test link

Check this out.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ: In the Beginnings

The first four books of the New Testament (NT) provide a remarkable record of the life of Jesus Christ. We should not call them “the four gospels”, because there is really only one Gospel, and what we have in our hands are four accounts of this one gospel. That is why we refer to them not as the gospel of Matthew, or the gospel of Mark, but the gospel according to Matthew, the gospel according to Mark, and so on. We have four views of the same event, each from a distinct vantage point.

Nowhere, perhaps, is this better seen than in the accounts of the birth of Christ.

One: Matthew.

Matthew’s gospel has preeminent place as the first gospel in the canonical ordering of the NT. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, church tradition tells us that Matthew was the first to write a gospel, and he did so in the Hebrew language. The gospel of Matthew that we have today is written in Greek. Secondly, Matthew is most concerned with the link between the Old covenant and the New, with the continuity and fulfillment of the Old Testament (OT) in the New; that is why we often read in Matthew’s gospel, “that it might be fulfilled as it was written in the prophets...”.

Matthew begins his gospel with a bang: “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham.” This wouldn’t mean much to a Gentile audience, but it would mean a lot to a Jewish one. The Jewish listener would understand that in referencing David, Jesus is of royal lineage. The Jewish listener would also know that God had promised the Jews that a Son of David would rule and reign over them from Jerusalem. A Jewish listener, or reader, would also know that it was promised to Abraham that from Abraham’s seed would come One by whom all the nations of the world would be blessed. So, Matthew packs a lot into the first sentence!

Matthew does not come right out and say that Jesus was born of a virgin. However, it is implicit in what he does say. When Matthew comes to Jesus' earthly father Joseph in his geneology, he is careful in his phrasing.He deliberately avoids the claim that Joseph was the father of Jesus. He puts it this way: “And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.”


Matthew’s account includes the story of the wise men coming from the East, King Herod inquiring of them, them giving Herod the slip, and Herod’s subsequent murderous rage. The gospel is not a saccarine account; it is realistic. Christ’s birth, and our redemption came at great cost at the hands of evil men.

Two: Mark.

Mark starts off all in a rush with a fully-adult Jesus ready to begin his public ministry; Mark was in a hurry to get on with telling the story to a Gentile audience, who would have been less interested in where Christ came from than in what he did. A Christmas service based on the book of Mark would be a very thin Christmas service -- no Mary and Joseph, no shepherds, no angels, no star, no wise men from the east bearing gifts of incense, frankincense, and myrhh. From Mark we simply get as an opening salvo: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.”

But look what is packed into this opening sentence: The name Jesus means “one who saves”; Christ means “anointed by God”, and, “chosen to rule”; and Son of God in this instance means exactly that -- the only-begotten Son of God. So, in Mark we’ve got the declaration of Jesus Christ, Saviour, Anointed One, Chosen to Rule, Son of God -- all in the first sentence!

Like Matthew, Mark does not explicitly address the virgin birth of Christ. However, like Matthew, it is implicit in what he does say.

Three: Luke.

After a four-verse dedication of his book, Luke begins as follows: “There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah.”

From this opening sentence we learn that what we are about to hear is not only gospel -- i.e., biographical narrative, it is also history. Luke oozes the sensibilities of an historian and this is reflected in the gospel that bears his name.

Luke perhaps had Matthew and Mark’s gospels in front of him when he wrote. Desiring to give us a fuller account, he begins with the elderly and barren Elizabeth and Zacharias, and the miraculous pregnancy and birth of the herald of the Lord, John who would become known as the Baptist. Luke the Physician and historian, by starting where he does, gives us what screenwriters like to call “the backstory”.

Based on the contents, Luke probably got a lot of his information from Mary, who was a prominent member of the early church in Jerusalem. It is from Luke that we learn of the coming of the angel to Mary announcing that she shall give birth to the holy One of God. It is from Luke that we have the beautiful Magnificat, “My soul does magnify the Lord”, as well as Simeon's prophetic song, "Now Lord, let thy servant depart in peace / for mine eyes have seen thy salvation (i.e., "thy Jesus"!).

Like Matthew, Luke has a genealogy; perhaps having seen Matthew’s genealogy and wishing to go one better, whereas Matthew is content to trace the lineage of Joseph back to Abraham, Luke goes all the way back to “son of Adam, son of God!”. As some might say, "beat that!".

