The Roman Catholic Church On The Second Commandment

• Defining The Issues:

          -Roman Catholic and Protestant churches have divided the numbering of the Ten Commandments differently. While non-Catholic churches have traditionally listed the second commandment as being a prohibition against worshiping carved images, Rome has omitted this reference and split the last commandment which condemns coveting into two separate, specific prohibitions against lusting after other people's spouses and material possessions. In short, both sides uphold different renderings of the same Ten Commandments that were originally given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. This is a cause for concern, considering that Roman Catholics do indeed rely heavily upon religious iconography in their worship. Due to the fact that the ancient Israelites constantly struggled with idolatry, one would think it wise to leave a clear condemnation of worshiping objects in the listing of the Ten Commandments.

• Was Icon Veneration Accepted Within First Century Christianity?

          -While it is true that the numbering of the Ten Commandments is peripheral in nature, it remains true that a statue-infested environment where saints are incessantly venerated is not a spiritually safe place to be. History bears witness to the fact that human beings have a natural desire to create for themselves images of deities they imagine and serve them. Judaism by the timing of the first century had purified itself of any such kind of worship. The earliest Christians, who came from that sort of background, would have been mortified had they known beforehand that masses who call themselves followers of Christ in future generations would prostrate themselves before images of "saints" or worship bread and wine as God Himself. They were all too familiar with Old Testament history, which records peoples of foreign nations worshiping their gods in exactly that way.

• The Iconoclastic Controversy:

          -In the early Christian church, there was consistent opposition to creating and venerating portraits of Christ and the saints. Despite this, the use of icons grew in popularity, particularly in the eastern regions of the Roman Empire. By the late 6th and early 7th centuries, icons became central to an officially promoted cult, often associated with superstitious beliefs about their animation. This practice faced strong opposition, especially in Asia Minor. In 726, Byzantine Emperor Leo III publicly opposed the worship of icons, and by 730, their use was officially banned. This led to severe persecution of icon supporters during the reign of Leo’s successor, Constantine V (741–775). However, in 787, Empress Irene convened the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea, which condemned Iconoclasm and reinstated the use of images. The Iconoclasts regained power in 814 after Leo V's accession, and icons were banned again at a council in 815. The second period of Iconoclasm ended with Emperor Theophilus's death in 842. In 843, his widow restored the veneration of icons, an event still celebrated in the Eastern Orthodox Church as the Feast of Orthodoxy.

• How Did The Apostles View The Commandment Against Coveting?:

          -"What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” (Romans 7:7)
          -"The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” (Romans 13:9)
             *Notice that the Apostle Paul, in his quoting of the commandment against coveting, does not split it in half (i.e. coveting a neighbor's wife and coveting a neighbor's goods). The Catholic rendering of the Ten Commandments here is redundant. It is suspicious because their devotion to statues so closely resembles worship.

• Roman Catholic Saintly Veneration In The Context Of Biblical Languages:

          -Interestingly, the Hebrew language does not provide a distinction in the word for worship, which is encapsulated by the term "avad." This implies that in the original Old Testament, the concepts later differentiated in Greek as "latria" and "dulia" would have been understood as a single form of worship or service, which is rightfully directed to God alone. In translating the Hebrew scriptures into Greek, the Septuagint renders "avad" variously as "dulia" and "latria." This lack of distinction in the original Hebrew text underlines that all forms of worship and veneration are to be directed exclusively to God. Therefore, the Roman Catholic practice of distinguishing between "latria," the worship due to God, and "dulia", the veneration of saints, can be seen as inconsistent with the Old Testament's original theological framework. In a religious context, our service and worship are owed solely to God, and this fundamental principle was uniformly understood in the Hebrew tradition.

Richard Carrier On The Fulfillment Of Messianic Prophecy

"Even before Christianity arose, some Jews expected one of their messiahs heralding the end times would actually be killed, rather than be immediately victorious, and this would mark the key point of a timeta­ble guaranteeing the end of the world soon thereafter...First, the Talmud provides us with a proof of concept at the very least (and actual confirmation at the very most). It explicitly says the suffer­ing servant who dies in Isaiah 53 is the messiah (and that this messiah will endure great suffering before his death) [b. Sanhedrin 98b and 93b]. The Talmud likewise has a dying-and-rising 'Christ son of Joseph' ideology in it, even saying (quoting Zech. 12.10) that this messiah will be 'pierced' to death [b. Sukkah 52a-b].

There is no plausible way later Jews would invent interpretations of their scripture that supported and vindicated Christians. They would not invent a Christ with a father named Joseph who dies and is resurrected (as the Talmud does indeed describe). They would not proclaim Isaiah 53 to be about this messiah and admit that Isaiah had there predicted this messiah would die and be resurrected. That was the very biblical passage Christians were using to prove their case. Moreover, the presentation of this ideology in the Talmud makes no mention of Christianity and gives no evidence of being any kind of polemic or response to it. So we have evidence here of a Jewish belief that possibly predates Christian evangelizing, even if that evidence survives only in later sources.

The alternative is to assume a rather unbelievable coincidence: that Christians and Jews, completely independently of each other, just happened at some point to see Isaiah 53 as messianic and from that same passage preach an ideology of a messiah with a father named Joseph (literally or symbolically), who endures great suffering, dies and is resurrected (all in accord with the savior depicted in Isaiah 53, as by then understood). Such an amazing coincidence is simply improbable.

But the Talmud and the Apocalypse of Zerubbabel are not our only evidence of a pre-Christian dying-messiah theme. The book of Daniel (written well before the rise of Christianity) explicitly says a messiah will die shortly before the end of the world (Dan. 9.2; 9.24-27; cf. 12.1-13). This is already conclusive. Given my definition of 'messiah' (in §3), Christianity looks exactly like an adaptation of the same eschatological dying-messiah motif in Daniel.

Isaiah 53 was already under­stood to contain an atonement-martyrdom framework applicable to dying heroes generally...But of the more specific notion of a dying messiah, we also have other pre-Christian evidence in the form of a Dead Sea Scroll designated 11Q13, the Melchizedek Scroll...There are many such pesherim at Qumran. But this one tells us about the 'messenger' of Isaiah 52-53 who is linked in Isaiah with a 'servant' who will die to atone for everyone's sins (presaging God's final victory), which (as we have already seen) later Jews definitely regarded as the messiah. At Qumran, 11Q13 appears to say that this messenger is the same man as the 'messiah' of Daniel 9, who dies around the same time an end to sin is said to be accomplished (again presaging God's final victory), and that the day on which this happens will be a great and final Day of Atonement, absolving the sins of all the elect, after which (11Q13 goes on to say) God and his savior will overthrow all demonic forces. And all this will proceed according to the timetable in Daniel9.Thus, 11Q13 appears to predict that a messiah will die and that this will mark the final days before which God's agent(s) will defeat Belial (Satan) and atone for the sins of the elect.

Regardless of how one chooses to understand the text of 11Q13, we still have Dan. 9.24-27, which is already unmistakably clear in predicting that a messiah will die shortly before the end of the world, when all sins will be forgiven; and Isaiah 53 is unmistakably clear in declaring that all sins will be forgiven by the death of God's servant, whom the Talmud identi­fies as the messiah. So there is no reasonable basis for denying that some pre-Christian Jews would have expected at least one dying messiah, and some could well have expected his death to be an essential atoning death, just as the Christians believed of Jesus Even apart from 11Q13 there is evidence the Dead Sea community may have already been thinking this, since one of their manuscripts of Isaiah explicitly says the suffering servant figure in Isaiah 53 shall be 'anointed' by God and then 'pierced through for our transgressions'. For this and the following points see the discussion of the pre-Christian interpretation of Isaiah 53 in Martin Hengel, 'The Effective History of Isaiah 53 in the Pre-Christian Period', in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources (ed. Bernd Janowski and Peter Stuhlmacher; Grand Rapids, Ml: William B. Eerdmans, 2004), pp. 75-146.

