Passion Week in One Day

Monday morning I am leading a couple and their friend around Jerusalem on a very directed study of the Passion Week of the grave-conquering Messiah.  I have been looking forward to it for quite a while - rarely do you have the opportunity to focus in on such a specific period (normally I will cover from Abraham-Mohamed in 1 DAY - 2100 BC-640 AD - 2750 years vs. 7 days!)  We will start with the triumphal entry and make our way through the rest of the week stopping at the various sites which are mentioned in the four Gospels.

Here is a satellite view of what our 5 1/2 mile trip will look like.

1.     Mt. of Olives - Triumphal Entry (Sunday or Monday of Passion Week Luke 19:37-40) 

2.     Dominus Flevit – Triumphal Entry (“the Lord Wept” – Luke 19:41-42)

3.    Temple Mount (Monday or Tuesday-Thursday of Passion Week - Mark 11:27-30)

4.     Southern Temple Mount Steps (Monday or Tuesday-Thursday of Passion Week - Matthew 23)

5.     Room of the Last Supper (Thursday Night of Passion Week - John 13-14)

6.     Garden of Gethsemane (Thursday Night/Friday Morning of Passion Week - John 18:1-12)

7.     Herodian Quarter (Friday Morning of Passion Week - John 18:13-27)

8.     Herod's Palace (David's Citadel) (Friday Morning of Passion Week - John 18:28-40)

9.     Church of the Holy Sepulcher (Friday Morning-3pm of Passion Week - Mark 15)

10.  Austrian Hospice Overlook – Ascension (40 Days Later - Matthew 28)

Is There a Deeper Magic?

Growing up I cut my reading teeth on C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia - I must have read Clive's Chronicles at least 6 or 7 times if not more (thanks Dad for doing the Reepicheep voice) - not to mention the dozens of times I have watched the buck-toothed Lucy, giant-sized Beaver (yes I capitalized Beavers - are they not speaking animals?) BBC series.  Which by the way is still better than the modern version - at least so far.  To be fair the first two books (Lion, Witch, and Wardrobe and Prince Caspian) are the most boring, still good, but not as entertaining as say The Magician's Nephew.  I hope and pray they don't blow that one.  I can't wait to see the dying world of Charn and her wicked queen over against the singing creation of the birth of the Lion's world.

The BBC went with the true "British look" for Lucy - a young Kathleen Kenyon in my opinion.

BBC's Reepicheep looked like the morbid offspring of Abu, the monkey from Aladdin, and the flying monkeys of the Wicked Witch of The Wizard of Oz.

One of Clive's main motifs in his writings is the idea of the "true myth."  In our minds that seems to be an oxymoron - how can something be both true and myth (insert dumb - Jumbo-Shrimp joke)?  But in Lewis' mind every myth, every legend has a true substantive reality lying behind it.  This has massive ramifications for a number of different aspects including but not limited to the following:

• The nature of the New Heavens and the New Earth - what he called "living in the Shadowlands" - living in a shadow of the true reality that belies this earth.
• Our spiritual and physical affections - every inkling of enjoyment that we have in this shadow earth is because we have come into contact with a shadow of the "true" reality (this includes the king of the coming true world). 

If you are wondering whether or not this type of thinking is biblically valid just read this passage:

“For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.” And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. 

Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” (Hebrews 9:19–26 ESV)

The book of Hebrews is full of this type of thinking (its Platonic - but let's not get into that).  It's why I named this blog Seeking a Homeland - because in chapter 11 of Hebrews this idea is picked up again as the author writes, 

“By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God. By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised. Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born descendants as many as the stars of heaven and as many as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore. 

These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.” (Hebrews 11:8–16 ESV)

What a passage! I think it might be my favorite Heaven passage.  It's my earnest desire that I "speak thus."

Clearly then Clive Staples was picking up on a biblical idea.  Perhaps the best example of this (or at least most well-known) is Aslan's sacrifice for Edmund (The Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe) that leads to both Edmund's restitution and Aslan's resurrection.

