{"id":1160,"date":"2018-01-30T17:08:46","date_gmt":"2018-01-30T16:08:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/?p=1160"},"modified":"2018-01-30T17:14:47","modified_gmt":"2018-01-30T16:14:47","slug":"eternal-god-revealing-himself-to-suffering-israel-12","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/2018\/01\/30\/eternal-god-revealing-himself-to-suffering-israel-12\/","title":{"rendered":"Eternal God Revealing Himself to Suffering Israel"},"content":{"rendered":"

(Continued-Chapter XXI)<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

All that is known concerning the Resurrection of Jesus is what is narrated in the Gospel accounts and occasional references throughout the New Testament. These documents are the testimony of eyewitnesses and of those who were in closest touch with the actual facts. This evidence is both direct and circumstantial. The Apostolic writers testified that the risen Jesus appeared to them, and that they ate with Him and talked with Him and they handled His body with their own hands.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

„This narrows down the question to the problem whether men can possibly be honest in such testimony and the thing itself be untrue.“ Under certain conditions men honestly believe things which never transpired. For instance, a man with delirium tremens testifies that he sees snakes and is sincere in giving such testimony. All sane people admit his sincerity but deny the reality of the snakes. Many people have testified that they have seen ghosts. Their sincerity cannot be questioned but rational people deny the existence of the ghost. At this point, since the above statements are true, it is necessary to call attention to a very clear and sharp distinction between two classes of testimony, a distinction which is recognized by all people in everyday affairs and by the courts of the land. (1) Testimony which is honest and sincere but which is without reality. (2) Testimony which cannot possibly be honest and sincere when the alleged facts are proved to be unreal. Should one testify in a court that such and such a thing was true because he had seen a vision, no jury would consider trying the witness for perjury but would have serious doubts concerning his mentality. On the other hand, should certain witnesses under oath testify concerning the shooting of a man, and should conclusive evidence prove that they had sworn to lies, the witnesses would be tried for perjury and sentenced to the penitentiary.<\/p>\n

The facts to which the Apostolic witnesses testified are briefly summarized by Prof. Albertus Piertus in the following statement:<\/p>\n

„That on the third day the grave was found empty, that two men walking along the road on Sunday afternoon met Jesus and talked with Him, that He met ten or eleven of them on two occasions in an upstairs room, that He spoke to them and offered Himself to be handled by them, calling their attention to certain marks of identification; that He ate fish and honey in their presence; that He had breakfast with them one morning by the Sea of Galilee; that He was present in a meeting attended by five hundred persons; that He gave them certain instructions and answered certain questions; and that the last time they met they had a walk together from Jerusalem to the Mount of Olives, to a place near the village of Bethany.“<\/p>\n

Should witnesses today upon the witness stand testify similarly concerning affairs of life and their testimony should be proved untrue, the charge of perjury could be justly registered against them.<\/p>\n

It is, therefore, evident that there is a very sharp and distinct line of demarcation which exists between the testimony born of hallucination, in which men really and honestly think they see what they do not, and the testimony concerning everyday affairs, in which such delusions are impossible. The conditions which produce hallucinations of all kinds are well known.<\/p>\n

„They take place under conditions of nervous disease, as in delirium caused by fever, or in insanity, or in times of great excitement and intense expectation. They occur also to one person at a time, never to a group simultaneously more readily at night, or under conditions of dim vision, than during the day-time, more readily in a confined space than in the open, and they appeal to the senses of sight and hearing, not to that of touch. There is never anything left to prove their reality after the visions cease, they occur without notice, and it cannot be foretold when they will recur. Above all, they always take place in accordance with the ideas and experiences of the person concerned; that is to say, they are moulded absolutely from the materials previously existing in the mind–they contain no new elements. For instance, Joan of Arc, who was a devout Roman Catholic, had visions of the blessed virgin Mary; but a Protestant girl could not have such a vision.“<\/p>\n

In the case of the Resurrection the above conditions were not present. For example, the number and the character of the witnesses preclude the explanation of nervous disease. Instead of being expectant of Christ’s Resurrection, they were depressed. Likewise, the women did not expect Him to rise but went with spices to anoint the dead body. It is true that Jesus on two different occasions met His disciples in a closed room, but the other meetings were in the broad, open daylight. There are recorded at least ten distinct appearances during a period of forty days after which time He formally disappeared, returning to heaven. In the last place, the empty grave was corroborative proof that He had risen. All of these facts are irreconcilable with any hallucination or vision theory.<\/p>\n

The fourth theory designated as the telegram<\/i><\/span> hypothesis is equally untenable. There is no proof that Christ, after His death, from heaven projected miraculously before the minds of the disciples on earth an objective image of Himself as bona-fide evidence of His continued existence, as Keim and others argue. This explanation calls into play as great miracles as that of the bodily resurrection. Without relieving the situation, this theory involves it in greater obscurity. It, therefore, has to be rejected as untenable, especially so since it does violence to all of the known facts.<\/span><\/p>\n

In the fifth place, the explanation which takes the statements concerning the Resurrection as strong affirmations of the continued spiritual existence of Christ likewise does violence to the data without any support from the facts.<\/p>\n

One of the latest theories advocated by the rationalists is the old vision theory of Renan and Strauss revamped with certain additions drawn from the Nature cults. According to it, in the company of Hebrew believers there was no thought of the bodily resurrection of Jesus. They believed that He survived death and that He appeared in vision to certain of the disciples. In this belief they were joyful and satisfied. When, however, the Apostle Paul espoused Christianity and began to preach it in the Gentile world, he came in contact with the oriental Nature cults which celebrated the succession of the seasons with festivals. Those festivals were held in the Spring and Fall, the latter celebrating the death of the deity whereas the former celebrated his resurrection. These festivals held in honor of the dying and rising deity simply were pagan personifications of the succession of the seasons. According to this theory Paul saw the weakness in the arguments of the primitive Gospel and invented the story of the bodily resurrection of Jesus in order to meet the new situation.<\/p>\n

Any theory that has to resort to the manipulation of evidence–suppressing certain facts, adding new material at will, and altering all the evidence in existence–is obviously hard-pressed and is unworthy of consideration. In no court of the land would such a process be permitted.<\/p>\n

