17 Responses to “Will the Real Jesus Please Rise?”

1. atomcat
   July 21st, 2008 @ 1:13 pm

   Christianity is evil according to Al Gore and the Green movement.
   The green movement is based on Gaia the pagan earth goddess.
   That is why McGuinty tried to remove the Lord’s prayer from the Ont. legislature. It is also the reason for the attempt to remove God from the national anthem.

   One world govt. requires a one world religion.

   The churches have been led to believe the green movement is godly, it’s exactly the opposite.

   Canadians need to wake up and wake up fast.

   Please read The Green Agenda found on the page bar of my blog.
   It is the best I have found on the subject.
   Read the words of the men that would rule the world and remove the Christian faith.
   Please-read The Green Agenda.
   http://www.windfarms.wordpress.com

   Enjoy your day-very interesting times ahead

   If you are involved in the church I would like to be in touch.

   Ron

2. geprge
   July 25th, 2008 @ 1:53 pm

   the real jesus taught the torah .he was against the pharisiac oral law that conflicted with the written law. he even called the pharisees lawless. because they kept and upheld the doctrine of men over GOD.just like today in churches many of them go by mane made doctrine. and for the most part ignore the written torah jesus upheld down to the jot and title. heaven and earth have not pass away and neither did the written torah. we know have the grace to walk within the written torah. george in temple ,tx

3. Dr Michael L Brown
   July 25th, 2008 @ 6:04 pm

   Geprge,

   So, what is your view of the applicability of all the laws of the written Torah to believers today, Jewish and Gentile?

4. Paul
   July 26th, 2008 @ 6:10 pm

   What does the “Grand Theft” bloke reckon Jesus was like, then? He harangues the TV evangelist-brigade, and calls them various names, but who does *he* actually say Jesus *is*? If he believes, as do many of his ilk, that Jesus was some proto-Socialist revolutionary, then he’s skating on thin ice.

   I have some sympathy with the criticisms of “prosperity” preaching, although I would be very wary of saying that those in the “prosperity Church” are unsaved thieves (which the “Grand Theft” chap seemed to suggest). Humble confession, genuine repentance, acceptance of Christ’s payment and faith in Him is sufficient to save. We are *not* saved by works — Paul makes that quite clear. However, when the saved finally enter the Kingdom, those who neglected to *serve* will regret it, and will be “least in the Kingdom”. So the “comfy Christians” may get saved *without* works, but they’ll be sorry they didn’t do more for Him.

   I think, when dealing with the “real Jesus” hucksters, it helps to go back to fundamentals. Righteous souls get into Heaven. However, here the word “righteous” means “righteous according to God’s standard”. And God’s standard is that of the “amplified” Law of the mind & heart described by Jesus in The Sermon On The Mount. Moreover, the “pass mark” is 100%. Of course, by these criteria, we have ALL failed. Yet Jesus *did* “pass” — Jesus alone — and, because He loves us, graciously provided a means for us sinners to join Him in Heaven — *without* junking the requirements of righteousness. His plan goes as follows.

   Essentially, if you want to enter the Kingdom, YOU HAVE TO AGREE TO BE HIS *SLAVE*. HE WILL THEN *BUY* YOU (in fact, He already PAID for all of His SLAVES nearly two millennia ago). AS HIS SLAVE YOU WILL HAVE *NOTHING*, SAVE THAT WHICH YOUR MASTER PERMITS YOU TO HAVE, AND YOU WILL BE EXPECTED TO DO WHAT YOUR MASTER ASKS YOU TO DO (YOU WILL HAVE NO RIGHTS, NO PREVAILING LOYALTIES TO FAMILY, FRIENDS, ETC.). Finally, Scripture tells us (Revelation 22:4) that we SLAVES will eventually join Him in the Kingdom, WHERE HIS NAME WILL BE STAMPED ON OUR FOREHEADS to show that HE OWNS US. To reiterate, we “get in” because HE *BOUGHT* US AND HE *OWNS* US — WE ARE HIS PERSONAL POSSESSIONS, and cannot be taken from Him, because He “made the grade” since He is perfect. Indeed, He is God.