As heavenly and Spirit-centred as Luke’s gospel is, it’s not all angels and dreams and visions and miracles.

Luke’s historical gospel compels us to understand that that the gospel is not some fanciful story picked out of the air, that Christ is not some kind of universal cosmic entity; rather, God became man at a particular time, in a particular [geographical] place, and in a very specific cultural context: he was born of a virgin, a woman, a Jew, under the Jewish Law or Torah, and in the midst of a people oppressed by Roman rulers who thought nothing of using crucifixion as a weapon of subjugation and punishment. It is into this real, messy, and dangerous world that Jesus was born.

And then we come to John.

Four: John.

John is almost literally out of this world. While Luke insists on rooting his gospel in history, John insists on uprooting it from history and placing it in a cosmic, eternal perspective.

No plodding earthly geneologies or mundane narratives about travelling to Bethlehem to be taxed and finding no room in the inn for John. John takes the cosmic, eternal view: in words that are a direct echo of the beginning of the Bible, John soars as he says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”, i.e., the word was from the get-go divine.

In John we have another great, punchy first sentence. We are transported back to the beginning of time, the beginning of creation, the beginning of history, and who do we find there? Jesus Christ, the Word or Logos of God.

Why does John choose to go all the way back and start at the very beginning? One reason may be that in the ancient world novelty and newness was not revered the way it is in our culture. In the ancient world, the older the better. So John is perhaps saying, “OK, you want old, top this: before the world began, Jesus Christ was! He then ups the ante and takes things a step further. Not only did Jesus Christ exist from the very beginning, he existed with God. And not only did he exist with God, he was (and is) himself divine. He is no less than God Himself. How’s that for an opening sentence!

Conclusion:

What a wonderful diversity and richness we find in these four accounts of the incarnation of our Lord. We thank God for these four reliable, authentic, and faithful witnesses to the life of Christ -- Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

As we ease into the new year, may I leave you with a piece of advice?

RTB - Read The Book.

ETB - Enjoy The Book.

LTB - Live The Book.

There is, quite simply, no other book like it.

“The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham.”

“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.”

“There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah.”

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”

Christian evidences and "is abortion in the Bible" -- an interesting exchange

I've copied this from a Western Standard Shotgun blog:

1. Start here --

I'd be interested in knowing what record of proofs and evidences you are referring to [for the life, death and resurrection of Christ]. Thus far, the only record is the New Testament, and of course all of those were written long after Christ was purported to have been taken up into the sky.

There are no records that I know of from historian writers that lived at the apparent time of Christ. Some do make mention of a very small reference in the writings of Josephus, but most scholars believe that this reference was a later addition to Josephus' record, and not written by Josephus himself.

If you know of any other records, would you mind providing reference to them?

Thanks.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 27-Jan-06 5:09:51 PM

2.

Ian, if you're really interested, there's a wealth of material you can read that will sort it all out for you. Try going to direct sources of reliable historians. (i.e. the Jesus conference would not be a good choice) Of course, maybe you're not really interested.

The New Testamant and Apostolic letters, were written by those who were there, or who heard it from those who were. Also don't forget that they were divinely helped in their task. Many, many ,many credible Christian scholars have written on this topic.

A person doesn't have to be there and see it himself, to know something is true.

Posted by: lwestin | 27-Jan-06 6:49:02 PM

3.

"Ian, if you're really interested, there's a wealth of material you can read that will sort it all out for you. Try going to direct sources of reliable historians."

Sure - why don't you provide some references?

And why do you think the "Jesus Conference" is not credible, exactly? Based on what? That their resources don't support your beliefs?

As far as the Apostolic letters.. well.. in a court of law, we'd call that "hearsay."

Hearsay evidence generally is given very little credence. Do Matthew, Mark, Luke and John provide references or cite their references?

Also, please explain the difference between "knowing" something to be "true" and believing it to be true.

Please explain why the "beliefs" of Hindus, Mormons, or any other religion or sect are less credible than a belief that Jesus Christ actually existed.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 27-Jan-06 7:42:27 PM

4.

"Ian, if you're really interested, there's a wealth of material you can read that will sort it all out for you. Try going to direct sources of reliable historians."