It is argued by the advocates of this theory that the story of the Resurrection arose from the same causes which gave rise to the Nature cults. It is undoubtedly true that stories, both ancient and modern, found among all peoples do spring from a common source but this source may be narrowed down to a very small range. Literary critics assert that there are only thirty or forty types of stories in the entire world with, however, endless variations. If the same psychological principles, which caused these various stories, produced the story of the Resurrection of Jesus, why is it that the account of His Resurrection is in a class by itself? Why have not writers attempted to write another story like the Gospel? It cannot be done.<\/i><\/span> With reference to the Nature myths and all stories, let it be said that there is a vagueness, indefiniteness, and fantastic element dominant; but the story of the Resurrection of Jesus is clear, specific, and connected with the exact environment and personages which are known to have existed at that time. Therefore this narration can in no wise be classed with any other stories. It is indelibly stamped with the very semblance of truth and historicity.<\/span><\/p>\n

Without the Resurrection of Jesus the Gospel narrative would have been very imperfect. It is the sequel of the life presented throughout the records. According to the Old Testament and the New, He was God in human form. He was born of the virgin, lived a sinless life, performed miracles, and died in a super-human way. Therefore the Gospel picture, in order to be symmetrical, must have as its sequel the Resurrection and Ascension.<\/p>\n

Without the Resurrection there would have been no Christian Church. Without it there would have been no Lord’s Day. Without it there would be no hope of eternal life. It is related to these things as cause and effect. A religion that does not include a heart belief in the personal and bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is not the true religion revealed in the New Testament.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n


\nIV. THE EVIDENCE OF PAUL’S CONVERSION
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n


\n<\/span><\/span>
A.The Man Saul<\/center><\/center><\/p>\n

Born about the same time as was Jesus were three outstanding Hebrew men: Philo Judaeus in Alexandria, Egypt; John the Baptist in Judea; and Saul of Tarsus in Cilicia. This section, however, shall deal with Saul of Tarsus. Passing hurriedly over the facts of his early life, one notes that Saul was born in Tarsus of Cilicia, a great university town. It is absolutely certain that he received an excellent education in the Greek schools (probably in the University of Tarsus), which fact is seen by a study of the thirteen books which he wrote and which are found in the New Testament. He finished his education, however, in the rabbinical school in Jerusalem, sitting at the feet of the great <\/span>\u05d2\u05b7\u05de\u05b0\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc <\/span><\/b>Gamaliel (Acts 22:3).<\/span><\/p>\n

He in all probability was a member of the Sanhedrin for he states: „I advanced in the Jews religion beyond many of mine own age among my countrymen, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers“ (Gal. 1:14). At the stoning of Stephen the witnesses laid down their garments at his feet (Acts 7:58), which fact indicates that he was in charge of the execution. He was a most promising young leader of his people, for he was circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as touching the law a Pharisee; as touching zeal, persecuting the church; as touching the righteousness which is in the law, found blameless“ (Phil. 3:5,6). He was absolutely certain that religiously he was right and the Christians who worshipped Jesus as the Son of God were wrong. With this conviction he attempted to blot out Christianity not only from Jerusalem but from adjacent territory. He felt that by so doing he was rendering a true service to the God of his fathers. Having armed himself with letters of authority from the high priest at Jerusalem, he and his party started for Damascus in order to clear that city of the Christians (heretics). According to his statement in two public speeches (Acts 22, 26) and the statement of Luke, the noted historian (Acts 9), there occurred an event on the way just before the party arrived at Damascus. This occurrence was the turning point of his life.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n


\nB. The Conversion of Saul<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

From this time on instead of being a bitter opponent of the Christians he identified himself with them and became the chief exponent of the doctrine of the Christians. These facts are indisputable. Why did he change his religious affiliation, identifying himself with those whom he had persecuted? Various answers have been given to this question. In order to answer it satisfactorily let the reader now pursue the scientific method by studying the various motives which prompt men to change their religious affiliation. A careful survey of such motives yields the following list: (1) weakmindedness; (2) unstable character; (3) lack of knowledge and independent thought; (4) a disgruntled spirit; (5) monetary considerations; (6) popularity; (7) persecution (8) conviction. By „weakmindedness“ is meant a subnormal mental condition. In the class of „unstable character“ may be placed those individuals whose sentiment and emotions predominate over purpose, reason, and will. In the third class are those who do not know facts but who depend upon others to point out the way in which they are to go. In the class of „disgruntled spirit“ are those who are unhappy in a certain environment or position and who imagine that some other place will yield greater happiness, advantages, opportunities and the like. In the classification of „monetary considerations“ are those who are insincere and who having very low standards of right and wrong, make wealth and pleasure the supreme object of life. In the „popularity“ group are classed those individuals who prefer the praise and honor of men to that of God and act accordingly. In the „persecution“ group are those who change their affiliation rather than be persecuted for their conscientious convictions. In the last class, namely, that of „conviction,“ are those who think for themselves and, being convinced that they are wrong, accept that which they know is right.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

No one for a moment would class Saul among the weak-minded for his epistles reveal the fact that he was an intellectual giant. It is admitted by logicians that the Book of Romans, which he wrote, is one of the most logical and powerful documents extant from all antiquity. Neither can he be classed among those of unstable character, for his entire life showed that sentimentality and emotionalism while present in his make-up were subordinate to reason, plan, and will. Again, he cannot be classed among those who lacked knowledge and who looked to others for leadership because he was a leader of men and gave evidence of a very broad culture and acquisition of knowledge. Neither can he be classed among the disgruntled spirits for in the Jewish religion he was most powerful and influential. There was nothing that caused him to be agitated, disturbed and disquieted because of factions or trouble in the ranks of Judaism. Money consideration never entered into his life. Had he chosen money he would have remained where he was. By making the change he gave up the prospects of acquiring wealth and the luxuries of life. Neither did popularity have any allurement for him. Had he desired it he would have remained in Judaism, but by identifying himself with the Christians he, like Moses who gave up the wealth of Egypt and who identified himself with his persecuted brethren, stepped over into the ranks of the extremely unpopular. He did not change his religious association because he feared persecution. While he remained in Judaism he was on the persecuting side; by identifying himself with the Christians he joined the ranks of the persecuted.<\/p>\n

