Ancient One

Profile

Username:
ancient1
Name:
Ancient One
Location:
Albion, IN
Birthday:
04/09
Status:
Married

Stats

Post Reads:
36,266
Posts:
114
Last Online:
> 30 days ago

My Friends

> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago

Subscribe

Ancient's Times

Religion > He is Risen
 

He is Risen

I lost my faith, in college. I lost it because of a subtle psychological pressure. It was all right to believe in Jesus as a "good and wise" teacher, and elevate Him on an equal plane with Mohammed, who founded the Islamic faith, with Gautama Buddha, who was a prince of India and founded Buddhism, with Confucius of China (more of a political philosopher, really) whose sayings affect so much of that portion of the world – in short, with any respectable founder of a religion.

I could put Jesus in that category, dispense with Him as a "good and wise teacher," be accepted and get my intellectual wings. But to hold to the belief that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and thus super-natural was simply not acceptable. Parenthetically, I might comment that there is a current hour-long advertisement on television for tape sales, telling you the origin of all religions.

It starts in Egypt, but they never go to Sumer where the religions started that flowed to Egypt (and they never got to Babylon). Still, there is no one with any sense that denies the influence of Egypt on both the Hebrews and the Greeks. Cyrus Gordon settled that.
But in this ad some portly little guy sits there, and some suave, slick-coifed tamed TV evangelist-looking guy sits there, and they tell you how all religions started, and then they make an oblique reference to the 16 crucified saviors – which can't be found in the implication of the analogy drawn.

It's just another example of the current "ecumenical approach to religion" – the religion of no religion (as it was called by one of my professors in Comparative Religion at Stanford) because all religions (they say) have "the same root." That approach came at me, persuasively suggesting that I was not intelligent until I graduate from this "primitive" attitude toward Christ as the super-natural, divine Son of God and instead accept Him as but another expression, another founder, in the stream of common religiousness; thus reduced to simply a "good and wise teacher."

The only problem with the intellectual substitute for a faith in a supernatural Christ, namely just a "good and wise teacher," is that He can't be either one unless He is both.
To be good, you have to tell what's true. You can be insane, you can be a nut, and honestly believe something that's dead wrong, and be good – but not wise. To be wise, you've got to be right; to be good, you've got to be honest, and "their" Jesus could be good but not wise, wise but not good, but definitely not both. Why?

In any source that you have for Jesus in history, if you are going to call him good and wise, you are going to go to his sayings and you are going to go to his actions. I don't restrict the source to the Gospels, even though that is where most of the opponents of a supernatural Christ go as they hunt and peck and pull certain verses out to illustrate his life and sayings, even highlighting them in red on television.

You can go behind the Gospels. There is a hypothetical "Q" document. One of the early church fathers said that Matthew wrote down the sayings of Christ as he traveled with Him, not in Greek but in his native language, Aramaic. We know his Gospel was written most likely at Antioch and written in Greek. This "Sayings of Jesus," written in Aramaic, may have been a common source for the Gospels. Those who can read Greek see changes in style in sections of the Gospels, and can reconstruct these sections to propose a source used by all three of the Synoptic Gospel writers, Matthew, Mark and Luke (particularly Matthew and Luke).

Most modern scholars regard Mark as written first, because we can see again in the change of style when Matthew and Luke copy Mark. The most persuasive "common source" behind the Synoptic Gospels is called the hypothetical "Q" Document (from the German word for "source"). You can even go to the ancient songs, the earliest fragments. Still, wherever you encounter Jesus doing something or saying something, attached to every one of those records will be a saying by Christ or a projection of a self-image that He has of Himself that precludes calling Him "good and wise" because you will find one or more of the following in every source:

1. He thought he was perfect.
It doesn't matter whether he was, he thought he was. Carlysle says the greatest of all sins is to be conscious of none. There's nothing as despicable as a person who thinks he's never made a mistake. That conscious, self-righteous, perfectionist image is not something we respond to, because the wisdom of mankind combines in the knowledge that nobody's perfect.

Now the issue is not whether Jesus was perfect; we just don't make saints of people who think they're perfect. The record of people used by God seeing themselves as not perfect goes throughout the whole Old Testament – "I am not worthy of the least of Thy mercies – Who am I that I should lead forth the children of Israel? – I am but a child. I cannot speak."
Always the criterion of acceptance by God and acceptance by man is that conscious attitude of imperfection. Holy men are aware of the distance they are from God. There was only one man in the whole kingdom who saw God; in the year King Uzziah died, Isaiah was the only man who saw God sitting on a throne high and lifted up – that means he was above everybody. His first words were: "Woe is me; I am undone."

We just don't make saints of people who think they're perfect – but Jesus thought he was. Everywhere you meet him, he projects that. He judges other people: "whitened sepulchers;" "strain out a gnat and swallow a camel." He looks at the most righteous people of the day and puts them down. The reason that no man ought to judge, and anyone who is a judge should have this sensitive conscience, is that it's hard to judge your fellow man because we know way down deep we have the same kinds of faults.

But Jesus never had any sense of imperfection. He changed the Law, saying, "You have heard it said unto you, but behold I say," and then, self-righteously with a consciousness of moral perfection, says, "Think not that I have come to destroy the Law. I am come to fulfill it."

There is one possible exception to that, when the rich young ruler came to him and said, "Good Master." He stopped him and said, "Why callest thou me good?" Those that want to talk about Jesus not thinking he was perfect point to that verse; they miss the rest of it, because Jesus said to him, "Wait a minute. Don't come and call me good rabbi, good teacher. If you are going to call me good, also recognize that only God can be good, so don't tap the appellation on to me without recognizing that I am also God."
He had that sense of moral perfection; no sense of a moral inadequacy is ever exhibited anywhere in his behavior.

2. He seated all authority in himself.
He even said he had all authority: "You build on what I say, you build on a rock. You build on anything else, you build on sand. All authority in heaven and earth is given to me."
Again to point to the other illustration used, He said concerning the law (generations of approval had been placed on it): "You have heard it said unto you, but behold I say..." He pronounced judgment without a flicker.
Now, we don't make saints of people like that. We ask the criteria, "On what do you base this authority?" He based it on himself: "Behold, I say unto you..."

