,22; Ro 5:12-19; 7:18) Of this there is no doubt. And that is what Paul is referring to when he uses the phase 'body of the flesh.' And it is also why Paul relates the physical act of circumcision to the removal of sin in ones life. The removal of the 'body of the flesh' is the renouncing of the deeds of the flesh, that is, renouncing sin in one's life. Sin is to be repudiated, cut out, cast off, eradicated from one's life. Jesus spoke of this too when we said, if your eye causes you to sin, cut it out, get rid of it! (Mt 5:29) And again in Mt 6:23, Jesus said “if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness.” According to Jesus, if you have the slightest bit of sin in you, then you are drenched in it, sin will permeate your entire being. There is no such thing as a 'little sinful.'
  • Its as if we are clothed with a garment of sin – and a very filthy, dirty one at that. The intent of the 'circumcision of the heart' is to strip off that garment of sin from us.
  • The 'body' is the perfect metaphor to describe sin's impact on us. The human body is not made up of independent pieces unrelated to each other. Every part is connected to together to form a working unit. So, as we saw above, sin is not isolated to a specific part of us, it encompasses every part of who we are.
  • 'Circumcision of the heart' is not something that we elect to have, even though we could live just fine or mostly fine without it. It is not a nice little out patient elective surgery, something akin to the removal of a hang-nail. It is a radical invasive surgery, something much more like quadruple open heart surgery. It is an immediate need, something that cannot wait. Think of yourself being on life support, kept alive by a machine, and both your body and the machine are failing. Without the 'removal of the body of sin', we have no real existence. We are the living dead. (Col 3:8-9; Rom 6:6; Eph 4:22)
• ‘by the circumcision of Christ’ –
  • This seems to indicate that Jesus' circumcision is one that removes the whole corrupt human nature from those that have received Him. We are then enabled to renounce sin and devote ourselves to God. We should never again be enticed to return to ceremonial rites as if they somehow enable us to attain any deliverance from our sins. (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 2:20; 4:4-5; Eph 2:10-18; Php 3:3; Rom 2:29)
  • It would also seem that Paul had as his intention to utterly destroy the concept that Christians were required to be circumcised to receive Christ. Obviously there was some Jewish element teaching that circumcision was require for salvation, but Paul reminds the Colossians that God had always intended circumcision to be of the heart. The outward rite was only to be a visual reminder of the work God desired to do in their hearts.
• ‘having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.’ (2:12) –
• ‘having been buried with Him in baptism’ –
  • Define: ‘buried’ – The Greek word, sunthapto { soon-thap’-to } means to bury together with.
  • Being buried with Christ means that we are partakers in His death. For Calvin, this meant much more than being crucified with Christ. He saw it as a continual process of mortification of the flesh, or essentially a constant never ending battle to do away with our old nature that continually tries to assert control over us and lead us in the opposite direction that Jesus is leading us.
  • Define: ‘baptism’ – The Greek word, baptisma { bap’-tis-mah } means immersion, submersion. It is an immersion into the calamities and afflictions where some one is completely overwhelmed.
  • Baptism in OT times, which would have been what John’s baptism was, was a purification rite in which men, upon confessing of their sins, were then bound to spiritual reformation in their lives. This confession of sin obtained a forgiveness for their past sins, which qualified them for the benefits of the Messiah’s kingdom which was soon to be established. As part of this purification, the person would be immersed in water. Consequently, this was also a valid baptism for Christians, since it is not recorded anywhere that anyone was ever re-baptized after the church was established. For the Christian baptism involves confession of sin, profession of faith in Christ lone as one's Savior, along with the immersion in water. (Some churches sprinkle or pour water on the person. Generally, both are viewed as valid forms of baptism, although immersion does seem to be the Scriptural mode intended.) Baptism symbolizes the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. The old sinful nature of the person dies with Christ, and the person that resurrects with Christ in a new person, no longer the old person that went under the water. (Online Bible Greek Lexicon, p/o the Online Bible, Computer Program, © 1987-2005.) (Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 12:13; Tit 3:5-6; 1 Pet 3:21)
  • Some commentators who would seem to be of the sprinkling or pouring denominations, seem to minimize the focus of one aspect of the phrase Paul uses here. They maintain that Paul's intent is not to describe the universal mode of baptism required, but his intent was to emphasize the profession of faith being made at baptism, and that we had become dead to sin, being buried with Him and raised to new life, as He had been. (Albert Barnes’ New Testament Notes on Colossians, p/o the Online Bible, Computer Program, © 1987-2005.) This does in fact seem to be the emphasis of Paul in this passage, but one cannot ignore the implications inherent in the definitions of the words used, nor the example which Christ left us. One is not 'buried' by sprinkling or pouring, one is buried by immersion. Jesus was buried when the stone was rolled in front of the tomb, isolating and separating Him from everyone and everything. In the same way, believers are isolated and separated from everything when they are submerged under water. Historically, it is easy to see how and why sprinkling and pouring began during the underground persecution times of the early church. For that reason, one should not be dogmatic about a mode of baptism, but neither should some be quite so cavalier. We should strive to be biblical in all that we do, allowing for grace during times that that may not be possible.
