Category Archives: Adrian Rogers

Is the Bible historically accurate? (Part 20)

May 17, 2011 – 10:29 am

The Authenticity of the Bible – The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict – Josh McDowell Part 1

From time to time you will read articles in the Arkansas press by  such writers as  John Brummett, Max Brantley and Gene Lyons that poke fun at those that actually believe the Bible is historically accurate when in fact the Bible is backed up by many archaeological facts. The Book of Mormon is blindly accepted even though archaeology has disproven many of the facts that are claimed by it. For instance, the use of Hebrew of Egyptian languages did not exist in North America when they said they did.

The Book of Mormon describes more than one literate people inhabiting ancient America. The Nephite people are described as processing a language and writing with roots in Hebrew and Egyptian, and writing the original text of the Book of Mormon in this unknown language, called Reformed Egyptian. A transcript of some of the characters of this language has been preserved in the Anthon Transcript.

Archaeological evidence shows that the only people known to have developed written languages in America were the Olmecs and Mayans, whose written languages have no resemblance to Hebrew or Egyptian hieroglyphs. Additionally, professional linguists and Egyptologists do not consider the Anthon Transcript document to contain any legitimate ancient writing. Klaus Baer, Egyptologist at the University of Chicago, called the characters of the transcript nothing but “doodlings”.[94]

The Smithsonian Institution has noted, “Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines, and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to have occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune stones which have been found in Greenland.”[29]

Additionally, linguistic studies on the evolution of the spoken languages of the Americas agree with the widely held model that homo sapiens arrived in America between 15,000 and 10,000 BC. According to the Book of Mormon, immigrants first arrived on the American continent about 2500 BC (the presumed time period of the biblical Tower of Babel).

__________________________________________

Ossuary of Caiaphas
Ossuary of Caiaphas
Did this ossuary contain the bones of Caiaphas, high priest during the time of Jesus?

This beautifully decorated ossuary found in the ruins of Jerusalem, contained the bones of Caiaphas, the first century AD. high priest during the time of Jesus.

 

On the side (as seen above) and the back of the ossuary is inscribed Caiaphas’ name (“Yosef bar Caifa”).

(see Matt 26:3, 57; Luke 3:2; John 11:49; 18:13-14, 24, 28; Acts 4:6; Josephus, Ant. 23.25, 39). It was a custom in ancient Israel to store the bones of the dead in ossuaries. They gathered the bones about a year after burial.

Caiaphas, who’s name means “searcher” was appointed high priest (after Simon ben Camith) by the procurator Valerius Gratus, under Tiberius, 18 A.D.. He continued in office from A.D. 26 to 37, when the proconsul Vitellius deposed him. He was the president of the Jewish council (Sanhedrim) which condemned the Lord Jesus to death, Caiaphas declaring Him guilty of blasphemy.

Caiaphas was the official high priest during the ministry and trial of Jesus (Matt 26:3, 57; Luke 3:2; John 11:49; 18:13, 14, 24, 28; Acts 4:6).

It was Caiaphas who, unknowingly, made the incredible prophecy concerning God’s plan of sacrificing Jesus for the sins of the nation and even the whole world:

John 11:47-54 “Then the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered a council and said, “What shall we do? For this Man works many signs. If we let Him alone like this, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation.” And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish.” Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad. Then, from that day on, they plotted to put Him to death.”

Matthew 26:3-5 “Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him. But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people.”

Matt 26:57-68 And those who had laid hold of Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled. But Peter followed Him at a distance to the high priest’s courtyard. And he went in and sat with the servants to see the end. Now the chief priests, the elders, and all the council sought false testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, but found none. Even though many false witnesses came forward, they found none. But at last two false witnesses came forward and said, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days.’ ” And the high priest arose and said to Him, “Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?” But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!” Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, “He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy! What do you think?” They answered and said, “He is deserving of death.” Then they spat in His face and beat Him; and others struck Him with the palms of their hands, saying, “Prophesy to us, Christ! Who is the one who struck You?”

John 18:19-24 “The high priest then asked Jesus about His disciples and His doctrine. Jesus answered him, “I spoke openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where the Jews always meet, and in secret I have said nothing. Why do you ask Me? Ask those who have heard Me what I said to them. Indeed they know what I said.” And when He had said these things, one of the officers who stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, “Do You answer the high priest like that?” Jesus answered him, “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why do you strike Me?” Then Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.”

The Jewish High Priests from 200 B.C to the Reign of Herod the Great

1. Simon II the Just, 220-190 B.C.
2. Onias III, 190-174 B.C.
3. Jason/Jeshua,175-172 B.C.
4. Menelaus, 172-162 B.C.
5. Alcimus, 162-156 B.C.
6. Jonathan, 153-142 B.C.
7. Simon, 142-135 B.C.
8. John Hyrcanus I, 134-104 B.C.
9. Aristobulus I, 104-103 B.C.
10. Alexander Jannaeus, 103-76 B.C.
11. Hyrcanus II, 76-67 B.C.
12. Aristobulus II, 67-63 B.C.
13. Hyrcanus II, 63-40 B.C.
14. Antigonus, 40-37 B.C.

