Projectionist start with TheJesusRant.wmv
In a few weeks Christians will celebrate an event that took place in history that changed history: The bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Not a spiritual resurrection, but a bodily resurrection.
Now, there are those who don't believe that. They think the resurrection of Jesus from the grave is legend; not fact. They do not believe that the Gospels present an accurate account of the events that took place on Friday April 3, 33 AD if we use modern dates.
How do we know that? Researchers are claiming to have discovered the exact date that Jesus Christ was crucified, according to a new geological study recently released in an academic journal.
The geological survey, published in the International Geology Review, suggests that Christ was crucified on Friday, April 3, in the year 33.
The year of Christ's crucifixion has been widely debated in religious and scholarly circles, but geologists now believe that their research points to the most likely year Jesus was put on the cross.
"The day and date of the crucifixion are known with a fair degree of precision. But the year has been in question," geologist Jefferson Williams told Discovery Channel News.
To uncover the date of the crucifixion the scientists studied seismic activity in the Dead Sea by examining three cores from the Ein Gedi Spa beach, which lies adjacent to the Dead Sea 13 miles from Jerusalem.
Scientists decided to look into the history of seismic activity in the region because Chapter 27 in the Gospel of Matthew says that an earthquake coincided with the crucifixion of Christ.
"And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open," the Gospel reads.
After analyzing seismic activity in the region along with astronomical data, the scientists factored in information from all four Gospels, and determined that the best match for the date of crucifixion would be Friday, April 3, 33.
Whether or not that is correct, you have to decide. But the interesting thing is that these scholars thought enough about the reports to go to all this effort. I am told that the crucifixion of Jesus is easily the most verified event in history. I find it interesting that scholars will accept the Gospel accounts when it comes to the death of Jesus, but want to question it when it comes to the resurrection of Jesus.
They question it because the resurrection defies all natural laws-it is a miracle and some people automatically reject anything they consider impossible. So, over the next few weeks, leading up to Easter which this year falls on April first, April Fool's day, we want to examine the life and teachings of this man Jesus and answer the question, "Just Who is this Jesus?" Let me quickly state that while liberal theologians of the late nineteenth century and early to mid-twentieth century questioned the very existence of Jesus of Nazareth, this is a question that has long been resolved -no scholar today questions the historicity of the man Jesus. We know He lived and we know he died-no one who has studied the issue questions that today; the only question among scholars today is Jesus' real identity. Do we accept the accounts of the eyewitnesses or do we seek to re-write history based on our modern bias rather than the facts as they present themselves? Andreas Köstenberger, senior research professor of New Testament and Biblical Theology at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, NC, states that "Virtually all scholars today believe that Jesus lived and died by Roman crucifixion." So, the fact that Jesus lived and died is not even a question modern scholars have. The issue skeptical scholars struggle with the claims over who Jesus was and is. If you follow the line of reasoning of the skeptical scholars you discover very quickly that their problem begins from their modern assumptions as they interpret that ancient reports. They are all too willing to accept as accurate those parts of the New Testament they agree with, but then dismiss as fable those parts that they have determined by their preconceived notions can't be real.
Let me try to illustrate what I am talking about. Back when I was working with delinquent young people, one of the common family dynamics was what psychologists called "the engagement-disengagement cycle." Put simply, the parents understood that their children were capable of bad behavior when they were with them, but they did not believe that their children were capable of bad behavior if the behavior took place outside of their direct sight. So, when Billy or Sally got in trouble at school, where the parent couldn't see them, the blame was never on Billy or Sally, but on the teacher. Billy and Sally would never misbehave; it had to be someone else! Now, they knew first-hand the nature of their Billy and Sally from their own observation, but what they knew of their child became very selective when they chose not to believe that Billy or Sally was capable of doing in public what they did in private.
Similarly, modern skeptical scholars seem to operate on an historical engagement-disengagement cycle when it comes to their interpretation of history. They are willing to accept those things they personally believe in, but unwilling to accept those things they can't believe in. This is very poor scholarship indeed.
The fact is that an increasing number of people today are by-passing the teachings of traditional Christianity and creating their own belief systems. We have a whole group of people who claim to love Jesus but hate His church and reject the doctrines that make up traditional Christianity.
When I was growing up, there was a song entitled, "Everybody's Dressing Up Jesus," and it talked about how people were beginning to define Jesus as they wanted Him defined. That is exactly what is happening today. People are rejecting beliefs that they feel are hopelessly outdated and creating a softer, gentler Jesus, a Jesus who is more broadminded and would never condemn anyone and certainly who would never use the concept of hell to scare anyone. And what many have today is their own custom-tailored concept of Jesus rather than the Jesus that is revealed in the pages of the New Testament. We cut and paste what we like and reject what we don't. The reigning philosophy of our day is postmodernism. Postmodernism is marked by a rejection of reason and an appeal to self-realization; truth is simply what we choose it to be. It is probably summed up best by a quote from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland, "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."-That is postmodernism. In this setting, The "real" Jesus has become whatever each individual wants Him to be. Who is to say that anyone's concept of Jesus is more valid than someone else's? Wouldn't that smack of the very kind of judgmentalism that Jesus Himself warned us about?
