Matthew 22:1-14

Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: 2 “The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. 3 He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.
4 “Then he sent some more servants and said, ‘Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.’
5 “But they paid no attention and went off—one to his field, another to his business. 6 The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. 7 The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.
8 “Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. 9 So go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.’ 10 So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, the bad as well as the good, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.
11 “But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12 He asked, ‘How did you get in here without wedding clothes, friend?’ The man was speechless.
13 “Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
14 “For many are invited, but few are chosen.”
I had no idea how much I loved this gospel until I started posting passages and discussion questions here. Doing this really makes me think about it more deeply. I've seen so much in it, and so many connections that I've never noticed before. I'm so thankful to God for his Word.

Discussion and Questions

Palm Sunday has happened (Matthew 21). In a week Jesus will be crucified. His parables are taking a different turn now. I think that we actually saw that at the end of chapter 21 with the parable of the tenants. These parables are more about God trying to reach people but people rejecting him, often violently, killing his servants/Son, and then those who rejected God and his messengers being violently destroyed themselves. A similar one was the parable of the net back in Matt 13:47-50.
vs 1: Jesus is speaking again in parables. I think that we established that Jesus is not just telling people the plain truth, but he wants people to seek it, to wrestle with it and be committed to it. It's Jesus not 'casting pearls before swine'. Those who have ears to hear and want to, will be able to. The rest will just ignore it and persecute him.
Vs 2: I like this. God is planning a massive awesome celebration for Jesus and we're all invited. Who wouldn't want to be there? What could possibly be better?
Q1 What do you think of the idea that God had certain people invited (verse 3) and then ends up turning to other people whom he had not invited (vs 8,9) and invited them? Is he talking about the people of Israel? or are we pushing the parable too far? Who are the people whom God invited first? And who are the people who were NOT invited?
This last question is more perplexing. Because from Abraham onwards, God shows his concern for the whole world throughout that Old Testament. Israel was supposed to spread the knowledge and glory of God to the whole world, but didn't. So everyone seems to be invited.
Notice verse 4: God doesn't give up right away. He sends more servants to try and convince those who have rejected him, to try and woo them into coming. This is encouraging.
Verse 5: Here is a short list of excuses. Luke 14 has the same parable and 14:18-20 list the excuses in more detail. Basically, they have no interest in attending. This is astonishing, but not really. We see this everyday.
Jesus is the living water, the bread of life, the way the truth and the life, the image of God (Col 1), the radiance of God's glory (Heb 1). How can anyone reject him? And even if people didn't really know or care about the Son, here is the King telling people what to do and they ignore and refuse him! This is incomprehensible. (Story twist #1)
I'm reading the famous Christian classic "Quo Vadis" about Christians in the time of Nero. (It was written in 1895, so it's not as fast paced as John Grisham's early books, but it's still fascinating reading.) Two things stand out to me from this book: (i) the description of Christians and Christianity - it's not like anything we see today. The Christians are AMAZING. (ii) Nero is a self-indulgent, narcissistic tyrant (and we ‬see people like this today). No one can criticise him, everyone flatters him endlessly (North Korean leaders?); everyone one says that his poetry is the best in the empire, that his voice is the sweetest when he sings. If he thinks that anyone is a better musician than him, he has them executed. The whole city of Rome is terrified of him. If he gives even a hint of what he wants, all of the most powerful people in the land rush to do it. It is inconceivable that anyone would turn down an invitation from him.
Now God is not a tyrant, but he is an absolute ruler. In the Middle ages people had a much better concept of this and respected and feared God more. To reject the instructions of the absolute ruler of the universe, especially one who is a good ruler, makes no sense. Why do people reject God? How do we reject God? (This doesn't have to be a rhetorical question, you can answer it if you like)
Well, it's like the parable of the sower: we are too focused on earthly things. We are obsessed and filled with petty distractions that society says have value. The god of this age has blinded us with bread and circuses. "Hey God, I don't have time for you or your banquet, I'm too busy working on trying to get a promotion, I have important goals: a better car, moving to a good neighbourhood, getting more followers on social media. I'm too busy having fun with video game, online gambling, watching Netflix. I don't have time for your lame banquets, and maybe you don't even exist anyway."
verse 6: When God persists, they kill his servants. This parable is just as shocking to Jesus listeners as all of his other parables were. What happens in it is unbelievable, and yet Jesus is teaching us about our own hearts.
vs 7: the King is enraged and destroys all those who rejected him.
BUT that's not the end of the story (twist #2)! There's Good News at the end: he invites all of the unworthy people to come to the banquet. I love Luke's version so much: he invites the poor, crippled, blind. The outcasts, those whom no one even notices, who have no value at all in society.
There's a third twist to this story at the end: Q2 What do verses 11-13 mean? What is the point of the man without proper wedding clothes? Notice that the man gets a chance to defend himself and explain his situation first.
Q3 What do you think about the punishment of the wicked in verses 7 and 13? How does that affect you? It seems that most of the time we prefer just not to think about it.
Q4 Is there any doubt as to whether you're going to the banquet or not? Do you have problems being distracted by cows, farms, romantic love affairs, things of this world so that you don't value the banquet?
Verse 14: "Many are called/invited, but few are chosen". Q5 I am not sure exactly what this verse means (it might also be in Matthew 20:16 KJV). "Many are called": yes, God calls many, in fact I believe that he gives everyone a chance to repent and join his kingdom. "Few are chosen" This implies that God is choosing people, BUT the rest of the parable is all about the PEOPLE choosing NOT to respond. I'd have written "Many are called/invited, but few respond/accept". And ideas?
May God bless you this week.

A Meal
📷
Michele Cushatt 17 hours ago
📷
A GOD WHO IS WITH YOU IN YOUR HUNGER
One thing Jesus did in the Eucharist was to connect, in a vivid and simple way, eating with obedience and worship. He joined earth with heaven, bread with manna, flesh with Spirit. He linked physical hunger with spiritual hunger. He reminded us that every bite is also a prayer. ~ Mark Buchanan, The Rest of God
The world is perishing for lack of the knowledge of God and the Church is famishing for want of His Presence. ~ A. W. Tozer, The Pursuit of God
My soul shall be satisfied as with marrow and fatness; and my mouth shall praise thee with joyful lips: when I remember thee upon my bed, and meditate on thee in the night watches. — Psalm 63:5-6 KJV
One of the most difficult aspects of living an integrated, connected life in the absence of a normal tongue is the ritual of eating three times a day. What was once a source of nourishment and enjoyment has become a frustrating and often painful chore.
It’s not just the mechanics of it, although that part is quite complicated. Two-thirds of my tongue is built from tissue and vessels taken from my neck and left forearm. The surgeons shaped that tissue like a flap around the remaining portion of my tongue, then tethered it to the base of my mouth. This means it doesn’t move and groove like yours does. Imagine trying to eat with a gym sock in your mouth. Puts a damper on things.
But more than the difficult mechanics, I’ve lost much of the enjoyment of eating. The majority of my tongue lacks tastebuds. And the few that remain were burned by radiation. In addition, surgery severed a nerve. Add all that up, and according to the doctor’s best estimate, I probably have somewhere between 20 and 30 percent of my ability to taste left.
I don’t recommend it.
We don’t appreciate our physiology’s fine-tuning until something happens to shake it up. We overlook so much of the miracle of daily life until we lose it.
For the most part, I do okay when I’m alone. I don’t have to worry about manners, and I don’t have to navigate the conversation that accompanies a meal shared with others.
But more often than not, eating happens in community. And I can’t eat and talk at the same time.
During a typical meal, you take a bite of food, chew it, swallow it, and then make small talk, possibly grab a quick sip of water. Maybe you ask your wife about her day or check in with your children about school. If you’re supping with colleagues from work or friends from church, you may discuss an important project or ask them about a recent holiday or family adventure.
Sharing a meal is much like the Colorado Symphony performing Tchaikovsky. With a single composer and music selection guiding them, the various instruments alternately play solos as well as accompaniment. When the clarinets are done, the strings take over, then the percussion or brass. Music is a give-and-take of the various players and parts, and the result of the corporate participation is a harmonious experience that hints of the divine.
The problem for me is that I can no longer play my instrument with precision. I can no longer keep the same rhythm and timing as everyone else sitting at the table. For me, eating takes an extraordinary amount of time and focus. If I move too quickly, I choke or injure myself. I need to swallow multiple times for every bite of food to go down. That means if someone asks me a question, it might be several minutes before my mouth is available to answer it. Most people tire of waiting. And when a dinner conversation turns to a topic that interests me, I can’t chew and swallow fast enough to join in. By the time I’m able to speak, the rest of the symphony has moved on to a different piece of music.
At each meal, I’m required to choose. Connect and converse? Or chew and swallow? I can satisfy either my hunger for food or my hunger for human connection. But I cannot do both.
I’ve learned to navigate this with family and close friends. They don’t mind when wayward lettuce flies across the room while I’m answering a question, and they pretend they don’t notice when I launch ground beef while laughing at a story. I may eat like a toddler, but they love me enough to overlook it.
For me, it remains humiliating. And isolating. To expose my vulnerability in these moments feels like opening the old underwear drawer for a group of strangers. It’s raw, vulnerable, embarrassing. How do I lay the worst part of myself out on the table in the presence of others? At times, the gamble is too great.
You may not realize it, but a dinner table isn’t really about the food. It’s about the people. And the relationships that are built three times a day at its altar.
Sharing a table is a sharing of our humanity and our common need for nourishment, day after day, to survive. But that requires trust. And safety. Only then, as we fork roast and potatoes into our mouths, regardless of how long it takes us to chew and to swallow, we might find a way to solve the deeper hunger that plagues each one of us.
In 1495, the heart of the Renaissance, Leonardo da Vinci began a work that became one of the most significant artistic productions in all of history: The Last Supper.
Displayed on the dining room wall of the Santa Maria delle Grazie monastery in Milan, Italy, The Last Supper is da Vinci’s interpretation of the gospel account of Jesus’ last supper with His disciples. In his painting, he captures the moment Jesus tells His closest friends that one of them will betray Him. The table is covered with all the evidence of a shared meal and familiar companionship. But their faces reflect nothing but shock and disbelief at Jesus’ announcement.
A betrayal? And by one of the inner circle?! Inconceivable.
Most Renaissance masters painted their frescos on wet plaster, mixing their paint with the wet material. Leonardo da Vinci, however, had no experience with this type of mural art. He painted directly onto the dry plaster wall, and within decades the paint started to flake and peel.
In the hundreds of years since, numerous meticulous restorations have been performed to recapture the colors as closely as possible to da Vinci’s original and to provide us with the mural we can buy tickets to see close-up. But the truth is that very little of da Vinci’s work — if any — is left. It’s been lost to time, covered by generations of well-meaning artists and admirers.1 Even so, it remains beautiful and worth contemplation.
The biblical Last Supper is one of the few New Testament stories that appears in all four gospels — Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This speaks to its significance and the impact it had on those who shared it.
Today I sat down and read all four accounts, comparing the varying details and nuances of each. At the same time, I gazed at an online image of da Vinci’s rendition of the Last Supper, allowing the art to trigger my imagination.
Meals matter to me. Especially final meals that happen right before a life-altering event. I still remember my “last supper,” the night before the surgery to remove my tongue. Tri-tip steak, seasoned and cooked tender until it fell apart, homemade hand-cut egg noodles (my mama’s recipe), mashed potatoes with extra butter, and sweet corn. Delish.
Final meals are rich with significance, full of the flavor of what is and what is yet to come. But to understand this particular meal and its implications, we need to understand the historical context.
Although table sharing has a modicum of significance in our modern context, it played a central role in ancient cultures. Hundreds and thousands of years ago, people had extremely limited social entertainment. So sharing a meal around a table played a much more important role in community life.
For the people of Israel, in particular, meals involved the observance of clear boundaries, differentiating God’s people from the rest of the world. According to Old Testament law, Israelites were to remain separate, dining only with fellow Jews. Moreover, to share a meal with someone was to accept them as part of your family. In a sense, you were telling your guest that you trusted them enough to join your families in marriage.2
The meal wasn’t about food. It was about intimacy. And an invitation to a committed familial relationship.
This is why the Pharisees of Jesus’ day exploded in anger when Jesus ate dinner with politicians, prostitutes, the sick and mentally ill. “I must stay at your house today,” Jesus told the thief Zacchaeus, an announcement that spit in the faces of the rule-following religious leaders (Luke 19:5). God had set the boundaries; why wasn’t Jesus respecting them? He was crossing lines that weren’t meant to be crossed.
What they failed to grasp? Jesus was God. He was the ladder stretching from heaven to earth, connecting the holy with the human. By eating with sinners, Jesus put His love of people over piety. But those who worry about good manners don’t understand this. Which is why the religious resisted with such vehemence.
Back in the 1950s and ’60s, a researcher by the name of Harry Harlow did a number of studies on attachment by observing rhesus monkeys. These studies took place before the advent of animal protection guidelines, and I should warn you his methods would not fly today. But Harlow’s results were stunning and significant. And I couldn’t pull myself away from the grainy black-and-white videos documenting his research.
To begin, Harlow separated baby monkeys from their mothers a few hours after birth. Then he made two surrogate “mothers,” the first out of hard, cold wire with a milk bottle mounted on the top, and the second covered in soft terry cloth but without the bottle. Then the baby monkeys were given a choice of mothers and Harlow recorded their responses. Although the monkeys went to the wire mother for food, they spent the majority of their time cuddled with the terrycloth mother, even though she offered no physical sustenance.
Harlow theorized that attachment was not about food and water, hunger and thirst. It was about relationship. Over and over, the monkeys preferred a soft, nurturing “mother” over food, even when they were hungry. Because they ached for more than milk; they ached for love, safety, touch, and connection.3
The Church — and the people who make up the Church — don’t always do a good job of providing a soft place for hungry people. Instead, we draw lines and serve our food to those we deem deserve it. We’re far more concerned with hard-wire boundaries than terry-cloth comfort.
While it is true we need rules, boundaries, and responsibilities to guide families and society, we need more than functional, cold-wire apparatuses to deliver what we crave. We need food in the context of relationship.
Which is what went down at the Last Supper table.
The table Jesus shared with His closest friends included common laborers, tax collectors, uneducated fishermen, a guy with an anger problem, and another with a doubt problem. Several at His table boasted egos bigger than their pay grade, and one was secretly selling his proximity to Jesus for a kickback he would later regret.
These were not the rule-following, line-drawing pious. These were ordinary, everyday broken people who were likely to launch ground beef onto the shoulder of their tablemate while saying something decidedly unreligious.
Even so. Jesus offered each a seat at His table. Bread spread out before them, His body close enough to squeeze a shoulder, slap a back, or touch a hand. He invited them to dinner, said, “Do life with Me. You are family. I love you.” And in the process, He fed more than their bellies.
It wasn’t about the food. It was about relationship.
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and gave it to His disciples, saying, ‘Take it; this is My body’. — Mark 14:22
One by one, they took the bread, tore some off, chewed, swallowed, and passed it on.
Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it. — Mark 14:23
They all drank from it, egomaniacs and doubters and deniers alike.
This is My blood of the covenant. — Mark 14:24
The covenant. The covenant cut with Abraham. The covenant promising God would bless not only one man but every last one of us. The animals, cut in bloody pieces, separated to form a path that God alone would walk through. If the relationship was broken, the attachment breached, He would be the one torn in two to make everything — everyone —whole.
This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. — Mark 14:24
He came and sat at our table so the many would never again fear losing their seats at His.
It wasn’t about consuming but about pouring. It was never about the meal. It was always about the relationship. An invitation to a covenantal, table-sharing intimacy. And the price He was willing to pay to secure it.
Poured out for many. The great and the small, the whole and the broken, the strong and the weak, the sick and the well. No longer would there be any boundaries, any separation, any breach, any divide.
Only one table. One cup. One meal. And terry-cloth grace.
1.“The Last Supper—by Leonardo Da Vinci,” Leonardo Da Vinci website, See also “The Last Supper and Santa Maria delle Grazie,”
2.D. Brack, “Table Fellowship,” in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Barry et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).
3.“Harry F. Harlow, Monkey Love Experiments,” Adoption History Project, University of Oregon
Excerpted with permission from Relentless by Michele Cushatt, copyright Michele Cushatt.
* * *
Your Turn
The meal is always about the relationship. Jesus came for relationship. For comfort. For love. To pour Himself out for us. Come join the conversation on our blog about The Meal! ~ Devotionals Daily

