Podcasts about trypho

This is my message to the Jews. It follows up on my video about Christian/Muslim relations. I mention Elon Musk, Philo of Alexandria, Caligula, Suetonius, Claudius, Prescilla, Aquila, Gallio, Sosthenes, Jusitn Martyr, Trypho, Simon Bar Kokhba, Polycarp, Constantine, Athanasius of Alexandria, Caiaphas, Paul of Samosata, Photinus of Galatia, Arius, Constantius II, Gregory of Nyssa, Hank Kruse, Theodosius the Great, Ambrose of Milan, Julian the Apostate, Aphrahat the Persian Sage, Nestorius of Constantinople, Justinian the Great, John Calvin, Michael Servetus, Marian Hillar, Lelio and Fausto Sozzini, Malcolm Collins, John Locke, Andrzej Wiszowaty, Samuel Przypkowski, Isaac Newton, John Milton, Benedict Spinoza, Pierre Bayle, Voltaire, David Hume, Joseph Priestly, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, Hannah Adams, Mordecai Noah, The Apostle Paul, and more.

A Sunday sermon by Pastor Brett Deal. In the middle of the second century, around AD 160, a Christian by the name of Justin found himself in a deep discussion about the Messiah with a Jewish teacher named Trypho. For two days, they dialogued back and forth about the belief of Jesus' people that He was the long-awaited Messiah. Together they discussed from the richness of the Old Testament. Justin expressed the gospel of Jesus as the fullness of the Law and the fulfillment of the Prophets. Whole chapters of his record, passed down through the centuries as his Dialogue with Trypho, are little more than long recitations of Scripture. At one point, Justin entreats Trypho and those with him to “learn of us, who have been taught wisdom by the grace of Christ.” Having just had a great conversation about word order and the implication of how we read them, this phrase lights up the page. Justin could have said he'd learned grace by the wisdom of Christ; this might even fit our approach to biblical learning better. But instead, he says he learned wisdom by the grace of Christ, and now he longs to share what he's learned with others! At the base of the mount with Jesus, where He will begin to unpack for us wisdom, we are taught by His grace. Reading Matthew 5.1-20, we find the Beatitudes which challenge our understanding of blessedness. We are charged to take to heart what it really means to be salt and light in this world. Jesus' grace is the key which opens the door to true wisdom. Craig Keener challenges us when, reflecting on these verses, he says, “Religious people without transformed hearts will have no place in the kingdom.” Beloved, as we learn at the feet of Jesus our Messiah on this mountainside of life, may we learn the wisdom that only comes to us by the grace of Christ, for that is the way to true spiritual transformation.

“In the second century, Jewish teachers applied it to Hezekiah (Justin Martry, Dialogue with Trypho, 33, 83)” Lewis, Matthew 14-28; 108.110:1 seems quoted or alluded to in Matt. 26:63-64; Mark 16:19; Acts 2:34-35; 5:30-32; 7:55-56; Rom. 8:34; I Cor. 15:25; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12-13; 12:2; I Peter 3:22.Lessons from this section Mark 12:35-37 paralleled by Matthew 21:41-46; Luke 20:41-44“Psalm 110 is the psalm most frequently quoted and alluded to in the New Testament. See also Matt. 22:44; 26:64; Mark 14:62; (16:19); Luke 20:42-43; 22:69; Acts 2:34-45; Romans 2:5; 8:34; 11:29; I Cor. 15:25; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3; 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:3, 11, 15, 17, 21; 8:1; 10:12-13; 12:2” Brooks, Mark, 200. Psalm 110:1 is quoted 14 times in the NT- NICOT, Psalms, 838.What are we told about Psalm 110, from Mark 12:35-37; Matt. 22:41-46; Luke 20:41-44?1. David is the author of Psalm 110- Jesus affirms this in Mark 12:36, 37- αυτος Δανιδ- David himself. The same point is made in Matt. 22:43 and Luke 20:42. “Jesus first affirmed the Davidic authorship of Ps. 110, something that is usually denied by modern scholarship” Brooks, Mark, 200. 2. David speaks by inspiration- In Mark 12:36 εν τω πνευματι τω αγιω- in the Holy Spirit. Matt 22:43 says, “in the Spirit.”These are not simply David's words but God's words. The same point is made about David and the Psalms in Acts 1:16; 4:25-26. “Jesus attributes a statement of Psalm 110:1 to David, inspired by the Spirit (cf. II Sam. 23:2)” Lewis, Matthew, 107.3. Psalm 110 speaks of the Messiah- David himself calls Him- Mark 12:37; also see Matt. 22:43; Luke 20:44.This interpretation of Psalm 110 is assumed as common ground between Jesus and the scribes- Mark 12:35; and Pharisees- Matt. 22:41. Acts 2:33-35 quotes Psalm 110:1 and stresses that is not David who ascended into heaven but that this is fulfilled in the Messiah/ the Christ. 4. The Messiah is David's Lord- David himself calls Him “Lord”- Mark 12:37; see also Matt. 22:44; Luke 20:44.The OT gives abundant evidence that the Messiah will be of the line of David- II Sam. 7:11-16; 22:51; Psalm 18:50; Isaiah 9:6-7; 11:1-9; 16:5; Jer. 23:5-6; 30:8-9; 33:15, 17, 22; Ezek. 34:23-24; 37:24; Hosea 3:5; Amos 9:11. The gospel of Matthew especially emphasizes Jesus as the Son of David- Matthew 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30-31; 21:9, 15. The point is not to deny that the Messiah is the “son of David” but to state that answer is incomplete. He is both David's son and David's Lord. “The startling fact that David spoke of a king as ‘my lord' was pointed out by Christ, who left His hearers to think out its implications, and His apostles to spell them out” Kidner, 393. “The first Lord is God; the second is the Messiah. In Greek speech the slave described his master as my lord: the underling described his superior in the same way. The king, however, is at the top of the ladder. Whom could he describe in the phrase? A father does not address his son as ‘my Lord.' The figure David addressed must be his superior; how then is He David's son? None could answer. Nor is there an answer short of a knowledge of the divine nature of the Messiah of which they know nothing” Lewis, 107-108. 5. Psalm 110 expresses the relationship between the LORD/God and the Messiah/Christ The Messiah is a distinct “person” from the LORD- Mark 12:36; Psalm 110:1 “The LORD- YHWH- said to m

Why does God tell Moses that no one can see His face and live, yet we see a number of times where God has a face-to-face encounter with man prior to the incarnation. In continuation of our series on the Nature of God, Justin Hibbard explores Christophanies - pre-incarnate appearances of Christ. Subscribe to Why Catholic? wherever you get your podcasts.Check out the Why Catholic Etsy shop (all proceeds support this podcast).Become a free subscriber or a patron of Why Catholic? and get the next episode and a discount code to the Why Catholic Etsy shop in your email inbox.Follow Why Catholic on Instagram.Subscribe to Why Catholic on YouTubeSHOW NOTES:* Dialogue with Trypho by Justin Martyr* Church History by Eusebius Get full access to Why Catholic? at whycatholic.substack.com/subscribe

Can Jews be "saved" even if they do not become Christians? In his famous Dialogue with Trypho, the second century apostolic father Justin Martyr reports a non-canonical saying of the Master which sheds significant light on the meaning of "salvation" in the New Testatment Era: "In whatsoever thngs I find you, "In whatsoever things I shall take you, in these I shall judge you." 

Send us a Text Message.We continue our examination of Jewish-Christian relations in the early Church by reviewing one teaching and one writing:#1: The teaching of MarcionMarcion of Sinope (AD 85-160) is a historical figure who embodied the sort of potent anti-Jewish sentiment many believe was prevalent in the ante-Nicene era. A great deal is known about Marcion through early writings, making him an excellent case study for us. He taught that the Bible refers to two different gods; the benevolent God of love and mercy proclaimed by Jesus and the “finite, imperfect, angry Jehovah of the Jews.” In his work Antitheses (AD 144), Marcion outlined this contrast, describing the God of the Old Testament as a demiurge—a lesser god who created the physical universe. He considered this deity a harsh Jewish tribal god, as severe and unmerciful as his law. The Old Testament God commanded us to love our neighbor but hate our enemies. He taught vengeance, saying, “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” By contrast, Marcion argued, the Supreme God of the New Testament commands us to love our enemy and “turn the other cheek.” #2: Justin Martyr's "Dialogue with Trypho"Born in the Roman colony of Neapolis in Samaria (he was neither a Samaritan nor a Jew), Justin Martyr was arguably the most influential Christian apologist of the second century. Dialogue with Trypho is an intellectually impressive and lengthy document. (The English translation runs more than 69,000 words.) Justin works through various theological issues by way of an ambitious dialogue between himself and a Hellenized rabbi named Trypho, famous as one of the most learned Jews in the East. Whether this work records an actual discussion is a matter of debate. However, Justin's remarkable knowledge of the Jews, their objections to Christianity, and their Scripture suggest the content of Dialogue is based on actual conversations with Jews.Defending the Biblical Roots of ChristianityOur websiteOur YouTube ChannelProf. Solberg's BlogSupport our Ministry (Thank you!)

Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts Let's face it the New Testament probably calls Jesus God (or god) a couple of times and so do early Christian authors in the second century. However, no one offers much of an explanation for what they mean by the title. Did early Christians think Jesus was God because he represented Yahweh? Did they think he was God because he shared the same eternal being as the Father? Did they think he was a god because that's just what they would call any immortalized human who lived in heaven? In this presentation I focus on the question from the perspective of Greco-Roman theology. Drawing on the work of David Litwa, Andrew Perriman, Barry Blackburn, and tons of ancient sources I seek to show how Mediterranean converts to Christianity would have perceived Jesus based on their cultural and religious assumptions. This presentation is from the 3rd Unitarian Christian Alliance Conference on October 20, 2023 in Springfield, OH. Here is the original pdf of this paper. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5Z3QbQ7dHc —— Links —— See more scholarly articles by Sean Finnegan Get the transcript of this episode Support Restitutio by donating here Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Sean Finnegan on Twitter @RestitutioSF Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library. Who is Sean Finnegan?  Read his bio here Introduction When early Christian authors called Jesus “god” (or “God”) what did they mean?[1] Modern apologists routinely point to pre-Nicene quotations in order to prove that early Christians always believed in the deity of Christ, by which they mean that he is of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father. However, most historians agree that Christians before the fourth century simply didn't have the cognitive categories available yet to think of Christ in Nicene or Chalcedonian ways. If this consensus is correct, it behooves us to consider other options for defining what early Christian authors meant. The obvious place to go to get an answer to our initial question is the New Testament. However, as is well known, the handful of instances in which authors unambiguously applied god (θεός) to Christ are fraught with textual uncertainty, grammatical ambiguity, and hermeneutical elasticity.[2]  What's more, granting that these contested texts[3] all call Jesus “god” provides little insight into what they might mean by that phrase. Turning to the second century, the earliest handful of texts that say Jesus is god are likewise textually uncertain or terse.[4] We must wait until the second half of the second century and beyond to have more helpful material to examine. We know that in the meanwhile some Christians were saying Jesus was god. What did they mean? One promising approach is to analyze biblical texts that call others gods. We find helpful parallels with the word god (אֱלֹהִים) applied to Moses (Exod 7.1; 4.16), judges (Exod 21.6; 22.8-9), kings (Is 9.6; Ps 45.6), the divine council (Ps 82.1, 6), and angels (Ps 8.6). These are texts in which God imbues his agents with his authority to represent him in some way. This rare though significant way of calling a representative “god,” continues in the NT with Jesus' clever defense to his accusers in John 10.34-36. Lexicons[5] have long recognized this “Hebraistic” usage and recent study tools such as the New English Translation (NET)[6] and the Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentary[7] also note this phenomenon. But, even if this agency perspective is the most natural reading of texts like Heb 1.8, later Christians, apart from one or two exceptions appear to be ignorant of this usage.[8] This interpretation was likely a casualty of the so-called parting of the ways whereby Christianity transitioned from a second-temple-Jewish movement to a Gentile-majority religion. As such, to grasp what early postapostolic Christians believed, we must turn our attention elsewhere. Michael Bird is right when he says, “Christian discourses about deity belong incontrovertibly in the Greco-Roman context because it provided the cultural encyclopedia that, in diverse ways, shaped the early church's Christological conceptuality and vocabulary.”[9] Learning Greco-Roman theology is not only important because that was the context in which early Christians wrote, but also because from the late first century onward, most of our Christian authors converted from that worldview. Rather than talking about the Hellenization of Christianity, we should begin by asking how Hellenists experienced Christianization. In other words, Greco-Roman beliefs about the gods were the default lens through which converts first saw Christ. In order to explore how Greco-Roman theology shaped what people believed about Jesus as god, we do well to begin by asking how they defined a god. Andrew Perriman offers a helpful starting point. “The gods,” he writes, “are mostly understood as corporeal beings, blessed with immortality, larger, more beautiful, and more powerful than their mortal analogues.”[10] Furthermore, there were lots of them! The sublunar realm was, in the words of Paula Fredriksen, “a god-congested place.”[11] What's more, “[S]harp lines and clearly demarcated boundaries between divinity and humanity were lacking."[12] Gods could appear as people and people could ascend to become gods. Comprehending what Greco-Roman people believed about gods coming down and humans going up will occupy the first part of this paper. Only once we've adjusted our thinking to their culture, will we walk through key moments in the life of Jesus of Nazareth to hear the story with ancient Mediterranean ears. Lastly, we'll consider the evidence from sources that think of Jesus in Greco-Roman categories. Bringing this all together we'll enumerate the primary ways to interpret the phrase “Jesus is god” available to Christians in the pre-Nicene period. Gods Coming Down and Humans Going Up The idea that a god would visit someone is not as unusual as it first sounds. We find plenty of examples of Yahweh himself or non-human representatives visiting people in the Hebrew Bible.[13] One psalmist even referred to angels or “heavenly beings” (ESV) as אֱלֹהִים (gods).[14] The Greco-Roman world too told stories about divine entities coming down to interact with people. Euripides tells about the time Zeus forced the god Apollo to become a human servant in the house of Admetus, performing menial labor as punishment for killing the Cyclopes (Alcestis 1). Baucis and Philemon offered hospitality to Jupiter and Mercury when they appeared in human form (Ovid, Metamorphoses 8.26-34). In Homer's Odyssey onlookers warn Antinous for flinging a stool against a stranger since “the gods do take on the look of strangers dropping in from abroad”[15] (17.534-9). Because they believed the boundary between the divine realm and the Earth was so permeable, Mediterranean people were always on guard for an encounter with a god in disguise. In addition to gods coming down, in special circumstances, humans could ascend and become gods too. Diodorus of Sicily demarcated two types of gods: those who are “eternal and imperishable, such as the sun and the moon” and “the other gods…terrestrial beings who attained to immortal honour”[16] (The Historical Library of Diodorus the Sicilian 6.1). By some accounts, even the Olympian gods, including Kronos and Uranus were once mortal men.[17] Among humans who could become divine, we find several distinguishable categories, including heroes, miracle workers, and rulers. We'll look at each briefly before considering how the story of Jesus would resonate with those holding a Greco-Roman worldview. Deified Heroes Cornutus the Stoic said, “[T]he ancients called heroes those who were so strong in body and soul that they seemed to be part of a divine race.” (Greek Theology 31)[18] At first this statement appears to be a mere simile, but he goes on to say of Heracles (Hercules), the Greek hero par excellence, “his services had earned him apotheosis” (ibid.). Apotheosis (or deification) is the process by which a human ascends into the divine realm. Beyond Heracles and his feats of strength, other exceptional individuals became deified for various reasons. Amphiarus was a seer who died in the battle at Thebes. After opening a chasm in the earth to swallow him in battle, “Zeus made him immortal”[19] (Apollodorus, Library of Greek Mythology 3.6). Pausanias says the custom of the inhabitants of Oropos was to drop coins into Amphiarus' spring “because this is where they say Amphiarus rose up as a god”[20] (Guide to Greece 1.34). Likewise, Strabo speaks about a shrine for Calchas, a deceased diviner from the Trojan war (Homer, Illiad 1.79-84), “where those consulting the oracle sacrifice a black ram to the dead and sleep in its hide”[21] (Strabo, Geography 6.3.9). Though the great majority of the dead were locked away in the lower world of Hades, leading a shadowy pitiful existence, the exceptional few could visit or speak from beyond the grave. Lastly, there was Zoroaster the Persian prophet who, according to Dio Chrysostom, was enveloped by fire while he meditated upon a mountain. He was unharmed and gave advice on how to properly make offerings to the gods (Dio Chrysostom, Discourses 36.40). The Psuedo-Clementine Homilies include a story about a lightning bolt striking and killing Zoroaster. After his devotees buried his body, they built a temple on the site, thinking that “his soul had been sent for by lightning” and they “worshipped him as a god”[22] (Homily 9.5.2). Thus, a hero could have extraordinary strength, foresight, or closeness to the gods resulting in apotheosis and ongoing worship and communication. Deified Miracle Workers Beyond heroes, Greco-Roman people loved to tell stories about deified miracle workers. Twice Orpheus rescued a ship from a storm by praying to the gods (Diodorus of Sicily 4.43.1f; 48.5f). After his death, surviving inscriptions indicate that he both received worship and was regarded as a god in several cities.[23] Epimenides “fell asleep in a cave for fifty-seven years”[24] (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 1.109). He also predicted a ten-year period of reprieve from Persian attack in Athens (Plato Laws 1.642D-E). Plato called him a divine man (θεῖος ἀνήρ) (ibid.) and Diogenes talked of Cretans sacrificing to him as a god (Diogenes, Lives 1.114). Iamblichus said Pythagoras was the son of Apollo and a mortal woman (Life of Pythagoras 2). Nonetheless, the soul of Pythagoras enjoyed multiple lives, having originally been “sent to mankind from the empire of Apollo”[25] (Life 2). Diogenes and Lucian enumerate the lives the pre-existent Pythagoras led, including Aethalides, Euphorbus, Hermotimus, and Pyrrhus (Diogenes, Life of Pythagoras 4; Lucian, The Cock 16-20). Hermes had granted Pythagoras the gift of “perpetual transmigration of his soul”[26] so he could remember his lives while living or dead (Diogenes, Life 4). Ancient sources are replete with Pythagorean miracle stories.[27] Porphyry mentions several, including taming a bear, persuading an ox to stop eating beans, and accurately predicting a catch of fish (Life of Pythagoras 23-25). Porphyry said Pythagoras accurately predicted earthquakes and “chased away a pestilence, suppressed violent winds and hail, [and] calmed storms on rivers and on seas” (Life 29).[28] Such miracles, argued the Pythagoreans made Pythagoras “a being superior to man, and not to a mere man” (Iamblichus, Life 28).[29] Iamblichus lays out the views of Pythagoras' followers, including that he was a god, a philanthropic daemon, the Pythian, the Hyperborean Apollo, a Paeon, a daemon inhabiting the moon, or an Olympian god (Life 6). Another pre-Socratic philosopher was Empedocles who studied under Pythagoras. To him sources attribute several miracles, including stopping a damaging wind, restoring the wind, bringing dry weather, causing it to rain, and even bringing someone back from Hades (Diogenes, Lives 8.59).[30] Diogenes records an incident in which Empedocles put a woman into a trance for thirty days before sending her away alive (8.61). He also includes a poem in which Empedocles says, “I am a deathless god, no longer mortal, I go among you honored by all, as is right”[31] (8.62). Asclepius was a son of the god Apollo and a human woman (Cornutus, Greek Theology 33). He was known for healing people from diseases and injuries (Pindar, Pythian 3.47-50). “[H]e invented any medicine he wished for the sick, and raised up the dead”[32] (Pausanias, Guide to Greece 2.26.4). However, as Diodorus relates, Hades complained to Zeus on account of Asclepius' diminishing his realm, which resulted in Zeus zapping Asclepius with a thunderbolt, killing him (4.71.2-3). Nevertheless, Asclepius later ascended into heaven to become a god (Hyginus, Fables 224; Cicero, Nature of the Gods 2.62).[33] Apollonius of Tyana was a famous first century miracle worker. According to Philostratus' account, the locals of Tyana regard Apollonius to be the son of Zeus (Life 1.6). Apollonius predicted many events, interpreted dreams, and knew private facts about people. He rebuked and ridiculed a demon, causing it to flee, shrieking as it went (Life 2.4).[34] He even once stopped a funeral procession and raised the deceased to life (Life 4.45). What's more he knew every human language (Life 1.19) and could understand what sparrows chirped to each other (Life 4.3). Once he instantaneously transported himself from Smyrna to Ephesus (Life 4.10). He claimed knowledge of his previous incarnation as the captain of an Egyptian ship (Life 3.23) and, in the end, Apollonius entered the temple of Athena and vanished, ascending from earth into heaven to the sound of a choir singing (Life 8.30). We have plenty of literary evidence that contemporaries and those who lived later regarded him as a divine man (Letters 48.3)[35] or godlike (ἰσόθεος) (Letters 44.1) or even just a god (θεός) (Life 5.24). Deified Rulers Our last category of deified humans to consider before seeing how this all relates to Jesus is rulers. Egyptians, as indicated from the hieroglyphs left in the pyramids, believed their deceased kings to enjoy afterlives as gods. They could become star gods or even hunt and consume other gods to absorb their powers.[36] The famous Macedonian conqueror, Alexander the Great, carried himself as a god towards the Persians though Plutarch opines, “[he] was not at all vain or deluded but rather used belief in his divinity to enslave others”[37] (Life of Alexander 28). This worship continued after his death, especially in Alexandria where Ptolemy built a tomb and established a priesthood to conduct religious honors to the deified ruler. Even the emperor Trajan offered a sacrifice to the spirit of Alexander (Cassius Dio, Roman History 68.30). Another interesting example is Antiochus I of Comagene who called himself “Antiochus the just [and] manifest god, friend of the Romans [and] friend of the Greeks.”[38] His tomb boasted four colossal figures seated on thrones: Zeus, Heracles, Apollo, and himself. The message was clear: Antiochus I wanted his subjects to recognize his place among the gods after death. Of course, the most relevant rulers for the Christian era were the Roman emperors. The first official Roman emperor Augustus deified his predecessor, Julius Caesar, celebrating his apotheosis with games (Suetonius, Life of Julius Caesar 88). Only five years after Augustus died, eastern inhabitants of the Roman Empire at Priene happily declared “the birthday of the god Augustus” (ἡ γενέθλιος ἡμέρα τοῦ θεοῦ)[39] to be the start of their provincial year. By the time of Tacitus, a century after Augustus died, the wealthy in Rome had statues of the first emperor in their gardens for worship (Annals 1.73). The Roman historian Appian explained that the Romans regularly deify emperors at death “provided he has not been a despot or a disgrace”[40] (The Civil Wars 2.148).  In other words, deification was the default setting for deceased emperors. Pliny the Younger lays it on pretty thick when he describes the process. He says Nero deified Claudius to expose him; Titus deified Vespasian and Domitian so he could be the son and brother of gods. However, Trajan deified Nerva because he genuinely believed him to be more than a human (Panegyric 11). In our little survey, we've seen three main categories of deified humans: heroes, miracle workers, and good rulers. These “conceptions of deity,” writes David Litwa, “were part of the “preunderstanding” of Hellenistic culture.”[41] He continues: If actual cases of deification were rare, traditions of deification were not. They were the stuff of heroic epic, lyric song, ancient mythology, cultic hymns, Hellenistic novels, and popular plays all over the first-century Mediterranean world. Such discourses were part of mainstream, urban culture to which most early Christians belonged. If Christians were socialized in predominantly Greco-Roman environments, it is no surprise that they employed and adapted common traits of deities and deified men to exalt their lord to divine status.[42] Now that we've attuned our thinking to Mediterranean sensibilities about gods coming down in the shape of humans and humans experiencing apotheosis to permanently dwell as gods in the divine realm, our ears are attuned to hear the story of Jesus with Greco-Roman ears. Hearing the Story of Jesus with Greco-Roman Ears How would second or third century inhabitants of the Roman empire have categorized Jesus? Taking my cue from Litwa's treatment in Iesus Deus, I'll briefly work through Jesus' conception, transfiguration, miracles, resurrection, and ascension. Miraculous Conception Although set within the context of Jewish messianism, Christ's miraculous birth would have resonated differently with Greco-Roman people. Stories of gods coming down and having intercourse with women are common in classical literature. That these stories made sense of why certain individuals were so exceptional is obvious. For example, Origen related a story about Apollo impregnating Amphictione who then gave birth to Plato (Against Celsus 1.37). Though Mary's conception did not come about through intercourse with a divine visitor, the fact that Jesus had no human father would call to mind divine sonship like Pythagoras or Asclepius. Celsus pointed out that the ancients “attributed a divine origin to Perseus, and Amphion, and Aeacus, and Minos” (Origen, Against Celsus 1.67). Philostratus records a story of the Egyptian god Proteus saying to Apollonius' mother that she would give birth to himself (Life of Apollonius of Tyana 1.4). Since people were primed to connect miraculous origins with divinity, typical hearers of the birth narratives of Matthew or Luke would likely think that this baby might be either be a descended god or a man destined to ascend to become a god. Miracles and Healing As we've seen, Jesus' miracles would not have sounded unbelievable or even unprecedent to Mediterranean people. Like Jesus, Orpheus and Empedocles calmed storms, rescuing ships. Though Jesus provided miraculous guidance on how to catch fish, Pythagoras foretold the number of fish in a great catch. After the fishermen painstakingly counted them all, they were astounded that when they threw them back in, they were still alive (Porphyry, Life 23-25). Jesus' ability to foretell the future, know people's thoughts, and cast out demons all find parallels in Apollonius of Tyana. As for resurrecting the dead, we have the stories of Empedocles, Asclepius, and Apollonius. The last of which even stopped a funeral procession to raise the dead, calling to mind Jesus' deeds in Luke 7.11-17. When Lycaonians witnessed Paul's healing of a man crippled from birth, they cried out, “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men” (Acts 14.11). Another time when no harm befell Paul after a poisonous snake bit him on Malta, Gentile onlookers concluded “he was a god” (Acts 28.6). Barry Blackburn makes the following observation: [I]n view of the tendency, most clearly seen in the Epimenidean, Pythagorean, and Apollonian traditions, to correlate impressive miracle-working with divine status, one may justifiably conclude that the evangelical miracle traditions would have helped numerous gentile Christians to arrive at and maintain belief in Jesus' divine status.[43] Transfiguration Ancient Mediterranean inhabitants believed that the gods occasionally came down disguised as people. Only when gods revealed their inner brilliant natures could people know that they weren't mere humans. After his ship grounded on the sands of Krisa, Apollo leaped from the ship emitting flashes of fire “like a star in the middle of day…his radiance shot to heaven”[44] (Homeric Hymns, Hymn to Apollo 440). Likewise, Aphrodite appeared in shining garments, brighter than a fire and shimmering like the moon (Hymn to Aphrodite 85-89). When Demeter appeared to Metaneira, she initially looked like an old woman, but she transformed herself before her. “Casting old age away…a delightful perfume spread…a radiance shone out far from the goddess' immortal flesh…and the solid-made house was filled with a light like the lightning-flash”[45] (Hymn to Demeter 275-280). Homer wrote about Odysseus' transformation at the golden wand of Athena in which his clothes became clean, he became taller, and his skin looked younger. His son, Telemachus cried out, “Surely you are some god who rules the vaulting skies”[46] (Odyssey 16.206). Each time the observers conclude the transfigured person is a god. Resurrection & Ascension In defending the resurrection of Jesus, Theophilus of Antioch said, “[Y]ou believe that Hercules, who burned himself, lives; and that Aesculapius [Asclepius], who was struck with lightning, was raised”[47] (Autolycus 1.13). Although Hercules' physical body burnt, his transformed pneumatic body continued on as the poet Callimachus said, “under a Phrygian oak his limbs had been deified”[48] (Callimachus, Hymn to Artemis 159). Others thought Hercules ascended to heaven in his burnt body, which Asclepius subsequently healed (Lucian, Dialogue of the Gods 13). After his ascent, Diodorus relates how the people first sacrificed to him “as to a hero” then in Athens they began to honor him “with sacrifices like as to a god”[49] (The Historical Library 4.39). As for Asclepius, his ascension resulted in his deification as Cyprian said, “Aesculapius is struck by lightning, that he may rise into a god”[50] (On the Vanity of Idols 2). Romulus too “was torn to pieces by the hands of a hundred senators”[51] and after death ascended into heaven and received worship (Arnobius, Against the Heathen 1.41). Livy tells of how Romulus was “carried up on high by a whirlwind” and that immediately afterward “every man present hailed him as a god and son of a god”[52] (The Early History of Rome 1.16). As we can see from these three cases—Hercules, Asclepius, and Romulus—ascent into heaven was a common way of talking about deification. For Cicero, this was an obvious fact. People “who conferred outstanding benefits were translated to heaven through their fame and our gratitude”[53] (Nature 2.62). Consequently, Jesus' own resurrection and ascension would have triggered Gentiles to intuit his divinity. Commenting on the appearance of the immortalized Christ to the eleven in Galilee, Wendy Cotter said, “It is fair to say that the scene found in [Mat] 28:16-20 would be understood by a Greco-Roman audience, Jew or Gentile, as an apotheosis of Jesus.”[54] Although I beg to differ with Cotter's whole cloth inclusion of Jews here, it's hard to see how else non-Jews would have regarded the risen Christ. Litwa adds Rev 1.13-16 “[W]here he [Jesus] appears with all the accoutrements of the divine: a shining face, an overwhelming voice, luminescent clothing, and so on.”[55] In this brief survey we've seen that several key events in the story of Jesus told in the Gospels would have caused Greco-Roman hearers to intuit deity, including his divine conception, miracles, healing ministry, transfiguration, resurrection, and ascension. In their original context of second temple Judaism, these very same incidents would have resonated quite differently. His divine conception authenticated Jesus as the second Adam (Luke 3.38; Rom 5.14; 1 Cor 15.45) and God's Davidic son (2 Sam 7.14; Ps 2.7; Lk 1.32, 35). If Matthew or Luke wanted readers to understand that Jesus was divine based on his conception and birth, they failed to make such intentions explicit in the text. Rather, the birth narratives appear to have a much more modest aim—to persuade readers that Jesus had a credible claim to be Israel's messiah. His miracles show that “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power…for God was with him” (Acts 10.38; cf. Jn 3.2; 10.32, 38). Rather than concluding Jesus to be a god, Jewish witnesses to his healing of a paralyzed man “glorified God, who had given such authority to men” (Mat 9.8). Over and over, especially in the Gospel of John, Jesus directs people's attention to his Father who was doing the works in and through him (Jn 5.19, 30; 8.28; 12.49; 14.10). Seeing Jesus raise someone from the dead suggested to his original Jewish audience that “a great prophet has arisen among us” (Lk 7.16). The transfiguration, in its original setting, is an eschatological vision not a divine epiphany. Placement in the synoptic Gospels just after Jesus' promise that some there would not die before seeing the kingdom come sets the hermeneutical frame. “The transfiguration,” says William Lane, “was a momentary, but real (and witnessed) manifestation of Jesus' sovereign power which pointed beyond itself to the Parousia, when he will come ‘with power and glory.'”[56] If eschatology is the foreground, the background for the transfiguration was Moses' ascent of Sinai when he also encountered God and became radiant.[57] Viewed from the lenses of Moses' ascent and the eschaton, the transfiguration of Jesus is about his identity as God's definitive chosen ruler, not about any kind of innate divinity. Lastly, the resurrection and ascension validated Jesus' messianic claims to be the ruler of the age to come (Acts 17.31; Rom 1.4). Rather than concluding Jesus was deity, early Jewish Christians concluded these events showed that “God has made him both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2.36). The interpretative backgrounds for Jesus' ascension were not stories about Heracles, Asclepius, or Romulus. No, the key oracle that framed the Israelite understanding was the messianic psalm in which Yahweh told David's Lord to “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool” (Psalm 110.1). The idea is of a temporary sojourn in heaven until exercising the authority of his scepter to rule over earth from Zion. Once again, the biblical texts remain completely silent about deification. But even if the original meanings of Jesus' birth, ministry, transfiguration, resurrection, and ascension have messianic overtones when interpreted within the Jewish milieu, these same stories began to communicate various ideas of deity to Gentile converts in the generations that followed. We find little snippets from historical sources beginning in the second century and growing with time. Evidence of Belief in Jesus' as a Greco-Roman Deity To begin with, we have two non-Christian instances where Romans regarded Jesus as a deity within typical Greco-Roman categories. The first comes to us from Tertullian and Eusebius who mention an intriguing story about Tiberius' request to the Roman senate to deify Christ. Convinced by “intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ's divinity”[58] Tiberius proposed the matter to the senate (Apology 5). Eusebius adds that Tiberius learned that “many believed him to be a god in rising from the dead”[59] (Church History 2.2). As expected, the senate rejected the proposal. I mention this story, not because I can establish its historicity, but because it portrays how Tiberius would have thought about Jesus if he had heard about his miracles and resurrection. Another important incident is from one of the governor Pliny the Younger's letters to the emperor Trajan. Having investigated some people accused of Christianity, he found “they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honour of Christ as if to a god”[60] (Letter 96). To an outside imperial observer like Pliny, the Christians believed in a man who had performed miracles, defeated death, and now lived in heaven. Calling him a god was just the natural way of talking about such a person. Pliny would not have thought Jesus was superior to the deified Roman emperors much less Zeus or the Olympic gods. If he believed in Jesus at all, he would have regarded him as another Mediterranean prophet who escaped Hades to enjoy apotheosis. Another interesting text to consider is the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. This apocryphal text tells the story of Jesus' childhood between the ages of five and twelve. Jesus is impetuous, powerful, and brilliant. Unsure to conclude that Jesus was “either god or angel,”[61] his teacher remands him to Joseph's custody (7). Later, a crowd of onlookers ponders whether the child is a god or a heavenly messenger after he raises an infant from the dead (17). A year later Jesus raised a construction man who had fallen to his death back to life (18). Once again, the crowd asked if the child was from heaven. Although some historians are quick to assume the lofty conceptions of Justin and his successors about the logos were commonplace in the early Christianity, Litwa points out, “The spell of the Logos could only bewitch a very small circle of Christian elites… In IGT, we find a Jesus who is divine according to different canons, the canons of popular Mediterranean theology.”[62] Another important though often overlooked scholarly group of Christians in the second century was led by a certain Theodotus of Byzantium.[63] Typically referred to by their heresiological label “Theodotians,” these dynamic monarchians lived in Rome and claimed that they held to the original Christology before it had been corrupted under Bishop Zephyrinus (Eusebius, Church History 5.28). Theodotus believed in the virgin birth, but not in his pre-existence or that he was god/God (Pseudo-Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 7.35.1-2; 10.23.1-2). He thought that Jesus was not able to perform any miracles until his baptism when he received the Christ/Spirit. Pseudo-Hippolytus goes on to say, “But they do not want him to have become a god when the Spirit descended. Others say that he became a god after he rose from the dead.”[64] This last tantalizing remark implies that the Theodotians could affirm Jesus as a god after his resurrection though they denied his pre-existence. Although strict unitarians, they could regard Jesus as a god in that he was an ascended immortalized being who lived in heaven—not equal to the Father, but far superior to all humans on earth. Justin Martyr presents another interesting case to consider. Thoroughly acquainted with Greco-Roman literature and especially the philosophy of Plato, Justin sees Christ as a god whom the Father begot before all other creatures. He calls him “son, or wisdom, or angel, or god, or lord, or word”[65] (Dialogue with Trypho 61).  For Justin Christ is “at the same time angel and god and lord and man”[66] (59). Jesus was “of old the Word, appearing at one time in the form of fire, at another under the guise of incorporeal beings, but now, at the will of God, after becoming man for mankind”[67] (First Apology 63). In fact, Justin is quite comfortable to compare Christ to deified heroes and emperors. He says, “[W]e propose nothing new or different from that which you say about the so-called sons of Jupiter [Zeus] by your respected writers… And what about the emperors who die among you, whom you think worthy to be deified?”[68] (21). He readily accepts the parallels with Mercury, Perseus, Asclepius, Bacchus, and Hercules, but argues that Jesus is superior to them (22).[69] Nevertheless, he considered Jesus to be in “a place second to the unchanging and eternal God”[70] (13). The Father is “the Most True God” whereas the Son is he “who came forth from Him”[71] (6). Even as lates as Origen, Greco-Roman concepts of deity persist. In responding to Celsus' claim that no god or son of God has ever come down, Origen responds by stating such a statement would overthrow the stories of Pythian Apollo, Asclepius, and the other gods who descended (Against Celsus 5.2). My point here is not to say Origen believed in all the old myths, but to show how Origen reached for these stories as analogies to explain the incarnation of the logos. When Celsus argued that he would rather believe in the deity of Asclepius, Dionysus, and Hercules than Christ, Origen responded with a moral rather than ontological argument (3.42). He asks how these gods have improved the characters of anyone. Origen admits Celsus' argument “which places the forenamed individuals upon an equality with Jesus” might have force, however in light of the disreputable behavior of these gods, “how could you any longer say, with any show of reason, that these men, on putting aside their mortal body, became gods rather than Jesus?”[72] (3.42). Origen's Christology is far too broad and complicated to cover here. Undoubtedly, his work on eternal generation laid the foundation on which fourth century Christians could build homoousion Christology. Nevertheless, he retained some of the earlier subordinationist impulses of his forebearers. In his book On Prayer, he rebukes praying to Jesus as a crude error, instead advocating prayer to God alone (10). In his Commentary on John he repeatedly asserts that the Father is greater than his logos (1.40; 2.6; 6.23). Thus, Origen is a theologian on the seam of the times. He's both a subordinationist and a believer in the Son's eternal and divine ontology. Now, I want to be careful here. I'm not saying that all early Christians believed Jesus was a deified man like Asclepius or a descended god like Apollo or a reincarnated soul like Pythagoras. More often than not, thinking Christians whose works survive until today tended to eschew the parallels, simultaneously elevating Christ as high as possible while demoting the gods to mere demons. Still, Litwa is inciteful when he writes: It seems likely that early Christians shared the widespread cultural assumption that a resurrected, immortalized being was worthy of worship and thus divine. …Nonetheless there is a difference…Jesus, it appears, was never honored as an independent deity. Rather, he was always worshiped as Yahweh's subordinate. Naturally Heracles and Asclepius were Zeus' subordinates, but they were also members of a larger divine family. Jesus does not enter a pantheon but assumes a distinctive status as God's chief agent and plenipotentiary. It is this status that, to Christian insiders, placed Jesus in a category far above the likes of Heracles, Romulus, and Asclepius who were in turn demoted to the rank of δαίμονες [daimons].[73] Conclusion I began by asking the question, "What did early Christians mean by saying Jesus is god?" We noted that the ancient idea of agency (Jesus is God/god because he represents Yahweh), though present in Hebrew and Christian scripture, didn't play much of a role in how Gentile Christians thought about Jesus. Or if it did, those texts did not survive. By the time we enter the postapostolic era, a majority of Christianity was Gentile and little communication occurred with the Jewish Christians that survived in the East. As such, we turned our attention to Greco-Roman theology to tune our ears to hear the story of Jesus the way they would have. We learned about their multifaceted array of divinities. We saw that gods can come down and take the form of humans and humans can go up and take the form of gods. We found evidence for this kind of thinking in both non-Christian and Christian sources in the second and third centuries. Now it is time to return to the question I began with: “When early Christian authors called Jesus “god” what did they mean?” We saw that the idea of a deified man was present in the non-Christian witnesses of Tiberius and Pliny but made scant appearance in our Christian literature except for the Theodotians. As for the idea that a god came down to become a man, we found evidence in The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Justin, and Origen.[74] Of course, we find a spectrum within this view, from Justin's designation of Jesus as a second god to Origen's more philosophically nuanced understanding. Still, it's worth noting as R. P. C. Hanson observed that, “With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year 355.”[75] Whether any Christians before Alexander and Athanasius of Alexandria held to the sophisticated idea of consubstantiality depends on showing evidence of the belief that the Son was coequal, coeternal, and coessential with the Father prior to Nicea. (Readers interested in the case for this view should consult Michael Bird's Jesus among the Gods in which he attempted the extraordinary feat of finding proto-Nicene Christology in the first two centuries, a task typically associated with maverick apologists not peer-reviewed historians.) In conclusion, the answer to our driving question about the meaning of “Jesus as god” is that the answer depends on whom we ask. If we ask the Theodotians, Jesus is a god because that's just what one calls an immortalized man who lives in heaven.[76] If we ask those holding a docetic Christology, the answer is that a god came down in appearance as a man. If we ask a logos subordinationist, they'll tell us that Jesus existed as the god through whom the supreme God created the universe before he became a human being. If we ask Tertullian, Jesus is god because he derives his substance from the Father, though he has a lesser portion of divinity.[77] If we ask Athanasius, he'll wax eloquent about how Jesus is of the same substance as the Father equal in status and eternality. The bottom line is that there was not one answer to this question prior to the fourth century. Answers depend on whom we ask and when they lived. Still, we can't help but wonder about the more tantalizing question of development. Which Christology was first and which ones evolved under social, intellectual, and political pressures? In the quest to specify the various stages of development in the Christologies of the ante-Nicene period, this Greco-Roman perspective may just provide the missing link between the reserved and limited way that the NT applies theos to Jesus in the first century and the homoousian view that eventually garnered imperial support in the fourth century. How easy would it have been for fresh converts from the Greco-Roman world to unintentionally mishear the story of Jesus? How easy would it have been for them to fit Jesus into their own categories of descended gods and ascended humans? With the unmooring of Gentile Christianity from its Jewish heritage, is it any wonder that Christologies began to drift out to sea? Now I'm not suggesting that all Christians went through a steady development from a human Jesus to a pre-existent Christ, to an eternal God the Son, to the Chalcedonian hypostatic union. As I mentioned above, plenty of other options were around and every church had its conservatives in addition to its innovators. The story is messy and uneven with competing views spread across huge geographic distances. Furthermore, many Christians probably were content to leave such theological nuances fuzzy, rather than seeking doctrinal precision on Christ's relation to his God and Father. Whatever the case may be, we dare not ignore the influence of Greco-Roman theology in our accounts of Christological development in the Mediterranean world of the first three centuries.    Bibliography The Homeric Hymns. Translated by Michael Crudden. New York, NY: Oxford, 2008. Antioch, Theophilus of. To Autolycus. Translated by Marcus Dods. Vol. 2. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. Aphrahat. The Demonstrations. Translated by Ellen Muehlberger. Vol. 3. The Cambridge Edition of Early Christian Writings. Edited by Mark DelCogliano. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2022. Apollodorus. The Library of Greek Mythology. Translated by Robin Hard. Oxford, UK: Oxford, 1998. Appian. The Civil Wars. Translated by John Carter. London, UK: Penguin, 1996. Arnobius. Against the Heathen. Translated by Hamilton Bryce and Hugh Campbell. Vol. 6. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. Arrian. The Campaigns of Alexander. Translated by Aubrey De Sélincourt. London, UK: Penguin, 1971. Bird, Michael F. Jesus among the Gods. Waco, TX: Baylor, 2022. Blackburn, Barry. Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions. Tübingen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr, 1991. Callimachus. Hymn to Artemis. Translated by Susan A. Stephens. Callimachus: The Hymns. New York, NY: Oxford, 2015. Cicero. The Nature of the Gods. Translated by Patrick Gerard Walsh. Oxford, UK: Oxford, 2008. Cornutus, Lucius Annaeus. Greek Theology. Translated by George Boys-Stones. Greek Theology, Fragments, and Testimonia. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2018. Cotter, Wendy. "Greco-Roman Apotheosis Traditions and the Resurrection Appearances in Matthew." In The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study. Edited by David E. Aune. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. Cyprian. Treatise 6: On the Vanity of Idols. Translated by Ernest Wallis. Vol. 5. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. Dittenberger, W. Orientis Graecae Inscriptiones Selectae. Vol. 2. Hildesheim: Olms, 1960. Eusebius. The Church History. Translated by Paul L. Maier. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007. Fredriksen, Paula. "How High Can Early High Christology Be?" In Monotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquity. Edited by Matthew V. Novenson. Vol. 180.vol. Supplements to Novum Testamentum. Leiden: Brill, 2020. Hanson, R. P. C. Search for a Christian Doctrine of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007. Hart, George. The Routledge Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Routledge, 2005. Homer. The Odyssey. Translated by Robert Fagles. New York, NY: Penguin, 1997. Iamblichus. Life of Pythagoras. Translated by Thomas Taylor. Iamblichus' Life of Pythagoras. Delhi, IN: Zinc Read, 2023. Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho. Translated by Thomas B. Falls. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003. Laertius, Diogenes. Life of Pythagoras. Translated by Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie. The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library. Edited by David R. Fideler. Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988. Laertius, Diogenes. Lives of the Eminent Philosophers. Translated by Pamela Mensch. Edited by James Miller. New York, NY: Oxford, 2020. Lane, William L. The Gospel of Mark. Nicnt, edited by F. F. Bruce Ned B. Stonehouse, and Gordon D. Fee. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974. Litwa, M. David. Iesus Deus. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014. Livy. The Early History of Rome. Translated by Aubrey De Sélincourt. London, UK: Penguin, 2002. Origen. Against Celsus. Translated by Frederick Crombie. Vol. 4. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Pausanias. Guide to Greece. Translated by Peter Levi. London, UK: Penguin, 1979. Perriman, Andrew. In the Form of a God. Studies in Early Christology, edited by David Capes Michael Bird, and Scott Harrower. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2022. Philostratus. Letters of Apollonius. Vol. 458. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 2006. Plutarch. Life of Alexander. Translated by Ian Scott-Kilvert and Timothy E. Duff. The Age of Alexander. London, UK: Penguin, 2011. Porphyry. Life of Pythagoras. Translated by Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie. The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library. Edited by David Fideler. Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988. Pseudo-Clement. Recognitions. Translated by Thomas Smith. Vol. 8. Ante Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Pseudo-Hippolytus. Refutation of All Heresies. Translated by David Litwa. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2016. Pseudo-Thomas. Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Translated by James Orr. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1903. Psuedo-Clement. Homilies. Translated by Peter Peterson. Vol. 8. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1897. Siculus, Diodorus. The Historical Library. Translated by Charles Henry Oldfather. Vol. 1. Edited by Giles Laurén: Sophron Editor, 2017. Strabo. The Geography. Translated by Duane W. Roller. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2020. Tertullian. Against Praxeas. Translated by Holmes. Vol. 3. Ante Nice Fathers. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Tertullian. Apology. Translated by S. Thelwall. Vol. 3. Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Younger, Pliny the. The Letters of the Younger Pliny. Translated by Betty Radice. London: Penguin, 1969. End Notes [1] For the remainder of this paper, I will use the lower case “god” for all references to deity outside of Yahweh, the Father of Christ. I do this because all our ancient texts lack capitalization and our modern capitalization rules imply a theology that is anachronistic and unhelpful for the present inquiry. [2] Christopher Kaiser wrote, “Explicit references to Jesus as ‘God' in the New Testament are very few, and even those few are generally plagued with uncertainties of either text or interpretation.” Christopher B. Kaiser, The Doctrine of God: A Historical Survey (London: Marshall Morgan & Scott, 1982), 29. Other scholars such as Raymond Brown (Jesus: God and Man), Jason David BeDuhn (Truth in Translation), and Brian Wright (“Jesus as θεός: A Textual Examination” in Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament) have expressed similar sentiments. [3] John 20.28; Hebrews 1.8; Titus 2.13; 2 Peter 1.1; Romans 9.5; and 1 John 5.20. [4] See Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians 12.2 where a manuscript difference determines whether or not Polycarp called Jesus god or lord. Textual corruption is most acute in Igantius' corpus. Although it's been common to dismiss the long recension as an “Arian” corruption, claiming the middle recension to be as pure and uncontaminated as freshly fallen snow upon which a foot has never trodden, such an uncritical view is beginning to give way to more honest analysis. See Paul Gilliam III's Ignatius of Antioch and the Arian Controversy (Leiden: Brill, 2017) for a recent treatment of Christological corruption in the middle recension. [5] See the entries for  אֱלֹהִיםand θεός in the Hebrew Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT), the Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon (BDB), Eerdmans Dictionary, Kohlenberger/Mounce Concise Hebrew-Aramaic Dictionary of the Old Testament, the Bauer Danker Arndt Gingrich Lexicon (BDAG), Friberg Greek Lexicon, and Thayer's Greek Lexicon. [6] See notes on Is 9.6 and Ps 45.6. [7] ZIBBC: “In what sense can the king be called “god”? By virtue of his divine appointment, the king in the ancient Near East stood before his subjects as a representative of the divine realm. …In fact, the term “gods“ (ʾelōhı̂m) is used of priests who functioned as judges in the Israelite temple judicial system (Ex. 21:6; 22:8-9; see comments on 58:1; 82:6-7).” John W. Hilber, “Psalms,” in The Minor Prophets, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, vol. 5 of Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: Old Testament. ed. John H. Walton (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 358. [8] Around a.d. 340, Aphrahat of Persia advised his fellow Christians to reply to Jewish critics who questioned why “You call a human being ‘God'” (Demonstrations 17.1). He said, “For the honored name of the divinity is granted event ot rightoues human beings, when they are worthy of being called by it…[W]hen he chose Moses, his friend and his beloved…he called him “god.” …We call him God, just as he named Moses with his own name…The name of the divinity was granted for great honor in the world. To whom he wishes, God appoints it” (17.3, 4, 5). Aphrahat, The Demonstrations, trans., Ellen Muehlberger, vol. 3, The Cambridge Edition of Early Christian Writings (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2022), 213-15. In the Clementine Recognitions we find a brief mention of the concept:  “Therefore the name God is applied in three ways: either because he to whom it is given is truly God, or because he is the servant of him who is truly; and for the honour of the sender, that his authority may be full, he that is sent is called by the name of him who sends, as is often done in respect of angels: for when they appear to a man, if he is a wise and intelligent man, he asks the name of him who appears to him, that he may acknowledge at once the honour of the sent, and the authority of the sender” (2.42). Pseudo-Clement, Recognitions, trans., Thomas Smith, vol. 8, Ante Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003). [9] Michael F. Bird, Jesus among the Gods (Waco, TX: Baylor, 2022), 13. [10] Andrew Perriman, In the Form of a God, Studies in Early Christology, ed. David Capes Michael Bird, and Scott Harrower (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2022), 130. [11] Paula Fredriksen, "How High Can Early High Christology Be?," in Monotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquity, ed. Matthew V. Novenson, vol. 180 (Leiden: Brill, 2020), 296, 99. [12] ibid. [13] See Gen 18.1; Ex 3.2; 24.11; Is 6.1; Ezk 1.28. [14] Compare the Masoretic Text of Psalm 8.6 to the Septuagint and Hebrews 2.7. [15] Homer, The Odyssey, trans., Robert Fagles (New York, NY: Penguin, 1997), 370. [16] Diodorus Siculus, The Historical Library, trans., Charles Henry Oldfather, vol. 1 (Sophron Editor, 2017), 340. [17] Uranus met death at the brutal hands of his own son, Kronos who emasculated him and let bleed out, resulting in his deification (Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 1.10). Later on, after suffering a fatal disease, Kronos himself experienced deification, becoming the planet Saturn (ibid.). Zeus married Hera and they produced Osiris (Dionysus), Isis (Demeter), Typhon, Apollo, and Aphrodite (ibid. 2.1). [18] Lucius Annaeus Cornutus, Greek Theology, trans., George Boys-Stones, Greek Theology, Fragments, and Testimonia (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2018), 123. [19] Apollodorus, The Library of Greek Mythology, trans., Robin Hard (Oxford, UK: Oxford, 1998), 111. [20] Pausanias, Guide to Greece, trans., Peter Levi (London, UK: Penguin, 1979), 98. [21] Strabo, The Geography, trans., Duane W. Roller (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2020), 281. [22] Psuedo-Clement, Homilies, trans., Peter Peterson, vol. 8, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1897). Greek: “αὐτὸν δὲ ὡς θεὸν ἐθρήσκευσαν” from Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologia Graeca, taken from Accordance (PSCLEMH-T), OakTree Software, Inc., 2018, Version 1.1. [23] See Barry Blackburn, Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions (Tübingen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr, 1991), 32. [24] Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, trans., Pamela Mensch (New York, NY: Oxford, 2020), 39. [25] Iamblichus, Life of Pythagoras, trans., Thomas Taylor, Iamblichus' Life of Pythagoras (Delhi, IN: Zinc Read, 2023), 2. [26] Diogenes Laertius, Life of Pythagoras, trans., Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie, The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988), 142. [27] See the list in Blackburn, 39. He corroborates miracle stories from Diogenus Laertius, Iamblichus, Apollonius, Nicomachus, and Philostratus. [28] Porphyry, Life of Pythagoras, trans., Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie, The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988), 128-9. [29] Iamblichus,  68. [30] What I call “resurrection” refers to the phrase, “Thou shalt bring back from Hades a dead man's strength.” Diogenes Laertius 8.2.59, trans. R. D. Hicks. [31] Laertius, "Lives of the Eminent Philosophers," 306. Two stories of his deification survive: in one Empedocles disappears in the middle of the night after hearing an extremely loud voice calling his name. After this the people concluded that they should sacrifice to him since he had become a god (8.68). In the other account, Empedocles climbs Etna and leaps into the fiery volcanic crater “to strengthen the rumor that he had become a god” (8.69). [32] Pausanias,  192. Sextus Empiricus says Asclepius raised up people who had died at Thebes as well as raising up the dead body of Tyndaros (Against the Professors 1.261). [33] Cicero adds that the Arcadians worship Asclepius (Nature 3.57). [34] In another instance, he confronted and cast out a demon from a licentious young man (Life 4.20). [35] The phrase is “περὶ ἐμοῦ καὶ θεοῖς εἴρηται ὡς περὶ θείου ἀνδρὸς.” Philostratus, Letters of Apollonius, vol. 458, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 2006). [36] See George Hart, The Routledge Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses, 2nd ed. (Oxford, UK: Routledge, 2005), 3. [37] Plutarch, Life of Alexander, trans., Ian Scott-Kilvert and Timothy E. Duff, The Age of Alexander (London, UK: Penguin, 2011), 311. Arrian includes a story about Anaxarchus advocating paying divine honors to Alexander through prostration. The Macedonians refused but the Persian members of his entourage “rose from their seats and one by one grovelled on the floor before the King.” Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, trans., Aubrey De Sélincourt (London, UK: Penguin, 1971), 222. [38] Translation my own from “Ἀντίοχος ὁ Θεὸς Δίκαιος Ἐπιφανὴς Φιλορωμαῖος Φιλέλλην.” Inscription at Nemrut Dağ, accessible at https://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras/display.php?page=cimrm32. See also https://zeugma.packhum.org/pdfs/v1ch09.pdf. [39] Greek taken from W. Dittenberger, Orientis Graecae Inscriptiones Selectae, vol. 2 (Hildesheim: Olms, 1960), 48-60. Of particular note is the definite article before θεός. They didn't celebrate the birthday of a god, but the birthday of the god. [40] Appian, The Civil Wars, trans., John Carter (London, UK: Penguin, 1996), 149. [41] M. David Litwa, Iesus Deus (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014), 20. [42] ibid. [43] Blackburn, 92-3. [44] The Homeric Hymns, trans., Michael Crudden (New York, NY: Oxford, 2008), 38. [45] "The Homeric Hymns," 14. [46] Homer,  344. [47] Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, trans., Marcus Dods, vol. 2, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001). [48] Callimachus, Hymn to Artemis, trans., Susan A. Stephens, Callimachus: The Hymns (New York, NY: Oxford, 2015), 119. [49] Siculus,  234. [50] Cyprian, Treatise 6: On the Vanity of Idols, trans., Ernest Wallis, vol. 5, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995). [51] Arnobius, Against the Heathen, trans., Hamilton Bryce and Hugh Campbell, vol. 6, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995). [52] Livy, The Early History of Rome, trans., Aubrey De Sélincourt (London, UK: Penguin, 2002), 49. [53] Cicero, The Nature of the Gods, trans., Patrick Gerard Walsh (Oxford, UK: Oxford, 2008), 69. [54] Wendy Cotter, "Greco-Roman Apotheosis Traditions and the Resurrection Appearances in Matthew," in The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study, ed. David E. Aune (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 149. [55] Litwa, 170. [56] William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, Nicnt, ed. F. F. Bruce Ned B. Stonehouse, and Gordon D. Fee (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974). [57] “Recent commentators have stressed that the best background for understanding the Markan transfiguration is the story of Moses' ascent up Mount Sinai (Exod. 24 and 34).” Litwa, 123. [58] Tertullian, Apology, trans. S. Thelwall, vol. 3, Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003). [59] Eusebius, The Church History, trans. Paul L. Maier (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007), 54. [60] Pliny the Younger, The Letters of the Younger Pliny, trans., Betty Radice (London: Penguin, 1969), 294. [61] Pseudo-Thomas, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, trans., James Orr (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1903), 25. [62] Litwa, 83. [63] For sources on Theodotus, see Pseduo-Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 7.35.1-2; 10.23.1-2; Pseudo-Tertullian, Against All Heresies 8.2; Eusebius, Church History 5.28. [64] Pseudo-Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, trans., David Litwa (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2016), 571. [65] I took the liberty to decapitalize these appellatives. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, trans. Thomas B. Falls (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003), 244. [66] Justin Martyr, 241. (Altered, see previous footnote.) [67] Justin Martyr, 102. [68] Justin Martyr, 56-7. [69] Arnobius makes a similar argument in Against the Heathen 1.38-39 “Is he not worthy to be called a god by us and felt to be a god on account of the favor or such great benefits? For if you have enrolled Liber among the gods because he discovered the use of wine, and Ceres the use of bread, Aesculapius the use of medicines, Minerva the use of oil, Triptolemus plowing, and Hercules because he conquered and restrained beasts, thieves, and the many-headed hydra…So then, ought we not to consider Christ a god, and to bestow upon him all the worship due to his divinity?” Translation from Litwa, 105. [70] Justin Martyr, 46. [71] Justin Martyr, 39. [72] Origen, Against Celsus, trans. Frederick Crombie, vol. 4, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003). [73] Litwa, 173. [74] I could easily multiply examples of this by looking at Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and many others. [75] The obvious exception to Hanson's statement were thinkers like Sabellius and Praxeas who believed that the Father himself came down as a human being. R. P. C. Hanson, Search for a Christian Doctrine of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), xix. [76] Interestingly, even some of the biblical unitarians of the period were comfortable with calling Jesus god, though they limited his divinity to his post-resurrection life. [77] Tertullian writes, “[T]he Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: “My Father is greater than I.” In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being “a little lower than the angels.” Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son” (Against Praxeas 9). Tertullian, Against Praxeas, trans., Holmes, vol. 3, Ante Nice Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003).