The Christian gospel is thus already right there in Daniel, the more so if Daniel 9 had been linked with Isaiah 52-53, which is exactly what 11QI3 appears to do. But even without such a connection being made, the notion that a Christ was expected to die to presage the end of the world is already clearly intended in Daniel, even by its origi­nal authors' intent, and would have been understood in the same way by subsequent readers of Daniel. The notion of a dying messiah was therefore already mainstream, well before Christianity arose.

The suffering-and-dying servant of Isaiah 52-53 and the mes­siah of Daniel 9 (which, per the previous element, may already have been seen by some Jews as the same person) have numerous logical connections with a man in Zechariah 3 and 6 named 'Jesus Rising' who is confronted by Satan in God's abode in heaven and there crowned king, given all of God's authority, holds the office of high priest, and will build up 'God's house' (which is how Christians described their church)

In the Septuagint text, Zechariah is commanded in a vision to place the crown of kingship upon 'Jesus' (Zech. 6.11) and to say immediately upon doing so that 'Jehovah declares' that this Jesus is 'the man named ''Rising" and he shall rise up from his place below and he shall build the House of the Lord'. The key noun is anatole, which is often translated 'East' because it refers to where the sun rises (hence 'East'), but such a translation obscures the fact that the actual word used is the noun 'rising' or 'rise' (as in 'sunrise'), which was not always used in reference to a compass point, and whose real connotations are more obvious when translated literally. In fact by immediately using the cognate verb 'to rise up' (anatelei, and that explicitly 'from his place below') it's clear the Septuagint translator under­ stood the word to mean 'rise' (and Philo echoes the same pun in his interpretation...

If this 'Jesus Rising' were connected to the dying servant who atones for all sins in Isaiah (and perhaps also with Daniel or 11Q13), it would be easy to read out of this almost the entire core Christian gospel. Connecting the two figures in just that way would be natural to do: this same 'Jesus' who is named 'Rising' (or, in both places, 'Branch' in the extant Hebrew, as in 'Davidic heir', or so both contexts imply) appears earlier in Zechariah 3, where 'Jesus' is also implied to be the one called 'Rising' (in 3.8). Both are also called 'Jesus the high priest' throughout Zechariah 3 and 6, hence clearly the same person. And there he is also called God's 'servant'. And it is said that through him (in some unspecified way) all sin in the world will be cleansed 'in a single day' (Zech. 3.9). Both concepts converge with Isaiah 52-53, which is also about God's 'servant', whose death cleanses the world's sins (Isa. 52.13 and 53.11), which of course would thus happen in a single day (as alluded in Isa. 52.6). And as we saw earlier, Jews may have been linking this dying 'servant' to the dying 'Christ' killed in Daniel 9 (in 11Q13), whose death is also said to correspond closely with a conclusive 'end of sin' in the world (Dan. 9.24-26), and both figures (in Daniel and 11Q13) were linked to an expected 'atonement in a single day'...These dots are so easily connected, and with such convincing force...here I am concerned only with the existence of the scriptural coincidences.

As I mentioned, an 'exoteric' reading of Zechariah 3 and 6 would con­clude the author originally meant the first high priest of the second temple, Jesus ben Jehozadak (Zech. 6.11; cf. Hag. 1.1), who somehow came into an audience with God, in a coronation ceremony (one would presume in heaven, as it is in audience with God and his angels and attended by Satan) granting him supreme supernatural power over the universe (Zech. 3.7)...As it happens, the name Jehozadak means in Hebrew 'Jehovah the Righteous', so one could also read this as 'Jesus, the son of Jehovah the Righteous', and thereby conclude this is really 'Jesus, the son of God'. This is notable considering the evidence we have of a preexistent son of God named Jesus in pre-Christian Jewish theology...And all from connecting just three passages in the OT that already have distinctive overlapping similarities.

The pre-Christian book of Daniel was a key messianic text, laying out what would happen and when, partly inspiring much of the very messianic fervor of the age, which by the most obvious (but not originally intended) interpretation predicted the messiah's arrival in the early first century, even (by some calculations) the very year of 30 CE...By various calculations this could be shown to predict, by the very Word of God, that the messiah would come sometime in the early first century CE. Several examples of these calculations survive in early Christian literature, the clearest appearing in Julius Africanus in the third century.47 Julius Africanus, in his lost History of the World, which excerpt survives in the collection of George Syncellus, Excerpts of Chronography 18.2.

The date there calculated is precisely 30 CE; hence it was expected on this calculation (which was simple and straightforward enough that anyone could easily have come up with the same result well before the rise of Christianity) that a messiah would arise and be killed in that year (as we saw Daniel had 'predicted' in 9.26..."

Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus (Sheffield 2014), chapter 4, originally cited by Steve Hays

The Media And Islam

"The real Muhammad is no longer revealed in numerous books or in much of the media, a phenomenon largely the result of the ubiquitous presence of political correctness in the West. With few exceptions, he is falsely portrayed as an irenic man who founded a religion of peace, contrary to the Koran’s numerous verses that specifically advocate violence and the killing of “infidels.” . . .

In recent years, the Western print media, movies, and television have produced various negative portrayals of Jesus Christ and of Christianity. But Muhammad’s past violent activities, clearly stated in the Koran and in the Hadith, are overlooked by the media and by apologists of Islam."

Alvin J. Schmidt, “The American Muhammad: Joseph Smith, Founder of Mormonism,” p. 208-209

Christianity Was Not Influenced By Pagan Religions

Summary

Many Christian college students have encountered criticisms of Christianity based on claims that early Christianity and the New Testament borrowed important beliefs and practices from a number of pagan mystery religions. Since these claims undermine such central Christian doctrines as Christ's death and resurrection, the charges are serious. But the evidence for such claims, when it even exists, often lies in sources several centuries older than the New Testament. Moreover, the alleged parallels often result from liberal scholars uncritically describing pagan beliefs and practices in Christian language and then marveling at the striking parallels they think they've discovered.

During the first half of the twentieth century, a number of liberal authors and professors claimed that the New Testament teaching about Jesus' death and resurrection, the New Birth, and the Christian practices of baptism and the Lord's Supper were derived from the pagan mystery religions. Of major concern in all this is the charge that the New Testament doctrine of salvation parallels themes commonly found in the mystery religions: a savior-god dies violently for those he will eventually deliver, after which that god is restored to life.

Was the New Testament influenced by the pagan religions of the first century A.D.? Even though I surveyed this matter in a 1992 book,[1] the issues are so important -- especially for Christian college students who often do not know where to look for answers -- that there is considerable merit in addressing this question in a popular, nontechnical format.

WHAT WERE THE MYSTERY RELIGIONS?

Other than Judaism and Christianity, the mystery religions were the most influential religions in the early centuries after Christ. The reason these cults were called "mystery religions" is that they involved secret ceremonies known only to those initiated into the cult. The major benefit of these practices was thought to be some kind of salvation.

The mystery religions were not, of course, the only manifestations of the religious spirit in the eastern Roman Empire. One could also find public cults not requiring an initiation ceremony into secret beliefs and practices. The Greek Olympian religion and its Roman counterpart are examples of this type of religion.

Each Mediterranean region produced its own mystery religion. Out of Greece came the cults of Demeter and Dionysus, as well as the Eleusinian and Orphic mystery religions, which developed later.[2] Asia Minor gave birth to the cult of Cybele, the Great Mother, and her beloved, a shepherd named Attis. The cult of Isis and Osiris (later changed to Serapis) originated in Egypt, while Syria and Palestine saw the rise of the cult of Adonis. Finally, Persia (Iran) was a leading early locale for the cult of Mithras, which -- due to its frequent use of the imagery of war -- held a special appeal to Roman soldiers. The earlier Greek mystery religions were state religions in the sense that they attained the status of a public or civil cult and served a national or public function. The later non-Greek mysteries were personal, private, and individualistic.