  • The death and burial of Christ Jesus is the cause of the death of our 'old man', signed, sealed and delivered in the symbolism inherent in baptism. Our old carnal life, with it lusts and cravings, is put away, buried under the water, washed away. Baptism doesn't save us anymore than circumcision saved the Jews. It is the visual representation of our heart felt conviction and repudiation of our sin and our acceptance of Christ's death in our place, the rightful punishment for sin, and our commitment to follow Christ the rest of our lives. As with circumcision, baptism is a spiritual representation of our sins being buried with Christ in His death and raised in spiritual life with Christ’s resurrection. Baptism is a visual picture of this reality. (1 Cor 12:13; Rom 6:3-4)
  • It is also important to remember why Paul is linking circumcision and baptism. It is because they are both intended to be viewed as outward expressions of inward changes in the heart of man. If baptism saves you, then what is the difference between the two, since Jews believed their circumcision saved them? As Christians, would we not be exchanging one ritual for another?
  • The Expositor's Bible Commentary for the end of this verse says the following:
    • We partake of His death, inasmuch as, by the power of His cross, we are drawn to sever ourselves from the selfish life, and to slay our own old nature; dying for His dear sake to the habits, tastes, desires, and purposes in which we lived. Self-crucifixion for the love of Christ is the law for us all. His cross is the pattern for our conduct, as well as the pledge and means of our acceptance. We must die to sin that we may live to righteousness. We must die to self, that we may live to God and our brethren. We have no right to trust in Christ for us, except as we have Christ in us. His cross is not saving us from our guilt unless it is [molding] our lives to some faint likeness of Him who died that we may live, and might live a real life by dying daily to the world, sin, and self. (Expositor's Bible Commentary, p/o the Online Bible, Computer Program, © 1987-2005.)
• ‘in which you were also raised up with Him’ –
  • Believers are raised up to be both 'in Christ' and 'with Christ'. It was to be 'in Christ' because believers are to walk in newness of life as new creations (2 Cor 5:17) and have a inward union with Christ. It was also to be 'with Christ' because it was God's intent that we enter into a lifelong fellowship with Christ.. (Rom 6:4, 8-11; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:5-6; 4:23-24; Col 3:10-11) Baptism symbolizes the burial and the resurrection, a dying of the old person we used to be, by uniting with Christ and becoming the new person God always intended us to be.
• ‘through faith in the working of God’ –
  • Define: ‘working’ – The Greek word, energeia { en-erg’-i-ah } means working, efficiency, and is only used of supernatural power of either God or the devil. In this context it refers to God's active power. The English word energy comes from this word.
  • It is through faith that believers see themselves as buried and risen in Christ. Jesus' resurrection is the foundation of all of our hopes, for without it, there is no hope available for mankind to grasp onto. Without faith, there is no working of God in our lives. How can He work in us if we do not believe that He has the power to do anything in our lives? Baptism then becomes meaningless as a symbol of anything beneficial to mankind.
  • John Gill also points out that even faith is not natural for mankind. Faith is a gift given to believers by God (Eph 2:8), and he can't even exercise it without Christ enabling him to do so. Faith is what works in man, but only by God's gracious power can it be exercised by him. (Rom 3:22; Php 3:9, 21; Eph 1:19; 3:17; 2 Th 2:13; Heb 11:6)
• ‘who raised Him from the dead’ –
  • Paul is showing here that the grace that we have obtained in Christ, through His death and resurrection, is far superior to anything that could be ascribed to circumcision. It is by faith, founded upon the power of God, that allows us to receive the salvation symbolized in baptism. (Act 2:24; Rom 4:24; Heb 13:20,21)
  • If God has the power to raise Christ from the dead, then He has the power to give believers new life, for we were all dead in our sins at one time, and now we have been made alive in Christ. (Rom 6:6, 11, 14) If Jesus has not risen from the dead, then we have no reason to put our faith in Him, nor any expectation that we will rise with Him. If Jesus has not risen from the dead, then we have no hope of deliverance from sin, nor should we have a desire to be delivered from anything. What would be the purpose of living moral and righteous lives?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My main point in all of the above discussion of baptism and circumcision is that both were always intended to be outward symbols of an inward change of the heart. Most people, myself included, would not seen from reading the OT that circumcision was always intended to symbolize the heart change that God had always wanted the Jews to see from the act of circumcision, and even spoke about throughout the OT. But is it really any surprise that God would do the same thing with baptism? Especially with man's propensity to make some act or ritual an idol in the lives of people. And when that camel's nose is under the tent, then so is the rest of the camel.