Sure - why don't you provide some references?

And why do you think the "Jesus Conference" is not credible, exactly? Based on what? That their resources don't support your beliefs?

As far as the Apostolic letters.. well.. in a court of law, we'd call that "hearsay."

Hearsay evidence generally is given very little credence. Do Matthew, Mark, Luke and John provide references or cite their references?

Also, please explain the difference between "knowing" something to be "true" and believing it to be true.

Please explain why the "beliefs" of Hindus, Mormons, or any other religion or sect are less credible than a belief that Jesus Christ actually existed.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 27-Jan-06 7:42:27 PM

5 -- Rick Ball weighs in...

Of the four gospel writers, three, Matthew, Mark, Luke, suffered martyrdom rather than renounce their belief in the resurrection of Christ. The two primary epistle writers, Paul and Peter, likewise died martyrs' deaths rather than deny their faith in Christ. Fanatics? You be the judge.

If you are seriously interested, buy or borrow The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel.

Knowing vs believing. Good question. Christians "know" through the confirming withness of the Holy Spirit in their hearts and minds.

Why believe Jesus existed? His words are recorded for all to sift through and assess. Have they ever been equaled? What do you make of someone who calls God his Father, and says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life"? No one else ever spoke like this man.

Posted by: Richard Ball | 28-Jan-06 4:05:56 PM

6. ---

A quick response to your first assertion regarding martyrdom of Matt., Mark and Luke.

The only evidence prior to the 4th century that Mark was martyred is the Book of Acts. Acts was likely written by Luke, but no one knows for certain.

It is not known if Matthew was martyred, in fact historians do not really know what became of Matthew with some believing he may have gone to Africa.

There is no evidence for Luke being martyred either. Merely conjecture. It is believed that Luke died when he was 84 years old, according to Jerome.

I'll respond to the rest of your comment later when I have more time.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 28-Jan-06 4:18:52 PM

7. Rick Ball weighs in (2)...

Plus, the gospel is self-authenticating. In Isaiah, God said, "my word shall not return to me void; it shall accomplish its purpose". And this is what we find with the gospels. They either soften you, leading you to accept the claims of Christ (as happened with me), or they harden you. Jesus himself said, "he who believes and is baptized shall be saved, he who believes not (suggesting a wilful rejection), shall be damned.

Heaven and hell are literally at stake in this discussion.

Posted by: Richard Ball | 28-Jan-06 4:22:40 PM

As I've said before, I will respond in more detail later.

A bit about me - I "accepted" Christ as my Saviour years ago, and for 30 years, witnessed, preached on occassion, and "felt" the "Holy Spirit" within.

I also took Paul's words to heart - "Come, let us reason together."

Your beliefs are merely that. Beliefs. You may indeed believe them so strongly that any other evidence you discover will be ignored. That's fine.

We can even discuss inerrancy if you wish. It was my own study to prove inerrancy that lead me to discover new questions that preachers and saints refused to reasonably answer. Or, like you in your last post, answer with such things about how the OT points to the Jesus of the NT while utterly ignoring Jewish beliefs about the OT. In other words, you're free to interpret it whatever way you wish; but remember that your interpretation is no more reasonable than any other religion or sect that uses the Holy Bible as a basis for their beliefs.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 28-Jan-06 4:33:46 PM

By the way, Richard - did you know that the Bible speaks of abortion in one place? It might surprise you in fact, as to what it says - it's likely a passage you won't hear too many preachers or priests speak about. Anyhow, if you're interested in where the Bible supports abortion - http://ianism.com/?p=51

Posted by: Ian Scott | 28-Jan-06 4:44:33 PM

8. Rick's response....

Can it be an abortion if the woman is not pregnant? There's no conclusive indication in this passage that she is. And, even is she was, a best it would be a miscarriage resulting from a curse, rather than a medically-induced abortion.

"Come let us reason together". I don't recall Paul saying this. Are you thinking, perhaps of Isaiah? And, if you have rejected the authority of Scripture, why would you give it any weight, anyway?

"Your beliefs are merely that. Beliefs. You may indeed believe them so strongly that any other evidence you discover will be ignored. That's fine."

