Was Paul a “Fake Apostle”?

Most husbands at one time or another have noticed a stray thread on a suit or shirt. Just before we are about to pull on it we hear the words “Don’t pull on that thread”! The thread is not isolated. It is part of a greater garment. If you pull it in order the get rid of it you end up doing more damage to the garment.

The above scenario reminds me of those who, because they are living a life that is in opposition to Bible teaching, have decided to rid the Bible of the particular “thread” that threatens them. The problem is they have not thought about what that “thread” is attached to and the consequences that are created by “pulling” it. Here is an example. It is a statement made in a discussion on homosexuality that can be found at Preacherpollard’s Blog.

(…Paul was wrong. Paul was wrong about so very many things that there are many Biblical scholars who believe he was a fake apostle who led the early church astray and had contentious relationships with the true apostles of Christ. Have you noticed that out of the 22 times he is called an apostle in the New Testament, only two times came from someone besides him? He was a pompous, argumentative, egotistical braggart and he is the source of most of the pain in the version of Christianity that he created. It is sad that so many people are following Paul instead of Christ and do not realize it.)

While there are numerous errors in the above paragraph I will address one part to demonstrate this “thread principle” and its consequences. Was Paul a wrong? Was he a “fake apostle”?

If Paul was a “fake apostle” then most of the New Testament documents are immediately discarded. This would eliminate Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon and perhaps Hebrews. But it doesn’t end there.

If Paul was a “fake apostle” then the writings of the apostle Peter must be rejected. Peter declared Paul an apostle and endorsed his letters (2 Pet.3:15,16). Therefore Peter’s writings, 1 & 2 Peter, are eliminated. But it doesn’t stop here.

If Peter’s writings must be excluded then Luke’s must be also. Luke, a historian, records the preaching of Peter and the other apostles, e.g. Acts 2:14ff; etc. In addition he recorded the conversion of Paul and his commission by Christ (Acts 9:9-20) and also refers to him as an “apostle” (Acts 14:14). The book of Acts is gone. But it doesn’t stop here.

Since the book of Acts, written by Luke, must be rejected, the book of Luke is also eliminated. Guess what? It doesn’t end here.

If Luke is out then Matthew, Mark and John are also eliminated because they all attest to the same birth, life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ that Luke did. Shall we continue? If John’s gospel is eliminated then the other writings of John, e.g. 1, 2, and 3 John & Revelation fall as well.

This one “thread” of error has effectively “unraveled” the entire New Testament, including all that Jesus did and taught. It is an “all or nothing” proposition when it comes to the Bible. One cannot reject a text simply because it happens to condemn what they want to believe or practice.

Posted in Apologetics, Bible Interpretation | Leave a comment

Are “The Arts” Exempt from Being Indecent?

Some of the most outrageous displays of vulgarity, indecency and public nudity in our world today are defended under the heading of “The Arts”. “It is art”, we are told. I am aware of the famous pieces of art produced by men like Michelangelo; e.g. his “David” sculpture, etc. but he and other men are not the standard. Can words like lewdness and indecency apply to “The Arts”? Can public nudity, whether in the actual flesh or through painting, sculpture or photograph, be justified because it is considered “art”? There are those who would answer “No” and “Yes” respectively to such inquiries. I beg to differ.

The claim that “It’s Art” does not erase the indecency or vulgarity of public nudity. I am not arguing that nudity is inherently wrong. If it was then a husband and wife could not be nude in the presence of one another nor could a parent bathe their child or even their disabled aging parent. I am not questioning one’s motive. One may not be intending to offend or shock (although I personally think this is usually the case). The more outrageous or raunchy the better is the goal of many; the recent Miley Cyrus “performance” being exhibit A.

Let’s journey from sculptures and paintings during the time of Michelangelo to photography. What about the photographs of magazines like Playboy? Is it art? Is it pornography? Is it both? Is it neither? Instead of a photograph could one paint a portrait of the person in the same nude setting? What would be the difference? Can one paint, sculpt or photograph all of the “private parts” absent of a “face” to go with those parts for public consumption? Friend regardless of the “artistic form” it is still public nudity and ought to be shunned not displayed.