At that moment they heard from behind them a loud noise—a great cracking, deafening noise as if a giant had broken a giant's plate.... The Stone Table was broken into two pieces by a great crack that ran down it from end to end; and there was no Aslan.

"Who's done it?" cried Susan. "What does it mean? Is it more magic?"

"Yes!" said a great voice from behind their backs. "It is more magic." They looked round. There, shining in the sunrise, larger than they had seen him before, shaking his mane (for it had apparently grown again) stood Aslan himself.

"Oh, Aslan!" cried both the children, staring up at him, almost as much frightened as they were glad....

"But what does it all mean?" asked Susan when they were somewhat calmer.

"It means," said Aslan, "that though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back, into the stillness and the darkness before Time dawned, she would have read there a different incantation. She would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor's stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward."

Do you have gooseflesh after reading that?

In the coming days I hope to flesh this Deeper Magic idea out in the following Biblical examples:

1. A Deeper Priesthood - Melchizedek, king of Salem (Gen. 14:18-21)
2. A Deeper King - David, Son of Yahweh and Priest of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4)
3. A Deeper Sacrifice - Mesha, king of Moab sacrifices his first-born son (2 Kings 3:27)

BAR Article: The Devil Is Not So Black as He Seems

If you have heard of things like "low chronology vs. high chronology," "maximalist vs. minimilast," liberal archaeology, or the "10th/9th Century debate" and have no idea what to make of them than this article will be a good introduction to the figure-head of most major modern Biblical Archaeology debates.

A couple quick quotes from Hershel Shanks' interview with Israel Finkelstein- one that saddens me a little and another that helps illustrate what is very wrong with Finkelstein and his ilk's interpretations.

Shanks: Was there an Exodus from Egypt? (part of a longer question)

Finkelstein: You should start with a different example, because the Exodus is really a difficult case. I have to really concentrate now because there are many aspects to it. You put a trap. I know you, Hershel, you put a trap here. So I have to be very careful. We know each other, Hershel, 35 years or so. This is an ambush ... But I’m not going to run away. There are many answers to this question. The easiest answer is, “I don’t know.” But I think that one can offer a better answer. But the answer is again not black and white. It’s nuanced. If you are speaking about an Exodus the way it is described in the Biblical text—a very large group of people marching through the desert for 40 years—the answer is “no.”

Shanks: Of course; everyone accepts the fact that two million people did not cross the Sinai desert. We don’t need to argue about that.

Everyone does not accept the fact that two million people did not cross the Sinai desert (and yes that is a double negative mom if you are reading this) - perhaps every card-carrying member of the Late Date Exodus theory (13th century) rejects Israel's massive size (although even that is not entirely accurate).  Notice that the entire questioning is centered around a 13th century date - not a mid-15th century date - i.e. the Biblical date. 

Shanks: Where did these Israelites come from?

Finkelstein: Well, you know my take on this. There were local groups in Canaan in the Late Bronze Age. I don’t want to go beyond what archaeology can tell us. The majority of Israelites came from this local Bedouin-like stock, from the people of Canaan in the second millennium B.C.E. (emphasis mine)

This is the biggest problem with guys like Prof. Finkelstein (by the way almost all archaeologists would for the most part agree with the statement above - the dissidence comes in the monarchical period) - they assume the absence of textually attested remains and political situations (i.e. archaeological remains and contexts) = the negation of said text.  But here is the catch - the only text that applies to is the Bible.  If some other "un-biased" historical text, say the Amarna Tablets (13th cent. BCE correspondence between Canaanite city states and Egypt), does not quite match the archaeological record (which is a characteristic of the Amarna tablets and archaeology in many instances) than they get a free pass because they were not an "ideologically" driven document.

The hermeneutical scalpel of history and legend then becomes searching out and cutting through the cancerous tumor of Jerusalem/Davidic/Yahwistic bias in order to find the clean and clear and under-control unbiased historical facts.  But - what if - and yes I know I am going to sound crazy for suggesting something so otulandish - what if the Jerusalem/Davidic/Yahwistic bias is historically factual?  Does bias make something untrue or even factually flawed?  You tell me.

