I reflected on an hour and a half conversation I had with my boss this afternoon and finally realized the problem.  The problem is that just about every word out of his mouth sounded like it came from an episode of Oprah.  Ultimately my leaders (using the term loosely) are trying to make me get in touch with my inner consciousness and become more “self aware”.  Their intent is a noble one to conform me into the image of what they think is a better person.  I don’t think either of the two owners have negative reason for what they do. HOWEVER,  at its core this is a rejection of Christ and His principles and that is simply not acceptable.  This is really the problem with businesses that lose their goal of delivering products and services to customers and replace them with the desire to make ”better people”.  Ultimately doing this removes the diversity from business which makes it whitewashed and ineffective because the person doing the coaching may have a different world view than those they coach. Without each party gaining common ground and a recognization of who their ultimate authority is, the endeavor is sure to fail. The business loses focus when people push back on questionable world view issues and this turns the business into something it was never indented to be.  This goes for Christian business as well.  Your world view should permeate your character, it should not be your motive for business.  One should not expect to be fired from my business if they don’t accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior.  If I made this a requirement, I would be sued out of existence yet it is okay if you are a Materialist, Buddhist, Zoroastrian (the world view of choice in business books these days).  If your desire is to change people’s character I suggest you start a church not a business!  I am not advocating leaving your faith at the door when you go to work.  I am simply stating that one’s faith is who you are and when you go to work you continue to be a Christian.  The key here is that if you start a business it should be to make money.  There is really no other reason to do so.  The core values of your business should be the values that align with your world view.  It can be no other way.  If I start a business and am the “lead buffalo”, the core values will be my own. If I try to reject my world view when developing core values, people will see through them and reject them for being inconsistent. In the case of the owners of my company, they are starting with the premise that they will turn people into them (or make them follow their world view) and then it’s about running a business that makes money.  Because the owners have the wrong motives, the employees (including myself) reject them as leaders because they have done nothing to earn respect.  In other words the employees did not sign up for a lesson in character but a desire to make a living, support their family, give to their church or better themselves as individuals.  If the owners would show the character in business consistent with their world view they may be able to respectively reach people and make positive changes (at least in their minds).

Just a thought…

Simply put weather we choose to recognize it or not, we are either inconsistent in stating that drugs are a sin yet we take them when we need them, or we have little to no case against the use of drugs of any kind. In other words. Drugs are either an objective moral sin against God or they are not. I believe we create a mess for ourselves if we state that drugs are an objective moral sin. It seems to me the issue falls better into the world of situational ethics. Drugs are wrong sometimes and not wrong other times. This concept is true weather you have a perscription or not. If you take Vicodin and abuse it (which parallels my past) it is wrong – prescription or not. God’s law is simply not dependent on the word of a mere man no matter if the man has gone to medical school or not. To think otherwise is simply absurd and trivializes God and his ability to create all things with a good and holy purpose. It should not be a surprise to us that sinful humans abuse holy things. Look at sex for instance. God created it good yet we abuse it all the time. Our abuse of sex doesn’t make sex is a sin – does it?

Lastly, one must seek ones conscience when it comes to this issue. For me, taking medication of any kind is fine if my intent is good and upstanding. This includes drugs like Marijuana (in the states that allow it). If you feel differently, then you should abstain from taking it, Just keep in mind that your conscience is to be YOUR guide and not the guide of others. Many of us take our personal feelings about things like drugs and alcohol and make them objective laws for all people. Try to keep that stuff to a minimum – that’s why people think we are a bunch of nut jobs who judge others. Christianity is about the grace of God, not about the things we are not supposed to do. Look to Paul as an example of the liberty we find in Christ and focus on that. Let God change the heart of His creation.

Give this some thought…

—-

Is the absence of a morale compass which guides right and wrong behavior, bankrupting our society?  Does morality come from an outside force, or does it come from within us?  In other words, is their an objective set of rules governing our behavior of right and wrong decisions or does morality come from our personal preferences?  In think the answer is “yes” to the above question.  Most of us feel a sense of right and wrong because we just feel it.  It’s like we feel pain.  No one had to teach it to us, we just know it’s there when we experience it.  However, when it suits our best interest, we fall back on our human character and change objective morality to subjective morality.  We find convenient ways to that might not be acceptable to our own sense of right and wrong by changing moral issues to benign issues that sidestep morality.