Having seen that it is impossible to classify Saul with any of the first seven groups the reader is now asked to consider thoughtfully placing him in the last group, namely, those who change their religious affiliation because of honest, conscientious convictions which are based upon absolute and overwhelming proof. In this connection it is best to let him speak for himself and relate why he changed his conviction concerning Jesus and identified himself with the Christians.*<\/p>\n

The following speech was made by Paul [Saul’s name was changed to Paul, which is Roman, on his first missionary journey (Acts 13:9)] in the Hebrew language from the steps of the castle in Jerusalem: „Brethren and fathers, hear ye the defence which I now make unto you. And when they heard that he spake unto them in the Hebrew language, they were the more quiet: and he saith, I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city, at the feet of Gamaliel, instructed according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers, being zealous for God, even as ye all are this day: and I persecuted this Way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and journeyed to Damascus to bring them also that were there unto Jerusalem in bonds to be punished. And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and drew nigh unto Damascus, about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. And they that were with me beheld indeed the light, but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do. And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me I came into Damascus. And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well reported of by all the Jews that dwelt there, came unto me, and standing by me said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And in that very hour I looked up on him. And he said, The God of our fathers hath appointed thee to know his will, and to see the Righteous One, and to hear a voice from his mouth. For thou shalt be a witness for him unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. And now why tarriest thou?\u00b9 arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name. And it came to pass, that, when I had returned to Jerusalem, and while I prayed in the temple, I fell into a trance, and saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem; because they will not receive of thee testimony concerning me. And I said, Lord, they themselves know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee: and when the blood of Stephen thy witness was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting, and keeping the garments of them that slew him. And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee forth far hence unto the Gentiles“ (Acts 22:1-21).<\/p>\n

Before King Agrippa II Paul delivered his second speech in which he explains why he became a Christian. „And Agrippa said unto Paul, Thou art permitted to speak for thyself. Then Paul stretched forth his hand, and made his defence: I think myself happy, king Agrippa, that I am to make my defence before thee this day touching all the things whereof I am accused by the Jews: especially because thou art expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews: wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently. My manner of life then from my youth up, which was from the beginning among mine own nation and at Jerusalem, know all the Jews; having knowledge of me from the first, if they be willing to testify, that after the straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee. And now I stand here<\/i><\/span> to be judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: unto which <\/span>promise<\/i><\/span> our twelve tribes, earnestly serving <\/span>God<\/i><\/span> night and day, hope to attain. And concerning this hope I am accused by the Jews, 0 king! Why is it judged incredible with you, if God doth raise the dead? I verily thought with myself that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. And this I also did in Jerusalem: and I both shut up many of the saints in prisons, having received authority from the chief priests, and when they were put to death I gave my vote against them. And punishing them oftentimes in all the synagogues, I strove to make them blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto foreign cities. Whereupon as I journeyed to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests, at midday, 0 king, I saw on the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them that journeyed with me. And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice saying unto me in the Hebrew language, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the goad. And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But arise, and stand upon thy feet: for to this end have I appeared unto thee, to appoint thee a minister and a witness both of the things wherein thou hast seen me, and of the things wherein I will appear unto thee: delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom I send thee, to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive remission of sins and an inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in me. Wherefore, 0 king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: but declared both to them of Damascus first, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the country of Judaea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance. For this cause the Jews seized me in the temple, and assayed to kill me. Having therefore obtained the help that is from God, I stand unto this day testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses did say should come; how that the Christ must suffer, <\/span>and<\/i><\/span> how that he first by the resurrection of the dead should proclaim light both to the people and to the Gentiles. And as he thus made his defence, Festus saith with a loud voice, Paul, thou art mad; thy much learning is turning thee mad. But Paul saith, I am not mad, most excellent, Festus; but speak forth words of truth and soberness. For the king knoweth of these things, unto whom also I speak freely, for I am persuaded that none of these things is hidden from him; for this hath not been done in a corner. King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest. And Agrippa <\/span>said<\/i><\/span> unto Paul, With but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian. And Paul <\/span>said,<\/i><\/span> I would to God, that whether with little or with much, not thou only, but also all that hear me this day, might become such as I am, except these bonds“ (Acts 26:1-29).<\/span><\/p>\n

Dr. Luke gives the following account of Saul’s conversion to Christianity in Acts 9:1-22: „But Saul, yet breathing threatening and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, and asked of him letters to Damascus unto the synagogues, that if he found any that were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. And as he journeyed, it came to pass that he drew nigh unto Damascus: and suddenly there shone round about him a light out of heaven: and he fell upon the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said,<\/i><\/span> I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: but rise, and enter into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. And the men that journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing the voice,\u00b2 but beholding no man. And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw nothing; and they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. And he was three days without sight, and did neither eat nor drink. Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and the Lord said unto him in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I <\/span>am here,<\/i><\/span> Lord. And the Lord <\/span>said<\/i><\/span> unto him, Arise, and go to the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one named Saul, a man of Tarsus: for behold, he prayeth; and he hath seen a man named Ananias coming in, and laying his hands on him, that he might receive his sight. But Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard from many of this man, how much evil he did to thy saints at Jerusalem: and here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call upon thy name. But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles and kings, and the children of Israel: for I will show him how many things he must suffer for my name’s sake. And Ananias departed, and entered into the house; and laying his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, <\/span>even<\/i><\/span> Jesus, who appeared unto thee in the way which thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mayest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Spirit. And straightway there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he received his sight; and he arose and was baptized; and he took food and was strengthened. And he was certain days with the disciples that were at Damascus. And straightway in the synagogues he proclaimed Jesus, that he is the Son of God. And all that heard him were amazed, and said, Is not this he that in Jerusalem made havoc of them that called on this name? and he had come hither for this intent, that he might bring them bound before the chief priests. But Saul increased the more in strength, and, confounded the Jews that dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is the Christ.“<\/span><\/p>\n