A Meal

📷Michele Cushatt17 hours ago
📷
A GOD WHO IS WITH YOU IN YOUR HUNGER
One thing Jesus did in the Eucharist was to connect, in a vivid and simple way, eating with obedience and worship. He joined earth with heaven, bread with manna, flesh with Spirit. He linked physical hunger with spiritual hunger. He reminded us that every bite is also a prayer. ~ Mark Buchanan, The Rest of God
The world is perishing for lack of the knowledge of God and the Church is famishing for want of His Presence. ~ A. W. Tozer, The Pursuit of God
My soul shall be satisfied as with marrow and fatness; and my mouth shall praise thee with joyful lips: when I remember thee upon my bed, and meditate on thee in the night watches. — Psalm 63:5-6 KJV
One of the most difficult aspects of living an integrated, connected life in the absence of a normal tongue is the ritual of eating three times a day. What was once a source of nourishment and enjoyment has become a frustrating and often painful chore.
It’s not just the mechanics of it, although that part is quite complicated. Two-thirds of my tongue is built from tissue and vessels taken from my neck and left forearm. The surgeons shaped that tissue like a flap around the remaining portion of my tongue, then tethered it to the base of my mouth. This means it doesn’t move and groove like yours does. Imagine trying to eat with a gym sock in your mouth. Puts a damper on things.
But more than the difficult mechanics, I’ve lost much of the enjoyment of eating. The majority of my tongue lacks tastebuds. And the few that remain were burned by radiation. In addition, surgery severed a nerve. Add all that up, and according to the doctor’s best estimate, I probably have somewhere between 20 and 30 percent of my ability to taste left.
I don’t recommend it.
We don’t appreciate our physiology’s fine-tuning until something happens to shake it up. We overlook so much of the miracle of daily life until we lose it.
For the most part, I do okay when I’m alone. I don’t have to worry about manners, and I don’t have to navigate the conversation that accompanies a meal shared with others.
But more often than not, eating happens in community. And I can’t eat and talk at the same time.
During a typical meal, you take a bite of food, chew it, swallow it, and then make small talk, possibly grab a quick sip of water. Maybe you ask your wife about her day or check in with your children about school. If you’re supping with colleagues from work or friends from church, you may discuss an important project or ask them about a recent holiday or family adventure.
Sharing a meal is much like the Colorado Symphony performing Tchaikovsky. With a single composer and music selection guiding them, the various instruments alternately play solos as well as accompaniment. When the clarinets are done, the strings take over, then the percussion or brass. Music is a give-and-take of the various players and parts, and the result of the corporate participation is a harmonious experience that hints of the divine.
The problem for me is that I can no longer play my instrument with precision. I can no longer keep the same rhythm and timing as everyone else sitting at the table. For me, eating takes an extraordinary amount of time and focus. If I move too quickly, I choke or injure myself. I need to swallow multiple times for every bite of food to go down. That means if someone asks me a question, it might be several minutes before my mouth is available to answer it. Most people tire of waiting. And when a dinner conversation turns to a topic that interests me, I can’t chew and swallow fast enough to join in. By the time I’m able to speak, the rest of the symphony has moved on to a different piece of music.
At each meal, I’m required to choose. Connect and converse? Or chew and swallow? I can satisfy either my hunger for food or my hunger for human connection. But I cannot do both.
I’ve learned to navigate this with family and close friends. They don’t mind when wayward lettuce flies across the room while I’m answering a question, and they pretend they don’t notice when I launch ground beef while laughing at a story. I may eat like a toddler, but they love me enough to overlook it.
For me, it remains humiliating. And isolating. To expose my vulnerability in these moments feels like opening the old underwear drawer for a group of strangers. It’s raw, vulnerable, embarrassing. How do I lay the worst part of myself out on the table in the presence of others? At times, the gamble is too great.
You may not realize it, but a dinner table isn’t really about the food. It’s about the people. And the relationships that are built three times a day at its altar.
Sharing a table is a sharing of our humanity and our common need for nourishment, day after day, to survive. But that requires trust. And safety. Only then, as we fork roast and potatoes into our mouths, regardless of how long it takes us to chew and to swallow, we might find a way to solve the deeper hunger that plagues each one of us.
In 1495, the heart of the Renaissance, Leonardo da Vinci began a work that became one of the most significant artistic productions in all of history: The Last Supper.
Displayed on the dining room wall of the Santa Maria delle Grazie monastery in Milan, Italy, The Last Supper is da Vinci’s interpretation of the gospel account of Jesus’ last supper with His disciples. In his painting, he captures the moment Jesus tells His closest friends that one of them will betray Him. The table is covered with all the evidence of a shared meal and familiar companionship. But their faces reflect nothing but shock and disbelief at Jesus’ announcement.
A betrayal? And by one of the inner circle?! Inconceivable.
Most Renaissance masters painted their frescos on wet plaster, mixing their paint with the wet material. Leonardo da Vinci, however, had no experience with this type of mural art. He painted directly onto the dry plaster wall, and within decades the paint started to flake and peel.
In the hundreds of years since, numerous meticulous restorations have been performed to recapture the colors as closely as possible to da Vinci’s original and to provide us with the mural we can buy tickets to see close-up. But the truth is that very little of da Vinci’s work — if any — is left. It’s been lost to time, covered by generations of well-meaning artists and admirers.1 Even so, it remains beautiful and worth contemplation.
The biblical Last Supper is one of the few New Testament stories that appears in all four gospels — Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This speaks to its significance and the impact it had on those who shared it.
Today I sat down and read all four accounts, comparing the varying details and nuances of each. At the same time, I gazed at an online image of da Vinci’s rendition of the Last Supper, allowing the art to trigger my imagination.
Meals matter to me. Especially final meals that happen right before a life-altering event. I still remember my “last supper,” the night before the surgery to remove my tongue. Tri-tip steak, seasoned and cooked tender until it fell apart, homemade hand-cut egg noodles (my mama’s recipe), mashed potatoes with extra butter, and sweet corn. Delish.
Final meals are rich with significance, full of the flavor of what is and what is yet to come. But to understand this particular meal and its implications, we need to understand the historical context.
Although table sharing has a modicum of significance in our modern context, it played a central role in ancient cultures. Hundreds and thousands of years ago, people had extremely limited social entertainment. So sharing a meal around a table played a much more important role in community life.
For the people of Israel, in particular, meals involved the observance of clear boundaries, differentiating God’s people from the rest of the world. According to Old Testament law, Israelites were to remain separate, dining only with fellow Jews. Moreover, to share a meal with someone was to accept them as part of your family. In a sense, you were telling your guest that you trusted them enough to join your families in marriage.2
The meal wasn’t about food. It was about intimacy. And an invitation to a committed familial relationship.
This is why the Pharisees of Jesus’ day exploded in anger when Jesus ate dinner with politicians, prostitutes, the sick and mentally ill. “I must stay at your house today,” Jesus told the thief Zacchaeus, an announcement that spit in the faces of the rule-following religious leaders (Luke 19:5). God had set the boundaries; why wasn’t Jesus respecting them? He was crossing lines that weren’t meant to be crossed.
What they failed to grasp? Jesus was God. He was the ladder stretching from heaven to earth, connecting the holy with the human. By eating with sinners, Jesus put His love of people over piety. But those who worry about good manners don’t understand this. Which is why the religious resisted with such vehemence.
Back in the 1950s and ’60s, a researcher by the name of Harry Harlow did a number of studies on attachment by observing rhesus monkeys. These studies took place before the advent of animal protection guidelines, and I should warn you his methods would not fly today. But Harlow’s results were stunning and significant. And I couldn’t pull myself away from the grainy black-and-white videos documenting his research.
To begin, Harlow separated baby monkeys from their mothers a few hours after birth. Then he made two surrogate “mothers,” the first out of hard, cold wire with a milk bottle mounted on the top, and the second covered in soft terry cloth but without the bottle. Then the baby monkeys were given a choice of mothers and Harlow recorded their responses. Although the monkeys went to the wire mother for food, they spent the majority of their time cuddled with the terrycloth mother, even though she offered no physical sustenance.
Harlow theorized that attachment was not about food and water, hunger and thirst. It was about relationship. Over and over, the monkeys preferred a soft, nurturing “mother” over food, even when they were hungry. Because they ached for more than milk; they ached for love, safety, touch, and connection.3
The Church — and the people who make up the Church — don’t always do a good job of providing a soft place for hungry people. Instead, we draw lines and serve our food to those we deem deserve it. We’re far more concerned with hard-wire boundaries than terry-cloth comfort.
While it is true we need rules, boundaries, and responsibilities to guide families and society, we need more than functional, cold-wire apparatuses to deliver what we crave. We need food in the context of relationship.
Which is what went down at the Last Supper table.
The table Jesus shared with His closest friends included common laborers, tax collectors, uneducated fishermen, a guy with an anger problem, and another with a doubt problem. Several at His table boasted egos bigger than their pay grade, and one was secretly selling his proximity to Jesus for a kickback he would later regret.
These were not the rule-following, line-drawing pious. These were ordinary, everyday broken people who were likely to launch ground beef onto the shoulder of their tablemate while saying something decidedly unreligious.
Even so. Jesus offered each a seat at His table. Bread spread out before them, His body close enough to squeeze a shoulder, slap a back, or touch a hand. He invited them to dinner, said, “Do life with Me. You are family. I love you.” And in the process, He fed more than their bellies.
It wasn’t about the food. It was about relationship.
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and gave it to His disciples, saying, ‘Take it; this is My body’. — Mark 14:22
One by one, they took the bread, tore some off, chewed, swallowed, and passed it on.
Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it. — Mark 14:23
They all drank from it, egomaniacs and doubters and deniers alike.
This is My blood of the covenant. — Mark 14:24
The covenant. The covenant cut with Abraham. The covenant promising God would bless not only one man but every last one of us. The animals, cut in bloody pieces, separated to form a path that God alone would walk through. If the relationship was broken, the attachment breached, He would be the one torn in two to make everything — everyone —whole.
This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. — Mark 14:24
He came and sat at our table so the many would never again fear losing their seats at His.
It wasn’t about consuming but about pouring. It was never about the meal. It was always about the relationship. An invitation to a covenantal, table-sharing intimacy. And the price He was willing to pay to secure it.
Poured out for many. The great and the small, the whole and the broken, the strong and the weak, the sick and the well. No longer would there be any boundaries, any separation, any breach, any divide.
Only one table. One cup. One meal. And terry-cloth grace.
1.“The Last Supper—by Leonardo Da Vinci,” Leonardo Da Vinci website, https://www.leonardodavinci.net/the-last-supper.jsp. See also “The Last Supper and Santa Maria delle Grazie,” LeonardoAMilano.com website, http://www.leonardoamilano.org/english/last\_supper.php.
2.D. Brack, “Table Fellowship,” in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Barry et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).
3.“Harry F. Harlow, Monkey Love Experiments,” Adoption History Project, University of Oregon, https://pages.uoregon.edu/adoption/ studies/HarlowMLE.htm.
Excerpted with permission from Relentless by Michele Cushatt, copyright Michele Cushatt.
* * *