Basic Traits

One must avoid any suggestion that there was one common mystery religion. While a tendency toward eclecticism or synthesis developed after A.D. 300, each of the mystery cults was a separate and distinct religion during the century that saw the birth of the Christian church. Moreover, each mystery cult assumed different forms in different cultural settings and underwent significant changes, especially after A.D. 100. Nevertheless, the mystery religions exhibited five common traits.

(1) Central to each mystery was its use of an annual vegetation cycle in which life is renewed each spring and dies each fall. Followers of the mystery cults found deep symbolic significance in the natural processes of growth, death, decay, and rebirth.

(2) As noted above, each cult made important use of secret ceremonies or mysteries, often in connection with an initiation rite. Each mystery religion also passed on a "secret" to the initiate that included information about the life of the cult's god or goddess and how humans might achieve unity with that deity. This "knowledge" was always a secret or esoteric knowledge, unattainable by any outside the circle of the cult.

(3) Each mystery also centered around a myth in which the deity either returned to life after death or else triumphed over his enemies. Implicit in the myth was the theme of redemption from everything earthly and temporal. The secret meaning of the cult and its accompanying myth was expressed in a "sacramental drama" that appealed largely to the feelings and emotions of the initiates. This religious ecstasy was supposed to lead them to think they were experiencing the beginning of a new life.

(4) The mysteries had little or no use for doctrine and correct belief. They were primarily concerned with the emotional life of their followers. The cults used many different means to affect the emotions and imaginations of initiates and hence bring about "union with the god": processions, fasting, a play, acts of purification, blazing lights, and esoteric liturgies. This lack of any emphasis on correct belief marked an important difference between the mysteries and Christianity. The Christian faith was exclusivistic in the sense that it recognized only one legitimate path to God and salvation, Jesus Christ. The mysteries were inclusivistic in the sense that nothing prevented a believer in one cult from following other mysteries.

(5) The immediate goal of the initiates was a mystical experience that led them to feel they had achieved union with their god. Beyond this quest for mystical union were two more ultimate goals: some kind of redemption or salvation, and immortality.Evolution

Before A.D. 100, the mystery religions were still largely confined to specific localities and were still a relatively novel phenomenon. After A.D. 100, they gradually began to attain a widespread popular influence throughout the Roman Empire. But they also underwent significant changes that often resulted from the various cults absorbing elements from each other. As devotees of the mysteries became increasingly eclectic in their beliefs and practices, new and odd combinations of the older mysteries began to emerge. And as the cults continued to tone down the more objectionable features of their older practices, they began to attract greater numbers of followers.

RECONSTRUCTING THE MYSTERIES

It is not until we come to the third century A.D. that we find sufficient source material (i.e., information about the mystery religions from the writings of the time) to permit a relatively complete reconstruction of their content. Far too many writers use this late source material (after A.D. 200) to form reconstructions of the third-century mystery experience and then uncritically reason back to what they think must have been the earlier nature of the cults. This practice is exceptionally bad scholarship and should not be allowed to stand without challenge. Information about a cult that comes several hundred years after the close of the New Testament canon must not be read back into what is presumed to be the status of the cult during the first century A.D. The crucial question is not what possible influence the mysteries may have had on segments of Christendom after A.D. 400, but what effect the emerging mysteries may have had on the New Testament in the first century.

The Cult of Isis and Osiris

The cult of Isis originated in Egypt and went through two major stages. In its older Egyptian version, which was not a mystery religion, Isis was regarded as the goddess of heaven, earth, the sea, and the unseen world below. In this earlier stage, Isis had a husband named Osiris. The cult of Isis became a mystery religion only after Ptolemy the First introduced major changes, sometime after 300 B.C. In the later stage, a new god named Serapis became Isis's consort. Ptolemy introduced these changes in order to synthesize Egyptian and Greek concerns in his kingdom, thus hastening the Hellenization of Egypt.

From Egypt, the cult of Isis gradually made its way to Rome. While Rome was at first repelled by the cult, the religion finally entered the city during the reign of Caligula (A.D. 37-41). Its influence spread gradually during the next two centuries, and in some locales it became a major rival of Christianity. The cult's success in the Roman Empire seems to have resulted from its impressive ritual and the hope of immortality offered to its followers.

The basic myth of the Isis cult concerned Osiris, her husband during the earlier Egyptian and nonmystery stage of the religion. According to the most common version of the myth, Osiris was murdered by his brother who then sank the coffin containing Osiris's body into the Nile river. Isis discovered the body and returned it to Egypt. But her brother-in-law once again gained access to the body, this time dismembering it into fourteen pieces which he scattered widely. Following a long search, Isis recovered each part of the body. It is at this point that the language used to describe what followed is crucial. Sometimes those telling the story are satisfied to say that Osiris came back to life, even though such language claims far more than the myth allows. Some writers go even further and refer to the alleged "resurrection" of Osiris. One liberal scholar illustrates how biased some writers are when they describe the pagan myth in Christian language: "The dead body of Osiris floated in the Nile and he returned to life, this being accomplished by a baptism in the waters of the Nile."[3]

This biased and sloppy use of language suggests three misleading analogies between Osiris and Christ: (1) a savior god dies and (2) then experiences a resurrection accompanied by (3) water baptism. But the alleged similarities, as well as the language used to describe them, turn out to be fabrications of the modern scholar and are not part of the original myth. Comparisons between the resurrection of Jesus and the resuscitation of Osiris are greatly exaggerated.[4] Not every version of the myth has Osiris returning to life; in some he simply becomes king of the underworld. Equally far-fetched are attempts to find an analogue of Christian baptism in the Osiris myth.[5] The fate of Osiris's coffin in the Nile is as relevant to baptism as the sinking of Atlantis.

As previously noted, during its later mystery stage, the male deity of the Isis cult is no longer the dying Osiris but Serapis. Serapis is often portrayed as a sun god, and it is clear that he was not a dying god. Obviously then, neither could he be a rising god. Thus, it is worth remembering that the post-Ptolemaic mystery version of the Isis cult that was in circulation from about 300 B.C. through the early centuries of the Christian era had absolutely nothing that could resemble a dying and rising savior-god.

The Cult of Cybele and Attis

Cybele, also known as the Great Mother, was worshiped through much of the Hellenistic world. She undoubtedly began as a goddess of nature. Her early worship included orgiastic ceremonies in which her frenzied male worshipers were led to castrate themselves, following which they became "Galli" or eunuch-priests of the goddess. Cybele eventually came to be viewed as the Mother of all gods and the mistress of all life.

Most of our information about the cult describes its practices during its later Roman period. But the details are slim and almost all the source material is relatively late, certainly datable long after the close of the New Testament canon.

According to myth, Cybele loved a shepherd named Attis. Because Attis was unfaithful, she drove him insane. Overcome by madness, Attis castrated himself and died. This drove Cybele into great mourning, and it introduced death into the natural world. But then Cybele restored Attis to life, an event that also brought the world of nature back to life.

The presuppositions of the interpreter tend to determine the language used to describe what followed Attis's death. Many writers refer carelessly to the "resurrection of Attis." But surely this is an exaggeration. There is no mention of anything resembling a resurrection in the myth, which suggests that Cybele could only preserve Attis's dead body. Beyond this, there is mention of the body's hair continuing to grow, along with some movement of his little finger. In some versions of the myth, Attis's return to life took the form of his being changed into an evergreen tree. Since the basic idea underlying the myth was the annual vegetation cycle, any resemblance to the bodily resurrection of Christ is greatly exaggerated.