From Paul’s own testimony and the historical statements of Luke one learns why Paul became a Christian. The facts, briefly stated, are these: as he in company with others was journeying toward Damascus, Jesus, the ascended Christ, caused a miraculous light to shine round about Saul, which was brighter than the noonday sun. Out of heaven He spoke to him. Saul, being brought in touch\u00b3 with Jesus Christ and being in full possession of his mental faculties, realized that Jesus of Nazareth Whose followers he was persecuting was the Christ, the Hebrew Messiah. Being fully persuaded of his error in rejecting Jesus, he surrendered fully and completely to Him, accepting Him as his Lord and Saviour. Being blinded by the brilliancy of the light, and being led by others of his party, he entered the city of Damascus, where he remained three days in prayer and fasting. At the expiration of this time the Lord sent Ananias who laid his hands upon him, thus imparting the Holy Spirit to him and restoring his sight. He also baptized him. From that day Saul became a most ardent and powerful preacher of the Gospel.<\/p>\n

Paul’s sudden „right about face,“ spiritually speaking, may be illustrated as follows: If a person, being in full possession of his mental powers, is walking rapidly down the street, evidently with some object in mind, and suddenly turns around, walking just as rapidly in the reverse direction, one would conclude that there was a rational reason for his sudden change. Spiritually speaking, such is what Paul did. He was going in one direction (persecuting the Christians); after this experience he turned around and went in the direction from which he came (identifying himself with the Christians and preaching Christ). There was a reason for his turning, which is that he was thoroughly convinced that he had been mistaken, and that Jesus of Nazareth was his true Messiah and Redeemer. Thus one of the intellectual giants of the world of that day and time, being convinced of the Lordship of Jesus of Nazareth, in full and complete surrender<\/i><\/span> bowed to Him and accepted Him as his Lord and Saviour, the Messiah of the Tenach.<\/span><\/p>\n

Footnotes:<\/p>\n

* These speeches are preserved in Acts of the Apostles, which was written by Dr. Luke who, as stated above, has been vindicated by archaeological facts to be an historian thoroughly reliable in the most minute and detailed matters. Therefore he has accurately preserved these great testimonials of this great Hebrew scholar. Hence they contain a truthful account of the facts as they actually occurred.<\/p>\n

\u00b9 As noted in Chapter XXIV, it is not pleasing to the Lord for one to be simply a secret believer. He who is thoroughly convinced that Jesus is the Hebrew Messiah and Savior of the world, of Whom the prophets spoke, must come out boldly and confess Jesus „in this adulterous and sinful generation.“ The Lord Himself said, „Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will warn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, who after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him“ (Lk. 12:4,5). One can never enjoy his fellowship with Jesus Christ and walk with God by faith as long as he pleases man. Dear friend, launch out boldly into the midst of the great sea of God’s promises. If you stay close to the shore you will be continually in danger of being bombarded by men.<\/p>\n

Paul realized that fact. He had no fear of men. He launched out immediately as soon as he was convinced that Jesus was his Messiah. He came out in the most public and open way and confessed his faith in Jesus by being baptized immediately. Wherefore, „why tarriest thou“ 0 secret believer?<\/p>\n

Elijah in his great warfare against Baalism at the Carmel contest urged the secret believers in God to cease „limping between the two sides.“ To them he declared, „If \u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4 <\/span><\/b>be God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him“ (I Kgs. 18:21). Again, my Hebrew friend, in this language let the author plead with you, if you are convinced that Jesus Christ is the Hebrew Messiah, to come out boldly in the light and blessings of the Lord and follow Him, obeying Him in every thing. You then can claim the promise that „every one that hath left houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit eternal life“ (Matt. 19:29).<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00b2 To the casual reader there appears to be a contradiction in the statement of Luke in Acts 9:7 „And the men that journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing the voice, but beholding no man,“ and the statement of Paul in Acts 22:9 „And they that were with me beheld indeed the light, but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.“ This seeming discrepancy vanishes in the light of a knowledge of the use of the Greek cases. In 9:7 Luke puts the word „voice“ in the genitive case, which, as all Greek grammarians know, is the case which designates „kind“ or „species; hence it is the case which is regularly used to describe an object or thing. Therefore its use excludes everything except that which is mentioned. In other words his use of the genitive case emphasized the fact that they heard an articulate voice and not some inarticulate sounds.<\/p>\n

In 22:9 Paul put the word „voice“ in the accusative case, which case is known by grammarians as that of „extension,“ inclusiveness, comprehensiveness. Paul’s use of the accusative case here assumes what was stated by Luke, namely, that they actually heard the voice in the sense of receiving an audible impression, but shows that they were unable to understand the import of the words. Hence the agreement between the two statements in the light of the grammar is perfect.<\/p>\n

\u00b3 Vain attempts have been made by skeptics to break the force of Paul’s testimony concerning his seeing Jesus in glory when he was on his way to Damascus; One of the attempted explanations is that suddenly he had an epileptic fit. This supposition is purely imaginary since there is not the remotest fragment of evidence pointing in that direction. Another explanation is that he suffered from hallucination. According to the discoveries of modern psychology such an explanation is impossible because one brain state precedes and prepares for the succeeding one. There was nothing in Paul’s previous experience which could produce such an hallucination as this. As he journeyed on his way he was certain that he was doing the will of God and felt reasonably sure that he would be successful in His cause. Therefore there was nothing which could possibly produce an hallucination. Another explanation is that he suffered from sunstroke, for which position there is not the slightest bit of evidence. Paul’s entire career from his conversion onward is a complete refutation of all such visionary hypothetical theories. On the other hand, his life, labors, and letters are positive proof that he was in full possession of his mental faculties when he met Jesus face to face.<\/p>\n

From the day of his conversion onward, that experience was his polar star which guided him across the tempestuous waters of life.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