Let’s look at a morale rule.  Is torturing and murdering an innocent child ever acceptable?  Would there ever be an instance where one could justify such behavior?  If you don’t feel that this type of behavior under any circumstance is morally reprehensible, then I’d advise you to seek help.  There is no middle ground on this moral rule.  It’s simply not acceptable and I believe you wouldn’t find anyone, who’s not crazy, who wouldn’t agree with it.  If it’s morally unacceptable to every kill an innocent child, how is it acceptable for a woman to have an abortion?  From the perspective of those who have been able to morally justify abortion, they’ve dehumanized the unborn baby to a fetus, that they’ve determined is not alive and therefore it is not murder.    It is interesting to note however, that if these non-human fetus’s were left alone, they would turn into babies.  The question is “when”? To those who favor abortion, its when the child either leaves the womb or the arbitrary deadline set in the law.  To those who feel life begins at conception, abortion is considered an act of murder.  Both groups generally feel murdering of an innocent child is immoral. Those who believe abortion is a woman’s right to choose, say abortion is the “Law of the Land” therefore, it must be OK, justified, and moral.   Therefore, the act of murder, equally abhorrent to both sides, has be replaced by the expression, “the right to choose.”

A question does arise as a result of redefining when life begins, the law of the land, and choice.  Does the law of the land decide what is and isn’t moral?  The law seems to have totally confused the issue of when life begins.  If a pregnant woman is brutally murdered and her unborn child is pronounced dead as a result of taking the mother’s life, how many murders have occurred, according to the law?  The general answer according to the majority of the states, is 2, the life of the mother and the unborn child.  So, if two murders occur, that must mean that the fetus is viable when it is taken by someone other than the mother.  Therefore, murder of an unborn child is morally reprehensible when a 3rd party does it, but not when the child’s own mother decides to have it done.  When stated in this way, does it seem morally correct for a mother to choose to abort her pregnancy because it’s better for her life and convenient for her current circumstances?  Does her right to choose bypass what’s right? Likewise, would it be equally morally wrong for 20 people to stand around watching and taking no action against the killer when he brutally murders the mother and therefore kills the unborn child?  While they may not be guilty of a crime, I don’t think anyone would say their inaction was anything but immoral.  There’s just something inside us that makes this type inaction wrong.  We feel it just like we feel pain.  It’s just there and we know it.  If watching an innocent person being murdered and just letting it happen is not illegal, does the law of the land determine what’s truly right or wrong?  It was legal for the Germans to take the property of the Jews, enslave them, beat them, then exterminate them.  Was it morally correct?  We just know that it wasn’t, because it’s just there inside of us.  What we do know, is that it was a matter of personal preference to commit these atrocities against the Jews.  But, it was justifiable to the Germans to rid the Jews from this earth because they weren’t pure.  Those who participated, took the stance that it must be OK because their culture accepted it.  When a woman chooses to abort her child, do you think she does it without feeling guilt? Do you think that she feels something in the back of her mind that says, this might not be morally right? Or, does she simply think that It’s OK because the Law says so?

I’m not God, so he is the only one who determines what is and isn’t morally correct.  Something tells me that he’s not thinking abortion is a right of choice, but an act of murder.  Of course, without a moral base from which to start, the acts will continue despite what’s truly right or wrong.

I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people—for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time. And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles.

The most obvious issue with this passage is that this passage is in no way a prescription for salvation. Many try to read this passage as though it is God’s decree to save all men and though most would not take this conclusion to the fullest, which would be universalism, they still see the words of Timothy “Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people” as a perception for the atonement. In order to blend the concept of Jesus being in control of whom he chooses for salvation (the elect) with the concept of Jesus dieing for “all men” one must take the position of unlimited, limited atonement. In other words, Jesus died for everyone’s sins, but his death was only sufficient for the elect. The problem with this rendering is that if the atonement means that mankind becomes sinless in God eyes, because Jesus is the intercessor for sin, then God looks at all men as being sinless. So by what standard is God left with in judging His creation? Certainly it would no longer be their actions as we all remain equal in the eyes of God. The position remaining is double predestination where God becomes a cosmic bully and sends some to hell (even though He sees them as sinless) and sends other to heaven.

If one renders this passage as a description of the power of the cross and not as a prescription of what happened on the cross, then the passage makes perfect sense. The power of the cross is the only thing necessary to save all men. Nothing other then the cross can have this power and though Jesus only atoned for the elect and thus everyone else is judged based on their individual sin, it doesn’t take away from the power of the cross to defeat sin, no matter how many people actually benefit from it.

Looking at 1 Timothy 1, we see a glance into why Paul might have uttered these words especially when we blend them with his closing statements in 1 Timothy 4. In 1 Timothy 1 Paul states:

Timothy, my son, I am giving you this command in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by recalling them you may fight the battle well, holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith. Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.