So, let's look at a few Scriptures that would seem to promote baptism for salvation so we can see what was really meant.

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, (Mat 28:19)

Mat 28:19 is used quite often to support that view, but does it really? If you will look closely at verse 19, you will see that the emphasis is on the making of disciples, not the baptism. The baptism part of the verse is the 'how', if you will - in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - the Trinity - i.e., in the name of God (See, this was about the Trinity after all!). Also, consider this: in Mat 28:19, baptism presupposes a faith that already exists. The baptism is being performed post-humorously; after the fact.

Now let's look at Act 2:37-41.

Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?" Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation!" So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:37-41)

Peter first calls for repentance, and once they had repented, he then called for them to be baptized. And that is the same pattern of Act 8:12, 18:8, and 19:1-7. Its not that baptism isn't supposed to occur, but it does beg the question, why be baptized?

Let's also consider these verses:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." (Eph 2:8)

nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified. (Gal 2:16) (part of the works of the law was circumcision .. at least from the 1st century Jewish perspective)

So if it is by faith that you are saved, and not by works, then how would the act or work of a ceremony save you, because when it is all said and done, that is all baptism really is. Yes, we do it in obedience because we are told to be baptized, but is God really about ceremonies, or does He desire us to have a living and active relationship with Him? What you need to see is that God wants our hearts, not our acts. Why? Because when He has the heart, He has the acts, the obedience as well. We don't have to work it up. It is so easy to fake an experience, it is so easy to make people believe you are feeling something when in fact you may not be. But God sees the heart, does He not? So, realistically, why would He care about the act of baptism – I can fake that by simply going through the motions of being dunked or sprinkled. If my heart is far from God, then what have I accomplished? Am I really saved if I have not truly given my heart, my life to Christ? And what would the act of baptism save you from? Or into? There are just too many cans of worms being opened with this type of belief.

But we are not done looking at Scripture. Let's take a look at Mark 16:16:

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

At first glance, this would appear to support that baptism is essential to salvation. But look closely at the last part, "but whoever does not believe will be condemned." If baptism saves you, then how can unbelief condemn you? It would seem that the emphasis is really on the belief instead of the baptism.

Now let's look at John 3:5:

"Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no-one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

Again, this verse would seem to promote baptism being essential to salvation. But what was baptism to Nicodemus? Remember from above? It was purification from sin. An outward sign (baptism) of an inward change of being (cleansing of the heart). Remember what John the Baptist said to the Pharisees?

"But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: 'You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.' " (Mat 3:8-9)

What is his emphasis? Repentance or baptism?

Now lets jump to 1 Pet 3:21:

"and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also— not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience towards God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"

If you will look closely at the passage, you will see that it rather bluntly states that the baptismal ceremony does not have any saving effect on you at all. It is your public pledge to serve God with every fiber of your being. And that is what God has always been after, since the beginning with Adam and Eve, and later with Abraham and Moses, and then with why He sent the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and all of the minor prophets – God has always been after the heart!

Salvation is about what God did for you, not what you do for yourself or for God. I say this over and over to my little Bible Study group, "You did not reach out to God, He reached out to you! You did not reach up to Him, He reached down to you." And what I mean by that is that it is God that provided a way for you to come to Him; and not just the way, but He called you to Himself as well. While you were yet a sinner, Christ died for you. He made the way. And when we "chose" Him, it was not initiated by us, but by God Himself, via the Holy Spirit. He called us out of darkness, before the foundations of the world were laid. Why? Because He chose to. God knew that you would respond to His calling, because He is all knowing - He's omniscient! There is nothing past, present or future that He does not know. He knew that mankind could not make themselves clean enough to stand in the presence of a holy and just God, so He sent His Son to die for us of a Cross, because only a perfect sacrifice could take away the sins of the entire world, past, present and future. And since He is the initiator of this process, what does a ceremony have to do with a salvation that He offers freely to everyone in the entire world? He simply asks us to acknowledge the facts about who we really are, that we are sinners, and realize that we cannot save ourselves (i.e., clean ourselves up to make us presentable to God). He simply asks us to believe that He died for our sins, and that that death on the Cross cleanses us from all of our sins. Baptism is then, simply that public outward confession to our fellow believers that we have already put our faith and trust in Christ Jesus. Its a symbol of our faith and faithfulness to God.