The Jewish High Priests from Herod the Great to the Destruction of Jerusalem

15. Ananel, 37-36 B.C. (Appointed by Herod the Great)
16. Aristobulus III, 35 B.C.
17. Jesus, son of Phiabi, ? -22 B.C.
18. Simon, son of Boethus, 22-5 B.C.
19. Matthias, son of Theophilus, 5-4 B.C.
20. Joseph, son of Elam, 5 B.C.
21. Joezer, son of Boethus, 4 B.C.
22. Eleazar, son of Boethus, 4-1 B.C. – (Appointed by Herod Archelaus)
23. Jesus, son of Sie, 1 – 6 A.D.
24. Annas, 6-15 A.D. (Appointed by Quirinius)
25. Ishmael, son of Phiabi I, 15-16 A.D. (Appointed by Valerius Gratus)
26. Eleazar, son of Annas, 16-17 A.D.
27. Simon, son of Kamithos, 17-18 A.D.
28. Joseph Caiaphas, 18-37 AD.
29. Jonathan, son of Annas, 37 A.D. (Appointed by Vitellius)
30. Theophilus, son of Annas, 37-41 A.D.
31. Simon Kantheras, son of Boethus, 41-43 A.D. (Appointed by Herod Agrippa I)
32. Matthias, son of Annas, 43-44 A.D.
33. Elionaius, son of Kantheras, 44-45 A.D.
34. Joseph, son of Kami, 45-47 A.D. (Appointed by Herod of Chalcis)
35. Ananias, son of Nebedaius, 47-55 A.D.
36. Ishmael, son of Phiabi III, 55-61 A.D. (Appointed by Herod Agrippa II)
37. Joseph Qabi, son of Simon, 61-62 A.D.
38. Ananus, son of Ananus, 62 A.D.
39. Jesus, son of Damnaius, 62-65 A.D.
40. Joshua, son of Gamal iel, 63-65 A.D.
41. Matthias, son of Theophilus, 65-67 A.D.
42. Phinnias, son of Samuel, 67-70 A.D. (Appointed by The People)

Some dates cannot be known for certain.

The Authenticity of the Bible – The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict – Josh McDowell Part 2

Residents look at a massive crack in the ground.

I grew up listening to sermons by Adrian Rogers who was the longtime pastor of Bellevue Church in Memphis.
Adrian Rogers sermon “No other way to heaven except through Jesus” based on Romans chapter one (part 3).
By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 27)

May 17, 2011 – 8:25 am
 
 
I really do wish Kate and William success in their marriage. I hope they truly are committed to each other, and if they are then the result will be a marriage that lasts their whole lifetime. Nevertheless, I do not think it is best to live together before marriage like they did, and I am writing this series to help couples see how best to prepare for marriage.
Michael Foust wrote an excellent article, “‘Living together‘ before marriage a statistical risk  ,” March 26, 2008, Baptist Press, and I wanted share portions of that article with you the next few days.  Here is the second portion: 
 
The number of cohabitating couples has soared in recent decades, from about 439,000 in 1960 to more than 5 million today. About 10 percent of couples who married between 1965 and 1974 lived together before marriage. Today, that number is more than 50 percent. Couples who live together not only are significantly more likely to divorce after marriage, but about 45 percent of them will break up before marriage, studies show. Cohabitation, McManus said, has a high failure rate because it’s based on selfishness. 

“‘If you make me feel loved, then I might marry you. If you make me happy, then I might marry you,'” McManus said. “Love and marriage is an investment, and cohabitation is a gamble. Cohabitation is conditional; marriage is based on permanence. These are radically different psychological premises. True love is selfless — seeking to serve the other person. 

Cohabitation is based on selfishness — ‘How will this relationship satisfy me?'” 

 
____________________________________

 

Tim Hawkins on Bananas – Playground Mishaps

(2/5) Adrian Rogers – No Other Way to Heaven Except Through Jesus

Weekend to Remember – There is Hope

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 26)

May 16, 2011 – 6:55 am
 
Full of joy and not a care in the world: William and Kate smile broadly as they stand arm-in-arm in the official wedding album
 

 

Prince William and Kate moved in together about a year ago. In this clip above the commentator suggested that maybe Prince Charles and Princess Diana would not have divorced if they had lived together before marriage. Actually Diana was a virgin, and it was Charles’ uncle (Louis Mountbatten) that gave him the advice that he should seek to marry a virgin.

I really do wish Kate and William success in their marriage.  Nevertheless, I do not think it is best to live together before marriage like they did, and I am writing this series to help couples see how best to prepare for marriage.

Michael Foust wrote an excellent article, “‘Living together‘ before marriage a statistical risk  ,” March 26, 2008, Baptist Press, and I wanted share portions of that article with you the next few days.  Here is the first portion: 
Does living together before marriage increase the chances for a successful marriage? The answer may surprise some.Between 50 and 60 percent of all marriages begin with the two partners cohabitating, and many of those couples no doubt believe they are making a wise move up front. But living together before marriage actually increases the chances of divorce in a first marriage — 67 percent of cohabitating couples who marry eventually divorce, compared to 45 percent of all first marriages.That and other myth-busting facts form the core of a new book by Mike and Harriet McManus, “Living Together: Myths, Risks & Answers” (Howard Books), with a foreword by Chuck Colson. Co-founders of the organization Marriage Savers, the couple have invested much of their lives trying to help strengthen marriages and push down the divorce rate. 