3. He put himself at the center of the Religious Universe.
He went further and put himself at the center of the religious universe. Jesus didn't come preaching a doctrine or a truth apart from himself. He said, "I'm the way. I'm the truth. I'm the life. By me if any man enter in... I am the door of the sheepfold. He that hateth not father, mother, wife, children, brother, sister, yea, and his own life also, taketh up his cross and come after me, cannot be My disciple." He made your relationship with him, putting him the center of the religious universe, the determinative of all religious benefits.

4. He talked of the Eternal from the inside.
There is a certain frame-of-reference of familiarity with your home. For example, I may matter-of-factly say, "The couch in my office at home is brown. You don't ask, "How do you know?" We speak of home with "inside knowledge" and it comes across that way. We don't argue; we expect to be believed. That's the frame-of-reference Jesus projects when he talks about eternity. Matter-of-factly, he says, "I'm going back. I'm going to prepare a mansion for you. And after a while, I'll come back and get you and take you there."
He says again, matter-of-factly: "Before Abraham, I was." Or, again, "I saw Satan cast down." Or, again, "There is joy in heaven by the angels when a sinner repents." He projected and would have us believe he had "inside knowledge" of eternity and pre-earthly existence before and after "inside" the heavens with God.

5. He would die, a ransom.
He said something's wrong with the whole world that could only be set right by him dying, a "ransom" in the context where his hearers knew exactly what a ransom was. The ransom was what you paid to restore a lost inheritance, to deliver someone destined to death because of their error. It was the price paid to redeem from the consequences of falling short, doing something wrong, losing an inheritance – and the ransom restored you to that which had been lost. He said the whole world was lost, and he came to die and pay the price of ransom, to redeem them.

6. He would raise again.
He said he would raise again (there was more than that, but I'm choosing very selectively just a few), that when he died, he would raise from the dead.

Now, if I, the Pastor, walked up to the podium at the Cathedral and picked up the microphone and said "All authority in heaven and earth is given unto me," you would think, maybe Pastor means he's going to quote, "that into my hands has been delivered this word of God to preach with authority." So you might check that one off, that maybe this is the Pastor emphasizing the authority of the Word that he is reading from.

But if then I went on and said, as though talking to God: "Here I am, Father. I have done all you sent me to do. There are no flaws in me, no imperfections. The law doesn't bother me, I have fulfilled it," and started claiming a perfection like Jesus did, you would start backing up and start looking with sympathy toward Mrs. Scott. And if I further went on to say, "Your eternal destiny is dependent upon putting me in the center of your life and making me your master," by then I would have been interrupted or viewed as "off my rocker." I don't think I would have even gotten to what I didn't include here, that I would have you think that I was a denizen of eternity.

And what if I were to stand up here and say, not in spiritual terms but expecting to be believed? – "Before Abraham was I was. You know, that guy that came out of Ur; I was there. I saw Satan when he was cast out before Adam was ever born."
And then I would talk about heaven with a familiarity with which we talk about our homes. If I tell you the couch in my home is beige, and you say, "How do you know?," I'm going to reply, "Because I live there!" But I'm claiming that kind of familiarity with heaven! You put people in a nut house that talk like that! And then if I would say that I was somehow a ransom for the world, then, someone help my wife lay hands on me before I'm a "goner."
Will you please stop to realize that this proclaimer of impossible things about himself is the only kind of Christ who walked around on the stage of history and is the only one you can find in the sources. You don't find other religious founders doing or saying these things that Jesus said! Buddha never thought he was perfect; he struggled with the essence of tanya, which was their meaning for that corrupt desire that produces sin. He sought the way of the sensual release; he sought the way of the aesthetic yogi, and neither one worked. He came to the eight-fold path that brought him into a trance-like state where he lost conscious identity with this life, called nirvana. And when he came out of that state, he offered those who followed him the eight-fold path, and all he would say is, "It worked for me. Try it; it will work for you."

He never thought all authority was seated in him. Instead, he told his disciples (and it's part of their tri-part basket of scriptures) that he wasn't worthy to lead them. All he left them was the way that worked for him. No assumption of authority seated in him. He never thought he was the center of the religious universe. "The Way" worked, his eight-fold path. Same with all the others.

Mohammed never thought he was perfect. He was God's – Allah's – prophet. He had visions of eternity that impressed the desert man, but he never claimed to have been there. He never died a ransom for anybody. He had a criteria for authority: God revealed it to him in a vision. Jesus never pointed to a vision like the prophet who would say, "The Lord said..." Jesus said, "I say..." Confucius did a logical analysis of society, and he pointed to that external analysis as his authority.

None of the other leaders made themselves the center of the religious universe, seated authority in themselves, had a consciousness of perfection about themselves, claimed an identity with eternity before and after their temporary stay here on earth. None of these traits attached to or are claimed by the other respected founders of a religion. That's why you can respect them as "founders."

With Jesus, you've got what C. S. Lewis called the "startling alternate." Either He thought these things were true, but was too stupid to know it's impossible for a man to make these claims, and thus he could not be wise, or he was wise in knowing these things weren't true, but was capable of duping his followers because of self-serving motives into believing that about him, and that makes him not good. The conclusion is, that those who say he was a "good and wise teacher" reveal they have never really taken the time to encounter the only Christ that ever walked the stage of history.

You must either view Christ as one who considered himself of the order of a poached egg, or you take him for what he says he is, and if He is God, then He is perfect, and authority does rest in Him, and He is the center of the religious universe, and He did have the qualities necessary to die as a ransom for the whole world. He did have a knowledge of eternity, and He will (and did) rise again.

You can't put Jesus in the "good and wise" bland teacher package and forget about Him. He is either a nut or a fake, or He is what He claimed to be.

Well, when I came to that crossroad, I decided I would settle it for myself. The issue revolves around this fact of history. Jesus said, to some who wanted a sign, "I'll give you one." There's only one guaranteed sign on which faith can be built. God has at times gone beyond this guarantee, but the only sign that God guaranteed to vindicate His truth was the sign of Jonah, interpreted by Jesus to be the death and the resurrection of Christ.
At one point in the vast flow of history, a FACT emerges. God deigned to move into this tent of human flesh, fulfill the law that it might become incarnate, chose then to die in our place as the price of redemption, namely the fulfilled law that He might raise again and adopt us into a family with His new life without the burden of the law, that was but a school teacher to teach us our need of God's delivering power.

