Two ancient documents and the Shroud of Turin?
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Christianity, The Shroud of Turin on April 25, 2012
Amongst the vast amount of ancient and early Christian writings from the 1st – 4th centuries, we find large amounts of forgotten books and somewhat un-researched material, all of which give us glues and further insights into the ancient mind and the times in which Jesus and the apostles lived.
Our understanding of the era in which the New Testament was written is growing by the day and our knowledge of the historical reality of the New Testament is unearthed continually.
Some of this knowledge and insight is hugely controversial and what is discovered is so often contrary to what is commonly called knowledge.
The historical theologian likes to see things, to touch the historical artefact, the ancient coin, the fragment of pottery, the ancient nail, the writing upon the ancient temple wall. We want every bit of information we can find. We seek to discover every last word written on every ancient fragment of papyrus and every ancient tablet of stone and document.
One document which has interested me recently is my observation within two ancient texts dating around the 2nd century AD and their referrences to the burial cloth of Christ.
One of these documents is from a text known as “The gospel according to the Hebrews“. The passage which contains a Shroud referrence reads concerning a Gospel which Origen used and records an event concerning Jesus who after His resurrection took His burial cloth to the servant of the [High] Priest, who is named in John 18: 10-11 as Malchus and referred to in Matthew 26: 51, Mark 14: 47, Luke 22: 51 as the man to whom Jesus healed his ear, after it had been cut off by Peter in Gethsemane.
According to the Gospel of the Hebrews, Jesus gave Malchus the Shroud after Jesus’ resurrection.
The text reads follows;
“But when the Lord had given the linen cloth to the servant of the priest, He went and appeared to James”
The Gospel according to the Hebrews. (Found in Jerome, Illustrious men, 2 & Lost Scriptures, Ehrman, Page 16)
Could this text be a referrence to the Shroud of Turin?
The second historical text is from what is called “The Hymn of the pearl”. This text is said to have been written by the apostle Thomas himself and is somewhat mysterious and less direct, maybe even poetical, but nevertheless, a referrence. This work is referred to in the third century Acts of Thomas and the work itself is generally agreed to date to the 2nd century AD.
The text reads as follows;
“But, when suddenly I saw my garment reflected as in a mirror, I preceived in it my whole self as well and through it I knew and saw myself. For though we originated from the one and the same we were partially divided, then again we were one, with a single form. The treasurers too who had brought the garment I saw as two beings, but there existed a single form in both, One royal symbol consisting of two halves…And the image of the King of Kings was all over it”
(The Hymn of the Pearl. 76-80, 86. 2nd century AD)
The question is, are these texts historical and very early referrences to the Shroud of Turin?
Pontius Pilate coin found on the Shroud of Turin
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Biblical archaeology, Christianity, The Bible, The Shroud of Turin on April 24, 2012
Whatever one might think concerning the Shroud of Turin, few can deny that it is one of the most fascinating and controversial relics in Christianity.
Its origin and authenticity has been a topic of debate for centuries. We even find John Calvin debating the Shroud of Turin in the 16th century.
Today however, it is a very common to dismiss the Shroud of Turin as a proven fake, since many say that Carbon Dating has proven the Shroud cannot be the burial cloth of Christ? The problem is however, that the Carbon dating is simply not consistent with what we know about the Shroud. The carbon dating simply contradicts the overwhelming evidence found upon the Shroud which dates the cloth to 1st century Israel.
Thus, there is a vast amount of evidence found upon the Shroud that more than suggest that the cloth is from 1st century Jerusalem. The evidence itself all of which has been found upon the Shroud absolutely contradicts the carbon dating and thus puts the dating results seriously in question and when the fact becomes known that the area from which the sample of the Shroud was taken and used for the carbon dating process had been handled consistently since the 16th century, then the accuracy of the carbon dating results becomes even more seriously in question.
The problem is that there are many finds upon the Shroud of Turin which clearly date or link the burial cloth to 1st century Israel and Jerusalem combined.
These finds include Pollen and dirt from Jerusalem, Roman Flagrum and Crucifixion wounds upon the body, burial consistency with Jewish custom, fibers, blood, 1st century stitching etc which experts have all found upon the Shroud of Turin.