The biblical warnings against cohabitation, the book says, are affirmed by statistics showing it’s a bad idea. 

“Men and woman cohabitate for different reasons,” Mike McManus said in a conference call discussing the book. “Women see it as a step toward marriage. They think they can audition for this job. Men do it because they like to have the ready availability of sex and having someone share their living expenses. Women should heed their mother’s advice — if you give away the milk, he won’t buy the cow.”

 
______________________________
 

Brad and Amy share their experiences at the Family Life Weekend to Remember conference.

Tim Hawkins-My favorite Bible verse

(1/5) Adrian Rogers – No Other Way to Heaven Except Through Jesus

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 25)

May 15, 2011 – 6:09 am
photo

The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh with Philippa Middleton

The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh and Philippa Middleton appear on the balcony of Buckingham Palace, following the marriage of Prince William and Catherine Middleton in Westminster Abbey, 29 April 2011.

I really do wish Kate and William success in their marriage.  Nevertheless, I do not think it is best to live together before marriage like they did, and I am writing this series to help couples see how best to prepare for marriage.

Albert Mohler wrote an excellent article, ” ‘The Cohabitation Trap’–Why Marriage Matters,” August 16, 2005 and I  wanted to post a portion of it everyday and here is part 4:

What should Christians think of this research?

In the first place, the social evidence as indicated in this research demonstrates what happens when sex and intimacy are decoupled from marriage. In a profound way, this research affirms the integrity of marriage as an institution and should serve to remind Christians that sexual intimacy prior to marriage can only serve to undermine the integrity of the institution and the vows that hold it together. When access to sex is liberated from the responsibilities and commitments of marriage, marriage is inevitably redefined as an option.

 

The very fact that couples who cohabit before marriage have less satisfactory marriages than those who did not points to the basic goodness of marriage and to the importance of marriage as an institution central to human health, happiness, and wholeness.

Wartik gets to the heart of the issue when she suggests that many persons “have different standards for living partners than for life partners.” In essence, that’s the problem. The biblical understanding of marriage begins with the presupposition that life partners and living partners should be one and the same. To suggest otherwise is to miss the entire point of marriage. When Amato explains, “People are much fussier about whom they marry than whom they cohabitate with,” this point is made in vivid terms.

Christians do not base our understanding of marriage and cohabitation on sociological research. Our Creator has defined marriage for us and commanded respect for marriage as a central human responsibility. We know that cohabitation is injurious to marriage precisely because it violates God’s command that sex and marriage are never to be separated. Nevertheless, an article like this serves to remind us that human experience does prove the truthfulness of God’s Word. When the world of social science comes face to face with the reality that cohabitation undermines marriage, the church should take notice.

_________________________________________________

R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. For more articles and resources by Dr. Mohler, and for information on The Albert Mohler Program, a daily national radio program broadcast on the Salem Radio Network, go to www.albertmohler.com . For information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to www.sbts.edu . Send feedback to mail@albertmohler.com .

Tim Hawkins on Parenting

Adrian Rogers – Simplicity of Salvation (4 4)

Here’s a couple who went to a FamilyLife Conference and how it made a difference in their marriage.

Monarchy: The Royal Family at Work_Part 7 of 7

________________________________________

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 24)

May 14, 2011 – 6:34 pm

Prince William and Kate moved in together about a year ago. In this clip above the commentator suggested that maybe Prince Charles and Princess Diana would not have divorced if they had lived together before marriage. Actually Diana was a virgin, and it was Charles’ uncle (Louis Mountbatten) that gave him the advice that he should seek to marry a virgin.

I really do wish Kate and William success in their marriage.  Nevertheless, I do not think it is best to live together before marriage like they did, and I am writing this series to help couples see how best to prepare for marriage.

Albert Mohler wrote an excellent article, ” ‘The Cohabitation Trap’–Why Marriage Matters,” August 16, 2005 and I  wanted to post a portion of it everyday and here is part 3:

Making an observation that would seem obvious to many readers, Wartik suggests that cohabitating couples “may just be less traditional people–less likely to stay in an unhappy marriage in observance of religious beliefs or for the sake of appearances.” Interestingly, William Pinsof, president of the Family Institute at Northwestern University argues, “Those who choose to live together before getting married have a different attitude about marriage to begin with. I think cohabiting is a reflection of that, not a cause of higher divorce rates.”

Wartik describes the debate over cohabitation as “partly a rehash of the values and morals conflicts that tend to become political footballs in America today.” Nevertheless, she insists that all parties must agree that cohabitation is often injurious to children. “Cohabitating relationships, by their nature, appear to be less fulfilling than marital relationships,” she argues. People who cohabit say they are less satisfied and more likely to feel depressed, the result, perhaps, of “the inherent lack of stability” in cohabitating relationships. Wartik then asserts, “As a result, cohabitation is not an ideal living arrangement for children. Emotionally or academically, the children of cohabiters just don’t do as well, on average, as those with two married parents, and money doesn’t fully explain the difference.”