In 1 Timothy 1 we see that Timothy was having to deal with some individuals who were preaching something “other than the faith”. Is it possible that these men were teaching some sort of ulterior method salvation? Were they teaching some exclusive method of looking good in the eyes of God? Perhaps they were teaching Gnosticism’s concept of secret knowledge. This is all speculation, but when we consider the worlds of Paul in 1 Timothy 4, we see that my speculations are not without merit. In 1 Timothy 4 where Paul states:

The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer. If you point these things out to the brothers and sisters,you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed. Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives’ tales; rather, train yourself to be godly

It becomes apparent that Paul is addressing specifics in his letter to Timothy and among these specifics were people teaching that salvation is for certain kinds of people. Those who eat certain kinds of food and have certain kind of marital (or lack there of) relationships and follow certain kinds of wives tales.

In conclusion, there are two clues as to what Paul intends in his writing to Timothy. First he is demonstrating the power of the cross and the only method by which one becomes saved. There are no other methods by which anyone in the entire world can become saved. Second, Paul is addressing people, perhaps church leaders (hence the desire for Paul to describe what good church leaders look like) who are teaching that salvation is exclusive based on works, and adherence to wives tales and spiritual laws. Rendering this passage by any other means creates a theological mess and a completely unnecessary system called unlimited, limited atonement.

School of Fish is an apologetics ministry of Missio Dei Church in Fort Collins, Colorado

I will talk specifics in later posts, but I will add his complete inability to separate old earth theology from evolution as he groups entire groups of Christians into the category evolutionists. Though I personally have old earth leanings, I adamantly reject evolution. This is apparently not an option in Hovind’s theology. The most glaring examples of Hovind’s ignorance stem from his desire to set up straw man arguments and then knock them down with no regard for the answers that the evolutionists might give. Additionally he seldom answers objections but instead makes some witty comment that is used to display that the evolutionists is stupid and he is smart.

It pains me to be lumped into the same group as this man and I pray that my opponents do not get ahold of this embarrassing display of apologetics.

My wife cautions me to speak the truth in love. Speaking anything other than the way I have in this post would not be speaking love to those who need Christ the most. It is just that bad.

“God created the entire universe out of nothing; it was originally very good; and He created it to glorify Himself“

In principle I can’t agree more, however the word “originally”  bugs me.  Are we to suppose that it is no longer very good?  Many would say that the world ceased to be very good when man introduced sin into the equation and so men, not God are responsible for the world no longer being very good.  This is certainly a plausable and streight forward explanation (though I question a sovereign God in this) and I realize that an accurate presentation of the gospel relies upon people realizing that the world is outside of God’s intended plan for humanity, but is this what God intended when He uttered those words in the Beginning?

A quick exegesis of Grudem’s actual quote shows a logical contradiction within it.  Grudem himself states the very accurate purpose for God creating man.  He created man to “glorify Himself”. Man was created for no other purpose than the glory of God! However, Grudem would never state that God is no longer able to glorify Himself because man fell even though this is the logical response to his quote.  So God’s glorification is not dependent upon man acting obediently.  His glory is more apparent because of our lack of obedience.  Roman’s 9 states:

14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

It seems that God was well aware of man’s fall prior to creation and, as Romans 9 makes clear, He chooses some for glory and others for destruction.  He does so that we can truly understand His attributes of mercy, justice, love, etc.  Had man not fallen, we would not have an accurate picture of who God is.  When God utters the words, “Very Good” He does so with a complete picture of humanity and within these circumstances, He chose to create and use the rebellion of His creation to give us a more complete picture of Himself so that we might better glorify Him.  When we see the fall of man and state that the world is no longer “very good”, we do so from an anthropocentric (human) prescriptive.  When God uttered those words, He did so with His complete knowledge of how to maximize His glory.

A logical jump from my argument is to blame God for the creation of sin and thus making Him to blame for our behavior.  I caution you from making this jump.  First and foremost, shifting the responsibility of sin to God creates a mish-mash of theology.  We, humanity, are held accountable for our actions and we are punished by our sin.  Even though man was given a fallen nature after the fall of Adam and Eve, we are individually punished (apart from Christ) for our individual sin.  Just because God chooses to act on behalf of some does not obligate Him to act on behalf of everyone.  God needn’t do anything to “predestine” some for destruction. thinking otherwise creates a heresy called equal ultimacy or double predestination.   Our nature is all it takes for us to face the final judgement.  Because God calls some for glory and not others does not mean that God authored sin.  In fact, God did not author sin or goodness, goodness is God’s very nature and just as we cannot act outside of our nature (or it would cease to be our nature) so too God cannot act outside of His.  God simply has to give us an understanding of His attributes, His nature, for us to understand how separated we are from Him and that perfection is not attainable apart from Christ.  God need not author sin in order to use it for His glory.  In fact my argument is that God is dependent upon sin to display His glory to creatures with a sin nature.  It is a necessary contrast.  Keep in mind, He has no obligation to display His glory, nor did He have obligation to create at all, but He did create and He uses the fall of man to create a perfect situation where He displays His glory completely.  This is why He uttered the word “It is very good” and why we can rest assured that though man is sinful, God remains Holy and He is still in control for His creation.  The world remains “very good.” from God’s perspective because His sovereign plan will come to pass Independent of us.