The Bible does address principles of public nudity and decency. Trousers (what we call underwear) were made for the priests to wear in order to cover their nakedness while ascending the steps of the altar (Ex.20:26; 28:42). The principle is found in the Genesis account as well. When sin entered the world and the eyes of Adam & Eve were opened and they realized their nakedness they “sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings” (Gen.3:7). Later the Creator provided something more permanent (Gen.3:21). In Revelation nudity is associated with shame (Rev.3:17; 16:15) and rightly so. Consider also 1 Tim.2:9, 10; Titus 2:5 and others that appeal to the principles of modesty and decency that would most certainly prohibit public nudity.

Let us teach our children and grandchildren to keep their “private parts” covered. That is why they are called “private” parts; they are not “public” parts for public viewing in any format. (As a side note: Parents just because the private parts are covered (barely in many cases) does not justify the immodest or indecent displays that are abundant at the public swimming pools).

It has been said that the human body is a “work of art”. I agree. The Creator did a marvelous. However that same Creator also said “keep it covered”; not depict it through whatever means available. Public nudity cannot be made decent by cloaking it in the “The Arts”.

Posted in Christian Life, Culture | Leave a comment

How Far Is Too Far?

Question- How far would a politician have to go before you would refuse to endorse or support him/her? Apparently for many, including Christians, there is no such thing as “too far”.

Over the last thirty years I have seen just how dedicated some Christians are, not to Jesus Christ, but to their pet political party and the politicians they comprise. The moral principles of the Bible have taken a back seat to their politics and social agendas.

This was first apparent to me when in the 1990’s we had a President who was guilty of engaging in sex with a 22 year old summer intern named Monica Lewinsky in the oval office. Later this same man committed perjury (lying under oath) with regard to the same incident. I had some, including Christians; continue to proclaim that our President was still a “good man”. Just how far, I asked, would he have to go before you would not consider him a “good man”? No reply was given.

We now have a President, Vice-President and numerous other political leaders of both parties who endorse marriage between two people of the same gender. In addition they endorse sexual immorality (fornication) between these same persons. Add to this their continued support of abortion, including partial birth abortion; you have a “triple-threat” to the very moral foundation of our nation.

In the face of such undeniable and indefensible moral positions there are those who continue to endorse these men and women as suitable leaders for our nation. I suggest they read Paul’s admonition and warning in Romans 1:32. Neither will escape the righteous judgment of God.

Considering how far this nation and many of our political leaders have deviated from God’s way it leaves me wondering how far is too far? Apparently for many, including Christians, that point has not yet been reached. What else, if anything, could be added to the heinous list above that would cause these supporters to cease their support and speak out against such ungodliness and depravity and the political leaders that promote it? It remains to be seen.

Once again I ask, “How far is too far”?

Posted in Culture | Leave a comment

Christian: Whose Side Are You On?

“I have made my decision; I have staked my claim. I have drawn a line in the sand and I’ll not be ashamed. With the world behind me and the cross before; by the grace of God I will serve the Lord”. Those words are the chorus of a religious song I know. The words are reminiscent of what Joshua said in Josh.24:15- “…as for me and my house we will serve the Lord”.

The message is clear; when it comes to the lives of each of us Jesus is either Lord of all or He is not Lord at all. It is an all or nothing proposition. Jesus will not settle for second place; nor should He. What clear thinking husband or wife wants to share their spouse with another person in the most intimate of relationships? That’s how Christ feels when those who have pledged themselves to Him “fool around” with sin & worldliness in direct violation of their vows.

The Bible still teaches that Christians are to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness but rather expose them (Eph.5:11). Sin disguised under the banners of “freedom” or “pride” or “rights” or “love” or “culture” or “equality” is still sin; it still enslaves and ought to bring shame to those who support or practice it.