(Continued-Chapter XXI)<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n


\nV. THE NEW TESTAMENT IS THE FINAL WORD IN THE ANALYSIS
\nOF THE HUMAN HEART, IN ETHICS, AND IN SPIRITUAL TEACHING<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The Old Testament sets forth great and wonderful spiritual truths, but it is left for the New Testament to analyze man’s spiritual condition and needs. To illustrate this point it is well to note that the Old Testament constantly speaks of sin, transgression, and iniquity; but it does not trace these evils to the fountain head as does the New Testament (see Rom. 6,7), which analyzes the motives that actuate the heart. It reveals man to himself as no other book does. It is a mirror into which man may look and see himself as God sees him. It probes to the very depths of his soul and discovers to him his real self.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In ethics it is the final word. The highest ideal by which man may be guided in his relation to his fellowman is expressed in the Golden Rule.* „All things therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye also unto them: for this is the law and the prophets“ (Matt. 7:12).<\/p>\n

In spiritual teaching the New Testament is the acme of perfection. It affirms that man’s first duty is to seek God and His kingdom. Man’s helpless condition is met by the assistance of the Holy Spirit of God. He has access to a throne of grace to which he may come at all times, obtain forgiveness of sins through the shed blood of Christ and strength and power that will enable him to live a life which will glorify and honor God. Thus the highest possible conception of spiritual life and fellowship with God is set forth. Since such mighty volumes of ethical and spiritual truths pour forth from its pages, one may illustrate the importance of that fact by the following illustration: When Columbus sailed up the Orinoco River, he declared that he had not discovered an island, but a continent; for, he said, such a river can drain only a continent. Since such mighty volumes of spiritual truths flow forth from the New Testament one cannot but exclaim that it came from God.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n


\nVI. THE RELIGION OF CHRIST, AS SET FORTH IN THE NEW
\nTESTAMENT, PRODUCES THE HIGHEST TYPE OF CHARACTER<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Many great and noble men have lived in the world during the past. Upon an examination of the innermost lives and souls of these great men, it will be discovered that those who have bowed the knee in recognition and worship of Jesus Christ as God manifest in the flesh, Whose shed blood cleanses from all sin, and who have accepted the New Testament as the revelation of God have scaled the highest heights of morality and spirituality. The teachings of the New Testament inspire and inculcate the finer graces and characteristics of the soul; they also produce those heroic qualities which enable men to face the stern realities of life, dealing with every man on the highest principles of righteousness and justice. These statements being true, as can be proved in innumerable instances, the New Testament is evidently not from man but from God.\u00b9<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n


\nVII. THE NEW TESTAMENT HAS MET
\nAND SATISFIED THE NEEDS OF MILLIONS<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

God created man with his various faculties and likewise made those things which will satisfy the yearnings of the same. For instance, He gave men eyes and has created scenes which satisfy this faculty. He gave men the sense of smell and created that which satisfies that sense. The same is true of all of their sense organs.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

When He created man He gave him a soul which yearns after God. Millions of souls have sought rest and satisfaction in other things but finally have turned to the New Testament and to the Christ Who produced it and have found satisfaction, peace, and joy for their weary souls. They have lived in the world and have shed forth the fragrance of a holy life and, when the summons came to pass into the Great Beyond, they have met the inevitable hour in the triumph of a living faith, being fully assured that they will meet their God and Saviour Who died for them, together with their saved loved ones on the eternal shore.<\/p>\n

From the seven different considerations presented in this chapter it becomes apparent to the truth seeker that the New Testament is of the warp and woof of the Old Testament. If one accepts the „Ten Commandments,“ as was stated in Chapter II, he must in order to be logical, accept the entire Torah; if he accepts the Torah he must accept the entire Tenach (0.T.); if he accepts the Tenach, he must, to be consistent, accept the New Testament as the authoritative revelation from God.<\/p>\n

The sixty-six books constituting the Old and New Testaments are a divine revelation,\u00b2 i.e., they constitute messages which God gave through His inspired prophets and apostles to man. They are the Word of God in a special and unique sense in which no other book can claim to be, namely, the Spirit of God spoke God’s message through them for man’s good and salvation (see II Tim. 3:16,17; II Pet. 1:21).<\/p>\n

Footnotes:<\/p>\n

* Attempts have been made to prove that Jesus was simply quoting from some great sage in making the statement. The attempt is only in vain. It is true that Confucius stated the negative side of the Golden Rule but that is far inferior to the statement of Jesus. Those apocryphal and apocalyptical books where statements which approximate this one appear are later than the statement of Jesus, and are echoes of His statement.<\/p>\n

\u00b9 The fact that the lives of many Christians do not approximate the ideal set forth in the New Testament does not discredit the religion of Christ. The failure is with men and not with Him and His teachings.<\/p>\n

\u00b2 The young student may be bewildered by the fact that scholarly men often arrive at conclusions concerning the Scripture which are diametrically opposed. The scholarship of each may be unquestioned; the reasoning of each may be flawless, and yet different conclusions are reached. If an engineer survey a certain plot of ground and make his calculations according to his observations, though every step in the process may be flawless, his conclusion is erroneous unless he first locate the monument and from it make his measurements. If the assumptions of a logician, philosopher, or theologian upon which he bases his arguments be incorrect his conclusions likewise will be incorrect.<\/p>\n

Any philosophy or theology whose basic principles are antagonistic to revealed religion and miracles and which place the religion of the Bible upon a naturalistic basis is false. Beware of the same!<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

CHAPTER XXII<\/span><\/center>THE TRIUNE NATURE OF THE GOD OF ISRAEL<\/p>\n

HAVING seen that the books of the New Testament are of the same kind as those of the Old, hence the Word of God, the reader is now invited to study the subject of the God of Israel as presented therein. In the preceding chapter the statement was made that the New Testament conception of God is the same as that of the Old. It is now proper to furnish the proof of that assertion.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n


\nI. THE PLURALITY OF THE GOD OF ISRAEL<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. God the Father<\/span><\/span><\/center><\/p>\n