Most commonly, the advice given about dealing with a numb skull leader at work is to be in submission to their authority.  These  people usually quote two proof texts to provide “teeth” for their argument.  These texts are Hebrews 13:17 and Romans 13:1-7.  I think it might be helpful to take a look at these passages and see if they give us guidance with dealing with a bad boss.

Hebrews 13:17 states:

(17) “Obey your leaders and submit to the, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. “

Most certainly this verse is teaching submission, but the context of the passage does not allow us to extrapolate submission to anyone who is in a leadership role over us.  The passage is speaking specifically of spiritual leaders who are “keeping watch over your souls”.  Additionally, if we move up the page a bit we see that the author of Hebrews defines this even clearer when he states in verse 7:

“Remember your leaders who spoke to you the word of God”

That best we can say about Hebrews in context to a bad boss is, if you work for a spiritual leader, you should submit.  If you work for MacDonald’s, or IrreliTek, or anyone else for that matter, the issue is not being resolved by these versus.

Like Hebrews, Romans 13:1-7 is another proof text for submission.  This verse is a little more “muddy” than the last because it is speaking of those who govern.  Romans states:

(1)  Every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those which exist are established by God”

There it is, clear as day!  Your boss governs over you and thus you should submit because God put them in power over you. Is this verse really telling us to be in submission to our bosses?  Certainly not, the passage is speaking directly of your government.  Paul clears the context up when he provides examples of submissive activities later on down the page.  He writes in verse 6:

(6) “This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.”

This verse too gives us little help in deciding how we are to deal with the tyrant of a boss we might have (or likely will have at some point in our lives).  So how are we to handle issues in the workplace?

Unfortunately, the answer is simple, but buying my answer requires that the reader understand a very important principle that has unfortunately nearly completely disappeared from the Christian thinking.   For many (if not most) Christians they have created an imaginary line between their Christian lives and their work lives.  How often I have heard “it’s just business” escape the lips of a Christian brother.   It is important that we understand that we do not cease to be a Christian when we go to work.  We are not atheists on the job and Christians when we clock out.  We are always Christians and as such the love of Christ and our heightened conscience given to us by the Holy Spirit should guide our path when dealing with ugly issues.    In some cases submission is what’s best, no doubt about it.  In other cases, it’s not.  We all believe this to some level.  No one thinks it right to submit to your authority at work if he or she is stealing money or creating an unsafe work environment.  Certainly submission is not always appropriate.  Think about it this way, if we just lived the principles spelled out in the Bible, a great majority of problems in the workplace would go away.  Pride, arrogance, gossip, and boasting are all forbidden biblically, yet how many times do these lead to a poor work environments?  Many times from the actions of Christians.

So my advice is quite simple. There is no verse in the bible that tells you how to act at the workplace or how to deal with conflict with a crappy boss.  The entire bible deals with it!  The bible is simply a story of creation, fall, redemption and restoration and though we are redeemed as Christians we still live in a fallen world. We should not expect that those in rebellion to the creator are going to live up Christ’s standard.  Remember you don’t cease to be a Christian when you go to work and the rebellious don’t cease to be rebellious when they clock in either. We will always have conflict until the world is restored back to its intended goodness, and until then we are called to strive to be more like Christ.  Therefore the best we can ever do is to preach the gospel to ourselves daily and live in obedience and submission to Christ.  Let Him be responsible for the jerk you call a boss.

Oh yeah on last point, you can always quit!

I can’t say that anything surprised me.  The Jew and Christian agreed on moral aspects of religion and the Pagan and Unitarian agreed on the subjectivity of morality and embraced relativism.  Not a shocker there. The one thing that was very clear to me is that, which the exception of the Jew, the other panel members have been deeply wounded by Christians.  This was most apparent from the Unitarian who continually stated that he embraces his world view because of his liberal politics and the genocide of different “faith traditions” that do not read the bible with “cultural sensitivity”.  What he means be this is Christians have made truth claims that do not align with his liberal socio-political agenda so he found a “customized” religion that does.  He believes, for instance, that homosexual marriage is a good thing and since Christians disagree he is against it.  Interestingly he didn’t seem to have a problem with the Jew stating basically the same thing.  I can appreciate his sentiment, but creating a customized God and customized religion base on man-made politics and arrogant responses to Biblical truth by fallible man can be a fatal mistake.