While these finds and are commonly known, what is less commonly known about the Shroud of Turin is that recent finds have shown that the man on the Shroud has coins upon his eyes.
Researchers Dr Robert Bucklin and Professor Alan Whanger, have 
pointed out that there are round coin like objects placed over the corner of the eyes of the man on the Shroud. The coin upon the left eye is clearly visible and when the image of the Shroud is enlarged, the image reveals that one of the coins is in fact what is known as a Pontius Pilate Lepton.
These coins are only small and are almost 2000 years old and the coin seen on the left eye of the man were minted in Jerusalem in AD 30 by Pontius Pilate. These coins also confirm Pilate as Prefect, and this complies with the Biblical account that Jesus was condemned under Pontius Pilate.
It is also worth noting that it is said that it was a Jewish custom to place small coins over the eyes of a dead body to keep the eyelids closed.
Thus, the Pontius Pilate coin found upon the eyes of the man on the Shroud is an astounding find and one that cannot be ignored and not only does the Pontius Pilate coin directly link the Shroud of Turin to 1st century Jerusalem, but the coins reveal that the image was formed when the man on the Shroud was lying down. Otherwise the coins could not remain upon the dead man.
The coins found on the Shroud are consistent with the coins produced by Pilate in AD 30.
Details of the Pontius Pilate coin is as follows:
* Coin: Prutah
* Minted: Jerusalem ~ AD 30
* Identification: “Liz”
Whatever the conlusions are to this find, it cannot be rightly denied that the Shroud of Turin contains images of Poltius Pilate coins over the left eye of the man on the Shroud and no one can deny that few, had knowledge of these coins until more recent days.
The fact remains that these coins change a great deal of what we know about the Shroud of Turin and the question remains, is this the face of Jesus?
Is the Shroud evidence for the resurrection of Jesus?
Could the Shroud of Turin truly be the burial cloth of Jesus?
What makes the Apostles Creed so special?
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Christianity, Theology on February 17, 2012
I hold to the Apostles Creed. Not to the point where I would re-interpret scripture to fit with the creed, but that I think the creed agrees with scripture.
It is said that the Apostles Creed was written by each member of the 12 Apostles, excluding Judas but including Matthias? The creed would read as follows:
1. Peter. “I believe in God the Father Almighty”
2. John. “Maker of heave and earth”
3. James. “And in Jesus Christ His only son”
4. Andrew. “Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary”
5. Philip. “Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried”
6. Thomas. “He descended into hell, the third day He rose again from the dead”
7. Bartholomew. “He ascended into heaven, sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty”
8. Matthew. “From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead”
9. James, the son of Alpheus. “I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Holy Church”
10. Simon the Zealot. “The Communion of the saints, the forgiveness of sins”
11. Jude, the brother of James. “The resurrection of the body”
12. Matthias. “Life everlasting. Amen”
What I admire about the Apostles creed is firstly that it is very old, not that that is anything to go by for many heresies are very old, but that the Apostles Creed is distinctly an early church document. It is not modernized or over indulgent in varying doctrines addressing issues of their day, on the contrary, the Creed addresses issues which are yet to come, so in fact the creed is very modern. It has an almost timeless feel to the creed and even sounds up-to-date when read today. But more than all of that, the creed is all about Jesus and what He has done. Something that so many creeds and statements of faith are not centralized upon.
I understand the issues with the Apostles Creed and the arguments which are propagated against its authenticity, but aside from that, it is the content which is more important than the author or authors. As with Theologica Germanica, which was written by an anonymous author and admired by Luther but rejected by Calvin. My point being that a work must be judged by the truth and not merely by the author.
Thus, the creed begins with God and moves to creation and concludes with re-creation in the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of all people from the dead. This resurrection will occur when Jesus returns and the end of time begins.
Let us look for a brief moment at 12 sections of this creed.
1) “I believe in God the Father Almighty”
2) “Maker of heaven and earth”
3) “And in Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord”
4) “Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary”
5) “Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried”
6) “He descended into hell, the third day He rose again from the dead”
7) “He ascended into heaven, sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty”
8) “From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.”