Eventually a public rehearsal of the Attis myth became an annual event in which worshipers shared in Attis's "immortality." Each spring the followers of Cybele would mourn for the dead Attis in acts of fasting and flagellation.

It was only during the later Roman celebrations (after A.D. 300) of the spring festival that anything remotely connected with a "resurrection" appears. The pine tree symbolizing Attis was cut down and then carried corpse-like into the sanctuary. Later in the prolonged festival, the tree was buried while the initiates worked themselves into a frenzy that included gashing themselves with knives. The next night, the "grave" of the tree was opened and the "resurrection of Attis" was celebrated. But the language of these late sources is highly ambiguous. In truth, no clear-cut, unambiguous reference to the supposed "resurrection" of Attis appears, even in the very late literature from the fourth century after Christ.

The Taurobolium

The best-known rite of the cult of the Great Mother was the taurobolium. It is important to note, however, that this ritual was not part of the cult in its earlier stages. It entered the religion sometime after the middle of the second century A.D.

During the ceremony, initiates stood or reclined in a pit as a bull was slaughtered on a platform above them.[6] The initiate would then be bathed in the warm blood of the dying animal. It has been alleged that the taurobolium was a source for Christian language about being washed in the blood of the lamb (Rev. 7:14) or sprinkled with the blood of Jesus (1 Pet. 1:2). It has also been cited as the source for Paul's teaching in Romans 6:1-4, where he relates Christian baptism to the Christian's identification with Christ's death and resurrection.

No notion of death and resurrection was ever part of the taurobolium, however. The best available evidence requires us to date the ritual about one hundred years after Paul wrote Romans 6:1-4. Not one existing text supports the claim that the taurobolium memorialized the death and "resurrection" of Attis. The pagan rite could not possibly have been the source for Paul's teaching in Romans 6. Only near the end of the fourth century A.D. did the ritual add the notion of rebirth. Several important scholars see a Christian influence at work in this later development.[7] It is clear, then, that the chronological development of the rite makes it impossible for it to have influenced first-century Christianity. The New Testament teaching about the shedding of blood should be viewed in the context of its Old Testament background -- the Passover and the temple sacrifice.

Mithraism

Attempts to reconstruct the beliefs and practices of Mithraism face enormous challenges because of the scanty information that has survived. Proponents of the cult explained the world in terms of two ultimate and opposing principles, one good (depicted as light) and the other evil (darkness). Human beings must choose which side they will fight for; they are trapped in the conflict between light and darkness. Mithra came to be regarded as the most powerful mediator who could help humans ward off attacks from demonic forces.[8]

The major reason why no Mithraic influence on first-century Christianity is possible is the timing: it's all wrong! The flowering of Mithraism occurred after the close of the New Testament canon, much too late for it to have influenced anything that appears in the New Testament.[9] Moreover, no monuments for the cult can be dated earlier than A.D. 90-100, and even this dating requires us to make some exceedingly generous assumptions. Chronological difficulties, then, make the possibility of a Mithraic influence on early Christianity extremely improbable. Certainly, there remains no credible evidence for such an influence.

STRIKING PARALLELS?

Enough has been said thus far to permit comment on one of the major faults of the above-mentioned liberal scholars. I refer to the frequency with which their writings evidence a careless, even sloppy use of language. One frequently encounters scholars who first use Christian terminology to describe pagan beliefs and practices, and then marvel at the striking parallels they think they have discovered. One can go a long way toward "proving" early Christian dependence on the mysteries by describing some mystery belief or practice in Christian terminology. J. Godwin does this in his book, Mystery Religions in the Ancient World, which describes the criobolium (see footnote 6) as a "blood baptism" in which the initiate is "washed in the blood of the lamb."[10] While uninformed readers might be stunned by this remarkable similarity to Christianity (see Rev. 7:14), knowledgeable readers will see such a claim as the reflection of a strong, negative bias against Christianity.

Exaggerations and oversimplifications abound in this kind of literature. One encounters overblown claims about alleged likenesses between baptism and the Lord's Supper and similar "sacraments" in certain mystery cults. Attempts to find analogies between the resurrection of Christ and the alleged "resurrections" of the mystery deities involve massive amounts of oversimplification and inattention to detail.

Pagan Rituals and the Christian Sacraments

The mere fact that Christianity has a sacred meal and a washing of the body is supposed to prove that it borrowed these ceremonies from similar meals and washings in the pagan cults. By themselves, of course, such outward similarities prove nothing. After all, religious ceremonies can assume only a limited number of forms, and they will naturally relate to important or common aspects of human life. The more important question is the meaning of the pagan practices. Ceremonial washings that antedate the New Testament have a different meaning from New Testament baptism, while pagan washings after A.D. 100 come too late to influence the New Testament and, indeed, might themselves have been influenced by Christianity.[11] Sacred meals in the pre-Christian Greek mysteries fail to prove anything since the chronology is all wrong. The Greek ceremonies that are supposed to have influenced first-century Christians had long since disappeared by the time we get to Jesus and Paul. Sacred meals in such post-Christian mysteries as Mithraism come too late.

Unlike the initiation rites of the mystery cults, Christian baptism looks back to what a real, historical person -- Jesus Christ -- did in history. Advocates of the mystery cults believed their "sacraments" had the power to give the individual the benefits of immortality in a mechanical or magical way, without his or her undergoing any moral or spiritual transformation. This certainly was not Paul's view, either of salvation or of the operation of the Christian sacraments. In contrast with pagan initiation ceremonies, Christian baptism is not a mechanical or magical ceremony. It is clear that the sources of Christian baptism are not to be found either in the taurobolium (which is post first-century anyway) or in the washings of the pagan mysteries. Its sources lie rather in the washings of purification found in the Old Testament and in the Jewish practice of baptizing proselytes, the latter being the most likely source for the baptistic practices of John the Baptist.

Of all the mystery cults, only Mithraism had anything that resembled the Lord's Supper. A piece of bread and a cup of water were placed before initiates while the priest of Mithra spoke some ceremonial words. But the late introduction of this ritual precludes its having any influence upon first-century Christianity.

Claims that the Lord's Supper was derived from pagan sacred meals are grounded in exaggerations and oversimplifications. The supposed parallels and analogies break down completely.[12] Any quest for the historical antecedents of the Lord's Supper is more likely to succeed if it stays closer to the Jewish foundations of the Christian faith than if it wanders off into the practices of the pagan cults. The Lord's Supper looked back to a real, historical person and to something He did in history. The occasion for Jesus' introduction of the Christian Lord's Supper was the Jewish Passover feast. Attempts to find pagan sources for baptism and the Lord's Supper must be judged to fail.

The Death of the Mystery Gods and the Death of Jesus

The best way to evaluate the alleged dependence of early Christian beliefs about Christ's death and resurrection on the pagan myths of a dying and rising savior-god is to examine carefully the supposed parallels. The death of Jesus differs from the deaths of the pagan gods in at least six ways:

(1) None of the so-called savior-gods died for someone else. The notion of the Son of God
dying in place of His creatures is unique to Christianity.[13]

(2) Only Jesus died for sin. As Gunter Wagner observes, to none of the pagan gods "has the intention of helping men been attributed. The sort of death that they died is quite different (hunting accident, self-emasculation, etc.)."[14]

(3) Jesus died once and for all (Heb. 7:27; 9:25-28; 10:10-14). In contrast, the mystery gods were vegetation deities whose repeated deaths and resuscitations depict the annual cycle of nature.