The thing that resonates with me is the concept of “cultural sensitivity”.   I CAN’T AGREE MORE WITH HIM!   Christians do need to be culturally sensitive and holding up signs that say “God Hates Fags” does way more damage than good.  HOWEVER, the question is, do we change the Bible to be more culturally sensitive? Making such a claim misses the point of the Bible in the first place.  The Bible is about God’s plan to redeem humanity from Sin.  It is not a rule book per se’.  It certainly contains rules and guideline for better living, but since God does the redeeming, it really make no difference if we are gay or straight.  He can redeem us no matter what our sexual orientation.    We don’t follow the rules to get closer to God, we follow the rules in obedience to Jesus Christ.  We start following the rules after conversion, yet even in our converted state we do it less than perfectly to say the least.  So we should not be surprised that people living in rebellion to the creator embrace sexual sin.  Nor should we be surprised that Christins do the same thing!  We are broken creatures that desperately need a savior.   So we should absolutely be culturally sensitive, but changing the Bible to suite 2010 is not the way to do it.  Instead we must recognize that we all need a savior – the timeless message of the bible. By changing our methods to engage those who are lost and desperately need a better path is certainly been the motives of Christian throughout time. No one would ever assume that doing exactly the same thing in 2010 that were done in 1000AD would be an effective idea.   However we need to trust that God will complete his plan.

One last thing.  It is not our liberty to change how God feels about sin.  The fact that people sin should be surprise us, nor should it keep us from engaging people who are in sin (all of us).  What we should not do is change how God thinks about sin.  Ultimately another’s sin has nothing to do with me, it’s a crime against the creator and it is up to Him to determine what he likes and dislikes.

First and foremost, bankruptcy and foreclosure are NOT the same thing and cannot be used as parallel examples. The issues of foreclosure is not an issue of sin at all. When signing a contract for a house, the contract gives you two options. Pay the mortgage on time and receive the deed to your house after the agree upon payments are fulfilled or stop paying and forfeit the home to the bank and lose all your principle and mortgage payments. So principally, a Christian that stops paying on a house is just executing the foreclosure terms of the contract. They aren’t doing anything wrong at all. They are still living up to their promise. Put your mind at ease. Foreclosing on your home for any reason, even lack of equity is your right and you should NOT feel guilty for doing so. Of course there are consequences for foreclosing and you shouldn’t take the matter lightly either.

What about bankruptcy. I must admit this topic is a little harder to explain. First we must determine if it is indeed a sin – a moral crime against God – to claim bankruptcy. To determine a sin, an action must always be morally wrong for anyone in any given situation. Does bankruptcy meet this definition? I don’t think so. For instance, what if by no fault of your own, you are hit head on by a drunk driver. The drunk doesn’t have insurance and you spend 2 months in the hospital recovering? The hospital bills run you a half a million dollars and the hospital wants payment now. Is it wrong in this situation to claim bankruptcy? If you say “no” to this question then we are not dealing with a moral crime but a different category of action called “situational ethics”. Most things that may appear to be moral crimes against God actually better fit into this category. A situational ethic is exactly as it sounds. It may be right and may be wrong depending on the situation. A classic example of this is the question “Is it wrong to push an old lady?” On the surface, it seems like an easy answer, but what if the old lady was about to get hit by a bus? If the old lady was about to die and you pushing her saved her life, then it wouldn’t be wrong at all.. In fact, you would be a hero!

In many cases there are sin issues surrounding bankruptcy. Most commonly the issue is covetousness and idolatry. A love of money and a love for other people’s stuff. These sin issues need to be dealt with regardless of you claiming bankruptcy. The question is do you exercise the government’s use of grace and forgiveness of ones debt and pray that the person who needs the grace deals with the actual moral crimes of covetousness and idolatry, or do you continue to keep them in debt with no chance to learn for their mistakes. To me it seems like an easy answer. Get pastoral counsel in dealing with the sin issues and if absolutely necessary go with grace. It seems to me that bankruptcy is not and never has been the problem, so as leaders, we need to focus on the problem of idolatry, not bankruptcy. However, it is much easier for churches to legalisticlly focus on the symptom and ignore the disease. I had a pastor tell me once that he will never marry a Non-Christian couple that is living in sin. I said “why”. He said living in sin is against God’s law and he doesn’t want to condone it. I stated “It seems to me that marrying them would be the best way to get them out of sin!”. This pastor was focused on his principles so tightly that he didn’t see the big picture. The big picture with bankruptcy is that as elders and leaders of churches we are doing basically nothing to bring the gospel to peoples finances. We are feeding our flock with spiritual advice but ignoring practical advice in the mean time. People are feeling guilty with not living up to their responsibilities but have no problem buying that big screen TV they can’t afford. Debt is one of the most dangerous things we can do as Christians. Obviously Jesus thought so, he covered money problems more then most topics in the Bible. Why? Because money, though necessary for all, is also the best way to drive a wedge between God and His Children. More marriages end over finances then anything else. Financial issues are a leading cause of suicide and certainly most stress is from trying to keep up with the Jones’ than not. All of these are gospel issues. We need to start preaching the gospel to ourselves daily and when we do, bankruptcy will become a thing of the past. So the sin is not bankruptcy, the sin is not living for the gospel and until we do we will always be dealing with these situations.