Jerusalem: the Earthly Home of the Other-Earthly Yahweh

When I read the books of Kings and Chronicles I am struck by the complete utter lack of "godly" kings in the northern kingdom of Israel.  Israel batted a paltry .000 (0-20) 20 kings up and 20 kings down that's terrible even for an AL pitcher in Inter-league play.   Judah on the other hand also had 20 kings throughout its history (including the crazed grand-child murdering queen - Athaliah) they batted a much better .350 (7-20) (Joe Mauer type numbers), but with only Hezekiah and Josiah receiving unqualified good reports (they didn't get caught taking HGH - to continue the baseball analogy).  These numbers are staggering. 

Were the 20 kings of Israel really that bad?  And if so, what made them so wicked?  Or to ask the question another way - what is the governing principle by which the author/compiler(s) of Kings and Chronicles judged the reigns of the 40 kings of Judah and Israel? 

The governing principle is this - How did King _____ interact with Jerusalem worship? 

Now of course each individual king's report should be studied for proper nuance of the character and actions of each king.  However, I would argue that every one of the 40 kings is primarily judged on how they treated the worship of Yahweh in Jerusalem - not foreign policy, not civil rights, not even following the civic law.  One might ask the question - why is it such a big deal to worship God in Jerusalem?  Well the answer is quite simple - Jerusalem was the earthly home that the other-earthly Yahweh chose to have his name.  That's a big deal!

One of the under girding themes of Deuteronomy-2 Samuel is the search for the permanent place for the establishment of the House of God (see especially Deut. 12:5). Throughout this period of about 500 years (ca. 1450-965 BCE) the tabernacle (and some of its pieces) travels across the Sinai stopping at various stops in the central hill country before finally arriving at its permanent home on the threshing floor of Aruvnah the Jebusite (2 Samuel 24, 1 Chronicles 21) under David and then becoming a full-fledged house for God under his son Solomon.  From this moment on worship of Yahweh is only allowed in Jerusalem - the place of the first condescension (Yahweh dwelling in a man-made structure - a type of the One who would take on flesh Philippians 2:5-8) of the King of the Universe!  This background becomes the lens by which the regnal (kingly) evaluators view the kings of Israel and Judah - and the reason why most of them didn't make the cut.  In a way the temple in Jerusalem has a mediating effect for the Davidic line despite their flaws, but has a damning effect for the Israelite lines of kings who in spite of their sometimes good qualities are repudiated for ignoring Yahweh's clear decrees.

There is no better example than the first king of the divided kingdom of Israel - Jeroboam the son of Nebat.  The first action which Jeroboam takes against Judah and Rehoboam was to establish new temples (Dan and Bethel) with new priests (outside of Levi) with a new religious calender and with a new/old representation (golden calves - one at Dan and one at Bethel vs. the Ark of the Covenant) (1 Kings 12:25-33).  This clever geo-political ploy against Judah and Rehoboam (the Israelites now had no reason to go to Jerusalem and Judah) was an outrageous sin against Yahweh.  To be sure this was not complete idolatry in the sense of rejection of Yahweh for Baal and/or El and/or Asherah - this sin was something slightly different.  This was the sin of syncretism mixing some of God's transcendent, Yahweh-centered revelation with a lot of man's earth-based, man-centered theology. On account of this all of the kings of Israel receive the following epithet - "For he walked in all the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and in the sins that he made Israel to sin, provoking the LORD, the God of Israel, to anger by their idols." 

Personally, understanding this principle has been helpful for properly discerning the kingships of ancient Israel - especially Ahab and Jehu.  The kingdom of Ahab is the wickedest of them all because it confronts and tries to replace the syncrestic religious system loosely tied to Yahweh (which flawed as it was still had a mediating effect for Israel - consider the fact that they existed and sometimes prospered for 210 years) with the complete and utter apostate system of Baalism (switching teams is an understatement).  Conversely, the kingdom of Jehu properly carries out the will of Yahweh in purging the Ahab dynasty and the Baal cult - for which he is commended - but he still continues the syncretistic sins of Jeroboam, which ultimately lead to his line's demise. 