This is part 18 of the Early Church History class. I wonder how many Christians in the world today believe the gifts of the spirit ceased in the time of the apostles? I know there are quite a few. Many others, however, believe they are available today and make time for them in their worship services. This is one of those topics about which we don't need to guess. We have the historical record and can just look and see if generations after the apostles continue to speak in tongues, prophecy, cast out demons, or perform miraculous healing. In today's episode we'll survey what the data say about the first five hundred of Christian history. We'll also cover the Montanists, a lesser-known movement centered on prophecy, tongues, and asceticism. Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz29T8ApWCc&list=PLN9jFDsS3QV2lk3B0I7Pa77hfwKJm1SRI&index=18 —— Links —— Check out our series on gifts of the spirit with interviews from different perspectives here. More Restitutio resources on Christian history See other classes here Support Restitutio by donating here Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Sean Finnegan on Twitter @RestitutioSF Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library. Who is Sean Finnegan?  Read his bio here —— Notes —— Gifts of the Spirit in General Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 82.1; 88.1 Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 2.32.4 Tertullian of Carthage, On Baptism 20 Novatian of Rome, On the Trinity 29 Apostolic Constitutions 8.1-2 Speaking in Tongues and Prophecy Didache 11.7-12 Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 5.6.1 Tertullian of Carthage, Against Marcion 5.8; On the Soul 9 Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity 8.33 Montanism (Excursus) 165 - Montanus began speaking in tongues and prophesying, initiating a movement called the New Prophecy[1] Sayings of Montanus “Behold, man is like a lyre and I fly to him like a plectrum. Man sleeps and I stay awake. Behold, the Lord is the one who throws human hearts into ecstasy and gives a heart to men.” (Panarion 48.5.1)[2] “I am the Lord God, the Almighty, who abide in man.” (Panarion 48.11.1) “Neither angel nor envoy, but I the Lord God, the Father, have come.” (Panarion 48.11.9) Maximilla and Priscilla became prophetesses. The New Prophecy people emphasized obedience to God, asceticism, fasting, celibacy, and spiritual experiences. They rejected remarriage and any serious sin after baptism. They survived until the mid-sixth century when Justinian initiated a persecution in Pepuza. Exorcisms Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 30.3; 76.6; 85.2-3 Tertullian of Carthage, On the Shows 29 Origen of Alexandria, Against Celsus 7.4 Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition 20-21[3] Healing and Miracles Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 2.31.2 Origen of Alexandria, Against Celsus 1.46, 67 Cyprian, Letters 16.4.1; 39.1.2 Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition 14 Apostolic Constitutions 8.26 Disappearance with Time Causes for diminishment Reaction to Montanists' emphasis on the spirit Constantinian shift watered down Christianity, resulting in the gifts mainly finding expression among the desert fathers and mothers. Rigidity of church services and authority solely among bishops and councils quenched the spirit. John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Corinthians 29 Augustine of Hippo, Homilies on 1 John 6 Review Christians throughout the first five centuries believed that gifts or charisms of the spirit were available to Christians. We have several reports of speaking in tongues as well as prophecy from the Didache, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Hilary. In the second century, Montanus began a movement called the New Prophecy that emphasized the gifts of the spirit. New Prophecy leaders included female prophets such as Maximilla and Priscilla as well as a male theologian named Tertullian. Though excommunicated by many churches and persecuted by the government from Constantine onward, The New Prophecy movement endured for four centuries. Christians associated demons with the gods the pagans worshiped and confidently believed they had the power to drive them out. Casting out demons was standard operating procedure in churches both for first-time visitors and at baptisms. Miraculous healing, including raising the dead, was well-known to early Christians. Church orders said someone with the gift of healing would be obvious to all in the church. Over time, possibly due to a reaction against the Montanists, the Constantinian shift, or the rigidifying of church services, the gifts of the spirit diminished. By the fourth century, John Chrysostom said speaking in tongues and prophecy had ceased. By the fifth century, Augustine thought it silly to expect tongues. [1] Others called them Phrygians, Cataphrygians, and Montanists [2] Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 48.5.1, trans. Philip R. Amidon (New York: Oxford 1990), 170. [3] Available online at http://www.bombaxo.com/hippolytus-the-apostolic-tradition/

This is part 17 of the Early Church History class. Throughout the first five hundred years of Christian history, a significant shift occurred in what we believed about our ultimate destiny. The New Testament and the early church fathers repeatedly expressed belief in God's kingdom coming to earth. Over time, however, this idea gave way to the more recognizable medieval dichotomy of heaven or hell immediately at death. In this episode you'll learn who the major players were on both sides of this struggle as well as the main reasons why Christianity ultimately rejected the kingdom. Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3pTATsdfME&list=PLN9jFDsS3QV2lk3B0I7Pa77hfwKJm1SRI&index=17 —— Links —— Check out our entire class on the Kingdom of God available on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. This class includes the four original lectures on which this single one was based. More Restitutio resources on Christian history See other classes here Support Restitutio by donating here Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Sean Finnegan on Twitter @RestitutioSF Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library. Who is Sean Finnegan?  Read his bio here —— Notes —— The Kingdom of God is the idea that the Messiah Jesus will come back to earth, resurrect the saved, and initiate an age of restoration, eventually making everything wrong with the world right. We find robust belief in this idea in the New Testament; however, by the Middle Ages, heaven or hell at death had entirely replaced the Kingdom idea. Kingdom Believers First Century Didache 8.2; 9.4; 10.5; 16.7-8 Clement of Rome, 1 Clement 42.3; 50.3 Psuedo-Barnabas, Epistle of Barnabas 1.7; 6.13; 10.11; 15.4-5 Second Century Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Ephesians 16.1 Polycarp of Smyrna, Epistle to the Philippians 5.2; 11.2 Hermas, Similitude 9.15.2-3; 9.20.2-3 Pseudo-Clement; 2 Clement 5.5; 9.6; 11.7; 12.1, 6; 17.4-5 Papias of Hierapolis, cited in Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.33.3-4; see also Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men 18 Justine Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 80 Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 5.32-5.36 Third Century Hippolytus, On Genesis Fragment 3; On Daniel 2.4; Scholia of Daniel 7.22; Treatise on Christ and Antichrist 65 Commodian, Instructions 29; 33; 34; 35; 44 Nepos of Egypt, cited in Eusebius, The Church History 7.24.1 Victorinus, Commentary on Revelation 1.5, 15; 14.15; 20.2, 5, 6 (Greek version[1]); On the Creation of the World 5 Fourth Century Lactantius, Divine Institutes 4.12; 5.24 Fifth Century Augustine, Sermon 259.2 Jerome, Commentary to Isaiah 18. Prologue Kingdom Deniers Too crude Origen of Alexandria, Commentary on Song of Songs Prologue Eusebius of Caesarea, The Church History 3.39 Too hedonic Dionysius of Alexandria, cited in Eusebius, The Church History 7.25 Jerome, Commentary to Isaiah 18. Prologue Augustine, City of God 20.7 Too Jewish Origen of Alexandria, On First Principles 2.11.2 Eusebius of Caesarea, Commentary on Isaiah 2.1-4 Jerome, Commentary to Isaiah 11.15-16 Review From the first to the fifth centuries, many important authors spoke about their belief in the coming Kingdom of God on earth. They conceived of the Kingdom as a new age we enter at the coming of Christ. Early on, going to heaven was considered a serious heresy. Over time, a relatively small number of influential Christians began arguing against the Kingdom. They considered living on a mutable earth forever in physical bodies to be too crude and out of touch with their cosmology. They criticized believers in the Kingdom for seeking bodily pleasures like eating fine food, drinking alcohol, and having intercourse. They rejected the literal interpretation of Kingdom prophecies found throughout scripture as a Jewish way to understand. Although Augustine had believed in the Kingdom at one point, his ultimate rejection of it in favor of heaven-at-death settled the matter for the Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages. [1] Jerome changed Victorinus' book in his Latin translation. The Greek version is online at http://www.bombaxo.com/victorinus-in-apocalypsin/

This is part 6 of the Early Church History class. In the latter half of the second century, two kinds of Christians arose to defend the faith. On the one hand, apologists wrote defenses of Christianity directed at the Roman government. They responded to rumors, arguing that Christians were decent people who should be shown toleration. On the other hand, heresy hunters (or heresiologists) began to combat Christian groups that diverged significantly from apostolic Christianity, such as the Gnostics, Valentinians, and Marcionites. Today we'll briefly overview this fascinating period of Christianity when persuasion not coercion was the means to defeat one's opponents. Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43mIuUVqCK0&list=PLN9jFDsS3QV2lk3B0I7Pa77hfwKJm1SRI&index=6 —— Links —— More Restitutio resources on Christian history More classes here Support Restitutio by donating here Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Sean Finnegan on Twitter @RestitutioSF Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library. Who is Sean Finnegan?  Read his bio here —— Notes —— Apologists (Defenders) of the 2nd C. - Quadratus (130?)- Aristo of Pella (c. 140?)- Aristides (c. 145)- Miltiades (c. 160-180?)- Justin Martyr (d. 165)- Athenagoras (c. 170-180)- Melito of Sardis (c. 170-180?)- Appolinaris of Hierapolis (170-180)- Tatian (d. 180?)- Theophilus of Antioch (c. 180-185)- Epistle of Diognetus (150-225) Quadratus of Athens (130) - addressed book to Hadrian (r. 117-138)- claimed to know people healed by Jesus Epistle of Diognetus (150-225) - author ideas: Hippolytus, Aristides, Pantaenus- common criticisms are that Christians are incestuous b/c we call each other brother and sister, cannibals b/c we eat body and blood of Jesus, atheists b/c we didn't believe in the gods, politically subversive b/c we didn't honor the emperor by offering incense to his statue- Diog. 5.1-17 provides an excellent example of an effective apologist Justin Martyr (100-165) - Stoic -> Peripatetic -> Pythagorean -> Platonist -> Christian- founded a school in Rome- claimed Greek philosophers accessed truth of the Logos, thus Christianity is not a novel religion- Justin addressed his case to the Roman emperor and his sons and the senate and the Roman people (First Apology 1.1-2)- Dialogue with Trypho employed the idea of heresy as defined by a key belief—resurrection (see chapter 80) Heresy Hunters - Justin (140-160)- Irenaeus (180-199)- Tertullian (200-213)- Hippolytus (200-230)- Eusebius (324)- Epiphanius (374-377)- Theodoret (452-453) Standard Arguments - too complicated- trace beliefs to heresiarch- unnatural interpretation of scripture- can't trace beliefs back to the apostles- perverted truth leads to perverted morals- new generations recycle old heresies Irenaeus of Lyons (130-202)- Argued against Valentinus, Marcus, Ptolemaeus, Saturninus, Basilides, Carpocrates, Cerinthus, Ebionites, Nicolaitans, Cerdo, Marcion, Tatian, the Encratites, Orphites, Sethians, Cainites, and others- Against Heresies (aka. The Refutation and Overthrow of Falsely Called Gnosis) intended to equip church leaders to protect their unsuspecting flock from getting tricked into believing any forms of Gnosticism Review - Apologists focused on defending Christianity against outsiders by writing to the Roman authorities and laying out a case for toleration.- Justin Martyr taught that Christianity had continuity with Greek philosophers who also accessed the Logos.- Heresy hunters (heresiologists) defended Christianity against insiders who had differing beliefs from theirs.- Christians fought heresy by using key beliefs they knew their opponents couldn't affirm and by labelling them.- Justin and Irenaeus emphasized resurrection and an ultimate kingdom on earth to exclude those who held varieties of Gnostic beliefs.

Originally aired December 21, 2020.In this episode we are going to unwrap the depths of Isaiah 9:6 as a present from God for the first Christmas.Isaiah 9:6: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."We look at each phrase and cross reference to see that it is a prophecy of the Messiah.We also compare it with Isaiah 7:14 to verify that the Messiah would be truly born of a virgin.We put other possible fulfillments to the test such as King Hezekiah, Isaiah's son, or someone unknown from history.We challenge ourselves to remember that the ultimate purpose of Jesus' coming is to be the king over the earth. His suffering and atonement secures his citizenry.We look at the name of the son as "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." We find each part of this name describing God in the book of Isaiah.We take on challenges against the incarnation and the deity of Christ as we explore this marvelous Hebrew name.Sources Cited:Zhava Glaser, "Almah: Virgin or Young Maiden?" JewsforJesus.org, September 1, 1993.Justin Martyr, "Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 84," trans. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson.Jews for Judaism, "Isaiah 7:14 - A Virgin Birth?" JewsforJudaism.org.Scriptures Referenced:Isaiah 9:6-7"unto us a son is given"Isaiah 7:14Matthew 1:23Isaiah 8:1-18Joel 1:8Song of Solomon 6:18Jeremiah 31:22"and the government shall be upon his shoulder"1 Peter 2:72 Thessalonians 1:7-9Revelation 19:13"and his name shall be called"Isaiah 40:10-11Ezekiel 34:23-24"Wonderful Counselor"Isaiah 25:1Isaiah 28:29"Mighty God"Ezekiel 32:21Ezekiel 28:2,7-9Isaiah 10:20-21Jeremiah 32:18Jeremiah 23:5-6Daniel 7:13-14,27"Everlasting Father"Isaiah 57:15Isaiah 63:16"Prince of Peace"Isaiah 2:4Isaiah 45:7Is this about Hezekiah?Isaiah 9:7Isaiah 39:5-7*** Castle Rock Women's Health is a pro-life and pro-women health care ministry. They need your help to move into a new office to serve the community better. Please consider a monthly or one-time donation. ***We value your feedback!Have questions for Truthspresso? Contact us!

Originally aired December 21, 2020. In this episode we are going to unwrap the depths of Isaiah 9:6 as a present from God for the first Christmas. Isaiah 9:6: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." We look at each phrase and cross reference to see that it is a prophecy of the Messiah. We also compare it with Isaiah 7:14 to verify that the Messiah would be truly born of a virgin. We put other possible fulfillments to the test such as King Hezekiah, Isaiah's son, or someone unknown from history. We challenge ourselves to remember that the ultimate purpose of Jesus' coming is to be the king over the earth. His suffering and atonement secures his citizenry. We look at the name of the son as "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." We find each part of this name describing God in the book of Isaiah. We take on challenges against the incarnation and the deity of Christ as we explore this marvelous Hebrew name. Sources Cited: Zhava Glaser, "Almah: Virgin or Young Maiden?" JewsforJesus.org, September 1, 1993. Justin Martyr, "Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 84," trans. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Jews for Judaism, "Isaiah 7:14 - A Virgin Birth?" JewsforJudaism.org. Scriptures Referenced: Isaiah 9:6-7 "unto us a son is given" Isaiah 7:14 Matthew 1:23 Isaiah 8:1-18 Joel 1:8 Song of Solomon 6:18 Jeremiah 31:22 "and the government shall be upon his shoulder" 1 Peter 2:7 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 Revelation 19:13 "and his name shall be called" Isaiah 40:10-11 Ezekiel 34:23-24 "Wonderful Counselor" Isaiah 25:1 Isaiah 28:29 "Mighty God" Ezekiel 32:21 Ezekiel 28:2,7-9 Isaiah 10:20-21 Jeremiah 32:18 Jeremiah 23:5-6 Daniel 7:13-14,27 "Everlasting Father" Isaiah 57:15 Isaiah 63:16 "Prince of Peace" Isaiah 2:4 Isaiah 45:7 Is this about Hezekiah? Isaiah 9:7 Isaiah 39:5-7 *** Castle Rock Women's Health is a pro-life and pro-women health care ministry. They need your help to move into a new office to serve the community better. Please consider a monthly or one-time donation. *** We value your feedback! Have questions for Truthspresso? Contact us!

Originally aired December 21, 2020.In this episode we are going to unwrap the depths of Isaiah 9:6 as a present from God for the first Christmas.Isaiah 9:6: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."We look at each phrase and cross reference to see that it is a prophecy of the Messiah.We also compare it with Isaiah 7:14 to verify that the Messiah would be truly born of a virgin.We put other possible fulfillments to the test such as King Hezekiah, Isaiah's son, or someone unknown from history.We challenge ourselves to remember that the ultimate purpose of Jesus' coming is to be the king over the earth. His suffering and atonement secures his citizenry.We look at the name of the son as "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." We find each part of this name describing God in the book of Isaiah.We take on challenges against the incarnation and the deity of Christ as we explore this marvelous Hebrew name.Sources Cited:Zhava Glaser, "Almah: Virgin or Young Maiden?" JewsforJesus.org, September 1, 1993.Justin Martyr, "Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 84," trans. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson.Jews for Judaism, "Isaiah 7:14 - A Virgin Birth?" JewsforJudaism.org.Scriptures Referenced:Isaiah 9:6-7"unto us a son is given"Isaiah 7:14Matthew 1:23Isaiah 8:1-18Joel 1:8Song of Solomon 6:18Jeremiah 31:22"and the government shall be upon his shoulder"1 Peter 2:72 Thessalonians 1:7-9Revelation 19:13"and his name shall be called"Isaiah 40:10-11Ezekiel 34:23-24"Wonderful Counselor"Isaiah 25:1Isaiah 28:29"Mighty God"Ezekiel 32:21Ezekiel 28:2,7-9Isaiah 10:20-21Jeremiah 32:18Jeremiah 23:5-6Daniel 7:13-14,27"Everlasting Father"Isaiah 57:15Isaiah 63:16"Prince of Peace"Isaiah 2:4Isaiah 45:7Is this about Hezekiah?Isaiah 9:7Isaiah 39:5-7*** Castle Rock Women's Health is a pro-life and pro-women health care ministry. They need your help to move into a new office to serve the community better. Please consider a monthly or one-time donation. ***We value your feedback!Have questions for Truthspresso? Contact us!

Was Socrates a Christian? Did Plato meet Jeremiah? Are pagan myths based on garbled versions of the Hebrew prophets? Welcome to Justin Martyr's First Apology, a plea to the Roman Emperor to stop killing Christians, a philosophical defense of Christianity, and a master class in biblical exegesis. ALI Latin & Greek Fellow Calvin Goligher returns to New Humanists to discuss the poetry, philosophy, and revelation in Justin Martyr with Jonathan and Ryan.Justin Martyr's First Apology (free in English): https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htmDennis Minns and Paul Parvis's Justin, Philosopher and Martyr: Apologies (critical edition): https://amzn.to/3GJOMtpJustin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0128.htmPliny-Trajan correspondence on Christians: https://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/texts/pliny.htmlPlato's Republic: https://bookshop.org/a/25626/9780465094080Yoram Hazony's The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture: https://bookshop.org/a/25626/9780521176675Matthew W. Bates's The Birth of the Trinity: https://amzn.to/3taSZ3UCicero's De Officiis: https://amzn.to/3x9TGwTAmbrose's De Officiis: https://amzn.to/3Nc3j3CRobert Louis Wilken's The Christians as the Romans Saw Them: https://bookshop.org/a/25626/9780300098396New Humanists is brought to you by the Ancient Language Institute: https://ancientlanguage.com/Links may have referral codes, which earn us a commission at no additional cost to you. We encourage you, when possible, to use Bookshop.org for your book purchases, an online bookstore which supports local bookstores.Music: Save Us Now by Shane Ivers - https://www.silvermansound.com

Hermed de citater af kirkefædrene, som jeg nævner i dagens afsnit: Eusebius (ca. 260 - ca. 340): "Husk, hvordan Moses kalder dén, som viste sig for patriarkerne (…) nogle gange Gud og Herren, og nogle gange Herrens engel. Han antyder klart, at dette ikke var Almægtig Gud, men et sekundært væsen ... Dén, der blev set, må have været Guds ord, som vi kalder Herre, ligesom vi gør Faderen. (…) Han, der blev set af de hellige patriarker, var ingen anden end Guds ord." (Evangeliets bevis, 1.5) Justin Martyr (ca. 100-165): "Og at Kristus, der er Herre og Gud, Guds Søn, og som tidligere viste sig i magt som menneske og engel og i ildens herlighed ved tornebusken, han blev også åbenbaret ved dommen, der blev fuldbyrdet over Sodoma…" (Dialog med Trypho, ch128) Ambrosius (ca. 339 – 397): "Det var ikke Faderen, der talte til Moses i busken eller i ørkenen, men Sønnen. Det var om denne Moses, Stefanus sagde: Det er ham, der var i menigheden i ørkenen, sammen med englen. ApG 7:38" (Exposition of the Faith, 1:13:83) Hele verset: ”Det var også ham, der i menigheden i ørkenen var sammen med englen, der talte til ham på bjerget Sinaj, og med vore fædre, og han modtog livgivende ord at give os.” Irenæus (ca. 130-200): "Og atter, da Sønnen taler til Moses, siger han: Jeg er kommet ned for at udfri dette folk. 2 Mosebog 3:8 For det er ham, som steg ned og steg op til menneskenes frelse." (AH 3.6.2) Klement af Alexandria (150 - ca 215): ”Ordet var samtidig Jakobs træner og menneskehedens underviser [det fremgår af dette]--"Han spurgte efter," siges der, "hans navn og sagde til ham: Sig mig, hvad er Deres navn?" Og han svarede: "Hvorfor spørger du om mit navn?" For han ventede med at afsløre det nye navn til han kom som det nye menneske – spædbarnet. Han var endnu ikke navngivet, siden Herren Gud endnu ikke er blevet menneske. Alligevel kaldte Jakob stedet: "Guds ansigt." "For jeg har set," siger han, "Gud ansigt til ansigt; og mit liv er bevaret." Guds ansigt er det Ord, ved hvilket Gud er åbenbaret og gjort kendt. (The Instructor, 1:7) Jeg har oversat citaterne her fra: https://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2019/05/is-angel-of-lord-in-old-testament.html

In this episode we look at several themes in the book of Numbers that are pushed forward apocalyptically by second-temple literature and the New Testament. Many events in the Book of Numbers–for example, the manna, the snake on the pole, and the wanderings of Israel in the wilderness–are interpreted typologically within a Jewish apocalyptic framework. Though typology has been used throughout church history to change the Jewish hope, Jesus and the apostles simply assume an apocalyptic narrative when they speak of people and events from the Tanakh typologically. Show notes An overview of Numbers (1:58) Manna in Numbers 11: 2 Baruch 29:5-30:2; Matthew 6; Psalm 78:25-28; 2 Corinthians 5:1-2; Midrash Rabbah on Eccl. 1:9; Mekilta on Exod. 16:25; Midrash Tanchuma, Beshallach 21:66 (4:18) Understanding typology vs. allegory in the New Testament (13:59) Origen, eschatology, and typology that sets up a new framework (15:49) The rabbinic tradition and typology (22:15) Typology with Justin, Trypho, and Augustine (25:09) Manna in John 6: Jesus is the Bread of Life (30:40) The snake on a pole in Numbers 21: John 3:14-17; Wisdom of Solomon 16:5–11 (37:27) The wilderness wanderings of Numbers: Hosea 2; Ezekiel 20:33-35; 1 Corinthians 10:1-11 (47:16)

In this week's study, I continue in Chapter 3, as I continue to discuss the “Hour of Temptation”I continue with Dennis Cuddy ‘Religion and Government' Part 2, where the Rockefellers, who are Jewish (there is another example of the Synagogue of Satan), recruit the Dulles Brothers to start up the Federation of Churches, which is the World Council of Churches of today!The next year, Dulles chaired a meeting of 30 religious denominations called together by the Federal Council of Churches, and TIME (March 16, 1942) reported they adopted a program calling for "a duly constituted world government of delegated powers: an international legislative body, an international court with adequate jurisdiction, international administrative bodies with necessary powers, and adequate international police forces and provision for enforcing its worldwide economic authority." Remember that the Federal Council of Churches was formed with financial support by the Rockefellers, and Dulles was an in-law of the Rockefellers.In verse 11, I talk about the crown, Crown = “stef'-an-os” From “stepho” (to twine or wreathe); a chaplet (as a badge of royalty, a prize in the public games or a symbol of honor generally; but more conspicuous and elaborate than the simple diadem) literally or figuratively: - crown.1Pe 5:4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away. 1Co 9:25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. Then I quote some of the great Early Church Fathers;Barnabas (40-100) knew John and all 12 of Jesus disciples, and traveled with Saint Paul to evangelize among the gentiles, wrote: "The final stumbling block approaches...for the whole [past] time of your faith will profit you nothing, unless now in this wicked time we also withstand coming sources of danger....then the evil one [Antichrist] may find no means of entrance...." (Epistle of Barnabas, 4).  Justin Myrtyr (100-167) a contemporary of Polycarp, wrote: "The man of apostasy [Antichrist], who speaks strange things against the Most High, shall venture to do unlawful deeds on the earth against us the Christians..." (Dialogue with Trypho, 110).  Tertullian (150-220) a contemporary of Irenaeus, wrote:" The souls of the martyrs are taught to wait [Rev.6:9,10,11]...that the beast Antichrist with his false prophet may wage war on the Church of God..." (On the Resurrection of the flesh, 25).  Hyppolytus (158-240) a contemporary of Tertullian, wrote :"The one thousand two hundred and three score days (the last half of the week) during which the tyrant is to reign and persecute the church..." (Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, 61).  Cyprian (200-258) a contemporary of Hyppolytus, wrote: "The day of affliction has begun to hang over our heads, and the end of the world and the time of the Antichrist to draw near, so that we must all stand prepared for the battle..." (Epistle, 55, 1). My intention is to take this study to a deep level. I am asking no one to agree with me; however I do ask that you check every detail that I present out for yourself.Don't end up like those in Hosea 4:6 ‘My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God (Elohim), I will also forget thy children.'But, be like those in 2Timothy 2:15 ‘Study to shew thyself approved unto God (Yahweh), a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.'Join me as we go Chapter by Chapter, Verse by Verse, Unraveling the Words of Yahweh!Have any questions? Feel free to email me at utwoy@netzero.net

For additional notes and resources check out Douglas' website.   "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.      Blessed are you when men speak abusively of you, persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil things against you for my sake.      Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, because great is your reward in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets who were before you" (Matt 5:10-12). PersecutionBy the second century, it was a capital offense merely to be a Christian.Tertullian (around the year 200) writes, “You put Christians on crosses and stakes. ...We are cast to the wild beasts. ...We are burned in the flames. ...We are condemned to the mines. ...We are banished to the islands.” Tertullian, Apology 12 (ANF 3.28).Lactantius adds, “They torture, put to death, and banish the worshippers of the Most High God—that is, the righteous. Yet, those who hate us so vehemently are unable to give a reason for their hatred.”  Lactantius, Divine Institutes 5.1 (ANF 7.135).Blessed?The world may consider us to be losers, but in fact we're on the winning side. We are on God's side!"Instead of your shame there shall be a double portion; instead of dishonor they shall rejoice in their lot; therefore in their land they shall possess a double portion; they shall have everlasting joy (Isa 61:7).We may excluded now, but a reversal is on the way—if not in this life, then surely in the next. Oppressors misuse their power—but ultimately ours is the kingdom of heaven (where the real power is, in submission to our sovereign Lord).For the right reason: Jesus doesn't say the kingdom of heaven belongs to those who are persecuted because of their wickedness or because of embracing a false religion.It must be "for righteousness' sake."Kingdom of heaven:Matthew's preferred term for the kingdom of God.It is the domain of the Lord, the realm in which his will is obeyed.The kingdom is on earth and in heaven; it is past, present and future; it is not an institution or church, but the reign of Jesus Christ.When we're misrepresented:Blessed are you when men speak abusively of you, persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil things against you for my sake (Matt 5:11).We're not blessed when we are needlessly offensive, or when we equate opinion matters or political positions or eccentric doctrines with Christianity. Jesus specifies that the perfection must "for my sake."Consider the slanders against Christians in the early centuries: The three most common false accusations current in the early Christianity were atheism, incest, and cannibalism. Athenagoras, A Plea for Christians 3 (ANF 2.130); Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 10 (ANF 1.199).Theophilus writes: “Godless lips falsely accuse us, ...alleging that we hold our wives in common and use them promiscuously. They even allege that we commit incest with our own sisters.”Tertullian reprimands the Romans: “Monsters of wickedness! We are accused of observing a holy rite in which we kill a little child and then eat him. It is said that after the feast, we practice incest. ...This is what is constantly laid to our charge. Yet, you take no pains to investigate the truth of what we have been accused of for so long.” Tertullian, Apology 7 (ANF 3.23).How are we often misrepresented as Christians today? Christians are often called;Arrogant—think only you are right—because you share your faith. We are sharing God's word, the good news, a cure, an opportunity, a message of the greatest importance.Cultic—because your local church expects more engagement than just showing up on SundayHomophobic—even if we do love gays et al.Judgmental—even if all we are doing is taking a stand where Jesus took a standPrudish or Puritanical—because we accept what God says about sexual purityUnpatriotic: Refuse to kill enemies in warfare—unpatriotic (doesn't love his country), or is cowardly. Quite the opposite!Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, because great is your reward in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets who were before you (Matt 5:12).This is how early Christians responded. After the apostles had been imprisoned and threatened with further punishment by the Sanhedrin, “They departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name” (Acts 5:41).Why should we be joyful about being slandered and persecuted?If we faithfully endure persecution, our "reward in heaven is great."We are like the OT prophets, who challenged the system.How's our conviction?Do we ever question or challenge the system?Do we even see the need for prophetic voices to bring the Word of the Lord to the modern church?The Beatitudes: the world's responsePoor in spirit: We should please ourselves.Mourning: We should stay upbeat. Don't overreact—sin is no big deal.Meek: Power is exalted! Trample the meek (the "losers").Hungry for righteousness: It's okay to support righteous causes—like cancer research—but don't overdo it. A little corruption is no big deal. Look our for yourself.Merciful: Mercy is selective. No need to think about the pressing needs of world poverty etc.Pure: Who's to say what counts as purity? Don't judge!Peacemaker: It's a good thing—though an even higher premium is placed on standing up for our rights.Persecuted: No way! We seek approval, cringing at the thought of being considered fanatical or extreme.Final thoughts:Leadership: Again, as suggested, this isn't a bad checklist if we're seeking a spiritual leader. We may view the beatitudes as elements of a portrait of a godly man or women who will influence others for Christ.Memory: P-M-M-H-M-P-P-P. Learn the 8 beatitudes in order.We're about 1/8th of the way through the SOM (12/91 verses). Next: Salt

Today, Kyle Butt of World Video Bible School explains his 6 facts that prove the resurrection of Jesus...and in order to reach his conclusion, he has to blatantly lie about his sources.Sources:Source Criticism: https://bit.ly/36NuWMBDialogue with Trypho: https://bit.ly/3y2OmJmBart Ehrman, Lost Christianities. Oxford University Press, 2003.The Acts of Andrew: https://bit.ly/3euk22POriginal Video: https://bit.ly/3iiE811Cards:Godless Engineer's Channel:https://www.youtube.com/user/godlessengineerIt's Better Evidence if I Don't Cite Sources!:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17z01I3stfoLying About Atheists & Repeating Debunked Arguments | How a Pastor Radicalizes his Congregation Pt 2:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZGF_n9TL-Y

00:00 Saving Private Ryan, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saving_Private_Ryan 01:30 Justin Martyr's Dialog with Trypho, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spv_T4QE9Ow 03:00 Justin the Martyr, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Martyr 05:00 Fruit of the Holy Spirit, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_Holy_Spirit 36:45 Justin Martyr by Andrew Hayes, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scmdaGIteNo 1:07:00 Justin Martyr and the Jews, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1453625 1:14:00 The motivations of Leo Strauss, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=140778 1:53:00 Germany's neo-nazis and the Far Right, https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/germanys-neo-nazis-the-far-right/ 2:29:00 CNN: "Anti-Semitism Gaining Traction in the US" 2:37:00 Rabbi Stabbed Outside Shalom House Synagogue In Brighton 2:39:00 Stephen Kotkin: Taiwan, geopolitical tension and China's inevitable rise in indices, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fFxhqT7d4Y 2:51:00 Goddess Dr. Jill Biden 3:04:00 Charles Murray Uncut, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8mWxWfblfw 4:03:00 Richard Spencer vs Judas Maccabeus debate Zionism on the Killstream, https://odysee.com/@theralphretort:1/richard-spencer-vs-judas-maccabeus-killstream:a Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSFVD7Xfhn7sJY8LAIQmH8Q/join https://odysee.com/@LukeFordLive, https://lbry.tv/@LukeFord, https://rumble.com/lukeford https://dlive.tv/lukefordlivestreams Listener Call In #: 1-310-997-4596 Superchat: https://entropystream.live/app/lukefordlive Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/lukeford/ Soundcloud MP3s: https://soundcloud.com/luke-ford-666431593 Code of Conduct: https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=125692 https://www.patreon.com/lukeford http://lukeford.net Email me: lukeisback@gmail.com or DM me on Twitter.com/lukeford Support the show | https://www.streamlabs.com/lukeford, https://patreon.com/lukeford, https://PayPal.Me/lukeisback Facebook: http://facebook.com/lukecford Feel free to clip my videos. It's nice when you link back to the original.