As there are statements in the Old Testament which refer to different Divine Persons, so there are in the New. There are constant references to the Father Who possesses all of the attributes and characteristics of an Omnipotent, Eternal Being; hence He is God. On one occasion Jesus of Nazareth prayed: „I thank thee, 0 Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes: yea, Father, for so it was well-pleasing in thy sight“ (Matt. 11:25,26). Here God is addressed and is spoken of as the Creator of the entire universe.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In the speech at Lystra the Apostle Paul, in remonstrating with the inhabitants for attempting to render divine honors to Barnabas and himself, said, „Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and bring you good tidings, that ye should turn from these vain things unto a Living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that in them is: who in the generations gone by suffered all the nations to walk in their own ways“ (Acts 14:15,16). Throughout the New Testament are constant references to that Divine Personality Who is called God the Father, but these references are sufficient.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n


\nB. God the Son<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Jesus of Nazareth is likewise spoken of as God and worshipped as God. In John 1:1-3 appears the following statement: „In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made.“ In verse 14 occurs the statement, „And the Word („Word“ is the same as in verse 1) became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.“ There can be no doubt concerning the fact that the passage refers to Jesus Christ. Hence He was one of the Divine Personalities Who assumed human form in order to redeem men. In Phil. 2:5-8 the Apostle Paul stated, „Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient <\/span>even<\/i><\/span> unto death, yea, the death of the cross.“ From this quotation it is clear that Christ was God because He existed in the form of God. His being in the form of God is the fact which proves that He was God. Any article, for example, is thus named because it is in the form of said article. To be more specific, a watch is a watch because it is in the form of a watch. The same material could have been used to manufacture some other article. Had such been the case it would have been the other article and not a watch; hence to affirm that a thing is in the form of a certain article is to affirm that it is that article. Therefore when Paul affirms that Christ was in the form of God, he affirmed with no uncertain sound that He was God. Though He was God, He laid aside His glory (not His essential Divine nature) and entered the human sphere by Virgin Birth.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In praying to the Father (Matt. 11:27) Jesus said, „All things „have been delivered unto me of my Father: and no one knoweth the Son, save the Father; neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him.“<\/i><\/span> In this passage shines forth Jesus own consciousness. He recognized that God was infinite and yet He affirmed that He was able to comprehend God and that no being except God could understand Him; therefore He was a Divine Being.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n


\nC. God the Holy Spirit
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In Acts 5:1-11 occurs the narrative concerning Ananias and Sapphira who had sold a piece of property for a certain price and, desiring to appear more generous than they were, claimed that they had given all whereas they had given only a portion. When Ananias brought the money, Peter by the aid of the Holy Spirit said, „Ananias, why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back <\/span>part<\/i><\/span> of the price of the land? … Thou hast not lied unto men but unto God.“ In one breath Peter charged Ananias with lying to the Holy Spirit and with the next he affirmed that he had lied to God; therefore he called the Holy Spirit God; hence the Spirit is one of the Divine Personalities. In other passages the Holy Spirit is recognized as one of the Divine Persons. Therefore from the facts mentioned in this section it is clear that the New Testament recognizes a plurality of Divine Beings.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n


\nII. THE UNITY OF THE GOD OF ISRAEL
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n


\nSince in the Old Testament the doctrine of the Unity of the Divine Personalities had been emphasized, there was little necessity for further emphasis upon this teaching. When, however, on one occasion Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, or, God manifest in the flesh, there arose a discussion which necessitated a statement from him affirming the oneness between Himself and God the Father. One of these occasions was when he went to Jerusalem at the Feast of Dedication, which feast was about three months before the Passover at which He was condemned to death. His opponents approached Him as He was walking in Solomon’s Porch and asked Him plainly and directly: „\u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u1f79\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f34\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03c3\u1f7a \u03b5\u1f36 \u1f41 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f79\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u1f72 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u1f77\u1fb3. <\/span> How long dost Thou hold us in suspense? If Thou art the Christ \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f79\u03c2 <\/span>tell us plainly.“ This question developed into a discussion, during which Jesus made the statement, „I and the Father are one“ (John 10:30). By this statement He affirmed, not that they were one so far as personality was concerned, but one so far as essence, nature, character, and purpose are concerned as man and wife are one. A thorough understanding of this statement shows that the teaching of the Tenach concerning the plurality of God was assumed by Jesus.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Again, at the season of the Passover, at which He was condemned, in a quiet talk with His disciples which occurred just a few hours before His arrest, Philip, one of the disciples, asked Him: „Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us,“ to which request Jesus replied, „Have I been so long with you, and dost thou not know me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; how sayest thou, Show us the Father?“ (John 14:9). Likewise, from this same quotation one sees the same assumption and teaching of the passage which has just been studied. The statement that the one who saw Him had seen the Father means, fundamentally, that He was of the same Divine essence or substance as the Father, and that the nature of the Father manifested itself in His own life. This language may be illustrated, imperfectly, however, by two girls whom the author knew when he was in college. These young ladies were twins and were so very much alike, in size, appearance, disposition, and voice that friends continually mistook one for the other. One could correctly, according to the usage of the language of all nations, say that when he saw one of these girls he saw the other. It was in this sense that Jesus made the statement that „He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.“ On another occasion Jesus affirmed that He and the Father were one (John 10:30).\u00b9<\/p>\n


\nIII. THE TRINITY OF THE GOD OF ISRAEL<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Having seen the plurality and the unity of the God of Israel as set forth in the New Covenant, it is now proper to advance to the study of the Trinity. The first occurrence of this subject in the New Testament is found in the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist.\u00b2<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

When John \u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05d7\u05b8\u05e0\u05b8\u05df<\/span><\/b>, who was regarded by the Jewish people as a man of God, retired from the wilderness of Judaea to the region beyond the Jordan, great multitudes went to him, confessed their sins, and submitted to baptism in the Jordan River. Then Jesus, likewise, went and asked John to baptize Him; to which request John responded by stating that he needed to be baptized by Jesus. To this protest Jesus replied: „Suffer it<\/i> now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.“ When He was baptized He went up out of the water, and the heavens were opened unto Him and He saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and lo, there was a voice out of the heavens, saying: „THIS IS MY BELOVED SON, IN WHOM I AM WELL PLEASED“ (Matt. 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11).<\/p>\n

Here appears the Trinity at the beginning of the personal ministry of Jesus: The Father in heaven speaking; Jesus, the Son of God, having been baptized, coming up out of the water; and the Spirit of God in the form of a dove descending upon Him.<\/p>\n