All of this means that the standard of Yahweh does not change - relatively lesser sins (complete idolatry vs. "just" syncretism) do not win approval - the Judge of the Earth is not swayed by man's relative ideas of justice.

Email Forward Hoaxes

Recently there seems to be a lot of e-mail traffic regarding Biblical "archaeology" apologetics.  The two most prevalent email forwards that I have encountered are the "Exodus Route" and the "Giant Skeletons=Nephilim."  I have been asked by a few different people about the veracity of the claims laid out in these emails - so here is my answer.  The short answer - these "apologetics" are almost always a sham which mix very little truth with a lot of baloney.  Concocting a tasty cocktail of flashy images, bad history, and horrible "archaeology" these emails offer up seemingly helpful answers to thirsty Christians.  I think my former professor, Todd Bolen, has coined the best principle statement for dealing with email forwards like these - "I might suggest a simple principle for dealing with matters like this in the future: if you heard about it first in an email forward, it’s not true." Both humorous and accurate - always a good combo.  Read more about his thoughts on the "Giant Skeletons" here (also see Michael Patton's thoughts on the dilapidated forward here).

 In what follows I will attempt to debunk the "Exodus Route" email forward that I have received from a number of different people.  For reference you should open the slide show in another window to follow along with my critique - you can do that here.

Sites that are mentioned in the email as historical proofs for the Bible

• Jacob's Well - I just recently visited this well in Nablus (biblical Shechem).  The well's identification as being from John 4 is probably accurate since the region of Shechem has a very low-water table - there are very few wells in the region since there are abundant springs throughout the region.  Also the tradition for the well being that of John 4 dates as far back as the 3rd century A.D. (CE).
• Rachel's Tomb - this tomb has very heavy political implications because it is in Bethlehem and the Orthodox Jews consider it to be a holy place.  It matches Genesis 48:7 which basically says that Rachel was buried in Bethlehem.  However, there is one major problem the tomb in the picture and the tomb there today are a Bedouin Sheik's tomb, in the neighborhood of 2500-3000 years later than the 2nd millenium B.C.E. event. 
• Joseph's Tomb - is also in Nablus (not visitable) - based on what I have been told about the tomb from professors and from the picture in the powerpoint it is quite clear that the tomb is of a Bedouin sheik and not from the Biblical period (compare it with Rachel's tomb).
• Amram's Tomb - not sure where this is or to how to properly identify what exactly it is.  I googled "Amram's Tomb Moses Father" - and I found nothing, no pictures, no webpages - other than sites that referenced the slide in the powerpoint which says,  "moses must have loved his father very much!  It's the longest tomb in the world!  My guess is that this is also a Muslim related tomb that has been traditionally attributed to Amram (this happens alot - all over the place). 
• Aaron's Tomb - Petra is a possible location for the burial of Aaron (its in the same region), but once again the tomb shown is the tomb of a Bedouin Sheik (you can tell by the architecture - the dome and the brick layout - this is medieval architecture).

The Proposed Exodus Route 

The first question you have to ask is.  "Was it possible for the Israelites to leave Goshen and make it to the proposed crossing and Sinai site in the Biblical time frame?"  Generally scholars believe that armies could travel on average 15 miles per day (document from a contemporary source say such - Pharoah Thutmose III).  Some Biblical scholars estimate that it took the Israelites 7 days to get to where they crossed the Red Sea (better understood as Yom Suf - Sea of Reeds a tributary of the Red Sea much further inland) (Ex. 13:3,4; 12:33f.; Deut. 16:3; Lev. 23:42-43) others believe that it would have been closer to 9 days (three days at each campsite Succoth, Etham and Migdol).  In either case its roughly 100 miles from Pithom and Ramses (where the Israelite started) to Suez city (the traditional crossing point) (7x15 miles = 100 miles).  Remember this group of Israelites is estimated at being around 2 million people at this time (by conservative scholars) - and even though they were in a hurry they could not have averaged more than 15 miles per day.  The map shown in the PowerPoint adds an additional 200 miles between the leaving of Egypt and the crossing of the Red Sea.  If this is the crossing the Israelites would have had to travel around 30 miles a day to get to their crossing point. If the Bible is to be taken literally - which is supposedly the point of this whole PowerPoint - see the last slide - than these claims are not only biblically improbable, but humanly impossible.  These proposed theories were made popular among Christians by a former police detective, Ron Wyatt and his two sons in the 1980s. 