In this conversation we discuss linguistic confusions relating to Christology, is God eternally and necessarily a Father, Dale Tuggy and his definition of Unitarianism, Chris Date and standard American Evangelical Trinitarianism, the specifics of the Arian Controversy, is the God of the Old Testament the Father or the Son, can God be seen, Two Powers in Heaven by Alan Segal, Richard Bauckham, Justin Martyr and the Dialogue with Trypho, Philo of Alexandria, Josephus, Preston Sprinkle, Hegel, NT Wright, Michael Heiser, William Lane Craig, Neoplatonism, Origen of Alexandria, Plotinus, Is there Platonism in the book of Hebrews, did Apollos write the book of Hebrews, and finally we read the prologue of John 1, Maximus the Confessor and the 3 thickenings of the logos. Link to our first conversation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_tuLfkp4_Y&t=5520s

Who was Justin Martyr? What were convictions that he stood up for? David Bercot presents an overview of Justin Martyr’s life and writings in this episode. Justin was zealous for living a life that was sold out to Christ, yet he had a kind and generous heart. Read Justin’s “First Apology” https://bit.ly/3j2Mb1S Read Justin’s “Second Apology” https://bit.ly/39y9z4l or buy both Apologies: https://amzn.to/3aiF4hV Read Justin’s “Dialogue with Trypho” https://bit.ly/3aknHgM or buy https://amzn.to/3ta1IBN Read “The Didache” https://bit.ly/3pFDXQ0 Buy David’s “We Don’t Speak Great Things, We Live Them” https://bit.ly/2L35g7A This is the 115th episode of Anabaptist Perspectives, a podcast, blog, and YouTube channel that examines various aspects of conservative Anabaptist life and thought. Read our blog: https://www.anabaptistperspectives.org/blog/ Visit our YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/anabaptistperspectives/ Connect with us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/anabaptistperspectives/ Support us: https://anabaptistperspectives.org/donate/ See raw footage and a bonus clip with David Bercot on our Patreon page: https://www.patreon.com/user?filters[tag]=David%20Bercot Music: "The Basket" by Blue Dot Sessions The views expressed by our guests are solely their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Anabaptist Perspectives or Wellspring Mennonite Church.

Welcome to Christmas 2020 at Truthspresso. In this episode we are going to unwrap the depths of Isaiah 9:6 as a present from God for the first Christmas. Isaiah 9:6: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." We look at each phrase and cross reference to see that it is a prophecy of the Messiah. We also compare it with Isaiah 7:14 to verify that the Messiah would be truly born of a virgin. We put other possible fulfillments to the test such as King Hezekiah, Isaiah's son, or someone unknown from history. We challenge ourselves to remember that the ultimate purpose of Jesus' coming is to be the king over the earth. His suffering and atonement secures his citizenry. We look at the name of the son as "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." We find each part of this name describing God in the book of Isaiah. We take on challenges against the incarnation and the deity of Christ as we explore this marvelous Hebrew name. Sources Cited: Zhava Glaser, "https://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/issues-v09-n01/almah-virgin-or-young-maiden (Almah: Virgin or Young Maiden?)" JewsforJesus.org, September 1, 1993. Justin Martyr, "https://www.logoslibrary.org/justin/trypho/084.html (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 84)," trans. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Jews for Judaism, "https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/isaiah-714-a-virgin-birth/ (Isaiah 7:14 - A Virgin Birth?)" JewsforJudaism.org. Scriptures Referenced: Isaiah 9:6-7 "unto us a son is given" Isaiah 7:14 Matthew 1:23 Isaiah 8:1-18 Joel 1:8 Song of Solomon 6:18 Jeremiah 31:22 "and the government shall be upon his shoulder" 1 Peter 2:7 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 Revelation 19:13 "and his name shall be called" Isaiah 40:10-11 Ezekiel 34:23-24 "Wonderful Counselor" Isaiah 25:1 Isaiah 28:29 "Mighty God" Ezekiel 32:21 Ezekiel 28:2,7-9 Isaiah 10:20-21 Jeremiah 32:18 Jeremiah 23:5-6 Daniel 7:13-14,27 "Everlasting Father" Isaiah 57:15 Isaiah 63:16 "Prince of Peace" Isaiah 2:4 Isaiah 45:7 Is this about Hezekiah? Isaiah 9:7 Isaiah 39:5-7 ***** Like what you hear? https://www.truthspresso.com/donate (Donate) to Truthspresso and give a shot of support! *****

In this episode, we continue our conversation with Dr. Matthew J. Thomas about his new book "Paul's 'Works of the Law' in the Perspective of Second Century Reception" published by IVP Academic Press. Dr. Thomas talks with us about why early church writings (especially texts written in the second century) provide us keys to earliest understandings of the Bible. He discusses writings by Irrenaeus, the Epistle to Diognetus, Justin Martyr's First Apology and Dialogue with Trypho. He also shares how early church writings can help Christians gain insight into their foundational theological identity. The episode ends with a detailed explanation of Paul's meaning of faith and works. Matthew J. Thomas earned his PhD at Oxford University and serves as assistant professor of biblical studies at the Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology in Berkeley, California and an instructor in theology at Regent College. His undergraduate work was done at Pepperdine University. Video and blog here: http://www.mikedelgado.org/podcast/works-of-law

“Whatever things are rightly said are ours.” St. Justin looked at creation and saw Christ. He looked into the mind of Plato and found a Christian, born centuries before his time. Speaking with Romans, speaking with Greeks, speaking with Jews, he sought the good in his adversaries’ best ideas and showed that the good belonged properly to Christ and Christians. Though he lived in the second century, his description of the Mass was used in the Church’s 20th-century Catechism. He showed us how to be fearless in the face of ideas, and fearless even in the face of death. Links Free audiobook of Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/st-justin-martyr-dialogue-with-trypho/ Free text of Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=1612 Free text of Justin Martyr’s First Apology https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=1610 Free text of Justin Martyr’s Second Apology https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=1611 A contemporary account of Justin’s martyrdom https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=1618 An excellent popular study of Justin Martyr https://www.amazon.com/Case-Christianity-Arguments-Religious-Judicial/dp/158979575X/ More works by the Fathers https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/ Mike Aquilina’s website https://fathersofthechurch.com Theme music: Gaudeamus (Introit for the Feast of All Saints), sung by Jeff Ostrowski. Courtesy of http://www.ccwatershed.org.  

The Daily Devocast brings you daily encouragement. Today’s devotional message Demons are Overcome by the Name of Jesus comes from chapter 85 of the dialog of Justin with Trypho, a Jew, which can be found in volume I of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.   Our theme for the month of February is encountering the supernatural with the early church fathers.   Daily Devocast is part of the Destiny Image Podcast Network.

Good news! Today's episode has no discussion of dung or thighs, or anything at all untoward. Bad news! Today's topic - Eschatology/The End Times/The Last Days might just be more controversial! Our focus passage today is Matthew 24, and I consider this to be the longest and clearest teaching in the Bible on eschatology and the return of Jesus. Most people want to begin with Revelation when discussing the last days, but Revelation is tricky and difficult for a variety of reasons. Don't get me wrong - Revelation is one of my favorite books, and I love it, but it is anything but crystal clear and basic. Matthew 24, on the other hand, is quite a bit more clear, even though there is still great debate about many aspects of the chapter. Probably the most important debate concerns timing. Is Jesus talking about a far distant future in Matthew 24, or is He discussing something that will happen in the lifespan of His disciples? We will also be reading Genesis 25, which tells us about Abraham's second wife, and also the birth of his grandchildren Jacob and Esau. Acts 24 has Paul standing trial before governor Felix, proclaiming his belief in the resurrection of the dead. And that gets us to Esther - a brand new book, which means we have finished our second book together, and we have begun a tradition on this podcast that when we finish a book, we summarize it, so here is a summary of Nehemiah: Chronologically, the book of Nehemiah is the last historical book of the Old Testament - though Esther occurs in most Bibles after Nehemiah, the events of Esther happened prior to the events of Nehemiah (Somewhere roughly in the neighborhood of the timeline of Ezra 6-7.) Nehemiah was a contemporary of the prophet Malachi, the titular character of the last book of the Old Testament. Nehemiah, a descendant of Jewish people, was the cup-bearer to King Artaxerxes, the Persian King. Upon hearing about distressing conditions in his homeland, Nehemiah appeals to the king for permission to come back, which is granted. Nehemiah returns to Jerusalem, and finds the city defenseless and under scrutiny by several nearby enemies and critics. Nehemiah organizes both the rebuilding and defense of Jerusalem, and also reinstates the biblical festival of booths/tabernacles, which is a joyful celebration. Nehemiah was a mighty man of prayer (see Nehemiah 1 and 9) and was uncompromising in his call to holiness, physically attacking some Jewish men who disobeyed God's laws. Nehemiah successfully completed the walls around Jerusalem and enabled that city and its people to begin to reclaim their identity and some measurement of prosperity. Shoutouts today to Michelle Haffner, from Florida who left an encouraging comment on Biblereadingpodcast.com and also Bible Scholar Og Keep, who had an interesting observation on yesterday's pod about Abraham's servant, "An interesting point about this mission… if this trusted servant were Eleazar of Damascus (Genesis 15) then seeking a wife for Abraham's son is an action against self-interest. It shows that his love for Abraham exceeded his own ambitions. " We also have some reader feedback. This is from Mr. Tubberville in Auburn, Alabama. "Dear sir: We object to the use of the word 'titular' yesterday in your podcast when talking about Nehemiah. Surely a better (and more understandable) word could have been chosen?!" Well, Tommy, you make a great point! I think "eponymous" would have been a much better choice. My apologies. And now, let's read Matthew 24 together! In discussing Matthew 24, let me draw your attention to one very frustrating aspect of this chapter. The disciple's question was so imprecise, that it has left many scholars confused and debating for hundreds of years. “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what is the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (Matthew 24:3) With hindsight, we can see that these are two totally different questions. Question #1 asks when the temple will be destroyed. We now know that 70 AD is the historical answer. Question #2 is the more significant one for us: What is the sign of the return of Jesus and the end of the age? I am way of over-simplifying, but there are 5 main viewpoints that attempt to answer this question, and dozens of sub-viewpoints that fall under these. (The graphic below only captures 4 of those viewpoints.) Christian Millennial Views (Somewhat incomplete) Here is a summary of the Five Major Viewpoints on the Return of Jesus and the End Times: 1. Historic Premillennialism/Post-Tribulational Premillennialism. This view believes that Jesus will return to the earth prior to the "Millennial Reign," or "Millennium," (a 1000 year reign of Jesus on the earth in the Heavenly City called 'New Jerusalem') and AFTER a 7 year period of great wrath, judgment, trouble and punishment called 'The Great Tribulation." Some historic premillennialists believe in a rapture, which is a 'catching up' of God's people into the air with a returning Jesus. In this view, the New Testament church is the fulfillment of God's promises to Israel. 2. Dispensational Premillennialism. (I.E. The 'Left Behind' View) This view believes that Jesus will return to earth before a time of trouble known as 'The Great Tribulation.' He will rapture (or catch up) His church - all faithful believers living and dead, and then return with them to Heaven. After seven years of wrath, tribulation and judgment, Jesus will return again with His people and reign for 1000 years from His holy city on earth, along with all of the saints who left with Him, and perhaps some who have been saved during the seven year Great Tribulation. This view is called premillenial as it places the return of Christ before the thousand year millennium and it is called dispensational because it is founded in the beliefs of dispensationalism. (Google that for more details) The key belief here is that this view believes that Jesus will spare the church from God's wrath and tribulation by rapturing them from the earth BEFORE the Great Tribulation. This viewpoint sees the Second Coming happening in TWO stages - a first Second Coming FOR the church, and a second Second Coming WITH the church. In this view, Israel and the church are two distinct entities, and God has two distinct redemption plans for them. 3. The Postmillennial view usually does not view the 'millennium' as being a literal thousand year period, but more of an extended lengthy period of time. In this view, Jesus reigns on the earth (spiritually, from Heaven) and His followers increase His influence all across the globe. The good news of Jesus goes forth, and the Kingdom of Jesus and His fame gradually grows on earth, until such a time as Jesus returns and immediately initiates the judgment of the wicked and the eternal state. This view is called 'postmillennial,' because Jesus returns after the millennium, which is not a 1000 year literal reign of Jesus on the earth, but an increase of His influence on earth that culminates in His return. 4. Amillennialism or nunc-millennialism holds that the Kingdom of God on earth began with the resurrection of Jesus, and that Jesus now reigns at the right hand of the Father over the church. This viewpoint does not see the millennial reign as being a literal, thousand year reign in the future, but more of a spiritual and somewhat symbolic reign of Jesus that is happening NOW (nunc means 'now') Most amillennialists believe that Jesus will physically return at the end of this church-age (or now-millennium) and inaugurate the eternal state. The amillennial view sees the victory of Jesus and the establishment of His Kingdom as a two-stage event. Stage 1 was begun in the first century with the resurrection of Jesus and the establishment of His church on Pentecost. Stage two will be when Jesus physically returns. The between state is living in the 'already, but not yet' victory of Jesus spiritually by faith, which will soon become a present and tangible victory of Jesus that will be apprehended by sight. 5. Preterist (partial-preterist) The preterist viewpoint believes that some events foretold by the Bible have already happened (partial-preterism) or ALL events foretold by the Bible, including the return of Jesus, have already happened (full preterism.) The full preterist view holds that the return of Jesus, the final judgment, and all things prophesied in the New Testament were fulfilled in A.D. 70 when the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed. It is rare to find an evangelical scholar who is a full preterist, but many are partial preterists, holding that the destruction of the temple in 70 AD fulfilled some major parts of prophetic Scripture, but that the Final Judgment and full Return of Jesus has not happened yet. So - are you dizzy yet? I imagine some will be surprised at the number of views of the last days that people have! Please know that many will believe that I have over-simplified things, and left significant viewpoints out, which is likely true. Consider this - the church has long been unclear about when the second coming of Jesus would occur, and for good reason! When Jesus was here, He told His disciples that ONLY HIS FATHER knew the time and date of His Second coming - not even Jesus knew! Now concerning that day and hour no one knows—neither the angels of heaven nor the Son —except the Father alone. Matthew 24:36 I am going to make the assumption that the Father did not reveal those dates to the other writers of Scripture either, which means that any attempt to find the exact date of the return of Jesus in the Scripture is absolutely silly. You might be thinking - well, the Word of God was written by people under the influence of the Holy Spirit - and you are exactly right! But, going on what Jesus said - the Holy Spirit did NOT know the time and date of Jesus' return either - ONLY THE FATHER. I note here with some amusement that even in the 100s AD, there was quite a bit of difference of opinion among Godly Christians as to the time and date of the return of Jesus, as evidenced by the dialog between Christian Justin Martyr and Trypho the Jew: "I and many others are of this opinion [premillennialism], and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise." Justin Martyr - Dialog with Trypho the Jew, 160 A.D. Lifeway research in 2016 did a survey of 1000 Protestant American pastors to ask them what views of the end-times they held to, and the results were interesting. Links to the full study (and screenshots) can be found at our website, but here is a taste of what was discovered: http://lifewayresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Pastor-Views-on-the-End-Times-January-2016.pdf Source: http://lifewayresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Pastor-Views-on-the-End-Times-January-2016.pdf PRIMARY REASON I BELIEVE THE POST TRIBULATION VIEWPOINT: 1. Matthew 24: 29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. 2. Mark 13: Mark 13:24 “But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, 25 and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. 26 And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven. 3. Luke 21: 25 “And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth distress of nations in perplexity because of the roaring of the sea and the waves, 26 people fainting with fear and with foreboding of what is coming on the world. For the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27 And then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 Now when these things begin to take place, straighten up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.” (I don't see TWO second comings in those passages - one before the rapture and one after the rapture)  As we go through the Bible, we will get to other passages - some of which are used by Pretribulation people as foundational, some by partial preterists, some by amillennialists and some by historic premillinnialists like myself. WHEN Jesus returns is NOT the important thing, despite the fact that all of us focus on it and debate the timing the most. If it was important for us to know precisely, I suppose we would know. The WHEN is not important though. What is the key, most important thing about the teaching of the last days? The answer is readiness. Here is a short summation of the entire last day's teaching of Jesus in this passage: Matthew 24:44 - TWENTY WORDS.  44 Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.  Regardless of your view, the command is: BE READY!!  Whether you are Amillenial, Pre-Trib or Post Trib, or even Preterist. Ultimately, it doesn't matter a huge amount...IF YOU ARE TRULY READY!!  What does that look like?  A. Luke 12: 35 “Stay dressed for action and keep your lamps burning, 36 and be like men who are waiting for their master to come home from the wedding feast, so that they may open the door to him at once when he comes and knocks. 37 Blessed are those servants whom the master finds awake when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will dress himself for service and have them recline at table, and he will come and serve them. 38 If he comes in the second watch, or in the third, and finds them awake, blessed are those servants! 39 But know this, that if the master of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have left his house to be broken into. 40 You also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.” Whew! That was a long episode. Two long ones in a row. I plan on making up for it with two SHORT episodes in a row. Stay tuned to see if it is possible to hold to that plan. The problem with the Bible is that it is just so deep and interesting that there is always something fascinating to explore!

Good news! Today's episode has no discussion of dung or thighs, or anything at all untoward. Bad news! Today's topic - Eschatology/The End Times/The Last Days might just be more controversial! Our focus passage today is Matthew 24, and I consider this to be the longest and clearest teaching in the Bible on eschatology and the return of Jesus. Most people want to begin with Revelation when discussing the last days, but Revelation is tricky and difficult for a variety of reasons. Don't get me wrong - Revelation is one of my favorite books, and I love it, but it is anything but crystal clear and basic. Matthew 24, on the other hand, is quite a bit more clear, even though there is still great debate about many aspects of the chapter. Probably the most important debate concerns timing. Is Jesus talking about a far distant future in Matthew 24, or is He discussing something that will happen in the lifespan of His disciples? We will also be reading Genesis 25, which tells us about Abraham's second wife, and also the birth of his grandchildren Jacob and Esau. Acts 24 has Paul standing trial before governor Felix, proclaiming his belief in the resurrection of the dead. And that gets us to Esther - a brand new book, which means we have finished our second book together, and we have begun a tradition on this podcast that when we finish a book, we summarize it, so here is a summary of Nehemiah: Chronologically, the book of Nehemiah is the last historical book of the Old Testament - though Esther occurs in most Bibles after Nehemiah, the events of Esther happened prior to the events of Nehemiah (Somewhere roughly in the neighborhood of the timeline of Ezra 6-7.) Nehemiah was a contemporary of the prophet Malachi, the titular character of the last book of the Old Testament. Nehemiah, a descendant of Jewish people, was the cup-bearer to King Artaxerxes, the Persian King. Upon hearing about distressing conditions in his homeland, Nehemiah appeals to the king for permission to come back, which is granted. Nehemiah returns to Jerusalem, and finds the city defenseless and under scrutiny by several nearby enemies and critics. Nehemiah organizes both the rebuilding and defense of Jerusalem, and also reinstates the biblical festival of booths/tabernacles, which is a joyful celebration. Nehemiah was a mighty man of prayer (see Nehemiah 1 and 9) and was uncompromising in his call to holiness, physically attacking some Jewish men who disobeyed God's laws. Nehemiah successfully completed the walls around Jerusalem and enabled that city and its people to begin to reclaim their identity and some measurement of prosperity. Shoutouts today to Michelle Haffner, from Florida who left an encouraging comment on Biblereadingpodcast.com and also Bible Scholar Og Keep, who had an interesting observation on yesterday's pod about Abraham's servant, "An interesting point about this mission… if this trusted servant were Eleazar of Damascus (Genesis 15) then seeking a wife for Abraham's son is an action against self-interest. It shows that his love for Abraham exceeded his own ambitions. " We also have some reader feedback. This is from Mr. Tubberville in Auburn, Alabama. "Dear sir: We object to the use of the word 'titular' yesterday in your podcast when talking about Nehemiah. Surely a better (and more understandable) word could have been chosen?!" Well, Tommy, you make a great point! I think "eponymous" would have been a much better choice. My apologies. And now, let's read Matthew 24 together! In discussing Matthew 24, let me draw your attention to one very frustrating aspect of this chapter. The disciple's question was so imprecise, that it has left many scholars confused and debating for hundreds of years. “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what is the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (Matthew 24:3) With hindsight, we can see that these are two totally different questions. Question #1 asks when the temple will be destroyed. We now know that 70 AD is the historical answer. Question #2 is the more significant one for us: What is the sign of the return of Jesus and the end of the age? I am way of over-simplifying, but there are 5 main viewpoints that attempt to answer this question, and dozens of sub-viewpoints that fall under these. (The graphic below only captures 4 of those viewpoints.) Christian Millennial Views (Somewhat incomplete) Here is a summary of the Five Major Viewpoints on the Return of Jesus and the End Times: 1. Historic Premillennialism/Post-Tribulational Premillennialism. This view believes that Jesus will return to the earth prior to the "Millennial Reign," or "Millennium," (a 1000 year reign of Jesus on the earth in the Heavenly City called 'New Jerusalem') and AFTER a 7 year period of great wrath, judgment, trouble and punishment called 'The Great Tribulation." Some historic premillennialists believe in a rapture, which is a 'catching up' of God's people into the air with a returning Jesus. In this view, the New Testament church is the fulfillment of God's promises to Israel. 2. Dispensational Premillennialism. (I.E. The 'Left Behind' View) This view believes that Jesus will return to earth before a time of trouble known as 'The Great Tribulation.' He will rapture (or catch up) His church - all faithful believers living and dead, and then return with them to Heaven. After seven years of wrath, tribulation and judgment, Jesus will return again with His people and reign for 1000 years from His holy city on earth, along with all of the saints who left with Him, and perhaps some who have been saved during the seven year Great Tribulation. This view is called premillenial as it places the return of Christ before the thousand year millennium and it is called dispensational because it is founded in the beliefs of dispensationalism. (Google that for more details) The key belief here is that this view believes that Jesus will spare the church from God's wrath and tribulation by rapturing them from the earth BEFORE the Great Tribulation. This viewpoint sees the Second Coming happening in TWO stages - a first Second Coming FOR the church, and a second Second Coming WITH the church. In this view, Israel and the church are two distinct entities, and God has two distinct redemption plans for them. 3. The Postmillennial view usually does not view the 'millennium' as being a literal thousand year period, but more of an extended lengthy period of time. In this view, Jesus reigns on the earth (spiritually, from Heaven) and His followers increase His influence all across the globe. The good news of Jesus goes forth, and the Kingdom of Jesus and His fame gradually grows on earth, until such a time as Jesus returns and immediately initiates the judgment of the wicked and the eternal state. This view is called 'postmillennial,' because Jesus returns after the millennium, which is not a 1000 year literal reign of Jesus on the earth, but an increase of His influence on earth that culminates in His return. 4. Amillennialism or nunc-millennialism holds that the Kingdom of God on earth began with the resurrection of Jesus, and that Jesus now reigns at the right hand of the Father over the church. This viewpoint does not see the millennial reign as being a literal, thousand year reign in the future, but more of a spiritual and somewhat symbolic reign of Jesus that is happening NOW (nunc means 'now') Most amillennialists believe that Jesus will physically return at the end of this church-age (or now-millennium) and inaugurate the eternal state. The amillennial view sees the victory of Jesus and the establishment of His Kingdom as a two-stage event. Stage 1 was begun in the first century with the resurrection of Jesus and the establishment of His church on Pentecost. Stage two will be when Jesus physically returns. The between state is living in the 'already, but not yet' victory of Jesus spiritually by faith, which will soon become a present and tangible victory of Jesus that will be apprehended by sight. 5. Preterist (partial-preterist) The preterist viewpoint believes that some events foretold by the Bible have already happened (partial-preterism) or ALL events foretold by the Bible, including the return of Jesus, have already happened (full preterism.) The full preterist view holds that the return of Jesus, the final judgment, and all things prophesied in the New Testament were fulfilled in A.D. 70 when the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed. It is rare to find an evangelical scholar who is a full preterist, but many are partial preterists, holding that the destruction of the temple in 70 AD fulfilled some major parts of prophetic Scripture, but that the Final Judgment and full Return of Jesus has not happened yet. So - are you dizzy yet? I imagine some will be surprised at the number of views of the last days that people have! Please know that many will believe that I have over-simplified things, and left significant viewpoints out, which is likely true. Consider this - the church has long been unclear about when the second coming of Jesus would occur, and for good reason! When Jesus was here, He told His disciples that ONLY HIS FATHER knew the time and date of His Second coming - not even Jesus knew! Now concerning that day and hour no one knows—neither the angels of heaven nor the Son —except the Father alone. Matthew 24:36 I am going to make the assumption that the Father did not reveal those dates to the other writers of Scripture either, which means that any attempt to find the exact date of the return of Jesus in the Scripture is absolutely silly. You might be thinking - well, the Word of God was written by people under the influence of the Holy Spirit - and you are exactly right! But, going on what Jesus said - the Holy Spirit did NOT know the time and date of Jesus' return either - ONLY THE FATHER. I note here with some amusement that even in the 100s AD, there was quite a bit of difference of opinion among Godly Christians as to the time and date of the return of Jesus, as evidenced by the dialog between Christian Justin Martyr and Trypho the Jew: "I and many others are of this opinion [premillennialism], and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise." Justin Martyr - Dialog with Trypho the Jew, 160 A.D. Lifeway research in 2016 did a survey of 1000 Protestant American pastors to ask them what views of the end-times they held to, and the results were interesting. Links to the full study (and screenshots) can be found at our website, but here is a taste of what was discovered: http://lifewayresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Pastor-Views-on-the-End-Times-January-2016.pdf Source: http://lifewayresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Pastor-Views-on-the-End-Times-January-2016.pdf PRIMARY REASON I BELIEVE THE POST TRIBULATION VIEWPOINT: 1. Matthew 24: 29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. 2. Mark 13: Mark 13:24 “But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, 25 and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. 26 And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven. 3. Luke 21: 25 “And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth distress of nations in perplexity because of the roaring of the sea and the waves, 26 people fainting with fear and with foreboding of what is coming on the world. For the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27 And then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 Now when these things begin to take place, straighten up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.” (I don't see TWO second comings in those passages - one before the rapture and one after the rapture)  As we go through the Bible, we will get to other passages - some of which are used by Pretribulation people as foundational, some by partial preterists, some by amillennialists and some by historic premillinnialists like myself. WHEN Jesus returns is NOT the important thing, despite the fact that all of us focus on it and debate the timing the most. If it was important for us to know precisely, I suppose we would know. The WHEN is not important though. What is the key, most important thing about the teaching of the last days? The answer is readiness. Here is a short summation of the entire last day's teaching of Jesus in this passage: Matthew 24:44 - TWENTY WORDS.  44 Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.  Regardless of your view, the command is: BE READY!!  Whether you are Amillenial, Pre-Trib or Post Trib, or even Preterist. Ultimately, it doesn't matter a huge amount...IF YOU ARE TRULY READY!!  What does that look like?  A. Luke 12: 35 “Stay dressed for action and keep your lamps burning, 36 and be like men who are waiting for their master to come home from the wedding feast, so that they may open the door to him at once when he comes and knocks. 37 Blessed are those servants whom the master finds awake when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will dress himself for service and have them recline at table, and he will come and serve them. 38 If he comes in the second watch, or in the third, and finds them awake, blessed are those servants! 39 But know this, that if the master of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have left his house to be broken into. 40 You also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.” Whew! That was a long episode. Two long ones in a row. I plan on making up for it with two SHORT episodes in a row. Stay tuned to see if it is possible to hold to that plan. The problem with the Bible is that it is just so deep and interesting that there is always something fascinating to explore!