Nancy Wartik concludes her article by suggesting ways that cohabitation can be made less injurious to marriage. Specifically, she suggests that couples should not cohabitate until they have settled the marriage question, preferably by a formal engagement prior to living together.

__________________________

Tim Hawkins – Holding Hands

Adrian Rogers – Simplicity of Salvation (3 4)

Monarchy: The Royal Family at Work_Part 6 of 7

Official royal wedding photo of Prince William, Kate Middleton and childrenOfficial royal wedding photos of Prince William and Kate Middleton -– now the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge — were released on Saturday.

The couple, all smiles for the camera, couldn’t look happier.

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 23)

May 13, 2011 – 11:19 pm

I really do wish Kate and William success in their marriage.  Nevertheless, I do not think it is best to live together before marriage like they did, and I am writing this series to help couples see how best to prepare for marriage.

Albert Mohler wrote an excellent article, ” ‘The Cohabitation Trap’–Why Marriage Matters,” August 16, 2005 and I  wanted to post a portion of it everyday and here is part 2:

Cohabitation prior to marriage serves to undermine, rather than to strengthen the marital bond. Here’s how Wartik summarizes the research: “Couples who move in together before marriage have up to two times the odds of divorce, as compared with couples who marry before living together. Moreover, married couples who have lived together before exchanging vows tend to have poorer-quality marriages than couples who moved in after the wedding. Those who cohabited first report less satisfaction, more arguing, poorer communication and lower levels of commitment.”

Social scientists are alarmed at these findings. Some now believe that cohabitation before marriage undermines the very notion of commitment. As Wartik explains, “The precautions we take to ensure marriage is right for us may wind up working against us.” 

There seem to be two major theories offered as explanations for this phenomenon. Wartik describes the “reigning explanation” as “the inertia hypothesis.” This theory suggests “that many of us slide into marriage without ever making an explicit decision to commit. We move in together, we get comfortable, and pretty soon marriage starts to seem like the path of least resistance. Even if the relationship is only tolerable, the next stage seems to be inevitable.”

The inertia theory suggests that marriage just “happens” to couples who have been cohabitating for some time. Paul Amato, a professor at Penn State University, suggests, “There’s an inevitable pressure that creates momentum towards marriage . . . . I’ve talked to many cohabiting couples and they’ll say, ‘My mother was so unhappy until I told her we were getting married–and then she was so relieved.'” Amato also suggests that issues like shared financial arrangements and shared offspring also build the momentum towards marriage.

The inertia theory may offer considerable insight into the way cohabiting men understand marriage. Some researchers suggest that cohabitating men demonstrate a high level of uncertainty about the relationship and bring that same uncertainty into marriage. Wartik cites a 2004 study by psychologist Scott Stanley that found “that men who had lived with their spouse premaritally were on average less committed to their marriages than those who hadn’t.”

The other major theory suggests that the experience of cohabitation itself weakens the marital bond. As Amato explains, “A couple of studies show that when couples cohabit, they tend to adopt less conventional beliefs about marriage and divorce, and it tends to make them less religious.” As Wartik expands the idea: “That could translate, once married, to a greater willingness to consider options that are traditionally frowned upon–like saying ‘so long’ to an ailing marriage.”

______________________________

Benefits of Attending a Weekend to Remember

Adrian Rogers – Simplicity of Salvation (2 4)

Tim Hawkins talks about Moms

Monarchy: The Royal Family at Work_Part 5 of 7

April 30, 2011 |  2:33 pm
 

Official royal wedding photo of Prince William, Kate Middleton and family

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 22)

May 13, 2011 – 6:56 am

Prince William and Kate moved in together about a year ago. In this clip above the commentator suggested that maybe Prince Charles and Princess Diana would not have divorced if they had lived together before marriage. Actually Diana was a virgin, and it was Charles’ uncle (Louis Mountbatten) that gave him the advice that he should seek to marry a virgin.

I really do wish Kate and William success in their marriage.  Nevertheless, I do not think it is best to live together before marriage like they did, and I am writing this series to help couples see how best to prepare for marriage.

Albert Mohler wrote an excellent article, ” ‘The Cohabitation Trap’–Why Marriage Matters,” August 16, 2005 and I  wanted to post a portion of it everyday and here is part 1:  

Does living together before marriage lead to successful marriages? The very fact that Psychology Today takes up this question in its August 2005 cover story is significant. In essence, the article “The Cohabitation Trap: When ‘Just Living Together’ Sabotages Love,” provides a fascinating look into how secular social science evaluates the question. Written by Nancy Wartik, the article is advertised with the following blurb: “Living together before marriage seems like a smart way to road test the relationship. But cohabitation may lead you to wed for all the wrong reasons–or turn into a one-way trip to splitsville.” Wartik’s article deserves attention, and Christians should be interested to overhear this secular consideration of marriage and its meaning.

Wartik begins the article by describing her own situation–currently married to the man she lived with prior to matrimony. Looking back, she explains her situation: “By then, we were 99 percent sure we’d marry someday–just not without living together first. I couldn’t imagine getting hitched to anyone I hadn’t taken on a test-spin as a roommate. Conjoin with someone before sharing a bathroom? Not likely!”