If you believe this statement, Ian, then you must also believe that your beliefs also are merely that, beliefs, which are just as likely to be false as true. But, if you believe that, why bother even saying it? Unless, perhaps, you believe that what you believe is true, while everybody else's beliefs are arbitrary.

9. Rick's further response...

"Come let us reason together". Consider what Luther said concerning the magisterial vs. ministerial use of reason. Also Calvin, who correctly pointed out that all of our nature, including our minds and reasoning abilities, are corrupted by sin. The natural mind, unaided by God, cannot comprehend the truth of God -- and that makes God God, and not us gods over God.

Another point - spiritual truth is not merely rational truth, as in 2+2=4; it has a moral character to it; it is humble and not arrogant. Paul said, speak the truth in love. Arguably, truth not spoken in love is not truth; certainly at least not in the sense that Jesus said, "I am the Truth".

For anyone interested in the basic historical credibility of the Christian faith, I would recommend The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. Also, by the same author, The Case for Faith and the The Case for a Creator.

For anyone interested in a history of the early Church (post-Acts of the Apostles), I would recommend Eusebius, the Church's first historian. One thing that will strike you from reading Eusebius is how important truth was to the early Christians. Many contemporary scholars would have us believe that the apostles and early Christians had no interest in factual truth, and that an interest in actual, factual truth is a preoccupation only of 20th-21st cc. minds. Not so! The early Church was not interested in fables or myths. They were interested in the factual historicity of Christ and the Church he established. This point shines through Eusebius' writings. And the shining, central fact of the early Church is their testimony, sealed in martyrs' blood, that there was a man who called God his Father, who died on a cross -- he said it was for our sins -- who rose again. His name, I think you know.

10 -- Ian weighs in again....

A couple of corrections first. Yes, I was thinking of Isaiah. Second, Mark's martyrdom reference is in a book known as "Acts of Mark." My bad for being in a rush earlier when I posted. Have you never heard of "Acts Of Mark?"

Next...what evidence are you using when you asserted that Matt., Mark and Luke were martyred?

And onwards:

"Can it be an abortion if the woman is not pregant? There's no conclusive indication in this passage that she is."

Context. You must have missed this part: "your womb discharge;" Are you trying to suggest that this does not refer to a fetus being discharged?

That is most certainly conclusive evidence of the passing of a fetus if the woman is pregnant.

As far as "a miscarriage resulting from a curse, rather than a medically-induced abortion," are you suggesting that anything other then "medically-induced" is not abortion? You mean if a woman takes pansy on her own, hoping for an abortion, it's not an abortion, but instead is a miscarriage? Are you suggesting that if in fact, curses are real, and cause a miscarriage, that it is then not really an abortion? Intent has nothing to do with it, even if a miscarriage occurs?

That's an interesting perspective.

" then you must also believe that your beliefs also are merely that, beliefs, which are just as likely to be false as true."

That is correct. My beliefs may in fact, be false. You may want to discuss how one KNOWS something as opposed to BELIEVING something. Belief and Knowing are not the same.

"spiritual truth is not merely rational truth, as in 2+2=4; it has a moral character to it; it is humble and not arrogant. Paul said, speak the truth in love. Arguably, truth not spoken in love is not truth; certainly at least not in the sense that Jesus said, "I am the Truth"."

Heh.. then what is the point of attempting to determine spiritual truth? How do you know you have "enough" love?

"For anyone interested in a history of the early Church (post-Acts of the Apostles), I would recommend Eusebius, the Church's first historian. One thing that will strike you from reading Eusebius is how important truth was to the early Christians"

One could also read Origen, even earlier than Eusebius, who was troubled by the lack of evidence for a physical Christ. Origen even went so far as to admit that many reports were myths. Now, admittedly, my memory is failing but I seem to recall it was Origen who travelled to locations mentioned in the Gospels, to learn more about what the locals would have to say about Christ - but was surprised at the lack of anything to say at all.

"And the shining, central fact of the early Church is their testimony, sealed in martyrs' blood,"

Surely you don't put weight on the fact there is "martyrs' blood" do you? There are many religions that have their martyrs, including even Christians that were put to death by the Roman Catholic church.

Moving on to lwestin:

"Still going Ian?"

No. I stopped for quite some time actually. I have some time to return to this subject.