Ep. 7 Shimon takes command, Trypho continues his deceptive politics, Judea finally gains independence and international fame, while royal funerals become all to common. Special Hanukkah episode with readings from the historical book of First Maccabees. Welcome to an adventure!

Ep. 8 The heir to Demetrius seeks the kingdom and traps Trypho while seeking good relations with the High Priest Shimon who himself is on good terms with Rome. The last of the original brothers is too old to go to war and his sons take over as the family saga comes to its shocking conclusion.

In this episode, we conclude our analysis of the second part of Marcus Grodi's evidence from the early church fathers that led to his conversion to Roman Catholicism: the Eucharist. We briefly review the points on the Eucharist discussed in the previous two episodes. Then we address not only Grodi’s claim that the early church writers “unanimously” believed in the “real presence” of Christ in the Eucharist, but we also provide evidence of the rewriting and reinterpreting of the primitive, Biblical, apostolic liturgy in favor of the late 4th century novel Roman Catholic liturgy. Faced with the stark contrast between the early, apostolic liturgy in which a Eucharistic tithe sacrifice was offered prior to the consecration of the elements, and the later 4th century and medieval liturgy of Roman Catholicism in which the Eucharistic mass sacrifice was offered after the consecration of the elements, scholars, apologists, translators and theologians have reinterpreted and rewritten the early liturgy to make it consistent with the later. To do this, they repeatedly rewrite, translate and interpret the early liturgy in such a way as to collapse the Eucharistic tithe offering into the consecration—the epiclesis—making it appear that the early Church’s Eucharistic tithe offering was actually a liturgical offering of consecrated bread and wine—Christ’s body and blood—to the Father. The early church absolutely did not do this, and it was not until the latter part of the 4th century that the superstitious, idolatrous, abominable Roman mass sacrifice emerged. Unable to explain the discontinuity, scholars and theologians simply assumed that whatever was taught at the end of the 4th century must be what the early writers meant. We provide evidence of the rewriting of the early liturgy to force it to comport with the medieval liturgy. And thus, the foolish, the ignorant, the superstitious and the simple are misled into thinking the apostolic and subapostolic church offered the abominable Roman Catholic sacrifice of the mass. Marcus Grodi is just one of millions to fall for the lie.Show Notes:Marcus Grodi: The Early Church Fathers I Never Saw - The Journey Home (3-19-2007)The “Sacrifice of the Mass” originally referred to the tithe offering, because unbelievers, the backslidden and the unconverted were dismissed just before the tithe was to be offered. The tithe offering came to be known as the sacrifice of the dismissal, the sacrifice of the “mass”.Athanasius, Against the Arians, part 1, chapter 2, paragraph 28 (341 AD), “And how could it be that Oblations were offered when catechumens were within ? For if there were catechumens present, it was not yet the time for presenting the Oblations.”Justin Martyr, First Apology, 65 (155 AD) “But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers…”Hippolytus, Anaphora, chapter 20 (215 AD), “Those who are to be baptized are not to bring any vessel, only that which each brings for the eucharist. It is indeed proper that each bring the oblation in the same hour.”The primitive liturgy of the church was a Eucharistic thank offering (the tithe), followed by an apostolic Amen, followed by a consecration of bread and wine taken from the Eucharist, followed by a meal. A Eucharist. An Amen. A Consecration. A meal.1 Corinthians 14:16 “Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?”Justin Martyr, First Apology, 65-66 (155 AD) “And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings (eucharistian), all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. … so likewise have we been taught that the eucharisted food is made into the body and blood of Christ by the prayer of his word [the consecration]” (more on this below) (Note: the Greek is found in Migne, PG vol 6, cols 428-429).Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, letter [9] to Bishop Sixtus of Rome (254-258 AD) [Note: it is epistle IV in Migne’s series on the greek fathers; the letter is also recorded in Eusebius, Church History, Book 7, Chapter 9, where he refers to it as epistle VI]: “For I should not dare to renew afresh, after all, one who had heard the giving of thanks, and who had answered with others Amen; who had stood at the holy table, and had stretched forth his hands to receive the blessed food, and had received it, and for a very long time had been a partaker of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.”The consecration in the primitive liturgy was simply the words of Christ spoken over the bread and wine at the Last Supper: this is My body, broken for you, this is My blood, shed for you.Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (155 AD) “…but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the eucharisted food by the prayer of His word, becomes the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone.”Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 17 (174-189 AD) “He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, "This is My body." And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood…”Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 2, paragraph 3 (174-189 AD), “When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist becomes the blood and the body of Christ .…”Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV, chapter 40 (208 AD), “Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, "This is my body” ….”In the early liturgy, the consecration was spoken after the bread had been distributed, or as the bread and wine were being distributed.Justin Martyr, First Apology, 67 (155 AD) “…and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given…”Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV, chapter 40 (208 AD), “Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, "This is my body” ….”Origen, Against Celsus, Book VIII (248 AD), “But we give thanks to the Creator of all, and, along with thanksgiving and prayer for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread presented to us; and this bread becomes by prayer a sacred body, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it.”Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, letter to Fabian of Antioch (251-253 AD) [Recorded in Eusebius, Church History, Book 6, chapter 43], ““For when he has made the offerings and distributed a part to each man, as he gives it he compels the wretched man to swear in place of the blessing…”Ignatius of Antioch, To the Smyrnæans, paragraph 7 (107 AD), “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” When understood in the context of the early liturgy—in which unbelievers were not allowed to participate in the Eucharist, the Eucharist was the tithe offering, the consecration was not spoken until after the Eucharist had been distributed to the participant, and the consecration was the simple recitation of “This is My body, broken for you… This is My blood, shed for you”—Ignatius’ words speak not of a conviction of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but rather of the gnostic’s unwillingess to speak the words of consecration over the Eucharisted bread.Justin Martyr, First Apology, 65-66 (155 AD), “And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced … . And this food is called among us Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. … we been taught that by the prayer of His word [the consecration], the eucharisted food (ευχαριστηθείσαν τροφην) becomes the flesh and blood of Jesus.” When understood in the context of the early liturgy, in which unbelievers were not allowed to participate in the Eucharist, the Eucharist was the tithe offering, and the consecration was not spoken until after the Eucharist had been distributed to the participants, Justin’s words are understood not to refer to a conviction that the Eucharistic prayer changes the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, but rather that the unconverted were dismissed from the liturgy before the Eucharistic prayer over the tithe, and the words of consecration were then spoken over the bread and wine that had already been “eucharisted.”Ignatius of Antioch, To the Romans, paragraph 7 (107 AD)Ignatius of Antioch, To the Trallians, paragraph 8 (107 AD)Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 70 (155-167 AD)“Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [allusion is made] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks.”Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapters 109- 124 (155-167 AD)“Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit.”Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 18, paragraph 5 (174-189 AD)“…that as bread from the earth, receiving the summons (έκκλησιν) of God, is no longer common bread but an Eucharist composed of two things, both an earthly and an heavenly one; so also our bodies, partaking of the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of Eternal Resurrection.” (Keble, 361) [Here Irenæus says we partake of the Eucharist, but by, implication only after the Eucharist is consecrated (see Book V, chapter 2, below), and that it was already the Eucharist when it was first summoned by the Lord for the tithe. Irenæus has established a parallel to make a point—when the bread is summoned for a tithe, it becomes heavenly, and not just earthly, for, though earthly, it is now set apart for heavenly purposes; so too, we though earthly, are set apart for a heavenly destiny when we receive the consecrated bread. Notable, indeed, that the bread becomes the Eucharist —taking on twin realities—when it is summoned for a tithe, not when it is consecrated. We will discuss the variance between Keble’s translation and Schaff’s below.]Irenæus, Fragment 37 (late 2nd century)“And therefore the oblation (προσφορα, offering) of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation (προσφερομεν, offering) to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected (τελέσαντες, completed, finished) the oblation (προσφοραν, offering), we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit (αποφηνη, apophene) this sacrifice (την θυσιαν, the sacrifice, not this sacrifice), both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes (αντιτυπων) may obtain remission of sins and life eternal.” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, Book I, chapter 6 (202 AD)“Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols (συμβολων), when He said: ‘Eat my flesh, and drink my blood;’ describing distinctly by metaphor (allegories, αλληγορων) the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both — of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood”Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV, chapter 40 (208 AD)“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, "This is my body” that is, the figure of my body.”Hippolytus, Anaphora, chapter 38 (215 AD)“Having blessed the cup in the Name of God, you received it as the antitype of the Blood of Christ.”Origen, Homilies on Numbers, Homily 7, paragraph 2: “At that time the manna was food ‘in an enigma,’ but now, ‘in reality,’ the flesh of the Word of God is ‘true food,’ just as he himself says: ‘My flesh is truly food and my blood is truly drink.’ [John 6:55].”Origen, Homilies on Numbers: Homily 23, paragraph 6:“…doctrinal and solid words that are brought forth in a way that is filled with faith in the Trinity, … All these things are the flesh of the Word of God.”Origen, Homilies on Exodus, Homily 13:“I wish to admonish you with examples from your religious practices. You who are accustomed to take part in divine mysteries know, when you receive the body of the Lord, how you protect it with all caution and veneration lest any part fall from it, lest anything of the consecrated gift be lost. For you believe, and correctly, that you are answerable if anything falls from there by neglect. But if you are so careful to preserve his body, and rightly so, how do you think that there is less guilt to have neglected God’s word than to have neglected his body?”Roman Catholics wish to use this citation from Origen to show evidence of a belief in the “real presence” of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine. The problem is, Hippolytus shows the same reverence for consecrated bread because of what it symbolizes:Hippolytus, Anaphora, chapter 38 (215 AD)“Having blessed the cup in the Name of God, you received it as the antitype of the Blood of Christ. Therefore do not spill from it, for some foreign spirit to lick it up because you despised it.”And Tertullian shows the same reverence for unconsecrated bread and wine just because of what it could be used to symbolize:Tertullian, The Chaplet, Chapter 3“We feel pained should any wine or bread, even though our own, be cast upon the ground.”If Tertullian is careful not to spill bread and wine because of what they could symbolize, and Hippolytus is careful with consecrated wine because of what it does symbolize, Origen’s care for the consecrated bread can hardly be used to prove an early belief in the “real presence” of Christ in the consecrated bread.Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 57, paragraph 4 (254 - 257 AD) (note that by “present a person in the offerings” Cyprian means “to commemorate that person in the offerings):“But I and my colleagues, and all the brotherhood, send this letter to you in the stead of us, dearest brother; and setting forth to you by our letter our joy, we express the faithful inclination of our love here also in our sacrifices and our prayers, not ceasing to give thanks to God the Father, and to Christ His Son our Lord; … For the victim which affords an example to the brotherhood both of courage and of faith, [ought to be offered up when the brethren are present.”Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 62, paragraph 7 (254 - 257 AD) (note that Cyprian says we could not drink Christ’s blood until after the cross—which means He could not have given His disciples His blood to drink the night before He died):“The treading also, and pressure of the wine-press, is repeatedly dwelt on; because just as the drinking of wine cannot be attained to unless the bunch of grapes be first trodden and pressed, so neither could we drink the blood of Christ unless Christ had first been trampled upon and pressed, and had first drunk the cup of which He should also give believers to drink.”Catholic Encyclopedia, Cyprian of Carthage“We have always to remember that his experience as a Christian was of short duration, that he became a bishop soon after he was converted, and that he had no Christian writings besides Holy Scripture to study besides those of Tertullian.”Aphrahat of Persia, Demonstration 12, On the Passover (mid-4th century)“Our Saviour ate the Passover sacrifice with his disciples during the night watch of the fourteenth. He offered to his disciples the sign of the true Passover sacrifice.” (chapter 6)“The Passover of the Jews is on the day of the fourteenth…. [but] Our day of great suffering, however, is Friday, the fifteenth day. … our great day is Friday.” (chapter 8)Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 23, paragraph 20 (350 AD)“Trust not the judgment to your bodily palate no, but to faith unfaltering; for they who taste are bidden to taste, not bread and wine, but the anti-typical Body and Blood of Christ.”Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 2, paragraph 95 (361 AD)“Since then I knew these things, and that no one is worthy of the mightiness of God, and the sacrifice, and priesthood, who has not first presented himself to God, a living, holy sacrifice, and set forth the reasonable, well-pleasing service, Romans 12:1 and sacrificed to God the sacrifice of praise and the contrite spirit, which is the only sacrifice required of us by the Giver of all; how could I dare to offer to Him the external sacrifice, the antitype of the great mysteries, or clothe myself with the garb and name of priest, before my hands had been consecrated by holy works; before my eyes had been accustomed to gaze safely upon created things, with wonder only for the Creator, and without injury to the creature;”Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 45, paragraph 23 (381 AD)“Now we will partake of a Passover which is still typical; though it is plainer than the old one.”Macarius, The Elder (the Egyptian), Homily 27, paragraph 17“in the church bread and wine should be offered, the symbol (ἀντίτυπον) of His flesh and blood, and that those who partake of the visible bread eat spiritually the flesh of the Lord, and that the apostles' and Christians receive the Paraclete, and are endued with power from on high, 2 and are filled with the Godhead, and their souls mingled with the Holy Ghost” Homily 27, paragraph 17.On the introduction of kneeling during the consecration, after centuries of it being prohibited:“Eventually kneeling became more common in public prayer with the increase of adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. … In the Eucharist we are invited to approach an even greater manifestation of God’s presence–the literal body, blood, soul, and divinity of God the Son–so it is fitting that we adopt what in our culture is one of the most reverential postures.” (Catholic Answers, Should we stand or kneel at mass? )On the introduction of communion on the tongue after centuries of receiving it in the hand:“It is certainly true that ancient usage once allowed the faithful to take this divine food in their hands and to place it in their mouths themselves. … Later, with a deepening understanding of the truth of the eucharistic mystery, of its power and of the presence of Christ in it, there came a greater feeling of reverence towards this sacrament and a deeper humility was felt to be demanded when receiving it. Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant.” (Memoriale Domini: Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion, Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship (May 29, 1969)).On the prohibition of lay reservation after centuries of the practice:“It is also true that in very ancient times they were allowed to take the Blessed Sacrament with them from the place where the holy sacrifice was celebrated. This was principally so as to be able to give themselves Viaticum in case they had to face death for their faith. … Soon the task of taking the Blessed Eucharist to those absent was confided to the sacred ministers alone, so as the better to ensure the respect due to the sacrament … .” (Memoriale Domini: Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion, Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship (May 29, 1969)).John Henry Cardinal Newman“The acts of the fourth century .. may be fairly taken to interpret to us the dim, though definite, outlines traced in the preceding [centuries].” (John Cardinal Newman, On the Development of Christian Doctrine, chapter 4, paragraph 15). Such an assumption was necessary to explain, as Newman described it, the “want of accord between the early and the late aspects of Christianity” (Newman, On the Development of Christian Doctrine, Introduction, paragraph 20.)Rev. John Brande Morris, M .A.“[I]f there are early traces of identity of belief, they may be invisible, except to the eye of a Catholic, but perfectly clear to him. … What is intended is, not to assert that the present devotion to Mary existed in the early ages; that may be so or not: but that the principle on which it is based naturally led to it, and may be assumed to have been intended by God to lead to it.” (Rev. John Brande Morris, M .A., Jesus, the Son of Mary, 1851, pp. 25-33.)Phillip Schaff“[In Gregory of Nyssa] we have the full explanation of what Irenæus meant when he said that the elements ‘by receiving the Word of God become the Eucharist’ “. (Introduction to the Works of Cyril of Jerusalem, Chapter 7, Eucharistic Doctrine).William Wigan Harvey “…the prayer of consecration [is] mentioned by Justin Martyr in his First Apology, paragraph 65, and stated expressly by S. Basil to be something more than the simple words of Scripture.” (Harvey, W. Wigan, Sancti Irenæi Episcopi Lugdunensis, Libros Quinque Contra Haereses, volume ii, Typis Academicis, 1857, 205n.)Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians, chapter 44“For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.” (Alexander Roberts, D.D. & James Donaldson, LL.D.)“Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices.” (William A. Jurgens) “For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily presented the offerings.” (Phillip Schaff)The original Greek is actuall “προσενεγκοντας τα δωρα” which literally translates as “offered the gifts.” (Migne, P.G. vol I, col 300)Justin MartyrDialogue with Trypho, Chapters 109- 124 (155-167 AD)“Now, that prayers and giving of thanks [ευχαριστιαι], when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 117). (Migne, P.G. vol VI, col 745)First Apology, 13 (155 AD)“[Him] we praise to the utmost of our power by the exercise of prayer and thanksgiving (ευχαριστιας) for all things wherewith we are supplied, as we have been taught that the only honour that is worthy of Him is not to consume by fire what He has brought into being for our sustenance, but to use it for ourselves and those who need, and with gratitude to Him to offer thanks by word of processions and to send forth hymns (gr: διά λόγου πομπάς και ύμνους πέμπειν; la: rationalibus eum pompis et hymnis celebrare) for our creation, and for all the means of health, and for the various qualities of the different kinds of things, and for the changes of the seasons.” (First Apology, Paragraph 13) (Migne, P.G. vol VI, col 345).Lacking the greek word, epicleses, George Reith and Marcus Dods translated “διά λόγου πομπάς” as “invocations”.First Apology, 66 (155 AD)“… we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word … is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” (Marcus Dods & George Reith)“… we have been taught that the food over which thanksgiving has been made by prayer in the word received from Him … is both the Flesh and Blood of Him the Incarnate Jesus.” (Phillip Schaff)“the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, … is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (Catholic Answers)The original greek is “τὴν δι᾽ εὐχῆς λόγου τοῦ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ εὐχαριστηθεῖσαν τροφήν”. (Migne, P.G. vol VI, cols 428-429). Here, “the prayer of His word,” or “εὐχῆς λόγου,” which is the Consecration, is spoken over “that eucharisted food,” or “αὐτοῦ εὐχαριστηθεῖσαν τροφήν,” indicating that in Justin, the Eucharistic prayer is not the Consecration, for the Eucharistic prayer took place before the prayer of His word. But all of these translations collapse the Eucharist (thanksgiving prayer) into the epiclesis (the consecration), such that the thanksgiving prayer makes the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.IrenæusAgainst Heresies, Book I, chapter 13, paragraph 2 (174-189 AD)“Pretending to offer the eucharist (εὐχαριστείν) in cups mingled with wine, and extending the word of invocation (ὲπικλήσεως) to unusual length…” (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Anterior to the Division of the East and West, volume 42, Five Books of S. Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons Against Heresies, Rev. John Keble, M.A., translator, James Parker & Col, 1872, 41) (Migne PG vo VII, col 580).Clearly, Irenæus has the “eucharist” separate from the “invocation” or “epiclesis” or “consecration.” But Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut collapsed the Eucharist into the Epiclesis, rending it, “Pretending to consecrate (εὐχαριστείν) cups mixed with wine, and protracting to great length the word of invocation (ὲπικλήσεως) …”Against Heresies, Book IV, chapter 18, paragraph 5 (174-189 AD)“For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the summons (“έκκλησιν (ecclisin)”), of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly” (AH.IV.18.5, emphasis added). That is what the original Greek says. Ecclesin, the Greek word for Summons, indicating the Lord summoning the tithe. When it is summoned, it takes on two realities, earthly and heavenly. (Migne, PG, vol VII, col 1028). Migne, recognizing the problem this causes for the Roman Catholic argument for transubstantiation, added a footnote indicating that even though the greek says “έκκλησιν (ecclisin, summons)”, “επικλησιν (epiclisin, invocation) is preferred”. And thus, Protestant scholars have followed suit, rendering in English something that Irenæus is known not to have said:Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut: “For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly;” Harvey, W. Wigan, Sancti Irenæi Episcopi Lugdunensis, Libros Quinque Contra Haereses, volume ii, Typis Academicis, 1857, 205n-206. “επικλυσιν is evidently the reading followed by the [Latin] translator, and is that which the sense requires.” Trevor, George, The Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrifice and Participation of the Holy Eucharist. Trevor acknowledges that Irenæus used the word ecclesin instead of epiclesin, but it doesn’t matter (Trevor, 321n) because it is so clear that Irenæus was obviously talking about a symbolic oblation of Christ’s body and blood, so the sense is the same. Now citing from George Trevor, in his 1876 work, on this very paragraph of Irenæus:“It is quite plain that the New Oblation of Irenæus is a sacrifice of Bread and Wine, offered both as the first-fruits of the earth and as symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ, who is the first fruits from the dead.” (Trevor, 322)John H. McKenna, The Eucharistic Epiclesis: A Detailed History from the Patristic to the Modern Era, wonders, credulously, what Irenæus must have meant when he said the bread takes on a heavenly reality at the invocation:“Irenæus argues from the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist to the reality of the bodily resurrection: ‘ … For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God (προσλαμβανόμενος τὴν ἐπικλυσιν του Θεού) is no longer common bread…’” (Second edition, Hillenbrand Books, 2009, 46.) Yet, Irenæus did not write ἐπικλυσιν. He wrote έκκλησιν.Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 2, paragraph 3 (174-189 AD)Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut have Irenæus saying the bread and wine become the Eucharist at the consecration:“When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made…”But that is a mistranslation. Phillip Schaff provides this acknowledgement in the footnote: Irenæus said, rather, that the bread and wine were already the Eucharist before the consecration, and at the consecration, the bread and wine become the body of Christ:Phillip Schaff, footnote 4462“The Greek text, of which a considerable portion remains here, would give, ‘and the Eucharist becomes the body of Christ.’”Roberts’ & Rambaut’s mistranslation relies on the Latin, and obscures the fact that the Eucharist preceded the consecration, and that the bread and wine were already the Eucharist prior to the consecration.Fragment 37 (late 2nd century)“And therefore the oblation (προσφορα, offering) of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation (προσφερομεν, offering) to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected (τελέσαντες, completed, finished) the oblation (προσφοραν, offering), we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit (αποφηνη, apophene), this sacrifice (την θυσιαν, THE sacrifice, not THIS sacrifice), both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes (αντιτυπων) may obtain remission of sins and life eternal.” (Migne, PG, vol VII, col 1253)HippolytusAnaphora (215 AD)Katherine E. Harmon, Assistant Professor of Theology at Marian University in Indianapolis, IN. “My undergraduate students recently read the anaphora from a source which has been referred to as “the Apostolic Tradition according to St. Hippolytus of Rome.” Whether the students knew this lengthy title or not is unclear, as I, being a Notre Dame graduate, have taken an oath to use a heavy black marker to “x” out ruthlessly all references to Hippolytus in text books of liturgical history.” (The So-Called Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome, February 12, 2105)Fragment on Proverbs 9Schaff: “‘And she hath furnished her table:’ that denotes the promised knowledge of the Holy Trinity; it also refers to His honoured and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper.”Not only is this anachronistic reading inconsistent with the early liturgy in general, but it is inconsistent with Hippolytus’ own liturgy (in the Anaphora) and that of his mentor, Irenæus. It is notable, as well, that Proverbs 9 is about Wisdom furnishing her table for a meal, not furnishing her table for a sacrifice. This reading in Schaff’s series on the Ante-Nicæan Fathers is surely influenced by the intentional mistranslation in Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book IV, chapter 18 in which the offering is made to take place after the epiclesis.Greek: “…και το τιμιον και αχραντον αυτου σωμα και αιμα απερ εν τη μυστικη και θεια τραπεζη καθ εκαστην επιτελουνται θυομενα εις αναμνησιν της αειμνηστου και πρωτγς εκεινης τραπεζης του μυστικου θειου δειπνου.” (Migne, PG, vol X, 628)Better English translation: “……and to His honorable and undefiled body and blood, as on the mystical and divine table each day the sacrifices have been administered, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine suppeThis rendering is not only consistent with Justin, who said the consecration occurs only after the food has already been offered as a Eucharist (First Apology, Chapter 66), and with Hippolytus’ mentor, Irenæus, who said the bread and wine were already the Eucharist when they were offered, but that the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ at the consecration (Against Heresies, Book I, chapter 13; Book IV, chapter 17-18, Book V, chapter 2), but also with Hippolytus himself, who said that the bread and wine are offered along with cheese, oil, and olives in the Eucharist, but that the bread and wine do not become the body and blood of Christ until the consecration is spoken over them. Thus, consistent with the testimony of the early church, the body and blood of Christ are present on the “spiritual and divine table” every day the sacrifices are administered, but the body and blood of Christ are not what is offered.Additionally, this reading is consistent with Proverbs 9 which Hippolytus was expounding. His only point is that consecrated bread and wine are on the table, and thus Wisdom has furnished her table. But according to the early liturgy, when are the consecrated bread and wine on the table? They are on the table every day that the sacrifices have been administered, because the Supper is always preceded by the Eucharist.Gregory of NazianzenOration 18 (374 AD)Paragraph 20“Who was more sympathetic in mind, more bounteous in hand, towards the poor, that most dishonoured portion of the nature to which equal honour is due? For he actually treated his own property as if it were another's, … . This is what most men do: they give indeed, but without that readiness, which is a greater and more perfect thing than the mere offering.” Paragraph 25““How could anyone be more conclusively proved to be good, and worthy to offer the gifts (δωρα) to God?” (Migne, PG vol 35, col 1016)Oration 45 (381 AD)Paragraph 30“But, O Pascha, great and holy and purifier of all the world — for I will speak to you as to a living person — O Word of God and Light and Life and Wisdom and Might — for I rejoice in all Your names — O Offspring and Expression and Signet of the Great Mind; O Word conceived and Man contemplated, Who bearest all things, binding them by the Word of Your power; receive this discourse, not now as firstfruits, but perhaps as the completion of my offerings, a thanksgiving, and at the same time a supplication, that we may suffer no evil beyond those necessary and sacred cares in which our life has been passed; and stay the tyranny of the body over us; (You see, O Lord, how great it is and how it bows me down) or Your own sentence, if we are to be condemned by You. But if we are to be released, in accordance with our desire, and be received into the Heavenly Tabernacle, there too it may be we shall offer You acceptable Sacrifices upon Your Altar, to Father and Word and Holy Ghost; for to You belongs all glory and honour and might, world without end.” [These sacrifices are begin offered to Christ, and to the Godhead. Obviously, the sacrifice is not Christ’s body and blood."]Oration 18 (374 AD)Paragraph 29“Then, after adding the customary words of thanksgiving [της ευχαριστιας], and after blessing the people, he retired again to his bed, and after taking a little food, and enjoying a sleep, he recalled his spirit, and, his health being gradually recovered, on the new day of the feast, as we call the first Sunday after the festival of the Resurrection, he entered the temple and inaugurated his life which had been preserved, with the full complement of clergy, and offered the sacrifice of thanksgiving.” [Migne, Migne PG, vol 35, col 1021]. This is obviously a Eucharist offering of unconsecrated food. Nevertheless, Migne adds in a footnote the interpretation of Jacobus Billius, noting that “after adding the customary words of thanksgiving [της ευχαριστιας]”, which really only indicate that the Eucharistic prayers have been interrupted, can be understood to mean, “that the consecration is completed” [“vel ea intelligi posse, quibus consecratio perficitur”], demonstrating the propensity of the scholars to collapse the Eucharist into the Epiclesis.