After Jesus, Who was crucified by the Romans at the instigation, not of the Jewish nation, but of certain of their leaders, arose from the dead He appeared to the disciples alive during a period of forty days, which facts are well attested by historical testimony. As was recorded by Matthew \u05de\u05b7\u05ea\u05bc\u05b4\u05ea\u05b0\u05d9\u05b8\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc <\/span><\/b>(Matt. 28:18-20) Jesus said: „All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.“ In this passage the three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are the same ones mentioned in Isa. 48:16: „The Lord God (Father) hath sent me (Son), and His Spirit (the Holy Spirit).“ Again, the Trinity appears in Eph. 4:4-6. „There<\/i> is<\/i> one body, and one Spirit, even as also ye were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all.“ Here, the Apostle Paul inspired by the Spirit of God urged Christians to live godly, consecrated, clean lives, endeavoring to keep and maintain at all times the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. The basis upon which he grounds his plea is that there is one Spirit (verse 4), one Lord (Jesus) (verse 5), and one God and Father (verse 6). Again, the Trinity appears in the doxology of II Cor. 13: „The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.“<\/p>\n

Numerous passages could be cited in which appear clear statements in regard to the three Divine Personalities Who constitute a unity, but the references given above are sufficient. It is well to note in this connection, however, that all the attributes of Divine Personality are predicated, in various passages, of each of these three persons; hence they are „three in one,“ Israel’s \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd <\/span><\/b> ‚elohim<\/i> a trinity in unity. Such was the conception of the inspired Apostle Paul who at Athens spoke of „the Godhead,“ which expression refers to the „three in one.“<\/p>\n

Again, in Col. 2:9 Paul referred to the Godhead in the expression: „For in Him (Christ) dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.“ Dr. Leander S. Keyser states clearly the doctrine of the Trinity: „God is a Trinity–that is, He is both one and three. But remember, He is not both one and three in the same respect. There are many things right around us that are one in one respect and three in another respect. So God is one as to His essence or being, but three as to hypostases, persons, and modes of life and functioning.“<\/p>\n

Again Dr. Keyser affirms: „However, no trained theologian has ever contended that God is a mathematical, material Trinity. No; God is a psychical or spiritual Trinity. The Bible itself says ‚God is a Spirit.‘ Therefore our best illustrations of this doctrine are to be found, not in the material realm, but in the mental or psychical. Have you ever thought about it that in a very inner sense the human mind has a triune constitution? It is made up of the Intellect, the Sensibility, and the Will–that is, the cognitive, the emotional and the volitional functioning powers. Yet they do not constitute three minds, but only one mind. More than that, the mind is a unitary entity, and is not made up of parts as a lump of material substance is. Therefore, the Intellect is the whole mind, the Sensibility is the whole mind, and the Will is the whole mind; each and all are identically the same substance or quiddity. Each in substance is equal to all, and yet all together are equal to each. Thus we see again that an entity can be, in a very mysterious and profound way, one in one respect and three in another. So with the Triune God. Only God is personally<\/i> Triune, not only functionally.<\/i> This distinction must be made to avoid the old heresy of Modalism, advocated by Sabellius and others in the early days of the Christian Church.“\u00b3<\/p>\n

Says Dr. Haldeman: „Where the actinic is, the luminiferous and calorific are. The actinic cannot be seen nor felt. The calorific cannot be seen, but may be felt. The luminiferous is both seen and felt, and is the revelation and expression of the other two. What an absurdity it would be to reject any two of these properties and call the remaining one light! Nay, light is one and yet three; light is three and yet one. And Holy Scripture says: God is light. God is one substance–one God, and yet three persons–Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In spite of the fact that the personalities are distinct, they cannot be separated from each other. Where the One is, the others are. Where the Father is, the Son and Spirit are. Where the Spirit is, the Father and Son are. The Father can be neither seen nor felt. The Spirit cannot be seen, but may be felt. The Son can be both seen and felt, and is the revelation and expression of the other two. What an absurdity it would be to reject any two of these persons of the Godhead and call the remainder one God! Nay, God is One and yet three. God is three and yet One!“ The Scripture: „No one can say Jesus is Lord (more than a common, pious Orthodox Jew) except in the Holy Spirit“ (I Cor. 12:3).<\/p>\n

Footnotes:<\/p>\n

\u00b9 One may ask since God and Jesus Christ are one, i.e., both are Divine Personalities, what did Jesus mean when He made the statement: „For the Father is greater than I“ (John 14:28). There is perfect harmony between the two positions. Jesus was looking at Himself not as God but as the God-Man; hence from that point of view He correctly stated that God was greater than He since by assuming human form He voluntarily imposed limitations upon Himself. A similar statement to this one is found in Mark 10:18: „And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? None is good save one, even<\/i> God.“ Philosophically, the term „the good“ was synonymous with the word „God.“ The question, „Why callest thou me good?“ was to draw an expression from the young man concerning his idea of Jesus. Since, as the young man admitted, He was „good,“ and since there is but One Who is good in this sense, Jesus wished to lead him to an expression of his belief in His Deity.<\/p>\n

It may be asked „How could He be God and thus limit Himself?“ This question may never be fully and satisfactorily answered, but an analogy may enable one to realize more fully the possibility of such a limitation. A perfectly normal person in good health could submit to being anaesthetized. While he is completely under the power of the anaesthetic, consciousness ceases; therefore mental activity is arrested by self-imposed limitations. The extent to which one submits to the anaesthetic will determine the degree of the limitation. Though Jesus did limit Himself in some ways, He was always conscious of His Divine nature and of His relationship to God and the world.<\/p>\n

\u00b2 That John the Baptist is an historical character is seen in the works of the Jewish historian, Josephus. Concerning him he said: „Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God and that very justly, as a punishment for what he did against John, that was called the Baptist;<\/i> for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing (with water) would be acceptable to Him if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away (or the remission) of some sins only, but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.<\/p>\n

Now when (many) others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved (or pleased) by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it should be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod and a mark of God’s displeasure to him“ (Antiquities of The Jews, Book 18, Chapter 5).<\/p>\n