If baptism saves you, then isn't that technically a "work"? Its something that I do. And what if there is no water? What if I'm on my death bed? What then? To me, baptism for salvation is back to the Jewish OT's bondage to the law, only in an updated NT style. God has ALWAYS been after our hearts. He doesn't want us to serve Him because we have to, but because we want to. I don't desire to obey God to curry favor with Him, or get some kind of reward. I don't agree to be baptized as part of some man-made saving work, I do it because He's asked me to make a public profession of my faith, and I want to, I desire to please Him, because I love Him.

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. (Eph 2:8)

Trolling for Truth But Finding None: The Gospel of Barnabas

I seem to have forgotten to post this from my Yahoo 360 blog. Posted Sept 13th ....

I sometimes troll for Christians or interesting people on the Yahoo 360. Some times I run across an interesting person or something that peaks my interest. This happened as I was looking at a friend of one of my Yahoo 360 friends. Here is an excerpt from the blog of a friend of a friend,

...
There is a Gospel known by the name the Gospel of Barnabas, which the church banned in 492 AD by the order of Pope Gelasius. It was confiscated everywhere. But there was still a copy of that Gospel in the library of Pope Sixtus V. Fortunately a certain Roman Monk called Framarino managed to bring it out. He had found the letters of Ireneus, where the came upon the name of the Gospel of Barnabas mentioned as a reference. His curiosity urged him to look for that gospel. When he became a close friend to Pope Sixtus V, he got that copy of the gospel and found in it that there would come a time when it would be claimed that Jesus is Allah’s son, and this misconception would continue till Muhammad, Allah’s Messenger comes, to set things right.

In the Gospel of Barnabas, (220:4), we read: “And this mocking shall continue until the advent of Muhammad the Messenger of God, who, when he shall come, shall reveal this deception to those who believe in God’s Law.”

Framarino was converted to Islam and published among people this Gospel, which the church had opposed.
...

Wow! If this is true, I mean a true gospel, then the above quote of the Gospel of Barnabas, 220:4, would be remarkable proof of the validity of Islam. If it was written around 492 AD, then it is prophetic in nature, mentioning Muhammad by name more than 100 years before he was born. And this would be even more remarkable if Irenaeus had actually commented on this 'gospel', since he lived between 120 and 200 AD. And if you know me just a little, you know that it was this comment about Irenaeus that caught my eye, and peeked my interest.

There are many more 'interesting' statements in this person's blog, but I'll limit my comments to this short excerpt. I then run across this,

The Gospel of Barnabas was accepted as a Canonical Gospel in the Churches of Alexandria till 325 C.E. Iranaeus (130-200) wrote in support of pure monotheism and opposed Paul for injecting into Christianity doctrines of the pagan Roman religion and Platonic philosophy. He had quoted extensively from the Gospel of Barnabas in support of his views. This shows that the Gospel of Barnabas was in circulation in the first and second centuries of Christianity.

Again, if true, this is quite remarkable! This article traces the history of this 'gospel' from its origins to today. It did take a little bit of work to determine who wrote this article and who is sponsoring the site, but I wasn't surprised when I found that it is really a Muslim site. Still, if true, this could be life changing.

Don't worry, I'm not that gullible. But I do have to be an honest inquirer of all things. I never want to be so closed minded, as Muslims are, that I cannot entertain an unbeliever's questionings, even if the person asking the question really doesn't want an answer. As I have always said, Christianity is the only faith that invites questions from inside and outside the church, and provides legitimate answers. It is unfortunate that there are so many closed-minded Christians, who seem determined to demonstrate the opposite of what I'm saying right now. But it is Christians that have nothing to fear, they are the ones that have the truth on there side (and, they don't have to kill anyone to prove it, as Muslims seemly have to do). Only those with something to fear issue fatwa's at anyone that does not conform to their close-minded beliefs. And only those with nothing to fear can allow some one to walk away from the Truth. True Christianity does not need to force others to believe anything. The Truth of the Gospel shared by those who live it out in love, sincerity and grace, compels others to seek it out.