The logic Wartik describes is shared by millions of Americans. According to her research, nearly five million opposite-sex couples in the United States currently live together without marriage, and millions more have done so at some time in the past. Within just a few years of deciding to live together, most couples either get married or dissolve the relationship.

An amazingly large number of Americans see cohabitation as something of a laboratory for future marriage. Individuals agree to cohabitate, enjoying personal and sexual intimacy, without making the final commitment of marriage. The period of cohabitation amounts to a test-run for marriage. The logic is simple–couples believe that living together will allow them to make an informed and reasonable decision about marriage. 

Nevertheless, the research is now clear. Cohabitation prior to marriage serves to undermine, rather than to strengthen the marital bond. Here’s how Wartik summarizes the research: “Couples who move in together before marriage have up to two times the odds of divorce, as compared with couples who marry before living together. Moreover, married couples who have lived together before exchanging vows tend to have poorer-quality marriages than couples who moved in after the wedding. Those who cohabited first report less satisfaction, more arguing, poorer communication and lower levels of commitment.”

Social scientists are alarmed at these findings. Some now believe that cohabitation before marriage undermines the very notion of commitment. As Wartik explains, “The precautions we take to ensure marriage is right for us may wind up working against us.”

__________________________

Tim Hawkins Things you don’t say to your wife

 

Official royal wedding photos: Prince William, Kate Middleton are all smiles [Poll]

 .

The portraits, taken by their official photographer Hugo Burnand in the Buckingham Palace throne room, include three poses: A romantic image of the couple alone, a cheery ensemble picture of the pair with the children,  

Official royal wedding photo of Prince William, Kate Middleton and one for the family album, featuring the bride and groom with the wedding party, their parents, siblings and of course William’s grandparents, Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip.

 Of course the monarchy in England no longer has the power that it used to. Now the power is with the house of commons. Likewise, in the USA President Obama and the Congress have all the power.

Monarchy The Royal Family at Work Part 4 of 7
  

Adrian Rogers – Simplicity of Salvation (1 4)

Weekend to Remember Story – Dennis Rainey

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

Mike Huckabee to Osama bin Laden: “Welcome to Hell” (Part 8)Woody Allen’s movie “Crimes and Misdemeanors” is a perfect example of why hell the only “enforcement factor”

May 12, 2011 – 9:47 am

Crimes & Misdemeanors (pictured is Judah and his criminal brother, ultimately his brother hires a hitman to take out Judah’s girlfriend who threatens to turn Judah over to the cops)

Crimes & Misdemeanors

Crimes And Misdemeanors 1989 9/13

Adrian Rogers – Crossing God’s Deadline Part 4

crimes & misdemeanors

Best scene of the movie!!!!

_________________________________

John Brummett in his article “Huckabee speaks for bad guy below,” Arkansas News Bureau, May 5, 2011 had to say:

Are we supposed to understand and accept that Mike Huckabee is in hell where he has official duties as a greeter,welcoming Osama bin-Laden?

We all suspect strongly, of course, that bin-Laden will spend eternity in hell, whatever his form and whatever hell’s. But we should not embrace a politician’s seeking electoral gain by dictating and announcing after-life dispositions. Those we should defer to a higher power, whose divine authority no mortal man should dare usurp, even for TV ratings or votes, or both.

I really am uncomfortable with all this kind of lighthearted talk about hell. The traditional Christian view of hell is a very serious doctrine. It is a necessary doctrine and today I want to show why.

I recently read a great article  “Hell:The Horrible Choice,” by Patrick Zukeran of Probe Ministries. Here is a portion:

 Why Hell Is Necessary and Just

Is hell necessary? How is this doctrine consistent with a God of love? These are questions I face when I speak on the fate of unbelievers. The necessity and justice of hell can be recognized when we understand the nature of God and the nature of man.

Hell is necessary because God’s justice requires it. Our culture focuses mostly on God’s nature of love, mercy, and grace. However, God is also just and holy, and this must be kept in balance. Justice demands retribution, the distribution of rewards and punishments in a fair way. God’s holiness demands that He separate himself entirely from sin and evil (Habakkuk 1:13). The author of Psalm 73 struggles with the dilemma of the suffering of the righteous and the prosperity of the wicked. Joseph Stalin was responsible for the death of millions in the Soviet Union, but he died peacefully in his sleep without being punished for his deeds. Since evil often goes unpunished in this lifetime, it must be dealt with at a future time to fulfill God’s justice and holiness.

.
Below you will find a discussion by Anton Scamvougeras on the Movie “Crimes and Misdemeanors.” I think he does a good job of describing everyone’s position in the plot and their worldviews. There are two main problems with his comments. First, in part one he calls Judah a “lazy theist.” Actually he was raised a theist and left his theism behind in college when he became an agnostic or atheist.

Later after having his former girlfriend killed he is convicted by his God-given conscience that he will pay for his sin. His theological views change for a couple of weeks and then when he is not caught his atheism returns for good.

Why did Judah feel guilt? In the Bible Romans chapter one clearly points out that God has revealed Himself through both the created world around us  and also in a God-given conscience that testifies to each person that God exists.
These are the exact two places mentioned by the scripture   Romans 1:18-20 (Amplified version)  

18For God’s [holy] wrath and indignation are revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who in their wickedness repress and hinder the truth and make it inoperative.

    19For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them.