Your Turn

The meal is always about the relationship. Jesus came for relationship. For comfort. For love. To pour Himself out for us. Come join the conversation on our blog about The Meal! ~ Devotionals Daily

A Meal
📷
Michele Cushatt 17 hours ago
📷
A GOD WHO IS WITH YOU IN YOUR HUNGER
One thing Jesus did in the Eucharist was to connect, in a vivid and simple way, eating with obedience and worship. He joined earth with heaven, bread with manna, flesh with Spirit. He linked physical hunger with spiritual hunger. He reminded us that every bite is also a prayer. ~ Mark Buchanan, The Rest of God
The world is perishing for lack of the knowledge of God and the Church is famishing for want of His Presence. ~ A. W. Tozer, The Pursuit of God
My soul shall be satisfied as with marrow and fatness; and my mouth shall praise thee with joyful lips: when I remember thee upon my bed, and meditate on thee in the night watches. — Psalm 63:5-6 KJV
One of the most difficult aspects of living an integrated, connected life in the absence of a normal tongue is the ritual of eating three times a day. What was once a source of nourishment and enjoyment has become a frustrating and often painful chore.
It’s not just the mechanics of it, although that part is quite complicated. Two-thirds of my tongue is built from tissue and vessels taken from my neck and left forearm. The surgeons shaped that tissue like a flap around the remaining portion of my tongue, then tethered it to the base of my mouth. This means it doesn’t move and groove like yours does. Imagine trying to eat with a gym sock in your mouth. Puts a damper on things.
But more than the difficult mechanics, I’ve lost much of the enjoyment of eating. The majority of my tongue lacks tastebuds. And the few that remain were burned by radiation. In addition, surgery severed a nerve. Add all that up, and according to the doctor’s best estimate, I probably have somewhere between 20 and 30 percent of my ability to taste left.
I don’t recommend it.
We don’t appreciate our physiology’s fine-tuning until something happens to shake it up. We overlook so much of the miracle of daily life until we lose it.
For the most part, I do okay when I’m alone. I don’t have to worry about manners, and I don’t have to navigate the conversation that accompanies a meal shared with others.
But more often than not, eating happens in community. And I can’t eat and talk at the same time.
During a typical meal, you take a bite of food, chew it, swallow it, and then make small talk, possibly grab a quick sip of water. Maybe you ask your wife about her day or check in with your children about school. If you’re supping with colleagues from work or friends from church, you may discuss an important project or ask them about a recent holiday or family adventure.
Sharing a meal is much like the Colorado Symphony performing Tchaikovsky. With a single composer and music selection guiding them, the various instruments alternately play solos as well as accompaniment. When the clarinets are done, the strings take over, then the percussion or brass. Music is a give-and-take of the various players and parts, and the result of the corporate participation is a harmonious experience that hints of the divine.
The problem for me is that I can no longer play my instrument with precision. I can no longer keep the same rhythm and timing as everyone else sitting at the table. For me, eating takes an extraordinary amount of time and focus. If I move too quickly, I choke or injure myself. I need to swallow multiple times for every bite of food to go down. That means if someone asks me a question, it might be several minutes before my mouth is available to answer it. Most people tire of waiting. And when a dinner conversation turns to a topic that interests me, I can’t chew and swallow fast enough to join in. By the time I’m able to speak, the rest of the symphony has moved on to a different piece of music.
At each meal, I’m required to choose. Connect and converse? Or chew and swallow? I can satisfy either my hunger for food or my hunger for human connection. But I cannot do both.
I’ve learned to navigate this with family and close friends. They don’t mind when wayward lettuce flies across the room while I’m answering a question, and they pretend they don’t notice when I launch ground beef while laughing at a story. I may eat like a toddler, but they love me enough to overlook it.
For me, it remains humiliating. And isolating. To expose my vulnerability in these moments feels like opening the old underwear drawer for a group of strangers. It’s raw, vulnerable, embarrassing. How do I lay the worst part of myself out on the table in the presence of others? At times, the gamble is too great.
You may not realize it, but a dinner table isn’t really about the food. It’s about the people. And the relationships that are built three times a day at its altar.
Sharing a table is a sharing of our humanity and our common need for nourishment, day after day, to survive. But that requires trust. And safety. Only then, as we fork roast and potatoes into our mouths, regardless of how long it takes us to chew and to swallow, we might find a way to solve the deeper hunger that plagues each one of us.
In 1495, the heart of the Renaissance, Leonardo da Vinci began a work that became one of the most significant artistic productions in all of history: The Last Supper.
Displayed on the dining room wall of the Santa Maria delle Grazie monastery in Milan, Italy, The Last Supper is da Vinci’s interpretation of the gospel account of Jesus’ last supper with His disciples. In his painting, he captures the moment Jesus tells His closest friends that one of them will betray Him. The table is covered with all the evidence of a shared meal and familiar companionship. But their faces reflect nothing but shock and disbelief at Jesus’ announcement.
A betrayal? And by one of the inner circle?! Inconceivable.
Most Renaissance masters painted their frescos on wet plaster, mixing their paint with the wet material. Leonardo da Vinci, however, had no experience with this type of mural art. He painted directly onto the dry plaster wall, and within decades the paint started to flake and peel.
In the hundreds of years since, numerous meticulous restorations have been performed to recapture the colors as closely as possible to da Vinci’s original and to provide us with the mural we can buy tickets to see close-up. But the truth is that very little of da Vinci’s work — if any — is left. It’s been lost to time, covered by generations of well-meaning artists and admirers.1 Even so, it remains beautiful and worth contemplation.
The biblical Last Supper is one of the few New Testament stories that appears in all four gospels — Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This speaks to its significance and the impact it had on those who shared it.
Today I sat down and read all four accounts, comparing the varying details and nuances of each. At the same time, I gazed at an online image of da Vinci’s rendition of the Last Supper, allowing the art to trigger my imagination.
Meals matter to me. Especially final meals that happen right before a life-altering event. I still remember my “last supper,” the night before the surgery to remove my tongue. Tri-tip steak, seasoned and cooked tender until it fell apart, homemade hand-cut egg noodles (my mama’s recipe), mashed potatoes with extra butter, and sweet corn. Delish.
Final meals are rich with significance, full of the flavor of what is and what is yet to come. But to understand this particular meal and its implications, we need to understand the historical context.
Although table sharing has a modicum of significance in our modern context, it played a central role in ancient cultures. Hundreds and thousands of years ago, people had extremely limited social entertainment. So sharing a meal around a table played a much more important role in community life.
For the people of Israel, in particular, meals involved the observance of clear boundaries, differentiating God’s people from the rest of the world. According to Old Testament law, Israelites were to remain separate, dining only with fellow Jews. Moreover, to share a meal with someone was to accept them as part of your family. In a sense, you were telling your guest that you trusted them enough to join your families in marriage.2
The meal wasn’t about food. It was about intimacy. And an invitation to a committed familial relationship.
This is why the Pharisees of Jesus’ day exploded in anger when Jesus ate dinner with politicians, prostitutes, the sick and mentally ill. “I must stay at your house today,” Jesus told the thief Zacchaeus, an announcement that spit in the faces of the rule-following religious leaders (Luke 19:5). God had set the boundaries; why wasn’t Jesus respecting them? He was crossing lines that weren’t meant to be crossed.
What they failed to grasp? Jesus was God. He was the ladder stretching from heaven to earth, connecting the holy with the human. By eating with sinners, Jesus put His love of people over piety. But those who worry about good manners don’t understand this. Which is why the religious resisted with such vehemence.
Back in the 1950s and ’60s, a researcher by the name of Harry Harlow did a number of studies on attachment by observing rhesus monkeys. These studies took place before the advent of animal protection guidelines, and I should warn you his methods would not fly today. But Harlow’s results were stunning and significant. And I couldn’t pull myself away from the grainy black-and-white videos documenting his research.
To begin, Harlow separated baby monkeys from their mothers a few hours after birth. Then he made two surrogate “mothers,” the first out of hard, cold wire with a milk bottle mounted on the top, and the second covered in soft terry cloth but without the bottle. Then the baby monkeys were given a choice of mothers and Harlow recorded their responses. Although the monkeys went to the wire mother for food, they spent the majority of their time cuddled with the terrycloth mother, even though she offered no physical sustenance.
Harlow theorized that attachment was not about food and water, hunger and thirst. It was about relationship. Over and over, the monkeys preferred a soft, nurturing “mother” over food, even when they were hungry. Because they ached for more than milk; they ached for love, safety, touch, and connection.3
The Church — and the people who make up the Church — don’t always do a good job of providing a soft place for hungry people. Instead, we draw lines and serve our food to those we deem deserve it. We’re far more concerned with hard-wire boundaries than terry-cloth comfort.
While it is true we need rules, boundaries, and responsibilities to guide families and society, we need more than functional, cold-wire apparatuses to deliver what we crave. We need food in the context of relationship.
Which is what went down at the Last Supper table.
The table Jesus shared with His closest friends included common laborers, tax collectors, uneducated fishermen, a guy with an anger problem, and another with a doubt problem. Several at His table boasted egos bigger than their pay grade, and one was secretly selling his proximity to Jesus for a kickback he would later regret.
These were not the rule-following, line-drawing pious. These were ordinary, everyday broken people who were likely to launch ground beef onto the shoulder of their tablemate while saying something decidedly unreligious.
Even so. Jesus offered each a seat at His table. Bread spread out before them, His body close enough to squeeze a shoulder, slap a back, or touch a hand. He invited them to dinner, said, “Do life with Me. You are family. I love you.” And in the process, He fed more than their bellies.
It wasn’t about the food. It was about relationship.
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and gave it to His disciples, saying, ‘Take it; this is My body’. — Mark 14:22
One by one, they took the bread, tore some off, chewed, swallowed, and passed it on.
Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it. — Mark 14:23
They all drank from it, egomaniacs and doubters and deniers alike.
This is My blood of the covenant. — Mark 14:24
The covenant. The covenant cut with Abraham. The covenant promising God would bless not only one man but every last one of us. The animals, cut in bloody pieces, separated to form a path that God alone would walk through. If the relationship was broken, the attachment breached, He would be the one torn in two to make everything — everyone —whole.
This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. — Mark 14:24
He came and sat at our table so the many would never again fear losing their seats at His.
It wasn’t about consuming but about pouring. It was never about the meal. It was always about the relationship. An invitation to a covenantal, table-sharing intimacy. And the price He was willing to pay to secure it.
Poured out for many. The great and the small, the whole and the broken, the strong and the weak, the sick and the well. No longer would there be any boundaries, any separation, any breach, any divide.
Only one table. One cup. One meal. And terry-cloth grace.
1.“The Last Supper—by Leonardo Da Vinci,” Leonardo Da Vinci website, See also “The Last Supper and Santa Maria delle Grazie,”
2.D. Brack, “Table Fellowship,” in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Barry et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).
3.“Harry F. Harlow, Monkey Love Experiments,” Adoption History Project, University of Oregon
Excerpted with permission from Relentless by Michele Cushatt, copyright Michele Cushatt.
* * *
Your Turn
The meal is always about the relationship. Jesus came for relationship. For comfort. For love. To pour Himself out for us. Come join the conversation on our blog about The Meal! ~ Devotionals Daily