That He moved onto the stage of history is the claim of Christianity, and He vindicated Himself with a FACT that can be analyzed. Now it is a FACT there is no such thing as historic certainty. I learned that while doing my undergraduate major in history. "Historic Certainty" means every conceivable piece of evidence is there. That which you can conceive as possible evidence must be there to have historic certainty. The moment an event is past, and no more, you have lost the eyewitness ability to see it. Cameras help, but there is an element gone, so all historic certainty by definition is relative. All you can hope for is psychological certainty, where exposure to the relevant facts of history that are available produces a reaction psychologically, and that reaction is impossible not to have.

Any smart attorney knows that in a courtroom, there isn't an attorney that says something and the judge rebukes him, that the attorney knows before he said it that he shouldn't have said it; he wants the jury to hear it. And the judge bawls out the attorney, and he says, "Yes, your honor," and plays his little meek role. He knows exactly what he is doing. And then the judge pontifically looks over at the jury and says, "Discard that from your consideration." Okay, BANG! That's about the only way you can discard it; it's in there. And you see and hear and feel, and whatever else the evidence, you still have a reaction.
God vindicated His Son by the Resurrection.

Paul comes to Mars Hill; the philosophers are gathered there trying to consider all the gods, so worried they will miss one that they have a monument to the Unknown God. He seizes on that as a lever to talk about Christ. He says, "I'll tell you who the Unknown God is," and preaches Christ, whom he said God ordained by the resurrection. Paul said if there is no resurrection, our faith is vain, and we are found false witnesses of God, as we have testified of Him that He raised up the Christ.

The first message of the church was the one Peter preached on the day of Pentecost, "This Jesus whom ye know..." And he named the fact that they knew Him crucified; that they also knew. Then he testified of that which they didn't know, "This Jesus hath God raised up of whom we all are witnesses," and he introduced that vindicating fact. Paul says in one of his speeches, "He was seen and He was seen," and he catalogues the witnesses and comes to the cluster he says, "...to above five hundred brethren at once."

In those days, you could assemble eyewitnesses; not today. But like any other historic fact, from who wrote Shakespeare to Julius Caesar's existence, you can look for the FACT of history on which Christianity is based, namely: Jesus came out of the tomb.

And I will say, to set the frame, that if any person listening came in to the Cathedral making the claims Jesus made about themselves, I would offer the suggestion that they should submit to psychoanalysis and go to a hospital – unless I could see a twinkle in their eyes, that they were putting me on – because no mortal man can make these claims. But if with the claims that person said, "Slay me and in three days I'll come out of the tomb and sail off into the blue," and three days later that same person came out of the tomb and sailed off into the blue, I'd take another look at the one making the claims. I don't need anything else as a basis for my faith; I don't need all the fancy philosophic trinitarian doctrines. This resurrected one, if it happened, is my starting point for a personal and real God.

If I can find on the stage of history the One whose words I can spend my life researching, who was perfect, the center of all authority, the center of the religious universe, and all of these things, including having redeemed me, raised and prepared mansions in eternity, that's all the God I need. I start right there.


THE ISSUE IS: DID HE COME OUT OF THE TOMB?

You won't settle that by thinking about it; you research it. Now, to research anything you have to get a foundation in facts. Most people are fuzzy-minded; they argue a resurrection didn't occur because it can't occur, and anybody who says it did must be lying. Any other fact, you research it.

If you're going to ask, "Did Scott preach this message within an hour on this specific Sunday?" you've got to assume that I was here and that I preached at all. You've got to assume that the Cathedral exists. You've got to assume that that Sunday came and went. We don't have to discuss that; we take those facts for granted when determining if the message was less than an hour. Before we argue whether I preached an hour (or more), let's at least agree that I preached. You don't have to agree whether it was good or bad, but that I was here and my mouth moved and said things. That's known as the frame-of-reference – what's taken for granted.

And if someone says "Wow, I don't believe you were there!," then stop with debating clocks. It's much easier to prove I was here than to prove how long I preached, because you don't yet know when I started. Was it the preliminary remarks? Was it the first mark on the board? That's more debatable, but to prove whether I was here at all or not, that's a little easier.

You need to approach the Resurrection the same way. There are certain facts that have to be assumed before you discuss the Resurrection. One is, did Jesus live at all? Why are we talking about whether He raised if we don't believe He lived? There was a time that was debated; not much anymore. For purposes of today and any meaningful discussion of the Resurrection, you've got to at least assume:

Fact 1. That Jesus lived.

If you don't believe that... Do you agree that it's probably easier to prove that He lived somewhere sometime than that He died and rose again? Do you agree with that? So give me the easier task. "Well, I'm not sure He lived, so don't give me that Resurrection bit." I have more time to do other things than that. Don't get into any argument about the Resurrection with somebody who doesn't believe Jesus lived. That's easy to prove; until that's crossed, don't get to the next one:

Fact 2. That He was crucified at the instigation of certain Jewish religious leaders in Jerusalem.

Roman authorities ordered and carried out the execution.
At the instigation of certain Jewish leaders (not all the Jews, they weren't to blame for that, His Disciples were Jews, just certain Jewish leaders), the Romans carried out the execution. Unless you believe that, there's no sense going to the Resurrection. The crucifixion's much easier to prove than the Resurrection.

Fact 3. That He was considered dead.

Notice I say considered dead, because a few people believe He recovered from the grave – resuscitated. He was considered dead: pierced with a sword, taken down from the cross, taken to a grave. Of course, one theorist has come up with a concoction that Jesus practiced this, and had people take Him to the grave knowing He was going to come out. He practiced on Lazarus first (so goes the theory) but of course Lazarus was stinking before He started practicing. Some of the theories stretch the brain more than just accepting the Resurrection, but at least He was considered dead. If you don't believe that, discussing the Resurrection is premature.

Fact 4. He was buried in a known, accessible tomb.

People of that day, and particularly the Jewish and Roman leaders who participated in the crucifixion events, knew where the tomb was and could get to it. You couldn't get into it because of the rock and guards, but the tomb's location was known and accessible.