"Obviously you've figured out that in spite of very ,very,intelligent,credible,and well educated people over the CENTURIES knowing their beliefs to be true--you're"

And I guess that in spite of very, very intelligent, credible and well educated people over the centuries, you've figured out they were wrong, and your belief is "rational."

lwestin, hopefully you don't depend upon the intelligence of others to form your beliefs, do you? I sure don't. Heck, Plato and Socrates were far more intelligent than I am, to be sure - but yes, I do reject their beliefs in "The Gods" of Greek myth.

Some Indian Hindu Gurus were also very intelligent, and well educated (hey, did you know that there is a Virgin birth story in Hinduism that predates Christianity?) but no, I don't buy into their beliefs about God either.

And of course, some very intelligent and highly educated people once believed the earth was flat.

Hey.. maybe they were right. The Bible suggests the earth is flat too.



Posted by: Ian Scott | 28-Jan-06 10:20:21 PM


11. I probably should have just stopped, since this debate was deteriorating, but I put this together for anyone who may have been folling this topic...


Numbers chapter 5 deals with a test, under Mosaic law, for adultery. English translations variously translate the passage describing the consequences of adultery as "her abdomen will swell and her thigh will waste away", "her belly will swell and her womb shrivel", or, as an alternate translation in the NIV, "she will have barrenness and a miscarrying womb".

The consumed beverage has effect only if the woman has been unfaithful. Therefore, it simply cannot be equated with a medical or medicinally-induced abortion, and it is mischievious to suggest otherwise.

The following verse makes this explicitly clear: "If, however, the woman has not defiled herself and is free from impurity, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children."

The woman clearly needs not be pregnant for this curse to come upon her, and the curse is clearly one of barrenness (which may or may not entail a miscarriage).

If, however, a person insisted on making this passage about abortion, then the biblical message would be this: having children is a blessing; abortion is a curse.

I'm all for correct doctrine, but...

I'm all for correct doctrine -- spend every waking hour of my life thinking about Christian doctrine. But, a lot of the times people who insist on correct doctrine seem dry and, shall we say, not filled to overflowing with the Holy Spirit.

I don't care for the "happy clappy" pejorative that is sometimes used to criticize exuberant Christians. To me, it's a cheap shot. But, you're listening to a guy who likes to get happy in the Lord, and who has been known to clap. David danced before the Lord, and he was sneered at. We all know which side the Lord took.

I'm aiming for correct doctrine and filled to overflowing with the Holy Spirit, the Exuberant One. (I can just hear someone saying... "that's not correct doctrine!).

Well, try this, then:

Be not drunk with wine, but
be filled with the Holy Spirit

There's some doctine to chew on, or, should I say, sip on?

"Thy will be done"

God doesn't want us disconnected from Him by disobedience, but neither is he interested in puppets on a string.

He is looking for a cooperative union.

The best example (as usual) of this is found in Jesus Christ, who always did what pleased the Father, and, on the sole recorded occasion where Christ's will differed from the Father's, prayed, "OK then, not my will but thine be done".

Jesus taught us to pray, "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven", which implies that it is not being done down here. ((This doctrine must be balanced with the doctrine of the sovereignty of God (nobody said doing theology was easy.))

Jesus went about "doing good, and healing all that were sick and oppressed of the devil". Was it God's will that these people be sick and oppressed? Apparently not! But it took an intercessor, it took a clean, sanctified, and committed vessel, for the will of God to break into these peoples' lives. So, when we pray "thy will be done", we may be interceding at a local, or national, or international level disconnected from ourselves, but just as likely we are praying that God would clean us up and use us as he did Jesus.

The Lord commanded us to preach the gospel. Is it his will that people remain lost and without hope? Apparently not! Clearly, the gospel message is the primary agency of God's will. That is why churches that have ceased to preach a life-transforming message have ceased to be properly Christian.

The Father and Jesus were really of the same mind and heart. Only when we understand the absolute justice, goodness, and love of God's heart can we lay down our own tired, small, rebellious hearts and trade them in for his big, big heart. And only then will his kingdom come, his will be done, and only then will we be able to do the works that Jesus did -- as he promised we would.

My Sheep * hear * my voice

"My sheep hear my voice". That's pretty clear. Are you his sheep? Jesus voice is going out. And we can hear it. In fact, it is a mark of sheepdom that we do hear his voice.