Trypho asks, “Are Christians Israel?” Justin answers, “we are both called and in fact are Jacob and Israel and Judah and Joseph and David, and true children of God” (Justin Dial. Tryph. 123). In this episode I unpack Ephesians 2:11-22 and compare it to the broad teaching of the NT regarding the continuity and discontinuity…Read More

www.scripture-elevated.com This podcast is intended to provide an exposition on the Son of God in scripture, to help the reader recognise and form a proper understanding on all that relates to the Son of God, who he is; what he did, does and is doing; his role in God’s ultimate plan; His status over all creation as God; His love, purpose and desire for mankind and creation; and much more… Thus to form a clear understanding, this exposition of the Son is broken into four closely related series. The first part of the series specifically this Part 1a and 1b (in another audio), will focus on His divinity that is, the divine makeup of the Son of God, how he become known as the ‘Son’ and his role particularly in the Old Testament. Part 2 of this series will then expound on his becoming flesh, taking the form of humanity and the various implications that flow from it. Part 3 of this series will then discuss the authority of the Son of God as giver of life through his blood, specifically the theological aspects of it and the consequential implications for those joined to him through faith. Then finally, Part 4 of this series will consider his power and authority as judge and king over all creation on the throne of David in the age to come. References 1. The only begotten Son Tim Warner, ‘The Son of God as “The Beginning” in Proverbs 8’, Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, ch. Lxii Proverbs 8:22-30 (LXX) Colossians 1:15-18 Hebrews 1:2 Revelation 3:14 John 3:13 John 1:1-3 Luke 11:49 Matthew 23:34 1 Corinthians 1:22-25 Proverbs 30:4 2. The Son as the logos at creation Tim Warner, ‘Who or What is the “Logos” in John’s Prologue’, Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, ch. Lxii Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch. Lxiii John 1:1-18, Hebrews 1:1-2, 5, 10-12, Colossians 1:15-18 (the Word as creator) John 1:29-31 (John the Baptist testifies Jesus as the Word) Revelation 19:13 (The Logos identified as the Lamb and the King in Psalm 2) Hebrews 4:12-14 (The Logos as the Judge over mankind)

A Christian was saying that Justin Martyr was listing parallels between the Jesus story and earlier pagan stories to somehow woo pagans to the Christian faith. I said no, Justin was responding to common objections raised by Trypho and others about comparisons they were making against Jesus by comparing him to similar themes found in pagan god stories. Which is true? Where does the Augustine/Calvin view that humans are the enemy of God due to their sin nature come from? What did Mark mean by â??faithâ?? when talking about the woman who touched Jesus robe and stole his power?  What is the path to salvation per Mark?  How great an influence did Egypt have on Israelite religion? Where the hell did the prosperity gospel come from? Does it have historical roots or is it a relatively new, uniquely American invention? How have protestant Christians historically addressed the irony of teaching "faith without works" while simultaneously requiring a work (i.e. a profession of faith or a sincere belief in Christ) to achieve atonement and forgiveness of sin? Theme music provided by: Peter Benjamin - composer for media www.peterbenjaminmusic.org peterbenjaminmusic@gmail.com

With its messianic associations, pouring or smearing oil on the head is both foundational and divisive in Judaism and Christianity. Language about oil is—well, sorry—slippery. This is true in ancient contexts as well as modern. For instance, Trypho, a second-century Jew, is reported to have said: “The messiah, if he has indeed come and is somewhere, is incognito; he does not even know himself yet nor does he have any power until Elijah comes and anoints him and makes him manifest to everyone” (Dial. 8.4). Justin Martyr vociferously disagreed. In this episode, Matt Novenson helps us see that past analysis of "messiah" language has frequently contributed to the slipperiness, so new questions are needed. Listen in as OnScript host Matthew Bates and Matt Novenson work toward a more firm grip on messianic discourse. The post Matthew Novenson – The Grammar of Messianism first appeared on OnScript.

With its messianic associations, pouring or smearing oil on the head is both foundational and divisive in Judaism and Christianity. Language about oil is—well, sorry—slippery. This is true in ancient contexts as well as modern. For instance, Trypho, a second-century Jew, is reported to have said: “The messiah, if he has indeed come and is somewhere, is incognito; he does not even know himself yet nor does he have any power until Elijah comes and anoints him and makes him manifest to everyone” (Dial. 8.4). Justin Martyr vociferously disagreed. In this episode, Matt Novenson helps us see that past analysis of "messiah" language has frequently contributed to the slipperiness, so new questions are needed. Listen in as OnScript host Matthew Bates and Matt Novenson work toward a more firm grip on messianic discourse.

You endeavor to prove an incredible and well nigh impossible thing; that God endured to be born and become Man. – Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho

Explore what Irenaeus stated about the Church. Who is Jesus and why does it matter? Consider what Paul asks in Romans 10:14-17. Explore the background of Irenaeus’ On the Apostolic Preaching. Consider positive influences, which include Ignatius of Antioch. Christ is both the content and the source of our faith. The bishops carry forth the truth of what the apostles have said and preserve the gospel message. Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Justin Martyr in Dialogue with Trypho asserts that the Old Testament foreshadows Christ. Negative influences are the Gnostics and Marcion. Explore that Christ is either the Messiah of the Old Testament or Christ is something else entirely. Consider major contextual issues. Irenaeus wanted to understand and situate Christ within the entire history of redemption. Jesus belongs perfectly within the context of the Old Testament. Irenaeus wanted to recognize textual authority. It demonstrates that the apostolic witness is in line and on par with the Old Testament and the true account of Christ. Who is Jesus? There are three major methods of understanding Jesus. Some divorce Jesus from the Old Testament and Yahweh; some understand Jesus through the lens of the Old Testament; and some understand the Old Testament through the lens of Jesus and covenantal fulfillment.

Justin Martyr’s theology was rooted in Scripture. His main task was to interpret Scripture, mainly the Old Testament. In terms of God, he leaned towards Platonic philosophy that taught that God dwells in the regions above the sky and he is not omnipresent. The Divine Logos (Reason) is the means by which the Father (transcendent) deals with His creation. Justin’s Christology included a distinction between the Father and Son that corresponds to the distinction between the transcendent and immanent God. Christ was the Logos or Divine Reason and means of creation. Logos became man and was God and man. Justin’s analogy was, “. . . just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled.” Justin’s doctrine of the Logos is the most important aspect of his theology. The Divine Logos appeared fully in Christ but a “seed” of the Logos (logos spermatikos) was scattered among mankind before Christ. Thus, all people possess this “seed” of the Logos. In fact, some pre-Christian philosophers were (according to Justin) “Christians”. For Justin, Christ’s possession of the Logos is similar to the possession of the Logos by others, but in a full degree. Justin’s writings include his First Apology which was written to the Emperor (Antoninus Pius). The fist half is a repudiation of the State’s approach to Christians. The second half is a justification of the Christian religion. His Second Apology is a protest that severe instances of Christian persecutions in Rome are unjustifiable. Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho the Jew is the oldest Christian apology against the Jews. Its three main points are that: 1) Christians claim all of the Old Testament; 2) the Mosaic law was temporary; and 3) Christians are the New Israel. Justin writes concerning the writings of David. Other apologists included Tatian, who wrote the Diatesseron, which is a fusion of the four gospels into one. He eventually was branded a heretic for having gnostic ideas. Meltiades wrote an apology for Christian philosophy. Apolinarius wrote five books against the Greeks and Melito of Sardis wrote to the Jews and an apology to Marcus Arellius arguing that Christianity meant blessing and welfare to the Roman Empire. Athenagoras wrote an apology for Christians around 177 AD disputing incest, atheism, and cannibalism. Athenagoras held a central unity of the Father and Logos. Consider the Epistle to Diognetus. Diognetus was a high-ranking pagan and asked a Christian for information on his faith.

For early Church structure, we find that Ignatius held a three-fold office including Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. Titus 1:5 states, “The reason I left you in Crete was to set in order the remaining matters and to appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.” These offices were all elected by the people and by the 4th Century, bishops were often appointed by the Emperor of Rome. I Clement and the Didache imply a two-fold office of Bishops or Presbyters and Deacons. The Church roles included “Presbyters” who were generally the church leaders or “elders” and were sometimes called “bishops”. There were also “Bishops”. What led to a singular bishop among a college of Presbyters? The Bishop had the power to ordain and it was his prerogative. There was a need for someone to write and receive inter-church correspondence. He was the chief representative of a congregation. Bishops were a unifying, central figure in the fight against heresy. Deacons primarily served in practical ways. By the end of the 2nd Century, there was a three - tiered (three office) structure. Explore the different parts of the Didache. Who were the Apologists and what were their roles? What are Apologies? Originally, it meant a defense against something. Over time, (ca. Eusebius, 4th century) it also became known as a defense on behalf of something. Our focus will be the Greek Apologists. What were their objectives? First was to answer the charge that Christianity was a threat to Rome. They also exposed the absurdity and immorality of paganism while showing Christianity alone understood God. They also wanted to show the limits of philosophy. There were different audiences for the Apologists. Some were written to Jews (e.g. Dialogue with Trypho). Some works were addressed to Roman leaders (e.g. Apologies of Justin and Tertullian). There were also anti-heretical treatises. Generally, the audience would not have understood the basics of Christianity. “What is truth?” is a major starting point for some of the Apologists.

Finishing up Irenaeus of Lyons, Tom, Trevor and Chad work their way through Apostolic succession, "doing history," the Eucharist, justification, and much more. Please let us know what kind of questions you have from what we are discussing at Facebook.com/ahistoryofchristiantheology or www.ahistoryofchristiantheology.com.

Starting this week, we will begin 2 hour long episodes on the great 2nd century theologian Irenaeus. Irenaeus is one of the first to explain what Gnosticism truly taught and how it was different from comes to be known as Orthodox Christianity. He is a wealth of information, and should be read, in his own right, for his clever thought. Please check out our blog at www.ahistoryofchristiantheology.com and tell us what you think.

We continue our conversation on Dialogue with Trypho. Please check us out at Facebook.com/ahistoryofchristiantheology. Let us know what you think about the length and if you would like it if we went to an hour.

Continuing our time in Justin, Tom, Trevor and I (Chad) discuss Justin's "hermeneutic" of reading Scripture, his early Trinitarian theology and why this matters before the Council of Nicaea. Check out our blog for more thoughts on hermeneutics at www.ahistoryofchristiantheology.com.

When it came to christology, what did Justin Martyr consider essential, as in, you're not a Christian unless you believe it? The answers may surprise you. In this episode we explore the christology of Justin's Dialogue with Trypho.

Has anyone ever seen God himself? The Bible seems to both affirm and deny this. In Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, Justin claims that the "God" seen in any Old Testament theophany was not the one God, the Creator (i.e. the Father)...

Few stories stick out in people's collective mind like the nativity, yet only two of the four gospel writers record it. Even then, there emphasis is clearly on events surrounding the birth of Jesus rather than the birth itself. As Justin Martyr records in "Dialogue with Trypho," 'You endeavor to prove an incredible and well nigh impossible thing; that God endured to be born and become Man.'

sermon transcript Jesus Spoke & Lived the OT Scriptures Speak in an interweaving way of the living word, the written word, and the Living Word Jesus Christ. This morning, we're going to look at perhaps one of the greatest and clearest prophecies of the Messiah in the Old Testament, Psalm 22. As Jesus was hanging on the cross, He cried out, "Eloi, Eloi lama sabachthani,” which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" This is a cry from the depths of one under the judgment of God, as we believe Jesus, bearing our sins, cried out of the forsakeness, the god-forsakenness of his status there on the cross. But I think he was doing more than just that. You see, Jesus lived a life totally dependent on and interwoven with the written word of God, His whole life had been laid out before He'd even been born, laid out in prophecies of scripture. His birthplace, for example, He was born in Bethlehem, according to Micah Chapter 5, Verse 2, his mother was to be a virgin, according to Isaiah 7:14, and she was. He was to grow up in Galilee according to Isaiah 9:1, He was to do miracles, according to Isaiah 35:4-6. He was to speak in parables according to Psalm 78:2. He was to be rejected by his own people, according to Psalm 118:22. He was even to be betrayed by one of his close friends who shared his own bread, for 30 pieces of silver, 30, not 29, not 31, but 30 pieces of silver, according to Psalm 41:9 and Zechariah 11:13. But more than that, Jesus in his everyday life relied on the written word of God. When tempted by the devil, He answered three times with scripture, “It is written,” “It is written,” “It is written.” The first time He laid it all out for us plainly. When He said, "Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God,” Jesus didn't just preach it, He lived it. Total dependence moment by moment on the written word of God. When some came to threaten his life in John chapter 10, they were ready to execute him for the things He had claimed. Jesus reached for Psalm 82:6, “I said, you are gods.” How many of us would have even known where Psalm 82 was, never mind what it said, never mind how it was applicable to this very situation? Jesus' mind was saturated with the Old Testament, for that's all that was available in his day, the written word of God. Now, as Jesus was hanging on the cross, crying out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?", there were some around the cross who heard Him cry. Franco Zeffirelli in his masterpiece, “Jesus of Nazareth” picks up on this, the pathos of that moment, Jesus' enemies around the cross, they're looking up at him, and Jesus cries out, "Eli, Eli lama sabachthani." People say, "Oh listen, He's calling for Elijah." They didn't hear it right or something, or their minds were dark and they didn't hear it properly. Zeffirelli has one of his bitterest foes looking up and just gets a wistful look on his face, kind of puzzled, almost. He said, "No. No, He's not calling Elijah, He's quoting the scripture." Even here, even now, hanging on the cross, He's quoting Scripture, and he just shook his head in amazement because he considered Jesus to be an imposter, and yet He wouldn't let it go. Even on the cross, He's quoting Scripture. I believe that Jesus was crying out from the depths of a spiritual separation between him and God because of his role as our substitute. But could it be that He was doing more than that, could it be that He was pointing our attention back to Psalm 22? I think perhaps so, for Psalm 22 gives perhaps the clearest depiction in all of the Old Testament about what was happening to Jesus right at that moment, namely crucifixion. Now, 100 years after Jesus, a Roman who came to personal faith in Christ, named Justin Martyr, started having dialogues with Jewish people and he wrote one of them down, it was entitled, “Dialogue with Trypho the Jew.” This is just 100 years after Christ, it’s four generations after Jesus. He points to Psalm 22, and specifically to Verse 16, which says, “They have pierced my hands and my feet.” What is this? This piercing of the hands and the feet. He said, "It was the prophetic spirit." That's what Justin Martyr called it, “the Holy Spirit.” The prophetic spirit in David, which was predicting Jesus' crucifixion, with these words, they have pierced my hands and my feet." Trypho the Jew wasn't buying it. He didn't believe in that. Justin Martyr turns up the heat a little bit in the dialogue, and he says, "You are indeed blind when you deny that the above mentioned psalm was spoken of Christ, for you fail to see that no one among your people who has ever been called King ever had his hands and his feet pierced while alive and died by this mystery that is the cross, except this Jesus only." A mere 100 years after Jesus, this clear testimony of the power of Psalm 22 to predict the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. The Centerpiece of apostolic evangelism is OT Scripture The centerpiece of apostolic evangelism, the evangelism of the apostles, was Old Testament scripture. They were constantly going from place to place, proving from the scriptures, the Old Testament, that Jesus was the Christ. This came, I believe, from Jesus' 40-day seminar that He had with them after his resurrection. He spent 40 days with His apostles and He taught them everything that was in the scriptures concerning him. In Moses and in the Psalms and Prophets, and then the Writings as well, in every aspect of Old Testament scripture. There was Christ, there was Christ, there was Christ, a clear testimony to his life. Peter picked up on it, and in his first sermon after Pentecost, he stands up, actually, on the day of Pentecost, and preaches boldly and powerfully, fearlessly. Power of the spirit has come on him, he's not afraid of death anymore, why? Because he's seen the risen Lord, there is nothing they can do to shut him up. But not only does the Holy Spirit gave him power and courage in the face of death, it also saturates his mind in Old Testament scripture. Peter quotes, Joel Chapter 2, Psalm 16, Psalm 1-10, and by my count, almost half of all the verses of that sermon were Old Testament quotations or allusions. Peter later wrote in 1 Peter 1, the Spirit of Christ was inside the prophets, like inside David, predicting the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. The Holy Spirit laid it all ahead of time, and he worked in a man like David to let us know. The apostle Paul picked up on this. At the beginning of Paul's ministry, Saul of Tarsus is breathing out threats and murder. He's on his way to Damascus. A bright light flashes from the heaven, he falls to the ground, he is converted, he comes to faith in Christ, and not only did scales fall from his eyes when he was baptized, but also a veil from his heart. He refers to this veil in 2 Corinthians 3, when he says, "A veil covers their hearts." Whenever the Old Testament is read, the Jews he's referring to, but when anyone turns to Christ, the veil falls away, and suddenly the scriptures came alive, and he could see things he'd never seen before. It says that, once Saul began preaching in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God, he grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Christ. How do you think he did that? He said, “Let's open up and look. Let's look at the Torah. Let's look at the writings of Moses. Let's look at the writings of the wisdom literature, and let's look at Psalms, and you'll see it all there.” He baffled them, they'd never noticed these things before, and it was Saul, this convert, instantly showing them. At the end of his life, he did the same thing in Acts 28:23. From morning till evening, he explained and declared to them the kingdom of God, this was to the Jews, and tried to convince them about Jesus, from the law of Moses and from the prophets. He said, "Open your Bibles, let's look, let's read along, here it is." This was the centerpiece of apostolic evangelism —open your Bible and look. Many times in between the beginning of his Christian life on the road of Damascus and the end of his Christian life in Rome, he did the same thing. In Thessalonica, he did the same thing, in Acts 17: 2-3. As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue and on three Sabbath days, he reasoned with them from the scriptures, explaining and proving that Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. When he had the Scriptures open, what do you think he went to, to talk about the sufferings of Christ? Could it be Psalm 22? I think so. Paul's own summary of his whole ministry comes in 1 Corinthians 15:3, “For what I received, I passed on to you as of first importance, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that He was buried and that He was raised from the dead on the third day according to scriptures.” The death according to scripture, the resurrection according to scripture. That's the way he preached, and my question to us, as 21st century, Christians, can you do that? Could you evangelize just from the Old Testament, could you prove and explain from the Old Testament scriptures, how Jesus is the Christ and the fulfillment of all of them? Perhaps now you can do Psalm 2, and Psalm 69 and after today, Psalm 22. Just wait until we get to Psalm 16, the resurrection Psalm. It's so powerful, and it's all been laid out here, incredible detail in the prophecies. Just as Jesus was being arrested, Peter draws the sword, he's about to defend Jesus so that Jesus would not be arrested. Jesus says, "Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will also die by the sword." And then He said, "You know, if I wanted to get out of this, I would call on my Father, and He will at once put in my defense, more than 12 legions of angels." But listen, what He says next, "But how then would the scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?" Not just that it must happen, but that it must happen this way. Everything had been laid out very carefully in advance, and this is going to become evident today as we look a little more carefully at Psalm 22. The prophecy of Psalm 22 Beginning at verse 1, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning, oh my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer by night, and I'm not silent. Yet, you are enthroned as a holy one. You are the praise of Israel, in you, our fathers put their trust, they trusted and you delivered them. They cried to you and were saved. In you, they trusted, and were not disappointed, but I am a worm and not a man, scorned by men and despised by the people, all who see me, mock me, they hurl insults, shaking their heads, 'He trusts in the Lord, let the Lord rescue him, let Him deliver him, since he delights in Him.' Yet you, brought me out of the womb, you made me trust in you even at my mother's breast, from birth, I was cast upon you from my mother's womb, you have been my God, do not be far from me, for trouble is near, and there is no one to help. Many bulls surround me, strong bulls of Bashan encircle me, roaring lions tearing their prey, open their mouths wide against me, I am poured out like water and all my bones are out of joint. My heart has turned to wax, it has melted away within me, my strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth. You lay me in the dust of death. Dogs have surrounded me, a band of evil men has encircled me. They have pierced my hands and my feet. I can count all my bones, people stare and gloat over me, they divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing. But you, O Lord, be not far off. O my strength come quickly to help me, deliver my life from the sword, my precious life from the power of the dogs, rescue me from the mouth of the lions, save me from the horns of the wild oxen. I will declare your name to my brothers, in the congregation, I will praise you. You who fear the Lord, praise Him. All you descendants of Jacob honor him. Revere Him, all you descendants of Israel, for he has not despised or disdained the sufferings of his afflicted one, he has not hidden his face from him, but has listened to his cry for help. From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly. Before those who fear you, will I fulfill my vows. The poor will eat and be satisfied. They who seek the Lord will praise him. May your hearts live forever. All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations will bow down before Him. For dominion belongs to the Lord and He rules over the nations. All the rich of the earth will feast and worship, all who go down to the dust will kneel before Him, those who cannot keep themselves alive. Posterity will serve him. Future generations will be told about the Lord, they will proclaim His righteousness to a people yet unborn, for He has done it." Now, this is a Psalm of David, and David had his own context in writing it. The modern commentators have all different kinds of ideas about these kinds of psalms. I think it really depends on their own personal relationship with Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. I really believe that, because if they don't know the Lord, they tend to try to create a separation between David and Christ, so they will say that David here is struggling with physical illness. He's sick, and as he's dealing with illness, he's using metaphorical language to talk about those struggles. Well, there is some evidence. He says, "I am a worm and not a man." Verse 14, “poured out like water, my bones are out of the joint, heart-melting like wax.” Verse 15, “strength dried up, tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth. You lay in the dust of death.” Could be, except for some other verses that are in there as well. I really think that the issue here is, like many of David's lament psalms, whenever he's struggling, it's almost always his own sin or attacks from political and personal enemies, that tends to be what he grieves over, and I think in this case, it's the latter he's dealing with, political and personal enemies. "Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown," said Shakespeare, and as that crown is on your head, it weighs heavy, and there are people who want to take it from you and they're willing to plot against you. David lived a whole life with enemies wanting to take his life, and so in verses 12 and 13, you get the sense of being surrounded by enemies, “many bulls surround me, strong bulls of Bashan encircle me, roaring lions tearing their prey, open their mouths wide against me.” Then in verse 16, “dogs have surrounded me, a band of evil men has encircled me.” This doesn't line up too well with illness, really it's a personal attack from enemies, but the clincher is in verse 20, verse 19-21 says, "But you, O Lord, be not far off, O my strength come quickly to help me." Verse 20, “Deliver my life from the sword.” Well, there it is, he's threatened with the sword, his enemies are seeking to assassinate him, to kill him, and he's threatened by them. Verse 21, “Rescue me from the mouth of the lion, save me from the horns of wild oxen.” He's not suffering from physical illness, but he's afraid he's going to be killed by these adversaries. The psalm breaks up into two main sections, verse 1 through 21 is a cycle of lament and trust. Verse 22 through 31 is thanksgiving for deliverance, present and future. So there's the sad part and the happy part. Verse 1 through 21, the sad part, verse 22 through 31, the happy part, that's how it works. Now, in verse 1 through 21, the sad or difficult part, it's a cycle of lament and trust, he's going back and forth, he says, “I am this, but you are that, I am this, but you were that,” he's going back and forth. Any of you who have gone through afflictions, perhaps you've lost a loved one, perhaps you are ill, or perhaps there's some kind of persecutor, a difficulty in your life, you know how you move back and forth between the poles, don't you? Sometimes struggling and suffering with what's going on and other times, trusting in the Lord and praying for him to change the circumstances. Any of you who have suffered, you know what I'm talking about, and David does the same thing. First lament in verse 1, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Then in verse 3 through 5, he turns to the Lord, the national savior of Israel. He remembers that His forefathers trusted in God and were rescued. Then he goes back to a second lament in verse 6 through 8, "I am a worm and not a man, scorned by men and despised by people." So in the first cycle of lament, he feels forsaken by God, in the second cycle of lament, verse 6 through 8, he feels forsaken by people and abandoned and rejected. Then he comes back to confidence in God, verse 9 through 11, where the first was a national confidence, now here's the personal confidence, as he said, I've trusted in you from my mother's breast, from when I was first, a little baby, I began to trust in you. So he's going over his own history, and sometimes that's helpful when you go through affliction, you forget who God is, your circumstances become so powerful that you forget that God never changes, and that the resources for facing your trial are unshakable, will never change, that's who God is. The final lament, verse 12 through 18 is so clearly depicting crucifixion, that it's hard for me to even imagine what David was talking about. As Justin Martyr put it, “How are David's hands and feet pierced? What's going on there?” I think there comes a point where the prophetic spirit, the Holy Spirit, just lifts David up above his immediate circumstances to speak words of prophecy about Christ. That's what's going on, I believe in 12 -18, he's encircled by attackers, and then he finishes up with a prayer for deliverance, 19 through 21. That's the sad part, a cycle of lament and trust back and forth, and then David moves to the happy part, just like that, from 21 to 22, there's no warning. All of a sudden, we're giving thanks and praise. It's almost like a resurrection. Could it be? Verse 22, he praises God. He says, "I will declare your name to my brothers in the congregation, I will praise you. You who fear the Lord, praise him, all you descendants of Jacob, honor him." So he's praising God. In verses 22 through 26, he's praising God for his present deliverance from his immediate situation, and then again, he lifts his eyes, the vision to an eternal kingdom. 27 through 31, the end of the Psalm; some things that are so rich that I can't share them with you today. I'm going to do it another time, the power of the worldwide advance of the kingdom of Christ, based on what he accomplished in the first half of Psalm 22. That's David's situation. Let's be done with David now and move on to Christ because there are some aspects of David's life that do not line up with Christ, some aspects of his situation that are not Christ. We need to focus on Jesus Christ, and Psalm 22 depicts the sufferings and the resurrection of Jesus Christ in powerful ways. Look over in Matthew 27, and what we're going to do is we're going to compare the way that Matthew wrote the crucifixion account with Psalm 22, and you're going to see so clearly the fulfillments of Psalm 22 as to be beyond question. Matthew 27, 32- 50 but stay in Psalm 22, we're going to be moving back and forth so that you can see what it is. There's two real aspects here of the fulfillment. The first is that the whole scene and circumstances are set up by Psalm 22, and there's four different aspects of that. Then there's the crucifixion itself, the very mode and manner of Jesus' death focused in on Psalm 22 as well.Let's look at the first, the scene is set in the Gospels, right from Psalm 22, the first is in Matthew 27:35, look at it. Matthew 27:35 says, “When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots.” What's so amazing about this, and this is the key to the whole thing of prophetic scripture: who was it that divided up Jesus' clothes by casting lots? It was the Roman soldiers. Wait a minute, that's a problem. Roman soldiers didn't know Psalm 22:18, how are they going to know to do this? They're probably born in some part of Italy, got on a boat and came to Palestine, the last place they wanted to be. There’s a centurion and a bunch of other soldiers, hot and bothered, another crucifixion to do, they don't want to be here. “This is the worst place, it's so hot, the food is terrible, and now we have to kill another one of these Jewish rebels. maybe I can get a garment out of it, maybe I can get a cloak or something for my trouble.” That's what he's thinking. But God's thoughts are so much higher above. The Roman doesn't know, Psalm 22:18, but God does, and this is the key to the whole thing, is that God is sovereign over human events. He saw over people who don't know him, even over the people who don't love him, God rules over all, so when they're rolling the dice and casting lots, they're fulfilling prophecy, even though they didn't know what they were doing, this is the key to it all. Our God is a sovereign God. Now look at Verse 39, it says, "Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads." They're insulting Christ and they're shaking their heads. That's prophesied in Psalm 22:7. Look back. Keep your finger in both. "All who see me mock me, they hurl insults, shaking their heads." Do you see that? They're shaking their heads, even the head gestures of Jesus' enemies prophesied. What about the content of the mocking? Look at verse 41-43, "In the same way, the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked Him. He saved others, they said, but he can't save himself. He's the king of Israel. Let him come down now from the cross, and we'll believe in him." Here it is, Matthew 27:43, "He trusts in God, let God rescue him now, if he wants him, for He said, I am the Son of God." Of course, the Jews, the chief priests, teachers of the law, they knew Psalm 22, but they sure weren't trying to quote scripture here. They opened up their hateful mouths, and insulting Jesus, they fulfilled prophecy to the letter. Look back at Psalm 22:8, "He trusts in the Lord, let the Lord rescue him, let Him deliver him since He delights in him." Their lines in the play had been scripted a thousand years ahead of time. King David wrote this a thousand years before Jesus fulfilled it, and it wasn't just Jesus fulfilling it, it was the Roman soldiers casting lots, it was the Jewish enemies casting insults, fulfilling scripture to the letter. The whole scene is set in Psalm 22, but then comes the crucifixion itself. Now go back to Psalm 22, and let's look at verses 12-18. Crucifixion itself is depicted very plainly in verses 12-18, "Many bulls surround me, strong bulls of Bashan encircle me, roaring lions tearing their prey, open their mouths, wide against me, I am poured out like water, all my bones are out of joint, my heart has turned to wax, it has melted away within me, my strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth. You lay me in the dust of death, dogs have surrounded me, a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet, I can count all my bones, people stare and gloat over me, they divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing." Can't you see Jesus' crucifixion, as you read those verses? Isn't it so plain? Let me pull out the elements for you, first, there's dehydration. It says in Psalm 22: 14-15, “the tongue cleaves to the roof of his mouth.” Do you remember one of the seven things that Jesus said from the cross was, “I thirst.” The thirst of Christ, that fulfilled Psalm 69, because they gave him vinegar to drink, you see, the whole thing had been worked out, but first comes the dehydration which comes from the crucifixion. What about exposure? Just the exposure of your whole body up there in the cross, couldn't be more exposed. Verse 17, it says, "I can count all my bones." So there is Jesus, and he can see his whole body, it's just exposed and out in the open, and then there's disfigurement, not only can he count all his bones, but his bones, according to verse 14 are out of joint, there's a kind of a twisting of the arms and of the legs, disfigurement. Then there's the encirclement, we've talked about it, but the bulls and the wolves and the dogs, just surrounding, a sense that He is in the center and everyone's looking and staring and gloating. There's a crowd yelling, there's a center, and the center is the cross of Jesus Christ. Isaiah, Zechariah, and Revelation speak of the Crucifixion Then there's the piercing. Now, I'll tell you something, I have wrestled with this, “They have pierced my hands and my feet.” Like any good pastor, you want to go back, not to the NIV or the NASB or the KJV or any of these, but you want to go back to the Hebrew, the original writings. If you were to look back in the Hebrew writings, we have the manuscripts, of course, we don't have Psalm 22, the original. God has seen fit that we don't have any original scriptures, we only have copies. Now, as you read the copy, it says something like this, "Dogs have surrounded me, a band of evil men has encircled me, like a lion, my hands and feet." Does that make sense to you? Like a lion, my hands and feet, doesn't make sense to me either. Now, the Greek is a little bit more interesting, translated 200 or 300 years before Jesus, the Greek translation says, “they have dug my hands and feet,” so that's like a piercing or a tunneling, and that's where it comes from. That's why I believe Justin Martyr talks about the piercing. But what of the Hebrew? I've wrestled with this. It also bothered me in the New Testament that this is never directly quoted, but yet I will say this, the piercing is clearly predicted. Jesus would be pierced, not just from this Scripture, but also from two others, in Isaiah 53:5, it says, “He was pierced for our transgression.” No problem with the text. Jesus would be pierced for our transgression, He would be crushed for our iniquity. Isaiah 53:5, “the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him and by His wounds we are healed.” So even if Justin Martyr's friend, Trypho the Jews said,”’It’s not in Psalm 22, there it is in Isaiah 53, you can't get away from it. “They've pierced my hands and my feet.” Then in Zechariah 12:10, it says, "I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication." Zechariah 12:10, "They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for Him as one mourns for an only child and grieve bitterly for Him as one grieves for a first-born son." John uses that as a fulfillment for the thrust of the spear or lance into Jesus' side. There's no question that Jesus would be pierced. The Book of Revelation talks about it. Revelation 1:17 says, "Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of Him, so shall it be, amen." What is so amazing about all this? That Jesus would die on a cross, pierced, crucified. Okay, so I'm convinced. Psalm 22 teaches crucifixion, so what? Well, crucifixion hadn't even been invented yet. It was invented about 500 years after David wrote this. There was nothing like this in Jewish culture. There was no piercing of hands and feet, they killed by stoning. What was David thinking? Well, I don't really care that much what David was thinking, I care what God was doing through David at that moment. I don't think David understood it. I think he wrote it and didn't fully understand what he was writing. But we understand because we're looking back at history now. In Psalm 22, Jesus while hanging on the cross, said, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” There it is. Well, what do we do with this information? What if David saw the crucifixion of Christ in advance? How does it affect my life? Number one, first of all, if you're a Christian, it is that you may know the certainty of the things you've been taught. It says in Luke 1:4, that's why he wrote Luke's Gospel, that you may know the certainty of the things you have taught. This is not something that God threw together at the last minute, the gospel, it's not something where he said, "Gee, I don't know what I'm going to do about sinners, I wouldn't mind having a few of them up here with me in Heaven. How are we going to get them up there. I don't know, well, why don't we kinda throw something together?" That is not God's way, but from eternity past, He has worked out this Gospel message. It says in Romans 1:2, that this is the gospel He promised beforehand through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, it's been predicted, all of it, ahead of time. Revelation 13:8 says that Jesus is the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. He died at the foundation of the world, not literally, but in the mind of God. He had it all worked out, and Jesus said that the scripture has said very plainly it would happen in this way, but there's a theological significance to it as well. It says in Galatians Chapter 3, that Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us as it is written, “cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.” He had to be crucified in order to be hung on a tree, that you may know the certainty of the things you've been taught. But the second and more plain, is that you know that Jesus suffered in your place. When Jesus cried out, He said, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" There is a God-forsakenness that we face as sinners here in this life. We don't walk with God, we don't love him, we don't know him, we don't follow his ways. But how much worse is that god-forsakenness that's waiting everyone who dies in sin and goes to hell. Hell is a God-forsaken place. I have witnessed, and I tell you with tears and with grief at the jokes that non-Christians give over hell. “All my friends are going to be down there, and I'm going to be partying with them. No, you're not. It's a place of utter darkness. All the good things that God has lavished on you in this world, He will lavish none of them in hell. What good things? The sun comes up on the evil and the righteous, and He sends rain on the evil and the righteous, He gives you sunshine, He gives you rain, He gives you good food, He gives you good friends and clothes and comforts and entertainment and all kinds of things. None of that in hell. Now, for we, who are Christians, we know that, we don't want to go to hell. Jesus suffered hell for us. When He cried out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Martin Luther looked at that and said, "You know, I feel forsaken because of my sins." But when he came to Psalm 22, he said, "Why did Jesus feel forsaken? What did he do? He was sinless and blameless, he was perfect in all his ways. Why did he feel forsaken?" It’s that exchange. God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, including the god-forsakenness, so that we in Christ might become the righteousness of God. He suffered in our place, so that we don't have to suffer hell, we don't have to suffer forsakeness from God. Quite the opposite, Hebrews 13:5, “He has promised, I will never leave you, I will never forsake you.” Never, he's going to be with you forever. Because of what Jesus accomplished, He says, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Like Jesus, the Christian suffers We say, “You will never leave me, you'll never forsake me, because of what Jesus accomplished.” Does that mean, we don't need to suffer? No, we still have some suffering, we don't drink Jesus' cup, but we drink drops from his cup. Jesus said to James and John, "You will indeed drink from my cup." He said, "If anyone's not willing to pick up this cross daily and follow me, he's not worthy to be my disciple." We have to be willing to suffer with Christ. Hebrews 13:12-13, “Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood, let us then go to him, outside the camp, bearing the disgrace He bore.” This is a problem for us, American Christians. We don't want to bear any disgrace, we want a comfortable easy life, and we don't want to bear any suffering because of the cross of Jesus Christ, but Hebrews says, “Go outside the camp, go and bear the insult and the disgrace that were poured on him because people hate God.” Go stand near the cross and you'll know what it's like, and the closer you get to the cross. The closer you get to Jesus, the more you'll know what this suffering is, and the more you will understand. “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me, for whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it.” If you want to share in Jesus' reward, you have to share in his suffering. “Now, if we are children, then we are heirs,” Romans 8:17, “heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in His sufferings, in order that we may also share in His glory.” That's how it works. Some of his followers would be crucified, literally, crucified. Peter, tradition has it, was crucified upside down, in Rome. He didn't want to be crucified right side up because he said that he didn't want to be like his savior. He wasn't worthy of it. So he was crucified upside down, and Jesus prophesied this whole thing in Matthew 23:34, he said to the enemies, the Jewish enemies that were opposing him, he said, "Therefore I'm sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify, others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town." They would be crucified. When God brings you to your time of suffering, look to Jesus and realize he's already suffered in your place, you're not suffering for your sins, but you're suffering that others may hear the Gospel, you're suffering that others may come to personal faith in Christ. Go outside the city gate and bear the reproach that He bore. Now, the last one is so rich that we don't have time for it today, so I've decided that I would do this again in another sermon. In verses 22-31, there is a whole worldwide feast of celebration that comes out of this, and it's remarkable because it's broken up into Jew first and then Gentile. It's too hard to explain right now, but I'll tell you very plainly, in verse 22, Jesus says, He will declare His name, God's name to his brothers. Hebrews picks up on this, and it's so beautiful, because right after Jesus rose from the dead, He sees Mary Magdalene, right outside the tomb, and she's weeping, she's crying, she's looking at Jesus, doesn't know it's him, finally she understands that it's him. Remember what Jesus said? "Go and tell my brothers, go and tell my brothers, I'm going to my God and their God, to my Father and your Father." He speaks that way after his crucifixion, He is our brother and as a result of that, there is an extension of worldwide kingdom that is coming. Verses 27 through 31 say, “All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord. All the families of the nations will bow down before Him. For dominion belongs to the Lord and He rules over the nations, all the rich of the earth will feast and worship, all who go down to the dust will kneel before Him, those who cannot keep themselves alive, posterity will serve him, future generations will be told about the Lord, they will proclaim His righteousness to a people yet unborn, for He has done this.” We see the worldwide scope of the kingdom, all the peoples in the ends of the earth, all the families of nations, we see the deep repentance of the gospel, they will remember and turn to the Lord. We see the humbling before the King, they're going to bow down before Him, and they're going to honor Him, we see joyful, feasting and worship, all the rich of the earth will feast and worship. We see total inability, any other way, those who cannot keep themselves alive, we see this Gospel being preached through all history, it says, posterity, future generations and a people yet unborn will hear this message. A Gospel will be preached, it will be told about the Lord, they will proclaim His righteousness, since it's the preaching of the Gospel. It is a God-centered gospel, for He and He alone has done it. Psalm 22 is a clear depiction of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, Jesus died in our place, He died the death we deserve under the wrath and curse of God. If you have never come to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, if there's never been a time that you knew that Jesus was standing in your place, to be your savior, your sin bearer, won't you come to Christ today? Prayer: Heavenly Father, we thank you for the beauty and the clarity of predictive prophecy, we thank you for Psalm 22, we thank you for how Jesus' crucifixion is laid out as plainly as ink on a page and we can read it. We thank you, O Lord, for the power that it has to give us certainty of the things we've been taught, and now I pray for those that have not yet given their lives to you, Lord, Father, that they would today be pierced in their heart, realize that they need a savior and come to personal faith in you, Father, and for the rest of us, that we might be willing to take up our cross daily and follow you, we pray in Jesus' name, Amen.