Fact 5. He was then preached raised.

I'm at this point not saying He raised, but He was preached raised, that the tomb was empty, and that Jesus ascended. It's important to remember that the whole preachment included: empty tomb; raised from the dead; and ascending into heaven. All three of those claims were preached.

Now, if you don't believe He was preached with all those claims, I'm doing it today: But He was preached early on and in the same city where He was killed! If you don't believe that (that this series of claims were preached), that's easier to prove than the Resurrection.


Fact 6. The Jewish leaders who instigated the crucifixion were more interested in disproving His Resurrection than we would be today.

Common sense will tell you the Jewish leaders who instigated the crucifixion had more interest in disproving the Resurrection than someone 2,000 years removed, considering it intellectually with a lot of skepticism mixed in, because the Jewish leaders' reputations and bread and butter and lives were at stake. If they instigated His crucifixion, accusing Him of trying to set up a kingdom and accusing Him of blasphemy, and then all of a sudden it's true that He raised from the dead, they are going to be looking for new jobs. So common sense says they had more psychological interest in disproving the theory, and would put themselves out a little more than most people on an Easter Sunday would.

Fact 7. The Disciples were persecuted because of preaching the claims of His Resurrection.

They were horribly persecuted because of this preaching, starting with those Jewish leaders who first persecuted them – first they called them liars, then said they stole the body away. The whole Book of Acts tells of the Disciples' persecution for preaching the Resurrection.
Later, centuries later, Christians in general became a target for the evils in the Roman Empire and became scapegoats, and were punished for other reasons, but every record agrees that the earliest persecutions would have stopped immediately if the Disciples had quit preaching this Resurrection message, and the Ascension of Jesus. That's why they were persecuted, because the Jewish leaders had their reputations at stake. Thus,

Fact 8. The tomb was empty.

All this leads to the fact, common sense says, if the Jewish leaders who instigated the crucifixion (Fact 2), having the extra interest because their livelihood was at stake (Fact 6); and if He was buried in a known, accessible tomb (Fact 4), they would have gone immediately to that tomb and discovered the body. Therefore, it is axiomatic that the tomb was empty. The tomb became meaningless because it was empty! Centuries went by and the tomb was lost to history, because there was no body in it! Then, when the "relic period" began to grow, people got interested in his tomb, in which there had been no interest because there was no body in it, and tried to find it. And the whole church world still fights today over the classical site of the ancient historic churches, and Gordon's tomb that most of the Protestants identify with, just off from the bus station below the escarpment of a rock called "Golgotha" that has an Arab cemetery on top. The fight occurred because the tomb was lost to history; there was no body in it.

Now, these facts are easier to demonstrate than the Resurrection, but unless these facts are accepted, you can't deal with all the theories about the Resurrection. For example, the preaching has been so effective that all through the centuries people have come up with theories to explain it. Now, the reason that I do this every Easter is that I try to demonstrate that you don't have to park your brains at the door of the church when you come in, intelligent analysis is in order.

You don't just make people believe, but if you expose yourself to evidence, something happens inside and there will be a psychological reaction. My quarrel with people who deny the Resurrection and live a life style that pays no attention to it, is that I can ask them 15 questions and find they haven't spent 15 hours of their life looking at evidence for it.
If the Resurrection is true, this is the center of the universe. If the Resurrection is true, this is the central fact of history. You have to be a fool among all fools of mankind to think it's not worth at least 30 hours of study in your whole life. Furthermore, there are many intelligent people in the world who have looked and come away convinced.



Before get started I need to say a few things. I have been consistent in trying to bring in my own research and a different set of eyes to the Scriptures. I could have taken the thirty-plus years of Dr. Gene Scott's teaching, not done any of my own homework, and just delivered the proofs of the Resurrection in a way that's already been presented to you. I really wrestled with this, but even though I'm keeping in line with Dr. Scott's style, I will take some liberties today. So before anyone says that I don't give credit where credit is due, I first acknowledge the man Dr. Gene Scott. It doesn't bother me what the world thinks him, I only care what God thinks of him. And when I think of him, I remember not only the person who helped me understand the gospel message, but also the man who got me back into church.

So let's get started. It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that some people are just too bad to be saved and the gospel message is not for them. But, with my own eyes I have seen the power of God take someone who has lived a life of crime; has committed a crime; or been party to something that's put them in that darkened condition behind bars. Only the power of God can enter in and Resurrect and put new life into an emptied vessel like that. So when I talk to you about the Resurrection, I want you to remember that Jesus Christ died for every single person -- He bought the whole field. He paid the price for EVERYBODY, and this church exists to proclaim that truth. So for those people who are so self righteous they cannot believe that Jesus can save whom He will, please realize that this church is not for you. The church exists to proclaim the message: HE IS RISEN.

I want us to look at the proofs for the Resurrection, but first if you remember earlier, I looked at the seven signs in the gospel of John. If you haven't listened to that message, I urge you to. It will help you catch up to where I am today. The seven signs in the gospel of John are each a "type" of the life of a believer. Let's just quickly review them:

1) The filling of the waterpots, the marriage at Cana, represents the life of the believer. A life that goes from being emptied to being filled with joy.

2) The nobleman's son close to death. The second sign is we pass from death to life. "I am the life."

3) The third sign, the man who waited at that pool for 38 years. Jesus is the good Shepherd, we rise to light to walk in newness of life with Him.

4) The fourth sign, feeding the five thousand. He says, "I am the bread of life." In the life of the believer, Christ is the all sufficient supply.

5) The fifth sign, Jesus walking on the water. His followers are in a storm. How it truly reads in the Greek is: "I am, be not afraid," representing that He is with us in the storms. Jesus didn't say, "I am, be not afraid, and by the way I'll take away all the storms for the rest your life..." No, he just said, "I am, be not afraid." In other words "I'm with you no matter what."

6) The sixth sign, the man born blind, "I am the light." He gives sight to those of us who could not see or discern spiritually. He gives us sight.

7) And the seventh one, raising Lazarus from the dead. This is a type of the Resurrected life for the believer.

8) And when we get to the eighth sign, New Beginnings, when Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

Our approach will be to look at the eighth sign first. We will examine whether or not Jesus truly rose from the dead, because if He didn't rise from the dead, then why are we even here talking about the rest of it?