   That’s how it works. Not very appealing to the proud, this slave-business. That’s why the proud will choose to reject it and wind up cut off from God. No, the message will appeal only to those who *know* how wretched they are, and do not flatter themselves that they can “earn” Heaven through their own virtue, intellect, wisdom, spirituality, gnosis or whatever. In His time here, Jesus concentrated His sowing on the most fertile ground. Were He on Earth today and going about His ministry, He’d be zeroing in on those who know that they are rotten and are truly sick of themselves. You’d be more likely to find Him sowing in the prisons than in glitzy conference centres. …But He wouldn’t be massaging the inmates’ egos or schooling them in their “human rights”…

   Sorry about the long post.

5. Dr Michael Brown
   July 26th, 2008 @ 9:17 pm

   Paul,

   No need to apologize for the length!

6. Paul
   July 27th, 2008 @ 3:58 am

   Thanks, Dr. Brown — I was worried that I might’ve been hogging the thread.

   So what *does* the “Grand Theft” chappie reckon Jesus’ message is? Or indeed what do the other “real Jesus” authors say He was like? They attack the “traditional” depiction of Him, but what exactly do they *offer* instead?

   …By the way, I saw your man Spong: he actually came to speak at my church (against my minister’s wishes). Quite the fox, he was.

7. Josh F
   July 28th, 2008 @ 7:59 am

   I’ve heard some really off-the-wall ideas about who Jesus supposedly was before. Take for example the extreme ideas, such as white supremacy groups who think that Jesus was either an Irish monk or that all the “true Israelites” were anglo-saxon and Jesus was one of them (makes you wonder how these groups would feel if told that a Jew believed in Jesus; are they not saved because they’re Jewish?). Then there’s the exact opposite, black supremacy groups that say Jesus was negroid and so were all the original Israelites (some groups even going so far as to say that the “true Israel” is Africa!)

   I’ve also seen comments by Hindus who have said it is problematic because Christians limit the avatars of God to just one man. And I’ve saved the craziest for last: Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenko, who posits (among other things), that our current chronology of history is way off, and that Ancient Rome, Greece, and Egypt were crafted during the Renaissance by humanists and clergy, and that Jesus is an amalgam of more recent historical figures but mostly Pope Gregory.

   Now, if I may Dr. Brown, I’d like to ask a quick question without trying to change the real topic here: At Luke 1:36 it says that Elisheva was the cousin/relative of Miryam the mother of Yeshua. But it says earlier that Elisheva was a descendant of Aharon and of a family of cohanim (so, of the tribe of Levi). I’ve heard it objected that the Good News of Luke thus presents Miryam as being of the tribe of Levi because she is related to Elisheva (and thus not of the tribe of Y’hudah, which would be a problem for physical decent from David). And it is difficult to see how Elisheva could be a relative of Miryam but from a different tribe since I believe I remember reading that families of cohanim could only marry into other families of cohanim.

   Thanks for taking a look Dr. Brown, and sorry for going off topic. I just couldn’t find an answer to this one in the usual places I looked. Plus I know that you take an interest in objections to the genealogy of Yeshua from the fourth volume of Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus.

8. Jabez
   August 1st, 2008 @ 2:27 am

   Depictions of the nature of the Messiah on film throughout film history might be considered. Getting it “right” certainly has been reflective of the prophetic word, the New Testament, the times in which the films were made, etc. We have the wooden early issues, the various slices of the Life films, certain gospel depictions, thees and thous, you and you pl., and more humane Yeshuas have advanced with time (even smiling Messiah depictions, who had a kind of conversational style with the other characters of His history), on to the Mel Gibson Aramaic speaking anointed One, complete with very accurate costumes (but an inaccurate Cross and no resurrection!).

   It was the real Jesus who rose, for sure. And He will return just as He went away. How to have one’s lamp trimmed, not sharing the oil when it is too late? It becomes somewhat obvious why it was “better that I go away, in order that the Father can send the Holy Spirit” into each believer. Then the Gospels become alive, the Mind of the Messiah beckons, and the Way, and Life He showed become preoccupations of hearts, in time. Many have realized that it is Messiah in You, which is the Hope of Glory, and that one is to fix one’s heart on the matter until “Christ be formed in You.” The real Jesus is the everpresent Jesus, the Jesus who hears hearts, renews minds, and is not preoccupied with meeting behavior style, nor the personalities which seem to catch up the loyalty of many.

   He is Lord, He is truth, He offers salvation, there is no other!