9) “I believe in the Holy Ghost”
10) “The holy ‘Universal’ Church, the Communion of Saints”
11) “The Forgiveness of sins”
12) “The Resurrection of the body, and the Life everlasting.”
“Amen.”
Note that the creed begins with “I believe”. This points to the creed being a very personal creed when spoken by the individual. The creed does not say “We believe” which can often cause believers to hide amongst fellow believers. Also, what I think makes the apostles creed so special and different to many creeds of Christendom is that this creed unites Christians and does not divide them. So many other creeds of Christendom promote divisive doctrines which are not essential to the Christian faith, but are subject to interpretation. But what I love about the Apostles Creed is that if a room were to be graced with the presence of 12 true Christians they would all no doubt agree with all but point 6. However, I would agree with the creed on point 6 and have given my reasons why in an article published on my enjoyingtheology website.
Cut and paste this link to read the article: http://www.enjoyingtheology.com/Descentofchrist.html
But I suppose the thing which makes the Apostles creed so distinct and excellent, is that it binds together and does not destroy. And most of all, it is about Jesus and what He has done for us.
David Cameron puts the King James Bible back in every school in England, with intro from Michael Gove
Posted by simon peter sutherland in England issues on January 27, 2012
In 2011 we celebrated the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible.
Venues up and down the country displayed ancient prints of this wonderful translation of the Holy Scriptures.
Recent news declares that the government has recognized the significance of the King James Bible and has announced plans to put the King James Bible in every school in Britain, with a new intro by Education Secretary Michael Gove. This is part of the 400th anniversary.
This wonderful and right move of the government has been criticized by none-religious groups who say that David Cameron is wrong to make spending cuts yet spend large amounts of money on such a move as this? Yet has there not been a mention of donations?
Richy Thompson from the British Humanist association has said these actions from the government are “unacceptable”. However, he clearly says this for merely humanistic reasons, but Thompson is wrong, the word of God is more important than humanism and prosperity. The reason I say that is because from my perspective, humanism in its present form is temporal, but the word of God is eternal. Thus, it is not that humanism does not have value, it does, but it is temperal. Likewise, so too is proseperity, as Jesus said, “For, what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul“. (Matthew 16: 26. KJV)
I believe it is only right to teach science in schools, but in that, creationist science should be properly taught and not just evolutionary science. Having said that, I admit that there is bad creationist science, but there is also good creationist science. The key is to attain a steady balance!
The problem is that likewise, creationism should not be made a naughty word by evolutionists.
The reason I say this is because I believe the heart of the problem in England at present is concerning the decline in Biblical truth and the over emphasis upon evolution, which research reveals is the main stumbling block today from young people believing in God and the Bible.
Young people are told scientific opinion concerning the age of the earth and are told that evolution is no longer a theory, but is now a fact. That the Bible merely contradicts fact.
But we are rarely told that such claims are only the opinions of some scientists but not all scientists agree.
Thus, I believe the moral decline in Britain is a result of a distinct lack of Biblical truth and an over emphasis upon evolution which often leads to atheism.
Now, I know that atheists claim they live moral lives, and that may well be the case with some, but morality is not subject to individual view, for what one person sees as moral, another does not.
Thus, the problem which I see in England today is that scientists such as Richard Dawkins use science to contradict the Bible and all too many people use science as a means to atheism and many modern atheist evolutionist scientists seek to promote evolution and discredit the Bible and cast the Bible aside as a book of irrelevant myths and fairy-tales.
Anyhow, what more can we expect from unrepentant sinners?
For they inwardly desire the Word of God to be removed from education only to be regarded as mere literature and myth so our children can be brainwashed with the word of apostolic evolutionists who know enough about the human brain to know that if you tell a lie long enough and strong enough, the people will believe it.
Nevertheless, the Bible is a historical and distinctly important book, for us who are saved we know it is the very word of the living God.
Thank God that this move to put the Bible back in our schools has come at the right time.
I for one am very happy to hear about this great move by parliament and it surely is a move of God, for the Lord hears the prayers of His people and they are effectual and God will not let His word be mocked or cast aside for very long.
Man cannot take Israel out of Israel, nor can the word of God be taken out of His people.