#1 JESUS THOUGHT HE WAS PERFECT.
How many of you have ever met someone who thinks they're perfect? You know the type: "I know everything. I know-it-all. You can't tell me anything..." Well, Jesus thought He was perfect. In fact some of the claims that He makes about Himself caused me to scratch my head. Take the so-called Lord's Prayer. Now what most people call the "Lord's Prayer" is actually the Disciples' Prayer. Remember, when Jesus spoke to His disciples, He said, "When YOU pray..." Jesus didn't pray that prayer. He couldn't, because He didn't need forgiveness. In fact, in one of the Gospels, He simply says, "I am the Christ." Now we're not talking about "I am Jesus," but "I am the Christ," which by interpretation would be the anointed one of God. It's a potent proclamation.

Jesus made some pretty staggering claims about Himself. Understand that only God can claim perfection. When we matriculate through the Old Testament, we read about the perfect sacrifice, we read about everything that must be in accordance with the Scriptures that are being fulfilled with the Christ, the Savior. And it requires Him to be perfect. Now I'm not telling you at this point that I think Jesus is perfect. I'm only going to tell you what He said. And He said He was perfect.

However, read your Bible and you'll see it doesn't show off a bunch perfect people. At the beginning, Abraham says, "I am not worthy of the least of thy mercies." You come to Moses, and he says, "Who am I?" And then David says, "Who I am and what is my life?" And then you get to Isaiah and he says, "Woe is me, I am a man of unclean lips."

Go and read God's Book and you'll find that every single man and woman chosen by God had this "imperfect" mindset about them. In fact, most of those called by God were reluctant and didn't even want to step up to the plate because they knew their imperfections and saw themselves as flawed vessels. That God would deign to use any of these imperfect people gives us all hope.

So from the Old Testament frame of reference, you'll find that Jesus is the only one that makes that claim of perfection.

#2 JESUS PLACES ALL AUTHORITY IN HIMSELF.
If you read the Scriptures through the Old Testament you won't find anyone making these kinds of claims. Jesus said: "No one comes to the Father except by me." I mentally picture a bouncer guarding the door when I hear Him say that. "You aren't getting in here unless you come by me."

I want you see that taking that stance alone is radical. Someone claiming the authority to determine who makes it into heaven? Someone making the claim of: "I am the door and if you want to get in you'd better come in this way. If you want access to the Father, you come by me and if you come by any other way you're a thief and a robber." These are staggering claims, yet this is the Jesus we encounter in the Scriptures.

I don't have time here to itemize the abundant Scripture of everything Jesus declares about himself, but suffice it to say, if all these things He claims about himself are true, then we have an interesting dilemma.

#3 JESUS SPOKE OF ETERNITY FROM THE INSIDE OUT.
He spoke of Heaven as if He was there from the beginning. Now the King James messes up the translation when Jesus says, "Before Abraham was, I was," it does NOT say, "I was." The actual translation is, "I am." This is important because the mistranslation "I was" makes it sound past tense. Jesus says, "I always was," essentially by saying, "I am." "Before Abraham was, I am." This is a declaration by someone claiming they had been there from the beginning. John's gospel captures this by saying, "In the beginning was the Word, and now the Living Word took up the tent of human flesh and dwelt among us."

So what about eternity? Well a few of the prophets had glimpses of eternity revealed to them, but none could make the claim, "I was there at the beginning." But in regards to eternity, the one I like is where Jesus says that He saw Satan fall. Now if any person in the present day came up to me and said, "I saw Satan cast out of Heaven..." I'd be thinking, "Ok, this person has gone off the deep end." In fact, if any of us met a person today making these claims about himself, we'd have to figure this person had gone off the deep-end. Yet Jesus made these claims about Himself and with certainty and boldness.

#4 JESUS SEATED HIMSELF AT THE CENTER OF THE RELIGIOUS UNIVERSE.
You'll find that in every claim He is at the epicenter. Every claim is "I am." "I am the light," "I am the truth," "I am the way," "I am the door." Have you ever chronicled all of these "I ams" in Scripture? I took the time this week to go through every time Jesus says, "I am."

The gospel record reveals that Jesus saw Himself through and through as "I am." When God revealed Himself to Moses and said, "I am," God was reviewing natures and dimensions of Himself through time that would be fully revealed in Christ from that "I am" statement in Exodus up until the Book of Revelation, which keeps categorizing and cataloging all the "I ams" of our Lord Jesus.

#5 JESUS SAID THERE WAS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE WORLD THAT ONLY HIS DEATH COULD FIX.
There's a messiah complex for you. If you really follow this line of thinking that only by His death could He fix what was broken, the question becomes, what was broken?

I was trying to explain to somebody earlier in the week how we are not born in the image of God. We're born the image of Adam. It took the first Adam to plunge humanity into darkness and it took the last Adam, Jesus Christ, to remove that which hindered us is from our communion with God. We are now able to get close to God again. As Paul so aptly puts it in the book of Ephesians, "Only by His death could He fix a broken, dying world."

Now let me tell you something. The apostle Paul was right, "If Christ be not risen, then our faith is in vain."

#6 JESUS' DEATH WAS A RANSOM
Following through the line of the Old Testament, there's a picture being painted from the Kinsman Redeemer to the Paschal Lamb. There are concepts of redemption and ransom. It's as though something was being held, and the sufficient price needed to be paid to release the whole of humanity residing in captivity.

#7 THE SCRIPTURES MUST BE FULFILLED
I'm going to add one here. This claim is staggering: "The Scriptures must be fulfilled." And for the Scriptures to be fulfilled, He had to go to Jerusalem and die. It also requires that He be the perfect sacrifice.

If you take it time to analyze how many different fulfillments of Scripture must be met perfectly, not just a sort of, "ok that's close enough. No, the fulfillments must be met Perfectly. Not only must Jesus be who He said He is, but if we can't rest with certainty on the fulfillment of Scriptures, then it calls into question the rest of the Old Testament. Remember, these writers lived different intervals of hundreds of years while writing their messages. These messages became canonized as the Bible. How would these people writing at different intervals know that the Scripture must be fulfilled in Christ?