Is God just? Is he moral?

📷 Sorry, this post has been removed by the moderators of DebateAChristian.Moderators remove posts from feeds for a variety of reasons, including keeping communities safe, civil, and true to their purpose.
Can someone explain how it makes sense to torture and murder near innocent people, such as liars, adulterers, blasphemers etc.? So, the Kingdom of God is a government right? Would you want to live in a dictatorship which forces you to worship it's leader, and arbitrarily, and selectively murdered countless people? Because that's what the whole thing sounds like to me. So, if you were born before the time of Christ and never even heard of Judaism, (who God made his original covenant with.) you are automatically condemned to torture and death. If two people both commit the exact same sins today, say they're both liars, and disrespectful to their parents for example, but one of them does not have faith, then that person is punished with eternal torture, (or possibly a hot minute of torture, then death depending on doctrine) while the other is likely rewarded with paradise, and eternal life. Does this make sense? Is that justice? How so? How is it moral to dish out death and torture for minor offenses? Most people would be morally outraged if there was a dictator wielding absolute power, with no checks and balances, who was torturing and murdering his detractors, and those who commit minor crimes, yet most people profess to love God. How do you reconcile these things?
People often excuse the evil of God with: "oh it's free will, they're *choosing* to sin" etc. However free will as the proponents of the free will argument put it is an illusion. If I stick a gun to your head, and say, "you will either live as I tell you, and worship me, or I will kill you" am I offering you a real choice? Is that "free will"? That is what God does. How is the choice between a gruesome death, and a life of servitude and obedience a choice at all? What gives God the right to do this? The fact that he created us? Creating a life does not give you the right to end it when it does not do what you want. If I have a child, and that child is rebellious and never listens to me, can I kidnap him/her, throw them into my basement, and torture them until I decide to kill them? That is what God does. Yet people applaud this. How can God morally judge people for anything, when he has ordered mass murders? (IE: the flood, the attacks on Egypt etc. etc.) Why does he not throw himself into the fire? Justice for all right? Where was the justice for the firstborn sons of Egypt? What of those recently born who had committed no crimes, yet were murdered because of the decision of a Pharaoh they knew nothing about? How can a mass murderer be passing morality laws about adultery, and then sentencing people to death for it, and get applauded for his justice? - in fact, seeing as how murder is a sin, doesn't that make God a sinner? Something he is incapable of? Isn't that a contradiction? No matter how you slice it, even if you believe that the flood etc. was allegorical, God is a murderekiller, (semantics at this point, who can claim an absolute ruler is a murderer? He has no legal authority over him.) he has condemned untold billions to death.
What of those who were born in foreign countries, where Christianity is not a part of the culture or lifestyle? Does every single Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. etc. deserve torment and death? Isn't that exactly what's going to happen to them? All for what? They had faith, just in the "wrong" thing, they were nothing other than victims of their circumstances, what do Christians think about this? How can you justify the immorality of God? Why does God punish an entire species for the decision of two of it's original members? Is it just of me to condemn you to death because your great-great-great(x9999) grandparents ate a piece of fruit I told them not too? That I put there knowing they would? Supposedly the people in Heaven spend a lot of their time singing praise and worshiping God (sounds like North Korea) and they cannot sin, as sin does not exist in Heaven. Does that sound like free will? It means you probably cannot get drunk, gamble, have premarital sex (so if you're unmarried you're to remain celibate for eternity.) masturbate, lie, etc. etc. is that free will if you physically cannot do those things? Even if you are just repulsed by the thought of it, and "choose" not too, isn't that the very absence of free will that proponents of the argument that God allows evil to exist so that free will can? If free will is so important, why is it removed upon death?
What purpose does it serve to worship God? Does it accomplish anything? Is it in itself good? How so? Why is failure to worship God an offense punishable by death? "Because God is love, and hell is being removed from him" What? God is all powerful, so why can't he stand the presence of sin? Isn't that a contradiction? He can do anything, including making a place for those he is condemning, even if it were outside of Heaven. He has no need to torture and murder them. He *chooses* too. I have heard that the "majority" of Christians believe that God holds all sin in equal regard, how is that just? It means that by God's judgement, someone who has had premarital sex (the majority of humanity) is held in the same regard as a murdering pedophile. (assuming you agree with that original statement, which I've just seen posted on here so I know that there are definitely some among the Reddit community who do.) Take a look at the story of Jacob and Esau, and then God's words on it:
Romans 9:13-18 King James Version (KJV)
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Where was the justice for Esau? God favored his younger brother over him, and gave him more blessings and cared for his descendants more, leaving Esau's offspring to suffer, despite Jacob conning his own father, and stealing his brothers inheritance. This also goes to show that God is very partisan, favoring certain people's over others, often just because. Where is the justice in this?
I could go on and on, and list multiple scenarios in scripture where there is inequity from God, but I think I'm starting to ramble a bit, so I'll leave it here. My apologies if I seem condescending, it's just frustrating to think people support evil masquerading as goodness. (in my opinion at least.) I would like to see good arguments proving me wrong.

MilesBeyond250 gave a great summary of Baptists
For the Southern Baptist AMA click here! They'll answer all your SOUTHERN BAPTIST related questions. :) For other Baptists, we have...
A Wild Reformed Baptist AMA appeared!. Check that one out too.

(OTHER) ASSOCIATIONAL BAPTIST

AMA PART A

Cooperative Baptist Fellowship,
Baptist General Convention of Texas,
Canadian Baptist Ministries
About: Why have ANOTHER Baptist AMA? Aren't we just the tiny associations not part of the SBC? Well, actually, no!
There are 33 million baptists in North America. There are 16 million Southern Baptists. We are in fact, more than half. We will list our particular association by our names. Some, like the Texas Baptists and the Cooperative Baptist fellowship, also cooperate with one another (committees on committees and associations on associations!). Keep in mind there are many other BIG associational Baptist groups we do not represent: Like the American Baptist Churches USA, and the largest Historically Black churches are Baptist as well (The National Baptist Convention, the Progressive National Baptist Convention).
In fact, to really drive the point home, the Baptist World Alliance has a membership of more than 44 million Baptists worldwide--of many associations/ fellowships/conventions. This does not include non-associational (independent) Baptists or the Southern Baptist Convention) More than 2/3 of worldwide Baptists are not SBC.

Without further delay, here are our Baptists panelists.

MilesBeyond250 Canadian Baptist Ministries
I'm a member of Canadian Baptist Ministries (CBM), which is affiliated with the WBA, and have served as a pastor in that organization.