Learn the lesson o man, the word of God is here to stay and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
Sherlock – BBC – Series 2 – Why so much Blasphemy my dear Watson?
Posted by simon peter sutherland in new atheism, The influence of film on January 26, 2012
During my childhood I grew up watching the classic black and white Sherlock Holmes movies starring Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes and Nigel Bruce as Dr Watson. In a series of 14 movies released between 1939 – 1946, these familiar films contain various adaptations and re-inventions of the original Conan Doyle stories of which 12 movies were set in the 1940’s. Sadly this series did not portray Watson quite accurately.
In the 1980’s – 1990’s we saw an excellent return of Holmes and Watson in the series made for TV starring Jeremy Brett. For me, and from a viewpoint of the acting alone, the Jeremy Brett series is the cream of Conan Doyle adaptations and is greatly admired by many who know and have read the original stories.
However, what we find today with the more recent Sherlock Holmes adaptations is a somewhat confused re-interpretation of Holmes which is about as accurate to Conan Doyle as Braveheart was to William Wallace.
Over the last 2 years or so there has been a number of modern re-interpretations of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s private consulting detective, Sherlock Holmes on both cinema and television.
In 2009 the cinema was hit with a blockbuster version of Sherlock Holmes re-interpreted as played by Robert Downey Jnr. Downey played Sherlock as a somewhat comical, messy Chaplinesque type character. In 2011 the screen was hit yet again with a Downey playing a Sherlock who was this time more like ‘Iron Man’ than Holmes. Thus, Sherlock moved from Chaplinesque to Iron Man.
In the recent BBC series, ‘Sherlock’, and distinctly throughout series 2, we saw a Sherlock who is somewhat cold and aggressive and lacks the quality of respect of the character within the original writings. Though well acted and well made, the stories moved a little and were often unclear and a little more far fetched than the original Conan Doyle stories, likewise we also find a Watson who is now distinctly and repeatedly guilty of blasphemy against the name of Jesus Christ.
This blasphemy can be found in all three episodes of series 2.
Likewise, in episode 1 of series 2, “A Scandal in Belgravia” we find a distinct atheist influenced statement from the script, in which Watson while in conversation with a very odd interpretation of Irene Adler, made a distinct atheist statement. In a response to a comment concerning mobile phone texts, we heard Watson say, “Sherlock always replies to everything. He’s mister punchline, he will outlive God trying to have the last word”.
This statement is odd, since Sherlock does not actually exist so how can he outlive God?
The series concluded with episode 3 “The Reichenbach fall” which contained an out of character portrayal of a suicidal Moriarty who near ruins Sherlock and then commits suicide by putting a gun in his mouth and firing it without any sign of armed police showing up? But still, a surprising event concluded with Sherlock appearing to commit suicide by jumping off a building and crashing to the floor, yet within moments and yet again another blasphemous use of the name of Jesus, it became apparently clear that Sherlock had actually faked his own death.
I watched the episode and compared it with the original Conan Doyle ending and I could not help but regard the original ending far better and more realistic than the modern. However, I noticed from the modern version a distinct paralleled mind game complete with a simulative subliminal reference to the death of Jesus, which in this case Sherlock appears to have died and is soon resurrected and stands watching his closest friends visit his grave. This comparison was also made a little more evident when ‘Radio Times’ published a review by David Brown on 15th January 2012, in which Brown said, quote, “Even Jesus took three days before His miraculous resurrection”. Thus containing a very immature and distinctly poor reference to the resurrection of Jesus as though it took Jesus 3 days to rise again and thus Sherlock rose from the grave quicker than Christ. The difference is that Jesus did actually die as history proves and He did raise Himself from the dead which is also a historical fact. He did not merely appear to make a careful plan to jump off a building with restricted landing view and apparently into a padded parked van on the road?
However, the problem is that the Sherlock BBC TV series was created by two modern atheist screenwriters, Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss and it is apparent when considering modern atheism in Britain that the screen writers are inwardly using Sherlock as a spokesman for modern atheism and I am curious to know if there is a larger game afoot? After all, Conan Doyle was a spiritualist and not an atheist.
Likewise we not only did we hear the Watson of this series make such a dogmatic atheist statement that Sherlock will outlive God, but we also hear Watson blaspheme the name of Jesus more times than I care to mention.