So He made this claim: "The Scriptures must be fulfilled."

#8 JESUS SAID HE WOULD RAISE FROM THE DEAD
Jesus said that on the third day He would raise up from the dead. Now that one is maybe the most difficult, but not so terrible to accept if you understand that all of these seven signs were a preparation for the eighth, leading a believer from beginning to end and then on to life eternal.

I love the passage where He talks about "This Temple will be destroyed and in three days be raised up," and they thought He was a lunatic because no one could understand that He was talking about Himself. Preposterous claims to make, ridiculous claims.

I know that many people will say that the claims Jesus made about Himself are so preposterous that He's describing the traits of a madman. You new-timers, don't get mad at me. I still remember listening as best as I could when Dr. Gene Scott said, "Jesus is either a fraud or nut." I was steaming mad because I didn't know where his message was going and where it would end up. But when I heard him talk about the possibility that Jesus was either a fraud or a nut, I wanted to get up and leave. The first time one hears of that possibility it's disconcerting.

But, don't get mad. Follow where I'm going with this. If you look at all these claims Jesus made, you must first settle the fact, that Jesus actually lived. This is my favorite point in every single Dr. Scott message when he says, "Don't talk to me about the Resurrected Christ unless you're ready to settle the fact that Jesus actually lived, because if He didn't live, then, we don't have anything to talk about regarding his Resurrection." Are you arguing about somebody who rose from the dead that never lived? Brilliant. You must first settle the fact that Jesus lived.

There are abundant proofs about Jesus' life. We can even go to heathen historians, and this is what I find fascinating: I was not there when Julius Caesar reigned. I was not there when Alexander the Great conquered the then known world. I was not there for any of these, and yet we open up a book penned by heathen historians to chronicle these events and we take it at face value. A person as young as Alexander the Great conquering the entire then known world? Hard to believe but we don't question it. Yet when it comes to chronicling the life of Jesus, many people scream, "Where's the proof?"

Well, I know people say if you read Tacitus, there's a little sprinkling about Jesus and if you read Josephus there's a little over there, and we have to take it on the word of Julius Africanus from about 220 AD. Well there are plenty of people that wrote about this Jesus. And in the Jewish realm, if you talk to scholars today, many will not deny or debate the Jewish tradition that Jesus lived. In fact, even if you talk to people of the Islamic faith, they'll say Jesus lived, but he's just a prophet in the order of Mohammed.

So, let's suppose that Jesus lived. Let's just go through the whole list of things.

1) He supposedly lived,
2) He was supposedly crucified. Supposedly by Roman leaders, Jewish leaders. If Jesus lived, we also must chronicle that He died.
3) He had to have been considered dead. For all of us to talk about His Resurrected life, we have to consider that He was considered dead. That's not to say that necessarily He was dead, but that He had to be considered dead.

I'm trying to get you away from the emotional: "Ask me how I know He lives, He lives within my heart..." Too emotional and subjective. I'm going to give you the proof.

In the recorded times among Jewish law, you had to be three days dead to be certifiably dead. This is why the three days and three nights are hugely important. This is why in the raising of Lazarus, Jesus waited until the fourth day. When she said he stinketh by now (talking about Lazarus) it was important, because no one would debate in the Jewish realm that a Resurrection had occurred, seeing that this man had been dead four days.

So we have Jesus lived, He was crucified and considered dead. Next on the list:

4) He was buried in a known and accessible tomb. That's another staggering thing. Every time the empty tomb is discussed there's this mysterious person that magically appears very late in the record -- Joseph of Arimathaea. You realize this in John 19. Now, John has 21 chapters and Joseph of Arimathaea, well he just appears on the scene at that moment in time and it says he was a secret disciple. A secret disciple? All right. We know why, because he was a member the Sanhedrin and if it were to be made known he was a follower and a ‘secret disciple' of Jesus it would have been bad for him.

This is important, because it is the fact of Joseph of Arimathaea providing the tomb (which was accessible and known) that will bust apart many other theories later on. Joseps of Arimathaea is a key person in the equation to determining whether or not Jesus raised up from the dead.

5) Jesus was preached raised, ascended and there was an empty tomb. Not just preached raised, but preached raised, ascended and that there was an empty tomb. Comb the gospel records and you'll find that at every intersection where Jesus is being proclaimed, they're not simply speaking about His Resurrection, but that He RAISED, ASCENDED and the EMPTY TOMB. And the paramount fact to prove this, is that if the disciples only preached that He was raised from the dead and omitted to preach the ascension or the empty tomb, we could go and jump immediately to the theories that support that this may just have been a great fraud. But in fact we see plenty of evidence certainly by Peter's preaching on the day of Pentecost that this was no mere fabrication.

What more? The Jewish leaders were more concerned to disprove the empty tomb, because they had so much riding on the blasphemy charges. The very reason they crucified Jesus was due to "blasphemy." So if Christ was the real deal, and did raise from the dead, and did ascend, and this empty tomb was truly empty, it would have ruined their charges.

Think about if I came and made claims about myself saying: "Tonight I'm going to walk on water," and I don't make good on that staggering claim, you will lose your whole mindset after my claim regarding the faith. So it's paramount to know that Jewish leaders had the mindset: "We must disprove this. This is a false message."

6) Think about the character and the motives of these witnesses and it becomes apparent that these disciples were either earnestly fixed on the deception: "He rose! He ascended! We saw Him! There was an empty tomb!" Or they were telling the truth.

And of course that leads me to the empty tomb number one and empty tomb number two, how's that? For those of you who know the places in history, I mean in the geography of the land there is still today the debate over the site of the empty tomb. The history story of the mother of Constantine the Emperor who traveled to a site which is now labeled a holy site, which is now labeled the gravesite and she claims to have found three crosses. I laugh at this little bit, forgive me. She claims to have the three crosses and the titulus of Christ, the head board with His name on it that was then brought back to Constantine. That head board as it's been shown by Carston Thiede and others is at the Santa Croce church on display for people to see.