So, what about the Gospel of Barnabas (GoB)? Well, if there ever was a GoB, it is most certainly not the one that first appeared in the early 18th century. The current GoB first appeared in Holland in 1709, and later in Spain (however the original manuscript was apparently lost, although an 18th century copy was found in 1970). If this was really an historical manuscript, it would have been written in Greek or Latin, not in Italian and supplied with footnotes in poorly written Arabic. The source of this so-called "Gospel" is unknown, but is currently being preserved in the Imperial Museum in Vienna.

But is it historical? Well, let's find out. From a very good Wikipedia article;

The earliest mention of a Barnabas text which is generally agreed to refer to the one found in the two known manuscripts, is reported to be contained in Morisco manuscript BNM MS 9653 in Madrid, written about 1634 by Ibrahim al-Taybili in Tunisia. While describing how, in his opinion, the Bible predicts Muhammad, he speaks of the "Gospel of Saint Barnabas where one can find the light" . (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas)

1634? Yep! That appears to be the earliest mention of the Spanish version. But, there is more.

Its main difference from the Italian manuscript is that the surviving transcript does not record a substantial number of chapters—which had, however, still been present in the Spanish original when it was examined by George Sale. The Spanish text is preceded by a note claiming that it was translated from Italian by Mustafa de Aranda, an Aragonese Muslim resident in Istanbul. (Ibid)

So, he copied it from an original which was written in Italian. And the surviving Italian version did not have a large number of chapters that the Spanish version had. So, our traceability to the original source is beginning to have some problems. Again from the Wikipedia article,

The Spanish version includes an account of the discovery of the Gospel of Barnabas in the private study of Pope Sixtus V (1585-1590), an account which appears to many students to be historically incongruous; and this, together with paleographic inconsistencies in the surviving Italian manuscript, has led a number of scholars to conclude that the two known manuscripts may have been prepared in support of an exercise in forensic falsification, intended to discredit or incriminate some leading Roman Catholic ecclesiastic in the Roman Curia of the 1590s (David Sox; The Gospel of Barnabas 1984). There are a number of contemporary parallels for such an exercise - most notably the "Casket Letters" supposedly forged to incriminate Mary Queen of Scots. Some scholars who maintain this view consequently dismiss the entire Gospel as a hoax; but the majority would consider it more likely that the supposed forgers made use of a pre-existing heterodox text. (Ibid)

Now for the translation. So just what are “paleographic inconsistencies”? How about these: (once again from the Wikipedia article – these have also been independently validated with other sources)

• The Gospel talks of wine being stored in wooden casks - as characteristic of Gaul and Northern Italy (chapter 152); whereas wine in 1st century Palestine was stored in wineskins and jars (Amphorae). The Pedunculate or English Oak (quercus robur) does not grow in Palestine; and the wood of other species is not sufficiently airtight to be used in wine casks,
  
• There is reference to a jubilee which is to be held every hundred years (Chapter 82), rather than every fifty years as described in Leviticus: 25. This anachronism appears to link the Gospel of Barnabas to the declaration of a Holy Year in 1300 by Pope Boniface VIII; a Jubilee which he then decreed should be repeated every hundred years. In 1343 the interval between Holy Years was reduced by Pope Clement VI to fifty years.
  
• Where the Gospel of Barnabas includes quotations from the Old Testament, these correspond to readings as found in the Latin Vulgate; rather than as found in either the Greek Septuagint, or the Hebrew Masoretic Text. That would date it much later than Irenaeus. (Ibid)

There is one last rather damning “paleographic inconsistency.” A handwriting analysis of the manuscript was done comparing Fra Marino’s handwriting and that of the Gospel of Barnabas and the findings showed that they could have easily come from the same person, according Sox (p.70).

These problems, in and of themselves, create enough to cause more than a considerable amount of doubt as to the authenticity of this manuscript as being produced prior to the 1300's. It is much like the Book of Mormon talking about horse as existing in the Americas between 800 and 1200 AD. Horses were introduced by the Spanish in the 16th century. Its a detail which destroys the credibility of the entire book. And the three items above do the same thing to this so called 'gospel'.