One last thing. According to the New York Times from Sunday October 31^st, 2010, 67.1% of all bankruptcies are medical related. So my example is not far fetched.

QUESTION

Where can I find primary source documents that talk about Jesus’ life and work -besides- the bible? The Roman’s were a remarkably well documented society, and despite my Googling, I haven’t been able to find any. There have to be some out there!

ANSWER

There are many primary source documents that refer to Jesus of Nazareth from antiquity. In fact we have 13 mentions (non-spiritual sources) of Jesus from antiquity. This is 3 times as many as Cesar and for this reason, not a single academic scholar in history rejects Jesus as a real person. This includes those who don’t not believe that Jesus was God. In an effort of intellectual honesty, a historian must realize that we have more evidence for the existence of Jesus than any other man from antiquity. However, this question refers to Jesus’ “work” and this is a more difficult question to answer since the questioner put a limitation on the works that I can use by eliminating those works that were compiled into the Bible in the 3^rd century. The problem arises from the fact that those historical documents that speak of Jesus’ supernatural works were compiled into the Bible because that was the very point OF the Bible. If someone saw Jesus’ works and wrote a book about it it was canonized into a series which we now call the Bible. So really before we can even touch this question, we must show that the Bible is a reliable and accurate account of the life of Jesus. If it is, then the evidence therein should be seen as just as important as another document source. I completed a series 8 months ago called “Is the Bible Bogus” where I make a case for the accuracy of the Biblical text. If you search on YouTube by that title, you will see the 7 part series. In general, people reject the biblical account not based on the accuracy of the accounts but because of a bias against supernatural causes. If this is a case with the person writing this question, I suggest you pretend for a minute that supernatural things can indeed happen and then analyze the events in the Bible. I I think you will come to a notably different conclusion.

Additionally, I think we need to look at the context and the history of the authors of the Bible. They were devout people who received no benefit for providing their accounts.

Mark – The historian for Peter the apostle. Peter was a loyal Jew who would be socially ostracized and eventually killed for this faith.

Mathew – A Jew who wrote his gospel to the Jews and shows the Jews how Jesus fulfilled Jewish prophecy.

Luke – Luke wrote his gospel as a historical account of Jesus’ life. It seems that he was commissioned to do so as he is writing the letter to a person (Theophilus). His gospel was most likely written in Rome. He also wrote the book of Acts.

John – A loyal Jew and eyewitness to the account. His is the only gospel actually written by an apostle. Though the others were account from the apostles.

Note that each of these accounts are individual and are a compilation of eyewitness testimonies. This is the same thing we would do when compiling history today.

So what evidence do we have outside of the Bible for Jesus? There are tons of sources that account for Jesus in history. I have listed several sources that historians use to determine who Jesus is. Keep in mind that many of these writing were within a few years of Jesus’ death and it is highly unlikely that they are inaccurate. If these accounts are inaccurate, then we can’t believe anything from history. Googling should have produced these quotes, so I suspect there is more to this question than meets the eye. I suspect you are looking for an account of Jesus’ supernatural events outside of the Bible. Logically speaking this is impossible as the Bible is the compilation of these events. Those books that speak of his supernatural events were included in the cannon. However, I have included several non-canonical accounts from the early Gnostic’s, as well as quotes from the early church fathers. These are not canonized accounts. Not because they don’t utter some truth but because they cannot be traced back to the apostles or they have redundancy with the canonized accounts (The church fathers, for instance were quoting the biblical accounts). Those books the are in the Bible have a direct linage to the apostles themselves and for this reason are considered the most accurate. Other non-canonized books have some theological difficulties or philosophical bias. This is especially true of the Gnostic gospels where they believed that Jesus was not a physical being. This of course, does not mean that Jesus did not exist, just that they came to a conclusion of who he that is in direct conflict with the eyewitness accounts. Other books were not canonized because they were never considered inspired by God. The book of Enoch is a prime example of this. It was considered a spiritual work by the early Christians, but because it was falsely attributed to Enoch, it was rejected as inspired.