"I will sup with him and he with me". It would be strange to come over for dinner, and not say anything. Unless you view Jesus as some kind of monk who has taken a vow of silence, which would be an odd thing for someone known as the Word. He may have said everything he has to say to the world, but what about the things he wants to say to you?!

"My Father and I will come, and make our home in him". Kind of odd to come over to someone's house, and not at least say "hi". Kind of like the two Darryls on Newhart? I don't think so!

"The Spirit expressly speaks..." The Spirit... speaks. The Spirit... speaks. The Spirit... speaks. He's a speaker! Private, and public.

The Spirit is given to us. The divine author of Scripture. The regenerator. The one who raised our Lord from the dead. The One who knows the mind of the Lord.

He thinks, speaks, empowers, expresses, lives with us, talks with us, helps us pray, guides our hearts, reveals the truth of God's word so that it becomes living, rather than a "dead" letter, brings liberty, creates fellowship, brings warmth, and comfort, directs, guides, reproves, rebukes, exhorts, anoints us, frees us, cleanses us, protects us, warns us, inspires us, regenerates, renews, and enables us.

And He's not mute!

How could you possibly expect to have intimate fellowship and communion with a person for years, and for him to never say anything? The question is not, "is God speaking"? It is, "are we listening!".

Nothing but the Blood of Jesus

Abramoff Pleads Guilty, Will Cooperate • Jan 03 1:59 PM US/Eastern • By MARK SHERMAN • from the Associated Press:

"Once-powerful lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty Tuesday to federal charges of conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud... 'Words will not ever be able to express my sorrow and my profound regret for all my actions and mistakes," Abramoff said, addressing the judge. "I hope I can merit forgiveness from the Almighty and those I've wronged or caused to suffer.'"

Ain't gonna happen, Jack.

Bad theology happening here. You can never merit God's forgiveness. It is His to give, but not yours to earn. The act of God's forgiveness resides entirely, utterly within God Himself. The entire bundle of what collectively constitutes our salvation does not rest in ourselves, but in His freely chosen actions on our behalf. If, in his sovereignty, God chose to withhold His forgiveness from us, there is absolutely nothing we could do. We would be toast. And He would be just. And He would still be God.

Thankfully, for those feeling a bit toasty right now, God has, of his own free will and goodness, decided to do something about our predicament. He has thrown out a LifeSaver named Jesus Christ. Jesus, also of his own free will and goodness (really sounds like the spittin' image of His Dad, doesn't He?), has offered his life for ours. A Life for a life. God has thrown out the LifeSaver, but it's up to us to accept it. We must reach up, with arms of faith, and accept the free gift that is offered.

Here's the thing that most people don't get. Not only do our sins get in the way of a relationship with God, but so do our efforts at merit and righteousness! Our efforts to approach God by our efforts to approach God get in the way of a relationship with Him that has been secured through a better means.

How many exhausted Christians have been brought to this point of "giving up" -- it's hard to do, and, it seems to me, there are strains in Roman Catholicism that actually encourage self-effort, which actually work against receiving the gift as a gift. Example? I would say a man who has just walked up 100 steps on his knees to get to God (and I've seen this) is farther from God at the top than he was at the bottom. He would have been better to have just abandoned Himself to the mercy of God at the bottom of the stairs. "O wretched man that I am! Have mercy on me, a sinner!" (And it would have been better for his knees, too!)

The once-proud but humbled Peter understood this when he said, "But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved... (Acts 15:11). It's interesting. Christian truth is not just "true", it is "humble". It is not just rational truth; there is a moral character associated with it. There is a humility associated with Peter's confession that is integral to its truth-value.

The apostle Paul also understood this when he said in Philippians 3 (NKJV):

I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead." Not having... my... own... righteousness...

Paul's comment echoes that of Isaiah (ch. 64), "All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags".

Filthy rags and rubbish (also translated dung) -- we're in the same ballpark, here, Jack.

Ah, the hymn-writers said it best, in a way that outlasted a thousand sermons (if only I could do the same!)

Nothing in my hand I bring - simply to thy cross I cling...

Just as I am without one plea, but that thy blood was shed for me...

What can wash away my sin, nothing but the blood of Jesus!

NbtBoJ!

I hope Jack gets to hear this.