My problem with the story of three crosses buried inside the tomb is that if we read the gospel records, all we know is that He was prepared for burial with spices, the specific ointments for burial, covered up, the tomb was sealed and that all we know. The Roman style of crucifixion guarantees that you would not want a Roman crucifix in that holy place, in that sacred burial place. It just wouldn't be. So I always marvel at that story. I'm sure that she found a site and it had three crosses in it, but I do believe that those were not the three crosses. We know Jesus was taken down from the cross, but we can't say what happened to the other malefactors, one on each side; we can't say what happened to their crosses. And in fact, if you take the time to study what happens to the veneration of icons you'll see that it happens just about the time where Helena makes this discovery. And it's at the Council of Nicaea where it's decided what will be venerated and what will not.

In any case, whichever location you choose, all we can say is the tomb was empty. We have to settle that. Why it is the tomb empty? All right, I guess we're going to have to do some theorizing. This is a lot tougher than it looks like because I could probably spend a message on each of these different claims because for each one of those claims, there are at least a dozen scriptures and sometimes up to a hundred scriptures that confirm these different claims. And then there's the historical aspect of these things, so it's a staggering feat to be able to condense it down.

1)Here are some theories about the empty tomb:

1) THE DISCIPLES STOLE THE BODY.
I don't want to come off sounding disrespectful, nor blasphemous, but if the disciples stole the body, they'd have to take it somewhere and bury it so no one could find it. Do you remember back in the 80's there was a movie called, Weekend at Bernie's. Did you ever see that movie? The guy died and the characters in the movie didn't want to let anybody know so they carried him around. They'd prop the body up, "Hi, Bernie!" Again I don't mean this in a blasphemous way, but if they stole the body, they would have to drag Jesus around and prop him up like He was doing things. I'm sorry, that is the way my brain works when I consider this "stole the body" theory. The other option would be to bury the body, but if it was discovered, their story of the Jesus' Resurrection would unravel and they would be proven to be liars. So that's my take on the theory that the disciples stole the body.

2) THE JEWISH LEADERS STOLE THE BODY.
Why would the Jewish leaders steal the body since they were the ones that wanted the whole mess to be done away with? Remember, Jesus was disturbing the peace and creating all these crazy ideas. So would it be plausible to say the Jewish leaders stole the body? Well if they did, I believe that there would have been a parade showing off their prize. Those Pharisees would have canvassed the streets parading the corpse of Jesus, saying, "Here's your messiah. Here's your messiah." If they stole the body, it would have been displayed for purposes of ridicule to the disciples' claims.

3) THE ROMAN LEADERS STOLE THE BODY.
This theory is even more ridiculous, because as you, know the Roman leaders didn't even want anything to do with Jesus. The choice was put out there and they wanted to crucify the other guy. They didn't want Jesus. The Romans would have been disinterested in being tangled up in this issue any longer.

4) JESUS REVIVED.
Three years ago I did this study looking at what happens when people are crucified. And because the Sabbath was approaching, they would break the bones of those that were still hanging to make sure they were certifiably dead. That would make the chances of somebody reviving from a Roman crucifixion somewhere between slim and none. Not only because of the natural reasons, like the collapse of oxygen. But there's also the supernatural things to take into account, like when Jesus said, "No man taketh my life, I lay it down." That's why He said, "Into thy hands, Father, I commit my spirit," It had to be this way. He had to die.

5) THE WITNESSES WENT TO THE WRONG TOMB.
This is my favorite theory because we get to blame the women. These silly women were crying and distraught and they just went to the wrong tomb. How could they know where they were going in their emotional state? This theory doesn't fly, because if they weren't sure about where the tomb was, all they had to do was go and ask Joseph of Arimathaea. The tomb Jesus was buried in belonged to him. The wrong tomb? I love that one.

Okay that only leaves these possibilities:

6) HALLUCINATIONS.
"Bethlehem news reports today another appearance of Jesus Christ, He was reportedly seen walking into the 7-11 convenience store. Basically this theory speculates that the poor disciples were so overcome with grief, and they hoped so much in their hearts, that began to hallucinate and hence saw Jesus everywhere.

7) LIARS OR HONEST REPORTERS
Look, the story of Jesus' Resurrection boils down to two things: The disciples were either LYING about it or they were telling the TRUTH. As far as the world is concerned, they probably believe the disciples lied because they loved Jesus so much. But I'm going to add a part B theory to the lies. It's called the ‘campfire theory.

All the disciples gathered around a campfire and said, "Okay, look, this is a terrible mess, so let's plan this out. I'll write something and then you're going to write something. Let's all write the story of what happened, okay." Now if these men lied and schemed, we have to admit they weren't very good liars, because if they're going to keep their story straight, every single person penning their account of these recollections would have to have crystallized their thoughts into one accord: "Okay, John you're at the tomb and we'll say you saw Jesus first. You're the man, you saw the tomb. No one's going to believe the account of some silly, hysterical women, so Let's use John." Then another would argue, "No, let's put Peter as the one who saw Him, because he's always in the wrong place at the wrong time." And they'd probably squabble, but they'd decide on the one account of the story and they would all agree.

Yet if we examine he testimony of the witnesses, these eyewitnesses, their character and motives... I mean there is a law of evidence that if we were to go into a courtroom, certain things would be demanded of these witnesses when giving their account of what happened.

How many of you have seen a car accident occur? And when the police come and a take report, the details of the report may differ to various degrees, but one thing will be certain: There will be constants reappearing in each testimony that gives credence to the witnesses' account.

I SAY THE DISCIPLES WERE TRUE REPORTERS BECAUSE OF THE CATACLYSMIC CHANGES THAT OCCURRED IN EACH OF THEM.

People say the power of God is less today or not even operating at all. I say the power of God is even even more real today because I've seen the power of God make a cataclysmic, radical changes in people's lives. And telling a lie seldom makes you improve or become a better person. In fact, examining the cataclysmic changes in the lives of the disciples, just take Peter for example. Remember when Jesus is going to wash Peter's feet, Peter argues, "Oh no you're not," "Well, then," Jesus states, "You're not coming with me." "Then wash me all over!" Peter exclaims. An extremist. Unstable. Peter gets his mouth going and he says, "I'll never deny you, Lord," but of course he does -- three times. Peter has a problem, I mean a serious problem. Until this cataclysmic change occurs, he has always got his mouth going before his brain is in gear and he makes some of the craziest moves. He says to Jesus, "Thou art the Christ," and then says something so ridiculous that Jesus is forced to reply: "Get behind me, Satan." But this man, Peter goes from this strange, impetuous, and an unreliable person to the rock, the pillar on that day of Pentecost. It's Peter who proclaims "This Jesus whom you've crucified and God raised up..." You know that brilliant sermon that birthed three thousand into the church in one day.