EXTRAL BIBLICAL ACCOUNTS OF JESUS

Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD), “the greatest historian” of ancient Rome:

“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man’s cruelty, that they were being destroyed.”

Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), court historian for Emperor Vespasian:

“At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.” (Arabic translation)

Julius Africanus, writing around 221 AD

“Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun–unreasonably, as it seems to me.” [A solar eclipse could not take place during a full moon, as was the case during Passover season.]

Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 112 AD:

“[The Christians] were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food–but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.” Pliny added that Christianity attracted persons of all societal ranks, all ages, both sexes, and from both the city and the country. Late in his letter to Emperor Trajan, Pliny refers to the teachings of Jesus and his followers as excessive and contagious superstition.

Emperor Trajan, in reply to Pliny:

“The method you have pursued, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those denounced to you as Christians is extremely proper. It is not possible to lay down any general rule which can be applied as the fixed standard in all cases of this nature. No search should be made for these people; when they are denounced and found guilty they must be punished; with the restriction, however, that when the party denies himself to be a Christian, and shall give proof that he is not (that is, by adoring our gods) he shall be pardoned on the ground of repentance, even though he may have formerly incurred suspicion. Informations without the accuser’s name subscribed must not be admitted in evidence against anyone, as it is introducing a very dangerous precedent, and by no means agreeable to the spirit of the age.”

Emporer Hadrian (117-138 AD), in a letter to Minucius Fundanus, the Asian proconsul:

“I do not wish, therefore, that the matter should be passed by without examination, so that these men may neither be harassed, nor opportunity of malicious proceedings be offered to informers. If, therefore, the provincials can clearly evince their charges against the Christians, so as to answer before the tribunal, let them pursue this course only, but not by mere petitions, and mere outcries against the Christians. For it is far more proper, if anyone would bring an accusation, that you should examine it.” Hadrian further explained that if Christians were found guilty they should be judged “according to the heinousness of the crime.” If the accusers were only slandering the believers, then those who inaccurately made the charges were to be punished.

The Jewish Talmud, compiled between 70 and 200 AD:

“On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.’ But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.”

[Another early reference in the Talmud speaks of five of Jesus's disciples and recounts their standing before judges who make individual decisions about each one, deciding that they should be executed. However, no actual deaths are recorded.]

Lucian, a second century Greek satirist:

“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day–the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. … You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.” Lucian also reported that the Christians had “sacred writings” which were frequently read. When something affected them, “they spare no trouble, no expense.”

Mara Bar-Serapion, of Syria, writing between 70 and 200 AD from prison to motivate his son to emulate wise teachers of the past:

“What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burying Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given.”

The Gospel of Truth, probably by Valentius, around 135-160 AD:

“For when they had seen him and had heard him, he granted them to taste him and to smell him and to touch the beloved Son. When he had appeared instructing them about the Father. … For he came by means of fleshly appearance.” Other passages affirm that the Son of God came in the flesh and “the Word came into the midst. … it became a body.”

“Jesus, was patient in accepting sufferings. . . since he knows that his death is life for many. . . . he was nailed to a tree; he published the edict of the Father on the cross. … He draws himself down to death through life. … eternal clothes him. Having stripped himself of the perishable rags, he put on imperishability, which no one can possibly take away from him.”

The Aprocryphon of John, probably by Saturninus, around 120-130 AD:

“It happened one day when John, the brother of James,–who are the sons of Zebedee–went up and came to the temple, that a Pharisee named Arimanius approached him and said to him, `Where is your master whom you followed?’ And he said to him, ‘He has gone to the place from which he came.’ The Pharisee said to him, ‘This Nazarene deceived you with deception and filled your ears with lies and closed your hearts and turned you from the traditions of your fathers.’”

The Treatise On Resurrection, by uncertain author of the late second century, to Rheginos:

“The Lord … existed in flesh and … revealed himself as Son of God … Now the Son of God, Rheginos, was Son of Man. He embraced them both, possessing the humanity and the divinity, so that on the one hand he might vanquish death through his being Son of God, and that on the other through the Son of Man the restoration to the Pleroma might occur; because he was originally from above, a seed of the Truth, before this structure of the cosmos had come into being.”

“For we have known the Son of Man, and we have believed that he rose from among the dead. This is he of whom we say, ‘He became the destruction of death, as he is a great one in whom they believe.’ Great are those who believe.”