(4) Jesus' death was an actual event in history. The death of the mystery god appears in a mythical drama with no historical ties; its continued rehearsal celebrates the recurring death and rebirth of nature. The incontestable fact that the early church believed that its proclamation of Jesus' death and resurrection was grounded in an actual historical event makes absurd any attempt to derive this belief from the mythical, nonhistorical stories of the pagan cults.[15]

(5) Unlike the mystery gods, Jesus died voluntarily. Nothing like this appears even implicitly in the mysteries.

(6) And finally, Jesus' death was not a defeat but a triumph. Christianity stands entirely apart from the pagan mysteries in that its report of Jesus' death is a message of triumph. Even as Jesus was experiencing the pain and humiliation of the cross, He was the victor. The New Testament's mood of exultation contrasts sharply with that of the mystery religions, whose followers wept and mourned for the terrible fate that overtook their gods.[16]The Risen Christ and the "Rising Savior-Gods"

Which mystery gods actually experienced a resurrection from the dead? Certainly no early texts refer to any resurrection of Attis. Nor is the case for a resurrection of Osiris any stronger. One can speak of a "resurrection" in the stories of Osiris, Attis, and Adonis only in the most extended of senses.[17] For example, after Isis gathered together the pieces of Osiris's dismembered body, Osiris became "Lord of the Underworld." This is a poor substitute for a resurrection like that of Jesus Christ. And, no claim can be made that Mithras was a dying and rising god. The tide of scholarly opinion has turned dramatically against attempts to make early Christianity dependent on the so-called dying and rising gods of Hellenistic paganism.[18] Any unbiased examination of the evidence shows that such claims must be rejected.

Christian Rebirth and Cultic Initiation Rites

Liberal writings on the subject are full of sweeping generalizations to the effect that early Christianity borrowed its notion of rebirth from the pagan mysteries.[19] But the evidence makes it clear that there was no pre-Christian doctrine of rebirth for the Christians to borrow. There are actually very few references to the notion of rebirth in the evidence that has survived, and even these are either very late or very ambiguous. They provide no help in settling the question of the source of the New Testament use of the concept. The claim that pre-Christian mysteries regarded their initiation rites as a kind of rebirth is unsupported by any evidence contemporary with such alleged practices. Instead, a view found in much later texts is read back into earlier rites, which are then interpreted quite speculatively as dramatic portrayals of the initiate's "new birth." The belief that pre-Christian mysteries used "rebirth" as a technical term lacks support from even one single text.

Most contemporary scholars maintain that the mystery use of the concept of rebirth (testified to only in evidence dated after A.D. 300) differs so significantly from its New Testament usage that any possibility of a close link is ruled out. The most that such scholars are willing to concede is the possibility that some Christians borrowed the metaphor or imagery from the common speech of the time and recast it to fit their distinctive theological beliefs. So even if the metaphor of rebirth was Hellenistic, its content within Christianity was unique.[20]

SEVEN ARGUMENTS AGAINST CHRISTIAN DEPENDENCE ON THE MYSTERIES

I conclude by noting seven points that undermine liberal efforts to show that first-century Christianity borrowed essential beliefs and practices from the pagan mystery religions.

(1) Arguments offered to "prove" a Christian dependence on the mysteries illustrate the logical fallacy of false cause. This fallacy is committed whenever someone reasons that just because two things exist side by side, one of them must have caused the other. As we all should know, mere coincidence does not prove causal connection. Nor does similarity prove dependence.

(2) Many alleged similarities between Christianity and the mysteries are either greatly exaggerated or fabricated. Scholars often describe pagan rituals in language they borrow from Christianity. The careless use of language could lead one to speak of a "Last Supper" in Mithraism or a "baptism" in the cult of Isis. It is inexcusable nonsense to take the word "savior" with all of its New Testament connotations and apply it to Osiris or Attis as though they were savior-gods in any similar sense.

(3) The chronology is all wrong. Almost all of our sources of information about the pagan religions alleged to have influenced early Christianity are dated very late. We frequently find writers quoting from documents written 300 years later than Paul in efforts to produce ideas that allegedly influenced Paul. We must reject the assumption that just because a cult had a certain belief or practice in the third or fourth century after Christ, it therefore had the same belief or practice in the first century.

(4) Paul would never have consciously borrowed from the pagan religions. All of our information about him makes it highly unlikely that he was in any sense influenced by pagan sources. He placed great emphasis on his early training in a strict form of Judaism (Phil. 3:5). He warned the Colossians against the very sort of influence that advocates of Christian syncretism have attributed to him, namely, letting their minds be captured by alien speculations (Col. 2:8).

(5) Early Christianity was an exclusivistic faith. As J. Machen explains, the mystery cults were nonexclusive. "A man could become initiated into the mysteries of Isis or Mithras without at all giving up his former beliefs; but if he were to be received into the Church, according to the preaching of Paul, he must forsake all other Saviors for the Lord Jesus Christ....Amid the prevailing syncretism of the Greco-Roman world, the religion of Paul, with the religion of Israel, stands absolutely alone."[21] This Christian exclusivism should be a starting point for all reflection about the possible relations between Christianity and its pagan competitors. Any hint of syncretism in the New Testament would have caused immediate controversy.

(6) Unlike the mysteries, the religion of Paul was grounded on events that actually happened in history. The mysticism of the mystery cults was essentially nonhistorical. Their myths were dramas, or pictures, of what the initiate went through, not real historical events, as Paul regarded Christ's death and resurrection to be. The Christian affirmation that the death and resurrection of Christ happened to a historical person at a particular time and place has absolutely no parallel in any pagan mystery religion.

(7) What few parallels may still remain may reflect a Christian influence on the pagan systems. As Bruce Metzger has argued, "It must not be uncritically assumed that the Mysteries always influenced Christianity, for it is not only possible but probable that in certain cases, the influence moved in the opposite direction."[22] It should not be surprising that leaders of cults that were being successfully challenged by Christianity should do something to counter the challenge. What better way to do this than by offering a pagan substitute? Pagan attempts to counter the growing influence of Christianity by imitating it are clearly apparent in measures instituted by Julian the Apostate, who was the Roman emperor from A.D. 361 to 363.A FINAL WORD


Liberal efforts to undermine the uniqueness of the Christian revelation via claims of a pagan religious influence collapse quickly once a full account of the information is available. It is clear that the liberal arguments exhibit astoundingly bad scholarship. Indeed, this conclusion may be too generous. According to one writer, a more accurate account of these bad arguments would describe them as "prejudiced irresponsibility."[23] But in order to become completely informed on these matters, wise readers will work through material cited in the brief bibliography.

NOTES

1 See Ronald Nash, The Gospel and the Greeks (Richardson, TX: Probe Books, 1992). The book was originally published in 1984 under the title, Christianity and the Hellenist World.
2 I must pass over these Greek versions of the mystery cults. See Nash, 131-36.
3 Joseph Klausner, From Jesus to Paul (New York: Macmillan, 1943), 104.
4 See Edwin Yamauchi, "Easter -- Myth, Hallucination, or History?" Christianity Today, 29 March 1974, 660-63.
5 See Gunter Wagner, Pauline Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1967), 260ff.
6 When the ceremony used a lamb, it was the criobolium. Since lambs cost far less than bulls, this modification was rather common.
7 See Nash, chapter 9.
8 For more detail, see Nash, 143-48.
9 See Franz Cumont, The Mysteries of Mithra (Chicago: Open Court, 1903), 87ff.
10 Joscelyn Godwin, Mystery Religions in the Ancient World (New York: Harper and Row, 1981), 111.
11 See Nash, chapter 9.
12 See Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 24.
13 See Martin Hengel, The Son of God (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), 26.
14 Wagner, 284.
15 See W. K. C. Guthrie, Ortheus and Greek Religion, 2d ed. (London: Methuen, 1952), 268.
16 See A. D. Nock, "Early Gentile Christianity and Its Hellenistic Background," in Essays on the Trinity and the Incarnation, ed. A. E. J. Rawlinson (London: Longmans, Green, 1928), 106.
17 See J. Gresham Machen, The Origin of Paul's Religion (New York: Macmillan, 1925), 234-35.
18 See Nash, 161-99.
19 See Nash, 173-78.
20 See W. F. Flemington, The New Testament Doctrine of Baptism (London: SPCK, 1948), 76-81.
21 Machen, 9.
22 Bruce M. Metzger, Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish, and Christian (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 11. The possible parallels in view here would naturally be dated late, after A.D. 200 for the most part.
23 Gordon H. Clark, Thales to Dewey (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1957), 195.