(^ A man of few words about himself. What humility!)

lillyheart
Affiliation: Baptist General Convention of Texas
Position: UCC Pastor
I'm a Texas born lady who attended a Baptist university and Baptist seminary. I have pastored a non-baptist church for almost 2 years, because there wasn't a Baptist church to hire me (the few that hire women were on the bit more established side, and none of the rural churches were interested.) This meant that for a year, I was the only female senior pastor at my decently-sized seminary.
I am a strong believer in the Bible. What scripture says is important to me- we can't write it off, and we must seek to be honest and in line with scripture. I believe in Congregationalist polity and believers baptism. I am a pacifist and have a very low view of anyone's spiritual authority over me except God. I attend both conferences for the BGCT and CBF, and was the recipient of significant scholarship money for both. I'm part of the Baptist General Convention of Texas and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.
As far as the BGCT: The BGCT is the oldest surviving Baptist Convention in Texas, comprised of a variety of baptist denominations, including the SBC, CBF, two-seed, primitive, reformed, landmark, Baptist World Alliance, etc. During the "great split" in the Southern Baptist Convention, Texas, being full of the independently minded folks it's famous for, refused to pick a side or cede to the demands of splitting. It wasn't until 1998 that the SBC finally "gave up" and created it's own SBCT. Most SBC churches are still members of the BGCT as well. It runs from Fundamentalist to almost liberal. While churches are free to decide how to interpret scripture when it comes to women in ministry, the BGCT is closed to LGBT issues. It follows the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message, not the 2000. For updates, please check out the newspaper The Baptist Standard. It covers what we do.
Our current president is Kathy Hillman, the second woman president of the BGCT. It partners nationally with both the Southern Baptist Convention and the Cooperative Baptist convention. It partners with or has control of 9 different universities in Texas, including Baylor (where it has little power except at the seminary), Dallas Baptist, Houston Baptist, Mary Hardin Baylor, Wayland, Baptist University of the Americas, etc. All in all, it helps to educate more than 27,000 college students each year. It also runs the BSMs for most (all?) of Texas. It also runs 6 hospital systems. Buckner International is a BGCT institution, as well as a number of other family services including children's homes. The BGCT focuses on advocacy in Texas- the Christian Life Commission lobbies Texas government on issues about poverty including stopping predatory lending and opposing gambling. It also endorses over 700 chaplains for hospital, hospice/nursing homes, police and military work. It does a LOT of church planting.
Many folks know of the BGCT through their disaster relief and the work of Texas Baptist Men (a group), which is absolutely phenomenal and one reason that despite different beliefs, we work together. We are in the same place, are all baptists, and all called to the same Christian responsibility to love our neighbor.
Tepid_Radical_Reform
Affiliation: Cooperative Baptist
Special snowflake title: Broadly Reformed Ecumenical Evangelical Baptist/ English teacher
I too attended a Baptist college and have seriously considered seminary (also took a class at a small Cooperative Baptist seminary).
I grew up Southern Baptist but transitioned to being Cooperative Baptist in college. The CBF arose from disaffected "moderates" within the CBF in 1991, as a result of the "Conservative Resurgence/ Fundamentalist Takeover" in the Southern Baptist Convention. Young earth creationism, complimentarianism, all became requried for seminary and students, missionaries, and office workers in the SBC. When it became clear after 2 decades of these "Baptist wars" that more moderate theology would not be tolerated in the SBC, the moderates left.
For me, it was not as simple transition from Southern Baptists to Cooperative Baptist as you might imagine. Inbetween, I was very anti-Baptist. I sojourned with Lutherans, Anglicans, Nazarenes, Presbyterians--anyone who wasn't "Baptist" or non-denominational (Baptist in disguise) I avoided. It was not until reading Stephen Holmes "Baptist Theology" that I realize there was something to be proud of in being Baptist and there was a thought-out history. I was very interested in Church tradition at this time: and I was surprised to find out there were some Baptists who agreed with me!
It is really true, you can find a Baptist church which believes almost anything. Everything from footwashing pacifist Baptists, to Bapto-costals who speak in tongues, to Bapto-Catholic who follow the church calendar and do the stations of the cross. They are able to do this because of congregational autonomy.
The separation of Church and state, believer's baptism, autonomy of the local church, fighting for religious freedoms for all (like the Baptist Joint Committee on religious liberty does), keeping the two ordinances, are religious commitments.
We are not creedal, but many of our statements of belief, historically, were written not as litmus tests but to say to other Christians "Look, we're not heretics we promise!"
Theologically, there are OTHER Christians who believe much of what we do. Ecclesiologically, we are unique.
I gained an interest in what being a Baptist meant historically, theologically, ecclesiologically. And it is only in the past two years, I've actually been proud (not prideful, just proud) to be a Baptist rather than feeling like a "lesser Christian".
I am also a teacher. I taught English and Journalism in Kentucky and, soon, I will be leaving to teach a year in South Korea!

In addition to our "Other Associational Baptist" panelists, we also have one Independent Baptist oarsof6. He has written about himself and Independent Baptists.

AMA PART B

Independent Fundamental Baptist history and bio:

Distinguishing History

Independent Fundamental Baptists began to distinguish themselves from other Baptists during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, in response to those in the Christian Modernist movement of that time. The name Independent implies that the local church is not governed or associated with any other church, convention, or body. Fundamental implies that the church acknowledges the five fundamentals of the faith:

Inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture.
The virgin birth of Christ.
The Deity of Christ
The substitutionary atonement of Christ.
Christ’s bodily resurrection and eventual bodily return to earth.

Distinguishing Beliefs

As the churches are fully autonomous, other beliefs and doctrine among Independent Fundamental Baptist churches varies greatly (including Calvinist vs. non-Calvinist theology), but there are several distinctive that we have from other Baptist denominations (taken partly from my church’s constitution):

We believe that God not only inspired every word in the 66 books of the Bible, but has preserved, and believe the King James Version is the preserved Word of God for the English-speaking people. We also believe in the literal interpretation of the Scriptures in their grammatical and historical context. (Psalm 12:6-7; II Timothy 3:15-17; I Peter 1:23-25; II Peter 1:19-21).
We believe in and practice the doctrine of Separation from persons not of like faith and the world. (Amos 3:3, Ephesians 5:11, 2 Corinthians 6:14, John 17:13-16).
As part of #2, we do not use contemporary style Christian music in the church, or listen to contemporary style music outside of the church (Job 14:4, Jeremiah 6:16, Romans 12:2, Colossians 3:16).
We do not belong to any association – all churches are independent form one another, and are lead by the pastor(s) and the deacons.
We believe that it is every Christian’s duty out of love and faith to share the Gospel with others. Therefore, we regularly go door to door in confrontational soulwinning to tell others about Christ and lead them to salvation (Proverbs 11:30, Matthew 10:32, Matthew 28:19, Luke 14:23, Acts 20:19-21, Galatians 6:7-8).

My Personal Bio

I am thirty, currently live in Tennessee with my wife and daughter, but was born and raised in Maryland. My parents attended a local SBC Baptist church but left just before I turned 6. I continued attending, then started going to my grandmother’s ELCA Lutheran church during high school. Though the liturgy was a bit of a culture shock for me, I read the catechism studied Lutheran beliefs, and was used by the pastor in the procession/to distribute communion. In college, I was President of the school’s Lutheran Episcopal Campus Ministry, but had a large disagreement with the group’s chaplain over the Bible's authority and reliability. I started attending church at a local Independent Fundamental Baptist church, and my then girlfriend (now wife) and her family were converted after attending as well. I went through a long period of what I can only describe as zealotry, when I would proselytize door-to-door and in public areas, sing and preach for multiple congregations, and planned to go to bible college to become a preacher. After moving to Tennessee, I reevaluated many of my beliefs, and no longer believe in many standards of the church (specifically regarding dress/music, KJV onlyism, lay-person soul-winning, etc.), and have some unanswered questions on eschatology, church structure/leadership, the place of tradition in the church, etc.
I have limited time to post today, but will answer any questions as I can.

I am not trying to destroy anyone's faith, but these have been questions that I've failed to answer.
I'd like to add that I'm a theistic Christian... but one with significant, recurring doubts about aspects of the faith.
Note: Original post is here, but I significantly expanded it + cut out personal information.)

The Afterlife?

The most important topic in Christianity. Salvation: how a man is declared righteous, justified, before the the eyes of God. No one will mistake this as an unimportant and inessential doctrine: Salvation itself.
Heaven, or hell. Eternal life, or the second death.
Why would the gate be narrow and "few there be that find that"? If people are aware of their sinfulness, their fallenness, why wouldn't God give them a second chance to repent? It seems a lot more people would repent, knowing both the costs and the utter depravity of their sin. It would seem to be a lot more easier to justify if there was stronger evidence that could be known to the lay person/wasn't many branches of Christianity.
Isn't concept of hell itself cruel? Unkind? Somewhat unnecessary? A sort of cosmic dualism? Wouldn't God prefer the annihilation of sinners, rather than the unending precedence of sin?
Why doesn't God allow humans the choice not the enter the afterlife — non-existence? It seems like a person is being forced to choose a game they do not want to play, indirectly or directly. I haven't been able to find a satisfying answer.

Schism

Why would God allow different and relatively believable Christian branches, when each of them disagree on the most significant doctrine, salvation itself? To even a person who has substantially researched with theology and history, it would seem that they wouldn't stand a chance to understand the truth.
Let's take the difference between the Catholic and Reformed understanding of salvation. If Catholicism is true, (Council of Trent) a devout Reformed Protestant who dies in a state of mortal sin will spend an eternity in everlasting torment in hell; if the Reformed understanding of salvation is true, then vise versa. To someone who takes these things seriously, it's utterly horrifying. How do you know that your Christian sect is real, knowing the very real stakes if you are wrong?
One could claim that the "Bible is abundantly clear" about all of this, but the apparent evidence seems to contradict this assertion. How many more people would be saved if Romans 10:9-15, James 2:14-26, and 1 Peter 3:21 were clarified? If the Bible is inspired/written by an omniscient being, couldn't it be done much more clearly?
Assuming a 25% chance of each main branch being true, it seems that you should want God *not* to exist:
Mainstream/Orthodox Christian scenario:
Assuming you believe in this, it seems that the choices are:
1.) 25% Heaven (Immense pleasure/love/joy/bliss/connection to God)
2.) 75% Hell (Immense pain/hate/rage/disconnection to God)
Rationalist/Materialist Atheist scenario:
1.) No life after death (Probable)
2.) Life extension advances comes out, eventually you are immortal. (Unknown %'s)
Assuming God exists, and even assuming you are a pious man, it seems far more likely beneficial for you to wish that the mainstream Christian conception of God doesn't exist. And even then...