After a long list of sins, although not an exhaustive list, the apostle Paul in Rom.1:32 wrote, who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. The word approve expresses the idea of consent or agreement. Christians must not support or endorse any person or group of people whose agenda is a violation of the Lord they serve. To do so is disloyalty, hypocrisy and spiritual adultery! Cp. Jas.4:4. Those who do so will face the same wrath as those who actually practice the sin.

The vast majority of this world has entered the wide gate and is traveling the broad way (Matt.7:13, 14). Any Christian who leaves the narrow way and begins traveling the broad way will reach the same end as all others traveling that way; and that end is destruction; the loss of one’s soul. Is it really worth it? The answer is obvious. Cp. Matt.16:26.

Christian, whose side are you on?

Posted in Christian Life | Leave a comment

The Real “Gay” Agenda

Webster’s defines smokescreen as something designed to obscure, confuse, or mislead. The homosexual advocacy groups like (GLSEN- The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network) and (GLAAD- The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) are masters of the “smokescreen”. In a constant attempt to avoid the facts they continually to try focus on things that are not the issue in order to avoid the REAL issues.

Some things that are not really the issue:

(1) It is not about who can visit who in the hospital. A patient can authorize anyone they want to visit them or help them make medical decisions. You have heard of power of attorney haven’t you?

(2) It is not about wills. A person can put anyone they want to in their will; even their pets.

(3) It is not about hate. All hateful words & actions such as bullying, verbal assault, murder and the like are indefensible. The Bible condemns all such verbal and physical violence as do the laws of our nation. (See- “Answering the Charges of Hate…” at balancedpreaching.com). However as we will note later some of the greatest offenders of these tactics are the “gay” community.

(4) It is not about love, i.e. (agape) love. ‘Agape’ is the love God has for the world (John 3:16); the love man is to have for God (Matt.22:37); the love we are to have for our neighbor (Rom.13:9f); the love a husband is to have for his wife (Eph.5:25); etc. It is not sexual or erotic in nature. The “love” advocated by the “gay” community always includes SEXUAL RELATIONS. If this is incorrect then the relationship must be purely platonic; in which case no objections to it can be raised on these grounds; but I assure you it is NOT simply platonic.

(5) It is not about what someone does in the privacy of your own home. Persons can have sexual relations with whomever or whatever they desire behind closed doors. No reasonable person is advocating breaking down those doors. Remember “Don’t ask; don’t tell”? Let me say, I didn’t ask and I don’t need to know; what’s more I don’t want to know. If the sexual conduct is immoral, whether heterosexual or homosexual or some other kind, I would plead with them to stop it if it is a violation of God’s moral law. If they don’t they will lose their soul.

(6) It is not about orientation. [Webster’s defines “orientation” as 1) a usually general or lasting direction of thought, inclination, or interest; 2) a person's self-identification as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual.] Does the fact that a human being has an attraction to someone or something make the pursuit or fulfillment of that attraction (orientation) morally right? What about the myriad of OTHER sexual orientations and desires that exist? By what logic does one defend the practice of one orientation and not the others?

What then is their real agenda?

(1) Legitimacy-

It IS about demanding that their sexual CONDUCT be legitimized and accepted as moral. On the GLESEN website this word and its definition appears; Heterosexism: the attitude that heterosexuality is the only valid or acceptable sexual orientation. As was pointed out above it is really not about orientation. It is about SEXUAL CONDUCT and that their sexual conduct be viewed and expressed as morally right. Biblically this can never be.

(2) Suppression-

It IS about demanding that those who believe that such conduct is immoral keep their mouths shut and their “opinions” to themselves. Speak out against the conduct as immoral and see who is bullied and verbally assaulted. You will be labeled a “homophobe”, a “hater”, “bigot”, “unloving”, etc. and may even be attacked physically. Such verbal and physical attacks by homosexuals, especially in San Francisco, are well documented. To complain about such attacks and then launch them is hypocrisy.

There you have it; with the “smokescreens” fanned away their true agenda is exposed. The truth is that consensual sexual relations between two human beings of the same gender are sinful, wicked and a perversion of God’s laws of sexual conduct. All the attempts at diverting attention from this will never change that fact.

Posted in Homosexuality | Leave a comment