Which begs the question; how is it that we hear so much blasphemy these days and why is so much of this blasphemy directed against the name of the Christian God?
Why is blasphemy against Jesus Christ permitted on screen yet we do not hear the same for Mohammed or Allah?
Is this fair?
Is this right?
Is this moral?
Is this acceptable?
Don’t take me wrongly, for my faith is very strong and I am not offended by blasphemy, for people merely bring destruction upon themselves, and likewise, I am good with re-interpretations of classic stories but maybe the BBC should stop playing the coward and maybe next time the scriptwriters for Sherlock series 3 should try adding the name of ‘Allah’ or ‘Mohammed’ in their long list of blasphemies, if they dare!
We like Sherlock and maybe people may make more accurate versions once again, but until then the question remains; is Sherlock now being made a spokesman for modern atheism which thinks it will outlive God?
I leave the matter for the moment in Conan Doyle’s own words from the familiar and intellegent Sherlock we all know;
“There’s an east wind coming all the same, such a wind as never blew on England yet. It will be cold and bitter, Watson, and a good many of us may wither before its blast. But it’s God’s own wind none the less, and a cleaner, better, stronger land will lie in the sunshine when the storm has cleared.”
Sherlock Holmes
His last bow
The Queen’s Christmas Speech 2011 and her prayer
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Reform on December 25, 2011
“I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour.” 1 Timothy 2: 1-3. KJV
Today on Christmas day 2011 we heard the Queen of England make her 59th broadcast to the nations, and one which I am thrilled contained a very prominent statement for the Gospel of Jesus Christ for England.
“God sent into the world a unique person – neither a philosopher nor a general, important though they are, but a Saviour, with the power to forgive. Forgiveness lies at the heart of the Christian faith. It can heal broken families, it can restore friendships and it can reconcile divided communities. It is in forgiveness that we feel the power of God’s love. In the last verse of this beautiful carol, O Little Town Of Bethlehem, there’s a prayer:
O Holy Child of Bethlehem,
Descend to us we pray.
Cast out our sin
And enter in.
Be born in us today.
It is my prayer that on this Christmas day we might all find room in our lives for the message of the angels and for the love of God through Christ our Lord.”
David Cameron criticised by Richard Dawkins
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Issues with Christianity in England today, new atheism on December 20, 2011
Richard Dawkins offered critique of David Cameron’s speech which was given on Friday 16th December 2011 at Christ Church Oxford, that Britain needs to return to Christian ideals. Dawkins, as typical, lashed out with verbal hand grenades at this claim by saying the Bible is, “an appalling moral compass”.
Dawkins also said, “The Christian bible will help us with our literature,” and “It should therefore be taught in schools in literature classes, but it’s not going to help us with our morals, far from it.”
Dawkins also said; “The bible is a terrible moral compass, if you think about it. Of course, you can cherry pick the verses that you like, which means the verses that happen to coincide with our modern secular consensus, but then you need to have a rationale for leaving out the ones that say stone people to death if they break the Sabbath, or if they commit adultery. It’s an appalling moral compass.”
Dawkins is correct that people cherry pick the verses they like, but clearly he is more guilty of this than the average Christian. The problem with Dawkins is that he has a very poor Theological understanding and a surface level interpretation of the Biblical narrative. He seems to willfully ignore context and historical settings.
He seems to think that when the Law of Moses commands stoning for adultery, that that command is somehow absent of any abrogation.
Dawkins stated in his criticism; “you can cherry pick the verses that you like, which means the verses that happen to coincide with our modern secular consensus, but then you need to have a rationale for leaving out the ones that say stone people to death if they break the Sabbath, or if they commit adultery.”
How long must we put up with this credulous argument?
When Jesus stood before Pontius Pilate and Pilate spoke to the Jewish people, they wanted to crucify Jesus and Pilate said to them; “Take ye Him, and judge Him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death” John 18: 31.
Clearly John 18: 31 states that the Jews in the time of Christ were subject to Roman law and not Mosaic law.
