Having reviewed 30 pages of “Secrets of Christianity,” a special issue of U. S. News and World Report, we now bring this series to a close by taking a brief look at the remaining 50 pages, which continue in the same vain vein with which this publication began. The next short article is titled, “Digging for the Divine,” and it asks these questions:
Was there a true Resurrection if Jesus’s bodily remains were interred alongside those of his relatives? Could Jesus have had a wife and child and still be the Messiah-Christ of tradition (30)?
These must be rhetorical questions; the answers are too obvious. If Jesus’ remains are in a tomb, then He did not rise from the dead. How many degrees does a scholar need to figure that one out? Jesus has one and only one bride—the church, the kingdom (Rev. 21: 9). He neither married nor had children while on this earth. Four of the most accurate historians the world has ever known (not to mention that they were inspired of the Holy Spirit) did not record a marriage for Jesus. Furthermore, they all report Him risen from the tomb. Mark and Luke certify that He ascended into heaven. Paul makes an entire case for the resurrection, showing all that would not be true if Jesus was not raised from the dead. Among the results are these:
1. All of the preaching from the first century until now has been in vain.
2. The faith of all Christians from the first century until this day has also been in vain.
3. The apostles are all false witnesses because they all saw Him after His resurrection.
4. All people remain in their sins, since Jesus could not enter the Holy Place with His blood to make atonement for our sins (Heb 9:12).
5. In fact, baptism involves the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. All of those who join with Him in His death would have to remain buried in the water; they could never arise to walk in newness of life, if He never did (Rom. 6:3-5).
6. Jesus could not be on the right hand of God if His remains are in a cave somewhere on earth.
7. Likewise, He cannot return from Heaven for His saints, since His decayed body is still on earth (1 Cor. 15:14-17; the last three are by implication).
The evidence for this new “scholarly” theory is a crypt, found in Jerusalem, containing ten bone boxes (ossuaries). Six of the boxes have inscriptions: one has Matthew, two are Marys, one is a Yose (possibly Joses), the fifth is Jesus, son of Joseph, and the last is Judah, son of Jesus (30). Whoa! What odd and distinctive names—just like Maher-Shalal-HashBaz (Isa. 8:1). To be fair, the article does point out that the name Jesus was found 71 times in 9,000 burial caves; one other one was also Jesus, the son of Joseph (30). The point is that these names are all quite common, and many Jewish families used them.
One of the Marys is called “Mariamene e Mara,” which can be translated “Mary, called the Master” (31). Various words are translated “master” in the New Testament: epistees [1988] is used seven times by Luke. Didaskalos [1320] is used 58 times by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and other writers. No mention of the other word that might be translated “master” is found in the entire Greek New Testament. One wonders how else this inscription might be translated. As usual, no Greek expert’s name is provided so that this information could be verified. These speculations must be entertaining to “scholars” who are bored and think they might have something that would topple Christianity. However, nothing of real substance is provided here.
The Gnostic Gospels
Many wrote alleged gospel accounts of Jesus in the years after His death, burial, and resurrection. Christians and church leaders could tell the difference between the genuine and the phony; so most of the uninspired writings disappeared, but a few of them remain—to the delight of skeptical scholars. Even the way these spurious words are discussed should provide a clue as to their lack of validity:
Today, there are many scholars, theologians, and popular writers who promote the Gnostic perspective as a liberating antidote to close-minded-dogmatism… (35).
Many theologians are interested in more introspective “self-knowledge as the path to salvation” (39), which would tend to minimize obedience. “…Gnostic writers tended to view the virgin birth, the Resurrection, and other elements of the Jesus story not as literal, historical events but as symbolic keys to a ‘higher’ understanding” (35-36), all of which minimizes the main message of salvation For information on the Gospel of Judas, see our Website for April 16, 2006.
In other words, these unauthorized writers took issue with the truth. Gnosticism apparently taught, among other things, that God was “a sort of oversoul that combined both male and female aspects” and questioned the idea of patriarchy. Jesus, then, became more like an avatar “or voice of the oversoul sent to teach humans to find the sacred spark within” (36). Hogwash! Jesus knew what was in man (John 2:24-25). He came to reveal God to man in a personal way. Those who saw Him saw the Father (John 14:9). He taught people to trust in God—not themselves. He came to bring salvation from sins—not teach that people could save themselves. It is true that He gave people the opportunity to display the best within themselves (the woman at the well, Zacchaeus), but He came to do much more than that.
According to some, Jesus came to establish equality between men and women, to lead them out of the confining straits of orthodoxy into tolerance (38), but these are simply the ideas that many wants—not the way God taught it. The New Testament contains the truth concerning Jesus; these other “gospels” were written in the second century and later. They have no authenticity, which is the reason they were rejected then and ought to be rejected now as well.
The Gospel of Mary (The Mother of Jesus)
After Christianity had begun, many people used their imaginations to try to supply more information about those in Jesus’ life. Hence, we have an entirely different view of things presented in The Gospel of Judas. Mary did not escape speculation. Stories concerning her were circulated and gathered together about A. D. 150 (47). None of these stories are repeated in this publication.
Mary Magdalene
By far the most attention-receiving person, (excluding Jesus, His mother Mary, and Judas) is Mary Magdalene. Depending on the source, she is one of the most prominent and beloved of disciples, Jesus’ consort, or even His wife (48-49). It is not difficult to imagine why such writings were discarded. First, they are not true. Second they attempt to romanticize Jesus and rob Him of His purpose for coming to earth—to save mankind from sin.