The Evilness of Having Children

As Stewart James Felker writes in Patheos:

...avoiding having children is in fact the single greatest thing that could be done to unfailingly prevent this afterlife suffering; and considering the magnitude of suffering that this damned individual would experience, we could in fact say that this avoidance would be a significant mitigation of the total amount of suffering present in reality itself.
To take the gamble against this, then, would be the height of recklessness; and, proportional to the infinite suffering possible here, the decision to not take measures to (unfailingly) prevent this—to avoid procreating—veers toward being unequivocally or indeed infinitely immoral.
But while the chances that a child would fail to attain these criteria for salvation would (obviously) be lessened by, say, its being born in a majority Christian nation and having a Christian upbringing, we have to bear in mind that even if the potential child were born into an ideal situation in which the likelihood of this failure were small, it still remains the case—again based on the “traditional” understanding of salvation and damnation—that this is weighed against the risk of a literal eternity of suffering.
Again, however, this is not the case on the traditional view of an eternal Hell. To parents who would become aware of the moral imperative suggested here and yet refuse to follow it, then—if the child indeed failed to attain the criteria for salvation—these parents would bear some amount of direct responsibility for setting the stage for the infinite amount of suffering that their damned child would experience.
In any case, there is, again, the idea that the more that potential parents are aware of this idea—that their agency in bringing life into the world is what could destine the child to eternal suffering—the more morally culpable they are in this. Although a condemned person’s damnation may proximately be due to their own free will sin and/or rejection of Christianity, it is the parents’ procreative decision which created the condition for this in the first place—something which, again, was eminently avoidable. Of course, in a certain way this is parallel to a broader problem of evil in general, where God’s creation of the universe is the ultimate cause of all suffering; but in other ways this is a very different issue. Perhaps even more interesting: if we consider that God might have some sort of reluctance to ultimately consign people to Hell—at least insofar as he would prefer his creations attain salvation rather than be damned—is there a sense in which the mere act of parents’ procreation here is in fact the direct cause of setting God up to do something that he would rather not do (assuming that this does indeed result in a damned child sometimes)?
This may all result in the idea, then, that—if parents’ procreative decision puts God in the potential position of doing something that he doesn’t “want” to do (again cf. Ezek. 18:23; 33:11; 2 Pet. 3:9; 1 Tim. 2:4), and consequently that this precarious decision itself (which resulted in a condemned child) should indeed be considered “bad”—God must have had a preference that the parents of the condemned child not procreate to begin with! (Insofar as refraining from procreation is the one thing someone can do in order to guarantee another person not being condemned to Hell: the one thing that, if not done—that is, if people do procreate—may “force” God’s hand in an undesirable way.)

Why would you have children, if there is a significant, if not >50% chance that they face this destiny? Is that not selfish in the most horrific way possible?
It's one of the reasons I've considered not having children.

The Problem of Suffering

Why is there suffering? I have been reading extensively about various theories attempting to explain this conundrum. One of these comes from Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga, who suggests that the presence of evil and suffering in the world is due to God giving us free will to choose their destiny (Plantinga) or MacIntyre's response that it cultivates the virtues of humans.
However, it fails to account for the presence of suffering against people that are innocent: babies, the presence of natural evil, animal cruelty, the suffering of the infirm, etc. When the innocent suffer... how does it make the world better? Is a infant who is beaten cultivating the virtues, is he/she excising his/her free will? They certainly can't do anything related to this. They are born. Then they have their head bashed with a rock.
What is his/her purpose being born?

Couldn't there be a better designed universe?

Take this quote from Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz:

God has the idea of infinitely many universes.
Only one of these universes can actually exist.
God's choices are subject to the principle of sufficient reason, that is, God has reason to choose one thing or another.
God is good.
Therefore, the universe that God chose to exist is the best of all possible worlds.

He is all-good, so how is our world the "best of all possible worlds"?
How is the vast majority of the world being cast into hell "the best universe?" Why is there evil?

The Problem of Non-Answering

Each "side" to the conflict claims proof for this side, and my inquiries into the manner have proven indecisive . Throwing another wrench into my troubles, each side also proclaims to hear voices/experiences/authority from God. But how is it possible to tell who is correct? Is it just a feeling? Is it an interpretation? I've asked God throughout the last year to explain, to clarify, these issues of importance to me, and to the best of my knowledge they have gone unanswered.
If someone wants their prayers answered, as I have for 2 years, why would God not respond to me? It would seem important to get a closer connection to him, notably when I'm as young as 17 or 18 years old.

The Problem of Apparent Flaws

Couldn't an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God do something better than this?