The question is why does Dawkins continue to claim that stoning people to death for breaking the Sabbath or for adultery is part of the Christian faith? Did Christ not say to those who wanted to stone the woman caught in adultery; “he who is without sin among you let him cast a first stone at her” John 8: 7
Who then is without sin?
What is clear to anyone who knows the Bible chronologically, is that the books which Dawkins likes to refer to are part of the Torah, the Pentateuch, being the first 5 books of Moses, which contain the ancient Law of Moses. This law which Dawkins often quotes was an ancient law given to the historical nation of Israel. It was not a law written or given to the Gentiles.
The historical Law of Moses was divided into three sections:
1) The Commandments
2) The ordainances
3) The judgement
The context of the Law suggests the following;
1) We must distinguish between the Ten Commandments and the Law of Moses. For the ‘moralia’ or ‘the 10 Commandments’ were not written by Moses but by God Himself. This means that the moral code of the Ten Commandments have not been abrogated.
2) The Law and ordainances were given to ancient Israel only. Exodus 19:3, Leviticus 26:46 and Romans 3:19, 9:4 clearly states this. Deuteronomy 4:8, Romans 2:12-14 clearly states that the Law of Moses was not given to the Gentiles but to Israel. Acts 15:5-24, Romans 6:14 and Galatians 2:19 likewise confirm this. This includes the ceremonies and rituals, of which is at no time are they imposed upon the Gentile Church (Acts 15:5 – 24).
3) Christ stated in Matttew 5: 17 that He fulfilled the Law, that is to take the punishment of it upon Himself. Paul confirms this when he states in Romans 10:4 that Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness. From this it is clear that the Bible states that righteousness does not come through the law but through Christ alone.
What is clear from correct study of the scriptures is that the judgement and penalties for breaking the Law of Moses was abolished in and through the life death and resurrection of Jesus. In other words, the wrath and harsh judgement of the Law was poured out upon Jesus.
The problem with atheists like Dawkins is that they are clearly ignorant of the Bible they freely critique.
Perhaps Mr Dawkins would care to give me an example of Christians who stone people to death? Or perhaps Mr Dawkins would care to join me in Biblical research or maybe he would care to read a book of Systematic Theology or evangelical Theology? Or better still, maybe Mr Dawkins would be better to leave the Theology to the Theologians and spend the next ten years in Biblical research and until then, cease from slandering a book he clearly does not understand.
It is clear to me that Dawkins has an agenda and his agenda is to slander Christianity and to abolish faith schools, because in reality, Dawkins appears to be a mere scientist, but inwardly he is a ferocious wolf who is part of a pack that seeks to spiritually devour Christ’s sheep and any lambs who may come to Him. But in reality, they cannot overcome the good Shepherd. For He cares for His sheep of which Richard Dawkins is not one of them (John 10: 25-29).
Simon Peter Sutherland
20th December 2011
David Cameron: “Revival of Christian Values”
Posted by simon peter sutherland in England issues, Issues with Christianity in England today, Reform on December 19, 2011
David Cameron while giving a speech at Christ Church Cathedral in Oxford has attacked the moral decline of Britain and has openly called for a revival of Christian values in England and stated that people should openly proclaim explicit values of Christianity.
He also presented critique of the ideas that claim that by standing up for Christian values, we do somehow put down other “faiths”.
He also hailed the King James Bible.
Despite the distinctive observation that the word “faiths” is a historical fallacy concocted by political minds, the word ‘Religions’ is a better description, Cameron rightly spoke against Islamic extremism and claimed that an “almost fearful, passive tolerance of religious extremism” has resulted in Islamic Extremism to remain unchallenged.
One of the things which stands out regarding Cameron’s speech is that he spoke of a “revival” of Christian values and England certainly needs reform and a Christian awakening.
England is forgetting her own history.
Reform is certainly in the air and would involve a new Reformation and a restoration of Truth. But before a reformation of this nature could begin, the Church must get her own house in order first. And since Cameron said this to the Church of England, that is the context and this would call for reform within the Church of England, who has neglected the Bible in favour of passing trends, cultural pursuasions and theological windrushes.
It would be hypocrisy and a burying of ones head in the sand to imagine that the Church of England is in a good way, but there is always hope of reform.