Concerning Jesus, the same author wrote: „Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was (the) Christ \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f79\u03c2. <\/span> And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men<\/i> amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day“ (Josephus).<\/p>\n

\u00b3 „Among the heathen, if at all civilized,“ says Archdeacon Lee, „every type and image of Deity, all that stands in immediate relation to It,–all, in short, in which the Divine completes itself, has the stamp of Three.<\/i> This idea almost forces itself on the mind when man contemplates Creation: there are three<\/i> dimensions of Space; Time is past, present, future<\/i>; the Universe offers to the view Sky, Earth, Sea.<\/i> … It is but natural indeed that the essential character of the Triune GOD, as He has revealed Himself, should be impressed upon His works. And so, in the record of Revelation, Three<\/i> is the numerical ’signature‘ of the Divine Being, and of all that stands in any real relation to God“ (Speaker’s Commentary, Introduction to Revelation, p. 474).<\/p>\n

R. McCormack in his book „The Heptadic Structure of Scripture“ quotes from Dr T.A.G. Balfour’s book „The Typical Character of Nature“ as follows: „The whole world from its foundation, seems to have been designed to proclaim a Tripersonal God, but only in the three-fold constitution of man was the whole realized in one nature. Body, soul, and spirit are the three<\/i> constituents of man, as he comes perfect from the hands of his Creator, and each was, in my opinion, designed to symbolize or represent a distinct person in the Godhead.<\/p>\n

„Again, every one conversant with human embryology knows that the whole structures of the human body are developed from three<\/i> laminae, or layers viz., the serous or animal, the vascular, and the mucous or vegetative layer … If we take the vertebra, whose importance is seen in classification and also in the fact that it is the first formed portion of the osseous system, we shall discover three<\/i> essential portions, and only three, which have been styled the body,<\/i> the neurapophysis,<\/i> and the haemapophysis<\/i> and these three, when modified in various ways, contain the whole internal organs.<\/p>\n

„The doctrine of the Trinity, therefore,“ proceeds Dr. Balfour, „is not one which is peculiar to Scripture, but which is inwoven in the very constitution of man, and to which all Nature bears its willing testimony.<\/p>\n

„I have said it is inwoven in man’s very constitution,–how otherwise can we account for the circumstance that the doctrine of a Trinity<\/i> should appear in the religious tenets of so many nations,–how otherwise can the fact be explained that the greatest thinkers of antiquity admitted a trinity<\/i> of persons<\/i> as the highest of their gods,–and, as reason and speech \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3o\u03c2 \u03ad\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4o\u03c2 and \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3o\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1o\u03b8o\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 <\/span>are the distinctive peculiarities of man, how can we, on other principles, account for the fact, that in his speech he is limited to a three-<\/i>fold mode of expressing his thoughts, and that three persons in grammar express all the relationships among mankind,<\/i> and that there are but three<\/i> degrees of comparison of qualities? Again, we find that three<\/i> things, viz., a subject, a predicate, and a copula, are indispensably necessary for even the simplest proposition, and also that three<\/i> propositions are necessary to constitute a syllogism, which, in the process of reasoning, we so constantly employ; these are the major and minor premises, and the conclusion, which again, contain only three terms, viz., major, minor, and middle.<\/p>\n

„I said, also, that all Nature bears her willing testimony to the same glorious truth, as appears in the three<\/i> great kingdoms, viz., mineral, vegetable, and animal, which matter, as unorganized and organized, presents to our view; and in the three only forms which that matter can assume viz., <\/i>solid, liquid, and aeriform. Hath not God, Who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, also thereby shined into our hearts to give a knowledge of His Tripersonality? for in the one ray we have the three<\/i> colours, red, yellow, and blue; or viewing them in another relation, we are still limited to the three, calorific, luminous, and actinic.“<\/p>\n

So Archdeacon Basil Wilberforce wrote: ‚Prof. Tyndall discovered, by experiments with the spectrum, that an intensely heated body emits at the same time three rays, producing entirely different results, whilst this trinity of rays form such a unity as to be inseparable. There is, first, the ‚heat ray,‘ which is felt but not seen; secondly, the ‚light-ray,‘ which is seen but not felt; thirdly, the ‚actinic ray,‘ which is neither felt nor seen but is only known by its effects, such as its chemical action in the operations of photography. These are all one, all in an inseparable unity, and yet one is not the other, and not one can exist except in conjunction with the others. So in the Holy Trinity we have The Father, felt but not seen, ‚No man hath seen God at any time,‘ The Son, the light ray, ‚I am the light of the world,‘ seen but not felt, not touched except by the touch of faith–‚though the multitudes thronged Him.‘ The Holy Ghost, neither felt nor seen, but known by His effects in conversion, renewal and sanctification; sensitizing the heart of man to receive the photograph of its God when the Light of the World is poured into it. Thus even a superficial study of the analogies of nature forbids me to allow that ‚threeness in unity‘ is either absurd or unphilosophical.<\/p>\n

To the casual reader there seems to be a contradiction between the statements of Dr. Haldeman and those of Archdeacon Wilberforce. The discrepancy disappears when we remember that Wilberforce was quoting the scientific view as held in the day of Professor Tyndal, whereas Dr. Haldeman states the present-day scientific theory.<\/p>\n

Contradictory views in the scientific world are constantly appearing. Many theories held today will be thrown into the discard tomorrow. Hence we need not become alarmed at the contradictions found in the works of men. It is indeed a source of great comfort and satisfaction for the believer to know that modern archaeological discoveries have in every instance confirmed the Scripture narrative where disbelief had cast doubt upon the accuracy of the sacred record.<\/p>\n

\n

weiter<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

(Continued-Chapter XXI)   All that is known concerning the Resurrection of Jesus is what is narrated in the Gospel accounts and occasional references throughout the New Testament. These documents are the testimony of eyewitnesses and of those who were in closest touch with the actual facts. This evidence is both direct and circumstantial. The Apostolic … <\/p>\n

\u201eEternal God Revealing Himself to Suffering Israel\u201c <\/span>weiterlesen<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1160","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allgemein"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1160","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1160"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1160\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1169,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1160\/revisions\/1169"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1160"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1160"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1160"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}