    20For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification].  

What Judah does is reject his conscience and the result was that he embraced his selfish desires. That is also described in this same passage in Romans in the two following verses: 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.  

There is a second problem with the commentary by Anton Scamvougeras. He describes the Godless universe that Allen has pictured as excruciating or exhilarating. The problem I have is the excuse by some people that they do not see the full ramifications of embracing a “Godless universe.” The word “excruciating” is the proper description of that reality. How can the word “exhilarating” be used? Solomon showed us in the first 11 chapters of Ecclesiastes what the world “under the sun” without God in the picture looks like and it forces one to embrace nihilism. (See previous post on this about Solomon’s search.) However, the atheist has to live in the world that God made with the conscience that God gave him. This creates a tension. The agnostic Carl Sagan felt the tension too.

 What does Dr. Sagan have Dr. Arroway say at the end of the movie Contact when she is testifying before Congress about the alien that  communicated with her? See if you can pick out the one illogical word in her statement: “I was given a vision how tiny, insignificant, rare and precious we all are. We belong to something that is greater than ourselves and none of us are alone.”  

Dr Sagan deep down knew that we are special so he could not avoid putting the word “precious” in there. Francis Schaeffer said unbelievers are put in a place of tension when they have to live in the world that God has made because deep down they know they are special because God has put that knowledge in their hearts.We are not the result of survival of the fittest and headed back to the dirt forevermore.

I would love to hear from any atheist that would present a case for lasting meaning in life apart from God. It seems to me that H. J. Blackham was right in his accessment of the predictament that atheists face:

On humanist assumptions [the assumption that there is no God and life has evolved by time and chance alone], life leads to nothing, and every pretense that it does not is a deceit. If there is a bridge over a gorge which spans only half the distance and ends in mid-air, and if the bridge is crowded with human beings pressing on, one after another they fall into the abyss. The bridge leads to nowhere, and those who are pressing forward to cross it are going nowhere. . . It does not matter where they think they are going, what preparations for the journey they may have made, how much they may be enjoying it all . . . such a situation is a model of futility (H. J. Blackham et al., Objections to Humanism (Riverside, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1967).)

Woody Allen’s film does a great job of showing the need for the “enforcement factor.” One reviewer made it sound like the movie was unrealistic and Judah could have smoothtalked his way out of this. However, Woody Allen anticipated this objection and that is why he threw in the illegal financial dealings of Judah that his former girlfriend knew about. Now instead of just losing his marriage he may have to go to jail.

Enjoy the clips below and let me know what you think.

Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1

Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 2

Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 3

Part 3 of 3: ‘Is Woody Allen A Romantic Or A Realist?’

A discussion of Woody Allen’s 1989 movie, Crimes and Misdemeanors

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Mike Huckabee | Comments (2)

Mike Huckabee to Osama bin Laden: “Welcome to Hell” (Part 7)Woody Allen’s movie “Crimes and Misdemeanors” is a perfect example of why hell the only “enforcement factor”

May 12, 2011 – 8:32 am

Crimes And Misdemeanors 1989 7/13

Adrian Rogers – Crossing God’s Deadline Part 3

Crimes And Misdemeanors 1989 8/13

John Brummett in his article “Huckabee speaks for bad guy below,” Arkansas News Bureau, May 5, 2011 had to say:

Are we supposed to understand and accept that Mike Huckabee is in hell where he has official duties as a greeter,welcoming Osama bin-Laden?

We all suspect strongly, of course, that bin-Laden will spend eternity in hell, whatever his form and whatever hell’s. But we should not embrace a politician’s seeking electoral gain by dictating and announcing after-life dispositions. Those we should defer to a higher power, whose divine authority no mortal man should dare usurp, even for TV ratings or votes, or both.

I really am uncomfortable with all this kind of lighthearted talk about hell. The traditional Christian view of hell is a very serious doctrine. It is a necessary doctrine and today I want to show why.

Three thousand years ago, Solomon took a look at life “under the sun” in his book of Ecclesiastes. Christian scholar Ravi Zacharias has noted, “The key to understanding the Book of Ecclesiastes is the term ‘under the sun.’ What that literally means is you lock God out of a closed system, and you are left with only this world of time plus chance plus matter.”

This is the exact thing that Woody Allen does in the movie “Crimes and Misdemeanors.” He envisions a world without God.

Let me show you some inescapable conclusions if you choose to live without God in the picture. Solomon came to these same conclusions when he looked at life “under the sun.”

  1. Death is the great equalizer (Eccl 3:20, “All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return.”)
  2. Chance and time have determined the past, and they will determine the future.  (Ecclesiastes 9:11-13 “I have seen something else under the sun:  The race is not to the swift
       or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise
       or wealth to the brilliant  or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all.  Moreover, no one knows when their hour will come: As fish are caught in a cruel net,
       or birds are taken in a snare, so people are trapped by evil times  that fall unexpectedly upon them.”)
  3. Power reigns in this life, and the scales are not balanced(Eccl 4:1; “Again I looked and saw all the oppression that was taking place under the sun: I saw the tears of the oppressed—
       and they have no comforter; power was on the side of their oppressors—  and they have no comforter.” 7:15 “In this meaningless life of mine I have seen both of these: the righteous perishing in their righteousness,  and the wicked living long in their wickedness. ).
  4. Nothing in life gives true satisfaction without God including knowledge (1:16-18), ladies and liquor (2:1-3, 8, 10, 11), and great building projects (2:4-6, 18-20).