“The Savior swallowed up death. … He transformed himself into an imperishable Aeon and raised himself up, having swallowed the visible by the invisible, and he gave us the way of our immortality.”

“Do not think the resurrection is an illusion. It is no illusion, but it is truth. Indeed, it is more fitting to say that the world is an illusion, rather than the resurrection which has come into being through our Lord the Savior, Jesus Christ.”

“. . . already you have the resurrection … why not consider yourself as risen and already brought to this?” Rheginos was thus encouraged not to “continue as if you are to die.”

LOST WORKS QUOTED IN OTHER SOURCES

Acts of Pontius Pilate, reports sent from Pilate to Tiberius, referred to by Justin Martyr (150 AD):

“And the expression, ‘They pierced my hands and my feet,’ was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after he was crucified, they cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that these things did happen you can ascertain the ‘Acts’ of Pontius Pilate.” Later Justin lists several healing miracles and asserts, “And that He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.”

Phlegon, born about 80 AD, as reported by Origen (185-254 AD), mentioned that Jesus made certain predictions which had been fulfilled.

ANCIENT CHRISTIAN SOURCES

(extra-biblical)

Clement, elder of Rome, letter to the Corinthian church (95 AD):

“The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order. Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come. So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe.”

Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, letter to the Trallians (110-115 AD):

“Jesus Christ who was of the race of David, who was the Son of Mary, who was truly born and ate and drank, was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died in the sight of those in heaven and on earth and those under the earth; who moreover was truly raised from the dead, His Father having raised Him, who in the like fashion will so raise us also who believe on Him.”

Ignatius, letter to the Smyrneans (110-115 AD):

“He is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, but Son of God by the Divine will and power, truly born of a virgin and baptised by John that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him, truly nailed up in the flesh for our sakes under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch (of which fruit are we–that is, of his most blessed passion); that He might set up an ensign unto all ages through His resurrection.”

“For I know and believe that He was in the flesh even after the resurrection; and when He came to Peter and his company, He said to them, ‘Lay hold and handle me, and see that I am not a demon without body.’ And straightway they touched him, and they believed, being joined unto His flesh and His blood. Wherefore also they despised death, nay they were found superior to death. And after His resurrection He ate with them and drank with them.”

Ignatius, letter to the Magnesians (110-115 AD):

“Be ye fully persuaded concerning the birth and the passion and the resurrection, which took place in the time of the governorship of Pontius Pilate; for these things were truly and certainly done by Jesus Christ our hope.”

Quadratus, to Emperor Hadrian about 125 AD:

“The deeds of our Saviour were always before you, for they were true miracles; those that were healed, those that were raised from the dead, who were seen, not only when healed and when raised, but were always present. They remained living a long time, not only whilst our Lord was on earth, but likewise when He had left the earth. So that some of them have also lived to our own times.”

(Pseudo-)Barnabas, written 130-138 AD:

“He must needs be manifested in the flesh. … He preached teaching Israel and performing so many wonders and miracles, and He loved them exceedingly. … He chose His own apostles who were to proclaim His Gospel. … But He Himself desired so to suffer; for it was necessary for Him to suffer on a tree.”

Justin Martyr, to Emperor Antoninus Pius about 150 AD:

After referring to Jesus’s birth of a virgin in the town of Bethlehem, and that His physical line of descent came through the tribe of Judah and the family of Jesse, Justin wrote, “Now there is a village in the land of the Jews, thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judea.”

“Accordingly, after He was crucified, even all His acquaintances forsook Him, having denied Him; and afterwards, when He had risen from the dead and appeared to them, and had taught them to read the prophecies in which all these things were foretold as coming to pass, and when they had seen Him ascending into heaven, and had believed, and had received power sent thence by Him upon them, and went to every race of men, they taught these things, and were called apostles.”

Justin Martyr, in Dialogue with Trypho, around 150 AD:

“For at the time of His birth, Magi who came from Arabia worshipped Him, coming first to Herod, who then was sovereign in your land.”

“For when they crucified Him, driving in the nails, they pierced His hands and feet; and those who crucified Him parted His garments among themselves, each casting lots for what he chose to have, and receiving according to the decision of the lot.”

“Christ said amongst you that He would give the sign of Jonah, exhorting you to repent of your wicked deeds at least after He rose again from the dead … yet you not only have not repented, after you learned that He rose from the dead, but, as I said before, you have sent chosen and ordained men throughout all the world to proclaim that ‘a godless and lawless heresy had sprung from one Jesus, a Galilean deceiver, whom we crucified, but His disciples stole Him by night from the tomb, where He was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that He has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven.’”

“For indeed the Lord remained upon the tree almost until evening, and they buried Him at eventide; then on the third day He rose again.”