Paul has been describing a Gospel which is the supernatural power from God for the salvation of all kinds of people. Romans 1:16-17 is a summary of this Gospel message. Paul says, "I'm not ashamed of the Gospel because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes, first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the Gospel, a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is from faith to faith. Just as it is written, the righteous will live by faith." The Gospel holds out a cloak of righteousness, which is the only garment which will successfully cover anyone on Judgement Day. And Paul moves on from there in verses 18 of Chapter One through verse 32 to explain just how much every single person on the face of the Earth needs that grace. He talks about the wrath of God, which is being revealed from Heaven against Godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth, push it down in their unrighteousness, twist it, they push it away. There is evidence every day in creation that there is a God, and yet despite that evidence they suppress it and they exchange, in verse 23, they exchange the glory of the immortal God for images, for something created, for something lesser. They exchange what should be the center of their lives, the glory of God, for something created. And out of that very exchange comes all manner of evil. Homosexuality discussed in the middle of Chapter One. And also a river of evils, 21 of them that we looked at last week in verses 29-32. A Pandora's box, all the evil flowing from this central exchange, the glory of God for something else. I. Warning to the Self-Righteous Hypocrite Now, as Paul has been expounding this, opening it up, he does something here that you will find he does consistently in Romans, and that is to anticipate arguments against what he's saying. And one of the arguments he's anticipating is that, "Yeah, that's fine for them, but that's not me. That doesn't describe me. I'm better than that. I don't need that." And if anything, they're saying, "Right on, Paul. Preach it, Paul. Glad to hear it." And so, they're urging Paul on to proclaim the judgement of God and the wrath of God against all that category of sinners there. See the poignancy of the song we just listened to. Grace is as much for me as for any of them. And Paul knows that, and that kind of attitude of condemning other people while excusing your own sin leads people to hell. And Paul is concerned about all people who are reading his word, and he's addressing, therefore, the self-righteous judger, in Chapter 2:1-6. Let's read it together. "You therefore have no excuse, you who pass judgement on someone else. For at whatever point you judge the other, you're condemning yourself, because you who pass judgement do the same things. Now, we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think that you will escape God's judgement? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance, and patience, not realizing that god's kindness leads you toward repentance? But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you're storing up wrath against yourself, for the day of God's wrath when his righteous judgement will be revealed. God will give to each person according to what he has done." I mentioned a little while ago a new phenomenon, perhaps, a new career in politics called that of the "spin doctor." You remember what we talked about? The spin doctor, that individual that comes on after the candidate has done poorly in a debate and twists the whole thing around so that it looks like the candidate meant to do all those things and that this gaffe that was made was actually a shrewd strategy to do X, Y, and Z. Have you heard spin doctors before? They're everywhere. I don't know how much they make, but I think it's a good profession in Washington and in other places too, that twisting of the truth, rearranging, to take what seems obvious and make it not so obvious. And we talked about it in terms of Romans 1, the suppression of the truth inside. But the fact of the matter is, every single one of us plays this role from time to time, don't we? Because we have inside us this thing called the conscience, and the conscience points the finger at us, doesn't it? But we also have this thing called the judicial instinct, which points the finger at other people too, you see? Essence of hypocrisy: judging in others what you excuse in yourself And the twisting, the spin doctoring, occurs when you minimize the one and enhance the other, you make much of other people's sins and minimize your own. And that's a very dangerous thing to do, because then you excuse yourself from grace, you don't need it. And so, Paul's addressing this directly, and here he's dealing with the scourge of hypocrisy, the scourge of hypocrisy. Now the essence of hypocrisy is judging in other people what you excuse in yourself. Judging in other people harshly what you excuse in yourself, that's hypocrisy, isn't it? Now, have you heard this when you're going out to witness? "I don't want to go to church. The church is full of just a bunch of self-righteous hypocrites." Have you ever heard of that before? Self-righteous hypocrites. Well, you know it's funny. I've been witnessing long enough that I've begin to come up with answers to these kinds of things. And as I thought about it, I thought, is it true? I think probably it is true, but the number one place I'd want a hypocrite to be is at church. If it's a good church. Where do you get cured of your hypocrisy? By hearing Romans 2:1-6 preached, By understanding grace. That's how the cure comes. And what's so interesting is that the very phenomenon that's going on when you're talking to somebody and talking to them and they're saying, "I don't want to go to church. It's full of a bunch of hypocrites." What are they doing? They're judging people, aren't they? They're judging people and they're saying, "I'm better than that. I'm not going to go to that place 'cause I'm better than that. I'm not going to be a self-righteous hypocrite." What are they doing? Being hypocrites. So what I've done now is I just invite them to come, say, "You should come too and you could be cured of the same hypocrisy. We all have it. We all judge other people and excuse sin in ourselves." It hasn't worked too much yet but I'm praying that at some point, someone will come. Hypocrisy. And Paul deals with it directly here in Verse 1, "You therefore have no excuse, you who pass judgement on someone else. For at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgement, you do the very same things." See what's happening here in Verse 1 is, he's trying to get a self righteous judger to look inward and find the same sins there. And why? So that he can look outward to Christ and to the cross and to grace, and not excuse themselves from grace and thus miss salvation. He's very serious, isn't it? He's trying to get them to look inwards here in Verse 1. You do the same things. I love what Jonathan Edwards does with this whole idea. He had a series of resolutions that are so challenging, wrote them when he was 19 years old, and they challenge me today. And I read through them and I say, "Wow! What a life." What a life he wanted to live, and what goals he set for himself. Listen to this one. This is resolution number eight. "Resolved. I will let the knowledge of the failings of other people promote nothing but shame in myself and prove only an occasion of my confessing my own sins and misery to God." Wow! When I see somebody else failing, somebody else sinning, I'm not going to point the finger and judge. Instead, I'm going to say, "That same thing's in me too. I do the same thing. And I'm going to take it as an occasion not to judge but instead to confess my own sin, and my need for God's grace." That's maturity, isn't it? That's real, that's wisdom. It's wisdom. I know. But a hypocritical judge stands in God's place. He judges in God's place. He's more righteous than God, in effect. He's going to step in and bring the judgement, right there in that moment. Have any of you ever been driving down the road and done something that another driver deemed irresponsible, and you have received a punishing horn honk? Has that ever happened to you? I call it the "punitive horn honk." There is the warning horn honk, okay? The ball rolls out in the street and the child, oblivious, starts running out? You sound your horn. Good thing. The incident hasn't occurred yet and you're trying to prevent danger. Somebody doesn't see you, they're about to turn into you, the horn is sounded to warn, okay? But then there's that punitive horn honk that comes after. There's no danger, it's all over, but that individual wants you to know something. Have you ever received a horn honk like that? Have you ever given one? Have you ever given one? You see, in that way, what we're doing is, we're saying, "I would never have done that. What he or she just did, I'd never do it. I'm better than that. I'm taking God's place." Now usually, not all the time but usually, when we judge another person for a wrongdoing, they're wrong aren't they? Usually we're right. They are wrong. Not every time because every time that I've received one of those punitive horn honks, I haven't done anything wrong. So I don't understand it, alright. But usually, when the judgement comes it's right. Some transgression has occurred. The question is, what business are you doing sitting in the judgement seat as though you yourself aren't under the same judgement? And that's exactly what Paul's getting at here in Romans 2 isn't it? "Now we know," Verse 2, "That God's judgement against those who do such things is based on truth." It's based on truth. But what about you? What about you as judge? What's your judgement based on? Verse 3, "So when you a mere man, pass judgement on them, and yet do the same things. Do you think you will escape God's judgement?" Now, let's unravel that. What he's saying is, you're just a man. You're a mere man. You're just a human being. You've got two eyes. You're only at one place at one time. You've got a limited perspective. And yet, you have the ability to judge, to discern right from wrong and to execute that judgement. Okay, now let's think about God. His eyes. They range to and fro over the surface of the Earth. Job said, "Does He not see my every way and count my every step." He sees it all. There's nothing hidden from God. So you're acting like, God, okay, something was done wrong and you're right. It was wrong. But what about you? Do you think that you're going to escape that same judgement from a God who is holy and perfect and has seen everything you've ever done? What about you? You see what Paul's doing? He's bring it, "What about you, what about you?" You see because when you're sitting in that judgment seat, you're not thinking of yourself as somebody who needs grace. You're thinking of yourself as beyond that. I'm not that bad. Romans 1:18-32, "Oh how dismal. That's not me." It is you. Yes it is, and it's me too. It's all of us. That's the message. You notice the sins of others and you're only a mere man. God sees everything. How do you think you'll escape? And the real problem here is the destruction of the principle of grace, isn't it? How does that horn honker (or others) judges? How do they act toward the guilty party? Is there any grace? Oh, absolutely not. Off with their heads, you see. No grace, just judgment, you see. But what about my own sin? Oh, well you know, I'm only human. That's just a little thing, we all do it. We see, we minimize our own sin, maximize the sins of others and twist it. We're spin doctors on this. And so we excuse ourselves from grace. We don't give it to the others, and we don't receive it ourselves because we don't need it. Now, some commentators believe that in Romans 1, the end of the chapter, Paul is dealing with idolatrous pagans, idolatrous pagans. And in Romans 2, he's dealing with Jews who have received the law and yet who do not obey it. And I think that's a worthy distinction. We'll see it as we go more in chapter two. But I think there's a category of people, whether they're Jewish or not, that does this self-righteous judging. And Paul is getting at this, "Jew or Gentile, there is no difference, for all have sinned and lack the glory of God." You see, that's where he's heading. We're all under sin and we all need God's grace, every one of us. So Romans 2, usually seen as Paul's word to the Jews. Now what were the Jews thinking about that time? They're thinking, "Well, we have the law of Moses. We have circumcision. We're okay. We have the Book, you see. Here it is, the Book. We've got the Book. We're okay. We've got circumcision too. And therefore were fine. We're good people of God. We'll be okay on Judgment Day." Tertullian writing, very early history of the church, was having a debate with a Jewish man named Trypho. And he was going back and forth and debating over Jewish theology and over Christian theology, and he summarized, Tertullian summarized Trypho's position. And this is what Trypho was saying about Jews, "They who are the seed of Abraham, according to the flesh, shall in any case, even if they be sinners and unbelieving and disobedient towards God, share in the kingdom." Is that true? Absolutely not. Just because you're a Jew, you're going to Heaven? "Brothers, my prayer and hearts desire for the Israelites is that they may be saved," Paul says. They need saving just like we do. They need grace. And he has to work harder on the Jews here, doesn't he? He's got to work harder on them. And it's the same spirit here in Romans 2 that we get in John's gospel and other places in the New Testament. Remember John the Baptist? What was John the Baptist doing to Jews who were coming to him? What was he doing to them? He was baptizing them. Do you know what baptism was? It was a right of cleansing and ritual purification from all those Gentiles sins, He's saying, "You Jews need it too. You need to become Jews. You need to become a child of Abraham." Same spirit here in chapter two. Jesus did the same thing. He commanded Jewish people, "Repent or perish." And when He entered the world, the principle of judgment came into the world on those who were self-righteous. Remember, John chapter nine, Jesus heals a man born blind. Remember that story? And at the end, the self-righteous judges stand there and they're very upset and angry, and Jesus says, "For judgment, I've come into the world so that those who are blind, may be able to see, and also those who see, will become blind." What? "Are we blind too?" the Jewish leaders said. Jesus said, "If you claim to be blind, you would be able to see now, but since you claim to see, your sin remains." If you excuse yourself from grace you will receive none. If you are self-righteous and stand apart and say, 'I see, I am righteous, I am holy,' then you will not need the gospel. II. God’s Response to Hypocrisy Well, what is God's response to hypocrisy? God has two responses. Number one, God is just. Judgment will come. In verse 3 Paul says, "When you, a mere man pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgement?" No. Judgement will come. Response number two, God is kind, judgement hasn't come yet. Judgement hasn't come yet. Verse 4, "Or do you show contempt for the riches of His kindness, tolerance and patience not realizing that God's kindness leads you towards repentance." Every day life is evidence of the grace of God. And Paul's language here, "The riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience." points toward the wealth of God in dealing with sinners. In the 20th century a new way of thinking about time has entered in. Thanks to Albert Einstein. Einstein taught with relativity, that if you have a clock moving near the speed of light, the clock moves slower than one that's stationary. Can you explain that to me? I don't understand it, but it's true apparently, people who are physicists tell us it's true. So we have done a lot of work on time, we've come to a new understanding of time but the manner and mode and the function of time, that's the purview of physics. The purpose of time, is the purview of this book here. Why are there seconds? Why are there minutes? Why are there hours and days, and weeks and months and years? This verse tells you, God is patient not wanting you to perish, but to come to what? Repentance. That's what time is for. To bring you to repentance and that you may have time to bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance. That's the purpose of time. And God is gracious to us, isn't he? He's rich towards sinful people. Did you see how rich He was this morning? Did you get up and see the sunshine and feel the warmth? That's the riches of God's kindness, tolerance and patience. Remember what Jesus said in the sermon of the mountain, Matthew 5:45, "God causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." That's the riches of God's kindness, He's not just waiting. He's giving blessings to people who are rebelling against Him. He's giving them the sunshine, and He's giving them the rain and many other things besides. The riches of God's kindness, tolerance, and patience, our God is a kind God. And He's a tolerant and a patient God. Do you know that at any given time, I did a little research on this, there's an average of 1,800 storms in operation in the world. In almost 2,000 places around the world, rain is coming down, isn't that amazing? The average farmer in the state of Minnesota gets over 400,000 gallons of rainwater per acre per year, free of charge, of course. Just comes, just the gift of God. Do all of them walk in repentance and newness of life? Of course not. He just pours it out, that's God. The riches of His kindness, tolerance, and patience. And what is God's tolerance and patience? Psalm 103:10 says it beautifully, "He does not treat us as our sins deserve." I've become allergic to the word deserve, "I deserve this and I deserve that." I hope you become allergic to it too. Meditate on what you deserve and you'll have an appreciation for the grace of God. III. God’s Kindness is Purposeful: Leading You to Repentance He does not treat us as our sins deserve. And God's kindness is purposeful. It leads you in a direction, it leads you toward repentance. Now what is repentance? Repentance is a changing of the mind, a changing of the thinking. It's a new way of thinking about yourself and about sin and about God. It's a deep understanding that Romans 1 relates to you too. You're in there, that's you. And not only that, repentance involves hating sin. And not only that, but it involves turning away from it, and turning to Jesus Christ, who alone can save you from sin. That's repentance. And that's what time is for. That's what these seconds are for. They're ticking by, ticking by. And the time is for repentance and for nothing else. It's for repentance. I've told the story to some of you before, of a Scottish atheist that went around in the 19th century. Remember the story? He went from church to church debating on the existence of God. He was bringing the relatively new theories of Darwinism home to roost. And he was taking on country ministers and city ones too. He was a great debater, very skillful. And he would do all kinds of tricks and twist all kinds of phrases and do some things, and crowds were large, and he was quite entertaining. And he would culminate his presentation on atheism by taking out a little pocket watch from his breast pocket and clicking it open, and saying, "If there is a Holy God, He should strike me dead for the things I've said today. What I'm going to do is I'm going to give Him five minutes to do so." And then he would tie the thing and hang the watch down, with the little door open and then just wait silently. And you could even hear the ticking. Very dramatic, five minutes is a long time. If I wait five minutes now, you'd see how long a time it is. It's a long time. And at the end of the five minutes, he'd reach down and he'd click the thing shut and just turn to his debating partner, in this case it was a Presbyterian minister, and say, "There is no God." And he'd sit down. And that minister got up, and with a look of compassion on his face, he turned to that man, and said, "And did my esteemed colleague really think that he could exhaust the patience of the infinite God in a mere five minutes?" That's powerful. That's what this text is saying. The five minutes, the five days, the five weeks and months and years and decades, are God's measure of patience, kindness, tolerance toward you. Waiting for you to repent. Giving you time. But the time does not last forever, does it? There comes a time when it runs out, that man is dead isn't he? He's dead, 19th century. He's dead, he's gone. God's patience ran out at a certain point. What does it mean then to show contempt for the riches of His kindness, tolerance and patience? Some people resent His kindness, tolerance and patience deeply. You may wonder who this is, I've been reading a book recently by Elie Wiesel, called, "Night". It's an incredibly powerful book about the experiences of Jews in the holocaust. It's just an account, I mean he doesn't go into theology or anything, he just lays it out. And it's gruesome, it's disturbing, it's horrible, and there are some theologians that take these facts and say, "Where is God in all this? Why didn't He strike those Nazis dead? Why did He give Hitler 14 years or 15 years of ruling over Germany? Why?" And so they show contempt for God in that He did not intervene immediately and strike these SS troopers down. They're angry about it. There's other ways to show contempt for God's kindness, tolerance and patience, some people trivialize it generally. One German philosopher, Hein said, "God will forgive, after all it's his trade. It's his business. It's like a hobby. That's what God does." That's trivializing God's kindness, tolerance and patience. Some people minimize it personally, "I deserve a long life after all my sins really aren't that bad. I don't really do all those biggies." They minimize it for themselves personally. They even presume on a daily, they even don't think about it, just wake up, another day, another dollar. They'll never consider the fact that their lives are in God's hands. And that He's the one that's giving them day after day. I love Isaiah 56:12 on this, "Come each one cries, let me get wine, let us drink beer and tomorrow will be like today or even far better." You see the attitude. "We'll have another party tomorrow, it'll be even better." Presuming on it and then ultimately squandering it sinfully. "God will forgive this sin too. He's forgiven all the others. I never saw the judgment of God in any of those. He'll forgive this one too." And so he just squanders him. Matthew Henry says this, "There is in every willful sin, a contempt for the goodness of God." Every time you sin, knowing full well that what you're doing is wrong, you're showing contempt for the goodness of God. But someday the time runs out. In due time their foot will slip and judgment comes. There is therefore folks a day of salvation. Today is one of them, did you notice that, today is one of them. Second Corinthians 6:2, "I tell you now is the time of God's favor. Today is the day of salvation." Take advantage of it. I'm preaching to you directly on the patience, and the kindness and the tolerance of God. Leading you to repentance, to turning away from sin and turning to God in faith. But some people stubbornly resist day after day. IV. Principles of God’s Righteous Judgment (verses 5-6) Verse 5 says that, "Because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart you're storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed." God's kindness, is supposed to lead you to repentance, but unbelievers will not repent. So it talks about the stubbornness of heart. The word in the Greek means "stubbornness" or "hardness" or "stubborn resistance to persuasion." We get "arteriosclerosis" from it, a hardening, a hardening of the heart. You listen to the word of God, but don't do anything about it and gradually there's a hardening that occurs. If you resist the grace of God and the Gospel, if you resist, if you push it aside and continue to live in that hardness of heart, Paul says here in verse 5 that you're actually storing up wrath, storing up wrath every day, more wrath, every day more and more. That's a terrible thing. When you think about the stock market…People who own stocks or mutual funds they look and see the progress. It's their growth, it's their income, it's their interest, right? But there's no newspaper relating this storing up, is there? It's happening but it's not in front of us, so it's hard to believe. I look on it somewhat like a Van de Graaff generator, which is this big static electricity machine and the belts go round and the electrons are stored up and stored up and there comes a point when the discharge occurs. Don't know when it is, God holds that day, but it comes. Jesus encouraged us instead to come to personal faith in Him and store something else up, you remember? Matthew 6:20, store up treasure in Heaven, store up treasure day after day by obediently walking in the law and doing the good works of God as laid out ahead of you, that you should do. Coming to personal faith in Christ and then saying, "Lord here I am. What will you want me to do today?" And so you're storing something else up. Therefore, I categorize all human beings on the face of the Earth in two categories, those that are storing up wrath and those that are storing up treasure in Heaven. There's no other category, you're doing one or the other right now. The wrath of God is not open. It's hidden. It will be revealed later. Talk about arteriosclerosis, the hardening of the arteries and high blood pressure. They call it the silent killer. 'Cause you don't feel it, you don't feel anything. Do you feel the storing up of God's wrath? No, you don't see it, but it's there because the Scripture says so. It will be revealed later. In verse 6, "God will give to each person according to what he has done." Now, we're going to talk more next week about judgment according to deeds. We're not saved by works, but we will be judged by our works and God will give to each of us according to what we have done. And God's judgment will be perfect. Everything will be perfectly weighed in the balance and tested on Judgment Day. And no one will be able on that day to talk back to God and say, "Why did you judge me like this?" In Romans 3:19, it says, "Every mouth will be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God." What I'm urging you to do is to take advantage of the day of salvation. Take advantage of today. Think about what time is for. V. An Urgent Word to All Categories of People You came here today to worship God, and you came here today to understand God's Scripture. Make the most of this time. Make the most of this day. I want to say a word to each category of person that's listening to me today. First I want to speak to children. I've got three children of my own. You were created by God. God made you, created in His image. God sent his son to die on the cross for children like you, and for adults too. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. Everybody that's alive, when they die, will either go to Heaven or hell. Before you go to bed tonight. Will you ask your mommy and daddy to talk to you about these things. Be sure that you know Jesus. You don't need to be scared, Jesus came to save you, from these things. Talk to your parents about it. If I can say a word to youth going through your disciple now this weekend. I'm glad. I'm glad you're considering these things. I'm going to take a word from Ecclesiastes chapter 12. It says, "Remember your Creator in the days of your youth, before the evil days come and the days draw nigh, when you say, 'I have no pleasure in them.'" Now I remember when I was young, I used to think that life would go on forever. But time moves quickly, it moves on and youth do die. It is true, there are some that die in their youth. We don't know how long life is. God doesn't promise us tomorrow. But even more dangerous or more likely, statistically, is that some youth will hear the word of God, they'll feel a pull on their heart to follow Jesus with everything they have and they'll harden it. They'll put it away. They'll put it aside for reasons unknown. Maybe their friends won't like it or maybe there's other reasons that I don't know. But they don't follow the leading of the spirit and they harden their heart. And so they have learned a new talent. Hearing the word of God and not responding to it. And so the heart just got a little bit harder. And then down the road the years will come when you will say, "I have no pleasure in the things of God. No pleasure in scripture, no pleasure in sermons, no pleasure in worship, no pleasure in witnessing or prayer, no pleasure in thinking about Heaven and no fear of hell." None of these things, just a hard heart out. There are thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of adults living like that. They surround us every day. Remember your Creator in the days of your youth. Fear God, walk with him. Follow Christ. And to those who are in the prime of your life, to you adults, raising your children, having your careers, remember what's really important in life. Realize that this text shows very plainly that there is a day coming when everyone will be moved into two categories, eternal wrath, eternal life, forever. And it's so easy, I know it myself, to get into a cycle of working hard, secular job day after day, five days a week, just living for the weekend. And then the weekend comes and you just grab at whatever pleasure and entertainment you can find. Go to church on Sunday morning, we do that and then we're back at work again Monday morning. And along the way, because you lose your taste for the things of God, you become a connoisseur of things. Connoisseur of fine foods, oriental rugs, audiovisual equipment, basketball teams, who knows? Connoisseur of all kinds of things. Those are not bad things but they're not meant to be the center of your life. The glory of God and Him alone. Remember your Creator. And to the aging, very soon the central thoughts of my text will not be academic disputes to you. They'll not be scholarly ideas. They will be reality very soon. Be sure you know Jesus. Be sure you know Him. And be sure you're storing up treasure day after day after day, walking in obedience and in repentance. Come to Christ. Come to Him crucified, who poured out His blood on the cross that you might have eternal life. Come to Him. Let's pray.