Suggested Reading

- Seyoon Kim, The Origin of Paul's Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982).
- J. Gresham Machen, The Origin of Paul's Religion (New York: Macmillan, 1925).
- Ronald Nash, The Gospel and the Greeks (Richardson, TX: Probe Books, 1992).
- Gunter Wagner, Pauline Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1967).

By Ronald Nash, Copyright 1994 by the Christian Research Institute

Critiquing The Roman Catholic View On Justification

• Presenting The Roman Catholic View Of Justification:

Click on image to get a better view

          -Roman Catholicism maintains that the doctrine of justification (i.e. how sinners can be made right with a holy God) is a complicated, lifelong process maintained through the performance of good deeds. It is believed that original sin is washed away at the moment of baptism, and that the Holy Spirit infuses grace into souls to make them righteous. While the initial stage of justification is claimed to be unmerited and achieved through water baptism, the progressive stage is maintained throughout life by means of charitable works, obedience to church laws, and participation in church rituals (CCC # 980, 1459, 1460, 2010, 2027, 2068, 2080). The Roman Catholic Church teaches that one must partake in the seven sacraments, obey the Ten Commandments, pray to saints, and obtain indulgences in order to merit eternal salvation in heaven. This is unmistakably a system of works-based righteousness.

• The Council Of Trent Describes Justification Before God As Something "Increased," Like It Is An Earned Wage:

          -"If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.” (Canon XXIV)

• The Apostolic Constitution Defines Indulgences As Having Justificatory Merit In The Sight Of God:

          -“Good works, particularly those which human frailty finds difficult, were also offered to God for the salvation of sinners from the Church's most ancient times.”

• The Roman Catholic Catechism Says That There Is A New Economy Of Meritorious Deeds To Be Added To Faith For Justification Before God:

          -“The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation.” (# 1129)

• The Catholic Encyclopedia, Under The Subtitle Sanctifying Grace, Says That Man's Own Good Works Have Meritorious Value:

          -"Although the sinner is justified by the justice of Christ, inasmuch as the Redeemer has merited for him the grace of justification (causa meritoria), nevertheless he is formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness (causa formalis).”

• Catholic Apologist Jimmy Akin Outlines Catholic Teaching On Salvation As Follows:

          -"We can divide up this process into a number of stages: first, there is an initial justification which occurs at conversion; second, there is a progressive justification which occurs as a person grows in righteousness; and lastly there is a final justification which occurs on the last day. There is also the possibility of a loss of justification and a subsequent re-justification which occurs when a believer returns to the faith."

• Contrasting The Teachings Of Rome With The New Testament:

          -The New Testament never speaks of grace as a substance that is transferred through physical objects and rituals (i.e. sacraments). Romans 3 develops the imagery of man as standing condemned for his sins and silenced by the divine verdict. In Romans 4, courtroom language is used to describe the instantaneous event of justification. We see words that have strong legal overtones such as impute, reckon, and counted. This means that God declares us to be righteous. God the Judge declares our status with Him, whether we be pronounced justified or condemned in His sight. Old Testament texts such as Deuteronomy 25:21, 1 Kings 8:32, Job 9:20, 13:18, and Proverbs 17:15 use the term "justify" in a legal sense. Paul drew his understanding of that term from the Old Testament. Justification is not a lengthy, ongoing process that is maintained through good works (Luke 18:9-14; Romans 5:1). He is given the title of Judge in Scripture (Genesis 18:25). The Old Testament writers even resort to legal imagery within the context of God pronouncing judgment (Micah 6:1-2; Isaiah 41:21). There is no such thing as being “partially justified.” We are either justified entirely or not at all. Our righteousness is based on the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17-21; Philippians 3:8-9). He was punished on our behalf for sin (Isaiah 53; 1 Peter 2:24). Justification is accomplished by the grace of God through faith in the atonement sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Works have absolutely no bearing on our justification before God (Romans 4:2-8; Ephesians 2:8-9; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:5-7). We cannot possibly merit our justification, not even by keeping the Law (Romans 3:20; 27-28). Our own righteousness is imperfect at best (Psalm 130:3-4; Isaiah 64:6; Mark 10:18). Christ needed to obey the law perfectly in our place so that we could be redeemed (John 4:34; Romans 5:18-19; Galatians 4:4-5; Philippians 2:8; Hebrews 4:15; 1 John 3:5). Justification is strictly a free gift of God offered to us out of His love for us (John 3:16; Romans 3:24-26). It is not something we can earn, even in part. Justification is by faith, apart from the merit of good works (Galatians 2:16). Those who add their works to faith in Christ for salvation are in reality frustrating the grace of God (Galatians 2:21). Scripture equates doing good deeds with the intention of meriting justification with living according to the flesh (Galatians 3:2-4). The Law requires perfect obedience (Galatians 3:10-11). Scripture affirms that everybody has broken God's commandments. Thus, seeking justification through good works has been rendered an impossibility (Galatians 3:22). In fact, those who seek justification by works have severed themselves from God's grace (Galatians 5:4-5). Jesus Christ will be of no benefit to those who add even one work to His work on the cross (Galatians 5:2). A works-based gospel is a complete departure from the sufficiency of Christ, and so is a false gospel which has no power at all to save anyone (Galatians 1:6-12). The gospel is based on the work of Christ and is to be received on the basis of faith alone.

• The Role Of Good Works In The Christian Life:

          -The process that concerns our spiritual growth is called sanctification, which means to be set apart by God according to His purpose. It is the process of God conforming us to the image of His Son Jesus Christ (Romans 8:28-30; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; Hebrews 9:13-14). This begins after the moment of conversion. We contribute to this process through good works out of gratitude for what God has done for us. It is not because we earn eternal salvation. While the Roman Catholic Church correctly denies that works save us from eternal condemnation, the hierarchy contradicts itself when it requires that people do things in order to obtain salvation. Justification is either obtained by God’s grace, or solely by human effort. It cannot be both ways at the same time (Romans 11:6). Grace is unmerited. It is entirely a gift of God. Salvation is not something that we deserve (Romans 3:23; 6:23). Justification is by faith alone, but is never alone. Works will always accompany a genuinely saving faith. They are the product of faith. We are saved in order to do good works (Ephesians 2:10). The biblical gospel is a gospel of grace, not Law. Never is baptism, sacraments, observance of special days, or any other Roman Catholic concept prescribed in Scripture as criteria for justification before God. These things have been "added" by man to the biblical gospel.

Defending The Traditional Dating Of New Testament Books

• Introduction:

          -Liberal critics have attempted to cast doubt on the claims of Christianity by insisting that the books of the New Testament were written by pseudonymous authors decades after traditionally ascribed dates. It is claimed that the early church intentionally omitted writings which have now been referred to as lost books of the Bible. However, there is still good reason to hold to the conservative position on who wrote which letters of the New Testament and when. In addition, it has been noted that the New Testament was so frequently cited by early Christian writers before the Council of Nicaea, that all but eleven verses appear in their writings. 