Likewise there is always hope of a Christian awakening within the hearts of the people, but the Church and Parliament must get their own house in order first and remove the plank of wood that is in their own eye, before they can attempt to even suggest that their are splinters within anothers eye. In other words, you cannot expect the people to respect or embrace Christianity and Parliament, if much of Christianity and Parliament has become a harlot. People will not listen to anyone if they do not practice what they preach and the Church and the houses of Parliament of today have not presented themselves without fault.
However there is hope that things can change and it is out of hope that charity is born for without love and charity, ministers and politicians can give speeches all day long, but if they have not charity, they “become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.” 1 Corinthians 13: 1
And as Paul says, “And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth” 1 Corinthians 13: 1-8
Will Parliament be willing to seek a restoration of Christian values within England while at the same time feeding the poor of England? Or will it offer a restoration of certain morals only? Is Cameron being genuine at all, or is he just playing a voting game, using Christianity to gain popularity?
If he is being genuine in then I humbly suggest that we must go all the way with this or not at all.
However, regarding Camerons speech, it is interesting to note that in this very same Cathedral that he gave this speech, Archbishop Thomas Cranmer was publicly “degraded” in 1556 and in the 1720’s John and Charles Wesley were ordained as Priests in the Church of England.
Thus, just as great awakenings and reform did come in times past through the church, they can also do so once again in the future.
Thus, these three remain, “Faith, hope and charity” 1 Corinthians 13: 13.
Simon Peter Sutherland
17th December 2011
Harvard professor Marc Hauser found guilty of eight counts of scientific misconduct – can any of his findings be trusted?
Posted by simon peter sutherland in England issues, Science and evolution on December 18, 2011
Professor Marc Hauser of Harvard University who’s research into evolutionary biology and cognitive neuroscience has influenced the likes of Richard Dawkins and Christofer Hitchens has been found out.
Hauser was found guilty of eight counts of scientific misconduct last year and this year after a year leave of absence, he was due to return to Harvard University, but he resigned.
How sweet of him?
Clearly Hauser has been monkeying around.
But more recent accusations have risen against him. These accusations are part on ongoing debate.
What is clear is that the claims made by this man are in serious question, as is much evolutionary science in general.
The problem is that this case is not the only time where scientific conlusions have been shown to be fake. Piltdown man was a fraud and Nebraska man was a misake, not to mention the Neanderthal Man. And now we have one of the worlds leading evolutionary scientists proved to be a faker.
What is clear is that the scientific conclusions which have been presented and taught by Marc Hauser should be seen as unreliable dodgy claptrap.
Many scientists will no doubt argue their way out of this problem as the likes of Richard Dawkins has concerning the Piltdown man, Nebraska man and the Neanderthal Man, but they cannot ignore the fact that the theory of evolution has a problem, that problem being the fact that it has many problems.
No rock layers that have been found contain transitional forms within them. There is simply no evidence beyond highly speculative claims that are based upon evidences for the theory of evolution. It is a fallacy and a fraud that will one day be seen for what it is.
The theory of evolution is a pseudo-science which is based upon the ideas made up by a theologian who was not a trained scientist to begin with. Why then should a world science be based upon a theory made up by a theologian?
The problem I find with science is that it is a self-governing enterprise, which is something that I find suspect and in reality I would like to know why a theory which logically connects to the big bang, which cannot explain where matter came from should be taught in our schools to our children laid out as fact?
I don’t believe that evolution is a fact, it is more a re-invention of a 19th century myth which makes a lot of money and at the same time fulfills the scripture, “the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths” 2 Timothy 4: 3-4.
On the death of Christopher Hitchens
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Issues with Christianity in England today, new atheism on December 16, 2011
“Blessed are those who die in the Lord…” Revelation 14: 13
When someone dies who is a popular figure, I find it a little obvious that so many people would write an article concerning them. Likewise, I find it a little obvious that when a heretic dies or gets ill many Christians conclude that it is a judgement? Yet in reality, all people be they heretic or Christian die sooner or later, some young, some old. Death is something that comes to all people. But the scripture I have above quoted speaks of a blessing when a person dies while in Christ. But if authority over life and faith were placed within the hands of many modern atheists, there would be no one on earth who dies in the hands of the Lord.