For 2nd generation Christians—let's say, those who came to faith after AD 70, Jesus became less a person they'd personally known, or the friend of a friend—but more of a mysterious agent in a cosmic drama.Because so many of today's pseudo-Christian cults deny Jesus' deity, it comes as a surprise that the earliest of the heresies to trouble the Church had no problem accepting Jesus' divine status. What they struggled with was accepting His humanity.But I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's back up …The first couple generations of Christians assumed Jesus was returning soon. That expectation may have fueled that amazing sense of community we find in the early chs of the Book of Acts where we read they sold off property and distributed to one another so all needs were met. Many scholar now believe Early Church leaders didn't bother composing a systematic theology because they assumed Jesus' return in glory was imminent. When delayed, they saw the need to establish a better system for leading the church & setting down guidelines for future believers. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, AKA as the Didache written about a century after Christ, was just such a work.After a while, Church leaders found they were answering the same questions and dealing with the similar objections over and over again. So individuals began penning replies as stock answers others could refer to.Sometime around the mid 2nd C, Justin Martyr wrote his First Apology dealing with pagan arguments, then authored Dialog with Trypho the Jew, dealing with Jewish objections.But it wasn't until Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons in S Gaul, wrote his master-work Against Heresies at the end of the 2nd C, that a work we might call a systematic theology was first produced. The actual title was The Unmasking and Refutation of Falsely So-Called Gnosis and gives us a hint of what prompted Irenaeus to set pen to parchment è Gnosticism.The Gnostics put together a coherent body of belief before Christians did. And it might be said that Christian systematic theology was a reaction to the Gnostic challenge. Late to the game, when Christian theologians finally took up the task, they were so thorough in their refutation of Gnosticism, it petered out and fell into the abyss of oblivion. Waiting to be resurrected in modern times by skeptical scholars redacting history and selling books suggesting Gnosticism was the real faith of Jesus and the Apostles; ideas that depend on silence for their support.As an editorial note, & maybe rant is a better description, and expressing my own opinion only: è Post-modernism regards the historical record with such suspicion, it's assumed what really happened is in fact the opposite of where the evidence points. Using the rubric that “It's the winners who write the history,” post-modern scholars eschew the records and assume all history prior to the last 50 yrs is rank propaganda. So whatever the record says, is fabrication. What REALLY happened is the opposite. It's an argument from silence. But it's that silence the post-modern assigns the weight of authority.So if the record of history shows Gnosticism was an aberrant faith dismantled by early Christian theologians, well, the opposite must in fact have been the case. Gnosticism WAS early Christianity, beaten out by political elites who found it too egalitarian for their tastes and desire to remain in control of a poor and uneducated public; blah, blah, blah.The problem with this skeptical post-modern view of history is not only that it's an argument from silence—if true, it makes everyone an historical agnostic. We can't really now ANYTHING prior to the Modern Era because everything is suspect. The post-modern would have us ignore any authority but theirs to tell us what NOT to believe.Sorry, but I'll stick with the classics, skewed as they may be. Wed can discern more about what happened by the record of the past than by layering post-modern sensibilities on top of previous generations and saying what OUGHT to have been is what really occurred.End of rant.As we saw in Season 1, Gnosticism was a widespread movement that drew impetus from the emerging Christian movement. It was a worldview that merged religion and philosophy and probably ought to have been expected in its time and place.The Roman Empire stretched its sticky fingers into many regions that had mostly kept to themselves. There'd been trade btwn these areas for centuries, but Rome's political and economic dominance saw borders drop and peoples of disparate cultures mix on a wide scale for the first time. Rome first imbibed the philosophy and religion of Greece, then this Greco-Roman worldview absorbed Eastern mysticism. The result was Gnosticism; a religious worldview that merged the Greek idea of dualism with the appeal of mysterious secrets that led the adherent to a salvation born of enlightenment.But Gnosticism stalled when it came in contact with The Gospel because, while Gnostic sages sold their mysteries, Christians offered their stuff for free. And besides, converts to Christianity experience a genuine change that turned them from sinner to saint. In a clever marketing ploy, Gnostics adopted Christian terms & forms, presenting themselves as an advanced form of the Faith.Most of what we know about Gnosticism, or at least that branch of it that sought to ride on the back of Christianity, is drawn from Irenaeus's work refuting it; that 5 volume work known as Against Heresies.While trying to retain several ideas and terms intrinsic to the Faith, Gnostics ejected dependence on Jewish history, a large part of the New Testament, the Biblical Jesus and Apostles. We might ask, “Well, after all that, what's left?”Gnostics replaced the Bible's story of creation with an elaborate mythology of the spiritual realm being populated by a virtually endless hierarchy of spiritual beings they called “aeons.” Salvation was conceived of, not as deliverance from sin, but as enlightenment. That enlightenment came by being initiated into ever deeper levels of knowledge of the aeonic realm. Following Greek dualism, spirit was good while matter was bad. Both unalterably so.So God, and by that I mean the Original First Cause, was so good, so holy, it could never have created the physical universe. No, something as corrupt as the Earth could only be the product of some far-down the line aeon that was SO distantly removed from the First Cause or the High God, that it was able to create matter; the physical universe.The goal of the Gnostic was to learn the names of the aeons and their unique special character as far back up the line toward the First Cause as possible. The idea was that the higher aeon you knew, the more aware of the divine you became and the less the corruption of the physical had hold of you.So Gnostics adored Christians words & phrases like “mediator, logos, the Holy Spirit, being filled with the Spirit, and regeneration.” But they stripped them of their origin in the Historic Gospel and Life of Jesus. What allowed Gnosticism to explode during the first half of the 2nd C was that the NT hadn't come together as a recognized canon yet.What made Gnosticism appealing and not just another philosophy for academics to debate was its claim of divine revelation. They loved that Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” They turned Him into one of their aeons. But of course, if He was a divine being, there's no way He had a physical body. So Gnostics said Jesus was a divine spirit. Some Gnostics called Him angelic. Others said as an aeon He ought to be more properly regarded as a god; a lesser deity somewhere on the hierarchy of aeons reaching back to The First Cause.But Gnostics categorically rejected the idea Jesus was human. In their system, something so holy would never have a physical body. So the appearance of Jesus was just that, an appearance, a phantom. He left no footprints, cast no shadow, didn't eat.Now, those of you who've read Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the NT know these records of Jesus' life have abundant stories of Jesus physicality. That's why the Gnostics rejected so much of the NT.As an aside, if you have a modern translation of the NT, you may note there are occasional footnotes that say something to the effect of, “This verse or this passage not found in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts.” That statement that they're more reliable is an editorial comment on the part of the publisher. They're indeed older, but reliable is a debate. The manuscripts they refer to are from the Alexandrian textual tradition, which some conservative scholars believe bear a Gnostic influence and editing. So most of the questioned verses deal with, can you guess? Right: Passages that speak of Jesus' physicality, such as when He stooped and wrote in the sand.That remark that the Alexandrian text is “more reliable” isn't due solely to the fact the manuscripts are older. It's also an assumption made by more liberal scholars that the shorter text must be more true to the original. Their presupposition is that over time, as manuscripts are hand-copied, those who pen them will be inclined to add material rather than delete it. The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls nuked that idea. Some of them predated previously extant manuscripts by hundreds of years. Yet the text is virtually identical. It's nothing but an assumption that the shorter text is more accurate. So if you read that in a footnote, remember it's not a statement of fact. It's merely an opinion, one that in all likelihood is based on an erroneous presupposition.It's long been believed that Simon Magus, referred to in Acts 8, started the Christianesque-flavored Gnosticism. Simon offered the Apostle Peter money if he'd “teach” him how to bestow the Holy Spirit on others. Peter rebuked Simon's crass merchandising of the Faith, and it's from Simon's offer we get the term “simony” = the practice of purchasing religious office.Okay, get this: According to the Gnosticm tale, Simon met a woman named Helena at a brothel in the City of Tyre. What he was doing in a brothel, we can only guess, but our guesses need be few; one actually. He wasn't there to tune their piano. Simon said this Helena was a reincarnation of someone called Ennoia, a manifestation of the Spirit of God. In her previous identity as Ennoia, she'd created many ranks of angels, some of which rebelled against God. These rebels then captured and imprisoned her in a mortal body. She was then reincarnated many times, including one stint as Helen of Troy. But in Simon's day, she was a prostitute in Tyre. And Simon, of course, was now the highest God's manifestation come to rescue her.Simon said the OT was the product of the malicious angels seeking to defame God. To follow Simon was to free oneself from the OT's oppressive religious requirements.Christians accused Simon and his devotees of practicing magic and the occult. This became a regular charge by Christians against the Gnostics; that they performed lying signs & wonders. How much of this was mere illusion; remember, Simon began as a magician, an illusionist; and how much of it was the working of demonic power is anyone's guess. There was likely a bit of both.Simon's brand of Gnosticism included several points that will be repeated by later heretical groups.There was a blending of Biblical ideas with paganism and Eastern mysticism.There was a dualistic view of reality divided into the sacred spirit and profane physical.The idea that a Savior had appeared to lead people into salvation.A rejection of Jewish Scripture.An intense interest in the hidden & secret because it was believed that's where the good stuff that led to salvation lay. Those secrets were the domain of special teachers who'd impart their goodies upon payment. Simon Magus reached Rome before people there were familiar with The Gospel. So he was able to present himself as a Savior and gained a significant following. Later Gnostic teachers had to work against a background of greater familiarity with The Gospel and left off claiming to be saviors themselves. They simply worked Jesus into their system as one of the Gnostic Aeons Who'd appeared to help enlighten humanity. And when I say “appeared” I mean that literally. The Gnostics said Jesus was a phantom; that He possessed no physical body but only SEEMED to do so, giving rise to a movement called “Seemism”  = Literally Docetism. Even Simon said that as a manifestation of the Highest God, he only appeared to people but had no real body. He only seemed to have flesh.So, the crucifixion was a farce to Gnostics. Someone as lofty as one of their aeons would never consent to such a travesty! Some of them denied the cross ever happened. Other said that indeed a man did die on a cross outside the walls of Jerusalem, but it wasn't The Christ; it was just a man named Jesus. They split the divine spirit called Christ & the human man named Jesus into two distinct entities. The Christ-Spirit supposedly descended upon a suitably prepared man named Jesus at his baptism by John. It was that Christ-Spirit that then said & did the stuff we read about in the Gospels. But in the Garden of Gethsemane on the night before His crucifixion, the Christ-Spirit lifted off the man Jesus, so that the person the temple police arrested was a used & bereft shell. What hung on the cross was just a spent flesh-case. Jesus' death did nothing for the Gnostic. It couldn't, because Gnostic salvation had nothing to do with sin.Humanity's great problem, said the Gnostic, wasn't sin and its resultant separation from God. Mankind's problem was ignorance. For Christians, salvation meant deliverance from the penalty, power and ultimately, the presence of sin. The Gnostic aspired to knowledge that would help him / her realize their real identity and existence as primarily a spiritual being over whom the physical realm had no influence.Gnostics tended to pursue this awareness in one of two ways. Some went the route of extreme asceticism, denying their bodies any and all pleasure. The idea was to abstain from all sensual pleasure, so as to give the spirit complete dominance over their will. But the intense hunger and thirst of severe abstinence has a tendency to have the opposite of the desired effect; it makes you KEENLY aware of the reality and presence of the body.So while some pursued enlightenment via extreme asceticism, the far more popular route was the exact opposite; a hedonistic immersion in pleasure. An enthusiastic embrace of immorality. These Gnostics said that the way to enlightenment was to engage in scandalous debauchery, then while in the very center of it, to realize that all that was only happening to the body, which is unalterably corrupt anyway, yet their spirit remained pure and untouched by such corruption. It was having your religious & philosophical cake and eating it too.  But not just eating it; you were smearing it all over your face, rubbing it into your hair. Taking off you clothes and rolling across a field of 4” layer cakes with cream cheese frosting. All the while saying, “The real me isn't covered in cake. I'm clothed in the glorious light of Heaven. What's covered in cake is just the dirt-suit I've borrowed in this round of reincarnation.”As previous said, Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies to refute Gnosticism btwn AD 180-89. But some scholars believe it was already waning as Christians became more conversant in what The Gospel really taught. Gnosticism was able to emerge and secure adherents in its early phase both because of the lack of a NT canon & a widely endorsed Creed. But all that changed during the 2nd C, when more and more books began to be accepted among the churches as normative for the Faith and the earliest versions of what much later was called the Apostles' Creed settled in.The history of Gnosticism is a tangled mess of names and conflicting ideas and tenets. It had its own denominations, movements, groups and factions who argued & fought with each other. And while it made a run at Christianity during the early 2nd C that seemed at times to present a real challenge, it ended up proving the truth of something Jesus said to His disciples; that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church.While Gnosticism became little more than a dead faith, a field for academics & historians to autopsy, renewed interest in it has flared up whenever the same factors that marked the late 1st C church have been repeated. When the veracity of Scripture is regarded as suspect. When the NT is subjected to the scoffing of critics and the OT is relegated to myth. Gnosticism has managed to flare back to a brief moment of interest when Christianity is cut loose of its historical moorings in real events and made into little more than a moral philosophy. When salvation is deemed a matter of deliverance from ignorance, rather than a return to innocence.

This episode is titled, “The Spreading Tree “Tertullian, pastor of the church of Carthage in North Africa, addressed unbelievers at the beginning of the 3rd C, saying à“We are but of yesterday, and yet we already fill your cities, islands, camps, your palace, senate and forum; we have left to you only your temples.”That introduces our theme for this episode; the expansion of the Faith in the early centuries.Writing in the middle of the 2nd C, Justin Martyr said,“There is no people, Greek or barbarian, or of any other race, by whatsoever appellation or manners they may be distinguished, however ignorant of arts or agriculture, whether they dwell in tents or wander about in covered wagons—among whom prayers and thanksgivings are not offered in the name of the crucified Jesus to the Father and Creator of all things.”Comments by other Early Church leaders like Irenæus, Arnobius, & Origen lead us to conclude that by the end of the 3rd C the name of Christ was known, revered, & persecuted in many provinces & cities of the Roman Empire. In one of his edicts, the Emperor Maximian says that “almost all” had abandoned the worship of the old gods for the new sect called Christianity.In the absence of hard numbers, tallying the number of Jesus' followers can't be precise, but a reasonable assumption of the faithful stands about 10 to 12% of the total population at the beginning of the 4th C. In some places, the number was much higher as local movements saw the Gospel take firmer root. According to Chrysostom, the Christian population of the city of Antioch at the end of the 4th C. was half the whole.While 10% of the entire Empire may not seem that impressive a number, keep in mind that 10% shared a spiritual unity that made them appear a far larger group when set over against the highly-fragmented 90% of the pagan world.Looking back to Asia where the whole thing started, the Apostles had spread the new faith over Israel, Syria, & Asia Minor. According to Pliny the Younger, at the dawn of just the 2nd C, the pagan temples in Asia Minor were almost completely neglected & animal sacrifices hardly performed because so many pagan had converted to the new faith.In a first step of what would prove to be a major outreach to the East, during the 2nd C Christianity took root in the city of Edessa in Mesopotamia along with several regions in Persia. In the 3rd C., it reached North into Armenia & South into Arabia.There's an enduring legend that the apostles Thomas & Bartholomew carried the Gospel to India. For sure, a Christian teacher named Pantaeus of Alexandria went there about 190. By the 4th C, vibrant national churches were growing in the subcontinent.It was the moving of the seat of power from Rome to Constantinople in the early 4th C that helped ensure the migration of the Faith eastward. It also meant that all the important early Church Councils were held in or around Constantinople.  The great doctrinal controversies over the Trinity & Nature of Christ were carried out mostly in Asia Minor, Syria, & Egypt.Speaking of Egypt, Christianity in Africa gained a firm foothold first there, during the time of the Apostles. The city of Alexandria was a world center of learning & culture. It's libraries & schools drew from all over the world and many Jews called it home. It was in Alexandria that the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek, 200 yrs before Jesus. This Greek Bible, called the Septuagint, opened the seemingly opaque ideas of the Jews to Gentiles seekers after truth for the first time. It was in Alexandria that the religion of Moses was set alongside the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. It was there the Jewish philosopher Philo sought to harmonize Greek & Jewish thought. Many of his ideas were picked up by later Christian apologists in defending the faith against Roman misconceptions.Ancient tradition says it was Mark who laid the foundation of the church in Alexandria, which became one of the 5 most important & influential churches of the first Centuries. A theological school flourished in Alexandria from the 2nd C in which the great church fathers Clement & Origen taught. From Alexandria, the Gospel spread South into Nubia (modern Sudan) & Ethiopia. At a council of Alexandria in 235, 20 African bishops attended from all over the Nile basin.During the 4th C, in a subject we'll treat more fully in a later episode, Egypt coughed up the Arian heresy, then quickly answered it with Athanasian orthodoxy. Egypt was the birthplace of monasticism as practiced by its earliest advocates, Antony & Pachomius. Monasticism then spread across the rest of the Christian world. But that's yet another subject for a couple later episodes.Christianity spread from Egypt across the rest of North Africa quickly. It helped that there were numerous Roman outposts reached by 3 or 4 days sailing from Italy. The faith spread rapidly over the fertile fields & burning sands of Mauritania & Numidia, taking root in Carthage. In 258 a synod of 87 bishops met there & just 50 yrs later the Donatists held a council of 270 bishops.It may be of interest to some listeners that the oldest Latin translation of the Bible, called the “Itala” & was the basis of Jerome's “Vulgate”, was produced in Africa for Africans, not in Rome for Romans, because the Christians there used Greek. Latin theology also wasn't born in Rome, but in Carthage. Tertullian was its father. Latin theology then grew in North Africa to find its zenith in the world of Augustine of Hippo, another North African city. The influence of Augustine simply cannot be overstated, as we'll see.After reaching Egypt, Nubia, Ethiopia, and a narrow band of North Africa, the Expansion of the Faith stalled. Whether or not it would have renewed its reach further South becomes moot in light of the Conquest of Islam in the 7th & 8th Cs.Tracking the expansion of the Faith into Europe, we pick up the report of the early church historian Eusebius who said by the middle of the 3rd C the Church at Rome had a bishop, 46 elders, 7 deacons with 7 assistants, 42 acolytes which we can think of as “interns,”  50 readers, exorcists, & ushers; & 1500 widows & poor who were under its care. From these numbers we guesstimate the actual membership of the Church at about 50,000 or 1/20th of the City's population. The strength of Christianity in Rome is confirmed by the enormous extent of the catacombs where Christians were buried.From Rome, the church spread to all the cities of Italy. The first Roman synod we know of was held in the mid-2nd C and had 12 bishops in attendance. A century later there were 60.An official persecution of the followers of Christ in Gaul in 177 shows the church had to already be there and large enough as to raise the concern of the authorities. The faith arrived in Gaul, not from Rome, but from Asia Minor. We know that because Irenæus, the bishop of Lyons, was a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna & Irenaeus reported in to his peers in Asia Minor rather than to Rome. It wasn't till the middle of the 3rd C that Rome sent missionaries to Gaul. One of them was Dionysius who founded the first church at Paris, then died a martyr at Montmartre to become the patron saint of France.Spain was most likely reached with the Faith in the 2nd C. The Council of Elvira in 306 saw 19 bishops assemble to catch up and discuss the work of their various provinces. The apostle Paul once formed the plan of a missionary journey to Spain, and according to Clement of Rome he did preach there.Irenæus reported that the Gospel had been preached to the Germans and several other Northern tribes but he likely meant just those portions of Northern Europe that had been brought under Roman control.Although it's a bit of a mystery why the North African Tertullian would know, he said the Faith had taken root in Britain by the end of the 2nd C. As we'll see in a later episode, the Celtic church existed in England, Ireland, & Scotland, quite independent of Rome, long before the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons by the Roman missionary Augustine. In fact, that early Celtic church sent missionaries to Germany, France, & the Low Countries well before the Italian outreach. In the mid-8th C, the Venerable Bede reported that about the year 167 the British king Lucius asked the bishop of Rome to send missionaries. Then, at the Council of Arles in 314, British bishops from York, London & Colchester, were in attendance.This would be a good place to talk about the Expansion of the Faith into the East but that's a huge, important, and all too often overlooked part of the History of the Church, so we'll save it for later.  Suffice it for now – as many students of history know, the Roman Empire got stalled in the East, first by the Parthians, then later by their successors, the Sassanids.The Sassanids gladly applied the principle that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And that meant from the late 2nd thru 3rd C, as Christians were being persecuted in the Roman Empire, they were welcomed to the East by the Sassanids. The church sprang up and grew rapidly all over Mesopotamia & Persia in what today we know as Iran. Some of the greatest cultural achievements of the Faith during the 3rd C were in this Persian church. But when Constantine embraced Christianity and the Church moved into the position of political favor in the Roman west, you may guess what that meant for the Church in the regions controlled by the Sassanids. Still, this eastern church had developed its own unique culture, and instead of moving back west to join the church of the Byzantine-Roman world, persecution pushed it even further east, all the way to China.Let's finish out this episode with a look at Justin Martyr who we began with a quote from.Justin was born in the ancient city of Shechem in the very center of Israel. But by the time he was born in AD 100, it was a Roman city called Flavia Neapolis = New Flavianberg. Raised by pagan parents, he sought life's meaning in the major philosophies of his day. But his pursuit of truth resulted in nothing more than a series of bitter disappointments.Justin was too sharp to swallow the shallow reasoning & logical inconsistencies of pagan thought. Whether it was religion or philosophy, his keen intellect cut through the silliness that was the hallmark of the pagan worldview.His first teacher was a Stoic who “knew nothing of God and did not even think knowledge of him to be necessary.” After that Justin followed an itinerant philosopher, who was more interested in collecting his fee than the pursuit of truth. Next up was a Pythagorean, but his course in music, astronomy, and geometry was too slow for Justin's voracious mind. Finally, he applied himself to Platonism which was more intellectually demanding, but proved once again to hold too many inconsistencies.Then, at about the age of 30, after a long conversation with an elderly gentleman, Justin's life was transformed. He said, “A fire was suddenly kindled in my soul. I fell in love with the prophets and these men who had loved Christ; I reflected on all their words and found that this philosophy alone was true and profitable. That is how and why I became a philosopher. And I wish that everyone felt the same way that I do.”Justin was determined to reconcile faith & reason. His work took him first to Ephesus in AD 132 where he held a debate with a Jew named Trypho about the correct way to interpret Scripture. The book which came out of this debate is aptly titled, The Dialogue with Trypho & teaches 3 main points:1) The Old Covenant has passed away to make place for the New;2) The Logos is the God of the Old Testament; AND à3) Believers in Christ constitute a New Israel; that is, the new covenant people of God.Justin then moved to Rome, founded a school, and wrote 2 bold Apologias = formal defenses of the Faith, intended to be read by pagan officials persecuting Christians. Think of an Apologia like a legal brief.Justin's First Apology published in 155 was addressed to Emperor Antoninus Pius. It was an attempt to explain the Faith, which as we saw in an earlier episode was so badly misunderstood by unbelieves of that time.  Justin showed how Christianity was not a threat to the State and should be treated as a legal religion.He reasoned with the Emperor that Christians are his “best helpers and allies in securing good order, convinced as we are that no wicked man … can be hidden from God, and that everyone goes to eternal punishment or salvation in accordance with the character of his actions.” He made an eloquent case for why Christianity was superior to paganism, that Christ fulfilled prophecy, and that paganism was in reality a poor imitation of true religion.Justin's First Apology has become an important record for students of history in that he gave a detailed description of early Christian worship to prove to unbelievers the Faith wasn't some kind of subversive movement. The most famous passage is this:On the day called Sunday there is a gathering together in the same place of all who live in a given city or rural district. The memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits. Then when the reader ceases, the president in a discourse admonishes and urges the imitation of these good things. Next we all rise together and send up prayers.When we cease from our prayer, bread is presented and wine and water. The president in the same manner sends up prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people sing out their assent, saying the ‘Amen.' A distribution and participation of the elements for which thanks have been given is made to each person, and to those who are not present they are sent by the deacons.Those who have means and are willing, each according to his own choice, gives what he wills, and what is collected is deposited with the president. He provides for the orphans and widows, those who are in need on account of sickness or some other cause, those who are in bonds, strangers who are sojourning, and in a word he becomes the protector of all who are in need.Justin's Second Apology was written soon after Marcus Aurelius became emperor in 161. In these writings, Justin showed that the Christian faith alone as genuinely rational. He said the Logos; which was an important philosophical concept of the time, became incarnate to teach humanity truth and to redeem people from spiritual deception. Since Marcus Aurelius was a true philosopher Emperor, Justin sought to appeal to his love of truth with this Second Apology.But the Emperor was more enamored of Greek thought than the new-fangled innovations of the Christians. 4 yrs after penning the Second Apology, Justin and his disciples were arrested. The prefect asked him to denounce his faith by making a sacrifice to the gods. Justin replied, “No one who is rightly minded turns from true belief to false.” It was an easy answer for Justin because he'd spent his adult life discerning the true from the false.He was taken out and beheaded. Since he gave his life for “true philosophy,” Justin was surnamed Martyr.