• Colossians And Ephesians:

          -The traditional dating of the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians places their composition in the late 50s to early 60s A.D., during one of the Apostle Paul’s periods of imprisonment. The argument for this dating primarily rests on several factors. Firstly, both epistles explicitly state Paul as the author, a claim that is consistent with the style and theological content found within the texts. Secondly, references to Paul’s imprisonment suggest a composition date that coincides with his known periods of incarceration, either in Caesarea or Rome. Additionally, the lack of personal greetings in Ephesians, which is uncharacteristic of Paul’s other letters, suggests it may have been intended as a circular letter for a wider audience, supporting an earlier date within Paul’s lifetime.

          -The theological themes, particularly the emphasis on salvation by grace through faith in Ephesians, align with Paul’s established doctrines. Early Christian writers, such as Ignatius of Antioch, also attribute these letters to Paul, providing external corroboration. For Colossians, the similarity in content and style to the Epistle to Philemon, which is widely accepted as Pauline, further supports the traditional dating. The advanced christology presented in Colossians is seen as indicative of Paul’s mature thought.

• 2 Thessalonians:

          -The traditional authorship of 2 Thessalonians is attributed to Paul the Apostle, with Timothy as a co-author. Arguments supporting this view highlight the epistle’s purpose and historical background, which align with Paul’s second missionary journey, suggesting a composition date around 51–52 AD, shortly after the First Epistle to the Thessalonians. This timing is corroborated by the epistle’s content, addressing persecution and eschatological misunderstandings within the Thessalonian church, which would have been pertinent issues during Paul’s ministry. Despite minor stylistic differences between the two epistles, scholars argue these could be due to the co-writing influence of Silvanus (Silas) and Timothy, or simply reflect Paul’s evolving theological expression over time.

• The Pastoral Epistles:

           -Proponents of Pauline authorship point to similarities in literary style, theological content, and specific phrases that align with Paul’s known writings. For instance, the greetings in the epistles show strong verbal similarities that are distinct from other New Testament writings, suggesting a common authorship. Additionally, the use of unique terms and concepts found across 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus but absent from other Pauline letters is argued to reflect the development of Paul’s thought and circumstances rather than a different author’s hand. Despite critical scholarship’s tendency towards pseudepigraphal attribution, the case for Pauline authorship maintains that the coherence in language, doctrine, and personal references within the texts aligns with Paul’s life and ministry, supporting the traditional stance.

• Early External Source Verification Of The Letters Of Paul:

          -"Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:15-16)

           *Peter assigns the same status to Paul's letters as the Old Testament. Both are considered by him to be inspired Scripture. It is also possible that he included the four gospels when he referred to "the other Scriptures." Paul's epistles were already being circulated around the Middle East and Asia Minor as the apostles lived.

• External Source Verification For Luke And Acts:

          -The historicity and traditional authorship of Luke and Acts can be defended through several key points. Firstly, both texts display a detailed knowledge of first-century geography, politics, and culture, which suggests the author's firsthand experience or access to reliable sources. Secondly, numerous historical details in Luke-Acts, such as the accurate titles of officials and geographical locations, have been corroborated by external sources, including archaeological findings and other ancient writings. Thirdly, the Apostle Paul quoted from Luke's gospel (Luke 10:7) in 1 Timothy 5:18, which gives us reason to believe that both the one gospel and Acts were written at early dates by the traditionally ascribed author.

• On The Historical Reliability Of The Text Of The Gospels:

          -"Even liberal bishop John A. T. Robinson argued in his Redating the New Testament that the entire New Testament was written and in circulation between 40 and 65 A.D. And liberal Peter Stuhlmacher of Tubingen, trained in Bultmann’s critical methodology of form criticism, says, “As a Western scripture scholar, I am inclined to doubt these [Gospel] stories, but as historian, I am obligated to take them as reliable…The biblical texts as they stand are the best hypothesis we have until now to explain what really happened.” (https://www.jashow.org/articles/the-historical-reliability-of-the-new-testament-text-part-4/)

• Challenging The Assertion That Athanasius Is The Earliest Known Source To Provide A Full List Of New Testament Books In His Festal Letter In A.D. 367:

          -"So too our Lord Jesus Christ…sent his apostles as priests carrying well-wrought trumpets. First Matthew sounded the priestly trumpet in his Gospel, Mark also, and Luke, and John, each gave forth a strain on their priestly trumpets. Peter moreover sounds with the two trumpets of his Epistles; James also and Jude. Still the number is incomplete, and John gives forth the trumpet sound through his Epistles [and Apocalypse]; and Luke while describing the deeds of the apostles. Latest of all, moreover, that one comes who said, “I think that God has set us forth as the apostles last of all” (1 Cor 4:9), and thundering on the fourteen trumpets of his Epistles he threw down, even to their very foundations, the wall of Jericho, that is to say, all the instruments of idolatry and the dogmas of the philosophers. (Origen, Hom. Josh. 7.1, as cited in Metzger, The New Testament Canon, 139, cited by Michael J. Kruger)

Hebrew Verb "Tenses" And Messianic Prophecy

Sometimes it is claimed that the messianic prophecies cited by Christians are in the past tense. Therefore, it is said, they cannot refer to a future, coming Messiah.

This is an invalid argument. There is no such thing as “tense” in biblical Hebrew. (Modern Hebrew, on the other hand, does have tenses.) Biblical Hebrew is not a “tense” language. Modern grammarians recognize that it is an “aspectual” language. This means that the same form of a verb can be translated as either past, present, or future depending on the context and various grammatical cues. The most well known grammatical cue is the “vav-consecutive” that makes an imperfective verb to refer to the past.

Therefore it is wrong to say that Isaiah 53 or other prophecies are in the “past tense.” Biblical Hebrew has no tenses. There are many examples of what is wrongly called the “past tense” form (properly called “the perfective” or “perfect”) being used for future time.

This fact was recognized by the medieval commentators as well as by modern grammarians, as shown by the following citations.

Medieval Jewish grammarian and commentator David Kimchi on the prophets’ use of the perfect for future events:

“The matter is as clear as though it had already passed.”

David Kimchi, Sefer Mikhlol. Cited in Waltke, Bruce K. and O’Connor, Michael Patrick. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), p. 464 n. 45. They reference Leslie McCall, The Enigma of the Hebrew Verbal System: Solutions From Ewald to the Present (Sheffield: Almond, 1982), p. 8.

Rabbi Isaac ben Yedaiah (13th century)

[The rabbis] of blessed memory followed, in these words of theirs, in the paths of the prophets who speak of something which will happen in the future in the language of the past. Since they saw in prophetic vision that which was to occur in the future, they spoke about it in the past tense and testified firmly that it had happened, to teach the certainty of his [God’s] words – may he be blessed – and his positive promise that can never change and his beneficent message that will not be altered.

Saperstein, Marc. “The Works of R. Isaac b. Yedaiah.” Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1977, pp. 481–82. Cited in Daggers of Faith by Robert Chazan, Berkeley: UC Press, 1989, p. 87.

From the standard grammar of Biblical Hebrew, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (section 106n, pp. 312–313):

More particularly the uses of the perfect may be distinguished as follows: – …To express facts which are undoubtedly imminent, and, therefore in the imagination of the speaker, already accomplished (perfectum confidentiae), e.g., Nu. 17:27, behold, we perish ,we are undone, we are all undone. Gn. 30:13, Is. 6:5 (I am undone), Pr. 4:2…. This use of the perfect occurs most frequently in prophetic language (perfectum propheticum). The prophet so transports himself in imagination into the future that he describes the future event as if it had been already seen or heard by him, e.g. Is. 5:13 therefore my people are gone into captivity; 9:1ff.,10:28,11:9…; 19:7, Jb. 5:20, 2 Ch. 20:37. Not infrequently the imperfect interchanges with such perfects either in the parallel member or further on in the narrative.

https://jewsforjesus.org/answers/are-the-messianic-prophecies-in-the-past-tense-so-not-about-a-future-messiah-at-all/

Is The Roman Catholic Church The Pillar And Ground Of The Truth (1 Timothy 3:15)?