_______________________

Power reigns in this life and the scales are not balanced.

Solomon comes to the realization that powers reigns in this life and the scales are not balanced. Solomon notes, “Again, I observed all the oppression that takes place under the sun. I saw the tears of the oppressed, with no one to comfort them. The oppressors have great power, and their victims are helpless. (Ecclesiastes 4:1).  

People that believe there is no afterlife must concede that Hitler will never face the due punishment for his acts. I am a big Woody Allen movie fan and no other movie better demonstrates Ecclesiastes 4:1 better than the movie CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS because the character Judah was able to get away with murder and in the end of the movie does not fear that God will punish him. 

If you do not have God in the picture then you must come to the same conclusions that Solomon came to and Woody Allen shows that very clearly in his film.

By the way, the final chapter of Ecclesiastes finishes with Solomon emphasizing that serving God is the only proper response of man. Solomon looks above the sun and brings God back into the picture.  I am hoping that Woody Allen will also come to that same conclusion that Solomon came to concerning the meaning of life and man’s proper place in the universe in Ecclesiastes 12:13-14:
13 Now all has been heard;
       here is the conclusion of the matter:
       Fear God and keep his commandments,
       for this is the whole duty of man.

 14 For God will bring every deed into judgment,
       including every hidden thing,
       whether it is good or evil

This is the same conclusion that the article  “Hell:The Horrible Choice,” by Patrick Zukeran of Probe Ministries comes to. Here is a portion:

 Why Hell Is Necessary and Just

Is hell necessary? How is this doctrine consistent with a God of love? These are questions I face when I speak on the fate of unbelievers. The necessity and justice of hell can be recognized when we understand the nature of God and the nature of man.

Hell is necessary because God’s justice requires it. Our culture focuses mostly on God’s nature of love, mercy, and grace. However, God is also just and holy, and this must be kept in balance. Justice demands retribution, the distribution of rewards and punishments in a fair way. God’s holiness demands that He separate himself entirely from sin and evil (Habakkuk 1:13). The author of Psalm 73 struggles with the dilemma of the suffering of the righteous and the prosperity of the wicked. Joseph Stalin was responsible for the death of millions in the Soviet Union, but he died peacefully in his sleep without being punished for his deeds. Since evil often goes unpunished in this lifetime, it must be dealt with at a future time to fulfill God’s justice and holiness.

Notes1. Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics (Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 282.
2. Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian (New York: Touchstone Books, 1957), 17 – 18.
3. Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, ed. Nora Darwin Barlow, with original omissions restored (N.Y.: W. W. Norton, 1993), 87.
4. C. S. Lewis, Screwtape Letters (New York: Macmillan), 69.

 

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Mike Huckabee | Comments (0)

Mike Huckabee to Osama bin Laden: “Welcome to Hell” (Part 6)Woody Allen’s movie “Crimes and Misdemeanors” is a perfect example of why hell the only “enforcement factor”

May 12, 2011 – 7:06 am

Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1

Adrian Rogers – Crossing God’s Deadline Part 2

Mike-huckabee-091710jpg-717e34428c62cd01

Jason Tolbert provided this recent video from Mike Huckabee:

John Brummett in his article “Huckabee speaks for bad guy below,” Arkansas News Bureau, May 5, 2011 had to say:

Are we supposed to understand and accept that Mike Huckabee is in hell where he has official duties as a greeter,welcoming Osama bin-Laden?

We all suspect strongly, of course, that bin-Laden will spend eternity in hell, whatever his form and whatever hell’s. But we should not embrace a politician’s seeking electoral gain by dictating and announcing after-life dispositions. Those we should defer to a higher power, whose divine authority no mortal man should dare usurp, even for TV ratings or votes, or both.

I really am uncomfortable with all this kind of lighthearted talk about hell. The traditional Christian view of hell is a very serious doctrine. It is a necessary doctrine and today I want to show why.

The next few days I will be posting portions of the article “Hell:The Horrible Choice,” by Patrick Zukeran of Probe Ministries. Here is the fifth installment:

 Why Hell Is Necessary and Just

Is hell necessary? How is this doctrine consistent with a God of love? These are questions I face when I speak on the fate of unbelievers. The necessity and justice of hell can be recognized when we understand the nature of God and the nature of man.

Hell is necessary because God’s justice requires it. Our culture focuses mostly on God’s nature of love, mercy, and grace. However, God is also just and holy, and this must be kept in balance. Justice demands retribution, the distribution of rewards and punishments in a fair way. God’s holiness demands that He separate himself entirely from sin and evil (Habakkuk 1:13). The author of Psalm 73 struggles with the dilemma of the suffering of the righteous and the prosperity of the wicked. Joseph Stalin was responsible for the death of millions in the Soviet Union, but he died peacefully in his sleep without being punished for his deeds. Since evil often goes unpunished in this lifetime, it must be dealt with at a future time to fulfill God’s justice and holiness.