9. Jabez
   August 1st, 2008 @ 3:07 am

   I wish to also say, as a separate line of thought that the “religious right” has taken many scriptural postions on such matters as family life, marriage, and the Ten Commandments. I have concerns about a kind of alchemy which seems to be mixed in with these stands, where it seems like the building of personal wealth, and what I call a “portfolio preference policy” embracing American business culture with similar conviction seems to have other equal emphases mixed in with decency and order talk from these sincere people.

   Recently I received notice from one of the many on-line newsletters received that I should, if I have conservative values, and believed in God, celebrate the anniversary of a certain well-known conservative radio commentator, “for the values he upholds.” His style of presentation is usually one-upsmanship, superiority posturing, and mean spirited characterizations of all others not of his persuasion, “the liberals.” This fat cat type of put down messaging seems very contrary to what is written about not being able to serve Mammon and God at the same time.

   The love of money seems interlaced with many who entrench their own outlook on equating American business/marketing values with their religion. What will change this, and reach those yet unreached because of what comes across as a self-righteous bigotry identified with belief in a certain kind of relationship with a certain depiction of God with one?

10. Ryan Dube
    August 1st, 2008 @ 9:23 am

    Jabez, there was a resurrection in Mel Gibson’s film, they just did not emphasize on it…but it is there, I suggest watching it again

11. Jabez
    August 1st, 2008 @ 3:37 pm

    Ryan, I was speaking about what the Bible calls a Resurrection, i.e. involving the body of the Messiah, not just some flash of light.

12. Dr Michael L Brown
    August 1st, 2008 @ 5:11 pm

    Josh,

    You asked: “Now, if I may Dr. Brown, I’d like to ask a quick question without trying to change the real topic here: At Luke 1:36 it says that Elisheva was the cousin/relative of Miryam the mother of Yeshua. But it says earlier that Elisheva was a descendant of Aharon and of a family of cohanim (so, of the tribe of Levi). I’ve heard it objected that the Good News of Luke thus presents Miryam as being of the tribe of Levi because she is related to Elisheva (and thus not of the tribe of Y’hudah, which would be a problem for physical decent from David). And it is difficult to see how Elisheva could be a relative of Miryam but from a different tribe since I believe I remember reading that families of cohanim could only marry into other families of cohanim.”

    The answer is that priests were NOT required to marry only within priestly families, although many preferred to do so. They simply had to marry a pure Israelite woman (see Lev 21:7, 14).

13. Paul
    August 2nd, 2008 @ 2:08 pm

    “Recently I received notice from one of the many on-line newsletters received that I should, if I have conservative values, and believed in God, celebrate the anniversary of a certain well-known conservative radio commentator, “for the values he upholds.” His style of presentation is usually one-upsmanship, superiority posturing, and mean spirited characterizations of all others not of his persuasion, “the liberals.” “

    But it *is* “the liberals” who are setting the agenda in the established churches, and who are eroding sound doctrine — look at what has been done to Anglicanism! Attacking “the liberals” isn’t just another instance of narrow political partisanship: they really *are* doing some damage! Finally, I don’t know who the “conservative radio commentator” is, but I hope he’s just a chat-jock and not a pastor. I haven’t come across any pastors who broadcast in the manner you describe, and I hope I don’t.

    “This fat cat type of put down messaging seems very contrary to what is written about not being able to serve Mammon and God at the same time.
    The love of money seems interlaced with many who entrench their own outlook on equating American business/marketing values with their religion. What will change this, and reach those yet unreached because of what comes across as a self-righteous bigotry identified with belief in a certain kind of relationship with a certain depiction of God with one?”

    I too don’t much care for the whole “prosperity preaching” bandwagon, and America seems to be able to put a Christian veneer on almost anything, regardless of how dubious. It doesn’t exactly reflect well on genuine Christians, either… However, mammon-worship is not the exclusive preserve of the Right: socialism is at its core a materialist dogma. And in terms of sheer human carnage, the latter’s own track-record in the relatively recent period of its existence has been unlike anything ever seen. When the Left mockingly dismiss those who oppose abortion, homosexuality and sexual purity with the term “religious right”, it should make us wonder why.

    Finally, lest I be accused of being a capitalist pig, let me state that I have no special fondness for capitalism — it is also of *this* world and not without its own problems. It’s just that the more seductive alternative is worse.

14. Ewan
    August 3rd, 2008 @ 5:41 am

    I’ve almost finished listening to these five messages and am as usual very impressed and in total agreement. Although, since I would like to stake my claim here of being Dr. Brown’s biggest Australian fan, that is unsurprising.