          "1 Tim. 3:15 – Paul says the apostolic Church (not Scripture) is the pillar and foundation of the truth. But for the Church to be the pinnacle and foundation of truth, she must be protected from teaching error, or infallible. She also must be the Catholic Church, whose teachings on faith and morals have not changed for 2,000 years. God loves us so much that He gave us a Church that infallibly teaches the truth so that we have the fullness of the means of salvation in His only begotten Son." (https://www.scripturecatholic.com/the-biblical-church/)

          Nowhere did the Apostle Paul say anything in this verse, or in context, about the office of pope or an episcopal council. It does not even recognize a distinction between the classes of clergy and laity. So, Roman Catholic apologists are engaging in eisegesis here. 

          There is no exclusion of congregational membership involved here (i.e. "household of God"). Has the entire Christian church, therefore, been endowed the gift of infallibility by the power of the Holy Spirit? This was written to Timothy who was is in the city of Ephesus, not Rome. Is Ephesus therefore the "pillar and ground of the truth?"

          Notice that Paul states he is writing so that we may know how to conduct ourselves in the church. Furthermore, he appeals to his own writing as the standard of authority. Thus, Paul is writing to Timothy (i.e. Scripture) so that he would know how to behave in the household of God. This epistle is to help us in remembering apostolic traditions. 

          Scripture is what defines the conduct of elders in the church. Scripture is to function as the ultimate standard of authority, especially in light of the fact that the apostles are deceased. The purpose of this letter was, and still is, to tell the church how to behave in Paul's absence. If anything at all, this passage actually supports Sola Scriptura.

          It is fallacious to equate the church that supports and upholds the truth with the truth that it upholds. The church of God is simply the instrument by which the true gospel is supported and proclaimed. The church is the upholder, not the essence, of truth. The church is the custodian of the truth, not the source of truth itself.

          Ironically, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists resort to this text as a defense of their respective groups. At the same time, they maintain contradictory doctrine. This passage is vague enough to be applied to any religious organization in theory.

An Exegetical Case For Christ's Imputed Righteousness Based On 2 Corinthians 5:21

        "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." (2 Corinthians 5:17-21)

        The person who experiences genuine conversion of heart through the transforming power of the Holy Spirit will by definition become a “new creation” (2 Corinthians 5:17), and thereby ceases to view the things of this world in carnal terms. We throw away the “old man” when we abandon our former sinful lifestyles (Ephesians 4:24). All of this takes place as a consequence of the Holy Spirit indwelling Himself in us.

        In the context of 2 Corinthians 5:17-21, the word “reconcile” describes resolving hostility between two enemy parties. The problem is not with God. It is on our end with our sinful nature which we inherited from Adam. Reconciliation involves a change of heart and mind that only God Himself can accomplish on our behalf through the propitiatory work of Christ (Romans 5:9-10).

        The Lord has appointed all members of His church to function as His representatives on earth by entrusting to us the “ministry of reconciliation,” which is the preaching of the gospel. It is the proclamation of the good news that the Son of God has forever put away sin through His sacrifice on the cross at Calvary. He is by no means an ordinary man, but is God in the flesh.

        To not impute sin against us means that God has pardoned us (Romans 4:4-7; 2 Corinthians 5:19). The present tense verbs found in 2 Corinthians 5:19 clearly denote continuous action (1 John 1:9). “The ministry of reconciliation” consists of the “ambassadors for Christ,” which are all the people who have been truly born again by the power of the Holy Spirit. It is a firmly established principle of Scripture that God does the reconciling work, not us (v. 18). Therefore, the text of 2 Corinthians 5:17-21 reinforces the concept of justification by faith alone.

        The text being discussed reveals three aspects of imputed righteousness, which are 1.) God imputes not our iniquity, 2.) sin is imputed to Christ, and 3.) His foreign righteousness is imputed to our account. Moreover, it is important to highlight the symmetrical correspondence of the wording found in verses nineteen and twenty-one: “…not counting their trespasses against them…he made him to be sin who did not know sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God in him.”

        In other words, the spotless Lamb of God was “made sin” (i.e. our sins are not imputed against us), and His righteousness (i.e. the righteousness of God) was credited to us. Christ is our merciful substitute, in the same manner that the Apostle Paul desired that any of Onesimus’ (Philemon’s runaway slave) possible wrongdoings be charged against him instead (Philemon 18). From the perspective of justification, this text tells us that our righteousness is based on the righteousness of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:24-25). From the viewpoint of sanctification, His righteousness is applied to us daily.

The Church Fathers On The Perspicuity Of Scripture

Irenaeus (130-200) "For no question can be solved by means of another which itself awaits solution; nor, in the opinion of those possessed of sense, can an ambiguity be explained by means of another ambiguity, or enigmas by means of another greater enigma, but things of such character receive their solution from those which are manifest and consistent and clear." Ante-Nicene Fathers: Vol I, Against Heresies, 2.10.1 "..all Scripture, which has been given to us by God, shall be found by us perfectly consisted; and the parables shall harmonise with those passages which are perfectly plain; and those statements the meaning of which is clear, shall serve to explain the parables; and through the many diversified utterances (of Scripture) there shall be heard one harmonious melody in us, praising in hymns that God who created all things." Ibid.

Tertullian (160-220) "Now, if even those purposes of God against cities, and nations, and kings, which are merely temporal, local and personal in their character, have been proclaimed so clearly in prophecy, how is it to be supposed that those dispensations of His which are eternal and of universal concern to the human race, should be void of all real light in themselves? The grander they are, the clearer should be their announcement, in order that their superior greatness might be believed. And I apprehend that God cannot possibly have ascribed to Him either envy, or guile, or inconsistency, or artifice, by help of which evil qualities it is that all schemes of unusual grandeur are litigiously promulgated." [I]ANF: Vol III, "On the Resurrection of the Flesh", Ch.21.

Basil of Caesarea (329-379) "Whatever seems to be spoken ambiguously or obscurely in some places of holy Scripture, is cleared up by what is plain and evident in other places" Regulas Brevius Tractatas, Interrogatio 267 Translated by William Whittaker.

Ambrose (339-397) "In most places Paul so explains his meaning by his own words, that he who discourses on them can find nothing to add of his own; and if he wishes to say anything, must rather perform the office of a grammarian than a discourser." Epistola XXXVII, PL 16:1084

Chrysostom (349-407) "let us follow the direction of Sacred Scripture in the interpretation it gives of itself, provided we don't get completely absorbed with the concreteness of the words, but realise that our limitations are the reason for the concreteness of the language. Human senses, you see, would never be able to grasp what is said if they had not the benefit of such great considerateness." Homilies on Genesis " Commenting on v. 4 of Psalm 45: "Do you see how Scripture interprets itself, showing the victory to be intellectual and spiritual?"

Jerome (347-420) "This passage to the ignorant, and to those who are unaccustomed to meditate on Holy Scripture, and who neither know nor use it, does appear at first sight to favour your opinion. But when you look into it, the difficulty soon disappears. And when you compare passages of Scripture with others, that the Holy Spirit may not seem to contradict Himself.." Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers 2: Vol VI St. Jerome Against the Pelagians, Book I.14

"...let us call upon the Lord, probe the depths of His sacred writings, and be guided in our interpretation by other testimonies from Holy Writ. Whatever we cannot fathom in the deep recess of the Old Testament, we shall penetrate and explain from the depth of the New Testament in the roar of God's cataracts--His prophets and apostles."Fathers of the Church Vol.57 The Homilies of St. Jerome: Vol 2, Homily 92, p 246

The above excerpts from patristic writers were taken from Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, by David T. King and William Webster, found on an online forum.