But, Jesus himself warned us that what we believe about Him has very real consequences. In fact, if what He said was true, it has consequences that go far beyond this life; consequences that will last for eternity. So we'd better get this right.
If you are here this morning and you don't believe what traditional Christianity says about Jesus or you are not sure what you believe, all I am going to ask you to do is to keep an open mind on this and follow the facts wherever they take us-even if it is a conclusion that challenges us on our deepest levels.
With this as background, we need to first consider who those who knew Jesus best considered Him to be. And when we start with Jesus, we have to start at the beginning. Skeptics tell us that the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke are stories concocted centuries after Jesus lived and were written to explain away the scandalous circumstances surrounding His birth. They claim that Mark, the earliest of the gospels, doesn't mention Jesus' birth because of those questionable circumstances, nor does John because he was Jesus' closest earthly confidant.
People who study ancient manuscripts tell us that Mark was written somewhere in 50's which puts it a mere 17 years after the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Actual dates give put it somewhere between 55-65 A.D. Well within the life-time of the eyewitnesses.
These same experts put Luke's gospel at 60 AD and Matthew's somewhere between 60-65 A.D. If you take a comment from Luke who wrote, "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us," (Luke 1:1, NIV), it is safe to assume that Mark's gospel was in fact already in circulation and probably Matthew's as well-so we have early dates for all three of these gospels, not one early and the other's centuries later as the critics claim. The reason critics make this claim of course is they know that a story of a virgin birth would not have been possible while the eyewitnesses were alive. The fact that these documents exist and that they were written this early in history, and the fact that until the 20th these writings were not seriously questioned by scholars, should give the modern thinker something he or she needs seriously to consider.
John is a different story. John was one of Jesus' inner circle. If you study the life of Jesus' earliest followers there were 120, then 72, then the 12 and then the inner 3-Peter, James and John. Of these three, the evidence of Scripture is that John was probably the person who was closest to Jesus as He walked this earth. John doesn't mention the birth of Jesus, he takes us back further than that.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1, NIV). With these words John takes us back to eternity past.
"In the beginning" takes us back to Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1, NIV). John is making a bold statement here. He has, in the opening passage of his Gospel taken us back not to Jesus' earthly beginnings but to the beginning of earth's history. Using this phrase "In the beginning" which would have been instantly recognized by his Jewish readers, he is going to place the man he knew as Jesus of Nazareth not as One who had His beginning at His birth but One who was the beginning of time itself. In fact, John is about to identify Jesus not only as man, but as God Himself. We believe that Jesus was and is the unique God-man.
One of the great crises among Christians today is our failure to understand the dual nature of Jesus Christ. When Jesus was born, He did not change from deity into humanity; from God to man. Many make the mistake of thinking that somehow the great eternal God suddenly stopped being God when He became man. That is not true. The Scriptures teach in general and this passage in John in particular that the divine person took upon Himself a human nature, but this does not mean He stopped being God. He did not. If He had ceased to be God even for a second, He could not have become our Savior. I don't understand how Jesus had two natures, but I know that, according to the Scriptures that He was one person with two natures.
Christians believe that Jesus is, truly man and truly God. Doctrinally we believe that that Jesus as being fully God and perfect humanity united without mixture, change, division or separation in one Person forever. We call this the Hypostatic union of Christ. We can distinguish his two natures but we can't separate them. The key elements of this description of Christ include "full Deity" (no diminution of any attribute of Deity), "Perfect humanity" ("perfect" rather than full in order to emphasize His sinlessness), "one person," (not two) and "forever" (for He continues to have a resurrected body).
Why does John say, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1, NIV)? Why doesn't he just say, "In the beginning was the Jesus, and the Jesus was with God, and the Jesus was God." (John 1:1, NIV)? Great question! I'm glad you asked.
Why did John begin his Gospel with the term "Word"? John's purpose was to identify from the beginning the identity of Jesus. In the context of his day John had to connect not only with Jews but with the thousands of Greeks who were coming to the faith. By choosing to identify Jesus as "the Word" John was in effect saying, "I am talking about God Himself here."
To the Jews, this term "The Word" meant the creative power of God Himself. To the Greeks, this term meant the reason and power of the universe. The Greeks, even with their pantheon of gods believed that there was behind all of it one reasoning power that held it all together and controlled it all. Their term from this ultimate power was "The Word."