Want some more? You didn't actually think I would stop there, did you? This so called 'gospel' has a number of discrepancies with both the Bible and the Koran - here are just a few:

• Jesus is not the Messiah. ch.83; ch.97; ch.42 (Jesus is called the Messiah/Christ in Suras 5:75; 5:17 (2x), 3:45; 4:157, 171, 172, 9:30)
  
• The Messiah is Mohammed. ch.97 God created all things for the Messiah. ch.191
  
• Without faith in Mohammed, none will be saved. (Most Muslims do not believe you should have saving faith in Mohammed.) ch.192
  
• Ishmael was the ancestor of the Messiah. ch.190; ch.191; ch.208; ch.43
  

Here are some additional contradictions with the Bible:

• Jesus is a voice in the wilderness. ch.42
  
• Angels "rolled" the soldiers away for Jesus. ch.153
• Barnabas was one of the disciples of Jesus. ch.83, ch.88, ch.19, ch.72
  
• God gave Jesus bad consequences because others called Jesus God. ch.112

And finally, some additional contradictions with the Koran:

• Faithful Muslims who do not have works will be in Hell for 70,000 years. ch.137
• Mohammad will go to Hell and be terrified as he beholds the punishment of others ch.135
• Mary gave birth to Jesus without pain ch.3
  
• Unlawful to hate anything except sin. ch.86

And if all of the above is not enough, here are some additional general technical errors the manuscript makes:

• Jesus went to the Sea of Galilee, and having embarked in a ship sailed to his city of Nazareth. ch.20 (Nazareth is inland.)
  
• Romans said the idols were almighty. ch.152
  
• Rome has 28,000 gods. ch.152
  
• There was a great famine in Israel in Jesus’ time. ch.138
  
• Israel says Jesus was God or the Son of God. ch.138

Put this all together and you have a completely unreliable document. Never mind the historical nature of the document, there is too much wrong with it to be anything more than a fraud. It reminds me of the static generated by the so-called 'gospel of Thomas'. Reading the last section of the document should have been enough for everyone to reject it out right – a woman must become a man to gain eternal life? How utterly idiotic! Just like all of the rest of the crap found in that cave in Qumran Egypt. Gnostic 'gospels' are not gospels at all, anymore than this so-called gospel of Barnabas.

And what about Irenaeus' comments about the GoB? Some Muslim sources state boldly that Irenaeus not only spoke highly of the GoB, he also opposed the teachings of the Apostle Paul. Of the preserved historical writings we have from him, Irenaeus, there is no mention at all of the GoB, nor was there ever. There was an Epistle of Barnabas but not a GoB, and the Epistle doesn't say anything even remotely close to what the GoB says. There is a mention of a GoB in the Gelasian Decree, but the only thing that that proves is that it was rejected as heretical long after the Canon of the NT was assembled and established. The above discrepancies with the Bible would have been enough to do that! And what “thinking” Muslim can accept the GoB when it clearly contradicts their “holy” book. Although it was mentioned in the late 5th century, there is no evidence that the GoB of Gelasian's day was anything remotely like the current 16th century version.

It should also be completely understood that Irenaeus never had any issues with Paul's teachings. As a matter of fact, he recognized Paul's writings as inspired, meaning he understood that Paul's writings were God breathed “Scripture”, and claimed that the current four Gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - were the only ones ever given by God.

And if all that wasn't enough, an extensive research was conducted by Laura and Lonsdale Ragg into the claims of the GoB when they translated it into English in 1907. They provide both internal and external evidence demonstrating that the document was nothing more than a Medieval forgery. Muslim sources conveniently omit any mention of that.

So, now the real question is why was this forged document written in the first place? Of that we cannot be absolutely sure, but one reason would seem to be to promote Islam, which would explain the text referenced above by Muslim sources.

But one of the prime reasons was to refute the Trinity. How, you say? Well, look at what we've seen so far. Who is Jesus in this so-called gospel? He's not the Messiah, He's not the Son of God, He's not the Incarnate God. Who is He then? He's simply a prophet, less than Mohammad, but greater than Isaiah or Jeremiah. That is an attack on the Deity of Christ, and therefore an attack on the Trinity.

Is Jesus who He says He is? Or are we persuaded by arguments like those for the GoB? Or are you persuaded by the "religion of Peace's" persuasive arguments.

Research notes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas
http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/barnabas.htm
http://www.muslimhope.com/ForgeryOfTheGospelOfBarnabas.htm
http://www.bible.ca/islam/library/Gilchrist/barnabas.htm
http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-judas-gospel-of-barnabas.htm
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/arts/barnabas/marino.html
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/arts/barnabas/Barnmain.html
http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bom/barn.shtml
http://www.answering-islam.org/Nehls/Answer/barnabas.html
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/Blackhirst_Barnabas.html
http://www.chrislages.de/barnarom.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Green/barnabas.htm