Notes1. Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics (Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 282.
2. Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian (New York: Touchstone Books, 1957), 17 – 18.
3. Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, ed. Nora Darwin Barlow, with original omissions restored (N.Y.: W. W. Norton, 1993), 87.
4. C. S. Lewis, Screwtape Letters (New York: Macmillan), 69.Woody Allen’s movie Crimes and Misdemeanors does a great job of showing that if God does not exist then people like Stalin and Hitler were “home free” in that they were never going to be punished for what they did. “Existential subjects to me are still the only subjects worth dealing with. I don’t think that one can aim more deeply than at the so-called existential themes, the spiritual themes.” WOODY ALLEN

Woody Allen’s 1989 movie, CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS , is an excellent icebreaker concerning the need of God while making decisions in the area of personal morality. In this film, Allen attacks his own atheistic view of morality. Martin Landau plays a Jewish eye doctor named Judah Rosenthal raised by a religious father who always told him, “The eyes of God are always upon you.” However, Judah later concludes that God doesn’t exist. He has his mistress (played in the film by Anjelica Huston) murdered because she continually threatened to blow the whistle on his past questionable, probably illegal, business activities. She also attempted to break up Judah ‘s respectable marriage by going public with their two-year affair. Judah struggles with his conscience throughout the remainder of the movie. He continues to be haunted by his father’s words: “The eyes of God are always upon you.” This is a very scary phrase to a young boy, Judah observes. He often wondered how penetrating God’s eyes are.

Later in the film, Judah reflects on the conversation his religious father had with Judah ‘s unbelieving Aunt May at the dinner table many years ago:

“Come on Sol, open your eyes. Six million Jews burned to death by the Nazis, and they got away with it because might makes right,” says aunt May

Sol replies, “May, how did they get away with it?”

Judah asks, “If a man kills, then what?”

Sol responds to his son, “Then in one way or another he will be punished.”

Aunt May comments, “I say if he can do it and get away with it and he chooses not to be bothered by the ethics, then he is home free.”

Judah ‘s final conclusion was that might did make right. He observed that one day, because of this conclusion, he woke up and the cloud of guilt was gone. He was, as his aunt said, “home free.”

Woody Allen has exposed a weakness in his own humanistic view that God is not necessary as a basis for good ethics. There must be an enforcement factor in order to convince Judah not to resort to murder. Otherwise, it is fully to Judah ‘s advantage to remove this troublesome woman from his life.

The Bible tells us, “{God} has also set eternity in the hearts of men…” (Ecclesiastes 3:11 NIV). The secularist calls this an illusion, but the Bible tells us that the idea that we will survive the grave was planted in everyone’s heart by God Himself. Romans 1:19-21 tells us that God has instilled a conscience in everyone that points each of them to Him and tells them what is right and wrong (also Romans 2:14 -15).

It’s no wonder, then, that one of Allen’s fellow humanists would comment, “Certain moral truths — such as do not kill, do not steal, and do not lie — do have a special status of being not just ‘mere opinion’ but bulwarks of humanitarian action. I have no intention of saying, ‘I think Hitler was wrong.’ Hitler WAS wrong.” (Gloria Leitner, “A Perspective on Belief,” THE HUMANIST, May/June 1997, pp. 38-39)

Here Leitner is reasoning from her God-given conscience and not from humanist philosophy. It wasn’t long before she received criticism. Humanist Abigail Ann Martin responded, “Neither am I an advocate of Hitler; however, by whose criteria is he evil?” (THE HUMANIST, September/October 1997, p. 2)

The secularist can only give incomplete answers to these questions: How could you have convinced Judah not to kill? On what basis could you convince Judah it was wrong for him to murder?

As Christians, we would agree with Judah ‘s father that “The eyes of God are always upon us.” Proverbs 5:21 asserts, “For the ways of man are before the eyes of the Lord, and He ponders all his paths.” Revelation 20:12 states, “…And the dead were judged (sentenced) by what they had done (their whole way of feeling and acting, their aims and endeavors) in accordance with what was recorded in the books” (Amplified Version). The Bible is revealed truth from God. It is the basis for our morality. Judah inherited the Jewish ethical values of the Ten Commandments from his father, but, through years of life as a skeptic, his standards had been lowered. Finally, we discover that Judah ‘s secular version of morality does not resemble his father’s biblically-based morality.

Woody Allen’s CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS forces unbelievers to grapple with the logical conclusions of a purely secular morality. It opens a door for Christians to find common ground with those whom they attempt to share Christ; we all have to deal with personal morality issues. However, the secularist has no basis for asserting that Judah is wrong.

Larry King actually mentioned on his show, LARRY KING LIVE, that Chuck Colson had discussed the movie CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS with him. Colson asked King if life was just a Darwinian struggle where the ruthless come out on top. Colson continued, “When we do wrong, is that our only choice? Either live tormented by guilt, or else kill our conscience and live like beasts?” (BREAKPOINT COMMENTARY, “Finding Common Ground,” September 14, 1993)

Later, Colson noted that discussing the movie CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS with King presented the perfect opportunity to tell him about Christ’s atoning work on the cross. Colson believes the Lord is working on Larry King.

(Caution: CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS is rated PG-13. It does include some adult themes.)
By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Mike Huckabee | Comments (0)