By choosing to use this term, John irrefutably identifies the one of whom he writes to be more than mere man, to be more than a great moral teacher or another powerful prophet. By using this term John identifies Jesus as God. In doing so John refutes a heresy that was trying to rise in the early church. Gnosticism was a subtle blend of natural paganism and Christianity. Gnostics, while trying to gain acceptance within Christianity taught some very unchristian doctrines. Chief among them was their teaching that Jesus was a mere man who was controlled by a "heavenly Christ" who entered him upon his baptism. According to their heretical teachings this heavenly Christ departed from the man Jesus before he was crucified, thus they hold that only a man-not the God/man-died on the cross.
In our text, John is crystal clear: He is not saying Jesus is like God but rather that he is of the same essence as God.
Do I understand that? No. Do I believe it? Absolutely. I don't understand how electricity works, but that doesn't stop me from believing in electricity. I don't want you to misunderstand this. My faith is not something that I hold when my reason fails me. My faith is based upon my reason and is supported by that reason. Faith is not anti-intellectual. Faith, true faith, is something that I believe based upon my examination of the evidence. No one can go back into history and say that they are 100% sure that some historical event actually happened. Even though we managed to put men on the moon in 1969, there are still those who deny that event. They think we didn't have the technology back then to accomplish such a feat, and despite all the evidence, they deny the event. Based on the evidence, I accept that event by faith. Now you need to understand something, based upon their refusal to accept the evidence, the people who deny that event deny it based upon their faith, not based upon their intellect. You just need to understand that.
Similarly, as I evaluate all the information of history, I have come to believe that Jesus was more than a mere man-He was God in the flesh; God come looking for us. Charles Wesley said it well when he penned these words, "Veiled in flesh the God-head see; hail the incarnate Deity."
Why is this important to us? Because if Jesus is who the Gospel writers claimed Him to be if I persist in trying to remake Him after my own liking; after my own desires, I am on dangerous ground indeed. If what these early eyewitnesses report is true, and I believe that they are given the preponderance of the historical evidence-you have a decision to make. A decision that will impact your life now as well as a decision that will impact your life for all eternity.
It is important that you understand that, according to Jesus, there are in fact two eternal destinies. One we commonly call heaven, the other we call hell. Death is not automatic entry into heaven. Death is only automatic entry into eternity. What you do with Jesus determines whether that eternity will be spent in heaven with Him or in hell separated from Him.
Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6, NIV). Not one way among many. Not simply a way, but the only way. You and I don't get to call the shots on this one; we must decide whether what Jesus said is credible, that is, did He back up this claim by His life and actions? I believe that He did and that is what we are going to look at as we move toward Easter. I hope you'll not only stick with us for this series, but invite friends and family members who may be struggling with this issue.
This claim by Jesus, is an exclusive claim. Some people have a problem with that. The truth is always exclusive.
About a week ago, the doctor called me and told me that I had a growth that if left untreated would turn into cancer. He told me to come in, the very next day, and let him cut on me. I was not thrilled with the prospect-I've discovered that my one major allergy is to pain. Never-the-less, I did not argue with him, I didn't suggest that maybe there were other ways to deal with this. Maybe some less invasive, some less painful option. I didn't suggest for one minute that there must be other approaches we could take, I took the one approach that I knew would eventually save my life. Frankly, I was grateful that there was a way to deal with this and that was all that mattered to me. Same should be true of us spiritually.
But, not only is this claim by Jesus an exclusive claim, it is also an inclusive claim. It claims that anyone can come to the Father if they will only come through Him.
The story is told that during the waning years of the civil war, a man desired a meeting with President Lincoln so that he could ask him for a Presidential pardon for his brother. But he couldn't get in to see the President.
One day, standing outside of the White House dejected because he couldn't get in, a boy approached him and asked, "What's the matter, mister?" The man, looked at the boy and said, "I need to see President Lincoln but I can't get in." The boy responded, "Mister, will you walk with me?" and with that reached up and took the now bemused man's hand.
To the man's surprise however, the boy took him down the sidewalk around a corner and through the gate at the Whitehouse. The military guard didn't give them a second look. Then the boy took the now bewildered man to and through the door of the Whitehouse, again, unchallenged. The final surprise came when they came to the end of the hallway and the boy opened the door to the Oval Office and ushered the man in.
The President looked up from his desk, saw the man holding the boy's hand and said to the boy, "What do you want son?" The man, on his own, had no access to the President, but because of the son's relationship to the father, what the man couldn't get on his own, the son provided.
You and I have no access, no standing with the Holy God of the Universe, so the Son came down, took us by our hand and ushers us into the presence of the Father. You can either take that hand, or you can remain outside dejected. Only the hand of the Son, can get you through the gate. Everyone who comes to the Father, comes the same way. Jesus' claim to be that way is an inclusive claim that if you haven't accepted, I encourage you to do so now.
If you have accepted the Son already, I encourage you to remember that the access you enjoy is not because of who you are or what you've done, but because of who He is and what He has done. Follow the evidence. Decide for yourself where it points. Then, I pray you will take the Hand of the Son and find access to the Throne of the Universe.
Let me pray for us.