Modern atheism seeks to destroy Christianity.
Sadly, Christianity today is in a poor condition and deserves criticism and the reason, I think, this time has come about is because much of Christianity does not hold to the word of God anymore, but holds more to the opinions and ideas of men.
I see Christianity today being rather like a temple which is being attacked by many outsiders while so many Christians merely sit behind closed doors and watch and keep silent through either spiritual slumber or fear.
But the thing which strikes me about the scriptures is the prophetic nature of so many passages, while other religions would promote believers to keep the faith alive, the Bible states that it is God who will keep the faith alive and that it is He who will bring about a great falling away and a great delusion. We see this in 2 Thessalonians 2: 11-12. “…God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”
In reality, the scriptures teach that it is God who is the boss and it is He who is in control, not man.
Yet still, Jesus warned believers that false teachers would come. Likewise, Peter, John, Luke, Jude, and Paul all warned that heretics would come speaking lies. The warnings are clearly visible in Scripture so that Christians must not fall for the slippery persuasive words of men. This is consistent throughout the New Testament. Yet like all lies, there is a fraction of truth within a lie, if only here and there.
We see this in the writings and talks that Christopher Hitchens gave. Hitchens mixed the truth with a lie, he claimed to love Thomas Cranmer’s prayer book (The Book of Common Prayer) and the King James Bible and stated that they will be with him till the very last hour, yet at the same time he attacked the very foundations of the faith and the things contained in both Cranmers prayer book and the Bible.
In one quote Hitchens said this; (Christianity) “is a wicked cult, and its high time we left it behind“.
How untrue!
In reality, what Hitchens did during much of his lifetime was to feed the many issues and possible doubts which even the average Christian has concerning God and His character and conduct and used them to promote his ideas. He picked out and explored selective Biblical texts which even the average Christian was not aware of, ignoring the context while at the same time promoting a twisted logic as though his interpretation of the narrative was actually final. He used many selective errors from Christian history and yet at the same time created an almost twisted logic to interpret them. However, I certainly would argue that much of his logic came through depression and the influence of alcohol.
Yet, having said this, there can be no doubt in my mind that Hitchens was a devout heretic who even crept into the Church at times and was given the time of day.
The problem is that alcohol merely brings out what is in the heart and clearly by listening to the words which Hitchens spewed out, we know what was in his heart.
However, although I confess that Hitchens did make people think and did even open many eyes to issues and ideas, and also spoke against many issues which I myself struggle with concerning modern day Christianity, I also confess that one of the many problems with Hitchens is that his logic was both human and demonic, based upon human philosophy and lies.
I say this because I am sure that if satan himself did preach, he would open many eyes to things they never thought about before. The thing is that, Satan is old and has been around for eight thousand or so years. He has much experience and thousands of years worth of practice at causing people to doubt the word of God.
It is clear to me through the text of Genesis 3: 1 that doubt is satans calling card and whenever I hear anyone leading people into doubting the word of God, I know satan is near.
It is also clear to me that Hitchens was a thinker, but his thinking was merely humanistic and not spiritual. I don’t see how any man can understand spiritual truths through human logic, its like trying to ask a child to understand what it is like to be an older man, experience can only teach such things.
I think the New Testament is clear that heretics come and go and that they will always be on the earth until Christ returns. But one thing I think Christians should grasp is that there are some men who were for ordained a long time ago, as Jude says; “…these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities…these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.” (Jude 1: 8-9)
Jude also says this; “beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit. But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.” (Jude 1: 17-21)
I could say more, but Jude does well.
I think in closing, I would like to say that I can have little sorrow in my heart concerning the death of a man who set out to destroy Christ’s church. Hitchens did mock God, he denied the Holy Spirit, he denied Christ, he denied and mocked Christ’s church and he spoke evil of God’s word and the character of God.
The problem is that although he has gone, his influence remains and I often ask myself, what or who is coming next?
Thus, in conclusion, I would like to leave you with some thoughts from the scriptures.
“Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.” (Galatians 6: 7-8)
“Keep the faith”
Simon Peter Sutherland
16th December 2011
Simon Peter Sutherland
-
Simon Peter Sutherland 