Remember the sons of thunder, John and James? (Not James, the one who writes the epistle in the New Testament, but James, brother of John). They sent their mother to go and ask Jesus for the best seat in the kingdom. These were the sons of thunder, but they send their mom to go and ask Jesus for special treatment. Think about that. John later becomes the apostle of love.

And of course you can't go and tell the story of all this without Thomas. Every time you encounter Thomas you encounter something truly staggering. Now when Jesus is saying, "I go to prepare mansions for you, and whither I go..." Thomas blurts out, "How can we know where you're going?" Jesus just told him, "I go to prepare a place for you." There's Thomas interrupting and doubting, "I won't believe it until it can put my finger in the nail holes and touch the side where He was pierced...." Jesus submits to the test and, "Oh my God, it's true! My Lord and Savior." Thomas had to have proof to bring himself to the point of saying, "My God, my Lord and Savior." Imagine that. But this same man changes from being a doubting realist and humanist to become a pillar of faith, taking the Gospel to the far edges of India and actually being martyred.

I thought I'd add in the one nobody ever gives attention to, and this is Mary Magdalene. While we're talking about radical changes, here's a woman who had seven demons cast out of her. You want to talk about cataclysmic change? I wouldn't have wanted to see her when she had the seven demons residing inside her, but this is a woman who comes to love Jesus so much that she will not be separated from His tomb. The most faithful. I'm sorry if that rubs you the wrong way, but go read the testimony yourself. It was not the men, but she who was faithfully there. The most faithful witness who in her grief, is recorded as being the first evangelist. In every record it's Mary Magdalene who first preaches, "He is risen." And the whole concept radically flies in the face of how women are depicted in Scripture. This woman who had seven demons becomes a faithful follower.

We don't know the outcome of Mary Magdalene but we know every single disciple without fail, died in separate places, in separate times, for preaching the gospel message. And the thing that I marvel at, every time I read Fox's Book of Martyrs, is seeing that stream of blood flow through time. Beginning with Jesus, then Stephen. Follow the blood of the martyrs and you recognize that in this great Book, people died and gave their life that we might be able to read and receive these words we have before us today. Do you really think these people thought two thousand years later we'd be here talking about this event, picking apart what they really said?

I always give credit on top of credit, both to Dr. Scott and his referencing Thomas Aquinas' great proof that these all died alone and they all died alone in different places suffering persecution till death for preaching this message of the Resurrection.


It would have been easy for just one of these people to break under the pressure and recant. Peter could have decided, "You know what? I'm here in Rome and no one's going to find out if I just say the whole story is made up. See you later. I'm going fishing." He could have done that. And we know that Mark is acting as Peter's secretary. The Book of Mark is actually Peter's account that Peter is telling to Mark, and Mark is writing it down. I have to kind of laugh about this part because Peter is depicted in a really bad way. His credibility is totally lost. But again, here comes the cataclysmic change, the radical approach to what happened to all these people. They not only died for their testimony, but they died alone.

But I'm going to bring this to a close with what I think is maybe the most important fact, and it is always left out of the equation. Let's just theorize that all these men lied because they couldn't bear the fact that Jesus didn't raise from the dead. So they perpetuate a lie. But look what happened to the disciples: One is hanged upside down, another one is skinned alive. Look for yourself and chronicle the death of the martyrs. Allow me to introduce the one guy who challenges the verity of this Resurrection story to the core. I call my star witness, the Apostle Paul.

He has nothing to do with any of these men that Jesus called and chose. Paul wasn't one of the initial band who walked with Jesus, and his time occurs much later. Oh, if the world would just hear this one message: The apostle Paul, persecutor of the church, tormentor of the brethren, ready to destroy the first Christians and then this cataclysmic, radical change comes over him and he becomes the greatest Apostle who ever lived, penning two thirds of the New Testament. Chronicled in the Book of Acts, he was an accomplice to murder in the stoning of Stephen.

And we know he had many murdered and breathed out threatenings against many, and yet, Paul, this particular vessel is the vessel that God uses. Had God not raised up the apostle Paul, turned him around, and caused this radical change to occur, who knows what would have become of the rest of these gospel writer's messages. But I look to that radical change. Paul didn't serve and follow Jesus around for three and half years while he was alive. No wonder the whole community said, "What are you doing here? You don't belong here." Ostracized by the Christian community at first because they were highly suspicious of his motives. And on the other side of the coin, the Jewish leaders wanting him for being a traitor.

Now you can neatly wrap up the disciples into the same package and claim they acted how they did because they loved their dear, fallen leader. But please? Tell me how you explain the apostle Paul? And tell me when he says that he was personally trained and tutored by the risen Lord Jesus, how you explain such a staggering change in his life. It blows up every theory that could possibly shake the reality that Jesus was raised up from the dead.

If we take the reports, the testimony of the witnesses, their character and motives for reporting, and then read where John puts the capstone at the end into the Book of Revelation showing us what is beyond. We find this one who conquered death, who conquered the grave for us that we might live and have new life and not only in this life now, but life eternal.

Follow those "I ams" and you'll come to a conclusion based on all the evidence, not just through John's Gospel and not just strictly through the testimonies I've given, but the fulfillment of the prophecies, the fulfillment of the set times, and the reality that Jesus Christ went to the cross. And this great moment in time where He gave His life, where He covered and blanketed the world with salvation, wholeness, and healing. That same power is deposited in us today. I'm sorry; I will not let anybody say that Resurrection power does not exist today.

The church doesn't exist to have coffee clubs and social clubs. It exists to proclaim the power of the Resurrected Christ. For the life of the believer, Jesus is the one that makes us more than conquerors. He is risen.


-

- Pastor M. Scott (Dr. Scott's widow)

posted on Sept 17, 2009 7:50 AM ()

Comment on this article   


114 articles found   [ Previous Article ]  [ First ]  [ Last ]