Mary, Martha, and Lazarus
One thing that the “scholars” have in common with evolutionists is the imaginative way they can build upon practically nothing. Some body fragment is discovered at a dig, and even though the find only consists of a few bones, someone immediately fleshes out what the eyes and forehead looked like, and a few fragments suddenly become “the missing link.” The same thing occurs with a few facts from the New Testament.
One writer suggested that Mary and Martha were teenage girls, which explains their squabbling. Martha only asked Jesus to bid her sister to help her. The ladies could just as easily been in their 30s. One request concerning a sibling does not imply constantly squabbled. The same author estimates that Lazarus was their younger brother and may only have been 12 or 13 (John 11:41 calls him a man). He suggests that Jesus may have served as a substitute parent for the three children (49). Is anybody buying this storyline?
“It is also not unlikely that both girls had crushes on him, fragile emotions of the young that would be both volatile and shallow [about like this imaginary line of development, gws]. Jesus handled these attractions for him with respect and dignity because he loved them both” (49). “Wow!” you might be saying. “I’ve read the New Testament through many times, and I never saw that.” Stories like these are nothing more than fantasies created in order to “flesh out” Jesus.
Other “Secrets”
Other articles in this publication include stories about the Crusades, Adolph Hitler’s secret plot to assault the Vatican, an examination of miracles and exorcism, and a look at Mayan predictions that reveal that the earth will end on December 31, 2012. All of these things involve, for the most part, nothing but speculation, and are not really worth reviewing.
One would profit much more by reading and studying the New Testament to see what it actually teaches. In it we are able to come to a knowledge of the truth (John 8:31-32). Whereas all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, those things that were written in the two centuries after Christ were not. Neither are the supposings of the Modernists over the last 300 years. May we all be profited from what actually is the Word of God (2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Tim. 3:16-17).
BLIND AND DEAF BUT NOT PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED
Marvin L. Weir
The name Christian is either abused or misused by most people today. According to man’s wisdom, there are many different types or kinds of Christians. Years ago Leroy Brownlow made reference to what he called “hyphenated Christians.”
In his excellent book, Why I Am a Member of the Church of Christ, is this statement:
I am sure that method and system should be used in the Lord’s work, but I am not a Methodist; that we should have bishops (the Greek word being episcopos) to oversee the work in a congregation, but I am not Episcopalian; that we should have elders (the Greek word being presbuteros) who are bishops to rule and oversee in the congregation, but I am not a Presbyterian; that each congregation is independent, but I am not a Congregationalist; that it takes immersion to constitute the act of baptism, but I am not a Baptist; that Christians should be holy but I am not a Holiness; that Christ will come again, but I am not an Adventist; that the church is universal or catholic, but I am not a Catholic. According to some good folk, since I believe in the above facts, I should call myself a Methodist – Episcopalian – Presbyterian – Congregationalist – Baptist – Holiness – Catholic – Christian, which is a monstrous hyphenation and a rather long name! It is unnecessary, too. We find in the Bible that the disciples were called Christians, but we never read of any person being called some hyphenated Christian. Regardless of what names others wear, I prefer to stick to the Bible and be a Christian only (32-33).
Isn’t it amazing that some folks will become “fighting mad” when you explain to them that denominational names are man-made and unscriptural? They have no God-given right to exist and thus cannot be found in the Bible (John the Baptist will not do as he did not die for the church). On the other hand, Christ promised to build His church (Matt. 16:18), purchased it with His blood (Acts 20:28), promised to save it (the one body – Eph. 4:4; 5:23), and through an inspired writer mentioned “churches of Christ” (Rom. 16:16). Such simply shows ownership, and rightly so, since Christ is the head of the body which is the church (Eph. 1:22-23).
It will surprise some to learn that certain individuals in the past had no desire for a “church” to be named in their honor. These men knew that man-made names made mockery of Christ and His Word, and their comments will forever haunt those who choose to give “churches” man-made names. Listen to the words of Charles Spurgeon, the most famous and talented Baptist preacher ever: “I say of the Baptist name, let it perish, but let Christ’s name last forever. I look forward with pleasure, to the day when there will not be a Baptist living. I hope they will soon be gone. I hope the Baptist name will soon perish; but let Christ’s name endure forever” (Spurgeon Memorial Library 1:168, as noted by Brownlow).
Can you imagine the outcry against me if I were to say today that I look forward to the day when there would not be a Baptist living? Well, Spurgeon’s sentiments are mine, but don’t hold your breath waiting on Baptist churches to inform their members of Spurgeon’s comments!
Now hear the words of Martin Luther who was a most influential reformer and scholar of his day:
I pray you to leave my name alone, and call not yourselves Lutherans, but Christians. Who is Luther? My doctrine is not mine. I have not been crucified for anyone. St. Paul would not let any call themselves after Paul, nor of Peter, but of Christ. How then, does it befit me, a miserable bag of dust and ashes, to give my name to the children of God? Cease, my dear friends, to cling to these party names and distinctions: away with all; and let us call ourselves only Christians after him from who our doctrine comes (The Life of Luther 289, as quoted by Brownlow).
Most of the above statement Luther made is correct, but Luther fell far short of fully aligning himself with Bible doctrine. Let all Baptists, Lutherans, and members of other denominational churches hear the words that give them no right to exist:
Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
…each one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos: and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized into the name of Paul? (1 Cor. 1:10, 12-13, ASV).
Christ spoke of those who “seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand…” (Matt. 13:13-15). Yes, different kinds of Christians exist in the mind of men today, but people must be spiritually deaf and blind to believe such is true. Study the Word of God, and do not allow yourself to be blinded to God’s glorious truths that are clearly set forth in Holy Writ.
[This article appeared in the Bonham St. Beacon published by the church in Paris, Texas, on April 25, 2010. This information from Brownlow’s book is timeless.]