The Proposed Crossing Point and Alternative for Mt. Sinai

Simply put, its a sham.  The golden wheel is a complete fabrication (based on numerous sources from the internet and scholarly articles) of Ron Wyatt's and the other so called wheels and remains are part of the amazing coral reef that runs throughout the Red Sea (in fact the coral reef makes it the second best scuba and snorkel destination in the world behind the Great Barrier Reef in Australia).  On the other hand I personally have found a genuine "wheel" in the Red Sea.

 A "wheel" at the depths of the Red Sea

Also the proposed Solomon's pillars have zero context with which to label them - they are not inscribed - nor did Solomon ever have dominion over this region never, ever - the furthest domain of Israel in the south is Eilat, which is at the very tip of the Red Sea (where I found the "wheel" that has just as much legitimacy to the claims of Ron Wyatt).  The main problem with all these theories is that most of his assertions provide zero archaeological context, meaning that they are either untraceable as far as their date or that the archaeological context is completely ignored.  The core of archaeology is dating - the main tool for dating is pottery (inscriptions are very rare and sometimes are inconclusive for dating).  The one place where there actually is legitimate archaeological remains is at the proposed site of Mt. Sinai (Jebel al Lawz) and the vast majority of pottery is Nabatean (2nd cent B.C.E. (B.C.) - 3rd Cent. C.E. (A.D.)) much, much later than the 1400 B.C.E. Exodus.  As far as his claim that the split rock at Mt. Horeb is the one in the picture - it's just ridiculous - the area of the Arabah (Southern Israel, Southwestern Jordan, and Western Saudi Arabia) is one of the most geologically diverse places on the globe.  I have personally seen dozens if not hundreds of rocks similar to that in sandstone areas such as the Wadi Rum (Jordan - of Transformers 2 fame) and the Sinai Peninsula.

 Let's just say that it looked shallower than it was - but once you're soaked you might as well go for it.

I received the reaction Ron Wyatt should receive.

In short - Ron Wyatt is the Benny Hinn of Archaeologists - he is a charlatan who plays on the emotions and good intentions of American Evangelicals.  Not surprisingly he has also claimed to have found the Ark of the Covenant, the location of Noah's Ark, the charred remains of Sodom and Gomorrah along with the real Mt. Sinai (what else is there left to find?).  I read three of his books in high school - he is a provocative writer that claims to be a better archaeologist than Indiana Jones.  Truthfully, there is more legitimacy to the finds of Indiana Jones than there is Ron Wyatt's - at least Henry Jones Jr. found the Ark of the Covenant and the Sacred Grail in an archaeological context and at least he was a "Dr." and a professor of archaeology!   It takes more to be an archaeologist than being good at detective work and a good writer.  It takes years of careful study of history, stratigraphy (levels of remains - mainly pottery), philology (study of ancient languages), historical geography, the history of research, and many other sub-disciplines - Wyatt has zero training, zero qualifications, but yet all the answers.  Moreover, the goal of archaeology is not to prove the Bible to be true, but to illuminate it.  My archaeology professor (Gabi Barkay) says that the Bible does not need archaeology it can stand alone on its own merits.  He is exactly right - the goal of archaeology is to understand the world of the ancients, to understand what a specific object meant to a specific people.  This type of work is not archaeology its speculation that seeks to prove something that is by its very nature unprovable.  Understand me though - although archaeology cannot provide definitive proof that the Bible is 100% percent true, that its inspired, that it is 100% historical - it can provide proof to much of what the Bible speaks of.  For instance much of higher critical theory has claimed that the persons of David and Solomon never existed - in the last 30 years two inscriptions have been found one in Israel and one in Jordan that mention the "house of David" referring to the line of kings of David - providing substantial proof that David was in fact a real person and that he lived during the time that the Bible describes. 