    As one with a interest in politics, I just wanted to add to what Dr. Brown said on Thursday’s program concerning politics. To use the American example, I believe it is appropriate to say that Jesus is neither a Democrat or Republican, but He is clearly what we might call a social/moral conservative and as such those of us on the Right of the political spectrum can justifiably claim to have a more biblical view of the world than do those on the political Left.

    On the issue raised above of socialism/capitalism, clearly the biblical view is more in harmony with the concept of private ownership and free market economics than with any kind of socialist system. Much of the Law is predicated on the concept of private property and the free exchange of goods. For example, the commandment ‘thou shall not steal’ presupposes the concept of private property. This commandment and many similar ones wouldn’t make much sense in a socialist setting where the State owns the means of production and the concept of private property is very minimal indeed.

15. Paul
    August 3rd, 2008 @ 12:07 pm

    Yes, Jesus’ message was not that we should set up a powerful redistributive state which “gives” money to the poor (or in the West, the less well-off) — particularly when this money is extracted under penalty of imprisonment from the rich (or in the West, the more well-off). Coercion was not part of His message at all. He told us to give freely of what we own. …And we are to regard everything we own in its proper light — as a blessing from Our Father, who can take all these things from us if we use them for evil. So — although I too agree that the Bible is far more in harmony with free market economics — we are still under obligation to use what we have as God wishes us to (I’ve no doubt that I’m preaching to the converted, here). Private ownership is pretty ugly without private charity: if we used our wealth to help others as God intended us to, then coercive utopians would have a much harder job trying to sell their ideology. However, the fact that our light doesn’t always shine brightly before men does not mean that we need to throw out moral and economic conservatism itself in favour of some grand design which promises to “tackle poverty” by force…

    If we look at the rich man & Lazarus, the message is plain — anyone blessed with wealth is expected by God to use it to help the poor and afflicted. Those who disregard the suffering of others whilst piling up their own earthly treasure will ultimately regret it bitterly: The Bible makes this abundantly clear. However, God also knows that the poor are themselves fallen creatures, just like the rich, and that The Tempter will cause them to covet and urge them to steal the things they lack; spurring them to the deed by filling them with thoughts of self-righteous indignation — and then providing them with a specious justification for their wrongdoing. Socialism is simply this picture made respectable and enshrined in human law: if enough of us agree that the guy over there has too much money, then we can get together and vote it out of his pockets and into ours. Many these days question the value of the 10th Commandment, some suggesting that it’s little more than a bit of filler to round up the numbers, and some actually repudiating it for its hindrance to “social justice”. But God knows exactly how we fall, and the terrible cost of that fall! The 10th Commandment pre-empts the 8th (and the 7th, for that matter), and, if observed, prevents demagogues from whipping up resentment and strife.

    The Bible is tells us that the poor are blessed in Jesus’ eyes and, moreover, that it’s easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God. If we are rich, Scripture places a great burden upon us; if we are poor, Scripture gives us sustenance and comfort. Luke 6 has a truly radical message for the poor and downtrodden — and it’s pretty much the opposite of socialism (or capitalism, for that matter). Whether we find life hard or easy, we are to look for the coming Kingdom, put our faith in God, and do what He asks of us. Demanding the money of others as “our right” just isn’t Scriptural. …That’s why the attacks on The Bible come predominantly from the Left: Scripture is the most colossal stumbling block for the socialist programme. And that’s why we’ve got such an explosion of revisionist books about “the real Jesus”.

16. Ewan
    August 4th, 2008 @ 12:39 am

    Indeed, very well said Paul. In my experience, the term “social justice” when used by the left is their code phrase for socialism.

    The parable of the good Samaritan is relevant too. The good Samaritan did not tell the beaten up man to “wait here while I go and lobby the Roman government to introduce a welfare state so that you can get some help.” No, he took on the responsibility himself and used his own resources in helping the man. Something that the left rarely does.

17. Paul
    August 4th, 2008 @ 6:06 am

    “… he … used his own resources in helping the man. Something that the left rarely does.”

    The temptation to ensure that one doesn’t bear alone the cost of one’s altruism is, for many, too strong. …And succumbing to it is often seen as a virtue these days. Point this out to the world and be hated.

Leave a Reply