by Hal Lindsey, with C.C Carlson 'History teaches us that man learns nothing from his- tory.' HEGEL DO WE REALLY LIVE AND LEARN? It's ironic that man never seems to learn from past mis- takes, especially when they relate to major catastrophes. World War I was called the war to end all wars, yet within a generation World War II was fought in basi- cally the same arena. We are now running around the the world desperately seeking to put out fuses which could explode into what might be our last war on earth. Through the grim pages of history we see the record of man's constant struggle to live with his fellow man. Families fight against families, tribes against tribes, and nations against nations. Most people hate war, and yet since recorded time the world has seldom seen peace. General Douglas MacArthur said, "Men since the beginning of time have sought peace . . . military alli- ances, balances of power, leagues of nations, all in turn failed, leaving the only path to be by way of the crucible of war. The utter destructiveness of war now blots out this alternative." Mankind has not learned the futility of war from his- tory. However, as tragic as that is, there is another les- son, even more tragic, which has not been heeded. This involves a people whose most cherished hope had been the coming of their great Deliverer, called the Messiah. The central theme of the Jewish prophets was that "the Messiah" would come and fulfill the promises given to their forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In these promises Israel is to be the leading nation of the world under the reign of the Messiah who would bring universal peace, prosperity, and harmony among all peoples of the earth. The paradox is that there has come a Jew who claimed to be the Messiah. He fulfilled many of the an- cient predictions, but was rejected by those who should have recognized Him first. The question is this: If He was truly the long-awaited Messiah, as millions have believed, why didn't the majority of the religious leaders of His day believe His claims? These religious leaders, after all, knew the Messianic predictions. Ignorance was not their excuse. The reasons they didn't believe Him are fascinating and extremely relevant to this hour of history in which we live. Two Portraits Two completely different portraits of a coming Mes- siah are described by the Old Testament prophets. The portraits, painted by the sure hand of God, were placed on the same canvas, framed in one picture. For those who lived prior to the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, the perspective of these two portraits of the Messiah was difficult to understand. Imagine a man looking at a range of mountains. He is able to see the peak of one mountain, and beyond it the peak of another. However, from this vantage point, he cannot see the valley which separates these two mountains. Man viewed the two portraits of the Messiah in the same manner. They saw two different persons, but missed the connection. They did not perceive that there could be just one Messiah, coming in two different roles, and separated by the valley of time. One portrait of the Messiah depicts Him as a humble servant who would suffer for others and be rejected by His own countrymen. This portrait we may call "the Suffering Messiah." (Look into the prophecies of Isaiah 53 for the perfect picture of this Messiah.) The other portrait shows the Messiah as a conquering king with unlimited power, who comes suddenly to earth at the height of a global war and saves men from self- destruction. He places the Israelites who believe in Him as the spiritual and secular leaders of the world and brings in an age free of prejudice and injustice. It's easy to see why this would be the most popular portrait. We may call this second picture "the reigning Mes- siah." We find this description in such prophecies as Zechariah 14 and Isaiah 9:6, 7. These two portraits of the Messiah presented such a paradox that the rabbis at least a century before Jesus of Nazareth was born theorized that there would be two messiahs. They could not see how both portraits could be true of the same person. Their misunderstanding led them to believe that the suffering one would deliver the people from their sins by bearing the penalty of death for them. He would be primarily a "Spiritual Deliverer." The reigning king would conquer Israel's enemies and bring world peace. He would be primarily a 'Political Deliverer." The Big Question Why did the majority of the Jewish people, who knew the teachings of their prophets, reject Jesus of Nazareth as their Messiah when he came? Why did they ignore the portraits of the suffering Messiah? Jesus Himself pointed out to them Old Testament predictions concern- ing his life and ministry which were being fulfilled in His life. First of all, the Jews didn't take their prophets liter- ally as far as this suffering Messiah was concerned. They took very literally the portrait of the Messiah who would come as the reigning King. However, they had degen- erated in their own religious convictions to the point where they didn't believe they were sinful. They believed they were keeping the law of Moses; therefore, they saw no need for a suffering Messiah to deliver them from their sins. The Jewish religious leaders had built up a tradition of interpretation which made keeping god's laws merely an external thing (Mark 7:1-15). Jesus, however, pointed out the true meaning of God's law in the Ser- mon on the Mount. He showed that murder was not just actually killing someone, but that it was being angry with your neighbor without just cause (Matthew 5:21, 22). He pointed out that adultery in God's sight was merely looking at a woman with lust (Matthew 5:27-32). He expounded the real meaning of "love thy neigh- bor as yourself" as applying to your enemies as well (Matthew 5:43-48). With each commandment Jesus emphasized the false interpretation of the religious leaders and contrasted it with the true meaning which God had always intended. He showed that God looks upon the heart and not just upon the outward performance of man. I am sure that if you took the previous paragraph seriously you may feel a little uncomfortable right now. You may be saying to yourself what I said some years ago when the true meaning of the Ten Commandments was first pointed out to me. "Who in the world can be accepted by God if he is going to have to keep the law in his thoughts and motives?" If this is what you are thinking, congratulations! You have just discovered the whole purpose for the law of Moses. The commandments were never intended to be used to work our way to God. The commandments were primarily given to show us how perfect we would have to be in order to earn acceptance with God by our own good deeds. This is why God says to us, "Whoever keeps the who law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all" (James 2:10 NASB). it is easy to see in the light of this why the Bible says, ". . . by the works of the Law no flesh (man) will be justified in His (God's) sight" (Romans 3:20 NASB). The law was given to show mankind why it needed a "suffering Messiah" who alone could make man accept- able to God. Any person who hasn't come to see that his most basic problem is an inner spiritual one prefers a political deliverer to a spiritual one. It is not difficult, therefore, to understand the basic attitude which ratio- nalizes away the prophetic portrait of the suffering Messiah. Jesus presented his credentials as the suffering Mes- siah, but many rejected Him because they were looking for a great conqueror. They were looking for that politi- cal leader who would deliver them from the Roman oppression. In their blindness they discounted more than 300 specific predictions in their own sacred writings about this Messiah. The second reason why the Jewish people rejected the Messiah was one of indifference — an indifference to their spiritual need. They couldn't be bothered. They were too busy. They had a chariot race or a party to attend. Caught in the treadmill of daily existence, the deeper needs of the inner self weren't important. In addition, they didn't bother to do any investigation for themselves. Many knew there was something un- usual about this carpenter from Nazareth, but the irreli- gious leaders rejected Him and they took their opinions instead of searching for the truth themselves. It was because people will not do their own research that Jesus made an astounding statement on the signs of the times. He showed simply and clearly how prophecies were being fulfilled in His life. And yet, to the sorrow of many, He was ignored. Signs of the Times The religious leaders of His day were the number one skeptics. They came to Jesus and asked Him to show them a sign from heaven. They wanted some sensational miracle which would give them proof that Jesus was their promised Messiah. They wanted Him to suddenly step out of the sky as the conquering Messiah (as He is revealed in Zechariah 14) and take over all the king- doms of the world and defeat the Roman Empire. Jesus had already given them important signs to prove who He was. He healed many persons and had raised at least one from the dead. But they didn't con- sider this sufficient evidence to prove His claim of being the Messiah. Jesus answered these religious leaders by saying: "When it is evening, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.' And in the morning, 'It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.' You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you can- not interpret the signs of the times" (Matthew 16:2, 3). The signs of the times. It is important to see what Jesus was driving at. People in Palestine, even today, indulge in being amateur weather forecasters. Weather conditions are such that the particular signs given here are fair indication of what the weather will be. Jesus said that the signs leading up to His coming were just a clear as the face of the sky. Let's examine these signs, these credentials. Let's look at specific pre- dictions of how this man Jesus would come to fulfill the role of the Messiah, of how He would fit into the first portrait of the suffering Messiah. The first theme of predictions relates to the circum- stances of his birth. These were His credentials. Birth Credentials: His Family God revealed to Abraham, the father of all Jews, that he would have a direct descendant who would be a bless- ing to the peoples of the earth (Genesis 12:1-3). Furthermore, God revealed to Jacob, who was one of the descendants of Abraham, that the Messiah would come through one specific tribal state — the tribal state of Judah. The Jews established states in the land of Palestine after they took it over, and they were divided according to twelve families. These families originated from the twelve sons of Jacob (Genesis 49:10). His family credentials were narrowed even more, from the tribe of Judah to the family of David. The pre- diction was given to David, the great king in the history of Israel, by the prophet Nathan. Nathan said, "Thus says the Lord of hosts . . . I will raise up your offspring after you, one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build Me a house, and I will establish his throne for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be My Son . . ." (I Chronicles 17:11-13 Amplified). King David was promised at least two exciting things here. First, one of his direct descendants would reign forever. Secondly, this person would not only be one of his direct descendants, but in a mysterious way He would be uniquely the Son of God. Rabbinic tradition ascribed this to be a prediction of the Messiah. Consequently, on of the most common Messianic titles is "the Son of David." Birth Credentials: The Place The prophet Micah lived seven hundred years before the birth of Christ. He was a contemporary of the great prophet Isaiah. It was revealed to Micah that the Mes- siah would be born in Bethlehem. "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from old, from ever- lasting" (Micah 5:2 KJV). This was the prophecy of the Messiah which was unmis- takable because it referred to His eternal pre-existence . . . "whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." This was no ordinary man, but a supernatural person who would invade history from Bethlehem. This prophecy is quoted in the New Testament in Matthew, in answer to Herod's question to the Hebrew theologians about where the Messiah would be born. They answered him: "In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written by the prophet" (Matthew 2:5). How remarkable it is that century after century the Hebrew people handed down these detailed prophecies. They had to be revelations from God, otherwise they would not have been preserved in such a consistent manner. Birth Credentials: The General Time We have examined the prophecies concerning the family line of the Messiah and the place of His birth. Let's look at the time factor. The prophet Daniel, while in captivity in Babylon, was given a precise timetable and sequence relating to the future events of the people of Israel. Daniel was told that there would be a certain number of years which would transpire between the time a proclamation was given which allowed the Jewish people to return from their Babylonian captivity back to Israel and the coming of the Messiah. This proclamation can be established according to Scriptural history in Nehemiah 2:1-10. Also, archae- ologists have uncovered evidence of the same procla- mation in the ancient Persian archives. From the time permission was given to return and rebuild the city of Jerusalem and the Temple until the Messiah would come as the Prince, the heir-apparent to the throne of David, would be 483 years (69 weeks of years — 483 years). Sir Robert Anderson of Scotland Yard spent many years of his life verifying and validat- ing the details of this prophecy. He wrote a comprehen- sive book of his study called The Coming Prince. Not only was Daniel given specific years, but also a sequence of major historical events which cannot be denied. First of all, there was the proclamation given to the Jews to return from captivity and rebuild the Temple. After that, the Messiah would come as the Prince. Then the Messiah would be "cut off," which is an idiom for being killed. After the Messiah was killed an army would sweep in and destroy the city and the Temple which was rebuilt previously by the returned Babylonian exiles (Daniel 9). Daniel's prophecy shows that whoever the Messiah was He had to appear before the city and the Temple were destroyed in A.D. 70. We have the logical can- didate for that role in the carpenter from Nazareth. Credentials Relating to His Ministry We have considered a panorama of Jesus' birth cre- dentials to verify His claim as the Jewish Messiah. To pile proof upon proof, consider the prophecies relating to the deeds Jesus would do upon the earth — prophecies about His own ministry. The prophet Isaiah presented a vivid description of the coming Messiah when he said: "Say to those who are of a fearful heart, 'Be strong, fear not! Behold, your God will come with vengeance, with the recompense of God. He will come and save you.' Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf un- stopped; then shall the lame man leap like a hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing for joy. For waters shall break forth in the wilderness, and streams in the desert" (Isaiah 35:4-6). Jesus knew the Old Testament prophets. He quoted this exact prophecy from Isaiah when John the Baptist seemed to have some doubts about Him. John was the herald who announced the coming of Jesus as the Mes- siah, and yet even John could not reconcile the two portraits of the Messiah. When he was taken prisoner he sent some messengers to Jesus to ask, "Are You the Coming One, or shall we look for someone else?" (Mat- thew 11:3 NASB). Jesus answered by quoting the predictions of the mir- acles He would perform. "Go and report to John the things which you hear and see: the blind receive sight and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead men are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them" (Matthew 11:4, 5 NASB). The fact that Jesus was performing these very mira- cles was His credential to substantiate His claim that He was the Messiah. Credentials Relating to His Rejection and Suffering Probably the most phenomenal predictions relating to the suffering Messiah's portrait are the prophecies that show His rejection and suffering. One of the great pas- sages on His rejection is Isaiah 53. This is called the "bad conscience of the synagogues" because it is no longer read in the temples on holy days, as it once was. In Isaiah 52 there is a general look at this One who is called the servant of God. It is obvious here that the prophet is not talking about Israel, which in some pas- sages is called the servant of God, but about one who would save Israel. "Behold, my servant, (Christ) shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high. As many were astonished at him — his appear- ance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his for beyond that of the sons of men" (Isaiah 52: 13, 14). This was a reference to what happened at the trials of Jesus when he was repeatedly hit in the face. "So shall he startle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which has not been told them they shall see, and that which they have not heard they shall understand" (Isaiah 52:15). In this passage the prophet is saying that he would startle, or astound nations (meaning the non-Jews) and that they would see things they had never seen. The Gentiles, in other words, would begin to understand the ways of God. However, Isaiah speaks of His rejection by the Jews, which in itself was remarkable since Isaiah was a Jewish prophet who wrote at least 700 years before Christ was born. Isaiah predicted that his people would reject the very one for whom they looked (Isaiah 53:1-3). Notice an interesting fact. The prophet writes of this event in the past tense, which was a common literary device of the Jewish writers . . . ("many were aston- ished . . . his appearance was so marred"). When they wished to emphasize the certainty of a prophecy they would put it in this tense, which is called the pro- phetic perfect tense in Hebrew. It was further prophecied here that the Jews would reject this Man because He didn't have the royal splen- dor they desired. Isaiah said He would be "despised and rejected," which is precisely what happened. In this part of the prediction the credentials of the Messiah as a person who would be a substitute for the iniquity, or wickedness, of man are presented: "Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastise- ment that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isaiah 53:4-6). Rabbis since the birth and death of Jesus of Nazareth have reinterpreted this passage to say that the third per- son singular pronoun does not refer to a personal Mes- siah, but to the nation of Israel. However, the passage speaks of this person as bearing the consequences of the transgressions of Israel. Israel could not be a substitute for itself, since the passage clearly states that the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us. Isaiah 53 continues to say that this person would not receive the true justice of the Jewish law. This, of course was true during the trials of Jesus. They were astounded that He didn't try to defend Himself . . . "He was oppressed . . . yet he opened not his mouth" (Isaiah 53:7). Again there is a clear prediction that the Messiah would die for the transgressions of Isaiah's people, as well, of course, as for the whole world. ". . . he was cut off (killed) out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgressions of my people" (Isaiah 53:8b). The details of prophecy relating to this portrait of the Messiah are exact. Isaiah says that He will die beside criminals. "And they made his grave with the wicked." His grave would be with the rich: "And with a rich man in his death" (Isaiah 53:9). Did it happen? Of course. Jesus was crucified be- tween two thieves. After His death one of the rich Phar- isees, Joseph of Arimathaea, took pity on Him and buried Him in his own tomb. Joseph was the rich man predicted here. We can picture Isaiah, standing at Calvary, looking at the panoramic view that Jesus saw and experienced on the cross. However, Isaiah saw this 700 years before Jesus was born! To continue in this remarkable passage, Isaiah speaks of the fact that men could be declared righteous and acceptable to God because he bore their sins. In Bibli- cal vernacular, this is the meaning of "justified." Isaiah said that He "made intercession for the trans- gressors" (Isaiah 5312). Most persons with only a slight exposure to Christian teaching will remember the words of Jesus from the cross when He said, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." Thirty Pieces of Silver Another Old Testament prophet was Zechariah, who rote almost 500 years before Jesus lived. In his book he gave another specific and minute prediction which could only refer to one person. He wrote: "And I said unto the, If ye thing good, give me my price, and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver: a goodly price that I was prized at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD" (Zechariah 11:12, 13 KJV). Notice the three specific trends in this passage. First, there would be a time when the people would estimate their own God's worth at thirty pieces of silver. Then, these thirty pieces would be cast down in the house of the Lord, which is the Temple. Finally, the money would be given to the potter for the graves of the poor people. Do you suppose any present-day "prophets" would dare make such an exact prediction? It happened exactly as told. Matthew records this when he tells of Judas going to the chief priests who were plotting to murder Jesus and saying, "What will you give me if I deliver Jesus to you?" And the priests decided they would give thirty pieces of silver for the betrayal (Matthew 26:14, 15). After Jesus was betrayed and Judas saw that Jesus was condemned to death, which was more severe than Judas had anticipated, he regretted what he had done. He went to the priests and tried to return the money, but the priests insulted him. Judas became infuriated. He threw the money down in the Temple (Matthew 27:3-5). (Prediction fulfilled.) The priests took the money and piously said it wasn't proper to return to the treasury the price of the betrayal, so they decided to give it to a potter to buy the potter's field (Matthew 27:6-10). (Trying to ease their con- sciences, no doubt.) Notice one very important point. Jesus had no con- trol over this prophecy. It had to be fulfilled without any interference on His part. This fact explodes the major premise of a book which has gained some popularity, called The Passover Plot. While the writer of this book does a service by accepting the historical reality of Jesus, he claims that Jesus deliberately plotted to fulfill the predictions of the Messiah given in the Old Testa- ment. This theory could not be valid because there is not way to explain how many predictions, such as the one about the thirty pieces of silver, could be fulfilled when the circumstances were out of Jesus' hands. Predictions Relating to the Crucifixion Jesus told His disciples that there were predictions of Hid suffering in the Psalms (Luke 24: 44-46). One of the clearest prophecies is found in Psalm 22, which was written by King David more than 1000 years before Christ. David describes events which could not have happened to himself since they were beyond the scope of his own experience. The Psalms were accepted as the word of God and David was speaking "in the Spirit," as the ancient rab- binical schools recognized. The psalmist gives a detailed and precise prediction of a person being crucified. He speaks of the suffering of the Messiah as if he were on the cross with Him, feeling His pain, seeing the people and events around him. Speaking in the spirit of the Messiah, David says, "I am poured out like water" — he is speaking of the profuse perspiration of one hanging in the intense sun. "And all my bones are out of joint" — this is one of the most excruciating aspects of cruci- fixion. The ligaments stretch and the bones pop out of joint. He tells of the intense thirst — "and my tongue cleav- eth to my jaws." Jesus said on the cross, "I thirst." "For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture" (Psalm 22:16-18 KJV). "Dog" was a common slang expression the Jews used for the Gentiles — Jesus was surrounded by Gentiles at the crucifixion. He was crucified in the nude; this pas- sage speaks of the shame of it. At the foot of the cross the soldiers gambled (or cast lots) for His robe. As perfect as this passage is in its prophetic accuracy, it gains additional importance when we realize that cru- cifixion as a way of punishment was not known at the time David wrote this. The Jews of that time executed by stoning. It was not until about 200 B.C. when the Romans adopted this cruel practice that crucifixion was widely used — 800 years after this prophecy. Guaranteed Accuracy If there is one thing that guarantees the historical ac- curacy of what the New Testament authors wrote it is the animosity of the Jewish people who crucified Jesus. The message of these prophecy fulfilments was spread by word of mouth all over the Palestinian area starting fifty days after these events happened. If those who crucified Jesus could have disproved any of the historical realities of these events they would have done so and destroyed the whole movement from the beginning. But they didn't bring up any refutation of the facts of fulfilled prophecy; instead they put to death the persons who were proclaiming these facts. That generation did not take seriously the credentials of the suffering Messiah. Jesus predicted the destruction of those who put Him on the cross. "For the days shall come upon you when your enemies will throw up a bank before you, and surround you, and hem you in on every side, and will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation" (Luke 19:43, 44 NASB). Was this prophecy fulfilled? As previously mentioned, Titus and the Roman legions swept down upon Jerusa- lem and destroyed it in A.D. 70. Will We Learn? Will we repeat history? Will we fail to take the proph- ets literally and seriously? Will we be indifferent? Will we allow those who claim to be religious leaders to explain these things away and not investigate for our- selves? There are many more predictions about the reigning Messiah who is yet to come than there were about the suffering Messiah. Will we fail to weigh these prophecies for ourselves, in spite of what others may say? The remainder of this book will present the proph- ecies which are related to the specific pattern of world events which are precisely predicted as coming together shortly before the coming of the Messiah the second time — coming in power to rule the earth. Many of these predictions were in the same para- graphs as those relating to the first coming of the Mes- siah. Do we dare allegorize away the meaning of these? Will these predictions be fulfilled just as certainly and graphically as those of the first coming? This writer says positively, "Yes."