The Real Problem with Bad Christian Apologetics

This PowerPoint is in the vein of the mass emails about the missing days in the universe being attributed to Joshua causing the sun to stand still and other emails like it directed at the emotions of well-intending American Evangelicals who have no clue about archaeology (I don't say that pretentiously - most people are not privy to archaeological theory - and even good Biblical scholars are lead away by these theories).   That is where the real harm is done in these emails and other so-called "Bible Proofs" - because well-meaning believers take these type of things and seek to argue for the historicity of scripture using these as their proofs - they are basing their faith on a very sandy foundation and have given atheists and biblical critics (who are "in the know") a way of poking fun at the Bible.  It can shake the faith of a young believer who is shown that this is a sham, much like a new believer's faith can be shaken whenever he sees that Benny Hinn's healings are a crock. 

Truthfully, the only truth embedded in this PowerPoint is the first picture which identifies the well of Sychar as being Jacob's well - this identification is well-attested and has good standing in both tradition, text, and archaeology, but is hardly a basis for proving the Bible's veracity.

If you want to look at it more here is an article discussing the the Exodus route and the various options for Mt. Sinai.

Football Filosofing Part 2

For context see yesterday's post

His reply
Ok man
Wow
Don't worry about the length :)
well I guess it makes sense to me now about gentiles and the gospel that's cool by me and in some ways, i am not 100% sure about it but ok i think it makes a good point,  cause why would they go against Jesus right?..but...I was told that believing in a man that is g-d is idol worship
So my question
Can you separate believing in his message??
With believing in him?  

My reply
What was Jesus' message? What did he claim to be?
Clearly he claimed to be
1.) the Messiah (“The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things.” Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am he.””(John 4:25–26 ESV))

2.) the Son of David (rightful king of the Jews - the Davidic heir - through his lineage Matthew 1 and Luke 3)

3.) the Prophet (“The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen—”(Deuteronomy 18:15 ESV))

4.) the I am (“God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’””(Exodus 3:14 ESV) “But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.””(Mark 14:61–62 ESV)),

5.) the Son of God, and most of all God's equal (“I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”
The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?””
(John 10:28–32 ESV)).

Is it possible to follow the call of Jesus (obedience to his commandments) while denying his claims about himself?

Or in other words - is it kosher to say that Jesus was right about Torah, right about social justice, right about understanding Scripture but was a blaspheming liar who claimed to be God? How could a blaspheming liar be right about such important weighty things? Jesus must have been either been a God-diminishing boastful liar at worst or at best a raving schizophrenic. Unless of course...he was God.

As the great Clive Staples Lewis (Chronicles of Narnia) wrote - He is either Liar, Lunatic, or Lord - I have gambled my life and soul on the belief that Jesus is the latter.

Jesus' message and claim to be God are inseparable - they are part and parcel of what he represents. His message is utterly meaningless and devoid of any merit without him being who he says he was, namely God. Claiming that Jesus was a good teacher with a good message while ignoring his claim of divinity - would be like praising Hitler for his major technological, medicinal advancements while ignoring his murdering of 6 million of your brothers and sisters.

My question to you then is - Is Jesus God or was he a blaspheming liar? How could someone speak the way he did, know Torah the way he did, have compassion on people the way he did all in the name of God and then commit the mortal sin of claiming to be God, unless he was who he claimed to be?

Does this following statement sound like a liar or a lunatic?
“And when they came to the place that is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on his right and one on his left. And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And they cast lots to divide his garments.”
(Luke 23:33–34 ESV)