I met this guy on TF2. He accused me of being Charlie Sheen (I'm not), and I went along with it. I sound nothing like Charlie Sheen. I don't know where he came up with the idea. But I thought it was flattering, so I accepted his friend request, and we started talking.
Spocktease: why don't you like richard dawkins?
Spocktease: are you a creationist or something?
Creationist: yea i believe in creation
Creationist: thats why
Spocktease: oh
Spocktease: so you think the earth is like... less than 10,000 years old?
Creationist: thats a good guess lol
Spocktease: and you think that the first man was created out of a handful of dirt?
Creationist: yes
Spocktease: and you believe in talking snakes?
Creationist: not dirt
Creationist: i dont think satan was a snake
Spocktease: dude, you ought to read some science
Spocktease: you're brainwashed, for fuck's sake
Spocktease: evolution is a fact, man
Spocktease: get over it
Creationist: evolution is a theory silly
Creationist: we didnt come from nothing
Spocktease: yes, a theory is a collection of facts and how they relate to each other
Creationist: someone/something designed life
Spocktease: no, we came from less complex lifeforms
Spocktease: nothing designed life
Spocktease: that's ... stupid
Creationist: something created life
Spocktease: no, again, that's stupid
Spocktease: i mean, really
Spocktease: come on
Spocktease: you really believe that?
Creationist: science is based on cause and effect. Life is an effect. something caused it
Spocktease: i thought you were educated
Spocktease: no, science is not based on cause and effect
Spocktease: if something caused the universe, then what caused the thing that caused the universe?
Creationist: dude its so ridiculous to believe evolution it's just an excuse to act like an animal
Spocktease: and if that thing doesn't need a cause, then why does the universe?
Spocktease: it is?
Spocktease: i don't think so
Creationist: so what created the big bang?
Spocktease: i don't know. what created the thing that created the big bang?
Spocktease: first cause arguments are old hat, man
Spocktease: just so you know, i write philosophy
Creationist: the ink from a drawing cannot fathom who made it too
Creationist: just like us
Spocktease: that's because ink is inanimate
Spocktease: whereas we are not
Creationist: speaking in comparative terms
Spocktease: they don't compare
Creationist: we are the ink, whoever made us is the artist
Spocktease: okay, then who made the artist?
Creationist: different dimension
Spocktease: who made god?
Creationist: different rules
Spocktease: where did god come from?
Creationist: who knows maybe no one, maybe something
Spocktease: so you admit that it's possible that something can exist without a cause
Spocktease: but the thing is
Creationist: u like philosophy right?
Spocktease: we know the universe exists, whereas there is no evidence for god
Creationist: i am not faithed in science
Spocktease: so why introduce this extra thing?
Spocktease: occam's razor
Spocktease: google it
Spocktease: well, that's fine, because science requires no faith whatsoever
Spocktease: only evidence
Spocktease: and it'll change with the evidence
Spocktease: it always does
Creationist: there is a spirit realm surely, but no evidence has ever been found except peoples eyewitness acounts
Spocktease: there is no spirit realm according to science, because there is no evidence for any spirit realm
Creationist: well anyways man, i don't want to gamble with eternity. that is just dumb
Spocktease: you're christian, right?
Spocktease: why aren't you muslim? wouldn't you rather not risk it?
Creationist: its a 50/50 chance if u believe in Christ, if not then thats a lose/lose
Spocktease: what if you're wrong, and islam is true, and you go to hell for believing the wrong thing?
Creationist: well there is evidence of christ having existed here on earth
Spocktease: why gamble with eternity?
Spocktease: wait.
Creationist: true but i hate faith thats why
Spocktease: there's evidence for mohammed, too
Spocktease: there's evidence for jesus, but was he born of a virgin? was god his dad?
Spocktease: did he rise from the dead?
Creationist: i havent heard of any except the karan
Spocktease: these are totally different things
Creationist: do you believe in "if it feels good do it?
Spocktease: believe in it?
Spocktease: well, no, not really
Spocktease: there are other considerations
Creationist: if we are animals then why do we have a sense of right and wrong, good and evil
Creationist: science cannot explain alot of things dude
Spocktease: for instance, it might feel good to beat a guy i caught sleeping with my wife
Spocktease: but that doesn't make it right
Spocktease: because we're social animals, mike
Spocktease: if we didn't get along, we wouldn't survive
Spocktease: and in fact
Spocktease: the ones who didn't get along didn't survive
Spocktease: that's evolution
Creationist: thats silly psychology talk. animals have no moral compass like humans do
Spocktease: hmm
Spocktease: well,
Spocktease: i'm not sure about that, but i don't see how it's relevant
Creationist: do u believe aliens made us?
Spocktease: no, because there is no evidence for it
Spocktease: richard dawkins said that once
Spocktease: he was talking about a hypothesis called directed panspermia
Spocktease: but only as part of a conversation
Spocktease: with... i believe ray comfort's people
Spocktease: who took the footage and edited it to make dawkins look bad
Spocktease: no, wait
Spocktease: it was for ben stein's movie
Spocktease: expelled
Creationist: well, u need to do some soul searching man, cuz u seem lost in the world and u dont want to believe in anything unless u have tangible proof before ur eyes. but for me the world is proof enough of a creator
Spocktease: i seem lost in the world? how so?
Creationist: lost in , that u dont believe in anything
Spocktease: and no, i won't believe in anything unless there is tangible proof before my eyes
Creationist: and u only go by modern science
Spocktease: i don't believe in anything?
Spocktease: what are you talking about?
Spocktease: did i say that?
Creationist: well u seem to not like any religion lol
Creationist: thats what i meant
Spocktease: no, i don't like any religion.
Creationist: u gotta believe in a spirit realm man
Spocktease: but that's because religion has no evidence to support it, and yet insists on controlling my life and the lives of others
Spocktease: i do?
Spocktease: why?
Spocktease: is there evidence for it?
Spocktease: do you believe in fairies?
Creationist: well fairies were demons in the middle ages who played mischivious tricks on humans
Spocktease: you've got to believe in fairies.
Spocktease: okay, leprechauns.
Spocktease: gnomes
Spocktease: dwarves.
Spocktease: unicorns (bad example since they're in the bible)
Creationist: yea theyre evil spirits in all the stories
Spocktease: so you do believe in fairies?
Spocktease: and leprechauns?
Spocktease: and unicorns?
Creationist: yes but not as u would imagine like i said, well not unicorns
Spocktease: unicorns are in the bible, bro.
Spocktease: want a chapteverse?
Creationist: uhmm no dude they arent
Spocktease: gimme a minute.
Creationist: loll
Creationist: u gotta be kidding me
Creationist: dont be quoting from Tolkien , lol
Spocktease: just hang on, man
Spocktease: give me a second to find it
Spocktease: the bible is long
Creationist: well i know u aint charlie sheen for sure cuz hes a creationist lol
Spocktease: KJV, Psalms, 22:21
Spocktease: of course, you may have a later version, translated from the KJV to more modern parlance
Spocktease: whenever they make a new version of the bible they go through and try to eliminate the inconsistencies
Creationist: actually they devalue it
Spocktease: i agree
Creationist: have u heard of the illuminati?
Spocktease: i've heard of them
Spocktease: hang on
Creationist: well i have seen them lol
Spocktease: did you find the unicorns in the bible?
Spocktease: Psalms Chapter 22, Verse 21
Spocktease: King James
Creationist: k im looking
Creationist: although i see no relevance , if u are trying to say that it makes the whole bible part of a fairy tale becuase it mentioned a unicorn in it
Spocktease: well, i am, in a way
Spocktease: but that's not the only absurd thing
Spocktease: did you hear there was a guy supposedly came back from the dead in there?
Spocktease: can you believe that crazy shit?
Spocktease: also, he didn't have a biological father
Spocktease: !!
Spocktease: also, talking snake
Spocktease: also, walking on water
Spocktease: also...
Spocktease: well, you get the point
Creationist: dude if u've lived in america ur whole life then it is no surprise to u
Spocktease: what?
Spocktease: what's no surprise to me?
Creationist: the bible
Spocktease: no, it's not
Spocktease: i've studied it quite thoroughly
Spocktease: that's part of the reason i'm an atheist; i've read the bible
Creationist: hey dude, that unicorn thing is from hebrew
Spocktease: well, it's in psalms
Spocktease: they put it there
Spocktease: over several edits
Spocktease: is it not the perfect word of god?
(ctd. in comments)

Is gambling a sin? What does the Bible say about gambling ...

what does the kjv say about gambling

what does the kjv say about gambling - win

Matthew 22:1-14 (Mon May 25)

Matthew 22:1-14

Discussion and Questions

A Meal

A Meal

A Meal

A Meal

Your Turn

A Meal

God is unjust, and immoral.

Is God just? Is he moral?

Baptists AMA: Other Associational Baptists (non-SBC) and Independent Baptists

(OTHER) ASSOCIATIONAL BAPTIST

AMA PART A

Without further delay, here are our Baptists panelists.

(^ A man of few words about himself. What humility!)

In addition to our "Other Associational Baptist" panelists, we also have one Independent Baptist oarsof6. He has written about himself and Independent Baptists.

Independent Fundamental Baptist history and bio:

Distinguishing History

Distinguishing Beliefs

My Personal Bio

How Would Christians Answer This?

The Afterlife?

Schism

The Evilness of Having Children

The Problem of Suffering

Couldn't there be a better designed universe?

The Problem of Non-Answering

The Problem of Apparent Flaws

Do we really live and learn?

He's a creationist, a 9/11 truther, an illuminati theorist, AND he thinks I'm Charlie Sheen. Enjoy.

what does the kjv say about gambling video

what does the kjv say about gambling top

What does the bible say about gambling? - Part 1 - YouTube